#Instructor Certification
14 messages in this thread
I *knew* ADVANSTAR had a familiar ring to it. Now you're touching on
an area that expands the crux of the argument. Teaching AutoCAD as
opposed to tailoring an environment specific training program. When I
started doing training as a consultant I offered a satisfaction or
your money back guarantee. I also spent several days pestering my
client's personnel and somtimes actually performing work for them to
help understand the specifics of their installation. I've given up on
this approach and slid over to teaching at the college level because
immersing myself became so time comsuming, not that it wasn't worth
it for both myself and the client, but because being a jack of all
trades led to so many other paths that I got to the point that I had
to decide to go 100% consultant – I'm not a very good boss, I like
that paycheck every other week<G>.
At the 2-yr college where I teach, the architectural end is covered
with the use of KETIV. That isn't my baliwick but it is the way to go
IMHO. It's tough to go discipline specific because not all
disciplines respond to that approach, mechanical being one of them.
There are too many ways to apply mechanical to settle on any one
approach as a universal constant. When you get into Civil or P&ID you
enter niche markets that are best handled by consultants familiar
with the field. It's a real can of worms, but I look foward to any
views, from anybody, as to how to make the certification viable for
more than just the `tool'.
Dear Dennis:
I've thought about it, and I just can't agree that all AutoCAD teachers can
teach all AutoCAD students equally well, not even at the 'Fundamentals' level.
I just have to believe that a teacher with a background in Architecture, or
Mechanical Engineering, or NC is probably a better teacher for users in those
disciplines.
It seems to me that we are not talking about licensing operators here. We're
talking about accrediting instructors. To be worth its 'weight' the credential
must give users, atcs and other employeers some idea of the person's ability to
teach AutoCAD.
That means it probably ought to be more than:
How many circle options are there?
Can you draw an arc if you know only the start point and radius?
How can you create an arc with a known start point, radius and
perimeter measurement?
Which surface command requires four end point to end point curves.
What autolisp command do you use to grab all the information in the
database about a given entity.
If the credential doesn't do more than this, I don't see how it will be more
than the normal 'user' certification exam already in existence. Why do we need
two tests then? Why not just make a certain score on the current test required
for Autodesk approved instructors?
Wouldn't it be easier to accredit curriculum rather than instructors and then
to test the students after a class to measure retention? It is easy for
Autodesk to control curriculum quality and to enforce a feedback loop. And
this seems to acheive their objective more directly – Educated Students which
can pass the certification exam.
Besides, curriculum for Autodesk classes is complained about at every ATC
managers meeting. Many teachers are compelled to use old curriculum, or
haphazardly created curriculum, or curriculum that doesn't fit into the class
time requirements. If Autodesk generates approved curriculum for a variety of
disciplines they would be doing intructors a favor. And if they measure the
delivery of that 'data' they would be doing students a favor.
Nancy,
Having separate curriculums based on discipline is not without its merits. It
does create an instructor stratification that might work in major metropolitan
areas. When it comes to discipline specific instruction I can't justify an
AutoCAD curriculum or certification, as at that point the user should not be
focusing on AutoCAd as a tool but on some Companion Application that will
provide a manifold increase in productivity. There is no doubt in my mind that
an instructor skilled in the intended discipline is going to be able to
streamline the requisite command understanding, and superfluousness of certain
commands, that a student may find some benefit in this directed approach. I
just don't think such an approach is feasible in terms of segregating students
and schedules or finding enough students in any one category to justify the
effort. I'm sure you agree licensing operators and accrediting instructors is a
GIGO proposition. Autodesk can only accredit a curriculum that applies to the
AutoCAD software since it is a non-discipline specific tool. Are you saying
that an Autodesk accredited curriculum should guarantee a learned user if the
instructor is adequate, or an adequate user would result from an instructor
learned in the accredited curriculum? I feel any instructor that can't create
an effective curriculum is doing their students a great disservice. I do say
this from the viewpoint of a 40 hr/wk USER who teaches part time though. A
tenured instructor being handed an AutoCAD lab might see things in a different
light. A discipline specific curriculum will not only assist them in their
instruction, but it would also illuminate approaches that they could act on to
increase their comprehension of what the software is capable of doing for them,
not only in academia, but also in a private practice. I must reiterate that I
see the benefit as minimal and I feel that a Companion Application should be
introduced at this point.
Expecting Autodesk to accredit discipline specific curricula is beyond the
scope of their responsibility IMHO. Accrediting a fundamental curriculum does
no more than the current testing process as you point out. If an instructors
students can't pass the ACE then the results speak for themselves. I think the
greatest assistance that can be provided would be including the ACE as part of
all instruction requirements and that instructor accreditation continue to be
based on this criterion. With the ACE as the common denominator the instructor
DOES at least have a minimum target requirement to shoot at in developing an
adequate curriculum.
I've encountered major resistance to the test from users that currently make
their living using AutoCAD. I assumed that it was because they feared the
results, but it turns out that ACE accreditation just doesn't mean all that
much. It all comes back to your argument for discipline specific training. The
tool that AutoCAD represents is not as important as the Companion Application
that it is used with. The important instruction begins once the lessons are
applied to the day-to-day work that goes out the door. Knowing that the raw
material has adequate knowledge of AutoCAD, by passing the ACE, establishes
that least common denominator. Every office has different procedures that only
can be learned in the work environment, and the requisite CAD knowledge can
also be transferred at the same time. This might lead to propagation of poor
practice, but it goes back to something I stress; I can teach any draftsperson
(or selected professional) AutoCAD, but I can't teach them the profession. I
say let's keep AutoCAD out of the professions and let them be responsible for
their own havoc<g>.
Dennis
Nancy, Dennis,
That's fine. We all agree on the same thing all over. Evaluating an educator
is more than just asking "How many circle options are there".
We ALL agree on that. Now can you all tell us what we CAN ask an educator in
order to evaluate his/her performance?
Nancy's idea of using curriculum is a good one, and one that I think can be
used. But just having AutoDesk put together these lovely curriculum packages
and sell them does not a good educator make. It helps tremendously, to be
sure, but putting me in a formula 1 racing car does not make me a Niki Lauda or
Alan Proust or whatever.
So until now (starting from last year) we have:
1 – Check the educators' knowledge of CAD (ACE – AutoCAD
certification examinations)
2 – Check the educators' ability to put together a sample exercise.
3 – Check the educators' ability to plan and put together a curriculum.
4 – Measure the extent of the educators' pedagogical knowledge and/or
training
5 – Check the ability of the educator to *deliver* the content in
different styles, in different environments.
6 – Check the ability of the educator to EVALUATE the performance of
her/his students on a continuing basis, and adjust the delivery
accordingly for more effective learning.
7 – Check the students' learning outcomes and course exit
competencies… did they get what they were supposed to? (the
ultimate reflection of an educator)
If I remember correctly, that's it. Now the question is: HOW ON EARTH do we
do that? That's what I'd dearly love to know, and so would so many others.
The discussions and the threads have given solutions ranging from having the
instructor pass the ACE with a certain minimum percentage (1), get copies of a
teacher's materials and curriculum and evaluate it (2,3), someone calling up a
teacher and asking him/her to explain a topic in five minutes over a phone (Mr.
Hit Returns' Grips <g>), to having a session with the instructor taped, to
having a bogus "student" in class etc….
Any practical solutions, anyone?
Mark K.
Hi Mark:
If you evaluate all those things for the instructor certification then it will
be a fine measurement.
I'm not against the idea of trying to certify instructors – a bad certification
process will be ignored. A good one will enhance the market, make users happy,
and get good instructors paid more.
I think certifying quality curriculum is easier than certifying quality
instructors. I think certified curriculum can be augmented by the instructor
with their own examples. I think maybe the ACE (and/or shorter class based
exams) should be made a required part of AutoCAD training for ATCs. I think
curriculum should be application based, generally, because AutoCAD isn't
important – what you do with it is. And I know that most architects don't use
AutoCAD with a 3rd party app, and hardly any mechanical types do.
Quality control is everything.
If you put the tools and testing in place – I think the bad instructors will be
easy to weed out. Their students test scores will always be low.
And licensing curriculum and QC tests would cost less than administrating a
continuous series of tests for instructors.
But, like the rest of the AutoCAD Educators in the field, I am looking forward
to the solution the Autodesk team will develop. I support you in your endeavor
and if I could think of any _practical_ advice beyond what I've given – I'd be
happy to contribute it.
The only practical advice I have is to focus on the results – trained students.
Seriously, I know the solution that comes forth will be good. Who ever is
"hands on" with this project might do well to ignore us kibitzers.
n.
Nancy:
Just to let you know, I have been reading the "kibitzing", and have no
intention of ignoring it. As Mark said, we are now struggling with how to
implement the evaluation phase of Instructor Certification.
Our first official meeting last week went well. We are making progress. What is
crucial to understand here is that this is not a hair-brained scheme by Wayne
or Grace or LSG or myself. The Autodesk customers of the world are DEMANDING
certification of instructors. They want accountability, and I think they
deserve it. Other goals and/or reasons for this process include Quality of
Delivery, Recognition of the Instructors, and Globally Transferrable Teaching
Skills.
Like the ACE, there will also be levels of instructors. There will be "entrance
requirements" to apply for each level. Details on this will be published when
they get finalized.
Stay tuned…
-KLF
Dear Ken
As you say, the AutoCAD universe demands accountability, and I too believe they
should have it. You guys will make the right decisions. I am just trying to
consider the matter from a practical viewpoint.
Do we really want to guarantee instructors or the quality of training/education
someone receives.
I always come back to Wayne's point, made so eloquently when I was invited into
the ETS program.
The focus of training should always be the student.
You know I don't consider the idea 'hare brained' I consider it important.
I'm glad you all are handling it – and that you solicit outside opinion. Such
conflict makes decisions better.
n.
Let's see Mark…
Given your seven point steps to evaluating the Instructor, here are a few ideas
as to HOW to coolect this info….
>>1 – Check the educators' knowledge of CAD (ACE – AutoCAD
certification examinations)<< Establish a higher pass/fail percentage
for the Instructor
>>2 – Check the educators' ability to put together a sample exercise.<<
Develop a submittal process wherein the instructor can provide copies of two or
three lessons prepared… potentially either credit course work or the
"injection molded" seminar stuff.
>>3 – Check the educators' ability to plan and put together a
curriculum.<< This one could be lumped with the sample exercises, above.
>>4 – Measure the extent of the educators' pedagogical knowledge and/or
training<< Submitting training records, or classroom time??? Credit course
work, or even "seminars" attended, could supply adequate review materials to
help determine this requirement.
>>5 – Check the ability of the educator to *deliver* the content in
different styles, in different environments.<< Sounds like we're
talking about a review video, or an instructional evaluation at an assigned
ATC. Maybe student survey's would be useful….keep in mind that not everyone
works for an ATC (news flash!!!).
>>6 – Check the ability of the educator to EVALUATE the performance of
her/his students on a continuing basis, and adjust the delivery accordingly for
more effective learning.<< Good luck with this one, but it sounds like another
case for a video review. I'm not sure we're gonna be able to measure this one.
Folks with a psycology degree would "fare" well…..the evaluation vidoe would
help deteremine the ability, but….
>>7 – Check the students' learning outcomes and course exit
competencies… did they get what they were supposed to? (the
ultimate reflection of an educator)<< This is gonna be toooooo
subjective to measure with any credibility. If I get a student who doesn't
like my voice inflections, or hair style, or the nrevous twitch – they're
goner's. We could use this, but it shouldn't weigh too heavy….a student will
often feel like I tried my very best to get the point across, but they'll have
some learning block or other distractions (like the twitch thing), and THEY
didn't get all they could've out of the class. Hard to tell.
Get a Grip…Bill Elliott
Bill,
I think we're gonna have to agree on that we disagree….
>>Check the student's learning outcomes and course exit competencies…
>>This is gonna be tooooo subjective to measure with any credibility
Isn't the learning outcome the objective of teaching?
It can be subjective to measure? (why? a simple test will do)
I know that you will occasionally have students who won't do their best because
they didn't like one thing or another (but a different approach to that person
would maybe succeed!!)
Some teachers may have a slam bang, hand it to them on a silver platter
attitude and hope they will swallow it attitude, and a teacher certification
should weed these out. An eval form filled by a student looks great when you
take hundreds of them and average them out, but the question is, did the
student really think they learned a lot or did they *actually* learn a lot?
That's my reason for number 7 and I think it is an important part…
Mark K.
Mark,
The silver platter mentality is such an injustice to students. The other
sections are used almost as weeding out classes and are just as damaging an
opposite extreme. There are also the instructors that teach according to
recipe, which doesn't foster the thought process needed for independent problem
solving and the cognitive interactions that promote exponential leaps in
learning as opposed to the linear trudging that stymies even some of MY
students. It is such a juggling act.
Dennis
Dennis,
Agreed. I'd like to weed out the teachers, not the students <g>.
Mark K.
Nancy,
I agree that there are thousands of quote, teachers out there who
couldn't teach if their lives depended upon it. These people have tons of
qualifications in their fields, but just can't teach! The students, staff and
others know this but this prof with all the credentials dosen't and just can't
cut it.
Of course there must be some sort of standard by which the teacher
must be judged, but that standard must take into account; credentials, real
world experience, love for the software and teaching in general, and most of
all proof of keeping current.
Autodesk is going to great lengths with their LSG to educate teachers,
why not have these LSG experts evaluate the teachers attending PPT's (remember
that not just anyone can attend these) as to their ability to teach via mini
teaching lessons created at these sessions. Attendance at each PPT should be
made mandatory if you plan to be accredited by Autodesk as a REAL CAD TEACHER.
The points that Mark Kurdi listed, which are simmilar to the university system
used to train teachers, could be incorporated into these sessions.
Also a certified cirriculum from Autodesk would help keep classrooms
across North America producing students who would be at certain levels of
competency. This cirriculum could be generic in nature with the various
instructors making them discipline specific.
Nick
Nancy,
Good to here your comments. I have many but I don't think there is
enough roon on cis!
In regards to the specific discipline certification….Do you really
think it is possible that Autodesk can have such a program?. I mean, if
Autodesk has this product called Autocad and there is a certification process
then should it only be on what Autodesk has? Autodesk should be very specific
on what it has to offer and certify what it is best at.
I hope you see my point.
later,
J.C. Malitzke
Dear J.C.
Yes, actually I do. Certifying that instructors can teach vanilla AutoCAD
sounds almost impossible to me. (Though I'm sure the Adesk team on this project
will find a way.)
If we are just going to check 'factual' knowledge, then why get a new test –
why not use ACE?
If we are going to check more than 'factual' knowledge, then I think the
qualification must involve stuff like "publications", "experience",
"background", "degrees" just like university accreditation does. I also think
it should acknowldege special expertise in a given field – vanilla AutoCAD is
easy, that expertise, however, is what makes AutoCAD pay off for users.
The job gets bigger whenever I look at it.
I can guarantee that curriculum will cover and drill students on a specific set
of tools. I can test to make sure the instructor did his job in delivery.
But I've said all this before – and I do repeat myself as my ETS friends are
well aware. I just hope I presented my thoughts clearly…
At any rate, I do agree with your comment. Your comment points to the crux of
my confusion.
Cool? n.