|
My 2 cents worth on this. I hold both the NCDE as well as the NCLP and was on the Novell Advisory Council for 6 years.
During that time, we had this debate several times. What it came down to is, "How much knowledge do you have to demonstrate to show you can perform at an acceptable level?" Paper (and their electronic equivalent) tests are fine for concept testing at the lower level of certification. However, at the higher levels proving that you can actually do something through a practicum exam is better. Yes, we will have to come up with enough scenarios to make it challenging. If they can perform the tasks in the scenario, doesn't that mean they can do the same in real life? The only alternative to this kind of "prove you can do it" testing is to require real life experience and how do you verify that?
I don't see that an increased test fee associated with a practicum exam is a problem. The professionals will come forward and prove their worth. Just look at the number of similar exams out now. I think it is worth the time and effort.
Let's get on with topic building. That will lead to scenario building and a real test of candidate's knowledge. If we find that a practicum is not practical, we build the questions from the topics.
 Bob Stevens,
Novell CLE, CDE, MCNE, CNI LPI - 1 Mirapoint - MCE, RCE President www.blendedsystems.com voice - 770-603-0300 cell - 678-596-8817 Blended Systems - Putting Best of Breed Technology to work for your business. >>> On 6/15/2006 at 3:21:29 pm, in message < [EMAIL PROTECTED] >, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Thu, 2006-06-15 at 19:27 +0200, Dimitrios Bogiatzoules, LPI Product > Developer wrote: >> ross brunson said the following on 15.06.2006 16:15: >> [...] > > FYI, I didn't get Ross' message. > >> Ross, I appreciate your comments! Would you be so kind to extract the >> information of yours and the other e-mails about this discussion to this >> page? >> https://group.lpi.org/cgi-bin/publicwiki/view/Examdev/ExamTypeDiscussion >> We should document what we learn though this thread in the wiki so that >> people that step in later can see do that easier than by reading tons of >> e-mails... > > I'm sorry, but I _disagree_strongly_ with debating pros/cons "form v. > hands-on" any further -- mailing list or forum. Why? > 1. Narrow-minded -- it's more than 2 views > 2. Subjective -- we aren't going to agree anytime soon > 3. Distraction -- we have _other_ priorities > And that's _before_ we even consider the cost, time, etc... > > In reality, watching a subjective "versus" debate between allegedly the > "only two sides" is as frustrating as watching an election debate here > in the US between Democrat and Republican candidates (I'm sure those in > other countries have their similar parties). It's _never_ productive, > it _ignores_ countless, _real_ issues (again, "narrow-minded" > assumptions) and it is a _distraction_ from real goals at hand. > > With that said, we _have_ received several _sound_ ideas about > _improving_ the existing testing process. These are already _proven_ > with several, existing exams for computer-based testing. To review ... > A. Reference booklet for exam > B. Virtual and remote simulation > > "A" is used by professional examinations all-the-time. I took the EI > (Engineering Intern) examination back in 1995 and I was given a > reference manual. A copy before I took it for familiarity and a copy > when I sat the exam. At level 3, we shouldn't be asking Bloom's > Knowledge-level anyway -- and any "booklet" we come up with should and > could be the _exact_same_ used across _all_ LPI exams. > > "B" is used by Novell for the CDE (Certified Directory Engineer) and CLE > (Certified Linux Engineer) programs. It cuts the cost of infrastructure > way down. It's still a high cost, but far more doable, and can use > Prometric and View testing centers, or other partners for non-North > American/European centers. > > I don't mean to be so "strong-headed" on this, but it seems like we are > _not_ be "constructive" or "productive." We are arguing the format and > other things and not looking at the real and _immediate_ goals in front > of us. > > I'm not in total agreement that the "focus" is correct either. We're > already trying to stuff more and more concepts -- like Windows desktop > support -- into a _limited_ set of "advanced" level questions that are > really designed to _specific_ and not "as broad" as LPI 100 or 200 > exams. Leave those for a future "Desktop" exam that might be a 300 or > other option. Focus on Samba services for now. > > With that said, I really don't like the concept of a "Samba" only exam. > It should be on enterprise network file services, which includes Samba. > That means I've got a Linux file server, and I have to service all sorts > of clients, with all sorts of interoperability issues. That means the > greater issue is bigger than just Samba (let alone just Windows > clients), but how Samba services work with other services for _all_ > types of clients. > > Same deal with "LDAP." Networking authentication and naming are very, > very important details to directory services. > > There will be some overlap between authentication/directory/naming > (e.g., LDAP) and file/print (e.g., Samba) already. We need to write > those objectives and realize where that line is and do _not_ cross it. > Point out where those objects are outside the focus and save them for > _another_, possible exam focus. We have to be specific and "advanced" > level without dropping into too broad of a discussion. > > Because from these objectives we have to write _tasks_. > And the tasks _are_ the exam. ;-> > |
_______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
