Table 4 Design variables and summary of results

The preparation prior to the simulation included a sequence of learning activities which prepared students for what to expect, and to review concepts which were needed to perform at their best

Implemented several preparation activities to match the skills needed: a. Student library (content knowledge), b. Role Profiles (roles and responsibilities), c. Science communication best practices lecture (improved communication skills)

Provide scaffolding (Wood et al. 1976) of the roles, teams and geoscience concepts needed through preparation activities completed prior to the simulation to lessen cognitive load (e.g., Chandler and Sweller 1991; Sweller et al. 1998) and increase the students’ confidence

“…The student’s needed some more general background to [volcanic] hazards and to the [geologic background of the] volcano. If I had been a real Press [person], I would have wondered what this is all about. I would want some type of background from the geologists on what could happen at the volcano, in the beginning of the ‘unrest’… There was a need for more background” (Pilot, Instructor 1)^a

Literature: “Yes the literature, lectures all helped. I felt about as prepared as I could have been (given my lack of experience in these situations)” (Iteration 2, Volcanic Section Manager)^c

Roles: “The description of the role was most helpful, [I had a] clear understanding of my role, responsibilities and whom I needed to communicate with” (Iteration 4, Duty Manager)^c

The pace of the simulation is defined as the time which students are given to carry out a given number of tasks: Speed and length of streaming data, Pauses, Number of eruptions and academic tasks

Reduced timeline (number of days) Reduced number of eruptions Increased number and length of pauses

Managing the cognitive load (see above) of the students by providing the right number of and time to perform the tasks. Matching students skills to the level of challenge of the tasks (i.e., fast-paced activities are more challenging) to optimise the learning experience (Csikszentmihalyi et al. 2005; Vygotsky 1978)

Fewer volcanic events: “We [the instructors] felt it could have gone a little slower and had a few less ‘events’. We had an awful lot of eruptions, but that is what actually happened at Pinatubo” (Pilot, Instructor 1)^a

Not enough time to think: “Yea, it should go slower. I mean just about when we thought ‘there might be an eruption coming’, we would think about it. And then, it would just happen… It didn’t give us a time to anticipate or think about it” (Pilot, Student 1)^b

Adding more pauses: “[The students] needed more pauses to convey what was going on. While [streaming] was great to ‘keep the pressure’ on, there were so many things happening” (Pilot, Instructor 2)^a

Missed information: “Yea, it was really fast. I would go off and talk to one of the [Emergency Management] people and then I would come back and there had been 2 cm of ash and we would be so stuck into what we were doing, that we would miss that” (Iteration 1, Public Information Officer 1)^b

Use of a role questionnaire (self-reported geology interests and leadership, communication abilities) and other tools to match each student to the right role.

Role Questionnaire, Flow of Information Maps, (Figure 3; i.e., Team structures)

To lessen the collective cognitive load (via workload division) (see above) and provide immersive experiences (i.e., getting into the learning experience; e.g., Lessiter et al. 2001) Role identification (i.e., feeling that they relate to that role; sense of belonging and commitment e.g., Handley et al. 2006)

“The students used the new roles to organize themselves, handled the pressure that was put on them, and staying calm.” (Pilot, Instructor 3)^a

Individual responsibilities: “I loved that we had roles… everyone had roles, they knew what they were supposed to be doing, like where to draw the line between you and your mate” (Iteration 1, Welfare Officer)^b;

Role Profiles – to improve knowledge of responsibilities ahead of time

Structure teamwork tasks and model science communication best practices to increase student autonomy and, thus, ensure success through increased communication skills capability and quality.

Developed Challenge questions which structured the communication and teamwork tasks (i.e., were more timely and explicit) Provided best practices to students prior to the simulation.

Provide task structure and lessen the individual and collective cognitive load (see above).

“I think the real good thing was to see them improve over the course of the exercise, and the importance of communication and delegation. At the start it was chaos, but as they got into their roles, they got good at passing the information to whom it was needed.” (Pilot, Instructor 1)^a “…And the three students who acted as the [public information managers], they really built up confidence over the simulation” (Pilot, Instructor 3)^a

Negative group dynamics: “There were intense points when everyone was talking all at the same time. This obviously made it impossible to think and to make good decisions” (Iteration 2, Planning and Intelligence)^c

Added roles to improve communication pathways between the team.

Model (i.e., demonstrate) science communication best practices to increase student efficacy (Kuhl and Blankenship 1979), teamwork skills, and perceived communication competence (McCroskey and McCroskey 1988) of the students.