>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 20:58:11 -0400 From: "Ed Sutton" <ed440 at mindspring.com> >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 >assessment of competency. There still have to be safeguards against restraint of trade issues - which is the problem we are dealing with here. We can't have one person deciding on the basis of some pop quiz or quick test whether or not someone met the criteria for recertification - whatever those might be. The requirements for objectivity still have to be met. Computer scoring meets this requirement. A pop quiz or a quickie hands-on test after a class do not. >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? This is all very nice in theory, but people would have to work full time and get paid very nice salaries to develop and continuously update these sort of exams (not to mention the programming skills required) - because if you keep running the same videos and computer programs over-and-over-and-over again for 1000 exams per year, how long do you think it will be before everyone out there knows what all the right answer are? I bet before 1/5th of the candidates get around to taking the test. Sorry, Ed, but whatever ideas you or anyone might devise will be expensive and labor-intensive. If the PTG wants to progress, it needs to get off this "volunteer-based" model and start paying people for their time and labor. And find the revenue to do it. And then all these ideas might have a chance of becoming actualities. And as far as your tuning re-exam idea - well, here is where we run into a big problem. Identifying out-of-tune notes is a very small portion of the skills required of a competent tuner. A recertification exam involves the maintenance of skills - and one that does not involve actual application of manual plus aural skills is pretty much meaningless. Because as we age (or get addicted to ETDs) we lose a portion of all those skills. And a meaningfull test would have to test for all those skills in combination. It wouldn't have to be a complete tuning - but without actual tuning of something a test has little value. So a video or audio tuning recert exam has little credibility as far as I am concerned. Israel Stein ----- 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20100728/20ede175/attachment-0001.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC