Fifth grade elementary students’ conceptions of earthquakes

The findings of the study offer important insights related to the literature about students’ conceptions of earthquakes. One of the main findings of the current study indicates that a majority of the participants associate earthquakes with negative consequences such as shaking and collapsing buildings and loss of life and property rather than with scientific explanations of earthquakes. Similarly, in Ross & Shuell’s study, most students defined earthquakes by their negative consequences such as property damage and killing/hurting people. However, in Özdemir, Ertürk, Güner, & Koca’s (2002) study, only a small percentage of the students associated earthquakes with damage to people and buildings. The reason for this discrepancy may be due to the media as the main resource for students’ knowledge of earthquakes. Students mostly learn about earthquakes from TV (Lacin-Simsek, 2007) especially the news related to the negative consequences of earthquakes. Earthquakes have been discussed more frequently on TV since 2002; therefore, students in this study may associate earthquakes with negative consequences more than those in the earlier study in 2002.

Another main finding of the current study was that almost one third of the students thought that earthquakes occur as a result of human action such as bombing, pollution or old construction. This surprising finding was noteworthy since it was not mentioned in the previous studies.

A significant finding was students’ lack of knowledge as to the cause of earthquakes. In the current study, almost one third of the students did not give any response to this question. Similarly, in Buluş-Kırıkkaya, Çakın, İmalı, &Bozkurt’s (2011) study, one fourth of the students stated that they did not know how earthquakes occur. In his article, Demirkaya (2008) stated that almost one fourth of the students did not give any response regarding the causes of earthquakes.

The finding of the current study reveals that more than half of the students define earthquakes as ground shaking. This finding is consistent with Ross and Shuell’s study and Özdemir, Ertürk, Güner, &Koca’s (2002) study. In Ross and Shuell’s (1993) study, two thirds of the students defined earthquakes as the shaking of the ground while in Özdemir et al.’s study, nearly half of the students defined it as ground shaking. Furthermore, it revealed that only three students tried to explain earthquakes as scientific phenomena by their physical aspects while only one had a scientific conception of earthquakes. In addition, students confused earthquakes with volcanoes, thunderstorms and landslides, which was consistent with other studies. Laçin-Şimşek (2007) found that students confused earthquakes with other natural disasters such as landslides, flood, and heavy rains. Rakkapao, Arayathanitkul, Pananont, & Chitaree (2012) found that more than half of the high school students in their study thought that the weather was the main cause of earthquakes. Ross & Shuell (1993) found that students thought that volcanoes were the cause of earthquakes.

In the current study, nearly one fifth of the students defined earthquakes as natural disasters. Similarly, Buluş-Kırıkkaya, Çakın, İmalı, & Bozkurt (2011) found that one third of the students defined earthquakes as a natural disaster rather than as a natural geologic process. This finding was not surprising since earthquakes are taught in life sciences and social studies classes as part of disaster prevention. Since elementary science curriculum in grade 4 and 5 does not include earthquakes, the topic is not adequately taught in elementary science classrooms (MEB-TTKB, 2007). Even science curriculum in grade 6-8 does not sufficiently cover the topic. Earthquakes are intended to be taught in grade 8 and consist of eight percent of the whole content in the curriculum (Buluş-Kırıkkaya, Oğuz-Ünver, & Çakın, 2011). Consequently, as indicated in the current study, students defined earthquakes either from a psychological perspective (e.g. fear, sorrow) or from religious beliefs (the doomsday, punishment from the God). This finding was consistent with other studies (Ross & Shuell, 1993; Laçin-Şimşek, 2007).

As shown in the current study, students seemed to have more knowledge about the precautions to be taken before earthquakes in different places including schools and homes. Students seemed to understand the importance of first aid kits and earthquake bags. Half of the students were aware of the importance of earthquake drills as precautions taken in schools although earthquake drills were not stated as precautions at home. The likely reason is that students had experienced earthquake drills at school but not in their homes. Students did not know about precautions to be taken outside the home as much as they did for schools and homes.

As indicated in the current study, most students think that they should stay under tables or desks during earthquakes while some students think that they should stay near tables or big furniture. Since some of media, TV and earthquake CDs included both ideas, these may be source of students’ responses. While people previously had been instructed to stay under tables during earthquakes, according to updated resources, people are instructed to form a life triangle by sitting, holding fixed furniture and hiding near immobile furniture. However, relatively few students know about the updated information.

The current study indicates that students seem to be aware of the potential psychological, social, and economic consequences of earthquakes. This finding is not surprising since students are frequently exposed to only this type of information.