Shortwave Sportfishing wrote in
:

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:54:29 GMT, otnmbrd
wrote:

~~ snippage ~~

With all due respect to those members of the USCG, giving those test
..... IF they do not have the time, experience needed to hold that
license, they are not qualified to pass on someone else's ability to
hold that license. A straight forward multiple choice exam, tells you
only how well an individual takes exams and not how well they actually
know the subject and/or can perform the required task......

That's not true at all. A well designed multiple choice test can
evidence knowledge. You design a multiple choice test to have a true,
plausible, one false and one sort-of false. A properly designed test
demonstrates not only the knowledge, but depth of understanding beyond
rote - again if properly designed.


Although your point is well taken, I still have a problem with this type
test for a license.
This type test requires that the TEST, "is" properly designed and that
the person being examed "is" properly schooled in the possible answers.
Some parts of the exam could easily be handled by "multiple choice", but
there needs to be a greater "hands on/practical" input, wherein the
examiner is able and allowed to adjust for wrong answers due to stupid
mistakes, someone who has problems with test, someone who knows the test
but not the application, etc.


I've met too many good seamen who have a tough time with exams
and too many bad ones who with a bit of study, can pass any exam.
There are many members of the USCG, well trained and experienced to
give these lower grade licenses, but they should be allowed to review
these test and come up with practical and essay type exams that will
make it apparent when someone's "time" is real or bogus.

Hard to do because it takes way too much time to interpret not to
mention literacy problems - not everyone is a writer, author and
editor. It takes my wife most of a weekend during a test cycle to
correct 75 1,000 word essay tests for honors curriculum. Examiners
don't have the time to examine these type of "tests" and even at that
it's much too subjective - you get a guy who isn't qualified but can
spin a line and somebody who is qualified and can't spin a line.

I disagree with all of this. Most importantly, the last part.
By having examiners who have practical experience in the grade of
license being given, they will know when someone is "spinning a line",
and when some one is having a problem explaining but knows what they are
doing....
As for time .... this is how these test were once given.
The time factor is not that important.... it's not a question of
finishing a semester on time, it's a persons livelyhood and whether or
not they know what they are doing.


The point is that at the OUPV level, this is a good way to do it. The
only way to prevent abuse is to place a qualifier that you need to
operate at the OUPV level for X amount of time before you even think
of qualifying for higher level licenses.

At the OUPV level, you may be right, but I'd still prefer to see some
practical, hands on input.

otn