It is not uncommon these days to hear many boys groan about school and reading, regardless of race or socio-economic status. Nearly 50% of boys call themselves nonreaders by high school (Smith & Wilheim, 2002). Why are boys not motivated to read, and what can teachers do to remedy this increasing problem? In order to get boys motivated to read, teachers must see boys’ interests, competencies, and experiences as positive resources rather than obstacles. First, this essay will look at not only how boys and girls read differently by how they also learn differently, in order to illustrate the gender gap that has been shown by statistics on reading ability. Second, this essay will look at why boys are not motivated to read. Finally, solutions will be given for what teachers can do to motivate boys and get them to engage in literacy.Why are boys not reading? Before explaining this lack of motivation, it’s important to understand how boys learn and to see if the present education system works with or against the way boys learn. Stevens and Gurian (2004) highlight some of the qualities that are generally characteristic of boys’ brains: boys’ brains have more cortical areas dedicated to spatial-mechanical functioning, and therefore use about half the brain space that girls use for verbal-emotional functioning. Furthermore, boys were found to have less serotonin than girls and also less oxytocin, the primary chemical for human bonding. As a result, boys are more likely to be physically impulsive.
What’s more, when boys become restless and fidgety it’s a sign that the brain is recharging and reorienting itself by entering a “neural rest state” (Stevens & Gurian, 2004). Boys and girls also respond differently to boredom in the classroom. When boys drift off, they are more likely to stop their note taking, shut their eyes, fidget with pencils or other objects, and become physically restless in the hopes of trying to stay concentrated. By contrast, girls go into a neutral focus state without drifting into a resting state (Stevens & Gurian, 2004). In other words, girls who are bored with a lesson tend to keep their eyes open and take notes, even if they are not registering what the teacher is saying. Another consequence of boys’ “brain activity” is that they are more likely to drift off when teachers use more words than visual cues, such as diagrams, pictures, and objects.
In the end, brain research has been able to explain in part how boys learn and process information and why they seem more impulsive, fidgety, and inattentive than girls in the current classroom environment. As a consequence, if we look at American statistics, boys are reported to earn 70% of Ds, Fs, and fewer than half of As, account for two-thirds of learning disabilities diagnosed, represent 90 percent of discipline referrals, dominate in being diagnosed for brain-related learning disorders like ADHD, and represent 80 percent of high school dropouts (Stevens & Gurian, 2004). These figures help us realize that there are new practices that need to be put in place to reach all students’ learning styles; especially boys who need to experience a more visual and kinesthetic approach.
When it comes to how boys read, attention often turns to how boys perform on standardized tests. The Education Quality and Accountability Office in Ontario administers the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test (OSSLT) to students in grade 10. In 2002, 55% of boys and 70% of girls passed the test (Freedman, 2003). In other words, half the male students failed. Two reasons explain this failure: the way boys understand and make sense of the reading material and how they develop their own understanding of what constitutes as masculine and feminine.
Developing a gendered identity is important to children as they grow up. At an earlier age, children are aware of the differences between what girls do and what boys do. A boy’s motivation to read is affected by his association of reading as a feminine activity. Boys don’t want to take part in something they interpret as a “girl thing”. Researchers at the University of Alberta conducted a study with 69 boys in grade 2 from four elementary schools in a Canadian urban center. They wanted to observe the factors that determine boys’ views of reading and their motivation to read. Researchers chose this age group because age 7 is usually the age at which children have solidified their understanding of what they consider to be masculine, feminine, or gender-neutral (Sokal, 2005). The boys were also chosen specifically because they expressed a dislike of reading. The aim of the research was to measure and modify boys’ perspectives of reading to discover which factors have an effect on how boys view reading. The boys were divided into two groups: the first group of boys who disliked reading were introduced to “boy-friendly” books. These books were chosen based on factors that appeal to boys in general: plot-driven, humorous narratives. The second group of boys who disliked reading were given more feminine “typical books” to read. These books were more character-driven and detailed in expressing a character’s traits and feelings. In the end, the study found that the boys in the first group, who were given more “boy-friendly” books, experienced an increased interest in reading (Sokal, 2005). On the other hand, boys in the second group not only failed to increase their level of interest, but researchers saw interest levels decrease.
Interestingly enough, researchers also found that boys’ attitude about reading as a female activity depended not on who was reading, but on what was being read. In other words, it made no difference whether a male or female research assistant read to the boys, because boys who listened to boy-friendly books, regardless of who was reading, viewed reading as “a less feminine activity” (Sokal, 2005).
This research has been instrumental in identifying the main element in boys’ attitudes about reading. It’s understandable to think that boys find reading to be a feminine activity because most teachers are women. However, this research dispels that assumption by revealing that book choice is at the heart of boys’ attitudes on reading, and an important component in reforming our classroom environment. These researchers believe that teachers should ensure that boys receive a greater variety of options in reading materials.
In the end, with every new research now coming out to explain why boys are not motivated to read, teachers and educators grow to understand what solutions need to be put in place in order to increase motivation. Teachers have enormous influence on implementing these changes. So this begs the question, what can teachers do?
First, teachers need to reflect on their pedagogical practices and the kind of classroom environment they create for their students, both boys and girls. For example, many teachers already engage in what is usually referred to as “storytime”, where students normally gather around the teacher, who reads a story to them. The students are usually asked to be quiet, to sit still, and to pay attention. However, another alternative model exists that has been found to be a good alternative for boys. It is referred to as Noisy-Time Storytime/Quiet-Time Storytime, as outlined in Sax’s article “The Boy Problem” (2007). Adopting this model allows students to choose a storytime format. For Noisy-Time Storytime, students are allowed the following: they may stand, sit, or lie down (as long as they don’t bump their neighbor). They may make noise if they want. Tapping, rapping, and clicking are also permitted. By contrast, Quiet-Time Storytime asks students to sit still, to be quiet, and to avoid tapping, rapping, or clicking. The teacher may alternate between these two models or take a vote among the students and ask them which one they would like to participate in on that particular day.
In the end, Sax reports that school administrators who have incorporated this model find that the “noisy time” model fits better in an all-boys classroom (2005). However, the models aren’t meant to represent the preferences of both genders. In fact, some girls were found to prefer “noisy time”, while some boys picked “quiet time”. In the end, the point of having these contrasting models is to provide all students with a wider range of models for storytime, which helps satisfy all different interests and learning styles.
Furthermore, when it comes to choosing books that suit boys’ particular needs, a publication for middle school faculty and administration, Voices from the Middle, found that boys like to read short passages with lots of visual support, humor, and relate to interesting facts (Knowles & Smith, 2005, xi). A very popular book that provides all of these elements that boys enjoy is the Guinness Book of Records. Boys also enjoy various genres of writing, such as humor, adventure, information/nonfiction, fantasy/science fiction, horror/mystery, sports, war, biography, history, graphic novels, and realistic fiction.
In “Bridges to literacy for boys”, Horton (2005) argues that boys are in fact interested in literacy, just not in reading books. What teachers and educators need to do, according to him, is rethink what constitutes literacy. If reading books is the only way of achieving literacy, then we are limiting boys’ potential. Boys are interested in electronic and graphic forms of literacy, such as comic books and electronic games involving a variety of storylines (Horton, 2005).
Furthermore, boys are also willing to engage in literacy in “active public ways, such as debating, drama, public speaking, etc” (Horton, 2005). What they don’t like is engaging in literacy as an academic activity. For them, any form of literacy must have practical purpose. According to Newkirk (2002), this new generation of students prefer to study with friends, or need to have some form of noise around them: sound from the television, or music blaring in the background. The silence, the immobility, and the solitude that comes from reading are incredibly unappealing to many boys (p. 53). Boys need literacy to be engaged in literacy as a social activity. In the end, by giving boys more opportunities to be engaged in literacy and book choices that appeal to their interests, will help them succeed in the long run.
These previous solutions are examples of some immediate, practical solutions that teachers can implement immediately in the classroom. However, two other solutions are gaining in popularity, and these involve bigger changes in the education system. The first of these solutions is to establish same-sex classrooms where boys would find themselves in a classroom environment that would be more suited to their learning styles. Many schools have boys score better in same-sex classrooms. For example, only 55 percent of eight-grade boys at Roosevelt Middle School in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma scored satisfactorily on their state assessment tests in 2005 (Gurian, 2009). Frustrated by the outcome, the principal decided to separate the boys and the girls in language arts, math, and technology education. A year later, the boys scored 71 percent satisfactorily, an improvement of 16%. How can this change be explained? After four years of observation, the school was able to report the contributing factors of success: teachers varied their instructions and curriculum materials to meet the needs and interests of the boys, while also being able implement more efficient ways of dealing with students’ social and emotional pressures (Gurian, 2009). In the end, this solution, also still not a popular one with many educators, has proven to be very beneficial to both boys and girls.
A second solution that could be implemented to help boys succeed in literacy is to have them start kindergarten a year later than girls. This solution comes after a team of fifteen neuroscientists, based primarily at the National Institute of Mental Health in Maryland, published an account of the development of the human brain. For almost twenty years they performed MRI scans on children’s brains. In 2007, they published a report in which they explained that various parts of boys’ brains develop in a different sequence and tempo than girls. As they explained it, “the brain’s language centers in many five-year-old boys look like the language centers in the brains of the average three-and-a-half-year-old girl” (Sax, 2007). Teaching kindergarten boys the basics in reading is similar to teaching three-and-a-half-year-old girls. In other words, it is not appropriate to their level of readiness. That is not to say that boys are inferior to girls in any way. What becomes more important to realize than the different levels of readiness between genders is the importance of timing in a student’s education. If we are asking boys to learn how to read at an age when they are not ready and more interested in other activities, than it sets them up for failure and isn’t a positive way to introduce them to school.
What’s more, there have been many changes in educational curriculum over the past decades. In 1977, the focus of kindergarten was primarily on socialization. Today, kindergarten in most North American schools is focused on teaching literacy and basic arithmetic (Sax, 2007). With the added challenge in kindergarten, boys find themselves at odds with school at an early age.
To conclude, it is important for educators and teachers to realize that in order to get boys motivated to read, they must see boys’ interests, competencies, and experiences as positive resources rather than obstacles. Boys need to be engaged with texts that speak to their interests and needs. Also, we must redefine “literacy” to include more visual, kinesthetic, and electronic elements that speak to boys’ learning styles. Finally, we also must examine more closely how boys’ learn from a neurological standpoint. Understanding the physiological nature of boys will help in reforming the current classroom environment that will meet the needs of all its students.
References
Freedman, Beverley. (2003). Boys and Literacy: Why Boys? Which Boys? Why Now? Paper given at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Gurian, Michael. Single-Sex Classrooms are Succeeding (2009). Educational Horizons. 87 (4), 234.
Gurian, Michael, & Stevens, Kathy. (2004). With Boys and Girls in Mind. Educational Leadership. 62 (3), 21-26.
Horton, R. (2005). Boys are people too: Boys and reading, truth and misconceptions. Teacher Librarian, 33(2), 30.
Knowles, Elizabeth, & Smith, Martha. (2005). Boys and Literacy: Practical Strategies for Librarians, Teachers, and Parents. Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited.
Newkirk, Thomas. (2002). Misreading Masculinity: Boys, Literacy, and Popular Culture. Heinemann.
Sax, L. (2007). The boy problem: Many boys think school is stupid and reading stinks—is there a remedy? School Library Journal, 53(9), 40-43.
Smith, Michael, & Wilhelm, Jeffrey. (2003). Reading Don’t Fix No Chevy’s: Literacy in the Lives of Young Men. Heinemann.
Sokal, L., Katz, H., Adkins, M., Gladu, A., Jackson-Davis, K., & Kussin, B. (2005). Boys will be "boys": Variability in boys' experiences of literacy. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 51(3), 216-230.
