Presented by

David MacLennan, Thompson Rivers UniversityKristy Callaghan, Stefania Maggi, &

Amedeo D’Angiulli, Carleton University

Financial support for this project comes from NETHRN-BC and the CIHR

Mass public schooling in the twentieth century generated concerns with performance of students.

This concern was fuelled in part by the development of standardized student assessment.

Standardized tests made it possible for educators and the general public to ‘see’ achievement patterns in entire populations.

◦ between students from rich families and students from poor families;

◦ between white students and black students;

◦ and between male students and female students.

Historically it was believed that boys did better than girls in math and science.

Recent literature has documented an achievement gap favouring girls in reading.

As a result of a broad range of reform efforts the gap favouring boys in math and science has narrowed significantly.

While there is still gender segregation in fields of study, girls and women have made significant progress in education.

We intend to demonstrate that it is misleading to study gender gap without accounting for other important factors.

To understand academic achievement, it is necessary to understand how socioeconomic status (SES) and gender work together to support (or constrain) the acquisition of literacy.

Present achievement patterns and gender gaps

Discuss the role of neighbourhood and school factors involved in gender gap

Discuss possible ways to narrow the gap

Extensive database Variety of different categories That report on:

◦ Student performance◦ Individual characteristics◦ Behavioral problems◦ Special needs

PEN (Personal Education Number)

JAKE (Justification & Accountability in Kamloops

Education)

Annual test administered across BC External source of student’s achievement 3 mark categories

◦ Exceeds expectations◦ Meets expectations◦ Not yet within expectations

JAKE provides individual performance information

Number of Participants

Percentage of Participants

Total 2134

Grade

4 1061 49.7

7 1073 50.3

Gender

Male 1097 51.4

Female 1037 48.6

FSA

Reading 1976 92.5

Writing 1975 92.5

Numeracy 1969 92.3

Females perform better than males in reading Females perform better than males in writing No difference in performance of females &

males in numeracy

Male (SD73)

Female(SD73)

P value

Reading 61.79 64.83 p=.000

Writing 48.50 53.02 p=.000

Numeracy

54.28 53.21 p=.214

Postal code of where the students lived at the time their wrote the FSA (2001)

Census variables for 2001:◦ Average family income ◦ Incidence of low income◦ Male Employment ◦ Female Employment◦ Male with Post Secondary Education◦ Female with Post Secondary Education◦ Less than grade 9 Education◦ University Education◦ Bachelor’s Degree or Higher

Census Tract Areas

It stands for Hierarchical Linear Modelling It’s a regression analysis It’s used to look at neighbourhood, school,

or class differences

Are females better than males in reading and writing in ALL neighbourhoods?

Reading

Reading

Writing

Writing

Are females better than males in reading and writing in ALL schools?

More variability between schools than between neighborhoods

Schools differ more in FSA scores

Reading

Writing

The gender gap is the same across all schools where all girls perform better than boys

Our findings only partially confirm what has been documented elsewhere

They present a more complex picture of the association between achievement, gender and socio-demographic factors

School SES and neighbourhood SES may impact differently on literacy achievement of boys and girls.

To explain these findings, it is necessary to account for the ways gender and SES together support (or constrain) the acquisition of literacy.

While there may be neuro-cognitive factors at work (perhaps higher percentage of working class boys are dyslexic), we will focus on cultural factors.

We know that early learning is crucial for emergent literacy.

Our emphasis on SES leads us to consider family and neighbourhood differences in child-rearing practices as possible causes of the gender gap in reading.

Certain child-rearing practices provide ideal conditions for the acquisition of literacy and other outcomes linked to academic success.

Emotional warmth and support Communication of rules and limits Time spent with caregiver Verbal interaction (speaking and listening) Instruction in emergent literacy skills Recognition of the child’s developing

interests Activities that widen the child’s interests

The characteristics of environments that support emergent literacy are well documented and are discussed under the headings like “family literacy” and “scaffolding”.

While we know much about the ideal conditions for the acquisition of literacy, we also know that these conditions are not distributed evenly throughout the population.

Child-rearing values, resources and styles vary in relation to parents’ SES.

In low SES families, the ideal conditions for literacy acquisition are less likely to exist.

Resources play a role. But also important are parents’ beliefs about what it means to be a good parent.

Why is it that low SES boys are at greater risk for low reading scores than their female counterparts?

There may be cultural and interactional dynamics within the low SES family that makes boys more vulnerable to low reading achievement

There may be societal systems of values of low SES families that puts boys at a disadvantage in reading

Increase awareness of the gender gap amongst educators

Increase awareness of who is more at risk amongst educators

Adapt curriculum to engage at risk boys in reading activities since the early elementary years

Research tells us that: 1. boys have different interests than girls and 2. the relation between interest and

comprehension is stronger for boys than it is for girls (girls score well in comprehension even they don't find readings very interesting).

It could be argued that boys underperform in reading:◦ because they lack certain abilities and ◦ because they are not engaged in reading

activities Lack of interest, simple as it may sound, is a

key factor.

Just as emergent literacy skills are scaffolded by adults (and others) in the child’s environment, the child’s range of interests is scaffolded.

When both literacy and interests are scaffolded together, we have an optimal setting for learning and literacy acquisition.

It follows that in addition to providing support for the cognitive skills of literacy, parents and teachers need to work together to understand and influence boys’ interests (a variable that links the cognitive to the emotional and motivational dimensions of literacy).

With regard to interests and reading, what is important is not just the content of the reading material (what it is about), the vocabulary and the genre (fiction or non-fiction).

Also important, is the way the reading material is integrated into instructional activities.

The most important social determinant of academic achievement is SES and understanding the relation between SES, gender and achievement remains a central challenge for educators and parents.