DOCOMEMT RESUME

ED 148 798 SE 023 055

AUTHOR Dixon, Terry,

TITLE Science Objectives and their Implications Concerning
Classroom Teaching.
PUB DATE Jun 77
NOTE 2Op.; Independent research conducted at Illinois
State University

.EDRS PRICE MF-10.83 HC-S1.67 Plus Postage.

DESCRIPTOPS *Educational Objectives; *Elementary Secondary
Education; Individual Development; *Process
Education; *Science Education; *Science Teachers;
Scientific Attitudes; Scientific Literacy; Skill
Development

ABSTRACT
Many attempts have teen made to define the objectives
of science. Now, in the latter part of this decade, many questions
still re ma n unanswered. The goal of this paper is to collect
information on the objectives of science education and to relate this
information to the role of the classroom teacher. Educators and
researchers suggest that sciénce objectives should be associated with
learning the processes and concepts of science. The body of factual
scientific information is too great to make educational objectives
hinge on the acquisition of knowledge alone. Many educators recommend
objectives that emphasize activity-oriented, problem-solving kinds of
skills. The National Science Teacher's Association (NSTA) recognizes
scientific literacy .as a major goal. The effects of these
kinds of'
objectives,on the classroom teacher are great. Emphasis on learning
skills, individualizing instruction; and identif_ying'values are
important. components of teaching science today. Regardless of the
specific branch of science, teachers need to keep in mind those
skills, such as problem-solving, which are common to all education.
Included is a selective bibliography. (MA)
SCIENCE COJECTI9Es AND TiRgra

IMPLICATIOIis CON(~tNIDiß

CLASSROOM =AWING '

A STUDY

mount 'To .
IR • ROBERT •FISRßR

by
TER? DIZCt1

June, 1977
I. INTRRm11GTICN
Mr. and Mrs. Smith are going out to buy some new furniture for
their small trailer.
Lori and Christy, age's 10 and 12, are going out to buy new
bicycles with-the money they have earned on their paper route,
but they can't decide which one to ,get. They have seen so many
different ones.
Dr. John.Wood is about to go into the operating room to remove
,a tooth pick a small bay has swallowed. The boy can breathe, but
can't swallow. The doctor has to decide"where to operate.
Mrs. Winter,'a housewife)is ironing when suddenly the iron goes
ofY,abbt the lamp, which is plugged into the same socket, is still
working.
Mr. Brodriok has worked on the NASA team for ten years now.
Last week he was assigned to head a committee to decide what
equipment the astronauts will have to carry when they-land on the
planet Pluto. A surveyor satellite will be sent up to find out
vital information. Dr. Brodrick must decide what he needs to know '
to accomplish his objective.
Even though the characters in the above stories are fictitious,
their problems aren't. Today many people face the same or similar
problems daily. Problems so simple as trying to decide what bicycle
to:buy, or so complex that a person's life may be determined by the
outcome.
With this wide range of problems in mind, science educators
need to take a new look at the goals of science education.
These problem are examples of some situations that brought
about wy personal need far sale answers to some basic. questions
oosaerning soiènce education.
' The object of this paper, therefore, is to gather into one body
recent information oaacerning suggested scion. objectives and to
describe what implications I feel it has oseerning the classroom
teacher..
II. SUGGESTED OBJECTIVES OF SCIENCE EDUCATIGN

As one begins to search far the basic objectives of science

education, he aaddenly realizes the broad area it covers.

For. example, Washton states:
"Throughout my various interviews, discussiáns, and
correspondences with scientists and science educators,
I noted 'in almost all 'instances the need for a greater
emphasis on technology in our science courses."
Yet a group of principals and teachers who were surveyed
by the Public Educational Development Center, Wilkes College,
in Pennsylvania,
". . .seemed to place the highest priority upon
developing critical thinking skills, curiosity, and
problem-solving skills."
The teachers and principals went on to show that
"General student intellectual skills are expressed
as their main concern.n2
Williamson summed it up when he said,
"Regardless of the efforts that have been made in
the past two decades to identify objectives and content,
we enter the last quarter of this century with many
unanswered questions, unsolved problems, and unresolved
issues."3

1.Nathan Washton. Teaching_the Impact of Science an World

Technology. A paper prbsented at the 49th annual meeting
of the National Association for Research in Science
Teaching, April 23-25, 1976, at San Francisco, California,
p. 9.
2. Overrcero and Belluci. An E D C Report: Science Teachlog
in Pennsylvania Public E e é tar"_ Schools. Wilkes-Barre,
Pennsylvania: Public Educational Development Center,
Wilke College 1973, p. 5.
3. Stan Williamson. Issues in Science Education: Changing
Purposes of Science Education, 197C, p. 9.
 With the realization of the broad area of science education

let's take a look at what objectives have been suggested by educators,

researchers, and organizations in writings and studies.

