Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Student subject choice in the final years of school: why science is perceived to be of poor value

  • Published:
The Australian Educational Researcher Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The decision to continue with science in school has a critical impact on the supply of the scientific skills necessary for a prosperous modern society. Low participation rates in post-compulsory school science have been a persistent problem and the decision process employed by students in choosing science is poorly understood. In this study, 10 focus groups were conducted with 50 students from four schools. Students were asked how they selected their subjects and their opinions on choosing science. Students described their subject selection as a two-stage process. First, they chose and rejected subjects based on enjoyment, interest and need. Second, they sought information and advice to fulfil their subject quota. Compared to other subjects, the sciences were considered more difficult and useful only for stereotypical scientific careers. It is suggested that science may be ‘overpriced’ and ‘undervalued’ by students and that these perceptions can be addressed at subject-selection time.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ainley, M., & Ainley, J. (2011). Student engagement with science in early adolescence: The contribution of enjoyment to students’ continuing interest in learning about science. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 4–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ainley, J., Kos, J., & Nicholas, M. (2008). Participation in science, mathematics and technology in Australian education (63rd ed.). Melbourne, Australia: ACER Research Monograph.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alsop, S. (Ed.). (2005). Beyond Cartesian dualism: Encountering affect in the teaching and learning of science. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderhag, P., Emanuelsson, P., Wickman, P. O., & Hamza, K. M. (2013). Students’ choice of post-compulsory science: In search of schools that compensate for the socio-economic background of their students. International Journal of Science Education, 35(18), 3141–3160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (2006). Adolescent development from an agentic perspective. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (Vol. 5, pp. 1–43). Greenwich, CT: IAP-Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blickenstaff, J. C. (2005). Women and science careers: Leaky pipeline or gender filter? Gender and Education, 17(4), 369–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bøe, M. V., Henriksen, E. K., Lyons, T., & Schreiner, C. (2011). Participation in science and technology: Young people’s achievement-related choices in late-modern societies. Studies in Science Education, 47(1), 37–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (2006). Preparing adolescents to make career decisions. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 201–223). Greenwich, CT: IAP-Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleaves, A. (2005). The formation of science choices in secondary school. International Journal of Science Education, 27(4), 471–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeWitt, J., Archer, L., & Osborne, J. (2014). Science-related aspirations across the primary–secondary divide: Evidence from two surveys in England. International Journal of Science Education, 36(10), 1609–1629.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, G., Rundle-Thiele, S., & Waller, D. (2010). Marketing. Milton: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2004). Europe needs more scientists. Report by the high level group on increasing human resources for science and technology. Brussels: European Commission.

  • Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill ValleyA: Sociology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodrum, D., Druhan, A., & Abbs, J. (2012). The status and quality of Year 11 and 12 science in Australian schools. Canberra: Australian Academy of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henriksen, E. K. (2015). Introduction: Participation in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education: Presenting the challenge and introducing Project IRIS. In E. K. Henriksen, J. Dillon, & J. Ryder (Eds.), Understanding student participation and choice in science and technology education (pp. 1–14). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivanova, A., & Smrikarov, A. (2009). The new generations of students and the future of e-learning in higher education. Proceedings of e-Learning, 9, 17–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaremus, F., Gore, J., Fray, L., & Prieto-Rodriguez, E. (2019). Senior secondary student participation in STEM: Beyond national statistics. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 31(2), 151–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krapp, A., & Prenzel, M. (2011). Research on interest in science: Theories, methods, and findings. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 27–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, A., Gore, J., Holmes, K., Smith, M., & Fray, L. (2018). Parental influences on those seeking a career in STEM: The primacy of gender. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 10(2), 308–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, T., & Quinn, F. (2010). Choosing science. Understanding the declines in senior high school science enrolments. Armidale: University of New England. Retrieved from https://simerr.une.edu.au/pages/projects/131choosingscience.pdf.

  • McConney, A., & Perry, L. (2010). Science and mathematics achievement in Australia: The role of school socioeconomic composition in educational equity and effectiveness. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(3), 429–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCrindle Research Centre. (2015). Gen Z and Gen Alpha infographic update. Retrieved from https://mccrindle.com.au/the-mccrindle-blog/gen-z-and-gen-alpha-infographic-update.

  • Mujtaba, T., Sheldrake, R., Reiss, M. J., & Simon, S. (2018). Students’ science attitudes, beliefs, and context: Associations with science and chemistry aspirations. International Journal of Science Education, 40(6), 644–667.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Sciences Committee on Science Engineering and Public Policy. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Office of the Chief Scientist. (2014). Science, technology, engineering and mathematics: Australia’s future. Australian Government. Retrieved from https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/STEM_AustraliasFuture_Sept2014_Web.pdf.

  • Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Tytler, R. (2009, August). Attitudes towards school science: An update. In: Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Retrieved from https://webfronter.com/bexley/science/menu3/Attitudes_towards_School_Science_Final_Osborne_2007.doc.

  • Palmer, T. A., Burke, P. F., & Aubusson, P. (2017). Why school students choose and reject science: A study of the factors that students consider when selecting subjects. International Journal of Science Education, 39(6), 645–662.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regan, E., & DeWitt, J. (2015). Attitude, interest and factors influencing STEM enrolment behavior: A review of relevant literature. In E. K. Henriksen, J. Dillon, & J. Ryder (Eds.), Understanding student participation and choice in science and technology education (pp. 63–88). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rennie, L. J., Goodrum, D., & Hackling, M. (2001). Science teaching and learning in Australian schools: Results of a national study. Research in Science Education, 31(4), 455–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, A. M. (2000). Peer groups as a context for the socialization of adolescents' motivation, engagement, and achievement in school. Educational Psychologist, 35(2), 101–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheldrake, R., Mujtaba, T., & Reiss, M. J. (2017). Science teaching and students’ attitudes and aspirations: The importance of conveying the applications and relevance of science. International Journal of Educational Research, 85, 167–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E., & Gorard, S. (2011). Is there a shortage of scientists? A re-analysis of supply for the UK. British Journal of Educational Studies, 59(2), 159–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Summers, R., & Abd‐El‐Khalick, F. (2019). An exploration of Illinois students' attitudes toward science using multivariate multilevel modeling with a cross‐sectional sample of responses from grades 5 through 10. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/tea.21552.

  • Tan, P. N., Steinbach, M., & Kumar, V. (2006). Introduction to data mining (Vol. 1). Boston, MA: Pearson Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, R. C. (2015). Using the theory of planned behaviour to understand students’ subject choices in post-compulsory education. Research Papers in Education, 30(2), 214–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, S. (2005). Pathways from school to further education or work: Examining the consequences of Year 12 course choices. Longitudinal surveys of Australian Youth research report no. 42. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

  • Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education: Engaging students in science for Australia’s future. Camberwell, Vic.: ACER Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tytler, R., & Osborne, J. (2012). Student attitudes and aspirations towards science. In B. J. Fraser, C. J. McRobbie, & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 597–625). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venville, G., Oliver, M., Longnecker, N., & Rennie, L. (2010). Selecting Science subjects: Why students do, why they can't! Teaching Science, 56(3), 19–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. (2013). Motivational pathways to STEM career choices: Using expectancy-value perspective to understand individual and gender differences in STEM fields. Developmental Review, 33(4), 304–340.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the teaching professionals, administrators and students at the participating schools. This work was supported by an Australian Postgraduate Award funded by the Australian Government.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Technology Sydney, 15 Broadway, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia

    Tracey-Ann Palmer

Authors
  1. Tracey-Ann Palmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tracey-Ann Palmer.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Palmer, TA. Student subject choice in the final years of school: why science is perceived to be of poor value. Aust. Educ. Res. 47, 591–609 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-019-00357-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-019-00357-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation