We could spend some time imagining new ways to give exams.
Physicians can earn continuing education credits via on-line testing which is fully computer scored and managed. These tests are basic reading questions to show that the doctor has read the material.
The purpose of an exam after a continuing education class would be to demonstrate that the student had attended and listened somewhat. It would not be a scored accessment of competency.
Recertification exams would need more careful construction, but I believe it is possible to create computer administered exams, similar to those used in psycho-physics labs to establish perceptual thresholds, which would be fully objective and also self-scoring.
-Videos could be made of action models with various regulation failures, with appropriate multiple choice questions. The test could be scored according to how many repetions of the video it takes for the examinee to identify the problem.
-Tuning tests could be made by recording temperament test patterns, and testing how well and how quickly the examinee could identify out-of-tune notes.
Comments?
Ed S.
----- Original Message -----
From: Israel Stein
To: caut at ptg.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 7:06 PM
Subject: [CAUT] Retesting
>Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 17:10:01 -0400 From: "Ed Sutton" <ed440 at mindspring.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>Good discussion.
>I hope we see voluntary continuing education fairly soon. Based, perhaps, on an exam that is
>given after the class, to show that the attendee was awake enough to answer 12 questions
>about the class. Hands-on classes could require completion of a simple project, such as
>stringing a harpsichord practice jig or repairing a broken agraffe.
They would still have to meet procedural and objectivity requirements mandated by anti-trust law - which means a set procedure and pre-determined scoring criteria. Devising and administering such exams for a variety of classes is - if anything - a more daunting project than recertification exams. When it comes to testing for certification (or recertification) purposes, our options are very limited. We can't just have an instructor run a pop quiz or assess the quality of a task at the end of a class - if it means the difference between fulfilling or not fulfilling recertification requirements...
>Recertifications would not have to require a full retake of all exams. For example, a partial tuning
>retake using digital media could be set up fairly easily, and not need the examiner and piano
>resources of a full tuning exam. A variety of recert's could be taken, say, one every two years
>over a ten year cycle.
Which means a variety of pre-set testing procedures and predetermined scoring criteria, each with its own manual, equipment and issues constantly needing to be addressed. These sorts of exams may not be as time-consuming - but the manpower demands for developing, maintaining and administering them would, if anything, be more onerous than running the current exam program. And the logistics are another story. Just think of 2000 RPTs taking an exam every two years - and arranging for panels of examiners for every single one of them... That comes out to 1000 tests every year - where are you going to find the manpower to do this? Even if the test itself takes an hour, add in the setup, scoring, travel - still kills half a day... And you do need an examiner panel... So - how many volunteer man-hours are we talking about?
Sorry, but the only way you can have recertification exams is with a paid examiner corps. And a scheme such as you describe would probably work only with regional exam centers and regular pre-set exam days (or weekends), when a crew of examiners can be assembled that can administer exams in the same setup to multiple examinees, who would have to pre-schedule them weeks (if not months) in advance. Doing them mostly one-by-one as we do now is just too inefficient for short exams and these sort of numbers. It's one thing to do an occasional retake like we do today - but mass administration of hundreds of exams per year? I just can't see any of that happening any time soon...
The continuing education that I am talking about cannot possibly involve any kind of testing. It would simply be a requirement for an RPT to receive a certain amount of instruction in a x-year period measured in credits in order to maintain the certification. This would require would a committee to "accredit" and assign credit value to educational offerings which would count for such a requirement, and an administrative setup to report and keep track of the credits. The educational offerings could include:
1. The sort of specialty skills classes offered at the Home Office
2. All-day (or at least multi-period) hands-on classes taught at conventions and conferences
3. Yamaha Red School House, Steinway training classes, other factory training classes
4. Community college, technical school or private courses in such areas as woodworking, and other disciplines with relevance to piano technology. Perhaps even business or management courses?
5. Summer seminars at NBSS or other such schools (they have been trying that, I believe).
The possibilities are endless. There is no reason that we cannot take advantage of knowledge dispensed by others to help give credibility to our certifications. And by doing so we might even be expanding the opportunities for enterpreneurs (perhaps our own members) to profitably offer instruction in piano technology.
Israel Stein
>Ed S.
----- Original Message -----
From: Israel Stein
To: caut at ptg.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 3:37 PM
Subject: [CAUT] Retesting
>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 11:58:26 -0600 From: Jim Busby <jim_busby at byu.edu>
>Hi John,
>Don't take offense at Israel's comments, he hates everybody... <G> Just kidding Israel! But Israel
>and I have discussed this at length and he knows exactly what we're talking about and says that someday,
>if he can find the time, he'll actually develop a system that would work. There is no one more capable of it, IMO.
Thanks, Jim, for the vote of confidence. I don't know if I will live long enough to do this, but yes, all kinds of things can be developed - that's the easy part. The hard part is to find the people to keep things going and not let them get all bollixed up - as often happens. It's not the development that's hard - it's the continuing operation. The PTG had some very good people put a lot of thought and effort into developing and refining exams - but maintaining the standards and expectations that go into them is ten times as difficult, the main problem being that when you depend on volunteers, very often you get what you pay for - and you can't fire or discipline a volunteer when he or she screws up (unless they screw up really, really bad).
>For now "talk's cheap" shouldn't offend, because it's true. Like me, he's been the round with this topic many
>times and realizes how difficult it will be to enact such changes.
>You have good ideas that are ok to verbalize. Get back on the horse, cowboy.
It's a no-brainer that if a certification is a one-time thing and no follow up is required, it is less respected and less marketable than a certification that has continuing education requirements or some sort of regular recertification process. Dennis Johnson is exactly right - a recert does not have to be a full-blown exam, but sort of a "refresher". But at this point retesting is not realistic - not financially, not in terms of available manpower and not in terms of the general culture of the PTG where only a small minority of members are willing to do and pay whatever it takes to establish the most credible certification we can.
But a continuing education scheme of some sort in order to maintain the certification could be phased in the not-too-distant future, because the only thing that would require is a lot of added record-keeping, and a body of some sort that would approve educational offerings (from the PTG and from other sources) as being suitable for continuing education credit. At this point, retesting is pretty much "pie-in-the-sky". But continuing education is doable. And it would add enough value and marketability to the RPT certification to make it worthwhile.
Israel Stein
-----Original Message-----
From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of jrpiano
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 7:40 PM
To: caut at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Re Retesting
Ok, Israel.
I'll quit thinking and making suggestions, about things I know nothing
about.
Obviously an oversimplification of a complex problem
Sorry, back into my hole now. :-)
John Ross
Windsor, Nova Scotia, Canada
jrpiano at win.eastlink.ca
----- Original Message -----
From: "jrpiano" <jrpiano at eastlink.ca>
To: <caut at ptg.org>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 10:32 PM
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Re Retesting
> It was just a thought.
> Obviously they would not lose the RPT status, but it would indicate a
> willingness to progress.
> The progress card would indicate that. Of course the person could rewrite,
> and eventually pass, but then, they would know that step, be it voicing or
> regulation.
> It was just an idea I was throwing out, for possible further thought.
> I know I have been attending voicing classes at conventions for years, and
> I
> always learn things, even although I might have taken the same course,
> from
> the same instructor before.
> I took Roger Jolly's, and the Andre Oorebeek's course, and finally I am
> beginning to see the light.
> As has been said before, the RPT is just a start in the process, and not
> the
> be all end all.
>
> John Ross
> Windsor, Nova Scotia, Canada
> jrpiano at win.eastlink.ca
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Busby" <jim_busby at byu.edu>
> To: <caut at ptg.org>
> Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 8:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [CAUT] Re Retesting
>
>
> Hi John,
>
> (To all, I'm also thinking about CAUT Curriculum in this thread.)
>
>
> I like your thoughts below, and if we were in a perfect world where nobody
> cheated, nor grew old, nor had a bad day, it would probably work. But when
> you add a pass/fail you add pressure, then the soap operas begin...
>
> What happens when someone fails? Do you offer retakes? If a person fails
> does that person lose RPT status? What is the appeal/grievance system?
> Etc.
> etc. The devil is certainly in the details, and if everyone passed every
> time that would also indicate a bogus system.
>
> If it is just an "attendance required" what if they sleep through it, but
> attend? I saw a tenured High School teacher in a "required certification
> meeting" where attendance was mandatory and he and a friend played chess
> the
> entire two hours, yet he got the required "whatever-it-was" because he was
> there...
>
>
> Frankly, I wonder if all RPTs could pass the tests again. For fun I
> frequently test myself against the SAT, just to keep on my toes. My score
> is
> NOT 100% every time <G> but it is usually pretty good. Some days are
> better
> than others. Once not long ago I got less than the 80%! (FAILED!!!) It
> ticked me off so I immediately retested myself and got in the 90s. But
> isn't
> that like cheating at solitaire? I wonder how I'll do at age 95?
>
> Keep thinking. It keeps us all on our toes.
>
>
> Best,
> Jim Busby
>
>
>
> If not retesting, why not a class at conventions with a test.
> The classes could be more involved than the original tests. Covering
> different areas each year.
> It would increase the attendance at conventions.
> Attendees would be advancing there knowledge. There could be a book that
> would be stamped each time. The book having been issued when the RPT
> status
> was reached.
> This would prove to all, that progress was being made, and the person was
> not stagnating, content with the initial pass.
> John Ross
> Windsor, Nova Scotia, Canada
> jrpiano at win.eastlink.ca
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3029 - Release Date: 07/26/10
> 03:36:00
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3029 - Release Date: 07/26/10
03:36:00
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
CAUT mailing list
CAUT at ptg.org
http://ptg.org/mailman/listinfo/caut
End of CAUT Digest, Vol 21, Issue 60
************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20100727/98dad4d5/attachment.htm>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
CAUT mailing list
CAUT at ptg.org
http://ptg.org/mailman/listinfo/caut
End of CAUT Digest, Vol 21, Issue 64
************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20100727/ecf20d64/attachment-0001.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC