Parallel/ Inter-related Design

Four Levels of Curriculum Readiness ore

Essential principles, concepts and skills are addressed through common core learning standards and lessons are designed using Blooms knowledge, comprehension and application cognitive domains. Students master the Core Curricula before moving onto any of the other three levels of readiness.

Curriculum Connections

Students make connections between ideas, concepts and principals and identify relationships which involves higher levels of cognitive reasonong.

Teaching strategies include:

Socratic questioning -Synectics - Metaphorical thinking - Cooperative learning -Debriefing - PBL

Inquiry based learning - Collaborative dyads - Critical, Deductive and inductive thinking

Curriculum of Practice

Learners become expert practitioners; they demonstrate understanding by applying what they know. Students expereince or research the the lives and practices of experts. The experts introduced to students may include: Guest speakers, Literature, Mentorships, Peers, Associations, Teachers, Parents, and Trusted friends of Parents.

Problem Solving and Inquiryare ideal for the Curriculum of Practice

Finding and identifying problems

Forming a research hypothesis

Information gathering using multiple sources and appropriate methods and tools.

Categorizing information

Summarizing/ Analyzing information or scenarios

Reports/Products

Curriculum of Identity

Students pursue their interests and skills that relate to future academic or career paths. Students associate and receive feedback from experts.

Focus questions:

Who are the experts and what do they think about

What do I find intriguing about

Will I be able to grow in this career or academic pursuit

What are the conditions like (physical, emotional environmental).

What can I contribute

Online Sources for Parallel Curriculum

http://www.nagc.org/index.aspxid=1069

http://www.nagc.org/uploadedFiles/Articles/THP%20new%20header.pdf

Socratic Questioning

http://www.engin.umich.edu/~cre/probsolv/strategy/cthinking.htm

Metaphors and learning

http://www.oerafrica.org/LinkClick.aspxfileticket=gywwihhsKW4=&tabid=995

http://library.thinkquest.org/J0112392/metaphor.html

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/687/05/

http://bogglesworldesl.com/metaphor_worksheets.htm

http://www.wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html#EXPER

http://cogsci.berkeley.edu/lakoff/metaphors/

http://metaphors.lib.virginia.edu/
nalogies

http://www.c4vct.com/kym/humor/analog.htm

http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/analogies.htm

http://teaching.fec.anu.edu.au/MGMT7061/Hays%20-%20Synectics%20CPS%20Method.pdf

http://people.wm.edu/~clties/ProfDev/Creative%20Thinking%20skills.pdf

Debriefing

Debriefing is a reflective, critical thinking process used by learners after simulation activities or during group and self evaluation. Debriefing can involve the use of check lists, formal or informal oral and written responses and discussions. Although many types of debriefing exist, three types are introduced here:

The EIAG - Students experience - identify, analyze and generalize

D-FITGA - Students decompress by reviewing activity related facts, infer and transfer questions, generalize and engage authentic applications

ASK - Attitudes, Skills and Knowledge.

Debriefing involves more than just summarizing and assessing learning experiences. During closure activities student learn to reflect on their discussions and thinking processes and consider how they might apply them to future. Generally teachers review activities with students, which involve gathering data and sharing thoughts and feelings. Students group and classify information before evaluating what did and did not work. They discard unworkable ideas and acknowledge those of value; students also consider alternative approaches.

Debriefing Sources

http://corwin-connect.com/2015/11/the-importance-of-debriefing-in-learning-and-what-that-might-look-like-in-the-classroom/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876139914000103
http://k12alliance.org/tlc.php

http://sbaweb.wayne.edu/~absel/bkl/.%5Cjels%5C3-2b.pdf

http://www.education.com/reference/article/Ref_Dev_Metacognition/

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/9301031815/nature-nurture-self-directed-learner

Debriefing Research Citations:

Johnsen, S. & Kendrick, J. (2005). Teaching strategies in gifted education. Prufrock press Inc. Waco Texas.
Kriz, W. (2010). A Systemic-Constructivist Approach to the Facilitation and Debriefing of Simulations and Games. Simulation & Gaming, 41(5), 663-680.

Morris, R. V. (2003). The Nation's Capital and First Graders: Role Playing a Trip to Washington, D.C. Social Studies, 94(6-), 265-269.

Hurst, C. (2007). Finding the Maths: Helping Students Connect Their Mathematical Knowledge to Other Contexts. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 12(2), 25-29.

Schuler, D. A., Chappell, M., & Baggett, L. (2010). A Unique Pedagogical Approach to Voting and Public Goods. PS: Political Science And Politics, 43(4), 779-783.

Deductive Versus Inductive Reasoning
eductive Reasoning

Assumptions are made and pre- established rules are activated to find solutions. Only Consequences, not the cause is observed. Known rules and principles are used to explain the consequence and a hypothesis is formed. Deductive reasoning is comprised of the following model; If - Then - But - Therefore
nductive Reasoning

An observation is explained in relation to the observers experience and a hypothesis is formed.

Online Sources

http://www.nakedscience.org/mrg/Deductive%20and%20Inductive%20Reasoning.htm

http://www.brightstorm.com/math/geometry/reasoning-diagonals-angles-and-parallel-lines/deductive-reasoning/

http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/Articles/vsl/v05.pdf

http://eideneurolearningblog.blogspot.com/2005/03/critical-thinking-inductive-and.html

http://www.beelddenken.info/documenten/upside-down_brilliance.pdf

http://dinosaurtheory.com/theory.html
http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/sem/semart10.html

Research Citations:

Ayalon, M., & Even, R. (2008). Deductive Reasoning: In the Eye of the Beholder. Educational Studies In Mathematics, 69(3), 235-247.
Hekimoglu, S. (2004). Conducting a Teaching Experiment with a Gifted Student. Journal Of Secondary Gifted Education, 16(1), 14-19.
Silverman, L. K. The visual-spatial learner. Preventing School Failure, 34(1), 15-20.
Krauss, D. A., Salame, I. I., & Goodwyn, L. N. (2010). Using Photographs as Case Studies to Promote Active Learning in Biology. Journal Of College Science Teaching, 40(1), 72-76.

Four Levels of Curriculum Readiness

Core
Essential principles, concepts and skills are aligned with the common core learning standards as they relate to knowledge, comprehension and application within Bloom's cognitive domains. Students master the Core Curricula before moving onto the other three levels of readiness.

Curriculum Connections
Students make connections between ideas, concepts and principals and identify relationships that involve higher levels of cognitive reasoning.

Teaching strategies include:
Socratic questioning -Synectics - Metaphorical thinking - Cooperative learning -Debriefing - PBL- Inquiry based learning - Collaborative dyads - Critical, Deductive and inductive thinking

Curriculum of Practice
Learners become expert practitioners by applying what they know in ways that demonstrate understanding. Students experience and/or research the lives and practices of experts through a variety of sources including: Guest speakers, Literature, Mentorships, Peers, Associations, Teachers, Parents, and Trusted friends of parents. Common sense should dictate which of these sources need to be monitored to assure student safety.

Problem Solving and Inquiry are ideal strategies for the Curriculum of Practice:

Finding and identifying problems

Forming a research hypothesis

Information gathering using multiple sources and appropriate methods and tools.

Categorizing information

Summarizing/ Analyzing information or scenarios

Reports/Products

Curriculum of Identity
Students pursue their interests and focus on skills as they relate to future academic and career paths. Students associate and receive feedback from experts.


Focus questions:

Who are the experts and what do they think about

What do I find intriguing about

Will I be able to grow in this career or academic pursuit

What are the conditions like (physical, emotional environmental).

What can I contribute

Parallel Curriculum/ Interrealated Design

Online Sources

http://people.wm.edu/~clties/PCM_Shelby_short.pdf
http://presentlygifted.weebly.com/parallel-curriculum-model.html
https://sites.google.com/site/modelsforthegifted/change-the-banner/parallel-curriculum-model
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/finding_common_ground/2011/08/the_accidental_teacher_an_interview_with_dr_carol_ann_tomlinson.html

Citations:

Tomlinson, C.A., Kaplan, S.N., Purcell, J.H., Leppien, J.H., Burns, D.E., Strickland, C.A. (2005). The parallel curriculum in the classoom, book 1: Units for application across the content areas, k-12. Corwin, a Sage Publication Company. Thousand Oaks, CA..

Curriculum Strategies

Socratic Questioning

Online Sources

http://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/socratic/index.html https://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/the-role-of-socratic-questioning-in-thinking-teaching-learning/522
http://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/socratic/fourth.html
https://k12teacherstaffdevelopment.com/tlb/how-can-i-use-socratic-questioning-to-support-learning-in-the-classroom/
http://www.umich.edu/~elements/probsolv/strategy/cthinking.htm

Metaphors and learning

Online Sources

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/687/05/
http://bogglesworldesl.com/metaphor_worksheets.htm
http://www.wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html#EXPER
http://metaphors.lib.virginia.edu/

Analogies

Online Sources

http://www.c4vct.com/kym/humor/analog.htm
https://k12teacherstaffdevelopment.com/tlb/how-do-we-use-analogies-in-the-classroom/
http://people.wm.edu/~clties/ProfDev/Creative%20Thinking%20skills.pdf http://www.teachthought.com/critical-thinking/types-of-analogies/
http://commons.vccs.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1058&context=inquiry
http://pjpub.org/perd/perd_185.pdf
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ833910
http://www.lrdc.pitt.edu/nokes/documents/nokes&ross2007.pdf

Debriefing

Debriefing is a reflective and critical thinking process that students engage in after simulation activities; it involves group and self evaluation. The debriefing process can incorporate check lists as well as formal or informal oral and written responses and discussions. Although many types of debriefing exist, three types are introduced here:

The EIAG - Students experience - identify, analyze and generalize
D-FITGA - Students decompress as they review activity related facts, infer and transfer questions, generalize and engage authentic applications
ASK - Attitudes, Skills and Knowledge.

Debriefing involves gathering recorded data, discussing thoughts and sharing feelings. Students classify the information they collected before evaluating what did and did not work; they discard the ideas that did not work and acknowledge those that did, and consider alternatives. Debriefing can also serve as a closure activity; students learn to reflect on their discussions and thought processes and consider new approaches. Teachers should guide review activities with their students.

Debriefing

Online Sources

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/9301031815/nature-nurture-self-directed-learner
http://corwin-connect.com/2015/11/the-importance-of-debriefing-in-learning-and-what-that-might-look-like-in-the-classroom/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876139914000103

Debriefing

Research Citations:

Johnsen, S. & Kendrick, J. (2005). Teaching strategies in gifted education. Prufrock press Inc. Waco Texas.
Kriz, W. (2010). A Systemic-Constructivist Approach to the Facilitation and Debriefing of Simulations and Games. Simulation & Gaming, 41(5), 663-680.
Morris, R. V. (2003). The Nation's Capital and First Graders: Role Playing a Trip to Washington, D.C. Social Studies, 94(6-), 265-269.
Hurst, C. (2007). Finding the Maths: Helping Students Connect Their Mathematical Knowledge to Other Contexts. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 12(2), 25-29.
Schuler, D. A., Chappell, M., & Baggett, L. (2010). A Unique Pedagogical Approach to Voting and Public Goods. PS: Political Science And Politics, 43(4), 779-783.



Deductive Versus Inductive Reasoning
Deductive Reasoning
Assumptions are made and pre- established rules are used to find solutions. Only Consequences, not the cause is observed. Known rules and principles are used to explain the consequence and a hypothesis is formed. Deductive reasoning is comprised of the following model;

If - Then - But - Therefore

Inductive Reasoning
An observation is explained in relation to the observers experience and a hypothesis is formed.

Online Sources

http://www.nakedscience.org/mrg/Deductive%20and%20Inductive%20Reasoning.htm
http://www.brightstorm.com/math/geometry/reasoning-diagonals-angles-and-parallel-lines/deductive-reasoning/
http://eideneurolearningblog.blogspot.com/2005/03/critical-thinking-inductive-and.html
http://dinosaurtheory.com/theory.html
http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/sem/semart10.html

Research Citations:

Ayalon, M., & Even, R. (2008). Deductive Reasoning: In the Eye of the Beholder. Educational Studies In Mathematics, 69(3), 235-247.
Hekimoglu, S. (2004). Conducting a Teaching Experiment with a Gifted Student. Journal Of Secondary Gifted Education, 16(1), 14-19.
Silverman, L. K. The visual-spatial learner. Preventing School Failure, 34(1), 15-20.
Krauss, D. A., Salame, I. I., & Goodwyn, L. N. (2010). Using Photographs as Case Studies to Promote Active Learning in Biology. Journal Of College Science Teaching, 40(1), 72-76.



Terms & Conditions
                                                         P.O. Box 123, Gurnee, Illinois 60031                                        Copyright © 2020 Brightpace.com. All rights reserved.