I just noticed how every trainer has a different ‘teaching style’ when delivering A+ or Network+. Some go deep into theory, others focus on troubleshooting labs. If you had to pick, what’s the one thing you never skip in your training sessions?
-
To ensure you get the most out of your CIN membership and stay connected with the latest updates, we are asking all members to update their community profiles. Please take a few moments to log in and: • Complete all sections of your profile • Review your current information for accuracy • Enter an alternative email address if desired (CIN requires your valid business email address for your training organization). Keeping your profile up to date helps us better serve you, ensures your account is correctly linked with CompTIA’s CRM, streamlines processes, enhances communication, and guarantees you never miss out on valuable CIN opportunities. Thank you for taking this important step! step!
Theory vs. Labs: Which One Do You Never Skip?
- Thread starter mohammed khati
- Start date
For trainers that have experience delivering training over the years- its common knowledge that both theory and labs are important!
your balance for every batch or cohort will be dependent on the experience of the trainees
trainees with sufficient theoretical knowledge will need labs to complement and make them better and also I have seen persons in the field practicing for years but dont know the standards, jargons, principles and ethics or to put it lightly the how, why, when for different sceneries as they arise.
So bottom line - you cant skip any if you intend to benefit the participants
It is not skipping this or that. It is about customizing your delivery according to your audience.
That’s a great point! I totally agree both theory and labs complement each other, and skipping either one leaves a gap.
From my side, what I’ve noticed is that labs make the theory “stick” faster, especially for new learners who might struggle to keep up with abstract concepts. On the other hand, theory provides the “why” behind the practice, which makes troubleshooting in real scenarios much more effective.
I think the real challenge as trainers is finding that sweet spot for each group sometimes 70% labs / 30% theory, sometimes the reverse, depending on their background.
Thanks for sharing this perspective !!
Absolutely! Both theory and labs are essential the real challenge is just finding the right balance for each group.
Interesting question. You mentioned both A+ and Network+ which are foundational level courses. For those courses I believe that the exams are more theory (a better description might be protocol or standards) based and I present my material based on that. Why? Because the exams ask multiple choice questions based on simulated real-world environments. These exams don't use virtual environments, where students have to demonstrate knowledge of commands. I always tell my students about labs that are offered and I specifically tell them why I think that lab is important and what knowledge they should gain completing that lab. I offer them support if they encounter issues completing the lab. That said I don't ask 'who completed this lab' because nothing good comes out of that sort of query. It's like asking the class who didn't study for two hours the night before; some students study for 30 minutes and sail through the exam while others study 3-4 hours per evening and fail. We can lead students to knowledge but we can't force them to use it.
That makes a lot of sense. I agree, theory is the backbone of these exams, and the way you link labs to the knowledge students should gain is really helpful. I like the part where you said we can lead students to knowledge but not force them very true !
Good points you have here.
That said, I agree with you these are core (foundation) courses as you said. Concentrating on students getting the knowledge required for the next level course is essential, but still we need to encourage the students to do the Labs to aim the skills they need for the real life work.
I agree most of the Labs are basic, but don't forget that most of the students don't have the basics.
For the exam part, totally agreed that knowledge is the main core of these exam.
As I said in a previous reply, customization according to your audience is the key here to be able to deliver the training in away that is beneficial to both types of students (Who came for learning and thise who came to prepare for exam).
Regards
One of the things I've always appreciated about CompTIA's method is the layered approach for certs. A candidate might start with Tech+, before going to A+, to Net+, Sec+ and so on.
<soapbox>
The problem I have always observed with students is patience. Students don't want to have to, as @jasoneckert pointed out in the last TTT session for Linux+, invest the "sweat equity" in order to gain the skills. In my experience, this is so true because many of these exams and the associated skills require time. Time to learn the theory; time to learn the skills, processes, - the how and why things are done. They either want the quick-and-easy path to acquiring a certification, or they just don't truly have the aspiration to achieve.
As @BrianFord pointed out, we can dump tons of knowledge onto them, but if they aren't willing to put in the time - real time, to learn, then no amount of teaching by any instructor, no matter how good he/she is, will meet the goal.
I personally have little grace for students who opt to cut corners or even cheat their way to a cert, just because they are impatient or lazy. I remember all the hours that I've had to personally put in to get to where I am - and many of the 'old-salts' here in the forum can say the same thing. The late nights, studying until bleary eyed and unable to keep my eyes open, the sacrifices made, all of that. In my 35 years of doing IT, I don't regret the hours of learning, but I do become irate at students who don't want to put in the time and effort.
Students who are genuine and want to learn will put in the time and will appreciate the journey, no matter how arduous. The ones that are there for a piece of paper, well, not really worth my time.
</soapbox>
<soapbox>
The problem I have always observed with students is patience. Students don't want to have to, as @jasoneckert pointed out in the last TTT session for Linux+, invest the "sweat equity" in order to gain the skills. In my experience, this is so true because many of these exams and the associated skills require time. Time to learn the theory; time to learn the skills, processes, - the how and why things are done. They either want the quick-and-easy path to acquiring a certification, or they just don't truly have the aspiration to achieve.
As @BrianFord pointed out, we can dump tons of knowledge onto them, but if they aren't willing to put in the time - real time, to learn, then no amount of teaching by any instructor, no matter how good he/she is, will meet the goal.
I personally have little grace for students who opt to cut corners or even cheat their way to a cert, just because they are impatient or lazy. I remember all the hours that I've had to personally put in to get to where I am - and many of the 'old-salts' here in the forum can say the same thing. The late nights, studying until bleary eyed and unable to keep my eyes open, the sacrifices made, all of that. In my 35 years of doing IT, I don't regret the hours of learning, but I do become irate at students who don't want to put in the time and effort.
Students who are genuine and want to learn will put in the time and will appreciate the journey, no matter how arduous. The ones that are there for a piece of paper, well, not really worth my time.
</soapbox>