Research

Development of an Africentric U.S. History Curriculum

Debate concerning what should be taught in U.S. history has been fiery. Traditionalists have favored the Eurocentric view, citing a need to maintain American ideas, institutions, and history. Reformists have desired to address and redress anti-woman sentiments and marginalization of minorities in history curricula. James’s (2007) study on Africentric, Eurocentric, and multicultural curricular models revealed a relationship between language in social studies curriculum and learning.

At the study site, instruction in U.S. history was divided between Grades 7 and 8. The eighth-grade U.S. history scope and sequence was quite traditional, a listing of American cultural traditions, customs, and assumptions to be preserved and disseminated. Within this scope and sequence was the illusion of inclusion in terms of gender and ethnicity issues, but the line item statements were based on the assumption of one point of view and resulted in gaps. For example, Lincoln was viewed as the savior of the Union; but nothing was included concerning Lincoln’s primary focus of maintaining the Union even if that meant preserving slavery.

The curriculum also lacked the depth and breadth necessary to meet the national, state, and district standards satisfactorily. The lack of depth resulted in student and parent ambivalence, as well as loss of teacher morale. Even though the two eighth-grade U.S. history teachers conformed to the curriculum, no more than 72% of the students achieved scores considered at or above grade level. Additionally, the instructors relied heavily on textbooks to create manageable calendars of instruction presumably aligned with the standards and the end-of-year examinations.

The study site was also an example of the disconnection between teachers’ learning preferences and students’ learning preferences. One complaint echoed by parents was that the school failed to appreciate the history of Harlem, the seat of the Harlem Renaissance, Malcolm X’s proverbial living room, and home to a national research library dedicated specifically to the African diaspora. Parents believed that use of community resources might result in connecting students to the curriculum.

During the 2008–2009 school year, an Africentric U.S. history curriculum was implemented. Neither anti-Eurocentric nor solely pro-African, the Africentric curriculum was inclusive of the African diaspora within the United States and thereby inclusive of culturally diverse populations within U.S. classrooms. The following criteria were used to determine what was included in the new curriculum:

1. The scope is not solely African but seeks to undermine a racist hegemony that benefits Whites to the detriment of those determined as Other.

2. The curriculum supports and includes epistemological positions that are divergent from the normative.

3. Valid knowledge is not limited to what can be “linguistically articulated” (Abdi, 2006, pg. 17) due to the belief that an over reliance on sensory perception restricts knowledge.

4. ­The curriculum is composed of body, mind, and spirit so that the objective and subjective coexist without contradiction.

Marzano and Kendall’s (2007) revision of Bloom’s taxonomy was incorporated to ensure an understanding of what students enter a class knowing, what they learn as a result of teaching, and the ways in which a properly structured curriculum can be used to navigate the journey from retrieval to internalization of a self-system. Marzano and Kendall (2007) included motivation and metacognition in the taxonomy as integral factors in successful learning. The three components of motivation are importance, efficacy, and emotional response. Students must first view information as important and relevant within their contexts. Students must be convinced they have the competence, command, and reserve to acquire the knowledge and to augment their comprehension of the information positively. Then, students must have optimistic and confident responses to the information presented.

The final curriculum consisted of eight units of study, spanning U.S. history from western expansion prior to the Civil through present day. Each unit detailed not only the content material but also the specific reading, writing, oral presentation, and critical thinking skills to be emphasized. During the 2008–2009 school year, students received instruction in U.S. history 2-1/2 days per week; in 2009-2010, instruction was increased to 5 days a week.

Assessment objectives were derived from the students’ needs, parents’ expectations, and school goals. Three-question quizzes were given twice a week, interim assessments occurred at the end of each 9-week period, and unit tests were the culminating assessments. Teacher-created assessments were also specific to the feature of history being studied. For example, in the historic portion, knowledge of analysis of primary documents was assessed. In sociology, assessment concerned the roles of people in institutions and the effects of interpersonal relationships on institutions were assessed. In geography, location and the effects of location on culture, economics, and government were assessed. In religion and art, students were assessed on the similarities and differences across cultures.

Standardized assessment consisted on the New York State Social Studies Test, usually scheduled each year in June. The test consists of three parts administered in two 90-minute sessions. Content consists of intermediate-level critical ideas and performance benchmarks identified in state and district learning standards and in the curriculum adopted by the New York Board of Regents. The test is an assessment of knowledge in seven social studies standards: world history, United States and New York history, geography, citizenship, economics, civics, and government.