Overview
Safety and Accident Phenomenology enables students to understand the phenomena of accidents from an epidemiological perspective and apply their learning to actively improve safety. Students will use an analytical approach to risk and understanding of both failures and failure prevention methods. During the unit, students will apply a range of theoretical accident causation models to systems failures, while understanding their effective characteristics, including the strengths and weaknesses of these models. On completion, students will be able to articulate the evolution of principles, methods and models relating to the phenomenology and epidemiology of accidents, accident prevention systems and forensic analysis of accident data. Practical and theoretical application of the skills and concepts are developed during a compulsory Residential School.
Details
Pre-requisites or Co-requisites
There are no requisites for this unit.
Important note: Students enrolled in a subsequent unit who failed their pre-requisite unit, should drop the subsequent unit before the census date or within 10 working days of Fail grade notification. Students who do not drop the unit in this timeframe cannot later drop the unit without academic and financial liability. See details in the Assessment Policy and Procedure (Higher Education Coursework).
Offerings For Term 2 - 2019
Attendance Requirements
All on-campus students are expected to attend scheduled classes – in some units, these classes are identified as a mandatory (pass/fail) component and attendance is compulsory. International students, on a student visa, must maintain a full time study load and meet both attendance and academic progress requirements in each study period (satisfactory attendance for International students is defined as maintaining at least an 80% attendance record).
Residential Schools
This unit has a Compulsory Residential School for distance mode students and the details are:
Click here to see your Residential School Timetable.
Recommended Student Time Commitment
Each 12-credit Postgraduate unit at CQUniversity requires an overall time commitment of an average of 25 hours of study per week, making a total of 300 hours for the unit.
Class Timetable
Assessment Overview
Assessment Grading
This is a graded unit: your overall grade will be calculated from the marks or grades for each assessment task, based on the relative weightings shown in the table above. You must obtain an overall mark for the unit of at least 50%, or an overall grade of ‘pass’ in order to pass the unit. If any ‘pass/fail’ tasks are shown in the table above they must also be completed successfully (‘pass’ grade). You must also meet any minimum mark requirements specified for a particular assessment task, as detailed in the ‘assessment task’ section (note that in some instances, the minimum mark for a task may be greater than 50%). Consult the University’s Grades and Results Policy for more details of interim results and final grades.
All University policies are available on the CQUniversity Policy site.
You may wish to view these policies:
- Grades and Results Policy
- Assessment Policy and Procedure (Higher Education Coursework)
- Review of Grade Procedure
- Student Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure
- Monitoring Academic Progress (MAP) Policy and Procedure – Domestic Students
- Monitoring Academic Progress (MAP) Policy and Procedure – International Students
- Student Refund and Credit Balance Policy and Procedure
- Student Feedback – Compliments and Complaints Policy and Procedure
- Information and Communications Technology Acceptable Use Policy and Procedure
This list is not an exhaustive list of all University policies. The full list of University policies are available on the CQUniversity Policy site.
Feedback, Recommendations and Responses
Every unit is reviewed for enhancement each year. At the most recent review, the following staff and student feedback items were identified and recommendations were made.
Feedback from Formal and informal feedback
Students really enjoyed the opportunities provided to engage with the learning resources, very experienced staff and their peers.
Continue to encourage engagement through the design of learning experiences in this unit.
Feedback from Formal and informal feedback
Students enjoyed the supplementary tutorials to discuss assessment in addition to the recorded lectures despite some technical challenges.
Continue to offer supplementary tutorials and continue to work with the appropriate university departments to solve any technical challenges that have the potential to compromise the learning experience.
- Examine the existence of multiple interpretations of reality and their impact on the recognition of accident pathogens and causation factors.
- Appraise contemporary concepts and methods defining logic, reasoning and evidence based practice.
- Analyse the nature of risk, systems, systems failure and failure prevention methods.
- Explain the evolution of accident epidemiology and the precepts of accident causation.
- Apply accident causation models to explain the accident phenomenon.
Alignment of Assessment Tasks to Learning Outcomes
| Assessment Tasks | Learning Outcomes | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
| 1 - Group Discussion - 20% | |||||
| 2 - Practical Assessment - 30% | |||||
| 3 - Written Assessment - 20% | |||||
| 4 - Written Assessment - 30% | |||||
Alignment of Graduate Attributes to Learning Outcomes
| Graduate Attributes | Learning Outcomes | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
| 1 - Knowledge | |||||
| 2 - Communication | |||||
| 3 - Cognitive, technical and creative skills | |||||
| 4 - Research | |||||
| 5 - Self-management | |||||
| 6 - Ethical and Professional Responsibility | |||||
| 7 - Leadership | |||||
| 8 - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultures | |||||
Alignment of Assessment Tasks to Graduate Attributes
| Assessment Tasks | Graduate Attributes | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |
| 1 - Group Discussion - 20% | ||||||||
| 2 - Practical Assessment - 30% | ||||||||
| 3 - Written Assessment - 20% | ||||||||
| 4 - Written Assessment - 30% | ||||||||
Textbooks
There are no required textbooks.
IT Resources
- CQUniversity Student Email
- Internet
- Unit Website (Moodle)
All submissions for this unit must use the referencing style: Harvard (author-date)
For further information, see the Assessment Tasks.
g.dell@cqu.edu.au
y.toft@cqu.edu.au
Module/Topic
On-line seminar Session 1:
Introduction & Unit Overview
Orientation to Transport & Safety Science Post-Graduate Study
Preparing for the Residential School
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
On-line seminar Session 2:
Topic 1: The Accident Phenomenon
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
On-line seminar Session 3:
Topic 1 (Cont'd): The Accident Phenomenon
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
On-line seminar Session 4:
Topic 2: The Context of Risk & Risk Analysis Tools
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Residential School - Bundaberg
Crash Lab 12/8 to 16/8 inclusive.
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Topics Covered:
Topic 2: The Context of Risk & Risk Analysis Tools: practical and field exercise
Topic 3: Accident Investigation Fundamentals: theory, practical and
field exercise
Topic 4: The Context of People: tutorials and practical exercises
Topic 5: Logic, Reasoning and Evidence: tutorials & practical
exercises
Students are also required to prepare and deliver a presentation to staff and the student peer group at the residential school. More information concerning the requirements for the presentation will be provided on day one of the residential school.
Group Discussion and Mind Maps Due: Week 5 Monday (12 Aug 2019) 9:00 am AEST
Module/Topic
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
On-line seminar Session 5:
Topic 6: The Evolution of Accident Investigation and Prevention
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
On-line seminar Session 6:
Topic 7: Theoretical Accident Causation Models
Case Study: Heinrich's Domino Theory and Titanic
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
On-line seminar Session 7:
Topic 7 (Cont'd): Theoretical Accident Causation Models
Case Study: Haddon Matrix and Texas City Explosion
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
On-line seminar Session 8:
Topic 7 (Cont'd): Theoretical Accident Causation Models
Viner's Energy Damage Model & Time Sequence Model
Case Study: Loss of the Challenger Space Shuttle
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
On-line seminar Session 9:
Topic 7 (Cont'd): Theoretical Accident Causation Models
Reason's System of Safety Management Model
Case Study: Tenerife air crash
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
On-line seminar Session 10:
Topic 8: Introduction to Contemporary Theoretical Causation Models
Hollnagel's Functional Resonance Analysis Model (FRAM)
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
On-line seminar Session 11:
Review and discuss student progress and any issues with assessment tasks
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
1 Group Discussion
Four key subjects related to the history of accidents and investigation will be introduced in the AINV20006 Moodle discussion forum in Week 1.
The discussion subjects will be:
Discussion subject 1: What is the role of the human in the hazard control system and how do we reduce their influence on the cause of accidents?
Discussion subject 2: How can systems be made more fail safe so that the number of accidents due to systems failures can be reduced?
Discussion subject 3: Does Safety Culture really exist and if so, how can you measure it?
Discussion subject 4: Reason's Culpability Matrix suggests that some errors are so gross that a level of culpability then exists and ought to be actionable. What does this mean for the effective development of a 'Just Culture' and does this apparent apportionment of 'blame' adversely affect of the conduct of subsequent investigations?
You are expected to participate in Moodle in every one of these group discussions.You must post your own considered opinion on each topic and also respond to and comment upon at least two of your fellow students posts in each topic.
You must then prepare and submit a Mind Map that summarises the concepts and issues related to each of two of the four subjects arising from the on-line discussions and your own research and experience. This means that you have to create and submit two Mind Maps (one for each of the two subjects chosen from the four online discussions). Each Mind Map will be worth 4 marks (total of 8 marks for Mind Maps). The balance of 12 marks for this assessment will be allocated for your contribution to the on-line discussions.
Week 5 Monday (12 Aug 2019) 9:00 am AEST
Week 6 Friday (30 Aug 2019)
A specific rubric for grading the Moodle Discussions and Mindmaps can be found in Moodle.
