Train-the-Trainer Pilot Courses for Incident Responders and Managers (2013)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

30 A p p e n d i x A Objectives The stated objective of the L32A project is to “use the train-the- trainer full course and curriculum material developed in the L12 project, as amended during the course of this project deliv- ery, to conduct pilot training workshops for incident respond- ers and managers such that the trained trainers will become familiar with the training material and implement the lessons learned into their daily Traffic Incident Management (TIM) activities and meet their respective individual agency expecta- tions.” The research team (SAIC, American Transportation Research Institute, Delcan, RESQUE-1, and K2Share) under- stands, however, that this is also a “living” research project: The training delivery approach depends on an effective train- the-trainer model, which means that trainers from a range of disciplinary backgrounds and experiences will need to be able to impart learning to diverse audiences to a roughly equivalent minimum level to achieve the vision of this national TIM training. The focus of the L32A research is to validate and improve this crucial underpinning of the National TIM Train- ing program’s eventual success. To this end, the research team engaged in an approach that, like the L12 project that developed the curriculum, was based on extensive TIM practitioner engagement. The approach assumed four initial baseline pilot deliveries to multidisciplinary student-trainer audiences by two master instructors to test and validate the train-the-trainer curricu- lum and materials. The approach was strategically selected and sequenced to obtain comprehensive practitioner feed- back on all aspects of the train-the-trainer materials and structure in terms of sufficiency to prepare trainers for suc- cessful delivery of the core learning to students. One alumni- led pilot was also conducted; it was led solely by a team of selected student-trainers who satisfactorily completed the train-the-trainer course and it examined full delivery of the training program by graduates of one of the three pre- ceding train-the-trainer pilots. Research plan At the request of the SHRP 2 staff, the research team was asked to commence work in preparation for the project kick- off (KO) meeting to be held in December 2011 in advance of contract execution and prior to commencing any other tasks. SHRP 2 issued to the research team a provisional notice to proceed at risk for activity associated with Task 2. During the KO meeting, all elements of the L12 training materials were meticulously reviewed by the research team, project team (SHRP 2 staff and FHWA) and the Technical Expert Task Group (TETG). Curriculum changes were recorded in a com- ment log to be used once the project began in earnest in the spring of 2012 at the direction of SHRP 2 staff and the TETG. Also as part of the KO meeting, criteria for the training loca- tions were determined. Virginia and Tennessee were selected as the first locations to hold pilot courses. Other locations identified for pilots after the KO meeting were Florida and Montana. Table A.1 summarizes the locations and the ratio- nale for choosing each. As the project unfolded, the project team (SHRP 2 staff, FHWA) decided to convert the transitional workshop into a fourth pilot course. Task 1. Amplified Work Plan—Delivery Approach for Train-the-Trainer Pilot Courses for Incident Responders and Managers A contract between SHRP 2 and the research team was exe- cuted in April 2012. Given the short timeline before the first pilot course in mid-June, coupled with the many requested changes to the L12 training curriculum stemming from the KO meeting, the research team focused on delivering the pilot courses as opposed to creating a lengthy work plan. This document is intended to satisfy the requirements of Deliverable 1.1, which the team will deliver as shown in Table A.2. Work Plan

31 Task 2. Conduct L32A Project KickOff Meeting At the direction of SHRP 2 staff, the project KO meeting was held in advance of all other tasks on December 20–21, 2011, and was attended by the research team, project team, and the TETG. The participants meticulously reviewed all elements of the L12 training materials. Curriculum changes were recorded in a comment log and will be addressed in Task 3. The outcomes of the KO meeting are as follows: • Agreement on course name. • Agreements on pilot locations: 44 Baseline; 44 Alumni-led; and 44 Transitional. • Agreement on train-the-trainer candidate criteria. • Support to students for attaining Professional Education Credit. • Editorial process for training materials. • Agreements on changes to be made to the baseline curricu- lum and materials. The deliverables associated with the KO meeting are listed in Table A.3. Task 3. Preparation of Curriculum and Materials The research team conducted a conference call with the proj- ect team to receive guidance regarding the changes to be made to the baseline curriculum that resulted from the KO meeting. During this call, the project team was presented with an extensive list of proposed curriculum changes orga- nized into three tiers. Given the limited time before the first pilot courses in Tennessee and Virginia, only the Tier 1 (high- est priority) curriculum changes were addressed first as part of Deliverable 3.1. The remaining changes were completed after the initial pilot courses in Tennessee and Virginia as part of Tier 2 and Tier 3 changes in Task 6A and Task 7. Table A.4 reflects the Tier 1 change implementation time line. Task 4. Logistics: Identification of Pilot Locations, Recommended Qualifications of Pilot Course Attendees, and Training Course Arrangements As part of the December 2011 KO meeting, elements of the Task 4 deliverables were completed as shown in Table A.5. Table A.1. Training Locations and Rationale for Selection Location Rationale Tennessee Tennessee has a mature, multifaceted TIM program, and has expressed an interest in innovative approaches to training. Much of the TIM training in Tennessee has been conducted in urban areas, and the state patrol is now becoming interested in implementing a more comprehensive state-wide TIM training program as well. Tennessee is divided into four different regions and has an overarching statewide program, so the TETG and project team believe the pilot would be able to draw on partici- pants from different areas of the state. Virginia The state has a strong TIM champion in the form of the statewide TIM Committee, which is chaired by law enforcement and has placed renewed empha- sis on roadside incident management from a service patrol perspective. Virginia Department of Transportation’s (VDOT’s) central office and Virginia’s five regions have incident management coordinators with backgrounds in both law enforcement and fire, so these groups already col- laborate and the infrastructure is in place to sup- port the multidisciplinary TIM approach of the L32A curriculum. Virginia is also home to large urban areas as well as rural areas. Montana Montana provides the opportunity to pilot-test the training in a more rural state with less structured TIM activities to date. Florida Following the KO meeting, SHRP 2 staff and FHWA identified Florida as a location for the pilot testing based on strong law enforcement interest in Florida resulting from FHWA’s initial outreach. Table A.2. Deliverable 1.1 Deliverables and Interim Steps: Deliverables in Bold Completed Date 1.1 Amplified Work Plan November 21, 2012 Table A.3 Deliverables 2.1–2.5 and KO Meeting Deliverables and Interim Steps: Deliverables in Bold Completed Date 2.1 Proposed KO meeting agenda for proj- ect team review December 2011 2.2 List of proposed TIM experts to invite to KO meeting December 2011 2.3 L12 Materials—in advance of KO meeting December 2011 KO Meeting December 2011 2.4 Meeting notes reflecting any proposed changes to Work Plan and Revised Work Plan December 2011 2.5 Technical Memorandum No. 1 contain- ing detailed comment log and recom- mendations for how each comment will be addressed, reflecting collaborative agreements made in the meeting December 2011

32 The criteria for trainer and student candidates were estab- lished and included in the December meeting minutes. Addi- tionally, the list of pilot course locations was created, including alternate sites should the ideal locations be unavailable. The list of prospective attendees for each pilot location was deter- mined by local TIM professionals at each pilot location and was recorded by the research team. The research team also developed an online registration form to capture the infor- mation for all registered attendees, particularly as it pertained to the student criteria. Once prospective attendees registered, a confirmation e-mail and a registrant information package were delivered to the confirmed attendees that included agenda, directions, and other pertinent details. Task 5. Tool to Capture Instructor and Participant Feedback In this task, the research team developed a feedback tool for use by participants and instructors, certificates of completion for the training, and a process for issuing these certificates, in accor- dance with the research objectives of establishing an accepted national TIM training curriculum, as shown in Table A.6. Task 6A. Delivery of Phase 1 “Train-the-Trainer” Pilot Courses for Incident Responders and Managers The research team provided organizational support during the course planning phase as well as during the actual training course. A summary report was produced at the conclusion of each pilot course and was included as an appendix to the final report (Tasks 7 and 8). Also as part of the final report, the pilot summary reports were synthesized into one report, revealing overriding themes from the pilots (Technical Memorandum No. 3). Tier 2 and 3 curriculum changes (as identified in Task 3) were implemented on an ongoing basis after the con- clusion of each pilot course. These curriculum changes included the original changes generated from the KO meeting Table A.4. Interim Steps 3.A–3.E and Deliverables 3.1–3.3 Deliverables and Interim Steps: Deliverables in Bold Completed Date 3.A Evaluate urgency and complexity of requested changes to L12 materials, establish Tier 1, 2, and 3 changes May 2012 3.B Establish document configuration control procedures May 2012 3.C Brief SHRP 2 staff and FHWA on proposed priority changes to make in advance of first pilot course to obtain preliminary concurrence June 11, 2012 3.D Prepare L12 materials and incorporate priority changes June 2012 3.E Review modified L12 materials for quality control purposes June 2012 3.1 Final training material and course cur- riculum to be submitted to project team for review, concurrence, and approval June 11, 2012 3.2 Project team provides approval for revised training material and course curriculum June 11, 2012 3.3 Final training material produced for use in Task 6A pilot courses June 13, 2012 Table A.5. Steps 4.A–4.C and Deliverable 4.1 Deliverables and Interim Steps: Deliverables in Bold Completed Date 4.A Develop course invitation and registra- tion form May 2012 4.B Draft attendee information package June 2012 4.C Finalize attendee information package June 2012 4.1 Technical Memorandum No. 2 consisting of • Attendees’ profile December 2011 • A comprehensive list of prospec- tive attendees Four weeks before each course • Preliminary list of pilot locations December 2011 • Pertinent point of contacts, com- plete training agenda, and all other pertinent details Four weeks before each course Table A.6. Interim Steps 5.A–5.C and Deliverables 5.1–5.3 Deliverables and Interim Steps: Deliverables in Bold Completed Date 5.A Hold internal evaluation meeting to refine the tool developed in L12 for capturing instructor and participant feedback June 7, 2012 5.B Present the evaluation tool to Project Team during Task 3 curriculum review process June 11, 2012 5.C Incorporate comments on the proposed evaluation tool into the final version June 11, 2012 5.1 Tool to capture instructor and partici- pant feedback June 11, 2012 5.2 Certificates of completion for workshop participants June 11, 2012 5.3 Guidelines for issuing certificates to responders completing training June 11, 2012

