Curriculum in Gifted Education: The Core of the Enterprise

Why Is Curriculum for the Gifted Not Available for All Learners? Should It Be?

Many of the curriculum materials designed and tested for use with the gifted have been used successfully with all learners, especially children of color and those from low-income backgrounds. Other curricula are not appropriate for use with the gifted without modifications. For example, materials that use advanced reading material, often two grade levels above the stated grade level per se, cannot be employed with learners whose reading levels are either at or below grade-level placement. In math, materials that are advanced in either topic or level of problem solving cannot easily be used with all learners. On the contrary, materials that do not focus on advanced levels of learning in the core content areas but do engage in thinking and problem solving in those areas may be employed without such modification. Materials that provide a structure for project and problem-based learning (PBL) work well with all learners. Moreover, materials that use questions as the guiding structure for enhancing thinking at higher levels also have been found to be successful for all.

Many districts may choose to keep curriculum that is differentiated for the gifted only for use with this population. It is much easier to find curriculum that would be appropriate for all learners at a given grade level than it is to find effective differentiated curriculum for the gifted. Thus, a school district decision to keep the gifted curriculum separate makes sense, given the reality of shortages in that area.

There is a philosophical orientation to this question as well. For some educators, there is a belief that there is no need to differentiate materials or curriculum for the gifted, only instructional strategies which by their very nature work with all learners. The research suggests that the use of inquiry, for example, is one of the most effective strategies to use with the gifted. So, if inquiry-based approaches are used with all learners, does that not also benefit the gifted? The answer to that is complicated as the baseline curriculum that spawns the question asked may or may not be advanced enough to be challenging for the gifted. While we can applaud teachers, who want to make instructional decisions that are better for the gifted than not, it is nevertheless inappropriate to suggest that the use of such approaches is sufficient differentiation for the gifted.

So what is the answer? Use differentiated curriculum with as many students who might benefit from it, ensuring that there is an optimal match between the level of the learner and the level of the curriculum. No curriculum should be withheld from students who are capable of using it, including advanced curriculum designed for gifted learners.

What Are Differentiated Strategies That Can Work With the Gifted? Can They Work With All Learners?

Teaching of the gifted should be seen as a mosaic of different instructional strategies, selected based on the instructional purpose of the lesson to be taught. For example, if the purpose of the lesson is to introduce a new math concept such as quadratic equations, then the use of direct instruction, guided practice, challenging problem solving, and metacognitive reflection might be included in the instructional repertoire within a classroom module of learning. Assigned homework should provide independent practice with sample problems as a specific follow-up to in-class work. So, variety is an important instructional principle of effectiveness.

Another principle that is important to consider is question-asking. Teachers might begin lessons with a set of only four questions that guide students to move thinking from the basic levels of cognition to convergent, divergent, and evaluative levels. In a study of history, for example, teachers might choose to engage students in responding to the following questions about understanding civil rights, based on reading two articles that address the issue:

These questions may be discussed in small groups first, followed by a whole group discussion. They may frame an introduction to a unit of study on social justice or provide a conclusion to such a unit of study.

Finally, real-world PBL scenarios may provide opportunities for both higher level thinking and problem solving in small groups. These scenarios are open-ended, requiring students to plan out how they will address the problem and how they will solve it. For example, students may encounter a scenario like the following:

There is a large pool of sharks close offshore in Southwest Florida. There is concern among the public that the sharks will attack humans. Animal activists are concerned about exposure to “red tide,” found near the shore. Other fish are also being scared off by the sharks, fish that provide local fishermen a living. You have been hired as a marine biologist to work out a plan to address the problem.

Students can form small investigatory teams of four to five to address this problem. Their timeline may vary from 1 to 3 weeks. They will be responsible for working out the role of each student in the problem-solving process. They must articulate the problem, identify the stakeholders in it, research related problems, and develop a plan of action for presentation.

While each of these strategies may work successfully with all learners, they may not work successfully with a mixed group of learners that contains both gifted and nongifted learners for all lessons. Small group differentiation may be needed for success to ensue. For example, the teams for PBL may include one group of gifted learners and four of regular learners, mixed with a full range of abilities. Or groups may be reduced in size to accommodate dyads of students that may contain gifted and high-performing students as partners for the second example of question-asking.

However, for some lessons, students may be mixed together if the desired outcome is more open-ended exploration of the PBL scenario, for example. Each group can complete a “need to know board” about the problem and then discuss what might happen next. Subgroups may be formed from that point to follow up on different facets of the problem.

So, how do we know which strategy to use when and how do we group for each? Strategy use should be determined by at least three criteria:

Once we have decided on a strategy, based on those criteria, we can then examine the grouping options: gifted-only group, mixed group, and gifted and high-ability group. In general, a “gifted cluster group” of gifted and high-ability learners in the classroom is more successful than the other approaches.

Thus, instructional strategy selection and use is more complex than it appears and must always be accompanied by a grouping approach that fits the instructional purposes as well. Many educators would also see groupings as instructional choices to be made first and then followed by content exploration and group interaction decisions.

What Are Some Promising Directions in Curriculum for Gifted Programs That Have Emerged From General Education?

Even in a standards-dominated educational environment, some new trends have emerged in curriculum for the gifted that appear promising in their intent and useful in their integration into the curriculum currently being employed.

One of these new directions is an emphasis on mindfulness, interpreted by many teachers to mean more stress on a deliberate focus in learning, where students even practice meditation techniques to prepare themselves for the assignments of the day. As an outgrowth from the work of Dweck (2006), this emphasis has emerged from research on the importance of one’s mind-set in the learning process. Her work has suggested that a fixed mind-set may be detrimental to gifted students’ learning in that it leads to a performance-based orientation rather than one that is more open to learning as a lifelong process. Techniques and activities that provide more open-ended avenues for exploration often are stressed to ensure that students understand that learning is a long-term venture, a journey that continues well beyond school. This trend may be seen as positive as it does two things for gifted learners. One, it provides a respite from rote-based learning in the spaces where their minds may become more creatively oriented, and two, it offers a more affective landscape for learning where feelings and emotions can be openly discussed and used as positive ways to aid learning. It has been difficult for gifted education for many years to gain a foothold in integrating affective concerns and issues into curriculum (VanTassel-Baska & Baska, 2020). This trend toward mindfulness may be an important breakthrough if it is paired with professional development that provides support in how the emphasis may be integrated with teaching toward standards rather than something totally separate from them.

Another direction is the use of Maker space as a curriculum environment that has promoted well the standards of the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) disciplines of science and engineering; at the same time, it has provided a context for promoting high-level learning among the spatially gifted. The model has promoted an atmosphere of “doing” that can promote challenging opportunities for gifted student learning such as LEGO robotics. The robotics program promotes collaborative hands-on learning with a goal or purpose in mind, culminating in a national-level competition. Other spatially oriented programs like Hands-On Equations may be used at primary levels, depending on the readiness of gifted learners to participate. For middle school students, access to engaging in the process of invention, utilized as the basis of The Jason Project, is a critical step toward becoming scientific and innovative in a deliberate way.

The use of space is critical to these innovations in curriculum; centers may be created to allow students to select less or more challenging activities, based on cognitive level and interest; students may be encouraged to work in dyads and triads to intensify individual involvement; and advanced resources may be made available to assist in the problem-solving process. Teacher monitoring of these activities is crucial to their success, however, as students need support and assistance in traversing these problem-solving opportunities if they are to prove beneficial in promoting long-term learning outcomes.

A third direction in new curriculum for the gifted comes from the use of technology in the form of videos as a three-dimensional learning tool, especially in science, and as a product to be designed by gifted learners. In the 1970s, we asked gifted learners to create a three-panel brochure as an example of their capacity to design products. Now we are seeing more sophisticated products in the form of films and 5-min ads for various causes, products, or services. In one recent visit to a fifth-grade classroom, I observed a team of three gifted students presenting their product to an audience of interested peers who asked probing questions as to the design of the film as well as the content chosen to display. One audience member asked, “Who are the stakeholder groups who will be affected by your film? What do you anticipate their reaction to be?” The intellectual level of the discussion was raised by the question-asking of these peer group members even as the creation of the product itself caused interesting reactions among other members. As gifted learners mature in their understandings of the role of technology in their own learning, they will become more independent in conceptualizing products and addressing problems in all domains.

Conclusion

As we examine the world of curriculum for the gifted in 2020, we see some of the same issues and questions that have plagued the field for decades. What is and what should be differentiated curriculum? Should only the gifted have access to it? Are differentiated strategies that are good for gifted good for all learners? These questions need answers at each stage of our history as a field, buttressed by research and effective practice. Yet, we must also entertain new curriculum and instructional approaches that are designed for all learners yet offer real promise for the gifted.