Re: article

[John Pickering <johnjp@email.sjsu.edu>]

Sharyn,

In answer to your questionnaire:

1. Currently, is training at your facility conducted by in-house staff, or
by a contracted vendor?

Answer:  We offer several classes in-house.  For indivudals with no
background, we require that take our Radiation Safety course.  This is a one
unit course offered each semester. It is 20-hours long, given over the
semester.  It consists of approximately 15 hours of lecture and 5 hours of
practical exercises in the Nuclear Science Facility.  

We offer several refresher courses as well for those already trained.  This
is basically a one hour course. We have a course for x-ray use and for
radioisotope use.

2. Are your training aids and materials created in-house, or by a vendor?

Answer:  We create our own training materials.  We were not satisified with
materials we reviewed from outside.

3. Do you use any video or computer-based training or training aids?  If
so, which ones?

Answer: We do not use video training materials anymore.  We use a lecture
course employing slides in Power Point (to include animation) for the new
workers.  Our refresher training for the radioisotope workers may complete
their training with a computer based training which I developed independantly.  

4. What deficiencies do you see in current radiation-safety training?

Answer: The materials which I reviewed were not specific enough for the
learner.  They also concentrated on regulatory verbage which is less than
useful for most radiation workers (except Health Physics technician).  Not
enough hands-on practical activities were included in the training.  The
evaluation methods are not very effective. They should be able to have an
impact on the purpose of the course.  As an example, if the training is
intended to reduce contamination then the evaluation process should have a
feedback loop which reviews how the worker performed after being trained.
Was contamination reduced?  If not, then the program did not meet the
objective.  What do you want the learner to know or do as a result of the
training?

Training should also be fun for the learner.  If the learner is having a
good time, the emotions are heightened and the learning is more effective
(they remember it).  Also, if the learning is fun, the learner does not put
off the training.  The look forward to going because they have a good time.

5. What would you like to see in future (vendor offerings of)
radiation-safety training?

Answer: Training programs which offer several methods of instruction.  Not
all individuals respond the same way.  Some individuals are more visual than
others and should be stimulated with visual aids.  The audience should be
understood and the material adapted to them.  The process should address
what you want the learner to be able to do after the training (Impact
training).  Much of the training today has little or no impact, it is just
training for the sake of training.  If you don't know where you are going,
any road will get you there.  The training should involve hands-on
activities.  With today's resources, we can provide excellent training
without exposing the learner to a hazardous environment and still make it
realistic.

6. Do you have any additional comments or opinions regarding
radiation-safety training?

Answer:  Before developing a training program, identify what the needs are
for the learner.  A needs assessment should be performed to determine what,
if any, training is required for the specific audience.  Very few
professionals in the area of radiation safety have the time or
qualifications to develop training programs. Many of the individuals who
require or need training receive such instruction which is poorly prepared
and presented by someone as an extra task.  Seldom are the trainers very
good at it.  A good trainer and a good training program require development.
Most radiation workers are provided training which is less than useful, but
meets the letter of the law.   

John Pickering, RSO
San Jose State University
johnjp@email.sjsu.edu



At 12:55 PM 8/5/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Hello, radsafers!
>
>RSA Publications is conducting a survey for an upcoming article in RSO
>Magazine, regarding the future of radiation-safety training. In the hope of
>receiving as many responses as possible, we have kept the survey as brief
>as we could; please feel free to include any additional comments or opinions.
>
>PLEASE respond directly to me at publish@gyral.com, and not to radsafe.
>Thank you in advance!
>
>
>				QUESTIONNAIRE
>
>
>1. Currently, is training at your facility conducted by in-house staff, or
>by a contracted vendor?
>
>2. Are your training aids and materials created in-house, or by a vendor?
>
>3. Do you use any video or computer-based training or training aids?  If
>so, which ones?
>
>4. What deficiencies do you see in current radiation-safety training?
>
>5. What would you like to see in future (vendor offerings of)
>radiation-safety training?
>
>6. Do you have any additional comments or opinions regarding
>radiation-safety training?
>
>
>Sharyn Mathews
>Vice President, Publications, & Managing Editor
>RSO Magazine & Radiation Protection Management
>19 Pendleton Drive, PO Box 19
>Hebron, CT 06248
>
>VOICE: 860/228-0824
>FAX: 860/228-4402
>e-mail: publish@radpro.com
>************************************************************************
>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
>

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html