CTT+ - any opinions?

[fortean]

For many years I have taught both classes and individuals. I'm not a full-time teacher, but have taught classes on cyber crime and digital forensics for the Dutch Police, taught classes on IoT and ISO27K, did some (guest)lectures and presentations on events, academies and my university. I also have been a millers instructor since 2009. I hence teach both practical skills (e.g. working a very dangerous and large machine like a Dutch windmill) and theory.  I have created curricula, of course based on (often at least partially self set) learning objectives, and developed my own materials: books, questionnaires, quizzes etc. I had to, as there are often none available or they don't match the qualities of the pupils. I really enjoy teaching, but, there is always the slightly nagging question: "am I any good at this". The results seem to be good: I've led many pupils towards their exams and an overwhelming majority of them passed on first try. Also, pupils are quite satisfied according to my evaluations.  But I'm a self-taught man, so there's always some doubt.

In such situations, it may help to certify, if only to prove to others objectively that one can really teach.

• I believe that (ISC)² also certifies courses / teachers, but failed to find how the process works.  I am curious if there are any (ISC)² certifications for teachers, so: to objectively measure the quality of a teacher. Any information on this would be most welcome!

• I also have been given the advice to check out CompTIA's CTT+ certification, which seems to be promising: you'll have to do a multiple choice exam to prove that you have essential didactical qualities, then send them a recording of one of your teaching sessions, so they can judge the quality of it. Hower, to be honest, I had never heard of CTT+ before, hence I'm curious about your thoughts, dear community. Is it any good?

• Have any of you done the CTT+ or a similar certification - and if similar: which one and why?

Thanks in advance for your feedback!

[Early_Adopter]

Not seen this one but will take a look, here's my thoughts on the subject - others probably have better ones.

The fact that you ask the question, am I any good, probably means that you are - or at least think about what you are doing an adapt. Nothing worse than a 'Slide ParrotTM', available from all good paper mills...:P

Mill instructor sounds awesome, Like being a Drill Instructor, but with enormous stones...I used to teach a fair amount of skills based lessons, and some theory for various fields. Things that stayed with me for technical training were from all the good instructors I had were:

• Explain, Demonstrate, Imitate, Practice or EDIP. This lends itself very well to physical tasks and skills that need muscle memory , and is very goof in that during the practice phase you can facilitate multiple pair or groups teaching each other as long as you have good class control. In technical practical sessions have people work in pairs, paring strong with the weaker members.
• Don't speak while doing, and don't do while speaking;
• Try never to go beyond forty minutes without a break of five to ten minutes;
• Use humor, but never so much it distracts and really make sure its appropriate to you audience. I recently attended a course where the web filtering example was always give as 'inappropriate content' after a week it was very stale, and from a few titers at the start it quickly got old. the majority of students were female as well, not a good look.
• Confirmation for teaching and ...confirmation. Question format of a group should be Pose, Pause Pounce. Always nominate and do so by name(for Asian audiences be very prepared to answer your own question). This is a good trick as you learn names this way as well as have everyone think... an you will learn names, enabling more effectiveness/better connection.
• Use the simplest , most concise language you can, think 'Globish'. If you really want style points translate your lessons along the lines of https://www.amazon.com/Thing-Explainer-Complicated-Stuff-Simple/dp/0544668251;
• Lesson planning and rehearsal are essential in delivering good training. Technical sessions bus be tested on volunteers before students.

Lastly, I think that Basic Instructional Technique(BITS) courses are great fun, and very valuable as you can apply these to teach anything you want.

[fortean]

Thanks for your reply and the tips and hints provided, very useful! However, I'm really looking for accreditation e.g. similar to something like this:

There is a download of the set of Australian teaching standards which you can find here.

[fortean]

I'm slightly misusing this thread now as a kind of personal notebook, in which I jot down my experiences with and research on various accreditations and certifications, perhaps some of you may find it of use. And of course, feel free to chime in.

Firstly, I recently got hold of the "All-in-one" CTT+ Exam Guide. It seem to be the only study book that is part of what CompTIA labels "CompTIA Authorized Quality Curriculum (CAQC) training materials" - actually, I have yet to find another study book about CTT+, part of CAQC or not. So this seems to be pretty much 'it'.  I must say I'm slightly biased against All-in-one guides: during my preparation for the CISSP exam (2011) I also briefly checked out the Shon Harris All-in-one guide - it really did not fit my learning needs. The Shon Harris book was riddled with corny oneliners that probably were supposed to be 'funny' and making the learning experience a bit smoother - it worked exactly the opposite for me.  However, as the AIO CTT+ guide seems to be all there is, I will be using this. With some relief I can say that it lacks the corny one-liners, and after having read some chapters my initial impression is positive. I will keep you posted.

Another option for teacher accreditations would be the IBCT accreditation(s).  One of the members of our Chapter board directed me to a LinkedIn post, in which Michiel Broekhuijsen is presented as an IBCT accredited teacher.

More about this accreditation can be found on their website.  An initial quick scan reveals that you seem to have to convince a board of your qualities, by uploading various documents describing personal details, your education, additional eduction in teaching, your experience and expertise and last but not least customer satisfaction.

I'm not sure what to think of this approach yet - seems a bit odd that you qualify by convincing a board instead of by application of well-known, public rules (e.g. as is done with (ISC)² accreditations) and an exam. But perhaps I'll change my mind later on, after having done more research. Will keep you posted on any new developments.

[Early_Adopter]

I'd say that Shon's book took the everything plus the kitchen sink and threw it in, and imparted too many jocularities  - jokes don't work as ice breakers/quickeners if there are to many, and more importantly they are not funny.

However, her's was the first broad compendium of knowledge that hit the market for the CISSP and covered everything and was much better than anything else on the market - so she became legend for this(and in part thanks to some of the most advanced retro-futuro hair in the industry, her initial jacket photos could have easy got her a role in Blake's 7, probably as Servelans's).

On the IBTC thing I'm not sure I'm convinced, along your reservations. The best 'train the trainer' courses and other courses on teaching I've attended all had peer review of delivery of material by instructor and other students. Hot debrief with a 'How did you feel that went...', put out to the group an the the instructor's opinion, nothing in the list of artifacts would tell them if you hit all your teaching points, you modulated you voice along the lines of RSVP, you were on time etc. I'll keep an open mind and I guess they could have lots of mappings etc - but then, if its technical training, why not at the very least submit one or more video's of the trainer providing  a defined lesson in a known curriculum?

[fortean]

Yeah, 'Early_Adopter', Shon Harris was an icon. Sadly, she passed away in 2014, just 46 years old. I fully recognise her contributions to the field: many people liked her books, and many have used them to pass (ISC)² exams.  But her approach did not appeal to me, I found the corny jokes distracting and the information was spread out too thin to suit my taste.

I also read a bit more in the CTT+ book, found a section in which the ADDIE model is discussed. I was immediately reminded of the Deming cycle (PDCA) and QC and after some googling I found an interesting webpage that describes the aforementioned ADDIE model, but also the Kirkpatrick model and the Ebbinghaus forgetting curve (and what to do about that). Just FYI (and my recollection later on) here is the link.

[Early_Adopter]

Yeah, I found her books not infromationally rich enough per page for true industrial learning, I actually think the good editing would have got rid of a lot of the distraction.

On ADDIE -we used to call it Systems Approach Training(SAT), but yeah, it's a riff on Deming(as most things that work generaly are). If you want to make it four step split design in half and put they front bit into you analysis as normalization and the latter bit into development - the youngsters doing Agile harrumph! might feel better about it...

Forgetting is really important, and I'm glad we have the Exocortex now to remember things for us.

[fortean]

The Charles Sturt University (perhaps by no coincidence also located in New South Wales) has offered a free on-line course on CTT+. It consisted of 4 video's, of roughly one hour each, followed by an open book exam. The course is no longer available, but the video's are still on-line. I took the liberty of creating a playlist that contains all four courses in their proper order.

[fortean]

Passed TK201 exam today :-). Now, the second stage is to record a video of me when I'm giving a course, which then will be judged by a panel. Keep you posted.

[fortean]

Just to let y'all know that I passed both CTT+ exams. So, I'm now a certified technical trainer. As I also passed the SuSE SCA and SuSE SCE exams, I also applied for the SuSE Certified Instructor accreditation.

I'm still a bit in the dark on how (ISC)2 accredits their teachers / trainers, perhaps somebody can chime in here? I have heard from one of the (ISC)2 certified instructors I know that "he simply got the accreditation by asking for it". Well, if that's the case.. I'm asking