OF MICE AND WOMEN: AN ANALYSIS OF GENDER INCLUSION IN HIGH
SCHOOL LITERATURE OFFERINGS
A Thesis
Presented to the faculty of the Department of Teacher Education
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
EDUCATION
(Behavioral Sciences Gender Equity Studies)
by
Alena Falkenstein
SPRING
2012
OF MICE AND WOMEN: AN ANALYSIS OF GENDER INCLUSION IN HIGH
SCHOOL LITERATURE OFFERINGS
A Thesis
by
Alena W. Falkenstein
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Sherrie Carinci, Ed.D.
__________________________________. Second Reader
Mimi Coughlin, Ph. D.
Date
ii
Student: Alena W. Falkenstein
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the
University format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library
and credit is to be awarded for the thesis.
, Department Chair
Rita M. Johnson, Ed.D.
Date
Department of Teacher Education
iii
Abstract
of
OF MICE AND WOMEN: AN ANALYSIS OF GENDER INCLUSION IN HIGH
SCHOOL LITERATURE OFFERINGS
by
Alena W. Falkenstein
Statement of Problem
The importance of balanced curriculum is crucial to a student’s successful
development in many ways. Self-conception, identification within a text, and
connection to the material are all key components in a female student’s style of
learning (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger & Tarule, 1997). Because words help to shape
reality, it is all the more vital to address the educational practices which help to shape
the language skills of students (St Pierre, 1999). In addition to the positive impact of
seeing oneself in the curriculum, there is also a negative consequence of not seeing
yourself in the given materials. When females are invisible within the text, they are
sent the message that they are invisible and less important in the real world as well.
Invisibility also “creates a sense of powerlessness and actively undermines selfconfidence to succeed and persist” (Carlson, 1989, p. 30). This factor, along with
social and cultural grooming, produces young women who lose their voice and place
in the world (Brown & Gilligan, 1992). Conversely, when male students are offered
iv
no exposure to the perspectives of the other half of the world, they learn that their
voice is considerably more important than a female’s.
Data
The goal of this study was to determine the percentage of female and male
authors, primary characters, and secondary characters within assigned works at the
selected schools. The schools were selected by their proximity to the researcher
(counties in Northern California) and instructors were contacted systematically by the
researcher. Two counties were selected, and then a list of districts within each county
was compiled. The researcher then created a master list of high schools from each
district and assembled a contact list for language arts instructors via each high school’s
employee directory. The researcher contacted each instructor by electronic mail with a
request for their list of frequently used language arts titles.
The researcher contacted approximately 425 high school language arts
instructors throughout two counties in the Northern California region. The researcher
received 124 viable responses from instructors that included their syllabi, their
school’s book list, and their own personal choices within the classroom. The responses
of the instructors were varied, with some instructors citing the grade levels and
number of classes each taught, and some only responding with a list or syllabus. Some
responded with their school’s list, which was extensive. Given the varied responses,
the researcher decided to record each title from each response without filter.
v
Therefore, some instructors contributed multiple titles to the data, while others
contributed only two or three titles.
Conclusions
The researcher found that each category of data (author, primary character, and
secondary characters) contains greater numbers of males than females, and that no
category of data is near a 50%-50% ratio which would indicate equal representation in
the text. The researcher compiled the data into an overall percentage of representation
including all three categories of data, where (n) is the total sum of all occurrences of
authors, primary characters, and secondary characters. The total percentage of gender
representation within the works, an average of author gender, primary character
gender, and secondary character gender is 24.96% female and 75.04% male.
Of the 659(n) occurrences of the works within the data, 536 authors are male
and 123 of the authors are female. That is, 18.6 % of the most popularly assigned
works in the data have female authors, while the male authors represent 81.4 % of the
collected data. Of the 709(n) occurrences of the primary characters within the data (n
is increased by 50 due to the dual primary characters within Romeo and Juliet), 193
characters are female and 516 characters are male. That is, 27.2 % of the most
popularly assigned works in the data have female primary characters, while the male
primary characters represent 72.8 % of the collected data. Of the 9646(n) occurrences
of secondary characters within the data, 2806 character occurrences are female and
6840 character occurrences are male. That is, 29.08 % of the characters within
vi
popularly assigned works in the data are female, while the male characters represent
70.92 % of the collected data.
, Committee Chair
Sherrie Carinci, Ed. D.
Date
vii
DEDICATION
This thesis is dedicated to my wonderful family, friends, and husband. It is a
rare gift, indeed, to be continuously surrounded by support and love. The women in
my life are mothers, sisters, wives, teachers, law-enforcement officers, professors,
accountants, supervisors, nurses, doctors, and inspirations. The men in my life are
dedicated to their families and fill the same wide spectrum of careers. More than any
graduate research, these men and women teach me truths about gender, family, and
respect every day.
viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Carinci, for guiding me through this
process with as little pain as possible, and my mentor, Alice Textor, for inspiring me
to pursue a Master’s. I would also like to thank my mother and father for always
communicating to me the importance of education and insisting on my continued
academic success. Finally, I would like to thank my beautiful, wonderful husband
Edward, who made many long trips to Sacramento so I would not have to drive alone
to make my meetings. Thank you, all, for providing patience and confidence in times
where I needed it most.
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Dedication ................................................................................................................. viii
Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................... ix
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
Purpose of the Thesis........................................................................................ 1
Statement of the Problem ................................................................................. 3
Methodology..................................................................................................... 3
Limitations ........................................................................................................ 5
Theoretical Basis .............................................................................................. 5
Definition of Relevant Terms ........................................................................... 9
Organization of Thesis ................................................................................... 10
Background of Researcher ............................................................................. 10
2. REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE ......................................................... 12
Gender Bias and Education ............................................................................ 12
Literature Arts Canon in the United States..................................................... 18
Gender Inclusion and Voice ........................................................................... 29
Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 38
3.
METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................. 39
Introduction .................................................................................................... 39
Study Design and Data Collection ................................................................. 40
Research Question .......................................................................................... 43
Research Instruments...................................................................................... 43
Artifacts .......................................................................................................... 43
Setting ............................................................................................................. 44
x
Procedures ...................................................................................................... 44
Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 45
4.
FINDINGS .......................................................................................................... 47
Introduction to Quantitative Data ................................................................... 47
Frequently Occurring Titles ........................................................................... 48
Percentages of Gender Representation in Data .............................................. 50
Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 58
5.
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 59
Discussion....................................................................................................... 59
Conclusions .................................................................................................... 64
Limitations ...................................................................................................... 66
Recommendations .......................................................................................... 67
Appendix A. Request Letter ..................................................................................... 69
Appendix B. Norton Anthology Authors ................................................................. 71
Appendix C. Table of Instructor Responses ............................................................. 73
Appendix D. Master List of All Mentioned Titles ................................................... 78
References .................................................................................................................. 81
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
Page
1.
Responses Listing Plays .................................................................................. 42
2.
25 Most Frequently Occurring Works Within the Data .................................. 49
3.
Gender of Author ............................................................................................. 51
4.
Gender of Primary Character........................................................................... 53
5.
Frequency of Secondary Characters (Female) ................................................ 55
6.
Frequency of Secondary Characters (Male) .................................................... 56
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures
Page
1.
Gender of Author ............................................................................................. 50
2.
Primary Character Gender ............................................................................... 52
3.
Secondary Character Gender ........................................................................... 54
4.
Total Gender Representation ........................................................................... 57
xiii
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
“Fitzgerald? Salinger? Steinbeck? They don’t speak for me. They don’t speak
of me. They don’t speak to me” (Bender- Slack, 1999, p. 93). Delane Bender Slack, a
language arts instructor, expressed this sentiment as she defended her proposal for a
women’s literature course. Slack was dismayed, but not surprised, at the response
from her male colleagues and by the rejection and disinterest of the school board as
they dismissed her course without reading the curriculum (Bender- Slack, 1999).
Slack’s story represents a battle for equal representation and opportunity for females
and males in education. Education in America is still failing in multiple ways.
Instructional methods and classroom interactions are a few factors that continually
perpetuate educational inequities for female students (Carinci, 2007). Although
improvements have been made in curriculum and practice over the years, there are
certain social constructs still in place that psychologically hinder female education.
Purpose of the Thesis
The purpose of the thesis is to gage the current state of gender bias in the
curriculum of local high school language arts courses. Language arts courses,
specifically those in high school, can be highly influential in the shaping of a student’s
world view. Students are asked to read great works, identify themes, and use their
language skills to express understanding. Specifically, students are expected to
2
Analyze the way in which the theme or meaning represents a view or
comment on life, using textual evidence to support the claim. Analyze the
ways in which irony, tone, mood, the author’s style, and the ‘sound’ of
language achieve (sic) specific rhetorical or aesthetic purposes or both…
analyze recognized works of American literature representing a variety of
genres and traditions: a. Trace the development of American literature from
the colonial period forward. b. contrast the major periods, themes, styles, and
trends and describe how works by members of different cultures relate to one
another in a period. c. Evaluate the philosophical, political, religious, ethical,
and social influences of the historical period that shaped the characters, plots,
and settings. (California Department of Education, 2011, p. 67)
The language arts standards outline an expectation for students to gain
understanding and a world view from literature by digesting the curriculum
and then seeking and developing knowledge concerning its context. If the
students are only exposed to a male dominated curriculum, their interpretation
of the work’s political and social context are unquestionably skewed towards a
male dominated perspective.
Language arts courses are also crucial for students because they develop
language tools, which in many ways define their world and personal views (St. Pierre,
1999). If students only read, analyze, and interpret male experiences during this
period, they may learn to view the world that way. If males learn that they are more
important, they automatically infer that females are less so. In fact, in a study where
3
male and female students were asked to identify benefits of existing as the other
gender, female students identified and glorified a male’s ability to be athletic,
respected, to be taken seriously, to be better paid, and to be more autonomous (Sadker
& Sadker, 1994). The male students could not identify any benefits to being female,
and many threatened dramatic suicides as an alternative to the gender switch (Sadker
& Sadker, 1994). These students are communicating strong and clear messages of a
power imbalance between the genders, which is further supported by the lack of equity
offered in their school’s curriculum.
Statement of the Problem
Beyond the intangible biases of gender-role socialization and cultural norms,
easily identifiable pieces of formal curriculum discriminate against and eliminate
female perspective. High school literature is typically dominated by male authors and
male perspectives (Young, 2004). The male-dominated curriculum creates a problem
for male and female students. Males are missing the female perspective, and females
are routinely forced to identify with only male characters and male voice. The
continual role-switching made by females and their lack of presence in the curriculum
is almost a foreshadowing to their adult lives, where females are not equally
represented in the public sphere, in media, and often curb their ambitions to meet
social expectations.
Methodology
The study was quantitative in nature. The design of the study was a content
analysis, described by Earl Babbie (2007) as the “the study of human recorded
4
communications,” of the reading lists of high school language arts instructors (p. 320).
Over the course of one month, the researcher contacted high school instructors across
multiple counties in Northern California. The researcher utilized each county’s public
education website to attain a list of the school districts that included high schools.
There were 13 districts included within this study. The researcher then used each
district’s website to obtain each high school’s employee directory. The language arts
instructors were electronically mailed, with a few exceptions of telephone calls, and
were presented with the same request (see Appendix A.) They were to provide a list of
the novels they had assigned over the past academic year. The researcher contacted
425 language arts instructors with a request for their reading lists and received 124
viable responses. A number was assigned by the researcher to identify each
instructor’s response without identifying the instructor’s name or correlating that
instructor to a specific school or county. Each instructor’s response was recorded and
the list of assigned works was created from their responses.
The assigned works were then evaluated using the tally method for their
gender inclusion in terms of character representation. Primary and secondary
characters were counted within the works according to their gender, (female
representation, and male representation) and then their totals were multiplied by their
occurrences in classrooms. For example, if work “A” contains one central male
character, two secondary female characters, and two secondary male characters, and
has been assigned 42 times over the past year, the central male character and the
secondary female and male characters are actually occurring 42 times. In contrast, if
5
work “B” contains the same character count but has only been assigned by three
instructors, it did not bear the same weight. The matrix of characters’ gender and
occurrence of assignment was evaluated for its balanced representation of males and
females.
Limitations
The limitations of the study include the number of instructors contacted and
the number of valid instructor responses. Not all instructors that the researcher
attempted to contact were available, and not all instructors responded to the inquiry.
Some high schools, especially alternative schools, did not assign novels or plays to
their students. Also, there were some high schools that did not provide accessible
contact information for their instructors.
Among the responses, many instructors noted textbook assignments, short
stories, and nonfiction assignments that are used to supplement or in place of novels
and plays. The research also did not include an inquiry into the supplemental
curriculum, such as the treatment of the works, classroom discussion, or any other
assignments. Finally, the list of works is not comprehensively representative of all
assigned student reading.
Theoretical Basis
There are many educational theorists who have paved the way for research and
opened the eyes of educators and students around the world. The practice of pedagogy,
education, or any other like term used to identify the way in which educators transmit
cultural tools and knowledge to one another, is constantly evolving. Educators and
6
theorists have changed the landscape of our knowledge base over the centuries,
providing pathways for those who follow.
Paulo Freire
One such theorist, Paulo Freire, challenges the basic patriarchal structure of
our traditional learning systems, where an instructor imparts their knowledge unto
students without interpretation or authentic dialogue (Freire, 2000). Freire suggests
that this knowledge cannot simply be “banked” into a student’s mind because the
implications are that the teacher’s viewpoint is always correct, and the student has no
worth rather than that of an information receptacle (2000). Rather, Freire contends,
students and instructors must work to create dialogue and reach towards knowledge
together. Educators must do their part to share information they possess, and students
must be able to interpret, contradict, and share their insights with educators (Freire,
2000). In his work, Freire (2000) identifies the basic power inequities in the traditional
educational model and offers alternatives to create a more balanced approach to
education and, on a larger scale, societal constructs.
Nel Noddings
Nel Noddings (1992), educational theorist and author, emphasizes this idea of
“care” as a holistic approach to our culture and educational systems. Noddings
contends that, if education was focused on the tending of the self (physical, spiritual),
of others (children, community members, strangers), and the world at large (plants,
animals, the environment), education would have to be for the betterment of students,
educators, and the larger community. That is, if education was a tool designed around
7
care of the individual and their well-being in respect to the world, the curriculum and
practices of educators would inherently be encompassing of world citizens, the holistic
needs of students, and would include consideration of the full spectrum of human
talents and interests (Noddings, 1992). Nel Noddings work is integral to the pursuit of
equal education opportunities for both genders because she brings a broader
perspective to the classroom. Some educators may feel comfortable within
grandfathered curriculum and traditional educational stylings because they are not
aware of their range of influence. Noddings contends that educators have the power
and responsibility to influence the community around them, and that awareness is a
necessary call to action for those who need to change.
Lyn Mikel Brown and Carol Gilligan
Without consideration and care of the individual, students can often be
shuffled through their academic life with little regard to their personal insights or point
of view. The perpetual push towards standardized measures and grandfathered
curriculum can be especially harmful to young students already susceptible to selfesteem issues and loss of identity. Lyn Mikel Brown and Carol Gilligan study the
phenomenon of loss of voice among adolescent females in their 1992 landmark study
Meeting at the Crossroads. Brown and Gilligan (1992) follow the lives of several
female students as they progress from pre-pubescence through their emergence as
teenagers and find a significant reduction in their apparent self-worth, vocalized
opinion, and self-identified standing in the world. Many girls noted a feeling of being
worth less than their male counterparts, and they also expressed a wish to exist in the
8
world as a male does in order to be afforded the same privileges (Brown & Gilligan,
1992). As time went on, Brown and Gilligan (1992) noticed a trend of conformity,
niceness, and loss of self among the students as the young women learned to be quiet,
passive, and malleable to their surroundings. This study seeks to analyze the
curriculum of high school students in the very same stages of those in Brown &
Gilligan study. It is the researcher’s contention that the curriculum provided to
students during their adolescent years will most likely be a reflection of what they are
experiencing internally; no voice, representation, or connection.
Mary Pipher
This loss of voice is also noted by Mary Pipher, Ph.D. (1994) in her work
Reviving Ophelia. Pipher, a psychologist and author, studies the dynamics of
adolescent girls as they shape themselves to meet societal demands. Pipher, very
similarly to Brown and Gilligan, finds consistent acts self-editing and loss of voice
among her adolescent subjects of study. She also finds the girls are learning their
worth is valued by appearance and popularity rather than academic merit or character
(Pipher, 1994). Pipher, as did Brown and Gilligan, finds that self-mutilation through
the forms of extreme dieting and anorexia can be a dangerous side effect of this
demeaning point in a young woman’s life. Pipher and Brown and Gilligan’s work
provides insight into the lives of adolescent girls as they navigate their way through
personal and educational development and finds that female voice is consistently
quieted, lost, and rarely represented in the larger world as examples to follow (Brown
& Gilligan 1992; Pipher, 1994). When female students are bombarded with unrealistic
9
and biased representations of themselves in the media while almost completely
unrepresented in the public, professional world and in their curriculum, one wonders
what paths other than conformity and silence and young women is apt to take.
Definition of Relevant Terms
Connected Knowing: An epistemological orientation and mode of thinking
which requires a connection between self and another and relies on personal
experience for comprehension and understanding (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, &
Tarule, 1997)
Gender: A socially learned and cultural perception of one’s physical sex
(Lorber, 1992)
Gender relevance: the relationships of power and authority conveyed through
the language and characterization of the text (Goodman, 1996)
Gender roles: expectations regarding the proper behavior, attitudes, and
activities of males and females (Schaefer, 1996)
Hegemony: a moving equilibrium in which the dominant force of a society
maintains total social control by framing their ideals as natural, gaining consent
without direct force (Hebdige, 1979)
Instructional Materials (formal curriculum): All materials designed as a
learning resource to help acquire facts, skills, or develop cognitive process (California
Education Code Section 60010 (h))
Sexism: the ideology that one sex is superior to the other (Schaefer, 1996)
10
Title IX: No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded
from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under
any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance (U.S. Const.,
art. 20, title IX, § 1681)
Voice: The expression of one’s psychology, point of view, perspective, or
vantage point (Brown & Gilligan, 1992)
Organization of Thesis
The organization of this thesis is as follows. Chapter 2 is a review of related
theory regarding current gender bias, gender bias in education, and gender in
literature. Chapter 3 contains the explanations of methods used in the study. Chapter 4
consists of the data and its content analysis regarding the gender of characters. Chapter
5 consists of conclusions drawn from the study and recommendations for future
research and curriculum modifications.
Background of Researcher
The researcher received her Baccalaureate degree in Communications with an
emphasis in Public Relations and a minor in Anthropology from California State
University, Sacramento in the fall of 2008. She developed her interest in advocacy and
education through employment at a local community college and decided to pursue a
Master’s degree in a field where she could explore both passions. The Gender Equity
in Education Master’s program at California State University, Sacramento offered the
researcher the opportunity to study educational theory, feminist theory, and to engage
with and learn from students from varied backgrounds and subjects of study.
11
This thesis is a response to the researcher’s high school educational
experience. Although there were a few exceptions, most of the literature she read in
high school featured male protagonists and male points of view. The researcher used
her opportunity to explore the current status of gender equity in assigned high school
language arts texts in order to advocate for future students and offer suggestions
towards a more balanced curriculum.
12
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE
This thesis is an exploration of gender equity in education, as well as its
correlation to real world experiences, influences, and consequences. Gender inequities
in education mirror the same inequities in our greater culture, and in doing so,
perpetuate the cycle by denying female students equal academic and professional
access. The following chapter includes a background of current gender equity
problems, gender equity in education, and the specific problem of gender relevance
and inclusion in literature curriculum.
Gender Bias and Education
Historic Significance
The battle for gender equity in American education has roots reaching back to
our Colonial beginnings. During Colonial era, the American educational system either
entirely excluded females or severely limited their participation. The majority of
female children learned domestic skills within the home, and were occasionally
permitted into local schools for limited times that would not interfere with male
students’ educations (Freeman, 1989). In 1767, a school in Rhode Island began
offering instruction to female students from 6:00 am to 7:30 am, and from 4:00 to 6:30
in the afternoon. These inconvenient hours were chosen to eliminate interference with
the education of boys (Sadker & Sadker, 1994). Early forms of formal education for
females emphasized their grooming for motherhood, piousness, and marriage.
Specifically, seminaries offered the completion of a female student’s education and
13
emphasized “the three M’s: morals, mind, and manners,” as well as the all-important
motherhood (Sadker & Sadker, 1994, pp. 17-19).
As seminary and academy schools developed through the early eighteenth
century, females entered the formal education system. Although some courses retained
their emphasis on domestic training, there were also now formal offerings of academic
coursework. Female students attained public acknowledgement of their academic
accomplishments and began their development of a formal place in America’s
educational system. Due to their decreased monetary worth as employees, underpaid
female teachers became the standard as schools grew within the United States
(Freeman, 1989). Teacher preparation quickly became a focus at seminaries, because a
classroom was seen a natural extension of the home, females could easily be paid less
than male teachers, and women were thusly trained for the profession (Sadker &
Sadker, 1994).
As women proved themselves academically viable in private, religious focused
colleges, they began to knock at the door of public universities. They were met with
opposition, and college administrators voiced their opinions without hesitation. For
example, when the University of Michigan formed a committee to consider admitting
female students, the president of the college stated “Men will lose as women advance,
we shall have a community of defeminated women and demasculated men. When we
attempt to disturb God’s order, we produce monstrosities” (Sadker & Sadker 1994, p.
22). As a result of the Civil War, dwindling male student enrollment forced
universities to eventually admit women students. Female students were met with
14
harassment from both male teachers and students in the form of avoidance, mockery,
jeering, ridicule, and the eventual physical blockade of classroom doors (Sadker &
Sadker, 1994).
Eventually, the struggle for female students to enter into established colleges
forced them to do the unthinkable, establish their own. Female students who were
unable to enroll at Harvard, a wrong not corrected until 1975, began studying at the
university by way of private lectures in rented buildings and overnight use of the
library’s books. Books were delivered by messenger for female students to use
overnight, and were required to be returned by the following morning. Eventually, the
female students attained a name for their Harvard education, Radcliffe (Sadker &
Sadker, 1994). This trend of closed doors and student persistence continued in a
similar manner at many American Ivy-League Universities, and resulted in the
creation of the seven sister colleges; Smith, Mount Holyoke, Wellesley, Vassar,
Barnard, and Bryn Mawr. Although, eventually, women were permitted to attend high
schools and universities, the selected focus of study still reared women towards low
paying careers, or no careers, and certainly not towards any recognition within their
own curriculum (Sadker & Sadker, 1994).
Gender still remains a problem in education today, for both males and females
(Sadker & Silber, 2007). An instructor’s perception of gender and their personal
assumptions and stereotypes of gender affect classroom interactions (Pace &
Townsend, 1999). Typically, the effect on males is that they are forced to participate
and are brought to the forefront of the discussion, while females learn a more
15
cooperative and quiet role (Carinci, 2007). Many people assume that there are
biological truths that determine a person’s intellectual abilities and behaviors,
especially when correlated to their gender. However, Sadker & Silber (2007) contend,
Most modern educational research on gender similarities and differences
suggests no physical or intellectual barrier to the participation of women in
mathematics, science, or technology Indeed, it is now generally accepted that
women have been and continue to be underrepresented in these fields mainly
because of social and cultural barriers that did not and still may not accord
them equal opportunities. (p. 236)
The phenomenon of underrepresentation and powerlessness occurring in classrooms
parallels the gender socialization of women in other aspects of their lives. Denise
Croker (1999) asked her female and male students to imagine living as the opposite
gender. The male students found very little benefit to living as female, citing less
freedom, and female students were excited at the prospect of living as a male,
especially consider the increased freedom they would have (Croker, 1999). Early
gender-role socialization and its perpetuation through adolescence may also affect
how educators perceive and teach students.
This differential treatment based on instructor perceptions is explained in the
Brophy- Good Model (Kougl, 1997). The Brophy-Good Model is an expectation
communication process in which instructors form differential expectations of their
students and behave differently towards their students. The instructor’s behavior, over
time, affects that student’s self-concepts, achievement motivation, levels of aspiration,
16
classroom conduct, and interactions with the teacher (Kougl, 1997). Gender is a factor
in teacher expectation. Instructors may use their personal perception of gender to
shape their opinions about students. According to Carinci (2007),
Because of gender socialization patterns that exist in our society, instructors
have different expectations for females and males. Various classroom studies
have shown that instructors are more likely to allow males to talk more and to
interrupt classroom instruction than they are for females to engage in the same
behaviors. From these interruptions, more time is spent answering the males’
questions than the females’ questions, and, more important, students learn that
the male voice and concerns take first priority in the classroom. (p. 70)
Males often demand more attention from instructors by acting out, and are called on
more often (American Association of University Women [AAUW], 1999). The
surplus of attention focused on male students can result in a lack of self-confidence in
female students (AAUW, 1999). Females also receive less critical response than
males, partly due to the teacher’s protective attitude towards female students (Carinci,
2007). Teachers are more likely to respond to males with thoughtful, in depth, and
careful evaluations of the answer (AAUW, 1999). Females are more influenced by
their teacher’s behaviors than males, and these gender differences in classroom greatly
affect female students (Sadker & Silber, 2007). Bias creates unequal education for
males and females in all sorts of ways; female students still experience sex
discrimination in the form of limited resources for female athletes in comparison to
their male counterparts, school policies require pregnant teenagers to attend alternative
17
schools with no repercussions for teenage fathers, and limited access to vocational
programs can consistently steer females towards lower paying careers (Sadker &
Silber, 2007). Even secondary education institutions represent bias, with substantially
more male professors than female, and, amongst the professors, more tenured males
than females (Sadker & Sadker, 1994). Subtle bias, such as the exclusion of female
representation in curriculum, can also be as damaging as blatant discrimination in that
it denies female students the opportunity to learn material or be inspired in the same
manner as their peers.
Although Title IX was created to ensure equal educational opportunities for
both male and female students, it cannot fully protect against biased classrooms. Title
IX can be effectively applied to programs, curriculum, regulations, and textbooks but
it is difficult to regulate intangible bias, such as a teacher’s perception. Title IX cannot
completely safeguard against gender bias in classroom interactions. For example,
Teachers are often unaware of the way they interact with male and female
students. Research shows that both female and male teachers are more likely
to call on male students more often. Whether inequitable instructional
interaction is legal or not depends on the extent of the pattern of restriction or
exclusion. Unintentionally calling on boys more frequently than girls is not
illegal, though it may create an ineffective educational climate. (Sadker &
Silber, 2007, p. 91)
Although education is more equitable now than it is has ever been, there are
still many corrective actions that need to take place. Gender is a socially learned
18
construct and an instructor’s perception, personal assumptions, and stereotypes of
gender affect classroom interactions.
Literature Arts Canon in the United States
The Federal and State Powers of Curriculum Choice
There are no specific federal curriculum standards for language art text
selections, although federal law does require individual states to develop standards to
be approved before states receive federal funding (U.S. Department of Education,
2010). State governments, such as the California State Board of Education, are granted
to the power to determine educational standards and approve curriculum per the tenth
amendment of the United States Constitution (Dennis, 2000). The 10th Amendment
reads “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”
(U.S. Const. amend. X). The United States Constitution does not mention education,
thus the powers are granted to individual states (Dennis, 2000). According to Pember
and Calvert (2006), “Local control of the public schools by duly elected local school
boards is a hallmark not only of the U.S. educational system but of that illusive
collection of beliefs called the American ethos” (p. 102). There are limits to the
autonomy of state rights in terms of education, however, whereas states must comply
with civil rights amendments, freedom of speech, and any other applicable
amendment, statute, or legislation (Dennis, 2000).
According to Deborah Franklin, the Educational Programs Consultant within
the Curriculum and Frameworks Instructional Resource Division of California, there
19
are no state or federal mandates for grade 9-12 language arts text selections (Deborah
Franklin, personal communication, November 14, 2011). There are common core
standards, however, that currently have been adopted by 45 states (Deborah Franklin,
personal communication, November 14, 2011).These common core standards, the
closest document comparable to a national standard, do not stipulate or mandate
curriculum choices for language arts (Deborah Franklin, personal communication
November 14, 2011). Individual states maintain the right to determine and approve
curriculum, and the California State Board only approves curriculum up to the eighth
grade, leaving curriculum choices for grades 9-12 to individual school districts (Cal.
Const., art. IX, § 7.5). School districts are granted the power to determine curriculum
by the California Educational Code, which states “Governing boards of school
districts shall adopt instructional materials in accordance with the provisions of
Section 60040” (Cal. Ed. Code., chpt. 2., art. VII, §240).
The power to determine curriculum, in terms of high school language arts
courses, is flexed at varying degrees across the 1,000 school districts in California
(Deborah Franklin, personal communication, November 14, 2011). Some school
districts determine reading lists while others do not, some individual schools
determine curriculum for all their language arts courses while other schools leave
reading selections to the discretion of the instructors (Deborah Franklin, personal
communication, November 14, 2011).
Although the California State Board of Education does not mandate or approve
language arts curriculum for high schools, there are language arts content standards for
20
grades 9-12. The language arts content standards do not stipulate content standards for
instructional materials, yet they do outline the required learner outcomes for students.
The standards do require that students analyze the authors’ point of view, the meaning
of the texts, and analyze the characters they read (California State Board of Education,
2010). The traditional canon of American Literature is also subtly reinforced by the
adopted content standards, as it reads that students should “Demonstrate knowledge of
eighteenth-, nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century foundational works of American
literature, including how two or more texts from the same period treat similar themes
or topics” (California State Board of Education, 2010, p. 29). The term “foundational”
is not defined within the language arts standards for grades 9-12, and the California
suggested reading list for high school students contains over 2,000 titles (California
Department of Education, 2011). There are standards for evaluating social content
within curriculum which include special consideration of male and female roles. The
California State Board of Education (2000) Standards for Evaluating Instructional
Materials for Social Content include but are not limited to,
1. Adverse reflection: Descriptions, depictions, labels, or rejoinders that tend
to demean, stereotype, or patronize males or females because of their sex
must not appear.
2. Equal portrayal: Instructional materials containing references to, or
illustrations of, people must refer to or illustrate both sexes approximately
evenly, in both number and degree of importance, except as limited by
accuracy or special purpose.
21
3. Occupations: If professional or executive occupations, parenting, trades, or
other gainful employment is portrayed, men and women should be
represented equally.
4. Achievements: Whenever instructional material presents developments in
history or current events or achievements in art, science, or any other field,
the contributions of women and men should be represented in
approximately equal numbers.
5. Mental and physical activities: An approximately equal number of male
and female characters should be depicted in roles in which they are being
mentally and physically active, being creative, solving problems, and
experiencing success and failure in those roles.
6. Traditional and nontraditional activities: The number of traditional and
nontraditional activities engaged in by characters of both sexes should be
approximately even.
7. Emotions: A range of emotions (e.g., fear, anger, tenderness) should be
depicted as being experienced by male and female characters.
8. Gender-neutral language: Such general terms as people, men and women,
pioneers, and they should be used to avoid the apparent exclusion of
females or males.
9. Parenting activities: Both sexes should be portrayed in nurturing roles with
their families. The responsibility of parenting should be emphasized. (pp.
3-4)
22
Although the guidelines for social content, as they pertain to gender roles and
inclusion, are fairly progressive, these standards are not applied to literature
curriculum choices. Per the “Special Circumstances” section of the California
Department of Education (2000) standards, classic and contemporary literature,
especially “high-quality” literature are held as exceptions from the application of
standards (p. 2).
The ambiguity of content standards for language arts curriculum provides little
to no framework for materials determined by school boards, schools, or individual
teachers. While freedom of local schools to determine their own curriculum could,
hypothetically, allow for more diversity within the curriculum and inclusion of
multicultural and gender-balanced representations, all too often the same
“foundational” texts are assigned (Bona & Maini, 2006). Although there is no
approved, formal list of great American and/or Western Literature, there is certainly a
widely accepted conglomeration of works perpetually assigned in language arts
curriculum.
“Classic” Literature
The history of the classic American Literature canon is long and fraught with
debate. The canon is a loosely comprised collection of literary works commonly
assigned and revered in academia (Bona & Maini, 2006). The accepted American
canon, from a historical perspective, is built of male, Anglo-European authors
standing on the figurative shoulders of one another (Lauter, 1991). The current
treatment of the American canon reveres texts that have been historically valued, and
23
measures the works of less known authors against the standard canon (Lauter, 1991).
Such comparisons value the norm as correct and important, therefore leaving all other
contributions (marginalized voices) as less so (Lauter, 1991).
The reason for the male domination of American Literature has its beginnings
in the Early 1920s, when “American Literature” developed into its own discipline and
its core readings were constructed by a small group of educators. Their ideas
concerning life and American culture shaped the current canon, and the themes they
embraced are the foundations for our language arts curriculum (Lauter, 1984). These
themes do not address the female American experience, nor any female experience
other than a superficial and placating existence. Lauter (1984) explains,
It emphasized decline and alienation, the virtue of emotional restraint,
romantic confrontations of lone men with natural forces, the dangers of being
trapped in ‘sivilization’ - as Huck Finn calls it – a place dominated by Aunt
Sally and other genteel women. It painted America as a ‘wasteland,’ rotting
before it had ripened. It virtually ignored, as ‘minor,’ ‘popular,’ or ‘regional,’
writing by white women, as well as by Black and ‘ethnic’ writers generally.
But it esteemed works of imaginative darkness, like Melville's Pierre and
Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury. Implicitly, it validated certain experiences
as important and relegated others to the periphery: for example, hunting – a
bear or a whale - supposedly provided paradigms for coming of age and for
‘human’ exploration, whereas menstruation, pregnancy and birthing did not.
The battlefield and the bull ring became the arenas for heroism. But ‘heroism’
24
did not extend to the aging spinster struggling in rural Maine for a place to
live or to the fugitive's quest for a North of freedom - indeed, literature
encoding such themes was seldom seriously studied. (pp. 34-35)
There exists a distinct pattern of exclusion of females and minorities within the written
formation of our history. Lauter (1991) laments, “An image has long haunted the study
of American culture. It limits our thoughts, shapes our values” (p. 9). The male,
Anglo-saxon centered canon functions as a hegemonic tool in that it shapes the
American/ Western experience as white, male, and very linear in its progress (Brannon
& Greene, 1997). The resulting model is one of “mainstream” authors and “tributary”
authors, with the former holding much more sway (Lauter, 1991, p. 10). A historically
rigid canon, or a collection of authors who are considered major, important, or
mainstream, also implies that there are authors who are minor and unimportant
(Lauter, 1991).
The first stages of American writings are commonly exemplified by authors
like Washington Irving and James Fenimore Cooper, followed by Edgar Allen Poe and
Herman Melville, then Mark Twain, Ernest Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and so on
(Lauter, 1991). Revisionist history is easily accomplished by the omission of
documents, fictional or non-fictional, that tell the stories of other Americans beyond
the white, male narrative (Brannon & Greene, 1997). Language arts curriculums teach
the evolution of American writing with these famous authors, creating the American
experience through their perspectives, and limiting the contributions of non-white
25
authors and female authors as less important than their famous contemporaries
(Lauter, 1991).
Invisibility of Women
While this study only encompasses the inclusion of female voice within
literary selections, the overall eradication of females from the recorded American
experience cannot be ignored. The cultural offerings of a society, whether high-culture
or low-culture, must be evaluated within the context of that society (Hebdige, 1979).
Therefore, the treatment of female experience within national history and non-fiction
is integral to the understanding of a literary canon completely devoid of female voice.
The denial of female voice, and any other marginalized group, within written history
coincides with the absence of representation within reflective popular culture. Brannon
& Greene (1997) explain,
As a nation we do not like to remember the past. Freedom from the past, after
all, has been our national myth, and that innocence has often been a key to our
achievements. We tell ourselves that we received our unique identity in a
moment of revolutionary forgetting, when we declared ourselves independent
from an old world. We think a new world can be made because we have shed
the old world and renamed ourselves. At some time or other, every American
has been Jay Gatsby. (p. 5)
The denial of female experience within literary curriculum is mirrored by the denial
of female experience within history. The formation of the first documents and
policies of the United States, from the perspective of minorities and women, is
26
completely void of representation (Brannon & Greene, 1997). In fact, it echoes with
irony as the same tyrannical sentence being fought against by the wealthy, angloeuropean male politicians who called out King George as an oppressor (Brannon &
Greene, 1997). The irony is so rich, in fact, the women at the Seneca Falls convention
read Jefferson’s Declaration of Sentiments out loud, replacing every mention of King
George with the phrase “all men”(Brannon & Greene, 1997, p. 14).
While students learn about the Revolutionary War through their history
courses, U.S. non-fiction texts like the Declaration of Independence, the U.S.
Constitution, and novels like My Brother Sam is Dead, they gain little to no
knowledge of a slave’s, a native American’s, or a woman’s perspective of the period
(Brannon & Greene, 1997). The study of Abigail and John Adam’s letters to one
another would reveal a portion of this unknown history, as Abigail implores John to
remember the women in this new country, and John tells Abigail she is humorous in
her requests, comparing her to other dissenters who grew “insolent to their Masters,”
such as “Indians and Negroes” (Brannon & Greene, 1997, p. 13). In his condemnation
of the rights of other peoples and his grouping of minorities and women, John Adams
foreshadows the future arguments of abolitionists and feminists, who recognize the
parallels of their denied citizenships and rights in the formation of their country
(Brannon & Greene, 1997).
The formation of the American experience in history is much the same as it is
in fiction, pieced together by a timeline of frontiersmen, soldiers, and young men
coming of age in the United States (Lauter, 1991). However, there are many American
27
experiences that remain untold; women also traveled west, Native-American’s also
wrote about the frontier (their home), and the African-American experience is as
deeply rooted in American history as the writers of our constitution, yet their narrative
is largely ignored (Lauter, 1991). Females and other marginalized persons all
experienced American wars together, yet many students may only ever learn from
Hemingway.
The exclusion of female experience from the greater collection of American
experience is reflected, not only in national history, but in the history of the canon
itself. Male authors are revered and studied while female and minority authors are
forgotten. The perpetuation of the story of American fiction and its accepted authors is
a result of the teaching and re-teaching by language arts instructors and professors; a
seemingly endless revolving door of the same material pushed through as the only
correct version of great work (Lauter, 1991). If an accurate portrayal of American
fiction history was presented, scholars would have to teach the roots of “realism” back
to female authors like Alice Cary, Susan Warner, and Caroline Kirkland (Lauter,
1991). In fact, Lauter (1991) writes “… the dominantly female practice of realism in
mid- nineteenth century America shaped the fictional strategy of the later male writers
that critics have traditionally described as ‘realists’” (p. 15).
American fictional history leaves much untold American women (Lauter,
1991). Through waves of feminism and collateral callings for multi-cultural
educational texts, the classic canon has been challenged and debated through the
decades (Bona & Maini, 2006). Like many social movements, the effectiveness of the
28
fight for inclusive curriculum has wavered with the ebbs and flows of politics (Bona &
Maini, 2006). The 1960s and 1970s were a time of growth and hopefulness in the
canon, and the 1980s were a period of conservative educational policies with a
reversion to more traditional texts (Bona & Maini, 2006). The fervor of the sixties
produced a large uncovering of multicultural and female works long unseen in
traditional canons. Bona and Maini (2006) explain,
Each of these anthologies contributed to the growing need and demand for a
body of literature that was conspicuously absent in the influential and popular
Norton Anthology through much of the 1970s. For instance, only one African
American writer, Lee Roi Jones (Amiri Baraka) was given the last two pages
of the 1,906 page Norton Anthology, thus underscoring the relationship
between hegemonic control and distribution of knowledge. (p. 3)
A highly popular resource, the Norton Anthology series, provides an authoritative list
of language arts curriculum for scholars (Bona & Maini, 2006). Although historically
criticized for its exclusion of female and minority authors, the company line now
claims it is has answered to the call for the inclusion of these forgotten writers (Bona
& Maini, 2006). In fact, there now exists Norton Anthologies of feminist writings,
female authors, and multiracial writing collections (http://books.wwnorton.com).
A review of the most recent edition of Norton’s Anthology of American
Literature reveals inclusion of previously forgotten and omitted stories of the Native
and African-American experience, and also includes many female authors
(http://books.wwnorton.com). A quick count, though, of the ratio of female authors to
29
male authors still leaves a bit to be desired, with only 54 of the 155 authors being
female (see Appendix B). That is, the curriculum offered to students as the most up-todate example of balanced literature is still 65% male and 35% female.
Gender, historically, has been categorized with other curriculum reform
content considerations of the 1960s and 1970s, such as age, ethnicity, culture, and
class (St Pierre, 1999). The backlash against feminism in the 1980s shifted the
progressive focus of previous decades from gender and cultural sensitivities to only
cultural sensitivities. Many educators felt that all of the necessary revisions had
already been made and the work towards gender equitable canons was considerably
slowed (St Pierre, 1999). However, textbooks and curriculum reviewed for gender
bias, although designed to meet equity standards, still show bias in the form of the
absence of females and language bias (AAUW, 1999).
When half of the American experience is eradicated from the literature,
everyone loses. Many current forms of curriculum present world views that are white
and male, or that only include women and people of color as exceptional rarities
(AAUW, 1999). The exclusivity of the white male experience in Western culture does
not speak to those from different ethnic origins, cultures, classes, or gender.
Gender Inclusion and Voice
High school language arts curriculum needs to be examined because language
is a powerful force in the development of ideas and realities. This treatment of
language, as a tool to shape reality, is often described as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis,
or linguistic relativity, in anthropological circles (Lucy, 1992). Lizbeth Goodman
30
(1996) explains the power of language in Literature and Gender as she examines the
power dynamic between Alice and Humpty-Dumpty in an excerpt of Through the
Looking Glass,
‘When I use a word’, Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, ‘it means
just what I chose it to mean- neither more nor less.’ ‘The question is’, said
Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ‘The
question is’, said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master - that’s all.’ (p. 18)
Humpty Dumpty sits on his wall, Alice below him, and he explains that he uses
language in the ways that he chooses because he has authority; he is a master of the
language (Goodman, 1996). The English language, and our use of it, is riddled with
powerful gendered messages. College degrees are presented as Bachelors and Masters,
“he” or “him” is used a generic term for any person, and the typical American
literature canon is filled with male authors and characters. More specifically, our
language arts classroom canon is patriarchal and rooted by a group of white, western,
male authors (St Pierre, 1999).
If narrative is a medium for human knowledge, then studying a narrow window
of narratives, Anglo-European males, only facilitates the learning of their knowledge
and experiences; not the entire scope of our history (Lauter, 1991). Many high school
texts considered to be “classics” provide male voice, representation, and connection,
but leave female students with very little context (Barker, 1989, p. 40). The loss of
voice and self-worth among female teenage adolescents is mirrored and reinforced by
their lack of representation in language arts curriculum and in the biased, stereotyped
31
female characters presented to them (Benjamin & Irwin-Devitis, 1998). In fact, when
female characters are present, they are “marginalized, eliminated, or made into
symbols as the male characters grapple with deep moral issues” (Barker 1989, p. 40).
Women and men need a variety of representations of both genders in the
curriculum, including passive and aggressive, dependent and independent, heroes and
helpers. Women need to see themselves represented in primary roles and as active
figures, and men need to see women represented as such in order for all students to
develop realistic and healthy perceptions of gender (Carlson, 1989). A 1998 study of
adolescents and their perceptions of literary characters showed a deep chasm between
worth of female and male characters and their perceived value (Benjamin & Irwin
Devitis, 1998). The authors of the study found that female characters are generally
valued by their appearance and their kindness, while male characters are valued by
their bravery and public doings (Benjamin & Irwin Devitis, 1998).
A current review of the most frequently assigned books and authors still show
a vast majority of white male authors (AAUW, 1999). And, although curriculum is the
primary message medium in education, it remains inequitable (AAUW, 1999). A 1992
study by Barbara Pace revealed a significant majority of authors featured in literary
textbook canons are male, with few female writers, and even fewer writers of color
(Pace, 1992).
In her analysis, Pace also found that the female characters within the textbooks
were weak, vulnerable, and “the voiceless victims of negative experiences with men”
(1992, p. 35). Wall’s studies (1991), based on a large district’s reading list, found a
32
majority of male authors and a very narrow scope of female characters. Wall (1991)
included a qualitative analysis of the gender themes within the assigned works and
found that female characters, when present, were portrayed as very trivial, sexualized,
and shallow. Similarly, an analysis of popularly assigned works for bias by Helen
Connell (1994), found that female characters are lacking in representation, forcing
female students to switch codes and identify with male characters, while never asking
male students to do the same. Connell (1994) also found that female characters, when
present, do not form meaningful pair bonds as male characters typically do with one
another, are never in control, are objects of sexuality, are dangerous and irrational, and
are very limited in their scope. Connell (1994) found female stereotypes within the
novels included dangerous, sleazy trollops or motherly types who attempt to hold back
the male characters from experiencing the world, and not much in between.
Perpetuation of Non-inclusive Curriculum
The continued use of inequitable curriculum is the result of a cycle within the
educational system. Today’s educators are groomed with the existing literary canon
and perpetuate its teachings. Educators’ choices influence the publishers who produce
the collected works, and the publishers influence the available materials for educators
(Lauter, 1984). Educators may also influence the scope of analysis and the gender
relevance of a text by engaging students in dialogue with a biased opinion (Pace &
Townsend, 1999). Sexist classroom conversation can further the inequity for female
students as they have limited and stereotyped representations, and are subjected to
classroom dialogue that further devalues females (Pace & Townsend, 1999).
33
Furthermore, many of the depictions of females within the texts are isolated to private
spheres and without any political or dissenting voice (Pace, 1992). The treatment of
gender within the educational system is a reflection of societal gender values and
stereotypes.
The hegemonic function of systematic bias, such as the invisibility of females
in written history and curriculum, is to make those in power highly visible and
important, thus perpetuating each generation to repeat the previous one’s biases. Males
are assumed important history makers, and females are non-existent (Lyons, 2008). It
is important to consider the social framing of men and women in greater society when
examining their place in the educational system. Dale Spender (as cited in Whaley &
Dodge, 1993) explains,
Fundamental to patriarchy is the invisibility of women, the unreal nature of
women’s experience, the absence of women as a force to be reckoned with.
When women become visible, when they assert the validity of that experience
and refuse to be intimidated, patriarchal values are under threat. When we
know that for centuries women have been saying that men and their power are
a problem, when we are able to share our knowledge of today and combine it
with that of the past, when we construct our own alternative meanings and
traditions, we are no longer invisible, unreal, non-existent. And when we assert
that the reason for women’s absence is not women, but men, that is not that
women have not contributed, but that men have “doctored the records,” reality
undergoes a remarkable change. (p. 21)
34
The rebuttal for many feminist arguments against oppression has been that
male dominance and female submissiveness is a natural state. However, many
attributes of gender are socially constructed because the make-up and basic biology of
all human beings is very much the same. Without understanding the systematic
cultural grooming and gender role socialization imposed on children, gender
performances are usually assumed to be natural behaviors, resulting from some
internal character (Messner, 2002). Social learning theory offers a counter to this
assumption and proposes that individuals learn to be masculine and feminine and
through communication and observation (Wood, 2000). Individuals are labeled by
their sex, and through socialization, their attributes are developed and neatly fall into
the categories of male or female (Schaefer, 1996). The general acceptance is two
discrete sexes, genders, and in turn, two classes of people (Lorber, 1992).This gender
and class distinction begins in utero and divides men into first class citizens, and
women as second. Wood (2009) states,
Young girls tend to be rewarded when they are deferential, considerate, quiet,
loving, emotional expressive, and obedient- all qualities associated with
femininity. They tend to get less positive responses if they are boisterous,
independent, unconcerned with others, or competitive- qualities associated
with masculinity. As parents and others reinforce in girls what is considered
feminine and discourage behaviors and attitudes that are masculine, they
shape little girls into femininity. Similarly, as parents communicate approval
35
to boys for behaving in masculine ways and curb them for acting femininefor instance- crying they influence little boys to be masculine. ( p. 49)
Young girls receive the message that they are to be nice, nurturing, and put other
others before themselves, boys learn to assert themselves. The social grooming of
males and females is as relevant and true in the greater society as it is in educational
spheres, as instructors teach boys to thrive and girls to be polite (AAUW, 1999).
The social construction of gender is the result of cultural framing by a
hegemonic force. The hegemonic value system is not simply granted to affluent white
males, but those who control the media and public policy are in positions to reproduce
and sustain the ideas of the dominant group (Hebdige, 1979). The continual
objectification and stereotyping of females sends a message about as subtle as a Mac
truck. Be thin, be beautiful, be helpless, be domestic, and shut up (Douglas, 1995) The
effects of this socialization are detrimental to the equality of males and females, yet
the social construction of gender and its existence within the cultural framing of our
society has remained widely unchanged throughout the last century. In fact, although
the styling has changed, popular culture throughout the 1900s and early 2000s has
guided and reinforced the hegemonic ideal of femininity and the role of women in
society (Zeisler, 2008).
The result of gender socialization, for females, is that they are taught to be
more passive, gentler, and kinder than their male counterparts are. Females are also
aware, at an early age, of their future obligations as a wife and/or mother (Lips, 1989).
Women in the paid-labor market are consistently paid less than male peers are
36
(AAUW, 2009). Women are also victims of the second-shift phenomenon in which
women who work also maintain primary domestic and child-rearing responsibilities.
The second-shift, a double burden of work outside the home followed by childcare,
cooking, and cleaning, is a problem faced by many women and shared by few men
(Schaefer, 1996). The problem of the second shift is pervasive and detrimental to both
sexes. Women are forced to balance public and private responsibilities, and men are
taught that they need not worry about the trivial matters of home life. Parents and
children could benefit from balanced parenting and an equitable home life. While
reflecting on her travels to college campuses, Gloria Steinem (1995) writes,
I’ve yet to be on a campus where most women weren’t worrying about some
aspect of combining marriage, children, and a career. I’ve yet to find one
where many men were worrying about the same thing. Yet women will go
right on suffering from the terminal guilt of this double-role problem until
men are encouraged, pressured, or otherwise forced to individually and
collectively, to integrate themselves into the ‘women’s work” of raising
children and homemaking. Until then, and until there are changed job patterns
to allow equal parenthood, children will go right on growing up with the belief
that only women can be loving and nurturing, and only men can be intellectual
or active outside the home. Each half of the world will go on limiting its full
range of human talent. (p. 232)
Steinem recognizes one of the core problems in breaking down barriers for women in
education and in the professional world. Gender equity is difficult to achieve when a
37
woman’s career is considered less important, and so her education must be less
important as well. If females are not represented fairly or equally in our greater public
sphere, one would assume they are treated similarly in our popular literary selections
as well.
Benefits of Balanced Curriculum
The benefit of a balanced curriculum seems self- evident, but those who have
attempted and succeeded note success as evidenced by increased student awareness of
others and genuine considerations of gender and culture in discussion and writings.
When educators change their pedagogical focus from instructor-centered to studentcentered, students respond more freely and learn to hear their peers’ opinions (Whaley
& Dodge, 1993). When students are presented with writings from different cultures,
they report greater understanding and appreciation of either the culture in question, or
an affirmation of respect for their own culture (Lake, 1988). For example, when
students read works from cultures that systematically abuse and neglect women, they
become outraged, uncomfortable, and discussions are sparked regarding their own
cultural systems and the standing of women around the world (Davis, 1989).
When student’s read Thomas More’s Utopia paired with Perkin Gilman’s
Herland, the male students rebuffed the idea of a female dominated society. However,
the post-reading dialogue and reflection regarding the merits and values of both
societies broadened the perspectives of the students (Lake, 1988) When female
students are presented with a multicultural feminist perspective, they experience
empowerment, increased confidence, and are visible within the curriculum (Davis,
38
1989). When male students are routinely presented with feminist works, they begin to
appropriately regard female writers and female voice as valid, and do not recognize
male writers as the given authority in language arts (Davis, 1989). Male and female
students, when presented with alternates to the norm, seem to relish in the opportunity
to discuss other perspectives, be it culture or gender, and establish enlightened
opinions when given the chance. The mission remains to examine the current texts and
ask if the curriculum is best serving its students.
Conclusion
Gender bias in education maintains a long history of fighting against
institutionalized discrimination and closed doors. Currently, males and females enjoy
a seemingly equal number of opportunities, but a closer look at classroom practices,
societal expectations, and curriculum choices paints a much different picture indeed.
Like many cultural artifacts, works of popular literature reflect the values of our
society. The historical literature canon would suggest that these values do not seem to
include female perspective, voice, or presence. Female and male students would both
surely benefit from a more balanced perspective and world view within their language
arts curriculum.
39
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
In order to obtain a wide base of data for the study, the researcher selected a
quantitative content analysis study without the use of human subjects or testing. The
researcher was primarily interested in the written individual responses from language
arts instructors in her region. Although there are many resources to obtain reading lists
from local high schools, the researcher desired a more comprehensive view of the
assigned works within the classroom. In order to gain a more accurate account of the
works actually being assigned by instructors, the researcher contacted instructors
individually for a list of their frequently used literary works.
The purpose of this study was to compile a list of the most popularly used
literature within high school classrooms and analyze their inclusion of balanced
gender representations. The study measured the occurrences of female and male
characters within the assigned readings. The researcher chose a quantitative content
analysis methodology to conduct the study. Content analysis is defined by Earl Babbie
as “the study of recorded human communications” and is a useful tool in evaluating
cultural communication items such as novels and other written media (2007, p. 320).
Content analysis is an unobtrusive research method and was well suited to this
particular study of author and character gender in high school language arts
curriculum. Quantitative research was selected by the researcher as an appropriate
means to ascertain the proportions of character and author gender in high school level
40
literature. Quantitative research is used to “produce counts of key categories, and
measurements of the amounts of other variables” (Neuendorf, 2002, p. 14).
The categorization of gender is a nominal measurement, meaning there is
distinction between females and males within the novels as well as the identified
gender of the authors (Babbie, 2007). Nominal measurements are not weighted with
values, they are only recorded categorically as the same or different from each other.
This study does not seek to assign value to male or female gender so the content
analysis is limited to the nominal measure of character and author gender. Author and
character gender are treated with the same weight. In order to maintain internal
validity, the researcher’s conceptual definition of the variable (gender) is also their
operational definition of the variable (Neuendorf, 2002). Therefore, the researcher
studied only the variable identified in their research question, which is the gender of
characters and authors in high school novels. The results of this study contain no
conclusion regarding the value of each work’s literary or social content, its treatment
of characters, or any other qualitative measure.
Study Design and Data Collection
The goal of this study was to determine the percentage of female and male
authors, primary characters, and secondary characters within assigned novels at the
selected schools. The schools were selected by their location to the subject (counties in
Northern California) and instructors were contacted systematically by the researcher
with the following formula:
41
A) County One
1. Districts
a. Individual School(s)
i.
Employee Directory
-
Individual electronic mail to each language arts instructor
B) County Two
1. Districts
a. Individual School(s)
i.
Employee Directory
-
Individual electronic mail to each language arts instructor
The researcher contacted 425 high school language arts instructors throughout
two counties in the Northern California region. The researcher received 124 responses
from instructors that ranged from inclusion of their syllabi, their school’s book list,
and their own personal choices within the classroom. Most instructors listed novel
length stories, such as the Illiad and the Odyssey, as well as plays. Although the
researcher requested novel titles, she made the decision to include plays and other
novel- length works within the study as the majority of respondents included plays
within their lists. In fact, among the responses given, many of the more popular works
listed were plays.
42
Table 1
Responses Listing Plays
Number of Responses
124
Number of Responses Including Plays
102
Percentage of Responses Including Plays
82.25%
The responses of the instructors were varied, with some instructors citing the grade
levels and number of classes each taught, and some only responding with a list or
syllabus. Some responded with their school’s list, which was extensive. The researcher
recorded each title from each response. Therefore, some instructors contributed
multiple titles to the data, while others contributed only two to three titles.
Although many schools are willing to provide a list of commonly used novels,
the researcher was interested in the actual frequency of the assignment of novels. For
example, a school district could list a book available for use but no instructor at that
given school may be selecting the novel in their classroom. The researcher drafted a
generic letter (see Appendix A) requesting a list of commonly used novels and sent the
letter electronically over a period of 30 days to all readily available teachers. When
teachers were unavailable via electronic mail, telephone calls were placed by the
researcher. Collection of data occurred using electronic mail responses and telephone
messages.
43
Research Question
The author sought to answer the question: is there a balanced representation of
male and female authors, primary characters, and secondary characters within the
assigned high school language arts texts of high school students?
Research Instruments
The researcher performed a content analysis of commonly assigned language
arts works in Northern California high schools. The population of subjects was
selected using nonprobability sampling, as the researcher relied on the availability of
the subjects (Babbie, 2007). The study encompassed multiple districts and counties in
Northern California. Approximately 425 high school language arts instructors were
contacted with a request for a list of the novels they had assigned that academic year.
The researcher received 124 viable responses with lists of novels assigned within each
instructor’s classroom. Instructors answered with lists from each class and grade level
they taught.
The amount of novels listed varied among the respondents, as some instructors
taught many different courses and grade levels, and some taught only a few. The
actual assigned novels were analyzed individually to ascertain the gender of the author
and gender of characters within. The works were then organized according to their
frequency within the data.
Artifacts
The works themselves were the subjects of study. The researcher treated the
works as social artifacts, which are “any product of social beings or their behavior”
44
(Babbie, 2007, p. 97). These units were measured for their characters’ and author’s
gender.
Setting
The works were analyzed at a university library, where many of the readings
were available for review. When works were not available, the researcher used
academic curriculum guides for each corresponding work to ascertain the primary and
secondary characters and their genders.
Procedures
The content analysis of the works began with a collection of titles provided by
Northern California high school language arts instructors. Each title was recorded per
teacher that assigned the work. The works were then ranked by their frequency of
assignment, with the most popular works topping the list and the least frequently
assigned novels at the end. Each work was then analyzed for its (a) author’s gender,
(b) primary character’s gender, and (c) secondary characters’ gender. The characters’
genders were recorded as well as their place within the story (primary, secondary).
The data from each category (author gender, primary character gender, secondary
character) was categorized into male or female, and then all data was compared in
percentages. Finally, all categories of data were combined into a comprehensive
percentage comparison of female and male representation.
45
Conclusion
This study includes a quantitative analysis of the most frequently assigned
works in two Northern California counties. The quantitative study consists of a an
analysis of each works’
1. Author Gender
2. Primary character gender, number
3. Secondary character gender, number
The novels were accounted for as they occurred in the classrooms. For
example, if Catcher in the Rye was assigned by 20 different teachers in different high
schools, the character Holden was counted as occurring 20 times rather than just once.
The same was true for all novels and characters, primary and secondary, regardless of
gender. Since current California State Standards do not specify a required reading list,
the acquisition of this information was gathered by individual basis. A rubric of school
districts was created by county, and each high school within that district was contacted
with an inquiry regarding their language arts courses. Some high schools, such as
alternative schools, did not offer novels as a part of their curriculum and were
eliminated from the study. The language arts instructors of the remaining schools were
then contacted individually and asked what works they had assigned during the current
academic year.
A numeric sequence was created by the author to identify each instructor while
maintaining their and their schools’ anonymity. Each instructor’s response was
numbered in the order it was received, and then the instructors name and correlating
46
school information was removed from the response, with only the number remaining.
The number assigned to each response was its new identification, eliminating any
personal detail such as school district or instructor information. All that remained of
the data was the lists of assigned works. The quantities of occurrences of each author’s
gender and character genders within the 25 most frequently occurring works within
the data were then calculated. Each category was weighted the same.
47
Chapter 4
FINDINGS
Introduction to Quantitative Data
The goal of this study was to evaluate frequently assigned high school
language arts literature for its gender relevance. The researcher collected lists of
assigned titles from language arts instructors, tallied their responses, and ranked the 25
most frequently occurring titles for further analysis. The 25 most frequently occurring
works became the data set from which all other evaluations were made. Each piece of
literature was examined for its author’s gender, its primary character’s gender, and the
gender of all secondary characters. The results of each examination were multiplied by
the number of times the work was assigned in order to represent the data as it actually
occurs in the participating classrooms.
Instructor Response
The researcher received 124 responses to the request for assigned literature
titles. The responses were then stripped of their signature lines in order to maintain
anonymity of each participant. Each response was assigned a number corresponding to
the order in which it was received. For example, the response numbered “1” in
Appendix C was the first response received, and so on in that same order. The
researcher recorded the inclusion of any grade level or class title mentioned within the
response, as well as any mention of a school or district required reading list. The
researcher also recorded any mention of optional reading opportunities, as well as the
inclusion of short stories, non-fiction, and textbook reading within the course.
48
The responses are listed below (see Appendix C) in ascending order, from the
first response to the last. Each course title or grade level mentioned within the
response is listed exactly as each participant responded, so there is natural variance
among the responses. When the response included no mention of a course title or
grade level, of required reading, optional reading, or of alternative reading such as
textbooks, non-fiction and short stories, the researcher indicated the absence with a
“NM,” or “no mention.”
Of the 124 responses, instructors listed a range of courses from 9-12 grades,
Advanced Placement and Honors courses, and course titles such as English 1-4. Also,
of the 124 responses, six of the instructors mentioned that their reading was required,
while one instructor explicitly stated that they had no required reading. Seven
instructors mentioned that they encourage optional reading assignments, and 16
instructors mentioned that their reading curriculum includes use of a textbook, shortstories, and/or non-fiction works. Two responses included a full district reading list,
and the total number of titles received among all the responses totaled 1,343 with a
mean average among respondents of 10.83 titles.
Frequently Occurring Titles
The original list of titles compiled from all instructor responses contained
1,343 assignments of high school literature. Of the 1,343 occurrences of titles that
comprise the original data set (see Appendix D), the 25 most frequently occurring
titles are listed below (see Table 2). The frequency of each occurrence of a title being
listed is in the right column, with a total sum (n) of all frequencies equaling 659.
49
Table 2
25 Most Frequently Occurring Works Within the Data
25 Most Frequently Occurring Works Within the Data
Title
Frequency
To Kill a Mockingbird
51
Romeo and Juliet
50
Lord of the Flies
49
Of Mice and Men
48
Hamlet
40
The Crucible
38
The Great Gatsby
34
The Catcher in the Rye
34
Night
32
The Odyssey
27
Frankenstein
21
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
21
Raisin in the Sun
20
Their Eyes Were Watching God
19
1984
18
Macbeth
18
The Scarlet Letter
18
Joy Luck Club
17
Anthem
16
Animal Farm
16
Things Fall Apart
16
Julius Caesar
15
Ender’s Game
14
Brave New World
14
Fahrenheit 451
14
50
Percentages of Gender Representation in Data
Gender of Author
Of the 659(n) occurrences of the works within the data, 536 authors are male
and 123 of the authors are female (see Figure 1). That is, 18.6 % of the most popularly
assigned works in the data have female authors, while the male authors represent 81.4
% of the collected data. Table 3 lists each work as it appears in the list of 25 most
frequently used works. The works are marked as either having a male or female
author, and the final total number of authors which comprises 659(n) is calculated in
the right hand column by multiplying the occurrence of a female or male author by the
amount of times the work is listed in the data.
Gender of Author
Female
19%
Male
81%
Figure 1. Gender of Author.
51
Table 3
Gender of Author
Title
Author Male
Total x
Frequency
51 Listings
Romeo and Juliet
x
50 Listings
Lord of the Flies
x
49 Listings
Of Mice and Men
x
48 Listings
Hamlet
x
40 Listings
The Crucible
x
38 Listings
The Great Gatsby
x
34 Listings
The Catcher in the Rye
x
34 Listings
Night
x
32 Listings
x* (attributed to
Homer)
27 Listings
To Kill a Mockingbird
Author Female
X
The Odyssey
Frankenstein
The Adventures of
Huckleberry Finn
Raisin in the Sun
Their Eyes Were Watching
God
1984
x
21 Listings
X
20 Listings
x
20 Listings
x
19 Listings
X
18 Listings
Macbeth
X
18 Listings
The Scarlet Letter
X
18 Listings
Joy Luck Club
x
17 Listings
Anthem
x
16 Listings
Animal Farm
X
16 Listings
Things Fall Apart
x
16 Listings
Julius Caesar
x
15 Listings
Ender’s Game
x
14 Listings
Brave New World
x
14 Listings
Fahrenheit 451
x
14 Listings
52
Gender of Primary Character
Of the 709(n) occurrences of the primary characters within the data (n is
increased by 50 due to the dual primary characters within Romeo and Juliet), 193
characters are female and 516 characters are male (see Figure 2). That is, 27.2 % of
the most popularly assigned works in the data have female primary characters, while
the male primary characters represent 72.8 % of the collected data. Table 4 lists each
work as it appears in the list of 25 most frequently used works. The works are marked
as either having a male or female primary character, and the final total number of
characters which comprises 709(n) is calculated in the right hand column by
multiplying the occurrence of a female or male primary character by the amount of
times the work is listed in the data.
Primary Character Gender
Female
27%
Male
73%
Figure 2. Primary Character Gender.
53
Table 4
Gender of Primary Character
Title
Female Character
Male Character
Total x
Frequency
51 Listings
x
50 Listings
Lord of the Flies
x
49 Listings
Of Mice and Men
x
48 Listings
Hamlet
x
40 Listings
To Kill a Mockingbird
x
Romeo and Juliet
x
The Crucible
x
38 Listings
The Great Gatsby
x
34 Listings
The Catcher in the Rye
x
34 Listings
Night
x
32 Listings
The Odyssey
x
27 Listings
Frankenstein
x
21 Listings
The Adventures of
Huckleberry Finn
Raisin in the Sun
x
20 Listings
x
20 Listings
Their Eyes Were
Watching God
1984
x
Macbeth
19 Listings
x
18 Listings
x
18 Listings
The Scarlet Letter
x
18 Listings
Joy Luck Club
x
17 Listings
Anthem
x
16 Listings
Animal Farm
x
16 Listings
Things Fall Apart
x
16 Listings
Julius Caesar
x
15 Listings
Ender’s Game
x
14 Listings
Brave New World
x
14 Listings
Fahrenheit 451
x
14 Listings
54
Gender of Secondary Characters
Of the 9646(n) occurrences of secondary characters within the data (n is the
sum of the fourth column, “Total x Frequency”), 2806 character occurrences are
female and 6840 character occurrences are male (see Figure 3). That is, 29.08 % of the
characters within popularly assigned works in the data are female, while the male
characters represent 70.92 % of the collected data. Tables 5 and 6 list each work as it
appears in the list of 25 most frequently used works. The works are marked as either
having a male or female secondary characters, and the final total number of characters
which comprises 9646(n) is calculated in the right hand column by multiplying the
occurrence of a female or male secondary character by the amount of times the work is
listed in the data.
Secondary Character
Gender
Female
29%
Male
71%
Figure 3. Secondary Character Gender.
55
Table 5
Frequency of Secondary Characters (Female)
Title
To Kill a Mockingbird
Female Characters
(not primary )
5
Total x Frequency
51 x 5 = 255 F
Romeo and Juliet
4
50 x 4 = 200 F
Lord of the Flies
0
49 x 0 = 0 F
Of Mice and Men
2
48 x 2= 96 F
Hamlet
2
40 x 2= 80 F
The Crucible
9
38 x10= 380 F
The Great Gatsby
7
34 x 2= 68 F
The Catcher in the Rye
8
34 x 3= 102 F
Night
12
32 x 4= 128 F
The Odyssey
15
27 x 9= 243 F
Frankenstein
11
21 x 5= 105 F
The Adventures of
Huckleberry Finn
Raisin in the Sun
14
20 x 11= 220 F
6
20 x 4= 80 F
Their Eyes Were Watching God
10
19 x 7= 133 F
1984
6
18 x 1= 18 F
Macbeth
9
18 x 6= 108 F
The Scarlet Letter
4
18 x 2= 16 F
Joy Luck Club
15
17 x 16= 272 F
Anthem
3
16 x 1= 16 F
Animal Farm
11
16 x 5= 80 F
Things Fall Apart
15
16 x 5= 80 F
Julius Caesar
10
15 x 2= 30 F
Ender’s Game
21
14 x 2= 28 F
Brave New World
8
14 x 3= 12 F
Fahrenheit 451
4
14 x 4 = 56 F
56
Table 6
Frequency of Secondary Characters (Male)
Title
To Kill a Mockingbird
Male Characters
(not primary )
13
Total x Frequency
51 x 13= 663 M
Romeo and Juliet
15
50 x15= 750 M
Lord of the Flies
6
49 x 6= 294 M
Of Mice and Men
8
48 x 8= 384 M
Hamlet
15
40 x 15= 600 M
The Crucible
9
38x 9= 342 M
The Great Gatsby
7
34 x 7= 238 M
The Catcher in the Rye
8
34 x 8= 272 M
Night
12
32 x 12= 384 M
The Odyssey
15
27 x 15= 405 M
Frankenstein
11
21 x 11= 231 M
The Adventures of
Huckleberry Finn
Raisin in the Sun
14
20 x 14= 280 M
6
20 x 6= 120 M
Their Eyes Were Watching God
10
19 x 10= 190 M
1984
6
18 x 6= 108 M
Macbeth
9
18 x 9= 162 M
The Scarlet Letter
4
18 x 4= 72 M
Joy Luck Club
15
17 x 15= 255 M
Anthem
3
16 x 3= 48 M
Animal Farm
11
16 x 11= 176 M
Things Fall Apart
15
16 x 15= 240 M
Julius Caesar
10
15 x10= 150 M
Ender’s Game
21
14 x 21= 294 M
Brave New World
8
14 x 8= 112 M
Fahrenheit 451
5
14 x 5= 70 M
57
Total Percentage of all Gender
The total percentage of gender representation within the works, an average of
author gender (18.6% female, 81.4% male), primary character gender (27.2% female,
72.8% male), and secondary character gender (29.08% female, 70.92% male), is
24.96% female and 75.04% male (see Figure 4).
Total Gender
Representation
Female
25%
Male
75%
Figure 4. Total Gender Representation.
58
Conclusion
The data for this study was extrapolated from 124 instructor responses. The 25
most frequently assigned novels were listed in order of their popularity, then evaluated
for their gender representations. The instructor responses included insight regarding
curriculum. Instructors mentioned alternative assignments to novels such as textbook
readings, short stories, and non-fiction. Analysis of the 25 most frequently assigned
works resulted in four sets of percentages representing gender inclusion within the
texts. All four categories of analysis contain a majority of male representation.
59
Chapter 5
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Discussion
This study was designed to analyze frequently assigned high school language
arts curriculum for its representation of male and female authors and characters. The
investigation of popularly assigned titles, as they are represented in the data, provided
a list of 25 very frequently assigned works. This study included an investigation into
the selection process of California language arts curriculum. This study sought to add
to the field of academic research as it pertains to gender balanced curriculum and,
specifically, gender balance in language arts programs
The results of the study indicate that males are represented by a vast majority
in the collected data. Students and educators may not realize that their curriculum is so
skewed due to the daily (and life-long) hegemonic messaging that males are naturally
the norm and dominant (Wood, 2009). The message is steady, real, and leaves no
ambiguity, even for those whose gender characteristics do not neatly coincide with
their physical sex (Lorber, 1992, Schaefer, 1996). The acceptance and redistribution of
the male dominated canon is a process of hegemony, in which the historical positions
of power are reinforced and passed down through their everyday use (Hebdige, 1979).
The circle of giving, receiving, and maintaining power through cultural
messaging is found in popular culture as well as high-culture, such as curriculum and
academia (Zeisler, 2008). The worlds of popular culture, academia, and the labor
force, in fact, are all very well connected in that the degradation and dismissal of
60
women in one sphere can undeniably damage their prospects in the next (Zeisler,
2008). As long as women are unimportant in popular culture and history, they will be
unimportant in curriculum, as long as they are not represented academically, they will
never be treated as equals in the work force. If a women’s career is deemed as less
important than a man’s, there is never a need to better her education, because it must
be unimportant as well (Steinem, 1995). The absence of females from language arts
curriculum is not necessarily a causation of any other social or financial discrimination
in the public sphere, but they are indeed linked by their continuous feeding of one
another.
Frequently Occurring Titles
This study analyzed the representation of male and female voice within the
selected curriculum. The study analyzed 25 of the most frequently occurring literature
works assigned within the data set. It was not surprising that the canon represented in
the data was fairly traditional, in agreement with the findings and criticisms of many
scholars. In its research stage, this study also attempted to trace the roots of the
decision makers for the selected curriculum. The researcher found there is very little
formal framework to the selection of language arts materials within the United States.
Some instructors indicated that they are not provided with a reading list and are free to
select works independently, while other instructors had mandated curriculum for each
grade level and semester (anonymous, 2011). On a more terrifying note, instructors
also noted a trend towards non-fiction and historical readings in language arts courses
in order to better prepare students for examinations (anonymous, 2011). While the
61
idea of reading non-fiction and historical documents may sound innocent enough, one
must remember that these works are systematically devoid of any female
representation (Brannon & Greene, 1997).
The curriculum standards currently adopted by 45 states, the closest document
to a national standard, specifically address gender role standards within the
curriculum, then immediately exclude language arts literature from any scrutinization.
Moreover, the very nature of language arts curriculum is protected from any politically
correct analysis or measure of social value due to its inflammatory history of defense
against book bannings and censorship (Pember & Calvert, 2006). If anything, the right
of individual school districts to select and enforce reading choices is evermore
reinforced by the progressing years and court precedents (Pember & Calvert, 2006).
The lack of oversight and/or application of any Title IX consideration towards
language arts curriculum leaves a wide, open field of opportunity for change, yet the
informal and localized power of selection seems to lead to the same antiquated and
male dominated curriculum that has always been. The “classic” literature canon is
perpetuated without much question and students are at the mercy of their instructors
and school board to best decide the literature selections that may help shape their
world views (Lauter, 1991).
Percentages of Gender Representation in Data
The researcher found that each category of data (author, primary character, and
secondary characters) contains greater numbers of males than females, and that no
category of data is near a 50%-50% ratio which would indicate equal representation in
62
the text. The researcher compiled the data into an overall percentage of representation
including all three categories of data, where (n) is the total sum of all occurrences of
authors, primary characters, and secondary characters. Of the 659(n) occurrences of
the works within the data, 536 authors are male and 123 of the authors are female.
That is, 18.6 % of the most popularly assigned works in the data have female authors,
while the male authors represent 81.4 % of the collected data.
Of the 709(n) occurrences of the primary characters within the data (n is
increased by 50 due to the dual primary characters within Romeo and Juliet), 193
characters are female and 516 characters are male. That is, 27.2 % of the most
popularly assigned works in the data have female primary characters, while the male
primary characters represent 72.8 % of the collected data. Of the 9646(n) occurrences
of secondary characters within the data, 2806 character occurrences are female and
6840 character occurrences are male. That is, 29.08 % of the characters within
popularly assigned works in the data are female, while the male characters represent
70.92 % of the collected data. Overall, the average student within the range of this
study is more likely to read works written by male authors, and works containing a
much greater number of male characters than female characters.
The historical battle for gender education has not yet found its way to language
arts curriculum choices. The overwhelming majority of male voice within the
curriculum of the study suggests a lack of consideration towards female students and
female experience. Although female students are now permitted to attend the same
schools and receive the same books, even without having to immediately return them
63
before anyone notices, they are still absent within the curriculum they receive (Sadker
& Sadker, 1994). While students are past the colonial and early 20th Century history of
discrimination, they still read the same literature put forth by the original powers in
place.
The results of the study are congruent with other gender problems in education.
Given that male students receive more attention than female students within classroom
discussion, it is not surprising that they are also given more attention within the texts
(Sadker & Silber, 2007). Considering the levels of educators’ bias towards gender
within the classroom, it is also not surprising that educators, from individual
instructors, district school boards, and even college instructors, continue to regurgitate
“classic” material that reinforces male dominance without consideration of female
students (Lauter, 1991; Pace & Townsend, 1999). If male students are continually
provided more attention, are the primary voice within the text, and are brought to the
forefront of classroom discussions, the cycle of dismissal towards female students’
education seems unstoppable (AAUW, 1999; Carinci, 2007).
The results of the study indicate an imbalanced language arts curriculum, filled
with male voice and experience. The lack of inclusion of female experience is
unfortunate because literature and the study of language can be so influential in the
shaping of a student’s broader world view (Goodman, 1996; Lucy, 1992). A language
arts canon that does not include an adequate representation of female voice may also
lend itself to collateral damage. Students who are only presented with male authors
and male characters will naturally engage in classroom discussion and complete
64
assignments centered on male experience (Davis, 1989). More specifically, if the
canon continues to be inherited without change by each generation of educators,
language arts students’ entire curriculum will continue to be skewed by white,
western, male experiences (St. Pierre, 1999).
Lauter (1991) views narrative as a medium for communicating knowledge.
From Lauter’s perspective, a non-inclusive narrative leads to non-inclusive learning.
Those who espouse the theory of connected knowing, the idea that students need to be
reflected in the curriculum and in the greater world at large, would agree with Lauter
that a narrative without female voice leaves students stranded to see the world through
only male eyes. Female students lose because they will continually learn that their
experience is not worth telling, and male students lose because they learn their
experience is the only story which exists (Benjamin & Irwin Devitis, 1998). In
comparison, an inclusive curriculum (especially in language arts) can quickly lead to
connected knowing experiences for female students, and also opens the eyes of male
students to other perspectives (Davis, 1989; Lake, 1988). The appreciation of
perspective from another, as well as the presence of female gender within the
curriculum can help change the dynamics of sexist classroom talk and limited
understanding of the broader world, and can increase the self-esteem of those
previously marginalized within the works.
Conclusions
This study concludes with similar findings of AAUW (1999), Pace (1992),
Connell (1994), and Wall (1991); that the high language arts curriculum is biased in its
65
representation of male and female experience. This study found that, within this
particular data set, female authors represented only 18.6% of the frequently assigned
works. Primary characters within the works were split at 27.2% (female) and 72.8 %
(male). The percentages of representation among secondary characters fared no better,
with 29.08 % female representation and 70.92% male representation. Overall, females
were represented within the works, either by authorship or characters, at a rate of
28.3%, and males at 71.7%. That means the average student operating within the
system of this study’s reach will most likely be reading, discussing, and formulating
knowledge from a biased source.
Students will most likely read male authors who write in male voice and
create male characters, and, if they happen to read female authors, they are still often
reading male voice, as many of the female authors in the study write as male
characters. Of the 25 authors listed within the data, only six are female. Furthermore,
of those six authors, only half write as female protagonists. Mary Shelly’s
Frankestein, Lorraine Hansberry’s A Raisin in the Sun, and Ayn Rand’s Anthem all
feature male primary characters. In contrast, of the 25 authors, 19 are male. And, of
those 19 male authors, only three feature female primary characters.
Literature has a unique opportunity to enlighten its readers and spur opinions
through its analysis and appreciation. Therefore, it is a travesty that students will most
likely be enlightened and glean meaning from a rigidly narrow perspective. The
opportunity to hear female voice is limited even among female authors, and Shelly’s
66
Frankenstein could have been a perfect vehicle to see the world through a female’s
eyes.
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein follows the plight of a decidedly male monster as
he discovers the ways of the world; a male coming of age story with a dark and
romantic allegory of civilization and what it means to be human. When Shelly writes
only in male perspective, she limits the scope and breadth of the human experience.
Imagine the novel with a female monster discovering the world on her own. Perhaps
students would benefit from a female perspective as she encounters civilization,
experiences love, pain, rejection, and eventually the ever-important element of fire.
Not to disparage the important work of Mary Shelly, but the introduction of a female
being into the world and her progress as she becomes human could have been a
powerful story and useful tool for students to read female voice.
Shelly, like many females, writes male characters because she maintains the
ability to switch codes and think from a male perspective. This code switching is
passed on from generations and generations of females who are asked to read male
authors, dissect male opinion, and respond to prompts regarding male characters and
voice (Connell, 1994). Like the canon itself, the hegemonic legacy of male authority is
taught, learned, and passed on as students become educators, and educators become
decision makers.
Limitations
One limitation of the study is the reliance upon only novels and novel-length
plays. Many instructors noted in their responses that they use short stories and
67
textbooks, which were not included in the study. Other instructors noted a trend
towards non-fiction reading as it beneficial for students as they undergo standardized
testing.
The researcher also narrowed her research to two counties, and the responses
received were limited to 124 lists of titles. The research is only applicable to these
specific school districts, instructors, and classrooms. The researcher also noted great
variance in the responses of the instructors, with some providing only one title within
their response, and some providing their district’s reading list. The variance among the
responses is likely a result of the open-ended nature of the researcher’s initial
communication (see Appendix A) but also led to a wide modal range among the
respondents.
Recommendations
The ambiguity of the decision making process in the selection of language arts
curriculum leaves the responsibility of change to begin from the ground up, and not
the other way around. As with any grass roots effort, in order to see a shift within the
canon, students must demand to see balance and female representation within the text,
educators must care enough about their students to hear them. Educators who care
about their students’ entire well-being and position in the greater society should be
dedicated to a well-rounded curriculum. Appendix D (compiled from Whaley &
Dodge, 1993) is a list of useful works in the journey towards equitable curriculum.
Given the freedom of autonomy that many language arts instructors noted in
their selection processes (anonymous, 2011), the transformation of the curriculum
68
could be as easy as individual instructors selecting works with female authors and
female voice to balance the heavy-handed assignment of male dominated literature.
When school districts do mandate a reading list, instructors could supplement their
works with short stories and non-fiction authored by female writers. Even in the worst
case scenarios, where the reading list is too rigid to include any supplemental texts,
classroom discussion can include gender and its place within the works. Students may
only be presented with male authors and male characters, but real knowledge and
understanding can still be formulated through the discussion of the lack of female
representation. For some, the realization that their curriculum is, and has always been,
dictated by a male perspective could be enough to instigate change. The inclusion of
female perspective in the narrative could help students shape a moral and socially just
world view. Students who are afforded the opportunity to learn without bias may enter
the world as agents of change themselves. And a larger social movement that changes
perceptions of gender and gender socialization practices would make great strides
towards gender equity.
69
APPENDIX A
Request Letter
70
Hello,
I am currently writing a thesis at CSUS in literature and education and am hoping to
contact as many Language Arts instructors as possible. I would like to eventually
compile a list of some of the most commonly used novels in high school courses. The
gathered data is completely anonymous, with no mention of instructors, schools,
districts, or counties. If you are able to help, could you please reply with the novels
assigned in your classes this last year? Thank you so much,
Alena Woody
71
APPENDIX B
Norton Anthology Authors
72
Female Authors
Abigail Adams
Adrienne Rich
Alice Walker
Amy Lowell
Anne Bradstreet
Anne Sexton
Annie Dillard
Catherine Maria Sedgwick
Cathy Song
Charlotte Perkins Gilman
Constance Fenimore
Woolson
Denise Levertov
Edna St. Vincent Millay
Elizabeth Bishop
Elizabeth Drew Stoddard
Emily Dickinson
Eudora Welty
Fanny Fern
Flannery O’Connor
Gloria Anzaldua
Grace Paley
Hannah Dustan
Hannah Webster Foster
Harriet Beecher Stowe
Harriet Jacobs
Hilda Doolittle
Jhumpa Lahiri
Joy Harjo
Judith Sargent Murray
Kate Chopin
Katherine Anne Porter
Leslie Marmon Silko
Louise Erdrich
Louise Gluck
Lydia Maria Child
Margaret Fuller
Maria Amparo Ruiz de
Burton
Marianne Moore
Mary Austin
Mary Rowlandson
Maxine Hong Kingston
Nella Larsen
Phillis Wheatley
Rita Dove
Royal Tyller
Sarah Orne Jewett
Sarah Winnemuca
Susan Glaspell
Sylvia Plath
Toni Cade Bambara
Toni Morrison
Ursula K. Le Guin
Willa Cather
Zitkala Sa
Zora Neal Hurston
Male Authors
A.R. Ammons
Abraham Lincoln
Allen Ginsberg
Alvar Nunez Cabeza
Ambrose Bierce
Art Spiegelman
Benjamin Franklin
Billy Collins
Black Elk
Booker T. Washington
Bret Harte
Carl Sandburg
Carlos Bulosan
Charles Olson
Charles W. Chesnutt
Charlot
Christopher Columbus
Claude Mckay
Cotton Mather
David Mamet
Donald Barthelme
E.E. Cummings
Edgar Allen Poe
Edward Taylor
Edwin Arlington Robinson
Ernest Hemingway
Eugene O’Neill
F. Scott Fitzgerald
Frederick Douglass
Galway Kinnell
Gary Snyder
Hart Crane
Henry David Thoreau
Henry Wadsworth
Longfellow
Herman Melville
J. Hector St. John De
Crevecoeur
Jack Kerouac
Jack London
James Baldwin
James Fenimore Cooper
James Merrill
James Weldon Johnson
Jean Toomer
John Adams
John Ashbery
John Berryman
John Cheever
John Greenleaf Whittier
John Smith
John Updike
John Winthrop
Jonathan Edwards
Langston Hughes
Li- Young Lee
Male Authors
Mark Twain (Samuel L.
Clemens)
Michael S. Harper
Nathaniel Hawthorne
Olaudah Equiano
Paul Lawrence Dunbar
Ralph Ellison
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Randall Jarrell
Raymond Carver
Raymond Chandler
Richard Powers
Richard Wilbur
Richard Wright
Robert Creeley
Robert Frost
Robert Hayden
Robert Lowell
Robert Penn Warren
Sam Shepard
Samson Occom
Samuel De Champlain
Saul Bellow
Sherman Alexie
Simon J. Ortiz
Sterling Brown
T.S. Eliot
Tennessee Williams
Theodore Dreiser
Theodore Roethke
Thomas Harriot
Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Morton
Thomas Paine
Thomas Pynchon
Thomas Wolfe
W.E.B. Du Bois
Wallace Stevens
Walt Whitman
Washington Irving
William Apess
William Bradford
William Carlos Williams
William Cullen Bryant
William Dean Howells
William Faulkner
73
APPENDIX C
Table of Instructor Responses
74
Response #
Course(s)
Grade Level(s)
Required
Reading
Optional
Reading
Number of
Titles
Yes
Textbooks,
Non-fiction,
Short Story
NM
1
NM
Yes
2
(Honors 10)
NM
NM
Yes
11
3
NM
NM
NM
NM
7
4
(11) (12)
Yes
NM
Yes
8
5
NM
NM
NM
NM
5
6
NM
NM
NM
NM
18
7
(12)(IB 12)
NM
NM
NM
10
8
ELD
NM
NM
NM
8
9
NM
NM
NM
NM
3
10
(10)(11)
NM
NM
NM
9
11
NM
NM
Yes
20
12
(CP 9)
(9 Honors)
(10)
(AP 11)
(9)
NM
NM
NM
8
13
NM
Yes
NM
Yes
17
14
NM
NM
NM
NM
11
15
(10)(12)
NM
NM
NM
7
16
(9)
NM
NM
NM
3
17
(11)(AP 12)
NM
NM
NM
10
18
(11)(12)
NM
NM
NM
10
19
Yes
Yes
NM
16
20
(9)(10)(11)
(12)
English (2) (4)
NM
NM
NM
7
21
NM
NM
NM
NM
4
22
(9)(10)(11)
(12)
Regular and
Honors
NM
NM
NM
NM
24
NM
NM
NM
3
NM
NM
NM
22
25
(9)
(9 Honors)
(10)
(10 Honors)
(10) (10 AP)
NM
NM
NM
10
26
NM
NM
NM
NM
3
27
NM
NM
NM
NM
16
28
NM
NM
NM
NM
6
23
24
6
75
29
(11)(12)
NM
NM
NM
19
30
(10)(11)
NM
NM
NM
8
31
(9)(12)
NM
NM
Yes
9
32
NM
NM
NM
NM
6
33
NM
NM
NM
NM
2
34
NM
NM
NM
NM
11
35
(9)
NM
NM
NM
9
36
NM
NM
NM
10
NM
NM
NM
15
38
(9)
(11 Honors)
(10)(11)
(12 AP)
(11)(12)
NM
NM
NM
6
39
(9)
NM
NM
Yes
1
40
NM
NM
NM
NM
8
41
(9)(10)(11)
NM
NM
Yes
15
42
(9)
NM
NM
NM
5
43
(10)(11) (AP)
NM
Yes
NM
19
44
(9)
NM
NM
Yes
3
45
(11)
NM
NM
Yes
6
46
District List
Yes
Yes
Yes
169
47
(12)
NM
NM
NM
5
48
(10 Honors)
NM
NM
NM
4
49
NM
NM
NM
NM
2
50
(11)
NM
NM
Yes
5
51
NM
NM
NM
NM
7
52
NM
NM
NM
NM
10
53
(9)(10)
NM
NM
NM
5
54
(12)
NM
NM
NM
2
55
(9)(12)
NM
NM
NM
9
56
(11)(12)
NM
NM
NM
10
57
NM
NM
NM
17
NM
NM
NM
6
59
(9 Honors)
(12 Honors)
(10)(11)
(11 AP)
NM
NM
NM
NM
13
60
(9)(10)(11)
No
Yes
NM
9
61
NM
NM
NM
NM
6
62
NM
NM
NM
Yes
1
37
58
76
63
NM
NM
NM
Yes
17
64
NM
NM
NM
11
65
(9)(10)(11)
(12)
NM
NM
NM
NM
2
66
(10)(12)
NM
NM
NM
6
67
NM
NM
NM
NM
2
68
(10)
NM
NM
NM
10
69
NM
NM
NM
NM
6
70
(9)
NM
NM
NM
3
71
(9)(10)
NM
NM
NM
6
72
NM
NM
NM
8
NM
NM
NM
16
74
(9)(10)(11)
(12)
(9)(10)(11)
(12)
NM
NM
NM
NM
6
75
(9)(10)
NM
NM
NM
9
76
NM
NM
NM
21
77
(9)(10)(11)
(12)
(9)(10)
NM
NM
NM
4
78
NM
NM
NM
NM
8
79
(9)(10)(11)
(12)
NM
NM
NM
NM
8
NM
NM
NM
8
(9)(10)(11)
(12)
(10)
NM
NM
NM
14
NM
NM
NM
4
NM
NM
NM
17
84
(11)
(11 Honors)
(Honors)
NM
NM
NM
17
85
(10) (10 AP)
NM
NM
NM
13
86
(10)
NM
Yes
NM
11
87
NM
NM
NM
NM
1
88
(11)
NM
NM
NM
4
89
NM
NM
NM
10
90
English (1)
(AP)
(9)
NM
NM
NM
4
91
(11)(12)
NM
NM
NM
7
92
(11)
NM
NM
NM
1
93
NM
NM
NM
NM
4
94
English (1,2,3)
NM
NM
NM
8
95
District List
Yes
Yes
Yes
123
73
80
81
82
83
77
96
English (1,2)
NM
NM
NM
20
97
NM
NM
NM
NM
16
98
NM
NM
NM
10
99
(9)(10)(11)
(12)
NM
NM
NM
NM
4
100
NM
NM
NM
Yes
2
101
NM
NM
NM
NM
17
102
(9)
NM
NM
Yes
5
103
NM
NM
NM
NM
11
104
(11)
NM
NM
NM
5
105
NM
NM
NM
NM
9
106
(12) (AP)
NM
NM
NM
14
107
NM
NM
NM
NM
2
108
(9)(AP 11)
NM
NM
NM
8
109
(9)(11)
NM
NM
NM
15
110
NM
NM
NM
NM
4
111
English(1)(4)
NM
NM
NM
11
112
(10)
NM
NM
NM
3
113
NM
NM
NM
NM
8
114
(12)
NM
NM
NM
6
115
NM
NM
NM
15
116
(9)
(9 Honors)
(12 AP)
NM
NM
NM
NM
5
117
(9)(10)(11)
NM
NM
NM
8
118
NM
NM
NM
NM
4
119
(11)
NM
NM
NM
2
120
(10)
NM
NM
NM
4
121
NM
NM
NM
13
122
(English 1,2)
Honors 1
NM
NM
NM
NM
1
123
(AP)(9)(10)
NM
NM
NM
4
124
NM
NM
NM
NM
14
78
APPENDIX D
Master List of All Mentioned Titles
79














































1984
The Absolutely True
Diary of a Part Time
Indian
The Adventures of
Huckleberry Finn
Angela’s Ashes
Animal Dreams
Animal Farm
Anne Frank
Annie John
Anthem
Antigone
And Then There Were
None
All Over but Shoutin’
All the Pretty Horses
All Quiet on the Western
Front
Always Running
At Risk
The Autobiography of
Malcolm X
Always Running
The Awakening
Balzac and the Little
Chinese Seamstress
Bartleby
The Beach
The Bean Trees
Beauty
Beowulf
Beloved
The Bible (*summer
reading assignment)
Billy Budd
Black Boy
Bless Me, Ultima
The Blessing Way
The Bluest Eye
Bonfire of the Vanities
Brave New World
Bunnincula
To Build a Fire
Candide
Cannery Row
The Canterbury Tales
Catch 22
Catcher in the Rye
Cat’s Cradle
Child of the Owl
Childhood’s End
Children of the River
Chinese Cinderella



















































Chocolate Wars
The Chosen
A Christmas Carol
Cold Mountain
The Color of Water
The Color Purple
Cold Sassy Tree
A Comedy of Errors
The Count of Monte
Cristo
The Crucible
Cry, the Beloved Country
The Crystal Cave
Cyrano de Bergerac
Dance Hall of the Dead
Dante’s Inferno
Dealing with Dragons
Death of a Salesmen
Desert Solitaire
Different Seasons
Do Androids Dream of
Electric Sheep
A Doll’s House
The Dubliners
Dracula
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
Ellen Foster
Ender’s Shadow
Ender’s Game
Epic of Gilgamesh
Ethan Frome
Fahrenheit 451
Fallen Angels
A Farewell to Arms
A Farewell to Prague
Farewell to Manzanar
A Feather on the Breath
of God
Fight Club
Flowers for Algernon
The Fountainhead
Frankenstein
Freak the Mighty
Freedom Writers
A Gesture Life
The Gift
The Giver
Glass Menagerie
The Glass Castle
Glory Field
The God of Small Things
The Good Earth
Gone With the Wind
Grapes of Wrath
















































Greasy Rider
Great Expectations
The Great Gatsby
Gulliver’s Travels
Hamlet
Hanging on to Max
The Handmaid’s Tale
Heart of Darkness
Henry V
Hero With a Thousand
Faces
The Hiding Place
Hiroshima
The Hobbit
Holes
The Honk and Holler
Opening Soon
Hound of the Baskervilles
House on Mango Street
Hot Zone
The Hunger Games
Hunger of Memory
I am the Cheese
I am the Messenger
I Know Why the Caged
Bird Sings (
I Never Sang for my
Father
The Illiad
The Importance of Being
Earnest
In Cold Blood
Inherit the Wind
The Invisible Man
In the Time of Butterflies
Into the Wild
Into Thin Air
Jane Eyre
The Joy Luck Club
Julius Caesar
The Jungle
Jurassic Park
To Kill a Mockingbird
Kindred
The King
King Lear
The Kitchen God’s Wife
Kite Runner
The Last Lecture
Les Miserables
A Lesson Before Dying
Life of Pi
Light in August
80
Useful Works for Educators (Compiled from Whaley & Dodge, 1993)
Dumond, V. (1990). The elements of nonsexist language usage: a guide to inclusive
spoken and written English. New York: Prentice Hall.
Elgin, S. H. (1984). Native tongue. New York: Daw
Flynn, E. A., & Patrocino, P. S. (1986). Gender and reading: essays on readers, texts,
and contexts. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Frank, F. W., & Treichler, P. A. (1989). Language, gender, and professional writing:
theoretical approaches and guidelines for nonsexist usage. New York: The
Modern Language Association of America.
Miller, C., & Swift, K. (1991). Words and women. New York: Harper Collins.
Riff, L. (1992). Seeking diversity: Language arts with adolescents. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
81
REFERENCES
American Association of University Women. (1999). Gender gaps, where schools still
fail our children. New York: Marlowe & Company.
American Association of University Women. (2009). State median annual earnings
and earnings ratio for full-time, year-round workers age 16 and older by
gender. Retrieved from
http://www.aauw.org/learn/research/statedata/upload/gendergap2009_data.pdf
Babbie, E. (2007). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Barker, B. P. (1989). A gradual approach to feminism in the American-Literature
classroom. English Journal, 78(6), 39-44.
Belenky, M., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N., & Tarule, J. (1997). Women’s ways of
knowing. New York: Basic Books.
Bender-Slack, D. (1999). Why do we need to genderize? Women’s literature in high
school. English Journal, 88(3), 91-95.
Benjamin, B., & Irwin-Devitis, L. (1998). Censoring girls’ choices: Continued gender
bias in English language arts classrooms. English Journal, 87(2), 64-71.
Bona, M. J., & Maini, I. (Eds.). (2006). Multiethnic literature and canon debates.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Brannon, L., & Greene, B. M. (Eds). (1997). Rethinking American literature. Urbana,
IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Brown, L. M., & Gilligan, C. (1992). Meeting at the crossroads. New York: Random
House.
82
California Constitution, article IX, § 7.5.
California Department of Education. (2011). Recommended literature (k-12).
Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/rl/ll/
California Education Code, chapter 2, article VII, § 240.
California State Board of Education. (2000). Standards for evaluating instructional
materials for social content. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/documents/socialcontent.pdf
California State Board of Education. (2010). California’s common core content
standards. Retrieved from
http://www.scoe.net/castandards/agenda/2010/ela_ccs_recommendations.pdf
Carinci, S. (2007). Examining gender and classroom teaching practice. In G. Stahly
(Ed.), Gender, equity and violence: Multidisciplinary perspectives through
service learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing
Carlson, M. (1989). Guidelines for a gender-balanced curriculum in English, grades 712. English Journal, 78(6), 30-33.
Connell, H. (1994). Reading gender bias in the high school canon novels. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the National Council of Teachers of
English, Orlando, FL.
Croker, D. L. (1999). Putting it on the table: A mini-course on gender differences.
English Journal, 88(3), 65-70.
Davis, B. M. (1989). Feminizing the English curriculum: An international perspective.
English Journal, 78(6), 45-49.
83
Dennis, R. (2000). The role of the federal government in public education in the
United States. Retrieved from
http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/edu/ed370/federal.html.
Douglas, S. J. (1995). Where the girls are: Growing up female with the mass media.
New York: Three Rivers Press.
Fox, M. F. (1989). Women and higher education: Gender differences in the status of
students and scholars. In J. Freeman (Ed.), Women: A feminist perspective (pp.
245-262). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.
Freeman, J. (Ed.). (1989). Women: A feminist perspective. Mountain View, CA:
Mayfield Publishing Company.
Freire, P. (2000). A pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Goodman, L. (Ed.). (1996). Literature and gender. London: Routledge.
Hebdige, D. (1979). Subculture: The meaning of style. England: TJ International Ltd,
Padstow, Cornwall.
Kougl, K. (1997). Communicating in the classroom. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press,
Incorporated.
Lake, P. (1988). Sexual stereotyping and the English curriculum. English Journal,
77(6), 35-38.
Lauter, P. (1984). Reconstructing American literature: A synopsis of an educational
project of the Feminist Press. MELUS, 11(1), 33-43.
Lauter, P. (1991). The literature of America: A comparative discipline. New York:
The Modern Language Association of America.
84
Lips, H. (1989). Gender role socialization: Lessons in femininity. In J. Freeman (Ed.),
Women: A feminist perspective (pp. 197-216). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield
Publishing Company.
Lorber, J. (1992). The social construction of gender. The social construction of
difference: Race, class, gender, and sexuality (pp. 47-57). In Reader for EDTE
165: Sex role stereotyping in American Education, California State University,
Sacramento.
Lucy, J. A. (1992). Language diversity and thought: A reformulation of the linguistic
relativity hypothesis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, R. (2008). Aliens, beggars, and a queen: Messages and images of Chicanas
and Latinas in history-social sciences textbooks. Unpublished master’s thesis.
California State University, Sacramento, CA.
Messner, M. A. (2002). Taking the field: Women, men, and sports. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press.
Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications Incorporated.
Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in school. New York: Teacher College
Press.
Pace, B. G. (1992). The textbook canon: Genre, gender and race in US literature
anthologies. English Journal, 81(5), 33-38.
Pace, B. G., & Townsend, J. S. (1999). Gender roles: Listening to classroom talk
about literary characters. English Journal, 88(3), 43-49.
85
Pember, D., & Calvert, C. (2006). Mass media law. New York: McGraw Hill.
Pipher, M. (1994). Reviving Ophelia, Saving the selves of adolescent girls. New York:
Ballantine Books.
Sadker, D., & Sadker, M. (1994). Failing at fairness: How America’s schools cheat
girls. New York: Scribner Book Company.
Sadker, D., & Silber, E. (Eds.). (2007) Gender in the classroom: Foundations, skills,
methods, and strategies across the curriculum. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Schaefer, R. (1996). Racial and ethnic groups (10th ed.). New York: Harper Collins
Publisher.
Steinem, G. (1995). Outrageous acts and everyday rebellions. New York: Henry Holt
and Company, LLC.
St. Pierre, E. A. (1999). A historical perspective on gender. English Journal, 88(3),
29-34.
United States Constitution, Amendment X.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010, Jan. 7). An overview of the U.S. Department of
Education. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/focus/whattoc.html?src=ln
Wall, A. (1991). Gender-bias in literature within the high school English curriculum:
A study of novels used in the Lakeshore School Board. Unpublished master’s
thesis, McGill University, Montreal.
86
Whaley, L., & Dodge, L. (1993). Weaving in the women: Transforming the high
school English curriculum. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Wood, J. T (2009). Gendered lives: Communication, gender, and culture. Beverly,
MA: Wadsworth.
Young, J. (2004) Creating gender equity through literature: A revised reading
curriculum for the 10th grade English classroom. Unpublished master’s thesis.
California State University, Sacramento, CA.
Zeisler, A. (2008). Feminism and pop culture. Berkeley, CA: Seal Press.