Boys and Literacy

An edited sample of work written by Jonathan Scop, MLIS SLAIS student

Boys are falling behind

While it is well-known that success in school is influenced by socio-economic levels, and that students do better if their early years were filled with caregivers who read to them, talked to them, played with them, a new factor is emerging: girls do better in school, especially in reading and writing. Canada has one of the most educated and literate populations in the world. Statistics Canada and the Council of Ministers of Education of Canada regularly examine various educational trends. In 2006, the following statistics about Canadians were released:

• Among 4-year-olds, 78% of girls look at books daily. 64% of boys do.
• Among 5-year-olds the figures are 75% for girls, 62% for boys.
• In 2002, results of the School Achievement Indicators Program in writing were released. Educators have determined that 13-year-olds should reach “level 2” and 16-year-olds should reach “level 3.” The reality is that at age 13, 88.5% of the girls and 78.1% of the boys reached level 2. At 16, 69.4% of the girls and 52.9% of the boys reached level 3.
• Between 1992 and 2001, the percentage of undergraduates who were male dropped from 47% to 42% (Statistics Canada).

Boys not being that “into” school has become an accepted part of the culture. Spiderman’s alter ego Peter Parker struggles to keep up in the classroom, and although the Harry Potter series is set in school, it isn’t Harry or Ron who excels there, it’s Hermoine Granger, the female, the “brain” (Gurian & Stevens 11). While it is now unheard of to explain the poor performance of an English class on the basis of race, class or ethnicity, linking failure to a preponderance of boys is met with knowing glances (Smith & Wilhelm 1). Elementary-age boys are twice as likely as girls to be diagnosed with learning disabilities and placed in special classes (Tyre). One commentator analogizes the disparity in boys’ and girl’s literacy levels to that traditionally found between whites and racial or ethnic groups which have suffered systematic social and economic discrimination (Smith & Wilhelm 2).

Biological differences, cultural dilemmas

For the past few decades, there has been a move to emphasize the innate abilities of children, regardless of gender (Gurian & Stevens 41). This is a much needed improvement over “traditional” concepts, characterizing girls as being inferior to boys in many aspects, leading to rationalizations for historical and current inequalities in most societies, some of which are beginning to be corrected, but with a very long way to go. The focus has been a conscious and well-deserved turning away from concepts which attribute certain qualities as gender-based.

However, as noted above, girls and women have, quickly, not only demonstrated that they can equal boys and men in academic achievements when even a few shackles are removed, but that they easily surpass males in any number of areas. Now we are beginning to look at the way boys and girls learn, and to acknowledge major differences between the two. The aim is not to diminish opportunities for females through a return to the archaic assumptions of most of our shared history, but to examine the learning styles of boys and girls, to differentiate between what is innate and what is a product of the social environment, and hopefully to discover ways of

teaching which resonate with and nourish the markedly different ways boys and girls learn (Sax 28). It is important to keep in mind that the following generalizations may not apply to many individual males and females.

There are numerous ways in which boys’ brains are physically different than those of girls. For example, boys have more dopamine in their bloodstream, impacting the cerebellum, which controls physical action. Thus, boys are typically not well-suited to learning as a sedentary activity, but thrive more in a “doing” mode (Smith & Wilhelm 5). Generally, male brains receive information through spatial-mechanical stimulation, such as pictures, maps, diagrams and movement, more quickly than they do from words or text alone (Gurian & Stevens 46, 52).

It is now well known, even in popular culture, that the brain’s left hemisphere corresponds to verbal functions, and the right hemisphere to spatial functions like navigation and mental imagery. But now we know that while this is true for males, it applies very little or not at all to females. Neurologist Norm Geschwind theorizes that hormones cause the hemispheric specialization in male brains, and further research by Marquis Vawter suggests that these differences are genetically programmed (Sax 12, 15). There is a pronounced differences in the structure of male and female retinas, which may correspond to Connellan and Benardete’s finding that newborn girls are attracted to a stationary human face, but boys prefer a dangling, moving mobile (Sax 19-22). William Overman found that both human and monkey girls are better at discriminating among objects (“What is it?”), and boys are better at locating objects (“Where is it?”) (Sax 22). Boys’ brains generally may not produce the same volume of descriptive words as girls (Gurian & Stevens 129). Hormones complicate the disparities in adolescence. Ann Moir and David Jessel have found that during puberty, boys have up to twenty times the testosterone than girls do, which enhances spatial-mechanical development of the brain, pushing boys even further away from verbal development generally associated with reading (Gurian & Stevens 140).

The inevitability of biological influences on boys’ and girls’ behaviour continues to be debated. Cultural attitudes and norms also play a crucial role in determining learning styles, and receptivity to learning associated with literacy. According to Susan Gilbert,

“Biological differences may endow boys and girls with different strengths and weaknesses to start with, but experience shows that they don’t close doors. Boys and girls achieve the same overall scores on several different intelligence tests. It is estimated that a child’s general IQ is 30 to 40 percent inherited genetics. The remainder is shaped by the quality of life experiences.” (Booth 23)

In school, girls are generally more concerned than boys are at pleasing the teacher and following his or her example (Sax 80-81), whereas boys want to impress their peers (Booth 37). This dovetails with the validation girls get in early literacy experiences in kindergarten (Sax 95). Since girls’ fine motor skills are usually far more developed than boys’ at age five, more girls succeed in tasks such as writing letters of the alphabet, and more boys are likely to perceive, notwithstanding the teacher’s attempts to show sensitivity, that they are in the “non-achieving,” or not-quite-ready-to-read group. Deborah Stipek, School of Education Dean at Stanford University, states that such boys’ kindergarten associations of reading with failure are likely to colour their negative attitudes toward reading and school in general for years to come (Sax 96).

Smith and Wilhelm’s Reading Don’t Fix No Chevys is a thoughtful, complex and sophisticated work which starts with the author’s in-depth, structured interviews and exercises with 49 high school boys in four locations in urban and rural United States. Synthesizing past research and applying the study’s findings, the authors point out an almost “perfect storm” of variables which contribute to boys’ disinterest in reading, including:

• The focus on character development, emotional response and expressiveness in the teaching of literature runs counter to boys’ attraction to action and the linear;
• The teaching of reading is overwhelmingly predominated by females; and
• The lack of male role models who read for pleasure (Smith & Wilhelm 16).

Booth points out factors contributing to males’ distance from reading fiction, into adulthood:

• A perception that reading and physical activity are mutually exclusive;
• A rejection of fictional narrative as “feminine”;
• A characterization of reading as drudgery, akin to homework; and
• A view that interest in science and math is in opposition to fictional narrative (Booth 18).

What do boys value?

Author John Wilson suggests, with tongue in cheek, that what boys want in a book is “a whole bunch of dead guys,” and playfully asks what sound a Teletubby makes when it is stepped on (Wilson). In a more serious vein, he tells what he feel is crucial for boys’ literature:

“Books for boys must be strongly plot driven. Boys don’t want or need long sections of character development. There are two reasons for this. One is that it interferes with the excitement (see above). The other is not specific to boys. Kids bring much more imagination to reading than most adults. Adults enjoy having characters defined in detail. Kids will create a fully rounded character from a single good descriptive sentence. From a boy’s perspective, too much character development gets in the way.” (Wilson).

In intensive interviews conducted across the United States by Smith and Wilhelm, adolescent boys talked about their favourite activities. They were generally drawn to activities that gave them a sense of control and competence, and which provided challenges requiring an appropriate level of skill. A corollary of these attributes is the need for clear goals and readily-available feedback. Unlike the traditional reading choices offered in school, emphasizing emotions and richness of language, reading for information can provide the definite feedback of reaching a goal: the answer is found, the problem is fixed. Goal-oriented activities provide experiences in sequential order (Smith & Wilhelm 40). Areas of literature which are frequently emphasized in the classroom, such as short stories and poetry, are usually lacking in any kind of meaningful sequence, although stories which are connected, e.g., in the form of a journal or diary, may provide a semblance of the linear order which boys seem to like (52).

Smith and Wilhem stipulate that attention to the preferences of boys does not mean that all classroom reading will cater to their interests. Rather, an understanding of what motivates boys’ interests and activities can help teachers, parents and librarians structure readings so that boys’ needs for control, competence, appropriate challenge, feedback and sequential steps are engaged, creating the right conditions for a love of reading (Smith & Wilhelm 53).

One dilemma outlined by Smith and Wilhelm deals with the dichotomy between “enjoyable” activities and school. Boys expressed pleasure in favourite activities because they could get lost in them and experience them in the moment. They valued school, and reading assignments as well – but the value was with the future, with what school success could do for their lives. School is a means, a tool for the future, not the enjoyable “ends” provided by valued activities; there is a wide gulf between pleasure and necessity (Smith & Wilhelm 66). Although boys may enthusiastically engage in numerous activities involving literacy throughout the day – surfing the internet, reading instructions, looking at music and movies reviews – they often don’t perceive that as belonging to the same universe as the work they’re required to do in school (96).

What can we do?

Gurian states that both boys and men generally prefer literature which is action-packed (suspense, science fiction, sports, etc.), technical (instructional manuals, science and business books), or graphic (comics and graphic novels) (Gurian & Stevens 139). He suggests that curricula be changed to allow for these interests, not to narrow choices for girls but to expand possibilities to include material that would interest boys. He advocates increased use of visual media, and greater understanding of boys’ need for movement, even in the classroom (141). Dramatic reading can spark boys’ interest in books which they may have passed over when confined to the printed page (154). The ability to express personal identity when writing responses to literature usually sparks enthusiasm, unlike a more dispassionate view (Smith & Wilhelm 106). Exploring a work or topic in depth is more successful than jumping from one assignment to another, as it allows for the sequential process boys want (107). It is important that fictional characters are people boys can care about (175).

David Booth argues strongly that teachers and librarians need at their disposal a wide panoply of books and materials, because “finding one book he can’t put down can change a reader for life” (Booth 27). For example, since computer games are sometimes overtly built around classic myths, why not use these as springboards into the actual myths themselves, whether in classical or modern guise? (106). Knowles and Smith advise librarians and teachers to always have painless pathways into reading, such as the Guinness Book of World Records, within easy reach of teenage boys (Knowles & Smith xix). Other techniques include the use of readers’ theatre, as well as giving students the option to draw their reactions to a book, and then write about their drawing (xx). Since those who find the very act of reading to be challenging usually miss out on any kind of group discussion, Booth suggests letting certain students listen to a book on CD prior to the discussion, thereby giving them something to contribute, which in turn may provide motivation to master the skills needed to read successfully (Booth 44).

Smith and Wilhelm suggest a practice they call “frontloading,” which involves orienting boys to themes which can be addressed prior to reading the text. The themes can be tailored to get the attention of reluctant readers – such as boys – and make them relevant to their own lives (Smith & Wilhelm 85-87). Although this advice pertains most directly to teachers – along with the strong message that teachers’ manifesting a personal interest in their students makes a huge difference -- it might also apply to librarians. Interviews also suggest that boys prefer a lack of ambiguity, information in shorter portions, a “modern” English style, thorough preparation if a style is not familiar, and meaningful goals which can be monitored by feedback (115-118). They respond to what might be characterized as a dialogue, as opposed to the monologue-like way traditional literature is often presented (129). The concept of inquiry is crucial, empowering

students with a sense of control and competence, and involving social interaction, as is an emphasis on texts which might speak to students, particularly boys, more directly.

School curriculum, and possibly library emphasis, has traditionally emphasized nuanced interpretation, motifs, subtlety and detail, all aspects of classic literature. Smith and Wilhelm suggest that it might be time to re-examine these values (Smith & Wilhelm 195). Sullivan posits a slightly different dichotomy, that between “approved” internal struggles found in preferred literature, and the external struggles common to books which appeal to boys. (Sullivan 27)

It is worth noting that many ideas for improving boys’ literacy education would apply equally to girls, giving all the opportunity to benefit from choices which narrows the gaps between school and “real lives.” British Columbia educator Nick Smith writes that it is time for schools to put into practice more of what they know about effective learning strategies (Smith).

Michael Sullivan’s Connecting Boys with Books is written by and for librarians. Sullivan agrees with the conventional wisdom regarding which books appeal to boys, and the necessity of validating their choices. This practical work, however, is geared towards library programmes which will draw boys in and get them enthused about reading. One very simple concept is that of book groups for fathers and sons, mirroring their successful female equivalents. The fact that not many dads read for pleasure creates the opportunity for both generations to discover common ground together (Sullivan 35-36). Many practical ideas for “boy-magnet” programming has been published. For example, Michigan librarians Cindy Dobrez and Lynn Rutan created an elaborate programme to correspond to the seasonal NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament, including maps, newspaper clippings and contests, which attracted both genders and got reluctant readers reading (Dobrez & Rutan). Librarians must move beyond the mere acceptance of boy-centred books to not only stocking them in quantity but promoting them (Sullivan 52-55).

Conclusion

Young adult writer Robert Lipsyte tells us that “boys have to learn what girls already know, that a book is something you can make into a cave, and that you can crawl into the cave, roll around in it, explore it, find out what’s in it, and what’s in you.” (Lipsyte). If commercial advertising can do such a good job at getting teens hooked on fashion, high-tech toys and (at its worst) tobacco, surely we as librarians can do our best to seriously addict children and teens – paying special attention to our reluctant boys – to a lifelong enjoyment of reading.

Bibliography

Booth, David. Even Hockey Players Read: Boys, Literacy and Learning. Markham: Pembroke, 2002.

Dobrez, Cindy, and Lynn Rutan. “Mapping March Madness.” School Library Journal, February 2002, 43.

Gurian, Michael, and Kathy Stevens. The Minds of Boys: Saving Our Sons from Falling Behind in School and Life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005.

Knowles, Elizabeth, and Martha Smith. Boys and Literacy: Practical Strategies for Librarians, Teachers, and Parents. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited, 2005.

Lypsite, Robert. “Listening for the Footsteps: Books and Boys.” Horn Book Magazine 68 (3), May 1992.

Sax, Leonard. Why Gender Matters: What Parents and Teachers Need to Know about the Emerging Science of Sex Differences. New York: Doubleday, 2005.

Smith, Michael W., and Jeffrey D. Wilhelm. Don’t Fix No Chevys. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2002.

Smith, Nick. “Boy Trouble?” The Tyee, February 27, 2007. Available at: http://thetyee.ca/Views/Teacherdiaries/2007/02/27/BoyTrouble/

Statistics Canada, and Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. Education Indicators in Canada: Report of the Pan-Canadian Education Indicators Program 2005. Ottawa: Canadian Education Statistics Council, 2006. Available at: http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/81-582-XIE/2006001/pdf/81-582-XIE2006001.pdf

Sullivan, Michael. Connecting Boys with Books: What Libraries Can Do. Chicago: American Library Association, 2003.

Tyre, Peg. “The Trouble With Boys.” Newsweek, January 30, 2006. Available at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10965522/site/newsweek/

Wilson, John. “Eviscerating Noddy,” November 23, 2005. Personal blog, available at: http://www.johnwilson-author.blogspot.com

IMAGE