SIMULATING A VOLCANIC CRISIS IN THE CLASSROOM
Karen S. Harpp
Department of Geology, Colgate University, Hamilton, NY 13346,
[email protected]
William J. Sweeney
Department of Geology, Colgate University, Hamilton, NY 13346
ABSTRACT
Perhaps the most urgent responsibility of volcanologists
today is the management of volcanic crises. This complex
process, however, is one of the most difficult to convey to
students in a classroom setting. We have designed a
multi-week, cooperative learning activity for our
introductory, undergraduate volcanology class, which
culminates in the simulation of a volcanic monitoring
crisis. We provide teams of students with regularly
updated information about a volcano’s increasing
activity. The data are drawn from existing archives and
consist of seismic, gas composition, deformation, and
surficial variations, as well as eyewitness reports.
Students must respond in real time to the volcano’s
changing conditions in a highly interactive, dynamic,
and energetic experience. The exercise incorporates the
development of skills including interpretation of
volcanic data, design of hazard maps and alert-level
schemes, analysis of rapidly changing databases,
consideration of the human costs of scientific decisions,
and management of multiple simultaneous tasks. We
believe this activity creates an effective and exciting
learning environment in which students have the
opportunity to apply theoretical concepts to a more
realistic situation than is achieved in conventional
classroom exercises. In so doing, we hope to develop
students’ critical thinking skills as well as to convey the
challenges faced by volcanologists in hazards mitigation.
Keywords: Volcanoes and volcanism; education—
undergraduate; geology—professional and
public affairs; geology—teaching and
curriculum.
INTRODUCTION
One of the most exciting topics for the students in an
introductory volcanology course is that of volcano
hazard mitigation and eruption monitoring. Fascinating
case studies are available for detailed analysis, including
the eruptions of Mount St. Helens in 1980, Nevado del
Ruiz in 1985, and Mount Pinatubo in 1991. Students can
examine the plethora of available scientific data to
understand, in hindsight, the volcanic processes and the
monitoring decisions made on the scene.
Numerous pedagogical approaches are used to teach
students about volcanic crisis management, including
videos (e.g., In the Path of a Killer Volcano, Whittlesey and
Buckner, 1993; Understanding Volcanic Hazards, Krafft,
1997; Montserrat’s Andesite Volcano, Lea and Sparks,
410
1999), class discussions (Bladh, 1990), examination of
data archives (e.g., Bhatia and Corgan, 1996), prediction
exercises (e.g., Mattox, 1999; Hodder, 1999; Bunker, 1985)
and narratives (e.g., Volcano Cowboys, Thompson, 2000),
as well as computer-based simulations (e.g., Wohletz,
2000; USGS, 1998) and web-based study (e.g.,
Schimmrich and Gore, 1996). While these methods are
effective at illustrating the scientific concepts behind
volcano monitoring and provide a retrospective analysis
of events, it is nevertheless nearly impossible for
students to experience the complexity inherent in an
actual volcanic crisis (Bursik et al., 1994). Examination of
compiled datasets, while an essential pedagogical tool,
cannot convey the intertwined scientific and social
issues, the urgency and demands for quick decisionmaking, and the need for real-time analysis and multitasking necessary in a monitoring situation.
Being involved first-hand in a volcanic crisis would
be, naturally, the most effective way to illustrate the
complexity of the process, but this of course is not
practical. Ideally, at the minimum, a volcano would
become active at the start of every term so that students
could follow its progress from the safety of the classroom
via the Internet, but nature rarely cooperates. To get
around this minor inconvenience, we essentially decided
to re-enact our own volcanic crisis in the classroom.
Over the course of several weeks, we broadly
reproduce a monitoring effort by providing teams of
students with regularly updated information about a
volcano’s increasing activity. The data are drawn from
existing archives and consist of seismic activity, gas
composition and volume, deformation and surficial
changes, and eyewitness reports that evolve over the
course of an eruption event. Students must respond in
real time to the changing conditions of the volcano in a
highly interactive, dynamic, and energetic ex- perience
that, we believe, fosters an exciting and effective learning
process.
DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTIVITY
In its current format, the exercise lasts for 15 class days,
with most of the activity taking place either outside of
class or for only a few minutes during each class meeting.
A sample timetable of events is shown below; the
detailed description of the exercise follows this sequence.
1. Initiation of Exercise and Formation of Monitoring
Teams - The multi-week exercise begins with a
diplomatic request from another nation for assistance
Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 50, n. 4, September, 2002, p. 410-418
monitoring a potentially dangerous volcano, which has
re-awakened and poses a threat to a community. In
response, the class forms teams similar to the Volcanic
Disaster Assistance Program (VDAP) units of the USGS.
VDAP is a crisis response team, prepared for immediate
mobilization to monitor hazards at recently active
volcanoes around the world. The organization was
established cooperatively with the Office of Foreign
Disaster Assistance of the U.S. Agency for International
Development, in response to the tragic events at Nevado
del Ruiz in 1985. Since that time, VDAP has responded to
over a dozen volcanic crises with portable monitoring
equipment; one of their most impressive efforts was the
successful prediction of the 1991 Mount Pinatubo
eruption in the Philippines.
In our version of this simulation, the class was
divided into self-contained teams of 6 students apiece,
with all teams responsible for the same assignments and
experiences throughout the exercise. In this way, teams
can compare their responses to the volcano crisis once
the simulation is complete. Whenever the group is
responsible for reporting anything to the class as a
whole, they choose a spokesperson; they must rotate the
role of spokesperson through the team members over the
course of the multi-week exercise.
Because initial reports of the volcano’s activity are
sparse and indicate only low-level activity, the students’
first task is to collect background information about the
volcano’s eruptive history using existing scientific
literature. Over the course of the next week, the teams
compile as complete a history of the volcano as possible.
2. Initial Discussions of the Volcano’s Activity- The
students have access to regularly updated volcanic data
via a website (Figure 1 ) where we post new information
every 2-3 days. We ask students to check the website
frequently and to take note of changes in the volcano’s
behavior. At the beginning of each class period, we
briefly discuss the latest volcanic activity to assess the
current situation at the volcano, initially in broad terms.
3. Design of Alert-level Scheme - After a few days
engaged in these conversations, students realize that
they need to develop a systematic, documented method
for determining the status of the volcano. Each team then
designs an alert-level scheme for the volcano, based on
published reports of previous eruptions; the teams are
left the freedom to determine their own design for the
scheme, but are encouraged to base it on existing alert
systems for other active volcanic systems. The scheme
incorporates
observational
data
(seismic,
gas
composition, tilt, visual changes) as the basis for declaring the status of the volcano and its potential for
eruption (e.g., eruption likely within one week; eruption
imminent, etc.).
Harpp and Sweeney - Simulating a Volcanic Crisis
Figure 1. Sample screen from website used to display
data from the volcano on a daily basis.
The teams continue to consult the volcanic data
website, now updated daily, and to determine an
appropriate alert-level for the volcano. At the beginning
of every class meeting, the teams debate their current
alert-level assessments with the entire group. As time
passes, the activity of the volcano intensifies and it
becomes clear that there is the potential for a major
eruptive event.
4. Development of Hazards Map and Evacuation
Zones - During the debates about the volcano’s potential
for eruption, students gradually realize that monitoring
is not just about the volcano’s behavior, but also includes
the safety of the surrounding population. The next task
becomes an investigation of the region around the
volcano, including the topography, climate, population
distribution and density, governmental hierarchy,
cultural issues, transportation resources, housing
conditions, and infrastructure, such as roads away from
the volcano. Students construct a volcanic hazards map
of the area and link it with their alert-level scheme (e.g.,
at level 4, the region within a 3-kilometer radius must be
warned; at level 5, the region must be evacuated within 3
days, etc.). Over the next few weeks, students continue to
monitor the website and the increasing volcanic activity.
They must be prepared to present their assessment of the
volcano’s status daily in class.
5. The Eruption Simulation - After the analysis of
activity level becomes systematic and students have
used their alert schemes repeatedly, we initiate the final
stages of the simulation. The culmination of the exercise
starts with the teams presenting their current warning
levels in class as they have been doing routinely for
several weeks. A “representative” from the USGS
suddenly interrupts them, declaring that seismic activity
has gone off the charts and that the teams are being sent
to monitor the volcano on site.
411
Each team is given 15-20 minutes to gather
appropriate materials and to discuss its plans internally.
Subsequently, the teams relocate to their own classrooms, which double as headquarters for monitoring the
volcano. We then set up a PowerPoint presentation,
which automatically provides the students with
constantly updated data from the volcano’s monitoring
sites. The presentation consists of a stream of data that
simulates an eruptive sequence of approximately six
days, condensed into ~2.5-3 hours (Figure 3). Every slide
contains field reports and seismic, gas composition,
inflation, and eyewitness data, updated every minute
(see below for details regarding sources of data).
During this presentation, the monitoring teams are
responsible for several tasks. First, they must provide
regular updates on the alert-level status of the volcano as
well as recommendations for appropriate evacuation
responses. An individual playing the role of a local
government official enters the room periodically to
discuss the recommendations with the team and collect
their status reports.
To complicate matters, however, the students are
also interrupted by actors representing members of the
press, townspeople with conflicting vested interests,
local scientists, and the occasional troublemaker who
refuses to acknowledge that the volcano might erupt.
Each actor has a different demand on the team, along
with varying levels of scientific expertise. These
interactions oblige the students to communicate clearly
and calmly without instigating panic. Furthermore,
students must quickly develop a system of team
management that allows them to respond to the frequent
interruptions and requests while continuing to analyze
incoming volcanic data effectively and accurately.
Over the course of the 3-hour session, the activity of
the volcano varies significantly, including ash plumes,
small lahars, seismic swarms, and changes in the
composition of the gas and the ash. Moreover,
government officials may refuse to evacuate parts of the
region, the press over-reacts to the team’s early warnings
which incites civil unrest, roads get blocked by panicking
locals, equipment fails or is destroyed by volcanic events,
and the budget gets too small to replace malfunctioning
data stations. Ultimately, the simulation culminates in a
final volcanic event that ranges from a relatively minor
eruption to a major base surge.
6. Subsequent Analysis of Team’s Reactions during
the Volcanic Crisis - In the class period following the
final eruption event, students debrief after the crisis and
prepare an analysis of their team’s response to the
situation in terms of strengths, weaknesses, and how it
could have been improved, which a designated
spokesperson delivers to the entire class. Subsequently,
they watch the NOVA Video In the Path of a Killer Volcano
(Whittlesey and Buckner, 1993), a documentary about
the monitoring efforts of the USGS during the 1991 Mt.
Pinatubo eruption. This film focuses on the responses of
412
the scientists and the agency to the crisis and, because
our simulation is based in part on the Pinatubo data,
students recognize the parallels and compare their
actions to those of the scientists in the real situation.
Finally, we carry out a discussion with the entire class, in
which individuals describe their opinions, reactions, and
analyses of the simulation from their own perspectives.
This gives each student the opportunity to voice any
dissenting opinions from those of their group.
LOGISTICAL DETAILS
Timetable of the Activity - The duration of this exercise
is highly flexible and can be adjusted to fit into a wide
range of class schedules. To maximize the experience and
give students a sense of the preparation and background
research necessary for a serious monitoring effort, we
run our simulation for a total of ~50 days (Table 1), from
the initial news about the volcano to the final volcanic
event (a total of 7 weeks; the class meets twice each
week). The extended timeframe is particularly effective
for illustrating how a volcano’s behavior can vary
significantly on a daily basis but still exhibit long-term
trends. Most of the time the project can run in the
background of the regular course, with only short
discussions in class and team assignments completed
outside of classroom time.
The Final Event - The final ~3 hour session, in which the
teams “witness” a volcanic eruption and the accompanying chaos, is naturally the most challenging
organizational feat of the activity. Prior to this session,
students are asked to reserve an evening for what we
claim will be a long video. In this manner, significant
time is allotted to the session, but students do not know
exactly when the class is scheduled to end, which
preserves the essential element of surprise.
Each team is sequestered in its own classroom so that
the students do not see what is happening with the other
groups and therefore come up with their own, unique
solutions to the challenges. The teams are provided with
two-way radios to the instructor so that they can ask
questions, request meetings with “officials”, and
schedule events such as press conferences. Having a few
volunteer students as runners or liaisons from each team
is an alternative method for keeping the lines of
communication open while maintaining the isolation of
each group.
Several additional volunteers are needed as actors to
play the roles of government officials, townspeople,
scientists, and the press corps. These individuals must be
versed in the pedagogical goals of the exercise to know
how to respond to team questions and how to guide the
team toward a productive learning experience. We
provide all actors with important background
information such as the layout of surrounding cities,
population density and socioeconomic profile, distance
to adjacent cities, availability of transportation, and
Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 50, n. 4, September, 2002, p. 410-418
potential costs of evacuation that are available from
many sources (see list of resources at http://classes.
colgate.edu/kharpp/volc_crisis/). Moreover, we instruct the actors how to respond to predictable questions
or recommendations from the teams. For instance, we
ask the government officials to explain their initial
resistance to proposals for major evacuations early in the
exercise, so that the students realize the potential social
and fiscal ramifications of an unnecessary evacuation.
Choice of a Volcanic Site - The volcano used as the
focus of this activity must meet a number of criteria. First,
there should be readily available background
information on the volcano’s eruptive behavior, but not
so much that it is overwhelming to the students when
they embark on their research. The volcano must also
have a documented history of significant eruptions (or at
least one in historical times), so that information about
the potential hazards can be estimated. Although this
exercise may be run with any type of volcano, we have
chosen to use those capable of explosive eruptions;
stratovolcanoes can produce anything from mild ash
emissions to major blasts, thus lending flexibility to the
choice of outcomes. Moreover, significant, complete
datasets exist for a number of recent explosive eruptions,
which we draw upon extensively in preparing the
PowerPoint datafile used during the final eruption
sequence simulation.
To keep the situation appropriately complex, it is
ideal to have a significant population living on or near
the volcano’s flanks so that there is a potential risk
during an eruption. Topographic maps of the region are
an additional tool that, while not essential, greatly
enhances students’ ability to design alert-levels, evacuation plans, and hazard maps. Finally, if the volcano
is located outside of the United States, students actually
learn quite a bit about the host nation’s culture,
governmental structure, and society in their background
research, assets we consider positive enhancement to the
learning experience.
Many volcanoes around the world meet these
criteria, including those in Indonesia, Japan, Central and
South America, and Italy, to name a few locations; the
Cascades work well for a site in the U.S. as well. We have
chosen a stratovolcano in Ecuador as the focus of our
monitoring exercise (Figure 3). Guagua Pichincha is
relatively remote, well monitored, and located
approximately 10 km west of Quito, the nation’s densely
populated capitol (almost 1.5 million). Quito lies in a N-S
oriented valley and many people live on the flanks of the
volcano, adding to the complexity and urgency of a
volcanic crisis. Moreover, the eruptive history of
Pichincha is well studied (Barberi et al., 1992), and the
volcano has experienced considerable eruptive activity
in the past few years. We are therefore able to design
several types of plausible eruption scenarios, including
different types of volcanic hazards and varying degrees
of severity.
Harpp and Sweeney - Simulating a Volcanic Crisis
The Volcanic Data - For the bulk of the exercise,
students receive “incoming” information about the
volcano on a daily basis via a website we update
regularly (Figure 1). We base much of the volcano’s
behavior during this phase on the pre-eruptive
signatures of a combination of Mount St. Helens and Mt.
Pinatubo (Lipman and Mullineaux, 1981; Newhall and
Punongbayan, 1996). The website includes updates on
seismic activity, changes in gas composition, tilt data,
and thermal emission variations, all of which indicate a
gradual increase in activity over the course of the first
few weeks.
Daily seismic activity is reported verbally (e.g., “four
long-period events of magnitude 3.0 occurred today”).
We also include data summaries of daily earthquake
frequency and cumulative energy release. We use the
magnitude, frequency, and character of seismic swarms
that preceded the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980
(Lipman and Mullineaux, 1981) as the model for these
reports. We also include data from correlation
spectrometers (COSPEC), primarily sulfur emissions.
Daily or near-daily SO 2 totals are reported on the
website, as well as a running record of previous
variations. These data are a combination of Mount St.
Helens (1980 eruption; Lipman and Mullineaux, 1981)
and Mount Pinatubo (1991 eruption; Newhall and
Punongbayan, 1996) pre-eruptive COSPEC archives. We
also report physical deformation data as time-lapse
elevation change diagrams from Mount St. Helens
(Lipman and Mullineaux, 1981). We modified these to
appear more symmetrical and to eliminate the obvious
directionality of the dome’s bulge. Finally, the website
includes updates on thermal energy variations in the
form of ground temperature at the summit, based once
again on data from Mount St. Helens during 1980
(Lipman and Mullineaux, 1981). All of the
aforementioned characteristics of volcanic activity are
gradually intensified to simulate the escalating crisis. We
also include occasional reports of governmental reaction,
press reports, civil unrest, or mounting regional panic to
infuse the reports with a human connection and to foster
a sense of day-to-day continuity in the process.
The data used in the PowerPoint files of the final
eruption simulation (Table 1) are again based on a
combination of the 1980 Mount St. Helens and 1991
Mount Pinatubo archives. Approximately 6 days of
activity immediately prior to the major events are
condensed into the ~3 hour period. Our current version
consists of 144 slides (Figure 2), each of which provides
data from one real hour at the volcano. The data include
type and frequency of seismic activity, gas composition
variations (SO2, CO 2), particulate emissions (ash versus
lithics contents), inflation data, thermal changes, and
eyewitness reports of activity. There is also a running log
of logistical information, including the number of
functional seismic and tilt stations, cumulative
413
Table 2. Representative comments from students after the activity.
414
Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 50, n. 4, September, 2002, p. 410-418
this activity; consequently the files are available for
downloading at http://classes.colgate.edu/kharpp/
volc_crisis/. They can be modified to suit the goals of
different classes and instructors. The data used in the
updated website during the first few weeks are also
available at the same site, as are the following supporting
materials:
• Instructions for students handed out at the beginning
of the final eruption simulation exercise;
• Explanation and background information about the
•
•
•
•
•
•
goals of the exercise and the volcano’s behavior for the
supporting instructors/actors;
An example of the website used to update volcanic
monitoring data regularly for the class (the one they
used for the days leading up to the final simulation);
PowerPoint files of two different eruption scenarios,
including all the relevant volcanic data;
Potentially useful images of Quito and the
surrounding area;
An approximate cross-section of the topography of
Guagua Pichincha and the surrounding area;
Links to video excerpts from the Fall, 2000 exercise;
A table of particularly useful additional resources.
STUDENT REACTIONS AND PEDAGOGY
Figure 2. Ash column from Guagua Pichincha,
Ecuador, 1999, taken from mid-town Quito; with
permission from geologist Daniel Andrade (Escuela
Politecnica Nacional de Quito).
earthquake frequency, thermal output, and numbers of
ash ejections to date. Each slide is displayed for one
minute, making the entire six-day simulation ~140
minutes in length. The text scrolls back with each slide,
so new information is visible ultimately for at least 5
minutes.
The datasets culminate in different final events.
