Managing Tectonic Risks

Overview

In this lesson (11 of 18), students build on their understanding of Earth systems by learning how to assess risks in tectonically active regions. They will practise identifying hazards, analysing likelihood and consequence, and proposing basic mitigation actions.

Learning intentions

Students will be able to:

• WALT conduct a mock risk assessment for hazards linked to tectonic activity (such as earthquakes, landslides, tsunami, volcanic activity).
• WALT explain how risk depends on both the hazard and what people and infrastructure are exposed to.
• WALT use simple evidence and assumptions to justify a risk rating and communicate findings clearly.

Success criteria

• I can list realistic hazards that could occur in a tectonic area and match each hazard to potential impacts.
• I can rate likelihood and consequence and combine them into an overall risk for at least 3 hazards.
• I can identify who/what is exposed and describe at least 1 mitigation or preparedness strategy for each major risk.
• I can communicate my risk assessment using a clear structure and readable reasoning.

Curriculum links

• Investigating Earth systems: how geological processes shape environments and risks to people.
• Science as a human endeavour: using evidence, models and reasoning to make decisions about risk and safety.
• Scientific literacy: interpreting information, explaining cause-and-effect, and communicating conclusions.
• Cross-curriculum capability: critical and creative thinking through evidence-based decision-making.

Lesson structure (60 minutes)

1. 2 min – Hook & purpose

• Show a short scenario statement: “Your school is planning an excursion to a region that has frequent earthquakes and volcano activity.”
• Students share one question: “What could go wrong, and how would we decide what matters most?”

2. 8 min – Mini-lesson: risk assessment basics

• Teach the difference between hazard (the event/thing), exposure (people/property in the way), likelihood (how probable), consequence (impact), and risk (overall).
• Model a sample using one hazard (e.g., earthquake) with a simple likelihood and consequence scale.

3. 10 min – Whole-class worked example (guided)

• On the board, co-construct a risk table for a “fictional coastal town near a subduction zone.”
• Include at least 3 hazards (earthquake shaking, tsunami, landslides).
• Emphasise: use evidence where possible (maps, historical frequency statements, typical impacts) and clearly state assumptions if evidence is limited.

4. 5 min – Literacy supports: reading and understanding the scenario

• Provide dyslexia-friendly reading options: read-aloud of the scenario, and a printed version with large font and short sections.
• Students highlight hazards and impacts using a teacher checklist (not colour-heavy; underline is enough).

5. 20 min – Student task: mock risk assessment

• In pairs, students complete a risk assessment for 3–5 hazards using the template (likelihood, consequence, overall risk).
• Require a brief “Why” note for each rating (one to two sentences), linking hazard → exposure → likely effects.
• Teacher circulates and prompts with sentence starters: “I rated likelihood as… because…”, “The consequence is likely to be… due to…”

6. 12 min – Share-out and justify

• Groups present one highest risk and one mitigation strategy.
• Class provides “evidence and reasoning” feedback: What makes sense? What is assumed? What is missing?

7. 3 min – Exit ticket

• Students answer: “What is the difference between hazard and risk?” and “Name one mitigation strategy that reduces risk.”

Resources

• Risk assessment template (likelihood × consequence table with space for justification)
• Scenario cards for a tectonically active region (earthquake/volcano/coastal tsunami/landslide options)
• Teacher-made likelihood and consequence scale (e.g., Low/Medium/High)
• Pens, highlighters or underline markers
• Risk assessment exemplar (partially completed) for modelling
• Access to printed/local data prompts (e.g., “historical records say events occur every X years”)
• Dyslexia-friendly reading copies: large font, shorter paragraphs, optional teacher read-aloud script
• Presentation prompts (sentence starters for justification)
• Timer and display for time management

Assessment

• Formative: teacher checks templates for correct hazard identification, justified likelihood/consequence ratings, and clear communication.
• Summative (lightweight): exit ticket for conceptual accuracy (hazard vs risk) and understanding of mitigation.
• Peer feedback: during share-out, students give “one reason” and “one question” to improve justifications.

Differentiation

• Provide templates with pre-filled hazard examples and a simplified likelihood/consequence scale for students who struggle with literacy.
• Offer dyslexia-friendly options: read-aloud scenario, large-font handouts, and reduced text with visual cues (icons for hazards).
• Use sentence starters and word banks for justification (e.g., “likely because…”, “people are exposed when…”, “consequence could include…”).
• Extension: require additional hazards beyond the minimum and require mitigation strategies linked to specific risk controls (prepare, protect, respond, recover) and explain how each lowers either likelihood or consequence.
• For students needing challenge, require use of at least one piece of provided evidence (e.g., historical frequency statement) rather than assumptions alone.

Extension

• Propose mitigation strategies for identified risks: students select their top 1–2 risks and draft a short plan that includes preparedness actions (warnings, evacuation routes), protective actions (building practices), and response actions (who does what), explaining how each strategy reduces risk.