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

Isack Ephraim Kibona

doi:10.12688/f1000research.137430.3

Home Browse Enhancing Gender Equity in STEM Education: A Comparative Study of...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Brief Report

Revised

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

[version 3; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]

Previously titled: Enhancement of private schools for collaboration to address gender equity gap of STEM education: Case study in Mbeya city of Tanzania

Isack Ephraim Kibona

PUBLISHED 08 Jun 2026

Author details Author details

Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Mbeya University of Science and Technology, Mbeya, Mbeya Region, 00255, Tanzania

Isack Ephraim Kibona
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Investment in education to guarantee gender equity in developing countries has often focused on pedagogy, facilities, and cultural factors. However, the private sector provide examples that, if leveraged, can improve female 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, private schools represented a smaller proportion of less than one third of total candidates but demonstrated comparatively stronger STEM outcomes. 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. As evidenced in this study, it is demonstrated that collaboration with private schools may support efforts to improve female enrollment and reduce 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.

Keywords

STEM education, gender equity, Mbeya city of Tanzania, Private schools

Corresponding author: Isack Ephraim Kibona

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright: © 2026 Kibona IE. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Kibona IE. Enhancing Gender Equity in STEM Education: A Comparative Study of the Impact of School Ownership on Female Enrollment [version 3; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2026, 12:1423 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.137430.3) First published: 31 Oct 2023, 12:1423 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.137430.1) Latest published: 08 Jun 2026, 12:1423 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.137430.3)

Revised Amendments from Version 2

This third iteration of the paper includes modifications based on reviewer feedback aimed at enhancing clarity, methodological consistency, and discussion of results interpretation.
Significant language editing has been undertaken to enhance the quality of language. The research questions have been reworded in line with their analytical nature, and there is more consistency between the goals of the research, its questions, hypotheses, tests, and results. Furthermore, to avoid suggesting that the findings indicate causality, it has been clearly stated that the results merely describe associations between independent and dependent variables without implying a causal relationship.
Moreover, additional clarification was added with respect to the operational definition of gender equity employed in the analysis, as it relies exclusively on school type and data on gender differences in enrollment and academic performance using only the examination dataset that was available for use.
The sections Results and Discussion have been reorganized in order to clearly delineate between statistics and interpretation of results. Both sections of Discussion and Recommendations have been extended by providing relevant cases of cooperation between private and public schools as well as policy implications. Lastly, the manuscript contains an additional discussion about contextual factors and limitations of the research such as influence of socioeconomic factors, availability of resources, parents' involvement, educational environment, and gender issues in relation to engagement in STEM and academic performance.

See the author's detailed response to the review by Maria F Vieira
See the author's detailed response to the review by María Goretti Alonso de Castro
See the author's detailed response to the review by Uchenna Kingsley Okeke

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). The findings demonstrate that, 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 STEM gender gaps 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 science 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 has contributed not only to addressing enrollment challenges in STEM education but also to improving 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.

Table 1. 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

Table 2. 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

Notably, in the context of this study, gender equity was assessed using observable indicators available from the CSEE dataset, specifically female enrollment and performance outcomes in STEM subjects. These indicators provide useful evidence regarding academic participation and achievement and were analyzed in relation to school ownership as an institutional factor associated with broader educational conditions. However, gender equity in STEM education may also involve additional dimensions such as persistence, confidence, access to learning resources, classroom experiences, and transitions into higher education and STEM careers. These broader contextual and experiential dimensions were beyond the scope of the present study.

In Tanzania, efforts to solve gender issues in STEM education have a long history (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 research paper illustrates how private schools play a significant role in gender equality in STEM education through Tanzania’s educational policies and underscores the need for greater cooperation between public and private institutions. This study illustrated by concrete examples the association of private schools in STEM education. Thus, the findings indicate an association between private school attendance, higher STEM participation, and reduced gender disparities in STEM subjects.

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 private schools, female enrollment exceeded male enrollment, and girls outperformed boys in all STEM subjects except physics. However, despite higher female enrollment in public schools, boys outperformed girls in all STEM subjects except biology.

Figure 1. 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

a. To examine the association between school ownership and gender-related performance outcomes in STEM subjects among secondary school students in Mbeya City.
b. To compare the performance of girls and boys in STEM subjects between private and public secondary schools.

Methods

This study employed a quantitative comparative research design to examine the impact of school ownership on female enrolment and performance in STEM disciplines 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, including 32 private and 26 public schools, with a total of 7,936 candidates, of whom 2,232 were from private schools.

Research questions

The study was based on the following research questions:

a. Is there an association between school type (private or public) and gender-based performance in STEM courses for secondary school learners in Mbeya City?
b. Do girls and boys perform differently in STEM subjects within private and public secondary schools?

Hypotheses

In order to answer the research questions above, the following null and alternative hypotheses were developed:

H₀: Gender is not significantly related to performance in STEM courses for private/public secondary school students.

H₁: Gender is significantly related to performance in STEM courses for private/public secondary school students.

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.

Scope of the study

The use of a comparative observation design in this research, based on secondary examination data, indicates that the results generated should not be taken as an indication of causality, but as descriptive correlations between variables under investigation.

Data source and summary

The data were obtained from the NECTA of CSEE for the year 2022 report by selecting all secondary schools in Mbeya City that participated in the Form Four national examinations. The schools were categorized into private and public groups, as presented in Table 3 and Table 4 showing the numbers of girls and boys in each STEM subject.

Table 3. 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

Table 4. 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

The researcher extracted, processed, and analyzed the data using chi-square tests, and further examined subject-wise performance trends through bar charts presented in Figure 1 and Figure 2.

Figure 2. CSEE 2022 results of STEM subjects of public school in Mbeya city.

Data analysis

The chi-square test of independence was employed to examine whether gender and STEM subject performance were significantly associated within private and public secondary schools. 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 ( $H_{1}$ ):

$H_{0}$ : Among students in private secondary schools in Mbeya City, there is no significant association between gender and performance in STEM subjects.

$H_{1}$ : Among students in private secondary schools in Mbeya City, there is a significant association between gender and performance in STEM subjects.

Step 2: State the confidence interval: $\propto = 0.05$

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 $χ^{2} = \sum \frac{{(f_{0} - f_{e})}^{2}}{f_{e}}$ , where $f_{e} = \sum \frac{f_{c} f_{r}}{n}$ 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} = \frac{(2028 * 1136)}{2232} = 1032

χ_{pr}^{2} = \sum \frac{{(f_{0} - f_{e})}^{2}}{f_{e}}

χ_{pr}^{2} = \frac{{(1020 - 1032)}^{2}}{1032} + \frac{{(1008 - 996)}^{2}}{996} + \frac{{(549 - 544)}^{2}}{544} + \frac{{(520 - 525)}^{2}}{525} + \frac{{(392 - 412)}^{2}}{412} + \frac{{(417 - 398)}^{2}}{398} + \frac{{(626 - 601)}^{2}}{601} + \frac{{(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, $χ_{pr}^{2} = \sum \frac{{(f_{0} - f_{e})}^{2}}{f_{e}} = 318.33425$ for Table 4. However, $χ_{pr}^{2} = 4.28 < 7.81473 = p$ . Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis.

Analysis of STEM prospects

The author further identified students who obtained at least a grade D pass (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 chi-square test results revealed variations in gender-based STEM achievement between private and public institutions. In the case of private institutions, the calculated value of chi-square was χ² = 4.28, which was lower than the critical value of 7.81 at the 0.05 significance level. In public institutions, the calculated value of chi-square was χ² = 318.33, which was higher than the critical value. It implies that the extent of gender-based differences in STEM achievement was significantly higher in public schools than private schools.

Furthermore, the descriptive test results revealed that private schools exhibited relatively higher female participation and better performance in STEM subjects than 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).

Table 5. 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.

Table 6. 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

According to the research results, the private institutions showed less significant gender differences in terms of STEM academic success than the public institutions. The reasons why such gender differences were observed might involve various differences in educational environment, access to resources, institutions’ practices, etc. These research results correspond with the previous studies that underline the importance of institutional factors for STEM participation.

It is important to note that since the research design used was that of an observation comparison, the results obtained should not be regarded as a cause-effect relationship.

Therefore, private schools in Mbeya city demonstrated smaller gender disparities in STEM performance compared to public schools. On the other hand, equitable STEM participation are unresolved between girls and boys performance for public schools. This pattern may contribute to future female participation in STEM career pathways.

This study provides evidence that may inform education policy and collaboration between public and private schools. Furthermore, the findings suggest an association between private school ownership and improved gender equity outcomes in STEM subjects This pattern may contribute to future gender disparities in STEM career pathways. The findings suggest an association between private school ownership and improved gender equity outcomes in STEM subjects. This pattern may contribute to future gender disparities in STEM career pathways. This study provides evidence that may inform education policy and collaboration between public and private schools through collaborative engagements. The findings indicate that performance in physics and basic mathematics is strongly associated with STEM career prospects further analyzed improved substantial The findings indicate, this study aims to encourage policymakers to strengthen collaborative policy mechanisms and support privately owned schools in expanding STEM enrollment opportunities. This is in parallel with the implementation of SDG4 realization in 2030. The findings indicate that performance in physics and basic mathematics is strongly associated with STEM career prospects ( Table 5, Table 6).

Conclusion

According to the findings obtained from this study, private institutions demonstrated comparatively more strength than public institutions in female participation and achievements in STEM. It is, therefore, evident that collaboration among policymakers, public institutions, and private institutions could be employed to bridge the gender gap in STEM education and towards the attainment of the SDG4. Collaborative activities that could be employed include training of teachers through joint training workshops, use of laboratories and other learning resources by the two institutions, mentoring of girls, and exchange of academic practices. Besides, there needs to be intervention activities that would enhance girls' performance in mathematics and physics. Furthermore, it is necessary for all parties involved in STEM education to acknowledge the increasing importance of STEM careers in the 21st-century economy and the need for studies in physics and fundamental mathematics. It should be noted that basic mathematics alone does not prepare individuals for STEM careers.

Recommendations and limitations

Recommendation

This study highlights the need for further investigation into the contextual factors associated with differences in STEM enrollment and performance outcomes between private and public schools within the same regional setting. While school ownership was examined as an institutional factor, the observed outcomes may also reflect broader contextual influences such as learning environments, resource availability, parental support, academic support systems, socioeconomic conditions, and prevailing gender norms. Future research employing qualitative or mixed-method approaches may provide deeper understanding of how these contextual factors interact with school ownership to influence gender-related STEM outcomes. Such investigations may generate valuable insights to inform evidence-based strategies for improving STEM education outcomes and reducing gender disparities in public schools.

Limitations

This study examined school ownership as an institutional factor associated with gender-related enrollment and performance outcomes in STEM subjects. The observed differences between private and public schools may reflect broader contextual conditions commonly associated with school ownership, including variation in learning environments, resource availability, parental support, socioeconomic background, academic support systems, and prevailing gender norms. However, because the analysis was based on secondary examination data, these contextual variables were not independently measured or statistically controlled. Consequently, the findings should be interpreted as descriptive associations between school ownership and STEM-related outcomes rather than direct causal effects of school ownership itself. Future studies employing qualitative, longitudinal, or mixed-method approaches may provide deeper understanding of the contextual mechanisms influencing gender equity in STEM education.

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 landed me 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. Publisher Full Text
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. Publisher Full Text
Allen M, Webb AW, Matthews CE: Adaptive teaching in STEM: Characteristics for effectiveness. Theory Pract. 2016; 55(3): 217–224. Publisher Full Text
Budhwar PS, Sparrow PR: An integrative framework for understanding cross-national human resource management practices. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2002; 12(3): 377–403. Publisher Full Text
Huang X, Erduran S, Zhang P, et al.: Enhancing teachers’ STEM understanding through observation, discussion and reflection. J. Educ. Teach. 2022; 48(5): 576–591. Publisher Full Text
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. Publisher Full Text
Komba AA: Educational accountability relationships and students’ learning outcomes in Tanzania’s public schools. SAGE Open. 2017; 7(3): 215824401772579. Publisher Full Text
Leal Filho W, Kovaleva M, Tsani S, et al.: 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. Publisher Full Text
Loyalka P, Liu OL, Li G, et al.: Skill levels and gains in university STEM education in China, India, Russia and the United States. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2021; 5(7): 892–904. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Samoff J: School expansion in Tanzania: Private initiatives and public policy. Comp. Educ. Rev. 1987; 31(3): 333–360. Publisher Full Text
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. Publisher Full Text
Stromquist NP: Gender, education and the possibility of transformative knowledge. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education. 2006; 36(2): 145–161. Publisher Full Text
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. Publisher Full Text
Teo TW, Ke KJ: Challenges in STEM teaching: Implication for preservice and in service teacher education program. Theory Pract. 2014; 53(1): 18–24. Publisher Full Text
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. Publisher Full Text
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. Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 3

VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 31 Oct 2023

Author details Author details

Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Mbeya University of Science and Technology, Mbeya, Mbeya Region, 00255, Tanzania

Isack Ephraim Kibona
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Article Versions (3)

version 3

Revised

Published: 08 Jun 2026, 12:1423

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.137430.3

version 2

Revised

Published: 21 Oct 2025, 12:1423

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.137430.2

version 1

Published: 31 Oct 2023, 12:1423

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.137430.1

© 2026 Kibona IE. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Kibona IE. Enhancing Gender Equity in STEM Education: A Comparative Study of the Impact of School Ownership on Female Enrollment [version 3; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2026, 12:1423 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.137430.3)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 2

VERSION 2

PUBLISHED 21 Oct 2025

Revised

Views

Reviewer Report 30 Dec 2025

Maria F Vieira, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

Not Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.189850.r438302

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

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

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
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

No

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

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.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 08 Jun 2026

Isack Ephraim Kibona, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Mbeya University of Science and Technology, Mbeya, 00255, Tanzania

08 Jun 2026

Author Response
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, ... Continue reading
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.
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.
Competing Interests: The author declares no competing interest Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 08 Jun 2026

Isack Ephraim Kibona, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Mbeya University of Science and Technology, Mbeya, 00255, Tanzania

08 Jun 2026

Author Response
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, ... Continue reading
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.
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.
Competing Interests: The author declares no competing interest Close
Report a concern

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 31 Oct 2023

Views

Reviewer Report 10 Sep 2025

Uchenna Kingsley Okeke, University of Johannesburg, Auckland Park, Gauteng, South Africa

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.150590.r404704

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

No
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
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
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

No

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

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.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 20 May 2026

Isack Ephraim Kibona, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Mbeya University of Science and Technology, Mbeya, 00255, Tanzania

20 May 2026

Author Response

TITLE: Enhancing Gender Equity in STEM Education: A Comparative Study of the Impact of School Ownership on Females' Enrollment in STEM
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
TITLE: Enhancing Gender Equity in STEM Education: A Comparative Study of the Impact of School Ownership on Females' Enrollment in STEM
TITLE: Enhancing Gender Equity in STEM Education: A Comparative Study of the Impact of School Ownership on Females' Enrollment in STEM
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 20 May 2026

Isack Ephraim Kibona, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Mbeya University of Science and Technology, Mbeya, 00255, Tanzania

20 May 2026

Author Response

TITLE: Enhancing Gender Equity in STEM Education: A Comparative Study of the Impact of School Ownership on Females' Enrollment in STEM
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
TITLE: Enhancing Gender Equity in STEM Education: A Comparative Study of the Impact of School Ownership on Females' Enrollment in STEM
TITLE: Enhancing Gender Equity in STEM Education: A Comparative Study of the Impact of School Ownership on Females' Enrollment in STEM
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 22 Feb 2024

María Goretti Alonso de Castro, Regional Council of Education, Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.150590.r242769

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

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

Partly
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
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Education, Technology, ICT, Educational European projects; Educational Inspection

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 13 Apr 2024

Isack Ephraim Kibona, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Mbeya University of Science and Technology, Mbeya, 00255, Tanzania

13 Apr 2024

Author Response

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 ... Continue reading 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.
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.
Competing Interests: No competing interests available to this review process. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 13 Apr 2024

Isack Ephraim Kibona, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Mbeya University of Science and Technology, Mbeya, 00255, Tanzania

13 Apr 2024

Author Response

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 ... Continue reading 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.
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.
Competing Interests: No competing interests available to this review process. Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 3

VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 31 Oct 2023

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2	3
Version 3 (revision) 08 Jun 26
Version 2 (revision) 21 Oct 25			read
Version 1 31 Oct 23	read	read

María Goretti Alonso de Castro, Regional Council of Education, Alcalá de Henares, Spain
Uchenna Kingsley Okeke, University of Johannesburg, Auckland Park, South Africa
Maria F Vieira, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

12 Views

30 Dec 2025 | for Version 2

Maria F Vieira, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

12 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Not Approved

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

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

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

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
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

No

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Gender equity in STEM

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

08 Jun 2026

Isack Ephraim Kibona, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Mbeya University of Science and Technology, Mbeya, 00255, Tanzania

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.

View more View less

Competing Interests

The author declares no competing interest

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

14 Views

10 Sep 2025 | for Version 1

Uchenna Kingsley Okeke, University of Johannesburg, Auckland Park, Gauteng, South Africa

14 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

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

No
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

No
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
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
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

No

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Physics education, gender inclusivity, science pedagogy

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

24 Views

22 Feb 2024 | for Version 1

María Goretti Alonso de Castro, Regional Council of Education, Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain

24 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

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

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

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

Partly
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
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

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

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

13 Apr 2024

Isack Ephraim Kibona, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Mbeya University of Science and Technology, Mbeya, 00255, Tanzania

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.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests available to this review process.

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] 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. Publisher Full Text

[2] 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. Publisher Full Text

[3] Allen M, Webb AW, Matthews CE: Adaptive teaching in STEM: Characteristics for effectiveness. Theory Pract. 2016; 55(3): 217–224. Publisher Full Text

[4] Budhwar PS, Sparrow PR: An integrative framework for understanding cross-national human resource management practices. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2002; 12(3): 377–403. Publisher Full Text

[5] Huang X, Erduran S, Zhang P, et al.: Enhancing teachers’ STEM understanding through observation, discussion and reflection. J. Educ. Teach. 2022; 48(5): 576–591. Publisher Full Text

[6] Ismail Z: Benefits of STEM education.2018.

[7] Kamberidou I, Pascall N: The digital skills crisis: Engendering technology–empowering women in cyberspace. European Journal of Social Sciences Studies. 2019.

[8] Koehler G: Tapping the Sustainable Development Goals for progressive gender equity and equality policy? Gend. Dev. 2016; 24(1): 53–68. Publisher Full Text

[9] Komba AA: Educational accountability relationships and students’ learning outcomes in Tanzania’s public schools. SAGE Open. 2017; 7(3): 215824401772579. Publisher Full Text

[10] Leal Filho W, Kovaleva M, Tsani S, et al.: Promoting gender equality across the sustainable development goals. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2022; 1–22.

[11] Lewin KM: Access to education in sub-Saharan Africa: Patterns, problems and possibilities. Comp. Educ. 2009; 45(2): 151–174. Publisher Full Text

[12] Loyalka P, Liu OL, Li G, et al.: Skill levels and gains in university STEM education in China, India, Russia and the United States. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2021; 5(7): 892–904. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[13] Samoff J: School expansion in Tanzania: Private initiatives and public policy. Comp. Educ. Rev. 1987; 31(3): 333–360. Publisher Full Text

[14] 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. Publisher Full Text

[15] Stromquist NP: Gender, education and the possibility of transformative knowledge. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education. 2006; 36(2): 145–161. Publisher Full Text

[16] 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. Publisher Full Text

[17] Teo TW, Ke KJ: Challenges in STEM teaching: Implication for preservice and in service teacher education program. Theory Pract. 2014; 53(1): 18–24. Publisher Full Text

[18] Unicef & others: A rigorous review of global research evidence on policy and practice on school-related gender-based violence.2020.

[19] Unterhalter E: The many meanings of quality education: Politics of targets and indicators in SDG 4. Global Pol. 2019; 10: 39–51. Publisher Full Text

[20] Weaver NE: Educational policy in Tanzania from independence to the present: Continuity and transformation. University of Pittsburgh; 2011. [PhD Thesis].

[21] Zorzano M-P: Gender balance in Mars exploration: Lessons learned from the Mars Science Laboratory. Sustainability. 2020; 12(24): 10658. Publisher Full Text

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

Abstract

Keywords

Revised Amendments from Version 2

Introduction

Table 1. CSEE results of the 32 private schools in Mbeya city.

Table 2. CSEE results of the 26 public schools in Mbeya city.

Figure 1. CSEE 2022 results of STEM subjects in private schools.

Objective

Methods

Research questions

Hypotheses

Scope of the study

Data source and summary

Table 3. CSEE 2022 results of the STEM subjects in 32 private secondary schools. (Source: NECTA 2022).

Table 4. CSEE Students performance of 26 public schools in STEM subjects.

Figure 2. CSEE 2022 results of STEM subjects of public school in Mbeya city.

Data analysis

Analysis of STEM prospects

Results

Impact of performance of STEM subjects in STEM education prospects

Table 5. Estimated CSEE 2022 candidates to enter STEM career or major science from 32 private schools.

Table 6. Estimated CSEE 2022 candidates to enter STEM career or major science from 26 public schools.

Discussion

Conclusion

Recommendations and limitations

Recommendation

Limitations

Data availability

Acknowledgements

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated