[lpi-discuss] Principles for creation of exam objectives
mark.miller at lpi.org
Mon Jul 25 13:22:41 EDT 2005
On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 17:05 +0200, Torsten Scheck wrote:
> Mark Miller wrote:
> Exactly. And therefore we need to write down these "fundamental
> principles". And if we also collect all the reasons for those
> principles, we will save a lot of discussion time in the future.
We are still defining these principles. As to the basic JTA principles
they are well documented in the training industry.
> I'm aware that LPI is training-vendor independent. But according to
> LPI is about more than just assessing KSAs:
> * Create industry recognition
> * Provide an organizational path for students
> * Provide an organizational mechanism for training centers
> * Enhance marketing
> * Counter the "no-support" argument
> * Turn students into advocates
> * Provide other means of employment for Linux skilled individuals
> * Recruit new Linux users
> * Assist in the hiring process
As Scott noted in another message we do not now have anything like the
resources needed or the support of the board to pursue this in any way.
The reality is that this (and more) remains a goal and we are still at
the point of being absorbed with test development and delivery. Right
now (as a byproduct of what we do) these things tend to happen but we
have not in any major way driven any of them.
> So, it's all about supporting everyone in their learning process. Not by
> providing the actual training, but by providing and promoting the path.
I still disagree. The only "path" is our objectives. We give no guidance
beyond that to the creation of any training materials or programs. In
fact I nearly posted about this exact thing this weekend. So much of
what is out there is wrong, incomplete, out of date, or goes off on
tangents unrelated to LPI objectives (minicom? I haven't used that since
I was trying to figure out my ppp scripts for my 28.8k modem!).
> The published standard (aka exam objectives) is an essential piece in
> the path to Linux education. People work with those exam objectives for
> months. The training industry and courseware vendors rely on them. In
> fact, I've already given talks about, how LPI's objectives can be used
> as an outline for corporate learning initiatives and similar suggestions
> without going into details of the exams.
That is why we publish them. But no one need follow that at all. I would
encourage anyone that gets in front of a group that can appreciate the
information and discuss how LPI objectives can be used for training. I
suspect however most good HR/Training Departments would know this
already and just need to be led to the objectives.
> Let's convince the Linux-related industry, that LPI's exam objectives
> define exactly the knowledge and skills, which are needed to get the
> leading in-house Linux compentency. Then we don't have to worry about
We are working on this but it isn't as black and white as you suggest. I
have knowledge of a number of such competency models (such as the ASTD
trainer competencies) and they all battle with acceptance and relevance
issues. Each application of the competencies to a particular company
will be unique. This is why we get fussed at about MTA's and X!
> In all other point--and especially the practical implications--we seem
> to agree heavily.
We are very close in our views my friend. We should work on the common
ground as much as possible. I suspect that some of the differences in
our views is due to the differences in vocational systems between the US
and Germany. Germany has a much more formal and comprehensive vocational
educational system than the US does. Much of what is in your public
school system is left up to corporations in America. This is part of why
the US is so oriented toward "can they do it?" vs "do they understand
why they do it?". I often wish the US had a better vocational education
system more along the lines of what Germany or the UK have.
Exam Development Level 1
Linux Professional Institute
More information about the lpi-discuss