Amy M. Leskow

10 May 2008

Layered Curriculum®: Enveloping Methodologies

“One uniform method of assessing children does nothing but to limit the potential of their growth” (Aborn 83). Although many educators are aware of this, the question of how to address its concern remains. There are multiple methodologies geared toward solving the dilemma of teaching and assessing kids with differing abilities and learning styles all in one classroom. Constructivism and Multiple Intelligence theory contain keys to unlocking education for all students, but Layered Curriculum® successfully encompasses them both and provides a manageable, sound approach for teachers.

A constructivist education “involves students with activities that engage interest, stimulate experimentation with the physical world and promote cooperation” (Pierpont 35). Pioneered by Jean Piaget, the concept holds that students are creators of their own knowledge and can best be taught when their interest is captured, when personal autonomy and choice are taken into consideration, and when cooperation with teachers and other students is encouraged (Pierpont 36). The three key factors, interest, choice and autonomy, and cooperation, are flawlessly built into Layered Curriculum®.

Hands-on environments have “students actively engaged in mentally figuring things out” (Colburn 14). This is a precursor to creating interest; it’s the antithesis of classrooms where students dutifully listen to lectures, holding their heads up to feign wakefulness. Layered Curriculum® is all about creating student-centered, hands-on classrooms. Realistically, not all students will naturally love every discipline, but through engagement in their own learning, they will have a better chance at finding aspects of each subject that pique their interest. The concept of choice reinforces freshly-bloomed interest.

According to Dr. DeVries, “When we choose an activity and choose how to engage in it, we are more likely to invest the kind of deep level of physical and mental energy that leads to a true understanding” (Pierpont 35). Layered Curriculum® allows for choices at all the levels of learning so that instead of students being told how to learn the material, they get to choose how. In order to change their most primordial construct systems, or restructure their prior knowledge, teachers must engage each “mind’s active attempts to achieve integration and plausibility” (Vosniadou 52). Choice leads to engagement. If students are expected to truly learn, first by questioning the validity of what they know, next by adding to their knowledge base, then allowing for choice will help them invest the energy needed in order to succeed.

Choice also leads to autonomy. “It’s our job as teachers to figure out how to set up the environment so that children will figure out for themselves that they have a misconception” (Pierpont 36). This creates autonomy, or the ability to self-govern learning. Coming to conclusions and answers themselves creates a more solid understanding of why something is valid or correct (Pierpont 36). Though counterintuitive, working with others can also help students form autonomy.

“Students working in small groups can ask questions and challenge each other’s thinking, especially when explanations differ” (Colburn 14). The flexibility of Layered Curriculum® allows students to work in groups during C layer, where students demonstrate comprehension, in B layer, where students apply this understanding, and, if the teacher wants, in A layer, where students use higher-order thinking skills. Vosiadou states “conceptual change is not only an internal cognitive process but one that happens in broader situational, cultural and educational contexts, and that it is significantly influenced and facilitated by social processes” (50). Additionally, according to Hatano, much individual processing by students’ minds occurs even though understanding comes about socially (Vosiadou 52). Individual learning is the needed outcome; paying attention to the ways different minds process and construct information is necessary in order to attain it.

As most educators realize, people have different combinations of intelligences, and they are all important (Denig 109). Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence theory “changes the competitive, Stanford-Binet model of “how smart are you?” into the question of “how are you smart?”” (Aborn 83). It proposes that there are eight different intelligences: verbal, or the ability “to think in words and have highly developed auditory skills;” musical, the ability to use sound to the greatest extent; mathematical, or the ability to pattern and reason deductively; spatial, the ability to “see images and manipulate them” in order to problem solve; bodily-kinesthetic, or the ability to use manipulatives or movement to understand; interpersonal, the “ability to understand, perceive, and discriminate between people’s moods, feelings, motives, and intelligences;” intrapersonal, the ability to use imagination to gain understanding; and environmental intelligence, or the ability to understand nature and its balance (Nolen 115-119). Layered Curriculum® allows for the integration of all these intelligences since teachers can offer a variety of activities in order to accommodate them. For example, those students who are musically intelligent may choose to write a song that incorporates vocabulary learned in a unit; students who are verbally inclined may choose to listen to a lecture and take notes; and those who display bodily-kinesthetic intelligence might use clay to demonstrate their understanding of a concept within a unit. In addition to multiple intelligences, varied levels of cognitive complexity should be addressed to ensure that all students reach their full potential.

“Attention to multiple intelligences and developmental levels of students all need to be addressed and practiced if we are to reach and teach ALL of our students effectively” (Noble 208). The use of Bloom’s taxonomy, which provides much of the backbone in Layered Curriculum®, allows teachers to challenge all students cognitively, not just the bright ones (Noble 200). Cognitively challenging tasks ideally match a student’s strength, or intelligence, and because going through all the levels of thinking makes learning more meaningful, learners display more willingness and effort (Nobel 207). The flexibility of Layered Curriculum® not only provides room for students to learn using their strengths, it moves students from basic comprehension, or the C layer; to application, or the B layer; and up through synthesis, analysis, and evaluation, all types of thinking that take place in A layer. The use of Multiple Intelligence theory in combination with Bloom’s lets students “demonstrate what they understand through different intellectual domains at the same time or different levels of cognitive complexity” (Noble 194). Clearly, it is the job of educators to encourage “children to grow and to develop their potential as responsible human beings” (Denig 100).

Though it is a challenge for teachers to find the best ways for students to learn, there are solutions. The best solution does not ignore what science tells us about how people actually learn; the best solution takes interest, autonomy, choice, cooperation, different intelligences, and multiple levels of thinking into account. Layered Curriculum® is the most comprehensive approach; no base is left uncovered. It successfully envelops other methodologies, borrowing the parts that work and neatly placing them into a format that is both teacher and student friendly.

Works Cited

Aborn, Matt. “An Intelligent Use for Belief.” Education Fall 2006: 83-85. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Saint Bonaventure University, Friedsam Memorial Library. 7 May 2008 <http://www.ebscohost.com>

Colburn, Alan. “Constructivism and Conceptual Change, Part II.” Science Teacher Nov. 2007: 14. Science Reference Center. EBSCOhost. Saint Bonaventure University, Friedsam Memorial Library. 1 May 2008 <http://www.ebscohost.com>

Denig, Stephen J. “Multiple Intelligences and Learning Styles: Two Complimentary Dimensions.” Teachers College Record Jan. 2004: 96-111. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Saint Bonaventure University, Friedsam Memorial Library. 7 May 2008 <http://www.ebscohost.com>

Noble, Toni. “Integrating the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy with Multiple Intelligences: A Planning Tool for Curriculum Differetiation.” Teachers College Record Jan. 2004: 193-211. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Saint Bonaventure University, Friedsam Memorial Library. 7 May 2008 <http://www.ebscohost.com>

Nolen, Jennifer. “Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom.” Education Fall 2003: 115-119. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Saint Bonaventure University, Friedsam Memorial Library. 6 May 2008 <http://www.ebscohost.com>

Pierpont, Katherine. “A Matter of Choice.” Teaching Pre K-8 Apr. 2007: 34-37. MasterFILE Select. EBSCOhost. Saint Bonaventure University, Friedsam Memorial Library. 1 May 2008 <http://www.ebscohost.com>

Vosniadou, stella. “Conceptual Change and Education.” Human Development. Jan. 2007: 47-54. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Saint Bonaventure University, Friedsam Memorial Library. 1 May 2008 <http://www.ebscohost.com>