Part II

[RecRef]

Am I ever down! Took the Part II last night and I know I bombed it big time. I would say that 90%+ of the questions were brand new and that is based on tests that I have from Â’97 P1&2 up to and including this years part 1. Granted you have to know the rules etc. but this test was convoluted beyond description. I found the IAABO of a few weeks back to be MUCH easier, more sensible, and more realistic in both situations and questions. The again I did get a 47 out of 50 on it.

Well, time to stop feeling sorry for myself and get ready for tonightÂ’s game

[Tim C]

Just remember one thing:

NFHS testing is not so much to show you know the rules but rather the test shows how well you can test. Period.

None of their sports officiating tests have ever really been about knwoing rules.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by RecRef
Am I ever down! Took the Part II last night and I know I bombed it big time. I would say that 90%+ of the questions were brand new and that is based on tests that I have from Â’97 P1&2 up to and including this years part 1. Granted you have to know the rules etc. but this test was convoluted beyond description. I found the IAABO of a few weeks back to be MUCH easier, more sensible, and more realistic in both situations and questions. The again I did get a 47 out of 50 on it.

Well, time to stop feeling sorry for myself and get ready for tonightÂ’s game

I thought it was one of the easier exams the NFHS has had in the past few years. I would say that about 30% of the questions came from last year's Part I and Part II exam. I always study the previous year's exam the day of the test.

A couple of years ago, 82 of the questions came from the previous year's Part I.

[JRutledge]

but this was one of the easiest NF Tests that I have ever taken in my career as an official in 3 sports. There were many repeat questions from previous years and many short and to the point questions. I do not remember a test in any sport where the test did not spill onto the back page. One of the best written tests I have ever taken as an official. Not a lot of garbage that had nothing to do with an actual play. To the point. Short and sweet. I loved this test. I may not have got a 90, but I passed it.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Tim C
Just remember one thing:

NFHS testing is not so much to show you know the rules but rather the test shows how well you can test. Period.

None of their sports officiating tests have ever really been about knwoing rules.

Wait a minute Tim. You might not want to say that. There are folks here that think taking these test prove your totally ability as an official. Watch out for the backlash!!!!

Peace

[zebraman]

RecRef,

If you missed questions because of they way they were worded, don't sweat it. Sometimes I get the feeling that they (NFHS) never have "test subjects" sit down and run through the test to see if it is perhaps worded poorly in places.

If you struggled because you didn't know the rules, just start studying the books a few minutes a day. It will come. This discussion board is great because some of the questions force you to break out the books once in a while to read up on a rule. I believe that is the intention of the NFHS test as well.

Z

P.S. No backlash, but in my experience, the NFHS test does a pretty good job of showing who knows the rules. There are those who ref on what they think they know and others who have spent the time to actually learn the rules. Anyone who has spent much time on these boards knows that's true (BktballRef is rich on all the $5.00 fees he has collected).

[Edited by zebraman on Dec 10th, 2002 at 12:55 PM]

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by zebraman


P.S. No backlash, but in my experience, the NFHS test does a pretty good job of showing who knows the rules. There are those who ref on what they think they know and others who have spent the time to actually learn the rules.

Well you need to prove your ability to grasp the rules, rather than just passing a test. Unfortunately for test takers, you do not make calls on a pink sheet of paper with words and text and questions that are answered with a True or False answer. If that is the case, all False answers should require an essay section to tell us why the question is false. That to me would be a bigger test of rules knowledge that the one we have currently.

Peace

[zebraman]

Rut,

Yes, an essay test would probably be a better way to show rule knowledge (holy cow, did I just agree with you on something about tests?) ..but that would be impractical to say the least. A True/False or multiple choice are probably the only possible ways to distribute and grade a test that is used in such a wide distribution. I believe the Case Book studies are intended to be the "essay" answers to the rules.

Z

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by zebraman
Rut,

Yes, an essay test would probably be a better way to show rule knowledge (holy cow, did I just agree with you on something about tests?) ..but that would be impractical to say the least. A True/False or multiple choice are probably the only possible ways to distribute and grade a test that is used in such a wide distribution. I believe the Case Book studies are intended to be the "essay" answers to the rules.

Z

True it would be impractical. I would not suggest that this is implemented. But that is the point. Because anwswering questions in a true and false nature, only touch the surface of what knowledge can be proved. And if you are only taking a test one time during the year, what the heck are you doing the rest of the year? That is why I have always said that Casebook reading is much more important to knowledge of the rules. That is where the real rulings and application takes place. The Rulebook only touches the surface and lays a foundation, but does not complete the house. That is what the casebook does.

Peace