الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 196 |  |  |
| | | from | 196 | | |
Abstract
Disaster risk reduction refers to actions designed to minimize death, destruction of property and disruption of normal operations. It is a systematic approach to identifying, Assessing and reducing the risk of disasters with the aim of reducing socioeconomic vulnerabilities to disasters as well as dealing with hazards that trigger them. from the global, regional and national perspectives, school safety standards for disaster risk reduction is a far sighted option with a lot of emphasis being put on school infrastructural requirements, emergency preparedness, compliance with safety standards, enactment of various legislation to enforce compliance to safety standards for disaster risk reduction and adequacy of infrastructure
School safety refers to the process of establishing and maintaining a school that is a physically, cognitively and emotionally safe space for students and stay to carry out learning activities. This can include procedures for maintaining a structurally sound building, conducting emergency drills and having an outlet for students and stay to report abuses or concerns. Disaster reduction requires the unity, participation and organization of everybody in the community: the carpenter, the teacher, the mayor or mayors, the young students, families, engineers, environmentalists and children. This is because everybody has the right to participate in decisions that will improve their living conditions while caring for the environment and reducing disasters.
Accordingly, the present study aim at developing a disaster risk reduction guideline and assess the effect of applying developed disaster risk reduction guideline on safety behavior of governmental primary schools students.
A quasi- experimental research design was adopted to carry out this study. It had been carried out at four governmental primary schools representing two out of the eight educational zones in Alexandria governorate namely (El-Montazah and East educational zones) were selected as they had the largest number and density of primary schools
The present study sample included a total of 200 students, their age range between 10 to 13 years by using the simple random sampling method, One class (5th grade) from each of the selected schools were randomly chosen (4 classes). In addition, 35 academic and field experts were also included. The expert subjects were 35 members including: five academic experts, five experts from the safety and occupational health field, the directors and the disaster committee members from the four selected schools (25 members).
Tools of study
Three tools were used in this study. Tool One: primary school students’ disaster knowledge questionnaire. It composes two parts: 1st part: Primary school students’ disaster and safety measures related knowledge. 2nd part: socio-demographic characteristics of the students and their families. The tool was developed by the researcher based on review of the recent literature.
Tool two: Disaster risk reduction observation checklist. It was developed by the researcher after reviewing literatures. It includes three items: observation of the students during evacuation drill, use of fire extinguisher and first aid through simulation in the school environment. Tool three: Guideline revision and evaluation of internal validation ”AGREE II Instrument” it was developed at 2009 by group of researchers and updated at 2013 on behalf of the AGREE Next Steps Consortium. It was used to measure the content validity, reliability, and applicability of the final guideline recommendations and format. The ”AGREE Instrument” consists of 23 key items organized within 6 domains followed by 2 global rating items “overall assessment
Approvals were obtained for conducting the study at the specified settings. A pilot study was carried on 20 students to assure the clarity, applicability and comprehensiveness of the tools. Disaster risk reduction guideline was developed the training program actually conducted in four classes in a period of 4 months from February 2018 to May 2018. Data was collected by the researcher then appropriate descriptive and analytical statistics were carried out.
The main findings obtained from the study were as follows:
Part I: Personal and Socio-demographic characteristics of the Studied Students and Their Families.
• Age of the studied students ranged from 10 to 13 years with a mean age of 11.33 ± 0.743years. Girl students represented more than half (58.0%) of the studied students.
• Regarding the father occupation, more than one third (36.0%) of the studied students stated that their fathers were administrative. Approximately one third (30.0%) of them stated that they were technicians.
• Furthermore, slightly less than three quarters (74.5%) of the students’ mothers were housewives, while more than one tenth (12.5%) of them working were professionals work and the rest of them were either administrates or business women (7.5% and 5.5%, respectively).
• Concerning families’ income, more than half (57.5%) of the studied students declared that their family’s income is sufficient, compared to only (4.0%) who stated that their family’s income is insufficient.
Part II: The Effect of Disaster Risk Reduction Guideline Application on the Studied Student’s Knowledge:
• More than two thirds (67.5%) of the studied students had poor knowledge related to total overview about disasters in pre-guideline application phase with improved reach to 95.0% in the post1 guideline application phase and then a slight decrease to 78.5% in the post2 guideline application phase.
