The subjects participating in this research project consist of all 104 students enrolled in a secondary science teaching methods course at a large midwestern university between the years 1989-1994. The research conducted evolved over the five years of the study; thus, the effort represents an action research project. In action research, self-reflection and self-evaluation result in insights which guide decision-making with the intent of improving the quality of instructional practice. A priori assumptions are inappropriate; instead, the direction of the research effort is guided by a self-reflective spiral of planning, acting, observing, reflecting, and replanning. Therefore, as this spiral unfolds in the pages to follow, the reader should recognize that what appears to be shifts in methodologies (quantitative to qualitative; reduction to expansion, etc.), actually represent careful reflection and changes enacted to improve the quality of a secondary science teaching methods course for preservice secondary teachers. Thus this manuscript, as an end product, is an ex post facto story of critical decisions in which an instructor improved instructional practice and his students gained confidence in their ability to make use of a powerful teaching strategy.
A challenge was issued to the science education community by the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) to make the interdependence of science and technology with society a major focus of science education in the decades of the 1980's and 1990's (NSTA, 1982). Science-technology-society (STS) education, was framed to enhance students' scientific literacy and decision-making capabilities concerning socially relevant science topics (Harms & Yager, 1981). In addition, another intent of STS education was to enhance teachers' abilities to motivate students' interest in learning and conducting more realistic science experiences (Ost & Yager, 1993; Yager & Tamir, 1993). Now in the midst of the latter half of the 1990's, we must ask ourselves whether this challenge has been heeded by a new generation of science teachers. However, before addressing this question, it is useful to undertake a brief historical digression.
Historical Perspective
The contemporary suggestion to emphasize STS as an instructional philosophy in science teaching has become an increasingly international phenomenon (Solomon & Aikenhead, 1994); however, it is not a modern idea. Science educators in the United States and elsewhere have concerned themselves with socially relevant science since 1750 (DeBoer, 1991). Then and now, there exists an essential tension between "science for all" versus "science for an elite" (DeBoer, 1991). Advocates of the latter are interested in the early identification of future research scientists and engineers as a priority, while proponents of the former are concerned more with creating and maintaining an enlightened citizenry capable of making wise scientific and consumer-based decisions.
The first historical roots of an emphasis on science for its utility and societal applications began with the advent of greater access to public education and the creation of academies in 1750. Early educational proponents, like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, viewed science as a practical subject; Jefferson considering "freedom and science" as prerequisites for social progress (Bowman, 1935) and Franklin recognizing science for its common sense and personal utility (Blinderman, 1976). Both men were very concerned with the education of the general populace and their individual abilities to contribute to an emerging democratic nation.
The next pronounced appeal for science education in concert with an emphasis on social issues occurred near the turn of the twentieth century. In the First Yearbook of the Herbart Society (McMurry, 1895), Charles DeGarmo stressed the importance of nature studies because "the demands of civilization should take precedence over formal mental discipline as a guide to the selection of studies" (p. 25). In harmony with this position the Third Yearbook of the National Society for the Scientific Study of Education (Holmes, 1904) was devoted to nature studies, with an emphasis on practical and socially significant science.
A tremendous emphasis on science and its relation to an informed society also corresponded with the demands of an industrial age (Downing, 1929). This changing spirit of the age was reflected in the early writings of John Dewey (1910) and the pragmatic movement, when he stated that, "science has been taught too much as an accumulation of ready-made material with which students are to be made familiar, not enough as a method of thinking" (p. 122). Dewey's theme is cyclically repeated throughout the Progressive Education movement (Progressive Education Association, 1937). According to the Progressive Education Association, the school curriculum should address itself to three major issues: (a) the personal-social needs of the individual, (b) the ideals of the democratic society, and (c) the personal qualities essential to effective functioning in such a democratic society (p. 27 and 57). Later, in 1942, the National Committee on Science Teaching conducted a study on Redirecting Science Teaching in Light of Personal-Social Needs (American Council of Science Teachers, 1942). This study was an inquiry into the functional outcomes desired by teachers in the personal-social development of their students. It resulted in a list of functional outcomes for science education in such areas as health, safety, consumership, conservation, recreation, responsible socio-economic action, work, and a maturing philosophy of life. Finally, the report of the Harvard Committee on General Education in a Free Society (1945) equated science education and mathematics to humanities and social sciences in terms of their importance in the education of the human being.
