The Effect of Science-Technology - Society Teaching On Students' Attitudes Toward Science and Certain Aspects of Creativity

This article was downloaded by: [Universiti Sains Malaysia]
On: 13 September 2013, At: 06:04

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Science

Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20
The Effect of
ScienceTechnologySociety Teaching
on Students Attitudes toward Science
and Certain Aspects of Creativity
a
MeeKyeong Lee & Ibrahim Erdogan

a
Korea Institute of Curriculum & Evaluation, Korea
Firat University, Turkey

Published online: 01 Aug 2007.
To cite this article: MeeKyeong Lee & Ibrahim Erdogan (2007) The Effect of
ScienceTechnologySociety Teaching on Students Attitudes toward Science and Certain
Aspects of Creativity, International Journal of Science Education, 29:11, 1315-1327, DOI:
10.1080/09500690600972974
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690600972974
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 06:04 13 September 2013
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions
International Journal of Science Education

Vol. 29, No. 11, 3 September 2007, pp. 13151327
RESEARCH REPORT
The Effect of ScienceTechnology

Society Teaching on Students
Attitudes toward Science and Certain
Aspects of Creativity
Mee-Kyeong Leea* and Ibrahim Erdoganb
aKorea
Institute of Curriculum & Evaluation, Korea; bFirat University, Turkey
mklee@kice.re.kr
0Taylor
00
Dr.
000002006
Mee-KyeongLee
&
Francis
International
10.1080/09500690600972974
TSED_A_197198.sgm
0950-0693
Original
2006
and
Article
(print)/1464-5289
Francis
JournalLtd
of Science
(online)
Education
The purpose of the study was to examine the effectiveness of ScienceTechnologySociety

approaches on student attitudes toward science and creativity. Seven Korean Physics teachers
(two middle school and five high school) who participated in a 4-week intensive summer Iowa
Chautauqua Professional Development Program at the University of Iowa and their 591 students
in 14-class section were participants in this study. Students who were taught with Science
TechnologySociety approaches showed significant improvement in the development not only of
more positive attitudes toward science, but also of their creativity skills.
Introduction
Contemporary science education reform emphasizes the development of students
scientific understanding, critical thinking, creativity, wonderment, self-directed
learning, problem-solving abilities, and active engagement with science (American
Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993; National Research Council,
1996; National Science Teachers Association, 1990, 199091). Engaging students
in science is crucial to developing more positive attitudes toward science and
improving creativity skills. Student views of science are strongly influenced by their
experiences at school. Brooks and Brooks (1999) describe what students typically
experience in traditional classrooms (Table 1).
Schools typically start with an externally imposed curriculum. Students are
exposed to teacher-dominated instruction: lectures, drill and practice on sets of
*Corresponding author. 25-1 Samchung-Dong, Jongro-Ku, Korea Institute of Curriculum &
Evaluation, Seoul 110-230, Korea. Email: mklee@kice.re.kr
ISSN 0950-0693 (print)/ISSN 1464-5289 (online)/07/11131513
2007 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09500690600972974
1316 M.-K. Lee and I. Erdogan

Table 1.
The traditional classroom experience
Curriculum is presented part to whole, with emphasis on basic skills

Strict adherence to fixed curriculum is highly valued
Curricular activities rely heavily on textbooks and workbooks
Students are viewed as blank slates onto which information is etched by the teacher
Teachers generally behave in a didactic manner, disseminating information to students
Teachers seek the correct answer to validate student learning
Assessment of student learning is viewed as separate from teaching and occurs almost entirely
through testing
Students primarily work alone
problems, and structured cookbook laboratory activities. These approaches ignore

the interests of students, which in turn eliminate student motivation and natural
curiosity while also developing more negative attitudes toward science and creativity. In general, students have poor attitudes toward studying typical science, science
classes, and science teacher (Cho, 2002; Gallagher & Tobin, 1987; Harlen, 1999;
Mbajiorgu & Ali, 2003; Yager & McCormack, 1989); the more they study science in
school, the less creative they become, while their attitudes decline. Extensive
research indicates that a dislike of science develops among students during middle
school years (Disniger & Mayer, 1974; Finson & Enochs, 1987; Lawrenz, 1976;
Morrell & Lederman, 1998; National Assessment of Educational Progress, 1988).
Current science education at schools results in lack of interest among students who
study science. Leyden (1984) states that less than 1.2% of high school graduates are
interested in scientific careers. The decline in students interests in taking up scientific careers is a worldwide problem nowadays. To overcome these problems and to
accomplish the major goals of science education emphasized by contemporary
science education reform (American Association for the Advancement of Science,
1993; National Research Council, 1996; National Science Teachers Association,
1990, 199091) in the classrooms, a shift is necessary from what has traditionally
been experienced.
ScienceTechnologySociety (STS) is defined as the teaching and learning of
science-technology in the context of human experience (National Science Teachers Association, 1993). It has been recognized as an appropriate way of teaching
and a feasible model for science teaching that provides a learning environment
effective for all students (Yager, 1993). The STS approach advocates that teaching should be meaningful, exciting, and appropriate for students. However, the
STS approach does not prescribe a specific way of teaching; rather, it describes
broader goals that teachers can follow. STS teaching might involve open-ended
inquiry or problem-driven activities. Furthermore, STS teaching begins with a
question, a problem, and a situation that is relevant to and appropriate for
students. Students then investigate the questions, problems, and situations by
exploration and consideration of possible solutions. Students work both in groups
and alone to solve problems and make decisions regarding the issues at hand
(Yager, 1993).
Effect of STS Teaching on Students Attitudes 1317

Attitude is very broadly used in discussing issues in science education and is often
used in various contexts. Two broad categories are distinguishable: attitudes toward
science and scientific attitude (Gardner, 1975). Attitudes toward science
includes interest in science, attitude toward scientists, or attitude toward social responsibility in science; whereas scientific attitude means open-mindedness, honesty, or
skepticism. The definition of attitudes in the current study is restricted to attitudes
toward science that would best be classified as opinion rather than a scientific
attitude.
Attitudes can be considered an outcome of science learning as well as a factor that
affects learning (Lester, Garofalo, & Kroll, 1989). Consequently more positive
student attitudes can be a factor in increasing enrolment in science courses and
amplifying science achievement (Simpson & Oliver, 1985) but also in generating
interest in scientific careers. Haladyna and Shaughnessy (1982) highlighted the
influence of learning environment and student involvement in learning on student
attitudes toward science. The STS approach generates an environment where teaching and learning are built around student questions and interests. STS focuses on
personal needs of students and societal issues (ones often found in homes, schools,
and communities as well as the more global problems that should concern all human
kind) (Yager, 1996, p. 12).
Hodson and Reid (1988) pointed out that creativity is integral to science as well as
the scientific process. It is used in the many processes of science, including generating problems and hypothesis formation. Moreover, creativity improves motivation,
curiosity, and can lead to higher achievement scores (Getzels & Jackson, 1963;
Karnes et al., 1961; Torrance, 1981). Many writers and researchers (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Mackworh, 1965; Penick, 1996; Dillon, 1982; Richetti & Sheerin,
1999) conclude that question-posing and problem-finding are crucial, at the heart of
originality, and form an extremely strong association with creativity. Einstein,
quoted in Getzels (1975), also pointed out that imagination is necessary for raising
new questions:
To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old questions from a new angle,
requires imagination and marks real advance in science. (Getzels, 1975, p. 12)
Penick (1996) argues that creativity does not happen by chance and provides
some practical suggestions for creating an environment where questions work best
for improving student creativity. According to him, science teaching that uses
provocative questions and creates a safe environment for exploring, risk-taking,
experimentation, and speculation, can help improve students creativity.
Many studies indicate the importance of teachers, teaching strategies, learning
environments, and parental influences on student attitudes toward science and
creativity (Carey & Shavelson, 1988; Davis, 1991; Feldhusen & Treffinger, 1980;
Heron, 1997; Morrell & Lederman, 1998; Reynolds & Walberg, 1992; Shin, 2000;
Shymansky & Penick, 1981; Sternberg & Lubart, 1991; Torrance, 1981).
However, there has been little sustained analysis of how the STS approach impacts
on student attitudes towards science and certain aspect of creativity skills,

compared to learning in a traditional environment. The following research questions guided this study.
1. How does learning in a STS environment affect student attitudes toward science
compared with learning in a traditional environment?
2. How does learning in a STS environment affect student creativity compared
with learning in a traditional environment?
Method and Design

Twenty Korean science teachers were selected in a highly competitive situation with
other teachers for enrolment in an intensive 4-week Iowa Professional Development
Program. The teacher selection criteria established by the Korean Ministry of Education included successful teaching experience, contributions to science education as
science teachers, and English proficiency level. The main goal of the Iowa Professional
Development Program was to help teachers apply STS approaches in their classrooms.
The 20 teachers who enrolled in the Iowa Professional Development Program
were asked to participate in this study. Seven of them volunteered and their 591
students in 14 classes agreed to become involved in the study.
Each of seven teachers randomly assigned two of their classes for the study, one to
a control group, which was taught with traditional methods, and the other to an
experimental group taught with STS approaches. Pairs of experimental and control
groups used the same textbook and received the same amount of time for instruction.
A number of variables were held constant so that statistical comparisons between
experimental and control groups could be made. The variables were student grades,
the same participating teachers, gender distribution, and a similar group size for the
two classes selected for study. For reasons of internal validity such as implementation
or implementer bias, the same teacher taught both experimental and control groups.
An implementer effect can occur when different individuals are assigned to implement different methods (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 1996; Merrill, 2001). Dune (1997)
pointed out the threat to validity using the same teacher for both experimental and
control groups, in that the teacher would certainly be aware of which group was
altered. However, he argues that it is endemic to most on site studies and should not
predicate a total of trust in the results. The teachers involved in this study were asked
to faithfully implement both traditional and STS approaches in order to minimize
that threat.
Two student surveys were administered before and after the implementation of
different teaching methods to all students in 14 classes. Student surveys include:
The Attitudes Toward Science Inventory (ASI) (Enger & Yager, 1998) and the
Assessment of Student Creativity (ASC) (Enger & Yager, 1998).
The ASI involves 18 items and is based on a five-point Likert scale that ranges
from never (1 point) to always (5 points).
The ASC instrument includes three different subscales: Questioning, Reasoning,
and Predicting Consequences. Students are instructed to ask questions, guess

causes, and predict consequences relative to the situation statements. Each question
and statement the students provided for each subscale were classified as Irrelevant
(0 point), Pertinent (1 point), or Unique (2 points) by the researchers. Inter-rater
reliability was established as 0.91 on the classification of levels of questions and
statements in the current study.
Module document, videotapes of classrooms, and resources used in science
teaching were collected to gain further information. All instruments were used after
translation into Korean. Accuracy of translation was established by back translation
into English by two science educators who speak both languages very well.
For teaching students in experimental groups, all seven teachers chose different
topics and concepts and developed their own 4-week modules based on STS
approaches. The major teaching strategies for each module were similar. The
Changing Emphases for Science Teaching (National Research Council, 1996,
pp. 52, 113) envisioned in the National Science Education Standards were used as a
major guideline for module development and following evaluation.
The main aspects of STS approaches in this study were to encourage students to
ask their own questions and to discuss them with other students in an atmosphere
of freedom. The teachers role in the classroom was to facilitate; they spent most of
the time guiding students in active and extended scientific inquiry and provide
opportunities for scientific discussion and debate among students. Teachers
adapted science topics when students showed their interests in different topics that
were not included in, but related to, the module they developed for the STS teaching, although adapting science topics was limited to existing curriculum. Students
could choose their research topics for inquiry from the existing curriculum. In
contrast to STS approaches, the traditional teaching methods used in this study
stressed teachers lectures, explanations, and demonstrations. The key feature of
this teacher-centered teaching was to provide students with clear and detailed
instructions and explanations. The teachers assumed the role of the provider of
information to characterize traditional teaching methods used in the current study.
Treatment fidelity to the implementation of the different teaching methods was
checked by examining the module documents for STS approaches and lesson plans
for traditional methods. Also, teaching in STS approaches and traditional classrooms was reviewed for fidelity through observations and analysis of classroom
videotapes. Treatment fidelity is the extent to which the treatment conditions, as
implemented, conform to the researchers specifications for the treatment (Gall,
Gall, & Borg, 2002).
Results
In order to examine student learning outcome, a non-equivalent pretest and posttest design were utilized and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used for the
statistical analysis. Internal consistency reliability based on Cronbachs alpha
was established for the Korean version of the ASI instrument for both pretest and
post-test. The reliability of the pretest was 0.78 and that of the post-test was 0.79.

Table 2.
Group
Test
Control (n = 7 classes)
Pretest
Post-test
Pretest
Post-test
Experimental (n = 7 classes)
SD
2.86
2.80
2.77
2.97
0.54
0.52
0.56
0.58
Table 2 presents the means and standard deviations of the pretest and post-test
scores measured by the ASI instrument.
Figure 1 illustrates that positive attitudes toward science increased among
students taught with STS approaches, whereas the positive attitude decreased
among students taught with traditional methods.
The results of the ANCOVA test for student attitude towards science indicate
that there are significant differences in attitudes toward science between classes
taught with traditional methods and those with STS approaches (F(1, 6.11) =
15.340, p = .008).
Figure 1. Differences in changes in attitudes toward science between students in the control and experimental groups
3
2.95
2.9
Mean
Means and standard deviations for the ASI
2.85
Traditional Methods
2.8
STS Approaches
2.75
2.7
2.65
Pretest
Figure 1.
Post-test
Differences in changes in attitudes toward science between students in the control and
experimental groups
Table 3.
Adjusted post-test means for student attitudes toward science
Group
Control (traditional methods)
Experimental (STS approaches)
Adjusted M
2.77
2.98

Table 4.
Means and standard deviations for Student Creativity

Experimental groups
(n = 7 classes)
Control groups (n = 7 classes)

Pretest
Scale
Pretest
Post-test
SD
SD
SD
SD
7.74
9.25
9.45
10.55
3.65
3.71
4.71
4.47
7.90
9.97
9.39
10.88
4.16
4.49
5.16
4.84
7.96
10.17
9.81
10.95
4.17
4.21
5.05
4.77
9.02
9.66
10.35
12.65
4.68
4.57
4.88
5.97
Table 3 shows the adjusted post-test means for the control and experimental groups.
The adjusted means are generated when ANCOVA is used. Occasionally the mean
pretest scores will differ significantly by chance. The adjusted means indicate observed
gains to the effect of the experimental treatment rather than to differences in initial
scores (Gall et al., 2002). The adjusted post-test mean of the experimental group is
higher than that of the control group, as Table 3 shows. This means that attitudes
toward science in the experimental groups improved more than in the control groups.
Student Creativity was measured using the ASC instrument. The ASC instrument
included three different subscales: Questioning, Reasoning, and Predicting Consequences. Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations for Student Creativity.
Figures 2 and 3 show trends of changes over time in student creativity. Figure 2 indicate that the post-test scores of students taught with traditional methods are similar to
their pretest scores. Figure 3 indicates that there are observed improvements in creativity among students taught with STS approaches, except in the Questioning sub-scale.
Figure 3.
2. Patterns of changes in creativity among students with
taughtSTS
with
approaches
traditional methods
12.00
10.00
8.00
Mean
Total scores
Questioning
Reasoning
Predicting Consequences
Post-test
Pretest
6.00
Post-test
4.00
2.00
0.00
Total Scores
Questioning
Reasoning
Predicting
Consequences
The Total Scores and the Sub-scales from ASC
Figure 2.
Patterns of changes in creativity among students taught with traditional methods

14.00
12.00
Mean
10.00
8.00
Pretest
6.00
Post-test
4.00
2.00
0.00
Total Scores
Questioning
Reasoning
Predicting
Consequences
The Total Scores and the Sub-scales from ASC
Figure 3.
Patterns of changes in creativity among students with STS approaches
ANCOVA was used to compare creativity between the control and experimental
groups. = 0.025 was assigned to each of the ANCOVA tests, applying a Bonferroni correction. The results reveal significant differences in the total post-test scores
with the ASC between control and experimental groups (F(1, 6.01) = 9.504, p =
.022). However, there were no significant differences in Questioning (F(1, 18.687)
= 0.317, p = .58), Reasoning (F(1, 19.372) = 0.044, p = .836), and Predicting
Consequences (F(1, 6.488) = 6.296, p = .043) for the subscales.
Table 5 presents the adjusted post-test means for the control and experimental
groups. The adjusted post-test means are bigger in Total Scores and Predicting
Consequences in the experimental groups than in those in control groups. The
adjusted post-test mean in questioning in the experimental groups, however, is
smaller than the one in the control groups.
Discussion and Interpretation
The results of the analyses support the idea that STS approaches are effective in
improving student learning outcomes, including the development both of more
Table 5.
Adjusted post-test means for student creativity

Adjusted means
Group
Control (traditional
method)
Experimental (STS
approaches)
Total scores
Questioning
Reasoning
Predicting Consequences
7.80
11.11
10.28
11.14
8.90
10.54
10.49
12.90

positive attitudes toward science and of creativity skills. The results of the study are
congruent with what Yager (1996) summarized. According to him, in an STS classroom, student interest increases in specific courses and from grade to grade;
students become more curious about the natural world; students see science as a
way of dealing with problems. On the other hand, a decrease in positive attitudes in
traditional classrooms as found in the comparison section of students in this study
are similar to those reported in many studies where student interest in science has
been found to decrease the longer the students study science (National Assessment
of Educational Progress, 1978). A feasible explanation for the significant differences
in attitudes toward science between experimental and control groups may be that in
traditional classrooms students mostly are sitting and listening to lectures, or watching demonstrations and taking notes. In contrast, in STS classrooms students are
primarily responsible for their own learning, asking questions, conducting research
based on questions, and finding their own information sources. Students in STS
classrooms become more active participants in their learning rather than being
passive recipients in traditional settings.
The results also reveal that there are significant differences in the adjusted total
post-test scores for creativity between the experimental and control groups. This is
consistent with previous research in this area. According to Torrance (1981),
students prefer to learn in creative ways by exploring, testing, questioning, experimenting, and testing their own ideas. In the STS environment learning is often organized around students rather than around the subject-matter topics (Duffy &
Cunningham, 1996). Students direct their learning and place it in situations that are
meaningful, relevant, and developmentally appropriate to them (Wilson & Livingston, 1996). Torrance (1981) indicates that creative learning improves motivation,
alertness, curiosity, concentration, and achievement. The STS approach generates a
learning environment where creativity is valued, encouraged, modeled, and
rewarded (Penick, 1996).
Overall, student creativity skills in experimental groups significantly improved
compared to those in the control groups; however, there were no significant differences found in the Questioning, Reasoning, and Predicting Consequences subscales.
Nonetheless, observable differences were found in the adjusted post-test scores for
the Reasoning and Predicting Consequences subscales. However, the Questioning
subscale for the experimental group seemed to decrease from 10.17 to 9.66 average
points from pretest to post-test results.
Considering the features of STS teaching used in this study, the outcomes of this
study also indicate that students do enjoy science when they become active participants, have opportunities to follow their own questions, and when they deal with
real-world problems. Simply, when science is taught using STS approaches,
students see the relevance of the learning and take actions concerning it. Consequently, interest and motivation to study science increase, and positive attitude
toward science and certain aspects of creativity skills are developed. Erez (2004)
argued that freedom is a necessary condition for creativity. He pointed out that a
student who does not act in an atmosphere of freedom will never express a new idea

or ask a question in a way never asked before (Erez, 2004, p. 2). Having students
ask questions, having them find their own ways to answer their questions, and
making them become active participants were the main features of STS approach in
this study. These features could contribute to create an atmosphere of freedom that
students could generate and raise their own questions without rein. The atmosphere
of freedom and helping students see that science is relevant to them together
certainly resulted in improving attitudes toward science and creativity. Korean
culture is based on Confucianism that obligates students to respect adults and to
listen without speaking against them. This societal pressure seems to prohibit
students from arguing and discussing issues concerning what teacher taught. Teachers and students strong beliefs can be found in the social and cultural context in
Korea in which educational success continues to be considered the most valuable
attainment and is pursued by almost all Koreans. Generally common goals for both
teachers and students are to score well on examinations and to receive good grades
in school. If students score well on examinations, they are viewed as having
learned; true and deep understandings are seldom achieved (Kim, 2005). For this
reason, many teachers tend to focus on delivering information effectively in a short
time. The results of the study are also significant in the sense that, in a strict Korean
culture, students raised questions, suggested causes, and predict consequences.
They developed more positive attitudes toward science and became more motivated
to study science.
Yet, surprisingly, considering that these teachers and students had just been
exposed to a 4-week STS approach, student surveys indicate that the STS approach
can serve an important role in accomplishing the major goals of science education in
the classrooms as emphasized by the contemporary science education reform documents. How students learn and what their roles are in classrooms determine to a large
extent how much opportunity for creative learning they actually have (Cronin, 1989).
Students in the experimental groups had autonomy in designing and carrying out
their problem-solving activities. They experienced a student-centered learning
environments, emphasized autonomy as opposed to obedience, construction as
opposed to instruction, and interest as opposed to reinforcement (Airasian & Walsh,
1997, p. 446). Students controlled their own behaviors by making wise decisions
about learning. Students held a positive attitude toward science, which in turn led
them to learn for its own sake while also maintaining their natural curiosity, which
then allowed them to explore, question, and understand the world around them.
The results of the study are not new, but it confirmed that STS approaches are
useful in Korean cultural contexts. Moreover, the results showed the possibilities
that, even in a short time period, students appreciate the new method, adapt to it
and perform well in STS approaches.
However, the results also imply that efforts to improve educational conditions, in
tandem with more consistent, needs-based, and ongoing Professional Development
Programs, would help teachers consistently use STS approaches in their classrooms.
In fact, the participating teachers, who were highly experienced but novices in the
use of STS approaches, experienced difficulties during the implementation of STS

teaching, such as lack of materials for STS teaching, getting away from textbooks,
and resistance from students and parents who wanted to learn how to get good
scores on tests. It is unrealistic to expect that teachers consistently use STS
approaches with these obstacles.
Conclusions
In this study, significant differences were found in the extent to which more positive
attitudes toward science and increasing creativity skills were produced when
comparing the experimental groups who were taught with STS approaches and the
control groups who were taught with traditional methods.
STS approaches are effective in encouraging students to develop more positive
attitudes toward science so that students become more interested in and motivated
to study science. They also support student critical thinking, logical reasoning, the
use of inquiry, and more creative approaches to problem-solving. Students more
frequently ask unique questions that excite their own interests, those of other
students and of teacher, and acquire the skills needed to suggest possible causes
and effects of certain observations and actions. The results of this study support
the previous research findings indicating that creative thinking skills can be learned
with practice (Cronin, 1989) and that teaching and learning based on STS
approach are effective for significant growth in developing more positive attitudes
towards science and in increasing student creativity skills (Cronin, 1989; Shin,
2000; Yager, 1996).
References
Airasian, P. W., & Walsh, M. E. (1997). Constructivist cautions. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(6), 444449.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks of science literacy. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L., & Razavieh, A. (1996). Introduction to research in education (5th ed.). Orlando,
FL: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1999). In search of understanding: The case for the constructivist
classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Carey, N., & Shavelson, R. (1988). Outcomes, achievement, participation, and attitudes. In R. J.
Shavelson, L. M. McDonnell, & J. Oakes (Eds.), Indicators for monitoring mathematics and
science education (pp. 147191). Los Angeles, CA: Rand Corporation.
Cho, J. (2002). The development of an alternative in-service programme for Korean science teachers with an emphasis on sciencetechnologysociety. International Journal of Science Education,
24(10), 10211035.
Cronin, L. L. (1989). Creativity in the science classroom. The science Teacher, 56(2), 3436.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New
York: HarperCollins.
Davis, G. A. (1991). Teaching creativity thinking. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 236244). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Dillon, J. T. (1982). Problem findings and solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 16(2), 97111.
Disniger, J. F., & Mayer, V. J. (1974) Student development in junior high school science. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 11(2), 149155.

Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications
and technology (pp. 170198). New York: MacMillan.
Dune, J. (1997). A Critique of Research Evaluating Moral Education Interventions. Retrieved March
29, 2006. from http://www.calpoly.edu/echin/ed589/StdModels/Jdune.html
Enger, K. E., & Yager, R. E. (Eds.). (1998). The Iowa assessment handbook. Iowa City, IA: The
University of Iowa, Science Education Center.
Erez, R. (2004). Freedom and creativity: An approach to science education for excellent students
and its realization in the Israel Arts and Science Academys curriculum. Journal of Secondary
Gifted Education, 15(4), 133140.
Feldhusen, J. F., & Treffinger, D. J. (1980). Creative thinking and problem solving in gifted education.
Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Finson, K. D., & Enochs, L. G. (1987). Student attitudes toward sciencetechnologysociety
resulting from visitation to a sciencetechnology museum. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 24, 593609.
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2002). Educational research: An introduction. New York:
Allyn & Bacon.
Gallagher, J. J., & Tobin, K. (1987). Teacher management and student engagement in high school
science. Science Teacher Edciation, 71, 535555.
Gardner, P. L. (1975). Attitudes to science: A review. Studies in Science Educaiton, 2, 141.
Getzels, J. W. (1975). Problem finding and the inventiveness of solutions. Journal of Creative
Beahavior, 9(1), 1218.
Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P. W. (1963). Creativity and intelligence. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Haladyna, T., & Shaughnessy, J. (1982). Attitudes toward science: A quantitative synthesis.
Science Education, 66(4), 547563.
Harlen, W. (1999). Effective teaching of science. A review of research, using research series, 21.
Edinburgh, UK: Scottish Council for Research in Education. (ERIC Reproductive Service
ED, 431 772)
Heron, L. E. (1997). Using constructivist teaching strategies in high school science classrooms to cultivate
positive attitudes toward science. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nevada,
Reno, NV.
Hodson, D., & Reid, D. J. (1988). Science for all: Motivatives, meanings and implications. The
School Science Review, 69(249), 653661.
Karnes, M. B., McCoy, G. F., Zehrbach, R. R., Wollersheim, J. P., Clarizio, H. F.,
Costin, L., & Stanley, L. S. (1961). Factors associated with underachievement and overachievement of intellectually gifted children. Champaign, IL: Champaign Community Unit
Schools.
Kim, S. B. (2005). Korean pattern of education growth and development. In International Conference on 60 Years of Korean Education: Achievement and Challenge (pp. 924) Seoul: Korean
Educational Development Institute.
Lawrenz, F. (1976). Student perception of classroom learning environments in biology, chemistry
and physic courses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 13(4), 315323.
Lester, F., Garofalo, I., & Kroll, D. (1989). Self-confidence, interest, beliefs and metacognition:
Key influences on problem solving behavior. In D. McLeod & V. Adams (Eds.), Afict and
mathematical problem solving. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Leyden, M. B. (1984). You graduate more criminals than scientists. The Science Teacher, 51(3),
2630.
Mackworh, N. H. (1965). Originality. The American Psychologist, 20, 5166.
Mbajiorgu, N. M., & Ali, N. M. (2003). Relationship between STS approach, scientific literacy,
and achievement in biology. Science Education, 87(1), 3139.
Merrill C. (2001). Integrated technology, mathematics, and science education: A quasiexperiment. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 38(3). 4561.

Morrell, P. D., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). Students attitudes toward school and classroom
science: Are they independent phenomena? School Science and Mathematics, 98(2), 7683.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1978). The third assessment of science, 197677.
Denver, CO: Author.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1988). The science report card: Elements of risk and
recovery. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
National Science Teachers Association. (199091). The NSTA position statement on science
technologysociety (STS). In NSTA Handbook (pp. 4748). Arlington VA: Author.
National Science Teachers Association. (1990). Science/technology/society: A new effort for
providing appropriate science for all (The NSTA position statement). Bulletin of Science,
Technology and Society, 10(5&6), 249250.
National Science Teachers Association. (1993). Science/technology/society: A new effort for
providing appropriate science for all In R. E. Yager (Ed.), What research says to the science
teachers: The science technology, society movements (vol. 7, pp. 35). Washington, DC: Author
Penick, J. E. (1996). Creativity and the value of questions in STS. In R. E. Yager (Ed.), Science/
technology/society: As reform in science education (pp. 8494). Albany, NY: State University of
New York Press.
Reynolds, A. J., & Walberg, H. J. (1992). A structural model of science achievement and attitude:
An extension to high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 371382.
Richetti, C., & Sheerin, J. (1999). Helping student ask the right questions. Educational Leadership,
57(3), 5862.
Shin, M. K. (2000). A study of effectiveness of the Iowa Chautauqua staff development model for reform
of science teaching in Korea. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Iowa, Iowa
City, IA.
Shymansky, J. A., & Penick, J. E. (1981). Teacher behavior makes a difference in hands-on science
classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 81, 412422.
Simpson, R. D., & Oliver, J. S. (1985). Attitude toward science and achievement motivation
profiles of male and female science students in grades 6 through 10. Science Education, 69,
511526.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1991). Creating creative minds. Phi Delta Kappan, 72, 608614.
Torrance, E. P. (1981). Creative teaching makes a difference. In J. C. Gowan, J. Khatena, & E. P.
Torrance (Eds.), Creativity: Its educational implications (2nd ed., pp. 99108). Dubuque, IA:
Kendall/Hunt.
Wilson, J., & Livingston, S. (1996). Process skills enhancement in the STS classroom. In R. E.
Yager (Ed.), Science/technology/society: As reform in science education (pp. 5969). Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.
Yager, R. E. (1993). Science/technology/society as reform. School Science and Mathematics, 93(3),
145151.
Yager, R. E. (1996). History of science/technology/society as reform in the United States. In R. E.
Yager (Ed.), Science/technology/society: As reform in science education (pp. 315). Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.
Yager, R. E., & McCormack, A. J. (1989). Assessing teaching/learning success in multiple
domains of science and science education. Science and Education, 73(1), 4558.

The Effect of Science-Technology - Society Teaching On Students' Attitudes Toward Science and Certain Aspects of Creativity

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Effect of Science-Technology - Society Teaching On Students' Attitudes Toward Science and Certain Aspects of Creativity

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Universiti Sains Malaysia]

On: 13 September 2013, At: 06:04

International Journal of Science

MeeKyeong Lee & Ibrahim Erdogan

Korea Institute of Curriculum & Evaluation, Korea

Firat University, Turkey

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 06:04 13 September 2013

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

International Journal of Science Education

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 06:04 13 September 2013