Layered Curriculum as a Means to Access the General Curriculum: A Comparison to Differentiated Instruction, Universal Design for Learning and the Planning Pyramid

Adrian Lloyd Sorrell, Ph.D.

Region IV Education Service Center

Abstract

This paper discusses ways to meet the IDEA 97 requirement of providing students with disabilities access to the general curriculum. The methods discussed are: (1) Layered Curriculum ; (2) Differentiated Instruction; (3) Universal Design for Learning; and (4) The Planning Pyramid.

Layered Curriculum as a Means to Access the General Curriculum: A Comparison to Differentiated Instruction, Universal Design for Learning and the Planning Pyramid

Today's classrooms are becoming increasingly diverse. Educators are being asked to serve students with disabilities in new ways. This process has changed throughout the years. Three distinct phases can be identified: the isolation phase, the integration phase, and the inclusion phase (Smith, Polloway, Patton, & Dowdy, 2001). During the isolation phase, education for students with disabilities was rare. When education was provided, it was done in segregated settings. The 1970s saw the dawning of the integration phase, during which students were mainstreamed into general education programs at least for part of the day as appropriate. The inclusion phase followed in the 1980s and continues to the present. The emphasis is now on fully including students with disabilities in school programs and activities. While the latter two phases moved students with disabilities into the general classroom, the inclusive movement assumed that these students belonged there and focuses on empowerment and self-determination for these individuals in order to develop the highest level of independence possible (Field, Hoffman, & Spezia, 1998).

Disability is not the only source of diversity in the classroom. Students who are culturally and/or linguistically diverse are one source of diversity. These children differ from the majority U.S. culture that our schools were designed to accommodate. Another type of diversity encountered in today's classroom involves students who are at risk. These students have characteristics, have experiences, or live in environments that make them more likely to have academic difficulties. Third sources of diversity are the students considered gifted and talented. These students may exhibit skills and abilities above their peers in academic, performing arts, or athletics. Accommodating them adds to the challenges a teach may face in providing a quality education for all students. (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2000).

How do teachers meet the challenge of meeting the needs of students whose needs vary so greatly, particularly children with disabilities, who according to IDEA 1997, must "access the general curriculum?" Several methods have been proposed. This paper will examine four means of accessing the general curriculum: Layered Curriculum , Differentiated Learning, Universal Design for Learning, and the Planning Pyramid. A brief description will be given of each method.

Layered Curriculum

Layered Curriculum is a student-centered approach to teaching diverse learners developed by Dr. Kathie Nunley. It is a triangular shaped model of instruction designed to individualize instruction, accommodate the diversity in a mixed-ability classroom, encourage higher levels of thinking and hold the learner accountable for learning (Nunley, 2002). This approach evolved from learning styles work of Dunn, Gardener's multiple intelligences, Gregoric's Mind Styles, and the realization that inclusive special education practices had lead to the increasing inclusion of students with disabilities in the regular classroom. The curriculum is represented in three layers that represent a different depth of study in a topic. The student chooses how deeply they wish to examine the topic and they also choose their grade (Nunley, 2002).

The bottom, or C layer is the largest. It covers the general content and emphasized rote learning of basic facts, vocabulary, and skills. At this level, the teacher can differentiate instruction by offering a wide range of assignment choices to meet the learning styles and abilities of the students.

The middle, or B layer, asks students to apply the concepts learned in the C layer. The assignment should reflect the student's unique perspective and require a higher level of thinking. It should also entice the reluctant learner to prevent them from stopping at the C layer.

The top, or A layer, is the smallest and requires an even higher level of critical thinking than the B layer. A layer assignments involve analysis of real world issues.

Differentiated Learning

Differentiated instruction, a method developed by Carol Tomlinson, is a method of helping teachers meet students where they are in the learning process and move them along as quickly and as far as possible in a mixed-ability classroom (Tomlinson, 2000a). Differentiation consists of efforts of teachers to respond to variance among learners in the classroom (Tomlinson, 2000b). Differentiated instruction provides multiple opportunities for students to:

Take in information

Express what they learn

Acquire context

Process or make sense of ideas

Develop products

The teacher's role is to organize learning, serve as a mentor or coach, assess student readiness, create a variety of ways for students to gather information and ideas, and present varied channels through which students can express and expand understandings. A teacher may differentiate at least four classroom elements based on the student's level of readiness, interest, or learning profile. The four elements are (Tomlinson, 2000a):

Content-what the student needs to learn or how the student accesses the information;

Process-activities in which the student engages in order to master the content;

Products-projects that ask the student to rehearse, apply, and extend what he/she has learned; and

Learning Environment-the way the classroom works and feels.

Effective differentiation can be thought of as being complex to use and difficult to implement. It is a long-tem process for change; a way thinking about teaching and learning that values the individual and is then translated into classroom practice (Tomlinson, 2000b). As Tomlinson (TEA, 2003) states: "The teacher does not try to differentiate everything for everyone every day. That's impossible, and it would destroy a sense of wholeness in the class."

Universal Design for Learning

The concept of universal design started in the field of architecture. Designers found that adding on accommodations for individuals with disabilities such as ramps or automatic doors was very costly, as well as esthetically unpleasing (Hitchcock, Meyer, Rose, & Jackson, 2002). Building these features for diverse users into the initial design saved money and lead to more accessible buildings. The universal features, such as the curb cut, also benefited nondisabled individuals.

The same concept applies to education. Students may be blocked from accessing the curriculum by an inflexible text that may create physical, sensory, affective, or cognitive barriers. Typically, to provide access, we adapt the text, materials, or curricular expectations. As the architects found, doing curriculum adaptations after-the fact can be difficult, time consuming, and often not effective. It is much more efficient to consider the range of user abilities as you design the curriculum and incorporate accommodations at that point. Providing 'built-in' access for users with and without disabilities is the basic principle in universal design (Orkwis, 1999).

Curriculums that are universally designed include a range of options for accessing, using, and engaging with learning materials while recognizing that no one options works for all students (Rose & Meyer, 2002). The design of the materials and activities allow learning goals to be attainable by individuals who have differences in their abilities to see, hear, speak, move, read, write, understand English, attend, organize, engage, and remember (Orkwis, 1999). Essential features of universal design for learning include: (1) the curriculum provides multiple means of representation, allowing the subject matter to be presented in alternative modes for students who learn best from visual or auditory information, or for those who need differing levels of complexity; (2) the curriculum provides multiple means of expression to allow students to respond with the means of control they prefer; and (3) the curriculum provides multiple means of engagement that allow students' interests in learning to be matched with the mode of presentation and their preferred means of expression.

It is important to note that providing universally designed materials does not mean that accommodation is accomplished by lowering standards or "watering down" the curriculum. The curriculum needs to be maintained at a sufficient level of difficulty to allow student progress.

Planning Pyramid

The Planning Pyramid represents a framework for planning in content area classrooms. It is designed to be a flexible tool to help teachers plan for inclusionary instruction and to enable content coverage in general education classrooms for students with diverse learning needs (Schumm, Vaughn, & Leavell, 1994). The Planning Pyramid allows a teacher to identify what information needs to be taught and to pay attention to individual students needs to determine how the information will be taught (Vaughn, Bos, & Schumm, 2000).

There are two major components to the Planning Pyramid: degrees of learning and points of entry. The degrees of learning, the body of pyramid, help the teacher examine the content and prioritize the concepts in a unit. The basic premise is that all students are capable of learning but not all students will learn everything covered. The three degrees are the base of the Pyramid, the middle level, and the top of the Pyramid. The base consists of information essential for all students to learn. The middle section represents information considered to be next in importance. This is information that most, but not all, students will be able to grasp. The top level contains information that will enhance the basic concepts and facts and is more complex or detailed and will acquired by the fewest number of students. (Schumm, Vaughn, & Leavell, 1994).

The points of entry are represented by each axis of the Pyramid. According to Schumm, Vaughn, & Leavell (1994), these factors must be considered prior to entering into any instructional episode. The five points are teacher, topic, context, student, and instructional practices. The teacher considers state and local requirements, their own beliefs, skill, interests, prior knowledge, as well as the time and resources needed to teach the content. The context is the learning environment or classroom climate. The student considers the students' cultural, academic, and linguistic background when planning. Instructional practices such as methods to motivate, grouping patterns, instructional strategies, textbook adaptations, and learning strategies are also considered.

Vaughn, Bos, & Schumm (2000) offer the following cautions about using the Planning Pyramid:

All students must be given the opportunity to be presented to the same information, although its presentation may vary according to student's needs.

All students have equal access to information representing all levels of the Pyramid.

Students should not be assigned to a particular level of the Pyramid based on ability.

Activities at the base of the Pyramid should not be less stimulating than those at the other levels, nor should the upper levels be the only place for creative, fun activities.

Conclusion

Layered Curriculum , Differentiated Instruction, Universal Design for Learning, and the Planning Pyramid are all student-centered approaches to learning. They are designed to help teachers accommodate the diversity encountered in the modern classroom. Each of these methods provides teachers with a means of providing whole class accommodations and deal with the problems inherent in trying to do after-the-fact adaptations. The four methods discussed are a means to meet the IDEA 97 requirements of providing all students, regardless of their abilities, the opportunity to become involved with and progress in the general education curriculum.

References

Field, S., Hoffman, A., & Spezia, S. (1998). Self-determination strategies for adolescents in transition. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Hitchcock, C., Meyer, A., Rose, D., & Jackson, R. (2002). Providing new access to the general curriculum. Universal design for learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, Nov/Dec, pp. 8-17.

Mastropieri, M. A. & Scruggs, T. E. (2000). The inclusive classroom: Strategies for effective instruction. New Jersey: Merrill.

MacDonald, S. E. (1993). Words. In The new encyclopedia Britannica (vol. 38, pp. 745-758). Chicago: Forty-One Publishing.

Nunley, K. F. (2002). Layered curriculum. NE: Morris Publishing.

Orkwis, R. (1999). Curriculum access and universal design for learning. ERIC Digest #E586. The ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education.

Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Schumm, J.S., Vaughn, S., & Leavell, A.G. (1994). Planning pyramid: A framework for planning for diverse student needs during content area instruction. The Reading Teacher, 47, pp.608-615.

Smith, T. E. C., Polloway, E. A., Patton, J. R., & Dowdy, C. A. (2001). Teaching students with special needs in inclusive settings. (3^rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Texas Education Agency (2003). From ilt to ild: Moving forward. Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency (TEA).

Tomlinson, C.A. (1995). How to differentiate instruction in mixed ability classrooms. VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C.A. (2000a). Differentiated instruction: Can it work? The Educational Digest, 65, pp. 25-31.

Tomlinson, C.A. (2000b). Differentiation of instruction in the elementary grades. ERIC Digest. ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education.

Vaughn, S., Bos, C.S., & Schumm, J.S. (2000). Teaching exceptional, diverse, and at-risk students in the general education classroom. (2^nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Wilson, J. C. (2001). Scientific research papers. In Stewart, J. H. (Ed.), Research papers that work (pp. 123-256). New York: Lucerne Publishing.