Evaluation of

One Day Laboratory Safety Training Seminar

presented by The Laboratory Safety Institute

Kellie Schneider

Report submitted to
Meridian Joint School District No. 2
July 2009
1
 Evaluation of One Day Laboratory Safety Training Seminar

Dr. James A. Kaufman founded the Laboratory Safety Workshop (LSW) in 1978

to provide safety training for science teachers. In the last 30 years LSW has trained

over 50,000 teachers and scientists in laboratory safety in North and Central America,

Asia, and Europe and after significant growth, has become a non-profit organization and

changed its name to The Laboratory Safety Institute (LSI). LSI offers a variety of training

programs to suit educational and industrial needs including on-site training, tutorials,

inspections, safety program development consultation and review, and designing and

building of safer science labs. Their mission is to provide information to make health

and safety and integral part of any science program.

The purpose of this report is to provide an evaluation and recommendation to the

Meridian Joint School District No. 2 (MSD) of the one day seminar presented by LSI.

This report contains a description of the seminar and its content, a description of the

methods used to evaluate this program as well as results of the evaluation, and a

recommendation as to future use of the seminar.

Description of One Day Laboratory Safety Training Seminar

LSI’s one day seminar consists of one full day of lecture-style training. The

objectives of this program are (1) to increase safety and health in the learning

environment, (2) show learners how to recognize hazards and (3) provide tools for

protecting learners from these hazards. The instructor presents visuals over a

multimedia projector, provided by the school district. As part of the training package

participants are given a binder from LSI containing worksheets and safety information

and resources to reference during the seven hours of training as well as post-training.

The one day seminar covers general information for secondary science laboratory

2
safety including legal aspects, emergency planning, chemical storage and handling,

biological hazards, eye and face protection, hazardous waste disposal, and electrical

safety.

Evaluation Method

The purpose of this evaluation was to determine whether the LSI one day

seminar had contributed to increased safety in secondary science classes and merited

a continued contract with MSD. Participants in this particular study include

approximately 80 secondary science teachers, teaching physical, earth, and life science

to students in grades 6 through 12. Several forms of data collection were utilized for this

evaluation including (1) pre- and post-assessment of general knowledge of

recommended safety procedures and requirements, (2) inspection of classrooms both

pre- and post-training, and (3) attitude surveys of the training from participants.

A pre-assessment for understanding of recommended safety procedures and

requirements was administered in an online format was administered during a three

week window before the training began. The assessment consisted of 20 multiple-

choice questions distributed evenly between five categories: accident prevention,

planning for emergencies, chemical storage and handling, handling biological hazards,

and electrical safety. The same test was administered again as a post-test the week

after training.

Inspection of classrooms was done by the teachers themselves with a provided

checklist and was conducted after the pre-assessment was taken. The checklist

included statements regarding the availability of safety equipment, prudent practices,

and classroom conditions to which teachers were to indicate whether they agreed or

disagreed in accordance with their own classroom conditions. The survey also offered

3
an opportunity to offer comments. The survey was administered again three months

later to assess whether practices had changed since the training.

Attitude surveys were administered immediately following the training session.

Feedback was open-ended and covered opinion of program format, audio-visuals,

program content, instructors, and facilities and food. Participants were also provided an

opportunity to provide feedback and recommendations.

Results

Safety Knowledge Assessment

The safety knowledge assessment consisted of 20 standardized multiple choice

questions, containing four questions in each of five categories. Results were calculated

and summarized as an average per category. The questions assessed current general

knowledge of recommended safety procedures in the science classroom. Figure 1

displays these results.

Figure 1

Summary of General Lab Safety Knowledge by Category

Pretest Posttest

Category mean % mean %

Accident prevention 3.64 91 3.69 92

Planning for emergencies 3.04 76 3.8 95

Chemical storage and handling 2.6 65 3.5 88

Biological hazards 2.8 70 3.52 88

Electrical safety 3.32 83 3.73 93

Total 15.4 77 18.24 91

4
Post-training testing indicates an increase in safety knowledge in all categories, most

significantly in the category of chemical storage and handling and least significantly in

the category of accident prevention. However, it should be noted that the latter category

was the highest scoring category in both the pretest and posttest assessments.

Classroom Inspections

The classroom inspection survey allowed teachers the opportunity to assess the

safety status of their own laboratories. Each statement offered either a “agree” or

“disagree” response and teachers were instructed to choose one option which indicated

the status of their lab and were asked only to mark “agree” if they could agree 100%

with that statement. Choosing “agree” indicated to teachers that their classrooms were

in line with safety precautions recommended by both LSI and the school district’s

Chemical Hygiene Plan. If a statement was not marked or was marked both “agree” and

“disagree,” it was considered invalid. Abidance to laboratory safety precautions

increased in all areas except for the presence of safety showers and eyewash stations.

It should be noted that some of the sixth grade teachers responded in the comments

section that they did not have eye wash stations and safety showers. Upon further

investigation it was indicated that they work in older buildings which do not have

plumbing installed in each classroom. Because sixth grade is considered to be

elementary rather than secondary, even though they are in secondary schools, they do

not have the same rigorous safety measures as the seventh and eighth grade teachers.

Their curriculum is designed around the use of less hazardous household chemicals.

5
 Figure 2

Classroom Laboratory Inspection

Statement Pre-training Post-training
Yes (%) Yes (%)

1. Cabinets containing hazardous materials are locked when not in 98 100

use.

2. Flammable materials are stored away from sources of heat. 95 100

3. Laboratory refrigeration is explosion-proof for flammable material 89 96

storage and is not used for food.

4. Appropriate eye, face, and skin protection is available and is used. 88 92

5. A safety shower and eye wash station are available, in working 90 90

condition, and serviced regularly.

6. A fire extinguisher is available, in working condition, and serviced 100 100

regularly.

7. Chemicals are stored in sealed containers, labeled clearly and in 77 99

the smallest reasonable increments

8. Biological materials are labeled clearly and stored in sealed or 89 98

secure containers.

9. Storage and disposal instructions for chemical and biological waste 67 99

are readily available.

10. Electrical devices contain 3-wire cords/ground wires. 76 87

11. Electrical outlets are not burdened beyond their designated 90 99

capacity.

12. Mercury thermometers have been removed and disposed of 96 100

properly.

Attitude Surveys

Attitude surveys were collected as an informal form of data collection for

participants to verbalize their satisfaction with the training. Responses in all categories

were generally positive. The program format was suitable and audio-visuals were

indicated to be appropriate and informative, and the instructor was well-received as

“knowledgeable” and “personable. In their criticisms, participants responded that they

felt the instruction may have been a bit limited by time constraints. A few suggested that

6
the training be split into two half days so that participants would have time to “digest” the

information presented.

Discussion

If the primary objective of MSD is to retain knowledgeable and safety conscious

science instructors, it is recommended that a contract be continued with LSI for

retraining as well as for initial safety training of incoming employees. As indicated by the

increase in general knowledge and corresponding improvement of classroom conditions

during teacher inspections, participants in this program acted upon the knowledge they

gained. This training seminar achieved the expected objectives.

Project Cost

Personnel

Kellie Schneider
10 days x $250 = $2,500

Misc. Expenses

Photocopies and supplies

$100

Total Project Costs $2,600