|
New to Ham Radio?
My Profile
Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Speak Out
Strays
Survey Question
Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation
Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers
Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
Jeff Stevenson (KE4ARH)
on
February 2, 2002
View comments about this article!
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
There are four identified types of learners in the world - Auditory, Visual, Tactile, and Kinesthetic.1 Auditory learners absorb information and are at their best in situations that require the use of hearing. Visual people form `pictures' in their mind to learn and to interact with their environment. Tactile individuals are those who need to touch and feel to absorb information best. Kinesthetics are people who require action and body movement. Most humans exhibit some combination of all types but tend to favor one type overwhelmingly over the other types.
When we apply the characteristics of these learning types to the issue of learning Morse code, the fact that so many claim they cannot learn code becomes a little easier to understand. The process of learning Morse code would go something along these lines: hear the code, process the code, write the code. Repeat this enough and your nervous system builds a pathway between the ear, the brain, and the hand. The ear detects the dits and dahs and sends them to the brain for processing. The brain processes the audio and tells the hand to write the character. Pretty simple. As long as you are not a visual learner.
Visual learners learn best by forming pictures in their mind. They absorb information best when the instructor or teacher draws a diagram on the board. They are the ones you see in class or conversation, staring somewhere unseen as they try to write or read these mental pictures. The natural Morse code learning path for them would be: hear the code, picture the code, process the code, write the code. This works until the visual person gets to the higher code speeds. Once above a certain level the brain simply does not have enough time to accomplish the extra processing step it must do in order to learn and to execute the skill.
Some folks who find the code to be easy will tell you that they hear the rhythm of the code, and that they don't listen for individual characters but hear the words. These comments are dead giveaways that the hams that do well with Morse code are auditory learners. And just as Ted Williams and Tony Gwynn can't understand why anyone is unable to hit a 95 MPH fastball, auditory learners cannot fathom how in the world morse code could be difficult.
And while it is more difficult for some learning types, I am not suggesting is that it is impossible for visual learners to learn code. What I am suggesting is that perhaps it is time for a little understanding for those who are having difficulty learning morse code. A supportive environment will go a long way toward helping the frustrated visual types and increase the chances that they will someday overcome their learning barrier and move to the next level of licensing if they so choose. Perhaps someone has a method for learning code that can be tailored to each specific learning type.
Just as a teacher must adapt his or her teaching methods to enhance learning for all types, so must the Amateur Radio community adjust its attitude to help everyone become better. The first step is understanding the issue.
More information about learning styles can be found here:
1-http://www.latitudes.org/learn01.html
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by PA1ZZ on February 2, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Code Quick 2000 uses all your senses in order to learn the code. Perhaps this might help "Johnny" :-)
73
Roger
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by AE7G on February 2, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The first step is understanding the issue."
I think reasonable people can disagree about the validity of what is asserted. As a result, I posit that the first step is to RESEARCH if indeed, "Johnny can't learn code", or won't learn code.
Off hand, I speculate that a more specific model would be that of learning a language like Spanish, or a mathematical language like statistics or trig.
For code, I believe the model is even simpler than language: discriminate between a dah and a dit; learn what the different combinations of dits and dahs represent; practice writing what is heard; increase the speed of recognition until one can copy words in one's head.
All of this requires practice and dedication to stay with the practice.
A simple model of this relationship could be like all learning: AbilityDetermination (also known as EFFORT)=Outcome (results); the exponents of A and D summing to a maximum of 1.
"Just as a teacher must adapt his or her teaching methods to enhance learning for all types, so must the Amateur Radio community adjust its attitude to help everyone become better."
If what is asserted is TRUE, and hams were trained teachers. Teaching students in the ham's class, this might be true. But, there are people who learn morse code on their own--they aren't taught code by a ham, let alone by a trained teacher.
I have no quarrel with any ham that chooses not to learn code, does not enjoy using it, or passes their extra code test, and never uses code again.
There might be a valid taxonomy of 4 or 5 predominate learning styles. It must be proven this classification is appropriate for learning code.
If it is directly applicable to learning morse code, different styles of study materials could be developed. Development of study materials is not a function of the "Amateur Radio community"--that is for educators, and business.
Results are a function of an individual's ability*determination; not the "Amateur Radio community adjust(ing) its attitude".
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by K2WI on February 2, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Interesting theory.
I have observed that many of the really hot CW ops are also musical.
That said, I am tone deaf(can clear a room by singing)and would definitely put myself in the visual learner category. I always have to draw a picture or see a picture. Sometimes in physics class I would not try to take notes, because it forced me to look away from the teacher and his graphs. I learned code with a neighbor and some walkie-talkies, looking up each letter on a chart(visual).
Despite my "handicap" I am comfortable at 35wpm, and manage to do pretty well at CW contesting. I think an important factor in this equation is that I learned the code when I was 14. It was easier to develop the neural pathways then than now.
When I was a Peace Corps Volunteer, I watched my over-50-year-old colleagues struggle mightily with the language training. They were as highly motivated as the rest of us, but it took a lot more work for them to learn. So too for the 40+ crowd learning CW.
We have older folks who need extra determination, and younger folks who have lots of other things competing for their attention. How do we keep them?
BE EXCELLENT TO EACH OTHER.
When I looked at my Novice Roundup log recently I recognized many calls from the top tier of contesting's old guard. They were there to help us novices learn CW contesting.
Be nice, don't gripe, help a newbie.
73, Rob K2WI
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by KB9YUR on February 2, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why are we rehashing this here again when it was already done at length on www.qrz.com
recently ?!? The bottom line as I see it is this:
1: Some people are going to learn the code to go beyond Tech and continue using it.
2: Some people will learn code to go beyond Tech but won't use it beyond the test requirement.
3: Some people will never learn the code and don't want to use it.
As far as I see it, Ham Radio should be about having Fun in the hobby for both yourself
and others. When it becomes a chore, or at worst, a job, it's no longer a hobby.
George ...
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by KD7PON on February 2, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is an excellent article. I am an auditory/tactile learner myself. I have always learned better by a combination of hearing, seeing, and doing that reading. Unlike others, I never draw a picture in my head, but i use a lot of analogies to remember things or associate.
As I study for my General, it is harder than hell for me to remember the "band plan" questions, simply because i have to read them and memorize them. There are few associations to go with them. There is no logic or reason. Yet I remember the words to songs that are 30 years old with no problem, even to the beat and inflection of the singer's voice. I also remember FCC and RFI questions after reading them twice, because the answers associate to the question and i can draw an analogy there.
I have a friend who is a MD and she remembers everything after reading it just once. I remember little until I have read it a few times. But I could guarantee if you could show me how to do an EKG twice, and explain to me what it is I would need to look for I would get it right after that every time. Reading computer manuals is a challenge, but show me a few times how to configure network IP's and set up systems on a network and I can do it like a $150/hr consultant.
Yup folks, there are definitely different learning styles. Code is a challenge even to me now (over 40), but I will get it. However, I do feel for those who have little auditory learning capability, as this has to be mighty hard for them.
dan
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by N5ZVP on February 2, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
For myself, I don't want to learn code bad enough at this point in time. Maybe in the future when I get into weak signal work, I'll spend the time in hell to learn it. (No it is not easy for me, can't sing either or dance either.)
Ham radio is just one of many activities I participate in and currently I'm happy with the ticket I have now. I spend 99.99% of my time listening to the radio and enjoy building projects more than I do talking. (Maybe because I spend most of the day talking to folks around the world at my job, there is not really any incentive to get on HF.)
The code I do send time with is assembly and C source code. Besides offering me employment, I'm using my programming skills to build radio projects that utilize microcontrollers. I'm of the opinion, that I would rather have my fellow hams know how to build and repair radios than know a cetain mode, but that's just a personal opinion.
Chris N5ZVP
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by KJ7KB on February 2, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why, KB9YUR, do you sound irritated by this well written contribution? The author obviously enjoys CW but more importantly enjoys sharing his analysis and speculation regarding an area of our hobby for which he has an interest. For me, a large component of the "fun" of this hobby is not only the multifaceted nature of the hobby but many of the questions and inquiries about fellow operators, their personalities their passions, and their skills. This is part of my "fun". Why do some operators have shacks that look like old TV repair shops while others look like modern broadcast studios? Why do some operators contest while others hate it? Why do some choose to spend time on 14.178 refining their audio while others seem to opt for that oh-so-pleasant CB sound that politely splatters far and wide. Why lowbanders while others love 6m? Why Dx while others chew the rag all day? Why do some ask why? And finally, why do others resent asking why?
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by N3JIY on February 2, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Guess Johnny hasn't tried "Code Quick".
It's a new technique for code-learning technique that links the
rhythm of the code to the language-processing center inside
your brain. Makes learning code as easy as learning a new
language--except there are only forty words in the whole
language!
(26 characters + 10 numerals + 4 punctuation marks)
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by AA8YO on February 2, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am personally of the opinion that the reason Johnny Can't Learn Code, is because Johnny Refuses To Dedicate The Time And Effort Necessary To Learn Morse Code.
There is nothing mysterious about Morse Code. There is nothing magical, there is no Voodoo involved, and it does not require any special talents. It requires practice, practice, and more practice. I practiced for hours a day - day in and day out, and guess what? I learned the code. And then I decided to become proficient at Morse Code, which required practice, practice, and more practice. I did this because I wanted to, (and wanted the additional bandwidth on HF) and I dedicated a LOT of time and effort to it.
Before I knew the code, I NEVER made any excuses, nor did I formulate any theories as to why I don't know it. I didn't know it, because I didn't (at the time) dedicate the time and effort necessary to learn it. No if's and's or but's.
Please don't get me wrong - if a ham is not interested in dedicating the time and effort to learn Morse Code, fine - there are plenty of other modes to have fun with on the Amateur Bands. But please, I am so tired of hearing excuses (even if they are in the form of theories) as to why individuals do not know the code. Give me a break - ANYONE could learn 5 WPM. (In my humble opinion)
73 to all !
Bob / AA8YO
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by N5XM on February 2, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Maybe a better way to say it is, "Why Johnny has trouble learning Code". That being said, I think it's obvious that some Johnnys don't want to learn Code, while other Johnnys haven't organized themselves properly to learn Code, and still other Johnnys aren't really dedicated to learning Code in the first place. I think this is a great subject. There are some people who have honest learning disabilities that make learning Code a real chore. I'm dyslexic, and I have a severe high frequency hearing loss, and you talk about a struggle. Imagine what it's like trying to get your speed up when you are fighting to keep from turning the characters around, i.e., what your ear hears as dah-dit comes out of your brain circuitry as di-dah, you think that causes any problems? You bet it does. I'm not complaining, because I love CW, and am very glad I put in the time required to gain a reasonable level of competence. Until people get serious about learning CW, they just won't learn it, period. I just feel so lucky that I love radio so much that it wasn't like work for me to learn Code or upgrade. That's the crux, as far as I'm concerned. If you want it bad enough, you'll find a way to get it done. Some do have learning problems that get in the way, but others just aren't willing to put in the time, and I have little if any sympathy for them. Maybe one day they'll see the light, but until then, what?
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by W5UX on February 2, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Ask Johnny how much time he spent on the code yesterday. Then you know why he can't learn it. It is a matter of desire. If a person wants something badly enough he or she will climb the highest mountain.
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by N8FVJ on February 2, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Excellent article. I use visual skills to the point of not reading school books with the right teacher and still graduating at the top of class. Fortunately, code has tone & is rhythmic creating music so to speak. I can 'tune-in' to music. Thus 'CQ', for example, is automatically processed without me being aware I am thinking about it. I can hear it at very high speeds. It may take a little more time for a highly visual person to learn the code. I passed the novice ticket at 8 wpm due to counting dit & dahs. Yep, the class started the test at 8 wpm and then retested the group who did not pass the next day at 7, then 6, then 5 wpm. This method worked for very high 'graduation' rates. One other item, "Johnny Can't" was not to well received in my childhood home.
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by KI4RO on February 2, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thanks Bob, AA8YO...couldn't have said it better myself!
73
John
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by WZ5PM on February 2, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am dyslexic. A fair amount of the population is also dyslexic. In simple terms, this means that our brains did not develope in the same pattern as most of the population. Often times this means that there are serious issues of congnition in the perception of sounds and converting them to a thought of speech or language.
Its always a shock to hear hams with CW skills with the atitude that:
a) Anyone that doesnt 'get' CW is lazy
b) Anyone that doesnt practice CW is not a 'real' ham
c) If you only use this system of learning CW, it will stick
Well, perhaps it should be a requirment that we all speak and write Japanese before getting our license. It too is a language. What do you think, maybe reading Japanese at 20 wpm or more would get you a ticket? I wonder what the washout rate would be?
Every one brings different skills to this hobby. I admire CW opeartors. Its a wonderful artform, mode and language.
But it is very disappointing to hear a number of CW ops that think that they are the chosen ones and that no one else can bring something wonderful to this hobby. Its simply a case of being 'stuck' in so thinking.
Pete
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by KE4ARH on February 2, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
For those who are unaware, the title "Why Johnny Can't Learn Code" is a direct reference to a work by Rudolph Flesch titled "Why Johnny Can't Read", published in 1955.
This groundbreaking work focused national attention on the reasons why American children were growing up unable to read. Primarily because of Flesch's book, the trend toward memorization of words as a method of reading was reversed and replaced with a proven successful method - phonics.
It was with this book in mind that I titled my article. Apparently that went a little over the heads of the "Johnny ain't trying near hard enuf" crowd.
Hopefully this clears up a few misconceptions about the intent of the ariticle.
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by AA8YO on February 2, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What? Uhhhhh? Regardless of your reference to Mr. Flesch's book, the fact remains the same: The VAST MAJORITY of individuals who claim they "cannot learn Morse Code", cannot ONLY because they refuse to dedicate the TIME AND EFFORT that is necessary to learn it. Period. I, and many, many others who use and enjoy Morse Code, do so because we spent a lot of TIME AND EFFORT at it.
I can assure you that nothing went "a little over anyone's head" .....
73 to all!
Bob / AA8YO
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by KE4ARH on February 2, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Apprently my remark hit a little close to home.
You state: "The VAST MAJORITY of individuals who claim they "cannot learn Morse Code", cannot ONLY because they refuse to dedicate the TIME AND EFFORT that is necessary to learn it. Period. "
They cannot ONLY because they refuse to dedicate the time and effort? Period?
You sound very sure of what is merely your opinion. As a matter of fact, you seem ultimately convinced that what you are saying is true. Would you care to back up what you say with research, science or even convincing anecdotal evidence? Or is it just your 'gut feeling'?
Sir, while I respect what you say, you must realize that unless you can prove it, your rant is nothing more than opionated drivel. I hereby challenge your conclusions. In other words, so as not to go over your head again - Prove It!
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by AB8JZ on February 2, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
One thing about Code Quick... it may not really help you to become a proficient OPERATOR (or maybe it will), but with about 2 weeks of effort, using about 1 1/2 hours per day, you will learn enough code to breeze through your element 1 exam. When it comes to just the exam, the ARRL cd's are so cut and dried, it can become very easy to get discouraged. But Code Quick makes it so easy that it's not hard at all to learn if you just want to get through your exam. I guess some people just don't want to dish out the $50 or so to get the kit, but that's a pretty good investment.
Now, if you want to learn code for the long run, it's true ... practice, practice, practice...
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by AA8YO on February 2, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As I have stated in my original post (and failed to mention in my subsequent post, but will, for the sake of Mr. Stevenson mention it in this post) that my reply was "in my humble opinion". You are absolutely, 100% correct sir - this and my prior posts are MY OPINIONS - mine and only mine. I guess the only "proof" I have to substantiate my "opinions" are as follows:
I was originally licensed as a Technician in May of
1996. I upgraded to General in September of 1996, Advanced (remember that class?) in November of 1996, and Extra (not Slow-Code Extra, but 20WPM Extra) in November of 1996. I did that Mr. Stevenson, only because I made a commitment, and spent A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF TIME AND EFFORT to attain my goals. This is 100%, no questions asked, substantiated proof.
Exactly what is your licensing history Mr. Stevenson? It looks like you have been a Technician for the past 9 years, but I could be wrong. Were you a Novice first, and maybe a Technician for ONLY the past 8 years? Instead of trying to justify your lack of motivation by presenting a "new theory", perhaps you should be spending your time in a more productive manner, like studying for your upgrade. Remember, it takes COMMITMENT, TIME AND EFFORT, but trust me, it is well worth it. Good Luck!
73 to all!
Bob / AA8YO
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by K4RLC on February 2, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
-While I have a lot of sympathy for this approach, I basically disagree. I am a neuropsychologist whose speciality is working with folks with neurologic damage from strokes, head injury, Alzheimer's, etc. These folks can learn CW at the rate required by the FCC now, eg, 5 WPM. My 7 year old has learned CW at this rate. It is a matter of motivation, not ability. It is true that there are different learning styles. But the focus is to identify your learning style, and learn information through your preferred stimulus modality. Hear CW, smell CW, taste CW, see CW or feel CW. Whatever works for you. Also, check out the www.success-is-easy.com website for a "hypnotic" approach to learning CW. It has worked for dyslexic folks,and helps overcome pessimistic attitudes for learning cw. You can do it enough to pass the FCC test, and to enjoy the pleasure of a CW QSO. It's like magic and better than ... (well, you know what I mean) 73 de K4RLC
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by KE4ARH on February 2, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Bob,
I applaud your skills and determination in moving so quickly to 20WPM. I really do think that is great.
As for myself, after three weeks of two hours a night I have mastered 22 characters at around 18 WPM. The theory is second nature after half a career in Electronics. I could have upgraded long ago but have a desire to truly master the code. I am neither lazy nor unmotivated. A state champion athlete in high school, college degree, five year tour in the Marine Corps, great marriage and family, and a six figure income seems to indicate that I have no problem with either motivation or skill in learning. I am however, flattered that you would spend so much time researching my license.
As to your comment that I should spend my time in a more productive manner- In stark contrast to you I felt the need to not only elevate myself but seek to bring others up with me instead of trying to convince them that they are lazy, unmotivated losers. I have spent a fair amount of time in an attempt to assist other hams in identifying the cause of their difficulties in the hope of helping people overcome barriers. Productive enough for ya'? I ask that you use your obvious energy to do the same.
It is a true shame that you cannot have empathy for others.
|
|   |
|
YMMV
|
|
|
by N5ZVP on February 2, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There really is only one reason I may eventually learn code. Weak signal operations on VHF/UHF/Microwave/Laser. I understand the nature and the desirability of this mode of communication. It has been demostrated to me various times over the years and as recently as last weekend.
I spent about 400 hours last year attempting, by various means, (ARRL, Koch, CodeQuick) to obtain minimum proficiency in Morse. This was the third time in the last ten years I have mounted a serious attempt. Apparently I do not "want" it bad enough.
(In this same time one year time period I learned two new computer languages and a new RDBMS. Go figure...)
I have decided not to let it bother me anymore. I still enjoy being a Amateur Radio operator and participating in various activities. I'm focusing on the more "technical" and "service" aspects of the hobby.
I have built several radios and will be be building a new HF reciever designed by a local ham this next month as soon as I can get the schematics and parts kit. I'm also designing, building and programming a controller so I can take my Icom PCR1000 mobile. And there are a few antennas in the garage awaiting a sunny day to be mounted. I'll be taking a few days off this summer to help out with HamCom, Field Day and other local service events.
Oh, I will be renewing my license this month.
Speaking of code, these serial port routines are not going to write themselves.
Later,
Chris N5ZVP
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by AA8YO on February 3, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I post my PERSONAL OPINIONS on a public forum about a topic pertaining to the LEARNING OF MORSE CODE. In a matter of a few hours, the forum gets a reply from the originator of that topic that he:
Was a high school state champion in athletics.
Has a college degree.
Spent 5 years as a Marine.
Has a great marriage and family.
And most importantly, makes a six figure income!
Now, what this has to do with THE LEARNING OF MORSE CODE, or my PERSONAL OPINIONS of such, is beyond me!
Hopefully, I will have the opportunity to work Mr. Stevenson on 30 or 40 meters one day. Look for me after 2200 UTC on (or around) 7.030 or 10.116. Actually, I can be found on any HF band (except 160 meters) in the CW sub-bands.
73, Good Luck es CUL
Bob / AA8YO
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by KG6AMW on February 3, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Well Johnny was over 50 when he decided to take up ham radio and had one hell of time learning morse code because he was tired when got home at night. See Johnny works all day long fixing problems other people create, but, he continued to learn it until he passed the 5 WPM test and promptly forgot it. Johnny thinks most of you guys that learned morse code, learned it in the military, boy scouts or high school when you were young and had lots of energy. Johnny also thinks that some of guys must not have much going on in your lives to keep harping on this subject.
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by AG4DR on February 3, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just wondering why we are rehashing old news. This code thing needs to die a natual death. If someone wants learn the code so let them if they don't why are we making such a big deal of it.
Just my openion.
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by KA6VNU on February 3, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is a bunch of gum flappin'...We all know the code requirement is going away soon (or later)...But...it is going away...So...those who enjoy the CW, by all means, use it...There are exclusive frequencies reserved just for you...Those who want to learn and enjoy the mode....do so..This code re-hash is tiresome....
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by KG6AMW on February 3, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Johnny has now come to a conclusion regarding morse code. He feels that while most operators who use morse code are decent Joes, a certain number are not. Johnny feels that since they mastered morse code, they think they are better than the average ham who hasn't. Johnny is tired of put downs and the general way these hams talks down to him with regards to this subject. Johnny knows that this type of attitude hurts ham radio and will continue to be one of the reasons people avoid it. Johnny says, use it if you like it, elmer when you can, but check the holier than thou attitude.
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by NY7Q on February 3, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
It is all garbage. Again and again, I have stated with authority, I taught hundreds CW in a class setting, and the only ones that failed, drank, partied, was extremly undedicated, and didnt give a damn. And this was in a setting where it was a career motivation to learn the code. Posssibly, if my memory still functions, 1 out of 300-400 students failed. It still boiled down to motivation, dedication, and the desire to learn. Most(all) of the handcapped persons passed with high speed scores. So, Mr. dont tell me about "Johnny"....He flat doesnt want to learn.
|
|   |
|
Why He "Can't" Learn It
|
|
|
by KC5JK on February 3, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I would like to "shed some light" on the KE4ARH study. Sailors used flashing light CW on deck to signal between vessels, and none that I ever heard commented that visual CW was more or less difficult than audible CW. For obvious reason, the Navy, Merchant Marines and other organizations used the same operators to do both.
Hamgeek has a point. For those who can't or won't learn it, there is always CB. There, you can find no end of people who seem to have mastered English quite well (that is, if you can call "Hey, good buddy, ya cotton picker, ya got the one CB Hick comin' at ya here" English). These same people who have arguably mastered a 26-letter language will tell you straight-faced that they can't handle one with only two letters in its alphabet. Can we really take them seriously?
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by KE4ENX on February 3, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Oh my God say it's not so. I've just perused the comments to date and havn't seen anyone else mention it but perhaps I missed it. If so, I apologize. That is, writer Jeff posted this exact same article on QRZ one week ago. Old news and yawning. Receiving the same predictable results here too. The pro codites come by and applaud. The anti codites come by and parry. Then the flaming begins. The proers' are Kings of the Universe. The antis' must be beer drinking, gear shifting CB'ers. I am so fooking tired of this. Once and for all, all of you, including myself, get a life. All of you. Stop it. All of us.
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by AE7G on February 3, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
For those who are unaware, the title "Why Johnny Can't Learn Code" is a direct reference to a work by Rudolph Flesch titled "Why Johnny Can't Read", published in 1955
Why on earth did you assume everyone who read your article would have read and remembered something published in 1955?! That you were appropriating the title of Flesch’s work, is not mentioned in your article.
Asserting “.. that went a little over the heads of the "Johnny ain't trying near hard enuf" crowd.” is just an unwarranted, pernicious, knee-jerk reaction, unrelated to those who disagree with your assertions.
Your main thrust is that Johnny CAN’T learn code because of his learning “style”.
You offer now way to discriminate between those that can learn code, but are not willing to study long enough to learn it, and those that, as you assert, can not learn code, but have the dedication to practice enough to learn code.
Furthermore, assuming the learning styles you cite are valid, you don’t offer proof that they are appropriate models for learning code.
For me, these are fundamental flaws in the logic of your assertion, just some of the areas where reasonable people can disagree.
Postings about the value of code, if it will be phased out, people who have passed code tests feeling superior to others, do not have anything to do with this article. I find those types of responses strange, since this is a well written article, with concise, understandable prose.
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by KF3DQ on February 3, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Understanding code and sending code are two very different things. Like many others I passed the 20 WPM test. I only say that to show that I have no ax to grind here. In my case being a 20 WPM Extra doesn't make me any more or less of a HAM. I just passed, because I guessed correctly on at least one question. At this point I can solidly copy between 15 and 18 WPM. But, I don't spell well. I am a sight reader and see whole words as some hear whole words. If I have written text to send, I can do well enough. If I need to think, spell, and send pretty much at the same time I screw up badly. I am working at it. I practice sending common word lists and am getting some better. In my case I do code because I like it rather than because I'm good at it or need it for an upgrade. My point is that learning to use code well is not always a simple issue that yields to simple theories. This "Johnny" learned code and passed the test, but isn't very good at it! Best wishes to all, KF3DQ
|
|   |
|
Attitudes
|
|
|
by N5ZVP on February 3, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC5JK states: "Hamgeek has a point. For those who can't or won't learn it, there is always CB."
Attitudes like that have chased more folks away from Ham Radio than any other. Honey attracts more folks than vinegar. Nothing like having an Extra class cursing at new hams on the local repeater or simplex to turn folks away from Amateur Radio.
Plus there is plenty of bandwidth above 50MHz that is under utilized and fun to operate in. And more technically and operationally challenging.
It would be more of a technical challenge and in the spirit of Part 97 to have folks build their own equipment or program the microprocessor in their rig.
Can you program the computer you are using? Can you build the applications that www.eham.net runs on? Can you do surface mount soldering? Can you program microtrollers in C and assembly? Should I belittle you and treat you as an inferior if your technical skills aren't as good as mine?
Nope, I'd invite you over to show you the latest rig I'm working on, offer you some refreshments and we could talk about radio, antennas and life.
Take care,
Chris N5ZVP
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by W5HTW on February 3, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Re: W5UX, and others.
1. Ask the guy learning code to practice. "Well, I gotta watch the ball game tonight." "I had to go to the movies last night." Oh? How many hours did you practice this week? "Well, this week not at all, but three weeks ago I sat down with it for 15 minutes."
2. Until the general attitudes of things like "social promotion" and "legislate everyone into everything" there were lots of hams who never dreamed there might be a way to be a ham and not learn code. It was "there" and therefore they learned it. And at higher speeds than they are required to do today. Yes, some complained, "I'll never use it," and they probably didn't. But because they had to learn it, they did. Then they forgot it. Today's attitudes are, "If I don't want to do it the accepted way, I can make them change it to meet my way."
3. Maybe there were dyslexic people who couldn't become hams. In my years of teaching both code and theory, I never heard of one, but then we didn't HAVE people who knew about dyslexia, Attention Deficit Disorder, Recovering Divorce Syndrome or a dozen other things. All we knew was, if that is the requirement, then we have to pass it. If they had a problem that prohibited them from learning code, I never ran into them, for they didn't bother to try to get into a hobby for which they couldn't qualify. For the same reason, there were those who wanted to fly airplanes, but couldn't pass the physical. Those who wanted to play baseball but couldn't see the ball coming. Those who wanted to play tennis but couldn't run or jump. Solution? Find a different hobby. No one guarantees everyone can do everything, despite the fact our courts keep trying to guarantee exactly that. But in amateur radio, that didn't apply - "If it's too hard, make it easier." "If I can't qualify, change it so I can." "If it requires effort I don't want to exert, remove the effort." "Guarantee it to ME." "I wanta be a ham, and I don't want to do it the hard way, so give me the easy way." And today, there are still cries to make it easier still. Not just the removal of the code, (which will happen in two years) but downgrading the tests to "Find Knob A and turn it."
4. Back in the days when I was teaching I had students in my evening Adult Education classes at the "Y" ranging in age from nine to around 70. There were those who continued through to completion, and became licensed, including a nine year old who got a Novice license. She dropped out later, as the General was more than she could handle with her low interest, and the Novice was non-renewable and good for only one year. She got a license because her father wanted her to, not because SHE wanted to, and with that lack of interest, like many of the spouses and children of today, she had no desire to go further. Today she'd be an Extra class, with no idea of why.
5. Quite a few of the students dropped out. I can't pinpoint statistics now, but most of the ones who dropped out were from the CB world, and thought they could become hams. But, like in number 1 above, there was always something else to do, and most frequently that was turing on the CB radio and "rachetjawing" with "Big-Bubba" on Channel 20, instead of cracking the license manual or practicing code. And, yes, I know this for a fact, for some of them admitted it to me, and others I visited their homes. ("Well, thanks for coming by, but I gotta talk to Silly Susie now." Hey, look at my new Power Mike; man I really get out with that!")
Of the ones who went on to General Class, most had never been into CB radio. Some had come from the military, a few were teachers. Some had science or electronics backgrounds, and a few had no suitable background at all, but just thought it would be interesting.
To be honest, I would not teach ham radio today. I would not want to be standing up there answering the questions of "Why do I have to learn THIS?" Or, "Can I do this without effort?" Without effort, it is without value, and that is something we are learning, and have a lot more to learn.
Bottom Line? Those who wanted ham licenses, long before the Code Free ticket came into being, did one of two things. The studied and got the license, or they dropped out and went (back) to CB. The rules were simple - pass or not pass. Now they are pass or change them. As a 16 year old boy, it never crossed my mind that maybe the worldwould change to suit me. But today that is the first consideration; too hard? Change it. Legislate ME into it, too.
As that process continues, there will eventually be nothing to be legislated into.
73
Ed W5HTW
.
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by N5ZVP on February 4, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To W5HTW:
In response to your points:
1) My personal journal shows that I spent 217 hours between May and November 2001 working on code. Best I got so far was 4.2 WPM with an average of about 20 characters straight.
Maybe you have a better method of learning than ARRL, Koch and the creator of CodeQuick? I haven't tried hypnosis yet.
2) Was known as the "Curve Buster" in college for acing math and electronics tests. Study my ass off while others partied. Have aced every written Amateur Radio test I faced so far without studying the question pools. Enjoy reading the Handbook, QST and Microwave Update. I have never had anything handed to me on a silver platter.
3) You want a good up-to-date test? Have someone build a reciever. How's your soldering skills? I've built 100+ pin probe cards used for testing semiconductor dies with tolerances in the micrometers within three planes and theta. It's tougher than surface mount. How's your programming skills? I've had to learn at least one new computer language per year over the last eight years.
5) Never used a CB. Have built several antennas, radios and some test gear. Most prized gear are two Tek 'scopes. Will be building a double conversion receiver as soon as Tanners gets the boards. Have several other projects in the notebook or on the back burner.
I'm having fun. I'd gladly teach someone how to solder or pass along the knowledge that other hams have imparted to me. I'll even write a few articles for club newsletters this year like I did last year.
Feel free to pass the torch, amateur radio needs a kick into the twenty-first century.
Chris N5ZVP
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by N4DFP on February 4, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
In response to AE7G -- I have the utmost respect for your opinion, but respectfully disagree. I have no doubt that you are an "Auditory Learner". MANY Hams are. I am not. I learn visually and tactilly. I am one who must make the visual transition when copying and, though I LOVE CW, I have never been able to copy more than 11 WPM. On the other hand, at one point I was able to send (tactile learning) 37 WPM! I studied dilligently for years and never could close the gap between my send speed and my copy speed.
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by VK2SKY on February 4, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Interesting to see a neurolinguistic programming angle on the old Morse chestnut...
I don't claim to be a CW expert (lack of time to get on air limits my ability to keep in practice), but I'd like to make a few comments, which you can take or leave as you please.
I would suggest that the ones who read Morse with ease are employing a mental strategy that enables them to do so, while those who have repeatedly tried and "failed" (or more correctly not got the results they wanted) have been employing ineffective strategies for reading Morse. It doesn't help greatly when the bulk of the advice they get is "practice, practice, and more practice", though that is undoubtedly part of achieving success. Re-applying an ineffective strategy is unlikely to yield better results. As some wag put it, it is arguably insane to keep doing the same thing and expect different results each time.
What would be more useful is to elicit the mental strategies of really successful Morse readers, and teach those strategies to the ones who want to learn to do it.
We interact with the world through our representational systems (or sensory channels) - Visual, Auditory, and Kinaesthetic (sight, sound, and touch) - as well as Olfactory and Gustatory (smell and taste), though to honest I've never heard of anyone who successfully used the latter two in relation to Morse :-)
It's a big mistake to use a knowledge of your "preferred representational system" to classify yourself as "a Visual", "and Auditory", etc. Please, leave that sort of limiting nonsense to the astrology buffs! While we tend to have broad preferences, we can use all rep systems where they are appropriate, and most mental strategies mix these systems in a precise and repeatable sequence, for any given skill.
Actually, these channels can be subdivided into "internal" and "external", eg Auditory external ("Ae") is the sounds we hear such as the CW tones coming out of a speaker. There's also Auditory internal dialogue ("Aid") - the "voices in our head" or self talk that we all do, whether we admit to it or not. :-)
I think one factor that distinguishes successful Morse readers from unsuccessful ones is that the unsuccessful ones pay too much attention to Aid at the expense of Ae.
The successful ones hear strings of Morse characters and go straight to meaning, eg (Ae) "dah di dah dit" (Aid) "C", etc.
The unsuccessful ones go something like this: (Ae) "dah di dah dit" (Aid) "dah di dah dit... which one is that ... aw, hell, the next one has come along, &^%&* I missed that one too... this is so hard, why should I have to do this? Morse is old fashioned and obsolete and..." so on, and so on.
There are a number of pretty reliable methods for quieting this internal dialogue (NLP, meditation, etc.) which may be usefully applied to reading Morse.
Doing that much would lead to better results, though I doubt that it's the whole story. For example, when I was studying with an old CW hand who refused to let me write down what he was sending, I found it useful to construct an internal visual "blackboard", on which I wrote the characters I heard. That way, instead of having to go back and remember what I had heard (by replaying "tape" of the sounds), I could read them off the board, and make sense of complete sentences rather than individual characters.
As I said, I'm no Morse whiz, but it was good enough to get through the VK 10wpm test. For all I know, the real CW experts might have a different strategy... it would be interesting to find out.
73 Richard VK2SKY
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by K9CF on February 4, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Excellent article. I'm a visual learner with the added difficulty of not being able to write with any sort of speed (or legibility). Something missing some place and it drove my teacher's nuts.
I practiced with Ham University until I could pass the 13wpm when it was multiple choice. And I keep trying because I like CW, I'm just truly terrible at it.
Something interesting though, I can type 60wpm. If I'm at the computer and type as I listen I have found that I can copy about 15wpm give or take.
That, and lack of time, keeps me from doing many qso's.
I'm learning to copy in my head by listening to 40meters as I drive in my car. I'm slowly trying to skip the whole writing down part I guess.
See you on the air. I'm the extra with that hidious fist and a good attitude. I'm having fun.
73 DE K9CF
Best Regards
Mark L. Martin
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by NY7Q on February 4, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
GOOD, GOOD, GOOD, ED...ONCE AGAIN, YOU TELL THE TRUTH. ITS WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT MAN. HAPPY HAMMING, 73 OM. NY7Q
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by KB1GYQ on February 4, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
[already did this one on qrz... next article please]
I'm sick of the code debate... I suggest a solution: ban appliances and kits. If you can design and build it, you can operate it. If you cannot design and build your own equiptment, go play FRS or CB.
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by KC8SBV on February 4, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think this article is rigth on. My wife is an auditory/tactile learner, I am visual, and I do not think in her "style". I could not help her get her Tech to save my life. If she was interested, I would go on the search for an instructor. I just got a book.
I am studying the code, and look forward to mastering it. No code debate needed, to each his own. I start going to a CW class given by a local club tonight. Maybe I should take her. She might pick it up more easily than me.
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by KB3CDF on February 4, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jeff:
'Good effort is presenting information as a means to HELP the situation. Understanding what works for the individual is essential to learning...learning anything.
Working in the engineering field for a while, one realizes that in this arena that even a decision not to change is considered to be a drastic change. Learning is change...., as is choosing not to learn.
Encouragement, positive reinforcement, and benefits demonstrated beyond mere requirements are essential.
The choice to learn, discovering the best way to learn, and gaining proficiency is a very fragile process. Thanks for your help.
dah dah di di di di di di dah dah ...John
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by KE4JZK on February 4, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What if Johnny can't learn higher math? Differential equations, multiple linear equations, linear regression and all sorts of statistical theory, LaPlace (sp?) and Forrier transformations, number therory, prove the theory of quadratic resoprositiy... It seems to me that higher math, the language of eingineers, is much more relevant to understanding modern radio than CW.
It's simply a matter of the will and desire to learn. Some of you may have to start with high school algebra and take five or 10 years to get up to speed but with sufficient time and effort I know you can make it.
Sounds absurd doesn't it. For those who find math simple and intuitive it's easy. For the rest of us it may be an impossible goal.
My point is this: for those of you who find code easy it is very difficult to understand why others find it nearly impossible. This is just as unfair as the proposition that all hams be proficient in higher math.
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by W5HTW on February 4, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Final post from me, guys, on this subject. I enjoy the debate, but it runs in circles, and after a bit that gets boring. But thanks to everyone for the comments on all sides, as that's what makes debating fun.
OK. Here we go. As I said in great length, and will now reiterate briefly, before we invented all these psychological and emotional excuses, those who wanted to become hams did so, by meeting the requirements. Those who didn't, or couldn't, for whatever reason, did other things, and are probably happy in their chosen hobbies. Johnny can't do code, or read, or do the job at work, because society tells him he doesn't have to.
73
Ed W5HTW
I'll read more, but I won't say more! (Thanks for the applause!!)
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by W5HTW on February 4, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Final posting for me on this subject, folks. Although the debate really is fun, after running in circles it gets boring. I enjoy the reading, though.
Before we invented all these psychological, mental and emotional - and societal - excuses why Johnny can't do code, Johnny saw the requirements, and if he wanted to become a ham, he met them, and got his license. End of story. Johnnies who wouldn't or couldn't found themselves doing other things and were probably just as happy. Johnny can't read, write, work, play, climb the ladder, meet and overcome barriers, because society tells him today he doesn't have to.
Well, I'm done. I'll read more, but I won't post more on this subject. (OK, OK, hold down the applause. I didn't say I was going to quit posting on everything! )
73
Ed
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by W5HTW on February 4, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sorry for the double post -- it told me it didn't go the job, so I rewrote it.
73
Ed
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by W0OOW on February 4, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am a visual, global conceptual learner, and in spite of this I have found CW a total pleasure. My 'opinion is that IF Johnny wanted to learn he could. Perhaps his learning style might determine his ease of learning and speed of comprehension, but... Johnny can learn enough to communicate IF he wants to. - Just another opinion :)
73
Steve
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by NB6Z on February 4, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
26 letters, a half dozen or so punctuations and a simple method for numbers 0 thru 9. It's really not rocket science... Speed is another issue, especially for visual learners like me ;-)
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by K5IQ on February 4, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jeff's article is thoughtful and well-reasoned. I have taught many code classes over my 34+ years as a ham and I have observed that different students do, indeed, learn the code in different ways. I usually emphasize the rhythm of the code characters (they are NOT simply dits and dahs but distinct combinations of these units), but I have also been mystified when interested, dedicated, and driven students don't seem to catch on and become disheartened. Of course if they are visual learners and I'm using auditory methods, we're going to run into problems!
One of the things that has rankled me for years and continues to bug me is the smug way in which some hams dismiss those who struggle with the code as being "lazy" or "not dedicated enough". While it is true that there are more than a few "gimme" types who don't want to bother with the effort, there are also many, many hard-working, see-it-through folks who struggle mightily to acquire even basic Morse skills. Telling a guy who sweats profusely and whose pencil shakes every time he hears code (after 5 weeks of classes, no less) that he is "not trying hard enough" makes as much sense as telling someone with a walker he could jitterbug "if he just put his mind to it".
Different folks really DO process and acquire information in different ways. I know that I will re-think the way I teach code after reading this article.
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by K3YD on February 4, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm sort of a poster child for "learning difficulties" with CW. It took me about 4 YEARS to learn the code well enough to pass the Novice. Went from 5 to 13 WPM in a year and passed General. Then it took another 12 YEARS to pass 20 WPM for Extra. Something finally CLICKED in my mind after I got to 20[wpm] and now I contest at 30~40 WPM.
I had similar difficulties with foreign languages and music, but never "hung in" long enough to get proficient at either. If I "made up my mind to do it", I'd get the hang of those, too.
I now know that I'm a visual learner--the regs, and math always came very easy for me.
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by K3YD on February 4, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm sort of a poster child for "learning difficulties" with CW. It took me about 4 YEARS to learn the code well enough to pass the Novice. Went from 5 to 13 WPM in a year and passed General. Then it took another 12 YEARS to pass 20 WPM for Extra. Something finally CLICKED in my mind after I got to 20[wpm] and now I contest at 30~40 WPM.
I had similar difficulties with foreign languages and music, but never "hung in" long enough to get proficient at either. If I "made up my mind to do it", I'd get the hang of those, too.
I now know that I'm a visual learner--the regs, and math always came very easy for me.
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by W0JRS on February 4, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Agreed - excellent article.
I'm a visual learner, but was fortunate to have grown up with a music education PhD for a father and became quite proficient as an instrumentalist.
I did the Code Quick with my son (another visual learner, alas) and the code was quite easy and enjoyable. With a month's study, I passed the exam last spring.
One observation I had with code learning which paralleled some of the learning theory discussions I've had with my pop were around the moving of the learned material through several input mechanisms - there's a good basis in learning theory that says that when you learn the same material through several different means (auditory, visual, etc.), it sends queues to the brain that "hey, this must be something I'm supposed to remember, because I keep getting it through numerous different channels."
Music was the same experience for this non-auditory learner, and I'd expect other non-auditory folks who've excelled in music must have had similar experiences. Fortunately, music has spatial elements (such as the notational system which is very visual) and tactile (pressing keys on the piano or wind instruments, striking percussive instruments, etc.). The combination of these inputs reinforce each other - making music a very valuable educational "language" for children since it establishes a glue between the sensory inputs.
This all said, I'm afraid that morse will disappear now that the Novice has been killed by the FCC and young hams will be several years older before they can master the Tech exam. By the time a ham has reached this age (10-14 for most learners), their brain has solidified its cross-input development and isn't creating new pathways like it could four or five years earlier. My son nailed morse at age 5 because his mind was agile and able to rapidly create the connections. We see the same impact in music education: if your child doesn't have his/her first musical experience until 5th or 6th grade, they might be able to play in school band but they'll never be exceptional (save for very rare cases).
Compound that with the fact that most kids have found enough interests to keep them and/or their parents busy by 5th-6th grade, and you can see why the death of the Novice will erode the amateur service significantly in the next 50 years.
Teach them when they're young, or not at all!
Jamie/W0JRS
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by KF9VH on February 5, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Same old Bull Sh*t different day.
Isn't it about time we quit living in the past and move on?
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by PA5LS on February 5, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm an older (45!) "visual" learner by all means and have the musical capabilities of an old cookoo clock: none.
I tried to master cw for about a decade and failed over and over again until:
1/ I had the time to sit and practice every day at the same time
2/ met an elmer who was there for me every day at the same time
It took 11 months from scratch to pass the 12 wpm test.
It took some getting used to at first, but very soon the lessons became a sort of "rest" period in the day, even if the actual cw wasn't going to well ! We're going on after the test, present speed is abt 16 wpm and we'll see where it ends.
73' Leo.
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by OK1FOU on February 5, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I can't believe it works as described:
Hear dits'n'dahs, "process", etc... Oh my...
First, you need to learn to hear letters. The whole sound. Those who analyze dits and dahs are losers who will never learn code - unless someone tells them that this is not the way to make it.
Then, as you progress, you can easily get callsigns with "predictable" prefixes, but need to hear other things multiple times, using "anchors" like RST, NAME, QTH...
again hearing them as one "chunk", not 3, 4 or five "letters".
Then you get everything at the first time - at certain speed. If you continue doing that for 30 years or so, you don't receive code: you just listen to the noise and the content pops up.
If you don't (my case) you don't get it so easily.
I believe auditory learners will make it much faster, but in principle it's a matter of drill.
If the code is too slow, one might forget what was the beginning long before the end of sentence is received. If it's too fast, conscious "analyzing" each letter or word makes it impossible to read the text at high speed.
73 Jindra
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by KG4PYM on February 5, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
My sincerest compliments to all who are now learning code- it takes time and dedication. It took me a while, and I was 9 when I started- however I had no obligations and all summer to learn it.
Time and Effort.
Now, at 35 years of age, with 4 young kids, full-time work, full-time parenting-work...it would require much more dedication than it did when I was 9.
The code requirements have been basically dropped.
For my friend Chris N5ZVP with whom I've become acquainted via forum- last year on this very issue:
You make a very valid point. Let's not push potential CW operators away before they even start. Code is not easy- it IS easy, but we live in a world that is busier than it has ever been before.
For those fortunate to have already learned Code, I believe that if it is required friends like Chris WILL learn it- try to keep in mind that these are very intelligent people even if they do not YET know code.
I hope, that when people do learn code, despite moaning and groaning about it the entire time [I did], they might actually find that it's fun. Until then it's like some exclusive club- let's try to remember we are all hams. Let's be "excellent to each other."
I believe there are many who will always gripe about the code if required. I would be moaning about it now if I did not already know it.
My wife is adept at these things but simply does not have the time left over in a day to place it in her mind, and she's WHOLE brained. She's an Auditory/Language Adept. Her voice plays on recordings that people hear 24 hours a day. Yet, she has learned about 50% of the alphabet in Morse- she simply does not honestly have the time.[her considered opinion is that Morse requirements must be retained].
Personally, I feel like 5wpm is dropping the code requirement... EVEN IF YOU ARE VISUALLY BASED, 5wpm is a rate at which visualizing the dots and dashes, translating it, then writing it, can easily be accomplished.
Personally, I believe Code was once very useful, and it was once a measure of one's dedication to HF privilege. Now there are other modes, but for portable QRP field work code still has much use. For bare bones most basic form of communication whether it is blinking your eyes secretly to the world, or banging on the hull of the ship at the bottom of a sea soon to be your tomb because radios don't work but sound does, there is a use for code.
But now, in this high-tech computerized everything digital world, perhaps Morse is out-dated in it's ability to move information.
So now more than ever, it is a measure of ones dedication, to HF privilege, and- THAT BAR HAS NEVER BEEN LOWER.
The day that the world drops that bar completely, will be a sad, sad day. No one will learn code, because they WON'T HAVE TO LEARN CODE.
CW is the most fun I can think of while still wearing clothes. And the kicker is:
I WOULD HAVE NEVER DISCOVERED THIS IF CW WERE NOT REQUIRED.
So ya'll be nice to each other out there and in here.
We all have common interests.
We share our bands.
IN FACT, I WISH MY BRAIN COULD DECODE PSK31, so that if I send
? ?
QRL?, and someone answers in PSK-31 or any other digital mode, I can at least comprehend- my computer at home has been dead for months but my ears still work- and they are always with me.
vy 73 to all,
Darin.
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by KB2VWM on February 5, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, anyway here is my take on the whole debate(spelling errors included).
I would almost bet the reason for the lack of interest
in learning code is simply an evolution of time.
Kids have the internet, Cell Phones ( soon to include
slow scan video ) etc...
There are WAY to many other means of communication and hobbies today that the pool of people that may have
had interest in morse code in another era, wouldn't
concieve of such a thing today.
Johnny has alot more toys to choose from!
I would imagine that abolishing the code requirement
is simply a move to hold onto as much allocated bandwidth as possible. Without many newbies comming to
the code scene and the old timers dropping out you've got wasted bandwidth.
As far as I can tell it's matter of survival. Johnny
doesn't care. He's got instant messaging on his PC....
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by WD4MFB on February 5, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am a CW only operator, but I don't think it is for everyone. If you don't like it, don't do it.
But, here is an interesting fact we have run into. Some people have difficulties distinguishing the variations in length of tones. This was during standard audio exams, the tones were varied in pitch and duration. The results were amazing. There is no published data yet, but being a ham, I found the information very interesting. It would explain why some people have such difficulty with code. I always believed that if you applied yourself, you could do it. I now know there are true reasons for some not being able to master CW.
On a lighter side, it may explain why some of the code you hear is so far removed from the normal 1x3 rhythm.
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by W6EZ on February 5, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
My personal observations about "Johnny" are as follows:
1.) " I just can't learn it." I then ask, ' how much time did you spend on it today?' Answer: "Well, I did a few minutes last Saturday."
2.) " I tried really hard for a week or so, then I got involved with something else."
3.) " I need it on CD, I don't have a tape player." I make a CD for this guy. Two years later, he still doesn't know code. Same story on the other guy who needs tapes, because he doesn't have a CD player.
4.) Then, there is the guy who says he is trying really hard but just can't can't learn it. I buy him tapes, many versions. Still can't do it. He says he heard about Code Quick and that must be what he needs, but he just can't afford it. .So I buy him CODE QUICK. I check up on him a month or so later. See number 1.
5.) This one is at least honest. " IF I WAIT LONG ENOUGH, THEY WILL JUST GIVE IT TO US AND WE WON'T EVER HAVE TO LEARN CODE. "
Some people will try and learn code. Some will make it. Some won't. Some will lie about it. Some really do try. Those that do learn code will fell a sense of self worth. For me, it was a major, heart breaking struggle, but I did it. I honestly never had to work so hard for anything in my life. Some think I am crazy.
But in the end, it is personal choice. An it should remain that way.
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by KG4PYM on February 5, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes, Johnny has too many toys.
So many that who needs HF anyway (?) Not only does he have Instant Messaging, but also e-mail notification on cell-phone, sent to backup fax at home and office.
Why do digital at all over the air with limited baud rates, why not use cable modems or modem to modem telecommunications... It's a faster paced world indeed.
Being able to send a signal around the world carries much responsibility. Code should not be the prime deterrent. If it is, might one wonder? If 5 wpm is going to deter a potential HF user and Ham radio consumer, I'd have questions about the loss the hobby & Service has sustained in that specific instance.
There are exceptions to every rule...for those with a truly real condition that prevents learning 5wpm code, should not there be that exception- Physician's letter and diagnoses included.
Is the abolishment of the code requirement truly a REAL need based upon the fear of lost HF spectrum, or is it a symptom of pass Johnny in chemistry so he can be the star running back? And if it is a symptom based on FEAR should Amateurs give in to that fear?
For those who might think there is no other way, I site as an example NCAA Basketball at it's finest. Drawing attention to the Duke teams that have won the National Title.
I am not in anyway implying that other NCAA teams pass people who do not actually meet the academic requirements- however when the team members of Duke speak on television, any of them, you just know- that person is most definitely not some academically inferior Jock- THAT team is comprised of incredible athletes who very likely did not eke by on their academic requirements, they met them with room to spare, and- out there on the court it shows.
They may not make it to the Final Four every year, they make it quite often, sometimes they win the Title, but when they do, you know one thing- they did it with integrity intact. If their team members do not make it in the Pros, or sustain permanent career changing injury, rest assured they will be productive in other ways.
Why should we learn Morse, what if we go deaf tommorrow? And why do history classes matter anyway, what real use is history? Perhaps Morse requirements of the past were really about something other than, it's inherent usefulness.
Looking at it a bit differently, might the Morse requirements of the past have been about Integrity and Character primarily- but it just happened to have been useful as well during the era that required 20 wpm Morse for an Extra Class ticket, and 13 wpm for a General? Perhaps this was a side-effect- but because of it's inherent usefulness in those times, it was much more palatable to justify it due to it's usefulness- no room for arguement there.
I am not an ancient relic, I'm 35 and I have children- and truly am concerned about weakening standards.
I'll be encountering head-aches and will be crossing my fingers while studying for the Extra exam. I personally feel that it WAS difficult enough. Now it will be more difficult after June with the added questions. And while that concerns me, I am happy to hear that it is becoming more difficult- I welcome the INCREASE in the requisite standard. I thank those that made the strengthening of the Extra exam happen.
Which is not to say you won't hear me grumble about it, I WILL grumble all through the study- not enough time, I'm lucky to have time to operate the radio, now I won't be able to because I have to study for this test, and on and on... I'll criticize the authors of the study guides when I don't understand the question much less the answer, and- i would not change it FOR THE WORLD. So how about taking the grumbling with a grain of salt, and on the Code front, not wish for it being easier than it already is.
My considered opinions here- all are free to differ, and thank you eHam for making the provocation of thought possible.
I welcome with friendliness, any different viewpoints from those I have expressed.
73 uh-gain,
Darin.
|
|   |
|
The conclusion is upside-down
|
|
|
by N0TONE on February 6, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm really very disappointed in this article. Not that there's anything wrong with knowing the four learning styles, but because of the apparent conclusion the writer drew.
Please do read the two web links the writer provided. Both of the weblinks are written to the student. Both web links make it very clear that IT IS THE DUTY OF THE STUDENT to understand his/her learning style and MAKE ACCOMMODATIONS TO WORK WITHIN DIFFERENT TEACHING STYLES. It is NEVER up to the teacher to adjust teaching styles.
As a professor in college, I often have student tell me things like, "I'm a woman, we have different learning styles, therefore you must teach me differently because I'm a woman." My response to this sort of nonsense is something like, "I'm willing to do so as soon as you can show me that you expect your boss at work to adjust his/her management style to suit you." It is NEVER the instructor/order giver who adjusts style - it MUST be the student/order taker.
So - go back to square one on this one.
If we cater to people's strengths, then we make their weaknesses weaker. That is NOT the amateur spirit. Remember, the amateur is balanced. If a person is so focused on one learning style that he/she is unbalanced, then we should NOT be enforcing that imbalance.
I'm also a bit surprised at anybody bringing this up. I have, in fact, noticed that people have these learning styles. To be frank, I don't know anybody who's seriously interested in ham radio who has difficulty with auditory learning. It might not be their peak learning style, but it's never their worst. If a person's ability to learn auditorily is so poor that they couldn't learn code, then they're also not interested in communicating verbally - via the phone, SSB, CW, you name it. Those people aren't in our classes and have no interest in what we do.
AM
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by N0CALLYET on February 6, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
While there are definitely different learning styles, they alone do not account for the difficulty experienced by some learning CW. As stated here previously, motivation and effort do play an important part, but at some point one must ask oneself whether the gain (HF access) justifies the amount of time and effort put into learning code. Some people have more talent for CW, just like some people are more athletically talented that others. The problem is that those with less CW talent may have to put too much effort in learning the code. It would be ridiculous to claim that "there is no such thing as too much effort". There is; after all HF is just HF, ham radio is just a hobby, and when the talent-dictated amount of effort required and the HF fun factor are weighed, it might just be that HF is not worth the effort. So Johnny does not want to learn CW, because it is just too much trouble, just like it is very difficult for a non-musical person to learn to play an instrument.
Actually, learning CW is very much like learning to play a musical instrument. Both skills require constant, repetitive practice every single day. It can be boring sometimes, but it leads to good results if the student has enough talent. It is no wonder that many CW operators have a musical background. It might be the musical talent at work, but I believe it is also the practice habits learned when trying to master an instrument which have helped in learning CW.
I myself have no call, and I am not aspiring to be a ham. It is CW that I am interested in, simply because I love the sound and idea of it. At the same time, I suck at every single sport I have tried, so I do understand the frustration of those who have nature-imposed difficultied in learning it.
Sometimes, I would like to try to teach CW "in reverse", that is, to have them grab a straight key asking them to give dit-dah and dah-dit-dit-dah and gradually adding characters while correcting any rhythmic errors the students might make. Kind of like the Suzuki method in music. How does that sound to you?
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by KB1GYQ on February 6, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In reply to WD4MFB's "Some people have difficulties distinguishing the variations in length of tones"
That is exactly my problem with morse! I have no trouble with music and rhythm, but there is no instrument with a square envelope and pure monotone. I absolutely cannot distinguish dits from dahs after more than two minutes.
Thanks for understanding that a problem does exist.
And to all those GOM out there, I say again, if you can't design and build it, you shouldn't be allowed to operate it! That should be the only requirement for amateur radio, other than spectral purity of the transmitted signal. That way no one has to learn anything that they won't use, and we get rid of those who refuse to learn! If you don't understand electronics enough to design it, go play FRS and CB!
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by KG4PYM on February 6, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey NOCALLYET,
(pardon my spelling errors)I agree, how about since you're interested in CW you become a ham- 5 wpm is a marginal hurdle, generally speaking-
and that there's someone out there who actually is INTERESTED IN MORSE CODE is like a breath of fresh air.
YES SUZUKI method, I'm not clear on that as I play no musical instrument but I love music all kinds from Rush to Rick Braun and Mozart and just all kinds.
If you're interested in CW I'm afraid Ham Radio is the ONLY place you could play in such a field, although there is a push to kill it completely, I guess it is not efficient and requires too much effort or something- BUT IT IS A BLAST! And HF IS REALLY SOMETHING; I can't tell you, it's a real kicker...
It's about the interaction of Man with Nature and the Extraterresrial Influences on the Earth and working in concert with all of these forces, visible and invisible, and then, touching someone else with-out wires, on the other side of the Earth, and often a few Provinces away. To me anyway... it's really cool- please do consider it. There's not only CW,SSB, there are all those other modes too- there are a plethora of choices. Want to take the total Self Reliance approach, cheating Nature from her Influence? Fine, there's repeaters, and repeaters orbiting the Earth- it's amazing- EMEers baffle me- they put in enormous amounts of energy in thought and design, and Power, just to make contact by bouncing signals off the Moon. To touch the Moon though...imagine that- yes- indeed, THAT IS COOL.
Whatever method works for anyone is the best...sometimes it doesn't matter about a best method, for 5wpm code- come on people- go with whatever method is available and plan on it being HARD, and then perhaps you'll surprise yourself- and IF it WAS DIFFICULT, and you OVERCAME IT, please no one tell me you won't have a sense of accomplishment even if you never use it, and after learning it, you may just find that you will use it. And then maybe not, but at the very least you met the standard, and it is the LOWEST the STANDARD has EVER been.
Friendly 73 again.
darin.
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by K5DVW on February 6, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Maybe Johnny doesn't like to spend a long time to send a very short message? Most all of the CW contacts I've had go something like this and it takes a while to send:
"UR RST 599, 599 OM. AGE HR 99, 99. BEN HAM SINCE 1912, 1912. WX ES COLD, COLD. TNX QSO CUL 73 K9DOG SK"
...or consists of the really short "Rst & Location" DX QSO which I think is more useful than trying to have a lengthy conversation with CW.
I learned the code, can send and receive at around 15 wpm, sometimes more sometimes less, but don't really use it because I find I really enjoy actually talking or running PSK31 more than pounding a key, so I can't fault Johnny or consider him learning disabled, I'm just glad he's interested in Radio! I think a lot of newer hams are like me in this regard.
I dont understand why we have to find creative ways to berate people who dont like CW in this hobby. Maybe they just dont like it! Personally I dont like repeaters, but I'm not going to bash repeater users. I mean geesh, this hobby is going to die and our spectrum is going to be taken away if we don't attract a more diverse crowd. That's the bottom line here folks!
K5DVW
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by KG4PYM on February 6, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K5DVW:
Excellent- looks like you met the minimum requirement, with room to spare. I can't wait to try PSK-31, I hear it works very well even with weak signal.
Imagine- qrp-lap-top-pic-nic, and better copy than either CW or SSB for the same power output. Sounds like a blast- some day i'll get a lap-top and do that, right now I have ears- and a dead something on the Motherboard or Hard-drive at home and the DOS won't even come up! I've invested about 5 grand or more over the years in computers...more given software and upgrades... so I'm bummed about that for now.
I have not meant to offend anyone re CW- I state a considered opinion, that 5 wpm code should not detract anyone interested enough to overcome that hurdle- and I argue NOT the usefullness of CW- I can do CW with a flash-lite, or bang it out on the wall... you can't do PSK31 without a computer/interface. The fact still remains that the CW hurdle has never been lower.
Consider it a Rite of Passage. Consider it a part of Amateur History.
Oh yeah, when you think CW, images of Railroad Telegraphy, WWI, WWII radio operators come to mind!
An Ancient Language of days gone by, kind of like Latin. Who uses Latin anymore! [Physicians, I'd imagine passing their Latin courses are something of a similar Rite of Passage but I'm only guessing]- We should have the Medical Associations do away with such an archaic language, should we not? But I'd bet many Physicians might say that is absurd- perhaps not. I can only speak for myself and a Physician I am not.
Yes, CW is outmoded, it is not efficient, and 5wpm will take forever to eke out that extremely concise message you used as an example. Hey this entire Forum could be done on PSK31 MUCHFASTER, and on
Phone- lightning fast, and with the subtleties of Tone and Inflection that impart meaning like no other mode could possibly achieve. Until higher speeds are attained, I'll be the first to admit, CW is not very useful at all.
Hi speed Ops use expensive machined works of art to do CW with electronic keyers so they can play up there with some measure of comfort, in the 25wpm range and higher. So perhaps, although it is archaic, CW does possess a CERTAIN degree of sophistication.
It will keep the mind spry. It's a great brain excersize. And for now at least, it remains one of the hoops one must jump through in ACHIEVING more radio spectrum privilege. It remains, a Rite of Passage. It makes achieving that privilege gained all the sweeter.
I sincerely hope the 5 wpm Code does not prevent anyone interested in Ham Radio from investing further interest and effort towards the idea of becoming a ham.
Am I being too philosophical here?
73.
D.
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by KC0GOA on February 6, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why must we aleays try to come up with excuses for peoples lack of ambition, read lazy.
Want on HF? Visualize this, learn code, get privelages.
Don't lrarn code, don't get privelages.
No excuses, no psyco babble, no kidding.
--... ...-- -.. . -.- -.-. ----- --. --- .-
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by K5DVW on February 7, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I guess one could also attribute poor spelling and grammar to being lazy, too? Eh KC0GOA?
The point is that a vast majority of people, hams or not, have no interest in CW, and rightfully so. It's not an issue of being lazy or being stupid, it has 100% to do with lack of interest. The new rules are proof of this lack of interest being evident as they are trying to increase the ham ranks by making it more interesting to new comers.
I'll even say this. I scan the novice CW bands all the time and don't hear a peep or if I do hear something, it's blasting by at 25wpm. I'll CQ at 5 wpm for 10 minutes and not even get a reply. I've operated CW many times lately and frankly, it's not what I prefer yet I am competant at it.
It seems the old timers are the one's raising the most stink about this issue, and it's my opinion that they just dont get it. They dont understand why everyone else can't find the things they like interesting. Times have changed. Are you interested in video games? Do you like sushi? Do you listen to Brittney Spears on your FM radio? I'd venture to say NO to all three, but these are modern day interests of most young people. It's time that amateur radio grows up and understands that the more people we attract, the stronger we are, regardless if they like CW or not. It's not very progressive to complain and kvetch about it.
I for one want to attract MORE young people and if catering to THEIR interests is what it takes, then I'm all for it.
K5DVW
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by N0AH on February 7, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Most Jonny's are just too lazy to apply themselves-
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by KS5D on February 7, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As a college professor, I'm very attuned to the learning capabilities of each of the students in my courses. Being almost exclusively a visual learner, I subconsciously tend to lecture in a way that would be best suited for me were I in the audience, and I see some people remain confused in class even after I draw diagrams, write answers, and do everything that would make the subject du jour totally apparent to me. However, after I verbally explain it in greater detail -- without relying upon the visual aids -- they get the idea.
When I took my Tech and General exams last August, I read the ARRL licensing manuals once, took the exams, and passed both with no mistakes. I did the same with the Extra exam the next month, but with two mistakes. On the other hand, I struggled with the 5 WPM code requirement and still continue to struggle to increase my code speed. I listen to the ARRL CDs religiously and practice sending and writing code every day; nevertheless, my code speed is only up to 10 WPM (on a good day) after 5 months of daily practice. In this respect, I'm the flip side of those who mastered code in no time yet had to seriously study to take the exams.
People who, like myself, continue trying to increase their code speed, need to keep up the good work. It's easy to get discouraged, especially given the glacial pace of progress, but I firmly believe that persistence will pay off in the end. For those who are auditory learners, a kind word and a show of support for the struggling visual learners is worth its weight in gold. I know that for a fact. The important thing is to keep trying and not give up, *if* it's something you really want. As another poster pointed out, it's a hobby and not a chore. If you're trying to increase your code speed because you want to take on the challenge, more power to you. Just don't do it because you're trying to live up to someone else's idea of what a General or Extra class ham is. Decide for yourself what that is, and then do what you need to do to enjoy the hobby.
My thanks to the original poster for bringing this subject to light.
73,
Edwin Alexander KS5D
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by N6AJR on February 7, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
First, If you publish it on QRZ please don't publish it here, something about that stinks.
Second, I learned the code way back when, enjoy using it at 2 to 3 wpm. Can not find any one who will work at my Slow speed. I have a problem with code, have made Huge efforts to learn and thats how it is.
I love working 40 meter Nets, Rag chew, Psk 31, 2 meter and 440 FM, 10 meter DX ( using converted CB equipment) and just talking on the radio, any radio, in general. I passed my 5wpm and started as a tech in 1978,(never was a Novice), and stayed there, then lost intrest until feb of 2001. I picked up a Vx5R and had fun talking, found I could be grandfathered in as a general and a week and a day later I passed my extra. I have 8 years in the military in electronic countermeasures (ecm) and it was always the code holding me back. The electronics and theory are easy, the code sucks.. go figure.
Do I have fun sure.. and I have tons of gear now, a couple dual band HT's, 5 or 6 HF linears both solid state and tubed type. I have a new kenwood 570 d and 2 old Yaesu ft 101 EE's. I have lots of stuff in between.
I have a complete hf mobile station set up in my pickup, ( yaesu ft 840, tuner, 500 watt amp, Icom 2 meter rig, and a 800 watt 110 inverter so I can plug in my coffee pot while working 40 meter nets from an island or state cap).
I like working mobile HF and ya notice I never said nuttin about CW. I don't care to work it, so I don't. That doesn't make me a bad guy , I'm certainly not stupid, I don't talk like you with generalizations about C.B.er's, and I find no relationship between ability to want to learn code and the price of tea in China, or any thing else. Get over it, some of us would rather talk.
Does that make me an Extra Light??? who care, I took and passed the test given for the class that was in effect at the time I took it. This is a choice of the F.C.C., not me. Does that make you better than me.. NOPE.. but it doesn't make me better than you either.
Everyone, Please quit with the Code / No Code arguments, and all the other bovine fecal defacation spread about here. We are all hams and CB'ers are mostly potential hams if you approach them as friends and not as ignorant hicks. Lets get this done once and fo all.
We is all Hams, all of us, old farts, coders, no-coders, extra lights, advanced tech plus, and two meter tech's. We all have the ticket thats says YOUR a ham.. so lets figure it out and do something constructive ,.....duh.. like go play radio..
73 tom N6AJR
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by KG4PYM on February 7, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K6NJR- yes, we is all hams. that is cool in itself.
and...hey it's the rule- 5wpm enough said. Want hf learn it that much, just like you have to learn about smiths charts and all that complicated stuff, why does no one complain about that, I don't know...
I never use what I learn in P.E. classes but I had to take it to graduate from high-school, and to the author of this original article hats off to you- I wrestled 4 years varsity in high-school because I wasn't tall enough for basketball.
And for the gent that engaged you here with the 8 call sign- I'm sorry I can't help but agree with him too.
That is coming from the perspective of A PARENT, and that is precisely how I'd approach it with my children to an extent- while- as I love them dearly, I'd certainly be interested in finding the way that works best for them concerning learning methods. We need more tough love in our society too though.
And for the people that blast our Senior and Seasoned Veterans out there- be careful- you are not getting younger and some day you will be there- and the older I get, and again at 35- I am beginning to actually APPRECIATE that these people older than me and beyond know more via experience than I could possibly imagine.
And for those that berate this Elder Crowd- you are probably of a generation that has lost respect for it's elders, and that is a sad sad thing, because I don't blame you so much as I see it as a symptom of Society in this age. Weakening standards, Education going Soft, Expectations lessened. Kids now days getting everything they want when they want it, and on and on.
And I LOVE SUSHI! My tummy growls big and bad this very moment thinking about it, the ginger, the wasabe in shoyu... Absolutely without a doubt. Britney Spears is hot...I enjoy her moves if not her music. As pretty to look at as sushi is to eat.
Speaking of the Japanese culture, you'd NEVER see such blatant disregard for their Elders being expressed- but we live in America, not Japan. Far as I can tell, in Japan they still Respect their Elders as they should. They do a lot of things in Japan- that I admire- I love them for it. I feel like America could learn a lot of lessons from Japan- and don't misinterpret that to mean I'm unpatriotic- but I say this out of love for the place where I live. Apathy is the number one killer of our youth today- which is the future. Hey man, Japan ROCKS! We all know this, no one can deny this most of all, hams.
So when we talk about Johnny and his problem with code, I wonder if Johnny-san has the kind of problem with code that Johnny has here.
I live here, and so- I just want us all to be the best we can be- I rather see us all do whatever learning style and method we must do to pass our exams and reach our goals, without lessening, weakening, or banishing the requisite standards.
I'm still a kid at heart...it's amazing how inflammatory this topic is.
Like Bill and Ted said, or was it Mr.George Carlin, "Be Excellent to Each Other."
73
d.
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by KG4PYM on February 7, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N6AJr, N6AJR, N6Ajr- darn it- I MEANT- N6AJR.
BOY, I GAVE AWAY WHY I LIKE CW SO MUCH, CAN'T REMEMBER A CALL-SIGN UNLESS I WRITE IT DOWN! didididit didit
didididit didit.
Thanks for bringing up Japan, I'm afraid I may've said things about HF RADIOS that could have been interpreted as Buy American, forget the best rigs out there...when the absolute truth is, I highly respect the Japanese Ways- of thinking, of doing, of being. I often wish we might aspire to be more that way. My intuition tells me that in such a culture,
Why Johnny Can't (whatever fill in the blank) would be seriously discussed and considered. Because-
If there Johnny can't it's not because of lack of trying- they try hard and without question. Daddy says do it and it gets done, period. If not, then truly Johnny has a problem.
Over here, Daddy sometimes gets back lip, disprespect, and lack. Not always, but I see it when I'm out there. It would be nice if not, but then,
If all the Raindrops were lemon-drops and gum-drops, oh what a life this would be [especially for you DDSs out there! ;) ].
Check the JY9NX story- check it out- he wanted to be an EE, but in Japan you CANNOT if you are color-blind. How about THAT for TOUGH standards. It did not deter him from achieving- check him out- awsome station and although he's not an EE, he's working at the Japanese Embassy and knows a thing or two about electronics too [not to mention being a totally HOT CW operator]. And if you need Jordan- he's there for ya- just gotta crash the pile-up! He'll do his level best to try to hear you, I believe. I don't personally know him, but I stumbled upon his story seeking QSL info.
No ham can say that TOUGH STANDARDS do not have a positive effect on the world. Especially serious operators, eh? Take a peek inside their shacks.
Enough said.
i believe we're all excellent most of the time, and humans, in being- - sometimes we digress...hopefuly no harm was done that cannot be undone.
73 and EXCELLENCE to ALL,
darin.
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by N0SYA on February 8, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think it all boils down to interest alone.
Some have a physical block and that would be apparent.
Plus there is my sneaking suspicion that code freaks are more machine than human anyway.....
Borg, anyone?
Lacking sense of humor and any number of human
characteristics.
I propose the use of copying Baudot by ear as a requirement for any hf license.
Get mad!
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by N2ERN on February 10, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, Johnny CAN learn code, but he just doesn't want to.
I've taught Novice classes and have found that at 5 WPM, after rote memorization of the characters and numbers, the dits and dahs can even be written down and translated later (not permitted in tests now), but that once rote memorized, people can usually copy at 7 - 8 wpm pretty well.
The adults I've taught memorized the letters and numbers in less than a week, but they WANTED to.
I suggest students spend plenty of time mouthing the characters, or singing them in their minds while reading the paper or mail, or billboards or TV commercials. Strange, but larger print seems to lend itself better to this method.
This really works.
Just one guy's opinion.
Harry N2ERN
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by N0SYA on February 10, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes I may have went a little too far with my other comment but I feel that it is interest alone that makes the diff. And speaking of butts, you may try flexing each individual buttcheek to the rythm of the code as opposed to the singing or humming or whatever.
Borg of the Earth, UNITE!!
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by N0SYA on February 10, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
PS
My God whose name is Wayne Green said that the only amateurs who have been sent to prison for bad on-the- air conduct were two advanced or extra class hams who knew cw. They were approved as elite, by the elite.
Perhaps a test revealing the intent and level of human respect and consideration is in order before you test for cw skills.
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by WA7KPK on February 11, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>Plus there is my sneaking suspicion that code freaks are more machine than human anyway...
that is incorrect *bzzt*
we are not machines we are human *bzzt*
this is a recording :)
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by KG4PYN on February 12, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
well, this is my second time writing this response since my one year old found that attractive button on the computer. oh. to respond to the borg comment i say: We are HU.
I am learning code in between all of the chores and the whirlwind life the average full time working mom of four kids under 6 usually has. i got my tech in November and it will probably be May before i can pass code. i have not been "bitten by the HF bug". I am learning code for the art form that it is.
Tuning around hearing those clear, crisp tones aren't just for mechanical receivers. the communication with code occurs on the inner mental plane. code allows people to communicate without the stigma of accent, sex or (from 'round here) drawl. it levels the playing field a bit. for some, voice is an impedence - a distortion that gets in the way of communication.
i can certainly see both sides of the fence. each one is thrilling in its own right. people ask, which is better: the book or the movie. the movie can have wonderful effects. but for me, the code forces me to listen. to carefully pay attention.
i am learning code for its simplistic beauty.
*
melissa elaine
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by K8KAS on February 13, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Because Johnny is a Wimp. I spent almost a year at the US Army Signal School in Ft Knox Ky teaching code to soliders/kids in O5C20 and O5B20 classes. Out of hundereds of students I only remember a handful that washed out of school. The ones I remember, the cause was more mental, they had lots of other problems.
It takes time behind the headset to learn the code. Ten or fifteen minutes a week won't cut it, or an hour every two weeks. When I ask the Jonny Wimp types about their training and time spent trying to learn the code its not hard to figure out why they have not mastered the code. It just takes time and effort. FYI the kids in the Army schools made 15 WPM in two to three weeks. If they failed the signal school they were transfered to Tank Mechanic or Cooks school, this was all it took to motivate them to master the code.
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by AC4JI on February 14, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K8KAS is right on.
The military way worked.
To provide a "supportive environment," at
Fort Dix NJ our Sergeant instructors would take
a new class out on the snowy streets across post to
show how we'd be carrying rocket launchers instead
of radios if we didn't get with the program.
You would get 9 characters to learn at a time, go
outside and sound them out loud and spend several
hours on earphones mastering them, then move on
to nine more.
In a few weeks the sounds could become sufficiently
second-nature that getting over the speed humps
at 12-13 wpm was easier and reaching 18-19 wpm
a simple matter of practice. Many students didn't
make it but mostly for falling asleep or not
concentrating. Those who tried did well.
It was surprising how, after 20 years of relative
inactivity, the code was still ingrained enough
to be refreshed and to kick up in a hurry to
25 wpm for the extra class exam.
|
|   |
|
Because Johnny is a victim.
|
|
|
by WB4M on February 14, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Like so many other people in society, poor Johnny is a victim of his surroundings and all the hateful people who have ruined his life. Therefore, Johnny is long overdue repayment for the misery imposed upon him and his ancestors by the evil establishment. An example of this imposed misery is the audacity of the government slavemasters to require him to learn 5 WPM morse code to obtain an amateur license! Johnny should not have to learn CW, but instead, it is his RIGHT (not to be confused with privilege) to have an amateur radio license, and it should be GIVEN to him NOW! Since Johnny has no plans or intentions to ever use CW, he should not be forced against his will to learn it! For the same reason, Algebra should be removed from all public schools. Since Johnny has no plans or intentions to work algebra problems later in life, he should not be forced to learn it. He should not be forced to learn English either, since he has no plans to become a writer or speaker. Johnny is never going to be an athelete, so why should he take physical education in school? Why should Johnny learn any chemistry, foreign language, history, or any of the multitudes of useless classes taught in high school or college? I mean really.. he has no plans or intentions to ever use them. You see, we as society OWE Johnny a ham license, and also toss in a drivers license. Just who in hell has the right to tell Johnny he can't drive on our streets, being that his taxes paid for them. All you CW fanatics have it wrong. Johnny is long overdue his license, CW free, with full privileges - all modes and privileges. Johnny can sit home all day and operate on the ham bands because he has no job. Why should Johnny learn CW? Since he had no need to learn any of the useless crap that high school or college offers, Johnny can't spell, so using CW is out of the question. Besides, since he never learned anything along the way, other that what he wanted to learn, he has very little to talk about on the air. Poor Johnny. Will someone please talk to him on SSB? He had no plans or intentions to ever buy a computer, so he will not be found on the digital modes. Since he had no plans or intentions to use electronic theory, he cannot build a dipole so he will have to write a letter to "The Doctor is In" in QST magazine so they can tell him how. Poor Johnny.. will you please give him a break and write to the ARRL and DEMAND that all CW requirements be eliminated NOW? Additionally, you might request to toss out all that totally useless theory too, it is keeping a lot of other victims like Johnny off the air.
|
|   |
|
RE: Because Johnny is a victim.
|
|
|
by KG4PYM on February 14, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm afraid so.
Instead of disrespecting our Elders, it should be we take a survey of Old-Timers; and if in their collective, considered opinion, possesing the Wisdom they do, they say NO- keep the Morse Requirements, then it should be- that with questions- and there is plenty of reasoning as to WHY it should be kept or dropped posted here- then it should be accepted, period.
But Johnny IS sophisticated at manipulation- Johnny has become a reigning Expert at getting the most return via minimum investment, expert at obtaining MORE for LESS. He'll illicit fear of lost spectrum, and a plethora of reasoning, none of which contributes to Strength of Character- and he has made millions in the soft-ware industry, a self-serving industry which breeds dependency upon itself [if you don't purchase regular upgrades suddenly your OS fails to work, sectors on drives cannot be accessed, and a host of other mission critical problems- which is understandable people of all walk's of life need jobs not only programmers].
Johnny is a product of our Society, a Society which places the highest value not on Doing the Right Thing, but much more value on Winning The Argument- ANY argument.
We pay Johnny Lip Service in steering him towards Honesty and Courage, and in Doing What is Right, while at the same time these virtues often are trampled in reality; The Victor becomes, She or He who can lobby the most POPULAR Cause, and therefore WIN- those who fail to WIN invariably LOSE, and so Johnny thus learns.
The shame in all of this, is that in the end, when Johnny is on his deathbed, he will actually have lost, perhaps much sooner than that. Johnny is NOT dumb- but life has changed, perhaps not for the better. Johnny is actually gifted and very intelligent, if he were not he would not be standing before the Castle Gate DEMANDING entry.
Will we do Son Johnny, the dis-service of dropping any and all code requirements, or rather, allow him to earn his way in, via an honest effort in time? Will we allow Johnny to harm Himself in caving in to his demands, and in so doing bring more harm than good to ourselves and the Hobby/Service?
Will the Marine Officer who serves as an Attorney, Physician, or Aviator be allowed to become a Marine, without making the tough grade in physical combat standards that have become THE Hallmark of what it means to BE a Marine? Might lessening this Tradition based Standard harm the Marines? Would any Marine accept it it any other way?
Will the Global Amateur Community cave to the whims of Johnny's learned ways and harm him further? Will we let Johnny hurt himself and thus ourselves by caving in to his every "demand"? Time will tell.
vy 73 to All.
Blessed Be In Excellence,
Darin.
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by KD7MDR on February 15, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree. I learned in the Air Force in 1980, they used a method that taught you to type as you learned the code. Most people hit the speed bump at around 15-16wpm, it was amazing to see it when the light went off and they were able to get over it. I for one, just stopped and looked around the room, 3 code groups went by before I realized I was in the middle of a test. Oops. After 6 months, I graduated copying 30 wpm and proceeded to improve until I was doing over 50wpm after 6 years of copying code.
20 years later I decided to get my ticket and am still amazed that I remember the code, granted I'm not as fast as I used to be, but I still had to practice at 5wpm to get used to Farnsworth and adjust my reflexes to the slower code speed.
I still cannot send code as fast I can copy, but that is another learning experience.
Most posts to this thread are pretty much on target. I believe that anyone can learn the code, it is just a matter of finding the method that works for you (remember everybody is different) and practice practice practice.
To hams that are learning, keep it up, you will get it. It just may take you longer than others.
To hams that know the code, let's find ways to help others learn it. Volunteer your time to assist another ham, etc.
73's
Jim
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by KD7MDR on February 15, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Oh, yeah. Don't get to 5wpm in your studying and just practice at 5wpm. Go on to faster speeds. It will make it much easier when taking the tests. Switch back and forth once you can copy at a faster speed.
It will help.
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by W7WV on February 15, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I learned code many years ago as a Boy Scout (must have been 3 WPM) and and then in the Army as a radio operator.
I was drafted into the service and being selected for radio school was pretty good duty considering most that were drafted went to the infantry during the Viet Nam era. Pretty good motivation to pass the course and learn 15 WPM HI HI. If you didn't, guess where they most likely sent you??
I think short of some medical reason that anyone can learn it if they approach it right. And one method may not work for all. The biggest problem that I hear from those trying to learn as they expect too much, too soon, and are at first spending too much time on it. Then they get frustrated, burned out, and give up.
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by KC8SKX on February 16, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well to respond to this I would say now that the code requirement is being (or in the process of being) removed from the Amatuer licensing requirement on a worldwide basis whether Jonny can learn code or not is a mute point.
If Johnny was interested in code he would learn it.
Only 5% of hams use code yet they hold about half of the spectrum. This would be the next issue to take up.
If 5% of Hams use it give them 5% of the spectrum.
I learned the code and can read it at 20 wpm no problem. Never sent it, Never will ! Time for some of you to move on.
(to more modern metholds such as digital voice)
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by W1IQW on February 16, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The latest psychobabble to excuse plain laziness.
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by N2WJW on February 16, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
For 9 years after getting my "no code tech" I contemplated the thought of learning the code so I can move on further with the hobby. I found excuses, after excuses not to learn the code, plain laziness and being impatient was the whole problem. I went got some tapes, and downloaded a couple of fine programs off the net for learning the code, I gave myself a month and a half to learn it, I made it an effort to copy the code always a little faster than the 5 wpm, did this for about 15 - 30 mins throughout the day everyday for over a month, went for the test and to my surprise I was able to copy 99% of the exam! Now I can work on my General exam next. Makes me wonder why I didnt do this before!
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by KA5BJY on February 17, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Lets submit this to a test rather than some physcho
babble, Johnny can't learn the learn code for the same
reasons Johnny can't read. Solve this problem and save the taxpayers billions..
I would wager give Johnny his favorite cd and he will
shuck and jive to it, he has the capacity to repeat all the songs after listening to it for one night.
Now give him a code tape and he discovers HEY man thats like work!! Johnny wants something for nothing
and many don't want to upset Johnny and ruin his self esteem, lets just give it to him and make all feel good HeHe. Pure barn yard droppings!!!
Thinking takes work and few participate. Gasp
Btw I'm not a real code man either but I wanted my ticket and worked for it.
73
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by N3AWS on February 17, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have to believe that everyone CAN learn the code. I have helped folks with learning disabilities, children (as young as 4 years old), and even one person who is deaf learn the code. Certainly 5 WPM is within reach of everyone. I believe 10 WPM is also within reach if appropiate allowances are made for legitimate handicaps.
73, Jim N3AWS
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by PY8AZT on February 18, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi folks,
That’s nice article, bravo Bob.
Code is (for someone) the hardest barrier to be a Ham. My first experience with code was 1993, when I made up my mind to be a Ham (I ware CB). A neighbor mine was an old Mail Office Telegrapher and he gave some class (more chat at all) about how to learn code. But, I learned in my wrong way, I always drown the character on my mind, before the next. My speed was less than 15 wpm. It used to be that way for 3 years with no improvements in speed. I went to the bands and always asked for QRS.
Until I read a Brazilian article about find your way to lean code. The article proposed to keep letters on my mind (two, after three, etc...). After this tips, 3 month later I was in 25wpm level. Now I can run to 35wpm comfortable, even in long periods in contests.
Thanks for remind me that there is a specific way to learn to which one. Nowadays, I teach code to newbie in my area.
73, Luciano Moreira PY8AZT
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by AG4HY on February 18, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
all i can add is i learned code and passed the five word per minute test. learned 13 wpm for general but didn't get to take test because of pneumonia, before the test was given for the last time, so passed my general and went on to pass the extra, but don't get on code bands as from what i have read on here and qrz, i don't feel welcome... as for code, i can still copy 13 wpm but don't even bother. also i have a couple of friends in the club that avowed they would never even think about learning but they did. it is do-able,appearently,and i also don't use it, is that i'm afraid to, because of making a mistake, or having to ask for a repeat, and the way that it is brought about on here, that is a cardnal sin.....as for the statement about 8 percent of the operators having so much band space, code is allowed on all parts of the bands...
ag4hy
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by KG4PYM on February 19, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hmmmmm? I ask for repeats even after good copy- like when an op said his antenna was a Kite. I had to send back, "? ANT KITE? ?" I had no idea i had stumbled upon a Special Event Station. So I sent back, "WELL, ANT HERE RFD COAX VERT DIPOLE- BUT HUNG FROM TREE" granted this was at very high speed, so it was doable even in a "contest" type of staccato/exchange environment.
I could not normally "converse" at those rates of speed! :) (natually as I ask for repeats even after good copy) Sometimes I ask for repeats on names-sometimes age and name- once the gent sent he was 91 (flat-out amazing) and his code was FLAWLESS- and his name was- unique, a writer's dream of a name, so- you know, had to make sure I heard straight.
Then to remember- QRPers, many of whom use CW primarily, and I hear they do lots of PSK-31. Repeats a sin? I'm thinking perhaps the sin there is in NOT asking for one when needed; where most Readabilities are fours, threes, and twos... the slightest fade or flutter may well DEMAND a repeat, sometimes several, especially with strong nearby signals.
I never heard of a repeat being a cardinal sin... but whatever the reason, CW is not for everyone, nor should it be- yet- it remains an important and critical aspect to the heritage of Ham Radio.
Or else everyone should have their appendixes removed.
Inflammed or not. (hi hi) It's never used. Only kidding here, but not really. I mean, what if it BECOMES INFECTED, surely removing it while your body is not already fighting infection is better? hi hi. Insurance Companies would surely differ, while General Surgeons may not seriously admit that it may sound like an angle worth persuing, hi hi.
I for one wish and hope people do not feel like CW is some elitist mode! How can such an "archaic" language be so? There was a time when reading and writing any language at all was elite.
As stated, CW is a mode- like any other mode, except it can be done in a pinch via flashlight, banging on something, or touching together two wires, really it can be done via most things that can be turned on and off. Automobile horns, whistling, light switches around the house, squirt guns, whatever- hardly an elitist thing! Very much a playful thing :)
In empathy, I feel INADEQUATE to operate HF PHONE unless I have a HI-FI processed and Q5 audio signal that will punch through reliably...Sending my voice out there is so- personal (maybe really I am very shy for something so personal as phone). But then I guess I wished I had a Yagi for the high bands, and a decent radio...So, I barter for reasoning not called for- everyone has a favorite mode(s) for whatever reason, and that is the crux of Amateur Radio- a plethora of options!
Diversity results in a stronger Service and Community. I do believe. The Amateur Service really should strive to gain this diversity without banishing the most basic of standards.
Thanks to Luciano for highlighting that method by which to increase speed, I aspire to be faster at receiving Morse- SO THAT I MAY EXTEND MY VERBOSNESS TO THE BANDS, hi hi.
Anyone ever heard of being addicted to a particular mode? Might it be an addiction to specific brain-wave patterns ellicited by Morse Code? Over the weekend I required 4 Advils, doing CW without even a 500 Hz filter using 10Watts max. and a hand-mic PTT for a TRULY MANUAL T/R switch gave me a head-ache. Still I could not stay away from it.
So there you have it- CW is not JUST a mode-
it may turn into an AFFLICTION- SO DO BE CAREFUL WHEN USING IT.
13 wpm sure sounds fast if you ask me- I hear 13 wpm quite regularly out there.
VY 73.
Verbosity.
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
Anonymous post on February 20, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I still don't get it. The whole universe has given up the use of morse code but hams are still effectively pushing it as something noble and desireable whether anybody else cares or not. The reasons code is not abandoned are simple but most hams won't admit it. Code is thought as a remedy to keep undesireables off the ham bands ( read as "CBers ) and there is the attitude that "if I had to suffer to learn code to get licensed, so will everybody else". By my calculations most of the current active hams will all be dead within about 20 years and so will this hobby if it already isn't for all practical purposes.
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by AG4HY on February 20, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA8KJP;
i really don't think that code has prevented "undesirables" from being on the bands, if you think that it has, listen on 75, 20, and 15, even though it has been touted to do so.
there are some who do not, use phone simply because they have, what i call, lock up, better known as microphone fright, like for example i have a friend who is most conversative, in person, but, put a microphone in front of him and he can't, seemingly, say a word, its like "uh,uh,uh,uh, i,i,i,uh,uh, (example only, not making fun)...
please don't get what i've just wrote, as defending the militant pro-coders, i'm not, it (code)is, and will always be, a mode for some and not for others,who are, just as much a ham, as the HOLIER THAN THOU militant pro coders.... it is simply their (little tin god) (the code-aphiles) they also like to operate that way ,and by all means ,they should be allowed to do so,, but for the ones who like something else, then they should keep quiet about someone else's likes and dislikes.. where the other person's (read Ham) nose begins, their freedom ends... in other words "my business is my business; your business is your business. DO your, OWN THING what ever it is. if you like to get drunk, get drunk, just don't come around me, or try and make me get drunk just because you think, that, just because you are drunk, that i must. no way, hosea.... i don't think that code, will go away as a mode, maybe? as a testing requirement. there will always be a use for code, as a way to put a message through when power or some other thing has happened. Really! if a person enjoys code then they should be accomodated, their fun, may or may not be your fun. i'm not disagreeing, with you, nor ,nor putting you down, please don't think so...
willie ag4hy
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by VK3JED on February 21, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I read the articke with interest. I have studied the code and passed the VK 5WPM code exams after 5 weeks study. I can send at up to almost 20WPM with a straight key, but I never did get the 10WPM receive exam. Something seemed to get in the way at the 8-9 WPM mark, which was frustrating, considering the speed at which I got to 5WPM. The article hinted at a possibility that I should have been aware of, due to having had some exposure to the field of adult learning, but I didn't think to apply it to Morse.
While getting my Morse up to speed is now of academic interest only (as far as exams go), as I now have full band access (and I don't want to change my call anyway - it's too well known ;) ), I would like to be able to become proficient enough to be able to sit down and enjoy a CW QSO at a reasonable speed, just for the pleasure of using a skill which is different to the norm.
Thinking about how I process Morse, I am a visual learner, though I have managed to process it more aurally (though auditory learning is my weakest card I have to play), my real problem comes in copying and interpreting what I have heard. While it relains a conscious process, it involves a shift in focus, which, for me, carries a much greater than normal overhead and effectively "disconnects" my ears from the brain for a short period. I can cope when the Morse characters are mostly longer (e.g, B, J, Z and the numbers), but if a string of E's and I's come, it's a wipeout.
I'm looking for a way to recognise words subconsciously, like one does with spoken language. That might get past the "hard limit" that I've run into.
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by AG4HY on February 22, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
since when is six meters, two meters, seventy centimeters etc. etc. C B ?????????
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by AG4HY on February 22, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
it is POINTLESS, and ACCOMPLISHES, nothing but missunderstandings, distrust, and to stir up trouble and jeprodise our frequencies. I really believe that some of this is posted to cause people, NOT, to try to get on the bands and to work with some to get the frequencies sold off......
seems as though that a lot can't resist stirriing the ***crap pot*** they enjoy the smell SO much!!!!!
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by KR2F on February 23, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think this theory has merit, if we are talking about high speed CW comprehension. But 5 to 10 WPM simply requires that a person memorize the code. I believe that most people will have some initial problems mastering it. That is to be expected. But to adhere to the modern mantra, "It's not my fault, I'm a victim!" simply discredits an individual.
Besides, you've can now be a 5 WPM Extra! Maybe if those wishing to learn CW just spent some of their TV time practicing code, they wouldn't have so much trouble.
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by KA1CSU on February 24, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
After reading many replies, then just scanning the rest...
It is sad to see so many myopic and holier-than-thou posts. By the standards and proclamations set forth here, the likes of Einstein would have been relegated a high school degree at best. Such intolerance, arrogance and ignorance would be laughable if it wasn’t so public and malevolent in it’s presentation. Such condescending attitudes are sure to be the demise of this hobby if it continues.
We all have strengths and weaknesses. The best Poison Information Specialist I ever knew couldn’t spell worth a hoot and yet, he was the man you wanted to answer the poison center phone - you didn’t even know it. A man who couldn’t get a degree due to stress and other issues found the EE and ME and other engineers calling him at all hours of the day and night to help them solve the design problems they were stuck on. There are many examples of someone who, in the eye of the beholder, couldn’t make the grade, yet had many wonderful and brilliant talents. Let’s not go back to Roman times and throw out the imperfect (by our definition) humans because they don’t meet our personal standards - Maybe they will become an Einstein or Helen Keller of our hobby.
I do not hear anyone saying that there are not a lot of the lazy, unmotivated, could care less "Johnny" types out there. Just don't throw eveyone into that group because you don't think there are other possibilities. I have spent enough time teaching college level students to know that there are individuals who perceve things differently and thank god... they are often responsible for incredible and remarkable inpovations in history. If we were having discussions in the 1400s, many here would be saying that Columbus and others were fools for thinking against the known facts.
No gentlemen (do I use that word loosely?). Not anyone can learn to play an instrument with any reasonable skill, regardless of the level of motivation and effort. My own father who could (can?) copy code at 18 to 20 wpm, would be the first to tell you so. He admires musicians, but knows (in spite of his code prowess) that he could never become a musician who could entertain people. And look at all the wannabees in the music industry. If it was that easy, everyone would succeed. I do believe that you can do (almost) anything you want if you truly try and work at it. There are, however, limits to that theory. Get real!
I have a relative in his mid 70s (retired two years ago to the dismay of his company or 30 years), who is quite intelligent and motivated as demonstrated many times during his life. He is an EE and quite accomplished in many areas of life’s many skills. He is a private pilot. He has passed many a course with the Coast Guard. Has taught navigation, engineering and many other courses. He is an outdoorsman. Better in all ways than most with the six-figure income to boot. He spent decades trying to pass the 13 wpm code test. The old test that required SOLID copy. He finally passed 13 wpm when the rules changed slightly, in the 80’s I think. He had always failed even though he could clearly understand the message. He finally got his General ticket with a change in the 13 wpm code test rules. He later upgraded to Advanced in ’97, again related to a change in the rules if I have it correct. I know that he spent hours a day and consistently tried to pass the code tests. He got to know the FCC examiners to the point that they would say “see you next month” as he left.
Give me a break and get on with life. Yes, there are the Johnny’s who don’t really try, but there are those who do.
I am mildly dyslexic and my learning style is primarily visual and kinetic. Anything I truly learn and retain is a conceptual process. If I cannot conceptualize it, I cannot remember it for long. The problem I have with the code is that I have never been able to get past the picture formation in my head stage. I passed the Tech, General and Extra exams after two short study sessions focusing on understanding the concepts, with some extra time to memorize the frequency allocations. The code is a different story. I still work at it a bit to keep my 5 to 13 wpm. And I have never become comfortable with the code. I still hope to. The hearing loss I have due to a high caliber rifle going off within inches of my ears and the related tinitus don’t help any either. I have been told by everyone that has ever hear my fist, that I have a perfect and sweet fist. My next major effort will be in 8 to 10 years when the kids are out of the house (my 13yo just got his tech – now working on general and code). Yet I have several software programs I use, including commercial and shareware programs. I also have the tapes and CDs. If I haven’t practiced in a while, I drop way back to 5 and have to relearn those few letters that I have always had trouble with. Yet, I passed my first 5 wpm code test after 2 weeks of study way back in 1968. I know I have to work harder to get past 13 wpm. I do however know that it is easier for some than for others.
And what is the problem with posting information in more than one site? Not everyone reads every site one the web. If you have already seen it, quit wasting time complaining and move on.
There will always be some who is interested in the code, just as there are new hams who are interested in boat anchors. Code may become less popular, but that is ok given the nature of digital modes. The now hams will just be skilled in other areas. Many new hams are wondeful additions to the Amateur community, regardless of their code ability or interest.
73 for those of you who care, Paul
(It is 1 am and I have had a busy day, so get over any typing, spelling, grammar or other mistakes. Dito for the content above. I have a BS in Pharmacy, a 5 year program – yes I know, so what – Well the what is that I don’t need to hear you complain that I was imperfect at something that doesn’t require perfection from anything more than to appease your opinion. It is however a free world, so knock yourself out if you want to.)
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by KA1CSU on February 24, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thanks to those who can take a more understanding, tolerant, positive and encouraging perspective to such a good article and issue. Comments from the likes of Rob, Dan, Chris, KJ7KB, Pete (the chosen ones! LOL), and others show respect, encouragement, guidance rather than intolerance, rudeness and the like.
Oh, Bob / AA8YO and company: If digital or mechanical systems had been available and cost efective when the code was developed, no one - not even you, would be using it and making it a hurdle, a badge of honor or a measure of worthiness.
73, Paul
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by K3PZ on February 24, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Let's all give poor little Johhny a rest now, he's had a long day!
73's
K3PZ
Myrtle Beach, SC
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by AB2MH on February 25, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>Only 5% of hams use code yet they hold about half of
> the spectrum. This would be the next issue to take
> up.
That's dead wrong!!! A heck of a lot more than 5% of hams use code. And "coded" hams don't hold "half" of the spectrum. Look at all the bands allocated to us and you will see that codeless techs already have privileges to MOST of the spectrum space we're entitled to use.
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by WA4DOU on February 26, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Only 5% of hams use cw? Now where does that come from? A poll on eham.net reveals 71 % of hams favor retention of cw as a licensing requirement. And another poll suggests about 50% of hams use cw. Its really pointless writing about this subject anymore as "no coders" aren't listening.
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by KR2F on February 28, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OK Fine, of course there are highly intelligent, skilled folks with a great work ethic who may have some sort of a learning disability. But honestly, what percentage of the total "I can't learn code" group do you think they represent?
Whenever some debate like this rages, there will be those who will take the rare case, and present it as if it were the norm. MOST of those who do not and will not do code, make that decision as a matter of choice.
Push comes to shove, I really do not even worry about people in the ranks with no code profiency. My biggest concern is for the question pool memorizers who come out of a session and haven't a clue as to how anything works. These folks represent the future demise of the hobby. Again, why work and learn when you can be spoon-fed and handed a ticket?
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by HODAG on March 2, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Johnny CAN LEARN code but what he really needs is little more encouragement from those that have already arrived in HF. After failing several times, I decided to give it one more shot and almost gave up again (some people really do have a deaf ear, I have one). A posting here on E-Ham for some help lead to a not very helpful reply from a gentleman named Creede (WA7KPK).
While his suggestions were not very useful, he included a few kind words of encouragement, which motivated me to stay with it for a few more days. Thanks to him, I stuck with it and after five hard weeks of study, I passed my test. The other great help to me was the VE who told me to sit down, relax, and copy cause he was sure I could do it. I am glad he was sure because I wasn’t.
Lose the “no coders are lazy” attitude and encourage the newbies to learn, and those like me that have just passed, to continue the push themselves toward 15 or 20 WPM.
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by KR2F on March 2, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<Lose the “no coders are lazy” attitude and encourage the newbies to learn, and those like me that have just passed, to continue the push themselves toward 15 or 20 WPM. >
Anyone who says someone having trouble learning is lazy is wrong. That is NOT what I or alot of people are saying. The people who say things that suggest that they shouldn't have to learn code because they have some special trouble are lazy. How hard do you think it was for us back in the 50's, 60's and 70's when we had trouble learning? I had all kinds of theories about why I had trouble. But I knew that nobody gave a damn about my whiny attitude, so I shut up and buckled down. As I said in my last post, I am sure there are some people with legitimate learning disabilities. But seriously, what percentage of the total "I can't learn code" gang do you think they represent?
I am very glad you stuck with it. Welcome, and good work.
Vinny KR2F
|
|   |
|
Thanks for explaning why we lose many good hams.
|
|
|
by KQ6XA on March 3, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I learned Morse just for fun at age 11 before I knew about ham radio...
Morse was so easy for me that I once believed anyone could learn it if they simply wanted to!
Since then, I've personally taught many morse courses over the years, to a total of about 50 people trying to get their ham license. But about 15 of them, in spite of how hard they tried, even with personal tutoring, could not learn it after many many hours of practice and a burning desire to succeed. Out of that group of 15 were some of the brightest and energetic people that I have known... including several young EE students, an RF engineer, a teacher, a broadcast engineer, an electronic engineer, an electron physicist, and a top-notch radio dispatcher. 8 of them lost interest in getting their ticket when they realized there would be no chance for them to operate HF. They were not stupid, and you can't blame them... HF is a big part of the spirit of ham radio. A few of them eventually settled with their Tech license but the world of VHF and above was not what they were seeking in amateur radio, so they have drifted away like many Techs, into inactivity.
On the other hand, several young rock musicians I taught had no problem copying Morse after a few days on a practice oscillator...
Thank you for explaning why!
It's a shame we have lost so many really wonderful hams over such a petty thing. After the Morse-mafia dies out, maybe the rest of us can scrape up what's left of ham radio and rebuild it to include those 15 brilliant people.
:-)
Bonnie KQ6XA
|
|   |
|
RE: Thanks for explaning why we lose many good ham
|
|
|
by HODAG on March 3, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Vinny,
My comment was not meant as a flame to your opinion, I try to be more polite than that. My point was that those who struggle need cheerleaders to keep the motivation going until they overcome their personal learning hump.
As for true learning disability, I don't know enough about it to make an intelligent comment. I think the best we could do is ask somebody from the military what the failure rate was for those in communications school that couldn't learn (I have always been under the impression that Uncle Sam does not give up on a recruit easily). However, I suspect that you are correct when you say most people can learn.
And thanks for the welcome. Gotta go practice my higher speeds now.
|
|   |
|
RE: Thanks for explaning why we lose many good ham
|
|
|
by KR2F on March 3, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
James,
No offense taken, I assure you. And I am not in any way qualified to diagnose or treat learning disabilities either. I can barely make toast.
Good luck.
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by KG4LEF on March 9, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I have been working on learning code for sometime i know every di dah for each letter have gone through two training methods my problem is picking the tones out and seperating them to sort the letters out.Also to learn something that you care nothing about is difficult concentration is a problem.I drive for a living and listen to each tape every day but i would far rather just be able to speak in my native tongue english and pass my next test where i could use my radio.I think they call this cruel and tough punishment because i dont happen to like there code
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by K0IP on March 21, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Johnny had his brains sucked out on channel 19 !!
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by KC2HNL on March 24, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Those who wish to communicate CW should be the ones tested for CW. Why should anyone who has no intention of ever being a wireless telegraph operator have to take a Morse code test to get on VH band? This is equivalent to making it a requirement to be licensed as a horse breeder/equestrian before obtaining an auto driver's license. Yes, it's all very "traditional", but come on, horse-buggy whips and telegraph keys make interesting museum curiosities in this century.
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by W3DF on April 16, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well... I am one of those visual learners. I learned the code in the 60s, the hard way (not by my choice). All it takes -- for anybody to learn the code -- is a burning desire to do it. If you have this you will overcome all barriers if you just stick with it and not give up. CW is my favorite mode (for 34 years now). I am not a speed demon, but can copy and send plain text comfortably around 30-35 wpm. Most of my operating is in the 20 wpm arena. Learning code is like learning anything else, if you stick with it, it will come to you -- in time.
|
|   |
|
Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by KC8SVW on August 13, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AA8YO makes a good point. Most anyone can learn code if they get into it and focus. Just like anything. If you aren't really interested and capable of taking the time to sit and learn then you probably never will. And there is so much to be gained by learning 40 sets of dots and dashes (HF privileges) that to not do so is rediculous. It took me forever to learn code and i'm musical to boot. It has to be the individual in question that wants to learn it, not other operators pressuring him/her. Probably because of all the time and dedication.
73
Kc8SvW
Drew
|
|   |
|
RE: Why Johnny Can't Learn Code
|
|
|
by KB9GKF on September 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why must you make such an issue over the code. Sure, it has been around for along time. I don't think we sould get rid of it. If you can do CW at 20WPM - Good For You!! I struggle just doing 5WPM. I've been licensed since 1987 and have had only 1 QSO with CW. I still enjoy the hobby. I can not design or build my own equipment, I don't know "higher math" or care to learn it. I have no use for it in the REAL WORLD! I don't make 6 figures (Some people think money IS everything), I live just above the poverty line. Before I was licensed I was an SWL and I talked on the CB. I became a ham because I felt I needed a challenge. And I always wanted to be one! You can say what you want to about CB, this is America. But I have heard ops on 20 and 75 meters that sounded just as bad. I have had to change frequncies several times because there were ops using more power than what was needed and taking up several kcs. that others could have used.
All I am saying is, if you want to learn the code you will. Some can grasp it easier that others. Don't keep hassling them because they are having a hard time. That is not what the HOBBY is about.
73's
Don, KB9GKF
|
|   |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Other Opinion Articles
EMP a Real Threat to Hams and the USA
High Speed Packet?
Amateur Internet
40 Meters -- What Are You Doing?
Aren't We All In This Together?
|
|
|