Is classroom disruption more likely to result from boys or girls?
What do we know about the detailed patterns of classroom participation for boys and girls and their relationship with disruptive behaviour? How closely do boys' interactions in class relate to disruptive behaviour? How do the patterns of boys' classroom interactions change over time and how do they relate to specific types of teaching? To seek answers to these questions, the University of Exeter, conducted research in a group of Dorset schools to explore boys' under-achievement, investigating patterns of classroom interactions according to both gender and level of achievement. In addition to confirming findings that under-achievers, irrespective of gender, are least likely to be participating positively, the researchers identify ways in which boys change the pattern of their classroom participation over time.
The researchers also question the way in which academic and popular writing on this topic focuses solely upon gender and does not address emerging patterns of attainment within gender groups.
Many teachers will be familiar with the issues highlighted in this report. The evidence presented draws attention to issues which need to be taken into account in curriculum and lesson planning.
Keywords
UK; Gender; Boys; Girls; Primary schools; Secondary schools; Achievement; Teaching styles; Teaching methods; Teacher-pupil relationship; Pupil participation; Classroom teaching; Pupil alienation; Disaffection
Concerned by national reports of boys' under-achievement which were mirrored by the Dorset schools' own findings, the research set out to explore the frequency and nature of interactions between teachers and children in the classroom and how they might relate to under-achievement. It was decided to monitor both whole class interactions and interactions during individual, paired or group work. These observations were categorised into two significant bands:
'positive learning interactions' which included engagements in the learning process, or compliance with classroom conventions, such as:
interactions considered by the authors to be 'broadly negative' including:
The researchers were keen to relate these observations to whether boys and girls participated in the process of learning and how each gender responded to classroom conventions and orthodoxies.
To find out how the research was carried out click here.
Under-achievers of both sexes were least likely to join in and most likely to be engaged in off task interactions such as talking to their neighbour. This pattern starts earlier for boys (Y1) than girls (Y4). The research also found that pupils' patterns of response did not remain consistent throughout their schooling. There was little difference in the contribution of high-achieving boys and girls in the first schools, but in the middle schools the high-achieving boys shifted from being the most likely participant in Year 5 to being almost as reluctant to join in as the under-achievers.
The results did not support the belief that boys dominate classroom talk, but, according to the author, they did indicate that calling out was a characteristic of the boys. The author suggests that low participation in whole class teaching may have a direct bearing upon achievement.
The study highlighted a number of specific findings including;
As part of a larger study, this paper examined ways in which pupil interaction of either gender might impact on learning. The findings present a different picture from that reported from previous research and in the media, which implies that boys and girls will always respond and interact differently in the classroom.
What does this report say about pupil learning?
Evidence from the classroom observations and from interviews with teachers and children revealed:
The national literacy and numeracy strategies are both dependent on a high level of pupil teacher interaction. The author argues that whole class involvement is essential if learning, and therefore pupil progress, is to be achieved through whole class interaction experiences. The research found that, in the high school, whole class teaching tended to be dominated by teacher talk. The author suggests that under-achieving pupils found it more difficult than others to listen actively, and therefore engaged in negative forms of behaviour.
Both national tests, and the evaluation in English of the National Literacy Strategy (OFSTED 1999) indicate that boys are under-achieving compared with girls, even at an early stage. According to this study underachieving boys from Year 1 onwards appear to be less willing to join in whole class interactions that are positive and are more likely to be engaged in off-task interactions. The author questions whether this has influenced their end of key stage results.
The study also highlighted the existence of a certain culture amongst adolescent boys, in which it was not 'cool' to be seen working hard or being enthusiastic. Although very keen to participate in classroom interaction in the early years of the middle school, high-achieving boys in Year 8 were, surprisingly, less likely than their under achieving peers to put their hand up or answer a question if invited. However, the author reminds us that these boys were academically successful despite their apparent non-involvement.She suggests that high-achieving boys were masking their efforts in order to conform to peer group norms.
The research took place in a 'pyramid' of 12 first schools, 3 middle schools and one high school, in both urban and rural areas. The schools drew from a variety of social classes. Observations were made in 36 classrooms, six in each of the following year groups- Years 1, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10.
Years 4 and 5 were chosen as they marked the exit from and entrance to first and middle schools. For a similar reason, Years 8 and 9 were selected as these years marked exit from middle school and entrance to high school. Year 10 was selected as it was not possible to focus on Year 11 due to pressures of examination preparation.
In each class, a high-achieving boy and girl together with an under-achieving boy and girl were selected for observation. (It should be noted that there was not a cohort of average ability pupils included in this research.) The children and their class teachers were also interviewed, using similar questions to ensure consistency.
Structured observational schedules enabled researchers to record how often the four children in each sample were seen engaging in a variety of interactions. These exchanges included both verbal and non-verbal interactions. Observations were made in either whole class situations, or where the children were working as individuals, in pairs or in groups. The categories for observation identified by the researcher included:
The author points out that whole class interactive teaching is now the 'norm' in first and middle schools. The teacher as an expert, draws on what learners already know, and guides and supports learners to a new understanding. However she questions whether this method of teaching was actually benefiting the learning experience of all pupils. Notes taken during classroom observations in the first and middle schools recorded how often question and answer sessions, which at face value seemed lively and successful, were actually just involving the teacher and a small group of children.
The author suggests that the relatively high number of calls on under-achieving boys in Year 1 might have been a consequence of the known research focus of the study, or it may be that teachers were trying to draw in under-achieving boys who had not put their hands up. If this is so, she asks whether the Year 8 teachers could adopt the same strategy with the high-achieving boys.
The paper concludes that further research could usefully focus on the motivations and perspectives of high-achieving boys on the transition from childhood to adolescence. A summary of Gender Differences in Achievement contains a case study that shows how some teachers have tackled poor motivation.
High-achieving girls, by contrast, remained consistently willing to engage in interactions with the teacher and were observed to be focused and on-task. They conformed to the classroom rules, they joined in when the teacher expected a collective response and were rewarded for this by being given ample opportunities to answer questions.
Finally, the study questions whether growing numbers of teachers may be increasingly defining the 'ideal student' as female, as suggested in previous research (Younger et al 1999). The author invites us to consider whether a hidden climate of mutual exclusion could exist where high-achieving girls and their teachers appear to be on the same wavelength, but where the rest of the class might feel alienated because they have different needs or other ways of thinking. It is suggested, in conclusion, that: 'we need to re-examine how teaching and classroom practices can be modified to encourage a climate of consensual learning'.
In completing this digest the authors began to ask the following questions about implications for practitioners:
In completing this digest the authors began to ask the following questions about implications for school leaders:
Other TRIPS digests on topics related to gender can be found at:
http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/research/themes/gender/
A TRIPS digest ‘Talk, talk, talk: teaching and learning in whole class discourse’ which summarises subsequent, linked research by the author of this study can be found at:
http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/research/themes/speakandlisten/talktalk/
Sukhnandan, L., Lee, B. & Kelleher, S. (2000). An investigation into gender differences in achievement, Phase 2: School and classroom strategies. Slough: National Foundation for Educational Research. A summary can be found on the GTC Research of the month pages here: http://www.gtce.org.uk/research/romtopics/rom_inclusion/gender1/
The gender and achievement website is designed for teachers, LEAs and parents who want support and information on gender and achievement: http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/genderandachievement/
Raising Boys Achievement Project Website http://www-rba.educ.cam.ac.uk/index.html