®
Oftentimes we as trainers are confronted with the last-minute assignment of presenting instruction to a group or class within our department or through our local community college. The common thread of frustration generally appears to be the “late-coming” lesson plan or none at all. Another common thread appears to be the “I’ve-done-this-a-million-times, I-don’t-need-a-lesson-plan” syndrome. This attitude is the basis and foundation for instructional complacency. Does this mean we are necessarily bound to strict verbiage and presentation format expressed in the lesson plan? Certainly not! After all, the lesson plan serves as a guide to insure complete and adequate coverage of the intended subject. Does this mean we cannot exceed or augment our delivery with additional information or techniques? Again, no! But critical to this document is the “Standard” component of the behavioral objective, also known as the student behavioral objective (SBO), or performance objectives.
Before addressing the issue of standards, it is important that we clarify the all-too-misunderstood difference between student behavioral objectives and course objectives. Student behavioral objectives measure terminal performance. That is the measurable degree of student behavior at the end of a specific lesson. Or as Robert Mager describes it, “It is a description of a pattern of behavior we want the learner to be able to demonstrate” (Preparing Instructional Objectives, Robert F. Mager). Course objectives identify the end results of a course. (A course is not a lesson. Rather a course is made up of multiple lesson plans in order to achieve the objectives of that course found in the course outline).
A major cause of litigation involving fire department recruit training is directly related to the standard. That is, recruits are improperly advised of the standard; they are not informed at all; or instructors (usually those without the lesson plans or possessing the “I’ve-done-this-a-million-times, I-don’t-need-a-lesson-plan” attitude) “ad lib”— do it on the run.
The standard is infinitely specific and should not lend itself to interpretation. It must be clearly stated so that both student and instructor are clear as to the intent, measure what it says it will measure (test validity), and list the pertinent reference. All too often instructors advise their students they will be tested based upon “what is delivered” in the course. This is highly subjective, dependent upon numerous personal and environmental variables (test reliability) and impossible to document. When delivering Firefighter I, Firefighter II, Company Officer or other universally recognized occupational level programs, various federal, state, or local standards should be referenced. For example, at a firefighter level, NFPA 1001 clearly states the minimum acceptable knowledge and skills required for a firefighter. These should be referenced. In California, for example, Hazardous Materials training is not only mandated under Title 29 C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations), but Title 8 C.C.R. (California Code of Regulations), with Title 19 C.C.R. the regulation for standardized training. Some communities include various local requirements.
Always document your standard. Don’t test beyond the stated standard. If you do, you’d better not base your decision to pass or fail an individual on the excess requirements. Be sure to include only that level of instruction in your delivery that relates to your prescribed audience. We don’t instruct a firefighter recruit-level academy on the concepts of “thermal decomposition of polymers” as our fire behavior module. If you are the instructor developing a lesson or given the responsibility to prescribe a standard, be real! One large California fire department does not require 100 percent accuracy in the raising of ladders. If a lesson on raising a 24-foot extension ladder is given, can the standard prescribe “completion of all evolutions with a minimum 80 percent accuracy?” If so, you have to ask yourself, “Which 20 percent of raising a 24-foot extension ladder is not critical to the completion of this task?” Perhaps pulling down on the halyard is 20 percent of the evolution.
It is also imperative that the instructor comprehend the difference between those segments of instruction which are manipulative and require skills (psychomotor) and those which require technical knowledge, that is, cognitive. We do not teach manipulative skills and measure behavioral change by written examination only. Nor do we instruct cognitive levels and expect the student to “perform.” Knowing what to include as necessary components of the behavioral objective, whether it be physical manipulation of equipment or written examination, all relates directly back to the standard.
In short, simple as it might sound, be aware of the prescribed learning domain, test what you say you’re going to test, employ the correct “measuring” process, and list and reference your sources. This should serve to increase motivation, achieve student success, and meet instructor obligation.
© Copyright Firenuggets.com 2000 • Click here for Terms and Conditions of Use
