Few skills are as important as writing-few are as complex and difficult to master, as well. Now that your students have visited Craters and studied its geology, cultural history, and ecology, have them reinforce what they learned by writing about it. If they put effort into the assignment and experience some frustration as they struggle with it, they will learn writing skills.

Two different writing styles are informal non-scientific and formal scientific. When Robert Limbert wrote about Craters of the Moon in his 1924 National Geographic article, he objectively described it in a formal scientific, irrefutable, and factual way. For example, "The district consists of some 63 volcanic craters, lava, and cinder cones, all at present extinct or dormant." Limbert also had a viewpoint. He thought Craters of the Moon was a beautiful place that should be preserved for posterity. In expressing this view in the same article, he expressed his opinion and used language that was less formal: ". . . its scenery is impressive in its grandeur."

Articles like Limbert's that occur in popular magazines usually convey a blend of scientific and non-scientific writing styles. The story is told, the place described, the incident reported, and the process explained. But the author reveals himself or herself by expressing a viewpoint and supporting that opinion through objective observation.

Authors of scientific journal articles, however, usually leave out obvious statements of opinion or emotive sentences. The language is straightforward, formal, and succinct; sentences are clear and declarative. The author's viewpoint is de-emphasized and subtle. Likewise, model newspaper articles are written objectively, without editorializing. The writer's viewpoint may be difficult to determine or only surmised by omission of certain facts or emphasis of others.

The most frequently read part of newspapers are editorials and popular magazines are more popular than scientific journals. Readers prefer authors' viewpoints revealed. They like to agree or disagree and they like to know something about the human behind the by-line.

Much of our informational reading is heavily influenced by the author's opinion. Readers must make a conscious effort to separate the author's objectivity from subjectivity to fully comprehend what he or she is saying. Students' critical thinking skills are enhanced when they recognize these two different messages while reading an article.

1. Students write a trip report like Robert Limbert did for his article. They may include their own impressions and feelings, but should support them with plenty of hard observations. If they felt Craters was ugly, they should provide stark examples of its ugliness before they say so. If Indian Tunnel was their favorite feature, they should use vivid descriptions to convince the reader why the tunnel was so great.

2. Students write a letter describing Craters to a blind person. This writing assignment forces the student to think of their visual observations in other terms. They have to use other senses-hearing, smell, touch, and taste-to describe the place and create a picture for the blind person.

3. Students write a letter to the editor or to a political leader expressing their view regarding a hypothetical threat to Craters. For example, pretend that Craters is being considered for a bombing range. If this were to happen, it would be off limits to the public and many of its geologic features would be damaged. Some plants and animals would be threatened. The range create jobs, too. If you chose to use this scenario, students would have to adopt a pro or con position toward the proposal.

   For example, a student could be in favor of the range because she wants to fly jets when she grows up and would like to do so near her home town. She's visited Craters of the Moon and knows from first hand observations (which she vividly describes) that the place is not worth saving. Encourage diversity in their positions; urge some to play the devil's advocate.