33 as well as new changes identified after the completion of each pilot. A summary of all changes to the course curriculum, structure, materials or trainer notes was also incorporated into the final report. Table A.7 presents the time line for pilot course delivery and related deliverables. Task 6B. Delivery of Alumni-led “Train-the-Trainer” Pilot Course The research team designed and oversaw completion of a final pilot for the train-the-trainer course (as shown in Table A.8), whereby student trainers selected from Phase 1 participants were chosen to lead the full training to a new student body. The alumni-led pilot provided a first opportunity to evaluate the sufficiency of the trainer materials to prepare graduates to effectively teach the course. This occurred in Knoxville, Ten- nessee, using graduates of the first train-the-trainer pilot course in Nashville, Tennessee. Task 6C. Development of Evaluation Plans The research team developed an evaluation plan for the entire train-the-trainer pilot course, as well as the alumni-led pilot, as shown in Table A.9. The evaluation plan included an evalu- ation of all training material, students’ reactions to training, instructor proficiency, proposed trainer selection criteria (required and suggested), and the respective evaluation crite- ria used. Task 7. Draft Final Report and Training Products After delivering the final pilot workshop, the research team documented the lessons learned from the five pilot sessions and identified final updates to the training materials based on the findings from all five pilot sessions completed in Tasks 6A, 6B, and 9 of this project. The research team prepared a draft final project report and modified training materials based on the evaluation reports and the findings from the pilot ses- sions and debriefing meetings with the project team, as shown in Table A.10. Task 8. Project Final Report and Training Products After the project team reviewed the draft curriculum materials and the draft final report, the research team updated the materials and report based on the comments and recommendations of the project team, as shown in Table A.11. Table A.7. Deliverables 6A.1–6A.3, 9.1, 6B.1, and 6A.6–6A.9 Deliverables and Interim Steps: Deliverables in Bold Completed Date 6A.1 Pilot Course 1—Tennessee June 19–20, 2012 6A.2 Pilot Course 2—Virginia June 27–28, 2012 6A.3 Pilot Course 3—Montana July 11–12, 2012 9.1 Pilot Course 4—Florida See Task 9 6B.1 Pilot Course 5—Alumni-led See Task 6B 6A.6 Individual Workshop Summary Reports (3) November 21, 2012 6A.7 Technical Memorandum No. 3 November 21, 2012 6A.8 Summary of Revisions to the Training Materials November 21, 2012 6A.9 Revised Training Material (Tier 2 changes) June–September 2012 Table A.8. Deliverables 6B.1 and 6B.2 Deliverables and Interim Steps: Deliverables in Bold Completed Date 6B.1 Alumni-led Workshop September 12–13, 2012 6B.2 Alumni-led Workshop Summary Report November 21, 2012 Table A.9. Deliverables 6C.1 and 6C.2 Deliverables and Interim Steps: Deliverables in Bold Completed Date 6C.1 Evaluation Plan June 11, 2012 6C.2 Evaluation Data Analysis Reports (included as part of each workshop summary report) November 21, 2012 Table A.10. Deliverables 7.1 and 7.2 and Interim Step 7.A Deliverables and Interim Steps: Deliverables in Bold Completed Date 7.1 Draft of Final Report for L32A Project November 21, 2012 7.2 Updated training course and curriculum material reflecting Tier 3 changes November 21, 2012 7.A Project team reviews draft of final report and updated course curriculum November 21– December 7, 2012

34 implementation. However, given the delay between the KO meeting in December 2011 and the first pilot in June 2012, a transition workshop was no longer needed because imple- mentation of the curriculum began in late summer 2012. Therefore, the Task 9 session was reconfigured into a fourth Task 6A pilot course, as shown in Table A.12. Task 9. Transitional Support Pilot Originally, the project team intended to hold a transitional training session on completing the final pilot to support continuity of the program as it transitioned into FHWA Table A.12. Deliverable 9.1 Deliverable Completed Date 9.1 Delivery of transitional workshop— Florida (Task 9) August 8–9, 2012 Table A.11. Deliverables 8.1 and 8.2 Deliverables and Interim Steps: Deliverables in Bold Completed Date 8.1 Final Report for L32A Project (Task 8) December 14, 2012 8.2 Updated final training course and curriculum material (Task 8) December 14, 2012