The purpose of the study was to explore how 297 primary school students interpreted their experiences reading with the aim of developing a theoretically coherent and empirically justified account of the apparent systematic underperformance of boys, compared to girls, on national and international reading benchmarks. 

Children’s attitude to reading has been the focus of several studies (Baker & Wigfield, 1999; Logan & Johnston, 2009; McKenna et al., 1995; Millard, 1997; Mullis, Martin, Kennedy & Foy, 2007; Sainsbury & Schagen, 2004).  Attitude has been found to affect the level of ability attained by a child through the influence on engagement and practice (McKenna et al., 1995; Sainsbury & Schagen, 2004).  Furthermore, gender differences in the experiences of reading have been identified with girls, as a group, indicating more favourable attitudes than boys (Baker & Wigfield, 1999; Bunbury, 1995; McKenna et al., 1995; Millard, 1997; Sainsbury & Schagen, 2004).  Of concern is research that indicates boys under-perform in literacy, compared to girls, at all levels of socio-economic status, while boys from low socio-economic backgrounds make up the lowest group (ACER, 2010; Collins et al., 2000; Connolly, 2004, 2006; Masters & Foster, 1997; OECD, 2010).

This study moved beyond broad generalizations about boys and girls to consider complexities inherent in notions of masculinity and associated tensions.  Specifically, this study examined and further developed understandings about the ways in which notions of masculinity were constructed among different groups of boys in school contexts, the interplay of factors such as socioeconomic background, and the influence of these interrelated factors on educational experiences, such as reading.  From an understanding of literacy as socio-cultural practice (Freebody & Luke, 2003; Barton & Hamilton, 2005; Street, 1994), reading was considered a concept defined by social and communication practices students engaged in their everyday lives.  The general research questions included;

1.      What is the most theoretically coherent and empirically justifiable account of the apparent systematic underperformance of boys, compared to girls, on national and international reading tests?

2.      How do discourses of masculinity constructed in the classroom enable and constrain reading development for boys?   

Drawing parallels from the work of Bronfenbrenner (1979), an ecological framework directed the methodological approach.  The ecological conceptual framework provided a lens for developing adumbrated understandings about the multiplicity and textured nature of students’ experiences while contributing to findings about differences among boys. Resonating with the work of Barton (2007), an ecological metaphor provides an appropriate way of talking about literacy when the aim is to understand how literacy is embedded within other human activity, including its embeddedness in social life and thought, and its position in history (Barton, 2007).

This presentation will examine inflections in boys’ experiences as readers highlighting diversity, and the need to make visible differences amongst boys.  The diversity and differences identified amongst groups of boys will be highlighted.  Within this presentation it is argued that the systematic underperformance of some boys, compared to some girls, is influenced by particular attitudes and actions that boys internalise through their everyday social interactions and it is these interactions that contribute enabling and constraining influences on reading attitudes, reading frequency and subsequently performance.

Australian Council for Educational Research (2010). Challenges for Australian Education: Results for PISA 2009. Camberwell: ACER Press. Barton, D. (2007). Literacy: An introduction to the ecology of written language (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Collins, C., Kenway, J., & McLeod, J. (2000a). Factors influencing the educational performance of males and females in school and their initial destinations after leaving school. Canberra: DETYA. Connolly, P. (2006). The effects of social class and ethnicity on gender differences in GCSE attainment: A secondary analysis of the youth cohort study of England and Wales 1997-2001. British Educational Research Journal, 32(1), 3-21. Freebody, P., & Luke, A. (2003). Literacy as engaging with new forms of life: The “four roles” model. In G. Bull & M. Anstey (Eds.), The literacy lexicon (pp. 51-66). Australia: Prentice Hall. Keddie, A., & Mills, M. (2007). Teaching boys: Developing classroom practices that work. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin. Mullis, I.V., Martin, M.O., Kennedy, A.M., & Foy, P. (2007). PIRLS 2006 International Report: IEA’s Progress in International Reading Literacy Study in Primary School in 40 Countries. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2010). PISA 2009 Results: Learning Trends: Changes in Students. Paris, France: OECD. Parsons, S., & Bynner, J. (1999). Literacy, leaving school and jobs: The effect of poor basic skills on employment in different age groups. London: Centre for Longitudinal Studies, Institute of Education. Stanovich, K. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-406. Skelton, C. (2001). Schooling the boys: Masculinities and primary education. Buckingham: Open University Press. Street, B. V. (1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy in development. London: Longman. Younger, M., Warrington, M., Gray, J., Rudduck, J., McLellan, R., Bearne, E., Kershner, R., & Bricheno, P. (2005). Raising boys’ achievement (Research Report No. 636). Norwich, UK: University of Cambridge Faculty of Education.