[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Fri, 25 May 2001, David A. Bandel wrote:
>
> > OK, that's one approach. My approach was slightly different. The order
> > of the categories I had was not the order I would teach/write about.
> > But was the way I tend to group things. I think that's what this is
> > about. (See below)
> >
> > Note that my categories weren't in a teachable/writable order. That
> > would have to be rearranged, but that wasn't the task (as I saw it).
> > Just to logically group things.
> >
> Actually, from the original mail, the idea was both, to group them, but
> also to get input from the teach/write perspective, as that was a huge
> complaint in Level 1. I'd like to come to an agreement in the middle to
> actually provide some flow between objectives, and ideally between exam
> forms. THis will make teaching/writing easier, but also self-study, and
> exam taking easier. (jumping around tends to make all of those categories
> difficult).
>
Then just look at QUE Special Edition Using Linux 6th Ed. The first
part groups some GUI things together. Then we get to the meat of the
matter: administration. This is broken down into four parts -- the
system, the network, services, security. Under each major heading one
topic leads into the next (and you need the prior for the current and
successive). Exception is services, where only the order of DNS and
sendmail is important (DNS being required for sendmail).
When I wrote the TOC, I wrote it the same structured way I teach Unix
admin (when I teach). Some things follow from others (in my way of
thinking).
The other categorization I saw had a different grouping (but it had a
logical grouping). I saw the two versions as follows:
you want to teach how to use weapons, so you can group them as either:
1. non-projectile (knives, clubs, etc.)
2. projectile weapons
direct fire (handguns, rifles, machine guns)
indirect fire (mortar, artillery)
or:
1. short range weapons (knives, handguns, rifles)
2. intermediate range weapons (machine guns, mortars)
3. long range (artillery)
note the differences. Neither is wrong, neither is better, just
different. So how do you want to classify the objectives for these
tasks?
More to the point, why?
If the objective is to help folks teach the test, I question that. If
students are taught Linux, they will have no problem with the exam. If
they are just taught to pass the test (because that's what the course or
book was designed to do), they'll have trouble with Linux.
What problem are we solving here? If it's just to classify it for
ourselves, we just need to flesh out two or three outlines and choose.
If the objective is to make it easier for learning centers and authors,
I think they should be doing this each one for themselves.
Ciao,
David A. Bandel
--
Focus on the dream, not the competition.
-- Nemesis Racing Team motto
--
This message was sent from the lpi-examdev mailing list.
Send `unsubscribe lpi-examdev' in the subject to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to leave the list.
