Scaffolded assignments with real-world applications help undergraduates plan for natural hazard resilience

Natural hazard mitigation is a rapidly evolving field that requires a range of educational backgrounds and levels of creativity. Geography education is well-positioned to prepare future leaders in natural hazard resilience because of its foundations in empowering students to embrace transdisciplinarity, the integration of various disciplines for problem-solving, and self-discovery while learning and making decisions. In Singapore, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk and Reduction (SFDRR) was developed for geography education to support transdisciplinary approaches to natural hazard mitigation planning that reduces the risk to human health and the economic, social, cultural, and environmental components of communities. The SFDRR focuses on four main actions: understanding natural hazards and risks, strengthening governance to manage risk, investing in natural hazard mitigation and adaptation implementation, and enhancing disaster preparedness. The researchers used the SFDRR in an undergraduate course to determine a best teaching method for students that increased knowledge on natural hazards and gave students the tools to produce an effective mitigation strategy for real-world applications.

The researchers focused on third-year undergraduate students enrolled in a natural hazards course at the National University of Singapore in 2017. Though this course is part of the Department of Geography, students from other disciplines can take the course, which centers on the physical environmental principles, natural hazards (e.g., earthquakes, tsunamis, floods), and mitigation tactics in the Asia-Pacific area. The students were divided into four topic areas: 1) typhoons in Da Nang, Vietnam with 4 groups and 19 total students; 2) droughts in Java, Indonesia with 5 groups and 20 students total; 3) red river floods in Hanoi, Vietnam with 4 groups and 17 total students; and 4) droughts in Laos with 4 groups and 16 total students. Students were assigned to develop a disaster reduction report (DRR) over the course of the semester which included a description of the hazard, a description of the risks associated with the hazard, a mitigation strategy for the hazard, and a communications plan to share with business partners, government officials, and other stakeholders to encourage adoption of their DRR. There were 90-minute lectures each week to provide subject matter background to the students as well as five tutorials every two weeks in which students had a specific task to complete for their DRR project. The course instructor graded each assignment based on a predetermined rubric specific to the project, with the highest available score being 20. The researchers administered natural hazard knowledge tests at the start of the semester and after the course was completed. The knowledge tests included 10 multiple choice questions, and the scores were compared to reveal any content knowledge gain or loss as a result of the project. The graded assignments, knowledge tests, and qualitative feedback from the students were analyzed for insights into the SFDRR.

The results revealed a range of scores across all of the groups and topic areas. The assignment scores were based on a rubric from 0 to 20 with 20 being the highest score. The first assignment, a description of the physical principles of the hazard, received a score range between 12 to 18 out of 20, with the average being a 15. The second assignment, a description of the real and perceived risks of the hazard, had a score range between 14 and 18.5 out of 20, with the average at 16. The third assignment, a discussion of the mitigation strategy for the hazard, had a range of 12.5 to 18 out of 20, with an uneven spread of scores across all groups and topic areas. The fourth assignment, the communications plan to stakeholders, received a score range of 13 to 20 out of 20. Overall, the researchers discovered disparities among groups and topic areas, which may have been due to different effort levels of students and/or groups for assignments or due to the variability of the resources available on each topic area. For example, topic 2 groups had the highest average grades across all 4 assignments (17.1 of 20), while topic 1 groups had the lowest average grade across all 4 assignments (14.7 of 20). Further, topic 2 had the narrowest range of score distribution across all 4 assignments while topic 4 groups, had the widest range of score distribution across all 4 assignments.

The knowledge tests yielded an average of 7 out of 10 correct answers in the pre-course test. The post-course test yielded an average of 9 out of 10 correct answers. The student feedback about the program revealed that of the 47 students who submitted the feedback, 89% felt engaged, 89% felt the teaching style was effective, 87% felt the project helped their critical thinking, 85% felt an increased interest in natural hazard mitigation, and 94% felt the program enabled their independence. The combined results from the assignments, knowledge tests, and student feedback showed the scaffolding technique of the assignments was a strength by helping students learn, research, and produce more effectively. More specifically, the scaffolding technique included sequential knowledge-building over the course of the lectures and tutorials, and there was consistent feedback that addressed incorrect knowledge and helped improve assignments. Further, having no one correct answer for the assignments allowed the students to explore the natural hazard and assignments in more creative ways and find new mitigation pathways.

There were limitations in this study, and the results are not generalizable. First, the study included a framework-specific to Singapore and the Asia-Pacific region. Second, the researchers focused on third-year undergraduate students, which do not represent all student backgrounds and knowledge levels. Third, the researchers did not specify whether the knowledge tests were the same at the beginning of the semester and after the project, possibly skewing the data to show more or less improvement of natural hazard understanding. Finally, the course instructor may have exhibited some bias during the course, possibly enabling or discouraging student engagement and learning on the material.

Based on their findings, the researchers suggested the scaffolding teaching method is effective, especially for natural hazard education, and transdisciplinary exercises such as an undergraduate course with students from other disciplines can benefit geography education and understanding. Hands-on activities and group collaboration within the framework of assignments with no one correct answer created space for students to think critically and defy creative restraints.