> That is a totally different ballpark. Yes, people like rewards, and > shiny medals they can use in their peer group for a while, and it can > motivate them to do the course. But how many people put on their CV > what Boy Scout badges they got?
It's part of a continuum. I'm looking at the whole assessment/qualifiactions picture and its many purposes, you are looking at snapshots in areas I assume you are important to you. > How many people even remember what Boy > Scout badges they got? The certificates you're talking about now are > personal confirmations that they did the work and achieved a standard, > that sort of certificate doesn't have to have any external backing or > relevance outside the context of that course. Its just one aspect of certification. The balance of importance can vary widely even with the same qualification in individual contexts. eg I know people that have done PhDs simply because they can use the title Dr. That is just boy scout badges for grown ups. A boy scout first aid badge can result in someone saving someone else's life. While a person can have a personal confirmation a lot want external approval even if it is not strictly speaking necessary. The whole thing is very complex and there are more grey areas than absolutes apart from in a minority of very specific fields. If someone does an INGOT certificate they will know more about FOSS and have ICT skills in line with the assessment criteria. They won't have any guaranteed skills in any particular application beyond these and indeed that is intentional. At that stage we want background transferable skills and knowledge and to attract the widest possible audience. > > In the free software world attribution is similar. Why does RMS want > > people to refer to GNU/Linux? To recognise the work of GNU. That is not > > much different to certificating GNU in recognition of its contribution > > to GNU/Linux. > > Yes, it is. Calling something GNU+Linux is a long way from having the > IEEE certifying it as a recognised platform for the industry. About as far as boy scout badges from PhDs perhaps but all different aspects of recognition and motivation. The word qualification is pretty broad in its meaning and what motivates people to take up qualifications is highly variable. That's all I'm saying. You are focussing on accreditation and quality assurance in a specific set of contexts which is an important aspect but not the only one. If the aim is to raise awareness of FOSS in as wide a population as possible, the design of the qualification is totally different from certifying competence in a particular application. Both come under the broad heading of qualifications and are different rather than better or worse. > POSIX, > for instance, has that certification, and there it means something > because it is certified as a standard that everyone who calls their > system "POSIX compliant" can depend on. SAying that a system is > "GNU+Linux" means very little, you can have a GNU+Linux system with most > of the utilities missing, the configuration in strange places, and > looking totally unfamiliar. > > Of course, that's yet another digression from the type of certificaion > being talked about before... I'm trying (obviously without much success :-) ) to get people to understand the broader aspect of how qualifications are used both in the wider educational sense and for quality assurance in business applications and the fact that there is considerable overlap. I guess it is rather like you trying to explain anything of complexity where you have a specific area of expertise with the constraints of a mailing list ;-) > > Of course in the UK you can say we have gone over-board and the > > regulations that have sprung up around certification negate the quality > > of learning eg assessment by inappropriate end testing or on computers > > because it might be cheaper. Valid testing is a big issue in my view > > because we tend to set tests that are cheap and appear accurate not > > tests that necessarily validate the intended learning and support the > > quality of learning. But this is detail related to reforming the system > > rather than scrapping it entirely. > > Not necessarily. There comes a point where the best thing to do is to > scrap everything and redo it from the start properly. When I say scrapping it entirely I mean removing all forms of qualifications for ever. I don't believe that is remotely possible. If you are not talking about that but changing the way qualifications are structured and delivered (whether from a zero base or not) you are talking about reform. That then gets very complex because there are an infinite number of options. Translating educational theory into practice is notoriously difficult because you we are dealing with individual human emotions not just rational logic. Most people use their own personal experience to devise their theories without realising most other people will not react to the changes the same way that they would. Ian -- New QCA Accredited IT Qualifications www.theINGOTs.org You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. _______________________________________________ Fsfe-uk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
