The effects of science, technology, society, environment (STSE) interactions on teaching chemistry

Nuray Yörük, Inci Morgil, Nilgün Seçken

.

DOI: 10.4236/ns.2010.212173                

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the effects of making Science, Technology, Society and En-vironment relations on students’ comprehen-sion of chemistry topics through teaching che-mistry using STSE approach at secondary level. The study made use of the research model where pre and post tests were administered to control and treatment groups. The Chemistry Achievement Test (CAT) was used in the study. The sampling consisted of Grade 9 students studying at Anatolian High School and Voca-tional High School. Since the sampling had not been equated, in order to determine students’ logical and spatial thinking skills, they were administered Logical Thinking Skill Test and Mental Rotation test as pretests. Students were chosen randomly to take part in two control and two treatment groups. This experimental study was applied to the treatment group in teaching of “Separation of Mixtures” topic in Grade 9 Chemistry course during a four-week period. Students in the control group were taught through the traditional teaching methods. The data obtained were analyzed through the SPSS Software. As a result of the study, statistically significant increases were observed in the achievement levels of treatment group which received instruction using STSE relations. The change observed in the achievement levels of the control group was not statistically signifi-cant. The difference between the achievement levels of control and treatment groups in the posttests were favoring the treatment groups.

Keywords

Science; Technology; Society; Environment (STSE); Chemistry Education; Separation of Mixtures

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Yager, R.E. (1990) The science/technology/society movement in the United States: Its origin, evolution, and rationale. Social Education, 54, 198-200.
[2]	Atasoy, B. (2004) Basic Chemistry Concepts, Asil Pub-lishing and Distribution, Ankara, Turkey.
[3]	Barut?ugil, ?. (2002) Information Management, Kariyer Publishing, ?stanbul, Turkey.
[4]	Aikenhead, G.S. (1994) What is STS science teaching? In: Solomon, J. and Aikenhead, G.S. Ed., STS Education In-ternational Perspectives on Reform, Teacher’s College Press, New York.
[5]	Nakleh, M.B. (1992) Why some students don’t learn chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 69, 191- 216.
[6]	Roy, R. (2000) Real science education: replacing, “PCB” with s(cience) through STS throughout all levels of K-12, technology and society. Science, Technology, and Society: A Sourcebook on Research and Practice, Kluwer Aca-demic/Pleum Publishers, New York.
[7]	Fensham, P.J. (1985) Science for all. Journal of Curricu-lum Studies, 17, 415-435.
[8]	Pedretti, E. (1997) Septic tank crisis: a case study of science, technology and society education in an elemen-tary school. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 1211-1230.
[9]	Aikenhead, G.S. (2003) STS Education: A rose by any other name. A Vision for Science Education: Responding to the World of Peter J. Fensham, Routledge Press, Cana- da.
[10]	Solomon, J. (1993) Teaching Science, Technology & Society. Open University Press, Philadelphia, CA.
[11]	Bingle, W. and Gaskell, P. (1994) Science literacy for decision making and the social construction of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 78, 185-201.
[12]	Council of Ministry of Education Canada (1997) Com-mon framework of science learning outcomes K-12, Council of Ministers of Education, Canada.
[13]	Kumar, D. and Chubin, D. (2000) Science technology and society: A sourcebook or research and practice, Kluwer Academic, London.
[14]	Pedretti, E. (2005) STSE education: Principles and prac-tices. In: Aslop, S., Bencze, L., Pedretti, E. Eds. Analys-ing Exemplary Science Teaching: Theoretical Lenses and a Spectrum of Possibilities for Practice, Open University Press, Mc Graw-Hill Education.
[15]	Solomon, J. and Thomas, J. (1999) Science education for the public understanding of science. Studies in Science Education, 33, 61-90.
[16]	Andersson, B. (2000) National evaluation for the im-provement of science teaching, improving science educa-tion: The contribution of research. Open University Press, Birmingham, UK, 62-78.
[17]	Osborne, J., Duschl, R. and Fairbrother, B. (2003) Breaking the mould? Teaching science for public under-standing: Lessons from the classroom. The Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Sci-ence Teaching, Philedelphia.
[18]	Ryder, J. (2001) Identifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy. Studies in Science Educa-tion, 36, 1-42.
[19]	Solomon, J. (2003) The U.K. and the moment for science, technology and society education. A Vision for Science Education: Responding to the work of Peter Fensham, Routletge Falmer, New York, 76-90.
[20]	PLON (1984) Ioniserende Straling. Utrecht: Rijksuniver-siteit Utrecht, Vakgroep Natuurkunde-Didactiek. Ioni- zing Radiation (1988), Faculty of Education, Monash University.
[21]	SISCON (1983) Science in Social Context in Schools, Oxford Blackwell.
[22]	AAAS (1989) American Association for the Advance-ment of Science, Washington, DC. http://www.aaas.org/
[23]	Elementary science and technology teaching program and guide, 4th-5th grades (2004) Ministry of National Education, Board of Education and Discipline.
[24]	Elementary science and technology teaching program and guide, 6th-8th grades (2005) Ministry of National Education, Board of Education and Discipline.
[25]	Grade 9 chemistry, teaching program (2007), Board of Education and Discipline, Ministry of National Educa-tion, Ankara.
[26]	Aikenhead, G.S. and Ryan, A.G. (1987) High-school graduates beliefs about science-technology-society. I. Methods and issues in monitoring student views. Science Education, 71, 145-161.
[27]	Aikenhead, G.S. and Ryan, A.G. (1992). The develop-ment of a new instrument: “Views on science-technology- society” (VOSTS). Science Education, 76, 477-491.
[28]	Finson, K.D. and Enochs, L.G. (1987) Student attitudes toward science-technology-society resulting from visita-tion to a science-technology museum. Journal of Re-search in Science Teaching, 24, 593-609.
[29]	Fleming, R.W. (1987) High-school graduates beliefs about science-technology-society. II. The interaction among science, technology and society. Science Educa-tion, 71, 163-186.
[30]	Zoller, U.E., Morely, P., Sandberg, W. and Wolthers (1990) Goal attainment in science-technology-society (S/T/S) education and reality: The case of British Columbia. Science Education, 74, 19-36.
[31]	Ben-Chaim, D. and Zoller, U. (1991) The STS outlook profiless of Israeli high-schools students and their teach-ers. International Journal of Science Education, 13, 447-458.
[32]	Yager, R., Tamir, P. and Kellerman, L. (1994) Success with STS in life science classrooms, Grades 4-12. The American Biology Teacher, 56, 268-272.
[33]	Bradford C., Ruba P.A. and Harkness W.L. (1995) Views about science-technology-society interactions held by college students in general education physics and STS courses. Science Education, 79, 355-373.
[34]	Solbes, J. and Vilches, A. (1997) STS interactions and the teaching of physics and chemistry science education. Science Education, 81, 377-386.
[35]	Tobin, G.K. and Capie, W. (1981) The development and validation of a group test of logical thinking. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41, 413-423.
[36]	Geban, ?., A?kar, P. and ?zkan (1992) Effects of com-puter simulated experiment and problem solving ap-proaches on students’ learning outcomes at the high school level. Journal of Educational Research, 86, 5-10.
[37]	Bodner, G.M., and Guay, R.B. (1997) The purdue visu-alization of rotations test. The Chemical Educator, 2, 1-17.
[38]	Kavak, N. (2004) The effects of role playing teaching technique on Grade 10 students’ conceptual achievement and perceptions within the constructivist. G. U. Education Science Institute, Ankara.