Towards Authentic Learning in Science Education

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


If a greater emphasis on modelling in the science education curriculum is to be justified, it will have to be as ‘authentic’ as possible. From the three approaches to authenticity (the child-developmental, the subject-developmental, and the practitioner-situational points of view), a realistic approach must recognise existing subject-content focused practice in science education whilst seeking to attain the maximum engagement by students that is provided by the circumstances of actual scientific practice. The several constraints on such an innovation in schools are identified and existing ways of addressing them are outlined. Particular attention is paid to the identification of contexts that will provide problems capable of being modelled. It is argued that the capability to model authentically will entail a progressive development of experience from school-focused contexts to those that are science- practitioner- focused.


Science Education Science Teacher Science Classroom Situate Cognition Authentic Activity 
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. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2008). Modeling science classrooms after scientific laboratories. In R. Duschl & R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 80–85). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.Google Scholar
  2. Barab, S. A., & Hay, K. E. (2001). Doing science at the elbows of experts: Issues related to the science apprenticeship camp. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 70–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ben-Ari, M. (2005). Situated learning in ‘This high technology world’. Science & Education, 14(3–5), 367–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernstein, B. (1990). The structure of pedagogic discourse: Class, codes and control. London, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bouillion, L. M., & Gomez, L. M. (2001). Connecting school and community with science learning: Real world problems and school-community partnerships as contextual scaffolds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 878–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brewer, W. F. (2008). In what sense can the child be considered to be a “little scientist”? In R. Duschl & R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 38–49). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.Google Scholar
  7. Charney, J., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Sofer, W., Neigeborn, S., & Nemeroff, M. (2007). Cognitive apprenticeship in science through immersion in laboratory practices. International Journal of Science Education, 29(2), 195–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2001). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Collins, A., Brown, J., & Newman, S. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing and mathematics. In L. Resnick (Ed.), Cognition and instruction: Issues and agendas (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Crawford, B. A., & Cullin, M. J. (2004). Supporting prospective teachers’ conceptions of modeling in science. International Journal of Science Education, 26(11), 1379–1401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Doyle, W. (2000). Authenticity. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, Montreal, QC, Canada.Google Scholar
  12. Duranti, A., & Goodwin, C. (Eds.). (1992). Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gilbert, J. K. (2004). Models and modelling: Routes to a more authentic science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2, 115–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Gopnik, A. (1996). The child as scientist. Philosophy of Science, 63(4), 485–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gopnik, A., Meltzoff, A., & Kuhl, P. (1999). The scientist in the crib: Minds, brains, and how children learn. New York, NY: William Morrow.Google Scholar
  17. Grosslight, L., Unger, C., Jay, E., & Smith, C. L. (1991). Understanding models and their use in science: Conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 799–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Helms, J. V. (1998). Science and/in community: Contexts and goals in practical work. International Journal of Science Education, 20(6), 643–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hodson, D. (1990). A critical look at practical work in school science. School Science Review, 71(256), 33–40.Google Scholar
  20. Hsu, P.-L. (2010). From a sense of stereotypically foreign to belonging in a science community: Ways of experimental description about high school students’ science internship. Research in Science Education, 40(3), 291–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 20(7–8), 591–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo Rodríguez, A., & Duschl, R. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science & Education, 84(6), 757–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. K. (2003). Teachers’ views on the nature of models. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1369–1386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Keys, C. W. (1995). An interpretative study of students’ use of scientific reasoning during a collaborative report writing intervention in ninth grade general science. Science Education, 79(4), 415–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. King, A., & Brownell, J. (1966). The curriculum and the disciplines of knowledge: A theory of curriculum practice. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  26. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lee, H.-S., & Songer, N. B. (2003). Making authentic science accessible to students. International Journal of Science Education, 25(8), 923–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2012). Seeding evolutionary thinking by engaging children in modeling its foundations. Science Education, 96(4), 701–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pfundt, H., & Duit, R. (2000). Bibliography: Students’ alternative frameworks and science education (5th ed.). Kiel, Germany: Institute of Science Education, University of Kiel.Google Scholar
  30. Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63(2), 167–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Raghavan, K., & Glaser, R. (1995). Model-based analysis and reasoning in science: The MARS curriculum. Science Education, 79(1), 37–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Robertson, A. (2007). Development of a shared vision: Lessons from a science education community collaboration. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 681–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Roth, W.-M. (1995). Authentic science education: Knowing and learning in open-inquiry science laboratories. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schwartz, D. L., Varma, S., & Martin, L. (2008). Dynamic transfer and innovation. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 479–506). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Svoboda, J., & Passmore, C. M. (2013). The strategies of modeling in biology education. Science & Education, 22(1), 119–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. von Glaserfeld, E. (1984). An introduction to radical constructivism. In P. Watzlawick (Ed.), The invented reality (pp. 17–40). New York, NY: Norton.Google Scholar
  38. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941–967.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