This report is the outcome of a research project carried out between December 2004 and June 2005 by the University of Western Sydney. The objective of this project is to inform teachers' professional learning, knowledge and practice, and school curriculum development in relation to the education of boys in the early and middle years of schooling. In particular, the project sets out to identify and describe evidence-based teaching practices that have proved effective in improving the motivation, engagement and academic and social outcomes of boys, particularly those boys at risk of disengaging from school-based learning activities.
First, it focused on the relationship between these educational practices and boys' motivation, engagement and socioacademic outcomes. A review of the literature and a series of in-depth case studies allowed the research team to generate a set of research-based principles and strategies that underpin successful programmes for boys.
Second, boys' motivation, engagement and socio-academic outcomes were recognised as being related to, if not inseparable from, boys' socioeconomic status (SES), and/or geographical location and/or cultural factors.
Third, this project explores the strategies for encouraging boys to examine ways in which they can be motivated, engaged and become socially and academically successful.
Munns, G., Arthur, L., Downes, T., Gregson, R., Power, A., Sawyer, W., Singh, M., Thistleon-Martin, J. and Steele, F. (2006). Motivation & engagement for boys. Evidence-based teaching practices. Canberra, ACT: DEST.
Download the full report from: www.dest.gov.au
The 'Raising Boys' Achievement Project (RBA) was a four-year project (2000-2004) which focused on issues associated with the apparent differential academic achievement of boys and girls at key stage 2 and key stage 4 in schools in England. This report highlights some of the dilemmas which are implicit within the debate, explores different interpretations and perspectives about boys' under-achievement, and challenges some common misconceptions.
The debate, about whether, and to what extent, boys underachieve academically in English schools has been high profile since the early 1990s, and it is clear from national data that there is legitimate concern over the achievement levels of some boys throughout their schooling. However, the report also outlines several reasons why the debate needs to be situated carefully, including the observation that achievement levels in primary and secondary schools, as measured by national tests at the end of each key stage, are rising through time, and evidence suggests that the gender gap has stabilised against a background of a rising trajectory of achievement for both girls and boys.
The report then outlines several groups of intervention strategies:
- pedagogic: classroom-based approaches centred on teaching and learning
- individual: essentially a focus on target-setting and mentoring
- organisational: ways of organising learning at the whole school level
- socio-cultural: approaches which attempt to create an environment for learning where key boys and girls feel able to work with, rather than against the aims and aspirations of the school
The report then concludes with a discussion of the strategies that have the potential to raise both girls' and boys' achievement. Indeed, the research does not support the notion that there is a case for boy-friendly pedagogies. Pedagogies should appeal to and engage boys and girls.
Younger, M. & Warrington, M. (2005). Raising boys' achievement. Research Report RR636. London: DfES.
Download the full executive summary (pdf) from: www-rba.educ.cam.ac.uk/Executive%20Summary.pdf
Download the full report (pdf) from: www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR636.pdf
This publication by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers draws together a spectrum of views from 10 authors (researchers/practitioners), who discuss topics such as learning styles and gender, the gender gap from an international perspective and gendered school exclusion.
More specifically, the first two chapters draw on quantitative rather than qualitative research. The chapter by Gillborn and Mirza addresses issues to do with the inter-relationship between gender, ethnicity and class. They stress that it is not possible to consider gender in isolation from class and ethnicity. Indeed, they found that the gender gap is smaller than inequalities of attainment associated with ethnic origin or socio-economic background.
The second chapter by Stephen Gorard draws on international evidence from the 2000 PISA report and puts British data on the gender gap in a wider perspective. He reports that boys' underachievement, especially in reading literacy, is an international and not just a British concern. In fact, the gender gap in the UK is unremarkable and slightly less than the average in the international league tables.
The six chapters that follow draw chiefly on qualitative in-depth research, rather than large-scale quantitative work, and look at specific issues within the school and classroom setting. Ann Phoenix's chapter 'Learning styles' starts by emphasising the power that 'doing girl' and 'doing boy' has upon learning and attainment. Boys are underachieving, Phoenix argues, because they are more concerned with negotiating their masculinity than with the demands of schoolwork and this needs to be addressed.
Becky Francis' chapter on classroom interaction emphasises that boys have a tendency to be homophobic and misogynistic, punitive of those that go 'out of line'. Francis ends her chapter with important recommendations for addressing this situation. Teachers need to reflect honestly on their own classrooms and their own practices, and how far they need to change and challenge what is going on.
Louise Archer's chapter reviews current thinking about mixed and single-sex schools and groupings. She too sees gender inequalities interwoven with social class, ethnicity, sexuality and disability and is careful to avoid a 'one size fits all' recommendation. She concludes that we may be focusing on the wrong question. Rather than focus on whether groups should be mixed or not, Archer argues that we need to challenge the prevalence of sexist attitudes and practices in education.
In her analysis of language issues and boys' so-called underachievement, Caroline Daly argues against simplistic gendered categories. She concludes that there may be less of a 'boys' problem' than difficulties with restricted definitions and understanding of literacy, leading to unconfident teaching and narrow assessment strategies. Best practice in literacy is for everybody, not just boys, and Daly ends her chapter with a long list of key factors to enhance literacy across the board.
Audrey Osler draws attention to a largely hidden issue in schools - girls' exclusion. Exclusion is typically defined as a male problem and part of the 'crisis in masculinity'. Osler reports on her own research with girls excluded or self-excluded from formal education. Racism, particularly against recent migrants, asylum seekers and pupils of Asian descent is common, leading to truancy and self-exclusion. African-Caribbean girls are much more likely to be excluded by the school than White girls. The chapter ends with suggestions for remedies offered by the young women who participated in the research.
Gavin Baldwin's chapter on heterosexism and homophobia highlights an issue which is largely evaded in primary schools, and not always handled well in secondary. He draws attention to the underlying abuses of power by a dominant group and suggests that schools should recognise that sexuality is as much a part of identity as ethnicity. Education to counteract homophobia and heterosexism needs to be part of 'education for life' in which people develop fully and confidently, valuing who they are and recognising the equal value of others. Anti-bullying policies need to be much more explicit about including lesbians, gay men, bisexual and transgendered people, and acknowledging and challenging the extent to which dominant heterosexist/heterosexual discourses oppress and stunt people.
The chapter by Carrie Paechter draws together an historical overview of the curriculum. She analyses the many continuities from the elitist and male assumptions about education, from the nineteenth century. The powerful subjects are still maths and science, taught, Paechter argues, in ways which make them less attractive to girls, with the human application that appeals to girls being played down. The other core, literacy, has become increasingly feminised. Paechter points out that despite the National Curriculum, there are many areas of inequality in provision and experience. She ends by referring briefly to the vocational curriculum 'the most gender segregated aspect of the entire educational system'.
Finally, Anne Madden's chapter draws on important research from the Equal Opportunities Commission and challenges the assumption that girls are the main beneficiaries of more enlightened approaches to gender issues in schools. Although some progress has been made in improving the educational opportunities for girls and young women both at school and in the world of work, the author looks at what schools need to do now to ensure that hard-fought gains are not undermined. A particularly concern is the Government's apparent lack of engagement in issues surrounding gender-stereotypical subject choices at a time when broadening the 14-19 curriculum means that students have greater choice. Madden argues that this could be a lost opportunity leading to more gender bias in students' choice of subjects, not less. The message is plain: the sex stereotyping which moulds children from their earliest days continues to sabotage efforts towards equality.
Claire, H. (Ed.) (2005). Gender in education 3-19 - A fresh approach. London: Assocation of Teachers and Lecturers.
Download the publication (pdf) from http://www.atl.org.uk/
An article published in 1990 suggested that the increased rate of reading disability in boys was the result of referral bias. Reviewing four epidemiological studies, this research shows that reading disabilities are substantially more common in boys than in girls, and calls from more research to determined the causal influences that underlie such sex differences.
This paper explores a number of possible explanations for the underachievement of boys relative to girls using data from over half a million pupils in over 3000 schools. Analyses show that the gender gap in educational attainment is consistent, being stable across both the attainment and ability distribution. Indeed, the gap is primarily driven by performance differentials in English, with boys and girls obtaining similar results in maths and science. This paper furthermore shows that the gender gap in not related to whether a school performs well or not, whether it is effective or not or observable school characteristics. Instead, there is evidence that the gender gap is rooted in different rates of cognitive maturation between boys and girls and is related to family income. It concludes that since its source is not within-school practice, policy directed at improving such practice may be misplaced.
Burgess, S., McConnell, B., Propper C. & Wilson, D. (2003). Girls rock, boys roll: An analysis of the age 14-16 gender gap in English schools. CMPO Working Paper Series No 03/084. Bristol: University of Bristol, CMPO
Download the report from www.bris.ac.uk
In 1996 Ofsted published The Gender Divide which highlighted the gap between the performance of boys and girls. Since then the attainment of boys has continued to lag behind girls. This report follows up some of the issues raised in The Gender Divide and identifies approaches used to raise boys' attainment.
This report finds that boys already lag behind girls in English when they enter secondary school, although they achieve marginally better than girls in mathematics. This gap does not disappear during the secondary years.
The report then outlines several factors that are related to improving achievement, and include a positive learning ethos, good teaching and classroom management, close monitoring of individuals and effective support for learning.
Ofsted (2003). Boys' achievement in secondary schools. HMI 1659.
Download the full report from www.ofsted.gov.uk
This Ofsted report explores writing in English in more detail and outlines 10 school/teaching characteristics that are associated with boys writing well. Factors associated with boys' writing skills include:
- culture in the school and classroom where intellectual, cultural and aesthetic accomplishment by boys as well as girls is valued by all,
- value being placed on diversity of style and approach, succinctness as much as elaboration, and logical thought as much as expressiveness, and
- both boys and girls read widely for pleasure and in this way absorb a range of models for their own writing
This report further emphasises that good planning and teaching need to be accompanied by a detailed and informed assessment that values boys' writing and a culture than enables boys to take pride in writing well for progress in writing to be sustained.
Ofsted (2003). Yes he can: Schools where boys write well. HMI 505.
Download the report from www.ofsted.gov.uk
This study explored the plausible reasons why boys generally obtain lower literacy scores than girls on literacy tests and assessments. Data were collected using surveys and interviews of both primary-school teachers and parents of primary-school students. Teachers also trialled a variety of intervention strategies. In addition to outlining some of the factors that impact on boys' literacy outcomes, this report also contains several recommendations about changes in school-practice to increase boys' engagement with and interest in literacy.
Alloway, N., Freebody, P., Gilbert, P. and Muspratt, S. (2002).Boys, literacy and schooling: Expanding the repertoires of practice. Nathan, Australia: Commonwealth Department of Education Science & Training.
This report is available electronically at www.dest.gov.au
This literature review was commissioned by Ofsted to inform their inspection reported in 'Yes he can: Schools where boys write well'. Investigating the factors related to the poor performance of boys in writing, this study concludes that teachers of literacy need to be able to embed their teaching beyond 'common sense' interpretations of boys' writings and the behaviour that accompanies it. Furthermore, it recommends that teachers need a developed subject knowledge that enables them to transform the commonsense orthodoxies (e.g. 'boys are good at ICT) and apply their knowledge beyond shortcuts offered by tools such as writing frames.
Daly, C. (2002). Literature search on improving boys' writing. London: Ofsted.
This review is downloadable at www.basic-skills-observatory.co.uk
This report reviews the research evidence of the reasons behind disengagement and outlines the measures that have been implemented to engage young men in learning. 6 issues emerged as important when considering how to engage young men in learning: poor school experience, low achievement, masculine views of work, low perception of learning, poor understanding of work and qualifications relationship, and unrealistic expectations of life post 16. This report then outlines some of the key measures required to address such views. For example, parental influence, especially the role of the father, should not be under-estimated. Therefore, education and training should also be directed at parents, not only potential participants. This report also emphasises that many disengaged young men come from communities that see education and training as poor option. Work would therefore have to be undertaken in these areas to change attitudes to learning amongst peers and family.
Hodgson, L. (2002). Encouraging lads to learn: A literature review of existing models for engaging young men in learning. Nottingham: LSC.
This Library Research Paper by the Northern Ireland Assembly overviews research into the "gender gap" in educational attainment and outlines selected government strategies to prevent underachievement in boys. This review further highlights factors that may influence the performance of boys in relation to that of girls, including: the lack of male teachers and gender stereotyping in interactions, assessment and subject choice,
An electronic version of this review is available at www.ni-assembly.gov.uk
80px.gif)
