Two general formulas for structuring material to convey information and persuade others to apply it.
First, the “why-what-how-what-if” framework (for tutorials, where the audience is seeking a solution):
“Why”—description of a motivating concrete experience from which a general pattern can be inferred
“What”—conceptual model of the problem space, forming a bridge from the identified pattern to...
“How”—concrete step-by-step information on the recommended solution
“What if”—suggest connections between situations in the reader’s life and the problem/solution presented, and invite them to apply it
This is woefully inadequate as a description of the method, and I don’t remember the name of the academic learning theory on which it’s based. But when I switched doing my own CD programs from a more adhoc organization to one based on this model, I got a lot of positive comments from listeners about how much more valuable the format was.
Second framework, which is more oriented towards persuasion (in fact, it’s a format designed for advertising, selling a product or service, but it works even better for selling ideas):
What is the problem?
Why is it hard?
What is possible? (present an ideal future, i.e., “But what if we could...?”)
What has changed? (i.e., why is this hard problem now solvable, implicitly leading to the ideal future proposed)
What should you do now (to take advantage of this change)?
There are several important psychological and rhetorical points built into this structure. Presenting a reason why the problem is hard, for example, is needed to absolve the audience of responsibility for the problem, as well as to increase curiosity and contrast in part 3 and to continue operating in rapport with the audience.
In essence, parts 1 through 3 build rapport and agreement—you first agree what their problem is, and that it’s hard, and that boy, it’d be great if we could do better than that. Now they’re ready to listen to your actual information, which comes in at parts 4 and 5 - the discovery and recommended action.
This format is more useful for evangelism and broad advice than it is for detailed teaching; otherwise parts 4 and 5 can overshadow the rest of the thing in size. ;-)
Sometimes, I use a hybrid version of these two frameworks, as there is actually some overlap in how they begin and end. But more often, I begin most serious pieces of writing or training by doing two separate outlines of the idea I have in mind, to see which one is a better fit. Longer works usually end up as a series of multiple why-what-how-what-if modules.
A common element of both approaches, however: begin, if possible, with a single concrete experience, story, anecdote, or episode that establishes the emotional motivation for why the reader should continue reading. (Or listener listening, viewer viewing, etc.)
Two general formulas for structuring material to convey information and persuade others to apply it.
First, the “why-what-how-what-if” framework (for tutorials, where the audience is seeking a solution):
“Why”—description of a motivating concrete experience from which a general pattern can be inferred
“What”—conceptual model of the problem space, forming a bridge from the identified pattern to...
“How”—concrete step-by-step information on the recommended solution
“What if”—suggest connections between situations in the reader’s life and the problem/solution presented, and invite them to apply it
This is woefully inadequate as a description of the method, and I don’t remember the name of the academic learning theory on which it’s based. But when I switched doing my own CD programs from a more adhoc organization to one based on this model, I got a lot of positive comments from listeners about how much more valuable the format was.
Second framework, which is more oriented towards persuasion (in fact, it’s a format designed for advertising, selling a product or service, but it works even better for selling ideas):
What is the problem?
Why is it hard?
What is possible? (present an ideal future, i.e., “But what if we could...?”)
What has changed? (i.e., why is this hard problem now solvable, implicitly leading to the ideal future proposed)
What should you do now (to take advantage of this change)?
There are several important psychological and rhetorical points built into this structure. Presenting a reason why the problem is hard, for example, is needed to absolve the audience of responsibility for the problem, as well as to increase curiosity and contrast in part 3 and to continue operating in rapport with the audience.
In essence, parts 1 through 3 build rapport and agreement—you first agree what their problem is, and that it’s hard, and that boy, it’d be great if we could do better than that. Now they’re ready to listen to your actual information, which comes in at parts 4 and 5 - the discovery and recommended action.
This format is more useful for evangelism and broad advice than it is for detailed teaching; otherwise parts 4 and 5 can overshadow the rest of the thing in size. ;-)
Sometimes, I use a hybrid version of these two frameworks, as there is actually some overlap in how they begin and end. But more often, I begin most serious pieces of writing or training by doing two separate outlines of the idea I have in mind, to see which one is a better fit. Longer works usually end up as a series of multiple why-what-how-what-if modules.
A common element of both approaches, however: begin, if possible, with a single concrete experience, story, anecdote, or episode that establishes the emotional motivation for why the reader should continue reading. (Or listener listening, viewer viewing, etc.)