The Effects of Safety Training Involving Non-Destructive Testing Among Students at Specialized Vocational High Schools

  • Lim, YoungKhi (Department of Radiological Science, Gachon University) ;
  • Han, Eun Ok (Department of Education & Research, Korea Academy of Nuclear Safety) ;
  • Choi, YoonSeok (Department of Education & Research, Korea Academy of Nuclear Safety)
  • Received : 2016.12.21
  • Accepted : 2017.05.11
  • Published : 2017.06.30


Background: By examining the safety issues involved in on-site training sessions conducted at specialized vocational high schools, and by analyzing the effects of non-destructive testing (NDT) safety training, this study aims to contribute to ensuring the general safety of high school students. Materials and Methods: Students who expressed an interest in participation were surveyed regarding current NDT training practices, as well as NDT safety training. A total of 361 students from 4 schools participated in this study; 37.7% (136 students) were from the Seoul metropolitan area and 62.3% (225 students) were from other areas. Results and Discussion: Of the respondents, 2.2% (8 students) reported having engaged in NDT. As a result of safety training, statistically significant improvements were observed in most areas, except for individuals with previous NDT experience. The areas of improvement included safety awareness, acquisition of knowledge, subjective knowledge levels, objective knowledge levels, and adjustments to existing personal attitudes. Conclusion: Even at absolutely necessary observation-only training sessions, it is crucial that sufficient safety training and additional safety measures be adequately provided.


  1. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Learning for jobs. 1st Ed. Paris, France. OECD Publishing. 2010;1-220
  2. Research Centre for Education and the Labour Market. The Integration of young people into the Labour Market within the European Union: The role of institutional settings. ROA-R-2001/7E. 2001; 1-29.
  3. Hoerner JL, Wehrley JB. Work-based learning: The key to schoolto-work transition. 1st Ed. Glencoe, NY. McGraw-hill. 1994.
  4. Doebler L, Roberson T, Ponder C. Preservice teacher case study response: A preliminary attempt to describe program impact. Education. 1998;119(2):349-359.
  5. Van Der Linden S. Towards a new model for communicating climate change. In Understanding and governing sustainable tourism mobility: Psychological and behavioral approaches. 1st Ed. Oxford, UK. Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group. 2014;243-275.
  6. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991;50:179-211.
  7. Brunner RD. A milestone in the policy sciences. Policy Sciences. 1996;29:45-68.
  8. Gelb BD, Meade J. Advertising to communicate public policy: Applying lessons from Federal Tax Law. J. Curr. Issues Res. in Advertising. 2005;27:99-105.
  9. Epstein S. Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. Amer. J. Psychol. 1994;49:709-724.
  10. Tyler RW. Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. 1st Ed. Chicago, IL. University of Chicago press. 1949;1-144.
  11. Schwartz R, Lederman N. What scientists say: Scientists' views of nature of science and relation to science context. Int. J. Soc. Educ. 2008;30(6):727-771.
  12. Han SJ, Choi SY, Noh TH. Epistemological views of middle school students on scientific inquiry. J. Korea Assoc. Sci. Educ. 2012;32(1):82-94.