to be involved in disaster education. There is therefore a pressing need to examine disaster education in this context and provide robust education-based guidance to people using these emerging technologies for disaster education.
Preston (2012) notes that ‘the disciplinary boundaries of disaster education are fluid and the literature on the topic can be found within the sociology of disasters, public health and health promotion, humanitarian response, political communication and public relations’. Although more specific education-based research is required, it is useful that disaster education continues to draw upon and combine with other disciplines including education, psychology, and sociology in understanding people's reactions to disasters (see Chapter 5).
There are several definitions of disaster education that may lead to confusion about its place in disaster management. For example, Shaw et al. (2011) believe that ‘disaster education’, ‘disaster risk education’, and ‘disaster prevention education’ are ‘different expressions that essentially mean disaster risk reduction education’. Preston (2012) views disaster education more along the lines of preparedness: helping citizens ‘prepare for various disasters, consider what they would do in a disaster and think about how they would respond’.
An understanding of the meaning of the word ‘education’ will assist in resolving this confusion. Craft (1984) noted that there are two different Latin roots of the English word ‘education’. They are educare, which means to train or to mould, and educere, meaning to lead out. While the two meanings are quite different, they are both represented in the word ‘education’. They relate to different types of learning possible across education: one calls for rote memorisation and appropriate response; the other requires questioning, thinking, and creating.
Acknowledging this explanation and the Disaster Management Cycle (Chapter 3), disaster education should ‘involve learning before, during, and after disasters’ (Dufty 2011). The design of disaster education involves two components which will be discussed in detail later in this book:
1 Content – what will be learnt (see Chapter 8).
2 Methods – how it will be learnt (see Chapter 9).
2.1.2 Modes of Disaster Education
The International Standard Classification of Education 2011 (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization 2012) identifies four modes of education that are all applicable to a study of disaster education:
1 Formal education. ‘Formal education is education that is institutionalised, intentional, and planned through public organisations and recognised private bodies, and – in their totality – constitute the formal education system of a country.’ For disaster education, this would include curriculum-based learning in schools and universities. ‘Programs that take place partly in the workplace may also be considered formal education if they lead to a qualification that is recognised by national education authorities (or equivalent).’
2 Non-formal education. This is education that is ‘institutionalised, intentional, and planned by an education provider’ – sometimes called ‘extra-curricular activities’ – and is still related to the formal education system. For disaster education, it could be a safety demonstration to schools or a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) linked to a university. ‘It is typically provided in the form of short courses, workshops or seminars.’
3 Informal education. ‘Informal learning is defined as forms of learning that are intentional or deliberate, but are not institutionalised.’ ‘Informal learning may include learning activities that occur in the family, workplace, local community and daily life, on a self-directed, family-directed or socially-directed basis.’ Examples of informal learning related to disaster education include using social media to learn more about a disaster, attending a community meeting called after an emergency, and participating in an emergency training course.
4 Incidental or random education. These are ‘various forms of learning that are not organised or that involve communication not designed to bring about learning’. They ‘may occur as a by-product of day-to-day activities, events or communication that are not designed as deliberate educational or learning activities’. This type of learning could include watching or listening to a news broadcast that includes details of a disaster, receiving an early warning emergency message, or reading an article about emergency preparedness in a magazine.
As part of lifelong learning, people may learn across the four different modes of education. Generally, formal and non-formal education is more experienced by those under 30 years old. Both informal and incidental education is obtained by all ages.
Shaw et al. (2011) conducted a literature review of global disaster education activities in the categories of formal, non-formal, and informal education. Most of the disaster education activities they reviewed were either in the formal or non-formal modes. This trend is supported by the majority of disaster education research being in the school setting (Chapter 11).
However, informal education has particular appeal to disaster learning for all ages. Informal education can occur in a range of settings such as the home, school, job, and in small groups such as community organisations (Knowles 1950). It is viewed as a critical component of lifelong learning (Hager 2001).
According to Feng et al. (2018), informal learning makes it easier to appreciate how disaster education ‘can be integrated into community and community processes, particularly with regard to the need to personalize education in ways that facilitate its applicability to the local contexts in which people experience hazard events’.
2.1.3 Learning Relationships
Education has traditionally been seen as a pedagogic relationship between the teacher and the learner. It was always the teacher who decided what the learner needed to know and, indeed, how the knowledge and skills should be taught. For disaster education, ‘pedagogy’ relates to formal and non-formal learning modes usually with children through a prescribed curriculum or course.
Knowles (1970) distinguished between how adults and children learn and coined the term ‘andragogy’. It is based on the premise that adults are independent and strive for autonomy and self-direction. Andragogical learning is task or problem centred.
Andragogy was an important landmark in teaching and learning practices in vocational education and training and in higher education. The principles of adult learning that were derived from it transformed face-to-face teaching and provided a rationale for distance education based on the notion of self-directedness. However, it still has connotations of a teacher–learner relationship.
For disaster education, andragogical learning generally fits within the non-formal learning mode, as for adult education there are course requirements. For higher education courses, disaster-related education (e.g. degrees in emergency management, MOOCs) mainly follows pedagogical principles.
Much of the disaster-related learning is provided by emergency agencies for at-risk people and their communities. As discussed earlier, this is usually conducted through informal learning, although delivered in a pedagogical manner, i.e. in a way similar to a teacher–pupil relationship where the agency ‘knows best' and provides the required knowledge and skills.
Due to the power in disaster education
