Reading Matters Winter 2019

gap between males and females changes in adulthood, with older men actually outperforming women (Loveless, 2015).

“disadvantaged” in need of direct and immediate remediation (Watson & Kehler, 2012). Overall, the goal of the EDU guides was to engage boys and increase male literacy achievement “through gender-specific and explicitly boy-friendly instructional practices that cater to boys’ innate strengths and interests” (p. 47). Problems with Boy-Friendly Reforms While masculinized curriculum may at first appear to be a reasonable answer to the gender achievement gap, further analysis reveals several problems. Particularly, boy-friendly policies are insufficient because they treat all male students as a homogenized group with the same abilities, learning preferences, and interests. Such one-size-fits-all gender stereotyped curriculum does not value the individual literacy practices of students. Each child acquires a unique repertoire of literacy practices from interactions with their families and communities (Gonzalez, Moll, & Amanti, 2005; Heath, 1983; Knobel & Lankshear, 2015; Street, 1995). By looking solely at literacy policy through a gender binary lens, educators neglect the deeper social aspects associated with language acquisition and literacy practices. In a case study conducted by Watson and Kehler (2012), the authors asserted “Boys are not all the same and cannot be treated as a homogenous group. They bring different social and cultural backgrounds to the literacy classroom and these need to be given serious consideration” (p. 51). Their study focused on Scott who struggled in his English class and felt disconnected from the texts (which were purposefully chosen for boy-friendly content). The research revealed Scott’s disengagement with his English course was not dependent on masculine curriculum but on the relational practicality of the content. By laying aside assumptions of gender roles and viewing students as whole people, achievement gaps may naturally diminish. Furthermore, the narrow definition of literacy used within schools has led to a disconnect between the literate practices of students’ home and school life. For example, the Motivation to Read Profile used in the research of Marinak and Gambrell (2010) and Boerma et al. (2016) is composed of reading self-concept items that refer solely to academic literacy practices, such as reading a novel or a nonfiction text. It is also important to note the type of reading valued in the survey items which included questions about going to the library, hearing books read aloud in class, and receiving books as gifts (Marinak and Gambrell, 2010). Clearly, “value” refers to the dominant reading practices taking place in school; yet, most reading in school is disconnected from everyday literate practices (Watson, 2011; Watson & Kehler, 2012). According to Gee (2007), children are motivated to read in other domains and contexts in out-of-school life. It is important then to consider the impact of including survey items that address many different types of reading, such as mobile phone texts, rap lyrics, blogs, tweets, video game instructions, and Instagram posts, to better gauge the true literate practices of boys. Thus, before suggestions in altering curriculum can be made, the fundamental reasons for the gender gap in reading achievement must be explored in greater depth and should include research into sociocultural factors such as culture, race, socioeconomic status, and family background.

Yet another explanation for the gap is girl-friendly school policies. Historically, males had more access to education than females. In the interest of equality, many countries instituted policies over the past century to improve the educational attainment of girls (Conrad-Curry, 2011; Marks, 2008). For example, because Finland is often lauded for its exceptional education system and top scores on the PISA, they are often used in the United States as a model for suggested reforms (Jackson, 2015; Tung, 2012). Yet, they have the largest gender gap of any PISA country. Were PISA to only report the performance of Finland’s male students, the country would be considered average (Loveless, 2015). Some seeking to explain the gender reading gap claim, like Finland, many countries are ignoring the needs of its male populations in order to advance female educational achievement. Attempting to Make the CurriculumMore Boy-Friendly In order to counteract inequalities believed to be caused by girl-friendly policies, many intervention strategies have focused on masculinizing curriculum to better appeal to boys. Advocates of boy-friendly reforms believe schools are feminized spaces which fail to prepare boys properly for high stakes testing (Watson & Kehler, 2012). They seek to defeminize schooling through three specific modifications: employing male focused pedagogical practices and classroom content, single-sex English classes, and more male role-models/teachers in the classroom (Brozo et al., 2014; Henry, Lagos, & Berndt, 2012; Watson, 2011; Watson & Kehler, 2012). Male focused pedagogical practices include the use of “boy books”, boy only book discussion groups, and multimodal texts (Henry et al., 2012). Further, these approaches “will cater to boys’ natural learning styles and interests” (Watson & Kehler, 2012, p. 46). Whether these reforms will increase boys’ reading motivation and if increased motivation will translate into increased literacy achievement remains to be seen. Several countries have enacted nation and state-wide boy- friendly initiatives to combat the gender reading achievement gap. To illustrate, Brozo et al. (2014) examined the approaches taken in Germany to increase boys’ interest in reading. In order to demonstrate reading is not an innately feminine task, numerous German employers encouraged fathers to read in front of and to their sons through a program entitled “My Daddy Reads to Me! A Reading Aloud Service for Fathers in Their Workplace” (p. 590). The program delivered weekly boy-friendly reading materials to fathers with the expectation of bolstering male literacy practices in the home. Also, schools in the German state of Baden- Württemberg recruited professional soccer players to partner with students on literacy projects, attempting to hook boys into the existing curriculum. Both initiatives hope to improve boys’ reading scores on the next iteration of PISA testing. Moreover, the Ontario Ministry of Education (EDU) website recently distributed several documents outlining specific strategies to implement in classrooms in order to improve boys’ literacy (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2004, 2009). The guides categorized males as literacy

Reading Matters Choice Matters

| 8 | Reading Matters | Volume 19 • Winter 2019 | scira.org

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS