MAKERERE UNIVERSITY

THE UNDER REPRESENTATION OF GIRLS IN STEM SUBJECTS AT SECONDARY

SCHOOLS IN UGANDA

ANYWAR ISAAC
1800723741
18/U/23741

A LITERATURE REVIEW PAPER SUBMITTED TO DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE,

TECHNICAL AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND
EXTERNAL STUDIES, MAKERERE UNIVERSITY
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF
BACHELORS OF SCIENCE (B.Sc.) DEGREE WITH EDUCATION (BIOLOGICAL) OF
MAKERERE UNIVERSITY, KAMPALA

SUBMITTED ON

DECEMBER, 2022

i
DECLARATION

I, ANYWAR Isaac, hereby declare that this research thesis is my original work and has never
been submitted for any award in any institution of learning and the work contained in it is
original unless otherwise stated.

Signature……………………………....... Date…………………………
Name: ANYWAR ISAAC

Reg. NO: 18/U/23741

Student NO: 1800723741

i
APPROVAL
The dissertation entitled "THE UNDER REPRESENTATION OF GIRLS IN STEM
SUBJECTS AT SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN UGANDA." has been read and approved as
meeting the preliminary research requirements of the Department of Science, Technical and
Vocational Education (DSTVE) in partial fulfillment for the award of the degree of Bachelor of
Science with education (Biological) - Makerere University. Kampala, Uganda.

Signed: …………………………..................Date...............................................
Mr. KANSIIME Edward

(SUPERVISOR)

ii
DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to my beloved father; Mr.OCAYA Dan, my mothers; Mego ALAL
Jerodina and Christine LABONG, my sisters, brothers and friends, ACOP Sunday, in particular.
.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
In a special way, I would like to acknowledge the contribution of my supervisor Mr. KANSIIME
Edward who sincerely guided me and ensured that this research work as well as my entire course
is successfully accomplished.
Great appreciation goes to my friends: OJOK Sam Nitep, Watmon Samson, Nyeko Daniel
Awudaman, ACOP Sunday and all my course mates for their constant encouragement and
cooperation throughout the course.
I acknowledge the role played by the staff of the School of Education and most especially the
lecturers in the DSTVE and BIOLOGY in my academic pursuit.

I am so grateful for everything done by everyone whose names I have not mentioned here.I
recognize your support both morally and materially. I know your capacity and may the good
Lord bless you abundantly.

iv
Table of Contents
DECLARATION .................................................................................................................................... i
APPROVAL .......................................................................................................................................... ii
DEDICATION...................................................................................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .................................................................................................................... iv
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................... v
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................. 1
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1
Problem statement ............................................................................................................................. 2
Specific objectives .............................................................................................................................. 3
Methodology ...................................................................................................................................... 3
LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................................................... 4
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 4
Reasons for the under representation of women in STEM subjects ................................................ 4
Educational Aspects ...................................................................................................................................... 4

Attitudinal Aspects ....................................................................................................................................... 5

Socio-cultural and Socio-economic Barriers ................................................................................................ 7

Remedies for the under representation of women in STEM subjects .............................................. 8

The Benefits of STEM Subjects. ...................................................................................................... 11
CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................................... 13
RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................................................... 13
References ............................................................................................................................................ 15

v
Abstract
In Uganda, there exist many factors such as the lack of female role models, the masculine
classroom environment, socio-cultural ideologies of a patriarchal society and pedagogy
incorporated in the science curriculum that may discourage female students from choosing
science courses. In order to ensure that female students have the same opportunities to reach their
potential in STEM areas, it is important to understand these factors that influence their choices
and address them by digital pedagogies characterized by learner-centered instruction, Problem
Based Learning (PBL) and Project Based Learning (PBL) should be taken. The study found out
that STEM subjects help equipping one with 21 st centaury skills, create more job opportunities,
create equality at work, makes one to be at the forefront of new inventions and address the issues
we’re facing on a global scale. This study investigates the under representation of girls in STEM
subjects at secondary schools in Uganda. By conducting rapid scoping review of literature with
the aim of understanding the status of women in STEM subjects in selected secondary schools.
using various databases including Google Scholar, PubMed, Dryad, BioMed Central, Public
Library of Science, arXiv e-Print Archive, the study discovers several factors behind their
decision-making in course selection, including the influence of current science curriculum,
teachers, labor market, parents, and peers. The findings of this study enrich existing research on
under representation of girls in Ugandan secondary school education and provide insights about
relevant policies to address the under representation in science programs.

Introduction
STEM education is a collection of all the courses that fall under the fields of Science Technology
Engineering and Mathematics. Since the subjects you learn under these fields are interrelated and
require a similar educational background, they are called STEM.For example, majoring in
Astronomy or Actuarial science will require that you be good at mathematics and problem-
solving. Learning nuclear science or Cyber security will need you to have great critical thinking
skills.

The lack of girls and young women pursuing a career in Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) is a global problem. Even though the number of science students has
increased at secondary level in many countries since 1990, this has not translated into pursuing a
STEM education at tertiary level. At the international level, women in science remain something
of a rarity (UNESCO, 2007). According to the UN Education, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO), less than 27% of STEM researchers globally are women, including in
developed countries like Australia, Canada, China and the UK. Among the developing countries,
Lesotho and Cape Verde in Africa and Myanmar in Asia have almost achieved gender parity, but
all other developing countries lag behind in including women in STEM disciplines.
1
Unfortunately, there are 15% fewer women than men in STEM subjects in Japan, Bangladesh,
India, Korea, and Nepal (TRIMUNC, 2015).

There are many educational, attitudinal, socio-cultural, and economic barriers to girls pursuing a
science career, many of which are associated with the stereotypical belief that science is an
inappropriate career for women (Steinke, 1997). The very fact that there are fewer girls/women
in science is already a sign that “science” is considered a masculine domain (Kelly, 1985). Thus,
the stereotypes of “masculinity of science” and that it is a male-dominated field affects the
ability of girls and boys – but particularly girls - to nurture their ideas in pursuing a STEM career
(Hill, Corbett & Andresse, 2010). As a consequence, few girls become interested in pursuing a
STEM career.

It is therefore important to analyze this issue of female participation in STEM disciplines, since
their inclusion would empower them by improving the economy, health, and infrastructure
worldwide and help to fight poverty internationally with technological and scientific
interventions. Furthermore, as a large number of job sectors are based on STEM education, girls
and women are currently missing these opportunities by not having a STEM education to tertiary
level. It is essential to fully understand the reasons for their absence in tertiary STEM education
and STEM careers to achieve gender parity in STEM (TRIMUNC, 2015). This narrative review
article will analyze the reasons behind having few women in STEM pipeline. To do so,
“gendering science” will be conceptualized in the global context and the concept of gender roles
and empowerment will be defined to analyze the issue. Arguments about the reasons why girls
and women are underrepresented in STEM careers will then be established by example using this
framework, followed by discussion of the implications of the issues raised on policy and
practice.

Problem statement
In 2015, countries that form the United Nations adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development detailing an ambitious universal blueprint that comprises 17 goals and 169 targets.
Innovation, science and technology is expected to play a significant role in meeting these goals
(UNESCO, 2015). A country’s ability to secure good health, fight diseases, protect the
environment, attain food sufficiency, and develop new industries and technologies relies on the
scientific knowledge and skills of its people (Ekine, A., M. Samati, and J.-A. Walker, 2013).
To achieve this, it is expected that countries create, apply and diffuse scientific and technological
knowledge. Unfortunately, countries are not fully utilizing the potential of the entire population,
including girls and women. Africa in particular continues to lag behind in the generation of the
human technological capacity that impacts negatively on the economic development (Ekine, A.,
M. Samati, and J.-A. Walker,2013).
In the global south, between 60 to 90 percent of women engage in agricultural production
activities and carry the primary responsibility of providing water, energy, sanitation and health
care needs of their family and communities (UNESCO, 2010). Yet, fewer women participate in

2
science education and therefore have limited access to jobs in these fields, which are among the
highest paying. Research shows that excelling in science and mathematics is a strong indicator of
later earnings (Crawford, C. and J. Cribb, 2013), with women in Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) jobs earning more compared to women in non-STEM
jobs (Beede, D., et al. 2011).

It is thus important to analyze this issue of female under representation in STEM disciplines,
since their inclusion would empower them by improving the economy, health, and infrastructure
worldwide and help to fight poverty internationally with technological and scientific
interventions.

Specific objectives
i. To analyze the reasons for the under representation of girls in STEM subjects.
ii. To discuss the remedies for the under representation of girls in STEM subjects.
iii. To explain the benefits of STEM subjects.

Methodology
I conducted a rapid scoping review of literature with the aim of understanding the status of
women in STEM subjects in selected secondary schools. This involved using various databases
including Google Scholar, PubMed, Dryad, BioMed Central, Public Library of Science, arXiv e-
Print Archive, Directory of Open Access Journals, Science Open, and CORE.
I also searched websites of organizations dealing with issues related to women in STEM and
available data in the grey literature. In addition, I contacted selected schools that focus on grass
root efforts to document their initiatives to improving STEM.

Those articles having their studies majorly on subjects such as mathematics, physics, chemistry,
biology, agriculture and food and nutrition and others were considered with about 95% of them
published between the year 2017 and 2021.
Data generated was used to provide a description of the policy landscape, strategies and
interventions aimed at developing and building successful approaches towards ensuring women
are involved in STEM in Uganda.
Suitable references in the search results fulfilling the above criteria were also systematically
reviewed. The data obtained were summarized, compared and their relationship established.

3
LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction
This chapter presents literature that is relevant to the study topic which is the under
representation of women in STEM subjects. Most of the literature will involve opinions and
views of other scholars and researchers that are related to this study in line with the Reasons for
the under representation of women in STEM subjects, remedies for the under representation and
the benefits of STEM subjects.

Reasons for the under representation of women in STEM subjects

Here I analyze the educational, attitudinal, socio-cultural, and socio-economic aspects of why
there are so few women in STEM careers. This analysis introduces some important concerns that
can be focused on during policy implimentation to ensure gender equality in STEM careers.

Educational Aspects
Blickenstaff reviewed 30 years of literature on STEM careers and found that several researchers
have blamed the problem on girls’ “academic preparation to be successful science students” and
mentioned this as the main reason behind girls avoiding STEM careers (2005:374). While it is
important to consider girls’ academic preparation, it is also important to look at how boys are
prepared and who prepares them. Interestingly, in almost every country including the developed
ones, the majority of science teachers are male at both secondary and tertiary level (UNESCO,
2007). The dominance of male teachers and boys can pressure girls in their preparation (Ali &
Awan, 2013). Is academic achievement the only reason why girls drop out from STEM subjects?
Or is girls’ academic preparation always poorer than boys? Of course, the answer is ‘no’ to both
questions. It is well documented that, in spite of better preparation and academic achievement
than boys, women often leave STEM at tertiary level and as a result do not obtain STEM jobs
(Brainard & Carlin, 1998). It is therefore problematic to frame the underrepresentation of girls by
saying that they are “inadequately prepared”. This is not an issue created by girls themselves,
rather the failure of institutional practice and underlying societal structures.
Researchers from various countries have “looked at the numbers of males and females depicted
in illustrations and photographs in science texts, and found that a majority of the people depicted
were male” (Blickenstaff, 2005:377). Additionally, if we simply search for “great scientists” in
Google, we hardly find any female scientists except Marie Curie, but her success in science is
usually presented together with her roles as a wife and mother rather than simply focusing on her
scientific achievements in relation to other male scientists. This is problematic, as it can reinforce
learners to practice stereotyped gender roles. Moreover, science textbooks often use picture
where girls and women are “sunbathing”, “cooking”, “nursing”, “nurturing children”, “looking
frightened”, helping the “men”, etc. (Blickenstaff, 2005; Walford, 1981), emphasizing the
expected female gender role. Not only that, teachers often use sex-stereotyped examples like
using “football” to represent the earth rather a “balloon”, and then subconsciously start
conversations with the boys in the classroom on how a particular football team has performed the

4
previous week (Kelly, 1985). Such teaching techniques and media representations can over time
also influence students towards the masculinity of science on the basis of their gender roles.

Therefore, the lack of female role models and media representations of girls in the educational
setting can be a reason for their absence in STEM careers. However, Tai and Sadler (2001)
showed that girls’ achievements in physical sciences are much higher in the US when innovative
student-friendly teaching designs (for both boys and girls) are used and they expressed their
passion to commit to STEM careers. I consider this according to Kabeer’s (2005)
conceptualization of empowerment, where those girls have enough resources and support to
pursue their interest. Their agency in undertaking a science career is highly intertwined with their
educational context. The educational institutions can thus lead to socializing a child in deciding
his/her future interests. This example also depicts the ways in which the connotation of
masculinity in science is socially constructed and the educational structure/setting is greatly
responsible for having so few women in STEM careers.

Attitudinal Aspects
Several researchers found that female attitudes to science are significantly less positive than male
attitudes (Breakwell & Beardsell, 1992; Erickson & Erickson, 1984; Harding, 1983; Harvey &
Edwards, 1980; Hendley et al., 1996; Johnson, 1987; Jovanic & King, 1998; Kahle & Lakes,
1983; Robertson, 1987; Smail & Kelly, 1984 cited in Osborne et al. 2003:1062). By drawing on
Allgerier and McCormick’s (1983) idea on gender roles, it is clear that such differences in
attitude can occur due to the socially prescribed expectation of male and female roles. For
example, the sex-stereotyped masculine jobs attract boys as they are expected to have highly
paid jobs that provide them with position in society by strengthening their gender identity
(Osborne et al., 2003). Thus, boys prefer STEM or masculine jobs more to exercise the dominant
modes of masculinity (Connell, 1999). Here, science content is also important to consider, and
biology is more related to caring or nurturing others and is therefore not as masculine as physics
(Miller et al., 2006). The visible hierarchies in science content often position biological sciences
as feminine subjects less appealing to boys (Mim, 2015). It also reveals that “girls’ interests
center on people, boys’ around control” (Kelly, 1985:136). I assume that the way girls are
socialized according to gender roles, i.e., to be caring, looking after children, etc. make them
more interested in choosing biological sciences4. That means that the masculinity of science
consists of power hierarchies with men at the top who specifically practice industrialized and
technological science (more than girls), stereotypically representing their masculinity.
Additionally, male-dominated society lends more importance to the advancement of economic
productivity and values the content of science on that basis (Blickenstaff, 2005). Again, the
stereotypical gender role perceptions affect the students in nurturing their attitudes towards
science.

Research has shown that the participation and achievement of girls in biological sciences are
much higher than physical sciences, which is considered more masculine in its science content
(Nasr & Soltani, 2011). Moreover, Weinburgh (1995) found that the girls who like physics have

5
more positive attitudes towards science rather the girls who choose biology. In this paper, I am
not going to argue these findings as it deviates me from the main analysis of underrepresentation
of women in STEM careers as a whole, but it is really problematic how we gender the contents
of science and place it at a higher level by measuring masculinity (Mim, 2015). A subject and its
content should be gender neutral, because its power relations and stereotypical practices can
influence male and female performance in society.
This issue can be teased out by highlighting some of the key findings on students’ perceptions of
science. Miller et al. (2006) and Steinke (1997) found that girls perceive the lifestyle of scientists
as very unattractive, with not enough time to spend with their family and the need to work in a
laboratory for long periods of time wearing “boring” laboratory clothing. Such perceptions can
vary from person to person, but I believe it depends on the girl’s nurturing, where she sees the
women in her household devoting maximum time to family and adopting that normative life-
style as her own. Moreover, from the beginning of life, she is expected from her surroundings to
look beautiful/tidy, and Kelly (1985) found that when girls reach adolescence they become much
more concerned about how they look. Thus, at secondary level, they start to think about
professions where they don’t have to compromise on how they look. Furthermore, girls’ ways of
nourishing their outlook is also their agency, where they can do it willingly but such willingness
obviously differs in the way they socialize. As a result, their attitudes towards professional
interests may vary on that basis.

The masculine classroom environment can result in girls’ negative attitudes towards science. For
instance, Whitelegg (2001) found that boys often took control of laboratory apparatus by being
aggressive, and their overenthusiasm in laboratory participation can be interpreted as male
dominance. By drawing on Connell’s (1999) ideas on masculinity, we can consider the situation
of exercising automatic priority of boys if the teacher or lab facilitators always expect the girls to
be ‘polite’ and let boys practice their hegemonic masculinity over the physical spaces. It is worth
mentioning that these physical spaces are not limited to the laboratory and also include the
playground and classrooms (Mim, 2015). However, Kelly mentioned a scientific test in school
laboratories where girls and boys performed equally but when asked about the experience of the
test “the boys chorused “easy”5 while the girls said rather plaintively that “the electricity was
horrible”’ (1985:139). In such I assume that while most boys found or pretended scientific tests
were “easy”, it automatically put pressure on the boys who did not find it easy and maybe they
cannot raise their voice in the class being afraid of being called “weak” in the masculinized
context. Thus, the alternative masculinities and girls having feminine traits are often deprived by
the hegemonic masculinities of male-dominated society (Connell, 1999).
Here, I will not further discuss the alternative masculinities in this paper, but I mentioned it here
briefly because we should not generalize boys and their attitudes. cases, girls are often “helping
hands” for boys, where the boys take the lead in the laboratory experiments (Archer et al., 2013;
Kelly, 1985). My feminist lens allows me to interpret such findings by pointing to the upbringing
of girls and boys, in which they are taught to practice gender-differentiated behavior by

6
considering girls in service roles as subordinate to men. It requires mentioning here what I
exactly mean by gender-differentiated behavior, which accompanies the practice of gender roles
where the girls adopt “femininity” and the boys adopt “masculinity” (Allgeier & McCormick,
1983). This is quite relevant in what Kelly said about student behavior in the science classroom:
“boys bring with them to science lessons a conception of masculinity which includes toughness,
aggression, activity and disdain for girls; girls bring with them a conception of femininity which
includes timidity, conscientiousness, deference, person orientation and a concern for appearance”
(1985:145). Hence, my argument supports and strengthens Kelly’s statement.
Teachers’ sex-stereotyped attitudes in science classrooms can affect students’ perception of the
subject and result in fewer girls entering STEM careers. For example, Warrington and Younger
reported on teachers’ sentiments and prediction of boys’ high scores in the UK, where they
claimed “boys frequently present more original work, whereas girls copy sentences from the
textbook” (2000:505). Generalizing girls’ underperformance and such pre-conceptions of who is
meritorious and who is not for J. of Res. in Sci. Math. and Tech. Edu.
“science” is problematic. It is important to find out why those girls are copying rather than
blaming them directly, because girls are not homogenous and they often deal with the double
burdens of home and work/study even in developed countries (Enloe, 2014). If the teachers
devalue girls’ performances and predict their unwillingness towards science based on stereotypes
or previous records, then girls will not be motivated to pursue STEM careers. Some studies
(Brainard & Carlin, 1998; Sonnert, 1995) have focused on the point that girls left science but did
not investigate why they choose a different subject. Students are allowed to choose any subject
they want; it is their agency. They obviously can be more passionate about any subject. It does
not mean in any way that if people are in science they are more scholarly than others. Merit can
be exercised in any field. It therefore follows that it is problematic to always highlight that
students “left” science. However, there are examples showing that girls become very enthusiastic
about science if they are motivated and that they intrinsically appreciate science. A 13-year-old
girl from Canada said about her success in physical science, “I am proud of what we built.
Usually, you see men at a construction site, not women. This proves that we can get along and
get the job done” (Megan in Girlsinc, 2014). Here my argument is consistent with Kabeer
(2005), where I assume that such empowerment comes from the combination of her willingness
and the support that she gets from her surroundings, which allowed her to go against the grain.
Thus, the attitudes of girls towards sciences depend on multidimensional factors and a lack of
empowerment that demolishes their consciousness can be a crucial reason of their
underrepresentation in STEM.

Socio-cultural and Socio-economic Barriers

The socio-cultural ideologies of a patriarchal society expect women to be “good mothers”
(Agarwal, 1997). They are expected to perform their roles as mothers, even compromising their
careers (Mim, 2015). Thus, especially in developing countries, girls are often actively
discouraged by parents and teachers from taking STEM careers since “successful female

7
scientists often did not have children” and scientific careers can demand more time compared to
other professions (Blickenstaff, 2005:377; Mim, 2015). Here I feel that increasing the number of
science role models is not in itself enough, because society actually only perceives women as
professional role models if they are equally “successful” in their family lives. Additionally, a
women’s work is judged on the basis of masculine traits that she needs to have in a STEM job
(Steinke, 1997). But why do girls need masculine skills in STEM? Well, the inherent notion that
“science is power so science is defined as masculine” (Wallsgrove, 1980 cited in Kelly,
1985:147) plays a role in treating women that way. At higher education level, science demands
more time, engagement, and financial investment, which often hinder the girls from patriarchal
societies pursuing a career in sciences (Mim, 2015). Besides, parental involvement and their
interest are also important. Parents with low incomes are not always willing to invest much in
girls’ education, who stereotypically are supposed to be wives and mothers. Also, since the
overall cost of educational in scientific subjects is higher than other subjects at secondary and
tertiary level, parents discourage their daughters to take STEM (Herz & Sperling, 2004). By
drawing on Kabeer’s (2005) notion of female agency, a large group of women often cannot
exercise their power to choose careers in the patriarchal context. As a consequence, mentioned
socio-cultural and socio-economic barriers put pressure on girls to experience the commonality
of women by emphasizing their reproductive and caring roles.

Remedies for the under representation of women in STEM subjects

Empirical studies have also accentuated that the use of digital pedagogical strategies enable a
learning climate that is conducive enough to encourage learners to think critically and
computationally (Stover, 2018). These strategies simultaneously stimulate making collaboration
with their peers and teachers and creatively engaging in real world problem-solving of some
challenging tasks. This helps in understanding global landscape issues with the aid of ubiquitous
digital technology within and outside the school premises. A closer analysis of the 21st century
pedagogical framework allows teachers to have deeper understanding of the current 4IR
educational landscape challenges and requirements. That enlightenment, furthermore,
encourages teachers to shift from teacher-centered pedagogies to instructional pedagogical
practices that meet the learners’ needs of today (21st century). Congruently, Lazarov (2018)
posited that 21st century workplaces characterize knowledge-based societies that need 4IR
workers with “many sets of special skills in order to succeed in work and life.” Henceforward,
from this perspective there is no doubt that 21st century pedagogies, in concurrency with
Lazarov (2018), appeal upon the learners’ zeal and interest to engage in experiential learning and
own-construction of knowledge thus promoting student’s interest in gaining 21st century skills
and competencies.
Twenty-first century learning tactics requires such pedagogical paradigms shifts that can enhance
authentic teaching techniques and allow the new generation to prosper in the 4IR era. Hence
there are compelling arguments from varied literature to transform pedagogy (Ferguson et al.,
2019; Scott, 2015) and promote development of DL skill-sets (TechUK, 2018; Wetering et al.,

8
2019). Muniasamy and Alasiry (2020) posited that DL “involves algorithms that predict possible
outcomes based on user data, which allow a computer to display behaviors learned from
experiences” thus making every information received more intuitive. In line with the foregoing,
Themis Christophidou, the Director-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture for
European Union (EU), cited in the ET 2020 Working Group Schools (2018) postulating that:

“Schools face a range of changing educational demands - from learners, society and the labor
market. To help them in their response, EU education ministers recently concluded that there is a
need for contemporary approaches to teaching and learning and to the governance of school
education systems”.

Subsequently, above all, the rationale for shifting to new pedagogies rests upon the glaring and
unfolding realities of boredom and frustration among learners as well as teacher burnout (Fullan
& Langworthy, 2014) in order to dominate the teaching and learning arena around the world.
Furthermore, it is believed that digital pedagogies characterized by learner-centered instruction
ignites learning (Snelling, 2018) as learners are kept active and engaged in construction of their
own knowledge. Moreover, students need to be given meaningful room for engagement in
classrooms thus promoting curiosity in taking ownership of their learning (Snelling, 2018) and
culminating it into DL. Congruous to the foregoing, Moate and Cox (2015) reveals that learner-
centered pedagogy encourages students to “actively engage in and take ownership of their
learning experiences inspiring students to think deeply about how they might apply what they are
learning to their future practice.” Contrastingly, as accentuated in the foreword by Sir Michael
Barber, cited by Fullan and Langworthy (2014), archaic teacher-centered pedagogies promote
‘flat lining’ in the learning systems. Corroborating the foregoing enlightenment Professor Eric
Mazur of Harvard University viewed such scenario as resembling learners ‘being more asleep
during lectures than when they are in bed’. Irrespectively, “widespread use of this model
continues” (Scott, 2015) to dominate, unabated, no matter how much the current literature
exposes and how ineffective teacher-centered pedagogies are in failing to enhance crucial 21st
century competences and skills.

Nonetheless, the lecture models (teacher-centered), synonymously referred to as ‘didactic

pedagogy’ continue to prosper because teachers are presumably ‘compelled’ to pursue
examination-oriented curricula guided by strictly standardized testing requirements as per the
national examination board (UNEB). Concurrently, in a study about why the didactic pedagogy
continues to dominate in today’s classrooms in pursuance of inclusive education in Africa, Mpho
(2016) reveals that examination-oriented curriculum and overcrowding are main barriers to 21st
century pedagogy. Subsequently, teachers’ pay little/no attention to new pedagogical paradigms
that advocates learner-centered approaches more strongly. As observed by the ISTE (2018) in
line with pervasive digital technology for instruction, “technology not only opens up new ways
of teaching, it also brings about an array of new skills needed by educators” thus enhancing
much more relevant and authentic student performance. Nevertheless, in spite of worldwide

9
agreement that students need competences and skills such as critical thinking and the ability to
communicate effectively which can enable them to solve problems through negotiation and
collaboration, pedagogy has seldom adapted itself to address these challenges (Scott, 2015).

With regard to foregoing the current study advocates that 21st century pedagogy should be
enforced by the examination bodies in accordance with e-Education and e-Learning policies
intents so as to enhance a learning environment conducive enough to enhance students construct
their own knowledge. Subsequently, this study also strongly propounds that realignment of
competences alongside digital revolution is as crucial as rethinking pedagogies (Lesufi, 2017)
that are in tandem with the 21st century work challenges and requirements. In this regard our
21st “educational systems should be outfitted with prerequisite of ICT both hardware and
software resources, and curricula must be designed to promote a collaborative learner-centered
environment to which students will relate and respond” (Boholano, 2017) because the generation
of today is technologically compliant. Similarly, Moate and Cox (2015) argue that pursuance of
learner-centered pedagogy may be a useful way to enable learner-acquisition of 21st century
skills. However, for the 21st century pedagogy to work well the teaching fraternity should not
discard completely the status quo unless problem of overcrowding of classes is resolved first;
otherwise old pedagogy continues as the bedrock on which new pedagogy will sprout. Hence,
digital pedagogies need to take center stage, as soon as possible, in line with challenges of the
4IR.

Furthermore, Problem Based Learning (PBL) and Project Based Learning (PjBL) should be
taken, in line with the current literature on digital pedagogies Fullan and Langworthy (2014), as
some of the new pedagogical approaches can stimulate critical and computational thinking skills
as well as collaboration amongst students and their teachers. It is also strongly proposed that, the
aforementioned pedagogical perspective have the potential to culminate into DL and develop
emotional intelligence skills crucial for the young generation to face the challenges of the 4IR.
In partnership with researchers from the Norway’s Centre for the Science of Learning and
Technology (SLATE), Ferguson et al., (2019) explored forms of new techniques of teaching,
learning and assessment that could promote inculcation of DL competences and skills suitable
for the 21st century work requirements. Regarding this, they proposed a summary of ten sketches
of new pedagogies, already in currency although found to be superficially in use. The new
educational theories and practices proposed are: learning with robots, drone-based learning,
learning through wonder, action learning, virtual studios, place-based learning, make thinking
visible, roots of empathy, playful learning and decolonizing learning.
Among the above-mentioned pedagogical tactics, drone-based pedagogy is found to be very
interesting as it is ideal for geographical, environmental and scientific studies. This strategy is
also useful for exploring the phenomena of areas regarded “inaccessible” on foot (Ferguson et
al., 2019; ISTE, 2018) thus enriching learner-exploration of many physical spaces in
collaboration with their teachers. Another strategy of action-learning also promotes meaningful

10
learner-engagements, partnerships and collaboration of learners-group diversity with teachers to
promote cross-pollination of ideas and opinions and address real and immediate problems of the
interactive world. Moreover, by regularly collaborating and sharing varied perspectives, learners
can constructively find and apply solutions (Ferguson et al., 2019) to solve problems
concurrently encouraging sharing of experiences and strategies. This shows that digitized
pedagogies play a crucial role in 21st century education systems. This study therefore concurs
with Boholano (2017) who sets forth that “technology in the 21st century serves as an
extraordinary tool to shape and enhance the learning environment” in supplementing high quality
instructional methods. Hence, every teacher’s 21stcentury pedagogical repertoire should include
a meaningful technological domain.

The foregoing part of this work reviewed in detail, issues pertaining to the 21st century
pedagogies. In doing so, a number of related studies were profoundly consulted in line with their
pros and cons taking cognizance of the 21st century challenges and world of work. Overall the
literature revealed that, although teachers and technologists acknowledge the crucial role played
by technology in transforming instructional pedagogies in line with required 21st century
pedagogies, traditional teacher-centered approaches continued to dominate unabatedly the
teaching and learning platforms. Continuity of the status quo (traditional pedagogy) was found to
be compromising on learner-acquisition of the 21st century knowledge and skills. Furthermore,
the literature reviewed insignificantly unveils specific reasons leading to why shifts to the 21st
century pedagogies is not meaningfully realized, especially in developing countries of which
South Africa is not spared. The theoretical framework of the 21st century pedagogy (Lazarov,
2018) is discussed at length and found to be suitable enough to guide this study. To come to
grips with reality surrounding the foregoing enlightened problem (lack of pedagogical shifts in
alignment with 21st century teaching and learning requirement)

The Benefits of STEM Subjects.

Despite the under representation of girls in STEM subjects in secondary schools, the term STEM
(Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) is progressively becoming an important fixture in
education and the world economy. The reason for this is that the careers of the future will most
certainly be centered around STEM fields, while also invoking 21st century skills such as critical
thinking, creativity, cultural awareness, collaboration and problem-solving. When done well,
STEM education complements the development of 21st century skills. Hence, many teachers are
starting to integrate STEM in their lessons.
STEM, or Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics, touches every aspect of our lives.
From the news apps we go through every morning, the roads and bridges we take to work, the
computers we build projects on, to the food we eat at dinner. Because our social and economic
lives are so heavily influenced by technology, universities around the world are putting more and
more value on STEM courses and the benefits of STEM educationThe AAS (2020). The benefits
of STEM education are endless as discussed below.

11
According to a report by UNESCO 2015, STEM Subjects help in equipping one with 21 st
centuary skills. With our economies growing and technology taking over everything, the 21st-
century job market has changed. Now, companies are looking for graduates who are curious,
innovative, love to experiment with new things, and are good at solving complex problems.
STEM education departs these skills in students at a very early stage in life. It teaches them how
to think critically, be resilient in the face of rejection, and show them how adapting to new
situations in life can help. These qualities not only make a person more skilled but also showcase
a good character.
STEM subjects also create more job opportunities. Several countries across the world, including
the US, Ireland, and New Zealand, are making it easier for STEM graduates to get a job. For
example, in Ireland, you can stay back for 2 years after graduation and work. And after that, you
can apply for Permanent Residency (Ekine, A., M. Samati, and J.-A. Walker 2013). Even the
universities in the countries are helping STEM students in many ways. Students have the
opportunity to learn from amazing teachers, use the latest technology, and intern or work with
industry leaders like Google, Tesla, and Netflix.
Provides opportunities for STEM careers at early ages. Studies show that a majority of careers
will be centered around STEM subjects or will have STEM components to them. By introducing
STEM at an early stage of a child’s life, you are introducing them to a world of opportunities and
nurturing the skills needed to succeed in the 21st-century. If I say that STEM students are trained
in 21st-century skills and find it easier to get a job, it follows that these students are offered
higher pay. It’s important to keep in mind, though, that if you are graduating from a well-known
university with a degree in Nuclear science, you will have the potential to earn more than
someone who is studying Mechanical engineering at a lesser-known institute. So, before you
start to dream of repeating the benefits of STEM education, look at this STEM majors list, and
decide which STEM career interests you the most.
Getting a STEM degree from a world-renowned university will make you a great candidate for
citizenship in any country around the world (UNESCO, 2010). New Zealand, for example, has
an exclusive website for foreign immigrants skilled in certain areas. Be it Canada, the US,
Singapore, Australia, Ireland, Switzerland, or even Norway (which is beautiful), you will have
better chances of getting citizenship. And if not that, the kind of job you take up might take you
on adventurous journeys around the globe. So, if you’re taking up a STEM course, be prepared
for an amazing ride.
Furthermore, STEM subjects create equality at work. According to UNESCO (United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), access to STEM education for girls is a
human right. Nations across the world are working tirelessly to promote equality in both STEM
education and the workforce. Be it the US, Australia, the Netherlands, Dubai, or Ghana, more
and more female students are being encouraged to take up STEM majors and work in the fields
of Science Engineering Medicine Technology.

12
Studying STEM subjects makes one to be at the forefront of new inventions (Crawford, C. and J.
Cribb,2013). One of the primary reasons students choose to study abroad is to get access to the
latest developments and learn from a world-class faculty. And these are some of the most
amazing benefits of STEM education.Universities make sure that STEM students get access to
the latest lab equipment and encourage them to work with their teachers. This gives you the
global exposure you need to skyrocket your career.Even the job you get after graduation will be
at a company that is working on innovative, ground-breaking technology, putting you at the
forefront of your field!
Our generation is not without its challenges – climate change, fake news, depression, corruption,
and whatnot. When you’re in STEM, you have a chance to address the issues we’re facing on a
global scale (Beede, D., et al., 2011). If you’re creative enough, your contributions might have
the power to save entire ecosystems, educate children, reduce urbanization, or even reduce
poverty. Look at Tesla, for example, and see how its contributions are on the way to reduce
space junk. No matter which STEM field you choose, you will always find that there’s a way to
give back to society.

CONCLUSION
The study has demonstrated that women’s success in STEM is influenced by various factors that
reinforce each other at individual, family, societal and the work environment. At the individual
level, personal capabilities and academic preparation influence the choice of whether women
pursue STEM related subjects or not. The choice to pursue STEM related subjects was further
influenced by other women working in STEM who acted as role models. Factors at societal level
also played a significant role in influencing choice and success for women pursuing STEM
related subjects. To this end, patriarchal attitudes at a macro level affected the choice of women
to pursue and succeed in STEM. The success of women already in STEM was highly influenced
by the work environment. The selection process and gender relations played a great role in
women’s success in STEM. Policies to address the gender gap in STEM exist but they are rarely
implemented.

RECOMMENDATIONS
There is need for a multipronged approach that addresses challenges that women face in their
quest to pursue STEM courses and succeed while in practice. Approaches should pay attention to
factors that affect women’s success in STEM at the individual, family and societal levels, and the
work environment. Policy and programmatic measures should be institutionalized to safeguard
gender equity in STEM in the education system.
Efforts should begin from addressing the root causes of perception by developing strategies that
will influence cultural orientations and stereotypes at household and community level.
Interventions to ensure comprehensive support structures for women in STEM need to be
anchored in law through relevant policies.

13
Empowerment of girls either through financial support or ensuring that female students were
equally treated as their male counterparts, affirmative initiatives such as payment of school fees
for girls, and being offered advice and direction regarding STEM-related career path; support
from members both in the nuclear and extended families who were either working in STEM
related fields or family members who provided material support or encouragement to women;
peer support from student of the same or different gender— support from male students seemed
to be key in ensuring that female students completed their STEM courses; availability of
scholarship opportunities for women; support from teachers especially those teaching
mathematics at lower levels of education, and supportive lecturers at higher levels of education.

14
References
Agarwal, B. (1997). “Bargaining” and Gender Relations: Within and Beyond the
Household, Feminist Economics, 3(1), 1-51.
Ali, M. S. & Awan, A.S. (2013). Attitude Towards Science and Its Relationship with
Students’ Achievement in Science, Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research
in Business, 4(10), 707-718. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1324456533?pq-origsite=gscholar
Allgeier, E. R. & McCormick, N. (1983). The Intimate Relationship between Gender
Roles and Sexuality. In E.R. Allgeier, & N. McCormick (Eds.), Changing Boundaries:
Gender Roles and Sexual Behavior (pp. 1-15). Mayfield Publishing Company.

Archer, L. et al. (2013). Adolescent Boys’ Science Aspirations: Masculinity, Capital and
Power. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(1), 1-30. Retrieved from
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/259543335_Adolescent_boys'_science_aspiratio
ns_Masculinity_capital_and_power

Beede, D., et al., Women in STEM: A Gender Gap to Innovation 2011.

Blickenstaff, J. C. (2005). Women and Science Careers: Leaky Pipeline or Gender Filter?
Gender and Education, 17(4), 369-386. Retrieved from
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09540250500145072

Brainard, S.G. & Carlin, L. (1998). A six-year Longitudinal Study of Undergraduate

Women in Engineering and Science. Journal of Engineering Education, 87(4), 17-27.
Connell, R. W. (1999). The Social Organization of Masculinity. In R.W. Connell (Ed.),
Masculinities (pp. 67-81). Berkeley: University of California Press. Retrieved from
https://genderandmasculinities.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/robert-w-connell-
masculinities-second-edition-3.pdf
Crawford, C. and J. Cribb, (2013).The link between childhood reading skills and adult
outcomes: analysis of a cohort of British children. IFS Briefing Note BN169.

Ekine, A., M. Samati, and J.-A. (2013).Walker, Improving Learning Opportunities and
Outcomes for Girls in Africa.
Enloe, C. (2014). Women’s labour is Never Cheap: Gendering Global Blue Jeans and
Bankers. In C. Enloe (Ed.), Bananas, Beaches and Bases. Making Feminist Sense of
International Politics (pp. 250-304). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Ferrari, R. (2015). Writing Narrative Style Literature Review. Retrieved from
file:///C:/Users/Brac/Downloads/2047480615z2e000000000329.pdf

15
Girls inc. (2014). Girls Inc. Operation SMART: Science, Math and Relevant Technology.
Retrieved from http://www.girlsinc.org/resources/programs/girls-inc-operation-
smart.html

Herz, B. K. & Sperling, G. B. (2004). What Works in Girls’ Education: Evidence and
Policies from the Developing World, Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved from
https://books.google.nl/books?hl=en&lr=&id=7a0W_bqvzA0C&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=in
vest+on+girls+science+education&ots=UdGSuMkUVd&sig=eYM9Vf5w9MWHehQnIk
nJTMngDEQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Hill, C., Corbett, C. & Andresse, S.R. (2010). Why so few? Women in Science,
Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, AAUW, Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://www.aauw.org/resource/why-so-few-women-in-science-technology-engineering-
mathematics/
Kabreer, N. (2010). Voice, Agency and the Sounds of Silence: A Comment on Jane L.
Parpart’s Paper. Working Paper No. 297. Michigan State University, 206 International
Center, East Lansing, MI 48824-1035.
Kabeer, N. (2005). Gender equality and women’s empowerment: A critical analysis of
the third millennium development goal 1. Gender & Development, 13(1), 13-24.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13552070512331332273

Kelly, A. (1985). The Construction of Masculine Science, British Council of Sociology of

Education, 6(2), 133-154. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1393046?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

van de Werfhorst, H. G. et al. (2010). ‘Social Class, Ability and Choice of Subject in
Secondary and Tertiary Education in Britain’, British Educational Research Journal 29
(1), 41-62. Retrieved from
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/0141192032000057366#.VXrl_fmqqko J.
of Res. in Sci. Math. and Tech. Edu.
Miller, P. H. et al. (2006). Gender Differences in High-school Students’ Views about
Science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(4), 363-381. Retrieved from
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09500690500277664
Mim, S. A. (2015) ‘Can Women Science Teachers Be Role Models? Challenging Gender
Stereotypes of Science and Masculinity’, MA thesis, International Institute of Social
Studies (ISS), Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Hague, Netherlands. Accessed 12
June 2016 https://thesis.eur.nl/pub/33164/

Nasr, A. R. & Soltani, A. (2011). Attitude towards Biology and Its Effects on Student’s
Achievement. International Journal of Biology, 3(4), 100-104. Retrieved from
http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijb/article/view/12442

16
Osborne, J. et al. (2003). Attitude towards Science: A Review of the Literature and its
implications, International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049-1079. Retrieved
from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/0950069032000032199

Shapiro, J.R. & Williams, A.M. (2011). The Role of Stereotype Threats in Undermining
Girls’ and Women’s Performance and Interest in STEM, Feminist Forum: Sex Roles,
66,175-183. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/919688864?pq-
origsite=gscholar

Sonnert, G. & Holton, G. (1995). Who Succeeds in Science? New Brunswick, NJ,
Rutgers University Press.
Steinke, J. (1997). A Portrait of a Woman as a Scientist: Breaking Down Barriers Created
by Gender-role Stereotypes, Public Understand Sci. 6, 409-428.

The AAS (2020). Mukhwana A.M., Abuya T., Matanda D., Omumbo J., Mabuka J.
Factors which Contribute to or Inhibit Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics in Africa. Nairobi
Tai, R. H. & Sadler, P. M. (2011). Gender Differences in Introductory Undergraduate
Physics Performance: University Physics Versus College Physics in The USA,
International Journal of Science Education, 23(10), 1017-1037.
TRIMUNC (2015). Educating Girls in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math
(STEM). The Triangle Model United Nations Conference for Middle School Students.
Retrieved from http://trimunc.org/committeestopics/united-nations-childrens-
fund/educating-girls-in-science-technology-engineering-and-math-stem/

UNESCO. (2007). Science, Technology and Gender: An International Report. Science

and Technology for Development Series, UNESCO Publishing. Retrieved from
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001540/154045e.pdf

UNESCO, (2010).Women’s and Girls’ Access to and Participation in Science and

Technology.: Paris, France.
Walford, G. (1981). Tracking Down Sexism in Physics Textbooks. Physics Education,
16, 261-265. Retrieved from http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9120/16/5/303

Warrington, M. & Younger, M. (2000). The Other Side of the Gender Gap, Gender and
Education, 12(4): 493-508. Retrieved from
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09540250020004126
Weinburgh, M. (1995). Gender differences in Student Attitude toward Science: A meta-
analysis of the literature from 1970 to 1991, Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
32(4), 387-398. Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.3660320407/pdf

17
Wickramasinghe, M. (2010). Feminist Research Methodology: Making meanings of
meaning-making, London and New York: Routledge.

Whitelegg, L. (2001). Girls in Science Education: of Rice and Fruit Trees. In M.

Lederman & I. Bartsch (Eds.), The Gender and Science Reader (pp. 373-382). New
York, Routledge.

18