• GEOL4580 syllabus
• Schedule for G4580 presentations, Fall, 2007
• Focus questions for seminar presentations
  
• Suggestions for writing an abstract and preparing a presentation

Caribbean Tectonics

Geologica Acta vol. 4, 2006

[http://www.geologica-acta.com:8080/geoacta/MostrarArticlesAC.do?article=gav0401]

Course Objective: As stated in the MTSU catalog, G4580 is "a reading and discussion seminar in which current topics in the geological sciences are examined to broaden major's knowledge of the scope and literature of the discipline." The theme of this seminar is "Caribbean stratigraphic, magmatic, metamorphic, and tectonic events."

Assessment and Grading: You will be evaluated and graded in this course based on: (1) your class attendance, (2) your score on the Caribbean features quiz, (3) your class participation, (4) the quality of your in-class presentation, and (5) the abstract that you provide to other seminar participants.

Attendance [20 points]: Each week we will have a sign-in sheet (please help me remember, okay?), and your attendance on that day will be worth 2 points up to a total of 20 points. Each seminar session that you miss -- up to and including three -- will reduce your final point total by 5 points. This disparity in point value is my attempt to urge you to attend regularly so that each presenter has a full audience. If you miss more than three sessions, you will lose 10 points for each additional missed session. Only if you have a doctor's note (or the like) will you be given an excused absence.

Caribbean features quiz [10 points]: As discussed in class, this "matching" quiz will consist of naming particular islands, island groups, and tectonic and marine features in the Caribbean region. You can take the quiz multiple times, until you achieve a score of at least 80%. The first administration of the quiz will be during the 2nd class meeting. Subsequent attempts may be scheduled in my office by appointment.

Participation [50 points]: Participation is extremely valuable to the success of this seminar. In fact, it is the most important aspect of the experience. However, it is very subjective (and therefore difficult) to assess. The "Class Participation Assessment Guidelines" of Assistant Prof. John Tyler of Brown University has been excerpted below for use in this course. Dr. Tyler likewise credits other academic sources for his guidelines.

[for details, see http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Italian_Studies/dweb/pedagogy/]

Class participation provides the opportunity to practice speaking and persuasive skills, as well as the ability to listen. Comments that are vague, repetitive, unrelated to the current topic, disrespectful of others, or without sufficient foundation will be evaluated negatively. What matters is the quality of one's contributions to the class discussion, not the number of times one speaks.

Guidelines for Evaluating Participation

Outstanding Contributor [50-40 pts.]: Contributions in class reflect exceptional preparation. Ideas offered are always substantive, provide one or more major insights as well as direction for the class. Challenges are well substantiated and persuasively presented. If this person were not a member of the class, the quality of discussion would be diminished markedly.

Good Contributor [40-30 pts.]: Contributions in class reflect thorough preparation. Ideas offered are usually substantive, provide good insights and sometimes direction for the class. Challenges are well substantiated and often persuasive. If this person were not a member of the class, the quality of discussion would be diminished.

Adequate Contributor [30-20 pts.]: Contributions in class reflect satisfactory preparation. Ideas offered are sometimes substantive, provide generally useful insights but seldom offer a new direction for the discussion. Challenges are sometimes presented, fairly well substantiated, and are sometimes persuasive. If this person were not a member of the class, the quality of discussion would be diminished somewhat.

Non-Participant [20-10 pts.]: This person says little or nothing in class. Hence, there is not an adequate basis for evaluation. If this person were not a member of the class, the quality of discussion would not be changed.

Unsatisfactory Contributor [10-0 pts.]: Contributions in class reflect inadequate preparation. Ideas offered are seldom substantive, provide few if any insights and never a constructive direction for the class. Integrative comments and effective challenges are absent. If this person were not a member of the class, valuable air-time would be saved.

This approach, by necessity, requires that assessment be somewhat comparative; so you should look to your more outstanding classmates for some idea of how you might be evaluated.

