Kijima et al. International Journal of STEM Education
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00271-6(2021) 8:14

International Journal of
STEM Education

RESEARCH

Open AccessUsing design thinking to cultivate the next
generation of female STEAM thinkers
Rie Kijima1* , Mariko Yang-Yoshihara2 and Marcos Sadao Maekawa3

Abstract
Background: Countries around the world have struggled to implement education policies and practices toencourage more female youths to pursue Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). This has
resulted in a persistent and sizeable gender gap in science and mathematics subjects in some countries. Using
mixed-methods sequential explanatory design, this paper explores an educational intervention—specifically, a 3-day
design thinking workshop—in Japan, designed to change female youths’ perceptions regarding STEM topics.
Framed using a constructivist approach to learning, the workshops aimed to engender creative confidence,
empathy, and global competence among youths.
Results: The findings show that female youths who participated in the workshop had increased interest inengineering, greater creative confidence, more positive perceptions of STEM, higher levels of empathy and prosocial factors, and a more varied outlook on career options. We argue that this short intervention had a strong
influence on the female youths’ mindsets, self-images, and perceptions of STEM.
Conclusion: This study provides empirical support that a short intervention can produce positive change in how
female youths relate to STEM. In gendered societies, an innovative method like design thinking has the potential torevitalize education curriculum in ways that spur female youths’ confidence and creativity, enabling them toimagine a career in the field of STEM.
Keywords: Design thinking, STEM, STEAM, Creative confidence, Empathy, Female youths

Introduction
Countries around the world have struggled to implement education policies to level the playing field for all
genders to pursue their interest in Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields. Gender inequality in STEM fields continues to persist at various
levels, as evidenced by mathematics scores in secondary
education (Guiso, Monte, Sapienza, & Zingales, 2008),
employment in math-intensive fields such as engineering(Ceci, Williams, & Barnett, 2009), and the gender wage
gap in STEM professions (Blau & Kahn, 2017). Gender
gaps in STEM start well before women enter the workforce. Students begin forming strong academic* Correspondence: rie.kijima@utoronto.ca1
Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, University of Toronto, 1
Devonshire Place, Toronto, ON M5S 3K7, Canada
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article

preferences and particular likes and dislikes of certain
subjects in middle school (Fryer Jr & Levitt, 2010). It isaround this phase in their adolescent years that girls become less motivated to pursue STEM topics (Kerr &Kurpius, 2004). Also, unless they take advanced levels ofmathematics in high school, it is unlikely that girls will
pursue science, mathematics, or engineering degrees incollege (McIlwee & Robinson, 1992).
This study is at the intersection of two approaches to
STEM education. The first is the traditional focus on
STEM as a framework of learning that emphasizes
knowledge acquisition, such as theory to model-based
reasoning, which involves an iterative process of analyzing data to support or advance a theory (e.g., Borko,
2016; Duschl & Bismack, 2016). The second is STEAM,
an approach that adds the Arts (hence the “A”) to STEM
in order to harness a sense of creativity and inquiry to© The Author(s). 2021 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate ifchanges were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commonslicence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commonslicence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain
permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

(2021) 8:14

Page 2 of 15

conventional STEM education (e.g., Daugherty, 2013).
Our research emphasizes the importance of STEAM
learning and how design thinking complements STEM.
Proponents of STEAM argue that integrating artisticand design approaches will spur innovation (Madden
et al., 2013; Robelen, 2011; Sousa & Pilecki, 2013). Furthermore, the integration of art and design into STEM
allows for more human-centered innovation, ensuringthat technological development is responsive to theneeds, desires, and challenges of users (Chen & Lo,2019).
This study explores what benefits an educational program that utilizes design thinking might have for a specific group of learners. Our study is significant because
it contributes to our understanding of how an immersive
design thinking educational program can foster greaterinterest in STEM among female adolescents. Moreover,it addresses the need to understand how design thinking
could serve as “a model of thinking” for learners in thetwenty-first century (Li et al., 2019a, p. 94). This study isalso relevant because it highlights how a human-centric,
empathy-focused pedagogical approach encourages
youths to become more actively engaged with issues
around them.
The study’s main research question asks: What kind ofchanges in terms of perception and understanding of
STEM do we observe among youths who participate in
the 3-day design thinking workshop? Specifically, we hypothesized that the intervention would increase the female youths’ interest and motivation and provide them
the nudge needed to consider STEM as plausible and interesting fields of study. We offer evidence regarding theinfluence of the workshop by analyzing student-level
data collected between 2016 and 2020 via surveys andinterviews. We find that female youths who participatedin the workshop showed increased interest in engineering and design, greater creative confidence, more positive perceptions of STEM, higher levels of empathy andpro-social factors, and a more varied outlook on career
options. We end by proposing a model for an integrated
approach to STEM learning within formal classroom settings and beyond (English & King, 2015; Estapa & Tank,
2017).

girls in mathematics and the factors associated with thisgender gap are due to socio-cultural factors, such as highfertility rate, mother’s educational level, and greater
prevalence of Islam (Dickerson, McIntosh, & Valente,2015). Japan follows this global trend. There is no statistically significant difference between boys and girls intheir performance in mathematics in fourth grade since2003; however, the gender gap widens over time
(Meinck & Brese, 2019). By the time students reacheighth grade mathematics, there is a gender gap in favorof boys. This finding is consistent over a period of 20
years (Meinck & Brese, 2019, p. 8).
Japan represents a perfect example of a narrow andleaky pipeline. There is a very small percentage of students entering STEM fields and the retention rate of
STEM majors is extremely low. Nationally, women’s representation in higher education is below parity. In 2017,
female students comprised 36.9% of undergraduates,
28.9% of doctoral students, and 26.7% of Master’s students.1 Furthermore, women make up 16.2% of the total
number of researchers in Japan, which puts Japan at thebottom of 25 advanced economies (The Cabinet Office,2019).2 In STEM fields, women accounted for 8.8%,
14.6%, and 15.9% of all researchers in engineering, science, and natural science, respectively (The Cabinet Office, 2018).
Underrepresentation of women in Japanese higher
education is particularly notable in STEM fields. In academia, women made up 7.4% and 4.9% of faculty in science and engineering fields, respectively, compared to22.9% in humanities (The Cabinet Office, 2016, p. 372).
Certain areas in STEM fields suffer particularly low representation of women in STEM fields: Mechanical Engineering (1.6%), Applied Chemistry (3.6%), ElectricalEngineering (3.7%), Physics (4.4%), and Civil Engineering(5.7%) in 2007 (Kato & Chayama, 2012, p. 37).
Increasing various pathways to pursue STEM promises
to yield benefits for women. In particular, encouraging
women to pursue and excel within STEM fields could
potentially increase women’s private rate of return—aconsideration that is particularly relevant in the case ofJapan. Today, the difference between the male and female median wage in Japan is 23.5, approximately 10.6
percentage points higher than the OECD average, indicating a large gender wage gap in favor of men (OECD,

Kijima et al. International Journal of STEM Education

Background
Globally, studies have shown that there is almost no difference between boys and girls in their aptitude and performance in mathematics in the early years ofelementary school, but the gender gap widens over time.
By fifth-grade, female students in the USA score 0.2
standard deviations lower than their male cohorts, whichis equivalent to approximately 2.5 months of instruction(Fryer Jr & Levitt, 2010). A cross-national study of 19
African countries yields similar results: boys outperform

1

It is noteworthy that these numbers were even lower just a decadeago. In 2007, the share of female students in Science was 25.3% at theundergraduate level, 17.5% at the doctoral level, and 22.1% at the
Master’s level.
2
Proportion of Women Researchers, in descending order of countries(The Cabinet Office, 2019): Iceland, Portugal, Estonia, Slovak Republic,
Spain, Greece, Norway, UK, Poland, Turkey, Slovenia, Italy, Denmark,US, Belgium, Sweden, Chile, Switzerland, Ireland, Finland, Hungary,
Austria, Germany, Luxembourg, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Korea,
and Japan.

(2021) 8:14

Page 3 of 152020). According to data from Europe, it is estimatedthat women who pursue STEM careers earn, on average,
33% more than women who pursue non-STEM careers(Beede et al., 2011). Some studies also show a narrower
gender pay gap in STEM than in non-STEM professions(Beede et al., 2011, p. 1), especially among women andunderrepresented minorities (Oh & Lewis, 2011). If thiscondition also holds true in Japan, women who pursue
STEM could expect a higher private rate of return.

a framework for participants to address complex, global
issues by identifying diverse solutions (Noweski et al.,2012; Scheer, Noweski, & Meinel, 2012). The skills emphasized in design thinking, such as critical thinking,creativity, competence, collaboration, and communication, are all considered essential skills in the twenty-first
century (Rotherham & Willingham, 2009; Trilling &Fadel, 2009). The complexity of global issues demands
students capable of addressing real-world problems(Brown & Wyatt, 2010; Kelley & Knowles, 2016). Furthermore, design thinking enables us to tackle so-called
wicked problems (Rittel & Webber, 1973) that we encounter on a day-to-day basis but that remain difficult
to solve. Design thinking harnesses these skills throughinteractive, student-centered learning modules (Wrigley& Straker, 2017) and enables students to become agentsof change (Carroll et al., 2010). The emphasis on andvalue of creativity, collaboration, and innovation has
spurred educators to apply design thinking in learning
circles, leading to the increased use of design thinking in
educational contexts over the years.
The rationale for using design thinking in education isgrounded in the findings of previous studies that point tothe approach’s positive influence on learners. Design
thinking strategies have been demonstrated to improvestudents’ problem-solving skills, especially among lower
achieving students (Chin et al., 2019). Furthermore, design
thinking increases students’ creativity (Gözen, 2015), as
measured by the learner’s creative confidence (Rauth,Köppen, Jobst, & Meinel, 2010). In a study focusing on
middle school students, Carroll (2014) documents how
design thinking fosters mentorship, promotes collaboration, and inspires students to consider STEM careers. Exposure to design thinking also transforms youngadolescents’ perception of engineers as designers, innovators, and scientists (Goldman, Zielezinski, Vea, BachasDaunert, & Kabayadondo, 2016). It also offers teachers
new pedagogical tools (Noweski et al., 2012) to innovateon their curriculum. Furthermore, the results of this study
have strong policy implications in the adoption andutilization of design thinking as a pedagogical approach toincrease the number of students under-represented in
STEM fields, such as girls and minority students, in learning communities around the world. The human-centeredapproach in design thinking (Brown, 2009; Brown & Wyatt, 2010; Kimbell, 2011) also resonates with “A” in STEA
M due to the former’s emphasis on empathy. This study
answers the need for more research to address the potential of design thinking in promoting and accelerating
STEAM learning (Li et al., 2019b).

Kijima et al. International Journal of STEM Education

Conceptual framework
We draw our conceptual framework from the social constructivist approach to learning. Constructivists such as
Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky argue that learners construct their own version of knowledge through interpretation, organization, and cumulative development ofideas (Ackermann, 2001; Fosnot & Perry, 1996). Whileboth are concerned with how knowledge can be cumulatively constructed, Vygotsky emphasizes the importanceof social interactions in enhancing the process of learning (Phillips, 1995). Thus, social constructivists argue
that students learn best when they are able to situate
their learning within a social context that enables themto internalize concepts (Cobb, 2016; Nyikos & Hashimoto, 1997).
Design thinking is deeply rooted in the constructivist
approach to learning. Design thinking consists of a set ofprocedures that enable the learners to embrace ambiguity (Collins, 2013; Leifer & Steinert, 2011). In this paradigm, design thinkers are encouraged to move awayfrom the quest for absolute answers and to engage in deductive reasoning through exploration of impartial andimperfect answers (Collins, 2013). This process enables
the learners to engage in deep analysis and to internalize
concepts and ideas.
Furthermore, design thinking emphasizes and builds
learners’ communication and collaboration skills, both ofwhich are at the heart of constructivism. STEAM learning begins by defining a real-life problem (Boakes, 2020)
and then responding to it by focusing on problemsolving skills (Herro, Quigley, Andrews, & Delacruz,2017) and collaborative teamwork (Jolly, 2014). Design
thinking shifts the focus from individual work to teamcollaboration through interviewing, needs finding, datasynthesizing, and prototyping. This process of engagement with peers provides opportunities for learners tolisten, negotiate ideas, and construct knowledge collectively, expanding their individual zone of proximal development (Nyikos & Hashimoto, 1997).
Design thinking has become increasingly common andrelevant in educational contexts precisely because it centers around problem-solving that enhances the learner’s
deeper understanding of needs, challenges, and issues(Goldman & Kabayadondo, 2016). This process provides

Literature review
In this section, we conduct a critical literature review offactors associated with female youths’ interest in STEM.

(2021) 8:14

Page 4 of 15

Various meta-analyses have provided rich accounts andevidence of interventions that positively impact girls’ interests and aspirations to pursue STEM fields (van den
Hurk, Meelissen, & van Langen, 2019; Wang & Degol,2013). We review three bodies of literature that directly
inform the analytical framework of this study. First, we
examine educational interventions that focus on utilizing
existing structures, such as schools and after-school programs, to reduce the gender gap in STEM subjects. Second, we survey findings that evaluate the role of mentors
in shaping female youths’ perceptions and understandings of STEM pathways. Third, we draw on insightsfrom psychological interventions that focus on improving non-cognitive factors, such as self-efficacy.

2006; Weber, 2011). When women are paired with mentors, who provide consultations and support, or expertsof the same gender interested in STEM, they exhibit increased positive attitudes toward STEM (Blickenstaff,
2005). In a study that focused on students in postsecondary institutions, the presence of female rolemodels increased the subjects’ self-efficacy in STEM andresulted in positive perception and greater identification
with STEM (Stout, Dasgupta, Hunsinger, & McManus,2011). The presence of female mentors also resulted inhigher academic performance among younger female
students in mathematics (Marx & Roman, 2002) and science (Buday et al., 2012). Near-peer mentors (e.g.,undergraduate or graduate students) can also have apositive influence on students’ perceptions of STEM
(Tenenbaum, Anderson, Jett, & Yourick, 2014; van den
Hurk et al., 2019). When female adolescents are surrounded by other female peers interested in STEM, they
are more likely to pursue STEM (Raabe, Boda, & Stadtfeld, 2019).

Kijima et al. International Journal of STEM Education

Increase opportunities: in-school and out-of-school STEM
programs

One of the ways to increase girls’ interest in STEM is tooffer more STEM opportunities within and beyond
school contexts. On average, girls pursue fewer courses
in mathematics and science (Lehrer, Jacobson, Kemeny,& Strom, 1999), which makes them less prepared to advance to higher levels of mathematics and science inpost-secondary institutions (Buday, Stake, & Peterson,2012). Early experiences influence students’ perceptionsof STEM (Blickenstaff, 2005). Some proven interventions
range from an online biology course (Kara & Yeşilyurt,2008) to a targeted STEM program for minority students(Schultz et al., 2011). Scholars advocate redesigning educational experiences to benefit girls, such as offering lessbiased curricular content (e.g., addressing bias in textbooks that depict more male than female figures) (Blickenstaff, 2005). Another way to address gender bias
would be to offer an educational curriculum that targets
girls specifically. While the effectiveness of single-gender
programs is mixed (Wang & Degol, 2013), there issome evidence to suggest that girls perform better inmathematics and science in a single-gender program(Cherney & Campbell, 2011). For example, single-genderclassrooms can increase female students’ persistence in
STEM and increase the likelihood that they will takeadditional STEM courses beyond their regular courses(Shapka & Keating, 2003).
STEM socialization: role models

Female STEM students may experience a “chilly climate”
that lacks social support for women within those fields,
thus contributing to their sense of isolation and alienating others from entering STEM (Blickenstaff, 2005;
Wang & Degol, 2013). Furthermore, younger female students may be socialized to think that STEM is not rightfor them at a very early phase in their learning. To reverse this trend, role models can play a positive impact
on female students’ perceptions of STEM (Lockwood,

Changing mindset: self-efficacy

Researchers have focused on psychological and sociocultural factors that affect students’ aptitudes and performance in the areas of science and mathematics (Eccles,
1994; Eccles, Jacobs, & Harold, 1990). They argue that
non-cognitive factors, such as self-efficacy and selfconcept (Bandura, 1986, 1989), play a significant role intheir performance in STEM subjects. In STEM-related
fields like engineering, female students exhibit lower
levels of self-efficacy than their male counterparts (Eddy& Brownell, 2016; Hackett & Betz, 1981). This is especially true among the highest achievers (Halpern et al.,2007), which may be due to the fact that highperforming female students have a harder time copingwith failures and setbacks because of a sudden loss ofbelief in their own effectiveness (Dweck, 2007a).
The literature on growth mindset provides us with aframework to understand how learners deal with failure.
Growth mindset is a belief held by individuals that abilities can be developed, as opposed to the belief that abilities are fixed and that intelligence is innate (Dweck,2007b). Children and youths who hold strong beliefs
about their mindsets are influenced by their role models,such as parents and teachers (Haimovitz & Dweck,2016). Students with a growth mindset perform better
than students with a fixed mindset in mathematics overtime (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007). A nationally representative study of growth mindset intervention shows an overall increase in student learning
outcomes among lower-achieving students as measured
by their GPA, and a higher uptake of advanced mathematics courses among higher-achieving students (Yeager
et al., 2019). Furthermore, motivational messages about

Kijima et al. International Journal of STEM Education(2021) 8:14

Page 5 of 15

the malleability of intelligence can positively impact female students’ self-efficacy (Burnette, Russell, Hoyt,
Orvidas, & Widman, 2018; Degol, Wang, Zhang, &Allerton, 2018). Female students with positive selfefficacy and a growth mindset are less affected by genderstereotypes (Good, Rattan, & Dweck, 2012). These studies show that it is especially important for young female
students to be able to counter any negative messages
with messages of growth mindset as they enter the
STEM pipeline. The findings from these studies havehelped inform the design of this educational intervention, emphasizing concepts such as not being afraid ofmaking mistakes through iteration and prototyping.

Table 1 Description of sample

Methods

Type of school (n = 92)% of Sample
Gender, female, self-declared (n = 97)

100

Birth Year (n = 88)
1999

4.5

2000

21.6

2001

17.0

2002

18.2

2003

23.9

2004

4.5

2005

6.8

2006

3.4

Profile of youths

Private73.9

In total, 103 youths participated in the STEAM design
thinking workshop. These female youths ranged from 13
to 18 years of age (and thus in sixth to ninth grade). Approximately two-thirds of the youths attended private
school, and over half of the youths had mothers working
full-time. Youths participated from various prefectures
including Hokkaido, Fukushima, Kanagawa, Tokyo,
Chiba, Shiga, Kyoto, Osaka, Hyogo, Kumamoto, Kagoshima, and Okinawa as well as from the USA (California,
New York, and New Jersey). A total of 97 youths completed the survey (Table 1).

Public17.4

International

8.7

Data collection

Data collection spanned a period of 4 years between
July 2016 and June 2020. This particular design thinking and STEAM workshop was conducted five times,
with each session consisting of 18–24 participants.
The workshops were held in Tokyo, Japan. There are
no repeat participants in the sample, and the sample
consists of youths who successfully completed theworkshop.3 First, youth surveys were employed to collect quantitative data. We gathered data from 97 female middle and high school youths. The participantsof the workshop were given pre- and postintervention surveys. Second, a total of 19 interviews
were conducted after the workshop. The interviews
were structured around key analytical constructs similar to those used in the survey; however, the purposeof interviews was to obtain stories that could highlight participants’ experiences and perceptions.
Data analysis

The study used the mixed-methods sequential explanatory design approach (Creswell & Clark, 2017).
In this mixed-methods approach, qualitative data are3

During the 3-year period, two students dropped out of the program,citing health reasons.

Grade in school (n = 90)
Middle school, year 1

22.2

Middle school, year 2

24.4

Middle school, year 3

16.7

High school, year 1

18.9

High school, year 2

13.3

High school, year 3

4.4

Parents’ employment status
Mother (n = 90)
Mother does not work

24.4

Mother works part-time

20.0

Mother works full-time

55.6

Father (n = 92)
Father does not work

2.2

Father works part-time

2.2

Father works full-time

95.7

Parent in a STEM field
Mother works in a STEM field (n = 93)

14.0

Father works in a STEM field (n = 91)

37.4

used to complement or strengthen the key findings
from quantitative analysis (Creswell & Clark, 2017).
First, we chose survey data collection in order to collect systematic responses regarding student attitudes,
preferences, and beliefs from a large number of participants (Weisberg, Krosnick, & Bowen, 1996). The
youth surveys consisted of items that directly address
the analytical constructs of this study: (1) interestsand perceptions toward subjects: art, social science,
language, mathematics, science, and engineering4; (2)(2021) 8:14

Page 6 of 15

creative confidence5; (3) career plans6; (4) growthmindset7; (5) perceptions toward failure8; (6) aspirations for STEM9; and (7) pro-social10 constructs, inaddition to background information. The questions
on creative confidence are similar to those validatedby Dosi, Rosati, and Vignoli (2018).11 The survey
items were structured so that the responses were generated using Likert scales (scale of 1–6). The resultsof surveys were analyzed using a pairwise t test, andCohen’s d effect sizes are reported. Second, qualitative
data collection using interviews were conducted after
the intervention. The constructs in the interview
protocol included (1) classes/academic interests12, (2)career goals13, (3) role models14, and (4) experiencesin the design thinking workshop.15 The audiorecorded interviews were transcribed, and the content
was analyzed. The selected excepts were minimallyedited, including grammatical mistakes, to strike abalance between maintaining the authenticity ofparticipants’ voices and enhancing the readers’ understanding of the excerpts (Oliver, Serovich, & Mason,2005). Pseudonyms are used in order to protect participants’ identity.

Kijima et al. International Journal of STEM Education

An example of a question related to engineering: “I like to imagine
creating new products.”
Items related to creative confidence were developed by Royalty, Oishi,
and Roth (2013).
6
An example of a career-related question is: “I would consider a careerin science.”
7
An example of a growth mindset-related question is: “You have a certain amount of intelligence, and you really cannot do much to changeit” (Dweck, 2007b; Mangels, Butterfield, Lamb, Good, & Dweck, 2006).
In this case, respondents agreeing with this statement would count as
not having a growth mindset.
8
An example of a question related to failure is: “Experiencing failure
limits learning and growth.” (Haimovitz & Dweck, 2016, 2017)9
An example of a question related to aspirations for STEM is: “I would
consider a career in science.”
10
An example of a question related to a pro-social indicator is: “If you
want to make the world a better place, you should pursue a career in
STEM.”
11
Questions that measure “creative confidence” provided by Dosi et al.
(2018) are (1) I think I can use my creativity to efficiently solve evencomplicated problems; (2) I am comfortable to think something new,different from what already exists; (3) I am sure I can deal withproblems requiring creativity; and (4) I believe in my abilities tocreatively solve a problem. The questions we used to measure creative
confidence in our survey asked respondents to indicate (using a 6point Likert Scale) their confidence to (1) effectively work on a problem that does not have an obvious solution; (2) share your work withothers before it is finished to your satisfaction; (3) try an approach to a
problem or task that you know may not be the final or best solution;(4) continue to work on a problem after experiencing a significant failure; (5) help others be more creative; and (6) solve problems in waysthat others would consider creative.
12
An example of a question related to STEM classes: “Are you taking
any classes in STEM this year?”13
An example of a question related to career goals: “Have you
considered a career in STEM?”
14
An example of a question related to STEM fields: “Do you have anyrole models in the STEM fields?”
15
An example of a question related to the design thinking workshop
specifically: “Has your perception and understanding of what a careerin STEM would be like stay or change after participating in theworkshop?”
45

The intervention
Five phases of the STEAM design thinking process

Each STEAM design thinking workshop spanned three
and a half days. Participants were introduced to design
thinking as a progression of five stages of—from
empathy-building to needs-finding, brainstorming,
prototyping, and testing. We emphasized that design
thinking is a nonlinear process (Goldschmidt & Weil,
1998). A sixth phase, the presentation pitch, was addedin order to enable the youths to hone their collaborativeskills through presentation and storytelling.
Phase I: empathy building

Youths learned about the user by conducting an indepth interview. An example of a user from the 2016
workshop is a retired senior citizen in her 60s who was
taking care of her ailing mother. After the interview, theyouths went through an art-based portrait session inorder to synthesize the findings in abstract terms. Using
pastels, pencils, colored pencils, the youths developed avisual representation of the users’ needs.
Phase II: needs finding

In this phase, youths analyzed the content of the interview using an empathy map and an insight identification
procedure. The output of this phase is the developmentof a needs statement.
Phase III: ideation

Using colorful post-its, youths jotted one idea per post-it
to share on the wall. Prompts were used to encourage
participants to think out of the box, such as: “Your team
was just given an opportunity to work with a famous
pop star,” or “You need to implement this idea in outerspace (without gravity).” These prompts were meant toenable youths to think creatively, get out of their comfort zone, and work with imaginative ideas in order tospur creativity.
Phase IV: prototyping

Using basic prototyping materials such as recycled plastic bottles and cardboards, glue, tapes, scissors, and playdough, teams developed tangible products that could betested. The teams tested their prototypes with the user
and iterated the prototypes in subsequent steps.
Phase V: presentation

On the third day of the workshop, youths presented
their work to a panel of guest commentators, consistingKijima et al. International Journal of STEM Education(2021) 8:14

of experts such as venture capitalists, product designers,
academics, and executive leaders of start-up companies.
Each team delivered a 5-min pitch and answered questions from the commentators.
Unique features of the program
Near-peer mentors

A near-peer mentoring system was embedded in the
program given previous findings suggesting that suchmentoring helps to increase STEM interest in students(Tenenbaum et al., 2014; van den Hurk et al., 2019).
Each team consisted of four youths, grouped according
to their age and proficiency in English (not all girls were
fluent in English) and to reflect the diversity of the applicants in each session. One or two design coach(es) wereassigned to each group. These design coaches were bilingual undergraduate or graduate students who could
serve as mentors to youths. They guided, facilitated, andtranslated for the participants. They also provided strong
support to the youths through words of encouragement
and reminders to think out of the box and not be afraid
to make mistakes.
Design challenges: local solutions addressing global issues

The design challenges given to teams varied in topic
from year to year. The common thread across all years
was a focus on global issues using local solutions. In year
1, the topic was technology and senior citizens. This
topic was selected in order to address the issue of population decline in Japan and explore the potential of technology to ameliorate senior citizens’ overall quality ofliving. This challenge was also selected to foster intergenerational communication, as young people often lack
opportunities to interact with senior citizens and viceversa. In year 2, the topic focused on women engineers
in Japan. To implement this program, women senior engineers and STEM managers from prominent companies
were invited as users. In years 3 and 4, the design challenges were framed using the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals, highlighting local issues with
global implications, such as access to education, water,food sustainability, and environmental issues.
Involvement of women STEM leaders

Women STEM leaders were invited to the workshops.
Their presence helped to “normalize and humanize”
STEM fields so that the participants could better understand what it is like to become a leader in STEM fields(Roberts et al., 2018, p. 11). Women STEM leaders wereinvited to the program from prominent design andmanufacturing companies based in Japan. The participants heard the women’s life stories, their pathways to
STEM fields, and the various challenges they faced intheir professions.

Page 7 of 15

Site visit

After the 3-day workshop, youths participated in a site
visit to see women STEM leaders in action. In the past,
the youths participated in a site visit to a design consultancy firm. During these visits, the participants were able
to interact with STEM leaders and see firsthand how design thinking is applied in the real world. They engaged
in a curated group activity to reflect on what their ideal
STEM career might look like. This interactive and reflective exercise enabled youths to internalize the experiences they had in the workshop.

Results
This section reports five key findings from surveys andinterviews. These findings illustrate the changes in participants’ perceptions, mindsets, and interest in STEM.
In addition to the primary objective of increasing youths’
interest in STEM, we also observed changes in their creative confidence, empathy, and pro-social constructs (seeTable 2).
Finding 1: increased interest in engineering

We observed measurable changes among youths who
participated in the workshop. After the 3-day intervention, there were improvements in youths’ perceptions, interest, and self-efficacy vis-à-vis engineering.
This is in alignment with the focus of the workshop
on engineering; the youths spent most of their time
designing solutions to a given problem. There werechanges in youths’ perceptions toward engineering
measures, as reflected in their responses (on a Likert
scale of 1-strongly disagree to 6-strongly agree) toitems such as “I like to imagine creating new products.” The results of the paired-sample t tests showthat the mean differs before participating in the workshop (M = 4.50, SD = 1.05), and after participating in
the workshop (M = 4.77, SD = .86; t (83) = − 2.58, p= .012, d = .29). Youths also gained an understandingthat engineering is a job that improves others’ lives,
as revealed in quotes such as: “If I learn engineering,then I can improve things that people use every day.”
There was a statistically significant difference in thescore for this variable before the program (M = 3.88,
SD = .96) and after the program (M = 4.25, SD = .86;
t (83) = − 3.93, p < .001, d = .40). After participating,youths were more strongly inclined to consider engineering as a way to solve world issues. This wasreflected in an increased desire by youths “to design
things that improve the world.” Again, there was ameasurable change in this variable before (M = 4.45,
SD = .97) and after the program (M = 4.71, SD = .91;
t (83) = − 2.47, p = .016, d = .28). The following excerpt encapsulates a participant’s post-workshop enthusiasm toward engineering:Kijima et al. International Journal of STEM Education(2021) 8:14

Page 8 of 15

Table 2 Survey results
Variable

Baseline
SurveyPostintervention
surveyPaired t tests

M

SD

M

SD

N

t

I like to imagine creating new products

4.50

1.05

4.77

.86

84

− 2.58 .012

If I learn engineering, then I can improve things that people use every day

3.88

.96

4.25

.86

84

− 3.93 < .001 83 0.40

I am interested in what makes machines work

3.89

1.13

4.12

1.04

83

− 2.13 .036

82 0.21

I want to design things that improve the world

4.45

.97

4.71

.91

84

− 2.47 .016

83 0.28

p

Effect size

df Cohen’s dEngineering and design
83 0.29

Creative confidence
I can effectively work on a problem that does not have an obvious solution

3.81

1.10

4.10

.87

81

− 2.46 .016

80 0.29

I am able to share my work with others before it is finished to my satisfaction

3.84

1.12

4.10

1.09

81

− 2.37 .020

80 0.23.011

75 − 0.32

The effects of failure are negative and should be avoided

2.51

1.14

2.16

1.11

76

2.61

I believe I can be successful

3.23

.99

3.48

1.03

82

− 2.15 .034

81 0.24People who study STEM tend to work alone in labs

3.44

.93

2.96

.98

27

2.80

.010

26 − 0.50

STEM is mostly about technical knowledge

3.96

.85

3.59

.80

27

2.08

.048

26 − 0.45

4.03

.99

4.45

.94

64

− 3.12 .003

If you want to make the world a better place, you should pursue a career in STEM 3.74

.97

4.15

1.04

81

− 3.68 < .001 80 0.41

1.50

3.54

1.42

76

− 3.29 .002

75 0.25

STEM

Pro− social
People who study STEM tend to care about other people

63 0.44

Career/Future Aspirations
I would consider a career in science3.17

I can see myself starting my own company/business

3.43

1.14

3.63

1.10

80

− 2.11 .038

79 0.18

If I have children, I see myself staying in the workforce

4.65

1.18

4.86

.99

83

− 2.06 .043

82 0.19

It [my goal] has changed slightly, particularly because of the influence of participating [in the workshop], and after participating I decided that I want
to become an engineer. I love science as well, so I
am thinking of [becoming] something like an engineer scientist, combining science and engineering… I
cannot be 100% sure that I will be successful, and I
do worry, but nothing starts without taking [on]challenges, so you cannot [just] think about risks
and not move forward. So even though I’m not
100% confident, I do have a strong feeling that I will
do it anyways. (Kae)Findings show that the participants’ perceptions toward engineering shifted; they now view engineers as
people who exhibit various traits, such as creativity,
technical knowledge, and problem-solving skills, andthey were able to imagine themselves as engineers. In
the next section, we discuss the changes in participants’creative confidence.
Finding 2: changes in creative confidence

The second key finding from the STEAM design
thinking workshop was an increase in participants’creative confidence. In this study, creative confidence is a measurement of individuals’ ability towork under conditions of uncertainty, as well as
their openness to feedback and critiques of ideas
still in progress (Kelley & Kelley, 2013). It is also
related to their willingness to persist, demonstrating
grit, after experiencing a moment of failure, orcoming up with ways to address issues when setbacks arise (Duckworth, 2016). The surveys showedthat participating in the workshop made youths
more confident to work under difficult conditions
and to obtain feedback and critiques, even when
their ideas were not fully developed. There was significant change in their attitude toward working on
open-ended questions before the intervention (M =3.81, SD = 1.10) and after the intervention (M =4.10, SD = .87; t (80) = − 2.46, p = .016, d = .29).
Some examples of the participants’ insights, as revealed in interviews, included:
I found it unexpectedly easy to create something
new. I found that we can actually come up with andcreate something by exchanging ideas over justthree days, rather than thinking about it for years.
(Kaori)

Kijima et al. International Journal of STEM Education(2021) 8:14

[At this workshop], they don’t care about the quality
at all. I really liked it when they said, ‘Come up withany ideas you have in mind without worrying about
getting judged asking questions or suggestions.’(Manami)The participants were encouraged to go through arapid trial-and-error process. This bias toward action(Kelley & Kelley, 2013; Schweitzer, Groeger, & Sobel,2016) to test early-phase prototypes for further iterationand development is at the core of entrepreneurship(Ries, 2011). The participants were asked how theywould respond if asked to share their work with others
before finishing that work to their own satisfaction. Before the workshop, the participants were hesitant toshare (M = 3.84, SD = 1.12), but the results of the postintervention survey suggest that they became more
confident to share ideas that are still in progress withothers (M = 4.10, SD = 1.09; t (80) = − 2.37, p = .02, d =.23). This entrepreneurial spirit was elevated during theworkshop, enhancing the sense of creative confidence
among the participants.
We also observed that girls who participated in theworkshop felt self-conscious at first about voicing theiropinions and sharing them with a large number ofpeople, including their male cohorts. The results of thesurvey show that the participants’ sense of creative confidence increased over the course of the program. Prior
to the workshop, the participants expressed a lower confidence that they could be successful (M = 3.23, SD =.99) than they did after the intervention (M = 3.48, SD =1.03; t (81) = − 2.15, p = .034, d = .24). Participating in
the workshop broke barriers for these girls and empowered them to feel more comfortable voicing theirthoughts.
[I learned that] It is important to speak yourthoughts, and that I unintentionally restricted myself from doing so in certain occasions around boys
and in a larger number of people. (Hitomi)

I think it was very good to have an atmosphere
where people could express their opinions without
denying the opinions of others. In Japanese classrooms, people tend to worry about whether they
have the right answer or not, or what the people
might think of them, so few people speak up. In thisworkshop, all the groups were speaking up, andeven I, who usually can't speak up, was able to say
what I thought without hesitation. I thought itwould be great if my class could be more active likethis. (Suzuka)

Page 9 of 15

These excerpts help us to understand that participating in the workshop encouraged the participants toshare their voice and feel a greater sense of agency. In
this process, the youths felt that their voice was valued
and their ideas could lead to innovations.
Furthermore, findings show that female youths’ attitudes toward failure, a measurement of creative confidence, also shifted. After participating in the workshop,
more girls disagreed that the effects of failure were negative and should be avoided, with the mean score decreasing from pre-workshop (M = 2.51, SD = 1.14) topost-workshop (M = 2.16, SD = 1.11; t (75) = 2.61, p =.011, d = − .32). The following excerpt shows how the
workshop changed one participant’s attitude toward
failure:I’m not great at creating something from scratch,but I realized that there’s a role I can play in that.
Prior to this experience, if I didn’t like something, I
would do my best to avoid it. Through this experience, though, I felt like there was something even I
can do. Perhaps others are better at creating something from scratch, but when it comes to developing
it or making it into something bigger, I think there’s
something that I can contribute. (Akemi)
The rise in the participants’ creative confidence wasone of the most revealing findings in our study. Japanese
students are used to learning in schools that emphasize
strong notions of what is correct and incorrect. The Japanese college entrance examination system trains students to master test-taking skills, while focusing little
attention on critical thinking skills (Yamamura, 1989).
Participation in the design thinking and STEAM workshop increased the participants’ creative confidence. This
frame of mind, which strengthens youths’ confidence totackle difficult, complex, and global issues, was one of
the key changes we observed among youths who participated in the program.
Before participating in this workshop um I was, I
thought I was [a] very close-minded person and um
wasn't good communicator, but um as I participate
in the workshop, I was the oldest one in my groupand then I sort of led them to speak up and thenlike express their opinion so I guess I wasn't [a] very
close-minded person. (Lisa)

Hmm, about myself…well, when I made the prototype, I have a rather cautious personality, but to put
together and shaping your thinking into a concrete
form, you kind of have to keep going with a roughidea in mind without caring too much about itKijima et al. International Journal of STEM Education(2021) 8:14

being messed up. I also never had the experience tojust keep doing things as ideas come, or speak up
for myself, so that kind of thinking. It was refreshing
having to behave like that, and I think I was madeaware of my ability to act like I had never had before. (Yui)The findings from this study provide evidence that theparticipants experienced changes in their mindset, whichis related to improvements in their creative confidence,such as bias toward action, and the importance of voicing their thoughts. In the next section, we discuss thechanges in participants’ perception of STEM.
Finding 3: perceptions of STEM

Female youths’ perceptions of STEM changed andbroadened after participating in the workshop. The survey asked respondents to agree or disagree with thisstatement: “People who study STEM tend to work alone
in labs.” Before the workshop, on average, the respondents fell in the “middle,” neither particularly agreeing
nor disagreeing with this statement (M = 3.44, SD =.93), but after the workshop, their perceptions of STEM
specialists had changed, with an observable decline intheir level of agreement (M = 2.96, SD = .98; t (26) =2.80, p = .01, d = − .50) with the above statement. Thisis a significant shift in the youths’ perceptions of STEM
toward understanding that STEM can actually lead to avariety of professions. Furthermore, prior to participating in the workshop, many youths expressed the belief
that STEM fields consist of mostly technical knowledge(M = 3.96, SD = .85). After the workshop, there was a
decline in their responses to this construct, suggesting
an expanded understanding of STEM that includes andvalues non-technical knowledge, such as the abilities tocommunicate, collaborate, and be creative (M = 3.59; SD= .80; t (26) = 2.08, p = .048, d = − 0.45). The following
excerpt concurs with the survey findings:
Before attending [the workshop], when I thought
about the people in the sciences, I would think ofsomeone in the sciences who would always be looking at numbers and be able to solve problems instantly. I realized that they weren't just about
numbers, but more about thinking outside the box,
and bringing different things together. So eventhough I'm not great with numbers, I felt like it's
something even I can do. (Kaori)
I think STEM is so important for our world. I think
it encourages people to use the world around us
and use it creatively to fix problems. I think that’s
by [participating in the workshop, it] gave me theopportunity to think about that in a bigger, real

Page 10 of 15

world sense. That definitely changed how important
STEM is [to me]. (Rina)
These findings show that participation in the workshop
enabled youths to see the work of STEM professionals asmuch more fluid and less technical than they might havepreviously imagined. This is significant as encouraging female youths to pursue STEM requires changing their understanding not only of their own facility for STEM but
also of STEM fields themselves. We need, in short, a concerted effort to demystify STEM professions.
Finding 4: empathy and pro-social indicators

The fourth measurable change among youths who participated in the workshop concerned the component of empathy in STEM learning and pro-social perceptions.
Studies have shown that under-represented students, suchas first-generation, minority, and female students, show
greater motivation to pursue STEM topics if they believethat science advances pro-social goals, such as improving
the lives of others and serving their communities (Allen,
Muragishi, Smith, Thoman, & Brown, 2015; Estrada et al.,2016). We observed some meaningful shifts in the youths’
pro-social attitudes. In response to the following statement: “People who study STEM tend to care about otherpeople,” there was an increase in the mean response frompre-workshop (M = 4.03, SD = .99) to post-workshop (M= 4.45 SD = .94; t (63) = − 3.12, p = .003, d = .44). This indicated an increased understanding among youths thatthe field of STEM is grounded in empathy. Another prosocial indicator worth highlighting is the youths’ perceptions that a career in STEM is ideal for those who want tomake the world a better place. Their perception changed
from before the workshop (M = 3.74, SD = .97) to after
the workshop (M = 4.15, SD = 1.04; t (80) = − 3.68, p <.001, d = .41). The following stories also highlight how
participants linked STEM with pro-social attitudes:
When we conducted an interview for a customer[user] [at the workshop], it was exciting to create a
product, which satisfied the customer’s [user’s]
needs. I realized how fun it is to help someone, andthought that I want to have a job like this, and so I
want to become an engineer. (Kae)I think with the development of science and technology, life becomes more convenient, and I think
there is a possibility that we can solve various environmental problems with the development of technology. So, I imagine that this profession issomething that supports that sort of development
by doing research to create a brighter future for
Earth. I am not saying that everything science and(2021) 8:14

Page 11 of 15

technology is good, but I have the image that they
are here to improve things. (Yui)talked about their decisions to pursue a career in STEM,
described impactful projects they had worked on, anddiscussed the challenges of work-life balance. We alsomeasured change in participants’ perceptions of
women’s role in society. There were more participants
post-workshop agreeing with the statement: “If I havechildren, I see myself staying in the workforce.” There
was a significant change pre-workshop (M = 4.65, SD =1.18) and post-workshop (M = 4.86, SD = .99), suggesting that the presence of women STEAM leaders had an
influence on female youths (t (82) = − 2.06, p = .043, d =.19). Furthermore, female youths who participated in the
program also responded more positively to: “I can see
myself starting my own company/business,” indicating
their entrepreneurial spirit. The results of the preintervention (M = 3.43, SD = 1.14) and post-intervention(M = 3.63, SD = 1.10) show that participation in thisworkshop enabled the female youths to feel that one day
they could, both, have a family and become entrepreneurs, just like the STEAM women they interacted withduring the workshop (t (79) = − 2.11, p = .038, d = .18).

Kijima et al. International Journal of STEM Education

These excerpts provide insight into how the participants grasped the concept of empathy and its relevancein creating meaningful solutions. Furthermore, theyouths attributed the solution of global problems to theprocess of design in engineering and technology.
Finding 5: career aspirations

Youths described their increased interest in STEM fields
after attending the workshop. More specifically, their desire
to pursue options related to STEM was heightened. In response to the statement, “I would consider a career in science,” the average before the workshop was (M = 3.17, SD =1.50) and then increased after the workshop (M = 3.54, SD= 1.42; t (75) = − 3.29, p = .002, d = .25). The following excerpts reflect the respondents’ aspirations for STEM:
Yeah, I think it was really important to do the workshop before my senior year, especially because I'd beapplying to colleges. I think it was a good confirmationthat I definitely want to do work... something in
STEM, but, also, try to learn, maybe, some art andtech, and try to broaden my perspective and learn
more things…. Since I also like Math and Science, being able to do that., but also knowing that you're helping people, and it creates real solutions in the world, isreally important, and I want to do that. (Miku).

..It [the workshop] made me look at all the different
workshop[s] that was um focusing…that focused on design thinking or even STEM field, STEM fields to…
girls…and then…um I-I began participating um in um
IT camp that was organized by [a] Japanese company…
so that was, that was very similar to what I did in design
thinking but it also helped me add on to my art and science skills and so I realized…and it made me realize that
I really do enjoy those two fields and then I…yeah…that
brought my focus to STEAM field more. (Lisa)
The participants engaged with women STEM leadersfrom various industries. Several female engineers, designers, and scientists were invited to interact with participants in each session.16 The women STEM leaders
16

2016: NASA engineer and a physician; 2017: four engineers fromprominent international manufacturing companies, and one senior
designer; 2018: one diversity and inclusion officer from a prominent
consultancy company, three engineers from international
manufacturing companies; 2019: three engineers from international
manufacturing companies, and one senior designer. Special guests
included university professors and a former deputy director of sciencein the US administration.

Discussion
This study shows that a short, 3-day intervention canmake a positive impact on young female youths’ perceptions of STEM, pro-social attitudes, creative confidence,and career pathways. It does this by creating a “hook” orstimulating interest among youths to have a more favorable opinion about working in STEM.
At the same time, the study’s second finding is thatpersistent gender norms are hard to overturn and require additional interventions. Gender norms around
STEM topics are deeply embedded in sociocultural roots
and pre-conceived notions of gender and thus difficult
to reverse. This is evident in the analysis. We asked
youths a series of questions regarding gender in STEM
fields, using statements such as, “Women should pursue
STEM fields in the future.” We also asked the participants about their perceptions regarding women in leadership positions, using statements such as, “Girls canhave greater, more positive impact on society,” and “I
want to inspire other girls by becoming a leader in myfield.” We were unable to observe meaningful changes in
the responses to these questions. In their daily lives outside of such interventions, female youths experience persistent norms and social forces that still reduce theirability to imagine themselves in STEM fields or to believe that they too could become leaders and inspireother girls to follow suit.
If our collective goal is to inspire more young female
youths to pursue STEM subjects, then we need to create
more awareness of what STEM entails and enables, provide more opportunities and pathways into the fields,
and offer extensive support for female youths to(2021) 8:14

Page 12 of 15

experiment with various branches of STEM. In Japan,
there is a lack of clear consensus and provision of STEM
education at the national scale (Yata, Ohtani, & Isobe,2020). We advocate for a systematic change that would
impact the education system at large. The Ministry of
Economic and Trade and Industry has recently begun an
initiative to promote STEAM learning (METI, 2019);
however, systematic, inter-departmental efforts will benecessary to nudge more female youths to pursue
STEM. This could be done through a combination of interventions that include policies to promote more female
participation in STEM programs, campaigns to increase
parents’ and educators’ awareness of STEM, and theprovision of discretionary funding for teachers to implement STEM curriculum in the classrooms. Hands-on
engineering projects and supplementary courses such as
virtual STEM programs could also help increase opportunities for female youths to consider STEM.
Third, this study offers strong evidence of the positive
impact of a design thinking curriculum on female
youths’ interest in STEM. The findings suggest that girls
not only changed their perception of STEM subjects but
also exhibited greater empathy and felt an increased
sense of belonging in STEM as a result of participatingin the workshop.
The main limitation of this study is its focus on a brief
educational intervention with a relatively small numberof enrolled youths. Given that it was not a randomly selected group of youths, there is no comparison groupand the study is prone to selection bias. Also, we encountered some difficulties in the data collection, which
limited the scope of the qualitative analysis for thisstudy. Participants were extremely hard to track after
the program was over, and the double consent process(parents and minors) prohibited us from securing a largepool of respondents for the interviews. Obtaining indepth responses from young respondents also made thedata collection more challenging. In the next phase ofdata collection, we will consider having a focus group to
solicit in-depth responses. When interviewees sharesimilar backgrounds and experiences, focus groups arelikely to create interactions among the respondents andyield a desirable outcome (Creswell & Poth, 2017).

their empathy, and their pro-social tendencies. By providing exposure to women STEAM experts, the workshop also changed female participants’ outlook on worklife balance as well. To conclude, the promise of design
thinking extends far beyond the benefits of innovationand creativity; it is a viable pedagogical approach thatcan be used to cultivate the next generation of female
STEAM thinkers.

Kijima et al. International Journal of STEM Education

Conclusion
Countries around the world are implementing novel
ways to encourage more female youths to consider
STEM careers (van den Hurk et al., 2019). We explore
the influences of a short, 3-day design thinking workshop on young adolescent girls living in Japan. The study
provides empirical support that such a workshop canhave a positive impact on the participants, boosting theirinterest in STEM. In addition, the design thinking approach increased the participants’ creative confidence,

Abbreviations
OECD: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development;
METI: Ministry of Economics, Trade, and Industry; STEAM: Science,
Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics; STEM: Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics
Acknowledgements
This study received valuable support from Shelley Goldman, Tanner Vea,
Keiko Okawa, Masa Inakage, Kathy Liu Sun, and Daisuke Kan. We thank Audra
Wingard, Miwa Okajima, and Kenshiro Hama for their excellent research
assistance. We also thank Mika Isayama, Risako Yang, Mei Maruo, and Elisa
Baba for their valuable help running the workshop and collecting data. We
are indebted to all the women STEM leaders and users who volunteered
their time to mentor youths. Naomi Kurisu and Risako Ninomiya helped
implement the workshops. We are grateful to Tom Kelley and IDEO for theirsupport of this initiative. The research protocol was approved by theInstitutional Review Board at Stanford University (#37986 & #56468) and the
Human Ethics Committee at the University of Toronto (#39319).
Authors’ contributions
RK conceived, designed, analyzed, and took the lead in writing themanuscript. MYY was involved in all phases of the study. She co-organized
and facilitated the workshops and contributed to the development of thesurveys and the interview protocol. MSM co-organized the workshops andrecruited design coaches and users. All authors read and approved the final
manuscript.
Funding
The manuscript was prepared and developed using grants from theFreeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University andthe Institute for Gender and the Economy at the Rotman School ofManagement, University of Toronto. In-kind support was provided by the
Stanford Graduate School of Education and Keio University Graduate Schoolof Media Design.
Availability of data and materials
The datasets used and analyzed during this research project are not publicly
available since data were collected from minors who were under the age of
18 at the time of data collection.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests for this study. RK and MYY havedisseminated the research results to academic audiences, government
officers, foundations, and media outlets. RK and MSM have complied withthe conflict of interest disclosure requirements at their respective academic
institutions. RK and MYY are co-founders of SKY Labo, a non-profit
organization based in Tokyo, Japan. Currently, no financial conflict of interest
has been identified since the authors do not earn any income from thisorganization.
Author details
1
Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, University of Toronto, 1
Devonshire Place, Toronto, ON M5S 3K7, Canada. 2Stanford Program on
International and Cross-Cultural Education, Freeman Spogli Institute ofInternational Studies at Stanford University, Encina Hall, 616 Jane Stanford
Way, Stanford, CA 94305-6055, USA. 3Keio University Graduate School ofMedia Design, 4-1-1 Hiyoshi Kohoku-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa 223-8526,
Japan.

(2021) 8:14

Page 13 of 15

References
Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s constructionism: What’s
the difference? Future of Learning Group Publication, 5(3), 438 http://learning.
media.mit.edu/content/publications/EA.Piaget_Papert.pdf.
Allen, J. M., Muragishi, G. A., Smith, J. L., Thoman, D. B., & Brown, E. R. (2015). To
grab and to hold: Cultivating communal goals to overcome cultural andstructural barriers in first-generation college students’ science interest.
Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 1(4), 331.
Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359–373.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American
Psychologist, 44(9), 1175.
Beede, D., Julian, T., Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Khan, B., & Doms, M. (2011).
Women in STEM: A gender gap to i nnovation. ESA Issue Brief# 04-11. In US
Department of Commerce https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED523766.pdf.
Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories ofintelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: Alongitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78(1), 246–263.
Blau, F. D., & Kahn, L. M. (2017). The gender wage gap: extent, trends, andexplanations. Journal of Economic Literature, 55(3), 789–865. https://doi.org/
10.1257/jel.20160995.
Blickenstaff, J. (2005). Women and science careers: leaky pipeline or gender filter?
Gender and Education, 17(4), 369–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09540250500145072.
Boakes, N. J. (2020). Cultivating design thinking of middle school girls through anorigami STEAM project. Journal for STEM Education Research, 3, 259–278.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-019-00025-8.
Borko, H. (2016). Response 1: Model-based reasoning in professional
development. In R. A. Duschl, & A. S. Bismack (Eds.), Reconceptualizing STEM
Education: The Central Role of Practices, (pp. 139–144). New York: Routledge.
Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations
and inspires innovation. New York: Harper Business.
Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Development
Outreach, 12(1), 29–43.
Buday, S. K., Stake, J. E., & Peterson, Z. D. (2012). Gender and the choice of ascience career: The impact of social support and possible selves. Sex Roles,
66(3–4), 197–209.
Burnette, J. L., Russell, M. V., Hoyt, C. L., Orvidas, K., & Widman, L. (2018). An online
growth mindset intervention in a sample of rural adolescent girls. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 428–445.
Carroll, M., Goldman, S., Britos, L., Koh, J., Royalty, A., & Hornstein, M. (2010).
Destination, imagination and the fires within: Design thinking in a middle
school classroom. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 29(1), 37–
53.
Carroll, M. P. (2014). Shoot for the moon! The mentors and the middle schoolers
explore the intersection of design thinking and STEM. Journal of Pre-College
Engineering Education Research, 4(1), 3.
Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M., & Barnett, S. M. (2009). Women’s underrepresentationin science: sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychological Bulletin,
135(2), 218.
Chen, C. W. J., & Lo, K. M. J. (2019). From teacher-designer to student-researcher:A study of attitude change regarding creativity in STEAM education by using
Makey Makey as a platform for human-centred design instrument. Journal for
STEM Education Research, 2(1), 75–91.
Cherney, I. D., & Campbell, K. L. (2011). A league of their own: Do single-sex
schools increase girls’ participation in the physical sciences? Sex Roles, 65(9–10), 712–724.
Chin, D. B., Blair, K. P., Wolf, R. C., Conlin, L. D., Cutumisu, M., Pfaffman, J., &Schwartz, D. L. (2019). Educating and measuring choice: a test of the transfer
of design thinking in problem solving and learning. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 28(3), 337–380.
Cobb, P. (2016). Where is the mind? A coordination of sociocultural andcognitive constructivist perspectives. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism:
Theory, perspectives, and practice, (pp. 34–52). Teachers College Press.
Collins, H. (2013). Can design thinking still add value? Design Management Review,24(2), 35–39.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design:
Choosing among five approaches, (4th ed., ). Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Daugherty, M. K. (2013). The Prospect of an “A” in STEM Education. Journal of
STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 14(2), 10–15.
Degol, J. L., Wang, M.-T., Zhang, Y., & Allerton, J. (2018). Do growth mindsets inmath benefit females? Identifying pathways between gender, mindset, andmotivation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(5), 976–990. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10964-017-0739-8.
Dickerson, A., McIntosh, S., & Valente, C. (2015). Do the maths: An analysis of thegender gap in mathematics in Africa. Economics of Education Review, 46, 1–
22.
Dosi, C., Rosati, F., & Vignoli, M. (2018). Measuring design thinking mindset. DS 92:
Proceedings of the DESIGN 2018 15th International Design Conference, 1991–
2002. https://doi.org/10.21278/idc.2018.0493.
Duckworth, A. (2016). Grit: The power of passion and perseverance. New York:
Scribner.
Duschl, R. A., & Bismack, A. S. (2016). Reconceptualizing STEM education: The
central role of practices. New York: Routledge.
Dweck, C. (2007a). Is math a gift? Beliefs that put females at risk. In Why aren’t
more women in science?: Top researchers debate the evidence. Washington DC.:C.: American Psychological Association https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-22337-004.
Dweck, C. (2007b). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Ballantine
Books.
Eccles, J. S. (1994). Understanding women’s educational and occupational
choices: Applying the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18(4), 585–609. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14716402.1994.tb01049.x.
Eccles, J. S., Jacobs, J. E., & Harold, R. D. (1990). Gender role stereotypes,
expectancy effects, and parents’ socialization of gender differences. Journalof Social Issues, 46(2), 183–201.
Eddy, S. L., & Brownell, S. E. (2016). Beneath the numbers: A review of genderdisparities in undergraduate education across science, technology,
engineering, and math disciplines. Physical Review Physics Education Research,
12(2). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.020106.
English, L. D., & King, D. T. (2015). STEM learning through engineering design:
Fourth-grade students’ investigations in aerospace. International Journal of
STEM Education, 2(1), 14.
Estapa, A. T., & Tank, K. M. (2017). Supporting integrated STEM in the elementary
classroom: A professional development approach centered on anengineering design challenge. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), 6.
Estrada, M., Burnett, M., Campbell, A. G., Campbell, P. B., Denetclaw, W. F.,
Gutiérrez, C. G., … Zavala, M. (2016). Improving underrepresented minority
student persistence in STEM. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(3), es5. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0038.
Fosnot, C. T., & Perry, R. S. (1996). Constructivism: A psychological theory oflearning. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives, andPractice, (2nd ed., pp. 8–33). New York: Teachers College, Columbia
University.
Fryer Jr., R. G., & Levitt, S. D. (2010). An empirical analysis of the gender gap inmathematics. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2(2), 210–240.
Goldman, S., & Kabayadondo, Z. (2016). Taking design thinking to school: How thetechnology of design can transform teachers, learners, and classrooms. New
York: Routledge.
Goldman, S., Zielezinski, M. B., Vea, T., Bachas-Daunert, S., & Kabayadondo, Z.
(2016). Taking design thinking to school: How the technology of design cantransform teachers, Learners, and Classroomse. In S. Goldman, & Z.
Kabayadondo (Eds.), Taking design thinking to school: How the technology ofdesign can transform teachers, learners, and classrooms, (pp. 90–118). New
York: Routledge.
Goldschmidt, G., & Weil, M. (1998). Contents and structure in design reasoning.
Design Issues, 14(3), 85–100.
Good, C., Rattan, A., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Why do women opt out? Sense of
belonging and women’s representation in mathematics. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 102(4), 700–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026659.
Gözen, G. (2015). Influence of design thinking performance on children’s creative
problem-solving skills: An estimation through regression analysis. Journal of
Education, Society and Behavioural Science, 12(4), 1–13.
Guiso, L., Monte, F., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2008). Culture, gender, and math.
Science, 320(5880), 1164–1165.

Kijima et al. International Journal of STEM Education

Received: 21 April 2020 Accepted: 18 January 2021

(2021) 8:14

Page 14 of 15

Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1981). A self-efficacy approach to the careerdevelopment of women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18(3), 326–339.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(81)90019-1.
Haimovitz, K., & Dweck, C. (2016). Parents’ views of failure predict children’s fixedand growth intelligence mind-sets. Psychological Science, 27(6), 859–869.
Haimovitz, K., & Dweck, C. S. (2017). The origins of children’s growth and fixed
mindsets: New research and a new proposal. Child Development, 88(6), 1849–
1859.
Halpern, D. F., Benbow, C. P., Geary, D. C., Gur, R. C., Hyde, J. S., & Gernsbacher, M.
A. (2007). The science of sex differences in science and mathematics.
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 8(1), 1–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1529-1006.2007.00032.x.
Herro, D., Quigley, C., Andrews, J., & Delacruz, G. (2017). Co-measure: developing
an assessment for student collaboration in STEAM activities. International
Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), 26.
Jolly, A. (2014). STEM vs. STEAM: Do the arts belong. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/opinion-stem-vs-steam-do-the-artsbelong/2014/11
Kara, Y., & Yeşilyurt, S. (2008). Comparing the impacts of tutorial and edutainment
software programs on students’ achievements, misconceptions, and attitudes
towards biology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(1), 32–41.
Kato, M., & Chayama, H. (2012). Nihon no daigaku kyouin no jyosei hiritsu ni
kansuru bunseki [Analysis of the ratio of women in science in Japan]. https://www.nistep.go.jp/wp/wp-content/uploads/mat209j.pdf
Kelley, D., & Kelley, T. (2013). Creative confidence: Unleashing the creative potential
within us all. New York: Crown Publishing Group.
Kelley, T., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM
education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 11.
Kerr, B., & Kurpius, S. E. (2004). Encouraging talented girls in math and science:
Effects of a guidance intervention. High Ability Studies, 15(1), 85–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359813042000225357.
Kimbell, L. (2011). Rethinking design thinking: Part I. Design and Culture, 3(3), 285–
306.
Lehrer, R., Jacobson, C., Kemeny, V., & Strom, D. (1999). Building on children’s
intuitions to develop mathematical understanding of space. In E. Fennema, &T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Mathematics classrooms that promote understanding,(pp. 57–77). New York: Routledge.
Leifer, L., & Steinert, M. (2011). Dancing with ambiguity: Causality behavior, design
thinking, and triple-Loop Learning. Information Knowledge Systems
Management, 10, 151–173.
Li, Y., Schoenfeld, A. H., DiSessa, A. A., Graesser, A., Benson, L., English, L. D., &Duschl, R. A. (2019b). On thinking and STEM education. Journal for STEM
Education Research, 2, 1–13.
Li, Y., Schoenfeld, A. H., DiSessa, A. A., Graesser, A., Benson, L. C., English, L. D., &Duschl, R. A. (2019a). Design and design thinking in STEM education. Journalfor STEM Education Research, 2, 93–104.
Lockwood, P. (2006). “Someone like me can be successful”: Do college students
need same-gender role models? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(1), 36–46.
Madden, M. E., Baxter, M., Beauchamp, H., Bouchard, K., Habermas, D., Huff, M., …
Plague, G. (2013). Rethinking STEM education: An interdisciplinary STEAM
curriculum. Procedia Computer Science, 20, 541–546.
Mangels, J., Butterfield, B., Lamb, J., Good, C., & Dweck, C. (2006). Why do beliefs
about intelligence influence learning success? A social cognitive
neuroscience model. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 1(2), 75–86.
Marx, D. M., & Roman, J. S. (2002). Female role models: Protecting women’s mathtest performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(9), 1183–1193.
McIlwee, J. S., & Robinson, J. G. (1992). Women in engineering: Gender, power, andworkplace culture. New York: SUNY Press.
Meinck, S., & Brese, F. (2019). Trends in gender gaps: using 20 years of evidence
from TIMSS. Large-Scale Assessments in Education, 7(1), 1–23.
METI. (2019). Visions of the “Future Classroom” Program Compiled as Effort
towards Educational Reform in the Reiwa Era. https://www.meti.go.jp/
english/press/2019/0625_002.html
Noweski, C., Scheer, A., Büttner, N., von Thienen, J., Erdmann, J., & Meinel, C.
(2012). Towards a paradigm shift in education practice: Developing twentyfirst century skills with design thinking. In Design thinking research, (pp. 71–
94). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Nyikos, M., & Hashimoto, R. (1997). Constructivist theory applied to collaborative
learning in teacher education: In search of ZPD. The Modern Language
Journal, 81(4), 506–517.

OECD. (2020). Gender Wage Gap. OECD Data. https://data.oecd.org/earnwage/
gender-wage-gap.htm
Oh, S. S., & Lewis, G. B. (2011). Stemming inequality? Employment and pay offemale and minority scientists and engineers. The Social Science Journal,
48(2), 397–403.
Oliver, D. G., Serovich, J. M., & Mason, T. L. (2005). Constraints and opportunities
with interview transcription: Towards reflection in qualitative research. Social
Forces, 84(2), 1273–1289.
Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of
constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5–12.
Raabe, I. J., Boda, Z., & Stadtfeld, C. (2019). The social pipeline: how friend
influence and peer exposure widen the stem gender gap. Sociology of
Education, 92(2), 105–123.
Rauth, I., Köppen, E., Jobst, B., & Meinel, C. (2010). Design thinking: An educationalmodel towards creative confidence. In T. Taura, & Y. Nagai (Eds.), DS 66-2:
Proceedings of the 1st international conference on design creativity (ICDC 2010).
Glasglow: The Design Society.
Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup: How today’s entrepreneurs use continuous
innovation to create radically successful businesses. New York: Crown Business.
Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy
Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.
Robelen, E. (2011). STEAM: Experts make case for adding arts to STEAM.
Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/12/01/13steam_
ep.h31.html
Roberts, T., Jackson, C., Mohr-Schroeder, M. J., Bush, S. B., Maiorca, C., Cavalcanti,
M., … Cremeans, C. (2018). Students’ perceptions of STEM learning afterparticipating in a summer informal learning experience. International Journalof STEM Education, 5(1), 1–14.
Rotherham, A. J., & Willingham, D. (2009). 21st Century. Educational Leadership,
67(1), 16–21 http://cesa7ita2009.pbworks.com/f/21st+Century+Skills+
Curriculum+Teachers+Assessment.pdf.
Royalty, A., Oishi, L. N., & Roth, B. (2013). Acting with creative confidence:developing a creative agency assessment tool. In L. Leifer, H. Platttner, & C.
Meinel (Eds.), Design Thinking Research, (pp. 79–96). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01303-9_6.
Scheer, A., Noweski, C., & Meinel, C. (2012). Transforming constructivist learning
into action: Design thinking in education. Design and Technology Education:
An International Journal, 17(3), 8–19.
Schultz, P. W., Hernandez, P. R., Woodcock, A., Estrada, M., Chance, R. C., Aguilar,
M., & Serpe, R. T. (2011). Patching the pipeline: Reducing educational
disparities in the sciences through minority training programs. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(1), 95–114.
Schweitzer, J., Groeger, L., & Sobel, L. (2016). The design thinking mindset: An
assessment of what we know and what we see in practice. Journal of Design,
Business & Society, 2(1), 71–94. https://doi.org/10.1386/dbs.2.1.71_1.
Shapka, J. D., & Keating, D. P. (2003). Effects of a girls-only curriculum duringadolescence: Performance, persistence, and engagement in mathematics
and science. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 929–960.
Sousa, D. A., & Pilecki, T. (2013). From STEM to STEAM: Using brain-compatible
strategies to integrate the arts. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.
Stout, J. G., Dasgupta, N., Hunsinger, M., & McManus, M. A. (2011). STEMing thetide: Using ingroup experts to inoculate women’s self-concept in science,technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 100(2), 255–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021385.
Tenenbaum, L. S., Anderson, M. K., Jett, M., & Yourick, D. L. (2014). An innovative
near-peer mentoring model for undergraduate and secondary students:
STEM Focus. Innovative Higher Education, 39(5), 375–385. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10755-014-9286-3.
The Cabinet Office. (2016). Kagaku gijyutsu kankei katsudoutou ni kansuru
chousa, 2016 [Survey on science and technology research and activities
conducted by local public or incorporated administrative entities, 2016].
https://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/stsonota/katudocyosa/h27/innovation8.pdf
The Cabinet Office. (2018). Kagaku gijyutsu kankei katsudoutou ni kansuru
chousa, 2018 [Survey on science and technology research and activities
conducted by local public or incorporated administrative entities, 2018].
https://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/stsonota/katudocyosa/h30/h30.html
The Cabinet Office (2019). Women and men in Japan, Chapter 5: Education andresearch fields. Tokyo: Gender Equality Bureau Cabinet Office, The
Government of Japan http://www.gender.go.jp/english_contents/pr_act/
pub/pamphlet/women-and-men19/pdf/1-5.pdf.

Kijima et al. International Journal of STEM Education

Kijima et al. International Journal of STEM Education(2021) 8:14

Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Wiley.
van den Hurk, A., Meelissen, M., & van Langen, A. (2019). Interventions in
education to prevent STEM pipeline leakage. International Journal of Science
Education, 41(2), 150–164.
Wang, M.-T., & Degol, J. (2013). Motivational pathways to STEM career choices:
Using expectancy–value perspective to understand individual and genderdifferences in STEM fields. Developmental Review, 33(4), 304–340. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.dr.2013.08.001.
Weber, K. (2011). Role models and informal STEM-related activities positively
impact female interest in STEM. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 71(3),
18–21.
Weisberg, H., Krosnick, J. A., & Bowen, B. D. (1996). An introduction to survey
research, polling, and data analysis, (3rd ed., ). Newbury Park: Sage
Publications.
Wrigley, C., & Straker, K. (2017). Design thinking pedagogy: The educational
design ladder. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(4),374–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2015.1108214.
Yamamura, Y. (1989). Gendai Nihon no Kazoku to Kyoiku (現代日本の家族と教育). Kyoiku Shakaigaku Kenkyu (教育社会学研究), 44, 5–27. https://doi.org/
10.11151/eds1951.44.5.
Yata, C., Ohtani, T., & Isobe, M. (2020). Conceptual framework of STEM based onJapanese subject principles. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 1–10.
Yeager, D. S., Hanselman, P., Walton, G. M., Murray, J. S., Crosnoe, R., Muller, C., …
Dweck, C. S. (2019). A national experiment reveals where a growth mindset
improves achievement. Nature, 573(7774), 364–369. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41586-019-1466-y.

Publisher’s NoteSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims inpublished maps and institutional affiliations.

Page 15 of 15