(Note: Supplemental Activities are no longer a part of the testing process. This article has only historical value.)
Last week, I introduced the idea of Supplemental Activities. This week, we will take a look at the philosophy and design of an activity. We will also look at a real activity and break down the structure as it is presented to a candidate.
Designing a Supplemental Activity
Now that we know what areas we will focus on, we have to design activities to target them which leads us to the question: What makes for a good Supplemental Activity?
1. Action
Sitting and thinking about a quality isn’t enough, we expect the candidate to put their skills to use. While we want to make sure that the candidate really has to engage in the activity, more esoteric skills may need to draw on a broader base of experiences. Depending on the activity, this part is sometimes implied or actually occurs before the activity officially starts.
2. Reflection
The candidate should process their experience and draw conclusions about the applicable skills. Although never explicit, a candidate will have a hard time being successful without properly reflecting on their performance and development during the activity.
3. Presentation
The candidate must present their thoughts in some format to be evaluated. This usually takes the form of an essay, review, e-mail exchange, at event performance, or seminar. It is not enough to simply do something, as a learning activity it is important that the candidate is able to articulate their improved understanding of the quality.
4. Evaluation and Oversight (Supervising Judge)
Although not the candidate’s responsibility, this is a very important part of the activity. A Level 3+ judge or the candidate’s Regional Coordinator is assigned to oversee and determine the success of each activity. If a candidate submits an activity as complete and the supervising judge disagrees, the Supplemental Activities Committee will review the activity and rule on completion.
A good Supplemental Activity challenges the candidate to grow and improve, then gives the candidate an opportunity to demonstrate their improvement in a concrete manner. It also sets down clear criteria for success so that both for the candidate and the supervising judge know what is being evaluated.
The Anatomy of a Supplemental Activity
Now that we have a good idea of how Supplemental Activities come together, let’s take a look at a Supplemental Activity as it is presented to a candidate, then we’ll talk about how we tailor them to each individual. Let’s look at a recent Supplemental Activity:
|
Supplemental Activity #2 – Assessment of Other Judges Supervising Judge – Jason Flatford Write at least three reviews from a single Grand Prix event, including at least one of a Level 3+ Judge. The review of the Level 3+ should focus on at least five of the official traits of Level 3 judges and should identify both strengths and areas for improvement. Upon completion, please send the review ID numbers to Jason. Jason will determine success by evaluating the reviews for content, accuracy and insight. |
There is a lot here so let’s take it one piece at a time.
- Supplemental Activity #2 – Assessment of Other Judges
This identifies the quality that the activity is designed to help the candidate improve and gives the activity an identifying number for easy reference.
- Supervising Judge – Jason Flatford
The supervising judge for each activity is responsible for overseeing and evaluating the candidate’s performance in the activity. The supervising judge will ultimately determine whether the candidate successfully completed the activity. In this case, Jason Flatford will be responsible for the evaluation, as well as staying in touch with the candidate about their progress. Supervising judges can be any Level 3+ judge, but are often panel members, Regional Coordinators, experts in certain areas, or other judges with a specific interest in the candidate.
- Write at least three reviews from a single Grand Prix event, including at least one of a Level 3+ Judge. The review of the Level 3+ should focus on at least five of the official traits of Level 3 judges and should identify both strengths and areas for improvement. Upon completion, please send the review ID numbers to Jason.
The meat of the activity is the description. This should clearly lay out what is expected of the candidate to complete the activity.
- Jason will determine success by evaluating the reviews for content, accuracy and insight.
Finally, it is important to provide context for what constitutes success and what the supervising judge should be focusing on during evaluation. In this case it is the content of the reviews and the judge’s ability to collect and deliver relevant feedback that will guide me in determining whether the activity is successfully completed.
The overall goal of the format of the activities is to provide the candidate with a concrete, achievable activity as well as criteria for success. While this activity is event specific and will probably take no more than a couple of weeks from start to finish, all Supplemental Activities are designed to be able to be completed within a maximum time frame of a six months.
Supplemental Activities Review
The final list of Supplemental Activities is submitted as a review by the Supplemental Activities Adviser.The list of activities is also posted as a Google Doc for the supervising judges to use to communicate and coordinate. Progress and completion of activities are kept up to date by the supervising judges using the comments feature with the Supplemental Activities Adviser overseeing them and keeping an eye on the big picture.
So we’ve covered a lot in the first two weeks, but there’s still one more left to go. See you next week when we talk about how candidates go about completing their activities and becoming Level 3!