|
Walter
[GH] Several of you have written about problems you had when tested, but didn't want me to publish the messages. Under the circumstances, I can understand this.
My suggestion: Send your messages of concern to Jim Valle who is Chairman of the Continued Education Committee. He is organizing courses for Masters and CBOG members on the techniques of hosting CCI and MCI exams.
The whole idea is to use this information to improve our testing techniques.
I talked with Jim this morning. He promises to keep any information you send him confidential and not release any names.
This is a rare opportunity for your input to be used to improve our system!
Jim's contact: jfvalle@xxxxxxxxxxx
Gordy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From Mike Heritage:
Hi Gordy,
This subject could run and run. I will certainly make some comments but could you please clarify a statement you wrote ''Hopefully, many of you who are or will become Masters will go on to seek additional qualification to serve as examiners on MCI testing teams.''. This is news to me. What additional qualifications?
Mike
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Mike,
The latest thrust by the CICP is to qualify new Masters by having them sit in on at least one MCI exam. The MCI committee may have expanded that requirement... so I've contacted Joe Libeu and David Diaz to be certain before publishing an answer.
It may come to pass that new MCI's of the future will have to qualify in other ways as well, such as taking a Continued Ed. course in examination techniques. I know that has been discussed as these courses are being offered.
One such course was given at the Fair (conclave) at Spokane this past summer. I attended and found it very worthwhile. Jim Valle will be hosting 2 of these this Winter. One in Marlborough, Mass., and the other at Somerset, N.J. More to follow.
Best,
Gordy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is good news Gordy.
It's been a point of contention over here (Europe) that there isn't any consistency during testing. Some want the test to be made harder, I, on the other hand, would like to see a consistent level of assessment first. I had to stand as lead on a CCI test the day after I passed my masters. I found it more nerve wracking than my masters test. I think Assessors should gradually ease into the job by doing several observations first then assist in some CCI assessments and 'graduate' to lead assessor. Observation is needed so that you can develop a feel for the level of competence required by the candidate. I found my expectations were generally too high, especially in testing Masters. Part of the problem is that many of us have an area of special interest and it is too easy to unfairly focus on that area during the assessment.
I would aim for an MCCI Assessor grade of Master. I have never understood why CBOGS have been awarded the dubious privilege of being the only people able to assess the Masters test. This may have been appropriate a few years ago due to circumstances but I believe we are way passed that point now.
Of course this also exposes my main bone of contention in that we only find out these things via the back door. Why oh why can't we have some form of continuous dialog with the powers that be?
Sorry for the mild rant Gordy but I can see this subject pushing a few of my buttons.
Mike
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Mike,
One detailed course on giving MCI exams was given by Joe Libeu and the MCI Testing Committee a couple of years ago at the Conclave at Loveland, Colorado. An entire morning was set aside for it on the day preceding the Conclave activities. All the CBOG members (a quorum) attending the Conclave and many Masters took that course. I found it very informative.
I wanted to be certain about the "requirement" for new MCI's to sit in on Master exams before joining teams as actual examiners.
After contacting Dave Diaz, CBOG Chairman, and Pete Greenan (present Chairman of the Master Testing Committee) and Dusty Sprague, (Past Co-Chairman of that committee) as well as Bruce Richards (Past Chairman of the CBOG) and Joe Libeu, (past Co-Chairman of that committee).
I have received answers from all except Pete and Joe. Joe is out of the country at the moment.
As best I can determine:
At present it is not yet a formal requirement; rather a strong recommendation. It was made known after discussion by the CBOG a couple of years ago.
As I think you know, my own opinion is that we need to formally qualify new MCI's at the very least. This should go beyond simply having them sit in on exams before participating in them.
I'd like to see a requirement that they attend CICP Continued Education courses on that very subject.
Most of our CBOG actively examining members have attended at least one such course in the recent past. These members have also participated in many MCI exams.
I join several of our Masters and CBOG members in having attended more than one such course during the past 3 years .... but we did this on a volunteer basis, not as the requirement I'd like to see implemented.
Best,
Gordy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Observations, thoughts and a suggestion from Gary Meyer:
Gordy,
Over the last few years I've been able to participate in the testing process a handful of times - first observing, then as the "other", and just recently I got to be the clipboard holder (leader). I now realize I would much rather take the test than give it!
This last time I found it very difficult to get all my notes on the page quickly and accurately. Between reading and then insuring that the candidate understood, observing, evaluating, and then conversing with the other examiners, I was so otherwise distracted that my notes were so cryptic that only I could guess what they implied.
I'm just wondering if a more thorough checklist could be employed that allowed for simple check boxes (good / bad / borderline) for common observations or expectations for each task?
Also, as a scientist and researcher, I have become quite comfortable (actually reliant upon) with the use of a small voice recorder. I wonder how this would "feel" to the candidates? I'm guessing it would be best to step off a bit, out of hearing range, to make the notes.
Just my observation / thoughts.
Gary Meyer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Gary,
Good suggestion.
I found that participating in and then being lead examiner on MCI exams over the years helps hone what at first is not an easy experience.
My own way of handling it was to combine the need for an exam which would get the very best the candidate had to offer with a light non-confrontational experience. Worked for me.
One thing which helped was my own MCI exam, years ago. It took a little over 4 hours and covered everything in detail. At the same time my examiners, Bill Gammel and Tom Jindra, made it an enjoyable experience every step of the way.
When an in-artful, inexperienced examiner finds himself under stress, he often ends up unduly stressing his candidate !
The late Tom White was the very first one to actually take the MCI exam. He wouldn't accept Master Status without doing that despite the fact that as a CBOG back then it was offered to him on the basis of experience and seniority. The year before his death he asked me to test him using his non-dominant hand. I did so, and he had no trouble meeting every casting requirement.
I learned a great deal testing with Tom. First and foremost, he was especially skilled in hosting an exam while dissolving most of his candidate's apprehension. A rare quality, indeed.
Gordy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To be removed from this mailing list, please click here to unsubscribe
|