RISK HAZARD ASSESSMENT IN THE GENERAL CHEMISTRY LABORATORY SUSAN D. WIEDIGER AND AMANDA HYETT* DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY EDWARDSVILLE *NOW AT NOKOMIS HIGH SCHOOL, NOKOMIS, IL
PRESENTED 24 MARCH 2015 249 NATIONAL MEETING OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY TH
DENVER, COLORADO
OVERVIEW • BACKGROUND AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK • HAZARD AND RISK • INSPECTIONS AND ASSESSMENTS • EXPERT AND NOVICE
• RISK HAZARD ASSESSMENT (RHA) • STRUCTURE OF STUDY – EVERY SECTION, EVERY WEEK • PARTICIPANTS – GEN CHEM STUDENTS, TAS, LAB PROS • FINDINGS
HAZARD AND RISK • HAZARD-POTENTIAL TO CAUSE HARM; AN OBJECT OR SITUATION THAT IS A POTENTIAL SOURCE OF HARM
• RISK-THE LIKELIHOOD OF HARM OCCURRING
Definitions were adapted from various sources including ACS SACL2 (2003), OSHA CFR 1910.1200(c), Prudent Practices i(1995), and Safety in Physics Education (AAPT, 2001)
INSPECTIONS AND ASSESSMENTS • INSPECTIONS: IN-PERSON SNAPSHOTS OF A SETTING • AN INDIVIDUAL OR TEAM WALKS THROUGH A LABORATORY EVALUATING SETTING AND SOMETIMES BEHAVIORS
• MANY VARIATIONS: TEAM COMPOSITION, CHECKLISTS, CONSEQUENCES
• ASSESSMENTS: EVALUATION OF AN EXPERIMENT • FORMALIZED PROCEDURES FOR NEW RESEARCH PROJECTS • RISK ASSESSMENT DONE BY A TEACHER PLANNING A LESSON • ASSESSMENT DONE BY STUDENTS AS PRE-LAB OR IN CLASS Wiediger (2007) Hill and Finster, Laboratory Safety for Chemistry Students, 2010
NOVICE AND EXPERT APPLIED • SCIENCE AS APPRENTICESHIP MODEL • STUDENTS ARE NOVICES IN NEARLY EVERYTHING • TAS ARE JOURNEYMEN IN CHEMISTRY BUT MAY BE NOVICES IN INSTRUCTION
• TAS IN THE MIDDLE GROUND: STUDENTS ! TAS ! LAB PROFESSIONAL (LAB PRO) • COGNITIVE OVERLOAD DUE TO ONE TASK AFFECTING THE OTHER
• ARE TAS QUALIFIED ENOUGH TO BE THE EXPERT? • KNOWLEDGEABLE IN THEIR SPECIFIC CONTENT AREA • CONCRETE VERSUS FORMAL KNOWLEDGE: CONTENT, TEACHING, SAFETY Robinson and Samarapungavan (2001)
EDUCATIONAL GOALS • TEACH STUDENTS ABOUT RHA • DEVELOP GREATER SITUATIONAL AWARENESS IN STUDENTS
THE CHALLENGE • DO TAS HAVE ENOUGH EXPERTISE TO GUIDE STUDENTS ON THIS TOPIC?
RESEARCH QUESTION • HOW DO RHAS OF STUDENTS, TAS, AND LAB PROS DIFFER?
WHAT DID WE DO? • HUMAN SUBJECT REQUIREMENTS • INITIAL VIDEO EXPLAINING THE PROJECT TO THE STUDENTS
• INFO FORMS TA & LAB PRO, PLUS FINAL INTERVIEWS • RHA FORM WITH STUDENT DEMOGRAPHIC DATA • TRIGGERED BY LAB PRO ARRIVAL • TWO RANDOM STUDENTS EACH WEEK, PLUS TA • CONCLUDED IN REPORT-OUT TO CLASS
• STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USING EXCEL AND SPSS 21
WHO WERE OUR PARTICIPANTS? • STUDENTS (N = 318, 71% PARTICIPATION) • RANGE IN AGE FROM 18 TO 37, MEAN 19.2, MEDIAN 18 • 52% FEMALE • YEARS OF CHEMISTRY: 6.3% <1; 68.9% 1-2; 24.8% >2 • <10% HAD LAB EXPERIENCE OUTSIDE OF COURSEWORK
• TEACHING ASSISTANTS (N=9, 82% PARTICIPATION) • RANGE IN AGE FROM 23 TO 31, MEAN 26, MEDIAN 26 • 56% FEMALE • PRIOR SAFETY EXPERIENCE PRIMARILY UNDERGRADUATE COURSEWORK AND GRADUATE STUDENT ORIENTATION SESSIONS
• LAB PROFESSIONALS • MORE EXTENSIVE SAFETY TRAINING; ONE COURSEWORK, ONE HAZWOPER • FACULTY (44) AND LAB MANAGER (26)
RHA FORM
Physical Hazards are obstacles or things that lead to slips, trips, or falls
RHA FORM
Behavioral Hazards are people ac9ons (like distrac9on or horseplay) that increase risk
Lab Pro
TA
Student
Behavioral* 0.000
Toxic* 0.017
Reactive 0.193
Corrosive* 0.021
Physical 0.140
N
Fire 0.078
percent answering yes, that hazard is present Electrical* 0.000
Observer
HAZARD IDENTIFICATION FREQUENCY
152 77.0 15.8 64.5 48.0 16.4 55.3 21.7
177 64.4 10.2 71.2 48.0 11.9 39.5 39.5
• FOUR CATEGORIES HAD DIFFERENCES STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT AT THE 0.05 LEVEL (CHI SQUARE)
172 83.7 18.6 74.4 61.0 9.9 46.5 52.3
TOXIC
(STUDENT>LAB PRO>TA)
% saying yes
120 100
Toxic Hazard
80 60
student
40
TA
20
Pro
0
• STUDENTS ORIGINALLY CATEGORIZED ACIDS AS TOXIC, REGARDLESS OF CONCENTRATION
• EXPLICIT CAUTIONS ABOUT TOXICITY ON FIRST PAGE OF EXPERIMENT WERE UNDERSTOOD (FERROFLUID, PRECIPITATION) • TOXIC HAZARDS IN OTHER LABS (DENSITY, SIXBOTTLE) WERE LESS FREQUENTLY RECOGNIZED
• CHEMICALS FROM OTHER LABS IN THE ROOM WERE MORE CONSISTENTLY IDENTIFIED AS HAZARDS BY LAB PRO
BEHAVIORAL
(LAB PRO>TA>STUDENT)
% saying yes
120 100
Behavioral Hazard
80 60
student
40
TA
20
Pro
0
• TAS WERE MORE AWARE OF GENERAL ISSUES, SUCH AS MOVING AROUND THE ROOM AND WORKING WITH GLASSWARE
• LAB PRO WAS MORE AWARE OF STUDENT SPECIFIC ISSUES, SUCH AS GOGGLES, HAIR, AND GLOVES
N
mean rating
mean rating
Toxic* 0.000 N
mean rating
N
3.89*
mean rating
144 4.52 32 4.94 127 4.57 105 4.86 16 4.94 80 4.55* 90
N
4.29*
mean rating
Physical Corrosive Reactive 0.153 0.071 0.092 N
114 4.75* 18 4.78 126 4.51 85 4.68 22 4.68 69 4.49 70
mean rating
TA
Fire 0.462 N
4.55
mean rating
116 4.60 24 4.88 98 4.63 71 4.78 25 4.46 84 4.91* 33
N
Student Observer
Electrical* 0.000
Lab Pro
RISK MANAGEMENT RATINGS Behavioral* 0.000
• THREE CATEGORIES HAD DIFFERENCES STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT AT THE 0.05 LEVEL (KRUSKAL-WALLIS) • SIGNIFICANT PAIRWISE COMPARISONS (DONE POST-HOC) ARE MARKED WITH AN ASTERISK ON THE “TOP” MEMBER OF PAIR
(TA
Avg. Managment Rating
TOXIC
6 5
Toxic Hazard
4 3
student
2
TA
1
Pro
0
• TAS AND LAB PRO MORE AWARE OF PROBLEMS WITH DISPENSING TOXIC SUBSTANCES (FERROFLUID, PRECIPITATION, SIX BOTTLE) • STUDENTS PERHAPS HAVE A SENSE OF SECURITY THAT PPE IS ALL THEY NEED
• SOME TAS WANTED MORE PPE
(LAB PRO
Avg. Managment Rating
BEHAVIORAL
6 5
Behavioral Hazard
4 3
student
2
TA
1
Pro
0
• STUDENTS TENDED TO FOCUS ON NOT EATING THINGS AND BEING CAREFUL • TAS FOCUSED ON WARNING PEOPLE ABOUT HANDLING EQUIPMENT AND BEING CAREFUL
• TAS WERE ALSO MORE SENSITIVE TO OVERALL FLOW ISSUES • LAB PRO WAS MORE ABOUT INDIVIDUAL ISSUES AND GOT PROGRESSIVELY GRUMPIER ABOUT GOGGLES AND CLOTHING
• SPECULATIONS • STUDENTS DO NOT FOCUS BEYOND THEMSELVES – LIMITED SAFETY CULTURE • TAS ARE FOCUSED ON CLASS AS A WHOLE NOT INDIVIDUALS • TAS ARE COGNITIVELY OVERLOADED WITH CONTENT, TEACHING, AND SAFETY
RE-CAP
HOW DO STUDENTS, TAS, AND LAB PROS DIFFER? • SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN RECOGNITION OF ELECTRICAL, CORROSIVE, TOXIC, AND BEHAVIORAL HAZARDS
• SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN EVALUATION OF RISK ASSOCIATED WITH ELECTRICAL, TOXIC, AND BEHAVIORAL HAZARDS
• STUDENTS TENDED NOT TO NOTICE EXTRANEOUS MATERIALS
• STUDENTS CONFUSED ABOUT CHEMICAL HAZARD DEFINITIONS (TOXIC) • TAS WERE SOMETIMES LESS CONSISTENT AS A GROUP
• TAS FOCUSED ON GENERAL BEHAVIORAL ISSUES
• TAS LESS AWARE OF INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIORS
• TAS MORE CONCERNED ABOUT SELECTION OF PPE FOR LAB
SUMMARY… GOALS AND QUESTIONS • WERE THE STUDENTS MORE AWARE? OF GENERAL RISKS AND HAZARDS, YES; OF BEHAVIOR CONNECTIONS, NO • ARE THERE “RIGHT” ANSWERS? YES FOR PRESENCE OF HAZARDS, NO FOR RISK • ARE THE TAS ADVANCED ENOUGH TO SERVE AS EXPERTS? MOST… FOR EVERYTHING EXCEPT BEHAVIORAL
EXTENSIONS
• ADJUSTING CATEGORIES ON RHA • INSTITUTIONALIZING • PREPARING TAS PRIOR TO LAB
SPECIAL THANKS TO…… • DR. MYRON JONES • MR. KENNY RODGERS • STUDENTS AND TAS OF CHEM 125A • CHEMISTRY DEPARTMENT • DR. MARK BELTZ—TATE & LYLE NORTH AMERICA
REFERENCES • AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY. SAFETY IN ACADEMIC CHEMISTRY LABORATORIES, VOLUME 2: ACCIDENT PREVENTION FOR FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATORS (7TH ED.). WASHINGTON, D.C., 2003. • AAPT APPARATUS COMMITTEE. SAFETY IN PHYSICS EDUCATION, AAPT, COLLEGE PARK, MD, 2001. • HILL, JR., ROBERT H. AND DAVID C. FINSTER, LABORATORY SAFETY FOR CHEMISTRY STUDENTS, WILEY, NEW JERSEY, 2010. • HILLSON, DAVID, AND RUTH MURRAY-WEBSTER, UNDERSTANDING AND MANAGING RISK ATTITUDE • NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL. PRUDENT PRACTICES IN THE LABORATORY: HANDLING AND DISPOSAL OF CHEMICALS. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, WASHINGTON, D.C., 1995. • OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, HAZARD COMMUNICATION 1910.1200 (ORIGINAL STANDARD 1994, WEBPAGE REVISED 201) • RENIERS, GENSERIK L.L, KOEN PONNET, AND AN KEMPENEERS, “HIGHER EDUCATION CHEMICAL LAB SAFETY INTERVENTIONS:: EFFICACIOUS OR INEFFECTIVE?” JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL HEALTH AND SAFETY, JAN/FEB (2014) 4-8 • ROBINSON, WILLIAM, AND ALA SAMARAPUNGAVAN. "IMPLICATIONS OF COGNITIVE SCIENCE RESEARCH FOR MODELS OF THE SCIENCE LEARNER." JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION. 78. (2001): 1107. • SUSAN D. WIEDIGER. “PATTERNS FOR CHEMICAL EDUCATION: A NEW WAY TO CONNECT RESEARCH TO PRACTICE,” THE CHEMICAL EDUCATOR, 12(5), (2007) PP 370-373.
