Skip to main content

Rapid decline and gender disparities in the NAPLAN writing data

Abstract

The rapid decline in Australian students’ performance on the National Assessment ProgramLiteracy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) writing test is an issue of national concern. This paper presents the first investigation into patterns of achievement and progress on the NAPLAN writing test across the tested year levels (3, 5, 7 and 9) between 2011 and 2018, with a focus on gender differences. The findings reveal a considerable decline in writing performance for both genders over time, with a major disparity of up to 2 years of learning in test outcomes between male and female students. While performance of girls exceeded year-level standards when averaged over the 8 years, the average performance of boys was consistently below standards, with male students falling further behind female students across the school years. Yet average scores for both genders have declined significantly since 2011. Drawing on current international research into the teaching of writing and standardised writing tests, the paper considers two possible causes for this decline which are often communicated by education stakeholders: ineffective writing instruction, and issues with the design and implementation of the NAPLAN writing test. The paper calls for a national conversation about how we might effectively teach and assess writing.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

References

  • Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. A. (2011). A snapshot of writing instruction in middle schools and high schools. English Journal, 100(6), 14–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2011). NAPLAN—General. Retrieved June 10, 2019 from https://bit.ly/1Rz7SpN.

  • Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2013). NAPLAN—Persuasive writing marking guide. Retrieved June 10, 2019 from https://bit.ly/2IAq3wn.

  • Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2015). NAPLAN 2015 technical report. Retrieved June 10, 2019 from https://bit.ly/2KTXH2c.

  • Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2016a). NAPLAN writing results. Retrieved June 10, 2019 from https://bit.ly/2ucn4Cp.

  • Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2016b). What does the ICSEA value mean? Retrieved June 10, 2019 from https://bit.ly/2UUu3tV.

  • Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2016c). How to interpret? Retrieved June 10, 2019 from https://bit.ly/2vgPWsv.

  • Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2018a). NAPLANNational report for 2018. Retrieved June 10, 2019 from https://bit.ly/2vfvfND.

  • Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2018b). NAPLAN: Frequently asked questions. Retrieved June 10, 2019 from https://www.nap.edu.au/online-assessment/FAQs.

  • Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (n.d.). My school. Retrieved June 10, 2019 from https://bit.ly/1RANIpn.

  • Australian Industry Group. (2018). Skilling: A national imperative. Retrieved July 9, 2019 from https://bit.ly/2DBUWf1.

  • Bazerman, C. (Ed.). (2008). Handbook of research on writing. History, society, school, individual, text. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beard, R., Myhill, D., Riley, J., & Nystrand, M. (2009). The Sage handbook of writing development. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christie, F., & Derewianka, B. (2008). School discourse: Learning to write across the years of schooling. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, C., & Teravainen, A. (2017). Writing for enjoyment and its link to wider writing: Findings from our Annual Literacy Survey 2016. National Literacy Trust. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2LpFmGn.

  • Connelly, V., Gee, D., & Walsh, E. (2007). A comparison of keyboarded and handwritten compositions and the relationship with transcription speed. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 479–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Teacher learning that supports student learning. Teaching for Intelligence, 2(1), 91–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Exley, B. (2016). Secret squirrel stuff in the Australian Curriculum English: The genesis of the ‘new’ grammar. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 39(1), 74–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feder, K. P., & Majnemer, A. (2007). Handwriting development, competency, and intervention. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 49, 312–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrari, J. (2014, August 18). Marked down: How one tough question skewed the NAPLAN results. The Australian. Retrieved March 20, 2019 from https://bit.ly/2IOYgru.

  • Gadd, M. (2014). What is critical in the effective teaching of writing? A study of classroom practice of some Year 5 to 8 teachers in the New Zealand context. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Auckland. Auckland, New Zealand.

  • Goss, P., & Sonnemann, J. (2016). Widening gaps: What NAPLAN tells us about student progress. Retrieved August 5, 2019 from https://bit.ly/2IOXzyo.

  • Goss, P., & Sonnemann, J. (2018). Measuring student progress: A state-by-state report card. Retrieved August 5, 2019 from https://bit.ly/2UVNxy5.

  • Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2017). Evidence-based writing practices: A meta-analysis of existing meta-analyses. In R. Fidalgo & T. Olive (Eds.), Studies in writing: Design principles for teaching effective writing (pp. 13–37). Leiden: Brill.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, K., & Harding, A. (2003). A systematic review of effective literacy teaching in the 4 to 14 age range of mainstream schooling. Retrieved March 20, 2019 from https://bit.ly/2EHkb05.

  • Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). Oxon: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analysis relating to achievement. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey, S., Droga, L., & Feez, S. (2012). Grammar and meaning. Sydney, NSW: Primary English Teaching Association of Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis, C. (2019, April 13). NAPLAN results: Fewer Tasmanian students can write or spell above the national average than 2008. The Advocate. Retrieved September 25, 2019 from https://bit.ly/2XBJHeS.

  • Kiuhara, S. A., Graham, S., & Hawken, L. S. (2009). Teaching writing to high school students: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 136–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Love, K., Macken-Horarik, M., & Horarik, S. (2015). Language knowledge and its application: A snapshot of Australian teachers’ views. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 38(3), 171–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (2016). Handbook of writing research (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J. R. (1989). Factual writing: Exploring and challenging social reality (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford Univerity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGowen, M. (2018, August 28). Naplan results: Online students did better in writing test than those on paper. The Guardian. Retrieved June 20, 2019 from https://bit.ly/2LyERIY.

  • Mueller, P. A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard: Advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychological Science, 25(6), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parr, J., & Jesson, R. (2015). Mapping the landscape of writing instruction in New Zealand primary school classrooms. Reading and Writing, 29(5), 981–1011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9589-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, L. (2018). Towards a new NAPLAN: Testing to the teaching. Retrieved March 1, 2019 from https://bit.ly/2GnZolA.

  • Smith, A. (2014, August 18). Students score poorly in ‘confusing’ NAPLAN writing test. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved May 20, 2019 from https://bit.ly/2UAqBnu.

  • Thomas, D. P. (2015) Writing for change: Persuasion across the school years. PhD Dissertation. Tasmania, Australia: University of Tasmania. https://eprints.utas.edu.au/22943/. Accessed 15 May 2016.

  • US National Assessment Governing Board. (2017). Writing framework for the 2017 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Retrieved April 1, 2019 from https://bit.ly/2SKjmNc.

  • Wyatt-Smith, C., & Jackson, C. (2016). NAPLAN data on writing: A picture of accelerating negative change. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 39(3), 233–244.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Damon P. Thomas.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Thomas, D.P. Rapid decline and gender disparities in the NAPLAN writing data. Aust. Educ. Res. 47, 777–796 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-019-00366-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-019-00366-8

Keywords

  • NAPLAN
  • Writing
  • Gender
  • Writing instruction
  • Primary school
  • High school