Comparing Contributions and Additive Approaches

Introduction

Multicultural education refers to the inclusion of new and diverse learning resources and perspectives to enrich the existing curricula. The main objective of multicultural education is to promote inclusive education while appreciating the achievements and contributions of all students (Banks, 2001). Therefore, multicultural education aims at recognizing students who have been marginalized by the education system by committing to social justice and the vital approaches to learning. The implementation of multicultural education depends on the strategies adopted by educators. The approaches vary in the degree of simplicity and complexity during the integration of the content in the curriculum. To understand how multicultural education is implemented in the curriculum, this research paper will compare and contrast the contribution approach and additive approach.

Contributions Approach and Additive Approach

The contributions approach has the least amount of engagement in multicultural education methodologies. It is incorporated in the curriculum system by utilizing selected textbooks and learning activities that mainly recognize specific national and cultural holidays, leaders, and special events from certain cultures. According to Grant and Sleeter (2006), the contributions approach is also known as the heroes and holidays approach since it focuses on teaching about ethnic heroes and celebrations. For instance, in most schools, during January, it is common for learners to study the achievements and contributions of Martin Luther King. This practice falls in the contribution approach as learners strictly follow the basic structure of learning about a national hero. Furthermore, in the contribution approach, the curriculum does not specify the culturally diverse textbooks and issues. 

The curriculum in the contributions approach is rigid since the learning objectives, structure, themes, and original ideas remain unchanged. Gorski (2006) affirms that the ethnic content taught in this approach is limited to particular weeks, months, days, or events. Schools are confined only to celebrate events that are popular within American society. Students are limited to learn about specific events such as Black History Month, Martin Luther King, Jr., Day and Women History Month, among others. Moreover, teachers mainly focus on factors that contributed to the event and fail to analyze the ethnic groups that existed before the event. As a result, students are left questioning the cultural and historical significance of the event that they have been taught. Students are also limited to specific historical and cultural information as the teachers fail to provide an in-depth analysis of the events. 

Schools and teachers are inclined to adopt the contributions approach since it’s the simplest to apply alongside the curriculum. According to Grant and Sleeter (2006), the contributions approach is the easiest since it does not require any modifications to improve the curriculum. It can be applied in the syllabus to suggest that inclusion and diversity are being celebrated in the school. Although educators prefer this approach due to its simplicity, it poses various limitations that prevent students from benefiting from the education system as it is expected. 

The contributions approach prevents students from gaining knowledge and understanding the most critical elements of ethnicity in American society. The events and individuals taught as part of the cultural and historical components of the American culture are presented in the curriculum as insignificant subjects that are added to the syllabus content. Although students learn about specific heroes and celebrations from various ethnic groups in American society, they still lack the opportunity to learn about social injustices, oppression, and other historical struggles that minority groups have encountered over the years. Therefore, students remain uninformed about some of the pertinent issues within the American culture and society. The approach used to teach the students about the heroes and their struggles mainly reinforce the popular myth of the American dream whereby hard work guarantees a person the ticket to success in the United States.

The contributions approach reinforces stereotypes and misconceptions about specific cultures and ethnic communities. Banks (2001) asserts that the approach presents information using a dominant perspective by taking the students out of the cultural context. Therefore, students gain a superficial understanding of ethnic groups and can only give little explanations about the historical and cultural development of American society.

Additive Approach

The additive approach, also known as the ethnic additive approach is the second form of integration. This approach compares to the contributions approach since teachers are allowed to add content, themes, and perspectives to the curriculum without restructuring it. According to Grant and Sleeter (2006), teachers integrate the additive approach in the curriculum by including information about people and events from diverse cultures without changing the curriculum. There is little time, resources, effort, or preparations that are invested in the delivery of the curriculum when using the additive approach. When teaching about prominent holidays in American society, the teacher puts in little to no effort in transforming the student's understanding and thinking. For instance, during a history lesson whereby the students are taught about Thanksgiving, the teacher might opt to further educate the students about the cultural significance of the holiday by including a discussion about the traditional view of the holiday by Native Americans. However, in most lessons, this is not the case, and the teacher only provides students with a dominant perspective as opposed to ensuring that students acquire an in-depth understanding of the subject.

The additive approach presents the same challenges as the contributions approach. The teachers present the curriculum materials from the standpoint of the typical historians, whereas the historical and cultural events are taught from a dominant perspective. Banks (2001) asserts that this approach defies the various doctrines of multicultural education since social injustices such as discrimination, racisms, and inequalities are not addressed. Although the students are taught about the marginalized and vulnerable communities in the society, little information that sensitizes the cultural inequities is highlighted in the curriculum.

Both the contributions approach and additive approach defy the central ideology of multicultural education. Multicultural education advocates for transformation in the educations system and curriculum development this will only be achieved once teachers can integrate approaches that provide students with equal opportunities to participate in the classroom. According to Banks (2004), equitable education is the primary goal of multicultural education; thus, all students need to be educated about the cultural and social inequities experienced by ethnic groups and how this has shaped American society. A school curriculum is a useful tool that can be utilized to ensure that students are empowered through the information they are taught and can make informed decisions regarding changes in society.

Implementing the multicultural education is challenging and will take time for educators to adopt it. Teachers who have taught using the dominant perspective curriculum throughout their careers will find it difficult to integrate multiculturalism in their delivery approaches. Nonetheless, it is important that teachers are encouraged and supported to blend the decision making and social action perspective, which prepares students to address the social issue they may encounter within their communities. Krummel (2013) affirms that it is practical for teachers to blend the different multicultural education approaches by starting with the simple ones and gradually move to the challenging approaches. Thus, the contributions approach and additive approach can be used as the starting point, whereas the more advanced approaches, such as the decision making and social action can be integrated later. This way, the teachers will create a learning environment where each student feels appreciated irrespective of their culture or ethnicity. 

Conclusion

The additive approach can be likened to the contributions approach since both of them fail to assist students in gaining an in-depth understanding of the relationship between dominant and ethnic cultures in American society. None of these approaches attempts to assess and deconstruct the social structures in America that promote inequities. However, since these approaches are easiest for educators and schools to integrate into the curriculum, they are the most used. When examining the school and education system, it is evident that the teachers prefer the contributions approach and additive approach since they do not have to restructure or change the content. As a result, this has limited the teachers' involvement in multicultural education.

References

Banks, J. A. (2001). Multicultural education: Characteristics and goals. In Banks, J. A. & C. McGee Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues & perspectives (pp. 15-30). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 

Banks, J. A. (2004). Multicultural education: Historical development, dimensions, and practice. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education . (pp. 3–29). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gorski, P. (2006). Complicity with conservatism: The do politicizing of multicultural and intercultural education. Intercultural Education , 17(2), 163–177.

Grant, C., & Sleeter, C. (2006). Turning on learning: Five approaches to multicultural teaching plans for race, class, gender, and disability. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Krummel, A. (2013). Multicultural teaching models to educate pre-service teachers: Reflections, service-learning, and mentoring. Current Issues in Education , 16(1), 1–8. Retrieved from http://cie.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/cieatasu/article/view/1059