Powerpoint presentation for the Cloud+ course?
- Thread starter Michelle Sabo
- Start date
You can only download them from purchased course from store now.
Unless you're looking for the materials from the Cloud+ Train the Trainer, as presented by Glenn Hobbs last year. You'll find that here:
Each session will have slides that Glenn used during the presentation. They're not official curriculum, like what you would get from CertMaster, or other publishers.
Of course, the way I see it, you could build a working slide deck by just using the the Course Objectives, should you decide to go objective by objective.
/r
There's also the fact that the TTT doesn't cover all of the objectives, just part of it to fill a TTT series.
Plus, I assume copying and building on CompTIA TTT resources is dubious, with regards to copyrights.
I'm afraid I'll disagree with that. Whenever I've taught TTT, and I believe I can speak for the others, we make a concerted effort to go through each Domain, at least on some level. And there generally isn't a "filling" the TTT series, because we are asked how many sessions we require to deliver the content. The general average is 8-10 sessions to get through all the material, but that's arranged ahead of time, to make sure we have ample time to cover what we are going to cover.
There may be a disagreement on "cover", since in a TTT, we usually end up glazing over topics that may end up with more depth if you're teaching in the classroom to new students. Remember that TTT is to train instructors to deliver the content - it's not a suitable replacement for primary training, although I know a lot of folks out there that are doing just that.
I disagree with this too. While folks probably should not be copying material verbatim, it's kind of difficult to not use those materials in the development of home-grown materials. I've often used the Objective sheet as the template for building a slide deck, if I'm going through the material, domain by domain. Really, that's all I need if I wanted to build my own course, even without a book. And since the OP was more about getting a slide deck, building materials like that, I believe, is why they provide the Objective sheet in the first place. Any CompTIA slide decks from the TTT are usually derivatives of that, as I see it.
/r
That is literally what I was going for, yes
A TTT slide deck would not cover everything "normal" students would need, is my assumption.
That is perfectly fine. I meant: don't copy the literal TTT slide decks.
Of course we need to use the objectives PDF!
Agree with Rick on both points. For me I try to at least cover or touch on every objective and sub-objective when teaching a TTT and so far have always used 12 sessions to cover all the topics and demos. Also everything we instructors provide in TTT's is usable in your own courses. I was specifically asked if I was OK with that when I taught my first one.
Yeah, you would definitely need to use as a base and add more for students and go deeper.That is literally what I was going for, yes
That is interesting! So it's assumed that the decks and materials that we make for TTT are supposed to be re-used by our student-trainers? Huh, I wasn't aware of that yet. I thought ownership defaulted to CompTIA, without having open licensing for re-use.
A wise man once gave this nifty little formula:
Objectives Sheet + Google = Study Guide
I've taken this to heart with respect to certs and have found something - no matter whose books or materials you use, invariably, you end up with that person's spin and interpretation of the material. Even if you stick tightly to the objectives, you're going to find that each instructor has a different focus on what he/she thinks is most important. And since CompTIA isn't too too interested in telling us all exactly what's on an exam, we end up generally covering more than what would be on an exam.
So how do we provide the right depth for training? Well, we can interpret depth of learning by what we see on Bloom's Taxonomy and the actual action verb in use.
For example, explaining the DNS protocol and its uses invokes level 2 - understanding, where naming the DNS port - 53, is level 1 - remembering. This is what I generally use to get the right depth for a covered topic. I have had great success in doing it this way.
I also don't maintain the notion of going 'one-level-higher' here for instructors when teaching, because they won't be doing that in the classroom. For the TTT series, the key is to provide the coverage an instructor will need at the level of depth prescribed in the objectives.
* this wise man/guy... @Stephen P which we don't see much of these days...hint hint, tag, get back in here, Steve!
Objectives Sheet + Google = Study Guide
I've taken this to heart with respect to certs and have found something - no matter whose books or materials you use, invariably, you end up with that person's spin and interpretation of the material. Even if you stick tightly to the objectives, you're going to find that each instructor has a different focus on what he/she thinks is most important. And since CompTIA isn't too too interested in telling us all exactly what's on an exam, we end up generally covering more than what would be on an exam.
So how do we provide the right depth for training? Well, we can interpret depth of learning by what we see on Bloom's Taxonomy and the actual action verb in use.
For example, explaining the DNS protocol and its uses invokes level 2 - understanding, where naming the DNS port - 53, is level 1 - remembering. This is what I generally use to get the right depth for a covered topic. I have had great success in doing it this way.
I also don't maintain the notion of going 'one-level-higher' here for instructors when teaching, because they won't be doing that in the classroom. For the TTT series, the key is to provide the coverage an instructor will need at the level of depth prescribed in the objectives.
* this wise man/guy... @Stephen P which we don't see much of these days...hint hint, tag, get back in here, Steve!
@Stephen Schneiter will have to clarify if things have changed. But I was asked that in the beginning 3/4 years ago and still operating under that. Definitely the stuff that I provide like GNS3 files, VMs, Docker stuff, etc. can be freely used.
Whenever I have built a slide deck for a TTT, I build that deck, myself and pretty it up with CompTIA's logos for a TTT. But my decks are mine - made by me. And yes, if you see any materials out there made by me, feel free to plagiarize them. That's what CIN is for.
I think it would be the exact same for any TTT presenter here. After all, we're all here to learn from each other.
A wise man once gave this nifty little formula:
Objectives Sheet + Google = Study Guide
While I don't make a study guide per se, this is effectively my study technique for each exam I take... I go through the Objectives and if I don't know or remember something I Google it.
So how do we provide the right depth for training? Well, we can interpret depth of learning by what we see on Bloom's Taxonomy and the actual action verb in use.
Ah Blooms
* this wise man/guy... @Stephen P which we don't see much of these days...hint hint, tag, get back in here, Steve!
Yeah, where you been @Stephen P?
Thanks for clarifying Rick, I appreciate that! I always thought the stuff was "work for hire" and that CompTIA got the rights. This is great to hear!
Also, thanks for your insightful reminder about Bloom's taxonomy. I need to refresh my CTT+ understanding.
I think if Blooms does anything for me, it keeps me from over-engineering what I teach. Now the only caveat is that I do not know for sure if CompTIA holds religiously to the verbs used by Blooms (maybe someone like @Patrick Lane might be able to speak to that), and one person's definition of "explain" may differ to someone else's but I haven't been too far off the mark in the years I've held to Blooms. Worth a query.Also, thanks for your insightful reminder about Bloom's taxonomy. I need to refresh my CTT+ understanding.
/r
Hi Rick, I just saw your message and can let you know that Bloom's verbs are used as a guide post only, mainly to ensure we're separating knowledge skills from higher level hands-on and analysis skills. I've never seen it get to the point where IT pros are arguing over what "explain" or "analyze" means. You approach seems on target - using Bloom's as a guide to help understand how simple or complicated the objective should be to teach or test.
Patrick
I appreciate the input. Developing syllabi for Higher Ed situations tends to defer a little tighter to Blooms since those translate to those Learning Objectives/Outcomes that state regulators and accreditors like to see. It's far more particular on paper than in a practical sense. But when I develop for a syllabus, it does help create a good measure of depth. So yes, Blooms is more of a guide and it is good that CompTIA, on some level, makes use of this. It's helpful to educators to understand that.
Thanks for the clarification.
/r