An Investigation of the Gender Gap of Boys’ Underachieving in Literacy Essay

The purpose of this study was to investigate the gender gap, especially of boys’ underachievement in literacy, and discover if there are particular strategies that schools can implement in order to raise the attainment levels of boys. As the issue of the gender gap is so wide I selected literature to review which covered a wide range of theorists and existing studies. Specifically I wanted to identify some of the suggested causes for the underachievement of boys and any already proposed effective strategies which I could execute in my own study. The data I collected from the study was both qualitative and quantitative in order to give a more valid outcome; these included an open-ended, semi-structured interview, which I felt would enable the respondent to provide a wider range of ideas; questionnaires, observation and existing data. The results showed that there is in fact a close correlation between boys who do not read for pleasure/enjoyment and boys who underachieve. However it also showed that there are specific strategies that can be applied to meet the learning needs of boys in order to raise their achievements. However due to the scale of the topic this small study cannot provide a definitive outcome for the causes and solutions of boys literacy, it has merely suggested some probable reasons for and some possible remedies. HYPOTHESIS During the past twenty years there have been rising concerns over the achievement gap between boys and girls, particularly with boys underachieving in literacy. The aim of this investigation is to identify if reading is the main factor for the achievements of boys in literacy, or if there are other strategies that can be implemented to raise the attainment levels of boys and therefore close the gap. To complete this study, I will undertake the investigation at an all boys’ school (for ethical reasons of anonymity, the school will be known as School A) located in a leafy suburban area in the North West of England. School A is a high achieving school compared to other mixed and same sex schools in the Local Area. The current Head of English (HoD) is driven, ambitious and highly motivated towards pupils’ achieving the best results possible. During the research I expect outcomes to show that there is a correlation between high achieving boys and enjoyment of reading for pleasure. I also expect to find that particular classroom strategies can effectively impact the attainment levels of boys, particularly in those who do not read for pleasure. LITERATURE REVIEW In 1993 Ofsted reported that boys do not perform as well in English as girls (cited in Bearne, 2004), and more recently the National Assessment of Education Progress (2009) has found that ‘female students consistently score higher than boys on average in both reading and writing’ (Watson et al., 2010: 356). However this concept is not a new one; researchers for the Gender and Education Association noted that in the 1950s and 1960s the pass rate for the eleven plus examinations, taken by almost all eleven year olds at this time, were different for boys and girls; Epstein et al. (1998 cited in Watson et al., 2010) claims that the pass rate for boys was lower than girls because girls supposedly matured earlier than boys. Gareth Malone, writing for the Telegraph in September 2010 stated that nationally ‘boys lag behind girls in reading by 6 percentage points and in writing by 15 percentage points’ (Malone, 2010). Despite this, Gorard (2001, cited in Malacova, 20 07) believes that, the panic about the gender achievement gap is exaggerated; he blames the concept on lack of sufficient data, which until recently had not been available, and believes that a lot of the assumptions regarding boys underachievement is based on statistical misinterpretation. Gorard (2001, cited in Malacova, 2007) conducted the first UK analysis of national data set over a six year period; he found that the gap only appeared amongst high-ability pupils and that the number of boys and girls failing exams was similar. His conclusions found that the gender gap was, if anything, decreasing. Regardless of Gorard’s (2001) analysis, there are many who still feel that the performance gap is a concern. In 1993 the Ofsted report offered some insight into differing perspectives and explanations for boys’ underachievement, including the lack of male literacy role models, classroom strategies, curriculum literacy content, perceptions of behaviour, social class and ethnicity (cited in Bearne, 2004). Solsken (1995, cited in Bearne, 2004) added to this list claiming that literacy is associated more with females and femininity and believes that this possibly has a negative effect on boys and their attitudes towards reading. Solken’s (1995) argument links very closely with Watson et al.(2007) who proposed that popular explanations often focus on boys’ ‘biological make-up’. They claim that evidence shows that ‘hegemonic masculinity is central to †¦ the struggles boys face as literacy learners’ (Watson et al. 2010: 357). Rowan et al (2002) also believes that ‘boys are biologically different to girls and that this biologically difference is the cause of behavioural differences’ (Rowan et al. 2002, cited in Watson et al. 2010:357). He believes that due to these biological differences, boys and girls are defined by inherent masculinity and femininity characteristics and in order for educational success this must be acknowledged and accommodated for. This is an important assertion to consider for this particular case study; due to the domination of boys in School A it is important to understand how masculine characteristics are catered for in an all boy s’ school. One of the suggestions to improve literacy for boys is to make education more ‘boy friendly’ by including more reading materials that boys enjoy, such as action and graphic novels, which will motivate boys to read. Hornton (2005) believes that adolescent boys could rediscover the magic of books by using texts that appeal to their interests. Young and Brozo (2000, cited in Brozo, 2010) deem that encouraging boys and actively helping them to find access points into literacy and reading should be made priority by teachers. During this particular study the idea and notion of actively promoting literacy through any route possible is addressed by School A’s English department head in the interview, and shows that it is essential for boys be aware that reading does not have to be confined to specific genres and authors. Furthermore Cole & Hall (2001, cited in Taylor, 2004) claim that boys read less fiction than girls, preferring to opt for texts that contain more facts and less narrative, such as magazines or texts that are analytical. Similarly Millard (1997) claims that boys tend to opt for genres such as action and science fiction whilst reading as little as possible in school that they think they can get away with. Due to these preferences, boys’ are at a disadvantage in academic literacy as their motivation towards school texts and curriculum texts is affected. Probst (2003, cited in Taylor, 2004) believes that if boys are to engage with reading, the texts that they are asked to study need to be significant to them. In other words it seems that in current literacy education, there is not enough stimulating material which addresses the needs or interests of boys. Millard (1997) relates the findings of boys’ apparent lack of interest in reading as significant to low achievement in English, while Holland (1998) attributes lesson style and strategies as some of the other causes for underachievement. Both of these arguments are valid for this particular study and will be investigated further by studying the reading habits and the predicted GCSE grades of boys in a high set and a low set, and by exploring particular teaching styles implemented in School A. Holland’s study (1998) showed that boys can spend any amount of the day, stemming from 25 percent up to 75 percent, passively listening to the teacher rather than actively engaging. When trying to reason why boys had a tendency for this she found that the boys preferred lessons which were practical, had a range of different activities (such as personal research, groups work or discussions), or involved competition. If boys are passive during English lessons they are not learning the essential literacy skills required to help them achieve results. Taking this into consideration it seems then that pedagogical practice needs to be addressed. Taylor (2004) suggests that teachers contemplating their own practice could reflect on whether they are meeting the individual learning needs for each boy through learning pace and style, and innovative strategies which build on boys’ existing interests to maximise their potential, development and emotional needs. Pollack (1998, cited in Taylor, 2004) agrees with this theory suggesting that numerous opportunities should be presented to boys for hands on, interactive learning. METHODOLOGY My approach to research was identified by the nature and context of the question. After considering the purpose and desired outcomes for the investigation I decided that the research would take the form of a case study, incorporating a combination of both qualitative and quantitative data to ensure validity and reliability; ‘qualitative methods may supplement the findings by identifying gaps from the quantitative study’ (Bryman & Bell 2007:650). The decision was made to collect evidence using a multi-method approach including interviews, questionnaires and analysis of existing recorded data. According to Gillham (2000) ‘different methods have different strengths and different weaknesses’ (Gillham 2002:13), and so ‘triangulation†¦ to strengthen your findings’ (Greetham 2009:184) was implemented to strengthen the validity of the study. To form part of the qualitative data I arranged an interview with the head of the English department. The purpose of the interview was to gain a deeper understanding of the context of the department and of the strategies which have raised attainment and achievement within the subject. Jones (1985) claims that ‘In order to understand other persons’ constructions of reality, we would do well to ask them†¦ and to ask them in such a way that they can tell us in their terms (rather than those imposed rigidly and a priori by ourselves)’ (Jones cited in Punch 2009:144). Taking this into consideration I decided that the interview should be open-ended and semi-structured for flexibility; Cohen et al. (2007) claim that semi-structured interviews gather ‘more intangible aspects of the school’s culture, e.g. values, assumptions, beliefs, wishes, problems.’ (Cohen et al., 2007:97). A semi-structured interview then would enable me to gather more in-depth information regarding the Head of Department’s ideas and beliefs surrounding School A’ s successes. To understand boys and literacy, and whether reading habits have an impact on GCSE results, a questionnaire was compiled to collect primary data and distributed to a top set and a bottom set year 11 English class. According to Gillham (2002), questionnaires are not typical of case study research; however they can be used to obtain simple, factual information. For the purpose of this part of the study I felt that a questionnaire was a practicable way to acquire important facts regarding the reading habits of a group of high ability boys and a group of low ability boys. These would then be compared to analyse and identify any correlation between reading habits and English predicted exam results using samples from the furthest range on the ability spectrum. During the research I also decided to collect additional data through participant observation. The aim of this was to gain an ontological perspective of the pupils enabling me to observe interaction, relationship and actions performe d by pupils. I felt that this would help me to make sense of the data collected in both the interview and the questionnaire. In regards to validity and obtaining accurate results from my observations, I first needed to develop a relationship with the classes I intended to observe to ensure that my presence was unobtrusive and did not affect their normal behaviours and create a bias observation. To achieve this I regularly participated in classroom observation at the back of the room in attempt to become a participant in the classroom context. Trochim (2001) claims that ‘the researcher needs to become accepted as a natural part of the culture to ensure that the observations are of the natural phenomenon’ (Trochim, 2001: 161), therefore I attended certain classes as an observer over a series of months to ensure that the pupils were comfortable with my presence and so acted within normal behaviours. The final set of data collected was secondary data compiled of the school’s GCSE results since the Head of English was appointed, including results form 2008, 2009 and 2010. The data also provided average GCSE results for the rest of the Local Authority enabling me to compare the school’s results against average achievements in the LA. The purpose of this data was to compare the information obtained from the interview with the head of department, about strategies implemented to raise attainment, against the GCSE results. ANALYSIS The Interview: The aim of the interview with the English Head of Department (HoD) was to discover if GCSE results had improved since being appointed Head of English at School A, and if so to discuss the strategies and provisions which had been implemented to raise the achievement levels in literacy at School A. The current HoD had taken over the English department in April 2008; the English GCSE in the Local Authority that year was 64.5 percent of students achieving A*- C; School A achieved 58 percent, more than 6 percent less than the LA average and 2.1 percent less than the national average. However in 2009 the following year, after just one year as the department head, School A had improved their results by 20.7 percent. The LA’s average results in English in 2009 was 66.7 percent achieving A*-C, the national average was 62.7 percent, while School A’s results were up to 78.7 percent. In 2010 the GCSE results at school A dipped slightly to 76.8 percent due to the school’s wea ker cohort for that particular year; however the results were still higher than the Local Authority’s average of 70.4 percent and the national average of 64.8 percent. Due to the weaker cohort that year the HoD considered this result to be an excellent achievement. Strategies implemented in the department were a crucial factor for the improved attainment levels across the Key Stages at School A. In September 2009 a centralised, uniformed English curriculum was introduced to Key Stage 3 aiming to â€Å"drip-feed† appropriate skills and assessments to pupils that prepares them with relevant GCSE experience before they enter Key Stage 4. Pupils in Key Stage 3 are assessed each half term (part of Assessing Pupils’ Progress) and are assessed in relatively the same way as the new Specification GCSE, ensuring the identification of weakness areas for improvement. Despite the success of raised attainment across the Key Stages, these strategies cannot be considered as part of School A’s GCSE progression; the first year group from Key Stage 3 in September 2009 are due to sit their GCSE exams in the summer of 2011, only then will it be pos sible to determine if this strategy attributes to the departments achievements. There are, however, specific strategies in place which can be measured against the department’s raised achievement results. These are those that have already been applied at Key Stage 4, including a uniformed teaching curriculum incorporating, for example, all of the same poets and clusters in the GCSE specification; personalised revision packages which identify individual’s weakest areas combined with personalised intervention to improve these weaker areas and ensure pupils’ achieve highest marks possible; ceased timetables for year 11 pupils close to exams and new timetables put in place to prioritise learning for the nearest exam. The Head of Department believes that all of these are essential contributing factors for the departments improved results. Other elements, which the Head of English believes help pupils at School A to maximise their achievements, are more innovative and practical activities for example the employment of production companies to perfor m GCSE texts such as Of Mice and Men; and school trips to events such as Poetry Live, an event hosted by poets from the GCSE anthology. Pollack (1998) argues that ‘we need to develop and implement innovative teaching approaches†¦ this may mean providing numerous opportunities for hands-on†¦ as well as interactive teaching’ (cited in Taylor, 2004:294). The English Head felt that these opportunities expanded the boys learning and understanding by developing them outside of the classroom context. Bearne (2003) claims that ‘There is a tendency for boys to draw on visual sources for their writing’ (Bearne, 2003:3) and so visual performances such as Of Mice and Men help the pupils to draw on their experiences through vision and memory. In addition to those already mentioned, the Head of Department also felt that the ethos created in the department combined with class room methods were an essential factor in the development and attainment of the pupils at School A. The department has a strong focus on literacy which is promoted broadly amongst all pupils, including reading groups and book clubs, as well as spelling and reading lessons delivered to pupils on a weekly basis. Pupils are encouraged to read regularly, regardless of material, to ensure positive enjoyment of reading. In contrast, Brozo (2002, cited in Taylor, 2004) felt that teachers were more likely to choose texts with narratives that did not appeal to boys. The HoD however regularly promoted the reading of any materials, whether it was comics, newspapers, information books or autobiographies; she felt that if pupils were to enjoy reading and increase their confidence with literacy, they should feel that any text that they enjoy to be suitably considered. In terms of classroom strategies the department endorses well paced positive learning in an environment of mutual respect between pupil and teacher; clear personal targets which are monitored explicitly; strong Assessment for Learning to test and extend pupils’ understanding and learning through challenge, feedback and routes to improve; short, sharp activities; a strong focus on reading; regular homework; and clear learning objectives which are reviewed during the plenary to ensure all pupils know the direction of learning. These techniques are consistent to that of a survey which was conducted of fourteen schools in 1997. The survey was performed by former HMI Graham Frater; he concluded that the most successful schools in regards to boys and literacy were the ones that paid a lot of focus towards teaching methods. Particular methods that he felt where important for success included: prompt starts to lessons with clear learning objectives shared; a challenging pace sustained throughout the lesson; lesson endings which reflected on the learning objectives and achievements within the lesson; a variety of activities; high expectations of the pupils combined with a non-confrontational attitude towards discipline; and effective modelling. It seems quite clear then that pupils’ achievements at School A can be attributed to the methods and strategies implemented consistently across the department. The pupils are suitably challenged with pace and activities, they know what the aims of their lessons are and how they have achieved these aims, they regularly assess their strengths and weaknesses and so understand what they need to do in order to raise their achievement levels. On the contrary, however, it is difficult to determine whether classroom and reading strategies are the most influential factor for raising attainment in boys and literacy. From observation of quiet reading lessons I discovered that many of the high ability pupils in the top set classes within Key Stage 3 welcomed the lesson as a chance to read an engaging book; however the lower ability groups were often much more difficult to set on task. Indecision over which books to read, reluctance to read quietly, and regular disruption amongst the pupils seemed a frequent occurrence in the low ability classes. When addressing reading, the HoD spoke about the issues regarding boys and reading, specifically in respect of boys’ loss of motivation of reading in their teenage years. She believed that possible causes in lack of motivation in boys and reading was due to their increased socialisation as they grew older, the introduction of more complex reading materials in preparation for GCSE, peer pressure from others that could overshadow pupils’ personal preferences, and she also felt that a lot of teenage boys only read to obtain information and not for pleasure. Taking these factors in to consideration she claimed that it is important to understand the reasons why boys do not enjoy reading but it is more productive to motivate and encourage them to read. The HoD considers the best way to encourage reluctant readers is by getting to know individual pupils and then gauge their interest levels and preferences as a starting point. Some of the suggested strategies, she felt were particularly useful, are to provide a variety of books, both fiction and non-fiction with appropriate reading levels; to keep in touch with boys current interests and provide books that reflect them; respect reading interests of young people and don’t expect them to only enjoy books suggested by the teacher; allow pupils to self-select their own books; encourage an interest in short stories, graphic novels and magazines, working up to full-length books; and to give academic recognition and credit for books read. These ideas meet the suggestions put forth by Hornton (2005), who stated that boys’ motivation should be encouraged with texts that appeal to their interests, and Young and Brozo (2000, cited in Brozo, 2010) who find it important to aid boys to seek access points into literacy and reading. The Questionnaire: The questionnaire was distributed to a high ability top-set year 11class and a low ability bottom set year 11 class. There were 32 pupils in the high set and 13 in the low set. The aim of the questionnaire was to compare the reading habits and attitude towards reading from a range of pupils of different abilities. According to Hornton (2005) there is a correlation between individuals with low level literacy skills and those who dislike reading for pleasure, and so I predicted that an individual’s attitude toward reading would correlate with their predicted GCSE grade; the more pupils enjoy reading and feel that it is important, the higher I expected their grade to be. The predicted GCSE grades in the set one class ranged from A* – C while the set five classes’ grades ranged from B – G. The questionnaires revealed that in the top set group 84.38 percent of pupils enjoyed reading and 90.63 percent felt that reading was important for reasons such as expanding vocabulary, increasing knowledge and learning new things. There was a vast difference in comparison with the lower set where only 23.8 percent of pupils enjoyed reading and just 53.85 percent felt that reading was important. It appears then that there is indeed a correlation between literacy skills with enjoyment of reading, however other elements surveyed in the questionnaire aimed to establish whether boys and literacy could have a direct link to their parents’ relationship with reading. The survey asked pupils if their parents enjoyed reading and if they had been encouraged to read as a child. Sadowski (2010) analysed the literacy gap between working and upper class boys, he found that the gap for more affluent boys was not as large as those from working class backgrounds and attributed this to richer boys growing up with father’s who were readers. This suggests that pupils whose parents enjoy reading and encouraged them to read from a young age would achieve higher results than those whose parents either did not enjoy reading or did not encourage them. Surprisingly the results did not reflect this to an extent that one would have expected. In regards to pupils’ parents who enjoy reading, 76.92 percent of pupils in the lower ability set agreed that their parents enjoyed to read while 81.25 percent of pupils’ in the high ability group confirmed the same. Of parents who encouraged their sons to read as a child, 61.54 percent from the low ability agreed and 78.31 from the higher ability group. Despite a difference between the percentages for both groups’ parents who read and encouraged them to read when they were younger, the gap is not a remarkable one and does not qualify a distinct correlation between pupils’ ability in literacy and the relationship their own parents have with reading. The questionnaires revealed that in spite of 76.92 percent of their parents having an enjoyment of reading, only 23.08 percent of pupils in that class enjoy reading, which suggests that perhaps even if a higher percentage of parents had encouraged their son to read this would not necessarily have affected their attitude towards reading for pleasure and therefore would not affect their achievements in literacy. EVALUATION The outcomes and findings from this case study have, to some extent, complemented a lot of the existing research addressed in the literature review. For example Holland (1998) discovered that boys tend to spend a lot of time listening passively to teachers because they prefer lessons that are practical and involve a range of activities. From my observations in the classroom and confirmation from the Head of English in the interview, the boys at School A also learned best when lessons involved a series of different activities such as discussions, group work or practical tasks such as drama-based role plays. This outcome also corresponded with Malone (2010) who, in a venture to discover why boys where underperforming in literature, stated that he aimed to perform short, achievable tasks with the boys, he also suggested that giving explicit time frames focused the boys into completing their work. During the interview the HoD explained that by giving the boys at School A short time frame s to complete specific task, it kept the pace of the lessons challenging and rigorous and therefore engaged them in learning more effectively. However the problematic outcome for this particular study is that only one school has been investigated and so it is difficult to determine whether the observations, questionnaires and interview conclusions, pertaining to strategies and the improved GCSE literacy results for School A, are a true reflection of causes and solutions of underachievement. The English GCSE results were really poor at School A in 2008, just as the current Head of Department took over, and from the interview questions and answers it would seem that the department and classroom strategies implemented since then have helped to improve the pupils’ achievements. Nevertheless it is certainly impossible to verify whether these are the sole reason for improvement; one particular reason is that it was never established what mode of departmental and classroom strategies were in place before the current HoD took over from the previous. Another reason is that School A’s GCSE results prior to 2008 were not obtained for this study and so results before this year have simply been generalised based on the last available statistics. It could be assumed that the 2008 result may have been an isolated case and so accessing results prior to 2008 would have endorsed whether or not the results had improved substantially. Gorard et al (2001, cited in Malacova, 2007) believes that the gender gap is exaggerated and to some extent it is possible from this research to argue in favour of this. Over the past three years School A has achieved excellent GCSE results, especially in English and particularly in comparison to local and national results. School A is an all boys’ school and so advocates that boys in this particular context are not underachieving as are others in other contexts. This suggests that if School A can produce results above the average mark, particularly in a year when the cohort was extremely weak, i t should be possible for other schools to raise the achievement levels of literacy in boys just the same. However it would be possible to prove or disprove Gorard’s theory of the gender gap, if the strategies implemented at School A could be put into action in a school of a different context. If successful this would validate the outcomes from this case study, it would also give rise to further research based on boys and literacy and whether these strategies could be used in a co-educational school or if they are too specific to the needs of boys’ learning and therefore not beneficial to girls’ learning. I felt that the findings made regarding boys reading habits and their attainment levels were significant. From the sample of questionnaires taken there seemed to be a direct correlation between predicted grades A*-C and boys who enjoyed reading or felt that it was important; 100 percent of the boys in the high ability group were predicted a grade A*-C (although three pupils were unaware what their predicted grade is, the school setting procedures ensured that only bo ys predicted A*-C would be allocated to set one). Of this a high 90.63 percent felt that reading was important and 84.38 percent enjoyed reading for pleasure. There were however exceptions to this; one pupil in the higher ability group stated that he did not think reading was important because ‘I do not read and I am predicted A’s at GCSE’. Another boy from the high ability group, who has been predicted a C grade, also felt that reading was not important because it ‘doesn’t do anything’, however this boy also claimed that he enjoyed reading and so regardless of whether he felt that it was important or not, reading is part of his literacy development. Despite the boys who did not feel that reading was important, the majority of the boys in the class felt that reading was important; this suggests that the highest achieving literacy pupils in School A were ones that enjoyed reading and so this would also be an essential contributing factor to the success of their achievements. It is difficult here to state whether the reasons for the boys’ enjoyment of reading is owing to the strategies for motivating reading encouraged by the HoD and so part of the questions on the questionnaire should have been more open ended to allow pupils to explain perhaps what motivates their enjoyment of reading. The lower ability results from the questionnaire were also significant for showing a correlation between literacy achievements and reading habits. Only 23.08 percent read for pleasure and only half the class felt that reading was important, this suggests that the reason for low ability achievers is possibly due to the lack of enjoyment in reading. Once again the problematic issue with these results is that the number of pupils in the low ability class was considerably less than the number of pupils in the high ability class. To gain a perhaps more informed result from the questionnaires a larger sample from low ability classes should have been obtained to match the number of pupils in the high ability class. This may or may not have produced different results, but, whatever the outcome, they certainly would have been more valid. One final evaluation to consider, in regards to the low ability group, is how effective the suggested motivation strategies have been in engaging boys in reading. With only 23.08 percent of pupils in this class finding an enjoyment in reading it would seem that the strategies have been ineffective in increasing motivation and achievement in these particular pupils. What would have been an interesting study if had been possible, would be to assess pupils attitude towards reading and predicted grades before the HoD had taken over and implemented strategies, and then to compare them to the results that have been found during in this study. CONCLUSION Returning to the hypothesis, my aim was to find out if reading for pleasure impacted on boys’ attainment levels; whether the achievement of boys who did not enjoy reading was affected. I also wanted to identify successful teaching strategies and whether these would raise the levels of those boys who again did not enjoy reading. The study has shown that there is a correlation between boys reading habits and their achievement levels’; it has also identified some strategies that can be used to raise their attainment levels. However from this study alone it is difficult to say if those strategies implemented in an all boys’ classroom would be equally effective in a mixed sex classroom. Due to this it would be interesting to expand the research on a larger scale to investigate the impact of those strategies, which are effective for boys learning, on a) girls learning in a mixed classroom and b) boys learning in a mixed classroom. The gender gap issue is such a broad topic that research can be extended to a greater degree of investigation. For example I have covered some possible causes of boys’ underachievement in this study; however on a wider scale other possible causes could be explored such as masculinity and identity, class or ethnicity. I feel that the most important route to take continuing from this particular investigation would be a focus on masculinity stereotypes in the single sex classroom and the mixed classroom. Holland (1998) states that: Boys do appear to be locked inside a stereotype which appears to make them succumb to peer pressure and which inevitably impacts on their attitude to work’ (Holland, 1998: 177). Therefore researching ways that can reduce or even prevent these macho stereotypes in the classroom would be an important factor for understanding boys and underachievement. Despite that there is no definitive outcome from this study; I feel that it is something that I will take forward into my professional development; whether it is through consideration of differentiation in boys learning style in a mixed classroom, or through a focus of raising attainment levels in my classes. Whichever way I incorporate consideration of gender into my teaching, it is certainly something that needs to be addressed. Gorard (2001) believes that concern over the gender gap is exaggerated; however it is clear through GCSE tables that boys tend to achieve lower than girls. In relation to this then, it is important for both newly qualified teachers and established teachers to consistently strive to meet the learning needs of their pupils. It seems the most important way is by adapting their style and approach to learning styles to ensure that both girls and boys have equal opportunities to work and achieve their highest potential. BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS Bleach, K. (1998). Raising Boys’ Achievement in Schools. Staffordshire: Trentham Books Ltd. Brozo, W. G. (2002). To Be A Boy, To Be A Reader: Engaging Teen and Preteen Boys In Active Literacy. US: International Reading Association. Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2007) Business Research Methods 2nd Ed. Oxford University Press Cohen, L. , Manion, L. & Morrison, K (2007). Research Methods In Education. London and New York: Routledge. Cox, T. (2000). Combating Educational Disadvantage: Meeting the Needs of Vulnerable Children. London and New York: Falmer Press. Frances, B. (2000). Boys, Girls and Achievement: Addressing the Classroom Issues. London and New York: Routledge. Frater, G. (1997). Improving Boys’ Literacy. London: The Basic Skills Agency. Gillham, B. (2000). Case Study Research Methods. London and New York: Continuum. Greetham, B. (2009) How to Write Your Undergraduate Dissertation. Palgrave Macmillan. Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative Researching. London, Thousand Oaks, N ew Delhi: Sage. Millard, E. (1997). Differently Literate. London, Washington DC: The Falmer press. Punch, K. F. (2009). Introduction to Research Methods in Education. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC: Sage. Rae, T., & Pederson, L. (2007). Developing Emotional Literacy With Teenage Boys. London, California and New Delhi: Paul Chapman Publishing. Trochim, W. M. (2001). The Research Mothods Knowledge Base. Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog Publishing. Weeks, A. (1999). The Underachievement of Boys. Northants: First and Best Education. JOURNALS Holland, V. (1998). Underachieving Boys: Problems and Solutions. Support for Learning , 13(04), pp.174-178. Hornton, R. (2005). ‘Boys Are People Too: Boys and Reading, Truth and Misconceptions’. Teacher Librarian ,.33(2), pp 30-32. Malacova, E. (2004). ‘Effects of Single-sex Education on Progress in GCSE’. Cambridge Assessments UK , 33, pp233-259. Mills M. & Keddie, A. (2007). ‘Teaching Boys and Gender Justice’. International Journal of Inclusive Education ,11 (03), pp.335-354. Myhill, D. (2002). ‘Bad Boys and Good Girls? Patterns of Interaction and Response in Whole School Teaching’. British Education Research Journal , 28 (03), pp.339-352. Reichert, M. & Hawley, R.(2010). ‘Reaching Boys An International Study of Effective Teaching Practices’. Phi Delta Kappan ,91 (04), pp35-40. Sadowski, M. (2010, August). ‘Putting The Boy Crisis in Context’. Education Digest , pp 4-6. Taylor, D. L. (2004, December). â₠¬ËœNot Just Boring Stories: Reconsidering the Gender Gap for Boys’. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy , pp290-298. Watson, A., Kehler, M. & Martino, W. (2010, February). ‘The Problem of Boys’ Literacy Underachievement: Raising Some Questions’. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 53(5) , pp356-361. WEBSITES Bearne, E. (2004, September). Raising Boys’ Achievement in Literacy. Retrieved March 2011, from RBA: www-rba.educ.com.ac.uk/PaperEB.Paf Boys’ Underachievement. (2005, November). Retrieved December 2010, from Teaching Expertise: www.teachingexpertise.com/articles/boys-underachievements-101 Gender and Achievement. (n.d.). Retrieved December 2010, from National Strategies: http://nationalstrategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/node/46121?uc%20=%20force_uj Malone, G. (2010, September 2nd). Extraordinary School For Boys: helping boys love literacy. Retrieved April 11th, 2011, from Telegraph: www.telegraph.co.uk/education/7976044/Extraordinary-School-for-Boys-helping-boys-love-literacy.html Mendick, H. (n.d.). Retrieved April 12, 2011, from Gender and Education: