Assessment of Module Goals

This

rubric -- private instructor-only file

Hide

Each of

these responses -- private instructor-only file

Hide

Criterion 1: The student can explain the type(s) of geologic information that a geologist would need to assess potential geological hazards, vulnerability, and activity. (Aligned with module goal 1)

3 points: Student can correctly identify the types of geological information required for hazard and vulnerability assessment in the chosen plate boundary environment, and can relate data to either hazard and vulnerability analysis or to signs of geologic activity. Examples of information types include past seismic activity, soil type /site condition, liquefaction potential, and landslide potential (or slope) for situation 1.

2 Points: Student can correctly identify most of the types of geological information required for hazard and vulnerability assessment in the chosen plate boundary environment, or student correctly identifies all information but includes information that is not relevant, or student can correctly identify but cannot explain all types of geological activity.

1 Point: Student can correctly identify and explain at least one of the types of geological information required for hazard and vulnerability assessment in the chosen plate boundary environment.

0 Points: Student cannot correctly identify or explain any of the types of geological information required for hazard and vulnerability assessment in the chosen plate boundary environment.

Criterion 2: The student can determine the time scales over which geological information would be useful to planning agencies and emergency managers (e.g. a short-term alert within days/weeks, a long-term forecast over several decades, etc.). (Aligned with module goal 2)

3 points: For each type of geological information listed, the student correctly identifies the time scale over which geological information would be useful to planning agencies and emergency managers. For example, in situation 1, all of the data types listed above would be useful over the long term (decades) rather than as immediate signals of activity.

2 Points: The student correctly identifies the time scale over which more than one piece of geological information would be useful, but some determinations are incorrect.

1 Point: The student correctly identifies the time scale over which one piece of geological information would be useful, but other determinations are incorrect.

0 Points: The student does not correctly identify the time scale over which the listed geological information would be useful.

Criterion 3: Given the chosen situation, the student can propose ways in which planners could mitigate the risks of the specific hazards to people and property in their regions. (Aligned with module goal 2)

3 points: The student proposes at least one possible way in which planners could mitigate risk due to the specific geological hazards implied by the chosen situation. The proposal includes specific guidelines for mitigation. For example, in situation 1, the student may propose that the planners require that high-rises be built of reinforced concrete, without soft stories, and with foundations appropriate to withstand expected ground motion.

2 Points: The student proposes at least one possible way in which planners could mitigate risk due to the specific geological hazards implied by the chosen situation. The proposal does not include specific guidelines for mitigation.

1 Point: The student proposes at least one possible way in which planners could mitigate risk, but the proposal is not appropriate to the situation chosen. For example, in situation 1, proposing (only) that planners inform the public about earthquake risk is not an appropriate mitigation strategy.

0 Points: The student does not propose any way in which planners could mitigate risk.

3 points: Response describes contributions of regional differences in both earthquake probability and population as important factors in deciding how to allocate earthquake preparedness resources. Earthquake probability calculation process is described or explained.

2 points: Response describes contributions of regional differences in both earthquake probability and population as important factors in deciding how to allocate earthquake preparedness resources.

1 point: Response describes regional differences in earthquake probability as an important factor in deciding how to allocate earthquake preparedness resources.

0 points: Response does not refer to regional differences in earthquake probability as an important factor in deciding how to allocate earthquake preparedness resources.

We recommend using the following rubric to score the summative assessment. The three requirements correspond approximately to the three unit learning goals. Each requirement of this question should be scored on a numerical scale of 0-3, with 0 representing an answer that does not meet standards and a 3 an answer that indicates mastery. The question is therefore worth 9 points.

Criterion 1: The student explains how specific geological characteristics of the school site (strong shaking potential, which includes rock/soil type and distance from potentially active faults; liquefaction potential; landslide potential) contribute to seismic hazard. (Aligned with unit goal 1)

3 Points: The response correctly identifies the degree to which the school sites are exposed to seismic hazard, and explains the factors contributing to the seismic hazard at each specific site. Complete explanations include a discussion of:

• proximity to active faults
• rock/soil type and consolidation (liquefaction potential)
• proximity to steep slope

2 Points: The response correctly identifies the degree to which the school sites are exposed to seismic hazard, but incompletely explains the factors contributing to the seismic hazard at each specific site (i.e. not all of the points listed above under "complete explanations" are included).

1 Point: The response incorrectly identifies the degree to which the school sites are exposed to seismic hazard, but explains at least one factor contributing to the seismic hazard at each specific site.

0 Points: The response incorrectly identifies the degree to which the school sites are exposed to seismic hazard, and does not explain any of the factors contributing to the seismic hazard at a specific site.

Criterion 2: The student explains how construction at each school site could be upgraded to enhance seismic safety. (Aligned with unit goal 2)

3 Points: The response correctly identifies specific seismic hazard mitigation options and explains why they would be useful at the two chosen school sites. The mitigation options are relevant to the hazards outlined in the response. These may include:

• To mitigate loose soil/ liquefaction effects: add deep piles to foundation, dewater or densify sediment
• To mitigate effects of shaking: reinforce soft stories, add devices to resist vibration

2 Points: The response identifies specific seismic hazard mitigation options and explains why they would be useful at the two chosen school sites. The mitigation options are not all relevant to the hazards outlined in the response.

1 Point: The response identifies seismic hazard mitigation options but does not explain why they would be useful at the two chosen school sites. The mitigation options are not necessarily relevant to the hazards outlined in the response.

0 Points: The response does not identify seismic hazard mitigation options.

Requirement 3: The student appropriately calculates risk as a combination of hazard, vulnerability, and value, with value in this case referring to the potential number of lives saved. (Aligned with unit goal 3)

3 Points: The response takes into account all risk factors when prioritizing seismic retrofits.

1.5 Points: The response is based only on one or two risk factors.

0 Points: The response does not refer to calculated risk.

A successful case will:

• Refer specifically to seismic hazard, construction, and student population information from the activity
• Identify schools that could be better served by abandonment than retrofitting
• Use a logical argument, supported by data, to communicate seismic risk

- Monitoring data would include a network of seismometers and high-precision GPS stations, continuously recording earthquake activity and GPS station location so that baseline, background activity can be characterized and changes from that baseline/background level can be identified. Other data mentioned in the prework, but not covered in the class work include tiltmeter and gas emission data.
- Earliest warning signs in an increase in numbers of earthquakes underneath the volcano and motion of GPS stations outward and away from the volcano indicating inflation as magma intrudes underneath the volcano. Other data not covered in the prework include progressive shallowing of seismic activity, occurrence of seismic tremor, and onset/increase in volcanic gas emission (especially SO₂).
- Indications that an eruption is imminent would be abrupt changes or accelerations in any of this activity.

This rubric is used to assess student responses to the question above based on two criteria. Responses are scored on a scale of 0-3, with 3 indicating mastery.
Criterion 1: Response to question 1 describes several methods geologists use to monitor geologic activity associated with volcanic eruptions. (Unit Learning Objective 1)

3 Points: Response accurately describes GPS, seismic monitoring, and other methods not discussed in the in-class work.
2 Points: Response accurately describes GPS and seismic monitoring.
1 Point: Response accurately describes GPS or seismic monitoring.
0 points: Response dose not describe valid methods for volcano monitoring.

Criterion 2: Response to question 1 describes specific signs of pre-eruptive activity and eruption in both GPS and seismic records. (Unit Learning Objective 2)

3 Points: Response describes both signs of pre-eruptive activity and eruption, in both GPS and seismic records. Descriptions are specific enough that the reader could identify such signs in a record.
2 Points: Response is missing one of the following: signs of pre-eruptive activity or eruption, in GPS or seismic records. Descriptions are specific enough that the reader could identify such signs in a record.
1 Point: Response is missing more than one of the following, or more than one of the following are vaguely described: signs of pre-eruptive activity or eruption, in GPS or seismic records.
0 points: Response dose not describe valid methods for volcano monitoring.

- Sufficient monitoring systems were not in place/not used
- Technical difficulties/remoteness/resource limitations
- Vandalism of monitoring equipment
- No baseline data
- Information not disseminated/population not prepared to react appropriately, no action plan
- Existence of a lava lake, voluminous volume erupted, and very fluid lava, which flowed quickly
- Steep-sided volcano near a populated area
- Civil unrest/government instability

This rubric is used to assess student responses to the question above based on one criterion. Responses are scored on a scale of 0-3, with 3 indicating mastery.
Criterion 1: Response to question 2 describes factors that determine whether volcano monitoring can be effective in mitigating risk to people and property. (Unit Learning Objective 1)

3 Points: Response specifically describes at least four problematic aspects of monitoring at Nyiragongo, and explains how each contributed to the negative consequences of the eruption.

2 Points: Response specifically describes at least four problematic aspects of monitoring at Nyiragongo, but does not completely explain how each contributed to the negative consequences of the eruption.

1 Point: Response describes fewer than four problematic aspects of monitoring at Nyiragongo, and may or may not completely explain how each contributed to the negative consequences of the eruption.

0 points: Response dose not describe methods used for volcano monitoring at Nyiragongo.

This file is only accessible to verified educators. If you are a teacher or faculty member and would like access to this file please enter your email address to be verified as belonging to an educator.

This file is only accessible to verified educators. If you are a teacher or faculty member and would like access to this file please enter your email address to be verified as belonging to an educator.