FOURTH YEAR GEOLOGY and GPG

COURSE STRUCTURE

The EME course forms a key part of the Geology, and Geology & Physical Geography (GPG) Honours degree programmes. Details of the marks applicable are given in the 4th year Honours booklets for Geology and GPG.

The style of teaching and lecture content differs somewhat from previous years and you should be prepared for this. During 1st, 2nd and 3rd years the lectures commonly convey information that you are expected to know for the exam. In contrast, the 4th year teaching (in preparation for the 'real world') is generally an introduction to a selected topic, and you are then expected to put in extra time into your own reading and thinking about the topics covered. The course will draw extensively on material covered by everyone in previous years and will break new ground, as indicated below.

EME teaching consists of thematic lectures coupled with a small number of integrated case histories. These are intended as supporting material. Questions will not be set in the degree exam uniquely on these topics but they will provide geological examples which you will be expected to incorporate onto your answers on the questions set, as appropriate.

The subjects covered in the lectures and integrated case histories are principally related to the evolution of the Earth from Late Precambrian to Recent time. The course is loosely divided into 4 related components: Framework topics (Earth & Mars), lectured by Profs. Ian Main and Kathy Whaler; Modern and Ancient processes: Profs. Hugh Sinclair and Dick Kroon; Continent-ocean interaction: Prof. Alastair Robertson and Dr Jenny Tait; Integrated case histories: Prof. Alastair Robertson and Dr Andy Bell.

Reference list. You will be issues with a consolidated list references, generally 2 key references per topic (session). These are designed to complement and extend the lecture content. For each lecture you are expected to spend about 7 hours of reading and supplementary study. Be sure to obtain your copies of these key papers. You may be given additional references on a lecture-by-lecture basis but the consolidated reference list should be your priority for independent study.

The classes are normally held in the Main Lecture Theatre 201 Grant Institute, but may on occasion be in room 304B in the Grant Institute (as advised). The lectures will usually be held on Monday at 10-12pm and Tuesday at 9-11am.

ASSESSMENT AND COMPOSITION OF THE EME THEORY PAPERS

The EME course is examined by one 3-hour-long theory paper sat in the Examination diet after Semester 1 teaching end. You will be asked to answer three questions, one from Part A and two from Part B, with ample choice.

Part A is generally testing knowledge and understanding of EME topics as they were presented, with the additional expectation that relevant material covered in earlier years that has been developed and applied in fourth year will also be incorporated in your answer.

Part B will be interdisciplinary and reach across the structure of EME, and could include topical issues of current Earth Science. It will again expect inclusion of earlier relevant material, but in contrast to Part A questions, may ask you to apply your knowledge in ways that have not been directly addressed during the course. You might be asked, for example, to propose a programme of field and laboratory investigation to elucidate the nature of a particular kind of terrain in an orogenic belt, or to review possible mechanisms of regional-scale uplift. A question such as that last one may never have been addressed in any single lecture and will require you to go back to first principles – what are the physical mechanisms which could cause uplift, and then what geological processes that you may have encountered at some time in your courses over the years, or in literature that you have read, could meet the requirements? You could also be asked to interpret some data or a diagram.

Part A questions are weighted more towards accurate recall, whereas in Part B we look more for evidence of a capability to reason from first principles and to demonstrate that you understand the logic behind particular procedures, for example, the construction of a Rb-Sr isochron diagram, rather than just a knowledge of the conclusions drawn from it.

FORMATIVE FEEDBACK

You will be set a choice of several essays (similar to those to be set in the degree exam) at the first meeting of Week 6 (Monday 21st October) and you have one week later to answer one of the questions.

The essay is limited to 1000 words (not including diagrams and references). Only hand-drawn, hand annotated diagrams should be included of the type you would reproduce in an exam.

The essay will be assessed according to the following criteria:

• Clear organization with sub-headings;

• Correct facts and clear explanation;

• Use of geological examples;

• Use of annotated diagrams;

• Citation of references (a few ones)

• Combining information from different lectures as appropriate;

• Analytical, critical and questioning approach

You should draw on the taught material and your own reading in this course, and also from other courses from Years 1, 2 and 3, as appropriate. Better results may be gained if you prepare a draft of your essay within 5 days, and ask a fellow student to assess your work on the above criteria. You can then make any modifications. Submit a hard copy of your essay to the drop-box in the Teaching Organisation in the Grant Institute while also submitting an electronic copy via LEARN before 4 pm on Wednesday 30th October.

Week 1:Framework aspects

10 – 10.50 am / 11 – 11.50 am
Monday
16 Sept
MLT / IM Structure and Rheology of the Lithosphere- What is the lithosphere?
Fundamentals of lithosphere rheology IM / IM Structure and Rheology of the Lithosphere- What is the lithosphere?
- Fundamentals of lithosphere rheology (contd.) IM
9 – 9.50 am / 10 – 10.50 am
Tuesday
17 Sept
MLT / KAW Planetary geology and comparative planetology
History of the solar system – origin, formation and composition Surface features and processes responsible Internal structure Atmosphere / KAW Planetary geology and comparative planetology
History of the solar system – origin, formation and composition Surface features and processes responsible Internal structure Atmosphere

Week 2: Modern and ancient geological processes

10 – 10.50 am / 11 – 11.50 am
Monday
23 Sept
MLT / HDS – Source to Sink 1 - The growth of mountain topography;
Mountain Building, Erosion, critical wedges, Plateaux, post orogenic landscapes. / HDS Source to Sink 2 – Controls on sediment yield from mountain belts.
Geomorphic/tectonic control of sediment discharge to the ocean: the importance of small mountainous rivers; Sediment flux from a mountain belt derived by landslide mapping; Bedrock incision, rock uplift and threshold hillslopes in the northwestern Himalayas
9 – 9.50 am / 10 – 10.50 am
Tuesday
24 Sept
MLT / HDS - Source to Sink 3 - Sediment flux by mountain rivers
River catchment shape, distorted drainage basins as markers of crustal strain east of the Himalaya; Contrasting sediment delivery to foreland basins / HDS Source to Sink 4 - Sediment trapping in foreland basins
Thrust Loads and Foreland Basin Evolution;
Foreland basin subsidence driven by topographic growth versus plate subduction.

Week 3: Modern and ancient geological processes

and start of Continent-ocean interaction

10 – 10.50 am / 11 – 11.50 am
Monday
30 Sept
MLT / DK Pelagic sedimentation principles. 1
Palaeoceanography.
Sediment types and distributions; depositional processes. / DK Pelagic sedimentation principles. 2
Palaeoceanograpy
Astrochronology and acidification of the
Oceans
9 – 9.50 am / 10 – 10.50 am
Tuesday
1 Oct
MLT / AHFR Fault geometries and their evolution
Models of fault growth. N Observations in extensional provinces (e.g. Western USA and Greece). Development and linkage of fault segments. Relay ramps. Ancient rifts (e.g. Gulf of Suez and the North Sea)
Alpine case history / AHFR Sedimentation 1.
Early Rift phase.
Sedimentary processes;
Modern and ancient examples;
Clastic and carbonate settings;
Failed rifts (aulacogens)
W USA case history

Week 4: Continent-ocean interaction

10 – 10.50 am / 11 – 11.50 am
Monday
7 Oct
MLT / AHFR Rift and passive margin sedimentation 2.
Transition to passive margin.
Clastic- and carbonate-dominated rifted margins. Ancient examples. AHFR
Alpine case history / Rift and passive margin sedimentation 3.
Sedimentation on mature passive margins; E USA example;
Recent sedimentary processes.
E USA margin deep sea drilling
case history
9 – 9.50 am / 10 – 10.50 am
Tuesday
8 Oct
MLT / AHFR
Arc-trench sedimentation
and high-level structure.
Form, structure and fill of trenches and accretionary
prisms. Accretion:
geophysical, bathymetric and heat-flow;
Subduction erosion;
Franciscan melange case history / AHFR Back-arc basins
Modern and ancient back-arc basins.
e.g. Mariana, Lau, Japan.
Tyrrhennian sea case history.

Week 5: Continent-ocean interaction

10 – 10.50 am / 11 – 11.50 am
Monday
14 Oct
MLT / JGF Large Igneous
Provinces; occurrence; importance; age range;
Role of plumes;
LIP ocean interaction;
Geological examples / Integrated case history
AHFR
BRIDGE (Mid-Ocean Ridge project)
Key features of Mid-Ocean Ridges as seen in recent submersible studies and land-based work in Iceland;
ancient land-based examples
Tuesday
15 Oct
MLT / 9 – 9.50 am / 10 – 10.50 am
AHFR Ophiolite geology.
Ophiolite stratigraphy and structure reviewed. Semail, Troodos, Newfoundland, W. Mediterranean, circum-Pacific. Ophiolites as spreading phenomena & oceanic markers. Comparison with normal MOR's / 10-10.50
AHFR Pelagic sediments
Importance for ancient record;
Examples in orogenic belts;
Processes of formation;
Specific examples from the
Alpine-Mediterranean Tethys mainly

Week 6: Continent-ocean interaction

10 – 10.50 am / 11 – 11.50 am
Monday
21 Oct
MLT / AHFR Tectonic evolution of Mesozoic Tethys in the Mediterranean region;
Palaeotethys vs Neotethys;
Tectonic settings and processes;
Palaeotectonic developmnt
SW Turkey case history
AHFR / AHFR Neotectonic evolution of the Eastern Mediterranean.
Tectonic and sedimentary effects of current plate motions.
Back-arc extension; slab rollback effects;
Extensional basins
W Turkey extensional basin case history
9 – 9.50 am / 10 – 10.50 am

Week 7: Continent-ocean interaction and

Integrated case histories

10 – 10.50 am / 11 – 11.50 am
Monday
28 Oct
MLT / JT Tectonic evolution and palaeogeography: quantifying reconstructions using palaeomagnetism.
Examples from the Pacific (W. USA) Atlantic (Tethyan region) and the SWEAT Hypothesis / AHFR Iapetus ocean
Regional distribution around
N Atlantic mainly;
Summary of key aspects in Britain and Ireland;
Comparison with Appalachians and Newfoundland.
Tectonic models and processes
Newfoundland case history
9 – 9.50 am / 10 – 10.50 am
Tuesday
29 Oct
MLT / Integrated case history
AHFR Oman
Regional setting;
Rift history; passive margin
setting; oceanic units;
role of melanges and
metamorphic sole; ophiolite
stratigraphy; sulphides;
emplacement and younger
setting / Integrated case history
AHFR & JGF W USA
Transect from Rocky Mountains to the Pacific ocean;
Continental interior;
Palaeozoic evolution;
Mesozoic development;
Cenozoic magmatism;
Focus on accretionary and ophiolite settings

Week 8: Continent-ocean interactionand intergrated case histories.

10 – 10.50 am / 11 – 11.50 am
Monday
4th Nov / AHFR Himalayas and Tibet
Pre-collisional development
Evidence for rifting and passive margin development in India;
Evidence for northward drift of India;
Subduction and ophiolite genesis;
Collision; foreland basin;
Crustal structure of Tibet
Case history-Ladakh / AHFR Strike-slip tectonics and sedimentation in continental and oceanic settings
Field observations.
Analogue modelling. Flower structures.
Sediment architecture and dispersal in pull-apart basins.
Terrane dispersal; indentor tectonics; example of
Tibetan region
Ecemis Fault Zone, S Turkey case history
9 – 9.50 am / 10 – 10.50 am
Tuesday
5th Nov
TBA / AFBIntegrated case history Seismotectonics & Himalayas. Fault- plane solution exercise.
Crustal structure and
tectonics in an active convergence zone. / AFBIntegrated case history contd. Seismotectonics & Himalayas. Fault- plane solution exercise.
Crustal structure and
tectonics in an active convergence zone.

Appendix:

GRADE DESCRIPTORS

The Meaning of Grades in the Common Marking Scheme

What follows is a modified version of the College Grade-related Marking Criteria, here related specifically to the requirements of the EME course, and intended to be a reasonable description of the criteria actually used by the EME course teams.

Characteristic features of answers in the middle of each class division are outlined below, for each class division.

First Class

(Corresponding to Class A2 in the new extended Common Marking Scheme, as detailed in the Grade-Related Marking Criteria (GRMC) from College; see the extract in the Glg4 and GPG4 Assessment Regulations Booklet.)

The candidate is completely at home discussing the material, having a considerable depth of knowledge (main criterion in Part-A) and an ability to produce a properly supported argument in a logical, ordered sequence with clear understanding of the underlying principles involved (main criterion in Part-B). There is clear attention to the question as set, throughout. Signs (i.e. not extensive tracts) of original thought in the form of arguments, observations or critical reviews of received wisdom that have not been presented during the course. Evidence of reading from the recommended literature and usually beyond, shown by reference to the sources of key ideas and the location of important examples, but not necessarily the full bibliographic details. Clear diagrams are included, directly relevant to the argument and fully incorporated into the answer, i.e. they are an inherent and essential part of the answer, not just added for gloss or padding.

Upper Second Class (mid 2.1)

The material is essentially correct, is well organised and generally answers the question without major omissions but is largely drawn from the lectures. Original arguments and lines of reasoning are generally absent. Part-A answers are careful recall but the point of the question frequently disappears from view under the weight of worthy detail. Misunderstandings are generally absent but the actual level of understanding is occasionally ambiguous as the writer transcribes notes rather than presents a careful, well-constructed argument. Part-B answers of the interdisciplinary type are dominated by judicious splicing together of lecture material rather than much newly constructed argument. There are some flashes of original thought and definite attempts to answer the question and cross boundaries, but this is not sustained throughout the answer. First-principles-type answers are more or less sound but not comprehensive in coverage. Data interpretation answers are solid, covering the main points but missing the subtleties, the alternative interpretations and the penetrative analysis. Diagrams are sound but not particularly well integrated or embedded effectively into the progression of argument or explanation.

Lower Second Class (mid 2.2)

The answer is incomplete with insufficient relevant information presented and characteristic additions of irrelevant material by way of attempted compensation. There are some good points but not enough to merit an upper 2nd. There are some clear demonstrations of understanding but some errors of fact and usually some clear instances of misunderstanding. The dominant characteristic is a patchwork of recalled material with poor links and no clear thread of directed argument. Part-B answers are generally characterised by Part-A-type chunks of recall rather than insight or incisiveness but nevertheless manage to bring out some relevant points. First-principles-answers have one or two principles correct, others incorrect and are usually bulked out with examples without the principles attached at all. Data interpretation answers get only some of the main points correct and miss others altogether, along with higher-order subtleties. Overall the answer has more reasonably sound material in it than it has errors and irrelevancies.

(There are however a number of ways to achieve a 2.2 which do not fit this template exactly. All induce a feeling of considerable disappointment in the examiner. Notably, there is the “tantalising fragment answer” that contains a page or so of promising material but is simply too thin to merit a decent mark. Then there is the “wilfully deviant answer”, that starts well, gains some credit, but then becomes enamoured of its own voice and sails off into completely foreign territory, often quite accurately, but alas with no relation to the question.)

Third Class

The answer has a bare minimum of correctly recalled facts and relevant argument. There is much irrelevant material. Factual errors and evidence of misconceptions are common. Material comes recognisably from the lectures alone, but is often much distorted. There will be some evidence of understanding of the point of the question or of the need to present a cogent argument, but not a great deal. Answers are typically in the form of a hopeful offering of material, recalled with obvious difficulty. The answer nevertheless passes the following two tests: does this candidate demonstrate a level of knowledge and understanding greater than would be found in a candidate who had not attended the course but had the same background? Does the candidate’s level of correct knowledge and understanding manage to outweigh the evidence of lack of understanding and incorrectly recalled factual material? Is this, in fact, a “Senior Honours-level answer”?

Fail

Answers do not pass the tests posed in the last section. Positive features are either outweighed by misconceptions and errors or are so vague as to be useless. Answers which completely fail to answer the question set, either by deliberate intent as in those that imply: “I know nothing of this topic so how about this lot?”, or by misinterpretation of the wording of the question, will also fail.

A Note regarding ‘misreading’ of a question:

Possible ambiguities in A question will almost certainly have been looked for and eliminated in advance by the examiners. If a catastrophic misreading of the question occurs, it is likely to be your fault, but the examiners will give as much credit as possible if a missed ambiguity is acknowledged by them after due consideration of all the reasonable interpretations of the question as set. Note that it is essential to answer the question as set and that little credit will be given to material, even if scientifically correct, that strays from the meaning of the question. Never re-interpret a question to be able to supply information that you happen to know if it is off the question. Short relevant answers to the point will score more credit than long ones off the topic.