Integrating Certifications – Implications of Increased Transparency

Posted on by

College IT programs continue to recognize the value of integrating professional certifications; common objectives and time-stamped credentials serve the employer well, industry validated outcomes and aggregated test results support the efforts of institutional effectiveness, and certification provides another credential for distinguishing student ability. But what are some implications for program administrators and classroom instructors?

Historically class content is specified using only a course syllabus with general outcomes or objectives listed. The instructor has had a great degree of latitude determining specific course content, creating both the learning content and the assessments. Course evaluation was typically limited to the most basic level-one evaluation, in which students assess the course answering questions concerning course organization and instructor effectiveness.

Integrating certifications into the classroom provides new levels of content definition and evaluation. Certification specifications not only dictate what is to be learned, but also to what degree. Certification may also span multiple courses, requiring a much greater degree of coordination between subsequent courses. Most importantly, course effectiveness in no longer measured based on how the student feels about the instructor, but rather measured using a new standardized metric – certification exam results..

As a result, courses and programs have a new level of transparency. Not only is student competency measured against a standard, but also instructor and program performance. Certification results can be compared between instructors, courses, and even between programs. Instructor performance is made public and no longer hidden behind the classroom door.

Early adopters of certification in the classroom are comfortable with this increased transparency. This group is typically highly motivated and may likely have experience with certification preparation and exams. But what about the other instructors? What issues appear as certification in the classroom is scaled out across the program?

Let’s assume you require certification in every class and expect instructors to pass the exam as a prerequisite to teaching. What if this school-identified expert doesn’t pass? What actions should administrators take? And what action is required if a class has poor results on the certification exam? Is this seen as an issue with the instructor’s pedagogy, or will the instructor declare a deficiency in the certification outcomes or exam? Where does the blame for poor results lie – the student, the curriculum, the instructor, or the certification?

Integrating certification into your program is the right thing to do. But, there are challenges that arise as this new metric is applied to learning. School and program administrators must be prepared to actively manage instructors, incorporating exam results into effective evaluation and professional development planning. Instructors will have strong opinions when they fail exams or have poor class results, but educational reform and continuous improvement requires that administrators focus on data, not opinion.

Deploying Robots

Posted on by

It is an exciting time for this long-time community college instructor. My entire second-year class was placed in either a developer internship or career position prior to the end of the semester. Everyone wants data and applications on the network and this is creating a huge demand for developers.

With this high placement rate and a solid curriculum based on the Microsoft Technology Associate (MTA) certification, my attention is now on marketing the program. To meet the high demand, we must increase our “supply” of students. We have been marketing, including a Certiport Success Story video and visits to local schools, but I question the effectiveness. Educators and adults get excited about job placement and certifications, but do these motivate the younger learner?

How do you create market awareness and appeal? I considered this question as I was leaving a Taster’s Guild event earlier this spring where the college raised $60K for scholarships. Guests sampled wine and food, and followed up with contributions to the program. While the NMC’s CIT Developer program provides as much value as the culinary program, it’s a struggle to provide an equally concrete experience of what we do. In fact, the quality of software is often measured by the extent it is transparent to the user.

What about focusing student software development on robotics? This will result in little as far as change to the program outcomes; architecting good software is the same no matter if the target is robot or an e-commerce application. Programming robot behaviors will provide a concrete implementation of student work, which will result in increased marketing, higher enrollments, and improved persistence. Imagine the impact of the robot demonstrating student software or presenting information on NMC programs.

We’re giving it a try!  I’ve been awarded an NMC Innovation grant to purchase and build the Eddie RDS robot by Parallax. This kit requires a laptop and a Microsoft Kinect controller, and a team of students will be creating Eddie projects this summer using the Microsoft Robotic Developer Studio.

Parts are ordered and everyone’s geeked! More updates will be coming soon!

“Hello World” – but in what language?

Posted on by

New to programming and writing your first “Hello World”? Which language do you choose?

While I see many computer science programs require the beginning student to learn multiple languages, I question the value of this. It often just adds confusion for the beginning student. In my opinion, it is depth of understanding that is most important. The ultimate goal is to create a software architect that understands and applies the patterns and practices of programming to create well-structured solutions. The details of the language, e.g. C#, VB.NET, or Java, are of little significance.

This is why the developer exams allow you to choose between C# and VB. The objectives are the same; it’s the implementation of the concepts that vary due to syntax. For example, beginners must understand the following…but pick the syntax – it’s the concept that is critical.

Dog myDog = new Dog();

Or

Dim myDog As Dog = New Dog()

When we created our developer program (not computer science) there was debate over .NET and Java. We’ve standardized on C#.NET because the syntax is similar to Java AND I believe we can produce a developer that has a much deeper understanding of code using the .NET stack.  A student exiting my program can develop a complete .NET application from the database through the business layer to the UI. With a little extra effort he or she can also develop the same application in LAMP environment. Concepts of a good application are the same; it’s the syntax, libraries, and tools that vary.

As far as college credit, we’re currently working on a direct credit model for secondary that incorporates MTA. Credit options for courses will differ, but you’ll likely see credit for the entry courses be given based on certification. More advance courses will required the combination of certification and a portfolio. It’s critical that the student not only know the content, but also show that they can apply the knowledge.

 

 

Free resources for developers

Posted on by

A recent thread in the MTA LinkedIn group was discussing the need for assistance with specific IT curriculum relating to the MTA stack. Here are some resources I’ve been leveraging in our intro CIT 110 Programming Logic and Design course at NMC.

I see the 98-361 Software Fundamentals exam having three main components. First, students must understand concepts and structures related to writing programs. Second, they must recognize how these concepts, patterns, and structures are implemented in either VB or C# code. Third, they must have a broader picture of software development and application types.

I think the most significant challenge with this content is teaching the first two components. These components are identified by the object domain as “Core Programming” and “Object Oriented Programming (OOP)”. My approach is to first teach the concepts and then have the student see the C# implementation. In my experience, attempting to present both concepts and syntax is often over-whelming for the beginning student.

To introduce concepts I use Alice (www.Alice.org). This free learning software provides a simple IDE, introduces OOP immediately, and eliminates syntax issues by using drag-and-drop tiles rather than a text editor. For a textbook I use the “Starting Out with Alice” text by Gaddis because of its focus on software concepts rather than the 3D Alice interface.

The second part of the lesson is to see the implementation of the pattern or structure in C#. There are some great resources on the MSDN site, but as these resources are somewhat outdated, they have diminished. The Beginning Developer Learning Center is at http://bit.ly/wSnIHN. The link to the older content is at the bottom of the page and still available at http://bit.ly/wo6v0R (note to Microsoft – please preserve this content).

Another great free resource for learning code is the C# Yellow Book by Rob Miles (http://bit.ly/wYDfeW)

What are others using for a starting point – Small Basic, App Inventor, others? Please comment!

”Sage on the Stage” to “Guide on the Side”

Posted on by

If you’ve spent any time at all as a trainer or educator, you’ve likely heard this message. The idea is that true learning must be active and owned by the learner. The ultimate learning experience is where the instructor facilitates the student’s learning process and is not limited to the passive model of instructor passing content to student.

During my career as an educator I’ve implement many active learning strategies, but nothing has transformed my classroom to the extent that using certification exams, specifically MTA, has.

Using certification exams as an end of semester assessment provides a distinct separation of the learning process from assessment.  Although Certiport allows MTA testing in my classroom, we elect to require the students to complete the exams at a testing center. In addition to supporting this separation, we recognize that certification testing is an ongoing requirement of an IT professional and the MTA examinations provide an opportunity to emulate professional certification testing.

As I sat outside the testing room last week, talking with students as they completed their MTA exam, my transformation from professor to coach/guide was obvious. Students were enthusiastic about discussing the exam and results, even if they failed. There were no concerns of the validity of the exam or specific questions. No one challenged grading. Instead, the students were anxious to discuss exam content related to the course. Which questions were tough? What objectives require additional time? How can the course be improved for the next class? Several students even apologized for not performing better and dragging down the class average.

Incorporating third-party certification exams into the classroom facilitates a team approach to learning. The target is clearly defined for both student and instructor, and performance is objectively measured. The model encourages a high level of commitment and accountability for all.

“Leaning” IT Instruction with MTA

Posted on by

I was just reviewing one of my favorite books – “Getting the Right Things Done” by Pascal Dennis. This book is a guide to applying the lean principles developed in manufacturing’s quality process. Although the book targets manufacturing, many lean concepts can be easily applied to other areas including education.

One critical task in initiating lean is to define your “true north”. This is a declaration of your purpose and provides direction. It is the business need that must be achieved.

By integrating MTA and its related objective domains into your IT program, you are not only defining your true north but becoming part of a larger learning community focused on common outcomes. This global definition of IT instruction reduces your effort on what to teach and allows you more time to focus on how to teach. The common model also supports curriculum sharing and benchmarking.

I’ve heard some criticize the MTA objectives, complaining that one objective or another is outside the scope of entry-level IT.   Perhaps the MTA toolkit isn’t perfect, but in my opinion the distributed learning model it supports far outweighs any deficiency in content. In my 20-some years of teaching at a universities and community colleges, I have never experienced such broad support and innovation.