Educators and Researchers

Dewey said,

"The aim of education is to be found in the process

itself and not as a final goal to be reached."It
This seems to be the direction taken by most'science education

today, as can be seen by locking closely at the new science curricula.

Cleminson, Moore, and Jones state in "Guidelines and Competencies

for Elementary Science Educator " that

"The process-inquiry skills are skills which instructors

believe are fundamental for elementary teachers and children.
They are appropriate for students at all grade levels apd
provide a basis for developing process inquiry skills."

They go an to list these skills as observing and inferring,

classifying, measuring, recognizing and controlling variables,

organizing data, hypothesizing, and replicating.

Sheehan seems to agree with Cleminson when he answers the question,

"What does the scientist do when he is doing science?"

"He observes, measures, hypothesizes, predicts, interprets

data, defines operationally, and performs a nunber of other
mental and tactile operations.nóó

4. Clendnam, Moore, and Jones. Guidelines and Competencies for

Elementary Science Education N. Y., N. Y.: MSS Information
Corporation, 19?4, p. 9.

5. Ibid. p. 9

6. Joseph T. Sheehan, Learning Process in a Basic Science Curriculum, "

a paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, April 17, 1974, at Chicago, Illinois, p. 3.
 Piaget seemed also to agree with Cleminsaa, Moore, and Jones
when he gave the following as the aim of education:
". . . to create men who are capable of doing new things,
not simply of repeating what other generations have done--
men who are creative, inventive, and discoverers."
". . . to farm minds which can be critical can verify
and not accept everything they are offered."

He goes on to. say in summery,

t'We need pupils who are active. . . who learn early to
tell what is verifiable and not what is simply the first idea
to came to them."
In the Phillipines, they have schools commonly called barrio

high schools,8 where becauseof necessity, the students not only

develop scientific experiments in general science, biology, and
physics, but are taught how to use what they learn in these and
other courses to improve their earnings.
Why do they need to improve their earnings? Barrio youth who
continue past the sixth grade have to support their own high school.
They are enabled to do this by making use of what they learn in
science to earn their way through school.
The schools have developed a procedure in the elementary grades
that is now being applied at the high school and college levels where
in addition to the practical application, the students are taught to
consider, as well, the welfare of their classmates and other people
in their neighborhood and community.

7. Williamson, op. cit. pp. 9-10

8. Orate, P. T., "Humanizing Science to Save the World from

Destruction." International Review of Education. Number 22,
1976, p. 98-99
 The procedure includes the following phases:
Phase 1--The students are divided into groups of about
ten at the beginning of the school year, to go out
into the community to discover local problems.

Phase 2--The students then develop experiments to discover

a principle that may be implemented to solve their
problem.
Phase 3--They carry out experiments and draw conclusions.
Phase Ii--A plan for appropriate application is carried out.
The barrio school seems to be a prime example of what Fischler
meant when he summed up the change in science education. He said,
"The emphasis has changed from the ability of a child to
regurgitate scientific facts to the ability of a child to utilise
hie newly discovered concepts in carefully selected learning
situations."9
Harbeck, in her article, "Is Science Basic, You Bet", seems to
agree with Fischler. She says,
"When science is learned through an activity-centered
approach, it becomes a vehicle for learning skills that
are necessary for everyday life. Children need to learn
how to observe, describe, classify, measure, hypothesize,
and experiment. They moat not only learn the rules but
also be able to apply these generalisations to new
situations."10
Some educators and researchers felt that objectives should be
tied to physical and mental growth. Robinson states that Eric
Erikson and, more recently, James Loevinger have provided dynamic
theories of psycho-social and ego development.

9.A. S. Fischier, Scieence Process The Learner: A Synthesis.

Science Education 49:5, 1965, p. 402
10.Mary B. Harbeck, Is Science Basic? You Bet It Is, Teacher,
November 1976, p. 22.
 Robinson states,

'Who the target population is has to be determined prior

to Setting curricular goals.. I make this assertion because in,
my view the characteristics of the learners are liadting factors
for what educational goals there may be. BY characteristics of
the learner, I mean their physical patterns, the development
of large and small muscle coordination, the onset of puberty,
and the adolescent growth spurt are factors that should not be
ignored in setting curriculum goals.:11

McBeth conducted a study which would tend to support Robinson's

contention.12

McBeth asked children aged 3-8 to sort a number of paper shapes into

subsets. It was noted that there was a strong tendency at all age levels

to sert by foam rather than by color. McBeth suggested that the preference

for farm develops before formal schooling.

