Research on Boys and Reading

Ross, McKechnie, and Rothbauer (2006) summarize research on boys and reading, placing studies into three camps. Research in the first, essentialist category asserts that nature or genetics accounts for reading disparities between gender groups. Essentialist studies argue that reading preferences and learning styles are situated in the brain, and that these hard-wired differences can explain boys’ attitudes towards reading. “Identifying and providing boy-friendly reading materials and encouraging boys to interact with texts in male appropriate-ways is consistent with the essentialist approach to gender differences in reading” (p. 90-1). In Connecting boys with books 2, Michael Sullivan (2009) expands upon his earlier research on boys and reading (2003), offering that it is “not that boys’ brains can not handle reading, but that the way we teach reading does not speak” to boys (p. 5). It is important to remember that boys mature at later ages than girls, and that a lot of the differences we find between the reading experiences of boys and girls can be partially explained by brain development. The average boy is

a year and a half behind girls in reading throughout their school years. . . . 

The corpus collosum is, on average, 10 percent larger in girls than it is in boys. 

This means that boys are more likely to work with half of their brains, leaning 

toward either analytical or creative approaches, whereas girls tend to approach 

problems holistically, using some analysis and some creativity. . . . Reading. . . .

requires the use of both hemispheres of the brain (p. 25).

The gender reading gap is increasing at an alarming pace (Sullivan, 2003, 2009). Eighty-five percent of students in remedial classes are boys. Boys are more likely than girls to commit suicide, and to be diagnosed with ADHD. Moreover, as they grow, so does the reading gap. High-school boys are even less likely than those in middle or elementary school to identify as readers. When the effects of gender are coupled with race and socioeconomic class, the potential for turning boys into readers reduces significantly. Fewer African-American men graduate from college than African-American women and they are even less likely to earn a college degree than Caucasian men. Moreover, boys from impoverished households have less opportunities to engage with texts when compared to boys from affluent families;  as a result, they are significantly less likely to develop into readers.

The second category expands upon the essentialists’ arguments. Social constructivists assert that the majority of boys grow up to dislike reading, for reading is viewed as a feminized act (Ross, McKechnie, and Rothbauer, 2006). The majority of children’s librarians and reading teachers are women, and there are precious few male role models to inspire boys to pick up books. Whenever boys do see men reading, they’re reading periodicals or nonfictional literature. Moreover, compared to women, the majority of male readers view reading as a solitary pursuit. Librarians and teachers generally dislike boys’ genre preferences – nonfiction and fantasy. The majority of books which teachers or librarians choose prioritizes girls’ tastes. “Preference is given to books that are morally functional, that assist personal development and socialization. Books trump magazines; print trumps the visual; the serious trumps the humorous; fiction trumps nonfiction” (p. 91). Research has repeatedly shown that selectors invariably opt for girl-appropriate books, only carrying “one-third” of books that boys prefer (Worthy, Moorman and Turner, 1999). The reluctance of school and public libraries to purchase copies of boy-friendly books poignantly demonstrates the extent of inequalities at work within libraries. By withholding books that hold meaning to boys, libraries disallow boys from identifying themselves as readers.

The final category asserts that boys reject reading not because it is a feminized activity, but because it is tied with school (Ross, McKechnie, and Rothbauer, 2006). School-type questions differ from how boys naturally approach nonfictional texts; instead of reading about how to solve “a clear and immediate” problem, as happens outside of school, boys are asked to respond to specific questions; the central problem with this approach is that it prioritizes girls’ analytical method. I take issue with this category, arguing that all children, even girls, experience school-related angst. However, I readily support students’ right to choose which books are read. Atwell (2007), Krashen (2004), and Miller (2007) have documented the negative effects of teacher-chosen texts. One of the major reasons why boys and girls fail to identify themselves as readers is because teacher-chosen texts do not speak to them, and because reading assignments encourage the idea that reading is only useful when responding to teacher-driven questions. These negative feelings towards books, which are formed in school, bleed over into non-school reading. Books become forever associated with school.

What can libraries do to inspire boys to read and to identify as readers? Libraries need to order books that are meaningful to boys, and should offer a plethora of alternatives for boys to engage in text. Librarians need to understand the differences in which boys learn and express themselves, and need to refashion library spaces to make them equally appealing to both boys and girls. Boys need to see men reading and libraries can increase the likelihood of this by sponsoring boy only discussion-groups, read-alouds, and storytelling (Sullivan, 2003, 2009). Instead of a story-writing contest, why not encourage photo-or-drawing submissions? By creating a culture of books where boys’ reading preferences are valued, the possibilities of turning boys into readers significantly broaden.

Atwell, N. (2007). The reading zone: How to help kids become skilled, passionate,

habitual, critical readers. New York: Scholastic.

Krashen, S. D. (2004). The power of reading: Insights from the research. Westport,

Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited.

Miller, Donalyn. (2009). The Book Whisperer: Awakening the Inner Reader in Every

             Child. San Francisco, CA: . John Wiley & Sons.

Sullivan, M. (2003) Connecting boys with books: What libraries can do. Chicago: ALA.

Sullivan, M. (2009). Connecting boys with books 2: Closing the reading gap. Chicago:

ALA.

Ross, C. A, McKechnie L. (E.F.) & P. M. Rothbauer., ed. (2006) Reading matters: what

 the research reveals about reading, libraries and community. Westport,

Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited.

Worthy, J., Moorman, M., and M. Turner. (1999). What Johnny likes to read is hard to find in school.

            Reading Research Quarterly, 34(1): 12-27.