Thus, science education as a body of literature has concerned itself with socially significant science since 1750. Science education in practice, however, remains much as it has been for over 200 years, a very static, insignificant body of factual material. More recent reviews of the history of science education (DeBoer, 1991; Duschl, 1990) reveal that we are still chanting the same slogans with the same limited effect. Our chant for socially relevant science education in not new to the 1980's or 1990's and our ineffectiveness in reaching this goal is a centuries-old tradition.
Contemporary Context
Harms and Yager (1981) outlined in Project Synthesis a contemporary set of curriculum goal clusters for science that eventually were adopted by NSTA. The original goal clusters include:
1. Personal Needs. Science education should prepare individuals to utilize science for improving their own lives and for coping with an increasingly technological world;
2. Societal Issues. Science education should produce informed citizens prepared to deal responsibly with science-related societal issues;
3. Academic Preparation. Science education should allow students who are likely to pursue science academically as well as professionally to acquire the academic knowledge appropriate for their needs; and
4. Career Education/Awareness. Science education should give all students an awareness of the nature and scope of a wide variety of science and technology-related careers open to students of varying aptitudes and interests. (p. 7-8).
These themes are not unlike those espoused over the past century; however, in the wake of the post-Sputnik era, whose emphasis was clearly the early identification of scientists and engineers, the call of the "science for all" position has been more difficult to hear (Waks & Barchi, 1992). And just when it was beginning to be heard anew, the publication of A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) sounded an alarm that reinvigorated a still strong advocacy for the science for an elite position (Blosser, 1985).
The longer time frame for recognition notwithstanding, NSTA has been joined by the prestigious American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and National Research Council (NRC) in promoting the current "science for all" emphasis. With the publication of Science for All Americans (Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1990), Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy (AAAS, 1993), and National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996), a more unanimous call to achieve general scientific literacy is once again being heard. The STS theme is appearing more often in science textbooks (Chiang-Soong & Yager, 1993), is being promoted as an inservice program theme associated with student learning outcomes (Rubba, McGuyer, & Wahlund, 1991; Rubba & Harkness, 1993; Zoller, Donn, Wild, & Beckett, 1991), and is being suggested as a wholescale curricular organizing framework for science instruction from both a national and an international perspective (McFadden, 1991; Ost & Yager, 1993; Solomon & Aikenhead, 1994; Yager & Tamir, 1993).
In many of the citations referenced within the contemporary context section, a major suggestion has been made to revise preservice teacher education programs to more directly focus upon STS instructional strategies. One must, however, recognize the need to distinguish between promoting STS instruction as a student-centered, decision-making instructional approach versus teacher-centered introduction of applied social-personal examples that supplement a content lecture. A perception by prospective teachers of the former enhances the potential for preservice teacher adoption of the STS approach, while a perception of the latter is likely to limit its acceptance as a novel curricular alternative. Outside of the work of Rubba and Harkness (1993) and Rubba, McGuyer, and Wahlund (1991), very little research has been performed concerning preservice science teachers' perceptions or orientations regarding STS instructional strategies (Solomon & Aikenhead, 1994).
Therefore, the authors' purpose is to describe an action research agenda that has been conducted over the course of a five year time frame in a secondary science teaching methods program. A major outcome sought within this program is to provide preservice secondary science teachers with an effective means by which to organize and implement social/personal instructional strategies that make use of STS themes. Research questions which evolved to frame the direction of this research include:
RQ1. Are there differences among science majors concerning STS instructional orientations?
RQ2. Are there differences between males and females concerning STS instructional orientations?
RQ3. Does the use of cooperative learning facilitate or inhibit the development of STS instructional orientations?
RQ4. Do student teachers voluntarily implement STS instructional strategies?
The subjects participating in this research project consist of all 104 students enrolled in a secondary science teaching methods course at a large midwestern university between the years 1989-1994. The research conducted evolved over the five years of the study; thus, the effort represents an action research project. In action research, self-reflection and self-evaluation result in insights which guide decision-making with the intent of improving the quality of instructional practice. A priori assumptions are inappropriate; instead, the direction of the research effort is guided by a self-reflective spiral of planning, acting, observing, reflecting, and replanning. Therefore, as this spiral unfolds in the pages to follow, the reader should recognize that what appears to be shifts in methodologies (quantitative to qualitative; reduction to expansion, etc.), actually represent careful reflection and changes enacted to improve the quality of a secondary science teaching methods course for preservice secondary teachers. Thus this manuscript, as an end product, is an ex post facto story of critical decisions in which an instructor improved instructional practice and his students gained confidence in their ability to make use of a powerful teaching strategy.
The project began with an observation -- despite spending the final 4-6 weeks of a 15 week semester on social/personal instructional strategies and having students design lessons that engaged them in STS themes, integrated the use of peer interaction, promoted student reflections, and resolved conflicts -- not one student teacher (n = 10, fall `89; n = 8, spring `90) voluntarily implemented STS instruction during their student teaching experience. This prompted some data collection to gain insights into the reasons why students were so reluctant to make use of social/personal instructional strategies (See Table 1 for pertinent demographics).
Beginning with the fall semester of 1990, data were collected using two sources, responses to a Contemporary Goals Survey (CGS) developed by McIntosh & Zeidler (1988), and responses to a series of open-ended questions following the completion of student teaching. In addition, some artifact data was available in the form of comments (both unsolicited and solicited) taken from student evaluations. The CGS was administered each of four successive semesters on the last day of class concurrently with student evaluations.
The CGS consists of eight bi-polar statements along a 7-point continuum modeled from Kyle (1984). At one end of the continuum, a statement reflects a 1960's orientation and at the opposite extreme, is a statement more reflective of a 1980's/1990's orientation to science education goals (as defined by NSTA, 1982). Respondents are required to select between the two extremes and place a checkmark that is most consistent with their strength of conviction regarding each set of paired statements (slight, moderate, or strong). An option of "equal emphasis" is also provided for each set of statements. Scoring of the CGS is consistent with a respondent's strength of conviction in a direction that matches a "model" contemporary goal orientation. Thus, for each set of paired statements, a strong in the correct direction is scored as +7, moderate as +6, slight as +5. An equal emphasis response is scored as +4. Finally, for responses more consistent with a 1960's orientation, slight is scored +3, moderate as +2, and strong as +1. The total scores therefore range from a low score of +8 (representing an extreme 1960's goal orientation) to a high score of +56 (representing an extreme 1980's/1990's goal orientation); +32 represents a perception of equal emphasis. Test-retest reliability was reported by the authors to be 0.75 using a sample of 26 public school teachers (McIntosh & Zeidler, 1988). Content validity was determined by six prominent researchers and teachers in science education who had recently held elected positions in either NSTA or the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST).
The open-ended question set consisted of the following queries: (a) during student teaching, did you make use of the STS (or four-phase) peer interaction instructional strategy modelled in methods class? (yes ... answer question b; no ... answer question c); (b) If yes, please estimate the number of class sessions in which you made use of this model and generally how you conducted those class sessions; and (c) If no, please describe your rationale for not making use of this instructional alternative.
The next several sections will delineate, by academic year, both the results obtained and decisions made in the evolution of the methods course. With respect to the research questions posed, the first three will be addressed within the academic year discussions below, while the fourth will be treated in a subsequent section.
Academic Year: 1990-1991 (Year 2)
Anecdotal comments were examined from evaluations of the course taken from students who had been enrolled the previous academic year. Of those students making written comments (n = 24), one major common complaint surfaced (for 13 of the 24 respondents) ... the degree of difficulty associated with attempting to individually create the required STS lesson. Therefore, in response to this complaint, not only were nineteen methods students (Year 2) required to participate in teacher modelled STS lessons on population growth and evolution (as had the previous year's students), but they had to do so in cooperative learning groups of 3-4 students (hence, the inclusion of RQ3 in the purpose section). Upon the completion of the modelled lessons, debrief of procedures, and discussion of related readings, groups were kept together and required to design and submit a collaboratively planned STS instructional lesson. After completing the group lesson planning effort, CGS data were collected and student evaluations analyzed.
Prior to performing an analysis of the CGS, course evaluations once again revealed one major common complaint among students (for 10 of 20 students offering a written comment). This complaint is exemplified by a student who said ... "I did not like having to plan and submit a group planned STS lesson for which no individual was rewarded for having done more work than other group members." It was perhaps obvious that two different personality groups existed, those that preferred group work and those that preferred to work individually (or at least demanded individual accountability).
The instructor determined to return to requesting students from the Spring, 1990 methods class (n = 11) to design and submit an STS instructional lesson on an individual basis. Subsequent to this submission, these eleven students were requested to complete the CGS and were offered an opportunity to make specific comments about the STS assignment on their student evaluations. In this instance, in addition to the mixed reaction about having to perform the STS assignment individually, two new and repeated comments surfaced ... first, "even though I got a chance to plan lessons using a new [STS] model that seems to work for you [the instructor], I don't know whether I could actually perform the instruction required myself" and second, "maybe if we worked together to plan and actually tried the lessons we might like the model better."
CGS Analysis
In addition to the 8 bipolar-statement CGS, data were collected concerning gender, age, grade point average (GPA), and primary area of science certification (i.e., categories delineated were: biology, chemistry/physics/physical science, earth/ general, or agriculture). In comparing the fall and spring semester data, no significant differences were found concerning average age, GPA, gender percentage, or selection of primary science area; therefore data were pooled for the purpose of data analysis. A summary of these data is presented in Table 1.
Table 1 Secondary Science Teaching Methods Class (1989-1990) Summary of Pertinent Data. Fall, 1989 Spring, 1990 n enrolled 19 11 Males 11 7 Females 8 4 Avg. Age 22.95 23.18 (Range) (20-31) (21-35) GPA 3.42 3.39 Avg. CGS 39.68 38.27 (Range) (31-46) (32-45) Major Biology = 9 Biology = 5 Chem./Phys. = 4 Chem./Phys. = 2 Earth/Gen. Sci. = 4 Earth/Gen. Sci. = 2 Agriculture = 2 Agriculture = 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pooled Data: Mean Rank (by Major) Biology = R1 17.68 Chem./Phys. = R2 10.08 Earth/Gen. Sci. = R3 21.83 Agriculture = R4 6.50
____________________________________________________________________________RQ1: Are there differences among science majors concerning STS instructional orientations?
Since the underlying distribution for this population's response to the CGS is unknown and the data collected are ordinal, an analysis was conducted using non-parametric statistics. In this case, since there were four groups (majors), a Kruskal-Wallis test was utilized. A significant difference was detected among science majors (X2 = 10.41; p < 0.05). When post hoc procedures were used, no pairwise contrasts were significant; however, two complex contrasts were found to be significant: (a) Comparing the pooled average ranks of biology (R1 = 17.68; n = 14) and earth/general majors (R3 = 21.83; n = 6) with agriculture majors (R4 = 6.50; n = 4), the latter were significantly less oriented toward STS; and (b) Earth/general science majors were also significantly more oriented toward STS when compared to the pooled average ranks of agriculture and chemistry/physics/physical science majors (R2 = 10.08; n = 6).
RQ2: Are there differences between males and females concerning STS instructional orientations?
A Mann-Whitney U-test for differences between males and females resulted in a statistically significant result (U = 54.5; p < 0.05). In this case, the mean rank for females (R1 = 19.96) was greater than that reported for males (R2 = 12.53). Thus, females were more inclined to report a preference for STS instructional strategies than were males.
RQ3: Does the use of cooperative learning facilitate or inhibit the development of STS instructional orientations?
A Mann-Whitney U-test for differences between individually planned and collaboratively planned STS lessons resulted in not producing a statistically significant result (U = 89.0; p = 0.53; ns). The mean rank for collaborative planning (R1 = 16.32) was greater, however, than that reported for individual planning (R2 = 14.09). Thus, although not statistically significant, there were other indications from student evaluations that collaborative planning implemented on a more carefully planned scale might yield more success, especially if students had opportunities to practice their designed lessons and if individual accountability could be accomplished.
Academic Year: 1991-1992 (Year 3)
Accepting the validity of the CGS data analysis suggested to the instructor that grouping was potentially beneficial; however, groups might need to be more systematically arranged to obtain more effective results. Further, accepting student evaluation comments from the year 2 students at face value, it also appeared that time needed to be allotted for methods students to implement their group planned STS lessons. Thus, for the 1991-1992 academic year, the instructor not only retained the modelling of STS instruction using the population growth and evolution themes, but added a nuclear power peer discussion to try to more directly appeal to the physical science majors. In addition, a debrief of the strategy included a direct application of the modelled instruction to themes mentioned by Bybee (1987), which included several themes from the agriscience domain (i.e., pesticide use, land use, etc.) in addition to those from the biological and physical science domains.
The major revisions accomplished within this academic year, however, concerned: (a) the manner in which groups were formed; (b) providing an opportunity for students to implement STS lesson plans by presenting their lessons to their peers; and (c) providing a mechanism by which individual accountability might be better accomplished. Groups of 3-4 students were formed by making certain to include at least one female member and one biology major and/or one earth/general science major (whenever possible). Groups participated in the same peer interactive discussions (as modelled by the instructor in previous academic semesters), were permitted to select the STS theme around which their instruction would be planned, and were provided with a one hour and fifty-minute class session in which to present their lesson before their peers. Finally, students were individually assigned the task of designing and submitting for consideration an STS instructional strategy as part of their final examination. The one restriction on this take-home aspect of the final examination, was that each student agreed to develop an instructional strategy centered around an STS theme that was different from those developed by either their own or another group. This facet of the final examination was initiated to provide an overt mechanism to accomplish individual accountability and provide independent assessment of individual understanding of the model and creativity/competence in designing an STS lesson. At the close of each of the 1991-1992 semesters, individuals were once again requested to complete the CGS and comment upon the STS assignment on their student evaluations.
Results from the CGS student responses taken during the fall (1991; n = 12) and spring (1992; n = 8) methods classes yielded averages of 40.75 and 40.13 respectively. Neither of these results was statistically significant in comparison to either of the two previous semester data collections. In addition, although slightly improved average scores were apparent for each major, females maintained their higher CGS scores over males and biological and earth/general science majors continued to have higher CGS scores than physical science and agriculture majors. After obtaining a consistent pattern over four consecutive semesters, which likely represented a "ceiling effect" due to the instructor's own STS orientation, CGS data collection was discontinued. In addition, in examining student evaluations from year three, the instructor began to notice a continuum of comments (concerning the STS assignment) that now began with "I have no complaints" proceeding to an applause for the methods experience "for introducing a productive strategy (other than lecture and lab) for implementing STS, treating controversial issues, and handling social issues within the science classroom." Finally, by using individually designed STS instructional strategies as an integral component of the final examinations, all complaints by individual students concerning a reward for independent effort, competence, or creativity virtually ceased.
Therefore, instead of continuing to monitor STS orientations within the methods class, more attention could now be focused upon the field experience component of the science teacher preparation program as subjects entered their student teaching semester and had opportunities to voluntarily implement social/personal instructional strategies.
Academic Years 1992-1994 (Years 4 and 5)
During the final two years that represented this action research effort, the instructor maintained the systematic grouping of students for purposes of planning and implementing STS instructional themes and continued to require independent accountability through individual STS lesson design as part of the final examination for the course. Student evaluations continued to elicit a reaction continuum of having "no complaints" to students being enthusiastically supportive of the social/personal instructional approach. (See Note 1.)
Student Teaching Analysis
The final research question is perhaps the most important because, although the research results associated with each of the other questions yielded beneficial changes within the science methods course, only the last question deals with whether students were able to benefit from the changes in any practical "real-world" context. In other words ...
RQ4. Do student teachers voluntarily implement STS instructional strategies?
The authors' operationally define "implement" to mean either a self-perception by a student teacher that they attempted in some manner to make use of a four phase diversified instructional model (summarized in Note 1), or a perception by their cooperating teacher or university supervisor that some form of the model had been attempted. The latter was determined during site-based supervisory visits and the former through responses by student teachers to the questions: (a) during student teaching, did you make use of the STS (or four-phase) peer interaction instructional strategy modelled in methods class? (yes ... answer question b; no ... answer question c); (b) If yes, please estimate the number of class sessions in which you made use of this model and generally how you conducted those class sessions; and (c) If no, please describe your rationale for not making use of this instructional alternative. The responses to these questions are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2 Student Teachers Voluntarily Implementing STS Diversified Instructional Strategies (min. = 1 per 12 weeks student teaching)
No. of Student Teachers No. of Implementing Academic Year Student Teachers STS Instruction Percentage 1989-1990 18 0 0 1990-1991 30 0 0 1991-1992 20 1 5 (10 per 12 wks.) 1992-1993 12 4 33 (2 per 12 wks.) 1993-1994 24 10 42 (6 per 12 wks.) ____________________________________________________________________________Election by student teachers to make use of STS instructional strategies was purely voluntary. Only in this manner could the methods course instructor get an accurate assessment of the effectiveness of the last third of the methods course as it related to actual school practices and decisions opted for by student teachers. As summarized in Table 2, students teachers show a steady increase in making at least one attempt during their twelve week student teaching experience to implement STS or social/personal instructional strategies. Further, not only did the percentage of student teachers trying this instructional approach increase, but the frequency of attempt also increased. (See Note 2.)
Gratifying to the methods instructor, were some of the reasons given by student teachers for implementing. One of the chemistry/physics student teachers from the 1993-1994 academic year (a representative of the implementing group) remarked that:
In general terms, the investigators' began with an interest in describing the decision-making used by a secondary science teaching methods professor in attempting to enhance his students' understanding and eventual adoption of a diversified instructional strategy that could be applied to STS instructional themes. The action research that resulted, however, yielded both an introspective analysis of the successful evolution of a key component of his science methods course and some fascinating insights concerning preservice secondary science teachers and their interactions and decisions within the context of the methods class and student teaching. The former is well delineated within the body of this paper. It is the latter, however, that deserves further elucidation. In other words, the former describes what and how the decision-making yielded an improved course of study, but the latter attempts to infer why the decisions were effective.
Several inferences are possible in making attempts to draw conclusions from the five year action research effort reported upon herein. Some inferences may appear to be confirmatory and common sense, while others may possess legitimate potential insight; however, the reader can assess for her/himself which is which.
First, one might expect preservice teachers either expecting or opting to teach earth/general science or biology to be more interested or oriented toward a set of goals that reflect their own expectations or desires. In this case, since these preservice teachers either desire or recognize that they will be teaching more of the general population of students (science interested and science non-interested alike), a goal orientation response more consistent with a "science for all" perspective makes sense. In contrast, for the agriculture and the physical sciences majors, an expectation of teaching a more selective group of students might explain their more "science for an elite" stance. However, in all cases except one, CGS scores were in the range of 32-46, which represents an "equal emphasis" toward "moderate" strength of conviction for the 1980/1990's NSTA "STS" goal orientation when compared with the post-Sputnik 1960's goal orientation. Therefore, preservice teachers over the course of the five years of this action research project were exiting the program with a philosophy that more closely recognized the STS education message.
Second, the fact that females consistently had the highest CGS scores and ultimately influenced small group peer discussion behaviors in a direction more consistent with the methods instructor's intentions, was initially surprising. The instructor had always assumed (prior to performing more careful observations) that the compromiser or conciliator roles in a peer discussion would be essentially gender-neutral or personality-driven; however, this role was most often adopted by females over the course of the five years of this action research project. As a result of consistently higher CGS scores and more positive behaviors exhibited by females (especially confident females) in peer discussions, the methods instructor became an eye-witness to how women often view the world differently than their male counterparts. Such a statement does not mean to imply that the methods instructor was totally unfamiliar with the works of Carol Gilligan (1982) or Belenky and her associates (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986), who speak so eloquently for women's ways of knowing (in contrast to men's). Instead, it represents an opportunity for the methods instructor to recognize, first hand, the import of Gilligan's and Belenky's findings. In other words, rather than serving as a source of abstract knowledge, Gilligan's and Belenky's works became concrete within a context in which the methods instructor could best relate.
