Teaching health and safety: Problems and possibilities for learner‐centered training

Abstract

The University of Massachusetts at Lowell Work Environment Department, working jointly with four New England coalitions on occupational safety and health (COSH) groups, has developed and is delivering participatory and learner-centered health and safety training for hazardous waste site workers and emergency responders throughout New England. This consortium has created a technical curriculum for hazardous waste workers accessible to the nonspecialist and which, more importantly, draws upon workers' own experience and knowledge as a source of information, education, and experiential resources. In this article, we examine the goals of the consortium, the applicability of the training method, its successes and failures, and the wider implications such pedagogical techniques have for effective and empowering health and safety training. We conclude that such a teaching technique is a successful means of providing technical knowledge and skills in a positive and rewarding atmosphere. We also conclude, however, that the extent to which this form of education is empowering, as is claimed by many of its proponents, is less clear-cut.

Industrial emergency response training: An assessment of long-term impact of a union-based program

“…Among trainees in the current UAW project, 61.5% referenced their manual after training, as did over 75% of the union trainees from the ICWU center [McQuiston et al, 1994]. Similarly, 77% of [Luskin et al, 1992]. These high percentages indicate that participatory methods, such as SGAM, are highly successful at cultivating the skills needed to utilize these materials long term.…”

“…Most of the previous studies of training programs using worker-trainers and SGAM or other similar participantcentered methods [Luskin et al, 1992;McQuiston et al, 1994;Merrill,1994] carried out evaluation activities within several months of completion of the training programs. However, longer term follow-up appears critical in assessing the effectiveness of health and safety training programs which have as a goal organizational change in handling health and safety.…”

Effects of the work environment and safety activities on occupational accidents in eight wood‐processing companies

“…• Investigation of accidents (Adams, Barlow, & Hiddlestone, 1981;Carter & Menckel, 1987; • Internal safety inspections and safety analyses (Chew, 1988;Hämäläinen, 1994;Smith, Cohen, Cohen, & Cleveland, 1978) • Analysis of production disruptions (Hakala, 1989;Saari, 1977;Tallberg, Lepistö, Mattila, & Vuori, 1992;Occupational deaths 1985Occupational deaths -1993Occupational deaths , 1995 • Design (Hakala, 1989;Saarela, Salminen, Räsänen, & Saari, 1992;Saari, 1977) • Safety rules and signs (Chew, 1988;Laner & Sell, 1960;Saarela, Aaltonen, Seppälä, Saari, & Salminen, 1986;Simonds & Shafai-Sahrai, 1977) • Safety indoctrination and safety training (Luskin, Somers, Wooding, & Levenstein, 1992;Michaels, Zoloth, Bernstein, Kass, & Schrier, 1992;Robins, Hugentobler, Kaminski, & Klitzman, 1990;Robins & Klitzman, 1988) • Supervision (Chew, 1988;Mattila, Hyttinen, & Rantanen, 1994;Petersen, 1984) • Safety of the work environment (Näsänen & Saari, 1986;Springfeldt, 1993;Suokas, 1993;Varonen, 1995Varonen, , 1997 When certain types of safety campaigns have been implemented, accident rates have often decreased clearly (Komaki, Heinzmann, & Lawson, 1980;Krause, Hidley, & Lareau, 1984;Näsänen & Saari, 1986). In such campaigns, safe working methods have been defined and the employees have been instructed in their use.…”

Hazardous waste worker education: Long term effects

“…Many emergency response and hazardous waste worker training consortia, 18,20,21 right-to-know training programs, 10,14,22 and other labor education training programs. 16,[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] have adopted this philosophy.…”