African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and
Technology Education
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmse20
Probing Physical Sciences Teachers’ Chemical
Laboratory Safety Awareness in Some South
African High Schools
Remeredzayi Gudyanga
To cite this article: Remeredzayi Gudyanga (2020) Probing Physical Sciences Teachers’
Chemical Laboratory Safety Awareness in Some South African High Schools, African Journal
of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 24:3, 423-434, DOI:
10.1080/18117295.2020.1841960
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/18117295.2020.1841960
Published online: 26 Nov 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 483
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rmse20
African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2020
Vol. 24, No. 3, 423–434, https://doi.org/10.1080/18117295.2020.1841960
© 2020 Southern African Association for Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology
Education (SAARMSTE)
Research Article
Probing Physical Sciences Teachers’ Chemical Laboratory
Safety Awareness in Some South African High Schools
Remeredzayi Gudyanga
University of the Free State, Department of Education, SANRAL Chair, Bloemfontein, South Africa
Email: meregud@gmail.com
There is a scarcity of studies that focus on how South African high school physical sciences teachers are
grappling with chemical laboratory safety (CLS). This is despite the fact that the Curriculum and
Assessment Policy Statements in the South African school system increased emphasis on laboratory
activities in the physical sciences. Department of Basic Education authorities have increased the
supply of resources, including chemicals, in schools to ensure the successful implementation of the
practical component. This quantitative study investigates physical sciences teachers’ levels of CLS
awareness through a conceptual framework developed by the United States National Research Council
aimed at promoting chemical laboratory safety in developing countries. A laboratory safety survey
questionnaire for teachers was administered to 72 physical sciences teachers from 72 schools in one
province. The questionnaire consisted of 14 statements with a four-point Likert scale. Teacher CLS
awareness was found to be generally suboptimal, especially concerning awareness of safe chemical
storage and waste disposal, and emergency laboratory safety procedures. Results from the computed
Pearson chi-squared tests for statistical significance suggest that teachers from better-resourced
schools and those who had majored in chemistry had greater awareness than those from less wellresourced schools and those who had not majored in chemistry. Authorities could consider safety
awareness training to accompany the provision of resources to schools and target those teachers who
may not have majored in chemistry. Such training could include, but not be limited to, online laboratory
awareness courses that exploit the use of multiple virtual tools.
Keywords: Chemical laboratory safety; hazardous chemicals; physical sciences; inquiry-based learning;
laboratory activities
Introduction
Although hazardous chemicals are often used in school laboratories, safety awareness and safety
practices are often an afterthought in developing countries (Eguna et al., 2011). The recent global
Covid-19 outbreak has brought into focus different forms of health-related safety awareness issues
in schools, including chemical safety awareness (Kelley, 2020). Chemical laboratory safety (CLS)
is the result of a combination of attitudes, awareness and safe practices in addition to a strict observance of procedures (NRC, 2010). Where poor CLS awareness exists, teacher CLS practices are
most likely to be suboptimal. In the case of poor safety practices, chemical use and waste may
pose serious threats to the users and the environment. Even exposure to some reagents commonly
used in Grade 10 chemistry may present dangers in different forms and to different degrees since
some can be corrosive, explosive, easily oxidising, flammable, harmful, irritating or radioactive
(Walters et al., 2017). For example, methyl alcohol is carcinogenic, while exposure to nitric acid
fumes may result in breathing problems and poison the respiratory system (Steverlynck et al., 2017).
424
Remeredzayi Gudyanga
In the South African context, since 1994, there has been an increase in the provision of
science resources in schools for populations that were previously disadvantaged owing to
the discriminatory policies of the past (DBE, 2011). CAPS, the most recent curriculum
launched in 2012, places increased emphasis on laboratory activities for science learners
(Ramnarain & Fortus, 2013). In the subject of Physical Sciences (a composite of Chemistry
and Physics), the curriculum includes a set of practical laboratory experiments for Grade
10–12 that teachers and students need to conduct. To enhance the implementation of the
present curriculum, authorities have increased the supply of laboratory resources to schools,
including chemicals and science equipment (DBE, 2011). Researching on safety and security
in African University laboratories, Engida (2011) observed that the more the institutions engage
themselves with chemical laboratory activities, the more they may need safety and security
awareness and skills.
Safety considerations are arguably as important as the content taught in the science classroom (Eguna et al., 2011). Nonetheless, when most literature refers to curriculum implementation, the focus is often exclusively centred on the content. Literature is scarce on how
science teachers are dealing with chemical safety issues in South African schools. The literature
search conducted for this study failed to identify a single publication that focused specifically on
CLS awareness or practice. Most recent publications have focused more on inquiry-based learning through practical work in the laboratory (Ramnarain & Fortus, 2013; Tsakeni et al., 2019).
These studies have neglected safety challenges that may come with a heightened emphasis
on laboratory activities. Large science classes, with as many as 40 learners each, increase
the risk of laboratory accidents, and, in some cases, have led to some teachers shying away
from conducting important laboratory practical work (Ramnarain & Hobden, 2015). Uncertainty
on safety issues and the fear of taking responsibility in case accidents occur often lead teachers
to conduct only demonstrations or virtual laboratory activities, therefore depriving students of
hands-on experience in the laboratory (Richards-Babb et al., 2010; Sedghpour et al., 2013;
Torres et al., 2015).
Thus, this study sought to respond to the following questions:
.
.
What are teachers’ levels of awareness of chemical laboratory safety requirements and
procedures?
To what extent do teachers’ levels of awareness of chemical laboratory safety differ according to
school resource levels, teachers’ science specialisation and their teaching experience?
Pertinent Literature on Teachers’ Chemical Laboratory Safety Awareness
There is ample literature on school CLS worldwide, with studies using surveys to assess the level
of safety compliance in school laboratories (Eguna et al., 2011; Mogopodi et al., 2015; RichardsBabb et al., 2010). Questionnaires on laboratory safety have the advantage of being used to
obtain data from staff working in many laboratories over a short period (Walters et al., 2017). Attitudes, knowledge, awareness and teachers’ practices regarding CLS have been measured using
such questionnaires (Akpullukcu & Cavas, 2017; Walters et al., 2017). A challenge with these
questionnaire surveys on CLS in schools is the scarcity of clearly elaborated validation procedures. Akpullukcu and Cavas (2017) developed and validated a survey that was modified
and adapted for this research.
Many teacher preparation programmes do not adequately train today’s science teachers to
deal with the safety challenges they might face in the science classroom (Annetta et al.,
2014; Walters et al., 2017). In a study that sought to encourage incorporating CLS for inservice teachers, Annetta et al. (2014) employed serious educational games. Such approaches
could be used to expose in-service teachers to virtual situations in dealing with real-life safety
issues in laboratories. When used for modules on laboratory safety for in-service teachers,
serious educational games are effective in raising awareness in participants, yet without really
exposing them to the dangers of inadequate safety management. The field of virtual laboratories
African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education
425
and laboratory activities to complement and supplement hands-on, real-life laboratory practicals
has been extensively studied (Potkonjak et al., 2016; Torres et al., 2015; Zhu et al., 2018). Some
studies have concluded that exposure to online resources before an actual laboratory experiment is conducted can enhance teachers and students’ chemical laboratory safety awareness
(Zhu et al., 2018). However, virtual laboratories should not replace hands-on, real-life experiences in laboratories since virtual laboratories hardly facilitate students’ skills acquisition (Potkonjak et al., 2016).
The absence of systematic records on laboratory incidents such as injuries is a drawback
given the iterative nature of CLS: reviews of safety deficiencies (e.g. inspection notes) and
failures (e.g. injuries) guide improvement efforts (Schenk et al., 2018). Discourse on school
CLS provides opportunities to develop safety awareness among science teachers, which
could have a positive impact on current efforts to encourage inquiry-based learning (Ramnarain & Hobden, 2015) through laboratory work. When such awareness is enhanced, science
teachers are likely to conduct more laboratory work, with less fear of accountability as a
result of possible accidents.
A literature search on CLS in Africa yielded only a few publications on the subject (Mogopodi et al.,
2016). Investigating laboratory safety in 10 junior secondary schools in Botswana, Mogopodi et al.
(2016) discovered ‘unsound’ laboratory safety management practices, including poor inventory management and the absence of chemical waste disposal procedures.
