ÌÇÐÄvlog¹ÙÍø

This resource was developed in consultation with teachers, school leaders and education support teams. The research base used was What works best in practice, Revisiting Gifted ÌÇÐÄvlog¹ÙÍø, and the research listed below:

Gross, M., Sleap, B. & Pretorius, M. (1999). Gifted students in secondary schools: Differentiating the curriculum. Sydney: University of New South Wales, GERRIC (Gifted ÌÇÐÄvlog¹ÙÍø Research, Resource and Information Centre).

Munro, J, 2012, Effective strategies for implementing differentiated instruction, 2009-2018 ACER Research Conferences, ACER, Melbourne.

Tomlinson, C 2001, How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms, 2nd edn, ASCD, Alexandria, VA.

Van Tassel-Baska, J., Feldhusen, J., Seeley, K., Wheatley, G., Silverman, L. & Foster, W. (1988). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners. A comprehensive guide to planning and implementing an effective curriculum for gifted learners. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Vialle, W, & Rogers, K 2009, ‘Educating the gifted learner’ David Barlow Publishing, Terrigal, NSW.

The resource also draws on a range of aligned departmental resources and incorporates frameworks such as:

• Blooms taxonomy
  

Bloom, B.S. (1956) Taxonomy of ÌÇÐÄvlog¹ÙÍøal Objectives, Handbook: The Cognitive Domain. David McKay, New York.

• The Maker Model

Maker, C.J. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. NSW Department of ÌÇÐÄvlog¹ÙÍø. (1989). Information skills in the school. Sydney.

• The Williams Model

Williams, F.E. (1993). The cognitive-affective interaction model for enriching gifted programs. In J.S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 461-484). Highett, Vic.: Hawker Brownlow ÌÇÐÄvlog¹ÙÍø.

• The Kaplan Model

Kaplan, S 2009, ‘The grid: A model to construct differentiated curriculum for the gifted’, in J Renzulli, E Gubbins, K McMillen, R Eckert & C Little (eds.), Systems & models for developing programs for the gifted & talented (2nd edn, pp. 235-251), Creative Learning Press, Mansfield Center, CT.

System Alignment

This resource aligns with the following system frameworks and strategies:

• School Excellence Framework

• Aligns to standards: 1.1, 1.5, 2.1, 2.6, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 4.1

• posing provocative questions that lead the student toward a deeper analysis:
• asking the student to find a connection between usually unrelated ideas: , ,
• comparing different concepts which may span different disciplines:
• using the ‘what if…?’ question to stimulate thinking:
• finding problems to solve by sequencing a series of student developed inquiry-based questions: , ,
• making generalisations or identifying ethical dilemmas or controversial issues: ,
• examining factors that influence or determine trends: ,
• using philosophical inquiry and questioning to find patterns: ,
• creating verbal or visual analogies to explain understanding: ,
• differentiating outcomes using higher order skills such as analysis, synthesis or creation: ,

• pre-testing prior knowledge and using this to inform teaching and learning: , , ,
• creating opportunity for negotiated independent projects following pre-test analysis: , ,
• co-developing and co-designing cross-disciplinary projects: , ,
• justifying thinking when given a provocative question and communicating it in a variety of ways for different audiences: , .
• including students in debate and/or robust discussion viewed from diverse perspectives: ,
• using real world problems from the local community to create a problem-based learning project:
• providing opportunities for students to learn advanced level content through engagement with a mentor or enrichment provision:
• examining ambiguities or inconsistencies and explaining how these might influence common understanding:
• finding and explaining shifts in thinking from the beginning of the learning:

• giving choice to demonstrate evidence of learning: ,
• providing choice from a given list of alternatives:
• giving students the opportunity to create their own alternatives of how they will learn: , ,
• accessing a range of questions to stimulate thinking and discussion: ,
• open-ended questioning which more appropriately aligns with different interest areas: ,
• encouraging free thinking, brainstorming and planning of the focus for learning: , , ,
• making modifications so there is access through different interests or passions: ,
• giving options to choose perplexing ideas for further exploration: , ,

• seeking understanding of complex symbols or systems: ,
• unpacking thinking at a deeper level, demanding justification of reason and thought: ,
• seeking justification of thinking and reasoning through different means: , , ,
• asking ‘what makes you say that?’: ,
• embedding concepts into the learning, rather than just topics:
• using advanced level content that goes beyond what is usually expected
• building examination and inquiry into learning design: , , ,
• using philosophical inquiry to examine ideas at a more abstract level: ,
• synthesising information from a complex to simple level using creative systems of classification: ,
• creating symbols to represent a sequence of ideas or procedure
• creating simplified systems to unpack complexity

• creating unique products made from adapting others’ ideas:
• using scenario-based/simulation learning: ,
• comparing and evaluating mind mapping tools and their effectiveness in conveying the most appropriate message:
• making changes from ‘whole to part’, or 'part to whole’:
• clarifying the causes and effects of different events, ideas or processes:
• organising different ideas into unique categories or systems:
• challenging the reliability of a claim or existing notion:
• devising questions, adapting and posing these to different stakeholders to elicit responses from a variety of perspectives:
• creating a variety of different consequences using ‘if…: then…’
• applying ‘reverse thinking’ to dismantle the usual logical direction of an understanding:

• creating or co-creating new or unique products or responses:
• using Blooms taxonomy question stems to lead discussion or to frame assessment tasks: ,
• asking for a deeper analysis and justification of students’ responses: ,
• developing ‘what if ...’ scenarios to provoke thinking:
• using concept maps to visualise and explain thought processes or research:
• synthesising information and evaluating the most relevant ideas when solution-finding:
• making evaluative judgement about ideas using thinking strategies: (plus, minus, interesting),
• using visual representations to summarise information and explain complex relationships: ,
• exploring personal thinking and reflecting on the reasons behind these thoughts in comparison to others:
• speculating on probable future applications or possibilities: ,

• using pre and post testing, and formative assessment, to inform the direction of the next teaching and learning phase: , , ,
• posing questions before teaching new material or skills to determine the speed of learning: , ,
• compacting the curriculum in response to an analysis of pre-testing results
• spending less time on learning new material or skills compared to age peers
• delivering specific lesson content at a faster pace where pre-test results indicate a need
• negotiating a variety of completion dates to better organise learning: ,
• providing scaffolds and explicitly modelling these to students: ,
• facilitating time schedules and enabling goal setting:
• using individualised ‘what I know - want to know - how to learn - what I learned’ (KWHL) charts before, during and after the learning process:

• scrutinising contemporary media issues and using these to debate ideas:
• inviting an expert audience to showcase proof of learning:
• addressing current events and ideas to analyse complex concepts:
• using autobiographical study to analyse the content, the journey taken, thought processes and philosophy
• unpacking exemplars to model and guide high expectations:
• evaluating learning and progress by experts in the field:
• including an independent study of a famous person: ,
• exploring the methods of inquiry that experts in various domains use to seek their information

• giving opportunity to showcase strengths in a variety of applications and to a diverse audience base: , ,
• providing variable means of communicating and acknowledging peers: , ,
• co-designing negotiated personalised learning profiles:
• providing differentiated product options for assessments: , , ,
• using humour in the classroom to develop rapport and a positive learning climate
• using think-pair-share routines to encourage collaboration, active reasoning and communication:
• building student voice opportunities into daily instruction: , , ,
• creating an environment that encourages experimentation and risk-taking: , ,
• clearly communicating explicit criteria for success: ,
• providing explicit language to use when reflecting, such as ‘what can I do better next time and how will I achieve this?’:
• providing wait time to give opportunity for reflection: ,
• emphasising personal best, value of effort, growth and positive attitudes towards learning