In many European countries, there has been a concerning decline in the number of students pursuing physical sciences, engineering, and mathematics at the university level (Bacovic et al., 2022), with an even greater drop in students seeking PhDs in these fields since 1993 (OECD, 2006). This decreasing interest in science subjects among young people is also reflected in the declining enrollment in science and technology degree programs across Europe (Sjøberg, 2002). This trend poses a significant challenge for the knowledge economy and democratic participation in the region. Consequently, discussions surrounding the nature of science (NOS), especially concerning diversity and inclusion, have become increasingly relevant and have implications for science education policies and practices (Vincent-Ruz & Schunn, 2018).

The Rocard Report, authored by the High-Level Group on Science Education (Rocard et al., 2007), raised concerns throughout the European Union regarding the waning popularity of science and mathematics education among students. The report urged concerted efforts to reverse this trend, ensuring that European society possesses the future capacity for quality research and innovation. According to Osborne and Dillon’s (2008) report to Nuffield on science education in Europe, one factor contributing to the decline in students opting for science studies is the limited approach to science education that currently prevails across Europe, which may not appeal to the diversity of lifestyles, religions, and youth cultures. The major EC report “Europe Needs More Scientists” (European Commission, 2004) also validates these trends.

The impact of curriculum design on student interest in science is a well-documented and crucial aspect of science education. Research consistently highlights that the way the curriculum is structured and presented has a profound effect on students’ engagement and motivation (Arias et al., 2017). When the curriculum is overly rigid and narrow, it can fail to meet the diverse interests and backgrounds of students, potentially leading to disinterest or dropout in science studies (Vergel et al., 2018).

In this context, inclusivity in science education emerges as a vital consideration (Hunter & Richmond, 2022). Scholars like Lee and Buxton (2011), Brown and Crippen (2016), and Koirala (2023) advocate for an inclusive approach to science education. They stress the necessity of integrating real-life contexts, diverse perspectives, and culturally relevant examples into science teaching (Brown et al., 2021; Claydon et al., 2021; Mansour & Wegerif, 2013). By doing so, science education becomes more engaging and pertinent to students from different backgrounds (Mavuru, 2024). This approach fosters a more profound understanding of science and helps in making it relatable to students’ lives and experiences, thereby increasing their interest and participation in science (Wong, 2016).

Additionally, research by Koirala (2023) underlines the significance of respecting cultural diversity within science classrooms. Neglecting cultural sensitivity in science education can lead to alienation and disengagement among specific student groups (Thomas & Quinlan, 2022; Joshi et al., 2020). Recognizing and addressing the cultural and religious aspects that may influence a student’s perception of science can contribute to a more inclusive and engaging learning environment (Mansour, 2024). Furthermore, the argument that science education might not align with youth cultures raises questions about the potential effectiveness of informal science learning experiences (Tang & Zhang, 2020). Martin et al. (2016) found that alternative, informal learning settings, such as science museums, have the potential to be more appealing to youth cultures and help them to develop their science knowledge and motivation. These environments offer students greater freedom to engage with science in a way that aligns with their interests and allows them to progress at their pace, cultivating a sense of autonomy and ownership in their learning process (Mansour, 2024; Anderhag et al., 2016).

The steady decline in the number of students opting for science subjects in the UK since 1985 has become a critical issue, prompting widespread concern among educators, policymakers, and researchers. Various factors are believed to contribute to this disengagement (Lyons & Quinn, 2010). One notable factor is the perceived difficulty of science subjects, which can discourage students from pursuing them. Physics and chemistry, in particular, are often perceived as challenging subjects requiring strong mathematical skills and abstract thinking (Bouchée et al., 2021; Ralph & Lewis, 2018; Wong et al., 2023). This perception may lead some students to opt for subjects they perceive as easier or more accessible. Another factor is the lack of interest or relevance that students associate with science subjects. The traditional approach to science education, which focuses on memorization and theory rather than practical applications, may fail to engage students and make the subjects seem disconnected from their lives and future careers (Inkinen et al., 2020).

Research by Osborne and Dillon (2008) and Vedder-Weiss and Fortus (2011) indicates a noticeable decline in students’ attitudes toward school science as they enter adolescence. Although younger students typically hold favourable views of science, these positive attitudes often wane as they progress through their teenage years. Furthermore, studies by Palmer et al. (2017), and Palmer (2020) suggest that school science is often perceived as less popular compared to other subjects. Students may find science education less appealing due to various factors (Mansour, 2024). The increasing complexity of scientific concepts as students advance in their education, as well as a perceived lack of relevance or applicability of science to their everyday lives, can contribute to the decline in attitudes towards school science (Wong, 2016).

The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) has provided valuable insights into the factors that influence adolescents’ intentions to continue learning about science. According to PISA findings (OECD, 2006, 2019), individual interest and engagement in science play crucial roles in shaping these intentions. Research based on PISA data has shown that students who exhibit a strong interest in science and actively engage with scientific concepts are more likely to express intentions to continue studying science beyond compulsory education (OECD, 2006, 2019). This highlights the significance of personal interest and engagement as motivating factors for students to pursue further education and careers in science-related fields (Mansour, 2024; Mansour et al., 2024; Wong, 2016).

The perception of science in the UK, and in numerous other countries, is frequently one of a field in decline, often described as being in crisis. This narrative is fueled by a consistent reduction in the number of young people pursuing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines at the university level (BBC, 2007). The situation is particularly alarming as it points to broader systemic issues within science education that fail to capture and sustain students’ interest over time.

The disengagement from science education reflects a complex interplay of factors, ranging from uninspiring curricula and teaching methods to societal stereotypes about science and scientists (Mansour 2015, 2024; Mansour et al., 2024). Many students perceive STEM subjects as overly challenging or disconnected from their daily lives, leading to a sense of alienation rather than engagement (Joshi et al., 2020). Additionally, the declining interest underscores a lack of understanding about the specific reasons students choose to engage with or withdraw from science education (Vedder-Weiss & Fortus, 2011).

Research highlights critical gaps in addressing these challenges, particularly in identifying effective strategies to make science more accessible, relevant, and appealing to a diverse range of learners (Lyons & Quinn, 2010). This ongoing issue has significant implications not only for education systems but also for workforce development and national competitiveness in STEM-related fields. It emphasizes the urgent need for reforms that prioritize experiential, inquiry-driven learning and foster connections between scientific concepts and real-world applications (Brown et al., 2021; Claydon et al., 2021; Favero & Hoomissen, 2019).

Young’s (2020) argument that education functions as a “black box,” emphasizing its complexity and lack of transparency, effectively supports the discussion on research gaps concerning disengagement with science programs and the pursuit of studying science. Despite the evolution of educational systems, Young maintains that a persistent issue is the failure to adequately educate the majority of students. Such an observation signals a need for exploration into contributing factors, including outdated teaching methods, resource disparities, and a potential misalignment with real-world needs (Young, 2020).

Michael Young’s extensive work, notably highlighted in his 2007 book “Bringing Knowledge Back In,” draws attention to the recontextualization of disciplinary knowledge within school subjects. However, many studies usually look at this recontextualization separately from the important role teachers play in sharing knowledge, mainly concentrating on what is included in the curricula. This narrow view might lead to students losing interest, as learning in some schools, especially those with knowledge-focused curricula in England, could end up being just about memorizing facts (Young, 2007).

