Designing a New Safety Training Program - ACS Publications

Chapter 12

Downloaded via UNIV OF SYDNEY on July 16, 2018 at 10:35:09 (UTC). See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

Designing a New Safety Training Program Charles T. Cox , Jr.* Stanford University, Department of Chemistry, 333 Campus Drive, Stanford, California 94305, United States *E-mail: [email protected].

The development of a chemistry safety culture is emphasized throughout chemistry curricula at both domestic and international universities. Curricula to emphasize safety is presented to undergraduates during laboratory experiments across the undergraduate chemistry major and emphasized in greater depth for graduate students working more independently in research groups. The paradigm for implementing safety training across the curriculum has been largely lecture-based or delivered using online modules. This chapter will outline the approaches taken at Stanford University to build a safety culture within the chemistry program using an active learning-based strategy for instructing graduate students. The process in which the program was developed, and the assessment of the program from small group evaluations, Likert ratings, and open-ended responses will be discussed.

Introduction In large public or private universities, graduate students play a pivotal role as teaching assistants for instructing undergraduate students in chemistry recitations, laboratories, and office hours. Within larger universities, because of a smaller teaching assistant to student ratio relative to the professor to student ratio, students tend to interact more significantly with their teaching assistants (1). Given safety is predominately discussed during the laboratory, teaching assistants play a key role in developing the safety culture by providing appropriate emphasis and instruction on safety (1–3). Effectively, graduate students act as role models for safety standards and policies (4). Laboratory skills, technique, and safety build incrementally across the curriculum. Therefore, it is paramount to successfully © 2018 American Chemical Society Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

incorporate safety in freshman laboratories. At Stanford, approximately 1200 undergraduate students complete one of the 13 laboratory-based courses offered by the department of chemistry yearly. Approximately 50% of the teaching assignments are for freshman level courses that include a laboratory component. Additionally, 30% of the assignments are for a sophomore level organic chemistry course that also incorporates a hands-on laboratory component. Therefore, approximately 80% of our graduate student teaching assignments involve the instruction of laboratory skills and safety for freshman and sophomores. The remaining 20% of assignments account for lower enrollment majors courses or courses that do not have a laboratory component. In preparation for their graduate teaching responsibilities, extensive training programs outlining policies, teaching strategies, and safety paradigms have been developed at Stanford, as well as, many other universities (3, 5–8). Stanford uses a three-day training session that focuses upon key university policies, microteaching activities, and safety (3). With safety training programs, there is a trajectory of information from most basic (applicable to all employees) to more complex (applicable to specific research groups) available. At Stanford, all employees are required to take a basic safety training course designed to emphasize topics including: building evacuation, earthquake response, and ergonomics. The basic training is required for all employees on campus. The basic safety training is designed to be completed with 60 minutes. The second layer of safety training emphasizes the chemical safety handling and disposal aspects. This training is required for all students who work in a chemistry laboratory as either a research or teaching assistant. The key aspects of this training emphasize compatibility, reactivity, personal protective equipment (PPE) selection, disposal, and storage. The chemical handling module is designed to be completed in approximately 60 minutes. Additional training modules that offer lab-specific training are available for research involving more specific or specialized approaches that necessitate additional safety training. Examples of these topics include biohazards, laser safety training, cryogen training, animal handling and safety, radiation safety, and teaching assistant training. At Stanford, the basic training and chemical safety training are set by county regulations and cannot be modified – all chemistry graduate students are required to complete these training components. Therefore, I focused on the lab-specific training for teaching assistants, which can be modified and updated as the needs of the undergraduate laboratories and experiments evolve. This chapter will outline my approach for developing the training program. The format for the safety training programs varies widely across domestic (5–8, 10, 11) and international universities (9). Stanford uses an assortment of different approaches for teaching safety with common modes of the training including: online interactive modules and videos and in-class lecture-style training sessions. Despite the importance and positive effect of developing a safety culture that has been widely emphasized by the American Chemical Society (12), research is still evolving in the field of safety training pedagogy and assessment. The number of studies analyzing the pedagogy for safety training is very limited compared to other chemical education studies that focus 194 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

upon key topics in general, organic, and other divisions in chemistry. A google scholar search yielded 155 results during a search for “chemical safety training” instruction. Furthermore, a search within the Journal of Chemical Education yielded 85 results during a search for safety training. Two pedagogy-based studies I referenced when designing by program were done by Saleh (13) and Withers et al. (14) Saleh explored the impact of using figures to teach safety and reported a statistically higher performance on assessment by the treatment group, who received instruction with visuals, compared to the control group, who received instruction without visuals. Furthermore, the treatment group maintained a safer working environment on average than the control group using classroom observations (13). Research by Withers, Freeman, and Kim reported no statistical difference between online and lecture-based classroom learning regarding retention of safety concepts. The classroom learning used a passive approach in which students were not actively involved and engaging with the course material during lecture. Because multimedia and lecture-format provided similar gains (14), I opted to explore the use of active-learning methodologies for instructing safety training. The research is limited regarding using active learning for safety training, but given the successes in the chemistry classroom (15–22), it was hypothesized that similar successes would be achieved during safety training. Notable improvements across the chemistry curricula have been reported using active learning including improvements in problem solving skills, retention of chemistry concepts, development of a more inclusive teaching environment, and enhancement in the satisfaction of the courses. Programs at the University of Chicago (5) and University of Nevada-Reno (23) have extensively developed approaches that extend beyond passive learning methodologies. A combination of both active and passive training is provided at both institutions. A second study by McGarry et al emphasized the importance of incorporating peer training as part of the safety training process (24). The study indicated improvements attributes to enabling leadership of graduate students as safety officers – hence, reiterating the importance of the peer impact. Given the impact of the peer training approach, we also sought ways in which we could include a peer training component within the training.

Designing a New Safety Program In developing the safety training modules for the undergraduate curriculum several key players work together to construct and implement the program: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Administrators and safety committee Faculty and lecturer staff Staff at EH&S Graduate students

195 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

The administrators and safety committee provide recommendations and incentives for developing safety programs for teaching laboratories. These incentives may include grant money for development or release time from teaching. Faculty and lecturers are tuned into the key considerations for safety and have a greater understanding of the backgrounds and abilities of the undergraduate and graduate students. Faculty or lecturers are also the key individuals responsible for ensuring appropriate safety information is disseminated and implemented in the undergraduate laboratories. Staff working within the environmental health and safety (EH&S) division are experts in safety paradigms and compliance. The synergy between lecturers and professors and EH&S staff yield programs that resonate with students, the curriculum, and align with the best practices for pedagogy and compliance. Graduate students, who often interact directly with students during laboratory sections, are responsible for understanding and implementing policies to undergraduate students. In developing the training, several questions arose regarding the approach, the content, and the goals of the training. The questions I considered were as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

What information should be conveyed in the graduate student training? What format should be used for training graduate students? What information should be discussed in the undergraduate student training? What format should be used for training undergraduate students? What types of assessments should be in place for graduate and undergraduate students? How can we assess the effectiveness of the undergraduate and graduate student training?

The Undergraduate Safety Training Module The undergraduate safety training module was developed jointly with the graduate student module to ensure consistency and continuity across the curriculum. Because of the size of the undergraduate program, an online module was developed for the undergraduate students that includes an overview of the key safety components with a follow up safety quiz. The online safety module was developed using Camtasia with voiceover and pen annotations. The course management system was used to deliver the safety training to all the undergraduates in the program. The 20-item safety quiz focused upon the key ideas with six of the 20 items being “core” items which must be answered correctly to pass. Of the 14 remaining non-core items, students could miss up to three items and still receive a passing score. Students were given three attempts to pass the quiz. To attend the laboratory, students must receive a passing score on the quiz. Scheme 1 provides sample quiz questions. Both questions were considered (core) or essential questions students must answer correctly to attend the laboratory. The distinction between core and noncore is associated with the potential outcomes if a safety standard is ignored. An example of a non-core question required students to recall that the red safety phones in the laboratory 196 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

immediately dial 911 even if the receiver is returned. While this is an important point for students to know, no one would be injured in the laboratory and response can be cancelled.

Scheme 1. Sample questions from the 20 – question quiz for the undergraduate safety training.

The Graduate Student Safety Training Program Undergraduate students should be familiar and knowledgeable of the safety guidelines. Graduate students should be able to interpret, understand, and implement the safety program. When determining appropriate content to include, the laboratory protocols from the general and organic laboratories were analyzed and safety considerations common across the curriculum were tabulated. When analyzing the laboratory protocols, we considered what questions students 197 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

may ask and what are potential errors students may have when completing the experiment. The common trends across the curriculum were tabulated. Furthermore, the content of the online safety training required for all participants was carefully analyzed to identify specific mechanical skills not easily acquired by passively watching videos. Once the content was identified, six modules incorporating hands-on engagement, were developed. Each module was designed to be completed within 20 – 25 minutes. The incoming graduate students are divided into groups of 6 – 9 students (depending upon the size of the incoming class) and rotate through each of the module. The smaller group size ensures that each student gets to participate in both the mechanical aspects and discussion components for the safety training. For example, each graduate student participates in cleaning up a chemical spill and in pulling a fire extinguisher to extinguish a mock fire. The modules were instructed by peer graduate students to incorporate the peer component with the supervisor of a member of EH&S. Collectively, several mechanical processes were identified as potential concepts for training and include: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Using a fire extinguisher Students extinguish a fire using a real fire extinguisher. This was coordinated with the Stanford fire department who assisted with provided the fire extinguishers at a minimal cost. Subsequent discussion included other types of fires observed in the chemical laboratory and selection of the appropriate fire extinguisher. Working with manifold or vacuum chambers Students work with pressured systems and identify risks and considerations when working with this equipment. Using the safety shower and eye wash station Students experience a live demo of using the safety shower with an undergraduate volunteer. Working with compressed gas cylinders Students are given instructions on using compressed gas cylinders. This includes moving and changing th regulators. Additional considerations and risks are discussed. Responding to accidents and emergencies The lab director or manager facilitated a discussion of the different scenarios that could arise in the teaching laboratories. These scenarios include fire alarm evacuation, responding to cuts and spills, and earthquake response. Responding to chemical spills Students use a chemical spill kit to clean up a large spill. Different chemical spill scenarios are discussed, as well as, the appropriate response. Identification of PPE and usage The script is provided in Table 1 that outlines the scope of the content covered by the module. 198

Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

Each of the modules have scripts like the script for PPE and usage. The scripts are important for outlining how a lesson is presented. It also ensures continuity within subsequent training sessions.

Table 1. A Script for the PPE Selection and Usage

Continued on next page.


Table 1. (Continued). A Script for the PPE Selection and Usage


Discussion and Assessment There were two evaluations of the teaching assistant and safety training program for assessment and recalibration as needed. The first evaluation was in the form of a small group evaluation (SGE) (25) in which first year teaching assistants, who had completed the training six months earlier, were pulled together and asked leading questions. The SGE was conducted by an independent consultant who is not affiliated with environmental health and safety or the department of chemistry. During the SGE, the 11 teaching assistants, who volunteered to participate in the SGE, had a quarter of teaching experience providing a strong basis for reflecting and identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the teaching assistant training program. Collectively, the safety program received positive comments. Teaching assistants with a lot of research experience did note that the safety training seemed basic or redundant at times, but they noted that it was helpful to receive details specifically related to the teaching laboratory. Overall, when polled during the SGE, 91% of the trainers noted that the safety training program increased their confidence regarding understanding and implementing safety policies while teaching laboratory sessions. A second assessment was conducted to gauge student’s perception about each module with the goal of identifying which modules may need to be recalibrated. A Likert scale of 1 – 5 was used to gauge students’ perceptions given the prompt, rank the effectiveness of the indicated safety training module. The data (N=31) is plotted below in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Summary of the Likert rating defining the graduate students’ perception of each module.


Because of the success observed with the hands-on training in chemistry, the approach has been expanded to other departments on campus. In 2017, chemical engineering introduced a hands-on approach and implemented comparable modules with specific variations to make the discussions more relevant for chemical engineering. Furthermore, additional modules are being created in chemistry to provide specialized training for graduate students and postdoctoral fellows at multiple times during the year. Training sessions will be offered to undergraduate chemistry majors as they begin enrolling in more advanced courses. New modules are being designed jointly with graduate students in the chemistry department and EH&S to reinforce and support existing EH&S training. Two recent modules cover cryogen safety and handling and more in-depth risk assessment approaches.

Conclusions and Future Objectives The hands-on safety training program promoted confidence for first year graduate students in assuming the role of overseeing safety in undergraduate laboratory courses. Currently, additional modules are being expanded. and the hands-on training is being modified and implemented within departments outside of chemistry. Future objectives include more in-depth research explorations into how strongly the hands-on training impacts retention, metacognition, and confidence for graduate students. Finally, the training will be expanded to chemistry majors, and similar research questions regarding retention, metacognition, and confidence will be explored.

Acknowledgments Special thanks given to Larry Gibbs, Mary Dougherty, Sharleen Chan, Craig Barney, and the Stanford EH&S staff who helped design and implement the program. I would also like to thank the numerous TA trainers who helped facilitate the program, as well as, the numerous TAs who participated in the hands-on training and provided feedback for improvement.

References 1. 2. 3. 4.

5.

O’Neal, C.; Wright, M.; Cook, C.; Perorazio, T.; Purkis, J. J. Col. Sci. Teach. 2007, 36 (5), 24–29. Benderly, B. Science, 2016. http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2016/05/ teaching-safety-skills-not-just-safety-rules (accessed 25 March 2018). Cox, C. T., Jr. Proceedings of the 100th Canadian Chemistry Conference and Exhibition, Toronto, Ontario, 2017. Moran, L.; Masciangioli, T. Chemical Laboratory Safety and Security: A Guide to Prudent Chemical Management; The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2016. https://doi.org/10.17226/21918 (accessed May 2018). Dragisich, V.; Keller, V.; Zhao, M. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 1204–1210. 202 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

11. 12.

13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

24.

25.

Luft, J.; Kurdziel, J.; Roehrig, G.; Turner, J. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2004, 41, 211–233. Kurdziel, J. P.; Turner, J. A.; Luft, J. A.; Roehrig, G. H. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80 (10), 1206–1210. Marbach-Ad, G.; Schaefer, K. L.; Kumi, B. C.; Friedman, L. A.; Thompson, K. V.; Doyle, M. P. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 865–872. The News Magazine of IUPAC. Chemistry International 2017, 39 (2), 26–28. Benderly, B. L. Science, 2013. http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_ magazine/previous_issues/articles/2013_06_05/caredit.a1300120 (accessed May 2018). Hill, R. H. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 1495–1498. American Chemical Society: Guidelines for Laboratory Safety in Academic Institutions, 2016. https://www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/about/ governance/committees/chemicalsafety/publications/acs-safety-guidelinesacademic.pdf?logActivity=true (accessed 24 March 2018). Saleh, T. J. J. Chem. Health Saf. 2011, 18 (2), 3–8. Withers, J. H.; Freeman, S. A; Kim, E. J. Chem. Health Saf. 2012, 19 (5), 47–55. Jardine, H. E.; Friedman, L. A. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 9 (6), 703–709. Reid, S. A. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2016, 17, 914–922. Crimmins, M.; Midkiff, B. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94 (4), 429–438. Rau, M. A.; Kennedy, K.; Oxtoby, L.; Bollom, M.; Moore, J. W. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94 (10), 1406–1414. Shattuck, J. C. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (12), 1984–1992. Cicuto, C. A. T.; Torres, B. B. J. Chem Educ. 2016, 93 (6), 1020–1026. Paulson, D. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76 (8), 1136–1140. Hinde, R. J.; Kovac, J. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78 (1), 93–99. Laboratory Safety Training. Environmental Health & Safety. https:/ /www.unr.edu/ehs/program-areas/training/laboratory-safety-training (accessed 24 March 2018). 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. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90 (11), 1414–1417. Teaching Evaluation & Student Feedback. Stanford University. https://evals.stanford.edu/mid-term-feedback/small-group-feedback-class (accessed 24 March 2018).


Designing a New Safety Training Program - ACS Publications

Recommend Documents