California Surveyors Forums

Please visit: http://www.pels.ca.gov/applicants/ls_test_plan.pdf for a copy of the new Test Plan associated with the State Land Surveyor examination.

This Test Plan is the result of the recent occupation analysis that was conducted a few months ago. Thank you to everyone that took the time to participate as it helps us all.



Ric

I love the PC word applied to multiple guess test answers "distractors".

The term "logical distractor" is not a "PC word" to make those who prepare the exam feel better. It is an accepted method of developing answers for multiple choice (m/c) exams which helps establish a clear division between those who understand and can apply the concepts, and those who cannot. Isn’t that, as professionals what we want and need to ensure that our licensees are qualified in order to protect the public? Well constructed logical distractors will use common misconceptions and common errors. Use of logical distractors actually REDUCES the likelihood a marginally competent candidate will guess a correct answer.

Consider, if you will, a problem evaluating the candidate’s understanding of temperature and tension correction when measuring with a steel tape. The question asks for the distance between points A and B if the measured distance is X, the ambient temperature is Y, and the tension is Z for a tape calibrated at temperature U and tension V. Logical distractors in the provided answers would include various combinations of applying the correction factors incorrectly. A candidate who had a marginal understanding of the concepts could incorrectly apply the correction factors and arrive at an incorrect result that is one of the choices. He thinks he must have done it correctly, so he selects the answer matching his incorrect solution, and shows he does not have a mastery of that subject.

Many people are complaining, and commenting on the change to an all m/c exam format. The current CA PLS exam is an NCEES exam is m/c and CA specific constructive design problem format. As I recall, prior to adopting the current format, the CA PLS exam was a combination of both types, but developed here in CA. The change is the conversion of the constructive design problem format to m/c. If you have a California PLS, chances are you passed an exam that was at least partially m/c. Anyone who is that concerned about the new format should contact BPELSG, and volunteer to help test the new exam. How sure are you that the m/c format is a bad idea, and not indicative of candidates’ abilities? Would you be willing to surrender your current license if you did not pass? What is that old saying? “If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.â€￾

Woodcutter wrote:I didn't see anything in the test plan or occupational survey about these aspects of the profession:

Recognition of yellow jackets & poison oak, negotiating manzanita thickets, knowledge of the benefits of a good pair of vibram soles, bulk purchasing mosquito repellant, driving long distances and climbing steep mountains without forgetting the calculator or prism back at the office, the skill of sacrificing ones body in order to protect the instrument when slipping down the side of a cliff, climbing trees to knock off a limb in the way of a long shot, negotiations with curious bears, claims avoidance with angry bears, knowledge that bears can climb trees too, estimating if one can run faster than ones partner during said bear negotiations, 101 equipment repairs and medical procedures that can be performed with flagging and lathe.

I'm sure there are many more, those are just the quick ones that came to mind.

Aren't those things all covered on the LSIT? On the PLS, we should be testing for the ability to direct others to deal with yellow jackets, bears, traffic, brush busting, and the fact that even though you're not as fast as you once were, and that the younger folks on the crew can outrun you when being chased by a bear, a well swung machete or strategically placed prism pole can reverse that situation in the old slow PLS's favor.

Rob_LS wrote:The term "logical distractor" is not a "PC word" to make those who prepare the exam feel better. It is an accepted method of developing answers for multiple choice (m/c) exams which helps establish a clear division between those who understand and can apply the concepts, and those who cannot. Isn’t that, as professionals what we want and need to ensure that our licensees are qualified in order to protect the public? Well constructed logical distractors will use common misconceptions and common errors. Use of logical distractors actually REDUCES the likelihood a marginally competent candidate will guess a correct answer.

Consider, if you will, a problem evaluating the candidate’s understanding of temperature and tension correction when measuring with a steel tape. The question asks for the distance between points A and B if the measured distance is X, the ambient temperature is Y, and the tension is Z for a tape calibrated at temperature U and tension V. Logical distractors in the provided answers would include various combinations of applying the correction factors incorrectly. A candidate who had a marginal understanding of the concepts could incorrectly apply the correction factors and arrive at an incorrect result that is one of the choices. He thinks he must have done it correctly, so he selects the answer matching his incorrect solution, and shows he does not have a mastery of that subject.

Many people are complaining, and commenting on the change to an all m/c exam format. The current CA PLS exam is an NCEES exam is m/c and CA specific constructive design problem format. As I recall, prior to adopting the current format, the CA PLS exam was a combination of both types, but developed here in CA. The change is the conversion of the constructive design problem format to m/c. If you have a California PLS, chances are you passed an exam that was at least partially m/c. Anyone who is that concerned about the new format should contact BPELSG, and volunteer to help test the new exam. How sure are you that the m/c format is a bad idea, and not indicative of candidates’ abilities? Would you be willing to surrender your current license if you did not pass? What is that old saying? “If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.”

Whatever. Like other forms of this industry we are sacrificing accuracy for speed and reduced cost. Example: When we chained between intersections to do a block closure we would find other surveyor's "tracks" and include them in the survey. When is the last time you walked a centerline looking for other surveyor's "tracks" instead of just those shown on your research maps. Yes, EDM is safer and more accurate, but I have seen chainmen who don't even carry a yo-yo, they just have the inst reshoot the distance for a tenth or two.

Important Note: The New Test Plan is a result of the input from the current CA PLS' whom took the time to complete the Occuptational Anayslis. Nothing more or less. The test plan reflect's the practice of the industry. The items are those that "YOU" deemed necessary to be a PLS.