STS Requires Changes in Teaching

Robert E. Yager
The University of Iowa

The major advantage of STS is the kind of teaching it allows and demands. Twelve middle school
teachers who were enthused with STS teaching
selected two sections for a research study. One section was the experimental STS section; the other followed the course syllabus and textbook closely. The
major findings indicate the advantages for STS as a
teaching approach.
Students at the STS approach learned as many
science concepts as students who were taught such
concepts directly. But the students in the STS sections
were superior in all other aspects, including understanding and use of 14 process skills, use of creative
thinking skills, development of more positive attitudes, better ability to apply and connect ideas and
skills to other situations, and developing a better
understanding of the nature and history of science.
Keywords: goals; science and technology; creating;
process skills; attitudes; philosophy; history of science

any define STS as new kinds of content (arising

from social problems) that should be taught directly to
students. These plans are offered for others to follow
rigidly as stand-alone materials (texts and kits) with little
or no encouragement for teaching differently. To succeed, STS requires that teachers act differently. Students
must be more central to the classroom, to the activities
planned, to data collection, to accumulating evidence to
support ideas designed to correct problems, and to
actions undertaken to resolve the problems identified.
Some of the ways teaching needs to change to illustrate STS include the following: (a) using student questions and curiosities to define classroom interactions
and inquiries; (b) using less time in planning precise
lessons and units of instruction; (c) utilizing experts,
community leaders, parents, and the Internet as sources

for problem identification and resolution; (d) carefully

determining instructional purposes and the kinds of evidence that would indicate success; (e) giving little or no
attention to typical content focused themes, major concepts, and chapter titles from textbooks; (f) carefully
analyzing the nine more emphasis recommendations
from the National Standards concerning teaching; and
(g) paying daily attention to the four goals for science
teaching as identified in the National Standards. The
four goals are assuring that students: experience the
richness and excitement of knowing about and understanding the natural world; use appropriate scientific
processes and principles in making personal decisions;
engage intelligently in public discourse and debate
about matters of scientific and technological concern;
and increase their economic productivity through the
use of the knowledge, understanding, and skills of the
scientifically literate person in their careers. (National
Research Council, 1996, p. 13)
Although few object to the needed visions for
changing teaching, too many continue to argue about
basic content to frame courses and to use in evaluating teaching successes. They want to plan courses
and lessons with no attention to what we know about
how people learn (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking,
2000). To STS enthusiasts in education such action
would dismiss STS to an add-on course or unit while
also abandoning most reforms regarding professional
development, assessment, broader views of content,
programs, and systems that are included in the
National Science Education Standards (NSES). In the
United States STS leaders were instrumental in making the standards reflect the reforms that will make
science and technology more central to school and
college programs and produce graduates who are
indeed scientifically and technologically literate.
There was unanimous agreement with the National
Science Education teaching standards, which call for

Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society Vol. 27, No. 5, October 2007, 386-390
DOI: 10.1177/0270467607305737
Copyright 2007 Sage Publications

Yager / CHANGES IN TEACHING

more emphasis on nine facets of teaching. The standards clearly negate what generally occurs in many
classrooms and laboratories both in schools as well as
colleges and universities. More emphasis is recommended in the following areas: (a) understanding and
responding to individual students interests, strengths,
experiences, and needs; (b) selecting and adapting
the curriculum; (c) focusing on student understanding
and use of scientific knowledge, ideas, and inquiry
processes; (d) guiding students in active and extended
scientific inquiries; (e) providing opportunities for
scientific discussions and debates among students;
(f) continuously assessing student understanding; (g)
sharing responsibility for learning with students; (h)
supporting a classroom community with cooperation,
shared responsibility, and respect; and (i) working
with other teachers to enhance the science program.
(National Research Council, 1996, p. 52)
Most science courses are devoid of any of the features which characterize real science. These features
include: (a) curiosity about the objects and events
encountered in the natural world, (b) offering possible
explanations for them, (c) collecting evidence to establish the validity of the personally advanced explanations, (d) communicating the explanations for which
evidence has been collected, and (e) responding to criticisms and counter-explanations from scientists. Most
science courses in K-12 schools no longer focus on
technology since the 1960 reforms which boldly proclaimed that science for schools should exemplify pure
science (what is known by scientists about the natural
world) and not the human-made world. Reform efforts
(like STS) now openly include the design-world and
furthermore see it to be a way of studying the natural
world in terms of better instrumentation as well as a
meaningful way of using processes. The techniques
characterizing technology are like those of science.
The major difference is that the answers to real questions about the natural world have no initial answers.
(Scientists start with the unknown!) In the case of technology, the persons involved know from the start what
answers they hope/plan to attain. Current efforts in
science educationespecially the STSgive equal
(or even primary) emphasis to the design world over
the natural world.
Questions are where science and technology both
begin. Too often it is assumed that all must know what
previous scientists have produced before they can experience real science. Students in schools spend 13 years
trying to learn what others report about the natural
world without formulating and/or dealing with their
own questions. Technologists manipulate nature to get

387

desired products. Hence, they learn more about the natural world so they can use the knowledge to produce
new designs to experience living.
Yager and McCormack (1989) have conceived of six
domains to be used to promote science and technology
learning and to establish the degree of success. These
six domains are: (a) concept: mastering basic content
constructs, (b) process: learning the skills scientists use
in sciencing, (c) creativity: improving in quantity and
quality of questions, possible explanations, and predicted consequences, (d) attitude: developing more
positive feelings concerning the usefulness of science,
science study, science teachers, and science careers, (e)
application and connections: using concepts and
processes in new situations, and (f) world view: helping
students to understand the processes used in gaining
better understanding of the natural world and how these
understandings have changed over time.
Typically science courses concentrate only on the
concept and process dimensions. This focus would be
called traditional teaching or a textbook approach. In
such an environment there would be little focus on
creativity and attitudes which are sometimes called
the enabling domains. Applications and connections
provide real evidence of learning. If students can
apply and use the concepts and skills on their own in
new contexts, this is real evidence of learning. The
world view domain includes philosophy, history, and
sociology of the human endeavors called science and
technology.
Iowa has been a leader in STS education with several national leaders and their students involved.
Several funded projects such as the Iowa Chautauqua
Program (Yager, Liu, & Blunck, 1993) and the Iowa
Scope, Sequence, and Coordination Project (Yager,
Liu, & Varrella, 1993) have focused on science research
illustrating the different successes of students in class
sections taught from an STS perspective compared with
those where a set curriculum and textbook dictated the
classroom activities. This article is a report of one of
these efforts.

The Experiment
Twelve middle school teachers in Iowa who had
been leaders in STS efforts agreed to be involved
with an experiment where each would teach a section
in a traditional mode and another as an STS effort.
All agreed to report data with both pretests and
posttests in the six assessment domains indicated earlier. The results attained over the course of two 9week grading periods are the outcomes of the study.

388

BULLETIN OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & SOCIETY / October 2007

The most important aspect studied was the type of

teacher and student questions that dominated the classrooms each day. Traditional classes resulted in practically no student questions; in contrast, STS classrooms
were characterized as being structured by student questions. Furthermore, student questions outnumbered
teacher questions. Student questions in the STS classrooms were higher leveled ones. STS and textbook
sections differed, too, in the nature of teacher questions.
In the textbook sections the questions all related to the
textbook or teacher lecture materials. In the STS section, questions focused on the following five types of
questions: (a) questions that ask students for information such as: What did you do? What happened? What
did you observe? (b) questions that ask students: What
you will do next? What will happen if you . . . ? What
could you do to prevent that? (c) questions that relate to
situations with others: How does that compare to . . . ?
What did other people find? (d) questions that seek
explanations: How would you explain that? What
caused it to happen? (e) questions that ask for advice
such as: What evidence do you have for that? What
leads you to believe that?
As part of the Iowa STS projects teachers were
asked to help structure more meaningful ways to
encourage learning from a variety of positions. Many
of these instruments have been collected and offered
as tools for other STS researchers. Instruments are
included and scoring guides are provided as well as
ways individual students can go beyond mastery for
teacher concept-driven quizzes and textbook suggestions that test only for memory of the ideas included
in textbooks.

Table 1. Percentages of Students Demonstrating Their

Abilities to Use 14 Process Skills

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Skill

STS

Traditional

Using space/
time relations
Observing
Classifying
Interpreting data
Inferring
Communicating
Controlling variables
Drawing conclusions
Predicting
Using numbers
Measuring
Comparing &
differentiating
Hypothesizing
Selecting best
experimental
procedures

51

12

84
87
88
74
88
63
82
71
89
91
84

30
26
31
19
38
21
24
19
40
33
31

63
52

18
24

Table 2. Percentages of Students Demonstrating Their

Abilities to Use Various Creative Thinking Skills

1
2
3
4
5

Skill

STS

Traditional

Devise unique tests

Offer unique explanations
Distinguish between
cause and effect
Formulate unique questions
Number of student
questions raised per
class period

94
87
75

6
13
25

83
67

17
33

The Experimental Results

Information was collected concerning student outcomes soon after the start of school when preassessment data were collected by the Iowa staff.
Assessment data were also collected for each 9-week
grading period as well as at semester-end and yearend (usually in May). Tables 1 through 5 provide the
results from students enrolled in 12 middle schools
(grades 6 through 9) and their 618 students.
Table 1 indicates drastic differences between the
students in terms of their understanding and use of
science/technology processes in the STS section compared with those in the traditional (textbook centered)
classrooms. In every instance with all 14 process skills
(taken from the National Science Foundationsuggested
ScienceA Process Approach), the students experiencing their science from STS perspective were superior in

terms of demonstrating the use of the skills used by scientists as they explore the natural world. They are also
much used by technologists as they design new structures for the betterment of mankind.
The differences reported in Table 1 illustrate striking differences in student abilities to use the skills on
their own in new contexts. Perhaps this result could
be expected because STS teaching demands that the
students actually use ideas, concepts, and skills in
new situations as a more valid indicator of learning.
Too often identifying a text or teacher given directions is assumed an adequate indication of learning.
In the case of ability to use the skills scientists use,
the STS students were 2 to 3 times more successful.
Table 2 focuses on five examples of creative thinking skills. Torrance (1963) indicates that the major
component of creativity is wondermentsomething

Yager / CHANGES IN TEACHING

Table 3. Percentages of Students Reporting More Positive
Attitudes Toward Classes and Science Teachers

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Attitude

STS

Traditional

Science is least favorite course

Science is favorite course
Information from science classes
is useful
Science teachers admit to not
knowing
Science teachers like my questions
Science teachers help me make
decisions
Science classes make me curious
Science classes are boring
Science classes are fun

6
22
81

19
11
69

74

22

88
63

48
31

71
14
81

24
31
40

Table 4. Percentages of Students in STS and Non-STS

Sections Indicating Their Abilities to Apply
Information and Skills

1
2
3
4
5

Ability

STS

Traditional

Use information learned in

new settings
Relate phenomena in new settings
Identify questions used for discussions
Choose information to solve problems
Choose appropriate actions based on
new information

81

25

66
83
91
89

18
17
26
35

Table 5. Percentages of Students Reporting on Various

Features of Nature and History of Science
Sample features of science

that captures curiosity. He suggests that the more

questions asked the closer instruction is to science
itself. He further suggests that the universe and complexity of the question is also determined by degrees
of curiosity and creativity. It is apparent again that the
STS students demonstrated more often and more fully
their mastery and use of the creativity skill levels.
The students in the traditional sections were almost
devoid of the ability to devise tests to see if the skills that
they were taught directly by following directions were
actually learned and practiced. They learned the skills
by replicating what they were told. The STS students,
on the other hand, used the creativity skills as part of
their daily work. Interestingly, few regular teachers even
use testing in the creativity domain as something central
for science learning. And yet, curiosity is what drives
science and the more creative in thinking the more successful the scientist is.
Table 3 focuses on differences in attitudes of students
in the STS section and those in traditional sections. In all
casesexcept for item 8 suggesting that science classes
are boringthe students in STS sections reported much
more positive attitudes. Of course, the boring item
mostly favors the students in the STS section who rarely
voiced that science was boring.
Interestingly, the National Assessment of Educational
Progress began teaching in the attitude domain in 1978
(NAEP, 1978). There have been many studies since then
that have been used to determine student attitudes.
Sadly, however, the more all students study science in
schools, the worse their attitudes are found to be. Some
have argued that if we want positive attitudes regarding
the nine items comprising the test, we should not allow
them to take science classes in schools. The results are
no better in college classes when nonscience majors are

389

Questioning, exploring and testing

Tentativeness of science constructs
Nature of science theories
Science changes over time
Creative and imaginative nature
of science
Social and cultural features
Average scores

STS

Traditional

46
65
40
44
80

19
12
24
16
8

20
66

12
22

enrolled. Some STS college efforts provide some information that attitudes do improve when STS strategies
are employed.
Table 4 focuses on student abilities to apply science
(information and process skills) to new situations. As in
the previous cases, students in the STS sections were far
more able to apply their learning in new situations.
Students in the traditional section could remember what
they were told and learnedbut were often at a loss
to apply the concepts or process skills to new situations
or in new contexts.
The application and connection domain may be the
most important one. What good is any science instruction if information and skills can be demonstrated
after direct instructioneven though they cannot be
used elsewhere. It is difficult to assess in this domain
with traditional instruments. When teachers devise such
tests, they do not differ much from concept-driven
ones. The simple solution in STS classes is to invite
all students to propose applications and connections
and to involve all class members in the discussion of
the validity of such efforts coming from the students
themselves.
Table 5 focuses on student understanding of the
philosophy and history of science. Once more in this
domain the students in STS sections were superior to

390

BULLETIN OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & SOCIETY / October 2007

those in the traditional sections taught by the same

teachers in terms of student understanding of the
nature and history of science. The superior understanding demonstrated by the STS students existed for
all six areas in the assessment set used to determine
student achievement in this domain.
More and more science education researchers are
focusing on the philosophy, history, and sociology of
science. Unfortunately, little is found in traditional
textbooks and few teachers have had any personal
experiences and/or instruction in these areas. There
are new efforts to get more teachers and their students
involved; however, this is difficult in terms of teacher
comfort and personal experiencesespecially teachers
new to STS. Again, most teachers are too close to their
content outlines, and the outlines do not usually reflect
or consider understandings in this domain. For the 12
teachers involved with the study there were some of the
greatest differences in this domain. The students in STS
sections excelled!

Discussion
It should be emphasized that the 12 teachers
involved in the study were not typical; furthermore,
they had been involved with staff development efforts
for at least 10 years. They were familiar with the
assessment strategies and had to assist students in the
traditional sections in special waysoften the assessment used and reported in this study.
Teachers new to STS teaching do not excel as did
these 12 experienced teachers. Learning pedagogy is
like learning science and technology; it does not occur
without effort and practice. The 12 teachers enjoyed
sharing their experiences with teaching and assessment and proved most effective in getting more new
teachers to try and to succeed. Education like science
itself needs to be a more collective effort.
It is hoped that the results reported will be used by
others in promoting more STS teachingperhaps
even with the direct teaching about STS that occurs
far too often in colleges.

Conclusions
Few differences were found between the basic
science concepts that were learned (perhaps recalled)
by students in the four sections. It is not possible with
standard testing to assert that STS classes result in
students who learn more basic concepts which provide the primary focus for most science classrooms K
through 12 (and college classes as well!).

STS does require different organization for courses

and the need for drastically different teaching
approaches. This study illustrates the differences in
student learning between STS and traditional classrooms where different forms of teaching are in use.
STS is superior in developing a better understanding
and use of the skills used by scientists as they seek
new understandings of the natural world. Furthermore,
it results in more creative skills and more positive
attitudeswhich are sometimes called the two enabling
domains.
STS is superior in terms of developing students
ablity to apply and to connect their learning to new
contexts (situations). STS teaching also results in
better student understanding of the philosophy,
history, and sociology of science.
More focus on teaching is needed by all STS
teachers. Too often the focus is only on information/
concepts to be given to studentsoften because of
major societal issues. This is to suggest that lecturing
to students and having them do verification-type
laboratories may be missing the major advantages
for STS teaching while also encouraging teachers to
use better indicators of learning that can define actual
achievement.

References
Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people
learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC:
National Research Council, National Academy Press.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1978, June). Three
national assessments of science: Changes in achievement, 196977 (Report No. 08-S-08). Denver, CO: Education Commission of
the States.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education
standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Torrance, E. P. (1963). Toward the more humane education of
gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 7, 135-145.
Yager, R. E., Liu, C., & Blunck, S. M. (1993). The Iowa Chautauqua
program annual assessment report 1992-93. Iowa City, IA:
University of Iowa, Science Education Center.
Yager, R. E., Liu, C., & Varrella, G. F. (1993). The Iowa scope,
sequence, and coordination (SS&C) project assessment report
1990-93. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa, Science Education
Center.
Yager, R. E. & McCormack, A. J. (1989) Assessing teaching/
learning successes in multiple domains of science and science
education. Science Education, 73, 45-58.

Robert E. Yager is professor of science education at the

University of Iowa. He has served as president of seven
national organizations, including the International Association
of Science, Technology & Society. He has authored more than
500 publications and advised 130 PhD researchers.