Perceptions of pre-service teachers on seismic risk and their implications for science education: a comparative study between Spain and Portugal

Abstract

This study investigated the importance given by two groups of pre-service teachers of primary education from Spain and Portugal to seismic risk in a framework of different natural risks, both in personal terms and as future teachers. A questionnaire was used for data collection. Some questions about the seismic phenomenon were also included. The sample groups consisted of 110 students from an institution in Spain and 121 from one in Portugal. Both institutions are in cities affected by the historic Lisbon earthquake of 1755. The results showed that the risk of forest fire was the first choice for classroom study in both cases. The Spanish group was also more focused on the importance of other risks like flood and drought. The Portuguese group showed a greater concern with seismic risk, frequently referring to their own historic earthquake of 1755. A few gaps in knowledge concerning earthquake prediction and comparing seismic risk in different regions of their own countries were also found. In accordance with the results, it is suggested that training courses for primary school teachers should include Disaster Risk Education in Science Education for a better understanding of the impact of various hazards and a greater concern with seismic risk due to its particular features, especially in regions where the seismic pattern is characterized by long seismic cycles with major earthquake episodes.

Keywords:

• Science education
• disaster risk education
• seismic risk
• historical earthquakes
• primary education
• teacher training

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the Science Education area in the Faculty of Educational Sciences of the University of Cádiz (Spain) and to the Escola Superior de Educação from Instituto Politécnico de Lisboa (Portugal), for facilitating the access to the classrooms that allowed this research to be carried out.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.