Gifted Education: Curriculum and Differentiation

(Assignment 3(a). 1200- word equivalent.

Assignment 3(b) 2000- word equivalent.

Assignment 3a: Unit outline and objectives

Your assignment should include the following components:

Brief introduction to the unit, explaining how aspects of the Parallel Curriculum Model  will guide the unit design. For example, you might choose to focus predominantly on one of the four parallels in designing your unit, or you might decide to include an equal spread across all four.
Brief overview of the topic for the unit, which explains the key content to be explored.
Clear objectives for what students are expected to KNOW (facts and vocabulary), BE ABLE TO DO (skills and processes) and UNDERSTAND (concepts and “big ideas” or key principles) as a result of participation in the curriculum unit.
A list of at least eight focusing questions that could spark students’ interest in the topic and lead them to think about the big ideas outlined in the objectives. These should be guided by the focusing questions suggested for each parallel in the required text. For each question, identify to which of the four parallels it relates. If you choose to predominantly focus on one or two parallels for your unit, you might want to develop questions for only these parallels.
Brief description of the summative assessment task that will be used to assess students’ mastery of the unit objectives at the end of the unit. Indicate how this assessment task fits into one or more of the parallels.
A list of at least 4 activities that you might include somewhere in the unit, indicating to which each parallel each activity relates. These could include introductory activities, teaching methods, learning activities, products and/or extension activities. Once again, if you choose to predominantly focus on one parallel, most or all of your activities will relate to that parallel, whereas you might choose to include activities relating to a variety of parallels. The required text has many examples that you can consider for each parallel and adapt or use for inspiration in developing your own unit plan. You need only provide a brief description of each activity for part 3a.

Notes:

To ensure that your assignment covers all required components, I would encourage you to use subheadings, a numbered list, tables, or some other organisational device to make it clear which aspects of the assignment you are addressing.
The Assessment Guide for Assignment 3a is included on FLO. 13

Assignment 3b: Annotated Unit Plan

The final unit plan will include the sections submitted for Part 3a, edited or expanded as necessary in response to feedback or adjusted as the unit design has progressed. In addition, Part 3b will include:

A summary table showing how your unit incorporates each of the 11 curriculum components detailed in the PCM. Examples of these summary tables can be found on pages 83, 122, 161, and 200 of your text. You might select and adapt some of these general ideas to suit your unit, or use these as inspiration for developing your own. Where applicable, be sure to indicate which parallel/s you are trying to address through each point.
A copy of the pre-assessment task used to assess students’ point of entry prior to teaching the unit.
A full copy of the summative assessment description and any materials a teacher would need to implement the task (e.g., the rubric outlining criteria for quality performance).
THREE complete lesson plans, including the specific unit objectives each individual lesson is designed to address. These could be lessons from any point in the unit, and do not have to be consecutive lessons. In each case, you should make it clear which parallel/s the lesson is addressing. You should also include copies of any handouts, formative assessment tasks, instruction sheets, resources, or any other created materials a teacher would require in order to teach these three lessons.

Notes:

You are advised to annotate your lesson plans where necessary to make it clear where learning tasks have been differentiated or specifically designed to meet the needs of gifted students within the group, or how you are applying aspects of the PCM to your planning. It might be helpful, for example, to include a second column in the lesson plan documents entitled “Teacher Notes”, in which the rationale for grouping decisions, resource selection and activity design is clearly explained, including in relation to the PCM.
Examples of curriculum units and tasks using the PCM design framework are available in eReadings and in texts on reserve in the library, as well as in the required text. Please be aware that some of these examples are much more comprehensive than you are required to develop for this assignment; you need only produce a plan with three detailed lessons, rather than a complete unit. These are intended only as a guide to some of the ways the PCM can guide planning. An example of a previous student’s work is on FLO to give you additional guidance.
Don’t panic if this task seems daunting to you in the beginning! This is a rich, complex curriculum model to work with and it is unfamiliar to most educators. It is hoped that your hard work will pay off in the end and you will see the value in using aspects of this framework to guide future curriculum planning. Be ready for a challenge, support your colleagues on the discussion boards and hang in there!

ASSESSMENT GUIDE Part 3a: Unit outline and objectives

COMPONENT	POINTS VALUE	QUALITY INDICATORS
Introduction and overview	2	· Brief overview of the topic for the unit, which explains the key content to be explored. · Explanations demonstrate a sound understanding of the Parallel Curriculum Model (PCM), including the deep intent or purpose of each parallel selected for the unit plan.
Objectives	5	· Objectives are clear for what students should know, understand and be able to do as a result of participation in the unit of study. · Where appropriate, reference is made to the Australian Curriculum framework or other sources from which objectives may have been drawn and adapted. · Objectives for what students should understand represent ‘big ideas’ that help students see the meaning behind the facts, are transferable, and have application and relevance beyond the classroom. They answer questions such as: “So what?” “Why?” or “How does it work?” · There is a sense of close alignment between the knowledge, understanding and skill objectives.
Focusing questions	4	· Focusing questions are open-ended and clearly designed to hook students’ attention and focus their thinking on the understandings or “big ideas” for the unit. · Focusing questions are consistent with the deep intent of the parallel/s selected for the unit plan; that is, the focusing questions encourage students to think about the content through the “lens” of each selected parallel.
Assessment description	4	· The summative assessment task is clearly described. · The assessment task is designed to evaluate students’ understanding of the big ideas and not only factual knowledge or skills – it is clearly aligned with unit objectives. · The assessment task requires students to apply their learning to a product or assignment that reflects the authentic work of professionals in a discipline or reflects skills that are valued by the discipline. · The assessment task is consistent with the deep intent of the parallel/s selected.
Learning activities description	5	· Learning activities are clearly described in a summary format. · It is clear how each activity is tied to the unit objectives and allows students to build knowledge, understandings and skills outlined in these objectives. · It is clear how each activity is consistent with the deep intent of the parallel selected.

ASSESSMENT GUIDE Part 3b: Annotated unit plan

COMPONENT	POINTS VALUE	QUALITY INDICATORS
Revisions to part 3a	4	· Where applicable, appropriate amendments have been made based on feedback from part 3a
PCM Summary Table	11	· The summary table reflects a sound understanding of each curriculum element and how the elements align and are synthesised into a complete curriculum unit plan. · The summary table reflects a sound understanding of how decisions about each curriculum element are informed by the selection of one or more parallels from the PCM. · The summary table makes it clear how opportunities to extend, challenge and support gifted or advanced learners will be incorporated into the unit.
Lesson Plans	15	In each lesson plan: · Objectives are clear for what students should know, understand and be able to do as a result of participation in each lesson. These represent subsets of the unit objectives. · Learning activities are designed to help students understand and explore ‘big ideas’ in addition to developing facts and skills (i.e., lessons are closely aligned with objectives). · It is clear how the learning activities, resources and any assessment tasks for each lesson are designed to help students explore the content through the “lens” of the selected parallel/s. · Clear information is included to help the reader determine what the teacher would be doing and what the students would be doing during each lesson. · Clear information is included to help the reader determine how specific learning tasks are designed to address the needs of gifted students or advanced learners (where this is not immediately evident). · There is a clear sense of introduction and closure in each lesson (except where a lesson runs across several days or periods of teaching). In at least some lesson plans (i.e., there is evidence somewhere across the set of lessons): · There is evidence of a variety of grouping configurations (e.g., independent work, small groups, partners, whole group, teacher-selected and student-selected groups) and the rationale for these grouping decisions is clear. · There is evidence of opportunities for students to work in a way that reflects developing levels of expertise in a field or discipline; that is, there are advanced opportunities for some students designed according to principles of Ascending Intellectual Demand. · Where appropriate, there is evidence of open-ended, inquiry-based learning opportunities for some (or all) students. · There is evidence of opportunities for students to develop and apply higher-order thinking skills in relation to the content, including critical and creative thinking as appropriate. · There is evidence of differentiated learning opportunities (by interest, readiness and/or learning profile) specifically designed to meet the needs of gifted students (although this might also include differentiation for other students, depending on your context)
Assessment tasks	10	· Assessments are included and clearly described for pre-assessment (to be implemented prior to the unit of study), formative assessment (to be implemented at various points throughout the unit of study – only formative assessment tasks related to the three lesson plans need to be included) and summative assessment (to be implemented at the end of the unit of study; this will be an elaborated version of the description you submitted for part 2a). · There is evidence that assessment is designed to effectively evaluate students’ progress in relation to unit objectives and to inform instructional decisions (e.g., grouping). That is, assessment is clearly aligned with objectives and informs instruction. · As appropriate, assessment tasks throughout the unit will represent a variety of modes of expression (i.e., beyond written expression). · Assessment tasks are clearly described (or actual directions or handouts included as appropriate) · Assessment tasks are designed to evaluate students’ developing understanding of the big ideas and not only factual knowledge or skills · At least the summative assessment task requires students to apply their learning to a product or assignment that reflects the authentic work of professionals in a discipline or reflects skills that are valued by the discipline. · The assessment tasks are consistent with the “deep intent” or purpose of the parallel/s selected.

Refrences

Tomlinson, C. A., Kaplan, S. N., Renzulli, J. S., Purcell, J. H., Leppien, J. H., Burns, D. E. & Strickland, C. A. (2009). The Parallel Curriculum: A design to develop learner potential and challenge advanced learners (2^nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Pre

Kaplan, S. N. (2009). Myth 9: There is a single curriculum for the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 257-258.
Cooper, C. R. (2009). Myth 18: It is fair to teach all children the same way. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 283-285.
Hertberg-Davis, H. L. (2009). Myth 7: Differentiation in the regular classroom is equivalent to gifted programs and is sufficient: Classroom teachers have the time, the skill, and the will to differentiate adequately. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 251-253.
Robinson, A. (2009). Myth 10: Examining the ostrich: Gifted services do not cure a sick regular program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 259-261.
Sisk, D. (2009). Myth 13: The regular classroom teacher can “go it alone”. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 269-271.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2009). Myth 8: The “patch-on” approach to programming is effective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 254-256.
Moon, T. R. (2009). Myth 16: High-stakes tests are synonymous with rigor and difficulty. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 277-279.
Gallagher, S. A. (2009). Myth 19: Is Advanced Placement an adequate program for gifted students? Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 286-288.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2005). Quality curriculum and instruction for highly able students. Theory Into Practice, 44, 160–166.
Rogers, K. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: A synthesis of the research on educational practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 382-396.
Hockett, J. A. (2009). Curriculum for highly able learners that conforms to general education and gifted education quality indicators.Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 32(3), 394-440. (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED READING)
Tomlinson, C. A. (1994). Gifted learners too: A possible dream? Educational Leadership, 52(4), 68-69.
Jarvis, J. M. (2009). Planning to unmask potential through responsive curriculum: The “Famous Five” exercise. Roeper Review, 31(4), 234-241.

The Multiple Menu Model
- Renzulli, J. S. (1988). Multiple menu Model for developing differentiated curriculum for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32(3), 298-309.
Schoolwide Enrichment Model
- Renzulli, J. S. (2003). Schoolwide Enrichment Model: Developing creative and productive giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 184-203). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Kaplan’s Depth & Complexity “Grid” Model
- Conklin, W., & Frei, S. (2007). Differentiation by depth and complexity. In Differentiating the curriculum for gifted learners (pp. 79-88). Shell Educational Publishing.
The Integrated Curriculum Model
- VanTassel-Baska, J., & Wood, S. (2010). The Integrated Curriculum Model (ICM). Learning and Individual Differences, 20(4), 345-357.
The Purdue Three Stage Model
- Davis, G. A, Rimm, S. B., & Siegle, D. (2011). Curriculum Models. In Education of the gifted and talented (6th ed., pp. 175-204).Boston, MA: Pearson Education. The Purdue model is described on pages 187-189 of this chapter.
Levels of Service
- Treffinger, D. J. (1998). From gifted education to programming for talent development. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(10), 752-755.

Tomlinson, C.A. & Jarvis, J.M. (2009). Differentiation: Making curriculum work for all students through responsive planning and instruction. In J. S. Renzulli et al. (Eds.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented ( 599-628). Connecticut, USA: Creative Learning Press Inc.
Kumpost, J. (2009). Understanding the ‘understands’ in KUDs. Available at: This is a good introductory article if you feel that you are new benefit from a more foundational understanding.
Available through eReadings:
Wiggins, G. &McTighe, J. (2011). Essential questions and understandings. In The understanding by design guide to creating high-quality units (pp. 70-88). Alexandria, VA; ASCD.
Wiggins, G., &McTighe, J. (2005). Crafting understandings. In Understanding by design (Expanded 2nd ed., pp. 126-145). Alexandria, VA; ASCD.
Erickson, H. L. (2008). Concept-based curriculum. In Stirring the head, heart, and soul: Redefining curriculum, instruction, and concept-based learning (3rd ed., pp. 23-41). Thousand Oaks, CA; Corwin Press.
Erickson, H. L. (2007). The structure of knowledge. In Concept-based curriculum and instruction for the thinking classroom (pp. 25-46). Hawker Brownlow, Heatherton, Vic; Hawker Brownlow.
Willingham, D. T. (2009). Why is it so hard for students to understand abstract ideas? In Why don’t students like school?: A cognitive scientist answers questions about how the mind works and what it means for your classroom (pp. 67-80). San Francisco, CA; Jossey-Bass.

Still stressed from student homework?

Get quality assistance from academic writers!

Order now