Marks allocated for the discussions and mind maps are:
- Human error discussion - 3 marks
- Systems failure discussion - 3 marks
- Safety culture discussion - 3 marks
- Blame/No blame discussion - 3 marks
- Mind Map 1 - 4 marks
- Mind Map 2 - 4 marks
- Examine the existence of multiple interpretations of reality and their impact on the recognition of accident pathogens and causation factors.
- Appraise contemporary concepts and methods defining logic, reasoning and evidence based practice.
- Analyse the nature of risk, systems, systems failure and failure prevention methods.
- Knowledge
- Communication
- Cognitive, technical and creative skills
- Research
- Self-management
- Ethical and Professional Responsibility
2 Practical Assessment
You will carry out a range of practical and applied activities at the residential school. The activities will address your understanding and application of concepts and models including:
1. Accident Investigation basics
2. The context of risk and applied risk analysis
3. The context of people
4. Logic, reasoning and evidence
You are also required to prepare and deliver a presentation to staff and your student peer group at the residential school. Most practical activities, including the formal presentation by each student, will be completed and assessed at the residential school. Professionalism will also be assessed during the residential school. Your artefacts (eg presentation slides) from the residential school activities will need to be consolidated and submitted in Moodle after the residential school by the submission deadline.
Week 6 Monday (26 Aug 2019) 9:00 am AEST
Week 8 Friday (13 Sept 2019)
Specific assessment criteria for each activity at the residential school will be provided at the residential school and on the Moodle site. Professionalism will also be assessed during the residential school on a pass/fail basis and the criteria are attendance, teamwork, personal leadership, professional and ethical practice.
- Explain the evolution of accident epidemiology and the precepts of accident causation.
- Apply accident causation models to explain the accident phenomenon.
- Knowledge
- Communication
- Cognitive, technical and creative skills
- Research
- Self-management
- Ethical and Professional Responsibility
3 Written Assessment
Write a paper to describe why you think accidents are still occurring after more than 100 years of "modern" approaches to accident prevention.
Your paper needs to draw conclusions from the learnings from all the topics covered in this unit, the readings and a comprehensive review of the relevant literature. Where you draw conclusions from specific industries or individual cases or circumstances, you must demonstrate how these industry examples, cases or circumstances are representative of the overall accident phenomenon affecting modern society.
Your paper should be a maximum of 2000 words and your arguments should be supported by appropriate citations from the literature and applicable case studies. Your work should be correctly referenced using the current CQUni Harvard author/date referencing style. A list of all references used should be included at the end of your paper.
Week 8 Monday (9 Sept 2019) 9:00 am AEST
Week 10 Monday (23 Sept 2019)
The specific rubric for grading this assessment task can be found in Moodle.
Marks for this assessment will be allocated as follows:
- Viewpoint as to why accidents are still occurring and draws from the learnings from all the topics covered in this course to date - 12 marks
- Logical argument - 4 marks
- Consistently accurate spelling and grammar - 2 marks
- Referencing - 2 marks
- Analyse the nature of risk, systems, systems failure and failure prevention methods.
- Knowledge
- Communication
- Cognitive, technical and creative skills
- Research
- Self-management
- Ethical and Professional Responsibility
4 Written Assessment
PART A: Position Paper
In this part of the assessment task you will investigate the literature relating to two of the theoretical accident models and prepare a position paper.
You will select two accident models from the following list:
- Heinrich’s Domino Theory
- Haddon Matrix
- Reason System of Safety Management Model
- Viner's Time Sequence Model
- Viner's Extended Energy Damage Model
- Hollnagel’s FRAM
Explore the relevant literature and:
1. Compare and contrast the features of the chosen models
2. Discuss the theoretical underpinnings of the chosen models, their expected validity today given the issues you identified in the on-line Moodle discussions and your opinions, supported by references from the literature where appropriate, on how the models might address such issues as:
a. The complexity of society, technology, work and human endeavour
b. Their effectiveness in addressing failures in human factors, social & organisational networks (including
culture, management & supervision), systems, education & training
c. The models’ guidance on establishing and validating corrective and remedial actions, learning from failure
and risk
Your position paper should be limited to 2000 words maximum and be supported by relevant citations and references (minimum of 15) from the literature.
Part A of this assessment task attracts 15% of the overall marks for the unit
PART B: Theoretical Models Report
In this part of the assessment task you will:
1. Populate the two models chosen in Part A with the critical factors from a case study selected from the following list, to explain, in the language of the model, the failures which occurred in the accident
The case studies to select from are:
- Union Carbide Fatal Methyl Isocyanate Gas Leak, Bhopal India, December 2, 1984
- Pan American B747 and KLM B747 Collision at Tenerife, Canary Islands on March 27, 1977
- Waterfall rail accident, Waterfall Sydney Australia, January 31, 2003
- Level crossing collision between a school bus and train 7GP1 near Moorine Rock, Western Australia, 23 March 2009
- Costa Concordia sank after striking submerged rocks, Isola del Giglio, Italy,13 January 2012
2. Prepare a written report to contrast and explain how well the two theoretical models enabled explanation of the accident phenomena in the case study.
Your report should not exceed 1500 words. It should be supported by relevant citations (minimum of 10) from the literature.
Part B of this assessment task attracts 10% of the overall marks for the unit
PART C: Reflection
In this part of the assessment task you will:
1. Reflect on an accident that you have personal knowledge of and consider the issues of causation that you understood at the time
2. Describe the accident model, perspective or lens that you were applying to the situation at the time.
3. Compare the model, perspective or lens you applied against those you have studied in this unit.
4. Discuss any changes you would make if you were to analyse that same accident now.
You may find it useful to read Chapter 10 of Dekker (2006) to inform your reflections.
You may choose the format for your response to this assessment task that suits you (eg short essay, brief report, mind map etc).
This assessment task (Part C) represents 5% of the overall assessment for this unit.
Reference: Dekker S. (2006), The Field Guide to Understanding Human Error, Chapter 10 What is your Accident Model, Ashgate Publishing Limited, Farnham
Exam Week Monday (21 Oct 2019) 9:00 am AEST
Two weeks from submission due date
The specific rubric for grading this assessment task can be found in Moodle.
Marks for this assessment will be allocated as follows:
PART A - 15 marks assigned generally as:
- Compares and contrasts the features of the two chosen models - 4 marks
- Discusses the theoretical underpinnings of the chosen models and their expected validity today - 4 marks
- Discusses the complexity of the models and their fit with the natural complexity of society etc - 4 marks
- Discusses the models’ guidance on establishing and validating corrective and remedial actions, learning from failure and/or risk minimisation - 3 marks
PART B - 10 marks assigned generally as:
- Theoretical Models Report - populates the two models with the critical factors from the case study selected- 2 marks
- Evaluate and compare how well the two theoretical models enabled explanation of the accident phenomena - 3 marks
- Discussed the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the chosen models in describing the accident phenomenon - 3 marks
- Addressed the key characteristics of the models which enabled the tapestry of failures which led to the accident - 2 marks
PART C - 5 marks assigned for your coverage of the following:
- Reflected on an accident, considered the issues of causation you understood at the time and describe the accident “model”, perspective or “lens” that you were unconsciously applying to the situation
- Compared and contrasted the model, perspective or lens you applied against those you have studied in this course
- Discussed the changes you would apply if you were to analyse that same accident now
- Explain the evolution of accident epidemiology and the precepts of accident causation.
- Apply accident causation models to explain the accident phenomenon.
- Knowledge
- Communication
- Cognitive, technical and creative skills
- Research
- Self-management
- Ethical and Professional Responsibility
As a CQUniversity student you are expected to act honestly in all aspects of your academic work.
Any assessable work undertaken or submitted for review or assessment must be your own work. Assessable work is any type of work you do to meet the assessment requirements in the unit, including draft work submitted for review and feedback and final work to be assessed.
When you use the ideas, words or data of others in your assessment, you must thoroughly and clearly acknowledge the source of this information by using the correct referencing style for your unit. Using others’ work without proper acknowledgement may be considered a form of intellectual dishonesty.
Participating honestly, respectfully, responsibly, and fairly in your university study ensures the CQUniversity qualification you earn will be valued as a true indication of your individual academic achievement and will continue to receive the respect and recognition it deserves.
As a student, you are responsible for reading and following CQUniversity’s policies, including the Student Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure. This policy sets out CQUniversity’s expectations of you to act with integrity, examples of academic integrity breaches to avoid, the processes used to address alleged breaches of academic integrity, and potential penalties.
What is a breach of academic integrity?
A breach of academic integrity includes but is not limited to plagiarism, self-plagiarism, collusion, cheating, contract cheating, and academic misconduct. The Student Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure defines what these terms mean and gives examples.
Why is academic integrity important?
A breach of academic integrity may result in one or more penalties, including suspension or even expulsion from the University. It can also have negative implications for student visas and future enrolment at CQUniversity or elsewhere. Students who engage in contract cheating also risk being blackmailed by contract cheating services.
Where can I get assistance?
For academic advice and guidance, the Academic Learning Centre (ALC) can support you in becoming confident in completing assessments with integrity and of high standard.
What can you do to act with integrity?
