Djohnsonteachingportfolio.weebly.com



Gender Differences in Reading Achievement:Biological or Cultural?The University of New EnglandEDU 744Donna C. JohnsonJune 16, 2011The claim that we are all created equal may be true for the Declaration of Independence, but in the world of education there are stark differences in reading achievement amongst boys and girls. While gender issues in education are not the immediate concern of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, more and more research is pointing towards the differences in gender. The true question is whether the gender gap is being caused by an attitude of culture and society where reading is perceived as a “girly” subject, or is there really a difference in how boys and girls learned based on brain research and development. These very questions led to four very distinct articles about how boys and girls learn and the implications of media, society, educational policy, and brain research on how teachers should use these findings as strategies in their classrooms.In the first article, “Effects of Technology and Male Teachers on Boys’ Reading by Laura Sokal and Herb Katz (2008), explains a research study that examines whether using technology and male mentors will improve boys’ reading scores. The heart of the article waivers on the idea that technology is considered more masculine and that research shows the use of technology increasing achievement for boys. The second idea the authors play with is that male role models or mentors can increase achievement because when boys observe the same gender reading and using technology that is somehow becomes more acceptable in their eyes. The authors go on to describe their study and its findings. According to the article, 119 boys in the third and fourth grades participated in this study in Canada (Sokal and Katz, 2008). Twelve schools in all participated and the twelve schools were from varied locations and different socio-economic areas. They utilized a diagnostic reading tests, a gender based sorting game, and a survey of self-perceptions as the instruments. The study lasted 22 weeks with male mentors attending the schools for thirty minute one-on-one time with participants. The results of their study were interesting in that they found no relation between technology or male mentors and there effect on boys’ reading achievement. However, the combination of using technology and male role models together seemed to have an effect on achievement and the authors’ felt warranted further study.This article tested two possible factors in boys’ reading achievement: technology and male role models. Overall, their research showed no real connection between these variables and improvement in reading scores.In the second article, the concerns of how social, cultural, and instructional factors could be affecting reading achievement in boys. “The Problem of Boy’s Literacy Underachievement: Raising Some Questions” by Anne Watson, Michael Kehler and Wayne Martino (2010) has a strong opinion about how boys’ should be educated in the area of language arts and reading. They believe that boys’ perceive reading as a feminine trait and that their perceptions of achievement in this area would hurt their male reputation. The authors’ feel that boys are being portrayed as victims because they are not the number one sex in reading achievement and that if girls achieved less, very few studies would be conducted. That being said, they feel strongly that the idea of reading being a feminine trait needs to be rewired in the brains of boys and that they need to learn to work harder in reading for achievement to truly be seen (Watson, et all 2010). They feel a lot of studies make it the fault of the female teacher that boys are not achieving because they are not being accommodating to boys’ learning styles and interests. They also believe that hiring more men and creating single-sex classes will only encourage the false sense of masculinity in males and create a battle of the genders mentality.The authors feel strongly that media, society, culture and even education reform are at the heart of continuing the need for all boys to be masculine and only learn by teaching to their interests and behaviors. Popular television shows often portray the head of household as daft or stupid. Boys often pick up on this perception and start to believe underachievement is alright. The media often hones in on stories that are related to how boys’ needs can’t possibly be met by having a female teacher. Young boys don’t often see their own male influences reading for pleasure, only to be informed. The final blow is that some educational reform is calling for same-sex classrooms, a push more hiring male teachers, and allowing for misbehaviors in boys to be overlooked. Unlike some articles, the authors’ of this article offer their opinions of how to fix the catering to boys’ masculinity in the classroom. First, they believe we need to address a boys need to fail in order to become dominant and powerful in societal terms. They feel the outside influences need to be addressed in a school environment. Second, the media needs to be challenged not to create a perception of what a boy should or should not be like. Third, there is a need to make literacy learning purposeful to all students and create connections to themselves, others, and culture. Finally, they believe that teachers of all genders need to start working together to stomp out gender stereotypes about reading and to start having a conversation with the students they teach (Watson, et all 2010).This article suggests that we stop catering to a boys’ masculinity in the area of literacy education and start teaching tolerance of one another by empowering all students to get past the ideas of what a typical boys should look and act like. The idea of how boys perceive themselves as readers and what their interests are in reading is the root of the third article, “What We Want: Boys and Girls Talk About Reading”, by Robin H. Boltz (2009). The author is a librarian and wanted to investigate why boys don’t seem to achieve as well as girls in literacy education. She believes that the types of materials offered in reading groups and libraries aren’t always appealing to boys and that is why they shy away from reading for pleasure. They types of books boys seemed to be interested in are books that connect them to their interests. The books tend to be visual in nature, informative and have some sense of movement. Cartoons, websites with hypertexts, magazines, animals, and how to books are what boys tend to reach for pleasure reading (Boltz 2009). Beside the types of books boys like to read, motivation to read is also an issue. Boys will often look to their fathers or other male influences to see what they are reading, if they are reading at all. Sometimes males will perceive reading as girly because of having to share their thoughts and feelings. The belief is that most men don’t enjoy expressing how they feel or have a difficult time with it. Another issue the author discusses is the basic biological differences between boys and girls. She believes boys are wired differently than girls and need more motion, color, and sound to get them excited about reading.Overall, this article examines boys and girls interests in reading through a questioning format. Her findings are that motivation, interest, and basic biological behaviors are what affect lower reading achievement in boys.In the final article, “Gender Matters in Elementary Education” by Virginia Bonomo (2010) the need for gender based teaching is addressed. Research proves that boys and girls develop very differently in particular areas of the brain that affect language, sensory motor, and physical development causing the need for gender based strategies, especially in the area of literacy. The physical nature of the brain develops differently amongst boys and girls. Girls’ language acquisition develops six year earlier than in boys. Other physical components of the brain, such as blood flow and resting rates, also differ and may cause differences in learning and behaviors for boys and girls (Boltz 2010).There are other differences between boys and girls such as how they see, hear and smell. Girls are more sensitive to smells, they are more aware of certain sounds and higher frequencies and their vision is more profound (Boltz 2010). Sensory motor development can play a role in classroom arrangement, movement around the classroom, and how the perception of tone of voice is interpreted.The author also describes the types of physical and biological differences that can affect learning. For example, boys tend to get excited easier than girls and will often react instead of internalizing like girls. This is because of the type of autonomic response each gender is wired for. The temperature of a classroom can also affect how boys and girls learn. Boys like it about six degrees cooler than girls because it helps keep them alert. Therefore, temperature can affect attentiveness.Within the realm classroom use, the author feels the implications of these findings are the responsibility of teachers to educate themselves on these differences and to be aware of them in their teaching. While these physical factors may or may not affect reading achievement in both genders, it is her belief that there is a strong basis for the need to change learning strategies based on these findings.Finally, brain based research is highly defined and can have an impact on how all children learn and achieve. Girls and boys develop at different rates and patterns in the areas of brain, sensory motor, and physical development and the education world must acknowledge and address these needs through utilizing different strategies for different genders.Gender differences are definitely apparent when teaching boys and girls. A lot of research has been done on this specific topic and the preferences of boys and girls have been demonstrated time and time again. However, it is how society and education uses this knowledge to defend and construct learning for boys and girls that becomes a problem. It is the image of ‘boys being boys’ that allows for misbehaviors and work study habits to be overlooked. In the four articles read about this topic, two central themes emerged. First, boys need male role models and more choice of masculine reading material, and second, that there are innate differences in the biology of boys and girls and the need to reshape the idea that reading is a feminine subject. There are two similar articles that encourage creating a better learning environment for boys to learn that include hiring more male teachers and offering more masculine reading material in the classroom. “Effects of Technology and Male Teachers on Boys’ Reading”, by Laura Sokal and Herb Katz (2008) and “What We Want: Boys and Girls Talk About Reading” by Robin H. Boltz (2009) are very similar in the idea of creating a perception of masculinity in reading for boys. The two articles by Sokal and Katz (2008), and Robin Boltz (2009) are similar in that they encourage a separation of gender in the area of reading and that boys perceptions need to change by having more male role models. The Sokal and Katz (2008) article states, “Clearly, what is called for are research-based interventions that are sensitive to and reflective of the heterogeneity within the category of boys” (p. 82). While this journal article reports the findings of a research study, the Boltz (2009) article is written by a librarian concerned with the types of reading materials offered to boys to read. She conducted a survey of boys and girls and asked what types of subjects they were interested in. One finding from both articles is that boys lack the motivation to read because they often don’t observe the men in their lives reading for pleasure. The second similarity is that boys tend to be interested in fast moving, action adventure types of stories. Boys need more movement and color to stay focused and the influence of having strong male role models influences how they perceive reading. Both articles suggest giving in to boys’ interests, offering male role models, and even suggesting separate classes for boys and girls. Both articles were research based, but came from differing viewpoints. The Sokal and Katz (2008) article created a thesis statement, investigated their thesis, stated their findings and limitations and made an honest statement about their results. While I think their research had its purpose, I wondered if they were basing their research on the decline of male teachers in the workforce to the decline of boys reading achievement. I understand the need for male role models in the classroom, but they found no evidence of this need in their research. Also, the idea of technology being more masculine and therefore more appealing to boys is not fundamentally sound. Technology has become as genderless in our society and really holds no grounds for making their point on boys reading achievement. The Boltz (2009) article was written from a single view point of a librarian whose main concern was what types of books should be ordered for library circulation based on boys and girls interests. Her viewpoint alone will not ultimately improve boys reading scores. On the other hand, the article, “The Problem of Boy’s Literacy Underachievement: Raising Some Questions” by Anne Watson, Michael Kehler, and Wayne Martino (2010), states that “…hegemonic masculinity is central to many of the struggles boys face as literacy learners” (p. 357). This means that the real crisis with boys’ achievement is in their belief that they have to be “manly” and don’t perceive reading as a masculine subject. Therefore, the idea that boys who like to read and express their feelings about literature are considered more feminine and as teachers we need to reconstruct this idea at the school level in order for boys’ to achieve in reading. However, in the article “Gender Matters in Elementary Education” by Virginia Bonomo (2010), brain based evidence is presented that shows the biological differences between boys and girls. This article states, “In order to teach to gender differences, educators need to be aware of them and have knowledge of effective gender-based teaching strategies ”( p.257). Both of these articles have differing views of how boys and girls should be taught reading but help determine what teachers should be aware of from both a sociological and biological point of view.While the Watson, et al (2010) article is about not catering to the masculinity of boys and how boys are depicted in society and the media, the Bonomo (2010) article encourages teachers to at least consider the brain and biological differences between boys and girls. I believe that both articles have merit in that as teachers we must be aware of the overall student we are teaching. Allowing for boys to misbehave or not focus on reading because they perceive it as ‘girly’ is unacceptable, but I do believe there is no harm in keeping the temperature of a classroom a little cooler to help all students concentrate better. According to the Bonomo (2010) article, the best temperature to keep a classroom is around 69 degrees Fahrenheit because for most boys temperature is a factor in attentiveness and how the parasympathetic nervous system is regulated. I think that Howard Gardner’s approach with the multiple intelligences is much more gender friendly and allows for attributes of both boys and girls to fit into each of his theories of learning. Overall, it is important for teachers to get to know all of our students and keep in mind the sociological and biological differences amongst gender. Compared to the first two articles, these two articles suggest that all students be accounted for and even though there are biological differences it should be used to consider all factors in our teaching environment. The Bonomo (2010) article does not suggest dividing genders in the hope of increasing achievement.While all four articles focus on boy’s achievement in reading, they vary on how to go about making such improvements. I am still left with the questions of, “Is the focus of boys’ achievement taking away from other important subgroups that are tested?” and “How can teachers use the information available to create a classroom environment that has gender equality”? I believe that it is important to consider the brain and biological differences between genders when creating your classroom. However, I strongly agree with not giving in to the sociological and cultural reasons for boys to opt out of reading. I think teaching tolerance of all people allows for good conversations about our own misconceptions and stereotypes and can help reconstruct the idea that reading is a feminine subject. Where does that leave instruction for reading achievement when dealing with gender differences? I think for teachers, we need to consider the biological differences between boys and girls, while giving credence to the societal causes of motivation and how boys perceive reading. Biological or Cultural? I think both are important and need to be considered when planning instruction for all students, both boys and girls. Reading achievement will only happen when all students are reading more often.References BIBLIOGRAPHY \l 1033 Boltz, R. H. (2009). What We Want; Boys and Girls Talk about Reading. American Association of School Librarians.Bonomo, V. (2010). Gender Matters in Elementary Education. Educational Horizons, 257-264.Sokal, L., & Katz, H. (2008). Effects of Techology and Male Teachers on Boys' Reading. Australian Journal of Education, 81-94.Watson, A., Kehler, M., & Martino, W. (2010). The Problem of Boys' Literacy Underachievement: Raising Some Questions. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 356-361. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download