Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V16, N4, 2021

© 2021 INASED

The Impact of Science Teaching based on Science-Technology-Society (STS) Approach

to Elementary School Students*

Sinan ÇINAR1
Recep Tayyip Erdogan University

Salih ÇEPNİ2
Bursa Uludağ University

Abstract

The aim of this study is to find out effects of science teaching through Science-Technology-Society
[STT] approach on elementary school students’ creative thinking skills, attitudes towards science
lesson, and academic success. To this end, a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest design without the
control group was used among quantitative research models. The study particiants were composed of
6 classroom teachers who had previously taken in-service training [IST] on STS approach and their
students (N=273) selected through random sampling. Study data were collected by using the Creative
Thinking Skills Scale (CTSS), Science and Technology Course Attitude Survey [STCAS], and
Academic Achievement Test [AAT]. The data were analyzed by conducting one-way ANOVA test
with SPSS. The results showed that the students in STT classes could improve their creative thinking
skills, attitudes towards science course, and academic achievement compared to their peers in the
classes. It can thus be useful to encourage teachers to perform teaching based on approaches
addressing science-tehcnology-society relation. As another recommendation, it is suggested to prepare
professional development programs.

Keywords: STS Approach, Science Education, Elementary School Students, In-Service Training.

DOI: 10.29329/epasr.2021.383.11

* This study includes part of the first author’s PhD thesis supervised by the second author.
1
Sinan Cinar, Faculty of Education, Recep Tayyip Erdogan University, Rize, Turkey, ORCID: 0000-0002-5208- 8986
Correspondence: sinan.cinar@erdogan.edu.tr
2
Salih Cepni, Faculty of Education, Bursa Uludağ University, Bursa, Turkey, ORCID: 000-0003- 2343-8796, Email:
cepnisalih@yahoo.com

198
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V16, N4, 2021
© 2021 INASED

Introduction

STS approach is grounded in associating knowledge with everyday life, assuring

interdisciplinary cooperation, making sense of learned information by students, the individual’s
learning from a critical perspective, and developing creative thinking skills (Amirshokoohi, 2016;
Hacıeminoğlu, Alı, Yager, Oztas & Oztas, 2015). The underlying principle of STS is constructivist
learning theory, which emphasizes students' prior knowledge and everyday life experiences (Enger &
Yager, 2009; Halwany, Zouda, Pouliot & Bencze, 2017). According to Aikenhead (2006), STS is a
good example of the application of the constructivist theory in classrooms (Cho, 2002; Kousa, Aksela
& Savec, 2018; Tsai, 2002). According to Kotkievicz (2021), STS studies aim to understand how
society, culture, scientific research and technological development all affect and relate to each other.
In classrooms where STS-based science program is implemented, the learning environment is
structured around the science-technology-society theme and social issues originating from science and
technology are used as an interdisciplinary pedagogical tool (Kousa, Aksela & Savec, 2018;
Primastuti & Atun, 2018; Tsai, 2002). In such an environment, students start their science education
with a personal or social matter of curiosity in science and technology, then research the problem,
discuss and produce solutions in a group, and then they reach a conclusion on the solution and
announce it (Enger & Yager, 2009). During this process, students also employ many mental activities
as a part of identifying and resolving problems, such as;

 Utilizing their own knowledge in defining and solving the problem,

 More creative thinking

 Taking action based on information and evidence,

 Communicating effectively with science,

 Positive attitude towards science and technology,

 Knowing how they learn (Firmino et al., 2019; Nuutinen, Kärkkäinen & Keinonen,
2011; Pimvichai, Yuenyong & Buaraphan, 2019; Primastuti & Atun 2018; Wongsila &
Yuenyong, 2019).

STS is not a prescriptive approach to science teaching. Rather, it is an interdisciplinary

understanding that includes issue-oriented activities that are appropriate for students and begin with a
problem or situation appealing to the students. According to the current trends in the field of
education, it has taken its place in science curriculum with different names such as "Context-Based
Learning Approach", "Socioscientific Subject-Based Teaching Approach", and "Science-Technology-
Engineering-Mathematics [STEM] Approach" (York, 2018). To exemplify, STS approach was
introduced by the Ministry of National Education [MoNE] in Turkey in 2005 to teach students the
knowledge and skills necessary to solve local and national problems through an interdisciplinary

199
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V16, N4, 2021
© 2021 INASED

perspective, and it was incorporated in the science curriculum with the title of Science-Technology-
Society [STS] relationship. However, in 2013, the curriculum of science and technology course was
restructured to cover the same learning domain under the name of Science-Technology-Society-
Environment [STSE] as a result of the increased interest in environmental problems. Later, in 2017,
Science-Engineering-Technology-Society [SETS] was introduced as a learning domain to the science
course curriculum after integrating engineering applications with the effect of 4.0 industry-industrial
revolution. The purpose of the SETS learning domain is to enhance students' levels and strategies of
making innovation and invention by improving their creativity founded on acquired knowledge and
skills (MoNE, 2018). For a clearer depiction of the relationship between STS approach and creativity,
general characteristics of an STS-based science lesson learning environment (Enger & Yager, 2009)
and the principles that should be existent in teaching that supports creativity (Aslan, 2007) are
compared in Figure 1.

Basic principles of creativity-enhancing teaching General characteristics of STS-based science

learning environment

To respect unconventional ideas and questions: Local/regional issues or problems related to a

Asking a good question can open up a good matter of interest or curiosity are identified.
research path. Children should be taught respect and
The student uses local resources to obtain
tolerance for different thoughts.
information and to solve the problem/issue.
To respect and give support for imagination:
The student takes an active part in researching the
Imagination frees thoughts from pressure and gives
information to be used in solving the problem.
unlimited thinking power.
Learning also occurs outside of class time.
To show that their ideas are valuable: It should be
made them feel that the basic task of the human The teacher focuses on personal attention and
mind is not only to store information, but also to puts the student's creativity to work.
generate information. Searching for and trying to
The student does not only see science content as
find information will make it more valuable than
the knowledge that is necessary to be successful
accepting easy-to-grasp information.
in exams.
Doing exercises that are not grade-oriented: That
everything is planned around grading in school The student focuses on a variety of careers in
poses an obstacle to revealing new and unfamiliar science and technology.
ideas. The process of presenting ideas and thinking Students become aware of their role of citizenship
without the threat of assessment is necessary for while attempting to solve the problem(s) they
students especially when doing creative activities identified.
and acquiring a new skill.
The student sees and understands the importance
Being flexible in time: Students need to take time to of science in their lives.
put forward a creative product, the teacher spreads
the activities over time by extending them beyond
school time.

Figure 1. Comparison of STS-based science teaching and creative thinking principles

As can be seen above, the locus of both creativity-enhancing teaching and STS-based science
teaching is to identify a problem and to produce solutions to it. In classes planned around STS
approach, the students engage in a long-term problem solving process where they take action to solve
the problem related to the topic of science in question. The process both improves the students'
attitudes towards science course as it is initiated with a personal or local problem they observe, and

200
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V16, N4, 2021
© 2021 INASED

boosts their creativity since the students explore various aspects of the problem within the process
(Chowdhury, 2016; Firmino et al., 2019; Nuutinen, Kärkkäinen & Keinonen, 2011; Pimvichai,
Yuenyong & Buaraphan, 2019; Primastuti & Atun 2018; Wongsila & Yuenyong, 2019; Yager, Choi,
Yager & Akcay, 2009; Yalaki, 2014). Moreover, the students learn the information in the best way
possible as they are really involved in the learning process since they offer solutions to the problem
by referring to their knowledge and implement these solutions after analyzing them (Bishop &
Denley, 2007; Enger & Yager, 2009; Koch, 2000; Rule, 2005). The study by Mulyanti, Halim,
Murniati , Ilyas, Syukri and Mursal (2021) shows that the STS approach can improve students' critical
thinking ability and better learning outcomes. Some researchers (Akçay & Akçay, 2015; Ayua &
Tartenger, 2020; Kapici, Akçay & Yager, 2017; Lee & Erdoğan, 2007; Tete, 2011; Yager et al., 2009)
have argued that the academic achievement of students in STS classes is higher than those in
conventional classes.

Problem Statement

Science learning environment in the elementary school as the first academic experience of
childhood must be designed in a way to present events and phenomena as a whole rather than
separately because pupils of this age are not capable of conceiving the information presented in
separate pieces integratedly and they get are mentally caught up in the features of the pieces (Sönmez,
2005). In addition, primary school curriculum is founded on the idea of the students’ wish for learning
and their kicking off the learning by themselves (Lee & Park, 2012). Therefore, science teaching at
elementary level should be carried out with an instructional mind set based on an interdisciplinary
approach that gives the central role to children's interests and developmental characteristics, attaches
particular importance to their effectiveness and researching and problem solving skills, and makes
their decisions the centrepiece. STS approach builds a bridge between science course and other fields
mainly including social studies, mathematics as well as applied fields like technology and
engineering. In order to maintain this interdisciplinary relationship, it uses social issues around
students and their lives, which develops students' attitudes towards the lesson and their creative
thinking skills (Kapici, Akçay & Yager, 2017; Nuutinen, Kärkkäinen & Keinonen, 2011). It is very
important for raising creative, active and social individuals that these social problems or problems
include disciplines such as the environment, art, and ethics (Kotkievicz, 2021).

In this regard, there is an abundance of STT studies regarding secondary school and upper
level students in the literature (Akçay & Akçay , 2015; Amirshokoohi, 2016; Neguda et al., 2016;
Prismistuai & Atun, 2018; Vazquez-Alonso, Garcia-Carmona, Manassero-Mas & Benassar-Roig,
2013; Yager & Akçay 2008; Yager et al., 2009) while an only small number of studies have delved
into elementary school students' creative thinking skills, attitudes to science lesson, and academic
achievement as a result of teaching with STS (Nuutinen, Kärkkäinen & Keinonen, 2011; Yager, Choi,
Yager & Akcay, 2009).

201
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V16, N4, 2021
© 2021 INASED

Within the framework of the theoretical explanations above, the main problem of the study
was set as follows: ‘‘What impact does teaching of science course based on STS approach bring to
elementary school students’ creative thinking skills, attitudes towards science course, and academic
achievement?”

Method

This study was designed as a single group pretest-posttest quasi-experimental research

without control group. Experimental design refers to research designs used to discover the cause-
effect relationships between variables (Büyüköztürk, 2007). It has the same purpose as experimental
design with the only difference that the experimental groups are selected not by chance, but by certain
criteria in quasi-experimental design (Ekiz, 2003; Karasar, 2012). The study sample here included six
out of 15 classroom teachers who had attended the STS course held by Ministry of National
Education and the students in their classrooms. The participant teachers (T2, T5, T8, T9, T12, and
T15) took part in the study on a voluntary basis. The sampling of the students was done with no
selectiveness. The independent variable of the study is the science lessons taught with STS approach.
These lessons were conducted for four weeks by the six classroom teachers who had completed their
STS training. Apart from this, the study was carried out with a large experimental group in order to
check whether the change in the dependent variables of the research was at a similar level in all of the
six groups treated with the same independent variable. The demographic profile of the participating
classroom teachers is shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Participants’ Demographics

Code Gender Professional Location of school No of students

name experience
T2 Male 10 years Center of district 26
T5 Female 4 years Rural area 22
T8 Female 12 years Center of district 30
T9 Male 8 years Center of district 31
T12 Male 12 years Center of district 30
T15 Female 13 years Center of district 33

As seen in Table 1, the sample consists of three males and three females, and only one
participant works in the rural side of the city while the others work in the district center. As for the
students, they are equivalent in terms of the developmental characteristics as far as it is reported by
the classroom teachers.

STS Course

STS course is an in-service training (IST) program targeted at primary school teachers and
devised by the authors with the support of the Ministry of National Education. The course was

202
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V16, N4, 2021
© 2021 INASED

organized by taking into account the system approach model, which sees the education process as a
system and encourages joint and effective functioning of all elements that make up the system to
achieve the goals (Yalın, Hedges, & Özdemir, 1996). The training was comprised two stages: a
practical training to teach knowledge and skills about STS approach to the trainees and a monitoring
and evaluation to follow up the extent at which the trainees apply the learned knowledge and skills in
their classrooms after the practical stage.

The practical training stage of the course; at this stage, 15 classroom teachers were given
practical training for nine days (36 hours) at Recep Tayyip Erdogan University. It consisted of four
parts; (1) "STS Relationship Awareness" for trainees’ figuring out the relationship among science,
technology, and society; (2) "Teaching of STS" to teach trainees knowledge and skills on methods
and techniques that will help them integrate the STS relationship into science course; (3) ''STS
Assessment and Evaluation'' to teach trainees the knowledge and skills necessary for measuring and
evaluating the learning outcomes of students in the STS learning environment; and (4) ''STS Lesson
Planning Workshop'' to teach trainees how to prepare a science learning environment according to
STS approach.

Monitoring and evaluation stage of the course; during this stage, the four-week (16 lesson
hours) science lesson applications of six classroom teachers were evaluated. The teachers participated
in this stage voluntarily. The evaluation focused on the classroom teachers' levels of practising the
knowledge and skills gained from the IST course in their classes. This aspect was measured by using
the "Constructivist Learning Environment Observation Survey-BORAN" developed by Keser (2003).
BORAN survey findings obtained from the teachers are given in Table 2.

Table 2. BORAN Results

Teache Steps of 5E Engage Explore Explain Elaborate Evaluate General

r model
Observation
T2 I. Observation 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.1 1.5 2.0
Observation 2.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.4
Observation 2.5 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.3
Observation 2.0 1.0 3.2 2.1 1.5 2.0
Observation 3.3 3.1 3.5 2.5 2.5 3.0
T5 Observation 3.3 3.4 3.5 2.4 2.5 3.1
Observation 3.8 3.0 3.3 3.2 2.5 3.2
Observation 3.6 3.5 3.8 3.5 3.0 3.5
T8 Observation 3.6 3.0 3.7 3.0 2.0 3.1
Observation 3.6 3.2 3.5 3.2 2.3 3.2
Observation 3.8 3.5 3.6 3.4 3.0 3.6
Observation 3.2 3.1 3.7 3.7 3.0 3.3
T9 Observation 3.0 3.7 3.3 3.2 3.0 3.2

IV.
Observ 203
ation
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V16, N4, 2021
© 2021 INASED

II. Observation 3.7 3.3 3.3 3.2 2.5 3.1

III. Observation 3.7 3.5 3.6 3.2 2.5 3.3
IV. Observation 3.8 3.5 3.6 3.8 3.3 3.6
T12 Observation 1.5 2.0 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.5
II. Observation 2.5 3.0 1.2 2.5 2.5 2.3
Observation 3.0 2.2 3.2 3.3 3.0 3.0
Observation 3.0 2.2 3.3 3.1 3.1 3.0
T15 Observation 3.0 1.5 2.5 1.0 2.0 2.0
Observation 3.2 1.2 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.6
Observation 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.8
Observation 1.2 2.0 2.2 3.0 2.0 2.1

According to the scale put forward by Keser (2003), the scores of the 5E steps in the BORAN
questionnaire which are equal to and above 3 mean that the course is realized at the desired level. In
this context, when Table 2 is examined, it can be said that some of the teachers (T5, T8, T9 and T12)
teach science based on the STS approach and the others (T2 and T15) teach science based on the
traditional approach.

Data Collection Process

Pre- and post-test procedure was applied to see the variance in creative thinking skills,
attitudes towards science course, and academic achievement of the students in the classrooms owned
by the 6 trainee teachers before and after the training given. During the 4-week monitoring and
evaluation process, the teachers called T5, T8, T9, and T12 applied STS teaching strategies such as
problem solving, project-based learning, and collaborative learning in science classes. Contrarily, T2
and T15 preferred teacher-centred and traditional methods such as lecturing, question-answer, and
demonstration in the same context. The distribution of students by gender, socioeconomic levels, and
class sizes was almost the same in the STS and conventional classes. The same textbooks were also
used for teaching of the science course in both types of classes. The only difference between them
was that various exercises were planned based on the STS approach to motivate students to ask
questions and discuss with their classmates in the STS classes. The students in those classes basically
used the textbook to search for information and arguments on the problem instead of following the
flow of the lesson. The teacher assumed the role of facilitator for learning and tried to create a
learning environment where students would actively research and have debates with other students.
On the other hand, the teachers in the other classrooms mostly acted like a supervisor and conveyed
the information to the students in detail through direct instruction or demonstration method. In order
to overcome potential internal validity threats such as practice or practitioner bias, the teachers were
reminded to minimize such threats and appropriate guidance was given.

204
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V16, N4, 2021
© 2021 INASED

Data Collection Tools and Data Analysis

Creative Thinking Skills Survey [CTSS]: This tool was obtained by looking at the
"Assessment of Student Creativity" questionnaire in the "Iowa Assessment Book" (Enger & Yager,
2009). The CTSS instrument includes three different subscales: Questioning, Reasoning, and
Predicting Consequences. Students are instructed to ask questions, guess the answers and causes, and
predict consequences relative to the situation statements. Enger and Yager (2009) suggest connecting
in the mind the learnt module with the sitution expression that will be used to measure creativity so
that they can note the relationship between what they have learnt and what is being measured. During
the analysis, the responses given by the student at each stage are divided into three groups as
"irrelevant", "relevant" and "creative", where each irrelevant response is rated 0 point, relevant one is
rated 1 point, and creative one is rated 2 points (Enger & Yager, 2009). Inter-rater reliability was
established as 0.89 on the classification of levels of questions and statements in the current study. The
CTSS was filled out by all classrooms as pre- and post-test, and the responses were analyzed with
one-way ANOVA using SPSS.

Science and Technology Course Attitude Survey (STCAS): STCAS, developed by Özsevgeç
(2007), consists of 13 positive and 4 negative items. A 3-point Likert type rating scale is used in the
questionnaire. The responses are rated by giving 3 points to every "yes", 2 points to "medium", and 1
points to "no". The negative statements are scored in the opposite way giving the highest value to a
negative response till the lowest value for an affirmative answer. The Cronbach-alpha reliability
coefficient of the scale was found to be .70. Since the survey was originally applied to elementary
school pupils in the source, it was not deemed necessary to repeat the reliability analysis in the current
study. The STCAS was answered in all of the classrooms pre- and post-test, and the collected data
were analyzed by one-way ANOVA using SPSS.

Academic Achievement Test (AAT): The academic achievement test developed by the
researchers consists of 10 open-ended questions. The questions were prepared in line with the
acquisitions in the science program. The construct and content validity of the test was ensured by
taking opinions of two lecturers specialized in the field of primary school education and assessment
and evaluation, and two experienced primary school teachers. In addition, the pilot study of the test
was conducted and the wording of the items was improved to eliminate any misunderstanding or
extreme difficulty of questions.

Student responses were categorized into 5 levels based on the taxonomy of Abraham,
Williamson, and Westbrook (1994). Total scores were calculated by counting up scores from the
categories of complete comprehension (4 points), partial comprehension (3 points), partial
understanding with a specific misconception (2 points), specific misconceptions (1 point), and non-

205
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V16, N4, 2021
© 2021 INASED

comprehension (0 point). The data collected from the pre- and post-test were processed by one-way
ANOVA using SPSS, and the results are presented in the following section.

Results

Findings from the Creative Thinking Skills Survey [CTSS]

In order to compare the creative thinking skills of the student groups before the training, the pre-test
scores of the CTSS were analysed using one-way ANOVA. ANOVA results of pre-test are displayed
in Table 3.

Table 3.CTSS Pre-test ANOVA Results

Classroom N Mean Std. Sum of squares sd F p
deviation
Intragroup Intergroup
T2 26 9.96 2.69 5
T5 22 10.00 3.410 1891,75 36.065 .583 .713
T8 30 9.96 4.27
T9 31 10.38 3.63 158
T12 22 10.31 3.53
T15 28 11.25 3.21

When table 3 is examined, it is understood that there is no significant difference (F (5,158)=

.538, p>0.05) between creative thinking skill levels of the student groups taught by the teachers before
the applied training.

As a result of the applications of teachers, the post-test scores of the student groups were
compared. Post-test results were analysed by one-way ANOVA. In addition, multiple comparisons
between groups were made by Tukey-HSD. ANOVA results of post-test are displayed in Table 4.

Table 4. CTSS Post-test ANOVA Results

Classroom N Mean Std. Sum of squares sd F p
Deviation
Intragroup Intergroup
T2 26 14.34 2.13
T5 22 21.13 4.90 2159.92 1981.03 5 28.06 .000
T8 30 23.36 4.93
T9 31 20.77 3.63
T12 22 19.04 3.86 158
T15 28 14.17 2.16

Table 4 indicates a significant difference (F (5,158) = 28.06, p<.05) between the creative thinking
skill levels of the student groups in the post-test. The results of multiple comparisons between the
CTSS post-test scores of the groups are demonstrated in Table 5.

206
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V16, N4, 2021
© 2021 INASED

Table 5. CTSS Post-Test Tukey-HSD Results

(I) (J) Mean difference (I-J) p
T2 T5 -6.79* .000
T8 -9.02* .000
T9 -6.43* .000
T12 -4.70* .000
T15 .167 1.000
T5 T8 -2.23 .285
T9 .36 .999
T12 2.09 .440
T15 6.96* .000
T8 T9 2.60 .082
T12 4.32* .001
T15 9.19* .000
T9 T12 1.72 .567
T15 6.60* .000
T12 T15 4.87* .000

* The mean differences are significant at the 0,05 level.

When the post-test scores of the groups are compared, it is seen that there is a significant
difference between them (p <.05) and this difference is in favour of the four student groups (T5, T8,
T9, T12) who received STS education. When these four student groups are further compared among
themselves, T8 is seen to have the highest creative thinking skills.

Findings from the Science and Technology Course Attitude Survey (STCAS) The
difference between the student groups’ attitudes towards science course before the training was
checked by performing one-way ANOVA analysis on STCAS pre-test. ANOVA results of pre-test are
displayed in Table 6.

Table 6. STCAS Pre-test ANOVA Results

Classroom N Mean Std. Sum of squares sd F p

deviatio
Intragroup Intergroup
n
T2 26 34.73 5.48
T5 22 36.31 4.50 5
T8 30 34.76 6.1 28.957 24.056 .831 .530
T9 31 36.32 5.67 158
T12 22 36.30 4.94
T15 28 37.00 5.22

As understood from Table 6, there is no significant difference (F (5,158) = .831, p>0.05)

between the student groups’ attitudes in the pre-test.

