F1000Research F1000Research 2046-1402 F1000 Research Limited London, UK 10.12688/f1000research.137430.2 Brief Report Articles Enhancing Gender Equity in STEM Education: A Comparative Study of the Impact of School Ownership on Female Enrollment

[version 2; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]

 Kibona Isack Ephraim Conceptualization Data Curation Formal Analysis Investigation Methodology Project Administration Writing – Original Draft Preparation Writing – Review & Editing https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0479-5173 a 1 Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Mbeya University of Science and Technology, Mbeya, Mbeya Region, 00255, Tanzania iechibona@gmail.com

No competing interests were disclosed.

 21 10 2025 2023 12 1423 16 10 2025 Copyright: © 2025 Kibona IE 2025 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Investment in education to guarantee gender equity in developing countries has often focused on pedagogy, facilities, and cultural factors. However, private schools provide examples that, if leveraged, can improve girls’ enrollment in STEM education. This quantitative comparative study examined the impact of school ownership on female enrollment in Mbeya City, Tanzania, analyzing 7936 candidates from 58 secondary schools (32 private) who sat for the 2022 Certificate of Secondary Education Examination (CSEE). Of these, 2232 candidates were from private schools. Analysis using chi-square tests and graphical methods revealed that private schools not only had higher female enrollment in STEM subjects but also showed no gender bias in performance, whereas boys outperformed girls in public schools. Among 2202 candidates who passed basic mathematics, 999 were girls, with 626 (63%) from private schools. The study concludes that collaboration with private schools can enhance female enrollment and close gender gaps in STEM performance. It recommends that policymakers engage private schools and encourage science students to take both physics and mathematics for sustainable STEM education development.

 STEM education gender equity Mbeya city of Tanzania Private schools The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Amendments from Version 1

We appreciate the constructive feedback provided by the reviewers and editorial team on the previous version of this manuscript. In response, the paper has undergone substantial revision to enhance its clarity, methodological rigor, and alignment with the study’s objectives. Major updates include: Title refinement: The title has been modified to “Enhancing Gender Equity in STEM Education: A Comparative Study of the Impact of School Ownership on Female Enrollment” to better reflect the study’s focus and comparative approach. Abstract revision: The abstract was completely rewritten to explicitly describe the study design, data source, analytical methods, findings, and recommendations, as suggested by reviewers. Methodology overhaul: The Methodology section now clearly details the quantitative comparative design, the data source (NECTA 2022 CSEE results), and the analytical methods (chi-square and graphical analysis) used. It also clarifies the study’s scope and limitations. Results and discussion enhancement: Additional explanations have been added to strengthen the interpretation of findings regarding gender equity and school ownership. Language and structure improvements: The manuscript was edited for conciseness, coherence, and academic tone. Minor grammatical and stylistic corrections were made throughout. We believe these changes have significantly improved the manuscript’s clarity and contribution to the understanding of gender equity in STEM education within the Tanzanian context.

 Introduction

The adoption of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by the United Nations (UN) in September 2015 placed the world to ensure gender equity in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education ( Koehler, 2016; Leal Filho et al., 2022; Zorzano, 2020). Gender is commonly representing female or male, however, in this study, added to that describes the socio-cultural characters of masculinity and femininity according to practices by individual based on their culture, while sex describes the biological characteristics of women and men ( Unicef & others, 2020). In this regard, gender may change with time and place depending on roles taken by women and men, whereas sex never change. Before 2016, sub-Saharan Africa had a substantial number of secondary schools whose quality of education was questionable according to United Nations, this being one of the reasons to launch the fourth Sustainable Development Goal (SDG4) ( Unterhalter, 2019).

Some regions of the world are closing gender equity gaps in STEM education like USA, and Europe ( Kamberidou & Pascall, 2019), but gender inequity in STEM education is substantial in sub-Saharan Africa, the Arab states, and south and west Asia ( Ismail, 2018; Loyalka et al., 2021). Emphasis to enhance STEM education in literature has centered resolution on pedagogical skills, low teacher student ratio, incompetent teachers, and education facility availability ( Allen et al., 2016; Huang et al., 2022; Teo & Ke, 2014). Moreover, girls' poor participation in STEM subjects in secondary schools especially in sub-Saharan Africa are more associated with cultural practices and other reasons associated with masculinity ( Adams & Baddianaah, 2023; Lewin, 2009).

Education policy makers in Tanzania engaged private sectors to run private schools along with public schools ( Komba, 2017). This lead to contribution in containing not only enrolment issues in STEM education but also great improvement of gender equity ( Weaver, 2011). Evaluation of private schools’ contribution is indispensable, this fact holds following the reality that graduates from private education sectors become part of the nation decent and future human resource capital ( Achoui, 2009; Budhwar & Sparrow, 2002; Sebola, 2023). Table 1 presents the performance of students from 32 private schools in Mbeya city. Majority of students in privates’ schools passed in first and second division. Unlike in private schools, candidates in public schools' majority were in the fourth division Table 2.

CSEE results of the 32 private schools in Mbeya city.
Divisions Total Girls Boys
Div I 715 359 356
Div II 569 270 299
Div III 406 206 200
Div IV 480 267 213
Div 0 62 34 28
All Students 2232 1136 1096
CSEE results of the 26 public schools in Mbeya city.
Divisions Total Girls Boys
Div I 280 83 197
Div II 775 372 403
Div III 926 457 117
Div IV 2896 1711 1185
Div 0 827 370 457
All students 5704 2993 2711

In Tanzania, efforts to solve gender issues in STEM education is historical ( Samoff, 1987). Several bodies like United States Agency for International Development (USAID) have supported to ease the tension of gender inequity in STEM education ( Stromquist, 2006; Swainson, 2000).

This report unleashes aspects of private schools’ contributions in gender equity in STEM education following credible educational policies by the Tanzanian government and promotes improvement in education investment for harmonization of public and private schools. This study illustrated by concrete examples the contribution of private schools in STEM education. Contribution is not only an increase in number of students specializing in STEM subjects but also significant improvement in diminishing of gender equity gap of STEM education.

Figure 1 depicts performance in STEM subjects of biology, chemistry, physics and basic mathematics of 2232 candidates from 32 private secondary schools in Mbeya city. Comparable performance of 5704 candidates from 26 public schools Figure 1 indicated deprived performance in STEM subjects. In parallel to more girls’ enrolment over boys, more girls passed every STEM subject in private schools except for physics. However, regardless of more girl’s enrolment in public schools, boys outperformed girls in every STEM subject except for biology.

CSEE 2022 results of STEM subjects in private schools. Objective

The study is for enhancing education investment policies along with engaging private school investments for collaboration to address challenges of gender equity in STEM education.

Specific objectives

Stimulate harmony and more collaboration between education policy makers and private schools investors to enrich gender equity in STEM education.

Compare private schools and public schools’ performance of girls and boys in STEM subjects.

Methods

This study employed a quantitative comparative research design to examine the impact of school ownership on female enrolment and performance in STEM subjects in Mbeya City, Tanzania. The study utilized secondary data obtained from the 2022 Certificate of Secondary Education Examination (CSEE) results available on the National Examinations Council of Tanzania (NECTA) website. The data comprised examination results of Form Four students from 58 secondary schools (32 private and 26 public), including a total of 7936 candidates, of which 2232 were from private schools.

Data analysis focused on the observed performance outcomes in STEM subjects and female enrollment patterns. Two statistical methods were employed: chi-square tests to assess associations between school ownership and gendered performance, and graphical analysis to visualize enrollment and performance trends. This study did not examine classroom instruction, teaching strategies, or other qualitative factors influencing results; rather, it concentrated solely on exam performance as recorded by NECTA. The scope is therefore limited to determining whether school ownership influences gender equity and female participation in STEM education.

Data collection

The data were collected in separation of private and public schools as in Table 3 and Table 4 respectively, indicating number of girls and boys in every STEM subject. The researcher processed the data, analyzed by employing chi-square test for interpretation, and eventually reported the finding.

CSEE 2022 results of the STEM subjects in 32 private secondary schools. (Source: NECTA 2022).
Gender Pass in Biology Pass in Chemistry Pass in Physics Pass in Mathematics Total
Girls 1020 (1032) 549 (544) 393 (412) 626 (601) 1136
Boys 1008 (996) 520 (525) 417 (398) 555 (580) 1096
Total 2028 1069 810 1181 2232
CSEE Students performance of 26 public schools in STEM subjects.
Gender Pass in Biology Pass in Chemistry Pass in Physics Pass in Mathematics Total
Girls 1616 (1737) 560 (697) 234 (396) 373 (536) 2993
Boys 1695 (1574) 768 (631) 520 (358) 648 (485) 2711
Total 3311 1328 754 1021 5704
Data collection

The Author conducted data collection by reading and recording from the report by NECTA of CSEE for the year 2022, particularly, selecting all Mbeya city secondary schools participated in the form four national examinations of year 2022. In addition to division-wise performance as organized by NECTA, the author went further by listing overall performance of every STEM subject and eventually bar charts plotted as in Figure 1 and Figure 2.

CSEE 2022 results of STEM subjects of public school in Mbeya city. Data analysis

The author used the chi-square approach to determine whether there was a significant difference in the passing of STEM subjects between boys and girls. The focus of the STEM subjects was biology, chemistry, physics and basic mathematics. The degree of freedom evaluated leads to a critical value (p) from statistical tables, a test statistic computed for each group of students separately, and the decision made based 95% confidence interval. Records of number of passes in STEM subject are as listed in Table 3 and Table 4. No software was involved and all computations conducted manually, aided by Casio scientific calculator.

Calculation of Chi – square , χ 2 :

Numbers in parentheses of Table 3 are theoretical expectations of gender equity. The author went through five steps to justify whether gender has an effect in the performance of STEM subjects.

Step 1: Define Null ( H 0 ) and Alternative Hypotheses ( H 1 ):

H 0 : For the students in Mbeya city from private secondary schools, gender has no effect to pass in STEM subjects.

H 1 : For the students in Mbeya city private secondary schools, gender has effect to pass in STEM subjects.

Step 2: State the confidence interval: ∝ = 0.05

Step 3: Calculate degree of freedom ( df ) and state the critical value ( p):

df = rows − 1 columns − 1 = 2 − 1 4 − 1 = 3 , so critical value, p = 7.81.

That is if chi-square ( χ 2 ) is greater than 7.81, reject H 0 .

Step 4: Calculation of test statistic χ 2 = ∑ f 0 − f e 2 f e , where f e = ∑ f c f r n and f 0 = observed frequence , f e = expected frequence , f c = frequence of the column , f r = frequence of the row , n = total number of subjects .

Step 5: Calculation of theoretical pass expectations: Girls expected to pass biology in first cell of Table 3, Girls biology 11 = 2028 ∗ 1136 2232 = 1032 χ pr 2 = ∑ f 0 − f e 2 f e χ pr 2 = 1020 − 1032 2 1032 + 1008 − 996 2 996 + 549 − 544 2 544 + 520 − 525 2 525 + 392 − 412 2 412 + 417 − 398 2 398 + 626 − 601 2 601 + 555 − 580 2 580 = 4.28

χ pr 2 = 4.28 < 7.81473 = p . Therefore, the null hypothesis is true.

The author applied a similar testing to candidates of public schools.

With similar calculations as Table 3 of private schools, χ pr 2 = ∑ f 0 − f e 2 f e = 318.33425 for Table 4. However, χ pr 2 = 4.28 < 7.81473 = p . Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis.

 Analysis of STEM prospects

The author went further to ascertain every student with a pass of at least D grade (minimum pass) in both physics and basic mathematics and classified this group as minimum pass in STEM. Moreover, students with at least two C grades and one D pass grade in any of three subjects: physics, chemistry and biology (PCB) or same passes in any of three: physics, chemistry and mathematics (PCM) classified as potential PCM or PCB candidates. A collection of students with minimum passes in STEM and/or potential PCM or PCB candidates grouped as potential STEM candidates.

 Results

The degree of freedom for each group is three with α =0.05 of which the collected critical value, p = 7.81 . Computed chi-squares were χ pr 2 = 4.28 for private schools χ pr 2 = 318.33 for public schools. In addition to chi-square testing of the data, student performance in STEM subjects were listed in tabular ( Table 3, Table 4) form along with plotting the bar charts ( Figure 1, Figure 2).

Impact of performance of STEM subjects in STEM education prospects

Performance in STEM subjects determines number of candidate placements in high school PCB or PCM combinations and prospects of STEM career candidates in higher education institutions. Out of 2232 candidates, private schools contributed 783 (35%) candidates of which 380 were girls able to further studies in STEM education ( Table 5). On the other hand, out of 5704 candidates, public schools contributed 699 (12%) candidates of which 206 were girls with potential to advance in STEM careers in higher education ( Table 6).

Estimated CSEE 2022 candidates to enter STEM career or major science from 32 private schools.
Gender Pass in mathematics Pass in physics and mathematics Potential PCM or PCB Potential STEM candidates Total
Girls 626 380 379 380 1136
Boys 555 396 403 403 1096
Total 1181 776 782 783 2232

PCM: physics, chemistry and mathematics; PCB: physics, chemistry and biology; STEM: science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

 Estimated CSEE 2022 candidates to enter STEM career or major science from 26 public schools.
Gender Pass in mathematics Pass in physics and mathematics Potential PCM or PCB Potential STEM candidates Total
Girls 373 206 205 206 2993
Boys 648 493 375 493 2711
Total 1021 699 580 699 5704

PCM: physics, chemistry and mathematics; PCB: physics, chemistry and biology; STEM: science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

 Discussion

Based on the data analysis, we calculated critical value, p = 7.81 and a test statistic computed χ pr 2 = 4.28 for all students’ performance in STEM subjects for private schools and χ pr 2 = 318.33 for public schools. It is clear that χ pr 2 = 4.28 < 7.81 = p , and χ pr 2 = 318.33 > p . Recall the null and alternative hypothesis:

Null ( H 0 ) and Alternative Hypotheses ( H 1 ):

H 0 : For the students in Mbeya city from private/public secondary schools, gender has no influence to pass in STEM subjects.

H 1 : For the students in Mbeya city from private/public secondary schools, gender has influence to pass in STEM subjects.

In this regard, we do accept the null hypothesis for private schools and reject the null hypothesis for public schools. Therefore, private schools in Mbeya city resolved the gender equity gap in performance of STEM subjects. On the other hand, gender equity gaps are unresolved between girls and boys in STEM subjects’ performance for public schools. That implies that the gender equity gap shall extend to the future STEM careers of graduates from public schools, and therefore, spread to the whole nation and worldwide at large.

We suppose education policy had had recognized private sectors contribution and further promote teamwork along with private schools then more output that is stunning would surface. Thus, in so speaking, this study saves to encourage education policy makers to enrich policy mechanism for collaboration and possible embolden of private schools for more enrolment in STEM education. This is in parallel with the implementation of SDG4 realization in 2030. It is also clear that passing in both physics and basic mathematics determines the potential of STEM career prospects from secondary schools ( Table 5, Table 6).

 Conclusion and recommendations

Private schools’ reflection of balancing gender in STEM education in the case of Mbeya city offers a great step toward achieving SDG4 of the United Nations. The author recommends policy makers to engage private schools in addressing the challenges of gender equity in STEM education in a collaborative manner rather than other way around with public schools. STEM education stakeholders need to stress not only STEM careers position in the 21st century of job placements but also the importance of taking both basic mathematics and physics as determinants of STEM career for secondary school students. Basic mathematics alone is not enough.

This study is calling for further investigation as to why in the same nation with likely the same environment, private schools outperformed public schools to such a great extent. The researcher shall explore both parties separately to acquire reliable information to share experiences to avert the situation in public schools.

 Data availability

Data used in this study are available and accessible for reproducibility. Information about public and private schools involved are all associated to Mbeya city CSEE results of 2022. Specifically, the Author used the data published by the National Examination Council of Tanzania (NECTA) from all test centers of the year 2022 ( NECTA of CSEE for the year 2022).

 Acknowledgements

First, I do appreciate Mbeya University of Science and Technology leadership for their strength and determination. Secondly, I do acknowledge the support in ideas by all colleagues in the Department of mathematics and statistics, to mention a few are; Mr. Justin Kisakali, Mr. Paulo Ngayekamwe and Ms. Tatu S. Irunde, who as well offered their time to work on behalf for some of the office routine activities. That gave a room for me to concentrate on writing. The whole members of the Department were willing to teach more classes, this boosted ending in small teaching load and therefore ability to write. Finally, my family support is indispensable in this task. They have been patient to all my late coming at home to ensure I am okay with this task. I must point out my youngest son, David.

 References Achoui MM : Human resource development in Gulf countries: An analysis of the trends and challenges facing Saudi Arabia. Hum. Resour. Dev. Int. 2009;12(1):35–46. 10.1080/13678860802638826 Adams A-M Baddianaah I : Factors affecting female enrolment in technical and vocational education and training institutions in sub-Saharan Africa: Insights from north-western Ghana. International Journal of Training Research. 2023;1–24. 10.1080/14480220.2023.2179096 Allen M Webb AW Matthews CE : Adaptive teaching in STEM: Characteristics for effectiveness. Theory Pract. 2016;55(3):217–224. 10.1080/00405841.2016.1173994 Budhwar PS Sparrow PR : An integrative framework for understanding cross-national human resource management practices. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2002;12(3):377–403. 10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00066-9 Huang X Erduran S Zhang P : Enhancing teachers’ STEM understanding through observation, discussion and reflection. J. Educ. Teach. 2022;48(5):576–591. 10.1080/02607476.2021.2006571 Ismail Z : Benefits of STEM education. 2018. Kamberidou I Pascall N : The digital skills crisis: Engendering technology–empowering women in cyberspace. European Journal of Social Sciences Studies. 2019. Koehler G : Tapping the Sustainable Development Goals for progressive gender equity and equality policy? Gend. Dev. 2016;24(1):53–68. 10.1080/13552074.2016.1142217 Komba AA : Educational accountability relationships and students’ learning outcomes in Tanzania’s public schools. SAGE Open. 2017;7(3):215824401772579. 10.1177/2158244017725795 Leal Filho W Kovaleva M Tsani S : Promoting gender equality across the sustainable development goals. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2022;1–22. Lewin KM : Access to education in sub-Saharan Africa: Patterns, problems and possibilities. Comp. Educ. 2009;45(2):151–174. 10.1080/03050060902920518 Loyalka P Liu OL Li G : Skill levels and gains in university STEM education in China, India, Russia and the United States. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2021;5(7):892–904. 33649462 10.1038/s41562-021-01062-3 Samoff J : School expansion in Tanzania: Private initiatives and public policy. Comp. Educ. Rev. 1987;31(3):333–360. 10.1086/446695 Sebola MP : South Africa’s public higher education institutions, university research outputs, and contribution to national human capital. Hum. Resour. Dev. Int. 2023;26(2):217–231. 10.1080/13678868.2022.2047147 Stromquist NP : Gender, education and the possibility of transformative knowledge. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education. 2006;36(2):145–161. 10.1080/03057920600741131 Swainson N : Knowledge and power: The design and implementation of gender policies in education in Malawi, Tanzania and Zimbabwe. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 2000;20(1):49–64. 10.1016/S0738-0593(99)00047-4 Teo TW Ke KJ : Challenges in STEM teaching: Implication for preservice and in service teacher education program. Theory Pract. 2014;53(1):18–24. 10.1080/00405841.2014.862116 Unicef & others: A rigorous review of global research evidence on policy and practice on school-related gender-based violence. 2020. Unterhalter E : The many meanings of quality education: Politics of targets and indicators in SDG 4. Global Pol. 2019;10:39–51. 10.1111/1758-5899.12591 Weaver NE : Educational policy in Tanzania from independence to the present: Continuity and transformation. University of Pittsburgh;2011. [PhD Thesis]. Zorzano M-P : Gender balance in Mars exploration: Lessons learned from the Mars Science Laboratory. Sustainability. 2020;12(24):10658. 10.3390/su122410658 10.5256/f1000research.189850.r438302 Reviewer response for version 2 Vieira Maria F 1 Referee https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8391-1667 University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 30 12 2025 Copyright: © 2025 Vieira MF 2025 This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. recommendation reject

The study has the potential to contribute useful descriptive evidence on gender equity in STEM education in Tanzania. However, substantial revisions are needed to improve language quality, align objectives and hypotheses with the empirical analysis, clarify the presentation of results, and deepen the discussion by situating findings within broader contextual and structural factors. Addressing these issues would significantly strengthen the paper’s analytical rigor and policy relevance.

Clarity and language quality

Despite revisions, grammatical and syntactical errors remain throughout the manuscript and, at times, obscure meaning. For example, statements such as “In Tanzania, efforts to solve gender issues in STEM education is historical” require correction for both grammar and clarity. A thorough language edit by a proficient academic English editor is strongly recommended.

Objectives and conceptual framing

The study’s objectives require clearer alignment with the empirical nature of the analysis. In particular, the first specific objective— “Stimulate harmony and more collaboration between education policy makers and private schools investors”—is framed as an advocacy or policy outcome rather than a measurable research objective. Objectives should describe what the study seeks to examine or demonstrate empirically (e.g., to assess, to compare, to provide evidence to inform policy), rather than what it aims to promote or stimulate. Reframing the objectives to reflect analytical intent would improve coherence.

Research questions and hypotheses

The manuscript would benefit from explicitly stated research questions that logically lead to the hypotheses. At present, the hypotheses appear disconnected from clearly articulated research questions, which weakens the internal consistency of the study design. Strengthening this linkage would also help clarify why chi-square testing is appropriate for addressing the stated aims.

Clarify what can and cannot be claimed (causality vs. association)

The paper often implies that private school ownership leads to gender equity, but the design only supports associations, not causal inference. A clear recommendation is to explicitly state that the findings are descriptive and associations.

Justify the exclusive use of exam performance as a proxy for “gender equity”

Gender equity is treated almost entirely as enrollment numbers, and pass rates in STEM subjects. A clearer justification for why exam performance is an adequate proxy for gender equity is needed, otherwise a more nuanced framing acknowledging that gender equity also includes participation, persistence, confidence, access, and post-secondary transitions.

Structure of results and discussion

Several results are presented and interpreted within the Discussion section rather than being clearly separated into a Results section. For transparency and academic rigor, statistical findings (e.g., chi-square values, gender differences in performance) should be reported first without interpretation, and then discussed in relation to existing literature and policy implications.

Depth of discussion and recommendations

While the paper emphasizes collaboration between public and private schools, the discussion remains relatively abstract. The manuscript would be strengthened by providing concrete examples of what such collaboration might look like in practice (e.g., teacher training partnerships, resource sharing, curriculum alignment, or policy incentives). Similarly, recommendations could be more detailed and clearly grounded in the study’s findings.

Consideration of contextual factors and limitations

Differences in gender outcomes between private and public schools are likely influenced by contextual factors such as access to resources, learning environments, parental support, socioeconomic background, and gender norms. These factors are acknowledged only briefly and deserve more systematic discussion. Explicitly recognizing that the study does not control for these variables—and clarifying how this limits causal interpretation—would enhance the credibility of the conclusions.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required.

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

No

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly

Reviewer Expertise:

Gender equity in STEM

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

Kibona Isack Ephraim Mathematics and Statistics, Mbeya University of Science and Technology, Mbeya, Mbeya Region, Tanzania

Competing interests: The author declares no competing interest

 15 5 2026

Not Approved

info_outline

The study has the potential to contribute useful descriptive evidence on gender equity in STEM education in Tanzania. However, substantial revisions are needed to improve language quality, align objectives and hypotheses with the empirical analysis, clarify the presentation of results, and deepen the discussion by situating findings within broader contextual and structural factors. Addressing these issues would significantly strengthen the paper’s analytical rigor and policy relevance.

 

We are grateful to the reviewer’s very useful suggestions and comments. As a result of our revisions, there is a better flow of the language, clear linkages between objectives, research questions, hypotheses and statistical testing as well as proper division between the results and discussion. There are also some additions to the discussion to address other important issues such as context, limitations and policy implications of the results obtained.

Clarity and language quality

Despite revisions, grammatical and syntactical errors remain throughout the manuscript and, at times, obscure meaning. For example, statements such as “In Tanzania, efforts to solve gender issues in STEM education is historical” require correction for both grammar and clarity. A thorough language edit by a proficient academic English editor is strongly recommended.

 

Thank you very much to the reviewer for pointing out the matter concerning the clarity of language and consistency in grammar within the manuscript. Indeed, there were some areas that needed further improvement in terms of clarity of language and meaning. This has now been addressed by conducting extensive language editing on the whole manuscript. For instance, the sentence “In Tanzania, efforts to solve gender issues in STEM education is historical” has been changed to “In Tanzania, efforts to solve gender issues in STEM education have a long history.”

Objectives and conceptual framing

The study’s objectives require clearer alignment with the empirical nature of the analysis. In particular, the first specific objective—“Stimulate harmony and more collaboration between education policy makers and private schools investors”—is framed as an advocacy or policy outcome rather than a measurable research objective. Objectives should describe what the study seeks to examine or demonstrate empirically (e.g., to assess, to compare, to provide evidence to inform policy), rather than what it aims to promote or stimulate. Reframing the objectives to reflect analytical intent would improve coherence.

 

We are grateful to the reviewer for this insightful point on the conceptualization of the research objectives. We fully concur that the wording used in the initial specific objective represented an ideal from a policy perspective as opposed to a research objective. In consideration of this insight, the research objectives have been amended in such a way that they now take into account the analysis-driven nature of this research. The amended research objectives are geared towards assessing and comparing the relation between ownership of schools and outcomes pertaining to the subject of gender in STEM education.

Research questions and hypotheses

The manuscript would benefit from explicitly stated research questions that logically lead to the hypotheses. At present, the hypotheses appear disconnected from clearly articulated research questions, which weakens the internal consistency of the study design. Strengthening this linkage would also help clarify why chi-square testing is appropriate for addressing the stated aims.

 

We are grateful to the reviewer for this insightful point on the conceptualization of the research objectives. We fully concur that the wording used in the initial specific objective represented an ideal from a policy perspective as opposed to a research objective. In consideration of this insight, the research objectives have been amended in such a way that they now take into account the analysis-driven nature of this research (Objectives → Research Questions → Hypotheses → Statistical Test → Findings). The amended research objectives are geared towards assessing and comparing the relation between ownership of schools and outcomes pertaining to the subject of gender in STEM education.

Clarify what can and cannot be claimed (causality vs. association)

The paper often implies that private school ownership leads to gender equity, but the design only supports associations, not causal inference. A clear recommendation is to explicitly state that the findings are descriptive and associations.

 

The authors would like to express their appreciation to the reviewer for making such an essential clarification regarding methodology. They would also agree that the research design allows identifying correlations but does not permit any assumptions about causality. As a result, the entire paper has been edited to avoid any terms that might imply causation between private school ownership and gender equity results.

Justify the exclusive use of exam performance as a proxy for “gender equity”

Gender equity is treated almost entirely as enrollment numbers, and pass rates in STEM subjects. A clearer justification for why exam performance is an adequate proxy for gender equity is needed, otherwise a more nuanced framing acknowledging that gender equity also includes participation, persistence, confidence, access, and post-secondary transitions.

 

Thank you for your insightful feedback on the definition of gender equity in our research. It is true that gender equity within STEM education can be multifaceted and involve aspects such as involvement, persistence, experience of learning, self-confidence, resource availability, and postsecondary transitions. In our study, however, we defined gender equity in terms of objective measures that could be derived from our secondary examination dataset, focusing on enrollment in and achievement in STEM disciplines. Our manuscript has been modified to reflect this understanding.

Structure of results and discussion

Several results are presented and interpreted within the Discussion section rather than being clearly separated into a Results section. For transparency and academic rigor, statistical findings (e.g., chi-square values, gender differences in performance) should be reported first without interpretation, and then discussed in relation to existing literature and policy implications.

 

We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comment concerning the structuring of the Results and Discussion sections. To address the reviewer’s concern, we have updated the manuscript to provide better delineation between data presentation and analysis. The Results section now features statistical results, such as chi-square values, and observed disparities between male and female students’ academic achievements in STEM-related subjects. The Discussion section has been amended to provide an interpretation of the findings, implications, and connections with extant literature and policy issues.

Depth of discussion and recommendations

While the paper emphasizes collaboration between public and private schools, the discussion remains relatively abstract. The manuscript would be strengthened by providing concrete examples of what such collaboration might look like in practice (e.g., teacher training partnerships, resource sharing, curriculum alignment, or policy incentives). Similarly, recommendations could be more detailed and clearly grounded in the study’s findings.

 

We thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion. In response, the Discussion and Recommendation sections have been expanded to provide more concrete examples of how collaboration between public and private schools could be implemented in practice. The revised manuscript now includes examples such as teacher development partnerships, sharing of STEM learning resources and laboratory facilities, exchange of effective academic practices, and policy support mechanisms aimed at improving female participation and performance in STEM subjects. The recommendations have also been revised to align more explicitly with the findings of the study.

Consideration of contextual factors and limitations

Differences in gender outcomes between private and public schools are likely influenced by contextual factors such as access to resources, learning environments, parental support, socioeconomic background, and gender norms. These factors are acknowledged only briefly and deserve more systematic discussion. Explicitly recognizing that the study does not control for these variables—and clarifying how this limits causal interpretation—would enhance the credibility of the conclusions.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

 

We thank the reviewer for this important observation regarding contextual influences on gender-related STEM outcomes. The study conceptualized school ownership as an institutional input associated with broader educational conditions, while enrollment and STEM subject performance were treated as observable outcomes. We acknowledge that differences between private and public schools may reflect underlying contextual factors such as resource availability, learning environments, parental support, socioeconomic conditions, and prevailing gender norms, which are often linked to school ownership structures. However, because the study relied on secondary examination data, these contextual variables were not independently measured or controlled for in the analysis. The manuscript has therefore been revised to clarify that the findings represent descriptive associations between school ownership and STEM-related outcomes rather than direct causal effects attributable solely to school ownership.

 10.5256/f1000research.150590.r404704 Reviewer response for version 1 Okeke Uchenna Kingsley 1 Referee University of Johannesburg, Auckland Park, Gauteng, South Africa

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 10 9 2025 Copyright: © 2025 Okeke UK 2025 This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. recommendation approve-with-reservations

TITLE: Enhancing Gender Equity in STEM Education: A Comparative Study of the Impact of School Ownership on Females' Enrollment in STEM. (Remove the demographic information from the title. You can talk about it in the abstract and methodology.    

ABSTRACT: There is a need to rework the abstract. What is the design of the study? How was the data collected and analyzed? What are/is the findings, conclusion, and recommendations?

INTRODUCTION:

Opening paragraph should be "The adoption of the Sustainable Devepment Goals..

Please, which of the goals aligns with the focus of your study? Be specific and discuss it in details

I am a bit confuse about the objectives of the study, especially the first object.

There is need to include Research Questions in the study,

The Methods section need to be overhauled. What is the design of the study? Meta-analysis? 

Method od data collection and data analysis should be enhance for clarity

The result is faulty. What was highlighted in the objective is not same as the result presented. Please, make sure that both sides align. Besides, there is a need to raise research question to guide the study.

I am wondering how you have Null and Alternate hypothseses in the same study and both are framing the same issue? How?

Conclusions and Recommendations should be based on the result of the study. So, with a questionable result, the basis for conclusion and generalization will be faulty too

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

No

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

No

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

No

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly

Reviewer Expertise:

Physics education, gender inclusivity, science pedagogy

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Kibona Isack Ephraim Mathematics and Statistics, Mbeya University of Science and Technology, Mbeya, Mbeya Region, Tanzania

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 16 10 2025

TITLE: Enhancing Gender Equity in STEM Education: A Comparative Study of the Impact of School Ownership on Females' Enrollment in STEM

 10.5256/f1000research.150590.r242769 Reviewer response for version 1 Alonso de Castro María Goretti 1 Referee Regional Council of Education, Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 22 2 2024 Copyright: © 2024 Alonso de Castro MG 2024 This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. recommendation approve-with-reservations

While the study's objectives are clearly delineated and the methodologies are thoroughly explained, there remains a need for a clearer rationale behind the chosen analysis method. Furthermore, the study lacks an explicit discussion of its limitations and fails to address the variables that could potentially impact the observed differences between public and private educational centers. It is essential to delve into the analysis of contextual variables such as methodologies utilized, available resources, family support systems, socioeconomic status, and cultural influences to better comprehend the disparities in outcomes between these educational settings. A more comprehensive examination of the study's limitations and the myriad factors influencing the differences outlined in the article is warranted. This would significantly enhance the depth and rigor of the research, providing a more nuanced understanding of the observed discrepancies.

Regarding replicability, the text references the state test database; however, it lacks clarity on the selection process, sample criteria, and the variables considered in the presented tables. A more detailed explanation of the methodology behind selecting the state test database, the criteria for sample inclusion, and the specific variables incorporated into the tables would significantly enhance the transparency and replicability of the study.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly

Reviewer Expertise:

Education, Technology, ICT, Educational European projects; Educational Inspection

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Kibona Isack Ephraim Mathematics and Statistics, Mbeya University of Science and Technology, Mbeya, Mbeya Region, Tanzania

Competing interests: No competing interests available to this review process.

 27 2 2024

The Author has responded by including a section informing limitations of the study, see an attachment. Moreover, the data involved (CSEE 2022) in the study enabled the study to reveal unfair prevailing situation in secondary schools but on the other hand situation about contextual variables such as methodologies utilized, available resources, family support systems, socioeconomic status, and cultural influences shall need more data pertaining to tools such as questionnaire and interview. 

On selection criteria, all schools in the city in the given year of study went into participation in this study, therefore, the study involved city school population. Thus, for reproducibility of the study, one shall need to study all secondary schools in the city that participated in the CSEE 2022.