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.
S U M M A R Y This synthesis provides information for the commercial vehicle safety community to assess current commercial vehicle training practices and the quality of their measures of effectiveness. CTBSSP Synthesis 1, âEffective Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Management Techniquesâ (Knipling, Hickman, and Bergoffen 2003) combined a rigorous survey of the commercial truck and bus industries with a literature review. That report concluded that âThe level of driving pro- ficiency and knowledge required to earn a commercial drivers license (CDL) is widely regarded in industry as well below the level required to be a safe and reliable driver in a full-time operational setting.â (p.14) This synthesis summarizes the state of vehicle operator training in the trucking, motorcoach, and transit industries. It captures in detail the experiences of those training programs that are using some combination of simulators and computer-based instruction (CBI). The synthesis also identifies current measures of training effectiveness in the commercial vehicle operator school and carrier communities. It describes training effectiveness measures being used in the military and industry and describes some potential training effectiveness measurement models for commercial vehicle operator training programs. The scope of the study included a comprehensive literature review complemented by a sur- vey of selected truck and bus companies, industry associations, driving schools, and vendors and users of training technologies (e.g., simulators, computer-based training). The informa- tion sought in the literature review and survey permitted the research team to identify and examine: (1) similarities and differences in training strategies among existing driver training programs; (2) similarities and differences in the curricula applied in selected training programs; (3) the extent to which simulator and computer-based technologies can be used to enhance the effectiveness of commercial driver training programs; and (4) techniques to measure commercial operator training effectiveness. The content that is in most reputable training programs is there because experts in truck and bus driving believe it should be there. It is a result of an informal consensus over the past 15 to 20 years of operators, trainers, and research professionals. Although there have been various analyses of commercial driver tasks, there has not been the kind of instructional design approach for commercial driving that one finds in common practice in other industries and in the military. During the past two decades, truck and bus professionals have reached an informal agreement on what entry-level drivers must be taught. But there still remain very big questions about how instruction should be conducted and how the results of commercial vehicle operator training should be evaluated. The research team found driver training CBI courses being offered by insurance companies, for-profit training schools, not-for-profit associations and organizations, and the U.S. Military. Effectiveness of Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Training Curricula and Delivery Methods 1
2In Europe, much the same thing was foundâthat specific safety or performance data showing a causal relationship between CBI and traffic safety are lacking. One of the fundamental questions the research team set out to answer is, Do commercial driver training programs work? Persons familiar with the motor carrier, motorcoach, transit, and school bus communities will not be surprised to learn that the answer is yes when opinions are sought but the answer is maybe when hard data are needed. In the teamâs survey, the most often used standard for measuring training effectiveness was CDL test pass rate. If significant numbers of stu- dents were receiving their CDL (more than 70%), the schools were seen as successful. For schools, another measure of success was the number of graduates hired for driving positions. Carriers had some general sense of improved safety performance resulting from training, but firm data were in short supply. The research team sent the survey over the Internet using email address lists provided by various training and carrier organizations (see Appendix B). The goal was to get a snapshot of the day-to-day activities of commercial driver training organizations. Two specific areas of inquiry were of interest (1) how trainers measure the effectiveness of their training and (2) how trainers measure the effectiveness of their graduates. The survey respondents identified four types of skills training: (1) range training with students either driving a vehicle around a restricted space or riding in a vehicle which is being driven by another student, (2) simulator training, (3) demonstration of skills by an instructor, and (4) behind- the-wheel (BTW) on road training. Not all schools use all four methods. Training organizations reported at least satisfaction with the various methods used to train. Only BTW was universally ranked as the best method to train. It is clear that training providers are convinced that the way for someone to learn how to drive a commercial vehicle is to drive a commercial vehicle under the supervision of a master driver. In addition to the survey, literature and current training programs were reviewed to see if there were other data that might enhance the conclusions for this report. This synthesis briefly discusses three particular cases: a paper by McFann (2001) reviewing some studies on training effectiveness conducted in the 1990s; TCRP Report 72 by Brock, Jacobs, and McCauley (2001); and a visit to Schneider Nationalâs Driver Training Facility in Green Bay, Wisconsin, in October 2006. All three sources identify a key component of a commercial vehicle driver training program: the role of the instructor. This report presents the following conclusions: ⢠Content. There is general agreement across the industry about the core content of commer- cial driving curricula. However, the content has evolved through an informal consensus based on the 1984 FHWA Model Curriculum, which listed what was believed to be the necessary content at the time. There are no national standards on content, although when one examines various curricula, little content difference can be found. The industry could use a systematic development of a modern commercial driver training curriculum. ⢠Instructional Methods. The favorite method for training commercial drivers is a combina- tion of classroom lectures and supervised driving. Most of the research findings on adult learn- ing and instructional technology from the last 30 years have not been incorporated into many commercial driving training enterprises. In those cases where advanced technologies are being applied, early data indicate that well-designed CBI, including simulation, can improve stu- dent performance and also realize efficiencies in the instructional process. Distance learning shows great promise for post-licensing training. ⢠Train the Trainer. It is natural that older, experienced drivers are selected to be instructors, no matter if the training is administered by a school, carrier, bus company, or transit agency. But there is no evidence that a person who is a job expert is necessarily a good teacher. There are two sets of skills a good driver training instructor must possess beyond driving competence.
3One set involves classroom skills (presentation fundamentals, using classroom equipment, lis- tening to students). These skills are well recognized and are a part of good train-the-trainer pro- grams. The second set involves BTW skills (observational fundamentals, explaining activities in understandable and behavioral terms, cool head, ability to anticipate risky situations). Since there are no standards for commercial vehicle driver training instructors, this most important role in the training process is extremely variable. ⢠Lack of Systematic Training Design. The commercial vehicle industries have reached an informal consensus on the subject of commercial driver training. However, it has been more than 20 years since a formal curriculum design for commercial drivers was systematically developed. In those 20 years, the CDL program has become law, new technologies and regu- lations for truck and bus operations have had a major impact on the drivers, and the collected knowledge about what effects a commercial driverâs performance (e.g., fatigue, distraction, age) has grown exponentially. ⢠Lack of Standards for Measuring the Effectiveness of Driver Training Programs. Currently, the only generally acceptable standard for measuring the effectiveness of commercial driver training is the number of graduates who can pass their CDL tests. In both the survey and in personal conversations, schools reported that they also track the number of graduates that are hired by carriers. Carriers, motorcoach operations, and transit agencies report that they are sure that training reduces accidents; however, little or no data support that view. Standards pur- porting to measure training effectiveness tend to measure processes (classroom hours, time spent behind the wheel) rather than specific performance outcomes. ⢠Commercial Vehicle Operator Abilities. There has been a spate of recent research on the capabilities and limitations of adolescent drivers (e.g., Winston and Senserrick 2006). How- ever, a similar scientific approach to commercial drivers is lacking. If commercial vehicle oper- ator trainers understood more about the learning styles, cognitive strategies, and past educational experiences, training could be tailored to the relevant needs of the individual stu- dent. A set of diagnostic tests that could funnel students into unique optimum learning oppor- tunities would be a major jump in improving commercial driver training.