There are lots of what and how questions in the unit learning goals, but I think what is lacking is more cognitively demanding questions. I would have more open-ended questions and questions contradictory to the standard thinking about earthquakes so that students are challenged to think differently about earthquakes. For instance, one question might be to analyze, explain, and argue how some long-term consequences of earthquakes may improve or worsen communities? I would ask groups of students to work together on preparing a presentation in which they compile and explain evidence they believe supports their point of view and argue their point of view to other groups for review and revision. The goal is to have groups on both sides of the argument present their evidence and ideas to the entire class and have the class analyze the evidence, arguments and discuss strengths and weaknesses (evidence not supporting argument, other counter arguments, etc.) related to the presentations. This may lead students to suggest ways in which the arguments might be strengthened or weakened or what additional evidence should be sought to strengthen or weaken the arguments. I think this would result in more cognitively demanding work that is more open-ended with more choice for students on how they want to strengthen their arguments or weaken others' arguments.