Facing the Challenges to Science Education in Schools: The Contribution of Modelling

  • John K. Gilbert
  • Rosária Justi
Part of the Models and Modeling in Science Education book series (MMSE, volume 9)


The grounds are laid for the advocacy of an increased role for modelling in science education. Anecdotal evidence of students’ lack of engagement in science classes is used to support widespread dissatisfaction by governments with students’ levels of attainment in international assessments and with their disinclination to continue to study the discipline after the years of compulsory schooling. The underlying causes are attributed to: the heavy content load, often presented within a curriculum that is antiquated and rigidly structured; to problems over the supply of suitably qualified teachers; and to the, often excessive, adoption of didactic methods of teaching. Efforts to attain ‘scientific literacy for all’ are seen as likely to overcome these problems. The achievement of the ability by students to engage in modelling is seen as a major contributor to the attainment of this goal.


Science Education Scientific Literacy Science Teacher Pedagogic Content Knowledge School Climate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Adey, P. (1997). It all depends on the context, doesn’t iI? searching for general educable dragons. Studies in Science Education, 29(1), 45–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2010). “Doing” science versus “being” a scientist: 10/11-year-old schoolchildren’s constructions of science through the lens of identity. Science Education, 94(4), 617–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Archer, L., Osborne, J., & Fortus, D. (2012). Ten science facts and fiction: The case of early education about STEM careers. London, UK: The Science Council.Google Scholar
  4. Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2010). Science: Foundation to year 10 curriculum. Canberra, Australia: Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority.Google Scholar
  5. BBC News. (2013). Asian top school tables. BBC News: Education and Family.
  6. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. (1979). The inheritors. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Fensham, P. (2008). Science education police-making: Eleven emerging issues. Paris, France: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  8. Gardner, P. (1994). Representations of the relationships between science and technology in the curriculum. Studies in Science Education, 24(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gilbert, J. K. (2010). Supporting the development of effective science teachers. In J. Osborne & J. Dillon (Eds.), Good practice in science teaching: What research has to say (pp. 274–300). Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Gilbert, J. K. (2013). Helping learning in science communication. In J. K. Gilbert & S. M. Stocklmayer (Eds.), Communication and engagement with science and technology (pp. 165–179). New York, NY/London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Gilbert, J. K., Bulte, A. M. W., & Pilot, A. (2011). Concept development and transfer in context-based science education. International Journal of Science Education, 33(6), 817–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gilbert, J. K., & Watts, D. M. (1983). Conceptions, misconceptions, and alternative conceptions: Changing perspectives in science education. Studies in Science Education, 10(1), 61–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hodson, D. (2009). Teaching and learning about science: Language, theories, methods, history, traditions and values. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.Google Scholar
  14. Institute of Physics. (2012). It’s different for girls – The influence of schools. London, UK: Institute of Physics.Google Scholar
  15. Jenkins, E. W. (2006). The student voice and school science education. Studies in Science Education, 42(1), 49–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kintgen, E. R. (1988). Literacy literacy. Visible Language, 1(2/3), 149–168.Google Scholar
  17. Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84(1), 71–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lin, H.-S., Hong, Z.-R., & Juang, T.-C. (2012). The role of emotional factors in building public scientific literacy and engagement in science. International Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Foy, P., & Stanco, G. M. (2012). TIMSS 2011 international results in science. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.Google Scholar
  20. Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  21. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  22. Odom, A., Stoddard, E., & LaNasa, S. (2007). Teacher practices and middle-school science achievements. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1329–1346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Olitsky, S. (2007). Promoting student engagement in science: Interactions rituals and the pursuit of a community of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 33–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Osborne, J. (2002). Science without literacy: A ship without a sail? Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), 203–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pacey, A. (2007). The culture of technology. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  26. Roberts, D. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. Rutherford, F., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  28. Scott, P., Asoko, H., & Leach, J. (2007). Students conceptions and conceptual learning in science. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 31–56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Shen, B. S. P. (1975). Science literacy. American Scientist, 63(3), 265–268.Google Scholar
  30. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 51(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sjøberg, S., & Schreiner, C. (2010). The ROSE project: An overview and key findings. Oslo, Norway: University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  32. Swarat, S., Ortony, A., & Revelle, W. (2012). Activity matters: Understanding student interest in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), 515–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. The Council of Ministers of Education. (1997). Common framework of science learning outcomes K to 12: Pan-Canadian protocol for collaboration on school curriculum. Toronto, Canada: The Council of Ministers of Education, Canada.Google Scholar
  34. The Royal Society. (2010). ‘State of the nation’ report on 5–14 science and mathematics education. London, UK: The Royal Society.Google Scholar
  35. van der Akker, J. (1998). The science curriculum: Between ideals and outcomes. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 421–448). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vedder-Weiss, D., & Fortus, D. (2012). Adolescents’ declining motivation to learn science: A follow-up study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1057–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • John K. Gilbert
    • 1
  • Rosária Justi
    • 2
  1. 1.The University of ReadingBerkshireUK
  2. 2.Universidade Federal de Minas GeraisBelo HorizonteBrazil

Personalised recommendations