What are the causes of boys’ underachievement in

reading in a Post-16 Vocational setting and what

strategies can be used to address the causes
identified?

Submitted in part fulfilment of

the requirements of the MA Education

Date of Submission

8th January 2017

 Contents
Description Page

1. Introduction and Rationale

1.1 Context of the study 1
1.2 Research purpose, aims and questions 5
2. Literature Review
2.1 A brief history of boys’ underachievement in reading 6
2.2 Boys’ perceptions of reading 8
2.3 Boys’ reading preferences 10
2.4 Home influences affecting reading achievement of boys 12
2.5 Intervention strategies suggested in the literature 16
3. Research Strategy
3.1 Methodology 18
3.2 Research Methods and Data Analysis
3.2.1 Participants 22
3.2.2 Information Management System Data 22
3.2.3 Questionnaires 23
3.2.4 Observations 24
3.2.5 Focus Groups 25
3.2.6 Semi-structured interviews 26
3.2.7 Data Analysis 27
3.3 Ethics 29
3.4 Limitations of the methodology: implications for future practice 31
4. Research Findings
4.1 Introduction and Aims 35
4.2 Boy’s perceptions of reading 36
4.3 Boy’s reading preferences
4.3.1 Boy’s responses to questions about their reading preferences 39
4.3.2 Tutor questionnaire responses about boy’s reading preferences 40
4.4 Home environment 41
5. Conclusions, Recommendations and Impact
5.1 Conclusions 44
5.2 Recommendations for practice: strategies to overcome the identified 46
barriers to boy’s reading achievement.
5.3 Impact of this project 51
6. References 54

Appendices
Appendix 1: Provider Improvement Plan Overview 64
Appendix 2: Semi-structured interview questions 66
Appendix 3: Exemplar transcript from semi-structured interview 67
Appendix 4: Exemplar Parental Questionnaire 70
Appendix 5: Printout of tutor questionnaire 72
Appendix 6: Tutor written responses from questionnaire 75
Appendix 7: Table of reading material used in focus groups 77
Appendix 8: Sample of covers of reading material used in focus groups 78
Appendix 9: Letter of Consent (16-18) 79
Acknowledgements

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the tutors within the Faculty of Education
for their support over the past few years as I have worked towards my Masters in
Education. I would also like to offer my thanks to all those who participated in my study
as without their cooperation it would not have been possible to conduct this research.
Finally, I would like to thank my wife for supporting me throughout my studies and my
life in general.

1. Introduction and Rationale

1.1 Context of the study

Ever since commencing on my PGCE in 2009, I have found myself being drawn to

developing myself both as an educator and as an educationalist, with the hope that

my enrolment on the Masters Programme would ensure that I am as proficient and

knowledgeable in current theory and practice in education as I can, given my current

circumstances. For the past year and half I have been working as the Special

Educational Needs Coordinator (SENCo) in a Post-16 Training provider based in the

North West of England. We deliver vocational training and qualifications either as

class-based Study Programmes or as Apprenticeships (Entry Level 2 to Level 3) in

Land Based Studies and Veterinary Nursing (Animal Care), Motor Vehicle

Maintenance (Automotive), Hair and Beauty, Construction (Brickwork, Joinery,

Plastering and Painting & Decorating). We also have a core group of High Need

Learners who follow a Life Skills programme (ASDAN) and all courses are

accompanied by Employability Skills which are delivered as Functional Skills

qualifications or as English and Maths GCSEs.

One of the training provider’s priorities is to ensure that all of our learners are

functionally literate as a Study Programme or Apprenticeship cannot be completed

unless a learner achieves the relevant qualification at the relevant level. As an

Page | 1
example, a learner on a Level 1 Study Programme would be expected to be working

towards a minimum of a Functional Skills Entry Level 3 Literacy qualification. A learner

on a Level 3 apprenticeship would be required to be working towards a Level 2

Functional Skills or GCSE English Language qualification (at grade C or above). Some

learners would be exempt from this if they have already achieved a Level 2 Functional

Skills qualification or a Grade C and above at GCSE.

In May 2015, the Training Provider was inspected by OFSTED in which overall we

received a ‘Requires Improvement’ (OFSTED, 2015). One of the criticisms of the

report was that learners, particularly boys to do not make sufficient progress in their

literacy skills. Additionally, from August 2015 government requirements state that all

post-16 full time learners who, “have a grade D GCSE or equivalent qualification in

maths and/or English must be enrolled on a GCSE rather than an approved stepping

stone qualification.” (Education Funding Agency, 2014). In light of these events, the

Provider Improvement Plan (appendix 1) and Employability Policy were amended and

now require any learner who has achieved a Grade D in English or Maths to re-sit their

GCSE, rather than sitting a Functional Skills qualification. This not only requires a

learner to be functionally literate, but also critically literate, being able to analyse what

they have read and discover the “deep meaning of text” (Shor, 1992). This aspect of

literacy is a skill that requires not only the ability to read the words that they are

presented with, but also to understand them in an active and reflective manner (Coffey,

2016). This means that the reader must engage with the text, and engagement

requires more than just reading ability – it requires ability, motivation and enjoyment.

In their 2012 report The Boys’ Reading Commission, the National Literacy Trust

suggest that a reading age of fifteen years and seven months (15:071) was required

1Accepted convention is reading age represented as YY:MM e.g. a reading age of fifteen years and seven months would be 15:07.

Page | 2
to fluently read and comprehend texts at GCSE level (Level 2). Considering that the

revised 2014 and 2016 GCSE specifications implemented by the Department of

Education place a greater demand on young people’s literacy skills (The National

Literacy Trust, 2016), it seems to me that the reading age required to achieve a Grade

C or above at GCSE will have increased. In terms of the functional literacy aspect of

reading, this is defined as “the basic level of reading skills required for a particular

occupation or lifestyle” (Stuart-Hamilton, 2007). Stuart Hamilton (2007) suggests that

the maximum reading age required to be functionally literate for an unskilled job is

11:00, while McGrath (2016) suggests that the minimum reading age at which a

person would be considered to be a functional reader is 09:06. For a learner working

towards becoming a skilled, vocational worker, the level of literacy to competently

access the materials required of them must therefore be above a reading age of 11:00.

In the 2015-2016 academic year, our Study Programme cohort comprises of 108

learners, of whom 63 are male (58%). They are enrolled on courses within Automotive,

Animal Care and Construction. Of these learners, only six have exemptions from being

required to work towards a Functional Skill Literacy or GCSE English qualification with

the remaining boys working towards either a Functional Skills Entry Level 3 (equivalent

to < Grade G at GCSE), a Functional Skills Level 1 (equivalent to D-G at GCSE) or

GCSE qualification. This means that only ten percent of the 2015-2016 cohort of boys

achieved the national benchmark of a Grade C, compared to the national average of

58.7%. This is in stark contrast to the girls who we have on programme. Out of the 45

in the 2015-2016 cohort, 27 (60%) have already achieved a Grade C or above with

the majority of female learners studying towards Animal Care or Hair and Beauty

qualifications (Information Management System, 2016). Although this is still below the

national average of 72% for girls this highlights a huge difference between the literacy

Page | 3
achievement of boys and girls who attend the setting. This is indicative of the wider

national trend in terms of the gap in reading attainment between the genders (DfE,

2015), although within my setting the difference is much more extreme – fifty

percentage points within the setting as opposed to four percentage points nationally.

On entry, all learners are required to carry out an assessment of their current literacy

levels using the Functional Skills Initial Assessment Tool (IAT). The results of these

assessments are used for two purposes, 1) to determine a starting level for functional

skills and 2) to highlight any underachievement in literacy. Following their completion

of the Initial Assessment Tool, all learners are then referred to me for further diagnostic

assessment using standardised spelling and reading assessments such as the Gray

Oral Reading Test 5 (Wiederholt & Bryant, 2012) and the Wide Range Achievement

Test (Wilkinson & Robertson, 2016) which are then used to determine standardised

scores and reading ages. Any learners who are identified as underachieving in literacy

fall within my remit to look at underlying causes (through further diagnostic

investigations for difficulties such as dyslexia) and put appropriate interventions in

place. This is either through direct, taught interventions with myself, by liaising with the

learner’s tutors and looking at strategies that can be put into place within their lessons,

or more commonly, both. Data from our 2015-2016 cohort revealed that 94% of the

boys on programme had a reading age of at least 04:06 below their chronological age.

The 2014-2015 cohort had 87% of boys in this category and the 2013-2014 cohort had

91% of boys falling into this category indicating reading underachievement as an

ongoing issue for the boys who enrol with us.

To have so many male learners on roll with us working towards meaningful vocational

qualifications, yet having such low reading ability, and given the role that I play in

Page | 4
supporting them, makes this an extremely important issue to investigate as the focus

of my research.

1.2 Research purpose, aims and questions

The purpose of this study is to identify possible causes for underachievement in boys’

reading in the setting described previously, with a particular focus on boys’ perceptions

of reading and the possible socio-economic and socio-cultural factors that influence

their reading achievement. It is hoped that the findings of the project can be used to

inform my own practice and approaches towards the way I assess learners and what

interventions that I put into place in order to raise their reading attainment. It is also

hoped that the study will allow for a number of interventions, both in terms of

organisational policy and in terms of the classroom practice of all tutors and support

staff in ensuring that as a training provider we ensure positive outcomes for the

learners we have on programme, particularly those who may have been let down by

circumstances beyond their control.

When considering a research question for this study both the deficit model and socio-

cultural models of literacy were considered. This piece of research focuses on the

socio-cultural model, rather than the deficit model. This is to enable the research to

explore how boys’ reading is shaped by their experiences in the home and school

environment (Barton and Hammilton, 2000). It should be noted however, that the

deficit model is not to be discounted during this research as the British Dyslexia

Association (2015) suggests that one in ten people exhibit dyslexic tendencies, with

four percent of the population being severely dyslexic. As a brief comment on this, the

majority of the learners who I have contact with are not diagnosed with a Specific

Page | 5
Learning Difficulty, however our current cohort of boys (2015-2016) has a diagnosis

rate that is slightly higher (14%) than the general population (10%).

Taking into account the socio-cultural aspect of literacy which is to be explored in the

literature review of this project, the central question is posed:

What are the causes of boy’s underachievement in reading in a Post-16

Vocational setting and what strategies can be used to address the causes

identified?

Within this, there are three sub-questions that will be addressed in order to give a

tighter focus to the research:

1. How do boys in my setting perceive reading and what are their reading

preferences?

2. What are the home influences that surround boys’ reading and do they

have an impact on reading achievement?

3. What inclusive strategies can be used to overcome the identified barriers

to reading achievement?

2. Literature Review

2.1 A brief history of boy’s underachievement in reading

When reviewing the literature surrounding the issue of boys’ underachievement in

reading and in order to look at refining the research question I felt that it was pertinent

to look at the historical context of boy’s underachievement in reading.

It is a well-established fact that girls achieve higher than boys in reading attainment.

The Open University E801 Study Guide (Open University, 2012a) states that “boys’

Page | 6
underachievement in literacy has been documented for some time and there is reliable

evidence that boys have dominated literacy remediation classes.” In fact, there have

been over four decades of research into this issue, with much focus on attitudes

towards reading. The Bullock Report (DES, 1975) draws conclusions from Whitehead

et al (1975) that as many as 40% of the boys aged fourteen and over had not read

one book in the previous month compared to 29% of girls in the same age group. Levy

(2011), cites Millard (1997) who found that almost half of boys surveyed were identified

as an ‘occasional reader’ whereas less than a quarter of girls were found to be so.

Each year there is controversy surrounding GCSE results. OFSTED (1993)

commissioned a special report which concluded that the lack of engagement that boys

have towards literacy was a significant factor in their overall lower attainment and

ensures that boys are less likely to secure a pass grade in GCSE English compared

to girls. Burns and Bracey (2001) look to a further joint OFSTED and Equal

Opportunities Commission report (OFSTED & EOC, 1996) which says that “girls are

outperforming boys to an unprecedented degree.” The National Literacy Trust (2011,

2012) have drawn attention to the fact that in both 2011 and 2012 twenty percent of

boys failed to achieve their expected reading level (4) at the end of Key Stage 2,

compared to 13% and 12% of girls, respectively. Further to this, in 2011, 40% of girls

reached Level 5, whereas only 26% of boys reached this level (National Literacy Trust,

2011). In 2014, although the attainment gap had narrowed from eight percentage

points, to four percentage points, girls were still outperforming boys in all key stages

in England (DfE, 2015). Wagermaker (1996) found that girls achieve higher reading

comprehension scores than boys, although it should be noted that Rowe (1991) found

no significant differences of attainment, based on gender. In 2011, the OECD and

Programme for Internationale Student Assessment (PISA) found that at age ten, “girls

Page | 7
perform better in reading literacy than their male peers”. This gap in performance has

shown no indication of closing with the OECD and PISA (2001, 2004, 2011, 2012)

repeatedly finding that fifteen-year-old girls out performed males by a significant

margin in reading assessments, with the average gap being over half a standardised

proficiency level. Furthermore, in 2015, The National Literacy Trust found that in

England, girl continue to outpace boys in both their literacy attainment and in their

enthusiasm for reading outside of school at all ages.

2.2 Boys’ perceptions of reading

In relation to the first of the research sub-questions pursued, there have been a

number of studies carried out looking at how boys perceive reading and how these

perceptions shape their attitudes towards success with reading skills. Reading attitude

is defined as “…a system of feelings related to reading which causes the learner to

approach or avoid a reading situation.”, (Alexander and Filler, 1976). Lever-Chain

(2008) presented findings that almost half of the five-year-old boys in their study

“expressed negative or indifferent attitudes towards reading”. Hall and Coles (1999)

found in their study that over forty percent of boys surveyed ended the sentence “I

think reading is….” with a negative response, while Davies and Brember (2001) cite

studies by Gorman & Kispal (1987) and White (1987) who both suggest that girls have

a more positive attitude towards reading at all ages. Brozo et al (2014) conducted a

wide-ranging study, using data from PISA (2010, 2012) which showed that “girls had

significantly higher levels of [reading] enjoyment than boys” (Brozo et al, 2014). Brozo

et al (2014) go on to suggest that if boys placed the same level of value on reading

enjoyment as girls then this would lead to an increase in reading engagement and thus

Page | 8
may increase boys reading achievement. Lever-Chain (2008) suggests that the

negative feelings that boys display are especially prevalent when reading is seen as

a ‘compulsory activity’, being forced upon the child by their parents or within the

educational environment. Further to these negative responses, Hall and Cole (1999)

reported that boys put forward feelings of boredom when reading, with one ten-year

old saying “I think they’re too long really. You get a book and it takes you days and

days to read it, you get bored after a while.” (Hall and Cole, 1999). This view however

is challenged by Freudi (2015) who argues that boys are more likely to find reading

stimulating if they are offered reading materials that pique their curiosity. This however

may very much depend on what ‘piques’ different boy’s curiosity and whether they

have enjoy rising to challenges. Broeder and Stokmans (2013) found that negative

responses that were elicited by boys towards of reading was based on the level of

proficiency they believed was required to access a certain text, with boys more likely

to engage and read a text they saw as ‘easy’ and ‘straightforward’ rather than a piece

they saw as too complex and arduous.

Many studies show that boys perceive reading as a feminine activity (Dutro, 2002;

Katz & Sokal, 2003; Tenenbaum & Leaper, 2002) with reading being seen as

‘unmanly’(Burns and Bracey, 2001) and this can affect their motivation and

engagement with reading. This stems from the fact that women are more likely to be

seen reading than men (Barrs, 1993) with children seeing their mothers reading more

than their fathers (Clark and Picton, 2012, Millard, 1997). Hall and Coles (1997) say

that the problem is further exacerbated due to the “predominantly ‘female’ culture of

primary classrooms” where “high status literacy activities are most often carried out by

women [and] there is a shortage of male role models”. This is a view supported by

Page | 9
Bruce & McPhee (2008) who highlighted the feminisation of primary school staff in the

UK being a cause for concern, particularly as there is a lack of “much-needed male

role models or father figures” (Bruce & McPhee, 2008). In contrast to this however, in

a study carried out by Sokal et al (2007) it was concluded that when interventions were

put in place, boys responded better in terms of self-perception and their ability to read,

to female teachers.

This has a further impact when it comes to the engagement of boys and in the selection

of appropriate, ‘boy orientated’ literature. Farris et al (2009) comment on the fact that

they as practising male educators tended to choose books for their studies that were

very male orientated. Likewise, they also noted that the books chosen by the

predominantly female undergraduate education classes tended to be books that they

themselves had loved as young girls and were unfamiliar as to the types of books

young boys would choose. It has been suggested that linking the act of reading and

the masculine can be achieved by choosing contemporary and classical literature that

have strong, male role models (Brozo and Schmelzer, 1997; Cullen, 2002) and this

may go some way to addressing the issue.

2.3 Boys’ reading preferences

Again, in relation to the first of the research project sub-questions, there are a number

of pieces of work that explore boys reading preferences and how they have an impact

on boys’ motivation and attainment in reading. Moloney (2002) states that “a good

book for a boy is one he wants to read” (Moloney, 2002). The problem however, is

what does a boy want to read?

Page | 10
Farris et al (2008) found that boys generally chose books based on what they look

like. They found that books which ‘look good’, having attractive covers, unusual fonts

or those that were heavy pictorial were all common selections. It was also found that

boys who were weaker at reading tended to choose books that had larger margins

with larger and generally minimal amounts of text. Broeder and Stokmans (2013)

support Farris et al (2008) in finding that “the attractiveness of the available choice of

books” is a determining factor into the reading attitude which boys’ display.

Genre preferences are a frequently cited explanation when looking at the

underachievement of boys in reading. In ‘Why boys don’t like to read: gender

differences in reading achievement’ (Canadian Council on Learning, 2009) it is stated

that a number of studies have shown that boys prefer to read “cartoons, comics, news,

sports, science fiction and fantasy stories” whereas girls are seem to enjoy a wider

variety of materials. Worthy, Moorman and Turner (1999) support this in suggesting

that boys prefer to read “comics, magazines and scary stories”, all types of literature

which are less likely to be found in the school classroom or library. Senn (2012) states

that “topics that boys tend to gravitate to, such as sports, comics, action, horror or

humour, are often not genres that are endorsed by teachers or librarians. Zambo and

Brozo (2009) support this argument suggesting that if books which they are interested

are not shown to appeal to adults then they begin to feel that reading is not something

that they need to bother with. “Without books that appeal to boys, boys come to believe

that topics of interest to them cannot be found in books” (Zambo and Brozo, 2009,

p.39). The work of Smith (2004) also supports this view in that successful boy readers

focus heavily on “stereotypical masculine interest areas” such as war, science and

football.

Page | 11
In their 2011 study, Hughes, et al (2011) found that by using a format that appeals to

boys, in this case the graphic novel there was a marked improvement in the

engagement of reluctant readers, not only in reading, but also in the development of

functional literacy skills that support both educational and workplace success. A

particularly inspiring outcome was in the case of an 11th grade student who the authors

say “declared openly (and somewhat proudly) that he had “never finished a novel in

[his] life””. They go on to say that by the end of their action research project, “he had

not only read a graphic novel but also created an eight-panel graphic narrative of his

own” (Hughes et al, 2011).

As well as choosing books that were from a certain genre, Fariss et al (2009) also

found that boys chose books if they were familiar with the author, having read books

by them before. This would usually be in a particular genre, however even boys who

were less confident would choose a book they were familiar with. Cyprus and Lee-

Anderson (2011) support these findings in that almost 60% of boys surveyed had a

favourite author whose series or other books they would read.

2.4 Home influences affecting reading achievement of boys

The literature available on home influences that affect reading achievement is vast

with each issue covered an element to study in itself. Bullock (1975) states that, “A

great deal is obviously going to depend on the home environment.”

Alloway (2007) highlights that in a socio-economic context, those who are at a

disadvantage will underperform in reading compared to those who are less

disadvantaged. Interestingly, Alloway (2007) notes that by only focussing on the

differences between boys and girls it “makes invisible the more powerful impact that

Page | 12
poverty and privilege can have on the uptake of school literacy practices”, going on to

show that boys from more socio-economic advantages catchments outperform girls

from less socio-economic backgrounds.

Alloway (2007) argues that boys in schools which serve the most socio-economically

disadvantaged catchments perform worst in measures of reading achievement. In

summary of the work of Atree, Gibbon and Mirza and Smith et al (2006, 2000, 1997),

the Open University Study Guide (Open University, 2012b) confirms this view in that,

“In the UK there is an unrelenting association between poor educational achievement

and socio-economic disadvantage and/or poverty”.

Difficulties have also been shown to arise from the cultural setting which a struggling

reader finds themselves in. Rasool (1999) indicates that that there is no one concept

of literacy, rather there being many different or multiple literacies depending on social

or cultural context. Within this, different aspects of those cultures or social contexts

will have an impact on how far a child’s literacy skills develop and what difficulties they

may encounter with Diniz (2002) suggesting that when looking at difficulties

surrounding literacy, “the first thing that one wants to know is about the cultural context

in which the child is learning”. The main point that arises from the work of Diniz (2002)

is the suggestion that that difficulties arise from bilingualism. One example cited is that

at school, a bilingual child will be taught in English whereas at home it is more likely

that they will be spoken to in their home language and thus does little to reinforce the

literacy skills that are taught in school. Ramirez (2000) however argues that

“bilingualism does not interfere with the development of English literacy”, citing

Escamilla (2000) in claiming that young children who learn two languages are able to

develop the use of vocabulary at the same rate as young children who are only

Page | 13
learning one language. This however, does not take into account language acquisition

for older children, who generally find it harder to learn a second language.

Burns and Bracey (2001) raise some interesting points in how the socio-cultural

context can affect boys’ attitudes towards reading. The authors make the point that

“research indicates that fathers may have, perhaps, a greater influence on their

children’s behaviour, and ultimately their academic achievement than mothers do,

even though fathers are generally likely to spend less time in the company of their

children.” Clark and Picton (2012) support this view in their findings that although two

thirds of children have received some encouragement from their father at some point

to read, only a quarter of children are encouraged to ‘read a lot’ by their fathers. Clark

and Picton (2012) go on to suggest that children whose fathers do not encourage them

to read at all are four times more likely to be below their expected reading level. Smith’s

(2004) study into successful reading in boys evidenced that where fathers actively

engaged in reading activities with their sons, boys were more likely to engage in

reading and were more successful than their peers in reading achievement.

The role of the parent is seen to be an important factor in literacy practices. Parents

are of great importance in the life of children and are “the prime figures who can inspire

reading” (Clark, Osborne and Dugdale, 2009). The Open University Study Guide

(Open University, 2012b) cites the work of Gregory (1999) arguing that research has

so far shown that parents and families have a crucial role in providing children with

opportunities to promote their literacy development with Broeder and Stokmans (2013)

stating that one of the most important determinants of reading attitude is what young

people see as the “implicit norm of family and friends” (Broeder and Stokmans, 2013).

In line with this Tett (2009) suggests that a non-nuclear or fragmented family structure

acts as a barrier to achievement in reading with Clark and Picton (2012) showing that

Page | 14
young people who receive a lot of encouragement to read from their mothers or fathers

are more likely to perceive themselves as readers.

Another theme that arises in the literature as part of the socio-cultural model of literacy

is that of masculinities. This was touched upon earlier in this section when discussing

boys’ perceptions towards reading. In Raising Boys’ Achievement, Younger and

Warrington et al (2005) suggest that within the school context, achievement is at odds

with the aspirations which are set by the school. In defining their masculinity, boys

develop a macho image and protect this image from the feminine. Burns and Bracey

(2001) go further in citing Jackson and Salisbury (1996) who say: “Boys’ identification

with macho values and relation, where school learning is seen as unmanly, often leads

to significant underachievement in some groups of boys (particularly working class

and some black groups). (Jackson & Salisbury, 1996, p. 105; brackets as in citation).

This is of particular interest to this study given the composition of the catchment area

in terms the socio-cultural and socio-economic makeup. Dutro (2003) found that

although boys supported stereotypical assumptions of reading preferences in public,

with one boy stating that “girls like to read girl stuff and us boys like to read football

and boy stuff”, if provided with a ‘safe, private place’, there were examples of boys

reading girl orientated materials. It has been suggested that how boys feel they are

viewed by other boys may be to blame for boys deliberately underachieving, going out

of their way to ensure they do not succeed in reading (Barrs, 1998; Burns and Bracey,

2001). In her study, Dutro (2003) observed that boys could not read materials in public,

particularly if they were “girls books” without being ridiculed by their peers. Smith

(2004) argues however that boys can develop masculine identities that include being

readers, even making positive connections between reading and masculinity with

appropriate male role models that they can look up to.

Page | 15
Skelton and Francis (2011) argue that high achieving boys who are successfully

literate take up the feminine attributes accorded to reading and render them “non-

gendered”. They point out however, that this is more likely in advantaged households

and that being successful is key to the loss of focus on reading being seen as a

feminine activity. Sokal et al (2007) offer some support to the ability of boys to adjust

to reading as a feminine activity in that they suggest as boys develop through

adolescence the view that reading is a feminine activity shifts and becomes “less

feminine”.

2.5 Intervention strategies suggested in the literature

The purpose of this project is two-fold; to identify causal factors of boys’

underachievement in reading and to identify strategies that can be put in place to

ensure that progress is made in reading achievement. With reference to the second

outcome, the strategies suggested in the literature can be divided into two groups;

those implemented within the educational environment and those within the home

environment with a degree of overlap between them.

Many of the strategies employed within the literature take a ‘boy friendly’ approach.

Farris et al (2009) state that “as literacy educators, we need to acknowledge the

reading preferences of boys…” Muir (2001) suggests that with boys who are offered

reading materials related to their interests, motivation to achieve in reading is

increased. Taylor and Lorimer (2003) report that a number of school report positive

results in literacy attainment when teachers have a ‘personal knowledge of boys’

needs and provide texts that appeal to boy’s interests.

Page | 16
Within the school, Younger et al (2005) reported that successful reading intervention

involved the setting of homework which specifically encouraged pupils to read many

kinds of texts. The study also reported that a pilot scheme of ‘reading buddies’ where

unmotivated or underachieving boys were paired with a more-able and motivated

reader showed such gains in boy’s reading ability that it was extended as ‘Boys

Supporting Boys’ to a number of schools within the borough.

At home, ‘Paired Reading’, where the parent first reads aloud with the child and then

the child reads aloud alone is a popular and widely used intervention. Close (2001)

cites the work of Topping and Linsday (1992) and Topping (1995, 2001) who

demonstrate the success of the ‘Paired Reading in Kirklees’ project, including those

of children in disadvantaged areas, showing gains in both the accuracy and

comprehension of reading. Close (2001) goes on to argue that Paired Reading

provides a foundation for parents to further develop their children’s literacy

development. This view is supported further by Cadieux and Boudreault (2005) and

MacDonald (2010) both showing gains in reading attainment in their respective studies

into paired reading interventions.

Home-school initiatives have been widely used to promote achievement of boys’

literacy achievement. One of the underlying tenants of the National Literacy Strategy

(NLS) is the idea that all parents are responsible for assisting schools in developing

literacy (Literacy Task Force 1997). With the implementation of the NLS, schools were

encouraged to use parents and carers in the classroom and to support their children

with reading. In an effort to engage both parents and address the lack of male role

models, Senn (2009) suggests extending an invitation to parents (and other family

members) to act as reading assistants in the classroom, supporting their children.

Page | 17
Senn (2009) suggests that it should be made clear that both “mothers and fathers are

equally welcome”.

Although home-school partnerships are seen to be positive interventions, the Open

University Study Guide (Open University, 2012b) cites Wragg et al (1998) and Topping

(1992, 1996) arguing that family interventions need to be treated with caution. Family

members can lack knowledge and skills to effectively support their children with

parents having “little understanding of school based education (Close, 2001). Further

complications can arise from parents own low-literacy skills and negative perceptions

of school (Clark et al, 1999).

In light of the literature reviewed, it appears that the research problem is one worth

investigating. With regards to the central question and sub-questions the literature

reviewed strongly supports them and suggests that they have the proper focus to

address the issue that is set out in the introduction and rationale.

3. Research Strategy

3.1 Methodology

Case studies are extensively used in educational studies (Wallace and Atkins, 2014)

as they “investigate a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context” (Yin,

2003) while allowing a critical enquiry which aims to improve educational action to take

place (Bassey, 1999). With this in mind, I carried out my research as a case-study that

would focus on “particular phenomenon with a view to providing an in-depth account

of events, relationships, experiences or processes occurring in that particular instance

(Denscombe, 2014). As case study research has an intentionally limited scope, it

Page | 18
would enable the research to be focussed and allow me to gain a rich, detailed

understanding by examining aspects of the case(s) in detail.

When considering the case study approach, Bassey (1999) sets out three types;

theory-seeking and theory-testing case studies, story-telling and picture-drawing case

studies and evaluative case studies. Yin (1994) also describes three forms of case

study; exploratory, explanatory and descriptive. While each type of case study has its

merits, it was ultimately decided that a story-telling and picture-drawing case study

which was explanatory would be most appropriate for the study as it would allow for a

narrative of the reasons behind boy’s underachievement in reading to be investigated

and set out and would culminate in a series of recommendations to address the

reasons described in the story, after careful analysis. A theory-testing case study may

have been appropriate, had this project aimed to provide evidence to support a

particular hypothesis, rather than draw out reasons for underachievement. An

evaluative case study would not have been appropriate as this study was not an

enquiry into an educational programme or project to determine their impact, although

this is something to be considered in determining the worthwhileness of the

recommendations made in this project. As my research questions had already been

set during the proposal stage of the project, and the project aim was to investigate the

causes of reading underachievement of boys in my setting, the project could not be

exploratory, however in hindsight, a small scale, exploratory case study could have

been undertaken as a pilot to help define the research questions and hypotheses.

I had also considered approaching this project as a piece of action research, however,

the research question focusses on the reasons behind boys’ underachievement in

reading rather than looking at how a particular intervention impacts on their reading

achievement.

Page | 19
When considering the research question and the associated sub-questions I had to

decide on which research paradigm would be used to underpin the research, and as

such the project as a whole. In this, I considered both the positivist and interpretivist

model, however I ultimately decided on the interpretivist model.

Bryman (2012) suggests that the interpretivist position is to gain an understanding of

the social world through examining the interpretation of the participants’ actions.

Ultimately, this metholodogy was employed as my goal is to “understand phenomena”

(Cohen, Manion et all, 2013) by “accessing the meanings participants assign to

them”,(Orlikowski and Baroudi, 1991).

Collins’ (2011) view of interpretvism is that it is “associated with the philosophical

position of idealism and is used to group together approaches, including

constructivism and phenomenology; approaches that reject the objectivist view that

meaning resides with the world independently of consciousness” (Collins, 2011). As

such, an interpretivist study looks at the meaning behind the action an individual takes

and uses a combination of research methods to reveal different facets of the issue

being investigated. Denscombe (2014) “regards the use of multiple sources as

beneficial in terms of the quality and fullness of the data it produces”. This is an

extremely important factor that I needed to take into account when considering

methodologies as this research project required multiple sources to be investigated

through several different methods. Using more than one method of data collection will

also allow me to compare and cross-check my findings and look to see whether there

is a convergence of evidence (Yin, 2009), thus increasing the confidence in the

reliability of my findings.

Page | 20
In my view, the choice of positivist or interpretivist methodologies would have a major

impact on the outcomes of the research project and the validity of the data collected.

As an example, one of the methods of data collection chosen is the face-to-face

interview which is ‘’guided by a set of topics or themes chosen by the researcher

Humphrey (2013). Humphrey (2013) goes on to suggest that if a positivist

methodology was used then a distinct, structured interview or survey would have to

be presented in the same order to all respondents, with identical categories of answers

available to ‘safeguard objectivity. This would give very limited data and would not

provide an ‘insider understanding of the life-story’ of the participant (Silverman, 1993).

In contrast, an interpretivist methodology allows the researcher to follow the same

themes as the positivist tradition, but enables them to be conveyed as open-ended

questioning and thus encourages other topics or themes to emerge.

While both interpretivist and positivist work seek to “look for preferences, motivations,

and actions that are not easily made numeric” (Lin, 1998), positivist qualitative work

only looks to identify general patterns, whereas the interpretivist seeks to discover how

the general pattern looks in practice, giving a deeper understanding of the

mechanisms that form a participant’s views and actions. A study conducted with an

interpretivist methodology. I thought that this was a particularly pertinent point as this

research project is not only looking at why boys underachieve in reading but also to

suggest what strategies can be put in place to help raise achievement.

Page | 21
3.2 Research Methods and Data Analysis

3.2.1 Participants

The research was carried out looking at data held on 63 boys with a total of eleven

boys, three from Animal Care, five from Construction and three from Automotive aged

between 16:02 and 18:04 taking active and full part in the research. Although all 63

boys on programme were invited to take part only boys 15 returned consent forms with

four withdrawing during the focus group stage. Time constraints should not have been

a deciding factor for the learners as all focus group and interviews were scheduled for

time when they were due to be in attendance for practical and theory classes or tutorial

times. One suggestion on the low uptake and withdrawal of participation is that

learners or their parents have a lack of interest (or perhaps understanding) in the

study.

Nine of the boys who participated in the study were classed as underachieving in

reading, having a reading age of 11:06 or lower and having entered Vocational training

with GCSE English grades ranging from D to U. Of these learners, one was from a

minority ethnic background, broadly reflecting the ethnic makeup of the area. The

views of 72 parents and carers and 17 educational staff were also sought.

3.2.2 Information Management System Data

Information was extracted from the provider Information Management System (IMS)

as a filtered spreadsheet. In terms of the relevance to the case study format, the

information taken from the IMS is important in that it provides evidence in the form of

documents provided by the participants and archival records (Yin, 2003) such as

Page | 22
previous examination attainment and socio-economic data (household income, free-

school meals, travel and bursary eligibility. The data was filtered using the following

strands:

Unique Pupil Reference Number, Surname, Forename, Date of Birth, Course Code,

Learning Difficulty/Disability (LDD), LDD Code, Attainment – English, Attainment –

Maths, Reading Age, Free School Meals (FSM), Travel Bursary (TB), Financial

Bursary (FB). This data is particularly useful as a source of information for

triangulation, in order to support or question findings from the other collection methods.

3.2.3 Questionnaires

Along with consent forms (for learners under 18), all parents and carers of participating

learners were issued with a questionnaire (appendix 4) to complete in order to collect

information about the home context. All of those who were invited to participate in the

study were sent a questionnaire as questionnaires are most useful as research tools

when a there are a large number of respondents (Denscombe, 2007). A major

drawback that is frequently encountered when using questionnaires however is the

low response rate (Gray, 2004) and the questionnaire was designed to avoid this so

far as possible.

The questionnaire itself was designed to look at the home reading practices of the

learners, to verify information from focus groups and interviews and to investigate the

impact of parental (and other relatives) involvement, along with the availability of

reading materials in the household. A total of 72 questionnaires were sent out with the

study consent forms, plus 11 were sent home with learners aged 18 and over. Of

these, 4 were returned. The questionnaires were designed in the assumption that

Page | 23
respondents would be able to understand the questions and so they would not be

misleading for the participant (Gray, 2004). The questionnaires were also designed to

ensure that the parents and carers would be in possession of the information required

to complete them. This ensures responses that were valid and of use to the study

(Open University, 2001) while ensuring that an adequate amount of information to

inform the findings would be collected. The questions were also, to an extent, left open-

ended and as such were more likely to “capture the specificity of a particular situation”

(Cohen et al, 2007). Along with parental questionnaires, it was important to take into

account the views of tutors’ on the subject of boys’ underachievement in reading

(Burns and Bracey, 2001), with a short SurveyMonkey questionnaire (appendix 5) sent

to teaching staff via email. All of the tutors were asked to give honest opinions on both

reading engagement, participation and strategies that have already been used, along

with a section for further comments. A total of seventeen questionnaires were sent to

staff, with a return of four (response rate 23%).

3.2.4 Observations

In the initial stages of the study the research method involved observations of learners

in the classroom setting (Skelton and Francis, 2011) and these were primarily used to

document how those learners who were highlighted as underachieving in reading

assessments displayed their difficulties within a classroom environment and to look

consider strategies that could be put in place to help overcome these difficulties. This

was to ensure a greater understanding of the boys’ behaviour and attitudes in a real-

life context, and without having to ask them directly (Sharp, 2009). This however,

proved to be problematic. As the learners were aware that they were the focus of the

Page | 24
observation due to giving consent to participate in the study, several of the boys went

further out of their way to avoid reading, or, in the case of one learner, actively

volunteered himself to read. This did not allow for a truly accurate portrayal of

classroom practice (Masling and Stern, 1969; Cohen et al, 2011). In order to counter

this bias in the findings of the study, the actions of the four learners who avoided

reading and the learner who volunteered himself to read were compared to their

participation in the focus groups and their responses to the semi-structured interview

questions.

3.2.5 Focus groups

Three focus groups were held, representing each of the Vocational Areas taking part.

Group 1 was made up of two learners from Animal Care, Group 2 had three boys from

Construction and Group 3 was made up of two learners from Automotive. The main

aim of the focus groups was to collect data on boys’ perceptions towards reading and

to investigate boys reading preferences. Initially, the boys were presented with the

word ‘reading’ on a sheet of A3 paper and asked to write down words which they

associated with reading. In addition, following the work of Farris et al (2009), the focus

group was presented with a selection of fiction and non-fiction books taken from the

vocational centre library, set texts which they had previously encountered in school or

would encounter in their English GCSE lessons, two graphic novels and a selection of

magazines and comics with a male and female target audience which were also

available in the learner common areas (appendix 7 & 8). The boys were asked to

choose material which they would like to read and describe how they felt about them.

They were also asked for reasons for choosing the materials they did and were

Page | 25
questioned about the reading materials that were left. As with the Lever-Chain (2008)

study, this resulted in an open-ended and semi-structured situation where the boys

could chat freely about how they perceived reading and allowed for the exploration of

the boys reading experiences. Along with notes on book choices and reading sheet

completed by the focus groups, the conversations were recorded for transcription.

With low participant numbers in the focus groups the validity of the findings could be

called into question. In order to ensure that the focus group findings were valid, the

use of a triangulation approach was used to reduce ambiguity and allow cross

references to be made to the observations, semi-structured interviews and parental

and tutor questionnaires, thus improving the validity and reliability of the findings.

(Sharp, 2009).

3.2.6 Semi-structured interviews

After the classroom observations and focus groups, individual, semi-structured

interviews (appendix 2 & 3) of between 15-20 minutes were carried out. Attendance

issues (boy’s not attending the centre as timetabled) meant that not all of the boys

who took part in the focus groups were able to take part in the interview process. The

semi-structured interviews were used to explore learner’s experiences of reading both

in school and at home, focussing on sub-questions one and two. In a number of

studies (Burns and Bracey, 2001; Fisher, 2011) semi-structured interviews were

chosen, rather than a casual conversation or fully structured interview as they offer the

advantage of allowing the interviewer to ask all of the interviewees the same set of

core questions (Younger and Warrington, 2005) and therefore allow for a greater

comparison during data analysis, while allowing the freedom to build on the responses

received with follow up questions (Brener, 2006) and allowing the participant to give

more detailed responses (Gray, 2004). To an extent, they provide flexibility in allowing

Page | 26
the interviewer to have a direct input into the investigation. As Kvale (1996) suggests

these sorts of interviews are “conversations where the outcome is a co-production of

the interviewer and the subject”. It was noted beforehand that one of the key skills to

hold during the interview process in to “listen more and to talk less” (Seidman, 2012).

During the interview, it was also important to take into account the unequal power

relationships that exist between the researcher (in this case also a tutor within the

educational establishment) and the young person. Fisher (2011) cites the work of

David et al (2005) who say “the very nature of being in a school context generally tips

the balance of power away from children who are taught to comply with teacher’s

requests”. Notes were taken during the interviews, which were also digitally recorded

(audio only) for transcription.

3.2.7 Data Analysis

This research project deals with qualitative data as this lends itself to the interpretivist

paradigm in that the data is based on individuals’ perceptions of the world around

them. Hine and Lavery (2014) are proponents of the use of qualitative methods in

educational research as it allows for a commitment to continuously improve best

practice within an educational establishment, both as an individual and as an

organisation. I find this extremely relevant, given the intended outcomes on my own

practice and the impact of the findings on the wider organisation.

The information gathered throughout the research stage was subject to interpretive

phenomenological analysis (Smith et al, 1995, 2009). This form of analysis suggests

that “the meanings an individual ascribes to events are of central concern, but are only

accessible through an interpretive process” (Biggerstaff & Tompson, 2008).

Interpretive phenomenological analysis takes into account the experiences of the

Page | 27
researcher during the study and how they shape the interpretations of the experience

of the participants. This is essential for me as the researcher as the one of the

outcomes of this research project is to shape how in future I approach interventions

for boys’ who underachieve in reading and helped to ensure that my focus was to

ensure that the findings could be used to put effective strategies in place in terms of

my own practice and that of my colleagues in the wider organisation. The data analysis

itself will follow the previously mentioned triangulation method, with each of the

research questions being addressed individually.

When considering the analysis of data, the validity and reliability of the study also

needs to be addressed. Robson (2002) make a critical link between the concepts of

validity and reliability saying “unless a measure is reliable, it cannot be valid”. When

looking at the methodology, each of the methods of data collection had relatively low

levels of participation. Within the design of the project there are two counters to ensure

that this study is reliable. Firstly, by taking the form of a case study, there is an inherent

emphasis on contextual analysis and making meaning from the relationships

identified. Secondly, in using a triangulation approach and cross referencing findings

at each stage a ‘chain of evidence’ (Yin, 2009) is formed which ensures reliability and

validity.

Page | 28
 Review of IMS
Data

Parental & Tutor

Questionnaires

Focus Groups

Semi-structured
Interview

Analysis of data

Figure 1. Summary of the research process

3.3 Ethics

Throughout this research project I ensured that I followed the guidelines as set out by

BERA (2011), showing respect for all of those involved with the project. In the case of

this research project, there was the possibility that some learners (those with Special

Educational Needs for example) could be regarded as incapable of taking part in the

study or that they may be considered incompetent to consent. The Declaration of

Helsinki (2008) states that, “when the subject is a minor, permission from the

responsible relative replaces that of the participant in accordance with national

legislation. Whenever the minor child is in fact able to give consent, the minor’s

consent must be obtained in addition to the consent of the minor’s legal guardian.’’ To

Page | 29
address this issue, and in line with BERA ethics guidelines, written permission was

sought from both the parents (where a learner was under the age of 16) and from the

subjects involved. Learners taking part in the study also had the consent form read to

them before agreeing.

Before the start of each focus group and interview it was made clear to the learners

that participation in the research was voluntary and that they could ask to stop at any

point. During classroom observations, the learners involved were informed beforehand

that they would be observed and again, if they did not wish for this to go ahead they

were free to make this clear.

A further ethical point was the need to respect the anonymity of the participants (the

learners, parents and teachers) and of the organisation (BERA, 2011). This was

unproblematic in that learners in the study were assigned letters which they are

referred to throughout the study and no named data was taken from the data

management system. As both the interview sessions and focus groups were recorded,

in letters of consent it was made clear that all recorded material would be used only in

reference to this study and would be stored securely in a password protected folder.

All material would be deleted from the recording equipment and no copies would be

left on the organisation network for public (staff) access. It was also stressed that

access to all data collected and the final report would be available at any time upon

request in line with the training provider data protection policy. Any data pertaining to

a participant would be deleted upon request.

A final ethical issue that needed to be dealt with was my dual position of researcher

and SENCo. As SENCo I have a management role which means that I am seen to

have a level of authority over both learners and tutors. Therefore, as a researcher I

Page | 30
had to ensure that my position as a member of staff did not affect the findings. This

was made clear with both learners and staff insofar as a candid and direct assurance

that their participation was entirely voluntary and that there were no negative

repercussions for not participating.

3.4 Limitations of the methodology: implications for future practice

There are a number of limitations that I have identified with regards to my choice of

research methods and subsequent analysis of the data collected. One of the issues

encountered during classroom observations was the ‘observer effect’, where the act

of observing leads to a change in behaviour of those observed from the norm. An

example that was apparent was that of ‘self-censorship’ when the participants felt

scrutinised under observation and withdrew their engagement. Masling and Stern

(1969) reported that the ‘observer effect’ in the classroom diminishes over time with

Monahan and Fisher (2010) arguing that multiple studies have shown that

modifications to behaviour fade over time. As such it would have been sensible to build

up a number of observations over a longer period of time so that I, as the observer

became a regular feature of the classroom experience (despite some of the learners

already being familiar with me through lesson observations). This would have aided in

the triangulation process when analysing the data and would allow for validity checks

on any data that is seen to be dubious (Monahan and Fisher, 2010). This would ensure

a better account of “what people do and what they say they do (Robson, 2002) thus

ensuring a higher validity of what is being observed. Monahan and Fisher (2010) cite

Clarke (2005) and Geertz (1973) in arguing that the data is open to “interpretation and

Page | 31
reinterpretation” and that it is the researcher’s job to navigate all of the findings to

“construct a coherent story”.

This then raises another limitation of the study; throughout the research I was the only

observer which implies an innate bias in the findings in that all evidence is based on

my own interpretation. Although I had anticipated this in the planning stages and

approached the methodology as an interpretivist piece (Bryman, 2012) my own

situation, including my level of education, my socio-economic background and my role

within the learning provider has an impact on my perspectives and on the research

practices I have followed (Denscombe, 2010). Within my data analysis and

subsequent findings, I have tried to ensure my own impartiality as an observer but

realise that this is a key weakness of the case study approach (Cohen et al, 2011

citing Nisbett and Watts, 1984). In order to ensure that observer bias is countered

more fully in future research, the inclusion of more quantitative research methods such

as scaled questionnaires which can undergo statistical analysis would be of benefit

(Trochim, 2006; Fink, 2013). This however would also require higher levels of

participation, an issue noted across the focus group and interview stage. Cohen et al

(2011) suggest a minimum sample size of 30 participants to carry out a statistical

analysis, a number which this study fell far short on.

A further consideration would be to have a fellow researcher to work with, so that

more than one viewpoint is taken into account. This however could also affect the

reliability and validity of findings in that although standardised methods may be set

out, the approaches of the individuals could differ and thus impact on what is recorded

and the way it is recorded.

Page | 32
Considering the observations, focus groups and semi-structured interviews, thought

needed to be given to the unequal power relationships between myself as the

researcher and the learners who were participating in the research. The learners may

feel obliged to take part and to give answers that they believed I would want to hear.

The unequal power relationship was also a consideration when looking at my position

in a management role. Asking for tutor feedback, colleagues may feel as if they have

to take part in the research or they may embellish their contributions in order to portray

themselves in the best possible light. My only counter to this limitation was to reassure

everyone involved that the research was separate from my role and although this was

generally accepted there was no way of me knowing if this was actually the case.

Again, a second researcher, perhaps external to the organisation would alleviate this

power bias.

In terms of the questionnaires there are two points which would need to be addressed

in any future research. The first is the low response rate from parents and carers; out

of the 83 questionnaires sent out, only 4 responses were received. As previously

discussed, the questionnaires were designed to be short, and to ensure that the

respondents were in acquisition of the knowledge required to complete the

questionnaire. However, this method relied on a) the recipients being motivated

enough to complete the questionnaire, b) for the recipients to return the questionnaire,

either with their children or by post and c) remembering to complete the questionnaire.

In order to address these issues, there are two improvements that could be made. By

providing a stamped, addressed return envelope (Edwards et al, 2002), response

rates could be improved as it no longer relies on the requirement of a stamp/envelope

or being returned by a child. Follow-up contact such as a reminder system of postcards

(postal) or phone-calls (personal) may have also proved effective in increasing the

Page | 33
response rates to postal questionnaires (Edwards et al, 2002; Glidewell et al, 2012,

Cook et al, 2016), however this would be both dependent on time and monetary factors

(Glidewell et al, 2012). It should also be noted that the demographic which Glidwell et

al (2012) carried out their study on (health care professionals) is inherently different to

the cohort which this study has targeted for questionnaires and so the impacts may

not be as clear cut. In addressing the issue of motivation, the studies of Edwards et al

(2002), Whiteman et al (2003), Glidewell et al (2012) and Cook et al (2016) all looked

at the use of incentives to increase response rates. With the study by Whiteman et al

(2003) the incentives took the form of lottery tickets and money, whereas the

remaining studies looked at monetary compensations as one form of increasing

engagement. While all of the studies were in agreement that incentives do increase

response rates, I do not envisage a study of this scale being able to offer paid

incentives. Considering, the ethics of paid incentives, Alderson and Morrow (2004)

suggest that incentive payments can be seen as exerting undue influence on potential

participants, particularly from financially disadvantaged groups, with consent not being

truly given if payment is involved. This would also be a factor that would have to be

taken into account when looking at increasing participation of learners in any future

study.

One of the points that has stood out throughout the literature is that the

underachievement of boys is not a localised issue. The fact that there have been so

many studies (Brozo et al, 2014; Clark and Picton, 2012; Farris et al, 2009; Sokal et

al, 2007) indicates the significance of the problem. The study carried out was small

scale and so this is something that needed to be appreciated when examining the data

collected. Burns and Bracey (2001) carried out their ‘relatively small scale’ study with

three comparative schools in different areas to prevent the inadvertent skewing of

Page | 34
 results and as with their study, it would be interesting to compare the results gathered

by repeating it with further case studies of similar providers and 6th form colleges in

the wider region.

4. Research Findings

4.1 Introduction and aims

The topic of this project was chosen due to the considerable number of boys in my

setting who join us underachieving in their reading attainment. The findings of the

project would then be used to inform my own practice, i.e. how can I better assess

reading underachievement and what interventions could I seek to put in place in order

to raise attainment and enable pupils to effectively access their vocational and

academic courses. In addition to improving my engagement with these learners on a

person-to-person level, I also wanted to be able to confidently and effectively advise

other teaching staff how they could engage these learners in their own lessons and

ensure that progression in reading achievement and their overall literacy skills is

achieved.

I have chosen to present the findings of this report by theme, to allow for a clear

comparison to the literature and following a methodological triangulation approach to

ensure the reliability and validity of the data. Once the findings have been discussed,

they will be presented to allow the various strands to be drawn together to answer the

project title question as a whole.

Page | 35
4.2 Boys’ perceptions of reading

Data from the semi-structured interviews and boys focus group indicates that of those

boys studied, the majority (71%) have well-formed perceptions of reading which are

generally negative. When asked to give words or phrases they associated with

reading, some of the responses given were ‘dull’, ‘boring’ and ‘not very fun’. These

responses and similar came from boys who were classed as underachieving from the

reading age data. Other responses associated reading as a compulsory act that had

occurred in school, and was continuing in their vocational training. For example, when

asked if they were currently reading books, four of the boys answered yes, however

this was only due to the learners being required to read Of Mice and Men during their

English GCSE tutorials. When this was investigated further, one of the boys

commented that, “I’m reading a book, yeah, but [pause], well I don’t really read it…..I

just open the page and follow the tutor “

Unsurprisingly, of the two boys in the study who had reading ages at, or above their

chronological ages, one of them (Boy C) carried reading material (the actual format

varied over the course of the study from a fiction book to a graphic novel) in his bag,

while the one who didn’t carry a book in his bag, did choose the same book from those

available in the learner common area as “I like to find out what happens in a book, to

the characters. Sometimes it’s scary and sometimes it’s really fun.” This was

corroborated through one of the tutor questionnaire responses, where the following

comment was made, “In my Level 2 class, I can pinpoint one boy who enjoys reading

and when he has spare time in class (he usually completes his work first) will read his

book.” When asked to elaborate on their views of reading and if they would ever read

for fun, Boy A said “Well reading for fun – who’d do that? Only old people or saddos

read for fun!” While four other boys in the focus group sounded in agreement, one of

Page | 36
the boys suggested that, “It all depends on what you’re reading – some things can be

fun I suppose.” Boy’s having a negative perception like those described were

supported through my own observations in class. During a Level 2 animal care

observation, I observed Boy C completing his work and then seeking permission from

the tutor to read his book for the remaining 15 minutes of the session. In the time that

remained, some comments were made by one boy on a mixed-sex table about Boy C

“reading his s****y book again”, with approvals made by other members of the group.

Thankfully, Boy C was out of hearing range and the tutor dealt with the comment

appropriately. To gain further clarification on the meaning of the comment, i.e. was it

about Boy C reading in general, the type of book he was reading or something entirely

different, I spoke to the learner immediately after the session. His response was

recorded as follows:

“I don’t really know why I said it. He just always sits there, reading at the end of lessons,

thinking he’s smart.”

In terms of this response, I interpreted it two-fold; firstly, that there were feelings of

inadequacy and low self-esteem (Luxmore, 2008) in a peer being more successful by

completing their work first and gaining approval of the tutor. This may also be due to

the time spent reading being seen as a ‘free time’ reward. Secondly, based on

subsequent focus group discussions and interview with the boy who made the

comment, it was attributable to his view that reading for pleasure is something of a

stigma, not seen as the ‘done thing’.

In the second focus group, Boy G suggested that reading for fun was not what boys

do, saying, “…we like to play football or COD (Call of Duty) or something else on the

Xbox. Reading for fun is something adults do.” This led to a general consensus in

Page | 37
focus group two with the other boys suggesting that “his English tutor must read for

fun” and that “older people read for fun because they didn’t have computer games

when they were kids”. Similarly, during the interview, when asked what they thought

of when they heard the word ‘fun’ none of the boys mentioned reading, giving a range

of comments such as, “my PS3”, “going out with my mates” and “watching TV”.

At odds with the literature, during the focus groups and interviews, the issues of

reading being seen as feminine did not arise. Although references were made to

reading being boring, and that they didn’t see children and young people reading for

fun, none of the boys referenced reading as something which girls do for fun.

From the interviews, although general feeling towards reading was negative, the

majority of the boys did see being able to read as something that was important. Boy

B said, “I think reading is important as I will need it to do well on my course….I just

find it boring.” Boy D followed a similar vein, saying “I think I need to be able to read

better because it will really help me in my exams and when I get a job.” Although the

majority of the boys do not like reading, they do see it as something that will help them

to be successful. One boy (Boy F) however took a completely different view the

importance of reading, one that I feel was extremely negative. During his interview he

suggested that he did not value reading very highly in that he did not feel the need to

be a good reader because “I’m just laying bricks and mixing mortar…I’ll know what to

do in my job, won’t I?” When I questioned him further on this, asking how he would go

about getting a job if he wasn’t able to access a job application full he said he thought

he would be OK with that and reading was “just not that big of a deal”.

Page | 38
4.3 Boys’ reading preferences

4.3.1 Boy’s responses to questions about their reading preferences

As far as investigating boys reading preferences, the interviews and focus group

yielded interesting results. During the interviews, all of the boys were asked the

question “What sort of things do you like to read?”

Responses were varied, however one thing that was clear was that all of the media

mentioned was both colourful and male orientated. Boy A said that if he did read, it

was “magazines about football” and when asked why, he went on to say how football

was one of his hobbies and that he “likes it because there are lots of pictures of his

favourite footballers and not a lot of reading to do, not like in a book”. Boy C said he

enjoyed reading things about gangs and wars and a common theme that the boys said

they would like to read about were zombies or other horror related themes.

The interview data was supported by the focus group book selection activity. The boys

selected books which were targeted at the male audience. Graphic novels (Hughes et

al, 2011) such as Spiderman and Superman were snapped up, along with Match

Magazine and even the Coarse Fishing Magazine. The lower ability readers in the

focus group tended to choose the magazines or the graphic novels, where as those

with a higher ability or those who were above ability tended to choose the books which

were “texty but looked fun” (Boy C, 2016). Books which fell into this category were the

Cool Science Tricks and Bears Can’t Run Downhill. Literature that was left over was

that which was either related to their previous experiences in school such as To Kill a

Mocking Bird, their current reading requirements in their GCSE lessons, or was

marketed at the female audience such as Tracey Beaker and Bliss Magazine. When

both groups were asked why they had left the Tracey Beaker and Bliss Magazine on

Page | 39
the table, the responses were all related to the material being feminine. Boy F said

that, “Tracey Beaker – that’s for little girls!” and Boy E followed with “Only girls read

Bliss Magazine! It’s got that boy band on the front!”. Although the boys were not

suggesting that reading was a feminine activity, they had clear views of what material

was targeted at girls and what material was aimed at girls. Typical responses to why

the boy’s had chosen the material that they had were , “That’s the sort of thing I like”,

“The book looks really exciting!” and “ The cover looks really good…interesting”

Preferences were also shown in terms of genres with Boy K saying that he chose his

book because, “I like cartoons and the superheroes are in films that I like too…they’re

easy to read with not many words to read…”.

4.3.2 Tutor questionnaire responses about boy’s reading preferences

Responses from the tutor questionnaire about the lack of engagement with reading

paralleled the reading preferences that the boys had expressed. From the four

responses received, all tutors indicated that boys do not have a good attitude towards

reading and do not readily participate in reading activities. A response from one of the

GCSE English tutors stated, “It’s clear to me in the classroom that my male students

are turned off by the texts that we cover. The problem is these are set to the curriculum

we teach and we have no flexibility in choosing.” In a further conversation with the

tutor, stemming from a discussion about the project she raised the issue that the boys

who she has to teach are effectively being forced to resit their GCSE English because

they didn’t reach the all important ‘C’ grade in their last year of school. This has a direct

impact on their engagement as “it is something that they do not want to do, or see the

point in doing”, particularly when they see some of their peers completing Level 1 or

Page | 40
Level 2 Functional Skills Literacy courses. However, the organisation Literacy,

Numeracy and Employability Manager was apprehensive about considering boy-

orientated texts saying, “Even if we could choose books that the boys prefer then we

risk disengaging the girls in the class. It would be a case of stealing from Peter to pay

Paul”. Highlighting a point that needs to be considered when approaching research

question 3 is that although tutors were aware that the boys who they teach are not

engaging in reading in class, they were unaware of what sort of books they could use

to increase engagement or of strategies that they could use to encourage and support

boys in reading.

4.4 The home environment

Analysis of the data from the Information Management System revealed that of the 63

boys initially selected, 52 were eligible for free lunches. Of these, only one of the six

learners who was above target was eligible. With regards to English as a second

language, only one of the 63 learners was listed as EAL and ethnically only three were

from minority back grounds. Data from the Information Management System showed

that 93% (56) of the 2015-2016 cohort of male learners would be categorised as

coming from white households which fall below the poverty line (as set by the UK

Government through the Households Below Average Income survey). This is currently

set at £15,132 per annum for a lone parent with two or £20,436 for a couple with two

children (Child Poverty Action Group, 2016).

Of the four parental questionnaires that were returned, three of the questionnaires

suggested that although their child had the opportunity to read at home on a regular

Page | 41
basis (each day), they rarely did so with one parent commenting, “ I like E to read. I

want E to read. He just does not want to.”

Family involvement in the boy’s reading was an area that had interesting findings.

During the semi-structured interviews, all of the boys who participated were asked if

they were encouraged to read at home and if so by who. Boy F responded that, “No

one at home really tells me to read. My mum asks how college went but that’s about

it.” Following on from this, when asked about whether his father had any input Boy F

went on to say “Dad comes home late and doesn’t ask about what I’m doing here.

That’s just mum.”

Other pupil responses during the interviews followed the same pattern, although

feedback from the parents was slightly different, with all but one of the responses

suggesting that to some degree there was ‘some’ encouragement at home for their

children to read, although this may have been historical. As an example, Boy D’s

mother, in her questionnaire response, said “I tried in the past but I don’t much now. I

would like him to read but he isn’t interested.”. It seems here that a lack of motivation

on the part of the child historically has had a knock-on effect in the home environment

with the parent involved no longer having the motivation to encourage her child to read

even though she “wants him to do well” and knows that he needs to be reading for his

qualification.

One trend of worth noting was that in responses from learners and parents or carers,

male role models were absent. None of the questionnaires returned were from fathers

and in only one of the responses was it said that fathers took an active role in

promoting reading with their child. During the interviews the majority of boys indicated

that at home there is no male figure who they see reading other than a two responses

Page | 42
of older siblings. Where this was the case, the older siblings were in education (in

further or higher education) and so it was taken that their reading was mainly in an

education context rather than for pleasure. This was highlighted by a comment by Boy

B during his interview who said “When I think of men and reading, I think of my

teachers and my brother. I think my dad might read, but I don’t see it at home.” Boy F,

who expressed a particularly negative attitude towards reading was very explicit during

his interview, in how he saw reading in the home. In relation to the home environment

he said that “my mum and dad don’t read and they’ve done alright…..my dad’s got a

job – why do I need it [the ability to read well]?” This suggests that within his home

there is not a particularly high importance on placed on reading and this has influenced

Boy F’s own attitude and had a negative effect on his reading achievement.

When asked if they had ever received a book as a gift, most of the boys indicated that

this was a seldom occurrence and when asked to recount any occasions very few

could. One of the boys (Boy C) said that he did receive books on his birthday and at

Christmas however a lot of the time they were never what he wanted to read. Two of

the parental responses to the questionnaires indicated that they could not afford to

buy books for their children to read for pleasure, highlighting the low socio-economic

background of the families, and this was backed up by the data from the Information

Management System which has shown that 93% of the cohort are below poverty

threshold. There was a common theme to the parental questionnaire responses that

showed parents were aware that their child could take books from the local library for

free (however the training provider’s common area was not mentioned), although none

stated if this was an activity that was actively encouraged by them as parents.

One concern that was raised when investigating the home environment was the very

low response rate (less than 5%) from the parental questionnaires. I needed to

Page | 43
consider how this affects the validity of the findings and whether it is truly

representative of the cohort. To counter the low response rate and ensure that the

findings were valid, the information, once coded, needed to be triangulated with the

findings from the other data collection methods (Sharp, 2009). From this triangulation,

i.e. also comparing the interview responses of the boy’s wo participated, along with

information from the IMS it was clear that the information gathered was representative

of the socio-economic makeup of the cohort and so can be seen to be reliable and

valid.

5. Conclusions, Recommendations and Impact

5.1 Conclusions

The aim of this research project was to identify the factors that affect the achievement

of boys’ in their reading within the training provider that I work, and based on the

findings to make appropriate recommendations for strategies to improve reading ability

while looking to improve my own practice.

In this research project I discovered no novel factors that cause boys to underachieve

in my setting, however on reflection, I did not expect to. What the research has found

is that many of the reasons highlighted in the literature, based on research carried out

by a multitude of academics are present within the cohort of boys who attend the

training provider.

In all there were four main factors that presented during research project which provide

an answer to my first two sub questions:

Page | 44
 1. That the boys who are underachieving have negative perceptions about reading

which is seen as a compulsory act ‘forced’ upon them by adults.

2. There is a lack of literature that is appeals to boys within the setting and within

their home lives. Although tutors recognise this, they are constrained in what

they can do to remedy it.

3. Low socio-economic status restricts (or has restricted) access to books for boys

at home.

4. A lack of engagement and encouragement from family members affects the

willingness to read, especially with a lack of male role models taking an interest

in their child’s reading or being seen to read themselves.

Although a number of strands have been pulled from the research, this by no means

a complete picture of all of the factors which could and possibly are affecting boys’

achievement in reading. Nor does the research suggest that all of the boys are affected

equally by each of the strands highlighted.

In expanding the findings, having a larger number of active participants may have

yielded further insight into the causes of the problem. A larger scale study would allow

for the reasons of a lack of familial encouragement to be investigated and thus allow

for further recommendations in change of practice.

Socio-cultural factors were investigated to an extent. However, the term ‘socio-cultural’

is so wide ranging that not every aspect could be touched upon. As examples, looking

at the attitudes of parents (especially male) of how reading is perceived, and looking

at the place that men should have within the socio-cultural realm would be areas that

Page | 45
could be investigated. Likewise, the literacy levels of the parents and carers were not

investigated, this being another area that could be explored through the use of a

refined questionnaire, a series of focus groups or interviews depending on the

willingness of parents to participate.

Another topic worthy of including in future research would be that of parent and child

self-efficacy. Although this piece has looked at some of the home and parental factors

affecting reading, it has not investigated how parents view their own levels of literacy

and how parent and children view their own ability to improve their literacy skills. This

is an area that has been highlighted by Clark and Picton (2012) as having a significant

impact on boys’ motivation. Although this was an area included in the interviews, the

responses lacked detail with the boys offering simple “yes” or “I think so” answers, but

with no elaboration, despite further prompting.

One final aspect that was not drawn upon in the study was to investigate why the

percentage (94% in 2015-2016, compared to 81% in 2012-2013) of boys who were

underachieving had increased so dramatically over the past three years. This however

would entail a longer and more in depth study, requiring the participation of all of the

local secondary schools, sixth form colleges and local training providers. This piece of

research did not have the resources or remit to investigate this element.

5.2 Recommendations for practice: strategies to overcome the identified

barriers to boy’s reading achievement

My third research question aims to identify inclusive strategies that can be used to

overcome the identified barriers to reading achievement. This research has shown that

to effectively meet the needs of boys in my provision, a number of interventions will

Page | 46
need to be put into place. These will need to address both changes in institutional

policy and teaching methods used in the classroom by practitioners such as myself

and with subject based teachers.

1. The organisation should develop a specific reading policy.

By developing a specific policy in regards to reading, the training provider would be

able better support boys in their reading. The policy needs to provide boys with the

opportunity to read around their own interests and crucially, to develop an enjoyment

of reading. Further recommendations are based on addressing this policy. An ideal

time for this would be in the one-and-a-half-hour tutorial session that is on all learners’

timetables and is dedicated to self-improvement.

2. Initial and diagnostic assessment process should be reviewed

The assessment process and resulting interventions that I carry out and put into place

should not just look at reading achievement as a ‘snapshot’ of data. The development

of a diagnostic questionnaire would allow a detailed, individualised profile to be put

together for each underachieving boy taking into account prior achievement, attitudes

towards reading and their reading preferences. This would lead to a more

individualised programme of intervention as outlined in recommendation 3.

Page | 47
3. Reading programmes to support boys reading.

Although the training provider currently runs literacy programmes, these are specific

interventions for learners with diagnosis of specific learning difficulties, or for those

who are subject to additional High Needs Funding from their local authority (being

subject to an Education, Health and Care Plan). This would address my own practice

as in addition to my teaching role within these programmes it is necessary to set up

reading programmes to target the boys who are underachieving with reading. The

programme should be geared towards engaging boys with reading, using material that

is at a suitable level (not too difficult yet not too childish).

Within my teaching of the programme, I would also take genre and type of reading

material into account, looking at the preferences expressed by the boys within this

study. It is also important that the reading programmes give the boys a choice in what

they will read, allowing them to take control of their learning. A prudent starting point

would be the work of Hughes et al (2011), using graphic novels as a way of engaging

reluctant readers, particularly as these were the formats of reading material that the

learners were most drawn to during the focus groups. Sullivan (2002) suggests that

‘finding the humour’ in reading and presenting opportunities to challenge then prove

themselves are strategies that could be used to engage boys with reading. It would

also be a worthy starting point as the participants in the study were following workplace

preparation (vocational) courses and were of comparable ages (16-17 years old) to

the leaners who attend my place of work.

Page | 48
4. Boys should be given weekly reading support from a male role model.

The majority of boys in the study identified the only male readers as their tutors. Pairing

with a male pastoral officer or male learning support assistant (Sokal et al, 2007) to

enable boys to “develop a less feminised view of reading and have better perceptions

of their social feedback about their reading skills. This intervention would be for for

twenty minutes a week, reading something that the learner has had the opportunity to

choose (Farris et al, 2009) increasing the chance of engagement and the learner

seeing reading as a positive activity, such as in the ‘reading buddies’ pilot scheme and

‘Boys Supporting Boys’ programme reported by Younger et al (2005).

5. Tutors should have an up-to-date knowledge of appropriate reading

materials that will appeal to boys within the setting.

Time should be given for tutors to research lists of suitable reading material to engage

disaffected boys within their classes, taking into account the boys’ reading profiles

(ability, attitudes and preferences). As Taylor and Lorimer (2003) have shown, there

is a positive correlation between attainment in reading and teachers having a good

knowledge of what texts will appeal to boy’s interests. Furthermore, Farris et al (2003)

and Muir (2001) support the notion that if boys are given appealing reading materials,

their motivation to do well increases.

Once texts are selected, they should be incorporated into both Functional Skills and

vocational schemes of learning. Functional Skills Literacy and GCSE English schemes

of learning should be made more flexible, allowing tutors to choose the books that they

study in class, before moving onto set texts. As Coburn (2001) has pointed out, it is

classroom practitioners who are in the position of enacting reading policies and so

having their input can only lead to more positive outcomes. In my role as SENCo it

Page | 49
would be my responsibility to support tutors within each vocational area by firstly

ensuring that a CPD session based on this research is planned and delivered in the

coming academic year, before the Autumn half-term. Following on from this I will

facilitate a learner panel, supported by the vocational and functional skills tutors in

drawing up lists of suitable and appropriate reading material for classrooms, the centre

library and common areas.

6. Parenting and home initiatives to support literacy.

The forging of stronger training provider-parent links is essential. This would entail two

phases; 1) A parent workshop on how to read with their child (for those learners who

would be willing to engage in such an activity) and how to encourage their child to read

and; 2) A reading programme involving paired reading between learner and parent

and the completion of a weekly reading log, signed by the parent. Close (2001) citing

Topping (1995, 2001) reflects on the effectiveness of paired reading programmes with

Cadieux and Boudreault (2005) and MacDonald (2010) confirming that Paired

Reading programmes have positive impacts on reading attainment. With this

recommendation I anticipate that the majority of learners and their parents would not

want to engage with this practice at home, however I can also identify several learners

and parents (such as those who have shown a high level of interest in their child’s

progression) who would be agreeable to a home reading programme. Despite the

challenge of a low uptake of a programme such as this, even if one learner progresses

in their reading because of their engagement it would be a worthwhile intervention to

resource.

Page | 50
 7. Access to books

The majority of our male learners who are underachieving in reading do not have

access to their own books that they can read at home. A targeted campaign to

encourage reading should be set out highlighting organisations where books can be

obtained for free such as libraries or book exchanges (Sullivan, 2002). A book

exchange should be set up in the common area where learners can place any old

books they have, or take away any books that they have a preference for (Worthy,

Moorman and Turner, 1999; Canadian Council on Learning, 2009) and that they feel

they can engage with. Non-fiction such as news and sports related material and fiction

such as science fiction, horror, action and humour (Canadian Council on Learning,

2009; Senn, 2012).

5.3 Impact of this project

This study has shown that the reasons for boys’ underachievement in reading is a

complex challenge that extends far beyond the findings of this study and is not one

that is going change overnight. It is hoped that by challenging the issues raised in the

study and by taking on board these recommendations there will be an impact on the

attitudes and ultimately the reading attainment of boys who attend the training

provider.

For me, the research has had a positive impact on my own practice. I now feel more

confident in understanding the reasons behind some boys’ disengagement and

underachievement with reading. For the majority of the boys who took part in the study,

it is not primarily due to their ability or because they are lazy, but a culmination of

historical negative experiences and a home situation that does not lend itself to

Page | 51
promoting reading as a positive and worthwhile experience. I now know that the using

the ‘same old’ reading interventions is not enough to get the learners back on track –

the interventions need to be tailored to their likes, in formats that they can access and

presented by positive role models. For me, this has meant writing more individualised

lesson plans and collating a whole bank of engaging reading materials and supporting

resources.

For the training provider as an organisation, although it will not be possible to comment

on the long-term impact on learners and their attainment (as the recommendations are

yet to be implemented), it is possible to briefly comment on the small (but significant

in my view) changes that are already occurring. As an example the Employability

Policy (EP, 2015) is currently under revision for the 2016-2017 academic year and is

set to include the recommendation that schemes of learning are flexible, with tutors

having more choice in the materials they are able to use in class. As part of this, all

tutors will have a personal budget ring-fenced within their departments to purchase

reading materials that they think are more likely to motivate learners in their classes.

Finally, considering my own professional development, there are two areas that I

believe I need to draw attention to. This is a culmination of a journey I began over 5

years ago and in that time I have developed a grudging respect for academic research

and writing. In particular, I hope (and believe) that I have achieved my student

identified target in that I have shown an improved ability to choose appropriate, up to

date sources of research and that I have been able to critically analyse them. The

other area that I would like to highlight, one that I know I needs considerable

improvement if I am to pursue my own education further is to ensure that I am able to

keep a regular dialogue open with my academic tutor, as through this dialogue and

Page | 52
exchange of ideas I am certain that this research project would have been greatly

improved.

Word count = 15229

Page | 53
6. References

Alderson, P., and Morrow, V. (2004) Ethics, social research and consulting with
children and young people. Barkingside: Barnardo’s

Alloway, N. (2007) Swimming against the tide: Boys, literacies and schooling – an
Australian Story in The Canadian Journal of Education 30 (2), 582-605

Atkins, L., & Wallace, S. (2014) Qualitative Research in Education. London:Sage

Barrs, M. (1998) Texts and subtexts: literacy, gender and achievement in Barrs, M.
and Pidgeon, S. (eds.) Boys and Reading. London: CLPE

Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (2000) Literacy practices. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton, & R.
Ivanic (eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context (pp. 7-15). New
York: Routledge.

Bassey, M. (1999) Case Study Research in Educational Settings. Buckingham:

Open University Press

BERA (British Ethical Research Association) (2011) Ethical Guidelines For

Educational Research. PDF: BERA

Biggerstaff, D.L., & Thompson, A. R. (2008) Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis

(IPA): A Qualitative Methodology Of Choice In Healthcare Research in Qualitative
Research In Psychology, 5, pp 173-183

Brener, M.E. (2006) Interviewing in Educational Research in Green, J., Camilli, G. &
Elmore, P. (eds.) Complementary Methods for Research in Education. Washington
DC: American Educational Research Association/Erlbaum

Broeder, P. and Stokmans, M. (2013) Why should I read? – A cross-cultural

investigation into adolescents’ reading socialisation and reading attitude. Dordrecht:
Springer

Brozo, W.G., & Schmelzer, R.V. (1997) Wildmen, warriors, and lovers: Reaching
boys through archetypal literature. The Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. 41 (1)
4-11.

Page | 54
Brozo, W., G., Sulkunen, S., Shiel, G., Garbe, C., Pandian, A. & Valtin, R. (2014)
Reading, Gender and Engagement: Lessons from Five PISA Countries in The
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57, (7), 584 - 593

Burns, J. & Bracey, P. (2001) Boys’ Underachievement: Issues, Challenges and

Possible Ways Forward’ in Soler, J., Fletcher-Campbell, F. & Reid, G. (eds.)
Understanding Difficulties in Literacy Development: Issues and Concepts, London,
Sage.

Cadieux, A. & Boudreault P. (2005) The Effects of Parent-Child Paired Reading

Program in Reading Abilities, Phonological Awareness and Self-Concept of At-Risk
Pupils. Reading Improvement 42 (4) 224 - 238

Canadian Council on Learning (2009) Why don’t boys like to read: Gender
differences in reading achievement. Toronto: Canadian Council on Learning

Carrington, B., & McPhee A., (2008) Boys’ underachievement and the feminization of
teaching in The Journal of Education for Teaching. 34, (2), 101 – 120

Child Poverty Action Group (2016) The UK Poverty Line.

http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/uk-poverty-line (accessed 15/08/2016)

Clark, P., Osborne, S., & Dugdale, G. (2009) Reaching out with role models: Role
models and young people’s reading. London: National Literacy Trust

Clark, C. & Picton, I. (2012) Family Matters: The importance of family support for
young people’s reading. London: National Literacy Trust

Close, R. (2001) Parental Involvement and Literacy achievement: the research

evidence and the way forward. London: National Literacy Trust

CO3.3: Literacy scores by gender at age 10, https://www.oecd.org/els/family/CO3-3-

Literacy-scores-by-gender-age-10.pdf (accessed 23.04.2016)

Page | 55
CO3.4: Literacy scores by gender at age 15,
http://www.oecd.org/els/family/CO_3_4_Literacy_scores_gender_age_15.pdf
(accessed 23.04.2016)

Coburn, C., E. (2001) Collective Sensemaking about Reading: How Teachers

Mediate Reading Policy in Their Professional Communities. Educational Evaluation
and Polity Analysis 23 (2) 145-170

Coffey, H. (2016) Critical Literacy. The UNC School of Education

http://www.learnnc.org/lp/pages/4437 (accessed 12/07/2016)

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K., R., B. (2007) Research Methods in Education.
London: Routledge-Falmer

Cohen, L., Manion, L., Morrison, K. & Bell, R. (2011) Research Methods in
Education. Oxon: Routledge.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., Morrison, K. & Bell, R. (2013) Research Methods in
Education. Oxon: Routledge.

Cook, D, A., Wittich, C, M., Daniels, W, L., West, C, P., Harris A, M., & Beebe, T, J.
(2016) Incentive and Reminder Strategies to Improve Response Rate for Internet-
Based Physician Surveys: A Randomized Experiment. Journal of Medical Internet
Research 18 (9) 244

Cullen, P (2002) Why do we have to study English? A practical approach to

motivating boys in the English classroom. Metaphor 1 (1), 5-8

David, T., Tonkin, J., Powell, S. & Anderson, C. (2005) Ethical aspects of power in
research with children. In A. Farrell (Ed.) Ethical Research with Children
Maidenhead: Open University Press

Davies, J., & Brember, I. (2001) The Closing Gap in Attitudes Between Boys and
Girls: A 5-year longitudinal study. Educational Psychology: An International Journal
of Experimental Educational Psychology, 21 (1), 103-114

Denscombe, M. (2007) The Good Research Guide for Small-Scale Social Research
Projects. 3rd ed. Berkshire: Open University Press.

Department of Education (DfE) (2015) Reading: The Next Steps – Supporting Higher
Standards in Schools. London: Crown Copyright

Page | 56
Department of Education and Science (DES) (1975) A Language for Life: Report of
the Committee of Enquiry appointed by the Secretary of State for Education and
Science under the Chairmanship of Sir Alan Bullock. London: Her Majesty’s
Stationary Office

Diniz, F. (2002) Curriculum and teaching approaches for students [CD]. In The Open
University (2012) E801 Audio CD 2, London, BBC (03/08/2016)

Dutro, E. (2002) But that’s a girls’ book! Exploring gender boundaries in children’s
reading practices. The Reading Teacher, 55 (1), 376-384

Dutro., E. (2003) “Us Boys Like To Read Football and Boy Stuff”: Reading
Masculinities, Performing Boyhood. Journal of Literacy Research. 34 (4), 465-500

Education Funding Agency (2014) Funding Education for 16-to-19-year-olds

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/funding-education-for-16-to-19-year-olds
(accessed 14/03/2016)

Edwards, P., Roberts I., Clarke M., DiGuiseppi, C., Pratap, S., Wentz, R. & Kwan, I.
(2002) Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: systematic review. British
Medical Journal. 324 (7347), 1183 - 1185

Fink, A. (2013) How to conduct surveys: a step-by-step-guide, 5th Edition.

London:SAGE

Fisher, H. (2011) Inside the Primary Classroom: Examples of Dissatisfaction Behind

A Veil of Compliance. British Journal of Educational Studies, 59 (2), 121-141

Furedi, F. (2015) Power of Reading: From Socrates to Twitter. London: Bloomsbury

Continuum

Glidwell, L., Thomas, R., MacLennan, G., Bonetti, D., Johnston M., Eccles, M, P.,
Edlin, R., Pitts, N, B., Clarkson, J., Steen, N. & Grimshaw, J, M. (2012) Do
incentives, reminders or reduced burden improve healthcare professional response
rates in postal questionnaires? Two randomised controlled trials. BMC Health
Services Research 12, 250

Gorman, T. & Kispal, A. (1987) The Assessment of Reading. Winsor: NFER/Nelson

Hall, C. & Coles, M. (1997) Gendered readings: helping boys develop as critical
readers. Gender and Education, 9 (1) 61-68

Page | 57
Hall C. & Coles, M. (1999) Children’s Reading Choices. London: Routledge

Hughes, J., M., King, A., Perkins, P,. and Fuke, V. (2011) Adolescents and
“Autographics”: Reading and Writing Coming of Age Graphic Novels in Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy 54 (8), 601-612

Jackson, D. & Sailsbury, L. (1996 )Why should secondary schools take working with
boys seriously? Gender & Education 8, 103-115

Katz, H., & Sokal, L. (2003) Masculine literacy: One size does not fit all. Reading
Manitoba. 24 (1) 4-8

Kip McGrath (2016) Functional Reading Age. http://www.kipmcgrath.com/about-

us/functional-reading-age/ (accessed 06/01/2016)

Kvale, S. (1996) InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing.

London: Sage

Luxmore, N. (2008) Feeling Like Crap: Young People and the Meaning of Self-
Esteem. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers

Lever-Chain, J (2008) Turning boys off? Listening to what five-year olds say about
reading. Literacy, 42 (2), July: 83-91

Levy, R. (2011) Boys and Reading: What is the Story? Sheffield: Collaboration
Sheffield

Lin, A., C. (1998) Bridging Positivist and Interpretivist Approaches to Qualitative

Methods. Policy Studies Journal, 26 (1), 162 – 180. John Wiley & Sons

Literacy Task Force (1997) The implementation of the National Literacy Strategy.
London: Department for Education and Employment

MacDonald, P. (2010) Paired reading: a structured approach to raising attainment in

literacy. Support for Learning 25 (1) 15-23

Page | 58
Masling, J. and Stern, G. (1969) Effect of the observer in the classroom. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 60 (5) 351-354

Millard, E (1997) Differently Literate. London: Routledge Falmer

Moloney, James. (2002). Ideas for getting boys to read.

http://www.home.gil.com.au/~cbcqld/moloney/books7.htm (accessed 17/07/2016)

Monahan, T., & Fisher J, A. (2010) Benefits of ‘observer effects’: lessons from the
field. Qualitative Research 10 (3) 357-376

Muir, M. (2001) What engages underachieving middle school students in learning?

Middle School Journal 33 (2) 37-43

National Literacy Trust (2012) Boy’s Reading Commission: The report of the All-
Party Parliamentary Literacy Group Commission. London: The National Literacy
Trust

National Literacy Trust (2012) ‘Teenagers struggle with reading GCSE exams’
National Literacy Trust:
http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/news/5074_teenagers_struggle_with_reading_gcse_e
xams (accessed 17/07/2016)

National Literacy Trust (2016) Handout from “Understanding Literacy Requirements

of the New GCSEs” workshop. London: National Literacy Trust

OFSTED (1993) Boys and English London: OFSTED

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2001) Knowledge and

skills for life: First results from the OECD Programme for International Student
Assessment (PISA) 2000. Paris: OCED

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2004) Learning for

tomorrow’s world – first results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD Publications

Page | 59
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2011) How do girls
compare to boys in reading skills? in PISA 2009 at a Glance. Paris: OECD
Publishing

Rassool, N. (1999) ‘Literacy: In Search of a Paradigm’ in Soler, J., Fletcher-

Campbell, F. & Reid, G. (eds.) Understanding Difficulties in Literacy Development:
Issues and Concepts, London: Sage.

Seidman, I (2012) Interviewing As Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in

Education and the Social Sciences, Fourth Edition. New York: Teachers College
Press

Senn, N. (2012) Effective approaches to motivate and engage reluctant boys in

literacy. The Reading Teacher. 66 (3) 221-220

Shor, I. (1992) Empowering Education: Critical Teaching for Social Change.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Skelton, C. & Francis, B. (2011) Successful boys and literacy: Are “Literate Boys”
challenging or repackaging hegemonic masculinity? Curriculum Inquiry. 41 (4) 456-
479

Smith, M, W. & Wilhelm, J, D. (2002) Reading don’t fix no Chevys: Literacy in the lives

of young men. Portsmouth: Heinemann

Smith, S. (2004) The non-fiction reading habits of young successful boy readers:
forming connections between masculinity and reading. Literacy, Volume 38, Issue 1
pp10-16

Sokal, L., Katz, H., Chaszewski, L., & Wojcik, C. (2007) ‘Good-bye, Mr. Chips: Male
teachershortages and boys’ reading achievement.’ Sex Roles: A Journal of
Research, 56 (9-10) 651-659

Stuart-Hamilton, I (2007) Dictionary of Psychological Testing, Assessment and

Treatment: Second Edition. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers

Sullivan, M (2002) Connecting Boys with Books: What Libraries Can Do. Chicago:
American Library Association

Page | 60
Taylor, D., & M. Lorimer. (2003) Helping boys succeed: Which research-based
strategies curb negative trends now facing boys? Educational Leadership 60 (4) 68-
70.

Tett, L. (2000) 'Excluded voices: class, culture and family literacy in Scotland' in
Flether-Campbell, F., Soler, J. & Reid, G.Approaching Difficulities in Literacy
Development: Assessment, Pedagogy and Programmes, London, Sage.

Tenenbaum, H. R., and Leaper, C. (2002) Are parents’ gender schemas related to
their children’s gender-related cognitions?: A meta-analysis. Developmental
Psychology, 38 (1) 615–630

Topping, Keith & Lindsay, G.A. (1992) ‘Paired Reading: a review of the literature,’
Research Papers in Education. 7 (3) 199-246

Topping, K. J. (1995) Paired Reading, Spelling & Writing: The handbook for teachers
and parents. London & New York : Cassell

Topping, K.J. (1996) ‘Tutoring systems for family literacy’ in Wolfendale, S. &
Topping, K. (eds) Family Involvement in Literacy. London: Cassell

Topping, K. J. (2001) Thinking, Reading and Writing: A Practical Guide to Paired

Learning with Peers, Parents and Volunteers. New York & London: Continuum

Trochim, W, M, K. (2006) Likert Scaling

http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/scallik.php (accessed 18.12.2016)

The Open University (2012a) Difficulties in Literacy Development, E801 Study

Guide, Part 1. Milton Keynes: The Open University

The Open University (2012b) Difficulties in Literacy Development, E801 Study

Guide, Part 2. Milton Keynes: The Open University

The Open University (2001) Research Methods in Education, Masters Programme in

Education. Milton Keynes: The Open University

Page | 61
Training Provider X (2015) Provider Improvement Plan

Training Provider X (2015) Employability Policy

Wiederholt, J, L., & Bryant, B, R., (2012) Gray Oral Reading Tests: Fifth Edition.
Pro.Ed: Austin, Texas

Wilkinson, G, S., & Robertson, G, J. (2006) Wide Range Achievement Test: Fourth
Edition. Lutz

White, J. (1987) Pupils’ attitudes to writing. Windsor: NFER/Nelson

Whitehead, F., Capey, A. & Maddren, W. (1975) Children’s Reading Interests.

Schools Council Working Paper 52. London: Evans/ Methuen Educational.

Whiteman, M, K., Langenberg, P., Kjerulff, K, McCarter, R. & Flaws, J, A. (2003) A

randomised trial of incentives to improve response rates to a mailed women’s health
questionnaire. Journal of Women’s Health 12 (8) 821-828

WMA Declaration of Helsinki (2008) Ethical Principles for Medical Research

Involving Human Subjects.
http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/index.html (Accessed
28/03/2016)

Worthy, J., Moorman, M., & Turner, M. (1999). What Johnny likes to read is hard to
find in school. Reading Research Quarterly, 34 (1), 12-27

Wragg, E.C., Wragg, C.M., Haynes, G.S. & Chamberlain, R.P. (1998) Improving
Literacy in the Primary School. London: Routledge.

Yin, R, (1994) Case study research: Design and Methods 2rd Edition. Beverly Hills:
Sage

Yin, R, K. (2003) Case study research, design and methods 3rd Edition. Thousand
Oaks: Sage

Page | 62
Younger, M. & Warrington, M. (2005) Raising Boys’ Achievement. London:
Department for Education and Skills

Zambo, D., & Brozo, W. G. (2009) Bright Beginnings for Boys: Engaging Young Boys
in Active Literacy. Newark: International Reading Association

Page | 63
Appendix 1: Provider Improvement Plan Overview

Page | 64
Page | 65
Appendix 2: Semi-structured interview questions

 What do you think of when you hear the word ‘fun’?

 What do you think of when you hear the word ‘reading’?
 Do you think as a boy it can be fun to read?
 Do you think it is important to be able to read well? (Expand on this depending
on answers i.e. Why?)
 Do you like reading? (Why?)
 What sort of things do you like to read?
 Are you reading anything at the moment?
 Do you read at home? (Expand)
 Thinking about reading at home, do you see your mother reading? What
about your dad?
 Is there anyone else at home who you see reading (prompt such as siblings,
grandparents etc)
 Do you get encouraged to read at home? If so, by who?
 Do you have books that you can read at home?
 Have you ever been given a gift of a book?
 Where can you get extra books to read? Would you do this? Why/why not?
 How do you think you could get better at reading?
 What sort of things would you like to read?

Page | 66
Appendix 3: Exemplar transcript from semi-structured interview

Page | 67
Page | 68
Page | 69
Appendix 4: Exemplar Parental Questionnaire

Page | 70
Page | 71
Appendix 5: Printout of tutor questionnaire (SurveyMonkey)

Page | 72
Page | 73
Page | 74
Appendix 6: Tutor written responses

Respondent 1:

If I only think about the boys in my L1 class they do not like to engage in any reading

activities in class. They have a fairly low reading ability across the board and do not

like reading from text books or even excerpts from text books. However, if I let them

use a computer for research, they do 'read', but this is usually off topic. In my level 2

class, I can pinpoint one boy who enjoys reading and when he has spare time in class

(he usually completes his work first) will read his book. I suppose he's a bit of a loner,

not that it matters, but he definitely likes reading and seems to have good

comprehension skills. The other Level 2 boys are a similar group to the Level 1 boys

and trying to get them to read even the smallest (even a short paragraph) is extremely

difficult with engagement. They might be more willing to read if it was of interest, but

we're limited in what we can provide to meet the course requirements - it is Animal

Care after all!

Respondent 2:

As I only teach the entry level 3 to level 1 animal care courses the requirement to read

in class is very limited. With the small amount of reading that learners are required to

do, this is differentiated and uses supporting symbols from Widgit CiP. I expect if I

asked the boys in my class do they read they would say no. They might say they like

football or computer game magazines but I can't see them reading books for pleasure.

Respondent 3:

I teach english at Level 1, Level 2 and to our learners who are resitting their GCSE

from last year. Nearly all of the boys that I teach are well below where they should be

in their reading, and in their overall functional literacy skills. They do not have good

Page | 75
attitudes towards reading, particularly the learners in the three GCSE groups. It is

something that they do not want to do, or see the point in doing. They really don't want

to engage with reading the set text (Of Mice and Men) and they've have a few choice

words about having to read "boring" and "rubbish" books like they're in school again.

It’s clear to me in the classroom that my male students are turned off by the texts that

we cover. The problem is these are set to the curriculum we teach and we have no

flexibility in choosing. With the exception of Jack in my animal care group, I've never

seen any of the boys reading anything other than on their phones. Sorry this isn't more

positive!

Respondent 4:

The boys in my class do not like reading. They did not do very well in school. Most of

the time do not even want to read the information that they need to for their course. I

find it really hard to get them to start a reading task even if it is only a few short

paragraphs. We use a lot of car manuals in automotive with some of the words being

quite hard for these learners to read. I think we need to do more as a training provider

to help them with their reading but I don't know how I can do that.

Page | 76
 Appendix 7: Table of reading material used in focus groups

Title Author Type Genre Layout / Design Set Text Available in Centre?
(GCSE)
To Kill A Mocking Bird Harper Lee Fiction, Novel Social drama Paperback, plain front, plain font N N
text.
Of Mice and Men John Steinbeck Fiction, Novel Tragedy Paperback, plain front, plain font Y Y
text.
Harry Potter and the Chamber of J.K. Rowling Fiction, Novel Fantasy Paperback, cartoon cover. Plain N Y (common room)
Secrets font text, some illustrations
The Tracey Beaker Trilogy Jacqueline Wilson and Nick Sharrat Fiction Funny, adventure Cartoon cover, plain font, N N
numerous illustrations.
Hiccup: How to Train Your Dragon Cressida Cowell Fiction Cartoon cover, plain font, N N
numerous illustrations.
Bears Can’t Run Downhill Robert Anwood Non-Fiction Factual, Comedy Hardback, cartoon cover, plain font N Y (common room)
text, some illustrations
Cool Science Tricks Daniel Tatarsky Non-Fiction Factual, Practical Paperback, colourful with N N
explosions, Varied fonts, illustrated
Citizens of the Sea: Wondrous Nancy Knowlton Non-Fiction Factual, Nature Hardback, colourful. Photographic N N
Creatures cover. Varied fonts and illustrate
with colour photographs.
Spiderman: Return of the Goblin Paul Jenkins Fiction, Graphic Science Fiction / Fantasy Colourful Cartoon Cover, comic N N
Novel layout
Superman: Birthright Mark Waid Fiction, Graphic Science Fiction / Fantasy Colourful Cartoon Cover, comic N N
Novel layout
Match Magazine (x3) N/A Non-Fiction Factual, Sport Magazine, colourful, photographic N Y (common room)
front. Photographs throughout,
varied fonts.
Coarse Fishing (x1) N/A Factual Factual, Sport Magazine, colourful, photographic N N
front. Photographs throughout,
varied article size and fonts.
Principles of Light Vehicle Graham Stoakes Textbook Factual, Vehicle Paperback, formal layout, diagram N Y
Maintenance & Repair Maintenance of car engine, clean font.
Bliss Magazine (x2) N/A Non-Fiction Entertainment Magazine, colourful layout. N Y (Common room)
Photographs throughout, varied
fonts.

Page | 77
Appendix 8: Sample of covers of reading material used in focus groups

Page | 78
Appendix 9: Letter of Consent Template (16-18)

[ADDRESS]
[ADDRESS]
[ADDRESS]

Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms [NAME]

I am writing to ask your permission for your child to participate in a research project focussing
on factors that affect reading achievement in boys in a Post-16 Vocational setting. The
research is being conducted as part of my Masters in Education course that I am currently
enrolled on with Edge Hill University
The research will look at your child’s views on reading, their reading preferences and their
reading opportunities in school and at home. The research will also look at the home practices
of reading (current and historical) and I would like to take your views as a parent/carer into
consideration through the attached questionnaire.
The study will consist of in-class observations (no more than two), a focus group with other
learners and an individual interview (no longer that 25 minutes).
The focus group and interviews will be digitally recorded and stored in line with the
organisation’s data protection policy.
All information relating to your child’s participation in the study will be made available upon
request and you are free to withdraw participation at any time.
You can be assured of complete anonymity and confidentiality and the report will be made
available on request should you wish to read it.
From the study it is hoped that ORGANISATION will be able to develop more effective
interventions to support your child in their reading achievement.
Should you have any questions about the proposed study you can contact me by email at
@*******.co.uk
Yours Faithfully,
Mr
SEN Coordinator

Child’s Name: ________________________________ Form: ___________

_
I do / do not* give permission for my child to take part in the research study as outlined
in the attached letter. (*delete as appropriate)
Signed: _______________________________
Relationship to child: _______________________________

Page | 79