STS to Enhance Total Curriculum

STS to Enhance Total Curriculum

Robert E. Yager, Martha V. LutzThe University of IowaIowa City, Iowa

Many nonscientists hold incorrect views of science. These incorrect views of science are rooted in

fundamental problems with science education in schools. These problems are discussed in the context

oftheir causes, including a dysfunctionalworking definition ofscience. The Science/Technology/Society(STS) movement is described and illustrated as a potential means to correct these problems. Examplesderived from statewide efforts in Iowa are used as evidence that STS initiatives are paradigms forcurriculum and instructional reform.

Traditional Views Of Science

Most people perceive science as being segregatedinto the major disciplines: biology, chemistry, phys-ics, and earth science. Most people view science as thestudy of specific topics found in textbooks: livingthings, stars and planets, chemicals, the earth, mechan-ics, energy, etc. Most adults identify science as con-tent: the material studied in science classes. Theyreport that this science is not useful, nor particularlyvaluable, nor meaningful in their day-to-day pursuits.Adults remember their experiences with school sci-ence as unpleasant, partly because of the way scienceteachers advanced their objectives and intentions intheir courses and their instruction (Yager, 1985).

Many adults shun science, even if they liked it aschildren. More than halfofthe students in elementaryschools like science, but by the time students reachhigh school, the number of students who like sciencedecreases to only one-fourth (NAEP, 1978). Paradoxi-cally, the same adults who shun science feel thatexperiences with school science are valuable for theirown children to have. More than 85% of adults todayadvocate rigorous school science instruction for chil-dren, even though this is an inconsistent attitude.because they are unable to identify the value of theirown experiences in science.

This situation is intriguing. Perhaps the conun-drum grows out of the lack of a working definition ofscience; this is the opinion of some science educators.Most people never think beyond their own experiencewith studying science in school, and therefore scienceis defined in terms of content alone. The result is thatwhat is typically studied in schools represents only onedimension of science, and this one may also be arelatively unimportant dimension. Most people, ifchallenged to give a simple, concise definition ofscience, would emphasize content. For example,Campbell (1957) views science as a set of generaliza-

tions, agreed on by experts, concerning the naturalworld. Feynman defines science as basic understand-ings concerningtheuniverse and its contents (Feynman,1985). Such definitions imply a strictly circumscribedand formal structure, or information base, and also aclear-cut level of comprehension students should berequired to master. Such definitions limit learning byconcentrating on the acquisition oflists ofinformation.Such archives ofprescribed information are presumedto be prerequisite to real understanding.

At present, most teachers argue that they are aidingstudents in "understanding" science by reviewing theinformation found in standard textbooks. These text-books present content without personally relevant con-texts. and focus on the structure of the different disci-plines and on the generalizations currently accepted bythe professionals. Often these generalizations areabstract, and they are important and attractive only topracticing scientists.

It is rare for textbooks to attempt to considergeneralities that are useful to or important in the dailylives of real people. For example, the coefficient offriction is taught as a concept important in itself. Howmuch more memorable it would be to teach studentsthat the coefficient of friction is important as thephysical force that prevents cars from being flung offthe road when they curve onto a highway ramp to enteror exit the highway!

Traditionally, science has been taught as though allstudents could and should become practicing scien-tists. Teachers give special attention and praise tooutstanding students in the traditional school setting.This is probably appropriate for learners in college andgraduate school, but is it appropriate for grade school?Young children, ever sensitive to unfairness or per-ceived neglect, may interpret praise ofothers’ successas a statement about their own inadequacies.

Not all students in science classes end up beingscientists, but surely they all have a right to a good

School Science and Mathematics

Enhance Total Curriculum

science education! Those who are not naturally giftedin science may be discouraged when only those whoare gifted receive praise. Ron Clarice said it best: "Ifyoungsters are taught that losing is a disgrace, andthey’re not sure they can win, they will be reluctant toeven try. And not trying is the real disgrace" (Moore,1982). Students with natural talent deserve praise, butso equally do those who simply go at their studies withenthusiasm and creativity.

Students who choose professional science, medi-cine, or engineering careers represent less than 1 % ofthe total who graduate in a given high school class.Currently, this small minority of students often deter-mines the focus and course standards for the majority.Courses geared to the 1 % future science professionalsfail to serve the other 99% of students. This is onedirect consequence of the inappropriate views of sci-ence that underlie current science teaching and curricu-lum. What is needed is a working definition ofsciencethat promotes teaching and curriculum geared towardsproducing scientifically literate citizens: The rightfulobjective of science teaching should be science for all.

A Working Definition Of Science

Unfortunately, unidimensional definitions of sci-ence encourage teachers, curriculum developers, andthe general public to view science as only the masteryof certain concepts, specifically identified by contem-porary scientists. George Gaylor Simpson, a famousbiologist and paleontologist, has given a definition ofscience which is simple, easily comprehended, andmore comprehensive (Pittendrigh& Tiffany. 1957). Itis one which most scientists accept, and is also particu-larly attractive to science educators. Simpson’s defini-tion has three parts, suggesting the necessary ingredi-ents for any human enterprise to be called "science."Simpson’s definition is: "Science is an *exploration ofthe material universe in order to seek orderly *explana-tions (generalizable knowledge) of the objects andevents encountered: but these explanations must be*testable’9 (Simpson. 1963; Brandwein. 1983 [Aster-isks added to identify the three critical components ofSimpson’s definition.])

Simpson’s definition identifies the domain of sci-ence as exploration of the material universe. It identi-fies the major action to be one of explaining (under-standing). Developing an explanation is a personal act,a creative act, an act requiring skills which presumablycan be improved and sharpened. Explanations must betestable if they are to be called science. Simpsonrecognizes that there aremany acceptable explanations

for phenomena, ideas, and human perceptions; manyobjects and events have explanations that would beappropriate for the fine arts, humanities, religion, orphilosophy. However, if it is not possible to devise atest for the explanation, one cannot call the activityscience.

For example, people who explore the countrysidemay be familiar with the phenomenon of periodicalcicadas: large insects that emerge in outlandish num-bers once every 17 years (13 years in Southern areas).Theground will literally be dark with the insects duringan emergence, and the air will ring with the stridentmating call of the males. Within a few weeks theinsects have mated, laid their eggs. and died, and willnot be seen above ground again for another 17 years.

A questing mind may ask the obvious: How dothey count 17 years? To answer that they count thenumberofwinters (or summers) is inadequate, becausealthough the statement may be superficially accurate,it lacks an explanatory mechanism. To say that cicadashave a series of identical genes, which get turned onand then turned off again in sequence until 17 replica-tions have been used, is an interesting and eruditesounding explanation, but it is not testable. We simplydo not have techniques (yet) to devise a test that will tellus whether or not a particular gene is involved in"counting" seasons, thereby allowing an insect to timeits growth and development to end exactly 17 yearsafter it begins. Because the explanation is not testable,it is speculation, not science.

The example above illustrates the three pivotalcomponents ofSimpson’s definition ofscience: explo-ration, explanation, and testing. Simpson’s view ofscience enables us to identify more dimensions ofscience, to perceive more ofthe total human enterprise,to considermore basic ingredients than normally foundin the study of science in schools and colleges. Itprovides a richer context to consider science and itsplace among the various facets of the total curriculumfor all learners.

Many problems exist in school with respect tomeeting instructional goals. Many of these problemscould be reduced or resolved ifSimpson’s definition ofscience were adopted to provide the framework forbuilding curriculum and setting academic goals.Simpson’s definition provides guidelines to allowmoreof the essential ingredients of science to be practicedand incorporated into the fabric of the curriculum andthe teaching strategies employed: exploration, expla-nation. and testing should be generated by the learner,rather than prescribed by textbooks.

