Overview and Comparison of

Multiple Intelligence Theory, Differentiated Instruction, and Universal Design

To Layered Curriculum

By Peggy Childs, M.Ed.

Accessing the general curriculum has become an issue facing all aspects of education. Where it used to be a special education issue, now general education has been brought into the discussion. With the No Child Left Behind legislation, educators everywhere are analyzing their teaching methods to see if there is a good match between the curriculum they offer and the manner in which they offer it to their targeted audience.

To accommodate the effort of reaching a diverse population of needs and abilities in the classroom, some newer teaching methodologies have emerged. Multiple Intelligence Theory brought about an awareness of intellectual strengths. Howard Gardner's book, Frames of Mind, published in 1983, was a catalyst for educators to develop a new way of teaching with opportunities for students to work within one of the seven defined areas of intelligence. Differentiated Instruction by Carol Ann Tomlinson supports curriculum differentiation in three areas: (1) content, (2) process and (3) product. Universal Design grew from accessibility issues raised from the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST). Assistive technologies and adaptations for people with disabilities were their first focus, but later it spread into cognitive access, designing a method of instruction that allows goals to be achievable by individuals with wide differences in ability levels. Multiple Intelligence Theory, Differentiated Instruction and Universal Design, lend themselves to Layered Curriculum developed by Kathie Nunley, PhD. in yet another framework for reaching the diverse learner. A closer inspection of these three teaching methodologies will reveal their key concepts and how they link to Layered Curriculum.

Multiple Intelligence Theory

Multiple Intelligence Theory rose from research by Howard Gardner, a cognitive psychologist from Harvard University. He challenged the definition of intelligence as a fixed number on an intelligence test to "the ability to solve problems, or to create products, that are valued within one or more cultural settings - a definition that says nothing about either the sources of these abilities or the proper means of 'testing' them". This challenged the educational community who largely leaned on a linguistic or logical means to assess intelligence. Many questions were raised about the educational implications of his research. Still, there was a core of educators who knew his research had validity. In fact, Gardner writes: "Let me say something about how all this relates to the education of students with learning problems. Special education has often been disparaged by the wider society, but this is one area where I think that the special educators will be the revolutionaries. That is because special educators and learning-disability experts have long known that individuals learn in different ways and that education is most effective when these individual differences are taken into account or even placed at the fore."

Soon educators everywhere were creating lesson plans with multiple "entry points" into the lesson's content. As Gardner states, "It should be evident that use of multiple entry points can be a powerful means of dealing with student misconceptions, biases, and stereotypes. So long as one takes only a single perspective or tack on a concept or problem, it is virtually certain that students will understand that concept in only the most limited and rigid fashion. Conversely, the adoption of a family of stances toward a phenomenon encourages the student to come to know that phenomenon in more than one way, to develop multiple representations and seek to relate these representations to one another. [The] review suggests that, even in cases where one wishes to have a core curriculum mastered by all students, it is possible to craft an educational regimen that exploits the existence of multiple intelligences." Lessons planned with the multiple intelligence philosophy help students by giving them a chance to learn with their own intellectual strengths. Likewise, in Layered Curriculum, students are given a choice of several assignment options or entry points into the lesson. The choices offer a variety of intellectual preferences or strengths. It recognizes the variety of students in a classroom with their varying strengths and preferences.

Differentiated Instruction

Differentiated Instruction is another form of offering choice with student work.

Carol Ann Tomlinson offers the following definition; "At its most basic level, differentiating instruction means 'shaking up' what goes on in the classroom so that students have multiple options for taking in information, making sense of ideas, and expressing what they learn. In other words, a differentiated classroom provides different avenues to acquiring content, to processing or making sense of ideas, and to developing products so that each student can learn effectively." Differentiated Instruction is based on the beliefs that, (1) students have varying learning profiles, (2) a "one-size-fits-all" curriculum where students are passive recipients does not fit the needs of the average classroom, and (3) efforts to "cover all the information" are not as important as making meaning out of the key concepts being taught. Philosophically, Differentiated Instruction and Layered Curriculum are the same. What differs is the approach to lesson plans and grading. From Sacramento City Unified School District's web document on Differentiated Instruction, curriculum should be differentiated in three areas. First is content, creating multiple options for taking in information. Second is process, creating multiple options for making sense of the ideas. Third is product, creating multiple options for expressing what they know. These should be differentiated according to the student's readiness, interests, and learning profile through a range of instructional and management strategies. Some strategies include: multiple intelligences, jigsaw, taped material, tiered lessons, interest centers, varied texts, varied supplemental materials, and large or small group investigation. The actual approach to lesson plans seems more complex than Layered Curriculum. With a layered lesson, all of the components are the same. The same forethought is given - with less actual preparation time. Several grading options are mentioned in How to Differentiate Instruction in Mixed-Ability Classrooms. With Layered Curriculum, students will know exactly how many points they are earning toward their unit or lesson grade.

Universal Design

Universal Design began from architectural studies looking at adaptations of the physical space making it easier for everyone to use not just people with disabilities. Accommodations are built in rather than an afterthought. It soon became apparent that curriculum access was another area with its own set of barriers for people with disabilities. Like its architectural counterpoint, curriculum accommodations should be built in making it easier for everyone to use. In a brief from ERIC (Educational Resource Information Center) and OSEP (Office of Special Education Programs), "Universal Design is intended to be inclusive, not solely for students with disabilities. A curriculum that incorporates universal design features should do more than accommodate physical, sensory, or cognitive disabilities; it should include students with differing abilities, cultural and linguistic backgrounds, and approaches to learning. If a particular teaching material or method excludes learners of any kind - then it works against the principles of Universal Design." Among their recommendations for cognitive access are:

Summarize big ideas

Provide scaffolding for learning and generalizing

Build fluency through practice

Provide assessments for background knowledge

Include explicit strategies to make clear the goals and methods of instruction

Some notable organizations that support Universal Design include: Center for Applied Special Technologies (CAST), National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum (NCAC) and the Trace Center at the University of Wisconsin, and OSEP. In a special project hosted by ERIC/OSEP in 1997, recommendations went to "all developers of instructional materials to adopt the concept of universal design and implement it in their products." They also recommended that more teacher training go into universally designed products and materials.

The framework for Universal Design is compatible with Layered Curriculum. It calls for a flexible means of representation, expression and engagement. Lessons would look more like a product of Differentiated Instruction though. What is unique to Layered Curriculum is the tiered lesson format that ties directly into Bloom's Taxonomy.

The philosophies of all three methodologies support a student-centered classroom. They recognize the varying levels of student's in the classroom. They all tap into research proven techniques and strategies to promote learning. It is my opinion that Layered Curriculum is very straight forward in its presentation. The format is easy to adapt to any lesson or unit. Once the pattern for building a lesson is mastered, it is easy to draw from Multiple Intelligence Theory, Differentiated Instruction strategies, and Universal Design elements to layer lessons. Of course, the most important product of such efforts is a greater amount of student engagement and success in their assignments.

References

A Curriculum Every Student Can Use: Design Principles For Student Access. (2001). Retrieved Jan. 18, 2003. from <http://www.cec.sped.org/osep/ud-sec3.html>

Differentiated Instruction. (2000). Retrieved Jan. 18, 2003.

from <http://www.cedu.niu.edu/tedu/portfolio/diffclass.htm>

Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, Howard. (1987) The theory of multiple intelligences. Annals of Dyslexia 37, 34.

Hatch, T., & Gardner, H. (1992). Finding cognition in the classroom: An expanded view of human intelligence. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions. New York: Cambridge Press.

Tomlinson, C. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Alexandria, VA. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

What is Differentiated Instruction?. (updated 2002). Retrieved Jan. 18, 2003.

from <http://www.scusd.edu/gate_ext_learning/differentiated.htm>