Workplace

Safety and Health 

IC 9463
 

INFORMATION CIRCULAR/2002 

Strategies For Improving 

Miners’ Training 

Department of Health and Human Services

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 
Information Circular 9463 

Strategies For Improving Miners’ Training 

Robert H. Peters, Editor 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
 

Pittsburgh, PA and Spokane, WA Research Laboratories
 

September 2002 
ORDERING INFORMATION 

Copies of National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
 

documents and information
 

about occupational safety and health are available from
 

NIOSH–Publications Dissemination
 

4676 Columbia Parkway
 

Cincinnati, OH 45226-1998

 FAX: 513-533-8573

 Telephone: 1-800-35-NIOSH 

(1-800-356-4674)

 E-mail: pubstaft@cdc.gov

 Web site: www.cdc.gov/niosh 

This document is the public domain and may be freely copied or reprinted. 

Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. 

DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2002-156 
CONTENTS 

Introduction ................................................................................... 

Page 

1 
 

Principles of Adult Learning: Application for Mine Trainers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 
 

Getting Through to Greenhorns: Do Old Training Styles Work With New Miners? ........................... 9 
 

An Overview of the Evaluation Process for Mine Trainers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 
 

Innovative Alternatives to Traditional Classroom Health and Safety Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 
 

Considerations in Training On-the-Job Trainers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 
 

Releasing the Energy of Workers To Create a Safer Workplace: The Value of Using Mentors to Enhance Safety 

Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 
 

Developing Toolbox Training Materials for Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 
 

Communicating the Same Message with Different Media: An Example from Hearing Loss Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 
 
1 

INTRODUCTION
 

By Robert H. Peters1
 

1

 Supervisory social scientist, Pittsburgh Research Laboratory, National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Pittsburgh, PA. 

This Information Circular from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) documents and supplements the information presented in a series of workshops held 

during 2002 and 2003. The primary intended audience consists of 

all who are involved in developing and conducting miners’ 

training. 

According to the Mine Safety and Health Administration 

(MSHA), mine operators reported 240,000 full-time equivalent 

workers and independent contractors reported 42,000 full-time 

equivalent workers working on mine property during the year 

2000. Unfortunately, these workers have a relatively high risk 

of suffering serious work-related injuries and illnesses. The 

mining industry has the highest rate of occupational fatalities 

among all U.S. industries. The fatality rate is 30 deaths per 

100,000 workers compared to 4.6 for all private industry 

(Morbidity and Mortality Week Report, 2001; NIOSH, 2002). 

Compared to workers in other industries, miners also have a 

relatively high rate of nonfatal lost-time injuries, and their 

injuries tend to be more severe (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

1999). Many miners are also exposed to significant health 

hazards, including coal and silica dust, diesel exhaust, and 

noise. More than 1000 U.S. miners die of lung disease each year 

(NIOSH, 1999). 

Mine safety and health professionals have long recognized 

training as a critical element of an effective safety and health 

program. Federal regulations (30 CFR, Parts 46 and 48) require 

mine operators to provide initial safety and health training to all 

new miners, as well as a minimum of 8 hours of refresher training each year. The time and money being spent to train U.S. 

miners is substantial, and so there is a strong and steady demand 

for new and better mine training materials and methods. 

A growing concern among mine safety professionals regards 

the training of new workers. A major change in the mining 

workforce is anticipated within the next decade. In major segments of mining, especially coal, relatively few workers have 

been hired since the 1970’s. Thus, as an entire cohort of miners 

in the current workforce nears retirement, the replacement of 

these employees will require an influx of new workers. New 

miners may be young people who lack the ability to recognize 

and respond to mining hazards in an appropriate manner. They 

may also have had different educational experiences than their 

older counterparts. Many safety professionals believe that these 

two cohorts require different approaches to training. The papers 

in this report should help prepare mine trainers for the changes 

about to occur in the workforce and acquaint them with strategies they can use to enhance the effectiveness of their training. 

The first three papers present basic principles for teaching 

adults. The five remaining papers are intended to illustrate how 

these principles can be applied to the development and implementation of effective training for miners. Below is an overview 

of these papers. 

1. Kowalski and Vaught review the process and principles 

of adult learning. The learning model they present includes a 

discussion of goals, content, delivery, assessment, and remediation. Adults are viewed as active learners, experiencedbased, expert in their own right in specific areas, independent, 

real-life centered, task-centered, problem-centered, solutiondriven, skill-seeking, self-directing, and internally and 

externally motivated. Basic aspects of curriculum development 

are briefly reviewed. For further information about adult 

learning, see Camm and Cullen’s paper. 

2. Mallett and Reinke’s first paper discusses issues related 

to training new miners who have recently or will soon be 

entering the mining workforce. These new generations of miners 

have different learning style preferences and training needs than 

Baby Boomers and other older miners. Even trainers who have 

been highly effective in the past should reassess their training 

styles and their classroom materials to determine if they are 

prepared to meet the needs of these young new workers. This 

paper provides information that will help mine trainers 

communicate across the generation gap. 

3. Mallett and Reinke’s second paper provide an overview 

of training evaluation. Trainers and decision-makers are given 

a framework for planning and assessing training evaluation 

strategies. The authors present Kirkpatrick’s (2001) model of 

evaluation categories and discuss how to start an evaluation plan 

and various ways to collect data. They do not provide detailed 

instruction in evaluation methodologies, but give trainers a 

review of the things they need to consider when developing an 

evaluation plan. A good evaluation plan can inform revisions to 

a training course, assess trainee learning, and/or answer 

managers’ questions about program effectiveness. 

4. Brnich, Derick, Mallett, and Vaught discuss a technique 

for incorporating worker participation into fire prevention and 

safe equipment operation training. This technique involves 

development of short (5 to 7 minutes) videotapes coupled with 

toolbox talks that ground the content of the videos within the 

context of a miner’s workplace. An example of one of these 

training modules is presented, along with the results of an 

evaluation performed on its effectiveness at improving miners’ 

understanding of what types of information they should be sure 

to communicate during a mine emergency. 

5. Wiehagen, Conrad, Friend, and Rethi discuss on-the-job 

training (OJT) as a method for teaching miners safety and 

production skills. Much of the training is done by experienced 

workers. This paper describes how small investments can help 

improve the effectiveness of on-the-job training. Effective onthe-job training involves some structure and planning in the 

transfer of responsibility for task performance from the trainer 

to the novice. Assisting the trainer could involve helping 

develop up-to-date job analyses and offering strategies for 

teaching and evaluating job skills. This paper addresses 

organizational considerations supporting structured on-the-job 
2 

training, general strategies, a typical approach for conducting 

on-the-job training, characteristics and duties of trainers, and the 

limitations of on-the-job training as a teaching method. Health, 

safety, and operational skills can be connected through training. 

Haul truck operators are used to illustrate some of the concepts 

discussed. 

6. Camm and Cullen discuss the mentor-protege model for 

teaching miners. Miners know when they see excellence and 

have a deep respect for experts in their field. By using expert 

miners as mentors to other workers, training programs can be 

developed that will have a legitimacy and credibility that resonates with those being trained. Building upon concepts in current theories of adult education, these authors highlight the 

unique advantages of using mentoring as a teaching method that 

can make educational experiences both interesting and effective. 

7. Varley and Boldt discuss how mine trainers can develop 

their own tailgate training. Tailgate training—short (usually 10 

to 15 minutes) weekly sessions conducted on-site prior to work 

shifts and involving work crews—is a popular mode of worker 

occupational safety and health training employed by many fieldbased companies. Too often the trainer attempts to use generic 

information, cover too broad a subject, or teach a new skill 

during the short period available for training. Toolbox training 

should be used to refresh knowledge and skills and to communicate new hazards specific to a given minesite. This paper presents methods trainers can use to prepare toolbox training 

materials and make it relevant to miners and specific minesites. 

8. Randolph, Kohler, and Byrne discuss why multiple versions of an educational message can reach a diverse population 

more effectively than a single version. For instance, some workers 

are trained in formal classrooms, while others are self-taught. 

NIOSH has developed multiple versions of a hearing loss 

simulation to show how a single set of information can be readily 

adapted to different delivery methods. Three versions of the 

simulator—an interactive software package, a web-based module, 

and an electronic slide show—were developed with a minimum 

of effort and expense when compared to a single, less-flexible 

version. Interactive software is best for training sessions led by a 

relative expert in the field (audiological testing) while Web pages 

are best for an individual worker, and slide shows are best for 

small, more general training classes. This paper describes 

additional advantages and disadvantages of different delivery 

systems and shows what considerations are helpful when 

designing content that can be readily adapted to alternate 

presentations. 

REFERENCES
 

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1999. Lost-worktime injuries and illnesses: 

Characteristics and resulting time away from work. U.S. Department of Labor 

news release 99-102, April 22. 

Kirkpatrick, D. 2001. The four-level evaluation process. Ch. 12 in What 

Smart Trainers Know: The Secrets of Success from the World’s Foremost 

Experts, L.L. Ukens, ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer. Pp. 122-132. 

Morbidity and Mortality Week Report. Fatal occupational injuries–United 

States, 1980-1994. 2001. Vol. 50, no. 16, pp. 317-320. 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 2002. Mining facts 

for 2000. Pittsburgh, PA: Pittsburgh Research Laboratory. NIOSH Pub. No. 

2002-145. 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 2000. Work-related 

lung disease. NIOSH Surveillance report, 1999. Morgantown, WV: Division of 

Respiratory Disease Studies. NIOSH Pub. No. 2000-105. 

U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 30-Mineral Resources, Parts 46 and 

48. 1999. 
3 

PRINCIPLES OF ADULT LEARNING: APPLICATION FOR MINE TRAINERS 

By Kathleen M. Kowalski1

1

Research psychologist. 

and Charles Vaught2 

2

Sociologist, Pittsburgh Research Laboratory, National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, Pittsburgh, PA. 

ABSTRACT 

Safety and health professionals from all sectors of industry recognize that training is a critical element of an effective safety and 

health program. A major concern in the mining industry is how to train both an aging workforce and the expected influx of new 

miners and mine managers as older workers retire. Thus, a review of some of the basic principles of adult learning may be helpful 

to mine trainers. This paper discusses the principles of adult learning based on research in education and psychology. It stresses the 

importance of taking a systems approach to training, focusing on the relationship between the environment and technology, and 

understanding how workers interact with both. The authors argue that the principles of adult learning and a systems approach are 

fundamental to the delivery of effective training in the mining industry. Examples of training programs developed by the Pittsburgh 

Research Laboratory of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health are presented within two broad performance 

domains: routine and nonroutine skills. Basics of curriculum development are also briefly presented to provide the mine trainer with 

a template for program development. 

INTRODUCTION
 

Recently, the mining population has undergone numerous 

changes, including increases in the age of employees, diversity of 

experience, and increased variety in age, ethnicity, and cultural 

background. These changes require a different way of thinking 

about the mining population with respect to training. Instead of 

following the traditional model of an instructor imparting knowledge to passive learners, training must allow learners to draw on 

experience, link concepts to real-world situations, and transfer 

knowledge from one situation to another (Lankard,1995). Adults 

have their own unique ways in which they learn, and it is important for instructors to design training programs and materials 

around these ways. Caudron (2000) has noted that trainers frequently do not teach the way adults learn. This thought is reflected 

in the mining industry, where trainers are usually experienced in 

specific content areas, but may not be knowledgeable in adult 

learning or various educational methods. Most mine managers 

seem to be sold on learning but not necessarily on training. Could 

this observation—that trainers are content-wise but not well 

versed in educational principles—be part of the disconnect? 

According to the 1999 American Society for Training and 

Development (ASTD) State of the Industry report (in Caudron, 

2000), instructor-led classroom training is still the predominant 

way of teaching adults in the workplace. In fact, this study 

showed that 70% of all training still consists of an instructor 

talking about or sometimes demonstrating concepts. But 

research shows that adults, in general, don’t respond well to 

“lecturers.” These researchers note that the most unforgettable 

learning experiences occur through personal experience, group 

support (figure 1), or mentoring. 

Figure 1.—Group learning. 

With a renewed and expanded focus on training in the mining 

industry, as evidenced by formation of the Mine Safety and 

Health Administration’s (MSHA) Educational Field Service, it 

is appropriate to review basic information on curriculum development and adult learning. Learning by experience is important 

in that adults learn best by having experiences and reflecting on 
4 

them. Group learning experiences are also important. In 

groups, learners can help each other understand the material and 

learn from each other. In addition, the context of the learning is 

important, as most adult learners want to know how what they 

learn will apply in the workplace. 

This paper presents basic knowledge of adult learning 

curriculum development and a model for a systems approach to 

training with the express goal of providing mine trainers with 

additional tools to enhance their effectiveness and meet the 

training challenges of the mining industry today. 

DEVELOPING A CURRICULUM
 

First and foremost, in planning training classes, the following 

five points need to be considered and may provide a skeleton or 

checklist for the trainer (figure 2). 

 

‘ 1. Clear goals 

‘ 2. Content 

‘ 3. Appropriate delivery mechanism 

‘ 4. Authentic assessment 

‘ 5. Remediation 

Figure 2.—Checklist for developing a curriculum. 

1. Clear goals 

What is the point of this training? What are the individual 

capabilities or expected outcomes of the training? It is important to clarify the instructional focus for yourself and for the 

trainees. 

2. Content 

What content will support the stated goals? For example, if 

the goal is “to increase individual safety behavior around power 

sources at the mine site,” what information should be presented 

to reach that goal? 

3. Appropriate delivery mechanism 

Is it best to present the material through lectures, demonstrations, videos, or software programs? Should trainees receive 

the instruction individually, with partners, in teams, or as a 

group? Teaching methods must address not only the content to 

be delivered, but different learning styles as well. No approach 

should be used just because it is the latest method of instruction. 

The delivery method needs to be carefully evaluated. For example, teaching methods that draw on the knowledge of older 

workers in class and generate discussions with younger workers 

may be a very successful way to transfer knowledge, but that 

notion should be put to the test under given circumstances. 

4. Assessment 

Assessment is key in planning an educational experience. 

Assessment should be built into the program. How will you 

know if your trainees have learned the content? How will you 

know if the learning goal has been reached? For example, a 

table-top simulation might have the teaching of critical escape 

skills as its goal. For these types of skills, a mastery of at least 

90% of the exercise content is a reasonable standard (Cole et 

al.,1984). A lower performance is seen as undesirable because 

the real-world consequences can be severe. The measure used 

could be simply the exercise's total score expressed in a percentage of correct performance. Then, if only 20% of the individuals in the class attained performance scores at or above 

90% mastery, the trainer would know he or she should offer 

some remediation. 

5. Remediation 

Finally, all effective educational programs need a remediation component. If the assessment indicates that the trainee 

“doesn’t get it,” a preplanned intervention is called for. This is 

particularly important when training in critical skills such as 

putting on a self-contained self-rescuer (SCSR). For instance, 

the “3+3” training protocol3

3

The “3+3” training protocol is explained in more detail in the section on 

“Application of Adult Learning Principles to Nonroutine Skills” in this paper. 

requires a trainee to demonstrate 

proficiency while being evaluated immediately after having 

received initial instruction in the task. If an error is committed, 

it is corrected by the instructor, and the entire process is repeated. This cycle of demonstration—remediation— demonstration 

continues until the trainee exhibits immediate mastery of the 

donning process (Vaught and Cole, 1987). 

ADULT LEARNING
 

According to Caudron (2000), there are several important concepts adult trainers should practice. She encourages the use of 

collaborative interaction, an atmosphere where learners and instructors support each other in the process both in and out of 

formal learning, and the use and encouragement of cooperative 

communication. She also suggests trainers remember that peoples’ feelings are critical in developing relationships in any 

learning situation. 

These concepts fit with adult learning theory. While there is no 

one theory or one best theory of adult learning, those that recognize 

that adult learners come to the learning situation from a particular 

environment and with a personal history seem most appropriate. 

Adult learning is about “the promotion of active learning grounded 

in the past experience of the learner and in the application of the 

knowledge at a personal level” (Puliyel, 1999, p. 513). That application generally takes place in relation to places and things. It 

is important for a trainer to understand how adults learn, and it is 

important for him or her to understand the concept of a systems approach in order to plan appropriate and effective training. 
5 

KNOWLEDGE 

Until recently, theory in adult learning was approached from a 

psychological perspective, meaning that the focus was on individuals. Newer thinking, as suggested above, takes a broader perspective and includes the environments in which adult learners 

function as well as the dynamics of group learning (Merriam, 

1993). 

According to Ference and Vockell (1994), adults respond best 

to learning that is active and experienced-based. Adults like interactive learning and learning they can relate to the basis of their own 

experiences. Thus, examples and illustrations need to be relevant 

to the trainees. Unlike children, adults are experts in their own 

right in specific areas. This expertise needs to be recognized and 

may be used to meet the learning goal. Adult learners are 

independent, and this independence should be considered when 

planning delivery methods and remediation. They are real-life 

centered and desire problems, examples, and descriptions from real 

life (figure 3). 

< Active 

< Experienced-based
 

< Learner as expert
 

< Independent
 

< Real-life centered
 

< Task centered
 

< Problem centered
 

< Solution driven
 

< Skill seeking
 

< Self-directing
 

< Motivated
 

Figure 3.–Some principles of adult learning. 

In addition, adult learners are task-centered and problemcentered. Being problem-centered, adult trainees are quick to 

focus on a problem and so are solution-driven. Adults may also be 

seen as skill-seeking, as many times they are in training to acquire 

a new job skill and thus are positively motivated and self-directing. 

Adult learners are both internally and externally motivated. In 

other words, sometimes an adult will be motivated by the pleasure 

and satisfaction of learning something new or by the camaraderie 

of class interaction. Sometimes an adult will be motivated by the 

resultant increase in pay or certification at the end of the class. 

PRACTICE 

Practice is important to learning. In addition, how the practice 

is done makes a significant difference. In a recent study, Simon 

(2001) showed that in the short run, practicing several skills in 

separate but concentrated blocks led to better performance 

during practice than did interleaving (integrating one skill after 

another). However, in the long term, interleaved practice led to 

better learning than did block practice. This study also found 

that “People are often poor assessors of what they have 

learned.” In some cases, this is not serious, but in others, such 

as in some surgical procedures, machinery operations, or putting 

on an emergency breathing apparatus, the consequences can be 

serious. 

EXAMPLES OF THE APPLICATION OF ADULT LEARNING PRINCIPLES 

WITHIN A SYSTEMS CONTEXT
 

It is important for mine trainers to apply learning principles 

within a systems context (figure 4). In other words, the subject 

matter and approach need to be put within a broad, interrelated 

context for miners, so both technical issues and social and human 

behavior and their relationships can be considered. The term used 

for this type of approach is “sociotechnical systems” research. This 

approach was pioneered in British coal mines during the 1950's and 

recognizes that workers and technology interact within a physical 

and organizational environment. It is understood that change in one 

component of a system may have both intended and unintended 

consequences in other components. In mining, work conditions are 

dynamic, technology is being introduced at an ever-increasing rate, 

and the workforce, in a shrinking job market, is aging. Because 

interventions in this context must be multidimensional to be 

effective, researchers at the Pittsburgh Research Laboratory (PRL) 

have taken an interdisciplinary systems approach to worker safety 

and health training. The authors suggest that mine trainers understand and incorporate this approach into their teaching of adult 

learners. 

Potentially hazardous situations that confront miners in their 

workplaces can be characterized as routine or nonroutine in nature. 

Elements that contribute to injury in either situation may involve 

the equipment employed, those procedures used to perform 

particular tasks, and the behaviors of individuals or groups. Most 

PRL research on broad problem topics, therefore, has tended to 

take all three of these elements into consideration. In teaching 

safety and health, trainers should include all dimensions. 

APPLICATION OF ADULT LEARNING PRINCIPLES 

TO ROUTINE SKILLS 

In mining, much human factors and training research has 

focused upon the reduction of death and injury from falls of roof 

during routine tasks associated with roof control. A contributor to 

roof fall fatalities is workers’ relative inability to recognize 

hazards. Unfortunately, methods for teaching mine hazard 

recognition in the classroom have not changed much over the 

years. The format for such training usually consists of having 

workers view slides of hazards or participate in discussions of 

conditions in their particular workplace. These training approaches 

assume that informing workers of "problems" will have some 

impact at a later time when a miner happens to encounter similar 

hazards on the job. Questions relating as to whether learning will 

be transferred successfully from a classroom to the workplace are 

rarely addressed. 

The need for improved methods of teaching miners to recognize 

hazards has been addressed by PRL researchers using an innovative 
6 

form of instruction. This instruction combines the known advantages of table-top simulations with three-dimensional (3-D) 

slides. Adding 3-D slides to a simulation forms a truly unique 

training instrument. It figuratively "places" miners in a problemsolving situation where surroundings can be visualized realistically 

using high-fidelity, 3-D pictures. This approach targets key principles of adult learning in which the learning should be active, experience-based, real-life centered, task-and-problem centered, and 

solution-driven. 

Although these training materials were immediately appealing, 

little was known about whether they would lead to any 

improvement in hazard-recognition skills. Nor was it known 

whether such learning would transfer to the workplace. Thus, the 

researchers posed the following question: Can training that uses a 

latent image/3-D slide exercise improve a miner's ability to 

recognize roof and rib hazards? To answer this question, a realworld experiment was conducted with a small sample (Barrett and 

Kowalski, 1995). 

Six coal miners with similar job classifications and mining experience participated in the first experiment. The miners were assigned randomly to either an experimental group or a control 

group. The experimental group was trained with a latent image/3-D 

slide simulation in a classroom at the host mine's training center 

and took approximately 30 minutes to complete. Each miner 

worked individually through his problem booklet and responded to 

the questions. At certain points, exercise directions had the worker 

view a designated 3-D slide that accompanied a particular question. 

There were no discussions during the training session, and each 

miner worked at his own pace. 

To investigate the effectiveness of this training, a hazard recognition task was set up in the mine. Twelve areas that contained roof 

and rib hazards similar to those found in the exercise were identified. These areas were part of a mile-long route traversing two of 

the mine's major entries. Each area was marked by spray-painting 

a letter (A through L) on the ribs of the entry. No artificial hazards 

were prepared at any area; only ones that existed naturally were 

recorded. These then became keys for the recognition task. 

Hazard recognition performance was assessed as subjects from 

both groups walked through the mine and attempted to identify 

hazards in each marked area. Each miner was given a pencil and 

clipboard with 12 sheets of paper labeled A through L. The 

workers were instructed to walk as a group along the designated 

route and stop at each labeled station. They were given 1 minute at 

each stop to identify any roof or rib hazard they recognized. 

Subjects wrote their observations on the sheets provided. These 

written responses were done individually. At no time were group 

members permitted to talk to each other or discuss the task. Researchers provided no feedback at any time during the entire 

experiment. The control group, of course, did not receive training 

prior to the walk-through. 

There were 20 points possible for the underground hazard 

recognition task. Table 1 shows the individual subject scores given 

as both the number of correct answers and a corresponding correct 

percentage. The table also shows means and standard deviations 

for both the control and experimental groups. Note that all experimental subjects who had training prior to the walk-through scored 

higher than the control group. Given the small sample size, a Fisher 

Randomization t Test was applied to the data. This test confirmed 

with 95% confidence the hypothesis that the mean score of the 

experimental group was significantly greater than the mean score 

of the control group. 

Significantly, since human factors and training research and interventions began, the number and rate of fatal roof fall accidents (especially in small mines) has declined dramatically. In 

1989, 17 deaths were attributable to roof falls, while in 1990, there 

were 21. In 1994 and 1995, on the other hand, there were five and 

six roof fall fatalities, respectively. 

Figure 4.–A systems approach. 

APPLICATION OF ADULT LEARNING PRINCIPLES 

TO NONROUTINE SKILLS 

Another broad problem topic that has occupied human factors 

researchers in the past few years concerns miners’ emergency 

breathing equipment. Of particular interest has been the selfcontained, self-rescuer (SCSR), a 1-hour, oxygen-generating 

apparatus. Investigations of the Wilberg disaster and other major 

mine fires strongly suggested that workers had difficulty putting on 

their SCSR’s in emergency situations, making their escape 

problematic. Subsequently, human factors researchers participated 

in performance studies that showed the need for hands-on training 

with the equipment. 

In the course of the research, personnel developed a simplified, 

standardized procedure, known as the “3+3” method, for putting on 

SCSR’s. This method is based on the principles of adult learning 

(hands-on, task-centered, and skill-seeking). It lumps all the 

discrete tasks involved in putting on a SCSR into a logical 

sequence of three steps that must be completed to isolate a 

worker’s lungs and three additional steps that prepare a worker for 

evacuating the workplace. The 3+3 method has been adopted 

almost universally by the coal industry and endorsed by CSE Corp. 

and Mine Safety Appliances as the approved procedure for 

donning the companies’ models of person-wearable SCSR’s. 
7 

Table 1.—Performance scores on underground hazard recognition task. 

Group, subject Individual scores 

No. % Mean no. 

Group scores 

Stand. deviation Mean % Stand. deviation 

Controls: 10.7 2.5 53.3 12.6 

1 ........... 11 55 

2 ........... 13 65 

3 ........... 8 40 

Experimental: 

1 ........... 18 90 

16.3 1.5 81.7 7.6 

2 ........... 16 80 

3 ........... 15 75 

A TRAINING PROGRAM USING THE PRINCIPLES OF ADULT LEARNING TO ENCOURAGE ADHERENCE 

A persistent problem in the coal industry has been nagging 

doubts about the reliability of SCSR’s. One dimension of the 

reliability issue is the concern that workers do not adhere to 

manufacturers’ recommended inspection and care procedures. 

To encourage these procedures, researchers developed a training 

package to teach miners how to conduct routine inspections of 

their SCSR’s, to care for them properly between inspections, 

and to reinforce the relationship between inspection and care 

and performance of the apparatus when it must be used. 

The package was designed so that, after completing either the 

video session or the CBT module, the trainee would be able 

to— 

1. Conduct the daily required inspection according to the 

provided checklist. 

2. Conduct the required 90-day inspection according to the 

manufacturer’s recommended procedures. 

3. Always properly care for a SCSR. 

4. Determine when a SCSR should be removed from service. 

5. Know the criteria that require a SCSR to be removed from 

service. 

The training modules contained in this package can be used 

together or separately as appropriate for any particular audience. 

The accompanying instructor’s guide explains each module and 

lists related materials. In total, the package includes— 

• An Instructor’s Guide that gives an overview of the training 

package and includes an inspection checklist. 

• A 5-minute video that introduces care and maintenance. 

• A computer-based training CD that covers inspection and 

care for individual trainees or groups. 

• A screen saver to remind users of 3+3 donning procedures. 

• Stickers designed to communicate the lifesaving function of 

SCSR’s. 

The experience-based, task-centered, SCSR training is an example of the effective use of adult learning principles. This 

work has been used to support the promulgation of a federal 

regulation requiring hands-on SCSR training for all people 

entering an underground coal mine. The overall success of 

training work on this topic is reflected, in part, by the 

documented accounts of 3+3-trained workers who have used 

SCSR’s to escape underground mine fires. 

CONCLUSION
 

A grasp of the relationships among the environment, technology, and workers and how these three interact is fundamental 

to the delivery of effective training. A better understanding of 

adult learning and how it can be applied within the two broad 

performance domains of routine and nonroutine is then more 

probable. 

NIOSH research in education and training seeks to offer a 

continuous array of data leading to economically justified 

training interventions based on adult learning principles and 

incorporating a systems approach. These data may be used to 

define realistic goals, methods, and procedures for successive 

improvements in safety, mining systems, work crew proficiency, 

and improved miner training. Such justification will serve to 

institutionalize increased investments in the workforce and 

support training in the mining industry. 

REFERENCES 

Barrett, E.A., and K.M Kowalski. 1995. Effective hazard recognition 

training using a latent-image, three-dimensional slide simulation exercise. U.S. 

Bureau of Mines Report of Investigations 9527. 

Caudron, S. 2000. Learners speak out. Journal of Training and 

Development, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 52-57. 

Cole, H., J. Moss, F.X. Gohs, W.E. Lacefield, B.J. Barfield, and D.K. 

Blythe. 1984. Measuring Learning in Continuing Education for Engineers and 

Scientists. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press. 

Ference, P.R., and E.L. Vockell. 1994. Adult learning characteristics and 

effective software instruction. Educational Technology, July-August, pp. 25-31. 
8 

Kowalski,K.M.,C. Vaught, M.J. Brnich, L. Mallett, D. Reinke, L. Rethi, and W. 

Wiehagen. 2001. The evolving mining workforce: Training issues. Presentation at 

Thirty-Second Annual Institute on Mining Health, Safety, and Research Conference. 

Salt Lake City: University of Utah, Aug. 6-10, 2001. 

Lankard, B.A. 1995. New ways of learning in the workplace. ERIC Digest 161. 

Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education. 

4 pp. 

Merriam, S.B., ed. 1993. An update on adult learning theory. New Directions for 

Adult and Continuing Education, No. 57. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Pub. 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 1996. 

Briefing document for the human factors research program. Pittsburgh Research 

Program. Pittsburgh, PA: Pittsburgh Research Laboratory. 

Puliyel, M.M., J.M. Puliyel, and U. Puliyel. 1999. Drawing on adult learning 

theory to teach personal and professional values. Medical Teacher, vol. 21, no. 

5, pp. 513-515. 

Simon, D.A. 2001. Metacognition in motor learning. Journal of 

Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 

907-912. 

Vaught, C., and H. Cole. 1987. Problems in donning the self-contained selfrescuer. In Mining Applications of Life Support Technology. U.S. Bureau of 

Mines Information Circular 9134, pp. 26-34. 
9 

GETTING THROUGH TO GREENHORNS: DO OLD TRAINING STYLES WORK 

WITH NEW MINERS? 

By Launa Mallett,1

1

Sociologist. 

Dana Reinke,2

2

Sociologist. 

and Michael J. Brnich, Jr.3 

3

Mining engineer, Pittsburgh Research Laboratory, National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, Pittsburgh, PA. 

ABSTRACT 

Some segments of the mining industry, especially underground coal, have seen a large influx of inexperienced miners in recent 

years. It is anticipated that this trend will reach other mining segments over the next 10 years. This paper discusses the training needs 

of the younger generation of inexperienced workers who have just entered or are soon to enter the mines. Currently, many trainers 

are of the so-called Baby Boom generation. Can these different age groups learn to communicate across the generation gap? Even 

trainers who have been highly effective in the past should reassess their training styles and their classroom materials to determine 

if they are prepared to meet the needs of these new trainees. 

INTRODUCTION
 

If you’ve passed your 40th birthday, then you are a generation or more older than the new miners who are showing up in 

training classes. These trainees are part of Generation X (Xers) 

and Generation Next (Nexters) and are taking their places in the 

workforce. Being from a different generation doesn’t mean you 

can’t teach new miners to work in safe and healthy ways. But it 

does mean that you can’t expect them to think, look, believe, or 

behave as you do. You can’t even expect them to be like you 

were when you were that age. Generation Xers and Nexters 

have grown up in a world quite different from the one that 

existed when you were younger. They have been affected by 

different life experiences. While they will mature, they are not 

likely to change much in their basic beliefs and attitudes. To 

train them successfully, you need to understand how these new 

workers differ from older generations in the workforce. 

GENERATIONS IN THE MINES
 

There are currently people from four generations working in 

mines in the United States. Zemke et al. (2000) have categorized 

people into four distinct cohorts based on the years they were 

born. A cohort can be understood as a group of people sharing 

common experiences as they pass through life’s milestones. 

They were born at approximately the same time, and started 

school, became teenagers, entered adulthood, and left the workforce at roughly the same time. The four generational cohorts as 

defined by Zemke et al. are “Veterans” (birth years 1922-1943), 

“Baby Boomers” (birth years 1943-1960), “Generations Xers” 

(birth years 1960-1980), and “Nexters” (birth years 1980-2000). 

Other researchers may shift the years somewhat or use different 

titles, but most generally agree that individuals within each cohort share common life experiences and reactions to them. 

Studying these common threads and generalizations about 

cohorts can result in a greater understanding of all individuals. 

Just as cohorts’ life experiences affect their attitudes and 

beliefs, these experiences shape learning styles and training 

needs. Examining cohort learning styles, Martin and Tulgan 

(2002b) defined the groups with slightly different dates and several different titles than Zemke et al., but agreed that there are 

four distinct groups and noted that each “has its quirks and 

preferences.” They discussed the training preferences of each 

cohort as follows. 

• Veterans. Years of experience have taught veterans to rely 

on tried, true, and tested ways of doing things. “When in command, take charge. When in doubt, do what’s right.” After years 

of working under command-and-control management, veterans 

must use their wisdom to face the radical changes in the new 

workplace. 

• Baby Boomers. Boomers paid their dues and climbed the ladder under the old rules and now find themselves operating amidst 

constant downsizing, restructuring, and reengineering. Boomers 

still pride themselves on their ability to survive “sink or swim” 

management, but fewer today are willing to keep up the frenetic 

pace. Boomer women led the charge for workplace flexibility, and 

now many Boomers have caught on to the free-agent mindset. 

• Generation X. Xers formed the vanguard of the free-agent 

workforce. Now Xers are growing up and moving into positions 

of supervisory responsibility and leadership, but they are not 
10 

settling down. Xers remain cautious and they know their 

security rests in staying on the cutting edge. They’re still willing 

to sidestep rules to get things done smarter, faster, and better. 

• Nexters. Coming of age during the most expansive economy 

in the last 30 years, Nexters are the children of the Baby 

Boomers and the optimistic, upbeat younger siblings of the Gen 

Xers. The first cohort of truly “global citizens,” they are socially 

conscious and volunteer minded. Nexters have been told that 

they can do anything...and they believe it. They are poised to be 

the most demanding generation in history. 

Because cohorts are birth-year-based categories, people are 

lumped together by age. It is therefore tempting to attribute differences to the amount of life experience in each group. But, 

“the generational clash playing out in the workplace today is not 

merely a matter of young versus old. This clash pits the oldfashioned expectations, values and practices of stability against 

the new reality of constant change and the consequent need for 

agility” (Martin and Tulgan, 2002a). 

This clash could also be playing out in training rooms among 

various trainees with different perspectives or between the 

trainer and some of his or her trainees. Managing those differences will lead to more effective training. Additionally, understanding how differences in learning styles affect integration 

of knowledge from the classroom with workplace skills and 

practices is key to developing the new generation of workers. 

First, however, the perspectives and experiences of each generation must be determined before addressing how differences in 

learning styles might affect the way a trainer approaches teaching. 

GENERATION X 

Gen Xers have been in the mining workforce for years. They 

were hired one or two at a time and integrated into experienced 

work crews. Since there were few new employees hired at any 

one mine at any one time, the training needs of this new cohort 

didn’t attract much attention. Their training started in traditional 

classrooms and continued as they worked side-by-side with and 

under the watchful eye of Veterans and Boomers. This informal 

apprentice model seemingly worked even though little special 

effort was given to developing the training skills of experienced 

miners. Gen Xers were comfortable with this model because 

they responded well to a learning environment where they got 

involved in a task, made mistakes, and received feedback. 

Whether or not this model will effectively prepare Gen X 

miners for the next phase of their careers remains to be seen. 

These employees, now in their 20's and 30's, are seeking and 

being put into increasingly responsible positions. Until recently, 

access to these roles had been impeded by the large number of 

Baby Boomers in positions of authority. Furthermore, during the 

lean years of the 1990's, few Gen Xers were being trained to 

fulfill leadership positions. As the Veterans and Boomers start 

looking toward retirement, there is a potential for crises in 

leadership that will call, in part, for a training solution. 

NEXTERS 

Just as Gen Xers are trying on new roles as leaders, they will 

soon become the experienced miners in the eyes of the Nexters. 

Members of the Nexter cohort are graduating from high school, 

technical schools, and colleges. They face very different job prospects than Gen Xers did. Within the time of Nexters’ careers, it is 

anticipated that a large number of Baby Boomers will reach 

retirement age and leave the workforce. Since there are fewer 

Xers available in the population to occupy the positions of retiring 

Baby Boomers, there should be jobs left for the Nexter cohort. 

Some segments of the mining industry, especially underground coal, are already opening their doors to large numbers of 

these young inexperienced workers. As retiring Veterans and 

Baby Boomers are replaced by young Nexters, it is likely that 

this cohort will enter the workplace more quickly than one or 

two at a time. Introductory miner training programs will have to 

be examined with this factor in mind. 

The informal apprenticeship model used for integrating Gen 

Xer’s into the workforce will not work if there are many inexperienced miners working with only a few mentors. Research suggests that Nexter workers need more structure and focused attention in the workplace than the preceding Xer cohort (Training 

Mag.com, 1999). While the mentoring framework can be successfully used with the Nexter cohort, it needs to be formalized within 

new miner training programs to be most effective. Even if the 

number of new workers is spread across shifts and crews, more 

experienced workers will be needed to act as mentors or trainers 

than in the past. This could lead to inconsistent training across a 

mine if training content and strategies are left to each individual 

experienced worker. To introduce this cohort to the mining workforce effectively, how they are to be trained must be considered, 

as well as how to train the trainers. 

VETERANS AND BABY BOOMERS AS COACHES AND MENTORS
 

As noted above, experienced miners play very important 

roles in the work lives of new miners. Workers from the Veteran and Baby Boomer cohorts are the people who will have 

their work habits, both good and bad, taken as models by young 

miners still learning the ropes. Older workers are experts at their 

jobs, and some undoubtedly have developed into excellent 

teachers of their crafts. Capturing the knowledge and skill of 

these experienced workers is one of the mining industry’s major 

challenges. Matching the right experienced workers with new 

employees can have consequences for many years because 

today’s newly hired Nexters are tomorrow’s mine managers. 

Many Veteran and Baby Boomer miners will find passing on 

their knowledge and skills to be highly rewarding. Some may 

even delay leaving the industry if they find fulfillment in a 

mentor/trainer type of role. Training can be provided to assist 

them as they develop into these roles. 
11 

TRAINING STRATEGIES FOR YOUNG MINERS
 

A lot is being said about how to train Gen X and Nexter 

workers (Caudron, 1997; Salopek, 2000; Tulgan, 2000; Corley, 

1999; Cannon, 1991; Wagshal, 1997; Wyld, 1994; Zemke et al., 

2000). Frequently, however, the stories and articles focus on 

students who hope to become employees of accounting firms, 

banks, or computer firms. This targeting of future white collar 

employees by researchers is nothing new. Over a decade ago, a 

report on young workers stated, “Although studies of college 

students are abundant in social science research, research on 

young people who do not attend college and on young people 

beyond college age is scarce” (William I Grant Foundation 

Commission on Work, Family, and Citizenship, 1988, in Arnett, 

2000). While the literature contains valuable information about 

the Gen X and Nexter cohorts, applying such information to 

young and future miners should be done with care. 

A key point that is repeated over and again in the literature 

is the importance of computer-based learning to young workers. 

However, little research seems to be available to confirm 

whether or not this is true of young blue-collar employees. 

There is no doubt that Nexters, as a cohort, are much more 

computer literate than any generation before them. They have 

been using computers in all sorts of settings, including 

education, and are likely to be comfortable with this medium. 

This does not necessarily mean, however, that all Nexters’ 

training should be delivered in this manner. Additional research 

into generational training preferences has found that Nexters 

prefer training that allows them to work in groups to complete 

an activity. In the case of Gen X workers, they prefer to work on 

skill building on their own in a more nontraditional training 

setting. 

NIOSH researchers have started exploring the issue of 

training preferences for workers of all generations. In the 

summer of 2001, 88 miners at an underground coal mine and 

who were identified as part of the Gen X or Nexter cohorts were 

asked to choose three training strategies they most enjoyed. The 

workers chose training strategies from the list below. 

- Computer-based - Lecture (teacher talking) 

- Watching videos - Group activities 

- Hands-on practice in classroom or lab - Quiet reading 

- Class discussion - Games 

- Practice at worksite - Simulation or drill

 Miners were also asked to choose three training methods 

they thought were best to help them learn something new. 

Analysis of the resulting data argued against the claim that 

Generation X and Nexter workers preferred computer-based 

training and may surprise some experts on training young 

workers. The top three methods chosen as most enjoyed were 

“Hands-on practice in classroom or lab” (42.9%), “Practice at 

worksite” (41.7%), and “Watching videos” (32.1%). Computerbased instruction was not a top choice given by younger miners; 

only 15.5% chose computer-based instruction as the training 

method they liked best. Even fewer younger workers (3.6%) 

choose computer-based training as the method they preferred 

when learning a new skill or idea. 

Instead, they showed an overwhelming preference for training that would allow them to try the new skill. When learning a 

new skill or idea, they preferred “Hands-on practice in classroom or lab” (61.9%), “Practice at worksite” (48.8%), and 

“Simulation or drill” (41.7%). 

This isn’t to say that other strategies should never be used, 

but training that incorporates supervised practice in new skills 

is highly important to these young miners. 

Given their preference for hands-on practice, it stands to 

reason that Gen Xers and Nexters will respond to experienced 

miners who are willing to show them how to do the job. They 

will accept instruction from individuals whom they believe have 

the knowledge and skills they need. But for this type of relationship to be built, experienced miners must be open to answering a lot of questions and to finding ways to provide guidance as the younger person learns. A potential obstacle to 

building these relationships is discussed in an article directed at 

the roofing industry. 

To effectively motivate those in Generation X, you must realize 

Gen Xers prefer to learn through mentoring and coaching. They 

want the information, skills, and competencies of people with 

more experience. A Gen Xer typically will think, “Why should 

I have to learn something the hard way when my experienced 

manager already knows it?” 

Mentoring and coaching Gen Xers is a difficult obstacle for the 

construction industry to surmount. Because construction is an 

industry in which "paying your dues" and "learning the hard 

way" have become the norm, the mindset will have to change 

for the roofing industry to attract and retain top-quality Gen 

Xers (Alafat et al., 2001). 

Introducing miners of the new cohorts to the workplace 

simply cannot be done “as we’ve always done it.” Instead, the 

best training strategy for these individuals must be determined. 

One trainer described the experience of training younger 

workers as follows. 
12 

I knew that I was finally old when I muttered the words that I 

swore I would never say: "Kids these days...they don’t know 

how good they’ve really got it!" Regardless of whether you feel 

this way, or whether you sympathize with the plight of the socalled slacker generation, you must understand ONE thing: 

What you feel does not matter! Your focus need NOT be on 

how to change these post-baby-boomers (aged 34 and younger), 

but rather, how to understand them (Dunne, 2000). 

SUMMARY
 

During America’s gold rush, many people “took to the hills” 

in search of their fortunes. The experienced miners called those 

obviously new to the trade greenhorns. There are many stories 

about their exploits and adventures. One can be found in various 

forms, but generally goes like this telling from 1939. 

Another time a greenhorn came into a small mining town 

looking for a mine. The boys after giving him the “once over” 

decided he was looking for shade. They told him that under a 

large tree near the camp would be a good place to start digging. 

The most pleasant part of the digging would be all the nice 

shade he would have from the tree. I’ll be damned! The 

Greenhorn dug there, went down about seven or eight feet and 

he struck it rich. He took the odd-looking stuff that he had found 

and asked a fellow in the camp if that wasn't gold. Poor guy, he 

didn't know gold from brass. To him rock was rock. Well, the 

boys told him it was gold. Hell, there wasn't anything else to do. 

He sold the mine for $70,000. Can you beat it? (Haight, 1939). 

Like the “greenhorn” in the different versions of this story, 

your inexperienced employees may become successful miners 

in spite of bad advice, but they are much more likely to become 

valuable additions to the mining industry with quality training 

targeted for their learning styles and needs. 

REFERENCES
 

Alafat, T., N. Allen, and R.N. Magnus. 2001 Gauging Gen X: Gen X 

employees are different than others, and you need to know how to work with 

them. Professional Roofing, 

http://www.professionalroofing.net/past/apr2001/feature.asp 

Arnett, J.J. 2000. High hopes in a grim world. Youth and Society, vol. 31, no. 

1, pp. 267-286. 

Cannon, D. 1991. Generation X: The way they do the things they do. 

Journal of Career Planning and Employment, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 34-38. 

Caudron, S. 1997. Can Generation Xers be trained?. Training and Development, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 20-24. 

Corley, T. 1999. Becoming an employer of choice for Generation X: The 

elements of the deal. Journal of Career Planning & Employment, vol. 59, no. 

4, pp. 21-26. 

Dunne, J. 2000. Does your service training stick?: How to update your 

approach to appeal to Generation X and Y. Restaurant Report On-line, 

http://www.restaurantreport.com/features/ft_servicetraining.html 

Haight, W.C. 1939. Gold mining lore: Interview of miner Carl Hentz from 

1939. From the WPA Writers' Project, January 23, 1939, a report written by 

author William C. Haight of his oral history interview of a miner, Carl Hentz. 

http://htg-is.vianet.net/~artpike/etown14.htm 

Martin, C., and B. Tulgan. [ 2002a]. Managing the Generation Mix - Part I. 

Bruce Tulgan’s winning the talent wars. 

http://www.rainmakerthinking.com/backwttw/2002/jan9.htm 

Martin, C., and B. Tulgan, [2002b]. Managing the Generation Mix - Part II. 

Bruce Tulgan’s winning the talent wars. 

http://www.rainmakerthinking.com/backwttw/2002/feb19.htm 

Salopek, J. 2000. The young and the rest of us. Training and Development, 

vol. 54, no. 2, Feb. pp. 26-30. 

Training Mag.com. 1999. 

https://www.trainingsupersite.com/publications/archive/training/1999/911/91 

1SB4.htm 

Tulgan, B. 2000. Managing Generation X: How to bring out the best in 

young talent. New York: W.W. Norton and Co. 

Wagshal, K. 1997. I became clueless teaching the Gen Xers: Redefining the 

profile of the adult learner. Adult Learning, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 21-25. 

Wyld, D. 1994. The 13th generation and its revolutionary definition of 

“career.” Journal of Career Planning & Employment, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 26-28. 

Zemke, R., C. Raines, and B. Filipczak. 2000. Generations at Work: 

Managing the Clash of Veterans, Boomers, Xers, and Nexters in Your Workplace. New York: American Management Association. 
13 

AN OVERVIEW OF THE EVALUATION PROCESS FOR MINE TRAINERS 

By Launa Mallett1

1

Sociologist.

and Dana Reinke2 

2

Sociologist, Pittsburgh Research Laboratory, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Pittsburgh, PA. 

ABSTRACT 

Interest in training evaluation in the mining industry was piqued with the promulgation of Title 30, Part 46, of the Code of Federal 

Regulations. Under Part 46.3, a training plan is considered to be approved if it contains certain information, including “The evaluation 

procedures used to determine the effectiveness of training.” The present paper is a broad overview of training evaluation and is 

intended to give trainers and decision-makers a framework for planning or assessing training evaluation strategies. It discusses 

questions to consider when starting an evaluation plan, Kirkpatrick’s model of evaluation categories, and various ways to collect data. 

It does not provide detailed instructions on how to develop evaluation methodologies, but reviews topics to consider when creating 

an evaluation plan. 

Training evaluation is a term that has many different meanings: assessing the quality of a course, effectiveness of materials used, 

teaching style of an instructor, or the comfort of a classroom. An evaluation can be done informally over lunch or with highly 

structured data-gathering tools. It can produce results that are useful to trainers, program administrators, corporate decision-makers, 

or no one. The key to a worthwhile evaluation is clearly defining why the evaluation is being conducted. Once the purpose is defined, 

planning the evaluation strategy can begin. For an evaluation to be effective, it should be incorporated into the development of the 

training activity itself. The training evaluation worksheet at the end of this paper can be used to guide evaluation planning. 

EVALUATION PLANNING
 

Planning a Training Evaluation 

1.	 Who is interested in the evaluation 

results? 

2.	 What questions do they want 

answered? 

3.	 What resources are available? 

The first step to developing an evaluation strategy is determining who will be interested in the results. Assessment of a 

typical mine safety or health training course could be important 

to the trainer, company managers, a labor organization, state or 

federal government agencies, or others. An evaluation designed 

only to meet the Mine Safety and Health Administration’s 

(MSHA) information needs may not contain results that company managers could use for future planning. One developed on 

the basis of a request from company managers may not help a 

trainer decide if the course is working. It usually isn’t practical 

to gather enough information to meet everyone’s information 

needs, so the target audience for the evaluation must be clearly 

defined. 

After identifying who will use the evaluation results, the next 

step is to determine what the interested parties hope to learn 

from the evaluation. The kinds of decisions to be made based on 

the results of the evaluation should guide the evaluation design. 

Is information wanted about the quality of the instructor, the 

usefulness of training materials, the appropriateness of the 

topics covered, the achievement of the students, or something 

else? How the results will be used should also be considered. 

Will the course, the trainer, or the training location be changed 

on the basis of the evaluation findings? Will the findings be 

used to convince someone of the value of the training? 

An important determinant of the scope of training evaluation 

is the resources available. Some evaluation strategies are more 

resource intensive than others. The availability of personnel, 

time, dollars, equipment, and access to data will affect what can 

be accomplished (Dopyera and Pitone, 1987, p. 74). A balance 

between what would be interesting to know and what is 

practical to discover may have to be found. It is not resource 

efficient to gather and analyze more data than are required; 

neither is it productive to conduct an evaluation that fails to 

provide needed information. This is why it is important to define 

the reasons the evaluation is being conducted clearly before 

designing the strategy to be used. The questions in the box help 

focus the initial stages of evaluation planning. 
14 

KIRKPATRICK’S EVALUATION MODEL
 

One way to think about what can be learned during an 

evaluation is to use the categories developed by Kirkpatrick. His 

four-level framework was first presented in a series of articles 

published around 1960 (Nichols, 2000) and go from level 1 (the 

easiest and least resource-intensive) to level 4 (the most difficult 

and expensive) (Kirkpatrick, 2001, pp. 122-132). Each level is 

described in table 1 and the text below. 

Table 1.—Kirkpatrick's four-level evaluation scheme 

Level Measurement focus Questions addressed
 

1 - Reaction Trainees' perceptions What did trainees think of this training?
 

2 - Learning Knowledge/skills gained Was there an increase in knowledge or skill level?
 

3 - Behavior Worksite implementation Is new knowledge/skill being used on the job?
 

4 - Results Impact on organization What effect did the training have on the organization?
 

Over 40 years later, this 

framework is still being used to structure evaluations of training 

programs. 

“As we move from level 1 to level 4, the evaluation process 

becomes more difficult and time-consuming, although it provides information of increasingly significant results” (Clark, 

1997). The questions the evaluation needs to answer and the 

resources available for the task should determine which levels 

will be included. 

• Level 1: Trainee reactions are the easiest kind of assessment 

data to gather. This is not to say they are not important. If 

trainees do not see value in the training, they are not likely to 

translate the objectives of the course into useful knowledge and 

skills. When trainees find a course uninteresting, they will be 

less motivated to learn the material being covered. Furthermore, 

quality instruction will be wasted in a training environment that 

is not conducive to learning. A classroom that is too hot, cold, 

noisy, or small can defeat the purpose of the class before it begins. While positive trainee reactions do not ensure that objectives are met, negative reactions guarantee a less-than-fullysuccessful transfer of knowledge and skills. 

• Level 2: Measurements of learning are used to show whether 

trainees’ knowledge and/or skills are changed by training. The 

best way to determine if changes are the result of specific training is to conduct an experiment in which the class is divided 

into two similar subgroups. Prior to training, both subgroups can 

be tested on the topics of interest either in writing or through 

observation. During this pretest, both groups should perform 

equally. Then only one of the subgroups is trained. After training, both subgroups are retested. If the trained group now performs better than the untrained group, the training can be 

identified as the cause of the improvement. 

Often, however, it is not practical to leave a subgroup untrained, especially with regard to their safety and health. Less 

methodologically rigorous strategies can be used to assure that 

training is working. When the entire group is undergoing training, testing before and after the course can show any changes in 

knowledge or skills. While this cannot definitely prove that the 

change resulted from the training rather than some other external 

factor, if another reasonable explanation is not available to account for the improvement, the success of the training can be 

inferred. 

• Level 3: Unlike levels 1 and 2, measuring a change in behavior must be done outside the classroom and with sufficient 

time elapsed for knowledge and skills to have been tried out in 

the workplace. The most elaborate plan for level 3 evaluation 

would include an untrained subgroup as described for level 2 

and detailed testing of both subgroups in their workplaces 

before and after the training. This type of evaluation is resource 

intensive and isn’t practical for all training sessions. But less 

intensive strategies can yield valuable results. 

[S]omething beats nothing, and I encourage trainers to at least 

do some evaluation of behavior, even if it isn’t elaborate or 

scientific. Simply ask a few people: "Are you doing anything 

different on the job because you attended the training program?" 

If the answer is yes, ask, “Can you briefly describe what you are 

doing and how it is working out? If you are not doing anything 

different, can you tell me why? Did you learn anything that you 

can use on the job?” (Kirkpatrick, 2001, p. 128). 

Another strategy is to talk with the trainees’ supervisors 

about any behavioral changes they have observed since the 

training was completed. Level 3 evaluation can be difficult because it must be conducted months after the training has been 

completed. This highlights the importance of planning an evaluation strategy when planning the course. Time must be 

scheduled for the follow-up level 3 data collection so it won’t 

interfere with future training activities and projects. 

• Level 4: Determining how training affects the organization 

is the most difficult evaluation to perform. Level 4 evaluations 

should be conducted when the value of the training or the 

training program to the overall organization needs to be 

assessed. A relatively simple example is measuring changes in 

sales numbers after training salespeople in a new skill. An 

increase in sales can be compared to the cost of the training and 

a bottom-line return on investment calculated. Unfortunately, 

many topics aren’t that easy to quantify. Even the relatively 

simple sales example can be complicated by a number of other 

variables. Unless a control group is used, as discussed above, 

the economics of the region, the introduction of a competing 

product, or the end of a fad could distort the data to an extent 

that the impact of training is difficult to calculate. 
15 

To conduct a level 4 evaluation, it is important to define clearly 

the tangible results to be measured, such as a decrease in accident 

frequency, an increase in use of personal protective equipment, a 

reduction in maintenance costs, or an increase in production per 

shift. Once the desired result is identified, a means to measure 

changes is needed. Next, factors other than training that could 

influence the change should be identified so that they can be ruled 

out as the source of change, if possible. Finally, evidence that the 

training did cause the change being studied should be identified. 

“Most importantly, be satisfied with evidence, because proof is 

usually impossible to find” (Kirkpatrick, 2001, p. 129). 

GATHERING INFORMATION
 

It is good to acquire data from a number of sources to obtain 

a more complete view of how the training is perceived and its 

impact. There are many kinds and sources of data that can be 

used to evaluate training. An obvious source is the individuals 

being trained. Useful information can also be obtained from the 

supervisors of these trainees. Content or training experts can be 

asked to review course materials, assist with test development, 

or critique a training session. Company documents can contain 

indicators of change, such as maintenance costs, accident 

frequencies, or number of grievances filed. 

The decisions made up to this point in the planning process 

guide the choice of data collection methods. Data can be obtained in a number of different ways, and table 2 lists some 

commonly used techniques and data sources. Table 2 also 

describes when these methods would be used and what can be 

learned from each technique. 

Table 2.—Training methods 

Method When used What can be learned 

Questionnaire ................... Before, during, or after training • Perceptions of trainees or supervisors
 

• Opinions of content or training experts 

• Knowledge or skills 

• Transfer of training to job 

• Organizational impact 

Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Before, during, or after training • Perceptions of trainees or supervisors
 

• Opinions of content or training experts 

• Knowledge or skills 

• Transfer of training to job 

• Organizational impact 

Facial expressions/body language . . . During training • Perceptions of trainees 

Performance tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Before, during, or after training • Trainee skills
 

Written tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Before, during, or after training • Trainee knowledge
 

Workplace observations . . . . . . . . . . . Before or after training • Trainee knowledge or skills
 

• Transfer of training to job 

Games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . During training • Trainee knowledge or skills
 

Group discussion ................ Before, during, or after training • Perceptions of trainees or supervisors
 

• Opinions of content or training experts 

• Trainee knowledge or skills 

• Transfer of training to job 

Analysis of statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Before or after training • Organizational impact
 

To be used successfully, each of the data collection methods 

listed in table 2 requires knowledge about its development and implementation. A more experienced program developer may be 

needed to assist a trainer with the integration of a particular method 

into a training course. Some methods, such as interpreting body 

language, require astute observational skills. Others, such as 

surveys and tests, do not require formal training to administer, but 

may require an experienced developer to construct questions that 

thoroughly address the training program and its effectiveness. The 

knowledge and skills of evaluation plan developers, trainers, and/or 

other observers who will gather the data must be considered when 

determining the best method or methods for gathering evaluation 

data. 
16 

WHAT TRAINING EVALUATION IS NOT
 

If the only result of interest is whether or not each trainee 

knows certain things or has acquired certain skills, then an 

evaluation of training is not needed. In this situation, it doesn’t 

matter how each individual obtained the knowledge or skill, and, 

therefore, the effectiveness of a specific training activity is not 

important. A knowledge and/or skills test can be administered to 

each person after training is completed to determine who is at an 

acceptable level of performance. A pretest is not needed unless 

there is an option that permits trainees to skip the training class if 

they can pass the test. When the question becomes how to train 

those who are not performing adequately so they can pass a future 

test, then evaluation of the training becomes important. 

SUMMARY
 

The only way to determine whether or not training is of 

value is to evaluate it. When objectives for the training are 

clearly defined, an evaluation plan can be designed to measure 

the training’s effectiveness at achieving those goals. Sometimes 

company managers or outside organizations require evaluation 

data to assess a training program. Even when such outside 

influences are not present, it is in the best interests of a trainer 

to gather evaluation data routinely to assess course content, 

delivery methods, and teaching skills. If a course is going to be 

repeated, evaluation can guide changes to improve future 

sessions. If the course will not be repeated, evaluation could 

focus on the skills of the instructor with results being used for 

professional development of that trainer. The important thing is 

to decide what can and should be learned during training 

evaluations and then design a strategy to meet that goal. 

REFERENCES 

Clark, D. 1997. Instructional system development: Evaluation phase. 

Chapter 6. http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/sat6.html. 

Dopyera, J., and L. Pitone. 1987. Decision points in planning the evaluation 

of training. More Evaluating Training Programs: A Collection of Articles from 

Training and Development Journal, D.L. Kirkpatrick, comp. Alexandria, VA: 

American Society for Training and Development, pp. 74-77. 

Kirkpatrick, D. 2001. The four-level evaluation process. Ch. 12 in What 

Smart Trainers Know: The Secrets of Success from the World’s Foremost 

Experts, L.L. Ukens, ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer, pp. 122-132. 

Nichols, F. 2000. Evaluating training: There is no "cookbook” approach. 

http//home.att.net/~nickols/evaluate.htm. 
17 

Training Evaluation Worksheet 

Use this worksheet as a guide to help you plan the evaluation of your next training session. 

Plan the Evaluation 

1. Who will be interested in the results? 

2. What questions will be answered? 

3. What resources (personnel, time, money, equipment) are available for evaluating the training program? 

Gather the Information 

What method(s) will be used to gather information? 

Data Collection Method Performed (circle choices) 

Before, During or After Training 

Before, During or After Training 

Before, During or After Training 

Before, During or After Training 
19 

INNOVATIVE ALTERNATIVES TO TRADITIONAL CLASSROOM HEALTH AND SAFETY 

TRAINING 

By Michael J. Brnich,1

1

Mining engineer, Pittsburgh Research Laboratory, National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, Pittsburgh, PA. 

Jr., R. Lincoln Derick,2

2

Technical safety manager, RAG Twentymile Coal Company, Oak Creek, CO. 

 Launa Mallett,3 and Charles Vaught3 

3

Sociologist, Pittsburgh Research Laboratory, National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health, Pittsburgh, PA. 

ABSTRACT 

After thoroughly covering the health and safety training subjects required under Title 30, Part 48, of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR), mine operators often find themselves with little or no time left in the class schedule for other important topics. 

This paper discusses a technique developed in partnership with RAG Twentymile Coal Co., Oak Creek, CO, for incorporating 

employee participation at all levels in fire prevention and safe equipment operation training outside of traditional classrooms. The 

process involves development of training modules consisting of short, 5- to 7-minute videotapes coupled with toolbox talks that 

ground the content of the videos within the context of a miner’s workplace. 

INTRODUCTION
 

Title 30, Part 48, of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) requires underground mine operators to cover no less than 10 health 

and safety topics as part of new hire and annual refresher training. 

While the mandated topics are obviously important, many instructors would like to cover one subject in more depth and review 

additional subjects during class. Fire prevention and preparedness 

is one topic that some trainers think they do not have sufficient 

time to discuss in adequate detail in the context of an 8-hour 

refresher class. 

RAG Twentymile Coal Co. in western Colorado recognized 

the need to review fire prevention and preparedness, as well as 

other important health and safety topics, outside of its classroom 

training schedule. To meet this need, Twentymile Coal settled 

on using video training modules. In developing this training, the 

company had the following goals: 

1. To find a method to conduct this additional training outside 

traditional annual refresher sessions, 

2. To develop customized materials featuring the mine and its 

unique attributes, 

3. To utilize input from mine employees and feature mine personnel as much as possible in the videos, and 

4. To design the training so that it could be used for experienced 

as well as inexperienced miners. 

Under a cooperative research and development agreement 

(CRADA), researchers from the Pittsburgh Research Laboratory 

of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) collaborated with Twentymile personnel to develop a 

series of customized training modules on mine fire prevention 

and preparedness. This paper discusses the process used by 

Twentymile Coal, provides an example of one of the training 

modules, and presents data supporting the utility of this type of 

training. 

PROCESS
 

The purposes of the joint CRADA were to—	 

1. Assist Twentymile in improving employees’ awareness of mine 

fire prevention and preparedness by covering topics not normally 

discussed in annual refresher training, 

2. Make employees part of the fire prevention and preparedness 

system, 

3. Raise employees’ awareness of the fire brigade’s role, and 

4. Develop and assess the effectiveness of content-specific video 

training modules tailored to particular needs. 

Goal 1. One way to improve an emergency preparedness system is to enhance prevention. This simple idea is often overlooked 

while elaborate response plans are being developed. Safety

personnel at Twentymile Coal Co. recognized that they had given 
20 

a lot of attention to their capability to respond to major emergencies, specifically underground mine fires, but had tended to 

neglect prevention and the basics of first response. The overall 

goal of the program, therefore, became to prevent fire-related 

emergency situations from happening or, at the very least, to 

control the events before a major response effort was needed. 

In addition, Twentymile Coal management saw the program as 

an opportunity to improve miners’ level of awareness about 

management’s commitment to fire preparedness. 

Goal 2. The program was built on the underlying message that 

everyone at a worksite is responsible for emergency prevention and 

response. Thus, it was important to involve mine personnel at all 

levels in the process of developing and presenting training 

materials on fire prevention and preparedness. Recent research has 

focused on the involvement of employees in development, 

structuring, and presentation of training materials. In a study of the 

use of participatory training techniques, Miles (1992) concluded 

that involvement of workers in the training process increased both 

job skills of the participants and their overall job knowledge. 

Goal 3. At the mine, which employs about 300 workers, there 

are two specially trained teams of volunteers. One is the fire 

brigade and the other is the mine rescue team. While team 

members are included in the training, employees who are not part 

of the special teams are the main focus of the program. 

Goal 4. The training modules detail basic fire prevention and 

first-response tasks and introduce some activities that would only 

be performed under the direction of someone with special training. 

The expectation is that, after training, each worker will know his 

or her responsibility during an emergency and will also understand 

the overall mine emergency system. For this portion of their preparedness, mine personnel and researchers from the Pittsburgh 

Research Laboratory worked together to develop a program focusing on the basics. Implementation of the program at the mine 

began in July of 1998 and was completed in early 2000. 

TRAINING MATERIALS
 

The program was started during a week-long session in January 

1998 and included personnel having knowledge about content 

topic, effective training techniques, and video production 

techniques. Four initial video training modules were developed: 

“Introduction to Fire Prevention and Preparedness,” “Conducting 

a Fire Risk Assessment,” “Fire Prevention,” and “Fighting Fire 

with Water.” 

NIOSH researchers collaborated with Twentymile personnel 

in creating the outlines and scripts for each video. The fire brigade 

members involved in this work assisted with script writing and 

were filmed presenting unscripted segments about their areas of 

expertise. They also assisted with development of the safety talk 

guides that accompany each video. A contractor was hired to 

shoot and edit the video footage to create the final videos. 

Following development of the first four training video modules, 

four additional modules were created covering other topics concerned with fire prevention and preparedness: “The Foam Generator,” “Fire Suppression Systems,” “Responding to a Fire: Fire 

Fighting and Evacuation,” and “Using and Maintaining Fire Extinguishers.” As with the previous video modules, mine personnel 

and NIOSH researchers provided content and training expertise. 

Mine fire brigade members provided assistance with script evaluation and filming of various video clips. For the final videos, all 

footage was captured by an in-house videotographer from NIOSH. 

The safety talk guides are a key component of the fire prevention and response basics program. While the videos briefly 

introduce topics and touch on concepts that everyone at the mine 

should know, the safety talks take the same topics and relate them 

to specific work locations. 

For example, one video discusses the equipment needed to fight 

fire with water. It includes information such as types of hoses and 

nozzles used to fight fires and where they are stored underground. 

The associated safety talk focuses on the equipment used to fight 

fire with water and where available in a given work area. After 

this talk, the employees should know what equipment is available 

near their work area and where that equipment is located. The 

videos introduce a subject and bring it to the attention of the 

employees. The safety talks relate the topic to specific work 

locations and provide a forum for questions and concerns. In all, 

five safety talk guides were authored for the first four video 

modules, including two guides for the module “Fire Prevention.” 

The pairing of videos and safety talks allows material to be 

introduced to large groups and then targeted to small groups so that 

neither training segment takes much time. At the mine, the videos 

were presented as part of routine monthly production meetings. 

Every month or two a video would be shown during the preshift 

meeting. The safety talk guides were given to supervisors who 

already had the responsibility to provide such training on a regular 

basis. The length of the talks would vary by presenter and audience 

participation, but were designed to take 5 to 20 minutes. With this 

method, training was incorporated into the daily routine, rather than 

being put into special training classes that required employees to be 

away from their jobs for hours or even days. 

AN EXAMPLE OF A TRAINING MODULE: EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS
 

As mentioned earlier, two safety talks were created for the 

training module “Fire Prevention.” One dealt with general issues 

of fire prevention and preparedness, including housekeeping and 

the mine monitoring system, while the other, “Mine Emergency 

Communication Using the Communication Triangle,” focused on 

the content of warning messages. Research has shown that when 
21 

an emergency occurs, people often do not get the information they 

need to enable them to take appropriate action (Mallett et al., 1993, 

1998). This safety training module presents a procedure in which 

mental cues can be used by senders and receivers of warning 

messages (Mallett et al., 1999). 

The safety talk was originally developed and field tested with 

Canterbury Coal Co. in western Pennsylvania. During the talk, 

miners learned about the six categories of critical information that 

should be provided during emergency communications. These are 

Who, Where, What, Miners, Event, and Response. Below is an 

explanation of these six communication categories. 

• WHO. When reporting an emergency or receiving a warning, 

the first thing a miner must do is to identify him- or herself. This 

is important because people react differently depending on who 

gives them information. If a warning is received from an unknown 

person, the typical response is to try to gather more information 

before acting. Thus, significant time can be lost. 

• WHERE. Telling or finding out where the problem is located 

is important. This may seem like common sense, but doesn’t 

always happen. Forty-eight miners were interviewed and asked 

about their experiences following three mine fires that forced the 

evacuation of more than 60 miners through smoke. Only two of the 

48 had known where the fire was as they were escaping, even 

though this information was known by either the dispatcher or the 

person who discovered the fire. As a result, miners had to make 

decisions about escape routes without knowing where the source 

of the fire lay. This lack of knowledge also increased the stress on 

the miners because they didn’t know how far they would have to 

walk to find fresh air. 

• WHAT. Miners must tell or ask exactly what is happening. 

Again, this may seem like common sense, but such information is 

not always provided in an emergency. For example, during one 

serious mine fire, a warning was given for everyone on the section 

to evacuate. Miners who had been near the phone when the call 

came in went to gather others of their crew. One of these miners, 

a shuttle car operator, ducked under the check curtain and yelled to 

the miner operator, “Come on down to the mantrip! We’re going 

out!” Since the belt was down and it was close to quitting time, the 

miner operator and his helper thought they were just leaving the 

section a little early. They went through their normal end-of-shift 

routine, including backing the continuous miner out of the cut, 

setting jacks, tightening check curtains, and disconnecting the 

power before reporting to the mantrip. Valuable time was lost. 

After providing or obtaining these three initial pieces of critical 

information, miners can then provide or obtain details about the 

response in progress. 

• MINERS. Is anyone hurt? Has everyone been accounted for? 

When and where was a missing person last seen? 

• EVENT. Will this problem require a first-aid kit or an 

ambulance? Should mine rescue teams be called or will just a 

couple of fire extinguishers do? 

• RESPONSE. What’s been done so far? How many people are 

on the scene? What equipment is on the scene? 

EVALUATION
 

All training materials must be evaluated as to their effectiveness 

in teaching specific content. In conjunction with showing the first 

video, a questionnaire (see appendix) was given to all employees 

to assess their level of knowledge of and awareness about fire 

prevention and response, including the content of emergency 

warning messages. An identical follow-up questionnaire was 

administered in April 1999 after completion of the fourth training 

package. 

COMMUNICATION TRIANGLE 

On both the pre- and post-training questionnaires, trainees 

were asked to list three pieces of information that should be 

communicated in a fire warning message. Data were coded to 

place trainees’ responses into the six categories discussed above. 

On the pre-test, 63% of the miners mentioned at least one of the 

six information categories. On the post-test, this number rose to 

77.5%. As figure 1 illustrates, analysis of the data showed that 

more than three times as many miners (43%) were able to name 

three pieces of information following the training session than 

before the session (13%). 

Figure 1.–Percentage of miners identifying at least three components of what information should be passed along in case of a

fire or other emergency. 

Table 1 summarizes the percentage of miners identifying each 

of the six emergency communication elements on both the pre- and 

post-test questionnaires. In all categories, miners exhibited marked 

improvement. The data suggest this module was extremely useful 

as a teaching tool for improving emergency communication skills. 
22 

In addition, 14% of the miners on the pretest said they wanted 

information on what escape route to take in the event of a fire. 

This was seen as unrealistic by company safety staff. This number 

dropped to 8.6% on the post-test. 

Table 1.—Percentage of miners identifying each of the emergency 

communication elements 

Element Pre-test Post-test 

Who . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 25.8 
 

Where . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.0 75.8 
 

What . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 23.0 
 

Miners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6 10.7 
 

Event . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.7 32.0 
 

Response ............. 14.8 23.0 
 

DEMOGRAPHICS 

There was little change in the demographics of miners between 

the administration of pre- and post-training questionnaires. Fewer 

miners completed the post-training questionnaire, but this decrease 

can be explained by noting that (1) no summer employees were 

working when the post-training questionnaire was given and (2) a 

number of miners were on vacation at the time because their 

children were home for spring vacation. Tables 2 and 3 present the 

basic demographic information. For purposes of data analysis, 

miners were grouped into two categories: age (less than 30 and 30 

and older) and experience at Twentymile (2 or less years and over 

2 years). 

Table 2.—Miner demographic data, years 

Number Average 

age 

Average years

 of mining 

experience 

Average years

 of experience 

at Twentymile 

Before

training 

236 37.1 12.3 5.3 

. . . 

. . . 

After

training 

178 36.7 12.2 5.6 

Table 3.—Age and experience ranges for Twentymile miners, 

percent 

Before training After training 

Age (1-29) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.4 31 

Age (30 and over) ........ 69.6 69 

Experience (0-2 yrs) . . . . . . . 30.1 20.4 

Experience (over 2 yrs) . . . . 69.9 79.6 

OTHER FIRE PREVENTION AND PREPAREDNESS 

ISSUES 

On both questionnaires, miners were asked a series of questions 

to assess their awareness of fire prevention and preparedness at 

Twentymile. These included questions about the mine’s general 

level of preparedness, the likelihood of a fire at the mine, 

knowledge of various fire prevention and preparedness activities, 

knowledge of fire-fighting supplies and their location, and possible 

fire prevention strategies. 

Level of Fire Preparedness. Workers could select from “Legal 

requirements met,” “More is done than required by law,” and “Not 

all state/federal requirements met.” Data presented in table 4 

shows the percentage of change in responses between the pre- and 

post-tests, broken down by age and experience at Twentymile. 

Following the training, a greater percentage of younger, lessexperienced miners felt more is done than required by law 

compared with this same group before training. A slight increase 

in awareness was also seen for older, experienced miners. For all 

miners, 59.1% on the pre-test felt more was done compared to 

63.4% on the post-test. 

Table 4.—Percentage of change between pre- and post-tests

according to age and year of experience at Twentymile 

Level of preparedness 

Law met . . . . . . . . . . 

Under 

30 

-11.8 

Age 

30 and 

up 

-2.2 

Experience 

0-2 Over 2 

years years 

-18.1 -1.4 

More is done ....... 12.2 1.9 12.2 4.3 

Law not met . . . . . . . . 1.0 0.3 5.7 1.7 

Likelihood of Fire Occurring. Miners were asked how they felt 

about the likelihood of a fire on Twentymile property, underground 

at Twentymile, and in their work area. As table 5 illustrates, fewer 

miners in the post-test believed fire was likely compared with the 

pre-test. This shift might indicate that, since learning about 

Twentymile’s efforts in fire prevention and preparedness, miners 

believe that a fire is less likely to occur. Interestingly, nearly onehalf of miners in both the pre- and post-test indicated that fire was 

not likely in their work area. This may reflect the sentiment that “It 

won’t happen to me.” 

Table 5.—Percentage of change between pre- and post-tests

regarding the likelihood of a fire 

Location 

On Twentymile

Overall 

-9.2 

Age 

Under 30 and 

30 over 

-10.4 -8.3 

Years of experience 

at Twentymile 

0-2 years Over 2 

years 

-7.3 -11.2 

 property ....... 

Underground at

 Twentymile . . . . 

-5.8 -5.8 -7.5 -11.2 -7.1 

In your work -1.7 -10.5 -0.2 -2.3 -5.0 

 area . . . . . . . . . . 

Similar trends were seen when the data were analyzed by 

workers’ age and level of experience at Twentymile. 

Awareness of Various Twentymile Fire Prevention Activities 

and Programs. On both the pre- and post-test questionnaires, 

miners were asked about their awareness of the fire brigade, the 

mine rescue team, the mock drill at Empire Mine, smoke training, 

fire prevention training, and fire response training. The analysis 

suggested that awareness of fire prevention and preparedness at 

Twentymile increased, especially among less-experienced miners. 

Prior to training, nearly 77% of the workers said they knew about 

the fire brigade. After training, 85% reported knowledge of the 

fire brigade. Similarly, fewer miners on the post-test questionnaire gave “don’t know about” responses in the remaining activity 

categories when compared to the pre-test responses. 
23 

FIREBOSS INTERVIEWS 

Besides administering the post-training questionnaire to 

miners, NIOSH researchers interviewed firebosses to obtain 

their views on the program and to determine if they had seen 

differences in fire preparedness and prevention since the start 

of the program. Overall, the firebosses felt that the training 

was good and that it generated discussion and increased awareness among workers. Firebosses indicated overall housekeeping at the mine was better since the start of the program. They 

felt sections and outby crosscuts were cleaner. The firebosses 

also said that rock dusting throughout the mine was much 

better. 

While the number of frozen or bad belt rollers had not 

changed, the firebosses felt response time for changing out 

rollers was better. They reported seeing no difference in belt 

alignment problems, but this item had not been specifically 

targeted in the training. Finally, firebosses said they had seen 

fewer bad fire extinguishers since the program started. 

SUPERVISOR INTERVIEWS 

In addition to interviewing Twentymile’s firebosses, researchers 

also spoke with many of the supervisors who administered the 

safety talks to crews. Overall, supervisors felt the training modules 

and safety talks were good and covered topics not typically 

reviewed as part of regular training. Many liked the fact the videos 

showed Twentymile Mine and included its own personnel. 

Most foremen felt the safety talk guides were easy to use and 

were about the right length for holding trainees’ attention. One exception was the talk on the communication triangle, which most 

supervisors believed was too long. (This talk was originally developed for another purpose.) In general, foremen reported their 

crews talked about fire hazards after the safety talks. Some 

foremen said they had seen improvements in fire hazard awareness 

among crews. Several also stated that their crews were more aware 

of the correct placement and installation of water drops for fire 

fighting. Finally, most foremen said crews were doing a better job 

of housekeeping and were more aware of belt lines, hot rollers, and 

accumulations of material. 

LESSONS LEARNED AND CONSIDERATIONS
 

From this collaborative effort in developing site-specific training modules, researchers and Twentymile Coal safety personnel 

obtained valuable information and identified several issues to be 

considered. 

Fire brigade members were willing and able to convey what 

they had learned in their special training. They knew what key 

points should be covered and were able to talk through the topics 

while being videotaped. Using them to help develop scripts and 

be “actors” greatly improved the return on investments in their 

fire-fighting training. 

For the program to be successful, Twentymile Coal believed 

that it was paramount for management to buy into the process and 

convey this commitment. Production managers, including the 

mine manager, general mine foreman, and the longwall coordinator, were asked to give introductory remarks on the videos. 

Each manager was given a prepared script for a single video. 

They all agreed to present remarks, but were not comfortable 

with the task. It was felt they should have received the scripts 

sooner or should have been asked to introduce the videos in their 

own words. 

Producing training videos in a production environment requires 

maximum flexibility. Frequently, the person needed for a given 

segment is not available or a location can not be used as planned. 

Schedules change constantly, and alternate plans should always 

be prepared. 

Scripts should be written in advance of shooting footage 

whenever possible. The scripts will then guide what is to be shot. 

This is particularly important if a contract videographer is to be 

employed. 

Safety professionals, production managers, trained response 

personnel, and other employees all have ideas about emergency 

prevention and response. The issues important to each group can 

vary greatly. It is by gathering the concerns and solutions from all 

these groups that the most complete package can be created. 

CONCLUSION
 

From the data, it is evident the video/safety talk modules have 

improved Twentymile employees’ awareness of fire hazards, fire 

prevention, and fire preparedness. The prevention and response 

program was designed to target a given worksite and a specific 

hazard. The basic concepts and methods can be adapted to other 

companies and/or hazards. Twentymile Coal Co. has begun to expand the use of video training modules for other important safety 

topics, including proper pre-shift inspections on diesel scoops 

and roof bolters. 

The unique aspect of these types of training modules are that 

they are site specific. The content experts and video locations 

come from the chosen site. The local experts choose the targeted 

hazard and develop the content of the training. Outside consultants may be required to obtain the video footage. The end 

result, however, is a unique training package that meets targeted 

needs, but that cannot be obtained off the shelf. 
24 

REFERENCES 

Mallett, L., M.J. Brnich, and C. and Vaught. 1998. Training to improve 

emergency communications skills. In: Proceedings of The International 

Emergency Management Society Conference (TIEMS ‘98) (May 19-22, 1998). 

Pp. 471-476. 

Mallett, L., C. Vaught, and M.J. Brnich. 1993. Sociotechnical communication in an underground mine fire: A study of warning messages during an 

emergency evacuation. Safety Science, 16, pp. 709-728. 

Mallett, L., C. Vaught, and M.J. Brnich. 1999. The emergency communication triangle. NIOSH Pub. No. 99-157. 

Miles, K.K. 1992. Use of participatory training techniques in right-to-know 

train-the-trainer course for New Jersey public employees. American Journal of 

Industrial Medicine, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 36-40. 
25 

APPENDIX 

Fire Protection Questionnaire – Twentymile Coal Company 

1.	 How likely is a fire to start in the following locations? (Circle the best answers.) 

On Twentymile property Very likely Likely Not likely Not at all likely 

Underground at Twentymile Very likely Likely Not likely Not at all likely 

In your work area Very likely Likely Not likely Not at all likely 

2.	 Which of the following best describes Twentymile’s level of fire protection activities? (Circle the best answer.) 

A. Not all state and federal requirements are followed. 

B. Legal requirements are met. 

C. More is done than is required by law. 

3.	 What do you know about the following Twentymile activities/programs? (Circle the best answers.) 

Fire brigade Participated in Know about Don’t know about 

Mine rescue team Participated in Heard about Don’t know about 

Mock emergency drill at Empire Participated in Heard about Don’t know about 

Training in artificial smoke Participated in Heard about Don’t know about 

Training related to fire prevention Participated in Heard about Don’t know about 

Training related to fire response Participated in Heard about Don’t know about 

4.	 Please list three things that should be included in a fire warning message. 

5 Please list three fire-fighting supplies found in your work area. 

6.	 Please list three ways you can help prevent fires at Twentymile. 

Please answer the following questions for a study being done by Pittsburgh Research Laboratory. 

7.	 Job title: 

8. Age ___________ 9. Years mining experience ___________ 10. Years at Twentymile 

11. Circle your direct employer: Twentymile Contractor 
27 

CONSIDERATIONS IN TRAINING ON-THE-JOB TRAINERS 

By Bill Wiehagen,1

1

Industrial engineer, Pittsburgh Research Laboratory, National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, Pittsburgh, PA. 

 Don Conrad,2

2

Training specialist, Mine Safety and Health Administration, Johnstown, PA. 

Tom Friend,3

3

Consultant, Princeton, WV. 

 and Lynn Rethi4 

4

General engineer, National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory, 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Pittsburgh, PA. 

ABSTRACT 

On-the-job training (OJT) is a very common method of teaching job skills. Much of the training is done by experienced workers. 

This paper discusses small investments that can help improve the effectiveness of OJT. Effective OJT involves some structure and 

planning in the transfer of responsibility for task performance from the trainer to the novice. Assisting the OJT trainer could involve 

helping develop up-to-date job analyses and offering strategies for teaching and evaluating job skills. 

The scope of this paper addresses (1) organizational considerations supporting structured OJT, (2) general strategies for structuring 

OJT, (3) a typical approach for conducting OJT, (4) characteristics and duties of OJT trainers, and (5) limitations of OJT as a teaching 

method. Health, safety, and operational skills can be connected through training. Haul truck operator training is used to illustrate 

some of the concepts discussed in this paper. 

BACKGROUND AND SCOPE
 

On-the-job training (OJT) is a very common method of 

teaching workers essential skills so they can perform a job safely 

and productively. OJT is often considered informal training, and 

across industries, organizations invest significantly more money 

in informal training than they do in formal training. Some 

researchers (Carnevale and Gainer, 1989) estimate the ratio to be 

from 1:3 to 1:6. That is, for every dollar invested in the classroom, 

3 to 6 dollars are invested in informal training in the workplace. 

There is a range of activities defining what people refer to as 

on-the-job training. OJT might be a situation where workers 

essentially train themselves, that is, they watch someone do a 

job and rely on co-workers to show them the ropes. This is 

sometimes referred to as “following Joe around.” We call this 

type of training on-the-job experience, or “unplanned OJT.” 

This training has little structure (that is, no written plan or job 

analysis) and is almost always done by someone who has 

experience in the task. Sometimes it works well. 

Success in using unplanned OJT is usually dependent on the 

luck of the draw, that is, whether the informal trainer is 

competent at the task he or she is teaching, is motivated to 

teach, can organize the job into logical components, and knows 

something about good practices in teaching and evaluating. 

At the other end of the spectrum are more structured OJT 

strategies (Rothwell and Kazanas, 1990). Structured OJT is 

useful if organizations want to increase the odds of workers 

learning to perform new jobs more effectively and quickly. This 

form of training involves a plan5

5

Without a plan or structure, OJT is very informal and is often referred to as 

trial and error, learning by osmosis, or learning by experience. Informal OJT 

appears to save money early on in that (1) a plan does not have to be developed, 

(2) no time is invested in a job analysis, and (3) the trainer (or an experienced 

worker or supervisor) is doing other things. If an experienced worker or 

supervisor is instructing informally, they are teaching from memory and 

individual experience. For many mining jobs, the downstream costs of informal 

OJT can be quite high. Added costs can involve a greater risk of injury, 

additional downtime, and higher levels of property damage and machine 

maintenance. Money saved early can very likely result in greater risk and more 

money spent down the road. 

 and is useful when the following considerations are present. 

• Because mining technology is increasingly expensive and 

complex, decision makers may give more thought to how 

workers use and should use the technology. Training can work 

to enhance the fit between technology and how it is used. 

• The riskier the job, the more training should be considered as 

a way to reduce risk or accelerate experience. Risk involves not 

only injury, but production downtime and unexpected 

maintenance. 

• When hiring new workers or when workers rotate through 

several jobs, organizations may want to consider ways of accelerating the learning curve and bringing new task performers 

up to speed quickly, as opposed to letting workers learn as they 

go (Rothwell and Kazanas, 1990). 

• Organizations notice large, obvious levels of variability in 

task performance, and they are generally not happy with the 

consequences of that variability. Variability in procedures and 
28 

how decisions are made on a job may affect an individual 

worker, a work crew, and/or the organization itself. It can affect 

the amount of time it takes to complete a task, the risk of injury, 

and product quality, and can likely affect costs (extra downtime, 

maintenance) connected with the job. Planned OJT can help 

reduce variability6

6

Obviously, other factors outside of initial job training can affect long-term 

performance of tasks and quality output by individuals and work teams. 

in how a task is initially performed. It gets 

workers on the same page for critical tasks. For tasks that are 

less critical, variability is less important (see Wiehagen et al., 

1996; Lineberry and Wiehagen, 1996). 

ON-THE-JOB TRAINING IS PRACTICAL 

OJT is practical as productive work is accomplished while a 

worker is learning.7

7

Supervisors should understand that learning is the goal, not production. 

With OJT, managers do not have to be 

concerned with training transfer. Transfer is the application of 

skills acquired in training to the worksite. 

Why is this so? With OJT, the jobsite and the task being 

learned and performed are 100% real. Learning is doing. The results are evidenced by the work itself. Accomplishments are 

visible. 

PLANNED ON-THE-JOB TRAINING ACCELERATES 

LEARNING 

How organizations plan and conduct OJT is essential. A 

worker can take a long time to learn a task by trial and error. To 

reduce this time, decision-makers can examine ways of accelerating the learning curve, especially for those who are new 

to a task. Accelerated learning means less risk and fewer costly 

mistakes that result in serious injury, production downtime, or 

increased levels of maintenance. Structured jobsite training 

accelerates the learning curve better and faster than traditional, 

more casual OJT approaches (see figure 1). 

Figure 1.–Learning curves show proficiency versus time for structured on-the-job training 

versus on-the-job experience. 

Figure 1 shows time 

and proficiency as key variables—how to reduce the time it 

takes to learn a set of skills to an acceptable level. Also 
29 

addressed is the value of examining the variability in the performance of critical tasks that comprise the job.8 

8

Reduced variability provides a tighter envelope of performance. Structured 

OJT coupled with coaching, or peer discussions, can allow workers to reduce 

variability in performing tasks, thus move well beyond minimum levels of 

acceptable job performance. High levels of variability in the performance of 

critical tasks can increase the risk of injury, production downtime, and 

maintenance. Variability is natural within a work system, that is, it will seldom 

equal zero. Unstructured OJT encourages large levels of variability in 

performing tasks. 

Structured OJT does not necessarily require a large investment 

of time and money, but it does take some careful thinking—that 

is, a plan. OJT does not require volumes of paper, but it does 

require (1) that a trainer be present, (2) that someone needs to 

learn a task, and (3) that something is written down, whether it is 

a guide or a checklist, to help organize what is taught and how 

skills will be assessed. Teaching with evaluation is a key 

component of structured OJT as feedback can be offered and 

questions addressed as the trainee is performing the task. 

