Background This study investigates gender differences in narrative writing among primary school students to promote inclusive education, as narrative writing reflects embedded gender norms that influence literacy development and classroom equity. By examining these differences, this study aims to highlight how gender stereotypes can marginalize certain narrative styles and inform pedagogical strategies for Indonesian schools. Methods This qualitative case study with quantitative analysis examined 33 handwritten narratives from fifth-grade students (12 boys, 21 girls) and interviews with 10 students. SES data were collected through a parent questionnaire covering education, occupation, and home literacy environment. Two blind raters evaluated the narratives, with moderate inter-rater reliability (Cohen’s κ = 0.434). Thematic analysis was supplemented with t-tests and Pearson correlations to examine gender differences and the relationship between SES and narrative quality. Results The results showed that female students excelled notably in organization (mean score 18,4 vs. 15,1 for males), grammar (9,95 vs. 8,15), and writing conventions (2,7 vs. 2,2), indicating greater coherence, grammatical accuracy, and technical precision in their narratives. In contrast, male students scored slightly higher on content (26 vs. 25,3), driven by a marginally higher focus on characterization, though females led in plot complexity and setting detail. Language scores were comparable between genders. The overall final narrative score favored females (68,95 vs. 63,95). Correlation analysis revealed significant relationships between maternal education, home literacy environment, and narrative quality. Conclusions Gender stereotypes shape literacy practices and may perpetuate educational inequalities. The study recommends gender-sensitive rubrics, cross-gender writing exercises, and teacher training to support inclusive education that validates diverse student voices.
Anggraeni et al. (Sat,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: