Re: Thoughts on eMail writing

October 5, 2000

Reliance on exams is one of the follies of present day education. Currently

there is a giant dialog going on between the Presidential candidates over

testing in the public schools. Tests are wonderful at measuring your

retention of the materials you've been taught in preparation for the test.

In other words, if they teach the TAAS test, which all of them do, then the

student will be able to answer the questions on the TAAS test but not make

change when my checkout total is $1.13 and after they've rung up $2.00

submitted I suddenly present $5.25 to them in payment.

Nowhere do we adequately measure critical thinking and performance abilities

except in structured scenario practice, which takes lots of time,

personpower, and money. But if we really want to know how people are going

to perform in the field, how can we NOT employ the only measurements we know

work? (How do we know they work? Actually, I can't prove they do! I think

they do, but I'm not on any better ground than my CQI friends who rely upon

reported interventions to develop statistical suppositions.)

I expect that there will be several who are quite familiar with standardized

testing who will disagree with me and assert that standardized multiple

choice testing can report a highly correlated prediction of performance in

the field. I don't buy it for one minute. I know of NO standardized tests

measured against field performance. I also know of practically no actually

valid measurements of field performance in an individual as compared to

anything. The existing CQI programs are so primitive and subjective that

none can be relied upon.

CQI managers please reply and prove me wrong. All educators want to know

how our students will perform in the field once certified/licensed. To date,

I know of no valid predictors of performance based upon written exams. If

anybody can tell me of any, I'd appreciate it.

My hypothesis is that enhanced education produces better medics, but I can't

prove it. Can anybody prove or disprove it?

Gene Gandy

October 5, 2000

In a message dated 10/5/00 11:18:12 PM Central Daylight Time, wegandy@...

writes:

<< OK, now here starts the commercial> We at TJC want to work with ALL

people

in the above category to help them get the educational credentials they

deserve. We can do lots for you. We don't care who nor where you are.

We're currently working with a person on an aircraft carrier to get a degree

in Paramedicine. >>

That is awesome!

October 6, 2000

You got me, . Give yourself two on the next quiz!

Chris

October 6, 2000

Gene Gandy wrote:

" My hypothesis is that enhanced education produces better medics, but I can't

prove it. Can anybody prove or disprove it? "

Gene - I hope that no one doubts this. Are we still getting those that do?

(I ask this while I know that you and I have had some folks in years past that

doubted this but I'm just wondering if anyone now can truthfully say they don't

think enhanced education improves any field of endeavor) - It's just kind of a

no-brainer.

>>> wegandy@... 10/05/00 11:39PM >>>

October 6, 2000

Gene - I just realized mentioning a " a no-brainer " might actually be a rather

poor pun regarding education!

>>> ems_elbd@... 10/06/00 09:17AM >>>

Gene Gandy wrote:

" My hypothesis is that enhanced education produces better medics, but I can't

prove it. Can anybody prove or disprove it? "

Gene - I hope that no one doubts this. Are we still getting those that do?

(I ask this while I know that you and I have had some folks in years past that

doubted this but I'm just wondering if anyone now can truthfully say they don't

think enhanced education improves any field of endeavor) - It's just kind of a

no-brainer.

>>> wegandy@... 10/05/00 11:39PM >>>

October 7, 2000

In a message dated 10/6/00 8:23:41 AM Central Daylight Time,

Clgrote126@... writes:

<< You got me, . Give yourself two on the next quiz!

>>

Thanks Chris! I need all the extra help I can get!

October 8, 2000

Gene,

The subject of testing has been discussed at work recently, and several of

my colleagues agreed with your position that testing is no clear indicator

of field performance. I agree but only in a limited sense.

We have all worked with the partner whom we trust and respect, despite the

fact that we know they made a 70 on their state exam, and 10 of their points

came from lucky guesses. These tactile learners can " do " a heck of a lot

better than they can prove on an exam. The other end of the spectrum is the

egghead who made a 98 on his EMT-P exam, but can't read a cardiac monitor.

Face it, the test score only quantifies what percentage of the information

tested the candidate was able to recall at the time he took the test.

I realize that from what I have written so far, one could draw the

conclusion that I am against written and practical testing. Not hardly. I

am against the current system that requires us to spend time and money every

four years on an exam that isn't even called an exam, and means absolutely

nothing.

In regard to the poor test takers, it has been my experience that for every

good medic who can't test there are 20 who also failed the exam about whom

you say a prayer of thanks that they won't be in the field. To put it

another way, for every good test-taker/bonehead medic who passes the test,

there are probably 20 bad test-takers/boneheads who fail and deserve to do

so.

I guess the best way to consider this issue is to measure the candidate by

the one rule that is accepted universally in this line of work: would you

trust the person in question to care for you or your kids. If all other

factors are equal, I'll take the guy who made a 90 over the guy who made a

70 every time.

Steve Pike

Re: [texasems-L] Thoughts on eMail writing