|
Walter & Group...
[GH] Michael Jones sends this more detailed message to augment the short answers to his own questions :
Gordy~
2 answers do not make a trend, but maybe some more replies from our group will shed some light on CCI guys fearing the MCI testing process. In my experience & from my experience, I consider the MCI Oral a Spanish Inquisition, and it can change like the weather depending on the personalities of the testers. This does not favor any candidate and makes an uphill climb with no 'set-bar' of consistent expectation. (I suspect every answer you receive to # 2 to be no)
Where I am leading is that I think the best exam could be an annually updated/published MCI written exam, followed by a practical that includes oral questions and short answer/long answer oral explanations pertaining to casting instruction/theory only. By creating some boundaries around the information asked in the present oral (make it a written), the testers would know what was expected of the candidates, and more importantly, the candidates would feel more confident in themselves in preparation & execution.
To create a higher standard in testing, you have to question the standards, and improve them. The exam approach standards for FFF testing change dramatically between CCI & MCI. Is it impossible to imagine a MCI written exam that qualifies a candidates Master knowledge, while not subjecting them to examiner personality/chemistry issues from the first gun?
During the Maine Guide exam (examiners), we look at the corrected written, and define oral questioning/exercises to confirm our intuitions about weakness & strength. We always start oral questioning with suspected successful outcomes/answers, and increase the difficulty as the exam proceeds with questions related to incorrect questions drawn from the written exam. It really changes things for the better because the examiner feels empowered to create success, rather than failure. This begins to change the dynamic from favoring the examiner to favoring both parties.
MJ
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Roy Sedge offers an alternative view :
Gordy:
This is in response to the question "Would you (personally) favor a comprehensive written exam for the MCI test over an oral exam (followed by the practical casting component as it stands)?"
I feel that most candidates would prefer a comprehensive written exam over orals for the simple reason that a written examination is easier than facing an examiner. For example, I went through an MCI pre-test last week and absolutely froze on one of the initial "easy"warm up questions and answered it in a manner that still bewilders me! How much easier it would have been if the question had been in a booklet and my task was to draft the response in a quiet air conditioned room, without facing three examiner's who allowed me a couple of milliseconds to think about a question before answering. It would be great when having brain freeze to a question on a written exam to have the luxury of moving to another question and then later come back with a clearly reasoned answer. I don't think that an MCI candidate would get away on the present examination asking the examiners "could we come back to that question a little later after I have time to think about it?!
Gordy, I think the heart of the testing program is performance during the orals. Subjective to a point-you bet! However, if the purpose of the MCI exam is to examine teaching skills, it must be conducted in front of potential peers.
The performance portion of the MCI exam should be the easy part of the overall examination as the various casts to be performed and expectations are known before hand. Those questions measure casting ability (less the five "explain and demonstrate" questions) but say little about the candidates overall ability to teach and articulate answers to a host of questions. To my way of thinking, oral and quality teaching skills comprise the heart and soul of every MCI. Paper and pencil tests cannot be expected to elicit that type of information.
Written exams (multiple choice, true false, essay?) would have to be standardized. We all know the potential issues and pitfalls of creating standardized examinations. I remember when working on my doctorate that one had to pass two foreign languages. Around the time that I took them, universities changed from oral examinations to written tests conducted by a national testing service. What many students did was to take the examination every time that it was offered, remember the questions, and working with other students doing the same, actually build the test (kind of reverse engineering) and pass the requirement without really knowing a thing. Could MCI candidates band together and do the same thing? Who knows. Such are the pitfalls of measuring performance with any standardized written examination.
If there was a single answer to every question in the fly casting world one might consider a written test. An examiner could easily grade the examination and come up with a score. We don't appear to have that luxury! Each question in the casting world seems to conjure up a host of answers and more questions. The complexity of developing a written examination with a right (or a couple of correct) answers for each questions seems to be rather daunting!
So yes, I would favor a written exam for the simple reason that it could be potentially easier. Could it be standardized to reflect the real world of fly casting and give the examiners the data to judge the quality of a student? I don't think so.
Roy Sedge
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[From Tim Lawson :
Gordy,
I'm not sure how anyone qualified to be a Master Instructor could fail the oral exam. The Master Study Guide has a comprehensive list of possible questions covering all 5 areas of the exam. If an examiner asks for the spawning temperature of smallmouth bass in Wisconsin, that question is probably not going to make or break the candidate. Lighten up, candidates!
As previously stated, a written exam would produce pat answers and not enable the examiners to probe the depth of the candidate's knowledge. As for the candidate being "at the mercy of the examiner" on an oral exam, I think a little paranoia has crept in here. Remember, "It's only fly casting".
The oral portion of my exam lasted about 15 minutes. Most of the questions had been covered as I performed the tasks. I found that method very rewarding, and that's the way I prefer to conduct an exam. I wouldn't change anything.
Tim Lawson
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] From Mike Heritage :
Hi Gordy,
Just a side note on the issue if a written v oral questions during testing for the Masters test. I would find the idea of having to write a descriptive answer to anything that involved fly casting very intimidating. I do write on the subject and I can sometimes take a couple of hours or more to write 400 words about one aspect or another (which is why I normally avoid writing really technical articles). If I was faced with writing twenty written answers I would need a couple of days to answer them in the in-depth way that would be required for a Masters assessment. It couldn't be the simple multiple choice we have for the CCI assessment.
The challenge of an oral examination is the fear of the unknown, you can be asked a question on any subject. You learn to give thoughtful answers that (hopefully) don't give the assessor the opportunity to probe deeper. The best advise I received prior to my test was 'don't bullshit', if you don't know the answer say so. On the other hand if you have firm views on something stick to your guns and argue you case.
There is a list of questions you may be asked in the master study area on the FFF web site. I was asked maybe two of them, in fact I was really disappointed not to be asked the one about how much energy does the line store during the cast. The fact is the list does help you prepare the short and the long answers to some tricky questions.
Lets face it, we generally don't get the opportunity to show off our knowledge during everyday instructing so this is your moment to let it all out. And most importantly, enjoy the experience.
With regard to #5 How would that change the exam for you (personally)? I think there should be written feed back from the assessor to the candidate and from the candidate to the FFF. Of the four assessors who stood my test two of them had to leave immediately afterwards, one was a new MCI observing and the other was the CBOG leading who was quite busy for the next two days and I didn't know the protocol on asking how he thought my test went, all I got was 'it was a good one'. I would have appreciated knowing where they perceived my weak spots were so that I could work on them.
Mike
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Mike,
I agree fully on the feedback . This is of greatest importance for the candidate who takes the exam and fails it.
For these candidates, I give brief verbal feedback right after the exam .... but I know that in the atmosphere of disappointment, that little will be remembered. So I communicate with each one several days later either by mail or email and sometimes by phone to go over the details. When I do that, I try to provide strictly constructive advice along with encouragement.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] From Rick Whorwood :
Hi Gordy
I don't have anything to add, but I do have a question. Is there any hard fast rule as to the order in which the test goes. I my case I had the oral part first, I would have much rather done the casting. I think I would have felt more comfortable doing the oral part afterwards. I believe (in my case) I would have felt more at ease with the procedure. Also they (the testers) might view a candidates differently, once they have spent time doing some of the practical part (good or bad).
Rick
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Rick,
No hard rule on the order. Sometimes the lead examiner makes the decision. Sometimes the candidate gets to choose.
As I've stated before, some examiners do it very well as a combined event.... the oral being given right along with the casting.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|