Geomorphic Hazards

Overview

In this lesson (12 of 20) students investigate and compare geomorphic hazards—particularly earthquakes and volcanoes—in Australia and Peru. They build on earlier landscape and environmental change learning by linking hazard processes to features of places and environments, then using evidence to explain similarities and differences.

Learning intentions

• Students will identify key features of earthquakes and volcanoes in Australia and Peru.
• Students will describe how places and environments change after these hazards.
• Students will compare hazard risks using simple geographical evidence (maps, climate/tectonic context, impact examples).
• Students will propose realistic ways communities can manage and protect places from hazards.

Success criteria

• I can describe what earthquakes/volcanoes are and where they occur.
• I can identify and explain at least two similarities and two differences between Australia and Peru hazards.
• I can use evidence from a map or data to support my comparison.
• I can suggest one management strategy and explain how it reduces harm.

Curriculum links

• GELS-DFC-02: Students identify features or characteristics of places and environments.
• GELS-PRI-01: Students describe how places and environments change.
• GELS-MAN-01: Students demonstrate ways to manage and protect a place or environment.
• Thinking and working geographically skills: using evidence and maps to draw conclusions about environments.

Lesson structure (60 minutes)

1. 0–5 min · Retrieval and focus. Teacher prompts students to recall: “What is a hazard?” and “How can landscapes change after hazards?” Students complete a 2-minute silent write then share one idea with a partner.
2. 5–15 min · Hazard quick introduction. Teacher shows two labelled diagrams (earthquake zones and volcanic arcs) and briefly explains that hazard risk depends on processes and exposure (people/infrastructure). Students label a mini graphic: “cause → hazard → effect” for both earthquakes and volcanoes.
3. 15–27 min · Australia vs Peru comparison stations. Teacher divides class into 4 groups and rotates through 3 short stations:

• Station A: Tectonic setting map (plate boundaries, subduction zones).
• Station B: Hazard examples (one earthquake and one volcanic event each country).
• Station C: Impact factors (population/infrastructure proximity, preparedness indicators). Students record “features of place” notes using a structured table: Location/where it happens, hazard type, main process, and what changes.

4. 27–38 min · Guided evidence comparison. Teacher models one comparison sentence using evidence starters (e.g., “In Peru, earthquakes are more likely because…”). Students then complete a comparison paragraph frame:

• Similarity 1 (evidence + explanation)
• Similarity 2 (evidence + explanation)
• Difference 1 (evidence + explanation)
• Difference 2 (evidence + explanation) Teacher checks for accuracy and encourages students to refer to their station notes (not opinions).

5. 38–51 min · Management and protection task. Teacher explains that management reduces harm, not the natural process. Students choose one hazard (earthquake or volcano) and one country, then create a “community preparedness plan” with three actions:

• Before (prevention/education/monitoring)
• During (response behaviours)
• After (recovery and rebuilding safely) Students must link each action to how it protects people and/or the environment.

6. 51–58 min · Share-out and formative check. Teacher invites one group to share their strongest similarity and one most convincing difference. Students listen for evidence use (“Where is your evidence from?”).
7. 58–60 min · Exit ticket. Students answer: “Which hazard is likely to be more frequent/intense in Peru than Australia (earthquake/volcano) and why? Provide one piece of evidence.”

Resources

• Printed station sheets: tectonic map (simple), hazard fact cards for Australia and Peru, impact factor cards
• Student comparison table template (4-row table with sentence starters)
• Preparedness plan template (Before/During/After)
• Coloured pencils or highlighters
• Exit ticket slips
• Projector/board for the cause → hazard → effect diagrams
• Optional: enlarged maps for students needing visual support

Assessment

• Formative during stations: teacher circulates to check students can correctly identify location/process/effects.
• Formative during paragraph writing: quick teacher checks for evidence-based explanations.
• Exit ticket: assesses whether students can justify a claim using one clear piece of geographical evidence.

Differentiation

• Support for students needing structure: provide partially completed comparison frames and sentence starters; highlight key map features (e.g., “subduction zone” on the map legend).
• Support for reading/language: reduce station text density (short fact bullets) and provide a glossary on the templates (earthquake, volcano, tectonic plates, boundary, preparedness).
• Extension for advanced learners: require an additional “risk logic” link (hazard vs risk) and a ranked prioritisation (top 2 actions with justification).
• EAL considerations: allow drawing + labels as evidence in the templates; provide a bilingual buddy option where appropriate; encourage oral rehearsal before writing.
• SEN supports: offer a choice of hazard focus (earthquake or volcano) and allow audio recording of plan explanations if needed.

Extension (optional)

• Students create a 1-page “hazard infographic” comparing Australia and Peru, including: a mini tectonic explanation, two hazards, two impacts, and two management strategies with brief justifications.