I taught a unit on earthquakes.

Prior to this unit we looked at the earth as a whole so the

students l had a good base understanding of plates how they often times move. I began the
unit by having the students share what they thought about earthquakes. I asked what
causes them, and where do they occur? I put all of their ideas on the board for them to see.
I then showed them a map of the earths plates. I asked the students where they thought an
earthquake would be the most likely to occur. Below are their responses grouped into three
basic ideas.
17 of the students said that they thought earthquakes would occur more often in the middle
of large plates.
5 of the students thought that earthquakes would occur more often in the small areas that
are surrounded by a lot of plate boundaries.
2 of the students thought that earthquakes would occur most often on fault lines, or where
plate boundaries are.
I then had the students do a reading about earthquakes with key vocabulary. We worked
through it together and watched several different videos highlighting what causes
earthquakes and where they might be more common. I then put up the same map with the
plates drawn on it and had the students discuss at their groups where they thought most
earthquakes would occur. I then showed them an overlay of the map that had a yellow dot
on it for every earthquake that has occurred in the past 50 years. I then had the students
discuss with their teams why the most earthquakes occurred at or near the fault lines. We
continued to discuss and analyze the map until the students really seemed to understand
the concepts of earthquakes. I then assigned them a reading to do as homework to further
reinforce what they had learned.
For the next part of this unit I explained to the students that they were going to be
architects and would have to design a building that would be on the coast of Chile. I
showed them the same map that I had before with the plate boundaries depicted and
pointed out Chile to the class. I asked the students to discuss with their groups whether or
not their buildings would have to be earthquake resistant. Most came to the conclusion, that
yes their buildings would have to be earthquake resistant.
I explained that each of them would be placed in a team, and their job would be to design,
and then create a building out of paper clips, note cards, straws, and tape. I explained to
the students that their building would have to withstand an earthquake and that we would
be testing their structures. I then had the students draw a design for their building in their
science journals. After they were done, I had each group get together and discuss what they
were going to do. Before they could get any supplies the students had to come to me and
all 4 group members had to be in agreement on how they were going to design their
buildings. Below are some pictures of the different structures students were able to create.
Each building had to be at least 8 and inches tall.

We then tested each groups structure by putting them on a piece of plywood and
shaking them every way. During the testing we had discussions about which groups building
worked the best, and why that was. Some of the answers I got were, the buildings that
have more weight on top and that are taller seem to be less stable. Some students also
thought that the structures that were wider on the base seemed to do better. Once all the
testing was done I had the students return to their seats and explained that we would be
doing a new challenge. I told them that they would have a chance to redesign their building,
except this time it would have to hold a battery somewhere off the ground inside. By doing
this I was hoping to see if students would improve the design of their structures and where
they would put the heavy battery. I knew that if they put it towards the bottom they likely
understood some of the engineering concepts that we had previously discussed. Below are
some pictures of the redesigned structures that the students created.

As you compare the differences between the two structures you can see that the
students really put an emphasis on creating buildings with wider bases, and trying to move
the weight to the bottom. On structure B this is especially apparent, as the base for their
second structure was so wide and sturdy that it hardly moved during the test. You can also
see that group A put their battery on the ground inside their structure. This was a common
idea and the groups that did this had buildings that were much more stable.

We then re-tested their structures and continued to discuss what kind of

qualities make a structure more resistant to earthquakes. To wrap everything up I
showed a video that talked about how skyscrapers are built and designed in big
cities to withstand quakes. After watching this I had another brief discussion with
the students about earthquakes and then I gave them a brief post assessment.
For the post assessment I asked the students where earthquakes are most
likely to occur. I asked them to add more than just a city or single location to their
answer. I also asked the students what kinds of buildings are more resistant to
earthquakes. Lastly I asked the students where the weight needs to be in a building
to make it more stable. Below are some sample responses that students had.
This student showed an understanding that plates have a relationship to
earthquakes, but he was not specific enough to show a deep understanding of the
concept. He did not mention anything about plate boundaries, or fault lines. It is
true that Japan is an earthquake prone area, but why? This student did show a clear
understanding about a few things that can make structures more stable. He knew
that the weight had to be on the bottom, and that shorter wider buildings were
more ideal.

This student wrote that earthquakes are more likely to occur at or near fault
lines. She also labeled Japan as a place that they might occur with some frequency.
Based on this I would say she has a good understanding of where earthquakes
occur. She also answered the engineering questions and clearly understood that it
is best if the weight of a structure is on the bottom and that shorter wider buildings
are more sturdy.

This student said earthquakes usually occur at the tectonic plate lines. This
shows me that he has a good understanding of where earthquakes usually occur.
He also understood that shorter, wider buildings, with the weight near the bottom
are more stable. He also mentioned that top heavy buildings arent very stable.

This student did not show a clear understanding of where earthquakes occur
the most. He simply said they occur where there is more plate tectonics. The
student also said that taller and skinnier buildings are more stable. This shows me
that some of the engineering or building concepts didnt make sense to him. Lastly,
the student said that you want the weight of a building to be at the bottom where
the springs are. This makes sense, but I think the student got confused and was
under the impression that all buildings have shocks. We looked at some videos of
how skyscrapers are designed with springs at the bottom to help them stay stable
during a quake.

This student was very detailed and understood where earthquakes occur
more often. She also understood that the weight in a building is the best when it is

around the bottom, or the edges. She also understood that narrow tall buildings do
not work well, and those with a larger base are more structurally sound.

Overall I felt that the students really understood why earthquakes happen.
One problem was my post assessment was not detailed or specific enough to
gauge the depth of their understanding. Through class discussion it seemed clear
that most students understood the forces behind earthquakes and their effects, but
that does not tell me that everyone understood all of this. The students really
understood the engineering concepts that I was hoping they would get. Just based
on how they built and then changed their models it was clear that almost all of
them knew the importance of having a wide base with the weight down towards the
bottom of the structure, especially after the first test. Based on my post
assessment it was also clear that they understood these concepts. If I did this unit
again I would try to find an activity that is more hands on for the students to see,
and look at how earthquakes occur. The engineering piece was excellent, and they
loved it, but at some points the earthquake section got a little bit long.