Institute of Professional Editors

Appendix A

ACCREDITATION BOARD

Resolutions on the accreditation exam

Sunday 27 January 2008

Resolution of outstanding exam issues

Resolved: That a moderation session (via teleconference), with lead assessors from each state, will be held after each exam, to discuss a range of acceptable answers to exam questions.

Resolved: That it should be emphasised that the exam will be based on ASEP.

Resolved: That the rationale for the 80% pass mark should be explained and communicated to societies.

Resolved: That Part 1 should include multiple-choice questions (up to 15% of the overall mark).

Resolved: That all assessors be asked to contribute two multiple-choice questions (with answers and marking guide) to Part 1, and to make suggestions (with marking guides) for other parts of the exam (e.g. scenarios for Part 3). The aim is to build up a bank of material to assist exam developers.

Resolved: That unless applicants state otherwise (and provide justification for their nomination), the Style Manual will be the assumed authority for the exam. A note to this effect will be included in the exam guidelines (applicants).

Resolved: That allowance should be made, on a case-by-case basis, for applicants with a disability.

Resolved: That AB delegates should liaise with the Exam Coordinator about special arrangements for applicants with a disability, so that a consistent approach is taken.

Resolved: That there be no requirement for applicants to have a nominated number of years' industry experience.

Resolved: That applicants be instructed to focus on correcting errors rather than rewriting/improving sentences in Part 1.

Resolved: That any introduced errors in exams be considered by assessors at the moderation stage.

Resolved: That allocation of marks and structure of exam should be as follows:

• Part 1: 25% (including multiple choice)
• Part 2: 35% (one compulsory passage, considerably shorter than that in the sample exam, general in nature, and requiring minimal structural editing, with explicit instructions to applicants on what they are expected to do)
• Part 3: 40% (four questions from a choice of 12)*

* This resolution was later amended, see below

Resolved: That only one copy of the passage for editing (Part 2) be provided in the exam, but that it be presented double-spaced and in a reasonably large font; also, that scribble paper be provided for applicants, and that applicants be encouraged to use pencils and erasers.

Resolved: That in Part 3 questions be open-ended (e.g. instead of saying ‘Write a letter', say ‘Explain what you would do. Write down your conversation, email or other communication strategy'), and all questions be of roughly equal difficulty.

Resolved: That a subcommittee investigate the feasibility of offering computer-based/online exam options and report back in writing to the AB, by mid-February.

Resolved: That an AB teleconference be held on 24 February to consider subcommittee report on computer-based/online exam options and make decision.

Resolved: That four months' notice of the first exam be given (as advertised in CredAbility 6), and that the AB should continue to aim for a June/July first exam.

Exam brief: instructions to Assessors Forum

Resolved: That a brief for exam developers be drafted, for review by AB, by mid-February.

Resolved: That the team responsible for developing the exam should be:

• One writer (using contributions from all assessors) to prepare first draft
• Three reviewers
• One person to proofread and do a time trial

Resolved: That the number of people who see the exam be limited to six (development team and Exam Coordinator).

Resolved: That, if finances permit, the exam development team be brought together for a face-to-face meeting.

Resolved: That the writer and (ideally) at least one reviewer have experience in setting editing exams.

Resolved: That the AB appoint the exam development team in March, to allow exam development in April.

Thursday 7 February 2008

Resolution of outstanding exam issues

Resolved: That Part 3 should offer applicants 12 questions to choose from: eight of a general nature (accessible to all applicants), and four of a specialist nature.

Resolved: That the AB issue, in CredAbility 7 and in the guidelines, the following statement explaining the 80% pass mark, as prepared by RO (see under item 4, January 2008 minutes):

How is the exam scored? What is the pass mark?

The exam is scored either Pass or Fail. The pass mark is 80% of the total number of marks available in the exam. Since the exam is a test of competence (not excellence) in applying Australian Standards for Editing Practice (2001), the Accreditation Board expects that a competent editor with two to three years' experience, or equivalent, would score well above the pass mark.

Timing of first exam for 2008

Resolved: That the first exam be held at the end of July 2008.

Wednesday 5 March 2008 [via email]

Pass mark and allocation of marks

Resolved: That candidates will be required to pass at least 65% in each part and 80% of the total marks available in the exam.

Resolved: That allocation of marks and structure of exam should be as follows:

• Part 1: 20% (including multiple choice)
• Part 2: 40% (one compulsory passage, considerably shorter than that in the sample exam, general in nature, and requiring minimal structural editing, with explicit instructions to applicants on what they are expected to do)
• Part 3: 40% (four questions from a choice of 12)