clearance
Addicted to ArboristSite
Thanks Dan. I really had hoped they would get it together, but, when they tell guys how to do work they have never done, its no suprise.
Anyone taken the ISA Utility Arborist test, lately?
- Thread starter Sunrise Guy
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
Thanks Dan. I really had hoped they would get it together, but, when they tell guys how to do work they have never done, its no suprise.
Sunrise Guy
Addicted to ArboristSite
Just call me Certified Arborist, Utility Specialist-----
Yeah, I just got my passing notice. I'm happy, on one hand, but to tell you the truth, most of the test could have been written in Spanish, which I speak on a so-so level, and I probably would have done almost as well as I did.
To get into ISA's problem, as I see it, when it comes to its testing program: When I walked/stalked out of the testing room, I knew/thought I missed at least twenty-three questions. I wrote them all down, in my truck, to study up on them, later. As my score showed, I probably did miss most of those questions.
OK, so now, how the heck do I find the answers to those questions? ISA does not let you know what you missed, so the whole test is an "Ah-hah! Got you, sucker!" experience rather than a learning one. They lamely assert that the reason they don't let you know exactly what you missed is because they don't want people "cheating" by getting the answers from somebody else. ------ WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
They do NOT have their heads screwed on straight, to say the least. If they were testing for knowledge base, they certainly DO want people getting the answers, as in factual acquisition, as opposed to 1A, 2D, 3C, etc., etc. To learn the answers to questions in order to pass a test is GOOD! What ISA confuses, here, is blind memorization of number/letter combos, as above, with the actual learning of the right answer for the right question. By using the most basic test question randomization programs, ISA could easily stop 1A, 2D, 3C cheating, no ifs, ands or buts.
As a former high school Biology and Chemistry teacher, I can tell you that students who were lacking in intelligence, and who failed an initial exam, could be given all of the answers to a given test in factual format, as above, go in and take the test and------fail again! They did not learn anything, even when given the answers, because they did not study and internalize what they were presented with. If ISA allowed you to see exactly what you missed, real learning would take place, as long as they stressed that the multiple choice distractors would appear in a different order on later re-tests.
Now I'm going to order utility arborist books from another source. As an excellent student in college, I know for a fact that profs almost never use the assigned course books to compose tests. The trick to getting good grades is to figure out what books the prof is using to make up tests. By going in during office hours and casing the prof's desk, the task is made far easier. It never failed me, literally or figuratively. ISA does NOT use their Study Guide to compose the Utility Arborist Test. Less than 1/3rd of the material on the test I took came from the guide. The guide is from 2002, the test was copyrighted 2009.
Anyway---I'm still available for study group work if any of you are getting ready to take the test. I do not understand certain folks, on here, who have failed the test a few times yet are hesitant to get involved with a study group. Study groups were the other reason I did well in college. They work!
Yeah, I just got my passing notice. I'm happy, on one hand, but to tell you the truth, most of the test could have been written in Spanish, which I speak on a so-so level, and I probably would have done almost as well as I did.
To get into ISA's problem, as I see it, when it comes to its testing program: When I walked/stalked out of the testing room, I knew/thought I missed at least twenty-three questions. I wrote them all down, in my truck, to study up on them, later. As my score showed, I probably did miss most of those questions.
OK, so now, how the heck do I find the answers to those questions? ISA does not let you know what you missed, so the whole test is an "Ah-hah! Got you, sucker!" experience rather than a learning one. They lamely assert that the reason they don't let you know exactly what you missed is because they don't want people "cheating" by getting the answers from somebody else. ------ WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
They do NOT have their heads screwed on straight, to say the least. If they were testing for knowledge base, they certainly DO want people getting the answers, as in factual acquisition, as opposed to 1A, 2D, 3C, etc., etc. To learn the answers to questions in order to pass a test is GOOD! What ISA confuses, here, is blind memorization of number/letter combos, as above, with the actual learning of the right answer for the right question. By using the most basic test question randomization programs, ISA could easily stop 1A, 2D, 3C cheating, no ifs, ands or buts.
As a former high school Biology and Chemistry teacher, I can tell you that students who were lacking in intelligence, and who failed an initial exam, could be given all of the answers to a given test in factual format, as above, go in and take the test and------fail again! They did not learn anything, even when given the answers, because they did not study and internalize what they were presented with. If ISA allowed you to see exactly what you missed, real learning would take place, as long as they stressed that the multiple choice distractors would appear in a different order on later re-tests.
Now I'm going to order utility arborist books from another source. As an excellent student in college, I know for a fact that profs almost never use the assigned course books to compose tests. The trick to getting good grades is to figure out what books the prof is using to make up tests. By going in during office hours and casing the prof's desk, the task is made far easier. It never failed me, literally or figuratively. ISA does NOT use their Study Guide to compose the Utility Arborist Test. Less than 1/3rd of the material on the test I took came from the guide. The guide is from 2002, the test was copyrighted 2009.
Anyway---I'm still available for study group work if any of you are getting ready to take the test. I do not understand certain folks, on here, who have failed the test a few times yet are hesitant to get involved with a study group. Study groups were the other reason I did well in college. They work!
With respect to tests: Most tests of this nature take a great deal of time to make up, and all the questions & answers are subject to careful scrutiny. Some questions are specifically and carefully worded to determine if you read the specific book they want you to read.
Most of the questions in the CA exam are of this nature, since the questions do not seem oriented so much towards real world problems as they do to providing the correct understanding of ISA approved terminology, dogma, and methodology.
If they tell you the answers you missed, it would be meaningless without knowing the questions themselves, so they just keep it all to themselves. If they let out the questions, then they would soak up all their time in committees writing new questions.
Then there is the general philosophy among test writers to include about 70% core knowledge questions so that if you know all of the important stuff material, you do fine while performing the work. So they make 70% of the test practical knowledge that you must know to perform the work. Then fill up the last 30% of the test with tricky, difficult questions, so that anyone who knows the basic material thoroughly will barely pass, and anyone who only knows the basics marginally will not luck out on the last 30% of the test material. If they let out the tricky questions, then the tricky (but less than knowledgeable) students will pass easier.
Some questions were written to define the bell curve, not to find out what you know.
Most of the questions in the CA exam are of this nature, since the questions do not seem oriented so much towards real world problems as they do to providing the correct understanding of ISA approved terminology, dogma, and methodology.
If they tell you the answers you missed, it would be meaningless without knowing the questions themselves, so they just keep it all to themselves. If they let out the questions, then they would soak up all their time in committees writing new questions.
Then there is the general philosophy among test writers to include about 70% core knowledge questions so that if you know all of the important stuff material, you do fine while performing the work. So they make 70% of the test practical knowledge that you must know to perform the work. Then fill up the last 30% of the test with tricky, difficult questions, so that anyone who knows the basic material thoroughly will barely pass, and anyone who only knows the basics marginally will not luck out on the last 30% of the test material. If they let out the tricky questions, then the tricky (but less than knowledgeable) students will pass easier.
Some questions were written to define the bell curve, not to find out what you know.
Sunrise Guy
Addicted to ArboristSite
Hmm--I taught for a while, and I have given and taken numerous tests, and I have to say that I disagree with you, here. First off, I'm talking about the CUA exam, not the CA exam, since I took the CA exam a good while back.
The questions on the CUA exam were very poorly worded, in many cases, and if memory serves me well, the same situation existed on the CA exam. At times, it was impossible to understand what they were asking and/or what they were looking for. As noted in my previous post, most of the questions were not from their own study guide, so that rules out their checking to see if I read a specific book. Since I've read all of the additional reference books listed in the guide, this fails your guideline, as well. As far as telling you what you missed, there are many ways this can be done without giving you the exact question that you missed along with all of its distractors. No, this is not meaningless. As a teacher who let many students retake failed exams after prep, I assure of this. I'm not aware of the 70/30 "general rule" for test writing. Since the CUA exam required a 75% to pass, I suppose you might mean that your "rule" would be 75/25, here. I view that as complete bs. In all of the classes I taught, my tests checked to see if students had learned the material I presented in lectures, plain and simple. While I suppose we can debate the existential realities of test triumphs and failures versus the sublime mechanics of writing tests based on this or that arcane philosophy, in the end I believe in the KISS principle as in "Keep it simple, stupid!" You should learn what you don't know when taking a test and also affirm what you do know by finding out exactly how you did on any given test. Letting a person know the correct answers, in context, to missed test questions, is a valid learning experience if the person then studies up on what he/she missed and goes on to give the correct answer, next time around. As I posted, above, those who are given the correct answers and who subsequently never internalize the same go back into the testing room and fail again.
You also write: "Some questions were written to define the bell curve, not to find out what you know." Those questions should NOT be on the test, to begin with. The bell curve is self-defined by the scores of those taking the test. Those scores will fall in along the continuum as long as the test questions are well-written and test for what should have been learned prior to sitting for a given exam. If everyone passes, that is not a bad thing, necessarily, although some would certainly say otherwise.
Shaun Bowler
ArboristSite Operative
So, Sunrise,
Are you going to give up the torch?
How many more ISA Certs. are we going to have to suffer through to prove we know what we are doing?:greenchainsaw:
Are you going to give up the torch?
How many more ISA Certs. are we going to have to suffer through to prove we know what we are doing?:greenchainsaw:
as a test-taker i agree; it is a shame you cannot review. /And re the poor wording, too bad you can't access those questions and ask them, wtf are you after? wish they could make them available but keeping the cert's test integrity inviolate is job 1. the ideal test would grade skills in the field but there is no way to make that uniform internationally.
i never worked on a test committee but have written a couple hundred for other isa formats and yes it is hard writing a good question. it's even hard to write a bad question!
re the carping about cash grabs, compute the pennies/day the cert costs you first, then beyotch. I keep 4 up and do not notice the expense; pales in the big picture.
i never worked on a test committee but have written a couple hundred for other isa formats and yes it is hard writing a good question. it's even hard to write a bad question!
re the carping about cash grabs, compute the pennies/day the cert costs you first, then beyotch. I keep 4 up and do not notice the expense; pales in the big picture.
Sunrise Guy
Addicted to ArboristSite
Not exactly sure I understand about the torch. As far as taking more tests, I'll probably start studying for the muni test once I get the answers to the 23 CUA questions I put in my "wtf?" section on my scrap paper. I'm ordering the utility arborist manual from ACRT. It sounds pretty good, online. The site isn't secure, though, so I'll order it on the phone, come Monday. You might want to check it out, or wait until I have it and then I'll let you know if it's worth the $139.
Tests are good, as they do motivate you to learn more. The trouble is, ISA's testing program is poor, for all of the reasons I've gone over, in previous posts. The studying, though, and the learning is well worth the trouble, at least for me.
Sunrise Guy
Addicted to ArboristSite
(snip)i never worked on a test committee but have written a couple hundred for other isa formats and yes it is hard writing a good question. it's even hard to write a bad question!
(snip)
I'm curious about when, where and why you have written test questions for ISA. Enlighten me. What are your qualifications? I'm honestly wanting to know.
My tests, as a high school Biology and Chemistry teacher, were always very fair and well-written. Other teachers used my tests in their classes, at times. I could write a 100 question CUA test for ISA, right this minute, no lie, that would kick the :censored: out of the test I took two weeks ago. Test writing comes easily to some, and I lucked out, there. The folks who write the questions for ISA exams seem to be all over the place when it comes to uniformity of purpose.
The test writers may be experts in their fields, but that does not make them expert test writers. That is painfully evident to those going through the process of getting certified.
I said:
Sunrise: when you were teaching, you probably had good education as your primary goal. With government and "certification grade" tests, that is not the purpose of the test. These tests are written to pass everyone up to a certain standard, and then reject the rest.
Since there is no reward for getting beyond a passing score, the fail limit is generally set at a 70% passing score, and the test is engineered to eliminate anyone who doesn't know 100% of the bare minimum to do the job.
Sunrise: when you were teaching, you probably had good education as your primary goal. With government and "certification grade" tests, that is not the purpose of the test. These tests are written to pass everyone up to a certain standard, and then reject the rest.
Since there is no reward for getting beyond a passing score, the fail limit is generally set at a 70% passing score, and the test is engineered to eliminate anyone who doesn't know 100% of the bare minimum to do the job.
Well then maybe you could improve things by getting on the cert committee, and showing them how it is done. I'm serious; send them clips to the dept and see what happens.
Most of mine were for ceu articles. the attached are from 3-4 years ago and my very first for isa so they are not an example of the best by any means. but if you want to comment/critique/correct go ahead. the ceu questions are typically written by the authors with ed dept staff. i think these are consistently effective, but i have sent in comments and suggestions, fwiw.
again i have no experience with cert tests themselves aside from making copious scratch pad notes when taking them. unfortunately those committees have to work in a sort of vacuum due to security concerns.
o darn i am at another computer and no access to ceu articles, which i have attached at this site about 8000 times already. seek and ye shall find.
Sunrise Guy
Addicted to ArboristSite
OK, thanks. I have written to Derek Vannice many times and offered to write questions for the exams. He responds with these "slippery" politician-type lines that get me po'd, and I give up, after a while. Each time I deal with ISA National, in matters pertaining to their testing program, I come away from the experience with a resolve to never do so again. Then I get a wild hair, and it starts over. I was thinking about making up an exam from the 2002 CUA guide and sending it to him, but I think it may be a waste of time. While I have grad hours under my belt and a very high GPA at UT, Austin (Hook 'em Horns!-they just beat OU), I am not a PhD, and so I lack "expert credentials." As I posted, before, experts in a given field do not necessarily write expert-quality exams. That is one of ISA's big problems, along with having no system for giving great feedback on missed questions.
While I'm on the subject: Here's my idea about giving feedback on a missed question. I'll be really general here:
Let's take a sample question:
1. When a tree is subjected to XYZ, it will experience:
A. condition 22.
B. condition 23.
C. condition 24.
D. both conditions 22 & 24.
Now, let's say you missed this question on a given ISA exam. For each question missed, it is a very easy matter to program a "learning experience" into each and every question on a given exam. When the scantron marks the item wrong, with the very advanced scantrons out there these days, a "learning experience" coded for the item would print out on a sheet that would be mailed to you with your score. So, let's say the answer is "D." and you missed it. You would receive a sheet that would have on it: "When a tree is subjected to XYZ, it will experience both conditions 22 & 24. (Understand that I'm using letters and numbers for the sake of simplicity. The conditions would actually be written out, such as canopy die-back, chlorosis, veinal necrosis, etc.) You would then actually learn something, provided you studied your "learning experience" list for a while. No cheating or cheapening of the test would take place. You would simply learn what you didn't know, before the test, and then expect to do better on the re-take. Now, I can see someone going into an exam, cold, and figuring, "Hey, I'll just guess at everything and they'll send me what I missed." That person might just pass the exam the second time around, but only if he/she actually goes over the list received and internalizes it. As long as he/she does know the material, now, who is to say that he/she is not deserving of the certification sought?
I took the test once, am scheduled to take it again today. Unfortunately I feel this test is so poorly written the questions don't make sense. Since it is such a specialty test who is in charge of making it and who reviews it? They did a poor job. The questions literally misuse double negatives and are impossible to interpret. If I find the same situation this time around I will attempt to make some sort of complaint to the ISA. As a urban Arborist in a subtropical climate I am surrounded by power lines regularly and come across horrendous situations of tree vine and power. I do not know much about hydro axes and many other things in this field and on this test. I still however could be involved in storm cleanup and line clearance in my urban setting provided I could get the certification. Is there any better prep then the book because it does not cover much of the test.
Similar threads