Third, recognizing and self-reporting a strength of conviction for the 1980/1990's NSTA position statement doesn't guarantee that it will be implemented in a school-based environment. The methods instructor was keenly aware(prior to the beginning of this study) that requiring student teachers to make use of an STS theme during their time in the public schools often resulted in student teachers opting to accomplish such an assignment through the use of direct instruction. The choice of direct instruction was often due to their personal discomfort with the demands required to effectively implement a more student-centered and diversified instructional strategy or fear that the cooperating teacher would not approve of such an instructional strategy. Further, the methods instructor was aware that when STS themes were handled in this manner, they were far less effective. Such a finding is consistent with the research reported by Rubba, McGuyer, and Wahlund (1991). Therefore, the methods instructor chose to make this assignment a voluntary one. Since the results reported in Table 2 reflect voluntary implementation, operationally defined (observed or self-reported) as consistent with the diversified instruction modelled in class, one must conclude that the methods class became a much more effective vehicle over time in getting student teachers to make at least one attempt at implementing the intended instructional model.
If additional growth is to be made in student teachers attempting and benefitting from the use of STS themes during their student teaching experience (the increase in attempts exhibited over the five years of this study notwithstanding), then:
> Social/Personal instructional strategies need to emphasized and expertly modelled in science teaching methods classes in a manner equivalent to the emphasis typically alloted to inquiry, demonstration, and other forms of science instruction (i.e., lecture/lab).
> Cooperative learning should be constructively arranged to take advantage of the different perspective-taking abilities of both genders, especially with respect to controversial issues.
> STS themes used in methods class, both instructor modelled and student selected, should permit input and expertise from different science majors; and
> Additional staff development with inservice (cooperating) teachers is likely necessary. If inservice teachers have more of a direct and ongoing role in the professional development of preservice teachers, it is easier for cooperating teachers to obtain ownership of what may be an unfamiliar yet powerful instructional strategy concurrently with the student teachers they are requested to supervise.
Notes
1. The "STS" instructional approach modelled by the methods instructor heavily emphasizes a four phase diversified instructional strategy that:
a. encourages an initial solicitation of personal thoughts, impressions, and/or ideas from individuals;
b. makes use of peer interactions within small group discussions to follow-up the first phase;
c. requires extensive teacher-student interactive debriefing of peer discussions, including a resolution of misconceptions, and/or the presentation of additional information to promote a group problem-solving effort (which often requires extensive student research and further refinement) ; and
d. provides extended opportunities for individual student reflections.
A more complete description of the complexity, power, and utility of this diversified instructional model as applied to STS instruction can be found in Ost and Yager (1993) and Solomon and Aikenhead (1994). A general description of the power of peer discussion applied to science issues can be found in Schwab (1962). More specific applications of this model for approaching the topic of evolution and other potentially confrontational issues can be found in Nelson (1986), Scharmann (1990), or Scharmann (1993). Back to the text.
2. The one student teacher implementing during the 1991-1992 academic year had the fortune to be teaching ecology and working with a cooperating teacher who actively encouraged innovative instruction. After the student teacher had some success with his first attempt at implementation (about week three) the cooperating teacher suggested that perhaps one such lesson might be appropriate for each of the remaining nine weeks of student teaching. Back to the text
AAAS (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
American Council of Science Teachers (1942). Redirecting science teaching in the light of personal -- social needs. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
Belenky, M.F., Clinchy, B.M., Goldberger, N.R., & Tarule, J.M. (1986). Women's ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.
Blinderman, A. (1976). Three early champions of education: Benjamin Franklin, Benjamin Rush, and Noah Webster. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
Blosser, P.E. (1985). Science education for the year 2000 and beyond. In R.K. James and V.R. Kurtz (Eds.), Science and mathematics education for the year 2000 and beyond (pp. 52-82). Bowling Green, OH: School Science and Mathematics Association, Inc.
Bowman, I. (1935). Jeffersonian "freedom of speech" from the standpoint of science. Science, 81, 529-532.
Bybee, R.W. (1987). Teaching about science-technology-society (STS): Views of science educators in the United States. School Science and Mathematics, 87(4), 274-285.
Chiang-Soong, B., & Yager, R.E. (1993). The inclusion of STS material in the most frequently used secondary science textbooks in the U.S. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(4), 339-349.
DeBoer, G.E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Dewey, J. (1910). Science as subject matter and as method. Science, 31, 121-127.
Downing, E. (1929). Teaching science in the schools. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Duschl, R.A. (1990). Restructuring science education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Harms, N.C., & Yager, R.E. (1981). What research says to the science teacher, volume 3. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
Harvard Committee (1945). General education in a free society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Holmes, M. (Ed.) (1904). The third yearbook of the national society for the scientific study of education, part II. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kohlberg, L., & Hersch, R.H. (1976). Moral development: A review of the theory. Theory into Practice, 16(2), 53-59.
Kyle, W.K. (1984). What became of the curriculum development projects of the 1960's? In D. Holdzkom and P. Lutz (Eds.), Research Within Reach: Science Education (pp. 3-24). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
McFadden, C.P. Towards an STS school curriculum. Science Education, 75(4), 457-469.
McIntosh,W.J., & Zeidler, D.L. (1988). Teachers' conceptions of the contemporary goals of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(2), 93-102.
McMurry, C. (Ed.) (1895). The first yearbook of the Herbart Society. Bloomington, IN: Public School Publishing Company.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
NSTA (1982). Science-technology-society: Science education for the 1980's. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
Nelson, C.E. (1986). Creation, evolution, or both? A multiple model approach. In R.W. Hanson (Ed.), Science and Creation (pp. 128-159). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Ost, D. H., & Yager, R.E. (1993). Biology, STS & the next steps in program design & curriculum development. American Biology Teacher, 55(5), 282-287.
Perry, W.G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.
Progressive Education Association (1937). Science in general education. New York: D. Appleton-Century Company.
Rubba, P.A., & Harkness, W.L. (1993). Examination of preservice and in-service secondary science teachers' beliefs about science-technology-society interactions. Science Education, 77(4), 407-431.
Rubba, P.A., McGuyer, M., & Wahlund, T.M. (1991). The effects of infusing STS vignettes into the genetics unit of biology on learner outcomes in STS and genetics: A report of two investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(6), 537-552.
Rutherford, F.J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
Scharmann, L.C. (1990). Enhancing an understanding of the premises of evolutionary theory: The influence of a diversified instructional strategy. School Science and Mathematics, 90(2), 91-100.
Scharmann, L.C. (1993). Teaching evolution: Designing successful instruction. American Biology Teacher, 55(8), 481-486.
Schwab, J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In The teaching of science (pp. 1-103). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Solomon, J., & Aikenhead, G. (Eds.). STS education: International perspectives on reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
Waks, L.J., & Barchi, B.A. (1992). STS in U.S. school science: Perceptions of selected leaders and their implications for STS education. Science Education, 76(1), 79-90.
Yager, R.E., & Tamir, P. (1993). STS approach: Reasons, intentions, accomplishments, and outcomes. Science Education, 77(6), 637-658.
Zoller, U., Donn, S., Wild, R., & Beckett, P. (1991). Teachers' beliefs and views on selected science-technology-society topics: A probe into STS literacy versus indoctrination. Science Education, 75(5), 541-561.
About the authors . . .
Lawrence C. Scharmann is a Professor of Secondary Education at Kansas State University. Dr. Scharmann has written extensively on science as a way of knowing and its relation to the teaching of evolution theories, the use of controversy in the science classroom, and the development of science self-efficacy.
M. Gail Shroyer is an Associate Professor of Elementary Education at Kansas State University. Dr. Shroyer has a published on facilitating school change, promoting professional development schools, and elementary science teacher self-efficacy.
Cherin A. Lee is an Assistant Professor of Biology at the University
of Northern Iowa. Ms. Lee is currently completing her doctoral work at
Kansas State University, in which the emphasis of her research concerns
the use of learning cycle instruction in undergraduate biology laboratory
instruction.
To get to the top of this page, click here.
To get back to the current issue of the EJSE, click here.
To get back to the EJSE's Archive page, click here.