1. A tectonic geomorphology jigsaw
Reading and debating primary literature for undergraduate students
Give overview of assignment here.
Apologize for boring ppt – wanted to make sure people had something to reference later with all the details
Amanda Schmidt, Oberlin College

2. Problems with undergraduates and reading primary literature
TPS

3. Problems with undergraduates and reading primary literature
Don’t engage in discussion of strengths/weaknesses
Likely to gloss over or ignore parts they don’t understand
Hard time dissecting papers
Hard time placing individual papers in context of field in general
Tend to just look at papers as “what and why”

4. A possible solution – engage them in a debate/discussion
Paper reading jigsaw on landscape evolution using papers from the 11 December 2003 issue of Nature

5. Learning Goals Topical: Analysis of feedbacks in landscape evolution
Synthesis and evaluation of multiple hypotheses regarding landscape evolution
Higher order:
Critically read primary literature
Explain/present primary literature to peers
Compare and evaluate multiple papers
Synthesize and evaluate multiple hypotheses into new ones

6. Assessment
Formative: Listening to student discussions, giving feedback as appropriate Summative: I don’t do anything, but you could easily assign a response paper after the activity

7. Timing 1x80-min class or 2x50-min classes
MAYBE 1x50-min class with more outside work

8. How the activity works – part 1
As homework before the class all students read the Molnar piece and each student is assigned to read one of the three other papers. 1/3 of the class reads each paper.

9. How the activity works – part 2
In class, start with a short description of what is going to happen (5 min)
Have the class assemble in groups that all read the same paper. Depending on the class size, you may need to have 2 groups per paper to enable everyone to participate fully (2-3 min)
In groups, students become experts on their paper – the goals, methods, and conclusions. Encourage them to ask critical questions about the paper and to identify possible holes in the arguments (~20 min)
I walk around and make sure groups stay on track and answer questions.

10. How the activity works – part 3
After students become experts on their papers, rearrange groups into groups of 3 where each student is an expert on a different paper (2-3 min)
Introduce the next part of the activity (5 min)
In their new groups, students each present the goals, methods, and conclusions of the paper they are responsible for and others ask them questions (~15 min)

11. How the activity works – part 4
After everyone has presented their paper, groups try to hash out what similarities and differences there are between their papers. (~10 min)
Are there any broader conclusions they can draw?
Is one paper right and the others wrong?
What can they conclude about landscape evolution?

12. How the activity works – part 5
Now have everyone come back together as a class. Each group reports on their discussion (~ 10 min)
As a final wrap up, I give a brief overview of more recent work that has been done reconciling tectonics vs rainfall in driving landscape evolution. Some possible papers that do that are Henck et al (EPSL) and Portenga and Bierman 2011 (GSA Today) (~10 min)
Note that you could assign either Portenga or Henck as reading and have them write a response paper. Or more discussion of papers? Not sure.