unknown CLAD Questions

[Ben]

---

johnsold wrote:

Ben,

Excellent suggestions!

Both as to the possible origin of the exams and more importantly, to a potential solution.

I do not have any good ideas at the moment about better ways of evaluating someone's LV skill, but I will give it some thought.

Lynn 

---

I am really not trying to stiffle this thread and want to turn the term Certified XY into something that true LV expert can respect. So I'll tell you a war story to help inspire you.

I provide LV consulting services to a variety of customers but one of my regular gigs is for for the NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) operated by the US govenment at ther facility located in Bructon PA (my backyard). THis is the facility where all of the MSHA (Mine Safety and Health Aggengcy) mine explosion expert are located along with a whole campus of labs running every type of test imaginable when it comes to safety.

So all of my customers at NIOSH are egg-heads in their own area of expertise and write the standards used in industry. But very few of them know computers.

After delivering another app I was talking to the customer and came up with the following analogy;

I am to computers what elephant trainers are to elephants.

Both of us translate specific requests into a form that lets the animal get the job done.

Another experience had me sitting next to the physisist that invented a new measuring technique where he described what numbers needed crunched and I took notes in LV code. At the end I did not fully understand the algorithm but it worked.

The "note taking" story is also very similar to some of the "Stand-up Comedy Coding Routines" I had to code as I talked and get things working.

I don't mean to claim I am an expert. I do claim to be very comfortable standing in front of potential customers and coding on my feet and my customers seem happy.

So what do I actually do mentally when I am doing this stuff?

1) I first write the code in my head and compare different methods.

2) Then I drop what I need and test it out.

So the skills I need are;

a) I must understand the requirements.

b) I must be able to formulate a solution that meets the reqs.

c) I must be able to to translate that solution into LV.

Parts "a" and "b" are standard skills required for engineering and science.

Part "c" is the part that is unique to LV only. So from this train of thought I would tend to think that it is "The ability to translate a solution into LV" is the core that is present for a qualified LV developer but is missing from others.

Stop and reflect:

THere is a difference between reading and writing. With a good set of ref material I can fumble my way through translating Hebrew to English but I definately can't write Hebrew. So I may be able to pass a low-level Hebrew trivia test and still could not write Hebrew.

This would make me think that asking trivia question about indivual operators is more a test of reading rather than writing LV.

Extending the Hebrew analogy;

I could hardly call myself a Certified Hebrew Writer if I had to look up the words before I used them. In LV this would  mean writting LV code without access to the help files. Similarly, when doing the Stand-up Coding, it is near imposible to keep a semi-circle of three-piece suit types entertained while rading help files. I have to know the langauge ahead of time.

I will stop now before I run the risk of contaminating your minds with my ideas.

Ben

[Ben]

---

tbob wrote:

...

But the problems are not limited to irrelevent questions:

- No feedback on missed multiple choice exams.  This is just plain unacceptable. 

...

NI, please listen.  We are the experts.

...

---

I am with ou on that post with the following exceptions

Re: no feedback

This is a certification test and not a college exam. Think of it as more of a final exam where it was rare to get feedback. THe learning is supposed to happen in the class room not in the test facility.

Re: We are the experts

Please forgive me for repeating myself but Socrates beat that subject to death in "Plato's Republic" under the topic of "the type". "The type" was a theoretical concept of the perfect form of a thing (perfect guitar, sadle horses bridle, etc). So along the quest to find the answer he investigated who do you turn to to judge if some "thing" is closer to "The Type" than another "thing". He made the point using the horses briddle.

He proposed that there were three parties that could be asked about the quality of the briddle.

The leather worker - Makes the briddle and is an expert at leather and may never have seen a horse or know how to use it. THey could makes something taht looks real fancy but is useless. No not the Leahter worker.

The Horse - KNows better how the briddle fits and feels but, he ain't taling.

The Rider - in the end, Socrates settled on the idea that it was the rider that could judge the quality of the briddle and extended it to...

"It is the user of a thing that is the expert at a thing." 

Converting Socrates thoughts into LV we have.

NI - The maker of the thing.  THey are experts in C and C++ and NI internal process.

The computer - Like the horse it ain't talking.

The Wire-worker - is the User of LV and is the absolute expert on LV.

So I think Socrates would have to agree with you tbob.

But before I leave that topic...

How much would it cost to get certified if NI had to assemble a group of LV users to evaluate our exams?

If user user to evaluate users, then how to maintain consistancy across regions (my neighbohood has 7 CLA's many states don't have any CLAs)?

So keep thinkg and keep posting and maybe we'll get somehwere.

Ben

[tbob]

Hey, Ben.  Feeling a little long winded today?

I wish others would throw out ideas.  The exams are far from perfect, and I don't expect they will ever be perfect.  But they are in dire need of improvement to be as fair as possible.  We all need to put in our 2 cents worth, no matter how bad it may sound.  Come on guys, speak up.  But keep it a little shorter than Ben's comments, just a little.

Ben, one thing I disagree with you abut.  Feedback.  No we are not supposed to learn from the exams, I agree on this point.  But if we knew which ones we missed, not given the right answers but just given the list of questions we missed, then we could go and look up the answers and learn on our own.  Without knowing what I missed, I don't know what I need to learn.

[johnsold]

The FCC (U.S. Federal Communications Commission) has for quite a few years used volunteer examiners to proctor and manage exams for amateur radio operators ('hams').  I think the FCC generates a pool of questions.  There are criteria which a group must meet to be eligible to be a volunteer examiner.  Although the FCC sets the rules and has the ultimate responsibility for the results, they have adapted following feedback from the volunteer examiner groups.

NI has also used this kind of model.  Years ago most LV training was done by NI employees. Now Alliance members do some of the official training. 

Exam evaluation can be done using such modern communications tools as the Internet!  No need for the evaluators to be close to the exam site.  If the graders have a common set of guidelines and a bit of training, results should be fairly consistent.  Code submissions could be graded by several graders and the results averaged.

The person proctoring the exam need not understand LV, only the rules of the exam process.

If the coding based exams were given on Apple computers, only one set of computers would be required.  With BootCamp and several virtualization programs available all three OS platforms currently supported by LV can be run on one piece of hardware.  I guess the proctor would need to know how to boot up any of the three OSes.

Lynn 

[tbob]

---

johnsold wrote:

The FCC (U.S. Federal Communications Commission) has for quite a few years used volunteer examiners to proctor and manage exams for amateur radio operators ('hams').  I think the FCC generates a pool of questions.  There are criteria which a group must meet to be eligible to be a volunteer examiner.  Although the FCC sets the rules and has the ultimate responsibility for the results, they have adapted following feedback from the volunteer examiner groups.

Lynn 

---

Sorry I wasn't clear.  I hold a General Class FCC license, which means I am authorized to work on radio and TV transmitters.  The Ham license is a 3rd class license.  General Class used to be broken into 1st and 2nd class, with 1st meaning TV and 2nd meaning radio.  Now its all combined into one general class, but it still is good for life.  The questions on that exam were very tough, but every question was relevant and meaningful.  No trick questions at all.  When I took it, no new technology was on the exam.  It was made to test your basic knowledge of radio and TC transmissions and receptions.  NI would do good to learn how the FCC produced their exam.

[johnsold]

tbob,

I have both a General class radio-telephone license (permanent) and an amateur radio license which must be renewed avery ten years (although no retesting is required for renewal).

I do not think I misunderstood your license status.  I was just thinking about the FCC license process compared to the NI certification.

More thoughts on certification: 

I am also a licensed engineer (PE).  The state requires continuing education to renew the license.  If the state obtains evidence that someone is not performing adequately or has failed to get the continuing education, I think they can require a retest.  How about some kind of continuing education credits toward recertification? 

Attending a LV Technical symposium, attending NI Week, taking a LV class (NI sanctioned or from an accredited school), teaching a LV class, maybe even participation on the Forum, and other items could be counted toward recertification.

Lynn 

[tbob]

---

johnsold wrote:

tbob,

I am also a licensed engineer (PE).  The state requires continuing education to renew the license.  If the state obtains evidence that someone is not performing adequately or has failed to get the continuing education, I think they can require a retest.  How about some kind of continuing education credits toward recertification? 

Attending a LV Technical symposium, attending NI Week, taking a LV class (NI sanctioned or from an accredited school), teaching a LV class, maybe even participation on the Forum, and other items could be counted toward recertification.

Lynn 

---

I really like that idea.  Points for attending training or for giving training.  Anything but those horrible exams.

[Ben]

---

tbob wrote:

Hey, Ben.  Feeling a little long winded today?

I wish others would throw out ideas.  The exams are far from perfect, and I don't expect they will ever be perfect.  But they are in dire need of improvement to be as fair as possible.  We all need to put in our 2 cents worth, no matter how bad it may sound.  Come on guys, speak up.  But keep it a little shorter than Ben's comments, just a little.

...

---

I'd carachterize it as a huricane that has been gathering strength since the last time we had a serious discusion of how we could make the Certificatio process more respectable.

Back in the day of "ni.com/exchange" before LAVA was a reality all of the LAVA-ites contributed to this forum. At that time the forum had a little used feature that served as a type of BLOG with the intent that we would use it to psot design patterns etc.

WHen the word hit the the streest that there would be a new certification level "Certified LabVIEW Architect" Jim Kring started a blog to discuss what would qualify a person at the architect level. I was very impressed by his outline and printed it out and hung it on my wall to serve as a study guide.

The idea of the experienced users deciding these qualifications was not well recieved so that post and the associated replies where taken down.

Shortly there after LAVA was created and the grand-scism was created, between those drinking the NI Kool-aid and the Green Kool-aid.

So...

I have been quietly waiting for this thread (calm before the storm).

Since many of the contributors to this forum have been throgh some type of certification to be where they are, I think it would be possible to create some type of independent organization that can access qualifications, if we ever get around to deciding what qualifed really is.

Ben

[JackDunaway]

---

Ben wrote: 

I'd carachterize it as a huricane that has been gathering strength since the last time we had a serious discusion of how we could make the Certificatio process more respectable.

Back in the day of "ni.com/exchange" before LAVA was a reality all of the LAVA-ites contributed to this forum. At that time the forum had a little used feature that served as a type of BLOG with the intent that we would use it to psot design patterns etc.

WHen the word hit the the streest that there would be a new certification level "Certified LabVIEW Architect" Jim Kring started a blog to discuss what would qualify a person at the architect level. I was very impressed by his outline and printed it out and hung it on my wall to serve as a study guide.

The idea of the experienced users deciding these qualifications was not well recieved so that post and the associated replies where taken down.

Shortly there after LAVA was created and the grand-scism was created, between those drinking the NI Kool-aid and the Green Kool-aid.

So...

I have been quietly waiting for this thread (calm before the storm).

Since many of the contributors to this forum have been throgh some type of certification to be where they are, I think it would be possible to create some type of independent organization that can access qualifications, if we ever get around to deciding what qualifed really is.

Ben

---

 I am interested in hearing more about this history, could you continue? Is the LAVA/forums.ni.com divide solely over certification?

[Sureshee]

Hi Ben,

Myself suresh, I would like to take up the CLAD exam by next month this time... can u suggest me some concepts which i can expect in my CLAD exams often, in which part  i  have to concentrate on more for this exam.......any suggestions are appreciable from all members..............

---

@Ben wrote:

---

tbob wrote:

This question has nothing to do with Labview.  So why is it on the CLAD?  Am I the only one who is sick and tired of NI's certification program ?  Irrelevant questions, tricky questions, ambiguous questions, having to re-certify every 2 years!!!!  My certification does not bring in extra money.  At first my company paid for the exams.  Now they won't.  I'm saying good bye to my certification when it lapses.

---

After having sat for the CLD twice and the CLA exam three times (passed them all), I would love to say I am going to walk the same path but that will have to wait until I retire. SO when you read about me complaining about the ecomony and the federal budget, it is really the CLA in me scream to be set free.

Ben

---