University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A curriculum to teach innovation in K-4 gifted classrooms

(USC Thesis Other)

A curriculum to teach innovation in K-4 gifted classrooms

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content A Curriculum to Teach Innovation in K–4 Gifted Classrooms
by
Charlotte Gjedsted
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May 2024

© Copyright by Charlotte Gjedsted 2024
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Charlotte Gjedsted certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Sandra Kaplan
Jessica Manzone
Kenneth Yates, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024

iv
Abstract
The STEM (Science-Technology-Engineering-Math) field has gained increasing popularity in
education and relevance for future careers (Hallinen, 2023) such that technology and computers
are essential to almost all career paths (Slagg, 2022). In the context of gifted learners, the STEMrelated curricula in elementary school can be expansive for creative and divergent thinking and
provide opportunities to make interdisciplinary connections, access to authentic problems to
solve, and potential to provide depth and complexity (Hockett & Brighton, 2021). This
curriculum addresses a gap in academic programming at a small, K–8 independent school for
gifted students in Los Angeles. Specifically, the focus of the curriculum is innovation, or creative
problem solving in technology-rich environments. Gifted students often require challenging and
interest-based activities rooted in real-world problems. Computer science and innovation provide
outlets for these approaches and can incorporate best practices of gifted pedagogy, including
inquiry, creative problem-solving, and complex ideas. The purpose of this curriculum is to teach
elementary students who identify as gifted learners how to use a creative problem-solving
process to solve STEAM-related problems, specifically focusing on computer-based problems. It
is influenced by social cognitive theory, self-determination theory, the 4-phase model of interest
development, and the school-enrichment model theory for gifted learners. The curriculum is
designed for K–4 students and takes place over a school year, with 45 minute lessons and 50
lessons total. It incorporates modules on program development, artificial intelligence, robotics,
machines, and digital citizenship. Students are guided through the four step problem-solving
process is a throughline throughout each module, including problem representation, solution
planning, solution implementation, and solution evaluation. Course learning outcomes are
influenced by Bloom’s taxonomy of learning and Gagne’s learning outcomes. After successful

v
completion of this curriculum, students will be able to apply a systematic problem-solving
process to STEM-related problems across different thematic modules.
Keywords: gifted education, gifted students, STEM, elementary school, computer
science.

vi
Acknowledgments
I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my committee chair, Dr. Yates, for his tireless
support and immediate feedback on my revisions. Thank you for not giving up on me when I
decided to start over halfway through and always helping me get out of spinning my wheels.
This endeavor would not have been possible without my committee members, Dr. Jessica
Manzone and Dr. Sandra Kaplan, whose knowledge and expertise much improved this
dissertation. Thank you for your time and attention throughout this process: the quality of the
work much improved with your insights. Many thanks to my cohort and classmates for their
emotional support. Without this social network, I would have given up several times over.
Finally, I could not have undertaken this journey without the support of my family, including my
mother, who provided financial support and moral support. Words cannot express my gratitude
to my husband, Ben, who has been my cheerleader, my therapist, and my rock. Thank you for
making sure the dog got walked, we got fed, and I stayed sane.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. xi
List of Figures...............................................................................................................................xii
Overview of the Project and Needs Assessment............................................................................. 1
Problem of Practice......................................................................................................................... 4
Evidence for the Problem of Practice ............................................................................................. 7
Importance of Solving the Problem................................................................................................ 9
Instructional Needs Assessment ................................................................................................... 10
The Learning Environment........................................................................................................... 14
Potential Issues with Power, Equity, and Inclusion...................................................................... 16
About the Author .......................................................................................................................... 17
Definition of Terms....................................................................................................................... 19
Literature Review.......................................................................................................................... 24
Prior Attempts............................................................................................................................... 25
The Content of the Curriculum..................................................................................................... 28
Cognitive Task Analysis................................................................................................... 29
Identify and Define the Problem (Problem Representation)............................................. 32
Apply Models and Interpret Relevant Information (Problem Representation) ................ 34
Employ Computational Thinking to Decompose the Problem into Smaller Subproblems
(Problem Representation) ................................................................................................. 35
Design Solutions (Solution Plan)...................................................................................... 36
Evaluate, Reflect, and Communicate the Outcomes (Solution Implementation and
Evaluation)........................................................................................................................ 37
Summary of the K–4 Curriculum Content.................................................................................... 38

viii
K–4 Curriculum Learning Goals ...................................................................................... 39
K–4 Curriculum Learning Outcomes................................................................................ 40
The Learning Environment and the Learners ............................................................................... 48
Description of the Learning Environment .................................................................................... 49
Teacher/Trainers/Facilitator Characteristics..................................................................... 50
Existing Curricula/Programs............................................................................................. 50
Available Equipment and Technology.............................................................................. 51
Classroom Facilities and Learning Climate...................................................................... 51
Description of the Learners........................................................................................................... 52
Cognitive Characteristics.................................................................................................. 52
Prior Knowledge ............................................................................................................... 53
Physiological Characteristics............................................................................................ 53
Motivation Characteristics................................................................................................ 54
Social Characteristics........................................................................................................ 54
Implications for Design................................................................................................................. 54
The K–4 Curriculum..................................................................................................................... 55
Terminal and Enabling Objectives for K-4 Problem Solving....................................................... 58
Overview of the Curriculum......................................................................................................... 69
Visual Overview of the Units for Grades K–4.............................................................................. 70
Scope and Sequence Table............................................................................................................ 71
Delivery Media Selection ............................................................................................................. 80
General Instructional Platform Selection in Terms of Affordances ............................................. 82
Access............................................................................................................................... 83
Consistency....................................................................................................................... 84
Cost ................................................................................................................................... 85

ix
Specific Instructional Platform Selection in Terms of Restrictions.............................................. 86
Client Preferences or Specific Conditions of the Learning Environment..................................... 87
Specific Media Choices ................................................................................................................ 88
General Instructional Methods Approach..................................................................................... 88
Social Cognitive Theory ................................................................................................... 89
Self-Determination Theory ............................................................................................... 89
Interest Development........................................................................................................ 90
Giftedness ......................................................................................................................... 90
Implementation Plan ..................................................................................................................... 92
Evaluation Plan ............................................................................................................................. 93
Evaluation Framework...................................................................................................... 93
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators........................................................................... 94
Level 3: Behavior.............................................................................................................. 95
Level 2: Learning.............................................................................................................. 96
Level 1: Reaction .............................................................................................................. 97
Evaluation Tools............................................................................................................... 98
Data Analysis and Reporting ............................................................................................ 99
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 101
References................................................................................................................................... 102
Appendix A: Course Overview and Learning Activities Table for Second Grade..................... 103
Appendix B: Unit and Lesson Overview for Second Grade....................................................... 104
Unit 1: Past, Present, and Future: A Study of Evolving Technology ............................. 106
Unit 2: Storytelling Through Games............................................................................... 107
Unit 3: Functional Designs in Nature ............................................................................. 109
Summative Assessment .................................................................................................. 111

x
Appendix C: Unit 1 Lesson 1 Lesson Activities, Design, and Materials ................................... 112
Unit 1: Past, Present, and Future: A Study of Evolving Technology ............................. 115
Learning Objectives........................................................................................................ 115
Summative Assessment .............................................................................................................. 116
Lesson Materials............................................................................................................. 117
Learner Characteristic Accommodations........................................................................ 120
Facilitator’s Notes........................................................................................................... 124
Instructional Strategies.................................................................................................... 125
Learning Activities Table ............................................................................................... 138
Lesson Slides .................................................................................................................. 140
Appendix D: Evaluation Instrument Immediately Following the Program Implementation ..... 143
Item 1, Level 1 and 2 Evaluation Tool ........................................................................... 146
Item 2, Level 1 and Level 2 Evaluation Tool Open-Ended Question............................. 148
Item 3, Level 3 and Level 4 Student-Centered Evaluation Tool .................................... 150
Item 4, Level 3 and Level 4 Student-Centered Evaluation Tool Open-Ended
Questions......................................................................................................................... 153
Item 5, Level 3 and 4 Parent Survey Evaluation Tool.................................................... 158
Item 6, Level 3 and Level 4 Faculty Evaluation Tool .................................................... 160

xi
List of Tables
Table 1: K–4 Curriculum Unit Overview 71
Table 2: Scope and Sequence of Standards and Course Modules 82
Table 3: Scope and Sequence of Kindergarten Curriculum 83
Table 4: Scope and Sequence of First-Grade Curriculum 84
Table 5: Scope and Sequence of Second-Grade Curriculum 85
Table 6: Scope and Sequence of Third-Grade Curriculum 86
Table 7: Scope and Sequence of Fourth-Grade Curriculum 87
Table 8: Key Considerations for Media Selection 92
Table 9: Media Choices in Innovation in Elementary Gifted Education 94
Table 10: Indicators, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 106
Table 11: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 109
Table 12: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 111
Table 13: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program 115
Table 14: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program. 116
Table A1: Second Grade Course Overview With Units and Lesson Outline 140
Table A2: Second Grade Course Learning Activities 143
Table B1: Second Grade Unit 1 Terminal Learning Objectives and Standards Overview 150
Table B2: Second Grade Unit 1 Content Skills and Lesson Outline 153
Table B3: Second Grade Unit 2 Terminal Learning Objectives and Standards Overview 160
Table B4: Second Grade Unit 2 Content Skills and Lessons Overview 163
Table B5: Second Grade Unit 3 Terminal Learning Objectives and Standards Overview 170
Table B6: Second Grade Unit 3 Content Skills and Lessons Overview 172
Table C1: Learning Activities for Unit 1 Lesson 1 184

xii
List of Figures
Figure 1: K–4 Curriculum Graphic Organizer 57
Figure 2: Visual Overview of Units for Kindergarten’s Innovation and Technology
Curriculum 75
Figure 3: Visual Overview of Units for 1st Grade’s Innovation and Technology Curriculum 76
Figure 4: Visual Overview of Units for 2nd Grade’s Innovation and Technology Curriculum 77
Figure 5: Visual Overview of Units for 3rd Grade’s Innovation and Technology Curriculum 78
Figure 6: Visual Overview of Units for 4th Grade’s Innovation and Technology Curriculum 79
Figure 7: Parent Satisfaction Data Representation 121
Figure 8: Student Testimonials of Interest Development and Problem-Solving Application
Data Visualization 123
Figure A1: Visual Overview of Second Grade Course 145
Figure D1: Items for the Immediate Evaluation Following the Program 209

1
Overview of the Project and Needs Assessment
The vision of education is to provide all learners with the tools they need to succeed in
school and beyond. At the same time, many general education classrooms focus on an imagined
average student, and for those students who learn differently, a specialized academic program or
support is required to ensure that students are provided tools to succeed. For example, many
specialized programs exist to support neurodiverse students in generalized education settings.
This curriculum focuses specifically on students in gifted and talented settings. Experts define
giftedness and gifted behaviors as a dynamic, developmental interaction between certain people,
in certain circumstances, at certain times (A. M. Housand et al., 2017, p. 40). The National
Association for Gifted Children (n.d.) defines gifted learners as students who demonstrate high
aptitude and perform in one or more domains at higher levels than their peers of the same age.
Furthermore, giftedness is developmental, and gifted behaviors include qualitatively different
demonstrations of cognitive abilities, personality traits, experiences, and/or affective
characteristics (Clark, 2002; Renzulli, 1978, 1996; Treffinger et al., 2002, as cited in A. M.
Housand et al., 2017, p. 39) from same-age peers.
In any equity-focused classroom setting, teachers are tasked with meeting the needs of all
learners, regardless of ability. In gifted settings, teachers are obligated to meet the needs of these
high-ability, high-potential learners or they risk disengagement, boredom, and decline in
achievement for those learners. While the needs for high-ability, high-potential, and gifted
students are unique, quality curriculum benefits all students. Therefore, simply augmenting or
adding onto low-quality curriculum is a disservice to all learners, not just gifted learners
(Hockett & Brighton, 2021). While gifted learners do have specific needs, a core underlying
theme within the education system is the need to utilize high-quality curriculum for all. Gifted

2
and talented curricula must cater to interest, creativity, autonomy, and challenge in a far more
intensive way than general education (National Association for Gifted Children, n.d.).
Furthermore, best practices in curriculum development are that the content is student-centered
(A. M. Housand et al., 2017, p. 44), meaning curriculum content is relevant to students,
collaborative, related to global issues and real-world problems, and guided by the conventions
and habits of mind of a specific discipline (Hockett, 2009; Kaplan, 1986; Renzulli et al., 2000;
Renzulli & Reis, 2014; Tomlinson et al., 2009; VanTassel-Baska, 2011, as cited in A. M.
Housand et al., 2017).
This poses a problem for teachers who may not be prepared or properly trained in how to
create differentiated experiences for each child (E. Brown, 2021), specifically in classrooms with
a range of neurodiversity. While teachers may receive training on differentiation for students
with disabilities, these strategies are not designed to meet the needs of high-ability or gifted
students in their classrooms (E. Brown, 2021; National Association for Gifted Children, n.d.).
Gifted behaviors will not manifest in environments that lack opportunity, resources, and
curriculum content that sparks interest and curiosity (A. M. Housand et al., 2017). A lack of
differentiation and rigorous curricula for high-ability learners causes underachievement.
Additionally, because students’ needs might not be met in general education classrooms, talent
may be lost and potential may wither (E. Brown, 2021; Matthews, 2009). Current research
suggests that up to 60% of gifted students are not reaching their potential in their current
education environment (Ronksley-Pavia & Neumann, 2020), and, though it’s hard to measure
exactly, gifted students may comprise at least 5% of high school dropouts in the United States
(Matthews, 2009).

3
Curriculum centered on core concepts and delivered with authentic materials and
methods (Hockett & Brighton, 2021) can nurture expertise and talent. One potential avenue to
support learners is focusing on STEAM-integration (Science-Technology-Engineering-ArtsMath). For the context of this curriculum, STEAM integration is defined as “the approach to
teaching STEAM content of two or more STEAM domains, bound by STEAM practices within
an authentic context for connecting those two subjects to enhance student learning” (Kelley &
Knowles, 2016, p. 3). Since the early 2000s, the STEAM (Science-Technology-EngineeringArts-Math) field has gained increasing popularity in education and relevance for future careers
(Hallinen, 2023). Underperformance on science tests and an increase in jobs that require STEM
knowledge had led to the educational field focusing on competencies and standards for an
integrative STEM curriculum in K–12 (Hallinen, 2023). For gifted students, a high-quality
STEM curriculum is a component of best practices for gifted pedagogy because it includes
opportunities to make interdisciplinary connections, access to authentic, real-world problems
(Clark et al., 2010), and the potential to provide depth and complexity (Hockett & Brighton,
2021). Using authentic tools, such as computers, 3D printers, and other hands-on materials is an
excellent medium for gifted students to explore interest-based learning, to creatively express
themselves, and to develop leadership capacity (A. M. Housand, 2016), as well as an outlet for
talent development and independent research and self-study. When aspects of technology, such
as the ability to leverage the internet for learning and research (A. M. Housand et al., 2017), are
effectively integrated into gifted education, it leads to greater learning outcomes (Periathiruvadi
& Rinn, 2012) and is correlated with higher critical thinking and socioemotional development
(Periathiruvadi & Rinn, 2012). Therefore, the learning environment should provide access to
hardware, software, and skills and attitudes development around technology use.

4
However, a high quality curriculum that utilizes elements of STEAM-integration is rare
because of the relatively recent development of STEAM-integration in the context of K–12
education (Hu & Guo, 2021). And, a cornerstone of high-quality curriculum development and
differentiation is effective teacher training and subject matter expertise (Hockett & Brighton,
2021). Unfortunately, many teachers still grapple with technology integration in the classroom
(Hughes, 2005) and differentiation for neurodiverse students (Hockett & Brighton, 2021).
Furthermore, professional development for STEAM-integration is difficult to do well
consistently (Little & Housand, 2011) for a variety of reasons, including funding, resources, and
time (Little & Housand, 2011). However, research, training, and implementation of high-quality
STEAM-integration in all learning environments, but specifically gifted and talented learning
environments, is a worthwhile endeavor for the potential student learning outcomes it affords,
including increasing access and opportunity.
Problem of Practice
Stiller Academy (a pseudonym; SA) is a private, K–8 school nestled in the hills of Los
Angeles, with approximately 500 students. The school provides a specialized education program
and seeks to nurture the talents and potentials of gifted students. SA only admits highly gifted
children, and all students at SA were determined to meet certain criteria for being highly gifted.
In its strategic plan for 2022-2025, SA has committed to creating an integrated gifted curriculum
that includes socioemotional learning, assessment, and tiered support across subject areas. The
strategic plan is expansive and includes developing sophisticated programs for the students,
faculty, staff, and parents. In alignment with its goal to provide access to sophisticated programs
for gifted students and their faculty and staff, SA is enhancing their STEAM programs by
providing technology and innovation specialist classes in the elementary school. This course

5
defined technology as computer science, as well as machinery and equipment used in STEAMrelated industry. Furthermore, the class will focus on engineering skills and mindsets under the
umbrella of technology. In the context of this class, innovation is defined as a design process
focused on projects with a greater purpose. To review, this curriculum defines STEAM
integration as “the approach to teaching STEAM content of two or more STEAM domains,
bound by STEAM practices within an authentic context for connecting those two subjects to
enhance student learning” (Kelley & Knowles, 2016, p. 3). Thus, this course includes two
components of the STEAM domains: technology and engineering. This class will provide
content, skills, and hands-on activities relevant to the STEAM field for elementary students, and
a specific space is outfitted to support a variety of different tools and lesson structures.
In addition to creating a stand-alone lower school specialist class, the school is working
to map different opportunities for STEAM-integrations into homeroom and other specialist
classes along a K–8 scope and sequence, as well as opportunities for faculty development within
the technology and design field. Philosophically, SA adheres to certain approaches to learning,
primarily utilizing design thinking (IDEO, n.d.) and Project-Based Learning (The Buck Institute
for Education, n.d.) for the innovation classes across K–8. These approaches ask students to
examine real-world problems and begin to ideate and prototype solutions. Curriculum must be
rooted in best practices for these approaches, including adequate scaffolding of project
management skills, identifying real-world problems, developing empathy for others, exploring
creative solutions, and iterating products. Despite that the entire student population meets the
criteria for giftedness, the course must include tiered differentiation options for all students. The
head of lower school and the head of middle school, as well as the faculty, the associate

6
technology teacher, and the director of curriculum and instruction are all stakeholders in meeting
this goal.
The school leadership admits to feeling they have fallen behind when it comes to
innovation and technology, and as a result, the administration wants to put into place systems,
practices, and a curriculum to support forward momentum. The school recognizes the
opportunities STEAM provides to build interest and access for their learners. Though a faculty
member is teaching a technology and innovation class in the middle school, the lower school
position has been unfilled for several years. While SA used to have a technology teacher on staff,
this individual was removed before COVID-19 because the administration did not feel that
person was adequately addressing the needs of the gifted students. As a replacement, SA
implemented a STEAM-coordinator who pushed into classes for specific projects and focused
mainly on the design process. Shortly after, the mandate for online learning during the COVID19 pandemic further set SA back on progress towards innovation and technology. As such, the
specialist position remained unfilled while classroom teachers and STEAM-coordinator took on
the responsibility for integrating technology and technical skills. This history means there is little
consistency in student skills with technology or STEAM-integration across K–8, nor is there a
clearoutline of technology and innovation skills across grade levels.
Therefore, to address the lack of consistency of concept and skill development between
elementary and middle school, SA has developed and hired for a lower school position that
marries technology, innovation, and curriculum development. In addition to creating a highquality curriculum focusing on technology, engineering, and design practices, the administration
has assigned this position to make explicit the integration of technology across grade levels,
teach innovative technology classes for lower school students, and support faculty across subject

7
areas by providing workshops and training on integrative STEAM concepts and exposure to
different technology mediums for integration. This curriculum covers the lower school
technology and innovation courses required as a part of this job. The technology and innovation
curriculum will be taught as a stand-alone class, though it will reference concepts introduced
across disciplines as the grade-level to increase relevance and depth (Hockett & Brighton, 2021).
Stiller Academy’s mission is to develop lifelong learners who operate at their fullest
potential and realize their talents as gifted learners. As stated in the Overview of the Problem
above, technology and innovation can provide gifted learners with the opportunity to practice
creativity, collaboration, and critical thinking skills. Therefore, the development of curriculum
that supports technology and innovation skill development will help SA meet their mission and
goal as a specialized education program. This K–4 curriculum will provide students with
adequate opportunities to engage with authentic problems and conventions of technology and
engineering disciplines in a collaborative and relevant way, as well as apply a real-world process
to solve authentic problems. Additionally, this curriculum strives to meet the best practices of
curriculum design for gifted learners by including depth and complexity, inquiry and open-ended
problem-solving, opportunities for independent study, and integrated or thematic projects. This is
a stand-alone specialist class that students rotate through. However, the scope and sequence and
the introduction of concepts within the curriculum will reflect the scope and sequences of the
lower school science, math, arts, and social studies courses to promote STEAM-integration.
Evidence for the Problem of Practice
Since reports of the potential “prosperity” (Hallinen, 2023) of STEM-related jobs and
subsequently low science and math test scores of students in the United States, STEAM and
innovation have been relevant topics in the education field. Technology and computers are

8
essential to almost all career paths (Slagg, 2022), and the market for computer science
professionals is rapidly growing, with the Bureau of Labor projecting the market to double by
2024 (National Academies of Sciences, 2018, as cited in Vegas & Fowler, 2020). For all its
popularity, an interconnected, cross-disciplinary STEAM framework is challenging and often not
well executed (Kelley & Knowles, 2016) or adequately measured (Roehrig et al., 2021). For
example, computer science, as a discipline, encompasses more than just coding or understanding
how a computer works. It includes mindsets and attitudes, creativity, and ethics and integrates
across all domains (California State Board of Education, 2022). The field is still developing roots
in the K–12 education field. Only 51% of high schools in the U.S. offer courses (Slagg, 2022),
and a lack of representation and diversity increases racial, gender, and socioeconomic inequities.
An overwhelming majority of White students enrolled in computer science (Code.Org, n.d.), and
female and female-presenting students representing only 18% of graduates with a computer
science degree (ComputerScience.Org Staff, 2022). To reap the benefits of high-quality
education, such as increased student engagement and real-life problems or products, and
exposure to different options for career paths, the field of integrative STEAM must be
operationalized and disambiguated (Sanders, 2012).
Faced with these statistics, it is not surprising that SA is working to develop a program
for technology and innovation. A preliminary scan of the existing curriculum reveals
considerable focus on STEAM-integration within the arts and sciences, but a need to focus on
engineering and computer science, as well as a coherent framework to weave disciplines
together. Though SA offers strong science, arts, and math classes at the K–8 level, the school is
building out its program for technology and engineering, as described above.

9
Importance of Solving the Problem
According to Hockett and Brighton (2021), effective gifted instruction is basic highquality curricula modified to meet the academic and social emotional needs of gifted learners (p.
33). Gifted education is considered a specialized academic program because gifted students learn
differently than their peers: they advance more rapidly through content and require higher levels
of depth and complexity over factual recall (Hockett & Brighton, 2021). Therefore, content
should be accelerated (Pyryt, 2009), differentiated, or compacted (Hockett & Brighton, 2021;
Reis & Renzulli, 1992) to meet the individual needs of the learner, and provide opportunities for
creative, interest-based activities for learners (B. C. Housand, 2021). When implemented
effectively, the use of technology within instruction can serve as an enhancing and enabling tool
(Chen et al., 2013) in gifted education because it affords gifted learners greater access to
information, avenues for creativity, opportunities to explore interest-based learning, and
exposure to communities and networks (A. M. Housand, 2016; A. M. Housand et al., 2017).
The benefits of a successful technology and innovation curriculum for elementary-aged
gifted students far outweigh the risks or potential costs. For example, the curriculum can
cultivate a development of talent and facilitation of interest in a lucrative and useful career in the
STEM field. As the labor market continues to evolve, computer science professionals, engineers,
and forward-thinking designers will be increasingly in demand (Vegas et al., 2021). Introducing
students to computer science, engineering, and human-centered design concepts early increases
access for minority and underrepresented students (Code.org, n.d.) and increases college
enrollment in STEM subjects (E. A. Brown & Brown, 2020). Additionally, a common best
practice for gifted education is to allow opportunities for students to explore interests (Azzam,
2016). As SA consistently adopts practices of technology, engineering, and design, students can

10
apply those skills in communication, data analysis, or problem-solving to address future
authentic problems or areas of interest. Finally, the development of these skills can support
learning in other classrooms. For example, when students develop skills within the discipline of
computer science, such as troubleshooting, teachers will be able to provide increasingly
independent and individualized learning experiences for students using computers.
There are several risks associated with not addressing this problem. First, SA risks not
meeting the goals outlined in the strategic plan, specifically those focused on integration across
subjects, as well as providing equity and access for all learners. Students would lose the
opportunity to learn critical skills that are essential for success in middle school, high school, and
beyond, and there could be a loss of talent development for students at crucial ages. Relatedly,
without a program that promotes creativity, critical thinking, and open-ended problem solving
using different kinds of technology, students at SA who are already passionate about this topic
will not be served. In not providing access and opportunity for these students to explore talents in
STEAM subjects, such as robotics, SA also risks losing families who are interested in building
those skills for their children. Furthermore, if SA does not address this problem, it risks attrition
of teachers who are interested in and experts of working within the STEAM-field.
Instructional Needs Assessment
This curriculum is heavily influenced by instructional design concepts rooted in the work
of Smith and Ragan (2005). Smith and Ragan’s model for instructional designers centers
instructional analysis, instructional strategy, and evaluation (Smith & Ragan, 2005, p. 8) as
essential components to effective instruction. The model includes a needs assessment, an
analysis of the learning environment, strategies for designing instructional content, and

11
implementation and evaluation of instruction. The approach to instructional design is grounded
in cognitive psychology, including social cognitive theory and motivation.
As stated in the sections above, high-quality curriculum follows several principles for
best practices: it is rooted in disciplinary knowledge; it is relevant and engaging; it has depth and
breadth; it strives towards transfer and expertise; and it is challenging for all learners (Hockett &
Brighton, 2021; Kaplan, 2021; A. M. Housand et al., 2017). When examining the role of
curriculum from a broader perspective, Smith and Ragan (2005) add that instruction should be
meaningful, effective, and relevant to the organization’s goals. Change for the sake of change is a
waste of time and resources, doubly so when chasing the newest technology in the field of
education. To address this, Smith and Ragan’s model (2005) requires a needs assessment within
the organization to determine whether new instruction is a worthwhile endeavor. Designers must
establish a compelling argument that there is a problem with existing learning goals or whether
new learning goals need to be created based on the needs of the organization. Using data from
the needs assessment, instructional designers can then determine the appropriate design model to
achieve the organizational goals (Smith & Ragan, 2005).
Organizations in which there is a learning gap would require curriculum to be developed
based on the framework for a problem model. In a problem model, instructional designers define
the problem by asking community members and specific stakeholders questions to describe how
they experience the problem in the environment (Smith & Ragan, 2005). This information
provides data on the parameters and severity of the problem. Next, designers locate where the
problem is occurring. Specifically, before creating instruction, designers must confidently
establish that the problem is a result of human performance and not some other external variable.
In this step, instructional designers establish a relationship between performance and

12
achievement (Smith & Ragan, 2005) and, if the relationship is established, identify the core issue
as a learning issue. To do this, designers need to eliminate other causes for poor performance on
learning tasks (Smith & Ragan, 2005). Finally, instructional designers explore what instruction is
available within the organization to address the learning task, if instruction exists at all (Smith &
Ragan, 2005).
Up to this point, designers have simply established that some problem with meeting
learning goals exists within the organization. Next, Smith and Ragan (2005) offer two paths
depending on the type of problem identified. If the problem requires modification of existing
goals not being met with current training and instruction, then designers move towards a
discrepancy model. If there are new learning goals and/or no instruction to address the learning
goals, designers must adopt an innovation model to solve the problem (Smith & Ragan, 2005).
Given these criteria and the description of the Problem of Practice above, it is evident that
an innovation model must be implemented at SA to develop this new curriculum. This model
was chosen based on conversations with members of SA, including stakeholders within the
community, as well as indicators such as the creation of a new position and learning environment
to support this goal. Among the many changes in the learning environment, SA has recently
hired a technology and innovation teacher and built an innovation studio for elementary classes
to be taught. Additionally, the organization has recently restructured leadership roles to support
innovation, creativity, and collaboration between general curriculum and technology courses.
The division heads and head of school agree that technology, engineering, and innovation skills
are essential for students to develop and there is a need and desire among the parent body to
introduce programming courses for the elementary students. The innovation model was selected
because there is no existing technology and innovation course within the organization at the K–4

13
level. To reiterate, this curriculum will introduce concepts of technology, engineering, and
design across each grade level in the lower school to help students solve open-ended problems
using technology and engineering practices.
This change will affect the student body in several ways. First, providing a background in
technology and engineering makes the students strong candidates for competitive high schools
and introduces students to potential career paths that match their interests and strengths (National
Association for Gifted Children, 2019). Second, the learning outcomes of technology and
engineering support core skills such as critical thinking, problem solving, communication, and
collaboration. These skills are transferable across subject areas, and students will be expected to
apply these skills and mindsets to create new artifacts. Further, the skills and problems addressed
in a curriculum such as this provide gifted students with the opportunities to develop requisite
skills for living in and contributing to a global and diverse society, cultural competencies in
communication, collaboration and teaming with diverse groups of peoples, and a sense of social
responsibility (National Association for Gifted Children, 2019). Finally, students receive some
technology, innovation, and maker-space instruction in the middle school at SA. Therefore, this
course will lay the foundation for learners to experience success academically, to evolve a sense
of social responsibility, cultural competency, and leadership skills, and to deepen their interests
and talents.
As described in the sections above, this course did not exist before this curriculum
development, and SA has made it a priority to develop this program by seeking qualified
individuals and equipping them with the funds and resources to be successful. As such, a new
space has been built to support the learning environment and hardware is being provided for
students on an individual basis. Leadership is supportive of professional development and

14
regularly shares existing curriculum resources that might be relevant to developing these skills.
This is evidence that the learning goals outlined in this curriculum are not only feasible but a
high priority for SA. Other gifted schools in the state have similar design and engineering
programs, as well as labs for students to work in from pre-k to 12th grade. However, when
comparing the program of a similar school to what SA is attempting, there are differences. First,
SA intends for the course to be a specialist course, whereas the other school program only
integrates with the homeroom teachers by pushing in and enhancing existing curricula. Secondly,
the comparison school’s curriculum is fully developed from pre-K to 12th grade, and includes
computer science, fabrication shops, and engineering classes. The program at SA is meant for K–
4 and does not include additional fabrication shops or advanced computer science and
engineering classes.
There is a need to develop a strong technology and engineering program that focuses on
authentic problem-solving and best practices for gifted education at SA. This curriculum
includes technology, engineering, and design process concepts and skills for K–4 elementary
students. In doing so, it is intended that this curriculum will help gifted students experience
higher levels of achievement in high school and beyond.
The Learning Environment
The learning environment is the system in which instruction will be delivered, including
the learners, the materials, equipment, facilities, and broader community (Smith & Ragan, 2005,
p. 49). Instructional environments can be informal, classroom-specific environments, formal
training, or more complex larger environments (Smith & Ragan, 2005).
According to Malcolm et al. (2003), formal and informal learning environments are not
necessarily mutually exclusive, and are defined by the level of control exerted on the learner.

15
There are four elements of formal and informal learning environments, including the process, the
location and setting, the purpose, and the content (Malcolm et al., 2003). The level of formality
of the learning environment is dictated by who is structuring the learning and by how much. If
the learning event is driven primarily by an instructor, teacher, or trainer with measurable
outcomes, then it can be defined as formal. On the other hand, learning events that are driven by
the learner and contain more formative or emergent assessments would be considered more
informal (Malcolm et al., 2003). The location and setting shape the learning event. For example,
if the event has curricular requirements, learning objectives, or time constraints, it can be defined
as formal (Malcolm et al., 2003). The physical location includes classrooms, learning
management platforms, or workspaces. A formal event might occur in a classroom or workplace
setting, whereas informal learning beyond the confines of school or work (Malcolm et al., 2003).
The purpose of the learning environment is defined as the learning objective. An informal
learning environment is when the objective is simply learning, and content is learner-initiated
and governed by interest, not by necessity. Formal learning implies there is some skill or training
that must be immediately implemented (Malcolm et al., 2003). Finally, the content influences the
formality of the learning environment. Formal learning environments are focused on everyday
practices or competence, whereas informal learning might focus on new content (Malcolm et al.,
2003). Content can be delivered in synchronous and asynchronous learning environments. A
synchronous learning environment is one in which the student and teachers meet in the same
place, whether in person or online, at the same time and work on synchronized activities
(Worthington, 2013). In contrast, asynchronous content is delivered without requiring teachers
and students to be in the same place at the same time or working on the same activities at the

16
same time (Worthington, 2013). Elements of asynchronous content include pre-recorded
lectures, discussion boards, and independent work.
For this curriculum, the learning environment is classroom-based: it encompasses K–4
specialist classes in an independent school in California. Stiller Academy defines specialist
instructors as individuals who have expertise in subjects outside of homeroom subjects,
including math, science, technology, arts, and foreign language. Given the parameters of the
curriculum, the learners are students, 5–10 years old. Class sizes vary and can include up to 20
students with an instructor and associate teacher present to facilitate learning. The instructional
content is meant to be delivered as its course, with a curriculum guide as a tool and resource for
teachers to reference as they move through lessons in the course. The guide will also include
inroads for integration beyond the specialist subject domain, including drawing from science,
language arts, and writing classes. Instructors will have access to laptops, internet, and shared
drives, where the materials will be stored.
The content of this curriculum is formal. It is aligned with California Common Core
Standards (2022), Next Generation Science Standards (2013), and the National Association for
Gifted Children Programming Standards (2019). The curriculum has measurable learning
outcomes with summative assessments. The course outcomes for students will be graded, and for
the instructors, they will be evaluated based on their students ’performance in meeting the
learning objectives. The courses will be delivered synchronously, in-person.
Potential Issues with Power, Equity, and Inclusion
Education is an inherently political topic, and access to quality education is often
expressed inequitably across race, gender, and SES. Identification of giftedness is not exempt
from such bias and inquiry (National Association for Gifted Children, n.d.). White and Asian

17
students are more likely to be referred to gifted programs than their Black, Latinx, or Indigenous
peers (Payne, 2011; National Association for Gifted Children, n.d.). To compound this reality,
SA is a private school, making it inherently exclusive via an admissions process and cost of
tuition. In many independent schools, the admissions process is geared to accept a “missionappropriate” student with a specific cognitive profile, personality traits, academic ability, and
family fit. Students who do not fit the necessary criteria for this profile are not admitted. SA
offers tuition assistance to many families so that families who would be a good fit can attend
regardless of finance, and a significant portion of students do receive some financial aid to
attend. Stiller Academy utilizes regular practices of reflexivity and addresses issues of equity
inherent in privilege and access to both gifted education and private schools.
Stiller Academy has worked hard to center conversations about racial inequity. It is a key
element of their strategic plan, and they strive to create an inclusive community within faculty,
staff, and student body. Their website offers information in both English and Spanish, and the
hiring process includes questions specifically geared towards measuring a candidate’s
commitment to and understanding of cultural competency and equity practices. The director of
equity, inclusion, and community is present in curriculum conversations and works closely with
teachers to ensure all students feel a sense of belonging and representation.
About the Author
Reflexivity is “an attitude of attending systematically to the context of knowledge
construction, especially to the effect of the researchers, at every step of the research process”
(Cohen & Crabtree, 2006, as cited in Lacy, 2017). To begin, I am aware that my research focus
is a product of my personal experiences and interests. I grew up in San Francisco in the 1990s, at
a time when the internet and home desktop computers were becoming more ubiquitous. I come

18
from an upper-middle-class family, which gave me access to technology and the independent
school system early in life. I attended an independent private high school, and my undergraduate
and graduate degrees were both obtained in private universities. The independent school system
is a network, and I have been working within independent schools along the West Coast for over
10 years, sometimes encountering former high school teachers at conferences or as they pick up
their children from schools. Aside from a brief period between my undergraduate degree and my
graduate degree where I worked in a public school, the institutions I’ve worked at are primarily
White, middle-class organizations. The teaching faculty has been overwhelmingly White and
female.
Bonilla-Silva (2001) asserted that we live in a racialized social system wherein social
constructs, such as race and gender, bestow status and access. When race is made invisible, it
serves to uphold White supremacy. Acknowledging Whiteness is important in research: when
Whiteness is the invisible default, it marginalizes other cultures. Cultural identity is a lens
through which we understand reality (Thomas et al., 2003; Usher, 2018;). My racial identity
informs how I understand constructs and behaviors related to motivation, self-efficacy, and
professionalism. Because of my racial identity and the racial make-up of the schools I have
worked at, I can intuit unspoken cultural norms within the independent school community. While
these identities would generally serve as a bridge when talking with other independent school
educators and leaders, a lack of critical examination of them could contribute to bias and make
me vulnerable to overlooking the experiences of those who feel marginalized in independent
school communities. Furthermore, my racial identity puts me in proximity to power. I have an
ethical obligation to examine how Whiteness might serve to coerce or influence participation or
input.

19
Finally, my background in STEAM and curricula development is unconventional. My
high school included fabrication shops, such as wood shop, metal shop, glass shop, and jewelry
shop, a photography studio, classes in architecture and design, basic programming classes, and
photoshop classes. As a student, I was most interested in my AP Psychology course, and decided
at a young age to pursue a career in teaching and learning. Before a doctoral program, I
completed my masters in education in curriculum and instruction while working in independent
K–12 schools. My initial foray into technology integration started with iPads and has progressed
to include 3D printers and design, block coding, and simple fabrication with cardboard. In my
career as a teacher, I have been fortunate to have opportunities to explore new technologies with
my students and to pilot curricula I’ve developed. While I have attended professional
development workshops, I am primarily self-taught over the tenure of my career. My previous
work experience includes technology integration as a classroom teacher, as a specialist teacher,
and as a support staff. For the last several years, I have worked in specialized education in
independent schools. Previous to working with gifted students, I worked as an educational
technology coordination and technology specialist at two different schools for students with
language-based processing disorders. As a result, I have deepened my understanding of
differentiation, learning, and motivation beyond the general education classroom.
Definition of Terms
● Abstractions are a core practice in the California State Board of Education’s K–12
Computer Science Standards. The practice is defined as the ability to “identify
patterns and extract common features from specific examples to create
generalizations” (California State Board of Education, 2018, p. 24).

20
● Algorithms in the context of computer science education are defined as “a sequence
of steps designed to accomplish a specific task” (California State Board of Education,
2018, p. 18). Simply put, an algorithm is a “list of steps to finish a task” (Code.Org,
2022).
● Block-Code Programming is a programming language that utilizes “blocks” or
“graphical programing elements, rather than writing code using text” (Code.Org,
n.d.).
● Computer Science is defined as “the study of computers and algorithmic processes,
including their principles, their hardware and software designs, their applications, and
their impact on society” (Tucker et al. 2006, p. 2, as cited in Vegas et al., 2021).
Computer science calls for students to understand why and how computing
technologies work, and then build upon that conceptual knowledge by creating
computational artifacts (California State Board of Education, 2018, p.16). The subject
encompasses several topics, including computer literacy, educational technology,
digital literacy, and information technology (California State Board of Education,
2018). Computer science aims to develop a theoretical and practical understanding
that allows you to program a computer to do what you want it to do; an application of
that knowledge as a tool that helps you tell a story or make something happen with
technology; an attitude or mindset of discipline that emphasizes persistence in
problem solving, a skill that is applicable across disciplines, driving job growth and
innovation across all sectors of the workforce; and, the ability to use computers to
create, not just consume (California State Board of Education, 2018).

21
● Creativity is defined as the ability to “define problems, solve problems, utilize
divergent thinking, think abstractly, tolerate ambiguity, take reasonable risks, and
persevere in the face of obstacles” (Sternberg & Lubart (1993), as cited in A. M.
Housand, 2016, p. 11). In other words, a creative individual is one who “produces
novel products or solutions within a domain” (Gardner, 1983, 1993, as cited in A. M.
Housand, 2016, p. 11).
● Curriculum compacting refers to the instructional practice of “adjusting curriculum
for students by determining which students already have mastered most or all of the
learning outcomes and providing replacement instruction or activities that enable a
more challenging and productive use of the student’s time” (National Association for
Gifted Children, 2023).
● Design thinking is a “non-linear, iterative process that teams use to understand users,
challenge assumptions, redefine problems and create innovative solutions to
prototype and test. It is most useful to tackle ill-defined or unknown problems and
involves five phases: Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype and Test” (Interaction
Design Foundation, 2016).
● Giftedness refers to students who have been identified as having the “capability to
perform at higher levels compared to others of the same age, experience, and
environment in one or more domains” (National Association for Gifted Children,
2023). Additionally, Renzulli (2011) provided an operational definition of the term
(p. 87):
Giftedness consists of an interaction among three basic clusters of human traits,
these clusters being above-average general abilities, high levels of task

22
commitment, and high levels of creativity. Gifted and talented children are those
possessing or capable of developing this composite set of traits and applying them
to any potentially valuable area of human performance. Children who manifest or
are capable of developing an interaction among the three clusters require a wide
variety of educational opportunities and services that are not ordinarily provided
through regular instructional programs (Renzulli, 2011, p. 87).
● Micro:bits are “programmable devices” (Microbit.org, n.d.) that allow students to
apply coding concepts to small computers that utilize sensors and lights.
● Physical programming is “the use of tangible, embedded microcontroller-based
interactive systems that can sense the world around them and/or control outputs such
as lights, displays and motors” (Microsoft, n.d.). It includes devices such as Arduinos
and micro:bits (Microsoft, n.d.)
● Problem-based learning is a curricular model that emphasizes “solving real-world,
complex, or open-ended problems by using research, decision-making, creative and
critical thinking, and other 21st-century skills” (National Association for Gifted
Children, 2023).
● Problem-solving is both a practice and a framework within computer science. As a
practice in the K–12 education context, problem-solving is defined as the ability to
“identify authentic problems and create solutions to increase accessibility or
functionality based on individual users ’needs” (California State Board of Education,
2018, p. 13). Computational problems are considered as problems that can be solved
computationally (California State Board of Education, 2018, p. 13).

23
• As a framework, problem-solving can be broken down into a series of steps
that a person can take to achieve a goal state (Smith & Ragan, 2005). Smith
and Ragan (2005, p. 222) outlined the steps below:
• Clarify the given state (conditions), including any obstacles or
constraints.
• Clarify the goal state, including criteria for knowing when the goal is
reached.
• Search for relevant prior knowledge and declarative, principle, or
cognitive strategies that will aid in solution.
• Determine if conditions and goal states imply a known class of
problems.
• Decompose the problem into subproblems with subgoals.
• Determine a sequence for attacking subproblems.
• Consider possible solution paths to each subproblem using related
prior knowledge.
• Select a solution path and apply product knowledge (principles) in the
appropriate order.
• Evaluate to determine if the goal is achieved.
● Programming is the act of writing “an algorithm that has been coded into something
that can be run by a machine” (Code.Org, 2022). According to the California State
Board of Education’s K–12 Computer Science Standards, a program is the code that
provides instructions for computer devices (California State Board of Education,
2018, p. 18). Program development is therefore the process in which a person creates

24
“meaningful and efficient programs” (California State Board of Education, 2018, p.
18) and includes selection of information and problem-solving skills (California State
Board of Education, 2018).
● Project-based learning is a teaching approach in which students engage in
meaningful and real-world projects for an extended period (The Buck Institute for
Education, n.d.).
● STEM-integration is defined by Kelley and Knowles (2016) as “the approach to
teaching the STEM content of two or more domains, bound by STEM practices
within an authentic context to connect these subjects to enhance student learning” (p.
3).
● Technology can broadly refer to “tools and machines that may be used to solve realworld problems” (Bates, 2015), and “the tool or medium through which an idea is
communicated” (Bates, 2015). In the context of computer science, technology also
includes “the full range of computer and computer-related equipment and associated
operating systems, networking, and tool software that provide infrastructure over
which instructional and school management applications of various kinds operate”
(Szuba et al., n.d.).
● Technology Integration is defined as “how, how well, and by whom technology is
used, in addition to the resources for user support” (Szuba et al., n.d.).
Literature Review
This literature is organized into three sections. The first section will review prior attempts
of technology and engineering programs for gifted students, with a focus on computer science.
The second section is a literature review that will outline current research that informs the

25
subsequent curriculum. The final section will analyze the content of the curriculum based on the
critical knowledge learners must have to meet the learning outcomes outlined in this course.
Prior Attempts
In researching different curricula that meet the criteria for technology, engineering, and
design, there are limited options that fit. Instead, it is prudent to locate curricula by disciplines.
The prior attempts explored include options in programming, as well as a review of the
makerspace movement in education. There is an abundance of computer science curricula
focused on K–12 learners available for free or at a cost online. Code.Org and Harvard’s Creative
Computing are two examples of free curriculum and resources for instructors to use to address
learning at a variety of levels. Each course offers lesson plans and instructional manuals for
teachers to apply in their classrooms as stand-alone courses or as resources to integrate into
homeroom classes.
Code.Org’s curriculum spans K–12 and includes content from pre-reader to advanced
placement computer science courses. The curriculum includes “unplugged” activities, which are
activities designed to be completed offline (Code.Org, n.d.), as well as online activities. Online
activities can be completed on a desktop, laptop, or tablet. Students can progress through
activities independently or with a partner. At the elementary level, students work with blocks,
completing activities using block-coding. Code.Org offers flexible pacing with its courses, and
final artifacts include a game, art pieces, and digital storytelling. Teachers control the pacing and
visibility of lessons: lessons are designed based on a workshop model, with the instructor
providing pre-requisite information and modeling activities before allowing students to move to
independent work. The activities in Code.Org are interactive and highly structured, and designers

26
of the curriculum have made efforts towards accessibility by providing read aloud features for
students with disabilities.
Creative Computing utilizes Scratch, another block-based programming site. Designers
of the curriculum adhere to a constructionist philosophy in which students explore and build
projects that are personally meaningful and share their work with others (Creative Computing
Lab, n.d.). Scratch is accessible via web-browser. For younger learners, a more developmentally
appropriate iPad app, Scratch Jr., exists. The curriculum guide is framed as “ideas, strategies, and
activities” (Creative Computing Lab, n.d.), rather than an explicit curriculum map of lessons by
concept or project. The activities are organized based on concepts and progresses from least
complex to most rather than by grade level. The content of the lessons provide explicit
instruction on how to accomplish tasks associated with programming, then provide open-ended
exploration activities for learners to apply these skills.
Both curricula represent well-designed lessons rooted in standards, and both curricula
include opportunities for integration or enrichment across subject areas. While Code.Org
provides a far more structured approach, both programs include clear and explicit instructions for
learners to complete basic tasks associated with programming. However, the elementary
curricula do not address ways to extend the skills to provide for real-world, design-thinking
challenges or project-based learning opportunities. Nor are these curricula geared towards
differentiation for gifted learners. Best practices for these learners include opportunities for
acceleration, compacting, or autonomy to choose a level of challenge for each activity (National
Association for Gifted Children, n.d.; Azzam, 2016), as well as opportunities for students to
engage in higher-order thinking to facilitate depth and complexity (Kaplan, 2021). Therefore,

27
there is a need to revise or adapt the curriculum into one that provides opportunities for realworld application and also allows learners to move fluidly between levels of challenge.
The Maker Movement has existed in various forms for many years but the more
formalized version we see today can be traced back to the publication of Make: magazine in
2005 (Davis, 2015). Makerspaces are not easily defined because the learning environment might
be informed by the types of projects, technology, or approaches used. In general, according to
Mersand (2021):
Makerspaces are places where participants may work together to create and co-create
knowledge and physical or digital products. A making environment provides the potential
for cross-curricular connections, collaboration, creativity, innovation, and learning.
Making involves a variety of activities including engineering, tinkering, circuitry,
technology, crafting, computer programming, woodworking, fiber artistry, and a host of
others. (Martin, 2015; Martinez & Stager, 2019, as cited in Mersand, 2021, p. 175)
A variety of Makerspace playbooks and sites exist for those interested in creating their own
spaces, including the Maker Space Playbook (Maker Media, 2013), which outlines tools, roles,
projects, and more. A core underlying principle in maker spaces is the notion of experiential play
(Maker Media, 2013), wherein playful exploration of technology and materials leads to
innovation (p. 3). Learning outcomes across different makerspaces tend to focus on affective
behaviors, including attitudes, beliefs, and feelings, cognitive outcomes, and psychomotor
outcomes (Mersand, 2021). Because the content of the curriculum is project-based (Maker
Media, 2013) and dependent on the tools available in the space (Mersand, 2021), a makerspace
curriculum should be tailored to the environment.

28
The Content of the Curriculum
All learning is supported by the instructional method and instructional content (Clark et
al., 2010). An instructional method “shapes” information (Clark et al., 2010, p. 267), whereas
content includes germane information for learning (Clark et al., 2010, p. 274). In the context of
this curriculum, the methods and content must reflect best practices for gifted and talented
pedagogy. Academic programming for gifted learners must address the range of student interest,
ability, and talent (National Association for Gifted Children, n.d.) within the domains of
technology and engineering, and also include multiple options for differentiation amongst
learners (Kaplan, 2021). The content of high-quality curriculum should be relevant to the
discipline and organized in such a way that facilitates deep understanding and skills relevant to
practicing the discipline (Hockett & Brighton, 2021; Kaplan, 2021). Thus, the content must
include opportunities to explore the discipline through the lens of an expert, with adequate
complexity, depth, and differentiation (Hockett & Brighton, 2021).
The content of this curriculum is designed to develop both conceptual and procedural
knowledge of computer science, engineering principles, and design process in elementary-aged
students. To facilitate talent development and differentiate for gifted learners, the curriculum will
also go beyond basic factual knowledge to incorporate deep understanding of concepts for an
expert perspective (E. Brown, 2021; Hockett & Brighton, 2021) by exposing students to relevant
and current problems in the STEAM-fields and asking students to design potential solutions from
the perspective of an engineer or computer scientist.
For this literature review, the content for this curriculum was identified by using a
cognitive task analysis (CTA) to determine the major steps. Then, using those major steps, the
literature was searched for the detailed content of the curriculum. And finally, the summary of

29
the content resulted in learning goals which are then analyzed using Gagne’s framework to
identify the knowledge and skills required to achieve the learning goals. CTA extends behavioral
analysis by introducing performance objectives, hardware, software, and equipment, and
performance standards (Clark et al., 2010, p. 278). The process relies on expert knowledge to
define a cognitive procedure for completing a complex task (Clark et al., 2010, p. 277).
Ultimately, the results of the CTA inform the course and lesson design, and it offers an
opportunity to create a curriculum that is inherently rooted in the discipline. At a course level,
the process reveals authentic problems, concepts, principles, and processes (Clark et al., 2010, p.
282).
Cognitive Task Analysis
The CTA (Clark et al., 2010) was conducted in stages. To start, a bootstrapping process
was employed to identify broad knowledge about the learning task or discipline. This includes
core concepts relevant to technology, innovation, and engineering disciplines for elementarylevel learners. Next, this broad knowledge was further refined and confirmed with information
captured from experts, including an engineer and a veteran teacher. Using this process, a CTA
was utilized to identify subject-matter expertise on technology and engineering tasks for
elementary-aged children. Finally, the content was filtered by a bootstrapping search on
knowledge of how to accommodate learning within the gifted education context. The results
were reviewed by the director of curriculum and instruction at SA for credibility.
To determine discipline-specific concepts, a Google search was conducted. This included
generalized searches in addition to targeted searches within popular sites and organizations,
including the California Department of Education’s Computer Science Common Core website,
the International Society for Technology in Education, Code.Org, and Scratch, as well as the

30
National Association for Gifted Students. The collected sources revealed commonly accepted
knowledge, as well as provided inroads to academic databases. To verify and prioritize the
information, additional searches were conducted via Google Scholar and the USC Libraries
Journal Finder to locate academic studies and scholarly, peer-reviewed references Finally,
subject matter experts (SMEs) were pulled to provide a final verification. A subject matter expert
in gifted education was interviewed, a SME in technology in elementary education reviewed the
content, and a SME in engineering also reviewed content and process.
Standards in education serve as benchmarks and “stepping stones” (Hockett & Brighton,
2021, p. 50) towards expertise. Though gifted and talented students should not be chained to
grade-level standards they have already demonstrated proficiency in, the standards serve as
important starting points. To identify grade-level appropriate content for computer science and
engineering, a comprehensive review of the California Department of Education’s Common Core
(2022) standards, core concepts, and practices in computer science and engineering was
conducted. The standards serve as a reference point for benchmarking and advancing content for
more experienced learners. The review of California Department of Education’s Common Core
Standards in Computer Science (2018) provided information on key concepts and practices. At a
course level, the concepts highlight specific domain content that must be covered in computer
science education from Grades K–12. These include algorithms and programming, data, impacts
of computers on society, networks and the internet, and computing systems. Additionally, the
Next Generation Science Standards (2013) were also analyzed along the topic of engineering
design. This includes the engineering design process that focuses on problem-solving (NGSS,
2013). Thus, this course marries the focus of engineering solutions with core concepts of
technology and the impact of technology on society. Finally, the National Association for Gifted

31
Children’s Standards (2019) were also applied as quality control to ensure the curriculum met the
standards for gifted students.
To identify the most frequently occurring concepts and practices, all California
Department of Education’s Common Core (2018) computer science standards for Grades K–5
were compiled within a spreadsheet. Then, a chart was created representing frequency based on
type for each category. An additional layer exists, as the concepts become increasingly more
complex as the concepts evolve across grade-bands. The literature review outlines the top
concepts, subconcepts, and practices by grade band. The overarching concepts and expressive
practices are specific to the computer science standards outlined by the California Board of
Education and should be mastered by students. To identify the engineering process, the Next
Generation Science Standards (2013) were consulted and reviewed.
Additionally, sources on instructional approaches for problem-solving and differentiating
for giftedness were reviewed. Smith and Ragan’s (2005) work on developing effective
instructional design models provided fundamental steps for learners to engage in problemsolving. This process is similar to the process used for computational problem-solving and the
engineering practices outlined in the NGSS (2013) dimensions. The steps overlap in the
following: identifying and/or defining the problem by asking questions and observing,
developing models, employing computational thinking, interpreting data, designing solutions,
and communicating information and outcomes (Smith & Ragan, 2005; California Board of
Education, 2018; NGSS, 2013). If an intended learning goal for gifted learners is to develop
expertise, it is important that the curriculum helps learners practice problem-solving through the
lens of an expert (Hockett & Brighton, 2021). In summary, the basic steps of problem solving

32
include problem representation, solution planning, and evaluation and communication of the
outcome. More detailed major steps are listed below.
1. Identify and Define the Problem (Problem Representation)
2. Apply Models and Interpret Relevant Information (Problem Representation)
3. Employ Computational Thinking to Decompose the Problem into Subproblems
(Problem Representation)
4. Design Solutions (Solution Plan)
5. Evaluate, Reflect, and Communicate the Outcome
The major steps were then researched further to provide the literature supporting each
step as described in the CTA process above with the following results.
Identify and Define the Problem (Problem Representation)
Problem recognition and representation are essential first steps in the problem-solving
process. Research demonstrates that the starting place for teaching and learning creative
problem-solving is building the skills to recognize and analyze features of problems and
potential goals. This can be applied to both computer science and creative and divergent thinking
for gifted learners. Gifted instruction must focus on real problems (VanTassel-Baska & Reis,
2004), with interdisciplinary connections and depth and complexity (Kaplan, 2021). Thus, a key
component in creative problem-solving is understanding how to identify and analyze openended, complex, interdisciplinary problems.
A key feature of giftedness is creativity and divergent thinking, which is “the ability to
generate knowledge from information given, emphasizing the diversity of answers and quality of
the outputs” (Keleş, 2022, p. 18). For gifted students, a problem with depth and complexity is
one that includes a personal frame of reference, no existing solution, and the potential to bring

33
about some real change within a domain (VanTassel-Baska & Reis, 2004, p. 50). In fact,
creativity and giftedness are connected, and the ability for gifted students to become “excellent
knowledge producers” over “information consumers” (Keleş, 2022, p. 19) is facilitated by quality
instruction. For example, a feature of divergent thinking and creative problem-solving is
providing students with open-ended problems to solve (C. F. Russo, 2004). In order to identify
creative solutions, students must first be taught how to identify and define the problem (C. F.
Russo, 2004), and subsequently to recall any relevant information to the problem (Smith &
Ragan, 2005). Open-ended, interdisciplinary problem solving also promotes depth and
complexity (Kaplan, 2021), and supports students in orienting towards a solution or goal (Cho &
Kim, 2020; Smith & Ragan, 2005).
Within the context of an interdisciplinary STEAM course, technology can play a critical
role in designing solutions to complex problems. Knowledge of science, technology and
engineering are critical to solving some of the world’s most complex problems, such as
sustainability (Middleton, 2009). Sites, such as Scratch, teach computational skills to solve
authentic problems (Lee, 2011), and learning activities, such as journaling and reflection,
facilitate cognitive skills necessary for problem solving, including problem definition and
ownership over learning (Cardelle-Elawar & Wetzel, 1995). For gifted learners, tools that allow
for complexity and expression are critical to developing talent and potential (Kaplan, 2021).
In sum, gifted learners are unique in their ability to think creatively. However, a process
for problem-solving still must be taught in order for the skills to be learned. Among the many
strategies for beginning the process of problem solving, research is consistent that students must
first engage with the identification and definition of a problem. Then, they can engage in the next
stage.

34
Apply Models and Interpret Relevant Information (Problem Representation)
Once the problem has been identified, the next step is to recall prior knowledge and
relevant information to the problem or to represent the problem. Problem representation is
facilitated by instructional strategies that support students ’making connections, deductive and
inductive reasoning, or logical reasoning (Kaplan, 2021). This includes recalling declarative
knowledge, procedural knowledge, mental models, and schemas relevant to the context. Within
gifted education, the problems must be real, complex, and require creative thinking (VanTasselBaska & Reis, 2004; Kaplan, 2021; C. F. Russo, 2004). Thus, expanding beyond simple recall is
essential when working with gifted students.
There are several instructional strategies that can be deployed to achieve depth and
complexity, particularly in a gifted context. Complexity is increased via increasingly contextdependent strategies (Van Merriënboer & Paas, 1990, p. 278). In order to facilitate
interdisciplinary connections, teachers should employ strategies that help students recognize the
continuum of relationships in interdisciplinary learning (Kaplan, 2021, p. 72). Teachers can
provide information on major components of the relevant discipline using pictures or keywords
(Kaplan, 2021, p. 74). These disciplines can remain visible as anchors for students to build
representations of interdisciplinary problems. Another instructional approach that will facilitate
problem representation and application of models is for students to role-play based on a
disciplinarian (Kaplan, 2021, p. 74). For example, students may practice thinking like a historian
by organizing inventions across a timeline using critical reasoning prompts provided by the
American Historical Association.
Building off Kaplan’s (2021) instructional strategy of thinking like a disciplinarian,
VanTassel-Baska and Reis (2004) provided the concept of the language of the discipline,

35
wherein students are taught specific vocabulary, usage, and linguistic structures unique to a
discipline (p. 96). Instead of seeking to teach all possible disciplines and languages, teachers
should aim to provide “landmarks” (VanTassel-Baska & Reis, 2005, p. 97) in the way of
concepts or structures necessary for understanding a specific discipline. Furthermore, mind maps
and analogies are other specific tools teachers can introduce to help students make connections
across disciplines and better understand the problem. In one example in the context of computer
science, Van Merriënboer and Paas (1990) explored schema acquisition through programming
plans that rely on templates and stereotyped sequences to build hierarchical, generalized
knowledge. As students build declarative knowledge, they utilize metacognitive tools like mental
models and schemata to organize new information (Foshay & Kirkley, 1998). In sum, as students
grapple with representing the problem, they must intentionally access prior declarative
knowledge and relevant mental models to the domain and problem. And, as problems become
more complex, students can employ strategies to break the problem down into smaller parts.
Employ Computational Thinking to Decompose the Problem into Smaller Subproblems
(Problem Representation)
In a gifted, interdisciplinary curriculum, it is best practice to introduce students to the
methodologies of the discipline (VanTassel-Baska & Reis, 2004). Problem-finding is a tool that
can be used to elevate any curriculum (Treffinger & Reis, 2004). It is a process for creative
problem-solving that includes breaking down a larger problem into smaller problems that can be
solved by brainstorming, rephrasing, and eliminating options (Treffinger & Reis, 2004, p. 128).
The ability to decompose a problem into smaller, manageable chunks, is a common practice in
computational thinking and can be applied to complex or ill-defined problems. Computational
thinking introduces and reinforces logic, specifically the logic of how distinct objects relate to

36
one another (Cecchi et al., 2023). This stage of the problem-solving process requires creative and
logical thinking that can be transferred across subjects (Treffinger & Reis, 2004).
Thus, when teaching students methodologies for problem-solving in programming, a
component of STEAM education, instructors must introduce the explicit procedure for
decomposing computer science problems (Van Merriënboer & Paas, 1990), as well as critical
thinking skills to address more complex, ill-defined problems. Certain frameworks for
decomposition in computer science support this. They include substantive decomposition,
relationship decomposition, and functional decomposition (Rich et al., 2019). Substantive is the
classification of subproblems based on componential characteristics, like breaking down a jigsaw
puzzle into smaller pieces (Rich et al., 2019), where relationship decomposition is investigating
the ways in which parts of the problem relate to each other. Finally, functional decomposition
represents the combination of substantive and relational wherein substantive identifies the
component parts and relational identifies how those parts are connected (Rich et al., 2019). In
sum, instructors have a variety of frameworks to support students as they address complex
problems using logic and creativity. And, once students have a strong understanding of the many
component parts of the problem, they are prepared to progress to the next step of the process,
which is to design options for the best solutions.
Design Solutions (Solution Plan)
The next step in the problem solving process introduces creative risk-taking (H. L. Russo,
2013). Designing creative solutions requires creative thinking skills, such as fluency, flexibility,
originality, and elaboration (Treffinger & Reis, 2004), and fostering creativity in gifted students
is essential to developing their talent and potential (Treffinger & Reis, 2004). Here, students tap
into their imagination to visualize solutions and predict outcomes (Treffinger & Reis, 2004, pp.

37
100-101). This stage also supports social learning (H. L. Russo, 2013), as students can solicit
feedback and support from their peers (Wei et al., 2021). Ultimately, the best solution is
dependent on the context and domain of the problem (Barr & Stephenson, 2011). However, this
is an opportunity for students to engage in playful, creative design.
At this stage in the process, the environment should feel playful and experimental (H. L.
Russo, 2013). There are many instructional strategies to support creative thinking in solution
design. To start, instructors can introduce cognitive strategies like landmarks or memory pegs to
help students recall knowledge, checklists to help students monitor their progress, identifying
when-then instances for different approaches, and helping students return to their ultimate goal in
their solution design (Wilson & Conyers, 2016). Another strategy for gifted or advanced students
is the SCAMPER method (substitute, combine, adapt, modify, put to other use, eliminate, or
reverse), which reinforces flexible, strategic, and generative thinking (Mofield, 2023).
Additionally, Synectic Trigger Mechanism (Mofield, 2023, p. 96) provides students with
questions that elicit insight and depth in student responses. In sum, creativity and problem
solving require imagination, social interaction, and metacognitive strategies to develop solutions.
In order for students to understand the implications of their design, students must spend time and
effort evaluating and reflecting on the predicted outcome of their design.
Evaluate, Reflect, and Communicate the Outcomes (Solution Implementation and
Evaluation)
The final step in the problem solving process is solution implementation and evaluation.
Students must learn how to evaluate their solution for effectiveness and reflect on their process.
This stage promotes self-regulated learning (Perry et al., 2006) through the process of selfreflection (Perry et al., 2006; Wang et al., 2017). Solution evaluation and reflection can be

38
facilitated by several strategies, including self- assessments, journal reflections, and analyses.
Additionally, feedback from peers and instructors is a critical component towards developing
critical thinking and self-regulation (Nancy et al., 2006; Wang et al., 2017).
At this stage in the process, students test and communicate their design outcomes.
Instructors can scaffold student evaluation through the use of self-assessments and rubrics
(Mettas & Constantinous, 2008) and other key strategies, and facilitate reflection through
journaling and interviews (Mettas & Constantinous, 2008). These reflections should reinforce
whether the intended goal was met because of the solution (Wilson & Conyers, 2016). One
strategy teachers can model for solution evaluation is a SWOT analysis (Mofield, 2023). A
SWOT analysis asks students to critically evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and
threats of a design or solution (Mofield, 2023, p. 98). Teachers can leverage this strategy to help
students evaluate the best solution paths and communicate their rationale for choosing one
solution over another. For those learners who are gifted or advanced, the SWOT method can be
extended to include other elements of thought (Mofield, 2023, p. 98), such as implications of the
design, assumptions made by the design, and points of view of those affected by the design. In
sum, it is essential to close the problem-solving process with some form of evaluation and
reflection of the process. As students finish evaluating and reflecting on their solution, whether it
be a prototype, a draft of an essay, or a way to debug their code, one cycle of the problemsolving process is completed.
Summary of the K–4 Curriculum Content
The major steps identified in the above section informed the content of the curriculum.
This section identifies the learning goals as knowledge and skills required to perform the major
steps, and defines learning goals as behaviors that are performed as a result of instruction (Smith

39
& Ragan, 2005) that can be observable and measurable (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). There
are many types of learning, and thus different kinds of learning outcomes that must be taught and
assessed differently (Gagne, 1985, as cited in Smith & Ragan, 2005).
It should be noted here and as further described in the Overview of the Curriculum, that
the primary purpose of the curriculum is to teach creative problem-solving to elementary learners
in the context of technology and engineering practices. Since the content is organized by theme,
wherein students apply the major steps listed above within a domain-specific context, the five
steps of problem-solving are taught across a series of five lessons. The broader course learning
goals are addressed in a final summative assessment at the end of each unit and are directly
linked to the major steps of the problem-solving process.
K–4 Curriculum Learning Goals
Learning goals for this course are direct results of the curriculum’s major steps. To
elaborate on learning goals, learning goals must be unambiguous, observable, and measurable
and refer to what learners do following instruction (Smith & Ragan, 2005, p. 77). Moreover, the
learning goals inform design efforts (Smith & Ragan, 2005, p. 77), and are used to guide further
analysis of the knowledge, skills, and attitudes required to achieve them, which, in turn, inform
the objectives to be achieved on the unit and lesson level (Smith & Ragan, 2005).
The course learning goals for this curriculum are based on the expected performances of
learners progressing through open-ended problems by applying the problem-solving process
outlined in the major steps above. This is accomplished within the context of design, computer
science, and engineering standards (see scope and sequence table). Further, to see an example by
specific grade level of how the standards align with the learning objectives, including Gifted

40
Programming Standards (2019), Computer Science Standards (2018), and Next Generation
Science Standards (2013), see Table B1 in Appendix B.
1. When given a problem in technology and innovation class, the learner will be able to
analyze the problem by identifying and defining problem features.
2. Given that the problem has been identified and defined, the learner will be able to
apply a procedure or process in order to select solution paths.
3. Given the need to choose from multiple potential paths in order to solve a problem,
the learner will be able to rank solution options based on efficiency, effectiveness,
and impact.
4. Given the selection of a solution to solve a problem, the learner will be able to
implement the solution and evaluate the outcome.
5. Given the need to evaluate an outcome of the problem-solving process, the learner
will be able to reflect on and assess the efficacy, utility, and impact of the outcome.
K–4 Curriculum Learning Outcomes
Curriculum learning outcomes dictate how to teach and assess the different knowledge,
skills, and attitudes required to achieve a learning goal (Smith & Ragan, 2005), as revealed in the
review of the literature. There are qualitative differences in categories of outcomes: Learning
outcomes differ based on complexity (Smith & Ragan, 2005), and are outlined as verbal or
declarative, intellectual skills, cognitive strategies, attitudes, and psychomotor skills. The course
learning outcomes are primarily influenced by Gagne’s learning outcomes (Gagne, 1985, as cited
in Smith & Ragan, 2005) and Bloom’s (1956, as cited in Smith & Ragan, 2005) taxonomy of
learning. The learning outcomes for each learning goal are outlined below, though they will be
differentiated and adapted based on the grade level and content of the unit.

41
1. When given a problem in a technology and innovation class, the learner will be able
to identify and define the problem features.
a. Declarative
i. Recall the meaning of
1. define
2. problem
3. goal
4. open-ended problem
5. computer science
6. technology.
7. engineering.
b. Intellectual skills
i. Distinguish between
1. ill-defined and well-defined problems
2. problem state and goal state
ii. List relevant concepts that are associated with the problem.
iii. List procedures that are associated with the problem.
iv. Identify a gap between problem state and goal state.
v. Represent models of existing knowledge using a diagram, mind-map,
or graphic organizer.
vi. Organize information across a table to compare features.
c. Cognitive strategies
i. Identify areas of interest.

42
ii. Explore levels of challenge and difficulty.
iii. Set goals and purpose for analyzing the problem.
iv. Monitor the accuracy of the analysis.
v. Evaluate progress in the analysis.
d. Attitudes
i. Value analyzing the problem.
ii. Value persisting in the analysis in light of ambiguity.
iii. Value and have confidence in applying mental effort.
iv. Value applying mental effort to problem-solving flexibility and
creativity.
v. Value engaging in problem identification.
vi. Have confidence in analyzing a problem.
e. Psychomotor skills
i. None required.
2. Given that the problem has been identified and defined, the learner will be able to
identify and select solution paths.
a. Declarative knowledge
i. Know the meaning of
1. system
2. subproblems
3. simple tasks
4. complex tasks
ii. Recall relationships between concepts.

43
b. Intellectual skills
i. Distinguish between
1. simple tasks and complex tasks
2. whole systems and decomposed systems
ii. Break problems into component parts.
iii. Identify relationships between component parts.
c. Cognitive strategies
i. Employ mental models to organize information around the problem.
ii. Define relationships between components.
iii. Maintain focus and concentration.
d. Attitudes
i. Value identifying the solution path.
ii. Value persisting in selecting the solution path in light of ambiguity.
iii. Value and have confidence in applying mental effort.
iv. Value applying mental effort to problem-solving flexibility and
creativity.
v. Value engaging in the selection of a solution path.
vi. Have confidence in solution path identification.
vii. Choose to apply mental effort to problem-solving flexibility and
creativity.
viii. Value engaging in problem identification.
e. Psychomotor skills
i. None required

44
3. Given the need to select a solution path, the learner will be able to rank solution
options based on efficiency, effectiveness, and impact.
a. Declarative knowledge
i. Know the meaning of
1. efficiency in the context of the problem
2. effectiveness in the context of the problem
3. impact in the context of the problem
4. prior knowledge
5. computational thinking
6. conditional strategies
7. if-then thinking
8. pair programming
b. Intellectual skills:
i. Create a list of viable solutions for the problem.
ii. List procedures and processes that would facilitate the desired
outcome of the problem using a worked example.
iii. Create a matrix that outlines the solution based on efficiency,
effectiveness, and impact.
iv. Chunk concepts together based on principles or relationships using a
graphic organizer or structure note-taking method.
v. Identify other ways of representing the problem.
vi. Diagram potential solution paths..
c. Cognitive skills

45
i. Evaluate the appropriateness of the solution to a problem.
ii. Make real-world connections when judging solutions.
iii. Maintain focus and concentration on achieving learning goals.
iv. Maintain motivation.
v. Manage time effectively.
d. Attitudes
i. Value ranking solution options.
ii. Value persisting in the ranking of solution options in light of
ambiguity.
iii. Value and have confidence in applying mental effort.
iv. Value applying mental effort to problem-solving flexibility and
creativity.
v. Value engaging in weighing solution options.
vi. Have confidence in analyzing solution options.
e. Psychomotor skills
i. None required
4. Given that a solution path has been selected, the learner will be able to implement the
solution and evaluate the outcome.
a. Declarative knowledge
i. Know the meaning of
1. self-regulated learning
2. peer feedback
3. formative assessments

46
4. summative assessment
5. rubrics
6. feedback
b. Intellectual skills
i. Review solution for appropriateness and efficiency.
ii. Confirm that the goal state was achieved.
c. Cognitive skills
i. Maintain focus and concentration.
ii. Monitor progress towards the goal.
iii. Self-assess work based on a provided rubric.
iv. Practice emotional self-regulation.
d. Attitudes
i. Value solution implementation.
ii. Value persisting in the implementation of a solution options in light of
ambiguity.
iii. Value and have confidence in applying mental effort.
iv. Value applying mental effort to problem-solving flexibility and
creativity.
v. Value engaging in solution implementation.
vi. Have confidence in implementing a solution.
e. Psychomotor skills
i. None required

47
5. Given the need to evaluate an outcome to the problem-solving process, the learner
will communicate the efficacy, utility, and impact of the outcome.
a. Declarative knowledge
i. Know the meaning of
1. efficacy
2. utility
3. impact
4. rubric
5. evaluation
6. feedback
7. communication
b. Intellectual skills
i. Explain how the solution was the most effective compared to other
options.
ii. Use a table to explain the impact solution on the user by listing pros
and cons.
c. Cognitive strategies
i. Identify and empathize with the user.
ii. Reflect on the accuracy of the solution.
d. Attitudes
i. Value communicating about the outcome.
ii. Value persisting in communicating about the outcome.
iii. Value and have confidence in applying mental effort.

48
iv. Value applying mental effort to problem-solving flexibility and
creativity.
v. Value engaging in communication about the outcome.
vi. Have confidence in communication about the outcome.
The learning outcomes outlined above, are translated into the terminal and enabling
learning objectives for the curriculum to inform the design. However, prior to designing the
curriculum for optimal effectiveness, the learning environment and learners are analyzed below
(Smith & Ragan, 2005).
The Learning Environment and the Learners
The learning environment describes the system in which instruction will be delivered,
and it includes the learners, the materials, equipment, facilities, and broader community (Smith
& Ragan, 2005, p. 49). For more detailed information on the specific learning environment, refer
to the previous section above, The Learning Environment. To summarize, this curriculum will be
implemented at the classroom level in a private, K–8 school for students who are gifted. It is
meant to be taught to students between the grades of kindergarten through fourth grade,
approximately 5–10 years old. Class sizes include up to 20 students with an instructor and
associate teacher present to facilitate learning. The instructional content is meant to be delivered
as its own course. Instructors will have access to laptops, internet, and shared drives, where the
materials will be stored. Additionally, the learning environment includes a separate lab space for
classes. Students are expected to have iPad tablets, as SA utilizes a one-to-one device program in
the lower school. Additionally, students and teachers have access to Legos, robotics kits,
micro:bit kits, and other various tools for creative computing, engineering, and creating
prototypes to solve problems.

49
A detailed analysis of the learners takes into consideration individual differences and
similarities across four different categories of learner characteristics, including the cognitive,
physiological, affective, and social (Smith & Ragan, 2005, p. 72). Cognitive characteristics
include cognitive styles (Smith & Ragan, 2005, p. 62) and personality traits (Smith & Ragan,
2005, p. 64). Cognitive styles indicate learner readiness to perform certain learning tasks (Smith
& Ragan, 2005, p. 63), including aptitude, developmental level, and general knowledge (Smith
& Ragan, 2005, p. 69). Importantly, cognitive styles are not synonymous with learning styles,
which typically measure preferences towards ways of learning and not abilities to complete tasks
(Smith & Ragan, 2005, p. 63). Physiological characteristics include developmental processes that
may be relevant to learning (Smith & Ragan, 2005, p. 65), and can be identified by measuring
health and age of the learner (Smith & Ragan, 2005, p. 70). Importantly, this may include
physical developmental milestones, intellectual developmental milestones, and language
development (Smith & Ragan, 2005, p. 65). Affective characteristics of the learner include
interests, motivation, and attitudes around learning in specific domains (Smith & Ragan, 2005, p.
70). Finally, social characteristics can be defined through measuring levels of cooperation or
competition, access to different role models, relationships to peers, and stage of moral
development (Smith & Ragan, 2005, p. 70).
Description of the Learning Environment
In addition to the information that has been provided above, there are several other
factors to take into account when developing instruction. Specifically, it is important to have a
clear understanding of the learners, the instructional materials, the teacher’s instructional ability,
the facilities, and other culturally relevant considerations within the community (Smith & Ragan,

50
2005, p. 49). An analysis of the environment must be completed before generating any
instruction in order to insure the effectiveness of any curricular materials.
Teacher/Trainers/Facilitator Characteristics
The teacher who will be implementing this curriculum is responsible for both teaching
elementary level students, as well as facilitating training and technology infusion in other
classrooms. These individuals are interested in developing rigorous lessons that challenge all
students and in planning for extension and enrichment opportunities for gifted students. Given
that this curriculum centers on technology, the teacher is actively interested in utilizing
computer-based instruction for remediation, enrichment, and review (Smith & Ragan, 2005, p.
49). The class will also include an associate teacher, who is not yet a credentialed teacher.
However, this individual has a master’s degree in engineering, and so is exceptionally
knowledgeable in that domain. Additionally, SA is actively working to document curricula and
course planning. Therefore, both the teacher and the administration value documenting this
curriculum using files that can be accessed via shared cloud-based storage.
Existing Curricula/Programs
As described in earlier sections, previous technology teachers at SA did not provide
documentation of curriculum content nor did they share a working scope and sequence for what
was covered. As a result, there is no existing curriculum at the K–4 level. However, there is a
robust innovation and technology program at the middle school (5–8) level. The K–4 curriculum
intends to prepare students by introducing skills and mindsets to making, engineering, and
designing solutions to problems that they will use in middle school and beyond. This includes
introducing software and tools, such as Tinkercad and circuitry, as well as processes for
documenting designs.

51
Available Equipment and Technology
Currently, the lower school at SA operates a one-to-one device program, meaning each
student is assigned an iPad. In addition to the iPads, lower school students also have a keyboard
and a stylus pencil. The classroom space includes a connection to Apple TV to AirPlay, a teacher
laptop, a teacher iPad, power outlets, 3D printers, three desktop computers, and a USB-connect
overhead camera, as well as other materials necessary for robotics and making activities, such as
micro:bit computers, Legos, and other coding kits that are available for students and teachers to
use. Videos within lessons are typically streamed from the internet. Very few videos require
DVD set up, which would necessitate an external disc drive. Stiller Academy uses Google
Workspace for Education as its primary host for email, word-processing apps, and storage. There
is strong internet connectivity onsite.
Classroom Facilities and Learning Climate
The classroom facilities will be brand new at the time of this curriculum implementation.
Stiller Academy has created a large space to house the innovation lab to allow students to engage
in large-scale projects and move around easily. Given that this is a school for gifted learners,
many students are used to actively seeking information and deepening their understanding,
particularly if they are passionate about the topic. Their verbal communication skills are
generally advanced. Teachers at SA have remarked that the students may need additional support
with skills such as collaboration, cooperation, and teaming with diverse groups of people. Stiller
Academy strives to help gifted students reach their full potential. Philosophically, this means
providing access to accelerated content and allowing students the opportunity to solve real-world
problems. Additionally, SA values diversity and equity so representation in curriculum content is
essential.

52
Inquiry and critical thinking are pillars of teaching and learning at SA. Not only do
teachers strive to promote novelty and interest in their lessons through complexity and
phenomenon-based lessons, but also the administration supports this. Stiller Academy funds
professional development workshops on inquiry-based teaching for departments and individuals
interested in learning more about this approach.
Description of the Learners
Smith and Ragan (2005) provide an overview of individual differences and similarities
across four different categories of learner characteristics, including the cognitive, physiological,
affective, and social (Smith & Ragan, 2005, p. 72). It is imperative that designers have an indepth understanding of these learner characteristics because it will denote readiness to learn
certain content. Below, these characteristics will be applied to the target audience, with the
primary audience being elementary school students.
Stiller Academy also has specific traits and qualifications that are required of prospective
applicants and current students. First, SA requires an IQ test that would indicate the child is
highly gifted, or within the top 1% of intelligence norms. A qualifying score on an IQ test would
be 138. Second, SA looks at other traits, including advanced language skills, demonstration of
analytical thinking, profound curiosity, and accelerated learning. Therefore, all current students
at SA were determined to meet these standards and this definition of giftedness.
Cognitive Characteristics
As stated above, the learners at SA all meet the conditions for a gifted learning profile
and have unique needs in academic settings. Gifted students have different abilities and talents
and can be characterized by the potential for talent development (Manning, 2006) and higher
aptitude for learning. Cognitive characteristics of gifted learners include higher processing and

53
retaining of information, the ability to transfer knowledge between subjects, longer attention
spans, and accelerated and flexible thought processing (Manning, 2006). Specifically, too, gifted
students are able to think abstractly about concepts earlier than their peers and can work
independently on more complex projects than their peers (Manning, 2006).
Prior Knowledge
Because SA has not had a formal technology and innovation program in the lower school
prior to this curriculum, this course is designed to address all levels of prior knowledge. Unit
themes will build on each other over the span of each year. However, some students may have
outside experiences through extracurricular courses beyond what is provided at SA. In this case
and given the cognitive characteristics of gifted learners, the course will need to provide
differentiation and opportunity for acceleration.
Physiological Characteristics
Gifted students are prone to sensitivity (Wood & Laycraft, 2020) and are capable of
absorbing a large array of information. As a result, gifted students can be described as more
aware than their peers of connections and relationships around them (Wood & Laycraft, 2020).
While SA may order students by grade chronologically, those students likely have ability beyond
what neurotypical peers their age are capable of (Manning, 2006; Wood & Laycraft, 2020).
Furthermore, research has indicated that gifted students tend to experience physical
developmental milestones faster than their peers, including accelerated development
psychomotor skills (Wood & Laycraft, 2020) and brain development (Wood & Laycraft, 2020).
Research has also shown that gifted students also tend to experience higher incidences of asthma,
myopia, allergies, ear infections, and other autoimmune diseases (Wood & Laycraft, 2020).

54
Motivation Characteristics
Gifted learners generally demonstrate higher levels of motivation and value learning,
particularly in areas they are passionate about. Specifically, at SA, many parents have expressed
interest in and desire for computer science and robotics classes in the earlier grades.
Additionally, gifted students tend to demonstrate more persistence and independence than their
peers (Franks & Dolan, 1982). Gifted learners are characterized by higher academic selfconcepts (Ritchotte et al., 2016). Gifted students are also described as emotionally sensitive and
intense (Wood & Laycraft, 2020), which also leaves them vulnerable to perfectionism and
anxiety around making mistakes (Sisk, 2005).
Social Characteristics
Because gifted students tend to be more intense and emotionally sensitive than their
peers, they may experience increased feelings of isolation (Sisk, 2005). Also, gifted learners
demonstrate higher moral reasoning compared to their neurotypical peers (Wood & Laycraft,
2020). Learners at SA are fortunate to have other gifted students to build relationships with, and
plenty of outlets to explore interests and passions. Given the nature of private schools, many
families at SA are typically in a higher socioeconomic status, though SA does offer tuition
assistance and many families also take advantage of that service. Additionally, SA strives to
admit racially and ethnically diverse students.
Implications for Design
Gifted students are curious and excited about solving complex problems (Brown, 2017, p.
36), and tend to persist, particularly in areas they are passionate about. Given the needs of the
primary audience as gifted learners, it is important that the instruction has a brisk pace with
plenty of options for differentiation and acceleration, and independent, in-depth exploration of

55
concepts and ideas (Brown, 2017; E. Brown, 2021). Students should feel challenged: if the
material is too easy, there is a risk of students missing opportunities to develop their talents in a
meaningful way (E. Brown, 2021). Furthermore, as the primary audience is neurodiverse, it is
appropriate to allow students higher levels of control, abstraction, and provide options for
challenges sooner than if the class was general education (Brown, 2017; E. Brown, 2021).
Finally, lessons and units for gifted learners must include the four pillars of gifted education:
depth, complexity, novelty, and acceleration (Envision Gifted, n.d.). Therefore, content should
be differentiated at the curricular and instructional level to accommodate individual student
needs, interests, and abilities (Kaplan, 2021).
The K–4 Curriculum
The purpose of this curriculum is to teach elementary students who identify as gifted
learners how to use a problem-solving process to solve STEAM-related problems. Each unit
highlights a different thread: computer science, robotics and engineering, and physical
prototyping, and CAD design. The primary purpose of the curriculum is to teach problemsolving skills that can transfer across each domain and subject (Mayer & Wittrock, 1996). When
taught at each grade level as proposed in this curriculum, the skills and activities are
hierarchically organized by level of complexity, both horizontally and vertically (Mofield, 2023).
Structurally, this curriculum is organized based on fundamental principles of the
integrated curriculum model (VanTassel-Baska & Wood, 2010). These principles include
overarching concepts or themes, advanced content, and process based on inquiry and problem
solving (William & Mary School of Education, 2024). The K–4 curriculum is organized by
interwoven concepts by thematic units and skill and knowledge development. Its primary focus
is to facilitate learning experiences that address real-world issues and situations (E. Brown, 2021,

56
p. 106). The K–4 curriculum can be viewed by conceptual unit development across grade levels,
or by the progression of skills between units within grade levels. Each of the three unit themes
illuminate unique aspects of one of three STEAM-related topics: computer science, robotics and
engineering, physical prototyping, and CAD design. Grade-level units are conceptually
organized by an overarching concept study of how the units relate to one another (Mofield,
2023). This thematic framework promotes intra- and interdisciplinary concept development (E.
Brown, 2021, p. 106; Mofield, 2023; VanTassel-Baska & Wood, 2010).
The lessons are sequenced so that the process of problem solving is introduced or
reinforced throughout the unit, which allows students multiple opportunities for repeated
practice, feedback, and mastery before the final summative assessment (Smith & Ragan, 2005).
The objectives of the K–4 curriculum are organized by complexity across grade-levels. Figure 1
provides a graphic overview of the organization. Appendices C and B provide an in-depth
example of a second grade unit and lesson plans.

57
Figure 1
K–4 Curriculum Graphic Organizer
Note. Each cell in the figure above represents a thematic unit at each grade level. The first unit in
the second grade row represents how the unit will be taught across six lessons that embed the
problem-solving process. The lessons within all units across all grade levels are similarly
structured.
K
1
2
3
4
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3

58
Terminal and Enabling Objectives for K-4 Problem Solving
The objectives by grade-level are based on measurable behaviors of cognitive processes,
procedural application, goal-orientation, and individual ability (Mayer & Wittrock, 1996, p. 47).
Learning within this course can be defined as an observable change in behavior as a result of the
course (Mayer, 2011). Learning goals are relevant to both students and teachers because they
serve as a strong motivating force for directed learning (Mayer & Wittrock, 1996). The K-4
curriculum learning objectives represent the higher-level learning students attain as a result of
this curriculum, specifically the mastery of a problem-solving process within a STEAM-related
context. The curriculum’s learning goals and Gagné’s knowledge outcomes have been described
in detail previously (See: Summary of the Curriculum Content). Additionally, there is an
example of learning by learning task and specific activity breakdown in the second grade course,
unit, and lesson overview in Appendices B and C.
The curricular learning objectives, as defined by Smith and Ragan (2005), have three
components and represent learning achievement during instruction. The components of a
learning objective include a description of the behavior, a description of the conditions, and a
description of a standard or criterion (Smith & Ragan, 2005, p. 97). Using the previously
discussed list of learning goals and outcomes as the basis, the following are the terminal and
enabling learning objectives. These objectives represent learning at the highest level. Grade-level
specific and unit-specific objectives would be provided in fully outlined units. See Appendix B
for an example of fully outlined second grade learning objectives. Additionally, to see an
example of how these learning objectives map to the National Association for Gifted Children’s
(2019) programming standards, the Next Generation Science Standards (2013), and the

59
California Common Core Computer Science Standards (2018), refer to Table B1 in Appendix B.
The learning objectives are outlined below:
1. When given a problem in innovation and technology class, the learner will be able to
analyze the problem by identifying and defining problem features and summarizing
features in their own words according to grade-level and the California Common
Core Computer Science Standards and the Computer Science Teacher Association
Standards.
a. Declarative
i. Given the following list of terms, the learners will give a definition
and examples and nonexamples in their own words according to gradelevel standards:
1. problem state
2. goal state
3. computer science
4. hardware
5. software
6. the internet
7. models
8. mind-maps
9. diagrams
10. graphic organizers
b. Intellectual skills

60
i. Given a problem in computer science class, learners will analyze the
problem by completing the following intellectual skills according to
grade-level standards:
1. Distinguish between
a. ill-defined and well-defined problems
b. problem state and goal state
2. List relevant concepts that are associated with the problem.
3. List procedures that are associated with the problem.
4. Identify a gap between problem state and goal state.
5. Represent models of existing knowledge using a diagram,
mind-map, or graphic organizer.
6. Organize information across a table to compare features.
c. Cognitive strategies
i. When given a problem in computer science class, the learners will use
cognitive strategies according to grade level standards:
1. Identify areas of interest.
2. Explore levels of challenge and difficulty.
3. Set goals and purpose for analyzing the problem.
4. Monitor the accuracy of the analysis.
5. Evaluate progress in the analysis.
d. Attitudes
i. When given a problem in computer science class, learners will
demonstrate attitudes according to grade-level standards:

61
1. Choose to analyze the problem.
2. Persist in the analysis in light of ambiguity.
3. Value and have confidence in applying mental effort.
4. Value applying mental effort to problem-solving flexibility and
creativity.
5. Value engaging in problem identification.
6. Have confidence in analyzing a problem.
e. Psychomotor skills
i. None required
2. Given that the problem has been identified and defined, the learner will be able to
identify and select solution paths by identifying common procedures and applying
algorithmic and creative thinking based on the California Common Core computer
science standards, the Computer Science Teacher Association standards, and the
National Association of Gifted Children standards.
a. Declarative knowledge
i. Given the following list of terms, the learners will give a definition
and examples and nonexamples in their own words according to gradelevel standards
1. system
2. subproblems
3. simple tasks
4. complex tasks
5. solutions

62
6. debugging
7. planning
ii. Recall relationships between concepts.
b. Intellectual skills
i. Given a problem in computer science class, learners will identify
options by completing the following intellectual skills according to
grade-level standards
1. Distinguish between
a. simple tasks and complex tasks
b. whole systems and decomposed systems
2. Break problems into component parts.
3. Identify relationships between component parts.
c. Cognitive strategies
i. When given a problem in computer science class, the learners will use
cognitive strategies according to grade level standards:
1. Employ mental models to organize information around the
problem.
2. Define relationships between components.
3. Maintain focus and concentration.
d. Attitudes
i. When given a problem in computer science class, learners will
demonstrate attitudes according to grade-level standards:
1. Value identifying the solution path.

63
2. Value persisting in selecting the solution path in light of
ambiguity.
3. Value and have confidence in applying mental effort.
4. Value applying mental effort to problem-solving flexibility and
creativity.
5. Value engaging in the selection of a solution path.
6. Have confidence in solution path identification.
7. Choose to apply mental effort to problem-solving flexibility
and creativity.
8. Value engaging in problem identification.
e. Psychomotor skills
i. None required
3. Given the need to select a solution path, the learner will be able to rank solution
options based on efficiency, effectiveness, and impact based on the California
Common Core computer science standards and the Computer Science Teacher
Association standards.
a. Declarative knowledge
i. Given the following list of terms, the learners will give a definition
and examples and nonexamples in their own words according to gradelevel standards
1. efficiency in the context of the problem
2. effectiveness in the context of the problem
3. impact in the context of the problem

64
4. prior knowledge
5. computational thinking
6. conditional strategies
7. if-then thinking
8. pair programming
b. Intellectual skills:
i. Given a problem in computer science class, learners will arrange
solution options based on categories by completing the following
intellectual skills according to grade-level standards:
1. Create a list of viable solutions for the problem.
2. List procedures and processes that would facilitate the desired
outcome of the problem using a worked example.
3. Create a matrix that outlines the solution based on efficiency,
effectiveness, and impact.
4. Using a graphic organizer or structure note-taking method,
chunk concepts together based on principles or relationships.
5. Identify other ways of representing the problem.
6. Diagram potential solution paths.
c. Cognitive skills
i. When given a problem in computer science class, the learners will use
cognitive strategies according to grade level standards:
1. Evaluate the appropriateness of the solution to a problem.
2. Make real-world connections when judging solutions.

65
3. Maintain focus and concentration on achieving learning goals.
4. Maintain motivation.
5. Manage time effectively.
d. Attitudes
i. When given a problem in computer science class, learners will
demonstrate attitudes according to grade-level standards:
1. Value ranking solution options.
2. Value persisting in the ranking of solution options in light of
ambiguity.
3. Value and have confidence in applying mental effort.
4. Value applying mental effort to problem-solving flexibility and
creativity.
5. Value engaging in weighing solution options.
6. Have confidence in analyzing solution options.
e. Psychomotor skills
i. None required
4. Given that a solution path has been selected, the learner will be able to implement the
solution and evaluate the outcome by successfully solving the problem based on the
California Common Core computer science standards, the Computer Science Teacher
Association standards, and the National Association of Gifted Children standards.
a. Declarative knowledge:

66
i. Given the following list of terms, the learners will give a definition
and examples and nonexamples in their own words according to gradelevel standards:
1. self-regulated learning
2. peer feedback
3. self-assessments
4. rubrics
5. feedback
b. Intellectual skills
i. Given a problem in computer science class, learners will evaluate the
outcome by completing the following intellectual skills according to
grade-level standards:
1. Review solutions for appropriateness and efficiency.
2. Confirm that the goal state was achieved.
c. Cognitive skills
i. When given a problem in computer science class, the learners will use
cognitive strategies according to grade-level standards:
1. Maintain focus and concentration.
2. Monitor progress towards the goal.
3. Self-assess work based on a provided rubric.
4. Practice emotional self-regulation.
d. Attitudes

67
i. When given a problem in computer science class, learners will
demonstrate attitudes according to grade-level standards:
1. Value solution implementation.
2. Value persisting in the implementation of a solution options in
light of ambiguity.
3. Value and have confidence in applying mental effort.
4. Value applying mental effort to problem-solving flexibility and
creativity.
5. Value engaging in solution implementation.
6. Have confidence in implementing a solution.
e. Psychomotor Skills
i. None required
5. Given the need to evaluate an outcome to the problem-solving process, the
learner will be able to reflect on and assess the efficacy, utility, and impact of
outcome by explaining solution rationale and accuracy with evidence based on
the California Common Core computer science standards, the Computer
Science Teacher Association standards, and the National Association for
Gifted Children standards.
a. Declarative knowledge
i. Given the following list of terms, the learners will give a definition
and examples and nonexamples in their own words according to gradelevel standards:
1. efficacy

68
2. utility
3. impact
4. rubric
5. evaluation
6. feedback
7. communication
b. Intellectual skills
i. Given a problem in computer science class, learners will reflect on and
assess their outcome by completing the following intellectual skills
according to grade-level standards:
1. Explain how the solution was the most effective compared to
other options.
2. Use a table to explain the impact solution on the user by listing
pros and cons.
c. Cognitive strategies
i. When given a problem in computer science class, the learners will use
cognitive strategies according to grade-level standards:
1. Identify and empathize with the user.
2. Reflect on the accuracy of the solution.
d. Attitudes
i. When given a problem in computer science class, learners will
demonstrate attitudes according to grade-level standards:
1. Value communicating about the outcome.

69
2. Value persisting in communicating about the outcome.
3. Value and have confidence in applying mental effort.
4. Value applying mental effort to problem-solving flexibility and
creativity.
5. Value engaging in communication about the outcome.
6. Have confidence in communication about the outcome.
Overview of the Curriculum
Each grade-level course is organized based on three different unit themes that illuminate
different aspects of technology and innovation. Within each unit, students apply the steps of a
problem-solving process within each new thematic unit. Each unit will have at least five lessons
that introduce and reinforce the steps of the problem-solving process. This organization allows
students three thematic opportunities for repeated practice, additional depth and complexity,
feedback on the process, and mastery before the final summative assessment. The themes for
each unit are framed as a study with an overarching question or inquiry.
This curriculum is designed to accommodate gifted students learning experiences. At the
lesson level, it is important that the pacings of instruction should be flexible and brisk. The
content should include options for differentiation and acceleration, and independent, in-depth
exploration of concepts and ideas across grade levels (Brown, 2017; E. Brown, 2021).
Furthermore, while the content is grounded in standards, the standards are intended to serve as a
continuum of expertise (Hockett & Brighton, 2021) rather than strict benchmarks. As students
develop their talents and skills, they should be allowed higher levels of independence,
abstraction, and options for challenges sooner than if the class was general education (Brown,
2017; E. Brown, 2021). With this in mind, the strands within the units are benchmarked to

70
standards with the understanding that gifted students require more complexity as they grasp
concepts.
Given the need to manage cognitive load while performing authentic tasks, Si and Kim
(2011) suggested that instruction should be designed to accommodate the complexity of the task.
The problem solving process must be embedded within a context in order to be considered
meaningful. Therefore, the curriculum teaching the process is broken down into units that
introduce different contexts in order to reduce cognitive load and increase transfer (Si & Kim,
2011). The units were determined via an analysis of the California Common Core computer
science standards (2018) for K–5 students. The sequencing of the units is dependent on gradelevels, complexity, and alignment with other subjects in order to promote depth and breadth.
The units for this curriculum include artificial intelligence (AI), coding and program
development, robotics, physical prototyping, and designing with machines. Each unit will
present content and provide the context for problem-solving. The problem-solving process will
be integrated over each unit through a real-world problem that can be solved using the skills and
tools introduced. Over the course of the unit lessons, learners first identify and define the
problem, decompose the problem into component parts, identify, evaluate, and select a solution
path, then implement and assess their outcomes. Certain units can be nested within others within
the process. Specifically, the process for identifying, evaluating, and selecting solution paths
should be taught together.
Visual Overview of the Units for Grades K–4
The problem solving process will be taught within the context of each thematic unit,
alongside content determined by the California Common Core Computer Science Standards
(2018) and the Next Generation Science Standards (2013). As noted above, the units will be

71
taught as three concepts, with each subsequent grade-level content and complexity informed by
and building off the previous years. Table 1 provides a general overview by grade level of units,
essential questions, content addressed, and the summative event.
Table 1
K–4 Curriculum Unit Overview
K–4 curriculum unit overview
Kindergarten: A study in relationships
Thematic unit Shapes and patterns Structures Communities
Essential
questions
How does following a
sequence of steps
contribute to the final
product?
How does motion appear
in different structures?
How do different parts of a
structure relate to the
whole?
What are important
structures in our
community?
What moves our
community?
Problems
addressed
Help me fill our classroom
with cool computers!
What shape is a
computer? Create a 3D
model of a computer
using paper, tape, and
scissors as your
materials.
Let’s explore different
kinds of movement.
What are examples of
movement in different
models? Let’s
investigate by
comparing several
different examples.
Let’s create a physical
model of something
in our school
community. How
can I design a
community as a
team using
cardboard, glue,
paper, and crafting
supplies?
Summative
event
Students share their
completed 3D robots or
characters they created
based on their sketch.
Students document
observations of motion
after building and
exploring models that
incorporate some aspect
of motion to them.
Students create an
interdependent
community structure
using cardboard.
This project is in
partnership with the
student’s homeroom
social studies unit.
First grade: A study in communication
Thematic unit Maps and steps Language and
programming Innovative expression
Essential
questions
When and why does the
order of steps matter
What languages do
computers speak? How
What are ways humans
can use computers to
express themselves?

72
K–4 curriculum unit overview
when giving
instructions?
do humans interact with
computers?
How can technology
augment or assist my
communication?
Problems
addressed
How can I provide exact
instructions to help
guide a character from
one point to another?
How can I program a
sprite to interact with the
user?
How can I program an
interactive poster
about a changemaker I’ve learned
about?
Summative
event
Students share written
algorithms that guide a
character across a map
using sequenced steps.
Students create and share a
program using Blockly
in which a sprite is
customized to say and
do something when
clicked on.
Students program an
interactive poster
using Code.Org or
Scratch about an
assigned
changemaker, in
partnership with
their homeroom
social studies class.
Second grade: A study in evolution
Thematic unit Past, present, and future Storytelling through games Functional designs in
nature
Essential
questions
How has technology
evolved? What kinds of
problems has technology
been used to solve?
How has storytelling
evolved with
technology?
What is inclusive
design? How has
technology evolved
to support our
learning
community?
Problems
addressed
How might I design a
computer that solves a
problem 100 years in the
future?
How might I program a
video game to tell a
story?
What makes a school
inclusive? What are
areas of our school
that we could
redesign to be more
inclusive?
How might we
redesign that space
using Legos and
programming?
Summative
event
Students create a futuristic
computer, focused on
input, processes,
storage, and output,
using crafting supplies.
Students program a video
game that has
characters, a problem,
and a resolution. This
project is in partnership
Students use Legos to
redesign a school
structure or
environment that
solves a problem for

73
K–4 curriculum unit overview
with the student’s
homeroom literacy unit.
someone in the
community.
Third grade: A study in systems
Thematic unit Three dimensional systems Sensors and preservation Data and our world
Essential
questions
How do the parts of a
three-dimensional
structure relate to the
whole system?
How does technology
support a protected
ecosystem?
How can we use data
to better understand
a problem and to
design necessary
tools?
Problems
addressed
How can I design a 3D
structure that stands on
its own using cardboard,
hot glue, and a 3D pen?
How can I program a
micro:bit to support an
endangered species?
How does artificial
intelligence help us
save our planet?
Summative
event
Students create a freestanding structure using
only stated materials.
This project is in
partnership with the
homeroom social studies
unit.
Students program a
micro:bit to create a
species counter to track
wildlife in the school
community. Then,
students design an antipoaching collar using
micro:bits.
Students program a
teachable machine to
classify images
based on an
environmental
problem students
have identified.
Fourth grade: A study in revolution
Thematic unit Symbolic representations Learning with machines Playful interactions
Essential
questions
What does it mean for a
computer to be
intelligent?
How do machines assist
humans in interacting
with and understanding
our world?
How can we use
technology and
innovation to create
meaningful user
experiences?
Problems
addressed
How can I program a robot
to solve all or part of a
maze?
How can I program a robot
to get energy from
nature?
How can I design a
game that references
themes from myths
and legends that are
accessible to all
users?
Summative
event
As a team, students code
an Ozobot to solve a
maze they created based
on the classroom layout.
Students build a wind
turbine using Legos. As
an extension, students
can also build a machine
that uses different
renewable energy
sources.
Students create a game
using cardboard, hot
glue, Legos,
micro:bits,
micro:circuits,
and/or 3D pens. The
game must directly
reference a myth

74
K–4 curriculum unit overview
students have
studied in their
homeroom class.
This project is a
partnership with the
homeroom class.
Figures 2 through 6 provide a visual illustration of the journey through units across grade
levels. Appendix B demonstrates an example of the full development of the second grade at the
lesson level. It also provides an in-depth description of the problem-solving process across each
thematic unit for second grade.

75
Figure 2
Visual Overview of Units for Kindergarten’s Innovation and Technology Curriculum

76
Figure 3
Visual Overview of Units for 1st Grade’s Innovation and Technology Curriculum

77
Figure 4
Visual Overview of Units for 2nd Grade’s Innovation and Technology Curriculum

78
Figure 5
Visual Overview of Units for 3rd Grade’s Innovation and Technology Curriculum

79
Figure 6
Visual Overview of Units for 4th Grade’s Innovation and Technology Curriculum

80
Scope and Sequence Table
This curriculum is designed based on a concept-related structure, wherein concepts and
procedures are introduced based on the structure of the discipline (Smith & Ragan, 2005, p. 287).
Within this curriculum, the concepts are important areas of technology and engineering and
meant to build in complexity over each grade. Many of the modules are sequenced so that they
extend on concepts being taught in other classes, including science, art, math, or social studies.
For example, students may learn about Rube Goldberg machines in kindergarten while
concurrently discussing simple machines in their science class. Or, in third grade, students begin
the year exploring patterns in nature and designing them in 3D in alignment with their geometry
unit. The curriculum is designed to be taught across the course of one academic school year,
ideally separated into quarters and divided by a fall semester and a spring semester. The
curriculum is designed so that every grade level has activities or projects that involve coding,
programming, or robotics, physical prototyping, and designing with machines, such as 3D
printers or pens or laser cutters. For students in the kindergarten to second grade band, the first
units will explore computational thinking and computer systems in a series of unplugged
activities that will build foundational knowledge about devices, troubleshooting, and algorithms.
For the third grade to fourth grade band, fall topics will focus on orienting students towards
machines in the classroom, like 3D printers, or introducing the concept of datasets and
programming AI models. The fall modules are intended to introduce technology and the
problem-solving process using a variety of tools.
It is important to distinguish between what details are provided in the scope and sequence
versus details provided on the lesson level. A scope and sequence is a tool that provides a visual
overview of topics or experiences, mapped out across an academic schedule or ordered based on

81
content (Smith & Ragan, 2005). A scope and sequence chart does not identify methods of
instruction, which are outlined at the lesson level. As an example of an in-depth exploration of
methods for approaching the integration of problem-solving skills and content strands, the
second-grade course has been selected.
Each application unit will also explore problem-solving within the context of the impact
of technology. Units will be differentiated based on grade-level standards, as well as learner
knowledge and previous experience. By the end of the year, students should be able to conduct
the problem-solving process to solve complex problems at or above grade-level standards. Table
1 shows the scope and sequence of the curriculum based on the core concepts of Computer
Science in the California State Common Core Standards. Tables 2 through 6 give an in-depth
scope of the problem-solving process as it is previewed, introduced, reinforced, and mastered
throughout each unit by grade level. Appendices A, B, and C describe the overview of the course
for the second grade, the unit and lesson overview for second grade, and the lesson activities for
Unit 1: Future Computers: A Study of Evolving Technology.

Table 2
Scope and Sequence of Standards and Course Modules
California Common Core Computer Science Standards (2018)
Course
modules Computing systems Networks and the
internet Data and analysis Algorithms and
programming
Impacts of
computing
K 1 2 3 4 K 1 2 3 4 K 1 2 3 4 K 1 2 3 4 K 1 2 3 4
Designing
with
machines I I I I R R M I
Program
developme
nt and
robotics I I R R M
Physical
prototypin
g I I R R I R R M I I R R M
Note. Previewed (P), Introduced (I), Reinforced (R), or Mastered (M)
82

Table 3
Scope and Sequence of Kindergarten Curriculum
Kindergarten
Problemsolving objective
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3
Shapes and patterns Structures Communities
Lesson level L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 S L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 S L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 S
Analyze and
define a problem’s
features
I R R R M M M I R R R M M M I I R R M M M
Identify and select
solution paths P I R R M M M I R R R M M M I I R R M M M
Implement and
evaluate a solution P I R R M M M I R R R M M M I I R R M M M
Reflect on
outcome I R R R M M M I R R R M M M I I R R M M M
Note. Previewed (P), Introduced (I), Reinforced (R), or Mastered (M). Summative assessment (S)
8
3

Table 4
Scope and Sequence of First-Grade Curriculum
First grade
Problemsolving objective
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3
Maps and steps Language and programming Innovative expression
Lesson level 1 2 3 4 5 6 S 1 2 3 4 5 6 S 1 2 3 4 5 6 S
Analyze and define a
problem’s features
P I R R M M M I R R R M M M I I R R M M M
Identify and select
solution paths
P I R R M M M I R R R M M M I I R R M M M
Implement and evaluate a
solution
P I R R M M M I R R R M M M I I R R M M M
Reflect on outcome I R R R M M M I R R R M M M I I R R M M M
Note. Previewed (P), Introduced (I), Reinforced (R), or Mastered (M). Summative assessment
8
4

Table 5
Scope and Sequence of Second-Grade Curriculum
Second grade
Problemsolving objective
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3
Past, present, and future Storytelling through games Functional designs
Lesson level 1 2 3 4 5 6 S 1 2 3 4 5 6 S 1 2 3 4 5 6 S
Analyze and
define a
problem’s
features
I R R R M M M I R R R M M M I R R R M M M
Identify and
select solution
paths
I R R R M M M I R R R M M M I R R R M M M
Implement and
evaluate a
solution
I R R R M M M I R R R M M M I R R R M M M
Reflect on
outcome
I R R R M M M I R R R M M M I R R R M M M
Note. Previewed (P), Introduced (I), Reinforced (R), or Mastered (M). Summative assessment (S)
8
5

Table 6
Scope and Sequence of Third-Grade Curriculum
Third grade
Problemsolving objective
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3
3D systems Sensors and preservation Data and systems
Lesson level 1 2 3 4 5 6 S 1 2 3 4 5 6 S 1 2 3 4 5 6 S
Analyze and define a
problem’s features
P I R R M M M P I R R M M M I R R R M M M
Identify and select
solution paths
P I R R M M M P I R R M M M I R R R M M M
Implement and evaluate
a solution P I R R M M M P I R R M M M I R R R M M M
Reflect on outcome
I R R R M M M I R R R M M M I R R R M M M
Note. Previewed (P), Introduced (I), Reinforced (R), or Mastered (M). Summative assessment (S)
8
6

Table 7
Scope and Sequence of Fourth-Grade Curriculum
Fourth grade
Problem-solving
objective
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3
Symbolic representations Power, energy, and games Playful interactions
Lesson level 1 2 3 4 5 6 S 1 2 3 4 5 6 S 1 2 3 4 5 6 S
Analyze and define
a problem’s
features
I R R R M M M I R R R M M M I R R R M M M
Identify and select
solution paths I R R R M M M I R R R M M M I R R R M M M
Implement and
evaluate a solution
I R R R M M M I R R R M M M I R R R M M M
Reflect on outcome I R R R M M M I R R R M M M I R R R M M M
Note. Previewed (P), Introduced (I), Reinforced (R), or Mastered (M). Summative assessment (S)
8
7

88
Delivery Media Selection
Media selection is important for the delivery of content (Clark et al., 2010), but is
subsumed by the instructional methods. This curriculum is designed for elementary learners, as
young as 4 years old, with limited capacity to navigate online platforms and emergent fine motor
skills. Therefore, this curriculum must be interactive, paced appropriately, and provide scaffolds
for helping students understand more abstract concepts. Media will be selected based on access,
cost, consistency, and cost with this in mind. The specific use of media will intersect with the
individual modules and grade levels and additional details for how media is used is outlined at
the lesson plan level. Technology integration within lessons affords gifted learners greater access
to information for independent study and research, innovative avenues for creativity,
opportunities to explore interest-based learning, and exposure to communities and networks of
mentors and experts (A.M. Housand, 2016). Each of these are best practices in curriculum
development for gifted education.
General Instructional Platform Selection in Terms of Affordances
The definition of media as the instructional delivery system that supports learning was
first introduced by Clark (1983). This foundational work led to principles and methods for
instructional media selection. The selection of media is important because there are certain
underlying principles that inform whether a certain media type will be effective and most
efficient. Media selection should be based on how effective the media type will be towards
supporting cognitive processes and the cost benefits, wherein benefits are measured by increased
access and decreased cost (Clark et al., 2010). Instructional methods are “strategies for
implementing [instructional] principles” (Clark et al., 2010, p. 276). Instructional methods are
related to media selection in that the instructional method informs the media selection. Media

89
types are selected based on a pedagogical criteria of whether they afford greater access to the
content and for which learners. Additionally, media selection aims to mitigate costs, including
decreases in productivity or financial costs. The selection of media use in this course for
elementary-aged students in a gifted learning environment is determined by evaluating access,
consistency of instruction over time, and overall cost.
Access
Access, according to Clark et al. (2010), is how students will engage with the content, for
example in an onsite classroom or a distance learning environment (p. 289). For elementary-aged
students in a post-COVID world, it is developmentally appropriate to deliver instruction onsite in
a classroom (Ford et al., 2021). In terms of this course, instruction will be delivered
synchronously in the classroom with two teachers present. Anchor charts, YouTube videos, or
quick demonstration videos may also provide learners access to the content, for reference
throughout units or if a student misses an instructional day (Mayer, 2001, as cited in Clark et al.,
2010, p. 274).
Consistency
Consistency in transmission of information is critical in effective content delivery and
course design. Consistency can be provided by presenting information in the same way every
time for learners to reduce cognitive load in the learning process (Clark et al., 2010). Each lesson
throughout this curriculum has the opportunity to be retaught for different grade-level classes.
Anchor charts, worked examples, sentence stems, in addition to pre-recorded videos,
demonstrations of procedures and scaffolded assignments or activities increase consistency.

90
Cost
Costs within instructional design can be defined as financial, time, and learning
effectiveness (Clark et al., 2010). In developing a synchronous course such as this, the mediarelated costs must be considered from all these lenses. The cost of any additional hardware or
software to support learning, the time required to develop the course materials, and the
compensation of any instructors involved in this course, are relevant financial considerations.
From the perspective of learning sciences, the costs include an increase or decrease of cognitive
load. Familiar tools, language, and procedures for learners and the instructors will decrease
cognitive load throughout the course (Clark et al. 2010). There is an added cost of time spent on
maintaining the course. Courses meant to be innovative that utilize educational technology do
require updating and revisions as technology advances and changes over time. Audits for these
“maintenance costs” may be revisited on a yearly basis.
Specific Instructional Platform Selection in Terms of Restrictions
Once the instructional methods have been selected, the constraints of the content on the
selection of media can be evaluated. Clark et al. (2006, as cited in Clark et al., 2010) outlined
three key limitations of instructional media selection: (a) how the senses will play a role in the
learning; (b) conditional knowledge requirements for the use of learned information; and (c) the
role of effective and timely feedback in the learning process (p. 288). These are also called
special sensory requirements, conceptual authenticity, and immediate feedback, respectively
(Clark et al., 2010).
Conceptual authenticity is the relevance of the learning to the job environment so that
learners know “when and where” to apply knowledge (Clark et al., 2010, p. 288). This means
that the instructional design seeks to “depict” (Clark et al., 2006, as cited in Clark et al., 2010)

91
authentic contexts for applying the learner. In the case of this course, the media must support
social interactions inherent in troubleshooting independently and also with another learner.
Furthermore, while elementary students may not need to concern themselves with application to
the job environment, conceptual authenticity in this case is connected to relevant and real-world
problems in students ’lives.
Learning is reinforced through timely, “corrective” (Clark et al., 2010) feedback.
Immediate feedback occurs during part-task and whole-task practices, wherein whole-task
practices allows the learner to use complex knowledge (Clark et al., 2010). Feedback is used to
help learners monitor and diagnose their learning progress (Sugrue & Clark, 2000; Clark, 2005,
2006, as cited in Clark et al., 2010, p. 287). For this course, learners would need immediate
feedback when practicing any new procedure, such as opening accessibility settings on the
device, adjusting settings, and accessing resources. Immediate feedback, or coaching, is also
incredibly valuable for learners as they apply the process to support someone else.
Sensory modes of learning include any sense information that is relevant to learning the
task or concept. Visual, aural, smell, and taste are some examples of sensory information that
may be relevant to learning (Clark et al., 2010). Courses delivered primarily through electronic
media are very restricted in sensory modalities, providing only visual and aural information
(Clark et al., 2010). This course is most contingent upon visual and aural inputs, given its
content, so few accommodations are necessary. Table 8 shows key considerations for media
selection within the course.

92
Table 8
Key Considerations for Media Selection
Key consideration Media considerations
Conceptual authenticity In the synchronous environment, learners
will have access to hardware and software
that permits them to apply design, test,
and evaluate solutions.
Immediate feedback In the synchronous environment, learners
will have access to a teacher, an associate
teacher, and their peers to receive
immediate corrective feedback on their
problem-solving and program
development.
Special sensory requirements In the synchronous environment, learners
will be able to view resources and listen
to instructions and instructional media.

93
Client Preferences or Specific Conditions of the Learning Environment
The client, SA, plays a large role in the media selection. Given that SA is an on-site
elementary school, they are not invested in using an online format. Additionally, SA has
hardware and software that they have purchased. Refer to the Description of the Learning
Environment section above for more specific information. There is not a mandate to use existing
tools in the classroom, beyond using the school-issued iPads for the primary student devices. It is
beneficial and cost-effective to implement existing tools, at least for introductory lessons, given
the community familiarity and existing infrastructure set up to support that hardware and
software.
Specific Media Choices
The specific media choices for this course were analyzed based on access, consistency,
and overall cost for the client. Those conclusions are outlined in Table 9. Often, decisions were
already made, prior to the development of the curriculum. For example, in-person instructors and
Google Workspace for Education are two pre-existing platforms.

94
Table 9
Media Choices in Innovation in Elementary Gifted Education
Media Purpose Benefits
In-person
instructors
In-person instructors are used to
deliver instructional content
directly to students in a
synchronous format
Immediate feedback
Ability to adapt content in realtime based on students’ grasp
of material
Expertise in the field
Social interaction to support the
learning environment, as well
as learners’ psychosocial
development
Consistency in delivery
iPads Students use iPads to interact
with activities and complete
assignments. Each student has
an assigned iPad which will
serve as their personal
computer for this curriculum.
Student familiarity with device
Troubleshooting support provided
No additional cost to stakeholders
Access to the internet and
opportunities for further
independent research
Google
Workspace for
Education
Google Workspace for Education
is a cloud-based app suite that
provides storage for course
materials and student work
(Google Drive),
communication features for
students to meet collaborate or
contact their teachers or in chat
space (Gmail, GChat); and coauthoring apps for
collaboration during group
work, as well as personal
communication and expression
(Google Docs, Google Slides,
Google Sheets)
Immediate feedback
Supports social interaction
Compatible with LMS
Accessible across required
operating systems
Stakeholder already uses so no
additional cost fiscally or from
onboarding.
Access to information and
references
Cybersecurity protection
No cost

95
Media Purpose Benefits
Code.Org Code.Org is a K–12 Computer
Science curriculum platform
that includes grade-level
differentiated activities in block
coding, in addition to offline
activities that promote
computational thinking and
digital citizenship. The
platform also hosts open-ended
projects for students to apply
skills and work on flexible
projects.
Conceptual authenticity in
program development and
debugging
Leveled and open-ended projects
for students to engage with
based on interest and ability
No cost
Micro:Bits Micro:bits are physical computer
devices that can be
programmed using block code
or text-based code. Code.Org
includes extension activities for
students to apply coding
principles to robotics and
physical programming.
Conceptual authenticity in
program development and
debugging
Leveled and open-ended projects
for students to engage with
based on interest and ability
No additional cost to stakeholder
Lego Robotics Lego Robotics includes
curriculum and construction
kits for robotics programming.
The site includes lesson plans
for teachers and activities for
students, including closedended builds and open-ended
activities and challenges.
Increased student interest and
motivation to engage with
familiar materials
Incentive to explore advanced
courses in the Upper School in
Robotics
Open-ended projects to engage
with based on interest and
ability
General Instructional Methods Approach
The learning theories and strategies for the selection of instructional activities are
influenced by landmarks in giftedness research. Specifically, instructional strategies should
support gifted learners so that they feel motivated, challenged, and safe to take risks in the
classroom. Furthermore, the learning experience must include informal assessments (Davidson

96
Institute, 2020) and opportunities for learners to explore challenging problems independently
(Davidson Institute, 2020). To best support gifted learning, this curriculum should be more
generative and deploy opportunities for learners to engage in independent work that is highinterest and appropriately challenging. The learning theories that inform this curriculum are
social cognitive theory, self-determination theory, interest development theories, and theoretical
approaches to creating a high-quality gifted curriculum.
Social Cognitive Theory
Social cognitive theory, introduced by Albert Bandura, views learning as a triadic
reciprocity between the person, behavior, and environment (Bandura, 1999). Each node interacts
bidirectionally (Bandura, 1999). The theory situates motivation, learning, and self-regulation
within this social environment (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020). This curriculum was designed to
support gifted learners to demonstrate problem-solving in elementary technology and innovation
classes. Additionally, the curriculum is designed to support learners ’self-regulation and selfregulated learning.
Self-regulated learning utilizes cognitive strategies that allow students to achieve
academic goals (Zimmerman, 1989). Goal-directed learning and self-evaluation are critical
elements of self-regulation and social cognitive theory (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020). To
promote self-regulated learning while problem-solving in computer science class, instructional
strategies should be generative so that students are actively engaged in goal-directed behaviors.
For example, students can co-establish a purpose for the lesson, generate a list of their prior
knowledge about a problem, and learn how to evaluate their own learner. Furthermore, the
structure of the curriculum enables the instructors to work with the students to scaffold learning
strategies and provide timely, informative feedback.

97
Within the field of social cognitive theory, the concepts of play and goal-free problem
solving in education are topical, particularly in spaces designed to teach and inspire creative
problem solving. According to H. L. Russo (2013), creative, interactive play is a powerful tool
for supporting an integrated curriculum (p. 131). Play is a learning activity (H. L. Russo, 2013)
that enables children to express themselves, solve problems, and articulate ideas. Thus, playful
learning environments inspire students to explore, experiment, and invent (H. L. Russo, 2013, p.
133). Relatedly, curiosity and a sense of humor are essential traits of gifted students (Davidson
Institute, 2024). Thus creative play feeds the inherent intellectual playfulness of gifted learners
and is essential in the development of this curriculum.
Self-Determination Theory
Self-determination theory is an approach to learning and motivation that investigates how
the psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness influence human behavior
(Ryan & Deci, 2000). Autonomy, or the belief that one’s actions “emanate” from oneself (Patall
& Zambrano, 2019, p. 116), can be facilitated in the classrooms via interactions between teachers
and students (Patall & Zambrano, 2019). Similarly, competence is also developed in social
environments in which “feedback, communication, and rewards” promote intrinsic motivation for
students (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 70). Finally, relatedness, defined as the relationship between
learner and teacher, can be influenced by clear communication of expectations and boundaries in
the classroom (Jang et al., 2010) and a willingness of the teacher to take the perspective of the
student when considering instruction (Patall & Zambrano, 2019).
Gifted students are often highly motivated (Franks & Dolan, 1982) and have high
academic self-concepts (Ritchotte et al., 2016). Thus, in order to promote autonomy and
competence while problem-solving in computer science classes, students should have ample

98
opportunities to choose activities and challenge levels throughout their activities. For example,
lessons should be structured so that students can identify areas of interest within the class and
explore those topics independently or in small groups. Given that gifted students also
demonstrate higher levels of emotional sensitivity (Wood & Laycraft, 2020), lessons should also
include opportunities for teachers to acknowledge students ’feelings and perspectives throughout
(Jang et al., 2010).
Interest Development
Interest development is a critical component of learning. Hidi and Renninger (2006)
outlined a 4-Phase model of interest development which include situational interest, maintained
situational interest, emerging individual interest, and well-developed individual interest (p. 112).
Each stage is influenced by the individual’s “affect, knowledge, and value” (Hidi & Renninger,
2006, p. 112). According to their model, situational interest can be sparked by environmental
cues or triggered by activities such as group work and puzzles (Hidi & Renninger, 2006, p. 114).
Maintained situational interest is facilitated by group work, projects, and individualized learning
environments (Hidi & Renninger, 2006, p. 114). In order to transition to emerging individual
interest, learners must have adequate knowledge, values, and positive experiences within the
domain (Hidi & Renninger, 2006).
As interest development can be further facilitated by instruction through learning
opportunities that provide challenge and interaction (Hidi & Renninger, 2006). For gifted
learners, their level of persistence and focus is contingent upon their interest in the topic (Song &
Porath, 2006). It is important that learner interest is stoked throughout this course. Lessons will
influence interest first by eliciting situational interest by using technology and familiar tools,
such as Legos. Previous research has demonstrated the efficacy of this approach (See Sinatra et

99
al., 2017). Activities structured around small groups, puzzles, and one-on-one support will be
critical in fostering more lasting interest for gifted learners. In addition to interest, these openended projects and inquiry-based units will also foster creativity and talent development.
Creativity is a cornerstone to talent development for gifted students (Treffinger & Reis, 2004).
Talent can be fostered in many ways, including providing multiple levels of enrichment
(Renzulli & Renzulli, 2010). This includes creating programs that increase access to a variety of
disciplines, experts, and speakers (Renzulli & Renzulli, 2010), teaching to skills that require
critical and creative thinking (Renzulli & Renzulli, 2010), and options to self-selection of studies
or tasks (Renzulli & Renzulli, 2010).
Giftedness
Instructional design, method, and media for gifted children must be supported by the
literature. Renzulli (2011) provided an operational definition of giftedness as the interaction
between above average intelligence, task persistence, and creativity. According to Renzulli
(2011), gifted learners are often not accommodated in learning environments (p. 87). This
curriculum is influenced by several seminal gifted curriculum models, including the parallel
curriculum model (Tomlinson et al., 2009), the integrated curriculum model (VanTassel-Baska
& Wood, 2010), the depth and complexity framework (Kaplan, 2021).
The parallel curriculum model provides a framework for curriculum based on relevant
“knowledge, understanding, and skills” (Tomlinson et al., 2009, p. 38). It includes domain
content, assessments, introductory activities, teaching strategies, learning activities, grouping
strategies, extension activities, differentiation, and unit closure (Tomlinson et al., 2009, pp. 42-
43). This curriculum is meant to serve students at all levels of abilities (Tomlinson et al., 2009, p.
37). The curriculum units are structured around the framework listed above.

100
The curriculum is also organized around unit themes and essential questions. The
integrated curriculum model focuses on content and content acceleration, process/product, and
concepts (VanTassel-Baska & Wood, 2010). Lessons units must be differentiated or compacted
to accommodate for students who are learning at an accelerated pace (VanTassel-Baska &
Wood, 2010), and this is accomplished in this curriculum by differentiating projects for the most
proficient students. Additionally, this curriculum relies on the process/product dimension in that
it utilizes a project-based learning approach to move students beyond facts and into creative
solution generation (VanTassel-Baska & Wood, 2010). Finally, the curriculum is organized
around themes. Each grade level has an overarching idea which is supported and investigated
throughout the units. For example, the first grade’s theme is “A Study in Communication” and is
composed of units with related essential questions including: Maps and Steps: When and why
does the order of steps matter when giving instructions?; Language and Programming: What
languages do computers speak? How do humans interact with computers?; and Innovation
Expression: What are ways humans can use computers to express themselves? How can
technology augment or assist my own communication?
Finally, the content in the lessons is differentiated based on the depth and complexity
framework (The Center for Depth and Complexity, 2024; Kaplan, 2021). As a school, SA has
implemented the depth and complexity icons as thinking tools to promote depth, defined as the
progression of knowledge from concrete to abstract, and complexity, defined as interdisciplinary
connections and associations (The Center for Depth and Complexity, 2024). The practice of
using depth and complexity prompts promotes higher-order thinking for gifted children (Kaplan,
2021). As students move through different lessons, they are prompted to think deeply by
identifying patterns, details, trends, and unanswered questions (The Center for Depth and

101
Complexity, 2024; Kaplan, 2021). Students are prompted to wrestle with complexity when they
look at big ideas, changes over time, judgment and original ideas (Kaplan, 2021). This
curriculum seeks to provide opportunities for students to engage with these prompts throughout
the year.
Implementation Plan
Implementation, or the act of “putting something into effect” (Smith & Ragan, 2005 p.
304) is deceptively complex. A successful implementation is dictated by the timing and stages of
the adoption process. In other words, a designer must be cognizant of how the new program,
curricula, or innovation (Smith & Ragan, 2005, p. 304) is disseminated. There are six stages of
the adoption process for program implementation, which include awareness, interest, evaluation,
trial, adoption, and integration. In the awareness stage, users are passively interested or
conscious of the existence of a new program or innovation (Smith & Ragan, 2005, p. 305). Next,
in the interest stage, users actively seek information about the program or innovation (Smith &
Ragan, 2005, p. 305). After attaining information, the process moves to the evaluation stage. In
this stage, individuals apply a mental trial of the program and decide whether it is worth the
effort to try (Smith & Ragan, 2005, p. 305). If the individual deems the program worthy of effort,
they enter the trial stage. This includes a small-scale application (Smith & Ragan, 2005, p. 305).
In the adoption stage, which is “the decision to make full use of the innovation” (Smith & Ragan,
2005, p. 305). By the integration stage, the program or innovation has become routine (Smith &
Ragan, 2005, p. 306).
The staged implementation plan of Smith and Ragan (2005) can be adapted for this
program by considering that the first implementation of the curriculum to teach innovation and
creative problem solving to lower school students might expand into other subject matters and

102
across grade-levels. In this sense, the first phase for the kindergarten through fourth grade levels
would serve as a “pilot.” In other words, the pilot would begin with a rollout of the first unit for
each grade level. In this pilot phase, data will be collected to measure the effectiveness of the
curriculum to achieve the intended learning goals. The data collected after the first unit for each
grade level would inform changes and modifications moving forward. Frequent feedback will be
solicited from the young learners in developmentally appropriate ways so that the curriculum can
be recalibrated to meet the needs and interests. Additionally, other teachers may also be asked to
serve as an “objective observer” to provide insights and identify connections that the specialist
teacher may not be aware of. As such, this formative evaluation data could be used to improve
the curriculum for K–4, and also might serve as a model to expand the concepts of integrating
technology and problem-solving across other grade levels and subjects.
Evaluation Plan
Training is evaluated by what happens before, during, and after the events (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016, p. 4). In the context of classroom lessons, assessment and evaluations are
similarly timed. Furthermore, an evaluation plan is grounded with a sense of purpose, specific
results, and beneficial to the entire organization. This curriculum represents a year-long training
for elementary-aged gifted students in creative problem-solving in technology and engineering.
The results of this training are measured by the student experience, as well as instructor fidelity
to gifted teaching pedagogy. The content of this curriculum is designed to develop both
conceptual and procedural knowledge of computer science and engineering principles in
elementary-aged students. It is in alignment to the organization’s mission, which is to cultivate
talent and nurture potential for gifted students. The units strive to meet this mission by providing
access to a variety of new and relevant disciplines, such as computer science and engineering,

103
promoting critical thinking and problem solving, and supporting students in self-studies
throughout their tenure at SA. The effectiveness of the curriculum also hinges on the fact that it
facilitates talent development and differentiate for gifted learners by going beyond basic factual
knowledge to incorporate deep understanding of concepts for an expert perspective (E. Brown,
2021; Hockett & Brighton, 2021).
Evaluation Framework
This curricular program will be evaluated to determine its effectiveness, to improve the
program, and to demonstrate the value (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) of the program to the
mission of SA. In order to determine organizational value and collect formative and summative
data to improve the curriculum, the new world Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016) will be deployed. This model measures the effectiveness of training and programs based
on four levels. Level 4 measures the degree to which “targeted outcomes occur as a result of the
learning event” (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016, p. 4). Level 3 explores whether participants
transfer their learning beyond the program (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016, p. 4). Level 2
defines the amount of learning participants gained from the event (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). Finally, Level 1 measures the participants ’reactions to the learning events.
It is important to distinguish between the old Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016) and the new world Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). first,
the new world Kirkpatrick model has added in novel criteria for measuring outcomes based on
levels. In Level 3, the new world Kirkpatrick model has added required drivers, and on-the-job
learning (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016, p. 7) to the previous critical behaviors. In Level 2, the
new world Kirkpatrick model also includes confidence and commitment (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016, p. 8), whereas the old model only measured knowledge skills, and attitudes.

104
And, in Level 1, the new world Kirkpatrick level includes engagement and relevance, whereas
the old model only includes customer satisfaction (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016, p. 9). A
final distinction between the two models is the order of planning and implementation. Whereas
the new world model is planned starting with Level 4 and descending to Level 1 and
implemented in the reverse order, the old model planned and implemented from Level 1 to Level
4.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
There are no shortages of training for teachers and schools, but there is a noticeable lack
of evaluations of said training (Darling-Hammond, 2013). Training events should substantively
impact an organization’s positive outcomes. In order to best understand the degree of impact, the
evaluation plan should be rooted in a deep understanding of the organization’s mission and
current state of operations. The new world model begins with Level 4: Results (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). Training must translate to real results that contribute to the business or
mission of the school (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Thus, the results in the Level 4 of the
new world model are measured by whether the outcome benefits the organization internally and
externally (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Level 4 results use leading indicators to track progress towards outcome and to establish
a connection between the performance as a result of the training and the results (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016), p. 60). Leading indicators can appear internally and externally and can be
shown as qualitative or quantitative results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), p. 62). For this
curriculum, leading indicators include quality ratings from the parent community, increased
awareness of a STEAM program at SA within the independent school professional network,

105
student completed projects that apply problem-solving within the context of technology and
innovation, and the development of student talent and potential within a STEAM field.
Level 4 results are measured summatively and formatively (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016, p. 63). Monitoring of leading indicators should begin before the training is implemented in
order to measure change. The data can be collected via existing channels or through participant
validation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Within independent schools such as SA, there are
often offices dedicated to measuring parent engagement and satisfaction, as well as offices
committed to improving instruction and curriculum. Therefore, information as to parent
reception of and satisfaction with the STEAM program at SA can be connected with information
the communications and marketing department may already collect. To measure the impact of
the curriculum on the academic community, buzz generated with the professional networks and
websites within the independent school system could indicate effectiveness of the program.
Student learning and talent development can be measured via completed projects, increased
student achievement on standardized tests in a STEAM subject, and teacher reports of student
motivation and engagement in the Innovations class from K–8. Table 10 outlines the leading
indicators and metrics used to evaluate external and internal outcomes for the curriculum to teach
innovation to K–4 gifted learners.

106
Table 10
Indicators, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric Method
External outcomes
Increased reports of
parent satisfaction
with the STEAM
program at SA
Number of positive comments
around SA’s technology and
innovation department
Cooperating parents
provide data via
satisfaction surveys or
interviews
Increased number of
positive comments of
community with the
Independent School
Network
Number of other independent
schools familiar with the
STEAM program at SA
Cooperating administrators
provide data via interview
Increased number of
applicants interested in
STEAM at SA
Number of prospective parents
who report interest in the
STEAM program at SA
Data collected by and
borrowed from the
Admissions Office
Internal outcomes
Increased student
engagement with
STEAM subjects
Number of students reporting
interest in STEAM subjects
or careers
Student data generated
through survey
Increased student
achievement in
STEAM subjects
Degree of school growth on
standardized test scores with
STEAM subject for K–8
students
Data collected by and
borrowed from academic
administrators within the
divisions
Increased application of
engineering and
computational
problem solving
process
Number of student projects
completed that demonstrate
satisfactory effort in the
application of the steps
within the problem-solving
process
Data collected by and
borrowed from
cooperating teachers
Increased positive
comments of student
critical thinking
reported by teachers
Number of positive comments Data collected via interview
of cooperating teachers

107
Outcome Metric Method
Increased number of
students engaging in
advanced learning
opportunities with the
STEAM field
Number of students pursuing
after school enrichment
opportunities at an advanced
level
Data collected by and
borrowed from the After
School Enrichments
Department
Level 3: Behavior
In the new Kirkpatrick model, Level 3 refers to “the degree to which participants apply
what they learned” outside of the training or learning event (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016, p.
49). In other words, Level 3 measures the level of transfer of learning between the training and
real-world application. Dinsmore et al. (2014) define transfer as the process of applying what one
knows or can do in one situation to a novel situation (p. 121), and specifically, positive transfer
as whether individuals apply concepts from a base problem to solve a target problem (p. 123).
Transfer occurs when prior knowledge affects performance on a new task, and recent research
indicates that mixed transfer, or the application of general strategies and principles to a broad
variety of tasks, is possible (Mayer, 2011), p. 21). Specifically, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s
(2016) Level 3 indicates the level of positive transfer of learning, measured in Level 2, to
behaviors in the job environment. This level is measured by monitoring progress of critical
behavior and aligning required drivers (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Critical Behaviors Required to Perform the Course Outcomes
Critical behaviors are those few, intentionally specified actions that, when performed
reliably, have the greatest impact on program outcomes (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016, p. 51).
Further, these behaviors are clearly connected to outcomes, are observable, and are measurable
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Critical behaviors are very similar to course learning goals

108
which Smith and Ragan (2005) also define as observable and measurable behaviors
demonstrated after instruction. Both concepts are directly related to the transfer of learning
which Mayer (2011) suggested is the goal of all learning and instruction. Table 11 lists the
critical behaviors for the evaluation of the curriculum to teach innovation in K–4 gifted
classrooms.

109
Table 11
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical behavior Metric Method Timing
In weekly technology
and innovation
classes, students will
be able to analyze
the problem by
identifying and
defining problem
features.
Number of
accurate
problem
definitions
In class, the lead
teacher will keep a
record of student
participants and
notes on individual
student progress.
In class, students will
document their
problem solving in
journals or
handouts.
Once a 7-day
cycle
In weekly technology
and innovation
classes, students will
be able to identify
and select solution
paths.
Number of
solutions
identified
In class, students will
create visual and
physical
representations and
models of different
solutions.
Once a 7-day
cycle
In weekly technology
and innovation
classes, students will
be able to rank
solution options
based on efficiency,
effectiveness, and
impact.
Number of times
students weigh
options
Number of
discussions on
implications
potential
solutions
In class, the lead
teacher will observe
student discussions
and take notes.
Once a 7-day
cycle
In weekly technology
and innovation
classes, students will
be able to
implement the
solution and
evaluate the
outcome.
Number of
solutions tested
Number of
evaluative
comments made
on solution
Number of
comments made
on actual
outcome
The lead teacher will
engage students in
closing
conversations and
take notes on
student discussion.
Once a 7-day
cycle

110
Critical behavior Metric Method Timing
In weekly technology
and innovation
classes, students will
communicate the
efficacy, utility, and
impact of the
outcome.
Number of times
outcomes are
discussed in
class for
efficacy, utility,
and impact
The lead teacher will
engage students in
closing
conversations and
take notes on
student discussion.
Once a 7-day
cycle
Required Drivers
Organizations can facilitate critical behaviors by implementing and fostering “processes
and systems” (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016, p. 53) of accountability and support. Required
drivers monitor, reinforce, encourage, and reward critical behaviors, and often already exist in
organizations (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Within the context of the classroom, required
drivers promote student learning via methods such as mastery-goals (Anderman, 2020) and
environments that promote student autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Anderman, 2020;
Ryan & Deci, 2000). Schools create positive learning environments through reinforcement,
encouragement, and rewarding achievement-oriented behaviors, and monitoring avoidant
behaviors. Table 12 outlines existing required drivers that should be harnessed within this
course.

111
Table 12
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method Timing Critical behaviors supported
Reinforcing
Reminding language Throughout the course 1–5
Interactive modeling
opportunities
Before, during, and after
introduction of new
problem, method, or tool
1–5
Slides and handouts On a weekly basis 1–5
Provision of real-world
examples
Throughout the course 1–5
Shared rubric of
performance expectations
for projects
At the end of the unit or
project
1–5
Self-directed learning
opportunities
At the end of structured
learning activity
1–5
Encouraging
Feedback on problemsolving process
Throughout the course 1–5
Rewarding
Recognition of progress At the beginning and end of
each unit
1–5
Monitoring
Student self-assessment
using rubric
At the end of the unit or
project
1–5
Teacher observations Throughout the course 1–5

112
Organizational Support
Organizational support for successful integration of Level 3 behaviors requires access to
resources, time, and personnel (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). In the case of the curriculum
to teach innovation and technology to gifted learners, it is imperative that there is financial
support, pedagogical support, and at least one individual in the classroom who is able to observe
and note behaviors. SA believes in the importance of this program and is committed to attaining
positive outcomes. They have provided assistant faculty members to support the lead teacher,
scheduled common planning times to facilitate cross-subject integration, and is dedicated to
outfitting the program with any required materials for student learning. Other faculty members at
SA have bought into the benefit of an integrated STEAM program and are active partners in
ensuring that the strategies students learn in this curriculum will be transferred to their
homeroom subjects.
Level 2: Learning
Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick (2016) define Level 2: Learning as the degree to which the
training had the intended change to “knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment”
(p. 42). Learning can be measured using formative or summative methods (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). To measure knowledge acquisition related to the training, participants can
take a pre-test and post-test or discuss a concept amongst their table and share it with the larger
group (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016, p. 44). Skill is assessed based on performance in real
world environments using simulations, scenarios, or case studies (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). Attitudes are measured using formative observations of participants behaviors or in a
post-program survey (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Finally, confidence and commitment in

113
and to learning can be measured using formative measures, such as discussions, or summative
measures, such as post-program survey questions (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
When applied to curriculum design, the evaluation of learning is outlined by learning
objectives. To review, learning objectives are unambiguous, observable, and measurable and
refer to what learners do following instruction (Smith & Ragan, 2005, p. 77). They are integral to
design efforts (Smith & Ragan, 2005, p. 77), and are used to guide further analysis of the
knowledge, skills, and attitudes required to achieve them, which, in turn, inform the objectives to
be achieved on the unit and lesson level (Smith & Ragan, 2005).
Terminal Learning Objectives
1. When given a problem in computer science class, the learner will be able to analyze
the problem by identifying and defining problem features by summarizing features in
their own words according to grade-level and the California Common Core Computer
Science Standards and the Computer Science Teacher Association Standards
(Standards).
2. Given that the problem has been identified and defined, the learner will be able to
identify and select solution paths by identifying common procedures and applying
algorithmic or creative thinking based on the California Common Core Computer
Science Standards and the Computer Science Teacher Association Standards.
3. Given the need to select a solution path, the learner will be able to rank solution
options based on efficiency, effectiveness, and impact based on the California
Common Core Computer Science Standards and the Computer Science Teacher
Association Standards.

114
4. Given that a solution path has been selected, the learner will be able to implement the
solution and evaluate the outcome by successfully solving the problem based on the
California Common Core Computer Science Standards and the Computer Science
Teacher Association Standards.
5. Given the need to evaluate an outcome to the problem-solving process, the learner
will be able to reflect on and assess efficacy, and utility, and impact of outcome by
explaining solution rationale and accuracy with evidence based on the California
Common Core Computer Science Standards and the Computer Science Teacher
Association Standards.
Components of Learning Evaluation
Given the various knowledge types represented in the terminal objectives, it is critical to
list evaluation methods for collecting data on student learning. Level 2 Learning is assessed by
declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge, as well as attitudes, confidence, and
commitment to integrate learning into real-life situations. Table 13 outlines the timing and
methods used to assess student learning.

115
Table 13
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or activity(ies) Timing
Declarative knowledge
Demonstration During class
Conferencing During class
Peer modeling During class
Knowledge checks During class
Procedural skills
Applying knowledge to create something new During class
Simulations During class
Individual work During class
Group work During class
Attitude
Discussions During class
Conferences During class
Observations During class
Feedback surveys At the end of class
Confidence
Discussions During class
Observations During class
Commitment
Interviews with other teachers Outside of class sessions
Level 1: Reaction
The final level of the new world model assesses the degree to which participants found
the quality of the training acceptable (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016, p. 39). Reactions are
evaluated based on whether participants felt the training was engaging, relevant, and satisfactory.
This level can be measured using formative assessments to refine and calibrate the teaching to
meet the learner’s needs (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016, p. 40). Within elementary education,
post-program surveys or mid course evaluations are not common practice. Instead, informal
feedback is gathered by formal and informal observations, quick check-ins throughout the

116
course, and, if developmentally appropriate, student reflection activities, such as journaling.
Table 14 outlines the relevant methods and timing this course will use to measure Level 1
reactions from the new world model.
Table 14
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program.
Method Timing
Engagement
Informal observations Throughout course
Formal observations Throughout course
Student check-ins Throughout course
Relevance
Student journal reflections At the conclusion of units
Customer satisfaction
Informal observations Throughout the course
Student journal reflections At the conclusion of units

117
Evaluation Tools
There are three distinct kinds of evaluations for training. The first explores the level of
the participant’s learning (Smith & Ragan, 2005, p. 327), and the second measures the efficacy of
instructional materials (Smith & Ragan, 2005), and third, the organization’s change due to the
impact of the training (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The quality of the instructional
methods and activities of a training are measured based on (Smith & Ragan, 2005) the degree to
which learning occurred, the improvement programs, and the amount and quality of beneficial
results to the organization (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Disciplined evaluation can determine the merit and worth of this curriculum (Alkin &
Vo, 2018) using quality tools. Quality evaluation instruments adequately address several
psychological measurement principles (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), including learning and
instruction principles (Smith & Ragan, 2005, p. 327). Thus, rooted in these principles, the
instruments and results must be able to produce accurate and actionable qualitative and
quantitative data for stakeholders and training departments (Alkin & Vo, 2018; Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016), and subsequently inform the success of the instructional method (Smith &
Ragan, 2005, p. 327).
Assessment and evaluation must be learner-centered in its construction (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016; Smith & Ragan, 2005). Students or participants are asked to provide feedback
immediately after the training, as well as after a delayed period of time. This curricula uses
formative and summative assessments throughout the units in order to improve instruction for
the learners. As a result, learner feedback is critical (Smith & Ragan, 2005, p. 327). Formative
assessments help teachers and trainers determine what the students or participants have learned
as a result of the instruction and guide the pathway of future instruction (Smith & Ragan, 2005,

118
p. 139). Summative assessments capture data on the effectiveness of instruction (Smith & Ragan,
2005), and are deployed at the end of the course (Smith & Ragan, 2005, p. 342). In relation to the
new world model, Level 1 and 2 serve as formative assessment because the levels capture
engagement and learning (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), whereas Levels 3 and 4 assess
behaviors and results of the instructional program (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) and serve as
a summative assessment of effectiveness.
The timing of the feedback is important in that Level 1 and 2 outcomes occur during
lessons and at the completion of units, whereas Level 3 and 4 results are most accurately
measured after participants have time to apply the training, get results, and receive support
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016, p. 96). Immediately after the training, learners provide
feedback on the value of the training based on their engagement in the content, as well as what
they have learned as a result of the training (Kirkpatrick, & Kirkpatrick, 2016). When exploring
this concept from the lens of this curriculum, mid- and post-unit evaluations can provide
information on Levels 1 and 2, or student learning and perceived value of the academic content,
as well as progress towards Levels 3 and 4 outcomes. Therefore, students must regularly have
the opportunity to provide reflections and feedback. Formative and summative assessments
provide evaluation program data immediately after unit implementation, as well as after the
training has been totally implemented (Smith & Ragan, 2005). A delayed program evaluation
that also includes stakeholders, such as parents, faculty, and administrators would measure the
degree to which changes in behavior have positively benefited the organization based on the
above Level 4 criteria for success.

119
Immediately Following the Program Implementation
Level 1 items for this course measure the degree to which students felt the class was
engaging, relevant, and satisfactory. Level 2 items assess declarative knowledge and procedural
knowledge, as well as attitudes, confidence, and commitment to integrate learning into real-life
situations. Unlike adult learning situations in which feedback after training courses is common
practice, elementary students at SA are asked to reflect via journaling or by using a rubric to
evaluate their own growth. Additionally, because this course is intended to be taught across
several grade levels, the instrument is meant to be adaptable depending on the grade-level. It is
recommended that the instructor brainstorms or provides a list of different touch point activities
students experienced throughout the unit to help with recall. Also, the question number is
intentionally limited to accommodate younger learners. Finally, as outlined above, the
instruments meant to measure Level 1 and 2 should be deployed at the conclusion of a unit.
Appendix D lists questions illuminating the student experience throughout the units. The
instrument in Appendix D also includes a short paragraph meant to provide the students with
context for the reflection The wording in the instruments could also be adapted for students to
review at the end of the year, as a reflection upon culmination of the course. However, in order
to accommodate younger students ’memories and get an accurate data point of Level 1 and 2,
student feedback should be elicited at the conclusion of each unit. In addition to self-reports of
learning, teachers should also collect student work to document growth for summative
assessment.
Delayed for a Period After the Program Implementation
A delayed evaluation captures data on all four levels of the new world model. Again,
these tools must provide information on the learner’s experience of the curriculum (Kirkpatrick

120
& Kirkpatrick, 2016) and instruction (Smith & Ragan, 2005). These data are meant for a wider
audience of stakeholders, including trainers and groups within the organization. Additionally, in
the case of this curriculum, the data should include stakeholders outside of the immediate
classroom. Therefore, there are two delayed evaluation instruments in Appendix D: Item 5 and
Item 6. Additional tools include one geared towards the students as learners, and another geared
towards teachers and parents. These instruments are meant to be delivered at the conclusion of
implementation, and could also be used longitudinally to capture the duration of results.
In this instrument, students report the degree to which their interest and engagement have
changed as a result of the class, their own self-efficacy with the subject, and their interest in
future classes in the STEAM field. Student evaluations should be deployed after the course is
complete, and potentially program reflections can be delivered to alumni. The instrument for
parents gauges parent satisfaction with and interest in the program and should be delivered at the
end of program implementation. Data should be contrasted with other parent satisfaction surveys
and data points previous to the program, including formal and informal conversations with
division heads and administrators. Finally, a faculty instrument, delivered at the end of the
course, measures the degree to which transfer and integration of STEAM concepts occurred.
Data Analysis and Reporting
The intended results outlined for Level 4 are both external and internal. External factors
include increased parent satisfaction with the gifted STEAM program at SA, increased
community awareness of the program, and increased applicants as a result of the program.
Internal factors for Level 4 results are increased student engagement, achievement, and problem
solving ability outside of the classroom, an increase of students interested in pursuing STEAMrelated careers, and reports from teachers of increased student critical thinking and creative

121
problem solving. Furthermore, Level 4 data is generated after the program is completed so that
the impacts of the program can be monitored.
The data on parent satisfaction can be gathered from the admissions office, from existing
parent satisfaction surveys, and from the Parent Survey Evaluation Tool (See Appendix D, Item
5). The curriculum could be considered successful if there are trends towards positive reports
from parents. Figure 7 represents fictitious data that would indicate that this curricular program
met expectations, specifically around parent satisfaction with their child’s learning outcomes
starting previous to the implementation of the program and directly after program
implementation is completed.
Figure 7
Parent Satisfaction Data Representation

122
Student engagement and achievement can be measured through qualitative data and
reports from faculty and administrators who regularly interact with students. Qualitative data can
be captured by interviewing participating students after the completion of the program,
identifying any trends in self-reports of interest, efficacy, and confidence in problem-solving.
Figure 8 represents fictitious data that would indicate positive growth for students in developing
talent and potential in creative problem-solving in the STEAM field.

123
Figure 8
Student Testimonials of Interest Development and Problem-Solving Application Data
Visualization

124
Conclusion
Talent development in STEAM fields is at a critical juncture. In the future, more and
more careers will require knowledge of computer science and engineering (National Academies
of Sciences, 2018). Technology and innovation can provide gifted learners with the opportunity
to practice creativity, collaboration, and critical thinking skills. If the objective of education is to
develop strengths, interest in advanced learning opportunities, and career-pathways, then it is
critical to expose students to engaging content in those subject areas early.
This curriculum has been developed to teach elementary students who identify as gifted
learners how to use a creative problem-solving process to solve STEAM-related problems,
specifically focusing on technology and engineering disciplines. The design is guided by tenets
of social cognitive theory, self-determination theory, the 4-phase model of interest development,
and pedagogical theories on best practices for giftedness, including the parallel curriculum
model, the integrated curriculum model, and the depth and complexity model. As students
engage in rigorous and interesting learning activities, they will be better prepared to apply a fourstep problem-solving approach to other subject areas. Based on clear learning outcomes and
evaluation strategies, this curriculum model can be used to develop interest and talent in highability elementary school students.

125
References
Alkin, M. C., & Vo, A. T. (2018). Evaluation essentials: From A to Z (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
Anderman, E. M. (2020). Achievement motivation theory: Balancing precision and utility.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101864.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101864
Azzam, A. (2016). Six strategies for challenging gifted learners. ASCD.
https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/six-strategies-for-challenging-gifted-learners
Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Asian Journal of Social
Psychology, 2(1), 21–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-839X.00024
Bates, A. (2015). Teaching in a digital age: Guidelines for designing teaching and learning.
BCCampus.
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2001). White supremacy and racism in the post-Civil Rights Era. Lynne
Rienner Publishers.
Brown, E. (2017). Characteristics and curricular needs of advanced learners. In J. VanTasselBaska & C. A. Little (Eds.), Content-based curriculum for high-ability learners (3rd ed.,
pp. 33-46). Routledge.
Brown, E. (2021). History of gifted and advanced academic curriculum theory and practice.
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003235842-3
Brown, E. A., & Brown, R. S. (2020). The effect of advanced placement computer science course
taking on college enrollment. West Coast Analytics.
http://www.westcoastanalytics.com/uploads/6/9/6/7/69675515/longitudinal_study_-
_combined_report_final_3_10_20__jgq_.pdf
Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92.

126
The Buck Institute for Education. (n.d.). What is PBL? PBLWorks.
https://www.pblworks.org/what-is-pbl
California Department of Education. (2022). Computer science education content standards
development. https://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/computerscicontentstds.asp
California Department of Education. (2023). Gifted and talented education.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/gt/
Cardelle-Elawar, M., & Wetzel, K. (1995). Students and computers as partners in developing
students’ problem-solving skills. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 27(4),
378–401.
Cecchi, L. A., Rodríguez, J. P., & Dahl, V. (2023). Logic programming at elementary school:
Why, what and how should we teach logic programming to children? Springer Nature
Switzerland. https://10.1007/978-3-031-35254-6_11
The Center for Depth and Complexity. (2024). The depth and complexity icons.
https://depthcomplexity.com/the-icons/
Chen, J., Yun Dai, D., & Zhou, Y. (2013). Enable, enhance, and transform: How technology use
can improve gifted education. Roeper Review, 35(3), 166–176.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2013.794892
Cho, M. K., & Kim, M. K. (2020). Investigating elementary students’ problem solving and
teacher scaffolding in solving an ill-structured problem. International Journal of
Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 8(4), 274.
https://10.46328/ijemst.v8i4.1148
Clark, R. E., Yates, K., Early, S., & Moulton, K. (2010). An analysis of the failure of electronic
media and Discovery‐Based learning. Handbook of improving performance in the

127
workplace: Volumes 1‐3 (pp. 263-297). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
https://10.1002/9780470592663.ch8
Code.Org. (n.d.). Glossary CS fundamentals. https://code.org/curriculum/docs/k-5/glossary
Code.Org. (2022). Code.org course A (2022) vocabulary. from https://studio.code.org/s/coursea2022/vocab
Code.Org. (2023). Code.org’s approach to diversity & equity in computer science.
https://code.org/diversity
ComputerScience.org Staff. (2022). Women in computer science & programming.
ComputerScience.org. https://www.computerscience.org/resources/women-in-computerscience/
Creative Computing Lab. (n.d.). Creative computing curriculum | overview. Harvard School of
Education.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). Getting teacher evaluation right: What really matters for
effectiveness and improvement. Teachers College Press.
Davidson Institute. (2020, January 24). Tips for teachers: Successful strategies for teaching
gifted learners [Blog post]. https://www.davidsongifted.org/gifted-blog/tips-for-teacherssuccessful-strategies-for-teaching-gifted-learners/
Davidson Institute. (2024). Gifted traits and characteristics.
https://www.davidsongifted.org/prospective-families/gifted-traits-and-characteristics/
Davis, M. (2015). A brief history of makerspaces. https://curiositycommons.wordpress.com/abrief-history-of-makerspaces/
Dinsmore, D. L., Baggetta, P., Doyle, S., & Loughlin, S. M. (2014). The role of initial learning,
problem features, prior knowledge, and pattern recognition on transfer success. Journal

128
of Experimental Education, 82(1), 121–141.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2013.835299
Envision Gifted. (n.d.). Universal themes. https://envisiongifted.com/universal-themesgeneralizations/
Foshay, R., & Kirkley, J. (1998). Principles of teaching problem solving. TRO Learning.
Ford, T. G., Kwon, K., & Tsotsoros, J. D. (2021). Early childhood distance learning in the U.S.
during the COVID pandemic: Challenges and opportunities. Children and Youth Services
Review, 131, 106297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2021.106297
Franks, B., & Dolan, L. (1982). Affective characteristics of gifted children: Educational
implications. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 26(4), 172–178.
https://10.1177/001698628202600405
Hallinen, J. (2023). STEM description, development, & facts. Encyclopædia Britannica.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/STEM-education
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational
Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4
Hockett, J. A., & Brighton, C. M. (2021). General curriculum design: Principles and best
practices. In K. R. Stephens & F. A. Karnes (Eds.), Introduction to curriculum design in
gifted education (pp. 41–62). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003235842-4
Housand, A. M. (2016). In context; gifted characteristics and implications for curriculum. In K.
R. Stephens & F. A. Karnes (Eds.), Introduction to curriculum design in gifted education
(pp. 3–22). Prufrock Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003235842-2
Housand, B. C. (2021). The role of technology in curriculum for the gifted: From little acorns
grow mighty oaks. In K. R. Stephens & F. A. Karnes (Eds.), Introduction to curriculum

129
design in gifted education (pp. 261–280). Prufrock Press.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003235842-17
Housand, A. M., Housand, B. C., & Renzulli, J. S. (2017). Using the schoolwide enrichment
model with technology (1st ed.). Routledge. https://10.4324/9781003239468
Hu, W., & Guo, X. (2021, October). Toward the development of key competencies: a conceptual
framework for the STEM curriculum design and a case study. Frontiers in Education, 6,
Article 684265.
Hughes, J. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming
technology-integrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2),
277–302. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/26105/
IDEO. (n.d.). IDEO design thinking. https://designthinking.ideo.com
Interaction Design Foundation. (2016, May 25). What is design thinking (DT)? [Blog post].
https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/design-thinking
Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 102(3), 588–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019682
Kaplan, S. N. (2021). Differentiated curriculum and instruction for advanced and gifted
learners. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003111443
Keleş, T. (2022). A comparison of creative problem solving features of gifted and non-gifted
high school students. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 12(2), 18–31.
https://doi.org/10.47750/pegegog.12.02.03
Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education.
International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), Article 11.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z

130
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
ATD Press.
Lacy, M. (2017, December 9). Just tell me what I need to know: Reflexivity and positionality
statements. Medium. https://medium.com/@Marvette/just-tell-me-what-i-need-to-knowreflexivity-and-positionality-statements-fb52ec0f4e17
Lee, Y. (2011). Scratch: Multimedia programming environment for young gifted learners. Gifted
Child Today, 34(2).
Little, C. A., & Housand, B. C. (2011). Avenues to professional learning online. Gifted Child
Today, 34(4), 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217511415383
Manning, S. (2006). Recognizing gifted students: A practical guide for teachers. Kappa Delta Pi
Record, 42(2), 64–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2006.10516435
Matthews, M. S. (2009). Gifted learners who drop out: Prevalence and prevention. In L. V.
Shavinina (Ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness (pp. 527–536). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2_24
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Mayer, R. E., & Wittrock, M. C. (1996). Problem-solving transfer. In D. C. Berliner & R. C.
Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 47–62). Macmillan Library
Reference USA; Prentice Hall International.
Mettas, A. C., & Constantinou, C. C. (2008). The technology fair: A project-based learning
approach for enhancing problem solving skills and interest in design and technology
education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 18(1), 79–100.
https://10.1007/s10798-006-9011-3

131
Mersand, S. (2021). The state of makerspace research: A review of the literature. TechTrends,
65(2), 174–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00566-5
Microbit.org. (n.d.). What is the micro:Bit? https://microbit.org/get-started/what-is-the-microbit/
Microsoft. (n.d.). Physical computing. https://www.microsoft.com/enus/research/project/physical-computing/
Middleton, H. (2009). Problem-solving in technology education as an approach to education for
sustainable development. International Journal of Technology and Design Education,
19(2), 187–197. https://10.1007/s10798-008-9075-3
Mofield, E. L. (2023). Vertical differentiation for gifted, advanced, and high-potential students:
25 strategies to stretch student thinking (1st ed.). Routledge.
https://10.4324/9781003293286
National Association for Gifted Children. (2019). 2019 Pre-K-Grade 12 gifted programming
standards. http://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/standards/intro%202019%20
Programming %20Standards.pdf
National Association for Gifted Children. (2023). Glossary of terms.
https://nagc.org/page/glossary
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states.
https://www.nextgenscience.org/standards
Ogle, D. M. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text.
The Reading Teacher, 39(6), 564–570. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.39.6.11
Patall, E. A., & Zambrano, J. (2019). Facilitating student outcomes by support autonomy:
Implications for practice and policy. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 6(2), 115–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732219862572

132
Payne, A. (2011). Equitable access for underrepresented students in gifted education. The
George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED539772.pdf
Periathiruvadi, S., & Rinn, A. N. (2012). Technology in gifted education. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 45(2), 153–169.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2012.10782601
Perry, N., Phillips, L., & Hutchinson, L. (2006). Mentoring student teachers to support Self‐
Regulated learning. The Elementary School Journal, 106(3), 237–254.
https:/doi.org/10.1086/501485
Pyryt, M.C. (2009). Recent developments in technology: Implications for gifted education. In L.
V.Shavinina (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 1173–1180). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2_60
Rich, P., Egan, G., & Ellsworth, J. (2019). A framework for decomposition in computational
thinking. Paper presented at the 416-421. https://10.1145/3304221.3319793
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3319793
Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (1992). Using curriculum compacting to challenge the aboveaverage. Educational Leadership, 50(2), 51–57.
Renzulli, J. S. (2011). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan,
92(8), 81-88. https://https://doi.org/10.1177/00317217110920082
Renzulli, J. S., & Renzulli, S. R. (2010). The schoolwide enrichment model: A focus on student
strengths and interests. Gifted Education International, 26(2-3), 140–156.
https://doi.org/10.1177/026142941002600303

133
Ritchotte, J. A., Suhr, D., Alfurayh, N. F., & Graefe, A. K. (2016). An exploration of the
psychosocial characteristics of high achieving students and identified gifted students.
Journal of Advanced Academics, 27(1), 23–38.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X15615316
Roehrig, G. H., Dare, E. A., Ellis, J. A., & Ring-Whalen, E. (2021). Beyond the basics: A
detailed conceptual framework of integrated STEM. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary
Science Education Research, 3, 1–18.
Ronksley-Pavia, M., & Neumann, M. M. (2020). Conceptualising gifted student (dis)
engagement through the lens of learner (re) engagement. Education Sciences, 10(10),
Article 274. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10100274
Russo, C. F. (2004). A comparative study of creativity and cognitive problem-solving strategies
of high-IQ and average students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(3), 179–190.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620404800303
Russo, H. L. (2013). Play and creativity at the center of curriculum and assessment: A New York
city school’s journey to re-think curricular pedagogy. Bordón. Revista De Pedagogía,
65(1), 131–146. https://doi.org/10.13042/brp.2013.65109
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being self-determination theory. The American
Psychological Association, 55(1), 68–78. https://10.1037110003-066X.55.1.68
Sanders, M. (2012, December 7–10). Integrative stem education as best practice [Paper
presentation]. 7th Biennial International Technology Education Research Conference,
Queensland, Australia.

134
Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2020). Motivation and social cognitive theory.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60, Article 101832.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101832
Si, J., & Kim, D. (2011). How do instructional sequencing methods affect cognitive load,
learning transfer, and learning time? International Research, 2, 1362–1372.
Sinatra, G. M., Mukhopadhyay, A., Allbright, T. N., Marsh, J. A., & Polikoff, M. S. (2017).
Speedometry: A vehicle for promoting interest and engagement through integrated STEM
instruction. The Journal of Educational Research, 110(3), 308–316.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2016.1273178
Sisk, D. (2005). Psychosocial development of the gifted: Implications for a counseling
intervention for gifted students. Gifted Education International, 19(3), 213–225.
https://doi.org/10.1177/026142940501900304
Slagg, A. (2022, June 23). Teaching the principles of computer science early in K–12 schools.
EdTech Magazine. https://edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2022/06/teaching-principlescomputer-science-early-k-12-schools-perfcon
Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional design (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Song, K., & Porath, M. (2006). Common and domain-specific cognitive characteristics of gifted
students: An integrated model of human abilities. High Ability Studies, 16(2), 229–246.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13598130600618256
Szuba, T., Rogers, A., & Malitz, G. (n.d.). Forum unified education technology suite. U.S.
Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/tech_suite/index.asp
Thomas, M., Mitchell, M., & Joseph, R. (2003). The third dimension of ADDIE: A cultural
embrace. TechTrends, 46(2), 40–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02772075

135
Tomlinson, C. A. (2009). The parallel curriculum: A design to develop learner potential and
challenge advanced learners (2nd ed.). Corwin Press.
Tomlinson, C. A., Kaplan, S., Renzulli, J. S., Purcell, J. H., Leppien, J. H., Burns, D. E.,
Strickland, C. A., & Imbeau, M. (2008). Thinking about the elements of curriculum
design. The parallel curriculum: A design to develop learner potential and challenge
advanced learners (pp. 37-74). Corwin Press.
Treffinger, D. J., & Reis, S. M. (2004). (Eds.). Creativity and giftedness. Corwin Press.
Usher, E. (2018). Acknowledging the whiteness of motivation research: Seeking cultural
relevance. Educational Psychologist, 53, 131–144.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1442220
Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1990). Automation and schema acquisition in
learning elementary computer programming: Implications for the design of practice.
Elsevier BV. https://10.1016/0747-5632(90)90023-a
VanTassel-Baska, J., & Reis, S. M. (2004). Curriculum for gifted and talented students (1st ed.).
Corwin Press.
VanTassel-Baska, J., & Wood, S. (2010). The integrated curriculum model (ICM). JAI Press.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.12.006
Vegas, E., & Fowler, B. (2020). What do we know about the expansion of K–12 computer
science education? The Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/whatdo-we-know-about-the-expansion-of-k-12-computer-science-education/
Vegas, E., Hansen, M., & Fowler, B. (2021). Building skills for life: How to expand and improve
computer science education around the world. The Brookings Institute.

136
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/building-skills-for-life-how-to-expand-and-improvecomputer-science-education-around-the-world/
Wang, X., Hwang, G., Zi-Yun, L., & Wang, H. (2017). Enhancing students' computer
programming performances, critical thinking awareness and attitudes towards
programming: An online peer-assessment attempt. Journal of Educational Technology &
Society, 20(4), 58–68.
Wei, X., Lin, L., Meng, N., Tan, W., Kong, S., & Kinshuk. (2021). The effectiveness of partial
pair programming on elementary school students ’computational thinking skills and selfefficacy. Computers & Education, 160, Article 104023.
https://10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104023
William & Mary School of Education. (2024). Curriculum: The integrated curriculum model
(ICM). https://education.wm.edu/centers/cfge/curriculum/
Wilson, D., & Conyers, M. (2016). Teaching students to drive their brains: Metacognitive
strategies, activities, and lesson ideas. ASCD.
Wood, V. R., & Laycraft, K. C. (2020). How can we better understand, identify, and support
highly gifted and profoundly gifted students? A literature review of the psychological
development of highly-profoundly gifted individuals and overexcitabilities. Annals of
Cognitive Science, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.36959/447/348
Worthington, T. (2013, April 26–28). Synchronizing asynchronous learning - combining
synchronous and asynchronous techniques [Paper presentation] 2013 8th International
Conference on Computer Science & Education, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
https://10.1109/ICCSE.2013.6553983

137
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329–339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.329

138
Appendix A: Course Overview and Learning Activities Table for Second Grade
The purpose of this course is to teach second grade students who identify as gifted
learners how to use a creative problem-solving process to solve STEAM-related problems,
specifically focusing on technology and engineering domains. By the end of this course,
learners will be able to use a systematic process to address open-ended problems in STEAMsubjects. The units for this curriculum start with a unit to introduce the basics of computer
hardware and software computer, followed by a unit on program development, and finally, an
introduction to microcircuits and robotics. Each unit will present content and provide the
context for problem-solving. Per Gifted Programming Standards (National Association for
Gifted Children, 2019), the curriculum is planned in order to facilitate talent development
through goal setting, resiliency, and responsible decision making. Additionally, the course
contains a variety of technologies, including tablets, microcircuits, crafts, and access to online
communities so that students can take active part in their learning (National Association for
Gifted Children, 2019). Finally, the course starts with an identity reflection in which the child
begins to articulate their own strengths and interests (National Association for Gifted Children,
2019). Additionally, each unit includes a pre-test and post-test to accurately assess learning
progress (National Association for Gifted Children, 2019).
The problem-solving process will be integrated into each unit through a real-world
problem that can be solved using the skills and tools introduced. Throughout the unit lessons,
learners first identify and define a problem, decompose the problem into parts, identify,
evaluate, and select a solution path, and then implement and assess their outcomes. As students
design solutions to different problems, it is expected that their final products will be
individualized and express a creative endeavor.

139
The course consists of three units and is meant to be delivered over one academic year,
within approximately 25 sessions. It is intended to be delivered synchronously and in person.
The course is geared towards high-ability or gifted students in second grade. Gifted students
have different abilities and talents and can be characterized by the potential for talent
development (Manning, 2006) and higher aptitude for learning. Cognitive characteristics of
gifted learners include higher processing and retaining of information, the ability to transfer
knowledge between subjects, longer attention spans, and accelerated and flexible thought
processing (Manning, 2006). Specifically, too, gifted students can think abstractly about
concepts earlier than their peers and can work independently on more complex projects than
their peers (Manning, 2006).
The course overview will be delivered during the first week of classes in the academic
year. Before each unit, students will complete a KWL (Ogle, 1986) reflection on the topic to
activate prior knowledge and serve as an informal formative assessment. At the end of each
unit, students ’projects will serve as reference points for a summative assessment. As the
course concludes, students will also submit an evaluation of the course. Table A1 is a visual
overview of the second grade course units, with additional information on content and
standards, problems addressed, lesson breakdown, and the summative event. Table A1
provides an overview of the learning activities for the course overview. Table A2 outlines the
learning activities, rationale, and total amount of time for each activity for the course overview
for second grade. Table A1 shows an overview that will be used throughout the second grade
course as additional student scaffolding.

Table A1
Second Grade Course Overview With Units and Lesson Outline
Second grade: A study in evolution
Unit theme and
essential
questions
Past, present, and future
How has technology evolved?
What kinds of problems has
technology been used to solve?
Storytelling through games
How has storytelling evolved with
technology?
Designing a dream school
What is inclusive design?
How has technology evolved to
support our own learning
community?
Content skills
and
standards
Students identify different
examples of problems that
computers have solved
historically and can solve
presently. Students apply
terminology to a computer
design made from crafting
supplies, including paper,
scissors, tape, pipe cleaners,
dowels, and pompoms.
California Common Core
Computer Science Standards
(2016)
K-2.CS.2 Explain the functions of
common hardware and software
components of computing
systems. (P7.2);
K-2.CS.3 Describe basic hardware
and software problems using
accurate terminology. (P6.2,
P7.2);
Students compare and contrast
how video games and stories are
similar or different. Then,
students apply features of
stories, including characters,
setting, problem, and resolution,
to create a basic game using
block programming.
California Common Core
Computer Science Standards
(2016)
K-2.IC.18 Compare how people
lived and worked before and
after the adoption of new
computing technologies. (P3.1);
K-2.AP.12 Create programs with
sequences of commands and
simple loops, to express ideas or
address a problem. (P5.2);
K-2.AP.16 Debug errors in an
algorithm or program that
Students identify, plan, and create
a structure within a greater
school community that focuses
on inclusivity. Students build
their design with Legos and
program their Lego to complete
a basic task that promotes
accessibility for a specific user.
This final unit is completed in
partnership with the homeroom
social studies unit.
California Common Core
Computer Science Standards
(2016)
K-2.IC.18 Compare how people
lived and worked before and
after the adoption of new
computing technologies. (P3.1);
K-2.AP.12 Create programs with
sequences of commands and
simple loops, to express ideas or
address a problem. (P5.2);
140

Second grade: A study in evolution
K-2.IC.18 Compare how people
lived and worked before and
after the adoption of new
computing technologies. (P3.1)
Next Generation Science
Standards (2013)
K-2-ETS1-1. Ask questions, make
observations, and gather
information about a situation
people want to change to define
a simple problem that can be
solved through the development
of a new or improved object or
tool.;
K-2-EST-1-2. Develop a simple
sketch, drawing, or physical
model to illustrate how the
shape of an object helps it
function as needed to solve a
given problem.
includes sequences and simple
loops. (P6.2);
K-2.AP.17 Describe the steps
taken and choices made during
the iterative process of program
development. (P7.2)
K-2.AP.16 Debug errors in an
algorithm or program that
includes sequences and simple
loops. (P6.2);
K-2.AP.17 Describe the steps
taken and choices made during
the iterative process of program
development. (P7.2);
3-5.IC.21 Propose ways to
improve the accessibility and
usability of technology products
for the diverse needs and wants
of users. (P1.2)
NGSS (2013):
2-PS1-1. Plan and conduct an
investigation to describe and
classify different kinds of
materials by their observable
properties.;
2-PS1-2. Analyze data obtained
from testing different materials
to determine which materials
have the properties that are best
suited for an intended purpose;*
2-PS1-3. Make observations to
construct an evidence-based
account of how an object made
of a small set of pieces can be
disassembled and made into a
new object.
141

Second grade: A study in evolution
Problems
addressed
How might I design a computer
that solves a problem 100 years
in the future?
How might I program a video
game to tell a story?
What makes a school inclusive?
What are areas of our school
that we could redesign to be
more inclusive?
How might we redesign that space
using Legos and programming?
Lesson outline 1. What is a computer? (identify
and define)
2. Timeline of technology
(identify and define)
3. Computational problems of
today (apply models)
4. Problems of the future (apply
models)
5. Creating future computers
(design solutions)
6. Sharing our future computers
(evaluate and reflect)
1. Introduction: How are games
and stories similar or different
to each other? (identify and
define)
2. Planning through storyboarding
(apply models)
3. Planning our code (design
solutions)
4. Coding and debugging
5. Testing and iterating (evaluate
and reflect)
6. Game day!
1. Introduction to Lego Robotics
(sub-lessons A-D to introduce
kits, expectations and skills)
2. Defining elements of inclusive
schools
3. Planning and drafting our
innovation
4. Testing and iterating
5. Unveiling our inclusive school
community
6. Presenting to families and
reflecting on our learning
Summative
event
Students create a futuristic
computer, focused on input,
processes, storage, and output,
using crafting supplies.
Students program a video game
that has characters, a problem,
and a resolution. This project is
in partnership with the students’
homeroom literacy unit.
Students use Legos to redesign a
school structure or environment
that solves a problem for
someone in the community.
14
2

Table A2
Second Grade Course Learning Activities
Instructional
sequence
Time Description of the
learning activity
Instructor action
(supplantive)
Learner action
(generative)
Introduction 5 Welcome and introduction of the
course, as well as activate
learner excitement for the
course
Teachers will introduce
themselves and provide
a prompt for students to
think about related to
the topic of computer
science and innovation.
Learners will get up and
find someone who has a
birthday closest to theirs.
Then, they will answer
the question: What does
it mean to be innovative?
Course goal 5 State the goal. Present the course goal to
students.
Ask learners to listen to the
course goal and reflect
on how the course goal
relates to their definition
of innovation.
Reasons for the
course
5 This course has been designed to
introduce a creative problemsolving process for students to
apply to solve open-ended
problems.
The benefits of completing this
course are the development of
talent and facilitation of
interest in a lucrative and
useful career in the STEM
field. Additionally, students
will enter middle school with
requisite skills to engage in
more advanced learning.
The teacher will discuss
different ways
computers, engineering,
and technology exist in
our daily life and
connect careers and
course paths with the
existing course.
Students will brainstorm
different examples of
jobs that require
computer science or
engineering.
14
3

Instructional
sequence
Time Description of the
learning activity
Instructor action
(supplantive)
Learner action
(generative)
The risks avoided by taking this
course are the loss of
opportunity to learn critical
skills that are essential for
success in high school and
beyond, and a loss of talent
development for students at
crucial ages.
Course overview 15 Introduce the three units within
the curriculum (Figure A1).
Highlight the big ideas of each
unit and ask students to begin
to look for patterns and
relationships between the
concepts.
Preview learning activities,
including design thinking
challenges, coding, and
Makey-Makey microcircuits.
Briefly review different tools,
software, and hardware
relevant to the course.
Outline learning goals and
problem-solving process.
Review unit reflections and
rubrics for each unit project.
Review the units and
present the visual.
Generate “wonder” and
“why” statements
(Mofield, 2023). Create a
classroom Wonder Wall.
Draft a hope or goal for the
year throughout the
course.
Total Time 30
14
4

145
Figure A1
Visual Overview of Second Grade Course

146
Appendix B: Unit and Lesson Overview for Second Grade
This curriculum for second grade encompasses three units which are broken into
approximately five classes. The lessons expand on the essential question: How have computers
evolved to solve problems? The first lesson introduces the concept of computers and four main
criteria that all computers meet. The second lesson builds off the first by charting the evolution
of computers and how innovation in computer science has helped solve problems. The next
lesson situates students in the present day and asks second graders to begin to brainstorm
different problems in their lives that computers help solve. The last lesson, meant to be taught
across at least two classes, introduces a design challenge in which students ideate and prototype a
future computer.
Within the current organization, the lessons are delivered once a 7-day cycle rotation, for
45 minutes. The learning experience is designed for students in second grade to apply a problemsolving process to different concepts and in novel contexts in a technology and maker space. It is
organized to help students elaborate on the concept of the evolution of technology through an
interdisciplinary lens. Each unit asks students to apply critical and creative thinking (Mofield,
2023) to create hands-on diagrams, tell stories with games, and create interactive exhibits using
microcircuits. The order of the units is based on hierarchical knowledge types (Smith & Ragan,
2005), such as declarative knowledge, intellectual skills, cognitive strategies, attitudes, and
psychomotor skills (Smith & Ragan, 2005). For example, early lessons in each unit may focus
more heavily on declarative knowledge, and later in the unit incorporate higher-order thinking
skills. However, given the population, lessons should be flexible in pacing and content in order
to differentiate for gifted students with background knowledge in the subject. At the conclusion
of the course, students in elementary school should be able to identify and define a problem,

147
create a plan for a solution, implement the solution plan, and communicate their results based on
success in solving the problem. This process will be applied across a unit on distinguishing
between computers and technology, a unit on developing a program that tells a story, and a unit
that uses computers and technology to express an idea.
Given that this course is intended to be delivered in second grade, the learning
objectives assume that certain pre-requisite skills exist to achieve success. Prior to this unit,
students should have completed a Hopes and Dreams assignment, in which they shared any
previous experience with computer science outside of class, indicated their level of interest in
the topic, and created a goal for themselves in innovation and technology for the year.
Additionally, the unit assumes that second grade students have had some exposure to
certain concepts, principles, and procedures previously in first grade, and that all students are
reading at or near grade level. Specifically, the unit assumes students have been introduced to
the design thinking process in previous grade levels and does not go as in-depth into each step
as would be the case if it was a students ’first exposure. Finally, as second grade students, the
unit assumes that students have developed basic fine motor skills necessary for manipulating
scissors, tape, pencils, and keyboards as prerequisite psychomotor skills.
At the lesson level, the instruction is organized sequentially to gain attention, describe
an overview of the learning objective, create a connection to previous learning, present the
materials, rehearse skills via guided practice, receive feedback, and provide multiple avenues
of assessments (Smith & Ragan, 2005). The content is meant to help students create
interdisciplinary concept relationships (Mofield, 2023) to enhance the retention and transfer of
learning (Smith & Ragan, 2005, p. 129). The arc of the unit is designed to introduce students to
a problem, then to create opportunities to rehearse skills using guided part task practice and

148
finally, to end with a design challenge in which students apply the skills novel to a new context
as whole task practice. Throughout the activities, student learning is assessed via student
completion of handouts and diagrams, informal observations of students throughout guided
practice, and student-written reflections. Each unit has a summative project designed to
measure progress toward meeting the learning goals across the entire unit.
Unit 1: Past, Present, and Future: A Study of Evolving Technology
This unit is meant to be delivered synchronously and within a classroom setting. The
classroom environment should be equipped with some identifiable examples of computers and
technology. Learners do not need access to a tablet for this unit. The content is meant to be
delivered via Google Slides and in-person demonstrations. Students will use handouts,
clipboards, scissors, pipe cleaners, tape, glue, cardstock, markers, and other creative
construction tools and craft supplies. The unit will introduce important declarative knowledge
and intellectual skills on concepts around computer science, with each objective specifically
outlined in the enabling objectives section below. Specifically, students will be able to
distinguish between computers and technology, list the four defining criteria for a computer,
and apply those criteria to an open-ended creative challenge.
In this unit, students are introduced to the features of a computer and analyze the
evolution of computers and innovative technology from the past, present, and future. The
essential question for the unit is “How have computers evolved to solve problems?” Throughout
each lesson, students learn the defining processes of a computer and investigate how the
computer has addressed different kinds of problems over time. At the end of the unit, students
are asked to think like a designer and employ a familiar design process, the Design Thinking
Process (T. Brown, 2008). The summative assessment extends the essential question and asks

149
“How might we design a computer that helps solve a problem for someone 100 years in the
future?” A brief overview of the unit’s essential questions, objectives, and standards alignment is
provided in Table B1.

Table B1
Second Grade Unit 1 Terminal Learning Objectives and Standards Overview
Unit Essential question Terminal learning objectives Gifted programming standards
CA Common Core
Computer Science Standards
and NGSS
Past,
present,
and
future: A
study in
evolving
technolo
gy
How have
computers
evolved to
solve
problems?
When given a problem in
technology and
innovation, the learner
will be able to analyze it
by identifying and
defining problem features
by summarizing them in
their own words.
Once the student has defined
the problem, the learner
will be able to identify and
select solution paths by
identifying common
procedures and applying
algorithmic or creative
thinking.
If there are multiple options
for a potential solution, the
learner will be able to rank
solution options based on
efficiency, effectiveness,
and impact.
Once a solution has been
chosen, the student will be
able to implement the
1.5 Self-Understanding.
Students with gifts and
talents demonstrate
cognitive growth and
psychosocial skills that
support their talent
development as a result of
meaningful and
challenging learning
activities that address their
unique characteristics and
needs.
3.3. Responsiveness to
Diversity.
Students with gifts and
talents develop knowledge
and skills for living in and
contributing to a diverse
and global society.
3.5 Instructional Strategies.
Students with gifts and
talents become
independent investigators.
4.1 Personal Competence.
K-2.AP.14.
Develop plans that
describe a program’s
sequence of events,
goals, and expected
outcomes.
K-2.IC.18.
Compare how people lived
and worked before and
after the adoption of
new computing
technologies.
K-2.CS.2.
Explain the functions of
common hardware and
software components of
computing systems.
K-2.CS.3.
Describe basic hardware
and software problems
using accurate
terminology.
K-2.AP.11.
Model the way programs
store data.
150

Unit Essential question Terminal learning objectives Gifted programming standards
CA Common Core
Computer Science Standards
and NGSS
solution and evaluate the
outcome by successfully
solving the problem.
Finally, after the solution has
been tested, the learner
will be able to reflect on
and communicate the
efficacy, utility, and
impact of the outcome by
explaining their choices
and providing evidence of
success.
Students with gifts and
talents demonstrate
growth in personal
competence and
dispositions for
exceptional academic and
creative productivity.
These include selfawareness, self-advocacy,
self-efficacy, confidence,
motivation, resilience,
independence, curiosity,
and risk taking.
4.3. Responsibility and
Leadership.
Students with gifts and
talents demonstrate
personal and social
responsibility.
4.4 Cultural Competence.
Students with gifts and
talents value their own and
others’ language. They
possess skills in
communicating, teaming,
and collaborating with
diverse individuals and
across diverse groups.
They use positive
K-2-ETS1-1.
Ask questions, make
observations, and gather
information about a
situation people want to
change to define a
simple problem that can
be solved through the
development of a new
or improved object or
tool.
K-2-EST-1-2.
Develop a simple sketch,
drawing, or physical
model to illustrate how
the shape of an object
helps it function as
needed to solve a given
problem.
151

Unit Essential question Terminal learning objectives Gifted programming standards
CA Common Core
Computer Science Standards
and NGSS
strategies to address social
issues, including
discrimination and
stereotyping.
4.5 Communication
Competence.
Students with gifts and
talents develop
competence in
interpersonal and technical
communication skills.
They demonstrate
advanced oral and written
skills and creative
expression. They display
fluency with technologies
that support effective
communication and are
competent consumers of
media and technology.
15
2

Table B2
Second Grade Unit 1 Content Skills and Lesson Outline
Past, present, and future
Essential
question
How has technology evolved? What kinds of problems has technology been used to solve?
Content
skills
Students identify different examples of problems that computers have solved historically and can solve presently.
Students apply terminology to a computer design made from crafting supplies, including paper, scissors, tape,
pipe cleaners, dowels, and pompoms.
Problem
addressed
How might I design a computer that solves a problem 100 years in the future?
Lesson
overview
1. What is a
computer?
(Problem
representatio
n)
2. Timeline of
technology
(Problem
representatio
n)
3.
Computation
al problems
of today
(Problem
representatio
n)
4. Problems of
the future
(Solution
planning)
5. Creating
future
computers
(Solution
implementati
on)
6. Sharing our
future
computers
(Solution
evaluation)
Summative
assessme
nt
Students create and share a futuristic computer, focused on input, processes, storage, and output, using crafting
supplies. They describe the context in which their computer is to be used. Additionally, students may discuss the
benefits and risks of introducing their new, future computer.
15
3

154
Terminal Learning Objectives
In this unit, students are introduced to the features of a computer and analyze the
evolution of computers and innovative technology from the past, present, and future. At the end
of the unit, students are asked to think like a designer and employ a familiar design process, the
Design Thinking Process (Brown, 2008). Throughout the unit, students are assessed on the
following objectives:
1. When given a problem in technology and innovation, the learner will be able to
analyze the problem by identifying and defining problem features by summarizing
features in their own words.
2. Once the student has defined the problem, the learner will be able to identify and
select solution paths by identifying common procedures and applying algorithmic or
creative thinking.
3. If there are multiple options for a potential solution, the learner will be able to rank
solution options based on efficiency, effectiveness, and impact.
4. Once a solution has been chosen, the student will be able to implement the solution
and evaluate the outcome by successfully solving the problem.
5. Finally, after the solution has been tested, the learner will be able to reflect on and
communicate the efficacy, utility, and impact of outcome by explaining their choices
and providing evidence of success.
Enabling Objectives
● Recall examples and non-examples of computers, identify different input types and
output types, and recognize examples of computer processes, and ways computers store
information.

155
● Recognize and provide examples and non-examples of the following terms:
○ Input
○ Process
○ Storage
○ Output
○ Problem
○ Empathize
○ Define
○ Ideate
○ Prototype
○ Test
○ Feedback
○ Substitute
○ Combine
○ Adapt
○ Modify
○ Put to other use
○ Eliminate
○ Reverse
○ Efficiency
○ Effectiveness
○ Impact
○ Strength

156
○ Weakness
○ Opportunities
○ Threats
● Analyze parts and structures of different computers
● Use a table to compare different features of a computer
● Plot the evolution of computers on a timeline
● Apply principles of design to create a low-fidelity model of a concept.
● Identify types of problems that certain computers have solved historically
● Identify types of problems that computers solve today
● List what is known about big problems that might still exist in 100 years
● Identify a future problem that can be solved with a future computer
● List ways to substitute, combine, adapt, modify, put to other use, existing technology
to solve stated problem
● Identify relationships between new parts
● Describe how a computer could solve the problem
● Create a visual model of different examples
● Persist in light of ambiguity
● Maintain focus and concentration
Learning Activities
This unit is sequenced so that over the course of five lessons, students will engage in part
task practice before undertaking a summative whole-task activity. The initial three lessons
introduce students to subskills and concepts relevant to identifying and defining examples of a
computer, as well as recognizing and listing different types of problems that computers help

157
solve. In these initial lessons, students build knowledge around different kinds of problems that
computers have and can solve. The final two lessons ask students to apply their knowledge to
create something novel based on their knowledge of problems that computers can solve. The
learning activities listed below pertain to the first lesson. Subsequent lessons will follow a
similar format.
● After introductions and attention activities and learning objectives, assess prior
knowledge of computers, inputs, outputs, processes, and storage. Review necessary
prerequisite knowledge by providing definitions and examples and nonexamples.
● Provide opportunities for learners to generate their own examples and nonexamples.
● Model the procedure for identifying examples of computers using the criteria of
input, output, process, and storage.
● Provide practice and feedback for identifying different input types and output types,
and recognizing examples of computer processes, and ways computers store
information.
● Provide practice and feedback for creating a table to compare different features of a
device using specific identifying criteria.
● Provide whole task practice and feedback through the ideation and prototyping of a
computer from the future that includes the identifying criteria of a computer, which
are input, output, process, and storage.
● Provide opportunities to transfer knowledge and skills of this unit to other contexts or
to solve more difficult problems by asking students how this computer can help solve
problems that might exist 100 years in the future.
● Teach metacognitive strategies and provide opportunities to practice them.

158
Additional lessons in this unit include:
● Timeline of Technology Innovations
● Problems That Current Day Computers Can Solve
● Design Challenge Empathizing and Ideating: How Might We Design A Computer
That Solves A Problem for Someone 100 Years in the Future?
● Design Challenge Application: Prototyping and Feedback On Our Future Computers
Summative Assessment
When asked how computers help solve problems, second graders will be able to identify
and define types of problems in their own words. Students will apply this process to current day
computers, early computers, and yet-to-be created computers. Once second graders have a
clearly defined problem, students will be able to brainstorm and select different ideas to solve
that problem using creative thinking strategies. Their potential solutions will be represented
using a visual diagram, drawn with pencil and paper. When faced with multiple ideas, the student
will be able to rank their options based on efficiency, effectiveness, and impact. To do this, they
will have a clear rationale why their selected option best solves the problem. Then, the student
will be able to implement the solution by creating a physical prototype using cardstock, scissors,
glue, crafting supplies, and other creative construction materials. After the prototype has been
built, the second grader will be able to reflect on and communicate the efficacy, utility, and
impact of their design by explaining their choices.
Unit 2: Storytelling Through Games
This unit is meant to be delivered synchronously and within a classroom setting.
Learners will need access to a tablet for this unit. The content is meant to be delivered via
Google Slides, in-person demonstrations, and through guided lessons in Code.Org. Students

159
will use handouts, iPads, and the internet to complete the activities in this unit. The unit will
build on important declarative knowledge and intellectual skills about computer science, with
each objective specifically outlined in the enabling objectives section below. Specifically,
students will be able to distinguish between different blocks of code, list the appropriate blocks
for coding a game, apply strategies for debugging their code, and ultimately code a video game
using their knowledge of block coding and elements of storytelling. The unit aligns with
concepts the students have been working on in their writing courses, including vocabulary and
graphic organizers for writing stories in their homeroom classes. This unit assumes prior
experience with block coding, which is introduced in first grade’s unit on computer science.
In this unit, students revisit block programming to create a video game in Code.Org’s
PlayLab. Students compare and contrast how video games and stories are similar or different in
order to identify different elements of their coding, such as backgrounds, characters, and
purpose. Then, students apply those features of stories to create a basic game using block
programming. The essential question for the unit is “How has storytelling evolved with
technology?” Throughout each lesson, students reinforce and extend the block coding concepts,
including events and actions, and build on previous experience to add in conditionals and loops.
The summative assessment measures the degree to which students have represented, planned,
and executed on the essential question. It includes a culmination of planning story elements and
evidence of coding and debugging throughout the process. A brief overview of the unit’s
essential questions, objectives, and standards alignment is provided in Table B3. An additional
outline of the unit’s lesson overview and content skills is provided in Table B4.

Table B3
Second Grade Unit 2 Terminal Learning Objectives and Standards Overview
Unit
Essential
question Terminal learning objectives
Gifted programming
standards
CA Common Core Computer
Science Standards or NGSS
Storytelling
through
games: A
study in
evolving
technolo
gy
How has
storytelling
evolved with
technology?
When given a problem in
technology and innovation,
the learner will be able to
analyze it by identifying and
defining problem features by
summarizing them in their
own words.
Once the student has defined
the problem, the learner will
be able to identify and select
solution paths by identifying
common procedures and
applying algorithmic or
creative thinking.
If there are multiple options for
a potential solution, the
learner will be able to rank
solution options based on
efficiency, effectiveness, and
impact.
Once a solution has been
chosen, the student will be
able to implement the
solution and evaluate the
outcome by successfully
solving the problem.
1.5 Self-Understanding.
Students with gifts and
talents demonstrate
cognitive growth and
psychosocial skills that
support their talent
development as a result
of meaningful and
challenging learning
activities that address
their unique
characteristics and
needs.
3.3. Responsiveness to
Diversity.
Students with gifts and
talents develop
knowledge and skills for
living in and
contributing to a diverse
and global society.
3.5 Instructional Strategies.
Students with gifts and
talents become
independent
investigators.
K-2.IC.18.
Compare how people lived
and worked before and
after the adoption of new
computing technologies.
(P3.1)
K-2.AP.12.
Create programs with
sequences of commands
and simple loops, to
express ideas or address
a problem. (P5.2)
K-2.AP.16.
Debug errors in an
algorithm or program
that includes sequences
and simple loops. (P6.2)
K-2.AP.17.
Describe the steps taken
and choices made during
the iterative process of
program development.
(P7.2)
160

Unit
Essential
question Terminal learning objectives
Gifted programming
standards
CA Common Core Computer
Science Standards or NGSS
Finally, after the solution has
been tested, the learner will
be able to reflect on and
communicate the efficacy,
utility, and impact of the
outcome by explaining their
choices and providing
evidence of success.
4.1 Personal Competence.
Students with gifts and
talents demonstrate
growth in personal
competence and
dispositions for
exceptional academic
and creative
productivity. These
include self-awareness,
self-advocacy, selfefficacy, confidence,
motivation, resilience,
independence, curiosity,
and risk taking.
4.3. Responsibility and
Leadership.
Students with gifts and
talents demonstrate
personal and social
responsibility.
4.4 Cultural Competence.
Students with gifts and
talents value their own
and others’ language.
They possess skills in
communicating,
teaming, and
collaborating with
161

Unit
Essential
question Terminal learning objectives
Gifted programming
standards
CA Common Core Computer
Science Standards or NGSS
diverse individuals and
across diverse groups.
They use positive
strategies to address
social issues, including
discrimination and
stereotyping.
4.5 Communication
Competence.
Students with gifts and
talents develop
competence in
interpersonal and
technical communication
skills. They demonstrate
advanced oral and
written skills and
creative expression.
They display fluency
with technologies that
support effective
communication and are
competent consumers of
media and technology.
16
2

Table B4
Second Grade Unit 2 Content Skills and Lessons Overview
Storytelling through games
Essential
question
How has storytelling evolved with technology?
Content
skill
Students compare and contrast how video games and stories are similar or different. Then, students apply features
of stories, including characters, setting, problem, and resolution, to create a basic game using block
programming.
Problem
addresse
d
How might I program a video game to tell a story?
Lesson
overvie
w
1. How are games
and stories
similar or
different to each
other? (identify
and define)
2. Planning
through
storyboardin
g (apply and
interpret)
3. Planning our
code (employ
computational
thinking)
4. Coding and
debugging
(Design
solutions and
decompose
problems)
5. Testing
and
iterating
(Evaluate
and
Assess)
6. Game day!
(reflect and
communicat
e)
Summativ
e
assessm
ent
Students program a video game that has characters, a problem, and a resolution. They discuss perspectives and
define ways in which the story relates to their community and culture. This project is in partnership with the
students’ homeroom literacy unit.
16
3

164
Terminal Learning Objectives
In this unit, students extend on their knowledge of block coding and create an
interdisciplinary project using elements they’ve learned in literature. At the end of the unit,
students will create a video game with a backstory on the character, setting, problem, and
resolution. This unit bridges computational and creative thinking and reinforces computational
problem-solving skills, such as explaining the issue, decomposing problems into subproblems,
and testing solutions. Throughout the unit, students are assessed on the following objectives:
1. When given a problem in technology and innovation, the learner will be able to
analyze the problem by identifying and defining problem features by summarizing
features in their own words.
2. Once the student has defined the problem, the learner will be able to identify and
select solution paths by identifying common procedures and applying algorithmic or
creative thinking.
3. If there are multiple options for a potential solution, the learner will be able to rank
solution options based on efficiency, effectiveness, and impact.
4. Once a solution has been chosen, the student will be able to implement the solution
and evaluate the outcome by successfully solving the problem.
5. Finally, after the solution has been tested, the learner will be able to reflect on and
communicate the efficacy, utility, and impact of outcome by explaining their choices
and providing evidence of success.

165
Enabling Objectives
● Recall examples and non-examples of block coding events and actions, identify
coding elements, and explain the intended outcome and actual outcome within a
coding project.
● Recognize and provide examples and non-examples of the following terms:
○ Event
○ Loop
○ Action
○ Actor
○ Debug
○ Character
○ Setting
○ Problem
○ Resolution
○ Test
○ Feedback
● Analyze parts and structures of block coding
● Use a graphic organizer to chart story elements
● Use a graphic organizer to plan code blocks
● Apply principles of design to create a game that can be won
● Persist in light of ambiguity
● Maintain focus and concentration

166
Learning Activities
This unit is sequenced so that over the course of five lessons, students will engage in part
task practice of the computational problem solving process. Each lesson introduces a different
stage of the problem solving process. The first lesson frames the problem, “How might I program
a video game to tell a story?,” and reviews basic block coding concepts that will be deployed
throughout the unit. The next lesson interweaves the concept of story planning, asking students
to consider literary elements, such as characters, setting, problem, and resolution, and apply
those elements to the constraints of the game design. The next several lessons move students
through testing, debugging, and iterating their code. In the final lesson, students share their
product with their classmates and communicate their process and concept. Below are the learning
activities for the unit.
● After introductions and attention activities and learning objectives, assess prior
knowledge of block coding and story elements.
● Review necessary prerequisite knowledge by providing definitions and examples and
nonexamples.
● Provide opportunities for learners to generate their own examples and nonexamples.
● Model the procedure for explaining the goal state and actual state, steps for
debugging problems, and representing information in a graphic organizer.
● Provide practice and feedback for explaining the goal state and actual state, steps for
debugging problems, and representing information in a graphic organizer.
● Provide whole skill practice and feedback.
● Provide opportunities to transfer knowledge and skills of this unit to other contexts or
to solve more difficult problems.

167
● Teach metacognitive strategies and provide opportunities to practice them.
Summative Assessment
When asked how to program a video game to tell a story, students will engage in a
problem solving process to identify story elements and appropriate block coding steps to create
their game. They will identify the appropriate background, setting, and game design to match
their story outline. These details will be documented in a planning handout, including their initial
drafts and code planning. Once second graders have a clearly defined problem, students will be
able to brainstorm and select different ideas to solve that problem using creative thinking
strategies. Students will plan which code blocks to use based on their goal. When students
encounter an error in their code, they will describe what they want their code to do and what
code blocks they’ve used. If necessary, students will describe similar codes they’ve created that
might help them with their bug. They will make small changes to identify where the bug is.
When faced with multiple bugs, the student will be able to rank their options based on efficiency,
effectiveness, and impact. To do this, they will have a clear rationale why their selected option
best solves the problem. Then, the student will be able to implement the solution by iterating and
testing their code. After the video game has been programmed, the second grader will be able to
reflect on and communicate the efficacy of their coding and the impact of their story on their
final design by explaining their choices verbally and in a written reflection.
Unit 3: Functional Designs in Nature
This unit is meant to be delivered synchronously and within a classroom setting. Learners
will need access to a tablet for this unit, as well as a SPIKE Essentials Lego kit. One kit is
enough for two students. The content is meant to be delivered via Google Slides, in-person
demonstrations, and through guided build instructions on the SPIKE iPad app. Students will use

168
handouts, iPads, the internet, and the SPIKE Essentials Lego kit to complete the activities in this
unit. The lessons are modified from Lego Education’s unit on Science in Nature and Our Daily
Life (2024). The unit will build on important declarative knowledge and intellectual skills about
engineering and reinforce concepts that students are learning in science. This unit is meant to be
delivered during the same period within which students learn about biology and relationships
between plants and animals in their science specialist classes. Each objective is specifically
outlined in the enabling objectives section below. Students will be able to identify the steps to
put together large models, recall the purposes of different blocks of code, apply strategies for
debugging their code, and create models and solutions using Legos and block programming. This
unit builds on prior experience with block coding, and assumes no previous experience with
SPIKE essentials kits or the app.
In this unit, students explore ways to represent the natural world using Legos and
programming. Students build habitats, tools, relationships, and environs for different kinds of
animals using Lego bricks, motors, and sensors. Then, students apply the skills they’ve learned
through those builds to address a larger problem of erosion by wind. The essential question for
the unit is “How can I use what I know about technology and design to build models of the world
around me?”
Throughout each lesson, students reinforce and extend the computer science and biology
concepts. They are also tasked with learning how to take on roles as team members and delegate
responsibilities. Each initial lesson in this unit introduces a basic problem wherein students
develop skills and learn about how to use the kits and app. The summative assessment measures
the degree to which students have represented, planned, and executed on the essential question. It
includes a final open-ended design project in which students build a solution to wind erosion

169
using Legos and programming. A brief overview of the unit’s essential questions, objectives, and
standards alignment is provided in Table B5. An additional outline of the unit’s lesson overview
and content skills is provided in Table B6.

Table B5
Second Grade Unit 3 Terminal Learning Objectives and Standards Overview
Unit Terminal learning objectives Gifted programming standards
CA Common Core computer
science standards or NGSS
Functional
designs in
nature: A
study in
evolving
technology
When given a problem in
technology and innovation, the
learner will be able to analyze it
by identifying and defining
problem features by
summarizing them in their own
words.
Once the student has defined the
problem, the learner will be
able to identify and select
solution paths by identifying
common procedures and
applying algorithmic or creative
thinking.
If there are multiple options for a
potential solution, the learner
will be able to rank solution
options based on efficiency,
effectiveness, and impact.
Once a solution has been chosen,
the student will be able to
implement the solution and
evaluate the outcome by
1.5 Self-Understanding.
Students with gifts and talents
demonstrate cognitive growth and
psychosocial skills that support
their talent development as a
result of meaningful and
challenging learning activities
that address their unique
characteristics and needs.
3.3. Responsiveness to diversity.
Students with gifts and talents
develop knowledge and skills for
living in and contributing to a
diverse and global society.
3.5 Instructional Strategies.
Students with gifts and talents
become independent
investigators.
4.1 Personal Competence.
Students with gifts and talents
demonstrate growth in personal
competence and dispositions for
exceptional academic and
creative productivity. These
K-2.IC.18.
Compare how people lived and
worked before and after the
adoption of new computing
technologies. (P3.1)
K-2.AP.12.
Create programs with sequences
of commands and simple
loops, to express ideas or
address a problem. (P5.2)
K-2.AP.16.
Debug errors in an algorithm or
program that includes
sequences and simple loops.
(P6.2)
K-2.AP.17.
Describe the steps taken and
choices made during the
iterative process of program
development. (P7.2)
NGSS 2-LS4-1.
Make observations of plants and
animals to compare the
17
0

successfully solving the
problem.
Finally, after the solution has been
tested, the learner will be able
to reflect on and communicate
the efficacy, utility, and impact
of the outcome by explaining
their choices and providing
evidence of success.
include self-awareness, selfadvocacy, self-efficacy,
confidence, motivation,
resilience, independence,
curiosity, and risk taking.
4.3. Responsibility and Leadership.
Students with gifts and talents
demonstrate personal and social
responsibility.
4.4 Cultural Competence.
Students with gifts and talents value
their own and others’ language.
They possess skills in
communicating, teaming, and
collaborating with diverse
individuals and across diverse
groups. They use positive
strategies to address social issues,
including discrimination and
stereotyping.
4.5 Communication Competence.
Students with gifts and talents
develop competence in
interpersonal and technical
communication skills. They
demonstrate advanced oral and
written skills and creative
expression. They display fluency
with technologies that support
effective communication and are
competent consumers of media
and technology.
diversity of life in different
habitats.
NGSS K–2-ETSI-1.
Develop a sketch, drawing, or
physical model to illustrate
how the shape of an object
helps it function as needed to
solve a given problem.
NGSS 2-LS2-2.
Develop a simple model that
mimics the function of an
animal in dispersing seeds or
pollinating plants.
NGSS 2-PS1-1.
Plan and conduct an
investigation to describe and
classify different kinds of
materials by their observable
properties.
NGSS 2-ESS2-1.
Compare multiple solutions
designed to slow or prevent
wind or water from changing
the shape of the land.
171

Table B6
Second Grade Unit 3 Content Skills and Lessons Overview
Functional designs
Essential
question
How can I use what I know about technology and design to build models of the world around me?
Content skill Students use Legos to create models that mimic the natural world and how it’s made. They design different
solutions to slow or prevent wind from changing the shape of the land. They build a model to slow or prevent
wind from changing the shape of the land. Finally, students compare multiple class design solutions to slow or
prevent wind from changing the shape of the land.
Problem
addressed
How might Legos help me better understand the relationship between plants and animals? How might I design a
solution to a problem in the natural world?
Lesson
overview
1. Build 1:
Basic
habitats
2. Build 2:
Common
tools
3. Build 3:
Natural
cycles
4. Build 4:
Coops
5. Design
challenge
Part 1:
identifying
the problem
and planning
solutions
6. Design
challenge
Part 2:
implementin
g solutions
and
evaluating
effectiveness
Summative
assessment
Students use Legos to design a solution to slow or prevent wind from changing the landscape. Students name
patterns in how problems are similar or different based on environment. Then, students select different
communities that are relevant to them to address a problem of practice.
17
2

173
Terminal Learning Objectives
In this unit, students are introduced to the world of machines using Lego Essentials kits
and tasked with designing models that mimic a relationship in the natural world or solve a real
world problem. At the end of the unit, students are asked to think like a scientist and employ a
design process to create a model that slows wind erosion in a park. Throughout the unit, students
are assessed on the following objectives:
1. When given a problem in technology and innovation, the learner will be able to
analyze the problem by identifying and defining problem features by summarizing
features in their own words.
2. Once the student has defined the problem, the learner will be able to identify and
select solution paths by identifying common procedures and applying algorithmic or
creative thinking.
3. If there are multiple options for a potential solution, the learner will be able to rank
solution options based on efficiency, effectiveness, and impact.
4. Once a solution has been chosen, the student will be able to implement the solution
and evaluate the outcome by successfully solving the problem.
5. Finally, after the solution has been tested, the learner will be able to reflect on and
communicate the efficacy, utility, and impact of outcome by explaining their choices
and providing evidence of success.
Enabling Objectives
● Recall examples and non-examples of hardware and software, identify different Lego
bricks and mechanical functions, erosion, habitats, and pollination.
● Recognize and provide examples and non-examples of the following terms:

174
○ Lego ○ SPIKE ○ Motor ○ Sensor ○ LED ○ Erosion ○ Habitat ○ Pollination ○ Define ○ Ideate ○ Prototype ○ Test ○ Feedback ○ Substitute ○ Combine ○ Adapt ○ Modify ○ Put to other use ○ Eliminate ○ Reverse ○ Efficiency ○ Effectiveness ○ Impact

175
● Dissemble a set into smaller piece
● Use a table to compare different functions, properties, or benefits of a design
● Apply principles of design to create a low-fidelity model of a concept.
● Identify types of problems that machines solve today
● List ways to substitute, combine, adapt, modify, put to other use, existing technology
to solve stated problem
● Identify relationships between new parts
● Persist in light of ambiguity
● Maintain focus and concentration
Learning Activities
This unit is sequenced so that over the course of six lessons, students will engage in
whole task practice of building designs from units in Lego Education before undertaking a
summative whole-task activity that requires critical and creative thinking. The first lesson
introduces students to the physical Lego kits, the SPIKE app, and sets expectations for use in the
classroom. In addition to focusing on robotics and science skills and concepts, this unit also
reinforces essential skills needed for students to engage in team work. The first lesson introduces
roles and responsibilities in the build and allows them space to engage with the build while also
getting feedback on their ability to work together. In subsequent lessons, students explore
different ways to create mechanical movement using Legos and programming The final two
lessons ask students to work in pairs to apply their knowledge of erosion and mechanics and
engineering to solve a real world problem. The learning activities listed below pertain to the first
lesson. Subsequent lessons will follow a similar format.

176
● After introductions and attention activities and learning objectives, assess prior
knowledge of hardware, software, Lego, SPIKE, block coding, and engineering.
● Review necessary prerequisite knowledge by providing definitions and examples and
nonexamples.
● Provide opportunities for learners to generate their own examples and nonexamples.
● Model the procedure for following the procedure provided in the build instructions,
representing models using graphic organizers, and organizing information across a
table.
● Provide practice and feedback for following the procedure provided in the build
instructions.
● Provide practice and feedback for representing models using graphic organizers.
● Provide practice and feedback for organizing information across a table.
● Provide whole skill practice and feedback.
● Provide opportunities to transfer knowledge and skills of this unit to other contexts or
to solve more difficult problems.
● Teach metacognitive strategies and provide opportunities to practice them.
● Persist in light of ambiguity
● Maintain focus and concentration.
● Seek out ways to extend learning.
Summative Assessment
In this unit, students are introduced to the world of machines using Lego Essentials kits.
At the end of the unit, students are asked to think like scientists and employ a design process to
solve a problem that exists in the natural world: erosion. Students will be assessed on their ability

177
to analyze the given problem by identifying and defining problem features in their own words.
Students will have creative freedom to design what they see as the best solution. They will be
assessed on how well they explain their reasoning behind their choices. Finally, students will
present their solutions and their performance will be measured by how well they communicate
the efficacy, utility, and impact of their design by explaining their choices and providing
evidence of success.

