Science/technology/society as reform of science in the elementary school

JOURNAL OF ELEMENTAR Y SCIENCE EDUCA TION Vol. 4, No.1. Pp. 1-13, (1992)(C ) 1992, Curry Sc hool of Educa tion. University of Virgi ma

SciencerrechnoJogy/Society As Reform Of Science InThe Elementary School

Robert E. Yager, Mackinnu, and Susan M. Blunck

AbstractSeveral upper elementary teachers enrolled in a year-long staffdevelopment effort which included preparation of STS modules, teachingthem, and assessing their success with students in five domains for goalsand assessment. Twelve Lead Teachers for the program agreed toparticipate in a special controlled experiment where STS strategies wereutilized with one section and traditional concept-organized strategies inanother section. Results are presented and contrasted for studentsenrolled in an STS section and others in a non-STS section . Resultsshow no advantages for students in STS sections in terms of conceptmastery. However, there are significant advantages for the STSapproach in terms of students' gro wth in process skills, applications ofscience concepts and processes to new situations, creativity skills(inclUding quantity and quality of questions generated, causessuggested, and consequences predicted), and development of morepositive attitudes (toward science classes, teachers, and careers). STSinstruction results in dramatic improvement in attitude toward science forfemale students. Evidence is provided which illustrates the advantagesfor STS as an approach to learning science in the elementary school.

IntroductionIowa has been a state where major efforts have been extended to

encourage STS teaching in all grades, K-12. The effort began in 1983 withIowa's select ion as one of 17 states which participated in the NSTAsponsored, NSF-supported Chautauqua Program for Improv ing theTeaching of Science. The project was funded initially for a three-yearperiod enrolling 210 teachers, mostly from grades four through nine. Afterthe funding through NSTA was terminated, another three-year grant wasawarded by NSF to support the Iowa Chautauqua effort. In addition, theIowa Utility Association supported the program with annual contributionsof over $75,000 direct support and $20,000 in-kind support. The programnow operates in five rotating sites across the state and enrolls 220-250teachers annually. Since inception of the program eight years ago, theIowa Chatauqua Program has enrolled in excess of 1800 K-12 teachers ofscience with well over half K-6 teachers.

Science/Technology/Society

The basic features of the Iowa Chautauqua Program as an inservice model have been described earlier (Blunck & Yager, 1990). Theprogram includes the following major features:

-- a two-week leadership conference for 30 of the mostsuccessful teachers from previous years who want tobecome part of the instructional team for futureworkshops;

-- a two-week summer workshop at each new site for 30 newteachers who elect to try SciencelTechnology/Society(STS) modules and strategies ; the workshop providesexperience with STS (teachers as students) and time toplan a five-day STS unit to be used with students in thefall;

-- a two and one-half day fall short course for 30 - 50 teachers(including the 30 enrolled during the summer); the focus isupon developing a month-long STS module and anextensive assessment plan;

-- a four to nine week interim project with close communicationwith central staff, lead teachers, and fellow participants,including a newsletter, special memoranda, monthlytelephone contacts, and school/classroom visits;

-- a two and one-half day spring short course for the same 3050 teachers who partic ipated in the fall; this sessionfocuses upon reports by part icipants on their STSexper ience as well as the results of the assessmentprogram.

Assessment has been a central feature of the Iowa ChautauquaProgram. An assessment package is developed and used each year asa means of collecting evidence of the effectiveness of the STS approachto teaching science (Yager, Blunck & Ajam, 1990). For the past severalyears a major effort has been made to collect information in the fivedomains of science education visualized by Yager and McCormack(1989). These areas include the following:

Concepts, i.e., a focus on understanding of the basicconstructs advanced by scientists in the variousdisciplines;

-- Processes, i.e., the skills used by practicing scientists as theyinvestigate and produce better explanations of the naturalworld;

-- Creativity, i.e., the ability to question, to suggest causes, andto predict consequences --all features of creat ivity asdefined by Torrance (1966);

2


-- Attitude , i.e., how students feel about science , sciencecareers, science teachers , science classes, and the valueof science study;

-- Applications/Connections, i.e., how students can use theconcepts and processes in new situations, especiallyoutside the classroom and school in the real world.

The Rationale For STSSome who defined STS in terms of major societal and global

problems (the curriculum focus) conclude there is little that can be taughtrelative to STS in elementary schools . On the other hand, when it isviewed as an approach to science, it is not only appropriate--it may beessential to meaningful science instruction for K-6 students. STSapproaches often use the view of science advanced by George GaylordSimpson (1963) who defined science as ". . . an exploration of thematerial universe that seeks natural, orderly relationships amongobserved phenomena and that is self-testing" (p. 82).

Each aspect of Simpson's three-part definition includes somethingstudents must do; i.e., they must question, attempt to explain, and devisetests to determine the validity of the explanations they have created. Butsuch practices do not characterize typical science classrooms wheretextbooks are followed directly. Nor do they characterize classroomswhere activities free from any real world context are central and wherestudents are merely taught to do what scientists do. Such classrooms arejustified as hands-on situations where the skills scientists use are beingtaught. The assumption is that such skills will be used by students on theirown in new situations. And yet it rarely occurs.

STS means teaching and learning in the context of humanexperience. This does not mean learning concepts and processes in waysthat do not build upon past experiences, include current experiences, andprepare students for future experiences when they leave the classroomand school.

STS utilizes the Constructivist Learning model which requires certainteaching approaches--all important for STS teaching. Some of theseinclude:

--Allowing student thinki~g to drive a lesson or entire unit;--Shifting activities and content plans to fit student responses,

interest, and ideas;--Encouraging student initiation of ideas, display of leadership,

and autonomy in planning and doing;--Encouraging students to expand and follow-up on their ideas;

3

SciencelTechnologylSociety

--Allowing adequate wait-time for students to think and topropose answers;

-- Encouraging group work and encouraging students to interactfrequently with other students and others outs ide theparticular class;

--Using open-ended and thought-provoking questions, andencouraging the same from students;

--Encouraging student reflection, analysis, and predictions;--Seeking out existing student concepts; using these in teaching

as opposed to ones from teachers or textbooks; and--Offering alternative suggestions and encouraging them from

other students; using these alternatives as challenges tomisconceptions.

These perspectives have been used in Iowa as STS modules havebeen developed, taught, and their effectiveness assessed. To illustratethe power of such STS teaching in the elementary school, data wereassembled which permit a comparison of STS and textbook approaches toscience teaching in grades 4, 5, and 6. Numerous teachers from lowergrades have been involved with STS in Iowa; however , assessmentstrategies must be altered making K-6 results difficult to include as a partof a single study.

The ProceduresRecently Mackinnu (1991) completed a study which involved 12

Lead Teachers in the Iowa Chautauqua Program. These were teacherswho attended one or more Leadership Conferences and who wereincluded as important staff members for workshops involving newteachers who sought to learn about STS. This was a carefully controlledexperiment where each teacher involved agreed to teach one section ofstudents with an STS approach and another section where textbook topicswere selected which matched the topics characterizing the STS approach.

Each teacher developed STS modules to parallel regular textbooktopics from the curriculum usually followed (e.g., textbook, schoolcurriculum, special kit program). The STS sections all met the criteria forSTS instruction as set by the NSTA (1991). Figure 1 includes a summaryof these features. Figure 2 illustrates the procedure for comparison. Forpurposes of control of instructional time and conceptual treatment duringexperimental procedures, the units for this study were all chosen so thatthe same concepts were involved and the same time-frame used. This is areport of 12 fourth, fifth, and sixth grade teachers (four at each gradelevel) to illustrate the appropriateness of the STS approach for elementaryschools. Further, the study has enabled a comparison of the advantage

4


Figure 1

Summary Of The Characteristics Of STS Instruction As Set By The

NSTA (1991):

--student identification of problems with local interest and impact;

--the use of local resources (human and material) to locate information that

can be used in problem resolution;

··the active involvement of students in seeking information that can be applied

to the task of solving real-life problems;

«the extension of learning going beyond the class period, the classroom, and

the school;

--a focus upon the impact of science and technology on individual students;

--a perception of science content as more than concepts which exist for

students to master on tests;

«an emphasis upon process skills which students can use in their own

problem resolution;

··an emphasis upon career awareness-especially careers related to science

and technology;

·-opportunities for students to experience citizenship roles as they attempt to

resolve issues they have identified;

--identification of ways that science and technology are likely to impact the

future;

--some autonomy in the learning process (as individual issues are identified).

of STS over standard textbook teaching and to consider the relativesuccess of male and female students who study science in the two modes.

Standard assessment instruments from The Iowa AssessmentPackage (Yager, Blunck & Ajam , 1990) were utilized for process,creativity , and attitude . In the concept and application domains, teachersconstructed items to assess mastery that matched the conceptsencountered (because of need for resolving STS issues and because theywere in the textbook for the students in the standard section) and ameasure of student ability to apply these same concepts in a new context.Writing test items in the application domain proves difficult for novice STSteachers . However, the Lead Teachers in this study have practiced suchtest construction for several years; and they were able to demonstrate to

5

Co

mp

arison

of

Textb

oo

k&

ST

SA

pp

roach

es

Grad

eL

evel:~

Teach

ing

leng

th:

-20..-D

ays

Illi:liliifi11Inr!;~~~

rlR~1~1111~rm~ij:jt~'~~~~!!~iII

J.'I~ili,.

...

~lJl'0o(f)

~Ol

~oc:lilJlf<

,lJlUc:lJl'0(f)

What

makes

upw

eather?•

airtem

perature•

airpressure

•w

ind•

water

vapor

Forecasting

thew

eather•

needforw

eatherforecasting

•m

akinga

forecast•

forecastingstorm

s

Weather

&living

things•

weather

andyou

•w

eatherand

plants&

animals

Students

willunderstand

theinfluence

ofw

indand

otherfactors

onclim

ateand

therelationship

ofthe

water

cycleto

meterological

forecasting.

Students

will

beable

todescribe

localweather

andm

akew

eatherforecasts

includingdetails

onair

masses,

fronts,pressure

systems,

andm

apping.

Students

will

gatherand

discussinform

ationabout

howfeatures

inI

..lthe

earth's

surfaceinfluence

climate

anddiscuss

theeconom

icl....\

impact

ofweather

andofw

eatherp

red

iction

.

Fig

ure

2

ill

Science/Technology/So ciety

the Chautauqua staff and to the staff at the University Examination Servicethat application-type items had been constructed.

The 12 teachers (four each in fourth , fifth, and sixth grades)administered pretest instruments in the five domains one to two weeks inadvance of starting the fifteen-week experiment. The same instrumentswere given as posttests and used for student evaluation at the completionof the experiment. The r-test was used to establish that there were nostatistically significant differences between pretests for each assessmentarea between STS and textbook sessions. Since this was the case, r-teststo determine difference between posttest means were possible withoutadjusting the means or using an analysis of covariance.

Results Of The StudyTables 1 through 6 indicate the results of the analysis of differences

between two sections of science taught by a given Lead Teacher--onewith the STS approach and one with a standard textbook approach.Except for the concept domain, where there is no difference in terms ofgrowth between pre- and posttests, there is significant growth for the STSsections for all teachers over the textbook sections for the other fourdomains, namely process skills, creativity, attitude, and application.

The statistical treatment indicated that there was significant growthin terms of concept mastery for both the STS and textbook sections for all12 teachers . And there was no difference between the growth among theteachers or between STS and textbook sections.

In all other cases were significant advantages (at 0.01 level) in favorof STS sections in terms of mastery of science processes, thedevelopment of more useful and/or unique creat ivity skills (i .e.,question ing, suggestion causes, and pred icting consequences),developing more posit ive attitudes (toward science careers , study,classes , teachers, and the value of science) , and the ability to applyconcepts in new situations.

When gender was considered, there were no differences except inthe attitude domain as seen by examining the results reported in Tables6a and 6b. Females in the STS sections developed significantly morepositive attitudes over their counterparts in textbook sections (0.01 level).In fact, females displayed more negative attitudes after instruction in thetextbook section than what they reported initially.

Further, the data revealed no significant differences at any gradelevel or teacher for STS or textbook sect ions when analyses wereconducted by looking at average and below average students (grades Cand 0) over above average students (grades A and B).


Table 1

t-values for STS and Textbook Approach on PosUest of ConceptAttainment

Teacher Nc-Nt Xc Sc Xt St t-value p-value

1 26+25 17.69 4.80 16.72 3.53 -0.82 >0.300

2 26+27 6.81 1.70 6.56 1.95 -0.50 >0.500

3 20+18 12.40 3.22 13.00 3.45 0.55 >0.500

4 23+22 6.30 2.03 6.59 1.84 0.49 >0.500

5 25+26 6.60 2.56 6.50 2.38 -0.14 >0.800

6 22+21 9.54 2.67 9.09 3.01 -0.52 >0.500

7 24+26 6.79 2.77 7.46 2.40 0.91 >0.300

8 24+22 13.37 2.76 11.82 3.36 -1.72 >0.050

9 24+23 12.83 3.47 12.87 3.21 0.04 >0.900

10 26+27 12.69 3.72 13.30 3.36 0.62 >0.500

11 16+17 12.62 2.22 12.53 2.65 -0.11 >0.800

12 28+29 14.61 2.42 13.52 3.13 -1.46 >0.100

Table 2

t-values for STS and Textbook Approach on PosUest of ProcessSkills

Teacher Nc+Nt Xc Sc 'Xt St t-value p-value

1 26+25 4.35 1.55 9.28 2.46 8.61 <0.000'

2 26+27 2.81 1.23 5.41 1.87 5.96 <0.000'

3 20+18 4.10 1.83 7.67 1.78 6.07 <0.000'

4 23+22 2.87 1.32 5.73 1.83 6.02 <0.000'

5 25+26 6.60 2.56 6.50 2.38 -0.14 <0.000'

6 22+21 3.41 1.62 8.62 2.91 7.30 <0.000'

7 24+26 3.96 2.07 7.77 2.60 5.70 <0.000'

8 24+22 4.04 2.01 9.09 2.37 7.82 <0.000 '

9 24+23 7.67 3.20 11.83 3.19 4.46 <0.000 '

10 26+27 4.65 2.40 9.78 2.49 7.63 <0.000'

11 16+17 5.69 2.30 10.65 2.52 5.89 <0.000'

12 28+29 3.93 1.70 10.03 2.60 10.46 <0.000 '

Note: • Significant at alpha = 0.01

Legend for Tables 1 and 2

N = number of students c = textbook section Teachers 1,2,3,4 = Grade 4X = average scores t = STS section Teachers 5, 6, 7, 8 = Grade 5S = standard deviations Teachers 9, 10,11 , 12 =Grade 6

8


Table 3

r-values for STS and Textbook Approach on Posttest ofApplication of Science ConceptsTeacher Nc+Nt Xc Sc Xt St t-value p-value

1 26+25 8.04 3.38 18.32 3.80 10.22 <0.000'

2 26+27 2.23 1.34 7.30 2.27 10.03 <0.000'

3 20+18 6.00 2.47 13.00 3.71 6.91 <0.000'

4 23+22 3.52 1.44 6.27 1.52 6.23 <0.000'

5 25+26 2.12 1.10 6.00 2.24 7.80 <0.000'

6 22+21 2.50 1.53 8.38 2.69 8.85 <0.000'

7 24+26 2.17 1.17 6.85 2.15 9.46 <0.000'

8 24+22 2.54 1.50 10.64 3.87 9.49 <0.000'

9 24+23 5.79 2.47 12.04 3.02 7.78 <0.000'

10 26+27 4.85 2.24 10.18 2.60 7.99 <0.000'

11 16+17 3.56 1.59 11.41 3.00 9.30 <0.000'

12 28+29 3.00 1.36 12.31 3.22 14.13 <0.000'

Note:"" Significant at alpha ~ 0.01

Table 4

r-values for STS and Textbook Approach on Posttest ofCreativity -Teacher Nc+Nt Xc Sc Xt St t-value p-value

1 26+25 23.96 5.77 52.72 16.96 8.17 <0.000'

2 26+27 79.42 33.93 163.96 50.98 7.08 <0.000'

3 20+18 74.90 20.06 163.33 39.68 8.80 <0.000'

4 23+22 63.43 22.40 115.59 36.66 5.79 <0.000'

5 25+26 72.00 32.96 135.77 47.67 5.54 <0.000'

6 22+21 75.59 29.28 133.95 34.07 6.03 <0.000'

7 24+26 25.04 10.08 46.92 15.59 5.84 <0.000'

8 24+22 65.92 25.76 106.77 27.76 5.18 <0.000'

9 24+23 68.21 22.65 115.09 31.35 5.89 <0.000'

10 26+27 69.58 33.28 127.96 38.78 5.87 <0.000'

11 16+17 72.75 23.98 125.71 36.15 4.93 <0.000'

12 28+29 24.43 8.82 41.48 12.84 5.82 <0.000'

Note: • Significant at alpha =0.01

Legend for Tables 3 and 4

N = number of students c = textbook section Teachers 1, 2, 3, 4 = Grade 4X =average scores t = STS section Teachers 5, 6, 7, 8 = Grade 5S =standard deviations Teachers 9,10,11,12 = Grade 6

9


Table 5

t-values for STS and Textbook Approach on PosUest of AttitudeTeacher Nc+Nl Xc Sc Xi SI t-value p-value

1 26+25 9.08 3.74 15.08 4.70 5.06 <0.000'

2 26+2717.35 5.37 24.78 4.41 5.52 <0.000'

3 20+ 18 10.50 2.24 15.39 2.77 6.02 <0.000'

4 23+22 9.96 2.74 15.18 2.79 6.34 <0.000'

5 25+26 13.76 4.78 20.42 4.88 4.93 <0.000'

6 22+21 13.36 3.84 21.10 4.71 5.91 <0.000'

7 24+26 14.13 4.85 20.73 4.15 5.19 <0.000'

8 24+22 13.96 4.40 21.82 4.84 5.77 <0.000'

9 24+23 13.25 3 .61 21.61 4.75 6.81 <0.000'

10 26+27 14.38 4.85 21.56 3.96 5.90 <0.000'

11 16+ 17 14.81 3.58 20.06 3.19 4.45 <0.000'

12 28+29 14.36 4.02 19.59 3.54 5.22 <0.000'

Note:" Significant at alpha = 0.01N =number of students c = textbook sectionX = average scores t = STS sectionS = standard deviations

Teachers 1. 2. 3, 4 = Grade 4Teachers 5, 6, 7, 8 =Grade 5Teachers 9,10,11, 12 =Grade 6

Table G-a

t-values for STS and Textbook Approach on Pretest of GenderEffectsTeacher Nm+NI Xm Sm XI Sf t-value p-value

1 13+12 8.92 3.48 7.75 2.60 -0.95 >0.300

2 14+13 17.50 5.60 16.00 5.12 -0.72 >0.300

3 9+9 9.78 2.95 10 .33 1.22 0.52 >0.500

4 11+11 11.64 2.46 7.82 1.99 -4.00 <0.010"

5 13+13 14.00 5.51 9.62 1.85 -2.72 <0.010"

6 10+11 15.20 4.26 10.00 2.14 -3.58 <0.010"

7 13+13 16.62 3.43 11 .69 2.63 -4.11 <0.010"

8 11+11 16.82 5.23 12.18 2.36 -2.68 <0.010"

9 11+12 15.82 3.95 10.50 1.24 -4.44 <0.010"

10 11+ 16 17.82 3.19 12.44 3.29 -4.23 <0.010"

11 8+9 17.13 3.00 12.22 2.39 -3.75 <0.010"

12 15+ 14 16.73 2.66 12 .00 3.01 -4.49 <0.010"

•• Significant at 0.01N = number of students m = males Teachers 1, 2, 3, 4 =Grade 4X =average scores f = females Teachers 5, 6, 7, 8 =Grade 5S =standard deviations Teachers 9,10, 11,12 =Grade 6

10

Scien ce/Technolog y/So cietyTable G-b

t-values for STS and Textbook Approach on Posttest of GenderEffectsTeacher Nm+NI Xm Sm XI Sf t-value p-value

1 13+12 15.13 5.12 14.83 4.41 -0.25 >0.700

2 14+13 23.50 4.54 26.15 3.98 1.61 >0.100

3 9+9 14.44 3.24 16.33 1.94 1.50 >0.100

4 11+11 15.45 3.36 14.91 2.21 -0.45 >0.500

5 13+13 20.54 5.62 20.31 4.23 -0.12 >0.800

6 10+11 21.30 4.83 20.91 4.83 -0.19 >0.700

7 13+13 21.62 4.59 19.85 3.63 -1.09 >0.200

8 11+ 11 23.09 5.74 20.55 3.56 -1.25 >0.200

9 11+12 21.91 5.36 21.33 4.33 -0.28 >0.700

10 11+16 22.73 4.10 20.75 3.79 -1.29 >0.200

11 8 +9 20.38 3.38 19.78 3.19 -0.37 >0.700

12 15+14 20.73 3.35 18.36 3.43 -1.89 >0.050

N = number of students m =males Teachers 1.2,3,4 =Grade 4X =average scores f= females Teachers 5. 6, 7, 8 =Grade 5S = standard deviations Teachers 9,10, 11,1 2 =Grade 6

ConclusionsSome general statements regarding STS in the elementary school

are possible from the Iowa experiment:1. Elementary teachers can be extremely successful with

STS approaches to teaching.2. Construct ivist ideas are basic to STS approaches as

defined by the NSTA.3. The Iowa Chautauqua Model is successful in helping

teachers change instructional procedures.A compar ison of results from 12 experienced elementary teachers

who conducted a controlled experiment to permit compar isons betweenSTS and textbook sect ions (i.e., a student-centered classroom vs . ateacher/textbook-centered one) in the Yager-McCormack Five Domainspermit the following generalizations:

1. There is no significant advantage for STS teaching when onemeasures mastery of concepts; at the same time STS is aseffective in this dornain as more direct teaching;

1 1


2. Students are able to use science processes and showunderstanding of them to a significant advantage overtextbook teaching;

3. Student attitude is significantly more positive in STSclassrooms than in textbook-dominated ones;

4. Females develop significantly more positive attitudes aboutscience than their counterparts in textbook sections;

5. Attitude during science study declines in textbook sections;6. Creativity skills are developed to a significantly greater degree

by students in STS sections versus textbook sections. Thisadvantage exists in terms of both quantity and quality of:

a. Questioning;b. Suggestions of causes ; andc. Predictions of consequences.

7. STS students can apply science concepts to new situationssignificantly better than can students in standard textbooksections; and

8. Students in textbook sections showed little or no significantgrowth in any domain except the concept domain.

References

Blunck, S. M., & Yager, R. E. (1990). The Iowa Chautauqua Program: Amodel for improving science in the elementary school. Journal ofElementary Science Education, 2(2),3-9.

Mackinnu. (1991). Comparison of learning outcomes between classestaught with a science-technology-society (STS) approach and atextbook-oriented approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,University of Iowa, Iowa City.

National Science Teachers Association. (1991, April). Science/technology/society: A new effort for providing appropriate science for all(The NSTA position statement). NSTA Reports!, pp.36-37.

Simpson, G. G. (1963). Biology and the nature of science. Science,139 (3550),81-88.

Torrance, P. E. (1966). Torrance test of creative thinking. Princeton, N.J.:Personnel Press, Inc.

Yager, R. E. , Blunck, S. M. , & Ajam, M. (Eds.). (1990). The Iowaassessment package for evaluation in five domains of scienceeducation (2nd ed.). Iowa City, IA: The University of Iowa, ScienceEducation Center.

12


Yager, R. E., & McCormack , A. J . (1989). Assessing teaching/learningsuccesses in multiple domains of science and science education.Science Education 73 (1),45-58.

Dr. Robert E. Yager is the Iowa Chautauqua Director in the Science Education

Center at the University of Iowa. Iowa City, Iowa 52242.

Dr. Mackinnu was Research Assistant with the Iowa Chatauqua Program at the

time this study was done. He has returned to Malang. Indonesia.

Susan M. Blunck is the Iowa Chautauqua Coordinator in the Science Education

Center at the University of Iowa, Iowa City. Iowa 52242.

13

Documents

Science/technology/society as reform of science in the elementary school