ࡱ> ikho@ b7bjbj p p "hooH/XXXXXXXl'''8'4(l0(("((((((G0I0I0I0I0I0I0$1R4m0X!*((!*!*m0XX((0---!*X(X(G0-!*G0-0--XX-(( EH'*j-.000-41+b4-llXXXX4X-(0("- )()(((m0m0llp $-(llp WORKING COPY 6.1.04 FEMA Higher Education Project Survey Preliminary Findings Henry W. Fischer, PhD Sociology Director, Center for Disaster Research & Education Overview of Our Survey Reponses Who are we? You are a 55 year old (median; range 36 to 69) Caucasian (95%) male (62%) who earns $70,000 a year (median), and has earned a PhD (50%). You have been teaching emergency management related courses for 6 years (median; range 0 to 20) and have served as program coordinator for 3 years (median; range 1 to 28). There are 3 tenured or tenure track faculty (median; range 0 to 10) and 3 part-time faculty (median; range 0 to 48) teaching courses in your program. Two-thirds of you (68%) also teach courses other than those in this program. And, two-thirds of you (66%) are at a public institutionall of you are reportedly at regionally accredited institutions. What are our students like? Their median age is 30. They tend to be Caucasian (80%, African-American, Latin@ follow in frequency) males (60-40 ratio), who are seeking either an associate, bachelors or graduate degree (83%) rather than a certificate. What kind of programs do we offer? We are most likely to offer a bachelors degree in some emergency management affiliated area (34%) or a masters degree (29%)these two options account for almost two-thirds of the programs offered by the respondents (63%). Almost all (82%) offer their programs for the purpose of both preparing their students for a career as well as for helping their students advance within their existing careers, rather than focusing on either alternative. Our programs have existed for 3 years (median; range 1 to 43 years), half of us (52%) offer our classes once a week for 3 hourshowever, there is great variation ranging from several meetings week in classroom or online, evenings, weekends, monthly. Two-thirds of us (63%) indicate that we offer some or all of our program courses online, primarily (80%) to make it possible for students in varied geographical locations to be able to participate without relocating to a distant campus. Even more of us (88%) plan to offer distance learning delivery in the future. Four of five (80%) of those who do use some for of distance learning for course delivery, prefer asynchronous communication (interaction via time delay). The technology employed by those using distance learning, includes, in descending order, computer software (e.g. Blackboard, WebCT), e-mail, internet links, telephone, CD/DVD, video tapes, streaming video, paper guides, and films. The most typical meeting time for distance learning courses is evenings (44%), followed by days and weekends. The typical program currently has 20 full time students enrolled (median; range from 2 to 134) along with 40 part time students (median; range 0 to 280). The direction of both enrollment and graduation of program students is going in one direction: up. Most of us report expecting a doubling or tripling of students in our programs over the next several years. The median class size for bricks-and-mortar as well as distance education classes is 18. Distance learning classes are more likely to be offered in evenings and on weekends (meeting once a week), while bricks-and-mortar classes are more likely to be offered during the day (1-3 meetings a week). What do we emphasize in our programs? Almost two-thirds (63%) of us report that we emphasize building disaster resistant communities in our programs. Less than half report emphasizing any of the following: disaster response preparation (49%), technical applications (43%), or citizen vulnerability reduction (34%). Most of you support the idea of having a national curriculum model for associate (73%) and bachelor degree programs (75%), but not for masters (49%) or PhD (19%) programs! An interesting pattern was observed in the responses: we tended to support establishing a national curriculum models for programs that we dont teach! In other words, if we offer an M.A. and a PhD, we are more likely to favor a national curriculum for associate and bachelor degree programsbut not M.A. or PhD, and vice versa. While many of us (the third most complained about item on the list generated by an open-ended question) indicated that not having access to enough textbooks and other teaching resources was the major challenge we face, only 4 out of 10 of us reported using EMI Higher Education Project hand off courses as part of our program. Most respondents (82%) with an associate degree program reportedly do not use the EMI Training Study Courses. And, less than half (42%) of those respondents with a bachelors degree program, reported using the EMI hand off courses as part of their program. Those of us who do incorporate these EMI resources stated the reasons we like them is that they are well written and easily adaptable. We indicated the following rank-ordering list of what we use (percentages apply only those who use any EMI materials): social dimensions of disaster and sociology of disaster (each 70%), business and industry crisis management and political and policy basis and principles and practices of hazards management (each 60%), public administration and emergency management and EMI independent study courses (each 50%), building disaster resistant communities (40%--even though we report this as our number 1 program focus!), research and analysis methods and terrorism and emergency management (each 30%), individual and community disaster education and technology and emergency management and social vulnerability (each 20%), EM principles applies to tourism (10%). Our Concerns. The number 1 concern we articulated (in response to an open-ended question, 40% identified it) is: how will we find qualified faculty to meet the demand? We also have several additional common concerns, in descending order: lack of text books and other teaching resources, meeting student demand with courses, funding for program/student needs, and too much emphasis being placed on homeland security. A multitude of additional concerns were listed by one or two respondents for each of these: Support and recognition by administrators, colleagues, etc. Lack of autonomy Large class sizes How to develop effective courses Scheduling of courses to meet needs of students and teachers Enrollment: usually how to handle explosion of it, sometimes to maintain it Program Assessment Quality control of programs/common national curriculum Embedding emergency management within university curriculum Keeping up to date with info and techno changes Developing a solid research & knowledge base Placement of students What do we expect the future to hold? We first and foremost expect enrollments to increase. Optimists that we are, we expect to hire more faculty members to meet this demand. Several expect to move their programs from bricks-and-mortar to a virtual classroom. In addition, each of the following were identified by one respondent: Reduce class size Offer more new courses Increase student involvement in all programs Add more degree programs, e.g., associate and bachelor degrees Add terrorism course Develop more graduate programs Integrate assessment into program Develop international disaster management certificate and masters program What do we like about EMI courses & what would we like to see improved? We listed three types of responses in answer to what we like. They are rank-ordered as most to least frequent: they are well developed and easily adaptable, they are good resources for both teacher and student, and they are complete. The top two recommendations for improvement include: (1) create DVD/video/AV of prominent disaster educators giving mini-lectures on their specialties as well as exciting materials of this type that grab student attention in demonstrating emergency management principles, etc. (2) provide more EMI