As much as Wilhelm and Smith take into account much of the research and data that was already available to them and giving us the reader a comprehensive review of how they used that data, they also worked directly with a fairly large group of boys to supplement their study. At the end of each chapter they introduce us to four of the boys in their study. One great thing that I have picked up through these "interchapters" is that Wilhelm and Smith worked with a wide variety of boys.
Out of the fifty boys that they had at the beginning of their study, the boys varied in age and school level, anywhere from 7th grade to 12th grade. Not only that, they had boys from different racial and ethnic backgrounds. 32 of the boys were European-American, 10 were African-American, 5 were Puerto Rican and 2 Asian-Americans. The boys also came from different school setting, for example, about 25% were from private schools, 25% from urban public schools, 25% from suburban public schools and 25% from rural schools. The boys in the study also had a wide variety of interest. As I am reading the research the these guys are reviewing and applying, I am seeing how they filling some of the holes in the research and data that is out there.
Early on in the book they refer to the "boy code". The concept behind the "boy code" comes from the book Real Boys: Rescuing Our Sons from the Myths of Boyhood by William Pollack, where Pollack describes young men as being victims of this "boy code" and that problems with boys in schools stems from this code that endorses self-relience and action and precludes intimate relationships among young men (Newkirk, 2002). According to Pollack and as cited by Smith & Wilhelm, this "boy code" "governs male behavior through culturally created and perpetuated 'myths' of masculinity. This socially constructed code, according to Pollack, harms boys, so society, which defines and enforces social definitions of manhood, must actively interrogate and redefine masculinity" (Smith & Wilhelm, 2002). The boys in Wilhelm and Smith's study did not fit within these perimeters. The boys in their study almost unanimously said that interacting with their friends allowed them to be themselves. That they could talk more intimately with their friends. "The 'boy code' that Pollack (1999) describes as making intimate relationships taboo was not supported by the evidence in our Interviews" (Smith & Wilhelm, 2002).
Reading the short bios on the boys and then reading their transactions with Smith and Wilhelm as the book progresses, You can start seeing that some of the preconceived generalizations don't always hold true. In some ways, it is how they are engaged by their teachers in school. Some of the these boys love to read. In the Forward to the book, Thomas Newkirk mentions that "literacy grows out of relationships" and as I read about these boys and their relationships, when it comes to literacy there is indeed a social component.
My next post will introduce the concept of "Flow" and engageing in the things that brings us joy.
Your book sounds very interesting. I love that they used a wide variety of boys in their study, as sometimes studies seem to focus on one specific age or group.
ReplyDeleteEarlier I read your previous post about how we are losing our boys in education. I was pondering it for a while, and then I came back to respond and read this post. What you hit on as far as relationships and the social component really hit home with me. As I pondered your previous post, I thought about how we are losing boys, yet many of my boys are the ones who what I call "check in" with me often. What I mean by checking in, is they come by my desk or stop in the hall to talk about what happened to my team (the Steelers) when they lose, or to ask if I saw a movie or heard about their (the school's) team winning or losing. So what you said about relationships rang true, as many of my boys seek out that social aspect of learning and want to connect with peers and adults.
Your post made me think about this study I read hypothesizing on why "math" as a career choice is dominated by males. The study wanted to know why less women were less inclined to study math and science, as opposed to men. What they found is that the majority of math and science teachers are men, so by constantly seeing men in those fields, they were more apt to pursue other subject areas. This is also why men were more inclined to pursue math and science. I wonder if this same theory has any relevance to the reasons you mentioned about boys and their relationship with English. Very interesting.
ReplyDeleteInteresting post, and I would agree that generalization like this does not hold much weight. What I take from this, and agree with, is that there is definitely as social aspect to young peoples outlook on literacy. What is more acceptable in your social circle will be a bigger part of your life. If students are being made fun of or made to feel ashamed of reading, then they will certainly do less of it.
ReplyDeleteI like your use of Thomas Newkirks notion about relationships and literacy. All students not just boys are affected by their engagements with teachers. Finding meaningful experiences through these relationships and engagements promotes learning and retaining it, and most of all develops positive associations like love for reading.
ReplyDelete