Development of an Undergraduate Course in Chemical Laboratory

Mar 19, 2018 - The 1 credit course met for a weekly 75 min session throughout the semester (14 weeks). Enrollment in the course was open to all studen...
6 downloads 6 Views 755KB Size
Download PDF
Article Cite This: J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Development of an Undergraduate Course in Chemical Laboratory Safety through an Academic/Industrial Collaboration Ericka M. Huston,*,† John A. Milligan,† Jaclyn R. Powell,† Ashley M. Smith,† David Neal,∥ Keith M. Duval,‡ Mark A. DiNardo,‡ Charles Stoddard,† Peter A. Bell,† Aric W. Berning,§ Peter Wipf,† and George C. Bandik† †

Department of Chemistry, ‡Department of Environmental Health and Safety, and §School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260, United States ∥ Environment, Health and Safety Department, PPG, One PPG Place, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15272, United States S Supporting Information *

ABSTRACT: A 14 week undergraduate course on laboratory safety was developed at the University of Pittsburgh. The first segment of the course consists of a series of lectures intended to increase the students’ knowledge and appreciation of safety. In the second segment, experts from both academia and industry present and discuss case studies on specialized issues in laboratory safety. The course culminates with interactive exercises, written assignments, and student capstone projects, which reinforce an understanding of the course principles and encourage undergraduates to take leadership and ownership of safety. The creativity exhibited through the student projects and the results of a post-semester survey suggest that the course inspired students to take a greater role in promoting safety culture. KEYWORDS: Second-Year Undergraduate, Upper Division/Undergraduate, Safety/Hazards, Collaborative/Cooperative Learning, Curriculum, Laboratory Management, Professional Development

■

INTRODUCTION Laboratory safety has garnered increasing attention within the chemistry community,1 driven in part by serious accidents such as the 2008 fire that took the life of a staff member in an academic chemistry laboratory.2 In light of these incidents, it has been argued that the emphasis on safety and risk assessment in the undergraduate chemistry curriculum should be increased.3 As a reflection of this sentiment, the 2015 ACS Guidelines and Evaluation Procedures for Bachelor’s Degree Programs explicitly lists laboratory safety as one of the six skills that an undergraduate chemistry major should master.4 Consequently, safety education has become a priority at many institutions and has been implemented in a variety of ways. Although various chemical laboratory safety lectures and web-based activities have been reported in this Journal and elsewhere,5 reports on the development of semester-long safety courses are rare and typically do not incorporate perspectives from outside of academia.6 However, innovative methods of incorporating laboratory safety topics into the existing undergraduate curriculum through activities7 or modules within courses8 have been described. Hill and Finster have written a useful textbook that can be used for undergraduate safety education.9 The ACS has also published safety resources such as updated safety guidelines for academic institutions10 and a new edition of Safety in Academic Chemistry Laboratories.11 © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

In the Department of Chemistry at the University of Pittsburgh, we have undertaken several initiatives to promote safety education. For example, mandatory departmental safety seminars and improved safety training modules in undergraduate laboratories have been implemented. These initiatives have been useful in supporting a stronger research safety culture and in disseminating rules, regulations, and best practices in chemical hygiene and emergency response. However, we questioned if a course could be developed wherein a select group of motivated students are not only taught important laboratory safety concepts but also empowered to collaborate with peers to create materials that directly influence departmental safety culture. Such an approach would allow a safety culture to be fostered at a “grassroots” level rather than only through the dissemination of rules and regulations. Reports from elsewhere in academia indicate that a collaborative mechanism of this type is effective in promoting a higher safety awareness.12 This ideology of developing safety culture through peer collaboration has also been institutionalized in industrial settings, as illustrated by the DuPont “Bradley Curve”.13 When individuals approach laboratory safety with a collaborative and community-oriented mindset rather than a Received: August 5, 2017 Revised: February 13, 2018

A

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00599 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

these individuals also enables conversation between professionals and students on safety-related topics.

mindset that is purely impulsive and compliance-based, a much safer environment is attained. We therefore sought to develop an undergraduate course that emphasizes this interpersonal aspect of laboratory safety. To realize this vision, we designed a 14 week lecture course consisting of three segments: “Basic Safety Concepts”, “Specialized Topics in Safety”, and “Interactive Lessons”. The initial “Basic Safety Concepts” segment consisted of a series of lectures intended to foster an appreciation for the role of safety in academic and industrial research. The “Specialized Topics in Safety” segment focused on the details of a variety of topics relevant to chemical safety. Experienced professionals both within our university (the Department of Chemistry, the Department of Environmental Health and Safety (EH&S), the University Police, the School of Medicine) and from local industrial partners (PPG and Arconic) contributed to these lessons. The course then culminated with interactive activities, risk assessment exercises, and a capstone project. Through this design, we created a course where academic and industrial perspectives on safety can be discussed in a small class setting. This approach is intended to engage undergraduate chemistry students with a broad range of interests, not just those who conduct undergraduate research or will go on to graduate studies in chemistry. Ultimately, the course aims to engender a sense of leadership and ownership of safety that will enable all students to positively contribute to safety culture. Rather than viewing safety as a list of rules or an addendum to experimentation, students in the course learn to appreciate safety as a priority and to equip themselves with the tools to effectively assess potential hazards. These concepts are discussed in a manner that will serve students well in a variety of future careers including research, education, medicine, or industrial careers.

■

Course Assessment

The discussions and activities in the course were designed to engage students and facilitate the internalization of safety concepts. Thus, a significant portion (45%) of student grades was based on class attendance, contribution to class discussions, and active participation in activities. Another significant portion (45%) of student evaluation was based on performance on projects and written assignments, which were typically reflections on the course material or applications of concepts to new scenarios (see Supporting Information). The final 10% of student grades was based on the performance on the final capstone project. Creativity, effort, and appropriate incorporation of material presented in the course were the primary factors considered in the assessment of student’s class participation, written work, and capstone projects. While all enrolled students have, at a minimum, taken General Chemistry lab courses, only some students have taken more advanced laboratories or have experience with chemistry research. Thus, care was taken to avoid biasing grading purely on the basis of experience-derived knowledge. Although no text was required for the course, students were regularly directed toward online readings or videos as part of their weekly preparation for class.14 There were no traditional exams or quizzes administered. The decision to exclude traditional assessments was due in part to the institutional limitations of a 1 credit course. Because an emphasis was placed on weekly assignments and the generation of novel material for the capstone project, introducing midterm or final exams would extend expectations beyond the 1 credit threshold. The primary purpose of the course was to instill a greater appreciation of safety rather than communicate an exhaustive, situation-specific knowledge of safety that is measured by a written exam. Nonetheless, ca. 70% of the terms and concepts recommended by the ACS for undergraduate safety education were covered throughout the course (see the Supporting Information for a full tabulation).10 We postulate that by being made aware of these concepts and their importance, students will be more likely to study and implement them as needed in the future.

COURSE INFORMATION AND DESIGN

Course Logistics and Enrollment

The 1 credit course met for a weekly 75 min session throughout the semester (14 weeks). Enrollment in the course was open to all students who had passed General Chemistry (typically all but first year students). Students who were involved with chemistry beyond the classroom (i.e., assisting with TA duties, involvement in undergraduate research) were particularly encouraged to enroll. Because of these requirements, there was an appreciable amount of knowledge and experience diversity among the enrolled students. However, the topics discussed in the course were sufficiently general and accessible to a student who had completed General Chemistry. For reference, more details about the General Chemistry curriculum and the typical course sequence for a chemistry major at the University of Pittsburgh are included in the Supporting Information. In the five semesters that the course has been conducted, enrollment has ranged from 10 to 22 students, with a median of 15. While a course of this size may be perceived as small for a large institution (we estimate that 1500 students per year have completed General Chemistry and would be eligible for the course), we found that a smaller group enabled greater participation and more opportunities for students to interact with guest speakers. Faculty, researchers, and EH&S professionals from the department (usually at least 10 individuals) also attended class sessions, which added an additional layer of perspective and engagement to the course. The participation of

Course Rationale: Fostering a “Safety Culture”

The objective of the course was not only to disseminate the best practices in laboratory safety but also to instill in students an appreciation for their role in sustaining a “safety culture”. However, the term “safety culture” has a somewhat amorphous definition due to its increasing use in a variety of contexts.15 Rather than a singularly defined concept, a “safety culture” is composed of a complex set of behavioral factors that motivate individuals to take ownership of laboratory safety.16 Because such attitudes are difficult to instill only through lecture-based descriptions, information literacy and peer collaboration were emphasized throughout the course to address this challenge of developing a “safety culture”.8a We drew inspiration from the recent report of Stuart and McEwen, who argued that laboratory safety skills can be effectively taught in combination with information literacy.17 Through this approach, students are encouraged to proactively inform themselves regarding laboratory hazards. The connection between the critical analysis of relevant documents (safety data sheets (SDSs), standard operating procedures (SOPs), published literature), and the safe execution of B

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00599 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

opportunity to reflect upon the consequences of inadequate, hasty, or impulsive risk assessments.18 These lectures allowed ample opportunity for students to compare and contrast common safety challenges in academia with those in industry. The “Specialized Topics in Safety” segment (weeks 5−10) consisted of lectures on specialized issues related to chemical safety, namely, fire safety in the chemistry laboratory; the proper handling, storage, and labeling of chemical products and chemical waste; the physiology and treatment of injuries that can occur in the chemistry laboratory; and the appropriate response to a laboratory incident from the perspective of first responders (campus police department). The lessons allowed students to apply their chemistry knowledge to practical questions (for example, “Why should nitric acid be segregated from organic waste streams?” or “What properties of this compound cause it to be a skin irritant?”). The panel discussion during week 8 afforded the students an opportunity to hear the perspective of both academic and industrial professionals on the importance of laboratory safety in the everyday practice of chemistry. These classes gave students a unique opportunity to learn from professionals with whom they might not otherwise interact in a nonemergency situation. While we were pleased to provide students with this opportunity, we recognize that other institutions may not have resources such as industrial partners or a medical school. Institutions considering adaptation of this model could consider other collaborative options (for example, incorporating perspectives from other departments within their institution). Alternatively, the core objectives of this course could be achieved by interested faculty, EH&S professionals, and small teams of students who collaboratively work to incorporate an improved safety culture into their own curricula.

research was therefore emphasized and contrasted with case studies on chemical accidents. Where appropriate, issues related to the chemical foundations of safety and compound properties were discussed as a further means of combining safety culture and information literacy. The integration of the course concepts into an overall appreciation of safety culture was achieved through group projects, including a final capstone presentation that required students to collaborate with both peers and professionals. It has been noted that collaboration is important in learning and implementing safety concepts, particularly as they relate to a broader safety culture.8b,12,16 Wright has also observed that a constructivist pedagogical approach to safety education allows students to develop personally meaningful conventions of what “safety culture” means as they process relevant information.8b Mindful of this precedent, the three segments of the course were designed to allow students to construct individual perspectives on “safety culture” as they progress from learning concepts of safety to participating in simulated activities and finally generating their own capstone projects. These studentdesigned products can influence other students’ understanding of “safety culture” and can be adapted as future hands-on activities. Thus, each of these steps are interrelated in their ability to enable students to develop a personally meaningful concept of “safety culture” (Figure 1).

Interactive Lessons

The application of safety concepts in a hands-on manner was a central objective of the course. In the last several weeks of the semester, the course therefore shifted to the “Interactive Lessons” segment, where safety concepts were applied through activities. Week 11 served as a launching point for this interactive training through a role-play activity of a mock laboratory accident. This exercise was an opportunity for students to apply information taught in previous lectures with the added pressure of a simulated emergency situation. The activity began with a brief overview of the physiological and cognitive changes that occur in the body during a state of stress.19 After this discussion, a walk-through of the drill was conducted, and expectations were delineated. While one student escorted the “victim” to the safety shower (which was actually used), another called the “university police” (impersonated by EH&S personnel) to report the circumstances of the mock accident. A postactivity debriefing with a trained medic and EH&S personnel gave students the opportunity to reflect upon their performance. The rationale for such a realistic walk-through drill is that students would be more prepared and less intimidated in the event of an actual incident, which potentially will enable a more effective response that minimizes the negative impact of a laboratory accident. There is a positive relationship between time spent in a realistic simulation and achievement of learning outcomes.20 The simulation was therefore based on actual circumstances that created realistic scenarios for learners. The details of the incident and the correct responses were

Figure 1. Concept map of the course mechanics used to promote safety culture.

■

COURSE TEACHING METHODS

Lecture Series

The course is divided into three segments, as shown in Table 1. The initial “Basic Safety Concepts” segment (weeks 1−4) focused on the “what” of laboratory safety, including basic concepts of toxicology, common safety pitfalls in experimental chemistry, and the ability to extract relevant information from a safety data sheet (SDS). These lectures were presented by professionals from our university and local industries. The “preparing to experiment” lecture in week 4, for example, had three 20 min presentations from academic (graduate students) and industrial researchers, where insight was offered on the role of peer collaboration and hazard assessment in everyday, practical laboratory circumstances. Various accidents and near misses (both from our university and other institutions) were analyzed in these lessons, providing students with a valuable C

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00599 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Title

Introduction to the Course

Toxicology Risk Assessment Preparing To Experiment

Fire Safety

Chemical Storage Chemical Waste

Panel Discussion

Injury Physiology and PPE

Emergency Response

Interactive Drills Laboratory Inspection

Industrial Safety Management

Student Capstone Project

Week

1

2 3 4

5

6 7

8

9

10

11 12

13

14

Table 1. Course Schedule

D

All students

Industrial safety director

Military medic University EH&S personnel

University police personnel

Medical professional

Various university and industrial personnel

Departmental stockroom manager University EH&S personnel

University fire safety officer

Industrial toxicologist University faculty University graduate students and industrial researchers

Various

Presenter

Basic Safety Concepts Discussion of course structure; Highlight the importance of a safety culture through accident case studies in academic laboratories; Preliminary discussion of risk/hazard assessment Introduction of the concept of chemical hazards and PPE; Introduction to SDS sheets; Discussion of basic toxicology concepts Discussion of common errors and risks in the chemical laboratory; Discussion of risk mitigation concepts Discussion of the aspects involved in safely planning laboratory procedures, including the use of resources to safely conduct laboratory work Specialized Topics in Safety Discussion and hands-on practice of basic fire safety concepts, particularly as they relate to laboratory activities; Review of evacuation procedures; Virtual fire extinguisher training using an interactive computer-generated image and fire extinguisher simulator Discussion of chemical storage best practices and compatibility; Case studies of incidents related to improper chemical storage Discussion on the importance of proper labeling, storage, and disposal of chemical waste; Review of regulatory requirements and chemical compatibility guidelines Interactive forum for the discussion of a variety of topics related to laboratory safety and establishing a “safety culture”; Safety perspectives from both industrial and academic laboratories are discussed Case-based discussion of the physiology of common laboratory-related injuries such as burns, as well as the role of PPE in mitigating them Discussion and hands-on practice of procedures and best practices for responding to emergencies involving spills/releases and personal injuries; Tips to interact appropriately with first responders Interactive Lessons Interactive session to practice responses to emergencies; Hands-on exercise involving eyewashes and safety showers Discussion of elements relevant to maintaining a safe laboratory environment; Interactive activity where students evaluate staged laboratory situations Discussion of various aspects of industrial safety, particularly in comparison/contrast to academic settings; Discussion of the theoretical basis of human error An interactive session where students develop and share with one another instructional activities on chemical safety

Description

Journal of Chemical Education Article

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00599 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

recognize the practical utility of the information and procedures that they learned through the course. While we see great value in both the knowledge that students gained and the benefit to departmental safety culture facilitated by the course, a legitimate concern that has been raised with this model is that students may have “an accompanying sense that education in this topic has finished upon completion of the course”.1a To guard against this perception, we frame the course as an opportunity to “train the trainer”, where the small group of enrolled students can be empowered to use their knowledge beyond the course. Thus, we have designed practical deliverables that work to increase safety awareness throughout the department, some of which are illustrated in Figure 2. The use of collaborative teams to produce resources for the betterment of departmental safety culture has proven successful at other institutions.12

predetermined by instructors, and students received corrective feedback during the training. This training model has been shown to increase the confidence and comfort level of participants while providing them with attenuated levels of stress.21 This practice serves to familiarize the learner with their own stress response and provide a basis of habit formation, thereby enabling them to cope with future stress more effectively.22 The following week, students were again engaged in a handson activity that involved inspecting a teaching laboratory for simulated safety violations (which were deliberately placed beforehand by EH&S personnel; see Supporting Information for details). A postactivity debriefing allowed students to reflect upon the possible types of safety hazards that could be found in the laboratory and the importance of being actively aware in working toward their mitigation. This activity was scheduled toward the end of the course because the process of identifying and evaluating realistic laboratory hazards is a culmination of several key aspects of safety education.23 Other interactive lessons were incorporated elsewhere in the course. For example, during the “Fire Safety” lesson (week 5), students used a digital training simulator to put out a “virtual” fire. Also, after the “Chemical Storage” lesson (week 6), students conducted a cleanup of a small simulated spill and completed a written reflection on their performance. Details about this interactive lesson are included in the Supporting Information. Student Capstone Project

