Basic Training of Teachers and Public Health Nurses for Communication with Residents for Smooth Shelter Management: A Pilot Study

Abstract

In Japan, schools are commonly used as disaster evacuation centers. Teachers have evacuation center management roles; however, there is no established training for teachers to balance their management roles and teaching activities. We evaluated the effectiveness of simulation training that we designed to help teachers fulfill their roles in disaster situations while minimizing educational interruptions. A total of 42 teachers completed pre- and post-simulation questionnaires. Qualitative data were collected based on their free-response evaluations. The average scores showed significant increases in the cognitive (p < 0.001), affective, (p = 0.001), and psychomotor (p < 0.001) domains. The participants expressed acceptance of the others, confirmation of evacuation center rules, and a capacity to handle personal information. The study displayed what had happened at the shelters, and highlighted consensus building and job conflicts among the evacuees. Participating teachers learned a clear idea of what would happen in the workplace if it became a shelter after a disaster. They were accepting evacuating residents to their workplace and understood that cooperation was essential to ensure the education and safety of their school children.

1. Introduction

Like many island nations, Japan is especially vulnerable to natural disasters. For example, in August 2014, Hiroshima Prefecture was struck by a series of landslides after torrential rains, which resulted in 74 deaths, including those of several children [1]. During the rescue efforts, local schools were used as evacuation centers until November 2014, which resulted in the postponement of classes and the disruption of children’s education.

Schools often serve as temporary gathering and evacuation sites, as well as shelters [2,3]. This role of education facilities is not unique to Japan and is found in other parts of Asia [4,5]. To safeguard their educational capacity, the Japanese government has issued guidelines that limit the functioning of schools as temporary shelters [6,7].

In reality, the restrictions have not been followed strongly. In schools that have been used as evacuation centers, teachers, who should have continued to educate children, took on the role of center management [7]. After disasters, teachers also faced difficulties in performing their other regular duties, such as ensuring the children’s safety throughout the school day [8,9]. Teachers are not formally trained to be responsible for managing shelters [10]. While teachers are involved in setting up shelters, their role is confined only to support [11]. Teachers endeavor to minimize interruptions, preparing the childrens’ learning environment [12]. The job of a teacher is not primarily to manage shelters; however, in practice, teachers’ roles in managing evacuation centers can include disposing of excrement due to toilet failure and distributing food and water [9]. This gap between teachers’ expectations and reality made them very exhausted. It is a heavy burden for teachers to balance child protection and disaster evacuation management. Continued stress leads to high levels of burnout and turnover [13,14]. Post-disaster mental health measures are not the only way to prevent burnout. It is also important to prevent the accumulation of stress by distributing roles in the event of a disaster.

In order to support teachers to be able to focus on what they consider to be their true responsibilities in times of disasters, measures involving students, teachers, parents, and residents are needed [7]. Sharing knowledge between local and non-local stakeholders is becoming increasingly important to better understand and address existing and new challenges for a safer and more sustainable future [15]. Teachers are not necessarily residents of the school area. A cooperative relationship between the teachers and civilian residents of the disaster centers is crucial to avoid the disruption of childrens’ education and overburdening of teachers. Risk communication with residents through information sharing is necessary for cooperative relationships in the time of crisis [16]. Sharing disaster risk information and performing community-based risk management in normal times is essential [17]. Risk communication requires careful consideration and good techniques [18]. For instance, in an emergency, what needs to be done should be expressed in clear and simple language to evacuees. Instructions should be precise and repeatedly presented. Teachers need to be able to use clear and easy-to-understand words for adults, give accurate instructions, and present them repeatedly as needed.

Improving teachers’ communication skills to provide education and guidance to residents concerning community needs and specific approaches to disaster management are recommended [19,20]. Teachers need to communicate with students’ parents, so they gain the skill of communication with parents regarding cooperation. However, teachers are not used to communicating with residents who are not parents of their students. In an emergency, communication with the residents increases. So, it is important for teachers to acknowledge the need to practice speaking with the residents.

Reducing the burden on teachers in shelters is useful for public health [19], especially for public health nurses because, as employees of the local government, both can work more effectively for the residents. For public health nurses, the basic technique for communicating with residents is a skill. Public health nurses and teachers who are employees of the same municipality can help each other to create a network that facilitates the operation of evacuation centers in the municipality [21].

Risk communication places great emphasis on policy communication and is specifically defined as sharing information and building consensus. Risk communication has several stages. Stage 1 is risk assessment. Stage 2 is risk assessment and risk sharing. In stage 3, information is shared bi-directionally. Lastly, Stage 4 covers everything from one to three [22]. Throughout the four steps, the public will be involved, and the risk will be confronted as a whole group. Teachers will play a role in risk communication when residents are at the beginning of Stage 1 [22,23]. The teachers’ role at Stage 1 is to speak with representatives of local residents and a person in charge of the voluntary disaster prevention organization. Sharing information with residents during normal times can reduce the extent of the responsibility placed on teachers while running evacuation centers. However, teachers have limited practice and experience in sharing information with residents through their educational duties.

Training is designed to provide teachers with an image of their regular workplace as a shelter and help them understand how to interact with their neighbors and the broader community after a disaster. An effective way to achieve this training is through short afterschool sessions [24]. Bearing this in mind, we designed and conducted a disaster management training course for junior and upper high school teachers in Hiroshima, Japan. This study aims to assess the suitability of the training methodology and content in clarifying teachers’ understanding of their role and assess its effectiveness.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Training Period

This was a quasi-experimental study using a single sample group. Pre- and post-training assessments were used to evaluate the quantitative data, and free response measures were used to evaluate the qualitative data. The study was conducted with teachers who had participated in a workshop held in a school in Hiroshima in November 2019. The study was approved by the ethics committee of Hiroshima University (E-1801-1).

2.2. Participants and Sampling

The training developed for this study was provided regularly at affiliated junior high and high schools during the pre-allocated teachers’ development training. This study used the results of the training as secondary use data. A total of 46 out of 57 teachers participated (80.7%) in the training. Teachers were included in the study if they agreed with verbal consent to provide the records used for training. A total of 42 (91.3% of participants) teachers who had complete records were included for analysis.

All teachers who participated in this study were briefed on the purpose and method of the study and the publication of the results. Teachers who agreed to collaborate participated in the research after the training and submitted an evaluation form for the workshop. Identification numbers were distributed to participants in advance and were used to link records. The teachers were asked to fill out each form using this number, which was used only to connect the surrounding data, and it was otherwise anonymous.

2.3. Training Goals and Procedure

2.3.1. Training Goals

This study used an instructional design approach, wherein learning cues were prepared and learning outcomes were treated as goals. The goals were specifically set using our professionals’ program as a reference [25]. Bloom classification (cognitive, affective, psychomotor) [26] was used as the technical classification to create goals.

The goal of the cognitive domain was “understanding the problems that occur during evacuation.” The five sub-goals were set as items C1 to C5. For example, C1 is “As a teacher, a clear understanding of school health and safety actions to be taken following a disaster.” All sub-goals in each domain are shown in

Table 1. Level of attainment of the three domain goals before and after the class.

Learning Domain	Item	n	Before		After		Z	Significance
			Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Cognitive	C1. As a teacher, having a clear understanding of school health and safety actions that need to be taken following a disaster is important	42	2.7	0.89	3.1	0.84	−3.27	p = 0.001
	C2. As a teacher, having a clear understanding of risk communication following a disaster is important	42	2.6	0.86	3.1	0.82	−3.98	p < 0.001
	C3. Being able to concretely visualize the circumstances of a school acting as an evacuation center is important	42	2.5	1.02	3.3	0.90	−4.44	p < 0.001
	C4. Being able to imagine specific problems that may occur when a school operates as an evacuation center is important	42	2.6	0.96	3.3	0.85	−4.06	p < 0.001
	C5. To operate as an evacuation center, being able to understand clearly how working with residents is essential	42	3.1	0.86	3.4	0.89	−1.69	p = 0.091
	Total level of attainment (maximum score: 25)	42	13.5	3.52	16.3	3.60	−4.46	p < 0.001
Affective	A1. As a teacher, having concern for the school health and safety issues following a disaster is important	42	3.6	0.99	3.7	0.95	−0.71	p = 0.475
	A2. As a teacher, taking initiative in risk communication following a disaster is important	42	3.6	1.11	3.7	0.94	−1.54	p = 0.124
	A3. Thinking about the role as a teacher in an evacuation shelter is important	42	2.8	1.10	3.2	0.93	−2.64	p = 0.008
	A4. As a teacher, having an interest in how to respond to evacuees is important	42	3.5	1.15	3.7	1.03	−1.77	p = 0.077
	A5. Thinking of ways to work with local residents during normal times is important	42	2.3	0.92	2.8	0.91	−3.42	p = 0.001
	Total level of attainment (maximum score:25)	42	15.8	4.02	17.1	3.88	−3.21	p = 0.001
Psychomotor	P1. As a teacher, the ability to think of school health and safety problems following a disaster is important	42	2.7	1.06	3.1	0.88	−2.38	p = 0.017
	P2. As a teacher, the ability to think about how to use risk communication following a disaster is important	42	2.5	0.97	3.1	0.89	−3.38	p = 0.001
	P3. The ability to think of ways to fulfill the role of a teacher at an evacuation center is necessary	42	2.5	0.97	3.1	0.91	−3.38	p = 0.001
	P4. The ability to think concretely about the initial response when residents evacuate to a school is necessary	42	2.4	1.04	3.1	0.95	−3.92	p < 0.001
	P5. The ability to think about specific ways to work with local residents during normal times is necessary	42	2.3	0.89	2.7	0.77	−3.08	p = 0.002
	Total level of attainment (maximum score: 25)	42	12.5	4.40	15.0	4.01	−3.86	p < 0.001

Note: Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

.

The goal of the affective domain is shown in “having an interest in responding to evacuees,” as A1 to A5. A1 is having concern for school health and safety issues following a disaster. The psychomotor domain involves the “ability to respond to evacuees.” The five issues are labelled P1 through P5.

The basic training was aimed to help teachers understand post-disaster workplace conditions and be prepared for potential future events. Through this training, participants shared disaster risk information and understood the importance of community-based risk management [19].

2.3.2. Training Procedure

The outline of the training is shown in Figure 1. The participants were invited to: (1). think independently and summarize their opinions in groups; (2). present their opinions; and (3). consider situations in which any community-based risk management strategy is in place during normal times [16]. There were nine groups in all, which were created voluntarily by the participants.

At the beginning of the session, we surveyed the teachers’ experiences and types of schools concerning disasters. The goals of the training were presented, and each pre-training situation was investigated. Cases were presented, and personal thoughts were articulated. The trainers presented a lecture on the expected role of a teacher and the role of the shelter in a disaster. After the lecture, there was a group discussion, in which the participants reevaluated their original opinions.

The personal records originally written were aggregated for presentation by four or five people. Five groups were asked to present about Case 1 and the other four were asked to present about Case 2. The representatives of the groups voluntarily decided on the presentation. When the presentation was over, the trainer gave them feedback. A survey of the goals was conducted, and personal lessons were compiled. Four types of records were used in the analysis (see Figure 1).

Teachers who agreed to collaborate participated in the research after the training and submitted an evaluation form for the workshop. Identification numbers were distributed to participants in advance and were used to link records. The teachers were asked to fill out each form using this number. The number had no other functions with an individual. It was used only to connect the surrounding data, which was otherwise anonymous.

The sample cases were made by the Tokyo Metropolitan Board of Education [27]. The sample cases were as follows:

2.4. Case 1

An elementary school child is seen sitting with three sets of luggage and claims to save places for his father, mother, and sibling. He promises that they are coming later. A man who is approximately 60 years old asks a teacher the following question: “Some people may not be able to get in. Is it possible to take places for those who are not here?” What would you do?

2.5. Case 2

The reception area is lined with people looking for their families. A man is asking the receptionist to tell him the names of the evacuees. To avoid confusion, some teachers have suggested posting the names of evacuated persons. What would you do?

2.6. Training Program Evaluation

2.6.1. Quantitative Analysis

Self-assessments on goals were compared before and after the workshop to evaluate the training. The questionnaire for self-assessment on goals was created with reference to training for professionals [25]. The items shown in Table 1 describe the goals learned by training. A series of Likert scale questions were used for evaluation. The maximum score a respondent could assign to a question was 5, and the minimum that could be assigned was 1. Before assessing the training, the internal integrity of each target domain, including the five surveys, was clearly verified. The cognitive domain had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.823, the affective domain had 0.817, and the psychomotor domain had 0.936. The scores before and after the training were compared by using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. The significance level was p < 0.05. The statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS version 25 (SPSS Inc., Tokyo, Japan).

2.6.2. Qualitative Analysis

The manuscript for presentation and the free description about the summary of learning were used for evaluation in addition to quantitative analysis. Descriptive and qualitative analyses were performed. The phrases related to the goals were extracted from the written summary of learning. Clauses were classified into categories based on the semantic content. The achievement of the goal was verified by each category.

3. Results

3.1. Overview of Trial Subjects

Out of the 46 teachers who participated in the training, 42 teachers, whose forms had no missing answers, were included in the analysis. There were 12 junior high school teachers, 24 high school teachers, and six teachers in charge of junior high and high schools. There were 25 males and 17 females. Teachers’ experiences with disasters are reported in

Table 2. Teachers’ experiences with disasters.

Item of Experiences	Yes	(%)	No	(%)	Unclear	(%)
Have you heard about disaster preparedness in educational training?	10	23.8	32	76.2	0	0
Have you participated in any training outside of work?	12	28.6	30	71.4	0	0
Have you seen a disaster prevention manual?	13	31.0	29	69.0	0	0
Have you ever been a disaster volunteer?	7	16.7	34	81.0	1	2.3
Have you ever been in a disaster?	11	26.2	31	73.8	0	0
Have you ever learned about disaster prevention at school?	23	54.8	18	42.9	1	2.3

Note: n = 42. For each domain, there were no significant differences in the initial scores for disaster-related experience.

.

3.2. Individual Domain Evaluations

3.2.1. Cognitive-Related Items

The mean of the total scores for the cognitive domain increased significantly from 13.5 to 16.3 (p < 0.001) (see Figure 2). The mean of each score for the questions is shown in Table 1. C1, C2, C3, and C4 increased significantly.

3.2.2. Affective-Related Items

The mean of the total scores for the affective domain increased significantly from 15.8 to 17.1 (p = 0.001) (see Figure 3). A3 and A5 increased significantly (see Table 1).

3.2.3. Psychomotor-Related Items

The mean of the total score increased from 12.5 to 15.0 (p < 0.001) (see Figure 4). The mean scores for P1–P5 also increased significantly (see Table 1).

3.3. Description of Group Presentations

Excerpts from scripts created by each group are quoted.

Table 3. Responses to complaints about personal space.

Case	Group	Communication Meant for the Person Who Asked the Question	Communication Meant for All Evacuees
Case 1	1	I see. For now, let us suspend having places for each family.	Please sit as close together as possible. Once the danger has passed, we will work on creating spaces for families and social interactions.
	2	We will make adjustments to space assignments later, so for now, please calm down and wait where you currently are.	From now on, we will create an evacuee list and group people by where they are from. We will assign places after creating a roster.
	3	“Sit down, don’t leave room for people who aren’t there.” I will tell him.	Please only take space for yourself, and contact reception when the number of people increases.
	4	First, sit closely together. Once we know the total number of people, we can decide each person’s space.	Blank
	5	Blank	We will start making a list of evacuees. Please write the names of the people who are coming. After confirming how many people are evacuating, we will decide the amount of space for each person.
Case 2	6	Please verify what the other person wants to do. See if it is okay to make an announcement.	Do you wish to announce that you have made it to the evacuation center? We will check with you. Let us know if you do not wish to have your name published.
	7	Blank	Please ask if you have an important message. We will distribute message cards so that personal information of evacuees can be transmitted. Message cards will be displayed. Write down what you wish to let others know.
	8	Blank	A lot of people have come looking for family. This is personal information, but as this is an emergency situation, a roster of names will be made public. If you do not want to publish it, please let us know.
	9	Please create a private and public roster.	Blank

shows the responses to Case Study 1. All groups of participants showed agreement with the 60-year-old man in the scenario.

Participants explained the rules of the evacuation center to everyone present, such as not saving places for those not already present in the center. The answers from Case 2 are shown in Table 3. The participants decided that publishing a roster would create problems with personal information management, so they informed the receptionist that it is necessary to confirm whether it is possible to make the list of evacuees’ public. Instructions for the whole population included an option to opt out.

3.4. Freely Written Response Content

After the training, the participants summarized their impressions. They wrote that consensus building with evacuated residents was important and expressed their thoughts on the confusion about their position as both a teacher and a resident in the evacuation center (see

Table 4. Summary of free descriptions related to goals.

