On 15/07/2014 13:27, Marc Baudoin wrote: > Alan McKinnon <[email protected]> écrit : >> >> It's because the objectives are not in *any* order. They form a simple >> list of stuff that a minimally qualified candidate ought to know. >> >> 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. >> >> So the problem here is not trying to understand the sequence, the error >> is in assuming there is a sequence where there is none. It's not a >> syllabus, it's a bunch of stuff (not even a list). >> >> 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. That's what I found when I >> was developing materials and teaching - dispense entirely with the >> published objective numbers, do it my way, and make sure all the subject >> matter was covered. > > That's what I also do. But why have objectives in a random order > when they could be presented in an order that makes sense? Why > make it hard to compare training material (because their authors > chose different orders) when we all could have an order everybody > agrees with? > > All my trainees have been uncomfortable with 103 as it is. When > I explain to them that I'm going to reorder subtopics, they all > find that annoying because they might have a book that chose a > different ordering and because it's cumbersome to them to align > all of that with the objectives. > > Why make things difficult when it would be easy to make them > simpler? >
Making things "simpler" here is not a simple task, it is an administrative nightmare. Everything on the planet that references the objective numbers would then need to be changed (or at least notified that it was changed) = no easy task. And it could only happen in those infrequent windows (every 2 or 5 years, I forget exactly which) when the objectives are overhauled. It's so much simpler (IMHO) to just change people's head-space: 1. The objectives have grown and changed organically over time and they really are just a bunch of stuff[1] 2. People shouldn't assume there is any inherent ordering in the objectives and should stop trying to map objectives to the chapters in books. In my experience, folks understand this easily once it is explained properly eg early on day one of the first course -- Alan McKinnon [email protected] _______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
