Earthquake Module that Engages Students with Real-Time Data Receives Award

Dr. Anne Egger teaching students in the field.
Image Courtesy: Nick Zentner, Central Washington University

We're proud to announce that Visionlearning's own Dr. Anne Egger has been awarded the prestigious Science Prize for Inquiry-Based Instruction for her learning module "Seismicity and Relative Risk."

Dr. Egger, assistant professor of geological sciences and science education at Central Washington University, developed the module over nine years of teaching introductory geoscience courses and trying different approaches to engage students in both the topic of earthquakes and process of analyzing data. "The challenge in an intro class is helping students engage when they've often already decided they're going to do something else," she says.

After several iterations, Egger created the current version of the module, which makes use of real-time earthquake data collected by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). By having her students complete a series of activities interspersed with discussion, Egger has been able to turn "dots on a map" (the data points representing earthquakes around the world) into something meaningful to the students. In the final stage of the module, Egger's students write essays comparing the seismic activity and relative risk in three cities where they would consider living after graduation. Not only do the students get excited during the discussion, but Egger has found that their assignments are much more interesting to read and less repetitive than past assignments.

Perhaps best of all, the module is free and can be used anywhere in the world. "This module is utterly adaptable to wherever you are, with whatever students, using a computer, or a smart phone—you name it. There are earthquakes to look at all around the world," Egger says.

Learn more:
Read Dr. Egger's essay about the module and the process of using real-time data in the classroom, which appears in today's edition of the journal Science. Then try out the module in your classroom or at home--from any computer or smart phone. It includes a downloadable student activity sheet, PowerPoint presentation for lecture, and writing assignment with a grading rubric.

For more about the history of plate tectonics and the forces that cause earthquakes, check out modules Plate Tectonics I: The Evidence for a Geologic Revolution and Plate Tectonics II: Plates, Plate Boundaries, and Driving Forces.

Explore real-time data collected by seismometers all over the world by visiting the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program website

Find out more about the Science Prize for Inquiry-Based Instruction

Misconceptions in the Wake of BP's Spill

Back in March, we spent some time on this blog discussing a few of the misconceptions students (and the general public) often hold about science and its process. We talked about the importance of understanding that scientists do not work in a vacuum, that disagreement is common -- our answers aren't always right, but it's not always because we're wrong -- and that scientific problems are not something you "solve." Today, we'd like to offer a gentle reminder of another misconception: what we hear in the media is not always true.

Yesterday, President Obama told students at Hampton University: "You're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't rank all that high on the truth meter." Nothing could be more true in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon spill. It's easy to forget that the spokespeople we rely on each day for our national and international news have ideological biases. There is a stark difference, let's say, between the day's news reported by John Stewart and the same news reported by Bill O'Reilly. Regardless of political affiliations, we need to remember that each has a slant, a perspective they want to get across. (There is a reason journalists study persuasive writing.)

So as we watch the oil spill in the Gulf grow into the worst spill in US history and hear the latest reports on the efforts to clean it up, let's take a few moments to think objectively and use the science to questions some of the statements being bantered around in the media.

1: "The ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone and left out there... It's natural. It's as natural as the ocean water is." [Rush Limbaugh] While Limbaugh's optimism is noteworthy, let us not forget that the natural earth cycles, like the carbon cycle, have a process that often takes millions of years. So, yes, while biological systems can accommodate for some degree of 'spillage', it's not quite the same as a man-made drill poking a hole in the earth's crust and releasing millions of gallons of crude oil in a heavy stream. Our ecosystems (aquatic or not) are not equipped to respond to such abrupt and significant changes. Also,  the term "natural" does not always mean healthy or good. Would he say the same if it were a sudden release of mercury into the environment?

2: "Way too much is being made of the oil that is coming out there in the Gulf. All of that will get cleaned up." [T. Boone Pickens] Again, noteworthy for the optimism, but a bit dismissive of the significance of the effect it has, and will continue to have, on the delicate ecosystems along the coast. Plankton, the tiny microbial organisms (plant and animal) living in water, are the basis for the wetland and oceanic food chain. Their die-off effects the long-term productivity of the ecosystem, throwing a big chink into the food chain. In the short term, larger creatures such as fish, turtles and birds are suffocating and dying from exposure as a result of coming in contact with the oil. The death toll from the Exxon Valdez was significant, in part, because of the slow response to clean up.

3. All fishing in the Gulf has been halted because the sea food is contaminated. [Reported by various national news agencies.] While a specific area of the Gulf has been closed off to fishing -- the area near the spill -- there is plenty of fishing going on in other areas. Obviously, with the effect on wildlife already starting to show, everyone is concerned about the quality of seafood coming from the region. But it is important to remember that fishing has only been closed off in areas where there is possible contamination. There is a significant area of the Gulf that has not seen oil contamination yet, and so the fishery stocks are untouched.

There are many statements being thrown around in the media, including this being an act of eco-terrorism from 'tree-huggers'. As we navigate the maze of opinion, let's remember to take each with a bit of skepticism and look for the elements of truth that can be supported by evidence. Rather than take a spokesperson's opinion as fact, do the research and figure out what really makes sense. Learn more about different biological processes and environmental cycles at Visionlearning.

Have a misconception that is bothering you? Share it with us here, or on our Facebook page.