What Happens in Lessons? Risks and Incidents at Schools

  • Eila LindforsEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 907)


According to a safety paradigm that calls for human factors behind the incidents and emphasizes resilience it can be understood that near-miss cases and accidents are in relation to several physical, social, psychological and pedagogical factors. To be able to develop safety culture at schools there is need to record, monitor and analyze incidents, near-misses, accidents and injuries in learning environments. However there are no systematic procedures in regular use that would allow schools as organizations to learn from incidents and implement alterations in practice to develop their safety culture. It is more a question what schools know about their safety and how they understand their safety culture to develop it proactively. In the paper analysis for 168 incidents from three comprehensive schools in Finland, was executed. On the basis of theory driven analysis the incidents were categorized to physical, social, psychological and pedagogical dimensions. Incidents in pedagogical learning environments are introduced more detailed in this paper. This paper gives prior knowledge of incidents in pedagogical learning environments: what happens, where and to whom.

Based on results there is an obvious need to develop methods of reporting incidents in schools as well as the motivation to report, to be able to develop the safety culture. In the future students’ role in recognizing incidents should be emphazised.


Incident analysis Learning environment School safety 


  1. 1.
    Basic Education Act 628/1998., Accessed 14 June 2018
  2. 2.
    Occupational Safety and Health Act 738/2002. Accessed 14 June 2018
  3. 3.
    Piispanen, M.: Good Learning Environment. Perceptions of Good Quality in Comprehensive School by Pupils, Parents and Teachers. Doctoral thesis in Pedagogics. English abstract. University of Jyväskylä, Kokkola University Consortium Chydenius (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2014. The Finnish National Board of Education. Accessed 04 June 2018
  5. 5.
    Luopa, P., et al.: Nuorten hyvinvointi Suomessa 2000–2013. Kouluterveyskyselyn tulokset [The wellbeing of adolescents in Finland 2000–2013. The Results of the School Health Promotion study]. Report 25/2014. National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL), Helsinki (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Näsi, M., Virtanen, M., Tanskanen, M.: Oppilaitosten turvallisuustutkimus 2016. Helsingin yliopisto. Kriminologian ja oikeuspolitiikan instituutti. Katsauksia 20/2017Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Somerkoski, B.: Green cross: collecting injury data at schools. In: Tuomi, P., Perttula, A. (eds.) GamiFIN 2017 - Proceedings of the 1st International GamiFIN Conference. Accessed 14 June 2018
  8. 8.
    Lindfors, E., Somerkoski, B.: Turvallisuusosaaminen luokanopettajakoulutuksen opetussuunnitelmassa [Safety competence in the curriculum of primary teacher education]. In: Pakula, H.-M., Kouki, E., Silfverberg, H., Yli-Panula, E. (eds.) Uudistuva ja uusiutuva ainedidaktiikka [The reforming subject didactics], pp. 328–343. Suomen ainedidaktinen tutkimusseura, Turku (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Geller, E.S.: Psychological science and safety: large-scale success at preventing occupational injuries and fatalities. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 20(2), 109–114 (2011). Accessed 04 June 2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reason, J.: Safety paradoxes and safety culture. Inj. Control Saf. Promot. 7(1), 3–14 (2000). Accessed 14 June 2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lindfors, E., Teperi, A.-M.: Incidents in schools - incident analysis in developing safety management. In: Nazir, S., Teperi, A.-M., Polak-Sopińska, A. (eds.) AHFE 2018. AISC, vol. 785, pp. 462–471. Springer, Cham (2019). Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lindfors, E.: Turvallinen oppimisympäristö, oppilaitoksen turvallisuuskulttuuri ja turvallisuuskasvatus – käsitteellistä pohdintaa ja kehittämishaasteita. [The safe learning environment, safety culture and safety education in schools – Concept considerations and development challenges] In: Lindfors, E. (ed.) Kohti turvallisempaa oppilaitosta! Oppilaitosten turvallisuuden ja turvallisuuskasvatuksen tutkimus− ja kehittämishaasteita. [Towards the safer learning institution! Safety and safety education as research and development challenges. The first OPTUKE research and development –symposium, University of Tampere. School of Education], pp. 12–28 (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hollnagel, E.: Is safety a subject for science? Saf. Sci. 67, 21–24 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Norros, L.: Acting Under Uncertainty - The Core-Task Analysis in Ecological Study of Work. VTT Publications 546, Espoo (2004). Accessed 04 June 2018Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kjellen, U., Albrechtsen, E.: Prevention of Accidents and Unwanted Occurrences: Theory, Methods, and Tools in Safety Management, Second Edition. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton. Accessed 04 June 2018
  16. 16.
    Cloubi, The toolset for publishers to design, produce and operate digital learning material. Accessed 14 June 2018
  17. 17.
    University of Turku: Oppilaitosten turvallisuuskulttuurin kehittämisverkosto (OPTUKE) [The Developing Network of Safety Culture in Schools (OPTUKE)]. Accessed 14 June 2018
  18. 18.
    Waitinen, M.: Safe school? Safety culture in primary and secondary schools in Helsinki and the factors affecting it. Doctoral dissertation. Researches 334. English abstract. University of Helsinki, Helsinki (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Somerkoski, B.: Green cross: application for analyzing school injuries. Finnish J. EHealth EWelfare, 9(4), 322–329. Accessed 14 June 2018

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Teacher Education, Rauma UnitUniversity of TurkuRaumaFinland

Personalised recommendations