207
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V16, N4, 2021
© 2021 INASED

As a result of the teachers' applications, the STCAS post-test scores of the student groups were
analysed by one-way ANOVA. In addition, multiple comparisons between groups were made by
Tukey-HSD. Post-test scores of the groups are compared and shown in Table 7 in terms of ANOVA
results.

Table 7. STCAS Post-test ANOVA Results

Classroom N Mean Std. Sum of squares sd F p
Deviation Intragrou Intergrou
T2 26 35.19 5.30 p p

T5 22 42.86 3.38 5
T8 30 43.20 4.14 21.129 254.062 12.062 .000
T9 31 40.70 4.68 158
T12 22 40.21 5.31
T15 28 37.38 4.22

Table 7 indicates a significant difference (F(5,158)= 12.062, p>0.05) between the student
groups’ attitudes in the post-test. The other set of results, which indicate multiple comparisons
between the STCAS post-test scores of the groups, is demonstrated in Table 8.

Table 8. STCAS Post-Test Tukey-HSD Results

(I) (J) Mean difference (I-J) p

T8 T9 2.71 .197
T5 .336 1.00
T12 2.98 .109
T15 5.81* .000
T2 8.00* .000
T5 T9 2.37 .432
T12 2.65 .295
T15 5.47* .001
T2 7.67* .000
T9 T12 .271 1.00
T15 3.09 .120
T2 5.29* .000
T12 T15 2.82 1.20
T2 5.01* .001
T15 T2 2.91 .521

* The mean differences are significant at the 0,05 level.

Comparison of the post-test results revealed a significant difference between the groups, and
this difference was found to be in favour of the student groups (T5, T8, T9, and T12) receiving STS
training (p <.05).

208
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V16, N4, 2021
© 2021 INASED

Findings from the Academic Achievement Test (AAT)

This test was applied to all of the classrooms before the training and the pre-test data were
analysed by one-way ANOVA to calculate the variance, if any, between the groups’ academic
achievement levels. ANOVA results of the pre-test application are shown in Table 9.

Table 9. AAT Pre-test ANOVA Results

Classroom N Mean Std. Sum of squares sd F p

Deviati Intragroup Intergroup
on
T2 26 23,73 6,45
T5 22 23,19 4,89 5
T8 30 24,03 6,03 4720,19 1595,71 10,345 ,000
T9 31 24,65 6,00 158
T12 22 28,32 5,04
T15 28 31,96 4,34

As can be seen in Table 9, there is a significant difference between the student groups’
academic success levels in science classes before the training (F (5,158) = 10.345, p<0.05). Also,
multiple comparisons were examined by applying Tukey-HSD to the pre-test scores in the AAT. The
results of this statistical test are given in Table 10.

Table 10. AAT Pre-test Tukey-HSD Results

(I) (J) Mean difference (I-J) p

T8 T9 -,61183 ,998
T5 ,85152 ,994
T12 -4,28485 ,072
T15 -7,93095* ,000
T2 ,30256 1,000
T5 T9 -1,46334 ,999
T12 -5,13636* ,030
T15 -8,78247* ,000
T2 -,54895 ,999
T9 T12 -3,67302 ,173
T15 -7,31912* ,000
T2 ,91439 ,989
T12 T15 -3,64610 ,199
T2 4,58741 ,055
T15 T2 8,23352* ,000

When the pre-test results of the groups were compared, a significant difference was found
between the groups (p <.05), and this difference was in favour of the student groups (T12 and T15)
who received the conventional education.

209
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V16, N4, 2021
© 2021 INASED

After the training, AAT was administered as a post-test and the collected data were subjected
to one-way ANOVA for the difference between the student groups. ANOVA results regarding the
comparison of the groups are demonstrated in Table 11.

Table 11. AAT Post-test ANOVA Results

Classroom N Mean/Aver Std. Sum of squares sd F p

age Deviati Intragroup Intergro
on up
Ö2 26 39,1154 4,63
Ö5 22 44,0000 6,13 5
Ö8 30 44,4333 4,92 3424,409 604,081 5,398 ,000
Ö9 31 42,6452 5,25 158
Ö12 22 39,7727 2,94
Ö15 28 41,8571 3,79

Looking at Table 11, it is found that there is a significant difference (F (5,158) = 12.062, p>
0.05) in academic success between student groups after the application. Multiple comparisons
between the AAT post-test scores of the groups were made by Tukey-HSD, and the data obtained are
given in Table 12.

Table 12. KKT Post-test Tukey-HSD Results

(I) (J) Mean difference (I-J) p

T8 T9 1,78817 ,680
T5 ,43333 1,000
T12 4,66061* ,008
T15 2,57619 ,307
T2 5,31795* ,001
T5 T9 1,35484 ,908
T12 4,22727* ,040
T15 2,14286 ,607
T2 4,88462* ,006
T9 T12 2,87243 ,254
T15 ,78802 ,988
T2 3,52978 ,062
T12 T15 -2,08442 ,635
T2 ,65734 ,997
T15 T2 2,74176 ,279

* The mean differences are significant at the 0,05 level.

210
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V16, N4, 2021
© 2021 INASED

Comparison of the post-test results of the groups reveals that there is a significant difference
between the groups, and this difference is in favour of the student groups receiving science education
based on the STS approach (p <.05).

Discussion, Conclusion and Recommendations

This section is devoted to the general evaluation of the study results.

Firstly, when examining the science teaching approaches applied by primary school teachers
in their classrooms after the FTT course, it was determined that the teachers with the codes of T5, T8,
T9 and T12 taught science based on the FTT approach while the teachers with the codes of T2 and
T15 taught science based on the traditionalist approach. It can be inferred from the literature that the
teachers might avoid using FTT approach as a teaching strategy because of the fear that applying the
FTT approach in classrooms will not allow in-depth coverage of the course content or it will decrease
student success (Amirshokoohi, 2016; Autieri, Amirshokoohi & Kazempour, 2016; Enger & Yager,
2009).

Secondly, a closer look at the creative thinking skills of the students taught by classroom
teachers suggests that the groups were equivalent with quite close scores before the training (Cho,
2002; Enger & Yager, 2009; Lee & Erdogan, 2007; Şen & Baz, 2018). However, a significant
difference emerged between creative thinking skills of the groups after the training, and the imbalance
was in favour of the classes taught by Ö5, Ö8, Ö9, and Ö12. It can be suggested that the creativity of
those students may have increased since they identified the problems related to the subject and did
research to solve the problems on their own, and they speculated about the causes and results of the
selected problem in the STS-based setting designed by their teachers (Hacıemınoglu et al., 2015; Lee
& Erdoğan 2007). Yet this result does not seem surprising because critical thinking by nature means
looking critically, being authentic, spotting the problem, and drawing new conclusions via different
paths (Mulyanti, et al., 2021). Another possible explanation for this difference may be the fact that
Ö5, Ö8, Ö9, and Ö12 applied teaching techniques inspired by 5E model such as projects, problem
solving, sample events, and debate whereas the others, i.e. Ö2 and Ö15, predominantly taught science
by lecturing and demonstration in their classes (Tsai, 2002). Other researchers also (Chantaranima &
Yuenyong, 2014; Cho, s2002; Hacıemınoglu et al., 2015) found that students' creative thinking skills
improved, and their subject concept knowledge increased in STS classrooms. Hence, it can be said
that creative thinking skills can advance as a result of specific activities in the classroom and that STS
approach has a noticeable influence on the development of students' creative skills (Yager, Yager &
Lim, 2006).

Thirdly, with respect to the change in the participant students’ attitudes towards science
course, there was not a significant difference among the groups before the teachers attended the STS
training. This implies that there is no considerable difference between the teachers’ ways of teaching

211
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V16, N4, 2021
© 2021 INASED

(Akçay & Akçay, 2015; Lee & Erdogan; 2007). But a significant difference was noted in the students’
attitudes towards science course when the teachers completed their in-service training. The post-test
averages in the STCAS prove that the students of Ö5, Ö8, Ö9, and Ö12, who employed STS approach
in their classes, experienced notable progress in attitudes to science course. This change can be
accounted for by a number of factors in STS classrooms such as the teachers’ role of facilitator and
mentor besides the students’ facing a real problem of interest and curiousity, class discussions, group
discussions, and democratic activities like voting (Akçay & Akçay, 2015; Devi & Aznam, 2019; Cho,
2002, Enger & Yager, 2009, Lee & Erdoğan, 2007; Smitha & Aruna, 2014). According to Davasligil
(1991), learning environments which allow free discussion of problems and solutions related to the
learning topic help pupils develop positive attitudes towards learning and those settings offer an
effective motivating ambiance to make learning fun.

When the changes in the academic achievement of students were examined after the
classroom teachers’ science teaching, it was seen that there was a significant difference between
student groups both before and after the training. Before the training, the significant difference was in
favour of the student groups T12 and T15. Contrarily, the significance turned in favour of the T5, T8
and T9 after the training.

In STS classrooms, the teachers introduced the students to a social issue from their real life
connected with the topic of science teaching. Then, the students read up on the problem before
offering solutions, and finally used the information to solve the problem. This series of actions might
have enabled students to develop the concepts in their cognitive structures independently (Nuutinen,
Kärkkäinen & Keinonen, 2011; Primastuti & Atun, 2018). Kapici, Akçay and Yager (2017) found in
their study that students in STS classrooms proved to be more successful with regard to knowledge of
concepts than those in classrooms where the traditional approach was applied. Further similar findings
are also available in the literature (Ayua & Tartenger, 2020; Lee & Erdoğan, 2007; Negedu et al.,
2016; Nuutinen, Kärkkäinen & Keinonen, 2011; Primastuti & Atun, 2018; Tete 2011; Wongsila &
Yuenyong, 2019; Yager, Yager & Lim, 2006).

Given that the main goal of any newly-proposed science curriculum is to educate individuals
to possess the 21st century skills, formal teaching plans should be based on Science-Technology-
Society approach (STS) (Devi & Aznam, 2019; Yalaki, 2014). Several governmental organizations
and science education institutions including the National Science Teachers Association [NSTA]
(2010) and the National Research Council [NRC] (2013) declared that it is an essential way to build
curricula on STS philosophy for promoting and actualizing individuals’ 21st century skills. In this
context, in Turkey, it is strongly emphasized that teachers should give place to learning strategies that
improve students’ inquisition and creativity in order to meet the requirement of raising individuals
with skills of the 21st century as pointed by the Ministry of National Education (2018). To this end,
the use of approaches and methods relating to science-technology-society relation by teachers should

212
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V16, N4, 2021
© 2021 INASED

be explicitly encouraged and reinforced. In this scope, professional development courses should be
planned to help teachers teach in their own classrooms based on approaches relying on the relation of
science, technology, and society. It should be also made sure that teachers attend such events. As
mentioned earlier, this study explores the impact of STS approach on elementary school students'
creative thinking, attitudes towards science course, and their academic achievement. Since the
approach grants students a free learning environment in which they become responsible for their own
learning, future researchers can examine the effect of STS approach on learner skills such as
communication and collaboration, entrepreneurship, and responsibility. Lastly, quantitative research
approach was adopted in this study. It is recommended that researchers try mixed research methods to
collect a greater amount of qualitative and quantitative data on dependent variables under scrutiny.

References

Abraham, M. R., Williamson, V.M., & Westbrook, S.L. (1994). A cross-age study of the understanding
five concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31 (2), 147- 165.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310206
Akcay, B., & Akcay, H. (2015). Effectiveness of Science-Technology-Society (STS) instruction on student
understanding of the nature of science and attitudes toward science. International Journal of
Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 3(1), 37-45.
Amirshokoohi, A. (2010). Elementary pre-service teachers’ environmental literacy and views toward
Science, Technology, and Society (STS) Issues. Science Educator, 19(1), 56-62.
Amirshokoohi, A. (2016). Impact of STS issue-oriented instruction on pre-service elementary teachers’
views and perceptions of science, technology and society. International Journal of
Environmental and Science Education, 11(4), 359-387. DOI: 10.12973/ijese.2016.324a
Aslan, E. (2007). Yaratıcı Düşünce Eğitimi (Ed. Oktay ve Polat Unutkan) İlköğretim Çağına Genel Bakış
içinde (ss: 75-99). Morpa Yayınları.
Autieri, S.M., Amirshokoohi, A., & Kazempour, M. (2016). The science-technology-society framework
for achieving scientific literacy: an overview of the existing literatüre, European Journal of
Science and Mathematics Education, 4 (1), 75‐89.
Ayua, G. A., & Tartenge, T.T (2021). Effect of scıence-technology-socıety strategy on performance ın
basıc scıence among upper-basıc school students ın makurdı metropolıs. Africa Journal of
Sustainable Professional Development, 4, (1), 26-33.
Bishop, K., & Denley, P. (2007). Learning science teaching: Developing a professional
knowledge base. McGraw-Hill Education
Blunck, S.M., & Yager, R.E. (1996). The Iowa Chautauqua program: A proven in-service
model for introducing STS in K-12 classrooms. In R.E. Yager (Ed), Science/
technology/society as reform in science education (ss: 298-306). Albany, NY: State University
of New York Press.

213
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V16, N4, 2021
© 2021 INASED

Halwany, S., Zouda, M., Pouliot, C., & Bencze, L. (2017). Supporting pre-service teachers to teach for
citizenship in the context of
STSE Issues. In Bencze, L. (Ed.), Science and technology education promoting wellbeing for
individuals, societies and environments: Cultural studies of science education, (pp. 405-427).
New York, NY: Springer doı: 10.1007/978-3-319-55505-8_18
Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2007), Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı, Pegem A Yayıncılık
Chowdhury, M.A. (2016). The Integration of Science-Technology- Society/Science-Technology-Society-
Environment and Socio-Scientific-Issues for Effective Science Education and Science
Teaching, Electronic Journal of Science Education, 20(5), 19-38.
Chantaranima, T., & Yuenyong, C. (2014). The outcomes of teaching and learning about sound based on
science technology and society (STS) approach. Procedia-Social and Bheavioral Sciences,
116, 2286-2292. DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.561
Cho, J. (2002). The development of an alternative in-service programme for Korean science teachers with
an emphasis on science-technology-society. International Journal of Science Education,
24(10), 1021-1035. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110095320
Davaslıgil, U. (1991). Üstün olma niteliğini kazanma. Eğitim ve Bilim Dergisi, (82), 62-67.
Devi, M.G., & Aznam, N. (2019).The effect of science-technology-society (STS) model on scientific
literacy and scientific attitude of students on the subject of buffer, IOP Conf. Series: Journal of
Physics: Conf. Series 1156 (2019) 012027 IOP Publishing. doi:10.1088/1742-
6596/1156/1/012027
Ekiz, D. (2003). Eğitimde araştırma yöntem ve metodlarına giriş: Nitel, nicel ve eleştirel kuram
metodojileri. Anı Yayıncılık.
Enger, S. K., & Yager, R.E. (2009). Assessing student understanding in science (2 nd Ed.) Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press Inc.
Firmino E.S., Sampaio C.G., Nojosa A.C.B., Saldanha G.C.B., Guerra M.H.F.S., Vasconcelos A, K.P., &
Barroso M.C.S. (2019). STSE Approach in High School Chemistry: A Brief Review in
National Literature; Acta Scientiae, Canoas, 21(3), 196-212.
DOI:10.17648/acta.scientiae.v21iss3id4660
Hacıemınoglu, E., Alı, M.M., Yager, R.E., Oztas, F., & Oztas, H. (2015). Differences between students ın
sts and non-s classrooms regarding creativity, Revista de cercetare [i interven]ie social, (50).
22-37.
Kapici, H. O, Akcay, H., & Yager, E.R. (2017). Comparison of Science-Technology-Society approach and
textbook oriented instruction on students’ abilities to apply science concepts, International
Journal of Progressive Education, 13 (2), 18-28.
Karasar, N. (2012). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. Nobel Yayıncılık.
Keser, Ö.F. (2003). Fizik eğitimine yönelik bütünleştirici öğrenme ortamı ve tasarımı [Yayımlanmamış
Doktora Tezi], Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi.

214
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V16, N4, 2021
© 2021 INASED

Koch, J. (2000). Science stories: A science methods book for elementary school teachers.
USA. Houghton Mifflin Company
Kotkievicz, G. (2021). STS and Science Education in Europe | Perspective. Access address;
https://esn.org/sts-and-science-education-europe
Kousa, P., Aksela, M., & Ferk, V. (2018). SavecPre-service teachers´ beliefs about the benefits and
challenges of STSE based school-industry collaboration and practices in science education.
Journal of Baltic Science Education, 17(6). 1034-1045. 10.33225/jbse/18.17.1034
Lee, H., & Park, N. (2012) An analysis of effects and benefits of sts model based on universal design for
learning, Computer Applications for Security, Control and System Engineering, 12, 8-13. DOI:
10.1007/978-3-642-35264-5_18
Lee, M., K., & Erdogan, I. (2007). The Effect of science–technology–society teaching on
students’attitudes toward science and certain aspects of creativity, Bulletin of Science
Technology Society, 27, 382-390. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600972974
Ministry of National Education [MoNE] (2018). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programi (İlkokul ve Ortaokul
3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar). Ankara: Millî Eğitim Bakanliği Temel Eğitim Genel
Müdürlüğü.
Mulyanti, S., Halim, A.,Murniati , Ilyas, S., Syukri, M., & Mursal. (2021). The impact of the science
technology society (STS) approach on critical thinking ability and student learning outcomes,
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1882 (2021) 012026,1-6. doi:10.1088/1742-
6596/1882/1/012026
National Science Teachers Association. (2010). Position statement on Science-Technology-Society:
Teaching Science and Technology in the Context of Societal and Personal Issues. Washington,
D.C.: National Science Teachers Association.
Negedu, S. A., Mathew, B. A., Ogah, S., Gadzama, B. I., Abuh, P.Y., & Haruna,
G. G. (2016). Effects of science, technology, society (STS)-approach on achievement of
students in integrated science: a recipe for women education and conflict resolution,
International Journal of Current Research in Multidisciplinary, 1(3), 25-30.
Next Generation Science Standards (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. The
National Academies Press
Nuutinen, H., S., Kärkkäinen, S., & Keinonen T. (2011). Primary school pupils’ perceptions of water in the
context of STS study approach, International Journal of Environmental & Science Education,
3(3), 321-339
Özsevgeç, T. (2007). İlköğretim 5. sınıf kuvvet ve hareket ünitesine yönelik 5E modeline göre
geliştirilen rehber materyallerin etkililiklerinin belirlenmesi [Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi],
Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi.
Pimvichai, J., Yuenyong, C., & Buaraphan, K. (2019). Development of grade 10 students’ scientific
argumentation through the science-technology-society learning unit on work and energy.

215
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V16, N4, 2021
© 2021 INASED

Journal of Technology and Science Education, 9(3), 428-441.

https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.527
Primastuti, M., & Atun S. (2018). Science Technology Society (STS) learning approach: an effort to
improve students’ learning outcomes, IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1097
(2018) 012062. doi :10.1088/1742-6596/1097/1/012062
Rule, A.C. (2005). Creativity skills applied to Earth science education: Examples from K-
12 teachers in a graduate creativity class. Journal of Geoscience Education 53(1),
53-64. https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-53.1.53
Smitha, E. T., & Aruna, P. K (2014). Effect of science technology society approach on achievement
motivation in biology of secondary school students of kasaragod district, IOSR Journal of
Humanities and Social Science, 19(4). 54-58. doı:10.9790/0837-19475458
Sönmez, V. (2005). Hayat ve sosyal bilgiler öğretimi ve öğretmen kılavuzu. Anı Yayınları.
Şen, D., & Baz, B. (2018). İlkokul öğrencilerinin yaratıcı düşünme becerilerinin demografik değişkenler
ve akademik başarı açısından incelenmesi, Ejercongress 2018, 2-5 Mayıs, Antalya
Tete, B. D (2011). Effects of Science- Technology- Society (STS) instructional strategy on academic
performance in selected genetic concepts among NCE students [Unpublished Thesis], Ahmadu
Bello University,
Tsai, C.C. (2002). A science teacher's reflections and knowledge growth about STS
instruction after actual implementation. Science Education, 86(1), 23-41.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10006
Vazquez-Alonso, A., Garcia-Carmona, A., Manassero-Mas, M. A., & Bennassar-Roig, A. (2013). Spanish
secondary-school science teachers’ beliefs about Science-Technology-Society (STS) issues.
Science & Education, 22(5), 1191-1218. DOI:10.1007/s11191-012-9440-1
Yalaki, Y., (2014). Türkiye’de fen, teknoloji, toplum, çevre (FTTÇ) eğitimi ne durumda? Cito Eğitim:
Kuram ve Uygulama, 26, 27-36.
Yager, S, O., Yager, R, E., & Lim, G. (2006). The advantages of a STS approach over a typical textbook
dominated approach in middle school science, School Science and Mathematics, 1, 23–
45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2006.tb18083.x
Yager, R. E., & Akcay, H. (2008). Comparison of learning outcomes in middle school science with an STS
approach and a typical textbook dominated approach. Research in Middle Level Education,
31(7), 1-16. DOI:10.1080/19404476.2008.11462050
Yager, R.E., Choi, A., Yager, S. O., & Akcay, H. (2009). Comparing Science learning among
4th-, 5th-, and 6th-grade students: STS versus textbook-based instruction. Journal of
Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 15-24.
Yalın, H. İ., Hedges, L., & Özdemir, S. (1996). Hizmet içi eğitim program geliştirme el
kitabı. Milli Eğitim Basımevi,
York, E. (2018). Doing STS in STEM Spaces: Experiments in critical participation, Engineering Studies,
10(1), 66-84. https://doi.org/10.1080/19378629.2018.1447576

216
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V16, N4, 2021
© 2021 INASED

Wongsila, S., & Yuenyong, C. (2019). Enhancing Grade 12 Students’ Critical Thinking and Problem-
Solving Ability in Learning of the STS Genetics and DNA Technology Unit. Journal for the
Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 7(2), 215-235. doı:
http://dx.doi.org/10.17478/jegys.549005

217