As a capstone project, groups of 2−3 students developed activities highlighting one or more aspects of laboratory safety that they found interesting or relevant to their scientific interests. On the final day of the course, each group of students presented the activities to their classmates. Each presentation was followed by a question/answer session and discussion of its effectiveness in conveying a particular safety concept. The activities took a variety of forms. Some conformed to a lecture style, such as a slide presentation on the most relevant sections of an SDS (entitled “SDS in context”). Other groups developed videos that demonstrate a course concept. Many students chose to make more interactive projects such as an activity where students assess and respond to a small simulated spill, a “Jeopardy!”-style quiz on waste disposal information, or a roleplay skit where a peer who is doing something unsafe is confronted and provided with safety-based recommendations. These activities can be adapted by laboratory coordinators to assist in undergraduate safety training. In some cases, students who presented exceptional activities that had relevance for undergraduate laboratories were invited to test them in an actual laboratory course. We have compiled the best capstone activities into a bank of resources that can be used to create a “safety confidence course” for departmental safety training.

Figure 2. Graphical illustration of practical outcomes that have been developed through the course.

One specific product of the course, which was conducted as a written assignment after the “Risk Assessment” lecture during week 3, was a risk assessment of an undergraduate laboratory activity at the University of Pittsburgh. Students conducted this assignment using the online risk assessment tools and guidelines developed by the ACS.23 Aside from serving to legitimize the role of safety and risk assessment in the undergraduate laboratory, these student-conducted risk assessments provide a valuable perspective of potential safety pitfalls from undergraduates who lack an “expert blind spot”.24 Several other innovative results came from the undergraduates’ work on the capstone project. For example, many of the capstone projects were specifically designed to provide a more creative and engaging method to convey safety rules to students in a laboratory course. In some cases, these activities were conducted in a subsequent semester. Our department is also in the process of implementing “safety pause slides” as reminders of salient safety concepts at departmental research seminars.12 Some of these slides have been developed by students as part of a written activity for this course. Students from the course were additionally encouraged to become active

■

PERCEPTIONS, OUTCOMES, AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS The student perception of the course was uniformly positive, as judged by a post-semester survey consisting of 30 questions (24 of which were on a 5 point Likert scale, 6 of which were freeresponse; see Supporting Information for full survey and results). Students commented in the survey that the course helped them to better understand safety issues and gain confidence in addressing them. Students were also able to E

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00599 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

■

participants and breakout session moderators in the biannual departmental safety seminars, which allowed them to broaden their perspective, leadership, and communication skills. Through these approaches, the creative products of this course benefit the entire department. Further extensions along these lines are planned for future iterations of this course, and a more extensive evaluation of the impact of this course on departmental safety culture is also planned. We have also begun to invite students who have previously taken the course to provide peer leadership and to assist in further incorporation of safety concepts into the undergraduate laboratory curriculum. Students who demonstrated mastery of the course material and frequently contributed to in-class discussions were invited to participate in this capacity. The students who served as peer leaders acted as consultants to current students in the development of capstone projects and “safety pause slides”. In addition, we have grouped select former safety course students into “implementation teams” that will work along with faculty and EH&S professionals to incorporate material from this course into undergraduate laboratory activities. In this way, we see the course fulfilling its mission of sustaining departmental safety culture through a creative and collaborative mechanism. After all, creativity, leadership, and peer consultation are central ingredients for the “grassroots” development of safety culture.

■

REFERENCES

(1) (a) American Chemical Society. Creating Safety Cultures in Academic Institutions; https://www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/ about/governance/committees/chemicalsafety/academic-safetyculture-report.pdf (accessed Feb 2018). (b) Bertozzi, C. R. Ingredients for a Positive Safety Culture. ACS Cent. Sci. 2016, 2 (11), 764−766. (2) Kemsley, J. N. Learning from UCLA. Chem. Eng. News 2009, 87 (31), 29−31 33−34.. (3) Hill, R. H., Jr. Undergraduates Need a Safety Education! J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (9), 1495−1498. (4) American Chemical Society, Committee on Professional Training. Undergraduate Professional Education in Chemistry: ACS Guidelines and Evaluation Procedures for Bachelor’s Degree Programs; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2015. https://www.acs. org/content/dam/acsorg/about/governance/committees/training/ 2015-acs-guidelines-for-bachelors-degree-programs.pdf (accessed Feb 2018). (5) (a) Kennedy, S.; Palmer, J. Teaching Safety: 1000 Students at a Time. J. Chem. Health Saf. 2011, 18 (4), 26−31. (b) Irving, J. R. A Laboratory Safety Orientation Lecture for the First Chemistry Course. J. Chem. Educ. 1967, 44 (3), A215−A225. (6) (a) Senkbeil, E. G. Laboratory Safety Course in the Chemistry Curriculum. J. Hazard. Mater. 1994, 36, 159−164. (b) Carpenter, S. R.; Kolodny, R. A.; Harris, H. E. A Novel Approach to Chemical Safety Instruction. J. Chem. Educ. 1991, 68, 498−499. (c) Nicholls, L. J. An Undergraduate Chemical Laboratory Safety Course. J. Chem. Educ. 1982, 59 (10), A301−A304. (d) Lowry, G. G. A University-Level Course in Laboratory Safety (Concluded). J. Chem. Educ. 1978, 55 (6), A263−A266. (7) (a) Matson, M. L.; Fitzgerald, J. P.; Lin, S. Creating Customized, Relevant, and Engaging Laboratory Safety Videos. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84 (10), 1727−1728. (b) Di Raddo, P. Teaching Chemistry Lab Safety through Comics. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83 (4), 571−573. (c) Gublo, K. I. A Laboratory Safety Trivia Game. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80 (4), 425. (d) Helser, T. L. A Lab Safety “Scavenger Hunt. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76 (1), 68. (e) Helser, T. L. Safety Wordsearch. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76 (4), 495. (f) Hill, P. S.; Greco, T. G. Safety is no Laughing Matter. J. Chem. Educ. 1995, 72 (12), 1126−1127. (8) (a) Alaimo, P. J.; Langenhan, J. M.; Tanner, M. J.; Ferrenberg, S. M. Safety Teams: An Approach to Engage Students in Laboratory Safety. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87 (8), 856−861. (b) Wright, S. M. Introducing Safety Topics using a Student-Centered Approach. J. Chem. Educ. 2005, 82 (10), 1519−1520. (c) Miller, G. J.; Heideman, S. A.; Greenbowe, T. J. Introducing Proper Chemical Hygiene and Safety in the General Chemistry Curriculum. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77 (9), 1185−1187. (d) Moody, A. E.; Freeman, R. G. Chemical Safety and Scientific Ethics in a Sophomore Chemistry Seminar. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76 (9), 1224−1225. (9) Hill, R. H., Jr.; Finster, D. C. Laboratory Safety for Chemistry Students, 2nd ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, 2016. (10) American Chemical Society. Guidelines for Chemical Laboratory Safety in Academic Institutions; https://www.acs.org/content/dam/ acsorg/about/governance/committees/chemicalsafety/publications/ acs-safety-guidelines-academic.pdf (accessed Feb 2018). (11) American Chemical Society. Safety in Academic Chemistry Laboratories; https://www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/about/ governance/committees/chemicalsafety/publications/safety-inacademic-chemistry-laboratories-students.pdf (accessed Feb 2018). (12) McGarry, K. A.; Hurley, K. R.; Volp, K. A.; Hill, I. M.; Merritt, B. A.; Peterson, K. L.; Rudd, P. A.; Erickson, N. C.; Seiler, L. A.; Gupta, P.; Bates, F. S.; Tolman, W. B. Student Involvement in Improving the Culture of Safety in Academic Laboratories. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90 (11), 1414−1417. (13) The Dupont Bradley Curve. http://www.dupont.com.au/ products-and-services/consulting-services-process-technologies/ brands/sustainable-solutions/sub-brands/operational-riskmanagement/uses-and-applications/bradley-curve.html (accessed Feb 2018).

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

S Supporting Information *

The Supporting Information is available on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00599. Course syllabus, examples of assignments, instructions for interactive lessons and student projects, postsemester survey results, and information on the chemistry curriculum at the University of Pittsburgh (PDF)

■

Article

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

*E-mail: [email protected]. ORCID

John A. Milligan: 0000-0001-5787-2908 Ashley M. Smith: 0000-0002-0225-1618 Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

■

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors acknowledge those who contributed to the development of this course (Ray Euler, Dayeong Lee, Tamika Madison, Alexandru Maries, Emily Marshman, Ryan Triglia, Sarah Wells, Halina Werner), presented lectures (Heather Burleigh-Flayer, Josh Jones, Jill Millstone, Al Mitchell, Adam Powell, Al Rizzo, Jane Valenta, Ryan Young), and participated in our panel discussion (Mark Cancilla, Jay Frerotte, Aditya Gottumukkala, W. Seth Horne, Jennifer Laaser, Jill Millstone, Michael Olah, Rena Robinson, David Stone, Patrick Straney, Reshma Thakore, David Waldeck). The University of Pittsburgh Discipline-Based Science Education Research Center (dB-SERC) is acknowledged for financial support and for helpful discussions. The students who enrolled in this course are acknowledged for their participation and support. F

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00599 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

(14) The Chemical Safety Board has several videos and case studies that can be used for this purpose. See for example: http://www.csb. gov/videos/experimenting-with-danger (accessed Feb 2018). (15) Silbey, S. S. Taming Prometheus: Talk About Safety Culture. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2009, 35, 341−369. (16) (a) Staehle, I. O.; Chung, T. S.; Stopin, A.; Vadehra, G. S.; Hsieh, S. I.; Gibson, J. H.; Garcia-Garibay, M. A. An Approach to Enhance the Safety Culture of an Academic Chemistry Research Laboratory by Addressing Behavioral Factors. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 217−222. (b) Geller, S. E. The Psychology of Safety Handbook; Lewis: Boca Raton, FL, 2004. (17) Stuart, R. B.; McEwen, L. R. The Safety “Use Case”: CoDeveloping Chemical Information Management and Laboratory Safety Skills. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 516−526. (18) Rovner, S. L. Using Accidents to Educate. Chem. Eng. News 2007, 85 (18), 29−30. (19) (a) Schwabe, L.; Wolf, O. T. Stress Prompts Habit Behavior in Humans. J. Neurosci. 2009, 29, 7191−7198. (b) Wang, M.; Ramos, B. P.; Paspalas, C. D.; Shu, Y.; Simen, A.; Duque, A.; Vijayraghavan, S.; Brennan, A.; Dudley, A.; Nou, E.; Mazer, J. A.; McCormick, D. A.; Arnsten, A. F. T. α2A-Adrenoceptors Strengthen Working Memory Networks by Inhibiting cAMP-HCN Channel Signaling in Prefrontal Cortex. Cell 2007, 129, 397−410. (20) (a) McGaghie, W. C.; Issenberg, S. B.; Petrusa, E. R.; Scalese, R. J. Effect of Practice on Standardized Learning Outcomes in Simulation-Based Medical Education. Med. Educ. 2006, 40, 792−797. (b) Wang, E. E. Simulation and Adult Learning. DM, Dis.-Mon. 2011, 57, 664−678. (21) Ahn, J.; Menon, S. Procedural Simulation. DM, Dis.-Mon. 2011, 57, 691−699. (22) Kharasch, M.; Aitchison, P.; Pettineo, C.; Pettineo, L.; Wang, E. E. Physiological Stress Responses of Emergency Medicine Residents During an Immersive Medical Simulation Scenario. DM, Dis.-Mon. 2011, 57, 700−705. (23) American Chemical Society. Hazard Assessment in Research Laboratories; https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/about/ governance/committees/chemicalsafety/hazard-assessment.html. (accessed Feb 2018). (24) Ambrose, S. A.; Bridges, M. W.; DiPietro, M.; Lovett, M. C.; Norman, M. K. How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, 2010; p 99.

G

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00599 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX