Promoting Science Education for all

  • Francisco Ben
  • Sivakumar Alagumalai


A number of major national and international reports highlight the decrease in enrolments in science courses at the upper levels of formal schooling. A number of factors have been identified, including the ‘complexities’ of scientific knowledge. This paper explores the elements of science education and scientific thinking, and how they permeate every day life and impacts on broader education.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alagumalai, S. (2012). Ramanujan’s Insights: Implications for Mathematics Education. National Year of Mathematics: Special Issue. Experiments in Education Journal, Dec 2012, Issue #4. ISSN: 0970-7409.Google Scholar
  2. Angell, C., Guttersrud, O, Henriksen, E.K. (2004). Physics: frightful, but fun. [Online] Available: [2006, October 10]
  3. Ben, F. (2010). Students’ uptake of physics: a study of South Australian and Filipino physics students. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Australia. The University of Adelaide.Google Scholar
  4. Carin, A.A., Bass, J.E. & Contant, T.L. (2005). Teaching Science as Inquiry. Upper Saddle River: NJ. Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  5. Dawson, C. (2000). Upper primary boys’ and girls’ interest in science: have they changed since 1980? International Journal of Science Education, 22(6), 557–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dekkers, J. & de Laeter, J. (2001). Enrolment trends in school science education in Australia. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), pp. 487–500.Google Scholar
  7. Duit, R. & Treagust, D.F. (1998). Learning in Science. In B.J. Fraser and K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education. (pp. 3–25). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gonzales, P., Guzmán, J.C., Partelow, L., Pahlke, E., Jocelyn, L., Kastberg, D. & Williams, T. (2004). Highlights From the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2003(NCES 2005–005). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  9. Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? Paper presented at the Australian Council for Educational Research Annual Conference on Building Teacher Quality, University of Auckland.Google Scholar
  10. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Garnier, H., Givvin, K.B., Hollingsworth, H., Jacobs, J., Chui, A., Wearne, D., Smith, M., Kersting, N., Manaster, A., Tseng, E., Etterbeek, W., Manaster, C., Gonzales, P. & Stigler, J. (2003). Teaching Mathematics in Seven Countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  11. Hurd, P.D. (2000). Science education for the 21st century. School Science and Mathematics, 100(6), 282–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ingersoll, R.M. (1999). The problem of underqualified teachers in American secondary schools. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 26–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Keeves, J.P. & Alagumalai, S.(1998) Advances in Measurement in Science Education. In B.J. Fraser and K.G. Tobin (Eds), International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 1229–1245). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kolsto, S.D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: tools for dealing with science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Labudde, P., Herzog, W., Neuenschwander, M.P., Violi, E. & Gerber, C. (2000). Girls and physics: teaching and learning strategies tested by classroom interventions in grade 11. International Journal of Science Education, 22(2), 143–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lokan, J., Greenwood, L. & Cresswell, J. (2001). The PISA 2000 survey of students’ reading, mathematical and scientific literacy skills: How literate are Australia’s students? [Online] Available: [2006, October 27].
  17. Marx, R.W., Freeman, J.G., Krajcik J.S. & Blumenfeld, P.C. (1998). Professional Development of Science Teachers. In B.J. Fraser and K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 667-680). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Metz, K. (1998). Scientific Inquiry Within Reach of Young Children. In B.J. Fraser and K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 81-93). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. OECD (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results from PISA 2003. Programme for International Student Assessment. [Online] Available: [2006, October 26]
  20. Osborne, J. (2003). Attitudes towards science: a review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Parker, L.H. & Rennie, L.J. (2002). Teachers' implementation of gender-inclusive instructional strategies in single-sex and mixed-sex science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 24(9), 881–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Roger, A. & Duffield, J. (2000). Factors underlying persistent gendered option choices in school science and technology in Scotland. Gender and Education, 12(3), 367–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Richter, B. (1995). The role of science in our society. Physics Today, 48(9), 43–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Salta, K. & Tzougraki, C. (2004). Attitudes toward chemistry among 11th Grade students in high schools in Greece. Science Education, 88, 535–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schibeci, R.A. (1988). Adult scientific and technological literacy. Research in Science Education, 18, 244–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sjoberg, S. & Schreiner, C. (2005). How do learners in different cultures relate to science and technology? Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 6(2), Foreword.Google Scholar
  27. Skamp, K. (Ed.). (2001). Teaching Primary Science Constructively (1st ed.). Victoria: Thomson.Google Scholar
  28. Stokking, K.M. (2000). Predicting the choice of physics in secondary education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(12), 1261–1283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stoltenberg, C.D., Pace, T.M., Kashubeck-West, S., Biever, J.L., Patterson, T. & Welch, I.D. (2000). Training models in counseling psychology: Scientist-practitioner versus practitioner-scholar. The Counseling Psychologist, 28(5), 622–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Udo, M.K., Ramsey, G.P., Reynolds-Alpert, S., & Mallow, J.V. (2001). Does physics teaching affect gender-based science anxiety? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10(3), 237–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Warrington, M. & Younger, M. (2000). The other side of the gender gap. Gender and Education, 12(4), 493–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wenning, C.J. (2004). Repairing the Illinois high school teacher pipeline: Recruitment, preparation and retention of high school physics teachers ~ The Illinois model. Journal of Physics Teacher Education Online, 2(2), 24–32.Google Scholar
  33. Yore, L.D. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zohar, A. & Bronshtein, B. (2005). Physics teachers’ knowledge and beliefs regarding girls’ low participation rates in advanced physics classes. International Journal of Science Education, 27(1), 61–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Sense Publishers 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francisco Ben
  • Sivakumar Alagumalai

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations