Katmanlı Program®: İlkeler, Planlama, Uygulama ve Değerlendirme

Abstract

Nunley tarafından geliştirilen katmanlı program ile öğrenciler bireysel farklılıklarını, yeteneklerini ve güçlü yönlerini öğrenme ortamına yansıtma fırsatı bulmaktadır. Katmanlı programda aynı öğrenme kazanımı için görev seçenekleri kolaydan zora, aşamalı biçimde ilerleme olanağı sağlayarak üst düzey özellikleri kazandırmaya yönelik biçimde öğrencilere sunulmaktadır. Böylelikle her öğrenci, aynı öğrenme amacına kendi ilgi ve yetenekleri doğrultusunda farklı yollardan ilerleyebilmektedir. Öğrenen özerkliğini destekleyen basamaklı öğretim programı, anlama sürecine odaklanmakta ve otantik öğrenme ortamı sunmaktadır. Mevcut öğretim programını üç katmana ayırarak farklılaştırılmış öğretimle üst düzey düşünme becerilerini öğrenenen sorumluluğunda geliştirmeyi hedeflemektedir. Bu çalışmada, katmanlı programın temelleri ve dayandığı ilkeler, planlama, uygulama ve değerlendirme aşamaları sunulmakta, yapılandırmacı eğitim anlayışının uygulanmasında alternatif bir yol olarak katmanlı programın tasarlanmasında dikkat edilmesi gerekenler hakkında bilgi verilmektedir. 

Keywords

• Katmanlı program
• farklılaştırılmış öğretim
• program tasarımı

Layered Curriculum®* : Principles, Planning, Implementing and Evaluation

Abstract

 Students find an opportunity to reflect their individual differences, skills and strengths on the learning environment through Layered Curriculum® developed by Nunley. In layered curriculum, assignment choices for the same learning outcome are presented to the students to gain significant characteristics in a layered way by enabling them to make progress from easy to difficult, incrementally. Hereby each student can move towards achieving the same learning objective in line with his/her own interests and skills through different ways. Layered curriculum supporting the learner autonomy focuses on the process of comprehension and provides with an authentic learning environment. Layered curriculum aims at improving higher-order thinking skills in the responsibility of learner by dividing the current curriculum into three layers through differentiating the instruction. In this study, the foundations of layered curriculum and the principles on which it is based, its planning, implementation and evaluation stages are presented and information is given about the considerations in designing layered curriculum as an Layered curriculumalternative way in applying constructivist education. 

Keywords

• Layered curriculum
• differentiated instruction
• curriculum design

References

1. Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. A. (2001). Taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. NY: Longman.
2. Bechkam, H. (2010). Student perceptions of layered curriculum vs. traditional coursework on class grades for 11th-12th grade economics and government students. Culminating Experience Action Research Projects, 17, 5-15.
3. Brosnan, C., May, B. & Blackwood, M. (2007). Layered curriculum lessons, aligned with the Ohio science content standards, for use in the high school science classroom.http://edhd.bgsu.edu/~sbanist/611/final/mikebranchristine/mikbranchristine.pdf adresinden 07.01.2019 tarihinde alınmıştır.
4. Caughie, B. (2016) The perceived impact of the layered curriculum instructional model on student engagement. (Unpublished Doctorate Dissertation). Holy Family University, USA.
5. Clayton, H. (2004). From the ideological to the concrete: Ideas from paulo friere, understanding by design and the Ontario curriculum and their application to layered curriculum. www.help4teachers.com/heatherpaper.htm adresinden 08.01.2019 tarihinde alınmıştır.
6. Colding, H.D. (2008). Integrating a layered curriculum to facilitate differentiated instruction. ASCD Express, 8 (3). Retrieved from www.ascd.org/ascd_express/vol3/324_toc.aspx 09 Ekim 2018.
7. Cooke, N.K., Pursifull, A.K., Jones, K.M., &Goodell, S.L. (2017). Layered learning, eustress, and support: impact of a pre-service-learning training on students’ self-efficacy in teaching in the community. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 17 (3), 1-18.
8. Evin Gencel, İ, & Saracaloğlu, A. S. (2018). The effect of layered curriculum on reflective thinking and on self-directed learning readiness of prospective teachers. International Journal of Progressive Education, 14 (1), 8-20.

9. Lasovage, A. J. (2006). Effect of using a layered curriculum format of instruction in a high school environmental science energy unit. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Michigan State University, USA.
10. Martin, M. R., & Pickett, M. T. (2013). The effects of differentiated instruction on motivation and engagement in fifth grade gifted math and music students. Retrieved from Online Submission 10.02.2019, ERIC database (ED541341).
11. Maurer, L.A. (2009). Evaluating the use of layered curriculum and technology to increase comprehension and motivatıon in a middle school classroom. (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Michigan State, USA
12. Miller, T.M. & Geraci, L. (2011). Training metacognition in the classroom: the influence of incentives and feedback on exam predictions. Metacognition Learning, 6, 303–31.Noe, B. (2008). The effects of a layered curriculum versus traditional teaching methods on academic achievement of fourth graders in the science content area. (Unpublished master’ thesis) Columbia College, USA.
13. Nunley, K. (2003). Layered curriculum brings teachers to tiers. Education Digest ,69 (1), 31-36.Nunley, Kathie F. (2004a). Layered curriculum®(2nd ed.). Kearney, New England: Morris Publishing.
14. Nunley, K. (2004b). Layered curriculum®: The practical solution for teachers with more than one student in their classroom. Amherst, NH: Brains.org
15. Nunley, K. F. (2006). Differentiating the high school classroom. Solutions Strategies for 18 Common Obstacles. CA: Corwin Press.
16. Pohl, M. (2000). Teaching complex thinking: Critical, creative, caring. Cheltenham, Vic.: Hawker Brownlow.
17. Sousa, D. A., & Tomlinson, C. A. (2011). Differentation and the brain.Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
18. Stenhoff, D. M., Davey, B. J., & Lignugaris, B. (2008). The effects of choice on assignment completion and percent correct by a high school student with a learning disability. Education and Treatment of Children, 31 (2), 203-211.
19. Stone, A. C. (2017). Self-paced mastery learning in an academic physical science class and its effect on student achievement, engagement and self-efficacy. A professional paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Science in Science Education Montana State University Bozeman, Montana.
20. Subban, P. (2006). Differentiated instruction: A research basis. International Educational Journal, 7 (7), 935-947.
21. Sullo, B. (2007). Activating the desire to learn. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
22. Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
23. Tomlinson, C. A., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction and understanding by design: Connecting content and kids. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curric ulum Development.
24. Tomlinson, C. A., Moon, T., & Imbeau, M. B. (2015). Assessment and students success in a differentiated classroom. [White paper]. Retrieved September 10, 2018, from Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/siteASCD/publications/assessment-and-di-whitepaper.