On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:43:26 +0100 Marc Baudoin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The point is, you are perfectly free to teach and/or study the > > materials in any order that makes sense for you. LPI does not > > dictate exactly how the training will advance, only that a graduate > > should know the subject matter of the topics once finished. > > And that's what I'm doing anyway. > > The problems I see is that trainees like (very much) to match > what they're studying to the official objectives (which is > perfectly legitimate) and it's much easier when the course and > the training materials are in the same order than the objectives. I'll give you an example from the days when I was delivering training: files Files are one single objective. I had to visit the topic of files 3 times in an LPIC-1 course to avoid confusing students: 1. just cover the idea that files exist and are in directories. Show them using "ls" or "ls -a" 2. do other stuff 3. cover owner and permissions. Now "ls -l" makes more sense 4. do more stuff 5. cover inodes, data blocks and how directories tie together. Now that mysterious 2nd column in "ls -al" finally makes sense. Nobody in their right mind would make that 3 objectives. But teaching it as one single atomic lump of information gives you confused students who are forced to battle with more advanced topics when they are still at the beginning. All would agree that is not good. The objectives are the end result, the destination. Not the same thing as the journey to get there. -- Alan McKinnnon [email protected] _______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
