Journal

February 2016
I did it. I added [c]ontent, concepts, themes, and perspectivesto the curriculum
without changing its basic structure (Banks, 231-232). I implemented Bankss level
2 approachthe formal name of which he aptly titles the Additive Approachand in
doing so, and in witnessing the fruits of this sort of endeavor, Ive compiled mixed
results, similar to the sentiments with which Banks critiques the approach himself.
In this journal Ill compare my own lesson in the classroom with the descriptions and
details of Bankss level 2 approach.
In our 3-day span of discussing the purchase of the Louisiana Territory from France,
and its subsequent exploration by Lewis & Clark & company, I figured an
opportunity for cultural inclusion was as good as ever being that L&C had met
upwards of 50 Native tribes along their two year journey, their relationships with
many peaceful and diplomatic, with others hostile and violent. That Native cultural
relations were complicated with the U.S. explorers, and that for rational reasons
some tribes or nations werent as welcoming as others was what I at the time would
have liked students to take away from the activity. But I dont believe the activity
succeeded to that end. The activity was as follows: there were 6 stations, and at
each station students were to very briefly explore the lives of a tribe of American
Indians L&C met along their journey, learning about cultural aspects such as food,
clothing, shelter, language, weapons/tools, history, etc. Students were then to fill
out a quick description for each of the four cultural artifacts present at the station in
a graphic organizer. Time was budgeted at 3 minutes per stationan average of 45
seconds per cultural artifact. Which didnt seem so criminal at the time when each
artifact prompted you only to read a few sentences and examine a few pictures.
But Banks would argue therein lies the issue. That this lessons was an additive
measure was one thing, but that it also failed to be integrated within the master
narrative being discussed, and instead manifested as what Banks would describe
as appendage material, content isolated from the central themes and issues with
which the unit is being steered, served to do more damage than good (233). At no
point, other than an exit ticket that was admittedly rushed at the end, did we find
the time or a seamless opportunity to describe how the cultural lifestyle of Natives
may have affected their interactions with L&C. Nor were students prompted to do
this in a manner that felt like anything other than a one-off lesson activity. To
achieve these goals may have required a restructuring of the unit itself so as not to
view Natives as one-off discussions topics or as encounters by Anglo-Americans.
But assume that there had been a seamless integration, that there had been
investigated by students cultural correlations between L&Cs journey and their
interactions with Native American tribes. How might Banks reply then? Well theres
this:
The events, concepts, issues, and problems selected for study [with use of an additive
approach] are selected using mainstream-centric and Eurocentric criteria and perspectives.
When teaching a unit entitled The Westward Movement in a fifth-grade U.S. history class,
the teacher may integrate the unit by adding content about the Oglala Sioux Indians.

However, the unit remains mainstream-centric and focused because of its perspectives and
point of view. (232)

The argument through which he problematizes Westward Expansion and the

Anglo-centric hidden curriculum it reinforces sounds as if it could be directly
applied to my own activity about Lewis and Clarks expedition and their
interaction with Native Americans. Even had we achieved the
aforementioned integration between the L&C journey and Native culture, the
point of view from which we were studying Native Americans remained the
heart of the issue left to be resolved. That wed begun with an exploration or
adventure in the first place was the issue, according to Banks. There is again
an emphasis on the discovery of the unknown, in this particular case
involving L&C, perpetuated further by mappings-out of the territory. Set
aside for a moment the additional criticism Banks makes, that students
learning at this level might not be prepared to handle the complexities of
multiculturalism, and consider why that might be in the first place (233).
During my own lesson, students hadnt too often been exposed to ideas and
content outside of the mainstream and consequently may not have been
as prepared as Id have liked them to be in considering this collision of
cultures. But even then, being my lesson was an appendage off the
mainstream, it may not have been set up in a manner that facilitated their
accomplishment of this consideration (i.e. cultural collision) had they been
equipped with the skills to do so anyway. Now assume that the lesson had
accomplished what it was designed to achievethat students successfully
investigate the cultural interactions, both hostile and peaceful, between
Anglos and Nativesand that, through scaffolding, students had been
properly equipped with the skills and cultural sensitivity with which to
accomplish this understanding. The glaring issue still remains that the
perspective from which these things are happening is a Euro-centric one, a
P.O.V from L&C, and that its unlikely that the aforementioned skills and
understanding would have realistically developed in the first place were
there not a switch in P.O.V. or perspective, an overhaul of the unit itself.
My hyper-criticism is just that, though, criticism. That were operating at a
level 2 in some aspects of the classroom is a good start to me, and that I
(maybe) have some understanding of what to work on next, of how to
achieve the level 3 status and beyond, makes me hopeful.
Works Cited
Banks, James A. "Approaches to multicultural curriculum reform." Multicultural education:
Issues and perspectives 4 (2001): 225-246.