Elizabeth Nagy: Using portions of four InTeGrate modules in Physical Geology at Pasadena City College

Map Your Hazards! - Assessing Hazards, Vulnerability, and Risk

· Unit 1: (120 minutes) Prior to class students completed an on-line multiple-choice homework assignment that I created on the general topics of natural hazards. I began class with an opening "daily question" on the board related to the homework: How would you define hazard? Vulnerability? Risk? After a class review of the answers, I went through a powerpoint lecture (30 minutes) modified from the one provided on the module webpage. Students had their own paper version of the slides. The presentation concluded by showing the examples from Boise of creating hazard, vulnerability, and risk maps, and explaining to students how they would do something similar. I modified the activity instructions to include relevant websites for our region. I gave groups of 3 students ~ 50 sq. mile topographic maps (printed from Google Earth) of areas in and around Pasadena. Each group got two identical maps printed in color on 11" x 17" paper. I brought computers into the classroom for use finding hazards and vulnerability data, although some students preferred to use their phones. Each group plotted local hazards and regions of vulnerability on one copy of the map, and then created a risk map on the second copy. In addition to turning in their completed maps, each group had to submit a typed explanation of their risk categorization strategy.

Living on the Edge: Building Resilient Societies on Active Plate Boundaries

Units 1 and 2: (90 minutes for Unit 1 and 45 minutes for Unit 2)

o Unit 1. I created an online homework with the pre-work questions so everyone was prepared when they got in. Our opening "daily question" was about past earthquakes on the San Andreas fault, the dates, magnitudes, and if we could possibly say something about repeat intervals. This seemed like a good launch. I showed a power point that briefly went over some of the pre-work unit 1 questions, and then we dug into the hazard calculations for San Francisco. Students had a copy of my modified powerpoint in their notes, which really helped. SCAFFOLDING: I also added a 10-minute discussion of what a logarithmic scale was and why we might use one. Once we had done the activity for the San Francisco area as a class, I would say that the majority of students had little trouble repeating the calculations for the Los Angeles area.

o Unit 2. I put some of the unit 2 pre-work into the same online homework mentioned in unit 1, so students had at least watched the liquefaction cartoon. I showed a short (10 minute) ppt that included discussion of risk factors related to earthquakes. My materials for this unit are printed and laminated, so we did not use the Google Earth option. Students were placed into groups of 6. Each student received a 4-page activity description (that I have modified from the original) and each team got a packet of laminated materials. From here the activity is really self-explanatory, and it took the groups 15-20 minutes to calculate the "risk" factor for their school. I projected the data table on the board and each group filled in their data. We looked at which two schools had the highest value, and then I also showed them the "answer key", just for comparison.

Units 3 and 4: (75 minutes for each unit)

o Unit 3. Prior to class students had already done the unit 3 pre-work via an online version that I made. Together we reviewed the pre-work column of Table 1 (Submarine Divergent Plate Boundaries), and I told them that by the end of our first activity we would complete the other column (Terrestrial Divergent Plate Boundaries). I used my modified unit 3 ppt that introduced them to the locations of the three volcanoes that we would be studying, and then did a mixer to get them into new groups with 3 people each. I gave each team a manila folder with laminated materials for one of the following: Grimsvotn, Dabbahu, or Nyiragongo volcanoes. They worked in groups to complete Table 2. Once it seemed like most groups were done, I had them put their answers on the white board on the projected Table 2. Each "team of 3" filled in one box. We discussed each of these, completed the right-had column together, and then completed Table 1, emphasizing that the big different between submarine and terrestrial divergent boundaries was the hazards to humans in the latter. I finished by showing them the 8-minute video about the 2002 Nyiragongo eruption as given in the module references/resources.

o Unit 4. We began with the 4-minute video of how to pronounce Eyjafjallajökull volcano, which was a nice way to begin the lesson. We then did the Unit 4 pre-work together, watching the IRIS Quicktime videos. We discussed each video and I had them complete the table associated with the monitoring techniques (Monitoring Volcanoes Table). I showed my modified ppt for Unit 4. We went through the "thought experiment" about GPS deformation during inflation. I assigned one of the four GPS stations to 8 groups and had them complete part 3 (predicted motion). I projected the map with the stations to the front of the room, and eventually chose students from each row to put the red or blue arrows on their station at the front of the room (thus each group got to participate). We discussed answers to questions 3a, 3b, and 3c, and then looked at the actual GPS data together. Students were quick to learn how to read the data plots. Together we plotted the motion on the Part 4 diagram. After a discussion, I told them that they pretty much had the answers for questions 4-7, and I assigned it as homework along with the questions related to the seismicity video.

