Abolish Ambiguity

Objective-based training must specify conditions, performance and standards

Here’s a pop-quiz for all of you training officers out there:

1. What’s wrong with the following objective: “Upon completion of this course, the student shall wear an SCBA”?
   1. The condition in which the task is to be performed is not defined.
   2. The performance for the task is not defined.
   3. The standard for the task is not defined.
   4. All of the above are correct.
      
2. What’s wrong with the following objective: “Upon completion of this course, the student shall appreciate the reasons s/he wears an SCBA”?
1. It is not measurable.
2. It is not observable.
3. It is not teachable.
4. All of the above are correct.
   
3. What’s wrong with the previous two questions?
1. Nothing.
2. I can’t quite put my finger on it.
3. We don’t use objectives so I have no comment.
4. Having “all of the above are correct” as a selection is a lazy way to write a question, and may not adequately validate learning.

If you chose “D” for all three, congratulations, you aced the test!

Objective Necessities
To be effective, objectives must include the condition the task is to be performed in, the performance required and the standard that defines if it’s done right or not.

Let’s rewrite the objective in Question 1 (“Upon completion of this course, the student shall wear an SCBA.”):

“Given an SCBA, properly don an SCBA and breathe air from its tank in accordance with [your department’s standard goes here].”

In this rewritten format, the condition is “given an SCBA”; the performance is to “properly don an SCBA and breathe air its tank”; and the standard is “in accordance with your department’s standard.” We also deleted “upon completion of this course” because it’s a given if you’re teaching a course.

Why is this an improvement? There’s no ambiguity. You either do or you don’t. The first objective simply says, “Wear an SCBA.” That’s not a very difficult thing to do, but each of you reading this could wear the SCBA half a dozen different ways and still not wear it as the instructor intended, or in keeping with the department’s standards, because the objective is too ambiguous.

Now for Question 2 (“Upon completion of this course, the student shall appreciate the reasons s/he wears an SCBA.”):

“List four (or more) reasons for wearing an SCBA.”

Now the objective is measurable. Students must list four reasons why they wear an SCBA. (You could also replace “list” with another measurable verb such as identify, state or explain.) It is observable—you see the list on the exam. And it’s teachable. How can you teach somebody to appreciate something? We can cover all of the hazards of not wearing an SCBA, but the student may or may not appreciate the reasons.

Finally, question 3. Including “All of the above” on exams is common, and I’ve written it into exams when I’ve been pressed for time. But the fact is, selecting any one answer in the list is defendable when all are correct. And depending on the number of questions and the required passing score, partial credit for a question of that type can mean a pass or fail. Again, there’s too much ambiguity.

Consistency Is Key
Let me give you a true-story example. I had the pleasure of visiting a station at a multi-station career department one day and happened to be there when the company officer was ready to do the assigned department drill. He printed an e-mail that said something along the lines of, “For today’s drill, train on the use of such and such.”

The company officer told the crew they were going to train on that piece of equipment, and one of the crew asked, “Where do we keep that?” Another asked, “When did we get those?” And yet another said, “I think they’re in the back compartment; we got them a year ago, but I haven’t seen them out since.”

So, they pull the bag out, open it and wonder aloud, “How in the world does this thing work?”

To make a long story short, they eventually figured it out. To make it even better, the training division should have sent a lesson plan to the station so that there was no question what it was, how it was assembled and why/how it was used. (And yes, the best course of action would have been to have had an in-service on the equipment prior to it being placed on the apparatus.)

Although we can certainly provide great training “on the fly,” without a good job/task analysis (more on that in a future column), good objectives and ultimately a good lesson plan, we cannot ensure consistency between classes if we must teach it multiple times over three shifts or when someone else must teach the course for us.

In addition, when the lawyers come knocking they’re going to want to see the training records for each firefighter, what the training actually covered and a whole lot of other information. “Yeah, he had extrication training” will not be a satisfactory answer.

Surely the basics are the basics, and the good people at IFSTA have lesson plan packages ready to roll out for several courses. But a lot of us also do some things our own way, or have specific training needs based on our personnel and our response area. So in the next few articles, I’ll discuss the foundations for building a good training documentation program.

Scott Cook is a firefighter with the Granbury (Texas) Volunteer Fire Department, where he previously served as chief. He’s also a member of FireRescue’s editorial board.