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.

Looking at the effectiveness of an earth science unit designed using the Understanding by Design process

This report shares my efforts in developing a solid unit of instruction that has a clear focus on student outcomes. I have been a teacher for 20 years and have been writing and revising curricula for much of that time. However, most has been developed without the benefit of current research on how students learn and did not focus on what and how students are learning. My journey as a teacher has involved a lot of trial and error. My traditional method of teaching is to look at the benchmarks (now content expectations) to see what needs to be covered. My unit consists of having students read the appropriate sections in the textbook, complete work sheets, watch a video, and take some notes. I try to include at least one hands-on activity, one or more quizzes, and the traditional end-of-unit test consisting mostly of multiple choice questions I find in the textbook. I try to be engaging, make the lessons fun, and hope that at the end of the unit my students get whatever concepts I‘ve presented so that we can move on to the next topic. I want to increase students‘ understanding of science concepts and their ability to connect understanding to the real-world. However, sometimes I feel that my lessons are missing something. For a long time I have wanted to develop a unit of instruction that I know is an effective tool for the teaching and learning of science. In this report, I describe my efforts to reform my curricula using the “Understanding by Design” process. I want to see if this style of curriculum design will help me be a more effective teacher and if it will lead to an increase in student learning. My hypothesis is that this new (for me) approach to teaching will lead to increased understanding of science concepts among students because it is based on purposefully thinking about learning targets based on “big ideas” in science. For my reformed curricula I incorporate lessons from several outstanding programs I‘ve been involved with including EpiCenter (Purdue University), Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS), the Master of Science Program in Applied Science Education at Michigan Technological University, and the Michigan Association for Computer Users in Learning (MACUL). In this report, I present the methodology on how I developed a new unit of instruction based on the Understanding by Design process. I present several lessons and learning plans I‘ve developed for the unit that follow the 5E Learning Cycle as appendices at the end of this report. I also include the results of pilot testing of one of lessons. Although the lesson I pilot-tested was not as successful in increasing student learning outcomes as I had anticipated, the development process I followed was helpful in that it required me to focus on important concepts. Conducting the pilot test was also helpful to me because it led me to identify ways in which I could improve upon the lesson in the future.

RESILIENT WOMEN, METISTIC SCIENTISTS: A MULTIPLE CASE STUDY OF HOW WOMEN NEGOTIATE THEIR SITUATEDNESS IN SCIENCE FIELDS

The concept of feminist metistic resilience postulates that the voiceless, the marginalized and the minority in societies employ strategies in order to turn tables in their favor. This study presents a qualitative analysis of how women, considered to be the minority, negotiate their situatedness in science fields in order to effect change in their lives or that of the society and why they become successful. By “situatedness,” I refer to the everyday life of women as they live and encounter people, society and culture, especially, the life of women who have transcended the culturally stipulated role of women and are excelling in a male dominated field. The study, in different dimensions, conceptualizes the reason for the fewer number of women in science; looks at how scientific methods and practices inhibit the development of women in science; and, finally, interrogates the question of objectivity in science. It becomes apparent, through feminist metistic resilience, that women become successful when they accept conventional practices in scientific arrangements and structures. They accept the practices by embracing and not questioning structures and arrangements that have shaped the field of science and by shifting shapes and assuming different forms in order to adapt to conditions they encounter. Apart from adapting and shape shifting, the women also become successful through environmental and social influences. My analysis suggests that more women can be encouraged to pursue science when women practicing science begin to question structures and arrangements that have shaped the practice of science over the centuries. The overall findings of the research provide implications for policy makers, educators and feminist researchers.