A Model for Infusing Cultural Diversity Concepts Across the Curriculum

Traditional structures of curriculum and instruction perpetuate the myth of a single American culture and devalue the cultural pluralism upon which this nation’s past, present, and future lies. The same traditional structures of curriculum and instruction promote such strong feelings of ethnocentrism that Americans tend to place little value on other world cultures. The past two decades have evidenced growing discontent with curriculum and instruction which enforce cultural assimilation and consequently encourage a lack of tolerance of diversity. Proponents of change are calling for a new order which represents a celebration of cultural diversity– an order that celebrates similarities and differences to the edification of all cultures.

Preparing students for a changing technological, physical, social, economic, and political world is a goal in most academic disciplines. Increasing sensitivity to cultural diversity is generally agreed to be either an explicit or implicit part of that goal. However, the extent to which that preparation should be included in the classroom and the logistics of how it can be done in various disciplines is often unclear.

Cultural diversity has dimensions both within and across cultures. The past decade has seen many major universities devoting resources to cultural issues, such as the development of women’s studies, African­ American studies, international studies majors and minors, and the coordination of campus international activities, policies, and programs. These institutional efforts are often very significant in individual programs and departments, particularly those with an already high interest in cultural issues, such as sociology, political science, geography, and anthropology, among others. Efforts to expand the understanding of cultural diversity on a campus are generally met with disinterest in programs where there is no precedent for integrating cultural diversity perspectives or where connections to course content are difficult.

Admittedly, the relevance in such disciplines as accounting, math, or chemistry, for example, may seem minimal. However, these disciplines also present opportunities for integrating stimulating and challenging cultural diversity concepts into existing curricula. Indeed, all disciplines have the potential for increasing cultural awareness.

Background

The relationship of cultural diversity to American education has been an issue throughout this nation’s history. Baptiste (1979) chronicled historical approaches to the issue of cultural diversity in American education. Dating back to the birth of our nation in 1776, public education was established to promote moral, social, and economic development of citizens, to ensure proper functioning of the new democratic system, and to maintain the class system. At that time, social class was perceived as the major dimension of cultural diversity. In response to this view of cultural diversity, upper class males were prepared for intellectual leadership in the church and other professions. In contrast, lower class males learned only rudimentary skills related to the church and to vocational trades. The underclass of African Americans received little or no education, as they were not enfrancised as citizens until passage of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution in 1868.

Baptiste (1979) described a new view of cultural diversity that surfaced in the late 1800s. Two factors contributed to this change. First, the influx of immigrants from eastern and southern Europe helped to shape the changed view. At that same time, amendments to the U.S. Constitution provided for the education of blacks. Two distinct responses to this new view of cultural diversity became evident. One was that a goal of education now focused on cultural assimilation or “Americanization” of the new immigrants. The second response was the establishment of a dual system of education in which blacks attended “separate but equal” schools in which “Americanization” was also a goal. American culture was defined in terms of the white, Anglo Saxon, Protestant middle class. This definition implied inferiority of other cultures. Legislation and judicial action in the 1950s and 1960s brought about some changes in the quality of life and education for immigrants and for blacks, but the goal of cultural assimilation remained largely unchallenged until the 1970s.

In the1970s and 1980s, cultural diversity became recognized as having many dimensions. Among the most prominent dimensions were race, ethnicity, class, gender, and disability. It also became recognized in those decades that an individual’s culture is comprised of a combination of variables that cut across these dimensions. In response to this view of cultural diversity, schools took various approaches to addressing issues of cultural diversity. Some approaches stemmed from assumptions of cultural deficit and were intended to be compensatory or remedial for students of minority cultures. Other approaches stemmed from assumptions of cultural parity and were intended to change attitudes and patterns of interaction between majority and minority persons. Table 1 is a summary that reflects assumptions of parity in the work of Gibson (1984) and Sleeter and Grant (1988). Most of these approaches existed within or were adjunct to traditional structures of curriculum and instruction in the 1970s and 1980s. Additionally, most of these approaches have been carried forward into the 1990s.

The view of cultural diversity continues to broaden in the 1990s as societal awareness is heightened. The response to this broadening view is a call for educational restructuring that will provide equity for minority and majority students alike. In its action plan for education of minorities, the Quality Education for Minorities Project (1990) defined restructuring as making fundamental changes in rules, roles, and relationships in schools. Such changes will be based upon assumptions of complex multiple intelligences and achievements and will recognize differences in individual experiences, knowledge, learning styles, and teaching styles. It is in the interest of educational restructuring in a variety of disciplines that the model for infusing cultural diversity concepts across the curriculum within this paper is presented.

Purpose

This model for infusing cultural diversity concepts across the curriculum integrates two conceptual frameworks designed to facilitate curriculum and instructional development that are responsive to cultural diversity. The first conceptual framework targets learning objectives in the cognitive and affective domains emphasizing the student learning process and resistance or receptivity to cultural diversity concepts. The second conceptual framework examines the importance of personal relevance to student learning. The model and the conceptual frameworks on which the model is constructed are built on several underlying assumptions. Introductory and advanced teacher education and housing and interior design courses at Miami University are included as case studies used in the development and application of the model.

Assumptions

How to infuse cultural diversity concepts across the curriculum is a broad topic, so clarification of relevant issues for this paper is useful. Four assumptions are identified as prerequisites to a discussion of the conceptual frameworks and development of the model. The first two assumptions address the importance of recognizing the value of infusing cultural diversity concepts in education. The last two introduce key elements in the two conceptual frameworks used in the model.

1. Increased understanding of a broad view of cultural diversity is important both from humanistic and pragmatic perspectives.

There are two key points in this assumption. First, there is the notion that a broad view of cultural diversity is important. This allows us to envision the possibility of many applications in all fields. Narrow definitions often imply ownership by a discipline and may stifle the ability of a student outside the field to apply relevant concepts. A “user friendly” approach that allows cultural diversity to be defined “in the eyes of the beholder” offers more flexibility and comfort to a potential user.

The second key point of this assumption is that both humanistic and pragmatic perspectives are valid in the quest to increase understanding of cultural diversity. Social sciences often focus on the importance of understanding cultural diversity as a way to enable students to become part of a global humanitarian society. Business and physical sciences, on the other hand, often focus on the profit and scientific leadership benefits of increased cultural awareness. The merits of cultural diversity perspectives that are analogous to “I’d like to buy the world a Coke” versus “I’d like to sell the world a Coke” will not be debated here. Rather, the thesis in this paper is that increasing understanding of cultural diversity concepts is valid whatever the motive; the acceptance of multiple motives enhances the opportunities for infusing cultural diversity concepts across the curriculum.

2. Valuing the importance of cultural diversity is a prerequisite to competent infusion of cultural diversity concepts across the curriculum.

This assumption is based on the notion that a concept must be salient for successful learning to occur. For example, learning about the workings of an automobile engine may be preceded by a late night breakdown on a deserted country road, thus motivating interest. The lifetime study of unidentified flying objects will usually be preceded by a belief in their existence. A recognition that racism exists is an important prerequisite to further exploration of the subject.

3. The infusion of cultural diversity concepts is a prerequisite to increased cultural awareness of students.

This assumption suggests that infusion of cultural diversity concepts within courses, majors, and across the curriculum is preferable to more isolated approaches. While separate units or courses on cultural diversity are desirable to provide background and highlight the importance of these issues for students, reinforcement through infusion is necessary for the student to integrate concepts of cultural diversity into a specific discipline.

The importance of infusion parallels the rationale for university or liberal education requirements in curricula. General courses in social science, physical science, arts and humanities, for example, form a skeleton of general knowledge upon which specific disciplines flesh out a major program of study. Early in a student’s academic program, infusing cultural diversity within a curriculum involves both the introduction of concepts and the possibility for integration of the concepts throughout the curriculum.

4. Understanding cultural diversity progresses from narrowly focused personal relevance to more broadly focused concerns.

While the percentage of nontraditional students over 25 years of age is increasing in many institutions, this assumption recognizes that the traditional undergraduate students between 18 and 22 years of age often have limited life experiences as well as differing levels of ability to extrapolate concepts and ideas that are further away from their own personal experiences. This egocentrism often inhibits introduction and understanding of cultural diversity concepts. Progressing from ideas that the students can relate to in their own personal experiences may be an effective way of countering egocentrism.

Student Learning: Conceptual Frameworks for Culturally Receptive and Culturally Resistant Students

How salient issues of cultural diversity are to students and the degree to which salience affects learning vary by discipline. As suggested earlier, some disciplines are more resistant to including concepts of cultural diversity. The humanitarian versus pragmatic motives of disciplines will also affect salience. This section will describe two case studies of programs at Miami University. The first, teacher education, illustrates a program with high student salience. The second, housing and interior design, illustrates a program with low student salience.

The Culturally Receptive Student: The Role of Cognitive and Affective Learning Objectives

Surveys have been administered to entering and exiting graduating secondary teacher education students at Miami University since 1988. Entering students are asked to rate the importance of sixteen specific program goals. Exiting students are asked to rate their competence in incorporating the same goals into their teaching. Two of the sixteen goals directly relate to cultural diversity: (1) the ability to modify materials for culturally different students; and, (2) the ability to instruct and communicate effectively with culturally different students. Results of these surveys indicate that entering students feel that their ability both to adapt materials and methods to culturally different students and to instruct and communicate effectively with culturally different students are important goals. However, data collected from exiting students completing their teacher education programs indicate that they do not feel well prepared to meet either of the two program goals. These data are preliminary in nature. Future data collection is planned to focus on better ways to assess student perceptions of specific areas of importance and competence, but the initial results suggest an alarming discrepancy between salience and perceived competence.

Exploring cognitive and affective learning objectives as they relate to student understanding of cultural diversity concepts may be helpful in interpreting the teacher education results (Table 2). This schematic is based on the work of Bloom (1954) and Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia (1964). The schematic assumes that one must deliberately focus on processes that influence behavior and attitude in order to bring about change.

Bloom’s cognitive domain concerns intellectual processes. The cognitive domain taxonomy is ordered hierarchically, low to high, as follows: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. The affective domain of Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia concerns values, feelings, and attitudes. The affective domain taxonomy is ordered according to degree of internalization by the learner, lesser to greater, as follows: receiving, responding, valuing, organization, and characterization.

It is important for educators to identify the cognitive and affective levels of their instruction in order to determine the levels of salience, receptivity, or resistance to concepts of cultural diversity they can expect from students. For example, “knowledge” (cognitive) and “receiving” (affective) levels may be achieved by a student hearing a lecture on cultural diversity. This level does not assume that the student believes in diversity. Rather, the student has simply received, or heard, the information.

At the high end of the cognitive and affective domains, “evaluation” involves making judgments based on evidence, and “characterization” is when one becomes a living emblem of the values one adopts. An illustration of these high level cognitive and affective domains is when a student evaluates different cultural attributes, recognizes the validity of the diversity, and exhibits tolerance for diverse behaviors, values, and lifestyles.

“Valuing” is a minimal prerequisite level in the affective domain to increase salience for concepts of cultural diversity. It is also important to note that the relationships within and between the hierarchical cognitive and internalized affective levels are interactive rather than exclusively linear. For example, introduction of knowledge in the classroom may increase “valuing” and stimulate student interest. Experience, such as a trip to an ethnic neighborhood or a summer visit to Europe, may have the same result.

The results of the teacher education survey at Miami University indicate that understanding cultural diversity is a salient issue for students, but not one where they feel competent. This suggests that the curriculum is not focusing on the higher levels of cognitive and affective learning objectives.

One possible reason for the gap between salience and competence is central to the assumption that infusion and integration of cultural diversity concepts across the curriculum are important prerequisites to increased cultural awareness of students. Secondary education students take about one-third of their courses within the School of Education and Allied Professions and two-thirds outside. Therefore, if concepts related to understanding cultural diversity are not infused throughout the curriculum, salience, interest, knowledge, and competence may be reduced.

The Culturally Resistant Student: Using Personal Relevance to Increase Salience of Cultural Diversity Concepts

Housing and Interior Design is another major within the School of Education and Allied Professions at Miami University. The degree requirement proportions of courses in the housing and interior design program are one-third within the major and two-thirds outside, the same as in teacher education. A difference is that housing and interior design students see less relevance of cultural diversity concepts in their program than do teacher education students. This lack of salience appears to be based on a combination of factors, including a lack of life experience and a perceived lack of relevance to what they will be doing in the “real world.” The housing and interior design program is an accredited program that trains students for a variety of positions in interior design, primarily in business and industry. This “real world” perspective is often accompanied by the erroneous notion that only humanitarian motives for understanding cultural diversity exist. There is a lack of knowledge about potential pragmatic motives for including concepts of cultural diversity in an interior design program.

This perceived lack of salience gives the issue of infusion across the curriculum even greater importance in increasing student understanding of cultural diversity because more frequent exposures to cultural issues may increase the students’ perception of their importance. In addition, the interdisciplinary nature of cultural diversity is underscored. Students can receive cultural exposure from a variety of sources in the design and social science disciplines from which housing and interior design draws.

Infusion of cultural diversity concepts is more difficult for the culturally resistant student than for the culturally receptive student. Both infusion and interdisciplinary applications are expanded by the possibilities inherent in the following conceptual framework of cultural diversity (Figure 1). This framework rests on the assumption that understanding cultural diversity is a building process. More personally relevant examples and concepts can be used as a foundation for more complex and less personal concepts. In other words, discussing individual and family differences will be more comfortable and relevant to the culturally resistant student than discussing international differences. International issues become less abstract when viewed as a level in a continuum of human diversity.

FIGURE 1. Cultural Diversity: A Continuum of Personal Relevance

“Inner cultural” refers to the most direct experiences of the student’s life, such as relationships within and between family systems. For example, individual differences between siblings illustrate diversity within the same familial unit. Differences between families in the same church, neighborhood, school system, or any other dimension are examples of familial diversity. It is likely that cultural diversity experiences within the “inner cultural” construct will be more salient to the student since the student has direct experience with these dimensions of diversity.

“lntracultural” refers to experiences that are not within the student’s direct life experiences, but are within the same society. This diversity may reflect the dimensions of race, ethnicity, gender, or religion. Intracultural diversity also encompasses more subtle dimensions, such as lifestyle or values. Sexual orientation, socio-economic status, physical or mental handicap, among others, are viewed as intracultural dimensions.

“Intercultural” refers to cultural concepts at the international level. The inclusion of national boundaries in the definition does not automatically guarantee exclusivity in the “intercultural” category. Africans and African Americans have different national cultures within the same racial context. Further, African Americans can be compared at the intracultural level with European Americans. The recognition of separate nations of Native Americans within the United States is another example of the intercultural level within national boundaries.

The categories of “inner cultural,” “intracultural,” and “intercultural” are not mutually exclusive. Viewed as a continuum of understanding and experience, the division between the categories rests on the level of the student’s direct experience and knowledge of the levels of cultural diversity rather than on a static definition of where a given situation belongs in the model.

A Model for Infusing Cultural Diversity Concepts Across the Curriculum: Combining Cognitive and Affective Learning Objectives and Personal Relevance

Combining the conceptual frameworks of (1) learning objectives in the cognitive and affective domains and (2) a continuum of personal relevance yields a model of infusing cultural diversity concepts across the curriculum that is appropriate for both culturally resistant and culturally receptive students (Figure 2). The model has learning objectives and level of student learning in the cognitive and affective domains at its core. These learning objectives are set within reference parameters which extend outward concentrically from the individual and family (inner cultural), to cultural groups within the same society (intracultural), to other cultural groups in other countries (intercultural).

The model allows for cognitive and affective levels to differ in the inner cultural, intracultural, and intercultural dimensions. For example, a student might exhibit higher cognitive and affective levels at the inner cultural dimension than at the intercultural dimension. Adapting instruction to the levels of student learning is a useful technique to increase student salience of concepts of cultural diversity.

In addition to the potential for increasing student salience, this model provides a framework that allows the inclusion of cultural diversity concepts in a wide array of contexts, both within and between disciplines. The development and application of the model in two diverse curricula – teacher education and housing and interior design – have yielded a beginning exploration of interdisciplinary applications, providing a foundation for other disciplines to infuse their curricula with concepts needed for successful learning and understanding of cultural diversity.

FIGURE 2. A Model for Infusing Cultural Diversity Concepts Across the Curriculum

Applications of the Model: Two Case Studies

Applications from teacher education and housing and interior design illustrate objectives in both the cognitive and affective domains related to the same goal, using each cultural level dimension of the model. Cognitive objectives and activities are far easier to select, plan, deliver, and evaluate than affective objectives and activities. Instructors often emphasize the cognitive domain and the development of cognitive skills of students. Skills in the affective domain are critical in preparing students for life in an increasingly diverse world. In most disciplines, learning experiences are enriched by the inclusion of both cognitive and affective objectives.

Interdisciplinary Applications of the Model

Creating a classroom climate where diversity is valued is an important element in applying the model. Some general advice on what to do to create a supportive environment for dealing with the subject of diversity and with diverse student populations is suggested in Table 3 as are a series of activities to avoid because of their negative impact. Table 3 can be used as a checklist for evaluating course materials, including syllabi, readings, lectures, and handouts. Sharing the checklist with students and inviting them to monitor a course is a useful way both to increase the awareness of students and to illustrate instructor openness and commitment to creating a positive classroom environment.

Moreover, the checklist can be used to identify the most appropriate ways to infuse cultural diversity concepts into a specific discipline. To illustrate, an instructor in an introductory course in chemistry might include discussions of women and minorities in science; be sensitive to gender, racial, and ethnic balance in audio-visual materials; and avoid stereotyping student achievement potential.

Objectives and activities determined by learning goals for a course will be discipline specific. Faculty must examine the roles their students will play in a diverse society and set learning goals to prepare students for those roles. The key to infusing cultural diversity concepts into specific curricula is to be sensitive to how standard materials can be adapted. A wide variety of activities are traditionally used to meet learning goals, including discussion, student research, films, field trips, role plays, and simulations. Almost any activity can infuse some element of cultural diversity provided it is presented in an appropriate manner. For a detailed description of learning activities and related learning goals that can be adapted to cultural diversity content see McKeachie (1986).

Additional theoretical sources may also be helpful as the instructor designs learning experiences within the framework of the model of cultural diversity. See Gates (1982) for a comparison of Loevinger’s theory of ego development and Kohlberg’s theory of moral development in reference to the cognitive and affective domains. See also Terenzini (1987) for a review of selected models of development focused on college students, including Chickering’s vectors of student development, Kohlberg’s theory of moral development, Loevinger’s theory of ego development, and Perry’s scheme of intellectual and ethical development. These theoretical models may provide insight to help the instructor meet students’ needs in specific disciplines.

In summary, the realities of diversity at local, national, and international levels place greater demands on the academy to produce leaders in each discipline who are prepared to function in a diverse world. Faculty must evaluate and monitor their teaching materials and methods to ensure that concepts of cultural diversity are infused into the curriculum at every level. The model provides a conceptual framework for addressing cultural diversity. A central idea is to begin with the students’ personal experiences and extend outward through real or simulated experiences into higher levels of diversity. By focusing on both cognitive and affective objectives, the learning experience includes thinking and feeling dimensions prepar­ ing students for greater understanding of diversity and change over time.

References

• Baptiste, H. P., Jr. (1979). Multicultural education: A synopsis. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
• Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.
• Gates, L. (1982, Fall). Ego development as the goal of education. Education, 3(1), 90-93.
• Gibson, M.A. (1984, Spring). Approaches to multicultural education in the United States: Some concepts and assumptions. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 15(1), 94-119.
• Krathwohl, D., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook II: Affective domain. New York: David McKay.
• McKeachie, W. J. (1986). Teaching tips. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
• Quality Education for Minorities Project. (1990). Education that works: An action plan for the education of minorities. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
• Sleeter, C. E., & Grant, C. A. (1988). Making choices for multicultural education: Five approaches to race, class and gender. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
• Terenzini, P. T. (1987). A review of selected theoretical models of student development and collegiate impact. ASHE annual meeting paper. Baltimore, MD: Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 292 382)