Science education NOW : a renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe.
Date: 2008-01-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
Subjects: EU research policy, education policy, public awareness campaign, scientific education, scientific research, teaching method, young person

K
I
-

N
A
-
2
2
8
4
5
-
E
N
-
C

In recent years, many studies have highlighted an alarming decline in young people’s interest for key science 

studies and mathematics. Despite the numerous projects and actions that are being implemented to reverse 

this trend, the signs of improvement are still modest. Unless more effective action is taken, Europe’s longer 

term capacity to innovate, and the quality of its research will also decline. Furthermore, among the population 

in  general,  the  acquisition  of  skills  that  are becoming  essential  in  all  walks of  life,  in  a  society  increasingly  

dependent on the use of knowledge, is also under increasing threat. 

In consequence, the European Commission has tasked this group of experts to examine a cross-section of 

on-going initiatives and to draw from them elements of know-how and good practice that could bring about a 

radical change in young people’s interest in science studies - and to identify the necessary pre-conditions.

Since the origins of the declining interest among young people for science studies are found largely in the way 

science is taught in schools, this is the main focus of this report. 

I

S
S
N
1
0
1
8
-
5
5
9
3

A Renewed Pedagogy for the Future of Europe

p
u
o
r
g
t
r
E
p
x
E

cover2.indd   1-2

27/06/07   10:55:04

 
 
 
Interested in European research?

RTD info is our quarterly magazine keeping you in touch with main developments  
(results, programmes, events, etc). 

It is available in English, French and German. A free sample copy or free subscription can be 

obtained from:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Research

Information and Communication Unit

B-1049 Brussels

Fax: (32-2) 29-58220

http://ec.europa.eu/research/rtdinfo/index_en.html

European Commission

EUR22845 - Science Education NOW: A renewed Pedagogy for the Future of Europe

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

2007 - 22 pp. - 17.6 x 25 cm

ISBN 978-92-79-05659-8 

SALES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS

Publications for sale produced by the Office of Official Publications of the European Communities are 
available from our sales agents throughout the world.

You can find the list of sales agents on the Publications Office website (http://publications.europa.eu) or 
you can apply for it by fax (352) 29 29-42758.
Contact the sales agent of your choice and place your order.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Directorate-General for Research
Directorate L - Science, Economy and Society
Unit L4 - Scientific Culture and Gender
Website: http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/

cover2.indd   3-4

27/06/07   10:55:05

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

(cid:54)(cid:21)(cid:71)(cid:90)(cid:99)(cid:90)(cid:108)(cid:90)(cid:89)(cid:21)(cid:69)(cid:90)(cid:89)(cid:86)(cid:92)(cid:100)(cid:92)(cid:110)(cid:21)(cid:91)(cid:100)(cid:103)(cid:21)(cid:105)(cid:93)(cid:90)(cid:21)(cid:59)(cid:106)(cid:105)(cid:106)(cid:103)(cid:90)(cid:21)(cid:100)(cid:91)(cid:21)(cid:58)(cid:106)(cid:103)(cid:100)(cid:101)(cid:90)

Michel Rocard (Chair), Peter Csermely, Doris Jorde, Dieter Lenzen, Harriet Walberg-Henriksson, Valerie Hemmo (Rapporteur)

High Level Group on Science Education

2007 

Directorate-General for Research
Science, Economy and Society 

EUR 22845 

RapportRocardJustif2.indd   3

27/06/07   10:57:46

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers

to your questions about the European Union

Freephone number:
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

The views expressed here are those of the authors and may not in any circumstances be regarded 
as stating an official position of the European Commission.

LEGAL NOTICE
Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible 
for the use which might be made of the following information.

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be 
accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2007

ISBN – 978-92-79-05659-8   
ISSN 1018-5593

© European Communities, 2007
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Printed in Belgium

RapportRocardJustif2.indd   4

27/06/07   10:57:47

0 /

\ Who’s who?

President : Michel Rocard, Member of the European Parliament and former Prime Minister of France
Rapporteur : Valérie Hemmo, Rapporteur for the Science Education Activity of the Global Science 
Forum, OECD

Members of the expert group

Peter CSERMELY of Semmelweis University, Budapest, a Molecular Biologist and Winner of the 
2005 Descartes Prize for Communication;

Doris JORDE of the University of Oslo, President of the European Science Education Research 
Association;

Dieter  LENZEN,  President  of  the  Freie  Universität  Berlin  and  former  Chairman  of  the  German 
Society for Science Education; 

Harriet  WALLBERG-HENRIKSSON,  President  of  Karolinska  Institutet,  Stockholm  and  former 
member of the Government’s expert panels at the Swedish Ministry of Education and Science.

From left to right: Harriet Wallberg-Henriksson, Valérie Hemmo, Peter Csermely, Michel Rocard, 
Doris Jorde and Dieter Lenzen

RapportRocardJustif2.indd   1

27/06/07   10:57:51

 \ 0

\ Executive summary

In recent years, many studies have highlighted an alarming decline in young people’s interest for 
key science studies and mathematics. Despite the numerous projects and actions that are being 
implemented to reverse this trend, the signs of improvement are still modest. Unless more effec-
tive action is taken, Europe’s longer term capacity to innovate, and the quality of its research will 
also decline. Furthermore, among the population in general, the acquisition of skills that are be-
coming essential in all walks of life, in a society increasingly dependent on the use of knowledge, 
is also under increasing threat. 
In consequence, the European Commission has tasked this group of experts to examine a cross-
section of on-going initiatives and to draw from them elements of know-how and good practice 
that  could  bring  about  a  radical  change  in  young  people’s  interest  in  science  studies  -  and  to 
identify the necessary pre-conditions.
Since  the  origins  of  the  declining  interest  among  young  people  for  science  studies  are  found 
largely in the way science is taught in schools, this will be the main focus. 
In this context, whereas the science education community mostly agrees that pedagogical prac-
tices based on inquiry-based methods are more effective, the reality of classroom practice is that in 
the majority of European countries, these methods are simply not being implemented.  
The current initiatives in Europe actively pursuing the renewal of science education through “in-
quiry  based”  methods  show  great  promise  but  are  not  of  the  scale  to  bring  about  substantial 
impact, and are not able to exploit fully the potential European level support for dissemination 
and integration. 
The findings and recommendations of the experts group are summarized below.

A reversal of school science-teaching pedagogy from mainly deductive to in-
quiry-based methods provides the means to increase interest in science.
Inquiry-based science education (IBSE) has proved its efficacy at both primary and secondary 
levels in increasing children’s and students’ interest and attainments levels while at the same 
time stimulating teacher motivation. IBSE is effective with all kinds of students from the weakest 
to the most able and is fully compatible with the ambition of excellence. Moreover IBSE is benefi-
cial to promoting girls’ interest and participation in science activities. Finally, IBSE and traditional 
deductive approaches are not mutually exclusive and they should be combined in any science 
classroom to accommodate different mindsets and age-group preferences.

Renewed  school’s  science-teaching  pedagogy  based  on  IBSE  provides  in-
creased opportunities for cooperation between actors in the formal and in-
formal arenas. 
Due to the nature of its practices, IBSE pedagogy is more likely to encourage relationships be-
tween the stakeholders of both formal and informal education. And it creates opportunities for 
involving firms, scientists, researchers, engineers, universities, local actors such as cities, asso-
ciations, parents and other kinds of local resources.

RapportRocardJustif2.indd   2

27/06/07   10:57:52

0 /

Teachers are key players in the renewal of science education. Among other 
methods, being part of a network allows them to improve the quality of their 
teaching and supports their motivation. 
Networks  can  be  used  as  an  effective  component  of  teachers’  professional  development,  are 
complementary  to  more  traditional  forms  of  in-service  teacher  training  and  stimulate  morale 
and motivation. 

In  Europe,  these  crucial  components  of  renewal  of  science  teaching  prac-
tices are being promoted by two innovative initiatives, “Pollen” and “Sinus-
Transfer”, that are proving themselves capable of increasing children’s inter-
est and attainments in science. With some adaptation these initiatives could 
be implemented effectively on a scale that would have the desired impact.
The level of funding required is in accordance with the scope of the funding instruments of the 
European Union.

Recommendation :
Because Europe’s future is at stake decision-makers must demand action on improving science 
education from the bodies responsible for implementing change at local, regional, national and 
European Union level.  

Recommendation :
Improvements in science education should be brought about through new forms of pedagogy: 
the introduction of inquiry-based approaches in schools, actions for teachers training to IBSE, 
and the development of teachers’ networks should be actively promoted and supported. 

Recommendation :
Specific attention should be given to raising the participation of girls in key school science sub-
jects and to increasing their self-confidence in science.

Recommendation 4:
Measures should be introduced to promote the participation of cities and the local community 
in the renewal of science education in collaborative actions at the European level aimed at ac-
celerating the pace of change through the sharing of know-how.

Recommendation 5:
The articulation between national activities and those funded at the European level must be im-
proved and the opportunities for enhanced support through the instruments of the Framework 
Programme and the programmes in the area of education and culture to initiatives such as Pollen 

RapportRocardJustif2.indd   3

27/06/07   10:57:52

 \ 04

and Sinus-Transfer should be created. The necessary level of support offered under the Science 
in Society (SIS) part of the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological De-
velopment is estimated to be around 60 million euros over the next 6 years.

Recommendation 6:
A  European  Science  Education  Advisory  Board  involving  representatives  of  all  stakeholders, 
should be established and supported by the European Commission within the Science in Society 
framework.

RapportRocardJustif2.indd   4

27/06/07   10:57:52

 
05 /

\ Introduction

In  recent  years,  many  studies  have  high-
lighted an alarming decline in young people’s 
interest  for  key  science  studies  and  math-
ematics. Despite numerous projects and ac-
tions that are being implemented to reverse 
this  trend,  the  signs  of  improvement  are 
still modest. Unless more effective action is 
taken, Europe’s longer term capacity to inno-
vate, and the quality of its research will also 
decline. Furthermore, among the population 
in  general,  the  acquisition  of  skills  that  are 
becoming  essential in all walks of life,  in  a 
society increasingly dependent on the use of 
knowledge, is also under increasing threat. 

In consequence, the European Commission-
ers  responsible  for  Research  and  for  Educa-
tion  and  Culture  have  tasked  this  group  of 
experts, chaired by Michel Rocard, to exam-
ine  a  cross-section  of  innovative  on-going 
initiatives and to draw from them elements of 
know-how and good practice that could bring 
about a radical change in young people’s in-
terest in science studies - and to identify the 
necessary  pre-conditions.  Since  the  origins 
of the declining interest among young people 
for  science  studies  are  found  largely  in  the 
way science is taught in primary and second-
ary schools, this is the main focus.

The  group  did  not  set  out  to  “re-invent  the 
wheel”  nor  to  undertake  a  comprehensive 
evaluation  of  teaching  practice  nor  even  to 
conduct a comparative analysis across Mem-
ber States. The substance of the group’s man-
date  was  succinct:  can  change  be  brought 
about,  and  can  specific  concrete  examples 
be  identified  that  show  how  effective  action 
can be taken? The group recognises the pos-
sible shortcomings of this approach given the 

time constraints under which it was to com-
plete its task; however, the group sought and 
received direct contact with the coordinators 
of  a  number  of  promising  initiatives  as  well 
as meeting with representatives from several 
national  ministries  responsible  for  research 
and education policies (see Appendix1).

What is meant by “Science”?

Science,  in  the  broadest  sense,  re-
fers  to  any  system  of  knowledge 
which  attempts  to  model  objective 
reality.  In  a  more  restricted  sense, 
science  refers  to  a  system  of  ac-
quiring  knowledge  based  on  the 
scientific  method,  as  well  as  to  the 
organized body of knowledge gained 
through such research. 

In  the  context  of  this  report  the 
choice  was  made  to  use  the  word 
“science”  to  refer  more  precisely 
to  all  of  physical  sciences,  life  sci-
ences,  computer  science  and  tech-
nology, and for the purposes of this 
report  includes  mathematics  -  sub-
jects  that  are  commonly  taught  at 
primary  and  secondary  schools  in 
most European countries. 

RapportRocardJustif2.indd   5

27/06/07   10:57:53

 \ 6

\ 1. Background analysis

Observation  
A major threat to the future of 
Europe: science education is far 
from attracting crowds and in many 
countries the trend is worsening.
Recent work by the OECD1 indicates that over 
the last decade, in many European countries, 
the number of young people entering universi-
ties is increasing but they are choosing study 
fields other than science and in consequence 
the proportion of young people studying sci-
ence is decreasing (see appendix 2). Moreo-
ver, in certain key areas such as mathemat-
ics  and  physical  sciences  -  areas  that  are 
at  the  heart  of  sustainable  socio-economic 
development – even the absolute number of 
students is falling in some countries. Indeed, 
some  universities  in  Europe  are  reporting  a 
halving in the number of students enrolled in 
physics since 1995.

When  looked  at  from  a  gender  perspective 
the problem is even worse as, in general, girls 
are less interested in science education than 
boys. As shown by the OECD Programme for 
(PISA) 
International  Student  Assessment 
study,  at  15  years  old,  there  is  already  a 
strongly gendered pattern and in most coun-
tries females are significantly less interested 
in  mathematics  than  males.  This  pattern  of 
gender  differences  continues  with  women 
choosing  fewer  academic  studies  in  math, 
science and technology (MST). In fact, at the 
European level, girls account only for 31% of 
MST graduates (2004).

Observation  
A general consensus on the crucial 
importance of science education.

With over 80% of Europeans (Eurobarometer 
2005) considering that “young people’s inter-
est in science is essential to our future pros-
perity” it is surprising that fewer young people 
are  taking  up  key  science  studies.  This  lack 
of interest shown by young people for science 
learning is truly an issue of great importance, 
as science education is vital for:

\  Providing all citizens with both science liter-
acy and positive attitude towards science. 
There is obviously a need to prepare young peo-
ple for a future that will require good scientific 
knowledge and an understanding of technology. 
Science literacy is important for understanding 
environmental,  medical,  economic  and  other 
issues  that  confront  modern  societies,  which 
rely heavily on technological and scientific ad-
vances of increasing complexity. 

However,  the  key  point  is  equipping  every 
citizen with the skills needed to live and work 
in the knowledge society by giving them the 
opportunity  to  develop  critical  thinking  and 
scientific reasoning that will enable them to 
make  well  informed  choices.  Science  edu-
cation  helps  fighting  misjudgements  and 
reinforcing  our  common  culture  based  on 
rational thinking. 

\  Ensuring  that  Europe  is  training  and  re-
taining  sufficient  numbers  of  high  level 
scientists  and  engineers  needed  for  its 
future economic and technological devel-
opment. 

Availability  of  highly  qualified  science  and 
technology  professionals  is  a  key  factor  for 
the  establishment,  import  and  success  of 
high-tech  industry  in  the  European  Union. 
Europe  should  be  in  a  position  to  anticipate 

1   Evolution of Student Interest in Science and Technology Studies – Policy Report; Global Science Forum, 

OECD, May 2006

RapportRocardJustif2.indd   6

27/06/07   10:57:53

 
 
 /

rather  than  follow  demand  as  it  moves  to-
wards a knowledge based economy. Further-
more  the  link  between  the  local  availability 
of  a  highly  skilled  workforce  and  investment 
decisions  as  regards,  for  example,  the  loca-
tion of R&D facilities is very apparent in global 
economic terms.  

