|
Walter & Group....
I'LL BE AWAY FOR A FEW DAYS. ...... GORDY
[GH] From Jeff Wagner .... an interesting exercise in training MCI candidates !
Gordy, I don't know if this is on point or not and I may have shared this before.
Hutch Hutchinson and I did a MCI prep course this spring. In that prep course we had a CI candidate (not actually taking the test and well aware of the situation and prepped ahead of time and many consideration made for him) to take the test in front of the 10 MCI candidates. Hutch and I administered the test while each candidate filled out the performance score sheet. Specifically we had them mark:
- pass/fail/between
- reason for pass/ fail/between
- if fail, what was the prescription for success
- overall score
- comments on our giving of the exam
It was our first opportunity to do this but I feel it should be added into every MCI prep course. It is vital that every MCI candidate can not only pass the exam but then give exams. I think all of us were amazed by the varied answered we received. Each had a sound response. But, we were able to address each one and be sure each MCI candidate was aware of the FFF's requirements.
After seeing this I no longer wonder why we get so much variation in testing. I am only convinced we must do something to get it more consistent. Working with MCI's in the preparation phase is essential to maintaining the credibility and longevity of the program.
Gordy, after this we had planned to put this together as an workshop at the conclave but did not get it on the list soon enough. But it would make a good impromptu workshop if others may be interested.
Jeff
Jeff Wagner
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Jeff,
This is the first time I've heard of this. Great idea !
We must remember, that these were Master candidates who were asked to judge. Of course, none of them would have logged any hours as examiners.
Makes me wonder how much variation you would have seen if you had had the scoring done by 10 very experienced examiners who were totally current with their knowledge and casting techniques.
Here's an idea: If you do put together this workshop, why not have to teams .... one made up of MCI candidates and the other by seasoned examiners !!
My guess is that there may well have been some scoring differences.... though perhaps not to the extent that you and Hutch found.
Nonetheless, I think you are correct in that we need more consistency.
Working to have MCI candidates become more familiar with the exam process itself would help prepare them to be better able to assume the role of examiners once they pass but would not, in my opinion, negate the need for post MCI observation and training prior to them hosting their own exams.
I also see value in the interest of fairness to the candidate in having more than one examiner on each test. As you know, the conclusion as to pass/fail/borderline on each task is sometimes the product of debate by the team members. This "debate" would not occur if we had individual score cards.
That suggests, to me, a workshop with 3 teams. 1. MCI candidates. 2. Experienced examiners. 3. Experienced examiners with one score card (consensus). Say, 3 "examiners" for each team.
Gordy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] From Steve Smith :
Re:Paul Rose
I like the idea of a CI observing a MCI testing (if wanting to). What better way to find out whether one is ready to take his MCI or further study is required.
Steve
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Steve,
I think an even better way is for the Master candidate to take at least one trial exam given by a qualified examiner well before taking his own exam.
That will be a separate topic we'll tackle when I return.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|