Part 1 Exam

[zoom]

I received an email today from my state association (Wisconsin) the pertinent part of which says "From the NFHS:  #65 is bad a bad question ...."

Too late around here.  Exams were due more than a week ago.  I still never saw an official release, even though I heard the same thing 2 weeks ago.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[Jackhammer]

Too late around here.  Exams were due more than a week ago.  I still never saw an official release, even though I heard the same thing 2 weeks ago.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

It's a fine question....it's the reported correct/incorrect answer that's the problem.

[KWH]

It's a fine question....it's the reported correct/incorrect answer that's the problem.

+1

[zoom]

+1

I actually don't think it is a very good question.  The aim of the question was to test the knowledge of penalty enforcement as well as the IW rule. Since it is out of date, the question is asking officials to answer true for two reasons.  It will never identify if officials know that IWs are ignored if a penalty is accepted.  If they don't know that, they would answer true for the wrong reason.  If the test taker knows that it IS ignored, the down would still be repeated since OPI carries no loss of down.  Unless someone overthinks it or hasn't cracked a rulebook since 2011, they can never answer false on this one.  Test items are not meant to be trick questions, and this one certainly was not written to be a trick question.  It is simply a question from the test bank that should have been purged but unfortunately was missed the volunteers, who otherwise do a great job year after year.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[prab]

I actually don't think it is a very good question.  The aim of the question was to test the knowledge of penalty enforcement as well as the IW rule. Since it is out of date, the question is asking officials to answer true for two reasons.  It will never identify if officials know that IWs are ignored if a penalty is accepted.  If they don't know that, they would answer true for the wrong reason.  If the test taker knows that it IS ignored, the down would still be repeated since OPI carries no loss of down.  Unless someone overthinks it or hasn't cracked a rulebook since 2011, they can never answer false on this one.  Test items are not meant to be trick questions, and this one certainly was not written to be a trick question.  It is simply a question from the test bank that should have been purged but unfortunately was missed the volunteers, who otherwise do a great job year after year.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

I think that this pretty much says it all!     +1

[Ralph Damren]

This debate brings back memories of my first year on the Editorial Committee (1999). My fellow committee members and I were asked to submit 25 true/false questions for the exam.
I did. the then editor, Jerry Diehl, called me and asked : "You are not an educator ,are you?"
I replied : "Nope, why do you ask ?"
"Our test is intended to test the knowledge of officials, not to trick them. Of your 25 submitted questions, 21 are false. ", Jerry replied.
I realized then ,that I wasn't trying to test my fellow officials - but to trick them .
Only 4 of my questions were used .
I learned my lesson.
The following year 19 were used.

 

[Jackhammer]

I actually found the question to be stimulating.

It caused me to think about those conditions in which the down was repeated.  My first thought was, oh, this question was to remind all those folks who "hadn't cracked a book since 2011" to remember that the LOD provision was removed from OPI.  That's why I say it's a fine question.

The purported correct/incorrect answer was also stimulating, but in different ways that aren't productive.

But, hey it's all okay, I still haven't worked a perfect game....

[zoom]

I actually found the question to be stimulating.

It caused me to think about those conditions in which the down was repeated.  My first thought was, oh, this question was to remind all those folks who "hadn't cracked a book since 2011" to remember that the LOD provision was removed from OPI.  That's why I say it's a fine question.

The purported correct/incorrect answer was also stimulating, but in different ways that aren't productive.

But, hey it's all okay, I still haven't worked a perfect game....

I agree that, for the sake of 2017, that the discussion of this question is for strictly academic purposes.  The trouble is that, despite the best efforts of the wonderful volunteers that work so diligently to vet these questions, some still slip through.   I would suggest that a select group of officials who are not on the rules committee should serve on an exam committee.  Unencumbered by expectations from having sat in on the debate over new rules, an exam committee would be better able to catch simple errors like this one.  Just like state study guides, such as in Georgia, which release groups of potential questions to officials in advance of the test, problem questions can be removed through a comment period before the test items make it into the Part I test.  Making quality exam questions is VERY difficult to do well.  But there are good techniques out there in other fields, and I see room for improvement in the NFHS exam process.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[KWH]

Do to the secrecy of Refstripes  Y'all will just have to guess which one I missed.

[VALJ]

I stinking hate the English questions, rather than the football questions.   

[Rulesman]

Do to the secrecy of Refstripes the NFHS, along with their position on copywrited material, Y'all will just have to guess which one I missed.

FIFY 

[prab]

With the possible exception of the use of "all of the answers are correct" and "none of the answers are correct", the Part 2 exam is straight forward with no controversial or misleading questions.

Good luck to all who are required to complete Part 2.