study of Czec students, stating that “students who report that they periodically assess their degree of understanding,
and who implement strategies to enhance learning, have been found to be high academic achievers…” (p. 440).
Just as researchers find statistics to prove a problem, they also find solutions. Costello (2008) finds help in
brain research. He states that while MRI tests show that “males and females process information differently,” with
only half the boy brain “light[ing] up” during reading, teachers can use this information to understand boys’ relative
slowness and create “gender-based instructional strategies that boost test scores” (p. 50). He further suggests “boyfriendly reading material (p. 50),” including non-fiction, exciting stories, stories with positive males, and a variety of
genres.
Similar thoughts come from Williams (2004), who observed his son’s love for action, especially with violence
involved. He suggests allowing boys freer range in choosing literature, even if it is distasteful to the teacher. He
echoes Alloway and Gilbert (1997) in suggesting that boys’ “gender identity” needs to be considered in literary
choices, allowing boys to choose “mystery, suspense, plot, and action” (p. 512). Williams asserts boys find this sort of
literature empowering. These stories also provide social connections because of the “themes of loyalty, courage, and
the ability to face and transcend danger with a cool head and the help of close friends” (p. 513), themes Williams
views as masculine. Reflecting the masculine theme, a guide published by the Ontario Ministry of Education (2005)
exhorts teachers to find positive literary male role models for boys while inspiring their “creative imagination” (p.
11).
The Role of the Read-Aloud
Anderson, Hiebert, Scott, and Wilkinson (1985) call read-alouds “the single most important activity for
building the knowledge required for eventual success in reading” (p. 23). Lane and Wright (2007) explain that reading
aloud increases vocabular H[