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>
I cover the theory in class, sprinkling in a few demonstrations when possible. I assign the labs as homework.
You'll hardly understand anything until you do it practically
that's the exact same problem I have seen! Everybody wants to finish quick and make $200,000 in 90 days.
Combination of both. Theory based upon class type. Are they complete newbs or experienced? That will drive how I teach the class. I really don't think there is a one size fits all for everyone. The 1st day of class for me is always where I gauge how deep I got into topics versus question, answer and theory.
Same for me. Labs can be done in selflearning mode more often. Asking me questions is then not possible. Also my audience has different interesstes in what labs they wanna do, so they focus on the ones that are interessting for them. Not what i say they should do..
I’ll focus more on the theory since most of the exam is theoretical and only a small part is practical. But I’ll still review the key practical topics like troubleshooting, subnetting, routing, switching, and network configuration.
I can tell you that in my 35 years, I still don't make $200k, and certainly not in 90 days. Probably couldn't do that without doing something very illegal.
But to get back to the OP's question, the one thing I put into every lecture is "heart". If students don't have the heart to train, stay hungry, and keep punching the bag to get those certs, they don't belong in the field. When I say this, I look for the "head nodders" and the "eye-rollers". That tells me all I need to know about how receptive they are.
/r
Certifications were originally intended to validate a candidate's experience and knowledge. They weren't intended to be checklist items for newbies trying to impress recruiters. Over time, all of the certifications have been devalued. I see people pass the CISSP with less than the mandatory five years of experience. It used to be the gold standard, but how can it still be when newbies are passing the exam.
And then they wonder why they can't get hired with a stack of certs they crammed for.
I think we can all tell stories of the paper-certs that we've encountered in the field. It's frustrating because I know the sweat equity that I put into attaining and keeping my certs - in fact, I go through the material every time I renew, just so I can make sure I remember the things I may not be sharp with.
It's a mindset. But again, it comes down to that sense of entitlement.
I remember a local area college here (some time ago) in Colorado Springs that would advertise, "Get your MCSE and make $65,000 per year!" as a line to drive enrollments. A lot of students went there and didn't walk away with their MCSE. They sued the school for false advertising, as if paying their tuition automatically granted them a cert and a salary. So the schools were to blame because they wanted enrollments.
The students were also to blame for mismanaged expectations. I had one student in my program threaten to sue because they weren't prepared to take the Network+ after the six week course. He cited the instructor and the curriculum. But he didn't realize that I was wise to the fact to the fact that he wasn't even engaged in the course. Turns out, he spent most every day on Facebook or other social media, getting a little too friendly with the lady-folk and not paying attention to the intricacies of the OSI model. But somehow it was OUR fault. Well, the threats didn't go anywhere, particularly when I crafted a catch up plan for him. He didn't want to do the work, but he did want the cert and thought by parking his stupid rump in a chair in a Net+ classroom, he'd get the information by osmosis or something.
It's a story, both common and annoying, of which we all can speak to.
/r
When I recertify for something I've certified in previously, I just read the exam objectives and brush up on the 10%-15% that has changed. I took the current Net+ and Sec+ without even looking at the exam objectives.
I see ads like that online all the time. Take our training and go from zero to hero in six weeks. You can be a cybersecurity professional!
Except you can't. No one can in six weeks. No company is dumb enough to hire someone with zero practical technical experience for a cybersecurity job. That's a mid-career option, not an entry-level job. Certifications are not a substitute for experience. They are a validation of knowledge.
I blame training companies and educational institutions for LYING to students. I'm tired of sugar coating it. They're not exaggerating. They're lying.
The path to a cybersecurity career begins with grunt work. Help desk, desktop support, computer repair, and basic networking. Then moving into slightly more technical work, including work with servers and automation. Maybe they have enough experience five years into their career before someone gives them a break in cybersecurity.
I don't care if they crammed their way to a CISSP and are in the top 1% on HackTheBox. Little to no experience equates to little to no chance you're worth hiring. And college degrees for IT aren't worth the paper they're printed on without real-world, professional experience. A bachelor's degree can't even guarantee a help desk job, and going straight from a bachelor's to a master's with no work experience means that you paid a fortune to compete for entry-level jobs with high school grads with a few certs.
AI will eliminate a lot of entry-level jobs, so the younger generations will have to develop a work ethic in overdrive or pick a different career. The high skill jobs will suffer more, as fewer and fewer people are added to the talent pipeline. For us, more seasoned technical folks, we'll be fine through retirement because no one can do what we do. But I have doubts about the future.