Against this background, European policy 
makers have not remained indifferent and 
have subscribed to numerous declarations 
as  to  the  crucial  importance  of  science 
education. 

-  The  Lisbon  summit  placed  the  spotlight 
on the need for European countries to act 
together to turn Europe into the most com-
petitive  knowledge-based  economy  in  the 
world. The summit recognised the need for 
action: action to foster a knowledge-based 
society  and  action  to  promote  education 
and training. 

   At  the  Lisbon  summit  of  2000  Heads  of 
State and Government of the European Un-
ion recognised that Europe’s future prosper-
ity is dependent on creating an environment 
in which the use of knowledge becomes the 
cornerstone  of  socio-economic  develop-
ment.  A  succession  of  European  summits 
from  Lisbon  to  Barcelona  in  March  2002 
ended with the establishment of a European 
Strategic goal to increase the average Euro-
pean share of GDP dedicated to research up 
to  3%  by  2010.  This  means  increasing  the 
number of researchers by half a million and 
the overall research personnel by 1.2 million.

-  In  its  report  to  the  European  Council  on 
the  concrete  future  objectives  of  edu-
cation  and  training  systems  (00),  the 

Education Council stated the need to “in-
crease the general levels of scientific cul-
ture within society”.

    Science was clearly promoted as a need for 
all citizens: “Expertise in science and tech-
nology  is  increasingly  called  upon  to  con-
tribute  to  public  debate,  decision  making 
and  legislation.  The  citizen  needs  to  have 
a basic understanding of mathematics and 
science  if  she/he  is  to  understand  the  is-
sues, and make informed - even if not tech-
nical – choices.” 

-  This affirmation of the crucial importance 
of  science  education  was  renewed  and 
strengthened in the 8-months Programme 
of the German, Portuguese and Slovenian 
Presidencies.

   Their  programme  states  explicitly  that  “the 
presidencies will endeavour to foster a bet-
ter environment and better conditions for re-
search activities by addressing issues such 
as: (…) reinforcement of human resources in 
science and technology; promoting scientific 
and technological education and culture”.

-  The  Decision  of  the  European  Parliament 
and of the Council concerning the Seventh 
Framework  Programme  of  the  European 
Community  for  research,  technological 
development and demonstration activities 
provides a basis for support for collabora-
tive action.

   Under the Science and Society part it calls for 
the “creation of an open environment which 
triggers curiosity for science in children and 
young people, by reinforcing science educa-
tion at all levels, including schools, and pro-
moting interest and full participation in sci-
ence among people from all backgrounds”. 

RapportRocardJustif2.indd   7

27/06/07   10:57:54

 \ 8

Observation  
The origins of this situation can be 
found, among other causes, in the 
way science is taught.
\  The reasons why young people do not de-
velop  interest  for  science  are  complex; 
however,  there  is  firm  evidence  that  in-
dicates  a  connection  between  attitudes 
towards  science  and  the  way  science  is 
taught. 

The 2005 Eurobarometer study on “Europe-
ans, Science and Technology” reports that 
only  15%  of  Europeans  are  satisfied  with 
the  quality  of  science  classes  in  school.  In 
the 2001 survey, the sample population in-
terviewed on the causes for declining inter-
est in scientific studies and careers ranked 
foremost  the  fact  that  “science  classes 
at  school  are  not  sufficiently  appealing” 
(59.5%). In the same survey 60.3% of Euro-
peans state that “the authorities should try 
to resolve this situation”.

The  report  recently  issued  by  the  OECD 
“Evolution of Student Interest in Science 
and Technology Studies” identifies the cru-
cial  role  of  positive  contacts  with  science 
at an early stage in the subsequent forma-
tion of attitudes towards science.  However, 
the  study  also  highlights  that,  while  young 
children  have  a  natural  curiosity  of  these 
subjects,  traditional  formal  science  educa-
tion can stifle this interest and therefore can 
have a negative impact on the development 
of attitudes towards learning science.

Among  the  causes  identified,  it  is  noted 
the  uncomfortable  situation  of  some  pri-
mary school teachers that are requested to 
teach subjects in which they lack sufficient 

self-confidence and knowledge. They often 
choose  a  traditional  ‘chalk  and  talk’  ap-
proach  with  which  they  feel  more  comfort-
able and avoid inquiry-based methods that 
require them to have deeper integrated sci-
ence understanding. The focus is therefore 
on  memorizing  rather  than  on  understand-
ing;  and  furthermore,  heavy  workloads  are 
reported  to  leave  little  time  for  meaningful 
experiments.

The report recommends that “teaching should 
concentrate more on scientific concepts and 
methods rather than on retaining information 
only”  and  that  stronger  support  should  be 
given to teacher training in science.

In its report “Europe Needs More Scientists”, 
the  High  Level  Group  chaired  by  Prof.  José 
Mariano Gago analyses problems found with 
science  teaching.  Again  similar  conclusions 
are offered: science subjects are often taught 
in a much too abstract way, “It is abstract be-
cause it is trying to put forward fundamental 
ideas, most of which were developed in the 
19th century, without sufficient experimen-
tal, observational and interpretational back-
ground” and without “showing sufficient un-
derstanding of their implications”.  Science 
education  also  often  fails  to  provide  young 
people with “the opportunity of a cumulative 
development of understanding and interest” 
and is in strong danger of “being excessively 
factual because of the explosion in scientific 
knowledge and the ‘adding-on’ of topics to an 
already excessive content base”. As a result, 
it comes of no surprise that “students have a 
perception of science education as irrelevant 
and difficult”.

RapportRocardJustif2.indd   8

27/06/07   10:57:54

 
 /

\  While  most  of  the  science  education 
community agrees on the fact that peda-
gogical  practices  based  on  inquiry-based 
methods are more effective, the reality of 
classroom  practice  is  that  in  most  Euro-
pean  countries,  actual  science  teaching 
does not follow this approach. 

What are Inquiry-Based Science Edu-
cation 
(IBSE)  and  Problem-Based 
Learning (PBL)?

Historically,  two  pedagogical  ap-
proaches in science teaching can be 
contrasted. 

The  first  one,  traditionally  used  at 
school, is the “Deductive Approach”. 
In this approach, the teacher presents 
the concepts, their logical – deductive 
– implications and gives examples of 
applications. This method is also re-
ferred to as ‘top-down transmission’. 
To be used, the children must be able 
to  handle  abstract  notions,  what 
makes  it  difficult  to  start  teaching 
science before secondary education.
In contrast, the second has long been 
referred  to  as  the  “Inductive  Ap-
proach”.  This  approach  gives  more 

space  to  observation,  experimenta-
tion  and  the  teacher-guided  con-
struction by the child of his/her own 
knowledge. This approach is also de-
scribed as a ‘bottom-up’ approach.

The terminology evolved through the 
years  and  the  concepts  refined,  and 
today the Inductive Approach is most 
often  referred  to  as  Inquiry-Based 
Science Education (IBSE), mostly ap-
plied  to  science  of  nature  and  tech-
nology.

By definition, inquiry is the intention-
al  process  of  diagnosing  problems, 
critiquing  experiments,  and  distin-
guishing alternatives, planning inves-
tigations,  researching  conjectures, 
searching for information, construct-
ing models, debating with peers, and 
forming  coherent  arguments  (Linn, 
Davis, & Bell, 004). 

In mathematics teaching, the educa-
tion community often refers to “Prob-
(PBL)  rather 
lem-Based  Learning” 
than  to  IBSE.  In  fact,  mathematics 
education may easily use a problem-
based approach while, in many cases, 
the  use  of  experiments  is  more  dif-
ficult.  Problem-Based  Learning  de-
scribes a learning environment where 
problems  drive  the  learning.  That  is, 
learning  begins  with  a  problem  to 
be  solved,  and  the  problem  is  posed 
in  such  a  way  that  children  need  to 
gain  new  knowledge  before  they  can 
solve the problem. Rather than seek-
ing  a  single  correct  answer,  children 
interpret the problem, gather needed 

RapportRocardJustif2.indd   9

27/06/07   10:57:55

 \ 0

companies,  scientists,  researchers,  univer-
sity  students.  Funding,  when  available,  is 
sourced from various sources with local au-
thorities – cities and regions – often provid-
ing a large part of the necessary resources. 

Other  very  significant  actors  are  the  out-of-
school  science  education  organisations 
with a particular role played by cultural part-
ners, science centres, science museums and 
associations  for  the  promotion  of  sciences, 
often organising fairs and events.

However,  these  initiatives  often  rely  on  the 
motivation  and  goodwill  of  a  few  individu-
als, resulting in  budgetary pressures, limited 
ability to scale-up projects, and putting at risk 
their permanence and sustainability.

Furthermore,  due  to  budget  and  time  con-
straints, the evaluation of initiatives is often 
limited. The interconnections between initia-
tives are very rare which effectively eliminates 
the possibilities for scaling-up and for the dis-
semination of the new ideas: the dynamics of 
“economy of scale” and the huge potential for 
real impact are simply not being exploited.

\  In  this  insufficiently  organized  context, 
Europe has a major role to play in the iden-
tification,  integration  and  dissemination 
of good practices.

information,  identify  possible  solu-
tions,  evaluate  options  and  present 
conclusions.  Inquiry-Based  Science 
Education  is  a  problem-based  ap-
proach  but  goes  beyond  it  with  the 
importance given to the experimental 
approach. 

In  this  report,  it  will  be  referred  to 
IBSE  as  inquiry-based  and  problem-
based science education.

In most European countries, science teach-
ing  methods  are  essentially  deductive.  The 
presentation  of  concepts  and  intellectual 
frameworks  come  first  and  are  followed  by 
the  search  for  operational  consequences, 
while experiments are mainly used as illus-
trations. A change is under process in some 
countries  towards  more  extensive  use  of 
inquiry-based  methods  however,  the  main-
stream still remains mainly deductive.

Observation 4 
Many on-going initiatives in Europe 
actively contribute to the renewal 
of science education. Neverthe-
less, they are often small-scale 
and do not actively take advantage 
of European support measures for 
dissemination and integration.
\  Many initiatives may be found with the sci-

ence education community.

First of all, many dynamic teachers, both at 
primary  and  secondary  levels  of  education 
have  developed  multiple  innovative  prac-
tices.  These  projects  often  involve  and  are 
supported by the local community: parents, 

RapportRocardJustif2.indd   10

27/06/07   10:57:55

 /

\ 2. Mandate/work carried out

groups and takes a better care of the most 
deprived children.

\  Reduced  need  of  specific  materials  for 

cost sustainability.

\  Priority  given  to  initiatives  designed  to 
reach a critical mass of young people and 
at the same time respect diversity.

\  Teachers are the cornerstone of any re-
newal  of  science  education.  Teachers’ 
skills  (pedagogy  and  content),  self  con-
fidence,  motivation  and  integration  in  a 
larger community are crucial.  

\  Priority  given  to  initiatives  that  include 
a  large  diversity of practices in science 
teaching  to  respond  to  the  diverse  needs 
of  children:  problem  based  inquiry  proc-
ess; hands-on/minds-on activities; team-
work;  independent  work  on  open-ended 
questions;  trans-disciplinary  activities; 
showing relevance of science content.

There  is  a  clear  rationale  to  take  action,  but 
what  specific  concrete  action  can  be  taken  in 
Europe to improve the way science teaching is 
approached in primary and secondary schools? 
Fortunately  there  are  many  in-depth  studies 
that  have  already  been  carried  out  to  under-
stand the causes of the problem and to suggest 
potential leads for action. The objectives of this 
report are, therefore, specifically to:

\  Analyse  a  selection  of  the  ongoing  col-
laborative  science  education  initiatives 
within the EU in order to identify effective 
and  innovative  techniques  that  show  po-
tential for increasing interest towards sci-
ence  and  which  could  be  used  as  models 
for future policies;

\  Draw from this analysis a reduced set of 
concrete  policy  recommendations  that 
would  ensure  that  their  experience  is 
used, valorised and disseminated across 
Europe.

As  a  basis  for  the  analysis  of  initiatives,  the 
following criteria were adopted: 

\  The earlier the better:  science  teaching 
at primary school has a strong long-term 
impact. Primary school corresponds to the 
time  of  construction  of  intrinsic  motiva-
tion, associated with long-lasting effects, 
it is the time when children have a strong 
sense of natural curiosity and it is the right 
time to tackle gendered patterns.

\  Priority  given  to  actions  focused  on 
schools, as this allows each child to ben-
efit  from  a  longer  exposure  to  the  action 
and has a more systematic effect on large 

RapportRocardJustif2.indd   11

27/06/07   10:57:56

 \ 

\ 3. Findings

Finding  
A reversal of school’s science-
teaching pedagogy from mainly 
deductive to inquiry-based 
methods provides the means to 
increase interest in science.
\  Inquiry-based  methods  proved  their  ef-
ficacy in science learning at primary level 
with increasing both children’s interest and 
teachers’ willingness to teach sciences.

IBSE emphasizes curiosity and observations 
followed by problem solving and experimen-
tation.  Through  the  use  of  critical  thinking 
and  reflection,  students  are  able  to  make 
meaning out of gathered evidence.

Moreover,  IBSE  is  perfectly  adapted  to  the 
younger audience of primary schools. This is 
a  key  advantage  as  starting  science  educa-
tion at this age allows making the best use of 
this ‘curiosity golden age’. 

In  addition,  inquiry-based  methods  provide 
children with opportunities to develop a large 
range of complementary skills such as work-
ing in groups, written and verbal expression, 
experience  of  open-ended  problems  solving 
and other cross-disciplinary abilities.

\  IBSE methods are also effective in second-

ary education. 

However,  this  approach  faces  more  reluc-
tance  from  teachers  as  they  often  consider 
it as time-consuming leading to conflict with 
the requirement to deliver curricula content.

\  IBSE techniques are effective on students 
groups  for  which  traditional  deductive 
methods are ineffective.

Using IBSE methods has been shown to have 
a  positive  impact  on  students’  attainments, 
with an even stronger impact on the students 
with lower levels of self-confidence and those 
from  disadvantaged  backgrounds.  This  al-
lows science education to be inclusive, which 
is  of  utmost  importance  in  a  knowledge  so-
ciety where being scientifically illiterate is of 
such high cost for both the individual and the 
society in general.

\  Science  Teaching  based  on  inquiry-based 
methods does not mean giving up the am-
bition of excellence.

Indeed, these practices may be used to create 
the most favourable conditions and attitudes 
(interest, self-confidence) to reach the deep-
est levels of knowledge for the most talented, 
creative and motivated students. 
Moreover, IBSE allows for the development of 
crucial intellectual skills in addition to knowl-
edge  acquisition,  the  basis  for  all  types  of 
higher level of education.

\  Finally, the two approaches are not mutu-
ally exclusive and can and should be com-
bined in any science classroom to accom-
modate  for  different  kinds  of  scientific 
topics, different mindsets and age groups 
preferences.

RapportRocardJustif2.indd   12

27/06/07   10:57:56

 
 /

An example of what is meant by IBSE 
(source: Pollen)

Experimentation  does  not  mean 
involv-
complicated  experiments 
ing  sophisticated  and  costly  equip-
ment. Most experiments carried on at 
schools,  under  the  POLLEN  project, 
for  example,  are  in  fact  very  simple 
and  require  nothing  more  than  ordi-
nary, inexpensive equipment.

Imagine  that  a  teacher  wants  chil-
dren  to  work  on  the  “hourglass”  (a 
well known and simple timing device) 
by trying to identify the parameters 
that  determine  how  long  the  sand 
will take to fall. Several different op-
tions exist:

-  A.  The  teacher  shows  the  students 
an  hourglass  and  states  that  the 
time required for the sand to run out 
depends  on  […]  and  that  the  stu-
dents are going to be able to see this 
for themselves. This method is akin 
to the traditional, so-called lecture-
type format, in which the teacher is 
content  to  pronounce  results,  and 
it is worlds away from an inquiry-
based approach.

-  B. The students observe, draw and de-
scribe an hourglass set on the teach-
er’s desk, then the teacher asks them 
what  factors  determine  how  long  it 
takes  for  the  sand  to  run  out.  This 
question is meaningful to most of the 
students, but not to all of them. 

-  C.  After  having  observed  an  hour-
glass, the teacher asks the students 
how to increase or decrease the time 
required  for  the  sand  to  run  out. 

Here,  the  child  starts  to  come  up 
with questions as he or she looks for 
a way to make something happen.

-  D. The teacher sets out at least three 
hourglasses, one of which takes much 
more time than the others to run out 
of  sand.  The  students,  divided  into 
groups,  observe,  draw  and  describe 
the  hourglass  they  have  in  front  of 
them. Considering the distinctive fea-
tures  of  the  hourglasses  set  before 
them, one will continue to have sand 
running,  while  the  others  will  have 
stopped. The children will take notice 
of this and instinctively wonder what 
makes that hourglass run longer. This 
is one way (though not the only one) 
to have children take ownership of a 
problem and demonstrates why IBSE 
can be so effective.

Children  have  very  good  recollec-
tion of the experiments they conduct 
themselves  but  to  be  effective  they 
need  to  reach  this  realisation  them-
selves  through  experiments  they 
have  come  up  with  themselves.  In 
the  hourglass  example,  the  children 
might  consider  the  amount  of  sand, 
the width of the glass, the size of the 
sand  particles,  the  size  of  the  hour-
glass, the presence of certain colour 
additives, etc. There is nothing quite 
like  leaving  the  children  to  carry  out 
the  experiments  themselves  so  that 
they realise they can achieve useable 
results only if they adjust one param-
eter at a time (keeping the others con-
stant) and that, taking that into con-
sideration,  the  size  of  the  hourglass 
does not play an important part.

RapportRocardJustif2.indd   13

27/06/07   10:57:57

 \ 4

\  A  renewal  of  pedagogy  based  on  an  in-
creased use of the IBSE approach may be 
an effective way to increase girls’ interest, 
self-confidence  and  participation  in  sci-
ence activities.

The  group  found  that  in  initiatives  in  which 
the  IBSE  approach  is  being  used,  girls  par-
ticipate  more  enthusiastically  in  the  activi-
ties and develop a better level of self-confi-
dence than with the traditional approaches to 
teaching science.  

Finding  
Renewed school’s science-teaching 
pedagogy based on IBSE provides 
increased opportunities for 
cooperation between various actors 
in the formal and informal arenas.
Due  to  the  nature  of  its  practices,  IBSE  and 
problem-based  pedagogy  are  more  likely  to 
encourage  relationships  between  the  stake-
holders  of  both  formal  and  informal  educa-
tion.  And  it  creates  opportunities  to  involve 
firms,  researchers,  universities,  local  actors 
such as cities, associations, parents and oth-
er kinds of local resources.

The  initiatives  this  group  identified  as  suc-
cessfully promoting IBSE are often organized 
and supported at the local level, especially at 
cities level, even when they are also part of a 
broader organisation.

Finding  
Teachers are key players in the 
renewal of science education. 
Among other methods, being 
part of a network allows them 
to improve the quality of their 

teaching and supports their 
motivation. 
Teachers  report  that  isolation  is  often  one 
of  the  main  negative  elements  of  their  pro-
fessional practice and is clearly very bad for 
morale  and  motivation.  Being  part  of  a  pro-
fessional network, however, can provide them 
with  opportunities  to  enrich  their  practices 
and  professional  context  through  coopera-
tion  within  and  between  schools,  collabora-
tive reflection, development and evaluation of 
instruction, exchange of ideas, materials and 
experiences,  quality  development,  coopera-
tion  between  teachers  and  researchers  and 
support and stimulation from research.

In  consequence,  networks  can  be  used  as 
an  effective  component  of  teachers’  profes-
sional development, and are complementary 
to more traditional forms of teacher training. 

Finding 4 
In Europe, these crucial 
components of renewal of 
science teaching practices 
are being promoted by two 
innovative initiatives, “Pollen” 
and “Sinus-Transfer”, that are 
proving themselves capable of 
increasing children’s interest and 
achievements in science. With 
some adaptation, these initiatives 
could be implemented effectively 
on a scale that would have the 
desired impact. 
\  Pollen is already international and includes 

 European countries.

Pollen  operates  in  12  cities  in  12  countries2 
of  the  European  Union,  targeting  schools 
in  cities  to  promote  inquiry-based  teaching 

2   Belgium, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden,  

and the United Kingdom.

RapportRocardJustif2.indd   14

27/06/07   10:57:58

5 /

 techniques  that  have  been  demonstrated  to 
work both in France (“la main à la pâte”) and, 
originally, in the United States. The initiative, 
originally focusing mainly on primary schools, 
is  now  expanding  into  the  secondary  level. 
Pollen  is  supported  through  a  Community 
grant  of  1.75  million  euro  under  the  Science 
and Society part of the Sixth Framework pro-
gramme for research, technological develop-
ment and demonstration activities.

Participating cities are provided with teacher 
training, specific resources for the classroom 
(learning  units,  teachers’  guides,  material 
and  resources  database,  information  book-
lets…),  as  well  as  a  web  support  resource. 
Exchanges between teachers, scientists and 
pedagogical  experts  are  strongly  encour-
aged and the scientific community engage-
ment provides support to teachers. 

The  positive  results  arising  from  Pollen  are 
many.  The  methods  used  by  Pollen  have 
proven  to  raise  primary  teachers’  interest, 
self-confidence and skills in science teaching 
and therefore the quality and quantity of sci-
ence teaching sessions. Pollen also increases 
children’s  interest  in  science  learning  activi-
ties.  The  gender  gap  is  reduced  as  a  higher 
share of girls tends to actively participate in 
science-related  activities.  The  increased  in-
terest and participation is even stronger with 
weaker  children  and  those  from  disadvan-
taged backgrounds.

Furthermore, Pollen has proved itself capable 
of  obtaining  strong  support  from  both  com-
munity and scientific institutions (Academies 
of Sciences, higher education institutions). 

In addition, Pollen has already showed potential 
for scaling up. Indeed, after having been tried at 
local levels, it has already been scaled up twice 
(at the national French level first, then at the Eu-
ropean level), with federating national and local 
pre-existing initiatives (in United Kingdom, Por-
tugal and Sweden). 

The specificity and strongest point of Pollen 
is  probably  its  ability  to  disseminate  usable 
techniques  while  at  the  same  time  respect-
ing the diversity of local contexts:  indeed, its 
methods are particularly adapted and effec-
tive in this context.

\  Sinus-Transfer  has  already  been  exten-

sively tested in Germany

Sinus-Transfer  provides  secondary  school 
teachers with tools to change their pedagogi-
cal approach on science teaching. It includes 
and emphasizes the importance of using sci-
entific inquiry and experimental approaches. 
The focus is put on teachers’ professional de-
velopment:  Sinus-Transfer    is  characterized 
by  a  long-term,  school-based  and  collabo-
rative approach that is focused on students’ 
learning.  It  relates  to  didactical  problems  in 
science  classrooms  and  stimulates  teach-
ers to evaluate and reflect their teaching in a 
process  of  continuous  quality  development. 
During  the  process  a  strong  cooperation  is 
established between teachers within and be-
tween schools as well as between researchers 
and practitioners.

