This article examines the role of middle-school science textbooks in dealing with
sensitive social and scientific issues. Education specialists compared the ten most widely
used sixth- and seventh-grade textbooks to determine the amount and depth of content
presented on five major global issues, including the issue of nuclear weapons. Differences between grade levels were also explored. Implications stemming from the content
analysis are discussed within the context of a television culture.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adams, D., and M. Hamm.1987. Electronic learning. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
2.
—. 1989. Media and literacy. Springfield, IL : Charles C Thomas.
3.
Bachman, J.1983. How American high school seniors view the military. Armed Forces and Society10:86-104.
4.
Beardslee, W., and J. Mack.1982. The impact of nuclear developments on children and adolescents. In Psychosocial aspects of nuclear development: Task force no. 20, 1-30. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
5.
—. 1983. Adolescents and the threat of nuclear war: The evolution of a perspective. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine56:79-81.
6.
Bloom, B.1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. New York: Longman, Green.
7.
Business Decisions, Ltd.1983. Nuclear weapons study: A summary report. Prepared for the TV Times, London.
8.
Bybee, R.1984. Global problems and science education policy. 1984 NSTA yearbook, 60-65. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
9.
—. 1985. The restoration of confidence in science and technology education. School Science and Mathematics85(2): 95-108.
10.
—. 1987. Teaching about science-technology-society (STS) views of science educators in the United States. School Science and Mathematics87(4): 274-85.
11.
Bybee, R., and T. Mau.1986. Science and technology related global problems: International survey of science educators. Journal of Research In Science Teaching23(7): 619-34.
12.
California Department of Education. 1986. Published proceedings on textbook selection, science education. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.
13.
Charren, P., and C. Hulsizer.1987. TV news and children. Cambridge, MA: ACT.
14.
Coles, R.1986. The moral life of children. Boston : Atlantic Monthly Press.
15.
Escalona, S.1982. Growing up with the threat of nuclear war: Some indirect effects on personality development. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry52(4): 600-7.
16.
Gerbner, G.1987. Science on television: How it affects public conceptions . Issues in Science & Technology3(3): 109-15.
17.
Goldenring, J., and R. Doctor.1984. Adolescents' concerns about the threat of nuclear war. Prepared statement before the Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families, U.S. 98th Cong., 1st sess , H. Rept. Washington, DC.
18.
Goodman, L., J. Mack, W. Beardslee, and R. Snow.1983. The threat of nuclear arms race: Adolescent experience and perception. Political Psychology4:501-30.
19.
Harms, N., and R. Yager.1981. What research says to the science teacher . Vol. 3. Washington, DC: NSTA.
20.
Hodge B., and D. Tripp.1986. Children and television. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
21.
Hurd, P., R. Bybee, J. Kahle, and R. Yager.1983. Biology education in secondary schools . American Biology Teacher42(7): 388-410.
22.
Lifton, R.1982. Beyond nuclear numbing. Teachers College Record, Fall.
23.
Mack, J.1984. Resistances to knowing in the nuclear age. Harvard Educational Review54(3): 260-70.
24.
McLeod, J., M. Fitzpatrick, C. Glynn, and S. Fallis.1982. Television and social relations. In Television and behavior: Ten years of scientific progress and implications for the eighties, edited by L. Pearl and J. Bouthilet, 67-72. Washington, DC : U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
25.
Marquand, R.1985. Textbook maker's view: The ground rules need to be changed . Christian Science Monitor 25 October, B-7.
26.
National Science Board.1982. National Science Foundation study. Washington, DC: GPO.
27.
National Science Foundation and Department of Education.1980. Science and engineering education in the 1980s and beyond . Washington, DC: GPO.
28.
National Science Teachers Association.1982 . NSTA position statement on school science education for the 1980s. Washington, DC: NSTA.
29.
Riefel, S.1984. Children living with the nuclear threat. Young Children39(5): 74-80.
30.
Schwebel, M.1982. Effects of the nuclear threat. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry52(4): 608-18.
31.
Solantaus, T., M. Kimpela, and T. Vappu.1984. The threat of war in the minds of 12-18 year olds. Lancet8380: 784-85.
32.
Solomon, M.1978. Textbook selection committees: What teachers can do. Learning6(7): 43.
33.
Stake, R., and J. Easley.1978. Case studies in science education. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
34.
Weiss, I.1978. Report of the 1977 national survey of science education . Washington, DC: GPO.
35.
Yager, R.1980. Crisis in science education. Technical Report 21, The University of Iowa, Science Education Center .
36.
—. 1983. In defense of societal issues as organizers for school science. School Science and Mathematics83(3): 651-53.
