EDTECH 501 Course Reflections

              I didn’t quite know what to expect when I began this course. I have aspirations of teaching, but other than a few classes at the power plant, I have very little experience with developing material and then presenting it. This is, of course, precisely why I decided to pursue this degree. I don’t want to be an educator in the traditional sense of the word, I want to be a teacher.

                What impressed me most during the semester was the wide range of the topics covered. From the one stop shop nature of Google+ to the concept of RSS feeds, I was impressed that I was actually introduced to new tools for use in the training environment. It is the technician’s hubris to think that he has been exposed to everything on the Internet that’s worth knowing. I’m thankful that I’ve had my eyes opened early.

                The other item that impressed me is that how quickly the sands are shifting in this field. Frankly, I was worried when I chose to pursue this career path that all the good positions would be filled. Obviously I don’t want to leave the Golden Gooses that is the Millstone Power Station, (I have my pension to consider) but in a field that is constantly changing, there will always be opportunities for those that are at the top of the wave. Since education is by and large publicly funded and the use of technology is growing exponentially in the classroom, I’m sure there will be a position available when I shuffle off the nuclear coil.

                There are two things I discovered during this class. The first is how difficult the job of a teacher is. I had forgotten, while pursuing my IT degree, that there are not a lot of people out there like myself. Teachers are being swamped daily with a plethora of technology riches by well-intentioned people who expect them to pick up the tablet and just incorporate it into their classroom. I get the feeling that there are school systems out there who are thinking, “I’ve given you this gift, why aren’t you using it?” This has to make for an incredibly stressful environment. After all, people don’t invest millions of dollars on gizmos just to have them sit in the closet. Teachers need training. I applaud the efforts of my classmates to pursue this on their own, but if knowing how to use a tablet in the classroom is a work requirement, then that requirement should be fulfilled on work’s time and not the teacher’s free time.

                The second thing I discovered is how well suited I am to be one of these trainers. I was speaking to someone on the cruise I took about the lack of training for teachers. He just happened to be a local school board member of his town. I related how I thought that I would be perfect to perform a job like this because I’m knowledgeable, I can teach, but most important because I’m bald and old. I would be the least threatening tech person they had ever seen. I would be their age, their peer. His response was incredibly positive, not about me being knowledgeable or an able teacher, but because I was old.

                The one issue about which I would warn my classmates, would be the tendency to become complacent when the school system buys software to teach their children. Again, this is a case of the generals making decisions about what the boots on the ground need to do their job. I would urge my classmates to venture outside the borders of what this program has to offer. There are a great many freeware courses on-line and I would say to them that what they are learning is only the beginning. If they enjoy what they’re learning here, they will have an absolute ball in a javascript class. The key point is to be creative. I’ve no doubt that teachers are some of the most caring and creative people in the world, and it would be a shame to sacrifice that on the altar of technology.

School Evaluation Summary

Technology Maturity Model Benchmark Analysis

Doran Matrix Response

When I started this exercise, I knew that there were issues with our training department's use of technology. Very little time is spent training the trainers to use technology. Continuing training for instructors tends to focus on the process of creating content rather than presenting it. As mentioned in my previous Power Point presentation, the population in our training department is fairly homogeneous. Instructors tend to be chosen from the most technically gifted at the plant, and while they are experts in their respective fields, i.e. maintenance and operations, they are not particularly trained teachers. There is a rudimentary instructor course offered by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operators, but again this course focuses on the process rather then the presentation.

I started recognizing how far we needed to progress while viewing the responses of my classmates. The class, by and large, is made up of educators from a world completely different from ours. It occurs to me that public school systems devote many more resources to technological training than we do. It's ironic that an organization devoted to training those who will use technology in their daily jobs is less willing to invest in technology for its instructors. In my investigation, I found that Millstone provided some initial investment in technology, Smart Boards in a few classrooms, and then declared victory. We have made some of the same mistakes that traditional education systems have made, that is to provide the hardware and ignore the software and skills portions of the program.

Having completed my investigation, I've come to the conclusion that we're falling behind not only our educational, but our industry peers. Other plants are working to incorporate tablet technology in their day to day work process. Millstone is still locked in the paper age. As with everything in our industry, if we are not moving forward, we are retreating. I would grade our technological maturity at a C- at best. We need to meet with our corporate peers and develop a plan to introduce and utilize new and emerging technologies.

Digital Inequality

    The one thing that stood out for me with this assignment is how limited our Nuclear Training Department is in terms of using digital technology. Clearly we have sufficient hardware, including two fully operational Control Room simulators, but we use only a small fraction of our capabilities. I was reminded of a discussion I had with a peer one morning after an outage night shift. He was describing a program that we had that would allow plant parameters to be shown graphically for various casualty situations. The instructors had had this program for years, yet none of them used this helpful tool. They simply never took the time to learn the program.
    The second thing that struck me was how uniform our training staff is. Because of the nature of our business, very few individuals know or understand nuclear power. Our training department has a plethora of individuals who understand nuclear power, but very often they don't understand how to teach. They can develop material using the systematic approach to training, but they often struggle with the presentation. I think part of the problem lies in the type of mind it takes to understand nuclear power. It clearly requires a mind grounded in logic and science; however far too often, those whose minds are grounded in logic and science lack creative skills. I count myself lucky in the fact that both my creative and scientific sides of my brain developed and thus I'm able to present ideas such as nuclear fission in visual and creative ways. (think mouse traps and ping pong balls)

Voice Thread Link

Presentation Link

Technology Use Planning Overview

In the beginning, there was The Plan

Technology Use Planning is process by which an organization develops a path to its future use of emerging technologies. In the field of Nuclear Training, such a plan should follow the ADDIE process defined in the Systematic Approach to Training. Specifically, the organization should:

1.  Analyze the present state of the use of technology.
2. Design organizational goals for technology use in the future.
3. Develop incremental steps for making these goals a reality, including measurable Key Performance Indicators.
4. Implement these changes while at the same time including benchmarks for measuring progress.
5. Evaluate the organization’s progress through a series of self-assessments and snapshot reviews of the organization’s progress.

Within the evaluation phase, there should also be a re-validation of the initial goals such that emerging technologies are incorporated into the plan, allowing the organization to keep pace with changes that are occurring while the plan is being implemented.

One Size Does Not Fit All

While the National Education Technology Plan of 2010 addresses the key needs of educational systems in the coming years, it is not particularly germane for the educational needs of a nuclear power plant. None the less, its task list for educators does provide a series of key concepts which should be followed when addressing the plan for the next generation of nuclear professionals.

Learning, Empowering the Workforce

The nuclear industry, more than any other, has suffered the effects of an aging workforce. Those individuals who built and ran the nuclear industry have now reached an age where the vast majority is retiring. Adding to this conundrum is the fact that we are a results driven industry. Specifically, in the areas of plant maintenance, all too often individuals are pigeonholed into specific tasks and not enough thought has been given to training the next generation. As a result of these practices, newly qualified personnel lack the confidence to go out to the field and perform tasks which they are perfectly able to perform. Technical instruction should be combined with hands on experience such that the next generation is prepared to step in when the previous generation retires. Technology offers solutions such as virtual, responding models of plant equipment. Such solutions provide the practical experience within an environment of minimal consequence and thus would enhance worker confidence while maintaining plant safety.

Assessment, When Does Qualified Not Mean Qualified

Procedural use and adherence are the lynchpins of effective, safe and reliable plant operations; however, plant procedures do not address all situations. As the next generation takes over, the nuclear industry must redefine its assessment of newly qualified personnel. It is no longer sufficient for a nuclear professional to simply be able to implement the procedure. The emerging environment dictates that qualified candidates understand the equipment and its relationship to the plant as a system rather than as a discrete, stand-alone component. Because of this, nuclear training should adapt its assessment techniques to include explanations of the inner workings of plant equipment and troubleshooting scenarios which are not addressed by specific plant procedures.

Teaching, This Is Not Your Father’s Overhead Projector

Of all the elements addressed in the National Education Technology Plan of 2010, this section most applies to the nuclear industry. It is imperative that nuclear trainers gather together and communicate best practices. Additionally, new methods of instruction must be developed to engage the students of the “You Tube Generation.” The attention span of the modern student has changed. The next generation is digitally savvy and expects more from their instructors.  Brought up on Super Mario and Playstation 3, the new generation views Power Point as nothing more than a glorified overhead projector. Instructors need to create more interactive content for their students in order to engage them in the learning process. Additionally, instructors should provide a means for the student to understand that there is something to be gained by devoting their entire attention to training, the “What’s in it for me?” factor.

National Education Technology Plan of 2010, Conclusions

While the National Education Technology Plan of 2010 puts forth a number of admirable goals, it misses the mark in terms of moving the country forward. This is because the plan was written by educators for educators. Increased college education and graduates are important, but in the end, they overlook what is truly important. If the digital revolution has taught us anything, it is that a group of people, regardless of educational levels, can achieve extraordinary things. The plan’s edu-centric focus ignores the lifelong learner who has flourished in the developing digital world. One need only look at the response to the MIT Open Course Ware website to see that the digital age has enabled millions of would be students to learn on their own. In my opinion, the plan should have focused more on the autodidacts of the world. Those that take the time to teach themselves can only enhance the preparedness of the workforce in the coming years.

