Educating non-specialized audiences about seismic design principles using videos and physical models
Loading...

Date
2024
Authors
Ecenur Kızılörenli
Mauricio Morales-Beltran
Ceren Duyal-Kulak
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Izzet Kara
Open Access Color
GOLD
Green Open Access
No
OpenAIRE Downloads
OpenAIRE Views
Publicly Funded
No
Abstract
The prevalence of self-construction practices in Türkiye has resulted in a building stock whose earthquake resilience is highly uncertain. To mitigate the potentially devastating impact of anticipated large earthquakes one viable approach is to increase earthquake awareness among builders themselves. However these builders lack formal engineering training and are ordinary citizens. Therefore the challenge lies in devising visual teaching methods such as short videos to explain complex seismic phenomena in a comprehensible manner. This paper introduces the use of educational media tailored for non-specialized audiences encompassing regular citizens and students without engineering backgrounds. These videos are based on experiments conducted with physical models on a homemade shake table. They focus on key factors influencing the seismic response of multi-storey buildings and highlight common design and construction errors that lead to building damage. To assess the effectiveness of this approach we conducted a workshop with junior architecture students followed by post-workshop qualitative assessments through knowledge surveys and interviews. The findings indicate that while single-topic videos were effective learning tools for students without prior knowledge of seismic building design students found models particularly useful for explaining specific concepts such as torsional behavior the role of diaphragms and the performance of non-structural components. However despite positive feedback on the effectiveness of model testing students generally did not perceive significant knowledge acquisition in model construction. Ultimately the accessibility of freely available videos coupled with their enhanced educational value makes them effective tools for raising seismic awareness in communities vulnerable to future earthquakes.
Description
Keywords
Earthquake Awareness, Knowledge Survey, İnşaat Mühendisliği, Çevre Mühendisliği, Qualitative Assessment, Architectural Education, Educational Media, Educational media, Sınıfiçi Ölçme Uygulamaları, educational media, architectural education, Earthquake awareness, knowledge survey, L, Classroom Measurement Practices, Education, qualitative assessment, Knowledge survey, earthquake awareness, Eğitimde Ölçme ve Değerlendirme (Diğer), Measurement and Evaluation in Education (Other), Qualitative assessment, Architectural education, Educational media;Earthquake awareness;Qualitative assessment;Knowledge survey;Architectural education
Fields of Science
05 social sciences, 0211 other engineering and technologies, 02 engineering and technology, 0503 education
Citation
Adeoye-Olatunde O.A. & Olenik N.L. (2021) Research and scholarly methods: Semi-structured interviews. Journal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy 4 1358–1367. https://doi.org/10.1002/jac5.1441Ahn B. & Bir D.D. (2018). Student Interactions with Online Videos in a Large Hybrid Mechanics of Materials Course. Advances in Engineering Education 6(3) 1-24BAP103 Deprem & Binalar. (2021). Earthquakes & Buildings. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/@earthquakesbuildings5063Benadusi M. (2014). Pedagogies of the unknown: Unpacking ‘culture’in disaster risk reduction education. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 22(3) 174-183.Biggs J. & Tang C. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University (4th ed.). McGraw-hill education (UK).Binici B. Yakut A. Canbay E. Akpinar U. & Tuncay K. (2022). Identifying buildings with high collapse risk based on samos earthquake damage inventory in İzmir. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01289-5Blackmore K. Compston P. Kane L. Quinn D. & Cropley D. (2010). The Engineering Hubs and Spokes Project-institutional cooperation in educational design and delivery. University of Queensland.Brame C. J. (2016). Effective educational videos: principles and guidelines for maximizing student learning from video content. CBE—Life Sciences Education 15(4) es6. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-03-0125Bravo E. Amante B. Simo P. Enache M. & Fernandez V. (2011). Video as a new teaching tool to increase student motivation. 2011 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) 638–642. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2011.5773205Bregger Y.A. (2017). Blended learning: Architectural design studio experiences using housing in Istanbul. Journal of Problem Based Learning in Higher Education 5(1) 126-137.Castro-Alonso J. C. Ayres P. & Sweller J. (2019). Instructional visualizations cognitive load theory and visuospatial processing. Visuospatial Processing for Education in Health and Natural Sciences 111-143. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20969-8_5Charleson A.W. (2018). Earthquake engineering education in schools of architecture: developments during the last ten years including rule-of-thumb software. Journal of Architectural Engineering 24(3) 4018020 1 7. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000324de Koning B.B. Tabbers H.K. Rikers R.M.J.P. & Paas F. (2009). Towards a framework for attention cueing in instructional animations: Guidelines for research and design. Educational Psychology Review 21(2) 113–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-009-9098-7Dener A. (1994). The effect of popular culture on urban form in Istanbul. In The Urban Experience: A People-Environment Perspective London: E. & F. Spon.DiCicco-Bloom B. and Crabtree B.F. (2006). The qualitative research interview. Medical Education 40 314-321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02418.xFeld J. Sauermann J. & de Grip A. (2017). Estimating the relationship between skill and overconfidence. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 68 18–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2017.03.002Green R.A. (2008). Unauthorised development and seismic hazard vulnerability: A study of squatters and engineers in Istanbul Turkey. Disasters 32(3) 358 376. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.2008.01044.xGulkan P. Aschheim M. & Spence R. (2002). Reinforced concrete frame building with masonry infills. In World Housing Encyclopedia Housing report (Vol. 64).Gunasagaran S. Mari M.T. Kuppusamy S. Srirangam S. & Mohamed M.R. (2021). Learning construction through model making and its application in architecture design studio. International Transaction Journal of Engineering Management & Applied Sciences & Technologies 12(11) 1–10.Hajhashemi K. Caltabiano N. & Anderson N. (2016). Students’ perceptions and experiences towards the educational value of online videos. Australian Educational Computing 31(2).Hussain E. Kalaycıoğlu S. Milliner C.W.D. & Çakir Z. (2023). Preconditioning the 2023 Kahramanmaraş (Türkiye) earthquake disaster. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment 4(5) 287–289. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-023-00411-2Iban M.C. (2020). Lessons from approaches to informal housing and non-compliant development in Turkey: An in-depth policy analysis with a historical framework. Land Use Policy 99 105104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105104Ibrahim M. Antonenko P.D. Greenwood C.M. & Wheeler D. (2012). Effects of segmenting signalling and weeding on learning from educational video. Learning Media and Technology 37(3) 220-235. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2011.585993Iskander M. (2007). Innovations in E-learning instruction technology assessment and engineering education. Springer Science & Business Media.Ji T. & Bell A. (2000). Seeing and touching structural concepts in class teaching. 26–28.Kallio H. Pietilä A.-M. Johnson M. & Kangasniemi M. (2016) Systematic methodological review: developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. Journal of Advanced Nursing 72(12) 2954–2965. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13031Kelly M. Lyng C. McGrath M. & Cannon G. (2009). A multi-method study to determine the effectiveness of and student attitudes to online instructional videos for teaching clinical nursing skills. Nurse Education Today 29(3) 292 300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2008.09.004Kruger J.L. & Doherty S. (2016). Measuring cognitive load in the presence of educational video: Towards a multimodal methodology. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 32(6). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3084López D.L. Rodríguez M.D. & Costas S.G. (2022). Intuition and experimentation as teaching tools: Physical and interactive computational models. 9727–9734.Morales-Beltran M. Kızılörenli E. Duyal C. Aktaş M. Ozdemir H. & Altunkaynak K. (2021). Deprem ve Binalar: Eğitsel medya kullanımı ile deprem ve binaların sismik davranışı hakkındaki temel bilgilerin halka sağlanması [Earthquake and Buildings: Providing citizens with basic knowledge on the seismic behaviourof buildings using educational media]. 6th International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (6ICEES) Gebze Türkiye.Morales-Beltran M. & Yildiz B. (2020). Integrating configuration-based seismic design principles into architectural education: Teaching strategies for lecture courses. Architectural Engineering and Design Management 1 19. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2020.1738995Moreno R. (2007). Optimising learning from animations by minimising cognitive load: Cognitive and affective consequences of signalling and segmentation methods. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 21(6) 765-781. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1348Musacchio G. Falsaperla S. Sansivero F. Ferreira M.A. Oliveira C.S. Nave R. & Zonno G. (2016). Dissemination strategies to instil a culture of safety on earthquake hazard and risk. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 14 2087 2103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9782-6Napakan W. Gu N. Gul L. & Williams A. (2009). Nu Genesis: A Journal of Unique Designs in a Virtual Collaborative Design Studio 257–265.Nathe S.K. (2000). Public education for earthquake hazards. Natural Hazards Review 1(4) 191-196. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2000)1:4(191)Nevid J.S. & Lampmann J.L. (2003). Effects on content acquisition of signaling key concepts in text material. Teaching of Psychology 30(3) 227 230. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328023TOP3003_06Nuhfer E. & Knipp D. (2003). 4: The Knowledge Survey: A Tool for All Reasons. To Improve the Academy 21(1) 59–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-4822.2003.tb00381.xÖzmen C. & Ünay A.İ. (2007). Commonly encountered seismic design faults due to the architectural design of residential buildings in Turkey. Building and Environment 42(3) 1406–1416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.09.029Partridge H. Ponting D. & McCay M. (2011). Good practice report: Blended learning. Australian Learning and Teaching Council.Simonacci V. & Gallo M. (2017). Statistical tools for student evaluation of academic educational quality. Quality & Quantity 51(2) 565 579. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-016-0425-zSpence R. (2004). Risk and regulation: Can improved government action reduce the impacts of natural disasters? Building Research & Information 32(5) 391 402. https://doi.org/10.1080/0961321042000221043Wang N. (2022). Effective Video Solutions for Earth Science Education (Doctoral dissertation). University of Texas at Dallas USAWatson J. (2008). Blended Learning: The convergence of online and face-to-face education. promising practices in online learning. North American Council for Online Learning.Wirth K.R. & Perkins D. (2005). Knowledge surveys: An indispensable course design and assessment tool. Innovations in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 1–12.Wüst K. & Beck H. (2018). “I Thought I Did Much Better”-Overconfidence in University Exams. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education 16(4) 310 333. https://doi.org/10.1111/dsji.12165Yakut A. Sucuoğlu H. Binici B. Canbay E. Donmez C. İlki A. Caner A. Celik O.C. & Ay B.Ö. (2022). Performance of structures in İzmir after the Samos island earthquake. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 20(14) 7793 7818. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01226-6
WoS Q
Scopus Q

OpenCitations Citation Count
N/A
Source
International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education
Volume
11
Issue
3
Start Page
537
End Page
566
PlumX Metrics
Captures
Mendeley Readers : 4
Google Scholar™


