Fault Separation Gestures
Laurel Goodwin, UW-Madison, and Carol Ormand
, SERC at Carleton College
Author ProfileSummary
Context
Audience
Undergraduate required course in Structural Geology
Skills and concepts that students must have mastered
Students need to know the difference between strike-slip and dip-slip faults. They should also be familiar with the concept of fault separation.
How the activity is situated in the course
This exercise accompanies a lecture on fault separation. It is one of several gesture exercises incorporated in the course, so students are accustomed to using gesture to describe/illustrate structural concepts.
Goals
Content/concepts goals for this activity
Students will understand how fault separation differs from fault slip direction.
Higher order thinking skills goals for this activity
Students will be able to recognize fault separation on maps and cross-sections, know that it is not necessarily parallel to fault slip, and will be able to analyze the geometry of faulted layers or structures to infer slip direction.
Other skills goals for this activity
Students will develop their ability to represent complex geometric relationships via gestures.
Description of the activity/assignment
Students explore the relationship between fault slip direction and fault separation by varying the geometry of faulted layers, slip direction, and the perspective from which these are viewed. They work in teams to explore these complex geometric relationships via gestures.
Determining whether students have met the goals
We walk around the room, watching and talking with the students as they work through the exercise. It's a quick and easy way to see whether students understand fault separation, and where they are struggling with this concept.
More information about assessment tools and techniques.Download teaching materials and tips
- Fault separation gestures (Microsoft Word 2007 (.docx) 675kB Mar21 13)
Other Materials
Supporting references/URLs
Goldin-Meadow, Susan (2011). Learning Through Gesture. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, v. 2, n. 6, pp. 595–607.

![[creative commons]](/images/creativecommons_16.png)




