|
Walter & Group...
Tim Lawson asks for a specific answer to his question as to what you would accept from a CCI candidate in answer to task # 21 :
Hi Gordy,
So far the respondents are not answering the question that was asked. I didn’t ask how each respondent teaches or defines these principles, I asked what responses they would accept from a candidate taking a CI exam.
What kind of depth/breadth of knowledge regarding the relationships of the many possible changes (force, stroke length, rod arc, timing, haul length, etc) is expected at the CI level?
I think your implication with your preface to the original posting (“Remember we’re talking about CI and not MCI”) means that you think the “pat” answer (Short cast, short stroke……..) might be sufficient, along with a credible demonstration of the casting stroke change(s) which matches the verbal explanation.
Underneath each performance task on both CI and MCI exams is a “Comments” notation that lists items that I assumed were to be covered in the answer. The list below this particular task (casting stroke changes vs amt of line past rod tip) is quite extensive, and includes all of the components of the casting stroke.
Tim
[GH] TASK 21. -
INSTRUCTING ABILITY :
21. Explain and demonstrate the casting stroke as it relates to changes in distance.
Comments: (communication effectiveness, movement analysis, changes in stroke, error recognition, teaching fundamentals, loop size, casting angle, analogies, student involvement, line, rod, body, stroke length to line length.)
Pass _______ Fail _______
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tim,
Right ! Speaks to my own mantra: "Listen to the question".
I must admit that I did make that comment and that it does reflect my thought that the candidate should receive a passing grade on this task if the simple answer was given and it matched the demonstration. As a lawyer trying to "lead" a witness in court, I should not have done that while at the same time asking for other opinions.
It really does go further than that, however.
Let's look at each of the items under Comments. Here is how I see them. Other examiners may see them differently :
Communication effectiveness : I see this as the ability of the candidate to explain this task in simple terms so a student would understand it. Communication is not effective unless the explanations match the demonstrations. It is also not effective if it contains complicated language which might be understood only by experts.
Loop size : I would expect the loops to be symmetrical, consistent, with reasonably parallel loop legs and in keeping with the descriptions in the CCI Testing Preamble .... not that this needs to be described by the candidate for this particular task.
Casting angle : The demonstration and the explanation, while matching, should include the concept that the stroke length and casting arc must increase as the casting distance increases.
Analogies : These might include things like throwing a ball with a long arm stroke for a long throw and a short one for a short throw, A shorter tennis stroke for a short lob, A short golf swing when short distance putting and a long one when driving, etc. I would not expect the CCI candidate to spontaneously offer these, but he/she should be able to come up with at least one or two if and when asked by the examiner.
Student involvement : The CCI testing committee (of which I am a member) has opined that at the examiner's option, the candidate may be asked to actually "teach" the task to the tester (s).
Line : The changes in line amount (length) carried and the distance of the cast must match the changes in stroke length and casting arc. That is the primary thrust of the task.
Stroke length to line length : Different wording for the above. Mandatory for explanation and demonstration.
Body : During the demonstration, the casts should be made with ease. This includes less body motion for the casts demonstrating the short stroke & arc for a short cast, than for a long distance cast with increased stroke length and casting arc.
So, YES,. I would accept the simple explanation and demonstration of increasing stroke length and rod arc in response to increase in the amount of line carried and the distance of the cast so long as the conditions listed under Comments and interpreted above are reasonably met.
Our CCI Testing Committee, chaired by Chuck Easterling, has been working for over a year on a daily basis refining and clarifying the descriptions, expectations, and clear reasons for failure along with what we expect to be a more clear and consistent grading system. The CCI Testing Preamble is also being upgraded.
We feel that one of our problems in the past has been lack of consistency between examiners and examinations. We are working hard to change that... especially with this CCI exam. Your very question suggests that this is a concern of yours as well. If so, we are in agreement.
Of course, our work will have to be approved by the Board of Governors before it comes out in print and is put into actual use by examiners.
Gordy
|