THE DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM MODEL

A curriculum model and program for diverse learners living in local communities in a rapidly changing world.

Pam Hook and Julie Mills

with - Paula Hancock and Helen McGrath (Waikowhai Primary School), Emma Watts (Tahunanui School,Nelson), Mike Boon (Maungawhau Primary School), Christina Edwards (English Department Rutherford College), Emma Watts and Melissa Julian (Edendale School, Auckland), Carol Rowe-Mitchell Totara Team and students (Vauxhall School Devonport), Amy Roworth and Sue Roberts (Vauxhall School Devonport), Belinda Bennett (Glen Eden Intermediate School, West Auckland) Cate Green (Glen Eden Intermediate School, West Auckland) Rachel Saxton and Georgina (George)Barrett (Lincoln High School), Edith Cross (Meadowbank Primary School), Catherine Kelsey (Stanley Bay School), Jennie Adlam, Zara Jackson, Taryn Monks and Shelley Quinlivan (Epsom Normal Primary School). Onehunga Primary School teachers, Newmarket Primary School teachers, St Leos School teachers, Balmoral School teachers, Janet Yelas (St Mary's School), Jason Irvine (Wainui Primary School), Craig Perry and students at (Social Sciences Department Lincoln High School, Stephanie Eliot (Waikowhai Intermediate School), Fiona Bamford (Languages Department Lincoln High School) - insert names of contributing schools and teachers here

This article describes a responsive curriculum model designed to discover and develop the potential of all learners, including gifted and talented learners. The Differentiated Curriculum Model is built upon a framework of “learning to learn”, knowledge building for identified local and community needs, differentiating student learning outcomes, teacher and/or student implementation and alignment with The New Zealand Curriculum. It focuses on the complexity of student learning outcomes through a common language of learning, and coding of learning experience against the Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes (SOLO Taxonomy). The curriculum model has been translated into programs for learning and knowledge building in inclusive classrooms in schools over the past three years. The authors include screenshots from a beta version of the curriculum model built using C# language and the Microsoft .NET Framework. The article concludes by highlighting the need for longitudinal studies to assess the effectiveness and influence of 21st century curriculum models on learners and their local communities.

Differentiated Curriculum Model, The New Zealand Curriculum, SOLO Taxonomy, gifted and talented, knowledge building, teaching and learning, Hooked-on-Thinking, learning to learn.

An effective 21st century curriculum must be responsive to the learning needs of diverse students living in local communities in a rapidly changing world. The Differentiated Curriculum Model and program is designed to discover and develop the knowledge building potential and domain expertise of all students. The flexibility of the model allows it to be used to meet the learning needs of diverse learners including identified and emerging gifted and talented learners. The model is built upon a framework of the principle “learning to learn”, knowledge building for identified local and community needs, differentiating student learning outcomes, teacher and/or student implementation and alignment with the New Zealand Curriculum.

The Differentiated Curriculum Model meets Van Tassel-Baska and Brown’s operational definition of a curriculum model in gifted education, in that it is a framework for curriculum design and development, transferable and usable in all learning areas of the New Zealand Curriculum, applicable across all age groups from pre-school to upper secondary school, applicable across schools and group settings, and incorporates differentiated features for the gifted and talented learner (Van Tassel-Baska and Brown 2007).

In addition, the elements of the Differentiated Curriculum Model are purposely designed to support inclusive classroom environments through flexible approaches to providing cognitive challenge when differentiating learning outcomes. When learning communities are achievement oriented, differentiation means that even the needs of gifted and talented students can be met in “inclusive and cohesive learning communities” (Riley, Bevan-Brown, Bicknell, Carrol-Lind, & Kearney 2005, p31).

Our experience shows the Differentiated Curriculum Model to be both responsive and effective in primary, intermediate and secondary school settings. It is easily translated by teachers and students into practical programs where there is clear alignment between the model and the learning experiences. Furthermore, programs based upon the model have been easily implemented, allowing teachers to keep a sense of purpose and a sense of humour in inclusive classroom environments.

The Differentiated Curriculum Model values Wiske’s framework for the logic of “teaching for understanding” rather than “teaching for knowing” (Wiske 1998), knowledge building through identifying local and community needs (Bigum 2004), and integrates the Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes (the SOLO Taxonomy) (Biggs and Collis 1982). Designing a curriculum model that values Wiske’s framework encourages the introduction of design elements that explore the following questions:

- What is worthy of understanding?

1. What should students know, understand, and be able to do?
2. How can we enhance understanding?
3. How can we determine what students understand?

The integration of the SOLO Taxonomy throughout the curriculum model helps schools and teachers evaluate the effectiveness of the curriculum model and program on enhancing student learning outcomes in knowledge building.

A beta version of the Differentiated Curriculum Model is being trialled with teachers and students in New Zealand schools. The digital curriculum model and program planner has been developed using C# language and the Microsoft .NET Framework. It includes the design elements described below and digitised HOT language of learning maps and self-assessment rubrics.

The Differentiated Curriculum Model uses SOLO Taxonomy to create a common language of learning when knowledge building.

SOLO Taxonomy provides criteria for assessing the cognitive complexity of students’ understanding when mastering new learning. SOLO is content independent and thus is useful as a generic measure of understanding across different disciplines. Teachers using SOLO criteria can validly and reliably identify ascending cognitive complexity in individual and collective student learning outcomes. For example, the asTTLE assessment tool for teaching and learning used in New Zealand schools is based upon SOLO taxonomy. We use SOLO with teachers and students in both secondary and primary schools to identify the cognitive complexity of a student’s understanding and from this determine their future learning needs. We believe that SOLO can play a pivotal role in teacher and student design of cognitively differentiated learning environments and experiences.

SOLO describes five levels of student understanding when encountering new learning. At the prestructural level of understanding, the task is inappropriately attacked, and the student has missed the point. At the unistructural level, one aspect of the task is picked up, and student understanding is disconnected and limited. At the multistructural level, several aspects of the task are known but their relationships to each other and the whole are missed. At the relational level, the aspects are integrated, and contribute to a coherent understanding of the whole. At the extended abstract level, the new understanding at the relational level is re-thought at another level, and used as the basis for prediction, generalisation, reflection, or creation of new understanding.

SOLO provides a simple systematic way of describing how a learner's performance grows in complexity when mastering any academic task (Biggs 1999, p37). It can be used by educators and students to define curriculum achievement objectives, learning intentions and learning experiences that describe different levels of cognitive complexity, and for evaluating individual and collective student learning outcomes. So with SOLO it is possible for teacher and student to determine the cognitive complexity of individual student understanding and where to target the differentiation of new learning experiences and learning intervention.

SOLO has several advantages over the Bloom’s cognitive taxonomy (Bloom 1965), the traditional taxonomy for differentiating learning experiences for cognitive complexity. One advantage is that SOLO is a theory about teaching and learning rather than a theory about knowledge. A second advantage lies in SOLO’s facility in enabling both student and educator to understand and evaluate learning experiences and learning outcomes in terms of ascending cognitive complexity (Hattie and Brown 2004). Thus, if SOLO is used to design the learning experience and its assessment, then it is possible to design the follow up learning experience at an appropriate level of cognitive complexity in order to challenge yet not overwhelm.

In the Differentiated Curriculum Model we used SOLO Taxonomy to develop a language of learning through visual mapping. We identified the language of learning most commonly used in New Zealand schools by analysing the task descriptors used in Level One NCEA papers. The most commonly occurring terms were developed into the HOT Language of Learning Maps, ten visual maps coded against student learning outcomes in SOLO Taxonomy, with associated SOLO coded self-assessment rubrics (refer Making Learning Visible: HOT Maps and SOLO Taxonomy Slideshow and Table 1).

These HOT Language of Learning maps help students understand the process of (or how to) define, describe, sequence, classify, compare and contrast, causal explanation, part whole analysis, analogy, generalise, predict and evaluate. These maps make the language of learning visible to students whether they are five years old or eighteen years old. For example, the HOT Define Map and self-assessment rubric, in Figure 1, is at SOLO Multistructural level because the process of definition requires students to bring in relevant ideas. The student definition statement formed from the map can itself be coded against SOLO Taxonomy. Definition asks students to sort for relevance and they can do this by listing (SOLO multistructural learning outcome), listing and linking ideas (SOLO relational learning outcome), and by listing, linking and looking at the linked ideas in another way, (SOLO extended abstract learning outcome).

Identifying the cognitive complexity of the learning experience means that teachers can also support the desired learning outcome with specific learning interventions. Thinking interventions can be targeted at different SOLO Taxonomy coded learning outcomes. Examples of SOLO relational level thinking interventions include:

• Mindmaps, Tree Diagrams, Concept maps, Venn diagrams, Double Bubble maps, Matrix diagrams, Force Field Analysis, SWOT analysis, Bridge maps, Continuum lines, Priorities grids, Ranking order, Time lines, Flow charts, Cycles, Story boards, GANTT charts, De Bono’s yellow and black hats, and CoRT thinking Plus, Minus and Interesting. Compare Contrast maps, Classify maps, Part-whole maps, Sequence maps, Cause effect maps, Analogy maps.

In a similar way ICT learning interventions can be aligned with different SOLO Taxonomy coded learning outcomes at an application level or in the way that individual ICT applications are used. Examples of SOLO relational level ICT interventions include: sequencing with MS Photostory 3 and online collaborative timelines like XTimeline, classifying, comparison, causal explanation and analogy which can be supported through concept mapping, graphic organisers, Viewzi (The Timeline visual search engine), CenSEARCH (Censorship search tool comparing search results for topics in different countries), Grokker (search engine that clusters/links related information), Quintura (Visual Search Engine that clusters/classifies/groups and links related topics), Kids Quintura (Visual Search Engine for kids that clusters and links information), simulations, domain specific modelling software, microworlds and spreadsheets.

Link here to learn about teachers' experiences when developing a common language of learning and their students reaction.

The Differentiated Curriculum Model is designed to align with the New Zealand Curriculum vision of “young people who will be confident, connected, actively involved, lifelong learners.” (The New Zealand Curriculum, p7) (refer Appendix 1).

To help young people to become “confident, connected, actively involved, lifelong learners”, the Differentiated Curriculum Model puts the learner at the centre of teaching and learning. The model is designed to respect individual abilities and interests, encourage the individual to identify their own learning needs with support from the institution, and connect students with their local community. This is achieved in practice through flexible provision where content, process, product and learning environment are supported by the educational system but can be determined by the learner. Thus, the Differentiated Curriculum Model program can be used by the teacher and by the student to plan learning experiences and learning interventions that encourage students to become knowledge builders, and to contribute knowledge to their local communities rather than merely to gather knowledge (Bigum 2004). The Differentiated Curriculum Model planning framework makes learning explicit. It is designed to be available online and on classroom walls so that students, their families and the local community can see what they are learning, why they are learning, and how this knowledge building activity aligns to the New Zealand Curriculum. From the ability of schools and communities to identify authentic contexts for learning about concepts, to the differentiation of learning experiences against student learning outcomes (SOLO Taxonomy), all elements in the model enhance the responsiveness to the learner.

A model predicated on responsiveness to the learner by default builds a student sense of self efficacy and engagement in learning. Engagement develops when students see a task as something to be mastered, and can be actively involved in designing and assessing their own learning. Thus, engagement starts when students make decisions about why, what and how they are learning. When students know why and what they are learning, and can also reliably and validly determine how well they are learning, they can also decide what they need to do next. The Differentiated Curriculum Model allows students to do this when students plan their own knowledge building learning experiences using the HOT SOLO coded integrated planning template, and the HOT language of learning and SOLO coded HOT self-assessment rubrics.

The key elements of the model are purposefully designed to provide a practical response to each of principles in the New Zealand Curriculum: placing the learner at the centre of teaching and learning, high expectations, Treaty of Waitangi, cultural diversity, inclusion, learning to learn, community engagement, coherence, and future focus (refer Appendix 2).

Each element in the Differentiated Curriculum Model values responsive learning environments in inclusive classrooms, (refer Figure 2. The curriculum model supports learning across all learning areas and levels of the New Zealand Curriculum. The individual elements help all students including gifted and talented students to learn how to learn, be actively involved in designing and assessing their own learning, experience appropriate cognitive challenge across all learning areas, understand complex issues, integrate information communication technologies (ICTs), and prepare for adulthood in a rapidly changing world.

A concept approach allows students to engage with universals, those timeless, abstract ideas that help develop enduring understandings of complex issues in the past, present and future worlds. Concepts help learners understand complex issues and the Differentiated Curriculum Model supports teachers and students with an extensive library of macro and micro concepts, accessed through a drop down menu, for use during planning. The concepts selected are explored using Wiske’s “What is worth understanding?” questions (Wiske 1998), to develop Key Concept Understandings, generalisations that underpin the concept and help students understand their world. This element also requires the identification of local and community needs and interests, authentic contexts for student learning and knowledge building based upon the concept selected. This element is essential if students are to become knowledge builders and contribute genuinely new knowledge as a result of their learning. These authentic contexts may be aligned to cultural and community understandings and to understanding the disciplines. Thus, the curriculum model requires generalisations formed from the concepts to be developed through a variety of authentic contexts which can then be aligned to many different learning areas, all of which encourage student engagement, knowledge building, and an integrated curriculum approach.

The choice of concepts and contexts in Differentiated Curriculum Model Element 1 address the New Zealand Curriculum Principles of Future focus, Treaty of Waitangi, Cultural diversity, and Community engagement.

Effective curriculum models recognise the importance of a Future focus principle in preparing students for living in a rapidly changing world. One way to prepare for an uncertain future is to explore universals, the constants from our past and in our present which will most likely continue into our future, for example language, communication, culture, superstition, religion, magic, stories, tools, art, play, games, differences/similarities, and pattern recognition. The Differentiated Curriculum Model encourages exploration of universals by identifying concepts against which to align achievement objectives and learning experiences. These authentic contexts enable a future focus, helping students to learn how to think like a novice or problem solve like an expert within a field of knowledge or a discipline.

The Treaty of Waitangi principle of acquiring knowledge of te reo Maori me ona tikanga is facilitated through the HOT concept library with concepts like kaitiakitanga, taonga, Tino rangatiratanga, turangawaewae and whakatauki. The principle of Cultural diversity, the valuing the histories and traditions of all people, is facilitated through the HOT concept library and the creation of authentic contexts for learning against these concepts. The principle of Community engagement, connecting students’ learning experiences with wider lives and engaging the support of their families, whanau, and communities, is accomplished through the provision for authentic contexts for learning in the Differentiated Curriculum Model.

Screen shot Element 1: Concepts and contexts

Link here_Element_1 to learn about about teachers' experiences with concepts and contexts.

The Differentiated Curriculum Model is aligned to the New Zealand Curriculum Learning areas, Essence statements, and Achievement Objectives. This element ensures that student learning experiences align to disciplinary knowledge and skills across all learning areas in the New Zealand Curriculum that will provide the key ideas, processes to help build coherent understanding of the concept and authentic contexts identified in Element 1. We note that this element by focussing on the essential disciplinary understandings could be replaced by the national content standards from any national curriculum.

This element addresses the New Zealand Curriculum Principles of Coherence and High Expectations. If students are to achieve personal excellence and experience challenge when learning, their learning experiences need to recognise prior learning and integrate the appropriate integrated multilevel achievement objectives from The New Zealand Curriculum. The database in the Differentiated Curriculum Model digital planner enables the appropriate achievement objectives for principles of coherence and high expectations to be flexibly and effortlessly selected from across all learning areas and levels in The New Zealand Curriculum. In addition, the alignment of achievement objectives to authentic contexts and concepts ensures the principles of Future Focus, Treaty of Waitangi, Cultural diversity and Community engagement continue to be supported.

Screen shot Element 2

Link here_Element_2 to learn about teachers' experiences with NZC learning areas and achievement objectives.

Element 3 identifies specific learning intentions for learning outcomes that support the New Zealand Curriculum learning areas and achievement objectives selected previously in Elements 2. The learning intentions are written against the different achievement objectives using the HOT language of learning developed from SOLO Taxonomy. This helps ensure that all students’ learning needs are considered, there are scaffolds for deep learning outcomes, and that students can more clearly understand the learning process.

This element, where cognitively differentiated SOLO coded learning intentions are aligned to diverse achievement objects and authentic contexts and concepts, helps the Differentiated Curriculum Model meet the New Zealand Curriculum Principle expectations of Inclusion, in that it frames learning intentions to address all students’ learning needs.

Scaffolding learning intentions against SOLO Taxonomy for deep learning outcomes meets expectations within The New Zealand Curriculum Principle of High expectations. Students are unlikely to achieve personal excellence or experience challenge when learning if this has not been purposively designed for in the learning intentions. Introducing a common language of learning based upon the SOLO Taxonomy meets expectations within the New Zealand Curriculum Principle of Learning to Learn. When common classroom practice is aligned to differentiated learning outcomes (SOLO Taxonomy), and this includes learning intentions, learning experiences, and assessment for learning, then students can know themselves as learners. When students know themselves as learners they are more likely to experience engagement while learning.

Screenshot Element 3

Link here_Element_3 to learn about teachers' experiences with learning intentions.

This element clarifies the focus of student learning for both teachers and students. The driving question is built from the key student understanding and is a catch all question or statement that is the focus for the learning and develops the key student understanding. This driving question is unpacked into three subsidiary questions that all students are expected to be able to answer at the end of the learning program.

Identifying the driving question and subsidiary questions helps focus students and teachers when they are designing learning experiences to support the program. The subsidiary questions are built with a drop down menu framed against the HOT Language of Learning. This ensures that the questions are designed against SOLO Taxonomy multistructural, relational and extended abstract learning outcomes. This element values the New Zealand Curriculum Principles of High Expectations, Coherence and Learn to Learn.

Screenshot Element 4

Link here_Element_4 to learn about teachers' experiences with the driving question and three subsidiary questions.

This involves introducing questions that explore other points of view, perspectives, differences, alternatives, controversies, disputes, helps students interrogate complexity and ambiguity. The “What if Questions” element requires teachers to generate “What if questions” aligned to an identified achievement objective and level from the New Zealand Curriculum. These questions become a teaching and learning resource for home school partnerships, causal explanation and P4C community of enquiry. This element introduces surprise, fun and unexpected disconcerting insights and whimsical ways of knowing, whilst still valuing The New Zealand Curriculum Principles of High Expectations, Coherence and Learn to Learn.

Screenshot Element 5

Link here_Element_5 to learn about teachers' experiences with what if questions.

The New Zealand Curriculum Values …

Screenshot Element 6a

The New Zealand Curriculum Key Competencies are “capabilities for living and lifelong learning” (The New Zealand Curriculum 2006, p14). This element encourages the thoughtful integration of these key competencies in the authentic contexts and achievement objectives selected to explore the concept. The Differentiated Curriculum Model digital planner enables teachers and or students to flexibly select components of each Key Competency that can be challenged and developed in the authentic context of the learning experiences planned for students. Each component is linked through the HOT digital planner to a SOLO coded, self-assessment rubric that is multi-levelled for student use. This element values The New Zealand Curriculum Principle of Learn to Learn.

Screenshot Element 6b

Link here_Element_6 to learn about teachers' experiences with the NZC key competencies.

For a student to learn how to learn they must be able to answer:

1. How do I know I am learning?
2. How do I know how well I am learning?
3. How do I know what to do next in my learning?

The Differentiated Curriculum Model helps students learn how to learn through:

1. A common understanding of the learning process based upon differentiated learning outcomes (SOLO Taxonomy) and the New Zealand Curriculum Key Competencies.
2. A common language of learning aligned to differentiated learning outcomes (SOLO Taxonomy).
3. Common learning interventions (ICT and Thinking) aligned to differentiated learning outcomes (SOLO Taxonomy).
4. Common classroom practice aligned to differentiated learning outcomes (SOLO Taxonomy). This includes learning experiences, learning intentions, and assessment for learning.

This element in the Differentiated Curriculum Model introduces a common language of learning through HOT Visual Maps and self-assessment rubrics coded against SOLO Taxonomy. This Differentiated Curriculum Model element meets the expectations in the New Zealand Curriculum principle Learn to learn.

Screenshot Element 7

Link here_Element_7 to learn about teachers' experiences with the language of learning, HOT visual mapping and assessment rubrics.

This element introduces differentiation of learning experiences, adds both choice and challenge, to the curriculum model. Meeting the learning needs of diverse learners through the qualitative differentiation of learning experiences requires teachers to: Assess the individual learning needs of all students; and Design learning experiences to accommodate the learning differences and individual needs identified.

The teachers we work with are often overwhelmed by the expectation that they must qualitatively differentiate the learning experiences of every student they teach. In strictly timetabled secondary schools, where classes change on the hour, this represents differentiating the learning experiences of over 150 students each day. Those who remain undaunted and are determined to find ways to differentiate learning experiences for their students are often disappointed by the lack of practical advice on the “how to” of differentiation. They complain that reference to a “checkbox audit” (Taylor 2001), bullet pointed “should be exhortations” for content, process and product (Riley et al 2005, p33), or a “fill in the gap”, core and complex, differentiated planning templates based on Bloom’s taxonomy (Roberts, & Roberts, (2001) and Riley (2000)), are limited in their practical applicability to inclusive learning environments, and ignore the challenge and possibilities expected for integrating information communications technology (ICT) in the Ministry of Education Digital Horizons, ICT Strategy document, (Ministry of Education 2003).

Element 8 asks teachers and students to plan learning experiences against multistructural, relational and extended abstract learning outcomes. This requires them to design teaching and learning experiences and learning interventions to help students, bring in ideas knowledge and skills needed for SOLO Taxonomy unistructural and multistructural learning outcomes, link these ideas knowledge and skills needed for SOLO Taxonomy relational learning outcomes, and look at these linked ideas in a new way needed for SOLO Taxonomy extended abstract learning outcomes.

At each SOLO coded learning outcome teachers and or students also identify thinking interventions and ICT interventions to support the learning outcome. Coding learning experiences and learning interventions against SOLO taxonomy in this way ensures that the qualitative understanding of students is recognised across all levels of ascending cognitive complexity, aligning with the New Zealand Curriculum Principles High Expectations and Coherence. Coding also allows teachers to identify thinking interventions and ICTs that target individual student learning needs, and students to understand where they are in the learning process, and the interventions that will help them gain a deeper understanding, aligning with The New Zealand Curriculum Principle Learn to Learn. The performance for understanding is aligned to learning experiences identified for assessment for learning.

Screenshot Element 8: Multistructural

Screenshot Element 8: Relational

Screenshot Element 8: Extended abstract

Link here_Element_8 to learn about teachers' experiences with learning experiences and learning interventions

This element supports The New Zealand Curriculum Principle Learn to Learn and High Expectations. It recognises Fraser’s call for sharing power in differentiated learning environments where teachers: have to take cognisance of their students’ concerns, questions, and prior knowledge. This could mean abandoning some of their own ideas. In sharing power, teachers are in fact thrust into the role of researchers, and investigators, alongside their students (Fraser, 2000, p. 35).

In New Zealand schools a solution to calls for “power sharing” and students as researchers and creators of local knowledge is the adoption of constructivist pedagogies such as “inquiry” learning and knowledge building. These pedagogies are believed to provide a manageable pedagogical approach to differentiating learning experiences to meet the learning needs of individual students in inclusive classrooms when they are knowledge building.

It can be challenging to support students’ “concerns, questions, and prior knowledge” when they make sense of their world through self directed collaborative research and knowledge building activity. Students need help to think like a historian when researching their local community, to survey local commuters like a town planner when investigating public transport, to broadcast like a journalist when reporting on a local weather bomb, or to design experiments like an environmental scientist when mapping a local stream. This element is designed to help teachers and students to identify who is able to work independently at different stages on the research/inquiry process once the deliberate acts of teaching have taken place. It challenges us to determine novice to expert levels of practitioner expertise in the domain. By default this also identifies those students who will need support to think like an expert in the domain, those who need help to formulate a question, locate relevant information and data, collate data, analyse and create new knowledge, and present new knowledge and understanding (refer Table 2).

