RE: Scenario Design: Comments Invited [7:41992]
Is it just me, or does Mr. Strobel have some serious anger management issues? It seems that almost every post I see from him is a derogatory or inflamatory message. I guess some people get through their day by finding the negative things to focus on, but gee, I'll bet that makes the road to CCIE (or whatever your pursuits are) a long one. Howard, this has been a thought provoking thread, and I hope that, unlike Mr. Strobel, I can contribute something that might further your discussion of learning and preparation for something as monumental (at least in my eyes) as the CCIE Lab. I for one respect the fact that having a certification is not a qualifier for someone to be able to teach or test others on the material which is the focus of the certification. Years of experience in the field, specializations in teaching methodology, etc. are all things that make people justified teachers and trainers. I'll take every crumb that falls off your plate, Howard. Thanks again for your time. Kelly Cobean, CCNP, CCSA, ACSA, MCSE, MCP+I Network Engineer GRC International, Inc., an ATT company -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 10:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Scenario Design: Comments Invited [7:41992] Hey Larry, Why don't you take the weekends off and start wasting the bandwidth on Mondays when you are on Cisco's clock? A Strobel Quoting Larry Letterman : Another somewhat one sided approach by Stroebel... Maybe one day he'll get the names and faces together with the issues. Larry Letterman Cisco Systems [EMAIL PROTECTED] -_-_-_ Mail3000 gives you 30 Megs of Email space free -_-_- This mail sent through http://mail3000.com/ Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=42425t=41992 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Scenario Design: Comments Invited [7:41992]
Actually, having not ever sat the Lab, Howard does not place himself in an awkward position with respect to the NDA. Furthermore, as you point out, his labs may tend to lean toward practicality instead of being purely lab oriented which in my opinion, is an excellent thing given once you eventually pass the test, you'll need to apply best practises principles which you may not otherwise have learned. Pete At 02:32 PM 4/19/2002 -0400, Denise Donohue wrote: 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
Re: Scenario Design: Comments Invited [7:41992]
Mr.Slattery, Just to officially extend my gratitude for your excellent book Advanced Routing in Cisco Networks. I hope you and Bill can come up with another bestseller. I also have his Remote Access fo Cisco Networks. Godd luck to you as well. Elmer Deloso - Original Message - From: Terry Slattery To: Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 11:08 PM Subject: Re: Scenario Design: Comments Invited [7:41992] A friend forwarded the following note to me regarding the CCIE testing environment. My understanding is that CCIEs are the proctors. Wouldn't make much sense to have a CCNA/CCNP proctoring a CCIE. The first CCIE, #1025, is/was Stewart Biggs. My understanding is that his certification has lapsed and he's off doing something else. I took the test from him in August, 1993 and became the second CCIE, #1026. The lab itself had a plaque outside the door labeling it as #1024 (a power of two - kind of an inside joke for networking/compuer jocks). And for those of you checking, my certification is suspended as of June, 2001. I'm reading up on some topics to prepare for the recert test that I'll take soon. Good luck with your certifications! -tcs From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Chuck Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 12:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Scenario Design: Comments Invited [7:41992] [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Nemeth) wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... On Sep 9, 11:12am, Larry Letterman wrote: } } To my knowledge the proctors are CCIE's... Okay, chicken and egg time... If the proctors are CCIEs then who proctored the first lab exam? there is a story told about the great anthropologist Lewis Leakey. In those days one had to demonstrate competence in a foreign language in order to get one's PhD. Leakey's language of choice - Swahili. Well, the university had no Swahili experts on staff, so they enquired among the various educational elite, and were given the name of one of the world's foremost experts in Swahili - Lewis Leakey! I have heard an alternative version of this story, in which Leakey actualy trained the person who would give him the competency examination... Is anyone on this list personally acquaited with Terry Slattery ( CCIE # 1026, and the first non Cisco CCIE )? I wonder if Mr. Slattery would be willing to offer some insight here. } - Original Message - } From: Mark Odette II } Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 12:02 PM } Subject: RE: Scenario Design: Comments Invited [7:41992] } } This spawns a question I have wondered recently: } } Are the Proctors at the LAB testing centers CCIEs?? } }-- End of excerpt from Larry Letterman -- Terry SlatteryCCIE# 1026 443-994-1158 Fax: 928-832-4620 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=42306t=41992 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Scenario Design: Comments Invited [7:41992]