Building upon Michael Young’s insights into the school curriculum, particularly his concept of “powerful knowledge” (Young et al., 2014), proves to be essential when considering the broader objectives of education, with a specific focus on science education. A crucial aspect involves examining the curriculum’s contents and pedagogical activities and their profound impact on students’ learning experiences, engagement in science, and readiness for STEM careers (Vergel et al., 2018; Sasson, 2020). To gain a comprehensive understanding of the factors shaping students’ preferences or aversions toward studying science, it is imperative to bridge the gap between the contextualization of science subjects in school and students’ responses to science activities (Aikenhead & Jegede, 1999; Anderhag et al., 2016). Additionally, recognizing the influence of personal and cultural characteristics on students’ perceptions of science and their choices regarding STEM subjects and careers enhances the depth of our exploration into science education (Mansour, 2024; Brown & Crippen, 2016; Seymour & Hunter, 2019; Young et al., 2014). This approach allows for a more thorough exploration of the reasons behind students’ lack of interest and decreasing involvement in science education. By fostering a holistic perspective on science learning that captures students’ authentic engagement and enthusiasm, we can work toward addressing the root causes and promoting a more inclusive and compelling science education experience (Lyons & Quinn, 2010; Wong, 2016).

The choice to pursue science in school often serves as a launching point for future educational and career paths (Luo et al., 2021). This foundation can lead them to pursue higher education in STEM fields, such as engineering, medicine, computer science, or environmental sciences (Seymour & Hunter, 2019). Moreover, studying science exposes students to various scientific disciplines, allowing them to explore and identify their specific areas of interest (Dierks et al., 2014; Shirazi, 2017). This exploration is critical in guiding students toward specific STEM-related career paths (Thiry & Weston, 2019). For example, a student’s interest in biology may lead them to consider a career in medical research or environmental science, while a fascination with physics might inspire a career in engineering or astrophysics.

While choosing to study science is an important step towards a STEM-related career, it is not the sole determining factor (Sasson, 2020; Thiry & Weston, 2019). Personal interests, aptitude, opportunities for hands-on experience, mentorship, and support systems also play significant roles in shaping career choices in STEM fields (National Academy of Engineering, 2008). Research has indicated that students often consider the practical applications and career prospects associated with a particular field of study when making educational choices (Archer et al., 2013).

Research suggests that students often have limited knowledge about the different career options that stem from studying science (Claydon et al., 2021). They may primarily associate science with traditional professions such as medicine or research while remaining unaware of the vast array of career possibilities in areas such as environmental science, data analysis, biotechnology, engineering, science communication, and many more (Kelp et al., 2023). This lack of awareness can hinder students’ ability to make informed decisions and fully consider the potential paths that studying science can open for them (Habig et al., 2020).

Students’ engagement and preferences in science are profoundly shaped by their personal and cultural characteristics. Cultural backgrounds influence how students perceive and value science, with diverse cultural perspectives introducing unique worldviews and influencing their relationships with scientific concepts (Mansour, 2024; Favero & Hoomissen, 2019; Claydon et al., 2021). Moreover, representation in science education is pivotal for inspiring belonging and motivation among students who identify with role models sharing personal or cultural characteristics (Siani et al., 2022). Conversely, insufficient representation perpetuates stereotypes, particularly affecting underrepresented groups.

Gender differences significantly impact students’ science engagement and preferences, depending on specific scientific domains (Archer et al., 2013; Siani et al., 2022). While girls may exhibit equal or greater interest in biology and life sciences compared to boys, they often show less interest in the “hard” sciences like physics and chemistry. Societal expectations, gender stereotypes, and perceived competence in particular scientific domains contribute to these variations (Mansour, 2024). The ROSE study highlights gender-related differences in the aspects of science that boys and girls find interesting (Schreiner & Sjøberg, 2007), emphasizing the need for a comprehensive understanding. Furthermore, girls often exhibit lower self-efficacy in science, shaped by societal norms, gender stereotypes, and the limited representation of female role models in scientific fields (Guenaga et al., 2022). The perception of science as a traditionally “masculine” pursuit can discourage girls from pursuing science.

The exploration of personal and cultural characteristics and their influence on students’ engagement and preferences in science underscores a significant research gap within the field of science education. While several studies have contributed valuable insights, such as the impact of cultural backgrounds (Lee & Buxton, 2011) and gender differences (Corbett, 2016), there exists a crucial need for more extensive and context-specific research to comprehensively understand why certain students develop a liking or disliking for science. The current literature provides a foundational understanding of how cultural perspectives and personal characteristics interact with science education. For instance, the studies by Siani et al. (