Currently, we have designed two scenarios: one in which
the volcano roughly reproduces the predicted worst-case
scenario (Barberi et al., 1992) and another where an
unexpected base surge destroys the city of Quito. We
intend to expand the number of scenarios to include
generation of lahars without a major blast as well as a
“fizzle”, where nothing but minor ash eruptions
continue throughout the period.
Access to Supporting Materials - The assembly of the
final eruption simulation’s PowerPoint files from
existing datasets is the most time-consuming aspect of
Harpp and Sweeney - Simulating a Volcanic Crisis
As described above, many excellent pedagogical tools
exist for teaching the theoretical aspects of volcanology,
including detailed archives, videos, and interactive
programs that allow students to explore datasets and to
experiment with changing eruptive parameters. One of
the primary goals of the active-learning exercise
described here, however, is to give students the
opportunity to experience, at least somewhat, the
complex, multi-tasking processes involved in a real
volcanic monitoring crisis. Bursik et al. (1994) designed
an interactive, computer-based volcanic crisis laboratory
for introductory geology students that addresses many
of the aforementioned pedagogical issues. The key
differences between our exercise and that of Bursik et al.
(1994) is that our students are only assigned the roles of
decision-making volcanologists; in the computer model,
Bursik et al. (1994) give the additional roles (e.g., press,
villagers, etc.) to students in the class as well. Our
simulation is geared for students who have been
studying volcanology for at least 2/3 of a semester, a
slightly more advanced audience.
In our multi-week class activity, demands made on
students systematically increase in both complexity and
intensity, developing students’ skills gradually. Each
new assignment (Table 1) adds another layer of
information that must be analyzed and interpreted
carefully in the context of existing data, demanding
evolution of the students’ problem solving skills (e.g.,
Smith et al., 1995). Furthermore, the assignments
students complete over the first few weeks and the
reports they prepare during the final eruption sequence
415
Figure 3. Two examples of volcanic data provided to the students via an automatically advancing PowerPoint
display during the final eruption event simulation (see Table 1). One unit of data is added every minute;
previously posted data scroll up sequentially so that information is on the screen for at least 5 or more
minutes. There are 2 additional screens in between the ones shown here in the actual simulation.
416
Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 50, n. 4, September, 2002, p. 410-418
provide insight into the thought process of each group,
as well as a record of their decisions.
The final ~3 hour eruption simulation session
becomes quite an intense, exciting experience with the
merciless rate of incoming volcanic data and the
demands from outside groups on the monitoring team.
By this time, students have developed an ability to assess
the quality and significance of volcanic data, as well as a
personal interest in the volcano’s behavior. The final
eruption sequence gives them an opportunity to use the
skills they have learned over the previous weeks in a
dynamic, capstone event. Students exhibit a remarkable
ability to synthesize information from the previous
weeks into insightful, logical, and imaginative responses
to the volcanic crisis. They also quickly realize that they
must work as a team, delegating tasks and organizing
their responsibilities to accomplish all that is being
demanded of them. This aspect of the experience
resonates especially strongly with the students when
they discuss the narratives of volcanologists at real
volcanic crises such as Mount Pinatubo.
The readings, discussions, and videos that we
employ after the eruption sequence are an essential
conclusion to the activity. Students retrospectively
analyze their decisions and compare their reactions to
those of the scientists involved first-hand in actual
volcanic events. The recent debates in the literature about
the responsibilities of volcanologists during eruptive
crises (IAVCEI Subcommittee for Crisis Protocols, 1999;
Geist and Garcia, 2000; Cardona, 1997) are particularly
fertile sources for discussion after students have gone
through this activity.
The entire multi-week activity is problem-based and
emphasizes the development of critical thinking and
reasoning skills, motivates the students to learn basic
concepts in an engaging context, and fosters teamwork
(Smith et al., 1995). The extensive group discussions
encourage collaborative learning (e.g., Beiersdorfer and
Beiersdorfer, 1995), and it is clear that students draw on
each other’s strengths and knowledge during this
process. In a recent questionnaire administered after the
simulation, all 24 students responded with favorable
comments about the utility and educational benefits of
this experience (Table 2).
Students also contributed numerous amendments to
the exercise, which have improved it significantly,
including addition of time for the teams to get organized
prior to beginning the final eruption simulation,
decreasing the pace of the incoming information during
the simulation, and assigning actors (e.g., the
government officials) exclusively to teams instead of
having them work with multiple groups.
Several reviewers have made suggestions that have
the potential to improve this exercise significantly. We
have not tried these in the classroom yet, but include
them here for consideration; we intend to incorporate
them in the next offering of the course:
Harpp and Sweeney - Simulating a Volcanic Crisis
a) Student Roles on the Management Team - The
students could be assigned specific roles on the
management team, in which their individual
responsibilities are delineated explicitly. In our
current version of the simulation, students view the
video after the exercise, and they must define their
own roles during the volcanic crisis.
b) Timing of the Pinatubo Video - The class could
view the video In the Path of a Killer Volcano prior to
beginning the simulation to observe an example of
volcano crisis management before “experiencing” it
themselves. This might provide a better sense of the
responsibilities of individuals on the scientific team.
We had students view the video after the exercise, so
that they could compare their reactions and role
definition to those of individuals actually involved at
Pinatubo in 1991.
c) Crisis Management Training - Where available, the
instructor could contact the local emergency
response agency at the city or county level for help
with preparing the students for the simulation. The
agency could provide incident management training
at a general level, as well as training telephones and
radios that could intensify the urgency of the
simulation. This same reviewer recommended not
using physical citizen interruptions (e.g. by citizens)
while the teams are analyzing the volcanic data.
CONCLUSION
Some of the most critical and challenging responsibilities
of volcanologists today are the monitoring of active
volcanoes and the management of volcanic crises. These
aspects of the field are, however, some of the most
difficult to convey to students in a classroom setting. We
believe that students benefit from an active learning
approach to these topics as a supplement to more
traditional pedagogical techniques. We have designed a
multi-week exercise that culminates in the simulation of
a volcanic monitoring crisis and incorporates scientific
skill development, including interpretation volcano
monitoring data, design of hazard maps and alert-level
schemes, and the analysis of rapidly changing databases.
Because of the simulation style of the exercise, students
must also incorporate the human costs of science-based
decisions, methods of communication, and the
management of multiple simultaneous tasks. One of the
goals is to give students the opportunity to apply
abstract, theoretical concepts about volcanology to
multi-dimensional problems, with the accompanying
complexity and conflicting demands of a near-real time
crisis. Students who have participated in the exercise
experience a notable improvement in their understanding of fundamental scientific concepts as well as
their ability to handle complex management situations.
Furthermore, they explicitly appreciate the opportunity
417
to apply and integrate volcanological information they Hodder, A.P.W., 1999, Using a decision-assessment
matrix in volcanic-hazard management, Journal of
have learned in class in a more realistic, dynamic setting.
Geoscience Education, v. 47, p. 350-356.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
IAVCEI Subcommittee for Crisis Protocols: Newhall, C.,
Aramaki, S., Barberi, F., Blong, R., Calvache, M.,
We gratefully acknowledge the dynamic and inspired
Cheminee, J.-L., Punongbayan, R., Siebe, C., Simkin,
assistance of student and faculty from the Colgate
T., Sparks, S., and Tjetjep, W., 1999, Professional
University Geology Department who participated in our
conduct of scientists during volcanic crises, Bulletin
simulation. We further thank Dr. David Baird for
of Volcanology, 60, p. 323-334.
technical assistance in preparation of this manuscript Krafft, M., 1997, Understanding Volcanic Hazards:
and the associated materials. Thanks to Dr. David Harpp
United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural
(McGill University), Midge Meulbroek, and Dr. Dennis
Organization
(UNESCO)
and
International
Geist (University of Idaho) for reviews. This effort was
Association of Volcanology and Chemistry of Earth’s
partially supported by NSF Grant CHE-9996141 to KSH.
Interior (IAVCEI), 26 minute running time.
Helpful reviews and suggestions for improving the Lea, D. and Sparks, S., 1999, Montserrat’s Andesite
exercise were kindly contributed by Dr. Robert S. Nelson
Volcano: A video field investigation; Living Letters
(Illinois State University) and Dr. James G. Kirchner
Productions, Plymouth, Montserrat, British West
(Illinois State University). Dr. Robert Corbett (Illinois
Indies, www.priceofparadise.com.
State University). Special thanks to John Chaklader, Leslie Lipman, P.W. and Mullineaux, D.R., editors, 1981,
Reed, and Alison Koleszar for careful proofreading.
United States Geological Survey Professional Paper
1250, US Department of the Interior, The 1980
Eruptions of Mount St. Helens, Washington, 844 pp.,
REFERENCES
Washington, D.C.
Mattox, S.R., 1999, An exercise in forecasting the next
Barberi, F., Ghigliotti, M., Macedonio, G., Orellana, H.,
Mauna Loa eruption, Journal of Geoscience
Pareschi, M.T., and Rosi, M., 1992, Volcanic hazard
Education, v. 47, p. 255-260.
assessment of Guagua Pichincha (Ecuador) based on Newhall, C.G. and Punongbayan, R.S. (Eds.), 1996, Fire
past behaviour and numerical models, Journal of
and Mud: Eruptions and Lahars of Mount Pinatubo,
Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 49, p. 53-68.
Philippines, University of Washington Press, Seattle
Beiersdorfer, R.E. and Beiersdorfer, S.l., 1995,
and London, 1126 p.
Collaborative
learning
in
an
advanced
Schimmrich, S.H. and Gore, P.J.W., 1996, Exploring
environmental-geology course, Journal of Geogeology on the World-Wide Web, Volcanoes and
science Education, v. 43, p. 346-351.
volcanism: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 44, p.
Bhatia, D.M.S. and Corgan, J.X., 1996, Using
448-451.
Geodynamics Data Base in a volcanology course,
Smith, D.L., Hoersch, A.L., and Gordon, P.R., 1995,
Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 44, p. 161-163.
Problem-based learning in the undergraduate
Bladh, K.L., 1990, Teaching hazard-mitigation education
geology classroom, Journal of Geoscience Education,
in a liberal-arts college, Journal of Geoscience
v. 43, p. 385-390.
Education, v. 38, p. 339-342.
Thompson,
Dick, 2000, Volcano Cowboys, Thomas
Bunker, C.A., 1985, The prediction of volcanic eruptions;
Dunne
Books,
St. Martin’s Press, 326 p.
some applied physics, Geology Teaching, v. 10, p.
United States Geological Survey, 1998, VolQuake Pro78-86.
gram, http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/ Products
Bursik, M.I., Hodge, D.S., and Sheridan, M.F., 1994,
/SprodsComp.html.
Interactive computer modeling of social and
Whittlesey,
R. and Buckner, N., 1993, In the Path of a
scientific issues related to volcanic hazards, Journal
of Geoscience Education, v. 42, p. 471-477.
Killer Volcano: The Documentary Guild in
association with WGBH Boston for NOVA, WGBH
Cardona, M.D., 1997, Management of the volcanic crises
of Galeras volcano: Social, economic and
Educational Foundation, South Burlington, VT, 60
minute running time.
institutional aspects, Journal of Volcanology and
Wohletz, K., 2000, Erupt3 LA-CC 99-33, Version 3.0, Los
Geothermal Research, v. 77, p. 313-324.
Alamos National Laboratory, http://www. rockGeist, D. and Garcia, M.O., 2000, Role of science and
ware.com/catalog/pages/erupt.html
independent research during volcanic eruptions,
Bulletin of Volcanology, 62, p. 59-61.
418
Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 50, n. 4, September, 2002, p. 410-418