www.ijonses.net

Capacity Building for Organizational 

Resilience: Integrating Standards on Risk, 

Disruption and Continuity in the 

Curriculum

Lisa L. Greenwood

Rochester Institute of Technology, United States of America

Dawn Hess

Rochester Institute of Technology, United States of America

Yewande Abraham

Rochester Institute of Technology, United States of America

Jennifer Schneider

Rochester Institute of Technology, United States of America

To cite this article: 

Greenwood, L. L., Hess, D., Abraham, Y., & Schneider, J. (2023). Capacity building for 

organizational resilience: Integrating standards on risk, disruption and continuity in the 

curriculum. International Journal on Social and Education Sciences (IJonSES), 5(2), 327-

340. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijonses.508

International Journal on Social and Education Sciences (IJonSES) is a peer-reviewed scholarly online 

journal. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Authors alone are 

responsible for the contents of their articles. The journal owns the copyright of the articles. The publisher 

shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or 

howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of the research 

material. All authors are requested to disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest including any 

financial, personal or other relationships with other people or organizations regarding the submitted work.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
International Journal on Social and Education Sciences

2023, Vol. 5, No. 2, 327-340 https://doi.org/10.46328/ijonses.508

327

Capacity Building for Organizational Resilience: Integrating Standards on 

Risk, Disruption and Continuity in the Curriculum

Lisa L. Greenwood, Dawn Hess, Yewande Abraham, Jennifer Schneider

Article Info Abstract

Article History

Received:

19 October 2022

Accepted:

30 March 2023

Disruption is an inevitable factor in business and society, while inability to 

mitigate and manage risk can cause irreparable damage to business, the economy, 

and our ways of life. The COVID-19 pandemic has heightened interest in 

standards-based strategies for risk management and crisis preparedness to enhance 

organizational and societal resilience. University curricula that integrate national 

and international standards offer students a rich skill-set for effective performance 

in their careers. Moving forward, we must cultivate capable professionals who 

understand the challenges and risks facing society, and who grasp standards and 

systems for strategic planning, response, and recovery to promote organizational 

resilience and sustainable development. This paper focuses on the effectiveness of 

integrating risk management and continuity standards into university curricula, 

based on implementation at a large private university and regional community 

college in the Northeastern United States. We propose and evaluate a modular 

approach to introduce students to specific national and international standards, and 

teach them to identify and apply relevant standards based on the locally driven, 

whole community nature of disaster preparedness, response, and recovery. 

Education using standards-based curriculum and the competencies that result will 

be key to readiness for tomorrow’s graduates.

Keywords

Standards literacy

University curriculum 

Emergency preparedness 

Business continuity

Organizational resilience

Introduction

The COVID-19 global pandemic has served as a painful reminder that disruption is an inevitable factor in business 

and society. There is a clear need to be able to mitigate and manage risk, and the inability to do so can cause 

significant, potentially irreparable damage to business, the economy, and our ways of life (Van Der Vegt, 2015). 

Businesses have increasingly incorporated elements of continuity planning, particularly following natural 

disasters, cybersecurity breaches that compromised consumer and business information, and acts of terrorism, yet 

many were unprepared to meet challenges for continued operations during a global pandemic (Koonin, 2020). 

The crisis has intensified private and public interest in standards-based, systematic strategies for risk management, 

crisis preparedness, and business continuity to enhance organizational and societal resilience and competitiveness. 

Such standards and strategies will shape how our society deals with vulnerability and disruption, and will in turn 

shape the standards of how the professional will create value for society. Those entering the public or private 
Greenwood, Hess, Abraham, & Schneider

328

workforce must understand not only the role of standards in general, but also the role that particular standards and 

their application can have upon professional practice. As we move forward, it is clear that we need to cultivate 

capable professionals who understand the challenges and risks facing organizations and society, and who grasp 

standards and systems for strategic planning, preparedness, response, and recovery to promote organizational 

continuity, resilience, and sustainable development. National and international documentary standards have an 

increasing presence in risk management, crisis preparedness, response, recovery and organizational continuity, 

and these domains are interwoven in health, safety, environmental, policy, business, and information technology 

disciplines. Operational standards in these domains provide an opportunity for the implementation of innovative 

systems and strategies that reduce organizational vulnerability, provide for efficient crisis response and recovery, 

and promote resilience. Curricula that incorporate and apply key standards used in the U.S. offer students a rich 

and valuable skill-set in preparation for effective performance as they begin their careers (Greenwood, Schneider, 

Hess & Abraham, 2022).

This paper describes and presents an evaluation of a modular approach for standards-based curricula on risk, 

disruption, and continuity for various degree programs in engineering technology, smart systems technologies, 

construction and environmental, health and safety management, and its impact on students entering the workforce 

in engineering and management disciplines. Our research involved integrating risk, disaster and continuity 

standards content into existing graduate and undergraduate courses and programs at two institutions of higher 

education in the Northeastern United States: a large private university, and a regional public institution. 

Curriculum was implemented in a range of courses at these institutions and validated by participating higher 

education partners at additional large private and regional public institutions, providing feedback across the arc 

of early college constituencies and later college and graduate education for professional practice. Our approach 

was designed to prepare students in their future roles to identify and apply a range of relevant national and 

international standards based on the locally driven, whole community nature of disaster preparedness, response, 

and recovery, and to integrate systems across several relevant standards for risk, disruption, and continuity. While 

the curriculum was piloted in environmental sustainability, health and safety, engineering technology, and smart 

systems technologies courses, it applies to a range of disciplines that incorporate risk, disaster science, business 

continuity, and critical systems resilience. 

Background – Risk and Resilience

Risk is a common, yet complex term that lacks a clear, consensus definition (Xu, 2008). It is understood in 

different ways that range from neutral to adverse, and from objective to subjective connotations, depending on 

context as well as professional and scientific disciplines (Aven, 2012). For this work, we focus primarily on 

disruption risk, reflecting uncertainty and the potential for adverse outcomes such as harm or loss resulting from 

disruption. Resilience as a concept was described by Holling (1973) as the capacity of ecosystems to remain 

consistent despite external disruptions. Holling defined resilience as “a measure of the ability of ecological 

systems to absorb changes of state variables, driving variables, and parameters, and still persist” (1973, p. 18). 

The concept of resilience as persistence in the wake of external disruptions has since been applied to describe the 

adaptive capacities of individuals, human communities and larger societies (Abraham & Anumba, 2020; 
International Journal on Social and Education Sciences (IJonSES)

329

Linnenluecke & Griffiths, 2010; Nelson, Adger & Brown, 2007; Norris et al., 2008). For this work, resilience is 

conceptualized as a characteristic of a system or an organization when considered as a whole. Previously, a system 

was considered “stable” when defined as strong, static and resistant to change (Manyena, 2006; McEntire et al., 

2002). Currently, a system is understood to be stable when it is able to remain more or less the same within a 

range of conditions, is flexible and able to adjust to stress (Holling, 2001; Thompson et al., 2009). Such ability to 

identify vulnerabilities and adjust, adapt, and recover from disruption is critical as we navigate an ever-changing 

risk landscape that threatens the systems on which business and society depend (OECD, 2003). 

Importance and Relevance of Standards for Risk and Resilience

The literature is replete with the call for organizational resilience, business continuity, disaster recovery, and risk 

management principles. Indeed, business and society are increasingly vulnerable to disruption in operations, 

supply chains, and our ways of life due to risk and uncertainty (OECD, 2003). These risks can be associated with 

a range of factors such as information security (Yao & Jong, 2010), terrorism (Coaffee, 2016), natural hazards 

(Kleindorfer & Saad, 2005), climate change and extreme weather events (Scott et al., 2020), aging infrastructure 

(Osei-Kyei et al., 2021), and global health threats (McInnes & Roemer-Mahler, 2017; OECD, 2003). National 

and international standards and guidelines for risk and disaster management offer structured frameworks and 

technical guidance that represent emerging consensus on best practice as firms seek to enhance organizational 

resilience (Tiernan et al., 2019). Tammineedi (2010) maintained that business continuity management in the 

absence of acceptable management standards involved varied and inconsistent approaches, often resulting in 

unreliable and ineffective continuity plans. Recent research by Alharthi and Khalifa (2019) demonstrated a 

positive and impactful influence on organizational crisis performance through formalized business continuity 

management, informed by standards. Such operational standards provide an opportunity for cross-disciplinary 

implementation of systems and strategies that reduce organizational vulnerability, provide for efficient crisis 

response and recovery, and promote resilience. 

Risk and Resilience Standards in University Curriculum

As organizations recover from disruption of labor markets following the COVID-19 global epidemic, it is 

increasingly important to enhance standards literacy in young professionals. President and CEO of the American 

National Standards Institute (ANSI), S. Joe Bhatia (2011), maintained that standards education both at the 

university level and in the professional environment is vital because “standards and conformance play a critical 

role in the economy, impacting more than 80% of global commodity trade" (p.2). In the 2011 joint meeting of the 

APEC Project Advisory Group on Education and ANSI Committee on Education, Bhatia asserted the need to 

increase standards education programs significantly if we intend to remain competitive in global markets, stating 

that “effective utilization of standards and conformance promotes technological interoperability and drives the 

global competitiveness of businesses,” and “a new graduate or professional who is familiar with the standards 

relevant to their industry and how the standards system works is a strategic asset to their future employer" (2011 

p. 2). Standards-based curriculum in higher education can thus equip students with vital competencies that build 

their capacity to enhance organizational resilience and competitiveness in their future roles. 
Greenwood, Hess, Abraham, & Schneider

330

In September 2020, our research team was awarded a grant from the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) for curriculum development to support integration of standards-based content into university 

curricula, as a means to strengthen student education, learning, and literacy in standards and standardization. 

Faculty in engineering technology and smart systems technologies programs at two institutions of higher 

education developed a set of multi-disciplinary learning modules to introduce students to standards and standards 

development while incorporating and integrating specific content from key standards used in industry and society.

Traditional educational research has focused on enhancing a student's ability to acquire knowledge. More recently, 

the National Research Council has addressed how students learn, with a focus on how they encode knowledge 

through study tasks (Greenwood, Schneider & Valentine, 2018b). Karpicke and Blunt (2011) maintained the 

importance of considering retrieval processes that are developed during learning, and Taylor and Kaza's (2011) 

work reinforced this notion by demonstrating how self-contained modules can successfully be embedded in 

introductory programming courses to increase students' information security awareness. With this in mind, we 

developed a set of self-contained yet transposable learning modules incorporating standards on risk, disruption, 

and continuity. 

Methods

Project Educational Approach

The educational approach integrated multiple standards in graduate and undergraduate curricula through the 

design, testing and evaluation of portable learning modules with thematic elements that can be configured and 

implemented in various combinations appropriate to course learning outcomes. Compatible modules were 

developed to introduce students to standards and standardization while incorporating and integrating specific 

content used in U.S. industry and society in the following three domains: 

1. Risk: risk and vulnerability assessment, mitigation, and management;

2. Disruption: disaster and emergency mitigation, preparedness, prevention, and response;

3. Continuity: proactive strategies for recovery, continuity, and organizational resilience.

Key national and international documentary standards used in the U.S. that offer specifications and guidelines for 

organizations in one or more of these domains were introduced and incorporated in the modules. These standards 

promote assessment, planning, preventive action and response to advance organizational and societal preparedness 

and resilience. While we introduced students to a core set of standards, our broader goal was to enable students to 

identify and apply the standards that are relevant and applicable for an organization’s particular locality and 

context. Key standards included the following:

– ISO 31000 - Risk Management;

– ISO 22301 - Security and Resilience – Business Continuity Management Systems;

– ISO 22318 - Business Continuity Management Systems –Supply Chain Continuity;

– NIST SP-39 & SP-30 – Information Security Risk;

– FEMA National Response Framework and National Incident Management System;

– FEMA Pandemic Preparedness/Response Guidance; and 

– NFPA 1600 - Continuity, Emergency and Crisis Management.
International Journal on Social and Education Sciences (IJonSES)

331

The project team partnered with faculty at other institutions, specifically engaging applied science- oriented 

programs that develop applied technical and professional capacities. Given the current and future challenges that 

face society, students must be knowledgeable and skilled in using management systems and strategies as well as 

applicable technical standards related to risk, disruption, and continuity to their professional advantage 

(Greenwood, Schneider, Hess & Abraham, 2022). The project was structured to meet a series of goals that not 

only supported integration but also encouraged adoption by a broad set of faculty, students and programs. This 

included (1) a curricular goal for developing and embedding a set of reusable and customizable course modules 

on risk, disruption and continuity that integrate relevant documentary standards; (2) a faculty goal for supporting 

cross-disciplinary faculty expertise development in risk, disruption, and continuity and related standards; and (3) 

an educational effectiveness goal for ensuring the effectiveness of the course modules via a cohesive and proven 

educational structure.

Module Design Methods

Krechmer’s (2007) research on teaching standards to engineers and technical experts suggests that standardsbased curricular content should begin with a broad view of the standards and establish their value and relevance. 

Purcell and Kelly’s (2003) work echoes the need to put standards in context regarding relevance, connection to 

practice, and how they impact other areas, such as business decision-making. To ensure a consistent approach 

among module developers in creating instructional materials, a standards-based curriculum template was 

developed based on literature review, using the approach of Greenwood, Schneider and Valentine (2018a; 2018b),

and consistent with Kretchmer (2007), Purcell and Kelly (2003) Taylor and Kaza’s (2011) philosophies on 

curricular design. Table 1 provides a summary of the literature review results on module structure and content.

Table 1. Course Module Design Literature Review Matrix (adapted from Greenwood, Schneider & Valentine, 

2018b)

Source

Module 

Overview/Description Educational Content

Module 

Assessment

OverviewRationaleModule UseSuggested NotesLecture Slides/ Readings/ LinksQuestionsDiscussion AssignmentsEvaluationModule 

Liu, et al. (2013a; 2013b) X X X X X X X X

Quality Matters (2014) X X X X X

Orleans (2014) X X X X X X X

Mesa Center (2020) X X X X X

Stewart & Kogan (2015) X X X

Koszalka & Ganesan (2004) X X X X X X

Graham, et al. (2001) X X X X

Johns Hopkins (n.d.) X X X X X

Fink (2003) X X X X X X X X
Greenwood, Hess, Abraham, & Schneider

332

The resulting template provided for development of content in three areas: (1) a module overview providing a 

description of the module structure and rationale, intended learning outcomes, and summary of key standards, (2) 

educational content with lecture materials, resources, sample questions and exercises, and (3) module assignments 

and assessment tools that can be applied. The template was structured to ensure that module learning objectives 

were established at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, and provided a means to establish a connection to 

course learning outcomes and topics. Table 2 provides an overview of the curriculum template. 

Table 2. Overview of Curriculum Template

Component Description

Module Overview 

& Description

- Executive summary with introduction and overview of the module

- Module learning outcomes, description, and rationale

- Summary of key standards included in the module

Educational 

Content

- Slides and notes for lectures with guided activities and exercises

- Supplementary resources, e.g., readings, links to materials and tools

- Example discussion questions and exercises

Module 

Assessment

- Example assignments

- Assessment tools and methods to measure module effectiveness

The module overview materials were designed to introduce faculty to the modules in subject matter and approach, 

and the educational content was structured in thematic elements to facilitate inclusion and integration of the 

content by faculty. Instructional designers incorporated online learning strategies in the development of module 

materials to ensure that the content could be developed with resources or approaches needed for online delivery 

and customized accordingly for classroom delivery. 

Module Educational Content

Kretchmer (2007) and Purcell and Kelly’s (2003) research on teaching standards and standardization suggests that 

standards are taught most effectively in modules within a subject-specific, technical course. Module content was 

thus divided into elements appropriate to each topic area considering overarching themes identified across the 

modules, reviewed against relevant curriculum, and mapped to specific content in nine courses. This included one 

introductory and two upper level courses in the undergraduate curriculum in environmental sustainability, health 

and safety; two online courses in the graduate curriculum in environmental, health and safety management; one 

online course in the graduate curriculum in civil engineering technology/construction management; and three 

introductory level courses in smart systems technologies. 

Purcell and Kelly (2003) observed that standards education may be most impactful after students have some 

experience and exposure to business operations, to enhance students’ connection with the material and establish 

its value. Content for the introductory and undergraduate levels focused on introducing key module concepts, 

standards and their significance, and leveraged case studies and field trips to provide exposure to operations. 

Content for graduate level courses built upon introductory content, adding specific technical content for themes 
International Journal on Social and Education Sciences (IJonSES)

333

that supported implementation across complex systems and organizations. Table 3 provides an overview that 

shows correlation of module themes within the specific courses targeted for module implementation. 

Table 3. Correlation between Module Themes and Curriculum

Theme Relevance for Existing Courses

Themes in Risk, Disruption & Continuity Standards

Leadership & StrategyInfrastructureCritical Operations & AnalysisBusiness Impact ReductionRisk Assessment & Crisis CommunicationsTabletopsTraining, Testing & Supply ChainCrisis/Emergency Resources

Principles of Environmental Sustainability Health and 

Safety (IUG)

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

EHS Management (G) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

EHS Management System Design (G) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Professional Communication (UG) ✔ ✔ ✔

Accident Causation & Prevention* (UG) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Principles of Construction Leadership & 

Management* (G)

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Introduction to Careers in High-Tech Ecosystems (G) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Smart Systems Technologies (IUG) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Cyberphysical Automation II (IUG) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

*In progress (IUG) = Introductory undergraduate level (UG) = undergraduate level (G) = graduate level 

Loepp (1999) emphasized the importance of designing a relevant, standard-based curriculum while ensuring 

students are challenged to address real-world problems. Our educational content was thus designed for flexibility 

to enable faculty to situate learning in contexts relevant to their courses, and to facilitate internalization of

knowledge and deliver the material with meaning through connection with real-world situations and challenges. 

The provided resources, sample questions, exercises, assignments, and assessment tools were designed to 

incorporate active learning and engage with students via three forms of interaction: 

 Participant-instructor interaction through classroom presentation and in-class exercises; 

 Participant-content interaction through lectures, homework assignments, and examination questions; and

 Participant-participant interaction through in-class group exercises, class discussion or online discussion 

boards, and group homework assignments or projects.

Module Assessment Methods

Module assessment occurred at multiple levels, including internal and external content review as well as 

evaluation of student learning (Bharvad, 2010). Internal faculty evaluators from the two primary institutions 

reviewed content for evidence that the materials reflected different cognitive learning levels, provided a 

connection to real world contexts and situations, and connected back to the learning objectives. External content 
Greenwood, Hess, Abraham, & Schneider

334

review was provided from faculty at two secondary partnering higher education institutions as a means of content 

validation, and constructive feedback from internal and external review was applied to refine and improve module 

content. Following completion of module implementation in courses, faculty evaluated student learning based on 

results achieved on assignments, exercises, projects, and examinations. 

Results 

To date, we have engaged 148 students in seven courses with our modules, working with seven instructors at four 

higher education institutions. Our assessment metric for module effectiveness in student learning was based on 

percent of students achieving a grade of B or better on related course artifacts, with a goal for at least 80 percent 

of students to achieve an 80 percent or higher. In all courses in which modules have been implemented with 

graded assignments, we have met our goal for student success. Overall, 91 percent of students achieved a B or 

better on module-related assignments across the seven courses, based on the sum of the number of students 

achieving at least an 80 percent on each graded assignment, divided by the sum of the number of students 

completing each graded assignment. Effectiveness was also evaluated qualitatively through internal and external 

faculty feedback, which is addressed in the discussion section of the paper. Table 4 indicates the modules 

implemented in each course and summative module assessment results.

Table 4. Module Effectiveness Assessment

Course Module No. of Students Assessment Method % B or Better

Principles of 

ESHS

Risk 

Disruption

44 Based on student application of 

module concepts and content in 

relation to an off campus field 

trip, including assessment, 

treatment, and review.

Assignment A: 

100%

Assignment B: 

94%

EHS 

Management

Risk 21 Based on application of module 

concepts and content within two 

unit assignments and a 

comprehensive case-based term 

project. Students were 

responsible for defining and 

assessing EHS and business risk. 

Unit A: 95%

Unit B: 86%

Term project: 

100%

EHS System 

Design

Continuity 12 Based on discussion and extra 

credit assignments to (1) relate 

critical resources to developing 

controls for major EHS issues 

and activities; and (2) enhance 

students’ understanding of 

emergency management, in 

connection to business continuity. 

Qualitative 

assessment
International Journal on Social and Education Sciences (IJonSES)

335

Course Module No. of Students Assessment Method % B or Better

Professional 

Communication

Risk 21 Based on class observation and 

student feedback on an in-class 

group exercise, where students 

represented stakeholders in 

disaster preparedness and 

response communication case 

study. 

Class exercise: 

80%

Intro to Careers 

in High-tech 

Ecosystems/Sma

rt Systems 

Technologies 

(SST)

Risk

Disruption

Resilience

10 Based on class discussions and an 

essay assignment. Assignments in 

the SST course relate to the Intro 

course in which students visited 

over a dozen high-tech 

businesses.

Essay 

assignment: 

80% 

Cyberphysical 

Automation II

Risk

Disruption

Resilience

10 Based on an assigned paper 

where students addressed risk and 

resilience in the context of an 

individual automation project.

Paper: 80% 

Discussion

Feedback from instructors has been positive overall, as well as constructive. At the graduate level, one instructor 

observed that students appeared to “grasp concepts well and were able to successfully apply them to the project 

and answer the related assignment questions,” and noted that the use of a group project allowed participantparticipant collaboration to reinforce the concepts and advance students’ learning. At the undergraduate level, 

two instructors noted that students really engaged with the content and case study/scenario-based assignment, and 

that this helped to “make content more relatable.” Consistent with Loepp (1999) and Brame (2016), the case study 

approach promoted active learning and helped students to engage more deeply with the module content.

Conversely, a new instructor in environmental sustainability, health and safety who was just introduced to the 

content noted that a few students “were confused by exposure to frameworks from disciplines outside of the ESHS 

realm” and that it was a challenge to present some of the content that fell outside of the instructor’s disciplinary 

expertise. Going forward, the instructor intends to dig deeper into the module resources, and adapt and integrate 

our content further to target the specific focus of the course, which is consistent with the aim of our module 

structure and approach. Another instructor chose not to integrate the standards-based content in the semester for 

which it was planned due to lack of confidence with the material, lack of understanding of how and where to 

integrate the content in their course, and lack of time to review the resources provided with the instructional 

technology or to work with the instructional designers to address gaps. 

Abu Karsh (2018) described the challenges associated with faculty adoption of new instructional technology and 
Greenwood, Hess, Abraham, & Schneider

336

resources when they are provided, based on individual faculty barriers and anxiety levels for using the technology. 

The author’s survey of business faculty indicated that instructors experienced moderate barriers with the 

availability of support to use instructional technology effectively in the teaching and learning process, as well as 

with having time to develop lessons that use the technology (2018). The study suggests that instructors may benefit 

from training on integration of instructional technology for teaching and learning, as well as systematic technical 

and professional support. Bergeson and Beschorner’s (2020) study of pre-service teachers employed a technology 

integration planning framework to help instructors purposefully apply instructional technology to support literacy 

goals for their subject matter. The authors’ work suggests that instructors can benefit from support and scaffolding 

from standards module developers, as well as consideration of the barriers they face for use of instructional 

technology and the opportunity for reflection and collaboration with peers to overcome them. Burch and 

Mohammed’s (2019) literature review on faculty perceptions of active learning technology integration in the 

classroom concluded that bringing faculty into the integration process can help to overcome instructor reluctance 

to adopt new instructional technology, and better supports student learning through the adopted active learning 

techniques. While these studies focused heavily on the use of digital media, their findings can apply to a range of 

instructional technologies consistent with Gagne’s (2013) conceptualization, as “practical techniques of 

instructional delivery that systematically aim for effective learning, whether or not they involve the use of media.”

We intend to further implement our modules in two additional courses in the current semester: one in 

environmental sustainability, health and safety and the other in construction management. While the instructor for 

the environmental sustainability course has had limited interaction with module developers, the instructor for the 

course in construction management was involved in developing the risk module and worked with other module 

developers early on to expand and adapt the content to suit the curriculum. The literature suggests that we may 

find better faculty and student engagement with module content in the latter case. In addition to integration in 

existing courses, we plan to offer a new, stand-alone undergraduate general education course that incorporates 

standards-based content from all three modules, taking lessons learned from the results of our research into 

account. 

Conclusion 

This research addressed methods, practices and results for integration of risk management, disruption, and 

continuity standards into curricula in higher education. Our experience and assessment indicate that a modular, 

active learning approach to standards-based curriculum development is successful for advancing standards 

literacy. The modules were effective for a wide range of audiences from undergraduate to the graduate level. The 

assessments of student learning indicated that the approach was effective in enabling students to engage in learning 

about standards that support organizational resilience, and to internalize, give meaning to, demonstrate, and apply 

this knowledge. By creating modular sets that organize standards content in smaller, thematic elements, the 

content can be used in and adapted to a variety of educational settings, with selection and customization of 

appropriate classroom activities and assessment tools. In addition, our faculty reviewers affirmed our view on the 

usefulness and applicability of the modules to a wide range of professional programs; however, introductory 

materials will likely merit scaling and adaptation by the individual instructor to provide the appropriate context 
International Journal on Social and Education Sciences (IJonSES)

337

for their students and enhance engagement. Going forward, instructor adoption of our educational content may be 

facilitated by involving instructors earlier in the module development process. 

Finally, the facets of what it means to be a professional continue to evolve. Standards-based, systematic strategies 

for risk management, crisis preparedness, and business continuity can enhance organizational and societal 

resilience and competitiveness in what may be referred to as the age of disruption. We maintain that such standards 

and strategies will shape how our society addresses vulnerability and prepares for and responds to disruption, and 

will in turn shape the standards of how the professional will create value for society. Standards-based curriculum 

and the skills and competencies that result will be key to preparing tomorrow’s graduates for societal challenges 

that lie ahead.

Recommendations

While development of a faculty learning process was outside the scope of our initial project, our experience and 

feedback suggests that faculty with limited experience in implementation of risk, disruption and continuity 

standards may experience challenges with teaching about standards, may struggle to internalize the standards 

content themselves, and may lack confidence for instructor-participant delivery of the content. Further, while our 

work has focused on a specific implementation in higher education, young professionals who are not typically 

introduced to standards within their discipline in their academic career can benefit from structured and formalized 

instruction on standards and standardization. Faculty education and workforce development opportunities that use 

applied approaches based in their discipline would extend the impact of this effort. Programs targeting young 

professionals through professional societies or credentialing organizations would further enhance integration of 

standards and standards literacy among young professionals. 

Acknowledgements

Our work was performed under a curricular development grant awarded by the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology in 2020, under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The authors thus wish to thank 

the U.S. Department of Commerce and the National Institute of Standards and Technology for their sponsorship 

of this work under award 70NANB20H187. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are 

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology or the U.S. Department of Commerce.

References

Abraham, Y. S., & Anumba, C. J. (2020). Identifying Operational Considerations for Sustainable and Resilient 

Building Systems. In Construction Research Congress 2020: Infrastructure Systems and Sustainability

(pp. 875-884). Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.

Abu Karsh, S. (2018). New technology adoption by business faculty in teaching: Analyzing faculty technology 

adoption patterns. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science (IJTES), 2(1), 17-30.
Greenwood, Hess, Abraham, & Schneider

338

Alharthi, M. N. A. N., & Khalifa, G. S. (2019). Business continuity management and crisis leadership: an approach 

to re-engineer crisis performance within Abu Dhabi governmental entities. International Journal on 

Emerging Technologies, 10(2), 32-40.

Aven, T. (2012). The risk concept—historical and recent development trends. Reliability Engineering & System 

Safety, 99, 33-44.

Bergeson, K. & Beschorner, B. (2020). Modeling and scaffolding the technology integration planning cycle for 

pre-service teachers: A case study. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and 

Technology (IJEMST), 8(4), 330-341.

Bharvad, A. J. (2010). Curriculum evaluation. International Research Journal, 1(12), 72-74.

Bhatia, S. Joe (2011, February 28). It’s Hard to Win if You Don’t Know the Game: The Critical Importance of 

Education on Standardization in Universities. Joint Meeting of the APEC SCSC Project Advisory Group 

on Education and the ANSI Committee on Education, Washington, DC.

Brame, C. (2016). Active learning. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. [Online]. 

https:// cft.vanderbilt.edu/active-learning/.

Burch, Z.A. & Mohammed, S. (2019). Exploring faculty perceptions about classroom technology integration and 

acceptance: A literature review. International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES), 

5(2), 722-729.

Coaffee, J. (2016). Terrorism, risk and the global city: Towards urban resilience. Routledge.

Fink, L. D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences in college classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gagne, R. M. (2013). Instructional Technology: Foundations. Routledge.

Greenwood, L. L., Schneider, J., & Valentine, M. S. (2018a). Setting a Course for Student Success: StandardsBased Curriculum and Capacity-Building across Risk Prevention Management System Domains. In 2018 

ASEE Mid-Atlantic Section Spring Conference.

Greenwood, L., Schneider, J., & Valentine, M. (2018b). Environmental Management Systems and StandardsBased Education: A Modular Approach. Charting the Future: Environment, Energy & Health. A&WMA 

111th Annual Conference & Exhibition, Hartford, CT.

Greenwood, L., Schneider, J., Hess, D., & Abraham, Y. (2022). Capacity Building for Organizational Resilience: 

Integrating Standards on Risk, Disruption and Business Continuity in the Curriculum. In Proceedings of 

International Conference on Social and Education Sciences (pp. 157-163).

Graham, C., Cagiltay, K., Lim, B. R., Craner, J., & Duffy, T. M. (2001). Seven principles of effective teaching: 

A practical lens for evaluating online courses. The Technology Source, 30(5), 50.

Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 

1-23.

Holling, C. S. (2001). Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems, 

4(5): 390–405.

Johns Hopkins University (n.d.). Teaching and Technology Resources - Course Design Toolbox.

https://ep.jhu.edu/faculty/teaching-and-technology-resources/course-design-toolbox.

Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with 

concept mapping. Science, 331(6018), 772-775.

Kleindorfer, P. R., & Saad, G. H. (2005). Managing disruption risks in supply chains. Production and Operations 
International Journal on Social and Education Sciences (IJonSES)

339

Management, 14(1), 53-68.

Koonin, L. M. (2020). Novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak: Now is the time to refresh pandemic 

plans. Journal of Business Continuity & Emergency Planning, 13(4), 298-312.

Koszalka, T., Ganesan, R. (2004). Designing online courses: A taxonomy to guide strategic use of features

available in course management systems (CMS) in distance education. Distance Education, 25(2), 243-

256.

Krechmer, K. (2007). Teaching standards to engineers. International Journal of IT Standards and Standardization 

Research (IJITSR), 5(2), 17-26.

Linnenluecke, M. K., & Griffiths, A. (2010). Corporate sustainability and organizational culture. Journal of World 

Business, 45(4), 357-366.

Liu, X., Raj, R., Reichlmayr, T., Liu, C., & Pantaleev, A. (2013a, October). Incorporating service-oriented 

programming techniques into undergraduate CS and SE curricula. 2013 IEEE Frontiers in Education 

Conference (FIE) (pp. 1369-1371). IEEE.

Liu, X., Raj, R. K., Reichlmayr, T. J., Liu, C., & Pantaleev, A. (2013b, October). Teaching service-oriented 

programming to CS and SE undergraduate students. 2013 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE)

(pp. 15-16). IEEE.

Loepp, F. L. (1999). Models of curriculum integration. The Journal of Technology Studies, 25(2), 21-25.

Manyena, S. B. (2006). The concept of resilience revisited. Disasters, 30(4): 434–450.

McEntire, D. A., Fuller, C., Johnston, C. W., & Weber, R. (2002). A comparison of disaster paradigms: The search 

for a holistic policy guide. Public Administration Review, 62(3), 267-281.

McInnes, C., & Roemer-Mahler, A. (2017). From security to risk: reframing global health threats. International

Affairs, 93(6), 1313-1337.

Mesa Center for Teaching and Learning (2022). Designing an Online Course. 

http://ctl.mesacc.edu/teaching/designing-an-online-course. 

Nelson, D. R., Adger, W. N., & Brown, K. (2007). Adaptation to environmental change: contributions of a 

resilience framework. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 32(1), 395-419.

Norris, F. H., Stevens, S. P., Pfefferbaum, B., Wyche, K. F., & Pfefferbaum, R. L. (2008). Community resilience 

as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. American Journal of 

Community Psychology, 41(1), 127-150.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2003). Emerging risks in the 21st century: 

An agenda for action. Final Report to the OECD Futures Project. 

https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/emerging-risks-in-the-21st-century_9789264101227-

en#page106

Orleans, M. (Ed.). (2014). Cases on critical and qualitative perspectives in online higher education. IGI Global.

Osei-Kyei, R., Tam, V., Ma, M., & Mashiri, F. (2021). Critical review of the threats affecting the building of 

critical infrastructure resilience. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 60, 102316.

Purcell, D. E., & Kelly, W. E. (2003). Adding value to a standards education: Lessons learned from a strategic 

standardization course. ISO Bulletin, 34(7), 33-34.

Quality Matters (2014). Quality matters course design rubric - Standards higher education rubric. In Quality

Matters [Online] (Fifth ed.). Maryland Online.
Greenwood, Hess, Abraham, & Schneider

340

Scott, M., Lennon, M., Tubridy, F., Marchman, P., Siders, A. R., Main, K. L., Hermann, V., Butler, D., Frank, K. 

Bosomworth, K., Blanchi, R. & Johnson, C. (2020). Climate disruption and planning: resistance or 

retreat?. Planning Theory & Practice, 21(1), 125-154.

Stewart, S., & Kogan, L. (2015). Evaluation of Online Courses/Teaching in the Department of Clinical Sciences.

Retrieved from http://csu-cvmbs.colostate.edu/documents/clinsci-eval-online-courses.pdf.

Tammineedi, R. L. (2010). Business continuity management: A standards-based approach. Information Security 

Journal: A Global Perspective, 19(1), 36-50.

Taylor, B., & Kaza, S. (2011, June). Security injections: Modules to help students remember, understand, and 

apply secure coding techniques. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Joint Conference on Innovation and 

Technology in Computer Science Education (pp 3-7).

Thompson, I., Mackey, B., McNulty, S., & Mosseler, A. (2009). Forest resilience, biodiversity, and climate 

change. In Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal. Technical Series no. 43. 1-

67. (Vol. 43, pp. 1-67).

Tiernan, A., Drennan, L., Nalau, J., Onyango, E., Morrissey, L., & Mackey, B. (2019). A review of themes in 

disaster resilience literature and international practice since 2012. Policy Design and Practice, 2(1), 53-

74.

Van Der Vegt, G. S., Essens, P., Wahlström, M., & George, G. (2015). Managing risk and resilience. Academy of 

Management Journal, 58(4), 971-980.

Xu, J. (2008, August). Managing the risk of supply chain disruption: towards a resilient approach of supply chain 

management. In 2008 ISECS iIternational Colloquium on Computing, Communication, Control, and 

Management (Vol. 3, pp. 3-7). IEEE.

Yao, C. T., & Jong, C. Y. (2010). Perceived risk of information security and privacy in online shopping: A study 

of environmentally sustainable products. African Journal of Business Management, 4(18), 4057-4066.

Author Information

Lisa L Greenwood 

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3560-3592

Rochester Institute of Technology

1 Lomb Memorial Drive Rochester, NY 14623

United States of America 

Contact e-mail: llgcem@rit.edu

Dawn Hess 

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9779-4649

Rochester Institute of Technology

1 Lomb Memorial Drive Rochester, NY 14623

United States of America 

Yewande Abraham 

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1517-1980

Rochester Institute of Technology

1 Lomb Memorial Drive Rochester, NY 14623

United States of America 

Jennifer Schneider

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7928-4733

Rochester Institute of Technology

1 Lomb Memorial Drive Rochester, NY 14623

United States of America