courses. How else can the FEMA Higher Education Project help us? The two most frequent answers were: create textbooks and develop DVDs, streaming video, video, audio, pictures to provide illustrations (e.g., emergency management principles, disaster educator expertise, hazards types and impact, mitigation models, disaster myths and other social dimension of disaster issues). Additional recommendations included: ID core skills of an emergency manager Help lobby support for programs at universities Create case study illustrations from real world Provide resource lists (hard copy published items and internet links) Actively fund students in our programs Training in distance learning for faculty Methodological Issues The research plan was based upon several assumptions. (1) We assumed respondents would prefer the ease of an email response to a pdf file. (2) We assumed, as an alternative plan, respondents would prefer faxing a survey off print. (3) We assumed email signatures would be universally employed enabling us to identify who did and did not respond. And, (4) we assumed that those faxed to us would include a cover page which would identify the sender. We were wrong on all four assumptions, thus the low response rate of only 32%. Conference participants who offer an emergency management (or related) program will be asked to complete a survey. Final results will be tabulated and shared on the FEMA Higher Education web site. Cautionary Comments With a response rate of only 32%, we can hardly conclude that these preliminary findings are representative of the whole. Therefore, we do need to obtain responses from the remaining program coordinators. The final results may vary greatly from those shared above. While program concerns and suggested FEMA programmatic help will likely continue to be common responses, descriptive program information may vary. SURVEY OF HIGHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ANNECDOTAL INFORMATION Degree Types PhD: Environmental Sciences, Engineering Management & Systems Engineering Masters: Public Admin, Public Safety, Engineering Man & Sys Eng, EM Graduate Certificate: Crisis & Emergency Management Bachelors: Rural Public Safety, Emergency Management Certificate: Emergency Management Minor: Environment Hazards & Emergency Management Associates Challenges Shortage of Faculty Lack of Textbooks Large Classes Too Much Emphasis on Homeland Security Courses: enough, how to develop, quality control, scheduling them Funding students, program Maintaining Enrollment Anticipated in Future Hire More Faculty Distance Learning Delivery Dramatic Increase in Students Offer More Courses Reduce Class Size What We Like About EMI Courses Good resources for instructors and students Easily adaptable and well written What Other Help We Would Like From FEMA Textbooks Exciting Multi-Media Illustrations: streaming video, DVD/CD, mini-lectures from experts in EM education, etc. OVERVIEW OF PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF SURVEY OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT (& RELATED) PROGRAM COORDINATORS IN HIGHER EDUCATION Program CoordinatorsStudent DemographicsProgram DescriptionGender Female 38% Male 62%Gender Female 40% Male - 60%BA/BS 34% MA/MS 29% All other 37%Age Range 36-69 Median 55Age Median 30Goal entry 8% Goal adv 10% Goal both 82%Race Caucasian 95% None C. 5%Race Caucasian 80%Some DL 63% No DL 37%Income $25k-$100k median $70kObjective Degree 83% Cert - 17%DL Tech Used: Software: Bb/Web CT, Email, links, phoneEducation BS/BA to PhD 50% PhDWhy DL: Counter Geog LimitationsYrs in Position Range 1-28 Median 3When Meet: DL eve/wkend None DL days/eveYrs in Educ Range 0-20 Median 6Program Emphasis: Disaster Resistant Community OtherType of School Public 66% Private 34%Want Natl Deg Model: 73%, especially for AD, BS/BAUse EMI Courses? Yes 40% No 60%Degree Type & EMI Use: AD 18% BA/BS 42%Most Freq Used EMI Courses: Social Dimen/ Socy Dis 70% Others <50% PAGE  PAGE 1  ;<PQR  I J + h j ȿzog_WSOKOKOKSGKhh_h&{h*h*h*5h*h_5h*h !5hc0h !CJaJh!h!5 h!5hc0h!5CJaJh !5CJaJh!h}5CJaJh!h !5CJaJhc0hc0CJaJhc05CJaJ3hS}V5CJaJehfHq r9hc0hc05CJaJehfHq r<QRtj k h i E3~ `gd.`gd`gd!@&gd_ $@&a$gd! $@&a$gd_@&gdc0H7a7j k > E K g h j   ) : I { J2k0(FMU 5;=]^l23h+ h!h* h!6hY~hJ_h"hSYh]GIhhhh*h*5h* h]GIh!h&{ h!5h!C {C|~UZ  <A\vz,0STY(`bwμh!,h!,hei1>*hei1 hei15hh_ hSY6hSYh+h+6hf h.hY~6h.h.6h.h+hY~ hY~6Aw#%HJkq  C!^!"";"X"o""""#$-$.$$$$$%#%V%%%%%%%%%%%%& &&&&&½´hc0hJ5hc0hc0hc05>*h.hJ5hc0hJ5>*hJ hJ5 h[5h[h Vh V5>* h V5h Vh7p-h!,hhei1hei1>*hei1 hei15h!,hei15>*7 A S f !'!_!!!!"""_#r####$.$Q$$$%''((&&''''' '>'C'\'c's'x''))))))))**+*c*1,8,,,,,,c......@0L0000 1 1#191½~~z~z~zhJ_h"hXEhsp\5hXEh"5 hsp\5hsp\ h !5 hfhfhechec5>*hechfh ! hf5h hei1h!,h1^h!, hc05 h.5 h[hJhJhc0hc0hc05hc0hc05>*0((&)m))))))),,,b.c.d.e.f.g.h.i.j.k.l.m.n.o.p.q.`gdc0q.r.s.t.u.v.w.x.y.z.{.|.}.~.........-/r///030?0$a$gdsp\?0@0L0a0t0000 1"1#191L1h11111112 2H2S222222`gdJ_9111111 2H2R2S22222B3C3D3X3Y3m3n333F7G7H7I7O7P7Q7S7T7Z7[7\7]7^7`7a7b7־쳩hyIhyI0JmHnHuhu hu0Jjhu0JU hsp\h4hrhuhr5hqhr5h4hr5 hr5hXEhXE5 hXE5hXEh4hXEh"5h"hJ_'2222223C3D3Y3n333akd$$IflF(# t0#6    44 la$If$a$gdXE 3333333333444kkdu$$IflF(# t0#6    44 la$If 44"4.4>4N4]4^4c4r4444kkd$$IflF(# t0#6    44 la$If 44444444455%595kkd_$$IflF(# t0#6    44 la$If 95:5D5S5]5^5f55qkkkkkk$Ifkd$$IflF(# t0#6    44 la555555555qkkkkkkk$IfkdI$$IflF(# t0#6    44 la555555 6*616qkkkkkkk$Ifkd$$IflF(# t0#6    44 la1626A6Q6a6b6y66qkkkkkk$Ifkd3$$IflF(# t0#6    44 la6666666qkkkkk$Ifkd$$IflF(# t0#6    44 la6666666qkkkkk$Ifkd$$IflF(# t0#6    44 la6677797E7qkkkkk$Ifkd$$IflF(# t0#6    44 laE7F7G7H7Q7R7S7^7_7`7a7b7qoocaocaooo &`#$gdSYkd$$IflF(# t0#6    44 la 1h/ =!"#$%s$$If!vh555#v#v#v:Vl t#6555s$$If!vh555#v#v#v:Vl t#6555s$$If!vh555#v#v#v:Vl t#6555s$$If!vh555#v#v#v:Vl t#6555s$$If!vh555#v#v#v:Vl t#6555s$$If!vh555#v#v#v:Vl t#6555s$$If!vh555#v#v#v:Vl t#6555s$$If!vh555#v#v#v:Vl t#6555s$$If!vh555#v#v#v:Vl t#6555s$$If!vh555#v#v#v:Vl t#6555s$$If!vh555#v#v#v:Vl t#6555s$$If!vh555#v#v#v:Vl t#6555@@@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA@D Default Paragraph FontRi@R  Table Normal4 l4a (k(No ListRYR _ Document Map-D M OJQJ^J4 @4 !Footer  !.)@. ! Page Numberj@#j 4 Table Grid7:V0b/h<QRtjkhiE  3~ASf'__r.Q &!m!!!!!!!$$$b&c&d&e&f&g&h&i&j&k&l&m&n&o&p&q&r&s&t&u&v&w&x&y&z&{&|&}&~&&&&&&&&&-'r'''(3(?(@(L(a(t(((( )")#)9)L)h)))))))* *H*S**********2+C+D+Y+n++++++++++++,,,,",.,>,N,],^,c,r,,,,,,,,,,,,--%-9-:-D-S-]-^-f--------------- .*.1.2.A.Q.a.b.y...............///9/E/F/G/H/Q/R/S/^/_/`/c/00000000t000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 000 000 000 0 000 00 000 0 000 00 00 0 000 000 000 0 000 0 00 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 00 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 000 0 00x@0@0My0@0@0My0 0'<QRtjkhiE  3ASf'__r.Q &!m!!!!$c/ 0 0 0 0 0 00j 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000-w j w&91b7 !#' (q.?02344955516666E7b7"$%&()*+,-./0123a7 !!ܩ#u~--c/"-"-c/:*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsStreetV*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PersonNamehttp://www.microsoft.com;*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsaddress  ["^"----......$/)/,/0/1/4/G/H/P/S/]/`/c/@<@**..G/H/P/S/]/`/c/3333BSTfg'`rs./QRx !!&&&&s'''((3(4(?(@(L(M(a(b(t(u(((")#)8):)L)M)h)i)))*I*S*2++++++,],^,t,,,,,,,,--F----1.2.C......./8/9/E/G/H/`/c/..G/H/`/c/ Henry FischerFEMA,+"!Vfq !+!,7p-ei1XE]GI VS}VSYsp\1^ec@n@]tu&{/7`dTk.f 47yI_}Jc0*[J_Y~r^^D+Y+n++++++,,.,],^,,,,,,-9-:-]-^---------1.2.a.b...........//E/F/c/@@-b/p@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial5& zaTahoma"1hSfSf F:(U:(U!4d0/0/3H ?@]t$FEMA Higher Education Project Survey Henry FischerFEMAOh+'0   0< X d p |%FEMA Higher Education Project SurveysofEMAHenry Fischerucenrenr Normal.doteFEMAl.d2MAMicrosoft Word 10.0@G@?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWYZ[\]^_abcdefgjRoot Entry FPEHlData 51Table=4WordDocument"hSummaryInformation(XDocumentSummaryInformation8`CompObjj  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q