What We Talk about What We Talk about Gender-Inclusive Language: Teaching and Learning the Singular “They” in the First-Year Writing Classroom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past decade, interest in the singular “they” has burgeoned in scholarly venues and mainstream media, but writing studies scholars are surprisingly absent in these conversations. To contribute a writing studies perspective, I studied the impact, value, and challenges of teaching this gender-inclusive pronoun in three sections of my institution’s required first-year writing course. I found that, prior to instruction on gender-inclusive language, students used the singular “they” liberally and were not aware of how gender-inclusive they were in their writing and speaking. After learning multiple gender-inclusive writing strategies, students indicated increased awareness of their own use of gender-inclusive language, interest in using it, confidence in their ability to use it, and appreciation of its relevance to their own lives. They preferred the singular “they” over other gender-inclusive writing strategies. My study concludes that, in addition to students’ work, their self-assessments are a vital, complementary source of information for assessing the value, impact, and challenges of teaching gender-inclusive language, as the nexus of perceived use, interest, ability, and relevance drives whether students will transfer their learning to other contexts. These findings may also be relevant to teaching other forms of inclusive, bias-free language in writing courses.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".