Reviews and analysis of EdTech platforms and curricula for girls in STEM — assessed against the evidence on what works for engagement and persistence.
An educator's assessment of Brilliant.org as a STEM learning tool for girls and women — what the platform teaches, how its pedagogy differs from other EdTech tools, pricing, accessibility, and whether it's an effective supplement to formal education for women-in-STEM programs.
An educator's guide to the Girls Who Code curriculum — the free curriculum packages for Summer Immersion Programs, After School Clubs, and Campus Chapters, what they teach, how to get started, and how to evaluate whether the program fits your school's needs.
An educator's guide to Google's free CS education tools — CS First, Applied Digital Skills, and Google for Education — as resources for girls' STEM programming. What each tool teaches, how they align with girls-in-STEM pedagogy, and how educators can integrate them.
Black Girls Code was founded in April 2011 by Kimberly Bryant. This retrospective examines the organisation's decade of expansion — from one city to multiple chapters — its curriculum model, and what evidence exists about whether BGC participants persist in CS at higher rates.
By 2019, Brilliant.org had established itself as a rigorous self-paced STEM platform. This review examines whether its problem-based, non-video approach serves girls' STEM development differently from Khan Academy, using available engagement and retention research.
Code.org was founded in 2013; by 2017 it had placed CS curriculum in 40% of US K-12 schools. This analysis examines Code.org's gender data — whether its reach was translating into increased girls' persistence in CS beyond introductory exposure.
A critical assessment of Girls Who Code's 2012 launch — examining its stated curriculum goals, its focus on underserved US girls, and what an international-STEM-access lens reveals about its scope and limitations.