Thank you for your response.. We will have to agree to disagree on
educational methodology.
EVA

On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 3:37 PM Kris Roberson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> HI Eva,
>
>
>
> You are correct about the level of education for the operators. The CIS
> program is not and was never intended to be an entry-level certification. I
> see that you are a 7711/21 instructor. If I may act as an instructor here,
> what are the levels of operator experience as stated in the 7711/21 for the
> procedures? (I’ll answer my own question for the purposes of this email)
> The three levels are intermediate, advanced, and expert. Notice that there
> is no, “Beginner”.
>
>
>
> This same concept was used when the programs were developed 25-30 years
> ago. An individual who took the CIS certification was expected to have
> experience and knowledge. The certification is a verification of knowledge,
> skills, and abilities. Again, a certification is not training. It is *only
> *a verification of the KSAs.
>
>
>
> Many companies have used and continue to use the CIS programs as entry
> level training courses for one major reason… it’s the only thing that is
> currently available. It’s really that simple.
>
>
>
> To address this issue, IPC is developing an operator certificate program
> that will be designed from the start as an entry level training. It will
> not be a, “certification”, but an introduction of the concepts, safety,
> component ID, basic/soldering 101, and more. The intent is to prepare an
> operator who comes to a job with little or no experience to be a
> participating employee. When that individual has gained some experience and
> is ready for the certification, the next level and certification will be
> more effective and applicable.
>
>
>
> On one item from your reply, I am afraid that I must let you know that you
> are incorrect.
>
>
>
> “CIS certification is not analogous to a medical license, a pilot’s
> license, or even an exam such as the SAT or ACT.”
>
>
>
> In legal terms and in the process by which the certification is gained,
> all of these items (medical, pilot license, or SAT/ACT) use the same
> certification process to achieve the goal. All of them use the
> internationally recognized certification processes of either the ISO-17024
> (or an equivalent document generated by the individual nation).
>
>
>
> While I can agree that the work being done by a Doctor or Pilot is not
> analogous to the work being done by the typical electronics line operator,
> the obtaining of the certification is identical. The comparison is not of
> the job, the comparison is the legality and defensibility of the
> certification.
>
>
>
> As I wrote before, this is a change in the way that IPC certifications
> have been handled and there must be a change in the perceptions of the
> programs by the industry.
>
>
>
> A certificate is a document that can and has been called up in legal
> proceedings. Without a legally defensible, integrous, and robust
> certification program the risk to industry is too great. We cannot continue
> with the way the programs have been managed to this point.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In cases where certification exams give any feedback about missed
> questions (such as the ACT or SAT) it is in the form of a topic area.
> Within the structure of the courses (Modular CIS exams) the instructor has
> a built-in feedback. The questions are focused on one topic area. No
> further feedback is needed.
>
>
>
> I want to reiterate one item here. Instructors of a topic may not see,
> know, or in any way interact with the exam questions. In my previous
> response I wrote the reasons why. But I wanted to put it here again since
> there was another comment on this item.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mr. Kris Roberson
>
> IPC- Association Connecting Electronics Industries®
>
> Director of Certification Programs
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Please be sure to add [log in to unmask] to your approved email list.
>
> *E-mail Opt-in/Manage Preferences* <http://www.ipc.org/opt-in>
>
>
>
> *From:* Eva J <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* Friday, November 9, 2018 2:25 PM
> *To:* Kris Roberson <[log in to unmask]>; Technet <[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* Re: FW: students and instructors should know what test
> questions they get wrong
>
>
>
> Tests should not be given back to students. Instructors should be able to
> go over incorrect answers with students.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 3:22 PM Eva J <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Kris,
>
> I understand what you are saying. I am sure you know that many of our CIS
> candidates are not college educated, maybe not even high school graduated,
> and quite possible English is not their first language.
>
> CIS certification is not analogous to a medical license, a pilot’s
> license, or even an exam such as the SAT or ACT.
>
>
>
> My fear is that EMS companys will go back to custom training that directly
> apples to their workforce.
>
> Sorry about that, I inadvertently hit the sent button and  had to take
> care of a quick job.
>
> in continuation to previous email.. above
>
> I have developed custom electronic assembly, cable building, quality
> assurance and quality control courses to suit my customers. Generally, I
> advocate for IPC training to my customers; however, some customers are
> unsatisfied with the lack of hands on training relative to presentation
> time. Yes, customers like the J-STD-001 certification, but really they want
> their employees to know how to solder. Understanding the requirements is a
> different level.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 2:40 PM Eva J <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Kris,
>
> I understand what you are saying. I am sure you know that many of our CIS
> candidates are not college educated, maybe not even high school graduated,
> and quite possible English is not their first language.
>
> CIS certification is not analogous to a medical license, a pilot’s
> license, or even an exam such as the SAT or ACT.
>
>
>
> My fear is that EMS companys will go back to custom training that directly
> apples to their workforce. resort to
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 1:51 PM Kris Roberson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hello Evamaria,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your insights about the training process and the
> certification process. As an experienced trainer, your thoughts on the
> training are necessary for the improvement of the training programs.
>
>
>
> I would like to give some information before I comment on your specific
> points.
>
>
>
>
>
> In the past, IPC training and certification have been viewed and treated
> as a single entity. The training was conducted, the exam was given and
> everything was viewed as a learning experience for the students. In a
> typical *learning* environment, this is the proper way to educate an
> individual.
>
>
>
>
>
> However, a *certification exam * is not a learning tool. A certification
> is the verification and validation of an individuals knowledge, skills, and
> abilities (KSAs) in regard to a topic or subject.
>
>
>
>
>
> A License and a certification differ in only one thing. A license is
> issued by a government body. A certification is issued by a non-profit
> organization. In all other matters, the two documents are the same.
>
>
>
> An individual who attempts the exam for a medical license, a pilot’s
> license, of even an exam such as the SAT or ACT for college entry do not
> receive the questions missed in the review. If any review is offered, the
> candidate may receive areas of missed topics, but no questions or answers
> are presented.
>
>
>
>
>
> The same is true for the IPC Certifications. At the CIS level, the
> training is modular. If a student does not pass a module exam, the
> instructor has a clearly defined topic of study in which the student and
> instructor can review. The modules are structured to allow for this focus
> of study.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> With the above information, I would like to respond to the items in your
> email.
>
>
>
> 1 – “Instructors need to know generally what types of questions are being
> missed…”
>
>    - As noted above, a failed module exam shows that a student does not
>    understand the concepts and criteria of a section of the document. The
>    review can be limited to that portion of the document being tested (e.g.
>    Wires and Terminals, Through hole, SMT… etc.).
>
>
>
>
>
> a. – “It gives the instructor ability to improve instruction technique”
>
>    - IPC has contracted with a Psychometrician for the full review of the
>    questions and programs.
>
>
>
>    - As the review is completed, and with the abilities of the new EDGE
>    2.0 systems, the psychometrician and the supporting certification committee
>    will review the performance of the questions. Any question that are not
>    psychometrically sound or are performing poorly will be removed or
>    re-written.
>
>
>
>    - Instructors will also receive information on how their classes have
>    performed on a quarterly basis. As the questions are confirmed sound and
>    are performing correctly, any recurring patterns in the individual
>    instructor’s classes should show up as outlying data points. The instructor
>    whose students consistently perform poorly in one area where the balance of
>    the industry instructors do not have the same issues will know to review
>    the teaching of that section of the program.
>
>
>
>
>
> b. “Instructors should provide IPC feedback on [questions]”
>
>    - This is one area where IPC instructors will need to make a
>    modification to the current practices. In a certification exam, any
>    individual who teaches a subject must not view, know, or in any way
>    interact with the questions on the exams. The *only* time a question
>    should be viewed (other than by the developing group) should be by the
>    candidate during the exam.
>
>
>
>    - Any instructor who is aware of a question about a particular section
>    or topic may emphasize this section more than another. I do not mean to
>    imply intent of wrong-doing. Even with the very best of intentions, an
>    instructor is ultimately human. As your passionate email demonstrates, you
>    want the best education and outcome for your students. The tendency of a
>    good-hearted, well intentioned instructor would be to make sure that the
>    students cover a specific area where a known exam question answer will be
>    found.
>
>
>
>    - Going forward, development committee for an exam will be made up of
>    5-10 individuals from industry and education. These individuals will be
>    guided by an IPC staff liaison and the Psychometrician. No person who
>    teaches (who holds a current CIT for a subject area, or intends to hold a
>    CIT certificate for that subject area in the next two years) will be
>    eligible to sit on the certification committee for that program.
>
>
>
>
>
> 2 – “Students need to know what questions they got wrong”
>
>    - Please refer to my responses above. Students need to know the areas
>    in which they make errors, not the exact questions. A review of the exact
>    question exposes the exam questions to compromise. In keeping with
>    international standards for Certification Programs that Certify Individuals
>    (IS0-17024), the exam questions must be protected for the integrity,
>    efficacy, and above all, defensibility. If a question is compromised, the
>    legal defensibility of the exams and the entire certification program can
>    be called into question.
>
>
>
>
>
> – “Students/ companies pay to receive training and instruction”
>
>    - You are absolutely correct. They do pay to receive *training*. That
>    training is to come from the trainer through the use of the training
>    materials or (in the case of a CIS who wishes to challenge test) an
>    equivalent preparatory program. In that training it is appropriate to use
>    visual aids, PPTs, videos, quizzes, practice exams, and whatever other
>    method is deemed to be useful in preparing that student to take the
>    certification exam. However, that is not the certification exam.
