ISSUES & TRENDS ~

Glen S. Aikenhead, Section Editor

Towards an STS School Curriculum CHARLES P. McFADDEN University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada E3B 6A3

The Problem

Recent proposals to redefine the domain of science education present a problem that does not appear to have been adequately addressed by their proponents (Lewis, 1978; Baez, 1980, Watson, 1980; Fensham, 1983; Science Council of Canada, 1984; Yager, 1984; Bybee, 1984; Linn, 1987; Hodson, 1988; American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989). Is it reasonable, as these proposals seem to imply, to expect all the science-related goals of education to be achieved through science teaching? Can the science curriculum be reformed in the manner advocated by supporters of these various Science-Technology-Society proposals without a coordinated reform of the entire school curriculum?

The experience of a Canadian Science-Technology-Society (STS) curriculum project is presented in this article as an indication of the problems that likely follow from attempts to introduce a STS curriculum piecemeal. These problems include redundancy within school curriculum and reduced time for science concept and skill development. These problems will likely undermine the credibility and long- term acceptability of the STS proposals. It is argued here that only a coordinated reform of the entire school curriculum can have the result that all the science- related aspects of curriculum can be addressed without loss of attention to science concepts and skill development.

Assertions about Science Teaching

about science teaching that are frequently espoused. To begin the discussion, consider the following assertions, which contain ideas

Assertion I ( a )

The central, distinguishing task of science teaching is to help students make scientific sense of the natural world, that is to facilitate their acquisition of concepts about the natural world, guiding them to concepts that more closely approximate those held by the scientific community. Science Education 75(4): 457-469 (1991) 0 1991 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0036-8326 / 9 1 / 040457- 1 3$04.00

458 McFADDEN

1(b) Such understanding of the natural world is constructed by students through a

process of adding to and modifying their existing knowledge, particularly through representation in oral, written, mathematical, graphic, tabular, and artistidex- pressive forms, implying, for example, a heavy emphasis in instruction on the formulation and communication of understanding by students.

I (c ) The goal of scientific literacy includes the acquisition of a substantial common

body of scientific concepts and not merely an understanding of a random selection from among those concepts.

Assertion 2

An authentic view of the nature of science is an important goal of science ed- ucation, one that is facilitated by an integration of science with the history, phi- losophy, and sociology of science.

Assertion 3(a)

skills of scientific investigation. Science teaching should contribute to the development of the students’ process

3(b) This can be achieved in part by requiring the employment of these skills in the

process of acquiring scientific understanding, that is, through an inquiry approach to learning.

3(c) The science curriculum should also include opportunities €or students to conduct

real experiments, not only practical explorations contrived to facilitate the assim- ilation of knowledge.

Assertion 4

Understanding of the relationship between science and technology is another important educational goal, one that is best served by some teaching of science within the context of technological problem solving.

Assertion 5

Education for participation in democratic decision making is yet another im- portant goal of education shared by science teaching, especially in connection with science-related social issues.

TOWARDS AN STS SCHOOL CURRICULUM 459

Assertion 6

Science teaching should also make its contribution to the development of in- dependent learners, including the disposition to be independent, life-long learners of science.

The Experience of a Canadian STS Science Curriculum Project

The Atlantic Science Curriculum Project (ASCP) has accepted all these assertions and has endeavoured to act on them in connection with science teaching in grades seven to nine. Results of 12 years of school based research, professional devel- opment and curriculum development include 27 curriculum units, published in three English and three French language editions, used in six Canadian provinces (ASCP, SciencePlus, Toronto: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Canada, 1986-1990). Table 1 lists the units developed and planned.

This experience, however, has posed serious problems for those who might wish to achieve all the goals implied by the assertions above without a coordinated reform of the entire school curriculum. The principal problem is a dramatic re- duction in the content coverage possible during grades seven to nine, leaving serious gaps in students’ acquaintance with science. At the same time, the reformed science curriculum may be making substantial contributions to achieving educational goals assigned to other subjects in thearriculum while these subjects may continue to make little or no contribution to science-related educational goals. At the same time, redundancy is a problem, for example when the issue of nutrition is addressed in science, health and home economics classes, in each case covering essentially the same ground.

Initially the Atlantic Science Curriculum Project developed 19 curriculum units which focussed on scientific conceptual problems. Other science-related goals were supported in these units but in a subordinate relation to the concept development goal. To providd for career guidance and greater attention to technology and science-related social issues, over 40 interchapter features were also developed.

We have found that teachers are able to utilize on average only 12 units over the three years (grades seven to nine) in addition to expecting science fair and other independent project activity by students. By comparison with previous science programs this represents a reduction in content coverage of approximately one- half. (For example, to match the content of a typical American Life-Earth-Physical Science series, a total of approximately 30 similar units would be required). On average, students in the Atlantic Provinces of Canada attend science classes in grades seven to nine for approximately 160 minutes per week (McFadden, 1980).

Further editions of SciencePfus for Ontario and Alberta have included units which focus on science-related goals. For example, Alberta Education, while basing its design of science curriculum for grades seven to nine on the Atlantic Edition of SciencePlus, has required the replacement or amendment of several of the initial units by units which focus on technology and science-related social issues. Based on field test results, we estimate that Alberta teachers will only be able to utilize three units per year if these include one of the new STS units in each grade. In other words, the enhanced attention to science-related educational goals will mean

460 McFADDEN

TABLE I Curriculum Units Developed by the Atlantic Science Curriculum Projecta

Title Approach Publication

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7. 8. 9.

10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

15. 16.

17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

25. 26. 27.

Living Things Solutions Forces and Motion Heat and Temperature Changes in the Land Interactions interactions I & II Chemical Changes Magnetic & Electric Forces Work & Energy Work, Energy & Machines Heat Travel Face Lifting a Planet Diversity Life Processes Floating & Sinking Fluids Pressure Current Electricity Electromagnetic Systems Light Sound Particles Science Is . . . Properties of Matter Energy and You Structures and Design Micro-organisms & Food Processing Growing Plants Consumer Product Testing Environmental Quality

S S S S S S SIT S S S SiT S S S S S SIT S S SiT S S S NS S SiS SIT

SiS SIT SiS SiS

SPI, SP7 & SPTS7 SPI, SP8 & SPTS8 SP1, SP8 & SPTS7 SPI, SP8 & SPTS7 SP1 & SPTS7 SP2 & SPTS8 SP8 SP2, SP7 & SPTS9 s P2 SP2 & SP8 SPTS8 SP2, SP8 & SPTS8 SP2 & SPTS8 SP2, SP7 & SPTSS SP3 SP3 SPTS9 SP3 SP3 SPTS9 SP3 SP3 SP3 SP7 SP7 SP7 SPTS7

SPTS7 SPTS8 SPTS7 SPTSS

Plus: Science in Action and Science on Your Own (interchapter features) SIT & SiS SP1,2,3; SP7,8; SPTS7,8,9 To be developed: 28. The earth in space NS 29&30. More human biology SiS

"S = science focus; SIT = science in a technological context; NS = focus on the nature of science; SiS = science in a social issues context. SP1,2,3

refers to the Atlantic Edition of SciencePlus, SP7,8 to the Ontario Edition and SPTS7,8,9 to the Alberta Edition.

TOWARDS AN STS SCHOOL CURRICULUM 461

a further reduction by approximately one-third in scientific content coverage. On the other hand, Alberta Education expects teachers to complete six units per year, which could force them to teach for rote recall rather than understanding and to ignore the learning activity designed to support science-related educational goals.

Based on the ASCP’s experience, I estimate that to address all the content normally included in the American Life-Earth-Physical Science series but with an emphasis on concept understanding and with enhanced attention to all the science- related goals of education would require a total of 30 to 33 units like those developed by the ASCP, including as many as six more units than we have already developed. Rather than 160 minutes per week of science instruction, more than 400 minutes would be required. The expansion to 400 minutes of science instruction per week would permit science teachers to address all the goals for science teaching implied by the six assertions made above. It would also mean, however, either a lengthened school day or year or reduced time for other subjects in the school curriculum.

Of course, it is possible to dismiss the Canadian experience with SciencePlus as the result of poor curriculum development or inefficient teaching. On the other hand, the provinces in which SciencePlus is used have all reduced their requirements for content coverage, regardless of the textbook resources used to support the provincial curriculum guidelines. Each of these recent provincial guidelines rep- resents a response to the STS curriculum recommendations of the Science Council of Canada (1984) and a decade or more of experience with curricula that encourage concept and skill development in Canadian science classrooms. Whereas previous provincial curriculum outlines included eight or more units per year, current re- quirements are more realistic, specifying only six or fewer units (Nova Scotia Department of Education, 1986; Ontario Ministry of Education, 1987; Alberta Education, 1989; New Brunswick Department of Education, 1989).

