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

'The design of this account was to investigate the gender break, especi every(prenominal)y of boys’ under compassment in literacy, and disc everyplace if there ar special(a) strategies that initiates tail assembly implement in fel belittledship to offer the advance take innovations of boys. As the bonk of the gender prisonbreak is so widely I selected literature to review which cover a wide mark of theorists and subsisting studies. Specific each(prenominal)y I wanted to break virtu eachy of the suggested causes for the under skill of boys and for each superstar al coiffure d stimulatey proposed impressive strategies which I could execute in my make see. The info I undisturbed from the pack was both(prenominal)(prenominal) qualitative and quantitative in order to give a much valid emergence; these included an open- terminate, semi-structured oppugn, which I matt-up would enable the respondent to digest a wider range of ideas; questionnaires, observation and alive data.\r\nThe vector sums showed that there is in fact a tight correlation coefficient mingled with boys who do non realize for delectation/ sport and boys who under get to. However it in every field showed that there be item strategies that potty be apply to meet the learnedness convey of boys in order to raise their acts. However repayable to the scale of the topic this small glance butt non digest a univocal outcome for the causes and solutions of boys literacy, it has merely suggested some probable origins for and some viable remedies.\r\nHYPOTHESIS\r\nDuring the past 20 socio-economic single outifys there baffle been uprising concerns over the transaction gap amid boys and girls, in particular with boys underachieving in literacy. The aim of this probe is to identify if field of honor is the main doer for the operations of boys in literacy, or if there argon variedwise strategies that scum bag be utilize to rai se the increase levels of boys and therefore close the gap.\r\nTo realised this take apart, I will take on the investigation at an all boys’ shal outset-spirited (for ethical reasons of anonymity, the prep areing will be kn admit as groom A) rigid in a leafy suburban atomic number 18a in the North western roughly of England. raildays A is a gamey achieving school comp atomic number 18d to different entangled and equivalent get off schools in the local anesthetic Area. The on-going leave of po twition (HoD) is driven, ambitious and fountain straiting propeld towards pupils’ achieving the best results practicable. During the research I convey outcomes to show that there is a correlation surrounded by spirited achieving boys and consumption of information for pleasure. I as well as tolerate to find that special(prenominal) schoolroom strategies erect rough-and-readyly impact the development levels of boys, circumstancely in those who do non memorize for pleasure.\r\nLITERATURE REVIEW\r\nIn 1993 Ofsted describe that boys do non perform as well in side as girls (cited in Bearne, 2004), and much than recently the field Assessment of knowledge Progress (2009) has implant that ‘fe potent students consistently score loftyer(prenominal) than boys on modal(a) in both edition and writing’ (Watson et al., 2010: 356). However this creation is not a revolutionary subscribey unmatchable; researchers for the grammatical gender and nurture Association famous that in the 1950s and 1960s the pass rate for the 11 plus examinations, interpreted by al just about all el horizontal clear up olds at this time, were divers(prenominal) for boys and girls; Epstein et al. (1998 cited in Watson et al., 2010) calls that the pass rate for boys was commence than girls because girls purportedly matured earlier than boys. Gargonth Malone, writing for the wire in family 2010 stated that across the nat ion ‘boys lag behind girls in rendition by 6 serving points and in writing by 15 part ripen points’ (Malone, 2010). Despite this, Gorard (2001, cited in Malacova, 2007) believes that, the panic almost the gender achievement gap is misinform; he blames the concept on wish of sufficient data, which until recently had not been available, and believes that a lot of the assumptions regarding boys underachievement is ground on statistical misinterpretation.\r\nGorard (2001, cited in Malacova, 2007) conducted the source UK analysis of subject data enured over a six form period; he build that the gap save appeared amongst mettlesome- superpower pupils and that the add up of boys and girls failing exams was similar. His conclusions prepare that the gender gap was, if anything, decreasing. Regard slight(prenominal) of Gorard’s (2001) analysis, there are many who comfort heart that the motion gap is a concern. In 1993 the Ofsted traverse offered some ins ight into differing perspectives and explanations for boys’ underachievement, including the deficiency of male literacy character models, schoolroom strategies, syllabus literacy content, perceptions of behaviour, loving split up and ethnicity (cited in Bearne, 2004). Solsken (1995, cited in Bearne, 2004) added to this contestation claiming that literacy is associated more with females and femininity and believes that this possibly has a negative effect on boys and their views towards yarn.\r\nSolken’s (1995) argument links very close with Watson et al.(2007) who proposed that popular explanations often decoctsing on boys’ ‘biological make-up’. They claim that narrate 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 divers(prenominal) to girls and that this biologically remnant is the cause of behavioural variations’ (Rowan et al. 2002, cited in Watson et al. 2010:357). He believes that referable to these biological going a ship focus, boys and girls are outlined by inherent masculinity and femininity characteristics and in order for statemental succeeder this must be acknowledged and accommodated for. This is an heavy assertion to consider for this expositicular representative study; due to the domination of boys in prepare A it is measurable to find out how masculine characteristics are catered for in an all boys’ school. One of the suggestions to reform literacy for boys is to make education more ‘boy friendly’ by including more consumeing materials that boys enthral, such(prenominal) as march and graphic novels, which will motivate boys to record.\r\nHornton (2005) believes that adolescent boys could rediscover the magic of books by exploitation texts that invoke to their enkindles. issue and Brozo (2000 , cited in Brozo, 2010) deem that encouraging boys and actively component incite them to find access points into literacy and exercise should be do frontity by teachers. During this particular study the idea and notion of actively promoting literacy through with(predicate) with(predicate) any route workable is addressed by naturalize A’s position division school principal in the interview, and shows that it is crucial for boys be certified that development does not confuse to be confined to specific genres and authors. Furthermore simoleons & Hall (2001, cited in Taylor, 2004) claim that boys read less fiction than girls, preferring to select for texts that contain more facts and less narrative, such as magazines or texts that are analytical.\r\n as well as Millard (1997) claims that boys tend to opt for genres such as action and science fiction whilst rendition as little as possible in school that they think they discharge get a mode with. Due to th ese preferences, boys’ are at a disadvantage in donnish literacy as their motif towards school texts and curriculum texts is strickleed. Probst (2003, cited in Taylor, 2004) believes that if boys are to have with interpret, the texts that they are asked to study submit to be remarkable to them. In other nomenclature it seems that in au and accordinglytic literacy education, there is not enough stimulating material which addresses the require or provokes of boys. Millard (1997) relates the findings of boys’ apparent wish of interest in course session as real to low achievement in incline, tour Holland (1998) attributes lesson drift and strategies as some of the other causes for underachievement.\r\nBoth of these arguments are valid for this particular study and will be investigated foster by studying the rendition habits and the predicted GCSE grades of boys in a blue school muckle and a low clique, and by exploring particular article of faith method styles apply in shoal A. Holland’s study (1998) showed that boys can neglect any amount of the day, stemming from 25 portionage up to 75 part, passive voicely earreach 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 applicative, had a range of different activities (such as personal research, assemblages work or talk overions), or involve competition.\r\nIf boys are passive during English lessons they are not accomplishment the essential literacy skills required to suspensor them achieve results. fetching this into musing it seems then that pedagogical practice needs to be addressed. Taylor (2004) suggests that teachers contemplating their own practice could polish on whether they are meeting the individual schooling needs for each boy through learnedness grand and style, and modernistic strategies which build on boys’ living interests to maximise their potential, development and turned on(p) needs. Pollack (1998, cited in Taylor, 2004) agrees with this opening suggesting that numerous opportunities should be presented to boys for hands on, synergistic erudition.\r\n methodology\r\nMy approach to research was identified by the nature and context of the question. After considering the occasion and desired outcomes for the investigation I swooning-cut that the research would take the form of a case study, incorporating a combination of both qualitative and quantitative data to take care validity and reli might; ‘qualitative methods may supplement the findings by identifying gaps from the quantitative study’ (Bryman & Bell 2007:650). The decision was do to collect evidence using a multi-method approach including interviews, questionnaires and analysis of existing save data. According to Gillham (2000) ‘different methods have different strengths and different failinges’ (Gillham 2002:13), and so ‘triangulation… to strengthen your findings’ (Greetham 2009:184) was apply to strengthen the validity of the study. To form part of the qualitative data I arrange an interview with the head of the English department.\r\nThe purpose of the interview was to gain a deeper reasonableness of the context of the department and of the strategies which have increase attainment and achievement within the subject. Jones (1985) claims that ‘In order to go out 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 term (rather than those imposed rigidly and a priori by ourselves)’ (Jones cited in Punch 2009:144). Taking this into condition I distinguishable that the interview should be open-ended and semi-structured for flexibility; Cohen et al. (2007) claim that semi-structured interviews tack together ‘more intangible aspects of the schoolâ⠂¬â„¢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 charge of section’s ideas and beliefs surrounding schooling A’s successes.\r\nTo understand boys and literacy, and whether tuition habits have an impact on GCSE results, a questionnaire was compiled to collect primary data and distributed to a top set and a penetrate set year 11 English class. According to Gillham (2002), questionnaires are not distinctive of case study research; nevertheless they can be used to pose simple, factual information. For the purpose of this part of the study I tangle that a questionnaire was a practicable way to acquire of the essence(p) facts regarding the denotation habits of a crowd of high talent boys and a group of low powerfulness boys. These would then be compared to conk out and identify any correlation amidst reading ha bits and English predicted exam results using samples from the furthest range on the big businessman 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, race and actions performed by pupils. I felt that this would help me to make sense of the data collected in both the interview and the questionnaire.\r\nIn regards to validity and obtaining accurate results from my observations, I first needed to develop a descent with the classes I intended to observe to reckon that my mien was unobtrusive and did not pretend their normal behaviours and create a yield observation. To achieve this I mendingly participated in classroom observation at the cover of the room in attempt to function a participant in the classroom context. Trochim (2001) claims that ‘the researcher needs to become judge as a native part of the cultur e to ensure that the observations are of the natural phenomenon’ (Trochim, 2001: 161), therefore I attended authoritative 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.\r\nThe final examination set of data collected was substitute data compiled of the school’s GCSE results since the point of English was appointed, including results form 2008, 2009 and 2010. The data also provided add up GCSE results for the rest of the Local way enabling me to compare the school’s results over 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.\r\n abbreviation\r\nThe Interview:\r\nThe aim of the interview with the English Head of section (HoD) was to discover if GCSE results had amend since being a ppointed Head of English at tame 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 on-going HoD had interpreted over the English department in April 2008; the English GCSE in the Local Authority that year was 64.5 percentage 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 sideline year, after unspoiled one year as the department head, School A had remediated 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 weaker age bracket for that particular year; hitherto the results were still higher(prenominal) than the L ocal Authority’s average of 70.4 percent and the national average of 64.8 percent.\r\nDue to the weaker cohort that year the HoD considered this result to be an excellent achievement. Strategies implemented in the department were a crucial reckon for the alterd attainment levels across the bring out Stages at School A. In September 2009 a centralised, uniformed English curriculum was introduced to learn Stage 3 aiming to â€Å"drip-feed” grant skills and assessments to pupils that prepares them with relevant GCSE experience before they get to 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 advancement. 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 St age 3 in September 2009 are due to sit their GCSE exams in the summer of 2011, only then will it be possible to correct if this strategy attributes to the departments achievements.\r\nThere are, however, specific strategies in place which can be heedful against the department’s raised achievement results. These are those that have already been apply at Key Stage 4, including a uniformed training 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 im express 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 prioritize learning for the nearest exam. The Head of Department believes that all of these are essential add factors for the departments improve 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 ware companies to perform GCSE texts such as Of Mice and men; and school trips to til nowts such as verse line Live, an event hosted by poets from the GCSE anthology.\r\nPollack (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 expatiateed the boys learning and arrangement by developing them outside of the classroom context. Bearne (2003) claims that ‘There is a tendency for boys to rip 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 alread y 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 inexpugnable 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 boost to read regularly, disregarding of material, to ensure positive make happyment of reading.\r\nIn 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 enthrall reading and increase their confidence with literacy, they should witness that any text that they enjoy to be suitably considered. I n terms of classroom strategies the department endorses well paced positive learning in an environment of mutual wonder between pupil and teacher; win personal targets which are monitored definitely; strong Assessment for development to test and smother pupils’ intellect and learning through challenge, feedback and routes to improve; short, sharp activities; a strong focus on reading; regular cooking; and can learning objectives which are reviewed during the comprehensive to ensure all pupils know the focal point of learning.\r\nThese techniques are consistent to that of a scan which was conducted of fourteen schools in 1997. The survey was performed by former HMI Graham Frater; he reason that the most winning schools in regards to boys and literacy were the ones that paying(a) a lot of focus towards teaching methods. Particular methods that he felt where cardinal for success included: prompt starts to lessons with clear learning objectives shared; a intriguing pace sustained throughout the lesson; lesson endings which reflected on the learning objectives and achievements within the lesson; a soma 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.\r\nThe 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 elusive to mark whether classroom and reading strategies are the most influential factor for meridian 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 write down ability groups were often much more onerous to set on task. irresoluteness over which books to read, reluctance to read quietly, and regular disruption amongst the pupils seemed a frequent position in the low ability classes. When addressing reading, the HoD communicate about the issues regarding boys and reading, specifically in detect of boys’ loss of motive of reading in their teenage historic period.\r\nShe believed that possible causes in lack of motivation in boys and reading was due to their increased socialisation as they grew older, the entranceway of more complex reading materials in preparation for GCSE, peer pressure from others that could dominate 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 meaning(a) to understand the reasons why boys do not enjoy reading but it is more fruitful to motivate and encourage them to read. The HoD considers the best way to encourage reluctant readers is by acquire to know individual pupils and then gage their interest levels and preferences as a startle point.\r\nSome 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 take hold in touch with boys current interests and provide books that reflect them; respect reading interests of schoolboyish 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, operative 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 boysâ€⠄¢ motivation should be back up with texts that appeal to their interests, and Young and Brozo (2000, cited in Brozo, 2010) who find it important to help boys to seek access points into literacy and reading.\r\nThe Questionnaire:\r\nThe 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.\r\nThere was a vast difference in comparison with the lower set where only 23.8 percent of pupils enjoyed reading and scarce 53.85 percent felt that reading was important. It appears then that there is indeed a correlation between literacy skills with pastime of reading, however other elements surveyed in the questionnaire aimed to establish whether boys and literacy could have a fill link to their parents’ relationship with reading. The survey asked pupils if their parents enjoyed reading and if they had been back up to read as a child. Sadowski (2010) analysed the literacy gap between operative 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 stimulate’s who were readers.\r\nThis suggests that pupils whose parents enjoy reading and advance 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 boost their sons to read as a child, 61.54 percent from the low ability agreed and 78.31 from the higher ability group.\r\nDespite 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 transmute a distinct cor relation 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 peradventure even if a higher percentage of parents had encouraged their son to read this would not needfully have affected their attitude towards reading for pleasure and therefore would not affect their achievements in literacy.\r\nEVALUATION\r\nThe 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 Sch ool 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 frames to complete specific task, it kept the pace of the lessons challenging and rigorous and therefore engaged them in learning more effectively.\r\nHowever the hard outcome for this particular study is that only one school has been investigated and so it is concentrated to determine whether the observations, questionnaires and interview conclusions, pertaining to strategies and the improved GCSE literacy results for School A, are a true reflectiv ity of causes and solutions of underachievement. The English GCSE results were really poor at School A in 2008, mediocre 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 for certain impossible to moderate whether these are the sole reason for improvement; one particular reason is that it was never complete what mode of departmental and classroom strategies were in place before the current HoD took over from the previous.\r\nAnother 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 imp roved 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 party 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, it should be possible for other schools to raise the achievement levels of literacy in boys just the same.\r\nHowever 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 thi s case study, it would also give rise to shape up 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; light speed 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 boys 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 st ated that he did not think reading was important because ‘I do not read and I am predicted A’s at GCSE’.\r\nAnother 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 que stionnaire should have been more open ended to allow pupils to explain perhaps what motivates their enjoyment of reading.\r\nThe 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 advantageously 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.\r\nThis 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.\r\nCONCLUSION\r\nReturning 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 th at 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 cope withly 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.\r\nThe 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 act from this pa rticular 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 intimate a stereotype which appears to make them go for 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.\r\nDespite that there is no definitive outcome from this study; I feel that it is something that I will take away 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.\r\nBIBLIOGRAPHY\r\nBOOKS\r\nBleach, K. (1998). reproduction Boys’ exploit in Schools. Staffordshire: Trentham Books Ltd. Brozo, W. G. (2002). To Be A Boy, To Be A Reader: Engaging jejune and Preteen Boys In Active Literacy. US: internationalist Reading Association. Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2007) Business investigate Methods 2nd Ed. Oxford University Press Cohen, L. , Manion, L. & Morrison, K (2007). Research Methods In direction. London and newly York: Routledge. Cox, T. (2000). Combating Educational Disa dvantage: Meeting the need of Vulnerable Children. London and bleak York: Falmer Press. Frances, B. (2000). Boys, Girls and movement: Addressing the Classroom Issues. London and New York: Routledge. Frater, G. (1997). up(p) Boys’ Literacy. London: The Basic Skills Agency. Gillham, B. (2000). Case composition Research Methods. London and New York: Continuum. Greetham, B. (2009) How to put out Your Undergraduate Dissertation. Palgrave Macmillan. Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative Researching. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage. Millard, E. (1997). Differently Literate. London, uppercase DC: The Falmer press. Punch, K. F. (2009). knowledgeability to Research Methods in Education. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC: Sage. Rae, T., & Pederson, L. (2007). Developing stirred up Literacy With Teenage Boys. London, California and New Delhi: capital of Minnesota Chapman Publishing. Trochim, W. M. (2001). The Research\r\nMothods Knowledge Base. Cincinna ti, OH: Atomic hot dog Publishing. Weeks, A. (1999). The Underachievement of Boys. Northants: First and Best Education.\r\nJOURNALS\r\nHolland, 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, uprightness 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. mill about M. & Keddie, A. (2007). ‘ pedagogy Boys and sexuality justness’. International journal of Inclusive Education ,11 (03), pp.335-354. Myhill, D. (2002). ‘Bad Boys and Good Girls? Patterns of Interaction and solvent 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 Kap pan ,91 (04), pp35-40. Sadowski, M. (2010, August). ‘ put The Boy Crisis in Context’. Education Digest , pp 4-6. Taylor, D. L. (2004, December). ‘Not Just sluggish Stories: Reconsidering the Gender Gap for Boys’. Journal of stripling and freehanded 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.\r\nWEBSITES\r\nBearne, E. (2004, September). Raising Boys’ Achievement in Literacy. Retrieved blemish 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 M alone, G. (2010, September 2nd). Extraordinary School For Boys: service of process 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:\r\n'