Search

found 358 results

Images for science; more images...

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

Disaster recovery involves the restoration, repair and rejuvenation of both hard and soft infrastructure. In this report we present observationsfrom seven case studies of collaborative planning from post-earthquake Canterbury, each of which was selected as a means of better understanding ‘soft infrastructure for hard times’. Though our investigation is located within a disaster recovery context, we argue that the lessons learned are widely applicable. Our seven case studies highlighted that the nature of the planning process or journey is as important as the planning objective or destination. A focus on the journey can promote positive outcomes in and of itself through building enduring relationships, fostering diverse leaders, developing new skills and capabilities, and supporting translation and navigation. Collaborative planning depends as much upon emotional intelligence as it does technical competence, and we argue that having a collaborative attitude is more important than following prescriptive collaborative planning formulae. Being present and allowing plenty of time are also key. Although deliberation is often seen as an improvement on technocratic and expertdominated decision-making models, we suggest that the focus in the academic literature on communicative rationality and discursive democracy has led us to overlook other more active forms of planning that occur in various sites and settings. Instead, we offer an expanded understanding of what planning is, where it happens and who is involved. We also suggest more attention be given to values, particularly in terms of their role as a compass for navigating the terrain of decision-making in the collaborative planning process. We conclude with a revised model of a (collaborative) decision-making cycle that we suggest may be more appropriate when (re)building better homes, towns and cities.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

Science education research shows that a traditional, stand-and-deliver lecture format is less effective than teaching strategies that are learner-centred and that promote active engagement. The Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative (CWSEI) has used this research to develop resources to improve learning in university science courses. We report on a successful adaptation and implementation of CWSEI in the New Zealand university context. This two-year project at Massey University and the University of Canterbury began by using perception and concept surveys before and after undergraduate science courses to measure students’ attitudes towards science as well as their knowledge. Using these data, and classroom observations of student engagement and corroborating focus groups, the research team worked with lecturers to create interventions to enhance student engagement and learning in those courses. Results show several positive changes related to these interventions and they suggest several recommendations for lecturers and course coordinators. The recommendations include:1. Make learning outcomes clear, both for the lecturer and the students; this helps to cull extraneous material and scaffold student learning. 2. Use interactive activities to improve engagement, develop deeper levels of thinking, and improve learning. 3. Intentionally foster “expert-like thinking” amongst students in the first few semesters of the degree programme. 4. Be flexible because one size does not fit all and contextual events are beyond anyone’s control.In addition to these recommendations, data collected at the Canterbury site during the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes reinforced the understanding that the most carefully designed teaching innovations are subject to contextual conditions beyond the control of academics.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

The M7.8 Kaikoura Earthquake in 2016 presented a number of challenges to science agencies and institutions throughout New Zealand. The earthquake was complex, with 21 faults rupturing throughout the North Canterbury and Marlborough landscape, generating a localised seven metre tsunami and triggering thousands of landslides. With many areas isolated as a result, it presented science teams with logistical challenges as well as the need to coordinate efforts across institutional and disciplinary boundaries. Many research disciplines, from engineering and geophysics to social science, were heavily involved in the response. Coordinating these disciplines and institutions required significant effort to assist New Zealand during its most complex earthquake yet recorded. This paper explores that effort and acknowledges the successes and lessons learned by the teams involved.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

The Townsend Observatory is located in the Arts Centre of Christchurch, in what used to be Canterbury College (now University of Canterbury). The Townsend telescope itself is a historic 6-inch Cooke refractor built in 1864 for early Christchurch colonist, Mr James Townsend, and gifted by him to Christchurch College in 1891. At the same time, the Canterbury Astronomical Society handed over its funds to the College to help erect an observatory. The College used this, and money it had set aside for a medical school, to build a biological laboratory with an attached observatory tower, which was completed in 1896. The Biology Building and Observatory Tower was the last major design by architect Benjamin Mountfort. Mr Walter Kitson was appointed custodian of the telescope and regular public open nights commenced. and continued until 2010, with the telescope being operated by students of the Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Canterbury. The Observatory Tower was badly damaged in the 4 September 2010 earthquake and collapsed in the 22 February 2011 earthquake. The telescope was badly damaged by the collapse, but, amazingly, the optics were found entirely intact. The Department of Physics and Astronomy plans to restore the Townsend Telescope so that it can be returned to a replica Observatory Tower in its central city home, enabling the people of Christchurch, and visitors, to enjoy views of the night sky through this beautiful and historic telescope once again.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

The 4 September 2010 Darfield and 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquakes caused significant damage to Christchurch and surrounding suburbs as a result of the widespread liquefaction and lateral spreading that occurred. Ground surveying-based field investigations were conducted following these two events in order to measure permanent ground displacements in areas significantly affected by lateral spreading. Data was analysed with respect to the distribution of lateral spreading vs. distance from the waterway, and the failure patterns observed. Two types of failure distribution patterns were observed, a typical distributed pattern and an atypical block failure. Differences in lateral spreading measurements along adjacent banks of the Avon River in the area of Dallington were also examined. The spreading patterns between the adjacent banks varied with the respective river geometry and/or geotechnical conditions at the banks.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

Novel Gel-push sampling was employed to obtain high quality samples of Christchurch sands from the Central Business District, at sites where liquefaction was observed in 22 February 2011, and 13 June 2011 earthquakes. The results of cyclic triaxial testing on selected undisturbed specimens of typical Christchurch sands are presented and compared to empirical procedures used by practitioners. This comparison suggests cyclic triaxial data may be conservative, and the Magnitude Scaling Factor used in empirical procedures may be unconservative for highly compressible soils during near source moderate to low magnitude events. Comparison to empirical triggering curves suggests the empirical method generally estimates the cyclic strength of Christchurch sands within a reasonable degree of accuracy as a screening evaluation tool for liquefaction hazard, however for sands with moderate to high fines content it may be significantly unconservative, highlighting the need for high quality sampling and testing on important projects where seismic performance is critical.