Presentation [20 points]: Your presentation ("talk") consists of you summarizing and evaluating (critiquing) the contents of the journal article that you've chosen. I've provided a number of suggested "focus questions" on another handout, so I won't belabor the point. You will have two alternate means of presenting your talk: using a computer-based (e.g. a PowerPoint) presentation or via transparencies displayed on an overhead projector. I would like to know soon, if practical, how each of you intends to present your talk. Keep in mind that if you are going to use transparencies, you will need to get them made well ahead of time. I presume the department is willing to allow you to do so using our photocopier and supplies. However, I would ask that you make your own transparencies or have a work study student do it for you.

Abstract [5 points]: My assumption is that you all know how to write an abstract. If not, then ask to discuss it during class, so that everyone can benefit from the discussion. Your abstract must be your own work! Even a whiff of plagiarism will draw my attention, and any evidence of it will be grounds for a charge of academic misconduct. Just don't go there! It isn't that hard to write an original abstract -- just do it without consulting the paper. If you know your subject well enough, it should almost write itself.

Grade scale: This course will use the optional +/- grading system. The grade scale, based on the 105 class points, is as follows:

Schedule for G4580 presentations, Fall, 2007

Date	Chapter no. *	Presenter	Title
Aug. 28	xxxx	Clay Harris	Intro to Caribbean geology & tectonics
Sept. 4	14	Clay Harris	Caribbean Plate margin evolution ...
Sept. 11	5	Aaron Mayfield	Primitive K island-arc volcanic rx ...
Sept. 18	9	Richard Anderson	Evidence for middle K accretion ...
Sept. 25	2	Eric Coburn	Cret. to mid-Eocene pelagic sed budget ...
Oct. 2	13	Crystal Miller	Ophiolite-related ultramafic rx in the ...
Oct. 9	8	Jessica Beard	Timing & implications of Late K tectonic ...
Oct. 16	xxxx	Fall Break
Oct. 23	7	Bart Marston	Structure, tectonics, & metamorphic ...
Oct. 30	----	---------	GSA meeting: no class
Nov. 6	4	Linda Wilson	Tectonic implications of paleontologic ...
Nov. 13	6	Catherine Cox	Geology, age, & tectonic evolution ...
Nov. 20	1	Matt Dede	Role of crustal melting in petrogenesis ...
Nov. 27	10	Jake Hornaday	Magmatic & geotectonic significance of ...
Dec. 4	15	Jennifer Jenkins	Arguments for & against the Pacific origin...
Dec. 11	xxxx	Final exams

* available chapters (should you decide to change topics) = 3, 11, and 12

- Focus questions for seminar presentations -

Consider the following questions when you are reading all of the papers and be certain to address them during your own presentation.

1. Did the author clearly state the goals of the paper?

2. Was the paper well-organized?

3. Were graphics adequate for conveying the content of the paper?

4. Did the author raise any unanswered questions?

5. Were there any points that were unclear to you during your reading? Were you able to eventually resolve them?

6. Were any alternative hypotheses presented for major points in the paper?

7. Were you able to determine the methodologies that were used by researchers whose work was reviewed in the paper?

8. Were assertions made for which there was no supporting reference or evidence?

9. Were graphics useful for presentation?

10. Did the paper contain summary diagrams or tables?

11. Did the paper contain a chronology of developments or just a summary of current theories?

12. What would you have done differently in preparing the text and graphics for publication?

13. Was the topic too narrow or broad for the length of paper? Do you consider it appropriate for this type of reference work?

14. Did you find the paper interesting to read? Why or why not?

15. Overall, what did you think of the paper? Did it enhance your interest in the subject?

Suggestions for writing an abstract and preparing a presentation

1. Prepare a preliminary outline based on the headings within the paper -- this should make it easier to follow as you read it for the first time.

2. Read the paper and highlight important points.

3. Develop a detailed outline to clarify the structure of the paper and provide a basis for your presentation.

4. Re-read the paper. Pay close attention to the content and the fifteen focus questions handed out in class.

5. Write an abstract for the paper.

6. Develop your presentation, including any summary tables or diagrams you might find useful.