Article Sidebar

Submitted
May 24, 2025
Accepted
July 19, 2025
Published
October 25, 2025
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 276 Download : 127

Main Article Content

Abstract

Students’ interest in learning specific disciplines has long been a subject of educational research due to its potential impact on academic performance. Biology, as a core subject in science education, is often perceived as content heavy and reliant on memorization, which may contribute to declining student engagement. This study investigates the significant predictors of interest in learning biology among senior high school students from both STEM and non-STEM disciplines, based on their demographic and academic profiles such as their grade level, strand, first language, sex, age and their intended course in college. Employing a descriptive-quantitative research design, the study utilized a survey approach with an adapted Likert-scale instrument adapted to measure levels of interest. The majority of respondents were grade 12 students, predominantly from the STEM strand with 132 students while non-STEM disciplines are composed of a total of 88 students, Tagalog ethnicity, female, aged 17 and below, and with intentions to pursue non-biology-related college courses. Results revealed that both STEM and non-STEM students exhibited a comparable level of interest in biology, categorized as “Moderately Agree,” with mean scores of 4.37 and 4.13, respectively. Notably, sex and intended college course emerged as statistically significant predictors of students’ interest in learning biology. These findings suggest that while strand affiliation may not drastically influence interest levels, individual factors such as gender and academic aspirations play a more pivotal role. The study underscores the importance of considering diverse demographic variables in understanding and enhancing student engagement in biology education. Future research is encouraged to explore additional factors that may influence interest, such as instructional methods, classroom environment, and prior academic experiences.

Keywords

Biology education Learning Interest Regression STEM Students' interest

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2025 James Ollero, Maricar S. Prudente Prudente

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Author retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the simultaneously licenced under A Creative Commons Attribution (CC-By-SA) 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the worsk's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

How to Cite
Ollero, J., & Prudente, M. S. . (2025). The Analysis of the Senior High School STEM Students and Non-STEM Students’ Level of Interest towards Learning Biology. IJCER (International Journal of Chemistry Education Research), 9(2), 121–133. https://doi.org/10.20885/ijcer.vol9.iss2.art3
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. A. A. Rowland, E. Knekta, S. Eddy, and L. A. Corwin, “Defining and measuring students’ interest in biology: An analysis of the biology education literature,” CBE—Life Sci. Educ., vol. 18, no. 3, p. ar34, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-02-0037 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-02-0037
  2. S. Godec, H. King, L. Archer, E. Dawson, and A. Seakins, “Examining student engagement with science through a Bourdieusian notion of field,” Sci. Educ., vol. 27, pp. 501–521, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-018-9988-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-018-9988-5
  3. Y. Hadzigeorgiou and R. M. Schulz, “Engaging students in science: The potential role of ‘narrative thinking’ and ‘romantic understanding’,” Sci. Educ., 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00038 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00038
  4. J. Ollero, “The analysis of the Grade 10 students’ retention level of basic biology concepts and terminologies in relation to their learning styles,” Int. J. Chem. Educ. Res., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 11–18, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.20885/ijcer.vol7.iss1.art3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.20885/ijcer.vol7.iss1.art3
  5. B. Etorbro and E. Fabinu, “Students’ perceptions of difficult concepts in biology in senior secondary schools in Lagos State,” Glob. J. Educ. Res., vol. 16, pp. 139–147, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.4314/gjedr.v16i2.8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4314/gjedr.v16i2.8
  6. J. M. Harackiewicz, J. L. Smith, and S. J. Priniski, “Interest matters: The importance of promoting interest in education,” Policy Insights Behav. Brain Sci., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 220–227, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732216655542 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732216655542
  7. G. Toli and M. Kallery, “Enhancing student interest to promote learning in science: The case of the concept of energy,” Educ. Sci., vol. 11, p. 220, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11050220 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11050220
  8. S. Slameto, Learning and Factors That Influence It. Jakarta, Indonesia: PT. Rineka Cipta, 2013.
  9. A. M. Sardiman, Interaction and Motivation for Teaching and Learning. Jakarta, Indonesia: Rajawali Press, 2011.
  10. J. Burke, Outcomes, Learning and the Curriculum: Implications for NVQs, GNVQs and Other Qualifications. London, U.K.: The Falmer Press, 1995. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203485835 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203485835
  11. R. Triarisanti and P. Purnawarman, “The influence of interest and motivation on college student’s language and art appreciation learning outcomes,” Int. J. Educ., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 130–135, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.17509/ije.v1.14745 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17509/ije.v11i2.14745
  12. H. M. D. Hude and I. F. Rohmah, “Analysis of student learning interest, and student learning motivation in enhancement student learning achievement at school,” Int. J. Curr. Res., vol. 9, no. 10, pp. 58981–58985, 2017.
  13. E. Skinner, C. Furrer, G. Marchand, and T. Kindermann, “Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic?,” J. Educ. Psychol., vol. 100, no. 4, pp. 765–781, 2008. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012840 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012840
  14. H. Herpratiwi and A. Tohir, “Learning interest and discipline on learning motivation,” Int. J. Educ. Math. Sci. Technol., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 424–435, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.2290 DOI: https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.2290
  15. C. Walkington and M. L. Bernacki, “Motivating students by ‘personalizing’ learning around individual interests: A consideration of theory, design, and implementation issues,” in Motivational Interventions, vol. 18, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2014, pp. 139–176. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1108/S0749-742320140000018004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/S0749-742320140000018004
  16. D. Cheung, “The key factors affecting students’ individual interest in school science lessons,” Int. J. Sci. Educ., vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 1–23, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1362711 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1362711
  17. P. Mishra, C. M. Pandey, U. Singh, A. Gupta, C. Sahu, and A. Keshri, “Descriptive statistics and normality tests for statistical data,” Ann. Card. Anaesth., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 66–72, Jan.–Mar. 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.4103/aca.ACA_157_18 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/aca.ACA_157_18
  18. J. D. Evans, Straightforward Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Pacific Grove, CA, USA: Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., 1996.
  19. M. Honey, G. Pearson, and H. Schweingruber, STEM Integration in K–12 Education: Status, Prospects, and an Agenda for Research. Washington, DC, USA: National Academies Press, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.17226/18612 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17226/18612
  20. D. Kanter and S. Konstantopoulos, “The impact of a project-based science curriculum on minority student achievement, attitudes, and careers: The effects of teacher content and pedagogical content knowledge and inquiry-based practices,” Sci. Educ., vol. 94, no. 5, pp. 855–887, 2010. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20391 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20391
  21. S. Hidi and K. A. Renninger, “The four-phase model of interest development,” Educ. Psychol., vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 111–127, 2006. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4
  22. J. Cummins, Language, Power and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire, 2nd ed. Bristol, U.K.: Multilingual Matters, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853596773 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853596773
  23. N. M. Else-Quest, J. S. Hyde, and M. C. Linn, “Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: A meta-analysis,” Psychol. Bull., vol. 139, no. 1, pp. 104–127, 2010. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018053 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018053
  24. S. M. Glynn, G. T. Brickman, N. A. Armstrong, and T. A. Taasoobshirazi, “Science motivation questionnaire II: Validation with science majors and nonscience majors,” J. Res. Sci. Teach., vol. 48, no. 10, pp. 1159–1176, Dec. 2011. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20442 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20442
  25. G. Stoet and D. C. Geary, “The gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education,” Psychol. Sci., vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 581–593, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617741719 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617741719
  26. H. L. Tuan, C. C. Chin, and S. H. Shieh, “The development of a questionnaire to measure students’ motivation towards science learning,” Int. J. Sci. Educ., vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 639–654, 2005. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000323737 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000323737