|
Walter & Group...
[GH] Bernd Zeische discusses the role of examiners in the light of our International experiences :
Hi Gordy,
there are some points being discussed that I may think slightly different yet.
1. As an examiner I am asked to test if the candidate fulfills the requirements of each exam. It's not about finding out if I know more than the candidate or not. If the candidate will have bigger knowledge and skills than I have, fine. This means he or she for sure fulfills the requirements and is well prepared. This will make it a great exam. Maybe I can learn something too.
2. Inside the team of examiners I would look for four things when choosing the leading examiner:-
a) Language between the candidate and the leading examiner: The leading examiner should have the mother language available if possible.
b) Language between the examiners. If one of them has both mother languages of the other two examiners available this can really help when taking the leading position. The team leader should always be able to easily understand what the co examiners are saying to be able to communicate the summary to the candidate in short time.
c) Which examiner has the brightest experience in examination.
d) It also can be important that a new examiner will take the leading part in order to grow and learn as an examiner!
All four points may be taken into account as I understand it.
All my best,
Bernd
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Bernd,
You raise some valid points.
1. Over the years I have learned many things from the candidates as I test them. This is especially true when we have the luxury of examining a particularly experienced and competent candidate.
Once in a while, I'll examine a candidate who does not do well ..... yet I might learn from his/her difficulties. This experience accrues to our knowledge of the examination process itself.
2. a.) & b.) Language is so important ! We must be able to understand our candidate and vice versa. When more than one examiner participate, there must be satisfactory understanding between them, as you point out.
Since this isn't always possible when testing in some countries, our International teams must sometimes rely on interpreters . This is why we heed the admonitions of examiners on our International Committee who have had experience with these problems when we re-write questions and task descriptions as well as stated expectations as our CCI and MCI Testing Committees try to make the test language as clear to all as possible.
d.) That is an excellent suggestion. We do need to train new Masters to be good examiners. At present, a new Master must observe at least one exam before actually being on a team. Even after doing that, he must develop examination skills by actual participation on an exam team. Having had that experience, a seasoned lead examiner might well have him take the role of lead examiner. Then there should be feedback from the primary examiner after this to maximize the value of this effort, as I see it.
I also agree with Paul Arden that Masters and BOG's who examine must stay well informed, up to date, and maintain their casting and teaching skills. Those who serve as examiners should hone their testing skills.
Gordy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] From Gary Eaton :
Gordy,
I see You-Tube as a gambling exercise as is the blind purchase of a book or video - or even a fly line. I shelve many useless volumes and video that serve as examples of horrible content by supposed experts - often self-appointed. Fame does not equal ability.
I agree that those cited, and Jason Borger and Gary Borger et al - have produced some remarkably fine content and made parts of it available at no cost. The vast majority of what I see touted on You-Tube is pretty much a waste of time for MCI test preparation. Sorting through it all certainly burns time unproductively.
An interesting approach by fly-maker and material developer, Enrico Puglisi, appeared in the past two-years. He charges a fee to gain access to his video content. Perhaps this would be a way for the FFF to provide something tangible to certified examiners beyond a patch and a certificate for their annual dues assessment?
I see the absence of CICP-CBOG exam information including:
1) line-layouts defining acceptable and unacceptable performance
2) video of adequate and inadequate performance of casting tasks &
3) qualified rationale for changing test-requirements IE opposite hand-
- as negligent lassitude on the part of the leadership. If CICP does not have the requisite tools and skills, spend some of that MCI derived funding to hire it out by Carl McNeil or other qualified professionals under CBOG direction and pass hair-brained concepts like non-dominant casting requirements through neuro-scientists within the MCI community.
No offense to Paul or other forums but, the unfiltered, un-regulated, anyone-can-post-whatever-they-want Internet environments carry a ton of rubbish for an ounce of valid content. Guy Manning referred to this time-spent for value-received conundrum, too. I view un-verified consumer comments, like Angie's List with similar disdain. I even know of competitors slamming their rivals under false Internet identities and submitting glowing reports on themselves. Unprofessional, at least, fraudulent to be sure. Similar lack-of-verification besets the broad scope of top-secret ethics operations by the CICP.
Professionalism, as I learned it, demands putting the interests of your client above those of your own. The CICP might enter that level with:
- 1) Complete transparency (word-for-word transcript of CBOG & Committee meetings, funds, expenditures, elections, non-election votes with governor's identified to their votes, etc.)
- 2) Verification of credentials, examiners, candidates, etc.
- 3) Advocacy of those properly certified over the un-certified instructing at FFF events
- 4) CBOG oversight of sanctioned study-groups
- 5) True test security
- 6) Complete, real-time, transparency of the FFF- Director's and finances in relation to the production of the CICP and
- 7) Most-importantly - Direct election of the CBOG by the entire body of MCIs.
The assessment of dues and certification fees absent this democratic process reverberates, "taxation without representation".
Mediocrity hides in the inertia that continually promotes the status-quo. Inaction invites competition and discourages participation.
I am certainly not the only MCI expecting these changes.
Gary Eaton, MCI
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Gary,
Let me respond to -4, since it speaks to what I do.
At some point in the near future, I'd love to turn our non-official Study Group over to a BOG sanctioned format. This is what I had in mind when I embraced the idea (brainchild of Peter Lami) of turning the whole thing over to a form of BOG / MCI driven Wiki . Another option would be FFF Study Blogs.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|