Curriculum Model Analysis

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Rocket clouds
Curriculum Model Analysis by Mind Map: Curriculum Model Analysis

1. Renzulli's Multiple Menu

1.1. Multiple menu model approaches differentiated curriculum that is based in both general ed and GT education- it stresses 6 planning guides (balance between authentic content and process, philosophical relationships and structures, and experimental inquiry)

1.1.1. How does it address the needs of GT students?

1.1.1.1. primary and secondary

1.1.1.2. organization is straightforward as it starts with a broad and becomes more centralized and focused

1.1.1.3. Helps student understand or or answer the question "why does this matter?" in each particular discipline

1.1.1.4. Fuels research skills and investigative learning

1.1.1.4.1. offers a lot of choice

1.1.1.4.2. artistic modification menu (teacher contributes)

1.1.1.4.3. menu and instruction techniques

1.1.2. What research supports this model?

1.1.2.1. combines best practices (1988)

1.1.2.2. (MMM; Renzulli, 1988; Renzulli et al., 2000)

1.1.2.2.1. General Education research using MMM: (Ausubel, 1968; Bandura, 1977; Bloom, 1954; Bruner, 1960, 1966; Gagné & Briggs, 1979; Phenix, 1964)

1.1.2.2.2. Gifted Education research using MMM: (Kaplan, 1986; Passow, 1982; Ward, 1961)

1.1.2.3. No research has been conducted examining effectiveness to date

1.1.2.3.1. no evaluation of how it is going currently in curriculum

1.1.3. Who would benefit the most from this model?

1.1.3.1. gifted kids

1.1.3.2. high school level students

1.1.3.2.1. AP level classes (any class that requires teacher to be the expert in the discipline)

1.1.4. What are the possible drawbacks from this model?

1.1.4.1. limiting talents

1.1.4.1.1. talents are not considered

1.1.4.2. knowledge menu-explaining content

1.1.4.3. confusing and overwhelming initially (depends on content area)

1.1.4.3.1. requires a lot of scaffolding

1.1.4.3.2. time consuming

1.2. Knowledge Menu is to help students and teachers explore the meaning and authenticity of the curriculum

1.2.1. Instructional activities & Student activities Menu helps teachers decide how they want the students to learn, retain, analyze, synthesize, and apply information

1.2.2. Instructional Strategies menu help teachers decide what technique is most appropriate and engaging for the the students with the particular content.

1.2.3. Instructional sequences menu gives guidance doe organizing and sequencing the activities or lesson to reach the outcome

1.2.4. Artistic Modification Menu helps teacher incorporate themselves into the curriculum - by modeling, sharing experience, values, and knowledge.

1.2.5. Instructional products menu helps focus on what the product to show mastery will be for the learning outcomes.

2. Parallel Curriculum Model

2.1. this model focuses that our curriculum for general education must be good before we can elevate the curriculum for the gifted.

2.1.1. How does it address the needs of GT students?

2.1.1.1. curriculum is challenging

2.1.1.1.1. Choice-based for teachers

2.1.1.1.2. authentic experiences

2.1.1.1.3. moves up on Bloom's

2.1.1.2. according to NAGC, most popular model for teachers (resources are available)

2.1.1.3. students can reflect & evaluate

2.1.1.4. supports the behaviors and processes to become experts in general or in the work of that content area

2.1.1.4.1. Moving from novice to apprentice to practitioner then expert

2.1.1.5. pre- and post assessments

2.1.2. What research supports this model?

2.1.2.1. (PCM; Tomlinson et al., 2002)

2.1.2.1.1. Ascending intellectual demand (AID) (Tomlinson, 2005; Tomlinson et al., 2002; Tomlinson et al., 2005).

2.1.2.1.2. Book of ready to use PCM units(Tomlinson, Kaplan, Purcell, et al., 2005)

2.1.2.2. They have not had any recent studies to evaluate effectiveness of this model.

2.1.3. Who would benefit the most from this model?

2.1.3.1. GT students will move faster through the 4 parallels

2.1.3.2. lends itself to more urban areas where students have real-life experiences

2.1.4. What are the possible drawbacks from this model?

2.1.4.1. many students get 'stuck' in the first parallel

2.1.4.2. rural students may struggle in this area

2.1.4.3. lack of proper training on PCM

2.1.4.3.1. Being trained- not by professional, university, or district level curriculum writers or the creators of the model

2.1.4.3.2. self selecting data doesn't allow for full depth of study

2.2. there are 4 Parallels within the PCM

2.2.1. Core Curriculum- focusing on the knowledge of content including standards, principles, key facts & skills

2.2.2. Curriculum of connections- cross curricular ides to find connections (inter- and intrarelationships) between different content areas

2.2.3. Curriculum of Practice- students act as functioning, practicing professionals in the field

2.2.4. Curriculum of Identity- students examine themselves through the content areas' particular lens.

3. Integrated Curriculum Model

3.1. This model focuses on the advanced content, process-product dimension, and concepts/issues/themes dimension For example- in a literature class: exposing student to content or selections 2 years above grade level.

3.1.1. How does it address the needs of GT students?

3.1.1.1. 3 dimensions-content

3.1.1.1.1. exposes students to multiple content /curriculum

3.1.1.2. pretesting to determine mastery

3.1.1.3. Thinking models

3.1.1.3.1. concept maps

3.1.1.3.2. theme

3.1.1.3.3. real world problem solving

3.1.1.4. can be used with all students

3.1.1.5. Can use "tomorrow" in my classroom

3.1.1.6. encourages higher order thinking skills in ELA specifically reported/assessed in:

3.1.1.6.1. Literary Analysis

3.1.1.6.2. Persuasive Writing

3.1.1.6.3. grammar

3.1.2. What research supports this model?

3.1.2.1. Research based on William and Mary (1998)

3.1.2.2. very well researched-

3.1.2.2.1. (ICM; VanTasselBaska, 1986, 1994; VanTassel-Baska & Little, 2003)

3.1.2.2.2. (Benbow & Stanley, 1983; Maker, 1982; Ward, 1980)

3.1.2.2.3. Recently VanTassel-Baska and Stambaugh (2006) studied the impact of a reading comprehension program derived from ICM on students from 7 high-poverty school districts grades 3-5 on non-gifted students.

3.1.3. Who would benefit the most from this model?

3.1.3.1. adjusted to use with all student k-12

3.1.3.2. good for students who ask "why?"

3.1.3.3. GT students & modified in the general education classroom because of the concept based approach

3.1.3.4. those student interested in PBL and solving real world problems

3.1.4. What are the possible drawbacks from this model?

3.1.4.1. appropriate content

3.1.4.1.1. can create boredom (stagnation due to reused resources)

3.1.4.1.2. scripted

3.1.4.1.3. needs expansion on materials/resources for more choices

3.1.4.1.4. Lack of variety in reading materials

3.1.4.2. Inconsistency in unit delivery and instructional quality

3.1.4.2.1. Funding

3.1.4.2.2. Training

3.1.4.2.3. So much differentiation

3.2. Examples in a 7th grade ELA Classroom (This is the model most used in the ELA GT curriculum in GCS)

3.2.1. Shakespeare's Twelfth Night

3.2.1.1. Concept/issue/theme: Appearance Versus Reality

3.2.2. Mark Twain's The Prince and the Pauper

3.2.2.1. Concept/issue/theme: The Hero's Journey/Literary Quest

3.2.3. Cross Curricular: Farewell to Manzanar Memoir about Japanese Concentration camps in the U.S.

3.2.3.1. Concept/issue/theme: Coming of Age, unconstitutional versus constitutional

4. Works Cited

4.1. 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.

4.2. (Tomlinson, Kaplan, Purcell, et al., Curriculum for Highly Able Learners 425 2005)

4.3. mbeau, M. m. (2018). Evidence-Based Curricular/Instructional Suggestions for Meeting the Needs of All Learners Including Those Who Are Advanced. Gifted Child Today, 41(1), 5-6.

4.4. 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.