Responding to Boy Readers: A Closer Look at the Role of the Teacher in Dialogue Journals Free

This study was grounded primarily in two bodies of literature: scholarship on reader response theory (Bleich, 1978; Iser, 1978; Langer, 1989; Probst, 1984; Richards, 1929; Rosenblatt, 1938/1995) and scholarship on dialogue journals, a response-based approach to literature instruction (Bloem, 2004; Holmes & Moulton, 1997; Nistler, 1998; Regan, 2003; Wollman-Bonilla, 1989). Literacy teachers at all levels use response-based approaches in their classrooms such as literature circles, books clubs, and dialogue journal writing. In response-based approaches to teaching literature, the teacher’s role is to encourage students to share their individual responses to what they have read through guidance and support that focuses on the students’ construction of meaning from text (Fountas & Pinnell, 2001; Hancock 2004, 2007). This view of literacy instruction is grounded in reader response theory (Bleich, 1978; Iser, 1978; Langer, 1989; Probst, 1984; Richards, 1929; Rosenblatt, 1938/1995).

Reader response theory takes into account the students’ personal responses to a text, allows literature to be relevant to the students’ lives, and makes it possible for multiple interpretations to be accepted rather than just one correct interpretation. Hence it is important for the teacher to consider some of the selective factors that may mold the student’s response to literature. In continuing the discussion of how a student responds to literature, it is helpful to consider two basic assumptions of reader response theory which formulate a foundation for response-based literature instruction.

Multiple Interpretations of Text are Acceptable. Because meaning is influenced by the significant role of the reader, multiple meanings are to be expected and accepted. The individual reader extracts his or her own, unique meaning from a literary work. The student’s reaction to what is read will be in terms of that student’s temperament and background, and this reaction will constitute the personal meaning of the work.

Of course, multiple interpretations of a text are possible because students make meaning based on their prior knowledge and experiences (Probst, 2004). Consequently, teachers who want to establish a response-based literature program should encourage students to find personal meaning in literature (Hancock, 2004, 2007).

Making Meaning From Text. The research into to the making of meaning process suggests that the reader is active and central to building understanding from text (Bleich, 1978; Iser, 1978; Langer, 1989). Similar to the ideas proposed by other theorists about the reader’s stance (the way in which a reader relates to the text), Langer’s (1989) research suggested that the reader moved through four stances: (1) Being out and stepping in—during this stance, the reader uses background knowledge to attempt comprehension of the text. (2) Being in and moving through an envisionment—here the reader interacts with the text to build more complex understandings. (3) Stepping back and rethinking what one knows—during this stance, the reader reconsiders his knowledge, assumptions, and attitudes brought to the reading. (4) Stepping out and objectifying the experience—finally, the reader reflects on the reading of the text and the experience of reading it (Werderich, 2006). The role of the reader, therefore, is seen as an integral part of the response process and the construction of meaning. Since the construction of meaning is to be determined by the reader, the role of the teacher is significant in guiding students’ understanding of the text. Hence, examining the role of the teacher in dialogue journal writing may provide insight into how to enhance boys’ literary experiences.

Many teachers and researchers have reported the outcomes of using dialogue journals with different student populations and for instruction in various content areas (Bloem, 2004; Holmes & Moulton, 1997; Nistler, 1998; Regan, 2003; Werderich, 2002; Wollman-Bonilla, 1989). Because of the social nature involved in dialogue journal writing, studies have concluded that teachers and students can develop an interpersonal relationship (Hall, Crawford & Robinson, 1997; Hanrahan, 1999). In a qualitative multiple case study, Bean and Rigoni (2001) observed the mutual relationship that developed during the dialogue writing between five university graduate students paired with five high school social studies students. The pairs responded to a chapter from a multicultural novel on a weekly basis over a 10-week period. In classifying the participants’ responses using constant comparative analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), Bean and Rigoni observed the friendly exchange in dialogue between Vince, a university student and his partner, Jesus. Both respondents frequently wrote comments such as “thank you for sharing,” which fell into the personal/intertextual response category. Bean and Rigoni also noted that throughout their conversations, “they really began to sound more like pen pals than people engaged in an academic dialogue” (p. 243). The informality of dialogue appeared to nurture a relationship in which the student could write freely without a strong, authoritative influence from the teacher.

Several research studies have shown that having reluctant and low proficient students write about their reading is a way to foster the depth of reader response. Calkins (1986) observed that students’ attitudes and efforts related to journal writing seem to have a direct relationship to the frequency and quality of a teacher’s response in the journals. In a similar study, Wolman-Bonilla (1989) investigated the written conversations in a fourth-grade classroom. Wolman-Bonilla reported the value of teacher feedback. Providing supportive feedback helped to improve students’ reading strategies and comprehension. In addition, Graves (1989) found that students’ growth in written response can be measured through their letter transactions with their teacher.

While much of the research on dialogue journals focuses on the outcomes of students’ responses, some research has focused more specifically on the written responses of teachers. Research on dialogue journals indicates that teachers often scaffold students’ literary understanding by asking probing questions (Adler, Rougle, Kaiser, & Caughlan, 2003/2004; Berger, 1996; Langer, 1994; Wollman-Bonilla & Werchadlo, 1995). When guiding readers in creating their own unique response to literature, Hancock (2007) recommends that teachers provide “continuous, encouraging feedback with some suggestive, but not demanding comments” (p. 200).

Werderich (2002) also examined the written responses of the teacher. Correspondence between individual seventh-grade students and the teacher was analyzed. Categories of responses that the teacher used included student interests, personal discoveries, setting challenges, and teaching strategies. Werderich found that all four categories allowed the teacher to personalize reading instruction for her students.

Some studies have noted that teachers assume different roles when responding to their students (Hickman, 1984; Short, Kauffman, Kaser, Kahn, & Crawford, 1999; Lehr & Thompson, 2000; Maloch, 2004; O’Flahavan, 1994; Weih, 2008). Short et al. (1999) examined teacher talk in literature circles. In examining the transcripts of the audio recorded discussions, Short et al. found multiple roles teachers play including facilitator, participant, mediator, and active listener. The teachers moved in and out of the roles throughout the literature circle discussions as the needs of students’ emerged. Similar to these findings, Maloch (2004) reports the roles that one teacher took during the implementation of literature discussion groups in a third-grade classroom. While the teacher took up all four roles of facilitator, participant mediator, and active listener (Short et al., 1999), the teacher’s participation most often resembled the role of facilitator. However, as students transitioned from teacher-led to student-led discussion, Maloch found that the teacher’s role of facilitator diverged to that of a meta-facilitator. In this role, the teacher “focused students on their own conversational processes, giving students a meta-language to think about, talk about, and evaluate their discussion” (p. 320).

Additional research has demonstrated an expanded notion of the roles teachers might take in dialogue journals. For example, in a year-long case study of her fifth-graders’ responses in written dialogue journals, Paille (1991) found that she assumed different teacher roles as she responded to her students. She assumed the role of enforcer when she stressed certain requirements of the student’s writing. To clarify what a student meant in his or her letter, Paille assumed the role of facilitator. When asking specific questions to encourage an expected or anticipated response from her student, she was in the role of teacher. Her final and most influential role was that of a reader. The different teacher roles emerged showing how she helped her students to respond in journals.

More recently, Bloem (2004) describes her analysis of written correspondence with fifthgrade students. Bloem reports that the reflective teacher takes on three roles: (1) the connector, who helps students see what they can do well and what is a struggle for them; the challenger, who pushes children up the ladder of development while providing the needed assistance; and the namer, who names children as part of the literacy club (p. 61).

Research to date on dialogue journals begins to give insight into the role of the teacher and provides some suggestions for enhancing students’ literary discussion. However, most of these publications emphasize the students’ written responses without fully considering the responses written by the teachers (Hall, Crawford, & Robinson, 1997). Little is known about what roles teachers play in dialogue journals, and even less in known about how teachers respond to boys’ written dialogue journals. The current study examines the roles middle school teachers play in dialogue journal writing to enhance boys’ literary understandings and experiences.

This purposive sample consisted of three teachers (all names are pseudonyms): Mrs.Cramer, who taught reading at the seventhgrade level, and Mrs. Lyden and Mr. Driscoll, who both taught reading at the sixth-grade level in the same school. The teachers were selected for the study because they met the following criteria: (a) taught reading at the middle school level, (b) implemented dialogue journals using methods comparable to Atwell’s (1998) model, and (c) collected boys’ journals for analysis of both teacher and student responses. The teachers in this study had varied levels of training and experience with using dialogue journals at the middle school level. Of the three teachers in this study, Mrs. Cramer had the most experience using dialogue journals. Mrs. Lyden was a veteran teacher who had 19 years of teaching experience and 2 years experience using dialogue journals. Finally, Mr. Driscoll worked 30 years in the field of horticulture before becoming a first-year teacher.

The racial/ethnic makeup of the students enrolled in the teachers’ middle schools was predominately White ranging between (75%- 87%), followed by Hispanic (7.2%-14.6%). Results on the state assessment of reading indicated that between (22%-32%) of the eighthgrade students at these middle schools were performing below basic. In the area of writing achievement, between (24%-31%) performed below basic.

The teachers in this study used dialogue journals as modeled by Atwell (1998) and Fountas and Pinnell (2001) as a means of creating a context for students to chronicle their thinking in response to literature. Each letter, approximately a page in length and written in a composition notebook, was formatted as a friendly letter. Students were expected to use their thinking skills to share and explain their “personal reactions, questions, and interpretations of texts” (Fountas & Pinnell, 2001, p. 165). Additionally, all three teachers in this study identified the importance of students demonstrating their understandings of literary analysis in their dialogue journal letters. Furthermore, the teachers promoted studentchoice reading as an important aspect of the dialogue journal approach. The teachers recognized the value of student choice in motivating adolescent readers (Moore, Bean, Birdyshaw, & Rycik, 1999). Finally, the teachers in this study indicated that the dialogue journals provided them the opportunity to get to know their students as individual readers, writers, and thinkers.

In most cases, Mrs. Cramer was the primary responder in her students’ dialogue journals. On occasion, however, her students did have the option of writing to a peer. While writing to a peer is motivational, Mrs. Lyden and Mr. Driscoll chose to maintain letter exchange solely between teacher and student.

During classroom observations, the researcher observed the teachers use a variety of visual aids to introduce their students to dialogue journal writing. For example, students were first given a copy of an introductory letter that was attached to the inside of their dialogue journal. The content of the introductory letter explained some of the expectations and procedures for writing journal responses. Students were encouraged to write their reactions and questions in response to their reading rather than a summarization. For example, students were encouraged to respond to the following statements:

1. Tell what you like or dislike about a book and why.

2. Tell about parts of your book that puzzled you or that make you ask questions.

3. Write your predictions and about whether your predictions were right.

4. Write about the author’s style and how it makes you feel.

5. Tell about the connections that you made while reading.

Dialogue journals also needed much more than a good launching; they required frequent monitoring and guidance by the teachers who used minilessons during whole-group instruction and individualized letters to help readers hone skills necessary for effective response writing.

Weekly letter exchange between students and Mrs. Cramer was maintained via crates which were labeled for each of her five reading classes. Mrs. Lyden and Mr. Driscoll divided their students into groups of four to help manage weekly letter exchange. Each group of students was assigned a day of the week (Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday) as a due date. When their dialogue journal was due, students placed it on a stackable tray located on top of a shelf. Each tray was labeled for a day of the week. When Mrs. Lyden and Mr. Driscoll finished writing back to the students, they returned the journals to the tray.

Dialogue Journals. Data for the study came primarily from dialogue journal correspondence between the teachers and their respective students that took place during an entire school year. The sample included 19 boys’ journals and was determined by the receipt of parental consent and student assent forms. From these 19 journals, 268 letters were analyzed. Dialogue journals were examined to identify the roles of the teachers. The dialogue journal data met Merriam’s (1998) criteria for providing descriptive information, advancing new categories, and verifying emerging themes.

Classroom Observations. The researcher conducted a total of six classroom observations during which 14 lessons were observed to total 613 minutes of classroom observation. Although the duration of the visits and the total amount of time spent observing varied between the teachers, the data gathered served the purposes of this study. Through observation in the natural setting of the teachers’ classrooms, the researcher gained a more complete picture of their classroom context and a clearer understanding of the teachers’ approaches to using dialogue journals.

Field Notes. The observations were written as field notes, included verbal and visual descriptions of the classroom context, direct quotations from the teachers and students, and observer comments. Field notes were also written to record any thoughts, ideas, concerns, or questions during the data analysis process.

Interviews. The data collection process continued with initial and follow-up interviews with all three teachers. A semistructured format was used to conduct initial interviews, while a technique called “stimulated recall” was used during follow-up interviews to gain access to the teachers’ thoughts during their journal letter writing and confirm the emerging roles of the teachers (Gass, 2000). Conducting interviews of the teachers would help obtain their perceptions for using student dialogue journals and the processes in which they responded to their students.

The process of data analysis began during the data collection process, reviewing and examining the classroom observations and initial interviews. Although data analysis was ongoing, the majority of the analysis proceeded in several phases. Data analysis was inductive and used the constant comparative method described by Glaser and Strauss (1967).

First, the researcher began her analysis by using a combination of underlining, circling, and margin notations to code the teachers’ interviews. During this process, she focused on the teachers’ impressions, reflections, and initial concepts related to dialogue journal correspondence with boys. Each concept was then written on a separate index card, which allowed the researcher to collapse like concepts into categories. Many of the initial concepts later developed into categories or formed properties of a category. Some examples of the concepts included (1) shares personal reading experiences, (2) models thinking, (3) offers recommendations (4) asks questions, and (5) models reading strategies.

After initial coding of the teachers’ interviews, the researcher examined the boys’ dialogue journals using color-coded tabs to identify specific segments of the teachers’ responses. A constant comparative approach was used during this process to identify, compare, and sort teachers’ responses according to similarities or differences. After the researcher analyzed and coded data, she recorded any thoughts, ideas, concerns, or questions she had in a notebook labeled “code notes.” Written memos were recorded throughout the data analysis process to help the researcher depict the relationships among and within concepts and forced her “to move from working with data to conceptualizing” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 218). Finally, the data became suitably grouped under one of the four teacher response categories until theoretical saturation occurred in which the teachers’ responses became repetitive and no additional data was being found to establish new categories or properties of the categories (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

Data that led to the formation of the categories were primarily captured from the boys’ dialogue journals. However, reading and rereading the teachers’ interviews, classroom observations, and field notes were also used to corroborate findings.

The findings of this study indicated that the teachers assumed different roles when engaging boys in a reciprocal process of dialogue about literature and the act of reading. This section explains the four roles that emerged: (a) teacher as reader, (b) teacher as responder, (c) teacher as facilitator, and (d) teacher as encourager. The complexities of these roles are explained using as much as possible the words and the experiences of the teachers.

The reader role involved teachers responding using their own reading experiences to cultivate boys’ literary conversations within dialogue journals. As Hickman (1984) states, “The teacher acts as the classroom’s number-one model reader, showing in attitudes, habits, and actions what it is like to find enjoyment and meaning in books” (p. 282). The dialogue journals provided a vehicle for teachers in this study to be model readers. When considering boys’ journals, the teachers carefully approached their letter writing, reacting genuinely and authentically as an adult reader (Booth, 2002). To accomplish this requires the teacher to model quality responses, reading processes, and most importantly, the pure pleasures of reading.

In many journal entries, the teachers revealed aspects of their own life that related to experiences of being adult readers. As seen in the following examples, Mrs. Cramer and Mrs. Lyden shared their personal reading experiences with boys in their dialogue journal responses. All students’ names are pseudonyms.

One function of the teacher’s responses was to encourage readers to make personal connections, empathize with characters, and visualize scenes and events to demonstrate being actively involved in reading. For example, Mr. Driscoll often provided his personal reactions to reading:

In the following correspondence with Dan, Mrs. Lyden shared her experience with rereading the ending of a book to gain better understanding of the text.

Through the role of reader, teachers served as models for the boys—demonstrating how an “older, person, with more experience of the world and of books, reacts to the work” (Probst, 2004, p. 92). In so doing, boys might feel more comfortable and willing to develop their ideas, thoughts, questions, and concerns as adolescent readers (Bean & Rigoni, 2001; Hall et al., 1997; Jewell & Pratt, 1999).

Another type of teacher as reader response involved teachers recommending books to boys. These responses were written to encourage boys to become lifelong readers. This was a strong driving force underlying the entire premise of dialogue journals. As Mrs. Cramer explained, “I just want to get them [boys] to read because a lot of them don’t.” This expectation, in turn, resulted in teachers playing an important role in expanding boys’ experiences with literature. To expand boys’ reading experiences so that they come to enjoy reading, teachers often recommended topics, authors, and genres for boys to explore. For example, after discovering a boy’s interest in boxing, Mrs. Cramer wrote:

In a similar manner, Mrs. Lyden offered a recommendation to one of her boys:

The ability to offer such recommendations depended on the teacher’s knowledge of young adolescent literature. Although Mrs. Cramer continued to expand her reading repertoire, she openly expressed in her interview that there were limits to her knowledge and experience with reading young adult literature. Mrs. Cramer’s reading preferences, for example, rarely included science fiction or informational texts—two genres that predominately interest adolescent boys (Booth, 2002; Brozo, 2002). Mrs. Cramer identified one such situation:

Mrs. Lyden also experienced struggling moments like Mrs. Cramer did when recommending books to her sixth-grade boys. To overcome this problem, Mrs. Lyden made a conscious effort to bring novels into her classroom that she classified as “girl kind,” “boy kind,” and “ones that you know anyone may choose.”

Mr. Driscoll on the other hand acknowledged that he was able to relate to the boys because of having similar interests. Mr. Driscoll explained,

While Mr. Driscoll often related to boys in a manner that involved common interests, no empirical evidence has supported the claim that male teachers have a more positive influence on learning outcomes for boys (Carrington, Tymms, & Merrell, 2005; Lahelma, 2000; Lingard, Martino, Mills, & Bahr, 2002).

The responder role involved teachers interacting with boys as another learner. In the role of reader, the teachers assumed more responsibility and authority by demonstrating their knowledge and experiences, but in the role of responder, the teachers joined the discussion as a learner, giving the boys the opportunity to become the more knowledgeable participant.

Boys were encouraged to demonstrate their knowledge and experiences as readers. For example, many boys engaged in a discussion about a topic of interest to them such as sports. Although these types of discussions presented a challenge for Mrs. Lyden and Mrs. Cramer, they followed what Booth (2002) recommends in his book, Even Hockey Players Can Read: Boys, Literacy and Learning. Booth suggests that when responding in journals, teachers should “have an authentic conversation even if you haven’t read the student’s book by valuing his responses and acknowledging his thoughts and feelings” (p. 52). The following are examples of Mrs. Lyden and Mrs. Cramer’s authentic responses to their sixth- and seventh-grade boys:

As is clear above, Mrs. Lyden and Mrs. Cramer accepted that boys may have different reading interests and experiences than from theirs. When such was the case when responding to boys, the teachers valued their responses. They acknowledged the boys’ reading choices, asked authentic questions, and most importantly, encouraged their continued reading and responding. In doing so, the teachers gave the boys opportunities to engage in discussion about topics meaningful to them.

Within the context of dialogue journals, another role of the teacher was to facilitate the discussion of literature. The following section illustrates the variety of teacher’s responses used to facilitate a continuing exchange in literary conversation with boys. One function of the teacher’s responses was to make sure that the boys were meeting the expectations of the dialogue journal. For example, the following responses focused on improving boys’ writing and reading development:

*  *  *

*  *  *

*  *  *

Another type of facilitator response involved teachers asking specific questions to encourage boys to write more than summariza- tions of their readings. By asking specific questions related to the novel, Mr. Driscoll modeled the type of thinking and responding that he was expecting from Peter:

*  *  *

Through the role of facilitator, teachers wrote responses to push the boys’ discussion further. In this role, teachers frequently asked questions to help boys elaborate or extend their ideas. Probing students’ thinking by asking questions can aid in improving a reader’s capacity to evoke meaning from text (Jewell & Pratt, 1999).

The encourager role involved teachers providing encouraging responses. When boys shared their thoughts, ideas, and questions as readers, the teachers provided encouraging responses. The responses shown in the following examples were used by the teachers to “reaffirm” and “bolster” (Fenwick, 2001, p. 38) boys’ strengths as a readers and writers:

Even when boys were far from writing a quality response, teachers continued to provide encouraging responses. Mr. Driscoll commented on this approach, stating:

Indeed, no matter how small accomplishments are, they should be honored and celebrated (Zambo & Brozo, 2009).

The purpose of this research study was to examine the roles of middle school literacy teachers within boys’ dialogue journals. Though gleaned from only a small sample size, the data showed that these three middle school literacy teachers assumed various roles. This finding is consistent with previous research that examines the role of teacher within literature circles, book clubs, and discussion groups (Lehr & Thompson, 2000; Maloch, 2004; O’Flahavan, 1994; Short et al. 1999). For instance, Short et al. (1999) and Maloch (2004) observed that teachers took the role of facilitator in literature discussion groups. As the facilitator in dialogue journals, the teachers in this study asked questions to invite boys into the discussion, and to evoke their meaning from text (Jewell & Pratt, 1999; Short et al., 1999; Wollman-Bonilla & Werchadlo, 1995). Furthermore, the teachers perceived their role as a facilitator (Close, 1992; Paille, 1991; Short et al., 1999) who continually determined what responses best meet the needs of their boys and the expectations of the dialogue journal. For example, since the boys enjoyed reading informational texts, the teachers generated specific questions to facilitate boys’ responses to this genre.

An additional observation was that the teachers in this study formulated their perceptions of the teacher as reader and teacher as responder roles using gendered lenses. For example, as females, Mrs. Leyden and Mrs. Cramer believed that they were at a slight disadvantage when responding to their boys. Both teachers indicated that responding to boys was challenging, to some degree, because of differences in interests and experiences, while Mr. Driscoll believed that he might be more inclined to relate to boys because of being a male. While much focus is on how teachers perceive boys as readers (Martino & Kehler, 2007), it is also important to consider how teachers think of themselves as readers, and how these perceptions may affect their literacy practices with boys (Blair & Sanford, 2004). Furthermore, changing such attitudes held by literacy teachers might be necessary if we want to encourage boys to read and write more, and promote the image of reading as a masculine, as well as feminine, act (Taylor, 2004/2005).

In examining the ways in which middle school literacy teachers respond to their boys’ dialogue journals, the researcher noticed that the teachers were likely to respond by modeling and demonstrating reading behaviors; asking questions to guide boys’ understanding; and providing continuous encouraging feedback (Hancock, 2007). A variety of responses can help develop boys as lifelong readers who engage in inquiry as they encounter texts (Fountas & Pinnell, 2001). Moreover, assuming the role of responder and modeling authentic literary experiences may be most important if boys are to become independent readers, writers, and thinkers (Booth, 2002).

A final observation relates to how middle school literacy teachers tried to foster boys’ engagement with literature and lifelong reading. Through one-on-one written correspondence, the teachers in this study learned about individual boys’ hobbies and interests, which provided “important clues to finding reading material to match” (Brozo, 2006, p. 72). As such, the teachers used dialogue journals as entry points to connect boys with books (Brozo, 2002; Zambo & Brozo, 2009). The teachers’ efforts in this study are consistent with the call to match boys’ interests with books as described by Probst (2003). Probst wrote, “If we want boys to read carefully and analyze conscientiously, then the works they study have to matter to them” (p. 16). This may be the most important purpose of the dialogue journal. In light of this finding, the effect of dialogue journals on boys’ literacy practices may warrant more in-depth examination.

As with most research, there are limitations in, as well as unanswered questions, resulting from, this small sample size. Because this study only involved three middle school literacy teachers, the findings may not be fully representative of the middle school teaching population at large. Many teachers may use journals with their students, but in different forms, using different methods, and in different contexts. The results accomplished the intended purpose of the study: to examine the roles teachers play in facilitating boys’ literacy discussion in dialogue journals. Furthermore, the study does not explain whether the teacher’s responses influenced boys’ responses to their reading. Future investigations of the use of dialogue journals may result in a fuller analysis of the impact of dialogue journals on boys’ reading and writing.

While dialogue journals are not a gender-specific instructional approach, the research reported here offers some instructional recommendations for literacy teachers who want to make discussion about books more appealing to boys.

First, and perhaps most importantly, it is recommended that teachers use dialogue journals as entry points to connect boys with books (Brozo, 2002; Zambo & Brozo, 2009). If we want boys to find reading at school more interesting, then teachers should try to provide boys access to materials that appeal to them. When given a choice, boys have reported that they prefer to read comic books, magazines, adventure and science fiction novels, and horror stories (Worthy, Moorman, & Turneer, 1999). Martino (2001) also reported that boys indicate enjoying humorous and weird stories. Still, it is well documented that teachers and librarians are more likely to select and use texts that may be less appealing to boys (Brozo, 2002; Duke, 2000; McGowan, 2008). The teachers in the present study attempted to offer books that appealed to girls, boys, and “ones that you know anyone may choose” (Mrs. Lyden). As Zambo and Brozo (2009) recommend, teachers should dedicate particular shelves or a separate crate for reading material related to the interests of boys. It is also recommended that middle school literacy teachers introduce good books to boys through book talks (Atwell, 2007; Trelease, 2006; Zambo & Brozo. 2009). By doing so, middle school literacy teachers can demonstrate that they “care about what matters to boys and show boys that they can read about their interests” (Zambo & Brozo, 2009, p. 111).

In order for teachers to gain and hold the interests of boys, middle school literacy teachers should make sure that they understand their boys. To accomplish this goal will require that teachers change their views of teaching young adolescent boys to help eliminate any bias that they have toward developing boys’ literacy (Blair & Sanford, 2004; Taylor, 2004). For example, Mrs. Leyden and Mrs. Cramer viewed their identities and experiences as readers to be very different from those of their boys. Although such attitudes may have influenced how they talked to their boys, they did notice and acknowledged when a boy had a genuine passion for a topic such as football, golf, or climbing (Brozo, 2006). The roles of teacher as reader and teacher as responder in dialogue journals highlights how teachers can connect to boys in ways that are sensitive to their individual interests and passions. These insights helped the teachers acknowledge and extend boys’ reading choices, and encouraged boys’ continued reading and responding (Smith & Wilhelm, 2002).

Finally, when using dialogue journals, teachers might consider extending the conversation beyond the teacher to include their friends. Newkirk (2002) suggests that boys are more likely to read material that can be transported into conversations with their friends. The roles of reader, responder, facilitator, and encourager can provide demonstrations within dialogue journals of what boys might say when responding to other boys. In this way, the role of teacher in dialogue journals is a temporary one, so that boys can transition into a new literacy community such as a boys’ book club. Many contend that “boys only” book clubs is a promising method of improving the motivation, engagement, and literacy development of boys (Taylor, 2004; Weih, 2008; Zambo & Brozo, 2009).

Once established, teachers may use dialogue journals to help boys find “entry points to literacy” (Brozo, 2002). As teachers, we need to work to make in-school literacy practices meaningful and authentic for the boys in our classrooms.