UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Relationships between the structure of intellect and characteristics of students identified as gifted… Laine, Colin J. 1987

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1987_A2 L34.pdf [ 8.06MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0097540.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097540-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097540-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097540-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097540-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097540-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097540-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0097540-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0097540.ris

Full Text

RELATIONSHIPS B E T W E E N T H E S T R U C T U R E OF I N T E L L E C T A N D CHARACTERISTICS OF S T U D E N T S IDENTIFIED AS GIFTED A N D S E L E C T E D FOR SPECIAL PROGRAMMING by COLIN J . L A I N E A THESIS SUBMITTED IN P A R T I A L F U L F I L M E N T OF T H E R E Q U I R E M E N T S FOR T H E D E G R E E OF DOCTOR OF E D U C A T I O N in T H E F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES Educational Psychology & Special Education We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard T H E UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA January, 1987 ® Colin J.Laine, 1987 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the The University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copj'ing of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed Educational Psychology & Special Education The University of British Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 without my written permission. Date: January, 1987 "The principle of education opportunity for all requires a fitting of opportunity to the individual's needs and abilities." ( D e h a a n & H a v i g h u r s t , 1961, p.9) This book is dedicated to Warren Leigh, Vernon Grant, Stewart Craig and Alison Sarah whom I love. Abstract Fundamental assumptions concerning the cognitive characteristics of gifted students in special education were presented. Prerequisites for operationalising them were extrapolated. The importance of clear parallels between identification and programming in gifted education, and of the role of informal and formal indicators was discussed. Guilford's Structure of Intellect model (1967) was examined in relation to the identification of cognitive ability. Achievement, measured by the Canadian Tests of Basic Skills (CTBS), and aptitude, as measured by the Structure of Intellect (SOI) Learning Abilities Test, identified differences between students who had been nominated to participate in an enrichment program. There were some who were also identified by the resource teachers as being gifted. Subjects were 100 students from grades three, five and, eight previously nominated for the program. Sixty were selected to participate in the program, and nineteen were identified as being gifted. The groups were age and gender balanced. The students were given the CTBS as part of the district's annual testing program. The SOI was given at the start of the enrichment program, at the end of the twelve-week program and at the end of the academic year. Analysis of variance and multiple regression analyses suggested significant relationships existed between various dimensions of achievement and aptitude, and that the treatment group differed significantly from the control group in aptitude. The gifted differed from the non-gifted in achievement (CTBS). Transformational ability on the SOI distinguished giftedness which supported Guilford's hypothesis of gifted ability. Teacher ratings of the objectives of the enrichment program were not predicted by either aptitude or achievement scores. Repeated measures A N O V A indicated that lower-level abilities were enhanced the most in the treatment ii group. Age contributed significantly to aptitude dimensions indicating non-school, or developmental factors were intertwined in the relationships. Findings were discussed and implications for subsequent research with the SOI in examining cognitive style in learning, and for both instruments use in special education identification programs were drawn. i i i Table of Contents Abstract ii List of Tables vii List of Figures ix Acknowledgements x 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Implications of the study 3 1.2 Limitations of the study 4 2. REVIEW OF L I T E R A T U R E 5 2.1 Background 5 2.2 Definition 8 2.3 Identification 13 2.4 Programs 19 2.5 Instrumentation and the Diagnosis of Learning Needs . 24 2.5.1 Description of Process Instruments 25 2.5.2 Rationale For Using The SOI Test 30 2.5.3 The Structure of Intellect Model ....31 2.6 Issues 40 3. P R O C E D U R E ,42 3.1 Design of the Study ' 42 3.2 The District 43 3.3 The Program 44 3.3.1 Student Selection 44 3.3.2 Program Content, Goals and Objectives 46 3.4 The Sample 49 3.5 Pilot Study 51 3.6 Method 52 3.6.1 Analysis of Data 53 iv 4. R E S U L T S 55 4.1 Introduction 55 4.2 Preliminary Analyses 56 4.2.1 Criterion Variables 56 4.2.2 Reliability 57 4.3 Descriptive Analyses 63 4.4 Results For The Research Questions 66 4.4.1 The Relationship between CTBS and SOI 67 4.4.2 Identification and Discrimination of Ability 71 4.4.3 SOI/CTBS Pretest and Independent Variables 74 4.4.4 CTBS and SOI contribution to the identification process 77 4.4.5 Prediction of Teacher Ratings of students 78 4.4.6 Special programs and the development of ability 79 4.4.7 The prediction of aptitude by CTBS scores 81 4.4.8 The maintenance of aptitude 82 4.5 Summary 87 5. DISCUSSION A N D CONCLUSIONS 88 5.1 Preamble 88 5.2 Instrumentation 88 5.3 Relationships between Achievement and Aptitude 92 5.4 CTBS and SOI as Identification Measures 94 5.5 Teacher ratings of Success 99 5.6 Post-Program Maintenance of Aptitude 102 5.7 Summary and Implications 104 5.8 Recommendations 107 BIBLIOGRAPHY I l l APPENDICES 123 v APPENDIX A SOI-LA T E S T , F O R M B 124 APPENDIX B SOI NORMING D A T A 130 APPENDIX C B.C. GIFTED E D U C A T I O N GUIDELINES 147 APPENDIX D DISTRICT PROGRAM INFORMATION 1985 152 APPENDIX E DISTRICT IDENTIFICATION H A N D B O O K 1985 157 APPENDIX F SOI COGNITIVE S T Y L E PROFILES 168 v i LIST O F T A B L E S Table Page Table 1: Predictor Variables: Descriptive Statistics 56 Table 2: Reliability Coefficients: SOI-LA Test 58 Table 3: SOI Test-Retest Reliability 60 Table 4: CTBS Reliability Coefficients 62 Table 5a: SOI Operations: Descriptive Statistics 63 Table 5b: SOI Products: Descriptive Statistics 64 Table 6: CTBS Descriptive Statistics 65 Table 7: Correlations between CTBS and SOI 68 Table 8: Regression of CTBS by SOI-LA Pretests 70 Table 9: A N O V A SOI Operations Pretest 72 Table 10: A N O V A SOI Products Pretest 73 Table 11: A N O V A CTBS Pretest 73 Table 12: Heirarchial Regression, SOI Operations Pretest 76 Table 13: Hierarchial Regression SOI Products Pretest 77 Table 14: Regression of School Groups by CTBS & SOI 78 Table 15: Regression of Critical Thinking 80 Table 16: A N C O V A SOI Operations Post-test 81 Table 17: A N C O V A SOI Products Post-test : 81; Table 18: Regression SOI Post-test by CTBS Pretest 83 Table 19: Repeated A N O V A SOI Operations 84 Table 20: Repeated A N O V A SOI Products 84 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page Figure 1: SOI Cognitive Profiles 34 Figure 2: Program Objectives & SOI Dimensions 49 Figures 3 & 4: Evaluation & Convergent Production Graphs 86 Figures 5 & 6: Transformation & Implication Graphs 87 viii Acknowledgements No dissertation exists through the mind, ideas, and work of just one person. This essay is no exception. The ideas, premises, and perceptions were born of many years in practice and interaction with colleagues, mentors, and students. There are those without whose specific involvement this essay would never have been completed. To Dr. Stanley Blank, my senior advisor and mentor; to Dr. Robert Conry and Dr. Perry Leslie for their time, patience and effort to assist the honing of ideas and methodology. The quality of the work was greatly assisted by the valuable editing skills of Loretta McLaughlin and who gave me much to ponder over; and to Helen Adams, not only for countless hours proofing, editing and discussion, but also for her constant support in times of paranoia: I am deeply grateful. Finally, to the support of the 'inmates' of "HUT 03" at U.B.C. ; and to Ethel Jackson who believed enough in the beginning that I could do it: I thank you. ix Chapter 1 I N T R O D U C T I O N A fundamental assumption underlying special education programming is that it will assist students to fully develop their learning capacities. This presumes that students selected for such programs: 1. have learning needs that are not fully met in a regular program of education; 2. have learning needs that form patterns - or styles - the characteristics of which can be readily identified and measured; 3. have access to special programs which set goals and objectives appropriate to their learning needs. It also presumes that the special program offered: 1. will make a significant contribution to the students' learning capabilities or performances; 2. provides learning strategies that will be maintained over time and transferred to other learning tasks; 3. may modify the student's cognitive stj'le. The literature indicates that two prerequisites emerge from these assumptions. First, there is a need for accurate and early identification of the children's learning needs (Clark, 1979; Gallagher, 1966, 1975, 1985; Khatena, 1982; Terman, 1954). Second, there is a need for a clearer articulation of the purposes for which the children are identified and of the programs now being offered (Gallagher, Weiss, Oglesby, & Thomas, 1983; Laine, 1983; Passow, 1983). Without consistent prerequisite procedures, one may legitimately question the inclusion of any student in, or the exclusion of any student from a special 1 2 program, or the provision of these programs at all. While these assumptions and procedures have been extensive^ examined in most areas of special education in North America, there has been a noticeable lack of critical examination in the area of programming for gifted learners (Borthwick, Dow, Levesque, & Banks, 1980). There has, on the other hand, been a growing demand for an examination of the reasons for identifying gifted children and the purposes for which enrichment and gifted programs are offered (Borthwick, Dow, Levesque, & Banks, 1980; Laine, 1983). This demand has been made more acute by the coincidence of the implementation of these programs with the initiation of government restraint programs in public sector spending. This coincidence has been further affected by changing political and philosophical positions over public education which have resulted in conflicting perceptions and considerable misinterpretations over not only who gifted children are, but also what educational services should be and can be provided for them. If the term 'gifted' classified a group of learners who possessed a limited, easily defined and identified range of traits and abilities, then politics and economics would have been less likely to have confused the issue. The gifted as a group, however, have been found to have a broader range of performances than any other defined group of learners (Gallagher, 1985). Further, recent work with handicapped children who are gifted (Karnes, 1979; Maker, 1977) has given an even more eclectic image to who the gifted are. While the field of gifted education has become more encompassing, empirical research into effective identification of learning needs and the effect of programs appears to be lacking in definitive recommendations (Gallagher, Oglesby, Weiss, & Thomas, 1983). In such an atmosphere, the myriad of programs currently in the system is now being subjected to extensive cross examination, especially where specific funding in 3 education is at issue. If programs for gifted learners are to be effective in the assumptions and procedures set out above, then there is a need to examine their prerequisites. In a survey of gifted education in the United States, Gallagher, Weiss, Oglesby, & Thomas (1983) concluded that there is a need to know: 1. whether or not particular identification processes adequately diagnose the (cognitive) needs or characteristics of children selected for inclusion in a special program for the gifted; 2. whether or not the stated learning outcomes of the program are appropriate to the characteristics identified; 3. whether or not the enhanced abilities will be maintained, and will be transferred to other subjects and situations. 1.1 I M P L I C A T I O N S O F T H E S T U D Y Practices in gifted education, especially with regard to identification and programming, are often arbitrary or dogmatic. Decisions are based on a wide variety of custom, of literature conclusions, and on a variety of screening procedures often chosen without any theoretical rationale. It is the aim of the present study (1) to extract some common purposes from the literature and (2) to examine the fundamental assumptions and the prerequisites upon which effective enrichment and gifted programs are founded, namely through the accurate identification of learning characteristics and the cognitive demands of a program's learning objectives. These two factors will be combined to form a pragmatic framework for analysis. 4 The tests have been chosen on the basis of their current use and of their contribution to identifying specific cognitive styles. If significant relationships are found among the various abilities and objectives, then the framework has the power to predict success with and transfer of the skills considered necessary for gifted children to gain mastery over their own learning. Similarly, the framework would have the power to indicate specific cognitive weaknesses and mismatches between student learning characteristics and program objectives which would demonstrate the need for remediation of skills in gifted children. Such an understanding of relative strengths and weaknesses has important implications for curriculum design and expectations of the program and the students, or for providing special education for gifted students at all. 1.2 L I M I T A T I O N S O F T H E S T U D Y The study clearly attaches itself to the cognitive domain which is only one frame of reference. It is recognized that the affective domain provides an equally important frame of reference in the literature on gifted education (Khatena, 1982; Krathwohl, Bloom, & Masia, 1964; Williams, 1971), however, in a fledgling area such as gifted education, it is important to examine each frame of reference for its potential as a contributor to the learning of gifted students in the hope that it will not only answer questions but also generate further investigation. Chapter 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2.1 BACKGROUND In introducing "Concepts of Excellence in Education", Bereday and Lauwerys (1961) observed: All civilized societies have accepted as a duty the task of encouraging those with talent to cultivate their gifts and to pursue excellence. Such men and women would then promote the general welfare and demonstrate to the world the virtues of the group to which they belong. . . We can say that cultural, social and economic advance depends upon educating all young people. But those of more than average ability play a social role [which]. . . must not be wasted through failure to provide the right conditions for their full development. The attempt to embody this principle into educational policy raises complex and difficult problems, (p.l) The writers claim that this philosophical position has been observed, analyzed, and interpreted world-wide and continuous^' throughout history, but wherever it is introduced and examined for educational purposes, the first major difficulty encountered has been the discovery that: ". . . there is no universal consensus as to what constitutes 'giftedness', 'talent' or 'genius'. In different cultural areas very different meanings are attached to such expressions." (Bereday & Lauwerys, 1961, p.2) A further complication is the considerable variance in the definition of and attitude toward "excellence" temporally, geographically and culturally. As Langeveld (1961) observed: • 5 6 All communities have their specific ways of selection and preparation for the different social functions and positions. . . The institutionalization of the ways of selection and preparation may take place in the form of (time-honored) customs. . . These different forms may lead to very different results for the individual as well as the community, (pp. 37-38) With such diverse opinions and perceptions concerning the concepts of excellence, one would expect to find that the institutional arrangements made to identify and develop excellence and to nurture talent would be as varied and as controversial. As long as the various cultures and times are separated, however, those variances and the attendent potential for controversy remain minimized: gifted is as gifted does, or is required to do, well (Passow, 1983). In Canada, the integration of these cultural and geographic variations have brought into sharp focus the expanded list of definitions and characteristics of giftedness. Each cultural group has demanded that public educational institutions nurture their most valued traits. The difficulty in the task of providing appropriate educational experiences has been enhanced by the difficulty of finding some common ground to work from. Terman (1954) observed that "to identify the internal and external factors that help or hinder the fruition of exceptional talent and to measure the extent of their influences are surely among the major problems of our time. . . .(p.221) In that paper, Terman identified and discussed some of the major issues concerning the identification and nurturance of gifted children. He stressed the need for early and accurate identification and cited the progress in the use of 7 testing to identify extraordinary academic performance in students. His findings advanced the field of gifted education and moved the focus of attention toward a balance between individual, internal capacities and the external factors that affect them. The second major advance was the increasing acceptance of a realisticalfy complex view of the human mind (Gould, 1981; Guilford, 1956, 1967; Sternberg, 1981) which has moved us from a simplified cultural view of giftedness to a more complex, multifaceted, and individual one. The goal, then, is changing from providing society with excellent performance in pre-ordered activities, to one in which all students will have a better chance to achieve their potentialities (Torrance & White, 1969) within a multifaceted educational and international communitj'. Although this has been generally recognized in most areas of special education, it has only been within the last decade that the atypical needs of gifted learners have become articulated (Clark, 1979; Reynolds and Birch, 1977, 1982). Gifted people find themselves often to be paradoxes of society. Mauser (1975) pointed out that, on the one hand, they may be underestimated, because their extreme intellectual and special talents are often misled by societj''s sharp focuses on specific and well-ordered variations. On the other hand, even when their prowess is recognized, social barriers and human prejudice sometimes combine to keep them from activities at which they would be ver}' successful. While their educational needs have been recognized politically and philosophically, " . . .their capabilities (may) be stunted, lost, or wasted because of weaknesses or omissions in schooling." (Reynolds & Birch, 1977, p. 206). This considerable gap between the philosophical stance and reality (Burroughs, 1979) has resulted in unguided, uncounseled, and unchallenged people who drop out of the system (Lajoie & Shore, 1981; Nyquist, 1973; Whitmore, 1980). 8 2.2 D E F I N I T I O N A major task of practitioners in gifted education in the past two decades has been to establish generally acceptable and operational definitions of giftedness. On the surface, this seems to be an elementary task, however, Willard Abraham (1958) tells of a graduate student who after three weeks and 113 variations of giftedness found he had onhy scratched the surface and dropped the attempt to find one (that would be generally acceptable and operational). Since that time, the field of gifted education research has further expanded and refined the theories and practices related to the education of gifted students (Clark, 1979). The term 'gifted' is a designation. It has become the standard designation for those persons of superior ability (Getzels & Dillon, 1973). It is not a definition, however, as it specifies neither the type nor the degree of superiority. Early conceptions of the term were narrowly focussed on intelligence: the ability most commonly associated with the term. Many attribute this association to Terman, however, in the opening statement to his book "The Study of Genius" (1925) Terman refers to ". . . resources of intellectual talent . . ." (p.vii). If this is taken to include talent of all sorts, then Terman provided us with a foundation for the panorama of conceptions that have since evolved, and which ". . . hardly permits of improvement." (Getzels & Dillon, 1973, p.97). If taken at its narrowest interpretation, Terman's work provided educators and researchers with a substantial starting point; it discriminated the intellectual^ superior students from the average and provided a basis for the placement of students in education programs. His findings gave educators a means of coming to grips with the concept and focussed attention on gifted students. 9 The narrow conception, however, failed to recognize the culturally different gifted child (Clark, 1979), the economically disadvantaged (Meeker, 1976), or the gifted handicapped (Maker, 1977). It also was unable to recognize the multifaceted nature of intelligence (Guilford, 1967). Baldwin (1924) proposed that the term 'gifted' should not be used without qualifying it or without including social as well as mental development. Osborn & Rohan (1931) argued for the inclusion of non-academic talents and creative ability. Given the potential for differentiating the term operationally, it is important to consider why such differentiation of educational services has been only a recent phenomenon. A 1931 White House Conference on children concluded that the popular ideas of giftedness included areas that were spurious, and defined a gifted child as ". . . merely the child with exceptional intelligence." (Getzels & Dillon, 1973, p. 124). As the instruments for measuring intelligence at the time were achievement and I.Q, tests, the implementation of services to gifted students focussed on those who showed superioritj7 in a particular mode (Getzels & Dillon, 1973). Over time, the weaknesses inherent in this line of assessment became apparent as researchers and advocates found or questioned distinctions with respect to identified abilities (Guilford, 1956), to the degrees and dimensions of superiority and among the various talents (Taylor, 1958). Research instruments became more sophisticated leading to broader references to intelligence and to giftedness. Guilford (1950) called for a focussed investigation into creativity and the nature of creative persons. The development of a Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Bloom, 1956), the expansion of divergent thinking into creative thinking and creative problem-solving (e.g. Guilford, 1967; Parnes, 1967; Torrance, 1979) have expanded the definitions found in education program and policy statements. 10 This evolution has led to more broadly-based conceptions (Renzulli, 1979; Taylor, 1968). Broad definitions allow more inclusive populations and require a wider differentiation of programming, however, they also cause confusion in student selection and program planning (Clark, 1979). Methods are now needed that will effectively differentiate the population (Clark, 1979, p.5). Further, Tannenbaum (1983) asked how significant could any one (trait or perspective) be in relation to the variety of powers (needed for) excellence (p.76)? It would be necessarj' to identify an aggregate of complex abilities that link early promise (potential) with eventual fulfillment. There have been several attempts at categorizing the varieties of definitions (e.g., Reynolds & Birch, 1982; Stankowski, 1978; Tannenbaum, 1983). Stankowski (1978) outlined five categories: 1. the after-the-fact (which was restricted to accomplishments), 2. I.Q. (Terman, Stanley), 3. talent (focussing on individual area of ability), 4. percentage definitions (fixed proportions of the population), and 5. creativity definitions (stressing the significance of superior creative abilities as the main criterion). Tannenbaum (1983) based his classification on 'valued traits'. It is similar to Newland's 'sociopsychological responsibility' construct (1976) where the definition is dependent upon societal needs for leaders and professionals. These traits would be either: 'scarce' (vital commodities that are demanded), 'surplus' (deference because they are precious to life), 'quota' (based on needs for sophisticated services), or 'anomalous' (feats or crafts no longer used). 11 Reynolds and Birch (1982) classified definitions as, 1. derived from psychological characteristics, 2. conditioned by social need, and 3. those which are educationally oriented. By this classification, those who possess peculiar traits or behaviour patterns that discriminate gifted and talented from all others, those who are most apt in activities which are socially valued, or who have a high learning potential acknowledged, would be 'gifted'. All these classifications are 'culture bound' (Gallagher, 1966), and whichever definition of giftedness is adopted will determine who is selected and who is excluded (Stankowski, 1978). The most significant division of definitions for schooling purposes has been between those which are predominantly intellectual or academic, and those which are non-academic or worldly. Much of this dichotomy has resulted (1) as a consequence of what schooling is (Stephens, 1967), (2) as a focus through the array and concerns about definition, and (3) in administrative and educationally-oriented definitions that are as broadly encompassing as necessary to accommodate the diverse interest groups (cf. Gallagher, 1975; Khatena, 1983). The most widely used definition evolved from the work of Marland (1972). The United States Office of Education's definition for programming purposes was refined by Gallagher (1975) and' later embodied in American Public Law 93-380 (1975) . The regulations accompanying the law (1976) stated: "Gifted and Talented" means children. . .who are identified. . .as (1) possessing demonstrated or potential abilities that give evidence of high performance capabilities in areas such as intellectual, creative, specific academic, or leadership ability; and (2) needing differentiated education 12 or services (beyond those being provided by the regular school sj^ stem) in order to realize their potentialities. (Section 160b.2(c)) Further, section 160b.3(b)(iii) stated: ". . . No child shall be denied entry into a program or project on the basis of only one method of identification." These sections formed the foundation for the myriad of programs now found in most parts of North America. They also fuelled the fire of definitional argument. As has been observed elsewhere (cf. Clark, 1979; Davis & Rimm, 1985), an identification process operationally defines the 'INS' and 'OUTS' (those who will be included and those who will be excluded from the group) and there continues to be a problematic relationship between definition and identification. While the regulations governing programs for the gifted (e.g. British Columbia Special Education Program 3.32 - Gifted Programs) attempt to provide for a multi-faceted view of giftedness, they also provide ". . .a platform rhetoric . . .for identification . . ." (Renzulli, Reis, & Smith, 1981, p.ix). Renzulli regards it as 'Gifted Hypocrisy': there is a great deal of difference between what we say about identification and actual procedures. Sillito & Wilde (1983) identified two distinct, but not necessarily discrete, strategies: Definition through Process (identification drives the definition) and the more commonly practiced, Definition To Process (identification selects those who are described in the definition). This latter process operationalizes the definition. In either case, the frame of reference is important. Where giftedness is narrowly construed, the definition, identification process and the instrumentation is viewed simply; one either has it or one doesn't have it (Renzulli, 1980). As the conception is broadened (e.g. Renzulli's Triad Model or Revolving Door Model), or jurisdictional definitions become multipart (e.g. United States Office of 13 Education definition, 1971; Public Law 93-380, 1975; British Columbia Ministry of Education Program 3.32, 1984), the strategies, and the accompanying problems, have become more complex and intensified (Alvino, McDonnel, & Richert, 1981). The problems have been compounded by statutes and regulations which have left the details of the programs and the identification process to the school districts to work out (Public Law 93-380, 1975; B. C. Ministry of Education Program 3.32, 1984). 2.3 IDENTIFICATION In his report to Congress, Marland (1971) cited many problems surrounding the identification of gifted students: technical inadequac.y of instruments, lack of clarity and precision, need for clearer purpose, among others. A decade later, reports indicated that hardly any significant progress had been made in correcting those problems (Alvino, McDonnel, & Richert, 1981) and the state of the art in identification of gifted students "...is in some disarray" (p.131). In spite of the arguments surrounding the definition of giftedness, a list of gifted students is essentially the result of linking a definition with an identification process (Sillito & Wilde, 1983). It should discriminate between gifted and non-gifted students (Clark, 1979). In order for the process to discriminate so that all 'gifted' learners are included and all others are not selected, the process must be ". . . infallibty accurate and the definition categorically impeccable" (Sillito & Wilde, 1983, p. 119). However, 'infallible' and 'categorically impeccable' the "ideals" and, as processes and definitions are less than perfect, the relationship between identification and definition is a problematic one (Clark, 1979). 14 This relationship has been aggravated by the emphasis for programming most frequently being a pragmatic, administrative decision (Borthwick, Dow, Levesque, & Banks, 1980) which limits the programs to a size the district can manage (Sillito & Wilde, 1983) or, as Burdikin (1975) stated, whoever is identified as gifted being dependent at each stage on the schools' ability to provide for them. Operationalizing the definition this way results in limiting the intended coverage (Sillito & Wilde, 1983, p. 125). While this is to some degree inevitable (Burdikin, 1975), the criteria for selection should make the limitation a matter of choice, not inadvertance (cf. Bloom, 1982; Sillito & Wilde, 1983, p. 127). As definitions have broadened, and to avoid exclusion by inadvertance, the use of multiple criteria has primarily broadened the basis for decision-making, has recognized that any one criterion is limited in its application (Treffinger, 1981) and is fallible (Fox, 1979; Harty, Adkins & Sherwood, 1984; Jenkins- Friedman, 1982; Sillito & Wilde, 1983; Tannenbaum, 1983; Yarborough & Johnson, 1983). Multipart jurisdictional definitions have also spawned numerous broadbased and complex weighted identification processes. Such processes have attempted to address specific local or regional definition-identification problems and have encouraged a broadening of understanding and an ongoing redefinition of giftedness (Clark, 1979). Formal testing has continued to plaj' a major role in most identification programs (Alvino, McDonnel & Richert, 1981; Gallagher, Weiss, Oglesby, & Thomas, 1983; Getzels & Dillon, 1973)> Gourley (1976) reported finding 178 identification instruments and procedures in place in 113 different programs in the United States. Alvino, McDonnel and Richert (1981) cited 120 instruments and techniques being used for identification in 200 different programs. While written plans have endorsed multi-dimensionality, single instruments (most 15 commonly I.Q. or achievement tests) are widely used for identification and selection (Renzulli, Reis, & Smith, 1981) or are used as a screen before other criteria are applied (Jenkins-Friedman, 1982). Yarborough & Johnson (1983) found Achievement Tests in use in 93% of U . S . programs, individual I.Q. tests in 60% and group I.Q. tests in 53% of the programs. Achievement and I.Q. tests are also being used to identifj' nonintellectual, nonacademic talents (Alvino, McDonnel & Richert, p. 129). Yarborough & Johnson also found I.Q. tests used as identifiers in 70% of the personal development courses offered to gifted students. Their findings confirm Jenkins-Friedman's observation of the cosmetic application of multiple criteria in identification. Hitherto in most British Columbia school districts, teacher referral and norm-referenced tests predominate among procedures used to identify students (ERIBC, 1979; Laine, 1983). Thus while researchers have expanded the scope of giftedness and have recognized a need for alternative models of human abilities (Gould, 1981; Guilford, 1956, 1967; Sternberg, 1981), and despite impressive findings over the past decade (Clark, 1979; Khatena, 1982), it seems the results have not been operationally translated into practice. Accurate assessment depends in part on the accuracy of the instrumentation to measure what it purports to measure and the relevance of the tasks to what is being assessed (Ysseldyke & Algozzine, 1983). Feldhusen, Asher & Hoover (1984) found that there is little empirical justification for the appropriateness of the tests used in the identification of gifted students nor for the basis of the cut-off levels of test scores. They also found that most program directors were unable to give any defensible arguments for their procedures (p. 149). Alvino, McDonnell & Richert (1981) found that (1) measures of general intellectual and specific academic abilities were being used interchangeably, (2) tests or instruments were being used in a manner that does not conform to 16 what they were intended for, and (3) tests or instruments were being used with populations on which they were not normed or for which they were never intended (p. 131). They observed that such use betrays an indiscrimination of giftedness, and reflects confusion "... if not ignorance. . ." (p. 131) concerning identifiably different sets of abilities. If an identification process remains linear and static, in light of the research into human abilities, there is doubt that such a process has the ability to achieve its ultimate purpose, leaving identification of giftedness in children open to hit-or-miss levels of predictability (Laine, Blank, & Clarke, 1985). The primary question (Clark, 1979) is whether or not an identification process is able to identify gifted learners and discriminate giftedness effective^. A secondary, but equally critical, question is whether or not an assessment can also yield diagnostic information (Feldhusen, Asher & Hoover, 1984). If a screening and selection process is able to identify and diagnose children's learning needs effectively, then the procedure is adequate. Problems of low ceiling scores (Davis & Rimm, 1985), test bias (Tyler, 1974), pygmalion effects (Cooper, 1979; Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1969), and non-applicability to learning tasks (Moran, 1978), has led to questioning whether or not selection for a program using a single test criterion can accomplish this. If achievement and/or I.Q. tests can effectively accomplish the first part, then subsequent application of multiple criteria would act to differentiate abilities within the group and accomplish the second concern of assessment. Several studies have shown that when giftedness is broadly conceived, intelligence and achievement tests do not discriminate effectively between those who may be gifted and those who are not (Feldhusen, Asher & Hoover, 1984; Harty, Adkins & Sherwood, 1984). 17 If the identification program proceeds from informal methods to more formal methods, then such informal measures need to be able to discriminate giftedness - unless the definition is to be based on the identification. If the informal methods (e.g. teacher judgment, student self nomination, parent perception) are able to effectively identify and diagnose the learning needs of gifted children, then the more formal instrumentation would supplement the observations and assist decision-making. The question of whether or not teachers are able to identify giftedness and to discriminate accurately between gifted and non-gifted characteristics has not been fully resolved, however, Harty, Adkins & Sherwood (1984) found them to be insensitive discriminators. If the informal-to-formal approach is used to screen in students who may be gifted, then it is most likely that the process will form a 'pool' of potential candidates (similar to Renzulli's talent pool, 1975) which can then be refined through the participation in a set of enrichment activities or program, or through the application of appropriate instruments. If either approach is used initially to screen out 'non gifted' students, many potential candidates could be lost. Such procedures are by no means adequate to identify the learning needs of extraordinary students (cf. Boehm, 1973; Davidson & Sternberg, 1984; Okey, 1970; Reynolds & Birch, 1982; Sisk, 1980). Further, Meeker (1969) suggests that, although norm-referenced tests may describe a difference, they do not explain it. Hart3r, Adkins & Sherwood (1984) found that certain measures did discriminate. These were: 1. giftedness potential in learning and creativity as measured by the Renzulli-Hartman rating scales of superior students, 18 2. peer identification, 3. scholastic aptitude-as measured by the Cognitive Abilities Test, and 4. locus of control-as measured by the Nowicki-Strickland locus of control scale (p.341). The task, then, becomes a case of selecting appropriate instruments, and using data wisely. Feldhusan, Asher and Hoover (1984) recommend finding instruments which measure those abilities that are the goals of the program and which yield diagnostic information. This offers a different frame of reference: tying the identification process not to the definition but to the program goals or, what the planners want in terms of what will happen to the students as a consequence of being in the program. It can be seen that the subject of identifying giftedness has not been altogether settled. On the one hand, we have the problem of deciding which qualities of human beings can be categorized as 'gifted' and on the other hand, we have the problem of deciding the extent to which they are measurable (Khatena, 1979). With so many variations in procedures and instruments, however, the decision of who is gifted and what will be the most appropriate program has come full circle to Bereday and Lauwery's observation of twenty-four years ago. Claim and counter-claim over 'correct' practices have clouded the issues. While Baer (1980) criticized practices used for identifying the gifted as being highly unreliable, Alvino, McDonnell, & Richert (1981) found that research neither supported nor refuted the many methods that had been recommended for identification. Not only is the pragmatic stance of government policy on the identification of, and programming for, gifted students being loosely interpreted 19 but also the research is equivocal on the methods and practices in gifted education. This has been accented by a growing demand to know whether or not these programs in fact make a difference to the students' learning abilities (Burroughs, 1979; Goldinher, 1984; Kammer, 1984; LeMahieu, 1980; Tremaine, 1979; Weller, 1982) . 2.4 P R O G R A M S A special education program is different to a regular class program only because ". . . and in the same way that. . ." (Clark, 1979, p. 138) the learning needs of gifted students are different. It implies that if the identified needs can be met within a regular program using a standard or traditional curriculum, there will be no need to establish a special (gifted) program. A major goal of a program, therefore, would be to provide learning experiences which are not fully met within the regular curriculum, to a group of students whose learning characteristics are distinctly different to what is expected (Clark, 1979; Kaplan, 1974; Khatena, 1983; LeMahieu, 1980). Over the past decade there has emerged an increasingly critical examination of the purpose for identifying gifted learners and the programs that are offered to them. The purpose of special programming for gifted students has been variously framed as: enabling gifted children to grow toward their full potential (Clark, 1979), providing an education commensurate with each child's ability to learn (Kaplan, 1974), to provide meaningful experiences in order to maximise learning and individual development (Fox, 1979), to develop an ability to transfer information to humanistic goals (Davis & Rimm, 1985), 20 to aid their ability to contribute to societj' (Newland, 1976) to provide opportunities for independent learning and active participation in the learning process (Epstein, 1979). One of the more frequently repeated purposes is that any program must provide the student with the skills to become a more effective manager of his/her own learning: namety, to become independent of the traditional systems of school learning (Laine, Blank & Clarke, 1985). All these various purposes have been cited under the umbrella of learning opportunities that are 'qualitatively different' (Clark, 1979; Kaplan, 1974, 1982; Khatena, 1982). The connotation of qualitatively different programs is, however, not generally accepted. There are those who believe that gifted students do not learn in ways that are in fact different to the ways that other students learn (Alvino, 1981) and so the rationale for programs that purport to provide learning skills that are substantially different in scope is not strong. Gallagher, Weiss, Oglesby & Thomas (1983) found many programs which state that they provide different, learning opportunities, however, the researchers concluded that there is still research work to be done to support these claims. Programs have been categorized by their locus - whether in school or outside the school - or according to the degree of segregation (Getzels & Dillon, 1973). Programs within schools have been classified (Gallagher, 1966) as: administrative (changing the educational structure the children are in), instructional (changing the content of the subject matter or the style of presentation),and adjunctive (providing special support services beyond the usual school program). The literature commonly groups administrative category research under Grouping, Acceleration, and Enrichment. Getzels & Dillon (1973) suggest that all 21 types of adjustment for gifted students are forms of enrichment however, the term more popularly has come to mean the provision of differentiated curricular experiences in an otherwise traditional curriculum (Kaplan, 1974). Under the umbrella of enrichment, there has been spawned a panorama of delivery systems, curricula, cognitive processing models and strategies which are currently in place; few of these approaches have been studied to ". . . systematically measure the extent to which (they) actually accomplish what they set out to do" (Kolloff & Feldhusen, 1984, p.53). In a documentation of programs, Gallagher(1966) found the major programming strategies to have been ability grouping (clustering), acceleration (being moved more rapidly through the content), pedagogical intervention (acquisition of particular learning strategies & creativity), and content intervention (use of special curricula designed for gifted children). In a recent review of programming for gifted and talented students in the United States, Gallagher, Weiss, Oglesby, and Thomas (1983) surve.yed 1200 state, local, and school administrators, specialist and regular classroom teachers. This survey found that the most preferred type of program (41%) at the elementary level to be a pull-out or resource room program to which students go for an hour or more each day. Advanced classes in a subject area was the next preferred type (23%). At the secondary school level, special classes (44%) and independent study (23%) were most favoured. Between the two reviews, the literature indicated that special programs for gifted students occurred most often in elementary and middle schools (most commonly in a resource room format). There was considerable variance in style and time allotted; while some programs are organized with specific workbooks or materials, others were organized around a general teaching model such as Renzulli's Triad Model (Anthony, Iwanicki, & Spears, 1977; Delisle & Renzulli, 22 1982; Haninen, 1981; Kolloff & Feldhusen, 1981; Renzulli & Smith, 1975; Robinson, 1980; Schlichter, 1981; Steele, 1969). These models provided a foundation upon which numerous program and curriculum variations were built. This decade was one where the learning activities were developed and refined extensively. By comparison to the earlier studies, Gallagher, Weiss, Ogelsby, & Thomas (1983) found that the major strategies now appear as skills training (programs designed to enhance productive, creative, and/or metacognitive skills), content differentiation (a broad-based and more complex thematic approach to curriculum), and acceleration through advanced placement programs, compacting or telescoping. The survey also found that more emphasis is being placed on the learning environment (where the student receives the program), special subgroupings (handicapped, underachieving), and seeking out or developing a variety of identification instruments that will discriminate gifted students from the rest of the population but does not discriminate against students from minority, culturally diverse, or economically deprived backgrounds. While specialists (e.g. Clark, 1979; Gallagher, Weiss, Oglesby, & Thomas, 1983; Khatena, 1982) agree that no single concept can effectively meet the needs of all gifted students, Fox (1979) concluded that the diagnostic-prescriptive teaching (of skills) related to self-direction to be the most useful strategy for gifted students. The review by Gallagher, Weiss, Oglesby, & Thomas (1983) gives evidence that programs are providing the students with some executive learning skills and opportunities, (cf. Laine, Blank & Clarke, 1985). Such programs need to develop the metacognitive skills; recognizing and organizing one's own ability levels (Sternberg, 1980; Torgesan, 1975), which are illustrated in insightful learning. That is , going beyond the information given (Davidson & Sternberg, 1984; Flavell, 1976). 23 They should have a varied set of objectives which respond to the degree and dimension of the ways in which extraordinary learners go about their learning tasks (Kaplan, 1982; Marcus, 1979; Meeker, 1973a). If this purpose is to be accomplished with any degree of confidence, then accurately identified characteristics must be matched to a program's stated learning outcomes (Bateman, 1970; Feldhusen, Asher & Hoover, 1984; Gagne, 1970; Rubenzer, 1979). If a goal or an expected outcome can be decomposed into its component parts (Gagne, 1970), one can then ask at each subtask level, what skills the student must acquire in order for teachers to declare that he has learned it. One can also ask if the student comes equipped with 'entrance behaviours' or requisite cognitive abilities so that he is ready to learn a particular task (Bateman, 1970). If programming for gifted students is to achieve the goal of independence in learning, then it is encumbent upon educators to identify the learning patterns exhibited in the children and apply curriculum and teaching strategies which will afford more effective movement toward that goal (Laine, Blank & Clarke, 1985; Treffinger, 1983). The more recent expansion of the definition of who gifted children are and the interest in the gifted characteristics found in the handicapped, makes the rationale for the type of program and the strategies and curriculum that are designed to encourage self-direction more open to critical examination. The relationship between identification and program has become more diagnostic than was felt necessary for programs for academic advancement. Clearly effective educational programming entails thorough consideration of such questions (Laine & Wong, 1982). A measure which could enable educators to answer these questions with some degree of satisfaction would be welcomed if 24 such an instrument existed. As definitions and programs have evolved, the early univariate models have given way to accommodate multi-variate models ". . . the most comprehensive . . . (of which) is the Structure of Intellect." (Khatena, 1982; p.33). This study will examine the use of the Structure of Intellect model through the application of the Structure Of Intellect Learning Abilities Test (Meeker & Meeker, 1976) as one such measure. 2.5 I N S T R U M E N T A T I O N A N D T H E DIAGNOSIS O F L E A R N I N G N E E D S Abilities have been assessed formally by performance in test environments, however, there are difficulties inherent in measuring reliably the processes by which children achieve solutions to problems (Mishra, 1983). Standardized norm-referenced tests which tend to measure the products of learning (Guilford, 1967; Meeker, 1969) rather than examine the processes underlying them, appear to have ". . . resisted change in their structure as well as content . . . " (Mishra, 1983, p. 148). In a traditional learning context, testing via a content-based product instrument parallels closely the type of knowledge learning that is expected in a discipline. The reason for implementing special programs for potentially gifted students in the first place, however, is to provide learning experiences that are different to those in the regular program. Use of norm-referenced standardized tests primarily or exclusively, may fail to identify the learning needs that make the students different (Alvino, McDonnel, & Richert, 1981; Laine, Blank, & Clarke, 1985). There is a need to test the learning processes that make the students different as well as the amount they have achieved in terms of school discipline. To assess cognitive aptitudes effectively, one has to be aware of the shortcomings of the psychometric properties of the instrumentation (Ferrell, 1983). Specialized test instruments, referenced to particular models or criteria tend to be exclusive: focussing on certain variables 25 and therefore sacrificing other possibilities (Gregorc, 1979). 2.5.1 D E S C R I P T I O N O F P R O C E S S I N S T R U M E N T S Several instruments have been designed to measure the processes of learning rather than the products. This is most noticeable in the areas of critical thinking and creative thinking. Among the process instruments more commonly used in the identification of gifted students are: Ross Test of Higher Cognitive Processes (Ross & Ross, 1976), Structure Of Intellect Learning Abilities Test (SOI-LA) (Meeker & Meeker, 1976), Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (Torrance, 1974), and the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (Watson & Glaser, 1964). Each test has degrees of exclusivity, yet claims to be comprehensive in the specific areas being assessed. Each instrument is briefly described below. Ross Test of Higher Cognitive Processes (Ross & Ross, 1976) This test was designed to parallel the three higher levels from Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Bloom, 1956), namely, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation. It is normed on children in grades four through six. It is a pencil-and-paper objective test of 105 items divided into eight sections. Three sections are designed to measure elements of Analysis, three to measure elements of Synthesis, and two to measure elements of Evaluation. Split-half (odd-even) reliability coefficient using the Spearman- Brown formula was .92. Test-retest reliability coefficient was .94 and construct reliability based on chronological age was .674. This test showed an ability to discriminate between gifted and non-gifted students (Beckwith, 1982; Callahan & Corvo, 1980) and to be useful as an identifier where critical thinking - defined as Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation - is taught (Beckwith, 1982). Vocabulary (hypothesised by Guilford as 26 the SOI task C M U - Cognition of Semantic Units) was found to be the best single predictor of giftedness: a lower initial vocabulary led to the greatest gain in scores on the test (Beckwith, 1982). Although designed to be comprehensive in scope, the test concentrates on the students' ability to deal with abstractions on a verbal basis. Ross and Ross (1979) state that ". . . the ability to conceptualise a verbal abstraction and see relations within and around it is a major component of all higher cognitive processes." (p.6) In cognitive processing terms, this would translate to the test focussing on the Cognition and Evaluation of Semantic Classes, Relations and Implications. On Guilford's Structure of Intellect Model, these would be the cells: C M R , Cognition of Semantic Relations - recognizing semantic relations(analogies), E M C , Evaluation of Semantic Classes - semantic conceptualization, E M R , Evaluation of Semantic Relations - discriminating between and among various relationships, CMI , Cognition of Semantic Implications - recognizing the implications of various ideas, E M I , Evaluation of Semantic Implications - judging the validity of various ideas or theories. This coding is similar to that of Landis & Michael's (1981) for critical thinking when they compared the Structure of Intellect Test to the Watson-Glaser. Used alone, this test would provide a rather narrow range of indications of the processing abilities in students (three levels of Bloom's taxonomy, for grades four through six). Any program which encompasses a greater range of grades or curricula would require instrumentation in addition to, or other than, the Ross test (Anderson, 1985). It did not separate different cultural groups at the 4th grade, and only half of the subtests discriminated at the 6th grade (Weaver, 1983). Weaver's results also suggest that there is little correlation 27 between Evaluation as defined by Meeker and that defined by Bloom. Anderson (1985) found that the eight subtests divided into two main types: problem-solving strategies and problem identification strategies. Gifted students were found to be more successful in problem identification strategy awareness. It was also found that where the Ross test was used in conjunction with other tests (Torrance Tests, SOI Test) there was duplication. Structure of Intellect (SOI) Learning Abilities Test (Meeker & Meeker, 1976) This test is modelled after Guilford's Structure of Intellect (SI) Model. It is a pencil-and-paper objective test containing 26 subtests, or 'cells' from the Model. It was normed initially on students between grades two and six but was extended to include students up to grade twelve. There is also an adult form. The items attempt to test a variety of abilities which should give the non-verbal child as much opportunity to score in the gifted range as the verbal child. It is designed to provide teachers with evidence of strengths and weaknesses, thus serving as a prescriptive as well as a diagnostic tool (Cunningham, Thomas, Alston, & Wakelfield, 1978; Feldman, 1969; Meeker & Meeker, 1980; Millichamp, 1976; Pearce, 1983; Roid, 1984). Test-retest reliabilities overall range from .72 to .89. Intercorrelations among the dimensions range from .018 to .836. There are many high intercorrelations among the cells. This primarily is a consequence of intersecting three dimensions of intellect. For example, a single task, 'Cognition of Semantic Systems' (CMS) , and another task, 'Cognition of Semantic Units' (CMU) , share two general dimensions: Cognition operation and Semantic content. The only differentiating dimension in this example are the products of Units and Systems. Higher intercorrelations should be expected between these two cells than between C M S and M S T 'Memory of Symbolic Transformations' which share no dimension. Further, there are problems concerning overlap when items on a 28 model become too fractionated. It makes it more difficult for such a test to provide discrete items. (This is discussed in more detail later in this section). Tables of descriptive data and intercorrelations of the general dimensions taken from the 1981 Norming Data Manual are provided in Appendix B for the reader to compare. Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (Torrance, 1974) The two forms of the test (Verbal and Figural) are based on Guilford's SI model, particularly the divergent thinking dimensions (Clark, 1979, Gallagher, 1985; Khatena, 1978). Thej' are pencil-and-paper tests which are designed to measure fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration of students in kindergarten through college. There are seven verbal subtests and three figural subtests. Test-retest reliability is reported at .50 to .93. There is some controversj' regarding the kinds of processes the tests attempt to identify and the criterion used to validate the tests (Clark, 1979, p.423). There appears to be some overlap between the abilities being measured and those commonly assessed in intelligence tests (Gallagher, 1985, p. 14). Wallach (1970) found that such tests general^ intercorrelated no better than their average correlation with standard intelligence tests. However, when the comparison is restricted to those students already identified as gifted, there appears less of a relationship (Delias & Gaier, 1970). In Structure of Intellect terms, the Torrance tests focus on the Divergent Production of Figural and Semantic Units, Transformations and Implications. The major debate is whether measures of fluency, flexibility and originality alone can be considered measures of creativity: external validation is so far equivocal (Clark, 1964; Thorndike, 1972; Vernon, 1964; Wallach & Kogan, 1965). Treffinger, Isaksen, and Firestien (1983) found that there were a wide variety of 29 indicators of creativity and that neither divergent thinking (nor convergent thinking) in itself is sufficient for promoting effective thinking and problem solving. It would appear that the effectiveness of Torrance's tests would be limited in scope for translating into program goals. Even if creativitj' were the sole program component, the divergence that these tests measure would provide only a part of the information needed to identify processing ability. Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (Form YM) (Watson & Glaser, 1964) This test is one of the most widely used measures of critical thinking abilities, at least in terms of the number of citations in the professional literature. It is a pencil-and-paper objective test which was normed on students from ninth grade through college senior year and is used only for secondar3'-aged students. It has five subtests: Inference, Recognition of Assumptions, Deduction, Interpretation, and Evaluation of Arguments. Split-half (odd-even) reliability coefficient (Spearman-Brown formula) is cited as .85 in the manual. A factor analytic studj' (Landis & Michael, 1981) indicated moderate subtest intercorrelations of .23 to .50. These appeared inconsistent with the implication that each subtest is discrete. This again, could be a problem of fractionating the concept. Landis & Michael (1981) found the Structure of Intellect dimension of Cognition appeared harmonious with Watson and Glaser's theoretical position that comprehending, recognizing and discovering relevant aspects of one's environment is essential to critical thinking (cf. Ross Test, op cit). The researchers also found a high correlation with Semantic content as well as with Units in the SI products dimension. The "Deduction" subtest was also highly correlated to Relations and Implications of the Structure of Intellect products dimension. The Structure of Intellect cells that would seem to be most closely related to this instrument would be C M U (vocabulary), C M R (recognizing semantic relations), 30 CMI (recognizing semantic implications), EMR (discriminating between and among various relations), EMC (semantic conceptualizing), and EMI (judging among implications of various ideas). Landis and Michael concluded that the Watson-Glaser test measures either a unique aspect of critical thinking or a construct other than critical thinking. Given the results of research on the Ross Test(op cit), it would also seem that the Watson-Glaser may be measuring a construct very similar to that measured by the Ross Test. 2.5.2 RATIONALE FOR USING THE SOI TEST The tests described above all purport to examine certain cognitive abilities or processes. Their success or failure to perform this function depends in part on the theoretical construct upon which each is built and in part on the limitations of psychometry to measure processes. The Ross Test clearly is designed to parallel Bloom's Taxonomy. Torrance's Tests are based upon Guilford's construct of Divergent Production. Meeker's SOI Learning Abilities Test is founded on Guilford's S.I. Model, and the Watson-Glaser appears to be founded upon theories similar to Bloom's. Only the SOI Learning Abilities Test uses a complete model. Each of the other tests borrows one or more parts from theories. As such, the SOI Learning Abilities Test would seem to be more comprehensive in its examination of cognitive processes than the other tests reviewed. Several questions have been raised, however, on the predictive validity of the SOI-LA test (Clarizio & Mehrens, 1985). Second, the Ross Test and the Watson Glaser are designed to be administered to only a portion of the student population: one to intermediate grades, the other to secondary. Torrance's Tests and the SOI-LA can be used 31 for the whole range of grades. Third, a comparison of the reliability coefficients among the tests (Ross, .94; SOI, .72 - .89; Torrance, .50 .93; Watson- Glaser, .85) indicates that the SOI is comparable to the other instruments. The marginal differences between the SOI and the Ross or the Watson-Glaser can be accounted for by the fractioning of the scores. Fourth, the SOI is able to provide practitioners and researchers with a profile which acts as a cognitive map or indicator of a student's cognitive style (Guilford, 1975; Laine, Blank & Clarke, 1985; Meeker, 1969). (A full description of this capability is provided later in this section). The other instruments have the capability to provide only a limited profile of abilities. A jurisdiction wishing to implement a special education program based on the development of a broad range of learning management skills for primary, intermediate, and secondary students, is limited in its choice of instruments. Given the broad perspective purportedly examined, the age range that can be accommodated, and similar range of reliability coefficients of the tests described, the SOI Learning Abilities Test appears to be the most comprehensive instrument. 2.5.3 T H E S T R U C T U R E O F I N T E L L E C T M O D E L Guilford's Structure of Intellect theory has proposed a model of differential intelligence which has been described fully elsewhere (for example: Guilford, 1967; Meeker, 1969; Khatena, 1982). Essentially, Guilford perceived a three dimensional model of the intellect. The dimensions in the model are defined as: Operations (cognition, memory, evaluation, convergent production, divergent production), 32 Contents (Figural, symbolic, semantic, behavioural), and Products (units, classes, relations, systems, transformations, implications). Within each general ability are the hypothesized intellectual abilities, or 'cells'. The interaction of one Operation with one Content and with one Product forms a single cell. For example, if the operation of Cognition is joined with Symbolic content and the product of Relations, a single cell, CSR, Cognition of Symbolic Relations (abstract reasoning) is the specific ability produced. Guilford used these intersections to define one hundred and twenty intellectual abilities. To date, ninety abilities have been factored. The thirty abilities hypothesized under Behavioural content have not been factored effectively and therefore will not be used. This study will investigate the usefulness of Guilford's Structure of Intellect Model through the SOI Learning Abilities Test (Meeker & Meeker, 1976). This test does not stop at identifying a 'discrepancy' (Levine, 1976) in cognitive abilities of average and exceptional learners but attempts to describe the basis for the discrepancy from a particular perspective (Burger, 1981; Culler, 1981; Goodloe- Kaplan,1982; Guilford, 1967, 1977, 1979; Meeker, 1969). The SOI-LA test examines twenty-six of the SI abilities which Meeker extrapolated to the general dimensions. The reasons for choosing it as an exploratory tool in identifying educational needs stem from several unique properties of the test, and from empirical evidence of its usefulness as a predictor of academic success. Regarding the first point, the Test is reportedly free from contamination by school achievement (Cunningham, Thomas, Alston, & Wakefield, 1978; Meeker, 1969; Thompson, 1978) thus it should provide an independent frame of reference for examining cognitive operations. Further, Meeker (1969) claims its demands are 80% independent of verbal skills of students and so it need not be affected by 33 reading proficiency levels. Because it is rarety used as a screening instrument for diagnosis and assessment in British Columbia schools, there should be no potential confounds among scores due to practice effects from repeated exposure. On the second point, several studies have demonstrated the predictive value of factor scores on the SOI Learning Abilities Test (Cunningham, Thomas, Alston, & Wakefield, 1978; Feldman, 1969; Guilford, Hoepfner, & Peterson, 1965; Harootunian, 1966; Hoepfner, Guilford & Bradley, 1968; Kanter, 1980; Landis & Michael, 1981; Meeker, 1968; Schmadel, I960). These studies reported significant relationships between achievement on various SOI tasks and reading, vocabulary development and computational achievement. Further, the model has been shown to be readily translatable to curriculum and teaching strategies (Cunningham, Thomas, Alston, & Wakefield, 1978; Guilford, 1956, 1959, 1967, 1980, 1981; Hedbring & Rubenzer, 1979; Kester, 1979; Khatena, 1982; Meeker, 1969, 1981; Taylor & Michael, 1981; Wasik, 1974). By examining these dimensions with appropriately designed tests, profiles of cognitive strengths and weaknesses can be produced (Meeker, 1969) which may indicate how a person processes information (operations), which type of information the learner is most comfortable with (content), and the type of performance indicator on which the learner would be most likely to realistically achieve (products). Meeker (1979) has suggested that such profiles would not only describe a difference but also could explain it. The following example illustrates this point. Figure 1 shows scores achieved in the various dimensions of Guilford's model from the SOI Learning Abilities Test, set up to show the resulting general dimension profiles. The subjects are fraternal twins. The}' scored 142 and 143 respectively on the WISC-R intelligence test, and both children scored above the 95th percentile 34 Figure 1 Cognitive Profiles-SOI Dimensions 95-I OPERATIONS PRODUCTS ." BOT GIRL on standardized achievement tests of verbal and computational ability (Canadian Tests of Basic Skills - CTBS). Even a cursory glance at the profiles will indicate that these two students have very different understandings of the ideas and the information that is made available to them, even though their (academic) potential .appears equally strong. To realize their efficiency as independent learners they will have to be challenged 35 with different strategies. One student's school performance reflected the potential indicated by the standardized test results. She was an honours student; her teacher reported that she was " . . . a gifted student who is responsible, mature, and a leader." The other, a boy, was making passing grades in some of his classes and was failing in the others; his teacher reported that he ". . . doesn't comprehend, forgets, is not responsible in his work, does not complete assignments, and daydreams." In this example, the grades achieved by the students reflected the teachers comments, riot the students' potential as indicated by the profiles. The reasons for the differences in performance can be accounted for by studying the SOI profiles reported above. The boy's weakest operation is Memory (short-term) and the strongest operation is Divergent Production. The strongest product is Transformations, with the weakest product being Classes. If the grades were awarded for performance in traditional classroom activity, then the difficulties the boy has focussing on what the teacher wants to have recalled, and in the wa3^  that the teacher or materials require the task to be completed could account for the comments quoted above. This student has the potential for creativity but tends to see things his way, which could also change frequently. Weak classification skills indicate a potential problem in reading (Feldman, 1969), and developing conceptual skills (Meeker, 1969). The girl on the other hand, is strongest in Evaluation and Convergent Production and weakest in Divergent Production; she is strongest in Semantic content, making Relationships, and working out the Implications of the information. Such strengths certainly conform closely to traditional classroom methods (Cunningham, Thomas, Alston, & Wakefield, 1978; Meeker, 1969). Such conformity is usually rewarded by the grades and reports given by the teacher (Cunningham, Thomas, Alston, & Wakefield, 1978; Getzels & Jackson, 1962). 36 This example is not to indicate the one student necessarily needs a special program. It merely illustrates the need for flexibility in teaching and evaluation strategies. Many educators have viewed the model as fixed and static (Thomas, 1971) and the cells and the general dimensions of the taxonomy as discrete - a view held initially by Guilford (1967) and by Meeker (1969). Guilford (1977, 1979, 1981) however, has encouraged the idea that certain, if not all, the products act as second or third order operations. Specifically they provide, like advance organizers (Ausubel, 1978), a context for intellectual activity. For example, if a student is required to write an essay from an unusual perspective, then he will have first to comprehend the nature of the different perspective (transformation) and how its difference will affect what is written (implication), before writing. The transformations and the implications are not the final product in this example but act to assist the student to recognise and organize the environment (cf. Ross & Ross, op.cit; Torrance, op.cit; Watson & Glaser, op.cit.) so that the exercise can be completed. This particular example illustrates the use of transformations and implications to implement both critical and creative thinking. Most enlightenment about creativity is found among the products of information (Guilford, 1975). Known transformations are put into memory so that they can be used again in new situations (Guilford, 1975). Transformations have also been highly correlated to Field Independence in learners (Karp, 1963; Vernon, 1973; Witkin, Dyk, Faterson, Goodenough, & Karp, 1974). Reese, Parnes, Treffinger, & Kaltsounis (1976) showed the importance of Implications when deciding on a plan of action (interpreted as Convergent Production -Guilford, 1972). Raudsepp (1983) showed that the ability to envisage and formulate the right problem is crucial. The creative person has the ability to 37 perceive Implications and Transformations that escape the attention of others (Raudsepp, 1983) and places problems in new and different perspectives. This allows one to see resemblances, similarities and analogies (Relations) among different experiences (Guilford, 1975). These advance organizers (Ausubel, 1978) allow the problem-solver to explore a variety of options without losing sight of the overall goal. One can shift gears or discard one frame of reference for another and form new associative links among ideas. If we perceive all implications and possibilities, then we can risk temporary ambiguity and disorder (Gordon, 1961). There is no obsession to close by prematurelj' categorizing and structuring elements of a problem; one can avoid a premature critical attitude that inhibits creative thinking (Eysenck, 1983; Parnes, 1967). The importance of the Product dimension as it affects mental operation can be hypothesized as that of metacognition; one's knowledge and awareness about one's self and one's cognitive processes which enable one to monitor, regulate and evaluate one's own thinking (Sternberg, 1981). This is readily shown in various models that have been proposed for Creativity (e.g. Keating, 1982; Khatena, 1982; Land & Kenneally, 1977; Treffinger, Isaksen, & Firestien, 1983; Wallas, 1926) Treffinger's conceptualization (Treffinger, et al, 1983) is a three-level model of progressive complexity. The lowest level is simple divergent thinking and cognition; the second level is complex thinking, composed of transformations and relations, then critical thinking, and finally involvement in real challenges and self-direction. It should be pointed out, however, that the purpose of this study is not to investigate the Creativity implications of Guilford's model per se: the preceding discussion is designed to draw the reader's attention to an association of ideas. It would seem therefore, that those students who are already able, self-directed learners, or who show potential for self-direction, would be those 38 whose transformational, relational, and implicational awareness (cognition) organizes their environment. This should make them better problem-solvers. Significant relationships have also been found between various SOI tasks and the subcomponents of; independence in learning, critical thinking, (Borthwick, Dow, Levesque, & Banks, 1980; De Bono, 1979; Khatena, 1982; Landis & Michael, 1981) and creative problem-solving (Clark, 1979; Khatena, 1978, 1982; Reese, Parnes, Treffinger, & Kaltsounis, 1976; Parnes, 1967). Finally, analyses from the SOI-LA have provided researchers with identifiable patterns and data for curriculum design and programming (Cunningham, Thomas, Alston, & Wakefield, 1978; Ignatz, 1982; Meeker, 1968, 1973b; Millichamp, 1976; Rivet, 1979). The Structure of Intellect is, however, still to be regarded as an experimental tool. Research using Guilford's S.L model, and subsequent adaptations such as Meeker's SOI (1967) and Williams' Cognitive-Affective Model (1969), is divided. On the one hand there are those who argue that there is a lack of demonstrated value on the part of the Guilford Model (Butcher, 1968; Hunt, 1961; McNemar, 1964; Thomas, 1971). Further, there have been several recent reviews critical of the SOI-LA test as an instrument for identifying giftedness and measuring differences between gifted students. Clarizio and Mehrens (1985) presented criticisms of the psychometric properties of the test from an analysis of the norming data. They concluded that the normative data were inadequate; that the data indicated unreliable difference scores which would accommodate only gross differences, and warned educators to guard against technically inadequate tests (p. 119). The literature covering reliability of aptitude tests (e.g. Helmstadter, 1964) has shown that they have generally lower reliability than other instruments. In their review of the research, Clarizio and Mehrens (1985) concluded that many of the studies provided limited and often 39 unsupported evidence for the conclusions. Their own conclusion was based, however, on an anatysis of a collection of abstracts and extracts ("SOI Research Studies", p. 117). Even their procedure for critically examining the avaialable research may be regarded as superficial, their criticisms did provide a basis for using caution. Pearce (1983), O'Tuel, Ward and Rawl (1983), and Stenson (1982) also were critical of the SOI-LA and found that it provided little reliable evidence of gifted aptitude. These studies used the SOI Gifted Screening Form which is an extraction of twelve of the subtests on the SOI-LA which Meeker believed were the skills most often expected in programs for the gifted and which gifted students usuallj' do well on. None of the studies compared the cell-specific subtests on the form to their own program objectives. O'Tuel, Ward and Rawl (1983) made no analysis of the reliability of their teachers' grading procedures and practices against which they compared the SOI before the3' concluded that the SOI was of little value. Pearce (1983) appeared to have compared the number of "gifted" traits possessed by the students across two different constructs of the term. One was the district's in which the study was done, and the other was Meeker's designation which was the 94th percentile and above on a subtest. The cautions, however, provide guideposts to the use of the SOI tests in identification and selection procedures. On the other hand, there are many educators who have eagerly and successfully applied the model to instruction, curriculum construction, and teaching strategies (Gallagher, 1964; Karnes, 1970; Khatena, 1982; Meeker, 1969; Taylor, 1968; Williams, 1968, 1969, 1970). 40 2.6 ISSUES Several extensive surveys (Borthwick, Dow, Levesque, & Banks, 1979; ERIBC, 1979; Fox, 1979; Gallagher, 1966; Gallagher, Weiss, Oglesby, & Thomas, 1983; Gourley, 1976; Sillito & Wilde, 1983; Tremaine, 1979) have indicated that almost every program in gifted education yields positive results and students exposed to various strategies and products succeed while they are on the program. Further, programs for gifted students have improved greatly in the past twenty years, however, there are issues that have yet to be answered. While the literature shows that there has been extensive development of screening instruments and inventories, there is a need to determine if they are able to discriminate between gifted and non-gifted students. More specifically, can the SOI Learning Abilities Test and/or the Canadian Tests of Basic Skills (CTBS) so discriminate? While the literature shows the importance of using multi-dimensional procedures for adequate identification of extraordinarj' learners and for appropriate program placement, there is a need to verify that combining multiple references provides greater accuracy than a single reference. While the literature indicates that interpretations from the SOI can predict success in programs, there is a need to examine whether or not they can adequately assist in predicting differential outcomes of a program for extraordinary learners. While the literature explicates the rationale for differentiated programming for extraordinary learners, there is a need to examine whether or not a special enrichment program does assist students to further develop their cognitive abilities and their metacognitive skills, as well as their academic abilities. 41 While the literature shows growth in the development of programs, there is a need to show that the skills and strategies taught to the students will transfer to other situations (Gallagher, Weiss, Oglesby, & Thomas, 1983). Retention and integration of the process skills are essential components of transfer. A consistent finding in the report is a priority need for continuous inservice training and upgrading of all involved teachers in both content and skill areas. Schools also need to be provided with financial encouragement to develop programs (Gallagher, Weiss, Oglesbj', & Thomas, 1983). More specifically, the research questions are: 1. Does an identification process discriminate between gifted and non-gifted students in terms of their cognitive characteristics? 2. Is the SOI-Learning Abilities Test a reliable discriminator of dimensions of cognitive abilities? 3. Can the SOI act as a predictor of a program's selection criteria? 4. Can scores from the SOI-Learning Abilities Test predict student achievement of the program's learning outcomes? 5. Can scores from the Canadian Tests of Basic Skills predict student achievement of the program's learning outcomes? 6. Is there a relationship between cognitive abilities (as measured by the SOI) and academic achievement (as measured by the CTBS)? 7. What is the effect of an enrichment program on the development of students' cognitive characteristics as identified by the Structure of Intellect Model both within and beyond the life of the program? Chapter 3 PROCEDURE 3.1 DESIGN OF THE STUDY To address the issues, this study was conducted in a school district that provided special enrichment programs for bright and gifted students, and which was typical of school districts in the province generally. The district had an established screening procedure that reflected government guidelines for providing programs for gifted students (Program 3.32 - Appendix C) which provided the studj' with a preselected population of students. From this pool, a sample of 100 students from grades 3, 5, and 8 was drawn. Sixty of the students were selected to participate in the special education program; nineteen were identified as being gifted. The program was designed to provide instruction and discovery opportunities in four process-oriented areas: problem-solving, critical thinking, creative thinking, and independent study. The study did not manipulate any existing identification, selection or instruction procedures. The SOI Learning Abilities Test was used to examine the nature of cognitive characteristics that were discriminated by the selection and identification process and the congruence between the characteristics identified and those assessed in the achievement of the outcomes of the instruction. The aptitude and achievement characteristics were compared between Treatment and Control groups and between Gifted and Non-gifted students. Achievement scores were compared only for grades five and eight as the district did not use the CTBS with the grade three students. Therefore, different sample sizes were used in the analyses of achievement than for the analyses of aptitude. A third testing with the SOI was made at the end of the academic year to examine 42 43 maintenance of cognitive skills after the program was finished. The rest of this chapter is divided into a description of the district, the program, the sample, and technical methods. 3.2 THE DISTRICT The school district selected for the studj' is an average sized school district in British Columbia with an enrolment of approximate^ 6200 full-time equivalent students, kindergarten through grade twelve. The district covers a range of urban, suburban, and rural geography and demography. In the past five years there has been an increase in the professionally-based suburban family. There is, however, a full range of socio economic levels and a variety of cultural groups, including native Indian bands, living in the district. The district provides a comprehensive range of education programs and special education services. There are nine discrete special education programs serving 657 students. The provincial government also provides specific program funding for up to 122 gifted students. Enrichment is provided in all elementary schools (grades 1-5) and middle schools (grades 6-8). Currently there are enrichment opportunities from grades one through eight. In 1986/87, the programs are to expand to include the secondary schools (grades 9-12). Approximately 15% of the elementary and middle school population has an opportunity to participate in the program ". . . at some point in the school year." (District enrichment program folder, 1985, p.5). Selection for the program, therefore, includes children who, while not identified as gifted, are identified as being able to benefit from exposure to the teaching strategies (School Board policy documents and program literature 1982-1985). The district focusses on the school as the program unit wherever possible and allocates teacher time to the schools for enrichment: a minimum of 0.3 full-time equivalent 44 (FTE) teacher time to each elementary school and 0.4 F T E to each middle school. There is also a full-time district coordinator assigned to the program. The district has had few staff changes with most teachers having taught in the district for more than five years. All the enrichment teachers have been with the program since its implementation. The district continues to provide specific ongoing inservice programs for these teachers, and provides more general inservice to school staffs on the education of gifted children. 3.3 THE PROGRAM The district Enrichment Program was implemented in 1982 and was designed to provide opportunities for selected students to pursue specific learning activities in greater depth than could be provided in a regular classroom situation. The aim was to create a learning environment that would ". . . facilitate students' intellectual and creative abilities. . ." (Program Handbook, 1983, p.43) and to develop within the individual " . . . a positive self-concept and understanding and appreciation of his/her talents."(Program Handbook, p.43). More specifically, the program goals were ". . . to enhance the skills of critical thinking, divergent and creative thinking, creative problem solving, and in-depth independent study." (Program Handbook, p.43). The aims and goals of the program have remained constant in school board policy over the years, although the specific learning objectives have become increasingly refined in practice as the schools have become more familiar with the requirements of education for gifted students. 3.3.1 STUDENT SELECTION The students are selected for the program by a process of teacher observation, nomination (teacher and/or parent) and diagnosis using the following 45 procedure: i) teacher observation of skills, interests, and specific needs (of the students) ii) teacher evaluation of performance or products iii) checklists/inventories iv) informal test scores v) parent nominations vi) learning style of the student vii) time required to complete assignments viii) Scores on the Canadian Test of Basic Skills(CTBS) ix) clinical test results/assessments (where needed). (District Enrichment Handbook, p.2) The steps listed above are used as necessary. Not all students would be selected using all these steps. The process is initiated usually by teachers nominating students for the program based on their observations of classroom behaviours and their evaluation of student performance on regular class assignments. Some students are nominated by parents, but the district reports that very few students are nominated this way. Teachers also submit a checklist or inventory of a student's learning characteristics with their nomination. All nominations are reviewed by the enrichment teachers from which a 'talent pool' of potential candidates is formed. Where extra information is felt necessary to assist in selection, progressively formal information is collected (steps vi, viii, ix above). The district coordinator reports that the CTBS scores are reviewed on all students who are nominated. The district does not require a particular minimum CTBS score and district staff report that the scores are reviewed in context of all other 46 information supplied on the children nominated. Observation of the practice indicated that the CTBS is used as a discriminator in the selection process even if there is no predetermined cut-off score, however, it was not made clear by the school and district staff exactly how the CTBS results discriminated between those selected and those not selected. Interviews were held with the enrichment teachers and with the district coordinator to establish the degree of congruence between district policy and procedures, and actual practice. From interviews with enrichment teachers, it became clear that the nominations from the regular classroom teachers, coupled with the past knowledge of the students by the enrichment teachers, played a primary, if not exclusive, role in the selection process. Again, there was no clear indication of the role played by achievement as measured by the CTBS scores. Results from the interviews indicated that the scores played a relatively minor role. 3.3.2 PROGRAM CONTENT, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The content of the program was initial^ based largely on commercial materials and fell into two categories: (a) curriculum extension in areas such as authorized novels, social studies, science, and language arts; (b) special interest units: defined commercially and developed by the teachers. The content was the vehicle for introducing strategies and skills, not the focal point of the program. In order to develop specific learning objectives, the content was organized into one or more of the following processing models: Bloom's Taxonomy Taylor's Multiple Talent Taxonomy William's Cognitive-Affective Model 47 Parries' Creative Problem Solving Model. The instructional strategies developed in the program included a variety of thinking skills and did not focus on one particular skill. The goals and objectives have remained broad to provide the teachers flexibility in their choices of themes and strategies. They are designed to cover the skills that are considered necessary to encourage metacognition and insightful learning. To extract the objectives and strategies that are now operational, two investigations were undertaken. First, the stated objectives of the program were analyzed by the researcher and decomposed into specific Structure Of Intellect 'cells' and general dimensions in accordance with the dimensions identified in the literature (Clark, 1979; Cunningham, Thomas, Alston, & Wakefield, 1978; Feldman, 1969; Guilford, Hoepfner and Peterson, 1965; Ignatz, 1982; Khatena, 1978, 1982; Landis & Michael, 1981; Meeker, 1968, 1973a, 1973b; Parnes, 1967; Reese, Parnes, Treffinger, & Kaltsounis, 1976). The chart below presents the results of the analysis. 48 Figure 2 Analysis of Program Objectives District Stated Objectives SOI Dimensions 1.Problem-solving Cognition Convergent -fact finding,problem finding,idea finding. Divergent Semantics Units Relations Implications 2.Critical Thinking Cognition Evaluation -observing,comparing,classifying,collecting Semantics and organizing information,hypothesizing. Classes implications 3 . Divergent(creative)Thinking Divergent Production -divergent questioning,quantit3r, Semantics viewpoint, involvement,conscious Relations self-deceipt,forced fluency,flexibility, originality,solution finding. Transformations implications 49 4.1ndependent Study Cognition Writing,inquiry,oral communication, Evaluation presentation skills/techniques, Convergent information gathering. Figural Semantics Classes Systems This chart shows that not all the dimensions of Guilford's model were identified as contributing to the four program goals. There is a stress on the Semantic content area, a greater concentration on Cognition than on the other operations and a focus on Implications from the products dimension. No mention was made from the research of Memory nor of Symbolic content being a contributor to anj' of the areas under study. Second, interviews and field observations were made by the researcher with the teachers involved in this study to determine the degree of similarity and difference in their objectives and teaching strategies. Currently the program is available to nominated children in elementary and middle schools and has expanded over the past three years to include independent study. 3.4 T H E S A M P L E The sample comprised approximately 100 students grades 3, 5 and 8 (approximately 6.5% of enrolment) who had been previously nominated for the district enrichment program by their teachers. As a result of the district identification process (described earlier), sixty of the sample were selected for the 50 enrichment program; forty were not selected and acted as the control group. Further, nineteen students were identified by the teachers as being gifted. This represented an incidence level of 1.5% of the total population for grades 3, 5, and 8. Thirteen of the gifted students were enrolled in the enrichment program for the spring session; six gifted students were not selected. The students came from a variety of socio-economic and cultural backgrounds, and were gender balanced as far as possible. All the nominated students in grades 5 and 8 had participated in the pull-out enrichment program at least once in previous grades. None of this sample had participated within the past year. Grades 3, 5, and 8 were chosen for this study on both practical and theoretical grounds. As to the theoretical grounds, these grades cover the range of development in Concrete Operations and Formal Operations (Piaget, 1924/1926). The idea of an 'operation' is central to Piaget's constructivism. The important question here is, what kind of cognitive structure must be pre-supposed in order for a child to be able to carry out such cognitive tasks successfully? (Turner, 1984) The characteristics of a child's thinking at these stages are understood as schemes of internalized actions (operations) which are part of an organized structure which becomes increasingly refined and abstracted (Turner, 1984). If Piaget's hierarchy is correct, it should be reflected in increasingly discriminating scores in the 'Products' dimension of the SOI on the basis of age and, it is hypothesized, on ability within an age group. The universality of formal-operational and related types of mature cognition has, however, been questioned (Flavell, 1977). As to the practical, these three grades are distinct transition grades in the curriculum; grade three is the end of the Primary curriculum. Up to this point in time, the curriculum is more oriented to basic skill development and 'readiness' for the more academic divisions which appear in the curriculum for 51 the Intermediate grades. Grade 5 is the end of the elementary schooling. The district operates middle schools which accommodate grades 6 through 8 and which provide a transition from elementary to secondary curriculum. Thus grade 5 acts as a second 'promotional' grade. Grade 8 acts as the third transition grade and as a springboard into the secondary school. These three grades therefore are distinct markers in the system for curricular, administrative and promotional decisions. The students in grades 5 and 8 take the Canadian Test of Basic Skills (CTBS) as part of the district's annual testing program. The grade three students do not take the test as part of the identification process as they were only in grade two at the time of nomination. The scores from the clusters within the CTBS (Vocabulary, Reading, Language, Work-skills, Math) provided the measures of academic achievement for this study. 3.5 PILOT STUDY A pilot study was completed to test the analysis program using a sample from grade 5. The SOI Learning Abilities Test was given to a group of 25 students: thirteen from an enrichment program and twelve from a regular program. The protocols were scored by two teachers who were trained by the researcher. A l l the protocols were checked by the researcher for agreement. There was 89% agreement on all non-divergent subtests; subsequent discussion resolved the differences. Agreement on Divergent Production subtests was 76%. A subsequent training session was held with the scorers and a rescoring of a subsample resolved the differences. Agreement on the divergent tests changed to 90%. Differences on divergent test scores are expected as some subjective analysis is involved (cf. Meeker, 1969; Torrance, 1974). The analyses showed 52 that the SOI-LA could discriminate between the treatment and the control group in all the dimensions and also between the gifted and non-gifted in the dimensions of Evaluation, Tranformations and Implications (p < .05). Based on recommendations of Feldhusen, et al (1981), it was decided to transform all scores to T-scores to partial out the effects of age variance and the possible effects of using a biased sample. (It was assumed that the scores would cluster together given the nature of the sample). From this pilot study, it was decided to use national norms for both the CTBS and SOI as there were no local norms for the SOI. 3 . 6 M E T H O D The SOI Learning Abilities Test was given to the subjects at the start of the enrichment program. It provided the exploratory measure of aptitude. The Operations and the Products dimensions were extrapolated in accordance with the instructions in Meeker's Manual (1985) and were compared to the objectives for a relative match in cognitive demands. The SOI and the CTBS were given to all the subjects at the end of the program to measure for gain, with the control group providing a baseline. A final testing on the SOI occurred twelve weeks after the program was ended to measure for retention. This is a verj' short period, however, it was considered important enough to see if any retention occurred. If there were no measurable retention in the cognitive aptitudes, then it could be questioned whether or not the program had any lasting effect on the students, and whether or not any transfer would be apparent. The CTBS data were analyzed on a pre/post basis for academic gain and also were compared to the SOI data for any significant congruency between the two measures. 53 3.6.1 ANALYSIS OF DATA The data were organized into a 3 (grade) x 2 (treatment/ control) x 2 (gifted/non-gifted) repeated measures design. The analyses were conducted on T-scores derived from the SOI and CTBS raw scores using grade-specific national means and standard deviations. CTBS national norms were used to facilitate comparison with the SOI scores for which no local norms were available. Grade specific norms were used to prevent mean differences from affecting analyses where results are pooled across grades. Feldhusen, Baska, and Womble (1984) have discussed the use of T-scores in identification programs for the gifted in special education, and have shown their facility in discriminating between gifted and non-gifted students and in assisting more effective decision-making in programs for gifted students. The pretest scores (SOI and CTBS) for the control and the treatment groups and for the gifted/non-gifted groups acted as covariates as it was not possible to assign the subjects randomly, therefore there was no assurance of homogeneity in the characteristics of the groups in each grade. The variables to be analysed are the cognitive characteristics as indicated by the SOI dimensions, academic ability indicated by the CTBS scores, giftedness as identified by the district process, grade, and inclusion/exclusion from the enrichment program. A subsequent analysis using multiple regression was used to address the questions of prediction. The analyses sought to measure: the degree of congruence between the cognitive characteristics of the treatment and control groups, the degree of congruence between the cognitive characteristics of those students identified as gifted and those who have not been identified as gifted, 54 the degree of congruence between student abilities and program objectives, a prediction of success in achieving the objectives, the degree of change in cognitive aptitude (SOI Operations and Products) and academic achievement (CTBS cluster) scores of the treatment group when compared to a control group, the degree of congruence between cognitive ability and academic achievement, and whether or not any of the enhanced mental operations were maintained after the program ended. The specific research questions addressed by the analyses presented in the next chapter are: 1. what are the relationships between CTBS variables and the SOI variables? 2. do the CTBS and the SOI variables discriminate between the students selected for the special enrichment program and those who were not? 3. do the CTBS and the SOI variables discriminate between the students identified as being gifted and those who were not? 4. do the CTBS and the SOI variables contribute reliably to predicting which children will be selected and who will be identified as gifted? 5. do the scores from the CTBS and the SOI predict success in the measured learning outcomes of the special enrichment program? 6. does the special enrichment program contribute to change in the students' cognitive characteristics as measured by the SOI? 7. do the scores on the CTBS predict change in the cognitive characteristics of Treatment group and in the gifted students? 8. are the SOI characteristics which are enhanced by the program, maintained over time? Chapter 4 R E S U L T S 4.1 I N T R O D U C T I O N This chapter presents analyses of the data to determine the relationships among two sets of variables: 1. scores, transformed to T-scores, achieved on eleven general dimensions of the Structure of Intellect Learning Abilities Test (SOI) and on five clusters of the Canadian Tests of Basic Skills (CTBS), and 2. students identified as 'gifted' or not-gifted, participating in a special enrichment program (treatment) or regular program (control), and non-school (demographic) variables. The variables which comprised set (1) were: i S.O.I. Operations - Cognition, Memory, Evaluation, Convergent Production, and Divergent Production; ii S.O.I. Products - Units, Classes, Relations, Systems, Transformations, and Implications; iii CTBS Clusters - Vocabulary, Reading, Language, Work/Study Skills, and Mathematics. The variables which comprised set (2) were: Age (in months), Sex, Grade, Grouping (Treatment -enrichment- or Control -regular) and Gifted. The results are grouped according to the questions presented at the end of chapter three. Each question is restated and the results are presented with respect to each one. These questions are preceded by analyses of instrument reliability and descriptive data for the variables under investigation. 55 4.2 P R E L I M I N A R Y A N A L Y S E S Before beginning the analyses of variance and the regression analyses, the criterion variables described in chapter three were evaluated to decide whether all criterion variables should be included in subsequent analyses. Second, the dependent measures were evaluated in terms of their reliability. Previous research has cautioned on the stability of results found with gifted subjects (Gallagher, 1985). This analysis showed the potential for scores from students between the groups to be close and indicated the need to use analysis of covariance when asking questions of discrimination between groups. 4.2.1 C R I T E R I O N V A R I A B L E S Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations and intercorrelations among the criterion variables. Table 1 Independent Variables Means, Standard Deviations, Intercorrelations 1 tern Age Sex Grade Group G i f t e d Age Sex .002 Grade • 9 9 C .03 Group .10 --.18 • 09 Gif ted - . 0 6 .18 - . 0 9 . 2 1 3 Mean 123.97 1.47 2.06 1.38 1 .82 St . Dev 37.71 • 50 .88 • AS • 39 a = p<.05 b = p<.01 c = p<.005 57 (N=101) As was expected, there was a very high correlation between age ( demographic variable) and grade placement (school variable). As the analyses used T-scores, the effect of grade placement was assumed to have been partialled out, therefore age would be used in the regression analyses. It was assumed that using both the T-score and age would reduce any effect of grade placement to zero. The correlation between giftedness and grouping was also significant (giftedness was almost nested within the treatment group) and, although marginally more boys than girls were selected for the special enrichment program (p = .069), more girls than boys were identified as gifted. Again,these features were not unexpected and are similar to other studies on gifted subjects, especially those covering elementary-aged students (Callahan & Corvo, 1980; ERIBC, 1979; Harty, Adkins & Sherwood, 1984). 4.2.2 RELIABILITY One problem experienced in research using gifted or extraordinary learners has been the lack of stable results from analyses upon which the conclusions have been reached. It is generally agreed in the literature that gifted learners process new information faster (Clark, 1979; Gallagher, 1985) and they are more heterogeneous in their learning characteristics than most other special education groups (Reynolds and Birch, 1982). A further potential complication to sound conclusions (in gifted education research) is that the research is affected by restriction of range of the population (Kerlinger, 1979). These factors could affect the analyses of the reliability of the instruments and the distinctiveness of the tests which are designed to test different cognitive or achievement dimensions, in ways that are covered in the section on descriptive analyses. 58 The SOI Test scores were analysed for internal consistency using Cronbach's alpha (Cohen, 1977). The stratified alpha reliability coefficients for the general dimensions of the SOI-Learning Abilities Test are presented in Table 2. Table 2 Cronbach's Alpha Coefficients: SOI Test #Tests Dimension A l pha 9 Cogni t i o n .81 6 Memory .70 4 E v a l u a t i o n .67 4 C o n v e r g e n t .27 3 D i v e r g e n t .53 9 U n i t s .69 3 C l a s s e s .31 3 R e l a t i o n s .46 7 Systems .65 2 T r a n s f o r m . . .46 2 I m p l i c a t i o n s .59 There was considerable variation among the various SOI dimension coefficients. There was also low internal consistency of some of the dimensions (Convergent Production and Classes). These indicated that caution would have to be exercised when interpreting results. What was not clear however, was whether or not these low reliability figures were due to the nature of the tests. Several factors could have affected the reliability. As far as the test is concerned, there were different numbers of subtests which made up the various general dimensions and which contributed to the analysis. Cognition and Units have nine subtests, whereas, Transformations and Implications each only have two. Such differences in the size and number of contributing tasks may be reflected in the reliability results. Low intercorrelations among the dimension within a cluster also contribute to low reliability figures. Intercorrelations among the SOI data (tables 5 & 6) range between .19 and .68 (accounting for 4% to 46% of shared variance between 59 pairs of dimensions). The lower correlations are found in Divergent Production, Classes, Relations, and Transformations: dimensions with fewer contributing subtests. The sample under study had already been nominated for selection to the treatment program partly on the high achievement of the students. This presented a potentially biased sample and a restriction of range which might also affect reliability. While the sample came from the students who were the higher achieving students (based on past grades and achievement test scores within the district, the transformed CTBS scores indicated that the sample fell into the midrange of the Canadian norming population, with standard deviation figures that would not indicate such a restriction (see table 6). The nature of the sample (namely, potentially gifted students) has, in past research studies, not provided highly stable and reliable data (Gallagher, Weiss, Oglesby & Thomas, 1983; Gallagher, 1985): a factor which could have effectively reduced test reliability thus masking genuine relationships. Previous research with the SOI used test-retest anatyses as indicators of tests stability. Research which used Cronbach's alpha or KR-20 formula to measure reliability was not found. The SOI Technical Data Manual (Meeker & Meeker, 1980) also used test-retest analyses of reliability (Appendix B). In order to establish some basis for comparison of the observed SOI reliability figures, two further tests were made. First, the SOI was subjected to a test-retest analysis using the scores of the control group. It was felt that this would permit comparison of the reliability found in this study to the reliability figures reported in the technical manual. Comparison with reliability coefficients reported in previous studies was not possible as previous studies using a similarly established range with the SOI general dimensions did not report 60 reliability. Second, the CTBS scores were analysed by a stratified Cronbach's alpha, and test-retest using the control group. The stratified alpha was used as the test items were not available which would be necessary for simple alpha. It was assumed that testing the CTBS would permit further discussion of the effects of the nature of the population from which the subjects were chosen and the biased nature of the sample. The results of these comparative analyses are shown in Table 3 (SOI Test-Retest) and Table 4 (CTBS Reliability). The test-retest reliability figures are compared in Table 3 to those selected from the Manual (Meeker & Meeker, 1981; Appendix B). Table 3 SOI Test-Retest Reliability ' r ' Values #Tests Dimension Observed SOI Manual 9 Cogni t i o n .66 . 7 0 - .84 6 Memory .52 .46- .49 4 E v a l u a t i o n .55 • 55- .75 4 Convergen t .72 .64- .72 3 D i ve rgent .65 .52- .65 9 Uni ts .66 .58- .78 3 CI asses .49 • 31-.49 3 R e l a t i o n s .63 .53- .61 7 Systems .72 .72- .87 2 Transformat ion .27 .64- .70 2 Impli cat ions .55 .57- .72 The high intercorrelations between pretest and posttest scores reinforced the idea of using analysis of covariance using the pretests as the covariates when asking questions concerning . the effectiveness of the program. The observed test-retest reliability figures did not conform to any pattern when compared to the figures provided in the test manual and in the literature, however, the 61 figures found in the literature and the manual were based on a full range of abilities as opposed to those of a more biased sample. The comparatively lower test-retest reliability values were found in the dimensions hypothesized to characterize the cognitive characteristics of gifted learners, self-directed learners and good problem solvers (Gallagher, 1975; Guilford, 1972, 1975; Reese, Parnes, Treffinger, & Kaltsounis, 1976; Raudsepp, 1983; Treffinger, 1983), namely cognition (awareness), evaluation (judgment), systems (knowing the structure), transformations (perceiving various frames of reference), and implications (perceiving consequences). Furthermore, these dimensions are the ones most closely associated with effective critical thinking (Landis & Michael, 1981), creative problem solving (Reese, Parnes, Treffinger, & Kaltsounis, 1976; Treffinger, et al 1983), and independent work (Guilford, 1981; Meeker, 1981). While these figures may reflect the characteristics of potentially gifted students, the comparatively lower reliability values may also reflect cognitive development that occurred over the period of the study. These low correlations, combined with the higher intercorrelations among the dimensions (table 5), indicated the possibility of multicollinearity affecting the results in this study. Further, these figures indicated that caution might have to be exercised as the nature of the instrument, the method of extrapolating the general dimensions from the test cells, or the nature of the sample may have acted to confound the results. Lower test-retest reliability figures were found in most studies where potentially gifted children are the subjects (Clark, 1979; Gallagher, 1975, 1985; Khatena, 1982). This has been an ongoing problem of research with gifted subjects when test-retest analyses have been used for reporting reliability. The CTBS was used to provide this study with a comparative frame of reference as it is a generally accepted standard for school achievement in most 62 school districts in British Columbia, and is also the formal discriminator used by the district to select students to participate in the enrichment program between grades four and eight. The stratified alpha is reported as test items were not accessible. The literature values reported are item alpha (CTBS Manual, 1983) for the grades. The results of the reliability analyses are presented in Table 4. Table 4 C T B S Reliability Coefficients Val ues Observed L i terature Overal1: Cronbach 1 s Al pha 1 tem n/a . 9 8 S t r a t i f i e d • 72 . 8 3 T e s t - r e t e s t (' r) Vocabulary .84 Reading . 8 3 Language . 7 9 Work/Study S k i l l s . 8 7 Math . 7 4 A direct comparison of internal consistency to that reported in the administrative manual was not able to be made. The lower than anticipated reliability' was, however, similar to the differences found between the SOI reliability figures for this sample and the norming group. Test-retest figures have not been established for the CTBS clusters (CTBS Administrative Manual, 1983) so no comparison could be made to any norming data. Although the CTBS test-retest correlations were higher than the SOI test-retest correlations when compared to literature values, these correlations may indicate that both the CTBS scores and the SOI scores were affected by similar factors extrinsic to the tests themselves, namely, biased sampling, and the nature of the population from which the sample was drawn. 63 It is suggested, therefore, that the range and the nature of the ability of the subjects could have been a contributing factor to the reliability of the results and would affect the conclusions that could be drawn from the analyses. 4 .3 D E S C R I P T I V E A N A L Y S E S This section describes the nature of the scores found on the SOI and CTBS. It is argued (Thomas, 1971; Thompson, 1978) that there is a lack of discreteness among the subtests of the SOI. The higher the correlations among the dimensions, the less reliable would be the interpretations from any analyses. The CTBS manual indicates relatively low correlations among the clusters of tests, therefore the observed CTBS intercorrelations would act as a comparative frame of reference. The following tables present the means, standard deviations and intercorrelations of the T-scores among the various dimensions of the SOI and among the clusters of the CTBS for both the pretest and the post-test data. Table 5a SOI Operations:Means, Standard Deviations,Intercorrelations • PRETEST C M E N • D POSTTEST C M E N D Cognition (C) Memory (M) Evaluation (E) Convergent (N) Divergent (D) • 3 9 . 6 8 .1)2 .51 . 5 7 .61) . 1 9 n S . 3 6 . 3 5 . ' i 2 .51 .lk . 5 8 . 6 9 . 5 8 .67 • 1 ? n S .26 . I 6 n s . 3 2 Mean St.Deviation 5 3 . 6 8 5 5 . 5 1 5 3 . 6 9 *»7.92 A 5 . 6 O 7 . 0 3 10.05 9 . 8 ? 1 0 . 6 5 9.07 5 7 .7^ 5 5 . 3 6 5 7 . "»6 56.70 ^ 9 . 5 ^ 7.9"* 1 0 . 3 7 9 . 6 2 11 . 2 8 8 . 2 5 (N = 98) Several intercorrelations of the SOI dimensions were significant. These could indicate that the tests overlapped to too great a degree to consider them 64 Table 5b SOI Products: Means,Standard Deviations,Intercorrelations PRETEST U C R S T 1 P0STTEST U C R s T I Units (u) Classes (0 .26 .36 Relations W .43 .29 .50 .39 Systems (s) .48 .54 .56 .59 .48 .49 Trans format Ions (T) .44 .28 .31 .44 .45~ . 0 4 n s .25 .32 ImplIcations (1) .48 .1.2 .50 .63 .46 .45 .42 .36 .58 . 1 7 n $ Mean St . Deviation 45.36 8.23 55.83 50.72 56.58 48.46 55.49 10.37 7.31 ?.17 8.97 10.23 52.03 59.84 7.26 10.48 52.18 8.35 58.84 10.72 54.87 58.07 8.34 13.40 (N - 98) discrete, however, the nature of the sample and other extrinsic factors, as well as distinctiveness in the construct of the specific subtests that make up the general dimensions could be intertwined in these relationships. The range of the observed intercorrelations tended to a higher level than that published in the technical data manual for the SOI. Again however, the norming population covered a full range of academic and intellectual ability. Higher values and irregular patterns in the test intercorrelations have been another problem of previous research involving potentially gifted subjects (Meeker, 1981). It has been found that many gifted learners have extraordinary capacity across a range of abilities (general intellectual ability - Marland, 1972), which could have caused the higher correlations among otherwise more distinct dimensions. This was most evident in the irregular patterns of intercorrelations between Divergent Production and the other Operations, and between Transformations and the other Products on the SOI Pretest. There were also distinctly different patterns among many of the dimensions on the posttest when compared to the pretest: a possible indication of the subjects becoming testwise or of the effects of the program goal of divergent production: an unfortunate confound. The norming data manual for the CTBS indicated greater distinctiveness among the clusters than was reported for the SOI dimensions in the SOI Technical Data Manual (Meeker & Meeker, 1981). Therefore, it was important to examine the intercorrelations on the CTBS for comparison. Table 6 presents the means, standard deviations and intercorrelations for the CTBS. Table 6 CTBS Means,Deviations,Intercorrelations PRETEST V R L /W M POSTTEST V R L W M Vocabulary (V) Reading (R) Language (L) Work s k i l l s (W) Math (M) .64 .51 .57 .49 .75 .49 .30 .52 .54 .64 .56 .50 .47 .66 .69 .60 .49 .56 .48 .80 Mean S t . D e v i a t i o n 54.27 55.10 53.59 56.31 56.18 7.17 7.79 7.48 8.71 7.64 53.52 54.52 54.03 55-40 55-40 8.46 9.40 7.08 8.04 8.61 (N - 63) The observed intercorrelations presented above were also higher than those reported in the technical data manual for the CTBS. The figures show that for this sample, the various abilities examined on the CTBS overlapped and did not provide this study with distinct achievement abilities. Further, the range of pretest correlations among the dimensions on the SOI (.19 - .68) was found to be less than the range for the CTBS dimensions (.30 - .75). Given that the cluster intercorrelations on the CTBS for the whole range of students in the school district approached those reported in the manual (CTBS Administrative Manual, 1983) there was stronger evidence to support the assumption that extrinsic factors (e.g. the nature and range of the subjects in this study) may have affected the discreteness and the reliability of the SOI dimensions and the CTBS clusters. 66 4.4 R E S U L T S F O R T H E R E S E A R C H Q U E S T I O N S The rest of this chapter is divided into sections with each section addressing one general question. Analyses are presented together with results. The research questions addressed b}' the sections in this chapter were stated at the end of chapter three and will be stated at the beginning of each section. Before reporting the results of the analyses, two questions must be addressed^ in interpreting the statistics that are presented. 1. Although there are statistically significant correlations, there is no indication from a correlation analysis of relations that may exist among sets of variables. For example, although Evaluation is significant and positively correlated with Cognition, other variables could be intertwined in this relationship. This problem of multicollinearity is common in social science research (Kerlinger, 1979). 2. The correlations, while being statistically significant, are also tied to sample size. Therefore, "statistically significant" may say little about the magnitude of a difference or a relation (Kerlinger, 1979, p 318). In order to determine whether any variable made a specific contribution to another, more exacting analyses had to be made with respect to statistical reliability and prediction. Analyses of variance and covariance were used to investigate the relationships. Multiple regression and discriminant analysis was used to investigate contribution and prediction. A free stepwise regression was used for exploration purposes and a setwise hierarchial regression was used to investigate the specific contribution of the program and of the identification of the students' giftedness. The sets were established on their relationships to "formal schooling" (Stephens, 1967). Demographic elements (age, sex) were entered first as these factors were 67 considered to be independent of the effects of school decisions. "Grade" was entered next as grade placement could have been a function of school and non-school factors. Finally, school factors (grouping, gifted) were entered. To compensate for any possible problems lower test reliability might bring to the study, the statistical cut-off level ('p' value) for criteria to be entered into the free stepwise regression equation was set o priori at 0.10 rather than 0.05. This was designed to diminish the probability of Type II error of inference. Further, it was hoped that this would assist the exploration of the contribution made by the SOI and lead to further discussion. 4.4.1 T H E RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CTBS AND SOI The research question addressed in this section was to portray relationships between CTBS variables and SOI variables. No studies were found which had reported such relationships. The two tests were designed to measure different things. The CTBS was designed to measure (academic) achievement and the SOI was designed to measure cognitive aptitude and act as an indicator of cognitive style (Guilford, 1980). The district special enrichment program was implemented to enhance the skills of critical thinking, creative and divergent thinking, creative problem solving, and independent study, however, the formal discriminator in the selection process used by the district was the CTBS. It was considered important, therefore, to examine the relationships among the dimensions of the CTBS and the SOI and consider the contribution made by each test in predicting scores on the other test. If the CTBS dimensions were found to contribute nothing reliabfy to predicting cognitive aptitude, then one could question its use as an identifier for giftedness and as a selector for entrance to a program founded on cognitive skill enhancement. Conversely, any contribution made by the SOI to predicting academic achievement as measured by the CTBS, 68 could provide information on the relationship between cognitive style and academic achievement. Data on these relationships were available only from subjects in grades five and eight as the grade three subjects were only in grade two at the time of pretest achievement data collection and did not take the CTBS. First, the correlations between each of the SOI dimensions and the CTBS clusters were examined.. The results are presented in Table 7. Table 7 Correlations between C T B S and SOI Pretests Vocabulary Reading Languape W o r k s k i l l s Math Cogn i t ion • 36c .4o c • 30c • 56c .49° Memory .19 .23 .02 .23 .22 E v a l u a t i o n .13 .24 -.02 .33b • 27a Convergent -.08 .04 -.15 .16 .10 Divergent .06 -.01 7.11 -.10 - .27 3 Uni ts • 32b . 4 1 C .10 .31 a .02 Classes -.02 .05 .08 .12 .02 R e l a t i o n s • 25a .14 .05 .16 .05 Sys terns -.002 .09 -.12 • 25a • 37C Transforma t ions .11 .09 -.01 .20 .16 I m p l i c a t i o n s .19 .23 .10 .26a .19 a = p<.05 b = p<.01 c = p<.005 (N = 63) There were many statistically significant relationships which indicated some overlap. Forty of the fifty-five pairings were not significantly correlated. Vocabulary was correlated significantly with Cognition and Units (as was Reading achievement), and with Relations. Language achievement appeared discrete from all SOI dimensions except for Cognition. On the other hand, 69 Work/Study Skills appeared to be associated with Cognition, Evaluation, Units, Systems and Implications, while Mathematics achievement appeared associated with Cognition, Evaluation and Systems, and appeared negatively associated with Divergent Production. Cognition was significantly correlated to all CTBS clusters and Units was significantly correlated to all except Language and Math. Transformations and Classes were not significantly correlated with any CTBS task: neither was Convergent Production nor Memory which Meeker (1979) found to be the major contributors to school work. It was hypothesized that the questions in the CTBS Work/Study Skills and Mathematics tests required a different approach to a solution than did the language-related tests (Vocabularj', Reading, and Language). All but one of the correlations between Divergent Production of the SOI and the CTBS dimensions were inverse, but, apart from Mathematics, they were not reliable (p>.05). A free stepwise regression analysis was applied to the data to explore the extent to which aptitude, as measured by scores on the SOI contributed to achievement, as measured by the CTBS. The district identification and selection process used teacher nominations and observations of student behaviours before examining the CTBS results on the candidates. The regression paralled the selection process which had referred to the CTBS scores after screening nominations. The results are presented in Table 8. The SOI was used as the predictor of the CTBS and the SOI variables are presented in the table in the same order that the}' entered the equation; this feature will be maintained for all free stepwise regressions reported in this study. Many SOI criteria were to be reliable predictors of achievement. The highest of these was 80% contribution to variance in CTBS Math scores. Eight 70 Table 8 Regression Analysis of C T B S Pretest By SOI Pretest VARIABLES Predictor R2 Increase R2 Cumulat ive b F VOCABULARY Predictor: Cognition . 1 3 .13 . 1 3 .36 9.51c Sys terns .0001 . 1 3 .26 -.50 10.57c Memory .04 . 1 0 .36 .40 9.08c Classes .0002 .07 .*3 -.3* 6.88b Evaluation ' .02 .05 .48 .41 5.35b READING Predictor: Units .17 .17 .17 .41 12.59c Divergent .0002 . 1 4 .31 - . 4 9 1 1 . 9 6 c Convergent .002 .05 . 3 6 - . 2 9 5.06b Cogni tlon .16 . 0 9 . 4 5 . 3 5 9.28c Classes .002 .04 . 4 ? -.27 4 . 8 5 b LANGUAGE Predictor: Cognltion • 0 9 - 0 9 . 0 9 .30 5.76b Systems .01 .20 -29 -.62 16.60c Memory .001 .03 .32 .24 2.92a Transformations .0002 .04 . 3 6 -.23 3.13a WORK SKILLS Predi ctor: Cogni tion .31 • 31 .31 .56 27 .85c Classes .01 . 0 9 .40 - . 3 8 8 . 7 4 c Relations .03 .08 .48 - . 3 8 9 . 7 4 c MATH Predictor: • -Cogni tion .24 .24 .24 .49 19.79c Classes .0004 . 1 3 . 3 8 -.46 12.74c Relations .003 . 1 5 • 53 -.50 1 8 . 8 9 c Memory .05 .02 -55 .21 4.16b Uni ts . 0 0 0 3 .03 .58 - . 3 6 5 . 8 l b Evaluation .07 .05 . 7 3 .36 11.47c Implications .04 .04 .78 - . 3 3 11.24c Transformations .02 .02 . 8 0 - . 1 6 4 . 5 1 b a = p<.10 b = p<.05 c = p<.01 (N = 63) SOI dimensions loaded onto this CTBS dimension. The least contribution by the SOI was made to variance in Language (36%) which appeared to reinforce Smith's (1975) view of language acquisition as a cultural and demographic phenomenon which is only modified by formal schooling. These results indicated 71 that the greater contribution to language acquisition is outside the domain of cognitive characteristics as measured by the SOI. In the other achievement dimensions, the SOI contributed to almost half the variance in scores, however, there was no consistent pattern in the contributions except that Cognition contributed significantly to each of the CTBS dimensions. The lack of a set pattern in the contributions could also have indicated that the potentially gifted are more heterogeneous than homogeneous in their approach to problem-solving. 4.4.2 I D E N T I F I C A T I O N A N D DISCRIMINATION O F A B I L I T Y The questions raised in this section were: 1. did the CTBS and the SOI variables discriminate between students selected for the special enrichment program and those who were not? 2. did the CTBS and the SOI variables discrminate between students identified as being gifted and those who were not? These two research questions addressed the topic of Identification. Identification was characterised and addressed in four separate ways: i) did the process used for selecting students for the special program, discriminate the cognitive characteristics, as measured by the SOI, between those who were selected and those who were not selected? ii) did the process used to identify giftedness in students discriminate the cognitive characteristics, as measured by the SOI, between those who were identified as being gifted and those who were not? iii) did the process, used for selecting students for the special program, discriminate the academic abilities, as measured by the CTBS, between those who were selected and those who were not selected? iv) did the process used to identify giftedness in students discriminate the 72 academic abilities, as measured by the CTBS, between those who were identified as being gifted and those who were not? The CTBS and the SOI pretest data were analysed by an analysis of variance by treatment grouping and by giftedness. The multivariate test used for all M A N O V A S was the Wilks test. The results are presented in table 9 through Table 11. Means for the various dimensions are provided both for significant and non-significant effects. Table 9 Analysis of Variance SOI Operations Pretest by Giftedness and Treatment Effect (df 5,95) Multivariate F P Cognition F P Univariate Teata Memory Evaluation F P F p Convergent F P Divergent F P Giftednesa .40 .85 1.41 .24 .45 .51 1.97 16 1 02 32 .004 .98 Grouping 2.80 .02 5.80 .02 7.28 .01 6.87 01 8 77 01 8,07 .01 Interaction .21 .96 .26 .62 .24 ,62 .003 95 07 80 .08 .78 CELL MEANS (N) Gifted (19) 56 15 58 95 58 82 53 35 48 39 Non-gifted (81) 52 90 54 93 52 51 46 82 45 29 Treatment (62) 55 85 58 92 56 57 51 70 48 74 Control (38) 49 73 50 43 49 04 42 13 41 22 The results of the SOI Operations A N O V A show a statistically significant relationship existed between all the SOI operations and selection for the special program. The pretest scores discriminated between the Treatment (enrichment) and Control (non-enrichment) groups, but they did not discriminate between the students identified as gifted and the non-gifted students. The strongest relationship between SOI and selection for the program was Convergent Production which is identified as the aptitude for output of traditional school work (Meeker, 1979, 1981). 73 Table 10 SOI Products Pretest A N O V A by Giftedness and Treatment Multivariate Effect (df 5.95) F p Univariate Testa Units Classes Relations Systems Transforms. Implications F p F p F p F p F p F p Clftedness 1.07 .39 Grouping 2.99 .01 Interaction .93 .47 2.41 .12 .05 .82 1.23 .27 .28 .60 5.15 .03 .33 .57 9.76 .002 2.87 .09 4.69 .03 8.08 .01 14.80 .0001 4.61 .03 1.47 .23 .07 .80 .50 .48 .001 .97 1.40 .24 .01 .91 CELL MEANS (H) Clfted (19) Non-gifted (81) Treatment (62) Control (38) 49.71 56.04 52.82 59.68 55.07 59.94 44.81 55.73 50.15 55.79 46.83 54.44 49.25 58.00 52.81 59.38 51.18 58.24 40.03 52.20 47.15 51.88 43.86 51.00 The results displayed in Table 10 show that the SOI discriminated generally between the Treatment and Control students below the .05 level of significance. Each product, apart from the univariate test with Classes, was also individually significant with the strongest relationship being shown between grouping and Transformations. Although the SOI Products did not discriminate between gifted and non-gifted students to a significant degree, the univariate test in Transformations did (p=.03). This result supported Guilford's hypothesis that Transformations is the strongest indicator of giftedness (1986). Table 11 Analysis of Variance C T B S Clusters Pretest by Giftedness and Treatment Effect (df 5,58) Multivariate r p Vocabulary r p Univariate Tests Reading Language r v F P Work/Study F P Math r p Giftedness 2.30 .06 3.97 .05 7.70 01 3.63 .06 10.53 002 9.67 .003 Grouping .22 .95 .02 .89 .44 51 .58 .45 .28 .60 .61 .44 Interaction .55 .74 1.29 .26 2.20 14 .22 64 2.22 14 .44 .51 CELL MEANS (N) Gifted (14) 57 .30 60 57 57 .37 62 09 60 .71 Non-gifted (48) 53 .91 54 09 52 .79 55 08 61 .76 Treatment (37) 55 .26 56 98 54 .92 58 77 57 .26 Control (25) 53 .80 53 44 52 .20 53 54 54 .71 74 The results displayed in Table 11 show that while the CTBS did not discriminate between Treatment and Control groups, it did discriminate (p = .06), between those who were identified as gifted and those who were not. Although the multivariate test was not significant at the .05 level, univariate tests of Work/study skills, Math, Reading and Vocabulary were significant discriminators. The Work/Stud}' Skills and Math tests were the strongest discriminators. These results indicate that the identification process tended to identify the academically superior students as being 'gifted'. The interaction showed that the univariate tests of the Reading and Work/Study skills to be much more discriminating of the gifted students who were in the program than the other CTBS tests. 4.4.3 SOL/CTBS P R E T E S T A N D I N D E P E N D E N T V A R I A B L E S The analyses of variance indicated that some of the cognitive characteristics and academic achievement clusters were significantlj' related to being gifted or being selected for the treatment, however, these results could have been affected by variables other than the selection and the identification processes themselves. Earlier intercorrelations showed a high degree of overlap among the dependent variables (Table 7) and very little in the independent variables (Table 1). Thus far, there is no indication of whether or not the aptitude level of the nominees for- the special enrichment program can be predicted by the identification program set up by the district over and above non-school factors. In order to uncover the contribution made to predicting variance in pretest scores by the processes, a setwise hierarchical regression was conducted. The hierarchy was established on the amount of association among the variables to 'formal schooling' (Stephens, 1967). The first set of variables, 75 demographic variables, were those which were least affected by formal schooling. The second set, grade placement, was chosen as placement may be a function of age (r = .991) as well as a function of school-based decisions. The final set, Treatment and Giftedness, was considered to be within the domain of formal school decisions. The results of this regression are shown in Table 12. It was assumed that the effect of grade placement would already have been partialled out by the transformation of the scores to T-scores. By entering age in the first set, it was further expected that grade placement would contribute nothing more, however, all variable sets made a significant contribution to Convergent Production beyond the .005 level. Formal school variables (set 3) contributed significantly to all SOI Operations. The greatest contribution was to Convergent Production (21%); the other contributions were consistent at 17% . Demographic variables made a reliable contribution to Cognition (8%), Evaluation (10%), and Convergent Production (15%). Table 13 presents the results of the setwise hierarchial regression for the SOI Products dimensions. Formal school factors again contributed reliably to variance in scores on all the SOI Products. The range of values was greater (4% to 30%) than was found with SOI Operations. The greatest contribution was to predicting Units (details). The contribution to variance in Transformations was also high (24%). Although previously accounted for by age, grade placement also contributed reliably to Systems (4%, p<.05). Most of these contributions appear to have been made by Group selection (ANOVA differences significant on all univariate tests) rather than by identification of Giftedness (ANOVA difference significant only on Transformations). 76 Table 12 Hierarchical Regression of SOI Operations Pretests VARIABLES Predictor R 2 Increase R 2 Cumulative b F COGNITION Pred ic tor : Set 1 Age Sex .08 .003 .08 .08 - .29 -.01 4.45b Set 2 Grade .07 .02 .10 .96 1.73 Set 3 Group Gi f ted .18 .03 .17 .27 .42 .08 11.32c HEMORY Pred ic to r : Set 1 Age Sex .01 .02 .03 .03 -.12 .14 1.64 Set 2 Grade .02 .03 .06 -1.23 2.70 Set 3 Group Gi f ted .17 .03 .17 .23 .39 .14 10.08c EVALUATION Pred ic to r : Set 1 Age Sex .09 .005 .10 .10 - .30 - .07 5.10b Set 2 Grade .09 .001 .101 - .25 .12 Set 3 Group Gif ted .lit .06 .17 .27 .37 .20 10.56c CONVERGENT Pred ic to r : Set 1 Age Sex .15 .002 .15 .15 -.39 -.Olt 8.83c Set 2 Grade .18 .08 .23 - 2 . 14 10.03c Set 3 Group Gif ted .19 .06 .21 M .42 .23 18.12c DIVERGENT Pred ic tor : Set 1 Age Sex .002 .Olt . C i .01) .19 1.87 Set 2 Grade .0002 .07 .11 -1.97 7.33b Set 3 Group Gi f ted . 16 .02 .16 .27 .38 .111 10.14c a= p<.05 b= p<.01 c= p<.005 77 Table 13 Hierarchical Regression of SOI Products Pretests VARIABLES P r e d i c t o r R 2 I n c r e a s e R 2 C u m u l a t i v e b F UNITS P r e d i c t o r : Set 1 Age Sex .001 .02 .02 .02 .03 .14 .95 Set 2 Grade .0001 .02 .04 -1.20 2.50 Set 3 Group G i f t e d .29 .05 .30 .3<» .53 .17 21.16c CLASSES P r e d i c t o r : Set 1 Age Sex M .006 .44 .44 - .65 - .09 37.28c Set 2 Grade .41 .001 .44 .28 .23 Set 3 Group G i f t e d .08 .0001 .04 .48 .21 .01 3.65a RELATIONS P r e d i c t o r : /Set 1 Age Sex .02 .02 .05 .05 - .15 .16 2.57 Set 2 Grade .02 .00 .05 .03 .002 Set 3 Group G i f t e d .1<t .02 .12 .17 .34 .12 7.15c "SYSTIMS P r e d i c t o r : Set 1 Age Sex .18 .01 .19 .19 - .43 - .10 11.39c Set 2 Grade .20 .04 .23 -1.42 4.36a Set 3 Group G i f t e d .16 .03 .16 .39 .39 .12 12.20c TRANSFORMATIONS P r e d i c t o r : Set 1 Age Sex .04 .01 .05 .05 - .20 - .08 2.50 Set 2 Grade .05 .01 .06 - .53 .50 Set 3 Group G i f t e d .16 .13 .24 .30 .41 .31 I6 .2?c a = p<.05 b - p<.01 c = . p < . 0 0 5 (N = 98) These r e s u l t s indicate t h a t a p t i t u d e is developed as a consequence o f both school and demographic f a c t o r s and t h a t f o r m a l school factors a re s i g n i f i c a n t even w h en d e v e l o p m e n t a l factors a re accounted for. 78 4.4.4 C T B S A N D SOI C O N T R I B U T I O N T O T H E I D E N T I F I C A T I O N  P R O C E S S To address the question of whether or not the CTBS clusters or the SOI dimensions contributed reliably to the process of identifying gifted children and in selecting members for the treatment group, the CTBS and the SOI were used as predictor variables for selection to the special program (Treatment) and for identifying Giftedness. A free stepwise regression model was used to explore the predictiveness of the various dimensions of academic ability and cognitive aptitude to the process of selection and identification. The regression analyses are presented in Table 14. Table 14 Regression Analysis of School Decisions By C T B S and SOI Pretests VARIABLES Predictor R 2 Increase R2. Cumulative b F GROUP Predictor: Units .29 .29 .29 .53 23.98c Cogn11 ion .18 .05 .3* .25 4.60b GIFTED Predlctor: CTBS Workskllls .13 .13 .13 .37 9.28c TransformatIons .13 • .09 .22 .30 6.65b Cogni tion .03 .04 .26 -.28 3.52a Evaluation .06 .ok • 30 .27 3.27a CTBS Language .07 .06 .36 .29 4.92b a= p<.10 b= p<.05 c= p<.01 (N = 63) 79 The analyses were conducted using grade five and grade eight students. The results show that only two cognitive dimensions, Units and Cognition , contributed significantly toward predicting selection for the special enrichment program. These dimensions contributed to 34% of the variance. There was no difference in the contribution when the entry to the equation was set at p = .05 or at p = .10. Two CTBS dimensions and three SOI dimensions contributed reliably (at the p = .10 entry level) toward predicting the identification of giftedness in students. The correlations were positively related with being identified gifted except for Cognition. The characteristics which contributed to Giftedness parallel those highlighted and described in the literature review. Total contribution to predicting being identified gifted was 36%. The CTBS contributed 19% and the SOI contributed 17% to variance in predicting giftedness. When the entry level to the regression equation was set at p = .05, only CTBS Work/Study Skills and SOI Transformations made a reliable contribution. 4.4.5 P R E D I C T I O N O F T E A C H E R R A T I N G S O F S T U D E N T S This section approaches the question of whether or not the CTBS or the SOI can predict teacher ratings of success in the stated learning outcomes of the enrichment program. Success in achieving the outcomes of a program is, in part, related to the accuracy of the identification and selection process and the instrumentation used in the process (see Chapter 3). The data were examined to determine if the scores from the CTBS and SOI Pretests could predict success in the learning outcomes measured by the teachers in the program. The learning outcomes that were measured were Critical Thinking Skills and Creative Thinking Skills. A free stepwise regression using the SOI and CTBS Pretest scores as criterion variables was applied to the two 80 measures. The results are presented in Table 15. Table 15 Regression Analysis of Critical Thinking By SOI and C T B S Pretests VARIABLES Predictor •R2 Increase R 2 Cumulative b F. CRITICAL THINKING Predictor: CTBS Vocabulary .11 .11 .11 .34 3.79a a = p<.10 No variables were entered at the p=.10 level of entry for the outcome of Creative Thinking. These results show that while the SOI and the CTBS discriminated between identified and selected students, only the CTBS Vocabulary subtest could predict one of the outcome measures (Critical Thinking). This too only entered when the limit for entry to the equation was raised, to p= 0.10. 4.4.6 S P E C I A L P R O G R A M S A N D T H E D E V E L O P M E N T O F ABILITY The question of whether or not the instruction received in a special enrichment program designed for potentially gifted learners significantly enhances the cognitive characteristics of the participants was addressed through an analysis of covariance. The analysis used the corresponding ability pretest score as the covariate. The results are presented in Table 16 and Table 17. The results in Table 16 show that the effects of the special enrichment program were " statistically significantly related only to Memory (p = .025). The 81 Table 16 Ancova of SOI Operations By Treatment and Giftedness M u l t i v a r i a t e E f f e c t (of 5.93) F p U n i v a r i a t e T e s t s C o g n i t i o n Memory E v a l u a t i o n Convergent D ivergent F p F p F p F p F p G i f t e d n e s s .44 . 8 2 Grouping 1.20 .32 I n t e r a c t i o n 1.48 .20 C o v a r i a t e .05 . 8 3 . 6 6 .42 . 0 8 .78 .39 .53 .10 . 7 6 . 0 8 .78 5.20 .02 1 . 8 9 .17 . 3 3 .57 .04 . 8 5 . 0 6 .81 1.21 .27 .002 . 9 6 1 . 9 9 .16 . 9 9 . 3 2 140.14 26.27 121.43 45.18 46.81 CELL MEANS (N) G i f t e d ( 1 8 ) N o n - g i f t e d (79) Treatment (60) C o n t r o l (37) 60 .68 57.58 62.21 60.15 50.59 57.21 5 5 . 0 0 56.50 5 5 . 9 9 *9.2S 60.31 58.68 60.73 60.71 5 1 . 5 2 53.87 50.28 52.41 50.37 A 6 . 2 1 enhancement of Memory is not listed as one of the program's goals. There were no statistically significant program effects between those who had been identified as gifted and those who had not been identified. There were no interaction effects. When the analysis was broken down by grade, some significant differences were found. There was a significant difference (p<.10) between Treatment and Control Groups in Grade 3 in univariate test of Evaluation (F = 3.58; p = .07), and of Convergent Production (F = 8.73; p = .01). There was a significant difference in Divergent Production between Treatment and Control in Grade 5 (F = 5.70; p = .03). Table 17 Ancova of SOI Products By Treatment and Giftedness M u l t i v a r i a t e " r l v e r l a t e Tests E f f e c t Uni ts C lasses Rela t ions Systems Transforms. Impl tcat lons (df 5 . 9 3 ) F P F P F P F P F P F P F P G l f tedness . 6 3 . 7 0 .01 . 9 2 .16 . 6 9 .64 .43 . 2 0 . 6 5 5 . 8 1 . 0 2 . 4 7 . 4 9 Grouping .91 •'•9 1.60 .21 . 2 9 . 5 9 .11 .74 1.72 .19 •38 . 5 4 1.22 .27 In te rac t ion 1.42 .22 .01 . 9 2 1.48 . 2 3 1 .17 . 2 8 . 0 0 3 . 9 6 1.52 . 2 2 .07 . 8 0 Covar ia te 5 4 . 7 8 88 .01 8 0 . 6 3 1 3 2 . 0 3 7 . 9 9 19.23 CELL MEANS G i f t e d (N) (18) 5 4 . 6 1 61.86 54.84 61 .76 60 . 8 2 59 .72 Non-Gi f ted (79) 51 .46 5 9 . « 5 1 . 5 6 5 8 . 3 4 5 3 - 7 5 5 7 . 9 3 Treatment (6n) 5*1.93 6 1 . 3 1 5 4 . 7 5 67 .53 5 7 . 5 * 6 1 . 1 3 Control (37) 4 7 . 3 6 57 .62 4 7 . 9 8 53-21 5 1 . 0 3 53-62 82 The results displayed in Table 17 show that the program effects were not statistically significantly related overall to enhancement of any of the SOI Products, however, the gifted students' Transformations abilities were significantly enhanced (p = .02). This characteristic had discriminated between gifted and non-gifted students before the program and was further enhanced during the period of the study. Again no interaction effects were noted by this analysis. When the analysis was partitioned by grade, some reliable differences were found between Treatment and Control groups for Grade 5 in Units (F = 5.30; p = .03) and in Transformations (F = 5.18; p = .04). 4.4.7 T H E P R E D I C T I O N O F A P T I T U D E B Y C T B S S C O R E S The question addressed the issue of the ability of the CTBS to predict the SOI scores achieved at the end of the special enrichment program. This would allow discussion of the utility of the CTBS as an achievement measure in predicting growth in aptitude, as measured by the SOI. The data were subjected to a free stepwise regression analysis. The results are shown in Table 18. The results show that the CTBS subtest of Work/Study skills contributed significantly to predicting growth in seven areas of aptitude - Cognition (12%, p<.01), Evaluation (4%, p<.10), Convergent Production (6%, p<.05), Units (5%, p<.10), Relations (7%, p<.05), Systems (10%, p<.01), and Implications (5%, p<.10). Evaluation, Units and Implications entered the equation at the .10 level for entry but not at the .05 level for entry into the equation. CTBS subtest in Math skills contributed significantly to predicting growth in Evaluation (23%, p<.05) and Transformations (7%, p<.05). The CTBS Language cluster contributed reliably to growth in Implications (6%, p<.05). The results indicate the strongest reliability for prediction is the CTBS Work/Study Skills subtest. 83 Table 18 Regression Analysis of SOI Posttest By C T B S (Pretest) VARIABLES Predictor R 2 Increase R 2 Cumulative b F COGNITION Predictor: Work s k i l l s .12 .12 .12 .35 7.94c EVALUATION Predictor: Hath Work s k i l l s .23 .22 .23 .01* .23 .27 .48 .28 16.61c 3.46a CONVERGENT Predictor: Work s k i l l s .06 .06 .06 .25 3.92b UNITS Predictor: Work s k i l l s .05 .05 .05 .23 3.19a RELATIONS Predictor: Work s k i l l s • 07 .07 .07 .27 4.50b SYSTEMS Predictor: Work s k i l l s .10 .10 .10 .32 6 .4 lc TRANSFORMATIONS Predictor: Math .07 .07 .07 .26 4.20b IMPLICATIONS Predictor: Work s k i l l s Language .05 .01 .05 .07 .05 .12 .23 - . 2? 3.31* 3.99b a = p<.10 b = p<.05 c = p<.01 (N = 63) 4.4.8 T H E M A I N T E N A N C E O F A P T I T U D E Transfer of training from an enrichment program to regular learning characteristics has been identified as one of the crucial questions in gifted education (Gallagher, Weiss, Oglesby & Thomas, 1983). A repeated measures analysis of variance was conducted on the three time periods of data collection; start of the program, end of the program, three months after the program was ended. The results are presented in Table 19 and Table 20. 84 Table 19 Analysis of SOI Operations By Treatment Grouping - Repeated Measures Mult i v a r l a t e E f f e c t (df 5,82) F p U n i v a r i a t e T e s t s C o g n i t i o n Memory E v a l u a t i o n Convergent D i v e r g e n t F p F p F p F p F p G i f t e d n e s s .43 .92 Grouping .70 .71 I n t e r a c t i o n .81 .62 .02 .88 H 5 .23 .04 .85 .004 .95 .05 .83 .01 .94 1.22 .27 .002 .96 .03 .87 .57 .45 .01 .92 .76 .39 .001 .97 .67 .42 .46 .50 CELL MEANS (N) G i f t e d (15) N o n - g i f t e d (72) Treatment (53) C o n t r o l {M 63.31 62.49 64.93 62.29 49.69 58.96 56.81 57.61 59.3" 47.76 62.53 59.56 62.50 63.22 49.90 54.98 5't.96 52.94 54.32 45.23 The results displayed in Table 19 show that no significant differences occurred between the two groups during the period of the special program nor were maintained after the twelve week time elapse. When the analysis was partitioned by grade, significant differences between the Treatment and Control groups were found in grade three. The Multivariate (Wilks) test for grade three was significant (F = 3.88; p = .00), as were univariate tests in Cognition (F2 = 4.72, p=.04; F3 = 24.88, p = .00), Evaluation (F2 = 3.50, p=.07; F3 = 5.61, p = .03), Convergent Production (F2=29.13, p=.00; F3 = 5.26, p = .03) and Divergent Production (F2=1.83, p = .19; F3 = 5.39, p = .03). Table 20 Analysis of SOI Products By Grouping - Repeated Measures M u l t l v a r l a t e U n i v a r i a t e Tests E f f e c t Uni ts C lasses Rela t ions Systems Transforms. ImplIcations (df 5. 82) F P F P F p F P r P F P F P Gi f tedness .60 .83 .27 .61 .30 .59 .00 .99 1.77 .19 .04 .85 .18 .67 Grouping .50 .91 .98 .32 .11 .74 .15 .70 .93 . 3 * .17 .68 .20 .65 In teract ion .62 .82 .70 .40 .02 .86 .00 .99 .06 .81 .06 .81 .01 .91 CFI 1 MFANS (N) G i f t e d (15) 55.70 63.95 56.61 67.38 60.78 61.84 Non-Gi f ted (72) 52.79 61.66 54.04 59.43 54.26 60.06 Treatment (53) 55.60 63.83 56.86 64.17 58. 62.34 Control (34) 49.52 59.19 50.72 55.61 49.63 57.16 85 The results displayed in Table 20 show that no reliable differences occurred between Treatment and Control over time. When the analysis was partitioned by grade, differences were found in grade three and grade five. The multivariate (Wilks) test for grade three was significant (F=5.84; p = .00) but not for grade five (F=1.35; p = .39). Univariate tests for grade three show reliable differences between Treatment and Control groups in Units (F2 = 44.31, p = .00; F3 = 26.32, p = .00) and Classes (F2 = .70, p = .41; F3 = 3.46, p = .073). Differences between groups in grade five that were significant were Relations (F2 = .01, p = .99; F3 = 5.70, p = .03), however, there were diminished differences, which were significant at the end of the program, in several of the Products in grade five. Units (F2 = 8.45, p = .01; F3 = 3.19, p = .09), Classes (F2= 19.35, p = .000; F3 = .01, p = .94), and Implications (F2= 15.26, p = .001; F3 = .18, p = .68).(Note: 'F2' refers to the A N O V A coefficient between first and second testing; 'F3' is between second and third). Although the repeated measure A N O V A showed that aptitude generally was not changed by the program to a statistically significant degree, the teachers reported in the interviews that they had observed improvement in the aptitude identified in the objectives. It should be recalled that the analyses were limited by several factors. The cell sizes were not balanced and were small. For example, the cell of gifted students assigned to the control group contained only six subjects. The test items were limited in relation to the objectives of the program. Further, the sample was composed of intact groups which entertains the possibility that selection biases were confounding the analyses. None-the-less, it appeared interesting to inspect patterns relating the SOI dimensions which were most closely related to the program goals, namely, Evaluation, Convergent Production, Transformations, and Implications. Graphs illustrating trends in these dimensions are presented in Figures 3 through 6 on the next page. The trends 86 tend to suggest that modifications in aptitude especially in Convergent Production and Transformations, occurred over the life of the study. Despite the apparent trends, however, the statistical tests did not find them significant. There was no evidence to support the idea that any modifications to cognitive style were a result of participating in the special enrichment program. Figure 3 Evaluation Figure 4 Convergent Production 6 5 -'K l '(2.2) January ITutaut f o u t l o e t Koto* (1.1) - Treataent , C i f t e d Student (1.2) - T iml i en t , N d i - g l ftwd Student. (2.1) - M«fl'..*r, G i r t e d Student (2.2) - H o l l a r , N w i - g l r i o d Student. 6 5 -JeAiie ry KaTcli l T e l e e t Poe t t ee l June • Final F i g u r e 5 T r a n s f o r m a t i o n s F i g u r e 6 I m p l i c a t i o n s 88 4.5 S U M M A R Y The results have shown considerable inconsistency throughout, however, certain patterns have emerged despite the lack of test reliability which was indicated at the outset. Given the heterogeneous nature of the sample, weaknesses in instrumentation presented in the literature were avoided by the use of the full SOI-LA battery and analysing data from the general dimensions. Although internal consistency was low for the SOI-LA, test-retest coefficients were high. Although intercorrelations on the SOI dimensions were high, indicating the scales were not homogeneous, it should be remembered that the general dimensions cut across dissimilar cells. The notion that the dimensions should have high homogeneity as indicated by high internal consistenc3' coefficients, is questioned for an aptitude test which showed stability over time. Aptitude, as measured by the SOI, and achievement, as measured by the CTBS were found to be interrelated in many of their dimensions. Several SOI dimensions were found to contribute to variance in achievement (CTBS) scores. The CTBS was found to be a significant discriminator of Giftedness. The only SOI dimension which discriminated giftedness was Transformations which supported Guilford's hypothesis. The SOI was a significant discriminator between students selected for the special enrichment program and those who were not, however, the CTBS was not a significant discriminator. While the CTBS and the SOI have shown an ability to discriminate between groupings of students, there was no evidence that participation in the enrichment program enhanced the abilities that were listed in the program objectives, nor was there any evidence that aptitude differences between treatment and control groups were maintained after the program was over. Chapter 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 5.1 P R E A M B L E The major quandry of research into the characteristics of gifted students has been the variance that exists within the population (Gallagher, 1985; Meeker, 1981) and the lack of reliability of the scores yielded by the instruments used to measure the characteristics (Clark, 1979; Gallagher, 1985, Renzulli, 1978). The phenomenon has also appeared in this study. The questions that confronted the particular results of this study were whether or not the problem lay in the nature of the population or the sample, or in the nature of the instrumentation used, or the interplay between both. 5.2 INSTRUMENTATION Criticisms of the SOI-LA found in the literature led to a cautious use of the SOI-LA in this study. Interpretations of the findings of Pearce (1983), and O'Tuel, Ward and Rawl (1983) suggested that the entire test battery be used rather than the extracted Gifted Screening Form. Questions as to the validity and unreliability of the cell-specific subtests (Clarizio & Mehrens, 1985) prompted the researcher to use the general parameters of Guilford's model for comparison. Questions of generally low reliability on the SOI encouraged a comparison of SOI dimension reliability coefficients found in this study to both those from other SOI studies and the CTBS reliability coefficients. The internal consistency of some of the dimensions of the SOI has been low (e.g. Convergent Production = .27, Classes = .31) and the range of the scores between dimensions has been varied. The test-retest variations among the dimensions also showed no regular pattern. Further, the high intercorrelations 89 90 among some of the dimensions compounded the problem of distinguishing characteristics and relationships with any certainty. With the exception of Transformations, the SOI test-retest reliability figures found in this study were comparable to the range of reliabilit3' found in the literature (cf.Norming Data, Appendix B). When the raw scores were transformed to T-scores, the sample was found not to suffer from an unusual restriction of range, compared to national-Canadian- statistics, nor was there a ceiling effect. While the norming data were based on a full range of ability, the nature of the pre-selected sample may account for some of the different reliability figures produced in this study. It is suggested that the SOI Learning Abilities Test is not universally reliable across its various dimensions and should continue to be regarded as an exploratory or experimental instrument and diagnostic interpretations from the test should be made with caution. Some of the problem may lie with the nature of the original S.L Model (Guilford, 1967), the method of extrapolating the general dimensions from the specific cell subtests, or the items on the subtests. Some dimensions (e.g. Transformations and Implications) have only two subtests whereas some, namely Cognition and Units have nine. The higher level cognitive skills of Transformations and Implications, which are more highly focussed in gifted education and related to field-independence in learning, have on\y two subtests and therefore need far greater differences between groups of students to be as statistically significant as the lower level skills of cognition and units. The test-retest reliabilities of the CTBS are higher than those found on the SOI and are less varied among the CTBS subtests. However, there are differences between the two tests which may account for the difference in the level of reliability: 1. the CTBS is designed to measure academic knowledge which parallels the 91 school curriculum more closely than the SOI. The students in the sample were found to be the high achievers in the district and also were familiar with the content of achievement tests. Resnick & Resnick (1985) have shown that reliability is related to parallels between what is taught and what is tested. 2. raw scores were closer to the ceiling on the CTBS, (one reason the sample formed the enrichment 'pool' in the first place), therefore there would be less room for upgrading the scores; 3. the students and their teachers were all familiar with the CTBS as it is used annually by the district as an external measure for achievement. Finally, the question of discreteness among the SOI test dimensions has been questioned (Thomas, 1971). If the SOI does not discriminate sufficiently among its general dimensions, are the subtests that make up the dimensions in fact testing different things? This question also was made in comparison to the discreteness among the test dimensions of the CTBS. The observed intercorrelations among SOI dimensions on the pretest (.26 - .63) tended to be less than that observed on the CTBS (.29 - .74); on the post test, the differences were even more marked (SOI range = .04 - .59; CTBS range = .47 - .79). If the CTBS test clusters are indeed discrete (a claim made in the administration manual) then the distinctions between the dimensions on the CTBS have been masked by the sample used in this study. This would suggest that the sample which comprises the potentially gifted, included students of high general intellectual ability (Marland's classification #1, 1972). Further, this general intellectual superiority may have confounded the distinctiveness which actually does exist in the test items. If this is so, then the overlap in the SOI and the CTBS dimensions may also be a function of the nature of the sample. Neither of these tests were designed specifically for gifted students. Again, the results 92 suggest that the nature of the (preselected) sample of highly able students may have affected the relationships among the dimensions examined. Therefore these two tests, each purportedly testing different aspects of learning, have provided similar results of stability and internal consistency. Stratified alpha figures for both instruments were lower than the figures indicated in the literature review and intercorrelations between dimensions were higher than reviewed. This does suggest that the nature of the sample and of the population of potentially gifted, interact with the limitations of the instrumentation to confound results and increase the possibility of Type II errors occurring. This in turn means that significant relationships could exist but were hidden by these limitations. Meeker (1969) suggested that learning due to repeated exposure to the SOI test would be minimal. However, the results of the analyses in this study show that scores on the SOI dimensions certainly increased. The literature on gifted and highly able learners showed that they learn rapidly from new and different experiences (e.g. Clark, 1979; Gallagher, 1985). As the SOI-LA test had not been used before in this district, it was a new and different experience for these students, therefore, there was more opportunity to learn from the novelty of the pretest or they became more familiar with the format. The slopes of the graphs presented at the end of chapter four show similar increases between the first and second exposures to the SOI-LA whether the students were in the program or not. In most dimensions, the change between the second and third exposure was less than that observed between the first and second. It is reiterated, therefore, that interpretations using the CTBS as well as the SOI must be made with caution when dealing with gifted students, for there may be many significant relationships that have been masked by the limitations discussed above. 93 5.3 R E L A T I O N S H I P S B E T W E E N A C H I E V E M E N T A N D A P T I T U D E The relationship between achievement and aptitude has been discussed extensively in the literature, however, no relationship appears to have been established empirically between the CTBS (as a measure of achievement) and the SOI (as a measure of cognitive ability, or aptitude). This study used the CTBS as it is an accepted standard for comparing achievement and performance, and for promotional purposes in the British Columbia school sj'stem. The two instruments generally appeared discrete from one another in what they measured, however, Cognition (awareness) was reliably associated with all achievement dimensions. Units (knowledge of details) was reliably associated with Vocabulary, as hypothesised by Guilford (1967) and by Meeker (1969); with Reading, as found by Feldman (1969) and by Cunningham, et al (1978); and with Work or Study skills, as shown by Meeker (1973a). Meeker (1969) hypothesised that Cognition, Memory and Convergent Production were the operations most closely associated with "school-work", with Units and Systems being the most strongly related products. This stud3' indicated that for higher ability and potentially gifted students, the dimensions most associated with school achievement appear to differ from the general school population. The regression analyses between the SOI scores and the CTBS scores supported the contribution made by Cognition, however, Convergent Production showed a reliable, but negative, relationship to the Reading test. The analyses also showed negative relationships between various products dimensions and achievement, especially where Implications and Transformations were reliable contributors to achievement. This suggests that the CTBS generally tests achievement of rote learning, apart from the minor contribution made by Evaluation to Vocabulary (5%) and Math (5%). If this is the case, then it is questioned whether or not the CTBS is an appropriate instrument to use for 94 identifying potentially gifted students whose cognitive styles and intellectual capacities lay within the higher levels of cognitive ability and beyond the parameters of "school work" (namely, the rote, systematic and sequential acquisition of knowledge). The literature indicated that gifted and creative learners use higher level products (Ausubel, 1978), which Guilford (1986) identified as Transformations and Implications. These abilities are essential in order to reconstruct problem situations (De Bono, 1979) and assist in more effective problem solving, flexibility, and information gathering systems (Guilford, 1986; Parnes, 1967). If, as the analyses suggest, the CTBS generally tests achievement of lower level skills, as illustrated by operations of Cognition and Memory, and by the products of Units and Classes; then its use in distinguishing between those students who are and are not gifted would tend to eliminate those students who do not solve problems by lower level cognitive strategies. Instead the CTBS would illuminate those academically able students who are systematic, sequential learners who show awareness and have an eye for detail. As was shown in later analyses, the only achievement test to consistent^ contribute to variance in post-test aptitude was the Work/Study Skills test. This test made a . significant contribution to variance in scores of Cognition, Evaluation and Implications. The CTBS Administrative Manual (Nelson, 1984) stated that "...work study differs from other areas of the CTBS in the curriculum as there is no subject called 'work study'...", (p. 15) and further identified the test as cross-disciplinary. As such, it might be closer in test content to the SOI than the other tests areas. The three aptitude dimensions of Cognition, Evaluation and Implications, were found consistent with critical thinking skills (Landis & Michael, 1981) therefore the use of the CTBS Work/study Skills subtest could act as a reliable indicator for identifying potential in critical thinking, but not for creative thinking. The Mathematics subtest may also act as the most reliable contributor to identifying 95 basic "schooling" abilities in the general population (namely, Cognition, Units and Systems). 5.4 C T B S A N D SOI AS I D E N T I F I C A T I O N M E A S U R E S Two aspects of 'identification' were examined: 1. selection to participate in the enrichment program, and 2. identified as being gifted. These two aspects are not synonymous. Not all the students whom the teachers identified as gifted were selected to participate in the program. Selection was dependent not only on ability, but also on the teachers' decision as to whether the units to be taught were appropriate for the nominees, and upon administrative decisions (e.g. number of spaces available). Identification was dependent upon the teachers' judgment of the abilities of the students relative to one another and on observations of the working behaviours of the students. Whether or not the CTBS or the SOI-LA could act as effective selection and identification measures was examined by multiple analysis of variance and by discriminant analyses using 'Grouping' (for selection) and 'Giftedness' (for identification). The speculations and ideas discussed in the previous section, were clarified by the relationships established by the M A N O V A S . The CTBS was reliably related to identifying giftedness as interpreted by the teachers in the district, however, the CTBS was not reliably related to selection. This suggests that the teachers' interpretations of the district criteria for identifying giftedness generally parallel achievement as conceived and measured by the CTBS. If the CTBS does indeed measure lower levels of the Cognitive Domain (Bloom, 1956), then it appears that the interpretation of the district criteria may focus on the more rote, systematic, knowledge-based skills as the basis for identifying those who 96 may be gifted. This is contrary to the characteristics of gifted found in the literature (cf. Clark, 1979; Gallagher, 1985; Renzulli, 1978). Further, if the district follows the Ministry guidelines (see Appendix C) for identifying gifted students as the district handbook indicates; then it is possible that either the provincial guidelines are very limiting or the interpretation by the district or by the teachers is too focussed. This may cause many potentially gifted and creative students to be missed by the district identification process. The interviews held with the enrichment teachers, who are the most actively involved with the identification process, showed that subjective evaluation, even "...intuition", intertwined with direct observation and comparison with performance of other students from previous years, was very evident. The district staff indicated that teachers used "...classic definitions of giftedness" and that there was "...still some hesitation about labelling students as 'gifted'." It may be that such perception of giftedness by the teachers interferes with observations and interpretation of the district criteria for identification. The students who were identified as gifted were the classic high academic achievers who also possessed a superior ability in Transformations. This would indicate that the gifted students not only knew their academic content but also were able to understand it from various points of reference. One of the teachers reported that an identification indicator used was the observation of problem-solving methodology that was "...either diametrically opposed to standard logic or substantially condensed in structure.,.". The varieties of approaches to problem-solving, the flexibility of thought, the ability to tolerate ambiguity while pursuing a particular goal are related to transformational thinking. The differences may be strong enough for teachers to notice and incorporate this ability as a distinguishing feature of able and potentially gifted students in their classroom. The interview with the district program coordinator showed that while the resource teachers had been provided with inservice 97 workshops on identification, the classroom teachers who are involved in the nominating, had not. This is one area that should be given more attention in the teacher inservice education program in the district. The SOI dimensions reliably discriminated the selection of students for the program, but did not generally contribute to identifying giftedness. While the "schoolwork" dimensions (Cognition, Units, Systems) which were highly correlated with CTBS dimensions, were not reliably related to distiguishing the gifted group from the non-gifted, the low reliabilitj' figures could have masked their contribution. The discriminant analysis, discussed later, supported, in part, the speculation that lower level cognitive skills are the dominant group of distinguishing criteria for this sample, however, Transformations was the most reliably related dimension that discriminated both those who were selected for the program and those who were identified as gifted. This latter result supports hypotheses of Ausubel(1978), De Bono (1979), Guilford (1986), Khatena (1983) and Parnes (1967) on the importance of the possession of a variety of frames of reference for critical thinking and effective problem-solving. The question of whether or not these dimensions are a function of developmental factors or of the contribution of school-based factors was clarified in the setwise hierarchial regression. This analysis indicated that several cognitive aptitude dimensions are a function both of school and non-school factors. School-based factors (teacher judgment of giftedness and selection for the program) were significant for all aptitude dimensions after other, developmental, factors had been accounted for. Apart from SOI Classes, school-based factors were highly significant contributors (p<.005). While it was expected that age and the transformation of the raw scores to T-scores would have accounted for any variance due to grade placement, the grade level still contributed to student output (Convergent Production and Divergent Production) as well as to Systems. 98 The analysis showed that lower grade students were significantly stronger relative to their national norms than students in higher grades. As age and score transformations did not eliminate the effects of grade placement, it is speculated that the aptitude focus in systematic output is a function of the learning objectives which change between grades. The analysis also showed that the operations of Cognition, Evaluation and Convergent Production, and the products of Classes, Systems and Implications were significantly affected by age. Again, the younger students were relative^ much stronger than their older colleagues. This could reflect the teaching focus that exists in the district objectives for the different grades. It is possible that the type of teaching encourages a broadening of aptitude as the students age. J If demographic and grade criteria are considered jointly, then it appears that teachers may be affected in their judgment by precocity in systematic output. This again highlights the possibility that the non-conforming and creative problem-solver may well be overlooked by the process which uses teacher judgment to any great extent, especially in the earlier grades. This indicated the need for flexibility in the identification and selection processes and to consider the use of non-school indicators in the process and program planning if more creative students and learning disabled gifted students are to be considered. The teacher interviews supported this need. Non-school factors (age, sex) made reliable contributions to most of the traditional "school-work" aptitudes, except for Memory. Implications, hypothesized as an advance organizer, is also affected by non-school factors. When partitioned by grade, the cognitive patterns remain essentially unchanged (see also SOI Cognitive profiles, Appendix F). This suggested that the potentially gifted students may indeed have qualitatively different cognitive styles. The graphs of the cognitive patterns of the groups under study show that there 99 was a difference in the pattern, or style, between those who had been identified as gifted and those who were not. While the SOI dimensions generally indicated similar patterns of aptitude between the groups, the Products dimension showed that the gifted students who were selected for the program were stronger in their Transformations than the other students. This different pattern was evident throughout the study. Further, their Evaluation ability was the strongest operation, a characteristic that was maintained throughout the study. This indicates that the ability of gifted students to transform their environment in order to view a problem from many sides, distinguishes them from 'bright' students and encourages a qualitatively different approach to problem solving which is not a function of school work. If the district intends to continue identifying the field-independent, academic achiever as the 'Gifted' student, then a reliable process for identifying gifted students in this district should include consideration of language and work/study skills of the students as well as their awareness (Cognition), their ability to judge (Evaluation), and their ability to perceive problems from a variety of perspectives (Transformations). The district might also consider those students who have an eye for detail (Units). Of these, the higher level transformational ability and observable work/study skills would be the most reliable predictors. If, as has been shown earlier, transformational ability is an important organiser of ideas (Ausubel, 1978; Guilford, 1985) then this particular dimension should be given greater attention both in the identification of the gifted and in the formulation of program strategies. While CTBS scores varied between gifted and non-gifted students, the discriminant analysis showed that CTBS Work/Study Skills and CTBS Language were the only achievement dimensions that contributed to predicting giftedness. While Transformations accounted for variance between gifted and non-gifted students, the discriminant analysis (regression) indicated that 100 Transformations, Evaluation and Cognition would contribute reliably to identifj'ing the gifted. Thus the identification process used in the district would be refined by using the CTBS Work/Study Skills, CTBS Language, coupled with observations or examination of awareness (cognition), judgmental (evaluation) and transformational ability. Selection for the enrichment program was only reliablj' predicted by understanding (Cognition) and attention to details (Units). This reinforces the suggestion that the students selected are "good students" in the traditional sense, even though all SOI dimensions discriminated between treatment and control groups. The sole predictors for selection were lower level aptitude abilities that are easily observed and graded (Getzels & Jackson, 1972): which allows the possibilitj' for the program to be perceived as a reward for good school work and not as an intervention program that responds to learning needs identified for potentiallj' gifted learners. 5.5 T E A C H E R R A T I N G S O F S U C C E S S When examining data to see whether participation in a particular program made a direct contribution to changes in cognitive abilitj', there are many factors which have to be accounted for: not the least being the human (interaction) factor. When teachers are asked to rate students achievement of the learning outcomes of a program, it is assumed that some, if not all, of the rating will be related to the learning of the objectives that has taken place. One cannot assume, however, that if the results do not bear out this assumption, participation did not have some effect on the students who were involved. Further, ratings may have been made on readily observable products in which particular aptitudes may have been either subsumed or assumed. The teacher interviews showed that such assumptions were made. Therefore, if the goals and 101 objectives for the program (see chapter 3) were to parallel the identified needs of the population for whom the program was designed, and if the teachers rated the students directly or predominantly on the aptitudes related to critical and creative thinking, then success in the outcomes of the program should have been predictable. If these assumptions were not fully met, then there would be less likelihood of being able to predict success in the outcomes of the program. The regression analyses gave weight to this position. None of the aptitude nor achievement dimensions reliably predicted the teachers' assessment of program outcomes in critical and creative thinking at the generally accepted level of significance (p<.05). Even when accommodating the possible problems caused by low reliability of test results, none of the achievement or aptitude dimensions which reliably discriminated in the identification and the selection processes contributed reliably to measuring the outcomes. The teacher interviews indicated that the teachers were aware of the abilities needed to achieve the outcomes: it appears these abilities may not actually have been used in the final assessment. At a less rigorous level, only Vocabulary contributed to critical thinking. Previous researchers (e.g. Beckwith, 1982; Guilford, 1967; Meeker, 1973a) have found Vocabulary to be a reliable indicator of superior or gifted ability. If vocabulary is a resultant ability of various aptitudes, observed in a greater ability to communicate ideas, then those students with a superior vocabulary may be rated by the teachers as superior thinkers. The four program goals indicated that the program was designed to enhance specific cognitive skills, most noticeably; Cognition, Evaluation, Transformations, and Implications. While three of these also were indicated in the identification of gifted students, the analyses showed that only Memory was statistically significantly enhanced by the special enrichment program, however, that particular effect was not significant for the gifted students. The only ability 102 that was enhanced for the gifted was Transformations which had already distinguished them from the non-gifted in the pretest. Although the cognitive abilities were discriminated in the identification process, participation in the program itself made no further contribution to improving aptitude generally, however, the program did make a difference to awareness of details (Units) and different frames of reference (Transformations) in the grade five children. An eye for detail (Units) however,is the lowest and most concrete of the products; it is related more to basic comprehension not to metacognition. In the follow-up interviews, the resource teachers reported spending between 50% and 75% of the program time on the development of Critical Thinking and between 25% and 50% on Creative Thinking skills. Nowhere in the interviews did the teachers list "Evaluation" as a skill that was taught directly in the enrichment program. While all the teachers reported encouraging discovery (SOI-Relations), the grade three and grade five teachers gave higher priority to "logical formulation of ideas" (SOI-Sj'stems) in assessing the reports the students completed. While the grade eight students were encouraged to pursue their own line of enquiry (SOI-Relations prid Evaluation) there was no clear indication from the interviews that these were modeled or included as rating criteria. There was no consensus among the teachers as to which particular strategies constituted the development of "Critical" as opposed to "Creative" thinking. It is open to interpretation, therefore, whether or not the strategies used, or the type of work done, or the manner in which these particular thinking skills were assessed, were consistent with the stated program objectives either within or across grades. The results suggest not. The interviews with the district coordinator showed that evaluation of student progress has not yet been attended to in the inservice education program which supports the program. 103 The factor which did contribute to the enhancement of cognitive ability was the CTBS Work/study Skills. The pretest scores reliably contributed to predicting seven of the eleven SOI posttest dimensions. If the use of the CTBS is continued in the process of selecting students for special programs for gifted, then the use of the Work/Study Skills dimension alone would provide discriminating information. The Math dimension would provide a check for identifying Evaluation and Transformational thinking. Both dimensions would provide a formal external check of teacher observations of classroom behaviours. 5.6 P O S T - P R O G R A M M A I N T E N A N C E O F A P T I T U D E As participation in the program did not appear to make a statistically significant difference to aptitude, there was nothing significant to be maintained. However, the lower reliability aspect of the instrumentation and the inconsistent patterns in the data may well have masked relationships that in fact were present. Small differences may have been indicated by the graphs. These graphs demonstrate Guilford's hypothesis of stronger Transformational abilities in gifted students which appeared in all age levels and in each of the testing periods. Further they indicate a possible effect of the program on Evaluation and Convergent Production skills. There is evidence in the graphs to indicate that this program enriches the abilities of the non-gifted more than the gifted student. It furthers the metacognition and evaluative skills of the non-gifted student but not necessarily that of the gifted student. In this sense it is an enrichment program; it is not a gifted education program, however, it was not promoted as a program designed for gifted students. The problem it does face, is a lack of evidence that it develops the objectives the district policy and handbook promote. What the teachers describe and assess as Critical Thinking, Creative Thinking and Creative Problem Solving does not parallel the inherent skills which have 104 been identified by previous research. The - graphs indicate that Evaluation and Transformations are maintained after the program is finished. This aspect of the program should be further developed and could be used as a possible screening process for identifying potentially gifted students. The enhancement of Convergent Production in participants indicates that the participation in the program encouraged task completion. As described in the literature (Chapter 2) the SOI can be used to profile cognitive strengths and weaknesses in a way that could indicate the cognitive style of the student. The SOI-derived profiles may therefore be useful as a diagnostic tool. Profiles of the groups in the study (Appendix F) give an indication of the cognitive style of the students. While there is a general similarity in the shapes of the profiles, there are also differences. Over the testing periods,the non-gifted students in the enrichment program became more similar to the gifted students in the program. This is most noticeable in the changes in Evaluation. The program participants also gained relative strength in Convergent Production as opposed to those who did not participate. It appears that the gifted students who did not participate gained no strength in the output operations (Convergent and Divergent Production). The information contained in the graphs of the SOI Operations suggest that the gifted student who does not participate in the program gradually assumes an aptitude profile that becomes more similar to that of the regular program students not identified as gifted. This decreases the likelihood that the gifted students would not be so identified later. It is speculated that to deny participation in a program that is appropriate and encourages the use of the various cognitive strengths of the students could result in a progression toward becoming an "underachieving gifted" student: a position so clearly argued by Whitmore (1980) and Burroughs (1983). The consequences were also dramatically illustrated in the investigation of the gifted 105 and school drop-outs (Lajoie and Shore, 1979). This particular aspect of the use of the SOI has been suggested here to provide research ideas for developing individual educational plans and diagnostic information for teachers in special education programs, and which may assist them to arrest a potential slide to underachievement and conflict. 5.7 SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS Essentially, this study has shown that: 1. Used alone, the SOI-LA may be an insufficient indicator of giftedness as well as an insufficient outcome measure. This study has shown there is a need to further investigate the potential of the SOI-LA test as a component in an identification process and in the evaluation of learning outcomes. This should be made over a variety of programs for and categories of gifted students. The range of intercorrelations and reliability coefficients reinforces that: (a) this instrument should continue to be regarded as experimental; (b) interpretations for assessment of learning outcomes should be made with caution, and bolstered with other instruments; (c) the SOI-LA is better used to investigate trends in aptitude; (d) individual, clinical, and diagnostic interpretations should be made with great caution. 2. Teachers identify giftedness by academic characteristics. Academic achievement has been the dominant feature distinguishing giftedness here. This study recalls Clarke's views (1979) that teachers are likely to identify the characteristics with which they are most familiar and which they may value. The results of this study lend support for Clarke's views. It appears 106 that training in distinguishing charcteristics of giftedness does not necessarily translate into practice. The question still remains as to whether or not this is important. It does present implications for a program and for any accompanying inservice training. (a) If the program is directed toward the academic achiever, then an achievement indicator would be a reasonable identifier. (b) If the goal of a program is to accelerate academic achievement, then the CTBS might be a satisfactory identifier. (c) If the goal of the program is to develop strategies in higher level cognitive skills in a more creative or ^independent learner, then the CTBS generally will not act as a satisfactory identifier. (d) If the CTBS is used as a discriminator in an identification process, then the learning objectives and the population for whom a program is designed must be clearly stated. (e) If a program promotes skill development appropriate for gifted students, then the teachers must be provided with assistance in the referral and identification process. 3. CTBS subscales are associated with lower level cognitive skills on the SOI. The regression analyses strongly indicated that the use of the CTBS in a screening process will focus attention on the traditional rote learning skills. There are implications of this for selecting gifted students to participate in a special education program and for the selection of appropriate activities and teaching strategies. (a) If the CTBS dominates the discrimination of giftedness, then the program participants will tend to be the more rote academic learners. (b) If the CTBS acts as a prime discriminator, then the selected students will 107 only be the "good students". Participation in the program may then be perceived merely as a reward for being a good student. (c) If a program is promoted for gifted students, then the use of the CTBS could screen out students for whom a special education program is designed. (d) If the CTBS is the distinguishing identifier, then there may be a gap between what the receiving teacher expects in terms of abilities, and what actually exists. (e) If the desire is to develop problem-solving skills in a self-directed student, then the use of the CTBS generally needs to be reconsidered. 4. Cognitive ability (aptitude) between gifted and non-gifted students may exist more by degree than by qualitative difference. This study has shown that, apart from Transformations, cognitive ability is significantly affected by age in this sample. The implications are: (a) if aptitude is developmental, then there is a need to examine the connotation of "qualitatively different" learning. (b) If it is developmental, then giftedness may equate to mere precocity. (c) If it is developmental, then aptitude can be decomposed into a sequence or hierarchy of skills which can be taught traditionally. (d) If aptitude is sequential, then there would be precursor abilities that would predict higher-order abilities. (e) If there are predictable higher-order abilities, then teaching materials and strategies can be directed toward those aptitudes, increasing the probability of success. 5. Teacher ratings of student achievement of critical and creative thinking were not related to CTBS or SOI dimensions. No achievement or aptitude scores predicted success in the learning objectives. Vocabulary was marginally associated with critical thinking. There are 108 several implications. (a) If there is no association between cognitive measures and the assessment of thinking skills, then there is a need to examine evaluation criteria teachers use. (b) If teachers believe they are evaluating the cognitive domain, then there is a need for concentrated inservice education. (c) If Vocabulary is the only, even marginal, predictor of critical thinking, then the possession of a superior vocabulary may still be seen as synonymous to superior thinking. These implications accentuate the need for accurate identification which can be translated into appropriate programs, objectives and evaluation. 5.8 RECOMMENDATIONS Programs for gifted students have been promoted on the grounds that they will provide learning experiences that are commensurate with the extraordinary characteristics believed to be associated with giftedness. They are also promoted on the grounds that regular programs are not appropriate and will not satisfy the learning needs of gifted students. It is assumed that participation in such programs will provide the student with an arsenal of thinking or problem-solving skills and a greater understanding of his own abilities which can be incorporated into the student's learning style. Before the goals can be attempted, we must seriously question the assumptions upon which they are based. Are there cognitive characteristics which distinguish giftedness? This study has shown that there are: it has also shown that what teachers think of as being gifted is not only different, but also will direct their attention in the identification process. This is the case even where the teachers have been exposed to ongoing formal training in the process. There is a need to examine inservice education programs that are available on the 109 subject of identification and the ways in which they are implemented. Although many characteristics have been promoted as distinguishing giftedness, this study has supported Guilford's hypothesis that Transformations is a major characteristic. It acts as a second-order operation, or advance organizer, for an individual's knowledge. Strength in Transformations enables one to view problems from various angles when faced with. new situations, and revise and redefine ongoing problems. This encourages successful accomplishment of new tasks, the generation of new ideas, and the development of new products. There are two areas that require further research here. First, Transformational thinking will need to be examined to determine if there are associated tasks or precursor abilities that make up Transformations. Second, there is a need to determine whether or not Transformations is learned directly or is inherent. If it is learned directly, then there is a need to know how it is learned and under what circumstances so that teaching and learning strategies can be operationalised. If it is inherent, or learned incidentally, then programs which are inherently (qualitatively) different in their approach and content must be provided for gifted students. It would show that gifted individuals are educably different to the mainstream of learners and have needs which must be translated into terms of assessment and learning opportunities. The CTBS has not shown itself to be generally reliable for predicting giftedness per se, however, the Work/Study Skills dimension has shown greater promise. This dimension needs to be further analysed for its ability to predict particular aptitudes:it may provide educators with an accurate identification measure which supports teachers' classroom observations. The subject of transfer of learning has again shown itself to be domain specific. There is no evidence to show that special skills are transferable to either general learning or to different problem situations. Gallagher, Weiss, 110 Oglesby & Thomas (1983) identified transfer as the most critical, yet elusive element for future research in the education of the gifted. This study has not shed any further light on the association between participation in a program and transfer. The graphs of cognitive style of the groups that were introduced at the end, however, do hint at aptitudes that were changed over the period and were maintained in the participants. This gives rise to speculation that there are some attributes that are potential avenues to transfer of learning. Research is needed to investigate these particular elements over a number of groups, situations and programs. The use of statistical significance of results has been questioned in studies of gifted students. The potential for significant relationships to be masked in such studies is illustrated by the graphical illustrations. These indicate subtle differences may be present which may be attributed to the program or maj' be attributed to differing cognitive styles of the students (cf. Appendix F-Profiles). Where the population's characteristics are as varied as are found in gifted children, and where data are available from a biased group of students, more information is needed to provide conclusive results which are relatively stable over the long term. Research studies in the area of gifted education tend to have been isolated: a situation not unexpected in a relatively new area of research. The great variety of results that has led to a lack of agreement about gifted students and their needs now need to be brought together in meta-analyses of the various studies that have been done in this area. Such meta-analyses should identify common denominators found over time and over a variety of studies. They also should provide either conclusive evidence of common patterns of giftedness or show that gifted students are so heterogeneous that only individualised programming is appropriate for them. This should overcome much of the inconclusiveness and controversy that exists in research regarding gifted I l l children and their education. It may also provide more diagnostic and implementation information for the practitioner. Such information could contribute to providing a more varied portfolio of teaching strategies upon which teachers can draw in order to increase their flexibility: a major quality for teachers of the gifted (Borthwick, Dow, Levesque, & Banks, 1980). There are implications for this line of research with gifted students. Finally, this study questions whether or not the established model for identifying students for special education is appropraite for gifted students. The model, a variation of the medical model, is based on the presence of "symptoms" which characterise and identify a particular classification of learner. If these symptoms can be identified and measured, then they can be accommodated by special program opportunities which translate the symptoms into learning strategies. This studjr has attempted to determine whether or not there are unique symptoms which identify giftedness. The presence of Transformations discriminating giftedness at all age levels supports the position that this ability may be the "symptom" that characterizes giftedness. Strength in Transformations affords greater tolerance of ambiguitj', encourages the risk of abandoning one line of enquiry for another, reconstructs and designs new products: it organizes and reorganizes one's intellectual world. In sum, Transformations controls and channels the flow of information and ideas in problem situations, and lays the path for self-direction and independence. It remains to be seen whether Transformational thinking can be translated into strategies for teaching and learning, or is a matter of inherent style: it appears that the jury is still out. This study does, however, justify the use of both the CTBS, to measure whether the students have the basic (knowledge) skills in hand, and the SOI to identify the strength of the students' higher-order cognitive skills. BIBLIOGRAPHY Abraham, W. (1958). Common sense about gifted children. New York: Harper Brothers. Alvino, J . D. (1981). Do gifted and nongifted children learn differently? Principal,  May, 38-40. Alvino, J . , McDonnel, R . C , & Richert, S.(1981). National survey of identification practices in gifted and talented education. Exceptional Children, 48,(2), 124-132. Anderson, M.A. (1985). Protocol analysis:a methodology for exploring the information processing of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30(1), 28-32. Anthony, M . , Iwanicki, C , & Spears, J . (1977). Shared approach to gifted  education: a defensible program. Unpublished paper available from Mansfield Public Schools, Mansfield, Connecticut. Ausubel, D.P. (1978). Defense of advance organizers. Review of Educational  Research, 38(2), 251-259. Baer, N.A. (1980). Programs for the gifted:a present or a paradox? Phi Delta  Kappan 61,9, 621-623. Baldwin, B.T. (1924). Methods of selecting superior or gifted children. Quoted in Getzels & Dillon, op cit. Bateman, B. (1970). Learning disabilities: an overview. Journal of School  Psychology.3(3), 1-12. Beckwith, A.H.(1982). Use of the ROSS test as an assessment measure in programs for the gifted. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 5(2), 127-140. Bereday, G.Z.F. , & Lauwerys, J .A . (Eds) (1961). Concepts of excellence in  education. The yearbook of education, 1961. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Boehm, A . E . (1973). Criterion-referenced assessment for the teacher. Teachers  College Record, 75(1), 117-125. Bloom, B.S. (Ed.) (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives Handbook 1:  cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Co. Bloom, B.S. (1982). The roles of gifted & markers... Exceptional Children, 48,April, 510-522. Borthwick, B., Dow, I., Levesque, D., & Banks, R.(1980). The gifted and talented  students in Canada. Toronto: Canadian Educators Association. Burdikin, J.(1975). Report to the board of school trustees on provision for gifted  children in school district No.43. Coquitlam: Board of School Trustees. 112 113 Burger, C. (1981). Giftedness in disadvantaged students. Unpublished master's thesis. Iowa University. Burroughs, M.C. (1979). Restraints on excellence: our waste of gifted children. Hingham, MA: Teaching Resources Corporation. Butcher, H . J . (1968). Human intelligence. London: Methuen. Callahan, C M . & Corvo, M.L.(1980). Validating the ROSS test for identification and evaluation of critical thinking skills in programs for the gifted. Journal  for the Education of the Gifted 1(4), 17-26. Clarizio, H .F . & Mehrens, W.A. (1985). Psychometric limitations of Guilford's structure-of-intllect model for identification and programming for the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29(3), 113-120. Clark, B. (1979). Growing up gifted. Columbus, OH: C. E . Merrill. Clark, N.W. (1964). A study of the relationships of creativit}^ preference for  open-structure learning experiences and teacher-like for pupils in grades 3-6. Quoted in Torrance, E . P. (1979), op.cit. Cohen, J . (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press. Cohen, J . B. & Cohen, P. (1975). Applied multiple regression /correlation analysis  for the behavioral sciences. New York: Wiley & Sons. Cooper, H . M . (1979). Understanding pygmalion:The social psychology of  self-fulfilling class-room expectations. New York: Longmans. Culler, S.M. (1981). Intelligence patterns among blacks. Unpublished thesis. California State U . Cunningham, C . H . , Thompson, B., Alston, H . L . , & Wakefield, J .A . (1978). The Use of S.O.I.Abilities for Prediction. Gifted Child Quarterly, 22(4), 506-512. Davidson, J . E . & Sternberg, . R . J . (1984). The role of insight in intellectual giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28(2), 58-64. Davis, G.A. , & Rimm, S.B. (1985). Education of the gifted & talented. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. De Bono, E . (1979). Teaching thinking. London: Penguin. Delisle, J . & Renzulli, J.(1982). The revolving door identification and programming model. Gifted Child Quarterly 26(2), 89-95. Delias, M . & Gaier, E . L . (1970). Identification of creativity:the individual. Psychological Bulletin, 73, 55-73. Educational Research Institute of B.C. (1979). The status of gifted & enriched  education in British Columbia. Vancouver, B.C.:Author. Epstein, C.B. (1979). The gifted and talented: Programs that work. Arlington, 114 V A : National School Public Relations Association. Eysenck, H . J . (1983). The roots of creativity: cognitive ability or personality trait? Roeper Review, (May), 10-12. Fantini, M.D. (1980). A contemporary approach to individualization. Theory Into  Practice, 19 (1),28-31. Feldhusen, J . F . , Asher, J .W., & Hoover, S.M. (1984). Problems in the identification of giftedness, talent or ability. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28(4), 149-151. Feldhusan, J . F . , Baska, L . K . , & Womble, S.R. (1981). Using standard scores to synthesize data in identifying the gifted. Journal for the Education of the  Gifted, 4, 177-185. Feldhusen, J . F . & Kolloff, M.B.(1978). Three stage model for gifted education. Gifted/Creative/Talented. Sept/Oct, 3-6, 53-58. Feldman, B. (1969). The Structure Of Intellect and learning to read. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Southern California. Ferrell, B .G. (1983). A factor analytic comparison of four style instruments. Journal of Educational Psychology 75 (1), 33-39. Flavell, J . H . (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem-solving. In L .B . Resnick (Ed) The nature of intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assocs. Flavell, J . H . (1977). Cognitive development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Fox, L . H . (1979). Programs for the Gifted and Talented: an overview. In A. H . Passow (Ed). The gifted and talented: Their education and development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gagne, R .M. (1970). The conditions of learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Gallagher, J . J . (1966). Research summary on gifted education. Springfield, IL: State Department of Public Instruction. Gallagher, J . J . (1975). Teaching the gifted child (2nd.ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Gallagher, J . J . (1985). Teaching the gifted child (3rd.ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Gallagher, J . J . , Weiss, P., Oglesby, K. , & Thomas, T. (1983). The status of  gifted/talented education. Los Angeles: National/State Leadership Institute on Gifted and Talented. Getzels, J .W. & Dillon, J .T . (1973). The nature of giftedness and the education of the gifted. In R. M . W. Travers (Ed.) Second handbook on research and  teaching. Chicago: Rand-McNally. Getzels, J .W. & Jackson, P.W. (1962). Creativity and intelligence. New York: Wiley & Sons. 115 Getzels, J.W. & Jackson, P.W. (1972). The study of giftedness: A multi-dimensional approach. In The gifted student. Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Health, Education & Welfare. Goldinher, M.R. (1984). Evaluation of the 1983-1984 ECIA, chapter II, Motivate  and stimulate for excellence project. Miami, F L : Dade County Public Schools. Goodloe-Kaplan, B. (1982). S.O.I, training with various cultures and ability levels. New York: Bruner Foundation. Gordon, W.J . (1961). Synectics:The development of creative capacity. New York: Harper & Row. Gould, S.J. (1981). The mismeasure of Man. New York: W.W. Norton. Gourley, T . J . (1976). Programs for gifted students:A national survey. In Reynolds & Birch (1982), Teaching exceptional children in all America's schools. Reston, V A : Council for Exceptional Children. Gowan, J . C . , Khatena, J . , & Torrance, E.P.(Eds.) (1979). Educating the ablest. New York: Peacock Publishers. Gregorc, A. (1979). Editorial- Learning/teaching styles: potent forces behind them. Educational Leadership, 36(4), 234-236. Guilford, J.P.(1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454. Guilford, J.P. (1956). The Structure of Intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 267-293. Guilford, J.P. (1959). Three faces of intellect. American Psychologist, 14, 469-479. Guilford, J.P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill. Guilford, J .P. (1972). Personal note. In Reese, Parnes, Treffinger, & Kaltsounis, op cit. Guilford, J.P. (1975). Varieties of creative giftedness, their measurement and development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 19(2), 107-121. Guilford, J.P. (1977). Way beyond the I.Q. . Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation. Guilford, J.P. (1979). Cognitive psychology with a frame of reference. Buffalo, N Y : D.O.K. Publishers. Guilford, J.P. (1980). Cognitive styles: What are they? Educational and  Psychological Measurement, 40(3), 715-735. Guilford, J.P. (1981). Higher-order Structure of Intellect abilities. Multivariate  Behavioural Research, 16 (4), 411-435. Guilford, J.P. (1986). Creative talents: Their nature, uses and development. Buffalo, NY: Bearly Ltd. 116 Guilford, J .P. , Hoepfner, R., & Peterson, H . (1965). Predicting achievement in ninth-grade math from measures of intellectual-aptitude factors. Educational  and Psychological Measurement,25,(Autumn), 659-682. Haninen, G. , (1981). Gifted/Talented Program Description. Quoted in Gallagher, Weiss, Oglesby & Thomas (1983). op cit. Harootunian, B. (1966). A comparison of school achievement, teacher ratings and  personality score as predictors of creative thinking potential. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universitj' of Nebraska. Harty, H . , Adkins, D . M . , & Sherwood R.D. (1984). Predictability of giftedness identification indices for two recognized approaches to elementary school gifted education. Journal of Educational Research, 77(6), 337-342 Hedbring, C. & Rubenzer, R. (1979). Integrating the IEP and SOI with educational programming for the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 23(2), 338-345. Helmstadter, G.C. (1964). Principles of psychological measurement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hoepfner, R., Guilford, J.P. , & Bradley, P.A.(1968). Identification of  transformation abilities in the Structure-of-Intellect model. Reports from the Psychology Laboratory, #41, Universitj' of Southern California. Hunt, J . (1961). Intelligence and experience. New York: Ronald Press. Ignatz, M . (1982). A comparison of Structure-Of-Intellect factors with the Florida state-wide twelfth grade test in predicting physics achievement. Educational  & Ps3^chological Measurement, 42, 935-939. Jenkins-Friedman, R. (1982). Myth:Cosmetic use of multiple selection criteria! Gifted Child Quarterly, 26 (1), 24-26. Kammer, P.P ; (1984). Conceptual level of development as it relates to student participation, in gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterh% 28(2), 89-91. Kanter, H . (1980). To investigate the learning styles and abilities of seventh and  tenth grade Hispanic students with respect to school achievement. Unpublished project. Laredo State University. Kaplan, S. (1974). Providing programs for the gifted & talented. Ventura, CA: National/State Leadership Institute for the Gifted & Talented. Kaplan, S. (1982). Curricula for the gifted: Selected proceedings of the first  national conference on curricula for the gifted/talented. Ventura, CA: Office of the Ventura County Superintendent of Schools. Karnes, M.B. (1979). Young handicapped children can be gifted and talented. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 2, (3), 157-172. Karp, S. (1963). Field independence and overcomming embeddedness. Journal of  Consulting Psychology 27, 294-302. 117 Keating, D. (1982). Four faces of creativity. Chronicle of Academic & Artistic  Precocity, 1(546), 3-6. Kerlinger, F . N . (1979). Behavioural research: A conceptual approach. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Kester, E . (1979). S.O.I.: A qualitatively different program for the gifted. Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 41 (4), 1147-1166. Khatena, J . (1978). The creatively gifted child. New York: Vantage Press. Khatena, J . (1979). Educating the gifted child: challenge and response in the USA. In Gowan, et al (1979). Educating The Ablest, op.cit. Khatena, J . (1982). Educational psychology of the gifted. New York: Wiley. Khatena, J . (1983). What schooling for the gifted? Gifted Child Quarterly, 27(2), 51-56. Kolloff, M . , & Feldhusen, J . (1981). PACE:an application of the Purdue three-stage model. G/C/T, 18, 47-50. Krantz, B.(1978). Multidimensional screening device for the identification of gifted  and talented children. Grand Fork, ND: University of North Dakota. Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom, B.S., & Masia, B.B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational  objectives, Handbook II: Affective domain. New York: D.McKay. Laine, C .J . (1983). Implementation of gifted education in British Columbia: A sketch of one province's experience. British Columbia Journal of Special  Education. 7(2), 153-162. Laine, C , Blank, S., & Clarke, B. (1985). Guilford's structure of intellect:An indicator of learning styles in gifted learners. Canadian Journal of Special  Education, 1 (2), 157-170. Laine, C. & Wong, B. (1982). Identifying differences in learning needs between successful and unsuccessful secondary students by the Structure Of Intellect test: An exploratorj; investigation. British Columbia Journal of Special  Education, 6(3), 263-276. 0 Lajoie, S.P. & Shore, B. (1981). Three myths? The over-representation of the gifted among drop-out delinquents and suicides. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, (3), 138-141. Land, G. & Kenneally, C. (1977). Creativity, reality and general systems: a personal viewpoint. Journal of Creative Behavior, 11(1), 12-35. Landis, R.E. & Michael, W.B. (1981). Factorial validity of three measures of critical thinking within the content of Guilford's Structure of Intellect model for a sample of ninth-grade students. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 41(4), 1147-1166. Langeveld, M . J . (1961). The concept of intelligence. In Bereday and Lauwerys (1961). op cit. 118 LeMahieu, B. (1980). Synthesis of research on the gifted. Educational Leadership, 38(3), 261-265. Levine, M . (1976). The academic achievement test. American Psychologist, 31(3), 228-238. McNemar, O. (1964). Lost: our intelligence? Why? American Psychologist, 19, 871-882. Marcus, L . (1979). Learning style and ability grouping among seventh grade students. The Clearing House, 52(April), 377-380. Maker, C .J . (1977). Providing programs for the handicapped gifted. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Marland, S.P. (1972). Education of the gifted & talented: report to the Congress  of the United States. (2 vols.) Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office. Mauser, A . J . (1975). As I see it: The gifted handicapped. Talents and Gifts,  November, 30. Meeker, M . N . (1968). Differential syndromes of giftedness and curriculum planning:a four year follow up. Journal of Special Education, 2(2): 185-196. Meeker, M . N . (1969). The S.O.I.:Its interpretation and uses. Columbus, OH: C.E.Merrill. Meeker, M . N . (1973a). Patterns of giftedness in black,anglo and chjcano boys  ages 4-5 & 7-9. Paper presented to the conference on disadvantaged gifted. Ventura, CA. Meeker, M . N . (1973b). Individualised curriculum based on intelligence test patterns. In, Coop & White (Eds). Psychological concepts in the classroom. New York: Harper Row. Meeker, M . N . (1976). A paradigm for special education diagnostics: The cognitive  area. Paper presented to the A E R A Annual Meeting. Meeker, M . N . (1979). IEPs: Diagnosing and matching curriculum to cognitive patterns. In Developing EEPs for the gifted/talented. Los Angeles, CA: National/State Leadership Institute on the Gifted and Talented. Meeker, M . N . (1981). Other ways to identify giftedness. In Clasen, R .E. , et al. Programming for the gifted, talented and creative: models and methods. Madison, Wisconsin; University of Wisconsin-Extension. Meeker, M . N . & Meeker, R. (1976). The structure of intellect learning abilities  test. Los Angeles: S.O.I.Institute. Meeker, M . N . & Meeker, R. (1980). S.O.I. Learning Abilities Test: Examiner's  Manual. El Segundo, CA: SOI Institute. Millichamp, D.A. (1976). A factor analysis of the S.O.I.- Binet patterns of bright  four year old children. Unpublished thesis, Brore Centre, Toronto. 119 Mishra, S.P. (1983). Cognitive processes: implications for assessing intelligence. Theory Into Practice, 12(2), 145-150. Moran, M.R. (1978). Assessment of the exceptional learner in the Regular  Classroom. Denver: Love Publishing. Newland, T . E . (1976). The gifted in socioeducational perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Nyquist, E . (1973). The gifted:The invisibly handicapped, or, there is no heavier  burden than a great potential. Paper presented at the national conference on the gifted, Albany, New York. Okey, J.R. (1970). Diagnosing learning difficulties. The Science Teacher XXXVII, May, 59-61. Osborn, W.J . & Rohan, B.J . (1931). Enriching the curriculum for gifted children. New York: Macmillan. O'Tuel, F.S., Ward, M . , & Rawl, R.K. (1983). The SOI as an identification tool for the gifted: Windfall or washout? Gifted Child Quarterly, 27(3), 126-134. Parnes, S.J. (1967). Creative behavior guidebook. New York: Scribner's. Passow, A . H . (1983). A universal view of gifted and talented programs. Paper presented to the Fifth World Conference on Gifted and Talented Children, Manila, Phillipines. Pearce, N . (1983). A comparison of the WISC-R, Raven's standard progressive matrices & Meeker's SOI screening form for gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 27(1), 13-19. Piaget, J . (1924/1926). Judgement and reasoning in the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Raudsepp, E . (1983). Profile of the creative individual. Creative Computing, August, 170-179. Reese, H.W., Parnes, S.J., Treffinger, D.J. & Kaltsounis, G. (1976). Effects of a creative studies program on Structure of Intellect factors. Journal of  Educational Psychology, 68(4), 401-410. Renzulli, J.S. (1975). Guidebook for evaluating programs for the gifted and  talented. Ventura, CA: Office of the Ventura County Superintendent of Schools. Renzulli, J.S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing  defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning Press. Renzulli, J.S. (1979). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta  Kappan, 60, 180-184; 261. Renzulli, J.S. (1980). Will the gifted child movement be alive and well in 1990? Gifted Child Quarterly, 24,1, 3-9. 120 Renzulli, J . , Reis, S., & Smith, L.H.(1981). The revolving door identification  model.Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning Press. Renzulli, J . & Smith, L . (1975). An evaluation of the Alpha Project for able  learners. Olympia, Washington: Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Reynolds, M . C . , & Birch, J .W. (1977). Teaching exceptional children in all  America's schools. Reston, V A : Council for Exceptional Children. Reynolds, M . C . , & Birch, J .W. (1982). Teaching exceptional children in all  America's schools (rev, ed.). Reston, V A : Council for Exceptional Children. Rivet, B. (1979). Relationship between self-concept & factors of the intellect of  children ages eight to twelve. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California. Robinson, M . (1980). S E A G U L L : A project for releasing potential of the gifted. Childhood Education, 56(5), 268-273. Roid, G. (1985). Limitations of the test reviewing process: A response to Clarizio & Mehrens. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29(3), 121-123. Rosenthal, R. & Jacobsen, L . (1969). Pygmalion in the classroom. Self-fulfilling  prophesies & teacher expectations. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Ross, J .D. & Ross, M.C. (1976). ROSS test of higher cognitive processes.  Administrative manual. San Rafael, CA: Academic Therapy Publications. Rubenzer, R. (1979). Identification and evaluation procedures for gifted and talented programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 23, (2), 304-316. Schlichter, C. (1981). The multiple talent approach in mainstream and gifted programs. Exceptional Children, 48(3), 144-150. Schmadel, E . (1960). Relationship of creative thinking abilities to school  achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California. Sillito, M . T . , & Wilde, W.D. (1983). Educating the gifted. Edmonton, Alta.: Alberta Education. Sisk, D. (1980). Issues and future directions in gifted education. Gifted Child  Quarterly, 24,(1), 29-36. Smith, F . (1975). Comprehension and learning: A conceptual framework for  teachers. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Stankowski, W . M . (1978). Definition. In R. E . Clasen & B. Robinson (Eds). Simple gifts. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin. Steele, J . (1969). Dimensions of the class activities questionnaire. Urbana, IL: Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation, University of Illinois. 121 Stephens, J . M . (1967). The process of schooling. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Stenson, C M . (1982). Note on concurrent validity of structure of intellect gifted screener with the WISC-R. Psychological Reports, 50, 552. Sternberg, R. (1980). A componential theory of intellectual giftedness. Gifted Child  Quarterly, 25, 2, 86-93. Sternberg, R. (1981). Intelligence and non-entrenchment. Journal of Educational  Psychology, 73 (1), 11-16. Sternberg, R. (1983). Criteria for intellectual skills training. Educational  Researcher, 12(2), 6-12, 26. Tannenbaum, A. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives. New York: Macmillan. Taylor, C.W. (1968). Educational changes needed to develop creative thinking. In J . Aschner & C.E.Bish (Eds). Productive thinking in education. Washington, DC: National Education Association. Taylor, C.W. (1978). How many types of giftedness can your program tolerate? Journal of Creative Behavior, 12 (1), 39-51. Taylor, L . K . & Michael, J . (1981). Correlational study of academic self- concept, intellectual achievement, responsibilitj', social cognition and reading. Educational Research Quarterly, Spring, 13-23. Terman, L . M . (1925). Genetic studies of genius. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Terman, L . M . (1954). The discovery and encouragement of exceptional talent. American Psychologist, 9(6), 221-230. Thomas, J .W. (1971). Varieties of cognitive skills, taxonomies and models of the  intellect. Philadelphia, PA: RBS Publications. Thompson, B. (1978). Relating S.O.I, to academic achievement. Educational  Psychology Monographs, 38(4), 1207-1210. Thorndike, R .L. (1972). Review: the Torrance tests of creative thinking. In O.K. Buros (Ed.). The seventh mental measurement yearbook. Highland Park, NJ: Gryphon Press. Torgesan, J . (1975). Problems and prospects in the study of learning disabilities. In Hetherington M . & J . Hagen (Eds). Review of child development  research (vol.5). New York: Russell, Sage Foundation. Torrance, E .P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Administrative manual. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press. Torrance, E .P. (1979). The search for sartori and creativity. Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation. 122 Torrance, E.P., & White, W.H.(Eds) (1969). Issues and advances in educational  psychology. Itasca, IL: E . E . Peacock. TrefTinger, D. (1981). Blending gifted education with the total school program. Williamsville, NY: Center for Creative Learning. TrefTinger, D., Isaksen, S. & Firestien, R. (1983). A preliminary model for creative thinking. Journal of Creative Behavior, 1(1), 9-17. Tremaine, C D . (1979). Do gifted programs make a difference? Gifted Child  Quarterly, 23(3), 500-517. Turner, J . (1984). Cognitive development and education. London: Methuen. Tyler, L . E . (1974). Individual differences. New York; Appleton-Century-Crofts. Vernon, P . C (1964). Creativity and intelligence. Educational Research 6, 163-169. Vernon, P.C. (1973). Multivariate approaches to the study of cognitive styles. In J . R. Roj'ce (Ed.). Multivariate analysis and psychological theory. New York; Academic Press: 125-144. Wallach, M.A. & Kogan, N . (1965). Modes of thinking in young children. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. London: Watts. Wasik, J . L . (1974). Teacher perceptions of behaviors associated with creative problem solving performance. Educational and Psychological Measurement 34(2): 327-341. Watson, G. & Glaser, E . M . (1964). Watson-Glaser critical thinking appraisal  manual: Form Y M & Z M . New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Weaver, J .T . (1983). Performance patterns of two culturally different populations of identified gifted students on the Ross test of higher cognitive processes. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 6(3), 178-193. Weller, L . D . (1982). Project Eureka: A program for the academically gifted. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators, Phoenix, Arizona. Whitmore, J.R. (1980). Giftedness, conflict and under achievement. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Williams, F . E . (1968). Creativity - an innovation in the classroom. In Aschner, M . J . & C.E.Bish (Eds). Productive thinking in education. Washington, DC: National Education Association. Williams, F . E . (1969). Models for encouraging creativity in the classroom by integrating cognitive-affective behaviors. Educational Technology 9, 7-13. Williams, F . E . (1970). Classroom ideas for encouraging thinking and feeling. Buffalo, NY: D.O.K. 123 Williams, F . E . (1971). Total creativity program for elementary school teachers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publishing. Witkin, H .A . , Dyk, R.B., Faterson, H.F . , Goodenough, D.R. & Karp, S.A. (1974). Psychological differentiation. New York: Wiley. Yarborough, B . H . & Johnson, R.A. (1983). Identifying the gifted:a theory-practice gap. Gifted Child Quarterly, 27 (3), 135-138. Ysseldyke, J . E . & Algozzine, B. (1984). Introduction to special education. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. APPENDIX A  SOI-LA TEST, FORM B 125 This appendix is reprinted from Laine, C. (1982) with permission of the author. Examples of tasks are given below: CFC B 0 7 A > T • 3 e 4 1 ^ • • ^ * * w • i / t ^ A 1*4 \ • e d ^_ 1 0 / 7 ° 0 ° o 00 O o O o o ° o o o ft X a 9 . \ 9 Student has to determine which group or groups each figure in the left-hand column belongs to and identify by numbering it (as in the sample). 126 CFU Sixteen pictures with parts erased, have to be identified and named by the student. EFU e 3 o © 6 u u o X ° 3f S3H?B!ff O X D One figure from the group is the same (size, details, shape) as the stimulus item. 26 tasks of increasing complexity. CMU • • • ••» ] • • •« 1 3 Vg£.°J> OO 0 n°n°o OOOO | * * * A ** - > = = < - > ) law (tmall) long III* (jo\l\ away far OiMertnl ... among (unhkt) alike llmi beautiful argu* win |«culll*\ raiisl occurs [i"nmi( advances goo ® This is in two parts: fifteen each of mathematical and language arts vocabulary, each with increasing difficulty. Students identify which alternative printed means the same as the stimulus item. DFU This is similar to Torrance's circles subtest. Students may draw anything in the sixteen squares. Scores are for frequency (fluency), Set Change (flexibility, Trans-formations and Originality). DMU Students choose one aspect/draining from D F U and compose a short story about it. English grammar/punctuation is ignored here. Again fluency and originality of ideas are the criteria. 128 C M R @ <s X o a PENNY HICXEL *CNMT ? OUAATER OOUAB | 1 _J DIME o > < • • Designed to find semantic relationships between parts. The question posed students is "what comes between and ? " Increasing complexity over 26 tasks. C M S ^ 1 ( ^ ) = B A L L = BOX » WATER Q • WOOO < Q • CANDY ® [ 0 ] © D a a X o I *tef y«w M lam. mis®® o K a • Designed to see how well students can follow ideas. Using information in boxes, students must identify which symbolic group translates into the sentence(s) printed. Increasing complexity over 21 tasks. NST GO I THEDOGANOMAWGOTOTHESTORE T K t U W T I * W I U . 1UMMOM « | X W I T M t U f l W\ ^ l O ^ ^ ^ l l r ^ ^ ^ ' H ^ H l ' j ^ l / M y O O G ^ A y ^ O A v / The student must be able to identify specific groups of words from a set. There are four different subsets: identifying one word in a line, identifying a word which has been divided (hidden), identifying all words in a line, and identifying all words when letters have been printed in backwards, upside down, or both. Total of 201 identifiable items. 129 MSU — Visual and auditory (sample plus 4 tasks) (digits forward) This memory test requires the student first to view or hear a series of digits, then to write them down omitting one of the digits specified by examiner. The number of digits increase over the four tasks. MSS — Visual and auditory (digits backward) This requires the student first to view or hear the series of digits and then to write them down in reverse order, omitting one digit specified by the examiner. The number of digits increase over the four tasks. CFT B i g H a a ^ c t ) &v- Gfc &9 • o a CJ yC One of the figures from the group is the same as the stimulus item but has been rotated to some degree. Twenty-six tasks of increasing complexity. A P P E N D I X B SOI N O R M I N G D A T A 130 131 Technical Data Manual SOI Learning Abilities (SOI-LA) Test Data for Form-A and Form-B SOI Institute December 1981 343 Richmond Street El Segundo. CA 90245 S e c t i o n O n e Medians , M e a n s , Standard Deviations, Standard Errors of Est imate, Reliability Coeff ic ients M e d i a n s , means , standard deviations and standard errors of est imate are presented for all nine groups in the norming design. The preferred* set(s) of statistics for each grade are in bold and underl ined. T o select the proper set of statistics: • work from right to left • locate the first bold (and underlined) statistic that matches the test form and sex of the respondent(s) being considered. T h e standard of errors of estimate are based on the respective test/retest correlations for each form of the test. In the case of the combined A & B form, the test/retest correlation reflects both F o r m - A / F o r m - A and Form-B /Form-B groups. The alternate form correlations reflect both F o r m - A / F o r m - B and F o r m - B / F o r m - A groups. T h e numbers involved in each of the reported groups at each grade level are given in the background sec-t ion. Scores for the general abilities are derived from the subtest scores using the assumpt ion th8t all subtests are of equal weight. T h e range on the general ability scores is be tween zero and 100 representing an average of the proportion correct on all contributing subtests. • T h e criteria for determining the preferred set(s) of statistics are descr ibed in the background sec t ion . QHADE 3 Oanatal Ability: COONITtON 41.00 41 00 41.00 41.00 43 00 42 OO 42.00 41 00. ..... 42.00 4199 40 73 41 27 40 8* 43.09 ... 42 33 41 41 42 04 41.78 Standard Oavfarlon 9 84 1004 9 9S 1086 9 38 1002 10.38 t.Tl 9 89 Standard Caw <>( farknm 4.71 5 98 8 S3 4 78 4 88 47J 471 a.34 8 09 Tm < / * ) « m i Conaajdon 7 7 84 89 . , 81 7(1 78 7t 70. 74 Aflamata Form Cwiaajaun 78 ,71. 7 3 OflADE 6 88 0 0 . . . 58 00 B8O0 88 00 88.00 57.00 87 00 87.00 58.30 57 87 58.89 ......... . 57.13 58.53 57.75 M j _ 7 J 98.12 57.33 Standard OavkKwi 11 99 11 41 1188 10 88 8.97 1008 11 38 10,21 1090 Standard fmx of ffdmata 4.19. 4 38 4 27 3 99 3 91 3 89 4,11 4.11 4.10 TnvDvtMl Cortala«Ofl 88 88 87 87 81 85 .97 .94 86 Artamm Form ConetadOfl 87 78 82 SOI-Learn.ng Abilities Test (SOI-LA): Form-A and FormB (December 1981 analysis) 32 134 o *« • fi r» 6 - « o •9 C si :i si 8 * * r> ^ *i « * f» « ri ri c > S o 5 c ^ n r» o S S to CO e» JO E u o ffi E o u. "O C •3 < E >. o O 10 to 0 I-m 0 JQ < C CD 0 O «•» Gartonl Ability: EVALUATION GRADE 3 Marjbn 4 1 . 0 0 3 8 0 0 M a a n 4 1 . 7 3 .19 14 Standard OavtaOon 8 3 8 8 2 5 Standard l m » o» Eatknata 5.91 5 5 1 Tait/flataat CaffalarJon 5 0 _ S 8 Al tamata P o m Conatorton 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 4 0 28 4 0 . 5 9 . 4 1 . 7 2 8 39 8 .15 * I I 5 73 '. 5 .23 . . 3 2 7 b .53 5 9 , . . SB 54 4 0 0 0 41 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 . 0 0 41 2 8 41 18 . . . 4 0 57 4 0 81 ft 8 2 8 2 8 8 70 8 52 5 .29 8 . 8 4 5 .40 5 .47 8 2 8 8 81 5 9 5 8 5 8 GRADE 6 » " 5 4 0 0 52 0 0 5 3 0 0 5 2 0 0 5 4 . 0 0 52 0 0 B J J I O 8 3 0 0 5 3 0 0 54 0 4 5 3 . 3 2 5 3 74 52 3 5 5 3 . 7 8 . 5 2 9 8 8 1 2 0 8 3 8 8 . 8 3 3 8 H ' S <2 0 8 11 8 7 10 9 7 10 4 5 10 74 1 1 . 3 7 1 1 . 2 4 1 1 3 0 Standard f r t o . o l ( • t l m . t a 5 . 3 0 5 4 4 5 3 8 5 8 0 5 8 8 5.71 8 4 4 8 8 4 8 .83 Taal/Rttaat CorrataOon 8 0 8 0 79 74 8 9 72 7 7 1» 78 AJIamata Form CofTaraoon .74 5 2 0 8 SOI-Learning Abilities Test (SOI-LA): Form-A and Form-B (December 1981 analysis) 34 CJ1 Ganaral Ability: CONVERGENT PRODUCTION GRADE 3 Median 3* 00 38.00 38 00 40 00 40 00 Maan 3 7 40 37.08 37 13 40.80 41 21 Standard Derteoon 10 84 1141 1101 1 2.83 11.81 Standard tor* of letkriaM 8 94 7 83 8 B8 8 42 8 70 Teat/ftatoel Correajoon 68 88 81 82 87 Aftemata Form CorreatrJorf 59 40 00 37.00 .40 98 39 03 12 08 11 83 0.30 8.81. 73 .77 83 39 00 38 00 .39 38 39.23 1 1 88 11.73 8 99 8 48 . 84 70 81 GRADE 8 M , l t m n 8 8 0 0 8 8 0 0 58.00 82.00 80 00 82 00 81.00 89.00 80 00 M m „ 59.74 58.78 58 48 83 72 80 90 82 48 8 1 7 2 58.80 80.49 Standard Deviation 13 12 18 88 14 88 III 84 1 2.47 1 2 18 1 2 83 14 88 13.71 • » n d > d ( * „ ol l.*~.m 8 20 8 28 7.2 1 4 42 7 88 5 93 5 40 7 83 8 80 Taat/KaMM Cor.ah.oor. 78 78 77 » • 78. . . . . 82 .72 7 7 Alternate Fern. CanobXan 1 , 3 " SOI-Learning Abilities Test (SOILA): FormA and FormB (December 1981 analysis) 38 CO d.naril Ablttr: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION GRADE 3 •***" 11 00 . 3 0 0 0 31 00 » » is 8 8 . . . 32 31 •tawT4ev«J DmvtoGmn . . . 11 .3J . . . . . . 8.83. . . 10 88 ttmntml frror of ttiJM.au . . 7 81 . 7.17 7 38 ImtMwnmttt Campion .88. . . .47. . . .81 .48 34 00 . 34 00 34.00 33 00 . . 31.00. . . . . . 33.00 38 87 14 48 35 32 38 13 33 07 33.82 .10 58 . . . 8 83 10 21 11 02 8.89 10.47 . 7 34 . . . . 8 82 7 02 7 22 8 94 7 08 52. . . 81 53 87 .82 84 51 49 GRADE 8 l l i « m . . . 42 00 . . .41 .00 . . . . 4 ] 00 48.00 47 00 48 00 44 00 44 00 44 00 Mm*. . . . 43.48. . . 42 20 . 42 91 45 31 . 47 10 48.12 44 3 7 44 74 44 83 SundonJ Devojeon 1 0 8 3 . . 10 78 . . . 10 87 10 2 7 12 22 11 20 10 48 1 1.78 1 1 05 StoYwJara' trror of irtfcnato . . . 7 07 . . . . . 8 .1 * . . . 8 78 8 40 7 97 6 48 8 22 8 99 8 87 T—t/W.l . l l COrTOOjOjOfl 68 .87. . . .80 72. 87 88 88 88 88 .82 S3 . 63 SOI-Learning Abilities Test (SOI-LA): Form-A and Form-B (December 1981 analysis) 36 Odiwral AMIty: UNITS QRAOE 3 49.00 51.00 49 00 54 00 . 5 1 00 52 00 50 00 51 00 51.00 49 90 50.12 49 58 52 00 61.98 81 99 50 4 7 81 18 80 8 7 Standard Devfcdan 9 80 7.73 8 88 9.88 7.99 8.78 9 79 7 92 8.73 StajndaRi Efror tf4 Eatfntota 4.91 8.44 5.12 I l l 4.88 5.29 5 74 _ » '_9 i l l TMt/MMMt CetrahtkMl .71 80 84 88 83 83 71 .81 68 AMemata •arm Corraajfkm 58 89 94 QRAOEB Madktn 60.00 81.00 81 00 82 00 84 00 83.00 81 00 62 00 62.00 M a n 61.21 ?0J» 8 0 » 7 8 1 3 3 63 28 82 74 81 78 81 89 61 66 Standard Oavajtlan 7.79 9 91 . 8 28 8 34 7 40 7 93 8 07 8.28 8.18 Standard Iirer at IrdmaM 1 8 9 1.79 3 78 3 98 4 2 7 4 06 3 60 3 88 3.91 TaaUNatM Carrataaon 77. . . . . . 92 79 77 67 74 76 78 77 ANamaaa »orra Camtadan 80 70 69 SOI-Learnlng Abilities Test (SOILA): Form-A and Form-B (December 1981 analysis) 40 Qdrw.il AbHty: CLASSES GRADE 3 Standard Cfror of ttranoNj TMiynvMot Can aw don . Artamata Form Corrabddn 42.00 4i.ee . 40.74 . «.11 (.11 6 91 7 73 88 10 4100 41.00 41 89 41 HI 9 31 9 58 I.I 1 5 72 40 fl4 .39 43.00. 43.91 Jit 9 99 . 29. 43 00 4200 42.69. 8.81. 6 94 46. 43 42J1 . 9 33 8.77 82 42 00 42.00 42.28 42 29 8 81 9 02 7 30 8.74 .31 44 40 GRADES 83 00 54 00 . 54 00 81 00 84 00 64.00 54 04 . .54 23 54.13 81.72 81.80 81.82 ModfcM . . . 84.00. . . 82 00. 53 00 S3 10 Mom . . . . . 81.19. . . 52 72 Standard Oavtadon 10.91... 8.90 10.10 Standard Error ml Eaffcnata . . . . 8.79. . . 5.72 6.77 72 . . 59 67 AMamaaB Pom Corraajdon. . . 47 10 08 7 62 9 12 10 SO 9 37 9.62 . 7 03 6.18 8 63 6 47 6,69 9.24 61 .37 47 _ .92 .49 88 19 44 SOILearnlng Abilities Test (SOI-LA): Form-A and Form-B (December 1981 analysis) 41 <3«n«ril AbNIty: RELATI0N8 GRADE 3 M«Man MMfl Standard Oairtatloat Standard Error of Csrlmolo. Taal/Ftataat Corr«1arJon Artamata form Corralarlon 34 00 11 00 31 00 35 02 3 0 5 9 33 53 8 78 . . 8 04 9 17 . 7.21 7 21 . . 7 19. .32 36 " 38 S I . 34 00 3 6 0 8 10 61 . 8.12. 87 32 00 33 38 6 10 _S 68 63 33 00 34 0 2 . . 9 73 5 7 4 85 . 52 34.00 32 00 36 04 32 1 1 6 71 9.16 «_4B 6 2 7 .86 S3 32 00 31 33 . 9 4 9 . 8.31 . 58 61 GRADE 8 9tandord Error of Eadniaaj. Taal/PJataal Corroladan Artamata Farm Cunaladon . 46.00 47 66 11 76 8 66 . 88 42 00 44 00 43 43 46 94 1127 1173 8 92 6 77. 82 67 . 66 4 7 00 47 58 112 7 . 8 38 68 48 00 48 00 48 40 46 80 9 91 10 71 6 22 8 28 81 86 84. 47 00 . 44 00 48 00 4 7 82 4 4 414 46 22 1161 10 81 1122 6.82 . 6 69 8 52 _ 69 . . . 61 86 68 SOI-Lsarnlng Abilities Test (SOI-LA): Form-A and FormB (December 1981 analysis) 43 Ganaial Ability: SYSTEMS GRADE 3 StaM*tler*J Ovvtetfon 8tar*dartJ trror of (•ttmM*. TeaUftatati Cont«tott(M A Hamate Form Covtatattoti. 3 9 0 0 . 28 00 29 00 . 2 9 00 . 32 00 . . 31.00 29 00 . . 31.00 30.00 31 57. 30 87 I l l 7 30 98 34 .13 32 89 31.28 . 32 87 12 09 1 2 48 . 1118 12 27 1 2 96 13 29 13 20 . . 12 87 12.87. . 12 79 5 25 . 7 28 8 50 6 89 8 28 6.60 . . 8.17 . 6 75 8 53 82 84 72 72 78 75 .78 72. 74 72. ... 71 .71 GRADE 6 8 landau! Oevteeen Standard titor al (•(knew. Taet/fleteM CvtaaitHMi. . . Attentats Form ComieBjon. . 80 00 60 21 . 17 80 . . 8 10. .79 81 00 81 00 SO 00 65 00 62 88 51.23. . 50 84 58 80 18 09 17 93 18.10 18 20 5 88 7 30 8 41 8 20 89 83 84 86 83 82 00 6 0 0 0 53 09 60.61. 16.30 18 84 8 40 J.11 . .86 _ 81 82 . 84.00 81.00 . 64 28 82.17 . 17.11. . . . . . . 17.13 . 6 08 8.87 . 87 84 81 SOI-Learning Abilities Test (SOI-LA): Form-A and Form-B (December 1981 analysis) 43 Gimaral AbOhy: TRANSFORMATIONS GRADE3 KtadkM 34 00 32 00 32 00 33 00 34.00 34.00 33 00 33.00 33.00 Maan 16.1t 32.40 33.62 33.76 34.41 34.16 34.46 33.61 33.90 Standard Oavtadon 10.33 11.16 10 66 1 1.20 1 1 43 1 1.32 10.77 11 34 11.10 Standard brat at tatjmata 9.86 5.83 9.39 9.71 7.42 8.83 _6_32 6.77 6.62 TaaVflataat Cotraataon 69 73 66 74 58 84 66 84 64 Artamata Farm Carratadaa 62 51 51 GRADES r'i -i 49.00 80 OO 46 00 49 00 49 00 49 00 47.00 49.00 4700 49 36 46 87 47 86 41 86 .49 91 49 72 47 90 **.?* .... 48 70 9.90 16.89 12 87 11 4 3 12 27 11 79 10 80 14 10 12 36 Standard brat at ltd™ an 6.10 8 10 881 8_82 7 38 ... 6 58 5 48 ... 7 86 8 52 • .71 74 74 78. 64 89 74 ... 70 72 62 59 80 SOILearnlng Abilities Test (SOMA): Form-A and Form-B (December 1981 analysis) 44 ro Oarwral Abltty: IMPLICATIONS GRADE 3 M i aim 33 00 39 00 31 00 38 00 38 00 38.00 34 00 32 00 33.00 M a n 34 21 . 33.20 33.88 37.10. . 38 90 38 37 38.88. 34 71 38.11 Standard OwbjttoPl I I 88 13 78 12 84 14.00 13 28 I 3 84 . 13 94 1J 82 13.17 Standard frror a) (KtmaM 9 98 8.31 8 83 8.10 9 44 9 03 _t_»* 6 81 8.73 reaUP.er.eet Correaj«on 17 84 58 68 49 . . . .56 86 67 87 Alternate Form Correal don 58 47 80 GRADE B Modem 64.00 84 00 Moon 63.89 81.60 Standard Oevejoen 16.67 18 83 Standard titer ol I n X u K 6.37 ' 8.81 TaaURafaal Cor raj Bon .70. . . . . .76 Alternate Form Corretaaon SOI-Learning Abilities Test (SOI-LA): Form-A and Form-B (December 1981 analysis) 4B 84 00 SO 00 57 00 88 00 56 00 64 00 38.00 S3 11 66.86 56 80 58 38 56 6 I 64.71 65 76 1 7 78 18.84 1 7 68 18.76 18 71 16.33 1 7 44 9.17 8.02 10.61 8.31 B 89 6 74 9.16 .73; .76 61 68 73. .71 72 .76 88 66 Sect ion Three Intercorrelations Between Subtests on the SOI-LA Test In this section the correlations between subtests are presented, along with the numbers involved for each correlation, at each grade level. The correlations are presented for all participants at each grade level; cor-relations for any of the nine subgroups in the norming can be obtained from the SOI Institute, 343 Rich-mond Street, El Segundo, CA 90245. Scores for the general abilities are derived from the subtest scores using the assumption that all subtests are of equal weight. The range on the general ability scores is between zero and 100 representing an average of the proportion correct on all contributing subtests. 119 NENRY EVAL CONVG OIVRG FIGRL SYM8L SEMAN UNITS CLASS RELTN STSTM TRANS IMPLC COG .492 .722 .622 .244 .787 .774 .779 .533 .647 .716 .926 .669 .569 NEMRT .455 .405 .247 .447 .805 .459 .569 .318 .312 .744 .471 .591 EVAL • *>••• • * • « • .621 .275 .654 .767 .652 .542 .662 .559 .749 .540 .562 CONVG • • • • • • a • • • .359 .604 .745 .613 .596 .436 .473 .662 .531 .687 OIVRG .492 .333 .438 .675 .165 .272 .250 .302 .269 FIGRL .535 .570 .752 .593 .455 .633 .667 .494 STHBL .694 .600 .554 .613 .917 .626 .752 SEMAN .644 .458 .609 .701 .521 .499 UNITS .308 .301 .490 .540 .451 CLASS .458 .516 .411 .4 35 RELTN .545 .172 .423 SYSTM .561 .5"8 TRANS .478 HEMRT EVAL CONVG DIV»G FIGRL STMSL SEMAN UNITS CLASS RELTN STSTM TRANS IMPLC COG HENRY EVAL CONVG OIVRG FIGRL SYMBL SEMAN UNITS CLASS RELTN SYSTM TRANS 454 454 454 455 454 454 454 .... 454 454 45 4 455 454 454 454 455 45 45 45 45 45 45 455 454 454 454 455 455 454 455 454 454 454 455 455 454 455 454 454 454 454 454 454 454 454 454 455 454 454 454 455 455 454 455 455 454 454 454 454 454 454 454 454 454 454 454 454 454 454 Intercorrelations (and Numbers) Between General Ability Scores from the SOI-LA: Grade 5 MENRY EVAL CONVG DIVRG FIG3L STM3L SEMAN UNITS CLASS RELTN STSTM TRANS IMPLC COG .293 .529 .578 .348 . 776 .657 .75! .552 .590 .624 .769 .613 .432 "IE MR T 2 57 .22* .146 .279 .724 .308 .517 .211 .222 .513 .171 .460 EVAL .399 .248 .510 .580 .492 .445 .493 .373 .586 .408 .256 CONVG •>•••• • • • • » .3 60 .610 .619 .529 . 568 .331 .446 .499 .544 .623 OIVRG .534 .3 39 .4 36 .624 .1 98 .312 .260 .307 .192 FIGRL .443 .519 .721 .617 .339 .551 .558 .351 STMBL .567 .576 .379 .555 .778 .467 .642 SEMAN .635 .3 40 .551 .550 .512 .354 UNITS .341 .279 .358 .421 .332 CLASS .255 .3 71 .253 .239 RELTN .474 .365 .330 STSTM .432 .430 TRANS .233 MEMRY EVAL CONVG OIVRG FIGRL STM8L SEMAN UNITS CLASS RELTN STSTM TRANS IMPLC COG 416 416 414 416 416 416 416 416 41 3 415 416 416 413 MENRY 414 416 416 416 416 416 413 415 416 416 413 EV AL 414 416 416 416 416 416 413 415 416 416 413 CONVG 414 414 414 414 414 413 413 414 414 413 OIVRG 416 416 416 416 413 415 416 416 413 FIGRL 416 416 416 413 41 5 416 416 413 STMBL 416 416 413 415 416 416 413 SEMftN 416 413 415 416 416 413 UNITS 413 415 416 416 41 3 CLASS 413 413 413 412 RELTN 415 415 412 STSTM 416 TRANS Intercorrelations (and Numbers) Between General Ability Scores from the SOI-LA: Grade 3 A P P E N D I X C B . C . G I F T E D E D U C A T I O N G U I D E L I N E S 147 148 Provmcs of British Columbia Ministry o! Education SPECIAL PROGRAMS | "7.59 A MANUAL OF POLICIES, PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES 3.32 GIFTED EDUCATION 3.32.1 DEFINITION Gifted and/or talented students are those students who possess demonstrated or potential abi l i t ies which are extraordinary and which H e beyond the ability levels anticipated or expected within the regular programs. Their capabilities are prolonged and may be demonstrated as general intellectual, creative and specific academic. Capability may also be demonstrated in the areas of leadership and the vi sual/performi ng-arts. Gifted learners often demonstrate outstanding abilities in more than one area. Many talented children, however, also exhibit cognitive weaknesses or learning disabi l i t ies . They should not be expected to have strengths in al l areas of intellectual functioning. Funding within Function 3 of the Financial Management System will be provided to a maximum of 21 of distr ict enrolment. 3.32.2 IDENTIFICATION/PLACEMENT The type of program or service offered should be consistent with the learning needs Identified. The Importance of early and ongoing Identification is stressed. The learning needs of the students should be identified using multiole criteria and instruments. No single criterion should be established for entry into, or exclusion from, a gifted program. A reliable and comprehensive assessment process could include some or all of the following steps: (a) observations of classroom performance and referrals by teachers; (b) request from parents and students; tc) use of behavioural checklists and inventories (e.g. Renzulll-Hartaian, Seattle Parent Project); (dU cumulative school history (Including school/district testing results); (e) formal testing; (f) Interviews. • A MANUAL OF POLICES. PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES • REV REVISION SATE 1 85.5.1 PrtrVinot of Brrtltit Columbia Ministry of Education SPECIAL PfWCWAMS 7.60  A MANUAL OF POLICIES. PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES Formal testing could Include such sources as: (i) standardized achievement tests; (b) tests of creative snd divergent thinking (e.g. Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, Will lams Creativity Assessment Package); (c) tests of differential aptitude (e.g. Guilford's "Structure of Intellect", Ross Test of Higher Cognitive Processes); (d) group or Individual Intelligence tests. Teachers should refer to their district testing policies and also to the Enrichment 4 Gifted Education Resource Book Test Appendix for further details on tne use of formal tests. The district screening and placement procedure should be the vehicle to process referrals for the program to ensure consistency with regard to the student population being served.. 3.32.3 PROGRAM The needs of gifted students may be met by a variety of programs. Normally such services should be provided in the context of, and related to, the regular school program and nay include: (a) special courses (e.g. I.B.N.A. at secondary level); (b) specialist teachers 1n classes or resource centres; (c) nentorships; (d) consultative services for teachers; (e) district and community classes; The intent of these services 1s to supplement regular programs with some percentage of tine spent 1n a setting offering specialized, individualized and concentrated development of specific skills and abilities. Some services may be provided within the school and some may be provided by the district. • A MANUAL Of POLICIES. PBOCEOUBES AND OU1DELINES - »EV REVISION DATE 1 85.5.1 Prorlncw of British Columbia Ministry of Education SPECIAL PI*3G>RAMS A MANUAL OF POLICIES. PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES 7.61 3.32.4 SERVICE DELIVERY The delivery of Instruction should be provided on different levels according to the intensity of the Identified learning needs . For basic enrichment. Instruction can be diversified by teachers within the general curriculum. As the range of learning needs Increases specialized help and Instruction should be provided. The regular classroom teacher will need adequate assistance fron qualified specialist teachers (I.e. helping teacher, coordinator, resource person). These support teachers can assist classroom teachers by providing such services as: (a) differentiating curriculum; (b) providing special units of instruction; (cl demonstration teaching; r-(d) developing Individualized programs. Regular classroom activities and the general curriculum will not meet the Increasingly prolonged, extraordinary abil i t ies found 1n a small number of students. To accommodate these ongoing needs, provision should be made for specialized environments and curricula. "Pull- in" assistance centres, accelerat ion ( i . e . continuous progress, telescoping or compacting courses), independent guided education with mentors, supplanting courses and providing district-wide or community based programs should be considered. 3.32.5 EVALUATION School distr icts should have an ongoing process to evaluate the effectiveness of their gifted programs. Please see the Enrichment i  Sifted Education Resource Boole (p.187-194) and the Ministry's Evaluation of Special programs: Resource Materials. 3.32.6 PROGRAM PERSONNEL Basic enrichment can be provided by the regular classroom "teacher within a flexible curriculum/classroom structure. Some of the needs of gifted children can also be net 1n the regular setting with specialized support services. As the diversity of needs Increases, provision should be made for tne use of specially trained teachers: (a) through enrichment centres; (b) with snail specialized groups or courses; A MANUAL Of POLICIES. PROCEDURES AMD GUIDELINES REVtSOfeDATE 85.5.1 Province of Brtt!-:-r-:v-.vW. Ministry of Education SPECIAL PROGRAMS SSCTOM Nuuacp.'nuu 7.62 A MANUAL OF POLICIES. PRO: AND GUIOEUNES EOURES (c) as helping teachers/coordinators or school and district-based fac i l i t i es ; (d) as teachers of specialized classes, These teachers should have received appropriate training in gifted education. 3.32.7 RESOURCES The Enrichment and Gifted Education Resource Boot provides more detailed information on the suosecnons in uiese guidelines. It is recommended that schools follow a variety of curriculum models. Materials produced to follow one particular model may not be appropriate for meeting a variety of learning needs. Districts should look to a range of locally-produced materials available through: Provincial Educational Resources Centre Ministry of Education 637 Head Street Victoria, B.C. V9A 5S9 Further, there may be many resources available within the community ( i .e . mentors, local colleges, private coaches, community l ibrar ies , local business) which can increase the range and f lex ib i l i ty of available options. 3.32.8 FACILITIES Please refer to the B.C. School Faci l i t ies Building Manual Part 2 Space Standards and Part 3 Design • Guidelines for assistance in setting up Resource Rooms or Enrichment Centres. 3.32.9 CONSULTATION The services of the Provincial Coordinator of Enrichment and Gifted Programs are available to school districts to assist witft enrichment and gifted programming. Further information nay be obtained from: Provincial Coordinator Enrichment and Gifted Programs Division of Special Education Ministry of Education Parliament Buildings Victoria, B.C. V8V 2M4 - A MANUAL Of POLICIES. PROCEDURES ANO GUIDELINES -ntv 1 REVISION DATE 85.5.1 A P P E N D I X D DISTRICT P R O G R A M I N F O R M A T I O N 1985 152 153. S C H O O L DISTRICT 63 (Saanich) ENRICHMENT PROGRAMS ENRICHMENT Enrichment. . . What is it? Many students show the need for broader or deeper educational experiences on an occasional basis. Those experiences which extend, supplement or differentiate the core curriculum in order to maximize personal potential are defined as enrichment. Enrichment strategies in the curriculum emphasize and foster critical thinking, creative thinking, independent study and learning skills in problem solving, research writing, inquiry and communication. Gif ted Education.. . What is it? Gifted education refers to the learning experiences developed and coordinated on an individual basis in order to accommodate the extraordinary ability of students who are truly exceptional. However, it is recognized that enrichment can meet some of their needs and that the dividing lines are not clearly defined. Distr ict Philosophy.. . What is it? The Saanich School District Enrichment Program provides an opportunity for students to pursue learning activities in greater depth than can be provided in a regular classroom situation. WHAT IS ENRICHMENT?, 154 Enrichment . . . What is it? These needs exist on a continuum. Many students show the need for broader or deeper educational experiences on an occasional basis. Experiences which replace, extend or supplement the core curriculum in order to maximize personal potential is defined as enrichment. An enrichment curriculum emphasizes higher level thinking skills designed to meet the needs of the student through the processes of inquiry, creative and productive thinking and problem solving applied to a variety of content. Enrichment refers to the breadth, depth and quality of study. Gif ted Educat ion. . . What is it? There are some students whose needs are not occasional: rather their intensity will demand attention over their entire school careers. Gifted education refers to the learning experiences developed and coordinated on an individual basis... in order to accommodate the extraordinary ability of students who are truly exceptional. It is recognized, however, that enrichment can meet some of their needs and that the dividing lines are not clearly defined. IDENTIFICATION and SELECTION Identification is the on-going process of selecting students whose unique abilities require special programming. What type of student is recommended? Enrichment students possess (or are capable of developing) the traits of above average general ability, high levels of task commitment and/or high leveis of creativity and can appiy them to general performance areas such as: visual/performing arts, language arts, mathematics, science and physical, social or movement sciences. It is important that many aspects of identification be considered when selecting students. A reliable ind comprehensive process could include some or all of the following steps: i) observation of skills, interests, specific needs ii) teacher evaluation of performance or products iii) checklists/inventories iv) informal test scores v) parent nominations vi) learning style of student vii) time required to complete assignments viii) CTBS scores ix) clinical test results/assessments An enrichment program provides for numbers of students, depending on their needs and interests, to be involved at various times throughout the year. IDENTIFICATION and SELECTION; 156 QUESTIONS PARENTS OFTEN ASK 1. Is enrichment for everyone? \ Children learn at different speeds and achieve different depths of knowledge Approximately 15% of the school population will have an opportunity to participate at some point in the year in the Pull-out program. 2 . How can I help my child? Parental assistance is welcomed and desirable in the following areas: i) discussing a unit topic ii) exploring possible approaches to the unit Si) assisting with projects by helping with home/community resources iv) proofreading v) assisting with time-management iv; supporting the development and growth of task commitment in your child 3. What kind of communication can I expect? Communication is an important component of our program. You should receive the following: i) reason(s) for selection ii) unit of study (its goals and objectives) iii) unii permission slip iv) final evaluation of your child's progress and/or achievement You may also receive any of the following: i) telephone contact ii.) request for interview iii) field trip permission slip iv) 'special events' information v) parents' resource materials vi) requests for assistance 4. What are my child's responsibilities? Participation is a responsibility, not a privilege: therefore, the student is expected to: i) achieve to the best of his/her ability ii) complete assignments on time iii) complete homeroom class responsibilities if required 5. What about "catching up" core material? It is not intended that enrichment pull-out program students 'catch up" on oi" missed classroom assignments; classroom teachers working co-operatively with the enrichment teacher pian a suitable timetable. However, sometimes due to staffing and timetabling, this is not always possible. Intermediate and middic school students are expected to be responsible and to discuss any difficulties with their teachers. 6 . How are units of study chosen? j Units fall under a variety of categories: i) extension of the core curriculum ii) interest of students iii) needs of school/community 7. Is it possible for my child to "drop-out" of the enrichment program? • It is possible that a particular unit is not suitable for your child However, it is essentia! that a fair period of time elapse before any move is made. It is important that your child feel a commitment to the program especially during the first few weeks when he/she is confronted with new challenges. If your child chooses not to participate in a particular unit, this will not exclude him/her from further involvement in the enrichment program. QUESTIONS PARENTS OFTEN ASK APPENDIX E DISTRICT IDENTIFICATION HANDBOOK .1985 157 HANDBOOK FOR IDENTIFYING ENRICHMENT STUDENTS School District No.63 (Saanich) 159. * ENRICHMENT Enrichment . . . . what is it? ~~ " ' These needs exist on a continuum. Many students show the need for broader or deeper educational experiences on an occasional basis. Experiences which replace, extend or supplement the core curriculum in order to maximize personal potential is defined as enrichment. An enrichment curriculum emphasizes higher level thinxing skills designed to meet the needs of the student through the processes of inquiry, creative and productive thinking and problem solving applied to a variety of content. Enrichment refers to the breadth, depth and quality of study. Gifted Education . . . . what is it? There are some students whose needs are not occasional; rather their intensity will demand attention over their entire school careers. Gifted education refers to the learning experiences developed and coordinated on an individ-ual basis . . . in order to accommodate the extraordinary ability of students who are truly exceptional. It is recognized, however, that enrichment can meet some of their needs and that the dividing lines are not clearly defined. Ministry of Education Enrichment and Gifted — Education Resource Book Page 1. 160 ItientlfICQtion of Enrichment Students What type of student should I be looking for? Enrichment students possess (or are capable of developing), the composite set of traits listed below and applying them to general performance areas such as; visual/performing arts, physical, social or movement sciences, mathematics, language arts, law, religion or philosophy. 1. above average general ability 2 . high level of task commitment 3. high level of creativity On what type of information/devices should I base my nominations for the Enrichment Program? 1) observation of s k i l l s , interests, specific needs i i ) teacher evaluation of performance or products i i i ) checklists/inventories iv) informal test scores v) parent nominations vi) leaminq style of student vi i) time required to complete assignments v i i i ) CTBS scores i x) clinical test results/assessments Page 2. 161 P o s i t i v e and Negotlve C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  of Enrichment/Gifted Students When we talk about enrichment/gifted candidates we are talking about a wide variety of personality types and behavioral characteristics. Exceptional abilities can be displayed in both positive and negative ways. Both the positive and negative should be considered when nominating students for the program. - Has longer attention and interest span. - Sometimes doesn't want to stop one project and start another. - Has large vocabulary, which is used easily and accurately. Can lose other students or turn them off. Peers may become impatient with him/her. - Learns rapidly and easily. Gets bored with routine assignments. May underachieve. - Has a strong desire to excel. Can be easily or too deeply upset by perceived failure. - Is highly imaginative. May only want to do things his/her owii way. - Is a leader in several kinds of activities. Can become too bossy. May not listen to the opinions of others. - Quick to generate ideas. Constantly interrupts. - May be energetic, alert, adventurous. Is frustrated by inactivity, lack of challenge. May be branded a trouble maker. - Reasons things out, thinks clearly, recognizes relation-ships. May see relationships others do not see and may want to spend large amounts of class time discussing all this. May be critical of those who don't see his/her way. Page 3. 162 CHECKLIST Choracterlsttcs of Enrichment/Gifted Students  Academic Abil i ty General Definition There is a demonstrated excellence either generally or in a specific academic area(s) that will be evident through the child's extended and effective performance. For example, the student may excel in all subject areas or only in a single subject such as mathematics or language arts. The following characteristics may be evident in the subject areas listed below: Humanities (Language Arts, Social Studies) - exceptional fluency in reading, oral language, listening and writing - avid reader in all or specific areas - extensive vocabulary - critical thinking skills Math/Sciences - demonstrates curiosity and inquisltiveness - exceptional ability to hypothesize - ability to work a long time on challenging problems although there may be no one solution Page 4. 163 Creative Ab i l i t y General Definition The student demonstrates an unusual abil ity to think in unique ways. The following characteristics may be evident in creative children: - fluency (generates a large number of ideas or solutions to problems or questions). - creates unique methods of solving problems - displays a great deal of intellectual playfulness; fantasizes, imagines, manipulates ideas Leadership Ab i l i t y General Definition The student demonstrates an unusual abil i ty to relate to and motivate other people. The following characteristics may be evident: - carries responsibility well - displays self-confidence/assurance - adapts readily to new situations - may dominate/manipulate situation Page 5. 164 Task Commitment General Definition The student demonstrates unusual ability to become absorbed and truly involved. They need l i t t le external motivation to work on or complete tasks. The following characteristics may be evident: - long attention span on classroom assignments - prefers to work independently - easily bored with routine tasks. Underachlevers General Definition Low classroom performance on a daily basis contradicted by known or suspected ability to think and perform on a high level. Visual and Performing Arts General Definition (Visual Arts) The student demonstrates an eagerness to visually express ideas and/or uses unique or unusual solutions to artistic problems as opposed to traditional or conventional ones. The following characteristics may be evident: - responds with imagination and perception to visual stimuli. Page 6. 165 General Definition (Visual Arts) (Cont'd) - has an unusual ability to communicate through manipulation of materials and techniques. General Definition (Performing Arts) The ability to create or perform in the areas of music or drama which suggests unusual talent. - responds with unique emotion to aesthetic situations (music, drama) - demonstrates natural stage presence. These a b i l i t y areas may be reviewed prior to school productions to ensure t h a t these children are either recommended or encouraged to participate. Psychomotor Abilities General D e f i n i t i o n The student demonstrates an exceptional ability in his/her physical motor skills/development. The following characteristics may be evident: - demonstrates unusual strength, balance, coordination for a child this age. - performs complicated physical activities - uses equipment of a complicated or finely tooled nature with expertise, with l i t t le or no training. Page 7 . M.05.02 Dear Colleague: The purpose of this Enrichment Referral Form Is to aid both you and the Enrichment Teacher In Identifying potential students for the Enrichment Program In the coming school year. Potential students for the Enrichment Program Include those who have demonstrated any of the following abilities or aptitudes, singly or 1n combination: 1. General Intellectual abi l i ty 2. Specific academic aptitude 3. Creative or productive thinking 4. Leadership abil i ty 5. Visual and performing arts aptitude 6. Psychomotor ability Please Identify students with unique abil i ty 1n the areas on the form provided. Students' names may appear 1n more than one area. A reasonable degree of task commitment should be apparent In each of the areas. It should be noted that Identification 1s an on going process of seeking and locating students whose exceptional abil it ies require differentiated programs and services. Additional students can be recommended throughout the school year. Should you require further clarif ication please see the "Handbook for Identifying Enrichment Students' for definitions and examples in each of the areas or contact your Enrichment Teacher. District Enrichment Teachers /bjd ENRICHMENT REFERRAL FORM School District #63 (Soonlch) Teocher: Y#>nr. Grade: Please rtfer those students who you feel have above average to exceptional ability In one or wore of the following areas. A reasonable degree of task cornr.1 tnent should be apparent In each of the areas. General definitions and specific characteristics of each of the areas are included In the handbook. Further questions should be directed to the enrichment teacher 1n your school. GENERAL ACAOEHIC ABILITY (Overall ability) ABILITY IN LANGUAGE ARTS/READING/SOCIAL STUDIES (Please Specify) AEILITY IN SCIENCE/ KAm (Fledse Spec i fy ) CREATIVITY LEADERSHIP VISUAL and PERFORMING ARTS (Please specify) PSYCHOMOTOR ABILITY WUER ACHIEVERS APPENDIX F SOI COGNITIVE STYLE PROFILES 168 1 76 .-."v Po&T-TeST- ( « A « . C M %o So 4o C H t t4 » U e. R. S T I -V-A,..-\ Nv \ \ i * \ \ \ \ \ V -. . - — . 7 ' / ' \ \ / ^ i>; j\y v'/ /' * ' \ / -? • • * •. 17T - 4o 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0097540/manifest

Comment

Related Items