Umayanig: Cracking College Students’ Understanding of Earthquake Terminology

Authors

Chikyna May B. Ganzo

UM Panabo College, Department of Teacher Education Panabo City, Davao del Norte (Philippines)

Nathalie C. Planas

UM Panabo College, Department of Teacher Education Panabo City, Davao del Norte (Philippines)

Lee Kent T. Becira

UM Panabo College, Department of Teacher Education Panabo City, Davao del Norte (Philippines)

Joel C. Tahimic

UM Panabo College, Department of Teacher Education Panabo City, Davao del Norte (Philippines)

Article Information

DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS.2026.11060293

Subject Category: Education

Volume/Issue: 11/6 | Page No: 3934-3943

Publication Timeline

Submitted: 2026-07-01

Accepted: 2026-07-06

Published: 2026-07-20

Abstract

This study determined the level of understanding of earthquake terminology among Bachelor of Secondary Education majors in English students at UM Panabo College. This study aimed to identify the earthquake terms students understood most and least, and to provide intervention materials for difficult terms. The study followed a quantitative descriptive research approach, using a checklist of earthquake terminology evaluated by professionals to ensure clarity and reliability. A total of 161 respondents took part in the survey by indicating whether they understood the selected earthquake terms. The acquired data were analyzed using statistical techniques, including frequency counts, percentage distributions, and standard deviations. The results showed that students understood commonly used earthquake terms better than technical and scientific terminology. Therefore, the study recommended improving the integration of disaster education and developing intervention resources to increase students’ understanding of earthquake-related terminology and concepts.

Keywords

Earthquake Terminology, Disaster Education, Level of Understanding, Seismology, Hazard Awareness

Downloads

References

1. Ao, Y., Zhang, H., Yang, L., Wang, Y., Martek, I., & Wang, G. (2021). Impacts of earthquake knowledge and risk perception on rural residents' earthquake preparedness. Natural Hazards, 107(2), 1287–1310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-021-04632-w [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Asian Disaster Risk Reduction Center. (n.d.). Information on disaster risk reduction of the member countries: Philippines. https://www.adrc.asia/nationinformation.php?NationCode=608&Lang=en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bisht, R. (2024). What is stratified sampling? Definition, types, and examples. Researcher.Life. https://researcher.life/blog/article/what-is-stratified-sampling-definition-types-examples/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bongon, G. (2024). The vital role of schools and educational institutions in earthquake safety. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/vital-role-schools-educational-institutions-safety-gerry-bongon-dftnc [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Cabello, V. M. (2022). Students’ understanding of earthquakes and tsunamis in high-risk areas. Frontiers in Earth Science, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2022.841251 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Caldera, H. J., & Wirasinghe, S. C. (2021). A universal severity classification for natural disasters. Natural Hazards, 111(2), 1533–1573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-021-05106-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Çalışkan, C., & Üner, S. (2020). Disaster literacy and public health: A systematic review and integration of definitions and models. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 15(4), 518–527. https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2020.100 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Cherry, K. (2025). What is sociocultural theory? Verywell Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-sociocultural-theory-2795088 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Chmutina, K., Sadler, N., von Meding, J., & Abukhalaf, A. H. I. (2020). Lost (and found?) in translation: Key terminology in disaster studies. Disaster Prevention and Management, 30(2), 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-07-2020-0232 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Connelly, L. M. (2020). Inclusion and exclusion criteria.” MEDSURG Nursing, 29(2), 125–128. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Cooper, A. C., Cooke, M. L., Takayama, K., Sumy, D. F., & McBride, S. (2024). From alert to action: Earthquake early warning and deaf communities. Natural Hazards, 120(14), 13573–13594. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-024-06719-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Crayne, J., Herrán, C., Sumy, D. F., Benne, M., Shagott, T., & Peek, L. (2023). Public education about ShakeAlert ® earthquake early warning: Evaluation of an animated video in English and Spanish. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 14(2), 232–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2023.2238872 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Dagatan, D., Nadera, K. F., & Sinang, A. (2024). Risk communication effectiveness and earthquake preparedness of students at the University of Mindanao, Philippines. Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies, 50(3), 289–298. https://doi.org/10.9734/AJESS/2024/V50I31305 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. De Guzmán, A. J. B., Godoy, A. M., Nicodemus, M. M. C., Ramos, L. L. F., & Basilio, E. R. (2023). An assessment of the students’ level of earthquake awareness and preparedness on “The Big One.” International Journal of Environment Engineering and Education, 5(3), 87–99. https://doi.org/10.55151/ijeedu.v5i3.103 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Edwards, S. J. (2005). Research participation and the right to withdraw. Bioethics, 19(2), 112–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2005.00429.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Genç, F. Z., Öztürk, R., & Bilgili, N. (2025). Determination of disaster literacy status of nursing students and related factors. Journal of Public Health. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-025-02493-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. George, T. (2023). Frequency distribution in statistics. Study.com. https://study.com/learn/lesson/frequency-distribution-statistics-examples.html [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Iacoletti, S. (2023). An unpredictable peril: Why earthquakes should always be on the risk radar. AXA XL. https://axaxl.com/fast-fast-forward/articles/an-unpredictable-peril-why-earthquake-should-always-be-on-the-risk-radar [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Kishore, K. (2025). Why earthquakes still matter. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. https://www.undrr.org/news/why-earthquakes-still-matter [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Li, S., Peng, X., Pang, R., Li, L., Song, Z., & Ye, H. (2021). Information preference and information supply efficiency evaluation before, during, and after an earthquake: Evidence from Songyuan, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(24), 13070. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182413070 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Manalang, A. (2024). After a 7.4 magnitude earthquake rattled the Philippines, we awoke to the fact that we are not ready for “the big one.” Earth.Org. https://earth.org/philippines-not-ready-for-the-big-earthquake/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. McCombes, S. (2019). Descriptive research: Definition, types, methods & examples. Scribbr. https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/descriptive-research/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Nantiza, J. (2026). Sample size computation. Scribd. https://www.scribd.com/document/994717530/Sample-Size-Computation [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council. (2020). National disaster risk reduction and management plan (NDRRMP) 2020–2030. https://ndrrmc.gov.ph [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Packeiser, K. (2009). The general theory of terminology: A literature review and a critical discussion (Master’s thesis). Copenhagen Business School. https://research-api.cbs.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/58468593/kirsten_packeiser.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Smith, T. (2019). Schema theory. EBSCO Research Starters. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/psychology/schema-theory [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Tavil, Z. M., Güngör, M. N., Taşpınar, M., Şahin, M. G., Uluyol, Ç., Fişne, F. N., Akalın, M. B., & Erdinç-Akan, O. (2025). A needs analysis of language barriers in the Türkiye earthquake: Emergency English from an evidence-based approach. Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 15(2), 201–222. https://doi.org/10.66887/jltl.v15i2.749 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Tyas, R. A., Wilujeng, I., Rosana, D., Kuswanto, H., & Purwasih, D. (2025). A review of disaster risk reduction education implementation: Integration, trends, and trajectories. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 12, 102015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.102015 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Uekusa, S., & Matthewman, S. (2023). Preparing multilingual disaster communication for the crises of tomorrow: A conceptual discussion. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 87, 103589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103589 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Veroutsos, E. (2025). The world’s 10 most earthquake-prone countries. WorldAtlas. https://www.worldatlas.com/natural-disasters/the-world-s-10-most-earthquake-prone-countries.html [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

Metrics

Views & Downloads

Similar Articles