Pamela McMullin-Messier: Using Map Your Hazards! in Social Ecology at Central Washington University

Unit 1: I broke up the unit into three days — one to introduce the module and create groups, another to discuss data interpretation and mapping of hazards, and the third to pull it all together with vulnerability and risk:

• Day 1 – Handed out Student Road Map and worksheet for map rubric; showed "Introduction to Module" PowerPoint and discussed with students how they would be graded, the learning goals and expectations for the module. Handed out formative assessment activity on hazards, risk, and vulnerability (forgot to collect it); students were divided into seven groups to discuss the survey, begin to form a group identity, and decide how to split up the work. Students were reminded to take the survey and were also instructed to give the survey link to friends/family and have them take the survey by the weekend.
• Day 2 – Since my class does not cover hazards earlier in the course material, we took a significant portion of the class period to discuss the "US Hazards Map" and "Credible Data Interpretation" PowerPoints. While students were instructed to read materials prior to class, I found that most of them had not. Students then broke into their groups to discuss the Ellensburg maps, in deciding what hazards were relevant to their area and how to use Google in drawing their maps for the hazards, vulnerabilities, and risks.
• Day 3 – Answered questions that came up with groups about the hazards maps; we then proceeded to discuss the "Intro to Risk and Vulnerability" PowerPoint. Students then broke into their groups to discuss the risk and vulnerability maps and the work they needed to do over the weekend. Students were reminded about the surveys, as we were going to start Unit 2 the following week, and I reminded groups that maps were due in class the following week.

The discussion on risk was difficult for students to grasp at first, in trying to discern the levels of risk with the interaction between hazards and vulnerabilities. The activities took longer than anticipated, as students did not read the materials in advance. At least four days on this unit would have been better to allow more time for feedback on the maps. Students needed more time in class for me to work with their groups on answering questions (Note: Emphasize the importance of reading the materials in advance to save class time. If you feel that your students may be reluctant to read the materials, you might consider assigning a short quiz to ensure that they do prepare).

When I asked students to break into groups, most of them formed groups of 4 rather than 3. A difficulty emerged as there were a few students who did not come to class on the first day of the module, so I had to assign them to groups (Note: Do not allow groups to be more than 3 so that: 1) missing students can be easily merged with other groups and, 2) it allows for more accountability with individual contributions; larger groups tend to create more opportunities for free-riding). Many of the students did not have computers to bring to class. I also found a mixture of skills and abilities with computers, e.g. for this assignment some students could not grasp how to use Google maps (Note: Schedule time in a computer lab for some of the group activities so they can practice and the instructor can provide feedback on the spot. It is also important for the instructor to follow the PowerPoint tutorial first so he or she can more easily help the students).

Unit 2 Part A: I broke up this portion of the unit into two days — one to introduce the unit and rubric for Part A, and another to discuss what was expected for the group analysis. I had also originally planned to have a "think, pair, share" on Day Two for the groups to share their observations with other groups.

• Day 4 – Handed out Unit 2 instructions and the rubric for the assignment for Unit 2 Part A, and discussed the expectations for this portion of the analysis for each of their groups. Handed out survey results (frequency tables from Google survey), and students broke into their groups to discuss the results.
• Day 5 – Handed out Excel tables and met with group members who were present from each group to answer questions about the assignment. The groups were supposed to hand in their map assignments, and a few still had questions on how to complete the exercise before they could move on to Unit 2. Students were asked to submit their assignments for this part of the unit on the following week.

We did not have time for them to do a "think, pair, share" to compare results from their groups' findings with other groups, as not enough members from the groups were present due to student absences from a holiday break. Students appeared to be very engaged with reading the survey results and in answering the questions. It helped the data come alive in how they were asking questions. More time was needed – I would say at least 3 days are necessary, so the transition/overlap into the next section of the unit is made within the same week and students could share and compare their results, since they were all assigned different questions (Note: Ask students to get their friends and family to answer the survey sooner than the start of the module, as we had a low response rate).

Unit 2 Part B: I broke up this part of the unit into two days; one day to introduce the survey comparison Excel plots and hypothesis testing, discuss the rubric and expectations for the assignment; and another day for students to work in groups so I could go around the room to offer feedback and answer questions. Students were instructed to hand in the assignment by the end of the week.

• Day 6 — Handed out "Survey Hypothesis and Research Questions Rubric" and "Survey Results" PowerPoint (with new Excel tables from the survey data). This day started with revisiting the previous assignment due to low attendance, so I spent some time re-explaining the goals for the rubrics and the assignments. I also led a brief discussion on what hypotheses are and not — and how they differ from research questions — since there seemed to be some confusion.
• Day 7 — I visited with the various groups to discuss their findings so far and guided them in creating or refining their research questions to test for the assignment and how to plot their tables on Excel. Students met with their groups to work toward completing the assignment, so they would be ready to start working on the presentations the following day.

Some students enjoyed Unit 2, as they could explore their own research questions; they reported being excited to share the results with friends and family, and were actively engaged with what they were learning and putting the pieces together. However, there were some students who seemed to dislike this part of the module the most. Although our college requires students to take a course that teaches them how to use programs such as Excel, there were more than a few students who could not use Excel to plot the tables needed to examine the research questions. (Note: This echoes an earlier comment made in the map exercise about differing ability levels. Lab time is necessary for the instructor to be able to walk around and help students — this would require an additional day of instruction).

Unit 3: I broke up the unit into three days: one to introduce the unit and discuss expectations, another to have time to answer questions and work in class on the presentations, and the third to pull it all together with the presentations.

• Day 8 — A volunteer from the Red Cross came to class to speak about her work and her experiences in disaster mitigation from a social services perspective. She had been in New York after Hurricane Sandy and also assisted the Kittitas County communities during the fires. In her discussion she stressed how communities pull together and help out after disasters, but there are gaps in recovery and resiliency plans. She emphasized that though governments make plans to get prepared, the general population is generally not prepared enough. I presented the "Intro to Stakeholders" PowerPoint and discussed the rubric and expectations for the presentations. Students broke up into groups to select a stakeholder and decide how to assemble their presentations.
• Day 9 — Students met in their groups and asked for instructor feedback about the presentations; some students were still completing the previous assignment so they could start working on the presentation. No one was prepared to share their presentations with other groups, so they were not able to complete that portion of the unit to get/share feedback.
• Day 10 — Presentation day; groups made their presentations. Students were given a reflective assignment to complete. We had a brief discussion on how things went and I thanked them for their participation in the module.

The students were very engaged on the day that the Red Cross presentation took place, as it gave them an opportunity to see things from a different angle. They had excellent questions, and it inspired them when they were discussing whom to select for a stakeholder for their presentations (Note: If time permits, consider having guest speakers and invite stakeholders to attend final presentations). Groups had to meet outside of class to complete presentations and practice as a group; they also met with other groups to provide feedback to one another. However, because we ran out of class time I was not able to offer feedback for all groups (Note: Another day to practice the presentations may help students to be more comfortable and confident and gives an opportunity to get and give feedback).

Suggestions

Based on my experiences, I would encourage anyone who intends to use all three units to extend the process by at least one week (or 3–5 class periods). This will allow more time for students to digest the material and gain a sense of mastery, as it can be rather intensive in a quarter system. It would also give an opportunity for more face time in group work, instructor feedback, and peer discussions. Scheduling lab time for the Unit 1 and Unit 2 group work would also be useful for the instructor to be able to answer questions that come up with the mapping and analysis. While the module is a great way to demonstrate a progressive learning process, I would recommend not scheduling it for the end of the quarter or semester (or with a holiday break in the middle), so it does not conflict with pressures from other classes.

Another recommendation would be to either use Unit 1 or Unit 2, depending on time constraints. Unit 1 could be expanded upon for more of an applied lesson on environmental justice, where students could go further in examining the Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Justice mapping page (perhaps explore further with a GIS program) for their particular area and analyze what leads to social vulnerabilities in their communities and critically examine the interactions and intersections with natural hazards and risks. Unit 2 could also be expanded upon, where students could build on the survey and create their own sets of questions to expand upon. Some of my students felt frustrated with the limitations of the survey and wanted to go deeper into what led to perceptions of risk and vulnerability by conducting interviews with people in their community. Another idea to bridge these areas in Units 1 and 2 is to go outside of the classroom and have field trips so that students can visit the areas at risk and/or conduct interviews with potential stakeholders (Note: Conducting interviews might involve going through IRB approval in advance).

Map hazards portion enhanced awareness of regional natural hazards:50% Strongly Agree, 46% Agree, 4% Disagree, 0% Strongly Disagree.

Mapping exercise response: 80% of students found that multiple hazards existed and 76% found that some areas were more at risk than others; 36% found structures were built in high-risk areas.

• It helped me to see how at risk the town of Ellensburg is when considering natural hazards. It really made me reconsider how ready I am for a natural hazard.
• I learned that I should be better prepared for any type of natural disaster.
• Knowledge about local community awareness. It gave me a lot of ideas about risk and hazards on exactly where high-risk hazards are and who exactly would be affected.
• I learned more about the geography of my area.
• A better understanding of what kinds of hazards are capable and where the high-risk zones are, such as the high potential for major flooding destroying the main roadways.
• The expected frequency of certain natural hazards does not match what is really going on (e.g. earthquakes).
• I was able to pinpoint and cross reference natural hazards in a small area, as well as comparing them to local population demographics.
• After the mapping exercise, I learned that there are many vulnerability areas because of the many hazard regions.

Surveys and Assessments allowed me to apply and reinforce materials I had learned earlier: 27% Strongly Agree, 69% Agree, 4% Disagree, 0% Strongly Disagree.

