EXAMINATION OF THE SCIENCE-TECHNOLOGY-SOCIETY APPROACH TO THE CURRICULUM
Kenneth P. King, Northern Illinois University
John Dewey, in 1900 wrote of "liberating the student from narrow utilities." The science-technology-society (STS) movement represents an attempt to accomplish that goal through an interdisciplinary approach to those three content areas.
STS, conceptually, fits into several discrete categories. Instructionally, though, the iterative nature of an STS curriculum would preclude such a linear approach to the content, it is instructive to investigate the dimensions of this approach in this manner. that it will prove instructive nonetheless. In fact, the topics derived lend themselves to a natural flow from a discussion of what constitutes STS, the rationale behind STS, research in the field, a study of the curriculum, the pedagogy associated with STS, and some discussion in terms of how to best assess student performance in the STS curriculum.
The STS movement can trace its beginnings to efforts in several European countries as well as some earlier domestic attempts to institute an STS-like curriculum, as in the University of Iowa Laboratory School during the early 1960s (Yager, 1990). According to Yager, the effort in the United States was finally given an added emphasis in the early 1980s in addressing the concern for science education and striving for academic excellence. The concept at issue was to create a science program that would involve all students--not just the one or two percent who would study science in college.
The value of STS as an interdisciplinary and multiculturally significant approach to the curriculum was made apparent in a volume edited by Solomon and Aikenhead (1994). STS would seem to have much to recommend itself in terms of meeting the science education needs of African-American youth (Jegende, 1994; Solomon, 1994), women (Rose, 1994), and other marginalized ethnic groups (Rampal, 1994).
The idea behind the STS program is to provide a real-world connection for the student between the classroom and society. The process should give the student practice in identifying potential problems, collecting data with regard to the problem, considering alternative solutions, and considering the consequences based on a particular decisions. (Yager, 1990).
One way (Aikenhead, 1992) of conceptualizing the program is to consider the following diagram:
In the figure, technology represents the interface between science and society. Decisions made by society typically require the use of technology to implement them. Too, society and science use technology as a means of securing information. The pivotal role served by technology can serve as a means of action and of investigation in the STS curriculum. The figure also implies the nature of science as a field within all of society.
STS views school science in a much broader sense than does the typical discipline-centered, textbook-driven science course. In Zoller (1992), this idea is made more explicit. He described the need for all students to be informed as to the content and process of science, but with the understanding that science and society impact each other.
The literate STS student becomes expert at problem solving--not the solving of exercises, but the more fundamentally important area of developing hypotheses, asking questions, testing the hypotheses, and drawing conclusions based on their interpretation of the results. In essence, STS fosters critical thinking skills.
Finding results similar to those of Zoller, but stating them more succinctly, Brunkhorst and Yager (1990), examine exemplary STS programs, and find that most have the following characteristics:
The value of the STS approach would appear now to be a given. Because of the value implicit in this approach to the curriculum it is essential that it be implemented with a degree of caution, lest it be considered "this week's fad" by a cynical cadre of teachers (Bragaw, 1992).
Rutherford (1988) shared this concern. While some individuals may consider STS to be the latest trend in education, he argued forcefully that it has a great degree of staying power. In favor of the STS approach is its hands-on perspective, its interdisciplinary approach to the content, and its ability to genuinely involve students. In a larger sense, however, he suggest that as the volume of information in society continues its increase and the need for citizens who are conversant in science, technology, and their relation to society also becomes more profound, the need for STS will help it to be accepted.
One of the consistent themes that arose was the desire to understand the place of STS in the overall curriculum. That STS could be integrated into the regular curriculum is the view of Aikenhead (1992). His model, described as part of Figure 1 (above) is developed so that technology--in terms of techniques and products--provides the interface between science concepts and skills and the rest of society. He stated:
STS science, traditional content is not watered down, but is imbedded in a social-technological context. The choice of the context is made on the basis of the meaningfulness to the students and the science content generated by the context--on a need to know basis--required by a particular part of the curriculum (p. 28).
Thus, in the STS framework, the object of study generates the particular parts of science to be studied. The area needed then is developed within a realistic context, which is consistent with the findings of many educators, especially by Rutherford and Ahlgren (1990) in Science For All Americans.
Yager and Penick (1991) also address the context issue. Teachers throughout the state of Iowa found, as revealed in interviews, that the learning of science content within a realistic, student-derived context had a number of advantages. Chief among these were the genuine interdisciplinary nature of the program and the increased interest on the part of both students and teachers.
Another related study of Iowa teachers (Yager, Mackinnu, and Blunk, 1992) determined that students did indeed demonstrate a growth in process skills, applications of science processes and concepts to new situations, and even an improved attitude toward science. Interestingly, they found that when results of the study were compared across districts that use STS and districts that do not use STS, the scores on measures of knowledge gained were not significantly different. However, students whose schools did not use the STS approach did not find the same sort of success in terms of process skills and science inquiry skills.
The use of a theme, as described briefly above, is one of the fundamental points of the STS curriculum. Essentially, the process of science is carried out within the context of a selected theme. The advantages of this approach are the presentation of science knowledge, skills and understanding in a personal/social context (Bybee, 1987). The theme approach allows the development of particular skills needed and specialized knowledge needed to analyze properly the phenomena involved. An example frequently cited is the role of environmental awareness as a means of approaching science in the STS context (Rosenthal, 1990). In a lesson, for example, one could examine the effect of global warming, learning in the process about the effects of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere, the effects related to the transmission and absorption of electromagnetic radiation, and continue with an examination of the societal effects of changing the volume of combusted hydrocarbons--how will it effect commerce, transportation, the economic conditions of various states and countries.
The example above was quite specific. In a more global consideration, the conceptual basis of how to implement STS is worth considering. Two approaches offered for confederation are those of the science policy study and the social studies of science approaches (Rosenthal, 1989). The science policy studies approach represents an issues-oriented approach to STS. It offers the advantage of immediacy and relevance in terms of the topic being studied. The social studies of science approach, however, can offer a more general approach, with a broader framework for implementation. This perspective can be considered studying the social impact of science along with the science content being studied.
Much of the literature in the STS domain is related to the teaching of science, as if science is the only focus that matters. A growing body of interest has come from those in the social science field, offering their perspective on the advantages of STS.
Remy (1990) made the case that to achieve education for good citizenship, the ultimate goal of social studies education, then one must have informed citizens. The integration of science and technology content into the social studies can help to further that goal. As the public policy agenda becomes more and more technology-science oriented, the social studies can ignore the impact of science on society only at its own peril. The use of science and technology as providing an increased body of relevant knowledge can only assist the student in making informed decisions on pertinent issues. In addition, the oft-repeated idea of making connections between the disciplines is enhanced. One writer, echoing these same sentiments, described the process as "bonding humanities and technology" (Huber, 1988).
As part of an interdisciplinary approach to science, STS has been advocated as a logical and reasonable approach (Marker, 1992; Heath, 1990; Hamlett, 1992; Wraga and Hlebowitsch, 1990; Anderson, 1991). The creation and use of analytic exercises that cut across the disciplines as part of a broad effort to understand, analyze, and consider the consequences of social/scientific/technological issues is how Marker sees the interdisciplinary approach. In his view, STS should be taught with an interdisciplinary thrust, rather than implemented as a separate course. As he advocates the STS approach, he suggests that the ultimate advantage will be to allow people to control technology and science, rather than the reverse.
That science represents a subfield within all of society--similar to the schematic advanced by Aikenhead (1990) [see Figure 1.]--and thus within the domain of political and social studies was advanced by Hamlett (1992). From this perspective, he argued that science, technology, and the implications and consequences of their presence have an impact on humanity that created the imperative for a rational political-social means for addressing them. He, like Marker (1992) expressed a degree of concern with regard to who is controlling whom: technology or society. Addressing this issue is an essential part of STS.
Another voice from the social science wilderness offers research to support the position that STS provides the best means of addressing the needs of all students (Rutherford and Ahlgren, 1990; Waks, 1991). In particular, the needs of urban youth, neglected on many accounts, have demonstrated numerous benefits from the use of STS. The structure of the lessons (e.g., group work, information shared across the curriculum) has been helpful, but more importantly, the sense of ownership and empowerment the students derive from the STS perspective is especially noteworthy. For once, in the inner city school, lessons are designed to involve the student so that they may derive a sense of personal meaning.
One consideration, different in perspective from many others with a social science orientation who have written about STS comes from May (1992). She suggested that one need, before implementing the STS curriculum, to seriously consider what the real subjects of STS are. In her view, to responsibly implement the STS approach requires a consideration of the "whats and whys" of this approach. In her view, the STS system can, if unleashed irresponsibly, represent an expression of a westernized, secular, science-driven culture. Some degree of sensitivity is needed with respect to the belief systems of the students who will participate in the program. Perhaps, in my view, that in itself --the potential dichotomies western-nonwestern, secular-sacred --represent an area for consideration within the STS framework.
As the number of schools and school districts implementing STS has increased over the last decade or so, the struggle to implement so radically different an approach to the traditional discipline-centered curriculum yielded a number of studies focused on the process of teaching and learning within an STS framework. Implementation of any change in curriculum raises concerns among practitioners.
To analyze teachers' concerns regarding a system that many would consider nontraditional, Mitchener and Anderson (1989) examined teachers' perspectives in the creation and implementation of an STS curriculum. By examining the subject from the teachers' point of view, it was possible to determine barriers to implementation and application. Their findings indicated that the concerns among teachers could be categorized as follows:
An example of the pedagogical approaches to STS can be found in an article by Brusic (1992). The means by which the STS approach is applied is through the method of experiential learning. Providing the source of the experience is the central role of technology. The distinction Brusic draws is that for the learning to qualify as experiential, it is necessary for the student to study in the technology, as opposed to studying about the technology. Through this, the student is thrust into the role of the user of technology; the experience becomes person-centered, experiential, and helps the student to derive a sense of ownership in the activity.
Surprisingly, examples of STS lessons are frequently presented as part of articles on STS, even in journals that are nominally more theoretical in nature (Mitcham, 1987; Ramsey, Hungerford, and Volk, 1990; Wagner, 1990). Mitcham's article, in particular, goes into immense detail, describing a four-year undergraduate program at Polytechnic University. A noticeable difference from the way the program is typically carried out in the elementary and secondary school, Polytechnic appears to have developed a special STS course to implement its academic goals for its students. The common method at the secondary and elementary level is to attempt to create a genuine interdisciplinary approach to applying STS.
In any event, the philosophy at Polytechnic is that of educating all students in a comprehensive program that involves scientific, technological, and social concerns. The program is a four-year sequence designed for the use of their liberal arts students (presumably their science students take course work to accomplish the same goal). The course content, including evaluation, is included. In another surprising finding, the forms of evaluation are very traditional pencil and paper exams. Alternative "authentic" forms of assessment are not a part of the curriculum.
Regarding the assessment question, it provides one of the supreme challenges (at least at the elementary and secondary level) to provide forms of assessment that reflect the novel nature of the program. The VOSTS (Views On Science, Technology, and Society) was developed with such a concern foremost. Regarding traditional forms of assessment as oriented toward traditional forms of science education, Aikenhead and Ryan (1992) examine VOSTS as a means of more authentically assessing what was learned in an STS program. While VOSTS is still a multiple choice format exam, it was structured so as to examine the more global aspects of STS education. The survey provides more than a measure of the students' knowledge of content. Through the use of a Likert-type response system, student beliefs and attitudes --and, most importantly, a measure of the student's ability to reason the answer to a solution-- are measured as well.
Also observed in the use of STS programs was the tendency of teachers to go beyond traditional paper and pencil testing and make a move into more subjective, problem-solving type of questions (Duffee and Aikenhead, 1992). However, the study demonstrated the tendency of teachers, even when operating in the realm of STS, to examine students in a fashion "consistent with their own personal understanding of the assessment process." The moral to be drawn from this is that for more authentic assessment to occur, an effort to assist the teacher in recognizing--and incorporating into his or her educational world-view--the need for assessment beyond that provided by paper and pencil.
The fundamental issue of whether students are learning the course material is an important issue no matter what sort of program one examines. With the problem solving and critical thinking dimensions of STS adding complexity to the learner-assessment matrix, it becomes a more challenging issue in the domain of STS.
Cheek (1992) examined a number of assessment measures used in STS programs both in the United States and around the world. It was shown that paper and pencil test, while a part of many teachers' repertoires, competed with other means of assessment to derive a clear vision of student achievement. As the evaluation becomes more varied, the likelihood of accurately understanding the students' progress is enhanced. Common examples of assessment beyond the multiple-choice exam included essay question, open-ended forms of assessment, portfolios, and performance-based objectives. Cheek's task was to derive a measure of the variety of assessments used in STS programs. It should be recalled from above (Mitchener and Anderson, 1989) that teachers expressed a degree of concern when asked to uses more subjective means of assessment. It would be useful to know the comfort level of the teachers making use of the alternative forms of assessment observed by Cheek.
The research base in the STS field is fairly substantial. A number of areas for research were established by the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (Shymansky and Kyle, 1992). The six areas of critical need were reported to be in the areas of
Research published during the last several years covers a number of those areas, and others as well. Of interest were studies carried out by Schibeci (1990). In this research effort, it was shown that, as a measure of general scientific literacy among adults, it was found that adults display very little in the way of basic scientific and technological literacy. The implications are obvious: the traditional system has not worked effectively in creating a scientifically educated citizenry. With this as a sample of evidence suggesting that our current efforts are (virtually) futile, then the case for the aggressive implementation of STS is given a greater imperative.
Researchers have things to say to teachers, too. A study carried out by Rubba (1990) confirmed some of the same areas as did Yager, Mackinnu, and Blunk (1992). The teacher's need for more training in terms of their exposure and implementation of the STS program was suggested by Yager, et al., and confirmed by Rubba. Rubba examined also the dynamics of teacher-teacher interactions and suggests that there is a strong need for interdisciplinary cooperation between teachers if STS is to be successful.
Another study involving teachers and their perceptions regarding STS yet again confirmed the concept that teachers need a stronger base of understanding before attempting to use the STS system (Rhoton, 1990). In this case, the specific findings were that teachers had a high degree of perceived need in terms of both adequate information and preparation. Others (King and Thompson, under review) have collected and analyzed data that further supports this issue.
A conflict was found with regard to students and teachers in their respective abilities to understand the content and to communicate the content effectively (Rubba, 1989). Data indicated that while teachers were confidant in their own ability to understand STS content and to teach it effectively, their students' abilities to understand the content was not confirmed by the data. The author suggests that teachers' perceptions of high interest activities are not consistent with what students perceive as high interest activities. The suspicion arises that teachers, in general, have a high degree of need in the area of STS education.
Teachers apparently have difficulties understanding STS and implementing STS in a fashion consistent with their student's interests. This finding was derived from a set of students in Canada; in addition, students as well have difficulty in their comprehension of content and process after enrollment in an STS type course (Aikenhead, 1987; Aikenhead, Fleming, and Ryan, 1987). Two suggestions were made regarding the wide range of both accurate and inaccurate perceptions regarding the student's science knowledge. First, the type of assessment device needs to be improved to genuinely measure what students are learning. This can then be used as a diagnostic instrument to improve their learning as it is taking place. Secondly, a move toward a more authentic teaching and assessment of science classes be implemented to help reduce the number and degree of misconceptions.
Dass (1999) provided a comprehensive overview of his attempts at developing student understanding and implementation of an STS-related project for preservice teachers. By infusing an STS component into the methods course experience, students are given the support and guidance to effectively utilize this approach to curriculum design and instruction. Basing his work on a constructivist approach, classroom activities were divided into phases of invitation, exploration, proposing explanations and solutions, and taking action.
Invitation
Preservice teachers (PSTs) brainstorm and produce a number of possible topics for investigation. The topic may be global or local in nature, but must be one that would interest students and provide an area sufficient to investigation. To strengthen the approach, a rationale to support the instructional program they wish to pursue. Further sources are available at the following web sites: http://www.whyfiles.news.wisc.edu and http://www. sigmaxi.org. (Dass, 1999)
Exploration
PSTs explored their topics in terms of identifying the critical areas of investigation and then using those questions to collect and analyze information related to those questions. Telecommunications and traditional library and public document sources provided information to be used. Other resources such as federal and state agencies, scientists engaged in research around the topic, and community interest groups were consulted as well.
From these sources of information, students developed inquiry-based science lessons to investigate issues related to these problems. Understanding of acid rain, for instance, was facilitated by a laboratory investigation into the properties of acids and bases. These investigations provided the basis for developing understanding, testing hypotheses, and proposing action (Dass, 1999).
Proposing Explanations and Solutions
This phase of the process requires students to organize and synthesize the information they had developed during the previous part of the STS investigation. This process included further communications with experts in the field, further development, refining, and testing of their hypotheses, and then developing tentative explanations and proposals for solution and action. These findings were finally assembled and presented to class peers to describe the findings, positions taken, and the proposed action. (Dass, 1999)
Taking Action
Based on the findings reported in the third phase (Proposing action and solution), students applied their findings in some form of social action. These actions ranged from implementing community clean up of hazardous areas to contacting appropriate public officials with their thoughts and findings. Students in the methods class presented this information to their class colleagues; in the classroom setting, these proposals would be put into action (Dass, 1999).
Science, technology, and society--the three parts of the STS program. Research, theory, and philosophical leanings suggest to the reader that this sort of interdisciplinary approach to these three topics is the way to proceed.
Despite both its potential and its demonstrated level of success, it is surprising that it has not had wider implementation. Wraga and Hlebowitsch (1991) consider this and offer their opinions that STS advocates need to draw more from the body of knowledge that curriculum has to offer. The emphasis is broader than the narrow focus of the post-Sputnik era educational reforms. The broadening of the reforms has more of a general educational emphasis to it--the idea of achieving the goal of science for all Americans.
Another area of concern not addressed explicitly by Wraga and Hlebowitsch regards the danger of throwing teachers into this sort of "innovation" without proper training and preparation. No matter how high quality or well-intended the efforts to reform, the data discussed above suggests that many teachers are teaching some sort of STS program without a firm knowledge base. STS is a worthwhile and powerful way to educate students on more levels than merely discrete bits of content. It is essential that the teachers be prepared to do so.
Aikenhead, G. S., Fleming, R. W., and Ryan, A. G. (1987). High-school graduates' beliefs about science-technology-society. I. Methods and issues in monitoring student views. Science Education, 71 (2), 145-161.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1987). High-school graduates' beliefs about science-technology-society. III. Characteristics and limitations of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 71 (4), 459-487.
Aikenhead, G. (1992). The integration of STS into science education. Theory into Practice, 31 (1), 27-35.
Aikenhead, G. S. and Ryan, A. G. (1992). The development of a new instrument: "Views on science-technology-society" (VOSTS). Science Education, 76 (5), 477-491.
Anderson, S. F. (1991). Science-technology-society education in the social studies: A status report. NASSP Bulletin, 75 (531), 67-72.
Bragaw, D. H. (1992). Society, technology and science: Is there room for another imperative? Theory into Practice , 31 (1), 4-12.
Brunkhorst, H. K. and Yager, R. E. (1990). Beneficiaries or victims. School Science and Mathematics, 90 (1), 61-69.
Brusic, S. A. (1992). Achieving STS goals through experential learning. Theory into Practice, 31 (1), 44-51.
Bugliarello, G. (1988). The science-tehnology-society matrix. Bulletin of Science, Technolgy, and Society, 8 (2), 125-126
Bybee, R. W., (1987). Science education and the science-technology-society theme. Science Education, 71 (5), 667-683.
Cheek, D. W. (1992). Evaluating learning in STS education. Theory into Practice, 31 (1), 64-72.
Dass, P. M. (1999). An STS approach to organizing a secondary science methods course: Preliminary findings. Proceedings of the 1999 Annual International Conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science (pp. 331 - 338). Greenville, NC: Association for the Education of Teachers in Science. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 431 626)
Duffee, L. and Aikenhead, G. (1992) . Curriculum change, student evaluation, and teacher practical knowledge. Science Education, 76 (5), 493-506.
Hamlett, P. W. (1992). Science, technology, and politics: The literature. Teaching Political Science, 14 (4) 158-62.
Heath, P. A. (1990). Integrating science and technology instruction into the social studies: Basic elements. Social Education, 54 (4), 207-209.
Huber, T. (1988). STS: Bonding humanities and technology. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 3 (4), 344-47.
Jacob, K., Kelter, P, and Hughes, K. (1991). Promotiong understanding of the relationships among science, technology, and society: A course for precollege teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 2 (2), 53-56.
Jegende, O. (1994). African Cultural Perspectives and the Teaching of Science. In Solomon, J. and Aikenhead, G. (Eds.). STS education: International perspectives on reform. (pp. 120-130). New York: Teacher's College.
King, K.P. and Thompson, T.E. (under review). Examining elementary science teacher efficacy and outcome expectancy: The influence of staff development. Submitted to the Journal of Science Teacher Education.
Marker, G. W. (1992). Integrating science-technology-society into social studies education. Theory into Practice, 31 (1), 20-26.
May, W. T. (1992). What are the subjects of STS--really. Theory into Practice, 31 (1), 73-83.
Mitcham, C. (1987). The STS core curriculum at Polytechnic University. Science, Technology, and Society, 59, 1-13.
Mitchner, C. P. and Anderson, R. D. (1989). Teacher's perspective: Developing and implementing an STS curriculum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26 (4), 351-369.
Ramsey, J. M., Hungerford, H. R. and Volk, T. L. (1990). Analyzing the issues of STS. The Science Teacher, 57 (3), 60-63.
Rampal, A. (1994). Innovative Science Teaching in Rural Schools in India: Questioning Social Beliefs and Superstitions. In Solomon, J. and Aikenhead, G. (Eds.). STS education: International perspectives on reform. (pp. 131-138). New York: Teacher's College.
Remy, R. C. (1990). The need for science/technology/society in the social studies. SocialEducation, 54 (4), 203-207.
Rhoton, J. (1990). An investigation of science-technology-society education perceptions of secondary science teachers in Tennessee. School Science and Mathematics, 90 (5), 383-395.
Rose, H. (1994). The Two-Way Street: Reforming Science Education. In Solomon, J. and Aikenhead, G. (Eds.). STS education: International perspectives on reform. (pp. 155-166). New York: Teacher's College.
Rosenthal, D. B. (1989). Two approaches to science-technology-society (STS) education. Science Education, 73 (5), 581-589.
Rosenthal, D. B. (1990). Warming up to STS. The Science Teacher, 57 (6), 28-32.
Rubba, P. A. (1989). An investigation of the sematic meaning assigned to concepts affiliated with STS education and of STS instructional practices among a sample of exemplary science teachers. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching , 26 (8), 686-702.
Rubba, P. A. (1990). STS education in action: What researchers say to teachers. Social Education, 54 (4), 201-203.
Rutherford, F. J. (1988). STS--here today and ...? Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society, 8 (2) 126-127.
Rutheford, F. J. and Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science For All Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
Schibeci, R. A. (1990). Public knowledge and perceptions of science and technology. Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society, 10 (2), 86-92.
Shymansky, J. A. and Kyle, W. C., Jr. (1992). Establishing a research agenda: Critical issues of science curriculum reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29 (8), 749-778.
Solomon, J. and Aikenhead, G. (1994). STS education: International perspectives on reform. New York: Teacher's College.
Solomon, J. (1994). Knowledge, Values, and the Public Choice of Scientific Knoweldge. In Solomon, J. and Aikenhead, G. (Eds.). STS education: International perspectives on reform. (pp. 99-110). New York: Teacher's College.
Wagner, R. (1990). Toxicology, an STS approach. Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society, 10, 310-315.
Waks, L. J. (1991). Science, technology, and society education for urban schools. Journal of Negro Education, 60 (2), 195-202.
Waks, L. J. (1992). The responsibility spiral: A curriculum framework for STS education. Theory into Practice, 31 (1), 13-19.
Wraga, W. G. and Hlebowitsh, P. S. (1991). STS education and the curriculum field. School Science and Mathematics, 91 (2), 54-59.
Yager, R. E. (1990). The science/technology/society movement in the United states: Its origin, evolution, and rationale. Social education, 54 (4), 198-200.
Yager, R. E. and Penick, J. E. (1991). Using science as a connector for the reformed school curriculum. NASSP Bulletin, 76 (547), 56-68.
Yager, R. E., Mackinnu, and Blunck, S. M. (1992). Science/technology/society as reform of science in the elementary school. Journal of Elementary Science education, 4 (1), 1-13.
Zoller, U. (1990). The IEE--an STS approach. Journal of College Science Teaching, 19 (5), 289-291.
Zoller, U. (1992). The technology/education interface: STES education for all. Canadian Journal of Education, 17 (1), 86-91.