You are on page 1of 5

Lesson Plan Title: Laboratory Safety WHMIS and MSDS/SDS Introduction (2015)

Date: 03/07-08/17
Subject: Science 9 Grade: 9
Topic: Students laboratory safety practices including an introduction to WHMIS
(2015) and MSDS/SDS systems. Essential Question: N/A

Materials:
WHMIS (2015) Chemical Safety; Pictograms Handout
Laboratory Safety Rules ppt.
Laboratory Safety Scenarios ppt.
Crash Course Chemistry #21 Motivational Set Video
Lab Safety Poster Project Proposal Science 9 Handout
WHMIS (2015) Pictograms Kahoot (Carmen)
Laboratory Safety Contract (Carmen)

Stage 1- Desired Results you may use student friendly language


What do they need to understand, know, and/or able to do?
Students need to be able to understand; what WHMIS and MSDS/SDS provide for them
in-terms of laboratory safety and management, how to identify WHMIS (2015) chemical
safety pictograms along with their principle hazardous indications, and what constitutes
unsafe lab practice. They must know; the various chemical hazard pictograms, the rules
for laboratory safety, and that their signing of the lab safety contract is a binding
agreement adherent to their appropriate behavior in the laboratory environment. They
need to be able to; identify the pictograms, identify specific instances where laboratory
safety rules are broken, and work together to create the summative assessment (poster)
as a means of communicating proper lab safety.

Broad Areas of Learning:


Developing Lifelong Learners: the WHMIS and MSDS systems of chemical safety are
relevant in nearly all workplace environments that students will come to experience in
their adult lives and prove applicable in all manner of real world situations. By
developing their knowledge of safe chemical handling and disposal procedures, we
attempt as educators to not only ensure their lifelong learning, but a lifelong means of
safety in the practices of handling hazardous chemical materials.
Developing Engaged Citizens: working in groups, students are responsible not only
for their own safety, but the safety of their peers, and their natural environments.
Students must engage with one another to ensure no improper modes of safety in
chemical handling are being exhibited including incorrect disposal of chemicals that can
produce environmental harm.

Cross-Curricular Competencies:
Developing Thinking: requiring students to complete a lesson in laboratory safety will
inevitably have them drawing connections between this lesson and their daily
interactions with household, and industrialized chemicals. They will begin to interpret
and identify chemical hazardous markers and know where to look should they need
information regarding a specific safety, or chemical handling protocol.
Developing Social Responsibility: students are responsible for both; their own safety,
and the safety of others in the laboratory. They need to understand that this
responsibility extenuates not just in the school environment but into several; at-home,
and work environments that they will/may already have, encountered.

Outcome(s):
AE9.1 Distinguish between physical and chemical properties of common substances,
including those found in household, commercial, industrial, and agricultural applications
a. Demonstrate knowledge of Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System
(WHMIS) standards by identifying WHMIS symbols that represent each category,
examples of substances that belong within each category, and the risks and cautions
associated with each category.

PGP Goals:
2.4 ability to use technologies readily, strategically and appropriately
3.1 the ability to utilize meaningful, equitable, and holistic approaches to assessment and evaluation

4.3 the capacity to engage in program planning to shape lived curriculum that brings learner needs, subject
matter, and contextual variables together in developmentally appropriate, culturally responsive and meaningful
ways

Stage 2- Assessment

Assessment FOR Learning (formative) Assess the students during the learning to help
determine next steps.

Formative (FOR) learning assessment of student comprehension is completed


throughout the course of the lesson as; both completion of the laboratory safety
scenario group discussion, and the WHMIS (2015) hazardous pictogram identification
Kahoot. A pre-assessment of students prior knowledge is also complete as the poling
question administered to begin the lesson What does WHMIS, and MSDS/SDS stand
for? (aside what is GHS Globally Harmonized System for Classification and Labelling
of Chemicals). The safety scenarios function to formatively assess student recognition of
laboratory safety violations, while the Kahoot assesses what they already know about
chemical hazardous pictograms, giving them a chance to think through each illustration
before being provided with the answers.

Assessment OF Learning (summative) Assess the students after learning to evaluate


what they have learned.

Summative (OF) learning assessment is completed through the creation of laboratory


safety posters by the students, to be taken in and evaluated by the instructors (myself
and Carmen). Students are evaluated on the basis of their inclusion of specific criterion
for the poster; detailed at the end of the Lab Safety Scenarios ppt. Grading is to be
determined, however is likely to use the approved four point Prairie Spirit School Division
marking schematic. Also optional is a single point deductive evaluation method where
should students include all that is asked for, be awarded a single point for each criterion
evaluated, loss of a single point would be produced, by the absence of any one of the
listed criteria.

Stage 3- Learning Plan

Motivational/Anticipatory Set (introducing topic while engaging the students) (~10-15


min)
The motivational set for this lesson will take place as a series of small, inter-related
events including; first the pre-assessment question, Who knows what WHMIS and
MSDS/SDS means?, this is to be followed by the allowance for student to look up the
answers for themselves using technologies available to them (i.e. cellphones), as an
aside during discussion discuss the earlier mentioned GHS Why did WHMIS change?,
finally the following video will be utilized to demonstrate poor lab safety practices:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRWRmIEHr3A

Main Procedures/Strategies: (~85-90 min)


- Students will take part in a formative assessment of prior knowledge (somewhat
of a pre-assessment) through completion of the Kahoot for identification of WHMIS
(2015) chemical hazard pictograms (Carmen). They are not expected to answer all
correctly but think creatively and constructively about the images they are seeing
(~5-10 min)
- Students will then be provided with the WHMIS (2015) Chemical Safety;
Pictograms Handout. This is given as a form of answer key to the Kahoot they
have just taken part in and will be a vital resource in their creation of the
summative assessment later (~1-2 min)
- Students will be given hard copies of the Laboratory Safety Rules ppt, for
reference in their completion of the summative assessment. As a class we will be
going over these rules as an instructor lead discussion briefly before applying
them to improper laboratory safety scenarios. (~5-10 min)
- In groupings of four (assigned by the pods of desks nearest each student),
students will each be given one improper lab safety scenario and in 30 seconds
1 minute, asked to assess which of the previously outlined rules are being broken
(~10-15 min)
- Student will be provided with the criteria for the summative poster creation, and
asked to record it for their own reference while completing the assessment. From
here they will be asked to split up into groups of no more than three and begin
working on their Project Proposal Handout, this is to be reviewed by the
instructors at the beginning of next class before work on the poster itself can
commence and student will be required to bring all materials they will need for
poster creation not supplied by the instructor (~10-15 min end of day 1)
- Students will be given the duration of class time to construct their lab safety
poster, excluding any time required for the lesson closing and Project Proposal
handout completion. (~45-50 min)

Adaptations/Differentiation:
- Could pre-define student groupings to avoid negatively influential student
groupings. This may also be beneficial for the two students with AD/HD present in
the class, and/or the English Language Learners (ELLs) in the classroom who may
find it easiest communicating in their native language.
- As we have an EA in the classroom, we could have her work specifically with one
student who has low comprehension or the students with AD/HD who may
otherwise have trouble staying on task.
- Students could be provided with a specific lab safety scenario for depiction in
their poster to assign a sense of direction before completion of the proposal.

Closing of lesson: (~5-10 min end of day 2)


Students will be provided with the laboratory safety contract (Carmen) which indicates
their required adherence to the safety rules and practices outlined during this lesson.
Students MUST sign and submit the lab safety contract if they are to take part in any
laboratory activities while a member of the class.

Personal Reflection:
This lesson began well with a chance for the students to engage with their own medium
for assistive technology through their smartphones for the introduction to
WHMIS/MSDS/SDS acronyms. The fact that I moved directly into a video after this exercise
meant that there was a need to move around the room as the video was playing to ensure
that students had not just simply continued with the utilization of their phones for a more
personalized set of objectives. The video was an excellent introduction to lab safety,
providing the essentials for safe operation within a science classroom to students, while at
the same time engaging with a large amount of humor to keep students interested. The
pre-assessment Kahoot for chemical hazard pictograms went allot better for student than I
expected, where most of them could define for themselves what the introductory
pictograms were referencing even before they were given the handout. I noticed one
student that was struggling with identifying the symbols and later during the group work
component of the lesson I made a mental note to go over to the student and enforce the
need for them to work with the handout to help with identifying the illustrations. Because
of the humorous nature of the video, I chose to go over more in-depth and in a more
solitary tone, the rules for lab safety which were given to the students in the form of a
handout. I felt that this was a better point at which to end the lesson, on a note that
enforced the most important components of lab safety rather than brushing over them
and moving on to a more practical application of the rules when they may not have been
understood well enough. Keeping the practical application of the group work safety
scenarios, helped to re-engage students at the start of the second day of the lesson. It did
also result in one of the groups, a group of boys, being overly active and distracting to
other students. Immediately after their scenario, the second of six, they went off on a
tangent joking and talking socially. I went over and privately interjected that they either
needed to separate themselves to keep quiet and engaged with what the other students
were doing, or that I as the teacher would do it for them. Two of the students moved to
another location, away from the student who was seemingly being the most disruptive.
This later interplayed with their interactions in forming groups for the summative
assessment poster creation. The two students that moved, chose to work as a group
leaving the other individual out, even when groups of three are allowed. This provoked me
to speak with the earlier disruptive student, as a creative discussion relating to the
outcomes of his behavior, and enforce that from that point forward, limiting the disruptive
behavior would mean the possibility to create more inclusion and make things easier on
themselves.

*Adapted from Understanding by Design (McTighe and Wiggins, 1998)