At 05:01 PM 5/25/01 -0500, Alan Mead wrote:
>From: David A. Bandel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>: 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.
I don't think we are trying to just teach them how to pass the test.
>: 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.
>
>The objective of the objectives? ;-) I think the issues are:
>
>* making intuitive sense to test-takers when we provide more
> detailed, area or sub-area scores feedback on the score report
> printed after testing
>* as easy as possible for sys admins (and item writers) to quickly
> understand
>* using some job-related deeper structure rather than surface
> characteristics
>* making it easy for authors and trainers to teach
>
>I'm tempted to say that those are in order... but I think they are all
>different facets of the same goal.
>
>And let me be clear abot the last bullet: If we chose a dumb grouping,
>trainers and authors might have to loop back and forth through the material
>or through the objectives... There is no reason to make them do this and if
>that was how we grouped, we would almost certainly not be meeting the other
>bullets either. But it doesn't mean that we would in any way change the
>content to effect teaching the material. The content is driven by our job
>analysis research which should be accurately reflected in these objectives.
I have another reason that comes from writing courseware and delivering
courses and the marketing side.
I want to be able to indicate clearly which section of LPI101, LPI102,
LPIxxx a particular module in my courses cover.
With LPI101 and 102, it is very difficult, because things are all over the
place.
Indeed, unless we get it right with the LPI level two stuff, we will have
problems as well.
I say that because I see that for LPI to ultimately succeed, and I hope
that it does, we need feedback between LPI and those in the industry
offering courses that allow people to sit for the LPI exams.
Now, having said that, my impression was that the Level 2 exams covered a
higher level that Level 1 (which in my view are already way above a casual
knowledge of Linux).
As such, I would see it being more appropriate to teach some of the
modules, like DNS, Samba, Apache and SQUID, and so on, as two or three day
courses.
I currently have a 3-day Advanced Samba course that is being rolled out in
Australia and Singapore (along with my 5-day Linux course that is given in
Australia a lot).
I also see the need for an advanced networking course that would also be a
three-day course.
So, I would like to see some way to allow some of these things separated
out rather than lumped together as network services. I defy you to impart a
sufficient knowledge of Samba, for example, in half a day. Similarly, there
is a lot to be learned in Apache, DNS, ipchains/iptables, and so forth.
>Make sense?
>
>Now, I'll admit I haven't studied the very detailed posts that have been
>made today... maybe we already have good groupings. I will take a look
>soon.
>
>-Alan
>
>--
>This message was sent from the lpi-examdev mailing list.
>Send `unsubscribe lpi-examdev' in the subject to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>to leave the list.
>
Regards
-------
Richard Sharpe, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Samba (Team member, www.samba.org), Ethereal (Team member, www.ethereal.com)
Contributing author, SAMS Teach Yourself Samba in 24 Hours
Author, Special Edition, Using Samba
--
This message was sent from the lpi-examdev mailing list.
Send `unsubscribe lpi-examdev' in the subject to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to leave the list.