Ready, Fire, Aim. Dr. John See’s Developing Effective Technology Plans

Dr. See’s piece is a shotgun approach to developing an effective technology plan; some of the pellets hit the mark and others do not. His plan would have been more coherent had he approached it in a systematic fashion. First and foremost, Dr. See should have tackled the short term problem before addressing long term planning goals. 

The Way Things Should Be

Ready

The simple fact of the matter is that educators, as a whole, are not ready. The nation and the education system have, too often, viewed technology as a matter of pumping money into the system to incorporate technology into the classroom. To be sure, a truck load of shiny new iPads delivered to a school makes a wonderful photo opportunity, but cases of processors in a broom closet do not a technology plan make.  Dr. See addresses the needs of current faculty and students, but, in order for any plan to be effective, it must begin by teaching the teachers. The education curriculum of the present university system needs to be revamped to include a healthy dose of required technology courses. It is no longer enough that a teacher know how to point and click and search using a browser. Educators must be completely comfortable in the digital environment, including content creation and program modification. In addition, this knowledge must be taught to educators who are currently within the system. Only by taking this first step can the education system develop an effective technology plan. 

Aim

Only after a faculty is comfortable in a technological environment can an effective technology plan be developed. Dr. See does present some salient points for this phase of the planning process; specifically the concept that effective technology plans focus on a vision. Again, regarding the current state of affairs, the educational community has focused on a square peg, round hole approach. It is as if Boards of Education have said to their teachers, “Here’s a bunch of iPads, now go make it work.” To be sure, funds must be made available, but those funds should be invested in the technology that the teachers need and not that which the educational system wishes to present them. I am reminded of one of my classmates who is a special education instructor who was presented with an expensive touch screen table for his classroom. The school administrator simultaneously urged him to protect the specific piece of equipment while at the same time admonishing him for not using it in his day to day classroom environment. Clearly, this technology was misplaced and forced the teacher into a hopeless situation. The touch screen table was obviously too delicate for a special education environment, and yet the administrator thought he was providing a wonderful tool for enhancing the student’s educational experience. See has it spot on when he recommends that technology plans be driven and developed by the faculty. 

Fire

Unfortunately, where See hits the mark with grassroots development, he misses the mark in terms of the scope and breadth of technology plans. See advocates that technology plans should be application rather than technology driven. This simplifies a complicated process in which every problem is countered with a software solution. An effective technology plan, in my opinion, seeks to offer maximum versatility while at the same time controlling costs. This point harkens back to the “Ready” portion of the plan. A digitally educated workforce will find ways to execute their technology plans within the constraints of their software environment. For example, a rudimentary knowledge of HTML5 and Javascript combined with the tactile experience of a smart board offers a wide array of learning tools which can be created by teachers for teachers. In this case, the software required is nothing more than a computer and a web browser. By dictating software solutions, See is advocating constraints on the very people who are implementing the plan.  Such an approach limits options and stifles individual creativity.

Additionally, See supports a short term rather than a long term approach. Ironically, this approach is short sighted. Effective plans find a way to incorporate both short and long term goals. An example of a long term goal would be the development of a statewide teacher think tank in which all educators would gather to share tools and practices to incorporate digital technology within the classroom. Obviously, such a group would not be possible unless every faculty member was digitally fluent and receptive to the concepts put forth by the organization. In this case, the short term goal would be to increase the knowledge of the faculty. In See’s mind, this knowledge would be an end point rather than a launch pad for something greater. Only by incorporating both long and short term goals, while at the same time defining measurable milestones, can a technology plan be effective.

Technology Plans and the Nuclear Industry

Because of the makeup of the nuclear industry, technology plans for nuclear training are especially difficult to develop. Most instructors are chosen for their technical knowledge and come from an industrial, rather than an educational background. Instructors are given instruction in the Systematic Approach to Training and learn to develop courses based on plant need. Unfortunately, because there is a lack of digital technology knowledge, the tools for digital learning are often overlooked and technology plans are non-existent. The nuclear industry’s approach has been similar to the approach of education systems nationwide, throw money at technological solutions and hope they are effective. Any technology plan for the nuclear industry needs to begin with instructor education. Instructors must be made aware of the tools that are available and instruction must be provided for the use of these tools. Only then can appropriate technology use plans be developed.