In “Raising Boys’ Attainment in Reading: Some Principles for Intervention,” Moss observes,
It has been known for some while that, in general terms, boys do less well than girls at reading, almost regardless of the criteria used to assess competence. Not only is their performance weaker, they also read fewer books than girls, and much less fiction (Barrs, 1993; Millard, 1997). (p. 101)
She points to research indicating that boys–again, in general terms–prefer non-fiction and remarks, “the commonsense view of why boys do less well at reading starts from the assumption that either boys’ preferences in reading material are insufficiently represented on the curriculum, or that boys see too few men reading to aspire to being readers themselves” (p. 104). While she sees the issue as being far more complex than what “commonsense” might suggest, she emphasizes that the only solution to the problem is to clarify “what our aspirations for readers are. The reading curriculum should be capable of preparing young people to tackle a wide range of texts, in a range of different media, intelligently and critically. Essentially it should enable them to put their reading competence to good use” (105).
I welcome your thoughts on Moss’s observations or on possible ways of engaging students through the non-fiction selections for 20 and 22 September. If you wish to comment on this topic, please click on comments below to do so. If you would like to start a new topic, go to the dashboard and write a new post.
Reference:
Moss, G. (2000). Raising Boys’ Attainment in Reading: Some Principles for Intervention. Reading, v34 n3, p101-106.
The discussion of what appeals to boys and what appeals to girls is an interesting one. I think before delving too closely into practical approaches to surmount (a little climbing pun, there) the issue, it’s important to note that these definitions of “what boys will like” and “what girls will like” are playing into some highly complex and many-layered constructions of gender.
The idea that “the boys” will key in and engage with Krakauer’s tale of adventure and close scrapes with death more so than with a novel like Life of Pi is inscribing some values and priorities on boys. By coding today’s writings as appealing just to “boys”, a teacher could be isolating the budding mountaineress in the back row who thought this was the coolest story her class has read all year.
When approaching these writings in the classroom, the discussion should hopefully be not on the gender expected to enjoy the story, but the story itself, because, if this story is framed as something “boys will like”, and a teacher sells it as such, they’ll expect all future offerings that they may like to be prefaced with the same disclaimer.
So if we accept the idea of that different literature styles will appeal to different readers, how to approach that issue in a classroom setting? I’m hesitant to suggest a break-out style approach to works of literature, where each student is given options for what readings to complete. If we accept that gender identities are highly social constructions, giving students the chance to “opt out” of the readings that don’t fit their pre-constructed notion of what they like and don’t like, we will have reading exposure that falls along highly gendered lines, and the reading preferences become self-fulfilling.
Boys are told they will like non-fiction, so they read non-fiction, and like non-fiction. They don’t pick up The Kite Runner and maybe discover they really like it. The girls hear that the non-fiction is for boys, so they won’t read it. I’d argue that peer pressure would even be present in literature selection in a break-out style reading set-up, and the best way to ensure everyone gets exposed to a variety of styles is to make sure everyone gets a chance to read everything, whether they want to from the outset or not.
That isn’t to say that we should hold entire classes reading Pride and Prejudice to ensure boys get exposed to it, or do an entire section devoted to true-life accounts of mountaineering or treasure-hunting so that girls can be exposed to a genre that generally has more of an appeal with boys. But rather, that we should move beyond the ideas of what readings will appeal to boys, and what readings that will appeal to girls, and try and find ways to blend traditionally gendered areas of interest in readings that everyone can access.
This is all just a roundabout way of saying that I think teaching a few non-fiction pieces as a stopgap to engage boys in a curriculum that is overall not appealing to them is a dangerous idea. It will perpetuate the idea that, as a whole, English and literature is not for them, that just that isolated field of non-fiction will be where they will find things to connect with.
Although I’m hesitant to think in terms of “boy’s reading” and “girl’s reading,” I completely support the idea of introducing a wide variety of texts into the classroom. In my opinion, using multiple forms of literature is a great way to let students try English on for size and discover what they do and do not like. Non-fiction can be very engaging and I can see only benefit in it being introduced in secondary school.
The current curriculum challenges students to think critically and non-fiction could be an effective way of achieving this. In particular, the Shaben article excites me as a teaching tool. The article is an inspiring account of what an ordinary person can do if they put their mind to it; it motivates the reader to fight for their beliefs.
If I was using this article in my class, I would accompany it with a letter writing assignment. Following a discussion about what individuals can do to enact change, I would ask the students to think of an issue that they feel needs examination in some way. As an assignment, I would give them the two-part task of deciding who they would need to write in order to voice their concerns, and writing said letter. This letter would need to state their concern, as well as the reasoning and justification behind their concern. It would be an exercise in persuasive writing, with the student deciding whether or not to send the letter.
The idea of introducing non-fiction into the classroom is an interesting one. It would be hard to find someone who would deny that a piece like Into Thin Air is anything less than captivating, no matter the reader gender. Into Thin Air is an example of two great uses of non-fiction study in the classroom.
First, the idea of Boy’s Reading. Moss observes, “that boys see too few men reading to aspire to be readers themselves”; why is this? I can’t help but think of the frequency, or lack thereof, of the male hero in canonical high school literature. Yes, many texts have male protagonists (Catcher in the Rye, Romeo and Juliet, Othello, Lord of the Flies to name a few), but who are the male heroes high school age boys aspire to be and look up to? A recent text introduced into many high school classrooms is Life of Pi, which has the potential to speak to male readers more than texts in the past, as it introduces Pi Patel as a hero (if you haven’t read Life of Pi I won’t give away any of the plot!). Is this the introduction of a new male hero in classrooms today? Even in this text, is Pi old enough for senior high school readers, to be a male role model/hero?
Into Thin Air introduces a strong, male ‘protagonist’ (for lack of a better word in the non-fiction sense). Krakauer provides a strong male perspective and a gripping story of modern day survival. While non-fiction isn’t the only way to have strong, realistic male perspectives and heroes, it seems recently, that this is a way to introduce engaging texts for boys in schools.
Secondly, our discussion on Into Thin Air last day also introduced the idea of ‘mountain literature’ as an expansive, and clearly captivating, genre. The idea of non-fiction in the classroom can go from the article Into Thin Air, to the novella version of Into Thin Air, to novel-length texts such as Three Cups of Tea. With pop culture and the media such a relevant part of everyone’s lives, the idea of using novel-length non-fiction texts as interdisciplinary study in classrooms is more important than ever before. The use of a social justice and relevant issue text, such as Three Cups of Tea, allows us, as English teachers to introduce current global issues into the classroom, while teaching the fundamentals of English language arts.
by vargraekr ~ September 21st, 2010
Moss’s first observation includes the statement that “boys read fewer books than girls.” There is an interesting parallel to this in popular culture; it has long been a “commonsense” observation that writers of fanfiction are largely female as well. Fanfiction is, if you have not yet encountered it, fan – produced works of fiction written about characters and settings that are the intellectu al property of others. One of the largest sites for the archival of fanfiction – (http://www.fanfiction.net/) has a significantly female bias in terms of its demographics. According to Quantcast Audience Profile, (http://www.quantcast.com/fanfiction.net ), 61% if the site’s visitors from the US are female, and 37% of the site’s US visitors are 17 or younger. This gender bias is especially striking in light of the fact that the most popular fanfiction subjects on the site are media that were either overtly or tacitly aimed at a male audience. The animated series Naruto is a good example of this; in Japan it’s known as a “shounen manga,” or “boy’s comic,” yet there are over 250 000 works of fiction listed based upon it listed on fanfiction.net.
I mention this because fanfiction represents a significant portion of the writing culture of young people today. For various reasons, girls (under 18) seem to be more likely to spend their free time engaging in texts, as both readers (as Moss notes) and as writers (fanfiction.net). Moss mentions the commonsense view that “boys’ preferences in reading material are insufficiently represented.” The exact opposite is true at fanfiction.net. In the anime/manga category, for instance, the most popular “shoujou manga,” or girls’ comic, is Sailor Moon, in eighth place in terms of number of stories posted. Other categories tell a similar tale; with the exception of the Twilight series, there is very little on the site that is both highly popular and marketed or intended primarily for girls.
Even in a classroom setting, I do not believe that the problem is lack of classroom assigned reading that would appeal to boys. After all, most writers before (and even during) the 20th century were men. This was and is true almost to the point of exclusivity in certain eras of history. For centuries – for millennia – men and boys have loved stories. From China’s Romance of the Three Kingdoms, to Iceland’s family sagas, to J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings; fictional prose narratives have historically been popular with male audiences. The question would seem to be: what is different now? Why are boys reluctant or unused to engaging with narrative fiction, while girls seem willing to spend their free time engaging with stories, even (and especially) with stories intended by their writers and makers for boys?
I think that one possible answer is that boys are encouraged by societal pressures to develop interests that do not include from – the – book reading. The video game industry, which claimed more than 20 billion dollars in sales in 2008 ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28682836/ ), is targeted mainly to boys – beyond the point of parody. For games specifically targeted at young people, it is not easy to find even a single high – profile release that does not involve either sports or an incredible amount of violence. According to quancast, the website cited above, there is less of a discrepancy between male and female users of certain social networking sites. Youtube, for example, is reported to have an even 50/50 split in its gender demographics. There are also more traditional activities for boys, like sports.
Compounding the problem, I believe, is an environment or culture that does not value narratives, narrative reading, and thus certain reading skills very highly. It is acceptable for girls, of their own free will and on their own leisure time, to discuss characterization and plot elements from a novel, short story, film, TV show, fanfiction, webcomic, or the like. I do not think that boys would receive similar support from their peers for such discussions.
One solution is the one we have already discussed; to introduce more works of sorts that boys are (still) interested in reading. As Moss states, there are a variety of reading skills that young people should be given the chance to develop. Another solution would be to take steps to make reading a more appealing, and socially acceptable activity for boys to engage in. Realistically, this would require a concerted effort in society far beyond what teachers – even all teachers working in tandem – could accomplish on their own.
In terms of the first solution, the articles that we have read this week would make good alternatives. It is possible to practice narrative fiction reading skills, even if the target reading is nonfiction. “Into Thin Air,” for example contains a plot, and even characters with an “antagoinist” and “protagonists.” Questions such as identifying the “fictional” elements of the article, why they are used, whether they are appropriate for a nonfictional article, would make good study questions. Such questions could if necessary build students’ comprehension of fictional narrative elements while engaging them in a nonfictional piece.
Another possible activity would to have the students to “dramatize” one of the articles. If they were to write a semi –fictional account based on one of the articles, what would they add? What would they omit? Why? What “artistic liberties” could they take with the story? How many liberties should be taken with a story based on real events? Again, students could have practice thinking about how fictional stories are composed, while analyzing a nonfiction piece.
Finally, and most obviously, students could practice reading, and thinking about the article just as a nonfictional piece. The biggest drawback here is external to the classroom; high school English teachers are often expected to predominantly teach fiction in their classes. Unless this changes, nonfiction pieces cannot be used as exclusive replacements for learning narratives in the classroom.
by katie324 ~ September 20th, 2010
I agree that the issue seems not to be what is stipulated as being “gender” appropriate, but rather that the social constructs around boys suggests that certain themes or stories are appropriate. The same seems to go for female literature as well and the way that girls are potrayed in roles that seem to create a lust for only one particular type of literature. Both boys and girls in a classroom would benefit from being given a larger scope of literature to choose from and to be encouraged to explore.
First off, I’d like to begin with an anecdote that threw off my own conception of girls preferring fiction and boys preferring non-fiction. When I read the novel version of “Into Thin Air” a few years ago, I recommended it to some of my male friends with the assumption that it was “their” kind of literature. One of them replied that he had already read it, that he had found it boring, and that he had much preferred reading Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four and Huxley’s Brave New World in high school to Krakauer’s Everest chronicle. I was surprised, and then a little embarrassed, that I had talked it up to him so much under the assumption that he would like it because he was a boy. It was an important lesson for me to be sensitive to individual taste, and to provide a broad spectrum of genres for the sake of appealing to all students who will have a variety of preferences based on more than just gender. I expect that age, extra-curricular interests, and reading ability will be just a few other factors that will enter into why students prefer fiction over non-fiction.
I came across an interesting article by Deanne Camp, who writes about using fiction and non-fiction books as “Twin Texts” as a way to appeal to a wider range of students. Her research focuses mostly on children’s books, but I believe that the principle would be able to apply in high schools as well. Twin Texts are two books, one fiction and one non-fiction on the same (or related) topic (Camp 400). She points out that the non-fiction book answers questions in a more straightforward manner, but the story structure of a fiction book may be less difficult for students to read (Camp 400). I thought that was a particularly good idea, especially considering our discussion last day regarding the wide variety of mountain literature that exists and could be taught alongside “Into Thin Air” or “The Mad Season”. Also, either might be a better option of ESL students who might have difficulty with the technically dense language of non-fiction or the poetic language of fiction. Through studying a variety of genres around one topic or theme, you are able to hopefully appeal to every student and to spark some interest in the topic through the genre in which they feel most comfortable. Hopefully, they will even become more engaged with a genre that they hadn’t previously considered. It also gives readers the opportunity to explore many ways of looking at a given topic.
Camp also indicates that “non-fiction books need not be exclusively expository in nature; more and more titles combine narrative and exposition in unique and creative ways” (401). As previous blog posts have indicated, vocabulary might be a struggle for some students while reading non-fiction; however, having a narrative context in which to situate the new vocabulary terms might help students understand their meaning easier than if the same information were in a textbook. Twin texts also open up a number of possibilities for comparative assignments, whereby the students could compare the information in the fiction and non-fiction works by examining which information overlapped, which text was more compelling, which text was more informative, and which one was more accessible, etc. These questions could all be means through which students could learn about the advantages and disadvantages of different genres as well.
Here is the citation for the article that I referenced above…
Camp, D. (2000). It Takes Two: Teaching with Twin Texts of Fact and Fiction. The Reading Teacher, v53 n5, p400-408
I’ll play devil’s advocate… it speaks to a few items already raised above as well…
I don’t know that boys prefer non-fiction because they are told that boys prefer non-fiction. It could be argued that there can be distinct differences between the genders and what they prefer (particularly around how they communicate) and that the reason that there are certain stereotypes is because perhaps there is a genuine difference in preference and style.
This isn’t to say that there are no boys who enjoy fiction or that girls don’t enjoy non-fiction. I’m a woman and I absolutely love biographies, and there are countless men who enjoy fictional stories.
However… just for the sake of argument… could it be suggested that the apparent gender divisions are there because there is a legitimate difference in what “most” boys or “most” girls tend to prefer?
I would argue that as a woman, I’ve witnessed and experienced that there do seem to be differences in communication styles between men and women. There are, in fact, whole genres of texts devoted to this… (eg. Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, etc). So if we can accept that in a relationship men and women communicate differently, can we also leave room for the possibility that boys may typically prefer to read certain genres and girls may prefer to typically read different genres, without coming across as being… sexist or biased?
I’m not sure how this can be approached and if there is a “right” way to claim that most young men prefer reading non-fiction stories and that most young women prefer reading fiction stories… and further, do we want to?
Is there an issue with doing this or even an issue with ignoring that the stereotype may be there for a reason?
Just playing devil’s advocate here! 🙂
I agree with much of what has already been said about non-fiction in the classroom. Although research may point to boys liking non-fiction more than fiction and girls liking fiction more than non-fiction, I think it would be wrong to think of it too strictly in these terms. Instead we as teachers should use this information to choose a variety of different texts in an attempt to appeal to the different interests in the class -regardless of gender preference. I don’t remember non-fiction, or graphic novels, or picture books in the classroom when I was there and I would have really appreciated something besides novels, essays, and poems. I think it is equally as challenging for students to analyze one of these lesser-used types of text. I look forward to introducing some of these ideas to my future classes.
I think a major component of why boys prefer non-fiction may be that males tend to respond better when there is a sense of adventure and when the stakes are extremely high. When we discussed Into Thin Air I was surprised that most of the comments made by my female students where in regards to the insanity of wanting to climb Everest. When I read this story that wasn’t my first reaction. It actually wasn’t a reaction at all. My reaction was, “Cool… where can I start training.” I don’t think I’m alone in my thoughts and I would guess that more males than females would have my reaction.
When choosing material for a class I think as educators we will need to keep this in mind. I think it would be interesting to ask the question in a class doing Into Thin Air if they would want to climb Everest. Would the class break up down gender lines? You could then get the class to brainstorm why this is.