This is illustrated by a story from the East Union

Volume 95(1), January 1995


School in south central Iowa. Following the floods of1993, and the contamination of water in Des Moines,students began to wonder about the quality of water intheir own homes. Students brought in water samplesfrom a variety of sources, including lakes, ponds, tapwater, and water from their toilets. A Biology instruc-tor from the Southwestern Community College broughtpetri dishes and demonstrated their use. The studentsproceeded to test their water samples for a specific typeofbacteria: E.coli. Through this activity, the studentslearned about the abundance ofbacteria in the environ-ment, and realized the importance of having drinkingwater tested and treated (Lutz, 1994).

The Problems in School Science

The ubiquitous problems in school science can besummarized as follows:

1. Textbook Orientation. More than 90% of allscience teachers use a textbook in excess of90% ofthetime. The text is the source of information to belearned, and is the source for questions asked by theteacher as well as questions to be used on quizzes andexaminations. The text is also the source of ideas andinstructions for activities. Although the activities maybe "hands-on," they lack creative input from students(or the teacher).

2. Prerequisites. Most information included inscience courses is justified because its acquisition isconsidered necessary before the student enrolls in thenext science course. This may often be untrue, becauseteachers tend to include in their own courses a surveyof all the prerequisite knowledge they expect of stu-dents for that course at that grade level.

3. Lack Of Personal Relevance. The scienceinformation presented in schools appears to have littleimpact on the daily lives of students. Applications ofconcepts to students and/or society in general areomitted. It is assumed that impact and application willoccur naturally, or that other teachers in other curricu-lum areas will tend to this need.

4. Teacher Omnipotence. Teachers view them-selves as authoritative sources of the information stu-dents must leam. Teachers rarely admit to not know-ing: They thereby restrict students’ interest and atten-tion to a rigid course outline.

5. Knowledge Versus Comprehension And Appli-cation. Evaluation is based on mastering vocabularyand recalling information from textbooks and lectures,rather than on an assessment ofwhetherornot studentscomprehend and can apply the knowledge they seem tohave gained.

6. Restricted Vision. Science is restricted to whatoccurs in the classroom. It is rare for science classes toutilize any resources beyond the textbook, teacher, andscience room.

Resolution Via STS

To resolve these problems, educators are movingtowards new ways to structure school science. Tradi-tional structures have reflected misconceptions aboutwhat the nature of science really is. There is a per-ceived need for something radically different from theconceptual schemes (discipline structures) used bypracticing scientists. Scientists have their own mentalschema to provide meaning and organization for theirwork, but these schema are not necessarily the mostappropriate ones to use when teaching science inschool. Different organizers are needed in schools.Simpson*s definition ofscience contains some implicitsuggestions for structuring science education: Neworganizers should be issue-based, if they are to beconsistent with Simpson’s definition.

Perhaps the most visible of the new issue-basedapproaches to school science is the so-called Science/Technology/Society (STS)movement. TheSTS move-ment is an international one, with major efforts in theU.S. appearing only recently. Rustum Roy, the direc-tor of the NSF-supported Science through STS (S-STS) project, has called STS today’s megatrend inscience education.

STS is the teaching and learning of science in thecontext of human experience, including the techno-logical applications of science. Central to the STSapproach is a focus upon individual learners. Studentsare often involved in determining and developingdirections for study. The STS approach necessitatesproblem identification by individual students and indi-vidual classes. Such problem identification intrinsi-cally includes a multidisciplinary view. There are fewproblems that are related only to science, and likewisefew problems that are restricted to only one sciencediscipline. For most people, problems exist in a totalcontext.

Everyone is a part of society. Context, for mostpeople, is inseparable from society. Society (socialstructure) for younger students is defined by home,community, school, and classroom. Olderstudents canconceptualize a global society. Society for students istherefore partially defined by their age and grade level.Science teaching via an STS strategy begins with asocietal context and includes a consideration of tech-nology.



Stumbling Blocks To Implementing STSScience teachers may find the consideration of

technology to be a problem since most of their formalpreparation was devoid of any work in technology.Technology is exemplified by applied fields as diverseas medicine, homemaking, industrial arts, engineer-ing, agriculture, and forestry. Science teachers, bycontrast, are usually prepared in the pure sciences.Grade school courses are usually structured exactlylike the college courses experienced by science teach-ers in their science training, and both are dictated bytextbooks. An examination ofthe tables ofcontents ofbeginning texts in biology, chemistry, physics, orearthscience reveals that there are few significant differ-ences between grade school and college texts.

Science teachers find it difficult to start with soci-ety and move to technology. Their own experiences inscience dictate both their view of science and methodofteaching science. This usually does not include anyexploration, certainly not for the sheer enjoyment of it.Their teaching usually does not include practice withformulating new explanations in a creative manner,nor does it include any opportunities to devise andcarry out experiments to test these explanations. Thus,the typical grade school and college experiences inscience do not include true examples of the threeingredients ofbasic science as envisioned and definedby Simpson: exploration, explanation, and testing.

Even hands-on activities are generally set up to putstudents through a series of technical manipulations.Students are rarely given a chance to discuss the theorybeing tested. They may not have the opportunity toverbalize the basic principle for themselves, or toelaborate other predictions from the theory: Oneprediction is selected for them, and one experiment isdesigned for them. They are only asked to work quietlyand neatly, and to complete the selected set ofmanipu-lations in the allotted amount of time. Sometimesexperiments that do not "work" are used, with theteacher offering the glib assurance that "the resultswere supposed to be ..." Such futile exercises areapparently kept in the curriculum for the same reasonthat farmers in Nepal plow their fields with smallwooden paddles: tradition. These characteristics ofscience classes are contradictory to the goal ofinclud-ing exploration and explanation in science teachingand learning; the biggest stumbling block to imple-menting STS is defunct tradition.

STS Is Active and Appropriate, Using Issues as Orga-nizers

Focusing first on questions and issues is a felici-

tous approach for teaching. This approach is basic toinformational reports in newspapers, magazines, andtelevision: Information is recognized to be relevantbecause it is in the context ofan issue. Issues comprisethe major treatment for popular science publicationssuch as Discover, Omni, and WorldWatch. People arefascinated with the unknown; they relish genuine prob-lems, and may be captivated by complex issues. Ac-tions such as decision making, probing, debate, andconflict may not have an obvious relationship to sci-ence, until one considers that more than 90% of allsocietal issues today are grounded in science andtechnology and require the actions listed above! Theseactions are learned skills; practicing them in school isappropriate learning.

Using societal issues as organizers for school sci-ence provides several advantages over the textbook-oriented organization most teachers recognize andwhich many teachers prefer.

First of all, the use of issues provides a readyvehicle for utilizing the more complete definition ofscience as advanced by Simpson. The issue, question,or phenomena becomes the point of departure andprovides the reason for exploration. Issues by theirvery definition arc motivating, thought-provoking calls-to-action. There is a reason for offering explanations.There is an opportunity for human interaction, includ-ing discussions of the relative validity of differentexplanations that the teacher and students can offer.These discussions should lead to devising tests forevaluating the different explanations created by thestudents.

Secondly, starting with an issue provides a ratio-nale for the search for information. Instead ofstudentsbeing told they need to have information (a typicalclassroom approach), they devise tests for their expla-nations and therefore recognize aneed forinformation.The students seek information, apply it, and evaluatetheir final formulation. Suddenly the problems mostscience teachers encounter in terms of motivation aresolved! This is amply illustrated in another STS storyfrom Iowa.

A ninth grade chemistry class in Council Bluffswas being distracted by the particularly violent rain-storm going on outside the window. The students andthe teacher gathered at the back of the room andwatched the storm. One ofthe students asked about theacid content in rain. Taking advantage ofthe students’natural curiosity (a fine example of "the teachablemoment"), the teacher used this question to launch anSTS investigation about acid rain.

One student collected a sample of rainwater to


Enhance Total Curriculwn

begin the activities. The students generated a list ofpotential directions for study, including:

� How acidic is our rain?� Do the industries in Omaha add pollutants to our

rain?� Does the rain have more acid at the start of the

storm or at the end?� What is pH and how do we measure it?� Will acid rain hurt people? ... Plant life?� Is rain in puddles on the ground the same pH as

rain falling from the sky?

The class embarked on a flurry of activities, cen-tered on research, surveys, readings from current lit-erature, and lab activities. The students decided to testwater from other areas, and wrote letters to otherschools asking them to send rainwater samples. Soonall kinds of resource people were involved: a speakerfrom the department of Game and Fish, a local wastemanagement specialist, experts in Washington, D.C.,contacted by telephone. (Atonepoint in their research,the students told the teacher: "Go sit in a comer anddon’t bother us ... we need time to go through ourreading material and make sense of some tough ques-tions!")

The students prepared pamphlets, synthesizing theresults of their research. These pamphlets were de-signed to help family members, neighbors, city gov-ernment people, and classmates understand acid rain.The five best pamphlets were reproduced and distrib-uted at a city council meeting. As their final activity,the students wrote letters of thanks to all the speakers,resource people, and schools that had sent watersamples. The students learned science, and relatedwhat they learned to both societal issues and to theirown lives. They were also able to have an impact ontheir community (Lutz, 1994).

Last but not least, the STS approach, using issuesas organizers for school science, resolves the majorproblems of science education as elaborated previ-ously.

� The textbook is relieved of the responsibility ofdefining the course. Instead, it is relegated towhat it should be: a source of information, auseful reference.

� Information included in science courses isjustified by use, and application of learnedinformation is the focus of the lesson, instead ofbeing presented as an afterthought.Because they actually apply their knowledge in

real situations, the students find science classesrelevant to their daily lives.

� The teacher’s role is that of a facilitator, ratherthan an omnipotent dispenser of truths.

� Student success can be measured in terms ofperformance, including application and synthe-sis, as opposed to straight recall.

� Science becomes something that is foundeverywhere, not just in textbooks and scienceclasses, and many new resources are tapped.

The STS approach calls upon community mem-bers to support school efforts. Teacher inservice be-comes much more important. Teachers are quick torealize that they must continue to grow, and that thebest teachers are also involved learners. As the stu-dents are motivated to leam, teachers are motivated tobecome much more involved with each other, withstudents, with school officials, with community lead-ers. and with persons across the nation and the world.

Addressing MisconceptionsCognitive psychologists (Champagne & Klopfer,

1984) are united in their observations that high schoolgraduates (including college students) havenaive theo-ries (misconceptions) about the real world. Studentsseem to retain these views even when they "success-fully" complete advanced courses that encompass sci-entific concepts and theories. Cognitive researchersconclude that the science learned in school is notinternalized; knowledge is not really learned. The beststudents may perform well on tests and advance to thenext academic level, but the science explanations theyinternalize and believe are idiosyncratic interpreta-tions of the real world based upon their own experi-ences. There is often a discrepancy between schoolscience and real world science. The real world experi-ence wins out virtually every time over the science oftextbooks, classrooms, laboratories, and school gener-ally (Dupin & Dupin, 1986; Gauld, 1989).

There is every reason to believe that similar dis-crepancies exist between school experiences and stu-dents* personal experiences regarding all other facetsof typical school programs. STS can benefit theseother areas, as well as science classes.

STS is designed to elicit misconceptions, and by itsvery nature demands that these misconceptions beaddressed. Addressing misconceptions is at the heartof true teaching and learning. For example, a youngstudent who perceives mass as "a lot ofsomething" andweight as "how heavy something is" will have diffi-culty understanding why things weigh less on the



moonthan they do onEarth. Addressing these miscon-ceptions will open the way for the student to under-stand additional concepts, such as density, accelera-tion, and potential energy.

Coordination OfThe Total CurriculumTheSTS approach provides other advantages. The

ability ofSTS to allow students to experience real andmore complete science resolves the basic problemsobserved by science educators. Even more importantis the potential for STS to provide a major vehicle fortying the whole school program together. Using actualcommunity, regional, and global problems providesobvious ties to all aspects ofthe school program. It canprovide a means forthe school to become a microcosmofsociety. Students can practice directly the skills theywill need for living in the adult world.

Using current issues as organizers for instruction i sjudicious in nonscience curriculum areas. Nonethe-less, it is not typical. Social studies teachers and theirtraditional courses of study are too often tied to disci-pline areas such as world history. American history,American government, sociology, economics, geogra-phy, and psychology. Ties to current world problemsor to science (as commonly approached in schools) areless common. Social studies teachers may fear dealingwith current issues, perhaps because of ties to scienceand technology. Traditionally, social studies teachersfeel threatened by these fields.

Language arts teachers experience some of thesame problems. They can deal with the mechanics ofreading, writing, and speaking. They can teach jour-nalism. drama, speech, debate, and literature. It is easyto focus upon facts and mechanics. However, thesetechnicalities ofwriting are not perceived as relevant tothe students’ lives; the mechanics oflanguage arts haveno apparent value for daily life.

Teaching mathematics can be a problem becausemath is taught as an array ofspecialized skills for whichapplications in daily life are not readily apparent. AnSTS approach can focus learning ofmathematics skillsupon use in a real world context. A story from an STSclassroom in Council Bluffs, Iowa, illustrates whathappened when a teacher in a classroom of 25-30students with varied science backgrounds asked stu-dents if they would like to try to relate their mathexperiences to their science experiences, and both toreal life experiences. Their reaction was "YES."

There were limited financial resources, and it wasimpossible for the whole class to take field trips. Theclass began by brainstorming ways that ratio andproportion could be used in science. They came up

with the following list of ideas:

� How can a forest ranger predict how many treeswill live if a certain number are planted?

� How can a conservation officer predict howmany fish there are of each type in a lake?

� How are ratios used in gears and how does itaffect speeds?

� How do scientists know the real size of some-thing under a microscope?

� What effect does exercise have on the amount ofblood pumped through the body?

The students tried some simple activities in class tosimulate science situations that used ratio and propor-tion. They took turns counting how many breaths theytook in three minutes. Then they calculated how manybreaths they would take in five minutes. They countedhow many breaths they actually took in five minutes,and compared the prediction to the actual count.

In another activity, the students went out to awooded area near the school and measured how longand wide the area was. They then measured a smallportion of the total area, and counted the number of acertain type of tree found in that area. They estimatedthe total number of trees of the chosen type that theywould expect to find in the entire area. using ratios andproportions (Lutz, 1994). (Note: This is a commonsampling technique actually used by many scientists!)

Dewey (1938) often spoke of the value of a rel-evant curriculum. Real learning must come fromactual involvement. The arbitrary division of thecurriculum and the school day into subjects and coursesmay be detrimental to real learning. We may bemissing vital opportunities to involve students directlyin real learning, and we may be missing the chance ofoffering a program that is preparatory for students whowill live and operate in a real world, not an artificialworld of textbooks and lectures.

Instead ofisolating students in places called schoolsand forcing them to learn information from books andteachers (an interaction that seems unrelated to thestudents’ real world) perhaps a focus on the real worldoutside the classroom iscalledfor. Focusing oncurrentissues and problems in the world today can provide themissing ingredient that is necessary for real learning tooccur.

There are economic, psychological, governmen-tal, and sociological aspects to issue oriented investi-gation. providing the social science focus. The needfor communication (letter writing, public forums, de-bate, and journalism) is great. The art department can



be intimately involved, and there are certainly directties to foreign language. Mathematics is needed in avariety of ways. Always, the emphasis is on need.Information and skills are not taughtjust because theyexist and somehow "ought" to be taught: They arerelated to real issues.

What Issues?There is no need to fear a lack of issues. It is far

more likely that there will be greaternumbers ofissues,and greaternumbers ofcomplicated issues, than can bedealt with. There are problems of energy depletion.population explosion, food storage, toxic wastes.nuclear proliferation, nutrition, disease, warfare, com-munication, transportation, agricultural production,synthetics, computerization, space exploration ... abreathless plethora of issues! It is difficult to pinpointany newsworthy current event which is not a science ortechnology-related issue. All such issues are potentialcandidates for STS investigations.

Some examples of STS topics, identified by theNational Science Teachers Association, are: smoking,plastic wastes, ozone depletion, ground watercontami-nation, exploring space, wildlife extinction, auto safety,and dependence on fossil fuels. Some schools involvestudents and teachers in selecting an annual STS issue.For example, schools in Chariton, Iowa, have for twoyears chosen space technology as their all-school is-sue. Every department gets involved with an aspect ofthe problem. Many innovations in space explorationare rooted in basic physical science.

Many STS projects are initiated by a common oreven a comical situation. Examples have included aclogged toilet, a dripping faucet, a disaster caused bysevere weather, an accident, and a news event (thePersian GulfWar). It is amazing to see the connectionsstudents can make to basic science, and to the basiccontent of a variety of school disciplines. By contrast,when content is introduced by the teacher, textbook, ormandated curriculum, it is rare for students (or teacher)to see or to identify any connections to their daily lives.Issues could be selected specifically to provide for thedevelopment and practice of mathematics skills.

Issues could serve as points ofdeparture for socialstudies. And why should not current problems andissues be used to practice good communication, todevelop better writing, reading, and speaking skills? Itwould seem that an STS focus in a school would haveadvantages for all students, particularly as they leam toview school as preparation for living. Further, mostcurriculum areas could meet their objectives moreeasily, since students would be motivated to leam by

seeing a need to know. Teachers would not have toglibly insist that their students "need to know," whilefinding it difficult to justify their insistence and ratio-nalize the need.

Effective STS programs have greater impact onteachers and learners than did science programs alone.The focus upon community and world problems gen-erates a context with which all can identify. Thecommunity, rather than the classroom, becomes thelaboratory. The vision ofthe school as a microcosm ofsociety is substantiated when STS teaching strategiesare pursued as means to enhance total school curricu-lum.

The Iowa Paradigm

The "flight" of Traveler I in Chariton. Iowa, isevidence that an STS investigation can snowball intoan all-school project that involves increased communi-cation between teachers, students, administrators, com-munity resource people, and government officials.Students in an eighth grade science class were discuss-ing Newton’s Laws of Motion. One student asked:"Why can*t we build a shuttle and simulate launch andlanding? Why can’t we simulate the problems realastronauts might encounter in space?" The answerwasthey could, and did!

The project was called Traveler I. More than 100Sth-grade students, and almost as many communityresource people, participated. The students formedcommittees to do research, collect information, andplan for the needs of the space shuttle project. Duringthe construction phase of the project, students filled alarge notebook with drawings and with lists ofmateri-als needed to accomplish the mission. The industrialtechnology instructor was a major resource person forconstruction. He observed that the students were alldisciplined and worked very hard toward their com-mon goal.

Eight student astronauts were selected on the basisof written essays. Specific essay criteria were deter-mined by the entire 8th grade. All decisions weremadeby the students. The shuttle was launched with greatceremony: The mayor presided, the national anthemwas played, and the crew with their flight plans werepresented to a gymnasium full of students and adults.The "flight" of Traveler I lasted 42 hours, 4 minutes,and 38 seconds. It simulated a journey of 706,500miles and completed 27 orbits around planet Earth.

During the flight crew members monitored theirtemperature and blood pressure. They kept journals,plotted and calculated the position of the spacecraft



above the Earth, and sent and received coded mes-sages. They also performed a wide variety of scienceexperiments. Using a ham radio, crew members com-municated with otherradio operators inJamaica, Spain,Alaska, Italy, Australia and many other places duringtheir flight. Iowa’s Governor, Terry Branstad, tele-phoned the crew to wish them the best of luck. Hepraised them for their hard work.

It was a memorable moment when Traveler I"landed" and the astronauts stepped out. A cheeringmass of students and adults awaited them. To thequestion "Why can’t we do this?" the students ofChariton had answered with a resounding "We CAN!"(Lutz, 1994). The all-school STS project started in ascience class, but ultimately the students had to prac-tice writing and mathematics skills, leam about geog-raphy, make use ofart skills in a real-world setting, anddo it all in the context of a cooperative community.This provides a paradigm forhow STS can enhance thetotal curriculum.

Achieving STS Reform

STS has been introduced as an organizer for cur-ricula in some states. Statewide inservicehas providedan STS focus in Arizona, New York. Iowa, NewJersey, and Wisconsin. Science and social studiestextbooks are starting to introduce STS themes, al-though STS should not be thought of as contributingprimarily to new topics in textbooks or new unitsprepared by teachers. The biggest stumbling block toachieving STS reform will be the inertial weight oftradition. Abandoning textbook-driven curriculumwill be scary, and embracing an unfamiliar method ofteaching will be even more scary. Letting go of thefamiliar is bound to be uncomfortable; curriculumareas are needed; no one department can do it alone.Who better to provide the motivation and the leader-ship than the administrators? An administratormay bein the best position to bring the teachers from alldisciplines together, to work in common on currentissues. School work will have greater relevance for allinvolved, as teachers and students work together ononeormoreproblems. Cooperative efforts cannothelpbut serve as a better model for future citizens who mustwork together to resolve problems and to advance ourcommon culture.

The richness of STS comes from contributions ofthe individual students, their creative ideas, and thecentral role they play in planning and carrying out theSTS investigations. The power ofSTS comes from itsclose approximation ofhow real people deal with real

issues in the real world. The potential of STS is that itcan help educators reconstruct the school program.creating better learners and better future citizens.

References

Brandwein, P. F. (1983). Notes toward a renewal inthe teaching of science. Chicago, EL: CoronadoPublishers, Inc.

Campbell, N. R. (1957). Foundations of science.New York, NY: Dover Publications.

Champagne. A. B..&Klopfer,L.E. (1984). Re-search in science education: The cognitivepsychology perspective. In D. Holdzkom & P.B. Lutz, (Eds.), Research within reach: Scienceeducation (pp. 171-189). Charleston, WV:Research and Development InterpretationService, Appalachia Educational Laboratory.

Dewey,J. (1938). Experience and education. NewYork: Macmillan Publishing.

Dupin, S. J.. & Dupin, J-J. (1986). Isthesystem-atization of hypothetico-deductive reasoningpossible in a class situation? European Journalof Science Education (4). 381-388.

Feynman.R.P. (1985). Surely you’re joking, Mr.Feynman. New York, NY: Bantam Books.

Gauld, C. (1989). A study of pupil’s responses toempirical evidence. In R. Miller (Ed.), Doingscience (pp. 62-82). Philadelphia, PA: TheFalmer Press, Taylor & Francis Inc.

Leyden, M. B. (1984). You graduate more crimi-nals than scientists. The Science Teacher,27-30.

Lutz.M.V. (Ed.). (1994). Stories from IowaSS&C. Iowa City, IA: The University of Iowa,Science Education Center.

Moore, K. (1982). Best efforts. Tallahassee. FL:Cedarwinds Publishing Co.

National Assessment of Educational Progress.(1978). The third assessment of science, 1976-77. Denver, CO: Author.

Pittendrigh. C. S.. & Tiffany. L. H. (1957). Life:An introduction to biology. New York, NY:Harcourt-Brace Jovanovich.

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

Yager. R.E. (1985). The attitudes of the publictoward science and science education. ScienceTeachers Journal (2). 8-13.

Note: Robert E. Yager and Martha V. Lutz’s address isScienceEducation Center, TheUniversity ofIowa, 769 VanAlien Hall. Iowa City. IA 52242-1478.


Documents

STS to Enhance Total Curriculum