Nagata, T. and Kimura, R.

Paper:Developing a Disaster Management Education
and Training Program for Children with Intellectual Disabilities
to Improve “Zest for Life” in the Event of a Disaster– A Case Study on Tochigi Prefectural Imaichi Special Schoolfor the Intellectually Disabled –Toshimitsu Nagata∗,† and Reo Kimura∗∗∗ Utsunomiya Local Meteorological Office, Meteorological Agency

1-4 Akebono-cho, Utsunomiya-shi, Tochigi 320-0845, Japan†
Corresponding author, E-mail: nagata@met.kishou.go.jp∗∗ Faculty and Graduate School of Human Science and Environment, University of Hyogo, Himeji, Japan[Received March 22, 2019; accepted October 24, 2019]

In this study, we first discuss the current status andissues of disaster management education in the context of special support education in Japan, in view of
the casualties of those with disabilities during major
past earthquakes in Japan. We highlight that there arevery few examples of practical implementation of, instructional material for, or previous studies on disastermanagement education for disabled children, or an established systematic instructional method. As a result,disaster management education tailored to the specific
type of disability has been implemented on a school-toschool basis among Special Support Schools for children with disabilities. In many cases, teacher-led evacuation drills have been considered disaster management education. This is an indication that the disaster management education currently practiced in Special Support Schools is inadequate to achieve the goalof “fostering the attitude of acting on one’s initiative”
as set forth by the Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). In view ofthe situation in Japan, where casualties due to natural disasters continue to occur frequently since theGreat East Japan Earthquake, it is urgent that we promote practical disaster management education to foster the Zest for Life among disabled children. This paper is a case study of disaster management educationthat targets those with intellectual disabilities, whichis the largest reported disability type among children
enrolled in Special Support Schools in Japan. We applied the ADDIE (Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, Evaluate) process in instructional design to develop an earthquake disaster management program
designed to heighten the capacity of disabled children
to foresee and circumvent danger to themselves, so as
to protect their lives from large earthquakes which occur frequently in Japan. Specifically, the objective is
to apply the earthquake disaster management education program, developed by the authors in a previous
study, to children with intellectual disabilities. To this20

end, we implemented the program at the target schooland verified its educational effect while taking into
consideration the degree or condition of disability andthe learning characteristics of the intellectually disabled and developed a valid program for intellectuallydisabled children. The program allows the teachers ofSpecial Support Schools to practice disaster management education in the context of daily classroom study
with students without the need to dispatch a disastermanagement expert to the school each time a programis implemented. Additionally, the program can be customized by the onsite teacher for individual schools,
which can lead to a systematic program in disastermanagement education. In addition, we propose aframework to establish a network of stakeholders, including disaster management experts or organizations
and educational institutions to effectively and strategically promote disaster management education. This
framework makes it possible to implement the present
program the most impactful way, and to maximize thebenefits to the schools in Tochigi prefecture.

Keywords: intellectual disability, special support education, disaster management education/training program, instructional design (ID), earthquake early warning(EEW)

1. Introduction
1.1. Need for Measures for the Disabled Based on
Lessons of Large-Scale Earthquakes in the
Past
Japan is an earthquake-prone country. On January 17,
1995, the Nanbu earthquake in Hyogo-prefecture reacheda maximum seismic intensity of the first time this level
was recorded since it was introduced in the earthquake
Journal of Disaster Research Vol.15 No.1, 2020

Developing a Disaster Management Education and Training Program for Children
with Intellectual Disabilities to Improve “Zest for Life” in the Event of a Disaster– A Case Study on Tochigi Prefectural Imaichi Special Schoolfor the Intellectually Disabled –intensity scale of the Japan Meteorological Agency.
Since its hypocenter was located directly beneath a large
metropolis, the earthquake caused immense human suffering, including 6,437 dead (about 90% of which werecaused by crushing) or missing persons, and 43,792 injured persons.
Subsequent to the Earthquake, several other intensity-7
earthquakes have occurred and caused extensive casualties, including the October 23, 2004, Chuetsu earthquake(68 dead, 4,805 injured), the March 11, 2011, earthquake
off the Pacific coast of Tōhoku (18,434 dead or missing,
6,157 injured), the April 14 and 16, 2016, Kumamoto
earthquake (267 dead, 2,804 injured), and the September 6, 2018, Hokkaido Eastern Iburi earthquake (43 dead,782 injured) [1].
Large-scale earthquakes are often accompanied bytsunamis or landslides in addition to the direct damage
caused by the earthquake. Various concerns have surfacedin the response actions of those persons requiring special
assistance following earthquakes in the past, such as theinability to protect oneself from sudden danger or to evacuate in time, or the loss of access to items necessary for
personal survival.
Following the Great East Japan Earthquake, which wasa disaster of unprecedented scale, the Disaster Countermeasures Basic Act (Law No.223, 1961) was amended tostrengthen the disaster management skills of persons requiring special assistance, such as the elderly, disabled,
and infants. Measures for the disabled include town development to make it more livable for the disabled, andvarious measures to support the safety and security ofthe disabled [2]. In response to the government-led measures, manuals on how to support the disabled during disasters have been developed by many local governments
and disability support organizations. However, the majority of these manuals focus on the evacuation of or support
measures for the disabled following disasters, and lack
proposals on concrete educational approaches or training
methods that would enable disabled people to recognize
the disaster, determine the appropriate response action, or
act to protect their physical safety, which tend to be thelargest concerns.
Thus, to assess large earthquakes that occurred in thepast and to prepare the disabled for future earthquakes,
it is necessary to implement “soft” measures so that thedisabled can develop the skills and capacity to respondto disasters through the acquisition of knowledge about
earthquakes and protect themselves from earthquakes.

1.2. Current Status and Issues of Disaster Management Education in Special Support Education
Following the Great East Japan Earthquake, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) adopted, as the direction for disaster management education, “the promotion of disaster management education to heighten the ability to foresee and circumvent danger to self,” based on the Expert Committee
on Disaster Management Education and Disaster ManJournal of Disaster Research Vol.15 No.1, 2020

agement in response to the Great East Japan Earthquake(Final Report) [3].
In the “Development of Disaster Management Education to Foster ‘Zest for Life,”’ [4] the instructional guideline for disaster management is set forth as, “to provide
instruction according to the curriculum for kindergarten,elementary school, junior high school, and senior highschool, and depending on the state of disability, development stage, characteristics, and local conditions of individual students.”
Furthermore, the “Safety Education at School to Foster‘Zest for Life”’ [5] also sets forth the guidelines to, “enable the student with disability to foresee and avoid dangerous places and situations themselves and seek assistance when necessary, depending on the state of disability,
development stage, characteristics and local conditions of
the student,” and calls for disaster management education
to foster the Zest for Life of students with disabilities.
Special Support Schools in Japan, which offer education for disabled children, practice their own unique disaster management education according to the type of disability based on MEXT guidelines or manuals.
Special Support Schools are schools established to offer disabled young people “education according to thecurriculum for kindergarten, elementary school, juniorhigh school, and senior high school,” and to help them to“overcome learning or living difficulties and develop selfreliance.” They are defined as “having the objective ofproviding education according to (the standard curriculafor) kindergarten, elementary school, junior high school,and senior high school to the visually impaired, hearing
impaired, intellectual disabled, physically disabled, andhealth impaired, and impart to them the necessary knowledge and skills that will enable them to overcome learning or living difficulties and develop self-reliance” (Article 72, Basic Act on Education). According to the figures
released by MEXT [6], there are 1,114 Special Support
Schools in Japan, with a total enrollment of 137,894 students. Visual impairment represents the smallest portionof the students (3.0%), then hearing impairment (4.5%),
intellectual disability (approximately 65.2%), physicaldisability (16.8%), and health impairment (10.5%). The
portion of students with intellectual disability is particularly high, making up over 60% of the total (Fig. 1).
Many Special Support Schools conduct earthquake andfire drills each year as part of school events [7] as parts ofspecific programs conducted for disaster management education, just as in regular schools. In these drills, the students passively engage in initial response actions, such as
wearing helmets or protective hoods or crouching underdesks as instructed or assisted by the teachers. Emphasis is placed on protecting the students from injury, andquickly and safely leading them to a temporary evacuation center regardless of the type, level, or condition of
disability. Through the repetition of such drills, the students develop the passive attitude that “teachers (adults)
will always protect us,” which obstructs the achievementof the stated goal of disaster management education thatone should act on one’s own initiative. This issue has been21

Nagata, T. and Kimura, R.

sŝƐƵĂůůǇŝŵƉĂŝƌĞĚ
,ĞĂůƚŚ/ŵƉĂŝƌŵĞŶƚ

ϯ͘Ϭй,ĞĂƌŝŶŐŝŵƉĂŝƌŵĞŶƚ

ϭϬ͘ϱй

ϰ͘ϱй

WŚǇƐŝĐĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚǇ

ϭϲ͘ϴй/ŶƚĞůůĞĐƚƵĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚǇ

ϲϱ͘Ϯй

Fig. 1. Number of disabled students enrolled in Special
Support Schools (MEXT).

raised in many previous studies, some examples of which
we will outline below.
Among previous studies on the self-understanding of
the disabled, Fujiwara [8] viewed it as a pedagogical issue, noting that “if the student depends on the teacher,the learning experience of making decisions and acting
on one’s own with intent is diluted,” and pointed out theneed for education that fosters the ability to think, decide,and express on one’s own. In another study, Kojima andKataoka [9] pointed out the issues of passive education,noting that they ideas “observed from the student’s behavior that they were unable to think, decide and express ontheir own, waiting for the teacher’s instruction when confronted with new learning material, or engaging in activities by looking at the teacher’s face when they lacked confidence in the activity.” Such studies also support the viewthat the disaster management education currently practiced in Special Support Schools is inadequate to achieve
the disaster management education goal to “foster the attitude to act on one’s initiative.”
As a study on disaster management education for thedisabled, Fujii and Matsumoto [10] conducted a questionnaire survey on disaster management education against
Special Support Schools. They pointed out the lack of
instructional materials or curricula to systematically practice disaster management education, such as teachingguides that target the students’ disability characteristics.
In another study, Wada et al. [11] discussed the importance of educational programs on disaster management ordisaster management learning in Special Support Schools
and pointed out the lack of concrete examples and proposals/research findings to systematize disaster management
education.
These issues point to the urgent need for proposals forpractical disaster management education in Special Support Education in Japan.

1.3. Objective of this Study
This study recognizes the urgency, based on the current status and issues of disaster management education
22in Special Support Education, to develop educational programs that helps to foster the Zest for Life among disabledchildren in order to prepare them for future earthquakes.
Therefore, this study proposes a disaster management education program to improve the response capacity of intellectually disabled children to foresee and avoid danger
to themselves.
This disaster management education program, which
focuses primarily on earthquakes, is designed to impartawareness so that learners can protect them selves fromthe effects of earthquake tremors or Earthquake Early
Warning (EEW) and respond by making decisions andtaking appropriate action, without anyone to provide assistance.
To apply this program to intellectually disabled children, it was redesigned using the ADDIE process of Instructional Design, which is a theory known in the fieldsof education, psychology, and educational technology;
it incorporates the characteristics of, and instructionalguidelines for, intellectual disability and adopts the learning objective “the awareness to act on one’s own.” Theprogram was then implemented to verify its validity bymeasuring its effect and having the teachers give their assessments.
One feature of the new developed program is that itallows the teachers of Special Support Schools to practice disaster management education in the context of dailyclassroom study with students without the need to send adisaster management expert to the school each time a program is implemented. In addition, it can be customized
for individual schools by the onsite teacher to meet specific disability levels or conditions, which can lead to future efforts to develop a systematic program in disastermanagement education.
We also propose a framework to establish a network of
stakeholders, including disaster management experts ororganizations and educational institutions in order to effectively and strategically promote disaster management
education.

2. Application of Earthquake Disaster Management Education Program to the Intellectual Disabled
2.1. Features of Earthquake Disaster Management
Education Program
The earthquake disaster management education program developed and improved by the authors [12, 13] is aset of instructional materials that will help teach students
to protect their lives from earthquakes, and has alreadybeen put to practical application. The program, which
consists of the teacher’s guide, worksheet, drill programfor EEW response action, and effect measurement sheets(earthquake questionnaire, drill review questionnaire), allows the onsite teacher to teach students to protect themselves from earthquakes in three steps.
The program was developed based on the ADDIE
Journal of Disaster Research Vol.15 No.1, 2020

Developing a Disaster Management Education and Training Program for Children
with Intellectual Disabilities to Improve “Zest for Life” in the Event of a Disaster– A Case Study on Tochigi Prefectural Imaichi Special Schoolfor the Intellectually Disabled –process, which is a core theory in Instructional Design(ID) [14].
ID is a learning theory used in education, psychology,
and educational technology. It is defined as a “model thatincorporates a variety of techniques and research on improving the effects, efficiency, and appeal of educational
activities, or their application in processes to realize alearning environment, such as instructional materials or
syllabuses” [15].
The five steps of Analyze → Design → Develop → Implement → Evaluate of the ADDIE model can be applied
to design or develop effective educational programs.
The basic flow of the process based on the ADDIE
model is as follows. (1) Analyze (analysis of the educational needs of intellectually disabled students, selection of program target(s), setting of learning objectives)→ (2) Design (design of syllabus applied to the intellectually disabled, discussion of implementation plan for target school, examination of learning method) → (3) Develop (development of teacher’s guide, worksheet, evaluation sheet, and auxiliary teaching material) → (4) Implement (program implementation at school) → (5) Evaluate(students’ self-evaluation, objective evaluation by teachers, review by teachers, effect measurements). The program was evaluated after one cycle, then the issues andproblems we identified were fed back to the individual
steps to make improvements.
To develop the new program, the ADDIE model wasused to evaluate students’ level of attainment and/or difficulty with the various learning methods and instructional
materials. This data was then fed back to researchers inorder to constantly improve the learning activities throughan iterative process. The goal of ID is that learners should
not stop at mental understanding of the situation, butshould continue on to action, as set out by the learning
objectives.
We repeated the steps of Implement (response action drill) and Evaluate (students’ self-evaluation, teachers’ objective evaluation, teachers’ review, effect measurement) in order to evaluate the students’ behavioral
changes after the response action drill using the Earthquake Early Warning, and we evaluated the educational
effects regarding the degree of learning and behavioral
changes of the learner due to program implementation inorder to verify the validity of the program.
Work for the individual processes was divided as follows: (1) Analyze was carried out by the authors, (2) Design and (3) Develop jointly by the authors and teachers,(4) Implement by the teachers, and (5) Evaluate by thestudents, teachers and authors.

2.2. Program Applied to the Intellectually Disabled
In this study, we examined how the earthquake disastermanagement education program, which had been developed for students without disability, could be adapted tobe applied to learning by intellectually disabled students.
The intellectually disabled are defined as “those inwhom disorders of the intellectual functions which appeared during the development stage (roughly to age 18)
Journal of Disaster Research Vol.15 No.1, 2020

hinder daily living and place them in a condition inwhich it is necessary to receive some form of special support” [16].
The learning characteristics of children with intellectual disabilities are such that “the knowledge or skills acquired through learning tend to be fragmented and are difficult to apply to real life situations. Because they haverelatively few experiences of success, there is a tendency
to insufficiently nurture their will to actively undertake activities” [17]. It is important for the educator to provide
instruction according to the actual conditions of the disability in order to develop the abilities of children withintellectual disabilities to think, decide, and express ideason their own. To achieve this, it is effective to incorporate
learning from the viewpoint of active learning into educational activities in a planned, structured manner, and implement them [18]. In order to create a disaster management education program that took into account the generallearning characteristics of the intellectual disabled, we iteratively applied the ADDIE process cycle to improve theprogram.

3. Trial Implementation of Earthquake Disaster Management Education Program
3.1. Design, Development, and Implementation of
Program
To effectively educate intellectually disabled children,the teacher must customize the learning method basedon the degree or condition of the students’ disability.
Since the applicability of the existing earthquake disaster management education program for intellectually disabled children had not been verified, we first implemented
the program on a trial basis at a target school to verify its
educational effect. The Tochigi prefectural Imaichi Special School, which the authors are supporting, was chosen
as the target school. It is a prefectural Special Support
School that provides education for students with intellectual disabilities. It consists of a kindergarten, elementary
school, junior high school, and senior high school, has anenrollment of 110 students and has a teaching staff of 65.
For program implementation at the target school, thelearning objective was set as “to acquire correct knowledge about earthquakes and Earthquake Early Warning
systems and to heighten response capacities to foreseeand circumvent danger to oneself when an earthquake orEarthquake Early Warning is recognized,” which are thesame objectives outlined in the existing program.
For the trial implementation of the existing program,
we held a meeting with the target school in which we
collaborated with the teachers to organize and analyze
the instructional method. From this meeting we definedseven key items for program design. 1) Students who arefrightened by the Earthquake Early Warning chime must
be instructed carefully so that they will gradually cometo accept the sound; 2) Provide instruction by posting
the illustration (action to protect self) in the worksheet
23

Nagata, T. and Kimura, R.

㻯㼛㼚㼠㼑㼚㼠㼟㻌㼛㼒㻌㻼㼞㼛㼓㼞㼍㼙㼟㻯㼛㼚㼠㼑㼚㼠㼟㻌㻱㼍㼞㼠㼔㼝㼡㼍㼗㼑㻌㻽㼡㼑㼟㼠㼕㼛㼚㼚㼍㼕㼞㼑㻌䐟㻱㼒㼒㼑㼏㼠㼕㼢㼑㼚㼑㼟㼟㻌㻹㼑㼍㼟㼡㼞㼑㼙㼑㼚㼠㻌㻝㻝㻱㼍㼞㼠㼔㼝㼡㼍㼗㼑㻌㻸㼑㼍㼞㼚㼕㼚㼓㻌䐟䠄㻱㼢㼑㼞㼥㻌㼟㼏㼔㼛㼛㼘㻌㼥㼑㼍㼞䠅㻼㼞㼍㼏㼠㼕㼏㼑㻌㼛㼒㻌㻯㼘㼍㼟㼟䐟㻞㻰㼕㼟㼍㼟㼠㼑㼞㻌㻾㼑㼟㼜㼛㼚㼟㼑㻌㻱㼤㼑㼞㼏㼕㼟㼑㻌㼒㼛㼞㻌㻱㼍㼞㼠㼔㼝㼡㼍㼗㼑㻌㻱㼍㼞㼘㼥㻌㼃㼍㼞㼚㼕㼚㼓㻌䐟䠄㼍㼚㼚㼛㼡㼚㼏㼑䠅㻰㼕㼟㼍㼟㼠㼑㼞㻌㻾㼑㼟㼜㼛㼚㼟㼑㻌㻱㼤㼑㼞㼏㼕㼟㼑㻟㻱㼍㼞㼠㼔㼝㼡㼍㼗㼑㻌㻽㼡㼑㼟㼠㼕㼛㼚㼚㼍㼕㼞㼑㻌䐠㻱㼒㼒㼑㼏㼠㼕㼢㼑㼚㼑㼟㼟㻌㻹㼑㼍㼟㼡㼞㼑㼙㼑㼚㼠㻌㻝㻠㼀㼞㼍㼕㼚㼕㼚㼓㻌㻾㼑㼒㼘㼑㼏㼠㼕㼛㼚㻌㻽㼡㼑㼟㼠㼕㼛㼚㼚㼍㼕㼞㼑㻌䐟㻱㼒㼒㼑㼏㼠㼕㼢㼑㼚㼑㼟㼟㻌㻹㼑㼍㼟㼡㼞㼑㼙㼑㼚㼠㻌㻞㻡㻢 㻰㼕㼟㼍㼟㼠㼑㼞㻌㻾㼑㼟㼜㼛㼚㼟㼑㻌㻱㼤㼑㼞㼏㼕㼟㼑㻌㼒㼛㼞㻌㻱㼍㼞㼠㼔㼝㼡㼍㼗㼑㻌㻱㼍㼞㼘㼥㻌㼃㼍㼞㼚㼕㼚㼓㻌䐠䠄㼁㼚㼍㼚㼚㼛㼡㼚㼏㼑㼐䠅 㻰㼕㼟㼍㼟㼠㼑㼞㻌㻾㼑㼟㼜㼛㼚㼟㼑㻌㻱㼤㼑㼞㼏㼕㼟㼑㻱㼍㼞㼠㼔㼝㼡㼍㼗㼑㻌㻽㼡㼑㼟㼠㼕㼛㼚㼚㼍㼕㼞㼑㻌䐡㻱㼒㼒㼑㼏㼠㼕㼢㼑㼚㼑㼟㼟㻌㻹㼑㼍㼟㼡㼞㼑㼙㼑㼚㼠㻌㻝㻣㼀㼞㼍㼕㼚㼕㼚㼓㻌㻾㼑㼒㼘㼑㼏㼠㼕㼛㼚㻌㻽㼡㼑㼟㼠㼕㼛㼚㼚㼍㼕㼞㼑㻌䐠㻱㼒㼒㼑㼏㼠㼕㼢㼑㼚㼑㼟㼟㻌㻹㼑㼍㼟㼡㼞㼑㼙㼑㼚㼠㻌㻞㻤㻥 㻰㼕㼟㼍㼟㼠㼑㼞㻌㻾㼑㼟㼜㼛㼚㼟㼑㻌㻱㼤㼑㼞㼏㼕㼟㼑㻌㼒㼛㼞㻌㻱㼍㼞㼠㼔㼝㼡㼍㼗㼑㻌㻱㼍㼞㼘㼥㻌㼃㼍㼞㼚㼕㼚㼓㻌䐡䠄㼁㼚㼍㼚㼚㼛㼡㼚㼏㼑㼐䠅 㻰㼕㼟㼍㼟㼠㼑㼞㻌㻾㼑㼟㼜㼛㼚㼟㼑㻌㻱㼤㼑㼞㼏㼕㼟㼑㻱㼍㼞㼠㼔㼝㼡㼍㼗㼑㻌㻽㼡㼑㼟㼠㼕㼛㼚㼚㼍㼕㼞㼑㻌䐢㻱㼒㼒㼑㼏㼠㼕㼢㼑㼚㼑㼟㼟㻌㻹㼑㼍㼟㼡㼞㼑㼙㼑㼚㼠㻌㻝㻝㻜㼀㼞㼍㼕㼚㼕㼚㼓㻌㻾㼑㼒㼘㼑㼏㼠㼕㼛㼚㻌㻽㼡㼑㼟㼠㼕㼛㼚㼚㼍㼕㼞㼑㻌䐡㻱㼒㼒㼑㼏㼠㼕㼢㼑㼚㼑㼟㼟㻌㻹㼑㼍㼟㼡㼞㼑㼙㼑㼚㼠㻌㻞㻝㻝㻱㼍㼞㼠㼔㼝㼡㼍㼗㼑㻌㻸㼑㼍㼞㼚㼕㼚㼓㻌䐠䠄㻼㼑㼞㻌㼏㼘㼍㼟㼟䠅㻼㼞㼍㼏㼠㼕㼏㼑㻌㼛㼒㻌㻯㼘㼍㼟㼟䐠㻝㻞㻝㻟 㻰㼕㼟㼍㼟㼠㼑㼞㻌㻾㼑㼟㼜㼛㼚㼟㼑㻌㻱㼤㼑㼞㼏㼕㼟㼑㻌㼒㼛㼞㻌㻱㼍㼞㼠㼔㼝㼡㼍㼗㼑㻌㻱㼍㼞㼘㼥㻌㼃㼍㼞㼚㼕㼚㼓㻌䐢䠄㼁㼚㼍㼚㼚㼛㼡㼚㼏㼑㼐䠅 㻰㼕㼟㼍㼟㼠㼑㼞㻌㻾㼑㼟㼜㼛㼚㼟㼑㻌㻱㼤㼑㼞㼏㼕㼟㼑㻱㼍㼞㼠㼔㼝㼡㼍㼗㼑㻌㻽㼡㼑㼟㼠㼕㼛㼚㼚㼍㼕㼞㼑㻌䐣㻱㼒㼒㼑㼏㼠㼕㼢㼑㼚㼑㼟㼟㻌㻹㼑㼍㼟㼡㼞㼑㼙㼑㼚㼠㻌㻝㻝㻠㼀㼞㼍㼕㼚㼕㼚㼓㻌㻾㼑㼒㼘㼑㼏㼠㼕㼛㼚㻌㻽㼡㼑㼟㼠㼕㼛㼚㼚㼍㼕㼞㼑㻌䐢㻱㼒㼒㼑㼏㼠㼕㼢㼑㼚㼑㼟㼟㻌㻹㼑㼍㼟㼡㼞㼑㼙㼑㼚㼠㻌㻞㻝㻡㻝㻟 㻰㼕㼟㼍㼟㼠㼑㼞㻌㻾㼑㼟㼜㼛㼚㼟㼑㻌㻱㼤㼑㼞㼏㼕㼟㼑㻌㼒㼛㼞㻌㻱㼍㼞㼠㼔㼝㼡㼍㼗㼑㻌㻱㼍㼞㼘㼥㻌㼃㼍㼞㼚㼕㼚㼓㻌䐣䠄㼁㼚㼍㼚㼚㼛㼡㼚㼏㼑㼐䠅 㻰㼕㼟㼍㼟㼠㼑㼞㻌㻾㼑㼟㼜㼛㼚㼟㼑㻌㻱㼤㼑㼞㼏㼕㼟㼑㻱㼍㼞㼠㼔㼝㼡㼍㼗㼑㻌㻽㼡㼑㼟㼠㼕㼛㼚㼚㼍㼕㼞㼑㻌䐤㻱㼒㼒㼑㼏㼠㼕㼢㼑㼚㼑㼟㼟㻌㻹㼑㼍㼟㼡㼞㼑㼙㼑㼚㼠㻌㻝㻝㻠㼀㼞㼍㼕㼚㼕㼚㼓㻌㻾㼑㼒㼘㼑㼏㼠㼕㼛㼚㻌㻽㼡㼑㼟㼠㼕㼛㼚㼚㼍㼕㼞㼑㻌䐣㻱㼒㼒㼑㼏㼠㼕㼢㼑㼚㼑㼟㼟㻌㻹㼑㼍㼟㼡㼞㼑㼙㼑㼚㼠㻌㻞㻝㻡㻝㻢 㻰㼕㼟㼍㼟㼠㼑㼞㻌㻾㼑㼟㼜㼛㼚㼟㼑㻌㻱㼤㼑㼞㼏㼕㼟㼑㻌㼒㼛㼞㻌㻱㼍㼞㼠㼔㼝㼡㼍㼗㼑㻌㻱㼍㼞㼘㼥㻌㼃㼍㼞㼚㼕㼚㼓㻌䐤䠄㼁㼚㼍㼚㼚㼛㼡㼚㼏㼑㼐䠅 㻰㼕㼟㼍㼟㼠㼑㼞㻌㻾㼑㼟㼜㼛㼚㼟㼑㻌㻱㼤㼑㼞㼏㼕㼟㼑㻱㼍㼞㼠㼔㼝㼡㼍㼗㼑㻌㻽㼡㼑㼟㼠㼕㼛㼚㼚㼍㼕㼞㼑㻌䐥㻱㼒㼒㼑㼏㼠㼕㼢㼑㼚㼑㼟㼟㻌㻹㼑㼍㼟㼡㼞㼑㼙㼑㼚㼠㻌㻝㻝㻣㼀㼞㼍㼕㼚㼕㼚㼓㻌㻾㼑㼒㼘㼑㼏㼠㼕㼛㼚㻌㻽㼡㼑㼟㼠㼕㼛㼚㼚㼍㼕㼞㼑㻌䐤㻱㼒㼒㼑㼏㼠㼕㼢㼑㼚㼑㼟㼟㻌㻹㼑㼍㼟㼡㼞㼑㼙㼑㼚㼠㻌㻞㻝㻤㻵㼙㼜㼘㼑㼙㼑㼚㼠㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㻌㼐㼍㼠㼑㻿㼑㼜㼠㼑㼙㼎㼑㼞㻌㻣㻘㻌㻞㻜㻝㻣㻿㼑㼜㼠㼑㼙㼎㼑㼞㻌㻤㻘㻌㻞㻜㻝㻣㻿㼑㼜㼠㼑㼙㼎㼑㼞㻌㻤㻘㻌㻞㻜㻝㻣㻿㼑㼜㼠㼑㼙㼎㼑㼞㻌㻤㻘㻌㻞㻜㻝㻣㻿㼑㼜㼠㼑㼙㼎㼑㼞㻌㻤㻘㻌㻞㻜㻝㻣㻿㼑㼜㼠㼑㼙㼎㼑㼞㻌㻝㻥㻘㻌㻞㻜㻝㻣㻿㼑㼜㼠㼑㼙㼎㼑㼞㻌㻝㻥㻘㻌㻞㻜㻝㻣㻿㼑㼜㼠㼑㼙㼎㼑㼞㻌㻝㻥㻘㻌㻞㻜㻝㻣㻻㼏㼠㼛㼎㼑㼞㻌㻞㻡㻘㻌㻞㻜㻝㻣㻻㼏㼠㼛㼎㼑㼞㻌㻞㻡㻘㻌㻞㻜㻝㻣㻻㼏㼠㼛㼎㼑㼞㻌㻞㻡㻘㻌㻞㻜㻝㻣㻺㼛㼢㼑㼙㼎㼑㼞㻌㻟㻜㻘㻌㻞㻜㻝㻣㻺㼛㼢㼑㼙㼎㼑㼞㻌㻟㻜㻘㻌㻞㻜㻝㻣㻺㼛㼢㼑㼙㼎㼑㼞㻌㻟㻜㻘㻌㻞㻜㻝㻣㻺㼛㼢㼑㼙㼎㼑㼞㻌㻟㻜㻘㻌㻞㻜㻝㻣㻶㼍㼚㼡㼍㼞㼥㻌㻝㻡㻘㻌㻞㻜㻝㻤㻶㼍㼚㼡㼍㼞㼥㻌㻝㻡㻘㻌㻞㻜㻝㻤㻶㼍㼚㼡㼍㼞㼥㻌㻝㻡㻘㻌㻞㻜㻝㻤㻲㼑㼎㼞㼡㼍㼞㼥㻌㻣㻘㻌㻞㻜㻝㻤㻲㼑㼎㼞㼡㼍㼞㼥㻌㻣㻘㻌㻞㻜㻝㻤㻲㼑㼎㼞㼡㼍㼞㼥㻌㻣㻘㻌㻞㻜㻝㻤

Fig. 2. Dates when programs were implemented at Special Support Schools.

on the blackboard in order to help the students understand the response action; 3) Provide instruction where
the teacher demonstrates the response action and havethe students mimic the actions; 4) Provide instruction inwhich the teacher takes his/her class to various locationsin the school, where the students are encouraged to thinkof what kind of response actions to take; 5) Provide instruction in which the students are given opportunities toexpress their views in the learning situation; 6) In the review session following the response action drill, carefully
review the students’ behavior to increase the number ofsuccess experiences; 7) In the classroom instruction for
those with mild disabilities, attempt to deliver instruction
according to the existing program.
While observing these key items, the program learning(Earthquake Learning) and response action drill (Earthquake Early Warning Response Action Drill) were carried out on a trial basis, and the educational effects were
evaluated from effect measurement 1 (Earthquake questionnaire), which we issued prior to the drill, and effectmeasurement 2 (Drill review questionnaire), carried out
after the drill. The specific implementation contents, objectives and dates are show in Fig. 2, and are describedlater in detail in Section 4.1.

3.2. Method of Evaluation of Program
To evaluate the educational effects of the earthquake
disaster management education program, questionnaire
sheets were distributed to the students with intellectual disabilities to measure to what extent the learning
objectives were achieved based on the students’ selfevaluation. To measure the effects of an educational program, R. M. Gagne [19], an ID pioneer, has stated that“program evaluation must be expressed by evaluation of24

the learner’s performance.” In previous studies, the validity of educational programs has been discussed using effect measurements by Shimano et al. [20], Kimura
et al. [21], and Nagata and Kimura [13, 22].
We evaluated the efficacy of the program using two
quantitative measurements: effect measurement 1 (acquisition of knowledge and skills) and effect measurement 2(mastering of skills).
In effect measurement 1, we set eight questions that
corresponded to the learning objectives of the earthquake
disaster management education program, and used theseto obtain three-level quantitative self-evaluations of thedegree of accomplishment of learning. We used the question sheet (Earthquake Questionnaire), developed for thisstudy. The effects were measured seven times in the process of program implementation and evaluation.
Questions 1–4 evaluate the level of knowledge onearthquake phenomena and Earthquake Early Warning
gained through implementation of the program (acquisition of knowledge). The four questions are “1. Do you
know what kind of things happen when an earthquake occurs?,” “2. Do you know what to do when an earthquake
occurs?,” “3. Do you know what happens when you hearan Earthquake Early Warning sound?,” and “4. Do you
know what to do when you hear an Earthquake Early
Warning sound?” The learner’s self-evaluation is basedon three levels: “3. I know, 2. I know a little, and 1. I do
not know.”
Items 5–8 of the questionnaire survey are statementsthat evaluate the level of correct understanding of the response actions one should take when an earthquake occurs
or when an Earthquake Early Warning is sounded (acquisition of skills). The four statements are “5. It is dangerous It is better to place this here. This version is clearer

Journal of Disaster Research Vol.15 No.1, 2020

Developing a Disaster Management Education and Training Program for Children
with Intellectual Disabilities to Improve “Zest for Life” in the Event of a Disaster– A Case Study on Tochigi Prefectural Imaichi Special Schoolfor the Intellectually Disabled –and more concise. when an earthquake occurs;” “6. Whenan earthquake occurs or one hears an Earthquake Early
Warning, one must drop low, cover the head and body,and remain still until the shaking ceases;” “7. One must
quickly move to a safe place and protect oneself when one
hears an Earthquake Early Warning;” and “8. When one
feels the shaking of an earthquake or hears an Earthquake
Early Warning, one must think for oneself to protect oneself.” The learner provides a self-evaluation by choosing
from three levels: “3. I think so, 2. I think so a little, and
1. I do not think so.” The self-evaluations obtained fromthese eight questions were used to evaluate the program.
Meanwhile, we analyzed effect measurement 2 by having the students give quantitative self-evaluations about
the extent to which they “acquired or mastered the awareness to act on one’s own initiative,” (evaluation of skills)
which is the learning objective of the Earthquake Early
Warning response action drill after program implementation. We used the question sheet (Drill review questionnaire) developed for this study to evaluate effect measurement. Six measurement sets were taken in the process ofprogram implementation and evaluation.
The questions consisted of three items: “1. Were youable to listen to the Earthquake Early Warning chimeor broadcast message quietly?,” “2. Were you able tothink about how to act when you heard the chime?,” and“3. Were you able to think and act by yourself to protect
yourself from the earthquake?” Reflecting back on the response action drill, the learner gives a self-evaluation bychoosing from three levels: “3. I could do it, 2. I could do
it a little, and 1. I could not do it.” The self-evaluations
obtained from these three questions were used to evaluate
the program.
In the authors’ previous study, with students without
disability, the effect measurement employed a five-levelinterval scale of the degree of accomplishment of thelearning objective (5. I know well, 4. I know a little, 3. I
can not tell either, 2. I slightly do not know, 1. I do notknow). In the present study, however, we anticipated thatstudents with intellectual disabilities would find it difficult to make the distinctions between five levels. Basedon the request from teachers “to convert the scale to threelevels without changing the interval, since intellectuallydisabled students find it difficult to distinguish between
the five levels of the evaluation scale when answering thequestions,” levels 4 and 2 were omitted from the five-level
scale, and a three-level scale consisting of 5, 3, and 1,
without changing the intervals, was adopted to determine
the averages.
Furthermore, upon conferring with the target school,
we decided to measure the effects on junior and seniorhigh-school students with relatively mild intellectual disabilities, i.e., those with B1 and B2 intellectual disability classifications. The classification of intellectual disability used here is determined from measured IQs, basic lifestyle habits, and problem behaviors, and based on
which Disability Certificate Passes are issued. In Tochigi
prefecture, where the target school is located, disability is classified into four levels: A1 (most severe, IQ of
Journal of Disaster Research Vol.15 No.1, 2020

roughly 20 or less), A2 (severe, IQ in rough range of 21–35), B1 (moderate, IQ in rough range of 36–50), and B2(mild, IQ in rough range of 51–70) [23].

3.3. Program Implementation and Evaluation
To verify the educational effects of the program, effect measurement 1 (based on the Earthquake Questionnaire) was conducted in advance of the program (September 7, 2017) and following the first response action drill(September 8, 2017), for which prior notification had been
given to the students. The paired t test was used for statistical analysis (Fig. 3). The junior and senior high-school
students with intellectual disability classifications of B1
and B2 were the subjects (n = 51) of analysis.
The analysis results for questions 1–4 yielded scorechanges of 3.82 (before) to 4.53 (after) for “1. Do you
know what kind of things happen when an earthquake occurs?” 4.18 to 4.33 for “2. Do you know what to do when
an earthquake occurs?” 3.75 to 4.25 for “3. Do you knowwhat happens when you hear an Earthquake Early Warning sound?” and 3.47 to 4.14 for “4. Do you know what to
do when you hear an Earthquake Early Warning sound?”The scores were higher after program implementation for
all four items, which indicates an increase in the numberof those who answered affirmatively (“yes”). Analysis using the paired t test showed that the before and after scoresof question items 1 and 4 displayed 1-percent level statistically significant differences while those for question
item 3 displayed a 5-percent level difference. Meanwhile,no statistically significant difference was found for thoseof question item 2.
The analysis results for items 5–8 yielded scorechanges of 4.45 (before) to 4.69 (after) for “5. It is dangerous to be in a location where an object can drop, falldown, or move when an earthquake occurs;” 4.41 to 4.69
for “6. When an earthquake occurs or one hears an Earthquake Early Warning, one must drop low, cover the headand body, and remain still until the shaking ceases;” 4.29
to 4.22 for “7. One must quickly move to a safe place
and protect oneself when one hears an Earthquake Early
Warning;” and 4.33 to 4.37 for “8. When one feels theshaking of an earthquake or hears an Earthquake Early
Warning, one must think for oneself to protect oneself.”
While the pre-implementation scores for these four items
were high to begin with, some items displayed further increased scores after implementation. Analysis using thepaired t test revealed a statistically significant differenceat the 1-percent level between the before and after scoresof question item 6, while no significant difference wasfound for the other three items. Thus, the analysis resultsof effect measurement 1 found 4.0 or higher scores of thedegree of accomplishment of the learning objective for all
eight items, which confirmed the enhanced educational
effect and program validity with regard to acquisition ofknowledge due to program implementation.
Next, to verify the degree of skill mastery due to the
response action drill, effect measurement 2 (based on the
Drill Review Questionnaire) was conducted after the first25

Nagata, T. and Kimura, R.

8QGHUVWDQGLQJRIGLVDVWHUUHVSRQVH'HJUHHRINQRZOHGJHĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞYƵĞƐƚŝŽŶŶĂŝƌĞ䐟
;^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϳ͕ϮϬϭϳͿ
ĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞYƵĞƐƚŝŽŶŶĂŝƌĞ䐠
;^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϴ͕ϮϬϭϳͿ

䛆ŽƌƌĞƐƉŽŶĚŝŶŐƚͲƚĞƐƚ䛇ΎΎ͗ƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶĐĞĂƚϭйƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚ͕Ύ͗ƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶĐĞĂƚϱйƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚ
/ŬŶŽǁĂůŝƚƚůĞ

/ĚŽŶ͛ƚŬŶŽǁϭ͘ŽǇŽƵŬŶŽǁǁŚĂƚŬŝŶĚŽĨƚŚŝŶŐƐŚĂƉƉĞŶǁŚĞŶĂŶĞĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞŽĐĐƵƌƐ͍

ƚ;ϱϬͿсϰ͘ϴ͕Ɖф͘ϬϭϮ͘ŽǇŽƵŬŶŽǁǁŚĂƚƚŽĚŽǁŚĞŶĂŶĞĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞŽĐĐƵƌƐ͍

ƚ;ϱϬͿсϭ͘ϭ͕Ŷ͘Ɛ͘ϯ͘ŽǇŽƵŬŶŽǁǁŚĂƚŚĂƉƉĞŶƐǁŚĞŶǇŽƵŚĞĂƌĂŶĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞĂƌůǇtĂƌŶŝŶŐƐŽƵŶĚ͍

ƚ;ϱϬͿсϮ͘Ϯ͕Ɖф͘Ϭϱϰ͘ŽǇŽƵŬŶŽǁǁŚĂƚƚŽĚŽǁŚĞŶǇŽƵŚĞĂƌĂŶĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞĂƌůǇtĂƌŶŝŶŐƐŽƵŶĚ͍

ƚ;ϱϬͿсϰ͘Ϭ͕Ɖф͘Ϭϭϱ͘/ƚŝƐĚĂŶŐĞƌŽƵƐƚŽďĞŝŶĂůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶǁŚĞƌĞĂŶŽďũĞĐƚĐĂŶĚƌŽƉ͕ĨĂůůĚŽǁŶ͕ŽƌŵŽǀĞǁŚĞŶĂŶĞĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞŽĐĐƵƌƐ͘ϲ͘tŚĞŶĂŶĞĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞŽĐĐƵƌƐŽƌŽŶĞŚĞĂƌƐĂŶĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞĂƌůǇtĂƌŶŝŶŐ͕ŽŶĞŵƵƐƚĚƌŽƉůŽǁ͕ĐŽǀĞƌƚŚĞŚĞĂĚĂŶĚďŽĚǇ͕ĂŶĚƌĞŵĂŝŶƐƚŝůůƵŶƚŝůƚŚĞƐŚĂŬŝŶŐĐĞĂƐĞƐ͘;/ŶĐŽƌƌĞĐƚŶƐǁĞƌͿ

ΎΎ

㻟㻚㻤㻞㻌

㻠㻚㻡㻟㻌
㻠㻚㻝㻤㻌
㻠㻚㻟㻟㻌

Ŷ͘Ɛ͘

Ύ

㻟㻚㻣㻡㻌
㻠㻚㻞㻡㻌

ΎΎ

㻟㻚㻠㻣㻌
㻠㻚㻝㻠㻌

ƚ;ϱϬͿсϭ͘ϱ͕Ŷ͘Ɛ͘㻠㻚㻠㻡㻌 Ŷ͘Ɛ͘㻠㻚㻢㻥㻌

ƚ;ϱϬͿсϮ͘ϴ͕Ɖф͘Ϭϭ㻠㻚㻠㻝㻌 ΎΎ㻠㻚㻢㻥㻌ϳ͘KŶĞŵƵƐƚƋƵŝĐŬůǇŵŽǀĞƚŽĂƐĂĨĞƉůĂĐĞĂŶĚƉƌŽƚĞĐƚŽŶĞƐĞůĨǁŚĞŶŽŶĞŚĞĂƌƐĂŶƚ;ϱϬͿсͲϬ͘ϰ͕Ŷ͘Ɛ͘ĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞĂƌůǇtĂƌŶŝŶŐ͘ϴ͘tŚĞŶŽŶĞĨĞĞůƐƚŚĞƐŚĂŬŝŶŐŽĨĂŶĞĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞŽƌŚĞĂƌƐĂŶĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞĂƌůǇtĂƌŶŝŶŐ͕ŽŶĞŵƵƐƚ
ƚ;ϱϬͿсϬ͘Ϯ͕Ŷ͘Ɛ͘ƚŚŝŶŬĨŽƌŽŶĞƐĞůĨƚŽƉƌŽƚĞĐƚŽŶĞƐĞůĨ͘/ĚŽŶ͛ƚƚŚŝŶŬƐŽ㻺㻩㻡㻝/ŬŶŽǁ

㻠㻚㻞㻥㻌
㻠㻚㻞㻞㻌

Ŷ͘Ɛ͘

㻠㻚㻟㻟㻌 Ŷ͘Ɛ͘㻠㻚㻟㻣㻌/ƚŚŝŶŬƐŽĂůŝƚƚůĞ

/ƚŚŝŶŬƐŽ
;ŽƌƌĞĐƚŶƐǁĞƌͿ

Fig. 3. Effectiveness measurement 1 of earthquake disaster management education programs (degree of disability B1 and B2).

and second response action drills (September 8 and 19,
2017, respectively). The paired t test was used for statistical analysis (Fig. 4). The subjects (n = 51) were the sameas in effect measurement 1.
The analysis results yielded score changes of 4.45 (postfirst drill) to 4.84 (post second drill) for “1. Were you able
to listen to the Earthquake Early Warning chime or broadcast message quietly?,” 3.90 to 4.76 for “2. Were you able
to think about how to act when you heard the chime?,”and 4.02 to 4.80 for “3. Were you able to think and act by
yourself to protect yourself from the earthquake?” Analysis using the paired t test revealed statistically significant
differences at the 1-percent level between the two scoresin all items. As shown by the dramatic increase of scoresfor question items 2 and 3, the results of effect measurement 2 confirm that the “mastery of skills to protect oneself” was enhanced by program implementation.
The results of the two effect measurements demonstratethat the students’ knowledge of earthquakes and Earthquake Early Warning and their understanding of concrete
actions to take after an Earthquake Early Warning were
improved by implementing this program. Furthermore,they learned through the drills to think for themselves
and protect themselves. While the results confirmed thevalidity of the program, in addition to the fact that thestudents were given advance notice before the first drill,some scores suggested that there was room for further enhancement of the educational effects. For example, stu26

dents did not always understand that the protective actions
following an Earthquake Early Warning and those following an actual earthquake were different or that their insufficient understanding of the need to recognize the Earthquake Early Warning and think for themselves to take protective actions was a real danger. Such findings pointed to
the need to further improve or adjust the program.

4. Development and Implementation of Final
Program
4.1. Program Improvement and Adjustments
Through trial implementation and verification, we
demonstrated that the existing earthquake disaster management education program requires further improvements to enhance the educational effects among intellectually disabled children. To this end, we organized themethod of instruction and key points of instruction as follows.
Some key points for elementary school students are:1) to help them understand the equivalence of an Earthquake Early Warning and earthquake in the learning context of instilling an understanding of the connection between an Earthquake Early Warning chime and an earthquake phenomenon. It will be necessary to gradually acclimate those students who are easily frightened by sound
Journal of Disaster Research Vol.15 No.1, 2020

Developing a Disaster Management Education and Training Program for Children
with Intellectual Disabilities to Improve “Zest for Life” in the Event of a Disaster– A Case Study on Tochigi Prefectural Imaichi Special Schoolfor the Intellectually Disabled –ŝƐĂƐƚĞƌZĞƐƉŽŶƐĞǆĞƌĐŝƐĞĨŽƌĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞĂƌůǇtĂƌŶŝŶŐ䐟
;^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϴ͕ϮϬϭϳͿ
ŝƐĂƐƚĞƌZĞƐƉŽŶƐĞǆĞƌĐŝƐĞĨŽƌĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞĂƌůǇtĂƌŶŝŶŐ䐠
;^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϭϵ͕ϮϬϭϳͿ

䛆ŽƌƌĞƐƉŽŶĚŝŶŐƚͲƚĞƐƚ䛇ΎΎ͗ƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶĐĞĂƚϭйƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚ͕Ύ͗ƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶĐĞĂƚϱйƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚ

/ĐŽƵůĚŶŽƚĚŽŝƚϭ͘ŽƵůĚǇŽƵŚĞĂƌƚŚĞƐŽƵŶĚŽĨĐŚŝŵĞĂŶĚďƌŽĂĚĐĂƐƚŝŶŐŽĨƚŚĞĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞĂƌůǇtĂƌŶŝŶŐƋƵŝĞƚůǇ͍

ƚ;ϱϬͿсϯ͘ϭ͕Ɖф͘Ϭϭ
㻠㻚㻠㻡㻌

㻟㻚㻥㻜㻌

ΎΎ
㻠㻚㻣㻢㻌

ƚ;ϱϬͿсϰ͘ϵ͕Ɖф͘Ϭϭϯ͘ŽƵůĚǇŽƵƚŚŝŶŬĂďŽƵƚǇŽƵƌƐĞůĨĂŶĚĂĐƚĞĚƚŽƉƌŽƚĞĐƚǇŽƵƌƐĞůĨĨƌŽŵƚŚĞĞĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞǁŝƚŚŽƵƚŚĞƐŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ͍/ĐŽƵůĚŶŽƚĚŽŝƚ

ΎΎ
㻠㻚㻤㻠㻌

ƚ;ϱϬͿсϱ͘ϳ͕Ɖф͘ϬϭϮ͘ŽƵůĚǇŽƵƚŚŝŶŬĂďŽƵƚǁŚĂƚƚŽĚŽďǇǇŽƵƌƐĞůĨǁŚĞŶŚĞĂƌŝŶŐƚŚĞĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞĂƌůǇtĂƌŶŝŶŐĐŚŝŵĞƋƵŝĞƚůǇ͍㻺㻩㻡㻝/ĐŽƵůĚĚŽŝƚ/ĐŽƵůĚĚŽŝƚĂůŝƚƚůĞ

㻠㻚㻜㻞㻌

ΎΎ
㻠㻚㻤㻜㻌

/ĐŽƵůĚĚŽŝƚĂůŝƚƚůĞ

/ĐŽƵůĚĚŽŝƚ

Fig. 4. Effectiveness measurement 2 of earthquake disaster management education programs (degree of disability B1 and B2).

through repetition of the experience. Teachers should use
illustrations and video footage or noisily shake desks sothat students can have some sense of earthquakes; 2) As
part of the learning process to enforce basic response actions when they recognize an Earthquake Early Warning,teachers should provide a setting that allows the students
to decide what action to take when they recognize thesound in the classroom. Ingrain the action by having themfollow other students’ actions, or the teacher who actswith them to demonstrate model behavior; 3) Encourage
the students to act on their own even in the absence ofthe teacher’s instruction or assistance; and 4) To enhance
understanding during a post-drill review, students should
discuss the actions of classmates who were close by andreflect on their own behavior.
While learning based on the existing earthquake disaster management education program was satisfactory forsome classes of the junior and senior high-schools, we
identified two key items in addition to those for the elementary school students for those classes with greater degrees of disability: 1) In order to ensure that students havean accurate grasp of what can happen during an earthquake, make sure they understand that, in addition to theshaking, objects can drop or fall on them, or move toward
them; and 2) Teachers should carry out learning in which
the students carefully reflect on their behavior at various
physical locations in school and think about whether theactions they took were correct.
While those students with severe intellectual disability
will require the same type and level of instruction as the

Journal of Disaster Research Vol.15 No.1, 2020

elementary school, it will be necessary, when the student
cannot make decisions on his or her own, to carefully repeat instructions to instill what they are learning based on
an awareness and action, such as accepting the teacher’s
support and acting with the teacher.
Based on these discussions, and the trial implementation and verification at the target school, the final program was developed through the incorporation of improvements and adjustments in the instructional material,
which consisted of two types of teacher’s guides according to the degree of disability and developmental stage(Fig. 5), worksheets (Fig. 6), slides to assist classroom
lectures (Fig. 7), and training videos through which thestudent can visually learn the response action (Fig. 8).

4.2. Implementation and Evaluation of Improved
ProgramTo evaluate the educational effects of the program
which had been customized for intellectually disabled students, we carried out effect measurement 1 before the second program learning (November 30, 2017) and after the
fourth response action drill (November 30, 2017). The
paired t-test was used for statistical analysis (Fig. 9). The
analysis subjects (n = 51) were the same as the targetsof the effect measurement carried out in Section 3. The
response action drill was carried out without prior notice(surprise drill).
The analysis results of the eight questions yielded scorechanges of 4.76 (before) to 4.92 (after) for Question 1,
4.69 to 4.84 for Question 2, 4.73 to 4.80 for Question 3,
27

Nagata, T. and Kimura, R.

Fig. 5. Instructional material depending on the degree of disability and developmental stage (teacher’s guide for advance andfollow-up learning).

28

Journal of Disaster Research Vol.15 No.1, 2020

Developing a Disaster Management Education and Training Program for Children
with Intellectual Disabilities to Improve “Zest for Life” in the Event of a Disaster– A Case Study on Tochigi Prefectural Imaichi Special Schoolfor the Intellectually Disabled –Fig. 5. Continued.

Journal of Disaster Research Vol.15 No.1, 2020

29

Nagata, T. and Kimura, R.

䛹䛳䛱䛜䕿䛛䛺䠛
tŚŝĐŚŽŶĞŝƐĐŽƌƌĞĐƚ͍>ŝďƌĂƌǇ

䛹䛳䛱䛜䕿䛛䛺䠛
tŚŝĐŚŽŶĞŝƐĐŽƌƌĞĐƚ͍ƚŽŝůĞƚ

Fig. 6. Materials created according to the degree of disability and developmental stage (worksheet/for Junior high and high school
students).

>ĞƚΖƐƉƌŽƚĞĐƚŽƵƌƐĞůǀĞƐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞĞĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞ

ĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞĂƌůǇtĂƌŶŝŶŐ

>ĞƚΖƐůŝƐƚĞŶƚŽǁŚĂƚŬŝŶĚŽĨƐŽƵŶĚ

ŽƌƌĞĐƚĂĐƚŝŽŶĂƚƚŚĞƚŝŵĞŽĨĞĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞ

tŚĞŶǁĞŚĞĂƌĚĂŶĞŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇĞĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞďƵůůĞƚŝŶƚ;ŽƌƌŝĚŽƌͿŶĞĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞǁŚĞŶ/ǁĂƐŝŶƚŚĞŚĂůůǁĂǇ

ĚĂŶŐŽŵƵƐŚŝ䠄ƉŝůůďƵŐ䠅>ĞĂǀĞƚŚĞǁŝŶĚŽǁŐůĂƐƐ
WƌŽƚĞĐƚŵǇŚĞĂĚƌŽƵĐŚƚŽŬĞĞƉŵǇŚĞĂĚ

Fig. 7. Materials created according to the degree of disability and developmental stage (some excerpts).

30

Journal of Disaster Research Vol.15 No.1, 2020

Developing a Disaster Management Education and Training Program for Children
with Intellectual Disabilities to Improve “Zest for Life” in the Event of a Disaster– A Case Study on Tochigi Prefectural Imaichi Special Schoolfor the Intellectually Disabled –tŚĞŶǁĞŚĞĂƌĚĂŶĞŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇĞĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞďƵůůĞƚŝŶ

ůĂƐƐƌŽŽŵ

ŽƌƌŝĚŽƌ

^ƚĂŝƌƐ

^ĐŚŽŽůǇĂƌĚ

Fig. 8. Teaching materials to learn visually (training video).

4.61 to 4.80 for Question 4, 4.69 to 4.84 for Question 5,
4.69 to 4.96 for Question 6, 4.61 to 4.88 for Question 7,
and 4.73 to 5.00 for Question 8. For all eight items, thelater scores for the degree of accomplishment of the learning objectives were 4.80 or higher. Analysis using thepaired t test showed that the before and after scores ofquestion items 6, 7, and 8 displayed 5-percent level statistically significant differences. This suggests that thelearning produced a deeper understanding of response actions. The analysis results of effect measurement 1 thus
confirm the enhanced educational effect and validity of
the improved program.
Next, to verify the degree of skill mastery due to the response action drill, effect measurement 2 was conducted
after the third and fourth response action drills (October 25 and November 30, 2017, respectively). The pairedt test was used for statistical analysis (Fig. 10). The subjects (n = 51) were the same as in effect measurement 1.
The analysis results yielded score changes of 4.84 (postthird drill) to 4.96 (post fourth drill) for Question 1, 4.14
to 4.80 for Question 2, and 4.25 to 4.73 for Question 3.
Analysis using the paired t-test revealed statistically significant differences at the 1-percent level between the twoscores in question item 2, and at the 5-percent level inquestion item 3. Although the response action drills werecarried out without prior notice, high scores were maintained for item 1 while the scores for question items 2
and 3, which were in need of improvement, dramaticallyincreased, indicating that mastery of “skills to protect oneself” was enhanced by program implementation.

Journal of Disaster Research Vol.15 No.1, 2020

The results of the two effect measurements demonstratethat the students’ knowledge of earthquakes, Earthquake
Early Warning, and understanding of concrete actions totake after an Earthquake Early Warning were deepened
through the implementation of this program. Furthermore, they learned to think for themselves and to protect
themselves as a result of the drills. The results thus confirm the validity of the program.

4.3. Retention of Knowledge Acquired, and Skills
Improved by Program Implementation
4.3.1. Method of Investigation
The learning characteristics of students with intellectual disabilities are such that the knowledge or skills acquired through learning tend to be fragmented and are difficult to apply to real life situations. Therefore, we investigated whether the proficiency level of the knowledge
and skills acquired by implementation of the earthquake
disaster management education program and the level ofmastery of the skills acquired through the response action
drills are respectively retained with the passage of time.
To this end, we used the data obtained by effect measurements 1 and 2, based on program implementation, toexamine the changes in the scores that represented the
proficiency level of knowledge and skills and the level ofmastery of the skills. The single-factor repeated-measures
analysis of variance (ANOVA) (paired) was used for statistical analysis. The implementation schedule of theeffect measurement used for repeated measurements isshown in Fig. 2.
31

Nagata, T. and Kimura, R.

8QGHUVWDQGLQJRIGLVDVWHUUHVSRQVH'HJUHHRINQRZOHGJHĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞYƵĞƐƚŝŽŶŶĂŝƌĞ䐢
;KĐƚŽďĞƌϮϱ͕ϮϬϭϳͿ
ĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞYƵĞƐƚŝŽŶŶĂŝƌĞ䐣
;EŽǀĞŵďĞƌϯϬ͕ϮϬϭϳͿ

䛆ŽƌƌĞƐƉŽŶĚŝŶŐƚͲƚĞƐƚ䛇ΎΎ͗ƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶĐĞĂƚϭйƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚ͕Ύ͗ƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶĐĞĂƚϱйƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚ
/ŬŶŽǁĂůŝƚƚůĞ

/ĚŽŶ͛ƚŬŶŽǁ/ŬŶŽǁϭ͘ŽǇŽƵŬŶŽǁǁŚĂƚŬŝŶĚŽĨƚŚŝŶŐƐŚĂƉƉĞŶǁŚĞŶĂŶĞĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞŽĐĐƵƌƐ͍

ƚ;ϱϬͿсϭ͘ϰ͕Ŷ͘Ɛ͘㻠㻚㻣㻢㻌Ŷ͘Ɛ͘㻠㻚㻥㻞㻌Ϯ͘ŽǇŽƵŬŶŽǁǁŚĂƚƚŽĚŽǁŚĞŶĂŶĞĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞŽĐĐƵƌƐ͍

ƚ;ϱϬͿсϭ͘ϯ͕Ŷ͘Ɛ͘㻠㻚㻢㻥㻌 Ŷ͘Ɛ͘㻠㻚㻤㻠㻌ϯ͘ŽǇŽƵŬŶŽǁǁŚĂƚŚĂƉƉĞŶƐǁŚĞŶǇŽƵŚĞĂƌĂŶĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞĂƌůǇtĂƌŶŝŶŐƐŽƵŶĚ͍

ƚ;ϱϬͿсϬ͘ϴ͕Ŷ͘Ɛ͘㻠㻚㻣㻟㻌 Ŷ͘Ɛ͘㻠㻚㻤㻜㻌ϰ͘ŽǇŽƵŬŶŽǁǁŚĂƚƚŽĚŽǁŚĞŶǇŽƵŚĞĂƌĂŶĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞĂƌůǇtĂƌŶŝŶŐƐŽƵŶĚ͍

ƚ;ϱϬͿсϭ͘ϵ͕Ŷ͘Ɛ͘㻠㻚㻢㻝㻌 Ŷ͘Ɛ͘㻠㻚㻤㻜㻌

ƚ;ϱϬͿсϭ͘Ϯ͕Ŷ͘Ɛ͘㻠㻚㻢㻥㻌 Ŷ͘Ɛ͘㻠㻚㻤㻠㻌

ƚ;ϱϬͿсϮ͘ϰ͕Ɖф͘Ϭϱ㻠㻚㻢㻥㻌ϱ͘/ƚŝƐĚĂŶŐĞƌŽƵƐƚŽďĞŝŶĂůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶǁŚĞƌĞĂŶŽďũĞĐƚĐĂŶĚƌŽƉ͕ĨĂůůĚŽǁŶ͕ŽƌŵŽǀĞǁŚĞŶĂŶĞĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞŽĐĐƵƌƐ͘ϲ͘tŚĞŶĂŶĞĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞŽĐĐƵƌƐŽƌŽŶĞŚĞĂƌƐĂŶĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞĂƌůǇtĂƌŶŝŶŐ͕ŽŶĞŵƵƐƚĚƌŽƉůŽǁ͕ĐŽǀĞƌƚŚĞŚĞĂĚĂŶĚďŽĚǇ͕ĂŶĚƌĞŵĂŝŶƐƚŝůůƵŶƚŝůƚŚĞƐŚĂŬŝŶŐĐĞĂƐĞƐ͘ϳ͘KŶĞŵƵƐƚƋƵŝĐŬůǇŵŽǀĞƚŽĂƐĂĨĞƉůĂĐĞĂŶĚƉƌŽƚĞĐƚŽŶĞƐĞůĨǁŚĞŶŽŶĞŚĞĂƌƐĂŶƚ;ϱϬͿсϮ͘Ϯ͕Ɖф͘ϬϱĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞĂƌůǇtĂƌŶŝŶŐ͘ϴ͘tŚĞŶŽŶĞĨĞĞůƐƚŚĞƐŚĂŬŝŶŐŽĨĂŶĞĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞŽƌŚĞĂƌƐĂŶĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞĂƌůǇtĂƌŶŝŶŐ͕ŽŶĞƚ;ϱϬͿсϮ͘ϰ͕Ɖф͘ϬϱŵƵƐƚƚŚŝŶŬĨŽƌŽŶĞƐĞůĨƚŽƉƌŽƚĞĐƚŽŶĞƐĞůĨ͘/ĚŽŶ͛ƚƚŚŝŶŬƐŽ㻺㻩㻡㻝;/ŶĐŽƌƌĞĐƚŶƐǁĞƌͿ

Ύ
㻠㻚㻥㻢㻌

Ύ

㻠㻚㻢㻝㻌

㻠㻚㻤㻤㻌
㻠㻚㻣㻟㻌 Ύ㻡㻚㻜㻜㻌/ƚŚŝŶŬƐŽĂůŝƚƚůĞ

/ƚŚŝŶŬƐŽ
;ŽƌƌĞĐƚŶƐǁĞƌͿ

Fig. 9. Effectiveness measurement 1 of earthquake disaster management education programs (degree of disability B1 and B2).

ŝƐĂƐƚĞƌZĞƐƉŽŶƐĞǆĞƌĐŝƐĞĨŽƌĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞĂƌůǇtĂƌŶŝŶŐ 䐡;KĐƚŽďĞƌϮϱ͕ϮϬϭϳͿ
ŝƐĂƐƚĞƌZĞƐƉŽŶƐĞǆĞƌĐŝƐĞĨŽƌĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞĂƌůǇtĂƌŶŝŶŐ䐢
;EŽǀĞŵďĞƌϯϬ͕ϮϬϭϳͿ

䛆ŽƌƌĞƐƉŽŶĚŝŶŐƚͲƚĞƐƚ䛇ΎΎ͗ƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶĐĞĂƚϭйƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚ͕Ύ͗ƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶĐĞĂƚϱйƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚ

/ĐŽƵůĚŶŽƚĚŽŝƚϭ͘ŽƵůĚǇŽƵŚĞĂƌƚŚĞƐŽƵŶĚŽĨĐŚŝŵĞĂŶĚďƌŽĂĚĐĂƐƚŝŶŐŽĨƚŚĞĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞĂƌůǇtĂƌŶŝŶŐƋƵŝĞƚůǇ͍Ϯ͘ŽƵůĚǇŽƵƚŚŝŶŬĂďŽƵƚǁŚĂƚƚŽĚŽďǇǇŽƵƌƐĞůĨǁŚĞŶŚĞĂƌŝŶŐƚŚĞĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞĂƌůǇtĂƌŶŝŶŐĐŚŝŵĞƋƵŝĞƚůǇ͍ϯ͘ŽƵůĚǇŽƵƚŚŝŶŬĂďŽƵƚǇŽƵƌƐĞůĨĂŶĚĂĐƚĞĚƚŽƉƌŽƚĞĐƚǇŽƵƌƐĞůĨĨƌŽŵƚŚĞĞĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞǁŝƚŚŽƵƚŚĞƐŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ͍㻺㻩㻡㻝/ĐŽƵůĚĚŽŝƚĂůŝƚƚůĞ

/ĐŽƵůĚĚŽŝƚƚ;ϱϬͿсϭ͘ϳϳ͕Ŷ͘Ɛ͘

Ŷ͘Ɛ͘
㻠㻚㻤㻠㻌
㻠㻚㻥㻢㻌

ƚ;ϱϬͿсϯ͘ϯϰ͕Ɖф͘Ϭϭ
㻠㻚㻝㻠㻌

ΎΎ
㻠㻚㻤㻜㻌

ƚ;ϱϬͿсϮ͘Ϯϴ͕Ɖф͘Ϭϱ/ĐŽƵůĚŶŽƚĚŽŝƚ

㻠㻚㻞㻡㻌

Ύ
㻠㻚㻣㻟㻌

/ĐŽƵůĚĚŽŝƚĂůŝƚƚůĞ

/ĐŽƵůĚĚŽŝƚ

Fig. 10. Effectiveness measurement 2 of earthquake disaster management education programs (degree of disability B1 and B2).

32

Journal of Disaster Research Vol.15 No.1, 2020

Developing a Disaster Management Education and Training Program for Children
with Intellectual Disabilities to Improve “Zest for Life” in the Event of a Disaster– A Case Study on Tochigi Prefectural Imaichi Special Schoolfor the Intellectually Disabled –㻺㻩㻡㻝YƵĞƐƚŝŽŶϭ䡚ϰYƵĞƐƚŝŽŶϱ䡚ϴ/ŬŶŽǁ

/ƚŚŝŶŬƐŽ㻶㼍㼚㻚㻝㻡

㻲㼑㼎㻚㻣ŝƐĂƐƚĞƌƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞĞǆĞƌĐŝƐĞ&ŽƌĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞĂƌůǇtĂƌŶŝŶŐ䐣ŝƐĂƐƚĞƌƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞĞǆĞƌĐŝƐĞ&ŽƌĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞĂƌůǇtĂƌŶŝŶŐ䐤ϮŶĚƚŝŵĞϯƌĚ ƚŝŵĞϰƚŚ ƚŝŵĞ

>ĞĂƌŶŝŶŐ ĞĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞ䐠㻺㼛㼢㻚㻟㻜
ŝƐĂƐƚĞƌƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞĞǆĞƌĐŝƐĞ&ŽƌĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞĂƌůǇtĂƌŶŝŶŐ䐢ϭƐƚ ƚŝŵĞ

㻻㼏㼠㻚㻞㻡
ŝƐĂƐƚĞƌƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞĞǆĞƌĐŝƐĞ&ŽƌĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞĂƌůǇtĂƌŶŝŶŐ䐡/ĚŽŶ͛ƚŬŶŽǁ㻿㼑㼜㻚㻝㻥
ŝƐĂƐƚĞƌƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞĞǆĞƌĐŝƐĞ&ŽƌĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞĂƌůǇtĂƌŶŝŶŐ䐠>ĞĂƌŶŝŶŐ ĞĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞ䐟/ŬŶŽǁ
ĂůŝƚƚůĞ

㻿㼑㼜㻚㻤ŝƐĂƐƚĞƌƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞĞǆĞƌĐŝƐĞ&ŽƌĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞĂƌůǇtĂƌŶŝŶŐ䐟

;ŽƌƌĞĐƚŶƐǁĞƌͿϱƚŚ ƚŝŵĞϲƚŚ ƚŝŵĞϳƚŚ ƚŝŵĞ

/ƚŚŝŶŬƐŽĂůŝƚƚůĞ

/ĚŽŶ͛ƚƚŚŝŶŬƐŽ
;/ŶĐŽƌƌĞĐƚŶƐǁĞƌͿĨĨĞĐƚŝǀĞDĞĂƐƵƌĞŵĞŶƚϭ
Fig. 11. Repeated measure through earthquake disaster management education programs (degree of disability B1 and B2).

4.3.2. Analysis of Effect Measurement 1 “Earthquake
Questionnaire”
The data (n = 51) of effect measurement 1 was used
to analyze the score changes in the proficiency level ofknowledge and skills (Fig. 11). Although local fluctuations exist, the overall scores of the knowledge and skills
1 increase with later
acquired through program learning 
events and remain at a high level.
On an event-to-event basis, we found that the scoresfor all eight items of learning objectives increased between the first effect measurement (September 7, 2017),
conducted before program implementation, and the second measurement (September 8, 2017). In the third measurement (September 19, 2017), the scores of two items
fell considerably considerably: “3. Do you know what
happens when you hear an Earthquake Early Warningsound?,” and “5. It is dangerous to be in a location wherean object can drop, fall down, or move when an earthquake occurs.” The scores dropped because response ac2 was a surprise drill without prior notice, andtion drill some students felt that they had not acted correctly, resulting in the lower scores. The specific reasons given by
the students in a subsequent interview were that, “I didn’t
realize that the sound of the Earthquake Early Warning
signaled the start of the drill,” “I didn’t know how to protect myself because the drill began suddenly,” and “I was
taken by surprise, and it took some time before I could
respond.” In the fourth effect measurement (October 25,2017), while a greater number of students recognized the
Journal of Disaster Research Vol.15 No.1, 2020

(DUWKTXDNH4XHVWLRQQDLUH

5HVXOWRI2QH)DFWRU$QDO\VLVRI
9DULDQFHZLWK&RUUHVSRQGHQFH

4XHVWLRQ) 

S

4XHVWLRQ) 

S

4XHVWLRQ) 

S

4XHVWLRQ) 

S

4XHVWLRQ) 

S

4XHVWLRQ) 

S

4XHVWLRQ) 

S

4XHVWLRQ) 

S

1XPEHURI7LPHVFig. 12. Result of one-factor analysis of variance with correspondence 1 (degree of disability B1 and B2).

sound of the Earthquake Early Warning, the overall scores
increased by only a modest amount. Therefore, program
2 to enhance the proficiency level of knowledge
learning and skill, was carried out with all classes. As a result,the scores of all items rose in the fifth effect measurement(November 30, 2017). Subsequently, high scores weremaintained for all items in the sixth and seventh effectmeasurements (January 15 and February 7, 2018, respectively). The repeated-measures ANOVA yielded statistically significant differences at the 1-percent level for all
items (Fig. 12).
The results indicate that enhanced education effects
33

Nagata, T. and Kimura, R.

㻺㻩㻡㻝/ĐŽƵůĚĚŽŝƚŝƐĂƐƚĞƌƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞĞǆĞƌĐŝƐĞ&ŽƌĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞĂƌůǇtĂƌŶŝŶŐ䐣>ĞĂƌŶŝŶŐ ĞĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞ䐠ϮŶĚƚŝŵĞϯƌĚ ƚŝŵĞ

㻶㼍㼚㻚㻝㻡ϰƚŚ ƚŝŵĞϱƚŚ ƚŝŵĞ

㻲㼑㼎㻚㻣ŝƐĂƐƚĞƌƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞĞǆĞƌĐŝƐĞ&ŽƌĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞĂƌůǇtĂƌŶŝŶŐ䐤㻺㼛㼢㻚㻟㻜

㻻㼏㼠㻚㻞㻡

ŝƐĂƐƚĞƌƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞĞǆĞƌĐŝƐĞ&ŽƌĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞĂƌůǇtĂƌŶŝŶŐ䐢ϭƐƚ ƚŝŵĞ

㻿㼑㼜㻚㻝㻥

ŝƐĂƐƚĞƌƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞĞǆĞƌĐŝƐĞ&ŽƌĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞĂƌůǇtĂƌŶŝŶŐ䐡>ĞĂƌŶŝŶŐ ĞĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞ䐟/ĐŽƵůĚŶŽƚĚŽŝƚŝƐĂƐƚĞƌƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞĞǆĞƌĐŝƐĞ&ŽƌĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞĂƌůǇtĂƌŶŝŶŐ䐟㻿㼑㼜㻚㻤/ĐŽƵůĚĚŽŝƚ
ĂůŝƚƚůĞ

ŝƐĂƐƚĞƌƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞĞǆĞƌĐŝƐĞ&ŽƌĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞĂƌůǇtĂƌŶŝŶŐ䐠/ĐŽƵůĚĚŽŝƚϲƚŚ ƚŝŵĞ

/ĐŽƵůĚĚŽŝƚ
ĂůŝƚƚůĞ

/ĐŽƵůĚŶŽƚĚŽŝƚĨĨĞĐƚŝǀĞDĞĂƐƵƌĞŵĞŶƚϮ
Fig. 13. Repeated measure through earthquake disaster management education programs (degree of disability B1 and B2).

were produced by implementation of earthquake learn2 when adjusted to the degree and condition of theing 
students’ disabilities in addition to modification of the response action drill. Furthermore, despite some local fluctuations, the overall trend shows that, through repetitionof the response action drill, the proficiency level of theknowledge and skills acquired through learning was retained at a high level with the passage of time.
4.3.3. Analysis of Effect Measurement 2 “Drill Review
Questionnaire”
To examine the score changes in the level of mastery ofskills acquired through the response action drill, we analyzed the data (n = 51) of effect measurement 2 (Fig. 13).
The overall trend was similar to that of the results of effectmeasurement 1.
On an event-to-event basis, we found that the scoresof two items increased drastically between the first andsecond effect measurements (September 8 and 19, 2017,
respectively): “2. Were you able to think about how to
act when you heard the chime?” and “3. Were you able
to think and act by yourself to protect yourself fromthe earthquake?” However, the same scores fell drastically in the third effect measurement (October 25, 2017).
This is because it was a surprise drill without prior notice, as stated for the results of effect measurement 1.
These scores rose again in the fourth effect measurement(November 30, 2017). This was the effect of program
34

4XHVWLRQQDLUHIRU5HYLHZ

5HVXOWRI2QH)DFWRU$QDO\VLVRI

RQ([HUFLVH

9DULDQFHZLWK&RUUHVSRQGHQFH

4XHVWLRQ) 

S

4XHVWLRQ) 

S

4XHVWLRQ) 

S

1XPEHURI7LPHVFig. 14. Result of one-factor analysis of variance with correspondence 2 (degree of disability B1 and B2).

learning (2). Subsequently, students maintained highscores for all items in the fifth and sixth effect measurements (January 15 and February 7, 2018, respectively).
The repeated-measures ANOVA yielded statistically significant differences at the 1-percent level for all items(Fig. 14).
These results suggest that, some items which displayedenhanced educational effect by program implementation
retained their effect with the passage of time, while others
failed to do so when the method of execution was altered,such as in a surprise drill.
The overall trend, however, was similar to that of effectmeasurement 1, described in the previous section, where
the proficiency level of the acquired skills was retained at
a high level regardless of the change in the drill methodor the passage of time.
Journal of Disaster Research Vol.15 No.1, 2020

Developing a Disaster Management Education and Training Program for Children
with Intellectual Disabilities to Improve “Zest for Life” in the Event of a Disaster– A Case Study on Tochigi Prefectural Imaichi Special Schoolfor the Intellectually Disabled –4.4. Teacher’s Evaluation of Response Actions andAnalysis
While the effect measurements described above werecarried out against students with mild intellectual disabilities who are capable of self-evaluation, the program has
also been implemented with students who are incapable ofself-evaluation. It is necessary to evaluate these students
as well in order to verify the educational effects of the
instruction that corresponds with the degree or conditionof disability, or the need to further improve the program.
Therefore, we asked the teachers to evaluate the response
actions of all students enrolled in the target school in order to objectively evaluate the proficiency level of the students’ skills acquired through the response action drill.
This consisted of having the teacher evaluate whether
the students achieved the learning objective of the response action drill, namely, “to be able to calmly get under the desk on their own initiative to protect themselves,”
according to the five levels of “1. Yes,” “2. Yes, by observing other students in the vicinity (or hearing their sound),”“3. The student made some attempt to act,” “4. No,” and“5. Only with the teacher.” The teacher entered theirevaluations on the “level-of-accomplishment evaluation
sheet,” produced for this study after observing the students’ behavior. The completed sheets were collected by
the authors for tabulation and analysis.
The evaluation targets consist of all students (n = 110)
enrolled in the target school. The students were divided
according to the degree of disability into two groups, “B1
and B2,” who were the subjects of analysis in the effectmeasurement discussed earlier, and “A1 and A2,” and theteacher evaluations of both groups for six response action
drills were cross tabulated.
In the tabulation results for the group with degrees of
disability B1 and B2, the percentages of students acrossthe six drills who were evaluated as “1. Yes” were 66.2,
76.6, 69.7, 75.0, 87.0, and 92.0%, from the first to sixth
drill. Although there were some local fluctuations due tothe drill method, the trend overall trend shows that scores
increased as the response action drills continued (Fig. 15).
Meanwhile, the share of students who mimicked theirclassmates changed from 23.4% in the first drill to 4.0%
in the sixth drill, thus displaying a falling trend. Thissuggests that, through repeated participation in the response action drills, these students learned and developed
the ability to act according to their own decisions without
needing to mimic the behavior of others.
The evaluation results display a trend similar to theanalysis results of the students’ self-evaluation, describedin Section 3, and suggest an improved proficiency level ofskills. We carried out a chi-square test to analyze the relation of the number of response action drills and the teachers’ evaluations. The results yielded a statistically significant difference at the 1-percent level (χ 2 (20) = 39.6,
p < .01).
Next, we analyzed the group with degrees of disability “A1 and A2,” where we found that the percentages of
those evaluated as “1. Yes” from the first to sixth drills
Journal of Disaster Research Vol.15 No.1, 2020

were 3.2, 3.2, 10.0, 10.0, 13.3, and 14.8%, respectively.
This displays a trend of increasing scores as the response
action drill continued (Fig. 16).
It is important to note that the share of students who
were unable to act in the drill changed from 16.1% in thefirst drill to 0% in the fourth and subsequent drills. Meanwhile, the share of students who were able to act withthe teacher changed from 54.8% in the first drill to 70.4%
in the sixth drill. This indicates that those students hadlearned and become able to act by following the instruction from their teachers or support of others. When therelation between the number of response action drills andthe teachers’ evaluations was subjected to analysis by thechi-square test, no statistically significant difference wasfound (χ 2 (20) = 28.6, n.s.)
The objective evaluations by the teachers, who are in
daily contact with the students, suggest that, by the time of
the final drill, about 70% of the students were able to act
to protect themselves on their own, without the teacher’s
instruction, as a result of implementing the program.

4.5. Effect of Program Implementation (Qualitative
Survey with Teachers)
We conducted a qualitative survey with the entire teaching staff of the target school on the changes in students’specific behaviors and thinking during the response action
drills. The survey was conducted after the program was
implemented, either in the form of interviews or written
statements, which the authors summarized.
In terms of the changes that took place among the students with mild intellectual disabilities, many teachers reported that the students “were confused and didn’t know
how to act,” “acted after receiving instructions from theteacher,” or “were unable to act except with the teacher,”in the early drills, but “became able to act on their own
initiative” or “were able to act by observing and following
others in the surrounding” with repeated drills (Fig. 17).
When they described the changes that took place
among the students with more severe intellectual disabilities, many teachers stated that the students “becamefrightened and cried out at the sound of the drill,” “panicked and moved about,” “refused to act when instructedby the teacher,” or “showed no response,” in the early
drills, but “were able to act when told or supported by theteacher,” “remained quiet though were unable to act,” or“seemed prepared to accept support,” after repeated drills.
Some common observations for all school years werethat “an awareness of the need to protect oneself fromdisasters was created, accompanied by clear changes in
the response action, in many students,” or “the attitudechanged and the students quietly accepted the teacher’s
support even in those students with severe intellectual disability,” suggesting that the teachers felt that implementing the program produced some visible effects.

35Nagata, T. and Kimura, R.

ŝƐĂƐƚĞƌƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞĞǆĞƌĐŝƐĞ&ŽƌĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞĂƌůǇtĂƌŶŝŶŐ䕔ϭ͘/ĐŽƵůĚĚŽŝƚŵǇƐĞůĨ䕔Ϯ͘/ǁĂƐĂďůĞƚŽůŽŽŬĂƌŽƵŶĚĂŶĚĂĐƚ䕔ϯ͘/ƐĂǁƐŽŵĞƚŚŝŶŐƚƌǇŝŶŐƚŽĚŽƐŽŵĞƚŚŝŶŐ
䕔ϰ͘/ĐŽƵůĚŶŽƚĚŽŝƚ䕔ϱ͘ /ŵĂĚĞŝƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƚĞĂĐŚĞƌϭƐƚ ƚŝŵĞͺ^ĞƉ ϴ͕ϮϬϭϳϲϲ͘ϮϮŶĚƚŝŵĞͺ^ĞƉ ϭϵ͕ϮϬϭϳ

Ϯϯ͘ϰ

ϳϲ͘ϲ

ϯƌĚƚŝŵĞͺKĐƚ Ϯϱ͕ϮϬϭϳϳϱ͘ϬϲƚŚƚŝŵĞͺ&Ğď ϳ͕ϮϬϭϴ

ϵϮ͘Ϭ

ϭϬй

ϮϬй

ϯϬй

Ϯ͘ϲ ϱ͘Ϯ

Ϯ͘ϲ

ϮϮ͘ϰ

ϴϳ͘Ϭ

Ϭй

Ϯ͘ϲ

ϮϮ͘ϰ

ϱƚŚƚŝŵĞͺ:ĂŶ ϭϱ͕ϮϬϭϴ

㻺㻩㻣㻣

ϭ͘ϯ

ϭϯ͘Ϭ

ϲϵ͘ϳ

ϰƚŚƚŝŵĞͺEŽǀ ϯϬ͕ϮϬϭϳ

ϭ͘ϯ

ϰϬй

ϱϬй

ϲϬй

ϳϬй

ϴϬй

ϳ͘ϴ

ϯ͘ϵ

ϭ͘ϯ

ϭ͘ϯ

ϭ͘ϯ

ϳ͘ϴ

ϱ͘Ϯ

ϰ͘Ϭ

ϰ͘Ϭ

ϵϬй

ϭϬϬй

yϮ;ϮϬͿсϯϵ͘ϲ͕Ɖф͘Ϭϭ

Fig. 15. Cross tabulation of emergency earthquake response action training and teacher evaluation (degree of disability B1 and B2).

ŝƐĂƐƚĞƌƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞĞǆĞƌĐŝƐĞ&ŽƌĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞĂƌůǇtĂƌŶŝŶŐϭƐƚ ƚŝŵĞͺ^ĞƉ ϴ͕ϮϬϭϳ䕔ϭ͘/ĐŽƵůĚĚŽŝƚŵǇƐĞůĨ䕔Ϯ͘/ǁĂƐĂďůĞƚŽůŽŽŬĂƌŽƵŶĚĂŶĚĂĐƚ䕔ϯ͘/ƐĂǁƐŽŵĞƚŚŝŶŐƚƌǇŝŶŐƚŽĚŽƐŽŵĞƚŚŝŶŐ
䕔ϰ͘/ĐŽƵůĚŶŽƚĚŽŝƚ䕔ϱ͘ /ŵĂĚĞŝƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƚĞĂĐŚĞƌ

ϯ͘Ϯ

ϮϮ͘ϲ

ϯ͘Ϯ

ϭϲ͘ϭ

ϱϰ͘ϴ

ϮŶĚƚŝŵĞͺ^ĞƉ ϭϵ͕ϮϬϭϳ ϯ͘Ϯ

ϮϮ͘ϲ

ϯ͘Ϯ

ϭϲ͘ϭ

ϱϰ͘ϴ

ϯƌĚƚŝŵĞͺKĐƚ Ϯϱ͕ϮϬϭϳϭϬ͘ϬϰƚŚƚŝŵĞͺEŽǀ ϯϬ͕ϮϬϭϳ

ϭϬ͘Ϭ

Ϯϯ͘ϯ

ϮϬ͘Ϭ

ϭϯ͘ϯ

ϲƚŚƚŝŵĞͺ&Ğď ϳ͕ϮϬϭϴ

ϭϰ͘ϴ

ϭϰ͘ϴ

ϭϬй

ϮϬй

Ϭй

ϮϬ͘Ϭ

ϰϯ͘ϯ

ϲ͘ϳ

ϱƚŚƚŝŵĞͺ:ĂŶ ϭϱ͕ϮϬϭϴ

㻺㻩㻟㻝

ϯ͘ϯ

ϮϬ͘Ϭ

ϲϯ͘ϯ

ϭϯ͘ϯ

ϱϯ͘ϯ

ϳϬ͘ϰ

ϯϬй

ϰϬй

ϱϬй

ϲϬй

ϳϬй

ϴϬй

ϵϬй

ϭϬϬй

yϮ;ϮϬͿсϮϴ͘ϲ͕Ŷ͘Ɛ͘

Fig. 16. Cross tabulation of emergency earthquake response action training and teacher evaluation (degree of disability A1 and A2).

36

Journal of Disaster Research Vol.15 No.1, 2020

Developing a Disaster Management Education and Training Program for Children
with Intellectual Disabilities to Improve “Zest for Life” in the Event of a Disaster– A Case Study on Tochigi Prefectural Imaichi Special Schoolfor the Intellectually Disabled –ŝƐĂƐƚĞƌƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞĞǆĞƌĐŝƐĞ&ŽƌĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞĂƌůǇtĂƌŶŝŶŐ䐟ŝƐĂƐƚĞƌƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞĞǆĞƌĐŝƐĞ&ŽƌĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞĂƌůǇtĂƌŶŝŶŐ䐢EŽƚŚŝŶŐƌĞƐƉŽŶĚƐƚŽƚƌĂŝŶŝŶŐĐƵĞƐ/ŶƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƚŽƚŚĞƚƌĂŝŶŝŶŐƐŝŐŶĂů͕/ĂůƐŽĐƌĂǁůƵŶĚĞƌƚŚĞĚĞƐŬ

Fig. 17. Change of child student by response action training (3rd grade elementary school).

5. Desirable Ways to Effectively Support andDisseminate Disaster Management Education
In Japan, the general way to support disaster management education in educational institutions is to distribute leaflets or visual aids (DVD) that have been prepared by disaster management experts or the national or
local government. However, the teacher must have somespecialized knowledge to be able to use this material inclassroom lectures. Therefore, the general feeling among
teachers is that it is difficult to conduct disaster management education, even when such documents are available.
An alternative method is to invite a disaster management expert to the school as a guest lecturer. This approach, however, tends to be limited to schools with ahigher awareness of disaster management and, as a result, the benefits extend to a limited segment of the student
population, and is difficult to propagate to other schools.
Another method is to provide training to teachers incollaboration with the local Board of Education. Yet, even
if the teacher is equipped with this knowledge, considerable preparation time is needed before a disaster management education can be systematically implemented, andto gain the understanding of the school administration, toreexamine the one-year instructional plan, or to achieve a
common understanding among the school staff.
One component of these issues is the hierarchical structure of the schools and Boards of Education, with the prefectural Board of Education at the top, followed by themunicipal Board of Education, school, teachers, and students, all of which are independent. There is too much
subordination in this sentence, and it is difficult to follow. Consider: “The authors have discussed in a previous study [13] the need for a framework in which theJapan Meteorological Agency would implement disastermanagement education in partnership with the prefectural

Journal of Disaster Research Vol.15 No.1, 2020

Boards of Education and individual schools.” Kamiya
et al. [24] have also pointed out the importance of constructing a network composed of the schools, relevant organizations and groups, and university instructors withexpert knowledge. In this study, we renew our proposal for a framework by charting the connection method
among stakeholders, consisting of experts or organizations of disaster management and educational institutions,as an effective way to spread disaster management education (Fig. 18). In this study we were able, by tying
those stakeholders together, to confirm the validity of thisframework by showing that disaster management education can be effectively and strategically implemented andthat the benefits of implementation impacted all publicschools in Tochigi prefecture.

6. Conclusions and Future Prospects
In this study we first discussed the current status andissues of disaster management education in the context ofspecial support education in Japan in view of the casualties of those with disabilities in previous major earthquakes. In Japan, where disaster management educationis conducted on a school-to-school basis, there are very
few examples of the practical implementation of, instructional material for, or previous studies on disaster management education for disabled children. Neither is there
an established systematic instructional method designed
to enhance the student’s ability to foresee and avoid danger to self (“Zest for Life”).
Therefore we selected earthquakes, with which intellectually disabled children are familiar, as the subject of
this study, and developed a disaster management education program aimed to enhance these students’ response
capacity to foresee danger and protect themselves fromthis danger based on the ADDIE process in Instructional

37

Nagata, T. and Kimura, R.

ŽŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ

WƌĞĨĞĐƚƵƌĂůŽĂƌĚŽĨĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ

&ĞĞĚďĂĐŬ

ZĞƉŽƌƚ

ŽŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ
^ƵƉƉŽƌƚ

ŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ

DĞƚĞŽƌŽůŽŐŝĐĂů KďƐĞƌǀĂƚŽƌǇ

ǆƉĞƌƚ

DŝŶŝƐƚƌǇŽĨĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ

ŽŵƉƌĞŚĞŶƐŝǀĞ^ƵƉƉŽƌƚWƌŽũĞĐƚ
ĨŽƌWƌĂĐƚŝĐĂů^ĂĨĞƚǇĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ
ZĞƉŽƌƚ
DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŽĂƌĚŽĨĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ

ŽŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ
^ƵƉƉŽƌƚ

ƉƵďůŝĐĂǁĂƌĞŶĞƐƐDŽĚĞůWƌŽũĞĐƚĨŽƌŝƐĂƐƚĞƌDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ

ZĞƉŽƌƚ

ŽŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ
^ƵƉƉŽƌƚ

㻼㼡㼎㼘㼕㼏㻌㼟㼏㼔㼛㼛㼘^ƚƵĚĞŶƚƐǁŝƚŚ/ŶƚĞůůĞĐƚƵĂůŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐ

^ƵƉƉŽƌƚ
^ƵƉƉŽƌƚ

ŝƐĂƐƚĞƌDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ

ƉƉůŝĞĚƚŽƐƉĞĐŝĂůƐƵƉƉŽƌƚĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ

Fig. 18. Framework of disaster prevention education with stakeholder cooperation.

Design (ID).
Specifically, we implemented a program that takes into
account the degree or condition of disability and the learning characteristics of intellectual disabilities, by applying the authors’ existing earthquake disaster management
education program to intellectually disabled children enrolled in the target school.
The Tochigi prefectural Imaichi Special School, which
offers education for intellectually disabled students, wasselected as the target school where the program was implemented to introduce improvements.
We investigate the program’s applicability to intellectually disabled children comprehensively from the effectmeasurements based on the students’ self-evaluations andthe teachers’ objective evaluations of the students’ response actions.
The students’ self-evaluations indicated that, although
the changes in knowledge acquisition or response actions
differed depending on the characteristics of the disability, program implementation accomplished the learning
objectives, and continuation of the drills maintained thelevel of acquired knowledge and skills. Meanwhile, theteachers’ evaluations demonstrated that, by the final drill,
about 70% of the students were able to decide by themselves to take action to protect themselves without theteacher’s instruction.
The effects among the severely disabled students, who
38

were unable to take response actions on their own, werethat they did not begin to panic when they heard the Earthquake Early Warning chime, and displayed greater receptivity to seek support from others, such as entrusting theirbodies to others.
Thus, we were able to verify the validity of the newly
developed program to increase the response capabilities
among intellectually disabled children and their ability
foresee danger to themselves and circumvent it. Moreover, the program can be implemented by teachers of Special Support Schools as part of the regular curriculum,
making it unnecessary for experts in disaster management
to be dispatched to schools to conduct programs. Whenteachers customize the program according to their needs,
it can be used to develop a systematized disaster management education program. While such development requires a network to be constructed among stakeholders, it
was possible in the present study to verify that there is afunctioning framework for establishing such connections
to effectively and strategically promote disaster management education.
Since the present study was limited to implementation
within the school environment, it will be necessary in the
future to examine learning methods and possible collaborative ties that could expand the sphere of application to
non-school situations, such as outdoor learning or homelearning involving the parents.
Journal of Disaster Research Vol.15 No.1, 2020

Developing a Disaster Management Education and Training Program for Children
with Intellectual Disabilities to Improve “Zest for Life” in the Event of a Disaster– A Case Study on Tochigi Prefectural Imaichi Special Schoolfor the Intellectually Disabled –To implement wider dissemination of the program, it
will be necessary to carry out a campaign to promote its
implementation among a greater number of Special Support Schools. To this end we intend to collaborate withthe prefectural Board of Education and other schools in
our effort to continue supporting disaster management education. We also plan to develop a disaster management
education program that covers actions from the initial response to an earthquake occurrence to tsunami evacuation.
References:[1] Japan Meteorological Agency, “Major Damage-Producing Earthquakes that have Occurred in Japan and Its Vicinity,” 2019, https://www.data.jma.go.jp/svd/eqev/data/higai/higai1996-new.html (inJapanese) [accessed March 1, 2019][2] Cabinet Office of Japanese Government, “White Paper on Disabilities 2017,” 2017 (in Japanese).
[3] Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology,“Final Report of Council on Disaster Education and Disaster Management after the Great East Japan Earthquake,” 2012.
[4] Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology,“Reference Materials for Disaster Management at School – Development of Disaster Management Education to Foster ‘Zest forLife’,” 2013 (in Japanese).
[5] Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology,“Safety Education in School to Foster ’Zest for Life’,” 2010 (inJapanese).
[6] Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology,“Student Enrollment in Special Support Schools – total of national, public, and private schools –,” 2017, http://www.mext.go.
jp/a menu/shotou/tokubetu/002.htm (in Japanese) [accessed March
1, 2019][7] Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology,“Survey Study on Systematic Instruction in Disaster Management
Education (Report),” 2014 (in Japanese).
[8] Y. Fujiwara, “Developing classroom instruction that children canunderstand and follow – to nurture interests –,” Tokubetsu Shien
Kyoiku Kenkyu, No.672, 2013 (in Japanese).
[9] M. Kojima and M. Kataoka, “Career Education to Foster a Rich
Self Understanding in Students with Developmental Disorders orIntellectual Disabilities – 45 Instructional Programs that Value theInner World,” The Earth Kyoikushinsha Co., 2014 (in Japanese).
[10] M. Fujii and M. Matsumoto, “An Undertaking of Disaster Management Education for Students with Intellectual Disabilities – A Case
Study of Gifu Prefectural Kamo Special Needs School,” Bulletinof Center for Educational Practice, Shizuoka University, Vol.22,
pp. 73-81, 2014 (in Japanese).
[11] M. Wada, H. Ikeda, R. Ikezaki, and M. Kuribayashi, “A Study on
the Way of Disaster Education in Special Support School for Students with Intellectual Disability: Through Examination of Hearing
Investigation and Practice on the Curriculum,” Memoirs of the Faculty of Human Development University of Toyama, Vol.10, No.2,
pp. 143-153, 2016 (in Japanese).
[12] T. Nagata and R. Kimura, “Practice of Disaster Management Education to Enhance ‘Zest for Life’ by Using Earthquake Early
Warning–Cooperation among Local Meteorological Observatory,
Board of Education and Schools,” Papers of Institute of Social
Safety Science, No.21, pp. 81-88, 2013 (in Japanese).
[13] T. Nagata and R. Kimura, “Proposing a Multi-Hazard Approach toDisaster Management Education to Enhance Children’s ‘Zest forLife’: Development of Disaster Management Education Programs
to Be Practiced by Teachers,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.12, No.1, pp. 1741, 2017.
[14] T. Inagaki and K. Suzuki, “Manual for Design of Classes Ver.2 Instructional Design for Teacher,” Kitaooji Shobo Publishing, 2015
(in Japanese).
[15] K. Suzuki, “Instructional Design for Practice of e-learning,” J. of
Japan Society for Educational Technology, Vol.29, No.3, pp. 197205, 2006 (in Japanese).
[16] Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, “Outline of Results of
FY2005 Basic Survey on Intellectually Disabled Children (Persons), January 24, 2007,” 2007 (in Japanese).
[17] Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology,“On the Improvement of Curriculum Guidelines for Kindergarten,
Elementary School, Junior High School, Senior High School andSpecial Support School and Necessary Measures (Report),” Central
Council for Education, 2016 (in Japanese).

Journal of Disaster Research Vol.15 No.1, 2020[18] H. Takedomi and K. Matsumi, “Active Learning in Education of
the Intellectually Disabled,” Toyokan Publishing Co. Ltd., 2017 (inJapanese).
[19] R. M. Gagne, W. W. Wager, K. C. Golas, and J. M. Keller, “Principles of Instructional Design (5th edtion),” Wadsworth Pub Co,
2004, Translation Supervised by M. Iwasaki and K.Suzuki, “Principles of Instructional Design,” Kitaooji Shobo Publishing, 2007 (inJapanese).
[20] T. Shimano, R. Kimura, H. Hayashi, N. Nagatomo, and Y. Sakurada, “Proposal for Development Cooperation to Enhance the Capacity on Disaster Emergency Response in Developing Countries :A Case Study of Curriculum Development in the People’s Republicof China,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.11, No.2, pp. 341-353, 2016.
[21] R. Kimura, K. Tamura, M. Inoguchi, K. Horie, and H. Hayashi,“Building of Method to Design Educational and Training Programs
to Improve Knowledge and Techniques for Support to Reconstruct
Livelihood in Tokyo Metropolis by Applying ID Theory,” Papersof Institute of Social Safety Science, No.18, pp. 433-442, 2012 (inJapanese).
[22] T. Nagata and R. Kimura, “Disaster Management Education to Foster ’Zest for Life’ in Visually Impaired Students – Practice of Earthquake Disaster Management Education and Training at Tochigi Prefectural School for the Visually Impaired,” J. of Institute of Social
Safety Science, No.33, pp. 115-125, 2018 (in Japanese).
[23] Tochigi Prefecture, “Rehabilitation Certificate (April 1, 2018),”
Tochigi Prefecture Document, 2018, http://www.pref.tochigi.lg.jp/e65/ryouikutetyou.html (in Japanese) [accessed March 1, 2019][24] D. Kamiya, T. Nakayama, and Y. Ueno, “Issues of Tsunami Evacuation for Special Support Schools and Process of Support Measures– A Case Study of Undertakings in Okinawa Prefecture,” J. of Japan
Society of Civil Engineers H (Education), Vol.71, No.1, pp. 9-17,
2015 (in Japanese).

39Nagata, T. and Kimura, R.

Name:

Name:

Toshimitsu Nagata

Reo Kimura

Affiliation:

Affiliation:

Senior Coordinator for Weather Information, Niigata Local Meteorological Office, Meteorological Agency

Professor, Faculty and Graduate School of Human Science and Environment, University of
Hyogo

Address:

Address:

1-2-1 Misaki-cho, Chuo-ku, Niigata-shi, Niigata 950-0954, Japan

1-1-12 Shinzaike-honcho, Himeji, Hyogo 670-0092, Japan

Brief Career:

Brief Career:

1985-1988 Toyama Local Meteorological Office, Meteorological Agency
1995-1999 Observation Department, Meteorological Agency
2010-2014 Kumagaya Local Meteorological Office, Meteorological
Agency2014-2016 Senior Scientific Officer, Volcanic Disaster, Utsunomiya Local
Meteorological Office, Meteorological Agency
2016-2019 Senior Scientific Officer, Earthquake and Tsunami Disaster,
Utsunomiya Local Meteorological Office, Meteorological Agency

1994-1998 Undergraduate, School of Human Science, Waseda University
1998-2003 Graduate Student, Graduate School of Informatics, Kyoto
University
2003-2009 Assistant Professor, Graduate School of Environmental
Studies, Nagoya University
2009-2011 Associate Professor, Graduate school of Environmental andDisaster Research, Fuji Tokoha University
2011-2019 Associate Professor, Faculty and Graduate School of Human
Science and Environment, University of Hyogo

Selected Publications:• “Case Study Research in Disaster Management Education to Develop ‘a
Zest for Life’ of Children Using Earthquake Early Warning System – theWay of the Cooperation of Local Meteorological Observatory –,” J. of
Social Safety Science, Vol.21, pp. 81-88, 2013 (in Japanese).
• “Suggestion for Disaster Management Education Program to Develop
Students’ ‘Zest for Lives’ Clarifying their Disaster Responses at the
Tornado – A Case Study for Saitama Tornado Disaster on September 2ndin 2013 –,” J. of Social Safety Science, Vol.24, pp. 161-169, 2014 (inJapanese).
• “An Attempt of Developing the Tornado Disaster Management Education
Program Based on the Knowledge and Lessons of the Tornado-affected
School and Applying them to Schools out of the Affected Area,” J. of
Social Safety Science, Vol.28, pp. 117-126, 2016 (in Japanese).
• “Development of Disaster Management Education Program to Build
Competency in Students’ ‘Zest for Lives’ against Volcanic Disaster,” J. of
Social Safety Science, Vol.29, pp. 175-184, 2016 (in Japanese).
• “Proposing A Multi-Hazard Approach to Disaster Management
Education to Enhance Children’s ‘Zest for Life’: Development of Disaster
Management Education Programs to Be Practiced by Teachers,” J. DisasterRes., Vol.12, No.1, pp. 17-41, 2017.
• “A Development of the Disaster Management Education and Trainings
Program for Students with Visually Impaired to Improve ‘Zest for Life’ inthe Event of A Disaster – A Case Study on Tochigi Prefectural Special
School for the Visually Impaired –,” J. of Social Safety Science, No.33,
pp. 115-125, 2018 (in Japanese).

Academic Societies & Scientific Organizations:• Japan Institute of Social Safety Science

Selected Publications:• “Recovery and Reconstruction Calendar,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.2, No.6,
pp. 465-474, 2007.
• “Implementation and Operation of a Cloud-Based Participatory Damage
Recognition System to Obtain a Common Operational Picture that
Supports a Quick Disaster Response,” Int. J. for Infonomics (IJI), Special
Issue Vol.1, Issue 1, pp. 860-866, 2013.
• “Current Status and Issues of Life Recovery Process Three Years Afterthe Great East Japan Earthquake Questionnaire Based on Subjective
Estimate of Victims Using Life Recovery Calendar Method,” J. DisasterRes., Vol.9, No.sp, pp. 673-689, 2014.
• “Comparison Between the Life Recovery Processes After the
Mid-Niigata Earthquake and the Chuetsu-Oki Earthquake – Results of a
Random Sampled Social Survey Using the Life Recovery Calendar and
GIS-Based Spatiotemporal Analysis,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.10, No.2,
pp. 196-203, 2015.
• “Issues Facing Voluntary Evacuees from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear
Power Plant Accident Based on the Collection and Analysis of Cases of
Voluntary Evacuation,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.10, No.sp, pp. 755-769, 2015.
• “Organizational Structure and Institutions for Disaster Prevention:
Research on the 1995 Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake in Kobe City,” J.
Disaster Res., Vol.10, No.6, pp. 1051-1066, 2015.
• “Proposal for Development Cooperation to Enhance the Capacity on
Disaster Emergency Response in Developing Countries : A Case Study ofCurriculum Development in the People’s Republic of China,” J. DisasterRes., Vol.11, No.2, pp. 341-353, 2016.
• “A Study on the 2016 Kumamoto Earthquake: Citizen’s Evaluation ofEarthquake Information and Their Evacuation and Sheltering Behaviors,”
J. Disaster Res., Vol.12, No.6, pp. 1117-1138, 2017.
• “The Earthquake in Ōsaka-Fu Hokubu on 18 June 2018 and its EnsuingDisaster,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.13, No.4, pp. 813-816, 2018.
• “The 2018 Hokkaido Eastern Iburi Earthquake and its Aftermath,” J.
Disaster Res., Vol.14, Scientific Communication Online, sc20190112,
2019.

Academic Societies & Scientific Organizations:• Japan Institute of Social Safety Science• Japan Society for Natural Disaster Science• Japanese Psychological Association (JPA)• Japanese Society of Social Psychology• Japan Sociological Society (JSS)• Seismological Society of Japan (SSJ)• Japan Society of Civil Engineering (JSCE)

40

Journal of Disaster Research Vol.15 No.1, 2020