Assessing Teaching/Learning

Successes in Multiple Domains of

Science and Science Education

ROBERT E. YAGER
Science Education Center, University o f Iowa, Iowa City, IA

ALAN J. McCORMACK
School of Education, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA

There are many valid ways of viewing science and science education. Un-
fortunately a major problem seems to exist when science is viewed and when
it is taught as a body of information. Some, to justify a focus on the infor-
mation scientists have accumulated, maintain that no dimensions can be
viewed and understood without first knowing what scientists (or science
teachers) know. Certainly this is true in one sense; students need prior
knowledge (but, from their own experiences) in order to develop new knowl-
edge. However, this situation should not translate into “you must first know
what I know- then you can consider other dimensions and move into other
domains.” And yet, this is what invariably seems to happen in schools and in
undergraduate science education.
It is impossible to imagine any human without some prior knowledge-
information that is useful in considering science from a variety of perspec-
tives. And, it is difficult to accept that real learning can occur in isolation
of the real world and direct experience. The diversity of learners suggests that
there is a real issue concerning the degree of understanding which is possible,
and which is appropriate for various people. Can teachers share experiences
with their students and make these “student” experiences? Is it necessary
for students to know the teacher’s vocabulary and basic knowledge in order
to operate? Much current research indicates that these questions must be
answered with resounding “No’s” (Champagne & Klopfer, 1984; Yager &
Yager, 1985; Hurd et al., 1981).
McCormack and Yager (1988) have developed a taxonomy for science
educators’ concerns for teaching and curriculum development. Certainly
there may be other taxonomies for enlarging the typical view of science; but
this one is useful in the context of efforts called Science/Technology/Society
(Piel, 1981). Following is an elaboration of the various components of the

Science Education 73(1): 45-58 (1989)

0 1989 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0036-8326/89/010045-14$04.00
46 YAGER AND McCORMACK

five domains offered by McCormack and Yager. If these are meaningful

domains, each should affect plans for instruction and evaluation for school
science.

Domains of Science Teaching

Domain I - Knowing and Understanding (Information domain)

Science aims to categorize the observable universe into manageable units

for study and to describe physical and biological relationships. Ultimately,
science aims to provide reasonable explanations for observed relationships.
Naturally, science instruction has as one aim to assist students in knowing
the major explanations that are currently accepted, especially those of high
value and positive use in resolving current issues. The question is how to help
students reach such an end.
The Information Domain includes: Facts, Information, Laws (Principles),
Existing explanations and theories being used by scientists, and Internalized
knowZedge which can be used. All of this vast amount of information is usu-
ally classified into such manageable topics as: matter, energy, motion, animal
behavior, plant development.

Domain I I - Exploring and Discovering (process o f science domain)

How scientists think and work represents another dimension of science.

There are specific and definable processes that characterize human actions
that result in new knowledge of the universe. Generally these processes are
embodied in the terms “exploring and discovering.” Some processes of sci-
ence which can be used in science instruction illustrate goals/outcomes in
this domain : Observing and describing, Classifying and organizing, Measuring
and charting, Communicating and understanding communications of others,
Predicting and inferring, Hypothesizing, Testing, Identifying and controlling
variables, Interpreting data, Constructing instruments, simple devices, and
physical models. Again the question can be raised, how can one best help
students develop such skills for their own use?

Domain I I I - Imagining and Creating (creativity domain)

Most view a science program as something to be done to students to

help them learn given information. Little formal attention has been giv-
en in science programs t o the development of students’ imagination and
creative thinking. And yet creativity in terms of questions, possible ex-
planations, and testing ideas is central to science. Some of the human abili-
ties important in this domain include: Visualizing (producing mental images),
 ASSESS1NG TEACH I NG/LEA RN I NG SUCCESSES 47

Combining objects and ideas in new ways, Producing alternate or unusual

uses for objects, Solving problems and puzzles, Fantasizing, Pretending,
Dreaming, Designing devices and machines, Producing unusual ideas, Iden ti-
fying, Isolating, Merging, Diverging, Converging. Much research and develop-
ment has been done on developing students’ abilities in this creativity
domain, but little of this has been purposely incorporated into science pro-
grams.

Domain IV - Feeling and Valuing (attitudinal domain)

In these times of increasingly complex social and political institutions,

environmental and energy problems, and general worry about the future,
scientific content, processes, and even attention to imagination are not suffi-
cient parameters for a science program. Human feelings, values, and decision-
making skills need to be addressed. The attitudinal domain includes: Devel-
oping positive attitudes toward science in general, science in school, science
teachers, and science careers, Developing positive attitudes toward oneself
(an “I can do it” attitude), Exploring human emotions, Developing sensitiv-
ity to, and respect for, the feelings of other people, Expressing personal
feelings in a constructive way, Making decisions about personal values, Mak-
ing decisions about social and environmental issues, Exploring arguments on
either side of an issue.

Domain V - Using and Applying (applications and connections domain)

It seems pointless to have any science program if the program does not in-
clude some substantial amount of information, skills, and attitudes that can
be transferred and used in students’ everyday lives. Also, it seems inappropri-
ate to divorce “pure” or “academic” science from technology. Students need
to become sensitized to those experiences they encounter which reflect ideas
they have learned in school science. Some dimensions of this domain are:
Seeing instances of scientific concepts in everyday life experiences, Applying
learned science concepts and skills to everyday technological problems,
Understanding scientific and technological principles involved in household
technological devices, Using scientific processes in solving problems that
occur in everyday life, Understanding and evaluating mass media reports of
scientific developments, Making decisions related to personal health, nutri-
tion, and life style based on knowledge of scientific concepts rather than on
“hear-say” or emotions, Integrating science with other subjects, Taking spe-
cific actions designed to resolve problems and/or to improve a local, regional,
national, and/or international problem, Becoming involved in community-
action projects; ex tending school experiences beyond the classroom, Empha-
sizing the interrelationships and interconnectedness of science to other
human enterprises.
48 YAGER AND McCORMACK

For persons active in current efforts in science education which have often
been called Science/Technology/Society (S/T/S), many problems of current
concern to professionals are not issues. S/T/S approaches mean focusing
upon issues, controversies, non-conformities, points of curiosity. S/T/S
means exploring and formulating problems and sub-problems while collect-
ing information directly. Since the students are exploring and identifying
questions, the studies will be related to the real world of the student. S/T/S
shows students the power and value of knowledge since students need basic
information in order to operate. Science information is not something given
by teachers with a promise that it will be useful. It is something students
seek out in order to operate.
S/T/S programs begin at the application/connections domain. Everything
considered -all information that is sought - all actions taken- all evidence
gathered -is student assembled and used by students by definition, giving
them applications and connections. The applications/connections domain
seems to be a desired starting point if one is concerned with providing an
appropriate and meaningful experience with science for all. It is related t o
the society from whence “all” come.
Rather than to assume that one may be able to reach the applications/
connections domain after experiences with organized knowledge and some
processes (skills) used by scientists, S/T/S teachers start with applications,
real issues, relevant questions, ideas that provide linkages and connections
for students. Such a starting point offer “higher-order thinking skills” in a
context of a problem rather than as a separate entity in the school program.
Such starting points also emphasize the real world where science is not some-
thing people do in science classes or laboratories. Science is seen related t o
everything, especially curriculum areas such as mathematics, social science,
vocational subjects, and the humanities.
Apparently it is not necessary to study new knowledge and to experience
new process skills out of any real life context before becoming involved with
a problem/issue that provides for applications and connections for learners.
In fact, it seems that knowledge and process may be derived from the ex-
periences provided by a problem situation. How did Mendel learn of genet-
ics? Students can apply and connect without the knowledge and process
skills possessed by teachers and/or those “covered” in standard textbooks.
On the other hand, is it possible for a student to demonstrate knowledge and
process without the ability to use either? And, is it possible for real learning
to occur if it cannot be used? Is it possible t o have valid knowledge of
science and technology that is not (cannot be) used?
Too often tests are prepared assuming the importance of having some
items at all levels (on Bloom’s taxonomy). However, invariably there is an
unbalance-in favor of the fact level. And, of course, teachers and students
always find such items easier to create and to answer. They may indeed be
easier because of the preponderance of time and effort spent teaching for
the acquisition of factual knowledge-usually for its own sake. Students
expect teachers to examine them on the information presented.
 ASSESS1 NG TEACH I NG/LEARN ING SUCCESSES 49

Standardized achievement tests emphasize science information- often

only vocabulary. Skills are usually included - often requiring mathematics -
but rarely in excess of the information type items. Recent analyses of the
NSTA-ACS Chemistry Achievement Examination, the BSCS Comprehensive
Final, and the NSTA-AAPT Physics Achievement Examination have identi-
fied few items that cannot be classified as basic science information or skill
(Razali, 1986; Susilo, 1987). And, the items are unrelated to the stated goals
of professional societies, curriculum innovators, the authors of leading text-
books. Interestingly, college scientists rarely identify any of the material
from these achievement tests as essential attributes for incoming students.
Science information and process are both enhanced if students have posi-
tive attitudes and if they are creative. Creativity skills and favorable attitudes
can be improved. However, most traditional science programs discourage
creativity and result in negative student attitudes (Penick, 1982; Yager &
Penick, 1986). Instead of concentrating on instructional techniques and situ-
ations that enhance student creative thinking and positive attitudes, a focus
on information acquisition (and to a lesser degree the skills scientists use)
proves detrimental to growth in both domains. Most science teachers do not
measure for growth in these domains and are content that they represent a
“softness” for a school focus. They justify lack of concern by suggesting that
positive attitudes are really not all that important for their students, especial-
ly those continuing to college with interest in further science study. Mastery
of basic information and process skills are thought vital for the most motiva-
ted students and the college-bound.
If a focus on information produced and accepted by current scientists per
se (with passing lip service to processes scientists use t o produce knowledge)
turn most people off, it is small wonder that most science courses cause
students to decrease in creative thinking and to develop more negative atti-
tudes about science. Students also report that typical courses lessen curios-
ity, excitement, ability to create explanations, ability to reason and to make
critical decisions based on evidence.
The National Assessment of Educational Progress has included items from
the affective domain in each of the last three Assessments of Science. Gen-
erally the results with these items substantiate that student attitudes are
poor regarding their perceptions of science study, science classes, and science
teachers. Nonetheless, the National Assessment has provided instruments
which are generally available and norms have been established. And we now
know that exemplary science programs and exemplary science teachers pro-
duce extremely positive student results in this domain (Yager, 1988; Brunk-
horst, 1987 ;Simmons & Y ager, 1986).
The National Assessment has also included some items in the Application
and Connections Domain. Again, the results for students enrolled in random
schools are not very positive. After all, it is rare to find science programs and
teachers that provide experience in this domain-one that should be the
starting point for all students if they are to see the value of science and if
they are to exhibit motivation, curiosity, and creative problem solving skills.
50 YAGER AND McCORMACK

Figure 1. Domains for science teaching and assessment.

And, when they develop adequately in this domain, they are ready for
knowledge and process; they see the value and need; many more students
demand explanations and skills to answer their questions, t o satisfy their
curiosities. This is the power of an S/T/S approach to school science.
Figure 1 is an attempt to demonstrate a connection among these five
domains of science and science education. The figure illustrates the logic of
starting with the real world, the world of applications and connections as a
pathway to important and valuable facets of science knowledge and processes.
To start in the core and to move to the application/connection domain is
difficult for many and “abnormalyyfor most. Such an emphasis encourages
most students to differentiate between real world science (based on personal
experiences) and school science (based on the information included in text-
books and course outlines). Most would agree that the goal for all students is
to move among the domains; everyone expects students to apply and to
 ASSESSI NG T E A C H ING/L E A R NI NG SUCCESSES 5 1

connect. However, little instruction is concentrated in this domain, the

major difference between S/T/S and typical science instruction.
More and more teachers and school leaders are moving to assessment of
student growth across multiple grade levels and in all domains. This kind of
assessment is particularly important for schools moving t o the S/T/S focus.
More and more parents, political leaders, administrators, and interested
members of communities are becoming familiar with various measurements
and various ways of determining successful science programs. Can we really
be successful without attention to all five domains when dealing with evalua-
tion?
Several researchers interested in assessment have developed instruments
for use in each domain. Several have been synthesized and developed at Iowa
to accompany statewide efforts to move K- 12 science programs to Science/
Technology/Society emphases. A goal with the effort has been to assist
teachers and schools with tools they can use in their own districts. A look at
some of these assessment tools as well as others published and used for
research purposes are summarized as emerging models for enlarging the
dimensions of science which can be studied for student success with science
as it is viewed in five domains. Following is an elaboration of instruments
with brief commentary concerning their nature, use, and effectiveness.

Information Domain

Instruments in this domain exist widely. Most major companies offer in-
struments for teacher and school use in the area of science. For example,
Metropolitan and Stanford have such tests in their Achievement series
recommended for use from grades 5-9 (Prescott, et al., 1985; Madden, e t al.,
1972). However, both have been used at more grade levels as a part of state-
wide assessment efforts. Both have test reliability approaching 0.90. These
instruments are typical in their survey of topics from the various disciplines
of science and the focus upon information common to course outlines and
textbook series. American Testronics is another company with measures in
science. This company has begun efforts to expand the item type and science
dimensions. Again, the attempt is to offer standard assessment for measuring
how well students accomplish the instructional tasks identified in typical
schools.
Another kind of instrument in this domain are those prepared and dis-
tributed by professional societies. The National Science Teachers Association
has moved swiftly into this field during the past few years after co-sponsor-
ing with the American Chemical Society’s Chemistry Achievement Test.
Similar tests in biology (in cooperation with the National Association of
Biology Teachers), physics (in cooperation with the American Association of
Physics Teachers), and earth science (in cooperation with the National Asso-
ciation of Geology Teachers) have been developed. These instruments do not
have the typical reliability and validity information. Instead, they are merely
52 YAGER AND McCORMACK

offered by professionals as appropriate ways of assessing success in teaching

the various disciplines of science in secondary schools.
Other instruments that exist in this domain are those available from text-
book publishers. Almost every series has such supplementary materials. Such
examinations parallel very closely the information included in the textbooks.
Many include such tests for each chapter in the book. Rarely is standard
testing information available; rarely is anything assessed except for vocabu-
lary and general information acquired by the student.
As new goals are formulated for school science and as Science/Technol-
ogy/Society programs develop, assessment must go beyond the typical in-
struments and items from the general commercial achievement examinations,
the NSTA series, and the textbook examinations. And yet, it may be impor-
tant to look at information acquisition only as one way of assuring that the
same or greater information is attained by students when S/T/S and standard
approaches are tried. Certainly there is nothing wrong with the student
acquiring information that can be clasified as knowledge (i.e., useful infor-
mation) for most.

Process Domain

Paul Hurd (1981) has reported that efforts t o teach science as inquiry
have been less than successful. In fact, he says there is no evidence that stu-
dents can develop inquiry skills-or that teachers can provide instruction
that results in student proficiency with them. And yet, a focus on process
skills- those employed by practicing scientists - remains an objective for
most schools, teachers, and professionals.
Several standard measures have been developed and used for research pur-
poses. Fraser’s Test of Enquiry Skills (1979) is among the most successful.
It focuses on student abilities, such as using the library, thinking critically
and analytically, interpreting written material, designing experiments, and
making generalizations. Information concerning its use in Australia has been
encouraging for grades 5-1 2. Welch’s Wisconsin Inventory of Science Proces-
ses (1 969) has been used for high school seniors and adult samples. It focuses
on science assumptions, activities, objectives, and products. Adaptation of
the items have been developed for use with younger students; however, the
typical test information (i.e., reliability 0.82) is based largely upon samples
of high school seniors and college students. Woodburn’s The Methods and
Procedures of Science (1967) focuses upon the kind of thinking that is re-
quired in science.
William McComas and Achmad Binadja have developed process skills items
which have been used in evaluating S/T/S efforts in Iowa. During 1987-88
two instruments were used by 100 teachers: Assessment Model for the Sci-
ence Process Domain, 4-6, and Assessment Model for the Science Process
Domain, 7-9 (Binadji, 1987). Presently over 300 teachers have used sample
items from the 13 processes identified by the American Association for the
 ASSESS1NG TEACH ING/LEARN ING SUCCESSES 53

Advancement of Science in Science-A Process Approach (1975) to produce

their own assessment instruments. They also have added to the item pool for
each process for various grade levels. Such teacher constructed ideas increase
the item pool and provide recognition that growth in such testing skills is
necessary for effective students. Attempts to measure progress in this do-
main are invariably more successful when teachers construct appropriate in-
struments judged appropriate for their classes than when standard process
measures are employed for research purposes only.

Creativity Domain

To some creativity is an innate trait-but one that an effective teacher

considers in the classroom. Special measures exist which help define this
domain- while also providing suggestions for teacher assessment and for in-
structional strategies that could affect such skills and/or growth. Torrance’s
Test of Creative Thinking (1966) is perhaps the best known, most used, and
most criticized. It is difficult for teachers to score and it is not always appar-
ent how to use the results. The test has a reported reliability of 0.95. The
Purdue Creativity Test (Lawshe & Harris, 1957), also with a reported relabil-
ity of 0.95, measures students’ flexibility and fluency as a result of their re-
sponses concerning a variety of drawings and situations. Wallach and Kogan’s
Modes of Thinking in Young Children (Wallach 8c Kogan, 1965) has been
used for persons age two through adult. It includes subtests focusing on
instances, alternate uses, pattern meanings, line meanings, and similarities.
Reliabilities are reported ranging from 0.5 1 to 0.93.
These instruments have been used at Iowa as models for constructing a
series of instruments to be used in grades 3 through 12 to enable teachers to
measure growth in specific aspects of creativity, including ability to formu-
late questions, possible causes, and possible consequences arising from given
situations. In addition to quantity of questions, causes, and consequences,
attention is directed to encouraging and assessing unique questions, causes,
and consequences. These instruments have been used with class groups by at
least 100 teachers. Reliability checks fall at 0.90; face validity has been
established by researchers in creativity and inspection of the S/T/S lead
teacher cadre. Specific tests involved include :

1. McComas, Assessment o f Student Creativity (1 988)

2. Dagher, Thinking Beyond (1987)
3. Sanchez, Anaximenes’ Problem (1 987)
4. Lindquist, Creativity Via One’s Imagination (1 987)

Attitude Domain

Several attitude measures have been developed and used to assess success-
ful science teaching. Unfortunately most efforts have resulted in reports that
54 YAGER AND McCORMACK

student attitudes decline as a result of science classes. Moore and Sutman’s

Science Attitude Inventory (1 970) is a useful, valid, and reliable (0.93) in-
ventory for use with high school students. The staff of Temple University
has developed an instrument, Attitudes Toward Science and Technology
( 1979), that is useful for persons moving to an S/T/S format. Similarly, Piel’s
Test of Attitudes on Technology-Society Interaction (1 984) has been used
to assess changes in teachers and students following S/T/S instruction. Both
instruments have been used with elementary age students with some vocabu-
lary adjustment. Campbell’s Scientific Curiosity Inventory ( 1957) focuses on
affective areas, including receiving, responding, and valuing. The reliability is
reported to be 0.89.
Of great interest was the move of the National Assessment of Educational
Progress into the affective arena with the Third Assessment of Science in
1977 (NAEP, 1978). Extensive batteries were included in the reports of
1978, the follow-up studies of 1982 (Hueftle, Rakow, & Welch 1983), and
the new reports of 1988 (NAEP, 1988). At Iowa attitudinal items common
t o assessment for 9, 13, and 17 year olds were taken from the NAEP bat-
teries for use in studying the effect of science instruction across grade levels
and for noting the differences between student attitudes toward science,
teacher, careers, its value. Certain understandings were added to the assess-
ment after reviewing Miller’s seminal work dealing with science attentiveness
(literacy) (1980). The Iowa instrument based on the affective items from
NAEP and the understandings identified by Miller is called the Attitudes,
Preferences and Understandings Instrument ( 1988) has been used be assess-
ment with several thousand students from grade three to young adult.

Applications Domain

Many standard achievement examinations purport to measure in this do-

main. Unfortunately, however, the number of such items are few and no
interpretations are possible concerning growth on certain items of such ex-
aminations. Further, it is widely known that such items are classified as more
difficult -even though they mirror stated objectives of science teaching at
every academic level more closely than do vocabulary and/or specific infor-
mation-type items.
Some specific instruments have been developed in this domain. Korth and
Willard’s Test on Social Aspects of Science (1 968) has been used widely for
high school students where the interaction of science and society was a
major concern. The test is reported to have a 0.71 reliability. Dagher’s Sci-
ence and Society (1986) was constructed from the affective items in the
Science items from the Third Assessment (NAEP, 1978). Many of these illus-
trated how information could/would be used and how students proposed
t o work on specific issues.
Unfortunately applications and connections require information and con-
cepts for applying and/or connecting. Such items for an assessment instru-
 ASSESSING TEACH I NG/LEARN ING SUCCESSES 55

ment mean providing information and/or situations that require student ac-
tions. Such information and situations should ideally be tied to the curricu-
lum, S/T/S modules, the materials utilized. In Iowa item banks for each 4-9
grade level have been developed. Teachers use the items as models for devel-
oping others; many times the situations and ideas are tied to a particular
academic level and to activities undertaken in the particular science class.
From the item bank, instruments have been developed for use in one or
more districts. In all cases the S/T/S approaches resulted in highly significant
increases in ability at all grade levels. This is interesting when one considers
that such items are included only on a limited basis on standardized exami-
nations, purportedly because they are too difficult for too many students.
If students have experience applying and connecting, they perform very well
on such items and such instruments.
Glen Aikenhead, University of Saskatchewan, has developed a framework
for S/T/S which is an attempt to define the interdisciplinary field and to
define the issues and problems for organizing a school program (1987). He
has also developed assessment items and instruments for use in this domain
as well.
Similarly, the Association for Science Education in the U.K. has devel-
oped instruments and item banks to use for assessing success with S/T/S
initiatives which have emerged in the U.K. for more than a decade (1986).
The ASE is a source for assessment information and samples in this domain.
New models for assessing success in science education remain a critical
need. Enlarging the view of science (the five domains) suggests the need for
assessment strategies and items in each. Emerging instruments and items are
providing exciting results as Science/Technology/Society modules and pro-
grams are implemented. A concern for goals in science courses that go be-
yond the acquisition of specific information results in student concern and
growth in such domains. Such an enlarged view of science and such a broader
view of assessment also seem to result in more students who can use informa-
tion instead of merely demonstrating temporary mastery on recall-type test
items. Fundamental improvement in science education cannot occur without
conceptualizing science in more domains and without developing and utiliz-
ing assessment instruments in each domain.

References

Aikenhead, G. (1987). Student Beliefs About Science-Technology-Society: Four Differ-

ent Modes of Assessment, and Sources of Students’ Viewpoints. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, in press.
Aikenhead, G. (1987). Views on Science-Technology-Society, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan:
University of Saskatchewan.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1975). Science-A Process A p
proach. Washington DC:Gem & Co.
American Testronics, PO Box 2270, Iowa City IA 52244.
56 YAGER AND McCORMACK

Association €or Science Education (1 986). STS Examination Items for Science in a Social
Context. College Lane, Hatfield; Herts AL 109AA; United Kingdom.
Attitudes, Preferences and Understandings. (1988). Iowa City IA: Science Education Cen-
ter, University of Iowa.
Binadji, A. (1987). Assessment Model for the Science Process Domain, 4-6. Iowa City
IA: Science Education Center, University of Iowa.
Binadji, A. (1987). Assessment Model for the Science Process Domain, 7-9. Iowa City
IA: Science Education Center, University of Iowa.
Biological Science Curriculum Study. (1966). Biology Comprehensive Final Test: Part I
and Part 2. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall Inc.
Brunkhorst, B. J. (1987). Exemplary Middle and Junior High Science Programs: An
Assessment of Teacher Characteristics and Student Outcomes. Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation. Iowa City IA: Science Education Center, University of Iowa.
Brunkhorst, H. K., & Yager, R. E. (1986). A New Rationale for Science Education-1985.
School Science and Mathematics, 86(5), 364-3 74.
Campbell, N. R. (1957). Scientific Curiosity Inventory. In Foundations of Science. New
York: Dover Publications, pp. 215-228.
Campbell, J. R. (1971). Cognitive and Affective Process Development and Its Relation to
a Teacher’s Interaction Ratio. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 8, 3 17-323.
Champagne, A. B., & Klopfer, L. E. (1984). Research in Science Education: The Cogni-
tive Psychology Perspective. In Holdzkom & Lutz, (Eds.), Research Within Reach:
Science Education. Research and Development Interpretation Service, Appalachia
Educational Laboratory, PO Box 1348, Charleston, WV 25325.
Cobb, Paul. (1987). Recent Research in Mathematics Education; Symposium 38-4, Amer-
ican Association for the Advancement of Science, February.
Dagher, Z. (1987). Thinking Beyond. Iowa City IA: Science Education Center, University
of Iowa.
Dagher, Z. (1986). Science and Society. Iowa City IA: Science Education Center, Univer-
sity of Iowa.
Feldt, L. S., Forsyth, R. A., & Lindquist, E. F. (1979). Iowa Tests ofEducationaZ Devel-
opment (ITED) Grades 9-12, Science Subtest. Iowa City IA: Iowa Testing Programs,
The University of Iowa.
Fraser, B. J. (1979). Test of Enquiry Skills (TOES). Parts B and C. Victoria, Australia:
The Australian Council for Educational Research Limited.
Fraser, B. J. (1 981). Test of Science-Related Attitudes. Victoria, Australia: The Austra-
lian Council for Educational Research Limited.
Hieronymus, A. N., Hoover, H. D., & Lindquist, E. F. (1986). Iowa Tests of Basic Skills
(ITBS) Science Subtest. Chicago: The Riverside Publishing Company.
Hueftle, S. J., Rakow, S. J., & Welch, W. W. (1983). Images o f Science: A Summary of
Results from the 1981-82 National Assessment in Science. Minnesota Research and
Evaluation Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Hurd, P. D., Robinson, J. T., McConnell, M. C., & Ross, N. M., Jr. (1981). The Status of
Middle School and Junior High School Science: TechnicalReport. (Vol. 2). Louisville
CO: Center for Educational Research & Evaluation.
Institute for Survey Research. (1979). Attitudes Toward Science and Technology. Phila-
delphia PA: author, Temple University, 1601 North Board Street.
Korth, S. W. (1 968). The Use of the Histoiy of Science to Promote Student Understand-
ing of the Social Aspects of Science. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford
University.
Lawshe, C. H., & Harris, D. H. (1957). Purdue Creativity Test. Lafayette IN: Purdue Re-
search Foundation.
 ASSESSING T E A C H I N G / L E A R N I N G SUCCESSES 57

Linquist, J. (1987). Creativity Via One’s Imagination. Iowa City IA: Science Education
Center, University of Iowa.
Madden, R., Gardner, E., Rudman, H., Karlsen, B., & Merwin, J. (1972). Stanford
Achievement Test. New York: The Psychological Corporation.
McComas, W. (1988). Assessment of Student Creativity. Iowa City IA: Science Education
Center, University of Iowa.
McCormack, A., & Yager, R. E. (1988). Toward a Taxonomy for Science Education. Sub-
mitted for publication.
Miller, J. D., Suchner, R. W., & Voelker, A. M. (1980). Citizenship in an Age of Science
Changing Attitudes Among Young Adults. New York: Permagon Press.
Moore, R. W., & Sutman, F. X. (1970). The Development, Field Test and Validation of
an Inventory of Scientific Attitudes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 7, 85-
94.
National Assessment of Education Progress. (1978). The Third Assessment of Science,
1976- 77. Denver CO: author.
National Assessment of Education Progress. (1 988). The Fifth Assessment of Science.
Denver CO: author.
National Science Teachers Association & American Association of Physics Teachers.
(1983). Physics Achievement Examination. Washington DC : authors.
National Science Teachers Association & American Chemical Society. (1 974). ACS/NSTA
Cooperative Chemistry Test. Washington DC:authors.
National Science Teachers Association & National Association of Biology Teachers.
(1983). Biology Achievement Examination. Washington DC: authors.
National Science Teachers Association & American Geological Institute. (1988). Earth
Science Achievement Examination. Washington DC : authors.
Penick, J. E. (1982). Developing Creativity as a Result of Science Instruction. In Yager,
R. E., (Ed.), What Research Says to the Science Teacher, Vol. 4, Washington DC:
National Science Teachers Association.
Phillips, D. R. (1977). Cedar Rapids Schools Science Process Measure. (From the Science
Assessment Project). Iowa City IA: Science Education Center, The University of
Iowa.
Peil, E. J. (1981). Interaction of Science, Technology, and Society in Secondary Schools.
In Harms, N.C., & Yager, R. E., (Eds.), What Research Says t o the science Teacher,
Vol. 3. Washington DC: National Science Teachers Association.
Piel, E. J. (1 984). Test of Attitudes on Technology-Society Interaction. Can be requested
from the author, Department of Technology and Society; State University of New
York; Stony Brook NY 11794.
Prescott, G. A., Balow, I. H., Hogan, T. P., & Farr, R. C. (1985). Metropolitan Achieve-
ment Test. New York: The Psychological Corporation.
Razali, S. N. (1986). Comparison of Perceptions of the Importance of High School Chem-
istry Among Various Instructors and Students in the United States and Malaysia. Un-
published Ph.D. dissertation, Iowa City IA: Science Education Center, University of
Iowa.
Sanchez, L. (1987). Anaximenes’ Problem. Iowa City IA: Science Education Center, The
University of Iowa.
Simmons, P. E., & Yager, R. E. (1986). Comparison of student attitudes about school
science in a district with multiple exemplary programs with those found generally. Un-
published manuscript.
Susilo, H. (1987). Perceived Needs of Students Wishing to Study College Biology in the
United States and Indonesia, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Iowa City IA: Science
Education Center, University of Iowa.
58 YAGER AND McCORMACK

Student Preferences and Understandings (From NAEP). (1980). Iowa City IA: Science
Education Center, The University of Iowa.
The Scientific Literacy Research Center. (1967). Wisconsin Inventory of Science Proces-
ses (WISP). Madison: The University of Wisconsin.
Torrance, P. E. (1966). Torrance Test of Oeative Thinking. Princeton: Personnel Press
Inc.
Wallach, M., & Kogan, N. (1965). Wallach and Kogan Creativity Battery. In Modes of
Thinking in Young Children. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Welch, W. W. (1969). Wisconsin Inventory of Science Processes (WISP). Madison: Scien-
tific Literacy Research Center, The University of Wisconsin.
Williams, F. (1972). “How Do You Really Feel About Yourself?” Inventory. In Total
Creativity Program for Individualizing and Humanizing the Learning Process. Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Woodburn, J. H. (1967). The Methods and Procedures of Science: An Examination.
Rochille MD.
Yager, R. E. (1980). Attitude Toward Study of Science. Iowa City IA:Science Educa-
tion Center, The University of Iowa.
Yager, R. E. (1986). S/T/S-What does it mean? Science Scope, 10(1), 26-27.
Yager, R. E. (1988). Comparison of Perceptions: Exemplary Science and Random Pro-
grams. School Science and Mathematics, 88(1), 37-46.
Yager, R. E., & Penick, J. E. (1986). Perceptions of Four Age Groups Toward Science
Classes, Teachers, and the Value of Science. Science Education, 70(4), 355-363.
Yager, R. E., & Yager, S . 0. (1985). The Effect of Schooling Upon Understanding of
Selected Science Terms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(4), 359-364.

Accepted for publication 6 September 1988