A Study of Safety Issues and Accidents in Secondary Education Construction Courses within the United States

Abstract

Hands-on learning is paramount to teaching concepts about construction and the built environment; however, this poses some inherent safety risks. This study analyzed a subsample of 119 teachers from a national safety study, focusing on those who taught secondary-level construction courses. The current study aimed to examine the demographics of construction teachers, accident occurrences in construction courses compared to other secondary-level technology and engineering education (TEE) courses, and safety factors and items associated with accident occurrences in construction courses. The analyses revealed that a significantly higher number of minor accidents occurred in construction courses compared to other TEE courses during a five-year span. Additionally, 20 safety factors were found to be significantly associated with increases or decreases in accident occurrences. Most notably, increases in major accident occurrences increased with marginal significance when average class sizes (occupancy load) exceeded 20 students. Construction courses were also found to have significantly more accidents involving hand and power tools compared to other TEE courses. This research contributes to the limited literature on this topic and has implications for proactively limiting potential safety hazards and resulting risks. It also provides data to inform the safety efforts of post-secondary construction programs and the construction industry.

1. Introduction

There is an alarming shortage of highly skilled and trained workers in the construction industry within the United States (U.S.) [1]. It has been projected that employment opportunities in the construction industry will increase a total of 4.4% from 2020 to 2030. Federal support from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is expected to help create 1.5 million construction jobs [2]. However, the average age of construction workers continues to increase, meaning there will be an increasing demand for younger skilled workers to replace aging employees as they retire or pursue other opportunities. Construction laborers, carpenters, and electricians are projected to be the occupations with the highest demand in the construction industry until 2030. Additionally, employment of solar installers, construction managers, and telecom-line installers is projected to grow the fastest until 2030 [2]. Each of these occupations has unique and inherent safety risks, which is why high-quality training is crucial for the construction industry. Reports show that construction is one of the most hazardous industries in the U.S., with parts/materials, tools/instruments/equipment (especially ladders), and falls/slips/trips being among the most frequent cause or items associated with nonfatal construction injuries. Moreover, minors and young workers have higher nonfatal injury rates than other age groups in the construction industry [3,4]. Teaching minors and young workers to have a better understanding of construction safety practices can help reduce these injuries and drastically improve the lives of those working in the construction industry [3].

Developing safer construction habits begins with proper safety training and modeling appropriate safety practices during secondary technology and engineering education (TEE) and career and technical education (CTE) courses. As secondary TEE and CTE educators aim to enhance students’ technological and engineering literacy, and help students earn industry recognized credentials to be prepared for entering the workplace and post-secondary programs, safety must remain a core focus [5]. Safety is not only a critical concern to construction industry employers, it is also a core component of K-12 TEE academic standards which guide curriculum, instruction, and assessment. The Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy [6] places a strong emphasis on safety throughout the standards, practices, and context areas [5,7]. Additionally, the Association for Career and Technical Education (ACTE) Quality CTE Program of Study Framework [8] highlights safety as one of the 12 core elements needed for a high-quality CTE program. Element 7 specifically focuses on safer facilities, equipment, processes, and practices that align with industry expectations related to the program of study. Emphasizing and modeling safer practices during secondary TEE and CTE courses has important implications for improving young worker safety (including young workers in the construction industry), safety in the workplace, and safety knowledge and awareness of students preparing to enter post-secondary construction programs [5,9]. Enhancing the safety of students and young workers can also help improve their professional safety practices and resulting safety outcomes, contributing to greater efficiency and sustainability among the construction industry [10]. Therefore, the main goal of this study was to improve safety in secondary TEE and CTE construction courses by examining the safety issues and accident occurrences reported by instructors of these courses.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Teaching Construction through a Technological and Engineering Literacy Lens

Construction concepts are taught in a broad range of secondary education curricula, courses, and programs using a variety of pedagogical strategies. One perspective is that foundational construction technology (also referred to as the built environment) concepts and an overview of the construction process should be taught to all students to help them become more technologically and engineering-literate citizens [6,11]. Blankenbaker’s [12] textbook, written for secondary TEE programs interested in teaching a course dedicated to construction processes and procedures, focuses on the following topics: Construction tools/equipment and safety, construction materials, project design, construction management, site preparation, superstructures, mechanical/electrical/plumbing systems, finishing steps of a project, remodeling, commercial and industrial construction applications, and construction careers. However, as Love and Salgado [11] highlighted, instruction about construction concepts is often relegated to a broad single unit within secondary TEE courses that are available to the general secondary student population. In alignment with the technological and engineering literacy focus of K-12 TEE standards [6], Love and Salgado proposed that, “the broad overview of construction and structural technologies should be taught from a design-based approach, advocating for students to have an understanding of the construction process and corresponding science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) concepts” [11] (p. 22). Construction concepts would fall within the built environment context area of the STEL and should be taught in a hands-on, design-based manner that allows students “opportunities to safely design, use, and assess structures and materials” [6] (p. 109). Furthermore, instruction related to the built environment should help students to apply core technology and engineering (T&E) concepts, T&E practices, and make cross-cutting connections to other T&E context areas and STEM disciplines. For example, students can evaluate and test the properties of materials used in a scaled structure, or they could study heat loss in a structure and devise ways to optimize energy use [6] (p. 110). Educators and researchers have provided cross-cutting examples in which students utilize microcomputers and sensors to design and program prototypes of scaled smart home devices (motion activated garage door, security systems, CO₂ sensors, and temperature feedback systems, etc.). These examples illustrate how students could apply engineering design skills, sustainability concepts (impacts of technology), systems thinking practices, and optimism practices [6], within the built environment and computation, automation, artificial intelligence, and robotics context areas of the STEL. Love and Salgado [11] also provided numerous examples of ways in which educators could embed design-based construction lessons within technological and engineering literacy-focused curricula.

2.2. Teaching Construction within Secondary Pre-Engineering Education Courses

Another perspective is that more in-depth construction and built environment concepts should be taught within the context of pre-engineering education courses offered at the secondary level. These courses are generally geared toward students who hope to pursue a degree from a post-secondary engineering-related program. One popular example in secondary U.S. schools is Project Lead the Way’s (PLTW) Civil Engineering and Architecture course [13]. This focus is also evident from some secondary education course textbooks. Brown et al. [4] demonstrate connections to the construction industry and the built environment across multiple engineering fields, such as materials engineering, civil engineering, environmental engineering and others. While there are subtle differences, pre-engineering and broader technological and engineering literacy courses both use 3D modeling software to help students safely design, test, and optimize their theoretical solutions before testing them through experiences with practical materials in a lab setting. Hughes and Merrill presented a series of examples for secondary TEE and pre-engineering educators to teach statics concepts through the design and testing of a concrete beam [14,15], the creation and testing of trusses from craft sticks [16], the testing of an aluminum can crusher [17], and other practical design challenges. While all these examples provide practical hands-on applications for students to see authentic construction and built environment theories in action, they also must be conducted with safety in mind.

2.3. Construction as a CTE Program of Study

Instruction pertaining to construction and the built environment also falls under the architecture and construction career cluster within CTE programs in local school systems. This career cluster is “focused on careers in designing, planning, managing, building and maintaining the built environment” [18] (para. 1). It encompasses programs focused on various facets of the construction industry and the built environment (carpentry, masonry, project management, alternative energy systems, etc.). Many secondary programs in the architecture and construction career cluster work to align with the accreditation standards set forth by the National Center for Construction Education and Research (NCCER). In addition to overseeing industry-recognized standards for safer and more rigorous construction instruction, NCCER provides curricular and assessment resources for school systems, training for instructors, career and articulated post-secondary education credit pathways, career starter resources, and other resources to help instructors provide high-quality instruction that meets the expectations of construction industry employers. An example of this can be seen at Roxbury High School in Succasunna, New Jersey, USA. In their Structural Design and Fabrication course students design and build a modular house that is donated to a family through their local Habitat for Humanity program. From this experience, students learn various aspects of designing and constructing a residential structure from start to finish. Students also complete the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 10-h outreach safety training program focused on construction standards. Safety is a core focus in everything that they do, as demonstrated by their 2022 National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) Safety Award for Excellence [19].

