Analysis of the Effectiveness of Safety Training Methods
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods
Limitations
3. Methods of Performing Safety Training and SWOT Analysis
3.1. Traditional Lectures and Lectures Enriched with Multimedia Materials
3.2. E-Learning and b-Learning
3.3. Active Training Methods Supported by Discussions and Gamification
3.4. Augmented Reality (AR) and Virtual Reality (VR)
3.5. Demonstration and Simulation
4. Multi-Criteria Analysis of Training Methods
4.1. Characteristics of the Criteria for Evaluating Training Methods
- -
- Training room equipment—the provision of tools, equipment and software to enable a particular training delivery method to be used to its full potential, taking into account the level of technological advancement and accessibility to the trainer and the training audience;
- -
- Number of participants—the number of people attending a training course for whom the use of a particular delivery method will result in the achievement of the intended learning objectives;
- -
- Possibility of mixing the method with other training techniques—the degree of freedom to mix training delivery techniques with the first selected method in order to increase the training effectiveness and the interest of its participants, taking into account technical and organisational constraints;
- -
- Financial input for training preparation—the purchase or rental of the necessary tools, equipment or software that enable the preparation of the training and the use of the necessary elements for the implementation of the learning process, while maintaining at least a good quality of the training;
- -
- Reach of the method—the impact of a particular training method on a given unit in terms of a trainee or a group of people participating in the training and the reach of the impact;
- -
- Trainer’s knowledge—the range of knowledge in a specific field or broad general knowledge from which the trainer educates participants in an attempt to achieve the intended training objectives;
- -
- Trainer’s soft skills—innate or acquired during developmental training, thanks to which difficulties that may arise during the training are skilfully eliminated by means of various psychological techniques applied by the trainer;
- -
- Labour input for training preparation—the time spent in the process of training preparation, starting with the planning of the training, through the development of the didactic material, to its application in the most appropriate delivery techniques used in a particular method of training delivery;
- -
- The time during which learners actively participate in the training—the time during which learners have direct interaction with the trainer or with each other, and the time during which learners are actively involved in the training process as defined top-down in the training method used;
- -
- Level of memorisation of training content—the ratio of memorised content from the training to the total body of knowledge contained in the training, according to Dale’s cone of learning and experience;
- -
- Monitoring of learning and knowledge acquisition—the ability to monitor on an ongoing basis whether and to what extent trainees are achieving the intended objectives of the training, and the ability to monitor learning outcomes in the form of meaningful post-training results;
- -
- Interactions between trainees or between trainees and the trainer—interactions between one or more parties to the training which, depending on the choice of training method, do not occur or occur with a certain frequency;
- -
- Digital exclusion—an event where trainees are prevented or restricted from using all the possibilities of a particular training method due to personal technological skills or lack of necessary equipment.
- -
- The number of session overtime—the optimum duration of training translates into effectiveness. The shorter the duration of the training, the better, but in order to balance the delivery of all necessary content while respecting the applicable regulations and at the same time ensuring the level of attractiveness of the training as perceived by the trainees, the excess hours of training duration should not be significantly exceeded.
4.2. Results
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Liu, R.; Liu, H.-C.; Shi, H.; Gu, X. Occupational Health and Safety Risk Assessment: A Systematic Literature Review of Models, Methods, and Applications. Saf. Sci. 2023, 160, 106050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colim, A.; Carneiro, P.; Carvalho, J.D.; Teixeira, S. Occupational Safety & Ergonomics Training of Future Industrial Engineers: A Project-Based Learning Approach. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2022, 204, 505–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lafuente, E.; Abad, J.; Vaillant, Y. Safety Disconnect: Analysis of the Role of Labor Experience and Safety Training on Work Safety Perceptions. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. 2018, 11, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reinhold, K.; Siirak, V.; Tint, P. The Development of Higher Education in Occupational Health and Safety in Estonia and Selected EU Countries. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 143, 52–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahan, B.; Morawetz, J.; Ruttenberg, R.; Workman, R. Workplace Safety and Health Improvements through a Labor/Management Training and Collaboration. New Solut. J. Environ. Occup. Health Policy 2014, 23, 561–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laberge, M.; MacEachen, E.; Calvet, B. Why Are Occupational Health and Safety Training Approaches Not Effective? Understanding Young Worker Learning Processes Using an Ergonomic Lens. Saf. Sci. 2014, 68, 250–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bartnicka, J.; Kabiesz, P.; Palka, D.; Gajewska, P.; Islam, E.U.; Szymanek, D. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Employers and H&S Services in Relation to the COVID-19 System in Polish Manufacturing Companies. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 9302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shaleh Asari, K.; Leman, A.M. Safety Training Evaluation: Approaches and Practices. J. Occup. Saf. Health 2015, 12, 23–30. [Google Scholar]
- Taylor, E.L. Safety Benefits of Mandatory OSHA 10h Training. Saf. Sci. 2015, 77, 66–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hejduk, I.; Tomczyk, P. Young Workers’ Occupational Safety Knowledge Creation and Habits. Procedia Manuf. 2015, 3, 395–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hashem, M.; Mehany, M.S.; Killingsworth, J.; Shah, S. An Evaluation of Training Delivery Methods’ Effects on Construction Safety Training and Knowledge Retention—A Foundational Study. Int. J. Constr. Educ. Res. 2021, 17, 18–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hollnagel, E. Safer Systems: People Training or System Tuning? Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2021, 11, 990–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Towler, A. Effects of Trainer Expressiveness, Seductive Details, and Trainee Goal Orientation on Training Outcomes. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 2009, 20, 65–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brinia, V.; Efstathiou, M. Evaluation of Factors Affecting Training Transfer on Safety in the Workplace: A Case Study in a Big Factory in Greece. Ind. Commer. Train. 2012, 44, 223–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, A.; Colligan, M.; Sinclair, R.; Newman, J.; Schuler, R. Assessing Occupational Safety and Health Training: A Literature Review; National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health: Cincinnati, Ohio, 1998.
- Grossman, R.; Salas, E. The Transfer of Training: What Really Matters. Int. J. Train. Dev. 2011, 15, 103–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phillips, J.J. Return on Investment in Training and Performance Improvement Programs; Routledge: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burke, M.J.; Sarpy, S.A.; Smith-Crowe, K.; Chan-Serafin, S.; Salvador, R.O.; Islam, G. Relative Effectiveness of Worker Safety and Health Training Methods. Am. J. Public Health 2006, 96, 315–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fam, I.M.; Nikoomaram, H.; Soltanian, A. Comparative Analysis of Creative and Classic Training Methods in Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) Participation Improvement. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2012, 25, 250–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nkomo, H.; Niranjan, I.; Reddy, P. Effectiveness of Health and Safety Training in Reducing Occupational Injuries Among Harvesting Forestry Contractors in KwaZulu-Natal. Workplace Health Saf. 2018, 66, 499–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tappura, S.; Jääskeläinen, A. Measuring the Outcomes of Safety Training. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Human Systems Engineering and Design: Future Trends and Applications, Pula, Croatia, 22–24 September 2021; pp. 265–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stefan, H.; Mortimer, M.; Horan, B.; Kenny, G. Evaluating the Preliminary Effectiveness of Industrial Virtual Reality Safety Training for Ozone Generator Isolation Procedure. Saf. Sci. 2023, 163, 106125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Engelbrecht, H.; Lindeman, R.W.; Hoermann, S. A SWOT Analysis of the Field of Virtual Reality for Firefighter Training. Front. Robot. AI 2019, 6, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tong, R.; Wang, B.; Yan, B.; Zhang, B.; Zhang, L.; Wang, Q.; Ding, J. ACT Method for Safety Training: An Approach to Improve on-Site Safety Performance. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2023, 83, 105013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weinstock, D.; Slatin, C. Learning to Take Action: The Goals of Health and Safety Training. New Solut. J. Environ. Occup. Health Policy 2012, 22, 255–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Varchenko-Trotsenko, L.; Tiutiunnyk, A.; Terletska, T. Using Video Materials in Electronic Learning Courses. Open Educ. E-Environ. Mod. Univ. 2019, 375–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, S.; Zhang, M.; Hou, L. Formulating a Learner Model for Evaluating Construction Workers’ Learning Ability during Safety Training. Saf. Sci. 2019, 116, 97–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albert, A.; Hallowel, M.R. Revamping Occupational Safety and Health Training: Integrating Andragogical Principles for the Adult Learner. Constr. Econ. Build. 2013, 13, 128–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Çoban, M.; Göktaş, Y. Which Training Method Is More Effective in Earthquake Training: Digital Game, Drill, or Traditional Training? Smart Learn. Environ. 2022, 9, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merrill, M.D.; Tennyson, R.D.; Posey, L.O. Teaching Concepts: An Instructional Design Guide; Educational Technology: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Foshay, W.R. Some Principles Underlying the Cognitive Approach to Instructional Design. In Handbook of Improving Performance in the Workplace: Volumes 1–3; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009; pp. 3–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taylor, M.A.; Wirth, O.; Olvina, M.; Alvero, A.M. Experimental Analysis of Using Examples and Non-Examples in Safety Training. J. Saf. Res. 2016, 59, 97–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gummesson, K. Effective Measures to Decrease Air Contaminants through Risk and Control Visualization—A Study of the Effective Use of QR Codes to Facilitate Safety Training. Saf. Sci. 2016, 82, 120–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lynch, K.; Barr, N.; Oprescu, F. Learning Paramedic Science Skills from a First Person Point of View. Electron. J. E-Learn. 2012, 10, 396–406. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, X.; Zeng, H.; Wang, Y.; Wu, A.; Sun, Z.; Ma, X.; Qu, H. VoiceCoach: Interactive Evidence-Based Training for Voice Modulation Skills in Public Speaking. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human. Factors in Computing Systems, Honolulu, HI, USA, 25–30 April 2020; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Górska, D. E-Learning in Higher Education. Pers. Chall. J. Theol. Educ. Canon Law Soc. Stud. Inspired By Pope John Paul II 2016, 6, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pugh, C.M.; Watson, A.; Bell, R.H.; Brasel, K.J.; Jackson, G.P.; Weber, S.M.; Kao, L.S. Surgical Education in the Internet Era. J. Surg. Res. 2009, 156, 177–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stefanidis, D.; Sevdalis, N.; Paige, J.; Zevin, B.; Aggarwal, R.; Grantcharov, T.; Jones, D.B. Simulation in Surgery. Ann. Surg. 2015, 261, 846–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ho, C.-L.; Dzeng, R.-J. Construction Safety Training via E-Learning: Learning Effectiveness and User Satisfaction. Comput. Educ. 2010, 55, 858–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Almuwais, A.; Alqabbani, S.; Benajiba, N.; Almoayad, F. An Emergency Shift to E-Learning in Health Professions Education: A Comparative Study of Perspectives between Students and Instructors. Int. J. Learn. Teach. Educ. Res. 2021, 20, 16–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pradeepa, D.; Valarmady, A.; Nithyanandam, K. E-Learning Types, Opportunities and Skills. J. Adv. Res. Dyn. Control Syst. 2006, 11, 670–672. [Google Scholar]
- Khan, M.J.; Reddy, L.K.V.; Khan, J.; Narapureddy, B.R.; Vaddamanu, S.K.; Alhamoudi, F.H.; Vyas, R.; Gurumurthy, V.; Altijani, A.A.G.; Chaturvedi, S. Challenges of E-Learning: Behavioral Intention of Academicians to Use E-Learning during COVID-19 Crisis. J. Pers. Med. 2023, 13, 555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- GOYAL, S. E-Learning: Future of Education. J. Educ. Learn. (EduLearn) 2012, 6, 239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barry Issenberg, S.; Mcgaghie, W.C.; Petrusa, E.R.; Lee Gordon, D.; Scalese, R.J. Features and Uses of High-Fidelity Medical Simulations That Lead to Effective Learning: A BEME Systematic Review. Med. Teach. 2005, 27, 10–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gagnon, K.; Young, B.; Bachman, T.; Longbottom, T.; Severin, R.; Walker, M.J. Doctor of Physical Therapy Education in a Hybrid Learning Environment: Reimagining the Possibilities and Navigating a “New Normal”. Phys. Ther. 2020, 100, 1268–1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sáiz-Manzanares, M.C.; Martin, C.F.; Alonso-Martínez, L.; Almeida, L.S. Usefulness of Digital Game-Based Learning in Nursing and Occupational Therapy Degrees: A Comparative Study at the University of Burgos. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruiz-Ruiz, B.; García-Arrabé, M.; del Prado-Álvarez, R.; Bermejo-Franco, A.; Diaz-Meco Conde, R.; González-Fernández, L.; Aladro-Gonzalvo, A.R. Competence Development in an Undergraduate Physiotherapy Internship Program during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Blended Learning Approach. Sustainability 2023, 15, 12052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kao, K.-Y.; Spitzmueller, C.; Cigularov, K.; Thomas, C.L. Linking Safety Knowledge to Safety Behaviours: A Moderated Mediation of Supervisor and Worker Safety Attitudes. Eur. J. Work. Organ. Psychol. 2019, 28, 206–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ricci, F.; Nucci, M. Safety Integrated Model-Training (SIM-t) and Its Evaluation: A Safety Training Proposal for Mechanical Companies. Saf. Sci. 2022, 146, 105538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feinstein, A.H.; Mann, S.; Corsun, D.L. Charting the Experiential Territory: Clarifying Definitions and Uses of Computer Simulation, Games, and Role Play. J. Manag. Dev. 2002, 21, 732–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knowles, M.S. Andragogy in Action; Jossey-Bass: San Fracisco, CA, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Kolb, D. Experiential Learning: Experience as a Source of Learning and Development; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Coopmans, M.; Rinnooy Kan, W.F. Facilitating Citizenship-Related Classroom Discussion: Teaching Strategies in Pre-Vocational Education That Allow for Variation in Familiarity with Discussion. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2023, 133, 104268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Minniti, L.F.S.; Melo, J.S.M.; Oliveira, R.D.; Salles, J.A.A. The Use of Case Studies as a Teaching Method in Brazil. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2017, 237, 373–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ying, J. The Importance of the Discussion Method in the Undergraduate Business Classroom. Humanist. Manag. J. 2020, 5, 251–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Addo, R.; Koers, G.; Timpson, W.M. Teaching Sustainable Development Goals and Social Development: A Case Study Teaching Method. Soc. Work. Educ. 2022, 41, 1478–1488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonney, K.M. Case Study Teaching Method Improves Student Performance and Perceptions of Learning Gains. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 2015, 16, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bernardi, F.M.; Pazinato, M.S. The Case Study Method in Chemistry Teaching: A Systematic Review. J. Chem. Educ. 2022, 99, 1211–1219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parker, W.C.; Hess, D. Teaching with and for Discussion. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2001, 17, 273–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khaleel, F.L.; Ashaari, N.S.; Wook, T.S.M.T.; Ismail, A. Gamification-Based Learning Framework for a Programming Course. In Proceedings of the 2017 6th International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Informatics (ICEEI), Langkawi, Malaysia, 25–27 November 2017; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mora, A.; Planas, E.; Arnedo-Moreno, J. Designing Game-like Activities to Engage Adult Learners in Higher Education. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality, Salamanca, Spain, 2–4 November 2016; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 755–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Roy, R.; Deterding, S.; Zaman, B. Uses and Gratifications of Initiating Use of Gamified Learning Platforms. In Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human. Factors in Computing Systems, Montreal, QC, Canada, 21–26 April 2018; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deterding, S.; Dixon, D.; Khaled, R.; Nacke, L. From Game Design Elements to Gamefulness. In Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, New York, NY, USA, 29–30 September 2011; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 9–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malone, T. Toward a Theory of Intrinsically Motivating Instruction. Cogn. Sci. 1981, 5, 333–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martí-Parreño, J.; Méndez-Ibáñez, E.; Alonso-Arroyo, A. The Use of Gamification in Education: A Bibliometric and Text Mining Analysis. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2016, 32, 663–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kapp, K. The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Game-Based Methods and Strategies for Training and Education; Pfeiffer: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Ricci, F.; Bravo, G. Live-Action Role Playing for Safety Training: Effectiveness Evaluation in Two Italian Companies. New Solut. J. Environ. Occup. Health Policy 2022, 32, 144–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Narvaez, D.; van den Broek, P.; Ruiz, A.B. The Influence of Reading Purpose on Inference Generation and Comprehension in Reading. J. Educ. Psychol. 1999, 91, 488–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christy, K.R.; Fox, J. Leaderboards in a Virtual Classroom: A Test of Stereotype Threat and Social Comparison Explanations for Women’s Math Performance. Comput. Educ. 2014, 78, 66–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanus, M.D.; Fox, J. Assessing the Effects of Gamification in the Classroom: A Longitudinal Study on Intrinsic Motivation, Social Comparison, Satisfaction, Effort, and Academic Performance. Comput. Educ. 2015, 80, 152–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smiderle, R.; Rigo, S.J.; Marques, L.B.; Peçanha de Miranda Coelho, J.A.; Jaques, P.A. The Impact of Gamification on Students’ Learning, Engagement and Behavior Based on Their Personality Traits. Smart Learn. Environ. 2020, 7, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Armstrong, M.B.; Landers, R.N. Gamification of Employee Training and Development. Int. J. Train. Dev. 2018, 22, 162–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, M.J.; Wang, X.; Love, P.; Li, H.; Kang, S.-C. Virtual Reality for the Built Environment: A Critical Review of Recent Advances. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 2013, 18, 279–305. [Google Scholar]
- Li, X.; Yi, W.; Chi, H.-L.; Wang, X.; Chan, A.P.C. A Critical Review of Virtual and Augmented Reality (VR/AR) Applications in Construction Safety. Autom. Constr. 2018, 86, 150–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Lin, Y.-I.; Hou, S.-Y. A Data Mining Approach for Training Evaluation in Simulation-Based Training. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2015, 80, 171–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chi, H.-L.; Kang, S.-C.; Wang, X. Research Trends and Opportunities of Augmented Reality Applications in Architecture, Engineering, and Construction. Autom. Constr. 2013, 33, 116–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Dunston, P.S. Design, Strategies, and Issues towards an Augmented Reality-Based Construction Training Platform. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 2007, 12, 363–380. [Google Scholar]
- Bell, B.S.; Kanar, A.M.; Kozlowski, S.W.J. Current Issues and Future Directions in Simulation-Based Training in North America. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2008, 19, 1416–1434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nykänen, M.; Puro, V.; Tiikkaja, M.; Kannisto, H.; Lantto, E.; Simpura, F.; Uusitalo, J.; Lukander, K.; Räsänen, T.; Heikkilä, T.; et al. Implementing and Evaluating Novel Safety Training Methods for Construction Sector Workers: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Saf. Res. 2020, 75, 205–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cannon-Bowers, J.; Bowers, C.A. Synthetic Learning Environments: On Developing a Science of Simulation, Games, and Virtual Worlds for Training. In Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations; Kozlowski, S.W.J., Salas, E., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grabowski, A.; Jankowski, J. Virtual Reality-Based Pilot Training for Underground Coal Miners. Saf. Sci. 2015, 72, 310–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sacks, R.; Perlman, A.; Barak, R. Construction Safety Training Using Immersive Virtual Reality. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2013, 31, 1005–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sacks, R.; Whyte, J.; Swissa, D.; Raviv, G.; Zhou, W.; Shapira, A. Safety by Design: Dialogues between Designers and Builders Using Virtual Reality. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2015, 33, 55–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, H.; Yu, Y.; Skitmore, M. Visualization Technology-Based Construction Safety Management: A Review. Autom. Constr. 2017, 73, 135–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rokooei, S.; Shojaei, A.; Alvanchi, A.; Azad, R.; Didehvar, N. Virtual Reality Application for Construction Safety Training. Saf. Sci. 2023, 157, 105925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biswas, P.; Orero, P.; Swaminathan, M.; Krishnaswamy, K.; Robinson, P. Adaptive Accessible AR/VR Systems. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’21), New York, NY, USA, 7 May 2021; Volume 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Ansi, A.M.; Jaboob, M.; Garad, A.; Al-Ansi, A. Analyzing augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) recent development in education. Soc. Sci. Humanit. Open 2023, 8, 100532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holman, D.; Pavlica, K.; Thorpe, R. Rethinking Kolb’s Theory of Experiential Learning in Management Education. Manag. Learn. 1997, 28, 135–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ricci, F.; Pelosi, A.; Panari, C.; Chiesi, A. Safety Training 4.0: Active, Collaborative, Human-Focused Practices, to Improve Health at Work. Transdiscipl. Eng. Methods Soc. Innov. Ind. 2018, 4, 310–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karunathilake, H.; Bakhtavar, E.; Chhipi-Shrestha, G.; Mian, H.R.; Hewage, K.; Sadiq, R. Decision Making for Risk Management: A Multi-Criteria Perspective; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 239–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Viegas, R.A.; Mota, F. de A. da S.; Costa, A.P.C.S.; dos Santos, F.F.P. A Multi-Criteria-Based Hazard and Operability Analysis for Process Safety. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2020, 144, 310–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- La Fata, C.M.; Giallanza, A.; Micale, R.; La Scalia, G. Ranking of Occupational Health and Safety Risks by a Multi-Criteria Perspective: Inclusion of Human Factors and Application of VIKOR. Saf. Sci. 2021, 138, 105234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ford, M.T.; Tetrick, L.E. Safety Motivation and Human Resource Management in North America. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2008, 19, 1472–1485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barati Jozan, M.M.; Ghorbani, B.D.; Khalid, M.S.; Lotfata, A.; Tabesh, H. Impact Assessment of E-Trainings in Occupational Safety and Health: A Literature Review. BMC Public Health 2023, 23, 1187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lippin, T.M.; Eckman, A.; Calkin, K.R.; McQuiston, T.H. Empowerment-Based Health and Safety Training: Evidence of Workplace Change from Four Industrial Sectors. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2000, 38, 697–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Luskin, J.; Somers, C.; Wooding, J.; Levenstein, C. Teaching Health and Safety: Problems and Possibilities for Learner-centered Training. Am. J. Ind. Med. 1992, 22, 665–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z.; Jiang, Z.; Blackman, A. Linking Emotional Intelligence to Safety Performance: The Roles of Situational Awareness and Safety Training. J. Saf. Res. 2021, 78, 210–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adams, D.M.; Mayer, R.E.; MacNamara, A.; Koenig, A.; Wainess, R. Narrative Games for Learning: Testing the Discovery and Narrative Hypotheses. J. Educ. Psychol. 2012, 104, 235–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oblinger, D.G. The Next Generation of Educational Engagement. J. Interact. Media Educ. 2004, 2004, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seaman, J.; Brown, M.; Quay, J. The Evolution of Experiential Learning Theory: Tracing Lines of Research in the JEE. J. Exp. Educ. 2017, 40, NP1–NP21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morris, T.H. Experiential Learning—A Systematic Review and Revision of Kolb’s Model. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2020, 28, 1064–1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dantas, L.A.; Cunha, A. An Integrative Debate on Learning Styles and the Learning Process. Soc. Sci. Humanit. Open 2020, 2, 100017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wijnen-Meijer, M.; Brandhuber, T.; Schneider, A.; Berberat, P.O. Implementing Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle by Linking Real Experience, Case-Based Discussion and Simulation. J. Med. Educ. Curric. Dev. 2022, 9, 238212052210915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Safety Training Method | References |
---|---|
Traditional lectures and lectures enriched with multimedia materials | [18,24,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35] |
E-learning and b-learning | [36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47] |
Active training methods supported by discussions and gamification | [48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72] |
Augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) | [22,23,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87] |
Demonstration and simulation | [18,88,89] |
STRENGTHS | large amount of knowledge transferred; option to train a large group of participants at one time; using the authority of the lecturer; focus on various topics, including specialised ones; increasing the interest of the audience by using multimedia materials in the lecture content | WEAKNESSES | monotony and loss of concentration with the traditional lecture model; lack of interaction between participants and between participants and the lecturer; lack of individualisation; lack of feedback and progress assessment during training; poor quality of training with a lack of didactic skills of the trainer |
OPPORTUNITIES | possibility to use new technologies; possibility to complement with other methods including dialogue and interaction; use of real-life examples can facilitate learning and acquisition of skills; possibility to use own knowledge and experience | THREATS | lack of opportunity to apply knowledge in practice; possibility of losing interest of participants; possible lack of adaptation to other learning styles; possibility of limited retention of information |
STRENGTHS | flexibility of learning; flexibility in time and space; no (e-learning) or limited (b-learning) presence of the trainer in the whole learning process; global reach of the training method; training of a large group of participants at one time | WEAKNESSES | requirement to use IT tools and learning platforms; requirement for self-discipline on the part of the learner; lack of direct interaction between trainer and learner; lack of practical experience |
OPPORTUNITIES | possibility to develop technology resulting in increased training efficiency; possibility to exchange knowledge and views at a distance; possibility to conduct training during unfavourable conditions for face-to-face contact | THREATS | risk of digital exclusion; potentially high cost and time-consuming implementation of e-learning; lack of control over the learning and knowledge acquisition process; transfer of responsibility for the learning process to the learner |
STRENGTHS | interaction between discussion participants; exchange of views among discussion participants; learning through experience and play increased interest; applying theory to practise; learning through reflection | WEAKNESSES | ease of introduction of gamification design flaws; inadequacy of the teacher; need for strong interpersonal skills of the facilitator; need to organise aspects of gamification |
OPPORTUNITIES | possibility to monitor educational progress; possibility to increase effectiveness by interweaving methods; possibility for the trainees involved to come up with their own game ideas | THREATS | possibility of conflicts and loss of control; possibility of unreliable information during discussions; possibility of incompleteness or faults in game elements; possible demotivation of trainees as a result of low scores obtained during the game; possibility of exclusion on grounds of age |
STRENGTHS | safe experience of real incidents in a virtual environment; direct involvement of trainees; increase of participants’ awareness of the risks involved; better memorising and assimilating knowledge; consolidation of safe working practices; flexibility of place and time | WEAKNESSES | expensive purchase of hardware and software; long time to prepare the software and for the trainers to learn how to use it; problematic use of goggles by visually impaired people; lack or limitation of the social dimension of learning and the application of acquired knowledge and skills to the real world |
OPPORTUNITIES | possibility to monitor training; progress and evaluate its effectiveness; possibility to improve your skills | THREATS | possibility of simulation disease; possibility of technological exclusion; possibility of exclusion on grounds of age; possibility of technical faults making it impossible to continue training; close work in front of a screen |
STRENGTHS | learning by doing; individual approach; feedback on an ongoing basis; interaction between participants and between participants and trainer; effectiveness of transferred knowledge | WEAKNESSES | training results depend primarily on the competence of the trainer; requirement for at least intermediate interpersonal skills |
OPPORTUNITIES | high frequency of repetition can result in better learning; possibility to learn fast decision-making in crisis situations; possibility to use modern technology | THREATS | training effects may depend on the personal conditions of the trainees; possibility of stressful situations under social pressure |
Criterion | Characteristics | Points |
---|---|---|
Training room equipment | New technologies (VR goggles, exoskeleton, etc.). | 1 |
Interactive whiteboard and computers for every user, learning games | 2 | |
Chalkboard and computer with projector | 3 | |
Number of participants | Up to 10 persons | 1 |
Up to 25 persons | 2 | |
Over 25 persons | 3 | |
Possibility of mixing the method with other training techniques | Low discretion | 1 |
Medium discretion | 2 | |
Large discretion | 3 | |
Financial input for training preparation | >1000 $ | 1 |
250–1000 $ | 2 | |
<250 $ | 3 | |
Reach of the method | Individual | 1 |
Group | 2 | |
Global | 3 | |
Trainer’s knowledge | Expert | 1 |
Specialist | 2 | |
Basic | 3 | |
Trainer’s soft skills | None or small | 1 |
Medium | 2 | |
Large or very large | 3 | |
Labour input for training preparation | >15 h | 1 |
5–15 h | 2 | |
<5 h | 3 | |
Time during which learners actively participate in the training | <50% of training time | 1 |
50–75% of training time | 2 | |
>75% of training time | 3 | |
Level of memorisation of training content | <30% | 1 |
30–70% | 2 | |
>70% | 3 | |
Monitoring of learning and knowledge acquisition | No control | 1 |
Part-control | 2 | |
Full control | 3 | |
Interactions between trainees or between trainees and the trainer | No | 1 |
Rare | 2 | |
Frequent | 3 | |
Digital exclusion | Large | 1 |
Medium | 2 | |
No exclusion | 3 | |
Number of session overtime | 1 h | 1 |
2–3 h | 2 | |
>3 h | 3 |
Traditional Lectures and Lectures Enriched with Multimedia Materials | E-Learning and b-Learning | Active Training Methods Supported by Discussions and Gamification | AR and VR | Demonstration and Simulation | |||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Expert | Expert | Expert | Expert | Expert | |||||||||||||||||||||
I | II | III | IV | V | I | II | III | IV | V | I | II | III | IV | V | I | II | III | IV | V | I | II | III | IV | V | |
Training room equipment | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
Number of participants | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
Possibility of mixing the method with other training techniques | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
Financial input for training preparation | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Reach of the method | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
Trainer’s knowledge | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Trainer’s soft skills | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 |
Labour input for training preparation | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 |
Time during which learners actively participate in the training | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
Level of memorisation of training content | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 |
Monitoring of learning and knowledge acquisition | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
Interactions between trainees or between trainees and the trainer | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 |
Digital exclusion | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
Number of session overtime | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
Traditional Lectures and Lectures Enriched with Multimedia Materials | E-Learning and b-Learning | Active Training Methods Supported by Discussions and Gamification | AR and VR | Demonstration and Simulation | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Training room equipment | 3.0 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.0 | 2.2 |
Number of participants | 3.0 | 3.0 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 2.0 |
Possibility of mixing the method with other training techniques | 1.8 | 1.0 | 2.8 | 3.0 | 1.6 |
Financial input for training preparation | 3.0 | 1.2 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.8 |
Reach of the method | 2.0 | 3.0 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
Trainer’s knowledge | 1.0 | 2.2 | 2.0 | 2.8 | 1.0 |
Trainer’s soft skills | 2.2 | 1.6 | 2.6 | 1.8 | 2.2 |
Labour input for training preparation | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.4 | 2.8 | 2.0 |
Time during which learners actively participate in the training | 1.2 | 2.0 | 2.8 | 3.0 | 2.4 |
Level of memorisation of training content | 1.0 | 1.6 | 2.8 | 3.0 | 2.2 |
Monitoring of learning and knowledge acquisition | 1.4 | 1.0 | 2.8 | 3.0 | 2.4 |
Interactions between trainees or between trainees and the trainer | 1.8 | 1.6 | 2.8 | 1.4 | 2.2 |
Digital exclusion | 3.0 | 1.0 | 2.2 | 1.4 | 2.8 |
Number of session overtime | 1.4 | 2.4 | 2.6 | 2.4 | 1.4 |
Total | 26.8 | 24.2 | 31.0 | 30.2 | 27.8 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Bęś, P.; Strzałkowski, P. Analysis of the Effectiveness of Safety Training Methods. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2732. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16072732
Bęś P, Strzałkowski P. Analysis of the Effectiveness of Safety Training Methods. Sustainability. 2024; 16(7):2732. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16072732
Chicago/Turabian StyleBęś, Paweł, and Paweł Strzałkowski. 2024. "Analysis of the Effectiveness of Safety Training Methods" Sustainability 16, no. 7: 2732. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16072732