INTEGRATING SAFETY EDUCATION IN COOPERATIVE EDUCATION

INTRODUCTION

Three years ago, the Construction Science Department of the University of Cincinnati made a commitment to improve the integration of construction safety education into its curriculum.. The faculty assigned students in the course "Personnel and Safety Management" the development of safety training modules for all students in the C.M. program. The training modules, developed in this class, will be used in selected courses throughout the curriculum. To achieve this task, students in the course have consulted many resources on construction safety. They evaluated several safety publications and provided feedback on many issues concerning safety education. Additionally, the faculty developed a formal plan with Messer Construction Co. to implement the safety modules in the program. The modules will be used interactively in and out of the classroom prior to each coop session. At the same time, Messer Construction will use the materials for orientation of their employees in the field and office. Finally, the firm will sponsor a scholarship essay competition for the students after their coop sessions.

This paper describes a plan for integrating construction safety education into the C. M. cooperative program at the University of Cincinnati. It discusses the progress of the plan over the past three years, the learning experience gained and fixture expectations for the plan.

NEED FOR THE PROGRAM

Many construction firms are operating under a false assumption. Most assume that coops/interns have a complete understanding of safety or are aware of most safety requirements. However, experience has shown that these students are very enthusiastic about the profession, eager to prove themselves and hence will likely work in an unsafe manner. An informal questionnaire administered to coop students indicated that many of them are not aware of potential hazards (Appendix). Further, construction is very dynamic and hence most field superintendents cannot observe these coops or interns throughout their assignments. The integration of construction safety education in the C.M. educational program addresses the awareness issue. It will also provide the construction industry with coop personnel who will help the construction firm implement safe work procedures. Unfortunately, the need to make an integrated approach to safety education was hastened by a tragic accident that claimed the life of a young coop in the Summer of 1990.

BACKGROUND

Most construction programs have a course or two that address construction safety. However, many of the courses are offered at the junior or senior levels after the students have had some experience in the construction industry. At the University of Cincinnati, the course "Construction Safety and Personnel Management! 'was taught in the senior year for junior and senior students. Additionally, the C.M. curriculum had two classes at the freshman and pre junior level that involved some safety instruction. However, safety education was not in focus at the lower level of the curriculum.

In the senior level course "Safety and Personnel Management", the maturity of the students allowed group discussion and dynamic projects. After reviewing several books, the students (juniors and seniors) suggested an alternative book (3). The instructor complemented the book with additional references from the myriad of literature available on the subject. The series of booklets on the Construc­tion Industry Cost Effectiveness Project published by the Business Roundtable (2) gave a good overview of safety needs in the construction industry. These booklets serve as reference materials in this class as well as in other classes. The Ohio Administrative Code , Specific Safety Require­ments of the Industrial Commission of Ohio relating to Construction. (9), and OSHA Safety and Health Standards for the Construction Industry (7) were also used as resource material. EXCEL, (4) the quarterly publication by the Center for Excellence in Construction Safety (University of West Virginia, Morgantown, West Virginia) was ordered. Permission was obtained to use copies of articles contained in the publication to cover specific subjects in class. Guest speakers frequently visited the class bringing with them years of experience. The inspection experience brought into the classroom, by managers who had experienced inspections or by inspectors from the Department of Hy­giene, proved to be stimulating for the students. These guest speakers were successful at answering the practical "how to" questions not necessarily covered in traditional text type materials.

Student evaluation of the course was mostly positive. However, the students indicated that the safety course would better serve the students if it were strategically positioned at the lower level in the curriculum.

DEVELOPMENT OF SAFETY MODULES

Early in 1991, the Construction Student Association, during their annual conference, gave a presentation about a proposed cooperative safety program. At the same time, the Construction Science Department made plans to move the course "Safety and Personnel Management" to the sophomore level in the curriculum. As a result, the preparation for the safety class was quite different from the previous two years. This time the thirty‑four students were considered a valuable resource for the development of the program. Most of them were juniors or seniors who had completed six quarters of cooperative work sessions on a job site. One objective of the class wasto develop computerized modules on various safety subjects. Each module consists of a complete package of a video tape, a set of slides, or a book, etc. and a set of questions to test the knowledge ofthe person reviewing the material. The modules can be used for teaching (independently) safety concepts to coop students before they go to the job site. Additionally, the modules can be used to instruct transfer students who might have missed the safety class. Finally, the modules can serve for safety orientation of employees in construction firms. The modules need to be automated and computer compatible. The video tape instructions and computer tutorials will deliver the instructions, while the interactive computer adminis­tered tests will evaluate the understanding of the concepts.

The students were very enthusiastic about their involvement. They were divided into groups of two or three and given a video tape, set of slides or a publication to cover. They created summary comments of the resource and a set of multiple choice questions that can easily be computerized. They submitted their product to another group to evaluate for ease of understanding and correctness. The final products were then submitted to the instructor for verification and proofreading. All work was finally turned into the Construction Science Department. The subjects covered by the modules were in the form of publications, videotapes or slides. They covered a wide array of safety issues. Some were general (e.g., Business Roundtable's report Improving Construction Safety Performance (2), National Forum on Construction Safety and Health Priori­ties (5), OSHA Safety and Health Standards (7), etc. The topics covered by audiovisuals were more focused: Hazardous Communication Orientation, How toAvoid Leading Causes in Safety Violations, Guide to Personal Protective Equipment, Plans for Safe Excavation and Trenching, Something Concrete, etc.

PROPOSAL

The idea for interactive modules that teach safety in and out of the classroom is attractive to both the construction industry and higher education. Construction firms required to educate their employees on safety can use the modules in the ofce or in the field. The modules can be used with or without an instructor. The student's understanding of a safety concept can be measured with interactive computer tests. The Construction Science Department, University of Cincinnati proposed to Messer Construction Co, a joint program that would benefit both organizations. In Decem­ber representatives from the company and from the Depart­ment met to discuss the implementation of the project. The program is divided into three parts.

First, the development of Automated/Computerized mod­ules for construction education in safety.

Second, the incorporation of the modules into a formal Construction Safety Program. (In the Construction Science Department and at Messer Construction, Co.)

Third, provision of a scholarship for Construction Safety at UC to impact the program. This will provide incentive and reward for students as they implement and recommend safe work environments on construction sites.

The program is developing at a rapid pace. A search for software for interactive computerized testing and a tutorial authoring system is underway. This Spring, the last class of junior and senior students taking the course "Safety and Personnel Management" will review more resource material. They will also test some of the modules developed by the previous class. Since the module development is a joint venture with Messer Construction Co., the safety coordinator of the company will identify subject areas and resource materials that would be used in safety orientation and training for their employees. The Construction Science Department will identify subject areas that should be emphasized for co‑op and newly graduated students. These two lists will be merged and the overlapping materials will be developed to benefit both organizations. In identifying the list of subjects the "OSHA Construction Standards Most Violated" found in the Fall 1989 edition of the e Center Excellence in Construction Safety Newsletter and the `Dis­tribution of Cause of Death Among Fatally Injured Con­struction Workers: 1980‑1985 "table found in the Fall 1990 edition of EXCEL (4) will be used. Established educa­tional programs such as the ones at Associated General Contractors, and Allied Construction Industry will also be consulted.

In the 1992‑93 academic year, these modules will become an integral part of the safety program within the department. The program will be compulsory for all Construction Management students. The first sequence of safety modules must be completed by all students before their first cooperative work session. The second sequence will be required before their second coop session. Feedback from the employers who hire the coops will be solicited to measure the quality of the program and to evaluate and provide constructive criticism about student behavior toward safety. This input will be used to modify and improve the quality of the program which is currently designed to run (with Messer) through 1995‑96.

STUDENT SURVEY

During the past year, students in the Construction Science Department, University of Cincinnati, answered an informal survey. The questionnaire focused on the "real world" coop experiences of the students. The results of the survey are shown in the Appendix. The students listed more than sixty individual hazards that they had faced. These varied from asbestos exposure to welding lights. They indicated a lack of awareness in more than forty safety hazards when they were first exposed to them. These ranged from proper handling of materials containing asbestos to proper procedures for tying off. This points out the vital importance of the awareness issue: many coop and intern students are not aware of the safety hazards and as the job site changes constantly so do the potential safety hazards. No one course will prepare everyone for every hazard. However, a well designed series of modules will cover the most common hazards usually encountered. This will raise the level of awareness so that a student may question an unfamiliar process to find out whether it is safe or not.

EVALUATION OF THE PROGRAM

Once the program is fully implemented, the students returning from their coop assignments will be required to submit a report on safety in construction The essay will be submitted to construction professionals for evaluation. All reports will be anonymous; student and company names having been deleted. The best report will be awarded a scholarship for construction safety. The scholarship will provide an added incentive for student awareness in the field. The information obtained from both the employer reports and the student reports will provide valuable input to the ongoing improvement of the safety modules and safety program.

FUTURE PLANS

The future plan is to develop a wide variety of modules and to improve the ones already developed. The computerization of all the modules will continue at a rapid pace. These modules will be used by Messer Construction Co. personnel and the Construction Science Department. The modules will be used in selected classes or independently before every cooperative assignment. The progress of the project will be reported periodically, through papers such as this one, to share the experiences gained and to solicit responses and ideas from industry professionals and educators.

SUMMARY

The Construction Science Department, in recognizing the need to address the safety of coop students, began three years ago to integrate safety instruction into the curriculum. Automated computerized instructional programs provide a technique for implementation. Last year the department, with the help of its students, began preparing a series of modules. To support this the faculty submitted a proposal to Messer Construction Co. to prepare computerized modules on various aspects of safety. The University of Cincinnati Construction Management program will use these modules to instruct cop students before starting their job assignments. Messer Construction Co. will use these modules as part of their safety program for employee orientation and on‑site instruction. As an incentive, the students will be required to write an essay on safety in the construction industry. The best essay will be awarded a scholarship. The joint venture will continue for a three year period during which time the modules will be implemented into the program at the College and at Messer Construction Co. At the end of that time the program will be reviewed to see if it should continue in the same manner or if another path is needed.

CONCLUSION

The program as described in this paper is an important first step in preparing future safety‑oriented construction man­agers. It provides a means for individualized as well as group instruction on many different topics. The develop­ment of the modules provides a means for this program to be disseminated to other schools and work places that need safety instruction. The hope is that various construction companies will be interested in working with appropriate colleges to develop similar programs for their areas. It is expected that by bringing safety to the forefront, before they go on cooperative work assignments, the students will become safety oriented individuals.

REFERENCES

Basic Safety Program Guidelines for General Contractors and Subcontractors. Construction Owners Association of the Tri‑State, Inc. Spring 1990.

Construction Industry Cost Effectiveness Project. The Busi­ness Roundtable, New York, NY.

Construction Safety Management. by Raymond Elliot Levitt and Nancy Morse Samelson, McGraw‑Hill Book Com­pany, 1987.

EXCEL. quarterly publication of the Center for Excellence in Construction Safety, Department of Civil Engineering, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia.

National Forum on Construction Safety and Health Priori­ties (final report). Commissioned by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Prepared by the Center for Excellence in Construction Safety, Department of Civil Engineering, West Virginia University, September, 1989.

Occupational Safety and Health Management ed., Julienne V. Brown and Susan Gamer, McGraw‑Hill, 1979.

OSHA Safety and Health Standards for the Construction Industry (29CFR Part 1926L Commerce Clearing House, 1991, Chicago, Illinois.

Safety Management in Construction and Industry. by David Goldsmith, McGraw‑Hill, Inc. 1987.

State of Ohio. Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 4121 : 1­3 ,,Specific Safety Requirements of The Industrial Commis­sion of Ohio Relating to Construction

APPENDIX

One of the activities the students were asked to complete for "Safety and Personnel Management" was a questionnaire seeking "real life" answers. The questionnaires were not graded so as to avoid any conflict of interest in providing the answers. The answers to two of the questions asked are used as resource material in this paper. This appendix consists of the two pertinent questions and the answers. The answers are listed in alphabetical order. Although most of the answers were given several times no tally is given of the number of occurrences. Thirty‑four students provided the information.

List all the safety hazards you have been exposed to on all your co-op jobs.

asbestos exposure

asphalt - hot asphalt paving

barricading-  none where needed

blasting - failure to use blast mat

bracing - improper or inadequate on multi‑story building

chemicals - hazardous, improperly stored (combustible)

chemicals - unlabeled, MSDS not available

chemical compounds - used to seal PVC

concrete - prolonged exposure to skin

concrete - while it is being pumped

cranes - unguarded cab, walking behind,

cranes - improper loops in cables

cranes - outriggers improperly set

cranes - electric lines

ditches - no bracing when greater than 4 feet

ditches - inadequate bracing

electrical hazards - improper ground

electrical wires - exposed or frayed

environment - dust

equipment - backup warning system not working, no brakes

equipment - working next to large excavation equipment

equipment - improper upkeep and maintenance

ear protection - none available

eye protection - not worn or not available to be worn

fall protection -inadequate on building walls

falling (flying) objects –

falls - working outside safety net limits

falls - worker blown off a building by a helicopter

fire extinguishers - lack of

floor openings - uncovered

forklift - working from

gas - ground contaminated with gas leaked from storage tanks

guard rails - insufficient

hard hats - not used properly or not worn at all

heaters - portable that caused flash fires heights

housekeeping

ladder use - improper, in poor condition, job‑built

lifting of loads - improperly and overhead

machinery hazards

nails in boards

overhead work

other people - not working safely

permits - not available at site

post - tension pulling

PPE - lack of or improper use of

power tools - no guards

respiratory - protection from dust

respiratory -improper ventilation of gas fumes

restraints - appropriate to edge of building

riders on equipment - crane headache ball

rigging - rigging to work that wasn't its original design

rigging - improper use

road traffic - heavy construction machines in varying patterns

road traffic - lack of control

safety lines - lack of, not being worn

scaffolding - unstable, no toe plates

steel erection - unsafe environment, sliding down steel

tanks (gas) - lying on side, not tied off, stored improperly traffic hazards

trenches - open for sewer installation, improper cutbacks

tying off - not done when over 10' or when in JLG lift

ventilation - inadequate for painting and floor sealing

welding light

wet conditions

Which ones did you not know were safety hazards the first time you encountered them?

asbestos-materials containing asbestos handled improperly

boom trucks - loading and unloading

building restraints

cable clamps - proper placement

chemicals -dangerous chemicals handled improperly,

chemicals - not labeled, MSDS unavailable

chemical compounds to seal PVC

chokers - kinked

clamps - number to be used on hoisting lines

concrete being pumped

cutting torches - cards required for - fire exiting

ear protection - insufficient when needed

electric lines - proximity while assisting boom operator

enclosed areas - entering without checking them out first

equipment - improper upkeep and maintenance

equipment not grounded or improperly grounded

equipment not working - back-up signals not operational

equipment - operating around people

excavation equipment

excavation slopes and trenches (even shallow ones)

exposure - prolonged concrete exposure to skin

extension cords-use of safety switches on cords over 100'

fire prevention recommendations

floor openings - didn't know they needed toe boards or handrails

forklift - working from a forklift

guardrails - weight they must hold and proper height

hard hats - didn't realize the importance of wearing one housekeeping

ladders - tied off to the roof

lifting - heavy materials

loose materials

nails left in boards

paths - walking behind a crane

paths - between steel shaken out on the ground

personal protective equipment - in general

power tools - no guard or faulty

pulling of post-tension

rigging safety glasses - not being used correctly

scaffolding - unstable and insufficient traffic control items

trench cave ins - what is proper shoring

tying off - in general and at what height

tying off - when in a JLG lift

unguarded cab swing on cranes

Additional comments from the student's papers.

I didn't know what type of building restraints were required but I figured dog chain wasn't up to code.

I was so interested in doing a good job that I did not recognize many safety hazards. The problem was when I did not question the safety hazard and let it go uncorrected during my first few co‑op terms because of intimidation.

As a co-op on a construction j ob site one has to walk a tight rope in order to gain respect but also so one does not offend anyone by coming off like a smart -a.. college kid!

It wasn't that I didn't know but that I didn't know the exact specifications, extremity or penalties.

I must note that most of these violations occurred on a very large job where there were a large number of different contractors working at the same time. Therefore each individual contractor was responsible for his own.