Integrated Curriculum Model
Developed by:
Dr. Joyce VanTassel-Baska
Theoretical Underpinnings:
The ICM derives its theoretical underpinnings primarily form the work of Vygotsky’s theory of zone of proximal development
(1978) andAdler’s rich of rich content to the model (1984).
Brief description of the model and/or its philosophy:
Three interacting and overarching dimensions underlay the ICM. These are advanced content dimension, overarching concepts/issues/themes dimension, and process-product dimension. Within the Advanced Content Dimension, gifted students are pre-assessed on their level of proficiency in a specific content area using the diagnostic-perspective instructional approach. Upon pre-assessment, students may continue to proceed move through the curriculum through acceleration, curriculum compacting, or advanced content material. Within the process-product dimension, gifted students are supported in the acquisition of essential thinking, problem-solving, and problem-finding skills. Within the overarching concepts/issues/themes dimension, the ICM
makes connections between disciplines through bridging overarching themes or concepts such as change to further enhance students’learning.
Key elements,components, and/or non-negotiables:
The dimensions are expressed in several curriculum units created by College of William and Mary. These units focus on Language Arts, Sciences and Social Sciences. Within each unit, specific teaching strategies are incorporated to fully demonstrate the model.
Non-negotiables for teachers to know about the student –acknowledging the gifted learners’ precocity, intensity, and need for
complexity. Non-negotiables for teacher training – sensitivity to the nature andneeds of such students.
Intended applicationsfor the model (enrichment, pull-out, whole school,classroom, etc.):
Classroom
Intended Audiences:
Elementary, middle, and high schools and teachers
Relative strength and weaknesses:
Strengths
– Availability of prescriptive curriculum; Empirical evidence support validity of units.
Weakness
– Need to buy units; training need to ensure fidelity.
Resources required:
Curriculum units
Dr. Joyce VanTassel-Baska
Theoretical Underpinnings:
The ICM derives its theoretical underpinnings primarily form the work of Vygotsky’s theory of zone of proximal development
(1978) andAdler’s rich of rich content to the model (1984).
Brief description of the model and/or its philosophy:
Three interacting and overarching dimensions underlay the ICM. These are advanced content dimension, overarching concepts/issues/themes dimension, and process-product dimension. Within the Advanced Content Dimension, gifted students are pre-assessed on their level of proficiency in a specific content area using the diagnostic-perspective instructional approach. Upon pre-assessment, students may continue to proceed move through the curriculum through acceleration, curriculum compacting, or advanced content material. Within the process-product dimension, gifted students are supported in the acquisition of essential thinking, problem-solving, and problem-finding skills. Within the overarching concepts/issues/themes dimension, the ICM
makes connections between disciplines through bridging overarching themes or concepts such as change to further enhance students’learning.
Key elements,components, and/or non-negotiables:
The dimensions are expressed in several curriculum units created by College of William and Mary. These units focus on Language Arts, Sciences and Social Sciences. Within each unit, specific teaching strategies are incorporated to fully demonstrate the model.
Non-negotiables for teachers to know about the student –acknowledging the gifted learners’ precocity, intensity, and need for
complexity. Non-negotiables for teacher training – sensitivity to the nature andneeds of such students.
Intended applicationsfor the model (enrichment, pull-out, whole school,classroom, etc.):
Classroom
Intended Audiences:
Elementary, middle, and high schools and teachers
Relative strength and weaknesses:
Strengths
– Availability of prescriptive curriculum; Empirical evidence support validity of units.
Weakness
– Need to buy units; training need to ensure fidelity.
Resources required:
Curriculum units