Units 5 and 6: (90 minutes for Unit 5 and 60 minutes for Unit 6)

o Unit 5. Students did the unit 5 pre-work before class via an online version that I made. My lecture opened with a review of that activity, which covered the 1980 Mt. St. Helens eruption. I introduced all students to the three kinds of data (seismic, gas chemistry, tilt data) we would examine related to the Cascade subduction zone, and I explained in some detail each of the data sets from "Data Set 1". I put them into groups of three and assigned each group one of the three data sets (this resulted in 3 or 4 groups looking at the same data set). They worked for about 20 minutes following the worksheets answering the questions and completing the tables. I put a chart on the board at the front of the room and asked each group to put their selected advisory level. This was a fun way to see how different groups sometimes assigned different levels of caution and it prompted some class discussion. We also returned to this chart after students reviewed "Data Sets 2 and 3".

o Unit 6. Students used the same approach to analyze "Data Set 2", generally revising their initial advisory warning. They put these new alert levels on the board next to their previous ones. This was very informative as a class discussion, especially because the tilt data is contrary to the other data (it suggests deflation of the volcano instead of increase in activity). We followed this by looking at "Data Set 3". We then did the "jigsaw", moving everyone into new groups. It wasn't a perfect jigsaw because some groups did not have a tilt representative, but that did not seem to be an issue. Each new group was assigned a town for which to make detailed hazard assessments. I prepared colored, laminated hazard maps for each group to use. After about 25 minutes I projected the map of the region and asked the students to put a new hazard alert next to their city. I also put a table with headings that corresponded to hazard types on the board (pyroclastic flows, lahars, flooding, wind-blown ash) and asked them to write the name of their town under any heading that they thought was a concern for their town. Following class discussion of the results I showed the "eruption scenario". I ended with students answering several of the provided reflection questions.

Humans' Dependence on Earth's Mineral Resources

· Unit 1 (all three activities; 120 minutes total)

o Activity 1.1. Prior to class students answered the embedded questions in an online assignment that I created from the Unit 1.1 pre-lab reading assignment. Before class I placed 15 objects (cereal box, pencil, eye shadow, etc.) around the room with numbered cards. Students were placed into groups of two or three. Each group had small, prepared boxes that had labeled "cubbies" with the 15 minerals we would match to the items around the room. I briefly explained the activity and students moved around the room in groups trying to identify the 15 minerals in the products. After about 20-25 minutes several students were done and back at their seats. We reviewed the answers using a projected "blank" table on the screen. An alternative could be to have the students come up and write their answers on the board. NOTE: This activity requires a significant amount of material preparation beforehand, but after you have done it once it is easy and I find that the students really like it.

o Activity 1.2. We reviewed what the requirements are for something to be a mineral. I gave a brief overview of what a concept map is and handed out the mineral concept map assignment (11"x17" paper with halite example and one page of instructions). Students signed up for their own mineral resource and I gave them the same directions provided in the module. Students completed the mineral/rock concept map, which they found to be pretty straight-forward. I added a "useful properties" link to add to the mineral node as suggested in the activity. I also added "inorganic" to the mineral definition, which was not in the diagram.

o Activity 1.3. I created an introduction for the concepts of GDP, GDP per capita, consumption rates, and consumption rates per capita. I went over how to read the graph using the provided ppt, and then let students work on answering the questions. Most of them finished quickly (~ 15 minutes). We went over the answers as a class. We then watched the Ted Talk and I gave them class time to finish the associated "homework" questions.

Unit 2 (60-75 minutes)

o We did Activity 2.1 (60 minutes) in class and I gave them time at the end of that activity to work on Activity 2.2 (REE). Most students completed 2.2 as homework and did not need assistance. Prior to class students did the pre-lab assignment about rechargeable batteries as an online exercise. This was good preparation as it got them thinking about the topic of the day and certainly connected it to their own personal lives. In class I gave an introduction covering supply and demand and walked them through the concept map of economic and societal factors that affect the flow of minerals (hereafter referred to as the "economics concept map"). I did this while projecting the student version that is on the integrate website about Tellurium. I handed out copies of the 10-question activity handout to everyone (rechargeable batteries/Li and Ni exercise) and asked them to work though the questions. Based on the two occasions that I did this, I highly recommend giving one copy of the handout to pairs of students to stimulate working together. I projected the worksheet onto the screen to help them with the first few questions, and toggled back and forth with the "economics concept map". I gave students time to complete each section at a time, and we reviewed some parts as a class before they moved onto the next section. When we had completed part #9, we analyzed the first (provided example) using the Li-plots. I then told then to complete Q#10 on their own and turn it in at the beginning of our next class. Many of them finished during class and turned it in early.

· Unit 3 (90 minutes for Activity 3.1 and 30-40 minutes for Activity 3.2)

Activity 3.1. I assigned the pre-unit homework on abandoned mines and superfund sites as a small project for which each student had to chose one site from the list. This was done earlier in the semester and had been returned to the students, so they had some familiarity with the day's topic. I also created a pre-lab online homework with 10 questions about the pre-lab reading. I began class with the powerpoint from the unit website. This took about 30 minutes and included the 5-minute embedded video of the largest blast ever recorded at a mine. Groups of three students sent one member to the front of the room to get paper plates, a blueberry muffin, and some mining tools (straws, toothpicks, and spoons). I explained the activity using the Instructor's notes as a guide. I did not indicate that they needed to preserve any of the muffin. I gave the teams 7 minutes to "mine". I drew a table on the board with four columns: team name, concentrated ore, ore plus host rock, and waste rock. They put their estimated percentages on the board and we compared/discussed results. We repeated the activity with chocolate chip muffins but they were instructed not to disturb shape of the muffin as much as possible. They added their information to the chart on the board and we briefly compared the two methods. NOTE: Students love this activity!

Activity 3.2. Using the same groups from Activity 3.1, I assigned each group either Section I, II, or III to complete. The handouts are pretty self-explanatory. I went around the room helping groups with places where they got stuck, especially doing the math calculations. It is important to eventually review all of these Sections with everybody if you plan to use them in any assessments. Otherwise find a way so that everyone does all three Sections.

Unit 5 (140 minutes) I began class with my own ppt on ore minerals that included four types of ore mineral formation processes. I told them that today we would be focusing on the "hydrothermal deposits" and I did show the Woods Hole video (suggested viewing from the module) when I got to the topic of black smokers. After the ppt was finished I summarized the Yellowstone story in about 5 minutes (knowing that some students probably did not read it). I then had students work with a partner on Q#1-5 about Yellowstone and the geologic map. After about 15 minutes of a very quiet classroom, I projected the geologic map onto the screen and we discussed the answers to Q 1-3. I then gave them 15 minutes to finish Q4 and 5 (which was too much time.) I then did a similar 5-10 minute overview of the Lake Superior story. I put the students into 6 random groups (4-5 students each) and had them address Q#6 (which was the comparison between the two stories). I had each group write a 1-minute position paper supporting one or the other location for mining operations (Interestingly, everyone supported mining in the Yellowstone area). I gave them 4x6 cards to summarize their pros and cons with bullets. I then asked one member from each group to go to the front of the room and we had a class discussion. This went well and the students got into it.

A Growing Concern: Sustaining Soil Resources through Local Decision Making

· Units 1 (70 minutes) I printed and laminated the eight opening images and had students examine these in groups of 4 and answer the related questions on a handout. (This worked better than the first time I used this unit where I projected each image on the board and had students write about each image, which took much too long and made the activity quite boring.)I began class with a modified powerpoint based on the one from the module. I explained physiographic properties that clearly defined what we were looking for in the images. We looked at two images together, and they I gave each group the eight images to examine. Students seemed unclear what to write for each image. I had each group select one of the eight photos and we had a class discussion of each figure. Once we had gone through that, I ended with a few slides about earth's spheres and asked them to complete the table as well as the unit 1 homework.

Unit 4 (70 minutes)

o Part 1. I had the students do the pre-lab activity prior to the lab. After a brief review of those questions, I began with the soil health powerpoint and had them do a quick think-pair-share with the slide about what a healthy soil looks like. I wrote a list on the board from their suggestions. We then did Part 1 of the exercise using Soilweb. I did not use the Soilweb app because it only gives you a profile for your current location. Instead we used the computer version. Furthermore, there are no data for the Pasadena area, so I found a nearby location (Fullerton) and had them use that zip code. Students worked in pairs or groups of three with one computer between them. They had no problem getting to the site. I projected the same site on the board from my own computer, and we looked at things together. In retrospect, I should have talked a little about soil horizons, because we just jumped right into it. Specifically I need a little introduction to the concept of an A horizon. I also think I should do a more organized tour of the web site options for a few minutes before we jump into the activity. I highly suggest doing the first profile together, step by step, and then ask them to do a second one on their own.

Part 2. This section involved "revisiting" erosion rates from unit 3, which I had not done, so I showed them how to find the erosion rate on the erosion maps from unit 3, and then showed them how to calculate how long it would be until the fertile soil in our area would be gone. I combined two groups together to make new groups of 4-6 students. . I assigned each new group a different location to examine using soil profiles and OM plots that I printed in color and laminated. Students determined the erosion rates for their location using maps from unit 3, then calculated how quickly the fertile horizon of their site will be lost. I projected each location on the board and each group shared their results. At the end I projected the exit questions about "soil in balance" and assigned them as homework.