Investigation of the effect of using data collection technology on students' attitudes to science instruction

The purpose of this project was to investigate the effect of using of data collection technology on student attitudes towards science instruction. The study was conducted over the course of two years at Madison High School in Adrian, Michigan, primarily in college preparatory physics classes, but also in one college preparatory chemistry class and one environmental science class. A preliminary study was conducted at a Lenawee County Intermediate Schools student summer environmental science day camp. The data collection technology used was a combination of Texas Instruments TI-84 Silver Plus graphing calculators and Vernier LabPro data collection sleds with various probeware attachments, including motion sensors, pH probes and accelerometers. Students were given written procedures for most laboratory activities and were provided with data tables and analysis questions to answer about the activities. The first year of the study included a pretest and posttest measuring student attitudes towards the class they were enrolled in. Pre-test and post-test data were analyzed to determine effect size, which was found to be very small (Coe, 2002). The second year of the study focused only on a physics class and used Keller’s ARCS model for measuring student motivation based on the four aspects of motivation: Attention, Relevance, Confidence and Satisfaction (Keller, 2010). According to this model, it was found that there were two distinct groups in the class, one of which was motivated to learn and the other that was not. The data suggest that the use of data collection technology in science classes should be started early in a student’s career, possibly in early middle school or late elementary. This would build familiarity with the equipment and allow for greater exploration by the student as they progress through high school and into upper level science courses.

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.