Fighting STEM Stereotypes in Adolescence: The Role of Spatial Skills, Identity, and Digital Interventions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of „Closing the gender gap in STEM careers: fighting stereotypes of girls with VR” manuscript

The manuscript makes a number of valuable and important observations regarding the role of gender stereotypes in STEM careers. Nevertheless, a few critical comments can be made.

One of the main points of criticism is that although the author lists 118 references and refers to them in the manuscript, it is precisely the research, results, and cases found in these sources that are missing to support the author's argument. In most cases, the author makes a statement and refers to a few sources where research on the issue has been conducted, but does not provide specific examples.

The study emphasizes the importance of early intervention to eliminate gender inequality in STEM fields, which is an extremely important proactive approach. In addition, the manuscript addresses the cultural and historical influences that have led to girls being marginalized in STEM fields. Among other things, it highlights that in Western countries, boys outperform girls in spatial abilities, but in other cultures, these abilities are equally present in boys and girls, and in some cases, girls even outperform boys. However, it is not clear which cultures are being referred to, even though this would add a very interesting perspective to the manuscript. References to this cultural difference appear in several places in the manuscript. It would improve the clarity of the manuscript if it mentioned a few cultures where these stereotypes do not apply.

The manuscript also discusses how cultural stereotypes (which result in girls effectively excluding themselves from PEC careers) could be reduced through educational reforms. Are there any examples of such programs with positive outcomes? What programs and strategies have successfully changed these perceptions?

The author also discusses the role of VR and AI as innovative potential tools for developing spatial learning, but only mentions this in passing. It would be useful to read more examples of how these technologies have been integrated into the educational environment to develop spatial skills. At the same time, it should not be forgotten that although innovative technologies can improve spatial thinking and learning, focusing on technologies may overlook the need for possible social changes and a systemic approach to the problem (different cultural contexts!). Thus, the generalizability of the results is limited, which needs to be addressed.

The manuscript draws attention to the collaboration between educators and researchers, which can be a significant step forward in developing appropriate teaching methods through the sharing of experiences. What methods are involved and how can they be applied in practice in classrooms?

The manuscript also discusses how gender differences appear in the solving of spatial tasks. Men and women approach spatial tasks differently: "different brain regions seem to support different ways of solving spatial tasks." How can these differences be exploited and incorporated into the learning environment?

Comments on the structure of the article:

The genre of the article is difficult to define. Is it a review article? If so, it should follow the formal and content requirements expected of a literary review. Currently, the logic behind the structure of the individual chapters is not entirely clear.

The testimonial does indeed support the manuscript's argument and makes the problem raised seem real, but it is unnecessary to go into such detail about Sheryl Sorby's case. Similarly, such a detailed description of mental rotation tests is unnecessary. The space thus freed up could be filled with missing examples, good practices, and case studies.

Finally, it should be noted that the title needs to be changed, as only a small part of the article deals with the potential uses of VR technology for girls, and this is not the main focus of the article.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is good, but it needs some editing.

Author Response

To Reviewer 1.

First of all, thank you very much for your comments, which I found very helpful. I recognize that the article is not a review, but rather an insistence on a specific, often uncomfortable, topic that is frequently ignored. For this reason, I presented it as a "Communication."

I answer your suggestions and criticisms trying to maintain the same order in which you have made them.

1- I have included more specific examples in the new version of the manuscript, which is restructured. I hope these examples will enhance it (Table 1 on page 4). These examples fundamentally show the superiority of AR over other more traditional methodologies.

2- Related to the previous point, practices and methodologies (again, specific examples) are also presented from countries where no gender bias is found (page 3, last paragraphs).

3- Related to concrete practices or programs that demonstrate how stereotypes regarding disciplines and technical careers can be changed, I hope the reference to the manuscript by Prieto et al. can help (it is reference [14] in the manuscript, mainly mentioned on page 7, immediately before Section 5. "Could new...").

4- Related to the previous points, I also present examples of how new technologies (specifically AR) can improve spatial abilities (again Table 1 on page 4). I have specifically focused on the work carried out by Rossano et al. (reference 26 in this manuscript) and propose a "game" for young adolescents based on this manuscript (see the end of page 7 and the beginning of page 8).

5- On page 10 (under Conclusions), I now highlight the importance of peer-to-peer conversations (crucial among adolescents), during the intercultural exchanges.

6- Yes, indeed, "different brain regions appear to support different ways of solving spatial tasks.But the most important thing of all is to keep in mind what's best for young people, given the malleability of the brain, especially during childhood and adolescence. I believe I emphasize this idea on page 9, at the end of the second paragraph of section 6, "Discussion."

7- On page 3 (second paragraph), I have reduced the length of Sheryl Sorby's case, although I still emphasize the importance of her testimony. Immediately below, I have discussed three-dimensional geometry learning opinions that, I think, support Sorby's testimony.

8- On page 5, I've also reduced the length of the mental rotation tests.

9- I have changed the title of the manuscript and adopted the one suggested by Reviewer 3, which I found very good (New title: “Fighting STEM Stereotypes in Adolescence: The Role of Spatial Skills, Identity, and Digital Interventions”).

10- Finally, I would like to comment that I have also reduced the number of bibliographical references related to childhood, since I am referring to a work that has just been published where they are emphasized excessively (reference [9]). Now the present work focuses more on adolescence and pre-adolescence.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a strong case for using VR and AI to reduce the gender gap in STEM through targeted development of spatial abilities in girls.

The introduction offers a clear, well-supported background of the gender disparity in STEM. It contextualizes the issue historically, socially, and cognitively. References are broad and recent (e.g., PISA reports, key meta-analyses).

The paper is primarily a communication and theoretical review, not an empirical study. Thus, it lacks a formal experimental or research design. However, it effectively presents existing evidence and suggests new directions using VR and AI tools. A clearer methodological framework for proposed interventions would strengthen the work.

Since no original empirical study is reported, there is no methods section per se. The paper does reference many intervention studies, but details (sample sizes, controls, outcomes) are often lacking. If the article aims to be considered a research contribution, some structured methodology or meta-analytical synthesis would be necessary.

As a review paper, it does not report novel data. However, the discussion of results from past studies is well-organized and thematically grouped (e.g., spatial ability, adolescence, VR interventions). Some figures (e.g., orthogonal projections) help convey key concepts. Clarifying how the reviewed evidence supports the overall argument would improve cohesion.

The conclusions are coherent with the reviewed evidence: that spatial abilities are crucial for STEM, that girls can develop them, and that VR/AI can support this. The call for early intervention is justified and effectively argued.

Figures (e.g., spatial visualization tests) are clear, illustrative, and relevant. The paper would benefit from summarizing some findings in a table format (e.g., types of interventions and their outcomes).

The article cites a comprehensive, interdisciplinary mix of psychology, education, neuroscience, and technology studies. Sources are current and include foundational studies and recent meta-analyses.

Additional suggestions:

• Consider providing a structured summary table of interventions.
• If aiming for greater scientific rigor, outline a proposed empirical study or pilot implementation.
• Clarify the target audience (educators? policymakers? developers?) to sharpen the paper's practical impact.

Author Response

To Reviewer 2.

First of all, thank you very much for your comments, which I found very helpful.

I answer your suggestions and criticisms trying to maintain, more or less, the same order in which you have made them.

1- Following your suggestion, I have included Table 1 (on page 4), and the new version of the manuscript is restructured. I hope the examples of this table will enhance the manuscript. They fundamentally show the superiority of AR over other more traditional methodologies when geometry learning.

 

2- On page 4, I have specifically focused on the work carried out by Rossano et al. (reference 26 in this manuscript) and I propose a sort of game for young adolescents based on their manuscript (see the end of page 7 and the beginning of page 8). The aim of this proposal has been to create a clearer methodological framework, in which the girls themselves are the protagonists. The game could be considered a possible pilot application carried out by the girls themselves.

3- I hope that the examples presented in Table 1 help reinforce my arguments, as well as the game proposed.

4- Given the journal, Virtual Worlds, I believe the target audience would primarily be educational content creators. But I believe teamwork with educators and, if possible, politicians is essential.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper addresses an important and timely topic: the persistence of gender-based stereotypes in STEM education, particularly during adolescence. It provides a well-structured overview of developmental, cognitive, and sociocultural factors contributing to gender disparities, especially in spatial reasoning. The paper also explores the potential of emerging technologies, such as virtual reality and AI-assisted intercultural exchanges, to mitigate these disparities. However, I suggest the author consider several segments for improvement to enhance the clarity and impact of the work:

• I propose revising the current title to Fighting STEM Stereotypes in Adolescence: The Role of Spatial Skills, Identity, and Digital Interventions, as it more accurately reflects the central themes of the paper, including the developmental challenges of adolescence, the impact of gendered spatial abilities, and the potential of emerging technologies to promote equity in STEM education.
• While this is primarily a review paper, some interventions are only briefly referenced. Adding more concrete examples (e.g., duration, population, outcomes) would strengthen the reader’s understanding of efficacy
• While the focus on Western countries is understandable, a deeper exploration of the educational or sociocultural practices in countries where girls outperform boys in spatial reasoning (as mentioned) would add valuable contrast.
• The paper notes that some interventions have only short-term effects. I recommend placing more emphasis on strategies for sustaining change.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

To Reviewer 3.

First of all, thank you very much for your comments, which I found very helpful.

I answer your suggestions and criticisms trying to maintain, more or less, the same order in which you have made them.

1- Following your criticism, I have changed the title of the manuscript and adopted the one you suggested, which I found very good (New title: “Fighting STEM Stereotypes in Adolescence: The Role of Spatial Skills, Identity, and Digital Interventions”). Thank you very much.

2- I have included Table 1 (on page 4), and the new version of the manuscript is restructured. I hope the examples of this table will enhance the manuscript. They fundamentally show the superiority of AR over other more traditional methodologies when geometry learning.

3- Related with point 2, on page 4, I have specifically focused on the work carried out by Rossano et al. (reference 26 in this manuscript) and I propose a sort of game for young adolescents based on their manuscript (see the end of page 7 and the beginning of page 8). The game could be considered a possible pilot application carried out by the girls themselves.

 

4- I hope that the examples presented in Table 1 help reinforce my arguments, as well as the game proposed. I've tried to explore the curricula of Asian countries further, and the topic is not only complicated but also contradictory. It requires an in-depth study, which I believe is beyond the scope of this manuscript. I'm truly sorry.

 

5- Regarding strategies for maintaining change, I cite the work of Prieto et al. [14] (mainly on page 7). As indicated in that work, there are few longitudinal studies that allow us to speak with foundation.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the author's responses. The author has made the requested changes, and I accept them. I have just a few more comments.

On gender differences in solving spatial tasks: I agree with the author's argument that the emphasis here is primarily on the malleability of the brain during adolescence. Nevertheless, the question remains as to how these natural abilities can be utilized, i.e., how the different approaches that arise when solving spatial tasks can be exploited. How can the advantages of different gender approaches be incorporated into the learning environment?

Another suggestion is that the Conclusion should no longer contain references. Here, we are primarily interested in the conclusions reached by the author herself and her contribution to the topic.

Author Response

Again, thank you very much for your very helpful comments.

1- To the question of how to take advantage of boys' and girls' different natural abilities to solve spatial tasks and how to incorporate the advantages of different approaches into the learning environment, I must answer that, frankly, I don't know. I recognize that it's a very good question, with important implications. It certainly deserves deep reflection!

2- I will remove references from the final conclusions. Thank you for your suggestion.

3- Finally, I have added Table 2 (which contains a selection of ten papers that emphasise the importance of mental rotation, MR, in spatial abilities) to the manuscript, at the end of section 3 Spatial abilities and mental rotation tests, in order to bring my conclusions clearer.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is necessary to present the conclusions and future research, and not to cite other authors in the Conclusions.

Author Response

Again, thank you very much for your very helpful comments.

1- I have removed references from the final conclusions. Thank you for your suggestion.

2- I have added Table 2 (which contains a selection of ten papers that emphasise the importance of mental rotation, MR, in spatial tasks) to the manuscript, at the end of section 3 Spatial abilities and mental rotation tests, in order to bring my statements clearer.