In addition to the indispensability of hands-on chemical experiments for learners in their learning of science, many studies also emphasise the importance of developing chemical safety
awareness for both teachers and students (Eguna et al., 2011; Kandel et al., 2017). Sigmann
(2018) points out that some laboratory activities in high school can be too risky when teachers
have not been trained to conduct chemical experiments with groups of adolescents, or when laboratories lack proper emergency equipment or where there are no purpose-built laboratories to
conduct the experiments. There is wide consensus on the difference in approach to chemical
safety awareness between developed countries and developing countries. While laboratory
chemical safety awareness is prioritised in developed countries, it is often neglected in poorer
countries (Eguna et al., 2011; Kandel, 2017). For Schenk et al., (2018), some of the challenges
on CLS safety practices and awareness stem from large classes and teachers’ inadequate
understanding of adolescent behavioural patterns. In the same study, most teachers suggested
that the number of students permitted in a laboratory for a particular experiment should be
limited to 16 (Schenk et al., 2018). These aspects are of considerable concern in the South
African schooling system where class sizes have been reported to be very large (Ramatlapana
& Makonye, 2013). While some of the shortcomings in laboratory safety may be as a result of
constrained budgets (Eguna et al., 2011) or simply because of teachers’ uncertainty about
how to deal with adolescents behavioural challenges in confined spaces (Schenk et al.,
2018), many of the shortcomings may be because teachers are not aware of the safety requirements and procedures.
Conceptual Framework on Chemical Laboratory Safety
The conceptual framework for this study is developed by the National Research Council (NRC)
and is elaborated in a document entitled Promoting Chemical Laboratory Safety and Security in
Developing Countries (NRC, 2010). According to this framework, when establishing laboratory
safety programmes, developing countries ‘should consider the entire life cycle of chemicals—
from planning, procurement, and security to ultimate use and disposal’ (NRC, 2010, p. 41).
The framework elaborates some of the safety procedures and requirements that teachers
have to be aware of. Among these procedures and requirements are: security of chemicals;
fire and other hazards, evaluation, control and management; safety plans and chemical use;
storing laboratory chemicals; and disposing of laboratory chemical waste. These aspects are
summarised below.
426
Remeredzayi Gudyanga
Security of Chemicals
Some chemicals in school laboratories can pose a particular risk to teachers and students if
acquired by people who wish to inflict harm (NRC, 2010; Walters et al., 2015). For example,
methanol is a common solvent used even in Grade 10 experiments. It can easily enter the
body through the lungs, gut or skin, and once inside, it can transform to formic acid, which
causes metabolic acidosis and blinding retinal toxicity (Lim & Bryant, 2016). Any CLS
programme should ensure that all chemicals are secure from theft or unauthorised access.
Physical security measures include locked cabinets, storage areas and/or drawers, and,
perhaps, alarm systems.
Fire and Other Potential Hazards: Evaluation, Control and Management
Fires in the laboratory have been identified as some of the most frequently occurring incidents
(Sigmann, 2018). Teachers may be tempted to conduct experiments that show flames because
this can capture the attention of adolescents (Sigmann, 2018). Examples of such experiments are
the burning of strips of aluminium metal in oxygen to produce a bright flame or the dipping of Nichrome
wire in salt solution and holding the wire in a Bunsen burner flame (Sigmann, 2018). Combinations of
chemicals that result in extreme exothermic (heat-releasing) reactions can result in explosions if not
properly controlled (NRC, 2010). Potential fire incidences must be recognised and assessed so that
controls can be implemented to reduce risks (Sigmann, 2018). Handling practices and procedures
should be developed for potential laboratory hazards (Hill, 2019), such as in the appropriate use of
fume cupboards (NRC, 2010).
Safety Plans and Chemical use
Safety plans should be developed to document the hazards posed by chemicals (NRC, 2010; Schenk
et al., 2018). Hazards and chemical disposal methods should be documented in ways that permit teachers to supervise the safe use of chemicals in the laboratory by students (NRC, 2010). Accessible
safety data sheets that are frequently updated should be kept in laboratories (NRC, 2010; Schenk
et al., 2018).
Storing Laboratory Chemicals
Chemicals should be stored safely and securely based on risks and hazards. Different chemicals
may require different storage specifications. Teachers should maintain an appropriate level of security (for example, door locks or lockable boxes) for all chemicals. Unused chemicals should be
returned to the storage area at the end of an experiment and they should be clearly labelled
(NRC, 2010).
Disposing of Laboratory Chemical Waste
Some studies have identified chemical waste disposal as one area where teachers face challenges
(for instance Mogopodi et al., 2015). The life cycle of a chemical ends as either a reagent in the laboratory or as chemical waste (NRC, 2010). Teachers should be aware of clearly outlined procedures
that ensure safe and environmentally responsible disposal of chemical waste (NRC, 2010). As the
CAPS encourages more experimental work, this will entail more chemical waste being produced in
South African high school chemistry laboratories.
Methodology
This report is based on a quantitative study. Ethical clearance was obtained from the university authorities to conduct the research. In addition, permission to proceed with the research was granted by
African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education
427
the provincial Department of Basic Education (DBE). Invitations were sent to 92 science teachers
from schools that had been verified to have working laboratories in one South African province.
Seventy-six teachers consented to take part in the research. A pilot study was conducted with
four of these. A survey questionnaire was then administered to 72 teachers (excluding those from
the pilot study).
A modified laboratory safety questionnaire for middle school science teachers, developed by
Akpullukcu and Cavas (2017), was employed in this study. The final adapted questionnaire
had two sections. Section A had six items and participants were required to fill in demographic
data such as their years of teaching experience and the subjects they majored in. Section B
involved 14 items on teachers’ laboratory awareness. Teachers’ responses to the 14 items of
section B were measured on a four-point Likert scale: Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Disagree
(D) and Strongly Disagree (SD). These 14 items represent the main areas of safety concerns
that any person responsible for laboratory safety should be aware of as reflected in the NRC
guidelines above. These were conveniently categorised into three groups, namely: chemical
storage and disposal; fire-related awareness; and emergence response awareness. The questions were randomly spread and not ordered according to the above categories. The pilot
study conducted on four teachers from four different schools revealed some challenges which
were addressed during the actual survey. Firstly, three of the teachers reported confusion on
some items that they deemed ‘too general’ such as no. 1, I am aware of procedures to follow
for waste disposal (waste disposal and chemical storage) or item 11, I am aware what should
be done if any chemicals splash to the eyes (first aid-related awareness). To address this
concern a separate detailed information sheet was provided describing the items. This information sheet was distributed to the 72 participants during the actual survey. As the information
sheet described some of the procedures and hence increased teacher awareness, teachers were
to respond to their safety awareness as before reading the provided information sheet. The
questionnaire hard copy was hand-delivered to all 76 participants (including the four pilot
study participants).
For the data analysis the 14 items were conveniently categorised into three groups including several
aspects from the NRC guidelines as follows:
.
.
.
awareness of chemical storage and disposal, including security of chemicals, storing chemicals
and disposing of chemical waste;
awareness of fire-related safety, including using laboratory chemicals safely, hazard evaluation
and safety plans and chemical use;
emergency response safety awareness, including hazard management and incident reporting.
Data were analysed using SPSS and XLSTAT (2020) software. Bar graphs were constructed using
Excel to present percentage responses to address the first research question. The reliability of the
data was determined with a Cronbach alpha of 0.86.
When data are categorical and are not normally distributed, non-parametric tests are more appropriate for analysis (Pallant, 2013). Thus, for addressing the second research question, contingency
tables were constructed using Excel. Subsequently, Pearson chi-squared tests were run for determining the statistical significance of differences between responses from different categories of respondents. School resource levels were determined according to the South African quintile system (which
classifies schools according to resources), with schools in quintiles 1–3 considered poorly resourced
and those in quintiles 4 and 5 as well resourced. Teacher qualifications were differentiated according
to whether participants had majored in chemistry or not.
Results on Teacher Laboratory Safety Awareness
The chemical storage and waste disposal safety awareness category consisted of five questions.
Figure 1 summarises the results of teacher CLS awareness with regards to chemical storage and
waste disposal.
428
Remeredzayi Gudyanga
Figure 1. Percentage distribution of responses to questions investigating awareness of chemical storage and
waste disposal. NB: SD/D - Strongly Disagree or Disagree A/SA - Agree or Strongly agree
Figure 1 indicates that the response distribution for item 1 differs considerably from all of the other
items in this group. In response to the first item (item 1), three out of four (75.0%) of the participants
were unaware of procedures to follow for waste disposal. In contrast, about one in three respondents
indicated that they were unaware of ways of safely storing solid chemicals (30.6%), liquid chemicals
(31.9%) and chemicals that need special storage conditions (40.3%). A similar percentage of the
respondents (38.9%) reported being unaware of ways of dealing with chemical spills, an issue of
chemical disposal.
African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education
429
Figure 2. Percentage distribution of responses to questions investigating fire-related laboratory awareness.
Teachers’ Fire-related Chemical Laboratory Safety Awareness
Fire-related accidents form some of the most common incidents in laboratories. Figure 2 summarises
participants’ responses to items on fire-related safety awareness.
As seen in Figure 2, teachers’ safety awareness related to fires in the chemical laboratory is relatively high. Three out of four of the participants (75.0%) claimed to be aware of procedures to be
taken in terms of fire in the laboratory including the emergency exit plan (items 2 and 6). A slightly
higher percentage of the participants reported familiarity with the resources to control laboratory
fires, such as fire extinguishers (83.3%) and fire blankets (76.4%)
Teachers’ Chemical Laboratory Safety Awareness Related to Emergence Response
Often, safety precautions in laboratories fail and accidents occur. In such situations, science teachers
are expected to administer basic procedures to ameliorate any injuries. Figure 3 summarises the
results on emergency-related CLS awareness.
430
Remeredzayi Gudyanga
Figure 3. Percentage distribution of responses to questions investigating emergency-related safety awareness.
Some of the response awareness procedures include how to respond when someone has a chemical
spill in the eyes, how to intervene in case of chemical ingestion, or how to respond in case of chemical
inhalation (Figure 3). Item 14 was a general question about participants’ emergency response training.
The responses indicate that only one in seven participants (29.2%) felt adequately trained to provide
basic emergency aid in the laboratory. However, the vast majority of respondents claimed to be aware
of specific emergency measures, such as how to use emergency response kits in the laboratory
(84.7%, item 7), how to intervene in case of any chemical splash in the eyes (78.2%, item 11), or in
case of ingestion of chemicals (72.3%, item 12) or inhalation (73.6%, item 13). Teachers’ safety awareness of ways of responding to emergencies in the chemical laboratory is higher than their awareness of
safety issues related to waste disposal and chemical storage (compare Figures 3 and 1).
Teachers’ Laboratory Safety Awareness by Their School’s Resource Level, the Science
Specialisation and Teaching Experience
The non-parametric Pearson chi-squared test was used to determine the level of significance of the differences of the categorical data (not normally distributed). Firstly, contingency tables of the observed and
African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education
431
expected data were constructed after collapsing the Likert scale (strongly disagree and disagree into one
column and, agree and strongly agree into another column). The tables were constructed for three categories—the resource level of the school at which participants taught; whether participants had
majored in chemistry or not; and the participants’ number of years of teaching experience.
A chi-square test of independence was performed to examine the relationship between the type of
school participants taught at and their chemical laboratory awareness. The relationship between
these variables was significant, χ 2 (N = 67) = 10.90, p = 0.001. The results suggest a significant difference between responses from participants who taught at well-resourced schools and those who
taught at poorly resourced schools. The percentage distribution (Table 1) further suggests that participants who taught at well-resourced schools had greater chemical laboratory safety awareness than
those who taught at poorly resourced schools.
Table 1. Participants’ laboratory safety awareness against the resource level of the school they taught.
Resource level of school participants taught
N
Unaware (SD/D)
Aware (A/SA)
Total
Poorly Resourced Schools (Quintiles 1–3)
Well Resourced Schools (Quintiles 4 and 5)
40
27
67*
205 (36.7%)
100 (26.4%)
305 (32.6%)
355 (63.3%)
278 (73.6%)
633 (67.4%)
560
378
938
Total
* The total number of participants was 72. However, five of these teachers came from private schools that were not
classified on the South African schools’ quintile system.
A chi-square test of independence was performed to examine the relationship between participants’
major area of specialisation (chemistry major or not) and CLS. The relationship between these variables was significant, χ 2 (N = 72) = 10.93, p = 0.001. The results suggest a significant difference
between responses from participants who had majored in chemistry and those who had not
majored in chemistry. The percentage distribution (Table 2) further suggests that those who had
majored in chemistry showed greater CLS awareness than those who had not.
