@mastersthesis {bnh-8319, title = { Precarious places, precarious knowledges: Interrogating epistemic inclusion and integration in Disaster Risk Reduction education}, volume = {Doctor of Philosophy}, year = {2021}, month = {11/2021}, pages = {341}, school = {The University of Sydney}, address = {Sydney}, abstract = {

Natural and human-made hazards threaten societies. This is the rationale for the United Nations{\textquoteright} invitation to governments to align their policies and national strategies to the global framework of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR). Policies for DRR stipulate the inclusion of different perspectives and their integration to the global framework towards building a culture of resilience against disasters. While there have been varying levels of response to this call, less attention had been directed towards a critical reflection of the epistemological features of {\textquoteleft}knowledge{\textquoteright} that undergird DRR, including its expressions in education. In this doctoral dissertation, I engage the lenses of decolonial thinking and practice and critical pedagogy of place in examining cognitive justice; I do so through investigation of the rhetoric of epistemic inclusion and integration in the policies and practices for DRR in cyclone-exposed communities in Australia, the Philippines, and Vanuatu.

With an investigative structure patterned after the comparative case study approach, I followed the biography of DRR policies and their inflections across multiple sites, scales, and time frames. I engaged in ethnographic techniques in conjunction with layered data collection methods, including rhetorical policy analysis, interviews, and participant observation. The insights from the research showed that as the rhetoric of DRR policies endeavoured for inclusion, the texts also contracted, as {\textquoteleft}knowledge{\textquoteright} ultimately becomes delineated by {\textquoteleft}science{\textquoteright} and as fitting the DRR framework. Place-based knowledges are marginally involved in both policies and practices, and only as an accessory, even as they are ostensibly considered valuable and necessary. The concluding discussion offers recommendations towards equitable and effective approaches to disaster education - a valuable resource in DRR and disaster education governance at the local, national, and international levels.

}, keywords = {cognitive justice, comparative education, critical pedagogy of place, decoloniality, Disaster Risk Reduction education, rhetorical policy analysis}, doi = {https://hdl.handle.net/2123/26891}, url = {https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/26891}, author = {Liberty Pascua} } @conference {bnh-4044, title = {Disaster risk reduction education through the lens of postcolonial theory}, booktitle = {Network in Education for Sustainability Asia Conference 2017}, year = {2017}, month = {05/2017}, publisher = {Network in Education for Sustainability Asia}, organization = {Network in Education for Sustainability Asia}, address = {Singapore}, abstract = {

Knowledge saves lives. This is the premise to the Hyogo Framework for Action{\textquoteright}s (HFA) call to governments to integrate disaster risk reduction (DRR education in formal, informal, and non-formal channels of every country{\textquoteright}s education systems. There has been varying levels of responsiveness to this call at the policy level. At the school curriculum level, knowledge itself is a contentious subject. One camp espouses teaching on the scientific bases of disasters; another prefers to focus on the usefulness of indigenous knowledges. While knowledge is viewed as the key element for the practice of risk-minimisation behaviour, there are those who are less optimistic, regarding knowledge to have negligible impact to managing risk. Through a postcolonial lens, I reject the artificial compartmentalisation of knowledges (indigenous vs scientific; school-based vs community-based, etc.). My study looks at the context of education and learning and the construction of knowledge as a political, cultural and social affair. Its basic assumption is that learning happens in and outside the classroom, and the resultant {\textquoteleft}knowledges{\textquoteright} are tapped into differently for different purposes. The main objectives are to unpack the processes involved in the construction and perpetuation of DRR knowledge/s, highlight their intersections, overlaps, and disjoints, and examine their implications to the learning of disasters. An intimate, in-depth understanding of how learners in their communities make use of {\textquoteleft}knowledges{\textquoteright} in making sense of disasters is a valuable resource in informing policies on DRR education and governance at the local, state, and international levels.

}, url = {https://sites.google.com/site/efsasiantu/about-the-conference}, author = {Liberty Pascua} } @article {bnh-4043, title = {Using intervention-oriented evaluation to diagnose and correct students{\textquoteright} persistent climate change misconceptions: A Singapore case study}, journal = {Evaluation and Program Planning}, volume = {52}, year = {2015}, month = {10/2015}, abstract = {

The evaluation of classroom-based educational interventions is fraught with tensions, the most critical of which is choosing between focusing the inquiry on measuring the effects of treatment or in proximately utilizing the data to improve practice. This paper attempted to achieve both goals through the use of intervention-oriented evaluation of a professional development program intended to diagnose and correct students{\textquoteright} misconceptions of climate change. Data was gathered, monitored and analyzed in three stages of a time-series design: the baseline, treatment and follow-up stages. The evaluation itself was the {\textquoteleft}intervention{\textquoteright} such that the data was allowed to {\textquoteleft}contaminate{\textquoteright} the treatment. This was achieved through giving the teacher unimpeded access to the collected information and to introduce midcourse corrections as she saw fit to her instruction. Results showed a significant development in students{\textquoteright} conceptual understanding only after the teacher{\textquoteright}s decision to use direct and explicit refutation of misconceptions. Due to the accessibility of feedback, it was possible to locate specifically at which point in the process that the intervention was most effective. The efficacy of the intervention was then measured through comparing the scores across the three research stages. The inclusion of a comparison group to the design is recommended for future studies.

}, doi = {10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.04.001}, url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718915000464?via\%3Dihub}, author = {Liberty Pascua and Chew-Hung Chang} }