Boys and Reading

 

Study after study has found that boys lag behind in literacy achievement. Boys report reading less and score lower on reading tests, according to a 2009 study.

Many books that appeal to boys tend to be frowned upon in traditional classrooms.  “With some notable exceptions, boys’ preferred reading material rarely makes it to the Caldecott or Newbery lists so beloved of librarians,”  says Robin Boltz in 2007, who gives the example of “R. L. Stine’s Goosebumps (and)… Captain Underpants” which were “banned by many school libraries.”

Although increasingly popular, comics or graphic novels are also strongly preferred by boys, though sometimes treated as lesser in schools.  But comics, which boys report reading more often than girls, can be a good “light reading” as a first step toward more serious or academic text, according to Stephen Krashen in 2005.

In Educating Latino Boys, David Campos recommends integrating technology whenever possible.  Reading seems less stigmatized as “something girls do” when technology levels the playing field. Blogs, digital journals as response to text, digital magazines or ebooks are also highly engaging for boys.  In 2011, Stephen Krashen suggests that “Free Voluntary Web Surfing” may also help literacy.  These less-traditional approaches to reading may help reluctant boys feel like reading is “cool.”

To up the “cool” factor, consider a little healthy competition.  Why not have teams of students log self-selected reading hours to see which teams can reach their goal first?

For all students, but for boys in particular, reading for a clear, real-life purpose can be beneficial.  Students who love working on cars with family may love reading about cars; gamers make prefer to read up on their favorite Minecraft blogs to plan strategies and share with friends.

Never adopt an overly-generalized approach to connecting students and books.  Just look out for the girls and boys (who may not ask for books as readily as the girls) in your classroom to make sure everyone is reading what they love.

Advertisements

Find What Children Love

image

My son loves Pokemon cards.

He got hooked on the game in the way reading should progress.  It started on the bus with other kids, reading as a low-pressure way to get his feet wet in a high-interest “content”-driven (decontextualized or unfamiliar) world of strange creatures.  No tests or drills in skills, just reading surface-level text to understand each creature.

This progressed into a Pokemon card collection which he categorized based on criteria he determined from understanding of the text and input from his peers. He compared and contrasted dozens of little characters of different varieties with different powers, and of course read several handbooks and the comic book series.

image.jpg

He built background knowledge and confidence in the content area. He used those schematic constructs to show off what he knew with friends in a social way. With Aspergers, looking other children in the eye or playing less structured games makes him feel nervous.  With a high-interest content area he feels knowledgeable about, he can make friends and engage confidently with peers.

As he traded cards with friends, he used co-textual support to evaluate and draw conclusions. He proudly justified his trades with peers using text evidence for support.

He was reading deeply and narrowly in a high-interest content-area…

Until the bus stopped and he got to school.  There, the teacher handed him a textbook.

Granted, there are more appropriate texts for classrooms. But too often our desire to “do school” gets in the way of reading.  Instead of building skills, when and how we want them to be built, let children come to text naturally through a love of reading.

Instead of building skills, find what children love and build them up.

Essays in Language Classrooms

Essays have a very limited role in the assessment of second language learners.

As opposed to assessments that observe how children understood what they read, listened to, and are able to write, the traditional essay is limited to only one domain of language: writing.

In a limited way, we can get indirect clues as to overall ability in language with writing assessments.  But without interactive, communicative assessments that let children read, listen, and speak, we can only directly gauge one thing with essays: writing ability.  Rick Stiggins explains, “For instance, say we want to find out if students can perform certain complex behaviors such as participating collaboratively in a group, communicating orally in a second language, …There is no way to use essay responses to tap these kinds of performances...” (124).    Writing ability can relate to or give us hints at how well children can read, but why not assess them directly by letting children read and then respond verbally or nonverbally to input.

We learn to write by reading, not by writing (2005).  Writing merely makes reading more engaging and gives students a voice in a classroom.  According to Stephen Krashen, the purpose of output is to provide more input:  retelling a story to engage kids in stories and compel them to read more;  writing a friend, then reading their response; asking a question to hear a response, etc.

Sadly, most essays cut off the communication: there is a short, often low-interest prompt that is not always related to a book or story children have read or heard.  Children don’t get to contribute to the story and ideas are one-way.  Children do not feel like their words or ideas will be used for any back-and-forth exchange, only as a test.

Research suggest that  “…perceived L2 writing competence predicts L2 writing anxiety better than L2 writing achievement does”  (Cheng 647). This means children do not always write to their full potential when anxious; they write how they think they can write.

This disadvantages non-traditionally academic writers, the non 4%ers, who will feel anxious about writing and under-perform classmates who expect to write well.  This creates validity issues with the test itself, and may skew data.

Time can also be a factor. Many (but not all) essays do not give adequate “incubation time” as Krashen describes it (2005, 2).   Children are not always given time to go home, relax, and let ideas naturally come to them, sometimes days later.  Timed writes in particular do not honor the way children learn to write, and a focus on writing over responding to text can also create negative wash back (Krashen 2015, 3), and hurt motivation to focus on compelling messages.

It is important to consider the limitations of  cold writing assignments or essays.

 


 

Cheng, Y.-s. (2002), Factors Associated with Foreign Language Writing Anxiety. Foreign Language Annals, 35: 647–656.

Krashen, S. The Composing Process and the Academic Composing Process. In Selected Papers from the Fourteenth Interntional Symposium on English Teaching. English Teachers’ Association/ROC, Taipei. Taipei: Crane Publishing Company. pp. 66-77. 2005.

Krashen, S. TPRS: Contributions, Problems, New&Frontiers, and Issues. July 2015. Web.  http://www.sdkrashen.com/content/articles/2015_krashen_tprs-_contributions,_problems,_new_frontiers,_and_issues.pdf

Stiggins, Richard J., and Richard J. Stiggins. Student-involved Assessment for Learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall, 2005. Print.

 

Reading & Poverty

Brown and Krashen in 2005 described a simple, logical suggestion: “We can improve the achievement of all students by providing a print-rich environment in school.”  If the answer is so simple, why aren’t we creating opportunities for kids to read?  Why are we de-funding libraries?

Students are continuing in a catch 22: they have to read to get out of poverty, but they can’t read because of poverty-related obstacles.  Students are being told they should read… but what books and how? Continue reading Reading & Poverty

Literary Circles

FullSizeRender

For too many children, books are a chore, a thing to do.  Books are just thrust upon them.

Books are for “holding children accountable” for reading by answering A, B, C or true/false, or even worse, Close Reading.  Children analyze text in such a robotic, formulaic way that any joy in figuring out the puzzle of a good story, guessing what will happen next, or comparing characters to your life- it’s all gone.

 

Then there are literary circles.  

In groups, students enjoy reading and reflecting on self-selected text with friends.    The goal is to give students the power to choose to read, then share or even lead others towards deeper connections with the text.

Continue reading Literary Circles

Why “Test” is a Four-Letter Word

Tests are simply unnecessary for language learning.  Because I ascribe to Krashen’s mantra of “No unnecessary tests,” I chose not to use traditional tests, but instead focus on what children are authentically doing in a classroom.

An authentic assessment is one where we don’t just test for knowledge or skills, selecting A, B, C or true/false.  Instead, children actually use knowledge or newly-acquired language  to communicate in a way that imitates the classroom and real-world communication.

Continue reading Why “Test” is a Four-Letter Word

They aren’t just sitting there

Every teacher has those early language learners who are not yet fluent in social language.  To the untrained eye, they’re just “sitting there” but we know they are processing input.

Nonverbal response to comprehensible input is at the heart of methods like TPRS and TPR.  Assessments are built into the natural back-and-forth in a TPRS classroom, though sometimes teachers find nonverbal responses are hard to document.   Continue reading They aren’t just sitting there