Content and Pedagogy of Teaching Construction Safety at the Undergraduate Level

ASC Proceedings of the 41st Annual Conference
University of Cincinnati - Cincinnati, Ohio
April 6 - 9, 2005


Content and Pedagogy of Teaching Construction Safety at the Undergraduate Level

Gouranga C. Banik, Ph.D., P.E.
Southern Polytechnic State University
Marietta, GA 30060

The number of fatal accidents in the US construction industry remains steady at about 1100 annually over last ten years even though considerable efforts were made by OSHA and the industry. Safety education is essential to eliminate unsafe behavior by providing appropriate safety knowledge and thereby minimizing construction injuries. OSHA and other safety organizations are now focusing more on safety education and training to reduce both severity and frequency of accidents. Reason of accidents is rooted in the poor safety education that the majority of construction workers receive, and the ignorance of project management about importance of construction safety. From the accident history of the US construction industry, it is evident that safety education on many projects is inadequate and ineffective especially for field managers and workers. Possible solutions to this problem include innovations in safety education and more involvement by the industry in the safety education process. Based on this assumption, a questionnaire survey was conducted to get input from the construction industry. The industry inputs were used to develop a well-balanced safety course for undergraduate construction students.

Key Words: Construction Safety, Safety Education, Accidents, Graduates, and Undergraduate


Introduction

Construction accidents have negatively influenced the reputation and attractiveness of the construction industry. Construction injuries have been recognized as a major obstacle that hinders the recruitment of talented students to construction education. In recent years, many actions have been taken by both owners and contractors to eliminate accidents on sites. These efforts include the campaign to improve safety education on construction projects and to expand the safety education of construction management/engineering students.

Implementation of safety and health programs on construction projects requires a well- educated workforce that is knowledgeable in safety requirements and procedures. Suckarieh and Diamantes (1995) indicated that time dedicated to construction safety training is not adequate. They mentioned that formal training could have a significant impact on students' performance as soon as they graduate. Coble et al. (1998) mentioned that safety education for Building Construction Management (CM) students has not often been a high priority in US universities. J. Christian (1999) observed that teaching a class such as safety is sometimes difficult as students regard its regulatory nature as "boring".

The need for construction safety education is now a consensus issue among construction educators and the industry for its enormous contribution towards the reduction of number and costs of accidents. A literature review reveals that very limited study has been carried out regarding the scope of this course and how it can be taught in the construction management/engineering programs. The content and approach of teaching safety courses in different schools varies according to the background of the faculty and the available resources of the department.


The Construction Department at Southern Polytechnic State University (SPSU) has already made safety education a high priority for construction students by making it one of the courses required for undergraduate graduation. The safety class, which has been taught for several years in the Department, is still evolving with industry needs and expectations. It is important to find the answer to the queries "What are students learning from the course? Should the course include only OSHA's 10-h or 30-h requirements or 30-h requirements with additional materials?"

In this scenario, the construction industry can provide excellent guidelines on the appropriate content of the course. Course evaluation by the industry is a necessity in order to develop such a course with the increasingly stringent rules of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Their suggestions and requirements would need to be incorporated into the curriculum so that the course achieves desired objectives. Finding an answer to the question of contractor expectations is a fundamental step in determining the baseline for course content. The topics that most closely match the needs of industry will be a likely choice for inclusion in the course. Discussion time for each topic will also be dependent on the industry's priorities.

Methodology

A survey technique was chosen to solicit information on construction safety knowledge and/or responsibilities- which a construction student should have during the different stages of his career. The industry safety management was asked to identify the career development stage at which employees were required to have certain safety knowledge. The construction students work generally as a field/office engineer/assistant project manager after graduation, project manager/construction engineer with 5 years working experience, senior project manager/construction manager with 10 years working experience. Student may work as a safety manager/director or as a superintendent as well. Primary interest was for entry-level employees (recent graduates) and employees of five and ten year experience. Since the purpose of the survey was to investigate the course content for construction students at SPSU, the survey targeted known and prospective employers of SPSU construction students-predominantly in the Southeastern United States (GA, FL, TN, AL, NC, and SC). Seventy-five contractors were identified as working in the southeastern region at the beginning of the survey, which has a work volume in excess of $25 million per year. Thirty-five contractors completed the questionnaire and returned it to us. The response was about 46.7%.

The first three questions asked about annual revenues, number of permanent employees and type of work of the company. The fourth question of the questionnaire contains 15-safety responsibility areas identified from the literature and OSHA documents. The respondent was asked to identify if a person was responsible for that area or not. The fifth question was asked about eight non-regulatory but very important aspects of construction safety. The respondents were asked to indicate if they expected construction graduates to have knowledge of Experience Modification Rates (EMR), OSHA recordable incidence rate, direct and indirect accident costs, safety incentive programs, accident impacts on morale and productivity, accident impact on scheduling and total costs, workers’ compensation, and liabilities related to accidents. The sixth question listed the Code of Federal Regulations 1926 subparts with titles and asked which of these the newly hired graduate would be expected to know. Respondents were asked to select all, none, or choose individual subpart requirements. The seventh question requests the respondents to list three most important items from their experience that need to be included in the safety class. This question was an open-ended question. It was included to know what aspects left out from the current OSHA regulation that has enormous implication on safety. The last question was asked about the industry opinion as to how the course could be made interesting and exciting for the students.
Several telephone interviews were also conducted with those well-known contractors in the Atlanta area who largely hire SPSU Construction students for quick questionnaire response and clarity.


Results

The survey revealed tremendous amount of information regarding the company and its policy, and the requirements of the company related to construction safety. Sixty percent (60%) of the companies reported annual revenue of more than $35 Million. Forty five percent (45%) employed more than 30 permanent employees. Eighty-eight (88%) of the companies are involved in building and commercial construction. Only four contractors were involved in heavy civil construction.
Table 1 summarizes the responses to the fourth question of the survey. Total response to any question is more than 100% since more than single responses were applicable for the individual questions. Decisions were made from the survey where more than 50% of the respondents expressed the same view or marked the questionnaire in the affirmative.

Table 1 Responsibilities of Construction Graduates in Different Stages of their Career
Responsibility	Recent Graduate/ Field Engineer	Project Manager /Construction Engineer with 5 Years Experience	Senior PM or Construction Manager with 10 Years Exp.	Safety Manager /Director/Engineer/ Officer	Superintendent /Other Personnel






Conduct Pre-project Hazard Analysis	54	66	74	94	86
Conduct Site Safety Audits	43	74	86	97	94
Conduct Toolbox Meeting	57	63	43	86	94
First Aid Inventory and Supplies	74	29	26	91	97
Jobsite Posters (OSHA and Emergency Contacts)	74	26	0	80	94
Maintain MSDS Files	49	26	20	80	94
Maintain OSHA 300 Log	26	17	14	86	80
Maintain Safety Training Records	14	35	20	89	80
Participation in Toolbox Meetings	54	46	23	83	89
Participate in Project Safety Meetings	80	76	91	100	100
Perform Hazard Analysis	48	60	48	89	94
Permits (Confined spaces, etc.)	29	48	66	80	86
Prepare Project Safety Manual	26	57	76	97	48
Recognize Common Hazards	94	97	97	100	100
Suggest Corrective Actions	88	97	94	100	94


That means 50% of the respondents' expression/desire should be considered as the baseline of requirement in the modified safety course. From Table 1, it is revealed that participation in project safety meetings, recognition in common hazards and suggestions of corrective actions are the most important activities for construction graduates in their careers irrespective of their positions. The majority of the respondents supported the views that recognition of common hazards and corrective actions are the critical responsibilities for construction graduates. About 94% of the respondents felt that they should suggest the corrective actions for the common hazard either they are working as a field engineer/ project engineer/manager. From this perspective, it can be concluded that the safety course should emphasize how to conduct effective project safety meetings, what are the most common hazards in the specific construction areas depending on the type and size of the construction, and what collective measures can be taken to reduce those common hazards. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and OSHA citation data can be used to identify common hazards for the particular type of construction and the OSHA rules and regulations (1926 CFR) can be used as a guideline to suggest some predictive/preventive/corrective actions. Twenty six Percent of the respondents suggested that to prepare a safety manual was the responsibility of field engineers/first year employees in contrast to the 97% who felt that it should be the safety director/manager's responsibility. In this scenario, it is appropriate to spend less class time for the preparation of the Safety manual.

Out of the eight additional topics, Table 2 reveals that all topics were considered important that had more than 50% respondent support. The experience modification rate (EMR), accident impact on morale and productivity, accident impact on scheduling and total costs and liabilities related to accidents need to be incorporated and widely discussed in the class since these have more than 80% industry support. OSHA recordable incidence rate, determination of direct and indirect costs of accidents, and worker compensation insurance were respectively measured as 74%, 71% and 74% of the respondents who emphasized these. Therefore, these should be covered in the class in depth because the construction industry feels these items have enormous implications on construction safety. Smith and Arnold (1999) found a similar consistency of incorporating these additional items in the construction safety class.

Table 2 Expected knowledge of newly hired graduates on Non-regulatory Aspect of Safety (percentages)
Non Regulatory but Important Aspects			Yes
Experience Modification Rate			80
OSHA Recordable Incidence Rate			74
Safety Incentives Programs			54
Determination of Direct and Indirect Costs			71
Accident Impact on Morality and Productivity			89
Accident Impact on Project Scheduling and Project Costs			86
Workers Compensation			74
Liabilities Related to Accidents			80


The OSHA major subparts, which are important to construction safety, have been identified in Table 3. Fifteen respondents (43%) mentioned that all the newly hired construction graduates/field engineers should have knowledge of all sections of 29 CFR 1926. Although it is the industry’s expectation to cover all the Subparts, probably it is not possible considering the time and resource limitations. Table 3 summarizes those subparts that received 70% or more responses.

Table 4 summarizes the three most important items that must be included in the construction safety class from their education and experience. Since it was the open-ended questions, the responses varied widely because of respondents’ backgrounds. Some of the responses were not even from OSHA subparts. About 46% of the contractors ranked that protection from falls was their first priority, 8% ranked this as the second priority, and 14% as third priority. Trench and excavation as a category was ranked by 14% as their first priority, 8% as second priority and 14% as third priority. Some of the contractors also mentioned some unregulated items such as workers’ behavior, time of accidents, zero accidents goal, safety cu1ture, top management responsibilities, substance abuse, insurance fraud, handling compensation costs, subcontractor coordination and other concerns be included in safety education.

Table 3 OSHA Regulations Subparts with 70% or more supports
Subpart	Yes
Subpart A General	80
Subpart C General Safety and Health	80
Subpart E Personal Protective and Life Saving Equipment	86
Subpart F Fire Protection and Prevention	74
Subpart K Electrical	83
Subpart L Scaffolding	77
Subpart M Fall Protection	100
Subpart P Excavation	80
Subpart X Stairways and Ladders	80
Subpart Z Toxic and Hazardous Substances	86


To make the class more interesting and to create a positive learning environment, open- ended suggestions were asked from the contractors. Invariably they suggested visits to the actual site of construction as many times as possible to show the practical nature of work and to identify common safety hazards. They also suggested demonstration of some safety tools in the class. Safety tools can be used to show how important they are for the specific safety hazards and how students can effectively use them to minimize that hazard. Bringing guest speakers to the class and talking about their accidents regarding safety on site is also an excellent idea.

Table 4 Three most important topics according to priority (percentages)
Topics	First Priority	Second Priority	Third Priority
Fall protection	46	9	3
Excavation	12	9	12
Electrical	9	14	12
Safety Planning	9	9	12
Recognize Hazards	12	9	6
OSHA-General	9	0	8
Subcontractor Safety	0	14	8
Accident Costs	0	8	14
Handling Compensation costs	0	14	0



Conclusions

The responsibilities of construction graduates vary according to the positions they will hold, type of company, nature of work, company goals and regulations, and other considerations. It is therefore, imperative to provide general guidelines and create awareness about overall safety. Construction safety education can not be accomplished by teaching only the fundamental requirements of the OSHA 10-hour course. Because of limitations of time it is not possible to cover all aspects of construction safety, which are required for a construction graduate throughout his career from the contractor’s perspective. If a construction graduate wants to work in the safety department or as a superintendent, his/her safety knowledge requirement is more extensive and very thorough (Table-I) than the requirement for the field/project engineer/manager. The author identifies the 10 topic areas (Table 3) that had the greatest amount of agreement among the contractors surveyed and should be covered in more detail. The author feels that the information received from the survey is generally representative of the overall industry expectations, not only in the southeastern region of the United States. However, it would be better if data could be collected from all regions, thus increasing the number of participants.


References

Banik, G.C. (2000). Mid Level Site Managers Responsibilities. Presented in International Risk Management Institute Construction Insurance Conference, Atlanta, GA, Nov. 2000.

Christian, J. (1999). Teaching health and safety to construction engineers. Proceedings of 2nd International Conference of CIB Working Commission, pp. 251-256, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Coble, R I., Hinze, I.H., McDermott, MI., and B. R Elliot. (1998). College's emphasis on construction safety, Proceedings, ASC Annual Conference, Maine.

Smith, G.R and Arnold, T. M. (1999). Safety education expectations for construction engineering and management students, Proceedings of 2nd International Conference of CIB Working Commissions, pp. 265~272, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Suckarieh, G. and J. Diamantes. (1995). Educating construction management students in safety, Safety and Health in Construction, CIB Publications 209, Published by CIB Working Commission 99, W. 154-164.

Huang Xinyu and Fang Dongping. (2003). Construction Safety Training and Education in China, Special Issue article in: Construction Safety Education and Training - A Global Perspective. pp1-6.