Input - Output - Impact

1/25/06

Let's define task and step. Task: completing a series of steps to achieve a desired result. Step: recognizing and responding to an identifiable pattern (or discriminating between patterns) to partially fulfill the requirements of a step.

Let's take it one step further and define pattern. Pattern: a stimulus; a recognizable state of the world, a schema, which dictates a specific range of behaviors.

1/21/06

Of course. Training is a recognition of pattern, a decision and an action. Why must I come back to this time and again? Too simple?

Higher level intellectual skills: synthesis. Based on previously known patterns, posit a new one and act correctly.

Physical learning: nerve level decisions, practiced actions.

Attitudes: based on pattern make choice/decision between two or more options and act accordingly.

Theory: a description of larger pattern, allowing recognition of unknown variations in pattern. Harder to learn because less concrete. Is current pattern a variation of known patterns, or new pattern?

Brain level - schema, if you believe in them - network associations between pattern and decision - practice. Bob Bodine.

Actionable information is practicable. That's why people have little time for information they don't see as relevant. Limited opportunity for practicing associations.

That's why stories are effective: vivid patterns. Talking heads less so - hard to "see" from blather. Pictures, metaphors. Psychology study: caricatures make people more easily recognized than snapshots. Patterns highlighted for novice. How to caricature abstracts? Cartoons. Metaphors.

Best use of expert: display pattern. Expert talks his/her way through pattern recognition/decision points. What you don't need to notice. If recognition/decision extrinsic enough to be aware on conscious level. "Clean Trucks and Dirty Trucks"

Designers ask niggly questions to ferret out recognition/decisions. "Why did you do that?" "Why is this important?"

Pare away all information that doesn't support recognition/decision/action. All good designers do consciously or unconsciously. That's what it looks like when we "get it."

11/9/05

I'm not sure whether this is right or not but, when writing performance objectives, I've changed my focus from a specific language to a mindset. I focus on the Input, the Output and the Impact. The performance, the action that takes the input to produce the output, is the content of the training.

The Input is the signal for performance. The document that needs to be completed, the information that needs to be acted upon, the object that needs to be manipulated. It is whatever needs to be processed. Learners need to be able recognize the Input.

The Output is the deliverable. It is the correctly completed document, the best possible action, the perfected doohickey. It is the purpose of the performance.

The Impact is explains the importance of the output. What does a correctly completed document do for the organization, how does the action help the learner, what value is the doohickey? It is the ROI.

I've found that focusing on these elements helps me clarify the training and feed directly in to learning objectives. To do this, I start with the output. What output is required from the process? If there isn't an output, then the training is irrelevant. This answer is most often given for information. I'll be told, "This is background knowledge that the students just need to know." My response is a nicer version of: "If they don't need to do anything with it, they don't need to know it.

Usually, "background knowledge" is laziness on the part of the SME or the designer. It is used in some way: participants need to use the language to build credibility; they need to recognize scenarios or terms in order to find relevant information: there is something that needs to happen with the information. As an aside, I've frequently found that items that "just need to be in there" really are important. The issue is that nobody has taken the time to clarify why they are important.

The output also defines the test items. It's what right looks like.

After pinning down output, I look at input. What signals the learner to perform the process? The most beautiful performance in the world is useless unless the learner knows when it's appropriate to perform it. Inputs can be anything: When Accounting sends over form B-93, when the customer approaches the register, on the third beat, if any of these three documents are missing, when your prospect raises an objection, when the whatzit comes down the assembly line. Something always signals the need for the performance, unless it's supposed to be done completely randomly.

Lastly, I define the impact. Impact is downstream from the learner. It's what happens if the performance is done correctly or if it is done incorrectly. Sales are increased, marketing can do their job more accurately, or scrap is reduced. Once again, no impact: no need for training. This helps define WIIFMs and can help 4^th level testing.

To provide an example of what my performance objectives look like after completing these steps:

After completing this module, students will be able to:

• Recognize objections

• Increase customer commitment by using the 1,2,3 model to respond to objections

Alternatively, I might leave the impact in my head:

After completing this module, students will be able to:

• Recognize objections

• Use the 1,2,3 model to respond to objections

But, I still need to know that the purpose of this objection handling model is to increase customer commitment. Why? Because I'll use that perspective when writing the module and will suggest that as a test element if we ever decide to create a level four test.