Initial Publication Date: December 14, 2015

Gareth Funning: Using Imaging Active Tectonics in Global Geophysics at the University of California, Riverside

About this Course

The course introduces central concepts of solid earth geophysics as applied at the global or planetary scale.

students

Two 50-minute

lectures

One three-hour lab

per week

Public R1

university
Syllabus (Acrobat (PDF) 85kB Nov3 15)

Show description of my course

The course introduces central concepts of solid Earth geophysics as applied at the global or planetary scale. We cover plate tectonics and dynamics of the lithosphere, seismology and Earth structure, geothermal behavior and heat flow, isostasy and gravity, and geodynamics and planetary geophysics. It is an upper-division class, and a core requirement of the geophysics major at UCR and a geology elective. It attracts approximately equal numbers of students from both majors.

Introductory Statements

The Global Geophysics class is targeted at upper-division students, and aims to teach the physics underpinning the behavior of the solid Earth, using a mixture of traditional lectures, problem-solving in discussions, and lab exercises that use real geophysical data. Although the GETSI material is somewhat more applied than the material I usually cover in this class, the format of the labs is similar, and I was able to transition into the module after we had lectures and labs on earthquakes and seismic waves.

Almost all of the students in the class were raised in California (the one exception being a student from Japan), and so the reflections on seismic hazards and potential societal consequences resonated strongly with them, providing a strong motivation from the start. The students were particularly adept at finding additional information on vulnerable infrastructure and went well beyond what was provided for them. Other elements, such as the LiDAR exercise in Unit 2 and the InSAR exercises in Units 3 and 4, were mostly successful, although additional time out of class was needed for the students to complete them. In general, this first test of the materials seemed a little rushed, and in future implementations I will devote more time, so that the students can get the most out of the exercises. Even so, most students were able to incorporate information and concepts from across the first four units, including earthquake interferogram models, into their Unit 5 assessments.

My Experience Teaching with GETSI Materials

The students responded well to the challenge of identifying vulnerable infrastructural elements and developing plausible scenarios of damage and disruption, going far beyond my expectations. It was certainly an effective "hook!" They were also able to use the online tool developed for modeling earthquake interferograms, and did so for their final reports without issue.

Relationship of GETSI materials to my course

I alternate between teaching this class and another upper-division class in active tectonics; the module would be a very good fit for the other class, and initially seemed a somewhat less good fit for this one (for example, the material is outside what is covered by the class textbook). The Global Geophysics class does include lab exercises where students work with real data (in keeping with GETSI), however, and there are lectures and labs that cover earthquakes and seismology, so it did not stand out as much as I had originally feared. I introduced the GETSI module immediately after we covered seismology in lecture, about 4 weeks into a 10-week class.

In order to tie the societal angle that is integral to GETSI into the more theoretical geophysics material covered previously in the class, I added a transitionary lecture where I described the effects that earthquakes can have on structures, which I think worked in making the transition less abrupt. I did not refer directly to the GETSI material later in the class, but I did use a format similar to the Unit 5 summative assessment for a second graded assignment later in the quarter, and I also asked questions in the final exam that drew on the GETSI module.

A Unit-by-Unit Breakdown of How I Taught this Module

Pre-unit 1

I used a one-hour lecture slot for preparatory material; I gave a short (30–35 minute) lecture on how earthquakes break structures, and I used the remaining 20 minutes of class time for a whole-class discussion on infrastructure types and how they could be vulnerable.

Unit 1

I used a full discussion and lab time slot (four hours total) to cover the first two GETSI units. Time was evenly split between the two exercises. The class was held in the computer lab, and students finished the exercises out of class. Students were divided into groups of two or three for these exercises.
For Unit 1, I used the provided GETSI handout verbatim, although I did provide a "wrapper" handout with additional instructions and details (e.g. where to find the files on the course management system, which faults/areas/cities to look at).
When planning the class, I realized that providing the students with additional information on surface geology would enable them to assess a wider variety of infrastructure vulnerabilities, such as liquefaction and site amplification, in addition to the fault-offset hazard that we encourage students to consider. I therefore put together additional kmz geological map overlays for the students to use.
I also encouraged students to produce their own kmz overlays showing vulnerable lifelines—these in may cases were better than the examples they were provided with.

Unit 2

This was held in the second half of a four-hour time slot, paired up with Unit 1 (see above).
Again, I provided the students with the full, unedited GETSI handout, with a "wrapper" handout with specific instructions saying which subset of the faults students should be looking at, as well as additional information on data access and plotting (all of which is provided as "Teaching Notes and Tips" for Unit 2).

Unit 3

I used a one-hour lecture slot and the first hour of the next lab. I delivered the lecture PowerPoint for the first 40 minutes of the lecture slot, and then provided the students with the paper exercise for them to start. They completed the exercise in the lab time.
Both the lecture slides and the handouts for the paper exercise were the original, unedited, GETSI materials.

Unit 4

This was held over the remaining three hours of a four-hour lab slot, paired up with Unit 3 (see above). We used the next lecture period to discuss the results.
Class was held in a computer lab, enabling students to access the Visible Earthquakes tool on known machines with known web browsers.
The additional period of discussion was necessary to enable the discussion necessary to answer the final few questions on the exercise. The computer lab environment was not very conducive to whole-class discussions.
I used the GETSI handout verbatim for the unit.

Unit 5

This was used as a take-home assignment for the students, with access to the computer lab provided as needed.
Supporting materials (e.g. the LiDAR data and links to the Visible Earthquakes tool) were provided via the course management system.
I used the GETSI handout verbatim for the unit.

Assessments

I took in the student responses to each unit and checked over them as formative assessments and an opportunity to give feedback. The Unit 5 assignment was used as a summative assessment for the whole module (and 20% of the final grade for the class). I also included questions in the final exam on material related to the class, including the relationship between earthquake recurrence and fault slip rate, how earthquakes can affect structures, and how the depiction of fault geomorphology in the movie San Andreas might not be accurate. The latter assessment seemed particularly popular with the students.

Outcomes

The aim of the module was to relate short-term and long-term tectonic processes (i.e. individual earthquakes to the growth of fault geomorphology), and to learn to interpret data from InSAR and LiDAR. In addition, we wanted students to reflect on the societal implications of earthquake hazards. Overall, I believe that we succeeded on both counts. Students who in many cases had not been aware of the applications of geodetic data were, in the space of two weeks, able to use the data to draw conclusions about faulting styles and earthquake hazards; they were also noticeably engaged in identifying the potential impacts of earthquakes on infrastructure and society in general.

« Previous Page Next Page »