Home  › Unit 3: Plate Tectonics & Natural Hazards  › Block 5: Case Study Jigsaw + Hazard Profile Due

Block 5: Case Study Jigsaw + Hazard Profile Due

Unit 3 · Block 5 of 12 ⏰ 80 minutes A: Mon Nov 30 · B: Tue Dec 1
Today builds toward:T/T ThinkingC Communication (preview)
Bell ringer: start here (while attendance happens)
Retrieval · 5 min

From memory, Tōhoku 2011: boundary type, main hazards, and one engineering lesson.
Task: Three quick lines. Stem: "Tōhoku shows that ___."

Answer in your Field Notebook, dated.

Today we are learning

I can use a historical case study as evidence to defend or revise an engineering claim, naming the specific evidence and the specific claim.

I can: tick as you go (for you, not for marks)
full course map →
AI Partners available for today's work
The Source Evaluator The Plate Tectonics Tutor
Remember: every AI use gets documented. → AI Documentation Template
Story

What today is about

The day case studies stop being background and start being evidence.

You've researched your city for the Hazard Profile due today. Today the case studies become a working part of your engineering reasoning: each historical event becomes evidence you can cite in your Final Defense. "Tōhoku showed that seawalls sized for expected events fail at actual M9 run-up heights" is a defensible engineering claim. "Tōhoku was bad" is not.

This is the rhythm you'll use for the rest of the unit. Build, fail, look at what the historical evidence says about why, iterate.

Concepts

Before you start the work

Start with the Interact: projected for the whole class before groups split. The Watch covers the same ground if you want it again.

Placeholder
Watch (4 min)
TBD: short video. How to read a case study like a primary source. Distinguish observation from inference; identify the engineering claim that holds up vs. the rhetorical flourish that doesn't.
Captioned · Ms. Jayanthi/Mr. Ignash recorded.
Live in class
Interact
Jigsaw protocol walkthrough: how the small-group → expert-group → reporting structure works, with one example trade-off (10 min reporting per case study).
Whole-class projected before groups split.

Everyone does this

Read
OPVL Framework refresher: the same four letters you used in Unit 0 apply to every case study source you'll meet today.
Real link · Foundations
Vocabulary support
The U3 pre-teach: key terms with definitions and sentence stems. Megathrust, lahar, and run-up height are all in there.
Real link · Foundations · EAL
Do

Today's work: choose one path

Case-study jigsaw. Each group dives into one event and reports the engineering claim their case study best supports. Pick your group based on which case study you're most curious about.

Factstorm: four minutes

Groups of three or four, one recorder. The question: name every specific earthquake or volcanic eruption you can: real events, any century, anywhere on Earth. Four minutes. Harvest to the board, then look at the spread: which continents did the room know? Which did it miss? The case studies you're about to jigsaw are entries from a list like this, kept because of what they taught.

Learning Intention: I can use a historical case study as evidence to defend or revise an engineering claim, naming the specific evidence and the specific claim.
A
Tōhoku 2011 group
M9.1 megathrust + tsunami; Sendai/Fukushima impact zone. Engineering claim space: seawall design assumptions; vertical evacuation; nuclear infrastructure siting.
Subduction · Group of 3–4
B
Sumatra-Andaman 2004 group
M9.1+ megathrust + Indian Ocean tsunami. Engineering claim space: early warning system absence; cross-coast warning gaps; coastal land-use restrictions.
Subduction · Group of 3–4
C
Pinatubo 1991 group
VEI-6 stratovolcano; pyroclastic flow + lahar + global ash. Engineering claim space: why no engineering protects against pyroclastic flow; evacuation distance + early warning effectiveness; lahar diversion channels.
Volcanism · Group of 3–4
D
Cross-case synthesis pair
Work across two groups. Note where engineering claims from one case study contradict or support claims from another. Report the most interesting tension to the whole class.
Synthesis · Pair across groups

Open your Class Notebook and type today's entry header as Heading 2:

A: Nov 30 | U3 B5 | Case Study JigsawB: Dec 1 | U3 B5 | Case Study Jigsaw

Show

What you're submitting today

Two submissions: the Hazard Profile is the summative; the case-study claim is formative but feeds straight into your Engineering Portfolio defense slides.

City Hazard Profile (DUE: summative)

≤500 words OR 60–90 second captioned video. Required elements: city + boundary identification, dominant hazards, one historical analog, ≥2 reputable sources. See the full assignment.

Submit via Google Classroom (link posted in August)
Case-study engineering claim (formative)

One sentence: the specific engineering claim your case study best supports, with one specific piece of evidence. Submit alongside the Hazard Profile.

Rubric link: Hazard Profile scored on K/U / T/T / C per the strand rubric applied to the Hazard Profile criteria.

Reflect

One question before you leave

Three to five minutes. Your answer is saved to your reflection journal, where you can read back everything you have written this year.

No grade. The answer becomes a slide on your Final Defense.

Today's reflection is in Google Classroom, under Reflection Journal.

Link posted in August

Sign in with your school account. Your teacher can see what you write here.