CCI Test - Discuss

victor · Post by **victor** » Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:51 pm

The CCI test thread is very illuminating. Here we have a group of guys who are preparing for their CCI and we can all see the mental gymnastics as they try get to grips with it. It's no good telling them to chill, it's not the inquisition, the assessors want you to pass, etc etc. I bet they don't think the test is too easy so why, once hindsight sets in, do some want to make it harder?

Mike

Paul Arden · Post by **Paul Arden** » Thu Jul 19, 2012 7:59 pm

Simply because if you make the test harder, Mike, you raise the standard of the candidates and therefore instruction as a whole. For me I'd like to see the level set at a shop professional and/or club coach. There was a time when I thought this was the level, and I know many who still believe this is the level or should be.

For that to be the case I'd like to see a Switch Cast, basic Speys, more presentation casts and competition accuracy knowledge included. Other associations such as AAPGAI include this. I'd also like to see more fault diagnosis. At the end of the day we charge money for our time, that makes us professional whether some like it or not. I would certainly expect my professional casting instructor to be able to teach me a dynamic roll or curve cast, for example.

Cheers, Paul

Lasse Karlsson · Post by **Lasse Karlsson** » Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:08 pm

So we can only teach what is in the test?

Sorry for teaching alot more, and that even before I took any tests....

:p

Cheers
Lasse

Paul Arden · Post by **Paul Arden** » Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:36 pm

The majority of CCI candidates I've examined don't know the dynamic roll. I know because I spend time teaching it afterwards. No dynamic roll means no Spey casts either. Some can make curves, most can't. Most of the guys I've examined in the last few years know competition accuracy, but that could be more to do with the locations I've been testing.

victor · Post by **victor** » Fri Jul 20, 2012 4:55 pm

You could argue that the spey element in the Masters is so basic it should be moved to the CCI and the Masters spey be made more thorough, in fact I wouldn't argue, it's what I would like to see.

Are you saying the current crop of instructors are below standard Paul?

I would say that passing the CCI is just the first step on the instructing ladder and (hopefully) most will want to climb higher afterwards. If you want the basic CCI test to be harder you will have to have the lower step that other associations have (provisional).

Mike

Paul Arden · Post by **Paul Arden** » Fri Jul 20, 2012 9:21 pm

Below who's standard, Mike?

Sage · Post by **Sage** » Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:30 pm

Hi Paul/Mike..

Living on the coast..many of the fly fishers are using spey type casts in the surf.. then the following week they will be in the back blocks hemed in by dense bush..on a spring creek only 10 ft wide ,,all change casting wise..

Regards Mac

Bernd · Post by **Bernd** » Sat Jul 21, 2012 7:30 am

Hi Mike,
personally I would want the test to be:
a) performing the cast
b) explaining the cast
c) teaching the cast
As an examiner I would want to be allowed to choose which one I might choose to check on each task.
And if I would want it may happen that I ask for all three of them on one or more tasks.

In my experience many exams (talking about all organisations here) often have been too much focused on casting and too less on teaching itself.
Following the title/headline opposite should be the case!?

I would not want to change the minimum level of casting skills being necessary to pass the test but instead put more focus on teaching.

Teaching a beginner does not require huge casting skills but indeed very good (the same as for teaching very advanced students) teaching skills in my book.
I don't like the idea that teaching a beginner takes less abilities than teaching a Master. Actually it's the beginner who neeeds perfect teaching cause he/she cannot identify bad teaching at all! The Master will be able to seperate already and choose what may help and what not.

I don't think this would make the whole test harder but more practical in regard of the job after the test!

Greets
Bernd

victor · Post by **victor** » Sat Jul 21, 2012 7:55 am

I think your standards rise, or at least your instructing abilities rise, after you have passed the test and you start to instruct . You don't suddenly become a good instructor by becoming certified, although it does boost your instructing confidence. The CCI just shows you know and can explain the basics and are ready to move on to the next level.

You could look at preparing for the CCI as a gestation period and passing is the birth, you have all the equipment now you have to learn to use it.

Mike

Bernd · Post by **Bernd** » Sat Jul 21, 2012 8:31 am

Mike, I pretty well can agree with that. On other hand how about those who just aim for a paper telling them they are pretty good casters and knowing some about fly casting?
From my experience it seems to be fair saying there is a fair amount of candidates who do not really plan on teaching at all.

But the list of instructors should help those looking for serious help in teaching, right?

I think adding more teaching would help to make candidates focus even more on the teaching side of the story which to me will always be the most important one at all.

Paul Arden · Post by **Paul Arden** » Sat Jul 21, 2012 11:24 pm

Bernd,

GAIA do as you say and ask you to teach certain tasks picked at random. With AAPGAI you have to teach them all. With FFF the way many examine it, it's only the last seven tasks or so. I know you and I see similar on how to examine. Personally I think the whole exam should be explain, teach and demonstrate. The argument against this, is that it takes too long. In which case I say charge more, take longer and do it properly.

Cheers, Paul

Paul Arden · Post by **Paul Arden** » Sat Jul 21, 2012 11:29 pm

The CCI just shows you know and can explain the basics and are ready to move on to the next level.

In this case the AAPGAI system of Provisional, Advanced and Masters is far superior. Coupled with a mentoring and education scheme this I believe is the correct instructor model.

Cheers, Paul

Aitor · Post by **Aitor** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 11:37 am

Paul Arden wrote:
The CCI just shows you know and can explain the basics and are ready to move on to the next level.

In this case the AAPGAI system of Provisional, Advanced and Masters is far superior. Coupled with a mentoring and education scheme this I believe is the correct instructor model.

Cheers, Paul

The PAIL system is similar. It has three levels and "instructor" is the last one. In this way you avoid the paradox of other certifications in which most candidates go for the instructor test not at the end of their studies but at the beginning instead.

Paul Arden · Post by **Paul Arden** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 10:31 pm

I don't think we have many - if any - taking AAPGAI as a casting badge, Aitor, for one thing it's all about professional teaching and another is that it is relatively expensive to become qualified. The three levels are all instructor levels.

Maybe casting badges make sense nowadays. Obviously there is interest in it and it's no doubt potentially good for instruction.

Cheers, Paul

easterncaster · Post by **easterncaster** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 11:07 pm

Casting badges .... as in adult merit badges for being a good caster... gold star for adults ?

Craig

The Archived Board

The Archived Board

CCI Test - Discuss

CCI Test - Discuss

Who is online