ESCI 5601w -- New Course

Tue Nov 19 12:37:42 2013

Approvals Received:
Department
on 11-19-13
by Kathy Ohler
(k-ohler@umn.edu)
Approvals Pending: College/Dean  > Provost > WI > Catalog > PeopleSoft Manual Entry
Effective Status: Active
Effective Term: 1139 - Fall 2013
Course: ESCI 5601W
Institution:
Campus:
UMNTC - Twin Cities
UMNTC - Twin Cities
Career: UGRD
College: TIOT - College of Science and Engineering
Department: 11130 - Earth Sciences, Dept of
General
Course Title Short: Adv Sedimentology
Course Title Long: Advanced Sedimentology
Max-Min Credits
for Course:
4.0 to 4.0 credit(s)
Catalog
Description:
Modern principles and processes of sedimentary geology; interactions among the lithosphere, biosphere, atmosphere, and hydrosphere. Detrital and carbonate facies of modern and ancient systems, coastal processes, geobiology, tectonics, paleoclimate, stuctural diagenesis, subsurface fluid-rock interactions, paleosols, and volcanic sedimentation.
Print in Catalog?: Yes
CCE Catalog
Description:
<no text provided>
Grading Basis: Stdnt Opt
Topics Course: No
Honors Course: No
Online Course: No
Instructor
Contact Hours:
4.0 hours per week
Years most
frequently offered:
Odd years only
Term(s) most
frequently offered:
Fall
Component 1: LEC (no final exam)
Auto-Enroll
Course:
No
Graded
Component:
LEC
Academic
Progress Units:
Not allowed to bypass limits.
4.0 credit(s)
Financial Aid
Progress Units:
Not allowed to bypass limits.
4.0 credit(s)
Repetition of
Course:
Repetition not allowed.
Course
Prerequisites
for Catalog:
4602 or #
Course
Equivalency:
ECSI 5601/5601W
Consent
Requirement:
No required consent
Enforced
Prerequisites:
(course-based or
non-course-based)
No prerequisites
Editor Comments: Similar to ESCI 5601, however this course has received approval for Writing Intensive designation from the LE committee
Proposal Changes: Both ESCI 5601 and ESCI 5601W may be offered in the future, hence ESCI 5601W is being proposed as a new course.
History Information: <no text provided>
Faculty
Sponsor Name:
Karen Kleinspehn
Faculty
Sponsor E-mail Address:
klein004@umn.edu
Student Learning Outcomes
Student Learning Outcomes: * Student in the course:

- Can locate and critically evaluate information

Please explain briefly how this outcome will be addressed in the course. Give brief examples of class work related to the outcome.

To achieve this outcome, students will refine the skill of critical evaluation of scientific study, a skill that is essential to the professional geosciences. This emphasis on critical thinking challenges students to go beyond routine acceptance of published scientific practices, results and interpretations. Not only do the students critically evaluate professional studies, they learn to impose similar appraisals on their own scientific thinking and communication. Using example scientific problems, the students assemble disparate data, observations and models from publications, lecture and their own insights to assess the contributions of studies toward addressing those problems.

How will you assess the students' learning related to this outcome? Give brief examples of how class work related to the outcome will be evaluated.

Written assignments for this course are designed to hone the essential skills of critical thinking and synthesis in scientific writing, consistent with the course's designation as Writing Intensive. The students critique three published papers, not only from a scientific standpoint, but also with respect to the quality of the scientific writing. Their critical commentaries are assessed on the basis of the depth of their analytical insights, the strength of their arguments, writing style, thoroughness and clarity. The students also prepare an original research paper whose assessment depends on the quality and thoroughness of the literature search, scientific content, presentation, writing skills and grammar, as well as originality and critical thinking. In addition, each student presents his/her paper as an oral presentation that is both peer-reviewed and graded.

Liberal Education
Requirement
this course fulfills:
None
Other requirement
this course fulfills:
None
Criteria for
Core Courses:
Describe how the course meets the specific bullet points for the proposed core requirement. Give concrete and detailed examples for the course syllabus, detailed outline, laboratory material, student projects, or other instructional materials or method.

Core courses must meet the following requirements:

  • They explicitly help students understand what liberal education is, how the content and the substance of this course enhance a liberal education, and what this means for them as students and as citizens.
  • They employ teaching and learning strategies that engage students with doing the work of the field, not just reading about it.
  • They include small group experiences (such as discussion sections or labs) and use writing as appropriate to the discipline to help students learn and reflect on their learning.
  • They do not (except in rare and clearly justified cases) have prerequisites beyond the University's entrance requirements.
  • They are offered on a regular schedule.
  • They are taught by regular faculty or under exceptional circumstances by instructors on continuing appointments. Departments proposing instructors other than regular faculty must provide documentation of how such instructors will be trained and supervised to ensure consistency and continuity in courses.

<no text provided>
Criteria for
Theme Courses:
Describe how the course meets the specific bullet points for the proposed theme requirement. Give concrete and detailed examples for the course syllabus, detailed outline, laboratory material, student projects, or other instructional materials or methods.

Theme courses have the common goal of cultivating in students a number of habits of mind:
  • thinking ethically about important challenges facing our society and world;
  • reflecting on the shared sense of responsibility required to build and maintain community;
  • connecting knowledge and practice;
  • fostering a stronger sense of our roles as historical agents.


<no text provided>
LE Recertification-Reflection Statement:
(for LE courses being re-certified only)
<no text provided>
Writing Intensive
Propose this course
as Writing Intensive
curriculum:
Yes
Question 1 (see CWB Requirement 1): How do writing assignments and writing instruction further the learning objectives of this course and how is writing integrated into the course? Note that the syllabus must reflect the critical role that writing plays in the course.

Registrants for ESCI 5601W Advanced Sedimentology include a mix of advanced undergraduate majors (typically seniors) and beginning graduate students, so the course is taught at a graduate level. Although mastery of the scientific content is a goal of the course, developing skills in scientific writing and professional communication is the dominant goal. Basically, the students are asked to read, write and speak professionally with written documents constituting 90% of the assignments and 10% as an oral presentation of their original written material.  The students produce over 25 pages of written material through 12 assignments, output that greatly exceeds 2500 words.
Question 2 (see CWB Requirement 2): What types of writing (e.g., research papers, problem sets, presentations, technical documents, lab reports, essays, journaling etc.) will be assigned? Explain how these assignments meet the requirement that writing be a significant part of the course work, including details about multi-authored assignments, if any. Include the required length for each writing assignment and demonstrate how the minimum word count (or its equivalent) for finished writing will be met.

Three types of written exercises are assigned:
A) Critical Reviews of Published Articles (exceeds 2500 words)

These assignments are the most challenging for the students in that they are asked to examine published papers critically, not only from a scientific standpoint, but also with respect to the quality of the scientific writing.  By limiting the length of the reviews to a maximum of 2 pages (single-spaced), the students are forced to practice concise, focused scientific writing in a style necessitated by many professional reports or conference abstracts.  The selected published papers represent a spectrum of high-quality writing to poor writing, illustrating the critical relationship between effective writing and scientific advancement.
Reviews are graded on the basis of their depth of critical thinking, logical presentation, grammar, writing style, thoroughness and clarity.  
B) Original Research Paper (2500-3000 words counting only the paper's body)
The students prepare an original research paper on a topic of their choosing that is related to sedimentology. The document comprises 10-12 double-spaced pages of original text excluding figures, figure captions, tables and references that are not limited in length or number.  
The instructor gives written and oral feedback at three stages in the preparation of this paper with resubmittals, which sometimes involves personal meetings and multiple resubmittals.  Evaluation of the paper is based on four elements:

⿢        Quality and thoroughness of the literature search
⿢        Organization, presentation, writing style and grammar
⿢        Explanation of the science
⿢        Creativity, originality and critical thinking
In addition, each student presents his/her paper orally, typically as a Powerpoint presentation, and receives evaluations from both the peer group and the instructor. Techniques of effective presentation and evaluation criteria are discussed prior to this assignment.
C) Written summaries of the key lecture points (2000-3000 words)
After each lecture or series of lectures on a given topic, the students are asked to write a 1-page summary that examines their ability to synthesize the scientific content and explain it in a concise, well-organized and well written format. Repetition of the exercise provides practice in synthesis and writing, and the evaluation is based on logical presentation, grammar, writing style and clarity.
Question 3 (see CWB Requirement 3): How will students' final course grade depend on their writing performance? What percentage of the course grade will depend on the quality and level of the student's writing compared to the percentage of the grade that depends on the course content? Note that this information must also be on the syllabus.

Mastery of the scientific content and writing performance are intimately linked because poor writing gives the appearance of sloppy science or lack of scientific understanding. Quantifying the distinction between scientific content and writing performance is difficult; thus the numbers below are admittedly approximate.

Calculation of the final grade is based on:
3 reviews of published papers        30 % (70% writing, 30% scientific content)
8 written summaries of lectures        20 % (90% writing, 10% scientific content)
Original research paper        40 %( 65% writing, 35% scientific content)
Oral presentation of original paper         10 %
Question 4 (see CWB Requirement 4): Indicate which assignment(s) students will be required to revise and resubmit after feedback from the instructor. Indicate who will be providing the feedback. Include an example of the assignment instructions you are likely to use for this assignment or assignments.

Based on the instructor's feedback, the students are asked to revise and resubmit their written work at three intervals in the preparation of their original research paper: (1) the chosen paper topic (expressed as a question or problem to solve), (2) the extended outline and draft abstract of the paper as well as (3) the draft of the full paper. All students are required to rewrite and resubmit a minimum of one assignment in the preparation of their research paper, and the due dates for resubmittal are listed on the syllabus.
        In addition, paper reviews are assigned three times to give repeated practice in that style of scientific writing. The instructor provides extensive commentary on each individual submitted document followed by group discussion of the assignment in class.  Typically the students' writing improves considerably through repetition of this iterative process.  The students are asked to address the following questions, citing specific pages and paragraphs in the assigned publications:

a) What aspects of this paper represent a significant and original contribution to knowledge?
b)  What are the broader impacts of this paper across different fields within the geosciences?  How does this paper contribute to fundamental understanding in the geosciences beyond a specific region or beyond a specific field?
c)  Are observations and data clearly distinguished from the interpretations?
d)  Are interpretations and conclusions justified by the data?
e)  How well is this paper conceived and organized?  Are the observational/analytical aspects developed logically and clearly? Can you suggest any reorganization of the paper?
f)  Are the figures and/or tables clear, complete and internally consistent with the text?
g) Which portions of the text, figures or tables could have been eliminated without detriment to the paper?  Which parts of the paper need expanding or more detail to improve their clarity?
h) Which parts of the paper could have been written differently to make the message of the paper clearer or more concise?
i) Can you identify errors in grammar, word usage or syntax? A idioms used that readers who an international readership would have difficulty understanding?
j) Are the illustrations and their captions clear, complete and understandable?  Is each figure caption understandable if it appears in the absence of the paper's text? Can you make suggestions for improvements?
k) Is appropriate credit given to prior work, i.e. proper citations?
l) Does the abstract appropriately summarize the content of the paper?

No group-authored exercises are assigned; all assignments are prepared individually.
Question 5 (see CWB Requirement 5): What types of writing instruction will be experienced by students? How much class time will be devoted to explicit writing instruction and at what points in the semester? What types of writing support and resources will be provided to students?

Four days of class discussion focus specifically on scientific writing that are reinforced by intermittent written feedback on individual assignments from the instructor. Prior to each writing assignment, anonymous examples of both high-quality and poorly written assignments are distributed. In addition, class handouts include guidelines and cautionary notes about common errors in grammar, word usage, formatting, etc.
The first class session outlines the content, goals and expectations in the course, but much of that class period is also devoted to preparation for the first writing exercise. A suite of anonymous examples from both past students and practicing professionals illustrate strong versus uninformative reviews of scientific articles. The class compares and debates the elements of writing that make an effective versus ineffective review.
The students read a published article, write a critical review and receive written commentary prior to three discussion sessions.  Discussions may be initiated with a point that was recognized by a number of students.  Alternatively, discussion starts with aspects on which the students disagreed, and they take over presenting their contrary viewpoints. Because each student has formulated a prior opinion of the paper, the student-led discussion is vigorous and typically entails the overall structure and mission of the text, the abstract and the conclusion sections as well as individual paragraphs and figures. The discussion is closed with aspects of the writing that the students have missed. Thus the instructor's role is to answer questions, interject points from experience and moderate each discussion, whereas the students assume leadership in the discussions.

Students are also directed to Student Writing Support at the Center for Writing. Additional guidance is provided through excerpts reproduced from:
Grant, P., 2003. Geoscience Reporting Guidelines. Victoria, BC: Geological Association of Canada, 365 p.
Bates, R. L., Adkins-Heljeson, M. D., and Buchanan, R. C. (eds.), 1995. Geowriting: A Guide to Writing, Editing, and Printing in Earth Science. Alexandria, VA: AGI.

Katz. M.J., 2009.  From Research to Manuscript: A Guide to Scientific Writing. Dordrecht: Springer Verlag, 205 p.

Rossbacher, L.A. and Rhodes, D.D., 2006. Style Manual for Writing in Geology. Southern Polytechnic University, Georgia.
No group-authored exercises are assigned; all assignments are prepared individually.
Question 6 (see CWB Requirement 6): If teaching assistants will participate in writing assessment and writing instruction, explain how will they be trained (e.g. in how to review, grade and respond to student writing) and how will they be supervised. If the course is taught in multiple sections with multiple faculty (e.g. a capstone directed studies course), explain how every faculty mentor will ensure that their students will receive a writing intensive experience.

No teaching assistant is assigned to the course.  All responsibilities lie with the instructor in a single section of the course.
Statement of Certification: This course is certified as Writing Internsive effective  as of 
Course Syllabus
Course Syllabus: For new courses and courses in which changes in content and/or description and/or credits are proposed, please provide a syllabus that includes the following information: course goals and description; format;structure of the course (proposed number of instructor contact hours per week, student workload effort per week, etc.); topics to be covered; scope and nature of assigned readings (text, authors, frequency, amount per week); required course assignments; nature of any student projects; and how students will be evaluated. The University "Syllabi Policy" can be found here

The University policy on credits is found under Section 4A of "Standards for Semester Conversion" found here. Course syllabus information will be retained in this system until new syllabus information is entered with the next major course modification. This course syllabus information may not correspond to the course as offered in a particular semester.

(Please limit text to about 12 pages. Text copied and pasted from other sources will not retain formatting and special characters might not copy properly.)


ESCI 5601W ADVANCED SEDIMENTOLOGY - Fall 2013 (Earth Science Dept in CSE)
Registration: 4 Credits Class Meetings: TTh 1:25-2:40, Room 121 Pillsbury
Prerequisite: ESCI 4602 or an equivalent Sedimentology course at another institution
For those taking the course S-N, an S will be considered equivalent to a C- or better; auditors are requested to
officially register as a visitor. Grading scale utilizes +/- grades. The assignment of an Incomplete requires a written
agreement between the instructor and student following university policy. Absences or late assignments require
documentation of an excuse conforming to university policy. The expected workload is equivalent to three hours of
learning effort per credit per week or 12 hours per week for this course.
Instructor: Karen L. Kleinspehn Office hours: Thursday 11:00-1:00 or by appt.
klein004@umn.edu 118 Pillsbury Hall
624-0537 or 624-1333
Goals of this course
Scientific goals: This course focuses on an array of topics in Sedimentology, ranging from the
micron to basin scales that reflect new developments in the geosciences as well as current
issues relevant to global society. To the degree possible, the scientific content of the course
is tailored to the research interests and professional goals of the student registrants.
Writing component: Effective writing is crucial to the dissemination of scientific thought. The
most brilliant of scientific breakthroughs have little impact if they are not communicated
successfully. A profound example lies with the birth of 'Modern Geology'. James Hutton
presented the founding principles of our discipline in 1788, but in opaque prose. Only when
his colleague, James Playfair, rephrased and republished those principles in 1802, did our
science begin to flourish.
A primary goal of this course is to develop mature professional communication skills,
especially writing as practiced in the geosciences. More importantly, effective
communication is essential to function as a modern global citizen; thus this course focuses
on vital lifelong skills regardless of one's career path. Writing skills are enhanced through
abstract writing, short syntheses of lectures, analyses of published articles and a full-length
research paper based on a thorough literature review coupled with your critical thinking.
Lecture/Discussion Topics: [BACKGROUND-READING SUGGESTIONS IN READING (1996)
Sedimentary Environments: Processes, Facies and Stratigraphy IN PARENTHESES]
Tue Sept. 3 ⿿ Introduction, writing expectations, discuss examples of well/poorly written assignments
Thurs Sept. 5 ⿿ Sedimentary facies of modern and ancient systems: Alluvial-fan systems
(Chapter 3) HAND OUT PUBLISHED PAPER TO REVIEW (ROHAIS ET AL., 2008)
Tue Sept. 10 ⿿ Sedimentary facies of modern and ancient systems: Fan-delta systems (Chapter 6)
Thurs Sept. 12 ⿿ Allocyclic vs autocyclic controls on Fan-delta architecture
REVIEW OF PUBLISHED PAPER IS DUE AT CLASS TIME
Tue Sept. 17 ⿿ Discussion of reviewed paper and scientific writing
STATEMENT OF PAPER TOPIC & 5 REFS DUE AT CLASS TIME
Thurs Sept. 19 ⿿ Beach sedimentation in lakes and marine systems (Section 6.2 and 6.7-6.7.7)
RETURN PAPER TOPICS WITH FEEDBACK)
Tue Sept. 24 ⿿ Nearshore deposits in the geologic record (p. 160-164, 210-216, 219-231)
SUMMARY OF ALLUVIAL-FAN/FAN-DELTA LECTURES DUE AT CLASS TIME
Thur Sept. 26 ⿿ Barrier islands and eustatic or lake-level changes RESUBMIT PAPER TOPICS
Tue Oct. 1 ⿿ Tsunamis & Storms: Nearshore sedimentation
HAND OUT PUBLISHED PAPER TO REVIEW (FRIEND ET AL., 2012)
Thurs Oct. 3 ⿿ Tidal Sedimentation I (p. 164-166, 216-220)
SUMMARY OF BEACH/BARRIER/TSUNAMI LECTURES DUE AT CLASS TIME
Tue Oct. 8 ⿿ Tidal Sedimentation II
REVIEW OF PUBLISHED PAPER IS DUE AT CLASS TIME
Thurs Oct. 10 ⿿ Discussion of reviewed paper and scientific writing
EXTENDED OUTLINE OF PAPER, DRAFT ABSTRACT & 10 REFS DUE AT CLASS TIME
Tue Oct. 15 ⿿ Geobiology of carbonate sediment
SUMMARY OF TIDAL SEDIMENTATION LECTURES DUE AT CLASS TIME
HAND OUT PUBLISHED PAPER TO REVIEW (BAYON ET AL. 2009)
Thur Oct. 17⿿ Subsurface sediment mobilization
SUMMARY OF CARBONATE SEDIMENTATION LECTURE DUE AT CLASS TIME
RETURN EXTENDED OUTLINE OF PAPER/DRAFT ABSTRACT WITH FEEDBACK)
Tue Oct. 22⿿ Fluid escape: Pockmarks, mud volcanoes, pipes, hydrates
RESUBMIT EXTENDED OUTLINE OF PAPER/DRAFT ABSTRACT
Thur Oct. 24⿿ Structural geology and geobiology of fluid expulsion
REVIEW OF PUBLISHED PAPER IS DUE AT CLASS TIME
Tue Oct. 29 ⿿ NO CLASS -Research conference
Thur Oct. 31 ⿿ Discussion of reviewed paper and scientific writing
DRAFT OF ORIGINAL PAPER IS DUE AT CLASS TIME
Tue Nov. 5 ⿿ Volcanogenic sedimentation I
Thur Nov. 7 ⿿ Volcanogenic sedimentation II (RETURN PAPER DRAFTS WITH FEEDBACK)
SUMMARY OF FLUID-EXPULSION LECTURES DUE AT CLASS TIME
Tue Nov. 12 ⿿ Paleosols: Classification SEDIMENTATION LECTURES DUE AT CLASS TIME
Thur Nov. 14 ⿿ Paleoclimatic signatures in sedimentary rocks: Paleosols (RESUBMIT PAPER DRAFTS)
Tue Nov. 19 ⿿ Paleosols, subsidence and fluvial architecture
Thur Nov. 21 ⿿ Sedimentary facies of modern and ancient systems: Anastomosed fluvial systems
ORIGINAL PAPER IS DUE AT CLASS TIME
Tue Nov. 26 ⿿ Anastomosed fluvial systems (p. 49-54) (RETURN GRADED ORIGINAL PAPERS)
SUMMARY OF PALEOSOLS LECTURES DUE AT CLASS TIME
Thur Nov. 28 ⿿ NO CLASS ⿿ THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY
Tue Dec. 3 ⿿ Oral Presentations of Papers
SUMMARY OF ANASTOMOSED FLUVIAL LECTURES DUE AT CLASS TIME
Thur Dec. 5 ⿿ Oral Presentations of Papers continued
Tue Dec. 10 ⿿ Oral Presentations of Papers continued
Grading: 3 published-paper reviews 30 % (70% writing, 30% scientific content)
8 Summaries of lectures 20 % (90% writing, 10% scientific content)
Original research paper 40 %( 65% writing, 35% scientific content)
Oral presentation of original paper 10 %
Strategic Objectives & Consultation
Name of Department Chair
Approver:
<no text provided>
Strategic Objectives -
Curricular Objectives:
How does adding this course improve the overall curricular objectives ofthe unit?

<no text provided>
Strategic Objectives - Core
Curriculum:
Does the unit consider this course to be part of its core curriculum?

<no text provided>
Strategic Objectives -
Consultation with Other
Units:
In order to prevent course overlap and to inform other departments of new curriculum, circulate proposal to chairs in relevant units and follow-up with direct consultation. Please summarize response from units consulted and include correspondence. By consultation with other units, the information about a new course is more widely disseminated and can have a positive impact on enrollments. The consultation can be as simple as an email to the department chair informing them of the course and asking for any feedback from the faculty.

<no text provided>