International Journal of Arts, Humanities and Social Studies

Website: https://www.ijahss.in/
ISSN(Online): 2582-3647
Volume 4; Issue 2; Mar-April 2022; Page No. 214-227
Open Access Original Paper

Optimising Students’ Retention of Difficult Physics Concepts Using Design-Thinking Approach in

STEM Learning Context: Implication For A Gender- Inclusive Pedagogy

Moses Irekpita Simeon1* & NooraidaYakob2

1
Lecturer, Department of Science and Environmental Education, Faculty of Education, University of Abuja, Abuja.
Nigeria
2
Senior Lecturer, School of Education and Human Sciences, AlBukhary International University, Alor Setar, Kedah,
Malaysia
ABSTRACT
The study investigated the effect of using design thinking approach in STEM learning context on optimizing students’
retention of achievement in difficult physics concepts. Study was carried out in an afterschool environment which
necessitated the researcher using a single group quasi experimental research design conducted in purposively selected
secondary schools. Intact classes of physics students comprising of 48 male students and 41 female students overall were
used in the study. A 25 item Physics Learning Achievement Test (PLAT) used in the study was validated by experts in
STEM fields at pilot test. Reliability coefficient of validated PLAT using test retest method by Kuder-Richardson (KR-
20) was established at 0.86 for the multiple choice test and Pearson product moment reliability coefficient for the semi-
structured questions at 0.81. The modules combined the elements of STEM learning and design processes of empathy,
ideation, brainstorming prototyping, testing and retesting to learn selected physics concepts for three months. Prior to its
use, students were administered a pretest and a posttest after the study intervention using PLAT. A delayed-posttest was
later administered to participants after two weeks of posttest using PLAT. Result obtained from statistical analysis using
the paired sample t-test and a one-way ANCOVA revealed that there were no significant differences between the posts –
test and delayed post-test of mean score of achievement in physics learning for male students as well as for female
students. Conclusion and relevant recommendations were therefore made in the study.

Keywords: Retention, Design-thinking, STEM, Delayed-posttest, Male, Female.

Citation: Moses Irekpita Simeon & NooraidaYakob (2022). Optimising Students’ Retention of Difficult Physics Concepts Using
Design-Thinking Approach in STEM Learning Context: Implication For A Gender- Inclusive Pedagogy. International Journal of Arts,
Humanities and Social Studies, 4(2), 214-227.

INTRODUCTION
A major concern of educators today is the meaningful retention of knowledge and consequently making such
acquired knowledge relevant to real world situations [1]. Physics concepts taught to students according to Udo and
Ubana [2] were not retained by them because there is a noticeable perceived difficulty of such physics concepts. This
according to them by extension is related to how concepts in physics are being taught. Collaborating this is the assertion
of Nwachukwu [3] that poor learning achievement and retention of science concepts is related to students’ inability to
link previous learning experience to the present one. Therefore, meaningful retention of physics concepts which implies
students’ ability to have the knowledge of concepts stored in long-term memory in such amanner that it can be readily
retrieved when needed cannot be relegated to the background.

Moreover, over a long range of years, physics has been perceived to be a difficult subject and that achievement in
physics at the secondary school is disheartening because of such difficulty students do associate with understanding
physics concepts [4, 5 & 6]. Difficulty in learning physics occurs when students cannot relate physics concepts to real-
world situations because of its abstract nature [7]. Poor performance of students in physics as compared to other science
subjects justifies its difficult nature.

Besides, Obafemiet al. [6] reported that students have difficulty in understanding some important physics concepts
which invariably over time had led to poor achievement. Some of these perceived difficult physics concepts in line with
the study reports of Okpala and Onocha [8]. Obafemi et al. [6], Jegede and Adebayo [9] as well as that of Kiptum [5] are
force,energy, Newton laws of motion, velocity, motion and acceleration.

Moreover, on gender, studies reported that male students were more successful than their female peers at learning
physics. Besides, numerous studies have also confirmed that male students do typically outperform female students in

| P a g e - 214
physics [10]. Inyang and Joiash [11] asserts in their study that there exist a difference by gender in physics
achievement .In fact, Udo et al. [2] affirmed that students’ retention in physics concepts is not the same at all levels of
gender. This according to them implies that male and female students did not show the same retention capacity in physics
concepts.

On pedagogical gap, the teaching of physics is experiencing some dilemma both for the students and teachers, thus
affecting students’ achievement which can be deeply minimized by selecting appropriate and suitable instructional
method [12]. They asserts that there has been no suitable instructional material for learning physics .This is in the wake
of physics instruction been fundamentally a panacea towards achieving scientific literate citizens for a sustainable
economic development [13]. The traditional physics instruction, which is normally conducted based on a theoretical
basis, together with the teacher-centered approach, has been shown to heighten the dislike for studying physics amongst
students, which in turn causes difficulty in understanding and retention of physics concepts [14, 15].This is further
confirmed by Akinbobola [16] who observed that in Nigeria, students’ poor achievement in physics have been attributed
to poor teaching methods and gender effects.

Therefore, this study in an attempt to maximize retention of achievement in difficult physics concepts for male and
female students used design thinking approach in STEM context pedagogy as an active learning process in which
students were expected to acquire physics knowledge by making sense of the concepts by themselves. It is not merely
transferring information from the teacher to the students. It is a diversified teaching and learning technique for
knowledge acquisition in an attempt to improving retention of perceived difficult physics concepts in male and female
students.

Purpose of the study

The specific objectives of this study was to:
• To investigate the effect of design thinking approach in STEM context on the retention of achievement in physics
learning for male students.
• To investigate the effect of design thinking approach in STEM context on the retention of achievement in physics
learning for female students
• To investigate the effect of design thinking approach in STEM context on the retention of achievement in physics
learning between male and female students

Design Thinking Pedagogical Approach and Its Philosophical Model

In the design thinking revolution, Schon [17] introduced the concept of reflection-in-action to explain how the
process of problem-solving is framed by designers. The notion of design as a way of thinking in the sciences can be
traced to Herbert A. Simon's book, the Sciences of the Artificial [18]. Nigel Cross [19] in contrast, examines the
designer’s abilities and how designers act and think differently. He believes that the designer’s task includes both solving
problems and producing the solution.

Design thinking approach according to Eftekhari [20] is a teaching and learning method which introduces a novel
pedagogy potent in moving students beyond the traditional acquisition of knowledge toward the actual application of
acquired knowledge to real life situations. Design thinking introduces a holistic approach such as encourages students to
think across boundaries, thereby providing them with opportunities for fundamental and real world innovations. Design
thinking is a creative method to excite learners about STEM by empowering the learners to solving problems and taking
on new challenges. The problem-solving process of empathy, define ,ideate, prototyping and testing as in the design
thinking process enables students to learn, collaborate, and generate effective and innovative solutions [21]. STEM-
Design thinkers according to him are energized as creative problem solvers and as innovators as STEM-Design thinking
provides learners with tools required for better achievement.

Design thinking approach to learning according to Kwek [22] focuses on developing the learners’ creative
confidence through hands-on projects by empathy, promoting a bias toward action, encouraging ideation and fostering
active problem solving skills and competencies in learners. Design thinking is problem solving approach based on a
complex of skills, mindsets and processes used to creating novel solutions to world problems. Design thinking is a user-
centered, empathy-driven approach which aims at generating solutions through real insight into the users’ needs [23].
Design thinking is an approach that focuses on real problem solving through empathy driven solution and promoting
creativity confidence [24].

Currently, design thinking is fundamentally about the skills required for creative problem solving asserts that design
thinking is used when solving problems in different life’s endeavors in relation to organizations and individuals. Its’
domain of knowledge is process-based and not content –based which emphasizes a learning -by –doing approach. Its
potency lies in its ability to turning learners from passive learners to confident creators [23]. This philosophy is in line

| P a g e - 215
with that of John Dewey who was famously known for his views on progressive education and emphasized the necessity
of learning by doing. Dewey asserts that people learn through a 'hands-on' approach and that it was necessary that people
experience reality. Dewey revealed that the learner must interact with their own environment such as is done in design
thinking instructional approach in this study so that he later attained his place of pragmatism in the philosophy of
education Therefore, Dewey defined design thinking as the approach to learning which is concerned with active problem-
solving through engagement with and transforming the world [25]. In Dewey’s view, teachers must be ready to foster
classroom environments that encourages learners through experience that help them to develop a better understanding of
the curriculum and the learners’ world thus making sense of the world for learners. Dewey's theory of learning through
experience is essentially vital as it help instructors to efficiently emphasize and apply classrooms learning’s to real world
situations.

Design thinking in the view of Brown [26] is an iterative process which is potent in transforming problem situations
into opportunities. A “good design” as an unproblematic process is described is characterized by the generation of
innovations,, which produces predictable results while creating desirable solutions to the end users. Design thinking
refers to creative strategies, designers employ during the process of designing [27]. There are various structures of the
design thinking process in use today with numerous stages ranging from three to seven but are all based on the
outlined principles in Simon’s model of 1969 - The Sciences of the Artificial. However, this study adopted the five-
stage model of empathy, define (the problem), ideate, prototype, and test as proposed by the Hasso-Plattner Institute of
Design at Stanford as follows in figure 1:

Figure 1: Design thinking process model [28]

Empath HYPERLINK "https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/empathy"y: In accordance to Hasso

Platner [28], empathy is the first stage of the design thinking process model. It is crucial as it refers to the human
centered counter piece of the design process.

It offers design thinkers the opportunity to gain insight into the users and their needs .It involves making some ample
effort to understand the emotional needs of the users or people, the way they do things and why they are need, what they
are thinking and what could possibly be beneficial to them. Since the problems of the design is not really his own, he
must need possess some empathy so as to be able to design for the people. Empathy can take the form of watching,
observing listening and engaging,

Define: The second stage of the design thinking process model is define. According to Hasso Platner [28], this is
getting out all the information out of the designer’s head, unpacking them and sharing with fellow designers. It involves
mapping out using anything that captures impression and posting pictures of users. It helps to give clarity and focus to
the entire design process. The main goal expectation of design is to draft a viable and meaningful problem statement. The
define stage is referred to as point-of-view. The phrase “How will I....” is used to describe a point of view It involves
bringing out a well-shaped articulated point-of-view that could generate solution to the users. It is about generating a
guiding statement which focuses on insights and particular need of the users. This statement ends with a suggestion about
how to make necessary changes such as will have influence on people’s experiences. The define mode is one that deals
with the designer’s effort to synthesize his scattered findings into simple potent insights. It offers information of
necessary criteria for competing ideas in the design process.

Ideate is the third and critical component stage of the design thinking process model. Accordingly, it is the stage of a
design thinking process that focuses on ideas generation since ideas help designers to come about pushing for the widest
possible range. It is brainstorming a variety of ideas. Ideating in design thinking process is embedded with fun and
creativity. Students in the ideation phase are expected to generate a myriad of ideas in a single session. They become
wishful thinkers, dreamers of the possible and the impossible as well as risk takers.

| P a g e - 216
 Prototype is the fourth stage of the design thinking process model which entails bringing forward ideas to generate
solutions. A prototype is anything that the users do interact with. It could be a a a role playing activity, particular gadget,
wall of post it notes. The mode is the iterative Prototyping helps to build to think. Prototyping in design process is a
rough and rapid section. A prototype could be a sketch model or a cardboard box. It is a fast path conveying an idea of
the design process. Students at this phase, learn that it is better to fail early and often times.

Test and feedback is the fifth stage of the design thinking process model. Accordingly, this stage designer test and
get feedback on the prototypes created. Testing is part of an iterative process which provides the students with a feedback
to learn what works and what doesn’t work and after wards iterate and thereafter make some necessary modifications
based on feedback .It helps to make decision on whether to refuse or accept the prototypes and solution so as to learn
more about the user. Testing may be helpful to know whether the problem statement was well stated or not. It informs
about the next iteration of prototypes whether to go back to the drawing board or not. It helps to see what ought to have
been done that was not done. It .ensures that students learn in the design process for the users what works and what
doesn’t work as enumerated by Efeoglu, Miller, Serie and Boer [29].

Therefore, from the above review the researcher was informed that the design processes model is of several stages
having their basis on the foundational model of Herbert Simon. Thus, the model guided the researcher on the main
processes of empathy, define, ideate, prototyping, testing and feedback in the design thinking approach. It has guided the
researcher to focus, adopt and adapt the Hasso Platner design thinking model in the development of the instructional
module which has its foundational basis on the pioneering model and framework of Herbert Simon.

Integrated STEM Elements for Optimal Learning and Retention of Difficult Physics Concepts
STEM learning according to Jolly [30] is an interdisciplinary learning approach which eliminates traditional barrier
that separates the disciplines of science, technology, engineering and mathematics thus integrating them into rigorous,
real-world relevant experiences for learners. In this study, STEM learning is defined as the context for learning selected
physics concepts of force, energy, motion, speed, velocity and acceleration with their relevance to the interdisciplinary
approach of science, technology, engineering and mathematics for optimal retention.

Learning physics in the context of STEM according to Fischer [31] minimizes learning around the facts thereby
changing the paradigm. Teaching and learning physics according to him must go beyond the facts and the theories. To
draw as close as possible to understanding the cause effect realities of the natural world is the goal of science. It is never
the "facts" or the “truth” because and "facts” and “truth” could have different meanings to different people. The
conventional methods teachers use in teaching physics has been by stressing only the facts or theories without
emphasizing active learning. This is collaborated by Fischer [31] who observed that conventional science instruction
such as physics learning is not effective as expected. Only 10 to 20 percent of lecture content are being retained by the
students, to the dismay of the instructors who had spent much time clarifying only the facts to their students.

STEM learning is an interdisciplinary and applied approach for instructing students. It is based on the four
disciplines of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Jolly [30] defined each of the four disciplines which
makes up the interdisciplinary approach of STEM as follows: S-Science (Understanding the natural world around us), T-
Technology (Creating products to solve human problems), E-Engineering (Design process to solve human problems) and
M-Mathematics (Numbers, quantities in every activity).

STEM learning is essential because it occupies every endeavor of human life. Besides, the necessity for STEM
learning in today’s ever changing world is becoming more and more apparent [32]. STEM learning in the 21 stcentury is
an approach for making learning more connected to real-world situations and relevant to the learners. It increases science
literacy, enables the next generation of innovators by developing critical thinkers. Innovation no doubt leads to new
products and processes potent enough to sustain our economy. Such innovation and science acquisition depends on a
solid knowledge base in the STEM areas [33]. It encourages creativity which promotes innovative thinking. STEM
activities avail hands-on and minds-on lessons for learners. It makes learning mathematics and science interesting so that
students do much more than just learn [34]. Such peculiarity of STEM in learning science and mathematics with fun
could make learning of difficult concept less stressful thereby enhancing optimal achievement and retention. Besides, it
encourages a student- centered environment as well as improves problem solving higher level thinking skills and
retention of concepts.

Gender Schema Theory and Retention of Difficult Physics Concepts

The Gender schema theory emphasis that cultural influences does largely impact on how children develop their
own ideas about what it means to be a boy or girl, a male or female, man or woman. Gender schema theory is such that
explains that children do learn from the culture in which they live about what it means to be a boy or girl. According to
Bem [35, 36 & 37], the theory emphasizes that children usually adjust their own behavior to fit into cultural and gender

| P a g e - 217
norms of their culture. From Bem‘s theory, children observe culture and people around them. They imbibe and learn the
existing associations with masculinity and femininity. From such associations with their own culture they develop some
peculiar gender –linked characteristics, while maintaining and transmitting same to others within the society.

Moreover, what influences a gender schema’s development theory is the beliefs of the society about what really
constitutes male and female traits .The theory therefore reflect both on how social information is processed as well as on
people’s beliefs, behaviors and attitudes. The Bem’s Gender schema theory describes what characterize each gender and
how each gender is treated by the society as well as societal roles which outlines what physical differences is between
male and female. Society here could mean the schools, parents, peers and media. All these have the potential to exert
cultural effect and influences on gender schema. This can be seen in a traditional culture, wherea child learns that man’s
role is that of industry and a woman that of caring and raising of children. Besides, children form schema related to how
women and men should behave through their observations of traditional cultures.

Study investigating the relationship between gender and physics achievement by Gamze [38] reported that male
students had higher achievement in physics than their female colleagues in comprehending concepts in physics.
Similarly, Akanwa and Kalu-Uche [39] reported that there is a wide gap in boys and girls achievement in science and
technological fields. Moreover, In a study conducted on investigating the relationship between gender and achievement
of 494 senior secondary (SS III) students in physics in 6 zones of Enugu state, Nigeria by Ugwu [40], a weak negative
relationship between gender and achievement in the Test of Understanding of Physics Concepts (TOUPC) was reported
signifying poor retention of concepts compared with their male counterparts. Conclusively, the study’s theoretical
perspectives of assimilation and gender schema theories established a model for male and female learning outcomes in
the students’ own sociocultural and constructivism environments while learning physics concepts in STEM context.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS.

Research Design
Study intervention was carried out as an after school environment so that study could not randomize nor use a
control group but used existing intact group of classes and employed a single group research design in the quasi-
experiment .In line with the assertions of Kazdin [41], a single-group design was employed because it was sensitive to
means of groups being often primarily used to determine a program or study’s intervention’s effectiveness. Beside, Borg
and Gall [42] justified the use of a single group design in situations when schools do not make possible provisions nor
allow the researcher for control groups. Using the single-group design was further justified in line with the assertions of
Thompson [43] that it is highly flexible and highlights individual differences in response to effect of study’s intervention.

Study Sample and Sampling Technique

Study used an intact class of physics students comprising of 89 with48being male and 41 female students
purportedly selected from two senior secondary schools (SSS 2) in Kwali Area Council, Abuja, Nigeria. These were
schools that allowed an afterschool school environment after some ethical considerations. Participants’ average age was
16years old and were of comparable socio-economic background.

Instrumentation
Study conducted a pilot test on the25 item multiple choice and semi-structured Physics Learning Achievement Test
(PLAT) which was to be used for the intervention. PLAT was validated by experts in physics and STEM fields. Split test
reliability onPLAT using odd and even strategy in line with Anikweze [44] wasestimated to determine the level of error
in the multiple choice achievement test by Kuder-Richardson formula (KR-20) at .86.Also to determine the test –retest
reliability for the semi-structured questions,the coefficient of stability using Pearson product moment correlationwas
estimated at .81.

Besides, the researcher’s developed STEM-Design thinking modules used at intervention was validated by experts in
physics and STEM fields. Rational for developing the modules rather than adopting one for use was because most STEM
instructional learning materials in schools give much attention on the science and mathematics of STEM, without the
inclusion of all the various elements of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics so that the Engineering and
Technology were neglected in such version of STEM learning. On the other hand, most STEM instructional materials
such as ‘Engineering by Design’developed by the Center for Advancement for Teaching, Technology and Science
(CATTS), ‘Invention, Innovation and Inquiry’ by International Technology Education Association(ITEA), ‘Engineering
is Elementary (EIE)’ by the National Center for Technological Literacy (NCTL) all placed emphasis on engineering and
technology with little or no emphasis onthe science and mathematics.

However,in this study, the developed STEM-Design thinking modulesused thecombined elements of STEM
learning, namely the science, technology, engineering and mathematics. This was integrated into the design processes of
empathy, define, ideation, brainstorming, prototyping ,testing, improving and retesting for learning physics concepts of

| P a g e - 218
force, motion, energy, speed, velocity, Newton laws of motion and acceleration for three months. Rational for selection
of concepts as perceived difficult physics concepts was in line with the reports of Okpala and Onocha [8]. Obafemi et al.
[6], Jegede and Adebayo [9] as well as that of Kiptum [5] who reported these concepts as difficult physics concepts
among others. Besides, the feasibility in the implementation of the developed STEM-Design thinking instructional
modules for the quasi-experimental intervention was ascertained through interviews and observational techniqueanalysis
fromstudents and experts respectively at pilot study.

Procedure
Using the validated STEM- Design thinking modules for the quasi-experimental intervention, students were made to
learn the selected physics concepts of force, motion, energy, acceleration, velocity and speed with emphasis on the
science, technology, mathematics and engineering (STEM) knowledge while engaging on the design activities. The
modules consist of the zip line, truss bridge design challenge activities for learning physics concepts. Prior to study’s
intervention, students were administered a pretest and similarly after an intervention a posttest using PLAT. The scores
obtained at the pretest and posttest were therefore statistically analyzed by gender for understanding of the study’ effect
on male and female’ achievement in the selected difficult physics concepts. The procedure of the design processes are as
follows:

Empathy-At this stage of the design process, use of the instructional modules presented the participants with a zip
line deliveries and truss bridge design tasks while making them to develop deep insights into the users and their needs.,
The main goal inthe zip line challenge was to identify some problems using a story line of some children in a refugee
camp in a thick jungle. These refugees who live down the mountain sides had no access road for use, bartered with
hunger, uncertainties of life, lack of basic clothing supplies and routine lifesaving medicines for malaria, tuberculosis,
pneumonia and HIV/AIDS treatments. Participants therefore, were allowed to develop deep insights into the needs of
these children refugees, putting themselves in their place so they can consequently generate some solutions to the
problem of these children by designing a carrier for them as user. The consensus insight arrived at by the participants and
the facilitator was a design that can travel down a zip line.

The second design task boarders on building a rural community sturdy bridge challenge. The main goal was
identifying through a story- line some problems with a Nigeria Railroad Corporation which had just acquired a fleet of
trains for transportation of persons, goods and services across the country. However, a narrow river exist in one section
of the railroad plan which runs through a deep valley which makes the construction of an additional railroad for the trains
to cross the valley in a populated local community a problem. Participants therefore, were avail the opportunity to
develop deep insights into needs of these railway corporation in this community by putting themselves into their place so
they could generate some solutions to the problem. A consensus through deep insight was reached by participants and
their facilitators to design a sturdy truss bridge for the users above the river and deep valley.

Define: Define the problem in a human-centered manner. It entails identifying the design challenges, stating clearly
the problem and what possible potential solution could be achieved just as engineers do it entails finding what problem
is it. The study therefore using the developed STEM- design thinking module enabled study participants to brainstorm
and write down what they can invent as a solution to the identified problem and how it will work out. This pertained to
the zip line deliveries, truss bridge design challenge tasks. In the zip line challenge, the main goal was to identify some
problems with some children in a refugee camp in a thick jungle. The participants therefore were expected to clearly state
the problem as does engineers and thereafter spelling out how to possibly work out the solution to bringing daily
deliveries to this children in the thick jungle. Similarly, in the building of a rural community sturdy bridge challenge,
participants were made to identify, write down and brainstorm on how to offer solution in a rural community where
construction of an additional railroad for the trains to cross the valley was a problem.

Ideation: This refers to various techniques as brainstorming, identifying possible solutions or ideas to the design
challenge. It involved sketching, drawing diagrams or taking pictures as does engineers. Also involved listing the
materials needed for creating solutions to identified problems facing the users. Therefore, participants after brainstorming
chooses the best ideas of the numerous ideas they generated.

Prototypes: This stage involved participants creating solutions as they produce varieties of inexpensive versions of
the product. They build a model – either full-size or scale – of their design based on their plans which is an important
step of an engineering design process. On using the first developed instructional module, the study the facilitator asked
the study participants about what type of zip line they know after going through their own sketches on paper. Facilitator
also shows the participants some zip line designs activities by online interactive resources. Thereafter, participants were
allowed to create prototype, build a model of a zip line.On the second design challenge, facilitator asked the participants
about what type of bridge they know and thereafter go through their paper sketches. Facilitators also shows participants

| P a g e - 219
some truss bridge design activities by online interactive resources. Thereafter, participants were allowed to create
prototype, build a model of a truss bridge design.

In the zip line challenge, participants were guided to describe and design a model of a zip line. As participants
engaged in the design task, concepts of kinetic energy, potential energy, gravitational acceleration, transforming
gravitational potential and the Newton law of universal gravitation were reasoned out with clear cut discussion on how
the acceleration of a given object is affected by it. Participants were guided in applying mathematical formula of average
speed=distance /time as well learnt conversion of units for physics concepts. Besides, the concepts of friction and forces
in two dimensions, vector components, coefficient of friction of the ropes and torques in solving the zip challenge were
highlighted. Participants therefore knew and acquired better understanding of physics concept as science and engineering
principles involved in zip lines structures.

In the truss bridge design, participants were guided to learn and apply the concept of force associated with designs
of bridges namely as force of reaction, weight of bridge and their associated mathematical calculations as they engaged
in building the prototype bridge As they engage in the design task they learnt and understood basic fundamental principle
of engineering and coupling together of bridge design( the technology). Besides, the participants learned and applied the
Newton’s third law of motion as engineers in designing bridges,the concepts of equilibrium, static and dynamic loads,
vibrations, and resonance while building their bridges (the Science). They also learnt while designing the prototype of
truss bridge about tension and compression forces (the science) while determining the effective geometric shapes used in
bridge design (the mathematics).

Testing: Test it out. This step offers the participants the opportunity to see potential flaws, challenges or glaring
opportunities that were not visible in a two-dimensional drawing. In this stage, participants as designers test the finished
products using the best identified solutions in accordance with Siang [45]. Participants test their own prototypes of the
zip line structure in design challenge as well as of the truss bridge challenge.

Improving and Retesting: Study participants repeated the design process step several times, by going back to
previous steps and starting over. It is the way to go in the design process as there is no right or wrong way to going
through the solutions. For the truss bridge design participants viewed to check out if their invention or designs can be
improved. They check if the prototypes can be modified. They check out if it will hold more weights as in the case of the
truss bridge design task. They tried more challenging levels by increasing the distance to more than 1meter, 2 meters and
so on. They reviewed the design steps for quality assurance. In the same vein for the zip line deliveries challenge, study
participants repeated the design process step several times, by going back to previous steps and starting all over again to
check out if their designs or inventions could be improved upon. They check to see if their prototypes could be modified
of the zip line for deliveries while increasing or decreasing the distance on the line to calculate new values for riders’
speed, velocity and acceleration with respect to gravity on the zip line.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Table 1: Mean and Standard Deviation of the Post-test and Delayed-Posttest of Male and Female Students’ Achievement
in Physics Learning

Gender Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Male Pair 1 Posttest (Achievement) 17.69 48 2.64 .38
Delayed-posttest (Achievement)
18.06 48 2.96 .43

Female Pair 1 Posttest (Achievement) 17.37 41 2.93 .46

Delayed-posttest (Achievement)
17.39 41 2.43 .38

From Table 1 , a total of 48 male students was with mean and standard deviation of Post-test and Delayed-posttest
physics achievement of post-test(M=17.69, SD=2.65) and Delayed-posttest (M=18.06, SD=2.96). Similarly, a total of
forty-one(41) female students with a mean and standard deviation of Posttest and Delayed-posttest physics achievement
were posttest(M=17.37, SD=2.93) and Delayed-posttest(M=17.39, SD=2.43).

Table 2: Paired Sample Test between the Post-test and Delayed-posttest of Male Students’ Achievement in Physics
Learning
Paired Samples Testa

| P a g e - 220
 Paired Differences
Std. 95% Confidence Interval
Error of the Difference Sig. (2-
Gender Mean Std. Deviation Mean Lower Upper t df tailed)
Male Posttest (Physics
Pair 1 Achievement) -
Delayed- -.38 4.2 .61 -1.59 .84 -.62 47 .54
posttest(Physics
Achievement)
a. Gender = Male

In testing the null hypothesis HO 1 which states there is no significant difference between the posttest and delayed-
posttest of achievement in physics for male students, a paired sample t-test was carried out. This was to determine
whether a statistically significant difference existed between the mean score of achievement in physics for male students
at post -test and delayed-posttest which is the posttest 2 administered after the intervention namely the use of STEM-
Design thinking modules. Before the analysis, an assumption of normality test was conducted which indicated that there
was no gross violation of assumptions.

The result of the paired t-test as shown in Table 2 was found not significant at t (47) = -.62, P>.05(two-tailed).
Meaning there was no significant difference in mean score of male students’ physics achievement at posttest and
delayed-posttest. The observed non-significant increase in physics achievement scores from the post-test (M=17.69,
SD=2.65) to the Delayed-posttest (M=18.06, SD=2.96). to the delayed-posttest was a mean of 0.38 with the 95%
confidence level interval for differences between the means of -1.59 (lower bound) to .84(upper bound) so that the
researcher fail to reject the null hypothesis HO1.This implies that there was no significant difference between the posttest
and delayed posttest of mean sore of achievement in physics learning for male students.

Furthermore, a paired sample t-test analysis was conducted in order to statistically proffer answer to the research
hypothesis (HO2) which states there is no significant difference between the posttest and delayed- posttest of achievement
in physics for female students as follows:

Table 3: Paired Samples Test between the Posttest and Delayed-Posttest of Female Students’ Achievement in
Physics Learning
Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Std. Std. Error Sig. (2-
Gender Mean Deviation Mean Lower Upper T df tailed)
Female Pair 1 Posttest
(Achievement)
Delayed posttest -.02 3.38 .53 -1.09 1.04 -.05 40 .96
(Achievement)

In testing the null hypothesis HO2 which states that there is no significant difference between the posttest and
delayed- posttest of achievement in physics learning for female students, a paired sample t-test was carried out. This was
to determine whether a statistically significant difference existed between the mean score of achievement in physics for
female students at posttest and delayed-posttest. Before the analysis, an assumption of normality test was conducted
which indicated that there was no gross violation of assumptions. The result of the paired t-test as shown in Table 3 was
found not significant at t (40) = -.05, P>.05(two-tailed). Meaning there was no significant difference in mean score of
female students’ physics achievement at posttest and delayed-posttest. The observed non-significant increase in physics
achievement scores from the post-test (M=17.37, SD=2.93) to the Delayed-post-test (M=17.39, SD=2.43) was a mean
of .02 with the 95% confidence level interval for differences between the means of -1.09 (lower bound) to 1.04(upper
bound) so that the researcher fail to reject the null hypothesis HO 2 thus implying that there was no significant difference
between the posttest and delayed posttest of mean sore of achievement in physics learning for female students.

Similarly, a One-Way ANCOVA analysis was conducted in order to statistically proffer answer to research
hypothesis (HO3) which states there is no significant difference between the Delayed-posttest achievement of male and
female students inphysics learning after the effect of pretest is controlled as follows:

| P a g e - 221
 Table 4: Result of One-Way ANCOVA for differences between Male and Female Students Achievement in
Physics Learning at Delayed- Posttest.

Type III Sum of Partial Eta

Source Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared
Corrected Model
13.07a 2 6.53 .87 .42 .02

Intercept 2912.33 1 2912.33 388.01 .00 .82

Pre-test 3.07 1 3.07 .41 .52 .01
Gender 12.71 1 12.71 1.69 .20 .02
Error 645.50 86 7.51
Total 28708.00 89
Corrected Total 658.56 88
a. R Squared = .020 (Adjusted R Squared = -.003)

A one-way between-groups analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)was carried out in an attempt to test the null
hypothesis HO3 which states that there is no significant difference between the Delayed-posttest achievement of male and
female students inphysics learning after the effect of pretest is controlled. The independent variable was the intervention
which is the use of STEM-Design thinking approach while the dependent variable was the scores on physics achievement
at Delayed-posttest administered to participants after the intervention. The pretest which is participants’ score in physics
achievement before the intervention was used as the covariate in the statistical analysis. After adjusting for the pre-test on
students’ achievement in physics, there was no significant difference between male and female students on Delayed-
posttest achievement scores as shown in Table 4 indicating that the researcher fail to reject the null hypothesis HO 3.
F (1, 86) = 1.69, P>.05(two-tailed) and ƞp2(partial eta squared) =.02.

DISCUSSION
From the results obtained in the statistical testing of generated null hypothesis H 01 shows that the researcher failed to
reject the null hypothesis (H01).This implies that there was no significant difference in the mean score of male students’
physics achievement at post-tests and delayed-posttest. Although there was slight improvement in achievement of male
students from posttest to delayed posttest. This means that male students were able to retain content of physics concepts
of force, motion, acceleration, speed, velocity learnt when design thinking approach in STEM context was used. This is
consistent with the research report of Talbot (2014) in investigating gender differences in STEM knowledge acquisition.
Study reported that male students both gained and retained contents of STEM knowledge in the out-of-school-time
STEM program. This implies there was improvement in knowledge acquisition for male students from posttest to
delayed posttest. Study findings is in line with the findings of Mbano and Nolan [46] in their study on increasing access
of students in STEM learning. They found that student-active pedagogies improved retention in male students. This also
is line with Ausubel’s theory of assimilation that when learners’ previous ideas is assimilated into the new one such as
when using STEM-Design thinking processes for learning difficult physics concepts, new potential learning takes place
which enhances meaningful long-term retention of concepts. In this study using learning environment in which learning
activities using the design thinking in STEM context allows past experiences and acquired learners’ ideas from a variety
of real-life situations is connected and assimilated into the new learning, there is a potent contribution on achievement
and meaningful retention of information learned. Ausubel’s assimilation theory for retention further confirmed study
findings that when a learner is learning a new information, the brain try to associate the information or concept with
previously stored knowledge through assimilation. When the student learns something new, the brain creates a new
neural pathway so that repetition becomes vital when engaging in learning to retaining or store such information in long-
term memory. In this study, the test-retest stages of the STEM- Design thinking processes availed the learners’ the
opportunity to optimize meaningful retention of difficult physics concepts.

Moreover, finding is in line with the affirmations of King and Wiseman [47], and Stohlmann, Moore, Tamara and
Roehrig [48] that interdisciplinary STEM learning upholds students’ retention. This also agree with the report of Meyrick
[49] that STEM learning context has the capacity to provide learners with true mastery of concepts.

Furthermore, the statistical testing of the generated null hypothesis H 02 shows that the researcher failed to reject the
research hypothesis H02. This implies there was no significant difference between the post–test and delayed post-test of
achievement in physics learning for female students. Study findings shows that female students did not experience
significant improvement in physics learning achievement from posttest to delayed-posttest. Although they retained the

| P a g e - 222
knowledge acquired in learning selected physics concepts. Although, their level of achievement did not increase
significantly from posttest to delayed-posttest. But content of physics concepts were retained. Study finding is consistent
with that of Standish, Christensen, Knezek, Kjellstrom and Bredder [50] who compared the mean scores at pretest and
posttest in an attempt to determine the effects of an instructional module. Their study found out that females gained a
large amount of knowledge on the concepts of sound and waves.

Findings is consistent with the research results of Talbot [51] in investigating gender differences in STEM
knowledge acquisition in which study result shows that female students both gained and retained contents of STEM
knowledge in the out-of-school-time STEM program after 60 days period. Moreover, study findings is also in line with
the report findings of Mbano et al. [46] in their study on increasing access of female students in STEM learning. They
found out that student-active pedagogies improved retention in female students. Again this study’s findings which shows
that female recorded meaningful retention of concepts is line with Ausubel’s theory of assimilation which established
that when learners’ previous ideas is assimilated into the new ideas or concepts such as when using STEM-Design
thinking processes for learning difficult physics concepts, a new potential learning takes place which enhances
meaningful long-term retention of the physics concepts. The learning activities using the design thinking in STEM
context allowed past experiences and acquired learners’ ideas from a variety of real-life situations to be connected and
assimilated into the new learning, resulting to a potent contribution on achievement and consequently a meaningful
retention of concepts learned.

Furthermore, study from the statistical testing of generated null hypothesis H 03 shows the researcher failed to reject
the null hypothesis H03. This implies that there was no significant difference between the delayed-posttest achievement of
male and female students in physics learning after the effect of pre-test was controlled. Notwithstanding, findings shows
that the male students had higher achievement scores in physics learning than the female students based on comparison
on the delayed-posttest achievement scores. This means that level of retention of physics concepts for male students was
higher than that of their female counterparts although both had their retention of physics contents enhanced by the use of
design thinking in STEM context.

Study findings is supported by that of Talbot [51] in a study investigating the effect of out-of school STEM learning
on knowledge reported that there was no significant difference between the achievement of male and female at the post-
post-test but that the males had higher achievement scores than their female counterparts.

Besides, findings are not concomitant with the study findings conducted by Oludipe [52] to investigate gender
difference in students’ achievement in STEM related learning. Study reported that female students’ mean scores
achievement was observed to be slightly higher than that of their male counterparts. Although they observed no
statistically significant differences in delayed – posttest mean scores achievement of male and female students.
Conclusively, male students had higher achievement scores in physics learning than the female students on the delayed-
post-test achievement scores. Reason for this difference between male and female for which males had higher
achievement scores in physics learning than their female counterparts may be adduced to the views of Bian, Leslie and
Cimpian [53] in their study on gender stereotypes about intellectual ability. According to them, intellectual ability
emerges early and influence children’s attention. As early as age 6 both male andfemale children already imbibed the
perception for gender stereotypes that males generally have higher-level intellectual capacity and ability in STEM
learnings and are so labelled as genius. Thus such gender stereotypes which associates the males with high-level
intellectual ability has a potential influence in affecting the male participants to wanting to boost their egos to measure up
to this stereotype, influencing them positively but rather influence the females negatively. The females will always
perceive due to such stereotype that their male counterparts are always better than them in STEM learnings
achievements.

Furthermore, Guo, Parker, Marsh and Morin [54] in their study on achievement reported that implicit or explicit
gender stereotypes depicts the idea that STEM learning are mainly male-dominance which negatively affects the
achievement and engagement of females thereby making them perform lower than their male counterparts as obtained in
this study. Hoffman, Gneezy and List [55] also observed why male outperform their female counterparts in STEM
learning achievements. Their reason was because males are believed to have better cognitive skills than their female
counterparts which according to them could probably be due to the family environment that provides the males with
more opportunities to put their skills to practice.

Moreover, Steinke [56] collaborated on the reason for males having higher scores than the females as possibly due to
gender stereotypes from media which most often do influence female students’ ability, achievement and their aspirations
in STEM learnings and professions. Steinke [57] further asserts in a study on adolescent girls’ STEM identity formation
and media images of STEM professionals that watching television programs, posters, video games, film, sci-fi movies
that show images that promotes traditionally male dominance, may pose a threat to gender-STEM compatibility for the

| P a g e - 223
females. Gender schema theory therefore provides the understanding of how and when gender stereotypes popular media
may affect adolescent girls’ STEM formation of their identity by giving attention to the dominant role of gender schemas
during information processing which invariably turn out to affect their own ability and achievement in STEM leanings.

Besides, McDaniel [58], Spearman and Watt [59], Kolmos, Mejlgaard, Haase and Holgaard [60] all in their study
reported that girls are less advantaged in STEM learning achievements compared to their male counterparts. This
according to them is due such as the gender, cultural and social norms. These influence females and males’ up bringing
as they interact with peers, teachers, parents and the society at large. These norms according to them sharpens their
learning behaviours, beliefs, identity and their choices and invariably makes them think and perform lower compared to
their male counterparts to their interactions with variety of factors within the learning and socialization processes.

Moreover, Thomas, Kovas, Meaburn and Tolmie [61] reported in their study that there is no evidence for male and
female genetic differences in their cognitive abilities. This implies that male and female cognitive abilities are not
determined by genetic differences between them. According to them, as male and females interact with their
environment, family, classroom and the society at large may determine to what extent their genes does influence their
cognitive abilities. In order words the interaction of the female participants with their immediate environment affects
their construction of learning in line with the constructivist cognitive learning’s view. This has the capacity to determine
their lower cognitive abilities and retention of physics conceptswhen compared to their male counterparts.

Implications for a Gender-Inclusive Pedagogy

The study intervention provided a type of an inclusive pedagogyin which facilitators and learners creates a
supportive environment where they were actively engaged together in design tasks that availed each participant equal
opportunity to meaningful learning ,promoting thoughtfulness and creativity of ideas generation for solutions to human
problems. Use of developed STEM-Design thinking modules which wasstudent-centered had the capacity to improve
female students’ achievement in STEM learning because the design tasks were related to social environments that
provided favorable social negotiations in terms of ideas, human relationships, language and relevance of topics taught
and applied to their social environment from where they construct their knowledge. This nevertheless enhanced better
female students’ achievement in physics learning like their male counterparts in line with Kelly [62] who asserts that
female students acquire meaningful learning in classroom with keen interest when topics of instructions have some
social relevance . This is in line with the study reports of Baker [63] that certain teaching strategies such as are student-
centered, inquiry-based and participatory strategies such as the STEM-Design thinking approach for learning physics
concepts has the potential to inspire females. Study findings of Yang [64] reported that female learners prefer learning
environments that offer them opportunities to connect learnings of concepts to real life situations. In this study, female
participants’ actively engaged in the STEM-design thinking activities in the zip line and truss bridge design tasks that
allowed them relate what is learnt to real life situation which therefore optimized their achievement in physics learning
within the constructivism environment. The implication of this therefore revealed the need for the schools to provide
innovative training to sensitize physics teachers on how to develop and use a gender-inclusive pedagogy such as the
STEM -design thinking modules in physics learning through relating difficult concepts to real life situations in a bid to
creating learning opportunities that will optimize male and female learners’ meaningful learning and retention of such
difficult physics concepts. This is because females preferred constructivism learning environment than their male
counterparts and this resulted to optimizing meaningful retention of achievement levels.

Limitation of Study: The study basically was limited to enhancing students’ optimal retention of achievement in
some selected difficult physics concepts using the design thinking approach in the context of STEM learning .Selected
difficult concepts were limited to concepts of force, energy, motion, acceleration, Newton laws of motion, velocity, and
force. Study was limited to only 12 weeks with only 89 male and female students as study participants who were
purposively selected from two senior secondary schools in Kwali Area Council, Abuja, Nigeria.

Competing Interest’s statement: The authors wish to express that there were no competing interests as regards their
involvement in this research.

CONCLUSION
The study revealed that the use of STEM-Design thinking modules sustained and retained male and female students’
achievement scores were although the male students exhibited higher retention ability at delayed-posttest on achievement
in physics learning than their female counterparts. Furthermore, study findings clearly revealed that using the
pedagogical and theoretical approach of design thinking for male and female students does enhance learning of physics
concepts in STEM context is effective although with the males having higher scores than their female counterparts in
achievement scores at delayed- posttest. The study showed that the STEM-Design thinking approach positively impacted
students’ achievement and optimized knowledge retention in difficult physics concepts of male and female students in
physics learning. Study findings also shows that there were not much differences in male and female’s retention of

| P a g e - 224
achievement after study interventions at delayed- posttest and where there were differences, the differences were quite
moderate.

Therefore, study recommended that to maximize the positive impacts of learning difficult physics concepts using the
design thinking approach in STEM context, education policy should give attention to an after school environment that
would optimize meaningful retention of physics concept This in turn will also provide students with ample opportunity to
gain 21st century skills for solutions to real-world problems. Study could also be carried out using this intervention in
learning other physics concepts and be replicated in other parts of the country for generalization.

In conclusion, study result showed that both male and female students retained physics knowledge alike because
both male and female students recorded no significant difference on delayed-posttest achievement scores in physics
learning of difficult concepts

REFERENCE
1. Musib, M. (2018).Creating and integrating relevant educational cartoons with scenario-based learning strategies to
impart long-term ethics learning . .International. Journal. Innovation and Learning, 25( 1) 50–63 .Retrieved from:
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIL.2019.096533
2. Udo, N.N and Ubana, U.A (2013). Teaching Physics for Retention. . International Journal of Modern Management
Sciences, 2(1): 18-25
3. Nwachukwu, J. C. (2002).The Effect of Pictorial Organizer on Leaning a Biology Concept. ESUT Journal of
Education, 3(2),72 –82
4. Saleh, S., & Subramaniam, L. (2018), Effects of Brain-Based Teaching Method on Physics achievement among
ordinary school students, Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjss.2017.12.025
5. Kiptum, M. G. (2015). Difficulty physics topics in Kenyan secondary schools: A case study of Uasin Gishu County.
Scholarly Journal of Education, 4(4), 72-81. Retrieved from http:// www.scholarly-journals.com/SJE.
6. Obafemi, D.T.A., & Onwioduokit, F.A (2013). Identification of difficult concepts in senior secondary school Two
(SS2) physics curriculum in Rivers State, Nigeria.Asian Journal of Education and e-Learning, 1(5), 317-322.
7. Isola O. M. (2010). Effects of standardized and improvised instructional materials students’ academic achievements
in secondary school physics. Unpublished M. Ed Thesis, University of Ibadan, Ibadan.
8. Okpala, P., & Onocha, C. (1988). Difficult physics topics in Nigerian secondary schools. Physics Education, 23,
168-172.
9. Jegede, S. A., & Adedayo, J. O. (2013). Enriching physics education in Nigeria towards enhancing a sustainable
technological development. Greener Journal of Educational Research, 3(2), 8084.
http://www.gjournals.org/GJER/GJER%20PDF/2013/April/Jegede%20and%20Adedayo.pdf. Accessed 15 January
2016.
10. Gwen, C. M., & Gita, T. (2013). Stereotype threat and women's performance in physics. International Journal of
Science Education, 35(18), 3050-3061
11. Inyang, U.S., & Josiah, M.M. (2016). Students’ gender and perceived difficulty of concepts in secondary school
physics in Jos Metropolis, Nigeria. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOSR-JRME) 6(5)
www.iosrjournals.org.
12. Hussain, A., Azeem, M., & Shakoor, A. (2011). Physics teaching methods: Scientific inquiry Vs traditional lecture.
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(19), 269-276.
13. Aderonmu, T. S. B., & Obafemi, D. T. (2015). Or deals of physics instruction in Nigerian secondary schools: Way
forward for the attainment of global competitiveness. Journal of Education and Practice, 6 (20), 87-96.
14. Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics
test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74.
15. Sidin, R. (2003). Pembudayaan Sains dan Teknologi: Satu Cadangan Piawai [Socialization of science and
technology: A standard proposal]. Jurnal Pendidikan (UKM), 47-63. [in Malay]
16. Akinbobola, A .O (2010) Enhancing Students' Attitude Towards Nigerian Senior Secondary School Physics Through
the Use of Cooperative, Competitive and Individualistic Learning Strategies. Australian Journal of Teacher
Education: 34(1), 1-10.Retrieved from: http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol34/iss1
17. Schon, D. H. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.
18. Simon,H. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge: MIT Press
19. Cross, N. (1982). Designedly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), 221-227.
20. Eftekhari, F. (2019) .Design thinking beyond design discipline: The process of knowledge transfer. A dissertation
submitted to the Graduate Faculty of North Carolina State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Design Raleigh, North Carolina
21. White, D. M. (2016).Connecting STEM with design thinking. Interdisciplinary STEM Teaching & Learning
22. Kwek, S. H. (2011). Innovation in the classroom: Design thinking for 21st century learning. (Master’s thesis).
Retrieved from http://www.stanford.edu/group/redlab /cgibin/publications_resources.php

| P a g e - 225
23. Goldman, S., & Kabayadondo, Z. (2017). Taking design thinking to school: how the technology of design can
transform teachers, learners, and classrooms (1st ed). New York: Routledge. Retrieved from:
https://www.worldcat.org/title/takingdesign-thinking-to-school-how-the-technology-of-design-can-
transformteachers-learners-and-classrooms/oclc/939715602
24. Zielezinski, M. B. (2017). Finding your fit: Empathy, authenticity and ambiguity in the Design thinking classroom.
In S. Goldman & Z. Kabayandondo (Eds), Taking design thinking to schools: how the technology of design can
transform teaches, learners and classrooms (pp195-203). Newyork: Routledge
25. Dewey, J. (1966). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Free Press.
26. Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New
York: HarperCollins
27. Visser, W. (2006). The cognitive artifacts of designing. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
28. Hasso Platner Institute of Design (2010). An introduction to Design Thinking Process Guide. Stanford University.
Retrieved from https://dschool.stanford.edu.
29. Efeoglu, A., Miller, C., Serie, M., & Boer, H. (2014). Design thinking: characteristics and promises. Conference
paper: CINet, at Nijmegen, The Netherlands,14. doi: 10.13140/2.1.4737.6640.
30. Jolly, A. (2017). STEM by design: Strategies and activities for grades 4-8(1st ed). New York: Routledge.
31. Fischer, C.N. (2011). Changing the science education paradigm: From teaching facts to engaging the intellect
science education. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 84, 247-251.
32. Hunt, K (2016). The importance of STEM education. https://k12.kendallhunt.com/blog/importance-stem-education.
HYPERLINK "https://k12.kendallhunt.com/blog/importance-stem-education.%20Accessed%2024%20June
%202017" Accessed 24 June 2017.
33. Eberle, F. (2010). Why STEM education is important. ISA Publications HYPERLINK "file:///F:/In%20Tech
%20Magazine"In Tech Magazine Workforce Development. https://www.isa.org/standards-and-publications/isa-
publications/intech-magazine/2010/september/why-stem-education-is-important/. Accessed 19 May 2016.
34. National Science Foundation. (2016). Why is STEM education so important?
http://engineeringforkids.com/article/02-02-2016_importanceofstem. HYPERLINK
"http://engineeringforkids.com/article/02-02-2016_importanceofstem.%20Accessed%2018%20March
%202017"Accessed 18 March 2017.
35. Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354–364.
36. Bem, S. L. (1983). Gender schema theory and its implications for child development: Raising gender-aschematic
children in a gender-schematic society. Signs, 8, 598– 616.
37. Bem, S. L. (2001). An unconventional family. New Haven, CT: Yale University
38. Gamze, S (2010). Correlation study of physics achievement, learning strategy, attitude and gender in an introductory
physics course. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching 11
(2)https://www.ied.edu.hk/apfslt/v11_issue2/selcuk/index.htm#abstract . Accessed 14 January 2016
39. Akanwa, U. N., & Kalu-Uche, N. (2015). Women in STEM: Closing the gender gap to national transformation.
IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5(2),8- 15. Retrieved from:
https://www.scribd.com/document/262546598/Women-in-STEM-Closingthe-Gender-Gap-to-National-
Transformation.
40. Ugwu, D. U. (2011). Gender and achievements in senior secondary school physics. The Nigerian Journal of
Research and Production, 18(1), 1-9. Retrieved from http:// www.globalacademicgroup.com/journals/nigerian
%20journal%20of%20research %20and%20production%20/GENDER%20AND%20ACHIEVEMENTS%20IN
%20SENIOR.pdf
41. Kazdin, A. E. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. New York: Oxford
University Press.
42. Borg, W. R., &Gall, M. D. (1989). Educational research. An introduction (5th ed.). White Plains, NY Longman
43. Thompson, C. K. (1986). Flexibility of single-subject experimental designs. Part III: Using flexibility to design or
modify experiments. The Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 51(3), 214–25.
44. Anikweze, C. M. (2005). Measurement and evaluation for teacher education (1st ed). Enugu: Snaap Press.
45. Siang, T.Y. (2017) .5 Stages in the design thinking process. Interaction Design Foundation: Denmark
ttps://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/5-stages-in-the-design-thinking-process
46. Mbano, N., & Nolan, K. (2017) Increasing access of female students in science technology, engineering and
mathematics (STEM), in the University of Malawi Science Education International, 28(1), 53-77.
47. King, K., & Wiseman, D. (2001). Comparing science efficacy beliefs of elementary education majors in integrated
and non-integrated teacher education coursework. Journal of Science Teachers Education,12(2), 143-153 doi:
10.1023/A: 1016681823643.
48. Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Consideration for Teaching Integrated STEM Education.
Journal of Pre-college Engineering Education Research 2(1) 28-34. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.5703/1288284314653.

| P a g e - 226
49. Meyrick, K.M. (2011). How STEM education improves students learning in Meridian K12 school. Computer
Technologies Journals, 14(1), 1-6.
50. Standish, N., Christensen, R., Knezek, G., Kjellstrom, W., & Bredder, E. (2016). The effects of an engineering
design module on student learning in a middle school science classroom. International Journal of Learning, Teaching
and Educational Research .15(6) 156-174.
51. Talbot, H. A. (2014). Effect of out-of-school time STEM education programs: Implications for policy. ProQuest
dissertations and theses; Thesis (Ed.D.)-- California Lutheran University, Publication Number: AAT 3668390;
ISBN: 9781321434408; Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 76-05(E), Section: A.; 162 p.
52. Oludipe, D. I. (2012). Gender difference in Nigerian junior secondary students’ academic achievement in basic
science. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 2(1), 93-99. Doi:10.5901/jesr.2012.02.01.93. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256840488_Gender_Difference_in_Nigerian_Junior_Secondary _Students
%27_Academic_Achievement_in_Basic_Science
53. Bian, L., Leslie, S., & Cimpian, A. (2017). Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence
children’s interests. Science, 355 (6323), 389-391. doi:10.1126/science.aah6524
54. Guo, J., Parker, P. D., Marsh, H. W. and Morin, A. J. (2015). Achievement, motivation, and educational choices: A
longitudinal study of expectancy and value using a multiplicative perspective. Developmental Psychology, 51(8),
1163. doi: 10.1037 /a0039440
55. Hoffman, M., Gneezy, U., & List, J. A. (2011). Nurture affects gender differences in spatial abilities. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(36), 14786-14788.
doi:10.1073/pnas.1015182108
56. Steinke, J. (2016). Cultural representations of gender and science. Portrayals of female scientists and engineers in
popular films. Science Communication, 27(1), 27-63. DOI: 10.1177/1075547005278610
57. Steinke, J. (2017). Adolescent girls’ STEM identity formation and media images of STEM professionals:
Considering the influence of contextual cues. Frontier Psychology. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00716
58. McDaniel, A. (2015). The role of cultural contexts in explaining cross-national gender gaps in STEM Expectations.
European Sociological Review, 32 (1), 122-133. doi: 10.1093/esr/jcv078
59. Spearman, J., & Watt, H. M. G. (2013). Perception shapes experience: The influence of actual and perceived
classroom environment dimensions on girls’ motivations for science. Learning Environment Research, 16(217), 217-
238. doi: 10.1007/s10984- 013-9129-7.
60. Kolmos, A., Mejlgaard, N., Haase, S., &Holgaard, J. E. (2013). Motivational factors, gender and engineering
education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 38(3),340-358. DOI: 10.1080/03043797.2013.794198.
61. Thomas, M. S. C., Kovas, Y., Meaburn, E., & Tolmie, A. (2015). What can the study of genetics offer to educators?
International Mind, Brain, and Education Society and Wiley Periodicals, 9(2), 72-80. doi:
10.1111/mbe.12077.Trans.). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
62. Kelly, A. M. (2016). Social cognitive perspective of gender disparities in undergraduate physics. Physical Review
Physics Education Research, 12,113 doi:10.1103/physrevphyseducres.12.020116
63. Baker, D. (2013). What works: Using curriculum and pedagogy to increase girls’ interest and participation in
science. Theory into Practice, 52(1), 14 20, doi:10.1080/07351690.2013.743760.
64. Yang, X. (2013). Investigation of junior secondary students’ perceptions of mathematics classroom learning
environments in China. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 9(3), 273-284.
http://dx.doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2013.935aDOI: 10.12973/eurasia.2013.935a

| P a g e - 227