Edexcel Unit 4 - Tectonics (and structuring!)

Reply 120

deathlyhallows

Im really stuck on this! :frown:

can anyone help me? and others are struggling too, can we help each other out guys?

Reply 121

iamkeeley

Really need help guys! Does anybody know where the following case studies would fit onto Park's Model:

1. Honshu earthquake/tsunami
2. Haiti earthquake
3. Sichuan earthquake
4. Indian Ocean tsunami

for example would they be in the relief stage, just entering rehab stage, well into rehab etc.

Reply 122

conniewd

Seens as I got an E on the last paper, I can't really advise anyone on what to do but I got my paper back and can tell you what NOT to do

1) do not forget to quote where you got your definitions from
2) do NOT spend too long on methodology.... mine was at least half a page...there are other marks available in the research and methodology section (relevant concepts/models/case studies) do 5 mins max for this i spent way too long on mine last time which didnt give me enough time to develop the main body argument
3) do NOT try to cover too many factors. I did way too many factors last time, this time im going to chose fewer but go into more detail about them

also just a suggestion for the physical factors affecting response, instead of using Kashmir 2005 for isolated region therefore slow responses by rescue teams, you could use the more recent earthquake in Baghlan, Afganistan which reflects similar problems
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18394720)

Reply 123

Packlord

Original post by silvertoes

How are people planning to set out their methodology? In some examiner tips it says do a section on it and maybe use a table? This is the part which I struggle with as I am not too sure on what even goes into this section (I thought it was justification of the case studies and sources used?).

Any ideas would be very appreciated!

I was originally going to set it out in a Paragraph under it's own sub heading going on like "sampling methods/ primary sources/ secondary sources (with some evaluation/ justification)/ Case studies and Justification.

However, since a little while ago i've switched to a table- it skips out most of the useless joining words that just take up time. My table is split into two

Sources | Justification
(e.g. Dunn et al. (2009) Edexcel A2 Geography. Oxford. Phillip Allan Updates | Textbooks are useful due to a high reliability from checks before publishing, and as an education aid they need to be accurate and unbiased.)

Case Study | Justification
(e.g. 2004 Asian Tsunami | 6th largest Natural Disaster/ Huge Humanitarian effort/ etc).

Reply 124

conniewd

a possible question could be to what extent does a country's level of development affect the effectiveness of response

Reply 125

Packlord

As well, anyone got any opinions on this:

For questions that are like "Evaluate the effectiveness of a range of responses used by different groups of people to deal with tectonic hazards in a variety of locations." where the focus seems to be upon the range of responses and thus would be structured like that (In my opinion, rather than in factors) would you structure the main analysis section under titles like:

Before Event/ During Event/ After Event- With evaluation of the effectiveness from numerous factors
Or
Modifying Event/ Modifying Human Vulnerability/ Modify Loss Burden - with a similar thing in.

????????

Reply 126

Flyteryder

12

Original post by Packlord

I was originally going to set it out in a Paragraph under it's own sub heading going on like "sampling methods/ primary sources/ secondary sources (with some evaluation/ justification)/ Case studies and Justification.

However, since a little while ago i've switched to a table- it skips out most of the useless joining words that just take up time. My table is split into two

Sources | Justification
(e.g. Dunn et al. (2009) Edexcel A2 Geography. Oxford. Phillip Allan Updates | Textbooks are useful due to a high reliability from checks before publishing, and as an education aid they need to be accurate and unbiased.)

Case Study | Justification
(e.g. 2004 Asian Tsunami | 6th largest Natural Disaster/ Huge Humanitarian effort/ etc).

Textbooks are not useful at all; the textbooks were published 3 years ago, with most information being taken from 5 or more years ago. Things have changed, and undoubtedly, the information in the textbooks is going to be out of date. The examiners want to see you've researched outside sources like The Economist, The National Geographic, the USGS website etc, not just read your textbook.

In January, my teacher told us to do a bibliography of sources at the end of the report, like an academic report would, like the bottom of this Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoon#Sources

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 127

Packlord

Original post by Flyteryder

Textbooks are not useful at all; the textbooks were published 3 years ago, with most information being taken from 5 or more years ago. Things have changed, and undoubtedly, the information in the textbooks is going to be out of date. The examiners want to see you've researched outside sources like The Economist, The National Geographic, the USGS website etc, not just read your textbook.

Yeah- My methadology says Textbooks for basic theory; but due to their ageing nature case studies found within lose relevance and thus needs to be supplemented. Then it carries on with Blogs/ News sites/ NGOs/ Scientific Organisations/ Scientific Journals. :smile:

Reply 128

conniewd

Does anyone know how infrastructure affects the effectiveness of response? :confused:

is it like this? Strong infrastructure and buildings > less damage > speedier return to normality

Reply 129

conniewd

this paper makes me want to be sick

Reply 130

silvertoes

Original post by Packlord

I was originally going to set it out in a Paragraph under it's own sub heading going on like "sampling methods/ primary sources/ secondary sources (with some evaluation/ justification)/ Case studies and Justification.

However, since a little while ago i've switched to a table- it skips out most of the useless joining words that just take up time. My table is split into two

Sources | Justification
(e.g. Dunn et al. (2009) Edexcel A2 Geography. Oxford. Phillip Allan Updates | Textbooks are useful due to a high reliability from checks before publishing, and as an education aid they need to be accurate and unbiased.)

Case Study | Justification
(e.g. 2004 Asian Tsunami | 6th largest Natural Disaster/ Huge Humanitarian effort/ etc).

Thanks thats really helpful. I had thought of doing a table but my teacher had been rely unhelpful in what to include and how to implement it.

Reply 131

Flyteryder

12

Original post by Packlord

Yeah- My methadology says Textbooks for basic theory; but due to their ageing nature case studies found within lose relevance and thus needs to be supplemented. Then it carries on with Blogs/ News sites/ NGOs/ Scientific Organisations/ Scientific Journals. :smile:

I just didn't want you to rely on the textbooks for a lot of your sourcing. What you're going to do is good :smile:

Reply 132

silvertoes

Original post by Flyteryder

Textbooks are not useful at all; the textbooks were published 3 years ago, with most information being taken from 5 or more years ago. Things have changed, and undoubtedly, the information in the textbooks is going to be out of date. The examiners want to see you've researched outside sources like The Economist, The National Geographic, the USGS website etc, not just read your textbook.

In January, my teacher told us to do a bibliography of sources at the end of the report, like an academic report would, like the bottom of this Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoon#Sources

I agree that textbooks are not really helpful on the newer event, but I think its wise to have a range of studies of about 25 years or so so they are not totally useless. I'm doing a bib too but most of the examiner stuff says that doing both is better so just covering my basses. But I agree with you that relying on textbooks alone makes you look like you have done no research so I will be using other sources too.

Reply 133

silvertoes

Original post by conniewd

Does anyone know how infrastructure affects the effectiveness of response? :confused:

is it like this? Strong infrastructure and buildings > less damage > speedier return to normality

Pretty much, MDCs have earthquake proof buildings which means that there is less debris to get through to get injured people and less people will die because of this meaning there is less strain on the services (so they can perform efficiently). LDCs don't have this and so both mean that the response is less well implemented. Plus the fact that they are often less well trained and equipped does not help this.

Reply 134

jccarroll

Could someone share some information about the range of responses applied in different case studies?

Thanks :smile:

Reply 135

ninegrandstudent

OP

11

How important are diagrams?

I really struggle to get back in the flow of writing once I've drawn one, and they seem to take ages. Thing is, my report that I'm using as my base using the parks model a lot :/

Reply 136

Flyteryder

12

Original post by ninegrandstudent

How important are diagrams?

I really struggle to get back in the flow of writing once I've drawn one, and they seem to take ages. Thing is, my report that I'm using as my base using the parks model a lot :/

They are very important; the examiner wants to know you know what the diagrams are and how to use them, as well as how to draw them, and how to label them as figures and reference them throughout your writing. They don't need to be amazingly detailed, just a basic diagram with some annotations, then explain it in your writing.

Everyone

...

Some notes about infrastructure, technology and governments on the effectiveness of the response. I just thought of these from the top of my head:

Having better infrastructure could adversely affect the effectiveness of the response. For example, Japan now have hexagonal shaped buildings so they are less affected by earthquakes. Since these places in Japan have better infrastructure, it is going to be thought that they do not need as much response than other places in Japan without these buildings, and thus the response is more likely be diverted away from these areas that have these buildings in favour of those that don't, even if there is a great amount of damage to property and life in these areas.

Better infrastructure like roads and bridges allow response teams to get to different places more effectively. It is going to be harder to get a response team through a place without clear roads, as the terrain (swamps, mountains etc.) could hinder the amount of response or completely stop the response.

Technology can give a more effective response with better medicines for people who are injured, and equipment to get people out of danger/rebuild damaged property. Prediction technology can help the effectiveness of the response, as a tectonic event strikes an area that has had good predictions of how likely a tectonic event is, the response should be prepared months or even years before the event. However, places with good tectonic prediction but in low risk areas may not have good enough plans/responses, as it would seem unlikely that they would ever need them.

Governments could adversely affect the effectiveness of the response if they have not invested enough money into prediction technology, infrastructure and emergency response teams. They could also help the effectiveness of the response by doing the reverse of those. In the Kobe earthquake in Japan, the Japanese government wanted to make themselves seem independent, not needing help from other countries. It took over a week to realise they couldn't deal with it themselves, so they asked the USA for millions of dollars to help, so this government hindered the effectiveness of the response. A few years before the Haiti earthquake, scientists told the Haiti government that they had a high risk of an earthquake as they were in a tectonically active area, but the government didn't take them seriously. The same thing happened with the Kobe earthquake.

You could research whether any governments have made deals with each other to help each other out if a tectonic event happens. You could also research the level of prediction technology in developed and undeveloped countries.

Edit: How magnitude affects the effectiveness of the response:

A larger magnitude would force a larger response, as more people and property would be affected. However, this response may not be that effective. Response teams and response resources may have to be split/spread out across more areas due to a higher magnitude of earthquake/tectonic event, reducing the quality of each section of response, as resources could be spread out so much there would not be enough to effectively deal with each area affected.

A higher magnitude would be more likely to get other countries involved with the response. For example, if the Haiti earthquake had a much lower magnitude, it wouldn't have prompted as much international response from developed countries like the USA and the UK, because they wouldn't have been that concerned if the lower magnitude caused less property damage and fewer deaths. A higher magnitude is more likely for the government of the country affected, as well as other countries, to carry out a more effective response.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 137

brighteyes123

4

for structure, could you do this:
intro
methodology
political influences on effectiveness of response (nevado del ruiz, kashmir, montserrat)
economic (haiti, kobe, north ridge)
nature of hazard -predictability (mt st helens, gujarat, asian tsunami)
social (if time) (literacy rate etc - eyfafjallajokull, north ridge)
conclusion

how does that sound?
also what relevant diagrams are there i can only really think of degg and park response??

Reply 138

brighteyes123

4

Edit: How magnitude affects the effectiveness of the response:

A larger magnitude would force a larger response, as more people and property would be affected. However, this response may not be that effective. Response teams and response resources may have to be split/spread out across more areas due to a higher magnitude of earthquake/tectonic event, reducing the quality of each section of response, as resources could be spread out so much there would not be enough to effectively deal with each area affected.

A higher magnitude would be more likely to get other countries involved with the response. For example, if the Haiti earthquake had a much lower magnitude, it wouldn't have prompted as much international response from developed countries like the USA and the UK, because they wouldn't have been that concerned if the lower magnitude caused less property damage and fewer deaths. A higher magnitude is more likely for the government of the country affected, as well as other countries, to carry out a more effective response.

could you incorporate this into nature of hazard and also write about volcano/quake predicability as part of the same subsection??

Reply 139

stef33

I was wondering whether anyone would be able to help me as I did a model report and structured it by different factors . Though when looking at this thread some say that the question might be discuss how different groups of people determine the effectiveness of responses . But if this was the question would I structure it by different groups of people as I've tried to do that but am finding it quite hard as for every disaster there's been so many people involved so am just confused :s-smilie:

. How likely do you think the question is going to relate to factors ??

Edexcel Unit 4 - Tectonics (and structuring!)

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you