Boot camp revamp
I had a major
falling out with my trainer this morning on a number of issues regarding the
delivery of the curriculum leading to a certification I am in interested.
When it comes to boot
camp training, it can be difficult to balance the issues of time, complete
coverage, teaching, explanation and preparation for tests.
Much as I will like
to attain my certifications as soon as possible, my learning methodology has
never been by rote, accepted views or concepts have to have undergirding logic
and I need to know that I am extending my body of knowledge.
The burden of history
For someone who has
been in the ICT profession for 23 years, one can safely say a good deal of the
concepts we take for granted today have their foundations in fundamentally
primitive things we did decades.
People new to the
field may have no need for the history of how, why and what things are today,
maybe that is an advantage or disadvantage but it is impossible to expect those
who have experience to just become sponges of new thinking without referencing
knowledge they already have or activities that have practical affinity with the
topic under discussion.
Intensive versus effective
Again, the
curriculum is delivered in 6 8-hour days and sometimes Sundays, the danger of
saturation looms, the trainer wanting to cover the requisite material, the
trainee wanting to pace the absorption so that the quality becomes of greater
significance than the quality.
In other words,
there might be a case for 5 hours of effective training over 8 hours of
intensive training, each trainee knows what they can handle before they begin
to wilt and that is only just human.
Delivery prowess
Then, there are
amazing differences between the two trainers I have had, the Microsoft Official
Curriculum is tied to Powerpoint slides that were followed quite closely and
made the taking of notes less easy especially in a one-on-one teaching setup.
The better delivery
method with regards to the Powerpoint slides should have been having the slides
offered as notes to trainees to annotate thereby helping link discussion with
concept and reference.
In the case of my
CCNA trainer, she is no less than prodigious, in the 4 days of my training
already, she has not one referenced a note, she fills the board with point
after point with literal total recall, in the probably 500 sentences she has
written on the board, she has only once asked if one point had been written and
that point was probably the least significant of the lot.
Rhyme without reason
Things began to
reach a head yesterday when first certain definitions appeared to challenge the
conventional use of language, English being the medium but meanings appearing
to indicate the opposite.
I could not absorb
the idea that Least Feasible Distance could go on to mean Best Option,
regardless of tone, context, syntax or semantics, this was an exceptional anomaly
and I felt quite uncomfortable with this.
I dare say English
is not really the same between what is spoken and written in America and what
the English speak especially when there is a purist determination in one’s mode
of expression – that is just a fact.
English usage and meaning
I have worried that
I might get caught out with American usage and Americanisms and a typical
example I give is our pants are never exposed whilst Americans wear theirs
openly. Alright, pants are underwear in England but trousers in America if
viewed from an English perspective just as a negative is always a negative on
our side of the pond no matter how many you string together whereas in America
the mathematical double negative take precedent to yield a positive or the
affirmative.
Another usage of
Active and Passive which had the implication of opposites in the class seemed
to be given a much more acceptable reading when explained in another context
from other material I reviewed.
Just as we have
English and US English dictionaries, I am beginning to think whilst allowances
can be made for similarity and difference, there might be a case for clearly
differentiating the material and not assuming English is really the same around
the globe.
However, it was
when a formula was written on the board that combined two unrelated units that
I had had enough. I was not in class to jettison my engineering background and
there had to be a reason why that formula was the accepted code.
Oranges and apples
At this point, I
was impervious to the illogical and scientifically incorrect; I could not
imagine that all the engineering in Cisco had produced a dimensional and
mathematical inexactitude without
reason.
That reason was not
forthcoming, I was to absorb this by law and learn it by rote – for a person
who was first precocious, then inquisitive, interrogative, curious,
questioning, researching and challenging assumptions no matter how widely held,
this was one of those moments where without reason there could be no progress.
Yesterday, I got
up, closed my book, slammed the lid of my netbook and was ready to walk out of
the course, she was able to placate me but I was far from satisfied.
Now, I know
On returning to my
hotel, that was the first topic I researched and then I saw the extensive
formula that got condensed to what was written on the board, the engineering
and mathematical proof was evident – that for me is what you call the
impartation of knowledge and the fulfilment of understanding – the why and how
was there to see.
So, in the morning
I took my discovery to my trainer and she acknowledged she knew this but it was
beyond the scope of the course I was on. Whilst that was appreciated, I felt a
conflict brewing because I was not just going to take everything as gospel but
will require clear detail where assumptions are made that seem to challenge the
concepts of language or science as predicated from my “wealth” of experience.
Fracture!
By the time we had
exchanged a few good views about the material it was time for my trainer to say
she could no more continue the training and I felt we had reached an irreconcilable
impasse.
I then had a
meeting with the officials and technical manager where generally what they
seemed to be concerned with was the method (The Koenig Imperative – course material
delivered within constrained time-frames leading to certification).
In some ways, I
acquiesced and we agreed to continue the course because the curriculum is
really an abridged version of the more serious engineering concepts that I will
find more interesting and aligned to my engineering background.
Patching up
I can understand my
trainer’s frustrations though I cannot say she fully appreciates that I cannot
extend my knowledge of these concepts just by faith without seeking the
fundamental reasons for why and how such conclusions were arrived at – it is
just the bane of my kind of background, that I have become a somewhat difficult
and impossible trainee after her having delivered this curriculum to well over
500 trainees is unfortunate.
I am not a robot,
God help my intellect and we both need a healthy dose of patience with each
other.
We appeared to
patch things up and continue with the training, an interestingly eventful day.