Boys' Lack of Interest in Fine Arts in a Coeducational Setting: A Review of Sex‐Related Cognitive Traits Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Fine arts teachers' concerns about male underachievement in a Quebec coeducational high school, and a related survey showing boys' negative perceptions of fine arts motivated this interdisciplinary literature review. Referring to biology and cognitive science, the article explores concepts of sex‐related cognitive traits to help in designing sex‐adapted approaches to individual learning in art education. The nature‐nurture controversy still surrounds sex‐based cognitive differences studies, though science agrees that natural and socio‐cultural factors are somehow closely interwoven in the complex gender identity construction process. Sex‐related biological predispositions influencing cognition are proposed notably in ‘instrumentality‐expressiveness' and ‘empathising‐systemising (E‐S)’ theories. The article suggests that in the context of art education, these sex‐related cognitive models deserve study, because they could initiate sex‐adapted teaching strategies with the necessary flexibility and wider scope to overcome gender‐stereotyped biases and stimulate boys' interest in the arts. This suggested approach should not be confused with stereotype‐based pedagogy, which merely strengthens learned gender characteristics, producing or maintaining academic underachievement.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".