Theme 1: Level of Thinking Skills

The findings reflected the importance of developing the abilities and skills of gifted students, which are confirmed by the high percentage (84%) of gifted students who indicated that they hoped to improve their skills through the PEP. This finding is consistent in general with both the qualitative data from teachers' and supervisors' views and the analysis of the ST. It might be the case that all the results reflect the demand to develop skills further in the modern era. There is a need to develop some types of skills and abilities more than ever, especially in the field of science and technology, in the new era of communication. Thus, Halpern (2003:2) states that the

information explosion is yet another reason why we need to provide specific instruction in thinking. Thomson (2006) emphasised that the development of gifted education is

necessary to ensure that students have opportunities to develop their abilities and skills to become the future intellectual, social, economic and cultural leaders.

There was agreement across all the findings of the current study that the thinking skills contained in the ST do not exceed the lower order of Bloom‟s Taxonomy. Some teachers and supervisors were disappointed about the absence of the basic skills of "analysis, synthesis and evaluation and creativity" in the science textbook. This highlights the need to improve the ST to meet the higher level of thinking required by our gifted students. The concern from the teachers and supervisors is consistent with the findings from the analyses of the ST, which showed that the majority of the skills in the ST are focused on remembering, understanding and applying.

The analysis of the ST showed that more than 50% of the materials are at the level of applying (sections 5.2.2 and 5.2.3). However, Unit 5 contains few materials that address the levels of analysing, evaluating or creating. On the other hand, Unit 6 has a good level of material at the levels of analysing and creating (see Tables 5.3 and 5.4). This implies that the majority of skills are lower than the students require.

Accordingly, the PEP should contain all basic thinking skills, including those at higher levels, for the benefit of all students, gifted and non-gifted. This will help to overcome the failure of the ST to meet gifted students‟ needs and improve their thinking skills. This is in line with Purcell et al. (2002), who found that the gap

between current curricular units and learning needs of gifted and talented learners is immense. Many programmes have been established to develop gifted students‟ thinking

skills, but these aspects are not included in science textbooks (Purcell et al., 2002; Adams and Pierce, 2008). VanTassel-Baska et al. (2007) examined eleven different programmes designed to meet the needs of gifted students. One of the main purposes of these programmes was to increase the level of thinking skills of all students, including gifted students. The programmes showed some evidence of effectiveness with gifted

learners (VanTassel-Baska, 2007:351). Furthermore, Gady (2006) mentioned that there

were many reasons to include and develop higher order thinking skills in gifted programmes, because these programmes would prepare students for their real life, improve learners‟ social lives and help students to cope with the complexity of life and decision-making. Based on the above view, the importance of higher-order thinking skills is clear, and students should be enabled to participate in lessons and practical experiments that include a range of these skills (Gady, 2006).

Challenge is one of the most important factors in the field of gifted education. Teaching for gifted learners should support them to develop thinking skills in science by providing appropriate levels of challenge (Renzulli, 2000; Davis and Rimm, 2004; Cigman, 2006). The qualitative data showed that many teachers and supervisors expressed their concerns about the lack of challenge in the ST (section 5.8.1). Some of them said that "challenge is extremely weak" in the ST and they considered that the role of teachers of gifted students is to provide opportunities to challenge learners‟ abilities to make more progress.

The analysis of the ST showed that there are no objectives relative to higher levels of thinking. It is difficult to explain this result, but it might be related to failings in the design of the Saudi Curriculum in light of the goals in the education system in Saudi Arabia. It could be argued that the primary science curriculum should be designed in the light of the goals of primary level in Saudi Arabia, as well as on the needs of normal and gifted students.

Findings suggest that gifted students require a certain degree of challenge and the opportunity for higher levels of thinking. These interpretations are compatible with Arsheed's et al. (2003) and Phillips and Lindsay‟s (2006) findings. Arsheed et al.'s study examined the science curriculum in Saudi Arabia for the primary level. They found that the scientific goals of science curriculum at the primary level in Saudi Arabia do not take into account students‟ needs to think at a higher level. This

explanation corroborates the findings of CCEA (2006), Collins (2007) and Silverman (2008), which emphasize the needs of all students, not just gifted students, for

challenge and opportunities for high levels of thinking to improve their attitudes to learning. Thus, the PEP should provide more opportunities to improve the level of challenge in the science curriculum by including contents and activities that gifted students do not use in their regular science lessons.

This finding concurs with the most recent research about the element of challenge in the curriculum to stimulate gifted students in the classroom (Purcell et al., 2002; Smith, 2005; Taber, 2007; Briggs et al., 2008; Hockett, 2009; Fredricks et al., 2010). Purcell et al. (2002:309) stressed in their study that we must increase the challenge

level of curricula for all students, especially students who are advanced learners. Eyre

and Mcclure (2001) suggested some useful ideas for creating challenge in the

classroom for gifted students in primary schools, such as using a range of information, role play, decision making, no correct answer, and involving students in planning.

The PEP will increase the level of challenge to meet gifted students‟ needs and interests and increase their learning by engaging them in activities that challenge their abilities as higher level thinking (see Appendices L). The PEP should help them to think deeply not just copy things down and take notes, memorize, then regurgitate information for exams (Gallagher, 2000).

These findings reflect the limitations and the inability of the ST to meet the needs of all students, not just the gifted. This indicates that the ST needs to be developed and re-built to meet these needs. The responses from the students in the current study confirm this. Students were looking toward the development of the PEP to meet their needs. An important issue here is the nature of science, which requires scientific

activities and specific skills that should be developed by the educational process. Taber (2007:13) supports these explanations when he points out that science should

emphasise questions that enable the learners to analyse, synthesise, or evaluate.

Researches in gifted education stress the importance of giving learners opportunities to think more deeply in order to increase their learning outcomes (Salama, 2002; Jarwan, 2004; Hany and Grosch, 2007; VanTassel-Baska and Brown, 2007).