According to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), to be college and career ready students must be able to construct logical arguments using facts and reason. A feminist perspective provides an alternative point of view on the value of argumentation. The purpose of this study was to question the theories that frame the current CCSS 9–12 English language arts (ELA) standards and to propose alternative theories to be considered by literacy pedagogues in teaching of the standards. I conducted a thematic content analysis of the 9–12th grade writing standards and related content in the CCSS for ELA. Data revealed two shared areas between feminist pedagogy and ELA CCSS: (a) value of critical thinking; and (b) teachers’ and students’ power to make decisions about class content. However, three points of differences also became clear: (a) view of literacy as classified; (b) lack of women’s voices; and (c) hierarchy of academic writing styles. Implications for practice require teachers to use a dialogic rather than a monologic framework for writing instruction.
AuW. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36, 258–267.
5.
BakhtinM. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
6.
BauerD. M. (2003). The other “F” word: The feminist in the classroom. In KirschG. E.MaorF. S.MasseyL.Nickoson-MasseyL.Sheridan-RabideauM. P. (Eds.), Feminism and composition: A critical sourcebook (pp. 351–362). Urbana, IL: NCTE.
7.
BergerM. T. (2013). Learning from women’s studies. Contexts, 12, 76–79. doi:10.1177/1536504213487706
8.
BernsteinB. (1975). Class, codes and control. London, England: Routledge.
9.
BishopR. S. (2012). Reflections on the development of African American children’s literature. Journal of Children’s Literature, 38, 5–13.
BlakeB. E. (1997). She say he say: Urban girls write their lives. Albany: State University of New York Press.
12.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.
13.
BreezeW. (2007). Constructing a male pedagogy: Authority, practice, and authenticity in the composition classroom. Feminist Teacher: A Journal of the Practices, Theories, and Scholarship of Feminist Teaching, 18, 59–73.
14.
ButlerJ. (1998). Subjects of sex/gender/desire. In SquiresJ.KempS. (Eds.), Feminisms (pp. 273–291). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
15.
CapobiancoB. M. (2007). Science teachers’ attempts at integrating feminist pedagogy through collaborative action research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 1–32.
ChristianakisM. (2010). “I don’t need your help!” Peer status, race, and gender during peer writing interactions. Journal of Literacy Research, 42, 418–458.
DeweyJ. (1938/2007). Experience and education. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
20.
Egan-RobertsonA. (1998). Learning about culture, language, and power: Understanding relationships among personhood, literacy practices, and intertextuality. Journal of Literacy Research, 30, 449–487.
21.
EasleyA. (1997). Toward a feminist theory of teaching argument writing. Feminist Teacher, 11, 30–38.
22.
EudeyB. (2012). Civic engagement, cyberfeminism, and online learning: Activism and service learning in women’s and gender studies courses. Feminist Teacher, 22, 233–250.
23.
FossS. K.GriffinC. L. (1995). Beyond persuasion: A proposal for an invitational rhetoric. Communication Monographs, 62, 2–18.
24.
FoucaultM. (1984). The Foucault reader. New York, NY: Random House.
25.
FreireP. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (RamosMyra Bergman, Trans.). New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing Group.
26.
FreyO. (1990). Beyond literary Darwinism: Women’s voices and critical discourse. College English, 52, 507–526.
27.
FulkersonR. (1990). Composition theory in the eighties: Axiological consensus and paradigmatic diversity. College Composition and Communication, 41, 409–429.
28.
FulkersonR. (1996). Teaching the argument in writing. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
29.
GallegoM. A.HollingsworthS. (Eds.). (2000). What counts as literacy?: Challenging the school standard. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
30.
GayG. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 106–116.
31.
GearhartS. (1979). The womanization of rhetoric. Women’s Studies International Quarterly, 2, 195–201.
32.
GilbertP. (1989). Personally (and passively) yours: Girls, literacy and education. Oxford Review of Education, 15, 257–265.
33.
GilliganC. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
34.
GraffG. (2003). Clueless in academe. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
35.
GraffG.BirkensteinC. (2010). They say, I say: The moves that matter in academic writing. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
36.
GrahamS. (2006). Strategy instruction and the teaching of writing: A meta-analysis. In McArthurC. A.GrahamS.FitzgeraldJ. (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 187–207). New York, NY: Routledge.
37.
GrantC. A.SleeterC. E. (2009). Turning on learning: Five approaches for multicultural teaching plans for race, class, gender and disability. Indianapolis, IN: Jossey-Bass.
38.
GreshamM.HartleyC. (1999). The use of electronic communication in facilitating feminine modes of discourse: An Irigaraian heuristic. In BlairK.TakayoshiP. (Eds.), Feminist cyberscapes: Mapping gendered academic spaces (pp. 227–256). Stamford, CT: Ablex.
39.
HaysJ. (1995). A development feminist pedagogy of writing. In PhelpsL. W.EmigJ. (Eds.), Feminine principles and women’s experience in American composition and rhetoric (pp. 153–190). Pittsburg, PA: University of Pittsburg Press.
40.
HoffmanJ. V.WilsonM. B.MartínezR. A.SailorsM. (2011). Content analysis: The past, present, and future. In DukeN. K.MallettM. H. (Eds.), Literacy research methodologies (2nd ed., pp. 28–49). New York, NY: Guillford.
41.
hooksb. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York, NY: Routledge.
42.
JarretS. C. (2003). Feminism and composition: The case for conflict. In KirschG. E.MaorF. S.MasseyL.Nickoson-MasseyL.Sheridan-RabideauM. P. (Eds.), Feminism and composition: A critical sourcebook (pp. 263–281). Urbana, IL: NCTE.
43.
JonesA. (1993). Becoming a ‘girl’: Post-structuralist suggestions for educational research. Gender and Education, 5, 157–166.
44.
GardinerJ. K. (2002). Rethinking collectivity: Chicago feminism, Athenian democracy, and the consumer university. In WiegmanR. (Ed.), Women’s studies on its own (pp. 191–201). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
45.
Ladson-BillingsG. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34, 159–165.
46.
LambC. E. (1991). Beyond argument in feminist composition. College Composition and Communication, 42, 11–24.
47.
LewisC. (2000). Critical issues: Limits of identification: The personal, pleasurable, and critical in reader response. Journal of Literacy Research, 32, 253–266.
48.
LloydK. (2013). Crossing cultural and gender borders to change the way we use discourse in the classroom. CEA Forum, 42, 246–261.
49.
Luce-KaplerR. L. (1999). As if women writing. Journal of Literacy Research, 31, 267–291.
50.
LunsfordA. A.EdeL. (2012). Writing together: Collaboration in theory and practice. Boston, MA: Bedford.
51.
LuhmannS. (2012). Pedagogy. In OrrC. M.BraithwaiteA.LichtensteinD. (Eds.), Rethinking women’s and gender studies (pp. 65–81). New York, NY: Routledge.
MeyerS. L. (1993). Refusing to play the confidence game: The illusion of mastery in the reading/writing of texts. College English, 55, 46–63.
54.
MiccicheL. R. (2014). Feminist pedagogies. In TateG.TaggartA. R.SchickK.HesslerH. B. (Eds.), A guide to composition pedagogies (pp. 128–145). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
55.
National Governor’s Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010a). Common core state standards for English language arts. Washington, DC: Authors.
56.
National Governor’s Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010b). Common core state standards for English language arts: Appendix A: Research supporting key elements of the standards. Washington, DC: Authors.
57.
National Governor’s Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010c). Common core state standards for English language arts: Appendix B: Text exemplars and sample performance tasks. Washington, DC: Authors.
58.
National Governor’s Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010d). Common core state standards for English language arts: Appendix C: Samples of student writing. Washington, DC: Authors.
59.
NoddingsN. (1988). An ethic of caring and its implications for instructional arrangements. American Journal of Education, 96, 215–230.
60.
OrrC. M.A. BraithwaiteA.LichtensteinD. (Eds.). (2012). Continuing the conversation. In Rethinking women’s and gender studies (pp. 329–332). New York, NY: Routledge.
61.
PetersonS. (2006). Influence of gender on writing development. In McArthurC. A.GrahamS.FitzgeraldJ. (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 311–323). New York, NY: Routledge.
62.
RenshawP. D. (2004). Dialogic learning teaching and instruction. In LindenJ. van derRenshaw&P. D. (Eds.), Dialogic learning: Shifting perspectives to learning, instruction, and teaching (pp. 1–15). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
63.
ReynoldsN. (1993). Ethos as location: New sites for understanding discursive authority. Rhetoric Review, 11, 325–338.
64.
Rogers CherlandM.HarperH. (2007). Advocacy research in literacy education: Seeking higher ground. Malwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
65.
SchillingerT. (2011). Blurring boundaries: Two groups of girls collaborate on a wiki. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54, 403–413.
66.
SchultzK. (1996). Between school and work: The literacies of urban adolescent females. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 27, 517–544.
67.
SelfeC. (2008). Technology and literacy: A story about the perils of not paying attention. In SidlerM.MorrisR.SmithE. O. (Eds.), Computers in the composition classroom: A critical sourcebook (pp. 93–115). Boston, MA: Bedford.
68.
ShrewsburyC. M. (1993). What is feminist pedagogy?Women’s Studies Quarterly, 21, 8–15.
69.
SieblerK. (2008). Composing feminisms: How feminists have shaped composition theories and practices. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
70.
SleeterC.StillmanJ. (2005). Standardizing knowledge in a multicultural society. Curriculum Inquiry, 35, 27–45.
71.
SpringenK. (2012, 716). What common core means for publishers. Publishers Weekly, 14–17.
72.
StroughJ.DiriwachecterR. (2000). Dyad gender differences in preadolescents’ creative stories. Sex Roles, 43, 43–60.
73.
TannenD. (1998). The argument culture: Moving from debate to dialogue. New York, NY: Random House.
74.
TannenD. (2002). Agonism in academic discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1651–1669.
75.
TompkinsJ. (1988). Fighting words: Unlearning to write the critical essay. Georgia Review, 42, 585–590.
76.
TwomeyS. J. (2011). Girls, computers, and “becoming”: “The Pink Voice” writing project. Journal of Youth Studies, 14, 795–810.
WeilerK. (1991). Freire and a feminist pedagogy of difference. Harvard Educational Review, 61, 449–475.
79.
WhiteJ. (1990). On literacy and gender. In CarterR. (Ed.), Knowledge about languages and the curriculum (pp. 181–196). London, England: Hodden & Stroughton.
WilsonS. (1999). Pedagogy, emotion, and the protocol of care. In BlairK.TakayoshiP. (Eds.), Feminist cyberscapes: Mapping gendered academic spaces (pp. 133–151). Stamford, CT: Ablex.
82.
Wynhoff OlsonA.SangHeeR.BloomeD. (2013). (Re)Constructing rationality and social relations in the teaching and learning argumentative writing in two high school English language arts classrooms. In DunstonP. J.King FullertonS. (Eds.), 62nd yearbook of the literacy research association (pp. 359–376). Altamonte Springs, FL: LRA.
83.
ZawackiT. M. (1992). Recomposing as a woman—An essay in different voices. College Communication and Composition, 43, 32–38.
