Randomized trial evaluates gamified experiential learning for improving hazard recognition competency in engineering students, suggesting innovative safety training approaches.
Hazard recognition remains a critical competency for preventing injuries and fatalities in construction and engineering environments. Yet, traditional safety training often lacks interactivity, contextual realism, and mechanisms to assess readiness before workers enter the jobsite. This study applies energy-based safety (EBS) theory, which conceptualizes hazards as transfers of energy capable of causing harm, to evaluate how a gamified experiential learning environment can strengthen hazard-recognition competency. Thirty engineering students interacted with three energy-based hazard-identification scenarios and completed validated usability and engagement questionnaires, along with retrospective pre-/postlearning items. Five experienced safety professionals participated in qualitative interviews to assess realism, relevance, and potential integration into safety-training programs. Quantitative results showed high usability and engagement, with participants reporting substantial perceived improvements in their understanding of hazardous energy sources and hazard-recognition concepts. Professional feedback confirmed the realism of the scenarios, alignment of energy-based classifications with industry practice, and the environment’s potential use for onboarding, recurrent training, and competency development. These findings suggest that integrating EBS with experiential learning principles supports foundational hazard recognition competency and offers a scalable approach to delivering context-rich safety training across organizational and educational settings. Future research should incorporate objective performance metrics, assess long-term retention, and conduct field-based evaluations with industry practitioners.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pereira et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: