Teaching social responsibility and geographic literacy through a course on social vulnerability in disasters

ABSTRACT

Social vulnerability describes human susceptibility to harm or loss from hazards; hence, understanding the human-environment interactions that underlie vulnerability is essential for aspiring emergency managers. Notably, however, pedagogical scholarship on social vulnerability remains scarce. To address this gap, this paper considers how an upper-division undergraduate course integrates a state-mandated social science objective (social responsibility). Next, it profiles a teaching intervention (the Signature Assignment Institute) aimed at improving alignment of student assignments with this objective. Empirical comparison of student assignments reveals a statistically significant improvement in quality post-intervention. Finally, the paper discusses social vulnerability’s aptness for promoting geographic literacy and social responsibility across the curriculum. Resources to improve student learning outcomes are also identified.

KEYWORDS:

• Hazards geography
• human-environment interaction
• emergency management
• cultural competence
• curriculum assessment

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.

Notes

1. Due to rounding, percentages of students by year do not total 100 percent.

2. The film selection changed over the four semesters. Children of the Tsunami replaced Women & War in 2018, so Table 3 lists five films instead of four.

3. During T₂, the course was restructured to include an application-based vulnerability assessment group project as well as the three additional signature assignments for other social science core objectives (empirical and quantitative skills, communication skills, and critical thinking). Rather than provide students with an opportunity to improve upon previous feedback, which was the intent of the second essay on social responsibility, it merely produced lower scores and induced stress among students. These concerns prompted removal of the second essay.