Survey response: 42% found that knowledge, risk perception, and preparedness were not appropriate (while 32% found that risk perception was appropriate).

• I was most surprised with the fact that people were not worried about a natural disaster even though one already happened in the area.
• Many people's responses contradicted each other and people are not prepared for natural disasters like they should be.
• People think federal government is responsible.
• The low levels of preparedness when it comes to food and water supply.
• That having gone through hazard training did not really make people feel more prepared for hazards.
• Many people had experienced multiple hazards but still felt extremely unprepared.
• Many survey-takers only consider what natural hazards occur in the immediate area and forget about the impact of a situation farther out that impacts food delivery.
• While people overwhelmingly believe they are responsible for their own safety, their preparedness levels show exactly the opposite.
• I was shocked that a lot of young people who should have been taught what to do when earthquakes hit think they should stand under a door frame.
• I found that a lot more people have experienced natural disasters than I had thought.
• Learned that some people think different from others — others prepared differently.

Presentations response: 77% felt that the presentations geared toward general population were appropriate and information was easy to follow (8% felt they were a waste of time and were repetitive) .

• I learned more about natural hazards and the areas they can affect. I learned that I need to be more aware of the natural hazards not only in the area I live, but areas I hope to move to in the future.
• Used similar data but drew very different hypotheses and conclusions. Perception is incredibly biased and was interesting to hear perspectives.
• The basic info that was in each of the presentations was informative; we all had that so that part of the presentations did not yield any new knowledge. However, since each group brought in their own experiences and geared their presentations toward different audiences, I learned unique perspectives from each presentation.
• Add more information about the precautions we should take in case of a natural hazard. The presentations that included suggestions helped stimulate thought toward increased preparedness.
• I learned that there are many different groups to target. If I would change something, I would be more specific for our audience choice, as different approaches are needed for different groups of people.
• I would not have had so many slides with information that the group does not share. For my own presentation I would have put more pics to grab at the attention of the audience. Trying to get everyone together to work on group stuff is very difficult, since it is the end of the quarter and all classes have group presentations and papers and finals . . .
• I learned a lot of useful information to take back and directly communicate with my own friends and people I know.
• I learned from all presentations that every citizen is at risk by natural hazards and you have to be prepared for them.

Which part(s) of the module enhanced your learning experience?

• Learning about the risks and vulnerabilities. It was really interesting to see where these were — flood zones, earthquakes, and fires. The mapping part of the module really enhanced my learning experience because I now know which natural disasters are possible in the area.
• Learning how individuals from local community felt about natural hazards in area was very intriguing and informative. I was unaware of some natural hazards that occur often in Ellensburg. The mapping section was very informative.
• The surveys — they showed how general populations viewed natural hazards. Looking over the survey data and applying it to test hypotheses. Learning about the responses to the survey and seeing how unprepared people are made it more interesting.
• I think being able to locate the potential risk in the city and visually seeing who would be in the way was very interesting. The comparison of maps and graphs and recognizing comparisons and graphs and responses that conflict each other.
• Opened my eyes to natural disasters; loved working with a group to discuss and understand project. I now have a better understanding of the risk areas around me. Also now I know the most current and accurate procedures for my safety when involved in natural hazards.
• The preparation and risk analysis parts of the survey offered rare insight into people's adaptation to their environment and that I would not have necessarily seen otherwise. Looking at the real risks in my environment helped me learn the real dangers in the area.
• Having the charts and Excel sheet with the results was really nice. I spent a lot of time looking at the Excel sheets for making graphs that led me to be really familiar with the data and made it easy to make up own hypothesis. Became more comfortable with viewing data presented in various formats.
• Presentation for the stakeholders really helped to wrap up everything that I had learned into a final conclusion.
• All surveys I took and locating hazards in our local area really enhanced my learning experience because I was literally able to read and learn of the many hazards and disasters that can eventually occur being in a hazardous location.

Please provide suggestions for improving the module:

• Complete the module sooner to have more time to put presentation together.
• Longer time period, a little better explanation, more in-depth survey questions.
• I think three full weeks for the module would be more effective. That said, I enjoyed the process in spite of feeling rushed.
• One suggestion could be for groups to actually go to a vulnerable place or stakeholder (e.g. retirement home) and discuss the risks from natural disasters.
• Make sure this assignment is done individually, not all in groups. Make sure there is ample time to sort through the resources and focus on the project. I had less time to dedicate to the project than I would have needed to do a satisfactory job.
• Less instructions. I got lost a couple of times in the directions. Also, more spacing with assignments and allowing more time to meet outside of class.
• Place at a different time in the quarter that is not so hectic or disrupted and more information on how to use the graphs and Excel.
• Do not kill another tree printing off the module papers.
• More time to do and understand it. I feel this would be a great way to start the first two weeks of the quarter.
• Too short of time to complete all of the required material. If the module was started at the beginning of the quarter and conducted throughout the entire quarter, the module could be much more in-depth.

Explore other InTeGrate Instructor Stories