[CAUT] CAUT credential vs. academic program?

[Chris Solliday]

Fred and Richard,
Couldn't we combine these two very good and valid approaches by testing
following a given class. Maybe not at the end of class but maybe take the
class then the next period take the test. Or maybe take a two period class
and then the next period the test. In other words cirriculum based knowledge
and skill testing. This would relieve the Testing Com from havng to develop
an expensive and time consuming procedure that would have to be learned by
the Examiners. I don't think they have the time or energy for this anyway.
Am I right Israel? Alan?  Testing could be administered having been
standardized by consultation with the Test Com and instructors trained to
give the tests following the classes that they have given.
This is alot like what is done by the auto industry in cooperation with
local community colleges to acquire their certificates in brakes, heating
systems, etc.
It seems to me that this is alot like what happens in a college situation
anyway.
This I believe is also adaptable to skills like stabilizing unisons with a
little creativity applied. Fred, what do you see as the supporting
cirriculum for this and other "real world" skills you would like to test
for?
I think an important aspect will be to have a procedure for cirriculum and
testing that can be applied to all future "Certificate of Endorsement" as
well and I think this actually what Dale is suggesting, having had many
conversations with him before and after the convention meeting. (If
necessary feel free to chime in DP)
If this is agreeable we should take this into committee ASAP.
Just throwing some ideas into the air.
Chris Solliday, nervp
Board Liason CAUTCom

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fred Sturm" <fssturm at unm.edu>
To: "caut" <caut at ptg.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 10:46 PM
Subject: Re: [CAUT] CAUT credential vs. academic program?


> On 11/14/07 8:03 AM, "rwest1 at unl.edu" <rwest1 at unl.edu> wrote:
>
> >>     If this credential is to become a reality, we need to measure
> >> skill and knowledge in some way, rather than focusing on training.
> >
> > I will have to respectfully disagree with your statement.  This is
> > like testing a student at the start of a semester and wondering that
> > they get stressed out and fail.  A successful test depends on quality
> > teaching and teaching materials.
>
> Hi Richard,
>     I wasn't very clear in the way I expressed myself. What I meant to say
> was that the credential itself needed to be based on a measurement of
skill
> and knowledge, not on "having attended 'training'." I really don't think a
> credential based on having attended X classes at regionals and nationals
> would have a whole lot of credibility, other than showing that the person
> had at least gone to some effort to gain additional knowledge. It would be
> like a college degree based on classes one had audited.
>     OTOH, I strongly agree with your idea that our major focus needs to be
> on training, on education. We establish the skill set and knowledge range,
> and then we offer a way to gain those. We (the caut committee) have been
> working in that direction for several years, and I think we have made
steady
> if not dramatic progress. This coming year's institute will be a pretty
big
> step forward.
>     Should cautcom be working on a skills testing program? Well, if you
had
> asked me a few months ago, I would have said no. I would have said that I
> would strongly support efforts to test skills beyond the current RPT
level,
> but that should be done by the organization as a whole. But we were
charged
> with doing just that by the president and the board. "It's Dale's fault!"
>     And I have come to think that Dale is a pretty clever and pragmatic
> person. He is impatient and wants to get things done, accomplished while
he
> is in office. A top priority for him, in the context of the long range
plan,
> is development of specialized certifications. How to jump start the
process?
> Appoint a committee to look into it and report to council? That would lead
> to a delay of probably many years down the pike.
>     No, I think Dale figured he had a group within PTG that was committed
> (or ought to be <G>), dedicated and energetic. A group of people who had
> goals, and who had shown that they would work toward goals and accomplish
> things. So he gave us a challenge, or dumped something in our laps,
> depending how you want to look at it.
>     Whether or not it comes to fruition in a practical way, IOW passed by
> council and implemented, I think the process will be a good one. Within
the
> caut community, it forces us to be specific, to discuss and decide what
> skills we need, how we can obtain and/or teach those skills, how we can
> communicate better within the organization and within academia about this
> skill/knowledge set. Within PTG as a whole, it allows the possibility of
> discussion of testing "skills beyond RPT" in a less threatening context:
> "It's only for cauts." For the moment, anyway. An experiment that allows
us
> to explore alternative ways of testing and certifying without the usual
> shouting match about the political morass of membership categories and
> standards and so forth. Not that it won't be controversial - it's
> controversial within the caut community. But maybe it has a little better
> chance of getting past the initial discussion stage.
>     At any rate, for better or for worse, we are undertaking the task we
> were given. It's an interesting one.
> Regards,
> Fred Sturm
> University of New Mexico
>