A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

Client Organization: Teachers Without Borders Project Liaison: Dr. Fred Mednick, Founder Visiting Fellow/Lecturer, John Hopkins University, School of Education fred@twb.org

Prepared by: Ashley Cheung, Jana Kemp, Jessica Mann, Simon McNorton The George Washington University April 23, 2013

Share  Alike  

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

Executive Summary
Teachers Without Borders (TWB) provides resources, tools, and training to enhance the knowledge, skills, and connectivity of teachers around the world. TWB is preparing to launch the Global Quake Science and Safety Initiative for Girls (GQSSI) which seeks to equip over 100,000 girls in earthquake vulnerable zones with the skills and knowledge they need to prepare their communities for potential disasters. Collaborating with TWB, the authors of this report, Ashley Cheung, Jana Kemp, Jessica Mann, and Simon McNorton, have developed the following research question: Does earthquake science education have an effect on disaster preparedness and community resilience? If so, how can it be measured? To address this research question, we have produced an evaluation framework including metrics and indicators that can be used to assess the preparedness and resilience of communities. Our initial research examined the context of disaster risk reduction globally and the role of disaster education programs. To inform our construction of indicators and metrics, we conducted an extensive review of current background literature and existing studies in two areas: 1) the categorization of indicators used in disaster preparedness and community resilience internationally; and 2) the evaluations of current disaster education programs. We found that although disaster preparedness and resilience are most often measured at a national or macrolevel, there are a range of ways to observe changes at a local and household level. Furthermore, evaluations of disaster education programs are uncommon and often lack rigorous design. Those which do exist measure knowledge-based outcomes and do not reflect attitudinal or behavioral impacts of disaster education. Our analysis of existing programs and research led us to develop ten criteria for indicators that can be used in local community evaluations of the GQSSI. The criteria also reflect the knowledge and behavioral change objectives of the GQSSI curriculum. Reflecting these criteria, the proposed evaluation framework identifies four key indicator categories that together make up a composite measure of student knowledge gain and disaster preparedness and community

i

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

resilience: 1) earthquake science and safety knowledge; 2) risk perception; 3) structural and nonstructural safety; and 4) emergency planning and preparedness. We have provided an evaluation framework in order to help researchers measure these indicators. Acknowledging site-specific resource and time constraints, researchers may face three key decisions in planning an evaluation: 1) research design; 2) data collection sources; and 3) data collection methods. We designed tools that allow researchers to consider a combination of research design elements and data collection methods to evaluate the program. We have provided a guided toolkit, rather than a strict plan based on “promising practices”, because we recognize that it may not be feasible for researchers to operate under the conditions that such a prescriptive plan may require. We have developed examples of evaluation instruments that researchers can use or modify when measuring the impact of the GQSSI. We have provided student and teacher questionnaires which aim to measure changes in the chosen indicators. In addition, we have offered options for shorter surveys or focus groups which can be administered to parents, principals and local officials to evaluate broad impacts of the GQSSI program on the community. The extensive research and analysis we have provided and the tools we have created together form an evaluation framework that TWB researchers can use to evaluate the impact of the GQSSI program on disaster preparedness and community resilience.

ii

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... i List of Acronyms ......................................................................................................................................... iv 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. About Teachers Without Borders ................................................................................................. 1 1.2. About the Authors of this Report .................................................................................................. 2 1.3. About the Global Quake Science and Safety Initiative for Girls .................................................. 2 1.4. Research Question......................................................................................................................... 4 2. Background ........................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1. Disaster Risk Reduction as a Policy Priority ................................................................................ 4 2.2. What is Disaster Preparedness and Community Resilience? ........................................................ 5 2.3. The Role of Education in Disaster Risk Reduction ...................................................................... 6 2.4. What can be learned from Disaster Education Programs around the World? .............................. 7 2.5. Existing Evaluations of Disaster Risk Reduction Programs ......................................................... 9 2.6. Addressing the Lack of Evaluation ............................................................................................. 10 3. Existing Practices ................................................................................................................................ 11 3.1. Measuring Disaster Preparedness and Community Resilience ................................................... 12 3.2. Promising Practices in Evaluating Disaster Education Programs ............................................... 14 3.3. The Importance of Cultural Competence .................................................................................... 16 4. Developing Indicators and Metrics ..................................................................................................... 17 5. The GQSSI Evaluation Framework .................................................................................................... 20 5.1. Choosing a Research Design....................................................................................................... 20 5.2. A Discussion of Data Collection Methods .................................................................................. 22 6. Sample Instruments ............................................................................................................................. 26 6.1. Student and Teacher Questionnaires ........................................................................................... 26 6.2. Community Stakeholder Tools ................................................................................................... 27 7. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 29 8. References ........................................................................................................................................... 31 Appendix A. Client Contact Information ................................................................................................ 34 Appendix B. Logic Model ...................................................................................................................... 35 Appendix C. Global Quake Science and Safety Initiative Curriculum ................................................... 36 Appendix D. Data Collection Criteria Matrix ......................................................................................... 38 Appendix E. Sample Student Questionnaires ......................................................................................... 40 Appendix F. Sample Teacher Questionnaires ......................................................................................... 52 Appendix G. Questionnaire Response Coding Tool ............................................................................... 62 Appendix H. Community Survey ............................................................................................................ 70 Appendices .................................................................................................................................................. 34

iii

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

List of Acronyms
4R – Robustness, Redundancy, Response, and Recovery ADPC – Asian Disaster Preparedness Center AUDMP - Asian Urban Disaster Mitigation Program EERI – Earthquake Engineering Research Institute EFP – Equal Futures Partnership ENDP – Education for Natural Disaster Preparedness GEM – Global Earthquake Model GQSSI – Global Quake Science and Safety Initiative GWU – The George Washington University STEM – Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math TOSE – Technical, Organizational, Social, and Economic TWB – Teachers Without Borders UNDP – United Nations Development Program UNESCO – United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNICEF – United Nations Children’s Fund USAID – United Nations Agency for International Development USGS – United States Geological Survey

iv

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

1. Introduction
In the new millennium, the impact of earthquakes has been increasingly and indiscriminately destructive. Rapid population growth, changing socio-economic conditions, and dense and unplanned urbanization mean that larger numbers of people than at any time in history are at risk of experiencing an earthquake. Since 2000, almost one million people have lost their lives in earthquake-related disasters (USGS, 2013). Two single events, the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and the 2010 Haiti earthquake, are alone responsible for over half of those deaths. The victims of these disasters are located in underdeveloped regions of the world that are poorly equipped and unable to deal with the impact of earthquakes or the devastation that follows. The importance of disaster risk reduction is now an international priority. Although technological breakthroughs have allowed scientists to monitor seismic activity, earthquakes still cannot be predicted. Organizations like Teachers Without Borders (TWB) have paired emerging technology and earthquake education together to mitigate earthquake damage and create more resilient communities. This report highlights how TWB is using education to build resilience at the community level, and provides a recommended framework to evaluate the impact of the organization’s initiatives. 1.1. About Teachers Without Borders

Teachers Without Borders (TWB) is an international not-for-profit organization based in Seattle, Washington. TWB was founded by Dr. Fred Mednick who also serves as the primary liaison for this project. TWB provides resources, tools, and training to enhance the knowledge, skills, and connectivity of teachers around the world. The organization was founded in 2000 and now operates six programs, serving over 30,000 online members and tens of thousands of offline members in over 180 countries. Through their Emergency Education Program, TWB is committed to working with teachers in regions of the world vulnerable to natural and national disasters. Over time, the organization has focused its efforts almost exclusively on education for teachers and students in seismically

1

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

vulnerable regions of the world. Launched in response to the 2008 Sichuan earthquake in China, the primary focus of the program is to ensure that students and teachers are able to understand the nature of earthquakes and prepare accordingly. TWB’s earthquake science and safety program has also been adapted for, and tested in, Afghanistan, Haiti, India, and Pakistan. Their tagline for the program is: “Education from below the ground and up.” 1.2. About the Authors of this Report

The authors of this report are four graduate students in the Masters in Public Policy program at the Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration, part of The George Washington University. The graduate students, Ashley Cheung, Jana Kemp, Jessica Mann, and Simon McNorton, have produced this research as a capstone requirement of the degree program, under the supervision of Professor Elizabeth Rigby and Research Advisor, Patrick Besha. 1.3. About the Global Quake Science and Safety Initiative for Girls

In 2012, the Senior Policy Advisor to the Undersecretary of Education solicited ideas to support a White House initiative to support science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education for girls worldwide. TWB responded with a description of their existing disaster education program. The White House encouraged TWB to collaborate with the United States Geological Survey (USGS), Global Earthquake Model (GEM), and the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI). The collaboration issued a grant proposal and report, “The Global Quake Science and Safety Initiative for Girls” (GQSSI). The project scope strengthens and leverages TWB’s pilots in earthquake science and safety education by including regional engineering expertise, equipment, earthquake modeling, data analysis, and a process for measuring seismic activity in local schools and frequently-visited community buildings. As designed, the project intends to reach 100,000 students (with a special focus on girls’ inclusion) and teachers over three years, in regions of the world identified for their deadly

2

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

combination of dense population, poorly constructed buildings, and seismic vulnerability. A logic model of the GQSSI program is provided in Appendix B. A logic model is a visual depiction of the programs’ inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes.1 The graphic succinctly summarizes the theory, underlying assumptions, and expected achievements of the program throughout its lifetime. The GQSSI curriculum builds on an existing framework created by Solmaz Mohadjer, TWB’s Director of Emergency Education. Originally implemented in Tajikistan, the curriculum is composed of 12 core inquiry-based science lessons, each of which provides students information about the science and effect of earthquakes (Nature Education, 2013). The initial sessions focus on why and how earthquakes happen, as students learn about plate tectonics and the stress that occurs at their boundaries. Students then learn about how energy is released in the form of seismic waves, and about structural and environmental hazards associated with movement at geographic fault lines. A brief description of individual GQSSI lessons can be found in Appendix C. Toward the end of the curriculum, teachers introduce lessons on preparedness and mitigation techniques. Students become knowledgeable about the potential structural and non-structural hazards within their schools and homes. Students learn the importance of planning and practice, and have the opportunity to create and present real emergency plans. As a culmination of the science and preparedness modules, each student completes the curriculum by writing a story about the effects of an earthquake, using their new technical knowledge and preparedness techniques to demonstrate their understanding of the science and mitigation of earthquakes. The content of each lesson is enhanced through hands-on activities and simple models to enable learning through participation as well as lecture. Through its hands-on and student ownership approach, the applied nature of the GQSSI curriculum and its experiential learning model is an ideal way to teach disaster awareness and risk-reduction.
Inputs are defined as tangible resources needed to foster program development and program activity. Activities are the processes by which a program utilizes its inputs; they are the actual programmatic efforts. Outputs are the measurable result of activities; they are the services and products that the staff members actually provide. Outcomes are the changes in skill level, knowledge, behavior, etc. as a result of program activities (W.K. Kellogg, 2004, p. 2).
1

3

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

1.4.

Research Question

To date, TWB has used pre- and post-tests to assess student educational outcomes as a result of pilot disaster education programs. TWB has acknowledged the need for more quantitative evaluation tools to understand the impact of disaster education programs on community preparedness and resilience (see also Section 2.2) To that end, the authors of this report, herein referred to as ‘we’, have assisted TWB in developing indicators and metrics that can be used to quantify the impact of the GQSSI program in furthering disaster preparedness and community resilience for earthquakes. To meet this need, we responded to the following research question: Does earthquake science education have an effect on disaster preparedness and community resilience? If so, how can it be measured? To address this research question, we have produced an evaluation framework including metrics and indicators that can be used to assess the preparedness and resilience of communities.

2. Background 2.1. Disaster Risk Reduction as a Policy Priority

The impact of disasters can vary widely across populations depending on socio-economic and demographic differences. A region with higher levels of social and economic development and with a modern physical and institutional infrastructure will likely be better prepared and more resilient to disasters when they happen. When assessing disaster preparedness and resilience across countries and regions, researchers rely heavily on these social and economic indicators to determine which regions are more vulnerable to disasters. These may include mobile phone penetration, car ownership, household size, per capita income, and education level. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of casualties have taken place in communities that were not prepared to face, or ill-equipped to respond to an earthquake. Facing this challenge, governments, international organizations, and researchers have committed to reducing vulnerability to earthquakes through disaster risk reduction (United Nations, 2004, p.

4

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

7).2 Disaster risk reduction relates to the reduction of risks associated with the onset of disasters. The 2005 United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (herein the “Hyogo Framework”) established five priorities for disaster risk reduction: a) ensuring that disaster risk reduction is a national and a local priority; b) assessing and monitoring disaster risks and early warning systems; c) using knowledge, innovation, and education to build community resilience; d) reducing the underlying risk factors, and e) building the capacity of communities to respond to disasters. The Hyogo Framework is the first internationally accepted framework for disaster risk reduction and is the global blueprint for disaster risk reduction efforts through to 2015 (United Nations, 2007, p. 9). The Hyogo Framework was signed by 168 governments to acknowledge and plan for education as a means of keeping children safe, and communities informed of what to do in case of a disaster. It describes in detail what must be done across regions, communities, and governments to reduce disaster loss. Recognizing the powerful role of education in disaster risk management, the Hyogo Framework has created a global dialogue for disaster preparedness programs. Some of these initiatives involve developing institutions at a national level, while others involve increasing the capacity of response teams so that they are better equipped to deal with disasters. Elsewhere, local awareness campaigns and education programs help build resilience at a localized, community level. The GQSSI program is one of these disaster education programs. This paper is concerned with the evaluation of this program by determining its impact on disaster preparedness and community resilience. 2.2. What is Disaster Preparedness and Community Resilience?

Preparedness is concerned with ensuring the readiness of societies by taking precautionary measures. Within the context of disaster preparedness, this may include any pre-disaster, protective, or preventative actions that can improve the safety of communities and the
Vulnerability is defined as: “The conditions determined by physical, social, economic, and environmental factors or processes, which increase the susceptibility of a community to the impact of hazards”.
2

5

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

effectiveness of disaster response (Şakiroglu, 2005, p. 12; Edwards, 1993, p. 293). Resilience has been variously defined, and useful cross-examinations of different definitions in the disaster preparedness context have been given (Burton, 2012, p. 8). The Hyogo Framework stresses the following definition; The capacity of a system, community, or society potentially exposed to hazards to adapt, by resisting or changing in order to reach and maintain an acceptable level of functioning and structure. This is determined by the degree to which a social system is capable of organizing itself to increase this capacity for learning from past disasters for better future protection and to improve risk reduction measures (United Nations, 2007, p. 4). In practical application, attempts to improve preparedness and resilience involve changes to the physical environment and emergency planning and preparation in advance of disasters. Furthermore, a capacity to learn from disasters and an increased awareness, or perception, of disasters can be crucial in improving the ability of a system to protect itself. 2.3. The Role of Education in Disaster Risk Reduction

The need for education in disaster risk reduction efforts, made a priority by the Hyogo Framework, has risen on the agenda of prominent international organizations over the last decade. The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) promotes education for disaster risk reduction and partnered with United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) in 2011 to create the joint Mapping of Global Disaster Risk Reduction Integration into Education Curricula Initiative. The overall goal of the Initiative is to actively integrate disaster risk reduction into school curricula worldwide by 2015 (Selby & Kagawa, 2012, p. 10). Following this initiative, the two organizations produced Disaster Risk Reduction in School Curricula: Case Studies from Thirty Countries in 2012. Highlighting thirty case studies, this meta-analysis investigated interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary examples of disaster risk reduction demonstrated in curriculum, school culture, learning outcomes, and overall awareness.

6

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

The meta-analysis produced a comprehensive mapping that captures national experiences and promising practices in regards to the integration of disaster risk reduction in school curriculum (Selby and Kagawa, 2012, p. 10). UNESCO believes that mainstreaming disaster education programs will raise awareness of disaster management among children, teachers and communities. There are many models that support the theory that education can promote action and foster change within communities. Education is positively associated with civic and social engagement by increasing human capital and social mobility (Bartko, Eccles, and Stone, 2003, p. 234).3 Student engagement can be broken down into three components; affective-emotional, cognitive, and behavioral engagement (Appleton, Christenson, and Furlong, 2008, p. 370).4 Although all three components of engagement are important, we focus on how the earthquake science program can foster student behavioral engagement within the community. Behavioral engagement reflects student participation in activities. The objective of disaster education is to increase behavioral engagement through teaching about how and why disasters occur and informing students of the positive impact they can have on their communities. 2.4. What can be learned from Disaster Education Programs around the World?

The inherent link between schools and the wider community makes them ideal institutions through which to foster a culture of disaster preparedness. Children are among the most vulnerable populations, and the schools in which they learn are often weakly constructed. Schools are anchors for community development, and can serve as refuge sites following a natural disaster – if they are undamaged.
Generally, studies have examined relationships between student development outcomes and active participation in programs, government and other clubs. Campbell (2006, p. 25) makes the argument that education is widely recognized as having a strong correlation with multiple forms of civic and social engagement. Another study reveals a positive relationship between education and forms of civic and social engagement (Milligan, Moretti, & Oreopoulus, 2003, p. 3). 4 Affective-emotional engagement describes students’ social, emotional and psychological attachments to school and can range of signals from academic enjoyment and pursuits of higher levels of knowledge to levels of interest and happiness (Bohnert, Fredricks, & Randall, 2010, p. 576). Cognitive engagement examines how students demonstrate deeper learning a mastery of a topic (Corno, 1993, p. 14).
3

7

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

Formal disaster education, paired with generational knowledge from previous disasters, supports the dissemination of information to youth. Children then become change agents, transferring this information to the wider community. Many disaster education programs focus on a specific type of disaster to combat risks that are most prevalent within the region. Earthquake preparedness is often regarded as a separate set of activities unrelated to academia, rather than a complementary and critical component of existing science coursework. The trend appears to be that such a curriculum is introduced after a natural disaster, and thus the initiation of earthquake education and preparedness is treated as highly reactive rather than proactive. The GQSSI is distinguished by its connection between science and prevention and planning for seismically active regions, whether or not they have experienced a disaster. While earthquake science and safety education is a young field, examples of its integration into schools do exist around the globe. In Iran, the International Institute of Earthquake Science and Seismology was established in 1989 and the Manjil earthquake of 1990 spurred the creation of a nationwide public education program in 1991. Integrated into the school system at all levels (K12), the program combines continued education through textbook materials, films, and posters; an annual drill in all public schools; and a public exhibition to raise awareness at the community level (Parsizadeh and Ghafory-Ashtiany, 2010, p. 33). The Asian Urban Disaster Mitigation Program (AUDMP) of the Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC) began in 1995 upon recognition of the increased disaster vulnerability of urban populations in many of Asia’s densest cities (Asian Urban Mitigation Program, 2012). Nepal and Indonesia, among other countries, have established school earthquake safety programs aimed at educating and institutionalizing earthquake safety precautions, including the assessment and renovation of school buildings (Asian Disaster Preparedness Center, 2004, p. 3; Asian Disaster Preparedness Center, 2004, p. 1).

8

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

Soon after the Bhuj earthquake of 2001, the Government of India initiated the School Earthquake Laboratory Program. The program was launched in the northeastern and northwestern Himalayan regions, which are seismically active parts of India. The government set up earthquake laboratories in 100 schools within those regions, designed to produce data for the Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology and simultaneously engage students in learning about earthquakes (Wadia Institute, 2009). The program involves teaching earthquake science; providing students an opportunity for participatory learning (in which they are involved in the acquisition of seismological data); and “providing a platform for interaction among local bodies in disaster risk reduction” in hopes of creating a culture of preparedness (Bansal and Verma, 2012, p. 451). Understanding how other programs are designed and implemented will allow us to compare the GQSSI within the greater context of earthquake education. A review of other programs’ goals, processes, and achievements has allowed us to understand existing methods of evaluation, and has provided support for the development of feasible and sound metrics. 2.5. Existing Evaluations of Disaster Risk Reduction Programs

Most research to-date on education about natural disasters has focused on awareness programs that have taken place after the occurrence of an event, rather than in preparedness and planning to mitigate against disasters. Research that examines education programs prior to the event of a natural disaster is limited. Recent studies have begun to address the role of children in disaster preparedness and community resilience by viewing education programs as part of overall community capacity building. However, the majority of the studies have been cross-sectional and correlational. It remains difficult to make causal references about the effectiveness of education programs and their impact on community preparedness and resilience (Ronan, Crellin, and Johnston, 2012, p. 1412). Limited studies over the last decade have attempted to use a quasi-experimental research methodology to examine the benefits of disaster education programs for youth in helping to increase community resilience. The aforementioned UNESCO and UNICEF meta-analysis of case studies from 30 countries found that few evaluations of these education programs existed.

9

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

Those which do exist have featured a heavy predominance of knowledge-based outcomes rather than applied learning outcomes and do not reflect the community engagement and change agency ambitions of disaster education (Selby and Kagawa, 2012, p. 9). 2.6. Addressing the Lack of Evaluation

The GQSSI is a promising program in the growing field of disaster education. TWB recognizes the importance of utilizing rigorous evaluation techniques to demonstrate the benefits of these types of programs for students and the community. Our evaluation framework is built on existing work conducted by TWB, including pre- and post-assessments at pilot sites. Because the earthquake science curriculum covers new ground in the field of earthquake science and safety, these assessments have attempted to strengthen program value through: a) ensuring that the curriculum has been validated by credible scientific experts; b) assessing prior knowledge; and c) engaging credible local leadership and authorities so that TWB is not viewed as an outside party with ulterior motives like policing contractors, exposing the government, or publicizing human rights violations. TWB proposed that we assist the expansion of their existing monitoring and evaluation criteria to include the kinds of measurements that such pilot projects have not been able yet to handle, given capacity issues. Evaluations of the GQSSI and other disaster education programs face some unique challenges. Disaster situations such as earthquakes are somewhat random, unpredictable, and difficult to replicate in a test environment, which poses difficulties for evaluation. The complexity increases for the GQSSI because it will be implemented in several countries with unique characteristics – language spoken, time zone, and a wide range of cultural norms. This variability presents difficulties in creating consistent metrics applied uniformly across all regions and sites. Though it is important to keep these challenges in mind, it is still possible to design a rigorous, evidencebased evaluation of such programs.

10

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

3. Existing Practices
To address the question of whether or not the GQSSI has an impact on community preparedness and resilience, we sought to develop guidelines to assist researchers at the GQSSI sites in conducting evaluations of program outcomes.5 This included identifying key program outcome indicators and an array of metrics that researchers can use for measurement. It also included providing an outline of research design options and data collection methods for researchers to consider, based on the needs and limitations of individual sites. Designing an evaluation framework which can be used to assess the impact of the GQSSI required identifying indicators that are appropriate and measurable. To inform our construction of indicators and metrics we first conducted an extensive review of current background literature and existing studies in two areas – the categorization of indicators used in disaster preparedness and community resilience internationally, and the evaluations used in current disaster education programs. Additionally, we explored the importance of cultural competence in data collection to ensure that our guidance for GQSSI evaluations is sensitive and respectful of different populations and their cultural norms. Obtaining an understanding of current methodology, including indicator categorization, common measures, and appropriate evaluation tools provided guidance for the design of an evaluation framework and metrics which fit the needs of the GQSSI. A review of tested, promising practices also helped distinguish which approaches can yield valid results as well as assisted in identifying and addressing possible limitations to the various combinations of research design, data collection methods, and tools available for an evaluation of the GQSSI.

The word ‘researchers’ is used throughout this report as a collective term for staff conducting evaluations of the GQSSI. This may differ depending on site location and resources. Researchers may include: TWB or GQSSI program staff; third-party data collection personnel; or teachers.

5

11

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

3.1.

Measuring Disaster Preparedness and Community Resilience

The focus of the GQSSI on attitudinal and behavioral change at the household and individual level means that broad macro-level indicators used in national assessments of disaster preparedness and community resilience require refinement. However, many smaller assessments and evaluations used micro-level indicators to better capture changes in disaster preparedness and community resilience at the individual, household, and local community level. In the U.S., research into disaster preparedness and resilience examines: a) pre-disaster hazard vulnerability analysis and mitigation; and b) post-disaster emergency response and recovery. Within the earthquake context, other models have categorized resilience into the 4R’s (robustness, redundancy, resourcefulness, and rapidity) that capture the temporal phases of resilience. In order, these reflect the integrity of physical and institutional structures to withstand a disaster, followed by failsafe or redundancy measures in case structures or systems fail, and finally a response and recovery phase that is made easier with increased resources (Bruneau et al, 2003, p. 737).6 A second model, TOSE (technical, organizational, societal, and economic), captures categories of preparedness across different entities that exist in any society (Bruneau et al. 2003, p. 738).7 As an example, a community may have excellent structural integrity (technical) and high levels of socio-economic development, but may lack the proper institutions (organizational) to manage disaster response efforts. The 4R and TOSE dimensions form useful frameworks that help to conceptualize preparedness and resilience across macro-level units of analysis such as in a national disaster preparedness strategy. As mentioned, researchers have developed micro-level indicators to capture changes in disaster preparedness and community resilience at the household and local level (although within the 4R and TOSE frameworks). The Mulilis-Lippa-Duval emergency preparedness scale, for example,
4R’s are further defined as: robustness, the ability to survive the impact of an earthquake; redundancy, the availability of second or third-tier backup systems in case of failure; resourcefulness, the capacity of systems and human capacity to mobilize resources in case of a disaster; and rapidity, the ability to respond in a timely manner so that other systems are not jeopardized. 7 For TOSE, the technical dimension refers to the robustness of physical entities; the organizational dimension refers to the capacity of organizations to continue operating during and after an earthquake; the social dimension reflects negative consequences within communities and households as a result of earthquakes; and is not dissimilar to the economic dimension, which refers to the capacity to reduce economic losses resulting from earthquakes.
6

12

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

includes an excellent and oft-cited number of micro-level indicators (Mulilis, Duval, and Lippa, 1990, p. 357). Because this scale was created for use in developed countries, some of these measures may not be applicable to the most vulnerable regions of the world. However, other scales have adapted this approach to better reflect regional socio-economic, technological, or cultural differences (Sakiroglu, 2005, p. 12). Individual indicators used in the Mulilis-LippaDuval emergency preparedness scale include: 1. Possession of a flashlight, radio, first-aid kit, stocks of food and water. 2. Knowing the location of shut off valves for water, gas and electric power. 3. Fastening large furniture, windows, and doors securely. 4. Knowing information about what to do in case of an earthquake, including attending meetings for the purpose of establishing earthquake preparedness. 5. Having earthquake insurance. Further examples of micro-level indicators in households and communities can be found in disaster education research by Faupel, Kelly, and Petee (1992). Micro-level indicators are often categorized into groups that can be roughly assigned as: a) material; b) planning; and c) knowledge-level measurements (Sakiroglu, 2005, p. 12).8 The first category, material indicators, includes access to water storage, non-perishable food, and the securing of items like bookshelves and windows. The second category captures planning indicators which include participation in workshops, family and community evacuation plans, the existence of emergency supplies or an emergency kit, and knowledge of safe locations. The third category, knowledge and risk perception, includes disaster education, understanding of disasters, and previous experience of disasters. Together, the three areas capture roughly the breadth of micro-indicators unrelated to collective demographic or socio-economic proxy metrics (per capita income, household size, etc.).

The categorization into material, planning, and knowledge/risk perception was done independently but to a similar conclusion as that of Mehmet Şakiroglu. Some national level and wider demographic and socio-economic indicators and indices offer a more comprehensive and macro-related categorization (Simpson, 2006, p. 13).

8

13

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

3.2.

Promising Practices in Evaluating Disaster Education Programs

In order to design effective and accurate measures for the GQSSI, current promising practices in the evaluation of international disaster education programs should be reviewed. As discussed earlier in this report, few evaluations of disaster education programs which use an experimental design exist. We have drawn our review from those studies which have utilized these techniques, as well as from an analysis of what would have strengthened other evaluations which used less rigorous designs. Though it has not typically been employed to evaluate disaster education programs, the literature indicates the importance of using an experimental research design rather than merely crosssectional or correlational methods.9 Experimental designs can allow for the analysis of the causal relationship of factors. Researchers manipulate variables and are able to analyze the impact of the program (treatment/independent variable) on student awareness and disaster preparedness and community resilience (dependent variables). In recent years, evaluations of disaster education programs have introduced a quasi-experimental design, allowing for some analysis of the causal relationship of factors. As discussed earlier, a disaster education program cannot be tested with a true experimental design because disaster situations such as earthquakes are unpredictable. Researchers cannot simulate an earthquake and conduct a randomized controlled trial to find causality – so researchers are limited to using quasi-experimental approaches. Existing studies have used some form of comparative strategy and have enlisted pre- and post-testing as a tool for evaluating programs. In an evaluation of a disaster education program in New Zealand, Ronan, Crellin, and Johnson (2012) conducted a one-group pre- and post-test of students receiving disaster education. The researchers used previous results to ‘‘benchmark’’ current findings on students in an attempt to raise confidence that changes were a result of the education program itself and not some extraneous factors.

Cross-sectional studies are merely descriptive, and though a lot of information can be drawn from these about how studies are implemented and what is happening with students and communities, they are not causal or relational. While correlational studies can suggest that there is a relationship between two variables, but cannot prove that one variable causes a change in another variable (correlation does not equal causation).

9

14

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

In Japan, Shaw and Shiwaku (2008) compared learning outcomes of students in 12 schools, specifically comparing other schools to Maiko High School, which has an environment and disaster mitigation program. Another study by Ronan and Johnson (2003) used a controlcomparison pre- and post-test design, comparing a classroom of students receiving disaster education to a classroom receiving only a reading and discussion course (which the treatment group was also receiving). This study appears to be the most experimental evaluation of a disaster education program to-date. Research indicates that evaluation of disaster education programs can be strengthened by the use of multiple evaluation tools which address several units of analysis. The UNESCO and UNICEF meta-analysis found that self-assessment, peer assessment and portfolio assessment evaluation methods tend to remain mostly aspirational with relatively few examples of their concrete implementation (Selby and Kagawa, 2012, p. 9). UNESCO and UNICEF identified the need for evaluations to utilize a portfolio assessment in which different kinds of data are compiled based on the performance of each student. Such an evaluation would use of a range of assessment tools that seek to identify what knowledge students have acquired, what skills they have developed and the degree to which their attitudes and behaviors shift through participation in disaster education programs. Rather than the use of a portfolio assessment, the previously discussed studies primarily used only student reported questionnaires, though the Ronan and Johnson (2003) study had an additional questionnaire for parents. While evaluations of disaster education programs vary in design, researchers commonly employ measures of disaster knowledge, preparation, and resilience indicators which are similar to those used in the emergency preparedness scales mentioned earlier. These include students’ disaster awareness and perception of risks; factors such as awareness of the likelihood of natural disasters, effects of disasters, and chance of injury. Two studies (Ronan and Johnson, 2003, p. 1012; Ronan, Crellin, and Johnson, 2012, p. 1415) looked to assess students’ knowledge of preparedness and risk mitigation behaviors. The inclusion of possible behaviors was based on issues that are often highlighted in disaster education programs and emergency management recommendations. Each study also looked at the hazard adjustments employed by students’ families – factors linked to readiness for a disaster, awareness of the warning systems, and

15

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

behaviors that are recommended to reduce the risk of accidents and injuries. The Shaw and Shiwaku (2008) study also looked at students’ behaviors related to family and community dialogue about disasters (both the students’ intent to discuss and the frequency of actual discussions). 3.3. The Importance of Cultural Competence

While data collection methods vary by discipline and situation, the emphasis on ensuring accurate data collection remains essential to maintaining the integrity of the evaluation design. It is important to preserve reliable, comparable results throughout the whole data collection period. Collecting information can be difficult due to language, geographic, and cultural differences across multiple sites. Awareness of the defining social and cultural characteristics of the populations within which researchers are collecting data is referred to as cultural competence (O’Brien et al., 2006, p. 675). Cultural competence moves beyond sensitivity and knowledge to incorporate the broad scope of ethical research design, conduct and interpretation. It is critical for researchers to ensure effective communication and interaction with participants, adequate analysis and interpretation of results as they relate to the population, and appropriate engagement in study design and implementation. According to the American Evaluation Association’s Guiding Principles (2011), data collection must be done in a cultural context “to ensure recognition, accurate interpretation, and respect for diversity.” The goal is to achieve an optimal cross cultural data set, maintaining validity and comparable results, while remaining culturally sensitive to the population being studied. Due to the differences across sites, it is difficult to collect data using the same techniques. For example, in areas that are not as developed, the use of online surveys may not produce the same results as if the survey questions were given orally. TWB has traditionally enlisted highly qualified, local evaluators, well versed in face-to-face surveys. As TWB prepares to scale the program to 100,000 girls in multiple regions, the organization should solicit expertise on how to maintain the accuracy of data collected from a cultural context.

16

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

4. Developing Indicators and Metrics
Our analysis of existing programs and research led us to develop ten criteria for indicators that can be used for local community evaluations of the GQSSI. Additionally, these criteria also reflect the knowledge and behavioral change objectives of the GQSSI curriculum. The criteria are as follows: 1. The indicators should reflect changes that can be expected from program participation. 2. The indicators must be measureable. 3. The indicators should be associated with changes within the participant pool and secondary impacts within the local community, for example, within families of participants, who may also take additional preparedness measures. 4. The indicators should capture both physical and structural adjustments and modifications, in addition to attitudinal and behavioral changes, that increase preparedness. 5. The indicators should capture changes in awareness of disasters and their impacts in addition to perceptions of potential hazards that result from earthquakes. 6. The indicators should include a learning assessment to measure changes in student and teacher knowledge of earthquake science. 7. The indicators should reflect the capacity of program participants to use knowledge gained to take additional preparedness measures not directly instigated by the curriculum. 8. The indicators should reflect pre-disaster preventative action and preparation; and post-disaster response and recovery. Where possible, indicators should reflect robustness, redundancies, response, and recovery phases of a disaster. 9. The indicators should focus on micro-level observations at small units of analysis and remain independent of macro-level demographic and socio-economic variables, for example per capita income, household size, or literacy level. 10. The indicators should reflect standards in cultural competence and be appropriate across project sites.

17

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

Reflecting these criteria, the proposed evaluation framework identifies four key indicator categories that together make a composite measure of student knowledge gain and disaster preparedness and community resilience: 1. Earthquake Science and Safety Knowledge This indicator category is associated with the earthquake science and safety curriculum as taught in the program and is designed to capture student knowledge transfer as a result of the program. 2. Risk Perception Risk perception includes changes in hazard awareness, knowledge of disaster impacts and risk of disasters, and increased perception of personal and community vulnerabilities. This indicator is designed to capture participant and community changes in risk perception. 3. Structural and Non-Structural Safety This category of indicators reflects changes in building design and construction that may increase resistance to the variant impacts of earthquakes, in addition to changes to nonstructural components including windows, doors, large furniture, and other household items. 4. Emergency Preparedness and Planning The final indicator category captures changes in planning that may be considered microlevel institutional changes, including evacuation plans and other preparedness measures. Some of the metrics captured here are not proposed directly by the curriculum, but may reflect further initiative and action as a result of program participation. The evaluation framework is designed to measure these indicators using a variety of data collection methods depending upon the resources available and situation in which the evaluation is taking place. Table 1 summarizes examples of indicator metrics.

18

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

Table 1: Indicator Categories and Example Metrics

Indicator Category

Example Metrics Student knowledge of earthquake science Student understanding of structural safety Student understanding of liquefaction Teacher comfort teaching earthquake science Student/teacher awareness of disaster likelihood Student/teacher perception of importance of preparing Student teacher perception of potential damage Student/teacher perception of preparedness strategies Student/teacher can identify vulnerabilities in home/school Student/teacher has taken action to correct vulnerabilities in home/school

Earthquake Science and Safety Knowledge

• • •

Risk Perception

• • •

Structural and NonStructural Safety

Student/teacher has an emergency evacuation plan at home/school and regularly practices plan Student/teacher has prepared an emergency kit or has access to identified emergency items Students have identified family safe locations, emergency numbers, and outside emergency contacts Teachers and schools have designated emergency staff and emergency plans for evacuation and post-earthquake scenario

Emergency Preparedness and Planning

We have provided questionnaires at the end of this document that include a full set of associated questions for each of these indicator categories. We recommend the use of these questions or similar metrics in assessments of disaster preparedness and community resilience prior to and after the GQSSI is implemented. This is further discussed in Section 6.1. Example surveys including final indicators and metrics can be found in Appendix E, Appendix F, and Appendix H.

19

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

5. The GQSSI Evaluation Framework
We recognize that the GQSSI may be operating in a number of sites which will have unique characteristics, and that researchers may encounter different limitations in resources such as staff and time. Acknowledging site-specific resource and time constraints, researchers may face three key decisions in planning an evaluation: 1) research design; 2) data collection sources; and 3) data collection methods. We designed tools that allow researchers to consider a combination of research design elements and data collection methods to evaluate the program. We have designed a reference tool which allows researchers to consider a combination of experimental research design elements. Using this tool, researchers can decide which components are feasible within the constraints they face. We have also chosen to provide information about various methods for data collection that researchers can consider. We have developed a reference chart which outlines strengths and weaknesses of different data collection methods, and includes some guidance on which may be most appropriate in certain situations. Our intention is to provide researchers with an outline of choices for the creation of a sitespecific evaluation plan. We have chosen this type of guided toolkit, rather than a strict plan based on “promising practices”, because we recognize that it may not be feasible for researchers to operate under the conditions that such a prescriptive plan may require. 5.1. Choosing a Research Design

There are three key components to an experimental research design: 1) selection of both a control and a treatment group; 2) random assignment of participants to the control or treatment group; and 3) administration of both a pre- and post-test. Table 2 provides a graphic demonstration of these components and the decisions to be made by researchers. Selecting a control group in addition to a treatment group adds an important element of comparison to a research design. Having a control group helps identify whether the results seen in the treatment group are causally related to the treatment participants are receiving, or if there

20

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

is another factor that both the control and treatment group are exposed to which may be causing a certain impact. For example, a control group may be a school in an adjacent and noninteracting district which may have been considered as a project site but not chosen. Though selecting a control group can show a level of causality from the treatment, non-random methods of assigning control and treatment groups still allow for selection or sampling bias. A research design is made even stronger by using random assignment to select participants into each group. Random selection aims to ensure that there is not a pre-experiment difference between participants in each group. Every participant has the same chance of being randomly selected into either the treatment or the control group, so neither group should be biased. Using a pre- and post-test design allows researchers to measure the potential impacts of a treatment by examining the differences in results before and after a program. Research designs that do not include a pre-test cannot reliably demonstrate that results of a post-test are an outcome of the treatment, as there is no baseline for comparison. Table 2: Choosing a Research Design

21

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

These three components, if used together in a research design, indicate a strong and valid study. The validity of a study indicates the accuracy and representativeness of its results, the strength of the causal relationship, and the extent to which a measurement can be expected to produce similar results on repeated observations. Using a randomly assigned, control-treatment, pre- and post-test research design adds internal validity to an evaluation. Internal validity means that it can be determined that a treatment caused a measurable outcome, and to what magnitude (Newcomer, 2011). An experimental design which incorporates the three above-mentioned elements increases internal validity because these components help demonstrate that the outcomes are caused by the treatment, rather than other factors. There are many situations in social science research where a research design cannot incorporate all three experimental elements. This will likely be the case in an evaluation of the GQSSI, given location, resources, personnel, political, and logistical challenges across the multiple sites. For example, a community that is providing the earthquake science and safety curriculum to students in all schools may not have a comparison group available to serve as a control. If a site decides to implement an accelerated curriculum, researchers may not have enough time to pre-test students, teachers, and community stakeholders. Should conditions allow, we recommend that evaluations of the GQSSI attempt to use a randomly assigned, control-treatment, pre- and post-test research design. However, researchers at each GQSSI site should assess their situation and attempt to incorporate as many of these components as possible while choosing the research design that best fits their individual needs. 5.2. A Discussion of Data Collection Methods

The way in which information is collected from GQSSI program sites is important for a variety of reasons. Appropriate data collection methods can ensure valid results, higher response rates, and strong community engagement. Cultural norms, literacy levels, and power relationships must also be considered when choosing a mode of data collection. There is no one ‘best’ mode to collect information; research can be conducted several ways – face to face, on the phone, through the mail, or electronically – but certain audiences may be less receptive depending on the method

22

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

used. We suggest that TWB establish a broad repertoire of modes to ensure accessibility to, and acceptability of, data collection methods. The inclusion of community stakeholders is important for the purposes of both program implementation and evaluation (McDonald, Kutara, Richmond, & Betts, 2004). Determining who to collect data from can depend on family and community dynamics. Engaging with community leaders, and getting to know program participants, can help distinguish who may be the most relevant and reliable data sources. By establishing cooperation and trust, response rates and accuracy may increase, and there may be less time focused on speculative interpretation of the questions and the data gathered. For more information on engaging with community stakeholders, please see Section 6.2. Table 3 on page 25 contains four primary modes of collecting data that the GQSSI evaluation may utilize: surveys, focus groups, interviews, and observations. Each option has strengths and weaknesses, so carefully selecting the mode can help protect the validity of data collection. 1) Surveys Written surveys allow researchers to ask a broad range of questions, some of which can be closed-ended and some open-ended. Participants are all asked the same questions and information is collected with a standardized procedure. Respondents are able to answer questions at their own pace, and able to think them through rather than being rushed or pressured to deliver an answer. Although surveys are often considered one of the cheapest ways to collect information from large numbers of participants, it is also the mode with the highest non-response rate. If not done properly, surveys may embed bias in questions which can sway participants to answer one way or another. Researchers should consider that surveys require a degree of literacy. 2) Focus Groups A focus group is a form of qualitative data collection where groups of participants come together and are asked to speak about their opinions, attitudes, and knowledge about a certain topic or event. Focus groups are generally loosely structured to encourage

23

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

participants to discuss their experiences and attitudes with other participants. Although time consuming, focus groups are generally cheap. Focus groups can help understand in depth why participants feel a certain way, but the results cannot always be generalizable. Participants may not want to voice their opinions due to group dynamics, or be unsure about revealing true feelings with a moderator present. On the other hand, focus groups can stimulate discussion and allow participants to develop their opinions and gain perspectives. Focus group data can help reveal shared attitudes or understandings, but it is important not to extrapolate those results to an entire population. 3) Interviews Compared to focus groups, structured interviews represent a more systematic method to collecting data, and can also help researchers gain awareness and perspective. The person-to-person nature of interviews requires a large time commitment from researchers, but can have a quick turnaround time. Questions should be designed to ensure uniformity and comparability among respondents. Interviews can have open-ended questions which help provide context and further explanation, but these can be difficult to quantify. Interviews can be useful when translation is required or when literacy is an issue. Researchers should be aware that participants may feel inclined to provide socially desirable answers in the presence of interviewers. 4) Observations Observations allow researchers to monitor programs without direct interference with participants or activities. Researchers are able to gain a broader understanding of a program’s operations, and to obtain perspective on aspects of the program that may not be self-reported by participants. Participants may behave differently if they know an outside observer is watching them, creating a false perception of the program (i.e. the Hawthorne effect). Observers may come into a situation with a set agenda of what to look for or what to pay attention to, which can encourage biased reporting. Observations are useful when there are severe language or cultural barriers that prevent interaction with program participants.

24

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

Table 3. Strengths and Weaknesses of Data Collection Methods

Strengths Surveys
• • • • •

Weaknesses
• • •

High volume of participants Standardized questions Easier to analyze and collate information Can be mass produced at low costs Respondents are able to answer at their own pace Open-ended questions allow for indepth response Can be used to capture overall perceptions of a program Low cost

Potential low response rate Literacy barriers Potential question bias

Focus Groups

• • •

• • • • •

Large amounts of time for multiple groups Harder to analyze Difficult to assess changes over time Results are not generalizable Group dynamics may inhibit participant honesty Expensive and time-intensive administration May encourage socially desirable responses

Interviews

• • • •

Structured for comparability across sites Standardized questions Can be used where there are language and/or literacy barriers Quick turnaround time Allow researchers to gain context and perspective Can be used where there are cultural and/or language barriers Minimal interference from researchers Low cost

• •

Observations •
• • •

• • •

Results are not generalizable Subject to Hawthorne effect Observers may have a preset agenda

In Appendix D we have included a data collection criteria matrix. The matrix details a series of criteria with which to guide the researchers’ decisions about data collection. This chart is intended to help TWB when deciding which methods of data collection will not only be most useful, but also most feasible, when carrying out an evaluation of the GQSSI.

25

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

6. Sample Instruments
To complement our discussion of the options that researchers have in designing their evaluation structure and methods, we have developed specific examples of evaluation instruments. We have provided student and teacher pre- and post-program questionnaires which aim to measure changes in the chosen indicators. In addition, we have offered options for shorter surveys or focus groups which could be administered to parents, principals and local officials to evaluate awareness of the GQSSI program and to identify broad impacts on the community. We recognize that the instruments we provide are not exhaustive of all the options available for use in an evaluation plan, but we believe that they can provide guidance for researchers in forming their own evaluations. 6.1. Student and Teacher Questionnaires

In Section 4 we discussed specific indicators that aid in measuring the impact of the GQSSI. This section demonstrates how these indicators can be used in sample student and teacher questionnaires found in Appendix E and Appendix F. We have designed these questionnaires to be flexible so they can be administered using a range of data collection methods, and recognize that available resources may vary. The final questionnaire is simple, direct, and robust. It is offered in two versions to capture effects on both students and teachers. Both versions are available as pre- and post-test questionnaires with only slight differences. Per our guide to indicators and metrics, the questionnaire assesses changes across four indicator categories, 1) earthquake science and safety knowledge; 2) risk perception; 3) structural and nonstructural safety; and 4) emergency preparedness and planning. Questions take the form of multiple choice, Likert scale, and dichotomous choice (yes/no), with three to six questions in each category. It is important to note that in this version there are no open-ended questions. The given questionnaire includes a cover page with instructions, a disclaimer, and basic demographic questions including age, grade, and gender.

26

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

We recommend using the pre-test version of this questionnaire prior to program implementation to assess the level of disaster preparedness and community resilience among participants before the program (both students and teaching staff). Once the program is completed the provided post-test can be administered. When administering the post-test, researchers should consider that program effects may not be immediately observable. To capture continued effects, we recommend repeated assessments at regular time intervals following the program. As discussed in Section 5.2 the questionnaire can be administered using data collection methods that researchers consider appropriate; in the current design this is best done through distributed surveys or in-person interviews. The latter is preferable where there are concerns with literacy levels or language barriers. Where possible, all participants should be surveyed or interviewed to ensure robust results. A coding tool found in Appendix G includes correct answers to questions contained in section one of the questionnaire: earthquake science and safety knowledge. The coding tool also provides information that will assist interpretation of results from the other three sections. 6.2. Community Stakeholder Tools

One of the overarching goals of the GQSSI is to foster a greater awareness, preparedness and resilience within the communities where the curriculum is being implemented. This section provides guidance on how to measure the community impact of the earthquake science and safety education program. Due to the differences across sites and the development challenges facing each locale individually, the goal of measuring community impact does not necessarily give way to a simple or easily replicable methodology. Acknowledging that rigorous data collection methods may not be as applicable nor feasible in collecting community-level information, we have created an alternative design that can still enable researchers to measure community impact of the GQSSI.

27

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

In order to obtain community-level data, researchers must reach community-level stakeholders. Identifying persons who represent greater areas of the community, aside from students and teachers involved in the program, is the first step. Community stakeholders may include: a) Police force, firemen, or other safety officials; b) Principals of schools (where program is implemented); c) Parents of children (who are involved in the program); d) Mayor, Governor, or local leaders; e) Other teachers (that are not involved in the program); and f) Faith-based community leaders. Twice throughout the course of the curriculum implementation, (mid-year and end of year) a short questionnaire should be distributed to community stakeholders. This questionnaire can be administered in various forms. For example: a) Person-to-person, as a casual conversation; b) Paper postcard or letter through the mail; c) Email, if the resources are available; d) Phones; and e) Town hall meetings or focus groups. The key is to understand the awareness of the community and to identify changes that have occurred as a result of, or in correlation with, the GQSSI curriculum implementation. Such a questionnaire should thus be highly user-friendly and easily understandable. A sample survey for community stakeholders can be found in Appendix H. Asking only a few short questions will increase the likelihood of response even if a community member has no recognition of the program. The straightforward nature of the questions can allow researchers to easily gauge an individual’s interest in and interaction with the education program. Such a questionnaire can provide researchers with meaningful, yet simple communitylevel data concerning the wider effect of the GQSSI, thus addressing the greater goal of the earthquake science and safety education program.

28

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

7. Conclusion
In this report we have provided guidelines for designing an evaluation framework which accurately and appropriately measures the effect of the GQSSI on disaster preparedness and community resilience. We have provided background research in disaster mitigation and evaluations of disaster education programs to support the criteria and indicators we suggest to use in an evaluation of the GQSSI. Our framework aims to provide GQSSI researchers with contextual knowledge in the elements of experimental research design and data collection methods so that they are well-equipped to examine and choose evaluation options based on the individual sites in which they operate. The data collection metrics and instruments which we provide can serve as an example to researchers, which can be modified as needed. Our intention in providing this evaluation framework package is to demonstrate how the metrics, design, and methods used in an evaluation can reflect indicators of the GQSSI program impact on students, teachers, and the community. In order to utilize the information and tools we have provided, we recommend some necessary next steps for researchers at GQSSI sites to take. Researchers should first assess the climate of their individual sites to help guide decision-making on appropriate evaluation design and metrics. This may include assessing the availability of technology or other resources needed for an evaluation, time limitations, literacy level of the intended program participants, and community norms and acceptance. Researchers may also need to determine who will be conducting the survey – TWB or GQSSI program staff; third-party data collection personnel; or teachers. After researchers gain a full perspective on the environment in which the evaluation is to be conducted, they should be able to begin to answer some of the critical design and methods questions that we propose in this document. Once appropriate research design and data collection methods are determined, researchers may need to develop their own evaluation instruments, referencing the examples we have provided for guidance. We recommend that TWB utilize the full range of tools within this evaluation framework. In doing so, we believe researchers should be able to obtain measurable results of the impact that the program has not only on student knowledge, but on community preparedness and resilience

29

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

in the event of an earthquake. Such impact data will strengthen the argument for the necessity of disaster education research in these countries and other vulnerable regions of the world. Increased identification of the concrete outcomes of the program can lead to additional funding for the GQSSI and allow it to expand to more areas which could benefit from disaster education programs. Successful evaluation of the GQSSI may also fuel additional research in the fields of disaster education and community mitigation strategies.

30

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

8. References
American Evaluation Association. (2011, April). Statement on Cultural Competence. Retrieved March 4, 2013, from American Evaluation Association website: http://www.eval.org/ccstatement.asp Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student Engagement with School: Critical Conceptual and Methodological Issues of the Construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5): 369-386. Asian Disaster Preparedness Center. (2003). The School Earthquake Safety Program in Kathmandu Valley: Building Safer Communities through Schools. Safer Cities 4, AUDMP. Retrieved from http://www.adpc.net/audmp/library/safer_cities/4.pdf Asian Disaster Preparedness Center. (2004). Creating Earthquake Preparedness in Schools: A Case Study of Mitigation Efforts in Indonesia. Safer Cities 10, AUDMP. Retrieved from http://www.adpc.net/audmp/library/safer_cities/10.pdf Asian Urban Disaster Mitigation Program (AUDMP). (2012, July 30). Retrieved March 18, 2013, from Asian Disaster Preparedness Center website: http://www.adpc.net/audmp/audmp.html Bansal, B. K., & Verma, M. (2012). Education and Awareness: A Key to Earthquake Risk Reduction. Journal Geological Society of India, 80, 451-454. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12594-012-0164-2 Bartko, T., & Eccles, J. (2003). Adolescent Participation in Structured and Unstructured Activities a Person Oriented Analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32(4), 233241. Bohnert, A., Fredricks, J., & Randall, A. (2010). Capturing Unique Dimensions of Youth Organized Activity Involvement: Theoretical and Methodological Considerations. Review of Educational Research, 80(4), 576-610. Bruneau et al. (2003, November). A Framework to Quantitatively Assess and Enhance the Seismic Resilience of Communities. Earthquake Spectra, Volume 19, No. 4. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. Burton, C. G., Dr. (2012). Development of Metrics for Community Resilience to Natural Disasters. Colombia, SC: The University of South Carolina. Campbell, D. (2006). What is Education's Impact on Civic and Social Engagement? Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Retrieved February, 2013, from OECD website: http://www.oecd.org/edu/country-studies/37425694.pdf

31

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

Corno, L. (1993). The Best Laid Plans Modern Conceptions of Volition and Educational Research. Educational Researcher, 22(2), 14-22. Earthquake Hazards Program. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/eqstats.php Edwards, M. L. (1993). Social Location and Self-Protective Behavior. Implications for Earthquake Preparedness. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 11 (3). Faupel et al. (1992, March). The Impact of Disaster Education on Household Preparedness for Hurricane Hugo. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, Vol. 10, No. 1. McDonald, D., Kutara, P., Richmond, L., & Betts, S. (2004). Culturally Respectful Evaluation. The Forum for Family and Consumer Issues, 9(3). Milligan, K., Moretti, E., & Oreopoulos, P. (2003, March). Does Education Improve Citizenship? Evidence from the US and the UK. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Mulilis, J. P., Duval, T. S., and Lippa, R. (1990). The Effects of a Large Destructive Local Earthquake on Earthquake Preparedness as Assessed by an Earthquake Preparedness Scale. Natural Hazards, Volume 3, Issue 4. Nature Education. (2013). Earthquake Science - Library. Retrieved from Scitable website: http://www.nature.com/scitable/partner/earthquake-science-8666053/library Newcomer, K.E. (2011). Strategies to Help Strengthen Validity and Reliability of Data. Unpublished paper. The George Washington University, Washington, DC. O’Brien, R. L., Kosoko-­‐Lasaki, O., Cook, C. T., Kissell, J., Peak, F., & Williams, E. H. (2006). Self-­‐Assessment of Cultural Attitudes and Competence of Clinical Investigators to Enhance Recruitment and Participation of Minority Populations in Research. Journal of National Medical Association, 98 (5), 674-682. Parsizadeh, F., & Ghafory-Ashtiany, M. (2010). Iran Public Education and Awareness Program and its Achievements. Disaster Prevention and Management, 19 (1), 32-47. Retrieved from www.emeraldinsight.com/0965-3562.htm Ronan, K. R., & Johnston, D. M. (2003). Hazards Education for Youth: A Quasi-Experimental Investigation. Risk Analysis, 23, 1009-1020. Ronan, K. R., Crellin, K., & Johnston, D. M. (2012). Community Readiness for a New Tsunami Warning System: Quasi-experimental and Benchmarking Evaluation of a School Education Component. Natural Hazards, 61, 1411-1425.

32

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

Sakiroglu, M. (2005, August). Variables Related to Earthquake Preparedness Behavior. Ankara, Turkey: Middle East Technical University. Selby, D. and Kagawa, F. (2012, July). Disaster Risk Reduction in School Curricula: Case Studies from Thirty Countries. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and United Nations’ Children Fund (UNICEF). Retrieved from: http://www.unicef.org/education/files/disaster risk reductioninCurriculaMapping30countriesFINAL.pdf. Shaw, R., & Shiwaku, K. (2008). Proactive Co-learning: A New Paradigm in Disaster Education. Disaster Prevention and Management, 17(2), p. 183-198. Simpson, D. M., Dr. (2006, September). Indicator Issues and Proposed Framework for a Disaster Preparedness Index. Louisville, KY: Center for Hazards Research and Policy Development, University of Louisville. United Nations. (2004). International Strategy for Disaster Reduction: Living With Risk, A Global Review of Disaster Reduction Initiatives (Volume II). (2004). Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations. United Nations. (2007). International Strategy for Disaster Reduction: Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters. Geneva, Switzerland. W.K. Kellogg Foundation. (2004, January). Logic Model Development Guide. Battle Creek, MI: W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.wkkf.org/knowledgecenter/resources/2006/02/wk-kellogg-foundation-logic-model-development-guide.aspx Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology. (2009). Tools and Facility: Seismological Laboratory. Retrieved from Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology website: http://www.wihg.res.in/geophyt_facilities.html

33

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

Appendices
Appendix A. Client Contact Information

Dr. Fred Mednick, Founder, Teachers Without Borders Visiting Fellow/Lecturer, John Hopkins University, School of Education fred@twb.org

Teachers Without Borders P.O. Box 25607 Seattle, WA 98165

Mission: Teachers Without Borders connects teachers to information and each other to create local change on a global scale. Website: http://www.teacherswithoutborders.org Twitter Handle: @teachersnetwork Facebook: Teachers Without Borders

34

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

Appendix B. Logic Model

35

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

Appendix C. Global Quake Science and Safety Initiative Curriculum Lesson 1: Earth’s Interior and Plate Tectonics Students learn why, where, and how earthquakes happen. Students are introduced to the interior structure of the Earth and plate tectonics. The first step towards learning about plate tectonics is to learn about the Earth’s interior structure. Lesson 2: Discovering Plate Boundaries Students use scientific data to learn how the scientific process works. They learn where the Earth’s tectonic plates and their boundaries are, what happens at the boundaries and how scientists classify plate boundaries. Students are encouraged to observe, describe and classify scientific data to learn about the scientific process Lesson 3: Properties of Earth Materials Students are introduced to the factors that play important roles in rock deformation. Understanding what happens when rocks deform and why rocks deform helps students better understand the physical processes that cause earthquakes Lesson 4: Plate Motions and Faults Students learn about the different kinds of faults produced by different kinds of plate motions and their relation to earthquakes. Lesson 5: Earthquake Machine Students observe and understand how stick-slip motion occurs along faults by building a simple model of a fault system. Lesson 6: Seismic Waves Students study the effects of seismic waves. Students discover where and what form energy is released and the destructiveness they can be to human structures. Lesson 7: Liquefaction Students explore the effects of liquefaction when a damaging earthquake strikes by building a simple model. This exercise provides discussion on ways to reduce liquefaction hazards. Lesson 8: Landslides Hazards Students learn about earthquake induced landslides and the associate hazards as well as how and why landslides occur. Students also discuss how landslide hazards can be reduced.

36

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

Lesson 9: Structural Hazards Students are introduced to basic concepts behind structural hazards in the context of earthquakes. There are many cities that have a variety of building sizes, shapes and architectural styles and this lesson discusses the basic ideas concerning how structures respond to earthquakes using a tabletop exercise and three hands-on activities. Lesson 10: Non-Structural Hazards Students learn to identify potential earthquake hazards associated with non-structural components to their residential buildings and to provide recommendations for mitigating them. Lesson 11: Earthquake Drills, Plans, and Supplies Students learn to recognize the importance of advanced planning for their school in case of an emergency. This provides guidance for conducting and preparing an emergency response plan and drill regimen. Students test, evaluate, improve and present emergency plans to appropriate authorities, emphasizing the importance of regularly practiced drills in schools. Lesson 12: Making a Single Signature Book Using information from previous lessons, students write stories about individuals or communities affected by an earthquake and publish their stories in a single signature book.

37

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

Appendix D. Data Collection Criteria Matrix As mentioned earlier in our report, there is no one “best” way to collect data. Decisions about data collection are often based on similar criteria, regardless of the nature of the program or its location. Cost, personnel, time, and audience receptivity, as examples, are common factors that researchers consider when deciding on their methodology. The considerations required of data collectors can be universally applied and are critical to the success of any program evaluation. In an effort to aid TWB’s decisions about data collection methods, we have created the chart pictured below. The Criteria Matrix below details a series of criteria with which to guide the evaluators’ decisions about data collection. This chart is intended to help TWB in deciding which methods of data collection will not only be most useful, but also most feasible, when carrying out an evaluation of the GQSSI. Each of the criteria applies differently to each method of collecting data. We have only provided content with regards to a few criterion examples; additional criteria can easily be added to the chart and populated by evaluators to further support their decisionmaking. Time, cost, personnel, validity, and access/cultural factors are the criteria that our group deemed most important to consider when designing a research design and data collection methodology for GQSSI. Time implies considerations of how long data collection will take, both on the part of the researchers as well as the participants. Cost implies the monetary cost of conducting each specific type of data collection. Validity implies the accuracy of the information gained from each form of data collection and its reliability as a true reflection of the program effects. Access and cultural factors imply the feasibility of conducting the individual methods, and the recognition of cultural norms.

38

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

39

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

Appendix E. Sample Student Questionnaires

Questionnaire – Student Pre-Test
Global Quake Science and Safety Initiative This document should be used as a survey for students. This is the version to be completed by participants before the program begins. Instructions: Thank you for agreeing to participate in this survey of the earthquake science program. Your participation in this survey will help us understand how much the earthquake science program may prepare you, your school and your community in the event of an earthquake. Your participation in this survey is voluntary. Please ensure you answer all questions truthfully. This is an assessment of your knowledge and opinions. Your responses are anonymous and will not be shared. This survey poses no risk to you and there is no penalty for refusal to participate. You may refuse to participate in this survey simply by returning the survey without completing it. If you have any questions regarding your participation in this survey, please contact: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Male Student Please do not place your name or your school name on this survey Do not skip any items Ask for clarification if you need to Return the completed survey to the researcher when finished A pen or pencil can be used to complete the survey If any of the options do not apply, feel free to provide comment

□ □

Female Other

□ □
(if other, please explain)

Age

Grade

Site/Location

Date (dd/mm/yy):

40

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

Section One
Earthquake Science and Safety Knowledge
1. A B C D E Which of the following are causes of earthquakes? (check all which apply)

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Thunderstorms and heavy rain Large creatures inside the Earth move People use heavy machinery to drill for oil Large plates of the Earth’s crust grind against each other People commit sinful acts and bad deeds

F G H I J

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Tectonic plates move relative to each other People build dams and reservoirs Rocks deep below the surface of the earth are heated up and move Famine and drought Energy stored at the border of tectonic plates is released

2.

Put the following earthquake effects in order, marking them from 1 (first effect) to 5 (last effect)

A

B

C

D

E

○ ○ ○ ○ ○
○ ○ ○

Energy is released

Earthquake waves reach the Earth’s surface and people feel shaking

Rocks deform and store energy at cracks in the Earth

Accumulated energy becomes greater than forces keeping rocks together

Earth’s plates move relative to one another

3. A B C

Which of the following may occur as a result of an earthquake? (check all which apply) Thunderstorms and heavy rain Liquefaction Building collapse D E F

○ ○ ○

Flooding and fires Landslides Tornados

41

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

4. A B C

Which of the following events occur during liquefaction? (check all which apply)

○ ○ ○

Flooding Buildings sink into the ground Tsunami’s and large waves

D E F

○ ○ ○

Thunderstorms Underground pipes and cables break Saturated earth adopts liquid characteristics

5. A B C

Which of the following events may increase the chance of a landslide occurring? (check all which apply)

○ ○ ○

Deforestation Steep slopes Loose hillside materials

D E F

○ ○ ○

Construction work Heavy rain An earthquake

6. A B C D E

Which of the following may pose a risk during an earthquake? (check all which apply)

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Poor building designs Machinery and vehicles Bookshelves and other shelving Flash flooding Windows and glass

F G H I J

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Lighting fixtures Weak construction materials Gas canisters Falling rocks Electrical wiring, cables, and water pipes

42

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

Section Two
Risk Perception
1 1. What is your expectation of an earthquake happening within the next five years? Very unlikely 2 3 4 5 Very likely

○ ○ ○ ○ ○
1 2 3 4 5

5 = an earthquake is very likely to occur

2.

How important do you think it is for you and your family to prepare to protect against earthquakes?

Not important

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Very important

5 = it is very important that my family takes action to prepare and protect against earthquakes 1 3. How confident are you that your family knows what action to take in the event of an earthquake? Not confident 2 3 4 5 Very confident

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

5 = my family has a very good evacuation and emergency plan if an earthquake happened 1 4. If an earthquake was to occur tomorrow, how well prepared do you feel your family is to cope with immediate consequences? Very unprepared 2 3 4 5 Very prepared

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

5 = my family is very well-prepared to cope with the immediate consequences of an earthquake, (i.e., food and water supplies, shelter, access to healthcare, money

43

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

Section Three
Structural and Non-Structural Safety
1. Which of the following vulnerabilities can you identify in buildings in your community? If none are relevant, please leave empty (check all that apply).

A B C D E

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Indirect load path Irregularity of building structure Weak first story Loose or unsecured pipes and cables Open shelves

F G H I J

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Discontinuous vertical structure Heavy roof Heavy building structure Weak window fixtures Vehicles parked on hills

2.

Which of the following items in your home has your family secured in case of an earthquake? If none are relevant, please leave empty (check all that apply).

A B C D E

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Bookshelves and books Cupboards Computers and televisions Windows Gas canisters and kitchen equipment

F G H I J

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Chemicals and cleaning supplies Tables Wall hangings and paintings Utilities including pipes and cables Doors

3.

Which of the following steps have your family taken to strengthen the structure of your home in the last year? If none are relevant, please leave empty (check all that apply).

A B

○ ○ ○

General repairs, e.g. doors, windows, cracks and re-plastering as needed Removal of damaged or weakened walls and replacing with stronger material Reinforced or replaced walls including cross-walls and reconstruction

D E

○ ○ ○

Utility repairs, e.g. checking and replacing (if needed) electrical wiring and water plumbing Replacing defective or damaged wooden trusses and roof supports Reinforced, strengthened, or replaced roofs and floors

C

F

44

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

Section Four
Emergency Preparedness and Planning
1. Does your family have an emergency response and emergency evacuation plan?

Yes

No

2. How often does your family practice its emergency response and evacuation plan? For example, a drill? a ○ Once month

Once every six months

Once a year

Less than once a year

Never

3. Which of the following items do you have stored in an emergency kit in case of an earthquake? If none are relevant, please leave empty (check all that apply).

○ ○ ○ ○

Flashlight or torch Mobile or cellular phone Water and food supplies Blankets

○ ○ ○ ○

Radio Medical supplies Tape Batteries

4. Do you and your family have a way to contact each other in case of an earthquake? For example, a phone number or meeting place?

Yes

No

5. Do you have an emergency contact outside of your community? For example, an emergency official and phone number?

Yes

No

45

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

Questionnaire – Student Post-Test
Global Quake Science and Safety Initiative This document should be used as a survey for students. This is the version to be completed by participants before the program begins. Instructions: Thank you for agreeing to participate in this survey of the earthquake science program. Your participation in this survey will help us understand how much the earthquake science program may prepare you, your school and your community in the event of an earthquake. Your participation in this survey is voluntary. Please ensure you answer all questions truthfully. This is an assessment of your knowledge and opinions. Your responses are anonymous and will not be shared. This survey poses no risk to you and there is no penalty for refusal to participate. You may refuse to participate in this survey simply by returning the survey without completing it. If you have any questions regarding your participation in this survey, please contact: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Male Student Please do not place your name or your school name on this survey Do not skip any items Ask for clarification if you need to Return the completed survey to the researcher when finished A pen or pencil can be used to complete the survey If any of the options do not apply, feel free to provide comment

□ □

Female Other

□ □
(if other, please explain)

Age

Grade

Site/Location

Date (dd/mm/yy):

46

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

Section One
Earthquake Science and Safety Knowledge
1. A B C D E Which of the following are causes of earthquakes? (check all which apply)

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Thunderstorms and heavy rain occurs Large creatures inside the Earth move People use heavy machinery to drill for oil Large plates of the Earth’s crust grind against each other People commit sinful acts and bad deeds

F G H I J

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Tectonic plates move relative to each other People build dams and reservoirs Rocks deep below the surface of the earth are heated up and move God commands that an earthquake occurs Energy stored at the border of tectonic plates is released

2.

Put the following earthquake effects in order, marking them from 1 (first effect) to 5 (last effect)

A

B

C

D

E

○ ○ ○ ○ ○
○ ○ ○

Energy is released

Earthquake waves reach the Earth’s surface and people feel shaking

Rocks deform and store energy at cracks in the Earth

Accumulated energy becomes greater than forces keeping rocks together

Earth’s plates move relative to one another

3. A B C

Which of the following may occur as a result of an earthquake? (check all which apply) Thunderstorms and heavy rain Liquefaction Building collapse D E F

○ ○ ○

Flooding and fires Landslides Tornados

47

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

4. A B C

Which of the following events occur during liquefaction? (check all which apply)

○ ○ ○

Flooding Buildings sink into the ground Tsunami’s and large waves

D E F

○ ○ ○

Thunderstorms Underground pipes and cables break Saturated earth adopts liquid characteristics

5. A B C

Which of the following events may increase the chance of a landslide occurring? (check all which apply)

○ ○ ○

Deforestation Steep slopes Loose hillside materials

D E F

○ ○ ○

Construction work Heavy rain An earthquake

6. A B C D E

Which of the following may pose a risk during an earthquake? (check all which apply)

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Poor building designs Machinery and vehicles Bookshelves and other shelving Flash flooding Windows and glass

F G H I J

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Lighting fixtures Weak construction materials Gas canisters Falling rocks Electrical wiring, cables, and water pipes

48

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

Section Two
Risk Perception
1 1. What is your expectation of an earthquake happening within the next five years? Very unlikely 2 3 4 5 Very likely

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

5 = an earthquake is very likely to occur

1 2. How important do you think it is for you and your family to prepare to protect against earthquakes? Not important

2

3

4

5 Very important

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

5 = it is very important that my family takes action to prepare and protect against earthquakes

3.

As a result of your participation in the program, does your family have a better understanding of emergency evacuation and planning procedures?


4.

Yes

No

As a result of your participation in the program, is your family better equipped to cope with the immediate damages that may arise as a result of the earthquake?

Yes

No

49

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

Section Three
Structural and Non-Structural Safety
1. Which of the following vulnerabilities can you identify in buildings in your community? If none are relevant, please leave empty (check all that apply).

A B C D E

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Indirect load path Irregularity of building structure Weak first story Loose or unsecured pipes and cables Open shelves

F G H I J

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Discontinuous vertical structure Heavy roof Heavy building structure Weak window fixtures Vehicles parked on hills

2.

Which of the following items in your home has your family secured in case of an earthquake? If none are relevant, please leave empty (check all that apply).

A B C D E

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Bookshelves and books Cupboards Computers and televisions Windows Gas canisters and kitchen equipment

F G H I J

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Chemicals and cleaning supplies Tables Wall hangings and paintings Utilities including pipes and cables Doors

3.

Which of the following steps have your family taken to strengthen the structure of your home in the last year? If none are relevant, please leave empty (check all that apply).

A B

○ ○ ○

General repairs, e.g. doors, windows, cracks and re-plastering as needed Removal of damaged or weakened walls and replacing with stronger material Reinforced or replaced walls including cross-walls and reconstruction

D E

○ ○ ○

Utility repairs, e.g. checking and replacing (if needed) electrical wiring and water plumbing Replacing defective or damaged wooden trusses and roof supports Reinforced, strengthened, or replaced roofs and floors

C

F

50

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

Section Four
Emergency Preparedness and Planning
1. Does your family have an emergency response and emergency evacuation plan?

Yes

No

2. How often does your family practice its emergency response and evacuation plan? For example, a drill? a ○ Once month

Once every six months

Once a year

Less than once a year

Never

3. Which of the following items do you have stored in an emergency kit in case of an earthquake? If none are relevant, please leave empty (check all that apply).

○ ○ ○ ○

Flashlight or torch Mobile or cellular phone Water and food supplies Blankets

○ ○ ○ ○

Radio Medical supplies Tape Batteries

4. Do you and your family have a way to contact each other in case of an earthquake? For example, a phone number or meeting place?

Yes

No

5. Do you have an emergency contact outside of your community? For example, an emergency official and phone number?

Yes

No

51

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

Appendix F. Sample Teacher Questionnaires

Questionnaire - Teacher Pre-Test
Global Quake Science and Safety Initiative This document should be used as a survey for teachers. This is the version to be completed by participants before the program begins. Instructions: Thank you for agreeing to participate in this survey of the earthquake science program. Your participation in this survey will help the program organizers understand how much the earthquake science program may prepare you, your school and your community in the event of an earthquake. Your participation in this survey is voluntary. Please ensure you answer all questions truthfully. This is an assessment of your knowledge and opinions. Your responses are anonymous and will not be shared. This survey poses no risk to you and there is no penalty for refusal to participate. You may refuse to participate in this survey simply by returning the survey without completing it. If you have any questions regarding your participation in this survey, please contact: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Male Student Please do not place your name or your school name on this survey Do not skip any items Ask for clarification if you need to Return the completed survey to the researcher when finished A pen or pencil can be used to complete the survey If any of the options do not apply, feel free to provide comment

□ □

Female Other

□ □
(if other, please explain)

Age

Grade Taught

Site/Location

Date (dd/mm/yy):

52

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

Section One
Earthquake Science and Safety Knowledge
1 1. How comfortable are you teaching about the causes of earthquakes? No prior knowledge 2 3 4 5 Very knowledgeable

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

5 = I am able to teach students about the underlying science of plate tectonics, plate boundaries, plate friction, seismic waves, the core and mantle, and the movement of the crust

1 2. How comfortable are you teaching about the natural effects of earthquakes? No prior knowledge

2

3

4

5 Very knowledgeable

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

5 = I am able to teach students about the underlying science behind liquefaction, landslides, flooding, and structural and non-structural damages/building collapse due to seismic waves

1
3. How comfortable are you teaching students about earthquake hazards and safety precautions? No prior knowledge

2

3

4

5
Very knowledgeable

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

5 = is able to teach students about risks to buildings and non-structural risks, in addition to emergency plans including evacuation routes and drills

53

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

Section Two
Risk Perception
1 1. What is your expectation of an earthquake happening within the next five years? Very unlikely 2 3 4 5 Very likely

○ ○ ○ ○ ○
1 2 3 4 5

5 = an earthquake is very likely to occur

2.

How important do you think it is for your school to prepare to protect teachers and students against earthquakes?

Not important

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Very important

5 = it is very important that the school takes action to prepare and protect against earthquakes 1 3. How confident are you that teachers in your school are able to lead students to safety Not confident in the event of an earthquake? 2 3 4 5 Very confident

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

5 = teachers at my school know how to support students in the event of an earthquake happening while at school, i.e. evacuation route, etc. 1 4. If an earthquake was to occur tomorrow, how well prepared do you feel your school is to cope with immediate damages that may arise? Very unprepared 2 3 4 5

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Very prepared

5 = the school is well prepared to cope with the immediate consequences of an earthquake, i.e. emergency education plans, structural damage, contingencies

54

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

Section Three
Structural and Non-Structural Safety
1. Which of the following vulnerabilities can you identify in buildings in your community? If none are relevant, please leave empty (check all that apply).

A B C D E

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Indirect load path Irregularity of building structure Weak first story Loose or unsecured pipes and cables Open shelves

F G H I J

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Discontinuous vertical structure Heavy roof Heavy building structure Weak window fixtures Vehicles parked on hills

2.

Which of the following items in your school have been secured in case of an earthquake? If none are relevant, please leave empty (check all that apply).

A B C D E

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Bookshelves and books Cupboards Computers and televisions Windows Gas canisters and kitchen equipment

F G H I J

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Chemicals and cleaning supplies Tables Wall hangings and paintings Utilities including pipes and cables Doors

3.

Which of the following steps have been taken to strengthen the structure of your school in the last year? If none are relevant, please leave empty (check all that apply).

A B

○ ○ ○

General repairs, e.g. doors, windows, cracks and re-plastering as needed Removal of damaged or weakened walls and replacing with stronger material Reinforced or replaced walls including cross-walls and reconstruction

D E

○ ○ ○

Utility repairs, e.g. checking and replacing (if needed) electrical wiring and water plumbing Replacing defective or damaged wooden trusses and roof supports Reinforced, strengthened, or replaced roofs and floors

C

F

55

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

Section Four
Emergency Preparedness and Planning
1. Does your school have an emergency response and emergency evacuation plan?

Yes

No

2. How often does your school practice its emergency response and evacuation plan? For example, a drill? a ○ Once month

Once every six months

Once a year

Less than once a year

Never

3.

Which of the following items do you have stored in your classroom in case of an earthquake? If none are relevant, please leave empty (check all that apply).

○ ○ ○ ○

Flashlight or torch Mobile or cellular phone Water and food supplies Blankets

○ ○ ○ ○

Radio Medical supplies Tape Batteries

4. Has your school identified a staff member(s) responsible for emergency planning and preparedness?

Yes

No

5. Does your school have a procedure in place for contacting parents in the event of an earthquake?

Yes

No

56

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

Questionnaire - Teacher Post-Test
Global Quake Science and Safety Initiative This document should be used as a survey for teachers. This is the version to be completed by participants after the program ends. Instructions: Thank you for agreeing to participate in this survey of the earthquake science program. Your participation in this survey will help the program organizers to understand how much the earthquake science program may prepare you, your school and your community in the event of an earthquake. Your participation in this survey is voluntary. Please ensure you answer all questions truthfully. This is an assessment of your knowledge and opinions. Your responses are anonymous and will not be shared. This survey poses no risk to you and there is no penalty for refusal to participate. You may refuse to participate in this survey simply by returning the survey without completing it. If you have any questions regarding your participation in this survey, please contact: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Male Student Please do not place your name or your school name on this survey Do not skip any items Ask for clarification if you need to Return the completed survey to the researcher when finished A pen or pencil can be used to complete the survey If any of the options do not apply, feel free to provide comment

□ □

Female Other

□ □
(if other, please explain)

Age

Grade Taught

Site/Location

Date (dd/mm/yy):

57

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

Section One
Earthquake Science and Safety Knowledge
1 1. As a result of your participation in the program, how do you feel your ability to teach about the causes of earthquakes has changed? No change 2 3 4 5 Significant improvement in knowledge

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

5 = My knowledge of the causes of earthquakes has significantly improved, meaning I can teach about the underlying science of plate tectonics, plate boundaries, plate friction, seismic waves, the core and mantle, and the movement of the crust

1 2. As a result of your participation in the program, how do you feel your ability to teach about the natural effects of earthquakes has changed?

2

3

4

5 Significant improvement in knowledge

No change

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

5 = My knowledge of the effects of earthquakes has significantly improved, meaning I am able to teach students about the underlying science behind liquefaction, landslides, flooding, and structural and nonstructural damages/building collapse due to seismic waves

1
3. As a result of your participation in the program, how do you feel your ability to teach about earthquake hazards and safety precautions has changed?

2

3

4

5
Significant improvement in knowledge

No change

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

5 = My knowledge of earthquake hazards and safety precautions has significantly improved, meaning I am able to teach students about risks to buildings and non-structural risks, in addition to emergency plans including evacuation routes and drills

58

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

Section Two
Risk Perception
1 1. What is your expectation of an earthquake happening within the next five years? Very unlikely 2 3 4 5 Very likely

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

5 = an earthquake is very likely to occur

1 2. How important do you think it is for your school to prepare to protect teachers Not important and students against earthquakes?

2

3

4

5 Very important

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

5 = it is very important that the school takes action to prepare and protect against earthquakes

3.

As a result of your participation in the program, do you feel that teachers in your school are better prepared to lead students to safety in the event of an earthquake?


4.

Yes

No

As a result of your participation in the program, do you feel your school is to better prepared to cope with immediate damages that may arise from an earthquake?

Yes

No

59

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

Section Three
Structural and Non-Structural Safety
1. Which of the following vulnerabilities can you identify in buildings in your community? If none are relevant, please leave empty (check all that apply).

A B C D E

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Indirect load path Irregularity of building structure Weak first story Loose or unsecured pipes and cables Open shelves

F G H I J

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Discontinuous vertical structure Heavy roof Heavy building structure Weak window fixtures Vehicles parked on hills

2.

Which of the following items in your school have been secured in case of an earthquake? If none are relevant, please leave empty (check all that apply).

A B C D E

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Bookshelves and books Cupboards Computers and televisions Windows Gas canisters and kitchen equipment

F G H I J

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Chemicals and cleaning supplies Tables Wall hangings and paintings Utilities including pipes and cables Doors

3.

Which of the following steps have been taken to strengthen the structure of your school in the last year? If none are relevant, please leave empty (check all that apply).

A B

○ ○ ○

General repairs, e.g. doors, windows, cracks and re-plastering as needed Removal of damaged or weakened walls and replacing with stronger material Reinforced or replaced walls including cross-walls and reconstruction

D E

○ ○ ○

Utility repairs, e.g. checking and replacing (if needed) electrical wiring and water plumbing Replacing defective or damaged wooden trusses and roof supports Reinforced, strengthened, or replaced roofs and floors

C

F

60

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

Section Four
Emergency Preparedness and Planning
1. Does your school have an emergency response and emergency evacuation plan?

Yes

No

2. How often does your school practice its emergency response and evacuation plan? For example, a drill? a ○ Once month

Once every six months

Once a year

Less than once a year

Never

3.

Which of the following items do you have stored in your classroom in case of an earthquake? If none are relevant, please leave empty (check all that apply).

○ ○ ○ ○

Flashlight or torch Mobile or cellular phone Water and food supplies Blankets

○ ○ ○ ○

Radio Medical supplies Tape Batteries

4. Has your school identified a staff member(s) responsible for emergency planning and preparedness?

Yes

No

5. Does your school have a procedure in place for contacting parents in the event of an earthquake?

Yes

No

61

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

Appendix G. Questionnaire Response Coding Tool The following coding matrix is used to analyze the data provided in the student and teacher preand post-test questionnaires. Student Questionnaires Section One (Pre- and Post-Test) Earthquake Science and Safety Knowledge 1. Which of the following are causes of earthquakes? (check all which apply) Correct answers: D, F, H, J One point should be given for each circle correctly checked (maximum 4) One point should be deducted for each circle incorrectly checked (minimum 0) 2. Put the following earthquake effects in order, marking them from 1 (first effect) to 5 (last effect) Correct answer: C, D, A, E, B One point should be given for each circle correctly numbered (maximum 5) One point should be deducted for each circle incorrectly numbered (minimum 0) 3. Which of the following may occur as a result of an earthquake? (check all which apply) Correct answers: B, C, D, E One point should be given for each circle correctly checked (maximum 4) One point should be deducted for each circle incorrectly checked (minimum 0) 4. Which of the following events occur during liquefaction? (check all which apply) Correct answers: B, E, F One point should be given for each circle correctly checked (maximum 3) One point should be deducted for each circle incorrectly checked (minimum 0) 5. Which of the following events may increase the chance of a landslide occurring? (check all which apply) Correct answers: ALL One point should be given for each circle checked (maximum 10) One point should be deducted for each circle not checked (minimum 0) 6. Which of the following may pose a risk during an earthquake? (check all which apply) Correct answers: ALL

62

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

One point should be given for each circle checked (maximum 10) One point should be deducted for each circle not checked (minimum 0) This section should be scored in total (maximum 36). A post-test increase in score indicates a greater knowledge of earthquake science and safety. Section Two Risk Perception (Pre-Test) 1. What is your expectation of an earthquake happening within the next five years? 5 = an earthquake is very likely to occur The pre-test result indicates general awareness of earthquake occurring. 2. How important do you think it is for you and your family to prepare to protect against earthquakes? 5 = it is very important that my family takes action to prepare and protect against earthquakes A pre-test result indicates awareness of the important of family preparedness. 3. How confident are you that your family knows what actions to take in the event of an earthquake? 5 = my family has a very good evacuation and emergency plan if an earthquake happened A pre-test result indicates confidence in family emergency plans. 4. If an earthquake was to occur tomorrow, how well prepared do you feel your family is to cope with immediate consequences? 5 = my family is very well-prepared to cope with the immediate consequences of an earthquake, (i.e., food and water supplies, shelter, access to healthcare, money A pre-test result indicates confidence in family ability to deal with earthquake consequences. Section Two Risk Perception (Post-Test) 1. What is your expectation of an earthquake happening within the next five years? 5 = an earthquake is very likely to occur

63

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

A post-test increase in expectation of an earthquake occurring indicates increased awareness of the likelihood of an earthquake. 2. How important do you think it is for you and your family to prepare to protect against earthquakes? 5 = it is very important that my family takes action to prepare and protect against earthquakes A post-test increase in this measure indicates an increased perception of the importance of family planning for earthquakes. 3. As a result of your participation in the program, does your family have a better understanding of emergency evacuation and planning procedures? The post-test response indicates the participant perception of improvements in family emergency evacuation and planning procedures as a result of the program. 4. As a result of your participation in the program, is your family better equipped to cope with the immediate damages that may arise as a result of the earthquake? The post-test response indicates the participant perception of improvements in resilience – such as structural and non-structural changes – as a result of the program. Section Three Structural and Non-Structural Safety (Pre- and Post-Test) 1. Which of the following vulnerabilities can you identify in buildings in your community? If none are relevant, please leave empty (check all that apply). A post-test increase in the vulnerabilities identified indicates a greater awareness of vulnerabilities within the community. This is a proxy measure that may result in, at a later stage, changes or modifications to buildings that do increase preparedness. 2. Which of the following items in your home has your family secured in case of an earthquake? If none are relevant, please leave empty (check all that apply). A post-test increase in the number of items secured in case of an earthquake indicates greater preparedness for hazards caused by non-structural items during an earthquake. 3. Which of the following steps have your family taken to strengthen the structure of your home in the last year? If none are relevant, please leave empty (check all that apply). A post-test increase in the steps taken to secure the structure of a home indicates greater preparedness for structural hazards caused during an earthquake.

64

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

Section Four Emergency Preparedness and Planning (Pre- and Post-Test) 1. Does your family have an emergency response and emergency evacuation plan? A post-test increase in those responding ‘yes’ indicates greater preparedness. 2. How often does your family practice its emergency response and evacuation plan? For example, a drill? A post-test increase in frequency indicates greater preparedness. 3. Which of the following items do you have stored in an emergency kit in case of an earthquake? If none are relevant, please leave empty (check all that apply). A post-test increase in checked items indicates greater preparedness. 4. Do you and your family have a way to contact each other in case of an earthquake? For example, a phone number or meeting place? A post-test increase in those responding ‘yes’ indicates greater preparedness. 5. Do you have an emergency contact outside of your community? For example, an emergency official’s name and phone number? A post-test increase in those responding ‘yes’ indicates greater preparedness. Teacher Questionnaires Section One (Pre-Test) Earthquake Science and Safety Knowledge 1. How comfortable are you teaching about the causes of earthquakes? A post-test increase in score indicates a greater comfort in teaching students about the causes of earthquakes. This may be indicative of increased earthquake science knowledge among teachers. 2. How comfortable are you teaching about the natural effects of earthquakes? A post-test increase in score indicates a greater comfort in teaching students about the effects of earthquakes. This may be indicative of increased earthquake science knowledge among teachers. 3. How comfortable are you teaching students about earthquake hazards and safety precautions?

65

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

A post-test increase in score indicates a greater comfort in teaching students about the hazards of earthquakes and emergency planning procedures. This may be indicative of increased earthquake science knowledge among teachers. Section One (Post-Test) Earthquake Science and Safety Knowledge 1. As a result of your participation in the program, how do you feel your ability to teach about the causes of earthquakes has changed? 5 = My knowledge of the causes of earthquakes has significantly improved, meaning I can teach about the underlying science of plate tectonics, plate boundaries, plate friction, seismic waves, the core and mantle, and the movement of the crust A post-test score indicates the extent to which teachers feel the program had an impact on their ability to teach about the causes of earthquakes. 2. As a result of your participation in the program, how do you feel your ability to teach about the natural effects of earthquakes has changed? 5 = My knowledge of the effects of earthquakes has significantly improved, meaning I am able to teach students about the underlying science behind liquefaction, landslides, flooding, and structural and non-structural damages/building collapse due to seismic waves A post-test score indicates the extent to which teachers feel the program had an impact on their ability to teach about the effects of earthquakes. 3. As a result of your participation in the program, how do you feel your ability to teach about earthquake hazards and safety precautions has changed? 5 = My knowledge of earthquake hazards and safety precautions has significantly improved, meaning I am able to teach students about risks to buildings and non-structural risks, in addition to emergency plans including evacuation routes and drills A post-test score indicates the extent to which teachers feel the program had an impact on their ability to teach about earthquake hazards and related safety precautions Section Two Risk Perception (Pre-Test) 1. What is your expectation of an earthquake happening within the next five years? 5 = an earthquake is very likely to occur

66

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

The pre-test result indicates general awareness of earthquake occurring. 2. How important do you think it is for your school to prepare to protect teachers and students against earthquakes? 5 = it is very important that my school takes action to prepare and protect against earthquakes A pre-test result indicates awareness of the importance that a school is prepared. 3. How confident are you that teachers in your school are able to lead students to safety in the event of an earthquake? 5 = teachers at my school know how to support students in the event of an earthquake happening while at school, i.e. evacuation route, etc. A pre-test result indicates confidence in teacher’s ability to evacuate and support students when an earthquake happens 4. If an earthquake was to occur tomorrow, how well prepared do you feel your school is to cope with immediate damages that may arise? 5 = the school is well prepared to cope with the immediate consequences of an earthquake, i.e. emergency education plans, structural damage, contingencies A pre-test result indicates perception that a school is well prepared to deal with earthquake consequences and continued operation. Section Two Risk Perception (Post-Test) 1. What is your expectation of an earthquake happening within the next five years? A post-test increase in expectation of an earthquake occurring indicates increased awareness of the likelihood of an earthquake. 2. How important do you think it is for your school to prepare to protect teachers and students against earthquakes? 5 = it is very important that my school takes action to prepare and protect against earthquakes A post-test increase in this measure indicates an increased perception of the importance of schools planning for earthquakes.

67

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

3. As a result of your participation in the program, do you feel that teachers in your school are better prepared to lead students to safety in the event of an earthquake? The post-test response indicates the participant perception of improvements in school emergency evacuation and planning procedures as a result of the program. 4. As a result of your participation in the program, do you feel your school is to better prepared to cope with immediate damages that may arise from an earthquake? The post-test response indicates the participant perception of improvements in school resilience – such as structural and non-structural changes – as a result of the program. Section Three Structural and Non-Structural Safety (Pre- and Post-Test) 1. Which of the following vulnerabilities can you identify in buildings in your community? If none are relevant, please leave empty (check all that apply). A post-test increase in the vulnerabilities identified indicates a greater awareness of vulnerabilities within the community. This is a proxy measure that may result in, at a later stage, changes or modifications to buildings that do increase preparedness. 2. Which of the following items in your school have been secured in case of an earthquake? If none are relevant, please leave empty (check all that apply). A post-test increase in the number of items secured in case of an earthquake indicates greater preparedness for hazards caused by non-structural items during an earthquake. 3. Which of the following steps have been taken to strengthen the structure of your school in the last year? If none are relevant, please leave empty (check all that apply). A post-test increase in the steps taken to secure the structure of a home indicates greater preparedness for structural hazards caused during an earthquake. Section Four Emergency Preparedness and Planning (Pre- and Post-Test) 1. Does your school have an emergency response and emergency evacuation plan? A post-test increase in those responding ‘yes’ indicates greater preparedness. 2. How often does your school practice its emergency response and evacuation plan? For example, a drill? A post-test increase in frequency indicates greater preparedness.

68

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

3. Which of the following items do you have stored in your classroom case of an earthquake? If none are relevant, please leave empty (check all that apply). A post-test increase in checked items indicates greater preparedness. 4. Has your school identified a staff member(s) responsible for emergency planning and preparedness? A post-test increase in those responding ‘yes’ indicates greater preparedness. 5. Does your school have a procedure in place for contacting parents in the event of an earthquake? A post-test increase in those responding ‘yes’ indicates greater preparedness

69

A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of Earthquake Science Education

Appendix H. Community Survey

Return To: ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ ______________________

Community Survey
Please help us by completing this short survey. Your participation in this survey will help Teachers Without Borders to understand how much the earthquake science program may help prepare your school [your community] in the event of an earthquake. 1. Are you aware of the earthquake science and safety education program taking place in your school [schools in your community] (Global Quake Science and Safety Initiative for Girls)?

□ Yes
2.

□ No

If yes, what do you know about it? If you have experienced any benefits of the program, please describe them below.
___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________

3.

If no, would you like to learn more about the program?

□ Yes

□ No

Name: _________________________ Phone____________________ Email______________________

70

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.