Several dangers exist for those taking this approach. Some of your statements reflect a disturbing assumption about preferred approaches to test preparation:
but it seems strange > to me that someone who is not a CCIE is writing labs that they expect people > studying for the CCIE to buy. In this case, I'd rather the person with more (teaching, design, implementation, cisco-certification-specific) experience than many CCIEs attempt to lead me to learn something about networking than those who managed to grab a number and lack professional experience beyond instruction. I'm also led to believe that the early CCSI exams were designed to weed out mere CCIEs (please, somebody, correct me if I'm wrong on that [or any other] account). >From pasts posts on this forum, I think that > you have never even taken the test. "I think" is ambiguous, and could be misconstrued as your opinion, rather than a posited fact. My recommendation is for you to sit the > exam a time (or two or three!). I would humbly venture a guess that this is the wrong advice to give to someone with a perfect record of not-violating the NDA and explicity/publicly attempting to prove his ability to do so in the face of ever-waning cisco legal intellect. Then you'll be able to answer your own > questions about the format of practice labs. I'm not sure basing the practice modules on current exams constitutes best practice. -Throughout the entirety of western civilization, most people who attempt to formulate questions that definitively establish a person's knowlegedge about a given topic have failed beyond measure. -The exams may or may not establish that a candidate can function in a manner reflecting efficient design, implementation & troubleshooting skills. If you gear your curriculum towards understanding the underlying technologies (and, in this case, optimizing your speed & ability to handle the unusual in responding), all concerned might be better off. the COMMON assumption that would render your submission coherent is that the best method to follow in creating examination preparation tool material is to precisely home in on the specific technology points being covered and covering them in a manner that only introduces enough variety to ensure a minimally passing grade with an emphasis on speed and precision (kind of like a texas state government education initiative :-) ). BUT that assumption presupposes that the ultimate goal of the materials was to make sure that a candidate has no more or no less than the capabilities to respond to the configuration (& possibly design, I'm years away from the lab or any exposure to it) responsibilities required during the course of the lab exam. I'm thinking it scales better to design labs that teach nuances & caveats & uncover hidden unwarranted assumptions of the technology involved rather than labs which structurally mimic the extant exams in both form and content. Following this path, people might finally get their money's worth when they hire Industry-certified individuals, and possibly might be less bitter/suspicious about our involvement in their business activities (although that will NOT do anything about their raging techno-science-phobia). ----- Original Message ----- From: "Denise Donohue" To: Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 2:32 PM Subject: RE: Scenario Design: Comments Invited [7:41992] > I don't know you, so please don't take this personally, but it seems strange > to me that someone who is not a CCIE is writing labs that they expect people > studying for the CCIE to buy. From pasts posts on this forum, I think that > you have never even taken the test. My recommendation is for you to sit the > exam a time (or two or three!). Then you'll be able to answer your own > questions about the format of practice labs. > > No offense, just my 2 cents. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Howard C. Berkowitz > Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 11:22 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Scenario Design: Comments Invited > > > I'd like to start a discussion on the design of two kinds of scenarios: > 1. lab preparation. (problem recognition, speed building, > interaction among many protocols, time pressure, etc.) > 2. In-depth understanding of protocols (seeing the effects of > alternative configurations, learning how to solve specific > problems with specific technologies). Pure tutorials on > technologies complement these hands-on experiences. > > The two requirements, of course, are not mutually exclusive. #3 are > scenarios that either statically or dynamically switch between the > modes. > > It is my hope that this will stimulate community discussion involving > both people who use scenarios and people who write them. > > Now, a disclaimer: I work for Gettlabs and Gett Communications, the > former of which runs a virtual rack service. Gettlabs itself uses an > open-source model for its own scenarios, as does Fatkid and some > others. Gettlabs has partnerships with IPexpert and > CertificationZone, which sell scenarios and supplemental materials. > My comments here are intended to be neutral, and I will listen, learn > and share with competitors. I have discussed my intentions with Paul > Borghese, and one of our agreements is that this is eligible to stay > off the commercial list as long as I make free scenarios available. > > 1. Lab Preparation > ------------------- > > Above all, these have to prepare you for pressure and ambiguity. > > A fairly basic question: should all lab preparation scenarios be of > 8-plus hour length, or two four-hour segments (forcing the disruption > of a lunch break)? Alternatively, is it acceptable to have sets of > sub-scenarios that build on one another, so you can practice for an > amount of time you have available, then pick up later on? > > I think it's a given that all you should be given is the addressing, > etc., in the one day lab, plus instructions on what you should do, > restrictions (e.g., no statics), and some criteria for judging > success. Estimated completion times/points also are important. > > An interesting question, however, is whether the scenario should > include some of the sorts of things where it is fair (based on > non-NDA statements of Cisco policy and the variations in proctors) to > ask a proctor a question. Should such points include things where > variously the proctor will and will not answer, or even, in marginal > cases, flip a software coin to see if the proctor will answer)? > > I believe it's realistic to be able to see a solved configuration, > but, when you see it, you either should have demonstrated successful > operation or accepted that you will accept losing points to be able > to go on. > > I do not think that hints are appropriate in a lab preparation > scenario, with the caveat that this sort of thing is quite > appropriate to technology learning, and, as I suggested in #3 above, > scenarios could be developed (possibly with a specific execution > engine) that let you switch between preparation and learning modes, > and even back. > > 2. Technology Learning > ----------------------- > > My general approach to designing such things is again to start with > instructions, initialization, etc., but to break the exercise into > relatively small steps. Each step will have hints available, and > will be fairly small so you can look at the successive changes to the > configuration that move you closer to your goal. > > One difference comes with the physical presentation of the scenario. > If it is a printed document, should the hints be in-line with the > text, or in a separate section so you will use them only if needed? > If the latter, should they be on separate pages or at least have > significant "spoiler space" between them so you don't inadvertently > get an unfair clue to what is coming next? > > If the scenario is running interactively, should hints and hint > answers only be available with a specific user action (clicking a > link, opening a file, etc.)? > > What backup materials should be available for technology learning > scenarios? Is a bibliography necessary, and is it adequate? Should > there be actual tutorials available? > > Should learning scenarios routinely contain show command outputs as > well as solved configurations, or should they simply suggest which > show commands to use and what to look for in their output? There > will always be, of course, specific cases where the full display is > appropriate. > > --------- semi-commercial but free content follows ---- > First examples: > There are several beta-version downloadable scenarios, which > contain some interactive links, at the www.gettlabs.com site. I am > not completely happy with the display formats, and these will change. > The only conditions for their use are: > 1. They are copyrighted, but carry an automatic license for personal > use by the person downloading. > 2. They may not be used commercially without Gettlabs written > permission. > This includes both classroom and distance learning/virtual rack. > 3. We ask that you do not send copies to others, but that each person > download their own copy. The simple reason for this is that the > scenarios are in frequent update and we want to be sure people get > the most recent version. > > You are not required to run these on our racks, but, of course, > we'd like you to. Some scenarios may depend on traffic generators and > such which are not part of the scenario, but of the overall execution > environment. > > Second examples: > I am actively putting together an FTP server that will have more > scenarios, but initially will not be in pretty format but in lots of > separate files. While we experiment with display formats, this > allows me to keep hints, solved configurations, etc., separate. This > server should start being available early next week. > This server will also have downloadable copies of lots of > presentations of mine from NANOG, the IETF and IRTF, ARIN, etc., as > well as other recommended reading. There will be some subdirectories > labeled "working" that contain documents actively being worked on by > teams/committees, and these may not make sense to anyone other than > the coauthors. > Some of these presentations may be a little old, and I'll be updating > them. > Warning, with half a smiley: my ISIS tutorial may carry a curse. > I tried to present it at NANOG twice. The first time, I came down > with a flu bug that had me down for a good six weeks. The second > time, I had to have a cardiac pacemaker installed the day it was to > have been presented. You Have Been Warned. There May Be Things That > Man Is Not Meant To Read. (or, as a bumper sticker some will > recognize says, "Vote for Cthulhu. Why settle for the lesser of two > evils?") > > > > -- > "What Problem are you trying to solve?" > ***send Cisco questions to the list, so all can benefit -- not > directly to me*** > **************************************************************************** > **** > Howard C. Berkowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Chief Technology Officer, GettLab/Gett Communications > http://www.gettlabs.com > Technical Director, CertificationZone.com http://www.certificationzone.com > "retired" Certified Cisco Systems Instructor (CID) #93005 > _________________________________________________________________ > Commercial lab list: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/commercial.html > Please discuss commercial lab solutions on this list. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=42038&t=41992 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
