1

TEACHERS OF THE GIFTED AND TALENTED: ARE THEY COMPETENT?[Research in Progress]

By Gary G. Pears

Curtin University of TechnologyPerth Western Australia

Paper presented to the Australian Association For Research In Education Conference

Fremantle Western Australia

November 1993

Abstract

This paper reports some preliminary findings of a multi-faceted study which examines the relative functional thinking skills development of both teachers and year 7 pupils in Western Australian primary schools.Despite ongoing international calls for demonstrable changes in the educational outcomes for our children, for example, increased emphasis on the Basics-Of-Tomorrow [Shulman, 1986] critical and

creative thinking and independent inquiry skills, there is little evidence beyond rhetoric that anything has changed. Rather, research indicates that many practices adopted by our schools and teachers are antithetical to these desired outcomes [Goodlad:1984, Kagan:1990, Clark:1983, 1988, Shulman:1986, Shavelson and Stern:1981, Clark and Peterson:1986].

This study posits that teacher competence could lie at the heart of the matter, that teachers could be unable to foster thinking skills because they themselves lack them [Lipman:1985]. Further, research indicates that teachers are unable to establish appropriate classroom psychosocial environments which will encourage thinking skills development.Conceptually this study is original in that rather than using the standard pre-test/post-test paradigm, it compares a group of exemplary teachers and students who have, in the first instance,

been appointed on the basis of their perceived exceptional thinking and pedagogical skills and in the second, have been identified as being in the top five per cent of the primary school population [Primary Extension and Challenge (PEAC) with teachers and students from standard [Non-PEAC] classrooms].

The design includes seven cohorts; second year pre-service teacher trainees; in-service teachers [private and public]; PEAC teachers; Year 7 students [12 years of age] from private, public and PEAC classes totalling approximately 2,000 cases. Preliminary examination of the data suggests that there is an urgent need in Australia to establish specialist gifted and talented education pre and in-service professional development programs, appropriate selection, induction and formative assessment for teachers of gifted and talented students while also highlighting the need for reform in general teacher education with particular reference to the teaching of thinking. Further, there is indeed little difference in the levels of functional cognition between regular classroom teachers and students identified as gifted and talented. Also the general level of cognitive development of the regular Year 7 student population as identified in this study, across inquiry, creativity and critical thinking is poor.

Despite billions of educational dollars having been poured into the innovation and reform movement of the 60s and 70s, little has changed to alter the basic structure of what happens at the classroom level. Teachers still established classroom environments and used teaching strategies similar or identical to those used at the turn of the century.(Goodlad:1984)

Introduction

The call for demonstrable changes in the manner education was being delivered reached its height around 1983 with the American Nation at Risk report. Since that time there has been a plethora of reports, articles and journals recommending change (Costa:1985). However, such is the complexity of the situation that the rhetoric appears to grow more colourful while the practices rarely, if ever, change (Apple:1990).

Regardless of the push by the far right in education (Kramer:1988) there has been an ever increasing move away from the basics of yesterday  i.e. the three Rs, that have already failed us (Finn:1989) to the Basics-Of-Tomorrow. These new basics include critical thinking, reasoning, creative production and independent inquiry and are further sponsored by the excellence in education movement (Toffler:1984, USA National Science Commission:1984, Lipman:1985, Goodlad:1984, Finn:1989, Beasley:1984, Hobart Declaration:1984).Yet little evidence exists as to whether we have in any way achieved such goals and this is especially so in Australia where precious little has been done to identify and measure such outcomes. To date the results of research on teaching and school effectiveness simply compound our uncertainty. Indeed if anything the discrepancy between the ideals and actual outcomes of the excellence in education movement appears to be widening (De Bono:1990, Goodlad:1984, Phillips:1991).

Indeed much of the research on teaching and effective schools suggests that practices adopted by our schools and teachers are antithetical to the development of the very outcomes we desire (Goodlad:1984, Kagan:1990, Clark:1983, 1988, Shulman:1986, Shavelson and Stern:1981, Clark and Peterson:1986). Such

research highlighted that classroom environments had changed little over the past century, demonstrating minimal inquiry, individualisation, creative and critical thinking. For example, Goodlad (1984) reported that an average of 75 percent of classroom time was spent on instruction of which 70 per cent involved teacher talk. Less than one per cent of this time involved invitations to students to engage in anything other than mere recall of factual information  the lowest level of Bloom's Taxonomy.

An examination of recent research in Australia concerned with the quality of educational outcomes can be traced back to the early 70's (Karmel Report:1973, 1985, Teachers of Tomorrow:1980, Report on Secondary Education:1979, National Inquiry into Teacher

Education:1980, Beazley:1984, Teacher Quality:1989, Australian Teachers:1990, Speedy Report:1990, Finn Report:1991).

While such reports identify many factors contributing to the poor state of Australian education, the common threads are those of teacher quality and effectiveness. These factors are critical to the debate, for no-one would argue that the quality of our teachers is fundamental to bridging the gap between the ideals and practical outcomes of the goals of academic excellence and the basics-of-tomorrow (Shulman:1986, Goodlad:1984, Lipman:1985, and Pears:1987). The research evidence however is damning of both the quality and effectiveness of our teachers, especially the teaching of critical thinking, creative production and inquiry (Harms:1980, Norris:1985, Lipman:1985, Kagan:1990, Tobin and Fraser:1990, Grant:1988, Barrell:1980, Coles and Robinson:1989, Chipman:1990, Darling-Hammond and Wise:1985, Speedy et al:1989, Shulman:1987, O'Loughlin and Campbell:1988, Jones:1987).

.C1.Teacher Quality;

With regard to teacher quality the data suggest that our primary teachers are being attracted from the bottom, not the top quartile of year 12 exit [TEE] graduates in Western Australia with less than one (1) percent of those students coming from the top 10 percent (WA Teachers Union:1990). Indeed according to a report by Leach (1983), more than 25 per cent of teacher graduates from Columbus Teacher Training Institutions fail the Teacher Certification Test  i.e., 25 per cent of those who graduated from high school with a C average or better could not pass the test of the content they were supposed to teach. Similar data has been reported by Pears:1991, Wallace and Louden:1991, Tobin and Fraser:1991, DarlingHammond and Wise:1985, Harms:1990, Weiss:1987.

Furthermore, teachers appear to possess highly questionable levels of numeracy and literacy (Sampson:1990) and subject matter mastery (Speedy:1989, Pears:1991). More recently Bennett (1993) in reporting findings from his recent research into subject matter competency of first year teacher trainees in British universities, pointed to the fact that only 30 per cent of such students could identify an adverb in a sentence, only 30 per cent could wire a simple circuit and an equally large percentile were transmitting scientific misconceptions to their students. In essence such students lack the very competencies they are to teach.

However, of greatest concern is the data which suggests that in the areas which will impact most on the 21st century, those identified as the Basics-Of-Tomorrow (critical thinking, creative

thinking and inquiry thinking), such neophytes are least competent to cope (Lipman:1985, Harms:1985, Pears:1991).

---------------------------TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE__________________

.C1.Teacher Effectiveness;

Studies of school and teacher effectiveness, while demonstrating that schools and teachers do count, highlight the discrepancies between our attempts at developing better thinkers and current classroom practices and learner behaviours (Beare and Caldwell:1990, Goodlad:1984). The overwhelming evidence is that teachers in the regular classroom adhere to traditional patterns of pedagogy. Also Glasser (1989) and Sizer (1985) suggest that boredom and intellectual docility characterise our classrooms, with most of their time taken up with activities which lack intellectual complexity and are teacher dominated.

The fact that the focus of questioning in assessment is on lower order rote skills with less than three in every 1,000 pupil responses being aimed at abstract thought (Kerry:1981) is of concern. According to Goodlad (1984) students rarely plan or initiate anything, seldom create their own products, infrequently read or write anything substantial, or engage in analytical discussion. Pressure on teachers to teach basic skills attainment levels takes up much of the time available for real teaching. Real teaching being defined as non-tested modes of thinking and performance, creative activities, inquiry, invention or problem solving (DarlingHammond and Wise:1985). Such activities are seen to take a great deal of time and are therefore not contemplated in favour of the lower order processes.

Our data suggest that this is not something often or readily done...with students often working independently but on identical tasks...On the whole teachers did not know how to vary their instructional practices, did not want to, or had difficulty in doing so.(Goodlad:1984) The role of appropriate school and classroom environments is also seen as vital in the development of thinking, inquiry and independent learning skills (Walberg and Fowler:1987,

Marzano:1988). However, the establishment of environments which elicit such outcomes still appear to be an ideal (Fraser:1986, Goodlad:1984, Walberg:1987, Resnick:1989, Maker:1988, Sternberg:1990, Costa and Lowery:1989, Perkins:1989, Beyer:1988). In short, there appears to be a large chasm between the actual state of teaching and learning outcomes in our schools and the ideals. In fact Goodlad (1984) provides four core elements which he believes best characterise our present classrooms:

1. The vehicle for teaching and learning is the Total Group.2. The teacher is the strategic and pivotal figure in the group;3. The norms governing classrooms derive from what is required to maintain the teacher's pivotal role; and4. The classroom tone can best be described as flat and neutral, in fact boring. It would appear that teachers lack the will or ability to establish appropriate psychosocial classroom environments which not only encourage academic excellence across the Basics-Of-Tomorrow, but actively model and value such environments

(Goodlad:1984, Swartz and Perkins:1989, Fraser:1986, Tobin and Fraser:1990, Norris and Ennis:1990, Pears:1987). Such evidence raises serious questions as to whether the ideals of the Basics-Of-Tomorrow are: one, on the agenda in our primary schools; two, being practised; and, three, whether the teachers themselves have the appropriate levels of cognitive development and dispositions to deliver the educational outcomes that are being demanded of them. For as Barrell (1985) explains:

Without a solid foundation in the nature of reflective, critical and creative thinking, teachers are unable to present meaningful and complex problems that stimulate thinking. They are also unable to recognise the products of such thinking (p.35).

While teacher qualities and pedagogical strategies called for no doubt exist within Australian education, the dearth of empirical data makes it impossible to draw conclusions as to the current level of appropriate teaching practice with regard to the development of the Basics-of-Tomorrow and the degree to which such intervention has been or is able to be successfully transferred and identified in student outcomes. Certainly no comprehensive comparative data exists as to the development of the skills in the areas of critical thinking, creative thinking and inquiry thinking for students and their teachers. Further, given the importance of psychosocial classroom environments to educational productivity outcomes (Walberg:1987, Fraser:1986, Tobin and Fraser:1990, Pears:1987) and correlated academic achievement, it would appear essential to examine Australian

classrooms for the existence of such of environments that are supportive of the educational aims previously outlined.

.C1.Exemplary Educational Programs, Teachers and Outcomes;

Berliner (1986) strongly advocates that the prime focus of research on teaching be the expert teacher with a focus on successful programs where the goals of such programs matched the ideals (Penick and Yager:1986). Further, Gallagher (1987) argues that the focus on exemplary practice is preferable to that of data which focuses on shortfalls especially when such research examines: one; teachers and their students; two, where such teachers and programs can clearly be identified as exemplary; and, three, where the data gathered combines qualitative and quantitative methods  for example, student and teacher achievement along with their perceptions of the classroom environments in which they learn.

Studies into environments for learning science and mathematics (Fraser and Tobin:1990A:1990B) have predicated their methodologies on such guidelines and have specifically examined the nature of classroom psychosocial environments established by exemplary teachers and the concomitant outcomes for higher-level cognitive learning. The results of that work have highlighted not only the nature of exemplary teaching practice but also that discrepancies still exist in the ideal and actual states in such classrooms and student outcomes. Fraser and Tobin (1990B) report that the instances of teachers having less than optimal background in content and pedagogical mastery were those teachers nominated as exemplary. They go on to state,

Without the necessary content and pedagogical knowledge, teachers can expect to flounder. Those who are experiencing difficulties can anticipate continuing problems unless they attain mastery over what they are teaching and how to teach it.(p.19)

This position is reinforced by Shulman (1987) who suggests that regardless of all other factors, as a minimum teachers should know something not understood by others, "...presumably the students" (p.7). This extends to the establishment of environments and dispositions which will optimise the ideal learning outcomes society currently desires. It is important therefore that any examination of ideal and actual classroom practices juxtapose the outcomes from such programs and teaching practices identified as exemplary.

.C1.Gifted and Talented Programs as Exemplary;

An examination of almost any program for gifted and talented students will generally include such generic outcomes as: . Development of independent and self-directed study skills;. Development of higher order thinking skills;. Encourage and develop creativity and creative products;. Develop higher level/complex research, [learning to learn], inquiry skills (Pears:1987,Kaplan:1979, Coleman:1985). While it has been argued, and rightly so, that such goals are appropriate for all students it is the case that due to the differentiated characteristics, in particular cognitive, of the gifted and talented student, such goals are especially appropriate (Maker:1982). For further discussion on the characteristics of gifted and talented children, refer to Coleman (1985), Feldhusen and Sokol (1982).

.C1.Ideal characteristics of teachers of the gifted and talented;

An examination of the literature on the preferred qualities of a teacher of gifted and talented children reveals much common ground. Table 2 highlights some of the ideal characteristics of teachers of Gifted and Talented students.

While such qualities are indeed ideals, the Primary Extension and Challenge (PEAC) program for gifted and talented students in Western Australia, does aspire to appointing teachers with such exemplary characteristics (ProAPT:1991), Senate Standing Committee:1988, Feldhusen:1985, 1988, Maker:1975)

1. Above average intellectual behaviour. This includes the demonstrable ability to conceptualise, generalise, create, and organise.2. The ability to be flexible and open to new ideas (a tolerance for ambiguity).3. Exemplifies independent learner behaviours.4. Is democratic versus autocratic.

5. Innovative and experimental versus conforming.6. Is guided by discovery versus recapitulation.

7. Develops strategies which are characterised by constructivist versus absorbative outcomes.8. Develops individualised programs.

9. Creates a safe psychosocial classroom environment where students are positively disposed to critical, creative and inquiry thinking.

10. Respects, values and encourages the Basics-Of-Tomorrow (critical, creative and inquiry thinking).11. Specifically teaches for good thinking. Table 2. (Adopted from Lindsay:1980) Such characteristics were subjected to further investigation by Feldhusen (1988) and the competencies identified and ranked in importance by practitioners and university staff closely models those outlined in Table 2. Interestingly, the few research studies that have examined the competencies of teachers of gifted and talented students are almost all based on teacher self-reporting, such as that reported by Whitlock and Du Cete (1989). That study provides little demonstrable evidence that a teacher who, via such techniques is classified as outstanding, is actually able to demonstrate the same under observation. However, evaluation studies such as Steele et al. (1970) and Pears (1985) attempt to identify and measure actual competencies and student outcomes. It is against these notions of an ideal program for gifted and talented students, that have as their goals a call for and development of the Basics-Of-Tomorrow, that actual classroom practice can be compared and discrepancies identified (Provus:1971).

.C1.Purpose of this Study;

The study reported in this paper sought to establish to what extent there is a discrepancy between the ideals for teaching thinking and the actual teacher competency and pedagogical practice in some Western Australian primary schools. It also compares standard classroom environments and cognitive outcomes with those for which the teachers have been selected specifically to provide peak performance in thinking skills, namely the Primary Extension and Challenge Program (PEAC) for gifted and talented Year 5, 6 and 7 students. It seeks to discover whether in fact teachers are competent to promote thinking skills in the classroom.

.C1.Importance of This Study;

Shulman (1989) argues that pupils learn more from teachers who are knowledgeable, who reason, who act on the basis of such reflection, than from those who are creatures of habit or who are incompetent.

The bulk of research into teacher cognition has focused on teacher beliefs  i.e., teacher self-reflection, self-reporting, and the correlation of these with classroom practice (Kagan:1990). This study seeks to measure the functional level of teacher cognitive development, i.e., the teacher's ability to think critically, creatively and inquisitively. At the same time it acknowledges that subject matter mastery is also a necessary condition for thinking skills (Perkins:1989, Glasser:1984, Tobin and Fraser:1990, Beyer:1989, Speedy:1989) and has examined that as well, specifically in science, although such data is not reported here.

The study is original in concept in this area in that rather than using the standard pre-test post-test paradigm, it will compare a group of exemplary teachers who have been preselected for their perceived higher levels of functional thinking skills (the PEAC group), with those in what we will term standard classroom teachers. As such it is an extension of the author's previous

1987 research into differences in academic and cognitive achievement between gifted Year 7 students from Full-time Extension Classes (FUTEC) and matched Year 7 students from standard classrooms, where the psychosocial environments in gifted programs were found to positively affect student thinking skills.

This will be one of few comparative studies on the effectiveness of exceptional programs, testing for discrepancies between environments which have been established to elicit peak academic performance in selected students and normal teaching environments (Klitgaard and Hall:1973, 1990, Walberg:1987). Carter and Hamilton (1985) have also commented that unless special programs [gifted and talented] can answer the question, "Do the gifted meet the objectives as a result of the differentiated curriculum?" (p.10), then such programs will continue to face social and academic criticism until such time that they can clearly demonstrate that the "...program is doing what it claims" (p.11). Therefore, as previously stated elsewhere (Pears:1987) it is pertinent, if not necessary, to endeavour to assess the degree to which such exemplary programs as the Primary Extension and Challenge program, are actually achieving their stated objectives.

.C1.The Overall Research Design;

Figure 1 provides an overview of the overall research design. Cohort 1 is the only group not to be included in this paper while cohorts 2A and 2B, i.e. government and non-government teachers, are treated as one group, i.e. Non-PEAC teachers.__________________

FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE__________________

This paper does not attempt to report on the data gathered by the Thinking in Science Test. Although this data provides revealing insights as to the cognitive capabilities and outcomes for both students and teachers across all cohorts, it is the subject of further analysis and will be subsequently reported elsewhere.

.C1.The Focus of this Paper;

This paper reports on a number of snapshots of the data currently under analysis and focuses on the nature of the psychosocial classroom environments across cohorts, the functional levels of cognition (thinking) across cohorts and examines any trends that are emerging. It also attempts to identify possible causal links and tentatively suggests remedies.

This study is no different from any other in that it is based on certain assumptions that emanate from the literature and experience. The assumptions outlined below are based on the underlying philosophies (intent) of teaching for the Basics-Of-Tomorrow. Further they focus on the ideals that are to be found by way of oft-stated goals and objectives of special programs for gifted and talented students. Such assumptions (albeit non-definitive) provide a focus for this paper and will be examined.

.C1.Assumptions;

1. Exemplary teachers (PEAC) establish classroom environments which are qualitatively differentiated from those of Non-PEAC teachers and that the prime objective of such environments is the development of individualised programs.

2. PEAC students view their PEAC classroom environments as being more differentiated and individualised than students in the regular classroom.

3. There is a greater degree of congruence in the preferred and

actual classroom psychosocial environments as perceived by PEAC teachers and students than Non-PEAC teachers and students.

4. The functional levels of cognitive development (critical thinking, creative thinking and inquiry thinking) of teachers are significantly different from that of the primary aged students they serve.

5. Students' functional levels of cognitive development (critical thinking, creative thinking and inquiry thinking) will not differ regardless of the educational program and psychosocial classroom environment in which they are placed.

.C1.Design of the Study;

The mothodology adopts the Discrepancy Evaluation Model advocated by (Provis:1971, Harms:1980, De Carlo:1979) to highlight discrepancies between intentions of schooling and outcomes, seeking to account for the differences and offer solutions. It is similar conceptually to the classroom environment research paradigm (Fraser:1986) in determining the optimum environment in which students and teachers should find themselves. Measurements of the preferred and actual ambience are undertaken, reporting discrepancies from which the changes to the standards and performance outcomes may be made. This study identifies standards and differences in terms of:

1. Outcome goals that relate to substantive aims such as levels of critical thinking, creative thinking and inquiry thinking (here referred to as thinking skills or the Basics-Of-Tomorrow).2. Process goals facilitating the above, such as teacher/student dispositions and classroom psychosocial environments.

.C1.Triangulation;

To avoid the limitations of dualisms this study adopts a technique of triangulation to establish the internal validity of the design (Tobin and Fraser:1990, Guba:1978, Barnett:1983, Cohen and Manion:1980) and as such adds to the credibility placed on findings as they tend in the same direction emerging consistently from the data. Figure 2 illustrates the depth and stability of this study as it combines dissimilar methods (qualitative and quantitative), instruments and populations.__________________

FIGURE 2 ABOUT HERE__________________

.C1.Target Populations;

PEAC teachers' exemplary group (N's 14)The entire cohort [N's approximately 25] of PEAC teachers was included in this study. They are a small group which has been appointed on the basis of perceived competence in thinking, disposition to elicit peak performance in their students (Walberg:1987, Costello:1987), flexibility in pedagogical approaches, and skill in catering for individual differences, especially with the most able students.

These teachers have also had specific in-service training in the

development of higher order thinking skills in Gifted and Talented students. As such they should ideally provide standards of excellence against which practices and outcomes in regular school classrooms can be evaluated (Pears:1987, WA Ministry of Education Policy:1991).

.C1.PEAC students (Year 7) (N's 118);

PEAC students have been identified at the end of their fourth year of primary schooling as having been in the top five per cent of their peer group and as having attended the PEAC program for three years, now Year 7. However not all identified Year 7 students attend the withdrawal program at the same time. Therefore all PEAC centres were invited to participate in the study with all highlighted Year 7 students being asked to attend a special testing session. Such a population also fulfils the requirements laid down by Walberg (1987) and Costello (1987). Further, data from previous research (Pears:1987) were available for comparative purposes.

.C1.Non-PEAC Year 7 students - standard classrooms (N's 1,004);

Year 7 students were chosen because Year 7 is the final year of primary schooling in Western Australian schools, because they should be able to demonstrate mastery of Year 6 subject matter and concepts and of course because they have been subjected to their primary school culture for a minimum of six years.

.C1.Non-PEAC teachers - standard classrooms (N's 96);

All teachers in the target schools were invited to participate on a voluntary anonymous basis while all Year 7 teachers were required to participate in order to ensure teacher/student comparisons, in particular the classroom environmental data. Teachers were required to have a minimum of two years' teaching experience (Murmane:1987, Batten et al:1991). Of interest here is that the Non-PEAC government teacher

participation rate was almost entirely due to the compulsory participation of the Year 7 teachers.

Also it is disappointing to note that while the PEAC teachers (the exemplary group) are most concerned with public criticism of the PEAC program and continual threats from a variety of sources to close down the PEAC program, only three of their number outside of the teachers directly concerned with the five PEAC student cohorts returned completed assessment profiles.

c1.Target schools  general information;

The stratification of schools (regular classrooms) across the very large State of Western Australia was achieved by selecting three schools from the north of the State (Geraldton), three schools from the south of the State (Bunbury) and the remaining six schools from Districts north and south of the Perth metropolitan area. Schools were clustered within Districts, allowing feedback at that level. An additional four non-government primary schools (Perth metropolitan area) also agreed to participate in the study. All schools in the targeted Districts were invited to participate. This was followed by a personal visit and discussion between the researcher and all staff.

.C1.Instrument Selection;

It must be noted that the same instruments were used across all cohorts. The following instruments were chosen on the basis of

their reported validity and reliability and were judged to be more than satisfactory for research purposes and as such were seen to strengthen the comprehensiveness of the data gathered. They can be categorised as follows:. Aspect specific (quality of reasoning).. Subject specific.. Comprehensive techniques. (For a more detailed review of the components of critical, creative, and inquiry thinking see Norris and Ennis:1989)The following tests were selected for use:

.C1.The New Jersey Test of Reasoning Skills [comprehensive] (Shipman:1983);

This test can be used for students from Year 5 to adult. It is based on an extensive taxonomy divided into two classes, reasoning skills and inquiry skills (Norris and Ennis:1989). Whimbey (1984) confirms it correlates reliably with other tests

of critical thinking and basic achievement. Reliability is reported from .69 to .82.

.C1.Test of Creative Thinking  Drawing Production (TCT-DP) [Aspect Specific] (Urban and Jellen:1986).;

This recently developed test measures student creative abilities through the completion of figural fragments. Scores are derived not from the statistical uncommonness of the responses as for many tests of creativity but via image production. The authors provide validity scores ranging form .88 to .91 from Grades K to adult levels using trained raters.

.C1.The Iowa Creativity Thinking Assessment Model [Comprehensive/Subject Specific] (Yaegar et al., 1991);

This model provides students with a thought provoking situation. Subjects are asked to write responses in the form of questions, causes and consequences. These responses are then scored according to the total number of responses, their pertinence and uniqueness. This test resembles many creativity tests currently in use that examine both the quality and quantity of responses. Further support for the use of this test can be found in McLeod and Cropley (1989 p.82) in their discussion of the need for "...tests bearing on real life questions.

However, given the nature of creativity in science, the scenario provided emanates from that domain. The scenario used, Suppose there was no more disease in the world, was chosen from a sample, K to Adult, previously used by the Iowa Science Education Centre (Yager et al:1991) and as such would strengthen the replication of the reported reliability, a comfortably high number 0.77,using trained raters.

.C1.Test of Enquiry Skills (TOES) [Comprehensive] (Fraser:1979); This test was developed for students in Grades 7 to 10 in Australian schools. The test was developed to identify the relative levels of inquiry skills of such students and assumes some background knowledge specifically in science. Further, while this test was never intended to be a test of critical thinking, it does test for induction while placing emphasis on the gathering and interpretation of information  the foundations of critical thinking (Norris and Ennis:1989). The test reports reliability estimates ranging from .65 to .82 and was previously used by this author to test both inquiry and higher order thinking skills (Pears:1987). The three main sections of the TOES test include:. Part A  using reference materials;. Part B  interpreting and processing information; &

. Part C  critical thinking in science.Teachers in this study were asked to respond to Part C only.

.C1.Individualised Classroom Environment Questionnaire (ICEQ) [Comprehensive] (Fraser:1990);

This instrument was designed to distinguish individualised classroom environments and techniques from conventional ones along preferred [ideal] and actual measures. The five dimensions include Personalisation, Participation, Independence, Investigation, and Differentiation (Fraser:1990). The short form was used to assess discrepancy between student and teacher perceived and actual psychosocial environments and teacher attitudes to the implementation of thinking skills (Norris & Ennis:1989). Table 3 illustrates the dimensions of some classroom environment measures including the ICEQ and their relationship to gifted and talented educational practice and the stated ideals of the Basics-Of-Tomorrow.

__________________

TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE__________________

.C1.Data Analysis;

The data will be analysed using various multivariate techniques, e.g. Anova/Scheffe (multiple range test) both within constructs and their variables. In the case of discrepancies that may exist between comparison groups such differences will also be expressed in terms of effect size (Tobin and Fraser:1990).

.C1.Administration and Scoring;

Tests were administered by the researcher during the latter half of 1992, thereby ensuring strict compliance and consistency in the specific administrative protocols and ultimately strengthening the integrity of any data trends. Scoring of all tests was conducted by a team including the researcher and four trained research assistants.

The results of the inter-rater correlations show extremely positive results for both tests with a range across all five raters from .90 to 1.0 for the TCT-DP and .80 to 1.0 for the Iowa. Reliability data after scoring returns comfortably high numbers (.65) TCT-DP and (.77) for the Iowa.

.C1.Findings;

.C1.Assumption No. 1: ;

Exemplary teachers (PEAC) established classroom environments which are qualitatively differentiated from those of Non-PEAC teachers in that the prime objective in such environments is the development of differentiated / individualised programs.

Overall the results provide strong evidence that: one, PEAC and Non-PEAC teachers can be differentiated in terms of their psychosocial environments as perceived by themselves and their respective student populations; and, two, that PEAC teachers typically create classroom environments which are not only differentiated but are more favourable than those of Non-PEAC teachers in terms of the prime objectives of developing the Basics-Of-Tomorrow. Table 4 provides the five ICEQ scales along with the alpha reliability of the actual form. _________________

TABLE 4 ABOUT HERE__________________

Figure 3 depicts how PEAC teachers both prefer and perceive their classroom environments significantly more favourably than Non-PEAC teachers across the five dimensions which typify classrooms predominantly individualised in character. Of importance here is the extent of congruence of the preferred and actual measures of the PEAC teachers' classroom environment. Such congruent profiles are quite atypical, especially over all five scales (Tobin and Fraser:1990).__________________

FIGURE 3 ABOUT HERE__________________

However the main difference here is that unlike the Tobin and Fraser (1990) data, Figure 3 depicts the psychosocial classroom environment profiles as perceived by the PEAC and Non-PEAC teachers themselves as distinct from that of their students. Further, this data tends to reinforce the findings of Pears (1987) and Steele et al. (1970) where in the Pears study, Full-Time Extension and Challenge (FUTEC) and Non-FUTEC teachers were able to be differentiated by their perceived classroom environments across the ICEQ dimensions, while in the Steele research, classrooms for the gifted were characterised by the

significant extent of independence. Independence being central to both the call for the Basics-Of-Tomorrow and the stated goals of programs for the education of gifted and talented students. Differences depicted in Figure 3 between PEAC and Non-PEAC teachers psychosocial classroom environments can also be expressed in terms of effect size; i.e. the number of standard deviations for the comparison groups. Table 5 shows the means and standard deviations obtained for each scale by the PEAC group compared with those for the comparison group with these differences expressed in effect sizes. __________________

TABLE 5 ABOUT HERE__________________

The comparison shows that all effect sizes are quite large, ranging from .96 for personalisation to 3.6 for investigation. That is, for the investigation scale the mean for the PEAC group was 3.6 standard deviations above that of the Non-PEAC teachers group mean. The significance of these effect size differences may well contribute to any interpretation of differences between student outcomes on measures of cognitive development. Further, if the mandate of teachers of the gifted and talented is to establish classroom environments that are individualised in nature, then the data clearly indicates that the exemplary PEAC teacher group perceives that such goals are being achieved. .C1.Assumption No. 2: ;

Peac students perceive their psychosocial classroom environments as being more individualised than Non-PEAC students from the regular classroom.

Overall the data suggest that these two cohorts do differentiate their classroom environments by the degree to which they are individualised and that PEAC students view such classrooms more favourably.

Such findings lend support to those presented by Stuart (1979), Dunn and Price (1980), Gallagher (1986), and Connolly (1976) [reported in Maker 1982] who, using different instruments found: one, gifted students desire less structured learning environments (Dunn and Price:1980); two, gifted students rank independent study higher than average peers (Stuart:1979, Connolly:1976); and three, gifted students strive for achievement via independence versus achievement via conformity, while regular class students opt for the reverse (Gallagher:1966, Gough:1957).

Figure 4 indicates that PEAC students both prefer and perceive their classroom environments significantly more favourably than students from regular Year 7 classrooms and also that the PEAC group can be readily differentiated. Table 6 indicates the respective effect sizes and ANOVA results for each scale of the ICEQ. __________________

TABLE 6 ABOUT HERE__________________

The results show significant differences for four of the five scales ranging from -0.2 for differentiation to 1.7 for independence. However, the results for the differentiation scale indicate that PEAC students perceive this dimension as being present to a lesser extent in their classrooms than do students from regular Year 7 classrooms. Such a result is significant, for two reasons. First, it contradicts the findings by Tobin and Fraser (1990) that the student perceived learning environment is related to teacher knowledge and beliefs, i.e. where teachers hold particular beliefs about their teaching and learning style, their typical classroom environment is reflected in the perceptions of their students. This does not appear to be the case for the differentiation scale represented here. The extent of this will be examined shortly.

--------------------------------FIGURE 4 ABOUT HERE----------------------------------

Second, as the differentiation scale examines the extent to which the classroom environment selectively treats students on the basis of ability, learning style, interests, and rate of working, this data would indicate a serious flaw in the classroom environments established by the exemplary (PEAC) teachers as perceived by their students. Such a flaw appears to be antithetical to the goals of gifted and talented programs and to the current calls for the delivery of education based on academic and cognitive readiness versus rigid lock step progress.

.C1.Assumption No. 3: ;

There is a greater degree of congruence between PEAC students and teachers than Non-PEAC teachers and students across all dimensions of their preferred and actual psychosocial classroom environments.

Overall the data suggests that PEAC students and teachers both prefer and perceive their classroom environments more favourably than that of the non-exemplary group. Further, the profiles exhibit very different characteristics. Figures 5 and 6 show the

various profiles for the two groups.

__________________ __________________

FIGURE 5 ABOUT HERE FIGURE 6 ABOUT HERE__________________ __________________

Interestingly, the profile for the Non-PEAC teacher and student actual dimensions show that while the student preferred classroom environment is more positive than that of the actual environment across four of the five scales, this being consistent with previous research (Tobin and Fraser:1983, Fraser:1982), the preferred environment for differentiation is much less favourable than the other dimensions. It is also significantly different from that preferred by the classroom teachers. With respect to the environments perceived to exist within regular classrooms, Figure 6 illustrates that both teachers and students in the regular classroom perceive their environments to be less than ideal (preferred). Further, Non-PEAC students perceive their actual environments across all five dimensions less favourably than is their teachers.

In particular, Non-PEAC students viewed the actual environments as having significantly less personalisation, participation and differentiation than did their teachers. Table 7 shows the mean and effect size differences with the effect sizes ranging from .42 to 0.9.There were no significant differences in student perceptions of their preferred and actual environments in differentiation and investigation, indicating that such students were content with such levels of intervention.

-----------------------------TABLE 7 ABOUT HERE-------------------------------

.C1.PEAC Teacher/Student;

Figure 5 indicates that while both the preferred and actual classroom environments are viewed more favourably and are more strongly aligned with those thought to encourage the Basics-Of-

Tomorrow and the goals of gifted education, such environments highlight some interesting dimensions. As distinct from the profiles of the Non-PEAC teachers and students in Figure 6, the congruence between preferred and actual measures within the sub-groups  i.e. teachers and students  is greater for the PEAC group.

Unlike the Non-PEAC group, the PEAC teacher and student within group profiles clearly show that PEAC teachers ideal and actual classroom preferences are significantly different from that preferred and perceived by their PEAC students. Table 8 highlights the means and standard deviations for the PEAC group and those that are statistically significant at the p<.05 level.__________________

TABLE 8 ABOUT HERE__________________

Table 8 shows that on all five preferred scales the differences between PEAC teachers and students were significantly different (p<.05) while for the actual dimensions of personalisation, independence and differentiation were significantly different

(p<.05). A part explanation for such a profile may lie in the specialized nature of PEAC withdrawal programs. That is, while the PEAC teachers and students prefer a more individualised environment to that of the regular classroom teachers and students, the achievement of a PEAC pupil-teacher match across the ICEQ dimensions is not currently occurring.

Withdrawal programs typically have students attend for relatively short periods (two to two and a half hours) once per week over an eight to 10 week period. Such short amounts of time and other pressures may well make it difficult for PEAC teachers to establish their ideal classroom environments and for PEAC students to feel completely free of the constraints that are typical of their regular classrooms so as to better match the profiles more often established for gifted and talented students (Maker:1982, Steele et al 1970). This is especially so in areas of differentiation where, as was illustrated earlier, PEAC students see this dimension of their classroom environment less favourably than Non-PEAC students.

.C1.Assumption No. 4: ;

The functional levels of cognitive development (critical thinking, creative thinking and inquiry thinking) of PEAC and Non-PEAC teachers are significantly different from that of the

Year 7 students they teach.

In the general sense the data supports the view that this assumption may only be partly true of the exemplary PEAC group with the one exception of inquiry skills development. Peac and Non-PEAC teachers' results on Patr C were significantly (p<.05) different from that of the student cohorts. Further the results of the New Jersey Test of Reasoning Skills gives rise to concern as to the functional levels of critical thinking of all teachers in this study.

.C1.Test of Enquiry Skills (TOES);

Figure 7 illustrates the profiles of all cohorts (PEAC and Non-PEAC teachers and students) for Parts one, two and three and totals against the Australian norms (Fraser:1979). Part three shows the teacher results.

----------------------------FIGURE 7 ABOUT HERE__________________

Table 8 outlines the analysis of data using the Anova/Scheffe with the results showing significant differences between PEAC and Non-PEAC teachers and all students. __________________TABLE 9 ABOUT HERE__________________

However, a closer examination of the data indicates the discrepancy between the Non-PEAC teacher group and the PEAC student group is in fact only a three point difference. That is, of a possible score of 29 in the section best described as the higher order end of this test, the difference between these two groups was a mere three points. .C1.New Jersey Test of Reasoning Skill (Critical Thinking);

Table 10 outlines the descriptive statistics as well as the Anova/Scheffe results. The data suggest that in terms of critical reasoning skills there is no significant difference between the exemplary PEAC teachers and Non-PEAC teachers and the

PEAC student group. However, there is a significant difference between Non-PEAC students' level of critical thinking skills development and all other groups.

---------------------------------TABLE 10 ABOUT HERE--------------------------------

Table 11 provides a simple plot of the mean scores achieved by all cohorts in this study against the mean scores obtained by students in previous research in schools in the United States of America (Lipman:1985). While the teacher scores may be around that obtained by Lipman (1985) the data does support Lipman's assertion that

Given that a large part of the educational mandate for teachers of the gifted and talented is the teaching of critical and inquiry thinking, the fact that the exemplary group demonstrated no significant difference in their level of functional cognition in this area is of concern and will be dealt with later.

---------------------------------TABLE 11 ABOUT HERE

.C1.Test of Creative Thinking  Drawing Production  TCT-DP;

The results of the TCT-DP (total scores) are shown in Table 12. They illustrate that there is no significant difference between Non-PEAC teachers, and the two student groups. However, (PEAC) teachers produced statistically significant (p<.05) better drawing production scores.

---------------------------------TABLE 12 ABOUT HERE---------------------------------

Their mean score of 45.3 placed them in the above average category for the educators' norms [Table 13] provided to this researcher by Urban, K., the author of the TCT-DP. These results are interesting in a number of ways.__________________

TABLE 13 ABOUT HERE__________________

Given the mandate for the development of the Basics-Of-Tomorrow and gifted and talented programs in particular, one would have expected the exemplary PEAC teacher group to have a significantly higher level of creative thinking skills development. The data here support this assertion. However, according to these results there does appear to be a discrepancy in the transfer of this higher level of understanding into pedagogical strategies in terms of the PEAC students' creativity skills development. Once again, this may well be a function of the peculiarities of the part-time PEAC withdrawal program structure.

What is highlighted in these results (Table 13) is that Non-PEAC teachers from regular classrooms have functional creativity skills levels which are classified as being average for both the educators' norms and the norms provided for students in Grades 6 to 9. These results also make the recognition of, teaching for, and assessment of creativity skills development of the students in the care of teachers from the regular classroom, highly questionable. This also appears to be the case in respect of

their ability to establish appropriate psychosocial classroom environments that will encourage and enhance creative thinking dispositions.

.C1.Iowa Creative Thinking Assessment Model;

The results of this test shown graphically in Figure 8, highlight statistical differences in favour of the (PEAC) teacher group across all scales. This was particularly so in the areas of total questions, total causes and total consequences. However, regardless of the small number of responses to the unique questions, unique causes, and unique consequences elements, the data highlights statistically significant (p<.05) differences in favour of the (PEAC) teacher group. __________________

FIGURE 8 ABOUT HERE__________________

Table 14 depicts the effect sizes obtained for the PEAC teachers and the Non-PEAC teachers, for each scale of the Iowa. The effect sizes are quite large, ranging from 1.2 for the number of unique questions to 2.4 for the number of unique consequences. That is, for the unique consequences scale the means for the exemplary (PEAC) teacher group was 2.4 standard deviations for group means above the Non-PEAC teachers' mean._________________

TABLE 14 ABOUT HERE

The Anova/Scheffe results show that the PEAC teachers were statistically significantly better at: one, generating pertinent responses (fluency/quantity) and; two, formulating unique responses (originality/qualitative). However, as the data in Table 14 reveal, there was no significant difference in the outcomes across the Iowa scales for the Non-PEAC teachers, Non-PEAC students and PEAC students. Such results again raise questions as to the ability of regular classroom teachers, without high levels of functional creative

thinking, specific theoretical and pedagogical skills, to effectively tackle this important element of the Basics-Of-Tomorrow.

.C1.In Sum;

The data in this section has shown that the PEAC teacher cohort demonstrate statistically significant differences in functional cognition for the skills of inquiry and creativity. However, there is no significant difference in the core skill of critical reasoning/thinking. Teachers from standard classes demonstrate that with the exception of inquiry skills, their functional cognition across the Basics-Of-Tomorrow is not significantly different from that of the students they teach at the primary level.

.C1.Assumption No. 5: ;

Functional levels of cognitive development (critical thinking, creative thinking and inquiry thinking) among students will not differ regardless of the educational program in which they are placed.

In general the data indicates significant differences in the cognitive development in favour of the PEAC student group across all indicators used in this study. The one exception being the TCT-DP. Such differences may in part be explained by the

positive psychosocial classroom environments established by the exemplary (PEAC) teacher group and consequently more appropriate pedagogical practices encouraging and developing better thinking.

.C1.Test of Enquiry Skills;

The comparative data for PEAC and Non-PEAC students illustrated in Table 8 show statistically significant (p<.05) differences in favour of the PEAC student group across all three parts and the mean totals. While these results suggest that participation in the PEAC program may have beneficial effects on PEAC student outcomes in the development of inquiry skills, especially at the higher order end of the TOES test (Parts B and C). However the results for the Non-PEAC student group give rise for concern. By way of comparison, the Australian norms for the TOES (Fraser:1979) have been indicated in Figure 7. Inquiry skills development of Year 7 students from regular classrooms are below the Year 7 norms established in 1979.

These results replicate the outcomes of research reported by Pears (1987) when comparing Year 7 students from Full-time

Extension Classes (FUTEC) and matched pairs from regular Year 7 classrooms using the same TOES test. Clearly the results of the Year 7 regular classroom cohort on the Test Of Enquiry Skills (TOES) should be of concern to all educators in Western Australian schools.

.C1.New Jersey Test of Reasoning Skills (Critical Thinking);

The results outlined in Table 10 show that there are significant differences (p<.05) between the PEAC and Non-PEAC student groups. The data also show that there is no significant difference between the PEAC student group and both teacher cohorts. Figure 9 highlights the simple plot profiles of both the TCT-DP and NJTRS. The comparisons in Table 11 place the level of critical thinking skills development at or above Year 7 level with the Non-PEAC student group at or about Year 3 level. However, it must be noted that according to Lipman (1985) the scores reported by him were all of concern, indicating a crisis in the teaching, development and application of good thinking. With a maximum score for the PEAC students being 48 from a possible 50 and a minimum score of 25 from the Non-PEAC and PEAC teacher groups, the possibility of a teacher, both PEAC and Non-PEAC, not being able to cope with the cognitive complexity demanded by gifted and talented students in this study, is not beyond the bounds of possibility.

--------------------------------FIGURE 9 ABOUT HERE--------------------------------

.C1.Test of Creative Thinking  Drawing Production (TCT-DP);

Results reported in Table 12 show no significant difference between the PEAC and Non-PEAC student groups. In fact this is also true of the Non-PEAC teachers. The mean total score of 25.3 for Non-PEAC students and 26.4 for the PEAC student group places both cohorts within the average category on the norms provided in Table 13. The aggregated total score for all 1,116 Year 7 (12 year old) students was 25.8 (SD 9.0). By way of cross-cultural comparison, it is helpful to highlight the placement of these Western Australian results against those reported by Jellen (1989). Table 15 shows the descriptive statistics and means for the TCT-DP variables ranked by country. Only the top five countries from the Jellen (1989) study are shown.

__________________

TABLE 15 ABOUT HERE

__________________

The Western Australian results challenge an assumption made by Jellen (1989 p.83) where he posits that his results suggest that students from societies which espouse traits such as democracy, independence, freedom from expression, individualism and so on, demonstrated high scores on the Bfd and Bfi boundary breaking elements.

Given the relative placement of the Western Australian mean totals in Table 15, the Western Australian sample scored poorly in these two elements with less than two per cent of respondents taking the risk to break boundaries. Also the dimensions of perspective (Pe) and humour (Hu) indicate significant differences in favour of the Western Australian sample. Figures 10 and 11 show samples of a high scoring drawing and a low scoring drawing respectively. __________________ __________________

FIGURE 10 ABOUT HERE FIGURE 11 ABOUT HERE__________________ __________________

.C1.Iowa Creative Thinking Assessment Model;

Figure 8 depicts a simple plot graph showing the relative scores of the PEAC and Non-PEAC student groups. Table 14 details the effect sizes for all scales of the Iowa with relatively small ranges from 0 to 0.8. However, the Anova/Scheffe results point to statistically significant differences in favour of the PEAC student cohort at the p<.05 level.A qualitative analysis of this data will be reported elsewhere. This is due to large differences in the number of total questions, total causes and total consequences with the number of unique responses across the elements being relatively small but consistent.

While these results replicate the results reported by Penick (1992), many problematic questions arise as to issues of validity of this form of instrument in the assessment of creative development (McLeod and Copley:1989). For example, those respondents who knew that the test was looking for fluency of responses, simply ensured that simple yet pertinent, therefore valid, questions were asked which did not explore the hypothetical with any degree of depth. However, regardless of these issues the data do indicate significant differences especially in the asking of questions in favour of the PEAC group.

.C1.In Sum;

The data highlights statistically significant differences in functional cognition in favour of the PEAC student cohort in critical reasoning, inquiry skills and in the Iowa Creativity Model. However, no differences were found to exist in the results of the TCT-DP. Of concern here is that while differences can be found in creative thinking skills development the mean scores were at best at a level considered average by international standards. Further, the results of the TCT-DP placed both student groups toward the bottom of the average classification schema based on international norms.

Inquiry skills development favoured the PEAC group yet is below that of the FUTEC student group reported by Pears (1987). Also the data for the Non-PEAC student group places them below the 1979 Australian norms for inquiry skills development (Fraser:1979). .C1.Discussion;

This paper has explored an extrapolation of data drawn from a larger PhD study. It has examined the functional levels of thinking skills (critical thinking, creative thinking and inquiry thinking) and the psychosocial classroom environments established by teachers, in four cohorts consisting of regular primary classroom teachers, Year 7 students in those regular classrooms and exemplary teachers and Year 7 students from the Primary Extension and Challenge [Gifted and Talented] Program (PEAC) in Western Australia.

A number of assumptions was identified which provide a focus for this paper. Further, a variety of instruments was used in order to triangulate any trends following data analysis. Such data were subjected to a variety of multivariate statistical analyses (SPSS+ VAX) including Anova/Scheffe with the unit of analysis being the group. Individual and class units were not considered in this instance. Overall these findings suggest that there is a large discrepancy between the ideals established for the education system in Western Australia and actual student outcomes. The levels of functional cognition as measured in terms of critical thinking/reasoning, creative thinking, and inquiry thinking (all central to the core for the Basics-Of-Tomorrow) of the teachers in regular classrooms in this study are little better than the students that they teach. Of greater concern is the lack of will shown to establish classroom environments which will encourage

the individualised student outcomes society currently desires. It could be argued that regular classroom teachers, without the benefit of specific skills training, are unable to extend, let alone accelerate gifted and talented students' cognition, nor provide appropriately differentiated psychosocial classroom environments. The dilemma here is that such environments and cognitive development are exactly what is being asked of the regular classroom teacher. An examination of the ideals called for in programs for the gifted and talented and teacher characteristics needed to implement them, and the actual findings established in this study provide a somewhat mixed profile. On one hand the data suggests that the exemplary (PEAC) teachers do have the knowledge and disposition necessary to establish differentiated classroom learning environments in which gifted and talented students may find appropriately individualised educational programs. However, the students in that program highlight a major discrepancy in that provision  the need for greater differentiation.

Such a discrepancy is no small issue. The notion of differentiation, as defined by the ICEQ scale, is that which creates the distinguisher between what gifted and talented students in regular classrooms receive and that which those same students ought to receive when they attend programs specifically designed to meet their needs (Maker:1982). Also the fact that the ICEQ profiles for PEAC teachers and PEAC students, preferred and actual, although substantially more favourable than that of the regular classroom, are statistically different, indicates a general need for PEAC teachers to lessen or eliminate this anomaly to ensure a better PEAC student/PEAC

teacher match (Fraser:1986). The results with respect to the cognitive outcomes, defined as the thinking skills of critical, creative and inquiry thinking, also reveal some major discrepancies. The data indicate that there is no difference in the development of creative thinking and critical thinking skills between PEAC teachers and PEAC students. Without such specific skills it is difficult to imagine excellence in higher order thinking skills beyond chance. Of greater import is what can only be described as a disturbing result for the regular classroom Year 7 Non-PEAC students in terms of their critical reasoning development. Clearly educational authorities should be concerned with a mean score for Year 7 students placing them at or about Year 4 level based on the American data. An examination of the creativity domain reveals that while PEAC

teachers score well on the TCT-DP, their students did not. Also, there were no significant differences between students and teachers from standard classrooms. This suggests that while PEAC teachers would be expected to score more highly, given their experience and background, there is little, if any, evidence of transfer to their PEAC students.

A closer examination of PEAC programs may reveal discrepancies in the ideals established by way of models for curriculum development, and the actual programs and pedagogical strategies employed. As stated earlier in this paper, the restrictions placed on PEAC teachers by way of relatively short courses and hours of attendance by students may account for the adoption of infusion-versus-stand alone treatment of thinking skills and for the perceived lack of differentiation (Ennis:1989, Perkins and Soloman:1989, Myers:1987).An examination of the inquiry skills profiles indicates that this area, which has been part of the educational tradition, is also struggling to serve our student population and the Gifted and Talented student in particular. Both teacher cohorts demonstrated there was little difference between themselves and the PEAC student group, suggesting little ground for PEAC student improvement.

The real concern here lies not in the fact that the Non-PEAC students' results show statistically significant differences between the student groups in favour of the PEAC students, but that this general level is well below the 1979 Australian norms for Year 7 students. This highlights a very large discrepancy between the ideal goals for the education system and the current levels of inquiry skills development. It further highlights the call by Harms (1980) to urgently address the problem of inadequate inquiry skills development.

.C1.In Summmary

The following is a summary of the findings outlined in this paper. 1. Exemplary (PEAC) teachers can be differentiated form Non-PEAC teachers by means of their individualised psychosocial classroom environments.

2. The psychosocial environments of regular classroom teachers can be classified as unsympathetic to the development of individualised educational goals.

3. PEAC students both preferred and perceived PEAC classroom environments as being more individualised than those of their

regular classrooms.

4. PEAC students do not perceive that the PEAC program provides differentiated academic experiences from that of their regular classoom.

5. Regular Year 7 students as well as their teachers prefer and perceive their classroom environments as lacking in individualised characteristics.

6. PEAC and regular classroom teachers have developed inquiry skills to a level that is only marginally higher than the PEAC student cohort.

7. The Non-PEAC student group has achieved a level of inquiry skills development that is below the 1979 Year 7 Australian norms.

8. Levels of critical reasoning skills development are the same for PEAC teachers, Non-PEAC teachers and PEAC students. Non-PEAC students scored at or about Year 4 level when compared with the 1985 USA mean scores.

9. Based on two distinctly different tests of creativity, the exemplary (PEAC) teachers demonstrated a significantly higher level of cognitive development than for all other cohorts.

10. There was no significant difference in creative thinking development for the PEAC student group and Year 7 students from regular classrooms.

11. At worst, withdrawal from regular programs in Year 7 classroom appears not to harm PEAC students. At best it may considerably improve their cognitive development.

12. The evidence suggests that the level of teacher competency in the regular classroom in terms of the development of thinking skills; i.e. the Basics-Of-Tomorrow, needs urgent attention.

.C1.Conclusion;

This study was prefaced by a belief that in order to teach for better thinking, teachers themselves might need to examine and improve their own functional cognition. This preliminary examination of the data has revealed significant discrepancies between the ability of the regular classroom teacher to deliver the changes and improvements in pedagogy needed to achieve the Basics-Of-Tomorrow. There is an urgent need to redress this situation by improving the functional cognition of pre-service

and in-service teachers.

The mandate handed to the exemplary PEAC teachers to provide appropriate intervention for gifted and talented students is an onerous one. The outcomes demanded of them equally so. However, if being a competent teacher of the gifted means having the dispositions necessary to establish appropriate psychosocial classroom environments, then clearly the PEAC teachers in this study are moderately competent. If it means being able to develop higher order thinking skills in the gifted students, then the notion of competency based on these findings, is problematic. Also it might not be unreasonable, given the very average creativity skills outcomes for the gifted and talented students group, to question the screening processes used to identify the highly creative student for inclusion in PEAC programs. The lack of specialist training and specific professional development

for teachers of the gifted in Australia may well be the cause of the PEAC students' failure to transfer. Further analysis of all data in this study will eventually provide greater insights and new research directions.

.C1.A Timely Prologue;

Walberg (1984) in discussing his meta-analysis of thousands of studies and factors that influence learning, points to the strong influence, some 0.60 in effect size, of the psychosocial classroom environment and states it,

"...strongly predicts end of course measures of affective, behavioural, and cognitive learning.(p.24)

Moreover, he highlights the positive outcomes from those studies whose focus were on outcomes such as individualisation, critical thinking, self-reliance, inquiry learning (lifelong learning), and yet these are seldom measured. The results of Walbergs' work suggest that students in programs where the Basics-Of-Tomorrow are mandated, do no worse on standardised achievement and better on outcomes that are described as ideals. Pears (1987) also found similar results when the outcomes of full-time extension placement for gifted and talented (FUTEC) Year 7 students from the top two per cent in Western Australian primary schools, were compared with matched Year 7 regular class students.] The preliminary results of the present study provide a similar scenario. At the very least it would appear that the exemplary

PEAC teacher group and the programs they deliver have a no-harm effect on students regardless of the amount of time they spend withdrawn from their regular classrooms. Moreover the classroom environments established by PEAC teachers appear to provide positive outcomes for the gifted and talented students who attend PEAC programs in terms of inquiry skills and, to some degree, critical thinking. These findings have important implications for the PEAC program in Western Australia and for all withdrawaltype intervention as well as contributing to the ongoing debate as to the benefits of Full-Time [self-contained] classes for the gifted and talented.

Issues such as the degree of differentiation need to be debated and addressed, however, in terms of achieving the ideals called for by the Australian and world community; i.e. the Basics-Of-Tomorrow. The urgent focus should be on identifying ways and means of lifting the competency of our general teaching population, not only in subject matter mastery but more importantly in improving its own functional cognition. It is only then that education in Australia will be able to address the mandate asked of it for the new millennium.

.C1.BIBLIOGRAPHY;

Anderson, L. et al. The IEA Classroom Environment Study. New York: Pergamon Press, 1989.Apple, M. Educational Rhetoric and Reforms. A talk on Radio National, 1990.Australia's Teachers: An Agenda for the Next Decade. Schools Council, Australian Govt. Pub. Service, 1990.Barnette, J. Naturalistic Study of Project Inter-Agency Linkages. The Linkage Case Study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp.473-84, 1983.

Batten, M. et al. A Survey of Teachers of Two to Five Years' Experience. Project commissioned by the Department of Employment, Education and Training, Melb: ACER, 1991.Beare, H. & Caldwell, B. Creating an Excellent School. London: Routledge, 1990.Bennett, N. Notes from keynote speech presented at the Australian Teacher Education Association Conference: Perth, July 1993.Berliner, D. In pursuit of expert pedagogue. Educational Researcher, 15, pp.5-14, 1986.Beyer, B. Developing a Thinking Skills Program. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1988.Biggs, J. & Collis, K. Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The

SOLO Taxonomy. New York: Academic Press, 1981.Bloom, B. (ed.) Developing Talent in Young People. New York: Ballantine Books, 1985.Bloom, B.S. ed. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay, 1956.Chall, J. Learning to Read: The Great Debate. New York: McGraw Hill, 1967.Chipman, L. How the educational left has betrayed the working class. Education Monitor, pp.1921, Winter 1990. Clandinin, & Connelly, C. Inquiry into schooling: diverse perspectives. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp.295-313, Summer 1987.Clark, C. & Peterson, P. Teachers' thought processes. In M. Wittrock (ed), Handbook of Research on Teaching, 3rd ed, pp.255-296. New York: Macmillan.Clarke, G. Guidelines for the Recognition of Gifted Pupils. Schools Council Program 4, London: Longman, 1983.Cohen, L. & Marion, H. Research Methods in Education, Croom Helm, 1980.Coles, M. & Robinson, W. (ed) Teaching thinking: What is it? Is it possible? In Teaching Thinking: A Survey of Programs in Education, pp.7-22, 1989. Costa, A. & Lowery, L. Techniques for Teaching thinking, New York: Midwest Pub., 1989.Costello, R. Relationships among ability grouping, classroom climate and academic achievement in Mathematics and English Classes. In The Study of Learning Environments, Vol. 3, Fraser, B. (ed), Perth: Curtin University of Technology, 1987.Dawkins, J. The Australian, August 4th (p.3) 1991.Dawkins, J. Question Time, in Sundry Ark, May 20th 1990.Dewey, J. How We Think. D.C. Heath: 1910.DiCarlo, R. Staff & Student Perceptions About the Way Things Are and Personal Options about the Way Things Should be. Mass: Greenfield Community College, 1979.Doolittle, J. The Creative Reasoning Test, New York: Mid West Publications, 1989.Educating Americans for the 21st Century. Report to the American People and the National Science Board, 1983.Education in Western Australia. Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Education in WA. Beasley, K. Chair, March 1984.Ellyard, P. Leadership and Management for the 21st Century: The Role of Education. Paper presented to Conference for Australian Educators, Oct. 1990.Ennis, R. A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In Baron and Sternberg (ed.) Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice. New York: W.A. Freeman, pp.926, 1987.Ennis, R. Critical thinking and subject-specific clarification & needed research. Educational Researcher, 18, pp.4-10, 1989.Feldhusen, J. Teachers of the gifted: preparation and

supervision. Gifted Education International, Vol. 5, pp.84-89, 1988.Feldhusen, J. The teacher of gifted students. Gifted Education

International, Vol. 4(1), pp.41-42, 1985.Feldhusen, J. and Skol, L. Centra school programming to meet the needs of gifted youth: Super Saturday. Gifted Child Quarterly, Vol. 26(2), Spring 1982.Finn, C. Reforming Secondary Education in the USA. Policy Issues No. 8, IAP, 1989. Fisher, D. & Fraser, B. Validity and Use of the School-level Environment Questionnaire. Paper presented to Annual Conference of American Education Research Association: Boston, April, 1990.Fraser, B. Classroom Environment, Kent: Croom Helm, 1986.Fraser, B. Individualized Classroom Environment Questionnaire, Melbourne: ACER, 1990.Fraser, B. Test of Enquiry Skills (TOES), Melbourne: ACER, 1979.Fraser, B. and Tobin, K. Environments for learning science and mathematics. Key Centre Monograph No. 2, Perth, 1990a.Fraser, B. and Tobin, K. What does it mean to be an exemplary science teacher? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(1), pp.3-25, 1990b.Fraser, B. et al. Assessing and improving school climate. Education and Research in Education, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp.109-122, 1988.Gardner, H. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. N1/: Basic Books, 1983.Glasser, R. Education & thinking: The role of knowledge. American Psychologist, Vol. 39, Feb. 1984, pp.93-104.Glasser, R. The West Australian, Nov. 16 1990, p.7.Goodlad, J. A Place Called School, New York: McGraw Hill, 1984.Grant, G. Teaching Critical Thinking, New York: Praeger, 1988.Guba, E. Toward a Methodology of Naturalistic Enquiry in Educational Evaluation. CSE Monograph Series, No. 8, Los Angeles. University of California, Centre for the Study of Evaluation, 1978.Hamey, R. & Sorrenson, J. Individually Guided Science. Reading, USA: Addison Wesley, 1977.Harms, N. Project Synthesis, Colorado, National Science Foundation, 1980.Harvey, M. School level equity. Equity News, Ministry of Education, Perth WA: No. 2, 1989.Hattie, J. The Principal and Assessment of Students in the Primary School. Paper presented to the Primary Principals Association Conference, Perth: June, 1989.Hayden, W. Opening Address in The Challenge of Excellence: A Vision Splendid. Bailey, S. et al. (eds), Sydney. Australian

Association for the Education of Gifted and Talented Children (AAEGT), 1990.Hm. Study Skills Program NAESP, 1983.Joanes, B. et al. Strategic Teaching and Learning: Cognitive Instruction in the Content Areas. Alexandria, UA: ASCD, 1987.Jones, B. Technological literacy: Science education's future. WA Education News, p.4. March 1990.Kagon, D. Ways of evaluating teacher cognition. Inferences concerning the Goldilocks principle. Review of Education Research, Vol. 60, No. 13, pp.419-69, Fall 1990.Kaplan, S. (ed). Inservice Training Manual: Activities for Developing Curriculum for the Gifted and Talented. Ventura, California. Superintendent of Schools, 1979.Karmel, P. Quality of Education in Australia. Karmel, P. Chair 1985.Karmel, P. Schools in Australia: Karmel P. Chair 1973.Kerry, T. Teaching Bright Pupils in Mixed Ability Classes: A Self-instructional Handbook of Strategies & Suggestions. London: MacMillan Educational, 1981.Klitgaard, R. & Hall, C. Are there unusually effective schools? Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 10, No. 1, Winter 1973.

Kramer, L. Education: Failing future generations. Facts, IPA Publication, Feb. 1988.Lindsey, M. Training Teachers of the Gifted and Talented. New York: Teachers College Press, 1980.Lipman, M. Thinking skills fostered by philosophy for children. In J.W. Segal, S.F. Chipman, and R. Glasser (eds). Thinking and Learning Skills, Vol. 1. Relating Instruction to Research, pp.83-108. Hillside, NJ: Arlbaum, 1985.Maker, J. Curriculum Development for the Gifted, New York: Allyn & Bacon, 1982.Maker, J. Training Teachers for the Gifted and Talented: A Comparison of Models. The Council of Exceptional Children, Virginia, 1975.McLeod, J. & Cropley, A. Fostering Academic Excellence. New York: Pergamon Press, 1989.McPeck, J. Critical Thinking in Education. New York: St Martin's Press, 1981.Meyers, C. Teaching Students to Think Critically. San Francisco: Jossey-Bars, 1987.Mitchell, J. & Marlad, P. Research on teacher thinking: The next phase. Teaching and Teacher Education. Vol. 5, No. 2, pp.115-28, 1989.Murname, R. Understanding teacher attrition. In Teaching in the Eighties: A Need to Change, Harvard Educational Review. Cambridge: Longfellow-Hall, 1987.National Commission on Excellence in Education. A Nation at Risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC:

US Dept of Education, 1983.Norris, S. Refining observational competence. Science Education, Vol. 68, pp.129-42, 1984.Norris, S. Synthesis of Research on critical thinking. Educational Leadership, pp.40-45, May 1985.Norris, S. & Ennis, R. Evaluating Critical Thinking, NY: Midwest Publications, 1989.O'Loughlin, & Campbell Teacher Preparation, Teacher Empowerment, and Reflective Inquiry: A Critical Perspective. Paper presented - annual meeting American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education: New Orleans, Feb. 1988.Paul, R. Critical Thinking: What Every Person Needs to Survive in a Rapidly Changing World. Centre for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique, Rohnet Park: 1990. Pears, G. An Investigation Into the Effects of Differentiated Programming for Y7 Students in Full-Time Extension Classes (FUTEC) for the Gifted & Talented in WA. Unpublished thesis, Murdoch University, 1987.Pears, G. Support for a speedy (GW) reformation of science teacher education in Australia. Paper presented to the annual conference of the Western Australian Institute for Educational Research (WAIER), Claremont Campus, Edith Cowan University: Perth, August 1991.Pears, G. et al.. Lifting the lid on thinking: Strategies for positive school change. In Teaching Strategies for a Clever Country. Goodall, M. & Culhane, B. (eds), Melbourne: AAEGT, 1991.Penick, J. GTS instruction enhances student creativity. ICASE Year Book, Yager, R. (ed). International Council for Association for Science Education, 1992.Penick, J. and Yager, R. Trends in science Education: Some observations of exemplary programs in the United States. European Journal of Science Education, 8, pp.8-18, 1986. Perkins, D. Creativity by Design. Educational Leadership, 42(1), pp.18-24, 1984.Perkins, D. & Swartz, R. Teaching Thinking: Issues & Approaches. New York: Midwest Pub., 1989.Perkins, D. and Salomon, G. Are cognitive skills content-bound? Educational Researcher, 47, pp.16-25, 1989.

Phillips, D. After dinner speech. Philosophy in Schools Association of WA: Perth, Sept. 1991.Policy and Guidelines for the Development of Talented Students in Western Australian Government Schools. WA Ministry of Education, Draft, Oct. 1991.Professional Association of PEAC Teachers (ProAPT). Guidelines for PEAC Appointees: Perth, 1991.Provus, M. Discrepancy Evaluation, Birkley, McCutchyan, 1971.Rathje, H. & Dahme, G. Achievement Motivation, Self-Concept and

Giftedness - An Empirical Study. Paper presented at the 6th World Conference on Gifted Children. Hamberg: August, 1985.Renzulli, J. What we don't know about programming for the gifted and talented. Phi Delta Kappan, No. 66, pp.180-184, Nov. 1977.Renzulli, J. ed. Systems & Models for Developing Programs for the Gifted and Talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press, 1986.Report of the Committee of New South Wales Schools, Sept. 1989.Report on Secondary Education in NSW. Williams, B. Chair, 1979.Resnick, L. Education and Learning to Think. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1987.Samson, J. PhD proposal, Curtin University of Technology Faculty of Education, 1990. Schwab, J. The teaching of science as enquiry. In Schwab, J. & Brandwin, P. (eds). The Teaching of Science, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962.Senate Select Committee Report on, The Education of Gifted and Talented, Canberra: Australian Govt Pub. Service, 1988.Sharples, J. & Matthews, B. Learning How to Learn. Ministry of Education, Vic., 1989.Shavelson, R. & Stern, P. Research on teachers' pedagogical thoughts, judgements, decisions and behaviour. Review of Education Research, Vol. 51, pp.455-498, 1981.Shulman, L. Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(2), pp.4-14, 1987.Shulman, L. Psychological controversies in the teaching of science and maths. Science Teacher, 35 (84, 89, 90), 1968.Siegal, H. Critical Thinking as an educational ideal. Educational Forum, pp.7-23, Nov. 1980.Sizer, T. Horace's Compromise: The American High School. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1985.Sorrenson, J. ed. The Gifted Program Handbook. Poloalto, CA: Dale Symour Publications, 1988.Speedy, J. et al. Discipline Review of Teacher Education in Maths and Science in Australia. Canberra, Government Printer, 1990.Steele, J. et al. Instructional Climate in Illinois Gifted Classes. Urbana, Illinois: Centre for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation, University of Illinois, 1970.Sternberg, R. Practical Intelligence for Success in School. Educational Leadership. ASCD, pp.35-39, Sept. 1990.Sternberg, R. The Tricharchic Mind: A New Theory of Human Intelligence, New York: Viking Press, 1988.Strong, J. WA Productivity Bulletin. Dept of Productivity and Labour, No. 10, June 1991.Teacher adulity: What price incompetence? Australian Teacher, No. 27, 1990.Teacher quality: An issues paper. A report prepared by the Schools Council for the National Board of Employment Education

and Training. Australian Govt. Pub. Service, 1989.Teachers of Tomorrow: Continuity Challenge and Change. In Teacher Education in NSW. Correy, P. Chair, 1980.The Hobart Declaration: National Goals for Schooling. Australian Educational Council: Hobart, April 1989.The National Inquiry in Teacher Education, Auchmuty, J. Chair, 1980.

Tobin, K. & Fraser, B. What does it mean to be an exemplary science teacher? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp.3-25, 1990.Toffler, A. Previews and Premises, London: Dann, 1984.Urban, K. and Jellen, H. The Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, Vol. 11, pp.138, 1986.Walberg, H. Improving the productivity of America's schools. Educational Leadership, Vol. 41(8), pp.19-27, May 1984.Walberg, H. Learning environment reconsidered. Educational Productivity and Talent Development In The Study of Learning Environments, Vol. 3, Fraser, B. ed. Curtin University of Technology: Perth, 1987.Wallace, & LoudenWhimbey, A. You don't need a special "Reasoning" test to implement and evaluate reasoning training. Educational Leadership, Oct. 1985.Williams, F. Williams' strategies to orchestrate Remzulli's triad. Gifted/Creative/Talented. Vol. 10, pp.2-6, Sept. 1979. Yager, R. et al. The Iowa Assessment Handbook, University of Iowa, Sept. 1991.Young People's Participation: Post-compulsory Education and Training. Report of the Australian Education Council Review Committee. Finn, T, Chair. Vols 1, 2 and 3. July 1991.