Curriculum Development - Term Paper Example

Running Head: CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT Curriculum Development and Teaching Strategies for Gifted Learners Helaine Summers ECI 649 Problems in Elementary School Curriculum Dr. Carol Moreng April 29, 2007 Northern Arizona University Introduction Special education and curriculum development for gifted learners has long been recognized as integral to the realization of intellectual potential and talents. Indeed, special education programs for gifted learners can be traced to Ancient Greece. As described by Plato, the Ancient Greeks generally divided education into three pars, those being maths/reading, music and sports. Students which displayed consistently higher than average ability in any of these three were from the average learners and placed in gifted education programs which focused on challenging them and nurturing their abilities (Tannenbaum, 1997). Students who excelled in special education programs were, according to Persson, Joswog and Balogh (1997), once again, separated from their above average co-learners and placed in programs designed for geniuses. The intent of this program was not simply the realization of gifted learners’ full potential but the development of future leaders. The historical introduction offered in the preceding highlights a long-standing acknowledgement of the importance of designing special education programs which address the mental capacities, abilities and talents of gifted learners and function to both enable and guide them towards the realisation of their potential. Integral to the realization of potential of gifted students is, of course, curriculum and learning strategies. Within the context of the stated, therefore, curriculum development and learning strategies for gifted students assume unique importance and, accordingly, have been the focus of numerous research and studies. This paper shall review a number of these studies for the purpose of evaluating the variant curriculum development and learning strategies for gifted students. Curriculum Development In his analysis of gifted learners’ educational requirements, Shore (1988) argued that without a curriculum which is designed in response to their needs, the full potential of gifted learners will never be truly realized. Even while conceding that prerequisite to the design of such a curricular is the careful and critical evaluation of individual learner requirements and, possibly, the design of differentiated curricula within the context of a more general curricular framework, Shore (1988) defended his approach to curriculum development as optimally suited to the needs of individual gifted learners. The development/design of a differentiated gifted learner curriculum is a complex undertaking insofar as it involves the design of both general and specific curricula. The design of the general gifted learners’ curricula should, according to both Shore (1988) and Van Tassel-Baska (2003) be informed by an empirical investigation of variant gifted learners’ curricula. The purpose of the aforementioned investigation is the isolation and identification of that set of factors from which a gifted learners’ curriculum derives its strength. This does not just include curriculum content but the role of teachers, administrators and parents in the support and communication of that curriculum. In other words, the reference here is to the design of an environment which is supportive of gifted learners and not just curriculum content. To this extent, and as Shore (1988, p. 9) argues, “the considered advice of experts and persons actively involved in the field,” is integral to the successful realization of a best-practice gifted learners’ general curricular framework. In other words, schools need to invest the requisite time and effort in the design of a gifted learners’ curriculum which aims towards the creation of a supportive learning environment, involving all of gifted learners, their teachers, parents and school administrators. The development of a curriculum for gifted learners, however, is infinitely more complex than the above stated. Indeed, the design of the aforementioned curriculum is only the first step towards the formulation of a gifted learners’ curriculum as which would specifically address the needs and requirements of individual learners. As Shore (1988, p. 15) notes, “gifted children require a qualitatively different education, with a distinctive curriculum, at least part of the time.” There are two implications to this. The first is that gifted students require an educational which is different from that of average students and the second is that gifted students need to be differentiated one from the other and each provided with the education which corresponds to his/her needs and intellectual capabilities. Boreland (1989) concurs with Shore’s (1988) argument regarding the imperatives of designing differentiated curricula for gifted students. Indeed, as he argues, the very definition of `curriculum’ as “that reconstruction of knowledge and experience, systematically developed under the auspices of the school (or university), to enable the learner to increase his or her control of knowledge and experience” (Borland, 1989, p. 175), supports this particular perspective on curricular design. Quite simply stated, if the purpose of an educational curriculum is to intellectually challenge students, expand the parameters of their knowledge, and educate them, it should both address a student’s needs and his intellectual level. In other words, curriculum for gifted learners need be differentiated for greater responsiveness to the needs of individual learners. Proceeding from the above stated, differentiated curriculum emerges as the curricular framework which gifted learner programs must aspire towards the design and implementation of. Tomlinson (2001) agrees and, even goes so far as to argue that differentiated curricula is the only means by which schools and teachers can effectively respond to, and satisfy the needs of gifted learners. The argument in favour of the design and implementation of a differentiated curriculum for gifted students does not suggest that the entirety of the curriculum should be designed around individual students but only specific aspects therein. As Tomlinson (2001) proposes, in gifted education programs the general curriculum should be uniform, in that all students sit for the same general classes. Following from that, however, and as based on each individual student’s needs, each gifted learner should further be required to sit for classes and study additional material in the subject, or subjects of his/her speciality. In other words, both the content and the mode of its delivery are partially differentiated from one gifted learner to another and not the entire gifted learner curriculum (Tomlinson, 2001). Within the context of the partially differentiated gifted learners’ curriculum, as defined and described in the preceding, Castellano (2002) maintains that the design has to adhere to a set of basic requirements. In the first place, the curriculum must be designed in such a ay so that it directly correlates to the target learner’s areas of speciality, or exception, and his/her specified needs. Added to that, the differntiated curriculum in question needs to be designed in response to the following questions: Gifted students’ requirements beyond both the general educational curriculum and the gifted learners’ curriculum; An outline of the learning steps, as in the specified objectives of the curriculum and how they will be attained (Castellano, 2002). Importantly, the differentiated curriculum in question should also consider the strategies by which to exploit the gifted student’s particular areas of speciality/exceptionality, to develop his/her critical thinking processes (Silverman, 2002). In her discussion of appropriately differentiated curriculum, VanTassel-Baska (2003) first emphasized three distinguishing characteristics of gifted learners: their ability to learn at faster rates than other students, their ability to find and solve problems, and their ability to understand abstract concepts and make connections. She noted that these learner characteristics must be considered and can be addressed through modifications of the content model, the process/product model, and the epistemological model to create a differentiated curriculum. Van Tassel-Baska (2003) also outlined specific differentiation features that are essential for a curriculum to be considered appropriate for gifted learners: acceleration, complexity, depth, challenge, and creativity. The foregoing discussion on the design of curriculum for gifted learners has, through reference to several scholars, uncovered one important consideration. That consideration is the needs of, not groups of gifted learners but the needs of individual gifted learners. Quite simply stated, if each of these learners is to realize his/her potentialities, his/her areas of speciality and expertise must be identified and addressed. Added to that, and as shall be explored in the next section, the curriculum, if it is to be effective, has to be complemented with an appropriate learning/teaching strategy as would address the needs of the gifted. Learning Strategies/Styles According to learning theorists, the three most effective and popular learning strategies are Problem-Based Learning (PBL), Creative Problem Solving (CPS), and Social Action Learning (SAL). Each of these shall be discussed in relation to gifted learners. Creative Problem Solving (CPS) is an instructional approach that is advocated by Treffinger et al (2000). It refers to a specific learning strategy which promotes creative and critical thinking in the learning environment. (Treffinger, Isaksen, Dorval, 2000). The structure is based on the things people have to be able to do when they are working on a problem. According to CPS, efforts to solve problems creatively can be divided into three broad categories, which are referred to as the three major process components. Within the three components, there are six specific stages during which creative and critical thinking abilities are used in harmony. The major components of CPS are: Understanding the Challenge - Ask the right questions or set the problem in a way that will help find productive answers. Generating Ideas - Develop ideas that have potential as solutions. Preparing for Action - Analyze, refine, or develop the ideas into useful solutions and specific action steps. (Treffinger, Isaksen, Dorval, 2000). Researchers argue that CPS believe that people do not learn CPS simply because it is an interesting academic approach. The reason that people learn and use CPS is to increase their ability to think productively, both creatively and critically in situations that really matter. Unlike the hypothetical problems often used in the learning environment, CPS is designed to use with real world opportunities, challenges, and concerns that people encounter in real life (Treffinger, Isaksen, Dorval, 2000). From the perspective of the gifted learning environment, CPS emerges as a highly suitable learning strategy because its trains gifted learning in critical problem solving and, in so doing, directs them towards the development of their above-average cognitive skills. Social Action Learning (SAL) is also fundamentally geared towards problem analysis and solving. It is based on the idea that the real world is full of real problems to solve which involve a variety of skills and mental capabilities, hence, mental agility and a capacity to think creatively, critically and practically, all at the same time (Lewis, 1998). Lewis advocates that solving real world problems brings excitement and suspense into the learning environment. The experiences translate into students learning to take charge of their personal lives, become more connected to their community, and improve self-efficacy (Lewis, 1998). In Lewis book, The Kids Guide to Social Action, there are guidelines and scenarios for getting involved in social issues from stream clean-ups and planting trees to amending the United States Constitution. In the process of solving problems students learn about their local, state, and national government, corporate structures, and such. Instead of learning about these things through textbooks, students construct their own learning by getting involved and emotionally connected to solving real-life problems. As with CPS, SAL is also advocated as a very powerful learning tool/strategy insofar as gifted learners are concerned. Indeed, as may have been deduced from the above, it builds upon this group of learners’ ability to think in the abstract and correlate it to real world problems. Problem Based Learning (PBL) involves providing students with an unstructured problem or task and allowing them to discover a method for solving or accomplishing it (Rogers, 2002). There are three critical features to PBL: Learning is initiated with an ill-structured problem. The student is made a stakeholder in the situation. The instructor plays the role of metacognitive (learning how one learns) coach. A poorly structured problem lacks the necessary information that is needed to solve it and so there must be a search for more information (Kirk, Gallagher, Anastasiow, 2003). Typically students become intrigued with the questions at hand and spend a substantial amount of time working on the discovery of the real problem and the design of a solution. They also are able to experience incidental learning about how to organize an attack on a problem and how to shape a problem into a manageable size (Kirk, Gallagher, Anastasiow, 2003). PBL is not inherently appropriate for gifted learners. It must be adapted and designed to match their particular needs. The appropriateness for gifted learners depends on the types (of adaptations that are designed into the problem structure and instruction (Gallagher, 2005). To use PBL effectively for gifted students, the following should be in place: Ensuring advanced content; Working with complex concepts; Demonstrating interdisciplinary connections; Practicing good reasoning, habits of mind, and self-directed action: Discussing conflicting ethical appeals (Gallagher, 2005). As may be inferred from the above stated, even though this learning strategy is not ideally suited to the specific needs of gifted learners, it can be tailored to meet their needs. Indeed, when looking over that which must be done in order to customise this approach to the needs of gifted students, one realizes that it is an extremely time-consuming process. If it is carried through, however, and done properly, this learning strategy can positively contribute to the development of gifted students’ critical analysis and problem solving abilities on the one hand, and to their capacity to apply abstracts to real world problems, on the other. Accordingly, as a learning strategy option for gifted students, it cannot be dismissed. Conclusion As the essay has tried to illustrate, gifted students have special needs and it is contingent upon schools and teachers to respond to those needs. If the response is to be effective, however, and is to positively contribute to the development of the identified gifted students’ mental capacities, untapped potentials, talent and abilities, it has to be founded upon their specified needs. This, as the above has argued, has led researchers to identify differentiated curricula as optimal insofar as gifted learners are concerned. It is, thus, that the imperatives of designing differentiated curricula have been argued. As has been stated, however, if the curriculum in question is to effectively contribute to the development of gifted students’ potentials, it should be carried forth by an appropriate learning strategy. Those identified as appropriate are Critical Problem Solving, Social Action Learning and Problem-Based Learning. The choice among these should, however, be left to the teacher, the needs and characteristics of the students and the nature of the designed differentiated curriculum. References Borland, J. H. (1989). Planning And Implementing Programs For The Gifted. New York: Teachers College Press. Castellano, J.A. (2002) Special Populations in Gifted Education: Working With Diverse Gifted Learners. New York: Allyn and Bacon. Gallagher, S. (2005). Adapting problem-based learning for gifted students. In F. A. Karnes, and Bean, S. M. (Eds.), Methods and Materials for Teaching the Gifted (pp. 75-101). Waco: Prufrock Press, Inc. Kirk, S., Gallagher, J., & Anastasiow, N. (2003). Educating Exceptional Children. 10th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Lewis, B. (1998). The Kids Guide To Social Action. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Free Spirit Publishing, Inc. Persson, R., Joswig, H., Balogh, L. (1997). Gifted Education in Europe: Programs Practices, and Current Research. In Heller, K., Monks, F., Sternberg, R, Subotnik, (Eds.), International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent (pp. 703-726). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science, Ltd. Shore, B. (1988). Recommended Practices In The Education And Upbringing Of The Gifted: A Progress Report On An Assessment Of Knowledge Base. Indianapolis: Indiana Department of Education, Office of Gifted and Talented Education. Silverman, L. (2002) The Gifted: An Endangered Species. Indiana: The Indiana Associated for the Gifted. Accessed 22 April, 2007 from, http://www.doe.state.in.us/exceptional/gt/pdf/IAGResourceGuide.pdf Tannenbaum, A. J. (1997). A History of Giftedness in School and Society. In Heller, K., Monks, F., Stemberg, R., Subotnik, (Ms.), International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent (pp. 23-51). Oxford: Elsevier Science, Ltd. Tomlinson, C. (2001). How to Differentiate in Mixed Ability Classrooms. 2nd ed. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Treffinger, D., Isaksen, S., and Dorval, K. (2000). Creative Problem Solving: An Introduction. 3rd ed. Waco: Prufrock Press, Inc. Van Tassel-Baska, J. (2003). Content-based curriculum for high-ability learners: An introduction. In J. Van Tassel-Baska, & C.A. Little, (Eds.), Content-based curriculum for high-ability learners (pp. 1- 23). Waco: Prufrock Press. Read More