A Case Study of Factors Affecting Female Performance in Physics.

Abstract: This study investigated the factors influencing female students' academic success in Physics and looked at gender differences in performance in Navrongo SHS. In order to gain a deeper understanding of performance patterns, the study employed a mixed-method explanatory sequential design, combining qualitative interviews with quantitative data of standardised Physics test scores. According to quantitative findings, although female students outperformed male students by a small margin (0.92) mean difference which was not statistically significant though worth noting. This result implies that performance in physics is not determined by gender. Qualitative results demonstrated how important it is for students to have good study habits, a favourable opinion of physics, active participation in class, teacher support, and peer cooperation to succeed academically. The voices of female students emphasised the value of a welcoming and inclusive classroom where they can thrive in a field that has historically been dominated by men. They also indicated that, peer support, teacher support, fair opportunities, and meaningful engagement were very key to their success in Physics. The study dispels the myth that girls are less likely to pursue physics and confirms that social connections, pedagogical techniques, and individual initiative all play a vital role in female academic success. It comes to the conclusion that encouraging female success in physics calls for teamwork and is typified by inclusive practices, responsive instruction, and ongoing motivation.

Performance, Female, Disparity, Self-Efficacy, Stereotype, Peers, Gender

1. Afolabi, F., & Olajuyigbe, A. O. (n.d.). Bridging the gender gap in physics classrooms: Do teaching approaches matter? [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Akweya, J. (2015). Factors Influencing Girls’ Performance in Physics in National Schools in Kiambu and Nairobi Counties of Kenya. International Journal of Secondary Education, 3(4), 26. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsedu.20150304.11 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Assem, H. D., Ansah, F. O., Nartey, L., & Salifu, I. (2023). Inquiry-Based Teaching Produces Better Results Than Traditional Teaching Method, a Quasi-Experimental Design Study Using the Topic “Measurement of Heat and Temperature’ in Basic 8. European Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 4(1), 126–135. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejedu.2023.4.1.550 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Assem, H. D., Nartey, L., Appiah, E., & Aidoo, J. K. (2023). A Review of Students’ Academic Performance in Physics: Attitude, Instructional Methods, Misconceptions and Teachers' Qualification. European Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 4(1), 84–92. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejedu.2023.4.1.551 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Barthelemy, R. S., Traxler, A. L., Blue, J., & Swirtz, M. (2023a). Research on Gender, Intersectionality, and LGBTQ+ Persons in Physics Education Research. In M. F. Taşar & P. R. L. Heron (Eds.), The International Handbook of Physics Education Research: Special Topics (pp. 3-1-3–16). AIP Publishing LLCMelville, New York. https://doi.org/10.1063/9780735425514_003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Barthelemy, R. S., Traxler, A. L., Blue, J., & Swirtz, M. (2023b). Research on Gender, Intersectionality, and LGBTQ+ Persons in Physics Education Research. In M. F. Taşar & P. R. L. Heron (Eds.), The International Handbook of Physics Education Research: Special Topics (pp. 3-1-3–16). AIP Publishing LLCMelville, New York. https://doi.org/10.1063/9780735425514_003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Beroíza-Valenzuela, F., & Salas-Guzmán, N. (2024). STEM and gender gap: A systematic review in WoS, Scopus, and ERIC databases (2012–2022). Frontiers in Education, 9, 1378640. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1378640 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Bottomley, E., Kohnle, A., Mavor, K. I., Miles, P. J., & Wild, V. (2023). The relationship between gender and academic performance in undergraduate physics students: The role of physics identity, perceived recognition, and self-efficacy. European Journal of Physics, 44(2), 025701. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6404/aca29e [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Bowen20179608. (n.d.). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Chun, K. H. (2024). Cognitive Constructivism in the Development of Medical Education. Korean Medical Education Review, 26(Suppl 1), S22–S30. https://doi.org/10.17496/kmer.24.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Dernadeta, A. M., Simbolon, R., Emilldan, M., & Melodic, C. (2022). Gender Influence on Career Preferences in STEM: Unravelling Stereotypes and Fostering Diversity. Jurnal Sosial, Sains, Terapan Dan Riset (Sosateris), 10(2), 140–150. https://doi.org/10.35335/8yag3079 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Exploring the Factors Influencing Gender Disparity in STEM Education: A Comprehensive Analysis of Societal, Cultural, and Economic Impact. (2023). Pakistan Social Sciences Review, 7(IV). https://doi.org/10.35484/pssr.2023(7-IV)15 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Gutiérrez Moreno, E. D., Santacruz, E., Morocho, M., Iza, P., & López, A. (2023). Gender and social differences affecting physics learning of Ecuadorian engineering students. Proceedings of the 21st LACCEI International Multi-Conference for Engineering, Education and Technology (LACCEI 2023): “Leadership in Education and Innovation in Engineering in the Framework of Global Transformations: Integration and Alliances for Integral Development.” 21st LACCEI International Multi-Conference for Engineering, Education and Technology (LACCEI 2023): “Leadership in Education and Innovation in Engineering in the Framework of Global Transformations: Integration and Alliances for Integral Development.” https://doi.org/10.18687/LACCEI2023.1.1.801 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Heigham, J., & Croker, R. A. (Eds.). (2009). Qualitative research in applied linguistics: A practical introduction. Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Henderson, R., Sawtelle, V., & Nissen, J. M. (2020). Gender & Self-Efficacy: A Call to Physics Educators. The Physics Teacher, 58(5), 345–348. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.5145533 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Johnson, A. P. (n.d.). BRUNER’S LEARNING THEORY. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Kalender, Z. Y., Marshman, E., Schunn, C. D., Nokes-Malach, T. J., & Singh, C. (2020a). Damage caused by women’s lower self-efficacy on physics learning. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 16(1), 010118. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.010118 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Kalender, Z. Y., Marshman, E., Schunn, C. D., Nokes-Malach, T. J., & Singh, C. (2020b, January 13). Investigating the role of prior preparation and self-efficacy on female and male students’ introductory physics course achievements. 2019 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings. 2019 Physics Education Research Conference, Provo, UT. https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2019.pr.Kalender [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Kelly, A. M. (2016). Social cognitive perspective of gender disparities in undergraduate physics. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(2), 020116. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.020116 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Lee, H., & Pollitzer, E. (2016). The role of gender-based innovations for the UN sustainable development goals: Toward 2030. Korea Centre for Women in Science, Engineering and Technology (WISET). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Lester, E. P., Dudek, S., & Muir, R. C. (1972). Sex Differences in the Performance of School Children. Canadian Psychiatric Association Journal, 17(4), 273–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674377201700402 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Maguswi 2012. (n.d.). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Marah, K., & Ansah, E. S. (2024). Promoting Stem Education and Careers for Underrepresented Groups in Africa. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4822550 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Marchand, G. C., & Taasoobshirazi, G. (2013a). Stereotype Threat and Women’s Performance in Physics. International Journal of Science Education, 35(18), 3050–3061. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.683461 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Marchand, G. C., & Taasoobshirazi, G. (2013b). Stereotype Threat and Women’s Performance in Physics. International Journal of Science Education, 35(18), 3050–3061. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.683461 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Marchand, G. C., & Taasoobshirazi, G. (2013c). Stereotype Threat and Women’s Performance in Physics. International Journal of Science Education, 35(18), 3050–3061. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.683461 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Maries, A., Karim, N. I., & Singh, C. (2018). The impact of stereotype threat on the gender gap in introductory physics. 2017 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings, 256–259. https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2017.pr.059 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Okafor, C. A., & Egbon, O. (2011). Academic Performance of Male versus Female Accounting Undergraduate Students: Evidence from Nigeria. Higher Education Studies, 1(1), p9. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v1n1p9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Onyebuchi Nneamaka Chisom, Chika Chioma Unachukwu, & Blessing Osawaru. (2024). STEM education advancements in African contexts: A comprehensive review. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 21(1), 145–160. https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2024.21.1.2719 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Owuondo, J. (2023). Breaking Barriers: Understanding and Overcoming Societal, Institutional, and Cultural Health Challenges for Women in STEM Fields. International Journal of Latest Technology in Engineering, Management & Applied Science, XII(X), 29–33. https://doi.org/10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2023.121004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Packham, C. (2016). A Woman’s Place Is in the Kitchen? The Relationship Between Gender, Food and Television. In P. Bradley (Ed.), Food, Media and Contemporary Culture (pp. 83–102). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137463234_6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Pathak, B. (2022). Gender Differences in STEM Education: A Review Study. Sotang, Yearly Peer-Reviewed Journal, 4(4), 193–200. https://doi.org/10.3126/sotang.v4i4.57092 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Perera, T. P. S. S., Asanka, P. P. G. D., & Prasadika, A. P. K. J. (2024). Gender Biases and Gender Stereotypes in STEM Sectors: A Systematic Literature Review. 2024 International Research Conference on Smart Computing and Systems Engineering (SCSE), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/SCSE61872.2024.10550842 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Pongsophon, P. (2024). Unpacking the factors that influence secondary students’ attitudes towards physics in nine different countries—A cross-cultural analysis. Physics Education, 59(5), 055006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/ad5f6e [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Quarshie, A. N., Nkansah, G. B., & Oduro-Ofori, E. (2023). How Far Is Progress? Gender Dimensions of Student Enrollment in Higher Education in Ghana: The Case of Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology. Sage Open, 13(4), 21582440231220456. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231220456 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Radulović, B., Županec, V., Stojanović, M., & Budić, S. (2022). Gender motivational gap and contribution of different teaching approaches to female students’ motivation to learn physics. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 18224. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-23151-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Rai, N., & Thapa, B. (2022). A STUDY ON PURPOSIVE SAMPLING METHOD IN RESEARCH. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Santana, L. M., & Singh, C. (2024). How the physics culture shapes the experiences of undergraduate women physics majors: A comparative case study of three physics departments (Version 1). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2407.12995 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Singh, C. (2022). Reflections on the Fifth International Conference on Women in Physics. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2201.02276 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Stang, J. B., Altiere, E., Ives, J., & Dubois, P. J. (2020). Exploring the contributions of self-efficacy and test anxiety to gender differences in assessments. 2020 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings, 497–502. https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2020.pr.Stang [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Suryati, S., Adnyana, P. B., Ariawan, I. P., & Wesnawa, I. G. A. (2024). Integrating Constructivist and Inquiry-Based Learning in Chemistry Education: A Systematic Review. Hydrogen: Jurnal Kependidikan Kimia, 12(5), 1166. https://doi.org/10.33394/hjkk.v12i5.13571 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. UNESCO. Assistant Director-General for Education, 2010-2018 (Qian Tang) & UNESCO. (2017). A Guide for ensuring inclusion and equity in education. UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.54675/MHHZ2237 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Vidor, C. D. B., Danielsson, A., Rezende, F., & Ostermann, F. (2020). What are the Problem Representations and Assumptions About Gender Underlying Research on Gender in Physics and Physics Education? A Systematic Literature Review. Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa Em Educação Em Ciências, 1095–1132. https://doi.org/10.28976/1984-2686rbpec2020u10951132 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Whitcomb, K. M., Kalender, Z. Y., Nokes-Malach, T. J., Schunn, C. D., & Singh, C. (2020, January 13). Inconsistent gender differences in self-efficacy and performance for engineering majors in physics and other disciplines: A cause for alarm? 2019 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings. 2019 Physics Education Research Conference, Provo, UT. https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2019.pr.Whitcomb [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Zúñiga-Mejías, V., & Huincahue, J. (2024). Gender stereotypes in STEM: A systemic review of studies conducted at primary and secondary school. Educação e Pesquisa, 50, e258677. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1678-4634202450258677 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Collins, K.M., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Jiao, Q.G. (2006). Prevalence of mixed-methods sampling designs in social science research. Evaluation & Research in Education, 19(2), 83-101. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Creswell, J.W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative (Vol. 7). Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychological Association. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs: principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6), 2134-2156. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. W. (2018). Schools as developmental contexts during adolescence. In J. Lerner & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (3rd ed.). Wiley. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Finn, J. D., & Zimmer, K. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 97–131). Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Hazari, Z., Sadler, P. M., & Sonnert, G. (2013). The science identity of college students: Exploring the intersection of gender, race, and ethnicity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(1), 1–32. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Nosek, B. A., et al. (2009). National differences in gender-science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(26), 10593–10597. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2020). Motivation and social cognitive theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60, 101832. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. Shapiro, J. R., & Williams, A. M. (2017). The role of stereotype threats in undermining girls’ and women’s performance and interest in STEM fields. Sex Roles, 77(1–2), 21–36. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Shin, J. E., Levy, S. R., & London, B. (2016). Effects of role model exposure on STEM engagement: Role models' gender and self-conceptions. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(6), 467–474. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. Tiedemann, J. (2000). Gender-related beliefs of teachers in elementary school mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41(2), 191–207. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. L. (2017). Gender gap in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): Current knowledge, implications for practice, policy, and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 29(1), 119–140. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Advanced Techniques for Fake News Detection on Twitter Using NLP and AI: A Comprehensive Review
• Review of Self Compacting Geopolymer Concrete Using Slag Sand as Fine Aggregate
• Performance of Local Construction Contractors – Case Study of Registered Contractors in Monrovia, Liberia
• Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Innovation Management in Multinational Organizations
• Modeling of Reaction Between Dissolved Oxygen (DO) And Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) in Degradation River