Mainstream environmentalism and environmental education (EE) have consistently ignored or devalued the contributions of marginalized people (Banks, 2009). This trend has resulted in an EE system that mostly benefits and engages white, middle- and upper-class students, and requires other students to assimilate to the dominant narrative. The environment, as discussed in EE, is frequently defined in juxtaposition to urban life. This limiting definition exemplifies valuing white environmentalism over more diverse perspectives of the environment. EE needs to engage all students regardless of their race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status (Taylor, 1996). Multicultural education (MCE) and culturally responsive pedagogy (CRP) are two strategies to help transform EE into an equitable environment for all learners. MCE aims to be more equitable by including more diverse perspectives often ignored within the curriculum. While CRP is related to MCE, it goes further to create a learning environment where students’ personal histories are seen as assets rather than deficits. CRP can be applied to all levels of the education system: in classrooms, schools, administrations, and education policies. This paper reflects on the inclusion of MCE and CRP in lessons that my partner and I co-taught at Tesla EOS High School in Colorado Springs, CO.
I had the opportunity to co-create and co-teach ten hours of EE curriculum to high school students at Tesla EOS. My teaching partner and I taught five lessons in three consecutive weeks. In the third lesson, Tesla students traveled to the Catamount Mountain Campus in Woodland Park, where they had the opportunity to learn outdoors in nature for a four-hour class period. The intention of the entire teaching experience was to practice including MCE and CRP into the curriculum. My co-teacher and I wanted our unit to be based in science, so we focused on the accessibility of science. The first lesson consisted of a calorimetry lab to engage our students and provide a platform for discussing the accessibility of science. We then explored the similarities between storytelling and science. For our third lesson at Catamount, we had a very low turnout of students. Most of that day was spent getting to know our students better and showing them around the Catamount Mountain Campus. In the next classroom lesson, we performed an experiment on stress and heart rate. We finished the unit with a class recapping past lessons and discussing what makes science accessible or inaccessible to our daily lives. This essay reviews the inclusion of MCE in my Tesla curriculum, proposes a shift from a transformational approach to a social action approach to the inclusion of multicultural content, and proposes more explicit inclusion of diverse perspectives.
Banks (2009), outlines four levels to integrate multicultural content into the curriculum. Each level builds on the previous levels and increases in alignment with MCE values. The first and most basic level, the contributions approach, includes anecdotal ethnic perspectives that do not disrupt the fundamental structure of the curriculum. The additive approach is similar to the contributions approach in that the basic structure of the curriculum remains the same, but a unit or book may be included as another perspective. The third level is the transformation approach. In this approach, the curriculum goals, structure, and assumptions are altered to include several ethnic perspectives. The final level, the social action approach, includes all aspects of the transformation approach with the added requirement that students are involved in making decisions and taking actions based on the curriculum. The social action level aligns most with CRP values by pushing students to look at underlying, systemic issues of the problems they address.
The Tesla unit followed a transformation approach by including MCE in its fundamental structure, goals, and assumptions (Banks 2009). Due to the relatively short time spent at Tesla and with our students, I felt that the best way to include MCE was to focus the unit on students’ interests. On several occasions, students were asked to identify science topics and school, or community issues they were particularly passionate about. The intention was twofold, to use these topics as a platform to discuss broader themes of the unit and get to know our students as individuals. The main goal of the unit was to introduce a holistic perspective of science and address a few essential questions: How did the institution of science end up where it is now? What perspectives are overvalued and undervalued in science? And how can/should science be used in our lives? Ultimately, a major goal was to explore the relevance of science in the lives of our students. Finally, the main assumptions of our unit aimed to align with MCE rather than those of mainstream curriculum.
In my teaching, I avoided deficit assumptions of my students. My co-teacher and I tried to assume the best of our students through daily check-ins and creating an environment of mutual respect. The intention behind daily check-ins was to give our students space to reflect and share how they were feeling when beginning each class. This practice, along with others, contributed to mutual respect between me, my co-teacher, and our students. I felt mutual respect was crucial to create a productive classroom environment especially due to the small age gap between me and my students. While the student-centered structure, goal to be relevant, and positive assumptions helped the unit include MCE at a transformation level, I would make some adjustments to include more diverse perspectives to include MCE at a social action level.
One area of my curriculum unit that I would amend to better include MCE would be to increase the explicit inclusion of diverse perspectives. Inclusion of diverse perspectives is a fundamental pillar of both MCE and CRP. Although my co-teacher and I tried to include diverse perspectives throughout our lessons and discussions, explicit inclusion of primary and secondary sources would have improved MCE in our lessons. Our first two lessons, which framed the unit, would have been great spaces to include outside sources. Due to limits on time, both in-class and lesson planning, very few outside sources were presented to students. However, in one class, we discussed the accessibility of science labs for disabled scientists. In retrospect, I think it would have been beneficial for students to hear first-hand the podcast I listened to that informed this discussion.
As mentioned above, the structure of my unit was student-centered, including opportunities for students to provide input on the class direction. Students were asked for their input in an open-ended manner, such as: what is a school or community issue you care about? While some students took these opportunities to provide detailed responses, many gave quick answers that clearly did not have much thought. If I had the opportunity to teach this unit again, I would be prepared with options for students who were less forthcoming with their responses. If my goal is to be a multicultural educator, then I must figure out what is relevant to my students. One way I could have done this better was by asking my students to identify Tesla faculty or staff with whom they have a good relationship or are trusted adults in the school. I would use their existing relationships with students to learn about the issues most important to each student.
Another way I would alter my lessons to better include MCE would be to shift from a transformation to a social action approach. The difference between the two approaches is largely due to the inclusion of decision-making and advocacy skills in the social action approach (Banks, 2009). The skills outlined in the social action approach give students more power, ultimately working against oppressive mainstream education. The structure of the unit began moving in the direction of social action in the last lesson.
Our summative assessment for the class asked each student to choose a school or community issue, discuss how they might address the issue with a scientific approach, and identify effective ways to share their findings. Taking on the social action approach would require significant reorganization of the unit. Students would have to begin discussing the accessibility of science early in the first two lessons. We could have catalyzed this discussion by presenting information or asking our students to look up demographics of who and what gets published in scientific journals or who works at major research institutions and universities. Then, individual students, or collectively as a class, we could have focused on a problem or problems in the school/community. Taking more time to discuss or address the issues with a scientific approach would give students many opportunities to develop a more thorough understanding of the issues and how students can enact change from their positionality. Focusing on decision-making and acting on a relevant issue would have shifted the unit from a transformation approach to a social action approach.
Teaching a unit at Tesla EOS was a helpful opportunity to practice and reflect on including MCE. Our lessons reflected the third level of multicultural content integration, the transformation approach. To better include MCE in my teaching I would have adjusted my lessons to include more explicit examples of diverse perspectives and develop student’s critical thinking, decision-making, and communication skills necessary to participate in social change. These changes would have better aligned my lessons with Banks’ (2009) guidelines for teaching multicultural content.
Works Cited
Banks, J.A. (2009). Approaches to multicultural curriculum reform, In J.A. Banks, C.A.M. Banks (Eds.) Multicultural Education: Issues and Perspectives, 9th Edition, New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Taylor, D. E. (1996). Making multicultural environmental education a REALITY. Race, Poverty & the Environment, 6(2/3), 3-6.