This is the second of two Teachers TV programmes exploring boys’ writing at Key Stage 2. Both feature the practice of one particular school, but, whereas the first is described as “Tips on getting boys to engage with literacy lessons”, this video is presented as an analysis of practice by experts. In the introduction to the programme, and in the synopsis, one of these experts is named as Dr Eve Bearne, co-researcher for a DfES project in which the school took part. The report of this was published as Raising Boys’ Achievement, although this information is not provided.
The first half of the programme features Dr Bearne and the headteacher of the school, exploring issues which relate to the project’s findings on the school’s effective practice in narrowing the gender gap in literacy. These include: treating boys and girls equally; a commitment to mixed ability teaching; collaborative planning and systematic reviews of the curriculum to meet the needs of the learners; promoting a school ethos which supports ‘a community of learners’; a focus on speaking and listening; role plays, in which the collaborative process is deemed to be as important as the presentation itself; and integrating skills to encourage voice and pace in writing. It is interesting that, of these, only ‘speaking and listening’ and ‘role plays’ are highlighted as strategies to raise boys’ literacy, in the form of introductory screenshots.
Rather surprisingly, the second half of the programme appears, by and large, to move away from the authoritative findings of the report, and features Dr Bearne only briefly. Instead, this section features a journalist and author, Sue Palmer, whose opinions do not always reflect (and, at times, contradict) the report findings. This is particularly true of her suggestion that competition is an effective way of motivating boys, whereas the DfES report, Raising Boys' Achievement, offers a note of caution thus:
The concern with competition is particularly difficult. Whilst some boys may thrive in a classroom context which emphasises challenge, and be keen to engage in activities in which there will be winners (and conversely losers) so will some girls, and some boys will not be motivated in this way. Equally, though, there is something perverse in trying to engage ‘under-achieving’ boys, who have often failed to learn, in activities which, by emphasising the competitive element, expose them to the risk of further failure....The concern with competition often runs counter, too, to collaboration. (p54)
The latter points take on a particular significance in light of the fact that the school has a commitment to mixed ability teaching as an integral part of their effective practice. It is somewhat confusing that peer assessment is also presented and discussed within the section on competition.
Other key points highlighted in the second part of the programme are: motivation inside and outside the classroom; fiction and non-fiction (this reviewer welcomes the practice of pupils writing and sharing reviews of books!); and visual techniques, including the National Literacy Strategy (NLS) ‘skeleton’ technique (of which Sue Palmer is the author/creator). Again, this is not supported by the findings in Raising Boys' Achievement: the national strategies feature in the report only in the context of “combining successful factors of the NLS with a creative approach to teaching literacy”.
Although this programme appears to present an evidence base for the techniques employed, it moves away from this position without due warning to the viewer. It should also perhaps be noted that the school does not appear to have a diverse population in terms of social background, ethnicity, etc.; the pupils are impressively articulate, but how much of this may be down to parental influence is worthy of consideration. (Indeed, the impact of parents as "children's first teachers" in language appears to be one of the main thrusts of Sue Palmer’s recent writing, for example in her speech at the Conservative Party Conference, and in her presentation for the Basic Skills Agency.) The notion of a “linear literacy line” (sic) could also be challenged; the statement that “I don’t think that boys have changed a little” is presumably a slip of the tongue, however.
This programme could provide useful stimulus material for ITE tutors and trainees, to encourage and stimulate debate about a wide range of issues, including the uses and abuses of research in education. (Even the way in which the report’s findings are summarised at the beginning of the programme - as “literacy can’t be separated from issues of self-esteem and preferred learning styles” - is an over-simplistic and unrepresentative interpretation of the findings. It is also misleading, as the report actually “found little evidence…to support the notion that the dominant learning style of boys differs from those of girls”). It is important for teachers to engage at all levels with the issues this programme raises, in order to make informed decisions about their own practice.
Reviewed by:
Sue Field