• Karolina BromanEmail author
  • Shirley Simon


In Sweden, there is concern about fewer students taking chemistry courses in higher education, especially at university level. Using a survey, this study investigates the reasons upper secondary school chemistry students choose to follow the Swedish Natural Science Programme. In addition, students’ views about their chemistry education are sought and their ideas about how to improve their chemistry experience. A questionnaire with closed and open questions was completed by 495 chemistry students from different schools in Sweden. The analysis shows that most students have high interest-enjoyment value of chemistry, but both positive and negative responses about their chemistry education refer to the importance of the teacher and the structure of lessons. To improve their chemistry experience, students suggest making it relevant to everyday life and being more practical and more student centred. For positively inclined students to maintain their value of chemistry beyond schooling into choice at university level, the programme should take these suggestions into account.


chemistry education relevance student choice student interest upper secondary school 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

10763_2014_9550_MOESM1_ESM.docx (73 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 72 kb)


  1. Abrahams, I. (2009). Does practical work really motivate? A study of the affective value of practical work in secondary school science. International Journal of Science Education, 31(17), 2335–2353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andersson, S., Sonesson, A., Svahn, O., Tullberg, A. & Rydén, L. (2008). Gymnasiekemi B [Chemistry B for upper secondary school]. Stockholm: Liber.Google Scholar
  5. Archer, L., Dewitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B. & Wong, B. (2010). “Doing” science versus “Being” a scientist: Examining 10/11-year-old schoolchildren’s constructions of science through the lens of identity. Science Education, 94(4), 617–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barmby, P., Kind, P. M. & Jones, K. (2008). Examining changing attitudes in secondary school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(8), 1075–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bennett, J. & Hogarth, S. (2009). Would you want to talk to a scientist at a party? High school students’ attitude to school science and to science. International Journal of Science Education, 31(14), 1975–1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bennett, J., Lubben, F. & Hampden-Thompson, G. (2013). Schools that make a difference to post-compulsory uptake of physical science subjects: Some comparative case studies in England. International Journal of Science Education, 35(4), 663–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bennett, J., Lubben, F. & Hogarth, S. (2007). Bringing science to life: A synthesis of the research evidence on the effects of context-based and STS approaches to science teaching. Science Education, 91(3), 347–370.Google Scholar
  10. Bøe, M. V., Henrikson, E. K., Lyons, T. & Schreiner, C. (2011). Participation in science and technology: Young people’s achievement-related choices in late-modern society. Studies in Science Education, 47(1), 37–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Broman, K., Ekborg, M. & Johnels, D. (2011). Chemistry in crisis? Perspectives on teaching and learning chemistry in Swedish upper secondary schools. Nordic Journal of Science Education, 7(1), 43–60.Google Scholar
  12. Christidou, V. (2011). Interest, attitudes and images related to science: Combining students’ voices with the voices of school science, teachers, and popular science. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 6(2), 141–159.Google Scholar
  13. Darby, L. (2005). Science students’ perceptions of engaging pedagogy. Research in Science Education, 35(4), 425–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Denscombe, M. (2010). The good research guide for small-scale social research projects (4th ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L. & Midgley, C. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motivation (pp. 75–146). San Francisco: W H Freeman.Google Scholar
  16. Eccles, J. S. & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Engström, C., Backlund, P., Berger, R. & Grennberg, H. (2000). Kemi A. Tema & teori. [Chemistry A. Theme & theory]. Stockholm: Bonnier Utbildning.Google Scholar
  18. Engström, C., Backlund, P., Berger, R. & Grennberg, H. (2001). Kemi B. Tema & teori. [Chemistry B. Theme & theory]. Stockholm: Bonnier Utbildning.Google Scholar
  19. Fensham, P. J. (2004). Defining an identity: The evolution of science education as a field of research. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academics Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hampden-Thompson, G. & Bennett, J. (2013). Science teaching and learning activities and students’ engagement in science. International Journal of Science Education, 35(8), 1323–1343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hattie, J. A. C. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Henriksson, A. (2007). Syntes B—kemi för gymnasieskolan [Synthesis B—chemistry for upper secondary school]. Malmö: Gleerups.Google Scholar
  23. Hofstein, A. & Kesner, M. (2006). Industrial chemistry and school chemistry: Making chemistry studies more relevant. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 1017–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hofstein, A. & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54.Google Scholar
  25. Holmegaard, H. T., Madsen, L. M. & Ulriksen, L. (2014). To choose or not to choose science: Constructions of desirable identities among young people considering a STEM higher education programme. International Journal of Science Education, 36(2), 186–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jenkins, E. W. & Nelson, N. W. (2005). Important but not for me: Students’ attitudes towards secondary school science in England. Research in Science & Technological Education, 23(1), 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jidesjö, A., Oscarsson, M., Karlsson, K.-G. & Strömdahl, H. (2009). Science for all or science for some: What Swedish students want to learn about in secondary science and technology and their opinions on science lessons. Nordic Journal of Science Education, 11(2), 213–229.Google Scholar
  28. King, D. (2012). New perspectives on context-based chemistry education: Using a dialectical sociocultural approach to view teaching and learning. Studies in Science Education, 48(1), 51–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. King, D. & Ritchie, S. M. (2013). Academic success in context-based chemistry: Demonstrating fluid transitions between concepts and context. International Journal of Science Education, 35(7), 1159–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. King, D., Winner, E. & Ginns, I. (2011). Outcomes and implications of one teacher’s approach to context-based science in the middle years. Teaching Science, 57(2), 26–34.Google Scholar
  31. Lundahl, L. (2011). Swedish upper secondary education: Policy and organisational context. In E. Öhrn, L. Lundahl & D. Beach (Eds.), Young people’s influence and democratic education: Ethographic studies in upper secondary schools. London: The Tufnell Press.Google Scholar
  32. Osborne, J. & Collins, S. (2001). Pupils’ views of the role and value of the science curriculum: A focus-group study. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 441–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Osborne, J. & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. A report to the Nuffield Foundation. London: King’s College.Google Scholar
  34. Oskarsson, M. & Karlsson, K.-G. (2011). Health care or atom bombs? Interest profiles connected to a science career in Sweden. Nordic Journal of Science Education, 7(2), 190–201.Google Scholar
  35. Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual (4th ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Pilling, G. M. & Waddington, D. J. (2005). Implementation of large-scale science curricula: A study in seven European Countries. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(4), 393–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pilot, A. & Bulte, A. M. W. (2006). Why do you “Need to know”? Context-based education. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 953–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Reid, N. (2011). Attitude research in science education. In I. M. Saleh & S. M. Khine (Eds.), Attitude research in science education: Classic and contemporary measurements. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  39. Reiss, M., Hoyles, C., Mujtaba, T., Riazi-Farzad, B., Rodd, M., Simon, S. & Stylianidou, F. (2011). Understanding participation rates in post-16 mathematics and physics: Conceptualising and operationalising the UPMAP project. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 273–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. SACO (2013). Framtidsutsikter: Arbetsmarknaden för akademiker år 2018. [Future outlook: labour market for academics 2018].Google Scholar
  41. Schreiner, C. (2006). Exploring a ROSE-Garden: Norwegian youth’s orientations towards science—seen as signs of late modern identities. (Doctoral), University of Oslo, Oslo.Google Scholar
  42. Schreiner, C. & Sjøberg, S. (2007). Science education and young people’s identity construction—Two mutually incompatible projects. In D. Corrigan, J. Dillon & R. Gunstone (Eds.), The re-emergence of values in the science curriculum (pp. 231–248). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  43. Sevian, H., & Talanquer, V. (2014). Rethinking chemistry: A learning progression on chemical thinking. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(1), 10-23. Google Scholar
  44. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Simon, S. & Osborne, J. (2010). Students’ attitudes to science. In J. Osborne & J. Dillon (Eds.), Good practice in science teaching: What research has to say (2nd ed., pp. 238–258). Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Sjöberg, S. & Schreiner, C. (2010). The ROSE project. An overview and key findings (pp. 1–31). Oslo: University of Olso.Google Scholar
  47. Smith, E. (2010a). Do we need more scientists? A long-term view of patterns of participation in UK undergraduate science programmes. Cambridge Journal of Education, 40(3), 281–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Smith, E. (2010b). Is there a crisis in school science education in the UK? Educational Review, 62(2), 189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Swedish National Agency for Education (2000). Chemistry syllabi for upper secondary school. Stockholm: The Swedish National Agency for Education.Google Scholar
  50. Swedish National Agency for Education (2012). Statistics and analysis. Available from Accessed 8 May 2014
  51. Tai, R. H., Qi Liu, C., Maltese, A. V. & Fan, X. (2006). Planning early for careers in science. Science, 312(5777), 1143–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Teknikdelegationen. (2010). Vändpunkt Sverige-ett ökat intresse för matematik, naturvetenskap, teknik och IKT [Turning Point Sweden—an enhanced interest in STEM]. Technology Delegation. SOU 2010:28.Google Scholar
  53. Toplis, R. (2012). Students’ views about secondary school science lessons: The role of practical work. Research in Science Education, 42(3), 531–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tytler, R., & Osborne, J. (2012). Student attitudes and aspirations towards science. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  55. Ültay, N. & Calik, M. (2012). A thematic review of studies into the effectiveness of context-based chemistry curricula. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21, 686–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L. & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357–377.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Science and Mathematics EducationUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden
  2. 2.Institute of EducationUniversity of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations