Looking towards the future?

mystic rob sees all,knows all.i foresee many requests for adequate training,meaningful qualifications and the like.i also see the ministry taking one look at all of the above,realising they aint got the staff to do it and introducing it by devolving the relevant costs etc onto us cos they aint got a pot to pi$$ in so be careful what you wish for.keep in mind that the future is mutable and I only have one crystal ball for which I am now gonna have to buy yet another battery pack....

please think about this,we complained about all the above under(and to a large extent about)the old 5 yr training regime.what did we get?less technical information and an annual exam that is equally useless and that we now have to pay for.most of you out there will(or have)used snap on tools,these gift you with the ability to see the future at least to a limited extent.use that ability.

wish in one hand,sh1t in the other...

I agree with all the above, just wanted to add we are supposed to be trained and professional and experienced enough to know what we are talking about.

If dvsa want less testing stations Dynamo then it might be a good start to stop authorising so many in the first place. It's insane how many stations have been approved over the last few years.

I agree fully with you David but I also agree fully with lonewolf



But one contradicts the other!

Wally

those of you with sparkys/gas fitters etc for mates ask em about ehic/gasafe and the like,the net end result of their introduction was to drive up costs for the guys concerned and increase revenues for the people administering it.it costs a gas fitter/sparky nearly 50quid just to certify a new cooker with a bayonet fitting and a fooking chain for Christ sake,most of that being essentially insurance,most of the cowboys are still in the game,the legit guys just got more sh1te.all this is the beginning of our game going down the same route.

OK . Given this was the first year I guess it to up to the designers and commissioners of the test if have deemed it as a success. Noone I have ever met likes sitting tests or revising. Sadly, Life long learning is the order of the day . As a starter it was fine but should have been treated as a trial/pilot...why? well here is my starter for ten.To continue in the same format as this year I suggest

1) Publish what the control group size was that undertook the test. I say this after undertaking this years test one day after it was announced. there was obvious inaccuracies (which I reported) which did little to assure the candidates.

2) Use modern issues/dilemmas -- for example how many testers encounter British American headlights ?? Keep it current keep it realistic. If the 40 year exemption does come in then review the manual and give classic cars an annex or change the test conditions. But use everyday issues not once in a blue moon (that is why you have a manual !!)

3)the test structure-- situational judgement questions are better suited to a more visual medium. The test is backward in that respect, most modern situational judgement tests using multi media not written format which can be misinterpreted. Relying on ambiguities and/or playing with the English language to get a score spread that would please occupational Psychologists does not make a good test of technical practical ability. Multi choice by its nature is a test that requires a variance of answers and therefore a score spread in which marginally correct answers attract marks.If the MOT test is a pass fail then there can only be a right or wrong answer . P&A is difficult to measure unless the questions are tilted towards this outcome. The medium used is not future proof and is a cheap system.

4) the cost- this years excuses surrounding the test was that it was the first year and needed to bed in...I take it the tests were bench tested in full? if so there would or should have been no anomalies. There should have been Nil cost during the first year if not two whilst the format and style had been tested and proved to be in keeping with what they were trying to achieve.

5) the test pass mark SHOULD NOT be increased until all the issues have been ironed out.

6) Test security-- questionable in the extreme. Anyone could sit the test I would be interested to learn if the results increased as the months went by. I say this as a number of the questions were openly displayed on the internet. I would suggest a more restricted security system be introduced.

Next years syllabus has allegedly been leaked ..if correct this cannot be right under any circumstance. this is against all protocols of examination or training rules. If the syllabus is released it MUST be released to everyone at the same time .If not then state clearly everyone has to go through a training company.

7) That it is CPD a continuous professional development not a cram 3 hours and sit a test.

Yes Ivor. all this is possible if the investment was available along with interactive assessments where film clips are shown with choices (if they want to go down that route), all of which has been around for several years (I should know I worked in the field)...as I say this one is a cheap old style test . Multi choice question tests in this form usually form part of a sifting process prior to more comprehensive tests being applied.

I would be against raising any pass mark until they have ironed out the issues of this year and listened to feedback...remember it is us who pay for the privilege. This is why I was against everyone crowing about the huge scores they were getting..... and why I would be very interested to see the score spreads month on month given the issues I outlined in point (6) of my post.