See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233677530

Good-bye, Mr. Chips: Male Teacher Shortages and Boys' Reading

Achievement

Article  in  Sex Roles · May 2007

DOI: 10.1007/s11199-007-9206-4

CITATIONS READS

39 3,434

4 authors, including:

Laura Sokal
The University of Winnipeg
44 PUBLICATIONS   320 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Consortium of Inclusive Teacher Education and Development (CITED) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Laura Sokal on 15 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Sex Roles (2007) 56:651–659
DOI 10.1007/s11199-007-9206-4
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Good-bye, Mr. Chips: Male Teacher Shortages and Boys’
Reading Achievement
Laura Sokal & Herb Katz & Les Chaszewski &
Cecilia Wojcik
Published online: 22 May 2007
# Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2007
Abstract One hundred seventy-five third- and fourth-grade
boys who were identified as struggling readers participated
in a 10-week intervention to determine the effect of the
reading teachers’ sex on boys’ reading performance, self-
perceptions as readers, and view of reading as a masculine,
feminine, or gender-neutral activity. Findings indicated no
main effects on reading performance, yet main effects of
teacher’s sex on two sub-scales of reader self-perception
emerged. Evidence of interactions showed that boys
responded differentially to the intervention—they responded
better to female teachers. Further analysis revealed that the
boys’ responses varied as much as a response to individual
male teachers as to the teacher’s sex.
Keywords Reading . Male teachers . Gender
Competent reading is the strongest predictor of school success
(Adams 1990; Hoffert and Sandberg 2001), therefore it is
important to ensure that all young children receive effective
reading instruction to become proficient readers and suc-
cessful students. Educators are compelled to pay attention to
the convergence of evidence from recent national and
international test results that show that girls out-perform
boys in reading and writing (Council of Ministers of
Education, Canada 2001; Gambell and Hunter 2000; Mullis
et al. 2003) and to form appropriate pedagogical responses to
increase the achievement of boys without diminishing girls’
achievement.
L. Sokal (*) : L. Chaszewski : C. Wojcik
Faculty of Education, University of Winnipeg, 515 Portage
Avenue, Winnipeg, MB R3B 2E9, Canada
e-mail: lj.sokal@uwinnipeg.ca
H. Katz
University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
A drop in the number of male teachers, especially in
elementary schools, has been interpreted as a contributor to
boys’ under-achievement (BBC News 2005; Carrington
and Skelton 2003; Eng 2004; Hetzner 2003; Mills et al.
2004; Ontario Public School Boards’ Association 2000;
Sax 2005; Tinklin et al. 2001). This interpretation is
supported by recent research by Skelton (2003), who
surveyed 118 male and 92 female pre-service teachers
across 20 institutions in England and found that 88% of
men and 73% of women surveyed believed that more male
teachers are needed as role models in primary schools.
Eighty-eight percent of men and 84% of women believe
that male teachers have a crucial role to play in encouraging
boys’ positive attitudes toward studying. These beliefs in
the need for male models have been used to shape
interventions aimed at addressing boys’ reading needs. So
compelling is the perceived need for more male teachers
that human rights legislation in Australia was recently
challenged in order to provide male-only scholarships in
teacher’s colleges (A good man is hard to find 2004).
That there has been a decrease in the representation of
men within the teaching force is not in dispute: In Canada,
the percentage of male teachers decreased 6% over the
1990s—from 41% in 1989 to 35% in 1999 (Statistics
Canada 2003). In Australia, the number of male teachers
dropped 5% from 1987 to 1997 (Lewis et al. 1999). In the
United States, the percentage of men teaching in elementary
schools dropped 4% between 1981 and 2005—from 18 to
14% (Klecker 1997; Martin 2005). The effect of this
demographic change on boys’ reading achievement is not
clear, however, as the evidence is “limited and contradic-
tory” (Dee 2006, p. 7). Interventions based on the effects of
male teachers must be grounded in empirical support rather
than on intuition (Dee 2006), therefore the purpose of the
current study was to examine the causal effects of male
652
teachers on boys’ reading achievement within a controlled
experimental design with the goal of guiding policy
decisions about the strategic hiring of more male teachers.
Boys’ Experiences of Literacy as Feminine
Research suggests that one reason for some boys’ lack of
engagement with reading is their perception that it is a
feminine activity (Baron 1996; Brophy 1985; Cummings
1994; Government of the UK 2000; Hermine 1998;
McKenna 1997; Pottorff et al. 1996). Indeed, Katz and
Sokal (2003) showed that by second grade, 24% of the
Canadian boys they studied viewed reading as feminine.
But where does this perception come from, and why is it
held by some boys and not by others? A variety of people and
factors contribute to the perception that reading is feminine, and
children’s differential environmental experiences either support
or refute this perception. Parental modeling has been broadly
explored (see Tenenbaum and Leaper 2002) and is related to
the ideas children develop about gender. In the home, the
average middle-class child is read to for approximately
1,000 h before beginning school (Adams 1990). In many
cases the reader is female (Millard 1997; Pottorff et al. 1996).
When children later enter day care and school, their teachers
and models of reading are predominantly female (Basow
1992; Delamont 1990). The culturally influenced predomi-
nance of women in the early life of children may create the
conditions for some children to perceive reading as a gender-
marked behaviour (Millard 1997).
The Importance of Male Models
Gender schema theories (Martin and Halverson 1981)
predict that children’s cognitive structures develop within
a reciprocal relationship with their environmental experi-
ences. Children’s observations of same-sex role models are
important to gender identity development (Golombok and
Fivush 1994; Martin and Halverson 1981), and, as a result
of their interactions with same-sex models, by age 6
children can reliably make predictions about same-sexed
children’s behaviours. Children learn the cultural stereo-
types associated with both sexes, but they learn about their
own sex more quickly and elaborately. Yet, by age 8 they
can also make predictions about the behaviours of children
of the other sex (Martin 1993).
Although some theories of gender development place
special emphasis on the importance of same-sex parents as
models, gender schema theory suggests that information
about gender roles permeates children’s environments.
Television, siblings, peers, parents, music, advertising,
schooling and the like are rich sources of gendered
information. From this theoretical perspective, children
Sex Roles (2007) 56:651–659
gather information about gender roles from their teachers
alongside their observations of other sex role models. The
question yet to be theoretically addressed, however,
involves the relative influence of male teachers on boys’
gender development. Although most theories suggest that
same-sex models are important, few researchers have
explored teacher effects in isolation. Gender schema
theories have not yet addressed the relative influence of
gender models within various contexts or developmental
stages, thus they provide little theoretical contribution to the
male teacher debate.
Numerous large-scale and international studies, however,
have demonstrated that male students do not perform
significantly better for male teachers than they do for
female teachers (see Allan 1993; Butler and Christianson
2003; Carrington and Skelton 2003; Carrington et al. 2005;
Coulter and McNay 1993; Ehrenberg et al. 1995; Froude
2002; Martin 2003; Sokal et al. 2005).
In contrast, Dee (2006) recently found that 13-year-old
boys (and girls) performed better for same-sex teachers.
Based on the results of a large retrospective study of over
24,000 eighth-grade students, the author predicted that
1 year with a male teacher of Language Arts would
eliminate one-third of the 1.5 year reading gap between
female and male students. It should be noted, however, that
Dee’s findings were generated through post-hoc analysis of
large databases rather than by experimental design. Fur-
thermore, his findings were not based on random assign-
ment: In fact, his data suggest that students are strategically
assigned to specific teachers by sex. For example, male
students with low achievement orientation may have been
strategically assigned to a male teacher as a means of
remediating students’ performance.
In addition to research that demonstrates performance
differences, a dated, yet carefully constructed, experimental
design to examine effects of teachers’ sex on reading
attitudes was conducted by Canadian researcher Dan
Shapiro. In Shapiro’s (1980) study of second grade boys
and girls assigned to same-sex and crossed-sex teachers,
a 6-month intervention yielded more negative attitudes
toward reading in all groups except for girls taught by
male teachers. However, attitudes toward reading in boys
taught by male teachers decreased less than those of boys
taught by female teachers, which suggests that boys’ ex-
periences with literacy should be examined with consid-
eration to affective factors in addition to performance
factors.
Furthermore, evidence suggests these affective factors
are multi-directional: Dee (2006) found that female teachers
perceived male students as more disruptive and that male
students were less enthusiastic about classes taught by
women. This finding suggests that the differential perfor-
mance that Dee found may be a product of reciprocal
Sex Roles (2007) 56:651–659
interactions between teachers’ and students’gendered
behaviours and expectations. This finding is noteworthy
because, although numerous studies have been done of
effects of teacher sex on student achievement little research
has examined whether male and female teachers use
different teaching strategies, whether there are differences
in implementation of the strategies, and/or whether there
are differential effects of strategies on students’ achieve-
ment (Sakhnandan et al. 2000).
Even though many studies fail to support the wisdom of
hiring male teachers as a pedagogical approach to boys’
under-achievement in reading, Dee’s (2006) and Shapiro’s
(1980) studies show that the findings are anything but
conclusive. The lack of conformity in the findings support
Connell’s (1996) claim that more complex systems are at
work and only an examination of systems of relationships
will illuminate gender development in the classroom
setting. The non-conformity in findings also speaks to the
non-conformity in boys. That is, for interventions to be
successful, they must be sensitive to the nuances of specific
school settings and specific types of boys. Interventions
aimed at all boys fail to recognize the individuality of boys’
reading needs and will miss the mark for many boys.
In the current study, we focused on boys in third or
fourth grade who were identified as struggling readers by
their teachers. We chose this group for four reasons. First,
although boys and girls enter kindergarten with similar
performance in reading, by the spring of third grade boys
have lower reading scores (Freeman 2004), which makes
this an opportune time for reading intervention. Second, it
is well-established that many children who have not learned
to read by fourth grade will experience long-term difficul-
ties in school. Third, although we were curious about the
effects of male teachers, we were also eager to provide extra
reading assistance to 180 mainly inner-city boys who were
not perceived as successful readers. A 10-week, one-on-one
reading intervention that incorporates best practices was
intended to help all of the participants to become better
readers. Finally, attitudinal and demographic data collected
before the intervention allowed us to determine differential
effects on various categories of boys within this diverse
population. For these four reasons, third- and fourth-grade
struggling readers were recruited.
Method
Participants
The participants (N=180) were third-grade (n=87) and
fourth-grade (n=93) boys who attended 12 schools in
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada (see Table 1). All boys were
identified by their teachers as struggling readers. Our
653
sample was diverse: Seventy-six percent of the schools
were located in the inner city, and 24% were not. The
majority of the children’s parents (55%) self-identified as
belonging to non-Canadian ethnic groups exclusively or in
combination with self-identification as Canadian (e.g.,
Asian-Canadians). One-third of the families self-identified
as having Aboriginal ancestry. One-third of the children’s
mothers and one-fifth of the children’s fathers had not
completed high school. Approximately one-fifth of the
mothers and fathers held university degrees. Approximately
two-thirds of the families lived in poverty (incomes less
than $40, 000 per year), although 63% were employed
either full-time (42%) or part-time (21%).
Instruments
Alberta Diagnostic Reading Program (ADRP) (Alberta
Education 1986)
This informal reading inventory yields data about
students’ reading performance, including instructional
reading level measured in terms of early-, middle-, and
late-in-year grade. The Alberta Diagnostic Reading
Program was chosen from among a variety of informal
reading inventories to address possible inequities be-
tween students’ background knowledge. Many of its
passages are based on western Canadian experiences and
include culturally relevant events such as ice skating.
Participants were asked to read graded narrative and
expository passages. As grades three and four reading is
widely viewed as a meaning-making activity, and to ensure
reliability in administration of a complex test by research
assistants, instructional reading level was measured only by
responses to comprehension questions. Instructional Read-
ing Level was determined by a minimum of seven and a
maximum of eight correct responses to ten comprehension
questions, comprised of four categories. Inferring questions
required the student to state information left out by the
author. Analyzing questions required the student to state
important facts or details. Associating questions required
the student to provide specific meanings for words.
Synthesizing questions required the student to state main
ideas and their relationships as sequential, causal, spatial,
comparison, or contrast. This test was administered prior to
and at the end of the 10-week intervention. The final
application of this measure began at the last tested
instructional reading level. Pre- to post- comparisons
suggested changes in reading performance.
Gendered Activities Q-sort (Sokal et al. 2006)
This measure provides children with pictures that depict
nine activities, such as playing football, watching televi-
654 Sex Roles (2007) 56:651–659

Table 1 Demographic information. girls?” Responses categories were counter balanced. The
Descriptor Frequency Percentage children’s classification of the picture that depicts reading
was used to infer their views of reading as masculine,
Grade feminine, or gender-neutral.
Grade 3 87 49
Grade 4 93 51
Readers’ Self-Perception Scale (RSPS) (Henck and Melnick
School location
1995)
Inner city 136 76
Not inner city 44 24
Language in the home Coming to view oneself as a reader is critical in a child’s suc-
English 157 92 cessful passage to becoming a proficient reader (Stanovich,
Other 13 8 1986). This scale includes 33 statements on a Likert scale,
Ethnicity which represent five aspects of reader self-efficacy (general
Canadian 77 45 perception, progress, observational comparison, social feed-
Aboriginal 23 13.5
back, and physiological state). Example statements are: “I
Aboriginal and Canadian 35 20.5
Other 14 8
think I am a good reader” (general perception, one question),
Other and Canadian 22 13 “I am getting better at reading” (progress, 9 questions), “I
Mother’s education read better than other kids in my class” (observational
Less than high school 48 29 comparison, 6 questions), “My teacher thinks that I am a
High school 55 33 good reader” (social feedback, 9 questions) and “I feel good
Trade school 26 16 inside when I read” (physiological state, 8 questions).
University 36 22 Scoring is comprised on adding the total of scores out of 5
Father’s education
for each question within each category. Repeated adminis-
Less than high school 49 30
High school 48 30 tration yields evidence of possible changes in a boy’s view of
Trade school 20 12 himself as a reader. This self-perception scale was used prior
University 32 20 to and at the conclusion of the 10-week intervention and it
Not applicable 12 7 took 15 min to administer. Piloting of the instrument
Family income indicated that children became bored with this instrument
Less than $20,000 61 39 when it was administered in its totality. Therefore, the
$20,000–$40,000 45 29
instrument was administered in portions between the admin-
$40,001–$60,000 31 20
istrations of other instruments.
Over $60,000 20 13
Number of siblings
0 29 17 Procedure
1 60 35
2 42 24 Once ethics approval had been granted and consent from
3 21 12 the parents, teachers, and administrators was given, the 180
4 8 5 children were then randomly assigned to work with either a
5 11 6
male or a female research assistant for the duration of the
6 0 0
7 1 1
intervention. Initial visits by the 14 research assistants
Employment status involved developing rapport with the children and admin-
Full time 72 42 istering the RSPS, ADRP, and the Gendered Activities Q-
Part time 36 21 sort. These same instruments were again administered at the
Unemployed 63 37 end of the study.
Number of books in the home The research assistants (RAs) who worked with the
None 3 2 children in our study were all enrolled in their third or fourth
A few 72 42
year of a 5-year Bachelor of Education program. They were
Many 96 56
selected based on references from their placement super-
visors and co-operating teachers over their 3 years of practice
teaching. All RAs also had significant experience working
sion, and reading. Children are asked to classify the pictures with children outside of the classroom settings, such as
into categories of usually done by girls, usually done by tutoring, day care work, camp counseling, and church
boys, or usually done by both boys and girls. For example, groups. The project supervisors visited the study schools
the students were asked: “Who usually plays football? on several occasions to observe the RAs working with the
Usually boys? Usually girls? Or usually both boys and boys in order to ensure the consistency of the treatment.
Sex Roles (2007) 56:651–659
Each week for 10 weeks, the RAs visited the
individual children at school to conduct 30 min of
reading. Assent was secured from the boys before each
session began. In all cases, the texts used for the reading
were selected based on research about books that hold
high interest for boys (Worthy et al. 1999). As part of a
larger study, some books were read from printed texts and
others were read in pdf. format from a computer screen.
Text formats were evenly distributed between the treatment
groups. As the sessions progressed, boys requested books
about specific topics (e.g., insects) or books from a specific
series (e.g., Dav Pilky’s Captain Underpants). These
requests were used as guides in subsequent book purchas-
ing. All RAs had access to the same 50 book titles during
the study.
Paired Reading, the program used in all the reading
sessions, is a reading practice approach developed by the
Northern Alberta Reading Specialists’ Council (1991)
based on Topping’s (1987) research. The process includes
duet reading, during which student and tutor read simulta-
neously, and solo reading during which the student reads
independently. Best reading instructional practices are built
into the program. Program evaluation (Northern Alberta
Reading Specialists’ Council 1991) suggests that strong
gains in word identification and text comprehension result
from use of this approach.
At the end of the project, all of the books used in the
research, approximately $7,000 of high interest books, were
donated to the participating schools. The children who
participated in the project made the presentation to the
schools, and the books are now housed in the children’s
classrooms for use by all the class members.
Results
Pre-treatment
The mean reading level for all boys prior to the intervention
was grade 1.6 (performance equivalent to average perfor-
mance of students who have completed a little more that half
of first grade), which represents a mean grade equivalent
reading level of 1.3 for third grade boys and 1.9 for fourth
grade boys. Descriptive analyses of frequencies garnered
from the Gendered Activities Q-sort administered prior to the
intervention indicated that 10 boys (6%) viewed reading as a
masculine activity, 154 boys (86%) viewed reading as a
gender-neutral activity, and 16 boys (9%) viewed reading as
a feminine activity. Self-perceptions as readers indicated the
following sub-scale means and ranges, respectively: general
perception (4.0, 1–5), progress (38.3, 9–45), observational
comparison (19.8, 6–32), social feedback (35.8, 12–45), and
physiological state (32.3, 8–40).
655
Post-treatment
Over the course of the treatment, five boys (< 3%) moved away
from the participating schools and, therefore, discontinued
participation in the study. For the other 175 boys, t-tests
indicated that there were significant gains in reading perfor-
mance over the course of the 10-week intervention, t (174)=
5.13, p<.001, M grade equivalent gain =.32, as well as significant
gains in their general self-perceptions as readers, t (174)=2.65,
p=.01, progress , t (174)=2.02, p=.04, and observational
comparison, t (174)=4.15, p<.001.
An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted with
reading teacher’s sex as the independent factor. The
dependant variables were the changes in boys’ scores over
the 10 weeks in reading performance, gendered view of
reading, and the five sub-scales of reading self-perceptions.
The ANOVA indicated no significant main effects of RA’s
sex on reading performance or views of reading as a
feminine activity, yet there were significant main effects of
RA’s sex on changes in boys’ general perceptions of
themselves as readers, F (1, 174)=5.29, p=.02, as well as
their social feedback scores (how they thought that other
children and teachers viewed them as readers), F(1,174) =
18.72, p<.001. Analysis of the means of children’s general
self-perceptions and social feedback scores showed more
positive results for those boys who worked with female
RAs than with male RAs (see Table 2).
In order to control for individual effects of the RAs, two
within-gender MANOVAs were conducted. For students
who worked with female RAs, results indicated no
significant differences in any of the dependent variables
between children who worked with particular female RAs
(F range=.23–2.10, p>.05)
For students who worked with male RAs, results
indicated significant differences in changes to feminine
views of reading based on working with specific male RAs,
F(6, 87)=2.47, p=.03, as well as significant differences
between male RAs on one sub-scale of reader self-
perceptions–social feedback, F(6, 87) = 2.42, p = .03.
Finally, children’s reading performance gains were not
affected differentially in students who worked with
specific men.
Discussion
The main questions that guided the current investigation
were provoked by issues of boys’ under-achievement in
reading and their assumed relationship to the relative lack
of male teachers. The findings of the current study do not
support any differential effects on achievement when boys
are taught by male or female teachers, although reader self-
perception differences emerged. These findings together
656 Sex Roles (2007) 56:651–659

provide evidence of the very complex gendered interactions
within our schools (Martino and Blye 2006; Mills et al.
2004; Sokal 2005), and they support claims that the effects
of male models must be systematically examined within a
larger range of social contexts (Martino and Meyenn 2002).
Despite the lack of findings regarding achievement,
other interesting and surprising results emerged. The first
finding occurred even before the intervention began. In our
sample of 180 third- and fourth-grade struggling readers,
only 9% viewed reading as a feminine activity. This small
percentage was unexpected given that in an earlier study
24% of male second grade readers with typical reading
skills viewed reading as feminine. This finding may be a
developmental artifact in that boys’ views of reading may
become less feminine as boys develop. Alternatively, the
difference may be an artifact of the characteristics of the
study group: Fewer boys who struggle with reading may
view reading as feminine than do boys who are typical
readers. This latter explanation seems counter-intuitive—
boys who struggle may seek explanations that protect their
egos, as categorizing reading as feminine would most
certainly do. In either case, more research—specifically
longitudinal studies– would help clarify whether these
perceptions change over time and context.
Our findings regarding between-sex differences suggest
that struggling male readers develop more positive self-
perceptions as readers when they work with female RAs.
Perhaps female RAs were more consistently expressive in
their praise of the boys’ progress, and this encouragement
in turn promoted better self-perceptions. The lack of
differences in effects between individual female RAs
supports this conclusion. Research suggests that female
teachers provide more verbal and non-verbal praise to
students than do male teachers (Simpson and Erickson
1983; Stake and Katz 1982) and that sincere praise and
recognition of achievement increases children’s perceptions
of their competence at a task (Guthrie and Wigfield 2000).
Other researchers, however, have found no gender differ-
ences in elementary and middle school teachers’ use of
praise and criticism (Merrett and Wheldall 1992), which
leaves us with little explanation for this unexpected finding.
Although boys did respond better to female RAs in
terms of the boys’ self-perceptions as readers, it is
important to note that there were also significant differences
in how boys responded to individual male RAs. Boys who
worked with some male RAs—but not others—developed a
less feminized view of reading and had better perceptions
of their social feedback about their reading skills. This
finding serves as a warning that children’s differential
responses to teaching interventions can be attributed to
many teacher-specific and context-specific factors besides
teacher sex. Gender-related observations must be examined
within the context of the very complex gendered inter-
actions within our schools (Martino and Blye 2006; Mills
et al. 2004; Martino and Meyenn 2002; Sokal 2005).
Given our evolving understanding of masculinities
(Connell 1996), diversity within the category of “boys/
men”—including our male research assistants—should not
be surprising. Although prior research has supported that
many men and boys in early years environments perceive
pressure to conform to the institutionalized hegemonic
masculinity (Eng 2004; Lewis et al. 1999), clear variation is
evident on the effects different male teachers provoked in
our study’s students. The sex of the reading teachers in our
study did not have consistent effects on all boys and even
boys within the same treatment groups responded differen-
tially, which suggests that the placement of more male
teachers as a correctional strategy for boys’ under-achieve-

Table 2 Pre-and Post inter-

vention means and standard Sex of RA Variable Pre-test Post-test
deviations.
M SD M SD

Male General perception 4.22 .98 4.41 .95

Female General perception 3.69 1.28 4.03 1.13
Male Progress 38.81 6.60 39.40 7.14
Female Progress 37.69 6.43 38.90 6.27
Male Observational comparison 20.32 5.99 21.45 5.83
Female Observational comparison 19.24 5.35 20.85 5.15
Male Social feedback 36.86 6.45 36.42 6.84
Female Social feedback 34.76 6.15 35.17 7.00
Male Physiological states 33.47 6.60 33.03 7.14
Female Physiological states 31.16 6.90 32.10 7.20
Male Feminine view of reading 2.04 .40 2.00 .34
Female Feminine view of reading 2.02 .36 2.05 .28
Male Instructional reading level 1.38 1.31 1.62 1.37
Female Instructional reading level 1.82 1.40 2.25 1.48
Sex Roles (2007) 56:651–659
ment may be naïve (Skelton 2003). Understanding and
responding to the needs of different categories of boys,
however intriguing, requires further research investigation
and validation.
Limitations
Although the design of the current study maximized benefits
to the students and to the research community, it is not
without limitations. First, it must be remembered that
experimental research with children has implicit restrictions.
Although we strove to ensure consistency of treatment
within treatment groups, it must be remembered that the
children also attended their normal classes with their normal
teachers, each of whom had different levels of training and
different numbers of years of classroom experience, and the
children also interacted with other models within their homes
and elsewhere. Second, given the transient nature of the
schools within which we worked—some had turnover rates
as high a 75% per year—it is likely that the diversity of
children’s prior experiences with male and female teachers
varied greatly. It would have been interesting to collect
information about children’s past experiences with both male
and female teachers, and these variables will be considered
in our future research. Although these extraneous and
possibly confounding variables and interactions may have
had concurrent effects on boys’ gender development and
views of reading, examination of the relative effects of those
other socializing agents (teachers, parents, friends) was
beyond the scope of this project. Third, it must be
remembered that research assistants are not teachers and
that the treatment does not fully emulate usual classroom
conditions. Finally, the term of this investigation was short. It
is possible that the effects of the variables under examination
may change with a longer duration. Despite this limitation,
the short duration of the study is reflective of the short
durations some of the participants spent at one school. Thus,
these findings are applicable and meaningful to teachers of
children who move frequently. Furthermore, it is possible
that, with time, the children’s gains in self-perceptions as
readers promoted by female but not male teachers might
produce changes in the children’s reading performance. An
investigation of this hypothesis over a longer duration is
currently underway.
Final Thoughts
The findings of the current study do not support strategic
hiring of male teachers as a way to address boys’ under-
achievement in reading. They do, however, provide
evidence of the heterogeneity of boys and their reading
needs. By incorrectly attributing causality between the
presence of male teachers and boys’ schooling outcomes,
657
we may promote blanket interventions that are ineffective
or even harmful while, at the same time, we fail to
acknowledge the nuances of gender issues in boys’
schooling (Martino and Blye 2006; Mills et al. 2004; Sokal
2005). Instead, interventions must be mindful of the
limitations of considering only the embodied man and
instead should be expanded to look at the interactions
between boys, girls, male teachers, female teachers, and
home conditions in order to understand the systems in
which gender and achievement interact. Attributes and
practices of successful teachers must be explored within the
dynamics of our gendered classrooms rather than on the
assumption of homogeneity in our male students—and our
male teachers—that is based on stereotypes rather than on
research. Greater care and critical examination of these
issues is necessary in order to ensure that boys’ needs are
met at school.
Acknowledgement We wish to acknowledge those people who
contributed to this research: the classroom teachers and resource teachers,
the student research assistants at the University of Winnipeg, and the boys
and their families. We appreciate your dedication to this work.
References
A good man is hard to find (2004, March 12). Fewer than one in three
teachers male. Sydney: Daily Telegraph.
Adams, M. (1990). Beginning to read. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Alberta Education (1986). Alberta diagnostic reading program.
Edmonton, Alberta: Alberta Education.
Allan, J. (1993). Male elementary teachers: Experiences and perspec-
tives. In C. Williams (Ed.), Doing “woman’s work”: Men in
non-traditional occupations (pp. 113–127). CA: Sage, Newbury
Park.
Baron, J. (1996). Sexism attitudes toward reading in the adult learner
population (Report No. CS 012 410). Union, New Jersey: Kean
College of New Jersey. (ERIC Reproduction Document No.
ED393092)
Basow, S. (1992). Gender stereotypes and roles. Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
BBC News (2005, October 13). Call for male primary teachers.
Accessed at http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education.
Brophy, J. E. (1985). Interactions of male and female students with
male and female teachers. In L. Wilkinson & C. Marrett (Eds.),
Gender influences in classroom interactions (pp. 115–142).
Cambridge, MA: Academic.
Butler, D., & Christianson, R. (2003). Mixing and matching: The
effect on student performance of teaching assistants of the same
gender. Political Science and Politics, 36, 781–786.
Carrington, B., & Skelton, C. (2003). Re-thinking role models: Equal
opportunities in teacher recruitment in England and Wales.
Journal of Educational Policy, 12, 253–265.
Carrington, B., Tymms, P., & Merrell, C. (2005, August). Role
models, school improvement and the ‘gender gap’—Do men
bring out the best in boys and women the best in girls? Paper
presented at the European Conference for Research on Learning
and Instruction conference. Cyprus: University of Nicosia.
658
Connell, R. (1996). Teaching the boys: New research on masculinity,
and gender strategies for schools. Teachers College Record, 98,
206–236.
Coulter, R., & McNay, M. (1993). Exploring men’s experiences as
elementary school teachers. Canadian Journal of Education, 18,
398–413.
Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (2001). Measuring up: the
performance of Canada’s youth in reading, mathematics and
science. The Oganization for Economic Co-operation and
Development Programme for International Student Assessment
study. Toronto: Council of Ministers of Education, Canada.
Cummings, N. (1994). Eleventh graders view gender differences in
reading and math. Journal of Reading, 38, 196–199.
Dee, T. (2006). Teachers and the gender gaps in student achievement.
[National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper #
11660]. Available at http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/tdee1/
Research/w11660revised.pdf.
Delamont, S. (1990). Sex roles and the school. London: Routledge.
Ehrenberg, R., Goldhaber, D., & Brewer, D. (1995). Do teachers’ race,
gender and ethnicity matter? Evidence from the National
Education Longitudinal Study of 1988. Industrial and Labor
Relations Review, 48, 547–561.
Eng, J. (2004). Male elementary teachers: Where are they? Educa-
tional Insights, 8(3). Available: http://www.ccfi.educ.ubc.ca/
publication/insights/v08n03/articles/eng.html.
Freeman, C. (2004). Trends in educational equity of girls and women:
2004 [NCES 2005-016). Washington, DC: US Government
Printing Office.
Froude, L. (2002, March 8). Study defies the ‘boys need men’ credo.
Times Educational Supplement, 4471, 3–9.
Gambell, T., & Hunter, D. (2000). Surveying gender differences in
Canadian school literacy. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32,
689–719.
Golombok, S., & Fivush, R. (1994). Gender development. London:
Cambridge University Press.
Government of the UK (2000). The standards site: Gender and
achievement [on-line]. Available: http://www.standards.dfee.gov.
uk/genderandachievement/data_1.2.9.html.
Guthrie, J., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in
reading. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, D. Pearson, & R. Barr
(Eds.), Handbook of reading research: (pp. 403–422). Maywah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Henck, W., & Melnick, S. (1995). The Reader Self-Perception Scale
(RSPS): A new tool for measuring how children feel about
themselves as readers. The Reading Teacher, 48, 470–482.
Hermine, F. (1998). Gender differences in attitude toward reading in a
sample of the Jewish community (Report no. CS 013 099).
Union, New Jersey: Kean University. (ERIC Reproduction
Document No. ED417378).
Hetzner, A. (2003, March 17). As fewer men teach, educators bemoan
loss of make models. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Available:
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=list&
p_topdoc=5.
Hoffert, S., & Sandberg, J. F. (2001). How American children spend
their time. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63, 295–308.
Katz, H., & Sokal, L. (2003). Masculine literacy: One size does not fit
all. Reading Manitoba, 24(1), 4–8.
Klecker, B. (1997, November). Male elementary school teachers’
ratings of job satisfaction by years of teaching experience. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-south Educational
Research Association, Memphis, Tennessee.
Lewis, E., Butcher, J., & Donnan, P. (1999). Men in primary teaching:
An endangered species? Australian Catholic University. Avail-
able: http://www.aare.edu.au/99pap/but99238.htm.
Martin, C. L. (1993). New Directions for assessing children’s gender
knowledge. Developmental Review, 13,184–204.
Sex Roles (2007) 56:651–659
Martin, A. (2003). Primary school boys’ identity formation and the male
role model: An exploration of sexual identity and gender identity in
the UK through attachment theory. Sex Education, 3, 257–271.
Martin, A. (2005, November 6). Wanted: Male teachers for young
students. Chicago Tribune News, p. 1.
Martin, C. L., & Halverson, C. F. (1981). A schematic processing model
of gender typing in children. Child Development, 52, 1119–1132.
Martino, J., & Blye, F. (2006). The tyranny of surveillance: male
teachers and the policing of masculinities in a single sex school.
Gender and Education, 18(1), 17–33.
Martino, W., & Meyenn, B. (2002). ‘War, guns, and cool, tough
things’: Interrogating single-sex classes as a strategy for engaging
boys in English. Cambridge Journal of Education, 32, 303–324.
McKenna, E. (1997). Gender differences in reading attitudes.
Unpublished master’s thesis, Kean College of New Jersey.
Merrett, F., & Wheldall, K. (1992). Teachers’ use of praise and
reprimands to boys and girls. Educational Review, 44(1), 73–79.
Millard, E. (1997). Differently literate. London: Palmer Press.
Mills, M., Martino, W., & Lingard, B. (2004). Attracting, recruiting,
and retaining male teachers: Policy issues in the male teacher
debate. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 25, 355–369.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Gonzalez, E. J., & Kennedy, A. M.
(2003). Program in International Reading Literacy Study 2001
International Report: Institute of Educational Sciences’ study of
reading literacy achievement in primary schools. Chestnut Hill,
MA: Boston College.
Northern Alberta Reading Specialists’ Council (1991).Paired Read-
ing: A reading practice approach. Kelowna, British Columbia:
Filmwest.
Ontario Public School Boards’ Association (2000). Fast reports: Are
schools failing boys? Ontario Provincial School Boards’ Asso-
ciation Fast Reports, 12(24). Available: http://www.opsba.org/
pubs/fast/2000/00-09-15.html.
Pottorff, D. D., Phelps-Zientarski, D., & Skovera, M. E. (1996).
Gender perceptions of elementary and middle school students
about literacy at school and at home. Journal of Research and
Development in Education, 29, 203–211.
Sakhnandan, L., Lee, B., & Kelleher, S. (2000). An investigation into
gender differences in achievement: phase 2—School and class-
room strategies. London: National Foundation for Educational
Research.
Sax, L. (2005). Why gender matters. New York: Doubleday.
Shapiro, D. (1980). Primary children’s attitudes toward reading in
male and female teachers’ classrooms: An exploratory study.
Journal of Reading Behavior, 12(3), 155–157.
Simpson, A., & Erickson, M. (1983). Teachers’ verbal and nonverbal
communication patterns as a function of teacher race, student
gender, and student race. American Educational Research
Journal, 20, 183–198.
Skelton, C. (2003). Male primary teachers and perceptions of
masculinity. Educational Review, 55, 195–210.
Sokal, L. (2005). Answering the question, “Which boys?” A new lens for
viewing boys’ literacy scores. English Quarterly, 37(2), 36–41.
Sokal, L., Katz, H., Adkins, M., Grills, T., Stewart, C., Priddle, G., et al.
(2005). Factors affecting inner-city boys’ reading: Are male teachers
the answer? Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 14, 107–130.
Sokal, L., Monette, J., McBey, S., & Wojcik, C. (2006, April). Factors
affecting boys’ reading gains. Paper presented at the annual
meetings of the American Educational Research Association, San
Francisco, CA.
Stake, J., & Katz, J. (1982). Teacher–pupil relationships in the elementary
school classroom: Teacher-gender and pupil-gender differences.
American Educational Research Journal, 19, 465–471.
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences
of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading
Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407.
Sex Roles (2007) 56:651–659
Statistics Canada (2003). Education indicators in Canada (3rd ed.).
Publication Number 81-852-XPE. Ottawa: Statistics Canada,
November 25.
Tenenbaum, H. R., & Leaper, C. (2002). Are parents’ gender schemas
related to their children’s gender-related cognitions? Develop-
mental Psychology, 38, 615–630.
Tinklin, T., Croxford, L., Duckiln, A., & Frame, B. (2001). Gender
659
and pupil performance in Scotland’s schools. Edinburgh: Scottish
Executive Education Department.
Topping, K. (1987). Paired Reading: A powerful technique for parent
use. The Reading Teacher, 40, 608–614.
Worthy, J., Moorman, M., & Turner, M. (1999). What Johnny likes to
read is hard to find at school. Reading Research Quarterly, 34,
12–27.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

View publication stats