ESCI 5504W -- New Course

Mon Feb 3 10:14:55 2014

Approvals Received:
Department
on 01-24-14
by Kathy Ohler
(k-ohler@umn.edu)
Approvals Pending: College/Dean  > Provost > WI > Catalog > PeopleSoft Manual Entry
Effective Status: Active
Effective Term: 1149 - Fall 2014
Course: ESCI 5504W
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: Neotectonics
Course Title Long: Neotectonics
Max-Min Credits
for Course:		 3.0 to 3.0 credit(s)
Catalog
Description:		 Integration of multidisciplinary elements of geology, geodesy, geodynamics, seismotectonics and tectonophysics to examine recent and active tectonics of the Earth's lithosphere; extensional, compressional and wrench-tectonic regimes with global case studies incorporating mantle to surface processes; emphasis on professional communication skills
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:		 3.0 hours per week
Years most
frequently offered:		 Even 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.
3.0 credit(s)
Financial Aid
Progress Units:		 Not allowed to bypass limits.
3.0 credit(s)
Repetition of
Course:		 Repetition not allowed.
Course
Prerequisites
for Catalog:		 [2201, 4501] or #
Course
Equivalency:		 ESCI 4503/5504W
Consent
Requirement:		 No required consent
Enforced
Prerequisites:
(course-based or
non-course-based)		 No prerequisites
Editor Comments: <no text provided>
Proposal Changes: <no text provided>
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 two 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>
Statement of Certification: This course is certified for a Core, effective as of 
This course is certified for a Theme, effective as of 
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 5504W Neotectonics 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. 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 13 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 1600 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 if a student is struggling with the task. 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 invalid or sloppy science or lack of scientific understanding. Consequently, assignments are evaluated on the basis of both their scientific content and writing.

Calculation of the final grade is based on:
2 reviews of published papers        20 % (50% writing, 50% scientific content)
10 written summaries of lectures        25 % (70% writing, 30% scientific content)
Original research paper        40 %( 55% writing, 45% scientific content)
Oral presentation of original paper         15 %
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) with a minimum of 5 references, (2) the extended outline and draft abstract of the paper as well as (3) the draft of the full paper. 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 multiple 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 is the purpose of the paper and is that goal achieved; does the paper achieve its mission?
b)  What aspects of this paper represent a significant and original contribution to knowledge?
c)  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?
d)  Are observations and data clearly distinguished from the interpretations?
e)  Are interpretations and conclusions justified by the data?
f)  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?
g)  Are the figures and/or tables clear, complete and internally consistent with the text?
h) 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?
i) Which parts of the paper could have been written differently to make the message of the paper clearer or more concise?
j) Can you identify errors in grammar, word usage or syntax? A idioms used that readers who an international readership would have difficulty understanding?
k) Are the illustrations and their captions clear, complete and understandable?  Would each figure caption be understandable if it were to appear in the absence of the paper's text? Can you make suggestions for improvements?
l) Is appropriate credit given to prior work, i.e. proper citations, including internet sources?
m) 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 class meetings focus specifically on scientific writing and are reinforced by intermittent written feedback on individual assignments from the instructor.
The first class session outlines the course's content, goals and expectations, 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. In addition, class handouts include guidelines and cautionary notes about common errors in formatting, grammar, word usage, citations, figure captions, etc.
The students then read published articles, write a critical review of each paper, and receive written commentary prior to a class discussion. Because each student has formulated a prior opinion of the paper, the student-led discussions are vigorous and typically entail the overall organization and mission of the text, writing style and content as well as individual paragraphs and figures. Discussions may start with a widely recognized aspect of the paper or with a point on which the students disagreed, and they take over presenting the contrary viewpoints. 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.
Another class period is devoted to evaluating samples of discipline-specific text of variable quality, which the students are asked to rewrite. The follow-up discussion serves to help prepare their writing of the assigned research paper.
Students are 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: American Geological Institute.

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.)


 1
ESCI 5504W - NEOTECTONICS - Fall 2014 (Earth Science Dept in CSE)
Registration: 3 Credits Class Meetings: TTh 1:00-2:15, Room 121 Pillsbury Hall
Prerequisites: ESCI 2201 {Geodynamics I) and ESCI 4501 (Structural Geology) or an equivalent
courses 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 9 hours per week for this course.
Instructor: Karen L. Kleinspehn Office hours: Tuesday 2:30-3:30 p.m. or by appt.
klein004@umn.edu 118 Pillsbury Hall
624-0537 or 624-1333 (dept)
Goals of this course
Scientific objectives: This course focuses on currently active lithospheric tectonics up through
the last 5 million years and emphasizes new developments in the geosciences as well as
current issues relevant to global society. Lectures early in this course review geodetic and
geophysical methods essential to interpreting neotectonics and are illustrated by global case
studies. The latter part of the course utilizes those methods to address questions fundamental
to neotectonics, surveying a spectrum of active plate margins. 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 a continuously developed ability 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 highly 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 ability is 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 critical thinking.
Lecture/Discussion Topics:
Tue Sept. 2 ⿿ Introduction, writing expectations, discuss well/poorly written example reviews
Thurs Sept. 4 ⿿ Geodesy I ⿿ Ground-based and satellite remote sensing (GPS, VLBI, SLR)
Tue Sept. 9 ⿿ Geodesy II ⿿ DEM's & Altimetry (DORIS, LIDAR, SAR, SRTM)
Thurs Sept. 11 ⿿ Altimetry/Bathymetry & the Geoid (InSAR, Multibeam, Sidescan sonar)
2
HAND OUT PUBLISHED PAPER TO REVIEW
Tue Sept. 16 ⿿ Seismicity, focal mechanisms & intraplate stresses
SUMMARY OF GEODESY & ALTIMETRY LECTURES DUE AT CLASS TIME
Thurs Sept. 18 ⿿ Seismic refraction & reflection: Application to plate boundaries
STATEMENT OF PAPER TOPIC & 5 REFERENCES DUE AT CLASS TIME
Tue Sept. 23 ⿿ Seismic tomography & anisotropy: Mantle flow and heterogeneities
REVIEW OF PUBLISHED PAPER IS DUE AT CLASS TIME
Thur Sept. 25 ⿿ Discussion of reviewed paper and scientific writing
SUMMARY OF SEISMIC LECTURES DUE AT CLASS TIME
Tue Sept. 30 ⿿ Plate-motion models: Geodesy, mantle hot spots & geomagnetism
STUDENTS RESUBMIT PAPER TOPICS
Thurs Oct. 2 ⿿ Plate-motion driving mechanisms: LLSVP's
Tue Oct. 7 ⿿ Isostasy vs Denudation: Tectonic Geomorphology
EXTENDED OUTLINE OF PAPER, DRAFT ABSTRACT & 10 REFS DUE AT CLASS TIME
Thurs Oct. 9 ⿿ Low-Temperature Thermochronology: Applications to vertical tectonics
SUMMARY OF PLATE MOTION LECTURES DUE AT CLASS TIME
Tue Oct. 14 ⿿ Lithospheric thermal structure & rheology; Isostatic response to climate
SUMMARY OF ISOSTASY/VERTICAL TECTONICS LECTURES DUE AT CLASS TIME
HAND OUT PUBLISHED PAPER TO REVIEW Thur Oct. 16 ⿿ Continental
rifting: Obliquity & volcanic vs non-volcanic margins
STUDENTS RESUBMIT EXTENDED OUTLINE OF PAPER/DRAFT ABSTRACT
SUMMARY OF THERMAL STRUCTURE/THERMOCHRONOLOGY LECTURSE DUE AT CLASS TIME
Tue Oct. 21 ⿿ NO CLASS ⿿ Research conference
Thur Oct. 23 ⿿ Revision, editing and discussion of writing samples
REVIEW OF PUBLISHED PAPER IS DUE AT CLASS TIME
Tue Oct. 28 ⿿ Extensional core complexes: Marine & continental
Thur Oct. 30 ⿿ Mid-Ocean Ridges: Slow vs fast spreading
DRAFT OF ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER IS DUE AT CLASS TIME
Tue Nov. 4 ⿿ Discussion of reviewed paper and scientific writing
SUMMARY OF RIFTING/ CORE COMPLEXES LECTURE DUE AT CLASS TIME
Thur Nov. 6 ⿿ Subduction initiation
3
SUMMARY OF MID-OCEAN RIDGE LECTURE DUE AT CLASS TIME
Tue Nov. 11 ⿿ Fate of subducting slabs: Seismic signatures of slab geometries
(STUDENTS RESUBMIT PAPER DRAFTS
Thur Nov. 13 ⿿ Subduction erosion and collisional terranes
SUMMARY OF SUBDUCTION LECTURES DUE AT CLASS TIME
Tue Nov. 18 ⿿ Trench migration vs subduction of continental lithosphere
ORIGINAL PAPER IS DUE AT CLASS TIME
Thur Nov. 20 ⿿ Wrench Systems in Volcanic Arcs: Strain partitioning
SUMMARY OF SUBDUCTION EROSION/TRENCH MIGRATION LECTURES DUE AT CLASS TIME
Tue Nov. 25 ⿿ Intracontinental transform plate boundaries
Thur Nov. 27 ⿿ NO CLASS ⿿ THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY
Tue Dec. 2 ⿿ Oral Presentations of Papers
SUMMARY OF TRANSFORM/WRENCH LECTURES DUE AT CLASS TIME
Thur Dec. 4 ⿿ Oral Presentations of Papers continued
Tue Dec. 9 ⿿ Oral Presentations of Papers continued
Grading: 2 published-paper reviews 20 % (50% writing, 50% scientific content)
10 Summaries of lectures 25 % (70% writing, 30% scientific content)
Original research paper 40 % (55% writing, 45% scientific content)
Oral presentation of original paper 15 %
Strategic Objectives & Consultation
Name of Department Chair
Approver:		 Donna L. Whitney
Strategic Objectives -
Curricular Objectives:		 How does adding this course improve the overall curricular objectives ofthe unit?

 Humans interact with the Earth through active tectonics. Hence, many elements of the course are relevant to geopolitics, energy and mineral resources, environmental change and natural-hazard mitigation. This course improves the overall curriculum objective by covering an essential topic in the Earth Sciences.
Strategic Objectives - Core
Curriculum:		 Does the unit consider this course to be part of its core curriculum?

 No
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 other unit teaches this course content; thus overlap is not anticipated