Summaries of Response Content	Original Responses
Understanding what schools are like at the time of disaster	➢ Now I see what I did not understand about circumstances that prevail during disasters.
	➢ When there is no answer, I think it is important to consider various circumstances.
	➢ Now I know that teachers also need to think about receiving residents.
	➢ By creating a specific flowchart of things to do, the training is easy to understand.
	➢ Roleplay made me understand the situation in my workplace at the time of a disaster.
Making agreements with residents (evacuees)	➢ Since the high school had no local connections, I see how it is necessary to talk to residents who live near the school.
	➢ I feel it is important to make rules in advance, since schools are used as evacuation centers.
	➢ Someone who understands response mechanisms and how to communicate is needed.
Connection between your own place and your duties during a disaster	➢ Since my workplace and the area where I live are different, I am not sure what I should do.
	➢ I thought about the extent of teachers’ roles in evacuation centers.
Hoping for an answer to be presented	➢ I would like to see case studies with successful outcomes.
	➢ What is risk communication?

).

They expressed the idea that during working hours, they are teachers, but at the end of the day, they would join the other residents who found it difficult to perceive the teachers as their peers. It was important to form a consensus with the evacuated residents to foster an understanding that they were both, teachers and victims.

4. Discussion

Effective training resulted in a significant improvement in the scores, and enabled the teachers to understand, be interested in, and respond to the problems that occur in the shelter. Written responses indicated that role-playing can help teachers understand what can happen when they work with evacuees. It supports the view that role-play is effective for educating teachers. At a basic level, the training is expected to motivate further learning, as teachers can lack the motivation to learn more about what to do during a disaster [24]. This training helps secure teachers’ roles in partnerships and enhances their communication capacity with evacuees [28]. The training was considered suitable to help teachers understand what happens at the shelter.

The goals of the workshop were set in three areas. The change before and after the training was evaluated and it was supportive, as the role-play was effective for educating teachers. The average score in the affective domain also increased significantly, but compared to the increases in the cognitive and psychomotor domains, the increase was minor. Methods for instructing adults are called andragogy [29], and elements are different from those used in educating children, such as a high degree of self-directed learning. It is also suggested in the instructional model that motivation is improved when the relevance of learning in relation to a person’s job is high [30,31]. Certainly, the question with a clear statement as “teacher” had a high average value before the training [32]. The fact that the word “teacher” was included in the question may have heightened their interest even before the training. Training related to disasters, in particular, “sharing information with residents in preparation for potential disasters”, does not play an immediate role in children’s education, which is the teacher’s duty. “Understanding” this as a work-related duty and “how to act” to fulfill that duty is considered to effectively build empathy and understanding.

A sub-objective was to consider changes in response to the secondary questions, particularly to risk communication. Exchanging information and building consensus are fundamental in risk communication [33]. There are several stages in risk communication. It is thought that teachers will play a role when residents are in stage 1 [18,23], where they are not yet engaged in sharing information and building consensus. That role is to speak with representatives for local residents and a person in charge of the voluntary disaster prevention organization. The importance of speaking to locals and sharing information [16,34] has been previously discussed. The importance of public involvement in the disaster management phase has been pointed out [35]. Many evacuees are neighbors. When many residents know about using school facilities when it is used as an evacuation center and the rules, the principal in charge of the school can avoid being placed in charge of evacuation center operations. Sharing information with residents during normal times can reduce the number of responsibilities placed on teachers when running evacuation centers.

While scores for understanding risk communication and the ability to act improved after training, interest in risk communication did not increase. “What is risk communication?” was among the questions asked by participating teachers. Risk communication in this training is used in a narrow sense [27], sharing current risks and forming consensuses with evacuees. In the beginner-level training, rather than calling it risk communication, it was assumed that it would be easier to get teachers’ interest by referring to it clearly as “sharing information about dangers and forming agreements with residents about ways to avoid dangers”. The hope was to take a clear, actual matter and use that to define the phrase. Teachers are believed to be fully aware of their role and responsibilities in preparing for disasters at school [36]. However, they may not recognize their role in relation to non-members of the school.

We will consider the attainment of our goals based on the wording related to Case Study 1. One statement was [contact reception when the number of people increases] (C Group). This showed the idea that evacuees could gather at any time. This outlook was reflected in “Once the danger has passed, we will set spacing for families and social interaction” (A Group); “We’ll assign places after creating a roster” (B Group); and “Once we know the total number of people, we can decide each person’s space”. It was also included in risk communication to avoid panic [37]. Furthermore, we could evaluate that respondents were aware of their roles as communicators.

Words used in Case 2 included allowing people not to have their name published, as in [Let us know if you do not wish to have your name published] (F Group), and [A lot of people have come looking for family] (H Group), explained the reason for wanting to post or announce names. These are other ways to avoid confusion. In the freely written responses after the training, statements on the necessity of (Making agreements with residents (evacuees)) included [it’s important to make rules in advance] and [it’s necessary to talk to residents who live near to the school]. A question concerning the roles of teachers in evacuation centers was noted under (Connection between your own place and your duties during a disaster). In Japan, teachers are not required to operate evacuation centers. They are asked to cooperate in their operations [12,38]. As a result, there is a resistance to being well informed about evacuation centers in advance. (Connection between your own place and your duties during a disaster) included a question about the role of teachers in evacuation centers to be considered. The role of teachers is very vague. In Japan, the local government’s officials in charge of handling disasters arrive quickly at evacuation centers, and they manage the center. However, during an actual disaster, when disaster officials are unable to access the center, teachers take over management at the schools [39]. Based on this reality, the local school board will suggest measures to be taken [40,41]. Using facts from real experiences and (Making agreements with residents (evacuees)) during normal times, we need to come to terms with the possibilities and prepare. Teachers who handle the personal information of students generally know how to handle personal information. However, teachers did not disclose personal information at school. Teachers face specific challenges in an emergency at the evacuation center. Teachers write to “agree” and “support decision-making” in disclosing personal information. It matched the “Respond to individual concern” required for risk communication shown by Honda et al. [18]. There were two groups of unanswered questions. In both cases, measures were considered. It was thought that the teachers first determined the rules and then responded to individuals. First, they decided on the overall rules and everyone followed suit. This is a norm for many Japanese organizations [42,43,44,45] and an important means to prevent confusion in an emergency. Meanwhile, emergency managers working with community nonprofit organizations and research teams have shown a keen interest in engaging in disaster preparedness outreach with community members, and participatory planning has been reported to be important to ensure fair recovery and mitigation [46].

There were some groups that did not respond to the announcement of the results of the group discussion. The reason why the result of the discussion was not expressed (blank) at the time of the presentation is considered to be the lack of time for discussion and the difference in individual preparation status. Learning about disasters is still not a high priority. Only a short amount of time was reserved for studying [24]. There are reports that science and social studies teachers are often responsible for school disaster preparedness [36]. In addition to individual differences, the characteristics of the subject in charge are suggested. Study time and personal readiness must be ensured [47].

When their workplaces (schools) became shelters, the teachers expressed worry about whether to treat residents as staff, as evacuees, or as fellow teachers. Teachers are also victims of disasters. In order to get rid of this hesitation and dilemma, it is necessary to arrive at agreements with the residents in charge of disaster prevention on a daily basis. Consensus building requires a conscious effort to train teachers before and during the teaching practice [48]. Public health nurses can assist in the process of consensus building. To know the teacher’s roles and ideas about the evacuation center, public health nurses can assist them to develop a network through learning and practicing these training methods. As an employee of the same municipality, they can work together on consensus building with residents [49]. The current group of untrained teachers (beginner-level) needed training on the lines of this trial. However, a specific training program on consensus building should be created and implemented in the future for beginner-level trained teachers.

Research Limitations

The subjects of this study were junior high and high school teachers who were attached to a university. The number of people targeted was limited. We need to increase the number of teachers working attached to a school or university. Similar studies should be conducted with other teachers working in public schools in the future. After training, the effectiveness of the training program should be examined over time. It is necessary to create a training program considering vulnerability to disasters in residential areas. Furthermore, to implement this program for public health nurses, it must overlap with their day-to-day work. It needs to be investigated so that it is well targeted to their roles in evacuation centers.

5. Conclusions

Training provided teachers with the opportunity to better understand what would happen at their workplace after a disaster. A total of 42 teachers completed pre- and post-simulation questionnaires. Qualitative data were collected based on their free-response evaluations. Teachers were very interested in their role in the shelter. The average scores showed significant increases in the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains. They were accepting of evacuating residents to their workplace and understood that cooperation was essential to ensure the education and safety of their school children. Using facts from real experiences and (Making agreements with residents (evacuees)) during normal times, we need to come to terms with the teachers’ possible roles and prepare for disaster. The target faculty members were limited. In the future, the number of participants needs to be increased and adapted to a diverse range of different level teachers and their cultures (ability, habit, feeling, etc.). A beginner-level effect was recognized in the preparation for activating cooperation among neighboring residents as evacuees. Beginner-level acquisition helps motivate teachers to seek to engage with the next higher level of training.