June 14, 2015
June 14, 2015
June 17, 2015
Eco-Car Poster Session
26.1352.1 - 26.1352.16
Safety training system design for student teams van Lanen Daniel1, Ellsworth Patrick2, Gaffney Ben2, Keillor Peter1, MacDonald Lauren1, Fowler Michael1, Fraser Roydon2 1 Deparment of Chemical Engineering, University of Waterloo 2 Deparment of Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering, University of WaterlooAbstractMany approaches exist for the creation of safety training programs. Systems have been createdfor both large and small businesses that vary in complexity. Few of these approaches howeverare simple enough to be used on student design teams, which are made up of young adults whoare also full time students. These student teams are student driven and apply classroomknowledge to real world work under limited faculty supervision, specifically when hands-onwork is being executed. As student focused organizations, these teams often rely on theiruniversity’s or college’s guidelines to develop a set of standard operating procedures. Thoughthese set a base for the team, the guidelines are no substitute for training that is specific to thesafety risks associated with the work the team is doing. It is also difficult to convince studentteam leaders to invest time into training team members who may not participate on an ongoingbasis.By developing a hierarchical level based safety training system with the principals ofgamification, the needs of all participating stakeholders, regulations, and guidelines are met.Students are required to show certain levels of commitment before advancing in their trainingand involvement in team activities. They are thus also limited to certain lower risk tasks at eachlevel. This leveled system, with a combination of other factors, motivates students to becomemore involved with the team and shows them the reward of completing additional training. Thisprocess allows the student’s team leads conducting the training to make sure there iscommitment from the participating students before dedicating valuable time to safety training. Inthe case presented the team has had over 100 students participate in the program and teamleaders have seen drive to continue their training in order to grow in responsibility ad activitywithin the team.IntroductionSafety training is an important aspect of any organization and is a legislative requirement in mostjurisdictions. Safety training itself is described as a way of helping workers become more skilledand prepared in seven key areas of hazard control and reduction; hazard seeking, hazardrecognition, assessment of importance, allocation of responsibility, knowledge of action,decision to act, and action sequence, Figure 1 . This multistage process can be toocumbersome for student teams which participate as full time students often with limited trainingin industrial organization structures. Figure 1: Classification of the stages of perception and response to danger Though this classification can be used to determine how employees view safe workingprocedures and has been heavily reviewed. The traditional approach has been to train employeesretroactively based off of events that direct proceed an accident . However, in order to beproactive in safety training, a more systematic approach is required . Though a systematicsafety management system can be used its complexity can be beyond the scope of what isachievable on a small scale of a university student design team composed of young adults (17-26years old). This is especially appropriate since such teams do not have dedicated safety trainingstaff.Small business approaches attempt to simplify the approach by creating systems that focus onthree principal areas: safe persons, safe systems, and safe places . This approach, thoughsimplified, can still be a challenge for student teams as there is no monetary motivation whichcan be important for young workers . Nevertheless, it is in the interest of the institution andany competitions that the students may be associated with to ensure all activities are undertakenin a safe and environmentally responsible manner. Studies have shown that socioecologicalapproaches are effective for young workers as both teaching paradigms and learning paradigmsare disconnected from actual work context . All of the approaches summarized in Table 1have important aspects but none form a complete structure which can be utilized by studentteams. Table 1: Summary of safety training program styles Safety Training Program Approach Shortfall Type Traditional Retroactive training Does not address proactive measures for high risk activities till injury occurs Large Systematic Fully examine all Complex system beyond the “environmental” factors capabilities of student teams directly and indirectly relating to work Small Business Simplified Examine ways to make safer Simplified structure but no persons, safer systems and motivational factors needed safer places. for young workers Socioecological Experiential based training Complex system with no putting an emphasis on the simplified framework that learner role can be usedIn Ontario safety training is covered by the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA)(Ontario Regulation 297/13) . This regulation outlines the required training for full time, parttime, seasonal and any other worker regardless of their employment status. A worker underOHSA is described as someone who supplies a service for monetary compensation .Universities however have policies in which it states that students are also workers and thereforeregulated by OHSA  . The awareness programs for students must therefore include thesame information as a worker receiving compensation. In Ontario specifically, according toOntario Regulation 297/13, workers of any type require at the very least a basic safety trainingthat covers the following: 1. The duties and rights of workers under the Act. 2. The duties and rights of employers and supervisors under the Act. 3. The roles of health and safety representatives and joint health and safety committees under the Act. 4. The roles of the Ministry, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, etc. with respect to occupational health and safety. 5. Common workplace hazards. 6. WHMIS safety training with respect to information and instruction on controlled products. 7. Occupational illness, including latency. At the local level most universities have a policy on health and safety. The University ofWaterloo has both a Health, Safety, and Environment policy (Policy 34) but also a Health,Safety, and Environment Management System (HSEMS)  . It is under the HSEMS wherestudents are described as “persons on the university premises, whether for monetarycompensation or educational or other purpose” . This includes a variety of persons, includingstudents, for which the university offers awareness training to comply with OHSA.As previously described, students must know what the duties and rights are under OSHA as wellas the duties of supervisors. Note in the case of student teams, the student team leaders oftenprovide the onsite supervision of the physical activities and as such assume some of theresponsibilities of the supervisor. Their knowledge must also include the role of governingbodies such as the Ministry of Labour, common hazards, Workplace Hazardous MartialsInformation System (WHMIS), and occupational illness .This awareness training is the minimum safety training required by law for any worker, which asdiscussed includes students. However, this does not entail specific training for specific hazardsone might encounter as a member of these teams. Thus, as mentioned earlier, most student teamsadopt their respective institution's guidelines for their safety training. These guidelines howeverare not always sufficient enough to create a reliable system for training new recruits to the team.Student teams allow engineering students to apply classroom theories on real world projectsinvolving design and build phases, and as such significant safety risks are associated. As studentdriven organizations, these teams often rely principally on their university’s or college’sguidelines to develop a set of standard operating procedures. Though these set a base for theteam, the guidelines are no substitute for training that is specific to the safety risks associatedwith work the team is doing. At times, there is limited faculty supervision for such teams in theactual work bays and laboratories, unlike a lab associated with a class which will have onsitestaff, teach assistant or faculty oversight when the physical work is being executed. It is alsodifficult to convince student team leaders to invest time into training team members who may notparticipate on an ongoing basis. In this work a safety training system was implemented at auniversity for further refinement and preliminary feedback from the students, faculty, as well asany associated competition organizers. A case study associated with the Advanced VehicleTechnology Competition is outlined. As such this case demonstrated that there is a need fordevelopment of a system of safety training for all those involved in order to meet safetyregulations and guidelines, as well as demonstrate to all interested stakeholders that safety risksare appropriately addressed. Most importantly such a system ensures safe conduct of allactivities.Young Adult Safety TrainingSafety training is important no matter the age of the worker. However, the attitude towards safetytraining is generally not positive, especially in young adults. In a study from 2012, it was foundthat teenagers largely thought they did not require safety training as it was deemed “commonsense” . However within the same group of teenagers 52 % had some form of workplacerelated injury .This observation is supported by the statistics which show that the highest injury rate in theUnited States was 18-24 year olds in 2007 . Both the fatality and emergency department visitinjury rate for this age group were higher from 1998-2007, with the emergency department visitinjury rate being double that of those greater than 25 (5.0 per 100 full time equivalents) .This trend shows that there is a strong need for safety training for students that attempts tocombat the “common sense” mentality.For this training system to work, students will need to be motivated to participate in it. Toencourage this motivation in students, the University of Waterloo Alternative Fuels Team(UWAFT) has implemented a strategy for safety training which includes gamification.Gamification is defined as the process of “enriching products, services, and information systemswith game-design elements in order to positively influence motivation, productivity, andbehaviour of users” . It has been successfully implemented in academic settings to increasestudent learning, as well as in many familiar companies for things such as customer engagement,customer loyalty, goal tracking, and motivation. A relatively well-known example ofgamification in action is the way Nike+ motivates its users . Participants in the Nike+program earn a certain amount of Nikefuel for the amount they move. With the Nike+ Fuelapplication for the iPhone and a Fuelband, a physical wristband participants wear, users can trackhow much Nikefuel they have earned. Users work towards achieving their fitness goals, whileearning badges when they hit milestones along the way. Not only do participants experience thesatisfaction of earning badges at milestones when they put in enough work, but they also get avisual representation of the progress they have made. This program has helped over two millionpeople burn upwards of 68 billion calories, making it a very successful program and a greatexample of gamification at work .In the training system proposed here, students will be able to visualize their progress based onthe level of training they have reached. These levels track students so that as they increase theirtraining level they can increase their hands-on involvement with the design project. This way, ifa student wants to get more involved in the project they need to complete another level of safetytraining first. With each level comes more responsibilities and status in the team, making itdesirable for students to “level up”. Like earning a badge in Nike+, students who complete ahigher level of training will feel a sense of satisfaction with the new tasks they are allowed toengage in and the increased trust they are given. This I turn motivates students to reach the nextlevel to gain even more trust and responsibility.For example, if a student wants to get more involved heavily to lead a project, they can completethe next level of training and have the experience and satisfaction of being able to work on theproject themselves. Since, in this scenario, the students themselves want to be more involved,their motivation to complete the training can be categorized as integrated regulation. Their goalby completing the training is to become more involved in the team, a goal that is fully integratedwith the student’s values . This makes their motivation to complete the training moreinternalized than if the students were forced to complete all the training or suffer some kind ofpunishment or tangible reward, like external regulation. The goal is to make students asmotivated as possible to complete their safety training, so that more students are able toparticipate and learn within the design and build team in a safe environment. Therefore, themore internalized the motivation, the more safety training the students will complete.Introducing levels into the training system will, in theory, help teams reach this goal.Student Design Team Safety TrainingStudent teams at the University of Waterloo employ a variety of safety training programs andstructures. Students are surveyed to determine what level of safety training existed on their team.Of the 18 teams that have an association with the Sendra Student Design Centre at the Universityof Waterloo, nine submitted responses.On laboratory based teams, the level of safety training is already substantial. This observationhowever could be due to the structure already in place for laboratory training for graduate andundergraduate students. The training offered by these groups covers all awareness requirementsfrom the Ministry of Labour and the University of Waterloo  . Team members alsocomplete supervisor training and have laboratory supervisors who work with new teammembers.Teams outside of a laboratory structure had a wide range of programs. The majority of studentteams complete basic modules completed by the university such as Workplace HazardousMaterial Information System (WHMIS) training. However, additional training is largelyprovided on an as needs basis with limited formal structure. Additional training is not evenoffered on some teams which utilize a “learn as you go” program. No teams in this categoryprovided training to those who supervise the new recruits and the work that is completed in thegarage space.The safety training program structure that is described in this work is targeted towards teams thatdo not already work inside an existing supervision university framework. The programs attemptto integrate sociological and psychological factors to create a socioecological program that hasbeen suggested in other works . It is meant as a framework that student teams can use toaddress what safety is required on their team, and to gradually conduct safety training as studentsbecome more active members.It is important to understand the structure and work that is completed on the UWAFT tocomprehend both the safety training program and hierarchy that is discussed in this work.UWAFT is a multidisciplinary automotive student team made up of undergraduate and graduatestudents at the University of Waterloo (UW) and Wilfrid Laurier University (WLU). Theteam has a technical (mechanical, electrical, mechatronics, chemical, and systems), projectmanagement, and communications sub-teams. The team competes in Advanced VehicleTechnology Competitions, and in this case EcoCAR 3, to reengineer a Chevrolet Camaro toreduce emissions while maintaining performance . Not all members of the team requireadvanced safety training as they do not work directly on the vehicle. Some baseline training ishowever required for educational purposes as all students participate in outreach events andshow the vehicle in the community.Design and Application of Innovative Student Safety Training ProgramThe safety training for the student team is a progressive multi-tier system that is separated intofour levels. The four different levels are used to reflect the role, responsibility, and legislativerequirements for each student and the tasks they complete. This system is designed such thatstudents can be eased into the team while meeting specific safety targets, increasing the overallteam safety standard, and motivating them to become more involved. As students move throughthe safety training levels and become more active participants on the team, they move throughlegislative, school specific, team specific, task specific, and supervisor training that isrepresented in Figure 2. This approach helps to lay a foundation of safe practices that can growas the student grows within the team. Figure 2: Hierarchy of safety training systemLevel One Safety TrainingTo become level one certified on the team, the student must complete all university modulespertaining to workers and students. Level one is used as an introductory period, and is the firststep for students who want to join the team. In addition to the safety training, students must beaware of emergency procedure outlined in team documentation, where the documentation exists,and sign all Non-Disclosure Agreements pertinent to the team. All team members must completelevel one training regardless of the work they will do on the team, even if they will nevercomplete any technical work.As level one training only covers awareness, students at this level are limited in their teamparticipation. Once level one is complete, students are able to access all information on computerservers and use any team computers that have specific software pertinent to the team’s day-to-day function. This level allows students to participate immediately upon level completion.Students however have not yet had training on specific equipment, nor safe work and operatingprocedures and are therefore prohibited from participating in hands on work.Level Two Safety TrainingLevel two training extends the awareness knowledge beyond the legislative and university level,to information that is specific to the risks associated with student team. This information includescommonly used tools, machines, and facilities and is taught by team members or university staffwho know either the specific equipment or how the team functions. This training is meant to beintroductory and the first step to more active team participation.Within UWAFT, there are three main modules that are part of level two safety training. The firstmodule is a training session on general shop safety and facilities. This session includes basictraining on Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), shop layout, emergency equipment and exits,and other pertinent information to day-to-day hands-on activities. The second module is on basicelectrical safety. This module covers information for low voltage (12V) electrical work,including best practices and safe operating procedures. The final module is on generalmechanical work and procedures, covering commonly used tools and best practices. All modulestogether form a foundation for team specific training that address risk for common activities onthe team.Once all practical hands-on training modules have been completed, students are now able tocomplete hands-on work and become more active participants on the team. As they are new teammembers, they are still limited to the work that they can complete. Some tasks which are deemedof greater risk or severity of injury are reserved for higher levels. These tasks include theoperation of heavy lifting equipment and high voltage design, construction, and operation. Inorder to further reduce the risk of injury, level two students must always be supervised and workin groups with higher level students. This stipulation on supervision ensures that more trainedindividuals are always around making sure best practices and safe procedures are beingobserved.Level Three Safety TrainingLevel three training is meant to give students more in depth knowledge on specific tasks that arecompleted on the student team. Level three training becomes much more specialized and ismeant for students who have proven their dedication to the team. These students are thereforetrusted with higher risk work within UWAFT including advanced mechanical work, engineemissions and hazards, and high voltage.The advanced mechanical training is meant to give students more knowledge and to givestudents more responsibility within the groups in which they work. The training includes areview of PPE and best practices as level three students may be required to help supervisestudents if only indirect supervision is possible by a level four student. Training on heavy liftingequipment such as a vehicle lift and engine crane is also completed at this stage.Engine emissions and hazard training is meant to give students who will be working with theengine dynamometer. Engine testing can produce emissions that can cause fatalities if notconfigured properly. The operating temperature of engines can also cause severe burns and thehigh velocity of the rotational components of engines can cause severe injury. It is due to thesecharacteristics that task specific safety training is required for this type of work.High Voltage training is meant to train students on the hazards of working with or near highvoltage. For UWAFT this involves working with vehicle powertrains and battery systems. It isnot meant to train students on how to design, build, and commission the high voltage systems inthe vehicle, as this is a higher level of risk and is reserved for a certification. Hands-onawareness training and best practices for working on and near high voltage is completed at thisstage. This training is completed by reviewing the required PPE and emergency procedures thatare specific to this type of work.Completion of the training modules does not directly allow students to become a level threestudent. In order to show dedication to the team and in order for current team members to beginto see how the student works a time requirement in place. In addition to the training studentsmust complete 15 hours of practical hands-on work with the team in addition to the trainingrequirements to fully become level three certified.Level Four Safety TrainingLevel four is meant to be the final layer of training for students who are the main supervisor forthe day-to-day activities and work completed by lower levels. Level four students have thehighest level of responsibility and therefore must be approved by the faculty advisor for thestudent team in addition to meeting the requirements. To meet the legislative requirementsstudents must complete the safety training modules for supervisors which are provided at theuniversity level. In addition to the completion of these modules team members must complete sixhours of high voltage work, six hours of mechanical work, and eight hours of aiding an alreadycertified level four student in the supervision of group work. The hour requirements are to ensurethat the student has the diverse knowledge base that can be required for a multidisciplinary teamlike UWAFT. It is only after students meet the learning and hour requirements and obtain facultyapproval that students can become level four and have completed all level based safety trainingoutlined in Table 2. Table 2: Summary of safety levels for student teams Safety Training Training Requirements Allowable work Restricted work Level Level One Computer based Computer based Hands-on work in awareness training design work any form Community events Level Two Team specific Level one plus: High voltage awareness training Hands-on work Heavy lifting Hands-on general Low voltage work equipment training Engine dynamometer Level Three Task specific awareness Level two plus Direct supervision training Aid in supervision High voltage Hands-on specific task Work on design, build, and training commissioned commissioning 15 hours of Level Two high voltage work Heave lift equipment Level Four Supervisor training Level three plus: Specialized work 20 hours of Level Three Supervise work if not certified workAdditional Safety Training CertificationsExtremely high risk tasks are given even more attention within the four level training programand have specific certifications that can be obtained at the appropriate level. There are twocertifications that are employed on UWAFT: High Voltage, and Prototype Vehicle Driving.High Voltage certification is meant for students that will design, construct, and install any highvoltage equipment. This certification can be completed by students who have already completedthe level three task specific training which includes the basics of high voltage work. Thecertification for high voltage tries to align the team’s training to issues discussed in the CanadianStandard Association’s Workplace Electrical Safety Standard (CSA Z462) which is similar toNFPA 70E in the USA. Though hazards involving working around high voltage and requiredPPE are discussed in level three, the certification allows students to design, build, andcommission the high voltage systems within the vehicle. This certification involves working witha High Voltage certified student for a minimum of 20 hours. Additional training is conducted onhow to work with potentially energized systems and how to prove their isolation from othercomponents of the vehicle is provided as part of the certification process. Best practices and safeoperating procedure for high voltage design are also reviewed with the student.Prototype Vehicle Driving certification is meant to allow students to drive the prototype vehicleon public roads after it has been approved to do so by the AVTC organizers. This certificationcan be completed by students who have completed all four safety levels and is both meant toreward students for their dedication to the team, and recognize the added responsibility that theyhave taken on. To obtain this certification, students must complete two practical tests. The first isto prove that the student has an advanced understanding of the components and how they areintegrated into the vehicle. This test is to ensure that should an event occur while driving thevehicle the student can perform a preliminary diagnostic. The second test is to prove that thestudent is a good and responsible driver when driving the prototype vehicle. A standard road testis completed with a Prototype Vehicle Driving certified team member. Upon completion of thesetwo tests, students are able to drive the prototype vehicle on the road. It is important to note thatthe student must also have a full license to drive according to the jurisdiction in which they live. Table 3: Summary of certifications for student teams Certification Training Requirements Certified Skill Minimum Level HV Certification High voltage design Design high voltage Level 3 best practices systems High voltage Build high voltage construction safe systems operating procedures Commission high voltage systems Prototype Prototype vehicle Drive the prototype Level 4 Vehicle Driving awareness training vehicle Certification In vehicle drive testingProgram ImplementationThere are three main components that are required for the implementation of this type of safetytraining program: (1) documentation of the safety training program modules, (2) document templates used for proof of completion of the modules, hours, and level achieved for each student; and, (3) a safety board for visial representation is required to aid with the motivation and gamification of the safety program.Documentation is always an important aspect. As part of the EcoCAR 3 competition, the currentAVTC, a facilities binder must be created and prominently displayed within the student team’sfacilities. This facilities binder is similar to a safety management system. It contains allinformation pertaining to the safety program: emergency response plans and procedures,workplace hazards, best practices, safe operating procedures, material safety data sheets, inaddition to all training documentation. This document also has proper change managementprocedures to ensure that the documents are updated as the scope of the team evolves. Thisdocumentation is required as it not only is a reference for any student but also can be used byexisting team members for training purposes.If an incident were to occur it is important to show that students have met all of the safetyrequirements. This situtaion is why the templates are required for implementing this program.Each safety level has a signoff for each module and the hour requirements. These signoff sheetsare stored with the signed NDAs and other forms specific to each student. Should an incidentoccur on campus, the team will have the supporting documentation to confirm that the studentcompleted the necessary training modules to complete the work.The safety training level board is a requirement as it benefits both the students and the team. Theboard is a visual representation of the team as a whole and what training each student hascompleted to date, Figure 3. This vidusl allows higher level students and team leaders torecognize who has received what training. IT also provides a location to post all informationinfluding: emergance contact information, emergancy action nplans, hazardous materialinformation, and other pertinent infomration.The safety board is also part of the gamification of the safety training; students see which levelthey are, and want to improve to obtain a higher level. By limiting what each level can do,students also must take time to observe some advanced tasks, such as removing a high voltagebattery, is completed. This time where student are limited to observing further motivates studentsto try to achieve a higher level. Figure 3: Motivational safety training level boardUWAFT ImplementationUWAFT has had a large amount of success with the development and integration of the safetytraining system within the team. To date, over 100 students have participated in varying levels,with 73 students completing all requirements and the remaining in transition. The team currentlyhas 29 level one students, 27 level two students, 11 level three students, and 6 level fourstudents. In addition to the level requirements, four students have achieved high voltagecertification and five students have achieved prototype vehicle driving certification. A numberof specific benefits have been seen from the implementation, and are further discussed below.First, the safety management system allows UWAFT administrators to have a more organizedsystem to track team member progression through the team, and safety information in case of anemergency. In the past, it was difficult for team leaders to know and track the amount ofinformation for each team member, such as the execution of Non-Disclosure agreements, andspecific training. With the new system, each team member’s information is stored in a centralplace, which can be easily accessed should the need arise. The system has also helped toencourage growth within the team, pushing younger members to get more involved and progressthrough the safety training levels.Second, training is being conducted on a regular basis to all members involved in the project.Prior to the safety management system, training would be given sporadically from senior teammembers to junior members as tasks were encountered. This process would be a large timecommitment, as the training would be repeated multiple times for different members.Additionally, seeing as it was on a case-by-case basis, some members would not be trained in allareas of the car. With a standardized system, all students receive required baseline hazardawareness and educational training on the vehicle.Some modifications have been made to the program since its inception in September, 2014. HighVoltage certification was separated from level three specific task training by recommendation ofthe competition. This separation is because it would be possible that too many students wouldlearn high voltage design. Due to the potential serious injury that can be associated with this typeof work, the team would like to limit the amount of people with this certification to ensure thatsafety is maintained at all times with these components. This recommendation was implementedand has further improved the system, providing more detailed and advanced training to thosedoing the work.ConclusionUtilizing a simple hierarchical structure, a successful safety training program for student teamscan be created. This structure still allows students to gradually be trained as they get moreinvolved in the team but provides formal structure for this to occur. Locally, 67 students areofficially recorded in the program and nine certifications have been given. The safety trainingprogram has proven valuable for its motivational characteristics and is commonly used as areference to get to know new team members and monitor that their team activity corresponds totheir safety level. By utilizing gamification principals, students are motivated to become moreinvolved and want to complete the safety training to be able to complete additional tasks. Thisapproach is in line with new thinking for training your workers which moves away fromtraditional training and creates a more socioecological system. This system helps to grow theteam in both numbers and skills, as well as development of commitment to the team project as awhole.By utilizing this system, all documentation is also on file and readily available. In the event thatan incident were to occur on campus, the student team would be able to show both the universityand any government body what training the injured student received. The documentation is alsoreadily available for review which is a crucial component to any safety training program andsafety management system.References A. R. Hale, "Is safety training worthwile," Journal of Occupational Accidents, vol. 6, pp. 17-33, 1984. M. Gabowski and K. Roberts, "Human and organizational error in large scale systems," IEEE transaction on systems, man, and cybernetics - Part A: Systems and humans, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 2-16, 1996. J. Santos-Reyes and A. Beard, "A systematic approach to managing safety," Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, vol. 21, pp. 15-28, 2007. A. Makin and C. Winder, "A new conceptual framework to improve the application of occupational health and safety management systems," Safety Science, vol. 46, pp. 935-948, 2008. M. Laberge, E. MacEachen and B. Calvet, "Why are occupational health and safety training approaches not effective? Understanding your worker learning processes using an ergonomic lens," Safety Science, vol. 68, pp. 250-257, 2014. "Ontario Health and Safety Act," 5 December 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.e- laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_130297_e.htm. [Accessed 19 March 2015]. Ministry of Labour, "A Guide to OHSA Requirements for Basic Awareness Training," 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/hs/pdf/ohsaguide_training.pdf. [Accessed 17 March 2015]. Safety Office, University of Waterloo, "Policy 34 - Health, Safety and Environment Policy," 30 June 2010. [Online]. Available: https://uwaterloo.ca/secretariat-general- counsel/policies-procedures-guidelines/policy-34. [Accessed 17 March 2015]. Safety Office, University of Waterloo, "Health, Safety, and Environment Mangagement System," 20 June 2013. [Online]. Available: https://uwaterloo.ca/safety-office/policies- and-legislation/health-safety-and-environment-management-system#workers-students. [Accessed 17 March 2015]. K. M. Zierold, E. C. Welsh and T. J. McGeeney, "Attitudes of Teenagers Towards Workplace Safety Training," J Community Health, vol. 37, pp. 1289-1295, 2012. Center for Desease Control and Prevention, "Young Worker Safety and Health," 19 June 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/youth/chartpackage.html. [Accessed 18 March 2015]. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, "Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report," 23 April 2010. [Online]. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5915a2.htm. [Accessed 18 March 2015]. I. B. a. J. Leimeister, "Gamification," Business & Information Systems Engineering, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 275-8, 2013. J. L. Szalma, "On the Application of Motivation Theory to Human Factors/Ergonomics: Motivational Design Princiles for Human-Technology Interaction," Human Factors, vol. 56, no. 8, pp. 1459-60, 2014. University of Waterloo Alternative Fuels Team, "University of Waterloo Alternative Fuels Team - About Us," 2015. [Online]. Available: http://ecocar3.org/waterloo/about-us/. [Accessed 18 March 2015]. Argonne National Laboratory, "EcoCAR 3," 2015. [Online]. Available: http://ecocar3.org/. [Accessed 18 March 2015].
van Lanen, D. (2015, June), Safety Training System Design for Student Teams Paper presented at 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, Washington. 10.18260/p.24689
ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2015 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015