Elementary School Teachers’ Issues and Their Challenges in Education System

School Teachers’ 

Saedi Falih Katib

Faculty of Department of Special Education, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Al Kharj Saudi Arabia

Ahmed Yousif Al-Aqbi

Faculty of Department of Special Education, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Al Kharj Saudi Arabia


The teachers in primary schools continue to balance the encouragement of individuality and self-direction with the development of interdependence and empathy. So, the Elementary education is an important place in the educational system of a developing country. The entire growth and development of the child, mental as well as physical, depends upon Elementary education. Today’s most of the parents complain about poor concentration of their children during study. The whole system of education revolves around the teachers. The teachers appointed in elementary schools are neither well-qualified not well trained. So we have to work for teacher education institutions, their (pupil teachers) knowledge for subject matter and use of technology, personality development specially endurance behavior, non-attending enrolments, infrequent innovations, curriculum modifications, imagined laboratories. Aim of this paper to explain the problems of teacher education which will prospect efficient teacher at elementary level. The article concludes with thoughts on some promising directions for the improvement of the field of teacher education.


Challenges of Teachers; Education System; Elementary education; Teachers.

To cite this article

Katib, S.F., & Al-Aqbi, A.Y. (2019). Elementary School Teachers’ Issues and Their Challenges in Education System, International Journal of Management, and Social Sciences Review (IJMSSR). Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.11-16. Doi:10.31219/osf.io/wyhne


Copyright © 2019 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


  1. DE JONG, O and VAN DRIEL, J. H. Developing preservice teacher’ content knowledge and PCK of models and modelling. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. March25-28, St. Louis, USA. [Google Scholar]

  1. DEL RE, G. 2000. Models and analogies in science. HYLE-An International Journal of the Philosophy of Chemistry, 6: 3–12. [Google Scholar]

  1. DUTT, R. and GLYNN, S. 1996. “Mental modelling”. In Research in Science Education in Europe: Current Issues and Themes, Edited by: Welford, G., Osborne, J. and Scott, P. 166–176. London:Palmer. [Google Scholar]

  1. ERDURAN, S. Modeling in chemistry as cultural practice: a theoretical framework with implications for chemistry education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. April13-17, San Diego, USA. [Google Scholar]

  1. ERDURAN, S. Philosophy of chemistry: an emerging field with implications for chemistry education. Paper presented at the 5th International Hisotry, Philosophy and Science Teaching Conference. September15-19, Pavia, Italy. [Google Scholar]

  1. FRANCOEUR, E. 1997. The forgotten tool: the design and use of molecular models. Social Studies of Science, 27: 7–40. [Web of Science ®] [Google Scholar]

  1. GILBERT, J., ed. 1993. Models & Modelling in Science Education, Hatfield, UK: The Association for Science Education. [Google Scholar]

  1. GILBERT, J. 1997. “Models in science and science education”. In Exploring Models and Modelling in Science and Technology Education: Contributions from the MISTRE Group, Edited by: Gilbert, J. 5–19.Reading, UK: Faculty of Education and Community Studies, The University of Reading. [Google Scholar]

  1. GILBERT, J. and BOULTER, C. Stretching models too far. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association. April18-22, San Francisco, USA. [Google Scholar]

  1. GILBERT, J. and BOULTER, C. 1997. “Learning science through models and modelling”. InInternational Handbook of Science Education, Part 1, Edited by: Fraser, B. and Tobin, K. 53–66.Dordrecht: Kluwer. [Google Scholar]

  1. GILBERT, J., BOULTER, C. and RUTHERFORD, M. 1998. Models in explanations, Part 1: Horses for courses?. International Journal of Science Education, 20: 83–97. [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]

  1. GILBERT, S. W. 1991. Model building and a definition of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28: 73–79. [Web of Science ®] [Google Scholar]

  1. GLYNN, S. M. 1991. “Explaining science concepts: a Teaching-with-Analogies Models”. In The Psychology of Learning Science, Edited by: Glynn, S. M., Yeany, R. H. and Britton, B. K. 219–240.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]

  1. GLYNN, S. M., BRITTON, B. K., SEMRUD-CLIKEMAN, M. and MUTH, K. D. 1989. “Analogical reasoning and problem solving in science textbooks”. In Handbook of Creativity, Edited by:Glover, J. A. 383–398. New York: Plenum Press. [Google Scholar]

  1. GLYNN, S. M., DUTT, R. and THIELE, R. B. 1995. “Teaching science with analogies: a strategy for constructing knowledge”. In Learning Science in the Schools, Edited by: Glynn, S. M. and Duit, R.247–273. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]

  1. HARRISON, A. G. 2001. How do teachers and textbook writers model scientific ideas for students?. Research in Science Education, 31: 401–435. [Google Scholar]

  1. HARRISON, A. G. and TREAGUST, D. F. 1993. Teaching with analogies: a case study in Grade-10 optics. Journal of research in SCience Teaching, 30: 1291–1307. [Web of Science ®] [Google Scholar]

  1. JUSTI, R. and GILBERT, J. 2002. Modelling, teacher’ views on the nature of modelling, implication for the education of modellers. Internationl Journal of Science Education, 24: 369–387. [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]

  1. JUSTI, R. and GILBERT, J. in press. Teachers’ views on the nature of models. International Journal of Science Education[Google Scholar]

  1. LUISI, P. L. and THOMAS, R. M. 1990. The pictographic molecular paradigm – pictorial communication in the chemical and biological sciences. Naturwissenschaften, 77: 67–74. [Google Scholar]

  1. Rouse, W. B. and MORRIS, N. M. 1986. On looking into the black box: prospects and limits in the search for mental models. Psychological Bulletin, 100: 349–363. [Web of Science ®] [Google Scholar]

  1. SALEH, A.M.Q., AL-AQBI, A.Y., &  KATIB, S.F. (2019). School Teachers’ Knowledge and Attitudes Towards student interaction, International Journal of Management, and Social Sciences Review (IJMSSR). Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.1-10 [Google Scholar]