In Europe, science education is generally considered important for young people, but current science education is criticized as unsatisfactory. Therefore, the question arises how science education could be changed to better fulfil its important role in helping young people find their place as citizens of tomorrow’s society and secure the future of innovations and research.

This complex question is addressed in the PROFILES project (Bolte et al., 2012). The project, funded by the European Commission, involves colleagues from 22 institutions in 21 different countries in Europe and beyond. The PROFILES project brings together a large number of stakeholders involved in science education and science, who want to share their opinions on science education in their countries. In order to collect and structure these stakeholders’ perspectives in a systematic way, the Delphi method was chosen (Linstone & Turoff, 1975). This method has previously proven suitable for investigating aspects that are relevant for science education of the present and the future (Osborne, 2003; Häußler et al., 1980; Bolte, 2003; 2008). While the mentioned studies were conducted for the US and Germany only, the PROFILES project offered the opportunity for a Delphi study on an international scale.

As a first step, PROFILES National Curricular Delphi studies conducted by each institution give insights into stakeholders’ opinion on their national science education (see Section 1 in Bolte et al., 2014).

However, a meta-analysis of the collected data seems of additional interest and value, as it can hint at a common perspective on the current status and possible deficiencies of science education in Europe. Therefore, as a second step, a meta analysis based on the reports regarding the 19 different National Curricular Delphi Studies the chair of this international survey received so far is carried out. In particular, the following questions are addressed in the meta-analysis of the International PROFILES Curricular Delphi study:

1. How important are the empirically identified aspects of science education in the opinion of stakeholders from different countries?
2. To what extent are these aspects realized in practice in the opinion of stakeholders regarding their respective countries?
3. What differences between importance and extent of realization can be found for these aspects?

Within the PROFILES International Curricular Delphi Study on Science Education in Europe, the data of the 19 national Delphi curricular studies is compiled and compared. Therefore, we can present aspects of science education which are perceived as especially relevant by a collective of European stakeholders. In addition, we will show which aspects are realized to a higher and lower extent in science education. The comparison of the importance and extent of practice attributed to each aspect allows the identification of areas which require further improvement in European science education.

Bolte, C. (2008). A Conceptual Framework for the Enhancement of Popularity and Relevance of Science Education for Scientific Literacy, based on Stakeholders’ views by Means of a Curricular Delphi Study in Chemistry. Science Education International, 19(3), 331-350. Bolte, C., Holbrook, J., Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Rauch, F. (Eds.). (2014). Science Teachers’ Continuous Professional Development in Europe. Case Studies from the PROFILES Project. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin (Germany) / Klagenfurt: Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt (Austria). EC [European Commission] (2007). Science Education Now: A Renewed Pedagogy for the Future of Europe. http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/report-rocard-on-science-education_en.pdf (26/04/2014) Gauckler, M., Schulte, T., & Bolte, C. (2014). Aspects of Science Education from a European Perspective – First Results from a Meta-analysis of the International PROFILES Curricular Delphi Study on Science Education. In C. Bolte, & F. Rauch (Eds.). (2014). Enhancing Inquiry-based Science Education and Teachers’ Continuous Professional Development in Europe: Insights and Reflections on the PROFILES Project and other Projects funded by the European Commission. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin (Germany) / Klagenfurt: Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt (Austria). p. 127-135. Häußler, P., Frey, K., Hoffmann, L., Rost, J., & Spada, H. (1980). Physikalische Bildung: Eine curriculare Delphi-Studie. Teil I: Verfahren und Ergebnisse. IPN-Arbeitsbericht 41. Institut für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften Kiel. Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (eds.) (1975). The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. Digital version, 2002. http://is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook/ (26/04/2014) OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 Results: What Students Know and Can Do – Student Performance in Reading, Mathematics and Science (Volume I). http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/48852548.pdf (26/04/2014) Osborne, J. F., Ratcliffe, M., Collins, S., Millar, R., & Dusch, R. (2003). What “Ideas –about-Science” Should Be Taught in School Science? A Delphi Study of the Expert Community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692-720. Schulte, T., & Bolte, c. (2012). European Stakeholders Views on Inquiry Based Science Education – Method of and Results from the International PROFILES Curricular Delphi Study on Science Education Round 1. Bolte, Holbrook, J., & Rauch, F. (2012; eds.). Inquiry-based Science Education in Europe: First Examples and Reflections from the PROFILES Project. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin. Print: University of Klagenfurt (Austria), pp. 42-51.