The Art of Engaging Boy Writers Mary J. Franco Dr. Kathleen Unrath

1 The Art of Engaging Boy Writers
Mary J. Franco
Dr. Kathleen Unrath, PhD
University of Missouri
2 The Art of Engaging Boy Writers
With whoops, whistles, grins, and ‘high fives,’ they cheered when they heard the news!
Forty-five members of a remedial writing club for boys were going on a field trip, but not to a
destination you’d expect to excite such a rough-and-tumble group. The adventure awaiting these
struggling boy writers was the opportunity to discuss, create, and write about art in a major
museum and they could hardly wait!
It all began with a feature article in a local newspaper about an exemplary principal
making time in an administrator’s busy day to engage a small group of K-5 boys in writing. He
was pursuing his objective through a “boys only” writing club that met each week during the
regular school day. Understanding the close relationship between motivation and student
achievement, the principal sought to make writing fun for the boys by conjuring make-believe
mysteries, dastardly demons, and mythical monsters for them to creatively solve and victoriously
subdue through their writing. “In the beginning,” he admitted, “the structure of the club
depended solely on my imagination and time. Most weeks, both were a challenge!” (Personal
communication, June 12, 2013). So, when we of the art education program at a major
Midwestern university proposed to assume weekly curriculum and instructional responsibilities
for the boy writers’ club and to study the impact of an arts-based intervention of our design, we
were warmly welcomed. From that serendipitous beginning, the research we describe herein was
seeded and grew.
The purpose of our qualitative study was to investigate how purposeful and substantive
visual art experiences might support the literacy learning of elementary-aged boys. The
overarching research question that guided this exploration was: What happens when Visual
3 Thinking Strategies (VTS) art discussions and related art-making are infused into a remedial
writing program for K-5 boys? Four sub-questions focused our investigation:
•
How do the K-5 boys respond when VTS dialogues initiate each writing club session?
•
What role does art making inspired by the VTS dialogues play in the literacy lessons?
•
What impact, if any, does a weekly VTS-art making-writing intervention have on the
boys’ writing?
•
If benefits of the intervention are observed, how might they be explained?
Introduction to Visual Thinking Strategies (VTS)
Before contextualizing our study with a discussion of boys as learners, the pedagogy at
the center of our investigation must be defined. “VTS” stands for Visual Thinking Strategies. It is
a constructivist instructional method grounded in extensive research by cognitive psychologist
Abigail Housen and veteran museum educator Philip Yenawine. It uses carefully sequenced
visual art images to engage learners in sustained looking, critical and creative thinking, and
effective communication within a collaborative group setting (Housen, 2001; Housen &
Yenawine, n.d.; Yenawine, 1998). VTS discussions are facilitated, not directed, by a trained
teacher who motivates inquiry with three “deceptively simple” (Housen, 2001, p. 15) questions.
•
What is going on in this picture [or artwork]?
•
What do you see that makes you say that?
•
What more can we find? (Housen, 2001; Housen & Yenawine, n.d.; Yenawine, 1998)
Because the VTS teacher maintains a neutral stance without contributing information or insight
to the dialogue as it unfolds, students must collaboratively construct meaning based upon their
observations, prior knowledge and experience, and the insights of their peers. As this occurs, the
simple yet robust VTS questioning sequence elicits high-order thinking, evidenced-based
4 reasoning, and respectful debate as students grapple to make sense of the complex image they are
viewing (Yenawine, 1998).
VTS is a form of dialogic teaching, an instructional approach that “harnesses the power
of talk” (Alexander, 2014, para. 1) to advance students’ learning. Dialogic teaching facilitates the
co-construction of knowledge as participants consider and contribute diverse perspectives to
group meaning-making. Due to its open-ended nature and cognitive rigor, dialogic teaching
draws upon and expands both the knowledge base and thinking capabilities of students while
fortifying their speaking and listening skills. Furthermore, as students’ perceptions,
understandings, and thinking become evident through dialogue, the approach permits the
identification of strengths and needs (Alexander, 2014) that written assessments may not reveal.
Understanding Boys as Literacy Learners
We prepared for the research by reviewing what has been written in recent years about
boy learners. The literature revealed that a troubling number of them struggle to achieve
academically in school, evidenced by lower standardized test scores, higher special education
referrals, greater dropout rates, and fewer college admissions when compared to girls (Fletcher,
2006; Gurian & Stevens, 2004; Tyre, 2008). Writing is an academic area of particular concern
(Fletcher, 2006). As demonstrated by the four most recent writing assessments administered to
8th grade students by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a 20-point
achievement gap between the sexes on a scale score of 300 persists, favoring girls (NCES,1998,
2002, 2007, 2011). This statistic suggests that current approaches to writing instruction may not
be addressing the needs or interests of boys.
Fletcher (2006) discussed boys’ lagging writing achievement at length, illuminating two
remedial strategies that supported our study design. First, he endorsed exclusive writing clubs for
5 boys as supportive physical and emotional spaces where boys’ preferred topics, kinesthetic
learning styles, and unique humor might be shared, understood and respected by peers. Secondly,
he recommended the integration of drawing into writing assignments; an activity he had found to
have a “calming, centering” (p. 126) effect on boys. Fletcher further noted that, when used as a
precursor to writing, drawing allowed his students to visually conceptualize, organize, and
develop narratives before writing began.
As evidenced by the abundance of male authors and academics, many boys do succeed in
literacy (Smith & Wilhelm, 2002). However, the reported failure of so many to meet
conventional achievement standards suggests that alternative approaches should be considered.
We posited that for struggling K-5 boy writers, emphasis on visual literacy through the acts of
viewing, responding, and visually representing during the pre-writing phase could constitute just
such an approach. By providing meaningful art activities as “motivational entry point[s]”
(Andrzejczak, Tranin, & Poldberg, 2005, p. 1) from which to imagine, develop, and elaborate
written narratives, we hoped to encourage the increased quality and quantity of student writing
observed by Andrzejczak et al. (2005), Norris et al. (1998), and Olshansky (2008) who had used
drawing to inspire student writing. We reasoned that the addition of student-centered dialogues
about compelling imagery and subsequent opportunities to respond to them in a variety of 2-D
and 3-D mediums would enrich our boys’ prewriting imaginings, visualizations, and elaborations
even more.
Designing & Implementing the Remediation
Acknowledging Cleveland’s (2011) admonition that “there is no magic, one-size-fits-allboys solution” (p. 2), we nonetheless envisioned a singular approach that would stimulate boys’
literacy achievement in ways that more common instructional approaches do not. With intra-
6 group heterogeneity in mind, it would meet the K-5 boys where they were cognitively and
developmentally, capitalize upon their interests and strengths, and empower them to overcome
their various deficiencies. Recognizing the visual as an essential 21st century literacy and the
capacity of art to “reach across all learning styles and intelligences to engage students of
different abilities” (Saraniero, n.d., para. 2), we believed that purposive visual art experiences
were well-suited to our participants and could effectively address their literacy needs.
The sequencing of our three-pronged instructional intervention was key. Weekly lessons
began with an 8- to 12-minute VTS discussion of a narrative-rich artwork selected to captivate
and intrigue young boys. An inspired art-making activity followed each art discussion,
prompting the students to visually capture and creatively elaborate upon ideas and narratives that
had emerged during the dialogue. We concluded each session by involving the boys in creative
and purposeful writing tasks that flowed organically from the VTS and art making components.
(In one instance, for example, the boys rendered elaborate treasure maps in response to their
VTS discussion of N. C. Wyeth’s “Absconding with the Treasure.” They then annotated the
maps with descriptive labels and explicit warning signs.) Although proper writing conventions
were not emphasized as part of the club curriculum, they were encouraged and we assisted the
boys with them upon request.
We implemented the weekly intervention in an emotionally supportive environment that
encouraged imagination, creativity, and humor while embracing the boys’ genuine natures. This
included acceptance of reasonable and authentically-emerging violence in the imagery and
writing the boys produced. Our permissiveness, balanced by common sense, was inspired again
by Fletcher (2006), who argued that allowing boys to explore aggression and conflict in their
writing:
7 •
Motivates engagement by acknowledging the genuine passions of boys
•
Establishes a safe venue for boys to grapple with male issues of danger and power
•
Provides opportunities for boys to bond with other boys through shared interests
Transmediation to Strengthen Learning
We structured the art-based intervention as a transmediational chain that would call upon
and strengthen multiple literacies in the boys. Transmediation is the reflective and generative
process through which meaning in one symbol system is translated into to another as the learner
invents a novel connection between sign systems (Siegel, 1995). Responding to an artwork with
poetry, for instance, exemplifies transmediation. The transmediated product is therefore more
than a simple representation of the initial stimulus but rather a creative interpretation of it that
offers an additional avenue for understanding and responding (Carey, 2012). Because
transmediation demands a high amount of invested mental effort or AIME (Salomon, 1984), the
learning that results is more profound and lasting (Sala, Simmons, Dujmusic, & Dulany, 2011;
Harste, 2014). We hypothesized that if transmediating content from one symbol system to
another strengthens learning, a transmediational series, as demonstrated in Figure 1, would
intensify learning even more.
8 Data Collection and Analysis
We collected thick descriptive data in multiple forms. First, Flipcam video captured the
weekly VTS dialogues, permitting detailed description and analysis of the boys’ comments,
actions, and interactions. Videos likewise recorded informal interviews with boys engaged in artmaking and writing activities. Dedicated blogs and photographs of the boys’ art and writing
products supplemented the video data and were discussed during regular peer debriefings.
Finally, we transcribed significant video segments for both verbal and non-verbal clues, and
coded the most intriguing sub-sections for salient themes. Through these investigative activities,
answers to our initial queries emerged.
Responses to VTS
The boys’ responded to the weekly VTS dialogues with high degrees of enthusiasm.
Their alacrity was evidenced by eager hand-raising, urgent hand-waving, and audible gasps
routinely exhibited as they anticipated the VTS questions, responded to peer responses, and vied
9 to interject their own ideas. Interestingly, the routinized use of VTS did not diminish this
attitudinal response as the research progressed but instead seemed to intensify it. In fact, we
witnessed instances in which early-arriving boys eagerly and independently initiated discussions
of the day’s featured image while awaiting the arrival of peers. This excited us as we reflected on
Gallaher’s (n.d.) statement that "reaching boys at an attitudinal level is a critical factor in
developing their actual achievement levels” (p. 2).
Active engagement was a second notable weekly response and was manifested in three
facets discussed by Reeve (2013): behaviorally, as focused attention and persistent effort to
construct meaning from the various works; emotionally, as genuine interest and eagerness to
participate in a rigorous process that was nonetheless within their grasp; and cognitively, through
the construction of grounded interpretations and the creative elaboration of ideas. Cognitive
engagement was further evidenced as boys accurately recalled and linked their own agreements
and disagreements with the comments of others. As with enthusiasm, no decline in active
engagement was witnessed over the research period. Instead, we observed a fascinating
tendency in the boys to continue discussing their observations with peers, graduate assistants,
and researchers after the formal VTS dialogues concluded. Disengaging from the discussion was
a far greater challenge for the boys than attending to it!
Role of Art Making
We anticipated, as Fletcher (2006) had observed, that the boys’ pre-writing art products
would serve as graphic organizers and catalysts for idea elaboration. Field observations revealed
that this had occurred. We furthermore expected that post-artmaking writings would contain
more words, sentences, and idea units as Norris, Mokhtari, and Reichard (1998) had found; this
was evidenced in our data as well. [See Figure 2]. What we didn’t predict was the important
10 relational role of art making during the club sessions or how the resulting sense of community
would support the K-5 boys as writers.
Figure 2
After discussing N.C. Wyeth’s painting, “The Giant,” and the bathing giant illustration from
“The Secret History of Giants” by Ari Berk, boys rendered giants and wrote “tall tales,”
averaging 115 words, 13 sentences, and 10 thought units.
Newkirk (cited in Smith & Wilhelm, 2002) explained that boys’ literacy is social in
nature and grows from relationships commonly formed as information and entertainment texts
are pursued and shared outside of school. In our study, relationships between boys and between
the boys and us blossomed at the art tables within the boy writers’ club. Shoulder-to-shoulder in
the interactional style preferred by males (Gurian, 2006), we discussed, collaborated, encouraged
one another, and laughed together as the boys’ wildest imaginings assumed visual forms. VTS 11 inspired art making established a creative environment, but also fostered supportive
relationships. This was demonstrated during whole group sharing when more reserved boys were
boisterously encouraged by chanting peers and when enthusiastic applause rewarded those who
overcame reticence to share their artworks.
Impact of the Art-Based Intervention on Writing
“Attitudes, beliefs, and emotions” (Harris, Schmidt, and Graham, 1997) strongly
influence students’ writing success. For those who struggle, negative self-efficacy beliefs which
result in low task engagement and failure to persist present major obstacles. Interestingly, these
were the same affective behavioral categories in which we saw the greatest gains for our K-5
boys. Self-Determination Theory (SDT) offered insight into why this may have occurred.
According to SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2014), conditions that satisfy innate human needs for
autonomy, competence, and relatedness “foster the most volitional and high quality forms of
motivation and engagement for activities, including enhanced performance, persistence, and
creativity” (para. 2). Weekly emphasis on visual literacy during the pre-writing phase provided
such optimal conditions. The open-ended, non-evaluative art discussions and making asked the
boys to utilize skills at which they were already proficient (Housen, 2001) – looking and
expressing their thoughts verbally and visually – thus satisfying their autonomy and competence
needs. Relatedness was provided for as well through club membership, abundant collaboration,
and whole-group sharing of art and writing products. The weekly regularity with which this
occurred instilled supportive learning dispositions –positive self-efficacy beliefs, high task
engagement, and willingness to persistence despite struggles. As our study progressed, these
externally-motivated behaviors increased noticeably and became increasingly self-determined.
12 Conclusion
We initiated the research as a one semester endeavor. Surprisingly, it lasted for five. Our
prolonged engagement was due to the boys’ expressed enjoyment of their weekly club
participation, teachers’ reports of improved motivation in the boys’ classroom writing, and our
own desires to more fully investigate our research question and sub-questions. When the study
did end, a generous grant made the final club meeting extraordinary as our forty-five club
graduates “VTSed” real art, responded with their own, and wrote about it in a major museum.
Our research found that purposeful and substantive visual art experiences can (and did)
support the literacy learning of K-5 boys. With emphasis on visual literacy in an environment
that embraced the boys’ authenticity and with a pedagogy attuned to their interests and needs,
our participants grew in all six language arts enumerated by the International Reading
Association and the National Council of Teachers of English (1996): reading, writing, speaking,
listening, viewing, and visually representing. Answers like these on the exit questionnaire
underscored our study’s success.
Question: What did you like least about the Boy Writers’ Club?
Bryson: I don’t like it when we miss Boy Writers’ Club.
Question: How do you feel about the VTS art discussions in Boy Writers’ Club?
Kellan: They help us with ideas. I think they are very very cool!
Question: On a scale of 1-10, how would you rate yourself as a writer right now?
Brendon: 10. I think I am really good at writing.
After five amazing semesters and on all accounts, we couldn’t agree more!
13 References
Alexander, R. J. (2014). Dialogic teaching. Retrieved from http://www.robinalexander.
org.uk/index.php/dialogic-teaching/
Andrzejczak, N., Trainin, G., & Poldberg, M. (2005). From image to text: Using images in the
writing process. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 6(12),p. 1-17
Carey, A. E. (2012). Transmediation and the transparent eye-ball: Approaching literature
through different ways of knowing. Lanugage Arts Journal of Michigan, 28(1), 13-18.
Cleveland, K. P. (2011). Teaching boys who struggle in school. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Deci, E. & Ryan, R. (2014). Self-determination Theory. Retrieved from
http://www.selfdeterminationtheory.org/ theory/
Fletcher, R. (2006). Boy writers: Reclaiming their voices. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers
Gallagher, M. J. (n.d.). Engaging boys: Powerful possibilities for all learners.
The Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat [Multimedia resource]. Retrieved from
http://www.curriculum.org/secretariat/engaging/files/EngagingBoysGuide.pdf
Gurian, M. (2006). The wonder of boys. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Gurian, M. & Stevens, K. (2004, November). With boys and girls in mind. Educational
Leadership, 62(3), 21-26.
Harris, K. R., Schmidt, T. & Graham, S. (1997). Strategies for composition and self-regulation in
the writing process. LD Online. Retrieved from http://www.ldonline.org/article/6207/
Harste, J. C. (2014). Transmediation: What art affords our understanding of literacy.
Retrieved from http://jeromeharste.com/recent-publications/
Housen, A. (2001, September). Eye of the beholder: Research, theory, and practice. Retrieved
from www.vtshome.org/system/resources/oooo/ooot/Eye-of-the-Beholder.pdf
Housen, A. & Yenwine, P. (n.d.). Visual Thinking Strategies: Understanding the basics.
14 Retrieved from http://vtshome.org/research/articles-other-readings
International Reading Association & National Council for Teachers of English, (1996).
Standards for the English Language Arts. Retrieved from
http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Books/Sample/StandardsDoc.pdf
Norris, E., Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. (1998). Children’s use of drawing as a prewriting
strategy. Journal of Research in Reading, 21(1), 69-74.
Olshansky, B. (2008). The Power of Pictures. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for
themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology,
105(3), 579-595.
Sala, B., Simmons, M., Dujmusic, M., & Dulany, M. (2011). Transmediation in the classroom:
How it can benefit students. Retrieved from http://www.ed.psu.edu/ci/cirt/theses/salasimmons-dujmusic-dulany.pdf
Salomon, G. (1984). Television is “easy” and print is “tough”: The differential investment of
mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attributions. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76(4), 647-658.
Saraniero, P. (n.d.). New paths to learning. ArtsEdge. Retrieved from https://artsedge.kennedycenter.org/educators/how-to/from-theory-to-practice/differentiation
Siegel, M. (1995). More than words: The generative power of transmediation for learning.
Canadian Journal of Education, 20(4), 455-475.
Smith, M. W. & Wilhelm, J. D. (2002). Reading don’t fix no Chevys: Literacy in the lives of
young men. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Tyre, P. (2008). The Trouble with Boys. New York, NY: Random House.
15 Yenawine, P. (1998, Autumn). Visual art and student centered discussions. Theory Into
Practice. Retrieved from http://vtshome.org/research/articles-other-readings