178
Appendix C: Unit 1 Lesson 1 Lesson Activities, Design, and Materials
This appendix contains detailed descriptions of selected units or lessons in the
curriculum, specifically Unit 1 Lesson 1 of the second grade curriculum. It is the first of three
units meant to build on specific knowledge of computers. The learning objectives are stated
below and include both the terminal and enabling objectives. The summative assessment is also
described. Finally, the learning activities are listed in the table which contains the description of
each activity, what the instructor does, and what the instructor asks the learners to do.
Unit 1: Past, Present, and Future: A Study of Evolving Technology
This is the first unit of a three unit course designed to build on and reinforce computer
science and engineering concepts for gifted second grade learners. This lesson is an introduction
to the subsequent lessons in the unit. The purpose of this unit is for students to articulate the four
defining processes of a computer and investigate how the invention of computers has addressed
different kinds of problems over time. In this lesson, students are introduced to the four
processes of a computer, then asked to apply those concepts to different examples in the
classroom. The lesson content is meant to be delivered via Google Slides and in-person
demonstrations. Students will use handouts, clipboards, scissors, pipe cleaners, tape, glue,
cardstock, markers, and other creative construction tools and craft supplies. This lesson is
adapted with permission from #CSinSF K–2 Computer Science Curriculum.
Learning Objectives
The terminal objective of Unit 1 Lesson 1 is that given a problem in technology and
innovation, the learner will be able to analyze the problem by identifying and defining problem
features by summarizing features in their own words.
The enabling objectives are the following:

179
• Declarative Knowledge
• Recall examples and non-examples of computers, identify different input
types and output types, and recognize examples of computer processes, and
ways computers store information.
• Recognize and provide examples and non-examples of the following terms:
● Input
● Process
● Storage
● Output
• Intellectual Skills
• Analyze parts and structures of different computers
• Identify different examples of computers in the classroom
• Organize examples and nonexamples of computers using a table
• Metacognitive Knowledge
• Monitor accuracy of response
• Seek challenges
• Attitudes
• Choose to analyzing the problem.
• Persist in the analysis in light of ambiguity.
Summative Assessment
When asked how computers help solve problems, second graders will be able to identify
and define types of problems in their own words. To do this, students will complete a scavenger
hunt activity with a clipboard, pencil, and table and record examples of computers in the

180
classroom. Students will fill in the blank of the table with the name of the device and checklists
or examples of inputs, processes, storage, and output. This assessment will be conducted as an
activity and turned in at the conclusion of the lesson.
Lesson Materials
The materials required for this lesson are:
● Unit one lesson one slide deck
● projector
● whiteboard and markers
● student clipboards
● pencils
● “Is This A Computer?” student handouts
Learner Characteristic Accommodations
This lesson is designed for gifted second grade students, who are typically between 7 to
8 years of age. Typical cognitive characteristics of gifted learners include higher processing and
retaining of information, the ability to transfer knowledge between subjects, longer attention
spans, and accelerated and flexible thought processing (Manning, 2006). Specifically, too, gifted
students are able to think abstractly about concepts earlier than their peers and can work
independently on more complex projects than their peers (Manning, 2006). Furthermore, gifted
learners generally demonstrate higher levels of motivation and value learning, particularly in
areas they are passionate about. Many students at SA are excited about the Innovation and
Design studio and enjoy the process of making and building things. Gifted students are also
described as emotionally sensitive and intense (Wood & Laycraft, 2020), which also leaves them
vulnerable to perfectionism and anxiety around making mistakes (Sisk, 2005). Thus, reinforcing

181
a growth mindset and strategies for persistence is key across all grade levels at SA and within
these units. Additionally, when designing lessons and units for gifted learners, it is important to
include the four pillars of gifted education: depth, complexity, novelty, and acceleration
(Envision Gifted, n.d.). Therefore, content should be differentiated at the curricular and
instructional level to accommodate individual student needs, interests, and abilities (Kaplan,
2021). To accomplish this, the handout is designed to meet three different levels of experience
for the opening activity. Students who are familiar with the concepts of inputs, storage,
processing, and outputs should complete Handout 1, students newly introduced to the concept
but with strong foundational understanding should complete Handout 2. Students who need
additional support should complete Handout 3, with the accompanying word bank.
Facilitator’s Notes
There are two relevant factors to consider when teaching this unit. The first would be the
students previous experience with computer science. For those students who are already familiar
with the basic underlying concepts of what makes a computer, consider additions and extensions
(Kaplan, 2021) to the lesson to increase the lesson depth and complexity for those students. Ask
those students to explore more complex computer processing or storage examples, and have that
content prepared for them.
The second factor is the social dynamics of the classroom. Decide ahead of time if you
will allow students to work with partners, and, if so, have groups prepared. This lesson is meant
to be delivered at the beginning of year, when relationships may still be forming or students may
be new to the community. It is important to be intentional about how social opportunities are
structured for students.

182
Instructional Strategies
A successful approach to instructional design is one that focuses on the learners, contexts,
and learning tasks (Smith & Ragan, 2005). Good lessons have a balance of supplantive and
generative strategies to facilitate meaningful learning outcomes (Smith & Ragan, 2005).
Supplantive strategies provide higher levels of instructional support for learners to aid cognitive
processes (Smith & Ragan, 2005). Supplantive instructional strategies serve as explicit
scaffolding for learners and require the instructor to actively gain learners attention and preview
the lesson (Smith & Ragan, 2005, p. 142). Generative strategies are student-generated and, when
leveraged well, lead to meaningful, deeper learning outcomes (Smith & Ragan, 2005).
Given that this lesson is the first lesson of the first unit, it is organized to maintain the
appropriate cognitive load on gifted learners, while also allowing for students to engage in their
own learning strategies. The lesson will rely more on supplantive instructional strategies,
particularly at the beginning of the lesson, to model processes or provide specific definitions.
The final activities and summative assessment rely on generative strategies, wherein students
rely on their own cognitive processes to employ learning strategies, summarize and review the
concepts, and evaluate feedback. Thus, the lesson will include a balance of both supplantive and
generative strategies.
Learning Activities Table
Table C1 outlines the details of a synchronous lesson on classifying computers. The
lesson is the first in a unit that focuses on the evolution of computers as problem-solving tools.
The table indicates instructional, learning, and cognitive strategies (Smith & Ragan, 2005), and
is designed to maximize retention and transfer of learning (Smith & Ragan, 2005). The lesson is

183
intended to be 50 minutes. Table C1 shows the order, rationale, supplantive strategies, and
generate strategies embedded in the lesson.

Table C1
Learning Activities for Unit 1 Lesson 1
Instructional
sequence
Time Principle Rationale Instructional strategy
(supplantive)
Activity (generative)
Gain
attention
5
mi
n
Capturing and
focusing the
learner’s attention
increases the
potential of
learning. (LDT)
Gaining attention at
the start of class
signals to
students that
learning is about
to begin. It
primes them to
the subject and
content that will
be covered.
Additionally, a
focusing question
that also assesses
prior knowledge
is a criteria of
high-quality
curriculum for
gifted learners
(Tomlinson et al,
2008).
Distribute
red/green/yellow
paper. Tell students
that red is no, I don’t
know or disagree,
and green is yes or
agree.
Play a lightning
response round. Ask
the following
questions:
Do you have a
computer at
home?
Have you used a
computer before?
True or false: an
ipad is a
computer.
True or false:
Computers can do
things humans
can’t.
True or false:
Computers have
Students lift the color
in response to the
question.
184

Instructional
sequence
Time Principle Rationale Instructional strategy
(supplantive)
Activity (generative)
evolved over
time.
Big ideas 1
mi
n
Activating and
building upon
personal interest
can increase
learning and
motivation
(Schraw &
Lehman, 2009).
Building on student
interest and
relevance
reinforces
learning.
Additionally, the
big idea makes
explicit what
otherwise may
not have been
clear throughout
the lesson
(Tomlinson,
2008).
Introduce the big idea
by explaining that
technology and
computers are
everywhere and
ever-evolving. The
more we pay
attention, the more
we’ll see how linked
we are with
computers!
Ask learners to think
about where else
they experience
technology and
computers in their
lives.
Learning
objectives
2
mi
n
Learning and
motivation will be
enhanced if
learners have clear,
current, and
challenging goals
(Mayer, 2011;
LDT).
Knowing a goal
establishes
interest and
motivation in
learners (Smith
& Ragan, 2005).
Additionally,
students can
begin to orient
specific learning
strategies based
on the learning
objectives (Smith
State the objective to the
group:
Identify and describe
objects that are and
are not computers.
Name four things
computer do
Find different types of
computers in our
classroom and
school.
Articulate ways in
which technology is
Ask learners to
brainstorm and pair
share:
Describe what a
computer looks
like. What are the
details of a
computer?
What are some things
a computer does?
185

Instructional
sequence
Time Principle Rationale Instructional strategy
(supplantive)
Activity (generative)
& Ragan, 2005).
Finally, setting
expectations for
students is a
criteria of highquality
curriculum for
gifted learners
(Tomlinson,
2008).
ever-evolving and
everywhere in our
lives.
Consider when the
evolution of
computers is good
and when it is bad.
Reasons for
learning:
Benefits
Risks
avoided
1
mi
n
Learning and
motivation will be
enhanced if
learners see value
in their learning
(Smith & Ragan,
2005; Mayer,
2011).
Including reasons
for learning
increases value
of engaging in
the task
Share with learners
why knowing the
definition of a
computer is
important. Provide
context for the
subsequent lessons
in the unit.
Ask learners to
respond to the
question, “Why is it
important to
understand how
computers and
technology evolve
over time? How
does understanding
details of
computers help us
to understand
technology in our
lives?”
Overview:
Review/reca
ll prior
knowledg
e
6
mi
n
Prior knowledge
supports learning
and organization of
new information to
existing schemas
Consideration of
student interest
and experience in
connection with
the topic
Ask students “What is
the most important
thing that makes
something a
Students identify
elements of a
computer and rank
their ideas as a
class.
186

Instructional
sequence
Time Principle Rationale Instructional strategy
(supplantive)
Activity (generative)
Entry level
skills
Assess prerequisite
knowledg
e
Enabling
objectives
assessmen
t
(Mayer, 2005).
Additionally,
information
learned
meaningfully and
connected with
prior knowledge is
stored more
quickly and
remembered more
accurately because
it is elaborated
with prior learning
(Schraw &
McCrudden,
2006).
Learning and
motivation are
enhanced when
learners set goals,
monitor their
performance and
evaluate their
progress towards
achieving their
goals (LDT).
increases
motivation and
engagement, and
is an indicator of
high-quality
instruction for
gifted learners
(Tomlinson,
2008).
Prior knowledge
supports learning
and organization
of new
information to
existing schemas
(Mayer, 2011).
Metacognition
and
comprehension
monitoring
support learning
(Mayer, 2011).
Pre-assessment
allows the
instructor to
determine what
the learner
already knows
(Mayer, 2011) so
that learning is
computer? Justify
your answer.”
Ask students what are
key details that make
up a computer. Give
examples of those
details. Have those
details changed over
time?
Enabling objectives for
this lesson are the
following:
Recall examples and
non-examples of
computers, identify
different input types
and output types, and
recognize examples
of computer
processes, and ways
computers store
information.
Recognize and provide
examples and nonexamples of the
following terms:
Input, Process,
Storage, and Output.
As a whole class, ask
learners to classify
a device as an
example of a
computer or a nonexample, based on
discussion.
Ask learners to
identify areas that
they are still unsure
of.
187

Instructional
sequence
Time Principle Rationale Instructional strategy
(supplantive)
Activity (generative)
meaningful
(Tomlinson,
2008).
Analyze parts and
structures of
different computers.
Use a table to compare
different features of
a computer.
Rank and justify which
details are the most
important to a
computer.
Articulate ways in
which the details of
computers have
changed over time.
Articulate the ways in
which computers are
helpful to humans.
Consider ways in
which computers
may be harmful to
humans.
Introduce
new
declarativ
e
knowledg
e
10
mi
Learning is enhanced
when the learner’s
working memory
capacity is not
overloaded (LDT).
Integrating
auditory and visual
information
maximizes
In order for
students to
understand a
concept, teachers
must
“systematically
lead” students
through a
comparison of
State that today
students will learn
about the details of
computers to help us
better recognize how
we’re linked to
computers and how
computers have
evolved over time.
Instructor ignites
knowledge by
asking how the
ability to classify a
computer is like
classification in
other activities,
such as baking,
math, or chess.
18
8

Instructional
sequence
Time Principle Rationale Instructional strategy
(supplantive)
Activity (generative)
working memory
capacity (Mayer,
2011).
Information learned
meaningfully and
connected with
prior knowledge is
stored more
quickly and
remembered more
accurately because
it is elaborated
with prior learning
(Schraw &
McCrudden,
2006).
examples and
nonexamples of
the category or
concept
(Tomlinson et al,
2008, p. 49).
Show Code.Org “How
Computers Work:
What Makes A
Computer A
Computer” video.
Explain concepts
through the
metaphors of baking.
Describe or
Employ
learning
strategies
5 min Modeling to-belearned strategies
or behaviors
improves selfefficacy, learning,
and performance
(Denler, Wolters,
& Benzon, 2009).
Orienting
expectations for
student behavior
is an indicator of
high-quality
instruction
(Tomlinson,
2008) and allows
the instructor a
clear way to
assess learning
based on
performance of
the modeled
Tier 1: Reinforce basic
knowledge of
computers by
organizing details of
computers on a table
using Handout 3. In
this Tier, students
will also reflect and
respond to the
questions:
Which of the details
on your list are
the most
important for a
Review different
options for students
by first introducing
the table to
organize
information. Based
on pre-assessment,
group students
based on whether
they need to
reinforce their basic
knowledge, refine
existing knowledge,
or enrich and
18
9

Instructional
sequence
Time Principle Rationale Instructional strategy
(supplantive)
Activity (generative)
learning activity
(Tomlinson et al,
2008).
computer. Justify
your response.
Which of these
computers is most
useful to you?
Why?
How does the
context
a
computer is used
in change whether a computer is
useful?
Which of the
computers in our
class do you think
is the most recent
evolution of
technology?
Why?
Tier 2: Refine existing
knowledge by filling
in missing
knowledge or skill
gaps. Students will
work off Handout 2.
Once students have
identified at least
four examples, they
extend their current
knowledge.
Once grouped,
distribute tiered
handouts. Then, ask
all students to
consider the
following question
as they hunt for
computers:
“Which details of
a
computer are the
most important?
Justify your
response.”
Students practice
identifying
characteristics of
devices from
a
controlled set of
data.
190

Instructional
sequence
Time Principle Rationale Instructional strategy
(supplantive)
Activity (generative)
must discuss the
following questions:
Which of the details
of
a computer do
you think is the
most important?
Justify your
response.
How have the
details of
computers
changed over
time? What are
examples of
details of
computers
changing in your
own life?
How does the
context
a
computer is used
in change whether a computer is
helpful?
Which of the
computers in our
class do you think
is the most recent
evolution of
191

Instructional
sequence
Time Principle Rationale Instructional strategy
(supplantive)
Activity (generative)
technology?
Why?
Tier 3: Enrich and
extend student
learning by asking
students to find
concrete examples
within the room by
completing at least
three examples in
Handout 1. Then, ask
students to conduct
research on
examples beyond the
classroom. Provide
three to four
different examples of
older and newer
technology. Ask
students to reflect
and respond to the
following questions:
Which of the details
of
a computer do
you think is the
most important?
Justify your
response.
How have the
details of
192

Instructional
sequence
Time Principle Rationale Instructional strategy
(supplantive)
Activity (generative)
computers
changed over
time? What are
examples of
details of
computers
changing in your
own life?
What problems
computers do help
solve?
What are ways in
which computers
can help people?
Do computers
help all people
equally, or do
some people
benefit more than
others? What are
downsides to
using computers?
Demonstrat
e
procedure
s
2 min Learning and
motivation will be
enhanced if
learners have clear,
current, and
challenging goals
(LDT).
In order for
students to
understand a
concept, teachers
must
“systematically
lead” students
through a
As needed, review the
different tables for
classifying
examples.
Demonstrate what
needs to be
completed for each
column.
Apply the steps of the
procedure to the
provided examples.
19
3

Instructional
sequence
Time Principle Rationale Instructional strategy
(supplantive)
Activity (generative)
Feedback that is
private, specific,
and timely
enhances
performance
(Shute, 2008).
comparison of
examples and
nonexamples of
the category or
concept
(Tomlinson,
2008, p. 49).
Provide
practice
and
feedback
10 min Learning and
motivation are
enhanced when
learners are given
opportunities to
apply what they
have learned in
varying contexts
(LDT).
Feedback that is
private, specific,
and timely
enhances
performance
(Shute, 2008).
To develop mastery,
individuals must
acquire component
skills, practice
integrating them,
and know when to
apply what they
have learned
Feedback that is
private, specific,
and timely
enhances
performance
(Shute, 2008).
Instruct students to
take a clipboard,
handout, and pencil
and find at least four
different examples of
computers.
Once four examples
have been reached,
students should
return to their group
and debate the big
question: Which
details are the most
important? The
group does not have
to come to an
agreement, but they
should have
examples, evidence,
and justification for
why they chose that
detail.
Students engage in an
investigation to
identify different
types of computers
and non computers
in the classroom.
19
4

Instructional
sequence
Time Principle Rationale Instructional strategy
(supplantive)
Activity (generative)
(Schraw &
McCrudden,
2006).
Authentic
assessmen
t
5 min Assessment after
instruction
provides
accountability of
student learning
and offers insight
into future
instructional
changes (Mayer,
2011).
Assessments
should be aligned
with the task, the
knowledge, and
the product
format
(Tomlinson et al,
2008).
Instruct students to
meet on the rug.
Conduct a quick poll
of different examples
of computers and
their details.
As a class, discuss
which details were
the most important to
a computer. Then,
reflect on how
details of computers
have changed over
time.
Share their findings
and defend their
classifications.
Retention
and
transfer
1 min Learning and
motivation are
enhanced when
learners are given
the opportunity to
apply what they
have learned in
varying contexts
(LDT). Facilitating
transfer promotes
learning (Mayer,
2011).
Meaningful
learning is
characterized by
retention and
transfer (Mayer,
2011).
Introduce examples of
technology from
other classrooms or
ask for examples of
technology in
students’ lives. Ask
learners to take what
we know about
computers home and
identify all the uses
for computers with
their families.
Provide examples of
technology not
present in the
classroom but
relevant to the
students’ lives.
Classify that
technology on a
table.
19
5

Instructional
sequence
Time Principle Rationale Instructional strategy
(supplantive)
Activity (generative)
Ask students to classify
whether that
technology is a
computer or not.
Advance
organizer
for the
next
lesson
5 min Learning and
motivation are
enhanced if the
learner values the
task (Wigfield &
Eccles, 2000).
Preparing learners
for the upcoming
task increases
value and interest
in the task
(LDT).
Show students a
preview of what is
coming next class by
displaying several
images of the
historical computers
or seminal
inventions that led to
computers. Ask
students, is this a
computer?
Reflect on whether
the final slide is a
computer.
Total time 50
19
6

197
Lesson Slides
Title Slide

198
Slide 2
Gain Attention
5 minutes
Instructors: Distribute Red/Green/Yellow Paper. Tell students that Red is No or disagree, and
Green is Yes or Agree.
Play a lightning response round. Ask the following questions:
● Do you have a computer at home?
● Have you used a computer before?
● True or False: an ipad is a computer.
● True or False: Computers can do things humans can’t.
● True or False: Computers have evolved over time.
● Agree or Disagree: Computers are generally good.
● Agree or Disagree: Computers make us better as a society
Participants: Lift the color in response to the question.

199
Slide 3
Big Ideas
1 minutes
Instructor: Introduce the big idea by explaining that technology and computers are everywhere
and ever-evolving. The more we pay attention, the more we’ll see how linked we are with
computers!
Participants: Think about where else they experience technology and computers in their lives.

200
Slide 4
Learning Objectives
2 minutes
Instructors: State the objective to the group
Participants: Listen. Then, brainstorm and pair share:
● Describe what a computer looks like.
● What are the details of a computer?
● What are some things a computer does?

201
Slide 5
Reasons For Learning
1 minute
Instructors: Share with learners why knowing the definition of a computer is important. Provide
context for the subsequent lessons in the unit.
Participants: Respond to the question, “Why is it important to understand how computers and
technology evolve over time? How does understanding details of computers help us to
understand technology in our lives?”

202
Slide 6
Overview
6 minutes
Instructors: Ask students “What is the most important thing that makes something a computer?
Justify your answer.” Then, ask students what are key details that make up a computer. Give
examples of those details. Have those details changed over time?
Participants: Students identify elements of a computer and rank their ideas as a class. As a whole
class, classify a device as an example of a computer or a non-example, based on discussion.
Individually, identify areas that they are still unsure of.

203
Slide 7
Introduce New Declarative Knowledge
10 minutes
Instructors: Via video, provide learners with examples and non-examples of computers. Provide
learners with common examples and nonexamples of inputs, storage, processes, and outputs.
Participants: Watch video. Summarize how details of a computer are similar to baking or another
activity that is interesting to individual students.
Link to video: https://youtu.be/mCq8-xTH7jA?si=mEUnoti7u4I1PeZ9

204
Slide 8
Describe or Employ Learning Strategies
5 minutes
Demonstrate Procedures
2 minutes
Provide Practice
10 minutes
Instructors: Divide students into groups for a tiered activity based on readiness and prior
knowledge.Instruct students to take a clipboard, handout, and pencil and find at least four
different examples of computers. Once four examples have been reached, students should
return to their group and debate the big question: Which details are the most important? The
group does not have to come to an agreement, but they should have examples, evidence, and
justification for why they chose that detail
Tier One: Reinforce basic knowledge of computers by organizing details of computers on a
table using Handout 3. In this Tier, students will also reflect and respond to the questions:
● Which of the details on your list are the most important for a computer. Justify your
response.
● Which of these computers is most useful to you? Why?
● How does the context a computer is used in change whether a computer is useful?
● Which of the computers in our class do you think is the most recent evolution of
technology? Why?

205
Tier 2: Refine existing knowledge by filling in missing knowledge or skill gaps. Students will
work off Handout 2. Once students have identified at least four examples, they must discuss
the following questions:
● Which of the details of a computer do you think is the most important? Justify your
response.
● How have the details of computers changed over time? What are examples of details of
computers changing in your own life?
● How does the context a computer is used in change whether a computer is helpful?
● Which of the computers in our class do you think is the most recent evolution of
technology? Why?
Tier 3: Enrich and extend student learning by asking students to find concrete examples within
the room by completing at least three examples in Handout 1. Then, ask students to conduct
research on examples beyond the classroom. Provide three to four different examples of older
and newer technology. Ask students to reflect and respond to the following questions:
● Which of the details of a computer do you think is the most important? Justify your
response.
● How have the details of computers changed over time? What are examples of details of
computers changing in your own life?
● What problems computers do help solve?
● What are ways in which computers can help people? Do computers help all people
equally, or do some people benefit more than others? What are downsides to using
computers?
As needed, review the different tables for classifying examples. Demonstrate what needs to be
completed for each column.
Participants: Engage in an investigation to identify different types of computers and non
computers in the classroom.
Instructors: As needed, review the different tables for classifying examples. Demonstrate what
needs to be completed for each column.
Participants: Apply the steps of the procedure to the provided examples.
Instructors: Instruct students to take a clipboard, handout, and pencil and find at least four
different examples of computers.
Once four examples have been reached, students should return to their group and debate the big
question: Which details are the most important? The group does not have to come to an
agreement, but they should have examples, evidence, and justification for why they chose that
detail.
Participants: Students engage in an investigation to identify different types of computers and non
computers in the classroom.

206
Slide 9
Authentic Assessment
5 minutes
Instructors: Instruct students to meet on the rug. Conduct a quick poll of different examples of
computers and their details. As a class, discuss which details were the most important to a
computer. Then, reflect on how details of computers have changed over time.
Introduce examples of technology from other classrooms or ask for examples of technology in
students ’lives. Ask learners to take what we know about computers home and identify all the
uses for computers with their families. Ask students to classify whether that technology is a
computer or not.
Participants: Share their findings and defend their classifications. Provide examples of
technology not present in the classroom but relevant to the students ’lives. If time, classify that
technology on a table.

207
Slide 10
Rentention and Transfer/Big Idea
2 minutes
Instructor: Revisit the big idea by explaining that technology and computers are everywhere and
ever-evolving. The more we pay attention, the more we’ll see how linked we are with
computers. Introduce examples of technology that might be in or around students or ask for
examples of technology in students ’lives. Ask learners to take what we know about these
computers and identify some of the uses for computers with their families. Ask students to
classify whether that technology is a computer or not.
Participants: Provide examples of relevant technology they did not find in the classroom.
Classify that technology on a table or verbally.

208
Slide 11
Advanced Organizer
4 minutes
Instructor: Show students a preview of what is coming next class by displaying several images of
the historical computers or seminal inventions that led to computers. Ask students, is this a
computer?
Participants: Reflect on whether the final slide is a computer.

209
Appendix D: Evaluation Instrument Immediately Following the Program Implementation
Figure D1
Items for the Immediate Evaluation Following the Program
Item 1, Level 1 and 2 Evaluation Tool
In this course, we learned a lot about problem solving using an engineering mindset. As a
reminder, that includes defining the problem, planning solutions by drawing or
prototyping, and testing and adapting the solution. Based on what we learned, please
answer the following questions:
The things I learned in this unit are interesting to me: (L1)
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Kind of Agree Strongly Agree
I enjoyed many of the activities we did in this unit: (L1, L2)
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Kind of Agree Strongly Agree
I am proud of my work in this class: (L1, L2)
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Kind of Agree Strongly Agree
I am confident in my problem solving abilities: (L2)

210
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Kind of Agree Strongly Agree
Item 2, Level 1 and Level 2 Evaluation Tool Open-Ended Question
Draw or write about your favorite thing we did in innovation and technology in this unit (L1,
L2):
Item 3, Level 3 and Level 4 Student-Centered Evaluation Tool
I can use what we learned this year in other classes (L3, L4)
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Kind of Agree Strongly Agree
I can think like an engineer or computer scientist (L3, L4):

211
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Kind of Agree Strongly Agree
Item 4, Level 3 and Level 4 Student-Centered Evaluation Tool Open-Ended Questions
How do you think like an engineer or computer scientist outside of class? (L3):
Item 5, Level 3 and 4 Parent Survey Evaluation Tool
Overall, how satisfied are you with your child’s learning outcomes in innovation and
technology:
• Very dissatisfied
• Dissatisfied
• Neutral
• Satisfied
• Very Satisfied
Overall, to what degree do you think this course has increased your child’s engagement in
STEAM-subjects?

212
• Very dissatisfied
• Dissatisfied
• Neutral
• Satisfied
• Very Satisfied
If you answered very dissatisfied, please elaborate on what elements of the course were
unsatisfactory:
To what degree do you agree with the following: The Lower School Innovation and
Technology program has positively impacted the SA school community.
• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Neutral
• Agree
• Strongly agree
Item 6, Level 3 and Level 4 Faculty Evaluation Tool
Overall, how satisfied are you with the integration of technology and engineering at SA:
• Very dissatisfied
• Dissatisfied
• Neutral
• Satisfied
• Very Satisfied

213
Overall, to what degree do you think this course has increased your class’s engagement in
STEAM-subjects?
• Very dissatisfied
• Dissatisfied
• Neutral
• Satisfied
• Very Satisfied
If you answered very dissatisfied, please elaborate on what elements of the course were
unsatisfactory:
To what degree do you agree with the following: The Lower School Innovation and
Technology program has positively impacted the SA school community.
• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Neutral
• Agree
• Strongly agree

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The STEM (Science-Technology-Engineering-Math) field has gained increasing popularity in education and relevance for future careers (Hallinen, 2023) such that technology and computers are essential to almost all career paths (Slagg, 2022). In the context of gifted learners, the STEM-related curricula in elementary school can be expansive for creative and divergent thinking and provide opportunities to make interdisciplinary connections, access to authentic problems to solve, and potential to provide depth and complexity (Hockett & Brighton, 2021). This curriculum addresses a gap in academic programming at a small, K–8 independent school for gifted students in Los Angeles. Specifically, the focus of the curriculum is innovation, or creative problem solving in technology-rich environments. Gifted students often require challenging and interest-based activities rooted in real-world problems. Computer science and innovation provide outlets for these approaches and can incorporate best practices of gifted pedagogy, including inquiry, creative problem-solving, and complex ideas. The purpose of this curriculum is to teach elementary students who identify as gifted learners how to use a creative problem-solving process to solve STEAM-related problems, specifically focusing on computer-based problems. It is influenced by social cognitive theory, self-determination theory, the 4-phase model of interest development, and the school-enrichment model theory for gifted learners. The curriculum is designed for K–4 students and takes place over a school year, with 45 minute lessons and 50 lessons total. It incorporates modules on program development, artificial intelligence, robotics, machines, and digital citizenship. Students are guided through the four step problem-solving process is a through line throughout each module, including problem representation, solution planning, solution implementation, and solution evaluation. Course learning outcomes are influenced by Bloom’s taxonomy of learning and Gagne’s learning outcomes. After successful completion of this curriculum, students will be able to apply a systematic problem-solving process to STEM-related problems across different thematic modules.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Using robotics to increase K-2 girls STEM interest in an urban setting: a curriculum model

PDF

The elements of a differentiated curriculum for gifted students: transfer and application across the disciplines

PDF

A curriculum to integrate social justice anchors standards into K–5 curriculum

PDF

Technology as a tool: uses in differentiated curriculum and instruction for gifted learners

PDF

Digital fluency and critically conscious computing: a curriculum for undergraduates

PDF

From recruitment to graduation: a curriculum to navigate admissions for prospective student-athletes

PDF

Pathway to inclusivity: a curriculum to transition students with disabilities into college

PDF

Factors influencing teachers' differentiated curriculum and instructional choices and gifted and non-gifted students' self-perceptions

PDF

Lack of support for gifted students in the United States

PDF

Factors influencing gifted students' preferences for models of teaching

PDF

Culturally responsive pedagogy: a curriculum for secondary education teachers

PDF

Lack of challenging curriculum for minority students of diversity in early childhood education

PDF

Differentiated culturally relevant curriculum to affirm identity for gifted African American students

PDF

Factors that influence the identification of elementary African American students as potentially gifted learners

PDF

Identifying dyslexia in elementary classrooms: a professional development curriculum

PDF

An evaluation study of... What do teachers know about gifted students?

PDF

Making them gifted: how elementary makers’ spaces reveal giftedness

PDF

The under-referral of African American boys to gifted programs

PDF

Accommodating deaf and hard of hearing students in the mainstream classroom

PDF

Practical data science: a curriculum for community colleges

Asset Metadata

Creator Gjedsted, Charlotte Brooke (author)

Core Title A curriculum to teach innovation in K-4 gifted classrooms

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership

Degree Conferral Date 2024-05

Publication Date 06/13/2024

Defense Date 03/25/2024

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag computer science,elementary school,Gifted Education,gifted students,makerspace,OAI-PMH Harvest,STEM

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Yates, Kenneth (committee chair), Kaplan, Sandra (committee member), Manzone, Jessica (committee member)

Creator Email cgjedste@usc.edu,cgjedsted@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC1139963AO

Unique identifier UC1139963AO

Identifier etd-GjedstedCh-13100.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-GjedstedCh-13100

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Gjedsted, Charlotte Brooke

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240614-usctheses-batch-1169 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu