Skip to main content

Let’s Make BBST Courses More Accessible

Are time and financial worries keeping students away?

Second in a series.

In my previous post, I wrote about enhancing the student and instructor experience in the AST’s BBST courses by focusing on updating the Fieldstones. Today, I'm talking about another area I would like to concentrate on if elected to the Board of Directors: finding ways to make the BBST courses accessible to more people.

When I say “make the BBST courses accessible to more people,” I’m not implying that the courses are in any way exclusive (other than requiring students to be members of the AST) or elitist. What I do mean is there are many reasons people are unable to take the BBST courses, and I think it would benefit the AST, and better help it to achieve its objectives, if we were to look into what those reasons are and find ways to resolve them.

One of the more common obstacles I see involves the time commitment required to succeed in the courses. One of our guiding principles is that we view software testing as a cognitively complex activity that requires critical thinking, effective communication, and rapid self-directed learning. To me, that means the BBST student needs to go beyond merely remembering or understanding the material the course presents. Using the language of Bloom’s Taxonomy, I believe the goal is for the student to not only apply what they learn in the course, but use it to create something new, critically examine information and make judgments, and take information apart and explore relationships. That, admittedly, takes time, and the general guideline for the AST’s BBST courses is to allow roughly 10 to 12 hours per week for study.

But I think many people who have taken a BBST course can agree the study guideline is really the minimum suggested time allotment, and students can, and often do, spend much more time on the course to get the most out of it. This can be a problem because everyone has limited time (BBST students are no exception!) and other commitments, such as work and family or community and charitable involvement, are all vying for that limited time. 

Another common obstacle is financial. Although the courses are reasonably priced, especially when compared to similar training options, there are those for which it can be a bit costly. Do we want to adjust the price of the course, award scholarships, or give a student discount as we do with membership fees? There are many ways that this can be addressed, each with its own intricacies and issues. 

So, what do we do?

I believe we need to initially spend time to identify some of the more common obstacles to BBST participation, and then work collectively to find ways to lower or remove those obstacles. 

Because, the BBST courses are an essential and integral part of what the AST brings to the community, and changes of this nature can have wide-ranging and unanticipated consequences, I think this effort needs to involve more than just the Board of Directors and the Education Committee, and should include involvement by the general AST membership as well.


Popular posts from this blog

Takeaways from the Continuous Automated Testing Tutorial at CAST2014

I had the opportunity to attend Noah Sussman's tutorial on Continuous Automated Testing last week as part of CAST2014. It was a great tutorial, with most of the morning spent on the theory and concepts behind continuous automated testing, and the afternoon spent with some hands-on exercises. I think that Noah really understands the problems associated with test automation in an agile environment, and the solutions that he presented in his tutorial show the true depth of his understanding of, and insight into, those problems. Here are some of the main highlights and takeaways that I got from his tutorial at CAST2014. Key Concepts Design Tools – QA and testing are design tools, and the purpose of software testing is to design systems that are deterministic Efficiency-to-Thoroughness-Trade-Offs – (ETTO) We do not always pick the best option, we pick the one that best meets the immediate needs Ironies of automation – Automation makes things more complex and, while tools can make

Mission Statement, Definition of Software Testing, and Goals of Software Testing

Why I blog? What’s the difference between a good tester and a great tester? I think the main thing is the ability to think for yourself and to be able to incorporate your experiences as a tester back into the context of your testing practices.  I think that if you look at the software testing community and pay attention to who has good ideas and who does not, you’ll find that the vast majority of people with good ideas emphasize their experience, what they have learned from it, and how they incorporate that back into their testing. Writing about my thoughts and experiences in software testing provides an opportunity for me to take a critical look at what I thought about a subject, assess it in the context of experience and information gained since I first came to think that way, and then update or reaffirm my thoughts on the subject. It also allows me to share my thoughts, experiences, successes and failures with others, creating an additional feedback loop. That, to me, is one

A Year in Review

The following post came to mind as I was writing my year-end self-evaluation, and provides a brief glimpse of where I started the year and how I got to where I am today.  This year has been filled with diverse challenges, including ongoing employee issues, the continued mindset of "get it out the door", another reorg of the IT department, and the real possibility of the commoditization of testing within IT. However, as is often the case, challenge spurs innovation. In preparing for working on the team's seven-year strategic plan, I stepped back from the day-to-day operations of my team, and took a critical look at the work we were doing and the services we performed. What I saw was that the testing services we were providing for the company were, in many cases, nearly indistinguishable from the testing services provided by alternative sourcing strategies, with the primary differentiator being cost, not quality. Seeing the threat of the commoditization of testing