Authors : Thomas Nipielim Tindan; George Aduni

Volume/Issue : Volume 9 - 2024, Issue 10 - October

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/3deudzs2

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/3cn2kerz

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/IJISRT24OCT1500

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : Despite ongoing efforts to promote inclusivity in science education, the persistent gender gap in physics remains a pressing concern. This study investigated potential gender differences in physics performance among senior high school students at Mankranso Senior High School in Ghana. A descriptive survey design was employed, utilizing student physics test scores from a stratified random sample (N = 111; 79 males, 32 females) from a population of 184 students. Descriptive statistics and inferential statistical tests were used to analyse the data. Descriptive statistics revealed a slightly higher mean score for females (M = 43.65, SD = 21.78) compared to males (M = 39.39, SD = 21.15). However, a two-sample t- test (t = - 0.721, df = 56, p = 0.474) showed no statistically significant difference in mean physics test scores between male and female students. Levene’s test for equality of variances (F = 0.210, p = 0.649) confirmed that the variability of scores was not significantly different between genders. The following conclusion was made, while females have a slightly higher average score (42.31) compared to males (41.29), the difference is not statistically significant. The study emphasizes the importance of creating equitable learning environments, focusing on individual student needs, and promoting inclusive practices that encourage all students to thrive in STEM fields. The following recommendations was made; be aware of potential unconscious biases that might impact how you interact with or perceive students of different genders. Offer students opportunities for enrichment, advanced coursework, or participation in science competitions. Further investigation and consideration of other potential factors influencing performance is recommended to gain a more comprehensive understanding.

Keywords : Cross-Sectional Study, Distribution of Scores, Normal Distribution, Gender Differences, Attitudes, Beliefs, Classroom Dynamics.

References :

1. Adeyemo, S.A. (2010). Teaching/ learning physics in Nigerian secondary school: The curriculum transformation, issues, problems and prospects. International Journal of Educational Research and Technology, 1 (1), 99-111.
2. Akanbi A.O. (2003). Trend in physics education in secondary school in kwara state. Lafiagi Journal of science education, 5(1& 2), 69- 75.
3. American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychological Association.
4. Awoniyi, S.A. (2000). Sex differences in academic performance. Nigerian Journal of Gender and Development, 1(1&2), 35.
5. Bamidele, L. (2004). Students’ poor performance in physics. A bane to our nation’s technological development. Nigerian Journal of Science Education and Practice, 2(1), 174.
6. Bello, G. (2002). Gender difference in school science: Implication for science teacher education. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 6(1&2) 55-63.
7. Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. Oxford University Press.
8. Bybee, R. W. (2010). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Connecting science and learning. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
9. Campbell J. R. (2005). Connecting Mathematics achievement to parental influence. St. Johns University. Retrieved January 19, 2011 from http//www.stjohns.edu.
10. Cheryan, S., Ziegler, R., & Davies, P. G. (2013). The role of social cues in women’s underrepresentation in STEM. Psychological Science, 24(3), 351-357.
11. Chiu, M. M., & Chen, M. (2005). Exploring the relationships between learning styles, gender, and attitudes towards physics in an inquiry-based classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 27(12), 1441-1456.
12. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
13. Daramola S.O. (2006). Research and statistical methods in education. Students and Researchers in Tertiary Institutions.Ilorin, Nigeria;Bamitex.
14. Eshun, B. A. (1999). The pattern of mathematical achievement of secondary school students in Ghana: Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. (2^nd ed.), (1). (pp. 22-33).
15. Guzzetti, B., Williams, S. M., Williams, J. D., & Berry, R. C. (2000). Inquiry-based science instruction: A framework for classroom implementation. Science Education, 84(5), 516-552.
16. Mari, J.S. (2005). Striving for gender equality in science, technology and mathematics education in Nigeria. Journal of Educational Research Development, (1), 54.
17. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). Sexual harassment in academic science, engineering, and medicine. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
18. Okafor, J.C. (2004). Women in science and technology: Towards entrenching an enduring democracy in Nigeria. International Journal of Gender and health studies, 2(1&2) 96-104.
19. Okoro, O.M. (2002). Measurement and evaluation in education. Nsukka, Nigeria; Pacific Publisher.
20. Owie, I. (1996). Fundamentals of statistics in education and the social science. Benin city, Nigeria; United Press.
21. Raimi S.M & Adeoye F.A. (2006). Gender differences among College Students’ as determinants of performance in Integrated Science. African Journal of Educational Research, 8(1&2), 41-49.
22. Wilmot, E. M. (2008). An investigation into the profile of Ghanaian high school mathematics teachers’ knowledge for teaching algebra and its relationship with students’ performance. Retrieved July 26, 2011, fromhttp://www.grin.com/en/doc.
23. Tetteh. N. K. H., Wilmot E. M. & Ashong. D. (2018). Gender differences in performance in mathematics among preservice teachers in the Brong-Ahafo Region of Ghana. International journal of education, learning and development 6(5), 38-45.
24. Sadler, P. M. (2011). Situated cognition and technology-based learning environments: The role of context and activity in learning. Educational Psychologist, 46(2), 93-106.