Questions for STS Curriculum Supporters

Recent Canadian experience with science curricula at the grade seven, eight and nine level raises some serious questions for STS curriculum supporters. Is it ac- ceptable, for example, to provide for understanding of the nature of science and the development of social decision making and technological problem solving skills, but omit attention to the development of understanding, say, of human biology, photosynthesis, electricity and magnetism, work and energy, light and sound? Alberta Education, in its recent guidelines for junior high school science, makes these very choices (Alberta Education, 1989). In practice, this will mean that those students who elect not to study all the science offered at the senior high school level may never study these science topics beyond possible exploratory learning in elementary school. Do such choices need to be made? Or can these areas of concept understanding remain a part of general education curricula while schools also achieve other science-related educational goals?

The problem facing those who want to replace the narrative presentation of science with a curriculum which facilitates scientific concept understanding, yet not reduce the range of content covered to a small fraction of present programs, might be solved by a coordinated reform of science curriculum from kindergarten to grade

462 McFADDEN

12 or even from grades 6 to 12. The NSTA’s Project on the scope, sequence and coordination of secondary science teaching (Aldridge, 1989) might provide a frame- work for such a solution. However, I don’t believe that the desired extent of support for both concept development and science-related educational. goals could be achieved by a reform of the science curriculum alone.

A coordinated reform of the entire school curriculum is a logical alternative to the proposals for an STS science curriculum. Canadian experience at the junior secondary level leads to the conclusion that a coordinated reform of the entire school curriculum is uecessary if broad scientific understanding and skills are to be acquired by students along with the achievement of the other science-related goals defined by the six assertions above.

Other School Subjects and Curriculum Reform

Is a coordinated reform of school curriculum feasible? The answer would prob- ably be negative if there were no leadership in this direction. However, there is a strong basis for collaboration between educators working in different subject areas. An STS science curriculum would contribute substantially to goals shared by the following curriculum areas: health, technology, home economics, language arts, social studies, the fine arts, and mathematics. The emphasis in an STS science curriculum on student representation and communication of concepts in a variety of forms means that science teaching takes on some of the responsibility for ed- ucation in language arts, the fine arts and mathematics. Attention to the social context of life science education means an integration of human biology with health. And the learning of science in the contexts of technology, science-related social issues, and historical and philosophical questions means a significant degree of integration with education in technology, home economics, and social studies.

In the meantime, what curriculum changes are being advocated by educators working in these other areas of the curriculum? Leading social studies educators have proposed a social studies curriculum which, among other things, would help students make sense of their social environment and participate in shaping it (Engle, 1986; Engle & Ochoa, 1988; Metzger, 1985; Bragaw & Hartoonian, 1988). Such a curriculum would include attention to the history of science and technology and their relation to the history of society and social relationships. The social studies would also be linked with science and technology education through their common concern for promoting participatory democracy in relation to science and tech- nology related social issues, especially environmental ones. In this connection, Bragaw and Hartoonian (1988) have proposed integrated units of instruction for grades three, six, nine, and 12. If this proposal were adopted by all educators, it would provide a structural framework for addressing science and technology related policy issues. This could then be done on the basis of essential knowledge and skills the students have gained from the separate study of science, technology, social studies, the fine arts, and mathematics.

Industrial arts educators in North America and their counterparts internationally have been busy redefining their task as general education in technology (Snyder & Hales, 1981; International Technology Education Association, 1985; Vohra, 1987; Todd, 1987; Maley, 1987). Harrison (1980, p. 22) has defined technology for

TOWARDS AN STS SCHOOL CURRICULUM 463

this purpose as “a disciplined process by which the resources of knowledge (of materials, of energy, of the concepts of science, of technical concepts, etc.) are used in the practical solution of problems identified by human need.” The edu- cational aims associated by Harrison with such a definition of technology include provision that students (1) achieve an awareness of technology and (2) are involved in the design process.

