TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
-- Margaret Mead
On Oct 24, 2011, at 12:15 PM, Bill Swallow wrote:
> This chicken vs. egg situation is a tough one. Any way to build off
> pre-established accreditation (university department review, etc.) for
> first round certification of reviewers?
>
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Steven Jong <stevefjong -at- comcast -dot- net> wrote:
>> I don't believe I responded to this question from Bill Swallow:
>>
>> I think the heart of the question is: What is the criteria for
>> determining who can be an assessor? How are they chosen/evaluated?
>>
>> Our certification consultant has pointed out a bit of a bootstrapping
>> problem here, which has caused an evolution in our thinking from what I was
>> saying a year ago. The ideal assessors are themselves certified
>> practitioners, and eventually we will have a pool of them to work with. But
>> how do you award the first certifications without certified assessors? My
>> original thought was an all-star panel of assessors, and we may do that if
>> we want to have someone specialize in portions of the candidate packets.
>> What we have for right now is the people who put together the instructions
>> and scoring criteria, because they are the most experienced.
>> We will evaluate the evaluators. Because packets are anonymous and can be
>> split into separate submissions, there are clever ways to inject "test
>> packets," both known good and known bad, into the submission stream.
>> -- Steve
>
> --
> Bill Swallow
>
> Twitter: @techcommdood
> Blog: http://techcommdood.com
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/techcommdood
Create and publish documentation through multiple channels with Doc-To-Help.
Choose your authoring formats and get any output you may need. Try
Doc-To-Help, now with MS SharePoint integration, free for 30-days. http://www.doctohelp.com
---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-
