This material was developed and reviewed through the GETSI curricular materials development process. Final review and editing is pending. (view details)

This material was developed and reviewed through the GETSI curricular materials development process. This rigorous, structured process includes:

team-based development to ensure materials are appropriate across multiple educational settings.
multiple iterative reviews and feedback cycles through the course of material development with input to the authoring team from both project editors and an external assessment team.
real in-class or field camp/course testing of materials in multiple courses with external review of student assessment data.
multiple reviews to ensure the materials meet the GETSI materials rubric which codifies best practices in curricular development, student assessment and pedagogic techniques.
created or reviewed by content experts for accuracy of the science content.

Final review, editing, and approval by GETSI for this material is still pending.

Initial Publication Date: January 29, 2020

Daniel Laó Dávila: Using Volcanic Hazards in Exploring Earth: Introduction To Geology at Oklahoma State University-Main Campus

About this Course

This is a lower division course for non-science majors

116

students

two lectures of 50 minutes each per week and a 2-hour lab.

GEOL 1013 Syllabus Lao-Davila (Acrobat (PDF) 204kB May8 19)

Show the catalog description of my course

Show more about the course goals and content

This module was used in an introductory geology course for non-majors that used a combination of Integrate and GETSI modules and lecture-based classes. This was the first time that the class was taught with so many interactive activities, as the course was taught with a traditional lecture style on previous years. The Monitoring Volcanic Hazards module was interesting because it offered real monitoring data presented in a basic way so that students could easily see the signals of volcanic activity in different scenarios. The implementation in my course was interesting because of the large class (116 students) and the types of students (non-science). The students were able to read the introductory text, work in groups, analyze the data, and arrive to an interpretation about the volcanic activities.

"This module provided engaging and relevant activities to students that would otherwise feel that they don't belong in the conversation of volcanoes as they live far away from one. "

My Experience Teaching with GETSI Materials

I taught the module without any modifications.

Relationship of GETSI Materials to my Course

My course was 16 weeks long. The module was implemented from the 6th to the 9th week. It took a little longer to get through the material because we had to cancel two days due to inclement weather. The module was preceded by the following topics: Why study the Earth?, Earth Systems, Minerals and Rocks, and Living on the Edge (Plate tectonics and Hazards). Parts of the module was briefly referenced when we talked about the contribution of volcanic gases to the greenhouse effect and cooling during the climate change module at the end of the semester.

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

Unit 1

- Unit 1 was taught in a 50-minute lecture period.
- Students had to read a background information before class about Mount St. Helens.
- Students then took an online quiz about the reading. The quiz was due before the class.
- During class I briefly introduced the volcanic hazards and a brief history of Mount St. Helens.
- Students participated in a Think-Write-Share activity about eruption indicators.
- Then students participated in a Gallery Walk exercise about analyzing geodetic data. Due to the large classroom, the posters were moved to other groups rather than the moving the students from poster to poster.
- Logistics for large classrooms should be carefully planned. One or more Teaching Assistants would be useful to help keep track of the groups and to make sure that the posters are passed to the next group.
- The students then shared the interpretations with the whole class.
- It is important to have enough time in the end to let the students know what actually happened. Students will be anxious to know if their interpretations matched with what actually happened. That was an important part of the class.
- I collected the final written reflection and used it as an in-class exercise participation grade.

Unit 2

- Unit 2 was taught in two 50-minute lectures.
- Students had to read a background information before class about Lava flow hazards.
- Students then took an online quiz about the reading. The quiz was due before the class.
- During Kilauea Day 1 I briefly introduced the lava hazards and talked about monitoring Hawai'ian volcanoes.
- Students had to learn about the data types and interpret the data types in expert groups (one geodetic tool). The students answered the questions in the provided worksheet.
- Before the Kilauea Day 2. The student had to read a document on lava diversion.
- Students then took an online quiz about the reading. The quiz was due before the class.
- On Kilauea Day 2, the student had to bring the worksheets completed on the previous class. Some students were absent the day before or forgot to bring the worksheet. Those students were put in groups of students that had done their work and had to learn very rapidly to catch up.
- The students formed interdisciplinary groups, each member being an expert on one geodetic method. They discussed the data and provided an interpretation on volcanic activity.
- The interpretations were presented to the whole class.
- I presented what actually happened and the students enjoyed this part because they wanted to know if they were successful.
- The video of the community meeting was insightful and powerful because the students saw the challenges that occur when various points of views are presented at the meeting. Especially it was important to listen to the arguments that relate to the cultural issues.
- I finished the class with a quick view of the last eruption from 2018. The instructor must be careful with time as there is a lot to cover during this class.
- I collected the worksheets and used it as an in-class exercise participation grade.

Unit 3

- Unit 3 was taught in a 50-minute lecture period.
- Students had to read a background information before class about Yellowstone and Mean recurrence interval.
- Students then took an online quiz about the reading. The quiz was due before the class.
- During class I briefly introduced the history of Yellowstone volcanism and defined what was a seismic swarm.
- The students worked in groups to look at seismic data and define seismic swarms. They then shared their finding with the class.
- The students had to discuss the data to generate hypotheses. This part was difficult for them as they were not exposed to that type of activity before. So perhaps an example given by the instructor might help them understand.
- The students then used all the data to assess the state of the volcano and shared it with the class.
- I recommend that the instructor has a good plan to guide the discussions of the data for large classrooms such as calling directly group members.
- I collected the worksheets and used it as an in-class exercise participation grade.

Unit 4

- Unit 4 was taught in a 50-minute lecture period.
- Students had to read a background information before class about volcano hazards and the Volcanic Explosivity Index.
- Students then took an online quiz about the reading. The quiz was due before the class.
- I briefly explained the assessment of volcanic monitoring and presented the three volcanoes to be studied in class.
- The students worked in groups to answer the worksheet. I assigned a volcano to the student groups. Students did not change groups due to logistics in the large classroom and to save time.
- The class ended with a whole class discussion about which volcano represented a larger hazard, weaknesses in monitoring and ways to improve monitoring.
- I collected the worksheets and used it as an in-class exercise participation grade.

Assessments

I used reading quizzes before classes to assess the reading of the background information. As formative assessments, I walked around the classroom to help students during group work and led the whole-class discussion. As summative assessment we conducted the Letter to Senator and Bulletin as assignments and were graded using the provided rubrics. In addition, multiple choice and True or False questions were used in the exams. Worksheets for class work were only graded as participation as it was difficult to grade more than 100 works every day. Feedback from students indicate that some they perceived the quizzes to be useful, while others felt that it was too much work.

Outcomes

I was excited to use this module because I had for a long time wanting to change my course form a lecture style (teacher centered) to a flipped style (student centered) where the students learn every day by doing activities. Thus, when I decided to pilot this module I had a vision of having an active classroom with lots of student participation and with real-data that students could use. I wanted to remove the students from the theoretical textbook and bring them to the relevant and practical world of geoscience. I think I was successful with this module. The students performed well, although I think that for the typical non-science students enrolled in these courses at Oklahoma State, I would intercalate some of the units in the module with some lecture to slow down the pace and to provide additional material so that the students are better prepared for discussions. The small modification would perhaps help the students retain more of the knowledge and motivate them to participate more. Overall, this module helped fulfilled my vision and goals and highly recommend to others who want to add engagement, relevance, and real world data to their courses.

« Previous Page Next Page »