Tuswadi and Hayashi, T.

Paper:

Educational Merits of Lecturing and Discussion Methods

in Teaching Disaster Prevention:
Toward Improvement of Students’ Knowledge, Attitude, and
Behavior in Merapi Volcano Area Primary Schools
Tuswadi∗ and Takehiro Hayashi∗∗
∗ GraduateSchool for International Development and Cooperation, Hiroshima University
1-5-1 Kagamiyama, Higashi-Hiroshima City, Hiroshima 739-8529, Japan
E-mail: tus5800@[Link]
∗∗ Graduate School of Education, Hiroshima University

1-1-1, Kagamiyama, Higashi-Hiroshima City, Hiroshima 739-8524, Japan

E-mail: neko@[Link]
[Received March 12, 2014; accepted July 2, 2014]

This research investigated the educational benefits of tional, and technical knowledge and skills about natural
improving students’ performance associated with two disasters and risks as presented by professionals in insti-
types of teaching used in integrated disaster preven- tutions such as primary and secondary schools and uni-
tion lessons. Our research, experimental in nature, versity [1]. If such education were applied from an early
applied a pretest/posttest control group design. The age, it would successfully yield positive results in reduc-
research sample consisted of 89 students in grade 5 at ing the risks and consequences of natural disasters [2]. To
two primary schools near the Merapi volcano, which be effective, disaster prevention education must provide
is under the Sleman regency of Yogyakarta Special both information and a deep understanding of issues and
Region Province, Indonesia. Students were classified attitudes and skills enabling an appropriate, adequate re-
into experimental and control groups. Using the same sponse in a crisis.
lesson content, delivered by one of our researchers, Indonesia, as one of the world’s most highly popu-
the experimental group was taught through discus- lated and disaster-prone country, often faces multiple haz-
sions and the control group was taught through lec- ards resulting in natural disasters such as earthquakes,
tures. Findings showed that lectures improved two tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, floods, landslides, drought,
viewpoints in students’ knowledge – one regarding and forest fires. This has brought about an awareness
appropriate action taken while indoors during a big of the importance of public disaster prevention educa-
earthquake and the other about consequences of a tion and has made it a top priority. Following in the
big earthquake regarding a residential fire. Student spirit of Hyogo Framework for Action (2005-2015), the
viewpoints regarding their awareness of living in a Indonesia Ministry of Education and Culture (MoEC) de-
disaster-prone area were also found to have improved cided a national policy on the mainstreaming of disaster
through the use of lectures. Discussions were found risk reduction (DRR) at primary and secondary schools
to be helpful in improving only one viewpoint of stu- in 2010. The MoEC issued a circular letter number
dents’ knowledge about appropriate actions while in- 70a/SE/MPN/2010, which calls for the implementation
doors during a big earthquake. Study results suggest of disaster management at the primary and secondary
that efforts should be made to develop effective educa- school level nationwide through the empowerment of in-
tion in volcanic disaster at school focusing on changes stitutional roles and the capacity of the school community,
in students’ knowledge, attitude, and behavior. disaster risk reduction integration into formal school level
curriculum both intra- and extracurricular programs, and
Keywords: educational merits, lectures, discussion, dis- the development of interstakeholder partnerships and net-
aster prevention, primary schools works supporting DRR implementation at school.
Regarding the integration of DRR policy into formal
school curricula, the Indonesia MoEC launched imple-
1. Introduction mentation of the most up-to-date disaster prevention ed-
ucation curricula for primary school students, i.e., aged
Natural disasters are increasingly common in daily life 7-12 years old, and secondary school students, i.e., aged
and in impacting negatively on the human experience. 13-18 years old, starting with the academic year of
Disaster prevention education at schools is now a very im- 2011/2012, especially at schools in disaster-prone ar-
portant issue worldwide. Disaster prevention education eas such as Bengkulu, West Sumatra, Yogyakarta, Cen-
is defined as the transfer of general thematic, organiza- tral Java, Bali, Maluku, Papua, and East Nusatenggara

870 Journal of Disaster Research Vol.9 No.5, 2014

 Educational Merits of Lecturing and Discussion Methods
in Teaching Disaster Prevention

provinces. Disaster prevention education curriculum • 35% believed the myth of supernatural prediction of
learning contents include issues related to earthquakes, natural disasters.
tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, floods, droughts, and fires • 38% did not believe that human misbehavior would
that are integrated into appropriate school subjects such anger God, resulting in disasters.
as natural science, social studies, geography, Indonesian
language, mathematics, and religion [3]. The third problem was related to students’ behavior:
The Yogyakarta Special Region of Indonesia is located
near the active Merapi volcano. Situated 30 km north • 20% of students did not discuss or share with their
of Yogyakarta, Merapi is one of the world’s most active families information about natural disasters they had
and feared volcanoes. Its crater contains a lava dome learned about at school.
that is a major danger to populations living on its slopes. • 22% of students did not often read books about nat-
This danger comes in the form of high-speed pyroclas- ural disasters and prevention.
tic flows down volcanic slopes that then travel along river
beds [4]. Almost half of Merapi’s nearly 80 reported his- These problems could be traced to certain factors, in-
torical eruptions are known to have been accompanied by cluding the ineffective performance of teachers in teach-
fatal pyroclastic flows – more than any other volcanoes in ing disaster prevention. Data in our previous research
the world [5]. showed that 80% of teachers in the 24 primary schools
The 61 reported Merapi volcano eruptions since the still lacked of knowledge on natural disaster prevention
mid-1500s killed some 7,000 people. One single erup- measures based on limits on the frequency of in-service
tion reportedly created the greatest havoc in 1672, when it teacher training [7].
killed 3,000 people. Two large-scale eruptions killed 200 Given these facts, research on experimental teaching of
in 1872 and 1,369 in 1930-1931. During a small-scale disaster prevention measures to primary school students
eruption on November 22, 1994, block-and-ash flows and in the Merapi volcano area is needed to improve the ef-
pyroclastic surges killed 64 and caused about US$7 mil- fective knowledge, attitudes, and behavior of students re-
lion in economic loss [6]. Most recently, a 2010 Merapi garding natural disasters and prevention measure.
eruption took at least 353 lives.
Children are one of the groups most vulnerable in nat-
ural disasters, so they must be educated effectively on 2. Research Objectives
how to help protect themselves, their families, their neigh-
bors, their communities, and their property from negative This research discusses the implementation of disaster
disaster impact. Based on our previous research find- prevention education curriculum for fifth grade students at
ings at 24 primary schools belonging to the Sleman re- primary schools in the Merapi area focusing on the topic
gency of Yogyakarta Special Region Province, children of volcanic eruptions and related hazards through teach-
in schools have been formally taught about natural dis- ing conducted by one of our researchers using discussions
asters and prevention. Teachers introduce natural disas- and lectures. It also assesses change in students’ perfor-
ters and prevention content to their students through in- mance in terms of knowledge, attitudes, and behavior.
tegrated lessons within main subjects as suggested by the
Indonesia MoEC. Research findings found, however, that
problems remained among fifth grade students regarding 3. Literature Review
effective knowledge, attitudes, and behavior toward natu-
ral disasters and prevention measures [7]. 3.1. Importance of Disaster Prevention Education
Our previous research findings had pinpointed several Childhood education fulfills two important goals: it
common problems. lasts a lifetime and children take their knowledge to par-
The first problem was in poor knowledge among stu- ents and other community members. Schools are impor-
dents about earthquake consequences, i.e., that tant links among children, families, and communities in
• 44% of students did not know that running out of the process of preparing for unexpected events occurring
their homes during a big earthquake was dangerous. as a consequence of natural hazards [8]. Children learn
issues related to natural processes at school and may rec-
• 51% did not know that a big earthquake could cause
ognize indicators of impending disasters. In other words,
house fires.
disaster education at school could conceivably be an ef-
• 29% did not know that big earthquakes sometimes fective catalyst influencing community preparedness in
were followed by volcanic eruptions. the case of disasters.
• 22% did not know that animals’ fleeing from the Preparing students and others by giving them basic
forests to people settlements was one sign that a vol- knowledge about how to recognize early warning signs of
cano may erupt. natural disasters, how to rescue themselves and their fam-
ilies and the environment, and how to perform their own
The second problem was in attitude among students: and environment-based prevention measures and recovery
• 30% of students did not think that their living area are basic objectives of disaster prevention education [9].
was prone to natural disasters. Disaster prevention education may help people anticipate

Journal of Disaster Research Vol.9 No.5, 2014 871

Tuswadi and Hayashi, T.

disasters, reduce the chance of occurrence, and mitigate Group 1 (G.1)

INTENDED CURRICULA Group 2 (G.2)

their impacts when they occur. ANALYSIS

The development of disaster prevention education at PRE-TEST ATTAINED PRE-TEST

school should do more than only improve students’
knowledge, risk perception and awareness, and address
preparedness [10]. Translating knowledge into action dur- TEACHING WITH IMPLEMENTED TEACHING WITH
ing disasters is very important in enabling students to help DISCUSSION LECTURING

avoid bad impact from disasters.

It is strongly argued in some quarters that disaster pre- POST-TEST ATTAINED POST-TEST

vention education is effective when linked to stakeholders

such as schools, communities, the government, and busi-
ness sectors. Shaw et al. [11], in researching these effect POST-TEST RESULT COMPARING POST TEST POST-TEST RESULT

ANALYSIS RESULT G. 1 & G. 2 ANALYSIS

of different types of education – by community, school,
family, and self-education – on student knowledge, per-
DRAWING
ception, preparedness, and dissemination of earthquake
CONCLUSION
information and experience – showed that school disas-
ter prevention education affected student knowledge and Fig. 1. Research framework.
perception about earthquakes but had only a limited effect
on earthquake preparedness.
Becker et al. [12] described the effectiveness of disas- type of teamwork based on the principle that knowledge,
ter prevention education at school by stating that children ideas, and feelings of more than one person have greater
would go home with information about preparing for dis- influence than those of a single individual. In discussions,
asters, and the family or parents and the child would make students become actively involved in processing informa-
plans or prepare resources together for their home. This tion and ideas.
means that homes with children in disaster prevention ed- In teaching and learning processes using discussions,
ucation programs at school benefit both the children them- the class is usually divided into groups consisting of
selves and potentially the entire family unit, which be- five to ten students. The teacher has the role of leader-
comes better prepared as a result of information from the moderator and students are participants. Students thus
school. have a chance to communicate with each other. A
Disaster prevention education can reduce anxiety group member communicates with others in the group by
among children [13]. In times of anxiety or stress based speech, facial expressions, gestures, and body movement.
on natural disasters, children may feel overwhelmed, but Other members get the speaker’s message by listening and
they can model their behavior on positively coping by watching nonverbal signs [15]. These processes of lis-
adults around them. Information from school has poten- tening, speaking, and observation are the basis of discus-
tially great value both for families and children in giving sion [19].
them a better understanding of how to protect themselves Both lectures and discussion are effective in teaching
in a disaster. when they are properly used by teachers. In a case in
Another study [14] reported that students in disaster which the primary objective of teaching is to supply in-
prevention education at school perceived a higher risk of formation, the lecture format is basically more effective
personal injury from disaster but at the same time, re- than discussion. In contrast, discussion is better suited to
ported significantly lower levels of fear than those who goals of teaching directed more toward changing behavior
have not taken part in disaster prevention programs. and teaching new skills or approaches to problems [20].

3.2. Discussion and Lectures on Disaster Prevention

4. Research Framework
Education
In teaching disaster prevention measure, teachers The framework of this research is shown in Fig. 1.
should carefully select the strategy or method based on Research was developed through experimental disas-
student needs and age. Choosing specific teaching meth- ter prevention teaching in the topic of volcanic erup-
ods that best achieve course objectives is one of the most tions for students of the fifth grade in two purposely se-
important decisions a teacher can make [15]. lected primary schools in the Cangkringan District, Sle-
Josephs (1998) as cited by [15] stated that lectures are man Regency of Yogyakarta Special Region Province.
basically narrations that explain or describe. Lectures are Cangkringan is one of the disaster-prone districts highly
very useful for helping teachers transmit information, cre- affected by Merapi eruptions. School 1 had two classes
ate interest, and promote student understanding [16]. In – A.1 and A.2 – and school 2 similarly had class B.1 and
other words, lectures are especially useful for importing B.2. Each class consisted of 19-30 students. The total
knowledge, the basic level of Bloom’s taxonomy [17]. number of students participating in this research was 89.
Discussion is one of the most widely used and valuable The two schools were selected based on their relatively
methods in teaching social studies [18]. It represents a similar distance to the Merapi volcano (Fig. 2). School 1

872 Journal of Disaster Research Vol.9 No.5, 2014

 Educational Merits of Lecturing and Discussion Methods
in Teaching Disaster Prevention

Table 1. Distribution of statements items.

Aspects and statements

Knowledge
Item No.1: When a big earthquake occurs, running out of home is very dangerous.
Item No.5: A big earthquake can cause house fire.
Item No.6: A big earthquake is sometimes followed by volcanic eruptions.
Item No.10: When there are many animals going down from the mountain, it is one of the characteristics that Merapi
volcano may erupt.
Attitude
Item No.3: When there is a supernatural person says that tomorrow there will be a disaster in my living area, I believe it.
Item No.7: I am aware that my living area is prone to natural disasters.
Item No.8: I think humans’ misbehaviors can anger God and result in disasters.
Behavior
Item No.2: When there is a big earthquake, indoor I hide under a strong table.
Item No.4: I discuss with family about information on natural disaster prevention that I have got from school.
Item No.9: I often read books about natural disasters.

the current level of student knowledge, attitudes, and be-

havior in regard to natural disasters and for preparing
experimental and control groups based on performance;
while posttests were conducted after experimental teach-
ing for the purpose of measuring change in the perfor-
mance of the two groups.
The pre- and posttest questionnaire had 10 statements.
Students had to respond to each statement in the question-
naire by choosing agree (A), not certain (NA), or disagree
(D), followed by a brief written reason for each answer
in the column provided. Statements fell into three as-
School 2 School 1
pects: student knowledge (items 1, 5, 6, and 10), attitude
(items 3, 7, and 8), and behavior (items 2, 4, and 9), as
described in Table 1.
In school 1 classes A.1 and A.2, students had integrated
disaster prevention lessons within the main school subject
of Indonesian language using discussions, with group 1 as
the experimental group. In school 2 classes B.1 and B.2,
students had the same lessons as students in school 1 but
using lectures, with group 2 as the control group. Both
groups were taught by the same teacher using the same
Fig. 2. School locations. topic and contents about the Merapi eruption, each for
2 periods totaling 70 minutes (2 lessons, each 35 min-
utes long). Pretests, experimental teaching, and posttests
is located about 10 km from the volcano and about 500 m in group 1 were conducted on November 28, 2012, and in
from the Opak River. This school had 10 teachers and group 2 on November 29, 2012.
122 students. During the 2010 Merapi volcano erup- The disaster prevention teaching used pictures pre-
tion, all teachers and students in this school, together with sented on PCs, while for main teaching materials, the
their families, were evacuated and stayed in government teacher used 2 newspaper articles from the online De-
refugee camps. tik newspaper dated November 9, 2010, concerning the
School 2 is located about 11 km from the volcano and conditions of refugees and villagers in the Sleman Re-
surrounded by the Kuning and Opak Rivers, which are of- gency during the 2010 Merapi volcanic eruption. The
ten flooded by lahar from volcanic eruptions. The school first news article described psychological tensions experi-
had 11 teachers and 156 students. During the 2010 Merapi enced by local residents in refugees’ shelters in the Magu-
volcano eruption, all teachers and students, together with woharjo Sport Stadium in the Sleman Regency. It also
their families, were also evacuated and stayed in govern- described Red Cross non-government organization activ-
ment refugee camps. ities to set up special classes for child refugees to con-
Research used identical pretest and posttests. Pretests tinue their schooling and to minimize their disaster-based
were conducted before teaching experiments to determine stress. The second news article described conditions in

Journal of Disaster Research Vol.9 No.5, 2014 873

Tuswadi and Hayashi, T.

Table 2. Questions in experimental teaching.

No. Questions
1. Beside the volcano mentioned in the text you have read, mention at least five other volcanoes in
Indonesia and the province where they are located!
2. In 2010, in what dates did Merapi volcano erupt?
3. Volcanic eruption is very dangerous for human beings; mention at least five hazards which are
caused by Merapi volcanic eruptions?
4. Describe briefly the sufferings experienced by the local people due to Merapi volcanic eruptions!
5. What are the names of the two rivers near Merapi volcano mentioned in the text and explain why
those rivers were dangerous when Merapi volcano was erupting!
6. Describe the condition of the refugees in the shelters during 2010 Merapi volcanic eruption!
7. Explain what did you and your families do when Merapi volcano would erupt, while it was
erupting, and after it had erupted in 2010!

the village nearest to the Merapi peak, i.e., Kepuhharja tween human misbehavior and natural disasters.
village, half of which was destroyed when the volcano
erupted. Pretest statement 3: When a supernatural being says that
After being given a lecture about volcanic eruptions us- tomorrow there will be a disaster in my living area, I
ing pictures, students in the lecture group read news pas- believe it (p = 0.036 < 0.05).
sages individually, while students in the discussion group
read and discussed news passages in groups of 4-5 stu- Pretest statement 8: I think human misbehavior can anger
dents. Students in both groups were then given 7 ques- God and result in disaster (p = 0.001 < 0.05).
tions on the teacher’s lecture and the news passages. Lec- Regarding response frequency distributions for state-
ture group students answered questions individually on ment 3, it was noted that the number of students in the
their notebooks, without helping each other; while discus- discussion group who disagreed with the prediction of a
sion group students discussed questions and put answers supernatural being about natural disasters – 77.50% – was
on a report sheet. higher than the number of students in the lecture group
After answering all questions, the teacher asked indi- who disagreed with – 57.19%.
vidual students to write answers on the blackboard one by Regarding the response frequency distribution for state-
one; to check whether answers were correct, letting stu- ment 8, it was noted that the number of students in the
dents comment on the answer. In the discussion group, lecture group who agreed with the relationship between
the teacher acted as a moderator, letting each group in human misbehavior and natural disasters – 81.60% – was
turn present answers orally in front of the class. While relatively higher than the number of students in the dis-
one group was presenting an answer, other groups were cussion group who agreed with – 52.50%.
listening and commented on the answer. At the end of Table 4 shows student response frequency distributions
both lessons, the teacher summarized answers and drew for each statement in posttests for all groups.
conclusions. Based on statistical analysis of posttests for the two
Table 2 lists questions for the lecture and discussion groups by using the independent-samples Mann Whitney
groups. U test, p values showed that there were two statements
Pretest and posttest results in the experimental and con- significantly different related to students’ knowledge and
trol groups were then analyzed statistically to draw con- attitude (items 5 and 7).
clusions for the research.
Posttest statement 5: A big earthquake can cause a house
fire (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
5. Research Rindings
Posttest statement 7: I am aware that my living area is
Table 3 shows student response frequency distributions prone to natural disasters (p = 0.041 < 0.05).
for each statement in the pretest, together with its p value
(all groups). For statement 5, regarding students’ knowledge about
Based on the statistical analysis of pretests for the the consequences of a big earthquake regarding a house
two groups using an independent-samples Mann Whitney fire, the response frequency distribution of students in
U test, p values showed that among 10 statements in to- the lecture group from pretests to posttests had changed
tal, items 3 and 8 were found to be significantly different, more compared to students in the discussion group. It
meaning that from the beginning, the two groups already was noted that before being given experimental teaching
differed in attitude regarding their belief in supernatural classes, the number of students who agreed with state-
prediction about natural disasters and the relationship be- ment 5 was only 12.20%. After lectures, the number of
students who agreed with it increased to 81.60%.

874 Journal of Disaster Research Vol.9 No.5, 2014

 Educational Merits of Lecturing and Discussion Methods
in Teaching Disaster Prevention

Table 3. Student response frequency distribution in pretests for all groups.

Discussion group (%) Lecturing group (%)

Statements number p value
Disagree NA Agree Disagree NA Agree
No.1 77.50 2.50 20.00 83.70 0.00 16.30 0.494
No.5 52.50 20.00 27.50 53.10 34.70 12.20 0.496
Knowledge
No.6 20.00 15.00 65.00 26.50 16.30 57.10 0.427
No.10 15.00 5.00 80.00 12.20 24.50 63.30 0.167
No.3 77.50 20.00 2.50 57.19 32.70 10.20 0.036
Attitude No.7 27.50 15.00 57.50 18.40 12.20 69.40 0.235
No.8 32.50 15.00 52.50 6.10 12.20 81.60 0.001
No.2 10.00 0.00 90.00 6.10 2.00 91.80 0.739
Behavior No.4 10.00 5.00 85.00 16.30 6.10 77.60 0.366
No.9 7.50 2.50 90.00 6.10 6.10 87.80 0.775

Table 4. Student response frequency distribution in posttests for all groups.

Discussion Group (%) Lecturing Group (%)

Statements number p value
Disagree NA Agree Disagree NA Agree
No.1 50.00 2.50 47.50 65.30 0.00 34.70 0.173
No.5 50.00 12.50 37.50 8.20 10.20 81.60 0.000
Knowledge
No.6 27.50 15.00 57.50 24.40 20.40 55.10 0.967
No.10 17.50 5.00 77.50 16.30 6.10 77.60 0.973
No.3 80.00 17.50 2.50 71.40 20.40 8.20 0.311
Attitude No.7 27.50 10.00 62.50 12.20 6.10 81.60 0.041
No.8 32.50 10.00 57.50 14.30 4.10 81.60 0.015
No.2 5.00 2.50 92.50 2.00 0.00 98.00 0.223
Behavior No.4 5.00 7.50 87.50 10.20 10.20 79.60 0.311
No.9 2.50 10.00 87.50 10.20 0.00 89.80 0.851

Table 5. Results of nonparametric analysis for pre/posttests with Wilcoxon signed-ranked test for each group.

Statements p value for discussion group p value for lecturing group

pre-posttests pre-posttests
No.1 0.019 0.022
No.5 1.000 0.000
Knowledge
No.6 0.302 0.815
No.10 1.000 0.454
No.3 1.000 0.143
Attitude No.7 0.791 0.039
No.8 0.774 1.000
No.2 1.000 0.375
Behavior No.4 1.000 1.000
No.9 1.000 1.000

For statement 7, regarding student attitudes about groups in the pretest compared to the posttest did not
awareness of living in a disaster-prone area, the response change significantly.
frequency distribution of students in the lecture group Table 5 shows results of nonparametric analysis with
from pretests to posttests also became higher compared Wilcoxon signed-ranked tests for each group.
to students in the discussion group. Before teaching, the Based on Table 5 data, it was found that learning in dis-
number of students who agreed with statement 7 was only cussions and learning in lectures had significant changes
69.40%, but after lectures, the number of students who or improvements regarding knowledge about appropriate
agreed with it increased to 81.60%. actions indoors during a big earthquake (statement 1, with
For statement 8, although the p value (0.015) in the p values of 0.019 and 0.022). It was further found that stu-
posttest indicated a significant difference between the two dents learning in the lectures also had significant changes
groups, the response frequency distribution of the two in knowledge about the consequences of a big earthquake

Journal of Disaster Research Vol.9 No.5, 2014 875

Tuswadi and Hayashi, T.

regarding a house fire (statement 5, p = 0.000), and in roundings and get used to observing nature within their
attitude regarding awareness of living in a disaster-prone living area. In doing so, they may become more aware of
area (statement 7, p = 0.039). the vulnerability of their living area to natural hazards and
disasters.
After teaching, student knowledge regarding appropri-
6. Discussion ate actions indoors during a big earthquake in both groups
was significantly different in p values for the discussion
Initially, students in this research had significant dif- group at 0.019, which was lower than the p value for the
ferences in attitude on beliefs in supernatural beings pre- lecture group at 0.022. Student knowledge about the con-
dicting natural disasters and the relationship between hu- sequences of a big earthquake regarding house fires was
man misbehavior and natural disasters. The percentage significantly different in the lecture group only. Student
of students who did not believe in supernatural beings at attitudes regarding awareness of living in a disaster-prone
school 1 (discussion group) was higher than at school 2 area was significantly different also but only for the lec-
(lecture group). In both groups, fewer than 80.00% of stu- ture group.
dents believed in supernatural beings’ predictions about Logical reasoning by students in agreeing or not agree-
natural disasters. Unfortunately or otherwise, after ex- ing with statements in questionnaires was very important
perimental teaching, the percentage of students who did in analysis. Logical reasons represent deep knowledge by
not believe in supernatural beings did not increase signif- students as the output of effective teaching.
icantly. Percentage of students who believed the state- Table 6 shows written logical reasons given by students
ment that there was a relationship between human misbe- for agreement with statement 1 posttest.
havior and natural disaster in school 2 – 81.60% – was
relatively higher than in school 1 – 52.50%. After teach- Statement 1: When a big earthquake occurs, running
ing, no significant improvement was seen in either group. out of the house is very dangerous.
Children living in the Merapi volcano area may be in- Among the 89 were 6 students who gave logical dis-
fluenced by traditional beliefs of their parents and soci- agreement with statement 1 by stating the following:
ety. Many people living on the slope of the volcano still
strongly believe in supernatural beings that are trusted “If we do not get out of the house when it is destroyed
as spiritual guardians of the Merapi volcano – for ex- by an earthquake, we will be injured.”
ample, the late Mbah Maridjan or Maridjan Grandfather, Table 7 shows logical reasons given by students for
who was killed in the 2010 Merapi volcano eruption be- their agreement with statement 5 posttest.
cause he remained in his damaged village. His relatively
long existence became a source of local wisdom regarding Statement 5: A big earthquake can cause a house fire.
Merapi volcano eruptions, so it was difficult to change be-
lief regarding toward the scientific mechanism of natural Among students who agreed with statement 5, two also
within the area. These findings suggest that student be- wrote additional comments, saying that during an earth-
lief in supernatural beings is also difficult through change quake, it was better to shut off electricity at home. One
by school education in a relatively short time. This will student disagreed with statement 5 saying, based on expe-
thus need good, sustainable collaboration among families, rience:
communities, and school education for developing scien- “So far, no homes in my village burned down due to
tific thinking skills in the general public with regard to an earthquake.”
natural disasters.
In general, student knowledge regarding the conse-
quences of a big earthquake and house fires changed sig- 7. Limitations on Research
nificantly after teaching. The change in student knowl-
edge in the lecture group was greater than the change in The research findings show that it is quite difficult to
student knowledge in the discussion group. compare the effectiveness of discussion and lecture in
Knowledge about the relationship between a big earth- disaster prevention lessons. One of the reasons is based
quake and house fires is very important for understanding on the very limited time of experimental teaching – only
by students. This is because fire is the most common haz- two periods totaling 70 minutes. In fact, to achieve big
ard, following that of earthquakes. By learning about the changes in student knowledge, attitudes, and behavior, it
mechanism of how fire can happen based on what occurs will require a long process of teaching and learning. In ad-
in a big earthquake, students will become aware of the ap- dition to being affected by teaching and learning at school,
propriate actions in their homes needed to prevent house student knowledge, attitudes, and behavior are also influ-
fires. enced by factors such as family background, local culture
Student awareness of living in a disaster-prone area also of surrounding people, and mass media impact.
significantly changed after teaching. The change in the Regarding the process of experimental teaching and
lecture group was bigger than that in student attitudes in learning using the two methods, it is clear that students
the discussion group. learning through discussion were more active and had
Students must determine the conditions of their sur- more personal contact with others. In discussions, group

876 Journal of Disaster Research Vol.9 No.5, 2014

 Educational Merits of Lecturing and Discussion Methods
in Teaching Disaster Prevention

Table 6. Student agreement and reasons regarding statement 1.

Reasons to agree to the statement 1 Frequency (N = 89)

1. When we are running to go out, we can be hit by the falling objects inside the 37 (41.57%)
room.
2. Outside of home, we can be hit by the fallen trees and other objects; it is better to 21 (23.59%)
stay inside the room under the strong table.
Total 58 (65.17%)

Table 7. Student agreement and reasons regarding statement 5.

Reasons to agree to the statement 5 Frequency (N = 89)
1. Due to a big earthquake, electrical wiring can damage, many cables cut off and 28 (31.46%)
lead to fire
2. People get panic and forget to turn off fire and or electricity 17 (19.10%)
Total 45 (50.56%)

members reciprocally influenced each other so individual [5] B. Voight, E. K. Constantine, S. Siswowidjoyo, and R. Torley, “His-
students could get thoughts and ideas from others about torical eruption of Merapi volcano, Central Java, Indonesia, 1768-
1998,” Journal of Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research,
volcanic disasters and related hazards. Students also got Vol.100, pp. 69-138, 2000.
an opportunity to share tasks because by the end of the [6] J. C. Thouret, F. Lavigne, K. Kelfoun, and S. Bronto, “Toward a
revised hazard assessment at Merapi volcano, Central Java,” Journal
lesson, each group would present answers given by the of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, Vol.100, pp. 479-502,
teacher in front of the class. 2000.
[7] Tuswadi and T. Hayashi, “Preparedness assessment toward volcano
eruption: Case of primary schools in Merapi area, Indonesia,” Jour-
nal of International Development and Cooperation, Vol.19, No.3,
pp. 65-72, 2013.
8. Conclusions and Suggestions [8] D. Johnston, T. Tarrant, K. Tipler, M. Coomer, S. Pedersen, and
R. Garside, “Preparing schools for future earthquakes in New
In spite of its limitations, this research indicated that Zealand: Lesson from an evaluation of a Wellington school exer-
cise,” The Australian Journal of Emergency Management, Vol.26,
lectures in disaster prevention education could improve No.1, pp. 24-30, 2011.
the student knowledge – one regarding appropriate actions [9] I. Dewi, “Urgensi Pendidikan Bencana Geologi,” [Link]
while indoors during a big earthquake and the other about [Link]/read/2010/12/08/09220449 [accessed April 13,
2012]
consequences of a big earthquake regarding house fires. [10] K. R. Ronan, K. Crellin, and D. Johnston, “Correlates of hazards
Student attitude regarding their awareness of living in a education for youth: a replication study,” Nat Hazards, Vol.53,
pp. 503-526, 2010.
disaster-prone area was also improved by lectures. Dis- [11] R. Shaw, K. Shiwaku, H. Kobayashi, and M. Kobayashi, “Link-
cussion was found to be helpful only in improving student ing experience, education, perception and earthquake prepared-
knowledge about appropriate actions to take if indoors ness,” Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol.13, Iss.1, pp. 39-
49, 2004.
during a big earthquake. Our research results suggest that [12] J. S. Becker, D. M. Johnston, D. Paton, and K. Ronan, “Commu-
efforts are needed in developing effective volcanic disas- nity resilience to earthquakes: Understanding how individuals make
meaning of hazard information, and how this relates to preparing for
ter prevention education at school focusing on changes in hazards,” NZSEE Conference 2009, Conference Paper No.4.
student knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. [13] K. R. Ronan, D. Johnston, M. Daly, and R. Fairley, “School
children’s risk perceptions and preparedness: A hazards ed-
ucation survey,” The Australasian Journal of Disaster and
Trauma Studies (Electronic journal), No.1, 2001, retrieved
Acknowledgements from [Link] trauma/issues/2001-1/[Link]
[accessed April 13, 2012]
The researchers express their deep gratitude to the Fuji Xerox [14] K. R. Ronan and D. Johnston, “Hazards education in schools: Cur-
Setsutaro Kobayashi Memorial Fund for financing this research. rent findings, future directions,” APEC Workshop on Dissemination
They also thank to all those contributing to this work, especially of Disaster Mitigation Technologies for Humanistic Concerns Phase
1: Earthquake Disaster, Taipei, Taiwan, June 18-21, 2001.
headmasters, teachers, and students, for their invaluable coopera- [15] F. Rahman, J. K. Khalil, N. B. Jumani, M. Ajmal, S. Malik, and M.
tion. Sharif, “Impact of discussion method on students’ performance,”
International Journal of Business and Social Science, Vol.2 No.7,
pp. 84-94, 2011.
[16] G. H. Walker, “Lecturing with style,” The University of Tennessee.
References: Chattanooga, 2003.
[1] C. Kuhlicke, A. Steinfuhrer, C. Begg, and C. Bianchizza, “Perspec- [17] B. S. Bloom and D. R. Krathwohl, “Taxonomy of educational ob-
tives on social capacity building for natural hazard: Outlining an jectives: The classification of educational goals by a committee of
emerging field of research and practice in Europe,” Environmental college and university examiners,” Handbook I: Cognitive Domain.
Science & Policy, Vol.14, pp. 804-814, 2011. New York: Longman, Green, 1956.
[2] M. Panic, K. M. Jelena, and M. Dragana, “Importance of natu- [18] R. T. Hyman, “Improving discussion leadership,” NY: Teacher Col-
ral disaster education-case study of the earthquake near the city of lege Columbia University, 1980.
Kraljevo,” J. Geogr. Inst. Cvijic., Vol.63, No.1, pp. 75-88, 2013.
[19] E. G. Vedanayagam, “Teaching technology for college teachers,”
[3] Ministry of Education and Culture, “National policy on Main- New Delhi: Sterling publishers, 1994.
streaming of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) at Schools,” 2010.
[20] S. Moore, “Cases vs lectures: A comparison of learning, outcomes
[4] A. Ratdomopurbo and G. Poupinet, “An overview of the seismicity in undergraduate principles of finance,” Journal of Financial Educa-
of Merapi volcano (Java, Indonesia), 1983-1994,” Journal of Vol- tion, 1999.
canology and Geothermal Research, Vol.100, pp. 193-214, 2000.

Journal of Disaster Research Vol.9 No.5, 2014 877

Tuswadi and Hayashi, T.

Name:
Tuswadi

Affiliation:
Doctoral Student, Graduate School for Interna-
tional Development and Cooperation, Hiroshima
University

Address:
1-5-1 Kagamiyama, Higashi-Hiroshima City, Hiroshima 739-8529, Japan
Brief Career:
1999- Educator in SMA Negeri 1 Sigaluh Banjarnegara in Central Java,
Indonesia
Selected Publications:
• “Preparedness Assessment toward Volcano Eruption: Case of Primary
Schools in Merapi Area, Indonesia,” Journal of International Development
and Cooperation, Vol.19, No.3, pp. 65-72, March 2013.
• “Disaster Prevention Education in Merapi Volcano Area Primary
Schools: Focusing on Students’ Perception and Teachers’ Performance,”
Procedia Environmental Sciences- Elsevier, Vol.20, pp. 668-677, May
2014.
Academic Societies & Scientific Organizations:
• Japan Association for Language Teaching (JALT)

Name:
Takehiro Hayashi

Affiliation:
Professor, Graduate School of Education, Grad-
uate School for International Development and
Cooperation, Hiroshima University

Address:
1-1-1 Kagamiyama, Higashi-Hiroshima City, Hiroshima 739-8524, Japan
Brief Career:
1993 Dr. of Sci.
1996-1999 Associate Professor, Hiroshima University
1999- Professor, Hiroshima University
Selected Publications:
• “Preparedness Assessment toward Volcano Eruption: Case of Primary
Schools in Merapi Area, Indonesia,” Journal of International Development
and Cooperation, Vol.19, No.3, pp. 65-72, March, 2013.
• “Disaster Prevention Education in Merapi Volcano Area Primary
Schools: Focusing on Students’ Perception and Teachers’ Performance,”
Procedia Environmental Sciences- Elsevier, Vol.20, pp. 668-677, May,
2014.
Academic Societies & Scientific Organizations:
• Japan Society for Science Education (JSSE)
• Society of Japan Science Teaching (SJST)
• Japan Society of Earth Science Education (JSESE)

878 Journal of Disaster Research Vol.9 No.5, 2014