NAIT Board of Certification

Meeting Minutes: November 6, 2002

Marriott Bay Point Resort Village

Panama City Beach, Florida

Present:

  1. Dr. Dennis Field (Chair)
  2. Mr. Ed Christy (Industry Representative)
  3. Dr. Ronald McBride (University Representative)
  4. Dr. Mark Miller (Lay Public Representative)
  5. Mr. Dave Monforton (Certification Officer)
  6. Dr. Richard Phillips (CCTI Representative)
  7. Dr. Dru Wilson (Lay Public Representative)
  8. Dr. Sheila Rowe (guest)
  9. Mr. John Reese (guest)

 

Absent:

  1. Dr. Nicholas Akinkuoye (CCTI Representative)
  2. Mr. John Denny (Industry Representative)
  3. Dr. Raj Desai (University Representative)
  4. Mr. Stephen Dunn (Industry Representative)
  5. Mr. Mark Durivage (CCTI Representative)
  6. Open  (Student Division Representative)

 

Welcoming Remarks:

The meeting was called to order at 1:10 p.m.

 

Minutes of the Previous Meeting:

The minutes of the Board of Certification meeting in Dearborn, Michigan on October 31, 2001 were unanimously approved. Motion by Phillips, second by Miller.

 

Unfinished Business:

  1. Attendance was down from last year. There continues to be a need to work with Dave Monforton and the Division Presidents to identify Board members that can make the commitment to attend the meetings.
  2. At the last Board meeting, there was discussion regarding 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 (open): Akinkuoye will survey other CCTI stakeholders about whether the certification exam content should differentiate between materials covered in 2-year versus 4-year programs.

-          COMMENTS: Both Phillips and Rowe suggested that perhaps the difference should be in the levels of complexity/taxonomy, rather than in content.

  1. Core exam content (based on NAIT Accreditation criteria) versus specialty exams (based on program options and tracks).

-          ACTION ITEM (completed): Christy developed a list of specialty exams for program options (Click here to veiw attached).

  1. Item bank, study guides, & reference list

-          Four subcommittees were established at the Board meeting in 2001 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.

ú          Production, Planning, and Control … Dr. Ivan Mosley, Sr. of South Carolina State University

ú          Quality Control … Dr. Mark Miller of Texas A&M University-Kingsville

ú          Safety … Dr. Dru Wilson of Central Michigan University

ú          Management and Supervision … Mr. John Denny of ConAgra Dairy Foods

-          ACTION ITEM (open): The Chairs of the four 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. 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. Anyone participating in the work of the subcommittee will be recognized for their service by the Board in a manner that would be useful for inclusion in a P&T portfolio.

-          Look to the divisions for content experts and question development and submission. There should be an attempt to make the questions more generic (my interpretation) and less like they came straight off someone’s Mid-Term or Final exam.

 

New Business:

  1. Policies and procedures:

-          The hearing to provide for public input on certification policies, procedures, and standards is scheduled for 4 – 5:30 Friday afternoon.

-          The 1:00 p.m. Wednesday start time of the Board meeting was implemented this year.

-          The request was made by Reese to revisit PDU requirements for industry people. Could we consider college credits or workshops and SME short courses as contributing toward PDUs?

  1. Certification exam

-          Tim Ross from Eastern Kentucky University completed his research project. Additional data from approximately 600 examinees was added to the database as a result of Tim’s project. This brings the sample size up enough to begin Item Response Theory analysis of the data.

-          Sheila Rowe of North Carolina A&T discussed the results of her dissertation research, which involved responses from business, industry, and academia with respect to what should be the core content for Industrial Technology certification.

-          Proposed actions include:

ú          Reduction of the number of subsections from four to three by incorporating Safety questions into the Management and Supervision subsection.

ú          Increase reliability by eliminating known “problem” questions.

ú          Potentially post a survey on the NAIT website to gather information regarding content areas and taxonometric levels.

ú          Finalize a proposed updated exam blueprint and send out to Department Chairs of Industrial Technology programs for comment. Ask them to check course syllabi and assess how well the curricula match up to the proposed exam content. In any case, a letter should go out to all interested parties explaining what we are trying to do.

ú          Complete study guides.

ú          Continue to explore ways to encourage all Industrial Technology students to complete the exam prior to graduation.

ú          Reese suggested that, in concept, the certification exam should be broad enough to measure the competency of the Industrial Technology graduate. The comment was also made that nobody “teaches” to the SME Certified Manufacturing Technologist exam, but people still take it and pass it.

 

Adjournment:

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 4:00 p.m.