On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Alan McKinnon <[email protected]> wrote:
> It is true that the objectives have names starting with numbers and that
> you can sort them by those numbers. But I don't believe you should take
> that to mean they follow a strict sequence for teaching purposes. To
> illustrate better, you can remove the numbers and sort the objective
> names alphabetically - you don't get a sensible sequence doing it that
> way either.
More importantly (to me), some of the affiliates have pretty much
stated that I'll be lynched if I do a wholesale renumbering of the
objectives. ;)
> It has always been the case that training providers and authors of
> training materials must present their content in whatever order they
> feel makes sense to them and their students.
True. I know some trainers that insist on starting with doing
installs. While others won't do that until the end of the course.
> Another thing that must be mentioned but is often glossed over - humans
> do NOT learn sequentially. A strict order is probably the worst way to
> present something for us. We do better when we continually revisit
> topics, adding more knowledge each time it is revisited. This is hard to
> do in a short IT course though. Meaning that folks should do whatever
> they find works for them.
It sounds like you're referring to something like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaced_repetition
along with "organic learning". I'd have to agree there. That's why
I'm a bigger fan of internships and mentoring than "bums in seats"
training.
Regards,
--matt
--
G. Matthew Rice <[email protected]> gpg id: EF9AAD20
--
G. Matthew Rice <[email protected]> gpg id: EF9AAD20
_______________________________________________
lpi-examdev mailing list
[email protected]
http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