Screenshot Element 9

Link here_Element_9 to learn about teachers' experiences with level of student autonomy.

The Differentiated Curriculum Model and program is both responsive and comprehensive. The design of the elements in the model allows New Zealand schools to discover and develop student learning and knowledge building across local and community contexts in all learning areas and levels of the New Zealand Curriculum. In addition, the elements in the Differentiated Curriculum Model align with all the principles in the New Zealand Curriculum.

The Differentiated Curriculum Model aligns concepts and key student understanding with authentic contexts for knowledge building, authentic contexts with achievement objectives from The New Zealand Curriculum, achievement objectives with learning intentions coded against SOLO Taxonomy, learning intentions with the driving question and thee subsidiary questions, three subsidiary questions with SOLO Taxonomy and What if questions. All of the previous elements are aligned with the New Zealand Curriculum Key Competencies and used to develop SOLO Taxonomy differentiated learning experiences and learning interventions (Thinking and ICTs).

Anecdotal reports suggest that when both students and teachers are clear about the practical implementation of a language of learning, the cognitive complexity of learning outcomes and the New Zealand Curriculum principles, through the Differentiated Curriculum Model, the design and structure of content differentiated learning experiences is made much easier and student learning outcomes are at a deeper level of abstraction. Digitising The Differentiated Curriculum Model has increased the ease of the implementation process in schools.

The causal linking of a curriculum model to enhanced learning outcomes is difficult to substantiate with valid and reliable research. How can we determine whether our National curriculum reform practice is any better than our previous practice? How can we determine whether the Differentiated Curriculum Model and program is effective in improving student learning outcomes? Perhaps a better question to ask is, how do communities interact with schools when their students become knowledge builders in the local community? Or, how do students see themselves differently when they become creators of new knowledge for their community? What is needed are longitudinal studies to assess the effectiveness and community influence of the different curriculum models used in New Zealand schools in meeting the learning needs of diverse students living in local communities in a rapidly changing world.

Appendix 1

Appendix 2

• Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Buckingham Open University Press, Buckingham.
• Biggs, J. & Collis, K. (1982). Evaluating the Quality of Learning: the SOLO taxonomy New York: Academic Press.
• Bigum, C. (2004) Rethinking schools and community: the knowledge producing school, Using community informatics to transform regions, pp. 52-66, Idea Group, Hershey, PA
• Bloom, B.S. (1965). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Longman, London.
• Fraser, D. (2000). Curriculum integration: What it is and is not. Set: Research Information for Teachers, 3, 34-37.
• Hattie, J.A.C., & Brown, G.T.L. (2004). Cognitive processes in asTTle: The SOLO taxonomy. asTTle Technical Report #43, University of Auckland/Ministry of Education.
• Ministry of Education. (2003). ICT strategy document - Digital Horizons. Learning through ICT. A strategy for school, 2002-2004. Revised Edition. Wellington: Learning Media.
• Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand Curriculum for English-medium teaching and learning in years 1–13 Wellington: Learning Media.
• Riley, T., J. Bevan-Brown, B. Bicknell, J. Carrol-Lind, & A. Kearney. (2004). The Extent, Nature and Effectiveness of Planned Approaches in New Zealand School for Providing for Gifted and Talented Students. Report to the Ministry of Education, New Zealand.
• Roberts, J.L., & Roberts, R.A. (2001). Writing units that remove the learning ceiling. In F.A.Karnes & S.M. Bean (Eds), Methods and materials for teaching the gifted (pp. 213-252). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
• Taylor, S. (2001). Gifted and talented children. A planning guide. Christchurch: User Friendly Resources, Ltd.
• Van Tassel-Baska, J., & Brown, E. F. (2007). Toward Best Practice: An Analysis of the Efficacy of Curriculum Models in Gifted Education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51; 342-358.
• Wiske, M. S. (1998). What is teaching for understanding? In Teaching for understanding. Linking research with practice. pp.61 – 86. Ed. Wiske, M.S. Jossey-Bass.