 |
 |
I guess that this topic has gone a little beyond what Carl was originally asking. As a "classically" trained, field-based structural geologist (and I have never taught a course in my life) I would say that what is needed is a healthy balance between practice and theory. Nothing, absolutely nothing will help students (or people in general) understand structural geology (or geology of any kind) like giving them a map and a compass and sending them to the field to map out a fold, a fault, or a stratigraphic section. The scale doesn't matter, it could be an outcrop or many square kilometers. The point is that geology, and especially structural geology, is a field based science. In order to gain as complete an understand as possible about it one needs to spend a lot of time looking at rocks. Once that is done, there is the use and interpretation of the data; fold axes have to be plotted, bedding planes correctly drawn through the topography, cross sections drawn and restored. From my perspective, this is where people need to start in order to understand structural geology. Models help to visualise and formulate ideas about some things, but they are not reality. Reality is in the field. Having said that, John Ramsay (among many others) has very eloquently shown that there is also a theoritical side to structural geology that one also needs to understand. And yes, the stress tensor is one of these things, as is finite strain, or spin and vorticity. But all in good time. As an introduction, which I believe was the original question, taking the students to the field, explaining how mapping out mesoscale S and Z folds can give the larger scale structure, how cross bedding not only shows the stratigraphic way up and help determine if you are looking at a syncline or and anticline, but also can give information about whether or not the area was current or tide dominated. Show that hummocky cross bedding and rip up clasts may indicate storms, that burrows and shell fragments speak volumes about the marine environment 350 million years ago, or that these channels tell of rivers that flowed. In other words, teach them how to read the story the rocks have to tell. And how all of this can go on a structural geology map and it all means something. Then sit them down on a nice outcrop at the top of hill and have lunch while looking out over your field area. After lunch, go and measure that fault plane you see over there, those slicken fibres, and that cut-off and explain how these can be used to get the stress tensor, and how this tensor can be related to earthquakes and rock mechanism. It is all valuable information if you have the background to understand what is there to be read. It starts in the field but it will end in the classroom or office, so understanding how the theory works is as valuable as understanding how to work the outcrops. Sincerely Dennis Quoting Elisabeth Nadin <[log in to unmask]>: > yes, completely disagree!! > On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Matty Mookerjee > <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Agree to disagree! >> >> >> >> FROM: Tectonics & structural geology discussion list >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] ON BEHALF OF Sunil Gupta >> SENT: Friday, April 03, 2015 5:41 PM >> >> TO: [log in to unmask] >> SUBJECT: Re: Teaching Structural Geology >> >> >> >> >> Carl- ikr >> >> "If only I knew the stress tensor for this rock!" exclaimed no >> geologist actually looking at a rock, ever. >> >> -Sunny >> >> ------------------------- >> >> Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 18:11:33 -0400 >> From: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: Teaching Structural Geology >> To: [log in to unmask] >> >> I suspect you're confusing my point about research versus >> introductory teaching. I would never consider suggesting what someone >> should research because it is impossible to predict in advance what >> research will pay big dividends (your laser example) and what will not >> (some example we've never heard of). My point was about how to best >> spend the limited and valuable time available as an instructor of an >> introductory level structural geology course. >> >> >> >> >> Carl Little >> Consulting Geologist >> Toronto, ON, Canada >> >> >> >> On 29 March 2015 at 12:37, Krabbendam, Maarten >> <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> You may have a point, but the laser was once >> intellectual masturbation, >> >> >> >> >> >> Maarten Krabbendam >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------- >> >> FROM: Carl Little [[log in to unmask]] >> SENT: 29 March 2015 10:00 >> TO: [log in to unmask] >> SUBJECT: Re: Teaching Structural Geology >> >> >> Spending half a course on a topic which the >> students will struggle to find applications for in the real world is >> little more than intellectual masturbation, it seems to me. >> >> >> Carl Little >> Consulting Geologist >> Toronto, ON, Canada >> >> >> >> ------------------------- >> >> This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient >> only. NERC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the >> contents of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC >> unless it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied >> to NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system. >> >> Dr. Dennis Brown Instituto de Ciencias de la Tierra "Jaume Almera" c/Lluis Sole i Sabaris s/n 08028 Barcelona Spain Tel: (34) 934095410 From 1/11/2014 to 30/4/2015 Dept. Geosciences, National Taiwan University Taipei, Taiwan