The impact of Sinus-Transfer is very positive. 
The  evaluations  conducted  show  significant 
positive impact on student attainment, espe-
cially for weaker students. Large numbers of 

RapportRocardJustif2.indd   15

27/06/07   10:57:58

 \ 6

input  in  teacher  training  requiring  a  greater 
commitment  from  local  education  authori-
ties. Other high priority actions aimed at dis-
semination  would  include  the  adaptation  of 
the  existing  materials  to  national  languages 
and contexts, the organisation of a more sys-
tematic  evaluation  of  impact,  improving  the 
adaptation of the IBSE method to secondary 
education  and  developing  stronger  interna-
tional student and teacher networks.

As regards Sinus-Transfer, priority should be 
given  to  developing  the  concept  outside  of 
Germany in collaboration with other national 
programmes.  The  first  steps  towards  inter-
nationalisation  would  be  to  translate  and 
adapt  its  methods  and  contents  as  well  as 
to develop networks on a European level. An 
important aim of these networks would be to 
foster  exchange  and  collaboration  between 
crucial  subgroups  that  are  concerned  with 
science  teaching  and  science  teacher  pro-
fessional  development  in  Europe:  science 
teachers  (schools),  students,  members  of 
support systems (e.g. teacher training insti-
tutions,  Universities,  administration),  inter-
national experts for science education (e.g. 
educational researcher, science educators).

teachers have shown strong support and en-
thusiasm for this initiative.

\  Two initiatives: common key points

Both  projects  propose  an  innovative peda-
gogical approach,  while  not  having  any  in-
tention  of  changing  curricula  or  content,  as 
defined by the relevant authorities. 

Moreover,  both  promote  a pedagogy using 
an inquiry-based approach that  succeeds 
to develop excitement around science. They 
both  present  the  processes  and  methods  of 
science  together  with  its  products  and  pro-
mote a wide range of practices including in-
quiry  based  activities,  hands-on/minds-on 
and group projects.

In their organisation too, they show strong 
similarities.  Their  action  is  based  on  the 
training,  support  and  motivation  of  teachers, 
providing  them  with  pedagogical  materials 
and opportunities to be part of a network while 
respecting 
independence.  Moreover, 
both  initiatives  promote  rich  and  long-term 
links with the different stakeholders (students, 
teachers, parents, scientists, engineers, entre-
preneurs, R&D firms). 

their 

Finally, they both focus on dissemination, 
as  exemplified  by  their  names  “Pollen”  & 
“Transfer”. 

\  Pollen and Sinus-Transfer: How might the EU 
assist them in scaling up and disseminating 
throughout Europe? 

Pollen could  easily  be  scaled-up to increase 
the number of participating cities and coun-
tries. There is also a crucial need for a stronger 

RapportRocardJustif2.indd   16

27/06/07   10:57:59

 /

\ 4. Recommendations

The  importance  for  Europe  of  having  a  well 
science-educated  population 
is  beyond 
doubt.  Given  that  innovative  pedagogy  has 
been  developed  and  tested  at  a  relatively 
large scale, and that it has proved to be suc-
cessful,  there  is  equally  no  doubt  that  spe-
cific  and  urgent  actions  can  be  taken.  The 
following  recommendations  outline  a  set  of 
such actions.

Recommendation  
Because Europe’s future is at 
stake decision-makers must 
demand action on improving 
science education from the bodies 
responsible for implementing 
change at local, regional, national 
and European level.
This issue should be given a central place in 
the Lisbon Strategy Renewal and be consid-
ered as an imperative priority. Member States 
should more actively promote and fund initia-
tives  that  contribute  towards  the  renewal  of 
pedagogy in science education.

Recommendation  
Improvements in science education 
should be brought about through 
the new forms of pedagogy: The 
introduction of the inquiry-based 
approaches in schools and the 
development of teachers’ networks 
should actively be promoted and 
supported.
Teachers must remain the key players in the 
process  of  reform,  but  need  better  support 
that  complements  professional  training  and 
stimulates morale and motivation.

Recommendation  
Specific attention should be given 
to raising the participation of girls 
in key school science subject, and 
to increasing their self-confidence 
in science.
Priority  should  be  given  to  initiatives  that 
specifically include gender issue among their 
objectives including the presentation of role-
models  for  girls  in  the  form  of  successful 
women  scientists,  engineers  and  business-
women in the R&D field.

Recommendation 4 
Measures should be introduced 
to promote the participation of 
cities and the local community in 
the renewal of science education 
through collaborative actions 
at the European level aimed at 
accelerating the pace of change 
through the sharing of know-how.
Collaborative  pilot  actions  conducted  at  the 
European level demonstrate that Community 
support can be instrumental, not only in ac-
celerating the pace of change, but also in en-
riching the newly developed techniques. The 
participation  of  all  stakeholders,  including 
experts of science education, teachers, stu-
dents, parents, scientists, engineers and their 
organisations, including schools, teacher and 
parent  organisations,  universities,  research 
institutes,  science  museums,  science  cen-
tres, firms and local authorities is a key factor 
for the success.

Some initiatives were promoted by organisa-
tions  that  work  on  informal  science  educa-
tion. Cities should use these initiatives in or-
der to foster and strengthen the links between 

RapportRocardJustif2.indd   17

27/06/07   10:57:59

 \ 8

\  The  Advisory  Board  should  monitor  the 
development  of  new  initiatives  aiming  at 
developing the use of inquiry-based meth-
ods in science teaching and support their 
cooperation and integration at a European 
level,  so  as  to  avoid  replication  of  multi-
ple  small  scale  projects,  allowing  them 
to  benefit  from  synergies  and  knowledge 
sharing. 

\  The  Advisory  Board  should  continue  to 
support  research  and  development  of 
projects  that  bring  innovation  to  science 
teaching  throughout  Europe.  It  should 
monitor innovative teaching practices and 
other new developments in science educa-
tion, including connections to the science 
education community. 

\  The  Advisory  Board  should  organise  the 

evaluation of initiatives. 

formal and informal (curricular and extracur-
ricular) science education. It would be useful 
if resources, including human resources, were 
dedicated to these links at local level. 

Recommendation 5 
The articulation between national 
activities and those funded at the 
European level must be improved 
and the opportunities for enhanced 
support through the instruments of 
the Framework Programme and the 
EAC programmes to initiatives such 
as Pollen and Sinus-Transfer should 
be created.
The group is not in a position to quantify exact-
ly how much extra funding should be allocated 
to this area, but notes that on the basis of the 
budgets of the activities that were examined, 
a budget of 60 million euros over six years is 
not  an  unreasonable  estimation  as  regards  a 
Community contribution. 

Recommendation 6 
A European Science Education 
Advisory Board involving 
representatives of all 
stakeholders, including experts 
of science education, teachers, 
students, parent organisations, 
scientists, engineers and firms, 
should be established and funded 
by the European Commission 
within the framework of the above 
instruments.
\  The  Advisory  Board  should  suggest  ways 
and means to encourage the development 
of  cross-disciplinary  and  multi-national 
self-organization  of  science-interested 
students in Europe.

RapportRocardJustif2.indd   18

27/06/07   10:58:00

 /

nonetheless implemented it in different ways 
as a function of local conditions, thus dem-
onstrating good flexibility.

\ 5. Conclusion

Although  setting  curricula  remains  the  pre-
rogative of the relevant bodies and ministries 
within  each  Member  State,  much  could  be 
done at the European level that would have a 
substantive  impact  on  the  way  that  science 
is  taught:  actions  to  promote  the  adoption 
of  new  teaching  techniques;  actions  aimed 
at helping teachers present the subject in an 
exciting  and  relevant  manner;  and  actions 
that stimulate inquiry-based learning among 
young people.

The  revision  and  repositioning  of  science 
teaching  in  Europe  must  become  a  priority 
area for European policy makers. Not only is 
it essential for the development of individual 
European countries but it is also essential if 
European  Union  Members  States  are  to  col-
lectively make clear inroads towards meeting 
the Lisbon objectives.

The  group  has  had  the  opportunity  to  study 
many  high  quality  initiatives  which  actively 
contribute  to  the  development  of  interest  in 
science  and  the  involvement  of  young  peo-
ple in these fields of study. The specificity of 
both  Pollen  and  Sinus-Transfer  is  that  they 
promote  a  change  in  the  pedagogical  ap-
proach  used  to  teach  science.  Additionally 
these initiatives provide opportunities for the 
establishment of a European network of sci-
ence education teachers, which appears to be 
a key factor in promoting excellence.

Pollen  and  Sinus-Transfer  are  significant 
and  adequate  initiatives.  For  instance,  Pol-
len  demonstrated  how  its  approach  can  be 
applied  in  different  national  settings.  Pollen 
partners while following the same philosophi-
cal  approach  (inquiry  based  learning)  have 

RapportRocardJustif2.indd   19

27/06/07   10:58:00

 
 \ 0

\ 6. Appendices:

Appendix : 
List of interviewees  from national ministries responsible for research and education policies 
\  Ms Elles Rinkel, Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (The Netherlands)
\  Mrs Kornelia Haugg, Ministry of Education (Germany)
\  Mr Werner Klein, Ministry for Education and Women of the Land Schleswig-Holstein (Germany)
\  Mme Florence Robine, Ministère de l’Education Nationale, de l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la 

Recherche (France)

\  Mr Max Kesselberg, Ministry of Education and Research (Sweden)
\  Mr Thomas Overgaard Jensen, Head of Section at the Danish Ministry of Science (Denmark)
\  Ms Ana Noronha, National Agency for Scientific and Technological Culture (Portugal)

List of interviewees responsible for coordinating selected actions supporting science 
education in schools  
\  Prof. Dr. Manfred Prenzel representing the project SINUS
\  Mr Cyrille Raymond and Mr Philippe Leclere representing the project GRID
\  Ms Catherine Franche representing the ECSITE
\  Professors G. Charpak, Pierre Léna and Dr David Jasmin representing the project Pollen
\  Mr Claus Madsen and Ms Silke Schumacher representing EIROFORUM
\  Mr Marc Durando respresenting EU Schoolnet

Appendix : 
Figures from Evolution of Student Interest in Science and Technology Studies – Policy Report; 
Global Science Forum, OECD, May 2006

(cid:26)(cid:21)(cid:72)(cid:27)(cid:73)(cid:21)(cid:58)(cid:99)(cid:105)(cid:103)(cid:86)(cid:99)(cid:105)(cid:104)

(cid:26)(cid:21)(cid:72)(cid:27)(cid:73)(cid:21)(cid:60)(cid:103)(cid:86)(cid:89)(cid:106)(cid:86)(cid:105)(cid:90)(cid:104)

(cid:26)(cid:21)(cid:72)(cid:27)(cid:73)(cid:21)(cid:69)(cid:93)(cid:57)

(cid:73)(cid:106)(cid:103)(cid:96)(cid:90)(cid:110)

(cid:54)(cid:106)(cid:104)(cid:105)(cid:103)(cid:86)(cid:97)(cid:94)(cid:86)

(cid:55)(cid:90)(cid:97)(cid:92)(cid:94)(cid:106)(cid:98)(cid:21)(cid:34)(cid:21)(cid:76)(cid:86)(cid:97)(cid:35)

(cid:56)(cid:86)(cid:99)(cid:86)(cid:89)(cid:86)

(cid:59)(cid:94)(cid:99)(cid:97)(cid:86)(cid:99)(cid:89)

(cid:60)(cid:90)(cid:103)(cid:98)(cid:86)(cid:99)(cid:110)

(cid:69)(cid:100)(cid:97)(cid:86)(cid:99)(cid:89)

(cid:55)(cid:90)(cid:97)(cid:92)(cid:94)(cid:106)(cid:98)(cid:21)(cid:34)(cid:21)(cid:59)(cid:97)(cid:86)

(cid:57)(cid:90)(cid:99)(cid:98)(cid:86)(cid:103)(cid:96)

(cid:63)(cid:86)(cid:101)(cid:86)(cid:99)

(cid:67)(cid:90)(cid:105)(cid:93)(cid:90)(cid:103)(cid:97)(cid:86)(cid:99)(cid:89)

(cid:64)(cid:100)(cid:103)(cid:90)(cid:86)

(cid:59)(cid:103)(cid:86)(cid:99)(cid:88)(cid:90)

(cid:69)(cid:100)(cid:103)(cid:105)(cid:106)(cid:92)(cid:86)(cid:97)

(cid:67)(cid:100)(cid:103)(cid:108)(cid:86)(cid:110)(cid:21)

(cid:56)(cid:86)(cid:99)(cid:86)(cid:89)(cid:86)

(cid:59)(cid:94)(cid:99)(cid:97)(cid:86)(cid:99)(cid:89)

(cid:54)(cid:106)(cid:104)(cid:105)(cid:103)(cid:86)(cid:97)(cid:94)(cid:86)

(cid:64)(cid:100)(cid:103)(cid:90)(cid:86)

(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:54)

(cid:73)(cid:106)(cid:103)(cid:96)(cid:90)(cid:110)

(cid:63)(cid:86)(cid:101)(cid:86)(cid:99)

(cid:69)(cid:100)(cid:103)(cid:105)(cid:106)(cid:92)(cid:86)(cid:97)

(cid:59)(cid:103)(cid:86)(cid:99)(cid:88)(cid:90)

(cid:55)(cid:90)(cid:97)(cid:92)(cid:94)(cid:106)(cid:98)(cid:21)(cid:34)(cid:21)(cid:76)(cid:86)(cid:97)(cid:35)

(cid:55)(cid:90)(cid:97)(cid:92)(cid:94)(cid:106)(cid:98)(cid:21)(cid:34)(cid:21)(cid:59)(cid:97)(cid:86)

(cid:67)(cid:100)(cid:103)(cid:108)(cid:86)(cid:110)(cid:21)

(cid:60)(cid:90)(cid:103)(cid:98)(cid:86)(cid:99)(cid:110)

(cid:67)(cid:90)(cid:105)(cid:93)(cid:90)(cid:103)(cid:97)(cid:86)(cid:99)(cid:89)

(cid:57)(cid:90)(cid:99)(cid:98)(cid:86)(cid:103)(cid:96)

(cid:69)(cid:100)(cid:97)(cid:86)(cid:99)(cid:89)

(cid:64)(cid:100)(cid:103)(cid:90)(cid:86)

(cid:73)(cid:106)(cid:103)(cid:96)(cid:90)(cid:110)

(cid:63)(cid:86)(cid:101)(cid:86)(cid:99)

(cid:59)(cid:94)(cid:99)(cid:97)(cid:86)(cid:99)(cid:89)

(cid:69)(cid:100)(cid:97)(cid:86)(cid:99)(cid:89)

(cid:60)(cid:90)(cid:103)(cid:98)(cid:86)(cid:99)(cid:110)

(cid:55)(cid:90)(cid:97)(cid:92)(cid:94)(cid:106)(cid:98)(cid:21)(cid:34)(cid:21)(cid:76)(cid:86)(cid:97)(cid:35)

(cid:67)(cid:90)(cid:105)(cid:93)(cid:90)(cid:103)(cid:97)(cid:86)(cid:99)(cid:89)

(cid:57)(cid:90)(cid:99)(cid:98)(cid:86)(cid:103)(cid:96)

(cid:56)(cid:86)(cid:99)(cid:86)(cid:89)(cid:86)

(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:54)

(cid:69)(cid:100)(cid:103)(cid:105)(cid:106)(cid:92)(cid:86)(cid:97)

(cid:55)(cid:90)(cid:97)(cid:92)(cid:94)(cid:106)(cid:98)(cid:21)(cid:34)(cid:21)(cid:59)(cid:97)(cid:86)

(cid:67)(cid:100)(cid:103)(cid:108)(cid:86)(cid:110)(cid:21)

(cid:54)(cid:106)(cid:104)(cid:105)(cid:103)(cid:86)(cid:97)(cid:94)(cid:86)

(cid:59)(cid:103)(cid:86)(cid:99)(cid:88)(cid:90)

(cid:34)(cid:45)(cid:26)

(cid:34)(cid:43)(cid:26) (cid:34)(cid:41)(cid:26) (cid:34)(cid:39)(cid:26)

(cid:37)(cid:26)

(cid:39)(cid:26)

(cid:41)(cid:26)

(cid:34)(cid:45)(cid:26)

(cid:34)(cid:43)(cid:26) (cid:34)(cid:41)(cid:26) (cid:34)(cid:39)(cid:26)

(cid:37)(cid:26)

(cid:39)(cid:26)

(cid:41)(cid:26)

(cid:34)(cid:45)(cid:26)

(cid:34)(cid:43)(cid:26) (cid:34)(cid:41)(cid:26) (cid:34)(cid:39)(cid:26)

(cid:37)(cid:26)

(cid:39)(cid:26)

(cid:41)(cid:26)

Average annual change in the share of S&T students as a percentage of the total number of students (1993-2003)

RapportRocardJustif2.indd   20

27/06/07   10:58:01

 /

(cid:73)(cid:100)(cid:105)(cid:86)(cid:97)(cid:21)(cid:99)(cid:106)(cid:98)(cid:87)(cid:90)(cid:103)(cid:21)(cid:100)(cid:91)(cid:21)(cid:101)(cid:93)(cid:110)(cid:104)(cid:94)(cid:88)(cid:86)(cid:97)(cid:21)(cid:104)(cid:88)(cid:94)(cid:90)(cid:99)(cid:88)(cid:90)(cid:21)(cid:92)(cid:103)(cid:86)(cid:89)(cid:106)(cid:86)(cid:105)(cid:90)(cid:104)
(cid:94)(cid:99)(cid:21)(cid:104)(cid:90)(cid:97)(cid:90)(cid:88)(cid:105)(cid:90)(cid:89)(cid:21)(cid:88)(cid:100)(cid:106)(cid:99)(cid:105)(cid:103)(cid:94)(cid:90)(cid:104)(cid:21)(cid:94)(cid:99)(cid:89)(cid:90)(cid:109)(cid:21)(cid:38)(cid:37)(cid:37)(cid:47)(cid:21)(cid:38)(cid:46)(cid:46)(cid:41)

(cid:38)(cid:41)(cid:37)(cid:33)(cid:37)

(cid:38)(cid:39)(cid:37)(cid:33)(cid:37)

(cid:38)(cid:37)(cid:37)(cid:33)(cid:37)

(cid:45)(cid:37)(cid:33)(cid:37)

(cid:43)(cid:37)(cid:33)(cid:37)

(cid:41)(cid:37)(cid:33)(cid:37)

(cid:38)(cid:43)(cid:37)(cid:33)(cid:37)

(cid:38)(cid:41)(cid:37)(cid:33)(cid:37)

(cid:38)(cid:39)(cid:37)(cid:33)(cid:37)

(cid:38)(cid:37)(cid:37)(cid:33)(cid:37)

(cid:45)(cid:37)(cid:33)(cid:37)

(cid:43)(cid:37)(cid:33)(cid:37)

(cid:41)(cid:37)(cid:33)(cid:37)

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

France

Germany

Korea

Netherlands

Norway

United-States

(cid:73)(cid:100)(cid:105)(cid:86)(cid:97)(cid:21)(cid:99)(cid:106)(cid:98)(cid:87)(cid:90)(cid:103)(cid:21)(cid:100)(cid:91)(cid:21)(cid:92)(cid:103)(cid:86)(cid:89)(cid:106)(cid:86)(cid:105)(cid:90)(cid:104)(cid:21)(cid:94)(cid:99)(cid:21)(cid:98)(cid:86)(cid:105)(cid:93)(cid:90)(cid:98)(cid:86)(cid:105)(cid:94)(cid:88)(cid:104)(cid:21)(cid:86)(cid:99)(cid:89)(cid:21)
(cid:104)(cid:105)(cid:86)(cid:105)(cid:94)(cid:104)(cid:105)(cid:94)(cid:88)(cid:104)(cid:21)(cid:94)(cid:99)(cid:21)(cid:104)(cid:90)(cid:97)(cid:90)(cid:88)(cid:105)(cid:90)(cid:89)(cid:21)(cid:88)(cid:100)(cid:106)(cid:99)(cid:105)(cid:103)(cid:94)(cid:90)(cid:104)(cid:21)(cid:94)(cid:99)(cid:89)(cid:90)(cid:109)(cid:21)(cid:38)(cid:37)(cid:37)(cid:47)(cid:21)(cid:38)(cid:46)(cid:46)(cid:41)

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

Australia

France

Germany

Korea

Netherlands

United-States

RapportRocardJustif2.indd   21

27/06/07   10:58:04

 \ 

Appendix : 
Females as a proportion of all MST graduates and students
Data source: Eurostat (UOE)

Females as a proportion of all 
MST graduates

Proportion of students

2000

2004

2005

2000

2004

2005

EU27

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Czech Republic

Denmark 

Germany 

Estonia 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Hungary 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Austria 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Finland 

Sweden 

United Kingdom

Croatia 

FYR  Macedonia 

Turkey 

Iceland 

Liechtenstein 

Norway 

Japan 

United States 

30.8

25.0

45.6

27.0

28.5

21.6

35.4

37.9

:

31.5

30.8

36.6

31.0

31.4

35.9

:

22.6

26.3

17.6

19.9

35.9

41.9

35.1

22.8

30.1

27.3

32.1

32.1

:

:

31.1

37.9

:

26.8

12.9

31.8

31.0

25.3

41.7

29.4

32.3

23.8

40.6

31.3

40.5

30.3

:

36.8

37.1

32.7

35.6

:

28.4

30.4

19.5

22.6

33.3

41.0

38.5

25.0

35.3

29.5

33.9

31.2

33.2

45.2

30.4

38.1

50

24.5

14.6

30.8

31.2

27.3

41.1

27.4

33.9

24.4

43.5

30.5

40.9

29.6

28.4

37.1

38.1

32.8

35.2

:

30.0

30.1

20.3

23.3

36.6

39.9

40.0

26.2

35.3

29.7

33.8

30.8

32.7

46.9

28.5

37.2

28.6

26.0

14.7

31.1

29.1

23.4

41.5

24.2

30.7

24.6

30.9

34.5

:

31.2

:

33.9

30.5

34.2

33.4

:

21.7

24.9

16.1

25.1

29.2

33.4

32.8

26.2

27.8

24.7

34.6

31.5

:

28.2

34.7

:

28.9

12.8

:

29.7

25.4

35.5

25

32.9

26.2

32.6

29.6

33.2

31.2

:

34.2

28.6

26.5

29.8

:

23.2

33.3

16.4

27.5

28.5

32.6

35.4

24.9

30.6

25.4

33.2

30

30.6

38.2

26.1

34.8

:

29.4

13.9

:

29.6

25.7

35.4

26.0

32.5

26.3

32.7

29.7

33.0

30.6

:

34.7

28.7

24.5

28.2

:

23.2

31.1

16.6

27.3

28.5

31.9

34.3

26.1

29.9

25.4

33.1

30.0

30.1

38.6

25.9

34.3

31.1

28.9

13.9

28.9

RapportRocardJustif2.indd   22

27/06/07   10:58:05