Educational Action Research

ISSN: 0965-0792 (Print) 1747-5074 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reac20

Curriculum Development in Science, Technology

and Society (STS) as a Means of Teachers'
Conceptual Change

Shoshana Keiny & Malka Gorodetsky

To cite this article: Shoshana Keiny & Malka Gorodetsky (1996) Curriculum Development in
Science, Technology and Society (STS) as a Means of Teachers' Conceptual Change, Educational
Action Research, 4:2, 185-195, DOI: 10.1080/0965079960040203

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0965079960040203

Published online: 11 Aug 2006.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 7039

View related articles

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=reac20
 Educational Action Research, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1996

Curriculum Development in Science,

Technology and Society (STS) as a
Means of Teachers' Conceptual Change

SHOSHANA KEINY & MALKA GORODETSKY

Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel

ABSTRACT The approach to science education known as Science, Technology

and Society (STS) has recently been widely adopted. An STS school-based
project, initiated by a pilot group of teachers and two science-educational
researchers, served as a case study for this paper. This collaborative group was
responsible for the planning and implementation of an inservice course for
science and technology teachers, that aimed to develop an STS rationale.
Teachers conceptual change, the process of constructing their STS content and
pedagogical knowledge, is explored in terms of our model of conceptual change.
Finally, we suggest that STS should be viewed as a learning orientation rather
than as a specific content or subject matter.

Introduction
A recent call to integrate the teaching of Science, Technology and Society
(STS) in the curriculum was made by a national committee in Israel. Its main
concern was to combat the high rate of scientific illiteracy among
high-school graduates, followed by a significant fall in the number of
students (girls and boys) who choose to study scientific subjects to a high
level. Placing science and technology as a social phenomena, connected to
everyday life, was voiced as essential in making science a more relevant and
meaningful subject (Harrari, 1992). This trend is widely represented both in
the literature (Aikenhead. 1973; Bybee, 1985; Ramsay, 1993; Solomon &
Aikenhead, 1994; and others) and in the way STS is practised in most
countries (Solomon, 1988; Yager & Krajcik, 1989; Corringhan, 1994;
Eikelhof, 1994; Fensham, 1994; and many others).
A somewhat different way of looking at STS is introduced by David
Layton (1993), who suggests an 'interactive model', one that stems from the
recognition that practical thinking (knowledge in action) is more complex
and less well understood than 'scientific thinking'. It views context as an

185
SHOSHANA KEINY & MALKA GORODETSKY"

integral aspect of cognitive events, whereby thinking is interwoven with the

context of the problem to be solved, and there is no disjunction between
theory and practice in the process of problem solving. Once cognitive activity
is socially defined, the task of coming to know science is inescapably a social
interactive one (ibid.). Thus, an STS curriculum is expected to improve
communication between, as well as integrate, science, technology and
humanities teachers, to develop a broader awareness and responsibility
toward real problems (Hansen. 1994). More meaningful learning could be
achieved once the technical applications are seen as part of the social
context, including the human interests, motives and values we ascribe to
them (Olson. 1993).
Intuitively, we tended (a) to accept the interactive model that
emphasises the social aspect of STS which is anchored in real genuine
problem solving, and (b) to associate STS with school-based curriculum
development, sensing that the intrinsic nature of STS requires curricula to
be developed by the teachers who will also teach them. Involvement of this
kind, makes them responsible for their own knowledge construction,
explanations, and interpretations, and for the way they build their system of
knowing and acting (Stenhouse, 1975; Skilbeck, 1984; Elliott. 1992;
Foerster, 1992; Keiny, 1993; and others). These two trends, encompassing
STS content and pedagogy, were not seen as contradictory, nor as excluding
each other, but as signifying different points of emphasis.
This paper focuses on an STS project, which was initiated by a 'pilot
group' consisting of experienced high school teachers, who also represented
the various scientific disciplines, a manager of a successful Hi-Tech firm,
who represented technology, and two educational researchers who are the
authors of this paper. Our responsibility as a pilot group was to initiate an
inservice course (INSET) for teams of teachers from six comprehensive high
schools. This INSET group, consisting of 25 participants, met at the
university every fortnight. The pilot group, which met every alternate week,
tried out STS ideas and methodology, reflected on the learning process of the
INSET group, and constructed further steps of action. In this respect the
pilot group can be viewed as an Action Research group, and the group
process could be described in terms of Kurt Lewin's four stage cycle of
learning: sensing and defining a problem; implementing a plan of change;
collecting data and reflecting on the experience; conceptualising and
reaching new understandings; leading to a redefinition of the problem and so
on.
In terms of knowledge construction, the double context of the project is
based on our model for teachers conceptual change (Gorodetsky et al, 1993).
The teacher in the model is exposed to two loci of knowledge construction:
the practical and the social. The social context is a group where teachers can
exchange their different ideas of teaching and engage in a dialectical process
of reflection in the group (Keiny & Dreyfus, 1989). The practical context is
the teachers' actual practice, where individuals can experiment with the new
ideas and reflect on (or in) their experience. In other words, conceptualise
their experiences and reconstruct their pedagogical knowledge. There is no

186
 TEACHERS1 CONCEPTUAL CHANGE

necessary sequence between the two loci, the practical context can precede
the social one, they are mutually dependent. The model represents also the
promotion of two types of knowledge construction: the individual teacher's
practical knowledge, constructed and reconstructed through teaching
experience in the classroom context, and higher order knowledge or
meta-knowledge of the profession, constructed in the group context.
Accordingly, the INSET in our STS project served as our classroom or
context of praxis, in which we practised the ideas, reflected in and on our
teaching/learning experience, and reconstructed a new pedagogy. The pilot
group was our social context, where we indulged in 'critical reflection'
(Zeichner, 1994) in the sense of reflecting and elaborating on the
participants' different ideas, different conceptions of this new pedagogy. For
the social, reflective group to be able to indulge in critical reflection, it had to
develop into a "community of learners*. Our definition of a community is
based on Macmurray's, namely a group that allows its members to express
themselves freely as persons - a group consisting of different participants
(teachers, researchers and a manager), all professionals in their areas, who
(notwithstanding their differences) recognise and treat each other as equals
(Macmurray, 1957; Fielding, 1995). Creating a community of learners we see
as a prerequisite for the participants to be able to indulge in a process of
critical reflection.
Our aim in this paper is to follow up our collaborative learning process
(from the planning stage within the social context, continuing with the
implementation of the new ideas in the INSET context, and back to the pilot
group where reflection and self-evaluation are the main themes), and to
provide a better insight to the interplay between the two loci, in terms of
conceptual change and knowledge construction. The methodology implied
was content analysis. As a database we used the transcripts of the group
meetings, all of which were audio-taped.

Analysis of the Process of Learning in the 'Pilot Group'

The general idea of the project was to bring the teachers to generate their
own rationale of STS. Yet, in order not to re-invent the wheel, we began by
acquainting them with the STS literature. The following excerpt, taken from
a discussion in the pilot group at this first stage, illustrates the type of
questions the STS reading triggered:
Is there a unique way of thinking termed 'technological-thinking'?
and How does it differfrom'scientific-thinking'?
What does the S in society stand for? Does it mean sociology as a
discipline, or does it refer to members of the society?
What do we mean by STS curriculum units? The term curriculum
does not fit a dynamic, open type of learning.

187
SHOSHANA KEINY & MALKA GORODETSKY

Two trends can already be distinguished at this early stage: what is the STS
content, and what is the kind of pedagogy or curriculum required? The
conflict between these two issues was reflected in the planning of the first
INSET meeting: should we introduce the project by presenting a typical STS
problem, one that would illustrate the STS content? Or should we start,
instead, with STS as a way of change (which was one of the teachers' main
reasons for joining the project), an alternative strategy for teaching and
learning?
We decided to open with an authentic social problem and the case of
R.N., at that time a 'hot' issue in the media, was chosen as an example. R.N.,
a divorcee, claimed her right to conceive her frozen fertilised eggs, while her
ex-husband (who by now had formed a new family) opposed the act, refusing
to give his consent. As an introduction, it triggered a lively discussion that
illuminated the multi-disciplinary and multi-dimensional aspects of the
problem, touching on genetics, embryology, communication (the media),
sophisticated technology, judicial and ethical aspects, etc. Yet the teachers,
who became highly involved in this particular problem, when asked to
generate further STS problems were not able to do so. It seems that they
treated the case at its face value, not as a model for STS problems. The
following excerpt from the self-evaluation process in the pilot team, reflects
this difficulty:
The teachers mostly enjoy the course, yet on the practical level they
wonder what it is all leading to ... an enjoyable experience does not
necessarily breed a curriculum.
Why not supply them with a list of ideas?
I prefer that they generate their own ideas.
What happens if no such gut-ideas arrive?
I mean to ask others, not teachers, whose intellect I can rely upon,
for a bank of ideas, which I shall then present to the teachers.
Otherwise Ifear the really important pmblems will never reach
them.
Maybe we have to locate a pwblemfirst as a team, and try to
develop it into a curriculum unit.
The excerpts disclose the pilot group teachers' pedagogical orientation, which
no less than their colleagues in the course, shows trends which conflict with
STS philosophy: first, taking the initiative and prescribing the INSET
curriculum, as opposed to an open-ended orientation which leaves more
responsibility with the participating teaches; secondly, the excerpt portrays
the rather poor image the participants have of teachers (actually themselves)
as unable to generate 'good' or important ideas, as holding a poor intuition
(gut-ideas) and also a poor intellect, all of which justifies the need to
approach 'experts' for new ideas.

188
 TEACHERS' CONCEPTUAL CHANGE

Going back to the STS content aspect or to the need to identify real
authentic problems, we were intuitively drawn to Hi-tech industry, as a
possible medium for authentic social problems. The impact of the technology
member of the group, who ran a Hi-Tech firm, seemed to play an important
role here:
He makes me think in industrial terms rather than educational
ones.
We have to meet this reality, ... the school of the future. It will bring
us closer to the real world.
A visit to the Hi-Tech firm was organised. Computer simulations of some of
the real problems the firm was dealing with were presented to the teachers.
Yet again, the impact of the visit, which to us the researchers seemed very
effective, was somehow lost on the teachers. They seemed to be tied to the
examples, unable to use them as analogies.
... they did not see the video ojthe bridge as a case study for
decision making ... That is why it triggered negative reactions such
as that you cannot possibly play a video in a classroom of 40
pupils.
This example of misused analogies is referred to at length in the literature.
Analogies, though known to play a significant role in conceptual change, are
often understood in a different form than what is intended and therefore fail
to trigger analogical reasoning (Duit, 1994). Our teachers were still deep
within their old framework of thinking with regard to their role as classroom
teachers as well as their role as participants in the STS project. Thus, it was
evident that at this stage of the project the dominant feeling was that of
uncertainty, ambiguity and doubt, mainly on the part of the teachers. They
were looking to us to show them the way, while we refused to be solely
responsible, claiming that to develop an STS rationale was our shared
interest and joint responsibility. Going over the transcripts, re-reading our
words, our own ambiguity at that stage cannot be overlooked. The
transcripts disclose our double message, the gap between our intended aims
and our more conventional conceptions with respect to school-based
curriculum development. This dissonance was sensed by the participants of
the pilot group, which had meanwhile developed into a collaborative
community of learners, and as such had become a more effective, reflective
group. This was voiced by the teachers in the following meeting:

I feel we have not yet changed gears ... We work in an unknown

area, yet we keep falling back to familiar ways of thought...
... we haven't arrived... not that I know where one should
arrive...
We, as a pilot group, have not undergone a radical change.

189
SHOSHANA KEINY & MALKA GORODETSKY

At the same time we became aware of another dissonance, a sort of

communication obstacle in the group. It seemed that although we were using
the same words, they carried different meanings. Thus, for instance, the
concept of inter-disciplinarity (often referred to in discussions) was
understood by the teachers as an enlargement of the content pool. For
example, it was suggested that 'colour', as one of the issues they chose to
deal with, should be examined through different aspects represented by the
various disciplines: (i.e. the chemistry of colour, the perception of colour in
biology, optics as the physics that deals with colour, and the technology or
the manufacturing of colour, etc.). In other words, the term
inter-disciplinarity was understood by the teachers to mean
multi-disciplinarity, while for us, the researchers, inter-disciplinarity meant
the inter-relationships between the disciplines, which in this sense is a new
and unknown area. This became an issue for deliberation and reflection in
the INSET group, highlighting the differentiating features of the two
interchangeably-used concepts. Moreover, as a result of the reflective
process in the group, the actual phenomenon of individuals attributing
different meanings to the same label or concept was elaborated.
Another way of dealing with inter-disciplinarity was to organise a visit
to the Desert Research Institute, whose world-wide reputation is due to its
inter-disciplinary applied research when dealing with real problems that
concern life in the desert. Examples of such problems are: how to grow
vegetables on brackish water? How to build ecological houses in the desert
and use solar energy for air conditioning? Meetings were organised between
the teachers (in small teams) and the researchers. These provided an
opportunity for the teachers to probe the researchers' way of thinking, the
way they generate their research questions and set out their research
framework. This type of confrontation with the researchers made a strong
impact on the teachers. The following excerpt reflects more or less the
general feeling that prevailed in the INSET group:
People in my team actually envied the researchers for living in a
world where they can ask questions and search for answers ... but
then they realised that as STS teachers they have the same
privilege of generating questions and trying to work out solutions ...
This realisation created a real breakthrough...
It is clear here that STS was understood as a novel way of learning, which is
synonymous with research, in the sense that researchers, too, approach
open-ended research problems. Here was the breakthrough in terms of the
learning process in the INSET group. Back in their teams they were now able
to generate or identify inter-disciplinary, open-ended problems. They learned
to collect data from various sources, confront them with different types of
knowledge (Kolb & Fry, 1975), analyse and reflect, and eventually work out a
possible resolution.
Examples of studies carried out by different teams of teachers were:
• Oil-shales, found in the desert, as an alternative energy resource;
• The consequences of establishing a 'Free market zone' in the Negev;

190
 TEACHERS' CONCEPTUAL CHANGE

• How to guard the Individual's right of privacy against obtrusive, modern

technologies, functioning in our society?
As a final assignment of the course they submitted a representation of their
team-study, in the form of a paper. To illustrate the process of their joint
group research, we chose to follow one team whose research question was
how to plan Israel's Water management, in view of the peace settlement in
the region.
They started by surveying the present situation, learning that all water
resources in Israel are nationalised. They planned a visit to the huge pipeline
(the 'national transporter') that since 1964 has pumped half a million cubic
meters of water per year from the Lake of Galilee, the country's main
watershed, to the arid Negev. Studying numerical data of water distribution,
they learned that 75% is used by agriculture, the main water consumer.
With the constant growth of population, and the development of new areas,
the question of new resources has become pertinent: for example, recycling
of sewage water, desalination of brackish water, digging wells that utilise
deep geological aquifers, etc. Apart from the interesting scientific and
technological aspects of these solutions, questions as to their economic
profitability arose: how would the high price of water affect the price of
exported vegetables or flowers in the common market? Should Israel's
economy be less agriculturally orientated?
At this stage of their learning, it became clear to the team that water
management today is not merely an ecological problem, but an
inter-disciplinary problem touching a wide range of issues. Yet, significantly,
with the opening of new prospects in the region due to the recent peace
negotiations with neighbouring Arab countries, social and cultural issues
have evidently, taken priority. Their arguments, the pros and cons, did not
rely merely upon rational logical data. The reasoning was not value free, it
was anchored in the participants' belief systems. For example, referring to
water settlements with Jordan, the teachers had to confront the question of
the price of peace, and how much they were willing to give up. (It should be
noted that all this took place before the peace treaty with Jordan was
established.)
We found evidence in these assignments of a change in the teachers'
conception of their role from a teacher to a learner. Finally, they threw
themselves into the role of researching their own defined problem, instead of
worrying 'how to teach STS'. We regarded this as the main achievement of
the first year of the project, on the assumption that in order to be able to
enhance this type of learning in their classrooms, namely, to identify a real
open problem and indulge in a process of its resolution, they themselves had
to become learners. The second achievement was our final understanding of
what makes a research problem an STS problem. Accordingly, two criteria,
or rather guiding principles, have been identified:
1. An STS problem is a real, authentic, existential, open-ended problem, one
that is chosen due to its relevance and interest for the participants.

191
SHOSHANA KEINY & MALKA GORODETSKY

2. An STS problem is turned into a research study by using a methodology

that involves collecting data from different sources and working towards a
resolution which involves the participants' value judgements.
In this respect the two aspects of STS - content and pedagogy - have merged
into one, although not in the sense coined by Shulman's concept of
content-pedagogical-knowledge (Shulman, 1987). Our emphasis is on STS
not as different subject matter, but as a learning orientation. There is no
defined body of knowledge under the heading of STS, as we understand it.
The contents are derived from the specific problem under investigation, and
as such are inter-disciplinary.

Discussion
We began our study with vague ideas about the nature of STS content and
pedagogy. Intuitively we adopted the interactive approach, regarding
thinking or cognitive function as part and parcel of the context of study,
namely the problem to be solved. This interactive approach advocated that
teachers be involved in the process of defining their own STS problems, and
coping with them, as a means of conceptualising their rationale of STS and
the STS curriculum. Introducing the action research mode of research
seemed natural and befitting, since action research and STS share a
common ideology and epistemology. Both STS and action research recognise
and account for contextual social knowledge, generated by groups which are
committed to the concept of praxis as knowledge.
The framework of the double context project, namely the pilot team and
the INSET team, matched our idea of the two interacting loci of reflection for
teachers* conceptual change. As such it served us, the researchers, as an
experimental site for testing our hypothetical model. Analysing the discourse
of the participants (both researchers and teachers), especially in the pilot
group meetings, we could follow the process of our conceptual development,
as well as our newly constructed professional knowledge or theory of
learning. This is where we see the contribution of our double loci model. As
members of the pilot group we were situated in the midst of the model,
experimenting with new ideas in the practical context of the INSET setting,
and reflecting, deliberating and conceptualising a new learning theory within
the collaborative reflective group setting. Collaboration in the true sense was
our first achievement. This was reflected by the participants leaving the
traditional model of experts transferring their knowledge to the practitioners,
and creating a community of learners based on different people who
recognise each other as professionals, whether teacher, manager or
researcher. On this basis the teachers were able to express themselves freely
as persons, and reflect critically. They were able to voice their frustration
and were quick to discern contradictions in the researchers' ideas and
conceptions. Creating a community of learners was the first prerequisite, but
was not sufficient to change their orientation from teachers to learners. That
needed a few more cycles of learning.

192
 TEACHERS' CONCEPTUAL CHANGE
Analysis of the group process in terms of action research cycles of
learning, indicates how, with each learning cycle, the problem was refrained:
the first problem sensed in the pilot group (a practical pragmatic one) was:
how to introduce STS. This was turned, in the next cycle, into a more
generally formulated problem: how to get the teachers to generate problems.
Later it was reformulated as "What accounts for an STS problem?" leading to
a redefinition of inter-disciplinarity, both indicating a higher level of
abstraction. Finally, the problem was refrained in a methodological setting:
what is the nature of inter-disciplinary research or problem solving? This, to
u s , was an indication of a deeper understanding gained through the group
learning process, as a result of which our teachers had undergone a process
of conceptual change, reconstructing their scientific knowledge and their
theories of teaching. Yet, true to our own model, these newly constructed
theories do not suffice. Before counting our achievements, their newly
constructed STS content pedagogical knowledge has to be practised in the
classroom. Our teachers have to try out their new leaning orientation, guide
their students in the process of learning and researching, and reflect on and
in their praxis, before they can establish themselves as STS teachers.
This is where we stand today, on the second year of the project. The
focus has shifted to the school-based curriculum development activities
carried out in each of the participating schools and to the experimental
classrooms in particular, where the new curricula are actually being tried
out.
We were well aware of the debate among science educators on the place
of STS in the general school curriculum - whether STS should become a
science-for-all subject (mainly in the middle and lower streams of the high
school) or whether, as an alternative approach, it should completely replace
the traditional disciplinary science curriculum. Our STS project called for a
reform in science education in terms of the significance of science knowledge
for our actual life. STS students are not only expected to understand the
natural and technical phenomena around them, but to become aware of the
impact created on their lives by a society dominated by technologies of many
kinds and to take an active responsibility in dealing with such existential,
authentic problems. A reform of this kind requires a paradigmatic change
which entails an ontological change in the person's relationship with the
world (Marton, 1986; Under, 1993), as well as an epistemological change in
terms of the nature of science, or meta-knowlege of science, and the nature
of the learning process, or meta-cognition.
One last point concerns the issue of collaboration. Our project
illustrates a unique collaborative setting, of teachers, industry
representatives and educational researchers. Examples of similar
frameworks of collaboration, between schools, university and the
community, have shown that such models create an optimum medium for
STS curriculum development and implementation (Cohen et al, 1994; Cox,
1994; Gray, 1994). This indicates that curriculum development, on the
school site, gives the best answers to the particular demands of the school or
the classroom, both in terms of content and pedagogy. More important still.

193
SHOSHANA KEINY & MALKA GORODETSKY

s u c h a framework becomes a medium for a joint discourse between all

participants, a laboratory for posing questions a n d testing new hypotheses,
for developing n e w goals a n d key concepts, for experimentation with new
materials, a n d for reflection a n d self-evaluation of action. Collaborative
models in different variations, preferably on t h e school site, seem to u s t h e
optimal setting for t h e development of teachers who are responsible for their
own system of knowledge construction, and a s such are capable of taking
the role of developing active and more independent learners.

Correspondence
Shoshana Keiny, Department of Education, Ben-Gurion University of the
Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel.

References
Aikenhead, G.S. (1986) The content of STS education, STS Research Network Missive,
2(3), pp. 18-23.
Bybee, R.W. (1985) Science Technology Society, 1985 NSTA Yearbook. Washington:
National Science Teacher Association.
Cobb, P. (1994) Where is the Mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on
mathematical development, Educational Researcher, 23(7), pp. 13-20.
Cohen, M., Furuness, L.B., Buehler, D., McGuire, J.V. & Calvo, C.A. (1994) Fostering
teacher growth and curriculum development: the tropical rain forest field
experience, in K. Boresma, K. Kortland & J. van Trommel (Eds) Science and
Technology Education in a Demanding Society, Proceedings of the 7th IOSTE
Symposium, Veldhhven, Nederlands.
Cox, D. (1994) Involving teachers and students in 'real' environmental science, in
K. Boresma, K. Kortland & J. van Trommel (Eds) Science and Technology Education
in a Demanding Society, Proceedings of the 7th IOSTE Symposium, Veldhhven,
Nederlands.
Driver, R. (1989) Changing conceptions, in P. Adey (Ed.) Adolescent Development and
School Science. London: Falmer Press.
Duit, R. (1994) Conceptual Change approaches in science education. A paper presented
at the 'Symposium on Conceptual Change', Jena, Germany.
Eijkelhof, H. (1994) Physics learning in personal and social contexts, in K. Boresma,
K. Kortland & J. van Trommel (Eds) Science and Technology Education in a
Demanding Society, Proceedings of the 7th IOSTE Symposium, Veldhhven,
Nederlands.
Elliott, J. (1992) Action Research for Educational Change. Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Fensham, P.J. (1994) STS and comparative assessments of scientific literacy, in
K. Boresma, K. Kortland & J. van Trommel (Eds) Science and Technology Education
in a Demanding Society, Proceedings of the 7th IOSTE Symposium, Veldhhven,
Nederlands.
Foerster, H. von (1992) Ethics and second order cybernetics, Cybernetics & Human
Knowing, 1, pp. 9-19.

194
 TEACHERS' CONCEPTUAL CHANGE

Glasersfeld, von E. (1992) Constructivism reconstructed: a reply to Suchting, Science

and Education, 1, pp. 379-384.
Gorodetsky, M., Hoz, R. & Keiny, S. (1993) The relationship of teachers' collective
conception and school renewal. A paper presented in the International conference
on 'Science Education in Developing Countries: from theory to practice'.
Jerusalem, 1993.
Gray, B. (1994) Towards sustainable, ongoing in-service support for science teachers in
rural areas: a case study in an African context, in K. Boresma, K. Kortland &
J. van Trommel (Eds) Science and Technology Education in a Demanding Society.
Proceedings of the 7th IOSTE Symposium, Veldhhven, Nederlands.
Hansen, K.H. (1994) Technology education for all teachers, in K. Boresma, K. Kortland
& J. van Trommel (Eds) Science and Technology Education in a Demanding Society,
Proceedings of the 7th IOSTE Symposium, Veldhhven, Nederlands.
Harrari, H. (1992) Tomorrow 98. Report of the supreme committee for Science and
Technological Education, Israel Ministry of Education (in Hebrew).
Keiny, S. (1993) School-based curriculum development as a process of teachers'
professional development, Educational Action Research, 1, pp. 65-93.
Kolb, D.A. & Fry, D. (1975) Towards an applied theory of experiental learning, in
C.L. Cooper (Ed.) Theories of Group Processes. London: Wiley.
Layton, D. (1993) Inarticulate science? or, does science understand its public as well as
its public understand science? Mathematics, Science and Technology Education
Croup (MSTE) News, 3(2), pp. 2-4.
Linder, C.J. (1993) A challenge to conceptual change, Science Education, 77,
pp. 293-300.
Marton, F. (1986) Phenomenography - a search approach to investigate different
understandings of reality, Journal of Thought, 21(3), pp. 28-49.
Olson, J. (1993) Technology as Social Context A paper presented at a workshop
'Exploring the Science, Technology and Society Relationship in Education', IPN,
Kiel.
Ramsay, J. (1993) The science education reform movement: implications for social
responsibility, Science Education, 72, pp. 235-258.
Shulman, L. (1987) Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform, Harvard
Educational Review. 67, pp. 9-27.
Skilbeck, M. (1984) Readings in School Based Curriculum Development London: Harper
& Row.
Solomon, J. & Aikenhead, G.S. (1994) Science Technology and Society Education. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Solomon, J. (1988) Science technology and society courses: tools for thinking about
social issues, International Journal of Science Education, 10, pp. 379-387.
Stenhouse, L. (1975) An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development London:
Heinemann.
Strike, K. & Posner, G. (1992) A revisionist theory of conceptual change, in R. Duschl &
R. Hamilton (Eds) Philosophy of Science, Cognitive Psychology, and Educational
Theory and Practice. Albany: SUNY.
Zeichner, K.M. (1994) Research on teacher thinking and different views of reflective
practice, in teaching and teacher education, in I. Carlgren, G. Handal & S. Vaage
(Eds) Teachers' Minds and Actions: Research on teachers' thinking and practice,
pp. 9-27. Palmer Press.

195