[tlhIngan Hol] Suffix-number questions in the KLCP test

Will Martin willmartin2 at mac.com
Mon Nov 25 14:24:21 PST 2019


I openly invite you to redesign the test. My whole point is that I don’t invite you to make whoever designed the test redesign the test. If they care to, on their own timeframe, they can certainly be welcome to do it, but I’ve seen less positive suggestion on this point than I’ve seen negative reaction to what now exists, without much in the way of appreciation shown for the effort that went into creating the test and making it available.

If I seem defensive, it’s because I’m defending something I care about. I care about people creating resources for the KLI. I respect the hours they’ve put in, and I appreciate the positive intent of their efforts.

That’s the beginning and the end of my concern.

I never suggested that the test couldn’t be better, or that anyone willing to put the positive effort into redesigning it should be discouraged from doing so. I’m less interested in defending the specific, current form of the test than I am in defending the earned respect of whoever created the test and made it available.

I would just as quickly defend respect for any new person who makes the positive effort to make the test better.

It’s really easy to complain. It’s much harder to make a resource available to the community or to improve a resource that is available to the community.

I’m just inviting the complainers to do the harder thing instead of the easier thing. We’ll all be better off if they accept the invitation.

charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan

rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.




> On Nov 25, 2019, at 4:45 PM, Jeffrey Clark <jmclark85 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Perhaps an examination of the KLCP tests is due, to see if it conforms to best-practices in testing and assessment in light of current pedagogical research.
> 
> One of the major issues in testing design is “what is being assessed?” The nature and wording of any question flows from this basic idea — and one of the biggest concerns in any design is figuring out if the questions asked actually assess concepts desired.
> 
> Thus, it’s not uncommon for tests to be continually reviewed. There’s no harm in it, and it’s never disrespectful to the original designer, rather it is simply the application of new information and research and the refinement of goals.
> 
> So: do we care that someone can identify the specific number of any suffix for this exam? Or do we care that they can identify suffixes that are in the correct order? While those two things are interrelated, they are not identical, and you can test for them in different ways.
> 
> It’s a question worth asking, and a valid one from a pedagogical point — something that those of us who work in education are familiar with dealing with on a constant basis.
> 
> —jevreH
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
>> On Nov 25, 2019, at 16:35, Will Martin <willmartin2 at mac.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> I think there’s plenty of disrespect in this entire discussion. I don’t believe that I have more of it than you do. I doubt you would have as much interest in defending the complaint if I weren’t the one commenting on it.
>> 
>> We both know that you are predisposed to objecting to pretty much anything I say, especially if you can lecture me about it. No sense pretending it isn’t personal.
>> 
>> Fortunately, it doesn’t bother me much anymore. It’s been done to death.
>> 
>> The maker of the test is welcome to review the materials and decide whether there is merit in changing them. Having put sincere effort into making the test fair and useful, they don’t owe anybody urgency to making changes. They have lives of their own and any effort put into updating the test is voluntary. 
>> 
>> The work they’ve already done does deserve more respect than this discussion has been offering. I make that point again, since I am the only person expressing it so far, and I am 100% certain that this point is not to be ignored.
>> 
>> If you can teach the language so well without numbering the suffixes, make your own test and share it with others to see how universally helpful it is in teaching the language to others and improving their skills with it. Anyone, myself included, would welcome your contribution to the community. I’m sure that better tests could exist. They just need someone to put in the time and skill to make them.
>> 
>> Until someone else does that, this test will do fine. Lots of people have improved their skills by using it. It has a track record. Other theoretical methods of teaching and testing this particular language in this particular forum are still theoretical. I’m glad there is a practical one already in existence, thanks to the good work of someone in this community.
>> 
>> charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan
>> 
>> rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Nov 25, 2019, at 3:21 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name <mailto:sustel at trimboli.name>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 11/25/2019 2:54 PM, Will Martin wrote:
>>>> 1. If you are so good at knowing what suffix follows what, then it shouldn’t be so difficult for you to map out which numbered suffix it is. You know most of the suffixes, and you know how many Types there are (5 for nouns, 9 for verbs, plus rovers). Pull out a scrap of paper and doodle them out. It’s not that hard.
>>> He's not complaining that he can't figure it out; he's complaining that knowing the numbers isn't necessary to speaking the language?
>>> 
>>> If you learn Klingon through Duolingo, for instance, you may not even be aware that suffixes have numbers. You may know the suffixes and their orders, but you didn't realize they were numbered.
>>> 
>>> When I took that test, I had to do exactly what you said: I had memorized the word QaghHommeyHeylIjmo' so that I would have a map to noun suffixes, because I didn't think in terms of numbers; I just felt which ones came first. To this day I can't always rattle off noun suffix numbers without thinking about them. Learning the numbers has little to do with speaking the language.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 2. Tests are arbitrary. ALL tests are arbitrary. It’s okay for tests to be arbitrary. If you eliminate one arbitrary part of a test, you’ll just have to replace it with some other arbitrary thing that someone ELSE will object to. 
>>> I object completely to everything you say in this paragraph. Tests are not supposed to be arbitrary. Tests are supposed to evaluate your knowledge and skill in the given subject. They should be designed to expose the ability of the person taking them. Being able to tell whether something is a type 1 or type 2 suffix is, as QIDwI' says, no different than someone being able to define what a participle is to prove their ability to speak English.
>>> 
>>> In this point, the KLI tests test knowledge of Klingon grammar, not ability to use Klingon.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 3. Respect that the people who created these tests did so voluntarily, putting in a lot of time and thought in to what they sincerely thought would help people learn the language well. Complaints like this don’t make them feel good about that positive spirit they put into their sincere effort to give our nerdy little society another helpful resource. Whine too much about this sort of thing and we won’t have any tests, or Wikis or Web sites or mailing lists, for that matter. Appreciate what people do for you and for all of us. So, what resource have YOU created from hours of your own work that you voluntarily offered to the rest of us? Share with us how much you appreciate it when someone complains about how poorly executed your effort was.
>>> So now you've implied that QIDwI' is disrespectful, whining, and a layabout. C'mon. He's tried to present a respectful criticism, and I for one think he has a point.
>>> 
>>> I happen to think that most anyone learning English as a second language is going to learn more grammar than a native English speaker, so someone being tested in English as a second language would need to know the definition of a participle. A native speaker wouldn't be tested in their ability to speak English, so the ability to explain the grammar isn't tested anywhere except in an English class that's teaching grammar.
>>> 
>>> So ultimately I see the inclusion of suffix numbers on the KLI test as parallel to the inclusion of grammar rules in an English-as-a-second-language test, so probably appropriate. But I appreciate QIDwI''s point. I don't think testing on suffix numbers is strictly necessary.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 4. If you are so naturally talented that you can intuitively absorb the language and know all the suffixes in the right order without learning the numbers of the suffix, then why are you bothering to take the test?
>>> Now you're just being offensive. If you love the Klingon language so much, why don't you marry it?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> A primary reason for creating the test is to give people guidance about what to work on in order to learn the language. If you just know the language like the back of your hand, then you don’t need no stinkin’ test.
>>> If the KLI didn't hand out medals and certification levels for passing those tests, then no, he wouldn't need to take them. But it does, and students feel a certain pressure to prove themselves, as you yourself admit to.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> I didn’t ask for a special pass on any part of the test. I didn’t ask to be an exception because I was so special.
>>>> 
>>>> And you shouldn’t, either.
>>> He's not asking for a special pass or to be an exception. He's criticizing the content constructively. If you don't think his criticism is valid — that is, if you have a reason why suffix numbers should be taught, say so and have done. If not, stop trying to beat him into submission.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Just do the extra work and pass the test, or don’t do the work and skip the test. You’ll still be respected here as a full member even if you don’t get to wear the cool little pins.
>>> I don't see any respect coming from your post.
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> SuStel
>>> http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________
>>> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
>>> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org <mailto:tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org>
>>> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
>> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
>> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20191125/64bb8998/attachment.html>


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list