Search

This paper argues five points: Science-technology-society (STS) studies includes two subcultures — one activist, the other academic; these have not communicated well with one another; as a result, they have false pictures of one anther; for the activists, STS is more a social movement than an academic field; indeed, academic scholarship is an unlikely source of movement leadership, though it has a role to play.

During the years 1982–1983 a consensus emerged among U.S. leaders in government, business, and education regarding educational reform. Responding to a new “information era,” leaders asserted the need for a new core curriculum of “new basics,” to promote higher order skills and scientific and technological literacy, hands-on familiarity with computers to produce “computer literacy,” and the utilization of the new information technologies to improve learning in traditional curriculum areas. But since then certainty about the role of technology has faded. Despite the rush to purchase computers and put them to use in schools, district level planning has been grossly inadequate and procurement decisions have often been unwise. Potentially important technologies have been neglected, while visionary ideas for using computers to build “higher order skills” for typical learners in the traditional curriculum areas have not been validated. The “high tech” consensus of 1983 has collapsed, and a new policy agenda for “restructing” the schools has begun to emerge.

Science, Technology, and Society (STS) education is a rapidly expanding field of study at school and college levels. Following a period of spontaneous development, there has been a convergence on goals and curriculum practices. This paper summarizes the origins, goals, and methods of STS education, and then indicates new challenges it confronts. STS aims at making citizens from all classes and groups more aware and informed about the impact of the global industrial enterprise. Curriculum formats and routines are currently organized to promote industrial production and consumption, and STS interventions accommodated to these may not prove effective in achieving the goals of STS education.