Date: 27-Jul-2006
From: Zoe Ziliak <zoeziliakgmail.com>
Subject: Boys and Foreign Language Learning
Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/16/16-3408.html
AUTHORS: Carr, Jo; Pauwels, Anne TITLE: Boys and Foreign Language Learning SUBTITLE: Real Boys Don't Do Languages PUBLISHER: Palgrave Macmillan YEAR: 2005
Zoe Ziliak, PhD student, Program in Linguistics, University of Florida
In _Boys and Foreign Language Learning: Real Boys Don't Do Languages_ , Carr and Pauwels analyze the results of a qualitative study investigating why fewer school-age boys than girls choose to study foreign languages. Pauwels presents statistics from Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and Scotland showing that in recent years foreign language classrooms in all these countries have had higher enrollment of girls than boys. (Throughout the book, the United States and Canada are mentioned only occasionally.) They restrict their analysis to the English-speaking world, noting that in countries where English is not the first language, foreign language learning is generally more highly valued, so class enrollment is often balanced between the sexes.
For the study, Carr interviewed over 200 teenage Australian boys - some who had chosen to continue with foreign languages past the required courses but more who hadn't - as well as their language teachers and some female classmates. In this book, she provides excerpts of their responses, ranging from specific reasons why the boys don't take foreign languages, to general musings on biological differences between boys and girls ''in their brains,'' to teachers' stories of attempting to keep boys interested in class.
Carr and Pauwels return frequently to the idea of ''doing'' boy and to Pennycook (2004)'s idea that ''gender'' is a verb. They focus on boys' choice of how to perform their gender and link this to their choice to study foreign languages or not. In a society where, as their interviews confirmed, foreign languages are often considered girl-appropriate subjects, dropping languages is a way for boys to emphasize their separation from girls and thus ''do'' boy more noticeably. The authors emphasize the socialization factor in determining boys' choices about foreign languages and academics in general.
Unlike Carr and Pauwels, the boys, girls, and teachers interviewed mostly seem to take for granted that girls' greater school achievement is due to biology. The interview excerpts repeatedly refer to girls' supposedly innate longer attention spans and their natural facility with communication. Boys, meanwhile, are seen as having brains more suited to mathematics and as being simply unable to sit still as long as girls can. Carr and Pauwels note that as long as boys' lack of interest in foreign languages is chalked up to biology, school corporations will do little to attempt to lure boys into the language classroom. They link this acceptance of ''the way it is'' to Foucault's (1980) truth regimes. The belief that differences between girls' and boys' behavior are biologically rather than socially determined spreads from individual belief to conventional wisdom, preventing teachers from taking action to change ''how things are.''
The book does not present the situation as hopeless, of course. Several of the teachers reported success in keeping boys interested if they made the exercises more competitive (e.g., see who can learn this vocabulary the fastest) or by doing away with worksheets and focusing on interactive, realistic activities. One particularly inspiring example is that of a teacher of both French and drama who developed a process drama approach for her French classes. Her students acted out a traditional folktale and took turns taking on each role, trying to express the characters' feelings in French. After implementing this method, the teacher had much greater retention of boys into higher level classes than the school had had under the previous, more traditional teacher. The book ends on a high note, suggesting that if schools adapt the way languages are taught, and if administrators emphasize the importance of intercultural experience, then more boys may become interested in foreign languages.
SUMMARY
Chapter 1 provides a brief introduction to the book, primarily outlining the structure of the remaining chapters.
Chapter 2, ''Setting the Scene,'' provides a history of gendered language study in the Anglophone world, noting for example that Latin and Greek were once considered appropriately manly subjects, and that when women first gained access to education, they were expected to study mostly the sciences. This chapter also presents the statistics on recent foreign language enrollment mentioned above. (The introduction indicates that this chapter was Pauwels's primary contribution.)
Chapter 3, ''The Gendering of Language Education,'' describes the recent uproar over boys' disadvantages in education. The authors note that in earlier decades, when gender differences in education were discussed, the focus was on girls' disadvantages in mathematics and sciences. In the past fifteen years, however, more attention has been paid to boys' deficits in language arts. While previous researchers have restricted this discussion to L1 language deficits, Carr and Pauwels want to expand the discussion to include L2s. The chapter then introduces the ideas of gender as performance and of truth regimes. Finally, the authors review a few other qualitative studies of boys' relationships to foreign languages, all conducted within the United Kingdom.
Chapter 4, ''Boys Talking,'' first explains the methodology and rationale of the study. Interviews were conducted in small groups, away from a classroom setting when possible. Some of the questions the authors wanted to focus on were ''How do boys regard the languages curriculum option? What do they see to be its relevance? Does it sit within a gendered sense of curriculum choice/appropriacy, and what are the effects of such a positioning?...What do boys see as ways in which languages could be made more attractive?'' (60) The chapter then presents the first set of data, which comes from boys who attend either state schools (analogous to public schools in the U.S.) or Catholic schools. (The Catholic school boys' opinions ended up matching those of the state school boys more than those of the boys at the more expensive private schools discussed in Chapter 5.) These boys fit the ''doing boy'' model in that they speak of being obliged to goof off in class; this is apparently what makes boys boys. They also assert that girls are innately smarter than boys and more suited to academics, particularly the study of languages. Other comments do focus on choice and on socialization, showing that some boys have an understanding that their avoidance of foreign languages might not be biological. Many boys feel that foreign languages are simply irrelevant for their future, and that girls are more likely to pursue careers where knowledge of a foreign language would be of use, such as travel agency work or teaching.
Chapter 5, ''Other Boys Talking,'' reports on interviews conducted with boys at private schools. These boys are generally wealthier, and more of them have had first-hand international experience. They generally have higher estimations of foreign languages' usefulness and relevance to their future careers. Several comments mention the pleasure of really trying to fit into a foreign culture, of feeling ''almost French,'' for example. More of these boys have chosen to continue with foreign languages into their later years of schooling.
In Chapter 6, ''Teachers Talking,'' the foreign language teachers present their opinions on the differences between boys and girls in their classes, as well as on how to stimulate more interest in the subjects among boys. Many of the teachers again ascribe differences in behavior to biology, and they describe girls as more eager to please and willing to do boring work than boys.
Chapter 7, ''Girls Talking About Boys,'' is the last chapter to systematically present primary data from the study. The girls unfailingly describe boys as less mature than they are. They also believe boys generally do not think about long-term goals but just focus on having fun in the present. The girls themselves say they are already concerned about careers. Interestingly, they do admit that some boys don't act like boys; that is, they are able to be academically focused like girls, and will even communicate like girls if you get them alone. The girls seem to divide their counterparts into boy-like boys and girl-like boys.
Chapter 8, ''Reading Between the Lines,'' circles back to the theoretical questions of the book's beginning. The authors link the data collected in the interviews to the idea of performativity of gender and once again show how the common belief that biology determines gendered behavior constitutes a truth regime that leads to some teachers' defeatist attitudes about boys and foreign languages. The chapter then revisits the initial questions posed by the study and discusses what the data show in terms of such topics as whether boys find foreign languages relevant to their lives, how difficult they believe languages to be, and what boys consider the best way to teach (or learn) foreign languages.
Chapter 9, ''Changing Thinking, Transforming Action'' wraps up the book by suggesting changes in attitudes on several levels. Most generally, Anglophone society must evolve beyond its ''English is enough'' attitude and acknowledge that foreign language competence is beneficial in the modern world. Schools and curriculum directors then need to provide more support for foreign languages so that they are once again seen as a main area of study, as necessary as science or literature. Teachers must realize that a change in teaching methodology is necessary, and they must be given access to training that will help them adapt. Finally, rather than focusing only on ''boy-friendly pedagogy,'' we must realize that the socialization of boys may also be altered so that they feel more comfortable ''doing boy'' in an academically-focused way. We must ''think about transforming the shape of 'boy' as well as the shape of pedagogy'' (203).
EVALUATION
This will be an enjoyable and useful book for foreign language teachers, who will gain insight into boys' thoughts on foreign languages and some inspiration for how to increase retention of their male students. Perhaps to a lesser extent, linguists interested in second language pedagogy, discourse analysis, or the role language plays in performing gender will also find it worth reading. The book's clear writing style makes reading a pleasure, and the comments from the boys are often amusing as well as informative. Teachers especially should find these comments helpful, as they demonstrate what (some) adolescent boys believe about their own language abilities, and they give direct advice on how to make foreign language classes more appealing to boys.
The authors do a good job of noting when they are leaving out potential discussion in order to keep to the point. For example, they mention more than once that gender is only one of several factors that seem to predict whether a student will continue with foreign languages. They do discuss the role of social class, but they also note that there are several other factors which they do not have time to discuss. They responsibly point out potentially misleading information present in their statistics. For instance, the data on enrollment by gender for some countries includes the years of compulsory foreign language study, so they note that the gender gap for the post-compulsory years would be much wider.
One shortcoming of the book is that it takes for granted some knowledge that readers might not have. A few acronyms are never spelled out fully; I had to ask a British friend what a GCSE was and find NESB on the internet. Some culturally specific terms are also used without clarification, so there is no explanation of what British A-levels or Australian day schools are. This can be frustrating for American readers, but then, I'm sure American authors sometimes forget to explain what the SATs are.
A greater shortcoming is that many of the reasons the authors give for why boys don't continue with foreign languages could apply equally to girls, but the book does not explore why these affect the genders differently. For example, the book stresses that Australian society as a whole considers English to be the only language really needed in the world. If girls are exposed to this attitude as much as boys, why do they not deem foreign languages courses superfluous as boys do? The authors occasionally point out that girls should also be influenced by the reasons driving boys away from languages, but I felt the issue should have been explored more. This weakness does not outweigh the overall value of the primary data readers can garner from _Boys and Foreign Language Learning_, however. This book adds to the literature useful to those hoping to convince L1 English speakers that foreign language study is worthwhile.
REFERENCES:
Foucault, M. 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Press.
Pennycook, A. 2004. Performativity and Language Studies. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies: An International Journal 1(1): 1-19.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER
Zoe Ziliak is a first-year PhD student in linguistics at the University of Florida. Her primary research interests are second language acquisition and sociolinguistics.
|