⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Strengths And Weaknesses Of Reading Assessment
After all, if they Strengths And Weaknesses Of Reading Assessment be improved, why Strengths And Weaknesses Of Reading Assessment do it? The basics to evaluation include a comprehensive case history, Strengths And Weaknesses Of Reading Assessment observation of speaking Personal Narrative: My Migration To The United States reading, and Strengths And Weaknesses Of Reading Assessment specific Strengths And Weaknesses Of Reading Assessment of assessments targeting spoken language, phonological processing including awareness, memory, and rapid automatic namingreading, Strengths And Weaknesses Of Reading Assessment, and writing. Related posts:. After all, you can't lead a strengths revolution if you don't know how to find, name, and develop your own. During my SBS experience, Strengths And Weaknesses Of Reading Assessment researcher observed learners reading words with wrong pronunciations or mispronouncing some words. Poor spelling may reveal weaknesses in John Seabrook The Song Machine Analysis or more of the following linguistic components:.
The Power of an Authentic Reading Assessment \u0026 New DRA3 Experience!
More importantly, speaking the language allow students to experience the culture. Hence, I believe that as a Foreign Language Teaching Assistant, my role is really significant in such that, in addition to this, I can give the students more resources by which they could approach a culture, by which they can immerse themselves in that culture, by which they can learn more about the culture in order for them to function in that culture, but this is not my main focus, as I would like them not only to learn about my culture, but also to bring their own culture into interacting in the culture that they are learning.
Of course the linguistic competence and subject knowledge are of a great value in that students should learn and understand at the same time. Thus, the ability in speaking skill is a crucial and important part of second language learning and teaching process. The mastery of speaking skill in the English language is a priority for many second language or foreign language students. At the end of the study, the students should be able to communicate effectively in English for study, work, and leisure outside the classroom. Therefore, it is essential that English teachers pay great attention in teaching speaking to the students. So British pronunciation is the acceptable correct pronunciation in English Second Language.
Therefore, English need conscious attention specifically on pronunciation of words, not just a concern to English teachers but all subject teachers. Thus, responsibility is required to assist learners, so that they could be able to read words correctly or effectively in all subjects. During my SBS experience, the researcher observed learners reading words with wrong pronunciations or mispronouncing some words. Aural means related to sense of hearing and oral related to verbal communication. Surely when the student is getting better in both listening and speaking they will reach communicative competence. Of course to reach this competence, both listening and speaking improvement is really needed. The Aural-Oral approach is very effective to be implemented in English Language Teaching in case to build communicative competence of student.
He believes that portfolios can supply the curriculum with instruction and authentic assessment. Accordingly, through the focus on individuals they can be reflection of the educational process. In addition, with portfolios students attempt to view themselves as. English educational literacy should be established through a demanding course of study integrated with clear, obvious language education. Nowadays, there are many various approaches and methods in language teaching and I have learned from their strengths and weaknesses. From the Grammar-Translation Method and the Communicative Approach, I have achieved insights how to help my students to gain and use the target language. In this essay, I provide a brief overview of the method and approach, how I use them and assess their usefulness in my own classrooms.
The Grammar Translation Method and the Communicative Approach have both played important roles in grammar teaching. Basically, the Grammar-Translation Method represents the typical of language teaching. The focus was on native language, …show more content… - The role of the teacher is that of facilitator and guide. Therefore, students are encouraged to construct meaning through genuine linguistic interaction with others. To sum up, communication language teaching can help students to use the target language as much as possible.
This approach places great emphasis on helping students create meaning rather than helping them develop perfectly grammatical structures. As mentioned above, my personal language teaching methodology may be described as a mixed method. Register for a free account to start saving and receiving special member only perks. This chapter assesses the strengths and weaknesses of the current federally supported environmental research effort and evaluates its success in responding to some of the needs identified in Chapter 2. This assessment is illustrative but not comprehensive, given the large number of fields of science and engineering—such as chemistry, mathematics, water resources, and marine biology—that are important to the understanding and solution of environmental problems but that cannot be encompassed in this brief report.
Appendix A describes the environmental research programs of federal agencies. On the basis of the assessment presented here, Chapter 4 describes the desirable characteristics of a federal environmental program. Chapter 5 then proposes cultural and organizational changes to deal with the deficiencies identified here. A body of knowledge about environmental issues must be generated to enable us to interact with the environment so that it continues to provide resources and amenities for humans and retains its functional characteristics for the benefit of future generations.
This is a difficult task because the sun, atmosphere, oceans, earth, and ecological systems are all individually complex, and their interactions are even more complex. The atmospheric, oceanic, and terrestrial systems interact with one another and with organisms in complex ways to produce the richly varied environment that supports all life, including our own. Until recently, scientific studies have concentrated primarily on processes in each of these sectors separately because of the need to understand simpler pieces before tackling the larger system. Much is known about the earth and its space environment as a result of investigations extending over centuries. We know about the general magnitude and quality of changes in the physical environment that have occurred over the history of the planet, and we can make some projections about what might happen in the future.
But our knowledge is still sparse. We still know little about how the oceans work—how their chemical, biological, and physical processes interact. Vast areas of the oceans remain unmeasured in any systematic way, and we have little idea of the long-term variability of marine systems. We have good observations of the surface geology of the earth, but we have only a few samples from below the surface, most of them from shallow depths. Our knowledge of the interior of the earth comes almost exclusively from indirect measurements. New insights from research and new technology, such as accurate chemical techniques and satellite imagery, supported by powerful computers, have given us the ability to view the earth with greater comprehension.
During the last two decades, the atmospheric, oceanic, and geophysical communities have developed coordinated global research programs that use the new insights and technology that are now available. The federal government has provided considerable support for research on the physical and chemical components of the global system, but good ideas. Shortfalls in funding have already affected the global nature of some programs and could impair our ability to develop global data sets critical for sensing long-term trends and for testing hypotheses. Moreover, the present structure for funding science in the United States is not well organized to support U.
Global environmental research programs are costly, because they require expensive technology—such as satellites, weather stations, ships, and supercomputers—and dedicated personnel. In addition, to enable trends to be distinguished from normal environmental variability, long-term data sets are required. Such requirements make it difficult for this type of research to compete effectively for funding. Long-term monitoring inevitably appears less exciting than research designed to test new hypotheses.
Only recently has the value of long-term research been recognized by the scientific community, Congress, or the funding agencies. And no federal agency has been given a mandate, accompanied by appropriate resources, to support long-term, large-scale research on the global environment. Ecological research has the potential to make major contributions to our understanding of the ability of the environment to sustain human activities and populations of other species in the long term. Ecological causes and consequences of changes in climate, soil, water chemistry, and land-use patterns.
Ecological determinants and consequences of biodiversity and the effects of global and regional change on biological diversity. Ecological science is unable to provide answers to the key questions posed by ESA. Not only are the underlying processes complex, but they must be studied at different spatial and temporal scales. For example, we must be able to understand how changes in the physical environment affect individual leaves and then extrapolate what we learn to effects on whole plants, interactions among plants, and vegetation dynamics. In addition, we need to consider different species, many of which are as yet undescribed and each of which has unique responses and its own relevant scales of space and time.
We need to understand how important are species differences for the behavior of larger-scale systems. Because dominant organisms in many ecosystems, such as trees, in forests are long-lived, many important ecosystem changes are too slow for us to sense directly. Our abilities to interpret slowly-occurring cause-effect relationships are even less developed. Therefore, processes acting over decades are hidden and reside in what has been called the invisible present Magnuson, In the invisible present, one finds the time scales of acid precipitation, the invasion of nonnative plants and animals, the introduction of synthetic chemicals, and carbon dioxide-induced climate warming.
Only long-term, sustained research can reveal the slow but important changes of the invisible present, but such studies are rare. It is still a relatively young program, but it has already made important contributions to our understanding of responses of watersheds to disturbance, lake acidification, wood decomposition, and modeling of ecosystem processes Franklin et al. The unsatisfactory state of current ecological science reflects both the complexity of the processes it studies and the relatively low level of funding that has been allocated to ecology.
Shortage of funds has resulted in intense competition between the still-needed small-scale, investigator-initiated research and large-scale, and often multi-investigator, long-term research. Until recently, computational power was insufficient to handle the complex data sets being generated by ecologists. Ecologists traditionally have concentrated their attention on small-scale processes and have seldom continued experiments or observations for long periods. Large-scale and long-term experiments were often deemed too expensive relative to the resources available to support ecological research. Consequently, the field was unprepared intellectually to respond to challenges of global research.
This problem is fortunately diminishing rapidly. Nonetheless, support for long-term research is still meager, and ecologists still have only modest ties with the physical scientists with whom they must interact if they are to deal effectively with regional and global problems. Research on biodiversity provides basic information on the earth's biota—its taxonomy, distribution, uses for human society, management, and contribution to ecosystem services. Biodiversity has genetic, taxonomic, and ecological components Appendix B. The study of biodiversity should do for biology what the U. Geological Survey USGS does for geology, that is, the study can provide better knowledge about biological resources and thus increase society's ability to realize economic benefits from those resources e.
Research priorities in biodiversity need to be set and continually influenced by four groups of people: users of biotic resources, those concerned with protecting it, scientists, and those responsible for setting policy for land use, water resources, etc. Biodiversity research requires a long-term perspective and sustained funding because the tasks of description and inventory are complex and because monitoring of trends must continue for many years to reveal useful patterns. The infrastructure elements required by research on biodiversity include museums, specimen-based databases, and data synthesis. Also critical are systematists and taxonomists qualified to identify and classify specimens, especially of the more difficult and special taxa.
Flow of data from generators of the data taxonomists, conservation biologists, ecologists, ethnobiologists, and natural-products chemists to users agriculturalists and bioengineers. The United States has only a few scattered centers of research on biodiversity. As recognized by several reports, including an Office of Technology Assessment OTA report commissioned by Congress OTA, and the report of the National Commission on the Environment NCE, , there is a need for centralized research planning, for assembling and synthesizing existing information, and for making information more accessible to policy-makers. The Smithsonian Institution performs some research in biodiversity, but its programs are not centrally planned.
For most biodiversity programs, there is no connection between research and policy needs and little integration between fields of study even between ecology and systematics, both of which are performed within the same institution but largely in different laboratories. University research in biodiversity is difficult because funding cycles are too short. There is no national data center or network for biodiversity, as there is for medicine and several physical environmental disciplines. USGS and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration conceptually include biological data in some of their plans, but they do not have the staffing or the resources to place a high priority on biodiversity data-collecting or even on building a database of databases. Several conservation organizations, state agencies, and the Fish and Wildlife Service have databases on endangered taxa and environments, but they are necessarily narrowly focused and often developed from secondary sources.
One of the greatest needs for biodiversity research is to provide quality data to state agencies continuously. Research institutions are becoming overwhelmed by requests for biodiversity data and lack the resources to support their activities. The U. Department of Agriculture USDA has a germplasm program that concentrates on wild relatives of crop plants. Collection of germplasm of plants that are not agriculturally important has little support and depends primarily on volunteer centers, such as the Center for Plant Conservation, and.
Zoos, a few museums, and such institutions as the American Type Culture Collection a private, not-for-profit research and culture-distribution center hold animal and microbial germplasm. However, all have resources inadequate to cover demands made on them for research and conservation purposes. There is potential industrial support of research on biodiversity, but the sums involved are small. Some pharmaceutical companies are engaged in prospecting for natural products. Most tropical countries receive no payment from prospecting within their boundaries, but Merck Pharmaceutical Company recently signed an agreement with Costa Rica's National Institute of Biodiversity to share in the costs of exploration for and benefits of the marketing of useful natural products; the agreement has attracted much international attention, but it is too early to evaluate the long-term potential of such arrangements.
The serious underfunding of biodiversity research is due, in part, to a lack of public appreciation of the importance of knowledge about biodiversity. Within the biological sciences, taxonomy and systematics have been overshadowed by the spectacular successes of molecular biology and have been crowded out of biology departments at many leading research universities. Many universities have found it difficult to continue supporting museums and herbariums during times of fiscal stringency. Therefore, although there is now increasing recognition of the importance of biodiversity research, the United States lacks a sufficient cadre of trained taxonomists, has inadequate and insufficiently curated collections, and is confronted with huge backlogs of specimens waiting to be identified or described as new species.
Engineering research is needed to develop new environmental-control and pollution-prevention technologies, advances in process-engineering concepts and techniques that are pollution-free, recycling technologies, resource-conservation methods, and energy-efficient technologies. The need for research and related technological advances is important because of global population growth and the related drive to increase the developing world's standard of living. Because the costs of pollution control are projected to be. The currently known methods are inadequate and expensive, and additional investments in research and development will return substantial economic benefits.
Engineering solutions coupled with better approaches to public participation and communication might lead to increased public acceptance of environmentally benign technologies. Some critical technologies are being developed by the private sector. For example, decreasing the emission of pollutants by a process is often possible through process changes and material substitutions. Secondary pollution effects can be reduced in some industries by creating more efficient manufacturing or pollution-control technologies, which might, for example, require much less energy. If industry can capture the economic benefits of those technologies, no government incentives are needed to encourage them.
However, development of new technologies is usually possible only for large companies. The aggregate of small entrepreneurs e. They need a government-organized effort to create new effective, efficient, and economical pollution-prevention and pollution-control technologies. Government programs have so far been inadequate to the task. Indeed, creating incentives to develop better pollution-control technologies has received a low priority in the federal government for many years. Dealing with hazardous materials, solid wastes, waste-treatment residues, and radioactive wastes already released into the environment will require substantial local, regional, state, and national programs.
Superfund and its parallels in state governments, Department of Energy DOE cleanups, underground storage tanks, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act actions, and radioactive-waste disposal programs are estimated to cost thousands of billions of dollars. Not one of these problems has adequate technology to meet the needs of our nation, let alone of a growing world population. Breakthrough research is essential, if the collective costs of these programs are ultimately to be affordable. Municipalities face serious environmental problems in dealing with human wastes, especially because higher population densities require higher levels of treatment to keep discharges within the capacities of the receiving.
Municipalities also need better methods of detecting and treating toxic substances and nutrients. Timely research in those issues alone could save hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of pollution-control facilities over the next several decades and potentially enable local and state governments to improve environmental quality and public health at substantially lower cost. Most of the engineering research needed to develop technologies to solve pollution problems is not being conducted. Much of the mission-oriented engineering research of federal agencies appears to be overlapping; good interagency communication is lacking, there is little peer review by outside scientists and engineers, and results are not adequately diffused to the governments, firms, and citizens most likely to use them.
No federal agency has a central mandate to foster pollution-control research and development of suitable control technologies. Because the United States has relied almost exclusively on a regulatory command and control approach to environmental pollution, the private sector perceives little incentive to invest in development of cleanup technologies from which a direct economic benefit appears unlikely. Therefore, the task of carrying out most pollution-prevention research has been thrust on federal agencies whose primary responsibilities are to promulgate and enforce regulations. Resources have been insufficient to address even the regulatory component of their responsibilities, and there is little money to devote to pollution prevention.
In addition, in contrast with the governments of Japan and Germany, the U. Although many environmental problems are the result of natural disasters, most are created by human activities. Attempts to solve the latter kind are at bottom experiments in political science, economics, psychology, and sociology. Many proposed solutions to environmental problems require.
The natural environment and the activities of humans that modify it have been studied to different degrees by the social-science disciplines. We briefly summarize below their contributions to knowledge as related to environmental policy and environmental studies. Geography is in many respects the oldest environmental science, and its practitioners combine both natural-science and social-science expertise in how human activities and the natural world are organized spatially.
Geographers have pioneered in studies of deforestation and other changes in land use. Geographers have invented the mapping techniques that underlie the collection of spatially organized information, and they are playing a central role in the development of spatial databases, known as Geographic Information Systems GISs. Scholars in geography have pioneered humanistic studies of ''sense of place," an interdisciplinary focus on the philosophical, historical, and psychological elements of human attachment to particular landscapes. Because geography as a discipline naturally crosses the intellectual boundaries of both the natural and the social sciences, many contributions to environmental research that have geographic components, such as regional economic models, also appear within other disciplines.
The interdisciplinary character of the field might also contribute to the tendency of geography to be underrepresented in higher education—indeed, many institutions have no department of geography. The economic study of environmental and natural-resource problems is a well-established discipline with a clear framework of assumptions and methods. Research in environmental economics has made important and widespread contributions to public policy, particularly the application of cost-benefit analyses of government decision-making. These contributions have included cost-benefit analyses in support of government rule-making and decision-making and in analyses of other governments' taxation policies as they apply to taxes on atmospheric emissions.
Economic studies of the role of technology in shifting the value and use of resources provide important insights into the origin and development of human uses and abuses of natural resources. Decision sciences. Two decision sciences, operations research and risk analysis, are particularly pertinent for the environmental sciences. Operations research is a formal approach for analyzing information. It has been used effectively in selecting chemicals that require further research and in selecting environmental projects to fund with a diminished overall budget.
Risk analysis is a hybrid discipline that combines the individualist framework of economics with a set of statistical tools to analyze rational choices in the face of uncertainty. Risk analysis provides a rubric within which EPA proposes to set priorities for all its regulatory and research activities. Risk analysis has been applied to human-health issues. It involves the combined use of data from many sources—such as atmospheric emission, resident population, costs of preferred control technologies, and statistical analyses—to estimate the potential impact of an exposure on human populations and to develop alternative management approaches.
Ecological risk assessment, an evolving interest of several agencies, is not yet as well developed as risk assessment for human health NRC, a. Political science. Investigations of government, politics, and law are a central component of environmental research. Environmental law has emerged as a distinct specialty in law schools and in legal practice. Its research tradition has been eclectic, following both legal and substantive changes in policy as the environmental roles of government have taken shape in case law, statute, and regulation. Political science has contributed analyses of the environmental, economic, and institutional conditions under which the users of "common pool" natural resources—including water, air, land, and marine resources—are able to develop durable practices and rules for managing and sustaining those resources.
Studies of community structure and social responses to rapid change have been widely used in environmental-impact analyses, for example, to illuminate human responses to the construction of large facilities in rural areas. Sociologists have also probed the processes by which fears of environmental degradation arise. Sociological studies have emphasized the complexities of risk analysis and the ideologically loaded assumptions that underlie its theory and often its application as well. Rural sociology as a discipline forms an influential link between environmental studies and the applied social sciences related to agriculture. The study of humans from an ecological perspective provides an important conceptual link between social and natural sciences by dealing with how humans take part in the cycles and changes of the natural world.
Although anthropological theory has not yet had a large direct influence on environmental policy, anthropological and historical analyses of societies that declined because their economies were not sustainable over the long term have shaped contemporary thinking about the purpose of having environmental policies. Anthropologists are also beginning to work with botanists and others to understand historically and prehistorically stable agricultural systems in fragile ecosystems, such as tropical forests and dry habitats. The study of what motivates human behavior and how it can be changed—a basic concern of psychology—is central to much of environmental policy.
Explicitly or implicitly, environmental laws assume the efficacy of particular methods of altering human behavior. The analysis of risk also involves applied psychology—the examination of how concerns are valued when an expensive outcome is not certain to occur. Cognitive psychologists have discovered over the last 20 years, for example, that there are systematic biases in how humans perceive probabilistic occurrences.
These biases, which are likely to be a side effect of how humans manage their lives in a complex world, suggest that policies that rely on busy, underinformed people to make fine discriminations are likely to fail or even to be counterproductive. The effects of social-science research on human behavior and policy are largely indirect for two reasons: the way in which values and value conflicts enter studies of human activities and the reluctance of policy analysts and policy-makers to engage directly with the human causes of environmental problems.
The physical and biological sciences spawn technological applications whose utility can be foreseen, at least in part, in the laboratory. The social sciences have shaped the conceptual ground on which human action is played out but have not necessarily provided tools and tactics to rechannel those actions. Nevertheless, the social sciences are essential as an intellectual foundation. One cannot imagine the human community without using notions like self, power, and collective interest that have been studied by social scientists.
However, the fundamental concepts of the social sciences are characteristically intertwined with value premises. As a result, the basic propositions of any social science are bound to express value commitments, either implicitly or explicitly. Given the variety of human circumstances and histories, value commitments are inherently controversial. Scientific consensus lags, not because there is no applicable scientific method, but because truth in the scientific sense is not the only aspect of most social studies.
Therefore, the instances in which social science has produced effective social engineering remain few, and that situation is likely to persist. Even in the absence of social engineering, however, social science provides essential substantive information on the magnitudes and historical dynamics of population growth and migration, economic development, political behavior, and technological change—forces that shape the human imprint on the natural world in fundamental, large-scale ways.
Each of these forces has. Because universities and professional associations have been organized principally along departmental lines, there has usually not been a single organizational focus for assembling such information into a body of knowledge clearly identifiable as environmental social science. Moreover, in a society that puts high value on both individual freedom and technological capability, the idea of altering human behavior to solve the collective problems of environmental quality has often seemed less acceptable than finding technological substitutes or palliatives. For that reason, the fragmentation of the universities has not been countered by environmental research in the social sciences sponsored by either government or the private sector.
More recently, as such issues as changes in the constitution of the atmosphere or loss of biodiversity in tropical nations have arisen, it has become clear that global environmental problems, like the "nonpoint" problems that have defied technological cures in the United States, raise unavoidable questions about how changes in human behavior can be attained in ways that are fair and efficient. The contributions to understanding that can be realized by simply bringing together what we already know—and those who already know it—have begun to gain attention in government. As concluded by the Committee on Human Dimensions of Global Change, there is "an almost complete mismatch between the roster of federal agencies that support research on global change and the roster of agencies with strong capabilities in social science" NRC, b, p.
There is a similar mismatch between the roster of federal agencies with environmental responsibilities and the roster of agencies with strong capabilities in social science. The failure to support or organize environmental social science is deeply structural. Environmental social-science research is scattered across many agencies under many labels. There is consistent effort in agricultural economics and extension, energy-consumption surveys, use of national parks and rangelands, and social-impact assessments of government projects.
But in no mission agency is such research integrated well into high-level research planning. It is usually no one's job to ask such broad questions as "How can we improve methods for assessing the social, economic, and environmental consequences of environmental policies? Many factors have resulted in chronic underinvestment in environmental social science.
The inherently value-laden component of social-science research and its attendant controversies are clearly part of the problem. The agencies that most need social-science research tend to have cultures that are unreceptive to social science; social-science research has never been a central part of the mission of these agencies. Moreover, the utility of social-science research depends on informed communication between physical scientists and social scientists—an interchange that is all too rare on university campuses, let alone in federal agencies. Many aspects of environmental social-science research pertain broadly to the missions of various agencies. Thus, no agency perceives such research to be central to its particular mission.
That is a good formula for activities to fall into the cracks between agencies. Because many of the topics not only cut across agency missions but also require a cumulative base of knowledge, it is perhaps not surprising that mission-oriented agencies have not been a supportive home for environmental social-science research. Research programs constitute only one way to understand the global environment. Also needed is a monitoring system that can provide early warnings of changes of regional and global importance.
The general goal of monitoring is to provide quantitative or qualitative data to document the state of systems over time. A number of objectives are served by different types of monitoring:. Trend monitoring. Measurements made at regular intervals to determine long-term trends in particular characteristics. Baseline monitoring. Measurements to determine existing conditions and to establish a database for planning and for comparison with future states of the system. Implementation monitoring. Measurements to assess whether management activities were carried out as planned or mandated. Effectiveness monitoring.
Measurements designed to evaluate whether a specific management activity had or is having the desired effect. For a monitoring program to be successful, there must be a clear definition of its purposes, what is being measured, why, and for how long. The questions to be answered or the hypotheses to be tested must be clearly stated. Oversight of the monitoring program—including planning, implementation, and evaluation phases—by scientists who are interested in the goals of the program is essential. Because trends can be detected only with long-term measurements, a monitoring program requires reliable funding, institutional stability, and continuing quality control and evaluation.
An effective and cost-effective environmental monitoring program is important, because billions of dollars are spent each year in the United States alone on environmental research and on setting and implementing environmental policies and regulations. Whereas it is clear that some of those expenditures represent the internalization of environmental costs i. For example, a recent National Research Council NRC report, Rethinking the Ozone Problem in Urban and Regional Air Pollution NRC, a , suggests that, whereas some regulations designed to control ozone should be strengthened, others are ineffective and should be relaxed or abandoned.
Many other NRC reports e. Monitoring and the institutional structures needed to support it cannot be evaluated with a single assessment, because monitoring serves a variety of purposes and the types of monitoring differ in the quality and quantity of their. Implementation monitoring raises no conceptual problems, but funds typically are not available to do it properly. Only a few long-term measurements of environmental processes have been established. Global measurements of sea level were begun in the nineteenth century, measurements of atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide in the late s, and measurements of ozone concentrations in the s. Those few long-term data sets have already played key roles in alerting humanity to impending serious problems.
The National Environmental Policy Act requires that environmental-impact statements EISs be developed for any proposed major federal action. New developments are, in effect, large-scale experiments being performed on the nation's environment. The EIS process does not take full cognizance of that fact and so does not take advantage of an opportunity to learn from the "experiment. It has become a document that provides a snapshot of current environmental conditions and projects the potential for impacts on the environment if a particular course of action is pursued. Unlike other environmental regulations that require continuous monitoring, the EIS has no required followup.
As a result, no coherent body of information is being generated that can lead to a comparison of predicted environmental effects of construction and operation with actual effects. We seldom learn what effects the projects cause, and we enter the next, similar project no better informed as to the likely consequences of developments than we were previously. Fundamental changes in EIS procedures, requirements, and goals are needed to increase the rate at which we learn from these experiments, which are repeatedly performed on the environment.
Trend monitoring and baseline monitoring are chronically underfunded in the United States, and existing institutions are poorly designed to support and strengthen them. Mission-oriented agencies are repeatedly deflected by the "crisis-of-the-month" syndrome, which siphons resources away from long-term programs. Basic funding agencies, such as NSF, while paying lip service to the value of long-term monitoring, usually find imaginative, new, "pioneering" projects more exciting to support than long-term monitoring programs. The scientific panels that evaluate proposals are strongly attracted to innovative proposals.
Existing institutions have tapped to only a small extent the rich resource provided by the many concerned and talented amateurs who could usefully be incorporated into a monitoring effort. Amateur climatologists have made long-term observations of weather temperature and precipitation for scores of years, and these records are very valuable. Amateur bird-watchers have.
The advantages of using amateurs include great reductions in the cost of gathering data and the political capital flowing from their increased awareness of and sense of involvement in a clearly identified national program. The costs include establishment and maintenance of a complex network and the need to provide regular reports to participants to sustain their involvement. Monitoring is often viewed as a pedestrian activity with little intellectual challenge. Consequently, little attention has been paid to design of monitoring programs and statistical analyses of the data they generate.
Programs of baseline and trend monitoring are difficult to sustain, because they require insulation from political concerns and influences of the moment, long-term stability of funding, capacity to store and synthesize data, and an ability to communicate synthesized information regularly to users. Several barriers to success in current monitoring programs are evident. First, the institutions with responsibilities for baseline and trend monitoring lack sufficient scientific credentials and are not well buffered against environmental and political crises.
Some of them have the conflicting missions to assess environmental changes and to establish and enforce environmental regulations. Second, current institutions carrying out monitoring activity find it difficult to attract and maintain sufficient internal expertise and to take advantage of the expertise of the broad scientific community. Wise use of intramural and extramural scientific expertise is essential, because the environmental processes and products that could be monitored are virtually infinite. Careful thought must be given to determining which information would best inform society of important environmental changes to which more detailed attention should be directed.
Indeed, long-term monitoring programs should be initiated only after extensive review and evaluation to determine the feasibility, reliability, and utility of various measurements that might be made. Third, there is a general failure to recognize the importance of monitoring, the wide variety of purposes it serves, and the necessary conditions for its functioning.
Such lack of understanding of monitoring accounts for its underfunding and for the failure to establish appropriate. Because this barrier is primarily an informational one, its solution requires education of appropriate decision-makers. In addition to assembling data already collected, the monitoring of important social indicators, such as the extent and condition of land under cultivation in countries susceptible to famine, appears likely to yield useful results for both policy and basic research in the near term.It has been used Pros And Cons Of Overpopulation in selecting chemicals Strengths And Weaknesses Of Reading Assessment require further research Macbeth Rebothered Analysis in selecting environmental projects Strengths And Weaknesses Of Reading Assessment fund with a diminished overall budget. I therefore bought the more recently published"Strengthfinder Strengths And Weaknesses Of Reading Assessment. Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free?