Re: STC certification program: skeptical curmudgeonlyness, part II

Subject: Re: STC certification program: skeptical curmudgeonlyness, part II
From: Steven Jong <stevefjong -at- comcast -dot- net>
To: Bill Swallow <techcommdood -at- gmail -dot- com>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:34:58 -0400

Interesting idea, Bill. Thanks for the suggestion!

-- Steve

--
Steven Jong, Chairman
STC Certification Commission
http://www.stc.org/education/certification/certification-main

mailto:SteveFJong -at- comcast -dot- net
mobile:978-413-2553

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
-- Margaret Mead

On Oct 24, 2011, at 12:15 PM, Bill Swallow wrote:

> This chicken vs. egg situation is a tough one. Any way to build off
> pre-established accreditation (university department review, etc.) for
> first round certification of reviewers?
>
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Steven Jong <stevefjong -at- comcast -dot- net> wrote:
>> I don't believe I responded to this question from Bill Swallow:
>>
>> I think the heart of the question is: What is the criteria for
>> determining who can be an assessor? How are they chosen/evaluated?
>>
>> Our certification consultant has pointed out a bit of a bootstrapping
>> problem here, which has caused an evolution in our thinking from what I was
>> saying a year ago. The ideal assessors are themselves certified
>> practitioners, and eventually we will have a pool of them to work with. But
>> how do you award the first certifications without certified assessors? My
>> original thought was an all-star panel of assessors, and we may do that if
>> we want to have someone specialize in portions of the candidate packets.
>> What we have for right now is the people who put together the instructions
>> and scoring criteria, because they are the most experienced.
>> We will evaluate the evaluators. Because packets are anonymous and can be
>> split into separate submissions, there are clever ways to inject "test
>> packets," both known good and known bad, into the submission stream.
>> -- Steve
>
> --
> Bill Swallow
>
> Twitter: @techcommdood
> Blog: http://techcommdood.com
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/techcommdood

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Create and publish documentation through multiple channels with Doc-To-Help.
Choose your authoring formats and get any output you may need. Try
Doc-To-Help, now with MS SharePoint integration, free for 30-days.
http://www.doctohelp.com

---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
techwr-l-unsubscribe -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
or visit http://lists.techwr-l.com/mailman/options/techwr-l/archive%40web.techwr-l.com


To subscribe, send a blank email to techwr-l-join -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com

Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
http://www.techwr-l.com/ for more resources and info.

Please move off-topic discussions to the Chat list, at:
http://lists.techwr-l.com/mailman/listinfo/techwr-l-chat


Follow-Ups:

References:
Re: STC certification program: skeptical curmudgeonlyness, part II: From: Steven Jong
Re: STC certification program: skeptical curmudgeonlyness, part II: From: Bill Swallow

Previous by Author: Re: STC certification program
Next by Author: Re: STC certification: what's in it for tech writers?
Previous by Thread: Re: STC certification program: skeptical curmudgeonlyness, part II
Next by Thread: Re: STC certification program - man has this been a long thread!


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads