“Girls Hold All the Power in the World”: Cultivating Sisterhood and a Counterspace to Support STEM Learning with Black Girls

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents an interesting educational and scientific project to address the low participation of women of color in STEM education and jobs. The Authors use the conceptual framework of Multidimensionality of Black Girls’ STEM Learning to design an educational course for Black girls and Critical Race feminism as a theoretical framework that explains the mechanisms of multiple forms of discrimination on the ground of gender, race, and class. The strength of the study is that it provides a solution, designed on the basis of an informed diagnosis of the root causes of the absence of Black girls in STEM education. I believe this paper should be published, as it addresses the problem of multiple discrimination against girls of color in STEM education, which is important for individual careers and the quality of life of Black girls, but also in the context of STEM’s role in the global economy and workforce shortages in STEM-related sectors. The paper uses appropriate literature and is valuable in its content. However, the structure of the paper, clarity of the language used in the work, and the way of presentation of key findings need to be improved.

 

Specific comments

1-3 Title In the article says about intergenerational STEM learning, which is hardly addressed - in the project, 2 teachers run the course for 1 group of students of the same age. I recommend finding better wording for the title to achieve coherence between keywords used in the title, in the abstract, and in the keywords line.

4-19 Abstract lacks clear scientific structure (aim, methods, sample description, results, conclusion). After reading it, it is not clear, where and when the research was conducted, who participated in it (size of the sample), what methods were used (content analysis), and what results and conclusions came from the study. It also should be shortened and written in a more formal/academic style.

39 It would be worth providing specific numbers to illustrate the phenomenon of Black girls’ marginalization in “STEM spaces” (where specifically?).

65-73 The purpose of the study is missed with the methods and tools.

65-66 “to equip teachers with the skills capacity..” was a necessary step in the whole project, but rather not a research purpose

67-68 “to understand Black girls’ perception of the non-traditional form of STEM learning” might be a study purpose, but in results, much more is reported than girls’ perception (chapter 7). These parts – purposes defined in the introduction and research results reported in Chapter 7 should be coherent.

69-73 Research questions are coherent with the Results part, but incoherent with the study purposes several lines above

 

74-144 Conceptual framework

I like this chapter, it is clear, comprehensive, and interesting

145-190 Black Girls and STEM Educational Learning Experiences

Similar: clear, interesting, comprehensive

191-287 Advancing STEM Opportunity ..

191-192 In this chapter, the research sample is described, but more clarity is needed, taking into account international readers. More information on the study’s location (country, city, and district) would help to understand the project).

219 For clarity, except for participants’ grades (7^th, 8^th), it would be useful to add information on their age.

222 In the Tab 1 title, unnecessary space before the dot at the end.

222 The information on sample size is needed or an additional column (l.p.)

234-235 Doubled title of the table

Tab 2 – demographic data should be provided in numbers only. With so small a sample (12 participants and 2 teachers), giving information in % is confusing and methodologically wrong. Frequency makes sense with bigger numbers, as it helps to understand the proportions. In small samples, numbers give better, more precise information with clearer meaning.

249-289 Curriculum

More information is needed on the curriculum which is something more than the list of topics or main activities. I also looked for one sentence comment on the relation/ differences and similarities of this curriculum to girls’ school curriculum in formal education.

290-322 Research design – maybe research methodology would be better

291-292 – I understood that interviews were the main source of information to answer the research questions. If yes, should be listed as the first

322-339 Data Analysis

I like this chapter, however, it should be a part of the Methodology (chapters 5 and 6 together)

340-576 Findings

A very long chapter and difficult to read because of the lack of structure. I suggest shortening it, making a clear introduction at the beginning, and providing the main results in a more structured way (table (s)?).

577-671 Discussion

I like this chapter, is compact, integrated, and interesting.

672-682 Implications for Practice

This part should be improved. It is not clear, what kind of educators the Authors refer to (teachers? NGO trainers?) and what kind of education, formal or informal, school or after-school? I also think that having the course as semi-gender and based in everyday home context was very important for the results, so, maybe it should be mentioned in this chapter too

683-692 Implications for policy.

 

The recommendation in this chapter comes clearly from the study. I think that it might be expressed in a more integrated, shorter way, and maybe more precisely – which level of administrators, and policymakers are we talking about, who is responsible for the implementing postulates of the Authors? 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

1-3 Title In the article says about intergenerational STEM learning, which is hardly addressed - in the project, 2 teachers run the course for 1 group of students of the same age. I recommend finding better wording for the title to achieve coherence between keywords used in the title, in the abstract, and in the keywords line.

• The title was changed to address this limitation.

 

4-19 Abstract lacks clear scientific structure (aim, methods, sample description, results, conclusion). After reading it, it is not clear, where and when the research was conducted, who participated in it (size of the sample), what methods were used (content analysis), and what results and conclusions came from the study. It also should be shortened and written in a more formal/academic style.

• We re-read our abstract closely and disagree that the aim, methods, sample, results, and conclusion weren’t addressed. Given the critical need to advance Black girls’ STEM engagement, we feel confident about the activist tone through which we’ve written the abstract and have made only minor changes to include the number of teachers and girls and general location of the study. The conceptual framework, methodology and data sources, and findings were already included.

 

39 It would be worth providing specific numbers to illustrate the phenomenon of Black girls’ marginalization in “STEM spaces” (where specifically?).

• We refer to how the literature attests to Black girls’ marginalization in STEM, here. The sentence was revised to reflect this.

 

65-73 The purpose of the study is missed with the methods and tools.

65-66 “to equip teachers with the skills capacity..” was a necessary step in the whole project, but rather not a research purpose

67-68 “to understand Black girls’ perception of the non-traditional form of STEM learning” might be a study purpose, but in results, much more is reported than girls’ perception (chapter 7). These parts – purposes defined in the introduction and research results reported in Chapter 7 should be coherent.

69-73 Research questions are coherent with the Results part, but incoherent with the study purposes several lines above

• The purpose of the study was clarified to align with the research questions and results section. Specifically, we reference how the literature attests to the significance of shared racial and cultural background in Black girls’ STEM persistence—which informed our desire to study Black women’s role in Black girls’ STEM engagement and Black girls’ perceptions of informal STEM learning.

 

74-144 Conceptual framework

I like this chapter, it is clear, comprehensive, and interesting

• Thank you

 

145-190 Black Girls and STEM Educational Learning Experiences

Similar: clear, interesting, comprehensive

• Thank you

 

191-287 Advancing STEM Opportunity ..

191-192 In this chapter, the research sample is described, but more clarity is needed, taking into account international readers. More information on the study’s location (country, city, and district) would help to understand the project).

• Due to IRB constraints, we are required to anonymize the location of the study. We, therefore, cannot disclose the city and district in which the study occurred. Instead, we refer generally to the location of the study by stating that it occurred in the US Midwest.

 

219 For clarity, except for participants’ grades (7^th, 8^th), it would be useful to add information on their age.

• The girls’ ages were added to the table.

 

222 In the Tab 1 title, unnecessary space before the dot at the end.

• Typo corrected

 

222 The information on sample size is needed or an additional column (l.p.)

• The sample size (n=14) is in the final row of the table

 

234-235 Doubled title of the table

• The second title of the table was deleted.

Tab 2 – demographic data should be provided in numbers only. With so small a sample (12 participants and 2 teachers), giving information in % is confusing and methodologically wrong. Frequency makes sense with bigger numbers, as it helps to understand the proportions. In small samples, numbers give better, more precise information with clearer meaning.

• We appreciate this observation. We presented the data in both numerical form and in percentages. Reviewer 2 did not pick up on this as a problem and we have published tables in this same format in other works, so we have decided to leave the table as is given that we present the data in both forms.

 

249-289 Curriculum

More information is needed on the curriculum which is something more than the list of topics or main activities. I also looked for one sentence comment on the relation/ differences and similarities of this curriculum to girls’ school curriculum in formal education.

• This statement was added after the description of the curriculum – “It should be noted that the formal school curriculum focuses on content standards and resources that do not provide space to learn about the contributions of people who look like them.”

 

290-322 Research design – maybe research methodology would be better

• The chapter heading was changed to “Methodology”

 

291-292 – I understood that interviews were the main source of information to answer the research questions. If yes, should be listed as the first

• The sentence was revised to list interviews as our primary method.

 

322-339 Data Analysis

I like this chapter, however, it should be a part of the Methodology (chapters 5 and 6 together)

• This section was combined with chapter 5 and the remaining chapter numbers were revised.

 

340-576 Findings

A very long chapter and difficult to read because of the lack of structure. I suggest shortening it, making a clear introduction at the beginning, and providing the main results in a more structured way (table (s)?).

• The findings are the most important part of this paper. Our goal was to elevate the voices of Black girls and Black women STEM teachers to inform the literature (from their perspectives) about the importance of creating these spaces outside of the formal school structures to engage in STEM learning. Also, as established qualitative researchers we can verify that the thematic organization of this section is standard for the field.

 

577-671 Discussion

I like this chapter, is compact, integrated, and interesting.

• Thank you for your encouragement.

 

672-682 Implications for Practice

This part should be improved. It is not clear, what kind of educators the Authors refer to (teachers? NGO trainers?) and what kind of education, formal or informal, school or after-school? I also think that having the course as semi-gender and based in everyday home context was very important for the results, so, maybe it should be mentioned in this chapter too

• We refer to educators in both formal and informal STEM learning spaces and make this clarification early in the section. We also address the single-gender setting and points that can be taken from it in a co-ed space in the event that this kind of approach is not possible.

 

683-692 Implications for policy.

 

The recommendation in this chapter comes clearly from the study. I think that it might be expressed in a more integrated, shorter way, and maybe more precisely – which level of administrators, and policymakers are we talking about, who is responsible for the implementing postulates of the Authors?

• We provide greater specificity regarding the kind of policymakers who might influence change in ways that support Black girls in STEM.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

I really enjoyed reading your article. The theme is important and original  is very well written and your argument is solid. The experiment described is of major relevance. I have some comments that I will now share with you aiming to contribute to the improvement of your paper.

1) I felt the need of some information more about the organization of the program with the regular classes. You say that at first it was designed to be offered during out of school time hours and then explain the changes due to Covid. But I don't understand very well lines 285-289 explanation. Were the labs assyncronous? If so, when did the girls experienced the peers interactions they mention in the interviews?

2) Line 315: when you mention each lesson, are the regular classes or the program classes? Line 318: the team participated in the labs but just as observers or also as monitors?

3) Some of the girls statements about their feelings on the program made me think about "Hawthorne effect" for example line 387. Have you take that in consideration? Are you considering to measure a long time effect of their participation in the program? How long after the end of the program where the interviews done?

4) You say (line 543) that nearly all of the girls were encouraged to see themselves as scientists and so on. Can you please add on those who not?

5) In table 2 you have 2 indicators about the role of teachers promoting interest in science. In the first one you ask: Had a teacher who made it exciting to learn science? 91,67% answered yes. Next you ask the opposite: Had a teacher who made you silike learning science? This time is more balanced but you still have the majority answering no (66.67%) -- I consider that the way you refer to this results in line 228 is not correct. The sentence is not confirmed by the data you present, please reformulate it or check the data.

 

 

Author Response

I really enjoyed reading your article. The theme is important and original is very well written and your argument is solid. The experiment described is of major relevance. I have some comments that I will now share with you aiming to contribute to the improvement of your paper.

• Thank you for your encouragement. We appreciate that you see the value in our work.

 

• I felt the need of some information more about the organization of the program with the regular classes. You say that at first it was designed to be offered during out of school time hours and then explain the changes due to Covid. But I don't understand very well lines 285-289 explanation. Were the labs asynchronous? If so, when did the girls experienced the peers interactions they mention in the interviews?
  • The final paragraph of this section was revised to clarify how the program was carried out. The program took place synchronously online after school. After the group established some relationships, some of the girls who joined us from home began to face time with each other using their phones while we worked together on laptops. In this way, the synchronous lab learning context created the socialization that deepened their interest in STEM. We did not make this point, here, but discuss it to the findings section (7.2).

 

• Line 315: when you mention each lesson, are the regular classes or the program classes? Line 318: the team participated in the labs but just as observers or also as monitors?
• The lessons refer to those that were conducted through the after-school program. We added language to clarify this.
• The research team participated as observers in the lessons—allowing the teachers to facilitate the program. We supported the teachers in thinking reflexively about their facilitation on a weekly basis. We clarified these roles in this section.

 

• Some of the girls’ statements about their feelings on the program made me think about "Hawthorne effect" for example line 387. Have you take that in consideration? Are you considering to measure a long time effect of their participation in the program? How long after the end of the program where the interviews done?
• We appreciate that there is possibility for Hawthorne effect to occur through this kind of work. However, we worked to minimize the possibility by facilitating the experiment as a program and not as a formal observation. We worked to create a setting that offered a classroom experience and not an observation-based experience. This is why we waited until the program was over to conduct interviews. The interviews occurred between one week and 10-days following the final group lesson. Because of funding constraints, we were only able to offer the program on a one-time basis and we have been unable to work with them longitudinally.

 

• You say (line 543) that nearly all of the girls were encouraged to see themselves as scientists and so on. Can you please add on those who not?
• This was a typo. The program encouraged all of the girls to see themselves as scientists and they all shared in various ways how they hoped to persist in the field. The language was changed to account for this.

 

• In table 2 you have 2 indicators about the role of teachers promoting interest in science. In the first one you ask: Had a teacher who made it exciting to learn science? 91.67% answered yes. Next you ask the opposite: Had a teacher who made you dislike learning science? This time is more balanced but you still have the majority answering no (66.67%) -- I consider that the way you refer to this results in line 228 is not correct. The sentence is not confirmed by the data you present, please reformulate it or check the data.
• Thanks for pointing out this discrepancy. The description of the data was revised for accuracy.