If experienced workers are trained as OJT trainers, structured 

OJT can make good use of their knowledge and experience to 

help accelerate skills of those new to a task. Accelerated 

learning via structured OJT should reduce business risks and the 

unplanned costs associated with injuries, maintenance, and 

production downtime as more experienced miners retire and 

new employees are hired. The key issues are skill development, 

how to accelerate learning, and the amount of time it takes a 

worker to develop a skill to an acceptable level.9 

9

Trainee and employee learning should continue well after training has been 

completed. The organization may want to allocate time for follow-up or 

coaching after the initial OJT is completed. 

This paper offers some considerations on making OJT more 

effective. Models are offered to provide considerations in the 

structure of OJT programs. The appendix highlights definitions 

of common terms (for example, on-the-job training, on-the-jobexperience), while the table provides critiques of OJT, military 

OJT, and formal apprenticeship programs. 

ORGANIZATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS 

OJT involves structure—a plan. Providing quality training is 

a way of developing and keeping good people. At the management level, structured OJT only involves three steps. 

1. Some thought should be paid as to who would be a good OJT 

trainer or coach for a particular job or task and how these people 

might be identified or selected to teach. 

2. The selected person should be given some help. That help 

should come in two forms: 

• A job analysis or written guide of what the task entails 

and 

• Information about good practices in teaching and evaluating in an OJT environment. 

3. Time should be allocated for the OJT trainer to teach and 

evaluate safe production skills for the specific task. 

In short, OJT provides the opportunity to accomplish objectives important to organizations, whether the skill involves operating a haul truck, maintaining a conveyor belt, or supervising a 

work crew. In some organizations, OJT can become so ingrained 

that it is difficult, over time, to pick out the trainees from the trainers. Both teach and learn from each other. They solve problems 

that benefit the organization, their work crews, and themselves. 

Good teachers learn from their students and become better performers and teachers. The transfer of knowledge is not one way. 

STRUCTURED ON-THE-JOB TRAINING: A GENERAL STRATEGY
 

Implementing structured OJT involves three basic steps: 

assessment–training–evaluation. 

1. Assessment: Finding out what employees already know 

about the job. 

T Decide how much of the job content is already known by 

the trainee.10
 

10As new technology is introduced, it is important to reassess what experienced workers know. 

T Decide what needs to be taught.
 

2. Training: Providing the knowledge and procedural and motor 

skills for the job. 

T Teach the employee and fill in his or her gaps of 

knowledge and skills. Training should be based on a job 

analysis. The analysis should include aspects of safety, 

health, and production and address relevant aspects of 

maintenance and crew coordination. 

3. Evaluation: Assuring that employees can perform the task. 

T Find out if the skills taught have been learned. Evaluation 

is follow-up11

11Some skills are easily taught, others take more time and practice. Some 

consider training evaluation to be a progress or final test. However, in OJT, 

evaluation often involves continuous and casual observation. This is 

normal—evaluation is not necessarily a separate event. to check if an individual’s performance is 

inside or outside the performance envelope. “Envelopes” 

can differ in size; some are more open and flexible, others 

are more rigid. Often, this depends on conditions and 

decisions at the worksite. 
30 

CHARACTERISTICS AND PROCEDURES FOR STRUCTURED ON-THE-JOB TRAINING
 

OJT is finite.12

12However, on-the-job learning is continuous. 

It has a beginning and an end. It is task or job 

specific. It deals with minimum acceptable levels of performance that are often based on the expert judgment of an OJT 

trainer. 

Structured OJT requires the presence of a trainer to teach and 

assess skills. It also involves a written guide that breaks the job 

into tasks. This is typically called a job analysis, and it is an important prerequisite for structured training. A job analysis 

provides an orderly framework for teaching, learning, and 

evaluating. Some refer to a job analysis as an operating procedure, a job safety analysis, or a standard operating procedure. 

Many supervisors and production planners already do job 

analyses. Without a job analysis, OJT would be very limited because trainers13

13The experienced person, now a trainer, may know the job so well that he 

or she will skip steps or miss presenting important information. 

 would be teaching from memory and their own 

experience of how a job should be done. A job analysis offers 

a common framework for both the trainer and trainee. 

The job analysis should make sense to experienced task performers and others that have a stake in the task. In a haul truck 

operation, experienced operators, production supervisors, and 

mechanics and repairmen who service the trucks could offer key 

input to a job analysis. They see the job from different perspectives and can offer insights. 

Job analyses are not all alike. Some are very meticulous and 

detailed (see Morris et al., 1982), and some are less analytic (see 

Hartley, 1999; Krupp and Applegate, 1983). The level of detail 

is normally related to the sophistication of training decisions.14 

14If simulators are to be built, it is important to perform a thorough task 

analysis, that is, document duties, tasks, and elements and identify specific cues 

(for example, visual, audio, tactile, proprioceptive) used by workers to perform 

the task. See Morris et al., 1982. 

Regardless of the level of analysis, all job analyses should make 

the job of teaching accurate, logical, and easy. They provide a 

road map for teaching and evaluating. Because of the 

importance of job analyses in conducting quality job-specific 

training, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is 

leading an effort to develop and test a practical procedure for 

conducting on-site job analyses. The model, adapted from the 

Navy, addresses the duties and responsibilities of off-road haul 

truck operation. 

The assessment–training–evaluation model is intuitive and 

has been applied to OJT for some time, evolving into a generic 

training model with four steps: Preparation, Presentation, Application, and Follow-up (Wilson et al., 1980). 

1. Prepare: Put the learner at ease, find out what he or she already knows, and get the them interested in the job. Assessment 

is assumed to be part of preparation, that is, to determine if 

training is warranted and why. In other words, Is training necessary? Is it important? (See Mager, 1999.) 

2. Present: Tell, show, and illustrate one step at a time. Stress 

each key point, instruct clearly, completely, and patiently. 

3. Apply: Have the learner do the job and make observations. 

Allow time for practice and look for opportunities to have the 

trainee explain key points. Have the person do the job until you 

know it has been learned. 

4. Follow-up: Put the trainee on his or her own, check 

frequently, praise good work, re-instruct to correct poor work. 

This four-step OJT method is common and TRADITIONAL. It 

seems to fit pretty well into the three-step (assess-trainevaluate) general training model discussed above. 

CHARACTERISTICS OF GOOD TRAINERS
 

OJT trainers must have competence in the task they are 

teaching. They also must like to teach or want to learn how. In 

the literature on peer training (also called tutoring), Fitch and 

Semb (1993) developed a simple model: ASK, which stands for 

attitude, skill, and knowledge. 

• Attitude: Friendliness and desire to help others. Approachable trainers know how to encourage and invite questions and 

have good interpersonal skills. Some believe that, at the lowest 

level, teachers must prefer teaching to not teaching (see Fitch 

and Semb, 1993). Beyond that, they assert that a positive 

attitude can be trained. 

• Skills: Good communication skills. An effective teacher 

coaches students to learn the material for themselves. Good 

communication skills begin with listening. An OJT trainer does 

not do all the talking, but often listens and observes. This 

demonstrates patience. 

Early in the interaction, it is useful to assess what is known 

by asking questions and observing. Semb and his colleagues 

suggest that a common mistake made by tutors is that they are 

too quick to jump in; they lecture students before they listen. 

Peer trainers need to reinforce appropriate performance by 

providing knowledge of results and reinforcing key issues. 

Positive feedback is almost always better than negative. 

• Knowledge: Peer trainers must know quite a bit about the 

task or job they are teaching. For many jobs, acceptable performance includes an array of skills—cognitive, perceptual, procedural, and motor. 

DUTIES OF TRAINERS 

One plan for training OJT trainers would be based on an 

analysis of the training task—to assess, train, and evaluate. 
31 

• Assess: Assessment is typically done in the form of 

questions to be asked of the trainee or observations to see what 

the trainee can do. It is a good idea to put the trainee at ease by 

having a relaxed atmosphere that helps the person feel 

comfortable. Training is not a big deal. If you want training to 

be accepted and valued, make it commonplace—just another 

day at the job. 

Asking questions is a way of engaging the trainee as an 

active participant in the training. It also gives the trainee the 

chance to verbalize responses. Not only does the trainer derive 

some idea of what that person knows, but the trainee learns that 

he or she is expected to participate. Asking questions also 

indicates to the trainee that the trainer is interested in teaching 

(Semb et al., 2000). 

Assessment concludes with some notion of a gap. Is there a 

gap in the safe, productive performance of the task or job for 

which the trainee is being trained? Will training help? Will 

further assessment help?15 

15Ergonomics is the science of designing the work to fit the worker. Some 

jobs are so difficult and physically demanding that training will be of little help 

in reducing injury risk, improving product quality, or reducing downtime. 

Ergonomics and training can blend together to enhance the work process. 

• Train: The notion of training in OJT is to shift task performance from the trainer to the trainee. The key word is performance. There are a couple of different approaches discussed 

in the literature. The first is trainer-centered; the other is learnercentered. 

A trainer-centered approach is what most of us experienced 

in school where the teacher takes on the responsibility for 

learning and does most of the talking. The student takes a more 

passive role. The trainee has little experience; the teacher is the 

specialist who must convey a body of knowledge via lectures, 

books, and videos. Students are motivated to learn externally 

because they have to pass a test. The teacher covers the content 

to be learned so the student gets the required information in 

some logical order. Motivation is controlled by the teacher via 

grades or other types of feedback (see Lawson, 1997). 

A learner-centered approach is one in which the trainee 

accepts responsibility for learning, that is, responsibility for 

learning is shifted from the teacher to the trainee. The trainee is 

an active participant in the training, asking questions and 

verbalizing responses to questions asked by the instructor (see 

Semb et al., 2000). The trainer, however, might listen more than 

he or she talks. 

The goal for OJT is the eventual transfer of responsibility for 

task performance from the trainer to the novice. It is a dynamic 

process where evaluation is continuous. This on-going evaluation results in some final assessment of the trainee’s performance, either inside or outside the envelope. 

It is possible and likely for training to encompass both of 

these general processes. However, the learner-centered approach 

is thought to be more suitable for OJT (Lawson, 1997; Semb et 

al., 2000), since it requires active participation. With OJT, the 

work itself, not a grade, provides motivation.16

16Other motivators include achieving higher skill levels and higher pay. 

Many believe 

that the abilities and motivation of the teacher/trainer makes a 

considerable difference in learning. 

• Evaluate: When we think of evaluation under traditional 

teacher-centered training, we often think of a test—The final 

exam. This is not the sole purpose of evaluation. However, tests 

that are well designed can help teach; they can provide motivation for learning and can trigger questions and discussion. 

They help provide feedback to the employee. 

In OJT, the idea is to develop knowledge and skills, thus 

written or oral tests measure only part of the learning. As the 

trainee performs the task—operating a truck, for example—he 

or she is putting themselves to the test under the guidance of an 

instructor. In a very practical sense, evaluation becomes 

continuous.17 

17Even though this three-step model makes evaluation appear as a separate 

entity, in reality, it is on-going. 

Consider a trainer giving the trainee the chance to talk his 

way through a task as the person performs it, such as a walkaround inspection of a haul truck. This technique can help the 

task performer learn by reinforcing procedures and considerations about how to perform the task, much like a pilot’s preflight procedure. However, it also serves as an evaluation tool 

for the trainer because it offers an indication of how the trainee 

understands the task. 

Such a procedure gives the trainee the option to engage in the 

training process (Semb et al., 2000). The trainer asks the trainee 

questions at different steps in the process, which is a good way 

to embed evaluations with teaching.18

18At the same time, the trainee should know that the “real” job is to learn, 

and good peer trainers learn from their trainees (see Semb et al., 2000). 

This implies continuous 

evaluation. The trainer updates his or her opinion of the 

trainee’s competence. 

At one level, competence is either inside or outside the accepted envelope. Logically, some envelopes are larger or 

smaller than others. All items in the job analysis are not 

necessarily equal. Some may be conditional, such as “Perform 

this check if the temperature is below 10°,” “What are the 

factors that affect the uphill and downhill spacing of haul 

trucks?,” and “Dumping over an edge is more risky under 

certain conditions and less risky under other conditions. What 

are those conditions? And why are they important?” 

Researchers suggest that evaluation should be incremental, 

continuous, and not beyond the capability of the trainee 

(Palinscar and Brown, 1984). This is one more reason why a job 

analysis is useful: It helps segment instruction so that competence can be assessed at the duty and task levels within the job. 

For example, a trainer would not be evaluating how a person 

operates a haul truck; he or she would be evaluating components, such as how the individual performs the walk-around 

inspection, approaches the loader, or mounts and dismounts; 

how they decide where to dump; and how they would make use 

of back-up steering systems and brake systems. The trainer 

learns what the trainee can do by asking questions and making 

observations. 
32 

All of these items would be identified in the practical job 

analysis. If the task is not practical nor desired, it should not be 

in the job analysis or operating procedure.19

19 It’s not a bad idea to bench-test the job analysis to see if it is possible to 

perform the task the way it is laid out on paper. OJT trainers can do this as they 

are teaching just to make sure the job analysis makes sense. A practical job 

analysis saves time in teaching because it provides a road map. 

Fortunately, job 

analyses do not live forever. One size does not fit all. As 

technology changes, job analyses need to be updated, so they 

have to be done reasonably quickly (see Hartley, 1999). Health, 

safety, maintenance, and other risks associated with performing 

the job, as well as what might be done to reduce risks, should be 

pointed out.20 

20Risk will never equal zero, and down the road, workers may not perform 

the job as trained. 

Fitch and Semb (1993) suggest that effective teachers 

constantly compare the task goal with their diagnosis of the 

learner’s ability and judgments about the type and amount of 

coaching needed. It makes sense that effective trainers also 

aim at a level of assistance slightly ahead of the trainee’s 

level of achievement. Thus, effective trainers motivate and 

teach. 

ON-THE-JOB TRAINING AND COACHING
 

OJT and coaching go hand-in-hand, but OJT is considered 

finite while coaching is continuous. OJT combined with informal 

approaches such as coaching can blend the two approaches. 

Employee interaction, sharing ideas and knowledge, coaching, observing fellow workers, supervisor guidance, and personal growth 

all have value and contribute to informal training (Brown, 1989). 

This is a key as organizational investments in informal training 

often exceed investments in formal or classroom training. 

According to Lawson (1996), skills and characteristics of 

good coaches include patience, enthusiasm, honesty, 

friendliness, concern for others, self-confidence, fairness, 

consistency, flexibility, resourcefulness, and empathy. The 

ability to motivate, teach, and offer feedback is the essence of 

coaching. Feedback is a form of evaluation. 

LIMITATIONS OF ON-THE-JOB TRAINING
 

As a teaching method, structured OJT has limitations. These 

include— 

• Limitations for teaching nonroutine skills. For example, if the 

task is to teach truck operators how to operate on slippery haul 

roads, it would require drivers driving on slippery haul roads to 

teach and assess those skills. If the training is done on flat and 

dry surfaces, skills of operating the truck under those dry and 

flat conditions will be the only skills taught and assessed. 

Unusual operating conditions must appear at the worksite before 

these skills (operating contingencies) can be taught or learned. 

Thus, some unusual or nonroutine events are often difficult or 

too risky to replicate using OJT.21 

21That is why simulation (synthetic training) is considered by training 

professionals to be very useful—it addresses routine and nonroutine events, and 

skills that are difficult or too risky to teach at the workplace can be practiced. 

Thus, if OJT is finite, then it 

is reasonable to assume that all skills cannot be taught during 

OJT. 

• Limitations for teaching cognitive skills. For example, the work 

environment is not often conducive to teaching skills requiring recall because these skills require memorization and can often be 

learned only by drill and practice. Examples might involve important specifications and components of a haul truck, stopping 

distances when loaded and unloaded, etc. Other forms of instruction, such as classroom, self-study, computer-based training, or 

the use of job aids are considered better for developing these 

cognitive skills. The OJT trainer should have an understanding of 

both the cognitive and procedural skills that comprise job performance. However, many of these cognitive skills can be 

introduced in the classroom and reinforced on the job. It is important to consider the training environment. The workplace (for 

example, via OJT) is one environment, the classroom is another. 

SUMMARY
 

OJT, which is often called “informal training,” is a common and 

useful method for teaching and evaluating skills. Investments in 

OJT are quite significant, although difficult to estimate. Across all 

industries, estimates for training are quite large, from $60 to $210 

billion (Carnevale and Gainer, 1989). The large gap is due to the 

difficulty of arriving at estimates of the amount of informal training 

for both large and small organizations. Organizations spend significantly more on informal training than they do on formal training. 

Skilled performance involves the integration of hazard 

awareness, recognition, and response with operational skills for 

a work task. Allen and Nawrocki (2000) suggest that there is a 

movement back to training via apprenticeship and OJT 

experience across industries. They suggest that targeted skills 

and knowledge will be tied to specific business objectives, that 

technologies (for example, multimedia) are available to assist 
33 

the learner, and that increasingly, larger share of the responsibility for learning will be placed on the learner. 

These same technologies may be very useful in assisting safety 

and skills trainers. Assisting the OJT trainer could involve helping 

provide up-to-date job analyses and offering strategies for teaching 

and evaluating. It is also one way to capture the expertise of 

experienced workers, especially those who have a desire to teach. 

One approach supporting a focus on the skills of the OJT trainer 

is offered by Semb et al. (2000). 

While advances in technology may result in more sophisticated 

tools for conducting OJT, the knowledge and skills of the individual 

trainer will always be the most critical component of OJT. These 

include both knowledge of the job and the ability to communicate 

that job effectively to the on-the-job trainees. 

This paper lays out a few considerations and references for 

planning OJT. We suggest that planned OJT could be a very 

practical way of accelerating the development of skills to benefit 

both safety and production. Opportunities exist for applied research in examining concepts and practical strategies for OJT, 

peer training, coaching, and training OJT trainers. These prospects will require worker involvement in the development and 

structure of both formal and informal training. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 

We would like to acknowledge the following individuals for 

their reviews, comments, and insights on earlier drafts of this 

paper. These include James Baugher (MSHA); Bruce Blakemore 

and Henry Charpentier (Morton Salt); Harold Baugh and John 

Bodenhagen (Bridger Coal); and Ted Scharf, Priscilla Wopat, 

Fred Turin, and Bob Peters (NIOSH). 

REFERENCES
 

Allen, J., and L. Nawrocki. 2000. Training in industry. In Training and 

Retraining, T. Sigmond and J. Fletcher, eds. New York: Macmillan. Pp. 237-

266 

Brown, J. 1983. Are those paid more really no more productive? Measuring 

the relative importance of tenure as OJT in explaining wage growth. Princeton 

Industrial Relations Papers. 

Carnevale, A., and L. Gainer. 1989. The learning enterprise. Alexandria, 

VA: American Society for Training and Development, and Employment and 

Training Administration, U.S. Dept. of Labor. 

Fitch, M.F., and G. Semb. 1992. Peer teacher training: A comparison of role 

playing and video evaluation for effects on peer teacher outcomes. Presentation 

at American Educational Research Association annual meeting, San Francisco, 

CA, April 1992, 26 pp. 

Fitch, M.F., and G. Semb. 1993. The ASK Model of Peer Tutoring: Theory 

and Research. San Diego, CA: Navy Personnel Research and Development 

Center, 32 pp. 

Hartley, D.E. 1999. Job analysis at the speed of reality. Amherst, ME: HRD 

Press, 107 pp. 

Krupp, K., and J. Applegate. 1983. Haulage truck training system. U.S. 

Bureau of Mines contract J038722 with Woodward Associates. Open-File 

Report 61-85, 224 pp. 

Lawson, K. 1996. Improving workplace performance through coaching. 

Urbandale, IL: American Media (Provant Media), 95 pp. 

Lawson, K. 1997. Improving on-the-job training and coaching. Alexandria, 

VA: American Society for Training and Development, 94 pp. 

Lineberry G. T., and W.J. Wiehagen. 1996. The cost relationship between 

performance engineering and human relations. Transactions, vol. 298, pp. 1932-

1935. 

Mager, R. 1999 . What every manager should know about training: An 

insider’s guide to getting your money’s worth from training. Atlanta, GA: 

Center for Effective Performance (CEP Press), 139 pp. 

Morris, C.W., E.H. Conklin, and F.J. Bick. 1982. Development and 

fabrication of a continuous miner training system. Contract H0377025 with 

McDonnell Douglas Electronics Co. U.S. Bureau of Mines Open-File Report 

140-83, 64 pp. 

Palinscar, A.S., and A.L. Brown. 1984. Reciprocal teaching of 

comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition 

and Instruction, vol. 2, pp. 117-175. 

Rothwell, W., and H.C. Kazanas. 1990. Structured on-the-job training 

(SOJT) as perceived by HRD professionals. Performance Improvement 

Quarterly, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 12-26. 

Semb, G., J. Ellis, M. Fitch, and M. Kuti. 2000. On-the-job training (OJT): 

Theory, research, and practice. In Training and Retraining, T. Sigmond and J. 

Fletcher, eds. New York: Macmillan. Pp. 289-311. 

Semb, G., J. Ellis, M. Fitch, S. Parchman, and C. Irick. 1995. On-the-job 

training: Prescriptions and practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, vol. 

8, no. 3, pp. 19-37. 

Wiehagen, W.J., G.T. Lineberry, and L.L. Rethi. 1996. The work crew 

performance model: A method for defining and building upon the expertise 

within an experienced work force. Transactions, vol. 298, pp.1925-1931. 

Wilson, T.R., J. Olmstead, and R. Trexler. 1980. On-the-job training and 

social learning theory: A literature review. A special report prepared for the US 

Bureau of Mines by the Human Resources Research Organization under contract 

HO30828 (unpublished). 56 pp. 
34 

APPENDIX: DEFINITIONS AND CRITIQUES OF ON-THE-JOB TRAINING
 

AND APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES
 

OJT is very common. It has a long history in which a tradesman learned his job from a master craftsman via apprenticeship. 

We reviewed two studies (Wilson et al., 1980; Semb et al., 

1995) that critiqued OJT training and apprentice-type training 

programs. These studies are valuable because the participating 

organizations were interested in learning more about how training methods or systems might be improved. 

OJT has several definitions. Some use it to describe any 

training at a worksite, either in a classroom or in the work location. Others use OJT to differentiate between structured and 

unstructured approaches. Still others use the term to differentiate 

between site training and classroom (off-site) training. 

For this paper, the following definitions apply. 

On-the-job training (OJT): A method of training conducted 

at a worksite. It is finite. It may be scheduled (planned) or unscheduled (unplanned). It involves the interaction of a trainer 

and trainee, and often involves one-on-one instruction and discussion, so the trainer-to-trainee ratio is very small. Some refer 

to OJT as interaction between a journeyman (perhaps a supervisor) and an apprentice. It could include classroom components 

that are very closely related to a specific task or job. 

Formal classroom training: The trainer-to-trainee ratio is 

rather large, and many students or trainees are taught by one 

teacher. Training is formal, scheduled, and time-limited. Skills 

obtained require application and transfer to the job. 

On-the-job experience: An informal method of learning that 

does not involve a trainer. Thus, there is no opportunity for instruction or evaluation (feedback) other than self-assessment. It 

is continuous, and it could include the use of job aids. On-thejob experience is useful for those who are knowledgeable about 

the work but need practice in performing a task. 

Job analysis: A method for breaking a job down into com

ponents or steps. A fairly common hierarchy involves the 

following: A job is composed of several duties. The duties involve the completion of tasks. Practical job analyses provide a 

tree of responsibilities that connect the job with duties with 

tasks. 

Coaching: Considered to be an informal (one-on-one) training method. It involves observations, questions, dialog, and 

feedback. 

Peer training: Considered to be a formal or informal (oneon-one) training method. Most research relates to the subject of 

tutoring for the development and transfer of knowledge and cognitive skills. Tutors are often viewed as coaches. Thus, peer 

training has direct relevance to OJT. 

Obviously, there are no perfect programs or training methods. 

Table A-1 summarizes the findings and results from these few 

studies. OJT and apprenticeship programs have a lot of strengths 

and are valued, and an examination of the difficulties can provide 

an opportunity for improvement. 

­

Table A-1.—Common difficulties with OJT and apprentice-type training programs (adapted from Wilson et al., 1980; Semb et al., 1995) 

OJT programs Apprentice programs Military OJT 

Lack a trainer (closely resembles on-the- Trainee is sometimes treated as a helper or Written materials may be written above level trainee 

job experience). semi-skilled labor. or trainer can understand. 

Lack a training plan (e.g., no job Trainees may fail to rotate through all job tasks. Inspection teams put too much emphasis on keeping 

analysis). training records and not enough on end results. 

Unscheduled (this may or may not be a Classroom instruction may be poorly correlated Trainees may feel they are mis-assigned to tasks, 

problem). with OJT. that is, not working in the area trained. This can 

affect their motivation to learn. 

Coordination of off-jobsite training and Production demands get most attention, and
 Training can be short-circuited. Proficiency tests can 

OJT can be difficult and/or poor. training is secondary.
 be passed without trainee demonstrating 

performance in some tasks. 

Structured OJT is most often found with Trainers may lack knowledge and skill
 Always a problem keeping the materials up to date. 

very large employers. regarding instructional methods.
 

Training material can be easily outdated or
 Difficult and sometimes poor coordination between 

inappropriate.
 job knowledge and job proficiency training. 

Completion of training is often based on hours,
 Many front-line supervisors not trained in OJT 

not competency.
 methods. Poor coordination between training and 

follow-up. 

The training plan may not be based on actual
 Trainee counseling sessions are either not held or 

job analysis.
 may not be very meaningful when they are held. 
35 

RELEASING THE ENERGY OF WORKERS TO CREATE A SAFER WORKPLACE: 

THE VALUE OF USING MENTORS TO ENHANCE SAFETY TRAINING 

By Thomas W. Camm1

1

Mining engineer. 

and Elaine T. Cullen2 

2

Activity chief, Spokane Research Laboratory, National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, Spokane, WA. 

ABSTRACT 

The mentor/learner model is a time-honored approach to teaching, including within the mining industry. Miners know when they 

see excellence and have a deep respect for experts in their field. By using expert miners as mentors to other, less-experienced miners, 

training programs can be developed that will have a legitimacy and credibility that resonates with those being trained. Building upon 

concepts in current theories of adult education, this paper highlights the unique advantages of using mentoring as a teaching method 

that can make the educational experience both interesting and effective. Current NIOSH safety training materials use these concepts 

to deliver effective adult learning experiences for workers in the mining industry. 

INTRODUCTION
 

“We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then, is not an 

act, but a habit.”—Aristotle 

When discussing worker safety training, a logical starting 

point is to ask the question: What is the goal of the training? Is 

it merely to satisfy regulatory requirements? Or is the goal to 

facilitate true learning about working safely? Asking what is the 

goal of the training is not a trivial question, for it determines the 

underlying philosophy of the entire safety training program. 

For a significant proportion of workers, most formal training 

has taken place in school in grades K-12. For many, memories 

of school and sitting in a classroom are memories of boredom 

and tedious exercises with little relevance to real life. The idea 

of sitting through a lecture with a test at the end does not stir 

pleasant emotions. Most of the models we have for teaching are 

based on teaching school children. When we consider the 

experiences most blue-collar workers had in school, it is no 

surprise that their reaction to these traditional learning settings 

tends toward ambivalence, reluctance, or even hostility. Yet, 

this is still the most common approach used for training adults 

in a work setting. 

There are, however, alternatives that can make training sessions more than a tedious chore that must be endured to meet 

regulatory requirements. By using concepts from current adult 

learning theory, and as a particular example focusing on the dynamics of a mentoring approach to training, the goal of safety 

training can be moved from just trying to meet regulatory requirements to a goal of facilitating true learning that has a lasting impact on helping workers to stay safe. Referred to in many 

ways (master/apprentice, teacher/protégé, trainer/trainee, old 

hand/new recruit), the mentor/learner concept provides an effective approach to safety training. 

ADULT LEARNING THEORY
 

“Learn the fundamentals of the game and stick to them. 

Band-Aid remedies never last.”— Jack Nicklaus 

When discussing training in the workplace, we are talking 

about adult learners. Andragogy, the “art and science of helping 

adults learn” (Knowles, 1980, p. 43), has a different emphasis 

than pedagogy, the art and science of helping children learn 

(Knowles, 1980; Merriam, 1993). According to Knowles, 

pedagogy-andragogy represent a continuum ranging from 

teacher-directed to student-directed, with both approaches 

appropriate for children and adults depending on the 

circumstances (Merriam, 1993, p. 8). The important distinction 

is the preference of adults in most circumstances to be more 

self-directed in their learning. 

Another component of adult learning that distinguishes it 

from pre-adult learning is addressed by Mezirow’s theory of 

perspective transformation (Mezirow, 1990). Perspective 

transformation involves reformulating our assumptions to have 

a more inclusive, discriminating, permeable, and integrative 

perspective and to understand why we attach the meanings we 
36 

do to reality (Merriam, 1993). According to Mezirow, the hallmark of adult learning is becoming aware of how our presuppositions constrain how we see things and then reformulating 

these assumptions for a better understanding of the world. When 

safe working practices and a philosophy of working safely become a part of workers’ basic assumptions about how to do their 

jobs, safety training becomes relevant to their lives and not just 

another required chore to endure. Adults are more likely to 

achieve this transformation if they can see it modeled in peers 

that they admire or trust. 

“Learning is not compulsory. . .neither is survival.”—W. 

Edwards Deming, American statistician and quality-control 

expert 

The challenge for safety trainers is that an adult can be 

required to attend safety training, but they cannot be compelled 

to learn while they are there. Perhaps more importantly, they 

cannot be compelled to internalize and accept what is taught as 

part of their own belief system or way of working. 

“Bodily exercise, when compulsory, does no harm to the 

body; but knowledge which is acquired under compulsion 

obtains no hold on the mind.”—Plato 

EVALUATING LEARNING 

According to Caldwell (1999), the following questions 

should be asked when evaluating training for adult learners. Is 

it— 

C Meaningful? 

C Socially responsible? 

C Multicultural? 

C Reflective? That is, is some critical analysis used in 

development? 

C Holistic? 

C Global? 

C Open-ended? 

C Goal based? 

Traditionally, students were raised to do “seat work” when 

they were in the classroom, with most, if not all, of the class 

time spent with a teacher in front of the room lecturing to the 

students. The current generation of students has been taught 

using a variety of techniques, with a significant focus on accomplishing tasks and working cooperatively in teams. 

TRAINING METHODS 

Common contemporary training methods include a combination of tools and delivery techniques. 

C Lectures 

C Videos 

C Computer (CD, DVD, Internet) 

C Simulation 

C Hands-on 

C Mentors 

C Task training 

According to Knowles (1980), the essence of teaching adults 

lies not in the approach as much as in the relationship that exists 

between learner and teacher. To emphasize this point, Knowles 

often refers to the teacher as a facilitator, focusing on the concept that adults prefer a learning environment in which they can 

participate. 

THE ADULT LEARNER 

“Researchers...have verified that a significant number of 

adults learn a great deal outside the control and confines of 

formal educational institutions.”—Caffarella, 1993, p. 27 

Workers learn most of what they need to know on the job 

(Wiehagen et al., 1994). Relationships with fellow workers will 

affect not only their attitude toward work, but also their attitude 

toward safety and training. 

Adults seek autonomy characterized by three major elements: 

C Independence, 

C Ability to make choices, and 

C Capacity to articulate the norms and limits of their society 

(Chene, quoted in Caffarella, 1983, p. 29). 

Adults need information and involvement before learning and 

tend to ask three questions—How? What? Why? 

Current adult learning theory addresses the following characteristics of adult learners (Knowles et al., 1998). 

C A need to know why 

C Self-directed 

C Prior experience 

C Readiness to learn 

C Motivation 

C Orientation to learning and problem solving 

Self-Directed Learning. Providing a certain degree of selfdirection in the training process is more likely to allow a trainee 

to follow his or her individual learning style. Most people learn 

best when a variety of learning methods is offered, but each 

person typically has a learning-style preference. Some learn best 

visually, others by hearing/audio, and still others with hands-on 

(tactile) training. A self-directed learning environment provides 

the opportunity to bring the previous experience of each worker 

to bear on the subject matter. Previous learning socialization and 

social orientation of the group can add to the efficiency of 

training and keep the locus of control with workers. “Adults 

have a deep psychological need to be generally self-directing” 

(Knowles, 1980, p. 43). 

Prior Experience of the Learner. Prior experience shapes 

our reality. Taking advantage of the wide range of individual 

differences among workers being trained adds a rich resource 

for learning. One advantage of using a worker’s prior 

knowledge during training is the opportunity it provides for the 

workers to feel a sense of ownership in the training and enhance 
37 

their own sense of worth by making a positive contribution to 

the experience. A possible disadvantage of using prior 

experience is that unwanted biases may be presented that inhibit 

or shape new learning. 

Readiness To Learn. Adults are most ready to learn things 

that will help them cope with existing situations. Particularly 

relevant are tasks associated with moving from one developmental stage to another. An effective technique to induce 

readiness is through exposure to role models who excel in the 

skill or knowledge to be taught (Knowles et al., p. 67). 

Motivation To Learn. Wlodowski (1985) suggests that adult 

motivation to learn includes four desires: (1) success—to be a successful learner; (2) volition—to feel a sense of choice in learning; 

(3) value—to learn something of value; and (4) enjoyment—to 

experience learning as pleasant. Adults are motivated to engage in 

learning experiences they see as practical and relevant to their 

lives, which either help them solve problems in their lives or that 

have internal payoffs. 

Orientation to Learning: Problem Solving. 

“Adults are motivated to learn to the extent that they perceive 

that learning will help them perform tasks or deal with 

problems that they confront in their life situations. Furthermore, 

they learn new knowledge, understandings, skills, values, and 

attitudes most effectively when they are presented in the context 

of application to real-life situations.”—Knowles et al., 1998, 

p. 67 

SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY
 

Social learning theory has been around for over 60 years, 

incorporating the learning principles of reinforcement, punishment, extinction, and imitation of models. There are currently 

several versions of social learning theory, but three basic ideas 

are common to all versions. (1) Response consequences (rewards, punishments) influence the likelihood that a particular 

behavior will be performed again in a given situation, (2) vicarious learning—learning by observing others—will take place 

in addition to learning by doing, and (3) learners are most likely 

to model behavior they observe in those with whom they 

identify (Stone, 1998). 

Two of these three ideas are relevant to the mentoring that 

takes place in mining. The first suggests that vicarious learning, 

or learning by watching others, is common, particularly when 

people participate directly in the observed act. The second says 

that people are more likely to pay attention to those with whom 

they identify or those to whom they are emotionally attached. In 

the mining industry, it is quite common to see new hires 

working with older, more successful miners. These older miners 

become role models and are effective teachers because their 

“students” identify with them and are willing to watch what they 

do and model it. This type of training is much more successful 

than trying to teach a new miner in a classroom. 

MENTORS OR COACHES 

Coaching: “[T]he process of equipping people with the 

tools, knowledge, and opportunities they need to develop themselves and become successful.”—Hughes et al. 

The mining industry has historically depended heavily on the 

mentor/learner (master/apprentice) relationship to train new 

miners. Young or new hires are paired with older experienced 

hands (mentors) who teach them many things, including the art 

of staying alive. Billett (1994) suggests that this relationship is 

key to learning in skilled vocational jobs and that it is not only 

the activities that are important, but guidance and exposure to 

the work culture that makes up the learning experience. In his 

opinion, mentors (master miners) provide three essential
 

attributes.
 

C Knowledge about what is important. 

C Knowledge about how to do things right.
 

C Knowledge about the culture, including the values and
 

attitudes that the learner must have to be successful in the
 

current environment.
 

The questions one must ask are “Why do learners pay attention?” “What motivates them to listen to another miner?” 

Pegg (1999) would respond that mentors have credibility that 

has been gained in a variety of ways. It may have come through 

success as a miner, perceived “street-smarts,” acknowledged expertise in a given area, personal presence or magnetism, or 

merely from age or experience. In any case, the learner sees a 

coach who has “been there-done that” and who could help them 

learn the ropes. This is a critical element in the relationship. For 

a successful learning experience, the learner must be willing to 

learn from the mentor. 

THE ART OF MENTORING 

So what happens in a mentoring relationship? Pegg (1999) 

argues that truly great mentors are those who help people find 

their own way to achieve success. Mentors teach the knowledge 

and skills the learner will need by helping them through the 

cycle of— 

C Challenges faced, 

C Choices available, 

C Consequences of available options, 

C Creative solutions, and 

C Results. 

The art of allowing the learner to fail in a safe environment is 

crucial to the learning process. The trainee must eventually be 

able to perform without the support of the mentor to become an 

effective or safe worker. A successful mentor will fade out after 
38 

making sure that the learner has the skills needed to perform. This 

process is included in the model suggested by Billett (1994) in his 

apprenticeship method of instruction. It involves four phases. 

C Modeling, where the expert performs the task and discusses 

why it is done “this way.” 

C Coaching, where the mentor watches and monitors the learner, 

providing tips and feedback on how to improve. Coaching may 

also include performing the task again to reinforce modeling it. 

C Scaffolding, in which the learner performs the task while the 

mentor is at a distance and not directly involved. The mentor 

may, however, have to do part of the task that the learner is not 

yet ready to perform. This phase primarily involves support. 

C Fading, which is the gradual removal of support until the 

learner can operate without assistance or guidance. 

Mentoring in the mining environment is often an informal 

relationship. A young miner (the learner) looks around and identifies a more experienced miner who appears to be successful 

and approaches him to see if he is interested in teaching a new 

hand (become his mentor). This format is very common in 

Western noncoal mines. In many cases, the mentor initiates the 

relationship, recognizing the opportunity (or even the obligation) to give back to the younger generation, to “take someone 

under their wing” to ensure they learn to do things the right way. 

The mentor will coach the learner until he feels either that the 

trainee is wasting his (the mentor’s) time or he has taught him 

enough to make him a valuable hand. If the learner does not 

believe the mentor is credible, however, very little learning will 

take place. In this training environment, the actual teaching is an 

on-going, constant interaction, rather than an isolated incident 

restricted to a training room. 

One of the most important concepts in a mentor/learner learning environment is identified by Billett (1994). “Developing 

learners’ conceptual understanding of why things are done a 

certain way, and what will happen if they were not, is a key role 

for the expert.” In other words, why should they care if things 

are done this way? Expert mentors must not only teach how to 

do things, they must clearly teach why and what will happen if 

things are not done in the proper manner. Becoming a master 

miner cannot be accomplished by classroom training alone. The 

skills to become a truly good miner are learned over many years 

and are the result of acquiring wisdom as much as skill and 

knowledge. Being a master becomes a part of who they are. 

Robert Pirsig, in his book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle 

Maintenance (1974, p. 148), describes it this way: 

Sometime look at a novice workman or a bad workman and 

compare his expression with that of a craftsman whose work you 

know is excellent and you'll see the difference. The craftsman isn't 

ever following a single line of instruction. He's making decisions 

as he goes along. For that reason he'll be absorbed and attentive 

to what he's doing even though he doesn't deliberately contrive 

this. His motions and the machine are in a kind of harmony. He 

isn't following any set of written instructions...it is art. 

An apprentice does not learn this easily. It is a lesson that is 

taught by the master in a mentoring relationship, in a learning 

environment honed by experience and reinforced by the culture. 

When the teaching relationship is successful, the learner is on 

the way to becoming a mentor for the next learner. 

REFERENCES
 

Billett, S. 1994. Situating learning in the workplace: Having another look 

at apprenticeships. Industrial and Commercial Training, vol. 26, no. 11, pp. 9­

16. 

Caffarella, R.S. 1993. Self-directed learning. In An Update on Adult 

Learning Theory, S.B. Merriam, ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pp. 25-35. 

Caldwell, K.M. 1999. Curriculum development: Adult learners. Paper 

submitted for Doctoral Studies in Leadership class, Gonzaga University, 

Spokane, WA. 

Knowles, M.S. 1980. The Modern Practice of Adult Education: From 

Pedagogy to Andragogy, 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge. 

Knowles, M.S., E.F. Holton, III, and R.A. Swanson. 1998. The Adult 

Learner, 5th ed. Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. 

Merriam, S.B. 1993. Adult learning: Where have we come from? Where 

are we headed? In An Update on Adult Learning Theory, S.B. Merriam, ed. San 

Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pp. 5-14. 

Mezirow, J. 1990. Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood: A Guide to 

Transformative and Emancipatory Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Pegg, M. 1999. The art of mentoring. Industrial and Commercial Training, 

vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 136-141. 

Pirsig, R.M. 1974. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. New York: 

Bantam Books. 

Pratt, D.D. 1993. Andragogy after twenty-five years. In An Update on Adult 

Learning Theory, S.B. Merriam, ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pp. 25-35. 

Stone, D. 1998. Social cognitive theory. 

http://www.med.usf.edu/%7Ekmbrown/Social_Cognitive_Theory_Overview. 

htm . Univ. of South Florida, Dept. Community and Family Health. Retrieved 

May 28, 2002. 

Wiehagen, W.J., G.T. Lineberry, W.E. Lacefield, M.J. Brnich, and L.L. 

Rethi. 1994. The work crew performance model: A method for evaluating 

training and performance in the mining industry. U.S. Bureau of Mines 

Information Circular 9394. 

Wlodowski, R.J. 1985. Enhancing Adult Motivation To Learn. San 

Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 
39 

DEVELOPING TOOLBOX TRAINING MATERIALS FOR MINING
 

By Floyd D. Varley1

1

Safety engineer. 

and C.M.K. Boldt2
 

2

Civil engineer, Spokane Research Laboratory, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Spokane, WA. 

WHAT IS TOOLBOX TRAINING AND WHY USE IT?
 

Toolbox training is often described as short, informal training 

conducted at a worksite by technically competent persons for 

the benefit of a work team. The key feature of toolbox training 

is the focus on a work team and what is important to that group 

in its workplace. Toolbox training conducted by peers can 

connect miners and establish the feeling that the hazard is a real 

threat to them. This feeling can bridge the gap between delivery 

of a safety message and behavioral changes that can prevent an 

accident. 

Toolbox training is a popular form of “maintenance” training 

that should not be used to teach a new skill. The 10- or 15-

minute toolbox session is simply too short a time to teach or 

learn a new skill and test for skill development. However, the 

toolbox format is an excellent way to inform workers of changes 

in workplace rules, conditions, or hazards by bringing the discussion of change to the level of the work group and suggesting 

how a change will affect the way workers perform their jobs. 

Toolbox training should be structured to address a very 

specific hazard. That is, the hazard source should be identified 

and the effect of the hazard on the worker described. The 

temptation to discuss a safety subject in broad terms will result 

in an equally vague result. For instance, discussing “equipment 

guards” is inappropriate for a 15-minute training session. There 

simply is not enough time to cover all the hazards and their 

remedies. A more appropriate topic would be “placing guards on 

a conveyor return roller” or “hazards of cleaning a conveyor 

return roller.” Each topic is concise enough to allow the trainer 

time to define a particular threat to the safety of miners and discuss ways to defend against that threat. The clearest way to a 

safe workplace is to identify hazards methodically and eliminate 

them. This cannot be done with sweeping, generalized training. 

Some best practices that will protect a worker from the hazard 

should be presented, and the hazard should be located at the specific worksite. 

Toolbox training is an opportunity for the work team to 

participate in learning and share experiences and knowledge, 

often through storytelling. Storytelling is an ancient form of 

passing along information in an entertaining way. It is entertaining because it draws the listener in with imagination and 

creativity. Stories told within work groups are a way for miners 

to exchange experiences in which they made mistakes that resulted in an accident or a near-miss and learned a valuable lesson. Thus, co-workers can learn from others without the pain or 

fear that accompanied the storyteller’s learning path. 

To encourage these shared experiences, the people in the 

group must be comfortable with one another. Participation 

doesn’t stop with listening to a near-miss story or informing the 

group of an unsafe work practice. Participation by sharing experiences, knowledge, and skills should lead toward action in 

changing the unsafe tool, practice, or machine (Wallerstein, 

1992). 

This power to change is called empowerment. Empowered 

workers use toolbox training sessions to discuss a problem; direct their own knowledge, experience, and talents in the context 

of their work environment to solve the problem; and put into 

practice what they have learned by sharing (Baker, 1992). A 

worker is much more likely to implement changes they have 

contributed to creating than changes forced upon them. 

Toolbox training functions best when the group size is small 

(under 20) and composed of workers with similar job functions. 

While combining all workers on a shift or multiple shifts may 

be convenient, the level of participation will drop dramatically 

as group size increases and participants are less connected. 

Similarly, when the work group participants are from different 

job functions, keeping the materials relevant to the individual 

becomes more difficult. The role of management in the toolbox 

training system is to communicate among various groups so that 

all groups at a mine site are hearing the same message. In very 

small operations, combining work groups can be productive if 

the trainer can promote open discussions and lead the group to 

solutions that address the needs of all and not let one group or 

individual dominate the discussion. 

WHY USE NARRATIVE METHODS
 

An effective communications tool is to use stories as a means 

of describing a hazard and its consequences. Historically, using 

stories to transfer knowledge between individuals of the same 

and different generations is well established. All good stories 

share the same elements required to communicate safety principles. Stories require a setting (the part of the workplace), a 

plot (the circumstances that lead to a hazard), the solution (best 

practices), the lesson (what can happen), and the result (what 

will be done to prevent the hazard) (Dennehy, 1999). 
40 

Toolbox training, by definition, is not a place for long epic 

tales. However, telling stories, the narrative method, provides a 

way to open the door to empathy among workers regarding one 

individual’s hazardous experience. The difference between 

toolbox training and traditional storytelling is the need to 

involve the workers by having them take part in the story. 

The narrative toolbox method begins with a short true story 

surrounding a hazardous condition that resulted in an accident. 

The setting and the plot have been established. The result, 

usually a bad one, for the individual in the story is also revealed. 

The next step is to lead the workers through the remaining parts 

of the story and guide them in rewriting the story as it applies to 

them, their workplace, and their reactions to the hazard. 

The first stop in story immersion is to bring out what best 

practices the victim did not use. Group discussions then lead to 

the question, “Could this happen here?” Now is the time to try 

to get the workers to open up about similar experiences they 

have had and what they learned. Following these revelations, the 

group should discuss the result for the team, that is, what will be 

done to protect against this hazard. This section of the training 

will, if successful, produce work for management in terms of 

things that must be acted upon, such as purchasing and installing 

signs or barriers, installing different guards, or scheduling 

follow-up task training. 

Effective use of storytelling and open discussions will result 

in time well spent in narrative toolbox training sessions. Writing 

down what the workers said and following up with feedback on 

the recommendations will help toolbox training be a part of an 

effective safety and health program. 

HOW TO BUILD A TOOLBOX
 

Identify a Subject:

The first step in creating toolbox training materials is to 

identify a subject relevant to the work group. Obvious examples 

would be accidents that have occurred in the work group, at the 

worksite, or at other sites within the company. Accidents outside 

of the work group can also be meaningful sources of training 

topics if the conditions or circumstances of that accident are 

present at the worksite. Other topics are the introduction of new 

work rules or policies related to safety, as well as new 

equipment or procedures that are about to be introduced in the 

workplace. Toolbox training can also be an effective means to 

reinforce topics related to citations issued by the Mine Safety 

and Health Administration (MSHA) or faults noted in your own 

safety audits. Special or nonroutine events, such as a construction activity, a weather episode, an intense production period, or an extensive maintenance activity, could be used as toolbox training topics to increase awareness of hazards associated 

with these events. 

In selecting a topic for toolbox training, remember to narrow 

the subject to specific actions, equipment, and/or hazards so that 

the short training period can both fully explore the subject and 

develop solutions. 

Describe the Hazard: 

After selecting the subject to develop into a toolbox talk, 

make a list of the hazardous characteristics of the subject. 

Describe what type of accidents and injuries can occur and the 

circumstances that create a hazard. This exercise will help 

narrow the subject to the specific topic to be covered in the 

training session. For instance, a subject such as housekeeping in 

the shop can cover several potential hazards. To specify a 

hazard such as slips and falls or fire will direct the housekeeping 

discussions to one of these very different aspects of housekeeping. 

Identifying the potential result helps build empathy for the 

victim and interest in the topic by clearly stating the full range 

of consequences that could result from this hazard. Focusing 

only on fatalities can dilute the impact of a safety message 

because most people are not willing to recognize such a severe 

result as an outcome for themselves or their peers. Most miners 

will never experience a fatality in their workplace, and so news 

of such an event usually carries with it the impression that it 

happens to other people. Most miners do feel vulnerable to 

injuries and may better identify with the potential hazard and 

personal impact of these injuries because they or someone they 

know has probably had an on-the-job injury. A miner may take 

to heart a message about a broken arm that cost several week’s 

wages more readily than a discussion of the same hazard in 

which someone died. 

By noting the circumstances that created this hazard, a trainer 

can create “what to watch for” lists to set the stage for 

discussions. This list is intended to provide a mental audit for 

miners to remind themselves of the conditions that could create 

a hazard. The list should relate to where potential hazards exist 

at a worksite. Listing circumstances not relevant to the work 

group, even if they may create more substantial risks, may 

diminish the message by creating a link to someone other than 

the miner. An example would be to note icy conditions as a potential slip and fall hazard at a mine that does not experience 

freezing weather. 

Use a Story To Improve Empathy and Interest:

Developing a sense of empathy toward the victims in a story 

of a real accident or incident is one of the best ways to convey 

the circumstances and consequences of a hazardous condition. 

The most common example of this tool in the mining industry 

is the use of MSHA’s fatalgram. These short reports offer a 

basic description of a fatal accident. 

In addition to fatalgrams, MSHA has listed on its website all 

reportable accidents that have occurred in U.S. mines. These 

reports are available through the MSHA Data Retrieval System 

at http://www.msha.gov/drs/drshome.htm. This resource can be 

used to look at accidents reported by other mines so enough 

information can be acquired to frame a story for a training talk. 
41 

The system provides accident information by mine or mine 

operator. NIOSH is currently working on another web-based 

accident information source that will allow searches by type of 

accident or commodity being mined. A casual search of 

neighboring mines or mines in the region will usually produce 

a good supply of story material. Mines with different mining 

methods and mined commodities will have many of the same 

hazards facing employees. 

Story lines can also be developed from newspaper articles 

about accidents in the community. Many subjects, such as hand 

tool use and misuse, can be covered by stories found in local 

papers. Begin by clipping these stories and building a toolbox 

talk around the stories. 

In presenting a story, strive to duplicate the hazard 

description effort. 

• Identify the hazard and the circumstances that created the 

hazard. 

• Finish with the result, the injury to the victim. Embellishments of the story may help sell the story as long as it can still 

be claimed as a true story. 

Offer Best Practices: 

After telling the story, the next step in the process is to make 

sure the injury result of the story is not repeated at the mine. 

Offer ideas for best practices that, had they been followed, 

would have prevented the accident. Reinforcing best practices 

followed in the story is also a good idea as it can help 

demonstrate that going part way in safety efforts is often not 

enough. Best practices are intended to be springboards to 

discussion. 

Visual aids such as pictures of someone doing the task the 

right way or the wrong way can help reinforce best-practice 

discussions and may help the competent trainer better 

understand the material. 

Elicit Participation:

A miner’s active participation in the training is probably the 

most important and beneficial aspect of narrative-style toolbox 

training. A way to elicit participation is by asking leading or 

open-ended questions. Examples of these common questions, 

when to use them, and what to expect are described below. The 

appendix to this paper is an example of a training module. 

• “Has anyone here had a similar accident or a close call or 

know of one?” 

This question seeks to link the work group to the potential 

hazard. If miners feel free to express themselves, the trainer may 

find out about holes in the company’s systems. For the future 

success of the training method and communications in general, 

information revealed in this forum should not lead to disciplinary actions. It is reasonable to council an employee individually if an incident should have been reported. When a 

employee volunteers an experience, it is important to follow up 

with the question— 

• “What do you do differently now to prevent the 

accident?” 

If there are no volunteers willing to admit a similar 

experience, add a question to connect the story to the miner’s 

world, such as— 

• “What could the person in the story have done to prevent 

the accident?”

 Much like the follow-up to an employee’s story, this 

question opens discussion to solving the potential problem. In 

all cases, connect the message to today with— 

• “Where in our mine could this same accident happen?” 

To reinforce the best practices, encourage discussion with a 

question such as— 

• “Are there other best practices we do or could use here?” 

This will open the floor to new ideas on solving the problem 

and may lead to the follow-up question— 

• “Is there anything that prevents us from using these best 

practices?” 

Other questions that connect the previous safety training to 

the present can be used, such as “Does anyone remember what 

we talked about last week?” or “Does anyone have a 

suggestion for a future safety topic?”It would also be useful 

to add follow-up questions such as “Last week Joe said he’d 

check the first aid kit. Was it done?” 

Document: 

The need for documentation will be based on how the 

toolbox training is to be used. At a minimum, the names of the 

miners who participated in the training should be recorded. If 

the intent is to use these training sessions toward Part 46 annual 

refresher requirements, each participating miner and the competent person leading the training must print their names on a log 

(see appendix) that identifies the talk, the date, the time spent, 

the location, and a note that the training is part of the 46.8c 

annual refresher requirement. In addition, Part 46 requires that 

training plans include a reference to the subjects covered in 

toolbox training if the toolbox meetings are to be used to satisfy 

the minimum training time requirements. The person responsible 

for training at the mine must sign either the log or another document that summarizes the logs of several training sessions to 

certify that training has been completed and acknowledging that 

he or she knows the punishment for false certification. 

CONCLUSION
 

Toolbox training can be a valuable part of a training program. 

It can be used to share safety information and provide a 

structured, but informal, forum for improving safety at a mine. 

Toolbox training requires preparation, active participation, and 

follow-up, but it can stimulate attention to everyone’s health and 

safety on the job. 
42 

REFERENCES AND SELECTED READINGS
 

American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). 

1997. Tailgate meetings that work! A guide to effective construction safety 

training. National Education Pub. 9655, 324 pp. 

Baker, R., and B. Szudy. 1992. Hardware to hard hats: Training workers for 

action (from offices to construction sites). American Journal of Industrial 

Medicine, vol. 22, pp. 691-701. 

Cary, M., G. Van Belle, S.L. Morris, B. Cameron, and D. Bourcier. 1997. 

The role of worker participation in effective training. New Solutions, vol. 7, pp. 

23-30. 

Center to Protect Workers’ Rights. Electronic library of construction 

occupational safety and health (eLCOSH). Training programs for safety and 

health. Available at 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/elcosh/docs/training/materials.html. 

Dennehy, R.F. 1999. The executive as storyteller. Management Review, vol. 

88, no. 3, pp. 40-43. 

University of California, Labor Occupational Health Program. 2001(1994). 

Tailgate training for California construction workers. Tailgate Meetings That 

Work! 2001 Guidebook. 200 pp. 

Wallerstein, N., and M. Weinger. 1992. Health and safety education for 

worker empowerment. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, vol. 22, pp. 

619-635. 
ltD 

C~"T"'U ~O" D'~""'~I!: 

o;;(lNTltOL ANI> PNtVO;NTION 

TAILGATE TRAINING 

PERSONAL PROTECTION EQUIPMENT AND PRACTICES - MODULE 2B 

HAZARD - Loose clothing, jewelry or hair catching in equipment 

RESULT - Cuts, burns, broken bones, death 

LOOK FOR - Loose clothes, jewelry, hair, pinch points 

REAL ACCIDENTS: On a cold February evening, a 20-year-old laborer with 1 year of experience 

was checking a head pulley. The sleeve of his sweater was caught by the pulley or edge of the belt, 

pulling in his arm and crushing it. 40 DAYS LOST. 

BEST PRACTICES: 

t/ Don't wear ragged, loose, or hooded clothing. 

t/ Keep sleeves and pant legs/cuffs tight. 

t/ Keep long hair tied up and inside hard hat. 

t/ Don't wear necklaces, scarves, or rings during work. 

t/ Make sure all pinch pOints are well guardeci. 

WHAT ABOUT OUR SITE? COMMENTS 

Who remembers what we talked about last 

week? Was there something we needed to 

fix? 

What can get caught in pinch points? 

(Jewelry, shovels, pry bars, clothing, hair) 

Has anyone had or seen an accident or nearmiss with pulleys? 

What places/jobs in our mine have a high risk 

for catching clothing? (Show us.) 

Is there any other way to reduce the hazard? 

(Hair and clothing code, add/fix guards) 

43 
TRAINING RECORD 

DATE: _____ MSHA MINE/CONTRACTOR NAME and ID No.: __________ _ 

TRAINER: LENGTH: LOCATION: ______ _ 

o Check If this Is Part of Annual Refresher Training (CFR 30, 46.8.c) 

PERSONS TRAINED (PRINT FULL NAME): 

I certify that the above training has been completed: _______________ _ 

False certification is punishable under §110(a) and (f) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act 

44 
45 

COMMUNICATING THE SAME MESSAGE WITH DIFFERENT MEDIA: 

AN EXAMPLE FROM HEARING LOSS PREVENTION 

By Robert F. Randolph,1

1

Research psychologist. 

Jeffery L. Kohler,2

2

Director. 

 and David C. Byrne3 

3

Research audiologist, Pittsburgh Research Laboratory, National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, Pittsburgh, PA. 

ABSTRACT 

Multiple versions of an educational message can reach a diverse population more effectively than a single version. For instance, 

some workers are trained in formal classrooms while others are self-taught. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

has developed multiple versions of a hearing loss simulator (an interactive software package, a Web-based module, and an electronic 

slide show) to show how a single set of information can be readily adapted to different delivery methods. The three versions of the 

simulator were developed with a minimum of effort and expense compared to a single, less-flexible version. The interactive software 

is best for training sessions led by a hearing conservation professional, the Web pages are best suited for an individual worker, and 

the slide show is best for a small, more-generalized, training class. This paper will describe additional advantages and disadvantages 

of different delivery systems and will show what considerations are helpful in designing content that can be readily adapted to 

alternate presentations. 

WHY IS A HEARING LOSS SIMULATOR IMPORTANT?
 

Although noise-induced hearing loss is the most common occupational disease (National Center of Health Statistics 

[NCHS], 1993), most people don’t adequately protect 

themselves from harmful noise (Berger et al., 1996). Changing 

behaviors to increase hearing conservation has turned out to be 

especially challenging for a variety of reasons. In some cases, 

workers may not know how to protect their hearing. In other 

cases, obstacles may prevent them from taking action. Often, the 

obstacles are obvious—hearing protectors are not available, 

noise control solutions are expensive or otherwise impractical, 

or the worker has little control over reducing noise. 

A more subtle obstacle is lack of motivation to take preventive action. Clearly, nobody wants to have poor hearing. 

However, the threat of a potential hearing loss sometime in the 

distant future may not be enough motivation for action in the 

present, especially with all the other events vying for a busy 

worker’s attention. Another problem is that because noise-induced hearing loss is usually gradual and workers don’t experience the same kind of physical pain associated with other 

types of workplace hazards, they don’t realize that hearing 

nerves can be permanently damaged by excessive sound levels. 

To add to all of the preventative challenges, there are also a 

number of myths about hearing loss. 

Myth: I can build up a resistance to noise—my ears will eventually get “toughened up” so they won’t get hurt. 

In fact: There is no way to build a resistance to noise. Excess 

noise damages the cells and nerves of the ear and these cells 

and nerves cannot be repaired or replaced. Continued exposure 

results in continued damage, not “toughening.” 

Myth: Noise can’t hurt me unless it’s painfully loud. 

In fact: Noise becomes potentially hazardous around 85 dBA4 

4

“A significant risk to miners of material impairment of health from workplace exposure to noise over a working lifetime exists when miners’ exposure 

exceeds an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA8) of 85 dBA.” Mine Safety and 

Health Administration. Health Standards for Occupational Noise Exposure. 

Federal Register, vol. 64 no. 176, p. 49548, 9/13/1999. 

and only begins to cause pain at much louder levels around 140 

dBA. In between is a large range of dangerous noise levels. 

Myth: I can duck in and out of a noisy place before it can affect 

my ears. 

In fact: Noise that is loud enough can damage the ears instantly. Also, many short exposures can add up and cause 

damage similar to continuous exposure. 

Myth: My hearing will probably come back after I stay away 

from noise for awhile. 

In fact: Your hearing will never come back once the ear is 

permanently damaged. 

Myth: Even if I lose some hearing, I can get hearing aids—they 

will restore my hearing just like my eyeglasses work for my eyes. 

In fact: Hearing aids don’t work as well as glasses. At best, 

hearing aids will restore some ability to understand conversation and experience the sounds around you, but they don’t 

sound “normal.” 
46 

All these myths reflect a misunderstanding of the 

mechanisms of hearing loss. In particular, they ignore the 

painless,cumulative damage that occurs to the sensory cells in 

the inner ear. They also ignore the irreversibility of hearing 

nerve damage. 

Before these myths can be debunked and workers can be 

receptive to taking action to protect their hearing, they must 

understand the nature of a noise-induced hearing loss. Unfortunately, it is difficult to describe such a subjective sensory 

experience, just as it is difficult to describe the concept of 

“pink” to a blind person. Rather than attempting to tell workers 

that their hearing will become “dull” and that they will have 

difficulty hearing high-pitched voices or understanding conversation over background noise, safety trainers need to take a 

more direct approach by having workers experience hearing loss 

first-hand. Since it would be clearly unethical to have workers 

experience a true permanent hearing loss, or even a temporary 

threshold shift, a simulation is a realistic alternative. 

The hearing loss simulator developed by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) uses an established standard method of estimating the effects of noise 

exposure. The specific formula is taken from an American 

National Standard Institute (ANSI) document entitled “Determination of Occupational Noise Exposure and Estimation of 

Noise-Induced Hearing Impairment” (ANSI S3.44-1996 

[R2001]). This standard is based on a number of studies that 

report actual hearing levels in individuals who had a wide range 

of exposures to noise, including a population that was carefully 

screened to have had no noise exposure at all. By including 

nonexposed individuals, changes in hearing due to aging 

(known as “presbycusis”) can also be predicted and separated 

out from noise-induced changes. 

Other researchers have used different populations and mathematical techniques to arrive at slightly different ways to calculate the risk of noise-induced hearing loss (see Prince et al., 

1997, for a discussion of the issue and of an alternative technique based on a NIOSH survey). There is also a great deal of 

variability in individual susceptibility to noise-induced hearing 

loss. However, there is no real dispute over the basic relationship: Greater noise exposures over longer time periods result in 

more hearing loss. 

USING THE SIMULATOR FOR EFFECTIVE TRAINING
 

Two primary goals drove the development of the simulator. 

The first goal was to make the results of excessive noise 

exposure as obvious as possible, and the second goal was to 

make the simulation as widely available as possible. 

The first goal was easy. Hearing loss simulation is an established training technique that was already available in two 

basic forms, either “canned” recordings or specific demonstrations 

produced with specialized audio equipment. A typical recorded 

simulation would be an educational CD or audiotape that contains 

recordings of the sounds that both normal and hearing-impaired 

people would hear. The impaired tracks have been processed 

through filters to selectively reduce the frequencies most affected 

by noise exposure (typically in the range of 3000 to 6000 Hz). On 

some tracks, the loss is gradually “dialed in” so the trainee can 

hear the affected frequencies fade away little by little. On other 

tracks, the transition is abrupt, which serves to make changes 

immediately evident. Interaction with the simulation is limited to 

replaying the recordings and skipping back and forth between the 

normal and impaired sounds. Depending on the playback device 

in use, this may be cumbersome. 

A more interactive simulator is available as an audio instrument. These instruments are sophisticated electronic machines designed for use in audiological clinics, and they allow 

a clinician to control both the nature of the sounds (speech, 

background, etc.) and the type of impairments (high- versus 

low-frequency loss, etc.). The main drawbacks of these devices 

are their high cost and complexity so that a physician or 

audiologist is required to operate them. Because of these 

limitations, only a very small percentage of workers who may 

be at risk of noise induced hearing loss have the opportunity to 

experience a simulation. 

Therefore, wide dissemination became the most important 

remaining goal for an improved hearing loss simulator. Now that 

virtually all workers have access to a personal computer either at 

home, in a training facility, or at a local library, computer 

“interaction” became the primary focus for an inexpensive 

interactive simulator. NIOSH funded development work by 

Michael and Associates, Inc., State College, PA, to create a 

software version of the hearing loss simulator. Commercially 

available sound software libraries made this objective feasible at 

very low development costs, while the sophisticated sound 

capabilities of even the most modest computers made it possible 

to incorporate a large number of features. 

The full software package is an extremely flexible interactive 

training tool; however, its flexibility could become a liability in 

some training situations. Users must follow a series of steps just 

to set it up and get usable sounds from it, so they need to spend 

some time familiarizing themselves with the basic functions. 

Generating the correct sounds in the correct sequence requires 

following a training script or having significant expertise in the 

field of hearing loss prevention. Not all users will have the time 

or resources to make the best use of the full software package; 

instead, they will need something simpler and more straightforward. To meet this need, two other variants on the simulator 

were developed. One is a computerized interactive slide show, 

and the other is an Internet Web page. The advantages and 

disadvantages of each version in different training settings are 

described in table 1. 
47 

Table 1.—Advantages and disadvantage of three versions of hearing-loss simulator 

Version Advantages Disadvantages 

Full simulator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . High flexibility Must be installed on PC 

Many scenarios Some learning time 

More functions Requires more trainer expertise 

Customizable sounds No background information 

Computerized slide show . . . . . Can be used by individual trainee Only a few canned sounds available 

Includes background information Cannot be tailored to site or trainees 

Web page ................. Can be used by individual trainee 

Accessible by any Web-connected PC Only a few canned sounds available 

Simple and quick Cannot be tailored to site or trainees 

AUTHORIZING TOOLS 

Both the Web page and the slide show were constructed 

using basic, readily available software. The slide show was 

constructed using Microsoft5

5

Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA. 

PowerPoint 2000, and the Web 

page was built with Microsoft FrontPage 2000. Products from 

other software companies could also have been used–nothing 

about the Web page or slide show required any Microsoftspecific features. For instance, the Web page just uses standard 

HTML code and could have been generated in any HTML 

editor or even a generic text editor. The slide show makes use 

of simple animation and multimedia functions that are common 

to most other products on the market. 

SOUND PROCESSING 

The tools needed to generate the sounds in the simplified 

training packages were only slightly more specialized than the 

authoring tools. It was important to create filtered recordings 

that would simulate the individual frequency losses of a person 

with a noise-induced hearing loss. Fortunately, many such tools 

are available at modest cost ($100 or less). For the sounds in the 

slide show and Web simulators, Syntrillium’s6

6

Syntrillium Software Corp., Phoenix, AZ. 

CoolEdit 2000 

was used. First, the software’s transformation function was used 

to create a filter with frequency characteristics similar to the 

hearing levels of a 45-year-old individual who had been exposed 

to 95 dBA of noise per 8-hour work day over a 25-year career. 

This represents a very noisy job, although there are some jobs 

that are even noisier. Then a recording of a male speaker reading 

a series of hearing loss messages (the same recording as used in 

the full simulator) and a combination of the male speaker and a 

mining background noise (continuous haulage machine) were 

processed. The resulting files were saved in both the common 

WAV format for the slide show and MP3 format for the Web 

page. By using the MP3 format, a significant file size reduction 

was achieved at the expense of a small loss in sound quality 

resulting from the format’s “lossy” compression. This size 

reduction is important for Web pages because many users may 

have slow Internet connections, and the long download times 

required for uncompressed sounds would discourage users from 

accessing the simulator. 

WEB PAGE 

The Web page is the simplest version of the simulator (figure 1). It consists of a single page with instructions to listen to 

four sound samples by clicking on four icons in order. The icons 

play a normal male voice recording and the same voice as heard 

with a noise-induced hearing loss. Next, the user can hear the 

voice with machine background noise both with and without a 

hearing loss. The page is intended as a very brief introduction to 

the concept of noise-induced hearing loss and has no provision 

for adjusting exposure durations or modifying the types of 

sounds. These functions may be added to a later version of the 

site once the functions are evaluated in the full simulator. The 

target audience for this version is an individual worker who is 

accessing the Internet from home, a training room at work, or 

some other access site. In the future, the page will contain links 

to additional supporting publications and sites and allow 

downloading of other versions of the simulator. 

COMPUTERIZED SLIDE SHOW 

The computerized slide show has much more content and 

interactivity than the Web page. It uses the same preprocessed 

simulated sounds as contained in the Web page and embeds 

them into a series of slides. It also surrounds the simulation with 

a brief lesson about the nature and causes of noise-induced 

hearing loss and finishes with a review of actions that workers 

can take to protect their hearing. Selected slides for the 

background, simulation, and action portions of the presentation 

are shown in figure 2. This version of the simulator is mainly 

intended for safety and health instructors to use as part of their 

hearing loss training sessions. It is self-contained, requiring only 

a Windows PC to operate. Instructions on navigating from one 

screen to the next and activating the simulated sounds are 

displayed right on the screen. Although designed for use in 

small training rooms, its simplicity makes it also appropriate as 

a self-paced training exercise for an individual worker. 

FUNCTIONS AND CONTROLS OF THE FULL
 

SIMULATOR
 

The full simulator offers a number of controls to give the 

trainer flexibility to tailor the training to the audience and 
48 

training needs. This places considerable responsibility on the 

trainer, but the resulting interactive possibilities can be worth it. 

Below is a description of all of the essential functions in the 

prototype simulator that are currently being evaluated (see 

figure 3 for a view of the main control screen). These functions 

are likely to change somewhat in the final release and in 

subsequent versions as improvements are made on the basis of 

user feedback. 

Figure 1.–Prototype Web page version of hearing loss simulator. 
49 

Figure 2.–—Sample screens from computerized slide show version of NIOSH hearing loss simulator. 

Foreground Sound 

Human speech is used as the default foreground sound 

because it is both the most complex and most important signal 

workers need to perceive. The simulator allows the choice of 

either a male or female voice recording. However, the simulator also allows the user to record a foreground sound of his 

or her choice through the computer’s sound hardware. Some 

trainers could use this capability to record a special warning 

signal or other sound that is likely to be heard at a specific 

facility. 

Background Sound 

Background sounds often severely tax a listener’s ability to 

hear and/or comprehend the intended message. The simulator 

allows the choice of several types of background sounds, including some recorded worksite sounds (continuous miner, haulage machine, drill) and some more generic background noises 

(male or female “speech babble,” white noise, etc.). The user 

can also control the signal-to-noise ratio, that is, the relative 

loudness of the foreground and background sounds. In practice, 

a range of -10 to -20 signal-to-noise ratio seems to work best. 
50 

Figure 3.–—Main control screen, full version of NIOSH hearing loss simulator. 

Noise Exposure Level 

The first ingredient of overall sound exposure is noise level. 

As expected, high-intensity sound levels cause much more 

hearing damage than lower levels. The effect of different levels 

of past noise exposure can be simulated by entering the desired 

A-weighted sound level in decibels. 

For simplicity, a single decibel A number is set in the 

simulator, although workers may correctly point out that the 

sound levels they are exposed to vary considerably over time. 

Because of this, the decibel A value should represent an 

estimate of the average exposure over the simulated time 

period, commonly referred to as the time-weighted average 

(abbreviated as TWA). 

Years of Exposure 

Time is the second major ingredient of exposure. This is set 

in years to represent a noisy period in the simulated individual’s life. For instance, it can be set to cover a single noisy 

portion of a career (for example, 10 years of working with a 

loud machine) or multiple noisy periods added together. The 

time entered assumes exposure during normal working days of 

around 8 hours, not continuous round-the-clock noise exposure. 

Age 

Some hearing loss occurs as people age, but age alone seldom causes a severe hearing loss or deafness. One of the major 

lessons to be learned from the simulator is that aging usually 

causes much less hearing loss than does noise exposure. The 

simulator shows this by demonstrating the hearing loss due to 

age alone. The age-related losses are usually mild and affect the 

highest frequencies the most. The additional and more substantial hearing loss due to noise can be added on top of agerelated loss to show the effects of noise, especially on speech 

frequencies. 

Gender 

Males tend to have higher levels of hearing loss than 

females who have had the same noise exposure, so the program 

allows the user to specify the simulated worker’s gender. 

Population Distribution 

Noise does not affect everyone to the same extent. To account for variations within the population, the ANSI S3.44 

standard specifies expected hearing loss for different 
51 

population fractiles. The program allows the user to specify the 

0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 0.9 fractiles. For instance, a worker at 

the 0.1 fractile would have more hearing loss than 90% of the 

equally exposed population. Those at the 0.75 fractile would 

have more hearing loss than just 25% of the population. One 

use of this would be to show the range of impairment that could 

be expected. For instance, the 0.9 fractile could be used to 

reach the workers who believe (for whatever reason) that they 

may be less susceptible to noise-induced hearing loss. This 0.9 

fractile level could be presented as the minimum loss that 

would be expected based on the set exposure, and that most 

workers exposed at this level will have even more hearing loss. 

Most workers will have no way of knowing their susceptibility 

to noise, so this control should usually be set on the expected 

population median (0.5 fractile) to start with. 

Invert Loss 

Once a loss is simulated, it can be “inverted” by clicking on 

the “Invert Loss” button. This has the effect of raising the 

sound level by an amount equivalent to the hearing loss at each 

frequency. To an imperfect extent, the boosted playback can 

compensate for a hearing loss to give a trainee an idea of what 

it would be like to regain his/her normal hearing. There will 

inevitably be imperfections in this illusion, however. The 

fidelity limitations of any mechanical playback system and the 

complexity of the auditory system make it impossible to 

“reverse” a hearing loss perfectly. Also, in cases of severe 

hearing loss, boosting the sound enough to compensate for a 

large deficiency could generate hazardous sound levels. Still, 

presenting hearing-impaired trainees with an approximation of 

normal hearing should be sufficient to show how much they 

have lost and reinforce how valuable their remaining hearing 

capacity is. 

Preset Generic Losses 

For a quick simulation of a hearing loss, there are three 

preset generic levels of noise-induced hearing loss that can be 

selected: mild, moderate, and moderate/severe. In each case, 

the greatest amount of loss is shown at 4000 Hz, with 

surrounding frequencies impaired to a lesser extent. 

Frequency Sliders 

A row of 10 slider controls for different frequency bands 

permits even more flexibility. Most of the time, frequency 

bands are automatically adjusted by the software to reflect a 

predicted hearing level as a result of noise exposure. They can 

also be directly manipulated by the user. This could be done, 

for instance, to enter a trainee’s actual audiogram directly into 

the simulator program. Then, others who have no hearing loss 

could, in effect, hear with the same ears as the person whose 

test results were entered. Also, since each slider can be 

manipulated independently, the user can illustrate the effects of 

a hearing loss in each frequency band. For instance, a warning 

beeper may become much less audible as a result of a loss in a 

single frequency band. 

SCENARIOS
 

The full power of the simulator can be shown by working 

through some instructive scenarios. Some of these were alluded 

to above, but a good training plan using the simulator should 

work through a series of scenarios using trainee input to tailor 

the lesson to the audience. Below is a list of some of the many 

possible scenarios that could be presented. 

OLDER WORKER, NOISE EXPOSED 

This scenario is one of the most important ones to include in 

a training session, especially with younger workers. A 

hypothetical older worker, perhaps nearing retirement, would 

be described. He (or she–the program can simulate either) 

should be characterized as in the range of 55-65 years old with 

35-45 years of exposure to 90-100 dBA. Selection of numbers 

in these ranges can depend on what is typical in the user’s 

workplace or industry. The trainer can demonstrate the 

significant hearing loss this worker will have going into 

retirement. 

OLDER WORKER, NO EXPOSURE 

Immediately following a demonstration about a hypothetical 

noise-exposed older worker, the trainer can set the exposure 

years to zero and simulate an equivalent worker with no 

exposure. This will serve to counter any assumption that the 

first worker’s hearing loss was a natural consequence of aging. 

Instead, they will see that a relatively small amount of highfrequency loss is expected in older workers, but that noise 

exposure is responsible for much more of the damage. 

MID-CAREER WORKER 

Especially if the training class includes a large number of 

mid-career trainees, a worker with 10-20 years of exposure 

should be simulated. Based on this worker, several progressions can be followed. For instance, additional exposureyears can be added to show the accumulation of more hearing 

loss. It also allows comparison with an older nonnoise-exposed 

worker, which then allows the trainer to make the point that, 

with enough exposure, a 30-year-old worker may have, in 

effect, 50-year-old ears. 

INDIVIDUALIZED: INVERT LOSS 

The simulator can also be used as an individualized training 

and counseling tool. For instance, the trainer can show a 

worker how his/her hearing test results can be entered directly 

into the simulator using the frequency band sliders. By next 

selecting the “Invert Loss” function, the trainee can be given a 
52 

hint of what his/her hearing would be like if the hearing loss 

had been avoided. Switching back to the original loss profile, 

the trainer can then drag the sliders down to show the 

additional loss that would occur after further noise exposure. 

MAKING ADAPTABLE CONTENT
 

Making a training product that can be adapted to several 

different formats can be either easy or difficult. Obviously, 

very different formats (say, a professional quality video and a 

small informational sticker) will make for a challenging 

conversion. Likewise, similar formats (say, an informational 

card and a brief brochure) will be relatively easy. Regardless of 

how different the formats are, the conversions will be even 

easier if some simple steps are taken while preparing the 

content. 

Extra difficulties arise in adapting content that was not 

designed with conversion in mind. For instance, a training 

product is often developed for one medium and then shelved. 

When it becomes clear later that it would be beneficial to have 

other versions of the product, a considerable amount of new 

adaptation work usually needs to be done. For instance, if a 

video is produced and later someone decides to turn it into a 

booklet, they may then need to transcribe the narration for 

editing into printed text and re-photograph the visual elements. 

With a small amount of forethought and planning, a core set of 

content for a training product can be developed and used to 

“spin off” multiple versions. This will not eliminate all the 

work needed to tailor the content to different media, but it will 

reduce it considerably. 

TEXT 

Even the most visual training products usually have some 

text component. A video may have a script to be read by actors 

or a narrator. Signs and emblems are often accompanied by a 

user’s or instructor’s text. Many versions can be extracted from 

a single “master” text with appropriate modifications. This will 

be easier if the master is kept as a simply formatted, 

comprehensive electronic document. One good way to start this 

is to build a simple HTML Web page that’s accessible to the 

development team. The team can then view and revise the 

master on a shared Intranet site. If HTML formatting is kept to 

a minimum (heading tags, simple tables, etc.), the resulting text 

can be easily imported into a word processing or desktop 

publishing package for more extensive formatting. 

PHOTOGRAPHS AND OTHER STILL IMAGES 

If producing video, take still pictures at the same time. For 

instance, commercial movies have almost always had professional photographers take “publicity stills” during filming. 

These still photos are almost always sharper and better posed 

than an individual frame from the movie and are essential for 

posters and other marketing materials. They also become useful 

later for books and other publications about the film. Even 

though training videos are produced on a much more modest 

scale than commercial movies, their example can still be 

followed. It is much easier to take still photographs of a scene 

set up for a video than to re-create it later. Also, although still 

frames can be extracted from a video stream, the results are of 

far lower quality than a decent still photograph. 

A high-quality digital master of each photograph should be 

kept in the development team’s archive. If the originals were 

taken using conventional photographic film, a digital master 

can be made by scanning the negatives with a film scanner, or 

many photo labs will create high-quality digital images on a 

CD at the time of processing. From these master digital 

versions, smaller, faster-loading files can be converted using 

photo editing software. For printed materials, the images should 

have their resolution reduced very little, if at all. 

DRAWINGS, DIAGRAMS, AND ARTWORK 

As with photographs, it will be easiest to generate different 

versions of illustrations if there is a high-quality digital 

original. For these types of images, the best electronic format 

is referred to as “vector-based.” For example, Windows 

metafiles, PostScript7

7

Adobe Systems, Inc., San Jose, CA. 

 files, and most illustration software files 

are considered vector-based. These can be kept in vector format 

when used in document preparation or presentation software, 

but should usually be converted to a bitmap format (for 

example, GIF) for Web pages. Most illustration software will 

convert vector drawings into a bitmap of whatever size is 

needed for a Web design. 

AUDIO 

Sound recordings should be maintained in uncompressed 

digital format (for example, WAV). This can be later 

compressed, if needed, for limited-bandwidth presentation over 

the Web, but the compression cannot be reversed to obtain the 

original sound quality. For instance, the sounds used in the 

hearing loss simulator were recorded in CD-quality 

uncompressed digital format (44,100 16-bit samples per 

second). These sound files were used without further compression in the full package and PowerPoint versions, but were 

compressed to 128 bit/sec MP3 format for the Web pages. This 

enabled significant reduction in sound file sizes; the “normal 

male” recording was reduced from 3.2 to around 0.5 MB with 

very little perceptible loss in sound quality. 
53 

VIDEO 

New ways of showing video content are rapidly becoming 

practical. Videocassettes almost completely replaced film for 

training in the early eighties. Now, videocassettes are facing 

competition from digital versatile disks (DVD), streaming 

Web-based video, and other new technologies. The best way to 

keep video in a form that can readily be adapted is, again, to 

maintain a high-quality digital master. This has become 

relatively easy with the advent of inexpensive consumer-grade 

miniDV equipment. These camcorders and other devices 

connect to a computer though high-speed ports, and the downloaded video can be archived and edited with no further loss in 

quality. Basic video editing tools are now included with current 

computer operating systems for Windows and Macintosh8 

8

Apple Computer, Inc., Cupertino, CA 

systems, and more flexible software is available for less than 

$100. For use in a training room, the edited videos can be 

copied to tape a regular VCR or “burned” on a DVD or CD 

writer. If the video is also intended to be viewed on the Web, 

it can be converted to a compressed streaming format such as 

RealMedia9

9

RealNetworks, Inc., Seattle, WA. 

or Windows Media10

10Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA. 

(ASF) using tools that are 

inexpensive or even free. 

EVALUATING THE SIMULATOR’S EFFECTIVENESS
 

The ultimate goal of all three versions of the hearing loss 

simulator is to reduce hearing loss by motivating workers to 

take self-protective actions. Behind this statement is a complex 

process that has several steps, each of which could be evaluated. First, has the message been communicated? That is, do 

the trainees understand that exposure to hazardous noise over 

a long enough period of time will result in an irreversible 

hearing loss? Next, how motivating is the message? How 

strong is the desire or intention to take action relative to all the 

trainees’ other desires and needs? Third, what (if any) behavioral change resulted? Do the trainees maintain the noise 

controls on their equipment better? Do they wear earplugs or 

other hearing protection more often? Finally, the true outcomes 

must be evaluated, that is, do the trainees avoid noise-induced 

hearing loss as a result of their actions? 

INITIAL REACTIONS TO ALL VERSIONS 

The simulators are brand new, so evaluation is in just the 

first stages. Currently, NIOSH is working with organizations 

that want to use the simulators in their training to collect feedback from trainees. This feedback consists of questions about 

trainees’ reactions to the simulator. Was it easy to understand? 

Could they hear the difference between the normal and simulated loss conditions? Did they learn something new? Answers to these questions will help refine the simulators and 

provide information about how best to deploy them. This evaluation is also appropriate to all versions of the simulator. 

KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEFS 

The next evaluation will look at how effective the simulators 

are at imparting knowledge and changing beliefs. Do trainees 

have a better understanding of the relationship between noise, 

exposure time, and hearing loss? Do they know that noiseinduced hearing loss is permanent? Are they still susceptible to 

the “noise myths”? Do they intend to take any specific actions 

to protect their hearing? These factors can be assessed through 

brief questionnaires or interviews. Ideally, they will be assessed 

at three points: before training, immediately after training, and 

several weeks following training to determine how much 

information was retained. For the full simulator and the slide 

show version, this information can be collected by the 

instructors. The Web version will offer the opportunity to 

collect this information online from users who agree to provide 

it. While asking online users to provide information can be 

convenient for both the users and the developers, there is much 

less control over who participates and other conditions that 

could affect the validity of the data. Consequently, the Web 

version will probably be evaluated with a known sample of 

participating users. 

BEHAVIORS AND HEARING LOSS OUTCOMES 

Changed knowledge and beliefs do not necessarily translate 

into effective hearing conservation actions, however. The behavioral and illness outcomes of the training, especially for the 

full version and the slide show version, will be investigated. 

The Web version, because of the otherwise beneficial openness 

of the Web, does not lend itself to this type of full evaluation. 

The NIOSH Hearing Loss Prevention Unit (HLPU) will be 

used in these efforts. The HLPU is a mobile testing trailer that 

can be taken to any training site for detailed hearing 

evaluations. This facility contains a system that can easily test 

one hearing conservation behavior: Correct use of earplugs. 

The multistation earplug fit-testing system can be used to determine, through the use of specially designed headphones, how 

much noise reduction is achieved at each frequency. Better 

trained and motivated workers are able to obtain significantly 

more protection from their earplugs (Berger et al., 1996). If the 

simulator motivates workers to protect their hearing, the trained 

workers can be expected to take the time to fit their earplugs 

better. 

While it is important to evaluate hearing protection behaviors under controlled settings, behaviors at the workplace 

are a better predictor of long-term hearing conservation 
54 

efforts. In this evaluation, the hearing conservation actions 

taken by workers on the jobsite will be tabulated. For instance, 

do they maintain the noise control devices and treatments on 

their equipment? How many suggestions do they make about 

reducing noise? How well do they comply with administrative 

controls that are in the site’s hearing conservation program? 

Finally, the ultimate outcome is the reduced incidence of 

noise-induced hearing loss. This can be assessed by long-term 

tracking of hearing levels as measured by a standard audiogram. 

Effective training should result in a lower rate of measurable 

noise-induced hearing loss. By tracking hearing levels, 

particularly between 3000 to 6000 Hz, changes in hearing 

thresholds that may reflect either reduced or continued noise 

exposure can be detected. While no one can determine whether 

the noise exposure occurred at work or off the job, it’s not really 

necessary to distinguish between the two for these training 

efforts. These in-depth studies will be most feasible with the full 

simulator and the slide show version. Effective training will 

teach workers to protect their hearing regardless of where they 

are. The training message should emphasize that workers’ 

responsibility for their own health does not begin and end at the 

front gate. Maintaining their hearing will have a positive impact 

on their work and the overall quality of their lives. 

REFERENCES
 

American National Standards Institute (ANSI). 2001. American National 

Standard determination of occupational noise exposure and estimation of noiseinduced hearing impairment. ANSI S3.44-1996 (R2001). New York. 

Berger, E.H., J.R. Franks, and F. Lindgren. 1996. International review of 

field studies of hearing protector attenuation. In Scientific Basis of NoiseInduced Hearing Loss, A. Axelsson, H. Borchgrevink, R.P. Hamernik, P. 

Hellstrom, D. Henderson, and R.J. Salvi, eds. New York: Thieme Medical Pub., 

Inc. Pp. 361-377. 

National Center of Health Statistics (NCHS), Public Health Service. 1993. 

Vital and health statistics: Health conditions among the currently employed. 

United States, 1988. DHHS (PHS) Pub. No. 93-1514. 

Prince, M.M., L.T. Stayner, R.J. Smith, and S.J. Gilbert. 1997. A reexamination of risk estimates from the NIOSH Occupational Noise and Hearing 

Survey (ONHS). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 101, no. 2, 

pp. 950-963 
Delivering on the Nation’s Promise: 

Safety and health at work for all people
 

Through research and prevention
 

For information about occupational safety and health topics contact NIOSH at: 

1-800-35-NIOSH (1-800-356-4674) 

Fax: 513-533-8573 

E-mail: pubstaft@cdc.gov 

www.cdc.gov/niosh 

DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2002-156