1. Audit who gets to do the work

If girls speak less or handle fewer materials in a mathematics or science class, do not interpret the pattern as proof of lower interest or ability. Observe who is called on, who explains a solution, who operates equipment, and who is assigned note-taking or assembly. These routines shape access to practice. A teacher can use a simple participation log during discussion or lab work to locate where opportunities are uneven.

2. Communicate confidence through instruction

The IES guide encourages teachers to convey confidence in girls’ mathematical and scientific ability and to support their participation. Respond to the reasoning a student used, not only whether the first answer was correct: point out a useful diagram, a revision after new evidence, or a clear justification. When a task is difficult, offer a next step such as comparing two representations rather than lowering the intellectual demand or implying that struggle reflects innate talent.

3. Share authentic inquiry and varied role models

In a lab, rotate who predicts, handles instruments, records observations, and presents an explanation so each student practices the central work. Introduce women working in different STEM fields through the questions and methods of their research, not only as exceptional biographies. Role models can make participation imaginable, but they do not compensate for classroom patterns that reserve equipment, advanced tasks, or teacher attention for a subset of students.

4. WWC expert-panel perspective: What the WWC guide says—and how strong the evidence is

The WWC guide Encouraging Girls in Math and Science offers classroom recommendations spanning kindergarten through postsecondary grades. Teaching that ability can grow, providing informational feedback, and fostering curiosity are rated moderate evidence; role models and spatial-skills training are rated minimal. The participation audit and role rotation suggested here are practical ways to examine equitable access, not experimental findings that establish the cause of a gender gap or guarantee an effect.

5. Scope of the UNESCO STEM report

UNESCO’s 2017 report Cracking the Code synthesizes cross-national data and research on factors affecting girls’ and women’s participation, achievement, and persistence in STEM. It is not a National Academies report, and it is not a trial establishing the causal effect of a particular classroom strategy. It supplies international context and policy implications; the strength of evidence for specific classroom recommendations is described separately in the WWC guide.

Sources: WWC | Encouraging Girls in Math and Science · Cracking the Code: Girls’ and Women’s Education in STEM