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 [email protected](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
Top Related