Download Personal Protective Equipment in the Agricultural Educational

Research
Personal Protective Equipment in the Agricultural Educational Laboratory
Lisa Chesher & Steven “Boot” Chumbley, Eastern New Mexico University
Mailing Address:
1500 S. Ave K, Station 111
Portales, NM 88130
575-562-2517
Email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
Research
Personal Protective Equipment in the Agricultural Educational Laboratory
Introduction
The majority of agricultural mechanics instruction is done within a laboratory setting
(Johnson & Schumacher, 1990). There are many unique hazards that can arise within the
agricultural educational laboratory. These hazards are mainly attributed to students
having little experience with the tools, equipment, and situations that take place within an
agricultural educational laboratory setting (Lawver, 1992). Fletcher and Johnson (1990)
found that many instructors have not properly utilized the correct safety equipment
needed to prevent hazards in the agricultural educational laboratory.
All situations within the agricultural educational laboratory require some type of personal
protective equipment (PPE) (Herren & Cooper, 2002). The American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) established standards in 1979 for industrial quality eye protection which
have become the standard for most state laws (Bekkum & Hoerner, 1990). The objectives
of this study were to identify the types of safety equipment and practices used within an
agricultural educational laboratory. This study follows the National Research Agenda,
Priority 5: Efficient and Effective Agricultural Programs (Doerfert, 2011).The crucial
benefit of this study is a safer laboratory learning environment for students in New
Mexico agricultural science programs.
Conceptual Framework
Previous research conducted by Rosencrans and Martin (1997) have established the
importance of agricultural mechanics as a critical component of New Mexico agricultural
education programs. Once researchers have a clear understanding of the safety equipment
most often used in agricultural educational laboratories, they can develop and utilize
strategies to improve student learning in these areas.
Methodology
This descriptive study was guided by Dillman’s Tailored Design Method (Dillman,
2007). Reliability was established through the use of a pilot test. Validity was established
with a Cronbach’s alpha score of .86. The survey was a two part instrument with
questions based upon types of safety equipment in an agricultural educational laboratory.
Data collection procedures utilized Surverymonkey, an online survey software. Teachers’
contact information was obtained from the New Mexico state FFA database. The
researcher contacted all teachers in the state who were teaching at least one agricultural
mechanics class (n=75), reviewing a response rate of 51%. After additional contact to
non-respondents, data analysis began by examining measures of central tendency.
Findings
The first objective of this study was to identify types of safety equipment within the
agricultural educational laboratory. Fire extinguishers were the most common safety
equipment item used in the laboratory (37, 97.4%). Laboratories having exits marked was
a common safety practice (35, 92.1%). Less than half of respondents reported the use of
marked safety zones, safety posters near power tools, and posting eye protection
regulations. Other safety equipment or practices used in laboratories included safety
Research
cabinets for flammable liquids (33, 86.8%), fire alarms (31, 81.6%), and welding exhaust
systems (31, 81.6%). Less than ¾ of laboratories employed the use of fire blankets, eye
wash stations, and screens or curtains on welding booths (28, 73.7%). Only 60.5% of
laboratories used safety guards on all equipment. The most common types of PPE are
listed in the following table.
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Found in an Agriscience Laboratory
Safety Equipment
f
%
Industrial Quality Eye Protection
36
94.7
Welding Gloves
36
94.7
Hearing Protection
28
73.7
Shop Coat or Overalls
27
71.1
Welding Apron or Jacket
24
63.2
Respirators
12
31.6
Hard Hats
10
26.3
Steel Toed Boots
0
0
The second objective was to identify laboratory practices involving eye protection. The
majority of laboratories had spectacle eye protection with side shields available for
student use (34, 89.5%). Other types of eye protection used in the laboratory included
goggles (29, 76.3%), full face shields (32, 84.2%), and spectacle eye protection without
side shields (15, 39.5%). Most programs provided eye protection at no cost to the student
(30, 78.9%). Other options for providing equipment included having students furnish
their own eye protection (5, 13.2%) and furnishing eye protection to students for a rental
fee (3, 7.9%).
Conclusions
Eye protection was found to be the most significant PPE required within the agricultural
educational laboratory. Furthermore, industrial quality spectacles with side shields were
the most prevalent of these. Most programs furnished these at no cost. No program
required specific protective footwear. Welding gloves and hearing protection were
prominent PPE items required for use in the agricultural educational laboratory. Among
safety practices reported, the most common included having exits marked and fire
extinguishers on hand. Less than half of laboratories posted eye protection regulations.
Implications
The findings of this study should be disseminated through state teacher meetings and preservice workshops. Identifying the areas of focus for New Mexico agricultural science
programs concerning safety equipment and practices is a vitally important topic that must
continue to be researched. A question to focus on for further research is the reason why
approximately one-fourth of the programs required students to furnish their own eye
protection devices.
Research
References
Bekkum, V.A., & Hoerner, T.A. (1990). Improving instruction in safety in the laboratory
setting. NACTA Journal, 34, 13-18.
Dillman, D.A. (2nd ed.). (2007). Mail & internet surveys: the tailored design method
Location: Belmont CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
Doerfert, D.L. (Ed) (2011). National research agenda: American association for
agricultural education’s research priority areas for 2011-2015. Lubbock, TX:
Texas Tech University, Department of Agricultural Education and
Communications.
Fletcher W.E., & Johnson, D.(1990). Safety practices and equipment used in Mississippi
secondary agricultural mechanics laboratories. Paper presented at the 17th
Annual National Agricultural Education Research Meeting, Cincinnati, OH.
Herren, R.V., & Cooper, E.L. (2002). Personal safety in agricultural mechanics. In Z.
Lawrence, A.E. Myers, A.E. Tucker, & C. Miller (Eds.), Agricultural mechanics:
fundamentals & applications, 4th edition (pp. 35-45). Albany, NY: DelmarThomson Learning.
Johnson, D. & Schumacher, L.(1990). Time series analysis of agricultural education
student teachers' perceptions of agricultural mechanics lab management
competencies. Journal of Agricultural Education, 31, 35-39.
Lawver, D. (1992). An analysis of agricultural mechanics safety practices in Texas
agricultural science programs. Paper presented at the 19th Annual National
Agricultural Education Research Meeting, St. Louis, MO.
Rosencrans, C., Jr., & Martin, R. (1997). The role of agricultural mechanization in the
secondary agricultural education curriculum as viewed by agricultural educators.
Presented at the 24th Annual National Agricultural Education Research Meeting,
253-262.