HISTORY WITHOUT HER STORY:
AN EXAMINATION OF ELEVENTH GRADE UNITED STATES HISTORY
MATERIALS USED IN CALIFORNIA CLASSROOMS
Tara M. Worthey
B.A., California State University, Sacramento, 2008
THESIS
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
EDUCATION
(Behavioral Sciences Gender Equity Studies)
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
SUMMER
2012
© 2012
Tara M. Worthey
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
HISTORY WITHOUT HER STORY:
AN EXAMINATION OF ELEVENTH GRADE UNITED STATES HISTORY
MATERIALS USED IN CALIFORNIA CLASSROOMS
A Thesis
by
Tara M. Worthey
Approved by:
________________________________, Committee Chair
Sherrie Carinci, Ed.D.
________________________________, Second Reader
Frank Lilly, Ph.D.
___________________________
Date
iii
Student: Tara M. Worthey
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.
Department of Teacher Education
iv
_________________
Date
Abstract
of
HISTORY WITHOUT HER STORY:
AN EXAMINATION OF ELEVENTH GRADE UNITED STATES HISTORY
MATERIALS USED IN CALIFORNIA CLASSROOMS
by
Tara M. Worthey
Statement of Problem
The student population of California is becoming increasingly diverse, while
performing at a rate far lower than their peers in almost every other state in the country.
African-American and Latino students, in particular, are suffering. Educators are told that
children learn best when they are engaged. They are also given a curriculum that does not
incorporate the cultures, heritages, and stories of many of their students’ ethnic
backgrounds, and is unable to reflect the rich multiculturalism of the United States and
California in particular. There are currently eleven California standards for 11th grade
U.S. history, and 73 sub-standards. Of those 73, only four of the standards focus solely on
women, while only one specifically mentions non-white women.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this thesis is to evaluate the resources that are currently in use in
California public high school history classrooms. The objectives are to examine the
resources available for use in the classroom, using the data gathered from analyzing the
existing curriculum, for its focus on women, especially multicultural women. Using
v
qualitative content analysis, three classroom materials were evaluated for gender bias in
language, gender and ethnic representation in visuals and chapter headings, gender
representation in block quotes, and inclusiveness of standards addressed. The goal of this
study is to identify the amount of history that is told from a female, and particularly
multicultural female, perspective. The resources evaluated are fully standard-aligned, and
this study examines whether they are able to include multicultural women within the
constraints of the standards. The study herein looks at the extent to which this is possible.
Conclusions Reached
The content analysis for this study produced data that indicates the bias shown in
some classroom materials. The results of the study indicated that women are
underrepresented in the 11th grade U.S. history textbooks, and that minority women were
disproportionately represented in the materials. Gender bias in language in the textbooks
was minimal, but the textbook-supporting guide failed to include study questions that
concerned women, and especially minority women. The lack of visuals and block quotes,
on the other hand, that focused on women was a clear contrast to the abundance of
images and words of males. The textbooks were insufficient in their coverage of nonwhite women, as evidenced in the headings, subheadings, and visuals.
______________________________, Committee Chair
Sherrie Carinci, Ed. D.
_____________________
Date
vi
DEDICATION
To my students, both past and present, who continue to strive to be everything
their families have worked so hard to make possible, and who make coming to work each
day the best kind of challenge. I would also like to dedicate this to my parents, Robert
and Laura, who genuinely believe that I can accomplish anything, and to Matthew, for
reading, consoling, strategizing, and motivating as only a true partner would.
vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis would never even have gotten beyond chapter one without a handful
of key figures. My director, Brookes Marindin, is one of the best leaders I have ever
known and more understanding than I sometimes deserved. My instructors during my
teacher pre-service training provided support and encouragement during the frightening
year of student teaching and encouraged me to continue my study of education, and my
mentor, Emilio Moran, helped me understand the many inequalities still present in public
education.
I could never have finished this thesis without the support of the Department of
Teacher Education, which has now seen me through a credential and a Master’s degree.
In particular, Dr. Frank Lilly encouraged me to strive to provide equitable learning
environments for my students and took on extra work for my benefit, Dr. Sherrie Carinci
demonstrated an unmistakable and infectious passion for gender equity in the classroom,
and Dr. Rita Johnson was always there with wisdom and understanding, answering
questions and providing clarity in anxious times. To all three of you, for everything, thank
you.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Dedication ....................................................................................................................... vii
Acknowledgments........................................................................................................... viii
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
Statement of Purpose ........................................................................................... 2
Significance of the Study ..................................................................................... 4
Methodology ........................................................................................................ 7
Limitations ........................................................................................................... 8
Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................ 9
Definition of Terms .............................................................................................. 10
Organization of the Study .................................................................................... 12
Background of Researcher ................................................................................... 12
2. LITERATURE REVIEW. .......................................................................................... 14
Research Pertaining to Study ............................................................................... 15
California State Standards .................................................................................... 15
Gender Inequality in the Classroom .................................................................... 16
Women’s Entrance to Education ......................................................................... 17
Feeling of Connection to the Material ................................................................. 18
A Sense of Ownership .......................................................................................... 19
The Value of Experiences .................................................................................... 21
Being an Outsider ................................................................................................ 21
Gender and Culture in History Curriculum ........................................................ 24
Teacher Training .................................................................................................. 26
Failing to Fill the Gap .......................................................................................... 27
Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 28
ix
3. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................... 29
Research Questions .............................................................................................. 29
Research Design................................................................................................... 29
Research Procedure, Instruments, and Analysis .................................................. 31
Setting .................................................................................................................. 34
Summary .............................................................................................................. 34
4. FINDINGS ................................................................................................................. 35
Introduction to Quantitative Data ........................................................................ 35
Quantitative Content Analysis... .......................................................................... 36
Summary .............................................................................................................. 45
5. DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS & CONCLUSIONS...... 46
Discussion ............................................................................................................ 46
Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 49
Limitations ........................................................................................................... 50
Recommendations ................................................................................................ 51
Reflections ........................................................................................................... 52
Appendix A ...................................................................................................................... 53
Appendix B ...................................................................................................................... 54
Appendix C ...................................................................................................................... 55
Appendix D ...................................................................................................................... 56
Appendix E ...................................................................................................................... 57
References ........................................................................................................................ 58
x
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1.
Gender Bias in Language Found in Textbook A ................................................. 36
2.
Gender Bias in Language Found in Textbook-Supporting Content Mastery
Guide .................................................................................................................... 37
3.
Gender Bias in Language Found in Textbook B .................................................. 38
4.
Gender Representation Found in Visuals for Textbook A ................................... 38
5.
Gender Representation Found in Visuals for Textbook B ................................... 39
6.
Block Quotes by Gender in Textbook A .............................................................. 40
7.
Block Quotes by Gender in Textbook B .............................................................. 41
8.
Gender Representation in Chapter Headings and Subheadings in Textbook A ... 41
9.
Gender Representation in Chapter Headings and Subheadings in Textbook B ... 42
10.
Standards Evident in Chapters Chosen for Textbook A ....................................... 43
11.
Standards Evident in Chapters Chosen for Textbook B ....................................... 44
xi
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
If asked to name the female activist who spoke out for Native American rights
before Congressional committees in the 1880s, it is doubtful that Sarah Winnemucca
would come to mind for most middle and high school students. If also asked, however, to
name the President who signed the Emancipation Proclamation, Abraham Lincoln would
probably stand a better chance with those students than Winnemucca. Abraham Lincoln is
a standard in California. Winnemucca is not, as she, nor any other Native American
woman, is mentioned in any of the 11th-grade U.S. history standards for California
(California Department of Education, 2009a).
The author of this thesis only purposefully studied women in her high school and
middle school history classes during units on women’s suffrage. As an undergraduate
majoring in history at California State University, Sacramento, the classes she took were
named “Women in American History” and “Sex, Reproduction, and Birth Control.” In
order to learn about women in history, the author had to seek the information herself. It
was not available in mainstream classes on World War II or the Civil Rights Movement.
It certainly wasn’t available when she was a teenager at public high schools and middle
schools, where teachers taught to the standards and to the standardized tests.
Every 11th-grade public school student in California receives one full year of
United States history, as indicated in the California social science standards (California
Department of Education, 2009a). This course of history is designed to start with “a
review of the nation’s beginnings and the impact of the Enlightenment on U.S.
2
democratic ideals,” and then “build upon the tenth grade study of global industrialization
to understand the emergence and impact of new technology and a corporate economy,
including the social and cultural effects” (California Department of Education, 2009a, p.
47). Students study the founding fathers of the United States, the men who fought in the
American Revolution, War of 1812, and the Civil War, and the presidents of the United
States.
Students also study those who “contributed” to it, who are often women and
members of various minority groups. When one or the other, or both, are included, it is
generally with a contributions approach, where minorities and women are not seen as
central figures in American history, but as support for the white men who tend to
dominate history texts (American Association of University Women, 1999a). Despite
such nods as Women’s History Month and Black History Month, or perhaps because of
them, women and minorities are not traditionally regarded as central figures in the study
of history.
Statement of Purpose
The purpose of this thesis is to evaluate the resources that are available for, or are
currently in use in California public high school history classrooms. First and foremost,
the current curriculum must be evaluated in the context of diversity—racial, ethnic, and
gender diversity, to be exact, and standards examined to determine their level of
inclusivity of multicultural women. Existing curriculum used in an 11th-grade level U.S.
history classroom was evaluated by measuring the amount of bias in language, gender
representation in visuals, the amount of block quotes by gender, gender representation in
3
headings, and the standards addressed in each chapter in the documents analyzed,
according to framework by Zittleman and Sadker (2003). This framework sets forth
various types of bias, and this thesis evaluates the materials according to several of these
types.
The objectives are to examine the resources available for use in the classroom,
using the data gathered from analyzing the existing curriculum, for its focus on women,
especially multicultural women. The expected outcome is an evaluation of the inclusivity
of multicultural women in existing classroom materials, and an analysis of the amount of
inclusion found. The goal of this thesis is to identify the amount of history that is told
from a female, and particularly multicultural female, perspective.
Women may not have many California history standards devoted to them, and
those that are may not even be devoted to them in entirety (California Department of
Education, 2009a), but this does not mean that the history curriculum should exclude the
multicultural female perspective. Many of the standards do not point specifically to men;
rather, they simply fail to include women and it becomes the assumption that they were
not meant to be the focus of a unit of study. White males are the dominant group in
society; therefore, they remain the focus of history classes, leaving female figures
(especially multicultural female figures), along with anyone else who does not fit into the
white male category, to be taught at the margins of the curriculum, as an afterthought.
These resources evaluated are fully standard-aligned, and this study examines whether
they are able to include multicultural women within the constraints of the standards. The
extent to which they are able do so while still fully preparing students for California
4
standardized testing is the purpose of this study.
Significance of the Study
Increasingly, the population of California is becoming incredibly diverse, no
longer with any majority group (United States Census Bureau, 2011), yet the curriculum
that its students study each year does not reflect the rich multiculturalism of the United
States and of California in particular (California Department of Education, 2009a).
Students are told each year that the history of the United States is their history, that they
must know it to understand how far society has come and, in turn, where it is going, yet
so many of these students do not see themselves reflected in their studies. Students are
told to take ownership of something to which many of them have a hard time relating.
Students in California are performing at a rate far lower than their peers in almost
every other state in the country, with the gap for African-American and Latino students
widening while white students advance (Kober, McMurrer, & Silva, 2011). With
significant cuts to education within the last decade and fewer resources allocated to
public schools (Johnson, Leachman, & Williams, 2011), the largest student population in
the country (United States Census Bureau, 2011) suffers greatly.
Educators are told that children learn best when they are engaged, when they feel
involved in a community and feel that their wants and needs are taken into account. They
are also given a curriculum that does not incorporate the cultures and heritages and
stories of many of their students’ ethnic backgrounds. Students are learning history
without ever seeing themselves in it. Educators must change the way they teach students,
but they must also change what they teach.
5
As it stands, students are currently taught units within the course of United States
history on women’s history (California Department of Education, 2009a). In the same
vein, other units within the course include sections devoted to “contributions” by certain
minority groups or women. The history of the United States was built by immigrants and
yet the course that is currently taught in public schools still centers on the history of white
men in the United States, with asides for others (California Department of Education,
2009a).
Though the education system, and society as a whole, has made gains in
inclusivity, as evidenced with Black History Month, Women’s History Month, Cesar
Chavez Day, and Martin Luther King Jr. Day, among others, the facts remains that
including other groups with designated months or days only makes it glaringly obvious
that they are still viewed as subordinate to the majority group. Society struggles to
‘include’ when the focus should be on creating a whole new dialogue in which all voices
are a piece of the puzzle. There should be no dominant group in education, only a diverse
whole.
The history class traditionally taught in 11th grade California public school
classrooms is United States history, and it typically spans from colonial America to the
post-Cold War period (California Department of Education, 2009a, p. 47). The California
standards for 11th grade history center on a United States history course that begins with
the events surrounding the ratification of the United States Constitution and concludes
with a study of the political, social, and domestic changes within contemporary American
society. There are currently eleven California standards for 11th grade U.S. history, and
6
73 sub-standards. Of those 73, only four of the standards focus solely on women:

11.5.4 – Analyze the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment and the changing
role of women in society.

11.10.4 – Examine the roles of civil rights advocates (e.g. A. Philip Randolph,
Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, Thurgood Marshall, James Farmer, Rosa
Parks), including the significance of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “Letter from
Birmingham Jail” and “I Have a Dream” speech.

11.10.7 – Analyze the women’s rights movement from the era of Elizabeth
Stanton and Susan Anthony and the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment to
the movement launched in the 1960s, including differing perspectives of the
roles of women.

11.11.3 – Describe the changing roles of women in society as reflected in the
entry of more women into the labor force and the changing family structure.
(California Department of Education, 2009a, p. 47)
Multicultural women fare worse in the standards. Not one standard is devoted
solely to non-white women, with Rosa Parks in 11.10.4 as the only woman explicitly
called for in the standard (California Department of Education, 2009a). Some of the
standards involve multicultural men, or societal effects on historically excluded or
oppressed groups, but none of them call specifically for time spent teaching about women
of these groups.
The standardized test that students take each year (STAR) releases questions each
testing cycle on what will be included in the test (California Department of Education,
7
2009b). In the spring of a student’s 11th grade year, they take the history-social science
portion of the exam, which includes questions from their 11th grade study of U.S. history
organized into the reporting clusters of Foundations of American Political and Social
Thought, Industrialization and the U.S. Role as a World Power, United States Between
the World Wars, World War II and Foreign Affairs, and Post-World War II Domestic
Issues. Of the 11th grade United States history released test questions, only one of them
specifically concerned women, and even that question didn’t include women in the
question, though the answer involved women. The question concerned the rise in votes
cast in the presidential elections of 1916 and 1920, the answer to which being that the
Nineteenth Amendment had granted women the right to vote (California Department of
Education, 2009b). Students are not being tested on their knowledge of women in history;
therefore it is not what students are being taught.
Methodology
Using Babbie (2010) as a guide, this study conducted a quantitative content
analysis of the materials used in an 11th-grade California public school U.S. history
classroom. Three different materials were evaluated to vary the study and ensure
complete analysis of what is taught in the classroom. Each of these materials was used at
least weekly in the classroom and is an important part of the curriculum. The data was
collected using data collection sheets. The amount and images of minority women
presented in the resources was evaluated, as well as which standards were present in the
materials and whether women were included or excluded from the material.
8
Limitations
A limitation of the study was due to the amount of classrooms evaluated- only one
specific course taught by the researcher was evaluated, and thus only the materials for
that course were examined. The materials provided by two textbook publishers (Teachers’
Curriculum Institute and McDougal Littell) were analyzed in this study, as well as a
supplementary resource to one of the textbooks, which may provide a general picture of
11th-grade curriculum as it is present in classrooms, but certainly does not speak for
California U.S. history curriculum in its entirety. Likewise, the mere availability of the
resources certainly does not mean that they are being utilized fully in the classroom.
Utilization of resources in the author’s classroom does not represent how other teachers
incorporate them into their classes. Therefore, this is an evaluation of the resources
available and not how they are used within the classroom.
Because women are only specifically mentioned in four of 73 California 11thgrade history standards — 11.5.4, 11.10.4, 11.10.7, and 11.11.3, as detailed in
Significance of Study section — the amount of textbook material on the topic is limited,
which justifies the basis for this study, but also results in reduced ability for analysis.
Likewise, minority women are hardly mentioned in the standards, and not one standard is
entirely devoted to them. One could argue that the standards are not sexist or racist
because they do not call for the exclusion of minority women — and that it is up to the
teacher to include these groups. Therefore, perhaps these groups are included in the
curriculum in many classrooms, but because they rarely show up in print, it is nearly
impossible to evaluate.
9
Theoretical Framework
Many researchers, philosophers, psychologists, and educators who have worked
with children have theorized the best ways to teach, including Dewey (1933), Freire
(1970), Gilligan (1983), and Piaget (1960, 1967). The theory of constructivism provided
valuable insight for this thesis, including social constructivism and Piaget’s (1960) theory
of cognitive development. The central idea that supports this study is that students must
feel a sense of attachment to their education in order to thrive, and that involves bringing
with them their own backgrounds and experiences. They also must see material that
involves people to whom they can relate in order to feel that their backgrounds and
individualism are being honored.
Dewey (1933) believed that education must engage with and utilize a student’s
own experiences, and that it must allow for exploration and reflection on interaction with
the material. Likewise, it is almost intuitive to state that students must feel connected to
their curriculum in order to truly learn, and that a disconnection can result in a loss of
female students’ voices in their own education (Gilligan, 1983). This loss of voice can
lead to disaffectedness among female students, and lack of a sense of ownership of their
educational experiences.
Freire’s (1970) work promoted the idea that a solid education can help students
overcome oppression, but that education could not be quality if it did not encourage
students to take a role in their own education. Without it, students are merely given
knowledge but not treated as though they are contributing anything worthwhile to the
classroom, other than their presence. In order, then, to play an active role in their
10
education and have it be an empowering experience, students must contribute information
as much as they receive it, with their own experiences and backgrounds present and valid
in the classroom (Freire, 1970).
Piaget (1960) maintained that students must construct their own knowledge
through their learning experiences in order to truly make sense of it. He also focused on
the importance of both accommodation and assimilation, and described how a learner
would take their environment into account and add it to new information presented.
Assimilation, in particular, would occur when learners used pre-existing knowledge to
understand new information (Piaget, 1967). When students are presented with knowledge
that applies to them, then, they are able to draw off of that learning in order to understand
new information. They are better able to process more of their learning experiences.
Students, therefore, must see material that applies to them in the classroom in order to
utilize their own experiences and engage with the material. In order for students to
thoroughly learn, they need to feel as though their education applies to them as
individuals. They cannot leave class feeling as though they have merely had information
presented to them that they must regurgitate through homework and testing.
Definition of Terms
The following terms in this study will be used only as defined, except in the case
of a noted exception:
Bias in language (in this thesis, refers to gender bias). Terms that fail to be
neutral in gender-neutral contexts (Moulton, Robinson, & Elias, 1978).
Culture. A set of shared inclinations, values, practices, and traditions that
11
distinguish a specific group, and the experiences associated with it (Brym & Lie, 2006).
Curriculum. In this study, author refers to the lessons, material, and tests within a
subject based on standards being taught in a classroom.
Gender. Traits intended to make a distinction between the male and female sexes
and the connotations they make in terms of masculinity and femininity (Brym & Lie,
2006).
Interpretation of standards. In this study, author refers to the way in which the
California state standards for social science are adapted and utilized within the
curriculum.
Multiculturalism. The inclusion of cultures other than the dominant culture in
the classroom (Brym & Lie, 2006).
Self-esteem. One’s feeling of self-worth and sense of importance (Rosenberg,
1965).
Standards. Framework for an academic subject designed to ensure that students
are obtaining the required knowledge and skills at each grade level (California
Department of Education, 2009a). The standards mentioned in this study always refer to
California state standards for the social sciences, unless noted otherwise
Standards-aligned. Following the framework set forth by the standards
(California Department of Education, 2009a).
Stereotypes. Popular beliefs or basic assumptions about a specific set of
individuals relating to a uniting characteristic (such as race or religion; Devine, 1989).
Supplementary materials. In this study, author refers to materials used in the
12
classroom intended to supplement, but not replace, the textbook, such as additional
readings on a specific topic.
Textbook-supporting materials. In this study, author refers to publisher-created
curriculum to support the textbook (of the same publisher). Examples are lesson plans,
classroom activities, and materials intended for student use, such as study guides.
Tokenism. The means by which a member of a traditionally underrepresented
group functions within a dominant group but is still marginalized (Laws, 1975).
Unit. In this study, author refers to a set of lesson plans, tests, and other curricula
designed to teach a particular topic or lesson within a subject area.
Organization of the Study
This study is divided into five chapters. Chapter one is comprised of the
background, significance of study, statement of purpose, methodology, limitations,
theoretical framework, definition of terms, and background of the researcher. Chapter two
discusses research pertaining to the study, which mostly consists of educational theorists
and historians. Chapter three is the methodology used in the study and an explanation of
the data collection system used. Chapter four is a presentation of the analyzed data.
Chapter five includes a discussion of the data as well as recommendations and a
conclusion of the study.
Background of Researcher
Tara Worthey graduated from California State University, Sacramento in 2008
with a Bachelor’s Degree in History. She received her secondary social science and
English credentials a year later. Currently, Tara is teaching economics, government,
13
American history, and geography at a public charter high school in downtown Long
Beach, and previously taught history, English, and geography at a public charter school in
the greater Sacramento area. Her focus as an undergraduate was in the social history of
the United States during the twentieth century, and she is currently working on gender
issues in the classroom. Being the first college graduate in her family has made Tara
particularly passionate about equity in education for all students, and her life-long love of
history has inspired her to seek ways of teaching the subject that makes it relevant and
engaging for all of her students.
14
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
As a country, we are failing to provide children with a high-quality, well-rounded
education. – Arne Duncan, United States Secretary of Education (Armario &
Turner, 2011, para. 4)
The state of history education in the United States appears to be in decline. When
tested on their knowledge of American history, only twelve percent of high school
students scored “proficient” or higher--worse than they scored on any of the other six
subjects they were tested on for the 2010 National Assessment of Educational Progress
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2011a). Since students were evaluated at grades
four, eight, and twelve, students who had presumably taken 11th-grade history the year
before did not, overall, recall enough to even test at grade-level a year later. Students are
not engaging with what they learn enough to retain most of it, and with California’s
increasingly diverse student population, they are likely not identifying with it.
Minority female students do not have many historical figures to identify with
based on what is enumerated in the California standards for social studies (California
Department of Education, 2009a). When women are mentioned, it is typically as a
supporting character and not central to the making of history. When women do not see
themselves as central figures in history, imparting a sense of isolation, it in turn causes
their self-esteem to suffer and thus, their academic performance. The exclusion of
relatable figures from their curriculum sends a negative message to female students- that
they aren’t central to history, and thus, to society in general. Lowered self-esteem can, in
turn, adversely affect student engagement, as it impairs students’ motivation, making
15
them less likely to invest in the material (Ryan, Stiller, & Lynch, 1994).
The literature review includes a background of history and social science
standards in public school, current steps being taken to correct gender issues in public
education and the importance of a curriculum with which minority female students can
connect.
Research Pertaining to Study
When Sojourner Truth stood before the second annual convention of the
women’s rights movement in Akron, Ohio, in 1852, white women who
deemed it unfitting that a black woman should speak on a public platform
in their presence screamed: “Don’t let her speak! Don’t let her speak!
Don’t let her speak!” (hooks, 1981, p. 159)
While society has come a long way from denying Sojourner Truth’s womanhood
and suitability to speak in front of white audiences, we find ourselves excluding women
like her from our classrooms, from the very history of this nation that she helped to
shape. In our failure to ensure that she is a part of our high-school curriculum, we are still
demanding that Sojourner Truth does not speak.
California State Standards
Today, at least three years of social science is typically required of all high school
students, including one year each of U.S. and world history, and a year of government
and economics, in order to graduate with a high-school diploma. Less controversial than
in other states, standards-driven curriculum and assessment came to the forefront in
public education in the 1980s in California, with the California History/Social Science
Curriculum Framework adopted in 1987 (Schools of California Online Resources for
Education, 2008). They were updated and finalized in the late 1990s, and have since
16
provided the groundwork upon which social science teachers across California are to
build their class curriculum. Depending on the school district, teachers are given a
varying amount on freedom in their lesson planning, but core-subject teachers (math,
English, science, and social science) must show that their curriculum has been framed on
the adopted state standards to, among other things, attain and keep accreditation of their
charter school (Accrediting Commission for Schools – Western Association of Schools
and Colleges, n.d.). A California public school cannot keep its accreditation without a
strong standards-aligned curriculum for all of the core subjects. This pressure to conform
to the standards affects how teachers build their lesson plans, as well as the materials that
they use in doing so. Naturally, it would be easy to exclude minority women from a
framework that does not include them in the first place.
Gender Inequality in the Classroom
M. Sadker and Sadker’s (1994) study of and writings on the education of female
students in our public education system today lay the groundwork of understanding
women’s journey through the school system. From being denied participation in
classrooms to attending physics classes based on the fundamental differences between
how males and females learn, M. Sadker and Sadker (1994) confront the way women
have struggled to enter our public schools and receive the same opportunities as male
students. These inequalities may have been confronted in the classroom, but they are still
present in the way history is taught, from the standards that curriculum is based on to the
perspectives considered, as is reflected in the three standards that center on women’s
history.
17
In desiring an equal education, female educational reformers, M. Sadker and
Sadker (1994) state that women
did not want a breakaway branch of a male university, a less-than-equal education
in a co-educational institution, or even a ‘near’ college experience at some of the
more rigorous female seminaries; they wanted to ‘build and endow a college for
young women which shall be to them what Yale and Harvard are to young men.’
(p. 25)
In that same vein, including minority women in resources and curricula is not done as a
desire to be seen as “contributing” characters in history, but rather as vital to the study of
the subject, as essential as the white males who make up the standards in place.
Women’s Entrance to Education
To understand the historical absence of women in higher education and thus, the
current standards, it would be beneficial to examine women’s experiences in obtaining
higher education. Women’s post-high school experiences differ significantly from those
of men (American Association of University Women, 1999b.) Though, as of 2010,
women outnumbered men in earning bachelor’s degrees, regardless of ethnicity (National
Center for Education Statistics, 2011b), the explanations women who did not attend
college after high school give for their decisions show that gender, and color, pose
barriers to their access to post-secondary education. Men who did not attend college after
high school were more likely than women to state that that the decision to not pursue
higher education was theirs, while women were more likely to state that “forces beyond
their control” were responsible for their decision to not attend college directly after high
18
school (American Association of University Women, 1999b, p. 11). Further, the study by
the American Association of University Women (1999b) found that while women in
general felt that college would be welcoming to them, one-third of college-bound people
of color felt that “the treatment of racial and ethnic minorities in higher education” would
present a challenge to them in their post-secondary pursuits (p. 14). This may explain the
lack of representation of minority women in the standards—though they graduate from
college in higher numbers than minority men, minority women still receive far fewer
bachelor’s degrees than white women (National Center for Education Statistics, 2011b).
That pattern remains consistent as ethnic minorities (both men and women) represented
18.6% of history PhDs awarded in 2007-2008 (Townsend, 2010). Women earned 42.2%
of history PhDs, meaning that fewer than 18.6% of history PhD recipients were minority
women (Townsend, 2010). This creates limited representation of minority women in
academia and may have a deleterious effect on the diversity of experience that informs
educational policy and state standards.
Feeling of Connection to the Material
All students must see how they are impacted by what they are studying or else
they will struggle to understand crucial elements and how to use what they have learned
in the future (Levstik, 2007). As Levstik (2007) further explains:
From [society’s] perspective, history — or, better yet, histories — frame citizens’
understanding of shared institutions or shared problems. Because some groups or
individuals struggle to be accounted for in civic and civil discourse, the depth and
accuracy of constructions of our own and others’ histories have important
19
consequences for civic decision-making. (p. 6)
The goal of teaching history to students is generally to help students make sense of where
they come from, and understand common patterns that present themselves over time. As
the goal of social studies instruction has been expressed as purposefully creating
informed and active public citizens, it is crucial that students engage with the instruction
(Barr, Barth, & Shermis, 1977). The problem is that if students cannot relate to what they
learn in history class, they likewise cannot be expected to grow in that knowledge.
Gilligan’s (1983) theory of ‘connected knowing’ states that students must have material
in the classroom made relevant to their lives in order to engage in their own learning.
They must be able to define the material in the frame of their own experiences.
A Sense of Ownership
If what students learn in the classroom is presented as something theoretical rather
than practical, as the history of someone else rather than themselves, then they won’t feel
a personal connection with it. Since the standards only briefly mention non-white women
(California Department of Education, 2009a), many California students are indeed
learning someone else’s history. They won’t feel as though they are a part of their own
education as much as they would with subject matter that they felt was their own. If the
history of the United States really does belong to all of its citizens, then it would only
make sense that all students should feel a sense of ownership. hooks’s (1994) term
engaged pedagogy meant that students should interact with their curriculum rather than
just memorize and regurgitate information, and emphasizes the well-being of students
and their learning community, instead of just demanding achievement in the traditional
20
sense of test scores and the like.
That sense of engagement, according to hooks (1994) enables students to view
“education as a practice of freedom,” which she further described as:
[A] way of teaching that anyone can learn. That learning process comes easiest to
those of us who teach who also believe that there is an aspect of our vocation that
is sacred; who believe that our work is not merely to share information but to
share in the intellectual and spiritual growth of our students. To teach in a manner
that respects and cares for the souls of our students is essential if we are to
provide the necessary conditions where learning can most deeply and intimately
begin. (p. 14)
hooks (1994) has continuously emphasized the value of community in schools. Students
often face divides because of class or race, and as a result the quality of education that
many students receive suffers. In co-ed classrooms, female students do not receive the
same amount of attention as male students, and face different expectations. Black
students have historically attended schools with less funding, and lower and workingclass students often come from backgrounds where there are less resources to promote
success than do children from more financially secure and educated families (hooks,
1994). Naturally, then, African-American (or other minority) female students receive the
lowest-quality education, being at the cross-section of female and non-white. The role of
the teacher, therefore, is to maintain that student participation must be encouraged in
order for students to find freedom on their education. That participation cannot be
encouraged, however, if the participation of minority women is not apparent in their
21
history books. It is the job of the educator to nurture that sort of learning while still
conforming to the standards that dictate what students must learn and the material on
which they will be tested.
The Value of Experiences
Likewise, Piaget’s (1960) learning theory of constructivism maintains that
students must “construct” their own knowledge through their own experiences (Piaget,
1960). If students are unable to relate to the material for lack of role models, however,
they are unable to internalize their knowledge. It simply becomes one more task they
completed in school, rather than a meaningful learning experience. When students
complete tasks instead of engaging with their work, they are less likely to form a holistic
understanding of it. That leads to lower test scores, to be sure, but also to disengaged,
disinterested students.
Being an Outsider
History is written by the conquerors, and this is reflected in the Euro-centric
curriculum currently in place in public school classrooms. Because the Founding Fathers
were white males, much of history is told through that perspective. The problem is that
we are teaching students that this perspective is the most valued. As Zinn (1980) points
out, “Was their culture inferior — and so, subject to easy destruction? Inferior in military
capability, yes — vulnerable to whites with guns and ships. But in no other way —
except that cultures that are different are often taken as inferior, especially when such a
judgment is practical and profitable” (p. 42). Regardless of outcomes of wars, cultures
should not be excluded from our schools because they were not so-called “winners,”
22
which, it stands mentioning, is only a matter of perspective. In male-dominated Western
cultures, “winners” may be seen as the only ones worthy of a place in history textbooks,
but in other societies, “winning” and “conquering” land and people are not concepts that
are a source of pride, that necessitate an entire anthology of history books and courses in
its wake.
The reason these structures even exist is also a dialogue that must be engaged
with by students of history, but from an “outsider” standpoint so as to not become so
involved with individual inequity that they lose sight of larger patterns of discrimination.
Not only must they see themselves in what they are learning, but they must understand
the constructs that shape their learning and what can be done to either better them or
overcome them.
Patricia Hill Collin’s (1999) discussion of the importance of focusing on the
structures that remain fixed in our society centers on the idea that the individual is
secondary to the larger picture of inequality. As she states, “This emphasis on individual
identity can redirect attention away from the social hierarchies of race, class, and gender
that create outsider-within social locations in the first place” (Collins, 1999, p. 86). These
hierarchies need to be examined, however, because once students look closely enough at
them, they realize that they are all victims of the hierarchy in some way. This unites
students, and is essential in including all learners in the classroom so that no one feels
they are underserved by the curriculum, and further, helps them understand the larger
picture of why certain groups have been excluded from history texts. They can begin to
understand the role they have been assigned in the history texts, and can examine that
23
without losing sight of why: “Outsider-within identities are situational identities that are
attached to specific histories of social injustice- they are not a decontextualized identity
category divorced from historical social inequalities that can be assumed by anyone at
will” (Collins, 1999, p. 86). Solely focusing on the individual denies the history of
institutionalized discrimination that led to the inequality in society that the individual
fights in the first place. It is important to consider the whole institution in our studies of
discrimination, because without understanding its roots, we can’t truly bring about
change. Since the standards only mention minority women once (California Department
of Education, 2009a), they are calling for women to be discussed on a more “individual”
level, by studying the impact of women like Rosa Parks rather than African-American
women during the Civil Rights Movement. The individual experience as well as what we
can do on a more micro level are important, but just as racism is institutionalized, so is
sexism.
Textbooks used in history classrooms continue to provide evidence of those
hierarchies. Numerous studies done on history textbooks (M. Sadker & Sadker, 1994;
Crocco, 1997; Frederickson, 2004; in Lyons, 2008) have shown women to be
underrepresented in such textbooks, with women appearing subordinate to male historymakers, and with Frederickson’s (2004) study finding that women were not mentioned in
any chapter titles of the textbooks analyzed. Further, when women were mentioned, as
Gordy, Hogan, and Pritchard (2004) found, they were all white.
M. Sadker and Sadker (1997) identified various forms of bias, which provide an
effective framework in evaluating textbooks for inclusiveness of minority women,
24
including the following:
1.
Invisibility – Complete or relative exclusion of a particular group or groups
from representation or consideration in text narrative and/or illustrations.
5. Fragmentation and isolation – a) Content regarding minority groups and
women may be physically or visually delivered only in separate chapters or
even in boxes at the side of the page; b) they may be depicted interacting with
persons like themselves, never in contact with the majority culture, implying
that their history, experiences, and situations are somehow unrelated to those
of the dominant culture, and the dynamic relationships of these groups to the
development of our current society is ignored.
6. Linguistic bias – Language is a powerful conveyor of bias in instructional
materials, both in blatant and subtle form. (pp. 244-246)
Finally, as analyzed by Crocco and Libresco (2007), inclusion determines the amount of
meaning assigned to both the included as well as those left out. Equitable inclusion in
textbooks and other curriculum signifies that all ethnic groups and both genders are
equally important, and lack thereof symbolizes a group of little importance (Crocco &
Libresco, 2007). When a marginalized group is missing in class materials, it speaks
volumes in terms of who is, and is not, valued.
Gender and Culture in History Curriculum
Educators have gradually integrated history curriculum taught in California, with
the goal being that students will begin to see themselves in the textbooks and materials. It
is the standards specifically devoted to women that are still lacking, with few pages in the
25
entire 11th grade U.S. history textbook centering on the topic (Goff, 2008).
Women’s history courses are traditionally taught at the college level, but most
high schools do not offer courses of this nature. Girls in elementary, junior, and high
school simply aren’t seeing themselves in their class work, and are becoming
disinterested as a result. According to Ruthsdotter (1996), the rationale for this exclusion
makes sense in our society as evidenced by the things we value: politics, economics, and
military events. Students study the people who were involved with the military, in
government, and who have helped structure the economic systems of our country as we
know it today. Generally, those people are men, and therefore, white males comprise most
of the history-makers California students come to know (Ruthsdotter, 1996).
Additionally, the goal of assimilation may have historically influenced textbook subject
matter in the 20th century, as immigrants to the United States during that time period were
traditionally expected to become a part of the dominant group and distance themselves
from their ethnic backgrounds (Apple, 1990; Banks, 1994; Pizarro & Vera, 2001, as cited
in Lyons, 2008). Until the latter part of the 20th century, both African-American and
Chicano students attended segregated schools that were inferior to schools for white
students (M. Sadker & Sadker, 1997). Teachers expected less of their female AfricanAmerican and Chicana students, and therefore, those who reached high school found that
the curriculum of their classes focused on domestic skills, with little to no preparation for
college (M. Sadker & Sadker, 1994). Since Chicana and African-American females were
not expected to succeed in social-science classes, the curriculum was not designed to suit
nor include them.
26
Teacher Training
Teacher training programs still have lengths to go to meet the needs of diverse
California schoolchildren. Educators are taking courses in multiculturalism and diversity
training, though few to none take courses in gender equity (State of California
Commission on Teacher Credentialing, n.d.). At CSU Sacramento, for instance, in order
to receive a secondary teaching credential, students must complete a semester course in
multicultural education, but are not required to complete any courses on gender issues
within the classroom (California State University Sacramento, n.d.). Furthermore,
selected students of multiple-subject California preservice teacher preparation programs
reported receiving approximately two hours and forty minutes of gender equity training,
while single-subject students participated in an average of three hours and 20 minutes of
such training; in addition, 20 percent of survey respondents reported having received no
gender equity training (Carinci, 2006).
The texts themselves used within teacher education courses have also been
lacking, something that Zittleman and Sadker (2003) have examined and noted have
come up short, even as they improve over time:
Twenty years ago, teacher education texts devoted less than one percent of
content to the contributions and experiences of women, and discussions of Title
IX and gender were rare (M. Sadker & Sadker, 1980). Today, in the seven
introductory/foundations books we analyzed, gender issues comprise 7.4% of
content, a marked improvement. Unfortunately, many current texts provide
27
limited, fragmented, and even inaccurate information on gender in
education. (Zittleman & Sadker, 2003)
If teacher preparation programs are lacking in their ability to prepare teachers for
inclusive classrooms, and the textbooks minimally cover multicultural women, then it
comes as no surprise that fully integrating multicultural women is something that still
evades most public schools, and when they are included, it is a lesson in tokenism more
than anything.
Failing to Fill the Gap
Despite good intentions, attempts at multicultural instruction often fail to fill the
gap in history education for minority women. According to Rezai-Rashti (2005),
educators have taken issue with the “marginal nature” of programs designed to integrate
more minorities and women into the classroom (p. 88), in which minorities, including
minority women, serve as the focus for a lesson plan or two before the classroom returns
to its traditional sequence. One example of this “marginal nature” is, according to critics,
“that multicultural education [has] failed to integrate itself into the school curriculum and
everyday educational activities” (Rezai-Rashti, 2005, p. 88). For example, a minoritycentered event such as Black History Month is typically included in the curriculum as
something that is “attached to, but not part of, the educational experience” (p. 88). This
means that students are not likely given much time to reflect on their learning during
these extension lessons, and may fail to see the connection between the special activities
and what they learn in class every day. Therefore, minority women remain the “other”
despite efforts to accomplish the opposite.
28
Conclusion
It is important for students to learn about multicultural women as females will feel
more connected to the curriculum, and males will begin to view and respect women as as
much of a part of their country’s history as men. Educators must strive to encourage
greater engagement with the curriculum in order to build a more cohesive, holistic
educational experience for students. When students begin to take ownership of their
educational experience, it will directly impact their understanding of themselves. It is the
job of the educator to help them find that connection, and to find a curriculum that both
satisfies the standards as well as includes the background and experiences of every
student culture and both genders represented in the classroom.
29
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
This study evaluated various course materials to determine the amount of
inclusion of non-white females in U.S. history education. The materials served as a
sample of the textbooks and supplemental items used in California classrooms. In order
to evaluate resources for their inclusiveness of minority women, the existing materials
used to teach U.S. history to 11th graders must be examined. This study conducted a
quantitative content analysis of the course materials currently being used in the
classroom. Seven units of analysis were included in this study: the current course
textbook, a secondary textbook, visuals from the course textbook, visuals from the
secondary textbook, a textbook supporting guide provided by the publisher as part of the
curriculum, standards addressed within the course textbook, and standards addressed
within the second course textbook.
Research Questions
Does the existing curriculum taught in 11th grade U.S. history classrooms in
California have a bias toward white male history-makers? What portion of the curriculum
is meant to be taught from a female minority perspective, if any? Which resources make a
point of focusing on minority women history-makers, and is this the norm or the
exception to the rule? Are minority women excluded in order to meet the standards? If
the resources are more inclusive, why don’t the standards follow suit?
Research Design
Analysis allows for examination of communications in the forms in which they
30
are presented, including books and visuals (Babbie, 2010). Some content analysis used as
research conducted to prove a hypothesis posed by the researcher is, as Babbie (2010)
states, “done for the purpose of describing the state of social affairs…Careful empirical
description takes the place of speculation and impressions” (p. 19). Therefore, the
research was conducted with the identified research questions in mind.
Theory and rationale for the study must first be identified (Neuendorf, 2002). The
research questions posed for this study define the guiding rationale for the content
analysis of curriculum, which call for identifying bias in the existing U.S. history
curriculum. The history textbooks and the textbook supporting guide were evaluated on a
variety of criteria to determine their inclusiveness of women, and specifically minority
women. Those criteria represented the variables chosen for this study, and reflect the
framework suggested by M. Sadker and Sadker (1997) in assessing forms of bias present
in the materials. What follows is a list of the variables used in this study and their
descriptions.
Bias in language. (Appendix A). Identify the amount of instances in which
gender-specific pronouns are predominantly used in the text, as well as the number of
questions and timeline events in the textbook-supporting guide that specify women.
Gender Representation in Visuals. (Appendix B). Identify the amount of total
visuals in each chapter that focus on women and minority women.
Block Quotes. (Appendix C).Identify the amount of block quotes that are
attributed to women per chapter compared to the amount attributed to men.
Gender Representation in Headings. (Appendix D). Identify the amount of
31
headings and subheadings within each chapter that specifically refer to women and
minority women and therefore frame the chapter to center on them.
Standards. (Appendix E). Identify which standards were addressed in each
chapter, and of those standards, which ones specifically called for the study of women,
and of those, which ones were specific to minority women.
Research Procedure, Instruments, and Analysis
The following were evaluated based on the above variables posed as criteria:
Textbook A. The first textbook evaluated, History alive! Pursuing American
ideals, by Goff (2008), is currently used as the 11th-grade U.S. history text in the author’s
school district, as well as a variety of other resources. Seven chapters from the textbook
were selected for content analysis in accordance with the variables identified. As
mentioned, the text was evaluated for language, gender representation in visuals,
headings, subheadings, and block quotes within the textbook, and standards incorporated
into the chapters and whether they call for the inclusion of women.
Textbook B. The second textbook evaluated, The Americans: Reconstruction to
the 21st century, by Danzer, et al. (2006), is being used as a supplementary textbook in
the author’s classroom. It was not provided by the district, but was a gift to the author
from another teacher and is being incorporated into the curriculum. As with Textbook A,
seven chapters from Textbook B were selected for content analysis in accordance with the
variables identified, and was also evaluated for language, gender representation in
visuals, headings, subheadings, and block quotes, and standards incorporated into the
chapters and whether they call for the inclusion of women.
32
Textbook Supporting Guide. One of the publisher-provided support materials,
Content Mastery Guide, from the Teachers’ Curriculum Institute-published History Alive!
Pursuing American Ideals (Goff, 2008) and included with the textbook was also
evaluated based on the set criteria. As the textbook supporting guide is composed almost
entirely of study guide questions and timeline events (and that is its only purpose for the
author), it was only evaluated by the first criterion, bias in language.
Research Instrument – Data Collection
The data collection sheets were designed to collect and evaluate data based on the
variables identified as set criteria. Five data collection sheets were used for the first two
units of analysis—Textbook A and Textbook B. One data collection sheet was used for
the third unit of analysis (the textbook-supporting guide) for a total of 11 data sheets used
for this study.
Data Collection Sheets A (see Appendix A). Data sheets A were designed to
evaluate the teaching materials for bias in language, the first variable identified for this
study. The textbooks and textbook supporting guide were individually evaluated for
gender bias in language. The textbook was evaluated based on content within the chapters
and the textbook supporting guide was assessed on bias included in vocabulary,
assessment-making, and timeline activities. The same chapters that were selected from
Textbook A were evaluated in the textbook-supporting guide, and seven new chapters
were chosen to be evaluated for Textbook B. Chapters to be evaluated were blindly
selected from the table of contents of each textbook. Each instance of gender-biased
language was recorded for each chapter. It is important to note that much of the material
33
in the textbooks is written within a historical context and therefore, the language used in
the textbook often reflects this fact. The goal is not to rewrite history, but to examine
whether the publishers of the materials attempt to provide prompts or framework to
encourage learning and discussion as a result.
Data Collection Sheet B (see Appendix B). Data sheet B was used to evaluate the
gender representation within the visuals found in each chapter selected. The amount of
visuals found in each of the seven chapters selected for each of the textbooks was totaled,
and then the percentage of visuals portraying women and minority women was
calculated.
Data Collection Sheet C (see Appendix C). Data sheet C was used to record the
amount of block-style quotes found per chapter, and how many of that total number were
attributed to women as opposed to men.
Data Collection Sheet D (see Appendix D). Data sheet D was used to record the
amount of headings and subheading s within each chapter that specifically mentioned
women and minority women. Headings and subheadings that called for the inclusion of
women were recorded, as well as headings and subheadings that specified minority
women.
Data Collection Sheet E (see Appendix E). Data sheet E was used to record
which standards were being utilized within each chapter. As the textbook-supporting
guide was aligned with the standards addressed in Textbook A, only the two textbooks
were evaluated. Each standard was assessed for inclusiveness of women and minority
women, which was also noted on the sheet.
34
Setting
The textbooks and textbook supporting guide were obtained from the author’s
classroom and assessed at the author’s home, at a branch of the Sacramento City Library,
the CSU Sacramento university library, and the author’s current classroom.
Summary
Content analysis was applied to two textbooks and one textbook-supporting guide
used in 11th-grade public school U.S. history classrooms. Quantitative content analysis
allows for an unbiased appraisal of inclusion in classroom materials. Criteria on the sheet
were evaluated to determine the most prevalent factors of exclusion of minority women
from the curriculum.
35
Chapter 4
FINDINGS
Introduction to Quantitative Data
The purpose of this study was to evaluate existing materials used to teach 11th
grade U.S. history in California public school classrooms by conducting a quantitative
content analysis of the course materials currently being used in the classroom. These
materials were the primary course textbook, a secondary course textbook, and a textbook
supporting standards-aligned guide. This study sought to determine the amount of
inclusion of minority women in teaching materials, as well as to examine the utilization
of the standards within the material, by documenting:
1. The amount of language used in the textbooks and textbook supporting guide
that showed bias against non-white women;
2. The amount of visuals in each of the textbooks portraying women and minority
women;
3. The extent to which women and minority women are specified in the headings
and subheadings of each of the chapters selected for both textbooks;
4. The amount of block quotes per chapter that were attributed to women; and
5. The standards addressed in the material and the amount of which were devoted
to women and minority women.
These variables were evaluated according to types of bias identified by M. Sadker
and Sadker (1997)—invisibility, fragmentation and isolation, and linguistic bias (M.
Sadker & Sadker, 1997).
36
The importance of “empirical description” (Babbie 2010), is such that it values
observation over theory and prevents speculation from shaping a study. Therefore, the
intent of this study is to quantify the number of appearances of minority women in
instructional materials in order to assess the manner in which the California state
standards shape curriculum.
Course Textbooks and Textbook Supporting Guide. The amount of gender bias
in language was examined in both textbooks used in the classroom. The textbooks
analyzed in this study were History alive! Pursuing American ideals by Goff (2008;
hereafter “Textbook A”), and The Americans: Reconstruction to the 21st century, by
Danzer et al. (2006; hereafter “Textbook B”).
Quantitative Content Analysis
Gender Bias
Table 1
Gender Bias in Language Found in Textbook A
Chapter
4
11
22
28
32
35
50
Instances of
Gender Bias
0
1
2
0
2
0
0
The study showed that for Textbook A, History alive! Pursuing American ideals
by Goff (2008), of the seven chapters that were randomly selected to be evaluated for
37
bias in language, three of the chapters showed bias. Of those three, two of the chapters
(22 and 32) were recorded as having two instances of bias in the language, and one
chapter showed one instance.
Table 2
Gender Bias in Language Found in Textbook-Supporting Content Mastery Guide
Chapter
4
11
22
28
32
35
50
Study guide
0
0
0
1*
1
2
0
Timeline
0
0
0
2*
0
2*
1*
Of the seven chapters (chosen to correlate with the chapters of Textbook A, as the
materials were designed to be used together) evaluated from Content Mastery Guide, a
supporting guide to History alive! Pursuing American Ideals by Goff (2008), three were
found to include study guide questions that concerned women, and three were found to
include timeline events that incorporated women. It is important to note that only two
chapters overlapped to include both study guide questions and timeline events that
involved women, while one chapter only included study guide questions, and another
chapter only called for timeline events that included women. The asterisk (*) denotes
study guide questions and/or timeline events that call for the inclusion of women, but do
not specify minority women.
38
Table 3
Gender Bias in Language Found in Textbook B
Chapter
2
7
9
14
19
21
25
Instances of
Gender Bias
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
The study showed that for Textbook B, The Americans: Reconstruction to the 21st
century by Danzer, et al. (2006), of the seven chapters that were randomly selected to be
evaluated for bias in language, two of the chapters showed bias. Both of the chapters
recorded to show bias in language had one instance each.
Gender Representation in Visuals
Table 4
Gender Representation Found in Visuals in Textbook A
Chapter
4
11
22
28
32
35
50
Total
Visuals
7
10
8
22
9
14
5
Male
Female
6
10
7
15
7
12
5
5
5
4
11
6
4
5
Minority
Female
1
4
0
2
1
0
1
Visuals from the Goff (2008) textbook were totaled according to chapters
39
(corresponding with the chapters chosen to be evaluated in Tables 1 and 2.) Pictures were
then categorized according to the gender represented in them. In each chapter except for
chapter 50, more visuals showed males than females. In chapter 50, the amount of visuals
showing males was equal to the amount of visuals showing females (five of each, and
five visuals total, which means that each visual included at least one male and one
female.) The visuals in chapter 35 represented females the least, with 28% of all visuals
in the chapter showing images of females.
Minority women were even less represented in the visuals. They appeared in 40%
of the total visuals in the most inclusive chapter (11), but they were not represented in
more than two photos in any other chapter, and were completely absent from two
chapters.
Table 5
Gender Representation Found in Visuals for Textbook B
Chapter
2
7
9
14
19
21
25
Total
Visuals
27
21
30
18
37
29
22
Male
Female
19
17
18
15
33
24
20
8
12
14
6
19
13
11
Minority
Female
0
4
2
0
3
13
2
Visuals from the Danzer, et al. (2006) textbook were totaled according to chapters
(corresponding with the chapters chosen to be evaluated in Table 3.) Pictures were then
categorized according to the gender represented in them. In each chapter, more visuals
40
showed males than females. The visuals in chapter seven represented females the most,
with 57% of all visuals showing women (many visuals showed both men and
women.)The visuals in chapter two represented females the least, with 30% of all visuals
in the chapter showing images of females. Minority females were completely absent from
the visuals in chapters two and 14. The visuals in chapter 21 represented minority
females the most, with 45% of all visuals showing minority women, and 100% of all
visuals portraying women for that chapter.
Gender Representation in Block Quotes
Table 6
Block Quotes by Gender in Textbook A
Chapter
4
11
22
28
32
35
50
Total
Block
Quotes
3
4
1
7
4
3
1
Block
Quotes by
Men
3
4
1
7
4
2
1
Block
Quotes by
Women
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Large block quotes from each chapter previously selected from the Goff (2008)
textbook were enumerated , then divided between quotes said by males and quotes said
by females. In each of the chapters selected, other than chapter 35, every block quote was
said by a male. In chapter 35, one out of the three block quotes was said by a female, for
a total of 33% of block quotes for the chapter.
41
Table 7
Block Quotes by Gender in Textbook B
Chapter
2
4
9
14
19
21
25
Total Block
Quotes
7
10
13
9
13
11
10
Quotes
by Men
7
9
8
7
10
8
8
Quotes by
Women
0
1
5
2
3
3
2
Block quotes from each chapter previously selected from the Danzer, et al. (2006)
textbook were enumerated , then divided between quotes said by males and quotes said
by females. In each of the chapters selected, other than chapter 35, every block quote was
said by a male. In chapter 35, one out of the three block quotes was said by a female, for
a total of 33% of block quotes for the chapter.
Gender Representation in Chapter Headings and Subheadings
Table 8
Gender Representation in Chapter Headings and Subheadings in Textbook A
Chapter
4
11
22
28
32
35
50
Headings
Specific to
Women
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
Subheadings
Specific to
Women
0
0
0
3
0
3
0
Headings Specific
to Minority
Women
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Subheadings
Specific to
Minority Women
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
42
The amount of headings specifying content about females per chapter previously
selected from the Goff (2008) textbook were enumerated, then categorized into
subheadings and headings specific to minority women. None of the chapters chosen had
headings or subheadings that were specific to minority women, and only two of seven
chapters had headings specific to women in general. Chapters 28 and 35each had one
heading and three subheadings specific to women.
Table 9
Gender Representation in Chapter Headings and Subheadings in Textbook B
Chapter Headings
Specific to
Women
2
0
4
0
9
1
14
0
19
0
21
0
25
0
Subheadings
Specific to
Women
0
1
5
1
1
0
1
Headings Specific
to Minority
Women
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Subheadings
Specific to
Minority Women
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
The amount of headings specifying content about females per chapter previously
selected from the Danzer, et al. (2006) textbook were enumerated, then categorized into
subheadings and headings specific to minority women. Only one of the chapters chosen
had a heading that was specific to women, and none specific to minority women. Five of
the seven chapters selected had headings that specified women, but only one of those was
specific to minority women. Chapter 9, which had the only heading and five subheadings
that included women, had no headings or subheadings specific to minority women.
43
Standards Evident in Chapters
Table 10
Standards Evident in Chapters Chosen for Textbook A
Chapter Standard (s) Addressed
Women
Specified in
Standard?
4
11
22
28
32
35
50
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
11.1.1
11.1.4
11.4.5
11.5.4, 11.5.5, 11.5.6
11.6.3
11.7.5
No specific substandard,
but falls under 11.8
Minority
Women
Specified in
Standard?
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Each selected chapter of the Goff (2008) textbook was evaluated to determine
which standard or standards were addressed. It was then determined whether or not the
standard implicitly discussed women and minority women. Only two of the chapters (28
and 35) were aligned to standards that called for the inclusion of women, and only
chapter 28 called for the inclusion of minority women.
44
Table 11
Standards Evident for Chapters Chosen in Textbook B
Chapter Standard (s) Addressed
Women
Specified in
Standard?
2
Yes
Minority
Women
Specified in
Standard?
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
4
9
14
19
21
25
11.1.1, 11.1.2, 11.1.3, 11.2.2,
11.3.5, 11.5.4, 11.8.4, 11.10.7,
11.11.3
11.1.4, 11.2.2, 11.5.2, 11.10.2
11.2.1, 11.2.4, 11.2.6, 11.2.7,
11.2.9, 11.3.2, 11.4.4, 11.5.2,
11.5.2, 11.5.3, 11.8.6, 11.8.7,
11.10.7, 11.11.5
11.5.1, 11.6.1, 11.6.2, 11.6.3
11.5.6, 11.7.8, 11.8.1, 11.8.2,
11.8.3, 11.8.4, 11.8.7, 11.8.8,
11.10.1, 11.10.7, 11.11.5,
11.11.6, 11.11.7, 11.12.2
11.1.2, 11.3.1, 11.10.1, 11.10.2,
11.10.3, 11.10.4, 11.10.5,
11.10.6
11.3.1, 11.3.2, 11.8.2, 11.8.4,
11.8.6, 11.9.3, 11.9.5, 11.9.6,
11.10.5, 11.10.6, 11.11.2,
11.11.3, 11.11.6
Each selected chapter of the Danzer, et al. (2006) textbook was evaluated to
determine which standard or standards were addressed. It was then determined whether
or not the standard implicitly discussed women and minority women. Five of the chapters
were aligned to standards that called for the inclusion of women, but only one chapter
(chapter 21) called for the inclusion of minority women.
45
Summary
The qualitative content analysis revealed that while bias in language within the textbooks
was minimal, women (especially minority women) were excluded from study guide
questions and timeline topics in the textbook-supporting guide. As the study guide
questions determine what portions of the textbook chapters the students will focus on the
most, these questions guide student learning. They are also aligned with the STAR test
released questions for each topic (California Department of Education, 2011b).
Women were present far less in textbook visuals, block quotes, and chapter
headings and subheadings. In addition, the standards present in each chapter of Textbook
A (Goff, 2008) largely left out mention of women. Minority women, however, were
represented least in the textbooks—while analysis of Textbook B (Danzer, et al., 2006)
revealed that women were addressed in five of the seven chapters selected, minority
women were only present in the standards addressed in one chapter. This pattern
remained constant in analysis of textbook visuals and chapter headings and subheadings.
46
Chapter 5
DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS & CONCLUSIONS
Discussion
Regarding the dominance of white males in the study of history, Howard Zinn
writes that “the very invisibility of women, the overlooking of women, is a sign of their
submerged status” (Zinn, 1980, p.103). It would stand to reason, then, that minority
women are viewed to be of lower status than white women, as they are even more
invisible in the curriculum. In many classrooms, textbooks provide the foundation for
study and serve as a reference for students, and often are the only exposure to some
topics students receive.
California state standards “explicitly (state) the content that students need to
acquire at each grade level from kindergarten to grade twelve” (California Department of
Education, 2009a, p. iv). The textbooks in this study were standard-aligned (Goff, 2008
and Danzer, et al., 2006) and therefore reflect the amount of standards devoted to
minority women- one.
Bias in Language. The results of the data showed a surprising lack of bias in
language in the textbooks, but not in the textbook supporting guide. Of the seven chapters
selected for evaluation in Textbook A (Goff, 2008), three chapters showed evidence of
bias in language, but one of the chapters only showed one instance while the other two
chapters showed two instances each. Textbook B (Danzer, et al., 2006) showed less bias,
with two chapters each having one recorded instance of bias.
The textbook supporting guide (Goff, 2008), however, failed to include questions
47
and timeline events that called for students to study minority women, and for teachers to
teach them. Only four chapters included questions or timeline events that discussed
women, and of those chapters, only two included both questions and timeline events. In
the chapters that did include a discussion of women, only two of the chapters included
questions or timeline events (not both) that specifically concerned minority women. As
women are specifically mentioned in few of the California standards for 11th-grade
history (California Department of Education, 2009a), it is not surprising to find that
minority women were left out of a portion of the curriculum, though it is a measure of
progress to find little evidence of gender bias in language in either of the textbooks.
Visuals. The visuals in the textbooks fared far worse in terms of exclusivity. In
Textbook A (Goff, 2008), images of males were present in more visuals than images of
women in every chapter except for one, in which the amount of male images and female
images were equal (each image in the chapter featured at least one male and at least one
female.) In Textbook B (Danzer, et al., 2006), images of females accounted for 57% of
all pictures in the most inclusive chapter, while minority women were present in only a
few visuals per chapter at most, except for one atypical chapter, in which minority
women were present in every visual that included women- 54% of the total images in that
chapter. This chapter, titled “Civil Rights,” is important, but since the inclusion found
within it is not reinforced by the other chapters, or part of the greater narrative, the
chapter creates a sense of tokenism and compartmentalization. As Crocco and Libresco
(2007) pointed out, when a group is excluded, their value is diminished. This message is
symbolic- that minority women do not matter.
48
Block Quotes. The results in the data concerning block quotes were slightly more
mixed. In Textbook A (Goff, 2008), in all of the seven chapters selected for evaluation,
only one of the block quotes in one of the chapters was attributed to a female. In
Textbook B (Danzer, et al., 2006), however, though quotes by men plainly outnumbered
quotes by women, only one chapter did not include any quotes attributed to females. The
underrepresentation of women in textbooks, as found in studies by M. Sadker and Sadker
(1994), Crocco (1997), and Frederickson (2004), is perhaps most apparent in the lack of
quotes attributed to women. Block quotes seem intended to give a personal take on
subject matter in a specific chapter, and to amplify certain voices and reinforce their
importance. Therefore, women’s voices are viewed as less relevant, judging by the
amount they are utilized in the quotes. As Gilligan (1983) noted, students who sense a
disconnect between what they are learning and their own experiences may feel that their
own voices are less important as well.
Headings and Subheadings. Headings or subheadings devoted to minority
women were nonexistent in Textbook A (Goff, 2008), while only two chapters included
headings and subheadings specific to women in general. In Textbook B (Danzer, et al.,
2006), minority women were referred to in only one subheading in one chapter, while
women in general were referred to in subheadings in five different chapters and one
heading in one chapter. These findings were similar to those of Frederickson (2004), and
confirmed that women are mentioned an insignificant amount in chapter headings in
history textbooks. As the chapter headings set the tone of the content to follow, women
are clearly not a central part. Minority women, as consistent with the findings for the
49
visuals, are shown to have an even less significant role.
Standards. The standards are written to serve as a framework for California
history courses and to provide uniformity throughout California public schools in terms
of what is being taught (Schools of California Online Resources for Education, 2008),
and since women are only referred to in four of the 73 standards, and minority women in
particular in only one (California Department of Education, 2009a), it is not unexpected
that the standards addressed in the textbooks will mostly center on men. Nonetheless,
Textbook A (Goff, 2008) showed little evidence of inclusion of female-centered
standards, as only two chapters included female-centered standards, and one included
standards that specifically included minority women. Five of the seven chapters selected
in Textbook B (Danzer, et al., 2006), however, addressed standards that included women,
but only one chapter addressed standards that called for minority women.
It is interesting to note the variation in alignment throughout the chapters in
regards to inclusiveness. For example, chapter 21 in Textbook B (Danzer, et al., 2006)
includes standards indicating both women in general as well as minority women and also
contained the most visuals of minority women. Curiously, though, women were not
mentioned at all in any of the headings nor subheadings in that same chapter, and only
accounted for 27% of the block quotes.
Conclusions
The content analysis for this study produced data that indicates the bias shown in
some classroom materials. The lack of visuals and block quotes that focused on women
was a clear contrast to the abundance of images and words of males. The textbooks did
50
not show much bias in language, however, largely avoiding gender pronouns and
sweeping generalizations, and most gender-biased language was in historical context
(from a primary source within the textbook rather than the author’s own words.)
Avoidance of bias, however, does not represent inclusion of women. The textbooks and
the textbook-supporting guide were not overtly sexist or racist, but rather, subtly
excluded women, especially non-white women, who were overwhelmingly excluded
from the material on every basis for evaluation. Textbook B (Danzer, et al., 2006), which
stood out within the data as the more inclusive textbook, scored well with its inclusion of
women in general during much of the evaluation, but was still insufficient in its coverage
of non-white women, as evidenced in the headings, subheadings, and visuals.
Limitations
This study only included three units of analysis, and therefore cannot be seen as
encompassing of the materials in all California history classrooms. The materials chosen
have been implemented in the classroom of the researcher; therefore it made sense to
choose so few items as it is a representation of the amount of material students have at
their disposal in a typical U.S. history class. They do not, however, constitute all of the
curriculum available to California high school students.
Seven chapters were selected from each textbook to provide a sample for
evaluation. The chapters selected constituted a large portion of each textbook, but the
analysis did not extend to the entirety of the textbooks or textbook supporting guide.
The textbooks and textbook supporting guide do not take the place of classroom
instruction. Each teacher has his or her own style and own way of incorporating their
51
material into their classroom, so the exclusion of minority women in the textbooks does
not necessarily mean an exclusion of minority women in the classroom. The author does
not claim to know how every teacher uses the materials at hand, or even which materials
they are using.
Finally, the California state standards provided limitations in themselves. Because
there was only one standard that even referred to (and didn’t center on) minority women
(California Department of Education, 2009a), it was not surprising that most of the
selected samples did not address that standard.
Recommendations
It is recommended that teachers do not teach solely from their textbooks. Students
are expected to perform well on the STAR test, which for 11th grade history only includes
a few questions concerning women (California Department of Education, 2009b.) These
tests are based on the standards, which explains their lack of inclusion of minority
women. Therefore, it makes sense that textbooks are structured to align with the
standards since they determine how the students will be tested. Were teachers only to
concern themselves with the standardized tests, it would be quite easy to not touch on the
topic of minority women in history at all throughout the school year. It is up to the
teacher to integrate other materials into the classroom in order to encourage students to
engage with topics outside of traditional white male history makers, and perhaps begin to
see themselves in the curriculum.
52
Reflections
Without a doubt, the textbooks in this study do not represent the diversity of
students in California. In particular, structuring textbooks so that only a fraction of quotes
that students read come from women essentially quiets women’s voices in the study of
history, and is to the detriment of California students. Minority women are clearly left
behind, as efforts to be inclusive seem to have centered on either white women or
minority males. However, given that students are expected to perform well on tests that
are aligned with the state standards, and with so much pressure on students, teachers, and
school districts to perform well, it is logical that textbooks will be written to meet that
need. Therefore, the responsibility for the exclusion of minority women falls not on the
textbooks, but on the standards. The exclusion of minority women is not the fault of the
textbook editors and publishers, but the fault of the standards and the standards-driven
tests.
When prioritizing between teaching material mandated by the standards or
material covered by the textbook, the state of education today suggests that teachers are
better served by mirroring the emphasis found in the standards rather than the textbook.
Further, it seems understandable that teachers would seek to cover the standards rather
than seek supplemental materials. It is unfortunate for the diverse students of California
that the need to have students perform well on a standardized test dictates the exclusion
of so many.
53
APPENDIX A
Data Collection Sheet A1. Gender Bias in Language Found in Textbook (A and B)
Chapter
Instances of
Gender Bias
Data Collection Sheet A2. Gender Bias in Language Found in Textbook-Supporting
Content Mastery Guide
Chapter
Study guide Timeline
54
APPENDIX B
Data Collection Sheet B. Gender Representation Found in Visuals in Textbook (A and B)
Chapter
Total Visuals
Male
Female
Minority Female
55
APPENDIX C
Data Collection Sheet C. Gender Representation in Block Quotes Found in Textbook (A
and B)
Chapter
Total Block
Quotes
Quotes by Men
Quotes by Women
56
APPENDIX D
Data Collection Sheet D. Gender Representation in Chapter Headings and Subheadings in
Textbook (A and B)
Chapter
Headings Subheadings
Specific to Specific to
Women
Women
Headings
Specific to
Minority
Women
Subheadings
Specific to
Minority
Women
57
APPENDIX E
Data Collection Sheet E. Standards Evident in Chapters Chosen in Textbook (A and B)
Chapter Standard (s) Addressed
Women
Specified in
Standard?
Minority
Women
Specified in
Standard?
58
REFERENCES
Accrediting Commission for Schools – Western Association of Schools and Colleges.
(n.d.). WASC/CDE Focus on Learning Schoolwide Criteria. Retrieved from
http://www.acswasc.org/about_criteria.htm#cdecriteria
American Association of University Women Educational Foundation. (1999a). Gender
gaps: Where schools still fail our children. New York: Marlow & Co.
American Association of University Women Educational Foundation. (1999b). Gaining a
foothold: Women’s transitions through work and college. Washington, DC:
American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.
Armario C. & Turner, D. (2011, June 14). Report: Students don’t know much about U.S.
history. Associated Press. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com
Apple, M. W. (1990). Ideology and curriculum (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Babbie, E. R. (2010). The practice of social research (12th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing.
Banks, J. A. (1994). Multiethnic education: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.
Barr, R. D., Barth, J. L., & Shermis, S. S. (1977). Defining the Social
Studies.Washington, DC: National Council for the Social Studies.
Brym, R. & Lie, J. (2006). Sociology: Your compass for a new world. Mason, OH:
Thomson Wadworth.
59
California Department of Education (2009a). History-social science content standards for
California public schools. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/documents/histsocscistnd.pdf
California Department of Education (2009b). California Standards Test released test
questions: Grades 6-8 history-social science content standards for California
public schools. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/documents/cstrtqhss8.pdf
Carinci, S. (2006). Gender equity training in selected California preservice teacher
preparation programs. American Educational Research Associations, Division K:
Teaching and Teacher Education.
Collins, P. H. (1999) Reflections on the outsider within. Journal of Career Development,
26(1). Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati.
Crocco, M. S. (1997) Making time for women’s history: When your survey course is
already filled to overflowing. Social Education, 6, 32-37.
Crocco, M. & Libresco, A. (2007). Citizenship education for the 21st century: A gender
inclusive approach to social studies. In D. Sadker & E. S. Silber (Eds.), Gender in
the classroom: Foundations, skills, methods, and strategies across the curriculum
(pp. 109-164). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Danzer, G. A., Klor de Alva, J. J., Krieger, L. S., Wilson, L. E., & Woloch, N. (2006). The
Americans: Reconstruction to the 21st century. Evanston, IL: McDougal Littell.
Devine, P. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled
components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(1), 5-18.
60
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the
educative process. Boston, MA: DC Heath.
Diversity in the Classroom. (2006). The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://projects.nytimes.com/immigration/enrollment
Frederickson, M. (2004). Surveying gender: Another look at the way we teach United
States history. The History Teacher, 37, 476-484).
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.
Gilligan, C. (1983). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Goff, B. (2008) History alive! Pursuing American ideals. Palo Alto, CA: Teachers’
Curriculum Institute.
Gordy, L. L., Hogan, J., & Pritchard, A. (2004). Assessing “herstory” of WWII: Content
analysis of high school history textbooks. Equity & Excellence in Education, 37,
80-91.
hooks, b. (1981). Ain’t I a woman? Black women and feminism. Cambridge, MA: South
End Press.
hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress. New York: Routledge.
Johnson, N., Leachman, M., & Williams, E. (2011, July 28). State budget cuts in the
fiscal new year are unnecessarily harmful. Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities. Retrieved from http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3550
Kober, N., McMurrer, J., & Silva, M. R. (2011, August 9). State test score trends through
2008-09, Part 4: Is achievement improving and are gaps narrowing for Title I
61
schools? Center on Education Policy. Retrieved from http://www.cepdc.org/displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=371
Laws, J. L. (1975). The psychology of tokenism: An analysis. Behavioral Science, 1(1),
51-67.
Levstik, L. S. (2007). In pursuit of a usable past. In R. Wade (Ed.), Community action
rooted in history: The civil connections model of service-learning, Bulletin 110.
Silver Spring, MD: National Council for the Social Studies.
Loewen, J. W. (1995). Lies my teacher told me: Everything your American history
textbook got wrong. New York: Touchstone.
Lyons, R. (2008). Aliens, beggars, and a queen: Inclusion and images of Chicanas and
Latinas in history-social sciences textbooks. Unpublished master’s thesis,
California State University, Sacramento.
Moulton, J., Robinson, G. M, & Elias, C. (1978). Sex bias in language use: “Neutral”
pronouns that aren’t. American Psychologist, 33(11), 1032-1036.
National Center for Education Statistics (2011a). The nation’s report card: U.S. history
2010 (NCES 2011–468). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2010/2011468.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics (2011b). Digest of Education Statistics (Table
301). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d11/tables/dt11_301.asp
Piaget, J. (1960). The Psychology of Intelligence. Oxford, England: Littlefield & Adams.
Piaget, J. (1967). Biology and Knowledge. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press
62
Pizarro, M., & Vera, E. M. (2001). Chicana/o ethnic identity research: Lessons for
researchers and counselors. The Counseling Psychologist, 29, 91-117.
Rezai-Rashti, G. (1995). Connecting racism and sexism: The dilemma of working with
minority female students. In Ng, R., Staton, P. A., and Scane, J (eds.), Antiracism, feminism, and critical approaches to education. Westport, CT: Bergin &
Garvey.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Ruthsdotter, M. (1996). Women’s history: Reclaiming the past; revisioning the future in
M. E. Snodgrass (Ed.), Celebrating women’s history: A women’s history month
resource book. Detroit, MI: Gale Research.
Ryan, R. M., Stiller, J. D., & Lynch, J. H. (1994). Representations of relationship to
teachers, parents and friends as predictors of academic motivation and selfesteem. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14(2), 226-249.
Sadker, M. & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How America’s schools cheat girls.
New York, NY: Touchstone.
Sadker, M. & Sadker, D. (1997). Teachers, schools, and society (4th ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill Companies.
Schools of California Online Resources for Education (2008). California history/social
science framework and standards. SCORE History/Social Science. Retrieved from
http://score.rims.k12.ca.us/standards/framework
Skinner, E. (Ed.). (2003). Women and the national experience: Primary sources in
63
American history (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Addison-Wesley Educational
Publishers.
Souza, J. (2011). Well-behaved women seldom make history: The inclusion of women in
Western civilization courses. Unpublished master’s thesis, California State
University, Sacramento.
State of California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (n.d.). Single subject teaching
credential requirements for teachers prepared in California (CL-560C 2/12).
Retrieved from http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/leaflets/cl560c.pdf
Townsend, R. (2010, January 15). History PhDs grow in number and diversity in 200708. Perspectives on History. Retrieved from
http://www.historians.org/Perspectives/issues/2010/1001/1001new2.cfm
United States Census Bureau. (2011). Resident population by race, Hispanic origin, and
state: 2009. Statistical abstract of the United States. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0019.pdf
Zinn, H. (1980). A people’s history of the United States. New York, NY: HarperCollins
Publishers.
Zittleman, K. & Sadker, D. (2003). Teacher education and textbooks: The unfinished
revolution. Retrieved from http://sadker.org/textbooks.html