Investigating students' interest in chemistry through self-generated questions

Abstract

This study investigates Turkish students' (age 15 or older) interest in chemistry by analysing 1027 of their self-generated chemistry-related questions, which had been submitted to a popular science magazine. These questions were classified based on the field of interest, the cognitive level of the question, and the stimulating impetus for asking the question. In addition, gender-related patterns were noted in these three categories. Those results demonstrated that males asked overwhelmingly more questions than females in an informal setting. In general, students mostly asked questions about “states of matter and solutions” and “nuclear chemistry and chemistry of the elements.” Most of the students asked for the properties of a variable and sought to learn about factual and explanatory types of information. The driving factors that led students to ask questions were mostly non-applicative stimulus. Significant differences emerged in some categories. For example, while males were more interested in comparison and causal relationships, females were more interested in specific information about properties. Moreover, while males tended toward seeking methodological information, making predictions, asking open-ended questions, and making general requests for information, females were more interested than males in factual and explanatory types of information. The implications of students' self-generated chemistry questions for science curriculum reform and teaching are discussed in this paper.

---

Introduction

Research suggests that many students find the standard science curricula largely out of touch with their personal curiosity and interest (Glenn, 2000). Hence, in the last few decades, several studies have identified and harnessed students' interest in science to design teaching activities that are appealing and motivating to students (Osborne et al., 2003). Initial studies mainly focused on science in general, but later studies sought students' interest in different science disciplines, topics, and settings (Dawson, 2000; Osborne et al., 2003; Chiristidou, 2006). Studies that focus on students' interests have traditionally been influenced by positivist philosophy and have utilised quantitative methods and standardized instruments (e.g., instruments with Likert-type or multiple-choice categories) (Dawson, 2000; Sjøberg, 2000). However, such data collection tools force students into a limited range of answer choices, which are externally regulated and based on adult-centric views of what topics should be meaningful to the students. To overcome this problem, research has moved towards a more naturalistic approach. For example, several researchers have suggested that by exploring students' self-generated questions, one can better understand what they want to know about a given topic and how they think actively about it (Chin and Osborne, 2008; Baram-Tsabari and Yarden, 2009). They claimed that spontaneous questions and ideas constitute a better measure of students' interests than their responses to adult-written questionnaires (Baram-Tsabari and Yarden, 2005, 2008, 2009; Falchetti et al., 2007; Yardelen-Damar and Eryilmaz, 2010; Cakmakci et al., 2012).

Students' questions as indicators of interest

The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) associated students' interest in science to responses that (i) demonstrate curiosity about science and science related issues and endeavours, (ii) demonstrate willingness to acquire scientific knowledge and skills through a variety of resources and methods, and (iii) demonstrate ongoing interest in science, including the consideration of science careers (OECD, 2008, p. 15). Student questions are an important part of the learning process and student motivation. The present study investigated students' interest in chemistry by analyzing their self-generated chemistry-related questions, which had been submitted to a popular science magazine. The students' actions could be interpreted as indicating curiosity, and to some degree demonstrating willingness to acquire additional scientific knowledge. In responses to standardized instruments, which are externally regulated, students are more extrinsically motivated, in other words, doing something because it leads to a separable outcome (Mitchell, 1993). Conversely, raising a question in an informal setting is a self-regulated act that is mainly intrinsically motivated—doing something because it is inherently interesting or enjoyable (Mitchell, 1993; Ryan and Deci, 2000). Since students' spontaneous questions are self-regulated acts, these self-generated questions could be a better measure of their interest in science (Falchetti et al., 2007; Chin and Osborne, 2008; Baram-Tsabari and Yarden, 2009). Our study has been significantly influenced by such a research approach.

Analysis of student-generated questions provides indications about what they are interested to know about a given topic (Falchetti et al., 2007; Baram-Tsabari and Yarden, 2009; Cakmakci et al., 2012). It is difficult to gather students' questions that provide evidence of genuine intellectual curiosity in a classroom environment because students may ask rhetorical questions, suggestive questions, or questions intended primarily to please their teachers (Dillon, 1988; Pedrosa de Jesus et al., 2003). However, self-generated questions can reveal the askers' genuine reasoning and interests. Baram-Tsabari and Yarden (2011) argue that this research approach relies on the assumption that the number of questions regarding a certain science topic reflects, to some degree, that topic's level of interest among askers of a similar age group and the same gender. Therefore, the results of this study should be interpreted based on those assumptions. In a natural setting, people ask questions when they seek information that they lack. This is viewed as an indication of the asker's interest on the questioned topic. Therefore, analysis of self-generated questions, asked in an informal setting, can give more reliable indications about students' interests (Baram-Tsabari and Yarden, 2011).

Posing questions is a crucial aspect of science and scientific enquiry, because science discussions inevitably involve questioning (Lemke, 1990). As Gardner (1999, p. 24) put it, “on my educational landscape, questions are more important than answers; knowledge and, more important, understanding should evolve from the constant probing of such questions.” Nevertheless, formal education does not often offer environments where students are naturally encouraged to ask questions. Students are schooled by textbooks and teachers to become masters at answering questions rather than at posing a scientific question and identifying and conducting procedures to answer it (Dillon, 1990). There is a big gap between curricular requirements and what students actually want to know. Within the science education community, more emphasis is placed on “what students should know about science,” than on “what students are interested in knowing about science” (Millar and Osborne, 1998; Baram-Tsabari and Yarden, 2009). The worldwide concern about declining interest in science among students is shared by many researchers (Glenn, 2000; Osborne et al., 2003; Gago et al., 2004; Fensham, 2007). Seminal studies demonstrated that student-generated questions could give insights into students' interest in science. Exploring students' interest in science in informal settings would improve classroom science teaching and also increase the attractiveness and relevance of science curricula to students (Baram-Tsabari et al., 2006; Cakmakci et al., 2012). The desire to know more about a specific science topic is most telling of a student's interest in science (Krapp, 2002). Interest is distinguished from other motivational constructs by its content-specific nature: related to a particular object, activity, field of knowledge, or goal (Krapp and Prenzel, 2011). If students' interest in science is taken into account during teaching, their motivation and achievement in science can be increased through the development of various instructional strategies (Jenkins, 2006). Although this consideration of students' interest can enhance their learning, individual interest is mostly ignored in schools (Edelson and Joseph, 2004) and in curricula (Hagay and Baram-Tsabari, 2012). Students' questions are an indicator of their interest (Baram-Tsabari and Yarden, 2005, 2008, 2011; Baram-Tsabari et al., 2006; Falchetti et al., 2007; Chin and Osborne, 2008; Cakmakci et al., 2012) and could stimulate the development of scientific ideas in classrooms (Yarden et al., 2008; Hagay et al., 2013a, 2013b). Student-generated questions can also be used to identify contexts while teaching science. This does not necessarily mean changing the curriculum, but rather choosing to use student-generated questions while designing teaching plans that cover what the curriculum requires (Hagay et al., 2013a, 2013b). Since there is a positive relationship between interests and achievement, it would be beneficial to consider teaching the content within an interesting and relevant context (Bennett et al., 2003; Millar, 2006). Research suggests that personal interests in science inform identity and influence future aspirations in science (Tai et al., 2006).

A considerable body of literature shows that the majority of young students are interested in science at around age 10, but that their interest then declines substantially (Archer et al., 2010). Research also indicated that interest in science is established by age 14 for the majority of students (Tai et al., 2006). Young adolescents who expected to have a career in science were more likely to graduate from college with a science degree, emphasizing the importance of early encouragement (Tai et al., 2006). What does all this tell us about education? It tells us that when students are interested in science, they are more likely to learn science and continue their studies in science classes. Many instructional strategies, including taking student-generated questions into account while designing teaching, have been proposed to positively influence students' interest in science (Chin and Osborne, 2008). A recent study indicated that most questions raised by high school biology students also interest other students in the same country; nonetheless, a substantial number of the questions asked by the students are not addressed by the national curriculum (Hagay and Baram-Tsabari, 2012).

Research shows that there is a gender related dimension in science; for instance, boys in general have greater interest in science (Baram-Tsabari and Yarden, 2008). Nonetheless, girls ask more science related questions (physics in particular) in an informal learning setting than in a formal setting (Cakmakci et al., 2012). Girls' low level of self-confidence in science may intimidate girls to raise questions in a traditional classroom environment, but not in an informal learning environment. Thus, such informal learning environments can be used to positively influence girls' attitudes towards science (Cakmakci et al., 2012). Evidence shows that ignoring backgrounds of female students can be a barrier that prevents women choosing a science career (Baram-Tsabari and Yarden, 2008). Therefore, teaching scientific concepts and ideas in the context of topics that would not create an unfair competition between genders might be preferred by teachers.

There is growing interest among science educators in investigating students' questions as an indicator of their interest in science (Baram-Tsabari and Yarden, 2005, 2008, 2011; Baram-Tsabari et al., 2006, 2009; Cakmakci et al., 2012), chemistry (Elmas et al., 2013), biology (Baram-Tsabari et al., 2010) and physics (Yerdelen-Damar and Eryilmaz, 2010) raised in informal settings (i.e., web sites and journals). Apparently there needs to be more studies about what students want to learn about chemistry, physics, and biology compared to science. Although several studies have investigated rather younger students' interest in science based on topics (e.g., chemical reactions) or in specific disciplines (e.g., chemistry) (e.g., Cakmakci et al., 2012), questions in this study were posed by students whose ages are 15 and above. Studies conducted in different informal contexts and cultures provide the opportunity to compare whether students' curiosity towards a particular subject is culture and context dependent or not. There has been an effort to investigate Turkish students' interest in chemistry by using their self-generated questions (Elmas et al., 2013). Our study is different in terms of several aspects from other studies in the field. First, questions we investigated were submitted to Science and Technology (S&T) magazine, whereas Elmas et al. (2013) focused on questions submitted to a website (www.kimyasanal.net). The S&T Magazine is a well-known magazine and has been offering more reliable context for years to readers. Second, age related research questions were not a primary concern in Elmas et al.'s study. However, we analysed questions posed by students whose ages are 15 and above. Since age is specified, this study has more potential to propose more specific implications for teachers and curriculum developers. Third, the cognitive level of the questions was not in the scope of Elmas et al.'s (2013) study. Analyzing the cognitive level of the question by focusing type and order of the requested information may provide valuable insights about what level and type of knowledge students need to have. Thus, textbook writers, curriculum developers, and teachers may benefit from cognitive level related results when organizing the context in which the information is delivered. Fourth, statistical tests were performed to investigate gender related differences in the main categories interested whereas gender related interpretations were based on comparison of percentages in Elmas et al.'s study.

In this research, drawing upon these studies, students' questions were analysed as an indicator of their interests and compared with the curriculum content. This study was designed to provide a better understanding of students' interest in chemistry in an informal setting. The results obtained from this kind of study constitute an empirical database for identifying contexts that are more relevant to the interests and experiences of students (Yarden et al., 2008).

Research questions

This study aims to investigate Turkish students' interest in chemistry by analysing the questions submitted to a popular magazine, Science and Technology (S&T) Magazine (http://www.biltek.tubitak.gov.tr/). This aim is addressed through the following research question:

• What are the characteristics of the chemistry questions asked by Turkish students and how do they vary according to gender and stimulating impetus for asking the question?

There are some studies that have investigated Turkish students' interest in physics (Yerdelen-Damar and Eryilmaz, 2010), primary science (Cakmakci et al., 2012) and chemistry (Elmas et al., 2013) in an informal learning environment; however, there is limited research that investigated the interest in chemistry of students (age 15 or older) in particular.

Methodology

Research approach and data sources

We investigated Turkish students' interest in chemistry by analysing self-generated chemistry-related questions submitted to S&T Magazine. The magazine is among several publications of the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK), the leading agency for managing, funding, and conducting research in Turkey. The council was established in 1963 with the mission to advance science and technology, conduct research, and support Turkish researchers. TUBITAK has been working closely together with scientists and other research institutions in Turkey and abroad to develop strategies that will improve public engagement with science and technology. TUBITAK is also responsible for promoting and carrying out cutting-edge scientific research, and making the findings available to the public. Besides several popular science books, TUBITAK has three popular science magazines: Curious Puppy targets pre-school children, Science and Children targets primary school students (ages 7–14), and Science and Technology (S&T) Magazine mainly targets high-school students. Considering the targeted group of the magazine, we assumed that the question askers featured in the magazine were secondary school students. S&T Magazine has been published since 1967. It releases 12 volumes each year, publishes over 45 000 copies each month, and provides both hard copy and electronic archives. Science and technology topics from all disciplines are addressed by S&T Magazine. In 1968, the magazine created a section entitled “You're Curious About” for readers with questions in various areas (e.g., physics, biology, and engineering). Currently, S&T Magazine accepts questions submitted through their website. The section editor selects which of them to publish in the magazine based on the space available. To submit a question online, one is required to write his/her name, surname, and e-mail address. In Turkey, a person's name can be used to identify his/her gender (Yerdelen-Damar and Eryılmaz, 2010; Cakmakci et al., 2012; Elmas et al., 2013). Therefore, readers' names were used as a data source in determining their gender.

S&T Magazine is open to questions related to different fields; however, only chemistry questions are in the scope of this study. There have been 169 questions published in the magazine since 1968 until 2011 and 602 questions published on the website, a total of 771. Of these questions, 256 had sub-questions, which were considered as separate questions. With the inclusion of sub-questions, the total number of questions was 1027. Although the magazine and the website required names along with submissions, several readers either did not include their names or gave names that could not be used for identifying the gender. Therefore, 157 questions were excluded from the gender analysis. As a result, 870 questions were used in this study.

Data analysis. The questions were classified using a coding scheme that was adapted from those previously utilized by Baram-Tsabari et al. (2006) and Baram-Tsabari and Yarden (2005). Three main coding schemes, with sub-categories for each, were used: (a) the field of interest, (b) the cognitive level of the question, and (c) the stimulating impetus for asking the question. Certain new sub-categories were added with the emergence of questions that did not fit the existing sub-categories.

Field of interest. The source and type of information needed to answer the question asked determined students' field of interest within chemistry. The field of interest scheme includes five main categories: basics of chemistry, atomic and molecular structure, states of matter and solutions, chemical reactions and equilibrium, and nuclear chemistry and chemistry of the elements. The textbook General Chemistry (Ebbing and Gammon, 2002) sheds light on determining the sub-categories in this coding scheme. We chose this textbook because it is commonly used in introductory chemistry courses in Turkey, as well as in many other countries. In addition, this book falls into the category of chemistry textbooks that bring all the high school chemistry topics together. There are 25 sub-categories under the five main categories (see Results). Some exemplary questions for categories can be seen in Table 1.

Table 1 Examples of questions classified according to the “order”, “type of the requested information” and their “field of interest in chemistry”

Order of the requested information	Type of information requested	Field of interest	Example
a This refers to titles of the parts in the “General Chemistry” textbook by Ebbing and Gammon (2002). b This refers to chapters in each part in the “General Chemistry” textbook by Ebbing and Gammon (2002).
Properties	General request for information	Basics of chemistry^a (chemistry and measurement^b)	Do chemists buy the chemicals or prepare themselves?
	Factual information	Chemical reactions and equilibrium (acids and bases)	What is a universal indicator?
	Explanatory information	nuclear chemistry and chemistry of the elements (the transition elements and coordination compounds)	Why is mercury a fluid although it is a metal? (Male)
	Methodological information	Nuclear chemistry and chemistry of the elements (nuclear chemistry)	In history, the C-14 method is used to determine the age of old artifacts. How does the C-14 method work in determining the age of old artifacts? (Male)
	Prediction	Basics of chemistry (the gaseous state)	Are all substances solid at −273 °C?
	Open-ended	States of matter and solutions (states of matter; solids and liquids)	Does water have memory? If yes, what is it for? (Male)
Comparisons	Factual information	Basics of chemistry (atoms, molecules, and Ions)	What is the difference between organic and inorganic substances?
	Explanatory information	Atomic and molecular structure (electron configurations and periodicity)	Why is there a huge difference between the atomic radius of an 8A and a 1A element?
Causal relationships	Prediction	Chemical reactions and equilibrium (electrochemistry)	Electrolysis is a process of producing hydrogen. Does hydrogen form naturally during the thunderstorm weather?
	Explanatory information	States of matter and solutions (states of matter; solids and liquids)	The volume of matter becomes smaller when there is a phase transition from liquid to solid. However, when we put a bottle of water in a refrigerator the bottle is broken since ice has larger volume than water. What is the reason for this?

---

Cognitive level of the question. The cognitive level of the question was explicated by identifying both the order and the type of the requested information, which were the two sub-categories.
Order of the requested information. In order to classify questions based on the cognitive level required to answer them, a typology developed by Baram-Tsabari et al. (2006) and Dillon (1984) was used. The typology consists of three sub-categories, each referring to a requirement for answering the questions: (1) properties, giving the properties of the subject in question; (2) comparisons, comparing between the subjects outlined in the question; and (3) causal relationship, explaining the relationship, correlation, conditionality, or causality of the subjects in question (Baram-Tsabari et al., 2006). The difference between the three sub-categories lies in the number of variables involved in the question. While questions in the properties sub-category include one variable, questions in the comparison and causal relationship use at least two. See Table 1 for categorisation examples.
Type of the requested information. An existing typology proposed by Baram-Tsabari et al. (2006) was used to determine the nature of the question and the knowledge it generates. A six-level sub-categorisation formed this typology. From the low to higher-order thinking level, the categories are (1) “general request for information,” which refers to questions that do not ask for specific answers but information in general; (2) “factual information,” which refers to terminological (What are the specific names of groups 3A, 4A, 5A, 6A, 7A, 8A in the periodic table?), historical (Who invented the Avogadro Number?), descriptive (What is the Tyndall effect?), and confirmatory (Is it true that oxygen in its peroxide form can take the value of minus 1?) questions; (3) “explanatory information,” which includes why and how questions (Why do bubbles form in a glass of tap water after some time?); (4) “methodological information,” which refers to questions about scientific and technological procedures (Could you explain silver plating?); (5) “predictions,” which include cases in which the person describes an experiment and asks what the result would be (Could immiscible volume be smaller than the total volume?); and (6) “open-ended.” This type of information deals with opinions, controversial themes, and futuristic questions that science cannot answer for the time being (Does water have memory? If yes, what is it for?) (see Table 1 for sub-category example questions).

Stimulating impetus for asking the question. Posing a question indicates that the asker is interested in knowing about something for a reason. This study investigates not only what the askers want to know, but also why they want to learn this. However, our source of inferences for those reasons is limited to the wording of the question and highly dependent on the amount of information provided in the question. Determining the reasons may add to the literature about the nature of students' interest. Identifying the stimulating impetuses that led students to ask for more information about a particular topic, and studying whether these aspects vary according to the field of interest, may provide valuable implications for teachers and textbook writers.
Applicative versus non-applicative stimulus. Factors that stimulate students to ask a question were explored using a modified version of a typology developed by Baram-Tsabari and Yarden (2005). Classification examples for this category are presented in Table 2. This typology included two main categories with several sub-categories. The applicative category deals with questions that seek the scientific and technological information required for solving problems or challenges. Based on the setting where the information is used, this main category included two sub-categories: personal use and health and lifestyle. The non-applicative category consists of six sub-categories: (1) “spectacular aspects” seek the biggest, fastest, oldest, or strongest thing ever; (2) “philosophical and aesthetic aspects” deal with the questions that science and technology do not answer (Why do people eat animals?); (3) “general curiosity”; (4) “explanation for an observation” seeks the information required to explain students' observations; (5) “linguistics” deals with questions about why things were named in a certain way; and (6) “information request” was added in order to deal with questions seeking an information source (e.g., book or website).

Table 2 Examples of questions classified according to the “stimulating impetus for asking the question” and their “field of interest” in chemistry

Stimulating impetus for asking the question	Field of interest	Example
a This refers to titles of the parts in the “General Chemistry” textbook by Ebbing and Gammon (2002). b This refers to chapters in each part in the “General Chemistry” textbook by Ebbing and Gammon (2002).
Non-applicative (general curiosity)	Chemical reactions and equilibrium^a (electrochemistry^b)	Which chemical substances are used in the construction of battery and power supply? (Male)
Non-applicative (spectacular aspects)	Chemical reactions and equilibrium (acids and bases)	Which is the strongest acid ever? (Male)
Non-applicative (explanation for an observation)	States of matter and solutions (states of matter; solids and liquids)	When we add some sugar to the water heated in a microwave, an intense bubble formation is observed. Might this stem from the effect of fast moving water particles on sugar molecules? (Male)
Non-applicative (linguistics)	Atomic and molecular structure (electron configurations and periodicity)	Why are the K, L, and M letters used for naming the electron orbitals instead of beginning with the letter A? (Male)
Applicative (health and lifestyle)	Nuclear chemistry and chemistry of the elements (chemistry of the main group elements)	What kinds of problems does the nitrite ratio in our foods cause? (Female)
Non-applicative (general curiosity)	Basics of chemistry (thermochemistry)	In our chemistry class, our chemistry teacher told that water starts to freeze at 0 °C. After a while, the same teacher told that water starts to melt at 0 °C. When I asked the teacher whether water is solid or liquid at 0 °C, s/he told that it is liquid at the beginning and solid at the end of 0 °C. Is there a beginning and end of 0 °C? (Male)
Applicative (personal use)	Basics of chemistry (chemistry and measurement)	I am a 9th grade student. I am studying a chemistry project about separation of two substances (e.g., naphthalene and table salt) based on their solubility difference. Could you please inform me about the procedures used for separating these kinds of substances?
Non-applicative (information request)	Nuclear chemistry and chemistry of the elements (organic chemistry)	I am studying on a project. Could you please give information about the chemical formula of wax?

---

Reliability

Fifty questions were randomly selected and coded by two independent coders to ensure reliability. The inter-coder reliability was 76% in the field of interest, 74% in the order of the requested information, 78% in the type of the requested information, and 90% in the stimulating impetus for asking the question category, which were considered high levels of reliability (Cohen et al., 2000). The discrepancies between the coders were discussed and resolved. Based on this consensus, the remaining data were analysed.

Statistical analysis

Since the questions analysed in this study have been classified using various categorisation schemes, a two-tailed Pearson Chi-Square test was used. Hence, we compared the percentage of participants based on the (1) gender with regard to all characteristics of the questions and (2) stimulating aspect for asking the question with respect to the field of interest. While comparing the distribution of participants in sub-categories (e.g., females vs. males in the “properties” sub-category under the “order of the requested” category), we considered percentages presented in a cross-tabulation table by reading across the page in rows (e.g., female percentages in the “properties” sub-category was found by looking at the values next to % within the sex in the female cell in the table). The sample sizes differ between the various graphs and tables as information about the gender differs from category to category.

Limitations of the study

This study is limited to 1027 self-generated chemistry questions submitted to a popular science magazine, which mainly targets Turkish secondary school students (age 15 or older). Such a self-selected sample may represent a group of students who have higher levels of motivation to seek sources of information outside formal education and more access to resources than students of low social classes. It should be noted that students who may be interested in science but do not send questions to the magazine are not represented in our sample. There may be other students who are also interested in chemistry but preferred to find their answers from other sources, such as chemistry teachers, chemistry textbooks and books, other websites, or experts in chemistry they knew in person. In addition, our analysis with respect to all the main categories is limited to the wording of the question and highly depends on the amount of information provided in the question. Therefore, all findings of this study are observational and interpretational. The study focused on students' self-generated questions in a genuine setting because it is difficult to obtain evidence about their genuine intellectual curiosity in a classroom environment. Nonetheless, it would be interesting to compare student questions in an informal and a formal setting, for instance, in the way Cakmakci et al. (2012) have done, or by conducting follow-up interviews with inquirers.

Results

The 1027 questions submitted to S&T Magazine as electronic and hard copy were analysed using the following coding schemes: the field of interest, the cognitive level of the question (including order and type of the requested information), and the stimulating impetus of the question (including applicative versus non-applicative). It was determined whether females and males differed from each other with respect to all the main categories. It was also investigated whether students' fields of interest varied with the reasons that led them to ask for more information. Of those who submitted questions, 143 students (13.9%) did not state their name and 14 students (1.4%) had names that can be used for both genders. After excluding these from the sample, 704 (81%) questions were asked by males and 166 (19%) were asked by females. The analysis of these 870 questions with respect to gender indicated that boys asked more chemistry questions than girls, which might be explained by the fact that more males (54%) than females (46%) attend a secondary education programme (National Education Statistics, 2012).

Of the 1027 questions, 10 could not be coded, so the analysis with respect to the field of interest in chemistry was conducted using 1017 questions. Considering the five main categories, students were mostly curious about states of matter and solutions (26.2%), followed by nuclear chemistry and chemistry of the elements (25.6%). Although it appeared as the third field of interest in chemistry, there was not a huge difference in interest between basics of chemistry (22.9%) and the most popular two. The least popular two fields emerged as atomic and molecular structure (15.5%) and chemical reactions and equilibrium (9.8%) (see Fig. 1). In a similar vein, Elmas et al. (2013) found that the basics of chemistry (27.1%), nuclear chemistry and chemistry of the elements (19.1%), and states of matter and solutions (12.3%) were the fields in chemistry that students most desired to know about, while atomic and molecular structure (5.3%) was considered the least interesting field.

Fig. 1 The percentage distribution of the questions submitted to S&T Magazine among the field of interest sub-categories in chemistry and the percentage of time allocated to those subcategories in the curriculum.

Overall, we can conclude that students' interest in chemistry was almost homogeneously distributed among the most popular three main categories in this coding scheme. For a closer look at how students were interested in particular topics in chemistry, we also considered the frequency distribution of questions with regard to chapters, which formed the sub-categories in each part (see Table 3). Liquids and solids (14.9%), chemistry of the main group elements (9.7%), electron configurations and periodicity (7.8%), and materials of technology (7.1%) were the topics that students had the highest desire to learn. The least favourite topics for students were calculations using chemical formulas (0.6%), molecular geometry and chemical bonding theory (1%), rates of reaction (0.4%), thermodynamics and equilibrium (0.6%), solubility and complex-ion equilibria (0.6%), and acid–base equilibria (1.3%).

Table 3 Frequency distribution of questions with regard to chapters

Field of interest (Part^a)	Field of interest (Chapters^b)	Frequency	Percentage
a This refers to titles of the parts in the “General Chemistry” textbook by Ebbing and Gammon (2002). b This refers to chapters in each part in the “General Chemistry” textbook by Ebbing and Gammon (2002).
States of matter and solutions		266	25.9
	States of matter; liquids and solids	153	14.9
	Materials of technology	73	7.1
	Solutions	40	3.9
Nuclear chemistry and chemistry of the elements		260	25.3
	Chemistry of the main group elements	100	9.7
	The transition elements and coordination compounds	59	5.7
	Organic chemistry	50	4.9
	Nuclear chemistry	30	2.9
	Polymer materials: synthetic and biological	21	2.1
Basics of chemistry		233	22.7
	Atoms, molecules, and ions	53	5.1
	The gaseous state	50	4.9
	Thermochemistry	48	4.7
	Chemistry and measurement	38	3.7
	Chemical reactions	38	3.7
	Calculations with chemical formulas	6	0.6
Atomic and Molecular Structure		158	15.4
	Electron configurations and periodicity	79	7.7
	Quantum theory of the atom	43	4.2
	Ionic and covalent bonding	26	2.5
	Molecular geometry and chemical bonding theory	10	1.0
Chemical reactions and equilibrium		100	9.7
	Acids and bases	43	4.2
	Electrochemistry	27	2.6
	Acid–base equilibria	13	1.3
	Solubility and complex-ion equilibria	6	0.6
	Thermodynamics and equilibrium	6	0.6
	Rates of reaction	5	0.4
Total		1027	100.0

---

While considering what students want to know about different fields in chemistry, we also investigated whether the curriculum devotes the necessary time to respond to students' desire to know about these fields. The National Ministry of Education (2011a, 2011b, 2011c, 2011d) specifies class hours that teachers are expected to spend teaching a particular chemistry topic in each grade level. Class hours determined for each topic in the chemistry curriculum were summed up to calculate total class hours, which were allocated to each field of interest category in this study (e.g., basics of chemistry). Then those class hours were used to calculate the percentage of time allocated to these fields of interest in the curriculum (i.e., class hours for a particular field of interest category in the curriculum/total class hours × 100). The comparison made in this study between the percentage of time allocated in the curriculum to a particular field and the percentage of students who wish to learn about this field indicates that the curriculum substantially considers students' desire to learn about atomic and molecular structure, nuclear chemistry and the chemistry of the elements, and chemical reactions and equilibrium. However, there is a gap in two fields: basics of chemistry and states of matter and solutions (see Fig. 1).

Gender and the field of interest

Analysis of 860 questions (unidentifiable = 167) revealed that there was no statistically significant difference among the chemistry fields that females and males were interested in (χ² = 7.090, p = 0.131). This study is consistent with other studies whose results showed that girls and boys were not different from each other in chemistry fields they want to know more about (Baram-Tsabari and Yarden, 2005, 2011; Cakmakci et al., 2012). However, we conducted a second analysis to see whether females and males differ from each other in the sub-categories of each field. It was revealed that females and males differed to a significant degree in asking questions about sub-categories of the basics of chemistry (χ² = 18.813, p = 0.002) and states of matter and solutions (χ² = 10.698, p = 0.005). While females asked significantly more questions about chemical reactions (31.2% vs. 9.6% of the females' and males' questions, respectively) and liquids and solids (82.4% vs. 59.6%), males were more interested in gaseous state (25.6% vs. 8.3% of the males' and females' questions, respectively), thermochemistry (23.7% vs. 14.6%), and materials of technology (29.5% vs. 2.9%). In other fields of interest, females and males favoured similar types of information with slight differences. Females asked more about chemical reactions and equilibrium (12.1% vs. 8.6% of the females' and males' questions, respectively) while males were more interested in atomic and molecular structure (17.7% vs. 13.9% of the males' and females' questions, respectively). Females and males were almost equally interested in learning about nuclear chemistry and chemistry of the elements (24.9% vs. 24.2% of the males' and females' questions, respectively). Since other studies in the literature used different categorisations for fields of interest in chemistry than those we utilized, it is hard to compare our results. However, we want to acknowledge that the results of the study conducted by Baram-Tsabari et al. (2006) indicated that males asked more questions than females about phases of matter and stoichiometry, while females asked more questions about atoms, chemical reactions, chemical language, and acid–base. The number of questions posed by males and females was equal in that study in the fields of chemical energy, bonding, and thermodynamics. When we compare our results with this study, we can conclude that our findings are consistent: chemical reactions were favoured by females, states of matter favoured by males, and thermodynamics (6.7% vs. 5% of the males' and females' questions, respectively) favoured equally by females and males. However, a recent study by Elmas et al. (2013) that used the same categorisation for fields of interest to analyse chemistry questions submitted to a website (www.kimyasanal.net) pointed out that males were more eager to learn about states of matter and solutions and nuclear chemistry and chemistry of the elements while females were more interested in the basics of chemistry, atomic and molecular structure, and chemical reactions and equilibrium, without conducting any statistical tests. Our results are compatible with those results in chemical reactions and equilibrium category. The inconsistencies might stem from their pool of questions, which were asked by students of various ages. Moreover, age information is not specified in that study. We focused on questions submitted by students whose ages were 15 and above. Also, their interpretations on gender related differences are based on percentage comparison. Age related inferences are based on statistical tests in this study. The inconsistencies may stem from students' age and data analysis methods. Another explanation may be related to the finding that students' interest in science can change with age (Archer et al., 2010). Baram-Tsabari et al. (2006) investigated questions submitted by 4th- through 12th-grade students while age was not a concern in Elmas et al.'s (2013) study. In this study we focused on students who are 15 years old and above. Considering that students' interest in science can change with age, the incompatible findings are reasonable.

Cognitive level of the question

The cognitive level of the question was analysed under the following sub-categories: the order of the requested information and the type of the requested information.

Order of the requested information. The analysis of 1019 of the 1027 questions (unidentifiable = 8) indicated that most of the students were interested in one variable and asked for the properties of that variable (73.4%, see Fig. 2). This category was followed by causal relationships (17.2%) and comparison (9.4%). These results are consistent with other studies revealing that students are mostly curious about the properties of a single variable (Baram-Tsabari et al., 2006; Cakmakci et al., 2012).

Fig. 2 The percentage distribution of the questions submitted to S&T Magazine among the sub-categories of the order of the requested information.

Gender and the order of the requested information. Analysis of 862 questions (unidentifiable = 165) showed that there was not a significant difference between females' and males' questions in relation to the order of the requested information (χ² = 1.539, p = 0.463). Similarly, Baram-Tsabari et al. (2006) and Cakmakci et al. (2012) did not find gender-related differences. In contrast, a closer comparison in each sub-category of the order of the requested information indicated that females and males tended to ask questions from different cognitive levels with small differences. While females were looking for information about the properties (75.8% vs. 71.6% of the females' and males' questions, respectively), which is consistent with Cakmakci et al. (2012), males asked more questions in comparison (10% vs. 7.3% of the males' and females' questions, respectively). In a causal relationship (18.4% vs. 17% of the males' and females' questions, respectively), the sub-category percentages of females and males are about the same.

Type of the requested information. Analysis of 1019 questions (unidentifiable = 8) indicated that nearly half of the questions (42.7%) were requests for factual information (see Fig. 3). This was followed by explanatory information (28.8%), and these two sub-categories formed the main type of the information being sought. This is consistent with the findings of other studies indicating that almost half of the students were interested in factual information (Baram-Tsabari and Yarden, 2005, 2008; Yerdelen-Damar and Eryılmaz, 2010; Elmas et al., 2013), followed by explanatory information (Baram-Tsabari and Yarden, 2005; Yerdelen-Damar and Eryılmaz, 2010; Elmas et al., 2013). The frequency of the remaining sub-categories in the type of requested information was as follows: methodological information (12.7%), predictions (10.0%), general requests for information (5.3%), and lastly, open-ended information (0.5%). Considering the least popular four, these results contradict with the findings indicating that more than half of the students asked for explanatory information and coincide with the findings noting that around 10 percent of the students were interested in methodological information (Cakmakci et al., 2012; Elmas et al., 2013).

Fig. 3 The percentage distribution of the questions submitted to S&T Magazine among the sub-categories of the type of the requested information.

Gender and the type of the requested information. Analysis of 862 questions (unidentifiable = 165) showed that females and males tended to request similar types of information in their questions (χ² = 9.181, p = 0.102), which is consistent with the results of Baram-Tsabari et al. (2006) and Yerdelen-Damar and Eryılmaz (2010). However, females and males were somewhat different from each other in several sub-categories. While females were favouring factual information (46.7% vs. 39.9% of the females' and males' questions, respectively) and explanatory information (33.3% vs. 29.4%), males asked more for methodological information (12.2% vs. 9.1% of the males' and females' questions, respectively), prediction (11.5% vs. 8.5%), and general request for information (6.3% vs. 2.4%). In the open-ended information category, 100% of the questions were asked by males. Some studies yielded similar results with respect to gender differences in explanatory (Baram-Tsabari and Yarden, 2005, 2008, 2011; Cakmakci et al., 2012) and methodological questions (Baram-Tsabari and Yarden, 2005, 2008, 2011; Cakmakci et al., 2012; Elmas et al., 2013), and some revealed contradictory results with respect to gender differences in explanatory questions (Elmas et al., 2013).

Stimulating impetus for asking the question

The “applicative versus non-applicative” category was used to indicate various reasons that led students to raise questions with regard to a particular field. In this research, 1019 questions (unidentifiable = 8) were analysed and it was found that students tended to ask non-applicative questions (92.8%) more frequently than applicative ones (7.2%), as indicated by others in science (Baram-Tsabari and Yarden, 2005), chemistry (Elmas et al., 2013), and physics (Yerdelen-Damar and Eryılmaz, 2010). A closer analysis of the sub-categories in this coding scheme showed that general curiosity was the most frequent source of interest (72.3%, see Fig. 4), which is consistent with Elmas et al. (2013) and Yerdelen-Damar and Eryılmaz (2010). The second most popular factor for raising the question was students' need for an explanation for an observation (13.2%). Thirdly, some students asked questions as part of an information request (4.8%) or for personal use (5.9%). Lastly, spectacular aspects (1.3%), linguistics (1.3%), and health and lifestyle (1.2%) were least likely to lead students to ask their questions. Similarly, the findings of Elmas et al. (2013) indicated that linguistics, spectacular aspects, and health and lifestyle were the least encouraging factors that stimulated students to ask chemistry questions; similarly, nearly five percent of the students requested for information. Also, analysis of the association between the field of interest and applicative versus non-applicative questions revealed that students tended to have different applicative and non-applicative questions in different areas of chemistry (χ² = 19.870, p = 0.001). In basics of chemistry (24.2% vs. 17.2% non-applicative vs. applicative, respectively) and atomic and molecular structure (18% vs. 4.7% non-applicative vs. applicative, respectively), students had more non-applicative questions. Conversely, in chemical reactions and equilibrium (21.9% vs. 8.3% applicative vs. non-applicative, respectively), the majority of the reasons that led them to ask questions were applicative (see Fig. 4). In states of matter and solutions (26.6% vs. 25.1% applicative vs. non-applicative, respectively) and nuclear chemistry and chemistry of the elements (29.7% vs. 24.4% applicative vs. non-applicative, respectively), the number of applicative and non-applicative questions was nearly the same.

Fig. 4 Percentage distribution of questions across sub-categories of stimulating impetus for asking the question.

Gender and stimulating impetus for asking the question

As a result of the analysis of 862 questions (unidentifiable = 165), a non-significant difference between females' and males' proportion in relation to applicative and non-applicative questions (χ² = 0.007, p = 0.934) was found. Applicative questions made up 92.8% and 92.5% of females' and males' questions, respectively. This is consistent with the findings of Yerdelen-Damar and Eryilmaz (2010), which reported that gender is independent of one's tendency to ask applicative or non-applicative questions in physics. However, this finding is inconsistent with the findings of Baram-Tsabari and Yarden (2008, 2011), which indicated that girls favour applicative questions while boys favour non-applicative questions in science.

Conclusions

This study investigated 1027 chemistry-related questions submitted by Turkish students (age 15 or older) to a popular science magazine. The questions were analysed in order to determine students' field of interest, the cognitive level of the question (which was explicated by the order and the type of requested information), and the stimulating impetus for asking the question. Gender dependence of each attribute was also considered during our analyses. Furthermore, the association between the field of interest and the stimulating aspect for asking the question was considered. We will discuss our findings with regard to (1) gender dependence of the categories of field, order, type, and stimulating impetus, and how students' interest indicated itself in these categories and (2) the dependence of stimulating impetus on the field of interest category.

The results revealed that students were mostly interested in liquids and solids, chemistry of the main group elements, electron configurations and periodicity, and materials of technology. They were less interested in calculations using chemical formulas, molecular geometry and chemical bonding theory, rates of reaction, thermodynamics and equilibrium, solubility and complex-ion equilibria, and acid–base equilibria. In addition, most of the students wished to know about the properties of an object in question, followed by causal relationships and comparison. Regarding the type of information requested, factual and explanatory were the most common. Students' desire to learn about methodological issues and their own predictions were moderate, while general requests for information and open-ended questions were the least stimulating types of information. A significantly high number of students asked non-applicative questions. General curiosity was the driving factor for almost 75 percent of the students, while the need for an explanation for an observation guided almost 15 percent of students. This picture about the characteristics of the chemistry questions asked by students was more or less similar to those drawn for physics (Yerdelen-Damar and Eryılmaz, 2010), chemistry (Elmas et al., 2013), and science (Baram-Tsabari et al., 2006, Cakmakci et al., 2012).

Males submitted more questions about chemistry (81%) than females did (19%). Nonetheless, the number of males (54%) attending a secondary education programme in Turkey is about the same as the number of females (46%) (National Education Statistics, 2012). There are several studies in the literature indicating that boys are more likely to be interested in chemistry (Jenkins and Nelson, 2005; Baram-Tsabari et al., 2006; Elmas et al., 2013). Despite the differences between the number of questions submitted by females and males in this study, no significant difference was found in the distribution of females and males in categories of the field of interest in chemistry, which is compatible with most of the studies (Baram-Tsabari and Yarden, 2005, 2011; Cakmakci et al., 2012). Although questions posed by students have been used as one of the indicators of their interest in recent studies (Baram-Tsabari and Yarden, 2005, 2008, 2011; Baram-Tsabari et al., 2006; Yerdelen-Damar and Eryilmaz, 2010; Cakmakci et al., 2012), using questionnaires has traditionally been a more prevalent way to identify students' attitudes and interest in chemistry (e.g., Bennett, 2001; Salta and Tzougraki, 2004; Barnes et al., 2005; Cheung, 2009). It might be fruitful to compare these two kinds of studies with respect to their results. Salta and Tzougraki (2004) investigated 576 high school year 11 students' attitudes towards chemistry using a scale consisting of four sub-scales: difficulty, usefulness, interest, and importance of chemistry. Their results showed no significant differences between boys' and girls' attitudes with regard to interest, usefulness, and importance of chemistry. Cheung (2009) examined the interaction between gender and grade level regarding students' attitudes towards chemistry lessons in school. Findings of the study indicated that students in grades 5–7 were not different from each other with respect to their behavioural tendency to learn chemistry. On the other hand, Barnes et al. (2005) determined whether enrolment intentions were associated with gender. Data obtained from 449 year 10 students revealed that males found chemistry more interesting than females. In regard to students' interest in chemistry, when we compared the results obtained from the analysis of questions with those evidenced by questionnaires completed by students, we saw that there were similarities between the two. As most of the studies using questions revealed no significant differences between females' and males' field of interest in chemistry, most of the studies using questionnaires yielded the same results, which might be considered as an empirical support for the usage of self-generated questions in determining students' interest in chemistry. However, there were significant differences between females' and males' field of interest in chemistry in terms of the sub-categories of each field; with respect to gaseous matter, thermochemistry, and materials of technology, males were more interested than females, whereas with respect to chemical reactions, and liquids and solids females were more eager to learn. This difference was also revealed by Baram-Tsabari et al. (2006). Also, the Relevance of Science Education (ROSE) (Busch, 2005; Jenkins and Nelson, 2005) studies, conducted for the purpose of identifying the degree of relevance of various science disciplines to students' life, revealed that girls were interested in biological issues (e.g., medicine and the body) while boys' interest was focused on dramatic aspects of physics and chemistry (e.g., the functioning of an atom bomb), and how technology works (e.g., computer technology). These issues and aspects related to biology, physics, and chemistry can be considered as conceptual contexts for different science subjects (Elmas et al., 2011). This reveals the consistency of our results with the literature—males' higher interest in thermochemistry and materials of technology can be applied to the functioning of an atom bomb and how technology works, while females' higher interest in chemical reactions can be applied to medicine and body science. One possible explanation for why females and males differ in several chemistry topics may be related to the differences between females' and males' chemistry teachers. Students of teachers with a high interest in chemistry had higher interest in chemistry than students taught by teachers with average interest in chemistry (Gafoor, 2009). For instance, question submitting males' chemistry teachers may be more interested in various chemistry topics (e.g., materials of technology) than question submitting females' teachers and consequently males in this study were more eager to learn about certain chemistry fields (e.g., chemical reactions).

In all categories included in this study (order, type of the requested information, and stimulating aspect of the question), females and males were not different from each other with regard to their preference in looking for a particular type of information in chemistry and the factors that led them to ask their questions, as supported by other studies (Baram-Tsabari et al., 2006; Yerdelen-Damar and Eryılmaz, 2010; Cakmakci et al., 2012) on chemistry and other disciplines (e.g., science and physics). Some advocate that males and females perceive and learn about objects in highly convergent ways (Spelke, 2005), and hence we can explain gender independent of the cognitive level and the type of requested information. Nevertheless, a closer comparison of whether females and males differed from each other indicated that males and females differed somewhat in various sub-categories of order and type of the information requested; males were more interested than females in comparison, causal relationships, and methodological information, as supported by others (Baram-Tsabari and Yarden, 2005, 2008, 2011; Cakmakci et al., 2012; Elmas et al., 2013). Also, males wished to confirm predictions, ask open-ended questions, and make general requests for information, which is compatible with the findings of Elmas et al. (2013). On the other hand, females were more interested than males in properties, as indicated by Cakmakci et al. (2012), and factual and explanatory types of information, as pointed out by several researches (Baram-Tsabari and Yarden, 2005, 2008, 2011; Cakmakci et al., 2012). This gender difference may be attributed to a discrepancy between females' and males' stereotypical interests (Baron-Cohen, 2003), the inborn trait which inclines females to empathy and males to understanding and building systems.

With regard to the factors that led students to ask questions, students asked a higher number of non-applicative questions. Females and males were not different from each other in terms of their applicative versus non-applicative questions. However, reasons that drive students to ask questions varied based on the field of interest. In basics of chemistry and atomic and molecular structure, students tended to ask non-applicative questions. The driving factors that led students to ask questions about chemical reactions and equilibrium, on the other hand, were applicative. These differences might stem from varying perceptions of students about the degree to which a chemistry topic is applicable. Students may tend to assume that atomic and molecular structure is less applicable to real life than chemical reactions, since they are not able to see the applications of atomic science. However, most daily life events can be explained based on rates of reaction, acids and bases, electrochemistry, and chemical equilibrium (i.e., sub-categories in chemical reactions and equilibrium).

Implications

Indicators of interest both designate curiosity about science and demonstrate a willingness to acquire additional scientific knowledge and skills (OECD, 2008; Bybee and McCrae, 2011). Therefore, students' questions about science are one of the determinants of what they are interested in learning about science. However, a student asking a question is directly related to the degree to which learners feel secure (Watts et al., 1997) and the classroom atmosphere does not necessarily provide an environment where students can ask about whatever they wish to learn (Pedrosa de Jesus et al., 2003). Alternatively, free-choice science-learning environments (e.g., web-based) might be more powerful for tackling confidence challenges (Wallace et al., 2000). Web-based environments may yield a more accurate picture of students' needs and interest since students are self-directed and self-motivated (Falk and Dierking, 2002) in these settings. Considering the fact that students are not generally considered capable of making informed decisions on what should be taught in school science courses (Jenkins and Nelson, 2005), identifying students' interests may provide beneficial hints for teachers when designing their learning environments (Chin and Osborne, 2008; Yarden et al., 2008) and for curriculum developers when designing curriculums (Aikenhead, 2005; Millar, 2006; Yarden et al., 2008). Learning is driven by interest (Pintrich and Schunk, 2002). Teachers are faced with the challenging task of identifying students' interests, designing learning environments responding to students' need to know, and helping students achieve curriculum objectives as well as success in various exams. Several solutions might be proposed for teachers in resolving this issue. First of all, teachers might benefit from the electronic archive of informal learning environments (e.g., the website of You're Curious About) and identify what students want to know more about and what type of contexts are most relevant to them when learning about the topic. Second, teachers might ask students to write their questions about topics they wish to know more about at the beginning of the semester. After identifying students' interest, teachers can satisfy students' need to know in different ways. Teachers might organize science fairs or project-based learning environments based on the questions students generated. Another method might be creating a shadow curriculum (Hagay and Baram-Tsabari, 2011). Shadow curriculums are created in two steps: mapping each question to the most relevant topic in the curriculum and filtering the question from curricular principles, phenomena, and concepts. Since this study revealed that males were more interested than females in gaseous matter, thermochemistry, and materials of technology while females were more eager to learn about chemical reactions, and liquids and solids, the contexts of the questions can be considered carefully when selecting engaging examples. Moreover, teachers should be aware of gender related differences in students' interest and the background of both female and male students. When teaching a topic where girls are already interested in such as chemical reactions, teachers may select some engaging examples or contexts related to that (e.g., production of explosives). Such a context may potentially increase males' motivation to learn the topic. Through these actions, teachers might compensate for the deficiencies of the curriculum in satisfying students' needs (as evidenced in our study) and address both females' and males' desires, since they might be interested in different fields and types of information, which was also revealed in this study. Another point that requires the attention of teachers is related to the applicability of knowledge to an individual or society. Some topics received more applicative questions (e.g., chemical reactions and equilibrium) than others (e.g., atomic and molecular structure). Teachers should emphasize the relevance of each topic to students' own lives and society. The applicative nature of a topic might enhance students' interest and contribute to their learning.

Many students indicated a gap between their interests and the requirements of the curriculum (Hagay and Baram-Tsabari, 2012). Therefore, curriculum developers should hear students' voices if their purpose is to create an evolving curriculum. Like teachers, curriculum developers might benefit from the methods proposed above to identify students' interests and respond to their needs. First of all, curriculum developers may devote necessary time for the topics that students wished to know more about (e.g., states of matter and solutions). This might be difficult, bearing in mind that the content and depth of the topic determines the time allocated to these topics. Extracurricular activities might be proposed to teachers when needed. Also, contexts might be chosen based on the topics that should be covered and what students wished to learn. Contexts should be interesting to both females and males since they tended to look for different types (e.g., males are interested in methodological information) and aspects (e.g., females look for information related to biological issues) of information. These implications are also applicable to textbook writers.

Popular science magazines, educational TV and radio programs, and web-based science learning environments may benefit from this study in designing their “Ask-A-Scientist” sections. They may encourage the questioner to provide all demographic details (e.g., gender, age, and school) and information about why they need to know about the topic of interest. In this way, these environments may more meaningfully contribute to research on science learning. Moreover, our findings may impact all mass media and web-based science learning environments in reconsidering their format and content. They might change their format and content to a style that meets the needs and aspirations of the readers and audiences.

Although there have been efforts made to determine students' interest in science (Baram-Tsabari and Yarden, 2005, 2008, 2011; Baram-Tsabari et al., 2006; Cakmakci et al., 2012), biology (Hagay and Baram-Tsabari, 2012), and physics (Yerdelen-Damar and Eryilmaz, 2010), there has been a scarcity of studies trying to identify students' interest in chemistry, particularly students over age 15. More research is needed to determine whether students' interest in chemistry is related to the culture or society where the students grow up.

Notes and references

1. Aikenhead G. S., (2005), Science for everyday life: evidence-based practice, New York: Teachers College.
2. Archer L., DeWitt J., Osborne J., Dillon J., Willis B. and Wong B., (2010), “Doing” science versus “being” a scientist: Examining 10/11-year-old schoolchildren’s constructions of science through the lens of identity, Sci. Educ., 94(4), 617–639.
3. Baram-Tsabari A. and Yarden A., (2005), Characterizing children's spontaneous interests in science and technology, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 27(7), 803–826.
4. Baram-Tsabari A. and Yarden A., (2008), Girls' biology, boys' physics: evidence from free-choice science learning settings, Res. Sci. Technol. Educ., 26(1), 75–92.
5. Baram-Tsabari A. and Yarden A., (2009), Identifying meta-clusters of students' interest in science and their change with age, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 46(9), 999–1022.
6. Baram-Tsabari A. and Yarden A., (2011), Quantifying the gender gap in science interests, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ., 9, 523–550.
7. Baram-Tsabari A., Sethi R. J., Bry L. and Yarden A., (2006), Using questions sent to an Ask-A-Scientist site to identify children's interests in science, Sci. Educ., 90(6), 1050–1072.
8. Baram-Tsabari A., Sethi R. J., Bry L. and Yarden A., (2009), Asking scientists: a decade of questions analysed by age, gender, and country, Sci. Educ., 93(1), 131–160.
9. Baram-Tsabari A., Sethi R. J., Bry L. and Yarden A., (2010), Identifying Students' Interests in Biology Using a Decade of Self-Generated Questions, Eurasian J. Math., Sci. Technol. Educ., 2010, 6(1), 63–75.
10. Barnes G., McInerney D. M. and Marsh H. W., (2005), Exploring sex differences in science enrolment intentions: an application of the general model of academic choice, Aust. Educ. Res., 32(2), 1–23.
11. Baron-Cohen S., (2003), The essential difference: men, women and the extreme male brain, London: Penguin.
12. Bennett J., (2001), Science with attitude: the perennial issue of pupils' responses to science, Sch. Sci. Rev., 82(300), 59–67.
13. Bennett J., Hogarth S. and Lubben F., (2003), A systematic review of the effects of context-based and Science-Technology-Society (STS) approaches in the teaching of secondary science, Version 1.1, Research evidence in education library, London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education.
14. Busch H., (2005), Is science education relevant? Europhys. News, 162–167.
15. Bybee R. W. and McCrae B., (2011), Scientific literacy and student attitudes: perspectives from PISA 2006 science, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 33(1), 7–26.
16. Cakmakci G., Sevindik H., Pektas M., Uysal A., Kole F. and Kavak G., (2012), Investigating Turkish primary school students' interests in science by using their self-generated questions, Res. Sci. Educ., 42(3), 469–489.
17. Cheung D., (2009), Students' attitudes toward chemistry lessons: the interaction effect between grade level and gender, Res. Sci. Educ., 39(1), 75–91.
18. Chin C. and Osborne J., (2008), Students' questions: a potential resource for teaching and learning science, Stud. Sci. Educ., 44(1), 1–39.
19. Chiristidou V., (2006), Greek students' science-related interest and experiences: gender differences and correlations, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 28(10), 1181–1199.
20. Cohen L., Manion L. and Morrison K., (ed.), (2000), Research methods in education, 5th edn, London: Routledge Falmer.
21. Dawson C., (2000), Upper primary boys' and girls' interests in science: have they changed since 1980? Int. J. Sci. Educ., 22, 557–570.
22. Dillon J. T., (1984), The classification of research questions, Rev. Educ. Res., 54, 327–361.
23. Dillon J. T., (1988), The remedial status of student questioning, J. Curriculum Stud., 20(3), 197–210.
24. Dillon J. T., (1990), The Practice of Questioning, London: Routledge.
25. Ebbing D. D. and Gammon S. D., (2002), General Chemistry, 7th edn, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
26. Edelson D. C. and Joseph D. M., (2004), The interest-driven learning design framework: motivating learning through usefulness, Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Learning Sciences Santa Monica, California.
27. Elmas R., Akin F. N. and Geban O., (2013), Ask a Scientist Website; Trends in Chemistry Questions in Turkey, Asia-Pac. Educ. Res., 22(4), 559–569.
28. Elmas R., Bulbul M. S. and Eryilmaz A., (2011), Thematic classification of eligible contexts for a holistic perspective in curriculum development, Paper presented at the 9th European Science Education Research Association (ESERA), Lyon, France.
29. Falchetti E., Caravita S. and Sperduti A., (2007), What do laypersons want to know from scientists? An analysis of a dialogue between scientists and laypersons on the web site Scienzaonline, Public Underst. Sci., 16(4), 489–506.
30. Falk J. H. and Dierking L. D., (2002), Lessons without limit: how free-choice learning is transforming education, Walnut Creek, CA: Rowman and Littlefield.
31. Fensham P. J., (2007), Competences, from within and without: new challenges and possibilities for scientific literacy, Paper presented at Promoting Scientific Literacy: Science Education Research in Transaction Symposium, University, Uppsala, Sweden.
32. Gafoor K. A., (2009), Match between teachers' and their students' interest in science topics [Electronic version], Ejournal of All India Association for Educational Research, 21(2), http://www.ejournal.aiaer.net/vol21209/14.%20Gafoor.pdf, retrieved June 23, 2012.
33. Gago J. M., Ziman J., Caro P., Constantinou C., Davies G., Parchmann I. et al., (2004), Europe needs more scientists, report by the high level group on increasing human resources for science and technology in Europe 2004, European Commission.
34. Gardner H., (1999), The Disciplined Mind - What All Students Should Understand? New York: Simon and Schuster.
35. Glenn J., (2000), Before it's too late: a report to the nation from the national commission on mathematics and science teaching for the 21st century, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
36. Hagay G. and Baram-Tsabari A., (2011), A shadow curriculum: Incorporating students' interests into the formal biology curriculum, Res. Sci. Educ., 41(5), 611–634.
37. Hagay G. and Baram-Tsabari A., (2012), Including Students' Voices as Engagement With Curriculum: Perspectives From a Secondary Biology Course, Can. J. Sci., Math. Technol. Educ., 12(2), 160–177.
38. Hagay G., Baram-Tsabari A., Ametller J., Cakmakci G., Lopes B., Moreira A. and Pedrosa-de-Jesus H., (2013a), The generalizability of students' interests in science across gender, country and religion, Res. Sci. Educ., 43(3), 895–919.
39. Hagay G., Peleg R., Laslo E. and Baram-Tsabari A., (2013b), Nature or nurture? A lesson incorporating students' interests in a high-school biology class, J. Biol. Educ., 47(2), 117–122.
40. Jenkins E. W., (2006), The student voice and school science education, Stud. Sci. Educ., 42(1), 49–88.
41. Jenkins E. W. and Nelson N. W., (2005), Important but not for me: students' attitudes towards secondary school science in England, Res. Sci. Technol. Educ., 23(1), 41–57.
42. Krapp A., (2002), An educational-psychological theory of interest and its relation to SDT, in Deci E. L. and Ryan R. M. (ed.), Handbook of self-determination research, Rochester: University of Rochester, pp. 405–426.
43. Krapp A. and Prenzel M., (2011), Research on interest in science: theories, methods, and findings, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 33(1), 27–50.
44. Lemke J. L., (1990), Talking science: language, learning and values, Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
45. Millar R., (2006), Twenty first century science: insights from the design and implementation of a scientific literacy approach in school science, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 28(13), 1499–1521.
46. Millar R. and Osborne J., (1998), Beyond 2000: Science education for the future: a report with ten recommendations, King's College London, School of Education.
47. Mitchell M., (1993), Situational interest: its multifaceted structure in the secondary school mathematics classroom, J. Educ. Psychol., 85(3), 424–436.
48. National Ministry of Education, (2011a), 9th grade Chemistry Curriculum, Ankara: National Ministry of Education Publications.
49. National Ministry of Education, (2011b), Secondary 10th Grade Chemistry Curriculum, Ankara: National Ministry of Education Publications.
50. National Ministry of Education, (2011c), Secondary 11th Grade Chemistry Curriculum, Ankara: National Ministry of Education Publications.
51. National Ministry of Education, (2011d), Secondary 12th Grade Chemistry Curriculum, Ankara: National Ministry of Education Publications.
52. National Education Statistics, (2012), Formal Education 2011–2012, http://sgb.meb.gov.tr/istatistik/meb_istatistikleri_orgun_egitim_2011_2012.pdf, retrieved June 15, 2012.
53. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), (2008), PISA 2006 Executive Summary: Today's Education and Tomorrow's Society, Budapest: OECD, http:// oecd-pisa.hu/english/PISA2006-HungarianReport-English.pdf, retrieved July 25, 2013.
54. Osborne J., Simon S. and Collins S., (2003), Attitudes towards science: a review of the literature and its implications, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 25(9), 1049–1079.
55. Pedrosa de Jesus H., Teixeira-Dias J. J. C. and Watts M., (2003), Questions of chemistry, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 25(8), 1015–1034.
56. Pintrich P. R and Schunk D. H., (2002), Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications, 2nd edn, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
57. Ryan R. M. and Deci E. L., (2000), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions, Contemp. Educ. Psychol., 25(1), 54–67.
58. Salta K. and Tzougraki C., (2004), Attitudes toward chemistry among 11th grade students in high schools in Greece, Sci. Educ., 88, 535–547.
59. Sjøberg S., (2000), Science and scientists: The SAS study, Oslo: University of Oslo, http://folk.uio.no/sveinsj/SASweb.htm, retrieved December 10, 2009.
60. Spelke E. S., (2005), Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics and science? A critical review, Am. Psychol., 60, 950–958.
61. Tai R., Liu C., Maltese A. and Fan X., (2006), Planning early for careers in science, Life Sci., 312, 1143–1144.
62. Wallace R. M., Kupperman J., Krajcik J. and Soloway E., (2000), Science on the Web: Students online in a sixth-grade classroom, J. Learn. Sci., 9(1), 75–104.
63. Watts M., Gould G. and Alsop S., (1997), Questions of understanding: Categorising pupils' questions in science, Sch. Sci. Rev., 79(286), 57–63.
64. Yarden A., Hasson E., Gelbart H., Cohen R., Falk H., Yarden H. et al., (2008), Students' interest and scientific knowledge: Making ends meet, http://www.weizmann.acil/Biology/open_day/book/Abstracts/Anat_yarden.pdf, retrieved July 28, 2013.
65. Yerdelen-Damar S. and Eryilmaz A., (2010), Questions about physics: the case of a Turkish ‘Ask a Scientist' website, Res. Sci. Educ., 40(2), 223–238.

---