Lara, Amelita M. 4 0
Science laboratory safety management system of selected state universities / 6 6 Amelita M. Lara. - - - xiii, 194 pages 28 cm. - - - - - . - . - 0 . - . - 0 .
Thesis (Ph.D.) -- Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila, 2009.;A dissertation presented to the faculty of Graduate School of Arts, Sciences and Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Education major in Educational Administration.
5
The study evaluated the safety management system in science laboratories of selected (4) State Universities in Region IV-A and was used as basis for a proposed Science Laboratory Safety Management System (SLSMS) Manual which is the output of the study. The study looked into the existing facilities of science laboratories which include the laboratory rooms, equipment and apparatus, utilities, and supplies and materials, the conditions of science laboratories in terms of adequacy of safety features, hazard awareness and safety management. These were evaluated by both teachers and students who also noted the problems they encountered in the science laboratories. The data were then analyzed through frequency count, ranking, weighted mean ratings, t-test of equality of means, and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The questionnaires' responses on the existence of facilities showed a low percentage; hence facilities exist. It seems that they are still insufficient for safe learning activities. Respondents found the existence of the safety features in science laboratory adequate. The policies on hazard awareness were observed and responses in all items rated were almost similar. The four (4) State Universities were found observing evidently the safety management practices of the science laboratories in their respective areas. Teachers and students found that safety features in the science laboratories were adequate, hazard awareness was observed, and safety management was evident. The significant difference between the teachers' and students' evaluation was computed using t-test and interpreted at .05 levels of significance. As regards to adequacy of safety features, significant differences were found in the responses in University B and C and not significant in University A and D and rejected for university B and C. As regards Hazard Awareness, it was only at University C that there was a significant difference. In University A, B, and D, there were no significance differences in their evaluation. Therefore, the hypothesis of no significant difference is accepted for University A, B, and A and rejected for University C. On Safety Management, significant difference was seen in the evaluation of University B and C and no significant difference in University A and D. Again, the hypothesis of no significance difference is accepted for University A and D and rejected in University B and C. Problems encountered by the teachers and students in the laboratories are moderately serious. In order to address the problems that surfaced in this study, the researcher humbly proposed a Science Laboratory Safety Management System (SLSMS) Manual to address and sustain the safety management systems in the science laboratories. Several recommendations were forwarded such as: universities with science laboratories to provide a safe teaching and learning environment; hazard awareness shall be made an integral part of laboratory safety management; state universities must address the inadequate or insufficient facilities; correct the conditions of science laboratories with regards to safety features, hazard awareness and safety management. Problems relative to safety management of science laboratories must also be addressed. A Science Laboratory Safety Management System (SLSMS) Manual was prepared and submitted as output of the study, and recommended for use in universities with science laboratory.
5
2 = =
2
2 --0------
6 --0-- 2 --------
0 2 --
--20------
--------20--
--------20--
----2
/ 2
/ 2
/
/
Science laboratory safety management system of selected state universities / 6 6 Amelita M. Lara. - - - xiii, 194 pages 28 cm. - - - - - . - . - 0 . - . - 0 .
Thesis (Ph.D.) -- Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila, 2009.;A dissertation presented to the faculty of Graduate School of Arts, Sciences and Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Education major in Educational Administration.
5
The study evaluated the safety management system in science laboratories of selected (4) State Universities in Region IV-A and was used as basis for a proposed Science Laboratory Safety Management System (SLSMS) Manual which is the output of the study. The study looked into the existing facilities of science laboratories which include the laboratory rooms, equipment and apparatus, utilities, and supplies and materials, the conditions of science laboratories in terms of adequacy of safety features, hazard awareness and safety management. These were evaluated by both teachers and students who also noted the problems they encountered in the science laboratories. The data were then analyzed through frequency count, ranking, weighted mean ratings, t-test of equality of means, and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The questionnaires' responses on the existence of facilities showed a low percentage; hence facilities exist. It seems that they are still insufficient for safe learning activities. Respondents found the existence of the safety features in science laboratory adequate. The policies on hazard awareness were observed and responses in all items rated were almost similar. The four (4) State Universities were found observing evidently the safety management practices of the science laboratories in their respective areas. Teachers and students found that safety features in the science laboratories were adequate, hazard awareness was observed, and safety management was evident. The significant difference between the teachers' and students' evaluation was computed using t-test and interpreted at .05 levels of significance. As regards to adequacy of safety features, significant differences were found in the responses in University B and C and not significant in University A and D and rejected for university B and C. As regards Hazard Awareness, it was only at University C that there was a significant difference. In University A, B, and D, there were no significance differences in their evaluation. Therefore, the hypothesis of no significant difference is accepted for University A, B, and A and rejected for University C. On Safety Management, significant difference was seen in the evaluation of University B and C and no significant difference in University A and D. Again, the hypothesis of no significance difference is accepted for University A and D and rejected in University B and C. Problems encountered by the teachers and students in the laboratories are moderately serious. In order to address the problems that surfaced in this study, the researcher humbly proposed a Science Laboratory Safety Management System (SLSMS) Manual to address and sustain the safety management systems in the science laboratories. Several recommendations were forwarded such as: universities with science laboratories to provide a safe teaching and learning environment; hazard awareness shall be made an integral part of laboratory safety management; state universities must address the inadequate or insufficient facilities; correct the conditions of science laboratories with regards to safety features, hazard awareness and safety management. Problems relative to safety management of science laboratories must also be addressed. A Science Laboratory Safety Management System (SLSMS) Manual was prepared and submitted as output of the study, and recommended for use in universities with science laboratory.
5
2 = =
2
2 --0------
6 --0-- 2 --------
0 2 --
--20------
--------20--
--------20--
----2
/ 2
/ 2
/
/