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

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.

Keywords

• Educational media
• Earthquake awareness
• Qualitative assessment
• Knowledge survey
• Architectural education

References

1. 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/jac5.1441
2. Ahn, B., & Bir, D.D. (2018). Student Interactions with Online Videos in a Large Hybrid Mechanics of Materials Course. Advances in Engineering Education, 6(3), 1-24
3. BAP103 Deprem & Binalar. (2021). Earthquakes & Buildings. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/@earthquakesbuildings5063
4. Benadusi, M. (2014). Pedagogies of the unknown: Unpacking ‘culture’in disaster risk reduction education. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 22(3), 174-183.
5. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University (4th ed.). McGraw-hill education (UK).
6. 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/s10518-021-01289-5
7. Blackmore, 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.
8. 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.16-03-0125

9. Bravo, 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.2011.5773205
10. Bregger, 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.
11. 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_5
12. Charleson, 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.1943-5568.0000324
13. de 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/s10648-009-9098-7
14. Dener, A. (1994). The effect of popular culture on urban form in Istanbul. In The Urban Experience: A People-Environment Perspective, London: E. & F. Spon.
15. 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.x
16. Feld, 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.2017.03.002
17. Green, 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.x
18. Gulkan, P., Aschheim, M., & Spence, R. (2002). Reinforced concrete frame building with masonry infills. In World Housing Encyclopedia, Housing report (Vol. 64).
19. 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.
20. Hajhashemi, K., Caltabiano, N., & Anderson, N. (2016). Students’ perceptions and experiences towards the educational value of online videos. Australian Educational Computing, 31(2).
21. 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/s43017-023-00411-2
22. Iban, 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.2020.105104
23. Ibrahim, 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/10.1080/17439884.2011.585993
24. Iskander, M. (2007). Innovations in E-learning, instruction technology, assessment and engineering education. Springer Science & Business Media.
25. Ji, T., & Bell, A. (2000). Seeing and touching structural concepts in class teaching. 26–28.
26. 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.13031
27. Kelly, 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.2008.09.004
28. Kruger, 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.3084
29. López, D.L., Rodríguez, M.D., & Costas, S.G. (2022). Intuition and experimentation as teaching tools: Physical and interactive computational models. 9727–9734.
30. 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.
31. 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/10.1080/17452007.2020.1738995
32. Moreno, 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.1348
33. Musacchio, 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/s10518-015-9782-6
34. Napakan, W., Gu, N., Gul, L., & Williams, A. (2009). Nu Genesis: A Journal of Unique Designs in a Virtual Collaborative Design Studio, 257–265.
35. 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)
36. 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_06
37. Nuhfer, 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.x
38. Özmen, 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.2005.09.029
39. Partridge, H., Ponting, D., & McCay, M. (2011). Good practice report: Blended learning. Australian Learning and Teaching Council.
40. 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-z
41. Spence, 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/10.1080/0961321042000221043
42. Wang, N. (2022). Effective Video Solutions for Earth Science Education (Doctoral dissertation). University of Texas at Dallas, USA
43. Watson, J. (2008). Blended Learning: The convergence of online and face-to-face education. promising practices in online learning. North American Council for Online Learning.
44. 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.
45. 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.12165
46. Yakut, 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