Over the past 150 years we humans have been dumping the gaseous waste-products from our industrial processes into the atmosphere in increasing amounts. Initially, little thought was given to the consequences of these actions, partially because the atmosphere was perceived to be so vast in comparison to the amount or composition of the gaseous waste being generated. Later, even when we did understand somewhat the composition of the atmosphere and the gaseous wastes, the fact that many of the gases, like carbon dioxide, occur naturally or, like methane, were vented into the atmosphere by natural processes, led us to assume there was no problem. Over the past half century, however, we have come to know those assumptions are false. Additionally, we now know that the heat retaining properties of the gaseous wastes we generate in large volumes (e.g., carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, water vapor) and of certain synthetic gases (e.g., CFCs) we release into the atmosphere, are impacting natural Earth system balances to the point that climatic changes may be induced-or may in fact already have been induced.
In essence, humankind has been running a global atmospheric experiment, the consequences of which may not be apparent for 25 or more years, long after the time when it is possible intervene. There is mounting scientific evidence that man has pumped greenhouses gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, water vapor, CFCs) as they are called, into the atmosphere in sufficient quantities that over the next half century those gases hold the potential to force rapid climatic changes, and so modify the conditions to which life has adapted over millions of years. Our understanding of the Earth's climate is not sophisticated enough to allow us to predict the exact scenario. Hence, there is much debate about what climatic changes will occur due to the impact of those changes. As a result, global atmospheric change and the component issues of enhanced greenhouse effect, ozone layer depletion and ground level ozone pollution, are without doubt some of the most controversial and potentially critical science- and technology-related societal issues (STS issues for short) facing humankind.
Global Atmospheric Change: Enhanced Greenhouse Effect, Ozone Layer Depletion and Ground Level Ozone Pollution is a teacher resource. It presents a science-technology-society (STS) issue investigation and action unit for middle and high school science in which students thoroughly explore the science, technology and societal aspects of global atmospheric change and the component issues of enhanced greenhouse effect, ozone layer depletion and ground level ozone pollution. The unit was developed by middle school teachers from central Pennsylvania and northern West Virginia over the four-year period between 1992 and 1995. (While the unit was initially intended for middle grades, it has been found to be as usable in high school science courses.) This work was completed under a National Science Foundation supported by Teacher Enhancement Grant (No. TEP-9150232-Teacher Development and Research in STS Education for Rural Middle/Junior High School Science Teachers from Central Pennsylvania and Northern West Virginia) awarded to Penn State University and West Virginia University. The project included teacher development activities in STS and STS education, curriculum development and field testing, and evaluative research. A description of the "Leadership Institute in STS Education," as the project came to be known, can be found in the Background and Development section of this Introduction, below.
Global atmospheric change was selected as the STS issue for the unit because of its timeliness, the controversial nature of the issue, interest by middle/junior high school students in the issue, the potential the issue held for action by students, and connections between global warming and science concepts dealt with in middle/junior high school science courses. Still, global atmospheric change is merely the vehicle being used in this unit to get at a broader and more important goal. The developers of this unit hold that the ultimate goal of integrating STS into school science instruction is to help future citizens develop the knowledge, skills and willingness to take responsible action on the STS issues, based upon informed decisions. That is, if humankind is to resolve present and future STS issues and possibly prevent the occurrence of STS issues, citizens must get involved and act. The body of research on citizenship action shows that citizens are more likely to get involved and take action on issues, and continue to take action over an extended period of time, if they are aware of STS issues, possess knowledge about actions that might be taken to resolve them, have developed the skills to carry out or take informed action, and developed certain personality and affective characteristics that dispose them to act (e.g., a somewhat questioning attitude toward technology, a more internal locus of control, efficacy perception). The STS issue investigation and action instructional strategy used in this unit incorporates those four factors in an integrated curricular structure consisting of three groups of lessons: foundations and awareness lessons, investigations lessons, and actions lessons. (Please see the Background and Development section of this Introduction, below, for more information on the STS issue, investigation and action strategy.)
Global Atmospheric Change: Enhanced Greenhouse Effect, Ozone Layer Depletion and Ground Level Ozone Pollution was initially developed for use in middle school science. Still, one of the developers, Kathy Yorks, found the unit to be most appropriate as an organizer for a high school academic biology course. The unit appears to hold potential for use in other high school science courses, including among others, general science, earth science, environmental science, physical science and STS courses.
Across the foundations and awareness, investigations and actions sections are the plans for 32 lessons, each lasting for from one to four 40 minute class periods, for over 50 days of instruction in total. Each of the lesson plans has been field tested and revised a number of times by the teacher developers.
There are 11 Foundations/Awareness Lessons in which learners examine the nature of science and technology, and characteristic interactions among them that sometimes result in STS issues, but also can be used in their resolution. Significant issues facing humankind are identified and analyzed to determine which are issues, as opposed to problems, and which are STS issues. An STS issue that is relevant to the community and learners, global atmospheric change (GAC) as it relates to enhanced greenhouse effect, ozone layer depletion and ground level ozone pollution, is identified and expressed as an STS focusing question on GAC.
These are 15 Investigations Lessons in which learners develop skills for thoroughly exploring STS issues as they apply those skills in investigating the focusing STS question on GAC. These include the study of science and social studies concepts or aspects of technology that are foundational to understanding GAC, through library research using primary and secondary sources, securing data and information from outside agencies, hands-on inquiry activities, collecting natural science data on site, and using social science research techniques such as questionnaires and interviews to collect data within the community. The information and data from the investigations are consolidated by learners to answer the STS focusing question on GAC.
There are six (6) Actions Lessons in which learners develop an understanding of various types of actions that might be taken in support of the answer they formulated to the STS focusing question on GAC. A tentative action plan is composed and the pros and cons associated with each action examined from a number of perspectives. Learners decide which action(s) they are willing to take as individuals and/or as members of a group, implement those actions, evaluate the results and report on those to the class.
Each lesson in the unit is structured as a lesson plan for the teacher, including: Title, Overview & Outcomes, Background Notes for the Teachers, Materials, Preparation, Instructional Procedures, and Assessment/Portfolio Items.
Title. Lesson titles have been written to describe the topic of the lesson.
Overview & Outcomes. This section opens with a statement that notes the focus of the lesson and establishes a context for the lesson by noting connections between the focus of the lesson and the foci of the lessons that precede and will follow it. Next, model student outcomes are presented. The section ends with a concept map, which shows model relationships among concepts the lesson seeks to develop. Concepts introduced in this lesson are bolded on the concept map and concepts from other (prior and subsequent) lessons are in plain text (not bolded). Appendix A provides an overview of concept maps and concept mapping as a instructional tool.
Background Notes for the Teachers. These are notes for the teacher on science, technology, and social topics pertinent to the lesson. Frequently, additional teacher references are noted at the end of the lesson.
Materials and Preparation. Noted are materials for groups of students and/or the entire class. Preparation that needs to be done more than one day in advance is noted when appropriate.
Instructional Procedures. The instructional procedures include a step-wise description of how it is anticipated the lesson will proceed. A 40 minute period has been assumed. In cases where a lesson extends over two or more periods, the instructional procedures have been broken into one-period segments. Appendices B, C, and D supplement the instructional procedures.
Assessment/Portfolio Items. The lesson outcomes and concepts maps in the Overview & Outcomes section of the lessons describe student outcomes that are difficult to assess with the use of objective assessment items alone. The developers recommended that teachers incorporate a portfolio into the assessment strategy that is adopted for the unit. This section of the lesson includes reference to assessment modes that could be incorporated into students' portfolios. Appendix E is a guide to implementing portfolio assessment within the context of this unit.
There is an abundance of teacher and student resourses related to this unit on the Internet and World Wide Web. For example, Internet list-serves and gophers are an excellent course of up-to-date information. World Wide Web includes ready-to-use text and graphics resources that can be down-loaded. Given these resources are constantly expanding, any list provided here would be outdated. Users of this unit are encouraged to gain access to Internet and World Wide Web in order to take advantage of these resources.
Listed below are the 800 contact phone numbers for some of the most widely used commercial services . The first five are the big, commercial, on-line service providers. They provide Internet connectivity as well as many other services, e.g., special interest groups, chat rooms, shopping, software downloads.
America Online: 1-800-827-6364
CompuServe: 1-800-487-9197
Genie: 1-800-638-9636
Prodigy: 1-800-776-3449
Delphi: 1-800-695-4005
The next four provide just Internet connectivity.
NetCruiser (NetCom On-Line Services): 1-800-353-6600
InterRamp: 1-800-774-0852
DataBank: 1-913-842-6699
i-LINK: 1-800-454-6599
The editors of this unit do not endorse any one of the above services. If you are interested in a commercial service we suggest you do some comparative shopping.
Cooperative learning is a model of teaching in which students work together to complete a task or achieve a particular goal. Since its introduction in the early 1970s, cooperative learning has been used in a variety of ways in the science classroom. David and Roger Johnson and Robert Slavin are well known for their work in cooperative learning and their materials are recommended. In this unit, several lessons rely on cooperative learning strategies thus making it necessary for the teacher to be familiar with terms such as jigsaw and home/expert groups as they are used within the context of cooperative learning. The references which follow may be useful in that regard:
Hassard, J. (1992). Minds on science-Middle and secondary school methods. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.
Johnson, D., and Johnson, R. (1976). Learning together and alone. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Slavin, R. (1986). Using Team Learning, 3d ed. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools, The Johns Hopkins University.
Five Appendices are provided for teachers' use as supplements to the unit:
Appendix A. Concept Maps and Concept Mapping. The concept map is an educational tool with great versatility. Its many uses include: (a) planning and connecting instruction-to help the teacher decide the important concepts and concept relationships to emphasize, and important connections to make between new concepts and those that comprised past instruction; (b) conveying content-as part of instruction, to help the teacher present visually critical concepts and relationships; © eliciting and assessing students' understandings-in order to identify and help students restructure alternative conceptions they may have prior to instruction and monitor how their understanding changes over the duration of instruction. Additionally, the process of constructing a concept map-concept mapping-is a powerful learning strategy that is graphic in nature and forces the learner to think critically about the relationships between concepts. Accordingly, concept mapping can be assigned as a means for students to study content, and in a group setting, to "talk science" and negotiate understandings. The purpose of this appendix is to familiarize teachers with the important components of a concept map, the concept map construction process, and various reasons and ways to use concept maps to educate students.
Appendix B. An Investigation of Middle School Students' Alternative Conceptions of Global Warming as Formative Evaluation of Teacher-Developed STS Units. This appendix includes excerpts from a research report originating from interviews conducted during the 1992-93 academic year with middle school students, after they had received instruction from one of the six teacher-developed units of global warming. As explained more fully in the Introduction to this unit, these global warming units were the forerunners to this unit on GAC. The findings from the interviews suggest that middle school students may possess specific alternative conceptions that limit and confound their understanding of the nature, causation, and resolution of GAC, to which teachers must attend.
Appendix C. Taking Actions on Global Atmospheric Change. This appendix includes excerpts from a paper that originated from a panel discussion presented at the Ninth National STS Meeting and Technological Literacy Conference in January of 1994 in Arlington, VA by participants and staff members from the Leadership Institute in STS Education. The body of the paper included remarks made by the three Institute participants-Dottie Yukish, Marty McLaren, and Kathy Yorks-in which they describe actions taken by their students during and subsequent to the Actions Phase in one of the global warming units that preceded this unit. These are provided as exemplars.
Appendix D. The Story Board and Low-Tech Serendipity. This is a manuscript in which Dottie Yukish, an exemplary elementary teacher and one of the Institute participants, describes how a storyboard was employed to help students develop an understanding of GAC and subsequently used by students in educating the community on GAC as an action.
Appendix E. Portfolio Assessment of STS Outcomes. This is a guide to implementing portfolio assessment within the context of this unit as used by one teacher, Kate Sillman.
Though the phrase scientific literacy was not coined until after World War II and though our conceptions of scientific literacy has changed over time, preparing citizens to deal with science and technology as these enterprises touch their lives has been a generally acknowledged goal of school science education since Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson's advocacy of the inclusion of science and technology in the school curriculum. The most recent efforts at explicating our conceptions of scientific literacy can be found in the work of Project 2061 (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1990, 1993) and the National Research Council (1994).
From a social responsibility perspective (Waks & Prakash, 1985), citizens in a global society have an obligation to help resolve the myriad of science- and technology-related societal issues, STS issues for short, that humankind has created through the short-sighted use of science and technology. These include STS issues such as acid rain, enhanced greenhouse effect, ozone layer depletion, ground level ozone pollution, overpopulation, species extinction, water quality and quantity, and waste management. Consistent with this social responsibility perspective and the primacy of scientific literacy as a goal of a school science education, the authors hold that a scientifically literate citizen is able and willing to take responsible and informed actions on STS issues (Rubba & Wiesenmayer, 1985).
The model of instruction we have endorsed for helping learners/citizens gain the knowledge, skills and willingness to take responsible actions on STS issues is known as "STS issue investigation and action instruction." STS Issue investigation and action instruction originates from work in environmental education on teaching for responsible citizenship action. That research and more recent research in STS issue investigation and action strategy itself, both of which are summarized elsewhere (Rubba & Wiesenmayer, 1993), shows that students/citizens continue to take action on societal issues when the instruction helps them develop: (a) an awareness of societal issues, (b) knowledge about actions that might be taken to resolve the issues, © the ability to carry out or take informed actions on the issues, and (d) certain personality and affective characteristics that dispose one to act (e.g., a somewhat questioning attitude toward technology, an internal locus of control, efficacy perception). STS Issue investigation and action instruction incorporates these four critical factors in an integrated four phase structure: foundations, awareness, investigations and actions phases.
The STS issue investigation and action units we have helped science teachers develop and implement comprise five to six weeks of instruction, but may be taught in shorter or more extended time frames. A unit typically begins with STS issue foundations activities in which learners examine the nature of science and technology, and characteristic interactions among science and technology within society. It is critical that learners understand these interrelationships, if they are to take action on an STS issue. Next, in the STS issue awareness phase, significant issues facing humankind may be identified and analyzed to determine which are "issues" (as opposed to problems) and which are "STS issues" (as opposed to societal issues that might not directly involve science and or technology); and to identify related science concepts, technological aspects, social science concepts, and prominent value positions associated with different sides of the STS issue. Case studies delivered in text or video form might be used to develop the next critical understandings: that STS issues can and will continue to develop, but will be resolved only through responsible and informed action by citizens.
An STS issue that is relevant to the community and learners is identified toward the end of the STS issue awareness phase by the class, or a number of STS issues can be selected each by different groups of learners within the class, under the teacher's guidance. The issue may be a derivative of a STS issue with global implications, e.g., acid rain, waste management. But of critical importance is that the learner identify with the issue and the issue hold potential for learners taking action toward its resolution. Hence, the STS issue needs to have local implications. An understanding of certain science and social science concepts and technological aspects of the issue may need to be developed to help learners clearly define the STS issue. This can be accomplished through activities led by the science teacher working alone or in concert with a social studies teacher-the possibility of which appears to be very feasible from science and social studies teachers' points of view (Rubba & Wiesenmayer, 1991).
The aspect of the issue to be investigated is typically expressed as an STS focusing question in order to provide direction for learners throughout the STS issue investigations and actions phases that will follow. An STS focusing question may be general in nature, for example, Is global warming a real threat? or very specific, for example, What are the possible consequences of land use for global warming in the mid-west? or the question may express a connection with the science course in which the unit is being integrated, for example, What effect might global warming have upon surface water supplies in southern California? (earth science), What impact might global warming have upon plant and animal life in the eastern U.S.? (life science/biology), What should be our energy policy and practices in the U.S. in the face of global warming? (physical science/physics).
In the STS issue investigations phase, learners develop skills for thoroughly exploring STS issues as they apply those skills in investigating the focusing STS question. These might include the study of other science and/or social studies concepts or aspects of technology that are foundational to understanding the STS issue, through library research using primary and secondary sources, securing data and information from outside agencies, hands-on inquiry activities, collecting natural science data on site, and using social science research techniques such as questionnaires and interviews to collect data within the community. Teachers have the option of determining exactly how much information and data are collected first-hand by the learners, versus the amount provided for learners as part of the unit. At the close of the investigations phase, the information and data are consolidated by learners to answer to the focusing question.
Next, in the STS issue actions phase, learners develop an understanding of various types of actions that might be taken in support of the answer they formulated to the focusing question. A tentative action plan is composed and the pros and cons associated with each action examined from a number of perspectives. Lastly, learners decide which action(s) they are willing to take as individuals and/or as members of a group, implement those actions, evaluate the results and report on those to the class.
Consistent with the recommendations of a number of blue-ribbon groups in the early 1980s that STS be integrated into school science for the purpose of preparing future citizens to deal with STS issues [see for example: Aaronian & Brinckerhoff (1980), Harms & Yager (1981), the National Science Teachers Association (1982), the National Council for the Social Studies (1983), and the National Science Board (1983)], in 1985 Rubba and Wiesenmayer began offering summer workshops on STS issues investigation and action instruction for science teachers in Pennsylvania and surrounding states. Between 1985 and 1990, the point at which the calls for the integration of STS into school science instruction were renewed by the National Science Teachers Association (1990) and the National Council for the Social Studies (1990), about 200 science teachers participated in these workshops. Another 200 prospective science teachers at Penn State University and West Virginia University also learned to implement STS issues investigation and action instruction as a part of their preservice preparation.
In 1988, Rubba and Wiesenmayer recommended middle/junior high school as the most appropriate grade range in which to integrate STS issue investigation and action instruction, when students are gaining their independence, beginning to make decisions about their futures, and developing the value systems that will guide actions throughout the rest of their lives (Rakow & Barufaldi, 1991). STS issues investigation and action instruction is, in fact, just the type of science the National Science Teachers Association recommended in its report Science Education for Middle and Junior High Students:
The primary function of science education at the middle and junior high level is to provide students with the opportunity to explore science in their lives, and to become comfortable and personally involved in it. Certainly science curriculum at this level should reflect society's goals for scientific and technological literacy and emphasize the role of science for personal, social, and career use, as well as prepare students academically (Brunkhorst & Padilla, 1986, pp. 62-63).
A middle/junior high school science teacher needs assessment, conducted by Rubba and Wiesenmayer in the schools surrounding Penn State University and West Virginia University in 1989, showed that nearly half of the middle/junior high school science teachers in these two vast rural areas perceived that they lacked the ability to effectively integrate STS into science instruction. In another study, Rubba (1989) found that even science teachers who claimed to be including STS in science courses were doing so the equivalent of only a few days of instructional time an academic year, and that the instructional strategies used during these STS episodes tended to be the same ones science teachers commonly used to teach science concepts-the lecture and lab with some supplemental use of discussions and films/videos. Together, these studies suggested that middle school science teachers in rural central Pennsylvania and northern West Virginia generally were not dealing with STS, and when they did, they used science instructional strategies that were not consistent with the purpose of integrating STS into science instruction.
The U.S. Department of Education 1989 report, Rural Education: A Changing Landscape, noted that rural schools were in a similar state of crisis to urban schools, mainly due to changes in population composition and the changing dimensions of rural poverty over the previous two decades:
...[B]oth rural and urban areas experienced similar changes in family living arrangements during the 1970s...because some of the main factors associated with metropolitan-non-metropolitan difference in family structure have diminished: number of childbirths, age at marriage, attitudes toward the family, and the role of women. (p. 25)
As a result of a series of economic recessions and less than rapid recoveries, poverty rates in rural areas during the 1980s surpassed those in urban areas, with 18.3 percent of the U.S. rural population living in poverty according to the U.S. Census data (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1991) versus 13.8 percent of the urban population. The flight of young adults from rural area to urban areas in the 1970s for greater economic opportunity resulted in a bi-modal rural population composed mainly of children and the elderly.
The U.S. Department of Education (1989) report suggested that "...to succeed, rural schools need better leaders and more effective support organizations (p. 62)." In a report of the Carnegie Foundation entitled Toward Improving Rural Schools with Implications for Teaching Science, Enochs (1988) suggested that before science programs in rural schools could be improved we must understand the unique needs of rural schools. In that report he presented a list of recommendations for improving science programs in rural schools. Among the highest priority recommendations were the following three:
In the Spring of 1991 Penn State University and West Virginia University applied for a Teacher Enhancement Grant entitled: Teacher Development and Research in STS Education for Rural Middle/Junior High School Science Teachers from Central Pennsylvania and Northern West Virginia to support a Leadership Institute in STS Education for middle/junior high school science teachers in rural central Pennsylvania and northern West Virginia. The project plan was based upon the middle/junior high school science teacher needs assessment data and incorporated the three critical recommendations made by Enochs for improving science education in rural schools. Global warming was selected as the STS issue theme for the Institute because of its timeliness, the controversial nature of the issue, interest by middle/junior high school students in the issue, the potential the issue held for action by students, and connections between global warming and science concepts dealt with in middle/junior high school science courses.
A three year award was received from NSF in August of 1991 to Penn State University with West Virginia University as the sub-contractor. Institute planning began in the Fall of 1991 guided by two goals:
The Institute was under the direction of Dr. Peter A. Rubba, Professor of Science Education and STS Program Associate at Penn State, and Dr. Randall L. Wiesenmayer, Associate Professor of Science Education at West Virginia University. James A. Rye and Valorie Morphew, from Penn State and West Virginia Universities respectively, served as Research Assistants. Cristine Schoneweg Bradford and Thomas Ditty, again from Penn State and West Virginia Universities respectively, were graduate students working on the staff. Additionally, faculty members and graduate students from both institutions participated in the Institute.
Two dozen middle/junior high school science teachers from rural school districts in central Pennsylvania and northern West Virginia were recruited as participants in early 1992 using brochures mailed to teachers, principals and superintendents. Fourteen of the participants were from central Pennsylvania and 10 from northern West Virginia, with 10 female teachers and 14 male teachers among these. The majority of the participants taught science in the 6th through 8th grade range, but two of the participants were reassigned to 5th grade during the course of the project, and two teachers who taught grade 9/10 biology also were participants.
The program of professional development activities in STS education designed to develop a cadre of science teacher-leaders in STS among the rural middle/junior high schools within rural, central Pennsylvania and northern West Virginia (Goal 1) consisted of a series of three workshops offered in the Summers of 1992, 1993 and 1994 with follow-up and support activities during the academic years. Concurrently, the Institute staff examined the effectiveness of the STS curricula the teachers developed and the teachers thinking about the place of STS in school science instruction (Goal 2). Institute activities are described briefly below in chronological order.
The Summer 1992 Workshop included four components: (a) Sci-Tech Minicourses on Global Warming (the STS theme of the workshop), (b) instruction on STS issue investigation and action instructional model, © STS unit development around the issue theme of Global Warming, and (d) electronic mail instruction and practice. The workshop met over a three-week period across June and July 1992 on the University Park Campus of Penn State approximately 8 hours per day with some required and optional evening sessions.
Sci-Tech Minicourses.Six Sci-Tech Minicourses on Global Warming were presented to give the participants a thorough understanding of global warming from science, technology and societal perspectives. These were taught by Penn State University faculty from the colleges of agriculture, earth and mineral sciences, engineering, and science, and the STS Program known internationally for their research in areas related to global warming. Each minicourse was 8 to 12 hours long, involving both classroom and field instruction. The six minicourses included:
Instruction on the STS Issue Investigation and Action Model and Global Warming STS Unit Development. Rubba and Wiesenmayer led the portions of the workshop in which the STS issue instigation and action model was introduced, and in which the participants developed STS units around the global warming theme for integration into middle/junior high school science courses they taught. Discussion of the STS issue investigation and action model drew heavily on its research base as discussed by Rubba and Wiesenmayer (1985, 1988), Wiesenmayer and Rubba (1990), Wiesenmayer, Turpin and Arguello (1988).
The participants organized themselves into six teams of four or five for the STS unit development, with the work of each team supervised by an Institute staff member. The resulting six STS Issue Investigation and Action Global Warming Units (STS GW Units) were each about 60 pages in length and included detailed lesson plans for four to five weeks of instruction with resource materials (videos, booklets, journal articles, data sheets) referenced or included in appendices. The titles of the STS GW Units and the targeted science courses are:
The lesson structure of Foundations, Awareness, and Actions Phases of these six units were very similar given they were based on a common set of STS outcomes and concepts (Rubba & Wiesenmayer, 1988) and Foundations and Awareness lessons from a earlier STS issue investigation and action unit on trash (Wiesenmayer, Glasshauser, Guyer, Mahone, Hite & Prokop, 1988) were included. However, the Investigations Phase lessons were unique to the six units, given these included science concepts related to global warming and concepts dealt with in the science course in which the unit was to be integrated.
Electronic Mail. To facilitate communications among the Institute participants and staff at Penn State University and West Virginia University, an Institute Electronic Mail (E-mail) Link was established on the Internet using an 800 phone number. It was a requirement for application to the Institute that the teacher's school provide a microcomputer, modem, communications software, and access to a phone line (preferably in the teacher's classroom). Given that many of the participants had little prior experience with computers, a special set of menu-driven screens was developed for the Institute's E-mail link. Two hands-on e-mail sessions were offered in the evening during the second week of the workshop, with an additional optional session offered on an evening during the third week (Ditty, Jarosick, Milam, Rubba, Rye, Wiesenmayer & Yorks, 1993).
Each teacher field tested the STS GW Unit he/she helped to develop at an appropriate point during the 1992-1993 school year. Over the course of the academic year the teachers communicated with other members of their team and with the Institute staff communicated via E-mail. These E-mail communications fell into three categories (Ditty, Jarosick, Milam, Rubba, Rye, Wiesenmayer & Yorks, 1993). First, there were exchanges within the teams of teachers who developed and implemented the same STS GW Unit concerning, for example, the implementation schedule, and suggested and actual modifications made to the units during implementation. Periodically, Institute staff members were asked to join these E-mail conversations. Many teachers used E-mail to order videos from the Institute Video Library, which was established to support the STS GW Units.
Second, there were extensive exchanges among the project staff at Penn State and West Virginia University on project planning and development. For example, the schedule for the forthcoming Summer 1993 Workshop and the protocol to be used with the teachers and their students following implementation of the STS GW Units were developed via E-mail.
Third, there also were E-mail communications among the teachers and staff on science teaching in general. These exchanges covered a variety of topics from distribution of the most recent scientific information on global warming from bulletin boards on the Internet, to information on opportunities for teachers and students (e.g., workshops, open houses at Penn State and West Virginia University), to requests for input (classroom resources, textbook recommendations, arrangements for field trips to Penn State or West Virginia University), to dialogues on professional issues (e.g., the utility of professional meetings and inservice, teacher strikes, incidence of violence in the school), to comments on E-mail itself, to a variety of other topics, some of which were personal in nature. At both institutions, the project staff frequently put teachers in contact with science faculty members via E-mail.
E-mail communication in support of the research goal of the Institute included the keeping of two types of journals by the teachers-Responsive Journals and Professional Reflective Journals. Periodically, questions to guide Responsive Journal entries on issues in science teaching and/or the integration of STS into science have been submitted to the teachers via E-mail for reflections and response via E-mail. The Institute staff has had immediate access to these responses. In addition, a majority of the teachers volunteered to keep a Professional Reflective Journal on E-mail that focuses on science teaching and implementation of the STS GW Unit they helped to develop. The Institute staff has had access only to the Professional Reflective Journals released by the individual teachers (Ditty, Jarosick, Milam, Rubba, Rye, Wiesenmayer & Yorks, 1993).
As noted, arrangements were made via the Institute E-mail Link for two staff members to visit the school approximately two weeks after the unit was completed, to interview the teacher and six to eight students. Teachers were asked to select students across a range of ability levels (e.g., two low ability, three average ability, two high ability) and to include appropriate representation by gender and ethnicity.
Standardized open-ended interview protocols (Patton, 1987) were developed for use by the institute staff in conducting the teacher and student interviews. These protocols were approved by the respective university's institutional review boards for the protection of human subjects involved in research. All teacher and student interviews were conducted in a private room (typically an office). Each teacher interview took approximately 35 minutes to complete, with the student interviews lasting about 20 minutes. The interviews were tape recorded, transcribed; and the transcripts were verified and corrected as needed. Subsequently, the transcripts were reviewed to identify emergent patterns.
Teacher Interviews.In the teacher interviews, information was collected on their views concerning the strengths and limitations of the STS units they helped to develop and field test, and the underlying STS issue investigation and action structure. The teachers were asked to share their insights for three time frames: (a) just after they helped to develop the STS unit, (b) while the unit was being field tested and, © following the first field test (at the point in time the interview was being conducted). In addition, each teacher discussed adjustments he/she made to the science course into which the STS unit was implemented in order to fit the unit into the course (Rubba, Rye & Wiesenmayer, 1994).
The teachers reported having many doubts following the Summer 1992 workshop: these included the global warming theme for the units, the four phase structure of the units, the value of some of the activities in the units, certain instructional strategies adopted for the units, assessment, and the appropriateness of the units for science instruction in their own classrooms. As a result, most of the teachers delayed implementing their unit toward the end of the school year (Rubba, Rye & Wiesenmayer, 1994).
Most of the teachers reported that these doubts began to disappear as the units were implemented, and had disappeared, for the most part, by the point of the interview. Still, the area of assessment-appropriate outcomes to assess and how to assess them-continued to be a problem area for a significant number of the teachers. At least one teacher remained opposed to the use of cooperative learning groups and unswayed by the issue investigation and action approach to integrating STS into science courses. The majority of the teachers, however, had developed a somewhat new perspective on integrating STS into school science (Rubba, Rye & Wiesenmayer, 1994).
Student Interviews. The student interviews focused on eliciting, sequentially, students' understandings and views on: (a) the nature and cause of global warming, (b) what global warming unit content was "important," © why global warming is an STS issue, (d) possible citizenship actions to resolve global warming, (e) actions actually taken to help resolve global warming, (f) likes and dislikes about the STS GW Unit, and (g) connections between global warming and ozone-related environmental problems. The findings from the student interviews were reported by Rye, Rubba, and Wiesenmayer (1994, in press). Most significant to the STS GW Unit development effort was the finding that many students held (following instruction) a number of alternative conceptions which inappropriately connected global warming and ozone depletion. Those alternative conceptions are as follows: (a) ozone depletion is the major or predominant cause of global warming, (b) carbon dioxide destroys the ozone layer, © the exclusive role of carbon dioxide in global warming is by destroying the ozone layer, (d) the exclusive role of CFCs in global warming is by destroying the ozone layer, and (e) aerosol sprays contain CFCs and/or destroy the ozone layer. These alternative conceptions were held by 25 to 55 percent of the students, independent of the STS GW Unit completed, grade level, ability level, and gender (Rye, Rubba & Wiesenmayer, 1994, in press).
The results from the teacher and student interviews were used in planning the second summer workshop, which was offered during the last two weeks of June 1993 at West Virginia University. Early in the workshop minicourses were offered on cooperative learning and authentic assessment. The alternative conceptions found to be held by the students were reviewed in the context of conceptual change teaching and the need to deal with ozone depletion in the STS GW Units. The teacher teams planned revisions to their STS GW Units, which were carried out during the rest of the summer. Additionally, the teachers each planned two short-term (e.g., inservice presentations or workshops) and one long term (e.g., mentoring another teacher as he/she implements the mentor's STS GW Unit) dissemination activity on the STS issue investigation and action model and/or their STS GW Units, for implementation during the 1993-94 academic year. Optional sessions on "surfing the Internet" also were offered.
Each teacher field tested their revised STS GW Unit and implemented their short-term and long-term dissemination plans at appropriate points for them during the 1993-1994 school year-two short-term (e.g., inservice presentations or workshops) and one long term (e.g., mentoring another teacher as he/she implements the mentor's STS GW Unit) dissemination activity on the STS issue investigation and action model and/or their STS GW Units, for implementation during the 1993-94 academic year. The Institute E-mail Link was used by the teachers and Institute staff in support of these activities. Two teachers emerged as extensive users of Internet, accessing and down-loading information, using it in their classes, and sharing what they found and how they used it over the Institute E-Mail Link.
As in the previous year, arrangements were made via E-mail for two staff members to again visit the school approximately two weeks after the revised STS GW Unit was completed, to interview the teacher and six to eight students. The teachers were asked to share their insights on the STS GW Unit they helped to develop, just after it was revised during the previous summer, and at the time of the interview after its implementation, and on the student outcomes. Additionally, the teachers' personal perspectives on global warming as an issue were discussed. A standardized open-ended interview protocol similar to that used in the previous year (which focused on the students' understanding of the global warming and ozone depletion) was used with the students.
Even though the teachers believed they had revised their STS GW Units to help the students develop more appropriate or scientific conceptions about the connections and disconnections between global warming and ozone depletion (Rye, Rubba & Wiesenmayer, in press), those alternative conceptions proved to be very resistant to change. Significant numbers of the students continued to hold the alternative conceptions identified following the first implementation (1992-93 academic year) of the STS GW Units. Though conscious of the possibility that students might continue to hold these alternative conceptions, in spite of modifications made to the units and their best instructional efforts, the teachers generally were surprised. Other student interviews revealed that precursors for many of the students' alternative conceptions about connections between global warming and ozone existed prior to the students being exposed to the STS GW Units (Dorough, Rubba & Rye, 1995). Additionally, these findings did not appear to be limited to the students who completed the STS GW Unit. These alternative conceptions surfaced in a recent study in Greece of primary students' understandings of ozone layer depletion and the greenhouse effect (Koulaidis & Christidou, 1993; Christakis, personal communication, April 22, 1994).
The purpose for the Summer 1994 was to merge the individual STS GW Units into a single STS issue investigation and action unit that could be used in grade 6 through 9 science courses, which more fully addressed middle school students' alternative conceptions about global warming and ozone. The editors of this unit met in two writing workshops to accomplish that purpose. The first writing workshop was held during the third week in June in central Pennsylvania and the second workshop in August in West Virginia.
The first workshop was used to review the contents of the extant STS GW Units and to plan a "merged" STS unit. The apparent persistent nature of middle school students' alternative conceptions about global warming and ozone led to a decision to focus the merged STS unit on three related phenomena-enhanced greenhouse effect, ozone layer depletion and ozone pollution-under the umbrella of Global Atmospheric Change. An outline for the Global Atmospheric Change STS Unit was developed, which took into consideration the alternative conceptions about global warming and ozone found to be held by middle school students . Lessons from the extant STS GW Units were tentatively placed in that outline and lesson revision assignments were made for completion prior to the second workshop.
At the second workshop the teachers and staff members re-examined the outline for the Global Atmospheric Change STS Unit in light of each of the lessons that had been revised since the first workshop and outlined additional lessons and appendices that needed to be developed. Work assignments for the development of these additional lessons were agreed upon in anticipation of submitting it to a publisher by the Spring of 1995. Work progressed over the Fall semester of 1994 and into the Spring of 1995 under the direction of Rubba, yielding the STS issue investigation and action unit, Global Atmospheric Change: Enhanced Greenhouse Effect, Ozone Depletion and Ozone Pollution (Rubba, Wiesenmayer, Rye, McLaren, Sillman, Yorks, Yukish, Ditty, Morphew, Bradford, Dorough & Borza, 1994). Following the cover page is a list of contributing authors that includes teachers who attended the Leadership Institute in STS and staff who were involved in the development and revision of the initial STS GW Units. Also included are teachers who participated in the developed of the earlier STS issues investigation and action unit on trash under the direction of Wiesenmayer (Wiesenmayer, Glasshauser, Guyer, Mahone, Hite & Prokop, 1988; Wiesenmayer & Rubba, 1990).
Evaluative input on the Institute was requested at six month intervals from the teachers using open-ended essay items of the following type: "Reflect on all aspects of the Leadership Institute in STS Education to date. Please note evaluative comments you wish to share with the staff." The vast majority of the comments over the course of the Institute have been positive. The following are representative statements from the last set of teacher comments on the Institute and its value to them as teachers and to their students:
Being able to relate to the same group of professionals over an extended period of time has been a real plus. The curriculum developed has prompted me to use techniques I haven't used before such as a journal and concept mapping and assessment scoring rubrics.
A positive aspect of the Institute for me was getting to interact with other teachers of the same subject and grade level-one does not always get to see that others face the same struggles as you do.
The opportunity to use E-mail has been one of the most positive aspects of the Institute. Not just being hooked up, but being able to communicate with colleagues about something (our unit) forced us to use it and now I would really miss not having it!
I feel that working with the STS unit has made me more open to trying new approaches. It has also helped me to see more interrelationships in a variety of the topics I approach in the classroom.
I have been exposed to excellent professional materials that have expanded my thinking, knowledge and skills. The literature on new ideas in science teaching has been very helpful. The ability to ask questions via E-mail has made me feel like a real professional, not just an isolated classroom teacher. This has led me into other areas, such as the benchmark committee with the Pennsylvania Department of Education.
My participation also allowed me to involve my students directly with other students, teachers and the community. Projects students completed or presented made many people aware of global issues that were influenced by local events and industries. I think my students have come to realize they have the right to voice those concerns and that adults will listen as long as students back their concerns with evidence from both sides of the issues(s).
[My] students are building a knowledge base about the environment and pollution, and hopefully we have a comprehensive background on various STS issues. As these students go through school and become adults, they will make well informed decisions about STS issues.
Besides the obvious acquisition of knowledge, my students developed group work skills and a great deal of self-confidence as a result of unit activities. They felt special and important because they knew things the average adult in our community did not. The community presentation we did at the school was a successful experience for them.
The two-thirds of the student body who were taught the unit have a widened view of their responsibilities as residents of this Earth.
My students have benefited from an escape from the traditional text oriented experience to a more hands on approach, and by learning that science does have an affect on their lives and that they can make a difference.
The teachers reported that the long and short term dissemination activities they completed during the 1993-94 academic year, the presentations they made with Institute staff at professional conferences, and the co-authoring of articles originating out of the Institute contributed significantly to their conceptions of themselves as professionals. The presentations at professional conferences and articles originating out of the Institute co-presented and co-authored by Institute staff members and teachers are presented below in Table 1.
The Leadership Institute in STS Education was established to develop middle school science teacher-leaders in STS Education across the rural areas of central Pennsylvania and northern West Virginia. By all measures it has fulfilled its intended purpose through a program of professional development activities and complementary research.
Ditty, T., Jarosick, J., Milam, E., Rubba, P., Rye, J., Wiesenmayer, R., & Yorks, K. (1993, February). Breaking geographical isolation: Rural teachers and students using e-mail. A presentation at the National Association for Science, Technology, and Society's 8th Technological Literacy Conference, Arlington, VA.
Ditty, T., Jarosick, J., Milam, E., Rubba, P., Rye, J., Wiesenmayer, R., & Yorks, K. (1993). Breaking geographical isolation: Rural teachers and students using e-mail. Proceedings of 8th Technological Literacy Conference (pp. 289-294). Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education.
Ditty, T., & Wilkinson, E. (1995, March). Motivating students to action. A presentation at the 1995 National Science Teachers Association National Meeting, Philadelphia, PA.
Dorough, D., Rubba, P., & Rye, J. (1995, April). Fifth and sixth grade students' explanations of global warming. Paper presented at the 1995 Annual National Association for Research in Science Teaching Meeting, San Francisco, CA.
McLaren, M., Yorks, K., Yukish, D., Ditty, T., Rubba, P., & Wiesenmayer, R. (1994, January). Taking actions on global warming: What middle school students have done. A presentation at the National Association for Science, Technology, and Society's 9th Technological Literacy Conference, Arlington, VA.
McLaren, M., Yorks, K., Yukish, D., Ditty, T., Rubba, P., & Wiesenmayer, R. (1994). Taking actions on global warming: What middle school students have done. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 14(2), 88-96.
McLaren, M., Yorks, K., Yukish, D., Ditty, T., Rubba, P., & Wiesenmayer, R. (1994). Taking actions on global warming: What middle school students have done. In D. Cheek & K. Cheek (Eds.), Proceedings of 9th Technological Literacy Conference (pp. 266-277). Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education.
McLaren, M., Sillman, K., Yorks, K., Yukish, D., Rubba, P., & Wiesenmayer, R. (1995, March). A teacher-developed STS issue investigation and action unit for middle school on global atmospheric change. A presentation at the 1995 National Science Teachers Association National Meeting, Philadelphia, PA.
Morphew, V. (1994). A phenomenological study of conceptual and behavioral changes in teachers participating in a leadership institute in STS education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.
Rubba, P. (1993). Penn State and West Virginia use e-mail to link rural science teachers. Interface, 3(s), 3.
Rubba, P. (1993, January). Reflections on science teacher development and enhancement in STS education. Paper presented at the 1993 Annual Meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Charleston, SC.
Rubba, P. (1994, March). Integrating STS into science instruction with an emphasis on citizenship actions. A presentation at the New Mexico Second Annual Systemic Initiative in Math and Science Education Higher Education Conference, Albuquerque, NM.
Rubba, P. (1994, April). Breaking geographical isolation: Use and reflections on the use of e-mail by rural middle school science teachers in a teacher enhancement project. A presentation made as part of the Association for the Education of Teachers of Science Program at the National Science Teachers Association Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA.
Rubba, P., & Wiesenmayer, R. (1992, February). Teacher development and research in STS education: An NSF teacher enhancement project at Penn State University and West Virginia University. A presentation at the national Association for Science, Technology and Society's 7th Technological Literacy Conference, Arlington, VA.
Rubba, P., Conway, P., Sillman, K., & Yorks, K. (1992, November). Teacher-developed middle/junior high school STS units on global warming. A presentation at the 1992 Pennsylvania Science Teachers Association Convention, Pittsburgh, PA.
Rubba, P., & Wiesenmayer, R. (1993). Increased action by students. In R. Yager (Eds.), The science, technology, society movement: What research says to the science teacher (pp. 169-175). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
Rubba, P., Wiesenmayer, R., Ditty, T., Fleagle, S., Milam, E., & Yorks, K. (1993, January). Investigating global warming: An STS approach for middle and high school students. A panel discussion at the 8th National STS Meeting and Technological Literacy Conference, Arlington, VA.
Rubba, P., Rye, J. &, Wiesenmayer, R. (1993, October). Integrating STS units into middle/junior high school science: Insights gained from teacher-developers. A presentation as part of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science Program at the National Science Teachers Association Regional Meeting, Denver, CO.
Rubba, P., Wiesenmayer, R., Rye, J., McLaren, M., Sillman, K., Yorks, K., Yukish, D., Ditty, T., Morphew, V., Schoneweg, C., Dorough, D., & Borza, K. (1994). Global atmospheric change: Enhanced greenhouse effect, ozone depletion and ozone pollution. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University, College of Education.
Rubba, P., Rye, J., & Wiesenmayer, R. (1994, January). Middle science school teacher's understanding of global warming prior to and following a teacher enhancement workshop. A presentation at the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science Annual Meeting, El Paso, TX.
Rubba, P., Rye, J., and Wiesenmayer, R. (1994, October). Insights gained from middle/junior high school teacher/developers of STS units on global atmospheric change: Implementation year two. Paper presented as part of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science Program at the National Science Teachers Association Regional Convention in Portland, OR.
Rubba, P., Rye, J., & Wiesenmayer, R. (1995, March). Middle school students' conceptions of global warming following STS instruction: Use of template concept maps. Paper presented at the 1995 National Science Teachers Association National Meeting, Philadelphia, PA.
Rubba, P., Rye, J., & Wiesenmayer, R. (1995, November). Global atmospheric change: A science-technology-society issues investigation and action unit on enhanced greenhouse effect, ozone depletion and ozone pollution for middle grades. A presentation at the School Science and Mathematics Association Meeting, Williamsburg, VA.
Rye, J. (1995). An investigation of the concept map as an interview tool to facilitate externalization of conceptual understandings associated with global atmospheric change by eighth grade physical science students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
Rye, J., Rubba, P., Conway, P., McLaren, M., Sillman, K., & Yorks, K. ( 1993, November). Teacher-developed STS units on global warming for middle and high school science. A presentation at the 1993 Pennsylvania Science Teachers Association Convention, Allentown, PA.
Rye, J., Rubba, P., & Wiesenmayer, R. (1994, March). Middle school student's conceptions of global warming following STS instruction. Paper presented at the 1994 Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Anaheim, CA
Rye, J., Rubba, P. & Wiesenmayer, R. (in press). An investigation of middle school students' alternative conceptions of global warming as formative evaluation of teacher-developed STS units. International Journal of Science Education.
Wiesenmayer, R. (1991, September). Improving STS education in the middle school: A plan for action. A presentation at the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science regional meeting, Amstead, WV.
Wiesenmayer, R. (1992, September). Resources and activities to help middle/high school students investigate global warming. A presentation at the West Virginia Science Teachers Association Conference, Canaan, WV.
Wiesenmayer, R., & Rubba, P. (1990, April). The effects of STS issue investigation and action instruction and traditional life science instruction on seventh grade students' citizenship behavior. Paper presented at the 1990 Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Atlanta, GA.
Wiesenmayer, R., Rubba, P., Ditty, T., Jarosick, J., Milam, E. & Yorks, K. (1993, January). Breaking geographical isolation: Rural teachers and students using BITNET e-mail. A panel discussion presented at the 8th National STS Meeting and Technological Literacy Conference, Arlington, VA.
Wiesenmayer, R., Rubba, P., & Ditty, T. (1994, January). Global warming: Middle school students conceptions following STS instruction. A round table discussion presented at the 9th National STS Meeting and Technological Literacy Conference, Arlington, VA.
Wiesenmayer, R., Rubba, P., McLaren, M., Yorks, K., Yukish, D., & Ditty, T. (1994, January). Taking actions on global warming: What middle school students have done. A panel discussion presented at the 9th National STS Meeting and Technological Literacy Conference, Arlington, VA.
Wiesenmayer, R., Rubba, P., & Ditty, T. (1995, March). Middle school students' conceptions of global warming and views about the nature of science following STS instruction. A presentation at the National Association for Science, Technology, and Society's Tenth Technological Literacy Conference, Arlington, VA.
Aaronian, R., & Brickerhoff, R. (1980). The Exeter conference on secondary school science education. Phillips Exeter Academy, NH.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. 1990. Science for All Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. 1993. Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Brunhorst, B. & Padilla, M. (1986). Science education for middle and junior high students. Science and Children, 24(3), 62-63.
Ditty, T., Jarosick, J. Milam, E., Rubba, P., Rye, J., Wiesenmayer, R.,& Yorks, K. Breaking geographical isolation: Rural teachers and students using e-mail. Proceedings of 8th Technological Literacy Conference (pp. 289-294). Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education.
Dorough. D., Rubba, P. & Rye, J. (1995, April). Fifth and sixth grade students' explanations of global warming. Paper presented at the 1995 Annual National Association for Research in Science Teaching Meeting, San Francisco, CA.
Enochs, L. (1988). Toward improving rural schools with implications for the teaching of science. New York: Carnegie Corp.
Harms, N., & Yager, R. (1981). What research says to the science teacher (Volume III). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
Koulaidis, V., & Christidou, I. (1993, August). Children's misconceptions and cognitive strategies regarding the understanding of the ozone layer depletion. Abstract of paper presented at the Third International Seminar on Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics, Ithaca, NY.
McLaren, M., Yorks, K., Yukish, D., Ditty, T., Rubba, P., & Wiesenmayer, R. (1994). Taking actions on global warming: What middle school students have done. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 14(2), 88-96.
National Council for the Social Studies, Science and Society Committee. (1983). Guidelines for teaching science related societal issues. Social Education, 47(4), 258-261.
National Council for the Social Studies, Science, and Society Committee. (1990). Teaching about science, technology and society in social studies: Education for citizenship in the 21st century. Social Education, 54(4), 189-193.
National Science Board, Commission on Precollege Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology. (1983). Educating Americans for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
National Science Teachers Association. (1982). Science-technology-society: Science education for the 1980's. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
National Science Teachers Association. (1990). Science-technology-society: A new effort for providing appropriate science for all. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
National Research Council. (1994). National Science Education Standards: November 1994 Draft. Washington: National Academy Press.
Patton, M. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Rakow, S. & Barufaldi, J. (1991). Science for middle and junior high school students. In Majundar, S., Rosenfeld, L, Rubba, P., Miller, W. and Schmultz, R. (Eds.). Science Education: Issues, Crises and Priorities. (Chapter 6). Pennsylvania Academy of Science.
Rubba, P. (1989). An investigation of the semantic meaning assigned to concepts affiliated with STS education and of STS education and of STS instructional practices among a sample of exemplary science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(8), 687-702.
Rubba, P., Rye, J. & Wiesenmayer, R. (1994, January). Integrating STS units into middle/junior high school science: Insights gained from teacher-developers. Paper presented at the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science Annual Meeting, El Paso, TX.
Rubba, P., & Wiesenmayer, R. (1985). A goal structure for precollege STS education: A proposal based upon recent literature in environmental education. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 5(6), 573-580.
Rubba, P., & Wiesenmayer, R. (1988). Goals and competencies for precollege STS education: Recommendations based upon recent literature in environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 19(4), 38-44.
Rubba, P., & Wiesenmayer, R. (1991). A study of the qualities teachers recommend in STS issue investigation and action instructional materials. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 11(4&5), 212-219.
Rubba, P. & Wiesenmayer, R. (1993). Increased action by students. In R. Yager (Eds.). The science, technology, society movement: What research says to the science teacher (pp. 169-175). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
Rubba, P., Wiesenmayer, R., Rye, J., McLaren, M., Sillman, K., Yorks, K., Yukish, D., Ditty, T., Morphew, V., Bradford, C., Dorough, D., & Borza, K. (1994). Global atmospheric change: Enhanced greenhouse effect, ozone depletion and ozone pollution. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University, College of Education.
Rye, J., Rubba, P. & Wiesenmayer, R. (1994. March). Middle school student's conceptions of global warming following STS instruction. Paper presented at the 1994 Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Anaheim, CA.
Rye, J., Rubba, P. & Wiesenmayer, R. (in press). An investigation of middle school students' alternative conceptions of global warming as formative evaluation of teacher-developed STS units. International Journal of Science Education.
U.S. Department of Commerce. (1991). Census of population and housing, 1990: Data (Computer Files). Bureau of Census, Data users Services.
U.S. Department of Education. (1989). Rural education: A changing landscape. Education Network Division, Office of Research and Improvement, (Doc US ED 1.302:R 88/2).
Waks, L., & Prakash, M. (1985). STS education and its three step-sisters. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 5(2), 105-116.
Wiesenmayer, R., & Rubba, P. (1990, April). The effects of STS issue investigation and action instruction and traditional life science instruction on seventh grade students' citizenship behavior. Paper presented at the 1990 Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Atlanta, GA.
Wiesenmayer, R., Glasshauser, E., Guyer, C., Mahone, G., Hite, T. & Prokop, C. (1988). STS: A unit for exploring trash disposal. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University, College of Education.
Wiesenmayer, R., Turpin, C., & Arguello, M. (1988). Infusing science-technology-society (STS) studies into urban school science curriculum: a model & examples. In L. Waks (Eds.). Technological literacy for the "new majority": Enhancing secondary science education through STS for urban/minority youth. (Report of U.S. Department of Education Grant 60018610608).
This unit was produced by the editors listed on the masthead.