Reading Matters Winter 2019

Bowers-Campbell, J. (2011). Take it out of class: Exploring virtual literature circles. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy , 54 (8), 557-567.

(Daniels, 2002). By giving students autonomy and ownership of their own learning, literature circles have proven to increase student motivation, comprehension, and critical thinking skills (Bowers-Campbell, 2011; Klages, Pate, & Conforti, 2007). Several websites, such as Readwritethink.org, offer detailed plans for starting literature circles in the classroom. While the original print- based format of literature circles is acceptable, we recommend updating to a digital format. Online or virtual literature circles often involve a hybrid approach of face-to-face and online meetings (Bowers-Campbell, 2011). For example, online discussion boards or social media threads are an excellent resource for small group dialogue which allows all student voices to be heard (Daniels, 2006). These exchanges also engage students in writing that focuses on the skills of “summarizing, citing, clarifying, analyzing, interpreting, and questioning the text (Bowers-Campbell, 2011, p. 562). The options of online discussion platforms are numerous, but the most accessible and prevalent software for the classroom are phpBB, Edublogs, Educircles, and Moodle. Conclusion Clearly, large-scale research studies show that girls score higher on reading achievement assessments than boys (Brozo et al., 2014; Conrad-Curry, 2011; Loveless, 2015; Martin, Mullis, & Kennedy, 2003). Researchers’ explanations for this achievement gap include biased assessments favoring female strengths (Brozo et al., 2014; Schwabe et al., 2015), a lack of reading motivation in boys (Logan & Medford, 2011; Marinak & Gambrell, 2010; McGeown et al., 2012), and feminized school environments and policies (Conrad- Curry, 2011; Loveless, 2015; Marks, 2008). As a response to the data, intervention strategies encourage teachers to masculinize curriculum, but critics assert that masculine interventions result in gender stereotyping and greater disparity between genders. Therefore, we propose a sociocultural lens to guide further interventions, focusing on the individual interests of students and thereby rejecting the concept of boys as a homogenous group. Recommendations for gender-equitable interventions include broader text selection and student text choice in classroom curriculum which also comprises more extensive use of digital texts. In final consideration, a one-size-fits-all curriculum does not adequately address the reading needs of boys (or girls); therefore, valuing the individual literacy practices of students is essential to bridge the gender reading achievement gap. References Alvermann, D. E. (2008). Why bother theorizing adolescents’online literacies for classroom practice and research?. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy , 52 (1), 8-19.

Brozo, W. G., Sulkunen, S., Shiel, G., Garbe, C., Pandian, A., & Valtin, R. (2014). Reading, gender, and engagement: Lessons from five PISA countries. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy , 57 (7), 584-593. Burkam, D. T., LoGerfo, L., Ready, D., & Lee, V. E. (2007). The differential effects of repeating kindergarten. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 12 (2), 103-136.

Reading Matters Choice Matters

Burn, A. (2007). ‘Writing’ computer games: Game literacy and new-old narratives. L1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature , 7 (4, Special Issue).

Conrad-Curry, D. (2011). A four-year study of ACT reading results: Achievement trends among eleventh-grade boys and girls in a Midwestern state. Journal of Education, 191 (3), 27-37.

Curwood, J. S. (2013). “The Hunger Games”: Literature, literacy, and online affinity spaces. Language Arts , 90 (6), 417-427.

Daniels, H. (2002). Literature circles: Voice and choice in book clubs and reading groups . Stenhouse Publishers.

Daniels, H. (2006). What’s the next big thing with literature circles. Voices from the Middle , 13 (4), 10-15.

Doiron, R. (2007). Boy books, girl books: Should we reorganize our school library collections?. In E. Rosenfeld & D. V. Loertscher (Eds.), Toward a 21st-century school library media program (pp. 299-303). Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. Farber, M. (2015). Interactive fiction in the classroom. Edutopia. Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org/blog/interactive-fiction-in-the-classroom-matthew- farber.

Gee, J. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy . New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gonzalez, N., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (Eds.) (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities and classrooms (1st ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Harkrader, M. A., & Moore, R. (1997). Literature preferences of fourth graders. Literacy Research and Instruction , 36 (4), 325-339.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and classrooms . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Henry, K., Lagos, A., & Berndt, F. (2012). Scholarship-in-practice bridging the literacy gap between boys and girls: An opportunity for the National Year of Reading 2012. The Australian Library Journal , 61 (2), 143-150. Huang, Y. M., Liang, T. H., & Chiu, C. H. (2013). Gender differences in the reading of e-books: Investigating children’s attitudes, reading behaviors and outcomes. Journal of Educational Technology & Society , 16 (4).

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays . Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Boerma, I. E., Mol, S. E., & Jolles, J. (2016). Teacher perceptions affect boys’and girls’reading motivation differently. Reading Psychology, 37 (4), 547-569.

Boltz, R. H. (2007). What we want: Boys and girls talk about reading. School Library Media Research , 10 .

Reading Matters | Volume 19 Winter 2019 | scira.org | 11

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS