• View
• Edit
• History
• Print

Overview of Feminist Pedagogy

by Melissa Gonzales, (Dr. Susan Garza’s graduate seminar, Spring 2007, @ Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi)

The following list of bulleted characteristics is intended to provide a quick reference resource for those researching or interested in Feminist Pedagogy. The list is organized according to the basic principals of the pedagogy and provides potential questions that may be raised through in-depth research and practical application of this instructional practice. This list is just a sampling of the possible questions that may be considered or raised when working with or studying this school of thought.

Feminist Pedagogy and Its Application in Elementary, Secondary, and Post-secondary Classrooms:

• Feminist Pedagogy involves the de-centering of the classroom. The following excerpt from Stephen P. Schacht’s essay, “Using a Feminist Pedagogy as a Male Teacher” sheds light on the feminist approach to classroom instruction from a male instructor’s point of view.

“While classroom hierarchy (e.g., grades) typically tames and in extreme cases silences student agency (Maher and Tetreault 1994, pp. 213–14), students’ individual and collective responses are in themselves political (Orner 1992). For instance, a classroom where only the instructor’s voice is heard is politically very different from a classroom where many engaged, sometimes even angry student voices are heard (Davis 1992). Moreover, students’ expectations of the instructor, often tempered by what social statuses an instructor is seen as belonging to, are also teeming with political overtones (Basow and Silberg 1987; Gilbert et al. 1988; Kierstead et al. 1988). These expectations can have a strong effect on what students consider valid, acceptable knowledge versus drivel (Klein 1983; Mahony 1983; Davis 1992; Morris 1992).”

“Classroom participants also represent an infinite number of what Donna Haraway (1988) has termed “partial and situated knowledges.” While each individual’s experiences and outlooks are limited, as Haraway (1988) argues, when partial and situated knowledges are recognized and explored, better, more comprehensive accounts of the world are possible. As a white, heterosexual male using a feminist pedagogical stance, I not only recognize that the classroom is a political context, but further acknowledge both the possibilities and limits of my own situated knowledge and partial perspective. I also try to honor the fact that I am just one participant in classrooms where many other, often significantly differing knowledges and perspectives exist. I firmly believe that the degree to which I recognize the political nature of the classroom and the limits and promise of all the situated knowledges present (including my own) has a direct bearing on how successful my courses are—both in terms of learning and instilling the promise of a feminist worldview.”

‘’Using A Feminist Pedagogy As A Male Teacher: The Possibilities Of A Partial And Situated Perspective.’‘ Steven P. Schacht, Plattsburgh State University of New York http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/issue2_2/schacht.html

Questions to consider regarding the de-centered classroom:

• If the feminist pedagogy calls for a de-centered classroom, can that classroom accommodate students of all learning styles? Can a de-centered classroom address the needs of bilingual/ESL/ELL students, at-risk students, students with learning disabilities, etc.?
• Can the de-centered classroom be applied to all student skill levels (i.e. beginning writing student, advanced, etc.)?
• Does the de-centered classroom model work at the elementary, secondary, and post-secondary level? What works? What doesn’t work?
• Do any adjustments have to be made to apply the feminist pedagogy to the different grade level classrooms? What types of adjustments (if any)?
• As far as what kinds of writing are being taught under the feminist approach, are there any “types” of writing for which feminist pedagogy is more appropriately designed? That is, would feminist pedagogy be more appropriate for teaching certain types of writing as opposed to others (i.e. creative writing as opposed to technical writing, etc.)?

• FP promotes shared authority; students are the sources of the knowledge. The following excerpt from Rebecca Jarvis presentation to the CCCC (1996) gives her view of the use of authority in the classroom when employing the feminist pedagogy in classroom instruction.

“I also question my use of authority: Should I work to persuade students to see the world through the socio- constructivist lens that underlies my beliefs about language and power and social relationships? I believe so: I use my authority in selecting assignments and discussion topics toward these ends, because for me these theories offer great promise for democracy. Should I push students to recognize inequity, such as classism and sexism and racism, in others’ and their own lives? Education for democracy requires this. However, I recognize that this use of my authority could be coercive, and that I may not insist that students agree with me nor base my evaluations and caring on whether or not they learn to think like I do. The “extraordinary balancing act” this requires is easier in theory than in praxis (Davies 63).”

Practicing at Praxis: Doing Critical, Feminist Pedagogy. Rebecca Jarvis, 1996, 4Cs, Milwaukee http://coe.west.asu.edu/students/bjarvis/96-598/4cs.htm

Questions to consider regarding shared authority in the classroom:

• Are students at the elementary level prepared to share classroom authority?
• Are students at the secondary or post-secondary level prepared to share classroom authority?
• Are students at the elementary level able to serve as the “sources of the knowledge” in the classroom?
• Are students at the secondary or post-secondary level able to serve as the “sources of the knowledge” in the classroom?
• What role does the teacher play in sharing the knowledge source? How much does/should the teacher provide in terms of preparing the students according to the principals of the feminist pedagogy?

• FP focuses on the process of learning rather than on the final product of what is learned. The following is the feminist perspective of bell hooks with regard to the language that is used in rhetoric and composition. hooks believed that the final product (high level of academic language) is not as important as having what is learned and communicated be accessible to all people.

bell hooks believes that in order for the feminist perspective to make a difference in the world, feminists must return back to their original grassroots efforts. hooks believes that today most feminist thinkers and theorists do their work in the elite setting of the University and, because of this, their work is written in highly academic language that is not easily understood by those who have not completed post-secondary education. hooks believes this type of language is evident in the works that she herself produced during the first half of her career. hooks believes she is doing her part to return feminism to its roots by striving to write her works in language that is more accessible to all people.

Questions to consider regarding process rather than process focus:

• Does feminist pedagogy help or hinder the learning process? How?
• Is it more effective to enlist the feminist pedagogy at earlier stages of a student’s academic career—say, at the elementary levels—when an individual is beginning to acquire fundamental academic skills and habits?
• What success (if any) would feminist pedagogy afford if applied in the secondary classroom?
• Would the focus on the process of learning rather than the end product of what is learned affect grading or assessment of the student’s work at the secondary or post-secondary level? In what way?
• How do you assess a process of learning? How do you apply the results of that assessment to determine how to help the student improve or progress to become even better writers (learners)?

• FP promotes a shift in the role of the teacher from assigning and judging students’ work to encouraging and supporting their work.
  • What would a feminist pedagogy assignment in the elementary classroom look like? In the secondary classroom? In the post-secondary classroom?
  • How are “assignments” graded according to feminist pedagogy?
  • Once a student’s work is “graded” how is the grade used to reflect the student’s progress?
  • If the teacher is more of a “guide” to the student, how, then, does a feminist “encourage” students in their work? What does the “support” entail?
  • Is the teacher responsible for “guiding” the student through fundamental writing techniques and grammar and mechanics rules? Is this information the responsibility of the student through the “shared sources of the knowledge” approach?
• FP theorists claim there is a feminization of the pedagogy; that is, the teacher acts a mythologized “mother” and the student acts as the “child.” Luce Irigaray’s work as a feminist theorist focused on the mother/child relationship:

“Irigaray utilizes myth to suggest that mothers and daughters need to protect their relationships and strengthen their bonds to one another. The need to alter the mother/daughter relationship is a constant theme in Irigaray’s work. While she believes that women’s social and political situation has to be addressed on a global level, she also thinks that change begins in individual relationships between women. Thus she stresses the need for mothers to represent themselves differently to their daughters, and to emphasize their daughter’s subjectivity. For example, in je, tu, nous, Irigaray offers suggestions for developing mother-daughter relationships such as displaying images of the mother-daughter couple, or consciously emphasizing that the daughter and the mother are both subjects in their own right. Changing relationships between mothers and daughters also requires language work.”

http://www.iep.utm.edu/i/irigaray.htm#SH4c

Questions to consider regarding the mythological mother/child relationship:

• If we are to accept the theory that the teacher acts as a “mother” to the “child” student, then are we also to accept that the male teacher can serve in the “mother” capacity the same as a female teacher? Can a male teacher adopt and effectively implement the feminist pedagogy in the classroom?
• Are there certain stereotypes that are associated with preparing male teachers versus female teachers?
• If not, then should the preparation of male teachers of writing differ from the teacher preparation of female teachers?
• If there are differences between the genders, how does/would this affect students learning at the elementary, secondary, and post-secondary level?
• Accepting that there are gender differences that affect teaching styles and approaches, would that affect the manner in which male/female students respond to the differences in gender? How?
• Does the manner in which male teachers and female teachers speak to male/female students affect the application of the feminist pedagogy? If so, in what way? If not, why not?

• Feminist Pedagogy rests on the theory/belief that society is sexist, patriarchal; that gender does make a difference in how (and what) a student learns. There are countless theorists and academics who have researched and written about this belief—too many to mention here. One such theorist is Helene Cixous.

“In the 1970s, Cixous began writing about the relationship between sexuality and language. Like the other Poststructuralist Feminine Theorists, Cixous believes that our sexuality is directly tied to how we communicate in society. In 1975, Cixous published her most influential article “Le rire de la méduse.” “The Laugh of the Medusa” was translated and released in English in 1976.

She is an advocate for the freeing of writing, and the self through writing. Cixous felt that there must be linguistic change to effect social change, so she studied the affects of exchange on language and writing.

In the United States she is primarily recognized for developing “écriture feminine”, a method of dealing with subjective difference in writing and social theory, and overcoming the limits of Western logocentrism. Écriture feminine is a practice that addresses Cixous’ ongoing concern with the effects of difference, exclusion, and the struggle for identity. In 1975 Cixous published the essay Le rire de la Méduse, in which she describes how women might write, breaking from myth and rhetoric that have kept them from participating in the public sphere. This is a key text among many that work with her influential concept of écriture feminine and the transformation of subjectivity.”

http://www.egs.edu/resources/cixous.html

http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/issue2_2/schacht.html

Questions to consider regarding the role of gender in society:

• Do males and females write differently? Do they have a different process by which they compose text and learn to write?
• If this is true, then is it also true that males and females need to be taught differently to accommodate/address their different writing styles?
• Do social/societal stereotypes and/or expectations regarding the different genders affect teaching strategies and student learning styles?

Suggested Sources for feminist pedagogy:

• Helene Cixous
• Gloria Anzaldua
• bell hooks
• Luce Irigaray
• Susan C. Jarratt
• Steven P. Schacht
• Rebecca Jarvis