>
>
>
>    - After the training, the individual pays IPC for access to attempt
>    the *certification exam*. The Certification exam is the final
>    verification of the individual’s KSAs in regard to the standard. It is
>    nothing more. As written above, it is not a learning tool. This is
>    absolutely a different way of thinking from the way IPC programs have been
>    conducted in the past. Once again, this is a move toward improving the
>    integrity, efficacy, and defensibility of the programs.
>
>
>
>
>
> a. & b. “Students not will be able properly navigate documents if they are
> getting questions wrong and don't know why.” & “Also, students will not
> able to properly apply requirements if they do not understand criteria.”
>
>    - The students do not need the individual questions to learn and
>    understand the use of the document and the criteria. The students need to
>    review the content and the concepts of the document through the training.
>    If questions are missed on the certification exam the student knows that
>    he/she should go back and review the section.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> MITs and CITs are definitely IPC’s front line. For this reason it is
> important for those trainers to understand the correct training of the
> programs. IPC must remove any disservice that may have been done in the
> past process so the IPC programs will be effective, complete, conducted
> with integrity, and will be defensible.
>
>
>
> I invite all MITs and CITs to participate in the *Training Development
> Process. *One great improvement that has been made is the addition of
> Carlos Plaza as IPC’s Director of Education Development. Carlos brings a
> wealth of knowledge and experience in Education design. With the Training
> Committees, Carlos will work to improve the *Training * component of the
> programs. Some improvements may include fewer PowerPoint slides and better
> use of interactive media, use of knowledge check-ins, and practice tests in
> the training program to help instructors judge the preparedness of the
> students for the *Certification exam. *There are many more improvements
> in the works and I highly encourage all trainers to become involved.
>
>
>
> With industry help, feedback, and participation the IPC programs can meet
> the needs of our industry with the best training we can develop. Then when
> the certification exam is completed and a student passes the exam, that
> individual will be able to state with confidence that they truly do meet or
> exceed the requirements to have the designation of a Certified IPC
> Specialist.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
>
>
> Mr. Kris Roberson
>
> IPC- Association Connecting Electronics Industries®
>
> Director of Certification Programs
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Please be sure to add [log in to unmask] to your approved email list.
>
> *E-mail Opt-in/Manage Preferences* <http://www.ipc.org/opt-in>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Eva J <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* Friday, November 9, 2018 9:56 AM
> *To:* IPC Helpdesk <[log in to unmask]>; certification <
> [log in to unmask]>; ipc training <[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* students and instructors should know what test questions they
> get wrong
>
>
>
> IPC Director of Certification and IPC President,
>
>
>
> I read the "helpful" article on the help desk portal and I am very
> disappointed that trainers / instructors and students can not see what
> questions were incorrect. 2 things....
>
> 1. Instructors need to know generally what types of questions are being
> missed and why for process improvement and to validate student
> understanding.
>
> a.  It gives the instructor ability to improve instruction technique,
> material presentation which helps reinforce important criteria.
>
> b.  Instructors should provide IPC feedback on incorrect, ambiguous, and
> misleading test questions that confuse everyone! Frequently students get
> the same wrong questions, which then instructors and IPC can do trend
> analysis, test/curriculum efficacy, and instructor awareness.
>
> 2. Students need to know what questions they got wrong.  Students/
> companies pay to receive training and instruction! It is not all about the
> certification.  Instructors are there to help them learn and  understand.
>
> a. Students not will be able properly navigate documents if they are
> getting questions wrong and don't know why.
>
> b. Also, students will not able to properly apply requirements if they do
> not understand criteria.
>
>
>
> In closing, IPC and trainers are doing their students and EMS / CM
> companies (all of which are our clients) a disservice by not properly
> training students; they will not be able to learn from their mistakes if
> they don't know what is wrong. We as trainers are obligated to help
> students learn and understand the information we are
> presenting....especially when they get test answers wrong!
>
>
>
> I have been conducting skilled based training for 25 years and IPC
> training for over 15 years.
>
> MIT/CIT trainers are essentially IPC's front line to knowledge and
> understanding for all new students (clients) and EMS / CM companies.
> Consider implementing this little process improvement to help our clients
> get the most out of our training by providing test answers to students and
> trainers.
>
>
>
> Thank you
>
> Evamaria Jones
>
> CID  Certified in PCB Design Principles
>
> CIT IPC J-STD-001
>
> CIT IPC-A-610
>
> CIT IPC-A-620
>
> CIT IPC-7711/IPC-7721
>
> senior Quality Engineer
>
> Specialized Technology Electronics
>
>