Conference koolit::vms_curriculum

It has been suggested that we post review modules in text form (as well 
as PostScript), so reviewers can edit their comments right into the 
module and mail them back to us.

What are your reactions to this idea?  The only problem we see is that 
we will be wading through huge files, and shipping large numbers of 
blocks around the network.  But maybe you can cut out parts that didn't 
receive comments.

If there are no serious objections to this idea by Tuesday, 15-JAN-91, 
we will make this our new procedure.

	K.

    This is a SUPER idea!!!!
    
    I don't have ready access to a PS printer and as such find it very
    difficult to review any new materials. I recently received my first
    shipment of VMS System Management I student packages (EY-9766). I was
    horrified to find that the newly revised SM (-0004) contained 34 pages
    with what I consider to be significant and glaring errors both typo and
    technical. The majority of these errors had been propogated from the
    privious SM (-0003) with what appears to be no effort made to weed them
    out. I could not find a single correction that had been made from the
    previous SM.
    
    If new SM's and IG's are made available in a text format, I can assure
    you that I will participate in "debugging" them.
    
    Virgil Neiman
    Instructor
    Minneapolis Training Center
    Minneapolis,MN
    D442-2165

         Virgil,

         Hello. I am Mel Regnell, and I am the moderator and
         project leader for the User Project. First, I wanted to thank
         you for your support of the text file idea. We think it
         it is a great one too...and I am looking forward to
         seeing your input.

         Second, I would like to ask your help. 

         Developing courses is a convoluted and sometimes
         extremely frustrating experience. No course leaves our
         unit without sign-off from an instructor-reviewer. No
         course leaves our unit without every review comment from
         a notes file being reviewed and implemented where
         appropriate.

         The System Management course that you referred to is no
         exception. Every notes file entry was reviewed and acted
         upon. An instructor-review signed off on the final
         versions of the chapters. Professional editors and
         publishing personnel each, in turn, signed off.

         And you say it is [ahh...] less than good.

         What I would like to ask, is three things:

         	1) That you send me a hard copy of the
         	   changes that you find were _not_ made
         	   [and should have been] between the last
         	   version and this one.

         	2) That you enter your comments/feedback
         	   in the System Management Notes File

         	3) That you remember that people who develop
         	   courses _are_ people. They have as much stress
         	   and unreliability in their lives as you do.
         	   We need your feedback about what we need to
         	   change in courses to make them better. But we
         	   need it in a format that allows us all to
         	   maintain our dignity and our self respect.

         	   If comments from instructors force us to act
         	   defensively, then we get into a shouting match 
         	   about which group did not do what when they 
         	   said they would...and _none_ of us are without
         	   blame...I can document it.

         Thanks, and I look forward to your spirited review
         comments!

         Melinda

    On a process related matter, I would like to get comment on developing
    Text-based Instructional courses as a "by-product" of producing
    Instructor Guides and using our modularity capability to augment these
    resulting "TBIs" with additional instructor material as needed.
    
    Basically, the process could be represented as follows:
    
    
    	TBI Outline --------------------------> Student Guide  \___> L/L
                   \____> TBI---------- \                      /
                   /                     \ ___> Instructor Guide
        TBI "grist"                      /
                              Instructor 
                              material
                             ("modules")
    
    This approach would allow us to save money and improve "time-to-market"
    by ensuring TBI development as a matter of course in building
    Lecture/Lab.
    
    I would like to try this out for the SYSNET II and SYSNET III course
    updates that are being done now by IDC.  I would like to make a
    decision on this by the end of this week, 18-Sep so your prompt
    response is appreciated.
    
    Thanks for all your input.
    
     Bill

In words, what happens is that a TBI is developed first for a given course. From
the TBI is developed a lecture/lab student guide; the TBI, with additional 
instructor-specific information, is also the instructor guide.

There are some significant advantages to this approach, such as:

	o LLs and TBIs always match

	o Instructors are given adequate prep material

	o Reduced cost

	o Faster time-to-market

The students would not be aware of the change in design strategy, since the
student guide would be retained pretty much as it is now. The instructor
would see a change in the prep material, I think for the better. The
developers would see a significant change in the way we develop.

Regards,

Perry

    
    Bill,
    
    Given my druthers, I would recommend against this direction.  Two
    different audiences, and at least that many delivery modalities, make
    a very dissatisfying stew.  
    
    Instructors ramping up on, or returning to, a course are looking for 
    material that takes them to the next level of proficiency, yet that 
    is keyed to the current materials.  For example, discussion of VMS 
    Internals issues in the instructor guides for either VAX/VMS Architecture 
    or VMS Performance Management courses would be appropriate.  The instructor
    notes should be far more than a script for the current course, or a rehash 
    of content from materials on the booklist.        
    
    The self contained nature of the TBI delivery mode requires more bulk, 
    not greater technical content.  In fact, to maintain parallelism of
    product, greater technical content must not be included.
    
    I am reminded of the time we attempted, frequently unsuccessfully, to
    produce L/L materials by lightly editing the TBI.  At least in that
    case the technical level was equivalent.
    
    The materials have to match the audience, and the learning support
    available to the audience.  That does not appear to be the case in this
    proposal.
    
    Regards,
    
    kenz

    
    
    Umm, what is "grist"?
    
       GJD

  I like trying new ideas, but is SysNet I & II the right place?  These
  courses are going througha rewrite because they weren't done right
  the first time.  I'd suggest for these we build a TBI on a SUCCESSFUL
  implementation of the L/L material.  Let's not make the L/L material
  (where we still make most of our revenue!) be second-fiddle to TBIs.
  
  Second, TBIs tend to have MUCH more/wordier material per topic --
  something that is NOT needed nor WANTED on the student pages of L/L
  materials.  Keep  those pages lean and let the instructors add the meat.
  
  $

    Hello,
    
    I like the discussion on TBI and L/L materials as I am involved in
    both OLC-support and L/L training.
    
    I would be in favor of developping ONE set of materials suitable for both
    OLC and L/L training. This will always allow you to offer the course
    in either or both formats. I would say that ONE set of material is
    always easier to update than two, no mather how intelligent/modular
    you set up the documentation.
    Good examples are the packages for Decpresent and Decwrite (end-user
    training). These packages are approx equal for L/L training and OLC
    training. An Olc package need to be more detailed than L/L student
    packages. The extra information in the OLC packages can however be of
    much help to the instructor as well (instructor notes).
    For internal DEC students I (and the students) sometimes prefer 
    the OLC packages for L/L training as student information. The OLC
    packages are generally much better suitable for reference purposes 
    and students  need not to make many notes -> can keep their attention 
    to the instructor.
    
    I agree that it would probably not be very wise to change strategy for 
    sysnet training, but ... 
    if this sysnet training is translated to other languages 
    only a single package can be made for both L/L and OLC training.
    
    Peter Brinks
    OLC & Repair technoly training Nijmegen Holland.

Buck, just to make sure we're on the same wavelength...

Corporate has decided (I think it was Jim Stewart) that instructor guides and
student guides must be separate books, and must be done using a mapping-style
doctype. I believe that this is engraved in stone. Sandstone, maybe...

The fallout from this directive is that it no longer makes sense to use the 
lecture/lab doctype, since it was designed solely to produce facing-page
instructor guides.

Given that the instructor guide is a separate book, it makes sense to me to
develop a TBI, use that as instructor prep material, and 'condense' a 
student guide out of the TBI.

The instructor's TBI would contain additional material directly related
to teaching the course. We could higlight it with an icon in the margin. This
material would obviously not be in the customer's version.

I think that prepping for a course from a 'souped up' TBI would be much 
easier than prepping from a sparse instructor guide. I would think that  
instructors would continue to make notes in a student guide for classroom use.

Perry

    Just to further Perry's comment, the instructor guide and student guide
    would be page-for-page compatible as well.  The student guide would not
    contain all the content from the TBI but would remain similiar in depth
    to what we have today--bulleted lists, tables, examples, etc.  
    
    As my diagram showed in 4.0 the instructional outline (which forms the
    basis of the SG and TBI) would need to be done first; content, examples
    and supporting material would be developed for TBI and consequent IG; 
    additional instructor support material added to complete the IG and
    examples, etc. added to complete the SG.  
    
    Once the L/L materials are released, the TBI would be finalized.  
    
    I believe that from a customer point of view, they would see nothing
    really different from current practice. Integrating development
    practice to deliver a TBI as a "byproduct" of L/L material production
    should save us money without impacting L/L schedules.
    
    I would like to try this for the updated Sysnets.

 Re [.-1]
 > Just to further Perry's comment, the instructor guide and student guide
 > would be page-for-page compatible as well.

   I'd like to say something and ask a few questions:

   It doesn't make much sense to go to separate books, use a electronic 
   publishing tool, yet try to keep a page for page correlation. One of my 
   biggest frustrations with L/L, and most time consuming, was the manual 
   formatting to correct problems. Thanks to <DUPE_PAGE> and some other "hacks"
   to get around this. The fact remained, you did manual formatting with an 
   electronic publishing tool that will auto-format for you. (By the way, 
   CUP.8_5x11_MH isn't much better).

   Why should there be a page to page correlation? How can you include things 
   that otherwise would have to be a separate reference document? The titles 
   should relate, but, the amount of material in each book may not, nor should
   it be required. If there's a topic to be clarified, it should be. Yet if it 
   doesn't, then why have blanks? Some would say for notes. Keeping a page for
   page correlation would be another inefficient constraint.

   When I taught, I would teach from a student guide, or key the lecture to 
   slides on the overhead. I couldn't use a "detailed" IG in my presentation.
   However, I would prep with one.

   So I ask, how many Instructors need a modified, fairly lean version of the
   Student Guide to teach from? How many Instructors would rather see a fairly
   detailed IG to prep from, and use the SG when teaching?


							Regard,

							Paul M.

Date:	16-SEP-1992 15:40:45.72
From:	SUPER::WAGON::SUCCES::BRACE "Ellen Brace 297-4491  16-Sep-1992 1544"
Subj:	Significant changes to Customer Training Standards Summary
To:	@LIB:BGSITE
The following are the major changes to CDT (previously known as ESCM) 
requirements for producing courses. For further information, refer to 
Standard 500, which is available on the ESDP node.

1.  CUP.8_5X11_MH Doctype will be used for TBI and LL/SEM courses.  
    (Requires waiver to deviate.)  Immediately on all new courses.

***2.  Instructor guides will be separate books without facing
    pages.  However, this separate book must have a clear reference 
    to the student guide (for example, on the headings level).
    (Effective July 1, 1992 on all NEW courses.)

3.  Instructor guides can be waived although there must be a good
    business reason for approval.

4.  All module/course/etc. exercises will be in a separate book.  
    Solutions will be immediately following the exercises.
    This allows better support for Seminars and better useability
    within a class.

5.  Overhead packages will be separate and orderable only by
    instructors.  They will only include things that are not
    reproducable at the local level.  These packages will
    be shrink wrapped and not three-hole punched.

    
    
    Well, to be honest, I don't really care what format you use IF you'll
    guarantee me materials that are in good shape TECHNICALLY!  
    
    It doesn't matter what they look like if the content isn't up to
    snuff!!!
    
    Crabby Greg.......
    
       

  This is a slight diversion from the topic, but since you brought it up...
  
|Corporate has decided (I think it was Jim Stewart) that instructor guides and
|student guides must be separate books, and must be done using a mapping-style
|doctype. I believe that this is engraved in stone. Sandstone, maybe...

  Separate book isn't a real issue for most instrcutors as it is primarily 
  used for PREP, not necessarily lecture.
  
  Does the Mapping-style doctype allow for non-edited 80-column displays
  from systems (i.e. SHOW SYSTEM display)?  This was something we pushed
  for FIRMLY when the V5.0 System Management course was developed.  
  
|The fallout from this directive is that it no longer makes sense to use the 
|lecture/lab doctype, since it was designed solely to produce facing-page
|instructor guides.

  DOCtype isn't a concern.  The FONT is.  The old FONT made it difficult 
  to determine the difference between "I" and "l" or "l" and "1".  For
  example, the C language book has the 2nd problem, the DECwindows II book 
  has the other.
  
  DOCtype isn't the concern, excessive wordiness is.  The course writer for
  a new course has already warned me that "The material will be much
  wordier.  No more bulleted lists only."  SIGH!  I do wish we could get
  our acts together.  Don't 'write out' what I'm supposed to say.  There
  needs to be a benefit of having a skilled instructor.  Let us learn from
  the associated materials and provide the words ourselves!
  
  
|Given that the instructor guide is a separate book, it makes sense to me to
|develop a TBI, use that as instructor prep material, and 'condense' a 
|student guide out of the TBI.

  TBI's can't have internal references (locations of notes files, etc.),
  they can't reference DIGITAL-ONLY material, they can't reference DEC
  internal contacts, or suggest teaching styles and techniques.  This is
  what the new instructor needs.  Yes, the TBI would be useful.  Yes, I
  would probably look at it, but will it be in the INSTRUCTOR's kit? 
  Please remember that we are hiring a considerable number of outside 
  (non-DEC) instructors to teach our courses.  The material to properly 
  teach a course should be included in an instructor's kit -- don't assume
  they just DEC instructors (who have access to EASYNET and ordering the
  supplemental material) will be the only people that need this material!
  
|The instructor's TBI would contain additional material directly related
|to teaching the course. We could higlight it with an icon in the margin. This
|material would obviously not be in the customer's version.

  I don't understand.  Does a TBI have an instructor's guide?  Why?  Do I
  now need 2 Instructor's guides?
  
|I think that prepping for a course from a 'souped up' TBI would be much 
|easier than prepping from a sparse instructor guide. I would think that  
|instructors would continue to make notes in a student guide for classroom use.

  To learn the TECHNICAL stuff, yes.  To prepare your lecture, to determine
  what needs to be said on which page, no.  To get a sense of timing, no.
  
  I think the new system has merits, but the plan is REAL fuzzy on this
  end.  Did we poll the instructors as to what should be on the
  instructor's pages?  What they need and use it for?  I'm concerned that
  How well coordinated will the instructor's guides be with the student
  guides and TBIs?  Will there be 2 instructor's guides?  Lots of
  questions...maybe some more details would help.
  
  $
  

Buck, we'll create *two* TBI versions:

	o Instructor version: Has DIGITAL-ONLY material, references to
	  docsets, and so on.

	o Customer version: Has just the facts.

What the instructor gets is a TBI-style prep guide that includes
instructor-specific infomration which doesn't appear in the customer version.

The LL student gets the same student guide he or she's always had.

Perry

    The past few replies remind me of those posted at
    SUPER::ESDP_INSTRUCTOR_NOTES a year or more ago. 
    See in particular notes 37 and 65.
    
    My feelings are unchanged.
    
    -- K