Comparison of Student Learning Outcomes in Middle School Science Classes with an STS Approach and a Typical Textbook Dominated Approach

RMLE Online

Volumn 31, Issue 7, 2008, Pages 1-16

  Yager, Robert E ^a   Akcay, Hakan ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^b MARMARA UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84949791962     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19404476     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/19404476.2008.11462050     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Aikenhead, G. S., (1980). Science in social issues: Implications for teaching. Ottawa, Canada: Science Council of Canada.
2. Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G., (1999). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
3. Burry-Stock, J. A., (1995). Expert Science Teacher Educational Evaluation Model (ESTEEM) instruments (1st ed.). Kalamazoo, MI: Center for Research on Education Accountability and Teacher Evaluation (CREATE).
4. Bybee, R. W., (1985). Science Technology Society. Washington, DC: Yearbook of the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA).
5. Harms, N. C., (1977). Project Synthesis: An interpretive consolidation of research identifying needs in natural science education. [A proposal prepared for the National Science Foundation]. Boulder: University of Colorado.
6. Hofstein, A., & Yager, R. E., (1982). Societal issues as organizers for science education in the 80s. School Science and Mathematics, 82(7), 539–547.
7. Hueftle, S. J., Rakow, S. J., & Welch, W. W., (1983). Images of science: a summary of results from the 1981–82 national assessment in science. Minneapolis: Minnesota Research and Evaluation Center, University of Minnesota.
8. Hurd, P. D., (1978). The golden age of biological education 1960–1975. In W. V., Mayer, (Ed.), BSCS Biology Teacher’s Handbook (pp. 28–96). New York: Wiley.
9. Hurd, P. D., (1986). A rationale for a science, technology, and society theme in science education. In R., Bybee (Ed.), Science technology society (pp. 94–104). Washington, DC: National Science Teacher Association.
10. Kellerman, L. R., & Liu, C. T., (1996). Enhancing student and teacher understanding of the nature of science via STS. In R. E., Yager (Ed.), Science/Technology/Society as reform in science education (pp. 139–148). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
11. Kromhout, R., & Good, R., (1983). Beware of societal issues as organizers for science education. School Science and Mathematics, 83(3), 647–650.
12. McCormack, A. J., & Yager, R. E., (1989). Assessing teaching/learning successes in multiple domains of science and science education. Science Education, 73(1), 45–48.
13. National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1977). The third assessment of science. Denver, CO: Author.
14. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
15. National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). (2006). NSTA handbook. Arlington, VA; Author.
16. No Child Left Behind Act. (2001). One Hundred Seventh Congress of the United States of America at the first session, Washington, D. C.
17. Penick, J. E., & Meinhard-Pellens, R., (Eds.). (1984). Science/technology/society. Focus on Excellence, 1(5), Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
18. Roy, R., (1985). The Science/Technology/Society connection. Curriculum Review, 24(3), 13–16.
19. Solomon, J., & Aikenhead, G., (1994). STS education: International perspectives on reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
20. Starnes, B. A., & Paris, C., (2000). Choosing to learn. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(5), 392–397.
21. Torrance, E. P., (1963). Toward the more humane education of gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 7(4), 135–145.
22. 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. 59–69). Albany, NY; State University of New York Press.
23. Wormeli, R., (2001). Meet me in the middle: Becoming an accomplished middle-level teacher. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
24. Wormeli, R., (2003). Day one and beyond: Practical matters for new middle-level teachers. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
25. Yager, R. E., (1991). The Constructivist Learning Model: Towards real reform in science education. The Science Teacher, 58(6), 52–57.
26. Yager, R. E., (1992). Science-technology-society as reform. In R. E., Yager (Ed.), ICASE Yearbook—The status of science-technology-society reform efforts around the world. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.
27. Yager, R. E., (Ed.). (1993). What research says to the science teacher: The science, technology, society movement. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
28. Yager, R. E., (Ed.). (1996). Science/technology/society as reform in science education. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
29. Yager, R. E., (2000). The history and future of science education reform. The Clearing House, 74(1), 51–54.
30. Yager, R. E., (2004). Social issues as contexts for science and technology education. In S., Totten & J., Pedersen (Eds.), Addressing social issues across and beyond the curriculum: The personal and pedagogical efforts of professors of education (pp. 1–5). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
31. Yager, R. E., (2006). Exemplary science in grades 5–8 standards-based success stories. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.
32. Yager, R. E., & Tamir, P., (1995). The science/technology/society (STS) curriculum viewed through a state model. Journal of Technology Studies, 21(1), 33–47.
33. Yager, R. E., & Weld, J. D., (1999). Scope, sequence and coordination: The Iowa project, a national reform effort in the USA. International Journal of Science Education, 21(2), 169–194.
34. Zacharias, J., (1956). Physical Science Study Committee (PSSC). Cambridge, MA: MIT Institute.