Curriculum Planning and Instructional Design for Gifted Learners

By Joyce VanTassel-Baska and Ariel Baska

This updated third edition of Curriculum Planning and Instructional Design for Gifted Learners:

• Is a guide to designing curriculum for the gifted at any level of learning and in any subject area.
• Addresses the need to differentiate at all levels in the design process.
• Shows how to customize curriculum for advanced learners.
• Uses national standards, such as the Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Science Standards, as the point of departure for design.
• Demonstrates how the differentiation process works in math, science, social studies, and English language arts.

Special populations of gifted learners, such as those who are twice-exceptional, second language learners, students from poverty, and culturally diverse students, are included as a group for further differentiation and customization of curriculum and instruction. The book may also be used to provide a curriculum guide for teachers in a master's program in gifted education or those taking endorsement classes.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Sourcebooks
• Release date: Nov 15, 2019
• ISBN: 9781618219206

Book preview

AUTHORS

Part I

Gifted Education

Models, Standards, and Identification

CHAPTER 1

Introduction to Curriculum Planning and Instructional Design for the Gifted Learner

Setting the Course

In Latin, the word curriculum literally means racetrack. Every good Roman charioteer knows that a good curriculum means a solid and propitious racetrack. At the end of the school year, many teachers may feel that they have just run a race, one with laps indicated by marking periods, interims, and grade reports. And the quality of the racetrack may not have been to their liking, nor satisfied the needs of their chariot riders. The end of a year marks the beginning of planning for the next, whether in racing or schooling. Thus, a strong curriculum is the key to improvement in teacher-student learning performance.

The act of planning involves complex mental and behavioral operations to reach goals. People plan in order to solve problems, correct mistakes, and anticipate the future. For educators tasked with designing curricula for the gifted, this book will guide them through the process of curriculum design and instructional planning based on current standards and elements of differentiation.

Gifted educators must be aware of the field’s history and the context into which gifted programs and curriculum are being designed. Schools are organized to address the needs of all learners with some considerations for accommodations for students with special needs and adaptations in the curriculum for gifted learners through differentiation. In this book, general education refers to the educational curriculum practices used for the majority of students, including all basic and core curriculum requirements. Special education refers to the field of education that specializes in exceptionalities related to disabilities, including learning disabilities, emotional and behavioral disorders, physical disabilities, and developmental disabilities. Gifted education refers to the programs and services provided to advanced and gifted learners in specific domains of learning.

From the Perspective of History

Gifted education is at a crossroads with respect to its next stage of development. Since the mid-1970s, growth of the field at the grassroots and state levels has been phenomenal. Even with a lack of federal visibility and support during Ronald Reagan’s administration, the field grew, offering more direct services to gifted learners and more opportunities for teacher training and professional development for other school personnel. In the later years of the 20th century and into the 21st, new challenges awaited the field, as gifted education was often left out of both the rhetoric and the educational plans in the era of No Child Left Behind (2001). Gifted students’ needs did not fare well in this period of time. Looking ahead, however, the viability of gifted education depends on forging strong links with existing structures in education, forming partnerships in key areas, and taking advantage of the best that general, special, and gifted education research and best practice paradigms can offer.

Historically, the field of gifted education has used the special education model as the basis for nascent efforts for program development. Identification and assessment practices, teacher training, and administrative program models have all been derived from special education. Gifted education has also attempted to incorporate much of the special education rhetoric in its advocacy for gifted children, speaking of the special needs of the population, appropriate placements, and categorical considerations. Use of the special education model has led to growth and development of the gifted education field over the past 50 years at the grassroots level, yet the special education model may be limited in the very areas in which gifted education is in greatest need of development—curriculum, instructional materials, and assessment of learning.

Special education lacks applicability to a new paradigm grounded in talent development in domain-specific areas of the curriculum (Olszewski-Kubilius, Subotnik, & Worrell, 2018). This paradigm, based on theories of advanced development and expertise, has begun to reshape work in curriculum to ensure that curriculum is content-based and recursive, leading gifted students to new levels of challenge as soon as they are ready.

The Reality of Today

Today gifted education must still relate to two educational worlds: (a) the special education world, representing the language and deeds of responding to special needs learners and providing a continuum of services necessary for such learners, and (b) the general education world, representing the curriculum and organizational support structures that underlie schooling for all learners. Gifted educators must find ways to appropriately negotiate these worlds so that program development efforts for the gifted can move to a higher level of operation.

Gifted education program models for elementary school students have used almost exclusively the special education paradigm for development. Programs at the elementary level have begun with the identification of the target group for services, development of placement services for this group, and allocation of trained teachers to work with these students within schools, but often outside the classroom in a pull-out or special class setting. The nature of curriculum and instructional intervention has frequently been the lowest priority on the list until the last decade. Additionally, gifted education has adopted the special education resource teacher model at the elementary level, which leaves the programs understaffed, based on differences between the fields in per pupil allocations. Typically, special education teachers, for example, have no more than 70 students assigned to them. Elementary resource teachers of the gifted, however, may have 300 or more students. Special education operates on an individual child model through either Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) or 504 plans that designate target areas of need for instruction. Gifted education, based on limited resources, tends to work with cluster groups or classes of learners on an advanced curriculum course of study. These differences also make it difficult for the two fields to share a common delivery method, even as schools are addressing the Response to Intervention (RtI) approach with both types of learners (Coleman & Johnsen, 2013). Without the provision of additional resources for serving gifted students, the parity of the model is not in place, leaving gifted learners without appropriate services.

At the secondary level, however, mild content acceleration in math and enrichment in all other subjects has been the point of departure in curriculum development, using the standards as a baseline in program design. Most gifted secondary programs are hybrid models of traditional honors classes in middle school and early high school in arbitrary subjects that are determined by principals or superintendents. In some districts, only math has separate advanced classes. At the senior secondary level, Advanced Placement (AP) coursework is typically offered, with some states requiring at least three different subject area courses be offered (National Association for Gifted Children [NAGC] & the Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted [CSDPG], 2015). Some districts also offer International Baccalaureate (IB), a program designed to advance 11th- and 12th-grade students to the level of college sophomores through an integrated course of study.

The elementary-secondary split in how gifted programs have developed illustrates how gifted education has had to conform to models developed in other areas of education, as well as the difficult choice of using an administrative delivery model developed for special education in a program that lacks the resources to emulate it.

If gifted education is to advance, gifted educators need to embrace the world of general education, its models, and its curriculum standards, while not forsaking the exceptionality concept that defines the nature of the gifted population. Sound curriculum practices for gifted learners must be built on a research base of the latest developments in teaching and learning, motivation, and child development, as well as on gifted education’s own history of effective curriculum models. Figure 1 demonstrates the interrelationship of these three spheres.

Figure 1. The overlapping relationships of gifted, special, and general education.

An Ideal Planning Model

Friedman and Scholnick (2014) suggested that planning involves essential psychological components, such as representation, sequencing, attention, and self-regulation, which are moderated by expertise in a knowledge base and motivational variables, such as values and coping skills. Also affecting planning, according to this model, are key aspects of the task itself, such as its complexity, coherence, and familiarity, and whether it can be undertaken individually or in groups. These aspects of planning are moderated by the environmental context, which determines the provision of resources, reassurance, and support, and the existing norms affecting coordination of the plan. For several reasons, this planning model provides a useful backdrop for educators planning curriculum experiences for gifted learners.

First, Friedman and Scholnick’s (2014) model acknowledges the important role of curriculum planners and the knowledge, skills, and attitudes they must possess. Educators who engage in curriculum planning for the gifted must demonstrate the following characteristics, among others:

•knowledge of gifted children, their nature, and their needs;

•knowledge of the planning models to be employed—in this case the Integrated Curriculum Model (ICM; VanTassel-Baska, 1986) for differentiation and the curriculum planning model for organizing the products;

•expertise in written lesson plan and unit development tasks;

•ability to represent concepts and ideas in teaching and learning models;

•strength in sequencing ideas and content for presentation; and

•capability to independently develop, test, and revise curricula.

Not all educators can be effective curriculum developers for gifted learners. Strong curriculum development and planning requires the attention of individuals with the knowledge and skills outlined here.

Second, Friedman and Scholnick’s (2014) model highlights the importance of task analysis as an early step in any planning effort (Dick, Carey, & Carey, 2015). Assessing how complex, broad in scope, and familiar the task is and determining the organizational frameworks required to complete the task are essential elements in curriculum planning for gifted learners.

The scope and complexity of the curriculum planning task may be determined by the levels of planning that will be involved. For example, building a K–12 curriculum framework, which involves negotiating the levels of goals, outcomes, and assessment, is fairly complex in that it cuts across grade levels and subject areas and requires a strong team approach. Developing a unit of study on genetics for sixth graders may be conceived as narrower in scope and less complex with respect to target audience and subject matter. In the latter example, coherence in the unit of study may be better achieved by one curriculum developer rather than several, although review and revision of any curriculum product is desirable.

Third, a strong planning model recognizes the effect of the environment or climate of an educational institution on the curriculum planning effort. If the norms of an institution are for every teacher to develop his or her own curriculum, efforts to bring coherence to curriculum offerings will meet with resistance. And although the provision of monetary resources may show support for curriculum work, resources alone are insufficient for successful curriculum implementation (Henderson & Gornik, 2007). Administrative support also must be present, and a critical mass of the faculty, judged to be at least one third of the staff, must be willing and capable to support the effort.

Roles Performed in Instructional Planning

Four essential roles must be performed during instructional planning for the gifted (Morrison, Ross, Morrison, & Kalman, 2019). The roles do not overlap; each role calls for a different type of expertise.

1. Instructional designer: This person carries out and coordinates the planning work. He or she must be competent in managing all aspects of the instructional design process. In school districts, this individual could be a gifted curriculum specialist or a curriculum generalist with skills to cut across levels and subjects in the curriculum.

2. Instructor: This person (or member of a team) helps to prepare and carries out the instruction being planned. He or she must be well informed about the learners to be taught, the teaching procedures, and the requirements of the instructional program. With guidance from the designer, the instructor carries out details of many planning elements. Following the planning phase, he or she tries out and then implements the instructional plan. In school districts, this individual would be an experienced teacher of the gifted.

3. Subject-matter expert: This person provides information about content and resources related to all aspects of the topics for which instruction is to be designed. He or she also ensures that content is treated accurately in activities, materials, and examinations. In school districts, this individual could be a districtwide content specialist, librarian, or secondary teacher in a relevant subject area.

4. Evaluator: This person assists the staff in developing assessment instruments for gauging the nature and extent of student learning. He or she gathers and interprets data when programs are initially tried out and determines the effectiveness and efficiency of programs when fully implemented. In school districts, this individual can be someone working in research and evaluation or a consultant from a university.

Too frequently, gifted specialists have been expected to carry out all of these roles. Such an expectation invites failure. A team that offers different expertise to complete the process is preferable and sets the stage for the best result possible with respect to the product and the credibility of the actors.

Group Curriculum Planning

Research on group decision making suggests several factors to consider in curriculum planning work. The research indicates that group planning should be effective if the group (a) has or gains task-relevant experience and skills, (b) uses effective group communication and decision-making skills, and (c) is not under excessive stress, such as that caused by time limits or fear of failure (Friedman & Scholnick, 2014). Table 1 describes procedures that can be employed to increase the likelihood that these factors will be present. Broad-based groups are best suited for tackling many curriculum projects. However, such groups must effectively work through the issues and problems that may arise from their diversity if the result of their planning efforts is to be both of high quality and consensual.

Table 1

Factors Influencing Effective Group Decision Making

Planning as Goal-Directed Action

As noted by Wedell (2009), educators plan so that they may effect positive change. In schools, the fundamental goal of planning is to create learning communities in which teachers, students, and parents value and practice lifelong learning. This goal, which is the overarching aim of any curriculum reform agenda, is central to the vision of planning curriculum outlined in this book, for it implies that the audiences for the curricula developed are broader than the students and that the outcomes are more than cognitive. Curricula must be motivational if they are to trigger the desire for more learning. For gifted students, this implies the need for a sufficiently challenging curriculum in all domains, including cognitive, affective, and aesthetic.

All effective curriculum planning involves the following set of processes, which are inherent in all of the chapters in this book:

1. Identifying the problem: What is the curriculum issue to be addressed?

2. Setting goals: What are the goals of the curriculum for gifted learners? How do these goals differ from overall curriculum goals for all students?

3. Initiating the planning process: What specific curriculum products are necessary to achieve the desired goals?

4. Building a strategy: Who will develop these products, and how and when will they be designed and developed?

5. Executing the strategy: How will the newly developed curriculum products be implemented?

6. Monitoring and assessing outcomes and revising them based on data obtained: How well were the curriculum outcomes realized? What changes will improve the outcome in the future?

Premises of Instructional Design

Morrison et al. (2019) identified seven basic premises that should guide instructional design procedures. Adaptation of these premises for gifted curriculum development follows:

•Premise 1: The instructional design process requires attention to both a systematic procedure and a specificity for treating details within the plan. Curriculum planners must lay out a broad plan for the design of gifted curriculum that incorporates specific details for delivering effective teaching-learning activities and assessing their effectiveness with respect to desired learner outcomes. This planning is critical for ensuring that real learning occurs—especially for gifted learners whose characteristics and needs vary sufficiently from the norm as to require tailoring of all curriculum design aspects.

•Premise 2: The instructional design process usually starts at the course development or unit level. Research suggests that curriculum design matters when it comes to effective learning (Tyler, 1949). Curriculum work is most coherent when it begins with goal development and then branches into specific areas of the curriculum from there, identifying learner outcomes, activities, relevant resources, instructional strategies, relevant classroom implementation strategies, and assessment procedures.

•Premise 3: An instructional design plan is developed primarily for use by the instructor and planning team. The initial documents should be created in user-friendly form for relevant teachers. Study guides for students can follow at a later time. Piloting in multiple teachers’ classrooms is the crucial first stage of use of a curriculum, followed by revision work when needed. No full plan for implementation should occur before revision has been completed.

•Premise 4: During the planning process, every effort should be made to provide for a level of satisfactory achievement for all gifted and advanced learners. Because gifted students learn high-level material at different rates and levels of proficiency (VanTassel-Baska & Little, 2017), the instructional design plan must incorporate variation and flexibility with respect to achieving outcomes at different rates and times. Careful pre- and postassessment tools must be used to document successful completion of relevant material.

•Premise 5: The success of the instructional product depends on the clarity, accuracy, and relevance of the information flowing into the instructional design process. Teachers can contribute to the product refinement process by critiquing early in the design phase after piloting sample lessons in classrooms. Designers should be present to observe where revision is needed. Minimally, teachers must pilot any new unit of study with an eye toward making revisions before the material is used again by them or other teachers.

•Premise 6: The instructional design process focuses on the individual rather than the content. Characteristics of gifted learners, not a set notion of content, should guide the curriculum development process. Further tailoring of curriculum will have to occur for gifted students with special needs, such as the twice-exceptional and the highly gifted, regardless of the materials preselected for use or new units of study developed.

•Premise 7: There is no single best way to design instruction. Individual teachers and educators are idiosyncratic in their approaches to designing curriculum experiences. Thus, although a common format is useful, different ways of achieving ends should be viewed positively. At the same time, use of a team approach that uses a feedback loop for purposes of piloting and revision of units or courses of study should be the norm for curriculum development.

Organization of the Book

This book describes the processes for developing meaningful and sustained curriculum experiences for gifted learners. Its ideas are derived from more than 50 years of curriculum development experience in working with the gifted in schools, planning for them in other contexts, and working with their teachers and administrators.

The text is organized in three parts. Chapters 1–4 discuss the basics of gifted education, its models, its identification issues, and its relationship to standards. Chapter 1 serves as an introduction to curriculum planning for the gifted, and Chapter 2 introduces the reader to gifted education program and curriculum models and how they are translated into state policy. Chapter 3 describes the standards of learning used throughout the country to judge proficiency in the core content areas and how these standards may be interpreted for gifted learners through the deliberate use of differentiation techniques. Chapter 4 focuses on intelligence and giftedness and how giftedness is addressed in schools through identification systems.

Part II begins with the centerpiece of the text, a design model that starts with the learning characteristics and needs of gifted learners. This model, described holistically in Chapter 5, is crucial for developing lesson plans, units of study, and course syllabi. The chapters that follow iterate each of the design elements in greater detail. Chapter 6 examines the characteristics and needs of gifted learners that require a differentiated curriculum. Chapter 7 addresses elements of gifted curriculum—its philosophy, goals, and learner outcomes—providing the reader with a big-picture view of a curriculum framework for these students. Chapter 8 addresses teaching and learning activities and the selection of appropriate resources for use with gifted students. Chapter 9 focuses on key instructional strategies necessary to deliver curriculum to learners. Chapter 10 examines important assessments of learning for the gifted, focused on off-level, performance-based, and portfolio approaches.

Part III focuses on curriculum as a dynamic process in schools. Chapter 11 emphasizes the important management and implementation strategies that must accompany any new curriculum effort, including strategies for working with special populations and conducting professional development, among others. Chapter 12 highlights how to know that curriculum is well-designed, well-received, and effective with respect to satisfying learning outcomes.

The appendices include a variety of resources, including a list of recommended curriculum resources in Appendix A.

Standards and Evidence

The standards are a framework for designing curriculum for the gifted in the various content areas (Kettler, 2016). These standards are addressed in this book as a basis for instructional adaptation by educators seeking to honor their implementation and go beyond them as necessary for the population of interest. Thus, the goals, outcomes, and assessment procedures of the template are delineated by the standards, but the translation work of developing and aligning teaching-learning activities, strategies, and resources is not. Ideas for such translation and alignment are delineated in Chapter 3 and suggested in the specific design chapters.

The instructional design model is also informed by the existing research on curriculum effectiveness (see VanTassel-Baska & Little, 2017). This research provides information that should guide all curriculum planning and design work. Understanding what has been found to work and not work in curricula for the gifted is an essential starting point for curriculum planning and development. Although several curriculum models exist in the field of gifted education, many have not been tested in the research arena, and others have a paucity of evidence suggesting effectiveness. Using the research knowledge base as a backdrop to comprehensive curriculum development for gifted learners in schools is crucial for success.

Each chapter concludes with a summary to allow the reader to review the main ideas in the text and synthesize its highlights. Questions for reflection extend the reader’s thinking about issues and concerns raised in the chapter material. They provide a basis for discussions among teachers and administrators about the specific aspects of curriculum planning for the gifted.

Summary

The age of educational standards is with us and not going away. The challenge is to find ways to adapt to the demands of the standards and the new assessment models that have emerged without compromising the enterprise of gifted education. This book provides a blueprint for curriculum planning that carefully considers the current educational climate. There are no easy answers, but this text presents curriculum ideas and planning strategies that can make gifted programs more credible and stable.

Questions for Reflection

1. How is gifted education unique from special education . . . from general education? What special problems does that create in designing curriculum?

2. What premises are most important in your view of curriculum design? Why?

3. Why should the roles of designer and instructor be kept separate? Explain and defend.

CHAPTER 2

Program and Curriculum Models

Shaping Structures to Support Gifted Learners

When considering curriculum for gifted learners,