Resulta of a study by Gunter concerning the sequencing of unite in

a college biology course utilizing an audio-tutorial approach seemed

to say we will do a more effective job of instruction if we can learn

in advance what the student already knows and sequence the learning

activities to capitalize on that prior knowledge.13

11. James T. Robinson, Critical Issues in Science Educatt , A paper

presented at the annual meeting of The Association for Education
of Teachers of Science, March 1976, p. 4

12. Dudley Herron and others, A Summary of Research in Science

Education, 1974, N. Y., N. Y. John Wiley and Sons Inc.,
December 1975, p. 17.

13. Barran, op. cit. p. 24

 Ogden in his study, "A Chronological History of Selected Objectives

for the Teaching of Secondary School Chemistry in the United States

During the 1918-1972 Perk od as Reflected in Periodical Literature,i1 4

classifies his statement of objectives into the following categories:

(1)Knbwledge objectives--those objectives advocating the

attainment of factual or conceptual material for its own
sake.

(2)Process objectives--those conveying an understanding and

use of the methods and technique of schools.

(3) Attitudes and interest objectives--those concerned with

developing an appreciation of the contribution of and nature
of the scientific enterprise, desirable attitudes involving
science and scientists, and lasting professional and
avocational interest in the student.

(4) Cultural awareness objectives--those dealing with the

interworkings of science and society or the cultural
implications of science for society.

Ogden steed in his conclusion,

"Although yearly fluctuations existed with respect to both

the numbers of articles and statements concerned with the
objectives for teaching secondary school chemistry that
appeared in the literature of 1918-1972 period, the nimber of
distinct objective types remained fairly constant."

He further states,

"Prior to sub-period 4 (1915-1957) six objective types

(scientific methods of thinking; major facts, principles,
concepts or fundamentals; specific topics in chemistrÿ;
'scientific habit or attitudes; the application of chemistry
to daily life; and processes, skills, and techniques of
inquiry were lways the six most frequently referred to in the
literature.nl

14. William Ogden, A Chronological History of Selected Objectives for

the Teaching of Secondary School Chemistry in the United States
During the 1918-1972 Period as Reflected in Periodical Literature.
A presentation at. the annual meeting of The National Association
for Research in Science Teaching, Chicago, Illinois, April 18,
1974, p. 5.
15. Ibid. p. 6.
 ORGANI ZATI CNS
Many organizations have suggested objectives for science

educators.
Thè`National Science Teacher's Association Board of Directors at

its annual meeting, July, 1971, stated,

"The major goal of science education is'to develop
scientifically literate and personally concerned individuals
with a high ao petence for rational thought and action. This
choice of goals is based on the belief that achieving
scientific literacy involves the development of attitudes,
process skills, and concepts necessary to meet the more
general goals of education, such as:
Learning haw to learn
Learning how to attack new problems
learning how to acquire new knowledge using rational process
Building competencies in basic skills
Developing intellectual and vocational competence
Exploring values in new experiences
Understanding concepts and generalizations
Learning to live harmoniously within the biosphere
The goal of science education should be to develop
scientifically literate citizens with the necessary intellectual
resources, values, attitudes, and inquiry skills to promote
the development of man as a rational human being.r16

The state of North Carolina's Department of Public Instruction in

their "State Assessment of Educational Progress in North Carolina, 1973-74"
state their objectives far assessing science education (3rd grade) as
follows:

A knowledge of life science, physical science, earth-space

science, comprehension' of life science, coasprehenaian of earth-
apace science, application of life science, application of physical
science, KnowleOge of scientific processes and beliefs, attitudes
and experience . 77

16. , NSTA Position Statement cn School Science Education

for the AO's.. A paper presented to the NSTA Board of Directors at its
annual meeting, July, 1971, p. 1•
17. , , State Assessment of Educational Progress in North
Carolina, 1973-71~. North Carolina State Department of Public Instruction
Document, February 1915, ps . 16-23
 Three major programs of science instruction have evolved over the

last fifteen years, each designed to reach a specific overall objective.

The Science--A Process Approach program chose to organize their

program around thirteen thinking processes scientists use in investigating

life, energy, and matter. Specific hands-on activities were arranged

in simple to complex sequences for each process. Subject matter content

was introduced as needed in advance of process learnings.1,8 The objective

was to teach thinking process skills.

The developers of Elementary Science Study constructed 56 units

of instruction that reflected their child-centered, humanistic concerna.

Each unit was built around a different topic appealing to children's

curioeity about some aspect of their environment and was designed to

help them learn how to explore it.

Unlike SCIS and SAPA neither scope nor sequence was recommended

for the unite. Instead teachers were invited to organize the units into

whatever framework best suited their situation.19

The Science Curriculum Improvement Study built its curriculum around

a dozen broad concepts that seemed to reflect the nature of the modern

physical and life sciences. Each concept became the organizer for one

unit of instruction. Activities were designed to combine concept and

18. Peter C. Gega, Directions in Elementary School Science. Teacher,

November 1976, p. 59.

19. Did
process learning in an organized sequence. Activities were designed
to suit children's developmental stages while clearly identifying their

experiences.
The 8th Annual Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitude Toward the
Public Schools gave indications of what the public felt should be major

objectives in education.
In response to the question,
"Do you think that the school curriculum should give more
emphasis or lees emphasis to careers and career preparation
in high schpol?"
80% said more emphasis should be given to careers in high school.
In response to the question,
"Should more information concerning careers be given in the
elementary schools?"
More said yes than no.21

From the literature inoluded in this paper it is evident that

educators, researchers, and organizations agree on a general goal for
education. That goal, I feel, was best expressed by the NSTAI
"The goal of science education should be to develop scientifically
literate citizens, with the necessary intellectual resources,
values, attitudes, and inquiry skills to promote the development
of mamas a rational human being."22

20. Ibid.
21. George H. Gallup, Eighth Annual Gallup Poll of the Public Attitude
Toward the Public Schools, Phi Delta Kappan, October 1976, pp. 191-192.
22.State Assessment
cit. op.
p. 16.
ITT. • IMPUTATIONS: THE -CLASSROOM TEACHER

The acceptance of the objectives of science education as mentioned

in this paper have broad affect on the classroom teacher. Today's teacher
mast be trained far better than the teacher of the past because of the

wider area that modern science education covers..

Today's teacher must be able to recognize the dynamic properties of

science so that he can place emphasis in his teaching an process and skills,

rather than on the memorization of facts. He must also be aware of the

ability and growth of the student he teaches so that he may challenge him

to his full capacity without expecting mare from him than he is development-

ally capable of doing.

The classroom must instill in the student the idea of questioning all

that is around him, of wanting to seek out answers, while at the same tine

providing the atmosphere to solve these problems. The classroom teacher

must also be aware of the broad uses of problem-solving skills in society

today, problems so small as deciding what bicycle to buy or so important

that a life may hang in the balance. Awareness of careers in science must

be present, so that the skills taught in science will be useful in the

future as well as meaningful in the present.

Above all, the science educator must recognize the individuality of his

students of science and encourage them in the areas of science in which they

are interested. Classroom teachers who teach branches of science must keep

their eyes opened to the broad goal of science and not become so involved and

bogged down with the teaching of specific branch skills that they forget

about their broad goal.

 Most of all, the science educator must be willing to meet the
challenge of keeping up with science education as it changes to meet

the needs of future generations.

In almost all the research and literature mentioned in this paper,
probably none has greater implication than those concerning values.
In meet of the recent literature concerning science education, 'values"
or "social effects" have been mentioned as new goals on which to base
education. (rata states in the note section of the "International
Review of Education",
"It is time to teach pupils, from preschool age up to
university, to learn to perform their duties and
responsibilities as well as to demand that their rights
be respected. There is no better field to which this
rrinciple,should be applied than science. Unless the
young are taught science so that they will use their
knowledge of scientific principle and procedure to improve
their livelihood and to help others as well, the chances are
that they may not apply it at all or, if they do so, they
will use it to help only themselves, and in all too many
cases, at the expense of others.
The only alternative is to teach science, and other subjects
as well, differently. Besides leading the pupils, through
so-called "process" or "conceptual approach", only to discover
facts and principles for right living, by experiment,
observation, or reading, they should also be taught to apply
what they learn to live well and rightly with their neighbors
everywhere."23

Brown states'in his paper, "Teaching the Impact of Science on

World Technology,
"The high cost of this food-price instability is econonic,
political, and social. Hence, the teaching and learning of

23. Paul E. Blackwood, Science Teaching in the Elementary School, U. S.

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, U. S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D. C., p. 97
 science need to be reevaluated in terms of intelligent citizen
decision making, taking into accolent the econascig, political, and
social implidations of science and technology.n244
Orate states in the note section of "International Review of
Education":
Teachers ". . . met go far beyond teaching the student to
think scientifically and to discover scientific principles.
They must teach them to act appropriately and to apply what they
discover oar learn, ' considering the consequences of what they
contemplate doing to others,as well as-to themselves.1125
Implications are that a massive reevaluation of programs is about
to begin, to find out har well they teach scientific and social values.
In effect the implication is that science educators oust no longer be
satisfied with just teaching concepts and processes without also teaching
their social; political, and economic affect.

