Elementary girls' science reading at home and school

Elementary Girls’ Science Reading at Home and School DANIELLE J. FORD, NANCY W. BRICKHOUSE, PAMELA LOTTERO-PERDUE, JULIE KITTLESON School of Education, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA Received 21 May 2004; revised 18 May 2005; accepted 15 July 2005 DOI 10.1002/sce.20139 Published online 7 February 2006 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). ABSTRACT: Although reading is a critical part of science and science learning, it is no longer a part of many children’s elementary science instruction. This is of concern because girls often develop strong identities as readers, but do not develop scientific identities with ease. In this study, we investigate girls’ science reading to know (1) if science books were available to girls in homes and classrooms, (2) if girls were choosing to read them, and (3) what influences their choices. Forty-five third-grade girls, 29 of their families, and three of their teachers were interviewed to ascertain girls’ preferences among various book genres, as well as to learn the ways in which families and teachers influence the choices girls make. We found that girls had access to science books at school, and teachers had strategies to encourage reading them. At home, parents encouraged reading, but were generally less directive than teachers as to what the girls read, and underestimated their daughters’ science-related interests. The families studied rely largely on major bookstores as their primary source of books. Our findings suggest we need to understand better the way gender influences girls’ engagement with science in a variety of contexts, particularly C 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 90:270 – 288, 2006 those in which girls exercise choice.  INTRODUCTION Reading is an important part of science, and an important part of science learning (Norris & Phillips, 2003; Yore, Bisanz, & Hand, 2003). Outside of school, people are far more likely to engage in science by reading/writing/listening/talking about it than they are by engaging in first-hand scientific investigation. The assumption that either scientists or science learners can learn all science first-hand is an empiricist notion that distorts the role of theory in science (Brickhouse et al., 2004). The nature of the evidence used in scientific inquiry is driven by the models and theories scientists use. These scientific ideas are not embedded in nature to be discovered; they are cultural accomplishments that transcend accumulated data and can Correspondence to: Danielle J. Ford; e-mail: [email protected] Contract grant sponsor: National Science Foundation. Contract grant number: HRD 0217144. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.  C 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. ELEMENTARY GIRLS’ SCIENCE READING 271 only be engaged in by students via language (Driver et al., 1994). As Norris and Phillips (2003) persuasively argued, science could not exist without a written language that could be used to record and disseminate ideas in ways that to allow them to be tested, elaborated, and at times refuted. While language-based activities such as talking have often been considered critical in science learning, the place of written texts has been far less explored. Too often people have associated reading in science with the use of poor quality textbooks. Use of such books leads to reading for superficial factual content with little explanation or understanding (Kesidou & Roseman, 2002), much less critical analysis. Textbooks typically rely on an expository format and may not be used in ways that encourage the kinds of dispositions and skills of inquiry that are essential to scientific literacy (Kesidou & Roseman, 2002; Newport, 1990). Educators and writers of curriculum materials offer inquiry as an antidote to textbookbased instruction, which can result in science instruction that excludes written texts. While models of inquiry strongly advocate the use of written text resources as a component of scientific investigation (NRC, 1996; Schwab, 1978), classroom practice that relies on commercially available science units may be lacking in opportunities for quality science reading experiences for all learners (Brickhouse et al., 2004). While this state of affairs may be harmful to all learners, it is perhaps particularly harmful for learners who do not read science texts by choice. The omission of written texts in science instruction may be particularly detrimental to girls. Throughout their school lives, girls are consistently strong readers, and outperform boys on measures of reading achievement (AAUW/NEA, 1998; Hedges & Nowell, 1995; Young & Brozo, 2001). Without the inclusion of reading in activity-based science, classroom science instruction may be lacking an important entry point for girls’ engagement with scientific ideas. The introduction of girl friendly written text experiences into inquiry-based science, however, is not straightforward. Although girls are avid readers, their preferences in reading consistently are for fiction (Barrs & Pidgeon, 1994). Why do girls choose not to read science books? One reason could be simply a lack of exposure to science books. Most literacy experiences throughout school, but especially in the early grades, are fiction experiences (Barrs & Pidgeon, 1994; Duke, 2000; Flood & Lapp, 1990; Hedges & Nowell, 1995). As those experiences are determined by elementary teachers (who are predominately White women), girls’ preferences for fiction may be part of a gendered identity modeled after the preferences of their mothers and mostly female teachers. Another reason girls do not read informational science books may be that they are under the impression that all science books are similar to textbooks. If the few science books that girls are encountering are in the style of textbooks, they may find the idea of reading science books unappealing. There are other science books, including science trade books, that encompass a wide range of literary genres, content emphases, and writing styles. In this study, we define science books broadly, including books with science themes that span a range of genres and content areas. We use the classification scheme developed by Ford (2004) to illustrate the broad categories. These include the numerous informational books that include established scientific facts, but also books that include collections of science experiments, books about geography and travel, books that profile scientists or the history of science, artistic and poetic books that model nature appreciation, and fiction books with science, nature, or animal themes. Some of these science books are much closer to the fiction and narrative genres and life science topics reported as preferred by girls (Adamson et al., 1998; Andre et al., 1999), including hybrid books that mix narrative and expository genres (Smolkin & Donovan, 2004). Distinctions among these types of science books are often lost in studies of girls’ book preferences that have primarily reported on 272 FORD ET AL. girls’ opinions about the singular category of “science” books. A deeper investigation into girls’ reading, with special focus on their science reading and preferences, and the ways in which they define which books fall under the category of science, may provide insights into the ways in which these preferences shape and are shaped by gendered reading identities in science. GENDERED IDENTITIES IN SCIENCE AND LITERACY Girls’ reading in science should be understood in light of the fact that both reading and science are gendered discourses. By discourses we mean ways of thinking, valuing, talking, and acting that are used by communities in their activities (Gee, 1999). The way that girls read (or do not read) and the way that they engage in science (or choose not to) are discourses that are used by girls in forming identities, that is, in gaining the competencies that they need in order for others to recognize them as being a particular kind of girl, belonging to certain communities. Girls have multiple identities that they may take on in different contexts in order to be a part of desired groups (Brickhouse, 2001). Girls, particularly young girls, often construct identities as strong readers and writers. Although there are many possible reasons why girls successfully construct identities as strong readers, it seems important to understand the ways in which their successes are consistent with the successes of their mothers and female teachers. Reading is a powerful way in which girls become young women (Cherland, 1994). Girls and women often find reading a pleasure. This pleasure often comes from the ways in which literature allows them to relate to fictional characters and to understand how their lives are experienced. Girls, like women, often cite strong preferences for reading fiction (Barrs & Pidgeon, 1994). They see this preference modeled for them by their mothers and (mostly female) teachers (Cherland, 1994). And of course, the gendered activity of attending to the social and emotional needs of others throughout the day is an activity that girls gain competence in at very young ages (Dyson, 1997; Thorne, 1993). Girls do not construct scientific identities with such ease (Brickhouse, 2001). Scientific discourses are stereotyped as masculine, typically requiring values that are at odds with traditional feminine values. Although young girls often do well in science in the early grades, as they mature they often separate themselves from the sciences, particularly the “hard” sciences such as physical science, computer science, and engineering. Girls’ loss of interest in the sciences can be seen in the preferences of girls in their reading selections. They may love reading, and they may love school science, but they do not typically choose to read science. Science books are more typically regarded as “boys’ books” (Dutro, 2001– 2002). Thus, the conflicting discourses of science and literacy led us to wonder about what kinds of contexts may facilitate girls’ reading of science books. We are interested in how classroom and home contexts shape girls’ reading of science books. Do the (mostly female) models of reading that girls see in these contexts influence their own identity construction regarding the value of science books? We also wondered whether certain kinds of science books may be more congruent with young girls’ gendered identities. For example, much expository text reinforces masculine scientific values because information is presented in a style that makes it appear as though science is very much separate from social/emotional influences. Thus, we were interested if girls would show interest in other genres, such as informational-narrative texts, where scientific information is presented in narrative formats, or hybrid texts, with distinct but related narrative and expository sections. In this study, we report on our investigation into 8 – 9-year-old girls’ science reading. We wanted to find out (1) if science books were available to children in homes and classrooms, ELEMENTARY GIRLS’ SCIENCE READING 273 (2) if girls were choosing to read the books, and (3) what influences whether or not they read science books. METHOD Participants Participants in this study are 45 third-grade girls and the family members of 29 of the girls from 6 classrooms in a school district in the Eastern United States. Four of the classroom teachers were participants in our study on literacy and science funded by the National Science Foundation. We invited all girls in the four classrooms to participate, and interviewed all girls and their families who consented to be a part of this study. To obtain additional family interviews, we solicited participants from two additional third-grade classrooms in the same school district, and interviewed both the girls and their families. We thanked the families for their time by giving their daughters a free science book. No classroom data were collected from these additional classrooms. The three schools that the girls attend serve students from suburban and urban communities. Students who live in the urban communities are bussed to the schools that are located in the suburban areas. In these classrooms, the girls are 64% White, 24% African American, 8% Asian/Asian American, 2% Latina, and 2% multiethnic (White/Asian American). The subset of girls whose parents were interviewed was more homogeneous than the schools from which they are drawn. The girls whose families were interviewed were 74% White, 11% African American, 9% Asian/Asian American, 3% Latina, and 3% multiethnic (White/Asian American) and from suburban communities. We offered to interview families at their homes, their child’s school, or the local McDonald’s. About half chose to be interviewed at the school. The other half chose to be interviewed at home. We were unable to obtain permission to interview many of the families, but especially from the urban African American girls. Although we obviously did not have access to these families to ask why they did not consent to the interview, we surmise that since the request came to parents from the school, our project was perceived as part of a school that is not integrally a part of their home communities. For prior research, we have been effective in soliciting the participation of middle school African American girls because the girls wanted to be a part of the project and lobbied their parents to sign the consent form. Third graders may not have lobbied as hard or cared as much as middle schoolers. Also, the offer for a free book may not have been seen as enough of an incentive for the hassle of arranging time to talk to a researcher. Data Sources Student Interviews. The girls were interviewed individually about their preferences for reading, and their views on science and science books in school (see Table 1 for interview topics). Interviews were conducted in the schools, audiotaped, and lasted on average 50 min. The interview consisted of three sections. In the first section, the girls were asked if they liked or did not like 14 genres of books (e.g., animal books, joke books, history books, fiction), and to provide examples of books they had read recently in the genres they liked. This discussion lasted approximately 15 min. The second section involved questions about home and school reading, asking girls to characterize the types and amount of reading conducted in the home and school environments. This part of the interview lasted approximately 10 min. In the final segment of the interview, a read-aloud with the girls was conducted. In this segment of the interview, we wished to examine girls’ preferences among different 274 FORD ET AL. TABLE 1 Overview of the Student Interview Protocol Interview Topic Selected Protocol Questions General book preferences, genre preferences What books do you like to read? Do you like to read [list genres]? Are there some books you don’t like reading? What books do your friends read? Do you like to read books at home? Does someone at home read to you? What kind of books do you read in school? Where do you get the books you read in school? Why do you think your teacher has you read these books? Introduce four books Child picks order to read After all four are read – which would you like to read most? – which would your teacher want you to read? – which would your teacher enjoy most? Reading influences Read aloud subgenres (Ford, 2004) of science books. We chose four books on the same science topic that represented four different subgenres: informational-narrative, fiction, informationalexpository, and experiment. We had the girls choose the order in which they wanted to read from the books, then read each and discussed the girls’ reactions to the books. Follow-up questions on their preferences were asked (see Table 1). Family Interviews. Twenty-nine of these girls and their families participated in a second interview (see Table 2), conducted in either the girls’ homes or at the girls’ schools. These interviews lasted on average 40 min and were audiotaped. Present at the interviews were the interviewer (a member of the research team), the third-grade girl, and one of her parents/guardians (occasionally both). Siblings were frequently present in the house, but were not formally interviewed. In these interviews, major topics included the parents’ perspectives on their daughter’s reading habits and choices, the ways in which the family obtains books, and the reading habits and interests of the other family members, such as parents and siblings. Teacher and Classroom Information. Additional information on school science read- ing was provided the four classroom teachers who were engaged in a 3-year National Science Foundation funded project on girls and science literacy. The study took place in what could be considered exemplary settings, as science reading was the central focus of the study. The teachers in this study were not typical. They had extensive experience and interest in issues of literacy and science. Three of the four teachers have over 25 years of experience, two hold National Board Certification, and one holds an Ed.D. in curriculum and instruction, with a specialization in literacy. Though the teachers did not make any changes to their science instruction during data collection, their awareness of the goals of the study may have had an impact. Their classrooms were likely more science literacy oriented than typical elementary classrooms (cf., Duke, 2000). During focused planning discussions, the teachers examined their own practices to determine the ways in which they encouraged girls to read science books. The teachers were also interviewed as a part of the ELEMENTARY GIRLS’ SCIENCE READING 275 TABLE 2 Overview of the Family Interview Protocol Interview Topic Protocol Questions Daughter’s home reading habits as reported by parent/guardian Does your daughter have a lot of free time to read? When she reads, what kinds of books does she read? Does she usually read independently or does she read with you or someone else in your home? Are there some books that your daughter likes that you do not? Are there books that you love that you can’t get your daughter interested in? Where do you (or your daughter) get the books she reads? Who chooses the books? Do you have time to read for pleasure? If so, what do you read? Do you recall reading for fun as a child? If so, what do you remember reading? Do you have a job in addition to parenting? If so, do you read for work? If so, what do you read for work? Are there other children living in the home? Do they enjoy reading for pleasure? Do they read similar books as your daughter? Obtaining books Parent/guardian reading habits Sibling reading habits project to discuss their girls’ reading and science interests. The interviews lasted between 45 and 120 min. All interviews were conducted by a member of the research team and audiotaped. The classrooms of these four teachers were observed a total of 25 times during both science and literacy instruction. Field notes from these observations were a source of information about science books in the classroom and school library. Analysis The interviews were transcribed, then analyzed using an iterative process (Cresswell, 1997) in which broad themes on the availability of text, direct and indirect influences on girls’ reading choices, and preferences for reading by girls and their family members were refined through close reading and re-reading of the interviews, and revision of subthemes found in the data. The initial coding of interviews was driven by the structure of the interviews as well as impressions recorded in notes by the interviewers. In developing the theme of “influence,” for example, we started with the broad categories of people and resources mentioned in relation to reading, combined with interviewers’ notes on the potential importance in particular of brothers and mothers in determining reading practices. Further reading of the interview data necessitated the restructuring of the coding system into influence and availability, as both were seen as constructing the underlying relationships between people/resources and the girls’ reading practices. In this way, we further refined our subthemes. These themes and subthemes are represented in Table 3. We split the data into home and school interviews; pairs of researchers analyzed and developed major themes for each set of interviews. In 276 FORD ET AL. TABLE 3 Emergent Themes Theme Subthemes Informants Access/availability of books Availability of science books in home and school Sources of books Reasons for reading science books in school/at home Interest in science books Subgenre preferences People/activities that influence book reading, science book reading Girls Teachers Parents Girls Parents Preference/interest Influences Parents Teachers addition, each pair recorded questions to ask of the other data set in order to identify themes that crossed the student and family data. The four researchers met to discuss all themes, reconcile discrepant information, and check hypotheses with the other data set. After major themes were developed, two researchers (one from each analysis pair) identified two data sources to illustrate themes. First, quotes from participants were selected that were representative of the themes in the paper, that showed the range of responses to various questions, or that illustrated exceptions to the general trends. Second, points within the data that could provide quantitative support for the themes developed through iterative readings were also identified. These points in the interviews included counts of the following responses: student and parent book sources, students’ stated book genre preferences, parents’ reports of their daughters reading interests, and parents’ reports of their reading interests. The two researchers tallied the responses for each of these topics to obtain the data reported in Tables 4 – 8. RESULTS In this section, we discuss three major themes in girls’ science reading found across our data sources: the availability of science books in girls’ home and school environments, the preferences girls exhibit for books in general, and science books in particular, and the various influences on girls’ reading choices. Availability of Science Books Our first question was directed toward understanding if girls have access to science books in their day-to-day experiences. We found that science books are present in these girls’ lives in and out of school, with varying degrees of accessibility. School. All the girls in the study had access to science books at school, both in their classrooms and in their school libraries. Science books available at school included: (1) books included in teacher-organized tubs, bins, or baskets that children accessed for selfselected reading (SSR), including books linked to the science unit being taught and other science books; (2) prominent displays of science books on a shelf, table, or chalkboard, generally directly relevant to science instruction; and (3) school libraries, where science books could be found on three to four sections of bookcases. ELEMENTARY GIRLS’ SCIENCE READING 277 The teachers reported concerted effort to get students to read a variety of genres, including science books. Their suggestions for supporting reading as a part of children’s science learning focused prominently on integration of science themes into literacy activities, as the demands on their curriculum coverage, particularly in the areas measured by high stakes testing (i.e., reading, writing, mathematics), dominate their everyday teaching concerns. The primary method of integration across reading and science was to include science-themed nonfiction in the book selections available to students during free-choice reading times. All six teachers dedicated a portion of their day (generally 30 min) to self-selected reading, during which children read silently to themselves. During SSR, the children were allowed restricted choices of reading materials. If students brought a book from home, they could read that book. However, we noted from field observations that the majority of students chose instead to read books from “tubs” or “bins” placed on their desks or in the classroom. Each of the teachers controlled the selection of books in the bins, rotating them about every week. Teachers selected approximately 8 – 10 books for each bin, including a range of fiction and nonfiction genres across a variety of topical themes (e.g., holiday books near Thanksgiving, human body books during a human body unit, and biographies of prominent Americans during a related social studies unit). The source of their bin books was their own trade book collections, obtained through external grants or the teachers’ own funds. These collections were present in the classrooms, but not directly accessible to children (except when placed in the bins). Teachers reported that they always had a selection of science books available in the bins, and this was confirmed by field observations, where we noted generally one to three science books in each bin for the teachers who distributed bins to their students, or a selection of science books in a single bin for the teacher who dedicated each of her bins to different genres. The teachers’ science instruction used kit-based curricula, for which they had undergone considerable district-sponsored training. These kits are commercially available and are driven by first-hand investigations. During science instruction in the four classrooms that were observed, we noticed isolated uses of books. For example, during a unit on earth materials (Full Option Science System, 2000), all four study teachers read aloud books such as Everybody Needs a Rock (Baylor, 1985) to introduce the unit, or books such as Pebble in My Pocket (Hooper, 1996) as curricular extensions. Additional trade books on rocks and minerals were placed prominently on the classroom chalk tray or in bins. In contrast, during a unit on chemical tests (Science and Technology for Children, 2002), no additional books were used. The girls’ responses during interviews confirmed that their classroom reading selections came primarily from their teachers. When asked where they get the books they read in school, girls cited the bins most often (83%). Other major sources of school-read books were home (17%), and books borrowed from the school library (15%) (see Table 4). Home. The girls in the study whose families we interviewed had access to many different kinds of books at home. Where do books in the girls’ homes come from? Parents reported overwhelmingly that they get the books their daughters read from large bookstores (90%). Other important sources include libraries (52% reported public library, 24% reported school library, and 17% reported library without specifying) and schoolbook orders (24%) or book fairs (7%). There was overlap in the categories; 16 families cited both bookstores and libraries as their sources, 7 families reported bookstores as their sole source of books, and 5 families reported libraries as their sole source of books. The availability of science books within stores and libraries, however, varies widely. To better understand the range of science books available at these resources, we visited the two local bookstores frequently 278 FORD ET AL. TABLE 4 Sources for Girls’ Books. Reported in Percentages of Informants Who Mentioned the Source Source School Reading (Reported by Girls) Home Reading (Reported by Parents) 4 6 15 0 0 0 17 83 90 52 24 17 24 7 n/a 0 Book stores Public library School library Library, unspecified Book orders Book fairs Home Teacher provided (bins) mentioned by girls and their parents and a local public library to assess the types of science books available (see Table 5). We counted the numbers of books in each store and the library, dividing them into general science content areas. In all three locations, life science topics dominate the collections. For the two bookstores, the collections are even higher in life science titles, at the expense of physical and or/earth science titles. The bookstores have fewer science books than libraries, the books are all only recent or still in print publications, and they place their science books off in corners in the children’s sections with nonstandard organization (in contrast to the library, which used the Dewey decimal system). In the Barnes and Noble store, only three shelving sections held books, and they were labeled “Science/Nature,” “Eyewitness,” and “Dinosaurs.” In Borders, there were no shelf labels. Category information was found on harder to read book dividers, including the topics “Science,” “Nature,” “Animals,” “Pets,” “Dinos,” “Transportation,” and “Children’s Health.” One family expressed frustration at this organization: I: Where do you get the books? Carrie’s Mom: Borders and Barnes and Noble. . . I kind of gave her free range to find books and she didn’t find a whole lot that interested her. I: Sometimes it’s a little overwhelming in those stores. . . Do you go to a library? Carrie: Yeah, we used to. I: Do you find books there at the library? TABLE 5 Science Books Available at Bookstores and Libraries by Science Content Area Science Content Barnes and Noble (n = 856) Borders (n = 469) Public Library (n = 1423) Life science Space science Earth science Physical science General science Technology 72% 10% 5% 1% 4% 8% 63% 10% 10% 2% 12% 3% 57% 11% 6% 4% 6% 15% ELEMENTARY GIRLS’ SCIENCE READING 279 Carrie’s Mom: Actually we do have better luck. Carrie: It’s easy because it has bigger shelves. Carrie’s Mom: Much more organized. In summary, girls do have science books available to read, but the range of books available depends on what the girls’ teachers provide in the classroom as well as the places from which their families get books. There were science books available in all of the classrooms, and in all of the school libraries. Our field notes documented that on library days, children had plenty of science books to choose from. The 52% of families that reported visits to a public library would also have good access to science books. For the 90% of families for whom bookstores were a source of books, there are science books present in the stores, though they represent a narrower range of topics than found in the school setting, are a smaller percentage of the book choices available, and are generally harder to access. Therefore, for all the girls in this study, a range of science books are available to them, most immediately in school, but also for those who frequent public libraries. Since we know that girls do have science books within the range of books they are exposed to, we also wished to see if they were given the opportunity to choose the books they read, which books they would select. Girls’ Preferences and Choices During the student interviews, we asked the girls if they liked or did not like certain genres of books (from a predetermined list of genres appropriate for third grade), and to give us an example of a book they liked in the genre. Their responses are shown in Table 6. We found that these third-grade girls tended to like almost everything we suggested (at least somewhat). The major exceptions were sports, comic books, and encyclopedias. Overall, with the exception of animal books (discussed below), the genres most frequently cited as being liked by girls fall under the general category of fiction (funny stories, magical stories, jokes, and mysteries). The third-grade girls in this study enjoy humor, as seen in the TABLE 6 Girls’ Reading Genre Preferences Genre Animals Funny books Fairy tales/magic Joke books Mysteries Poetry Magazines Biographies Science books History Internet Sports Comic books Encyclopedias Percentage of Girls Reporting That They “Like” This Genre 88 83 73 71 69 54 50 50 46 44 42 29 25 21 280 FORD ET AL. numbers for funny books (e.g., Junie B. Jones and Captain Underpants) and joke books. Fairy tales/magic was a popular category as well, particularly as the second Harry Potter movie was about to be released when the interviews were conducted. A taste for mysteries was also present. The girls’ examples within these genres represent popular children’s series and authors: A Series of Unfortunate Events, Harry Potter, Magic Tree House, American Girl, and Mary Kate and Ashley were mentioned more than once. The genre most frequently liked by the girls was animals, a nonfiction genre. Eighty-eight percent of the girls reported that they liked animal books. An intriguing result from this preference data is the different perceptions of books about animals and books about science. We had assumed in the interviews that girls would perceive animals as a subset of science books. However, they made clear distinctions between the two types of books, as seen in the strong favoring of animal books and the dislike of science books. While the genre of “animals” can include fictional stories about anthropomorphized animals, only four of the girls interpreted the genre in this way. The other 41 were referring to nonfiction books about animals. These girls clearly enjoy reading and learning about a variety of animals. While few girls mentioned titles of books, they all mentioned animal topics that they recently had been interested in reading. Several girls were interested in reading books about their pets, especially cats, dogs, and horses. We noticed in field observations that one girl checked out a stack of hamster books from the school library. Other girls were interested in learning about wild animals, for example, “Dogs, leopards, cats, frogs, [and] lions. All kinds of lions.” Twelve of the girls mentioned an interest in animal books even before they were prompted by genre. We opened the interviews with the question “what kinds of books do you like to read?” These 12 girls mentioned animal books in their initial responses. One girl declared “I love animals. . . I have a book about baby animals.” Another girl stated that she also “loves books about animals. I have tons. . . . I want to be anything [career wise] that includes animals.” In contrast, science was less frequently cited as a category of books that the girls liked to read. Only 46% of girls responded that they liked to read science books. They had trouble naming titles in this category, most often naming specific content topics instead (e.g., human body, rocks and minerals), or specific instances of reading in science class, such as read-alouds led by their teacher, as the titles they “liked” to read, rather than books they had read on their own. In the family interviews, parents reported girls’ interests in science books as lower than the girls themselves reported (see Table 7). In these self-reported data, we divided mentions of animal and science books (the parents did not make this distinction). Twenty-seven percent of parents reported that their daughters were very interested or interested in animal books, and 21% of parents reported their daughters were interested in science books. This TABLE 7 Girls’ Interests in Fiction, Science, and Animal Books, as Reported by Girls and by Families. Data from the Subset of Girls Whose Families Were Also Interviewed (n = 29) Genre Fiction Animal Science Girls’ Reported Interest (Percentage of Girls Indicating Interest) Parents’ Report of Their Daughters’ Interests (Percentage of Girls) 100 86 48 100 27 21 ELEMENTARY GIRLS’ SCIENCE READING 281 is in contrast to 100% of parents mentioning that their daughters were interested or very interested in fiction books. While these data give us information about the girls’ general genre preferences, we were also interested to find out if they favored certain science book writing styles and subgenres over others. The emergence of enjoyment of the Magic Tree House series (fictional stories about children who investigate science and history topics), as well as the distinction in children’s thinking between animal and science books, supports our desire to study writing style and genre. To investigate possible preferences within science subgenres, we conducted a read-aloud during the student interview, asking the girls to comment on four books on the same content, but with different subgenres (fiction, informational-narrative, informationalexpository, and experiment). The fiction book, Hill of Fire (Lewis, 1971), told the story of a boy who witnesses the eruption of a Mexican volcano. Volcano (Branley, 1986),the informational-expository book, included a passage about plate movements, underwater volcanoes, and geologists. The informational-narrative text, Dear Katie, the Volcano is a Girl (George, 1998), contrasted a granddaughter’s mythological and her grandmother’s geological explanations of volcanic activity in Hawaii. Volcano! (Hadich, 2001) provided experiments to model volcanic eruptions. After reading a passage from each of the books, girls said they preferred the informational-narrative book (43%) over the experiment book (30%), the fiction book (15%) and the informational-expository book (6%). Six percent had no preference. In contrast, when the girls were asked which books their teachers would want them to read, they chose the experiment book (33%) and the informational-expository book (33%) over the informational-narrative book (13%) or the fiction book (11%). How did the girls justify their choices? While there are many factors involved in book preferences, the girls’ comments about their preferences reveal their attention to issues of science ideas as well as story and illustration. One girl, who preferred the informationalnarrative text, explained her choice: “because I think this is mostly learning and fun... I like them if they are both.” Another said, “I want to find out what happens after the grandma says volcanoes made Hawaii, and then the girl says Pele made Hawaii.” One girl was interested in the illustrations of “[the girl] picture in the cloud. I like that.” Students who chose the experiment book explained that they “like doing experiments” and because “it gives me ideas for what I can do.” One girl felt the opposite. Because she “doesn’t like doing experiments,” she ranked this book last. Another girl did not like the experiment book because she felt it was beneath her reading level: “It doesn’t have much writing on each page and it has a very big space between lines.” The fictional story appealed to some girls because it was “funny but also scary” and because “I want to find out what the mystery was.” Others considered the fictional book too babyish. The least favorite book, the expository text, was unappealing because it was “kind of boring. . . I already knew all the information in it,” though for a few students the ideas, if not the text itself, were interesting. One girl was interested in learning about “facts about the earth and minerals in there and the layers of the earth.” In summary, the majority of girls in this study enjoy books about animals, while fewer than half report that they like science books. Of the books read aloud during the interviews, girls preferred the informational-narrative genre over the books they felt their teachers would want them to read (informational-expository and experiment books). They chose those books for both science and literary reasons. Although this study does not control for the range of factors (e.g., reading level, stereotyped title, attractive illustrations) that might have influenced the girls’ preference for the informational-narrative book, the girls’ reasons for their preference at least suggest what features in books might be attractive to girls, and are in alignment with the literature that shows girls prefer fiction or narrative genres (Cherland, 1994). What other factors might influence girls’ decision to read (or not) science books? 282 FORD ET AL. Influences on Girls’ Science Reading Adult Influences. The students themselves are very aware that their teachers want them to read, and read well, as expressed by one of the students: Adrienne: I think that [the teacher] chooses books, specific books for us to read so we can get the things in our head and so we can get smarter for tests... While studies have shown that nonfiction texts are infrequently found in the classroom setting (e.g., Duke, 2000), the teachers in this study exposed students to science books through inclusion of books in the bins, and through read-alouds and extensions concurrent with science investigations. They used a variety of techniques to get students, and girls in particular, interested in reading science books. Ms. Green described the technique she calls “blessing” of the book: “I read part of a book in class, show enthusiasm for it, then place it in the tubs for selection. This is particularly influential on the girls, who immediately want to read the books that I have ‘blessed.”’ These methods are used to expose children to a variety of genres, including science informational books. However, even when teachers give girls opportunities to read science books, and make it nearly impossible to avoid the books altogether, they do not require students to read science books. Any girl who did not wish to read science books would have been able to avoid them. Parents were less attuned to genre in their emphasis on the benefits of reading. Several parents stated that their goal was to encourage their daughters to read. One mother stated: “as long as she is reading, I am happy.” Most of the parents (86%) allow their daughters’ preferences to guide their choices: Rama’s father: I mean, it depends on her. Whatever she likes, seeing her interest and I’m going to encourage her. I don’t want to impose something if I like science . . . whatever I wanted, I got for her. Mostly like family books and story books. Wherever I go I see stuff I get for her. Rama’s father came from a “science family” and was interested in science himself, but did not want to impose this on his daughter. Some parents did try to influence their daughters to read some things or avoid others. Parents reported that they wanted their daughters to read more: informational texts (7% of parents); classics (14%); or specific fiction titles such as Nancy Drew or the Box Car Children (21%). One fifth of the parents explicitly reported that they wanted their daughters to avoid poor quality books (e.g., Power Puff Girls), easy books (e.g., Scooby Doo), or books with mature themes (e.g., Babysitters Club). Deepah’s mother, who was a science teacher in India, wanted her daughters to read more nonfiction books, as did Flo’s mother (though they did not specify science books). A number of mothers wished that their daughters would read more of the classics, including Black Beauty, Little Women, Amelia Bedelia, The Little Princess, Little House on the Prairie, and The Secret Garden, titles that the mothers recalled fondly from their own childhood reading experiences. This was true in the case of Niki, one of the girls we interviewed who read mostly nonfiction. Her father, who has a doctorate in engineering, wished that she would read more classics in addition to her voracious appetite for nonfiction books. We also asked parents about their own reading interests. Mothers’ reading preferences are reported in Table 8 (we had few fathers report their reading preferences). Our data support Cherland’s (1994) findings of women’s preferences for fiction. ELEMENTARY GIRLS’ SCIENCE READING 283 TABLE 8 Mothers’ Reading Interests (Percentages Reported for Each Genre) Genre Percent reporting interest (n = 28) Fiction Magazine/newspaper Cookbooks Internet/email Work brought home Nonfiction Bible Do not read/no time 79 66 28 24 14 10 3 7 Sibling Influences. Throughout the family interviews, distinctions between what daugh- ters read and what sons read emerged. For the 14 girls who had brothers (10 had only brothers), we found that parents/daughters sometimes commented on their sons’/brothers’ interest in science books in contrast to their own interests. One of the girls in the study who also participated in a summer science book club wrote the following dedication in her book club journal: “Dedicated to . . . my brother, because I know he would love to read these books.” This was not an uncommon “spontaneous” suggestion by girls or their parents that science books would be/are enjoyed or appreciated by brothers. The presence of brothers for some girls meant that there were science books available in the home to read, as many of these brothers were interested in science. For example, one mother shared: “Well, we have a lot of science books around the house, but that’s because that’s what my son enjoys. I don’t know how much the girls pick them up.” During the interview, this daughter surprised her mother when she shared that she liked her brother’s experiment books. One mother mentioned purchasing all of the Magic School Bus books for her 14-year-old son. In a statement about her children’s interests, another mother aligned her interests with her daughter and in contrast to her sons: I: Are there some books that your daughter likes that you don’t care for? Kathy’s mother: I don’t think so. I wouldn’t say the same thing about my boys. Seventeen of the girls in the study had one or more sisters; 13 of these girls only had sisters. In homes with only daughters, parents mentioned that their children tended to share books, and in these cases, they tended not to comment on distinctions between their daughters’ reading interests. We found two notable exceptions, however, to these trends. One daughter of a professor of engineering was an avid reader of science books. Her parents described her as the only one of their three daughters who was particularly interested in science reading. Another girl read exclusively animal nonfiction or science-themed fiction, declaring in interviews and proudly in conversations in class that she preferred nonfiction. DISCUSSION Our investigation of girls’ science reading at home and school shows that the girls in this study have access to science books from a variety of sources. They are interested in certain science books due to life science content, genre, or the information contained within 284 FORD ET AL. them, and they do not like other science books because of content, expository writing styles, and/or poor matches to their conceptions of their own reading ability. We found that reading in a general sense is important to parents and teachers, and that they allow third-grade girls considerable choice in selection of reading materials to promote and encourage girls to read. Home is typically a setting in which the educational agenda is much more open than at school, allowing more freedom for girls to read only what they choose to read. As we will discuss below, we believe that while the choices we give to independently reading girls may appear at first glance to be empowering, choice in fact allows culturally gendered expectations to emerge. The choices that girls make are not merely individual choices so much as they are expressions of culture and who these girls are as socially and culturally constructed beings (Riley-Taylor, 2002). Choice, the Free Market, and Public Libraries Whenever we give girls choices it is important to consider the larger context in which these choices are made and the ways in which culture influences those choices. Although there are science books across the settings in which girls are choosing their reading materials, these books are not prominent. Science books in the classrooms we visited are a small percentage of the books present, and this is likely to be a higher amount than typically found in elementary classrooms (Duke, 2000), due to the teachers’ awareness of the science focus of our study and their interest in participating in it. Classrooms, however, are in many ways less problematic than many bookstores. Imagine a young girl entering a large chain bookstore. There are large signs directing her to the children’s section. Once there, she easily finds American Girl books or books about Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen---books clearly written for her. Many young girls would never move beyond this spot. To leave this space to search for science books would be a significant act of independence and resistance to adopting the social norms presented to her. School and public libraries, in contrast to bookstores and classrooms, include the most diverse and high quality collections. Science books are more plentiful, of better quality, more aligned to community needs and resources, and easier to find in the public library than in bookstores. They are also free. Overall, we were surprised in how these families underutilized the public library. Though the library was reported as a source for most of the families, it was in all but three families a source secondary to bookstores. Although public libraries have the best collections, they can only purchase books that are produced and thus do not have a completely balanced collection. Choice is limited; the majority of elementary science books are on life science topics. If a young girl became interested in a science topic other than animals, she or her parents would need to exert effort to find books to match that interest (and in some cases, they simply might not find them). For example, supporting an interest in materials or chemicals with books would be a major challenge. The choice to use the public library is constrained by contemporary social/cultural influences. The families in this study are overwhelmingly middle class, and may have more money than time. Thus, they frequent large bookstores at least in part because of convenience---books that are bought do not have to be returned. This purchase of convenience may disadvantage their daughters with regard to science books. At home, where books are predominately obtained from commercial sources, girls’ reading preferences are largely left to the free marketplace of corporate bookstores that are driven by profit. Large bookstore chains make decisions about which books to sell at a corporate level, and in many cases sell their shelf space to publishers (Hade, 2002). Although ELEMENTARY GIRLS’ SCIENCE READING 285 the marketplace gives the appearance of freedom, in actuality it is not gender neutral. Books are written and marketed in ways to appeal to one sex or the other. Balance, quality, and community needs take a back seat to what sells. While girls may be free to choose whatever is available, this freedom may also make them more subject to behaving in ways that are consistent with gendered stereotypes. Girls can read the less than subtle signs of the marketplace and at this age are often more interested in conforming to gender stereotypes than they are in challenging them. The free market certainly has no particular interest in empowering girls to challenge gender norms. Choice and Adult Influences Girls’ reading practices and interests in part mirror their mothers’ and female teachers’ preferences for fiction (Cherland, 1994). In this study, we also found that the girls’ mothers, their immediate models of adult female reading, expressed their preference for and enjoyment of fiction. Mothers in this study preferred fiction reading for themselves, and encouraged (though never pushed) classic fiction reading for their daughters. Given societal pressures to adopt stereotypically gendered fiction reading identities, there are few compelling reasons for these girls to adopt a reading practice other than as a reader of fiction. Are there ways in which adults can help young girls construct science identities in opposition to market influences? Our data suggest that there might be. For example, Ms. Green’s strategy of reading a science book aloud, and then making it available for girls to read independently seemed to be an effective way of influencing girls’ choices. This strategy not only provides access to science books, but also provides a role model for the girls of an adult woman reading science and enjoying it. Our data also suggest that girls are actually more interested in science books than parents typically know. We were struck by the discrepancy between the girls’ reporting of their interest in science and animal books and their parents’ recollections of their daughters’ reading interests. This may indicate that parents’ expectations and assumptions about their daughters’ interests (coupled with the mothers’ desires to share fiction with their daughters) make it harder for them to perceive their daughters’ science interests. Or, it may be that it has not occurred to parents to engage their daughters in science reading. In no case did a mother report that science reading was a part of her childhood. Nor did any mother report reading science as an adult. Given the fact that science reading, as opposed to fiction reading, is not seen as part of the process of enculturation into womanhood, it is hardly surprising that it is not seen as a significant component of raising young girls. What the discrepancy may be revealing is a difference between actual reading habits (as reported by parents) and potential reading interests, as reported by girls when we suggested genres to them in the interviews. We think this is more an indication that girls at this age are, for the most part, quite willing to read new things. Therefore, it may be that the window of opportunity to get girls interested in science reading has in fact not closed by this time, and that adults are inadvertently abdicating a potentially powerful role in exposing girls to science reading (and other underexplored genres) to the free market, which then provides stereotypically gendered choices. Science and the Multiple Identities of Girls: Conclusions and Future Directions Identities are not singular, static characteristics of girls that are invariant across contexts. Identities are performances that girls try out in order to be perceived by others in ways they 286 FORD ET AL. find desirable (Brickhouse, 2001). Girls, particularly white, middle class girls, often want to be perceived as good students and are thus willing to engage in those activities that will facilitate the construction of this identity (Brickhouse, Schultz, & Lowery, 2000). While girls, particularly those who have adopted good student identities (synonymous with good reader in third grade), may readily adopt science reading practices in the classroom, at home they may enact much more conventional girl identities related to the reading of fiction. In our interactions with girls in this study, we saw aspects of the good student model at work, which can potentially be used to support girls’ science reading in school, but can also make it a school activity, not a pleasurable one. Many girls were attuned to the importance shown to science reading in interviews and in their teachers’ instruction, and eagerly adopted this stance. However, we speculate that if social studies were the focus of our study, we would have seen the same eagerness among students to adopt social studies reading. We do not think they typically extend these reading behaviors to their home/pleasure reading unless they are reading about animals or they are the few girls who are exceptions to the trend. Our understanding of girls’ reading practices in home and school settings leads us to believe that our focus in supporting girls’ reading of science should be in the encouragement of their science reading in places both inside and outside of science instruction. The use of written texts in school science instruction must be done carefully, and take into consideration practices of scientific text use beyond the bounds of school or practitioner science, or it may serve only to reinforce girls’ construction of their good student identities (Brickhouse, 2001). In order to capitalize on girls’ interest in reading and identities as literacy/good learners, we need to figure out a way to make science reading truly pleasurable and extend beyond the boundaries of school. To do this we should attend to the features in books that the girls suggest are important. The results of this study point to the possibility that narrative may be an important means to engaging girls in science, as the girls in this study seemed most interested in scientific information that was embedded in an engaging story. However, this is not a straightforward finding, as our results were complicated by the girls’ sense of the purpose for reading science books as well as their interest in the way information was conveyed. As seen in the girls’ reports of what science books they thought their teachers would want them to read, the school-based setting in which the read-aloud interview was conducted may have influenced how the girls perceived science reading, shifting their focus to their notions of reading for school purposes rather than strictly reading for enjoyment. Their understanding of school science may be intertwined so deeply with their understanding of reading science that they may not be able to imagine science reading outside of a schoolbased purpose of learning. This may also explain their differentiation between pleasurable reading of animal books and the less pleasurable reading of science books. Animal books, which focused on topics such as pets and wild animals that were distinctly not a part of the school curriculum, are in sharp contrast to their definitions of science books, which referred nearly directly to content covered in the third-grade curriculum. It may be that science reading for pleasure may appeal most to girls if it is uncoupled from their perceptions of school science. For this reason we have begun new efforts to organize and study girls’ science book clubs that take place outside of school and are formed around friendship groups (LotteroPerdue & Brickhouse, 2005). Our first book club for young girls was very popular with the seven girls who participated throughout the summer of 2003. Such a venue not only has the potential of engaging girls in science reading, but also in facilitating the critical reading of science texts. We are currently designing and implementing a book club for mothers and daughters to facilitate and study their ways in which the critical reading of science books could become more a part of growing up for young girls. ELEMENTARY GIRLS’ SCIENCE READING 287 REFERENCES AAUW/NEA. (1998). Gender gaps: Where schools still fail our children. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Foundation. Abimbola, I., & Baba, S. (1996) Misconceptions and alternative conceptions in science textbooks: The role of teachers as filters. The American Biology Teacher, 58, 14 – 19. Adamson, L. B., Foster, M. A., Roark, M. L., & Reed, D. B. (1998). Doing a science project: Gender differences during childhood. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 845 – 857. Andre, T., Whigham, M., Hendrickson, A., & Chambers, S. (1999). Competency beliefs, positive affect, and gender stereotypes of elementary students and their parents about science versus other school subjects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(6), 719 – 747. Barrs, M., & Pidgeon, S. (1994). Reading the difference: Gender and reading in elementary classrooms. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers. Brickhouse N. W. (2001). Embodying science: A feminist perspective on learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 282 – 295. Brickhouse, N., Ford, D., Kittleson, J., & Lottero-Perdue, P. (2003). Challenging the empiricist nature of elementary science instruction with text. In D. Metz (Ed.), Proceedings from the 7th International Conference on the History and Philosophy of Science in Science Teaching (pp. 180 – 186). Brickhouse, N., Kittleson, J., & Ford, D. (2004, March). Articulating the roles of oral and written language in science instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, BC. Brickhouse, N. W., Lowery, P., & Schultz, K. (2000). What kind of a girl does science? The construction of school science identities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 421 – 458. Cherland, M. R. (1994). Private practices: Girls reading fiction and constructing identity. Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis. Cresswell, J. (1997). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23,5 – 12. Duke, N. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in the first grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 202 – 223. Dutro, E. (2001 – 2002). ”But that’s a girls’ book!” Exploring gender boundaries in children’s reading practices. Reading Teacher, 55, 376 – 384. Dyson, A. H. (1997). Writing superheroes: Contemporary childhood, popular culture, and classroom literacy. New York: Teachers College Press. Flood, J., & Lapp, D. (1990). Types of writings included in basal reading programs kindergarten through second grade: An investigation of changes from 1983 – 1999. In J. Zutell & S. McCormick (Eds.), Literature theory and research: Analyses from multiple paradigms (pp. 395 – 401). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Ford, D. (2002). More than just facts: Reviewing science trade books. Horn Book Magazine, 73, 265 – 271. Ford, D. J. (2004). Highly recommended trade books: Can they be used in inquiry science? In W. Saul (Ed.), Border crossings: Essays on literacy and science (pp. 277 – 290). Newark, DE: IRA/NSTA Presses. Full Option Science System (2000). Earth materials teachers guide. Nashua, NH: Delta Education. Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis : Theory and method. London: Routledge. Hade, D. (2002). Storyselling: Are publishers changing the way children read? The Horn Book Magazine, 78, 509 – 517. Hedges, L., & Nowell, A. (1995). Sex differences in mental test scores, variability, and numbers of high scoring individuals. Science, 269, 41 – 45. Heppler, S. (1998). Nonfiction books for children: New directions, new challenges. In R. A. Bamford & J. V. Kristo (Eds.), Making facts come alive: Choosing quality nonfiction literature K-8 (pp. 3 – 17). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon. Kesidou, S., & Roseman, J. E. (2002). How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from Project 2061’s curriculum review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 522 – 549. Lottero-Perdue, P. S., & Brickhouse, N. W. (2005). Critical talk about science texts in a book club for young girls. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King’s College. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Newport, J. F. (1990). Elementary science texts: What’s wrong with them? The Educational Digest, 56, 68 – 69. 288 FORD ET AL. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (1994). Interpreting pragmatic meaning when reading popular reports of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 947 – 967. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224 – 240. Riley-Taylor, E (2002). Ecology, spirituality, & education. New York: Peter Lang. Schwab, J. J. (1978). Science, curriculum, and liberal education: Selected essays. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Science and Technology for Children. (2002). Chemical tests. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. Smolkin, L., & Donovan, C. (2004). How not to get lost on The Magic School Bus: What makes high science content read-alouds? In W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction (pp. 291 – 313). Newark, DE: IRA Press. Thorne, B. J. (1993). Gender play: Girls and boys in school. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689 – 726. Young, J. P., & Brozo, W. G. (1991). Boys will be boys, or will they? Literacy and masculinities. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(3), 316 – 325. CHILDREN’S LITERATURE CITED Baylor, B. (1985). Everybody needs a rock. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Scott Foresman. Branley, F. M. (1986). Volcanoes. New York: HarperCollins. George, J. C. (1998). Dear Katie, the volcano is a girl. New York: Hyperion. Hooper, M. (1996). Pebble in my pocket. New York: Viking Children’s Books. Lewis, T. P. (1971). Hill of fire. New York: HarperTrophy. Haduch, B. (2001). Volcano! New York: Dutton Children’s Books.