The Challenges Faced by Mathematics Learners in Stem and Non-Stem Schools

Mathematics remains a foundational subject for scientific literacy and economic development, yet learner performance continues to be persistently low in many Sub-Saharan African education systems, including Zambia. This study employed a comparative cross-sectional mixed-methods design to examine differences in Mathematics performance between STEM and non-STEM secondary schools in Zambia’s Southern Province and to identify contextual factors influencing learner outcomes. Quantitative data were drawn from Grade 12 Mathematics examination scores of 228 learners across four secondary schools, while qualitative data were collected through questionnaires and semi-structured interviews with 26 Mathematics teachers and school administrators. Descriptive statistics and an independent samples t-test were used to analyze performance differences, complemented by effect size estimation and confidence interval analysis, while thematic analysis was applied to qualitative data. Results revealed a statistically significant difference in Mathematics performance between STEM and non-STEM schools (t(195.69) = −34.76, p < .001), with STEM learners achieving higher mean scores. The estimated effect size (Cohen’s d ≈ 3.20) indicates an exceptionally large and educationally meaningful difference, far exceeding commonly reported benchmarks for high-impact educational interventions. However, selected non-STEM schools demonstrated relatively strong performance, underscoring the moderating role of effective leadership, teacher collaboration, and learner motivation. Persistent challenges across both school types included inadequate instructional resources, limited ICT infrastructure, high learner–teacher ratios, and negative learner attitudes toward Mathematics. The study concludes that while STEM designation confers substantial performance advantages, system-wide equity in resourcing and the scaling of effective institutional practices are essential for sustainable improvement in Mathematics education.

STEM education, Mathematics achievement, effect size, non-STEM schools

1. Akala, B. M., & Changilwa, C. (2018). STEM education in Africa: Challenges and prospects. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 1–12. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Azevedo, ES. (2011). Lines of Practice: A Practice-Centered Theory of Interest Relationships. Cognition and Instruction, 29(2), 147-184. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Banks, J.A., Au, K.H., Ball, A.F.,, Bell, P., Gordon, E.W., Gutiérrez, K.D., Heath, S.B., Lee, C.D., Lee, Y., Mahiri, J., Nasir, N.S., Valdés, G., and Zhou, M. (2007). Learning in and out of School in Diverse Environments: Life-Long, Life-Wide, Life-Deep. Seattle, WA: The LIFE Center (The Learning in Informal and Formal Environments Center), University of Washington, Stanford University, SRI International, and the Center for Multicultural Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Becker, K., & Park, K. (2011). Effects of Integrative Approaches Among STEM Subjects on Students’ Learning. Journal of STEM Education, 12(5–6), 23–37. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bransford, J.D., Vye, N.J., Stevens, R., Kuhl, P., Schwartz, D., Bell, P., Meltzoff, A., Barron, B., Pea, R., Reeves, B., Roschelle, J., and Sabelli, N. (2006). Learning theories and education: Toward a decade of synergy. In P. Alexander and P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (Volume 2). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (3rd ed.). Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (2014). STEM Integration in K–12 Education. National Academies Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning. Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Ministry of Education. (2019). STEM Education Implementation Framework. Government of Zambia. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 Results. OECD Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Penuel, W.P., Lee, T., and Bevan, B. (2014). Designing and Building Infrastructures to Support Equitable STEM Learning Across Settings. The Research +Practice Collaboratory. San Francisco: The Exploratorium. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Piaget, J. (1972). The Psychology of the Child. Basic Books. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. UNESCO. (2021). Reimagining Our Futures Together: A New Social Contract for Education. UNESCO. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Interplay of Students’ Emotional Intelligence and Attitude toward Mathematics on Performance in Grade 10 Algebra
• Numerical Simulation of Fitzhugh-Nagumo Dynamics Using a Finite Difference-Based Method of Lines
• Fixed Point Theorem in Controlled Metric Spaces
• Usage of Moving Average to Heart Rate, Blood Pressure and Blood Sugar
• Exploring Algebraic Topology and Homotopy Theory: Methods, Empirical Data, and Numerical Examples