24.Washton, 2p-, Dit. pp. 5

25. Blaokwood, pp_. cit.
 SEIEC1Li) RIBLIOGRAPIQC

I. Periodicals.
1. Anderson, Elaine J. Behavioral Objectives Science Process and Learning
From In ni ry-oriented Instructional Material Science Education, 59:2 (p. 263-
271)
2.Brickly, James J., Our Educational Goals are a Mishmash, The American
School Board Journal, October 1976. /P. 6j
3.Dunning, Stephen, Wanted: A Handful of Rebels, Teacher, September 1976.
(p. Th)
4.Fischler, A.S., Science, Process The Learner: A Synthesis, Science
Education 49: 5, 1975. (p. 1102-4091
5.Gallup, George H. Fi hth Annual Gallup Poll Of The Public's Attitude
Toward the Public Schools, Phi Delta Xappan, Óctober 17976. (p. 167-2(10)
6.Gagne, R.M. The Learning Reirements
cu For In i,
ts Journal of Research
in Science Teaching. Vol. 1, 19'63. Tps. ].44153)

7.Gega, Peter C., D ecctione In Eleuentary School Science, Teacher,

Naverrber 1976. (p.9
8.Harbeck, Mary Blott, Is Science Basic? You Bet It Is, Teacher, November
1976 (p. 2-30)
9.nines, Rudolf E., Goal Development Planning, Educational Technology,
Fehrunry 1977. (p. 52-54)

10.Klopfer, Ieopold, A Structure For The Affective Domain In Relation To

Science Education, Science Education, 60:3 July- Septer&ier 1976. (p. 299-312)
11.Hall, 'John P., "q Study of The Teaching of Elementary Chemist Journal
of Research on Scienci Teaching, 13:6; No7veit,er 1 76. (p.

12.Pine and Shapiro, Science Iiteracy, Teacher, November 1976, (p.57-58)

13.Roman, Varodc9azi V., The Three Planes of Science In Society, Impact of
Science on Society 25:1, March 19 5. (pe. 9-17)
Ili. Suchman, J. R., The Illinois Studies In Tnsuiry Training, Journal of
Research In Science Teaching, Vol. 2, 1064. (pe. 230-232)
15.Ziarko, Jon, Predict Achievement In Science, School Science and Math,
Noveiter 1976. (p. 571-579)
16.Zhnidekii, A.Z. The 5 Year Plan For Science Is Fulfilled Ahead of
Schedule, Soviet Education, December 171. (p. 95-104
17. , wing Science Tb Save The World Bran Destruction,
International Review of Education, No. 22, i'76. (p. 96-315r
II. Papers and Dissertations.,
18.Appel, Wuhl and Ree, Cognitive and Affective Outcomes In Children As a
Function of Participation In SCIL, An Individualized Version of S.C.I.S.
A paper presented F: E.E.R.A. Aimua . meetrng, Chicago, Illinois, April 19,
1974. Ed. 097379

19.Blackwood, Paul E., Compilation National Study of Public Elementary

Schools. 1961-62
X. Blackwood, Paul E. Science Teaching In The Elementary School, U. S.
Department of Health, Education and Welfare, U. S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D. C.
21.Berger, Carl F., Roderick, Stephan, CBTE: A Critical Look Evoluatin
mmd,Assessing Competencies For El anentary Science Education, A paper
presented at the Annual Meet of .he American Fducational Research
Association 1975. Ed. 109170
22.Bredderman, Tbd, Elementau School Science Experience and The Ability
to Combine and Control favial es Science Education, 58:4, tildber-
December, 1974• (p.457-461)

23.Ciesla, Jere:ue, The Effects of Various Formative Evaluation Procedures

on Instructional Material Revisfen lit a large Scale Individualized Science
Curriculum Develoment'Project. A paper presented at file Annual meeting of
the Nat[ona1 Assoc arion l'or Research In Science Teaching 49th Convention
San Francisco, California (April 23-25) 1976. Ed 123110
24. Cleminson, Moore and Jones, Guidelines and Competencies for Elementary
Science Education, MSS Inforra:tion Corporation, N.Y., lf.Y. 1974. Ed.
10560

25.Forbes, Raj n. Editor, National Assessment of Educational Progress:

Selected Results From the National Assessments oa Science: Atiltude
Questions, U. S. Government Printing Office. Washington, 5.b. Ed 127-200

26.Giantrus, Loui4 M.chael, Effects of Seaux on Me u1 Verbal

Learning_ As Proposed By Ausubel Wia First Grade StudentsU Audio-
Tutorirl Science lessons, Dissertation Abstracts Internationa , 3 :3, 1974.
ep. 165A)
27.Ouerrcero, Edgar and Bellucci, An E D C Report: Science TeachinE
in Pennsylvania Public Elementary Schools. Public Educational Development
center, Wilke College. Wilke-Barre, Pennsylvania, 1973. Ed 101934
28.Harley, L.Loyu, .. atugy of the Effect of an Advance Organizer In -r.
Vtivity-Centered Science Progrnm, Ph D Dissertation, The University of
Iowa, Dissertation Abstrrcts 35:1, 1974. (p. 317A)
28. Herron, Dudley and Others, A Summary of Research In Science Education-
1~ 4, John Wiley and Sons Incorporated, New York, New York. becember 1975
1,' 116-965 .
(P-.-10?d

29. Ludeman, Robert, Development of the Science Processes Test, a paper

presented at The Marnai leeting of The National Association For Research
In Science Teaching, March 1975. Ed. 108-898
30. Mayer, Victor J., Unpublished Evaluation Instrument In Science:
A Handbook, ERIC Information Analysis Center For Science, Mathematics and
D. • cc:unental Education, Columbus, Chio. April 1974. (322 pa.) Ed 095-015
31. Ogden, William, A ChronolcEical History of Seclected Objectives For
The Teaching of Secaaday Señool Chemista In The United Statea %urine the
1 IH-1922 Period As Reflected In Periodical Literature, a presentation at
Thee Annual itileting of The latlanal Association Far Research In Science
Teaching, Chicago, Illinois. April 18 1974. (22 ps.) al 095-009

32. Palvia, Howard, In • • .tien to the Scientific Method (For (rade School
Students) A Collection of • .Seolivea, Methods and Tools, a publication.
a~ Insti ut National de Recherche et de Documentation Pedagogigves,
Paris, France, 1973. (275 pa.) Ed 123-054

33. Robinson, James T., Critical Issues In Science Education]a paper

presented at the Annual Meting of The Association For Education of
Teachers of Science, March 1976. (12 ps.) Ed 127-129
34., Rowe and De Lure, A of Research In Science Education - 123.3,
John Wiley and Sons, Incarp~, Somerset, New Jersey 1775.

35. Schlessinger, Fred R., A Surveff of Science Teaohin In Public Schools

of The U. S. (1271) Volume 1 Secondary Sc_hooTa, Eric 7nfoa~rnaaion Center
For Science, , and Environmental Education, Coluatibus, Ohio 1973. (192 pa.)
Ed 093-715
36.Sheehan, Joseph T., Learning Processes In a Basic Science Curriculum
a paper presented at the Annual Meeting of The American Educational 13eaearch
Association, April 17, 1971., Chicago, Illinois. (10 ps.) Ed 092-400
37.Washton, Nathan, Teaching The Ict of Scienoe on World Technology,
a paper presented at the Annual Keating of the National Association
For Research In Science Teaching, April 2.3-25, 1976 at San Francisco,
California. (14 pa.) Ed 125-901

38.Allicunson, Stan, Issue In Science Education: Ch<u .ng Purposes of

Science Education, 1976. Ed 127-ln
 39. , State Assessment of Educational Progress In
North (arolfna, 1M-716 North Carolina State Department of Public
Instruction Document, February 1975: (118 ps.) Ed 108-939
, 110. NSTA Position Statment an School Science Education
Far The 70's, a paper presented to the NSTA Board of Directors at its
annual meeting, July, 1971
111. , Quiidelinee and Standards For The Educat&on of
Secondary School Teachers of Science and Mathematics, American
Association For the Advancement c? Science Commission
tssioi cm Science
Eduoation, Miacell.aniaus Publication Nuaber•71-9, Washington, D. C.
(Pe 1-77).