Kawane, T; Adu-Gyamfi, B and Shaw, R (2025) Exploring the elements of strengthening online higher education in disaster risk reduction: A perspective of sustained strategy in post COVID-19. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 16(2), pp. 173-192. ISSN 1759-5908
Abstract
Purpose: The COVID-19 pandemic has compelled higher educational institutions to implement alternative educational strategies that rely heavily on internet accessibility and utilisation to monitor and evaluate students. This study aims to find certain indicators for planning and designing future courses of inclusive online education in the domain of disaster risk reduction (DRR). Design/methodology/approach: The study reviews and analyses online teaching and learning experiences of DRR courses. It uses online surveys and interviews to derive the perspectives of selected students and educators in universities in Asia and the Pacific region. Findings: Active engagement is considered to be achieved when students are active in chat boxes, through presentations, through assignments and when the video cameras of students are turned on. On the contrary, students perceive active engagement differently because they face emotional disturbances and health issues due to prolonged screen/digital device use, have inadequate information and communications technology infrastructure or have digital literacy deficiencies among others. The study finds that online courses have many sets of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, when they are balanced, they can improve DRR courses in the future. Research limitations/implications: The study is based on the outcome of interviews with 10 experienced educators in DRR courses as well as students from different schools taking courses in DRR education. However, the students are not necessarily taking the courses of the educators interviewed due to the inability of some educators to avail themselves and the challenge of contacting the students. This notwithstanding, the results of this study give a general overview of the situation to be considered in the planning and design of online and distance education. Social implications: The results do not reflect the reaction of students and tutors of the same course. Future studies of collecting and analyzing the responses from the students and the educators with the same course could provide tailored solutions. Originality/value: This study attempts to find solutions to bridging two different perspectives on teaching and learning. The results would be important to strengthening and designing future online courses.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | COVID-19 pandemic; disaster risk reduction; emergency remote teaching; higher education; inclusive education; online education; questionnaire survey |
| Index terms: | questionnaire, strategy, strengthening, higher education, COVID-19, face, Asia, internet, accessibility, future study, pandemic, communications technology, interview, learning experience, disaster risk reduction, survey, methodology |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, management, psychology, innovation and technology management, environmental hazards, research methods, inclusive design, health risk and incident analysis, structural engineering, research design and methodology, regions and continents, educational institutions, learning methods, computing systems |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Sustainability, Health and Safety, Design Practice, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Organizational Design, Digital Applications, Education, Geographical Context |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here