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:
- Analyze the present state of the use of technology.
- Design organizational goals for technology use in the future.
- Develop incremental steps for making these goals a reality, including measurable Key Performance Indicators.
- Implement these changes while at the same time including benchmarks for measuring progress.
- 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment