A Comparison of Layered Curriculum with Other Methodologies

By Ruth (Babe) Willey

Fremont, Ohio

In this paper I will compare Layered Curriculum with similar teaching methodologies in common use. Contract Learning, Individualized Instruction, Cooperative Learning and Problem-based Learning are methodologies with factors in common with Layered Curriculum. It is important to point out the differences as well as the similarities each of these has with Layered Curriculum.

Before discussing alternatives, Layered Curriculum needs to be explained and defined if it is used as a basis for comparison. Layered Curriculum has as its basis, three distinct attributes:

1. Accountability in the form of oral defense

2. Choice of learning options

3. Higher level thinking components

Each of these components needs further description.

Accountability in the form of oral defense requires that each component of instruction at all levels be orally defended to the instructor and maybe the class, if appropriate. This oral defense requires a level of confidence and understanding that doesn't always exist in the written form. Oral defense can be appropriately fitted to each individual in a multi-level classroom, based on the instructor's knowledge and appreciation of individual students' abilities. Although all students are asked to demonstrate understanding of the same idea or concept, instructors can adjust and even assist students with little confidence so that acceptable and appropriate defense is made.

Choice of learning options is the primary motivator and where success originates in Layered Curriculum. Instructors can use all those wondrous ideas accumulated over the years or borrowed from other educators, as we so like to do. For example, there are multiple ways to include vocabulary-building activities; there are multiple ways to draw understanding from readings, whether they are in a textbook, online or in periodical form. At the C level, which is knowledge, creative educators have varied activities to address this level of understanding.

But once past C level, at B and A levels, the choices continue to entice and yes, even excite students to choose what they want to do. And choose they do. As an instructor designs a unit, choices are made and developed focusing on learning styles and multiple intelligences. These two criteria actually help an instructor create a fully formed unit, knowing that the possibilities provide the most choices. Here, at this level, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation, higher level thinking skills, make up the choices students choose from. These higher-level applications can take the form of a comic strip, a public service announcement, a song or an opinion paper.

How does cooperative learning compare? The main component of cooperative learning is positive interdependence. Cooperative learning uses regular group processing of information and production of a group product. Competition to be 'best' is rampant in traditional classrooms; this competition can be destructive. Cooperative learning gives each student a vested interest in the whole group's learning, not just their own. While cooperative learning could be a component of some choices within Layered Curriculum, it is not an on-going constant.

Another methodology, contract learning, can also be compared. This is a methodology that is most frequently thought to be like Layered Curriculum. In contract learning, the students are responsible for their own learning. They structure their own learning: what knowledge, what skills, how to demonstrate understanding and how evaluation will take place. It does require a content plan and a process plan and can deal with wide differences existing within a classroom. However, the student isn't the best person to make these choices; the instructor/designer must insure the student's goals are appropriate and possible. And this is where the difference lies. In Layered Curriculum, the designer sets the choices. Backward design is critical here. By making up the evaluation/test first, units are built around those objectives and students choose. It is certainly good to allow student input into a Layered Curriculum unit; however, instructor input is there as well.

A third methodology to compare is individualized instruction. This is instruction that lets students control the pace of instruction; however, the materials are teacher-designed and very sequential. They require a minimum of teacher direction and interaction. Some are self-correcting learning and use placement tests in a prescriptive manner to determine what learning needs to take place. There is no choice here for students. It treats all students as similar learners in a linear format. Assessment would require knowledge level responses in order to be self-correcting; higher level thinking skills would not be used either.

Problem-based learning is becoming a popular strategy as well. It has advantages and disadvantages. Students don't always like having total control/responsibility for their own learning. Yes, they like choice but problem-based learning usually requires the student to be in total control. This produces a lot of anxiety and insecurity especially when it comes to grades. This may be an appropriate learning strategy at medical school but younger than that it is not effective. And even at the medical schools using this strategy, it takes a considerable amount of time to assess student learning and readjust courses due to increased time requirements to complete degree requirements.

Layered curriculum has many of the advantages of these described strategies but by being teacher-designed and structured, loses the disadvantages. The student learner is and feels successful, so does the teacher and the school. Layered curriculum is a positive experience for all.

References

URL: http://edweb.sdsu.edu/clrit/PBL_WebQuest.html; Investigating PBL: A WebQuest; CSU Instructional Technology Initiatives; Page Authors: Gail Lucas & Bob Hoffman with inspiration from Bernie Dodge.

URL:http://edweb.sdsu.edu/clrit/learningtree/PBL/DisPBL.html; Disadvantages of Problem Based Learning; CSU Instructional Technology Initiatives; SDSU DCDPBL Institute Team Members:Bob Hoffman, Diana Jones, Dave Lewis, Gail Lucas, Donn Ritchie; Page Author- David Lewis.

URL:http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/L/Huey.B.Long-1/Articles/sd/selfdirected.html; Skills for self-directed Learning;Huey B. Long

URL:http://www.msu.edu/user/coddejos/contract.htm; UsingLearning Contracts in the College Classroom; by Joseph R. Codde, Ph.D., Associate Professor; Michigan State University

URL:www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/SAGE/documents/individualized.pdf: Reducing Class Size Leads to Indivdiualized Instruction; by John A. Zahorik, Educational Leadership Volume 57 No. 1 September 1999 pp 50-53.