Cathie Holden
University of Exeter
Email:
‘You can’t read a book when you’re on a bike’: gender and achievement in the middle years.
Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Conference, Cardiff University, September 7-10 2000
There has been much debate about the underachievement of boys, fuelled by continuing evidence that shows girls achieving better than boys in most exams, boys continuing to dominate special needs education and school exclusions. Various theories have emerged, with boys’ poor performance being attributed to a changing economic infrastructure, to the results of poor parenting or to innate biological differences where, for example, they are perceived as being less able than girls to learn language. The study reported on here contributes to this debate by presenting the findings from a research project in a pyramid of schools where pupils from Year 1 to Year 11 and their teachers were interviewed about their perceptions and attitudes to learning and gender and were observed in the classroom. While the study has much to say about raising standards and improving classroom practice for all pupils, there is a specific focus on underachieving boys and on literacy. This paper presents data on the perceptions of children in years 4 and 5. Findings relating to the Early Years children and their teachers are reported in Wood (2000) and data on patterns of interaction and response in Years 1 to 8 in Myhill (2000).
Introduction: giving children a voice
Central to this research is a belief in the importance of the voice of the child. Recent researchers in the school improvement field have argued that children are ‘expert witnesses’ (Rudduck and Flutter 2000;82) and that we ignore what they have to say about the classroom at our peril (Pollard, Theissen and Filer, 1997). The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) states that children have a right to be listened to, to have their opinions taken into account and to participate in decision making as it affects them. This offers a principled framework within which educators should act, if the rights of children are to be respected (Sinclair Taylor 2000). To deny children these rights not only ignores a universally agreed set of principles, it also edits out the voice and perspectives of the very customers whose educational experiences we are seeking to improve. This is the equivalent of an ‘own goal’ as young people have much to say about ‘the conditions of learning at school, how regimes and relationships shape their sense of status as individual learners and as members of the community and, consequently, affect their sense of commitment to learning in school’ (Rudduck and Flutter 2000: 76). Such a commitment to understanding children’s experiences means that we must accept children as competent reporters of their own experiences, must take them seriously and put their views at the centre of analysis, working for them, rather than on them (Mayall, 1996, cited in France, Bendelow and Williams 2000, original italics).
Gender and underachievement: perspectives from research
The views of children from whom we shall hear need to be set in the context of national concerns. This study on gender and achievement has arisen out of concern about boys’ attainment in formalised testing situations. For the last few years girls have consistently done better than boys in GCSE English and Key Stage 2 SATs results in 1999 showed 46% of boys achieving a level 4 in writing compared to 61% of girls. ‘The quality of work and rate of progress in writing remains worryingly low, particularly among boys’, OFSTED concluded (OFSTED 1999). This poor performance relates to continuing concerns about working class boys’ academic achievement, disaffection and the possible social consequences (Warren, 2000).
Various research (OFSTED 1996, Pickering 1997) has indicated that teachers have lower expectations of boys than girls: they rate boys’ ability to concentrate, their self esteem and their social skills as lower than girls and are likely to discipline boys more harshly than girls. Feiler and Webster (1999) suggest that teachers make judgements about literacy outcomes before children start school, and stick to these predictions once made. ‘There is evidence that we tend to cling to our original perceptions despite the accruing of contradictory factors’ (Feiler and Webster, 1999;357). Evidence from the classroom shows that boys dominate classroom interaction more than girls, and are evaluated more, both positively and negatively (Howe 1997, in Arnot, Gray, James and Rudduck 1998).
With specific reference to English, OFSTED claims that boys have a narrow experience of fiction, that the content of their writing is predictable and that they have problems with the more affective aspects of English. Girls, the report says, read more fiction and write at greater length (OFSTED 1993). Brown (1994) also found the content of boys’ stories to be stereotyped and suggests that boys become less committed to writing as they get older, with writing being seen as passive, reflective and therefore female. Reading too, seems to drop off as boys enter secondary school (Hall and Coles 1997, Lloyd 1999) although Hall and Coles question the prevailing notion that boys do not enjoy fiction as the respondents in their large survey clearly enjoyed a range of horror, adventure and football books. Likewise Myhill (1999) found that the similarities between boys and girls with regard to their preferences for different aspects of English teaching, were greater than their differences.
Academic achievement has long been discussed in relation to pupil behaviour. The pressure on boys to conform to a notion of masculinity which is unfemale, active and ‘cool’ is universally acknowledged, and thought to now start in the primary school rather than being an adolescent phenomenon (Jordan 1995, Millard 1997). Further, Jackson argues that some boys ‘actively participate in their own underachievement by rejecting the school approved middle class culture, associating it with inferior wimpishness’ (Jackson 1998;80). Theories as to why this might be abound, ranging from a belief in biological differences, to the pressures of abstract socialising processes, deficit models of the family or changing economic infrastructures (Warren, 2000). Thus underachievement in English is either genetic (boys being less able at language), cultural (as a result of social conditioning) or subject specific (where English is seen as ‘feminine’ because it is literature based and values personal and affective responses) (Reynolds 1995).
The study
Concerned by national reports of boys’ underachievement, and by school statistics which pointed to such underachievement in their own schools, a schools’ pyramid (a High School with its three feeder Middle schools, and their twelve feeder First schools) commissioned a team of researchers at Exeter University to design and conduct a research study into the issue within the schools’ pyramid. The overarching research question which the schools wanted to address was the very broad one of why boys underachieve. Taking this as the starting point, the study sought to investigate
a) teachers’ perceptions of
* the roots of under-achievement
* boys’ and girls’ achievements in the curriculum (especially literacy)
* boys’ and girls’ preferred learning styles and attitudes to learning
b) pupils’ perceptions of
* the curriculum, especially the literacy curriculum,
* their preferred teaching and learning styles
* their perceptions of the differences in achievement or behaviour of boys and girls
c) the patterns of interaction and response in the classroom, looking specifically at
participation, off-task behaviour and the frequency and nature of interactions between teachers and children
An interpretative paradigm was adopted which permitted the collection of both quantitative and qualitative data in context, and which allowed the stakeholders, both teachers and children, to have a voice. The research design involved interviews with the focus children and their teacher, and classroom observation. Triangulation was achieved by asking teachers and children similar questions and by classroom observation which provided statistical and qualitative data on the same constructs. The classroom observation episodes used a structured observation schedule, noting the response and interaction patterns of the focus children during both whole class teaching and during individual or group work. In addition, qualitative field notes were written during the observation period.
The schools in the pyramid were both rural and urban, including some very small rural First schools. Although the area is predominantly white, the schools covered a range of socio-economic backgrounds, with some schools largely middle class, whilst others drew from a less advantaged catchment. In all, 36 classes were sampled, six classes each in years 1, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10. In each class four children were identified as the focus for classroom observation and for interview. These four children comprised a high achieving boy and girl, and an underachieving boy and girl. The class teacher for each class observed was interviewed, with additional interviews with other relevant personnel such as the literacy co-ordinator or the year head. A total of 41 teaching sessions were observed and 144 children and 36 teachers were interviewed.
Findings
Teachers’ perceptions of gender and attitudes to teaching and learning
The teachers of the Year 4 and 5 focus children firmly believed that gender identity, and particularly boys’ understanding of what it is to be masculine, is culturally and socially determined outside the school. The Year 4 teachers saw boys’ underachievement as directly linked to poor behaviour, whereas Year 5 teachers (where the children were new to the school) presented a picture of underachieving boys ‘switching off’ or disengaging.
Reasons cited for boys’ underachievement in English were poor writing skills, an inability to settle, poor behaviour and an unsupportive home background. Others cited the physically active nature of boys which prevented them from developing good reading habits. As one said, ‘you can’t read a book when you’re on a bike’. Underachieving girls were more likely to be seen as having a ‘poor attitude’ and a lack of confidence. Boys in general were seen as ‘outgoing’, ‘disruptive’ and ‘needing a challenge’ whereas girls were ‘willing’ and ‘wanting to please’. Boys received far fewer positive descriptions although there was a view espoused by some teachers that they were more prepared than girls to take risks, to want to find out ‘the wider view’ of things and to be more divergent in their thinking. This contrasts with a view of girls as compliant, conforming and industrious but tending to the pedestrian. These findings accord with those reported by Wood (2000) concerning the perceptions and expectations of the Year 1 teachers.
Teachers were asked about the learning styles preferred by boys and girls. Whilst some thought that boys and girls learnt in different ways, the strategies mentioned usually related to the need to motivate boys and keep them on task. Several said that boys learnt best through active, lively approaches as they needed ‘more sparkle and fun in their learning’. Others added that boys liked ‘investigative work’, information technology, music, PE and drama. They were seen as responding well to a sense of humour and a competitive element. A Year 5 teacher commented that they ‘definitely prefer short, structured tasks with a very hands-on input’. Girls, on the other hand, were thought to like ‘longer, open-ended tasks’, creative activities, dance, drama and personal and social education. With specific regard to English, the teachers said boys preferred analytical activities, oral discussions and non-fiction writing whereas girls preferred story writing, extended writing and private reading. Teachers considered that boys did not like writing in general and that girls did not like problem-solving investigations or unfinished tasks. It is worth noting that a small number of teachers regarded the individuality of each child as the over-riding determinant, and rejected the idea of gender difference.
Strategies that appeal to boysOral not written (2)
Short bursts (3)
Active learning (2)
Hands on
Clear rules and guidance (2)
Direct and decisive
Structure, clear aims (2)
More variety
More discipline
More pace
Having a competitive element
Opportunities to move and talk
More motivation / Strategies that appeal to girls
Longer tasks (3)
Open-ended (2)
Creative
Praise
Use of peer talk to solve problems
Activities that appeal to boys
Computers and ICT (3)
Problem solving and investigations (2)
Working with a friend
Analytical activities
Non fiction writing
Games, PE, drama, music / Activities that appeal to girls
Story writing
Longer reading times
Extended writing tasks
Diagrams and drawing
Activities that do not appeal to boys
Writing (3)
Poetry
Reading
Woolly open ended questions / Activities that do not appeal to girls
Problem solving and investigations
Ones they don’t finish
Table 1:
Teachers’ perceptions of strategies and activities that appeal to Year 4 and Year 5 (n=12)
Table 1 summarises the comments from Year 4 and 5 teachers. It is interesting to note that there are many more suggestions for boys than girls. There is an assumption that girls will accept most teaching styles, whereas boys may need particular strategies to motivate them. As one teacher said, ‘girls don’t need strategies’.
Three key issues emerge from the teacher interviews:
a) the different attitudes (and behaviour) thought to be exhibited by boys and girls
b) the different strategies and learning styles thought to be appropriate to boys and girls
c) the different approaches to English thought to be appropriate to boys and girls
The children’s views will be reported under these headings to enable comparison and corroboration of this data.
Children’s perspectives
This paper draws on interviews with 48 Year 4 and 5 children: twelve underachieving boys, twelve underachieving girls, twelve high achieving boys and twelve high achieving girls. The children were interviewed in pairs (high achievers together, under achievers together) and tape recorded with their permission. All names have been changed. As one of the purposes of this study was to find out the different perspectives of high achievers and underachievers (as well as gender differences) we hear from the high achievers then the underachievers on each issue, with gender differences noted alongside.
Children’s perspectives on the different attitudes (and behaviour) exhibited by boys and girls
What is evident from the children’s interviews is that they have a good understanding of their own learning and of the behaviour exhibited by both sexes. The high achieving girls and boys speak of the boys as the ones who have the lowest tolerance for ‘sitting and listening’. Nicky explains that ‘the boys fidget too much because they don’t want to listen to something that they don’t want to listen to’. Kevin agrees that ‘boys lose their attention, get more bored more quickly at work, whereas girls keep their concentration a little bit longer’. However, he goes on to suggest that ‘boys listen to the important bits.’ A few of the high achieving boys express their frustration at the boys who ‘muck about’. Adam says the problem is ‘they want to be tough and not listen because they think they’re too clever to listen and actually learn’.