Suggestion for ASLA CLARB

[Jon F.]

I don't know who writes these tests, but I think it would be helpful to those of us who have taken and failed a section (any section), to be told what topic and/or type of questions we are getting wrong.

If I get a question wrong about how to use a scale (obviously an example), but I think I answered it correctly, how am I to know? And the next time I take the test, I'll answer it wrong again!  

According to everyone who took the old formats long ago, ASLA used to offer some feedback. It makes sense that they can't release the actual test since they sometimes recycle questions, but we can't learn unless they tell us what we got wrong!

Since this is all graded by computer, time can't be an excuse to offering feedback. And if I get a 645, I would want to know what questions held me back. 

[Robin S]

Totally agree

[M13]

An idea for CLARB: in the LARE Orientation Guide each exam section content is broken down into categories and bullet pointed sub-subcategories. If, for example there is a question written to test your knowledge of Project Management (30% of Section 1), and specifically "Determine Common Goals and Objectives", and the test taker missed that question, then CLARB should be able to tell them that they missed a question about "Goals &Objectives", or more generically "Project Management".

Said simply: use the Exam Content summary in the Orientation Guide to advise test takers about their areas of weakness.

Good luck!

[Kenneth Brandl]

I believe they could surely use a similar method to SITES AP and LEED exams when giving us feedback. It would score us based upon the topics within the LARE Orientation Guide and then we could be informed of our results at the end of the test rather than 4-6 weeks after the session is over. It would look similar to the jpg attached. That would accomplish what we want as feedback and knowing what we should focus on after a failure and it accomplishes what they want by not giving us the actual answers. 

[Deb]

I am going to write to the "Committee" about suggestion and whys to increase the performance on these exams.  With only a (for example) 68% pass rate on Section 2 and so on, a light bulb should go off to them that there is something wrong in their exams!  It discourages other people from entering into this industry, plus, a lot of money is being spent on repeated exams or perhaps being made!  Sure, there is a small percentage of people who pass one at a time, but why, what is going on for the others who failed!?!  I think their questions on the exam should really come from the reading materials, of course re-word the questions so it is not exact, but hardly nothing comes from the books they suggest to study from.  

[Daniel Jordan]

I sent an email pointing this out to them earlier in the year and listed other exams that give feedback that are of the same general nature with minimum competence in mind (from other fields too). I received a reply that CLARB has an established system that they feel is up to date with standard test procedures and that all grades are final and the feedback provided is the most allowed. They also pointed out that the computer is there to ensure accuracy of grading. I pointed out too that the computer should make providing feedback easier for CLARB. I also pointed out that other exams will provide feedback to test takers that pass in order to show areas that still need improvement. I would like to know what areas I am weak in and I passed my sections this go around. Also you will find that, CLARB, since the LARE is a nonacademic test, meaning that it is not there to teach but rather test the minimum competency of the individual, they do not need to focus on giving details out about your performance beyond the Pass or fail with feedback being a number. So good luck and maybe with more people writing they will revisit this issue and see if there is a better method in which they can provide feedback and still protect the integrity of the exam.  I know it's frustrating so again I think that if more people write in that maybe we can get some changes but until then we just have to keep taking the test and trying our best. 

[WobbleGobbo]

The issue with the reading materials often times becomes memorization rather than truly understanding the theories, or knowing how LAs practice. I passed Section 1 and 2 relying on the reading materials and personal experience. At this point, I don't remember anything I read for the exams, but I continue to retain the knowledge from work, if I don't know something, I grab the reference materials! (Which is why it kind of bothers me that the Graphic Standards -- a reference book, is a recommended reading.) 

I understand it's hard coming up with an exam that would please everyone (you can't), and they are trying to get us onto a certain path (Project Manager, Master Planning, Construction Document, etc.) of Landscape Architecture when in reality, there are so many subsets of LA that many of us won't even get into. 

Part of my personal struggle is to get myself out of the specialty that I had gotten myself into and try to look at everything from a "high-level" in order to pass my exams. But because the exam is the way it is (trying to remain high level and yet trying to get into the weeds on a number of topics), I need to juggle with not letting what I know in details to get in the ways of "high-level" materials.

I think overall, if they are suggesting some study materials -- the exams should reflect more of those study materials, or offer more us updated materials to study on. Or, actually test us on actual experience/how LAs actually practice! It's an expensive process and it's absolutely soul crushing for people to fail them and then having to retake.