Now I feel a need to respond.
Education and Certification are very different.
To educate you need to have questions, answers, good explanation as to why and a teacher
To certify you need answers, all the questions and explanations should already have been completed.
Which questions you missed or why is not the goal of certification and cannot be.
You either know the subject or don't and if you don't then you aren't ready to be certified.
Possibly it is one of the unfortunate facts is that commonly certification testing immediately follows education/training.
I think a certificate of completion should follow training rather than an immediate opportunity to show one's expertise by earning an Industry title certificate.
In the early days of CID training there were seminars/workshops given that ended in taking the CID or CID+ test and they had a pretty good pass rate but made some wonder if the immediately prior training made for better pass rates. I could almost advocate for any full certification to require a minimum experience level prior to opportunity.
I was very lucky to have worked with Dieter when the CID+ test was being created and was actually one of the beta test takers. I have no idea which of the 300 questions in that test I missed, but I do know I showed my knowledge well enough to get my certification.
I did have to take the CID test multiple times and because I did not know what I missed I went through everything again and again and I can honestly say I learned more each time.
If you want to be considered an expert at your field you need some body (for us IPC) that is well recognized to confidently be able to state that you know your stuff.
I am a believer in Certification but first you have to have the necessary education/training/skills.
End of soapbox.
Frank N Kimmey CID+
Electrical Engineer PCB Design
1400 W Stanford Ranch Road, Rocklin, CA 95765-3701 USA
T 916 625 1818 | M 916 833 9877
[log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Eva J
Sent: Friday, November 9, 2018 12:55 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] FW: students and instructors should know what test questions they get wrong
*** EXTERNAL EMAIL, think before you click. ***
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
>
>
|
