Writing attainment in 9- to 11-year-olds: some differences between girls and boys in two genres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gender differences in the imaginative narrative and persuasive description writing of a sample of Year 5 (9- to 10-year-old) children were investigated using a standardised test and a repeat design, with the same tasks being undertaken a year later. The texts were analysed using test guidelines and genre-specific rating scales derived from the relevant literature. Differences in writing attainment were found to exist, with boys generally performing less well than girls. In the five constituents of writing assessed by the test, girls scored significantly higher in four in both years. Boys did not score significantly higher than girls in any constituent in either year. However, boys wrote significantly more in Year 6 than they had written in Year 5, and this may reflect increases in handwriting attainment. Boys’ under-attainment was less pronounced in the persuasive description writing, and they scored significantly higher than girls in Year 5 in three features of this writing. Although a subgroup of the highest-attaining children contained more girls than boys, a detailed analysis did not indicate any girl–boy differences in textual effectiveness, content or language use. Some possible implications for practice and suggestions for further research are provided.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".