Michael L. Pate

Students’ Task Interpretation and Conceptual Understanding in an Electronics Laboratory

Task interpretation is a critical first step for students in the process of self-regulated learning, and a key determinant when they set goals in their learning and select strategies in assigned work. This paper focuses on the explicit and implicit aspects of task interpretation based on Hadwin’s model. Laboratory activities improve students’ conceptual understanding, as they utilize cognitive ability to integrate the new experiences these provide. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how students’ interpretation of a task assigned during laboratory work may change during the task process, and how this relates to their conceptual understanding. A total of 143 students enrolled in an electronics course participated in this paper. Instruments to measure task interpretation and conceptual understanding were created, piloted, and applied before and after selected laboratory activities over the semester. Findings suggest that while students’ task interpretation changes during the task process, increasing after the completion of the laboratory activity levels of task interpretation are low. Previous research findings—that students generally have an incomplete understanding of the assigned tasks and struggle to establish a connection between laboratory activities and the theory—were confirmed. Lastly, this paper reports a significant relationship between students’ task interpretation and their conceptual understanding in laboratory work. Further investigation is necessary to unveil other factors related to these constructs in order to engage students in laboratory work.

Utah Regional Differences in Respirator Use and Fit Testing among Pesticide Applicators

The purpose of this study was to determine regional differences within Utah in response to piloting a mobile respirator training and fit assessment program for pesticide applicators. The objectives were to describe worker perceptions of respirator use and training experiences. Pilot trainings were offered in two southern counties and two northern counties of Utah. A total of 141 individuals completed the post-training questionnaire regarding use and fit testing experience with respirators as well as perceptions of the benefits to protecting respiratory health. The majority of respondents were male (95.7%, f = 112). The proportion of participants in the southern counties who had respirator training experience (61.0%, f = 25) was not significantly higher (2 = 3.763, df = 1, p = 0.05) than the proportion of participants in the northern counties (43.0%, f = 43). Three-fourths (73.5%, f = 72) of participants in the northern counties agreed that they expect to wear a respirator in dusty conditions, while two-thirds (61.0%, f = 25) of participants in the southern counties agreed that they expect to wear a respirator in dusty conditions. The results indicated that more training should be done to improve perceptions and beliefs about using respirators. A high priority for this population will be identification of comfortable respirator options as well as communicating the importance of proper fit testing.

Innovations In Eye and Face Protection for Pesticide Applicators: The Selection and Use of Personal Protective Equipment

Abstract The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act provides enforcement of the required and recommended personal protective equipment (PPE) listed on pesticide labeling for eye and face protection. Eye protection must meet or exceed standards set by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). The differences between older pesticide label eye protection requirements and modern ANSI standards for eye and face protection are often different. Eye or face injuries may occur because pesticide applicators are wearing inappropriate equipment, if the equipment is being worn improperly, and/or when the equipment does not fit properly. It is not unusual to have different personal protective equipment (PPE) requirements on a pesticide label depending on the formulation toxicity, activity being performed, and/or handling/application equipment being used. It is important that pesticide handlers use the correct PPE. This paper focuses on the important aspects to consider when selecting and using eye and face protection for pesticide handling. Based on information collected from 1981 certified pesticide applicators over a three-year period it is very important that protective eyewear be comfortable so that it can be worn for extended periods of time. These applicators also indicated that one of the most important requirements for the wearing of eye protection is that the equipment be readily available and in good working condition.

Promoting Safety in High School Supervised Agricultural Experiences: Teachers’ Training and Student Injury Experiences

Abstract. This research study sought to gather evidence of safety training experiences, teacher professional development needs, and student injuries applicable to supervised agricultural experience (SAE) programs within Region I of the National Association of Agricultural Educators (NAAE). Approximately 79% (f = 201) reported having first aid/CPR/AED-general training. Thirty-two participants (12.5%) indicated having no safety certifications or trainings. Two-hundred participants (79%) agreed or strongly agreed that secondary agricultural education teachers need professional development training on increasing community agribusinesses’ involvement in supervising SAE programs. Abrasions, lacerations, bites and/or stings, and burns accounted for a majority of student SAE-related injuries that were reported. There were 90 participants (35.5%) that stated no injuries had been reported or they were not aware of any injuries that have occurred. The professional development topic with the lowest level of agreement (58.5%) was preparing safety guidelines for SAE programs. Other safety related professional development topics of interest from teachers included chain saw safety, greenhouse safety, ladder safety, and processing equipment. It can be concluded that SAE safety professional development and emergency response training are vital. Ideally, a recommendation would be to encourage all teachers to attend a professional development training specific to SAE safety and to receive emergency response training to ensure student safety, and keep records of any risk assessments conducted during SAE supervision. Agriculture teachers are in a prime position with SAEs to influence the safety culture in agriculture to protect their students. This will be vital to the continuation of this integral component of agricultural education.