Abstract
The study investigated the effect of using a design thinking teaching method on male and female students’ achievement in some selected secondary school physics concepts in the context of STEM learning. The study was carried out in an afterschool environment which necessitated the researcher using a single group quasi experimental research design conducted in purposively selected two secondary schools of comparable standards. Intact classes of physics students comprising of 48 male students and 41 female students overall in the schools were used in the study. A pilot study was conducted using a 25 item physics learning achievement test (PLAT) validated by experts in STEM fields. Reliability coefficient of validated PLAT using test retest method by Kuder-Richardson (KR-20) was established at .86 for the multiple choice test and Pearson product moment reliability coefficient for the semi-structured questions at .81. Study utilized the researcher’s developed STEM-design thinking modules validated by STEM experts. The modules combined the concepts of STEM learning and design processes of empathy, ideation, brainstorming prototyping, testing and retesting to learn selected physics concepts for 3 months. Prior to its use, students in each school of study were administered a pretest and similarly a posttest using PLAT after the study intervention. Study intervention was carried out using the developed and validated STEM-design thinking modules. 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 achievement of male and female students in physics learning. Findings revealed that both male and female students improved in their achievements and that male participants had higher achievement scores than the females when STEM-design thinking modules were used to learn selected physics concepts. Implications includes necessity for physics teachers’ innovative training on developing and using a gender-balanced STEM-design thinking pedagogy. Such training should equip teachers on how such developed STEM-design thinking modules can be used to create opportunities relating learning of physics concepts to real life situations. This is necessary in order to improve male and female learners’ construction of knowledge through discovery in a constructivism environment. Such is vital in a world of rapidly changing nature of technology with the necessity of skills for solving real world problems in the twenty-first century. Conclusion and recommendations were therefore made in the study.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Afterschool Alliance. (2013). Defining youth outcomes for STEM learning in afterschool. http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/STEM_Outcomes_2013.pdf. Accessed 13 Jan 2016.
Ah-Nam, L., & Osman, K. (2017). Developing 21st century skills through a constructivist-constructionist learning environment. K-12 STEM Education, 3(2), 205–216.
Aina, J. K. (2017). Developing a constructivist model for effective physics learning. International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development, 1(4), 59–67.
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. https://www.scribd.com/document/262546598/Women-in-STEM-Closing-the-Gender-Gap-to-National-Transformation
Anikweze, C. M. (2005). Measurement and evaluation for teacher education (1st ed.). Enugu: Snaap Press.
Ayaz, M. F., & Şekerci, H. (2015). The effects of the constructivist learning approach on student’s academic achievement: A meta-analysis study. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology., 14(4), 143–156.
Aydisheh, F. H., & Gharibi, H. (2015). Effectiveness of constructivist teaching method on students’ mathematic academic achievement. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(6), 572–579.
Baker, D. (2013). What works: Using curriculum and pedagogy to increase girls’ interest and participation in science. Theory into Practice, 52(1), 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/07351690.2013.743760.
Beets, M., Huberty, J., & Beigle, A. (2012). Physical activity of children attending afterschool programs: Research- and practice-based implications. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 42(2), 180–184.
Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory. A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354–364.
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.
Bem, S. L. (2001). An unconventional family. New Haven: Yale University.
Bhatt, M., Blakley J., Mohanty, N., & Payne, R. (2015). How media shapes perceptions of science and technology for girls and women. https://s3.amazonaws.com/femincwebsite/Reports/femWhitePaperHighResFinal.pdf. Accessed 24 Nov 2016.
Bian, L., Leslie, S., & Cimpian, A. (2017). Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children’s interests. Science, 355(6323), 389–391. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah6524.
Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1989). Educational research. An introduction (5th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organisations and inspires innovation. New York: HarperCollins.
Bussey, K., & Bandura, A.(1999).Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106(4), 676-713. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kay_Bussey/publication/12741492_Social_Cognitive_Theory_of_Gender_Development_and_Differentiation/. Accessed 24 July 2016.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cross, N. (1982). Designedly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), 221–227.
Dasgupta, N., & Stout, J. G. (2014). Girls and women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: STEMing the tide and broadening participation in STEM careers. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732214549471.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: The MacMillan Company.
Eberle, F. (2010). Why STEM education is important. ISA Publications. 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.
Efeoglu, A., Miller, C., Serie, M., & Boer, H. (2014). Design thinking: Characteristics and promises. In Conference paper: CINet, at Nijmegen, The Netherlands, vol. 14. 10.13140/2.1.4737.6640
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
Erinosho, S. Y. (2013). How do students perceive the difficulty of physics in secondary school? An exploratory study in Nigeria. International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education, 3(3), 1510–1515.
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
Goldman, S., & Kabayadondo, Z.(. (2017). Taking design to school: How the technology of design can transform teachers, learners and classrooms. New York: Routledge.
Guo, J., Parker, P. D., Marsh, H. W., & Morin, A. (2015). Achievement, motivation, and educational choices: A longitudinal study of expectancy and value using a multiplicative perspective. Developmental Psychology, 51(8), 1163. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039440.
Halpern, D. F., Benbow, C. P., Geary, D. C., Gur, R. C., Janet Shibley Hyde, J. S., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (2007). The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 8(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2007.00032.x.
Hasso Platner Institute of Design (2010). An introduction to design thinking process guide. Stanford University. https://dschool.stanford.edu. Accessed 17 Dec 2015.
Heaverlo, C. A., Cooper, R., & Lannan, F. S. (2013). Stem development: Predictors for 6th-12th grade girls’ interest and confidence in science and math. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 19(2), 121–142. https://doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.2013006464.
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. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1015182108.
Hunt, K (2016). The importance of STEM education. https://k12.kendallhunt.com/blog/importance-stem-education. Accessed 24 June 2017.
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.
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.
Jolly, A. (2014).Six characteristics of a great STEM lesson. Education Teacher Week. http://www.edweek.org/tm/articles/2014/06/17/ctq_jolly_stem.html. Accessed 24 January 2016.
Kazdin, A. E. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kelly, A. M. (2016). Social cognitive perspective of gender disparities in undergraduate physics. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12, 113. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.12.020116.
Kimmons, R., Liu, M., Kan, J., & Santana, L. (2012). Attitude, achievement, and gender in a middle school science-based ludic simulation for learning. Journal Educational Technology Systems, 40(4), 341–370.
Kiptum, M.G (2015). Difficulty physics topics in Kenyan secondary schools: A case study of UasinGishu County. Scholarly Journal of Education 4(4), 72–81. http://www.scholarly-journals.com/SJE. Accessed 21 July 2017.
McCullough, L. (2011). ASQ advancing the STEM agenda in education, the workplace and society session 2–3. University of Wisconsin-Stout July 19–20. http://asq.org/edu/2011/06/continuous-improvement/gender-differences-in-student-responses-to-physics-conceptual-questions-based-on-question-content.pdf.
McGehee,N. J. L. (2015). Project-based learning in STEM and act achievement. A thesis presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree master of arts curriculum and instruction to the faculty of the college of graduate studies Tennessee Technological University. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2015. 1589909. https://search.proquest.com/openview/920df4b5e264aa6b3efa9f0003d076b7/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y. Accessed 29 April 2017.
McKenna, R. L. (2016). Girls and STEM in catholic schools: A mixed methods exploration of interest, confidence, and perceptions of STEM. A dissertation presented to the faculty of the school of education, department of leadership studies, the University of San Francisco in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree doctor of education. Doctoral Dissertations. 317. https://repository.usfca.edu/diss/317. Accessed 13 March 2017.
McMillan, J. H. (2012). Educational research: Fundamentals for the consumer (6/e). Boston: Pears.
Mertens, D. M. (2005). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity (2nd ed.). London: Sage publications.
Meyrick, K. M. (2011). How STEM education improves student learning. Meridian., 14, 1–5.
Mkpanang, J. T. (2016). Influence of creative style and gender on students’ achievement in physics. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(12), 42-46.https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1099556.pdf. Accessed 23 June 2017.
National Research Council. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. committee on a conceptual framework for new K-12 science education standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.
National Science Board. (2016). Science and engineering indicators. Arlington: National Science Foundation (NSB-2016-1).
National Science Foundation. (2016). Why is STEM education so important?. http://engineeringforkids.com/article/02-02-2016_importanceofstem. Accessed 18 March 2017.
Nugent, G., Barker, B. S., Grandgenett, N., & Adamchuk, V. I. (2010). Impact of robotics and geospatial technology interventions on youth STEM learning and attitudes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(4), 391–408.
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.
Okpala, P., & Onocha, C. (1988). Difficult physics topics in Nigerian secondary schools. Physics Education, 23, 168–172.
Ongowo, R., Indoshi, F., & Ayere, M. (2015). Perception of constructivist learning environment: Gender and school type differences in Siaya County, Kenya. Advances in Research. 4. 15–26. https://doi.org/10.9734/air/2015/13843. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282603232_Perception_of_Constructivist_Learning_Environment_Gender_and_School_Type_Differences_in_Siaya_County_Kenya
Östman, L.E (2005). A pragmatist theory of design: The impact of the pragmatist philosophy of John Dewey on architecture and design. A PhD Dissertation of the School of Architecture Royal Institute of Technology Stockholm. https://www.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:7867/FULLTEXT01.pdf. Accessed 14 July 2016.
Owodunni, A. S., & Ogundola, I. P. (2013). Gender differences in the achievement and retention of Nigeria students exposed to concept in electronic works trade through reflective inquiry instructional technique. British Journal of Education, Society & Behavioural Science, 3(4), 589–599.
Reese, H. R. (2011). The learning-by-doing principle. Behavioral Development Bulletin. 11. 1–19. West Virginia University. http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bdb/17/1/1.pdf. Accessed 26 Feb 2016.
Rita, R. D., & Martin-Dunlop, C. S. (2011). Perceptions of learning environment and associations with cognitive achievement among gifted Biology students. Learning Environments Research, 14(1), 25–38.
Sawilowsky, S. S. (2009). New effect size rules of thumb. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 8 (2), 597-599. https://doi.org/10.22237/jmasm/1257035100. http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/jmasm/vol8/iss2/26
Schmader, T., Johns, M., & Forbes, C. (2008). An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance. Psychological Review, 115(2), 336–356. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.336.
Schon, D. H. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Shutters, S. (2017). Stock-photo-design thinking process. https://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-design-thinking-process-293593991.jpg. Accessed 23 Sep 2017.
Siang, T. Y. (2017).5 Stages in the design thinking process. Interaction Design Foundation: Denmark https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/5-stages-in-the-design-thinking-process
Simon, H. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Singh, D., & Rajput, P. (2013).Constructivism: A practical guide for training college teachers. International Journal of Educational Research and Technology. 4(4), 15-17. http://www.soeagra.com/ijert/ijertdecember2013/3.pdf. Accessed 27 March 2016.
Spector, P. E. (1981). Research design. Sage University paper series on quantitative applications in the social sciences, series no 07-023. Berverly Hills and London: Sage publications https://books.google.com.ng/books?id=NQAJE_sh1qIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Spector,+P.E.,(1981).Research+Design,+Issue+23.&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwie7_-7t6XgAhVLKuwKH. Accessed 16 May 2016
Steinke, J. (2017). Adolescent girls’ STEM identity formation and media images of STEM professionals: Considering the influence of contextual cues. Frontier Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00716.
Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314653.
Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2012). Gender differences in kindergarteners’ robotics and programming achievement. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. https://ase.tufts.edu/DevTech/publications/bers%20and%20sullivan.pdf. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-012-9210-z. Accessed 15 May 2016.
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.
Thompson, C. K. (1986). Flexibility of single-subject experimental designs. Part III: Using flexibility to design or modifyexperiments. The Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 51(3), 214–225.
Thomas, M. S. C., Kovas, Y., Meaburn, E., & Tolmie, A. (2015). What can the study of genetics offer to educators? Mind, Brain, and Education.. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12077.
Ugwu, D. U. (2011).Gender and achievements in senior secondary school physics. The Nigerian Journal of Research and Production, 18(1), 1-9 http://www.globalacademicgroup.com/journals/nigerian%20journal%20of%20research%20and%20production%20/GENDER%20AND%20ACHIEVEMENTS%20IN%20SENIOR.pdf. Accessed 13 Aug 2015.
Visser, W. (2006). The cognitive artifacts of designing. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
White, D. M. (2016).Connecting STEM with design thinking. In Interdisciplinary STEM teaching & learning conference. 4. http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/stem/2016/2016/4. Accessed 20 June 2017.
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. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2013.935a.
Zohar, A., & Sela, D. (2003). Her physics, his physics: Gender issues in Israeli advanced placement physics classes. International Journal of Science Education., 25(2), 245–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210126766.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors wish to express that there were no competing interests as regards their involvement in this research.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Simeon, M.I., Samsudin, M.A. & Yakob, N. Effect of design thinking approach on students’ achievement in some selected physics concepts in the context of STEM learning. Int J Technol Des Educ 32, 185–212 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09601-1
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09601-1