In the August (1996) issue of NUCLEAR NEWS the featured article is titled Technology-Delivered Instruction in the Nuclear Industry by Lawrence B. Durham, Manager for TVA Nuclear in Chattanooga. If you are involved in nuclear training, this article is an excellent overview of the state of today's ClassRoom technology and of its probable future direction. The article was based on a paper presented by its author at the American Nuclear Society 1994 Annual Meeting in New Orleans, La. and included the results of a Training Survey on the use of technology-based training in all US nuclear utilities. The survey measured the use of conventional training tools, simulators, computer-based-training, distance learning, instructor work stations, emerging technologies, and related factors. The following list paraphrases some of the pertinent points of the article:
Because of the poor quality of training material on reactor behavior, NUKEFACTs have stated, on more than one occasion, that Reactor Operators, through no fault of their own, do not understand how a reactor works. And, unfortunately, that is a fact. That such deficiency is ignored by the industry regulators, the Institute of Nuclear Operations (INPO) and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), is disturbing. The lack of corrective action by U.S. nuclear utilities is disappointing but understandable (see next paragraph). But, it raises a question as to the true commitment of those responding to the Training Survey. They talk-the-talk but they don't walk-the-walk. Pouring money into highly visible instructional technology is an easy, but superficial, fix. Investing for real improvement in the quality of ClassRoom training, and ultimately, operating safety, lacks the flair of laser pyrotechnics.
Perhaps the main reason that improvement in training material quality is impossible in the U.S. nuclear industry lies with the NRC Exam Bank. The Exam Bank is truly a tail that wags the dog, for two reasons. First, because history shows that once questions on flawed training concepts enter the Exam Bank, the concepts are forever cast-in-concrete. And secondly, because many, if not most, nuclear trainers teach nothing that deviates from, or even exceeds, that required by the Exam Bank. Initial operator training is not aimed at educating the operator in what he needs to know, it is geared to passing the Generic Fundamentals Exam.
It's unfortunate that cooperative development of training material and use of common training material for the nuclear industry wasn't implemented thirty years ago. Instead, there were guidelines from INPO, from which everyone was left to develop their own material. That was a waste of resources that in many cases left much to be desired. The collaboration between utilities, universities, and vendors is a major step in the right direction. But we suggest that it would be wise to take advantage of the demonstrated expertise of those who have been struggling with this issue long before it came into vogue through instructional technology.
Mr. Durham is on target. Instructional technology is a big plus for training effectiveness. But, consider this. You don't have to wait for this revolution to arrive. It has already begun. If your training organization is serious about improving the quality of ClassRoom training in reactor behavior, get it going!