‘Differentiating for gifted learners does not require a separate curriculum … Incorporating high ceilings and conceptual understandings into a well-planned unit of work ensures engagement for all students.’ In our latest reader submission, Lanella Sweet – Enrichment Educator at Wesley College in Melbourne, Victoria – shares a tiered unit of work built around real-world measurement tasks.
The practical challenge of designing units that genuinely extend gifted learners within a mixed-ability classroom, without simply adding more of the same work, remains one of the more complex tasks in primary teaching.
A differentiated measurement unit, designed for middle primary students and running over 12 lessons, offers one evidence-informed response to that challenge. The unit was built around a cluster of gifted students in a co-educational primary school setting. One student, referred to here as Sally, is gifted in the intellectual domain with strengths in arts and construction, and displays attention challenges not yet formally diagnosed. She became a key lens through which scaffolding decisions were made.
The planning framework
Two frameworks guided the unit design. The Maker Model (Maker, 1982) addresses 4 domains of differentiation: content, process, product and learning environment. Bloom's Taxonomy (revised by Krathwohl, 2002) provided the cognitive architecture, with activities deliberately targeting the higher-order levels of analyse, evaluate and create.
Underpinning both is Gagne's Differentiated Model of Gifted and Talented (Gagné, 2015), which frames giftedness as a developmental process. Curricular provision is identified as an environmental factor that can either support or hinder talent development, reinforcing why deliberate planning matters.
Pre-assessment was the starting point. Tasks were pegged to Bloom's higher levels rather than simple recall, giving teachers a genuine baseline for grouping and planning. Formative assessment ran throughout the unit via exit tickets, peer discussions, reflective tasks and informal conferences.
Activities and tiers
The unit progressed across 3 interconnected activities, each available at Tier 2 (core) and Tier 3 (extension). The sequence was intentional, moving from abstract and personal, through to community-facing and authentic.
Activity 1 – Perimeter and area of letters in your name
Students calculate the perimeter and area of each letter in their name, treating each letter as a quadrilateral shape drawn on grid paper.
Tier 2 (core):
- Identify each letter as a quadrilateral shape on grid paper using concrete manipulatives.
- Measure or assign side lengths and calculate perimeter using the taught formula.
- Calculate area using the taught formula and record all working.
Tier 3 (extension)
- Investigate connections between perimeter and area across all letters, then justify findings.
- Propose a new method for estimating quadrilateral area from limited perimeter information.
- Combine all class members' name values and create a class-wide solution to perimeter and area.
- Reflect on how changes to letter dimensions affect perimeter and area.
Activity 2 – Design a scale model of a bedroom
Students measure their own bedroom at home, then produce a scaled drawing and demonstrate perimeter, area and unit conversions. Tier 3 students extend this into a 3D model.
Tier 2 (core)
- Measure the bedroom at home, then decide on dimensions for a scaled diagram.
- Draw the diagram including all necessary elements of the room.
- Calculate perimeter and area using taught formulas and demonstrate metric unit conversions.
Tier 3 (extension)
- Draw the bedroom to scale using real ratios and explain all calculations.
- Construct a 3D model connected to the scale ratio of the drawing.
- Compare the 2D plan and 3D model to analyse spatial relationships and dimensions.
- Reflect on how accuracy of measurement affects the functionality and design of a real space.
Activity 3 – Design a new school playground
Students measure actual school spaces, account for fixed elements, and design a new playground within given dimensions. This is the culminating task and the most authentically connected to real-world application.
Tier 2 (core)
- Measure the dimensions of the existing playground space.
- Draw an estimation diagram with approximate ratios.
- Calculate perimeter and area and suggest improvements to the space.
- Consider accessibility and use of space for different year groups.
- Present the final design to the class in a format of choice.
Tier 3 (extension)
- Measure the playground accurately, identify fixed elements and consider the implications of these constraints.
- Design a scaled diagram using ratio and explain all calculations.
- Produce more than one design option and evaluate the pros and cons of each.
- Demonstrate all perimeter and area calculations with reference to real measurements displayed as ratios.
- Consider safety guidelines, accessibility and functionality for multiple year groups across the school.
- Present the final design to the class, reflecting on the real-world implications of accurate measurement.
Connecting to Bloom's Taxonomy
Each activity was designed to address the 3 higher-order levels. Here’s a summary of how this plays out across the unit.
Analyse – Activity 1: Break letter shapes into components; identify patterns and compare relationships between shapes. Activity 2: Analyse room dimensions; break the space into measurable sections and compare components. Activity 3: Analyse the existing playground layout; investigate space constraints, accessibility and safety.
Evaluate – Activity 1: Assess accuracy of calculations; debate configurations and justify methods. Activity 2: Critique own designs; conduct peer review focusing on space use and accuracy. Activity 3: Assess feasibility of designs against authentic criteria; consider school administrator feedback.
Create – Activity 1: Arrange letters in different configurations and calculate corresponding perimeter and area. Activity 2: Design a detailed model incorporating measurements and design elements. Activity 3: Develop a comprehensive playground design integrating multiple elements and real-world parameters.
Research indicates that gifted students benefit from connecting, evaluating and synthesising information across real-world contexts (Chandra Handa, 2020; Rogers, 2007). By Activity 3, students were doing exactly that: analysing existing spaces, evaluating the feasibility of designs, and producing original work with a genuine potential audience.
Scaffolding for Sally – structure within the stretch
For a student like Sally, who is intellectually gifted but experiences attention challenges, challenging content alone is not sufficient. As mentioned earlier, Sally was a key lens through which scaffolding decisions were made, however other students also benefited from these supports and approaches. The scaffolding design addressed 3 areas.
Explicit teaching – Modelling of formulas, heuristics and mathematical processes at appropriate points in each activity; Demonstration of how to set out working, use ratio in scaled drawings, and apply unit conversions; Teacher and student interactive discussions at key points of mastery.
Self-regulated learning – Goal setting at the start of each activity, individually and within groups; Self-monitoring progress through the stages of each task; Reflection and self-feedback built into the conclusion of each activity; Student-created timelines to manage the more complex multi-session tasks.
Psychosocial and attention supports – Many scholars note that gifted students may need emotional and social support alongside academic challenge (Baudson, 2016; Neihart, 2021).
For Sally, the following targeted modifications were incorporated across all activities: Visible checklists, tick-off charts and session-by-session timelines displayed in the learning space; Regular check-in times at the start of each session; Bite-sized task breakdowns within each larger activity so the path forward is always clear; Externalised working memory supports including instruction cards, content prompts and reminders; Thinking routines and graphic organisers to support planning and process; Timers to assist focus during each short segment of work; Movement breaks when needed and headphone access to reduce noise; Like-minded peer grouping with shared authentic goals; Gallery walks and flexible presentation options to build confidence and reduce performance anxiety.
Importantly, these were not concessions to the difficulty of the tasks, rather the conditions that allowed Sally to access and demonstrate her intellectual capacity.
Key takeaways for planning
For educators designing differentiated units for gifted students, several principles underpin the approach shared above. Here are some of the key takeaways from this experience.
Start with pre-assessment. Use it to identify what gifted students already know, form purposeful groups, and set meaningful ceilings for the unit.
Build towards authenticity. The playground task generated the strongest student investment because it was real, with actual constraints and a genuine audience.
Scaffolding is not only for struggling learners. For students who are gifted and face additional challenges, structure is what makes the stretch possible.
Use frameworks to plan, not to constrain. Bloom's Taxonomy and the Maker Model provided a useful scaffold for teachers, but the open-ended nature of each task allowed gifted students to consistently exceed expectations.
Differentiating for gifted learners does not require a separate curriculum, it requires deliberate thought about depth, abstraction and real-world connection. Incorporating high ceilings and conceptual understandings into a well-planned unit of work ensured engagement for our students. By providing Tier 3 differentiation through the Maker Model and Bloom's Taxonomy, opportunities for creative problem-solving, critical evaluation and in-depth analysis became available to every learner in the room, not only the gifted few.
References
Baudson, T. G. & Preckel, F. (2016). Teachers’ Conceptions of Gifted and Average-Ability Students on Achievement-Relevant Dimensions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(3), 212-225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216647115
Chandra Handa, M. (2020). Examining students’ and teachers’ perceptions of differentiated practices, student engagement, and teacher qualities. Journal of Advanced Academics, 31(4), 530–568. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X20931457
Gagné, F. (2015). Academic talent development programs: A best practices model. Asia Pacific Education Review, 16(2), 281-295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-015-9366-9
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Maker, C. J. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted. Aspen.
Neihart, M. (2021). The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know?. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003238928
Rogers, K. B. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: A synthesis of the research on educational practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 382-396. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0016986207306324
