Extracurricular Program for Girls to Improve Competencies and Self-Concept in Science and Technology
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for submitting your article “Extra-curricular program for girls to improve competencies and self-steem in science and technology” for review and consideration for publication in the Education Sciences journal.
The present case study implemented an extra-curricular activity and evaluated its impact on the development of science and technology competencies among female students. I agree with the authors that there is presently a gender gap issue in STEM areas, making this topic timely and relevant. The sad truth is that the literature has been noting that women are far less likely to graduate with a STEM degree compared to their male counterparts. In addition, I think the manuscript is still of potential interest to the readership of the journal.
Overall, the paper requires more information and focus. Some of the areas requiring delicate attention are highlighted below:
1. The word self-esteem was misspelled in the title (“self-steem). First impression lasts!
2. A major overhaul of the content structure is recommended.
a. For instance, the introduction section is a bit convoluted, and the discussions seem to jump from one concept to another. Perhaps the author should restructure the introduction by focusing only on the research background, gaps, and objectives. In terms of the research gap, the authors may justify first why extracurricular activities were an ideal intervention and see if they have been used in the literature.
b. The detailed review of other concepts could then be transferred to a literature review section together. The authors may review the following: Extracurricular activities (e.g., DOI: 10.1002/cae.22564), Gender Gap in STEM (DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10300), Self-Efficacy (you may also use Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory) and Competencies.
c. It is also unclear why there are two sections for the methodology. The “materials and methods” should be a subheading (e.g., intervention or procedures) under the “Methodology” section.
3. The authors mentioned the case study approach, which is understandable why the Methodology section covered the qualitative data collection methods and analysis. However, upon looking at the results, there are findings of quantitative nature (e.g., Table 3). These were not explained in the methodology section. The instruments used and how the quantitative data were analyzed were missing. In addition, no qualitative results (e.g., what were the themes extracted from the audio transcriptions?) were presented. These inconsistencies make the discussion section questionable. I also believe this is the major flaw of the paper that makes it unpublishable.
4. Figures 1-8 should be discussed and integrated within the results and discussion.
5. In the discussion section, the authors mentioned attitude, which is another construct that is different from self-efficacy or competencies stated in the manuscript title.
6. What were the limitations of the study?
Overall, while the paper is not without merit, it is not presently acceptable. The authors may improve the paper following the recommendations stated above.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your comments. We appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully reviewed your comments and we have been able to incorporate all your suggestions. Our responses are given in a point-by-point manner in the attachment and changes to the manuscript are shown highlighted there and within the manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript presents an extra-curricular program for girls to improve competencies and self-esteem in science and technology. The authors analyze the impact of the program on on eight girls aged between 8 and 11 years old and claim that the Poderosas program improved their levels of self-esteem, interest, and participation. With this claim, the authors posit the need to promote initiatives like the Poderosas program to overcome gender stereotypes and achieve equality in the sciences.
I would agree that these types of initiatives can be helpful to achieving equality in the science; however, overall, the presentation of this manuscript needs to be stronger. For publication, I would need to see the experimental evidence support the “impact” claim that the authors are making. Generally, this manuscript read as if the authors were intending to present case studies for the eight girls within the Poderosas program. However, it is unclear how the claims that the authors make throughout the manuscript are supported my the evidence presented. In addition, the organization and presentation of the manuscript was confusing. Generally, there were places where Tables and Figures were presented without context as to why these were necessary. Lastly, the authors present many motivational constructs within the introduction; however, it would make the story stronger if the authors would present more detail — specifically around the self-concept, self-esteem, and self-efficacy (all of which are difference) The proposed changes below seem major to me; thus I do not feel the manuscript is ready for publication at this time. I’ve put together some comments and suggestions for each of the headings throughout the manuscript.
1. Introduction: The overall motivation to this work is unclear to the reader. The authors present many complex psychological factors; however, the literature around each of these is limited. I would suggest to the authors a more thorough literature review and a stronger connection as to why they think a program like Poderosas would impact girls competencies and self-esteem. There are also places where I believe literature is summarized; however, there is lack of citations (see lines 57-63). There are parts of the introduction where it is unclear if the authors are positing a claim or if they are using literature to motivate the study.
2. Materials and Methods: It was unclear what the motivation was around the Poderosas program. In this section large questions came up for me such as “What is the Poderosas program?”, “Who is it serving?”, “How was it designed?”. There needs to be more description of the program itself. Secondly, the presentation of Table 1 needs more of an explanation. How are each of these activities being used for this study? Is the point to focus in on one of the activities or make a claim about it takes all of these activities to make an impact? Lastly, there is text that doesn’t read like it is supposed to be included in this section (see lines 73-80)
3. Methodology: I think it was a great idea for the authors to take a case study approach; however, this section could use some more detail to make it more clear to the read what data was being collected and why.
3.1 Data-collection instruments: I would suggest breaking this section up into smaller sections to explain in detail how the “instruments” were designed and what the purpose of each of them was. For example, Table 2 is a nice summary of the instruments but It would also be good if the authors could connect the data collection decisions to the activities which they outlined in the previous section. It was unclear why the timing of each of the instrument was made.
3.2 Analysis techniques: I’d like to see more detail about the classifications of mental models. How did the authors reduce all of the self portraits down to 6 MM? In addition, how was this data triangulated? Lastly, there is extra text that I don’t believe the authors meant to keep in this submission (lines 165-168).
4. Results: I think it would strengthen the paper if the authors walked the reader through the seven Figures (or at least one of them). This would help with the clarity of how all of the sections tie together. Additionally, it was unclear to me where the “external group” came from — this should be described in the data collection section. What does it mean to be place in a “higher” mental model? Are the shifts from pre-test to post-test a significant shift and are these shifts in fact different between the Poderosas Group and the External Group? I would encourage the authors to present some statistical results supporting their claim.
5. Discussion: The claims the authors make about the impact on the program are too strong for the evidence that was provided. Specifically, line 288 - 293, it was unclear how the evidence presented supported this causal claim. I would also encourage the authors to considered discussing the limitations of this study — particularly the limitations to the program, the data collection methods and analysis.
6. Conclusions: It wasn’t until this section that the COVID19 pandemic was introduced. How did this impact this study? After making the suggested changes above, I would encourage the authors to rewrite and restructure the conclusions of the the study.
More generally, there were many places where the authors should edit for grammar and punctuation. There were also a few places where it was unclear as to why it was necessary to include certain information. For example, in lines 118-121, why is it important to report that VID and ELA showed a high than average intellectual capability while IRD presented a borderline development disorder? What does this information add to the story? In line 253, why is it important to know that certain participants hardly ever missed and specifically ELA who had both forearms in plaster? With respect to the claims the authors are trying to make in this study, both of these pieces of information seem unnecessary.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your comments. We appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to providing valuable feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully reviewed your comments, and we have been able to incorporate all your suggestions. Our responses are given point-by-point in the attached document, and changes to the manuscript are highlighted there and within the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I would like to express my appreciation to the substantial revisions made by the authors despite the holiday season. All sections but the 6. Discussion have been improved. As my final comment, I am encouraging the authors to expand this section and include the implications (e.g., theoretical, pedagogical, methodological) of the their findings. They may also send their paper for proofreading to fix some grammatical issues. Thank you and congratulations in advance!
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We are very grateful for your comments. And we thank you again for the time and effort you have dedicated to our manuscript.
Concerning your suggestion to add possible methodological and pedagogical implications, we have added the following text at the end of the discussion section.
Although we must be careful about the implications of this work given its uniqueness, the results point to the relevance of improving girls' self-concept early in STEM areas, in environments where they can experiment without fear with new ideas and technologies. Extracurricular activities are very conducive to these actions. Improving self-concept is a long process so the preferred extracurricular activities will be those extended over time.
In addition to the use of active methodologies, the activities seem to have to be focused on real problems, perceived as being of some social utility by the girls and allowing them to develop various technological skills (to which they usually do not have access) while at the same time deepening their understanding of scientific concepts. The results also indicate the need to favor the girls' oral and written expression, providing them with various opportunities to explain to others what they have learned.
Finally, as highlighted in the literature, dialogue with women in science and technology is essential. In our case, the selection of young women who worked in areas related to the activities that the girls were developing has allowed a strong identification and stimulation.
Sincerely yours,
The authors
