NAIT Board of Certification
Meeting Minutes: October 31, 2001
Hyatt Regency
Dearborn, Michigan
Present:
- Dr. Dennis Field (Chair)
- Dr. Nicholas Akinkuoye (CCTI Representative)
- Mr. Ed Christy (Industry Representative)
- Mr. John Denny (Industry Representative)
- Dr. Raj Desai (University Representative)
- Mr. Mark Durivage (CCTI Representative)
- Dr. Ronald McBride (University Representative)
- Dr. Mark Miller (Lay Public Representative)
- Mr. Dave Monforton (Certification Officer)
- Dr. Ivan Mosley Sr. (Student Division Representative)
- Dr. Richard Phillips (CCTI Representative)
- Dr. Dru Wilson (Lay Public Representative)
Absent:
- Dr. John Deno (University Representative)
- Mr. Stephen Dunn (Industry Representative)
Welcoming Remarks:
The meeting was called to order at 8:20 a.m.
Minutes of the Previous Meeting:
Approval (or correction, as appropriate) of the minutes of the Board of Certification meeting on November 1, 2000 will be conducted electronically later.
Unfinished Business:
At the last meeting, it was noted that lack of attendance by Board members has been a serious problem. Only three Board members attended the 1998 Board meeting, and only two members attended the 1999 and 2000 Board meetings. An ACTION ITEM was identified during the 2000 Board meeting to work with Dave Monforton and Division Presidents to identify Board members that can make the commitment to attend the meetings. This effort has been successful. Twelve of fourteen Board members (85.7%) attended the 2001 Board meeting.
New Business:
- Policies and procedures:
- A general discussion was undertaken regarding policies and procedures of the Board of Certification. Akinkuoye made a motion that Field and Monforton investigate the opportunity to schedule Board of Certification meeting so that none of the Board of Certification members have NAIT-related conflicts. Seconded by Miller. Passed unanimously.
- Miller made a motion that the Board of Certification meeting be changed from an all-day meeting to a half-day (4-hour) meeting. The motion was seconded by Wilson. Passed unanimously.
- Field noted that the bylaws of the Board require that a public hearing be held at least every three years at the annual NAIT convention to provide the opportunity for input on certification policies, procedures, and standards. Miller made the motion that the Board request that this hearing be scheduled during the luncheon or immediately afterward on either Thursday or Friday of the annual NAIT meeting. Seconded by Denny. Passed unanimously. Denny asked if it would still be possible to schedule an open hearing this year. Field will investigate with Monforton. Wilson made a motion that the public hearing be scheduled every year until further notice. Akinkuoye seconded the motion. Passed unanimously.
- After checking on the meeting schedule and room availability, a public hearing was scheduled for 3:30 on Thursday (11/01/01). The announcement regarding time and location of the public hearing would be made during lunch on Thursday. Monforton suggested that the Board think about having a wrap-up meeting following the public hearing to address any issues that came up.
- Miller moved that the Board of Certification meeting be scheduled to start at 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday of the annual NAIT meeting. He suggested that the Board could have the flexibility to continue the meeting past the scheduled 4-hour time limit as needed. Seconded by Desai. Passed unanimously.
- Core exam content (based on NAIT Accreditation criteria) versus specialty exams (based on program options and tracks):
- Discussion moved to one of core versus specialty exams. Field presented a number of issues related to the core versus specialty exam question, including requests by some NAIT programs for support in developing specialty exams. Dr. John Sutton at Central Missouri State University, in particular, has voiced the opinion that it is imperative for the Board to begin offering "specialization" exams to add to the general Industrial Technology content now covered by the core exam. He notes that State pressures to provide exit assessment results on program graduates are escalating rapidly, and he believes that the only way to meet the need for information is to expand the exam into areas of specialization. Denny suggested that the Board focus on the core exam, that other groups can and do offer specialty exams. Wilson agreed that the Board should focus on the core exam, noting that the Federal Aviation Administration, for example, already offers a number of specialty tests and certifications. Denny also mentioned another example—the Instrument Society of America offers exams for Certified Control Systems Technicians. Denny made a motion the Board concentrate on the core exam. Desai seconded the motion. Passed unanimously.
- There was some discussion regarding how the Board could assist NAIT programs with their specialty exam needs. Perhaps the Board should function as a resource in providing a central location for information collected about specialty exams, including such things as Internet links related to these kinds of exams. Denny made a motion that the Board table action on specialty exams until we have more time to review alternatives. Seconded by Akinkuoye. Passed unanimously. ACTION ITEMS: Christy will look at developing a list of specialty exams for program options. Suggestions are to be sent to him. Field is to be copied on e-mails. Data are needed regarding enrollment by program option for future use in identifying specialty exam priorities. Tim Ross of Eastern Kentucky University may already have this information. Field will follow up on this.
- Discussion turned to 2-year versus 4-year programs and the question of whether the differences in the core body of knowledge between these programs is, or should be, reflected in the certification exam. The concern was expressed that 2-year program students wouldn’t be able to score nearly as well on the exam as 4-year program students. When Field noted that some Community College students had taken the exam already, and the average scores were reasonably competitive with students from 4-year program, questions were raised as to why there wasn’t a larger difference and should there be a significant difference (that is, should the test include content that does differentiate between material covered in a 2-year program versus a 4-year program). Akinkuoye requested time to survey other CCTI stakeholders regarding their views before any action was taken. ACTION ITEM: Akinkuoye will survey other CCTI stakeholders about whether the certification exam content should differentiate between materials covered in 2-year versus 4-year programs.
- A motion was made "that certified NAIT members may receive continuing education credit (PDUs) for developing and teaching (for the first time) an industry training course, workshop or seminar at the rate of 1 PDU for hour of class time for the training course, workshop or seminar." This motion was seconded by Miller. Passed unanimously.
- Quorum:
- A discussion was initiated regarding the number of Board members that must be present to conduct Board business. Since lack of attendance by Board members has been a serious problem in the past, the suggestion was made to reduce the number of members that must be present to constitute a quorum. Currently, a simple majority of the Board (eight of fourteen) constitutes a quorum. McBride made a motion that those Board members attending the meeting (whatever the number) constitute a quorum. A friendly amendment was made by Miller that a minimum of four Board members must be present to constitute a quorum. The motion was seconded. Passed unanimously. Field noted that the Board needs to verify that this decision is not superseded by any other NAIT by-laws.
- Closed versus open book examination:
- After a brief discussion, Denny moved that the exam should remain a closed book exam. Miller seconded the motion. Passed unanimously.
- Discussion of whether the next generation certification exam should be open book or closed book was tabled for a later time.
- Item bank, study guides, & reference list:
- Mosley made the motion that four subcommittees be established to look at the four main certification exam subject categories: (1) Production, Planning, and Control; (2) Quality Control; (3) Safety; and (4) Management and Supervision. The chairs of the subcommittees were to come from the existing members of the Certification Board. Seconded by Wilson. Passed unanimously. The following individuals volunteered to chair the subcommittees.
- Production, Planning, and Control … Dr. Ivan Mosley, Sr. of South Carolina State University
- Quality Control … Dr. Mark Miller of Texas A&M University-Kingsville
- Safety … Dr. Dru Wilson of Central Michigan University
- Management and Supervision … Mr. John Denny of ConAgra Dairy Foods
- The Chairs of the subcommittees committed to reviewing the questions in their section of the examination, developing a test "blueprint" of the existing exam questions, and identifying two reference texts and 10 bulleted recommendations for study areas, by the end of November.
- The subcommittees will also be responsible for putting in place subcommittee members to assist in developing additional test items for an item bank, improving the existing exam, developing multiple parallel forms of the exam, developing study guides, and making recommendations for the next generation certification exam. Miller moved that anyone participating in the work of the subcommittee be recognized for their service by the Board in a manner that would be useful for inclusion in a P&T portfolio. Denny seconded the motion. Passed unanimously.
- Field noted that there are several independent study projects, which involve development of study guides for the certification exam, planned for the spring with students at Iowa State University.
- Dr. John Sinn of Bowling Green State University made a presentation to the Board regarding his recommendations for "core knowledge" of Industrial Technology programs and his proposals for adapting his previous work to serve as study guides.
- His recommendation is that the Board have him compile and present a "startup" set of tools which could be a general study guide, essentially providing an overview of the entire core knowledge system.
- No action was taken on his proposal. There was some concern on the part of Board members regarding potential cost to NAIT of using Dr. Sinn’s materials. The matter was tabled pending work by the four subcommittees.
- Certification exam as an exit exam:.
- Most of the interest in the examination seems to be in its use as a program evaluation tool. Following a brief discussion regarding the continuing need for additional data to evaluate and improve the exam, Denny made a motion that Field discuss with the Executive Board the possibility of requiring the exam as an "information-only" exit exam for all NAIT-accredited schools. Wilson seconded the motion. Passed unanimously.
- Recruiting graduate students:
- Following an overview of graduate student recruiting concerns presented by Field, Wilson made a motion that, with NAIT Executive Board approval, a form will be included with the certification exam packet for students to request program information associated with graduate study at NAIT-member institutions. Miller seconded the motion. Passed unanimously.
Adjournment:
Durivage moved that the meeting be adjourned. Wilson seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 4:05 p.m.