Hey Terry, Don't you have to retake the written and lab exam if you are suspended? My understanding is you can take the recert test while you are inactive and if you don't do it during that time you are suspended and have to sit the entire test again to regain active status. -- Johnny Routin The Routin One Terry Slattery wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... A friend forwarded the following note to me regarding the CCIE testing environment. My understanding is that CCIEs are the proctors. Wouldn't make much sense to have a CCNA/CCNP proctoring a CCIE. The first CCIE, #1025, is/was Stewart Biggs. My understanding is that his certification has lapsed and he's off doing something else. I took the test from him in August, 1993 and became the second CCIE, #1026. The lab itself had a plaque outside the door labeling it as #1024 (a power of two - kind of an inside joke for networking/compuer jocks). And for those of you checking, my certification is suspended as of June, 2001. I'm reading up on some topics to prepare for the recert test that I'll take soon. Good luck with your certifications! -tcs From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Chuck Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 12:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Scenario Design: Comments Invited [7:41992] [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Nemeth) wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... On Sep 9, 11:12am, Larry Letterman wrote: } } To my knowledge the proctors are CCIE's... Okay, chicken and egg time... If the proctors are CCIEs then who proctored the first lab exam? there is a story told about the great anthropologist Lewis Leakey. In those days one had to demonstrate competence in a foreign language in order to get one's PhD. Leakey's language of choice - Swahili. Well, the university had no Swahili experts on staff, so they enquired among the various educational elite, and were given the name of one of the world's foremost experts in Swahili - Lewis Leakey! I have heard an alternative version of this story, in which Leakey actualy trained the person who would give him the competency examination... Is anyone on this list personally acquaited with Terry Slattery ( CCIE # 1026, and the first non Cisco CCIE )? I wonder if Mr. Slattery would be willing to offer some insight here. } - Original Message - } From: Mark Odette II } Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 12:02 PM } Subject: RE: Scenario Design: Comments Invited [7:41992] } } This spawns a question I have wondered recently: } } Are the Proctors at the LAB testing centers CCIEs?? } }-- End of excerpt from Larry Letterman -- Terry SlatteryCCIE# 1026 443-994-1158 Fax: 928-832-4620 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=42311t=41992 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Scenario Design: Comments Invited [7:41992]
A friend forwarded the following note to me regarding the CCIE testing environment. My understanding is that CCIEs are the proctors. Wouldn't make much sense to have a CCNA/CCNP proctoring a CCIE. The first CCIE, #1025, is/was Stewart Biggs. My understanding is that his certification has lapsed and he's off doing something else. I took the test from him in August, 1993 and became the second CCIE, #1026. The lab itself had a plaque outside the door labeling it as #1024 (a power of two - kind of an inside joke for networking/compuer jocks). And for those of you checking, my certification is suspended as of June, 2001. I'm reading up on some topics to prepare for the recert test that I'll take soon. Good luck with your certifications! -tcs From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Chuck Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 12:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Scenario Design: Comments Invited [7:41992] [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Nemeth) wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... On Sep 9, 11:12am, Larry Letterman wrote: } } To my knowledge the proctors are CCIE's... Okay, chicken and egg time... If the proctors are CCIEs then who proctored the first lab exam? there is a story told about the great anthropologist Lewis Leakey. In those days one had to demonstrate competence in a foreign language in order to get one's PhD. Leakey's language of choice - Swahili. Well, the university had no Swahili experts on staff, so they enquired among the various educational elite, and were given the name of one of the world's foremost experts in Swahili - Lewis Leakey! I have heard an alternative version of this story, in which Leakey actualy trained the person who would give him the competency examination... Is anyone on this list personally acquaited with Terry Slattery ( CCIE # 1026, and the first non Cisco CCIE )? I wonder if Mr. Slattery would be willing to offer some insight here. } - Original Message - } From: Mark Odette II } Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 12:02 PM } Subject: RE: Scenario Design: Comments Invited [7:41992] } } This spawns a question I have wondered recently: } } Are the Proctors at the LAB testing centers CCIEs?? } }-- End of excerpt from Larry Letterman -- Terry SlatteryCCIE# 1026 443-994-1158 Fax: 928-832-4620 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=42293t=41992 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Scenario Design: Comments Invited [7:41992]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Nemeth) wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... On Sep 9, 11:12am, Larry Letterman wrote: } } To my knowledge the proctors are CCIE's... Okay, chicken and egg time... If the proctors are CCIEs then who proctored the first lab exam? there is a story told about the great anthropologist Lewis Leakey. In those days one had to demonstrate competence in a foreign language in order to get one's PhD. Leakey's language of choice - Swahili. Well, the university had no Swahili experts on staff, so they enquired among the various educational elite, and were given the name of one of the world's foremost experts in Swahili - Lewis Leakey! I have heard an alternative version of this story, in which Leakey actualy trained the person who would give him the competency examination... Is anyone on this list personally acquaited with Terry Slattery ( CCIE # 1026, and the first non Cisco CCIE )? I wonder if Mr. Slattery would be willing to offer some insight here. } - Original Message - } From: Mark Odette II } Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 12:02 PM } Subject: RE: Scenario Design: Comments Invited [7:41992] } } This spawns a question I have wondered recently: } } Are the Proctors at the LAB testing centers CCIEs?? } }-- End of excerpt from Larry Letterman Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=42082t=41992 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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,
RE: Scenario Design: Comments Invited [7:41992]
This spawns a question I have wondered recently: Are the Proctors at the LAB testing centers CCIEs?? If not, then your point in mute. We're all entitled to oppinions though, so no offense ment back. Mark -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Denise Donohue Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 1:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Re: Scenario Design: Comments Invited [7:41992]
In all fairness to howard, I remeber reading his post stating he didn't take the CCIE lab on purpose. There would be no way to accuse him of NDA offenses if he never sat in for the lab exam. This is probably an issue with trainers and their firms I guess. On top of that you probably don;t need a CCIE # if you've successfully written books on the subject. Denise Donohue wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... 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
Re: Scenario Design: Comments Invited [7:41992]
To my knowledge the proctors are CCIE's... Larry Letterman Cisco Systems [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Mark Odette II To: Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 12:02 PM Subject: RE: Scenario Design: Comments Invited [7:41992] This spawns a question I have wondered recently: Are the Proctors at the LAB testing centers CCIEs?? If not, then your point in mute. We're all entitled to oppinions though, so no offense ment back. Mark -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Denise Donohue Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 1:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
RE: Scenario Design: Comments Invited [7:41992]
Dennis, Unfortunately, you do not know Howard. If you knew him, you would never post such a message. Alone that Mr. Howard Berkowitz takes time to post a message to this list is an honor for the people who know him. Howard does not need to be CCIE to be respected in the networking community. Honestly, I don't believe there is any certification that could possibly add to Howard's highly respected image. Are these four digit numbers all that you can use to judge people, especially people that you don't know? Jeff Doyle is not a CCIE any more and does not even work for Cisco. Does this make him even a tiny bit less respected? Priscilla is not a CCIE, so what? Would we possibly respect her and her invaluable inputs any more if she were one? Marc Russell is not a CCIE (so far as I know- sorry if I am wrong), but his scenarios are the best tools to become a CCIE. There are hundreds of CCIEs who owe him their certifications. For your information, Radia Perlman is not a CCIE neither. Howard, on behalf of myself and all the members of this group who know you (not personally, though) I apologize to you for such uncalled for remarks. A Strobel Quoting Denise Donohue : 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.) -_-_-_ Mail3000 gives you 30 Megs of Email space free -_-_- This mail sent through http://mail3000.com/ Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=42037t=41992 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Scenario Design: Comments Invited [7:41992]
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
Re: Scenario Design: Comments Invited [7:41992]
Thanks for taking a variant of that (anti-cert-worshipping-centric) stance. Minor points: 1) confusing DENNIS for DENISE is probably not acceptable in any human forum. 2) Why would it be worth mention that Radia Perlman is not a CCIE, since she does not focus on cisco-specific issues, does not regularly participate in this newsgroup and was already more employable in this field and many more enlightened ones than almost any CCIE since before the CCIE program started? Why her and not Tony Li? Andrew Tannenbaum? Douglas Comer? Richard Stevens? John VonNeumann? (I know the last one was a stretch . . .) disclaimer: I'm grateful for her expertise written candor, I'm just not sure what she has in common with the other people mentioned. - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 7:18 PM Subject: RE: Scenario Design: Comments Invited [7:41992] Dennis, Unfortunately, you do not know Howard. If you knew him, you would never post such a message. Alone that Mr. Howard Berkowitz takes time to post a message to this list is an honor for the people who know him. Howard does not need to be CCIE to be respected in the networking community. Honestly, I don't believe there is any certification that could possibly add to Howard's highly respected image. Are these four digit numbers all that you can use to judge people, especially people that you don't know? Jeff Doyle is not a CCIE any more and does not even work for Cisco. Does this make him even a tiny bit less respected? Priscilla is not a CCIE, so what? Would we possibly respect her and her invaluable inputs any more if she were one? Marc Russell is not a CCIE (so far as I know- sorry if I am wrong), but his scenarios are the best tools to become a CCIE. There are hundreds of CCIEs who owe him their certifications. For your information, Radia Perlman is not a CCIE neither. Howard, on behalf of myself and all the members of this group who know you (not personally, though) I apologize to you for such uncalled for remarks. A Strobel Quoting Denise Donohue : 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.) -_-_-_ Mail3000 gives you 30 Megs of Email space free -_-_- This mail sent through http://mail3000.com/ Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=42041t=41992 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Scenario Design: Comments Invited [7:41992]
Another somewhat one sided approach by Stroebel... Maybe one day he'll get the names and faces together with the issues. Larry Letterman Cisco Systems [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Kevin Cullimore To: Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 5:18 PM Subject: Re: Scenario Design: Comments Invited [7:41992] Thanks for taking a variant of that (anti-cert-worshipping-centric) stance. Minor points: 1) confusing DENNIS for DENISE is probably not acceptable in any human forum. 2) Why would it be worth mention that Radia Perlman is not a CCIE, since she does not focus on cisco-specific issues, does not regularly participate in this newsgroup and was already more employable in this field and many more enlightened ones than almost any CCIE since before the CCIE program started? Why her and not Tony Li? Andrew Tannenbaum? Douglas Comer? Richard Stevens? John VonNeumann? (I know the last one was a stretch . . .) disclaimer: I'm grateful for her expertise written candor, I'm just not sure what she has in common with the other people mentioned. - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 7:18 PM Subject: RE: Scenario Design: Comments Invited [7:41992] Dennis, Unfortunately, you do not know Howard. If you knew him, you would never post such a message. Alone that Mr. Howard Berkowitz takes time to post a message to this list is an honor for the people who know him. Howard does not need to be CCIE to be respected in the networking community. Honestly, I don't believe there is any certification that could possibly add to Howard's highly respected image. Are these four digit numbers all that you can use to judge people, especially people that you don't know? Jeff Doyle is not a CCIE any more and does not even work for Cisco. Does this make him even a tiny bit less respected? Priscilla is not a CCIE, so what? Would we possibly respect her and her invaluable inputs any more if she were one? Marc Russell is not a CCIE (so far as I know- sorry if I am wrong), but his scenarios are the best tools to become a CCIE. There are hundreds of CCIEs who owe him their certifications. For your information, Radia Perlman is not a CCIE neither. Howard, on behalf of myself and all the members of this group who know you (not personally, though) I apologize to you for such uncalled for remarks. A Strobel Quoting Denise Donohue : 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.) -_-_-_ Mail3000 gives you 30 Megs of Email space free -_-_- This mail sent through http://mail3000.com/ Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=42044t=41992 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Scenario Design: Comments Invited [7:41992]
On Sep 9, 11:12am, Larry Letterman wrote: } } To my knowledge the proctors are CCIE's... Okay, chicken and egg time... If the proctors are CCIEs then who proctored the first lab exam? } - Original Message - } From: Mark Odette II } Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 12:02 PM } Subject: RE: Scenario Design: Comments Invited [7:41992] } } This spawns a question I have wondered recently: } } Are the Proctors at the LAB testing centers CCIEs?? } }-- End of excerpt from Larry Letterman Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=42046t=41992 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Scenario Design: Comments Invited [7:41992]
At 09:19 PM 4/19/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Nemeth) wrote: On Sep 9, 11:12am, Larry Letterman wrote: } } To my knowledge the proctors are CCIE's... Okay, chicken and egg time... If the proctors are CCIEs then who proctored the first lab exam? GOD ;-) } - Original Message - } From: Mark Odette II } Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 12:02 PM } Subject: RE: Scenario Design: Comments Invited [7:41992] } } This spawns a question I have wondered recently: } } Are the Proctors at the LAB testing centers CCIEs?? } }-- End of excerpt from Larry Letterman Priscilla Oppenheimer http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=42050t=41992 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Scenario Design: Comments Invited [7:41992]
Hey Larry, Why don't you take the weekends off and start wasting the bandwidth on Mondays when you are on Cisco's clock? A Strobel Quoting Larry Letterman : Another somewhat one sided approach by Stroebel... Maybe one day he'll get the names and faces together with the issues. Larry Letterman Cisco Systems [EMAIL PROTECTED] -_-_-_ Mail3000 gives you 30 Megs of Email space free -_-_- This mail sent through http://mail3000.com/ Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=42051t=41992 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Scenario Design: Comments Invited [7:41992]
only 7-time MVP's can be successful baseball coaches and managers. Guys who were 0 for 1 in the majors can't possibly manage a team to the world series. Denise Donohue wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... 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