Table 2. Participants’ laboratory safety awareness vs. their science specialisation.
Participant specialisation
N
Unaware (SD/D)
Aware (A/SA)
Total
Chemistry majors
Non-chemistry majors
35
37
72
140 (28.6%)
199 (38.4%)
339 (36.0%)
350 (71.4%)
319 (61.6%)
669 (64.0%)
490
518
1008
Total
Table 3 shows the observed values according to years of teaching experience. A chi-square test of
independence was performed to examine the relationship between participants’ number of years of
teaching experience and their chemical laboratory awareness. The relationship between these variables was significant, χ2 (N = 72) = 0.95, p = 0.62. The results suggest no significant difference in participants’ CLS awareness according to the duration of their teaching experience.
Table 3. Participants’ laboratory safety awareness vs. their teaching experience.
Participant teaching experience
N
Unaware (SD/D)
Aware (A/SA)
Total
Less than 5 years of experience
Between 5 and 15 years experience
More than 15 years of experience
7
53
12
72
33 (34.0%)
235 (32.7%)
71 (29.2%)
339 (32.3%)
64 (66.0%)
493 (67.3%)
111 (70.9%)
669 (62.7%)
98
728
182
1008
Total
432
Remeredzayi Gudyanga
Discussion of Results
Concerning CLS, expectations are that teachers should be aware of all safety matters. The findings
show that teachers’ safety awareness of fire hazards in the chemical laboratory is higher than their
awareness of storage and disposal of chemicals and of emergency responses in the chemical laboratory. However, since a fire in a laboratory is one of the most common hazards (Sigmann, 2018) and
may result in serious injuries (or even fatalities), it is of concern that almost one in five (19.5%) of the
participants were not certain about the procedures to follow in case of a fire in the laboratory. The following discussion is held with the view that, in an ideal situation, 100.0% of teachers should be aware
of all safety procedures and requirements. Authorities should be concerned even if even 1.0% of teachers are unaware of the correct procedures to follow in a risky event. Chemical laboratory safety can
never be overemphasised.
The findings of the current study raise serious concerns where only 25% of teachers reported
awareness about chemical waste disposal and, on average, 65% indicated awareness about safe
chemical storage for solids, liquids and chemicals requiring special storage conditions. These
results remarkably differ from those reported in a study conducted by Walters et al. (2017), which concluded that 85% of the pre-service chemistry teachers in Trinidad in their study were aware of chemical waste disposal and chemical storage procedures. In contrast, investigating chemical safety
management in high schools in Botswana, Mogopodi et al. (2015) concluded that there are no
measures in place for disposal of out-of-date stock or expired chemicals at the schools investigated.
Sedghpour et al. (2013) previously observed that the disposal of chemical waste was the most
requested form of assistance sought by pre-service chemistry teachers in Iran who were participants
in their study. Inadequate awareness of waste disposal procedures among some teachers may lead
to chemical waste either accumulating in the school environment or finding its way into the wider communities, with all the associated risks that this may pose to inhabitants (USEPA, 2017). The NRC
(2010) framework on CLS suggests that education authorities craft clear guidelines and train teachers
for chemical storage and waste disposal.
The NRC framework for the CLS programme stipulates the need to plan for emergencies. For the
five questions that probed participants’ awareness of emergency-related basics for CLS, the results
indicate that participants report higher awareness of appropriate reponses to emergencies when compared with waste disposal and chemical storage, yet authorities should still be concerned. In particular, more than one in four of the respondents were unaware of what to do in case there was chemical
ingestion or chemical inhalation of vapours in the laboratory. Four out of five of the participants
(79.2%) had never received formal training in emergency response procedures. Lack of chemical laboratory safety training has been cited as a reason for science teachers’ suboptimal safety awareness
(Kandel et al., 2017). This aspect was confirmed when participants in this study requested blank questionnaires to keep in their laboratories as a safety reference.
The results indicate that participants from better-resourced (quintiles four to five in the South African
schooling system) schools had greater awareness than those from less-resourced schools. Laboratory safety challenges are often exacerbated by budgetary constraints (Eguna et al., 2011). While
authorities may have increased their support to improve science teaching and learning in poorer
schools by the provision of resources such as chemical reagents, these should be accompanied by
safety training for teachers. Virtual or online videos focusing on chemical safety could help
enhance teachers’ and students’ CLS awareness (Camel et al., 2020).
The results also suggest that participants who had majored in chemistry had better CLS awareness
than those who had not. Although Mizzi (2013) had previously observed that teachers teaching
outside their area of specialisation often face unique challenges, the study did not highlight CLS challenges as an area of concern for such teachers. However, Sigmann (2018) opined that chemical laboratory activities may be too risky where teachers have limited chemistry background. It seems that in
the South African situation where chemistry is taught as part of the subject Physical Science (a combination of chemistry and physics), specific attention is required for the training of teachers with a
physics major having to facilitate practical work in the chemistry laboratory.
African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education
433
While this study focused on awareness, it should not be assumed that high or optimal CLS awareness among teachers translates into optimal CLS practices. Attitudes, resource availability and other
contextual factors may militate against good practices (Engida, 2011; Walters et al., 2017). Teachers’
actual CLS practices and the relationship between CLS awareness and actual practices may warrant
further investigation, either by classroom observations or by scenario-based questionnaire surveys
(see, for instance, Marin et al., 2019).
Conclusions
While teachers may fail to follow CLS guidelines and procedures owing to constrained budgets (Schenk
et al., 2018), or lack of proper laboratories (Eguna et al., 2011), often teachers may not follow these procedures simply because they may not be aware of them. This study revealed low levels of teachers’
chemical laboratory safety awareness in all three categories that were investigated (that is, chemical
waste disposal and storage, fire-related awareness and emergence related awareness). Reports from
some studies have already indicated that when teachers are uncertain about CLS awareness aspects,
they may avoid conducting experiments or limit practical laboratory work to demonstrations for fear of
accountability in case of accidents. Teachers in better-resourced schools and participants who had
majored in chemistry generally showed greater safety awareness than those from less-resourced
schools and those who had not majored in chemistry, respectively. It is recommended that the provision
of resources to schools, such as chemicals, be accompanied by safety training for physical sciences teachers. Education department authorities could collaborate with teacher training institutions to develop professional development programmes for in-service teachers, especially those who may not have majored
in chemistry, aimed at improving their chemical laboratory safety awareness. Such training may include
virtual training or exposure to videos highlighting CLS.
Acknowledgements
I want to acknowledge the South African National Roads Agency SOC Ltd (SANRAL) for sponsoring
the study on which this article is based.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
ORCID
Remeredzayi Gudyanga
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7858-4793
References
Akpullukcu, S., & Cavas, B. (2017). The development of laboratory safety questionnaire for middle school science
teachers. Science Education International, 28(3), 224–231.
Annetta, L., Lamb, R., Minogue, J., Folta, E., Holmes, S., Vallett, D., & Cheng, R. (2014). Safe science classrooms:
Teacher training through serious educational games. Information Sciences, 264, 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ins.2013.10.028
Department of Basic Education (DBE). (2011). Curriculum and assessment policy statement (CAPS): physical
sciences. Government Printers.
Eguna, M. T., Suico, M. L. S., & Lim, P. J. Y. (2011). Learning to be safe: Chemical laboratory management in a developing country. Journal of Chemical Health and Safety, 18(6), 5–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2011.06.001
Engida, T. (2011). Chemical safety in laboratories of African universities. African Journal of Chemical Education, 1
(2), 35–49.
Hill Jr, R. H. (2019). Recognizing and understanding hazards—The key first step to safety. Journal of Chemical
Health & Safety, 26(3), 5–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2018.11.005
434
Remeredzayi Gudyanga
Kandel, K. P., Neupane, B. B., & Giri, B. (2017). Status of chemistry lab safety in Nepal. Plos one, 12(6), e0179104.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179104
Kelley, E. W. (2020). Reflections on three different high school chemistry Lab Formats during COVID-19 Remote
learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9), 2606–2616. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00814
Lim, C. S., & Bryant, S. M. (2016). Forgoing the folate? Contemporary recommendations for methanol poisoning
and evidence review. American Journal of Therapeutics, 23(3), e850–e854.33. https://doi.org/10.1097/MJT.
0000000000000059
Marin, L. S., Muñoz-Osuna, F. O., Arvayo-Mata, K. L., & Álvarez-Chávez, C. R. (2019). Chemistry laboratory safety
climate survey (CLASS): A tool for measuring students’ perceptions of safety. Journal of Chemical Health &
Safety, 26(6), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2019.01.001
Mizzi, D. (2013). The challenges faced by science teachers when teaching outside their specific science specialism. Acta Didacta Naposcensia, 6(4), 1–6.
Mogopodi, D., Paphane, B., & Petros, S. (2015). Assessment of chemical management practices and safety in
junior secondary school laboratories in Gaborone. Journal of Chemical Health & Safety, 22(5), 17–27. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2015.01.001
National Research Council (NRC). (2010). Promoting chemical laboratory safety and security in developing
countries. The National Academies Press. Retrieved February 10, 2020, from https://doi.org/10.17226/12857.
Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS program (6th ed).
McGraw-Hill Education.
Potkonjak, V., Gardner, M., Callaghan, V., Mattila, P., Guetl, C., Petrović, V. M., & Jovanović, K. (2016). Virtual
laboratories for education in science, technology, and engineering: A review. Computers & Education, 95,
309–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.02.002
Ramatlapana, K., & Makonye, J. P. (2013). From too much freedom to too much restriction: The case of teacher
autonomy from the National curriculum Statement (NCS) to curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement
(CAPS). Africa Education Review, 9(1), 7–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/09718923.2013.11893211
Ramnarain, U., & Fortus, D. (2013). South African physical sciences teachers’ perceptions of new content in a
revised curriculum. South African Journal of Education, 33(1), Art. 573. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.
v33n1a573
Ramnarain, U., & Hobden, P. (2015). Shifting South African learners towards greater autonomy in scientific investigations. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 47(1), 94–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2014.966153
Richards-Babb, M., Bishoff, J., Carver, J. S., Fisher, K., & Robertson-Honecker, J. (2010). Keeping it safe:
Chemical safety in the high school laboratory. Journal of Chemical Health and Safety, 17(1), 6–14. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2009.05.001
Schenk, L., Taher, I. A., & Ö berg, M. (2018). Identifying the scope of safety issues and challenges to safety management in Swedish middle school and high school chemistry education. Journal of Chemical Education, 95(7),
1132–1139. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00054
Sedghpour, B. S., Sabbaghan, M., & Sataei, F. M. (2013). A survey on the pre service chemistry teachers’ Lab
safety education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 57–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.
07.065
Sigmann, S. B. (2018). Playing with fire: Chemical safety expertise required. Journal of Chemical Education, 95
(10), 1736–1746. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00152
Steverlynck, L., Baert, N., Buylaert, W., & De Paepe, P. (2017). Combined acute inhalation of hydrofluoric acid and
nitric acid: A case report and literature review. Acta Clinica Belgica, 72(4), 278–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17843286.2016.1229840
Torres, F., Tovar, L. A. N., & Egremy, M. C. (2015). Virtual interactive laboratory applied to high schools programs.
Procedia Computer Science, 75, 233–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.243
Tsakeni, M., Vandeyar, S., & Potgieter, M. (2019). Inquiry opportunities presented by practical work in school physical sciences. A South African case study. Gender and Behaviour, 17(3), 13722–13733.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2017). National overview: facts and figures on
materials, wastes and recycling. Retrieved September 27, 2020, from https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figuresabout-materials-waste-and-recycling/national-overview-facts-and-figures-materials.
Walters, A. U., Lawrence, W., & Jalsa, N. K. (2017). Chemical laboratory safety awareness, attitudes and practices
of tertiary students. Safety Science, 96, 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.03.017
Walters, D. B., Ho, P., & Hardesty, J. (2015). Safety, security and dual-use chemicals. Journal of Chemical Health
& Safety, 22(5), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2014.12.001
Zhu, B., Feng, M., Lowe, H., Kesselman, J., Harrison, L., & Dempski, R. E. (2018). Increasing enthusiasm and
enhancing learning for biochemistry-laboratory safety with an augmented-reality program. Journal of
Chemical Education, 95(10), 1747–1754. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00116