Gender Gap in Reading

748 views
622 views

Published on

Published in: Education, News & Politics
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
748
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Gender Gap in Reading

  1. 1. GENDER GAP IN READINGA COMPARISON OF THE READING TAKS SCORESAMONG 8TH GRADE MINORITY AND ECONOMICALLYDISADVANTAGED MALES TO THEIR FEMALE PEERS Nikki Thibault, Sam Houston State University In partial fulfillment of the Master of Education degree
  2. 2. The ProblemIs there a boy crisis?
  3. 3. Are boys in crisis? The nation is growing concerned about the academic achievement of boys.(The images above are linked to author pages, book reviews or original sources.)
  4. 4. General Evidence of a Boy Crisis Boys GirlsLower Report Card GradesHigher High School Drop Out RateMinority of Students Enrolled in Higher Ed. 80% Diagnosed as Emotionally DisturbedMore Likely to Engage in Criminal ActivityMore Negative Attitudes Toward ReadingNegative Attitude Toward Reading Growswith AgeLower Reading & Writing Test ScoresSadker, 2011 Stolzer, 2008 Baker & Wigfield, 1999
  5. 5. Boys and LiteracyAn in-depth look at boys’ performance on theNational Assessment of Educational Progress(NAEP)
  6. 6. NAEP: “The Nation’s Report Card” Boys perform consistently below their female peers on reading assessments at every grade level tested and among every ethnicity (Mead, 2006).(The graph above is linked to Mead’s 2006 analysis of NAEP data.)
  7. 7. Reading Gender Gaps by RaceReading achievement gaps by race are more significantthan achievement gaps by gender (Mead, 2006).
  8. 8. NAEP National vs. State Scores State scores on the NAEP Reading/Writing tests are similar to aggregate national scores. The gender gap in reading is still present when NAEP data is analyzed by state. (Louie & Ehrlich, 2008)
  9. 9. NAEP Performance Clusters “Proficient and “Below Basic” Advanced” (Not prepared for most (prepared for higher ed occupations) and the workforce All Males 32% 26% All Females 21% 37% Black Males 53% -- Black Females 38% --(Kleinfield ,2009)
  10. 10. A New StudyReplicating Mead’s analysis of the NAEPReading scores with an in-depth look at TAKSReading scores
  11. 11. My Research Focus Quantitative analysis of reading achievement Reading TAKS scores from 2003 to 2010 Eighth grade males versus females Across ethnicities and socioeconomic status District-wide**The school district being analyzed requested anonymity.
  12. 12. Research Design: Two Perspectives Percent Meeting Expectation Average Score as Percentage Boys Girls Boys GirlsCaucasian CaucasianAfrican American African AmericanHispanic HispanicEconomically EconomicallyDisadvantaged DisadvantagedNot NotDisadvantaged Disadvantaged
  13. 13. Research Hypothesis & Implications  The test scores I analyze will not only reveal a gap between genders, but also show that minority boys and boys in poverty lag even further behind. Evidence will validate or diffuse the hype about boys and ensure that educators direct their efforts to where they are needed most.
  14. 14. Summary Boys in America perform below their female counterparts on reading assessments. Other indicators of school success show a gap between boys and girls (motivation, preparedness, behavior, etc.) Boys in poverty and boys of minority races show an even poorer performance on these indicators.
  15. 15. ReferencesBaker, L., & Wigfield, A. (1999). Dimensions of childrens motivation for reading and their relations to reading activity and reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(4), 452. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.Ellison, Jesse. (2010, June 22). The new segregation debate. Newsweek, Retrieved from http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/22/the-new- segregation-debate.htmlKellett, M. (2009). Children as researchers: what we can learn from them about the impact of poverty on literacy opportunities. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(4), 395-408. doi:10.1080/10236240802106606
  16. 16. ReferencesKleinfeld, J. (2009). The state of American boyhood. Gender Issues, 26(2), 113-129. doi:10.1007/s12147-009-9074-zLouie, J., and Ehrlich, S. (2008). Gender gaps in assessment outcomes in Vermont and the United States (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2008–No. 062). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast and Islands. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.Mead, Sara. (2006, June). The evidence suggests otherwise: the truth about boys and girls. Retrieved from http://www.educationsector.org/publications/truth-about- boys-and-girls
  17. 17. References, cont’dNewkirk, T. (2002). Misreading masculinity: boys, literacy, and popular culture. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books.Sadker, D. (2011). An educators primer on the gender war. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(5), 81-88. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.Stolzer, J. M. (2008). Boys and the American education system: a biocultural review of the literature. Ethical Human Psychology & Psychiatry, 10(2), 80-95. doi:10.1891/1559-4343.10.2.80Tyre, P. (2009). The trouble with boys: a surprising report card on our sons, their problems at school, and what parents and educators must do. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press.
  18. 18. References, cont’dU.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Digest of Education Statistics, 2009 (NCES 2010-013), Chapter 2.Whitmire, R. (2010). Why boys fail: saving our sons from an educational system thats leaving them behind. New York, NY: Amacom Books.

×