As Love and Roy [5] discussed, the lines can often become blurred between technological and engineering literacy programs and CTE programs of study within various states in the U.S. They highlighted that in many states, TEE programs fall under the supervision of the state department of education’s CTE division. One unique example is in the state of Maryland, where TEE courses are classified like other instructional content areas; however, PLTW courses (including civil engineering and architecture) are classified under the manufacturing, engineering, and technology CTE career cluster [20]. In other states like Virginia and Wisconsin, TEE programs are classified as a distinct CTE program area by their state department of education. In addition to the expansive content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and safety practices needed to teach specialized courses related to various TEE and CTE programs, the critical shortage of highly-qualified teachers in these areas has increased safety concerns and risks [7,21,22,23].

2.4. Recruiting, Preparing, and Retaining Secondary Education Construction Teachers

Trends have indicated that across the U.S. there is a growing shortage of TEE [24] and CTE teachers [25]. These shortages have been linked to various reasons, including burnout following the COVID-19 pandemic, large numbers of teachers from the baby boomer generation retiring with fewer young people to fill these vacancies, and lower salaries compared to working in business or industry. For example, in 2021 the average salary of TEE and CTE teachers with a bachelor’s degree was $67,610, whereas the average salary of a construction manager with a bachelor’s degree was $112,790 [26]. The growing teacher shortage has increased the number of TEE and CTE teachers being hired with alternative or provisionary state teaching certification [7,21,23,25,27,28]. For example, educators teaching TEE courses in the U.S. with alternative certification rose from 24% in 2008 to 39% in 2017 [27]. As researchers have cautioned, alternative certification can pose some serious safety concerns [7,21,23]. Even for individuals entering the teaching profession with years of experience from industry, overseeing the safety of young novice students in a secondary school environment compared to skilled adults in an industry setting requires a unique skillset. Highly qualified educators that complete a teacher preparation program often receive specialized coursework in classroom management, facilities planning, and laboratory safety [29]. Additionally, most TEE teacher preparation programs require students to complete a course on construction technologies, a course on manufacturing technologies, and a teaching methods course [29] which should all incorporate content related to safety within these technical contexts. Duncan et al. [30] found that, in comparison to educators who entered CTE through an occupational teacher preparation route, those who completed a traditional CTE teacher preparation program reported being more efficacious in teaching proper safety practices in the lab and teaching proper safety attitudes in CTE courses.

Researchers have also expressed concerns about brief professional development (PD) preparation models, such as that used by PLTW to quickly prepare educators (including those with no degree or certification in a TEE- or CTE-related area) to teach TEE and CTE courses involving potentially hazardous laboratory activities [22,24]. In some states, like Maryland, professionals with technical expertise and work experience from industry can earn their initial certification through a four-course pathway. State regulations require TEE and CTE educators entering the profession through this route to complete coursework focused on laboratory safety practices, classroom management, instructional strategies, assessment, and safer teaching and learning strategies for students of all abilities. While this is still a limited experience in comparison to a traditional four-year teacher preparation program, it helps educators combine their expertise from industry with the special pedagogical practices needed to facilitate and supervise safer TEE and CTE teaching and learning experiences.

The shortage of highly qualified TEE and CTE teachers has also led school systems to ask certified TEE and CTE teachers to take on additional responsibilities, such as teach a wider variety of courses. Fifty-one percent of TEE and CTE teachers in Love and Roy’s [5] national safety study reported that, on average, they have more than three different courses they are tasked with preparing for and teaching each semester. This elicits concerns as more than three course preps in a semester can put additional responsibilities on instructors (especially new and alternatively certified educators) and has been linked to significant increases in accident occurrences [31,32]. Previous studies have demonstrated that the aforementioned safety risk factors have been found to significantly increase the odds of an accident in TEE and CTE courses; however, certain safety protective factors and practices described in the next section have been found to help reduce the effect of prevalent safety risk factors [31,32].

2.5. Safety: A Critical Concern in Secondary Construction Courses and Industry

TEE and CTE teachers must be prepared to face an amalgam of potential safety issues due to the inherently hazardous nature of these courses and programs [5]. When focusing on construction and the built environment courses, there are a number of unique safety hazards that differ from other courses which educators need to be trained to properly address. These safety issues include designing with safety in mind, safety ethics considerations, environmental considerations, safety considerations for those of varying abilities, codes (e.g., building codes), product standards, state and federal occupational safety and health (OSH) standards, engineering controls, personal protective equipment (PPE), body mechanics (e.g., lifting), ladder and scaffolding safety, electrical safety, hand/power tools/equipment safety, fire hazards and extinguishers, hazardous materials, heat exposure, and other pertinent safety issues for the task at hand [12]. In addition to live instructor demonstrations, safety testing, and direct supervision from the trained educator on site, high school students can enhance their safety knowledge and practices through earning their industry recognized OSHA 10 cards in general industry safety standards (29 CFR Part 1910) and construction safety standards (Part 29 CFR Part 1926). Both safety standards would apply to secondary construction courses and the construction workplace as described in the discussion section of this article. Recognizing the importance of safety in preparing students for the construction industry and post-secondary programs, NCCER has partnered with CareerSafe™ to embed safety modules into their secondary education curriculum [33]. This provides students with an industry-recognized credential and additional safety knowledge that employers value. Furthermore, construction industry employers have expressed the value of prospective employees (e.g., students) receiving First-Aid, CPR, and AED certification because of how important it is in the event of an accident (e.g., electrical shock, impalement, lacerations, etc.).

2.6. Previous Research on Safety in Secondary Construction Courses

For decades the literature has documented safety as a top concern among TEE and CTE teachers and administrators [9,21,34,35,36,37]. This is not surprising due to the inherently hazardous nature of the hands-on learning experiences provided in these programs to better prepare students for the experiences they will encounter in the workplace and in post-secondary programs. While there is an abundant amount of literature examining various aspects of safety in the construction industry, the amount of research focused on safety in secondary education construction programs is scarce, especially within the U.S. [38].

There have been a few international studies that provide valuable insight for research investigating safety in secondary education construction programs. Grytnes et al.’s [39] study examined Swedish and Danish students completing a workplace apprenticeship as part of their secondary education construction program. They found that students who participated in company-based safety training from a student role had greater perceptions of the safety climate at that company in comparison to students who were treated more like an employee. It was discovered that students who were treated like employees were more hesitant to voice concerns or ask questions about safety in fear of losing their apprenticeship, whereas those treated like students viewed the apprenticeship more like a learning experience. Grytnes et al. concluded that there needs to be a careful balance of safety training and oversight between secondary construction programs and apprenticeship hosts, with secondary construction teachers serving as an advocate to help students feel more comfortable about enhancing their safety knowledge and skills in construction workplace settings. Other insightful international studies have focused on the importance of OSH training for secondary-level CTE programs. One Canadian study [40] found that CTE teachers preferred to teach OSH content with which they were more familiar, and required training on how to incorporate OSH content into their courses so that content was not viewed as simply another element to be covered within the curriculum. Chatigny et al. [40] concluded that CTE teachers need the appropriate training, knowledge, teaching and learning modality resources, and opportunities to provide concrete learning experiences to allow for the implementation and development of OSH skills. Moreover, Nykänen et al.’s [41] study of Finnish secondary CTE students found that OSH attitude training significantly increased the students’ safety preparedness, increased their internal safety locus of control, and reduced their risk-taking attitudes.

Within the U.S., Jones et al. [42] conducted a Delphi study involving a 12-person panel comprised of secondary and post-secondary construction teachers, recent graduates from construction or architecture programs, and professionals who worked in the industry. The panel members identified OSHA safety as a dominant technical competency required to effectively teach construction and architecture at the secondary and post-secondary levels. Similarly, CTE educators in Lupton’s [36] study identified providing for student safety as the most important skill needed to teach in a CTE program. Nichols [43] found that approximately 23% of residential construction teachers in high school vocational education settings were involved in an accident over a five-year span. Additionally, 42% of the teachers indicated a student was involved in an accident in their courses, and 8% reported having a student sustain a serious injury during that five-year span. Bush et al. [38] discovered that secondary construction teachers felt overwhelmed by the responsibilities of meeting both educational and industry standards, and the limited time they had to adequately prepare for integrating high-quality OSH training in their courses. Specifically, they found that the amount of required information that needed to be taught for students to earn their OSHA 10 card was very challenging to integrate in a packed construction curriculum. Another challenge raised by the construction educators in Bush et al.’s study was the broad range of students taught by instructors. They expressed how challenging it can be to provide safer modifications and accommodations for each student in a full class that is engaged in hands-on construction activities. Construction teachers emphasized the need for classroom-ready OSH teaching resources that also provided some flexibility for the instructor to adapt or modify for their students’ needs [38].

Threeton and Evanoski [9] examined the safety of CTE teachers and school districts from thirty counties in Pennsylvania and found many alarming safety concerns. Specific to carpentry and masonry teachers within their study, they found: 39% did not have a mandated written safety policy developed by their school district, 87% did have a written safety policy developed by their program, 25% did not have the health and safety elements of their program regularly evaluated, 17% did not regularly conduct walkthrough inspections with safety checklists, 43% did not keep records for an equipment maintenance plan, 55% did not incorporate training in hazard recognition, 0% had point of operation guards in place on all equipment, and 78% permitted students to participate in laboratory activities prior to earning 100% on the corresponding safety tests. More recently, Love and Roy’s [5] research, which focused more broadly on safety across various TEE and CTE courses, revealed similarly concerning results. For example, among the 718 participating teachers, only 49% had safety data sheets (SDS) readily accessible and only 83% had ANSI/ISEA Z87.1 D3-rated safety glasses with side shields available for every student during laboratory activities [5]. Statistical analyses from that dataset revealed that TEE and CTE classes with enrollments exceeding 24 students were 48% more likely to have had an accident occur within the past five years [32]. Additionally, it was discovered that educators who had comprehensive safety training (a combination of training during their undergraduate or graduate studies, training upon initial hiring at their school district, and a safety training update within the past five years) were 49% less likely to have had an accident occur in the CTE and TEE courses they taught [32]. Other studies have found that safety training, with connections to industry training methods, can enhance educators’ self-efficacy for teaching safety concepts and expected safety outcomes of students as a result of their instruction [21]. Furthermore, in a follow-up study focused on the middle Atlantic (mid-Atlantic) region teachers from Love and Roy’s national study [32], Love [44] discovered that equipment and machinery were involved in significantly more accidents in the mid-Atlantic region than other regions, and that manufacturing and construction courses had a significantly higher number of accident occurrences compared to other courses. This led Love to suggest that further analyses were needed to examine the differences related to accident occurrences and items involved in accidents among different TEE and CTE courses.

2.7. Rationale and Research Questions

The literature indicates that there is a connection between safety habits and practices that students learn in secondary education TEE and CTE programs, and the transfer of those skills to the workplace and post-secondary programs [9]. The literature has also documented the benefits of safety training for students and instructors; however, the literature lacks research on safety factors associated specifically with accidents in secondary-level construction courses. Therefore, the researchers conducted this study to investigate how safety factors related to construction courses differed from other TEE courses taught in the U.S. Furthermore, one of the main goals of this study was to identify safety factors that were significantly associated with accident occurrences in construction courses to help proactively address these issues and provide safer construction education experiences. To address the gaps identified in the literature and recommendations from prior studies [44], the following research questions (RQ) were developed to guide this study:

• RQ1: What are the demographics and characteristics of educators teaching construction courses in the U.S.?

• RQ2: Is there a significant difference between the number of accident occurrences in construction courses compared to other TEE courses?

• RQ3: What safety factors are significantly associated with accident occurrences in secondary education construction courses?

• RQ4: Is there a significant difference between the items involved in secondary education construction course accidents compared to those involved in accidents from other TEE courses?

3. Methods

Data collected from the Technology and Engineering Education—Facilities and Safety Survey (TEE-FASS) [5] were analyzed in this study. The TEE-FASS has a series of demographic and Likert-scale items that ask participating teachers about their demographics, experience, teaching conditions, facility characteristics, safety training, safety practices, and accidents. Since the instrument included a large volume of questions, and it required participating teachers to recall information from previous years (e.g., number of accidents that occurred within the past five years), the instrument was designed to collect mostly nominal and ordinal data to make it more user-friendly. The TEE-FASS used the following definitions to classify minor and major accidents, and these definitions were provided to participants within the survey immediately before the questions pertaining to accident occurrences:

A minor accident encompasses water or chemical spills, slipping on dusty floors, broken glass, excessive fumes, small fires, projectiles, or other accidents during course activities that either resulted in no injuries or required minor medical attention such as Band-Aids, minor first aid, or a visit to the school nurse. Major accidents resulted in an injury during course activities that required major medical attention with a visit to a doctor or hospital (stitches, etc.).

[32] (p. 5).

To advertise the survey to key stakeholders and encourage voluntary participation, the link to the TEE-FASS was shared by national and state T&E educator and CTE professional associations. This resulted in 718 responses from TEE and CTE teachers in 42 U.S. states. Additional information about the reliability and validity measures of the TEE-FASS are described in detail by Love et al. [32], and the full instrument was published by Love and Roy [5].

3.1. Data Analyses

Descriptive statistics were used in RQ1 to examine the demographics and characteristics reported by participants. For RQ2, descriptive statistics and Mann–Whitney U tests were utilized. In the TEE-FASS, participants were asked to report accident rates as ordinal responses (e.g., How many accidents occurred within the past five years? Response choices: 0, 1–5, 6–10, 11–15, or >15). A table was created to assist with displaying the occurrence of accidents reported according to the courses. Next, Mann–Whitney U analyses were conducted to test for significant differences between two independent samples with ordinal (accident occurrence categories) and nominal (construction course or other TEE course) data [45].

For RQ3, the researchers used an exploratory correlational analysis method that had been implemented in previous safety studies [31,32,44,46]. This method allowed the researchers to estimate the independent associations between various safety factors reported in the TEE-FASS and the occurrence of accidents over a five-year span. Associations were estimated as polychoric correlation coefficients. The polychoric correlation analysis, which is an alternative to the Pearson r, is used when data is organized in an ordinal manner, yet the variables represent a continuous measure (i.e., accident occurrence categories) [47]. Both the p-value for the likelihood ratio test and the polychoric correlation coefficient were reported for each safety factor. Lastly, Mann–Whitney U tests were again used to investigate differences between items involved in accidents within construction courses compared to items involved in accidents within other TEE courses.

3.2. Participants

Among the 718 TEE-FASS responses, 119 TEE or CTE teachers from 25 different states in the U.S. reported that construction courses were among the top three foci of the classes they taught. Their responses were specific to construction courses. CAD and architectural design courses were a separate survey option, and the researchers did not include those as part of the sample of 119 construction teachers. The demographics and characteristics of these 119 participants compared to the full sample and previous studies are discussed in more detail in RQ1. Furthermore, additional demographic information about the national sample was reported by Love and Roy [5]. The full list of non-construction courses (pre-engineering, electronics, woods and metals materials processing, etc.) taught by participants in the full sample were reported also by Love and Roy [5].

4. Results

4.1. RQ1: Demographics and Characteristics

The first research question examined the demographics and characteristics of educators teaching secondary-level construction courses in the U.S. Descriptive statistics revealed that most participating TEE and CTE teachers in the U.S. identified as white and male. Upon closer examination, there were a higher percentage of white (92%) and male (87%) construction teachers compared to participants teaching other TEE courses. However, when compared to the 2008 national Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) [48] data for construction, architecture, and engineering technologies teachers, there were more females teaching construction courses in the present study. Most construction teachers in this study had state teaching certification in TEE (87%) and/or a CTE area (9%), which was greater than the percentage of participants teaching other TEE courses (76%) and those who participated in the SASS (73%). In regard to grade level taught, participants teaching construction courses were similar to other TEE teachers, but there was a slightly higher percentage teaching at the high school level (60%). When it came to teaching experience there was a lower percentage of educators within their first nine years of teaching (23%) compared to educators teaching other TEE courses (31%) and those who participated in the SASS (47%). Moreover, 57% of the educators teaching construction courses in this study had been teaching for over 15 years in comparison to only 37% who reported belonging to this category in the SASS (

Table 1. Participant Demographics and Characteristics.

Demographic or Characteristic	Const. * n = 119	Other * n = 599	Full Sample * n = 718	SASS ^ n = 9400
Gender
Male	87%	71%	74%	96%
Female	13%	29%	26%	4%
Ethnicity
White	92%	90%	90%	89%
Hispanic	2%	1%	1%	NR
Black	4%	5%	5%	9%
Two or more races	1%	3%	3%	NR
State Teaching Certification Area
TEE	87%	76%	78%	73% #
CTE area	9%	8%	8%
Science	0%	5%	5%	NR
Alternative Certification	3%	3%	3%	43%
Grade Level Taught
6–8	25%	30%	29%	NR
9–12	60%	54%	55%	100%
6–12	13%	11%	11%	NR
Years of secondary-level teaching experience
0–4 years	7%	10%	10%	19%
4–9 years	16%	21%	20%	28%
10–14 years	20%	20%	20%	17%
≥15 years	57%	49%	50%	37%

Note. TEE = technology and engineering education; CTE = career and technical education; Const. = construction teachers; Other = educators of non-construction TEE courses; Full sample = national sample; * = Source: Love and Roy [5]; ^ = Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) [48] results for construction, architecture, and engineering technologies teachers; # = had full state certification and demonstrated competency in the construction, architecture, and engineering technologies subject area [48]; NR = not reported.

).

Within RQ1 we also examined the educational background of construction teachers versus other TEE teachers. Participants were asked to report all degrees earned, not just their highest degree. This revealed a slightly higher percentage of construction teachers had an associate degree in an industry area or another education field (e.g., general education courses for state certification). In regard to the bachelor’s degree area, construction teachers were similar to other TEE teachers, but a slightly higher percentage of construction teachers had a graduate certificate in an industry area (3%). Interestingly, a higher percentage of construction teachers earned their master’s in TEE (21%) than participants teaching other TEE courses (16%). However, among those teaching other TEE courses there was a higher percentage of participants who earned their master’s in other educational areas (e.g., administration) (

Table 2. Educational Background of Participants.

Degree and Course	Degree Area
	IA	TEE	STEM	Other Ed	Eng	Industry
Associate Degree
Const.	2%	1%	0%	6%	3%	8%
Other	2%	2%	0.3%	3%	5%	5%
Full sample	2%	1%	0.3%	3%	5%	6%
Bachelor’s Degree
Const.	0%	29%	2%	8%	8%	3%
Other	0.2%	28%	3%	8%	7%	2%
Full sample	0.1%	28%	3%	8%	7%	2%
Graduate Certificate
Const.	5%	3%	2%	5%	0%	3%
Other	1%	4%	3%	4%	0.5%	1%
Full sample	2%	4%	3%	4%	0.4%	1%
Master’s Degree
Const.	4%	21%	4%	26%	0%	3%
Other	6%	16%	5%	29%	3%	2%
Full sample	6%	17%	5%	29%	2%	2%

Note. IA = industrial arts; TEE = technology and engineering education; STEM = science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education; Other Ed = education field not related to the others listed in the table; Eng = Engineering field (non-education-related); Const. = construction teachers; Other = educators of non-construction TEE courses; Full sample = national sample. Const. n = 119; Other n = 599; Full sample n = 718. Source: Love and Roy [5].

).

Next, we examined participants’ experiences relative to safety training. A higher percentage of participating construction teachers received safety training within their undergraduate (66%) or graduate (31%) coursework compared to other TEE teachers. Overall, a low percentage of construction and other TEE teachers received safety training from their school district upon initial hire and a safety training update from their school district within the past five years. When examining the content of the safety training provided by school districts, it was found that participating construction teachers received less training on all topics except for federal or state OSHA standards. In regard to those who received their safety training update from a source outside of their school district, a much higher percentage of construction teachers received training from a university (21%) or national safety company (13%), but a higher percentage of other TEE teachers received training from their state’s department of education (8%) or a manufacturer/curriculum provider (6%). When examining what was deemed as a comprehensive training experience [32], a slightly higher percentage of construction teachers (71%) had comprehensive safety training (

Table 3. Safety Training Experiences of Participants.

Safety Training Experience	Const. n = 119	Other n = 599	Full Sample n = 718
Training in Undergraduate Coursework	66%	61%	62%
Training in Graduate Coursework	31%	28%	28%
Training Upon Initial Hire	31%	32%	32%
Training Update from School District	55%	56%	56%
School District Training Update Covered:
Federal or state OSHA standards	74%	73%	73%
School district Hazard Communication plan	60%	65%	64%
Reading globally harmonized system (GHS) labels	48%	54%	53%
Chemical/Paint/Solvent Storage and Disposal	59%	62%	61%
Safety data sheets (SDS)	66%	73%	72%
Managing unsafe student behaviors	55%	59%	58%
First-aid procedures	71%	78%	77%
Training Update from an Ind. Source	20%	18%	18%
Source of Ind. Training Update:
Local source	29%	32%	32%
State educator association	17%	18%	18%
State department of education	4%	8%	7%
National educator association	0%	5%	4%
University	21%	10%	12%
OSHA	17%	18%	18%
Manufacturer or curriculum provider	0%	6%	5%
National safety company	13%	4%	5%
Comprehensive safety training	71%	66%	67%

Note. Ind. = Independent; Const. = construction teachers; Other = educators of non-construction TEE courses. Source: Love and Roy [5].

).

Lastly, for RQ1 we examined average class enrollment size (occupancy load) of construction classes. Fifty-two percent of construction teachers reported having class sizes above 20 students which was higher than the full sample (47%), but lower than other TEE courses (56%). Construction courses had a higher percentage (37%) of courses in the 16–20 students range compared to other TEE courses (32%) and the full sample (33%). When comparing the construction courses from this study to those from the SASS [48], the data indicates that average class sizes have increased over the past 15 years. The SASS reported that only 29% of construction, architecture, and engineering technologies teachers had average enrollments above 20 students compared to 52% of the participants in the present study (

Table 4. Average Course Enrollment Size.

Number of Students	Const. * n = 119	Other * n = 599	Full Sample * n = 718	SASS ^ n = 9400
≤15	12%	12%	12%	44%
16–20	37%	32%	33%	26%
21–24	23%	25%	25%	22% #
25–30	19%	23%	22%
>30	10%	8%	8%	7%

Note. Const. = construction teachers; Other = educators of non-construction TEE courses; Full sample = national sample; * = Source: Love and Roy [5]; ^ = Source: Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) [48] results for construction, architecture, and engineering technologies teachers. # = The SASS reported results as a category of 21–30 students.

).

4.2. RQ2: Accident Occurrences

The second research question investigated if there was a significant difference between the number of minor and major accidents that occurred over a five-year span in secondary education construction courses and other TEE courses in the U.S. Descriptive statistics were first used to examine the percentage of accidents reported within each range of accident occurrences. This showed that a much higher percentage (17%) of teachers in other TEE courses reported having no minor accident occurrences in their courses compared to construction courses (8%). Moreover, there were a higher percentage of minor accidents in construction courses for the 6–10, 11–15, and >15 accident occurrence categories. There was also a slightly higher percentage (33%) of 1–5 major accident occurrences for construction courses. These percentages led the researchers to hypothesize that there was a significantly greater occurrence of minor accidents in construction courses compared to other TEE courses (

Table 5. Accident Occurrences During a Five-Year Span.

Accident Type and Course	Number of Accidents
	0 (%)	1–5 (%)	6–10 (%)	11–15 (%)	>15 (%)
Minor Accidents
Construction	8	46	24	13	9
Other Courses	17	49	17	10	7
Major Accidents
Construction	66	33	0.8	0	0
Other Courses	69	31	0.2	0	0

Note. Construction n = 119, Other courses n = 599.

).

To examine if there was a significant difference between the number of accidents that occurred in construction courses and other TEE courses in the U.S., Mann–Whitney U tests were conducted. These analyses revealed a significantly greater occurrence of minor accidents in construction courses over a five-year period (p = 0.003), but there was not a significant difference in the number of major accident occurrences (

Table 6. Mann-Whitney U tests for Accident Occurrences During a Five-Year Span.

Accident Type and Course	Median	Mean Rank	U	z	p
Minor Accidents
Construction	1	407.89	29,881.5	−2.983	0.003 *
Other Courses	1	349.89
Major Accidents
Construction	0	368.28	34,595.5	−0.629	0.529
Other Courses	0	357.76

Note. Construction n = 119, Other courses n = 599, * = p < 0.05.

).

4.3. RQ3: Factors Associated with Accident Occurrences

After examining the differences between accident occurrences in construction courses and other TEE courses in the U.S., the third research question utilized polychoric correlation analyses to investigate what safety factors were significantly associated with accident occurrences in construction courses during the prior five years. The polychoric correlation analyses revealed the direction of the correlations, which the researchers reported in

Table 7. Polychoric Correlations of Safety Factors Associated with Minor and Major Accidents During a Five-Year Span in Secondary Education Construction Courses.

Significant Safety Risk Factors	Minor Accidents		Major Accidents
	ρ	p	ρ	p
Educational/credential factors
Alternative certification	0.64	*	0.66	*
Facilities and equipment factors
Lab in/connected to facility	0.48	*	0.46	*
Separate finishing room	0.39	**	0.29	*
Table saw used in lab	0.21		0.38	~
Standard operating safety procedure factors
Percentage of class time doing hands-on activities	0.26	*	0.06
Student access to storage areas	0.29	**	0.14
Administrative factors
Average class size over 20 students	0.09		0.29	~
Significant Safety Protective Factors	Minor Accidents		Major Accidents
	ρ	p	ρ	p
Educational/credential factors
Bachelor’s degree in engineering	−0.40	*	−0.38	**
Facilities and equipment factors
Lockable storage cabinet(s)	−0.23	~	−0.07
Sink in classroom/lab	−0.25	~	−0.19
Soldering fume extractor	−0.38	~	−0.15
Administrative factors
Safety data sheets (SDS) on file with school district	−0.26	*	−0.03
Safety training factors
Safety training in graduate courses	−0.30	*	−0.22
District training on OSHA standards	−0.40	*	−0.23
District training on classroom management	−0.42	**	−0.49	**
District training on Hazard Communication plan	−0.17		−0.34	~
District training on SDS	−0.23		−0.42	*
District training on globally harmonized system (GHS)	−0.10		−0.53	**
District training on chemical storage and disposal	−0.16		−0.46	**
District training on First-aid	−0.26		−0.49	**

Note. ** = p < 0.01, * = p < 0.05, ~ = p < 0.10.

as risk factors (positive correlation) or protective factors (negative correlation). The polychoric correlation analyses suggest that as a risk factor was present or increased, the number of reported accidents also increased. Conversely, as protective factors were present or increased, the number of reported accidents decreased. Seven risk factors and 13 protective factors were found to be significantly associated with reported accident occurrences. To assist with the interpretation of these results, the researchers organized these factors into categories consisting of: educational/credential factors, facilities and equipment factors, standard operating safety procedure factors, administrative factors, and safety training factors. The risk factor category with the most items was facilities and equipment, whereas the largest protective factor category was safety training.

Alternative certification was found to be a risk factor; however, possessing a bachelor’s degree in an engineering field was found to be a protective factor. Having a laboratory in the instructional area or connected to the instructional area was significantly associated with an increase in accident occurrences. As students spent more time doing hands-on activities, the number or minor accidents also increased significantly. Finishing rooms were found to be significantly associated with minor and major accident occurrences, and student access to storage areas were significantly correlated with minor accidents. Allowing students to independently use a table saw in the laboratory demonstrated marginal significance with major accident occurrences. Additionally, courses that had average enrollments exceeding 20 students were linked to major accident occurrences with marginal significance. In regard to protective factors, having lockable storage cabinets, a sink in the instructional space, and a fume extractor for soldering activities were all linked to minor accident occurrences with moderate significance. When school districts had SDS on file, this was found to be significantly associated with fewer minor accident occurrences. Among various safety training factors, school district training on safer classroom management strategies was the only training factor found to be significantly associated with reduced minor and major accident occurrences. A number of other safety training factors were found to be significantly associated with decreased occurrences of either minor or major accidents. Since the TEE-FAS included a large volume of questions about safety factors, only those which were found to be statistically significant were reported in Table 7.

4.4. RQ4: Items Involved with Accidents

Although RQ3 examined the associations between safety factors and accident occurrences in construction courses, it did not investigate specific tools, equipment, or other items that were reported as being involved with accidents. Therefore, in RQ4 the researchers examined if there was a significant difference between items involved with accidents in construction courses compared to those involved with accidents in other TEE courses. Similar to RQ2, Mann–Whitney U tests were conducted, and these analyses revealed that hand and power tools (screwdrivers, chisels, utility knives, cordless drills, nail guns, etc.) was the only item that significantly differed (p = 0.002) between construction courses and other TEE courses in the U.S. (

Table 8. Mann–Whitney U tests for Items Involved in Accidents During a Five-Year Span.

Item and Course	Involved n (%)	Median	Mean Rank	U	z	p
Hot Glue Guns
Construction	38 (32)	0	339.14	33,217.5	−1.397	0.162
Other Courses	232 (39)	0	363.55
Hand/Power Tools
Construction	37 (31)	0	396.62	31,223.0	−3.043	0.002 *
Other Courses	112 (19)	0	352.13
Equipment/Machinery
Construction	32 (27)	0	374.04	33,910.5	−1.151	0.250
Other Courses	132 (22)	0	356.61
Automated Equipment
Construction	4 (3)	0	357.07	35,351.0	−0.411	0.681
Other Courses	25 (4)	0	359.98
Projectiles
Construction	20 (17)	0	369.84	34,410.5	−0.992	0.321
Other Courses	80 (13)	0	357.45
Electrical Short
Construction	6 (5)	0	355.10	35,117.0	−0.603	0.546
Other Courses	39 (7)	0	360.37
Fires
Construction	4 (3)	0	364.57	35,037.5	−1.218	0.223
Other Courses	10 (2)	0	358.49
Broken Glass
Construction	40 (4)	0	352.08	34,758.0	−1.017	0.309
Other Courses	5 (7)	0	360.97
Spills/Splashes
Construction	22 (19)	0	372.87	34,049.5	−1.253	0.210
Other Courses	84 (14)	0	356.84

Note. Involved = number of participants who reported this item was involved in an accident within the past five years, Construction n = 119, Other courses n = 599, * = p < 0.05.

).

5. Discussion

The results in this section are discussed according to each research question.

5.1. Demographics and Characteristics

Between 2011 and 2021, the demographics of workers in the construction industry (encompassing various construction fields) changed. The percentage of construction workers 55 or older increased to 22%, the percentage of Hispanic employees increased to 33%, and the percentage of female construction workers increased to 11% [2]. When examining the demographics of the participants in this study, it is clear that the demographics of secondary construction teachers are also shifting. There was a higher percentage of female teachers in this study (13%) compared to the SASS results (4%). Table 1 also reveals changes in years of teaching experience over the past 15 years from the SASS results to the present study. The data indicate that there are fewer construction teachers who are new to the profession. While this may appear as a positive finding related to the retention of experienced and highly qualified construction teachers, it may also forecast potential issues as aging construction educators retire and there is a lack of newer teachers in the pipeline to continue leading these programs. This reflects safety concerns from the literature related to TEE and CTE teacher recruitment, retention, and increases in the number of TEE and CTE teachers who have alternative certification [7,21,22,25]. However, data in Table 1 also reveal that in comparison to the SASS results, the percentage of construction teachers that have earned full state certification has increased. This may be reflective of the decrease in newer teachers since most states have a specific amount of time in which educators must complete coursework transitioning them from alternative certification to a full certification. The increase in certified instructors teaching construction is encouraging to see, as the courses counted toward state certification should be covering important topics such as safety and classroom management practices.

One other noticeable finding from Table 1 is that although the percentage of construction teachers consisted of mostly White participants, there were slightly more Hispanic participants (2%) teaching construction courses compared to other TEE courses (1%). Recruiting, hiring, and retaining highly qualified educators from diverse backgrounds to teach construction courses at the secondary level is very important given the increasing diversity reflected in the construction workforce data. Teacher preparation programs and school districts should seek to hire qualified teachers and support staff from diverse backgrounds to assist and recruit students from diverse backgrounds into secondary construction programs. This can potentially help recruit and prepare more students from diverse backgrounds for rewarding careers and post-secondary opportunities in construction.

While the SASS [48] did not report on specific degree areas, it did indicate that 26% of construction, architecture, and engineering technologies teachers had an associate degree or certificate, 32% had a bachelor’s degree, and 37% had a master’s degree as their highest educational attainment. When examining the data from this study it is difficult to compare to the SASS because participants could select multiple fields for the same degree level (e.g., if a participant had two associate degrees in different fields). Table 2 does provide insight about the type of fields in which construction educators were prepared. There was a larger percentage of construction teachers with an associate degree in an industry area (8%) compared to other TEE teachers (5%). In regard to bachelor’s degrees, construction teachers were similar to other TEE teachers with 29% possessing a bachelor’s degree in TEE. A higher percentage of construction teachers had a graduate certificate in industrial arts (5%) or an industry area (3%). This finding aligns with the results from Table 1, as the field of industrial arts officially changed its name to technology education in 1985. Given the high percentage of construction teachers with over 15 years of teaching experience, this finding reflects the preparation experiences of those teachers. It is also worth noting that while concepts focused on construction technologies were part of previous technology education standards [49] and the built environment is part of current TEE standards [6], teaching about construction had a more prominent role in industrial arts curricula and teacher preparation programs. For example, the Jackson’s Mill Industrial Arts Curriculum Theory [50], which guided the field for many years, identified construction as one of the four subsystems of human technical endeavor in which students should have learning experiences and that industrial arts/technology education teachers should be prepared to facilitate student learning. Experienced teachers who had an industrial arts preparation experience may have received more preparation in teaching construction concepts than newer teachers who completed a program aligned with more recent standards focused on applying the design process within various T&E contexts. Moreover, a higher percentage (21%) of construction teachers completed a master’s degree in TEE, but fewer received their master’s degree in other educational fields. This may be reflective of the higher percentage of construction educators who earned degrees in industry areas and wanted a master’s degree related to teaching such concepts.

5.1.1. Safety Training Experiences

The SASS [48] reported that 72% of construction, architecture, and engineering technologies teachers received PD related to their subject area during the 2007–2008 academic year. Among those teachers, 21% completed eight or less hours of PD, 27% completed nine to 16 h, 20% completed 17–32 h, and 33% completed 33 or more hours of PD that year. While the SASS data on PD completion are not specific to safety training, this data provide an overview of the time teachers spent receiving PD on various topics during the year. Within the current study, a slightly higher percentage of construction teachers received some form of safety training in their undergraduate (66%) and graduate (31%) coursework compared to other TEE teachers. However, this percentage is still very low considering safety should be a core component of all undergraduate and graduate programs in TEE and CTE fields [32]. The lack of safety training at this level is consistent with findings from safety training studies [21]. When examining the percentage of construction teachers who received safety training from their school district upon initial hiring and a safety training update within the past five years, these results are similar to other TEE teachers, but also very low. OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200), in addition to specific OSHA legal standards, require employers (school districts) to train employees (teachers) upon initial hiring, when there are changes in work assignments, and when there are changes in safety plans and workplace safety hazards or risks [5,32,51]. In regard to content included in the safety training updates provided by school districts or independent sources, Table 3 demonstrates there was a limited focus on various areas that OSHA indicates must be part of safety training offered by an employer [5,21,51]. Additional information about the importance of these training areas is discussed in a later section focused the significant safety training factors. When examining the independent source who provided safety training updates, universities and national safety companies were more prevalent among construction teachers compared to other TEE teachers. This may indicate that school districts are using companies with specialized expertise in construction safety to deliver more focused training for their teachers. It could also suggest that universities with construction and OSH programs have unique opportunities to offer specialized safety training for construction, CTE, and TEE teachers that allow for safer preparation of prospective students and building relationships with local school districts for recruitment purposes. Lastly, one positive finding in regard to training was that a higher percentage of construction teachers (71%) had completed a comprehensive safety training experience compared to other TEE teachers (66%). However, teacher preparation programs and school districts should collaborate to increase the number of teachers who have a comprehensive training experience as this was found in previous studies to decrease the odds of an accident by 49% [32].

5.1.2. Average Class Enrollment Size

When examining average course enrollment size, it was encouraging to see that a lower percentage of construction courses had 21 or more students compared to other TEE courses; however, over half (52%) of the participating construction teachers reported having average enrollments surpassing 20 students. Another alarming finding is that when compared to the SASS data, it is apparent that average class sizes in construction courses have increased over the past 15 years. In the 2008 SASS results, 70% of construction teachers had average class sizes of 20 or fewer students. The current study reveals that this percentage has dropped to 49%. The increase in average course enrollment size may be reflective of challenges related to finding highly qualified teachers who are certified to teach construction courses. As construction teachers retire or pursue other career opportunities, school districts may be tempted to place more students into the construction courses taught by the remaining educator(s). While this may seem like a quick solution and save funding, it limits the supervision and assistance that a teacher can provide to students, increasing the chance of an accident as discussed in a later section on safety factors associated with accident occurrences.

5.2. Accident Occurrences

Analyses in RQ2 found that 92% of participants reported having a minor accident occurrence, while 34% had a major accident occurrence in their construction courses over the past five years. This is a stark increase from Nichols’s [43] study which found that 42% of construction teachers had accident occurrences involving students, and eight percent had a student sustain a serious injury over a five-year span. The statistical analyses in the current study revealed there were a significantly greater number of minor accident occurrences in construction courses taught in the U.S. when compared to other TEE courses; however, the analyses also revealed there was no significant difference in the number of major accident occurrences. This aligns with findings from a previous study, which found that in the mid-Atlantic region of the U.S. there were significantly more accident occurrences in construction and manufacturing courses than other TEE courses [44]. These findings also reflect the inherently hazardous nature of the field of construction, which data indicates is one of the most hazardous industries in the U.S. [4]. Furthermore, these findings reiterate the importance of recruiting, hiring, and retaining highly qualified educators to teach construction courses at the secondary level. It is critical that school districts support their construction teachers through ongoing safety training, adequate funding for safety needs, and other resources, such as those described in the next section, to reduce the odds of an accident occurring.

5.3. Safety Factors Associated with Accident Occurrences

When examining the significant safety factors reported in Table 7, it is important to consider the exploratory nature of the polychoric correlation analyses that were conducted in this study. Many of the safety factors listed in Table 7 are mandated by state OSH or federal OSHA plans (e.g., OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard involving SDS—General Industry 29 CFR 1910.1200 and Construction 29 CFR 1926.59) and are also legally required under better professional safety practices. One observation from Table 7 is that it is interesting to see that some safety factors were significantly associated with minor accident occurrences but not with major accident occurrences, or vice versa. The polychoric correlation tests suggest that as the protective factors are implemented or increased, or as the risk factors are reduced or eliminated, theoretically, the chance of an accident should decrease. It is important to remember that this list does not encompass all legal and safety practices that may be required (e.g., requiring students to earn a 100% on all safety tests before using any potentially hazardous tools or equipment); rather, these are the safety factors that were found to be significantly associated with accident occurrences in the construction courses taught by participants in this study. It is also apparent that some safety factors in Table 7 had a smaller correlation coefficient than other factors. While this does not suggest that specific safety factors are more hazardous than others, it merely highlights safety factors that may need additional attention to provide safer construction instruction at the secondary level. For more details about the safety factors that were significantly correlated with accident occurrences in other studies and how they relate to state and/or federal OSH regulations, please see Love and Roy [5] and Love et al. [32]. The safety factors found to be significant in this study are discussed in detail below.

5.3.1. Educational and Credential Factors

While previous studies expressed anecdotal concerns regarding the increase in the percentage of educators who were teaching in TEE and CTE laboratory settings with alternative certification, they did not present any data documenting an association between the types of certification and accident occurrences [7,21,23]. Analyses from the present study revealed that having alternative certification was significantly correlated with increases in minor and major accident occurrences. School districts that hire TEE and CTE teachers with alternative certification should ensure that they receive the training and support required as newer educators. This includes support to complete coursework specific to TEE or CTE teaching and help in the transition from alternative to full state certification. It is plausible to hypothesize that coursework specific to TEE or CTE teaching is arguably more valuable for these educators compared to generic education courses, because TEE and CTE courses should cover unique topics, such as safety and facilities management practices. The correlation analyses also discovered that having a bachelor’s degree in an engineering (non-education) field was significantly associated with a decrease in accident occurrences. Those who had a degree in an engineering field should have completed coursework (lectures and labs) which presented various safety considerations and practices as required for post-secondary engineering program accreditation. Knowledge of authentic safety considerations and applications could benefit teachers as they transition from industry to teaching. This finding mirrors results from another TEE and CTE teacher safety study which found that having a graduate certificate in an engineering field was a marginally significant safety protective factor [31].

5.3.2. Facilities and Equipment Factors

Construction teachers who had a facility with a laboratory or had access to a laboratory connected directly to their facility reported significantly higher occurrences of minor and major accidents. This is not a surprising finding as more potentially hazardous and higher resulting risk activities should be conducted in laboratories that have the proper engineering controls as opposed to general classroom spaces. Various other studies also found laboratories in or connected to facilities to be a significant risk factor [31,32,44,46]. Like previous studies that examined safety issues in the mid-Atlantic [44] and northeast [31] regions of the U.S., having a separate finishing room was a significant risk factor for both minor and major accident occurrences in this study. As described by Love and Roy [5], finishing rooms can offer protective safety benefits such as externally vented paint booths which can help isolate and limit particulate exposure in a facility. However, these spaces can also create additional areas for instructors to supervise and host an array of additional chemical and physical hazards that need to be addressed. Similar to finishing rooms and storage areas, lockable storage cabinets also require directly supervised access due to the potentially hazardous items in these areas. OSHA and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) have strict legal requirements for separate finishing rooms, chemical storage areas, and lockable cabinets used to store flammables. Like previous studies [32,44], lockable storage cabinets were found to be a marginally significant safety protective factor. When used appropriately, lockable chemical storage and tool storage cabinets can help to limit theft and unapproved use of hazardous materials, reducing the chance of an accident and limiting the liability of the instructor and the school district [5,52].

Having access to a sink in the construction course facility was a marginally significant protective factor, as previous TEE and CTE studies discovered [31,32,44]. Sinks and access to potable water are important in laboratory course areas because students should be washing their hands with soap and water after handling potentially hazardous materials (e.g., treated lumber) and before leaving class. Access to clean running water may also be required in certain emergency situations. Better professional safety practice suggests each lab should have one sink per every four students [53]. Additionally, the use of soldering fume extractors was found to be a marginally significant protective factor. This could apply to various soldering-related applications, such as brazing and other processes used in plumbing construction applications. More information about soldering and other ventilation requirements are described by Love and Roy [5].

Lastly, in regard to facilities and equipment safety factors, the use of a table saw in a construction course was found to be a marginally significant (p < 0.10) safety risk factor associated with major accidents. This aligns with previous studies which found the use of a table saw to be a significant safety risk factor in various TEE and CTE courses [31,32,46]. However, it should be noted that in two previous studies [32,44], it was also discovered that teachers who had a table saw with the patented SawStop safety technology had significantly fewer accident occurrences than instructors who had a table saw without the SawStop safety feature. As suggested in previous studies [5,32], due to the high risk of accidents when using a table saw and the horrific nature of table saw accidents described in the case law, better professional practices and legal safety standards indicate that school districts should invest in a SawStop table saw or SawStop jobsite/contractor saw to significantly reduce the chance and severity of an accident. If a construction teacher has multiple table saws that they use in their courses, better professional practices and legal safety standards suggest students should only be allowed to use the SawStop model.

5.3.3. Administrative Factors

One administrative factor significantly associated with decreased minor accident occurrences was the school district keeping copies of SDS on file. This was also a significant protective factor in Love and Roy’s study of pre-engineering teachers [46]. As explained by Love and Roy [5], under OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200), employers (school districts) must ensure that SDS for all hazardous chemicals and materials are readily accessible to employees (teachers), and should provide employees with effective information and training in this area. Moreover, copies of all SDS should be kept on file by the TEE or CTE department, the school nurse, the district facilities office/safety director, and the local fire marshal.

The other administrative factor that was found to be correlated with increased accident occurrences was average class enrollment size (occupancy load) exceeding 20 students. This safety risk factor was not significantly associated with minor accident occurrences but a marginal significance (p < 0.10) associated with increased major accident occurrences was indicated. This corroborates decades of concerns, research findings, NFPA 101 Life Safety Code Occupancy Load standards, and recommendations regarding safer occupancy load limits in TEE and CTE laboratory courses [31,32,44,46,54]. When examining the greatest causes of accidents reported by the full national sample [5], teachers selected overcrowding as the second greatest cause for accident occurrences. Furthermore, numerous studies have found accident occurrences to significantly increase when occupancy loads exceed 24 students per one instructor [31,32,44,46,54,55,56]. However, in this study specific to secondary-level construction courses, major accident occurrences significantly increased when average course occupancy loads exceeded 20 students. This may be reflective of the unique and increased hazards that are present in construction classes (heavy concrete masonry units, ladders, long stock materials, electrical hazards, heavy equipment and machinery, etc.) compared to other TEE courses (pre-engineering, electronics, etc.). As discussed in RQ2, construction courses had a significantly greater occurrence of accidents and the construction industry is one of the most dangerous [4]. Recognizing these increased hazards related to construction, states like the Commonwealth of Virginia have passed legislation that limits the enrollment of construction classes to no more than 20 students [57]. However, when looking at the average class enrollments reported in Table 4, it is apparent that 52% and 29% of construction teachers are being tasked with teaching dangerous class sizes exceeding 20 students and 24 students, respectively. As Love and Roy [5] describe in detail, the NFPA 101 Life Safety Code specifies that in educational shops, laboratories, and vocational rooms, a minimum of 50 net square feet per occupant is required [58] (pp. 101–183). However, school administrators, school counselors, and others making decisions about class sizes must remember that although a room may have enough net square footage to host more than 20 occupants, the materials and equipment that will be used in construction courses pose potentially greater risks than other laboratory-based classes. Increasing class enrollment may also be in violation of the NFPA 101 Life Safety Code Occupancy Load legal safety standard and/or better professional safety practices. While the literature suggests that no TEE or CTE teacher have more than 24 students enrolled in their class, the data from this study indicate that construction courses should be limited to no more than 20 students per one certified and safety trained instructor. This represents safer, data-informed professional practices based on the information presented in this article.

5.3.4. Standard Operating Safety Procedure Factors

As the percentage of time spent doing hands-on activities in construction courses increased, so did minor accident occurrences. This finding is not rare, as it has been significantly associated with increased accident occurrences in other safety studies [31,32,44,46]. It is plausible to expect that the more time students are engaged in potentially hazardous hands-on construction learning activities, the more opportunities there are for an accident to occur. However, this does not suggest that authentic hands-on learning opportunities should be reduced or eliminated given the valuable role they play in preparing TEE and CTE students to be career- and college-ready [5,59]. Rather, this finding reinforces the importance of conducting a potential hazards analysis, resulting health and safety risk assessment [5,52], and implementing the safety protective factors described in this article to help reduce the odds of an accident while also maintaining a focus on safer teaching and hands-on learning. Another significant safety factor associated with increased accident occurrences in this category was student access to storage areas. Like finishing rooms, which were previously discussed, storage areas can be difficult for instructors to supervise and provide additional areas for mischief as well as access to potential chemical and physical hazards [32]. Students should not be allowed in storage areas without instructor supervision, and these areas should remain locked when a safety trained instructor is not present. Not only does this help to limit potential accidents from falling items and other safety issues, but it also limits the theft of potentially hazardous items which could ultimately lead to an instructor being found negligent or reckless for not securing this area or directly supervising students while in the storage area [5,52]. Access to storage areas was also found to be a significant risk factor in a previous study examining pre-engineering courses [46].

5.3.5. Safety Training Factors

Numerous safety training factors were found to be significantly associated with reduced minor or major accident occurrences. These results (Table 7) are similar to findings from previous studies [31,32], which discovered that while various safety risk factors increased the odds of an accident occurrence (e.g., class enrollment size), safety training factors helped to reduce the strength of association between certain risk factors and accident occurrences. While the present study did not examine the interaction effect between safety risk and protective factors, it did reveal that a variety of safety training experiences (most of which were provided by the teachers’ school districts) were associated with reduced accident occurrences. OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard for General Industry (29 CFR 1910.1200) and Construction (29 CFR 1926.59) requires school districts to train teachers of construction courses on specific content and topics such as those listed in Table 7. Therefore, it would be better professional practice for districts to provide initial and ongoing training about these safety factors that directly relate to safer teaching of construction concepts. This can also benefit the students as teachers can then share their knowledge of industry OSHA standards with students to help them develop industry-accepted safety practices. Furthermore, these results align with Love et al.’s [31] study which identified training related to first-aid information, the school district’s hazard communication plan, and safer classroom management strategies as significant safety protective factors in TEE and CTE courses. Love et al. [21] provided detailed recommendations for integrating OSHA-aligned content within safety training for TEE and CTE teachers. The results in this study also align with findings from Love and Roy’s [5] national study in which teachers believed that classroom management was one of the top causes for accidents. In the current study, school district training on safer classroom management strategies was significantly associated with the decreased occurrence of minor and major accidents. One area where this study differed from previous research was in regard to safety training that teachers received as part of their post-secondary courses. Love et al. [31] found that undergraduate courses that included some form of safety training were significantly associated with reduced accident occurrences, whereas the current study discovered that graduate level courses involving safety training were significantly associated with fewer accident occurrences.

5.4. Items Involved with Accidents

The fourth research question revealed that, despite the level of risk inherent with large equipment, machinery, automated equipment, and other hazards present in construction courses, the only items that were involved in significantly more accident occurrences in construction classes compared to other TEE courses were hand and power tools. This may be the result of proper guarding (29 CFR 1910 Subpart O and 29 CFR 1926 Subpart I) and other required engineering controls found in OSHA 29 CFR 1910 and 29 CFR 1926 (e.g., PPE) being in place and used correctly to limit accident occurrences resulting from equipment, machinery, automated equipment, electrical equipment, and other items used in construction settings. These results differ from previous studies which found that hot glue guns were involved in significantly more accidents in secondary pre-engineering courses [46] and that equipment and machinery were involved in significantly more accidents in mid-Atlantic TEE and CTE courses [44]. This reinforces an earlier point made about the unique hazards and risks involved in construction courses, which can require specialized safety and pedagogical training to reduce risks and provide safer learning experiences. In light of these findings, safety training for construction teachers and students should emphasize safer practices related to hand and power tools. OSHA general industry standards provide safety information for hand and portable power tools and other hand-held equipment in 29 CFR 1910 Subpart P. Additionally, OSHA construction industry standards provide safety information for hand and power tools in 29 CFR 1926 Subpart I. Moreover, instructors have a legal and ethical obligation to align their instruction with safer practices, including industry standards which students will be expected to follow when they enter the workplace. Construction teachers should demonstrate and enforce safety requirements in their courses that are aligned with the aforementioned OSHA standards. Additional resources to assist with safer training, testing, use, and supervision of construction hand/power tools and equipment are provided by OSHA [60], ITEEA [61], the Power Tool Institute [62], Virginia Tech [63], and others.

5.5. Limitations

Although this study revealed some important findings to help improve safety in secondary-level construction courses, and potentially the safety habits of young workers matriculating from these programs into construction-related fields, there are a few limitations. This study involved a homogenous sample consisting of mainly white and male participants. However, the demographics in this study are similar to Williams and Ernst’s [27] national study examining the demographics of TEE teachers. Another limitation is the voluntary self-reporting aspect of the data collected. It is unknown if participating educators had an increased interest in responding due to safety issues they personally experienced and wanted to report to support positive changes. Other potential limitations related to the data collection include asking participants to report accident occurrences as ordinal data instead of continuous data. While this was done to make the instrument more user-friendly for the respondents, it required the use of polychoric correlation analyses, which have some limitations in comparison to Pearson’s correlation analyses. Readers should interpret the polychoric correlation results with caution as they do not indicate direct causation of an accident. These results merely indicate that there is a significant association (either positive or negative) between the specified safety factors and accident occurrences. These data, which address a critical gap in the literature, provide implications for raising awareness of, and improving, the safety factors that were significantly associated with accidents. In theory, the data indicate that this should help to significantly reduce the odds of accident occurrences in secondary-level construction courses.

6. Conclusions

Like previous studies [9,38], the results of this research raise some alarming concerns regarding safety in construction courses taught within U.S. secondary schools. Of notable concern are the dangerous class enrollment sizes of construction courses and the lack of safety training among construction teachers, especially with the rising numbers of alternatively certified TEE and CTE teachers. The results from this study have important implications not only for improving safety and limiting liability in secondary TEE and CTE programs, but also for the safety and liability of construction employers and post-secondary construction programs who will be hiring and/or educating these students. As students matriculate into post-secondary education programs and into the workforce, they will carry with them the safety knowledge and practices they developed during their secondary education experience. Post-secondary construction programs and construction industry partners should consider the results of this study when developing safety training and proactive measures to limit potential hazards that the data revealed are significant issues for incoming students and young workers. This could potentially address gaps in students’ safety knowledge and practices, and also reduce the odds of an accident. The findings from this study can help to inform collaborative efforts among post-secondary construction programs, secondary TEE and CTE programs, and construction industry partners to address significant safety gaps. Addressing these gaps can contribute to safer, and subsequently more sustainable practices in the construction industry. Lastly, this research has direct implications for secondary TEE and CTE teachers, administrators, school counselors, school districts, school district safety officers, chemical hygiene officers, and TEE and CTE teacher preparation programs involved in making construction teaching and learning experiences safer.

6.1. Recommendations

The following recommendations for researchers and practitioners involved with construction education opportunities were derived from the data.

6.1.1. For Future Research

This study and other recent safety studies, indicate that significant safety factors can be unique to specific courses and regions of the U.S. [44,46]. Therefore, additional studies are warranted to examine which safety factors are significantly associated with accident rates in other TEE and CTE courses (e.g., woods and metals processing courses). Following the methods utilized in other safety studies, further analyses should be conducted to investigate the interaction effects between the significant risk and protective safety factors identified in this study, and their influence on accident occurrences. Lastly, future research should continue to monitor trends in class enrollment sizes and correlations with accident occurrences.

6.1.2. For Practitioners

Bush and Andrews [38] provided a brief list of recommendations which are still relevant and also apply to this study. Their recommendations included: conducting future research with more construction teachers; developing a place for instructors to share best practices and resources; providing greater support for mandating industry-recognized OSH training for secondary construction students (e.g., OSHA 10 h construction standards training); providing greater critical thinking and problem-solving opportunities for students during OSH training experiences; and collaborating with industry partners/advisory committees to place a greater focus on safety programs for students and young workers. Roy and Love [5] provided examples of pedagogical strategies that can assist with making safety instruction more engaging and increase opportunities for critical thinking. In addition to collaborating with industry partners, school districts should partner with their state department of education, neighboring school districts, secondary construction teachers, school district safety and chemical hygiene officers, and TEE and CTE teacher preparation programs to develop PD that addresses areas of need from the data presented in this study.

With the literature showing increases in the percentage of TEE and CTE teachers who have alternative certification [7,21,23,27,28], and the significant correlation between alternative certification and increased accident occurrences in this study, recruitment and retention of highly qualified construction teachers is critical. This is especially true for recruiting and retaining a more diverse workforce of construction teachers. Contributing to retention is the support that school districts, teacher preparation programs, and professional associations provide for newer and alternatively certified teachers. Ensuring that these teachers complete TEE and CTE specific coursework to obtain their full certification and receive safety training on issues described in this article will be crucial for retention and safer construction instruction. Lastly, administrators, school counselors, and others who make decisions on class enrollment sizes should not place more than 20 students in a construction course with one certified and safety trained educator. Additional support may be required to help provide the appropriate modifications and accommodations for students of all abilities in construction courses. Based on the findings from the statistical analyses in this study, it would be better professional practice to limit the enrollment in secondary construction classes to 20 students per one certified and safety trained educator.