• As regard to the total emergency plan related knowledge among the studied students that the vast majority (96.5%) of the students had poor knowledge related to total emergency plan in pre-guideline application phase with improvement reach to 93.5% and 85.5% of them had good knowledge in the post1 and post 2 guideline application phases.
• Concerning total of fire related knowledge among the studied students that all had poor knowledge level in the pre-guideline application phase with knowledge improvement reach to 87.0% in the post1 guideline application phase and slight decrease to 72.0% in the post2 guideline application phase.
• Regarding total overview of first aids related knowledge among the studied students that the vast majority (97.0%) had poor knowledge related to total overview of first aids in the pre-guideline application phase with improvement knowledge reach to 84.5% and 70.5% of them had good knowledge in the post1 and post2 application phases.
• Concerning total management of specific situations related knowledge among the studied students that all had poor knowledge in the pre-guideline application phase with improvement knowledge reach to 83.0% in the post1 application phase and 73.0% in the post2 guideline application phase.
• Concerning to the student’s knowledge related to school disaster’s committee, it was observed that the majority (68.0%) of them had poor knowledge in the pre-guideline application phase. While, in the post1 application phase, it was clearly noticed that the majority (87.0%) of the studied students had good knowledge and 81.5% in the post2 application has which denote slight decrease in their knowledge level.
• As regard to the school disaster’s committee, it was observed that more than two thirds (68.0%) of the studied students had poor knowledge in the pre-guideline application phase compared 87.0% had good knowledge in the post 1 application phase and81.5% in the post 2 application phase.
• With respect the total knowledge level among the studied students that all had poor knowledge level in pre-guideline application phase with improved knowledge to 76.5.0% in the post1 guideline application phase whereas, there is a slight decrease to 64.0% in the post2 guideline application phase.
Part III: The Effect of Disaster Risk Reduction Guideline Application on the Studied Student’s practice.
• Overall, it is apparent from the table that all studied students had poor practice related to disaster in the pre-guideline phase and it’s significant after application of the guideline sessions
• Regarding the evacuation, the table shows that all studied students had poor behavior in the pre-guideline application phase compared to 88.5% of them had good behavior in post1 guideline application phase and 62.0% in post2 guideline application phase.
• As regard to the use of fire extinguisher, it was observed that all the studied students had poor behavior in the pre-guideline use compared to 90.5% of them had good behavior in the post 1guideline application phase and 87.0% in the post2 guideline application phase.
• Concerning to the student’s practice regarding management of rescues, it was observed that all the studied students had poor behavior in pre-guideline application phase. While, in post 1 guideline application phase, it was clearly noticed that the majority (90.5%) among the studied students had good behavior and 88.5% in the post2 guideline application phase which denote slight decrease in their performance level.
• The total practice level among the studied students that all had poor behavior in pre-guideline application phase with improved performance to 87.0% in post1 guideline application phase and slightly decrease performance to 81.0% in the post 2 guideline application phase.
• The result reveals that a significant effect of application of guideline on the studied students regarding total practice level in pre, post1 and post2 guideline application phases; were observed (Friedman X 2;X 2a=330.59 p=0.000, X2b=344.18 p=0.000, X2c=9.433 P= 0.009, and X2=482.78, p=0.000, respectively).
Part IV: Comparison between Studied Students’ Knowledge and Practice Across Post 1 and Post 2 Guideline Application.
• Only, 1.1% had poor of knowledge in the post1 application phase and more response the youngest students age ranged 10-11 years represent more than three quarters (76.0% and 79.0%) of the studied students.
• No significant difference was observed about disasters knowledge across the studied student’s age groups in the post1 and post 2 application guideline phases; were observed (χ2 = 2.472 P= 0.872,χ2= 7.015 P=0.319, respectively).
• Concerning to the students’ knowledge regarding disasters, it was observed that around three quarters (67.9% and 82.8%, respectively) of the girls and boys studied students had good knowledge in the post1 application phase. While, in post 2 application phase, the result represents a slight decreased to 52.4% and 72.4% of the girls and boys studied students had good knowledge.
• Additionally, reveals that significant difference was observed about disasters knowledge across the studied student’s sex in post1 and post 2 application guideline phases; were observed(χ2 = 7.402P= 0.025,χ2= 8.649 P=0.013, respectively).
• The result reveals that more than three quarters (88.1% and 86.2%, respectively) of the boys and girls studied students had good behavior in post1 application phase. While in post2 application phase, the result represents a slight decreased to 83.3% and 79.3% of good knowledge. No significant difference was detected about disasters practice across the studied student’s sex in post1 and post 2 application guideline phases; were observed (χ2 = 1.526 P= 0.466,χ2= 1.566 P=0.457, respectively).
• Concerning to educational zone related to knowledge, in the post1 guideline application phase, the disaster risk reduction guideline application session had highly effect among the studied student in the Montaza than East zone, and their good knowledge increased to 88.0% and 65.0%, respectively.
• Generally, the results reveals no significant difference was observed about disasters knowledge across the studied student’s fathers work, mothers work and family income in the post 1application phase with Chi square test (χ2= 9.715 P=0.137, χ2= 1.602 P=0.952 and χ2= 0.955 P=0.917, respectively). In addition, their knowledge were in the post 2 application phase (χ2= 3.150- P=0.790,χ2=5.458-P=0.486 andχ2=7.304- P=0.121, respectively).
Part (V): The Correlation Matrix between the Studied Student’s Knowledge and their Practice Regarding Disaster Across the Guideline Application.
• The result reveals that there were significant differences between the total score of the studied students’ knowledge and practice regarding disaster across the guideline application phases. In the knowledge post 2, pre application phase, post 1 and practice2 application of guideline phases(r = 0.386, 0.192, 0.222, 0.840, p = 0.000, 0.006, 0.002, 0.000, respectively).
• The results also indicates that there no statistically significant differences was detected between the studied students’ total knowledge score and total practice score regarding disaster across the knowledge post1 application phase and pre practice guideline application (r = 0.111, 0.005, 0.127, 0.117, p = 0.117, 0.946, 0.074, 0.098, respectively).
Part (VI): Expert’s Content Validity Index (CVI) Data and Guideline Evaluation of Internal Validation using AGREE II Instrument.
• Result reveals validity of the disaster risk reduction guideline to application (overall score from each evaluator was 129 an average content validity index of the 0.921 was obtained. This index indicated that guideline were relevant and clear.
Based upon the results of the current study, it could be concluded that:
- The experts validated the disaster risk reduction guideline based on the content validity index data and using AGREE II instrument.
- Additionally, the application of disaster risk reduction guideline had a positive effect on both studied students disaster related knowledge, safety behavior and practice. Since, there were a significant improvement in the studied students knowledge and practice in each of post1 and post 2 disaster risk reduction guideline application phases.
In light of the findings of the current study, the following recommendations could be made:
• Integrate disaster risk reduction into curriculum education of the schools based on the predefined risk reduction comprehensive strategies.
• Training programs, manual and media should be developed in order to empower students and teachers to provide proper education messages and conduct practical training regarding disaster management.
• Encourage student to share in the different committees as crisis and disaster or Red Crescent and allow them to express their suggestions and help them to be positive citizen. Additionally, Provide booklet explaining the safety, security & evacuation procedures in effective manner and meet the student’s development stage.
• Activate annual School Safety Day during the second week of October to create space for a wide range of awareness activities and provide reward for the active students participated in disaster committee activities.
• Improve role of the school health nurse and disaster and crisis committee in screening and threat assessment procedures to identify physical, biological and chemical threats to student’s health within the school environment and meet the needs of individuals at risk.
Future researches to be conducted:
Types of disaster facing schools and their effect on student’s achievements.
Perception of disaster and crisis committee members concerning disaster and disaster management.
Factors influencing the implementation of emergency plan.
Study the effect of joining students in draw a disaster risk management plan.
Study challenges facing disaster and crisis committee t maintain school safety.
Study the effect of post traumatic stress disorder resulting from disaster on student’s achievement.