An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis of the Common Core Standards Program in the State of South Dakota

Abayomi Alase


This interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) study investigated and interpreted the Common Core State Standards program (the phenomenon) that has been the dominating topic of discussions amongst educators all across the country since the inauguration of the program in 2014/2015 school session. Common Core State Standards (CCSS) was a program that 48 states, two U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia (DC) established in 2009 to improve the educational standards of schools in their respective states and territories. The objective of this research project was to assess and gauge the impact of the program vis-à-vis how it has impacted the ‘lived experiences’ of the educators in the country, specifically, in the state of South Dakota. South Dakota, though a very small state relative to other larger and economically stronger states, has truly engaged and provided resources to her educators for training and other needed infrastructures to help with the implementation of the program. Stories have been flying around the country about how the program has disrupted the flow of ‘teaching and learning’ in the American classrooms; however, the educators interviewed in this study did not believe that was the case, at least, not in their respective schools. These educators, who also happened to be principals and assistant principals of the schools under investigation, spoke highly of the potential of the program, especially the resources and engagement that the state of South Dakota has provided for its successful application and implementation.


Common Core State Standards, South Dakota Common Core Standards, No Child Left Behind

Full Text:



Alase, A. O. (2016). The impact of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) on small-sized publicly traded companies and their communities (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) Northeastern University.

Bidwell, A. (2014). The history of common core state standards. US News & World Report.

Burke, W. W. (2011). Organization change: Theory and practice (3rd Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cooper, B., & King, K. (2007). The partnership between project management and organizational change: integrating change management with change leadership. Performance Improvement, 46(1), 14-20.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry and research design choosing among five approaches. (3rd Ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Dalton, B. (2012). Multimodal composition and the common core state standards. The Reading Teacher, 66(4), 333-339.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2013). Common core state standards, writing, and students with LD: Recommendations. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28(1), 28-37.

Hargreaves, A. (2009). The fourth way of change: Towards an age of inspiration and sustainability. In A. Hargreaves & M. Fullan. Change war (pp. 11-43). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Heyneman, S. P. (2013). The international efficiency of American education: The bad and the not-so-bad news. PISA, Power, and Policy. The Emergence of Global Educational Governance, 279-302.

Johnson, S. M. (2004). Finders and keepers: Helping new teachers survive and thrive in our schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration Quarter, 30(4), 498-518.

Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Maloch, B., & Bomer, R. (2013). Informational texts and the Common Core Standards: What are we talking about, anyway? Language Arts, 90(3), 205.

McLaughlin, M., & Overturf, B. J. (2012). The common core: Insights into the K–5 standards. The Reading Teacher, 66(2), 153-164.

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

New York State Education Department. (2010). NYS P-12 Common Core learning standards. Retrieved July 26, 2012, from

Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 783-794.

Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Common Core standards: The new U.S. intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 103–116.

Powell, S. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2013). Reaching the mountaintop: Addressing the common core standards in mathematics for students with mathematics difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28(1), 38-48.

Rodriguez, N. E. (2010). Leading change: transforming doubters into believers. (

Rosenholtz, S. (1989). Teachers’ workplace. New York: Longman

Rouseff‐Baker, F. (2002). Leading change through faculty development. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2002(120), 35-42.

Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Trede, F., & Higgs, J. (2009). Framing research questions and writing philosophically: The role of framing research questions. In J. Higgs, D. Horsfall, & S. Grace (Eds.), Writing qualitative research question on practice (pp. 13-25). Rotterdam: Sense.

Van de Ven, A., & Poole, M. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 30, 510-540.

Williamson, G. L., Fitzgerald, J., & Stenner, A. J. (2013). The Common Core State Standards’ quantitative text complexity trajectory: Figuring out how much complexity is enough. Educational Researcher, 42(2), 59-69. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X12466695

Zygouris-Coe, V. (2012). Disciplinary literacy and the common core state standards. Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), 35-50.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2013-2022 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.

International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies  

You may require to add the '' domain to your e-mail 'safe list’ If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox'. Otherwise, you may check your 'Spam mail' or 'junk mail' folders.