Give Boys a Chance: They Like to Read Too!

"Boys demonstrate literacy in ways the current curriculum doesn't assess" by Heather Blair and Kathy Sanford-- A Critique

Final Draft

Boys today are said to be the face of academic underachievement. Teachers complain that boys don’t like to read, that their scores are weak, and that they demonstrate very little enthusiasm for books. Current research is looking into this issue in the hopes that they can explain why boys don’t seem engaged in literacy practices. In an extract published in On Line Opinion, Australia’s e-journal of social and political debate, Blair and Sanford (2003) conducted a two-year qualitative study that questions this current perspective and argues that boys are in fact not failing to engage in literacy, but that the elementary and high school curriculum is failing boys. In other words, boys do participate in literacy, but more often than not, this form of participation is at odds with the school culture. The current school curriculum reflects an outdated view on literacy. As such, Blair and Sanford argue that as long as schools continue to promote this limited view, boys will continue to be disadvantaged in school. The current curriculum works against boys’ own interests. The article not only asks us to consider the underlying factors behind boys’ underachieving scores, but to also consider other ways, if any, that boys are engaged in literacy.

Initially when analysing their research findings, Blair and Sanford found that their results were in line with the common belief that boys don’t like to read and that they demonstrate an unwillingness to participate in literacy activities in school. However, this initial interpretation of results was problematic for them because it failed to take into consideration the boys who did enjoy reading, and it also failed to explain in which ways, if any, boys were engaged in literacy. What needed to be considered were the ways in which boys’ behaviours affected their performance in school. The authors believe that part of the problem is that boys’ behaviours don’t fit within the general culture of the classroom. Boys tend to be louder, more boisterous, and are more willing to dissent (¶ 5). As such, these behaviours, aside from giving the impression of nonconformity, also give the impression of disengagement. This assumption is what Blair and Sanford question, because according to them, boys are engaging in literacy, however the current curriculum and school culture fail to recognize it. For boys, literacy is a social activity. The authors found that this manifested itself in “loud and boisterous comment across the entire room and other times the clustering around an activity, such as a computer game, that engaged them” (¶ 5). This recognition led to a more nuanced understanding of the issue, which ultimately led to a change in perspective: the boys’ nonconformity was in fact an act of engagement, not an act of defiance:

We came to recognize literacy as a dominant social practice through which the boys in our study shaped their identities and developed and maintained close personal relationships, and often their literacies gave greater emphasis to taking from the text rather than pouring over it, in order to share information with their friends. They used literacies to shape their identities and develop shared interests with friends (¶ 5).

These boys saw literacy as a means to transform information into something meaningful, which could fuel their interests and imagination, and ultimately their desire to share this information. Overall, the authors observed that boys chose literacy texts that reflected their personal goals: a desire to get information and to understand how things work (¶ 8).

The issue of boys and literacy is a hot one in the education field and the goal of this article is to suggest new ways of thinking about literacy and its purpose. The Ministry of Education in Ontario has even funded a whole program on this one issue, in order to try and get boys involved in literacy. However, the underlying assumption with these kinds of programs is that boys don’t fit within the school’s definition of what constitutes literacy. These programs attempt to find solutions to help students succeed in school. What Blair and Sanford actually argue, quite successfully, is that boys do engage in forms of literacy, just not the kinds that are traditionally taught and assessed in schools. Therefore, although they may underperform in school, they are actually quite successful outside of it. The authors rightfully argue that instead of assessing the failure of boys’ engagement in literacy within the current definition, schools should develop a more up to date and inclusive definition and pedagogical approach that can acknowledge boys’ alternative forms of engagement in literacy.

Blair and Sanford are very clear to distinguish between the ways in which boys are expected to be literate in school and the way they engage in literacy outside of school. Since most schools have yet to revise their literacy curriculum, most teachers teach literacy as “a body of knowledge to be absorbed or a tool for learning other bodies of knowledge that will be absorbed” (¶ 12). Against this current definition of literacy, the authors persuasively argue that boys’ desire to engage in literacy as a social practice is being ignored and therefore boys ignore literacy practices in the classroom (¶ 13).

I personally believe that this article is successful at shedding light on an issue of particular concern in the education field. On a broader scale, this “failure” in academic literacy has detrimental affects on boys’ motivation to pursue higher education. More girls now enroll at university. Where are the boys? In one of the more controversial statements made in the article, Blair and Sanford state that boys are actually better prepared for the “real word” since they readily engage in multimodal literacies (i.e internet, video games, etc) and find, synthesize, and use the information for a variety of purposes. These are skills that lead to success in the workplace. In the end, literacy needs to move beyond the theoretical and move towards the development of literary competence in which students are taught practical skills that will help them succeed not only inside the classroom; but more importantly, outside the classroom.

Work Cited

Blair, H. & Sanford, K. (2003). Boys demonstrate literacy in ways the current curriculum doesn’t assess. On Line Opinion: Australia’s E-journal of Social and Political Debate. Retrieved September 29, 2010, from http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=962


link to the article: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=962&page=0


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ROUGH DRAFT

Boys today are said to be the face of academic underachievement. Teachers complain that boys don’t like to read, that their scores are weak, and that they demonstrate very little enthusiasm for books. Current research is looking into this issue in the hopes that they can explain why boys don’t seem engaged in literacy practices. In an extract published in On Line Opinion, Australia’s e-journal of social and political debate, Blair and Sanford (2003) conducted a two-year qualitative study that questions this current perspective and argues that boys are in fact not failing to engage in literacy, but that the elementary and high school curriculum is failing boys. In other words, boys do participate in literacy, but more often than not, this form of participation is at odds with the school culture. The current school curriculum reflects an outdated view on literacy. As such, Blair and Sanford argue that as long as schools continue to promote this limited view, boys will continue to be disadvantaged in school. The current curriculum works against boys’ own interests. The article not only asks us to consider the underlying factors behind boys’ underachieving scores, but to also consider other ways, if any, that boys are engaged in literacy.

Initially when analysing their research findings, Blair and Sanford found that their results were in line with the common belief that boys don’t like to read and that they demonstrate an unwillingness to participate in literacy activities in school. However, this initial interpretation of results was problematic for them because it failed to take into consideration the boys who did enjoy reading, and it also failed to explain in which ways, if any, boys were engaged in literacy. What needed to be considered were the ways in which boys’ behaviours affected their performance in school. The authors believe that part of the problem is that boys’ behaviours don’t fit within the general culture of the classroom. Boys tend to be louder, more boisterous, and are more willing to dissent (¶ 5). As such, these behaviours, aside from giving the impression of nonconformity, also give the impression of disengagement. This assumption is what Blair and Sanford question, because according to them, boys are engaging in literacy, however the current curriculum and school culture fail to recognize it. For boys, literacy is a social activity. The authors found that this manifested itself in “loud and boisterous comment across the entire room and other times the clustering around an activity, such as a computer game, that engaged them” (¶ 5). This recognition led to a more nuanced understanding of the issue, which ultimately led to a change in perspective: the boys’ nonconformity was in fact an act of engagement, not an act of defiance:

We came to recognize literacy as a dominant social practice through which the boys in our study shaped their identities and developed and maintained close personal relationships, and often their literacies gave greater emphasis to taking from the text rather than pouring over it, in order to share information with their friends. They used literacies to shape their identities and develop shared interests with friends (¶ 5).

These boys saw literacy as a means to transform information into something meaningful, which could fuel their interests and imagination, and ultimately their desire to share this information. Overall, the authors observed that boys chose literacy texts that reflected their personal goals: a desire to get information and to understand how things work (¶ 8).

The issue of boys and literacy is a hot one in the education field and the goal of this article is to suggest new ways of thinking about literacy and its purpose. The Ministry of Education in Ontario has even funded a whole program on this one issue, in order to try and get boys involved in literacy. However, the underlying assumption with these kinds of programs is that boys don’t fit within the school’s definition of what constitutes literacy. These programs attempt to find solutions to help students succeed in school. What Blair and Sanford actually argue, quite successfully, is that boys do engage in forms of literacy, just not the kinds that are traditionally taught and assessed in schools. Therefore, although they may underperform in school, they are actually quite successful outside of it. The authors rightfully argue that instead of assessing the failure of boys’ engagement in literacy within the current definition, schools should develop a more up to date and inclusive definition and pedagogical approach that can acknowledge boys’ alternative forms of engagement in literacy.

Blair and Sanford are very clear to distinguish between the ways in which boys are expected to be literate in school and the way they engage in literacy outside of school. Since most schools have yet to revise their literacy curriculum, most teachers teach literacy as “a body of knowledge to be absorbed or a tool for learning other bodies of knowledge that will be absorbed” (¶ 12). Against this current definition of literacy, the authors persuasively argue that boys’ desire to engage in literacy as a social practice is being ignored and therefore boys ignore literacy practices in the classroom (¶ 13).

I personally believe that this article is successful at shedding light on an issue of particular concern in the education field. On a broader scale, this “failure” in academic literacy has detrimental affects on boys’ motivation to pursue higher education. More girls now enroll at university. Where are the boys? In one of the more controversial statements made in the article, Blair and Sanford state that boys are actually better prepared for the “real word” since they readily engage in multimodal literacies (i.e internet, video games, etc) and find, synthesize, and use the information for a variety of purposes. These are skills that lead to success in the workplace. In the end, literacy needs to move beyond the theoretical and move towards the development of literary competence in which students are taught practical skills that will help them succeed not only inside the classroom; but more importantly, outside the classroom.


Work Cited

Blair, H. & Sanford, K. (2003). Boys demonstrate literacy in ways the current curriculum doesn’t assess. On Line Opinion: Australia’s E-journal of Social and Political Debate. Retrieved September 29, 2010, from http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=962