1

x

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Fall Grades before Layered Curriculum®………….………………………..37

2. Spring Grade before Layered Curriculum®………………….……..……….38

3. Fall Grades with Layered Curriculum®……………….………….......……..39

4. Spring Grades with Layered Curriculum®…………….…….......…………..39

5. All Grades Before Layered Curriculum® vs. All Grades With Layered

Curriculum®……………….…………………………………...…...……..40

6. Student Comments by Topic…………………………………………..……..41

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Triangular Shaped Model for a Layered Curriculum® Unit…….…………..15

2. Diamond Shaped Model for a Layered Curriculum® Unit…………...……..16

3. Box Shaped Model for a Layered Curriculum® Unit…………………...…..16

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Student achievement is a high priority in education today. Programs such as No

Child Left Behind require school districts to meet the needs and show progress by all

students (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). This is yet another challenge for teachers

to face in the classroom. A recent trend in education is the push for utilizing

differentiated instruction into the classroom. In the past, many elementary teachers have

used this method. In fact, differentiated instruction can be compared to coaching an

athletic team. A coach finds various methods to teach athletes the skills required to

compete in contests. Similarly, a teacher must find various methods for students to gain

the knowledge and skills required by the school district and the government. One possible

solution is a teaching method called Layered Curriculum®. Developed by Dr. Kathie

Nunley, Layered Curriculum® is a systematic teaching style that challenges the students

on multiple levels, including higher-order thinking activities. Students are given the

opportunity to choose how they wish to demonstrate their knowledge of the material from

a variety of assignments in a variety of formats. This allows the student to learn in the

method best fitting for his/her learning style. Layered Curriculum® could be the solution

for teachers in need of increasing student achievement (Nunley, 2006).

In today’s schools, there are many challenges that face teachers each day.

Teachers should find a way to meet the needs of a classroom full of students who have a

variety of learning styles. Teachers must also address classroom management issues and

the demands by school districts that students be able to meet state standards.

2

Differentiated instruction through Layered Curriculum® addresses all three of these

needs.

Tomlinson (1999) stated that throughout history teachers have struggled with

finding ways to teach to a group of students who learn at different paces and in different

ways. According to Nunley (2003), differentiated instruction is a way to meet this

challenge in the classroom. Nunley has created a method of teaching that uses

differentiated instruction known as Layered Curriculum®. According to Nunley (2006),

Layered Curriculum® is a three-layer model that encourages higher-order thinking as

students progress through the levels. The purpose of the “C Layer” is to check for basic

knowledge and understanding where the students will build upon the level of information

they possess on the topic. This layer especially is created to meet the wide variety of

needs of the students in the classroom. Assignments and activities are created for

auditory, visual, and tactile learning styles. The “C Layer” can also include assignments

and activities for students with special needs, gifted students, English language learners

(ELL), and any other classification of learner in the classroom. The “B Layer” uses more

application of the information learned in the “C Layer.” Many of the tasks include

problem solving or other higher order thinking tasks. The “A Layer” involves critical

thinking and analysis of the information that requires the highest levels of thinking and

learning. Nunley's process also involves giving the students ownership in the classroom.

The students are able to choose the types of assignments they want to complete from each

layer. Layered Curriculum® allows the students to choose the method of learning that

best fits them, as well as giving them the opportunity to take ownership or command of

their educational process, thus making it different for each student.

3

Managing classroom discipline is another issue that teachers face in the

classroom. Zuckerman (2007) stated that to establish order in the classroom and reduce

the number of disciplinary incidents, a teacher must respond to discipline issues and must

establish a routine. Zuckerman (2007) also suggested preventative measures that would

decrease the amount of idle time in the classroom as well as “downtime” where the

students are not engaged in the curriculum. Layered Curriculum® addresses both of these

ideas. Layered Curriculum® offers a routine for students to follow. Each unit contains

three layers or sets of activities and assignments for the students to complete. Through

their unit sheets (the paper with the activities and assignments divided into layers), the

students know what is expected to be done in the classroom. At the start of the class, the

teacher is able to immediately share with the student the tasks and goals of the day,

address questions, and then all students have tasks to engage themselves. No students are

idle in the classroom due to becoming immediately engaged in their work. This reduces

the opportunities for students to get into disciplinary situations that require the teacher to

intervene (Nunley, 2003).

Schools must meet certain scores on the state mandated tests in order to remain in

good standing with the state’s Department of Education (U.S. Department of Education,

2004). This requires schools to teach students to think critically as well as ensure that

enduring learning is taking place. Layered Curriculum® again addresses both of these

issues. Layered Curriculum®’s B Layer and A Layer are based on the highest level of

Bloom’s Taxonomy. The American Psychological Association (2008) refers to

analyzing, evaluating, and creating as the top three levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy.

Layered Curriculum® requires students to function in these areas on a regular basis.

4

Students utilize the information gained in the C Layer to complete the B Layer and A

Layer (the layers where they will analyze, evaluate, and create).

Student achievement is a primary focus for local communities and state

governments. School district administrators must prove student progress and growth in

their learning through state mandated tests. One of the challenges for teacher is how to

direct their students toward greater academic achievement.

Statement of the Problem

According to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) of

Missouri (2008), 37.4% of schools did not meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in

2006. While there are many factors that may have contributed to this, it is imperative to

find methods that will lead to an increase in student achievement.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was twofold. The first purpose was to determine if

differentiated instruction through Layered Curriculum® can increase student

achievement. The second purpose was to assess the attitude of teachers toward Layered

Curriculum® after they attended a professional development workshop on the topic.

Research Questions

The following research questions directed this study:

1. What impact did differentiated instruction have on the student achievement of

students in a sophomore level World History class?

2. What opinions did students have of Layered Curriculum® after having

experienced it?

5

3. What were the opinions of teachers who attended a professional development

opportunity on Layered Curriculum®?

Definition of Terms

For the purpose of this study, the following terms are defined.

Cooperative Learning: Instructional use of small groups so that the students work

together to maximize their own and each other’s learning (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec,

1993)

Differentiated Instruction: Using a variety of teaching methods to convey the

information taught in the classroom, which allows students to be active learners and

recognizes that students differ in their learning methods (Sacramento City Unified School

District, 2006)

Layer: Represents approximately one-third of the Layered Curriculum® unit

depending on the level of thinking based on Bloom’s Taxonomy.

Student Achievement: A student’s grade

Unit Sheet: Paper given to the student for Layered Curriculum® that contains all

assignments and activities for the unit that will typically last two to three weeks. All

assignments on the unit sheet are divided into layers.

Delimitations

1. The study spanned four school years. This study compared the overall semester

grades for students in the researcher’s World History class the two years where Layered

Curriculum® was used and the grades of the students in the teacher’s same course from

the two years prior to the introduction of Layered Curriculum®.

6

2. The students used in the study were different all four years (students retaking

the class had their score only recorded once using the data from their first year in the

course).

Limitations

Noted are the following limitations in the study:

1. The study was limited to the grades earned by sophomore students enrolled in

the researcher’s World History course (a required course) in each of the four years under

the study. The school is a medium-sized rural school of approximately 700 students. The

estimated number of students in each year’s population will be approximately 50-130

students.

2. Not all students attended the full year (transfers, health conditions, etc.), thus

they did not have the same amount of possible points as students who attended the full

year.

3. The study was limited to one teacher conducting the class and gathering the

information.

4. Because student comments about the class were provided as an opportunity for

extra credit on their final examination, there was the opportunity for students to be more

positive than if the questions had been asked anonymously.

5. Not all students enrolled in the class responded to the extra credit because not

all students responded to the question, some students were exempt from the test, and

some students used an option to not take the final as a reward for attendance, MAP

scores, or attendance at a community awareness event.

7

6. The teachers surveyed might have been more positive than the total population

of teachers, as these are teachers who put forth the effort to attend the workshop due to

their interest and the returned surveys are not be anonymous.

Design of the Study

Data for this study is qualitative and quantitative and was collected through three

methods. To measure student achievement, the grades of World History students in the

researcher’s classes for the previous four years was analyzed. The second method of data

collection was through student comments about the class. These comments were

provided as part of an extra credit on the spring semester final exam. The final method

included surveys completed by teachers who attended a workshop on Layered

Curriculum®.

Summary

Chapter one includes an introduction, Chapter Two contains a review of the

literature, Chapter Three will contain the methodology, results in Chapter Four, and

Chapter Five will include summaries of the data collected and recommendations for

further studies.

8

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE:

Teachers in today’s school are dealing with more challenges than ever before. No

Child Left Behind (U.S. Department of Education, 2004) has required school districts to

prove students are making improvements in reading and mathematics. This has put added

pressure on teachers to increase student achievement. Another challenge for teachers is

how to teach their students and meet the learning needs of each one in the process.

Tomlinson (1999) stated that throughout history teachers have struggled with finding

ways to teach to a group of students who learn at different paces and in different ways.

The concept of differentiated instruction could assist the teachers in meeting the needs of

all their students in the classroom while improving student achievement.

Differentiated Instruction

Differentiated instruction has origins with Howard Gardner’s 1983 study of

multiple intelligences. Gardner (as cited by Early Childhood Today, 2005) identified

seven intelligences by which people learn. These intelligences include verbal skills,

mathematical skills, spatial skills, bodily-kinesthetic skills, musical skills, interpersonal

skills, intrapersonal skills, and naturalist skills. Gardner stated that teachers must teach

material in different ways so that all intelligences are used.

Gardner (as cited by Early Childhood Today, 2005) also believed that a teacher

should present the material so most or all intelligences are activated. Gardner also

suggested that by using a variety of instructional methods, students gain deeper meaning

of the subject material. This style also allows students to function within their own

9

strengths and develop their weaknesses at an appropriate rate. Gardner further contended

that while it is impossible for a teacher to teach a multitude of learning styles at one

particular moment, allowing the students different methods of learning can accommodate

the needs of each student and activate the appropriate intelligences.

Levy (2008) believed that every teacher already differentiates in the classroom,

but most teachers are not aware they are doing it. Differentiation happens in its simplest

form when a teacher allows more time for completion of an assignment or allows

students to make choices in how they learn. Levy emphasized that differentiated

instruction needs to become more systematic in the classroom. Furthermore,

differentiated instruction can be used to address standards and provide a variety of paths

for the students to achieve those goals. Levy also stressed that differentiated instruction

must be flexible in the curriculum, the process, and the way students demonstrate what

they have learned.

Research from the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory (NREL) (2005)

showed support for the differentiated instruction approach. The NREL found that

differentiated instruction provides adaptations for learners who are struggling, are more

advanced or gifted, require special education, are from different backgrounds and

experiences, and have varying interests. Kaplan (2007) also recommended the use of

differentiated instruction for gifted students. Kaplan recommended encouraging thinking

skills, enrichment of the content, and research as the ideal forms of differentiation for

gifted learners.

The NREL continued its support by reporting that differentiated classrooms offer

multiple ways for students to access and process the content, and it ensures that all

10

students gain knowledge of the material. Yet another factor the NREL addressed is how

easily technology can be integrated into this type of classroom. While some students may

be proficient in a variety of technologies, differentiated instruction can also allow for

students from low-income homes or students with backgrounds that lack technological

abilities to gain skills they may otherwise not have the opportunity to obtain. The NREL

also expressed the need for learners to have the opportunity for choice of which

assignments they wish to complete to show their knowledge of the content. A variety of

assignments and assessments, coupled with the concept of choice, will lead more students

towards meeting their individual interests.

The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education of the State of Missouri

(2007), or DESE, requires in the Missouri School Improvement Program (MSIP) that

school districts report the use of differentiated instruction. In section 7.2 of the MSIP,

school districts must report on the identification of gifted students in all grade levels.

School districts must also report how the district uses differentiated instruction to meet

the needs of gifted students. The school districts are then required to describe the way

they have used differentiated instruction for gifted students. This may include the use of

formal programs such as mentors or independent studies. The school district must then

explain how the curriculum for gifted students is developed, how it is evaluated, and any

changes the school has made to the program in the past two years. In section 8.1.1 of the

MSIP, the school districts must note the programs that have been reviewed or evaluated

in the past two years. A criterion of this section of the report is titled

“Special/Supplemental/Differentiated Programs” (DESE, 2007, p. 7). This criterion

includes programs such as English Language Learners, Title I, special education, career

11

education, and gifted education. Through the MSIP reporting, DESE has emphasized to

school districts the need to utilize differentiated instruction to meet the needs of a variety

of classifications of students.

Armstrong (2006) believed that to have true academic achievement there must be

individualized instruction. Each student must have a plan that is modified to his/her

individual learning style. Another possibility is providing the opportunity for the student

to choose the learning plan best fitted for him/her. Armstrong stressed that many

traditional teachers do not create individualized learning plans nor provide students any

choices of how they want to learn the material; however, for students to have true

academic achievement teachers must encourage a variety of methods for students to learn

and not just provide notes, worksheets, and book assignments. True academic

achievement is enhanced when students are able to involve problem solving, task-

oriented assignments such as presentations or re-enactments, and other active

assignments (Armstrong).

Differentiation in the classroom is not only limited to instruction, the assignments,

and the activities the students can complete. The ways students’ knowledge can be

assessed can also be differentiated. Fisher and Frey (2007) stressed the necessity for

differentiating the methods for checking the students for understanding of the content and

skills the teacher desires the students to possess. The use of oral language, writing, tests,

projects, and performances can all be effective methods of assessing the knowledge and

skills of the students. These are all essential abilities needed by students. While some

students may prefer one or two methods of assessment to another, it is important for the

student to be assessed in all available methods. This provides the opportunity for the

12

students to partake in a variety of assessments that will force them to demonstrate their

skills and knowledge is multiple methods (Fisher & Frey).

Similarly to Fisher and Frey (2007), Pollock (2007) also concluded that varieties

of assessment methods are recommended to gauge student learning. This variety of

assessment specifically calls for methods to test for recall, to test for thinking, and to test

through observations and student self-assessments. This formatting of assessments seeks

to incorporate both higher-order and lower-order thinking skills of the students.

According to Pollock, the most efficient classroom assessments will test students at all

levels of understanding.

Challenges of Differentiated Instruction

While most resources show favor for differentiated instruction, there are some

challenges to its successes. Holloway (2000) believed that there could be problems on

many levels. First, he presented the concept that teacher education systems do not

properly prepare teachers for their transition from student to teacher. Student-teachers are

introduced to many ideas and concepts, but many find the student teaching experience

much more challenging than they had expected. One area especially highlighted was the

need for teaching materials other than the textbook.

Holloway (2000) also expressed that many teachers involved in differentiated

instruction fail to find assignments that fit the students on both ends of the range of

achievement. It may be possible that gifted students are not challenged enough, and that

students who are very slow to learn do not have the ability to keep up or the assignments

and activities are too complicated for them.

13

Holloway’s (2000) final challenge to the use of differentiated instruction was that

there is not enough support in the way of professional development on a regular basis.

While intentions of the teachers may be positive, and they work towards the success of

their students, there may still be gaps where more education and development is needed

to improve this method in the classroom.

Layered Curriculum®

According to Nunley (2006), Layered Curriculum® is a three-layer model that

encourages higher-order thinking as students progress through the layers of C, B, and A.

The purpose of the “C Layer” is to check for basic knowledge and understanding where

the students will build upon the level of information they possess on the topic. This layer

is especially created to meet the wide variety of needs of the students in the classroom.

Assignments and activities are created for auditory, visual, and tactile learning styles. The

“C Layer” can also include assignments and activities for students with special needs,

gifted students, English language learners (ELL), and any other classification of student

in the classroom. The “B Layer” uses more application of the information learned in the

“C Layer.” Many of the tasks include problem solving or other higher order thinking

tasks. The “A Layer” involves critical thinking and analysis of the information that

requires the highest levels of thinking and learning. Nunley's process also involves giving

the students ownership in the classroom. The students are able to choose the types of

assignments they want to complete from each layer. Layered Curriculum® allows the

students to choose the method of learning that best fits them, as well as gives them the

opportunity to take ownership or command of their educational process, thus making it

different for each student (Nunley).

14

Nunley (2004) noted the three most important aspects of Layered Curriculum®

are choice, encouraging higher-order thinking, and accountability. The students have the

ability to choose some of the assignments they wish to complete. This choice allows the

students some control over their learning. Nunley contended that by giving some of the

control to the students, classroom management issues and discipline issues are reduced

dramatically. This offers the students shared decision-making in the classroom, thus

giving them a greater sense of ownership.

One of the most important elements of Layered Curriculum® is accountability

through using oral defense and one-on-one interactions between the teacher and the

student (Nunley, 2004). Oral defense is used by the teacher to ensure the student has

gained the appropriate amount of knowledge and skills to meet the desired outcomes of

the district’s curriculum. An example of using oral defense would be to assess a student’s

knowledge of the content on a worksheet. Instead of merely grading multiple-choice

questions, the teacher asks the student a series of questions about the material on the

worksheet. The student will receive a grade based on his/her knowledge of the material.

This cuts down on students getting a grade for simply getting something done. This also

eliminates copying or cheating off another student. The student is responsible for his/her

knowledge of the material (Nunley).

Layered Curriculum® is organized through the application of unit sheets

(Nunley, 2004). A unit sheet lists all the assignments and activities from which the

students may select. The assignments and activities are grouped on the unit sheet by

layer. The students are instructed to complete a certain number of assignments (some

assignments can be chosen from the list and some assignments may be required). The

15

structure of a unit sheet can be organized to focus more on a particular layer.

Traditionally, most unit sheets organize the three layers to represent a triangle (Figure 1).

Note. From Layered curriculum®: The practical solution for teachers with more than one student in their classroom (p. 49), by K.F. Nunley, 2004, Amherst, NH: brains.org. Copyright 2004 by Dr. Kathie Nunley EdD. Reprinted with permission.

The “C Layer” is the largest area of focus with the most assignments and activities for the

students as the base of the triangle. The middle section of the triangle contains the “B

Layer” which is the second largest focus of the unit. At the top of the triangle is the “A

Layer” which has the fewest assignments and activities (Nunley).

The triangle format is not the only format a unit sheet may take. Depending on the

course, the unit being taught, or the teacher’s preference, the shape of the unit may move

from a triangle to a diamond (Figure 2) (Nunley, 2004). This creates a larger focus on the

“B Layer” in the unit. This means that the focus of this unit will be on assignments that

require the application of the content that was introduced in the “C Layer”. This is most

common in courses in Physical Education, Computers and Technology, and the Industrial

Arts. The result is there will be less time spent on the introduction of the material in the

“C Layer” and less time completing assignments in the “A Layer”.

A Layer (least number of assignments, least amount of time spent)

C Layer (has the most assignments and most time spent)

B Layer (Less time and assignments than C layer, but more than A Layer)

16

Note. From Layered curriculum®: The practical solution for teachers with more than one student in their classroom (p. 54), by K.F. Nunley, 2004, Amherst, NH: brains.org. Copyright 2004 by Dr. Kathie Nunley EdD. Reprinted with permission.

The third shape, although rare, is the box (Figure 3). Each layer has an equal amount of

assignments and activities for the students to complete. The same amount of time is also

spent with each layer (Nunley).

Note. From Layered curriculum®: The practical solution for teachers with more than one student in their classroom, by K.F. Nunley, 2004, Amherst, NH: brains.org. Copyright 2004 by Dr. Kathie Nunley EdD. Adapted with permission.

B Layer (has the most assignments and time spent)

A Layer (less assignments and time than B Layer, but

the same as C Layer)

C Layer (less assignments and time than B Layer, but the

same as the A layer)

A Layer (same number of assignments and time as all other layers)

B Layer (same number of assignments and time as all other layers)

C Layer (same number of assignments and time as all other layers)

17

Student Achievement

In 2001, one of the most demanding educational plans called No Child Left

Behind (NCLB) was signed into law (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). This plan

required school districts to test at least 95% of the students. Students fall into one of nine

subgroups: Asian and Pacific Islander, Black, Hispanic, American Indian, White,

free/reduced lunch, special education, Limited English Proficiency (LEP), and other/non-

response. NCLB requires that the students in each subgroup meet Adequate Yearly

Progress (AYP) in math and communication arts. This meant that teachers had to ensure

that all students’ educational needs were met. Meeting these needs can be interpreted as

finding ways to teach every student. This includes the subgroups in NCLB (U.S.

Department of Education, 2004). The result is that teachers are required to find a way to

reach a wide variety of learners in the classroom. The practice of differentiated

instruction through Layered Curriculum® can serve this purpose by giving students

choices and accommodating their preferred learning styles.

A major provision of NCLB is the accountability of the school district to ensure

all students meet state standards (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). VanSciver

(2005) believed that differentiated instruction is the perfect fit to meet the demands of

NCLB. This allows all the students to attain a similar level of mastery over content,

including the demands of NCLB (Vansciver). To ensure that students master these

concepts and are meeting standards Nunley (2004) stated that in a Layered Curriculum®

unit, the teacher must have one-on-one interaction with the students. As students

complete assignments, the teacher is to have short discussions or question-and-answer

sessions with the student. This allows the opportunity for the teacher to inquire about the

18

level of knowledge the student possesses. For example, if a student completes a

worksheet, the student will not receive points until he/she completes an oral defense of

his/her work. The teacher will ask the student questions related to the worksheet. The

points earned on the worksheet are based on the response by the student to the teacher’s

questions. Oral defense ensures that the students have gained the knowledge required by

the curriculum, which should be aligned with all state standards. Oral defense also deters

the students from cheating or copying each other’s work, as they are held accountable for

their knowledge and abilities by the teacher (Nunley).

In a study using a system very similar to Layered Curriculum®, Noble (2004)

utilized a combination of the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (RBI) with Gardner’s theory of

multiple intelligences (MI) to create a differentiated curriculum for elementary students.

Noble instructed and trained 16 elementary teachers over 18 months on how to utilize the

combination of MI and RBT to differentiate the curriculum in the teachers’ classrooms.

Noble provided the topic of the formation and eruption of volcanoes as an example of

this process. Noble used six different types of assignments, with each assignment

utilizing a different intelligence. The assignments included writing a report (linguistic

intelligence), conducting an experiment (logical-mathematical), drawing and labeling a

flow chart (spatial), acting out process (bodily-kinesthetic), teaching a classmate about

the process (interpersonal), and explaining the process to the tune of a well known song

(musical). The students are then able to choose an assignment based on how they wish to

convey their knowledge of the material (Noble).

At the end of the 18 month study, Noble (2004) had the 16 elementary teachers

complete a survey about having implemented this teaching method (combining MI and

19

RBT) in their classrooms. Noble found many positive results. Many of Noble’s findings

came from teachers’ comments such as the students having more confidence to complete

the assignments and less fear of failure, students became aware of how they learn best,

students were aware of their strengths and what guided their choice of assignments, and

that students performed better on higher-order thinking assignments. Noble found that the

majority of the teachers felt more successful in the classroom. In fact, Noble reported that

91% of teachers believed they better understood how students could be more successful

(2004).

Chapman and King (2005) stated that

a variety of novel, stimulating strategies and activities will intrigue and challenge

minds. Learning experiences must be planned to entice students with exciting,

meaningful content. The learner must be guided to create relevant, personal

connections to each lesson. When uniqueness and novelty are evident, students

are more likely to focus on the lesson. More students grasp information and adapt

it when their learning styles, modalities, intelligences, and interests are engaged.

(p. 22)

Other researchers have also developed similar conclusions. Armstrong (2006) stated the

best high schools (those that have the most academic achievement) have students in the

role as the worker and the teacher in the role as the coach. The teacher is responsible for

monitoring and guiding the students through the content and the educational activities. It

is the responsibility of the students to take the active role in experiencing their education.

The students conduct the research, solve problems, and gain a depth of knowledge based

on how much effort they put into their academics (Armstrong).

20

Chapman and King (2005) also stated that

In a differentiated classroom, the teacher selects materials and resources to

coordinate the learners' knowledge, ability levels, and interests. The teacher

creates productive problem solvers and thinkers while challenging and stimulating

minds in novel ways. The selected materials provide successful experiences for

learners. (p. 23)

The role of the teacher is to provide opportunities for students to gain educational

experience. In successful educational environments, the students must take an active role

in the classroom, and they must be the ones to establish their own path for how to

proceed, learn, and meet the goals of the curriculum (Chapman & King).

Differentiated instruction can be used at many grade levels and for a variety of

subject areas to increase student achievement. Baumgartner et al. (2003) concluded in a

study that the strategies incorporated in differentiated instruction are effective in

successfully increasing reading achievement for elementary and middle school students.

Simply having differentiated instruction in the classroom does not automatically

lead to student success. Simpson (1994) indicated that in a study of the four core

secondary school subject areas, the results indicated that differentiated practices are

successful when teachers collaborate with students in their learning, promote

achievement, identify the range of needs of the class, and use a variety of sources and

support for the student. By working with the students in developing how the content is

delivered, the teacher is guiding the students towards success (Simpson).

Another method to greater student achievement is the use of higher-order thinking

through higher-level questions. Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001) stated that

21

questions requiring students to analyze information through higher-level questions

produce more learning than questions that simply require students to recall or recognize

information. These types of questions also require students to restructure information or

apply what they have learned in some way (Marzano, et. al.). This use of higher-level

questions and activities are the foundations of using the “B Layer” and “A Layer” in

Layered Curriculum® (Nunley, 2006).

Secondary Social Studies Education

While some studies, including those by Nunley (2003), the NREL (2005),

Armstrong (2006), and Gardner (1983), supported the idea of differentiated instruction,

there needs to be evidence that this form of instruction will work with secondary

students. In 2006, De Jong conducted a study to determine the learning styles of

secondary students in a vocational school setting. Nearly 900 students were involved and

provided data on preferences for school-based learning or work-based learning. De Jong

found that a majority of students preferred the school-based learning styles. However, a

large number of students preferred an environment that had work-based learning styles.

Furthermore, one-third of the total number of students surveyed expressed interest in the

learning styles involved in both environments. De Jong’s study supported the idea that

secondary students can gain knowledge and an education from a variety of learning

styles. De Jong also provided evidence that if given the opportunity to choose, the

students will side with the method that best suits their desires and needs. De Jong

believed this variety of instructional opportunities could allow them to choose the path

that best suits them.

22

Another issue to face is the use of differentiated instruction in the social studies

classroom. According to Mehlinger (as cited in Nelson, 1993), social studies classrooms

that rely on the textbook to create assignments, activities, and assessments do not

challenge the students to work hard, think hard, or reflect on their learning. Nelson

encouraged new teachers and experienced teachers alike to become educated in new

methods in the classroom that do not depend on the classic lecture-textbook method

where the teacher lectures over the material and follows it with an assignment from the

book. New practices should also use the textbook as a resource, but the textbook should

not dictate the course of the class (Nelson).

Nelson (1993) further advised that teachers of secondary social studies should

move away from constant use of objective tests such as true or false, multiple choice, and

matching questions. Instead, students should have the opportunities for higher-level

thinking through analyzing, evaluating, and synthesizing information and putting it into a

process (Nelson). Differentiated instruction through Layered Curriculum® can provide

the opportunities for multiple ways of learning, and it can create chances to challenge the

students to gain skills for using higher-level thinking (Nunley, 2004).

Nelson (1993) continued by recommending a variety of strategies to increase

student learning in the social studies classroom. Some recommendations included: a) oral

activities, b) pictorial sources, c) writing activities, d) using audio and visual resources,

and e) technology such as computers. It could be interpreted that Nelson’s

recommendations of using a variety of methods of instruction could increase the quality

of students’ learning opportunities.

23

Motivating Students

Layered Curriculum® can be used to increase student motivation and academic

success. Sullo (2007) stated that providing the students with options in the classroom

could be a strong motivator. It is also recommended for the teacher to deliver instruction

to fit the style and personality of your class. The teacher should determine the needs of

the students and meet them (Sullo, 2007). Stenhoff (2008) studied the effects of choice on

assignment completion by students with special needs. Stenhoff found that “providing

choice of assignment without sacrificing instructional content may be sufficient to

increase student achievement” (2008 p.205). Strahan (2008) also found that students

became more engaged in learning activities when they were able to take part in selecting

assignments. Strahan continued by stating that through the choices his student made “he

was making and [assuming] more responsibility for his learning” (2008 p.205). Layered

Curriculum® provides students with the opportunity to select their preferred methods of

demonstrating their knowledge and mastery of the content (Nunley, 2004).

Garner (2007) recommended a lesson plan model to better engage and motivate

students. This lesson plan model is based around five steps. The first step is to allow the

students to explore and gather input and information about the content on their own.

From there, the students are then asked to describe what they have learned and link the

new concepts to their prior knowledge. The third step requires the teacher to explain the

content and check with the students to see that they understand the content (Garner).

These first three steps could be activities and assignments that would be useful in the “C

Layer” in Layered Curriculum®. Garner’s fourth step is to have the students demonstrate

their understanding of the material by applying what they have learned to projects and

24

activities (very similar to the “B Layer” and the “A Layer”). The final step is an

evaluation or reflection of the lesson by the students and by the teacher. Student feedback

can provide details of how to better teach the students and get to know their preferences

(Garner).

Layered Curriculum® and Other Current Educational Trends

An emerging current practice in education is the Instructional Practices Inventory

(IPI). This process, developed by Valentine (2008), focuses on improving student

achievement. Observers take a mental “snap-shot” of what is happening in each

classroom observed. Based on the level of student learning in the classroom, the room is

given a rating. The rating system is as follows:

6 – Students are engaged in higher-order learning including cooperative learning,

authentic project work, hands-on learning, demonstrations, and research

5 – Student learning conversations that encourage higher-order thinking

4 – Teacher-led instruction including lecture, giving directions, etc.

3 – Students work with teacher assistance and are engaged without evidence of

higher-order thinking

2 – Students work without teacher assistance and without evidence of higher-order

thinking

1 – Disengagement from the curriculum

After obtaining 140-180 “snap-shots” throughout a typical school day, the data are

collected and organized to establish how the school, overall, is engaging students in

learning. The percentage of classrooms in each category is calculated, which gives an

overall picture of the school. The goal is to use this data in a collaborative way with

25

faculty and staff members to improve student achievement. Sharing the data with the

faculty and staff is intended to foster quality discussions so teachers can find new and

better ways to teach their students. This collaborative effort requires teachers to be

reflective about their teaching. The teachers reflect about how their students learn, and

they can make the appropriate adjustments to their teaching styles to ensure quality

learning that includes higher-order thinking is taking place in the classroom (Valentine,

2008).

According to Valentine (2008), IPI can be used as an indicator of the achievement

level of a school. Valentine states that the ratio comparing the frequency of using levels

four to six of IPI to levels one to three can indicate how successful student achievement is

in a school. Valentine concluded that high achieving schools utilize levels four to six of

IPI at a ratio of 3:1 to levels one to three. The ratio for lower achieving schools is closer

to 1:1 (Valentine). When used higher-ordering thinking are used correctly in design of

activities and assignments, Layered Curriculum® focuses on utilizing the IPI levels of

four to six on a near-daily basis. Based on Valentine’s findings it can be implied that

student achievement would be high for courses that utilize Layered Curriculum®.

Another recent trend in education that can be related to Layered Curriculum® is

the method of developing curriculum called Backward Design. Wiggins and McTighe

(2005) identified three stages to this form of curriculum development. The first step is to

identify the desired results of a unit. At this stage, the teacher should identify the content

that needs to be taught, what enduring understandings are desired, and what the teacher

wants the students to be able to do. This is essentially the goal-setting stage for the unit

(Wiggins & McTighe). The goals should be linked to the district curriculum. The district

26

curriculum should also be aligned to state standards and any other external standards

(such as professional organizations).

Wiggins and McTighe (2005) identified the second stage of Backward Design as

determining the acceptable evidence. This is the stage where the teacher creates the

methods to assess if the desired learning has been achieved. This is meant to be both an

informal and formal method of assessment. This forces the teacher to act like an assessor

and establish the means to determine if the goals have been accomplished and decide

upfront how to obtain the evidence of that learning (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005).

The final stage in Backward Design is to plan the learning experiences and

instruction for the students to be able to succeed on the assessments and provide evidence

that learning has taken place. The goal for the instructor during this stage is to determine

what knowledge and skills will be needed for the students to be successful on the

assessments (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005).

As Tomlinson and McTighe (2006) clearly stated that Backward Design and

differentiated instruction go hand-in-hand, it could also be interpreted that Layered

Curriculum® would go hand-in-hand with Backward Design, as well. When building a

unit the teacher must first establish goals for the students to achieve. From this point, the

oral defense, one-on-one interactions, and any exams can be methods to assess student

learning and if goals have been accomplished. The assignments and activities that are

planned into the course should be aligned with the assessments to help the students meet

the goals and successfully provide evidence of their learning.

One of the leading researchers in education in recent years is Dr. Robert Marzano.

Marzano (2006) emphasized the need to replace the outdated traditional method of

27

grading that uses a point system. Instead, Marzano (2006) recommended replacing the

point system with a rubric-based scoring scale that represents progress on measurement

topics. This rubric-based scoring scale represents the level of knowledge of the topic. On

the scale developed by Marzano, a score of 3.0 indicates no major errors or omissions of

the information and/or processes that were taught. However, on Marzano’s scale it is

possible for a student to score as high as a 4.0. Students can score higher based on the

additional knowledge they have of the topic beyond what was taught in the classroom.

Essentially, if a student has more knowledge of a topic beyond what was provided from

the teacher delivery of the content, then the student can score at a higher level (Marzano).

In terms of the assignments, Marzano (2006) recommended three types of

assignments that are very similar to Layered Curriculum®. Type I assignments reflect

basic details and processes that are relatively easy for the students to complete. Type II

assignments are assignments that address ideas that are more complex and processes that

are challenging to the students. Type III assignments are assignments that go beyond

what was taught in the class (Marzano). Each of these types of assignments closely relate

to each of the layers that require students to learn, manipulate, and expand on the material

they have learned. While a teacher is using Layered Curriculum®, the method of

assessment can be flexible by being either formal or informal (Nunley, 2006). Marzano

encouraged using formal and informal assessments to judge first if the student has any

major errors or omissions from the Type II assignment(s) for a topic. This method of

organization and assessing student knowledge and skills can avoid the traditional points

system. The result would be teachers getting away from awarding points for simply doing

28

work and turning in assignments. Instead, the student’s knowledge of the topic is the

basis for the student’s grade (Nunley, 2004; Marzano, 2006).

Conclusion

Differentiated instruction seems to be widely supported and encouraged by many

resources and authors. There are even many new trends in education over the past ten

years that support differentiated instruction and promote various aspects of the goals of

Layered Curriculum®. Although there are many challenges that may face the teachers as

they try to adjust to the differences in the classroom, these changes could assist in

providing a better educational experience for the student. Instead of an education where

the instruction is presented in one method and follows the textbook, the student now has

the opportunity go outside the textbook and use higher order thinking to grow and

experience what they are learning.

29

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

As Layered Curriculum® becomes an emerging trend in education, this study

inquired if Layered Curriculum® could be a method of teaching that produces data that

show an increase in student achievement while gaining the trust of teachers and a more

enjoyable educational experience by students while they learn. This study produced data

from student grades and student and teacher opinions of Layered Curriculum®.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was twofold. The first purpose was to determine if

differentiated instruction through Layered Curriculum® could increase student

achievement. The second purpose was to assess the attitude of teachers toward Layered

Curriculum® after they attended a professional development workshop on the topic.

Research Questions

The following research questions directed this study:

1. What impact did differentiated instruction have on the achievement of students in

a sophomore level World History class?

2. What opinions did students have of Layered Curriculum® after having

experienced it?

3. What were the opinions of teachers who attended a professional development

opportunity on Layered Curriculum®?

30

Research Design

At the end of each semester (fall and spring), students’ grades were recorded. The

students’ grades are represented by the following letter grade after being rounded to the

nearest whole percentage:

95% + = A

90%-94% = A-

87%-89% = B+

83%-86% = B

80%-82% = B-

77%-79% = C+

73%-76% = C

70%-72% = C-

67%-69% = D+

63%-66% = D

60%-62% = D-

Below 60% = F

For the process of data collection for this study, student grades were grouped together as

follows:

A or A- = A

B+, B, or B- = B

C+, C, or C- = C

D+, D, or D- = D

F

31

At the end the spring semester of the 2007-2008 school year, the researcher provided an

extra credit opportunity for students to share comments on two aspects of the class they

enjoyed and one aspect of the class that could be improved. All comments regarding

Layered Curriculum® were taken from the tests to obtain the views and opinions of the

students. Finally, a survey was distributed to a group of teachers after they attended a

workshop conducted by the researcher at Missouri’s Central Regional Professional

Development Center. This allowed for the opinions of teachers of Layered Curriculum®

to be expressed.

Selection of Subjects

The subjects involved in the study were approximately 400 different sophomore

students who were enrolled in the researcher’s World History course from the 2004-2005

school year through the 2007-2008 school year. During the two years before the use of

Layered Curriculum® there were 115 students enrolled in the researcher’s two-semester,

World History course. In the spring semester, there were 122 students enrolled. For the

years during the use of Layered Curriculum®, the enrollment during the fall semesters

was 289 students, and in the spring semesters, the enrollment was 254 students. While

not all students were included in the study, the school has basic trends related to the

student population. The student population was over 95% Caucasian. Most students came

from low to lower-middle income households. The school was a rural ninth to twelfth

grade, public school with approximately 700 students. The student scores from the 2006-

2007 and the 2007-2008 school years (when Layered Curriculum® was used) were

compared to those of the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 school years (before Layered

Curriculum® was introduced). Non-sophomore students were omitted from the study.

32

Students who retook the class were also omitted from the study. Similarly, students who

were removed from the classroom for out-of-school suspension for more than three

months during the school year were omitted from the study. Student comments were

taken from an extra credit question on the spring semester final exam during the 2007-

2008 school year. Not all students took the test, and not all students responded to the

extra credit question.

Ten teachers or former teachers attended a workshop on Layered Curriculum®

directed by the researcher. The workshop included a basic introduction to the core

concepts of Layered Curriculum®, a video presentation involving the philosophies

behind Layered Curriculum®, a small group exercise, a question and answer session, and

the opportunity to begin designing a Layered Curriculum® unit that could be used in the

teachers’ classrooms. In a follow-up email, the teachers were given a link to an online

survey to determine the teachers’ opinions of Layered Curriculum®.

Instrumentation

Data for this study are qualitative and quantitative. The data were collected

through three methods. To measure student achievement the grades of World History

students in the researcher’s classes for the previous four years was analyzed. This data

included grades for two years of classes without Layered Curriculum® and two years of

classes with Layered Curriculum® as the primary instructional method. The data were

then organized and compared to see if student achievement increased during the two

years with Layered Curriculum®. Student grades were grouped together into categories

based on the following reported grade for each semester:

A or A- = A

33

B+, B, or B- = B

C+, C, or C- = C

D+, D, or D- = D

F

The frequency of each student’s semester grade was recorded to its appropriate category

for the two years before the use of Layered Curriculum®, and a separate total of

frequencies was recorded for the two years during the use of Layered Curriculum® (i.e.

all frequencies of A, B, C, D, and F were totaled for each of the two years). The

percentages of frequencies in each category (A, B, C, D, and F) were calculated. The

percentages of the two years before Layered Curriculum® and the percentages of the two

years during Layered Curriculum® in each category were then compared.

The second method of data collection was through student comments about the

class. These comments were provided as part of an extra credit question on the spring

semester final exam. The questions stated: “What were two things you enjoyed about this

class, and what is one thing you would change about the class?” Any comments related to

Layered Curriculum®, unit sheets, or any other aspects of the Layered Curriculum®

method of teaching were included. A series of charts summarized the comments into

positive responses and negative responses based on feedback from the student. The

responses were also grouped into categories based on similar comments about the various

aspects of Layered Curriculum®. A complete listing of comments from students

regarding Layered Curriculum® is found in the appendix.

The final method of data collection was a teacher survey. The researcher

presented a workshop on Layered Curriculum® at the Central Regional Professional

34

Development Center. All eighteen attendees were asked to complete an online survey.

Those attending the workshop included teachers and former teachers from the K-12 and

post-secondary levels. Information on the surveys included information about their

teaching position and provided feedback as to how valuable they believed the Layered

Curriculum® system was. Teacher buy-in was based on the number of responses from

teachers who plan to or have already implemented Layered Curriculum® into their

classrooms. The teacher survey included questions involving the following:

Grade Level Taught

Average Class Size

Course(s) taught

Interest level in using Layered Curriculum®

Intentions of using Layered Curriculum® in the classroom

Favorite aspects of Layered Curriculum®

Foreseen challenges with using Layered Curriculum®

Anticipated level of integration into the classroom and when

A reproduction of the online version of the survey is available in Appendix C. Ten

workshop attendees completed the survey.

Procedures

Student grades were obtained through the assistance of one of the school

counselors. Grades for the 2005-2006, 2006-2007, and 2007-2008 school years were

available through the school districts computer database. Grades for the 2004-2005

school year were obtained through a physical search of a storage area within the school

35

building. Permission was obtained from the school principal to use the student data in this

study. An approval notice from the school principal is located in Appendix B.

Comments from students about Layered Curriculum® were gathered from the

spring semester final exam during the 2007-2008 school year. Comments were given as

part of an extra credit opportunity. The final exam was taken through an online testing

host. All comments from the students regarding Layered Curriculum® were copied and

can be found unedited in Appendix E.

Teachers who attended a workshop on Layered Curriculum® at the Central

Regional Professional Development Center (CRPDC) were emailed a link to an online

survey to obtain their opinions of Layered Curriculum®. A copy of the survey and the

email can be found in Appendix C and Appendix D. The teachers were given until

August 30, 2008 to complete the survey. After this date, the survey was closed to any

more submissions.

Data Collection and Recording

The classroom grades of the students of the past four years taking the World

History course were compared on charts to see if more students are achieving higher

grades in the class during the utilization of Layered Curriculum®. The frequency of each

grade category was recorded for the two years without Layered Curriculum® and then

recorded for the two years using Layered Curriculum®. The percentage of student

grades in each category from the total frequencies for that set of years was established.

The percentages from each set were then compared to see if student achievement (grades)

had increased. Student comments were organized into positive comments and negative

comments for Layered Curriculum®. Comments were also gathered together by

36

similarity based on the key concepts of Layered Curriculum® such as choice, unit sheets,

etc. Teacher comments were organized by the response to each survey question.

37

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

There were two purposes of this study. The first purpose was to determine if

differentiated instruction through Layered Curriculum® could increase student

achievement. For this study, student achievement was measured by student grades. The

second purpose was to assess the attitude of teachers toward Layered Curriculum® after

they attended a professional development workshop on the topic. The following research

questions directed this study:

1. What impact did differentiated instruction have on the student achievement of

students in a sophomore level World History class?

2. What opinions did students have of Layered Curriculum® after having

experienced it?

3. What were the opinions of teachers who attended a professional development

opportunity on Layered Curriculum®?

Findings

Impact on Student Achievement

The collecting of student grades involved two methods. First, a physical search

for the 2004-2005 grade book required searching the storage area of student and school

records. The second method required the assistance of the school counselor. The school

counselor downloaded the grades for the three school years ranging from 2005-2008 from

the school’s electronic database. The school principal granted permission for use of the

student data for this study (see Appendix B).

38

The 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 school years were the periods where Layered

Curriculum® was not used in the classroom. In the fall semester, 115 students were

enrolled in the researcher’s two-semester, World History course, and in the spring

semester, 122 students were enrolled. In the fall semesters, 44 students (38.3% of the

total group) earned a grade of A (90% or above), 24 students (20.9%) earned a grade of B

(80-89%), 17 students (14.8%) earned a grade of C (70-79%), 17 students (14.8%) earned

a grade of D (60-69%), and 13 students (11.3%) failed the course (See Table 1). In the

spring semesters, 36 students (29.5% of the total group) earned a grade of A, 51 students

(41.8%) earned a grade of B, 17 students (13.9) earned a grade of C, eight students

(6.6%) earned a grade of D, and 10 students (8.2%) failed the course (See Table 2).

Table 1:

Fall Grades before Layered Curriculum®

Grade Count Percentage A 44 38.3%

B 24 20.9%

C 17 14.8%

D 17 14.8%

F 13 11.3%

39

Table 2:

Spring Grades before Layered Curriculum®

Grade Count Percentage A 36 29.5%

B 51 41.8%

C 17 13.9%

D 8 6.6%

F 10 8.2%

In the school years of 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 Layered Curriculum® was

utilized in the same course. The enrollment during the fall semesters was 289 students,

and in the spring semesters, the enrollment was 254 students. The grade distribution for

the fall semesters were 124 students (42.9%) earning a grade of A, 46 students (15.9%)

earning a grade of B, 49 students (17.0%) earning a grade of C, 47 students (16.3%)

earned a grade of D, and 23 students (8.0%) failed the course (See Table 3). In the spring

semesters, 112 students (44.1%) earned a grade of A, 43 students (16.9%) earned a grade

of B, 48 students (18.9%) earned a grade of C, 31 students (12.2%) earned a grade of D,

and 20 students (7.9%) failed the course (See Table 4).

40

Table 3:

Fall Grades with Layered Curriculum®

Grade ___Count Percentage

A 124 42.9%

B 46 15.9%

C 49 17%

D 47 16.3%

F 23 8%

Table 4:

Spring Grades with Layered Curriculum®

Grade ___Count Percentage

A 112 44.1%

B 43 16.9%

C 48 18.9%

D 31 12.2%

F 20 7.9%

41

Table 5:

All Grades Before Layered Curriculum® vs. All Grades With Layered Curriculum®

Grade f Before LC % f With LC %

A 80 33.8% 236 43.5%

B 75 31.6% 89 16.4%

C 34 14.3% 97 17.9%

D 25 10.5% 78 14.4%

F 23 9.7% 43 7.9%

Student Opinions

The second question driving this study was to obtain the opinions of the students

who experienced a Layered Curriculum® classroom. Students during the 2007-2008

school year had the opportunity to answer the following extra credit question on the

spring semester final exam: What were two things you enjoyed about the class this year,

and what is one thing you would change? Not all students took the exam, as some

students had the opportunity to option-out of the exam and some students were exempt

due to having already secured a grade of A for the semester. In addition, not all students

answered the extra credit question. There were 75 responses related to using the Layered

Curriculum® method of teaching. This also included any of the key components of

Layered Curriculum®. Because some students commented on more than one aspect of

Layered Curriculum®, the comments were organized by topic. Students made 75

comments which were grouped into eight topics related to Layered Curriculum®

42

including assessments, assignments, the ability to make choices, the scheduling of the

units, student-centered learning, use of technology, unit sheets, and the overall system of

Layered Curriculum®. The comments of the students were categorized as positive,

negative, or constructive criticism. Comments labeled as constructive criticism were

categorized this way because the student’s comment offered suggestions for improvement

(See Table 6).

Table 6

Student Comments by Topic

Topic Positive Negative Constructive Criticism

Assessment 0 0 1

Assignments 9 0 2

Choice 12 0 0

Layered Curriculum® 12 5 1

Scheduling 4 3 0

Student-Center learning 12 6 1

Technology 1 1 0

Unit Sheet 4 0 0

Total 55 15 5

One student made a comment related to the assessment methods in the Layered

Curriculum® model. This comment was in regards to the use of rubrics. For many

assignments created by the students, the instructor used rubrics as basic guidelines

43

including the student’s knowledge of the content. One student commented, “I would have

done something with the rubrics. They almost go contrary to the free-learning style the

class offers.”

The second category for students’ comments was the assignments. Nine

comments were favorable for the assignments and two comments involved some

constructive criticism. Comments indicated the students enjoyed “all the fun projects”

and the “collaborative assignments.” Students also expressed liking “lots of

assignments”, “A-Layer assignments”, “bringing in the food”, “the different projects”,

and “being able to do other things [than] just worksheets in the class”. The two comments

that were constructive criticism involved providing an even wider variety of assignments

and ensuring that an adequate amount of supplies were always available in the classroom

for students to complete all assignments.

One of the key components to Layered Curriculum® is the ability for the students

to have choice in their assignments and the method they prefer to demonstrate their

knowledge of the content. Choice was one of three comment topics to tie for the most

positive comments. All twelve comments involving student choice were positive.

Students expressed they liked being able to make a choice of which assignments they

wanted to complete to show their knowledge of the topic. One student noted, “I enjoyed

getting to choose the projects we did off our unit sheet, it allowed us to do what we like

the most.” Similarly, another student added, “I liked the layered class it was a lot more

fun and also gave us the chance to do what we can do best.” Another student combined

having choices and being accountable for his/her learning by adding, “I also like how you

let [us] take own responsibility for [our] own choices to do our work.”

44

The scheduling of the Layered Curriculum® unit also had twelve positive

responses (tied for most positive comments), but had five negative responses and one

point of constructive criticism. Three types of scheduling were used in the Layered

Curriculum® method. The first schedule is the daily schedule. This means that students

have a choice each day of what assignment they wish to complete; however, the

assignment is due at the end of the day or the beginning of the next day. The second

method is the traditional method for Layered Curriculum®. In the traditional method,

each layer is given an allotment of days for the students to complete their work. This may

be two to three days or could be a week or more. This can be set depending on the

number of assignments and the teacher’s preference. The third method for scheduling a

unit is a blending of the first two methods. This normally involved the C Layer being a

daily method and the B Layer and the A Layer falling under the traditional method.

Students expressed that with the Layered Curriculum® schedule they were able to work

at their own pace and they did not always have something required to be turned in to the

teacher each day. One student noted, “I enjoyed being able to work on our own and

having set dates for when everything was to be turned in.” One student expressed

enjoying the flexibility in the scheduling for the units by stating that he/she, “liked not

having a scheduled time for everything to happen.”

Most of the negative comments regarding the schedule had to do with not having

enough time in one or more of the layers. A student commented, “I don't so much like the

unit sheets because I feel rushed into getting things done, so I would take the unit sheets

away.” Other students were more specific and wanted to have more time to complete

assignments in the A Layer, “One thing I would change would be give more time for A

45

layer.” The constructive criticism recommended changing, “the A, B, and C layer days

around where you have more days with A, and less with C layer.” Some students

expressed the need to have more time for all the layers. One student felt that he/she was

“rushed” through the unit. Another student also wanted assignments turned in more

frequently, such as in the daily method of scheduling the unit.

The students had mixed comments about Layered Curriculum® being more

student-centered. The results showed four positive comments and three negative

comments about the student-centered classroom. How the students felt about being in

control of their learning was mixed. One student commented he/she liked “how you

almost teach yourself.” Another student expressed, “the only thing I did not like was a

lack of teaching. We were teaching ourselves in a way.” Besides the use of technology

(only two comments overall), this topic showed the greatest split in the students’

comments with some embracing the responsibility and accountability of learning while

others did not. One student noted that he/she did like “how you get treated like an adult.”

Some students made comments about the overall system of Layered

Curriculum®. Twelve students gave positive comments including how they liked the

Layered Curriculum®. Some students were very general in stating they liked the way the

class was set-up and they liked learning this way. One student even thought the layer

system was “cool.” One student was very positive and stated that, “Layers are a good

thing!” Another student commented that the Layered Curriculum® “was different, but

better than what some other teachers had.” On the other side, some students expressed

they did not like Layered Curriculum®. Students commented they “did not like the layer

system” and the one thing they “would change – the layer system.” One student expanded

46

on this by stating, “I wish we would have just gotten worksheets.” The only constructive

criticism from a student included changing the amount of work and point values in the

system.

Technology only received two comments from students. Although technology

was not a major component of Layered Curriculum®, it is important to note that many of

the assignments the students completed in all layers required the use of technology. It is

for this reason the topic of technology is included.

The two comments were in direct conflict with each other. One student liked

“being able to send all of the assignments in online” while the other student commented it

was “very hard to turn in work on a computer.” Both assignments deal with turning in

assignments to a classroom website created by the instructor. No comments were made

regarding the creation or utilization of technological resources except for submission of

assignments.

The final category of comments deals with the unit sheets. Unit sheets are the

assignments and schedule written out for the student at the start of each unit. The students

were able to view all this information upfront before the unit began. There were four

comments specifically about the unit sheets, and all comments were positive. One student

captured the intent of presenting all the assignments and schedule on the unit sheet by

commenting, “I really liked the unit sheets. That kept me on task and helped me

remember what i needed to do.” Another student expressed that the unit sheets were “fun

and easy.” The other comments were similarly positive and indicated the student enjoyed

using them.

47

Teacher Opinions

The third question driving this study involved the opinions of teachers who

attended a professional development opportunity on Layered Curriculum®. The eighteen

participants who attended the workshop were sent an email (Appendix D) which included

a link to a follow-up survey (Appendix C) regarding the Layered Curriculum® workshop

and their opinions of Layered Curriculum®. Ten teachers and former teachers responded

to the survey.

The first question of the survey asked the teachers for their average class size. The

range of responses from those still teaching was from 15-28. Two participants indicated

they were not currently teaching, but they had taught before and planned to teach again.

The second question of the survey inquired as to what course the teachers taught.

Eight teachers responded to the question. Two teachers taught library courses at the

university level, and one teacher responded from each of middle school social studies,

high school social studies, high school science, upper-elementary math, and agriculture.

One response was N/A.

The third question inquired as to how interested the teachers were in using

Layered Curriculum®. Of the ten respondents six (60%) stated they planned to use it

during the 2008-2009 school year, three (30%) were very interested in Layered

Curriculum®, and one teacher (10%) replied with N/A.

Question four of the survey asked the teachers how they see themselves using

Layered Curriculum® in their classrooms. The teachers had the following comments in

response to this question:

48

I will implement layer B and A after layer C is established

As an integral part of my teaching process.

I would love the opportunity to use layered curriculum and wish I had had this

last year. Unfortunately my small district did not renew my contract so as of right

now I will not be teaching this coming school year. I retired from the KCMO

system and guess it may be time to retire from the state system...not my choice...

Implemented Biotechnology so far this year. I want to gradually implement

work with teachers

Very closely to the way Dr. Nunley describes in her book.

If I were ever to return to the classroom I would use layered curriculum in my

science classes - giving choice of activities seems like a great way to pull in the

reluctant.

I will use it much in the way you described. Oral defense and smaller projects

throughout the semester as opposed to lots of worksheet grading and a BIG

project at the end.

For a variety of key units throughout the semester. I have created an introduction

to MLA Style for my fall class, one of the first activities my students will be

doing this fall semester.

For this year, I intend to plan one unit using Layered Curriculum. Our district is

moving toward more formative assessment and I will need to think through how

to combine Layered Curriculum with the district focus as I see Layered

Curriculum as providing a lot of grades but less formative feedback for students

to use for improvement. I would still like to try it though.

49

Question five inquired if the teacher would use Layered Curriculum® in all of his/her

classes and why or why not? The result was six of the ten teachers stated they would use

it or at least try to use it in their classrooms. Two teachers were not sure if they would use

it in all their classes (depending on number of different courses being prepared for and

unsure for face-to-face classes, but would use for online courses). One teacher indicated

if she is teaching in the next year she would (no current position held in teaching), and

one teacher said he/she would not use Layered Curriculum® because his/her course is a

pass/fail course. The full responses were as follows:

yes-the classes can be designed the same way

As much as possible. I am just getting started.

I would use it in all my classes or at least give it a go...I really enjoyed your

workshop and will probably try to do some of the regional PDC ones related even

tho I am not actively teaching...I was not ready to give it up but...Biological

science is my field and I definately see many possibilities...too bad no one needs a

resource person (w/o an official masters degree but lots of hours)!!!

Yes in time, except exploratory (7th grade)

yes in all of my classes due to the fact that this is a way to engage all learners

I will not be using layered curriculum in my career class. It is an exploratory class

that uses a pass fail grade.

It would depend on class load. If I had 3 sections of one class and 3 of another

yes, but if I had 6 different preps probably not. It would be my goal, however, to

use it in all of my classes.

50

Not sure. I am using it in the four F2F sections, but will probably use a modified

version in my two online sections.

It is likely that I will

Yes.

Question 6 asked the teachers to share what they liked best about Layered

Curriculum®. Teachers were able to respond with more than one aspect of Layered

Curriculum® that they liked best. The following is a breakdown of the frequencies where

an aspect was shared as what the teachers liked:

Student Choice – 5

Accountability – 3

Higher Order Thinking / Bloom’s Taxonomy – 3

Student Engagement – 3

Organized – 2

Differentiated Instruction – 1

Teachers responded with the following to this question:

The ability to give choices to the students

Accountability. Can the students prove to me that they really know the material.

I like the choice aspect and reallllly like having the student be able to demonstrate

their learning and thinking...years ago I tried to do that with my students with

some limited success...in KC the classes were too large to adequately implement

this...but I see how Kathie Nunley has done it and it helps that she is an actual

science teacher! So many who do this are not--usually English or (no offense)

Social Studies...

51

Organized

How all students can be engage in meaningful learning activities and the ability to

drive higher order thinking in the classroom.

The structure and format of layered curriculum allows for the teacher to organize

differentiated instruction more easily. If done correctly the students can work at

their own pace in their preferred learning style and will be pushed to think

critically at at different levels of bloom's taxonomy.

Student choice - sometimes you can plan learning activities that hook a student,

but not all students every unit. I think this could do it.

I like the flexibility, creativity, student-accountability, and active-learning

components of Layered Curriculum.

It gives students choices about what they will do and gives them control of their

learning

I like the aspects of student choice and I also appreciate the fact that students

cannot succeed by only choosing lower-level projects, but that they will have to

choose projects which use higher-level thinking.

Question 7 asked the teachers if Layered Curriculum® could boost student

achievement and why or why not? One-hundred percent of the teachers believed that

Layered Curriculum® could increase student achievement due to reasons including

deeper levels of thinking / higher-order thinking, the accountability, student ownership,

and choice in activities. Teacher responses included:

Yes, deeper level thinking will be required

52

Yes, if the students see that they must learn the material instead of just

skimming the pages they will develop the skills to perform better in all areas.

I know it could...if only I were to have the opportunity...

Definitely, Students have ownership

Yes it will boost student achievement as it fosters interest and engagement in

meaningful activities by all students

I believe brain based research proves that people need to be active while

learning and perform better when they are interested in the topic or activity

they are studying.

Students have to be involved w/ their learning. Layered curriculum would

help with the motivation some students lack. I think some activities would

have to be required, to be sure to meet the objectives necessary - C level

activities.

Yes, no doubt about it and for all of the reasons I just mentioned in Question

6. (Question 6 response: I like the flexibility, creativity, student-

accountability, and active-learning components of Layered Curriculum.)

I believe it can because of the opportunities for students to select activities

that complement their preferred learning styles.

Yes, I see power in student choice.

The final question asked the teachers if they would incorporate Layered

Curriculum® into their classrooms at the start of the next school year, in the spring

semester, or not at all. Eight of the teachers responded that they were already using

Layered Curriculum® in their classroom, would implement at the start of the school year,

53

or would use Layered Curriculum® for a later unit. Two teachers currently are not in a

position to use Layered Curriculum® at the classroom level.

Summary

The first question of whether or not Layered Curriculum® has a positive effect on

student achievement was observed through the collection of student grades from the two

years before Layered Curriculum® was used and the student grades during the two years

when Layered Curriculum® was used. The results indicated an increase of 9.7% of

students scoring in the “A” range and a decrease of 1.8% of students failing the semester

with a grade of “F.” However, there was an increase in the number of students in the

ranges of “C” and “D” during the two years with Layered Curriculum® as the method of

teaching.

The opinions of students were obtained as part of an optional extra credit question

on the course final exam. Students could provide two aspects of the class they liked and

one aspect of the class they would change or did not like. Fifty-five of the seventy-five

comments related to Layered Curriculum® were deemed positive while fifteen were

deemed negative. Five comments offered constructive criticism, but did not indicate a

positive or negative value. The aspects of Layered Curriculum® receiving the most

positive comments were student choice in what assignments they wanted to complete to

meet the objective, Layered Curriculum® as a whole, and student-centered learning. The

aspects of Layered Curriculum® receiving the most negative comments were student-

centered learning, Layered Curriculum® as a whole, and the scheduling used during

Layered Curriculum®.

54

The final question addressed the opinions of teachers about Layered

Curriculum®. The teachers surveyed took part in a workshop conducted by the

researcher. After the workshop, all eighteen participants received an email with a link to

an eight-question survey regarding their opinions of Layered Curriculum®. Ten teachers

responded to the survey. The teachers taught class sizes ranging from 15-28, and they

taught a variety of subject areas at a variety of grade-levels. The overall response was

positive from the teachers. All teachers believed that Layered Curriculum® could

increase student achievement. The teachers could also find at least one aspect of Layered

Curriculum® they liked. Student choice in assignments, higher-order thinking, student

engagement, and accountability were the aspects receiving the most comments from the

teachers. Nine teachers responded that they were at least very interested in using Layered

Curriculum® during the next school year. The tenth teacher indicated “N/A” as he/she

does not have a contract for a teaching position at the time of the survey. Eight of the

respondents indicated they are already using Layered Curriculum® or would use it during

the 2008-2009 school year, and two respondents indicated they would not be in the

classroom to use Layered Curriculum® during the 2008-2009 school year.

55

CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Teachers and schools are being faced with more challenges than ever before. No

Child Left Behind (U.S. Department of Education, 2004) is increasing the demands upon

teachers, administrators, and school districts. Accountability in regards for student

achievement is in high-demand by the lawmakers and community members alike.

Schools are also faced with students who have a wide variety of needs and bring with

them a wide variety of challenges for teachers and the schools to face (Tomlinson, 1999).

Differentiated instruction was found by many to be a way to combat these challenges

(Armstrong 2006; Fisher & Frey, 2007; Kaplan, 2007; Levy, 2008; & Northwest

Regional Educational Laboratory, 2005). Even state programs are requiring school

districts to provide evidence of use of differentiated instruction in the formal review of a

school district’s programs (Department of Elementary and Secondary Education of the

State of Missouri, 2007). A possible approach to meet the demands placed on schools to

increase student achievement while meeting the needs of students with a variety of

learning styles is Layered Curriculum®. Up to this point, no other studies were found

that examine if Layered Curriculum® could have an effect on student achievement.

The focus of this study was two-fold. The first purpose was to determine if

differentiated instruction through Layered Curriculum® could increase student

achievement. For this study, student achievement was measured by student grades. The

second purpose was to assess the attitude of teachers toward Layered Curriculum® after

56

they attended a professional development workshop on the topic. The following research

questions directed this study:

1. What impact did differentiated instruction have on the student achievement of

students in a sophomore level World History class?

2. What opinions did students have of Layered Curriculum® after having

experienced it?

3. What were the opinions of teachers who attended a professional development

opportunity on Layered Curriculum®?

Summary of Findings

In regards to an increase of student achievement based on the findings for

Research Question 1, there were several key effects. The first effect was an increase of

9.7% of the students who earned a semester grade in the A range. The second key effect

was a reduction (1.8%) of the student population who failed the course. Finally, there was

an increase in the number of students who scored a grade of “C” or below. Similarly,

there was a decrease of students (5.5%) who scored grades in the “A” and “B” ranges.

The second questions driving this study addressed the opinions of students who

experienced Layered Curriculum® as the primary method of teaching. The Students

received the opportunity to provide feedback about the course to the teacher through an

extra credit question on the final exam. All comments related to Layered Curriculum® or

one of its components were compiled into a list (Appendix E).

Of the comments received from students about Layered Curriculum® on the

course final exam, fifty-five of seventy-five overall comments (73%) were positive. The

highest frequency of positive comments were concerning student choice, student-centered

57

learning, and Layered Curriculum® overall with twelve comments each. Negative

comments made up fifteen of the seventy-five overall comments (20%). The most

common negative comments were in regards to student-centered learning (6) and Layered

Curriculum® overall (5). Students shared constructive five (7%) constructive criticism

comments (or comments on how to improve the course) Overall, student responses for

Layered Curriculum® were positive. Students who responded negatively to the Layered

Curriculum® were very general and did not offer details to what they specifically did not

like.

The final question driving this study was to determine the opinions of teachers

regarding Layered Curriculum®. Ten of eighteen participants at a workshop conducted

by researcher responded to an email (Appendix D) containing a request for teachers to

follow a link to a survey (Appendix C) to ascertain the opinions of the teachers about

Layered Curriculum®. Of the ten teachers who responded, the teachers indicated their

average class size (if they currently were teaching in schools) ranged from 15-28

students. The courses they taught were a wide variety ranging from upper-elementary to

post-secondary library science and information services. Sixty percent of the teachers

stated they planned to use it during the school year, and thirty percent indicated they were

very interested in using Layered Curriculum®. One respondent replied with Not

Applicable (N/A). All ten respondents indicated they would use it in their classroom in

different methods. Eighty percent of the teachers surveyed said they would use or

consider using Layered Curriculum® with all their classes. The remaining twenty percent

stated they would not have a classroom of students during the next school year.

58

The aspect of Layered Curriculum® receiving the most comments was involving

student choice (5). Accountability, higher-order thinking / Bloom’s Taxonomy, and

student engagement each received three comments. The ability to maintain organization

received two comments while the concept of differentiated instruction produced one

comment. When asked on question seven if the teachers believed Layered Curriculum®

could boost student achievement, 100% of the respondents indicated that student

achievement could increase. When asked why they thought this most explanations

referred back to the key aspects in question six of why student achievement could

increase. The final question of the survey asked teachers if they would incorporate

Layered Curriculum® into their classrooms at the start of the school year, in the spring

semester, or not at all. All eight (100%) of the respondents currently teaching indicated

they would implement Layered Curriculum® into their course at some point in the school

year. Two respondents indicated they are not currently in a teaching position, thus they

cannot implement the teaching method into a classroom at this time.

Recommendations for Future Research

Recommendations for further study include:

1. Further study of Layered Curriculum® in other disciplines and other grade levels

needs to be conducted. This research would allow the opportunity to examine if

Layered Curriculum® has an effect on student achievement in other classrooms.

This study would test for student achievement in disciplines other than social

studies and at other grade levels such as elementary, the middle grades, and at the

post-secondary level.

59

2. It would be recommended that further study be completed to examine the increase

in student grades in the “C” and “D” ranges. While the percentage of students

who failed the course decreased (one possible explanation), it would be prudent to

study if there are any other factors contributing to this increase.

3. As the number of students in the “A” range for grades increased, it would be

recommended to further study the effects of Layered Curriculum® on student

achievement in upper-level courses such as honors courses, dual credit courses,

and advanced placement courses.

4. Students who drop out of school tend not have been successful in the classroom.

More research could be completed to examine if Layered Curriculum® produces

more successful students, and if a result of that success results in a reduced

dropout rate, increased graduation rate, and/or increased attendance rate.

5. This study only examined the overall semester grades of students. It is

recommended that research be continued that examines where students lost the

most points during the units. One question could involve if some students grades

lowered because they were not completing assignments or they were not

successful with the oral defense aspect of the teaching method.

6. Further study could include surveying teachers after they have used Layered

Curriculum® in their classroom, and the researcher could make comparisons

between the opinions of teachers before and after implementation in their

classrooms.

7. To more accurately ascertain the opinions of students about Layered Curriculum®

it is recommended that further study take place where all students enrolled in the

60

course are polled. It would also be recommended that the students be directed to

comment specifically on Layered Curriculum®. Instead of leaving the responses

to encompass anything that occurred in the course, this would provide more

direction and produce a more accurate portrayal of the students' opinions of

Layered Curriculum®.

Implications for Practice

Although Layered Curriculum® did not have a major effect on student

achievement in this study, the opinions of the students who experienced Layered

Curriculum® and teachers surveyed about Layered Curriculum® tend to be very positive.

While student grades did not show major improvements, the experiences by the students

tended to be very positive. Coupled with the opinions of the teachers who attended the

workshop on Layered Curriculum®, it is possible that Layered Curriculum® may

provide both the students and the teachers with a more satisfying or positive educational

experience. Both students and teachers viewed the aspects of the Layered Curriculum®

(especially student choice) very favorably. Finding these types of common grounds of

preferences for teachers and students may lead to a more cooperative classroom

environment. Instead of the teacher using one method to teach and the students preferring

another method, it would seem ideal to find methods of teaching that appease both sides

so that teachers and students can work together for a better educational experience in the

classroom. With the aspects of Layered Curriculum® receiving so many positive

responses from both students and teachers, this may be a teaching method where both

sides can work together instead of against one another. By students having a method of

learning they enjoy and the teachers having a method of teaching that is enjoyable and

61

keeps the students accountable, then there could be the expectation to have a more

positive learning environment.

As there was a decrease in the number of students failing the world history course

during the use of Layered Curriculum®, it would be prudent to determine if a greater use

of Layered Curriculum® in schools could decrease the number of students dropping out

of schools. As students fail more courses, there tends to be less hope of graduating with

peers, thus some students drop out of school. If school-wide use of the aspects of Layered

Curriculum® could reduce the number of students failing course, then possibly more

students would graduate and increase the graduation rate and the attendance rate and

reduce the dropout rate.

Summary

This study found that Layered Curriculum® has little effect on student

achievement, but teachers and students have positive opinions of Layered Curriculum®.

As the number of students with grades in the “A” range increased and the number of

students with grades in the “F” range decreased, the number of students with grades in

the ranges of “C” and “D” increased. Overall, students found their experiences with

Layered Curriculum® to be positive. Fifty-five of the seventy-five comments provided

by students about Layered Curriculum® were positive, while only fifteen comments were

negative. Five of the comments were constructive criticism and did not indicate a positive

or negative opinion of Layered Curriculum®. Finally, teachers also had a positive

opinion of Layered Curriculum®. Teachers surveyed found aspects they liked about

Layered Curriculum®, all teachers surveyed believed Layered Curriculum® could

increase student achievement, and all teachers surveyed found aspects of Layered

62

Curriculum® they liked. Overall, Layered Curriculum® may have little effect on the

levels of student achievement in terms of student grades, but teachers and students overall

found the idea and experience of Layered Curriculum® to be positive.

63

REFERENCES

American Psychological Association. (2008). Applying assessment strategies in

psychology. Retrieved on June 13, 2008, from

http://www.apa.org/ed/new_blooms.html.

Anderson, K. M., & Algozzine, B. (2007). Tips for teaching: Differentiating instruction

to include all students. Preventing School Failure, 51(3), 49.

Armstrong, T. (2006). The Best Schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision

and Curriculum Development.

Chapman, C., & King, R. (2005). 11 Practical ways to guide teachers towards

differentiation (and an evaluation tool). Journal of Staff Development, 26(4), 20-

25.

De Jong, J. (2006). An exploration of the relationship between academic and

experimental learning approaches in vocational education. British Journal of

Educational Psychology, 76 (1), 155-169.

Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (2006). More students earn

proficient scores in reading and math in greatly expanded MAP testing program.

Retrieved on June 12, 2008, from http://dese.mo.gov/news/2006/mapayp.htm.

Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2007). Missouri School

Improvement Plan. Retrieved on July 7, 2008, from

http://www.dese.mo.gov/divimprove/sia/msip/Fourth_Cycle_District_Response_t

o_Standards.pdf.

64

Diverse classrooms demand multiple paths to success.(2008). What Works in Teaching &

Learning, 4(9), 3-3.

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2007). Checking for understanding: Formative assessment

techniques for your classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development.

Friend, M. (2007). Co-teach: A handbook for creating and sustaining effective classroom

partnerships in inclusive schools. Greensboro, NC: Marilyn Friend, Inc.

Garner, B. K. (2007). Getting to got it: Helping struggling students learn how to learn.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Howell, D. C. (2004).  Fundamental statistics for the behavioral sciences.  Belmont, CA:

Brooks/Cole – Thomson.

Holloway, J. (2000). Preparing teachers for differentiated instruction. Educational

Leadership, 58 (1), 82-84.

Kaplan, S. N. (2007). Classics curriculum: A focus to differentiated curriculum. Gifted

Education International 23, 15-18.

Levy, H. M. (2008). Meeting the needs of all students through differentiated instruction:

Helping every child reach and exceed standards. Clearing House, 81(4), 161-164.

Marzano, R. J. (2006). Classroom assessment and grading that work. Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that

works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria,

VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

65

Nelson, J. (1993). A secondary social studies methods course. Clearing House, 66 (4),

223-225.

Noble, T. (2004). Integrating the revised bloom’s taxonomy with multiple intelligences:

A planning tool for curriculum differentiation. Teachers College Record, 106 (1),

193-211.

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. (2005). Differentiated instruction. Retrieved

on October 21, 2006, from www.netc.org/focus/challenges/instruction.php

Nunley, K. (2003). Layered curriculum brings teachers to tiers. Education Digest, 69 (1),

31-36.

Nunley, K. (2004). Layered curriculum: The practical solution for teachers with more

than one student in their classroom. Amherst, NH: Brains.org.

Nunley, K. (2006). An overview of Kathie Nunley’s layered curriculum. Retrieved

October 3, 2006, from www.help4teachers.com/how.htm

Pollock, J. E. (2007). Improving student learning one teacher at a time. Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Sacramento City Unified School District. (2006). What is differentiated instruction?

Retrieved October 4, 2006, from

www.scusd.edu/gate_ext_learning/fidderenetiated.htm

Southeast Missouri State University. (2004). Definition of MAP. Retrieved October 4,

2006, from www2.semo.edu/map/defmap.htm

Stenhoff, D. M., Davey, B. J., & Lignugaris/Kraft, B. (2008). The effects of choice on

assignment completion and percent correct by a high school student with a

learning disability. Education & Treatment of Children, 31(2), 203-211.

66

Strahan, D. (2008). Successful teachers develop academic momentum with reluctant

students. Middle School Journal, 39(5), 4.

Tomlinson, C. (2000). Differentiated instruction: Can it work? Education Digest, 65 (5),

25-32.

Tomlinson, C., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction and

understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development.

Understanding the theory of multiple intelligences. Early Childhood Today, 20 (3), 2005.

U.S. Department of Education. (2004). No child left behind: A toolkit for teachers.

VanSciver, J. H. (2005). NCLB fitfully fits differentiated instruction. Education Digest:

Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 70(9), 37.

Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

67

Appendix A

68

69

Appendix B

70

71

Appendix C

72

73

Appendix D

74

Teachers:Thank you again for attending the workshop on Layered Curriculum® on June 17, 2008 at the Central Regional Professional Development Center. I enjoyed meeting all of you, and I hope that you found the information valuable. I would like to request your participation in a short, eight-question survey. I have decided to write my research paper for my Education Specialist degree in School Administration on Layered Curriculum®. I am asking if you would be willing to complete the survey by clicking on the link near the bottom of this email.

I am seeking your input on your opinions of Layered Curriculum®, how/if you intend to use it, and other relevant information. Please do not put your name in the survey, as I wish for your response will be anonymous.

Please submit your survey by August 30, 2008. If you wish to obtain a copy of the results, please reply to this email.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=0_2fvuypVBJo3gUxNRPAZZpw_3d_3d

Thank you again, and I hope you have a successful 2008-2009 school year.Steve Rittersritter@clinton.k12.mo.us(660)924-6242

75

Appendix E

76

I enjoyed the way we used the unit sheets and all the fun projects the class got to do

Iwould change the A, B, and C layer days around where you have more days with A, and less with C layer

   lots of projects lots of freedom Need to add more time to a, b, and c layers

And i really liked the unit sheets, that kept me on task and helped me remember what i needed to do. 1 thing i would change..some of the assignments on the unit sheets. some of them i couldn't do because i didnt have the supplies, or this or that. and i enjoyed doing the assignements.

I enjoyed the long time we had to get our work done and the fun assignments

mostly A-Layer assignments. I also enjoyed the collaborative assignments, despite wasting the first day just talking.

I enjoyed getting to choose the projects we did off out unit sheet, it allowed us to do what we like the most

I like the layered criculam. and also i like being able to send all of the assignments in on line.

  I liked not having a scheduled time for everything to happen. I liked having the opportunity to choose what I learned. I would have done something with the rubrics. They almost go contrary to the free-learning style the class offers. Dankeshen, Mr. Ritter.

I enjoyed being able to work on our own and having set dates for when everything was to be turned in.

  I like the layer assignments instead of just getting assignments that have to be done. I also like that there are more projects like the board game than there are actual worksheets and stuff like that

I enjoyed the way we did the unit sheets,

One thing I would change is the way we study for tests.

I enjoyed having the layers to work how fast i wanted to work.

I would change the layers. I did not like it that much and thought it was harder than usual.

but teh only thing i did not liek was a lack of teaching we were teaching ourselves in a way.

77

How you get to choose your assignments. And how you almost teach your self.

    I have enjoyed: 1.bringing in food 2.the layered system I would change

i enjoyed that we got to work at our own pace and choose our own assignments

I liked the Unit Sheets because they helped you learn and were fun and easy

  I enjoyed the cirriculum that was given to us. I thought it was different, but better than what some other teachers had

   I enjoyed this class because the layered curriculum was kinda cool to try and see how that worked.

i also liked unit sheets. I would maybe give a wider variety and range in the unit sheet. More Assignments to choose from.

i enjoyed how you did the unit sheets i like learning that way.

being able to do other things this just worksheets in the class.

Also i liked some of the different projects that we did on our layers ( food and so forth!)

I liked the layer things we did

I enjoyed learning about world history, and the Layer curriculum, it made class alot better and less stressful.

a lot of fun i liked how we could do our things at our own pace and still get done (most of the time)

I like the layer system because it sets accurate due dates and shows me everything I need to do a week in advance.

  one thing i would change would be the way the homework takes place its every hard to turn in work on a computer I like how you get treated like adult

1 thing that i liked about this class was the unit sheet we had a choice of wat we wanted to do to get the required points for that unit

i would change the layer curriculmn

i enjoyed the layered assignments and i enjoyed

78

I enjoyed the way you gave the assignments because it was simple and easy to gather information

2 things i enjoyed was the amount of extra credit, and C layer. One thing I would change would be give more time for A layer.

i also like how you let take own resonseability for are own choices to do our work

Things I enjoyed were the Layers, because it showed me the work that i had to do all at once so i could complete it or take it slow it was very flexible for me,

i enjoyed being able to choose my assisgnments and being able to take my time doing them

i enjoined the freedom we got when working on our projects and i liked the way the class was set up. i would add some more days on to the unit sheet and maybe have more class study time before the test.

)I also liked the layered assignments where we could work on things in the order we wanted to and turn them in all at once I wouldent change much besides Mr. Ritters teaching method (not that thiers anything wrong with it im just saying.

I liked how you gave us dates at which times you had to have assessments done so that we could do it at our own time.

I didnt like the layer system.

I liked the layered class it was a lot more fun and also gave us the change to do what we can do best

One thing that i would change about this class though would have to be the way the unit sheet is set up, like make more things due more often instead of a bunch a thing all at once

would change the layered assignments. I do not like this style of learning,

I don't so much like the unit sheets, because I feel rushed into getting things done, so I would take the unit sheets away.

Layers are a good thing!

*I loved the unit sheet. it gave me order,

I would only change how much work we have to do for the layers. The 200 points seems like a lot for us, but some of the assignments can be easily done.

79

And i wish we would have just gotten worksheets rather than a unit sheet because it really had me not want to do it because i got to pick what i wanted to do.

Another thing that I enjoyed was the self propelled work that we had

WOULD CHANGE- the layer system

I liked that we got to pick our assignments and had a certain day to turn it in.

80

Appendix F

81