Noisy boys and invisible girls?
Dr Debra Myhill and Dr Susan Jones

Dr Debra Myhill and Dr Susan Jones of the University of Exeter report on their findings from two studies concerning gender stereotypes and the implications for achievement among boys and girls.

The education media attention to underachieving boys has promoted a view of boys who either "won't" or "can't" achieve, set against a profile of capable and achieving girls. There are negative portrayals of boys as macho, testosterone-packed lads; as failing boys, outshone by clever girls. Conversely, if the future is female, there are still surprisingly few representations of women in leadership roles or at the top of a career chain. Not all print media or television programmes trade in stereotypes, and there are many examples of more subtly complex portrayals of gender, but for teenagers watching popular television programmes, the implicit message for boys could be construed as, "You're pretty hopeless, but don't worry, you'll still get a good job"; and for girls as, "You're really bright, but don't expect to get to the top". What, then, might be the relationship between gender stereotypes and underachievement?

We have been investigating teacher and pupil perspectives of gender and achievement. In Project JUDE, an academic pyramid of first schools, middle schools and a high school, we interviewed 144 children and 40 teachers across the age range from Year 1 to Year 10 to elicit their views and perspectives. This information was complemented by lesson observations of the interviewed pupils. The second study built on the findings of the first and involved a teacher questionnaire, exploring why teachers believed particular pupils were underachieving, and interviews with 12 underachieving pupils who had been involved in the first study. Neither study set out to investigate gender stereotypes, but this emerged as a strong theme in both studies.

The teachers we interviewed were all committed to equal opportunities and keen to avoid any kind of stereotyping or sexist comments. Yet in many cases, their comments revealed the existence of some strong gender stereotypes. It was evident that there was a gap between the strongly held belief in equality and views which had been shaped by the realities of classroom and social experience. When talking about boys and girls in general, teachers portrayed boys far more negatively than girls and described boys as lazy, disruptive, aggressive, with poor concentration and less likely to take education seriously. Girls, on the other hand, want to please, apply themselves, are quieter and efficient, and are more enthusiastic. Boys who were high-achieving were repeatedly described as atypical:

"Jack is an atypical boy, because he's actually very keen to work, he's very keen to produce, he certainly doesn't underachieve, he's a leader at a table rather than a follower which boys tend to be, but he doesn't usually engage in silliness."
"He's different in the way he behaves, in that he's very articulate, very well spoken."
"He's more articulate … he has good manners and that's quite unusual for a boy of his age and he has respect for authority and he has a work ethic."

By contrast, the high-achieving girls were seen as typical girls, while underachieving girls appeared to be almost invisible, with no typical description attributed to them. The children revealed in interview that, regardless of their own gender, they thought that girls were cleverer than boys and more likely to succeed. This is a significant shift in pupil perceptions over recent decades, reflecting a positive growing confidence in girls about their own abilities, but a worrying decline in confidence amongst boys.

Perhaps not surprisingly, given the attention to boys' underachievement, there was a strong tendency to associate underachievement with boys. Boys were twice as likely to be identified by their teachers as underachievers; indeed, a third of all the boys in the sample were identified as underachievers. This set of expectations surpasses any outcome revealed in national tests or at GCSE. Statistically, in a class of 30 pupils, the gap in achievement in literacy between boys and girls is equivalent to about two boys doing less well than the girls, with the rest of the class roughly parallel in terms of achievement by gender. This suggests negative expectations of boys, but it is also not good for the invisible underachieving girls, whose needs are not recognised. Indeed some of the teachers recognised this and also the fact that girls' compliant behaviour contributed to their not being noticed:

"If it turns out that the bulk of kids in the class who are sitting there compliantly are girls … then they've got as much of a problem, because nobody's suggesting that they can do better, because they're not presenting you with a discipline issue and their work is neat and tidy."

Children were also aware of these differences: they believed that girls were not noticed, though they saw this as a behaviour issue, which militated against boys, who were spotted misbehaving whilst girls got away with more.

Beth: "I think boys are more loud, if they're having a laugh together they are more obvious … girls gossip more … but it's not noticed because as far as the teacher is concerned you could be talking about your work and you're just quietly talking, whereas the boys are shouting."

We are all familiar now with supposed differences in girls' and boys' preferences in reading and writing, particularly boys preferring to read and write non-fiction. The teachers and the children in the study disagreed over gender preferences in literacy. Whereas teachers believed that boys prefer factual reading and writing and lots of structure, boys themselves expressed a liking for creative and narrative writing where they had freedom to choose what to write about and to use their imagination.

In the high school, there was a clear dislike for the more functional, content-led writing encountered in other subjects: "I love writing in English ... but if it's like an essay on rocks or something boring then my head will just go blank and I don't know what to write." This may well be consistent with the recent Ofsted report on schools where boys achieve well in English (Yes he can: schools where boys write well, Ofsted, 2003) which suggests that freedom of subject matter within the context of a form specified by the teacher is an effective strategy in encouraging boys to write.

Most studies simply look at boys and girls as two opposing groups whereas we looked at four groups: high-achieving boys and girls, and underachieving boys and girls. This provided us with some surprises. English, or literacy, is not preferred by girls. Instead English is a favoured subject for high-achieving pupils, both boys and girls, whereas the underachievers, and especially the underachieving girls, expressed a marked dislike for English, especially reading and writing.

What can you do in your classroom and your school?

• Focus on underachievement rather than gender: other sub-groups are prone to underachievement as well as boys - for example, some ethnic minority groups and working class white girls.
  
• Discuss as a school or subject team how you identify underachieving pupils, including girls. How do you determine that a child is not achieving what they are capable of, as opposed to trying their very best even if it is below the level of achievement of others?
  
• Explore stereotypes when sharing reading or in general discussion: for example, are Harry Potter and Hermione Granger typical boys and girls or stereotypes?
  
• Examine just how participatory your literacy lessons are: how much time do you spend talking; and how much time do they spend talking? Do the teaching strategies actively encourage every child to get involved? Consider having a 'no-hands up' rule and using other ways to manage responses: for example, selecting children's names randomly from a Harry Potter-style Talking Hat; numbering all pupils and calling out numbers until everyone has participated; allowing the child answering to select the next child to speak, but not someone who has already responded; using a spokesperson for group feedback.
  
• Use oracy more as a precursor to writing: from well-developed drama activities, to discussion, to oral rehearsal of sentences.
  
• Sometimes give choice of subject matter in writing so that all children can write about what they know and are interested in.
  
• Exploit connections between children's own interests and literacy teaching: examine the spelling patterns of text messaging; write narratives based on computer game stories.
  
• Have a 'read a different type of book' week, where readers think about the kind of books they usually enjoy and read a book, recommended by someone else, that they would not normally read.
  
• Be watchful for class management strategies which alienate boys or reprimand them more: be alert to girls who talk behind your back or groom behind their desks!
  
• Listen to pupils' voices: use circle time or discussion time to actively seek children's opinions on literacy lessons and how they feel they could be helped to achieve even more. Research repeatedly shows how accurate children's judgments are in these matters.

Female success is not the necessary corollary of male failure - there is no reason why we should not help both boys and girls to succeed. Every child and every classroom is different, and what happens in your classroom may be contrary to what is happening elsewhere. Tackle underachievement by looking at the children you teach, not looking for quick-fix, off-the-shelf solutions. After all, teacher knows best!

Subscribe to Literacy Today