I am curious to hear what your thoughts are on the issue of having students predict earthquakes as part of the BC-ESP curriculum exercises.
I think this can be a very engaging activity, and it provides a connection between the earthquake tracking exercise and the blockquake exercise. And, of course, just about everybody is interested in the question of whether or not it is possible to predict earthquakes.
I envision that, as the earthquake tracking exercise develops over the course of the students’ involvement in the BC-ESP curriculum, the students might see patterns in earthquake activity and might propose testable hypotheses about when and where the next earthquakes are likely to occur. Also, they could experiment with the blockquake apparatus, and try to see if they can predict when the next blockquake will occur. They could learn a lot from this experience about what is and is not predictable about natural phenomena like earthquakes.
I think that many would agree that all of this is great, but here’s my dilemma:
What happens if a student gets excited about having successfully predicted a large, tragic earthquake?
I could envision the class cheering, and/or the teacher rewarding the student for this great feat. But, such a tragic event is not something to cheer about! How do we deal with the fact that this was a tragic event, without squelching the students’ excitement about the power of nature revealed by ground vibrations recorded right in their classroom? (Actually, even without predicting earthquakes, I sometimes wonder about this dilemma when I see that the students are thrilled that they recorded a huge quake.)
What are your thoughts on this dilemma? Do you think it is a good thing to include students predicting earthquakes as part of the BC-ESP curriculum? If yes, how do we deal with the tragic component of the situation without squelching student excitement about the power of natural forces?
I believe it is a good idea to include this exercise. While the student should be lauded for his “research” , it is also both the teachers’ and our responsibility to discuss the ramifications that this seismic event caused to both people and property. Included in this discussion is how to we and the student develop better prediction models. The idea is not to turn students away from science because horrible things may happen in nature, hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, but to give students the tools to become part of the prediction process and hopefully some day pre-warning of these events so that while property may be lost, human lives can be saved.
Comment by Marilyn — March 7, 2008 @ 6:04 pm |
While I can see your concern, my experience using the EQ Machine and seismic/eruption (b-values) with both students and teachers is quite the opposite of the concern you express. At the end of both exercises, all involved seem to conclude that they don’t have enough information to “predict” any earthquakes! The closest they come with the EQ machine is recognizing that the system is slip predictable. Even then, if they take enough data points (I mandate 30 to 50 events) they find some that fall outside the pattern, and the all clearly recognize that the model is a tremendous oversimplification of reality. In fact, much of the discussion we ends up focusing on forecasting and the b-value exercise ends up focusing on the limitations of even the best forecasts.
You might check out these to activities at http://www.iris.edu/joomla/ Then select Educational Resources at the bottom…
1) EQ Lite: Developing arguments about EQ occurrence
2) Exploring EQ occurrence data
Comment by Michael — March 7, 2008 @ 6:36 pm |
Marilyn,
Thanks for your comments.
In the final analysis, I think you are right. It is better for the students to be aware of what’s going on in natural Earth processes, and to therefore be informed citizens (and maybe as future Earth scientists help to make the world safer from natural hazards). Yes, that does seem like a noble part of our efforts.
Still, I do think it’s worth reminding ourselves of the aspect of earthquakes that most non-seismologists see when they hear about large earthquakes: the human tragedy. I suspect that my experiences with the great Sumatra quake had an effect on me in this regard. It was clearly the most-exciting time for me to be a seismologist – a thrilling few months when being a seismologist was the coolest thing around! But, during the thrill of it all, I’m not sure that I was always as conscious as I should have been of the devastation and human tragedy that the quake and tsunami caused. And, the AS1 seismograms were fantastic!
Anyway, yes I think you make some excellent points about the noble aspects of devoting ourselves to educational seismology.
Comment by Alan — March 7, 2008 @ 11:24 pm |
Michael,
Thanks for your comments.
Yes, I have certainly have had that experience that the earthquake prediction exercises we do tend to result in the teachers and students having a greater appreciation for uncertainty in science. This is probably a very good thing. The world that our students will inherit does not lend itself to simple “yes or no”, “black and white” answers to the questions they will have to deal with.
And yet, it is also true that science can do a great job of predicting many things, such as: most future earthquakes will occur near plate boundaries, more earthquakes will occur in California than in Massachusetts, and a lot more predictions that are sure to be accurate…
So, if we are helping students to understand both power of science and the limitations of science, that is probably a valuable contribution.
Comment by Alan — March 8, 2008 @ 12:03 am |
Alan,
I agree with the others that as long as teachers are aware of the need to balance the excitement of using science to forecast future events with reality of the destructive power of earthquakes. I think it is valuable for students to learn about that balance.
Comment by John Taber — March 10, 2008 @ 3:48 pm |
Alan,
For those of us who try in some way to “predict” earthquakes, the reality is never as clean or neat as the theory. I would be very surprised if a student ever issued a prediction that was so specific that there was no question that the prediction was fulfilled. For example, assume a student says, “I predict that there will be a magnitude 7 earthquake in South America tomorrow.” When tomorrow comes, there is a magnitude 7.9 earthquake off the south coast of Chile. Did the student predict this earthquake or not? In some sense he/she did, but in another sense maybe not. Is a 7.9 event really a “magnitude 7″ earthquake? Also, South America is so big and has so many earthquakes that it probably averages a couple magnitude 7 or greater earthquakes each year. This means that one probably has a .5% to 1% chance just by random luck of making a correct prediction like the one above.
I would expect that the vagueness of any superficially successful “prediction” would temper the student’s celebration when that vagueness is pointed out to him/her.
Comment by John E — March 11, 2008 @ 6:10 pm |
Alan,
It seem that even though the students initially become excited as they accurately predict an earthquake, they eventually realize more of the ramifications of the quake’s damage as they continue to monitor the site. The students not only realize that the earth moves and shakes for a while after a large quake but also that there are real people who are being affected by the movement. Their curiosity and empathy grows as the class continues to monitor the event causing a greater global awareness and understanding.
Comment by Gale Regis — July 29, 2008 @ 12:53 am |
What are the limitations of science in helping earthquake victims?
Comment by maddy — August 19, 2008 @ 11:46 pm |
maddy,
I’m not sure what your question is, because it is very general, but I will try to answer:
Although seismologists have not yet found a way to predict earthquakes, we are able to produce earthquake hazard maps that show our best estimates of the chances that damaging earthquake vibrations will occur at a given location during a given period of time.
This type of information can be used as input for the design and construction of buildings and for public policy decisions about earthquake risk. Science and technology can be used to develop ways to design and construct buildings that are safer and less likely to be damaged by earthquakes. The better we can understand the cause of earthquakes and the nature of ground motion generated by those earthquakes, the better we will be able to provide the necessary information to estimate (and plan for) the earthquake risk in a given region.
Also, science and technology can be used to develop ways to reduce death and suffering due to earthquakes. A good place to read about what scientists (and others) are doing to mitigate the tragic effects of earthquakes is GeoHazards International, an agency devoted to reducing death and suffering due to earthquakes and other natural hazards, which can be found here -
http://www.geohaz.org
Hope this helps.
- Alan Kafka
Comment by Alan — August 20, 2008 @ 2:55 am |