EPA's Council for Regulatory Environmental Modeling : a case study of science policy implementation

As environmental problems became more complex, policy and regulatory decisions become far more difficult to make. The use of science has become an important practice in the decision making process of many federal agencies. Many different types of scientific information are used to make decisions within the EPA, with computer models becoming especially important. Environmental models are used throughout the EPA in a variety of contexts and their predictive capacity has become highly valued in decision making. The main focus of this research is to examine the EPA’s Council for Regulatory Modeling (CREM) as a case study in addressing science issues, particularly models, in government agencies. Specifically, the goal was to answer the following questions: What is the history of the CREM and how can this information shed light on the process of science policy implementation? What were the goals of implementing the CREM? Were these goals reached and how have they changed? What have been the impediments that the CREM has faced and why did these impediments occur? The three main sources of information for this research came from observations during summer employment with the CREM, document review and supplemental interviews with CREM participants and other members of the modeling community. Examining a history of modeling at the EPA, as well as a history of the CREM, provides insight into the many challenges that are faced when implementing science policy and science policy programs. After examining the many impediments that the CREM has faced in implementing modeling policies, it was clear that the impediments fall into two separate categories, classic and paradoxical. The classic impediments include the more standard impediments to science policy implementation that might be found in any regulatory environment, such as lack of resources and changes in administration. Paradoxical impediments are cyclical in nature, with no clear solution, such as balancing top-down versus bottom-up initiatives and coping with differing perceptions. These impediments, when not properly addressed, severely hinder the ability for organizations to successfully implement science policy.

Comparison of the effects of inquiry-based cooperative learning and demonstrations in science education

The reported research project involved studying how teaching science using demonstrations, inquiry-based cooperative learning groups, or a combination of the two methods affected sixth grade students’ understanding of air pressure and density. Three different groups of students were each taught the two units using different teaching methods. Group one learned about the topics through both demonstrations and inquirybased cooperative learning, whereas group two only viewed demonstrations, and group three only participated in inquiry-based learning in cooperative learning groups. The study was designed to answer the following two questions: 1. Which teaching strategy works best for supporting student understanding of air pressure and density: demonstrations, inquirybased labs in cooperative learning groups, or a combination of the two? 2. And what effect does the time spent engaging in a particular learning experience (demonstrations or labs) have on student learning? Overall, the data did not provide sufficient evidence that one method of learning was more effective than the others. The results also suggested that spending more time on a unit does not necessarily equate to a better understanding of the concepts by the students. Implications for science instruction are discussed.