Hi, what do these new levels mean? Are they unlimited or are they just like numbers assigned to the previous levels?
They correspond to the previous levels, James, with Beginner 1 corresponding to 1 and Advanced 2 to 6 now, but I don’t understand why they were changed.
Okay, I suppose it is so that people don’t confuse their level at LingQ with the level they are at with their language. I may be level 4 (previously intermediate 2) but that doesn’t mean intermediate 2. I feel more bordering from beginner to intermediate.
YOu got a crown! You got a gold apple and a crown! I want one.
I didn’t notice the levels had changed to numbers. That makes sense in a lot of ways. I wonder if we’ll be getting more levels at the top end? It seems to me there is some room at the top.
It will be a good way to expand the levels for those people who are way above advanced (if that makes sense). Advanced 3 or Advanced 4 etc. just sound a bit silly to me.
I like the new numeric levels: I can accept I am at LingQ level 3 much more than if it were saying Intermediate, when I consider myself a Beginner I or II. Thank you!
Bad news for all us numerical level lovers out there- here’s a quote from Mark on a different thread-
"The level names have not been changed on the site. That looks like a bug which is showing the internal level number instead of the level title. Sorry about that! We will get that fixed. "
The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of “LingQ level 1”, “LingQ level 2” etc.
Sorry for the triple post but we could have these LingQ levels and to determine our actual levels we could take tests when we get to around “LingQ level 3” to determine our actual level. I suppose this will suit people more than the new update automatically levels.
I suppose this will suit people [who don’t like the] new update automatically levels. Sorry for the mistake!
Please stay tuned over the next several days as we make some decisions on this. Of course, in this process it’s always helpful to have more opinions…
It seems that the numbers are preferable thus far, but what do some others think about this?
James, let us say that we have not decided how to show the LingQ level .
I agree that the LingQ level does not necessarily represent your actual level of competence in the language. Members should be able to choose to display a level of language competence or not. This can be determined by a test, or by self-evaluation or by asking a tutor.
This still leaves the question of how to determine goals, and of allowing a little more flexibility in goal setting. These are things we will be looking at next week. All comments and suggestions welcome.
I like “LingQ” levels.
I preferred labels “Beginner”, “Intermediate” and “Advanced”. At least everyone knew what they meant and I’m afraid “level 4” means nothing to me. OK, “4”, but out of how many? Is there still room for improvement, or “4” is only how far I can get? In my opinion it’s too confusing and for me not motivating at all.
Please anyone correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe most LingQ members know, what “Beginner”, “Intermediate” and “Advanced” mean to them. Everyone is perfectly able to more or less assess their level for themselves. I would really like to be able to pick my language level for myself, as I do not believe in all those complicated calculations telling me that I’m “Advanced” (or level 5) in let’s say German, if I feel that I’m still intermediate. The number of known words may be your language “potential”, as Steve says, but it is definitely not everything and shouldn’t be THE ONLY indicator of your language skills. It should depend on how YOU feel about your language(s). There is no point in forcing people to write in their profiles “Although LingQ system assesses me as level 5, I’m actually intermediate and can’t speak much”.
So that’s my opinion, but feel free to disagree. I’m eager to listen to some other points of view.
Beginner and advanced are fairly unambiguous, but different people define intermediate differently. I have seen A2, B1 and B2 all defined as intermediate on various scales.
The idea of progressing up LingQ levels, and taking a test (possibly with a tutor’s guidance) to determine your competences more accurately has a lot to be said for it. The more I think about it, the more I think that “language proficiency” is a multi-dimensional measure. What about the people with a wide vocabulary of words they pronounce badly? What about the people with completely accurate grammar, but poor conversational skills?
Great discussion keep it coming!
What about split in 2:
1 - LingQ levels(automatic) = from 1 to 6, or 10 or whatever maximum level.
2 - Self evaluated levels(set by user) = Beginner, intermediate, advanced
The question, I think, is what is the purpose of the self evaluated levels. If it just a matter of the learner announcing to the community what his or her level is, this can easily be done in the profile. The learner can choose to call him or herself beginner, or B2 or whatever is most comfortable, or can not make any mention of a level. Learner’s choice. We hope one day to set up a video area in the profile so that learners can show videos of themselves speaking in different languages if they so desire.
The LingQ level, however we name it or display it, is a reflection of the known words total. Despite some inaccuracy, I this is a valid indicator of language skill, knowledge, at least potentially.
At LingQ we want people to learn words, to improve their comprehension and familiarity with the language through lots of listening and reading and by using all the tools we provide. We feel this is the most efficient and cost effective way to improve in a language. Based on that foundation, members can refine their skills through writing and speaking, when they wish.
All the objectively measurable goals at LingQ are related to reading, known words and LingQs created. That is also what is reflected in the avatar. If a person is a beginner in terms of speaking, that does not mean that their target for known words or LingQ created need be adjusted down, it seems to me. These goals should still be governed by what has already been achieved, that is by the LingQ level.
The LingQ level serves a specific purpose on the site. The self-evaluated level should be an option for the learner to show on his or her profile but it is not connected to the functions of the system.
Again, I look forward to feed back.
Instead of 2 different levels (i.e the LingQ level and then the tutor level) it could just be one LingQ level. For example, if someone knows 6000 words then they will be considered 3. This can then be refined by how much speaking/ words of writing they do. So if they haven’t spoken, then they can stay at level 3. If they’ve done say 1 hour of speaking, then their level can go up to level 4. If they’ve written 100 words, then it can go up again. The level can still progress through known words, of course.
The main advantage of this is the learner can still feel like they’re progressing; the biggest problem I can think of though is it may put un-needed pressure on the learner to speak or write.
OK, now I see your point. If I understand you correctly, “LingQ level’s” purpose is mainly to adjust statistic bars, avatars etc, which leads to stressing the importance of creating new LingQs and therefore building up our vocabulary. Am I right? Still, the most important thing for me is how I feel about my language level and not how many words I know. If you don’t like the idea of users selecting their own level (although I really don’t know why you’re against it) according to their “gut feeling”, however subjective it may be, I will have to comply, even if I’m not very happy about it. Rodrigo_Kirch’s idea of two different levels is one of the solutions to this problem.
I agree with your perception of what language competence is and how it is a very unique combination of not only the number of words you know, but also your speaking skills, writing skills, listening and reading skills, pronunciation, grammar… I like LingQ site very much and I’m grateful that thanks to Steve we all can use it, but personally I would also put more stress on other language competences, not only your “word power”, so to speak.