Proceeding in tandem with the thinking of many science, technology and social studies educators are developments in the fields of language teaching, mathematics, and the fine arts. Tools for exploring and comprehending the natural and social world and for communicating our understanding and feelings, after all, are provided by language, mathematics, and the fine arts. At least many educators in these fields hold the view that more students would acquire these tools if their acquisition was more clearly integrated with attempts to explore, comprehend, and represent the natural, social, and human-built world. That argument has been made in relation to mathematics education by Crawford (1987) and has been affirmed by educators working in the fields of language arts, second language teaching, and fine arts (Paul, personal communications, 1989; London, personal communication, 1989; Soucy, personal communication, 1989). For example, London pointed out in his response to an earlier draft of this article that “since the demise of the grammar- translation and the audio-lingual methods (facts-recall in both cases) and the advent of what is known as the communicative or interactive approach, we understand that language is only a vehicle, not an end in itself, and that the content of a language course is not primarily language but every other discipline and field of human experience, endeavour, and knowledge .”

Leading social studies and technology educators may not yet have fared any better than their science education counterparts in introducing the new elements of an STS curriculum into actual school practice. One reason, perhaps, is the difficulty in defining ownership of STS curriculum units. Who should teach a unit that links science, technology, and society? For example, McFadden (1990) has described a unit on structures and design that he wrote in response to Alberta Education’s curriculum plan for grade seven science. This unit features a techno- logical problem solving focus. It includes science concept development (in this case, tension, compression, shear, and strength), the development of some universally important engineering concepts (such as the advantage gained by forming materials into I-beams, trussed beams, cantilevers, and arches) and an application of engi- neering concepts to recognizing and understanding structure in living things. Prom- inence is also given in this unit to the development of an understanding of some of the links between science, technology, and history, and the development of values associated with aesthetic awareness, environmental protection, and ethics. Without scope in the school curriculum for interdisciplinary teaching, units like this one would likely fall between the cracks, even though they may be as valid if not more valid than typical discipline based units.

A Coordinated Reform Of The School Curriculum

The six assertions offered as a definition of an STS science curriculum are clearly related to similar goals of educators working to reform curriculum and teaching in

464 McFADDEN

other subject areas. Working separately, it is more likely that the curriculum reform efforts will either largely fail or will create as many problems as they solve. The experience of the Atlantic Science Curriculum Project suggests that when science educators limit their vision and concern to the science curriculum they are likely to sacrifice one or more of the mutually supportive goals of science teaching. Uncoordinated reforms at different levels and within different subjects in the school curriculum are likely to lead to increasing curriculum redundancy.

Using the broadest possible definition of an STS curriculum, perhaps science educators should be working towards a science-technology-society school curric- ulum rather than an STS science curriculum. With planning and articulation across the entire school curriculum, horizontally and vertically, perhaps all the goals of education could be achieved. Moreover, there would likely be a synergistic effect on student learning.

The proposal of Bragaw and Hartoonian for integrated units of instruction in grades three, six, nine, and 12 is one alternative. To be effective over a large part of any country, however, this proposal would require a degree of cooperation between professional associations of educators, educational jurisdictions, curric- ulum materials developers and publishers that may not yet be feasible, if for no other reason than the lack of a sufficiently strong collective will. I suggest, instead, that smaller steps might be taken initially on a state, provincial, or regional scale. For example, in some of those provinces in Canada where the program, SciencePfus, is being used to support science teaching in grades seven, eight, and nine, it might be feasible to develop a coordinated curriculum design and instructional materials for science, technology, home economics, and health in these grades. Likewise, as the new NSF supported science programs (those with an STS character, as defined by the assertions that began this article) enter U.S. schools, the same kind of initiative might be possible on a state-wide or regional level in the United States. The success of these more restricted initiatives might then provide the incentive for more extensive change in the direction of a coordinated school curriculum of a fundamentally new character.

Reforming Curriculum and Instruction Reform, of course, is needed in both the content and methods of instruction.

For instance, analysis of what teachers assess when evaluating students and how they do it has demonstrated that the actual school curriculum is the short-term recall of information (Fleming & Chambers, 1983). However, the linking of the development of scientific knowledge and skills with technological problem-solving, collective social decision-making, aesthetic awareness, history, philosophy, ethics, and communication skills (components of an STS curriculum) improves the pos- sibility of replacing the dominant fact-recall pedagogy with a pedagogy based on the results of educational research (as represented, for example, by Erickson (1979), Osborne and Wittrock (1983), and the legion of science educators who have ex- plored science concept development in children). Indeed if practice is the criterion of knowledge, if application of knowledge to shaping the natural and social envi- ronment is the principal form of verification of knowledge, a form engaged in by

TOWARDS AN STS SCHOOL CURRICULUM 465

most people, then a teaching-learning paradigm that emphasizes sense-making (concept development) , is inseparable from a curriculum that addresses the real issues and problems that confront the learner. The combination of an STS school curriculum with a constructivist instructional methodology may prove to be the engine of a successful revolution in education, driven by the need of humankind to adapt to the new circumstances created by its own social and economic devel- opment.

Science in an STS School Curriculum

If such a revolution were to take place, what would science teaching look like within the context of an STS school curriculum? Some educators active in the current reform efforts in science teaching consider scientific conceptual problems to be intrinsically motivating to students and appropriate organizers for science curriculum units. For example, all 19 units developed by the Atlantic Science Curriculum Project for the first published edition of its work are organized around scientific conceptual problems (ASCP, Atlantic Edition, 1986-1989). For instance, a unit on the characteristics of living things begins with the task of classifying objects into the categories of living, nonliving, and dead, thereby eliciting the students’ preconceptions and raising the issue of what is life. After a series of learning activities designed to develop the concepts of living, nonliving, and dead, the teacher might have the students extend their acquired understanding of the distinctions between these concepts through application to the issue of euthanasia. A unit on work and energy begins by eliciting the students’ everyday notions of work. After learning activities designed to develop in the students a scientific concept of work, their understanding might be enriched and tested by application to a practical problem such as designing a device to enable a classmate confined to a wheelchair to travel up and down a steep set of stairs under her own power.

Alternatively, some science educators favor beginning instruction with a social issue or technological problem that is known to be interesting to the students. The motivation, then, for acquiring the scientific understanding might include the stu- dents’ desire to solve the issue or problem. With this approach, the sequence in the examples above would be inverted. The unit which developed an understanding of the distinctions between living, nonliving, and dead might begin and conclude with the issue of euthanasia. The unit which developed the scientific concepts of work and energy might begin and end with a technological problem or with the issue of energy conservation.

Science teaching, however, need not be based exclusively on only one of these approaches to linking science with technology and society. A teacher could alternate the starting point of instruction from unit to unit. For example, in one unit the starting point might be a scientific conceptual problem, followed in the next unit by a focus on a science-related social issue, continuing to a third unit which proceeds from a technological problem, to a fourth unit which focuses on an effort to un- derstand how a technological device works, a fifth unit which raises a question to be resolved by scientific testing or experimentation and a sixth unit in which the students are given the opportunity, with support from the teacher, to seek out and

466 McFADDEN

report answers to science-related questions, problems and issues of their own choos- ing. Each of these kinds of units can be designed to link the students’ efforts to understand the natural world with their interest in society and technology.

The exclusive use of one approach to every unit of instruction, however, would likely reduce the potential effectiveness of an STS curriculum, in part by reducing its appeal to students. A science curriculum which always begins with a scientific conceptual problem is likely to have greatest appeal to those students whose strong- est inclination is towards science, with less appeal to those whose strongest interest may be in technology or society. On the other hand, the consideration of social issues and technological problems involves other areas of knowledge that extend well beyond the traditional science curriculum, including, for example technological problem solving abilities, moral reasoning, and historical knowledge. An exclusive focus on societal issues and technological problems in the science classroom and laboratory might have the effect of substantially reducing rather than improving the opportunities students have for acquiring an understanding of the natural world. This would be the case if the attention to developing social decision making and technological problem solving skills displaced attention to scientific concept de- velopment.

Other Subject Areas in an STS School Curriculum

The above considerations give some indication of what the science curriculum might look like in the context of an STS school curriculum. But what changes would be required in other curriculum areas to effect an STS school curriculum? At the elementary level, an STS school curriculum corresponds to the breaking down of the compartmentalization of curriculum that occurs there. The current BSCS elementary science curriculum project and other curriculum projects at this level are likely to support the process of decompartmentalization.

At the middleijunior high school level an STS school curriculum implies coor- dinated planning and possibly even team teaching between the various subject areas. For example, where separate teachers are now engaged teaching life science and health, they might coordinate their teaching or team teach parts of the cur- riculum. Such practical collaboration is also implied between physical science, earth science, and technology educators. Home economics teaching might be planned and carried out in conjunction with technology, but could also join with life science and health. If team teaching of science and technology education does not take place in the middle school grades, at least school science and technology depart- ments could be formed to coordinate curriculum organization and teaching in these areas. Coordination with social studies and language arts should take place in schools through consultation and could include team teaching of integrated units. Curriculum development projects would be needed to support an STS school cur- riculum at the middle/junior high school level.

At the senior high school level, the movement towards an STS school curriculum finds expression at the present time in a number of ways. For example, in Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan, STS courses which focus on science-related social de- cision making are replacing traditional science courses as a requirement in grade

TOWARDS AN STS SCHOOL CURRICULUM 467

10. In New Brunswick and British Columbia, a technology course may be taken in grade 11 in place of science. In some schools, discipline centered science teaching based on programs like ChemCom includes enhanced attention to science-related educational goals. In addition to these initiatives, team taught interdisciplinary units or courses would be desirable, particularly those linking social studies and science. But team teaching is likely to continue to be very difficult to introduce and sustain on a large scale at the senior high school level. Personally, I do not think it likely that in the long term any new initiative will displace the predominance of discipline centered instruction at the senior high school level, nor would such a change necessarily be desirable provided that all subject areas learn to give attention to interdisciplinary educational goals and that school level coordination takes place to avoid redundancy and perhaps in some cases permit interdisciplinary units to share some of the curriculum time of two or more subject areas.

Prospects for Reform

Is a coordinated reform of school curriculum, as advocated in this paper, a realistic goal for science educators? This article has attempted to establish the need for such a reform, to mention some practical steps that are being taken and to suggest others that might be taken to bring it about. Recent initiatives by the National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Ad- vancement of Science to experiment with the scope , sequence and content of science education could provide the framework for efforts in the United States to coordinate reform of the entire school curriculum, at least as this concerns the science-related components of curriculum. United States science educators appear to have this opportunity to avoid the pitfalls of attempting a major change of curriculum piece- meal.

Those who believe the task of a coordinated reform to be too large should consider the alternatives. How well have the outcomes of curriculum reform efforts that were restricted to a single grade level or subject corresponded to the goals of the reformers (for example, the proposals of the Federation for Unified Science Education or the Project Physics or ISIS curriculum materials)? Is the recent experience of Canadian science educators with the introduction piecemeal of STS curriculum into junior high school science classes indicative of a probable trend? If changing school curriculum piecemeal leaves even greater gaps in high school graduates’ understanding of science concepts than is presently the case, what will ultimately be the response of the broader community to this kind of STS curriculum reform?

An STS school curriculum when combined with a constructivist teaching meth- odology would likely equate to a revolution in the content, methods and results of education. This reform is undoubtedly worth the effort it might take. Educators who are mindful of the need for improving the relevance and effectiveness of public education, who recognize the obstacles to be addressed along the way and who are willing to work cooperatively may today have an opportunity to.contribute to such a revolution in education, one that could be as significant for the prospects of humankind for the twenty first century as the revolutions in science and tech-

468 McFADDEN

nology have been for the twentieth. Given the alternatives, we should hope that a coordinated reform of the entire school curriculum is an idea whose day has arrived. It is time to test the waters.

I am grateful for feedback on an initial draft of this article from GleIl Aikenhead (University of Saskatchewan), Bob Yager (University of Iowa) and from the following colleagues at the University of New Brunswick: Glen Hider (Technology Education), Dalton London (French Second Language Teacher Education Centre), Don MacIver (Ed. Foundations), Tom Mor- risey (Science Education), Lissa Paul (Language Arts), Keith Radford (Physical Education), Alan Sears (Social Studies), and Don Soucy (Art Education).

References

Alberta Education (1989). Curriculum specifications for junior high science. Aldridge, W. (1989, July). Project on the scope, sequence and coordination of secondary

science education. A position paper presented to the NSTA Advisory Committee on Scope, Sequence and Coordination of Science.

American Association for the Advancement of Science (1989). Project 2061: Science For All Americans. Washington, D.C.: AAAS.

American Chemical Society, (1989). Chemistry in the Community (ChemCom), Desmoines, Iowa: Kendall Hunt.

Atlantic Science Curriculum Project, (1986, 1987, 1988). SciencePlus 1,2, & 3, and accom- panying Teachers Resource Books, Toronto: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. (The Atlantic Edition of SciencePlus).

Atlantic Science Curriculum Project SciencePlus 7 and 8 , and accompanying Teachers Re- source Books, Toronto: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Canada, 1988. (The Ontario Edition of SciencePlus).

Atlantic Science Curriculum Project (1989, 1990). SciencePlus Technology and Society 7,8 and 9, and accompanying Teachers Resource Books, Toronto: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Canada. (The Alberta Edition of SciencePlus).

Baez, A. V. (1980). Curiosity, creativity, competence and compassion-guidelines for sci- ence education in the year 2000. In C. P. McFadden (Ed.) op.cit. p. 60-65.

Bragdw, D. H., Hartoonian, H. M. (1988). Social studies: The study of people in society. In Content in the curriculum. ASCD Yearbook. 1988.

British Columbia Ministry of Education, Technology 11, 1989. Bybee, R. W. (1984). Science education and the science-technology-society (S-T-S) theme.

Crawford, D. H. (1987). School mathematics, advanced technologies, and responsible cit-

Engle, S. H. (1986, January). Late night thoughts about the new social studies. Social

Engle, S. H. & Ochoa, A. S. (1988). Education for democratic citizenship: Decision making

Erickson, G. A. (1979). Children’s conceptions of heat and temperature. Science Education,

Fensham, P. J. (1983). A research base for new objectives of science teaching. Science Education, 67, 003-012.

Fleming, M., & Chambers, B. (1983). Teacher-made tests: windows on the classroom. In W. E. Hathaway (Ed.), Testing in the schools, new directions for testing and measurement, no. 19 p. 29-38, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hall, W. C. (Ed.) (1984). Third International symposium on world trends in science and

Science Education, 71, 667-683.

izenship. In K. Riquarts (Ed.), op.cit, volume 2, p. 474-479.

Education, 20-22.

in the social studies. New York: Teachers College Press.

63, 221-230.

TOWARDS AN STS SCHOOL CURRICULUM 469

technology education, symposium papers, volumes 1 and 2. Brisbane: Brisbane College of Advanced Education.

Harrison, G. B. (1980). The role of technology in science education. In C. P. McFadden (Ed.), op.cit. p. 18-26.

Harrison, G. B. (Ed.) (1985). World trends in science and technology education. Nottingham: Trent Polytechnic.

Hodson, D. (1988). Towards a philosophically more valid curriculum, Science Education,

International Technology Education Association (1985). Technology education: A perspec-

Lewis, J. L. (1978). Science in society. Physics Education (London), 13, 340-343. Linn, M. C. (1987). Establishing a research base for science education: challenges, trends,

and recommendations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 191-216. Lowe, I. (Ed.) (1987). Teaching the interactions of science, technology and society. Mel-

bourne: Longman Cheshire. Maley, D., (1987, April). Technology education: challenges and opportunities. The Tech-

nology Teacher, p. 3-6. Metzger, D. J. (1985, May/June). Process versus content: the lost illusion. The Social Studies,

McFadden, C. P. (1980). Barriers to science education improvement in Canada. In C. P. McFadden (Ed.), World trends in science education, Halifax: Atlantic Institute of Edu- cation, p. 49-59.

McFadden, C. P. (1987). The Atlantic science curriculum project in perspective (ERIC: ED 291 546).

McFadden, C. P. (1990). Curriculum integration through a technological problem. In D. E . Herget (Ed.), The history and philosophy of science in science teaching, Vol. 2 , Tallahassee: Florida State University Science Education Department.

72, 19-40.

tive on implementation.

p. 115-119.

New Brunswick Department of Education, Junior High Science, 1989. Nova Scotia Department of Education, Science in the Junior High School, 1986. Osborne, R. J., & Wittrock M. C., (1983). Learning science: a generative process. Science

Riquarts, K. (Ed.) (1987). Science and technology education and the quality of life, 3 volumes.

Science Council of Canada (1984). Science for every student: Educating Canadians for to-

Snyder, J. F., & Hales, J. A. (Eds.) (1981). Jackson’s Mills industrial arts curriculum theory.

Todd, R. D. (1987). Technology education in the United States: a case study of a state in

Vohra, F. C. (1987). Technology as part of general education. In K. Riquarts (Ed.), op.cit.,

Watson, F. G. (1980). Science education for survival. In C. P. McFadden (Ed.), op.cit., p.

Yager, R. E. (1984). Defining the discipline of science education. Science Education, 68,

Education, 67, 489-508.

Kiel: Institute for Science Education (IPN).

morrow’s world, Ottawa: Science Council of Canada.

Fairmont State College, 1981.

transition. In K. Riquarts (Ed.), op.cit., Vol. 2 , p. 523-530.

Vol. 2 , p. 410-418.

6-8.

35-37.

Accepted for publication 12 December 1990