当前位置:文档之家› Measuring Student Motivation for Physical Education

Measuring Student Motivation for Physical Education

Measuring Student Motivation for Physical Education
Measuring Student Motivation for Physical Education

Measuring Student Motivation for Physical Education: Examining the Psychometric Properties of the Perceived Locus of Causality Questionnaire and the Situational

Motivation Scale

Psychology of Sport and Exercise 12 (2011) 284-292

Chris Lonsdale a,*, Catherine M. Sabiston b, Ian M. Taylor c, Nikos Ntoumanis d

a University of Western Sydney, School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith NSW 2751, Australia

b McGill University, Canada

c Loughborough University, UK

d University of Birmingham, UK

DATE OF SUBMISSION: August 18, 2010

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate, within a cross-cultural context, the psychometric properties of scores derived from the Perceived Locus of Causality Questionnaire (PLOCQ) and the Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS). Both questionnaires are grounded in self-determination theory and are commonly employed in physical education research.

Method: Secondary school students from the United Kingdom (UK; n = 300, mean age = 13.71) and Hong Kong (HK; n = 342, mean age =15.34 years) completed both questionnaires prior to a physical education lesson.

Results: Internal consistency analyses, as well as single and multi-group confirmatory factor analyses produced evidence that largely supported the reliability and validity of PLOCQ and SIMS scores in the UK sample. However, the analyses indicated some areas of concern regarding the internal consistency of the external and introjected regulation PLOCQ items in the HK sample. Also, identified regulation and intrinsic motivation constructs were not distinguishable by youth in either culture in either questionnaire. Finally, compared with the UK, students in HK interpreted the SIMS external regulation items to be more self-determined.

Conclusions: Researchers interested in studying contextual and situational motivation in UK physical education classes should, in general, feel confident in using the PLOCQ and the SIMS, respectively. However, our results highlight some important difficulties in the measurement of contextual and situational motivation in HK Chinese students. Further research is needed to better understand how students from different cultures respond to items intended to tap controlling forms of motivation.

Key Words: self-determined motivation, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, amotivation, external regulation, introjected regulation, identified regulation

Measuring Student Motivation for Physical Education: Examining the Psychometric Properties of the Perceived Locus of Causality Questionnaire and the Situational

Motivation Scale

Motivation is an important variable to consider in the physical education (PE) context, as adaptive types of motivation have been associated with intentions to exercise (Standage, Duda, & Ntoumanis, 2003), step counts during PE classes (Lonsdale, Sabiston, Raedeke, Ha, & Sum, 2009) and physical activity during leisure-time (Gordon-Larsen, McMurray, & Popkin, 2000; Hagger, Chatzisarantis, Culverhouse, & Biddle, 2003). Self-determination theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2002) has been widely used to study motivation within the PE context (see review by Ntoumanis & Standage, 2009). Nonetheless, there has been limited attention paid to the validity of scores derived from popular SDT-based measures of students’ motivation for PE.

Filling this research gap is important if SDT is to continue as a significant framework to study motivation in PE. The primary purpose of the current study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of scores derived from two instruments, the Perceived Locus of Causality questionnaire (PLOCQ; Goudas, Biddle, & Fox, 1994) and the Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS; Guay, Vallerand, & Blanchard, 2000), both of which are grounded in SDT and are commonly employed in research in the PE context (Lonsdale, et al., 2009; Ntoumanis, 2001, 2005; Prusak, Treasure, Darst, & Pangrazi, 2004; Taylor & Ntoumanis, 2007). A second aim was to investigate the cross-cultural equivalence of scores derived from these measures in the United Kingdom (UK) and the Chinese ‘special administrative region’ of Hong Kong (HK). Examining the cross-cultural validity of scores derived from popular motivation questionnaires is an important research objective, given the proposed applicability of SDT tenets across cultures (Deci, et al., 2001).

Self-Determination Theory

Deci and Ryan (1985) proposed that different types of motivation lie on a continuum according to their level of self-determination. The most self-determined motivation is intrinsic motivation, which refers to partaking in an activity because of interest and/or enjoyment. Next, extrinsic motivation is generally defined as the participation in an activity because of a goal distinct from the activity itself and is conceptualized according to four behavioral regulations. Integrated regulation, the most self-determined form of extrinsic motivation, refers to the pursuit of an activity because it is consistent with one’s values and sense of self. Identified regulation refers to participating in an activity because one values its outcomes, whereas introjected regulation refers to doing an activity because of internal pressures such as guilt, shame, or ego protection/enhancement. The least self-determined form of extrinsic motivation is external regulation, which refers to the pursuit of an activity because of external coercive pressures or rewards. Finally, amotivation is defined as the absence of intrinsic or extrinsic motivation and, thus, the absence of self-determination (Ryan and Deci, 2002). An amotivated individual perceives no worthwhile reasons for participation.

The self-determination continuum is proposed to have a simplex-like structure, whereby adjacent regulations (e.g., intrinsic motivation and identified regulation) should be more strongly and positively related with each other, whereas more distal regulations (e.g., intrinsic motivation and amotivation) are expected to be unrelated or negatively correlated with each other (Ryan & Connell, 1989). Chatzisarantis, Hagger, Biddle, Smith, and Wang (2003) found some support, via meta analysis, for the simplex-like structure in sport, leisure, and PE contexts. Nevertheless, there is a need to examine the simplex-like structure of scales purported to measure PE-specific motives (as opposed to motives across diverse PA-related contexts) within distinct cultural contexts.

From an SDT perspective, motivation is also conceptualised to operate at three different levels of generality (Vallerand, 2001) - situational, contextual, and global. The situational level refers to motivation towards a specific activity at a particular point in time; for example, one’s motivation to play basketball during a given PE class. Contextual motivation refers to one’s reasons for participating in a more diverse set of related behaviors across a period of time; for example, one’s motivation to take part in PE lessons more generally. Global motivation refers to an individual’s tendency to be motivated in an intrinsic, extrinsic, or amotivated way across different life contexts. Contextual and situational motives are most often measured in PE research to assess stable and more transient motivation in PE, respectively.. Two instruments often employed to measure motivation at these two levels are the PLOCQ (Goudas, et al., 1994) and the SIMS (Guay, et al., 2000), which have not yet been explored within a cross-cultural context.

Contextual motivation towards PE is often measured using the PLOCQ. Goudas et al. (1994) developed this scale by adapting items from the Self-Regulation Questionnaire (Ryan & Connell, 1989) to reflect intrinsic motivation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, and external regulation, as well as items from the amotivation subscale of the Academic Motivation Scale (Vallerand, et al., 1992). The PLOCQ does not include a measure of integrated regulation. Previous research has generally supported the reliability and validity of PLOCQ subscale scores (Ntoumanis, 2001, 2005; Standage, Duda, et al., 2003; Taylor & Ntoumanis, 2007). Nonetheless, there has been some concern regarding the internal consistency of the introjected regulation scores (e.g., α = .64, Ntoumanis, 2005) as well as the discriminant validity of the identified regulation and intrinsic motivation scores (e.g., Φ = .99, Standage, Duda, & Ntoumanis, et al., 2005).

Situational motivation towards PE is typically measured using the SIMS (Guay et al., 2000). The SIMS contains items intended to measure intrinsic motivation, identified regulation, external regulation and amotivation. The SIMS was designed to be a brief measure and does not include an introjected or integrated regulation subscale. This instrument was not developed specifically for PE, but initial evidence from this context has supported the internal consistency and factorial validity of scores derived from a PE-modified version of the SIMS (Standage et al., 2003).

Careful instrument development and ongoing tests of validity and reliability are critical if researchers are to be confident that they have measured what they had intended to measure (Messick, 1995). With this in mind, Marsh (1998) has advocated a two step approach in which ‘within-network’ aspects of validity (e.g., factorial validity) are examined prior to ‘between-network’ aspects of validity (e.g., convergent validity). To date, evidence regarding the validity of PLOCQ and SIMS scores has been limited to within-network investigations (Ntoumanis, 2001; Standage, Treasure, Duda, & Prusak, 2003). In this study we sought to not only replicate previous investigations of within-network validity, but to also extend previous findings by examining between-network validity. Based on the proposed relationships outlined in Vallerand’s (2001) hierarchical motivational model, we investigated convergent validity by examining correlations between factors from the PLOCQ and factors from the SIMS. Convergent validity would be supported if latent factors representing identical constructs at different levels of generality, or constructs similar in their level of self-determination, were more strongly correlated than factors from measures intended to represent dissimilar constructs (i.e., constructs that are more distal on the self-determination continuum). For example, we hypothesized that the amotivation factor from the PLOCQ would be more strongly, and positively, correlated with the SIMS amotivation factor than with factors from any other SIMS subscale. Furthermore, we expected that the PLOCQ

amotivation factor would be more strongly, and positively, related to the SIMS external regulation factor than the SIMS identified regulation factor.

Our second purpose was to investigate the cross-cultural equivalence of scores derived from both the PLOCQ and the SIMS. These measures have been used extensively to study PE motivation in Western countries, especially in the United Kingdom (UK) (e.g., Ntoumanis, 2001; 2005; Standage et al., 2003; Taylor & Ntoumanis, 2007). However, there is only limited evidence of research employing these scales in non-Western nations (Hagger, Chatzisarantis, Barkoukis, Wang, & Baranowski, 2005; Wang & Liu, 2007). This dearth of research is unfortunate given the controversy surrounding the importance of self-determination across cultures (Chirkov, Ryan, Kim, & Kaplan, 2003; Iyengar & Lepper, 1999). Specifically, it has been suggested that self-determination is a socially constructed value embedded in Western societies, such as UK, that is synonymous with individualism and independence. Thus, self-determination may not be important for individuals’ well-being in collectivist cultures, such as Hong Kong (HK), where interdependence and group conformity may be more central (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). These proposals are contrary to SDT tenets. Specifically, advocates of SDT posit that self-determination is the intrapersonal (rather than interpersonal) desire to experience ownership and self-endorsement of one’s behavior (Ryan & Deci, 2000). While cultures may provide different opportunities for self-determination to flourish, it is nonetheless important in all cultures (Chirkov, 2009). The SDT perspective views self-determination as orthogonal, as opposed to synonymous, with individualism and independence (Vansteenkiste, Zhou, Lens, & Soenens, 2005). These proposals have been supported by research linking self-determination with adaptive outcomes in collectivist countries, such as South Korea (Chirkov, et al., 2003), Japan (Nagasaku & Arai, 2005); China (Vansteenkiste, et al., 2005), and Taiwan (Sheldon, et al., 2004; see also Chirkov, 2009, for a review of self-determination across cultures).

If the importance of self-determination across different cultures is to be explored within the context of PE, then it is clear that measurement instruments must produce reliable and valid scores in different cultures. By establishing the validity of the PLOCQ and SIMS scores in a collectivist (HK) and individualist (UK) culture, researchers can be confident that respondents from both cultures use a similar conceptual frame of reference when completing the inventory and perceive the rating scale intervals in a similar manner (Riordan & Vandenberg, 1994). If this is not achieved, then conclusions concerning group comparisons may be spurious (Hoyle & Smith, 1994). To explore this issue we examined the validity of scores obtained from a sample of UK students and a sample of HK Chinese students. These two contrasting cultures provide an ideal context to examine the validity of the questionnaires across different countries. Due to immigration, colonisation, and globalisation, people in the UK and HK have undoubtedly been influenced by other cultures. However, marked differences in the cultural beliefs that these two nations hold still remain. For instance, in his seminal text on cultural dimensions, Hofstede (2001) presents compelling evidence that suggests HK and UK cultures differ in the extent of interpersonal authority a superior has over a subordinate (i.e., power distance) and the degree to which individuals associate with the collective (i.e., individualism/collectivism). Such differences have also been observed in research couched in Chinese values, rather than Western-based research, resulting in the proposal that Hofstede’s work is a viable tool for selecting cultures to compare on an a priori basis (Chinese Culture Connection, 1987).

We hypothesised that the factor structure of the two questionnaires would be equivalent across cultures (within-network validity). We also predicted that relationships between PLOCQ factors and SIMS factors would be equivalent across cultures (between-network validity).

Method

Participants

PE students (n = 392) from urban UK schools located in the second largest city in the UK volunteered to participate. Since children who are raised in homes in which the parents were born outside the country may be influenced by different cultural norms (McCrae, Yik, Trapnell, Bond, & Paulhus, 1998), we removed data from students who were not born in the UK or had a parent born outside the UK. The final sample of 300 students (n = 137 females, n =133 males, and n =30 gender not reported) described themselves as white (n = 281), mixed race (n = 12) and black (n = 4) (n = 3 ethnicity not reported). The mean age was 13.71 years (SD = .68 years, range 13 to 15 years).

The HK sample included 363 PE students, of whom we retained only those who were born in China and had parents who were also born in China (n = 342; n = 201 females and

n=141 male). The mean age was 15.34 years (SD = .54 years, range 11 to 16 years). The students were sampled from mandatory Years 9 and 10 PE classes at three schools in the UK and mandatory Secondary 4 classes at eight schools in HK.

Measures

Contextual motivational regulations. The Perceived Locus of Causality (PLOCQ (Goudas et al., 1994) was employed to examine students’ motivational regulations towards PE at a contextual level. Each motivational regulation comprised of four items which followed the heading “Why do you participate in Physical Education” and the stem “I take part in PE classes…”. Subscales in the questionnaire were intended to measure intrinsic motivation (e.g., ‘because PE is fun’), identified regulation (e.g., ‘because it is important for me to do well in PE’), introjected regulation (e.g., ‘because I would feel bad about myself if I didn’t’), external regulation (e.g., ‘because I’ll get into trouble if I don’t’), and amotivation

(e.g., ‘but I don’t see why we should have PE’). Responses were reported on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Situational Motivational Regulations.A 16-item version of the Situational Intrinsic Motivation Scale (SIMS) was originally developed by Guay and his colleagues (2000). However, in three studies across diverse physical activity domains, Standage and his colleagues (2003) showed that two items produced scores that did not conform to the hypothesised factor structure. Following these authors’ suggestions, a 14-item version of questionnaire was used. The item stem was “Why are you currently engaged in this activity?” and the measure included subscales designed to measure intrinsic motivation (e.g., ‘Because I think that this activity is interesting’), identified regulations (e.g., ‘Because I believe this activity is important for me’), external regulation (e.g., ‘Because I am supposed to do it’), and amotivation (e.g., ‘I do this activity but I am not sure if it is worth it’). Students responded using a seven-point scale, ranging from 1 “Not true at all” to 7 “Very true.” The original version of the SIMS employed different labels (“corresponds not at all” and “corresponds exactly”); however, pilot testing in the HK Chinese sample indicated that some students found these labels confusing. As a result, we decided to employ the labels used in the PLOCQ, which the pilot sample indicated were comprehensible.

Procedures

English to Chinese translation and back translation of the questionnaires was performed using procedures advocated by van Widenfelt, Treffers, de Beurs, Siebelink, and Koudijs (2005). In particular, a translator team reached consensus on all items prior to back-translation by an independent team. The two teams then met to resolve any discrepancies between the original and back-translated versions of the questionnaires. Following approval from a university research ethics board,informed consent was obtained from the participating schools with the teachers and/or principals acting in loco parentis, according to British

Psychological Society ethical guidelines. The study was introduced and explained to the students at the beginning of a timetabled PE lesson. No tangible incentives (e.g., monetary reward) were offered to students and all students were given the opportunity to decline participation. Those who declined were asked to remain silent throughout the questionnaire administration. No data were collected regarding the response rate of invited students.

Data Analysis

We first tested the within-network psychometric properties of the PLOCQ and SIMS by examining the fit of the data to the hypothesised factor structure (confirmatory factor analysis [CFA] with LISREL software; J?reskog & Sorbom, 2004). In each CFA model, items were allowed to load on only the hypothesised factor and error terms were not allowed to correlate. Hu and Bentler’s (1999) criteria (TLI and CFI ≥ .95, RMSEA ≤ .06; SRMR ≤ .08) were considered to indicate good fit. We used Raykov’s (1997) formula (i.e., (Σλ)2 / [(Σλ)2 +

(Σθ)]), where λ = item-factor correlation and θ = error, to assess the internal consistency of the subscale scores. We also assessed the discriminant validity of the scales by examining the 95% confidence intervals of the factor correlations (Φ matrix). We followed Markland and Tobin’s (2004) suggestion and investigated the presence of a simplex-like structure by examining inter-factor correlations.

We tested the cross-cultural invariance of the factor structures of scores from both the PLOCQ and SIMS using the multi-group CFA procedures outlined by Byrne (1998) and employed by Standage et al. (2003). These procedures involved first testing a baseline model with no parameter constraints (configural invariance), followed by models in which factor loadings (metric invariance), variances, covariances, and uniqueness terms were sequentially constrained to be equal across the UK and HK samples. A decrease in CFI larger than .01

from one model to the next was taken to indicate that the more constrained model was not invariant across the samples (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002).

Finally, we investigated ‘between-network’ validity by examining the covariances between contextual (PLOCQ) and situational (SIMS) motivational regulation latent factors. To accomplish this objective, we tested a CFA model that included the five PLOCQ factors and the four SIMS factors, allowing all factors to freely be estimated. This model was first tested separately in the UK and HK samples, followed by invariance testing across the samples. Examining the invariance of the covariance parameters tested the statistical significance of the differences in convergent and divergent validity in the UK and HK samples (see Introduction).

Results

Reliability and Factor Structure of the PLOCQ Scores

Descriptive statistics for individual PLOCQ items can be seen in Table 1. Preliminary analyses indicated that the data distribution for the PLOCQ scores was multivariately non-normal (normalised multivariate skewness = 33.19 and 24.42; normalised multivariate kurtosis = 20.88 and 15.34 in the HK and UK samples, respectively). As a result, we employed robust Maximum Likelihood (ML) estimation with a Satorra-Bentler (1994) correction to the χ2 statistic and estimated parameter standard errors for all CFAs.

Descriptive statistics and reliability estimates for the PLOCQ scores can be seen in Table 2. The results provided support for the internal consistency of the scores derived from the amotivation, identified regulation, and intrinsic motivation subscales in both cultures (all ρ≥ .75). In the HK sample, ρ of .64 and .69 emerged for the external and introjected regulation subscales, respectively. In the UK sample, the internal consistency of the scores derived from the external and introjected regulation subscales was supported with ρ of .83 and .82, respectively. Despite the reliability for these two subscales being somewhat lower in

the HK sample than in the UK sample, we decided to continue to analyse the data from the original subscales for two reasons. First, there is no firm criterion for determining the acceptability of ρ (i.e., reliability is not a dichotomy of reliable vs. unreliable). Second, our purpose was to examine the psychometric properties of the scale, not to modify and improve the questionnaire.

Single group analyses indicated that, despite significant χ2 statistic values, the model fit the data well in the HK and UK samples (see Table 3). The interfactor correlation matrices from the single group CFA’s associated with the PLOCQ scores can be seen in Table 4. We examined these matrices to investigate the discriminant validity of the factors (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). In both the HK and UK samples, the 95% CI of the interfactor correlations (i.e., ±1.96 x standard error) associated with the identified regulation and intrinsic motivation scores encompassed 1.0. These results indicated that the identified regulation and intrinsic motivation scores were not empirically distinguishable. None of the other interfactor correlation 95% CIs encompassed unity, thus supporting the discriminant validity of the amotivation, external regulation, and introjected regulation scores.1

Simplex-like Structure of the PLOCQ Scores

The correlation matrices in the HK and UK samples conformed to the hypothesized simplex-like structure (see Table 4). Correlations between scores intended to represent factors closer together on the self-determination continuum were stronger than the correlations between factors which were expected to be further apart on the continuum. For example, the correlation between amotivation scores and external regulation scores was stronger than the correlation between amotivation and introjected regulation scores.

The baseline multi-group model in which no constraints were placed on any of the parameters fit the data well according to the approximate fit indices (see Table 3), Testing progressively more constrained models did not result in a ΔCFI > .01, suggesting that the factor structure of the PLOCQ scores was invariant across the two samples.

Reliability and Factor Structure of the SIMS scores

Descriptive statistics associated with individual SIMS items can be viewed in Table 5. Preliminary analyses indicated that the data distribution for the SIMS scores was multivariately non-normal in the HK and UK samples, respectively (normalized multivariate skewness = 26.67 and 18.95; normalized multivariate kurtosis = 22.07 and 16.39). As a result, we employed again the robust Maximum Likelihood (ML) estimation method.

Reliability of the SIMS scores was supported in both samples (ρ≥ .78) (See Table 2). Single group analyses indicated that, despite significant χ2 statistic values, the SIMS model fit the data well in the HK and UK samples (see Table 6). The interfactor correlation matrices from the single group CFAs associated with the SIMS scores can be seen in Table 7. As with the PLOCQ data, the 95% CI of the interfactor correlations associated with the SIMS identified regulation and intrinsic motivation scores encompassed 1.0 in both the UK and HK samples, suggesting that these scores were not empirically distinguishable. None of the other interfactor correlation 95% CIs encompassed unity, thus supporting the discriminant validity of the amotivation and external regulation scores.2

Simplex-like Structure of the SIMS Scores

The correlation matrices in the HK and UK samples conformed to the hypothesized simplex-like structure. For details, see Table 7.

The results of the multi-group CFA’s can be seen in Table 6. The baseline model, with no constrained parameters, fit the data well according to the approximate fit indices. Constraining the item-factor loadings (Model B) and variances (Model C) did not result in ΔCFI > .01. However, more substantial changes in CFI were seen when the covariance (Model D) estimates were constrained. These results indicated that partial measurement invariance was demonstrated (Byrne, Shavelson, & Muthen, 1989). We conducted follow-up analyses to determine the source of the inter-sample difference. When covariances associated with the external regulation scores were freely estimated in both samples, but all other covariance terms were constrained, the model did not show a large decrease in CFI, relative to Model C. This result indicated that the external regulation scores had relationships with other factors that were not invariant across the samples (for details, see Table 6).

Between-network Analyses

The majority (7/8 = 87.50%) of the latent factors representing identical constructs across the situational and contextual levels demonstrated the highest correlations (see Table 8). These results supported the convergent validity of the PLOCQ and SIMS latent factors. In support of divergent validity, latent factors representing motives that are theoretically more distal on the self-determination continuum were more weakly correlated. There was one notable exception to this pattern of results. In the HK sample, the correlation between SIMS external regulation and PLOCQ external regulation factors was weak and negative. Correlations between the SIMS external regulation latent factor and the other PLOCQ latent factors were higher, with the strongest positive correlations observed between the identified regulation and intrinsic motivation latent factors.3

Discussion

In this study we aimed to examine multiple facets of reliability and validity associated with scores derived from two SDT-based measures of motivation for PE. We also sought to explore cross-cultural validity. As hypothesized, and consistent with existing literature (Chatzisarantis, et al., 2003; Hagger, et al., 2005; Standage, Treasure, et al., 2003), we generally found supportive evidence of reliability as well as within- and between-network validity of scores from a contextual measure of motivation (PLOCQ) and scores from a situational measure of motivation (SIMS) specific to PE. Our findings also generally supported cross-cultural validity for the scores of the two instruments. Nonetheless, the findings illustrated some areas of concern regarding the internal consistency and factorial validity of some PLOCQ scores and the validity of SIMS scores in the HK sample.

The reliability coefficient for the introjected and external regulation scores indicated a lack of internal consistency in the items assessing contextual motivation in our HK Chinese sample. Previous findings also provide evidence for less than optimal reliability in the PLOCQ items for introjected regulation in various samples across a number of datasets gathered in both individualistic and collectivist cultures (Hagger, et al., 2005; Ntoumanis, 2005). Thus, based on our results and previous research, it appears that the items from the PLOCQ introjected regulation subscale may need to be reconsidered, with a view towards improving internal consistency of scores derived from this instrument. For example, it is possible that the current items may not be suitably consistent because they measure different aspects of introjected regulation, such as the motive to enhance contingent self-worth (e.g., “I want the teacher to think I am a good student”) and the motive to avoid low contingent self-worth (e.g., “because it bothers me when I don’t participate in PE”; Assor, Vansteenkiste, & Kaplan, 2009). Researchers developing new items may wish to consider different aspects of introjected regulation. External regulation items from the PLOC have previously produced scores with higher internal consistency (Ntoumanis, 2001, 2005; Taylor & Ntoumanis, 2007)

and thus we are hesitant to recommend revision of these items. Nevertheless, further research may be needed on this issue.

Factorial validity was generally supported. Nonetheless, the self-determined motives (i.e., intrinsic motivation and identified regulation) were not distinguishable by youth in either culture. Strong relationships between identified and intrinsic motivation have been reported quite frequently in physical activity contexts. For example, studies on youth motivation using the SIMS and PLOCQ have reported observed and latent factor correlation coefficients of .73 to .99 between identified and intrinsic motivation subscale scores (Chatzisarantis, et al., 2003; Standage, Duda, & Ntoumanis, 2005; Standage, Treasure, et al., 2003). These strong correlations suggest that youth may not differentiate between the items intended to tap identified and intrinsic regulations in PE. The strong correlations might also be due to the possibility that adolescents value behaviors that they find enjoyable and feel competent performing (Eccles & Harold, 1991; Sabiston & Crocker, 2008). The future development of items that enable youth to distinguish these motives within the motivational continuum may prove beneficial both for statistical and theoretical reasons. For instance, items that measure the extent to which students value the aspects of PE that are not inherently enjoyable or interesting may lead to a measure of identified regulation that is suitably discrepant from measures of intrinsic motivation.

Convergent validity was also generally supported by the findings. However, the relationships between external regulation and the other forms of motivation on the SIMS were different for students in HK and the UK, as indicated by the tests of invariance. In the UK, external regulation scores were negatively related to intrinsic motivation and identified regulation scores. These results were consistent with our hypothesis and previous research (Chatzisarantis, et al., 2003; Standage, Treasure, et al., 2003). Contrarily, in HK students, SIMS external regulation scores were positively related to SIMS intrinsic motivation and

identified regulation scores. These results suggested that, compared to the UK, students in HK interpreted these external regulation items to be more self-determined. Importantly, this pattern of results was not observed in the PLOCQ scores. Indeed, the relationships among scores on the PLOCQ were in line with hypotheses both in the UK and HK samples. Further research is therefore needed to better understand how students from different cultures respond to SIMS items assessing external regulation. One possibility is that the emphasis placed on filial piety (i.e., showing respect for elders) in collectivist cultures may lead HK students to interpret the items measuring situational external regulations as moral obligations, rather than pure external motives. Hence, it is possible that HK students partially internalize the externally imposed motives in PE classes. It may be necessary to develop culturally appropriate items to assess this form of situation-specific motivation. These items may need to explicitly emphasize external motives, such as coercion and rewards, rather than the ambiguous terminology used in the current items.

Although this study provides general support for the validity of the two questionnaires, several future research directions can be proposed. First, within the present study we utilized procedures, such as confirmatory factor analysis, which are underpinned by classical test theory. These analyses are important, however, other approaches exist, such as procedures embedded in item-response theory (e.g., differential item functioning; Ellis & Kimmel, 1992), that can overcome some of the problems associated with cross-cultural psychological measurement. For example, based on item-response theory’s assumption of item unidimensionality, differential item functioning allows researchers to explore whether individual items are underpinned by extraneous dimensions that may create bias in a group’s responses (Hambleton, Swaminathan, & Rogers, 1991). This type of analysis may help to explain why HK students interpreted SIMS external regulation items as more self-determined, compared to UK students.

Second, researchers may wish to explore the responses of other groups of participants, such as different ethnic groups or cultural affiliations located within the same cultural context. This is particularly relevant to the UK given the ethnic diversity found in this country.

Third, the nomological validity of the questionnaires may be further examined. For example, it is of interest to explore if the different motivational regulations at the contextual and situational level predict similar behaviors (e.g., attendance in PE classes) across the two cultures. These potential future studies that may compliment the present work are important given that a second, confirmatory sample was not used within this study.

In terms of limitations, it is important to note that the specific PE-related activity in which students were engaged following the completion of the SIMS was not matched across cultures. In the Hong Kong sample students were sampled before a basketball class. In the UK sample activities varied from class to class, including trampolining, basketball, and dance. As a result, it is possible that some of the cross-cultural differences we found in the scores derived from this measure may have been due to differences in the activities that were included in the specific PE lessons. This limitation aside, our study demonstrated general measurement support in the area of motivation for physical education with the evidence of within- and between-network validity for contextual and situational measures in the UK. In other words, while some minor amendments might be needed to PLOCQ introjected regulation items, researchers interested in studying contextual and situational motivation in UK PE classes should, in general, feel confident in using the PLOCQ and the SIMS, respectively. However, our results highlight some important difficulties in the measurement of contextual and situational motivation in HK Chinese students.

Notes

1.At the suggestion of an anonymous reviewer, we also assessed the gender invariance

of the PLOCQ factor structure. The baseline model fit the data well (CFI = .98) and displayed no decrease in fit when all paths were constrained across genders. Indeed, the most constrained model also fit the data well (CFI = .98). Contact the first author for complete details.

2.The SIMS factor structure was also invariant across genders (CFI = .98 in baseline

and fully constrained models). Contact the first author for complete details.

3.At the suggestion of the editor, we examined the correlations between age and each of

the factor scores for the PLOCQ and the SIMS. In general, these correlations were small (range = -.16 to .11), suggesting that age did not substantially influence scores.

Contact the first author for complete details.

消防安全知识大全

消防安全知识大全 消防安全小常识 1、爆炸、火灾应急 ◆防止火灾发生的基本措施是什么? 答:四种。隔离法、窒息法、冷却法、抑制法。 ◆发生火灾拔通“119”后,应向“119”台报告哪些情况? 签:应报告失火部位所在的区县、街道、燃烧的物质,火势大小,所威胁的物质,报警人姓名、单位、电话号码等情况,并派人到路口迎接消防车的到来。 ◆液体石油气起初火灾如何扑救? 签:用湿布保护好手迅速关好气瓶的截门,然后再用灭火器材进行灭火。 ◆人穿着衣服着火怎么办? 答:(1)在可能的情况下尽快脱去着火的衣服;(2)就地翻滚把火压死。 ◆发生火灾后,您有几种逃生的方法? 签:(1)选择最近的逃生出口逃生;(2)逃离火场的路线上遇有浓烟烈火时,必须把自己的衣服淋湿;再找一块湿毛巾捂住口鼻,起到隔热滤毒的作用;(3)在有浓烟的情况下,采用低姿势撤离,视线不清时,手摸墙壁徐徐撤离;(4)楼道内烟雾过雾,无法冲出时,应利用窗户或阳台逃生,并注意拴上安全绳逃生;(5)上述情况不具备时,不能盲目逃串应等待救援。 2、化学品泄露应急 ◆人员应迅速撤离泄漏污染区至安全区,隔离并严格限制出入 ◆切断火源 ◆尽可能切断泄漏源,防止进入下水道、排洪沟等 ◆用现场的应急物资对泄漏进行处理,防止污染范围扩大 ◆将外泄化学品或油品尽量收集于容器内 ◆清理现场产生的废物送入危险废物收集站 3、化学品伤害处理 ◆皮肤接触:立即脱去被污染的衣着,用肥皂和清水彻底冲洗皮肤。就医。 ◆眼睛接触:立即提起眼睑,用大量流动清水或生理盐水彻底冲洗至少15分钟。就医。

◆吸入:迅速脱离现场至空气新鲜处。就医。 4、消防知识 ◆当你发现液化石油气瓶,灶具漏气时应怎么办? 答:1、首先关闭气瓶角阀,并开窗通气,使可燃气体敞开;2、严禁动用电器和一切火源;3、立即找液化石油站及时修理或更换。 ◆使用液体石油气炉时为什么先点火,后开气? 答:如果先开气后点火,先喷出的大量石油气,就有可能与空气形成爆炸气体,这时遇到明火就有发生爆炸危险,因此必须先点火后开气。 ◆电气设备引起火灾的原因有几种? 答:(1)短路;(2)过负荷;(3)接触电阻热;(4)电火花和电弧;(5)照明灯具、电热元件、热工具的表面热;(6)过电压;(7)涡流热。 ◆怎样使用干粉灭火器? 答:先拔掉保险箱,一手握住喷嘴对准火点,另一手压下压把。 ◆扑救电器火灾应首先做什么?在带电时,可用什么灭火器扑救? 答:切断电源、二氧化碳和ABC干粉灭火器。 ◆泡沫灭火机不能扑救什么火灾? 答:1、不能扑救电器火灾;2、不能扑救忌水性物品火灾;3、不能扑救贵重物品、仪表火灾。 ◆现生产的干粉灭火器有哪几种? 答:有ABC、BC、BCD三种。不同类别火灾如下: 防火防爆基础知识 制造和使用易燃物品时有何安全要求?

劳动保护安全方针

劳动保护安全方针 安全生产方针,又称劳动保护安全方针。是我国对安全生产工作所提出的一个总的要求和指导原则,它为安全生产指明了方向。要搞好安全生产,就必须有正确的安全生产方针。 1983年国务院在[1983]85号《批转劳动人事部、国家经委、全国总工会关于加强安全生产和劳动安全监察工作的报告的通知》中指出:“在‘安全第一,预防为主’的思想指导下搞好安全生产,是经济管理、生产管理部门和企业领导的本职工作,也是不可推卸的责任。”第一次明确提出我国的安全生产方针是“预防为主,安全第一”。 这个安全生产方针,强化了安全生产的重要性,并强调在生产中要做好预防工作,尽可能将事故消灭在萌芽状态。这个方针,其含义是: 1、安全生产工作的重要性 在生产过程中的安全是生产发展的客观需要,特别是现代化生产,更不允许有所忽视,必须强化安全生产,在生产活动中把安全工作放在第一位,当生产与安全发生矛盾时,生产要服从安全。这就是安全第一的含义。

我国是社会主义国家,安全生产是党和国家的一项重要政策,是保护劳动者安全健康和发展生产力的重要工作,同时,也是维护社会安定,促进国民经济稳定、持续、健康发展的基本条件,是社会文明程度的重要标志。安全生产也是社会主义企业管理的一项重要原则,这是社会主义制度性质所决定的。 2、安全与生产的辩证统一 在生产建设中,必须用辩证统一的观点去处理好安全与生产关系。也就是说,企业领导者必须善于安排安全和生产。越是生产任务忙,越要重视安全,把安全工作搞好。否则,就会招致工伤事故,既妨碍生产,又影响安全。这是生产实践证明了的一条重要经验教训。 怎样理解安全和生产的辩证统一关系呢?在生产过程中,安全和生产既有矛盾性,又有统一性,所谓矛盾性,首先是生产过程中不安全因素与生产的矛盾。要对不安全因素采取措施时,就要增加支出,或影响生产进度。所谓统一性,对不安全因素采取措施后,改善了劳动条件,职工就有良好的精神状态和劳动热情,劳动生产率就会提高。没有生产活动,安全工作就不会存在;反之,没有安全工作,生产就不能顺利进行,这就是安全与生产互为条件,互相依存的道理,也就

大学生交通安全常识

---------------------------------------------------------------范文最新推荐------------------------------------------------------ 大学生交通安全常识 一、大学生交通安全的概念与交通事故的危害交通安全是指不发生交通事故或少发生交通事故的主观条件,即指交通参与者要严格遵守交通法规,提高警惕,不因麻痹大意而发生交通事故。大学生交通安全是指大学生在校园内和校园外的道路行走、乘坐交通工具时的人身安全。只要有行人、车辆、道路这三个交通安全要素存在,就有交通安全问题,也许只是一个小小的意外,就会造成严重后果,断送美好的前程,甚至生命。据上海市交通巡警总队事故防范处统计,2001年上海市大学生发生道路交通事故300起,死亡4人,伤220人。二、大学校园易发生交通事故的主要原因随着高校改革的不断深入,高校与社会的交流越来越频繁,使校园内人流量、车流量急剧增加。许多高校教师拥有私家轿车已不算希奇,摩托车更是普遍,学生骑自行车的很多,开汽车上学也已不再是新闻了。校园道路建设、校园交通管理滞后于高校的发展,一般校园道路都比较狭窄,交叉路口没有信号灯管制,也没有专职交通管理人员管理;校园内人员居住集中,上、下课时容易形成人流高峰等等原因,致使高校的交通环境日益复杂,交通事故经常发生。据武汉某交通大队统计,1999年4月至2002年4月该辖区十余所大专院校校园内发生交通事故16起,伤15人,死亡6人,其中重大交通事故5起。三、大学生交通安全事故的主要表现形式 1、校园内易发生的交通事故校园内 1 / 9

危险化学品安全知识

危险化学品安全知识 一、什么是危险化学品? 答:凡具有易燃、易爆、有毒、有害、腐蚀、放射性等特性,会对人、设施、环境 造成伤害或损害的化学品。 二、危险化学品分几类? 答:常用危险化学品按其主要危险特性分为8类: 1、爆炸品。如:黑索金、TNT、硝铵炸药、高氯酸铵等。 2、压缩气体和液化气体。如:易燃气体氢气、甲烷、乙烷等;不燃气体氧气、氮气、氩气等;有毒气体一氧化碳、硫化氢等。 3、易燃液体。如:天那水(主要成分苯类)、汽油、煤油及部分柴油、酒精等。 4、易燃固体、自燃物品和遇湿易燃物品。如:红磷、白磷、锂、钠、钾等。 5、氧化剂和有机过氧化剂,如:双氧水、双氧化钠、二氧化镁等。 6、毒害品。 7、放射性物品(不在《危险化学品安全管理条例》管理范围之内)。 8、腐蚀品。如:酸性腐蚀品硝酸,硫酸,盐酸等;碱性腐蚀品烧碱、氨水等,及其它腐蚀品氯化铜、氯化锌等。 三、危险化学品有哪些主要危害? 答:危险化学品的主要危害是易燃、易爆、有毒、有害、腐蚀,环境污染等。 四、控制与消除火源具体措施是哪些? (一)明火主要是生产过程中的加热用火、维修焊割用火及其他火源,它是导致火灾爆炸事故最常见的原因。 1、加热用火 加热易燃危险化学品时,应尽量避免采用明火设备,而宜采用蒸气或其他载热体加热。一定要用明火加热设备时,应远离可能漏气易燃气体或蒸气的工艺设备和贮罐区,并应布置在其上风向或侧风向。 2、切割用火 焊接切割时,飞散的火花及金属熔融碎粒的温度高达1500?2000℃,高空作业时飞散 距离可达20米远,容易引发火灾,在焊割时必须注意以下几点: (1)没有办理《动火作业许可证》,禁止动火。 (2)可以移出易燃易爆危险区域的动火作业,禁止在油气危险区域内动火。 (3)动火单位必须派有资格的安全监护人在现场执行现场监护任务,否则不准动火。(4)作业人员要严格遵守安全操作规程,禁止交叉作业。 (5)动火周围(至少15米范围)的易燃物质清除干净;附近难以移开的易燃物品要采取安全防范措施。 (6)凡盛装过易燃、可燃液体、易燃气体易燃危险物品的容器、管道必须洗刷干净,不能确认为干净的,必须用惰性气体置换到氧气浓度低于2%,或者用水置换。 (7)凡动火点盛装油、气等易燃物品的容器、管道相连的必须用盲板隔开或者拆开连接,呈断开状态。 (8)动火现场必须配备适合的、足够的灭火器材。 (9)动火作业结束后,动火人员必须彻底清理现场火种、残留物,经监护人检查确认没有火险隐患后,才能离开现场。 (10)气焊作业时,应将乙炔发生器放置安全地点,以防回火爆炸伤人或将易燃物引着。(二)摩擦与冲击 1、机器中轴承等转动部分的摩擦,铁器的相互撞击或铁制工具打击混凝土等,都可能发生

企业安全生产方针和安全生产目标

企业安全生产方针和安 全生产目标 Company number:【0089WT-8898YT-W8CCB-BUUT-202108】

1、企业安全生产方针和安全生产目标 答:安全第一、预防为主、综合治理、以人为本、科学管理、持续改进。安全生产目标:实施安全标准化工作管理,全面落实安全生产责任制,建立以人为本的安全文化理念,搞好本质安全。杜绝重特大设备、人身事故,消除一般事故,避免微小事故发生,不发生环境污染事故,杜绝职业病,不损害员工的身体健康。 2、职工在企业的职责是什么 1、安全生产人人有责,企业的每个员工都应在自己的岗位上,认真履行各自的安全职责,对本岗位的安全生产负直接责任。 2、针对矿山的行业特点,每个员工都要提高安全生产意识,严格认真地做好各项工作。 3、认真学习和遵守各项安全生产规章制度,严格遵守安全生产的各项禁令和规定。 4、严格遵守本岗位的安全生产操作规程,严格遵守劳动、操作、工艺、施工和工作纪律。 5、认真学习并执行各种安全管理制度和规定,不违章作业。 6、正确分析、判断和处理各种事故苗头,把事故消灭在萌芽状态。在发生事故时,及时如实地向上级报告,按事故预案正确处理,并保护现场,做好详细记录。 7、正确操作、精心维护设备、妥善保管、正确使用各种防护器具和消防器材,保持作业环境整洁,搞好文明生产。 8、积极参加各种安全活动、岗位技术练兵和事故预案演练。

9、有权拒绝执行违章作业指令,对他人违章作业加以劝阻和制止。 3、一岗一责内容、有岗必有责上岗必守责。 4.危险点1:倒闸操作危险点及防范措施 1 主变操作的危险点及其防范 变压器操作的危险点主要有:一是切合空载变压器过程中可能出现的操作过电压,危及变压器绝缘;二是变压器空载电压升高,使变压器绝缘遭受损坏。 切合空载变压器产生操作过电压的防范措施 变压器中性点接地,主要是避免产生操作过电压。防范措施是合上变压器中性点接地刀闸。 2 直流回路操作的危险点及其防范 直流系统发生一点接地时查找接地点的检查,某些继电保护及自动装置临时性的检查、退出、投入等。直流回路操作同样存在危险点,如操作方法不正确,也将造成某些保护及自动装置误动作。 控制电源开关的操作防范措施如下: (1) 取下直流控制熔断器时,应先取正极,后取负极。装上直流控制熔断器时,应先装负极,后装正极。这样做的目的是防止产生寄生回路,避免保护装置误动作。 (2) 运行中的保护装置要停用直流电源时,应先停用保护出口连接片,再停用直流回路。恢复时次序相反。 (3) 在断路器停电的操作中,断路器的控制开关应在拉开刀闸之后分开。因为当断路器万一未断开,造成带负荷拉隔离开关时,断路器的保护可动作于跳闸。如果在拉开隔离开关之前取下熔断器,则会因断路器不能跳闸而扩大事故。 (4) 在断路器送电操作中,断路器的控制开关应在合刀闸之前合上。可以检查保护装置和控制回路工作状态是否完好,如有问题,及时处理。另外,这时保护装置已处于准备工作状态,万一在后面的操作中,因断路器的原因造成事故,保护回路可以动作于跳闸。如果在合上隔离开关后,合控制开关,万一因断路器未断开造成带负荷合隔离开关,使断路器不能跳闸而扩大事故。 危险点2:巡检危险点及防范措施

我国安全生产方针

安全生产方针 方针是国家或政党在一定历史时期内,为达到一定目标而确定的指导思想和遵循原则。安全生产方针是指我国对安全生产工作所提出的一个总的要求和指导原则,它为安全生产指明了方向。安全生产方针是党和国家为确保安全生产而确定的指导思想和行动准则。要搞好安全生产,就必须有正确的安全生产方针。党和政府有关安全生产的方针、政策是适应生产发展的需要,结合我国的具体情况而制定的,是安全生产的先进经验的总结。不论是实施安全生产的技术措施,还是组织措施,都是在贯彻安全生产的方针和政策。只有安全生产的方针、政策被各级领导和工人群众理解和掌握,并得到贯彻执行,安全生产才有保证。只有充分认识、深刻理解其含义,才能在实践中处理好安全与生产的关系。特别是安全与生产发生矛盾时,要首先解决好安全问题,切实把安全工作提高到关系全局及稳定的高度来认识,把安全视作企业头等大事,从而提高安全生产的责任感与自觉性。 我国的安全生产方针,又称劳动保护方针,我国的安全生产方针经历了一个产生和发展的过程。从五六十年代的“安全第一”,到七十年代之后的“安全第一、预防为主”,再到党的十六届五中全会提出的12字方针,反映了我们对安全生产规律特点认识的不断深化。依据这一方针,必须把防范事故作为安全生产的主体性任务,把工作重心转移到排查治理隐患、提高事故防范能力上来;必须坚持标本兼治、重在治本,综合运用法律、经济、科技手段和必要的行政手段,解决突出问题和深层次问题,建立长效机制。 安全生产方针的产生和发展 安全第一"这个词最早是美国钢铁公司B·H·格里董事长提出来的。1901年,美国的钢铁工业受到经济萧条的影响的冲击,同时,钢铁业作为当时先进的工业行业,客观的高危险性对产业发展造成了明显的影响。1906年,格里从长期接连不断的事故中得出教训,针对钢铁业生产的需要,他别出心裁地把公司提出的经营方针加以变动,将原来的"质量第一"、"产量第二",改为"安全第一"、"质量第二"。"产量第三"。这项方针的改动,致力于安全生产的目标,发现其效果不但减少事故,同时产量和质量都得到提高。既保障了雇员的安全,又使质量,产量得到保证,凯里"安全第一"

消防安全知识119题(含答案)

消防安全知识119题(含答案) 一﹑单项选择题(每题一个正确答案,共50题) 1.我国消防工作的最高法律是( C )。 A.《中华人民共和国安全生产法》 B.《机关﹑团体﹑企业﹑事业单位消防安全管理规定》 C.《中华人民共和国消防法》 2.消防工作贯彻(C)的方针,坚持专门机关与群众相结合的原则,实行防火安全责任制。A﹑谁主管、谁负责B﹑安全第一,预防为主C﹑预防为主,防消结合 3.《中华人民共和国消防法》自(B)起施行。 A﹑1997年B﹑1998年C﹑2001年 4.我国的“119”消防宣传活动日是(A)。 A 、11月9日 B 、1月19日C、9月11日 5.我国目前通用的火警电话是(B)。 A、911 B、119c、110 6.燃烧是一种放热发光的(B)反应。 A﹑物理B﹑化学C﹑生化 7.火灾初起阶段是扑救火灾(B)的阶段。 A﹑最不利B﹑最有利C﹑较不利 8.烟头中心温度可达(C),它超过了棉、麻、毛织物、纸张、家具等可燃物的燃点,若乱扔烟头接触到这些可燃物,容易引起燃烧,甚至酿成火灾。 A﹑100—200℃B﹑200—300℃C﹑700—800℃。 9﹑消防工作中的爆炸,主要针对的是( B )。 A﹑物理爆炸B﹑化学爆炸C﹑核爆炸 10.采取适当的措施,使燃烧因缺乏或断绝氧气而熄灭,这种方法称作(A)。 A﹑窒息灭火法B﹑隔离灭火法C﹑冷却灭火法 11.使用灭火器扑救火灾时要对准火焰(C)喷射。 A、上部 B、中部 C、根部 12.常用灭火器的压力指示表针指向( C )色区域时表示灭火器压力正常,可以使用。 A﹑红B﹑黄C﹑绿 13.泡沫不能用于扑救(D)火灾。 A、塑料 B、汽油C﹑煤油D、金属钠 14.以下灭火剂中(C)破坏大气的臭氧层,要逐步淘汰使用。 A﹑二氧化碳B﹑干粉C﹑1211 15.电器设备在发生火灾时不应该用(B)。 A﹑卤代烷B﹑水C﹑干粉

安全生产方针

安全生产方针 集团企业公司编码:(LL3698-KKI1269-TM2483-LUI12689-ITT289-

安全生产方针安全生产方针,又称劳动保护安全方针。是我国对安全生产工作所提出的一个总的要求和指导原则,它为安全生产指明了方向。要搞好安全生产,就必须有正确的安全生产方针。 1983年国务院在[1983]85号《批转劳动人事部、国家经委、全国总工会关于加强安全生产和劳动安全监察工作的报告的通知》中指出:“在 ‘安全第一,预防为主’的思想指导下搞好安全生产,是经济管理、生产管理部门和企业领导的本职工作,也是不可推卸的责任。”第一次明确提出我国的安全生产方针是“预防为主,安全第一”。 这个安全生产方针,强化了安全生产的重要性,并强调在生产中要做好预防工作,尽可能将事故消灭在萌芽状态。这个方针,其含义是: 1、安全生产工作的重要性 在生产过程中的安全是生产发展的客观需要,特别是现代化生产,更不允许有所忽视,必须强化安全生产,在生产活动中把安全工作放在第一位,当生产与安全发生矛盾时,生产要服从安全。这就是安全第一的含义。

我国是社会主义国家,安全生产是党和国家的一项重要政策,是保护劳动者安全健康和发展生产力的重要工作,同时,也是维护社会安定,促进国民经济稳定、持续、健康发展的基本条件,是社会文明程度的重要标志。安全生产也是社会主义企业管理的一项重要原则,这是社会主义制度性质所决定的。 2、安全与生产的辩证统一 在生产建设中,必须用辩证统一的观点去处理好安全与生产关系。也就是说,企业领导者必须善于安排安全和生产。越是生产任务忙,越要重视安全,把安全工作搞好。否则,就会招致工伤事故,既妨碍生产,又影响安全。这是生产实践证明了的一条重要经验教训。 怎样理解安全和生产的辩证统一关系呢?在生产过程中,安全和生产既有矛盾性,又有统一性,所谓矛盾性,首先是生产过程中不安全因素与生产的矛盾。要对不安全因素采取措施时,就要增加支出,或影响生产进度。所谓统一性,对不安全因素采取措施后,改善了劳动条件,职工就有良好的精神状态和劳动热情,劳动生产率就会提高。没有生产活动,安全工作就不会存在;反之,没有安全工作,生产就不能顺利进行,这就是安全与生产互为条件,互相依存的道理,也就是安全与生产的统一性。

大学生应知应会的交通安全常识

大学生应知应会的交通安全常识 一:步行安全 明确交通安全的知识,遵守交通法规能有效预防和减少交通事故。作为一名大学生,遵守在行车、走路时必须交通法规,人身安全才有了保障。如果我们安全意识淡薄,思想麻痹不重视很容易带来生命之忧。据不完全统计,湖北高校近三年来因乱穿马路造成的交通事故平均每年不低于120起。遵守交通规则,珍爱生命,已成为学校和社会对大学生的迫切要求。 【案例】2009年3月6日,晚上21时,政法学院学生万某在外做家教回学校时,路过湖滨西路(校南二门对面)时,由于没有观察车辆行驶状况,被一辆小轿车撞倒,当场死亡,万某老师、同学悲痛万分,一个年轻的生命就这样被交通事故无情夺去。 二、骑车安全 1、没有刹车或没有安全保证的自行车、电动车不能上路;不要在车行道上学骑自行车。 2、要在非机动车道上行驶,在混行道上要靠右边行驶,不能在机动车道和人行道上行驶。 3、如过较大陡坡或横穿四条以上机动车道时应当推车行走;雨、雪、雾等天气要慢速行驶,路面雪大结冰时要推车慢行。 4、转弯时要提前减速慢行,定要不要急转,转弯时要开启指示灯,不要突然猛拐;

5、不要手中持物骑车,不要双手离把骑车;骑车不要曲折行驶,不要相互竞驶,不要两辆以上并排行驶。 【案例一】2009年4月15日上午10时许,我校一名女生驾驶一辆车牌鄂BGA025两轮摩托车,车后乘坐另一名女生,两人均未戴头盔,在湖师大道与一辆校车放生碰撞。校保卫处及时出警将两名女生送到医院救治。经调查,摩托车驾驶员未考取驾驶证,因操作不当与前方校车发生追尾事故,造成两名女生多处部位受伤,其中一名女生头部受到撞击,现场血迹斑斑。 【案例二】2009年5月29日凌晨1时许,我校一名男生驾驶一辆无牌无证两轮摩托车,行至凤凰超市旁,撞上绿化带,当场翻车,男生躺在草坪上呼呼大睡,车辆倒在一旁,油箱漏出许多汽油,非常危险,好在被保卫处巡逻人员及时发现送往医院,医院诊断为多处软组织受伤,幸无大碍。第二天该生对自己酒驾、无照驾驶行为后悔不已。 【案例三】2013年9月2日下午15:00左右,校马克思主义学院1201班学生张某某驾驶一辆电动车从校门行至牛尾巴十字路口,在遇到红灯的情况下强行左转与一辆从亚光新村行至凤凰山隧道的出租车发生碰撞,张某某当场倒地,出租车司机随即报警送往市中心医院治疗。经医院诊断,张某某腰椎受损。交警事故认定认为张某某因在十字路口冲红灯强行左转,在此事故中占70%,负主要责任,出租车在此事故中占30%,负次要责任。张某某驾驶的电动车因冲红灯、又未戴安全头盔的违法行为造成该事

工厂消防安全知识培训

工厂消防安全知识培训 安全工程师吕老师的工厂消防安全知识培训课程,以火灾案例形式分析了当前火灾的频发性和突发性,重点就火灾发生的原因、危害、防火灭火常识、逃生技巧、常用灭火器的性能、原理及使用方法等以图文并茂的形式,通过列举典型火灾案例,为大家上了一堂深刻的消防安全知识课,使全体职工深刻体会到消防知识的重要性,进一步提高了消防安全防范意识及自防自救能力。 课程主题:工厂消防安全知识培训 课程时间:1-2天 课程预定: 工厂消防安全知识培训课程大纲 第一讲:消防和火灾 第一节消防的概念 一、消防工作方针、原则和责任制 二、火灾的概念 第二节火灾的危害 一、造成惨重的直接财产损失 二、间接财产损失更为严重 三、造成大量的人员伤亡 四、破坏生态平衡、造成环境影响 五、造成不良的社会政治影响 第三节引起火灾的几个规律

一、火灾时段分布为冬季高发 二、农村和县城集镇火灾所占比重较大 三、夜间火灾的亡人率高出白天三倍多 四、电气火灾所占比重大 第二讲:消防法律知识 第一节消防法律体系 一、消防法规的概念 二、消防法规的形式 三、消防法简释 第二节违反消防法规的刑事责任 一、消防刑事责任 二、消防监督相关刑事责任 三、案例简析 第三节违反消防法规的行政责任 一、消防行政违法案件的概念和特征 二、消防行政责任 三、案例简析 第四节违反消防法规的民事责任 一、民法简述 二、消防相关民事责任 三、案例简析 第三讲:建筑消防安全知识

第一节建筑防火常识 一、建筑物的分类 二、建筑物的耐火等级 三、生产和贮存物品的火灾危险性分类 四、防火间距 五、防火分隔物 六、防爆泄压 七、安全疏散 八、室内消防给水 九、“三合一”建筑 十、高层建筑的火灾特点 十一、有关建筑消防的法律规定 第二节消防安全标志 一、消防安全标志的分类 二、消防安全标志的设置 …… 第四讲:公众聚集场所消防安全知识 第五讲:危险化学品消防安全知识 第六讲:消防技术服务机构和执业人员的资质、资格第七讲:火灾预防知识 第八讲:应对火灾的方法 第九讲:火灾公众责任保险

大学生交通安全知识

学生交通安全 据有关报道,自从有机动车道路交通事故死亡记录以来,全世界死于道路交通事故的人数已超过3200万人,近百年来累计死于交通事故的人数已超过两次世界大战中死亡人数的总和。全世界每年有100多万人死于交通事故,其中我国每年就有近十万人死于交通事故。交通事故已成为人类死亡的第五大要因,仅次于心脏病、癌症、突发病(中风)和肺炎。在我们的日常生活中,有许多的突发事故是可以通过努力预防和避免的。事实证明,良好的安全意识、自觉地遵守交通法规、快速灵敏的反应、正确的救护技巧是预防交通事故、最大限度的避免或减轻伤害的有效手段。 聚焦案例: 吉林某高校大三学生王某,虽然是个近视眼,可他却最喜欢戴着耳塞边听音乐边走路边看书,有时候汽车到了他跟前才发觉。有同学曾提醒过他要注意安全,他却当作耳边风。2006年10月的一天下午,他跟往常一样一边听着音乐、看着书回宿舍,经过一个是十字路口时,一辆桑塔纳轿车从他左侧开过来,汽车鸣笛,他丝毫没有避让的意思,结果汽车刹车不及将他撞倒,造成左手骨折,幸好车速不是太快,否则性命难保。 从这个案例中可以看出,该同学不够重视交通安全,注意力分散,终酿成大祸,自食其果。在平时的生活中,大学生要重视交通安全,学习和积累交通安全常识,自觉遵守交通规则,无论在校园内还是校园外出行时,要做到“眼观六路,耳听八方”,时刻注意来往车辆和行人,做到注意力不分散,及时避让往来车辆,学会保护自己的人身安全。 特别提醒: 大学生步行、骑车、驾车、乘车、乘坐飞机、火车、轮船等交通工具外出时,时刻要注意交通安全问题,要把自己的生命安全摆在第一位,不能有丝毫的松懈和疏忽。 一、大学生易发生的交通事故主要类型 近几年来,随着各种车辆的剧增,大学生发生的交通事故呈不断上升趋势。大学生在校园内外发生的交通事故类型主要有: 1.被机动车撞伤、撞死。大学生发生交通事故致伤致死的,主要是与机动车相撞造成的,其中有的是汽车,有的是摩托车。被撞伤、撞死的大学生有的是在马路上骑自行车,有的是步行横过马路或者在便道上行走,还有的是在车站候车。被撞伤、撞死的大学生,有的要承担一定的责任,如骑车违章带人、闯红灯、逆行,过马路不走人行横道,在校园道路上踢球、拍球、嬉笑打闹,在马路上边走边聊天等;有些交通事故是机动车驾驶员违章造成的,如学生在非机动车道被汽车撞伤、撞死;学生在绿灯放行的情况下步行通过人行横道,被违章的汽车撞伤、撞死;学生在车站站台候车,被酒后驾车者撞伤、撞死;学生在校园内人行便道上行走,被违章汽车撞伤、撞死等。

化学品库房消防安全管理制度

规章制度:________ 化学品库房消防安全管理制度 单位:______________________ 部门:______________________ 日期:______年_____月_____日 第1 页共5 页

化学品库房消防安全管理制度 1.1目的 加强消防安全管理、预防火灾事故的发生,保障工厂财产和员工生命安全及生产的正常进行。 1.2适用范围 适用于工厂危险化学品库房、油库的消防安全管理。 2相关文件 外来文件:《易燃易爆化学物品消防安全管理办法》 3.1危险化学品:是指爆炸品、压缩气体和液化气体、易燃液体、易燃固体、自燃物品和遇湿易燃物品、氧化剂和有机氧化物、有毒品和腐蚀品。 3.2危险化学品库:储存危险化学品的库房。 5化学品库消防安全制度 5.1库房管理 5.1.1库房管理部门须指定专门的化学品库消防安全责任人,其职责是:负责库房消防器材的管理和日常消防安全检查。 5.1.2仓库管理员应经过专门的消防安全知识培训,了解、掌握所保管的化学品性质、灭火方法以及消防器材的使用,持证上岗。 5.1.3库房内所使用的电气设备都应为防火、防爆电器。电器维修时必须由设备动力科专业人员进行。 5.1.4化学性质相抵触或灭火方法不同的易燃易爆物品不得同库存放。 5.1.5库房内物品的存放应严格按要求留有通道(1m)、垛距、墙 第 2 页共 5 页

距(0.5m),储量不超过0.5t/m2。 5.1.6禁止烟火等警示标志要明显,消防器材配备齐全、完好。在库房内及库房周围动用明火,须严格执行动火作业审批制度,并采取必要措施后方能动火。 5.1.7库房安装有避雷设施,避雷设施每年检测一次。 5.1.8库房内不许设置办公室,除库房管理员及安检人员外其他人员不得进入库房,必须进入库房的搬运工等,严禁携带火种。 5.2操作管理 5.2.1库房管理员接班后,应对库房全面巡视,检查存放物品、设备设施、防雷设施、消防器材是否正常,如有异常及时处理并报告主管或制造部。 5.2.2危险化学品入库时,应严格检验物品质量、数量、包装情况、有无泄漏,杜绝隐患。对于物品性质不清的化学品不得入库。 5.2.3运输甲类危险物品的车辆须停放在远离库房10米之外的空地上,再通过叉车转运到库房门口,叉车不得进入库房,要求叉车排气口距离库房门口不得少于3米,然后通过人工转运进库。 5.2.3装卸、搬运危险化学品时,要做到轻装、轻卸,严禁摔、碰、撞、击、拖拉、倾倒和滚动。 5.2.4库房内严禁分装作业。 5.2.5库房管理员应做到对库房一日两检,及时开启通风设备强制通风。 5.2.6对于初起火灾库房管理员应及时组织扑救,并按应急响应流程执行。 5.2.7下班时应仔细检查库房内物品、设施,确定正常后,关闭电 第 3 页共 5 页

安全生产方针和目标综合

目录 安全生产方针和目标 (3) 安全方针 (3) 安全生产目标 (3) 安全生产方针和目标的措施 (5) 制定目标落实计划 (5) 健全安全管理机构 (5) 安全责任体系 (5) 法规和安全管理制度 (6) 安全投入 (7) 装备设施 (8) 人员安全管理 (8) 作业管理 (9) 危险源辨识与风险控制 (10) 隐患排查与治理 (10)

职业健康 (11) 安全文化 (11) 应急救援 (11) 事故报告调查处理 (12) 绩效考核与持续改进 (12) 安全生产方针及目标管理制度 (14) 安全生产方针及具体要求 (14) 安全生产目标及具体要求 (14) 安全生产方针及目标的制定、实施、管理 (15) 安全生产方针和目标 为了贯彻落实“安全第一,预防为主、综合治理”的方针,巩固项目部安全生产秩序,加强项目部安全标准化管理,落实安全生产责任制,特制定安全生产的方针和目标。 一、安全方针 1、安全第一,预防为主。 2、落实责任、确保安全。

3、预防为主、加强保护。 4、遵守法规、强化管理。 5、改善环境、保护健康。 二、安全生产目标 项目部全体在岗员工认真学习和贯彻《中华人民共和国安全生产法》等法律法规,严格执行各项制度和职责,实现六个为零,四个达标。 (1)六个为零: 死亡(含交通责任)事故为零 重大火灾(爆炸)事故为零 重大设备事故为零 重大责任事故为零 重大环境污染事故为零 职工职业病发病率为零 (2)重伤率控制在生产总值每亿元‰以下。 (3)安全责任签约率为100%。 (4)在岗员工安全教育率100%。

(5)无治安案件与影响社会稳定的事件。 安全生产方针和目标的措施 为了实现项目部的安全生产工作方针与目标,特此制定相应的工作要求和措施,明确责任人以及完成的时间节点等。 一、制定目标落实计划。 1、制订和实施项目部安全生产工作方针与目标的措施。 2、根据公司安全生产中长期规划和公司跨年度安全生产工作方案制定项目部的安全生产年度计划和安年度安全活动方案。 3、将安全生产管理指标进行细化和分解,制定阶段性的安全生产控制指标。 4、制定安全生产目标考核与奖励办法。 5、定期考核项目部的年度安全生产目标完成情况,并奖罚兑现。 二、健全安全管理机构 1、项目部成立安全生产领导小组,明确职责,实行“一岗双责、党政同责、失职追责”的基本要求。 2、按规定足额配备专职安全生产和应急管理人员。 3、定期召开安全生产领导小组会议,每个月要召开一次安全工作例会。 三、安全责任体系

大学生必须牢记的交通安全常识

大学生必须牢记的交通安全常识 (一)、大学校园易发生交通事故的客观原因 随着高校改革的不断深入,高校与社会的交流越来越频繁,使校园内人流量、车流量急剧增加。高校教师拥有私家轿车的数量不断攀升,学生骑自行车、电瓶车的很多,开汽车上学也已不再是新闻了。校园道路建设、校园交通管理滞后于高校的发展,一般校园道路都比较狭窄,交叉路口没有信号灯管制,也没有专职交通管理人员管理;校园内人员居住集中,上、下课时容易形成人流高峰等原因,致使高校的交通环境日益复杂,交通事故经常发生。 (二)、大学生交通安全事故的主观原因 校园内发生交通事故的主观原因是当事人思想麻痹和安全意识淡薄。许多大学生刚刚离开父母和家庭,缺乏社会生活经验,头脑里交通安全意识比较淡薄,同时有的同学在思想上还存在校园内骑车和行走肯定比公路上安全的错误认识,一旦遇到意外,发生交通事故就在所难免。引发校园内发生交通事故的主观因素有以下几种:(1)注意力不集中。这是最主要的形式,表现为行人在走路时边走路边看书边听音乐,或者左顾右盼、心不在焉。(2)在路上进行球类活动。大学生精力旺盛、活泼好动,即使在路上行走也是蹦蹦跳跳、嬉戏打闹,甚至有时还在路上进行球类活动,更是增加了发生事故的危险。(3)“骑飞车”、“炫车技”。由于高校校园面积都比较大,宿舍与教室、图书馆等之间的距离比较远,许多大学生购买了自行车,上课或下课时骑着自行车在人流中穿行。但部分学生骑车不以保证安全为重,经常在校内骑飞车、甚至不握车把、甩手骑车来“炫耀”自己的车技,这是对自己和他人的人身安全极不负责的表现。 (三)、校园外常见的交通事故 1、行走时发生交通事故。大学生余暇空闲时购物、观光、访友要到市区活动,这些地方车流量大,行人多,各种交通标志眼花缭乱,与校园相比交通状况更加复杂,若缺乏通行经验发生交通事故的概率很高。难怪上海一所著名大学的校长说:“在各个大学中普遍存在这样一种情况,少数学生书读得越多,越不会走路,遵守交通规则的意识越淡薄,不仅在校园里乱骑车、乱停车,在马路上行走违反交通规则也时有发生。”

危险化学品消防安全知识问

危险化学品消防安全知识12问(1)什么是化学危险物品 化学危险物品是指具有易燃、易爆、腐蚀、毒害、放射性等危险性质,并在一定条件下能引起燃烧、爆炸和导致人受伤、死亡等事故的化学物品及放射性物品。化学危险物品目前约有6000余种,常见、用途较广的有近2000种左右。 (2)我国化学危险物品如何分类 为了在生产、储存、运输、使用中便于对化学危险物品进行管理,我国将化学危险物品分成十大类,分别是爆炸物品、氧化剂、压缩气体和液化气体、自燃物品、遇水燃烧物品、易燃液体、易燃固体、毒害物品、腐蚀物品、放射性物品。 (3)什么是爆炸物品 凡是受到摩擦、撞击、震动、高热或其他因素激发,能产生激烈的化学变化,在极短时间内放出大量的热和气体,同时伴有光、声等效应的物品,统称为爆炸物品。 (4)爆炸物品如何分类 爆炸物品的分类方法很多,常见的是按性质和用途将爆炸物品分为四类:分别是点火器材(如导火索、拉火管等)、起爆器材(如导爆索和雷管等)、炸药和爆炸性药品、其他爆炸物品(如爆竹等)。

(5)什么是爆炸物品的敏感度 任何一种炸药的爆炸,都需要外界供给它一定能量——起爆能。不同的炸药所需的起爆能也不同,某一炸药所需的最小起爆能即为 该炸药的敏感度。起爆能同敏感度成反比,起爆能越小,则敏感度 越高,敏感度是确定炸药爆炸危险性的一个重要标志。爆炸物品的 敏感度同它的爆炸危险性成正比,敏感度越高,则爆炸危险性越大。不同的炸药对不同形式的外界作用,其敏感度是不同的。 (6)影响爆炸物品敏感度的因素有哪些 影响爆炸物品敏感度的因素很多,而不同爆炸物品的化学组成 与结构却是决定性的内在因素。另外,还有影响炸药敏感度的外来 因素,如温度、杂质、水分、结晶、密度等。 (7)为什么爆炸物品具有极强的破坏力 爆炸物品之所以有极强的破坏力,其原因有三个:一是爆炸时 的反应速度极快,爆炸能量会在极短时间内放出,产生强大的爆炸 功率;二是爆炸时能产生大量的热,引燃可燃物品;三是爆炸时能产 生大量气体,产生较大冲击波。

关于下发《2015年度安全生产方针、目标、指标以及实施方案》的通知

淮海中联水泥有限公司 (2015)年度 安全生产方针、目标、指标 以及实施计划 编制日期:2014年12月21日

2015年度安全生产方针、目标、指标 以及实施方案 为持续提高公司安全生产管理绩效,全面落实国家相关安全生产法律法规,履行职责,认真做好公司2015年度安全生产工作,保障员工身体健康及公司财产的安全。依据徐州市安委会给我公司所定的安全指标,结合公司2014年度安全生产实际情况,特制定公司2015年度安全生产方针、目标,同时将目标分解到部门,制定公司各部门年度指标,以及具体目标、指标实施方案。 一、安全、环境、职业健康管理方针 安全方针: 安全第一、预防为主;全员参与、岗位达标;综合治理、持续改进。 环境方针: 遵纪守法经营,创建模范环境,持续改进创新,发展绿色建材职业健康管理方针: 依法受控,以人为本,清洁生产,持续改进 二、安全生产目标 1、因工死亡为零 2、重伤事故为零 3、千人负伤率≤1.5‰ 4、负主要责任交通事故为零 5、重大火灾事故为零 6、新增职业病发生率为零 7、特种作业人员定期培训持证上岗率100% 8、特种设备定期检测、校验,特种设备完好率100%

9、开展安全普法教育活动,员工受教育培训率100% 10、主要负责人、安全管理人员持证率为100% 11、不发生重大环保事故 12、提高事故应急处理能力,组织应急演练。 安全生产考核指标按照《2015年度安全生产目标考核细则》及《2015年度全员安全生产奖励及安全风险抵押金管理办法》执行。三、目标分解:(部门指标,蓝色为不考核项) 安全环保管理办公室每月对各部门安全生产目标完成情况进行考核,并将考核情况报行政人事部,行政人事部负责落实到具体责任人。 四、实施方案(计划) 1、召开安全生产专题工作会议: 每月第一个周二召开月度安全生产例会,由总经理或分管副总主持,内容为总结上一个月安全生产工作情况、布置当月安全生产工作重点、就安全生产的重要事项进行决策,参加人员:各部门行政主管及专

大学生交通安全常识

大学生交通安全常识 一、大学生交通安全的概念与交通事故的危害交通安全是指别发生交通事故或少发生交通事故的主观条件,即指交通参与者要严格遵守交通法规,提高警惕,别因麻痹大意而发生交通事故。大学生交通安全是指大学生在校园内和校园外的道路行走、乘坐交通工具时的人身安全。只要有行人、车辆、道路这三个交通安全要素存在,就有交通安全咨询题,也许不过一具小小的意外,就会造成严峻后果,断送美好的前程,甚至生命。据上海市交通巡警总队事故防范处统计,2001年上海市大学生发生道路交通事故300起,死亡4人,伤220人。 二、大学校园易发生交通事故的要紧原因随着高校改革的别断深入,高校与社会的交流越来越频繁,使校园内人流量、车流量急剧增加。许多高校教师拥有私家轿车已别算稀罕,摩托车更是普遍,学生骑自行车的不少,开汽车内学也已别再是新闻了。校园道路建设、校园交通治理滞后于高校的进展,普通校园道路都比较狭窄,交叉路口没有信号灯管制,也没有专职交通治理人员治理;校园内人员居住集中,上、下课时容易形成人流高峰等等原因,致使高校的交通环境日益复杂,交通事故经常发生。据武汉某交通大队统计,1999年4月至2002年4月该辖区十余所大专院校校园内发生交通事故16起,伤15人,死亡6人,其中重大交通事故5起。三、大学生交通安全事故的要紧表现形式1、校园内易发生的交通事故校园内发生交通事故的要紧原因是思想麻痹和安全意识淡保许多大学生刚刚离开父母和家庭,缺乏社会日子经验,头脑里交通安全意识比较淡薄,并且有的同学在思想上还存在校园内骑车和行走确信比公路上安全的错误认识,一旦遇到意外,发生交通事故就在所难免。校园内发生交通事故的要紧形式有以下几种:(1)注意力别集中。这是最要紧的形式,表现为行人在走路时边走路边看书边听音乐,或者左顾右盼、心别在焉。[例1:广东某高校李某,尽管是个近视眼,可他却最喜欢戴着耳塞边听音乐边走路边看书,有时候车到了他跟前才发现。同学提醒他要注意,他却当作耳边风。2001年11月的一天下午,他跟以前一样一边听着音乐、看着书回宿舍,经过一具是十字路口时,一辆桑塔纳轿车从他左侧开过来,汽车鸣笛,他丝毫没有避让的意思,结果汽车刹车别及将他撞倒,幸好车速别是太快,否则性命难保。](2)在路上进行球类活动。大学生精力旺盛、爽朗好动,即使在路上行走也是蹦蹦跳跳、嬉戏打闹,甚至有时还在路上进行球类活动,更是增加了发生事故的惊险。[例2:如2000年5月,上海某高校两位男同学在操场踢完脚球后,在回寝室的路上还余兴未尽,在路上相互边跑边传球,此时身后正好驶来一辆两轮摩托车,驾驶员躲闪别及撞上了其中的一位,驾驶员方向把握别稳,那位学生被撞成右小腿骨折。](3)骑“飞车”。普通高校校园面积都比较大,宿舍与教室、图书馆等之间的距离比较远,因此许多大学生购买了自行车,课偶尔下课时骑自行车在人海中穿行是大学的一道风景线。但部分学生骑车技术也实在“高明”,居然能把自行车骑得与汽车比快慢,孰别知就此埋下了祸根。[例3:2001年,某高校学生张某,头天晚上在吧里上到翌日凌晨四点多才回寝室歇息。一觉醒来已快到上课时刻了,他起床后顾别得梳洗匆匆下楼,骑上自行车飞速朝教室奔。当他骑到一具下坡向右转弯的路段时,本来车速已很快但他还觉得慢,又猛踩了几下,就在这时迎面来了一辆小轿车,因车速太快避让别及,连人带车掉进了路旁的水沟里,致使右胳膊骨折,自行车摔坏。]2、校园外常见的交通事故(1)行走时发生交通事故。大学生余暇空暇时购物、观光、访友要到市区活动,这些地点车流量大,行人多,各种交通标志眼花缭乱,与校园相比交通状况更加复杂,若缺乏通行经验发生交通事故的概率很高。难怪上海一所闻名大学的校长说:“在各个大学中普遍存在如此一种事情,少数学生书读得越多,越可不能走路,遵守交通规则的意识越淡薄,别仅在校园里乱骑车、乱停车,在马路上违反交通规则也时有发生。”[例4:1999年10月,南京某重点大学一位男生丁某,双休日与几个同学上街。街上车辆络绎不绝,行人熙熙攘攘,别一会儿丁某与同学掉了队。正当他着急四处张望时,同学在马路对面大声叫丁某的名字,他就慌忙朝马路对面跑过去,此时一辆大卡车正飞驰而来,将其撞倒并从他身上碾压过去,为此

2.安全生产方针、目标、指标、绩效考核

关于公布安全生产方针的通知 公司各部门: 为贯彻落实国家“安全第一、预防为主、综合治理”的安全生产方针,明确公司的安全生产方向,经研究决定,现将我公司安全生产方针公布如下,望各部门认真组织宣传贯彻。 公司安全生产方针 安全第一、预防为主以人为本、全员参与安全发展、持续改善 公司 年月日

关于公布20 年安全生产目标的通知 公司各部门: 为贯彻落实国家和我公司的安全生产方针,经研究制定年度安全生产目标如下,望切实贯彻执行。公司将根据年度安全生产目标逐级分解到部门,形成各部门年度安全指标,并在年底对相关责任人进行绩效考核,根据考核结果对责任人进行相应的奖惩。望各部门认真组织宣传、贯彻、执行。 公司 年月日 年度安全生产目标 1、三不发生:不发生职业病; 不发生责任火灾事故; 不发生责任设备事故。 2、三控制:死亡率控制为0; 重伤率控制为0; 轻伤控制为0; 轻微伤控制在6起以下。 3、三确保: 确保新员工三级安全培训教育率达100%; 确保重大安全隐患整改率100%; 确保特种作业人员持证、定期复审率100%。

20 年安全绩效管理及考核办法 为确保我公司今年安全生产目标的实现并将目标分解到人,责任落实到人,考核到人,特制定本办法。 一、安全生产目标 1、三不发生:不发生职业病;不发生责任火灾事故;不发生责任设备事故。 2、三控制:死亡率控制为0;重伤率控制为0;轻伤控制在6起以下。 3、三确保:确保新员工三级安全培训教育率达100%;确保重大安全隐患整改率100%;确保特种作业人员持证、定期复审率100%。 二、安全生产目标分解 2.1部门安全指标 2.2安全生产责任分解 遵照公司各级部门、人员安全生产责任制规定。 三、安全指标考核办法 1)用《安全绩效考核表》(见附表)的各分项评分表,对各部门责任人进行打分考核。当分项检查评分表得分在70分以下时为不合格,70分(含70分)到90分为合格,90分及其以上者为优。 2)各分项检查评分表通过汇总得出的结果用来评价管理人员安全目标责任

相关主题
相关文档 最新文档