The impact of a cognitive acceleration programme in science on students in an academically selective high school

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

Thinking

Skills

and

Creativity

jou rn al h om ep a ge :ht t p : / / w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / t s c

The

impact

of

a

cognitive

acceleration

programme

in

science

on

students

in

an

academically

selective

high

school

Grady

Venville

_,

_Mary

_Oliver

a_{UniversityofWesternAustralia,GraduateSchoolofEducation,35StirlingHighway,Nedlands,WA6009,Australia}

b_{UniversityofNottingham,SchoolofEducation,JubileeCampus,WollatonRoad,NottinghamNG81BB,UnitedKingdom}

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

i

n

f

o

Articlehistory:

Received25April2014 Receivedinrevisedform 23November2014 Accepted24November2014 Availableonline2December2014

Keywords: Cognitiveacceleration Thinking Academicallyselective Science Highachiever

a

b

s

t

r

a

c

t

Thispaperdescribestheimpactofathinkingskillsprogrammeinscienceonthecognition ofstudentsinanacademicallyselectivehighschool.Theresearchfollowedasequential explanatorydesignwiththecollectionandanalysisofquantitativedatainthefirstphase followedbythecollectionandanalysisofqualitativedatainthesecondphase.Participants were582Year8andYear9(ages12–14)highschoolstudentsandtheirscienceteachers fromeightschoolswhoparticipatedinThinkingScience,a2-yearclassroominterventionand teacherprofessionallearningprogramme.Theschoolsincludedoneacademicallyselective highschool(n=144)andsevennon-academicallyselectiveschools(n=438).Quantitative datawerecollectedbyPiagetianreasoningtasksadministeredtoallstudentsbeforeand aftertheintervention.Qualitativedataincludedinterviewswiththeheadofscienceand threeparticipatingscienceteachersfromtheacademicallyselectiveschool.Overthe 2-yearperiod,studentsfromtheacademicallyselectiveschoolhadagreatermeangainwith alargeeffectsize(d=0.995)whencomparedwiththecontrol(n=120)andwhen com-paredwithotherstudentswhoparticipatedintheinterventionwithamediumeffectsize (d=0.687).Thequalitativedataindicatedthatscienceteachersintheacademically selec-tiveschoolwerecommittedtotheinterventionandexplainedhowtheyhadchangedtheir pedagogyasaresultoftheprofessionallearningprogramme.Morespecifically,theteachers developedteachingstrategiesspecifictothecharacteristicsoftheiracademicallytalented studentsthatenabledthemtoparticipateinthinkingactivitiessuchasmetacognitionand socialconstruction.Inconclusion,ThinkingSciencewasaworthwhileinterventionforall participatingstudents,butparticularlyforstudentsintheacademicallyselectiveschool whereteacherswereabletoadapttheirpedagogyandtheapproachtosuittheirstudents.

©2014TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierLtd.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCC BY-NC-NDlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).

1. Introduction

Theteachingand learning ofthinking is becominga more prominentaspectofeducational policyand curriculum documentsinanumberofcountries(Gallagher,Hipkins,&Zohar,2012).Forexample,theEuropeanCommission’skey com-petenciesforlifelonglearningisunderpinnedbythemesincludingcriticalthinkingandcreativity(EuropeanCommission, 2007).TheOECD’sDeSeCoProject(OECD,2005)recognisesthatindividualsintoday’sworldneedtogowellbeyondthe

∗ Correspondingauthorat:GraduateSchoolofEducation,UniversityofWesternAustralia,35StirlingHighway,Crawley,WA6009,Australia. Tel.:+61864883811.

E-mailaddresses:[email protected](G.Venville),[email protected](M.Oliver).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2014.11.004

1871-1871/©2014TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierLtd.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBY-NC-NDlicense(http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).

basicreproductionofaccumulatedknowledgeandthisrequires“cognitiveandpracticalskills,creativeabilitiesandother psychosocialresources”(p.8).Further,“individualshavetolearntothinkandactinamoreintegratedway”(p.9).The MelbourneDeclarationonEducationalGoalsforYoungAustralians(MCEETYA,2008)acknowledgedthatsuccessfullearners “areabletothinkdeeplyandlogically,andobtainandevaluateevidenceinadisciplinedway”(MCEETYA,2008,p.8).Asa consequenceoftheMelbournedeclaration,thefirstnationalcurriculuminAustralia,implementedin2012,includedseven generalcapabilitiesthatareconsideredtobetheskills,behavioursandattributesthatstudentsneedtosucceedinlifeinthe 21stCentury.Oneofthesegeneralcapabilitiesiscriticalandcreativethinking.

TheAustralianCurriculumrecognisesthat“thinkingthatisproductive,purposefulandintentionalisatthecentreof effectivelearning”(ACARA,2012,p.52)andrequiresteacherstoexplicitlyteachandembedcritical,higherorderthinking andcreativethinkingthroughoutthelearningareas.Whileteachingthinkingisnowanexplicitandrequiredgoalofeducation inAustralia,manyteachersremainconfusedaboutwhattheteachingofthinkinginvolves,howitmightbestbeachieved and/orhowitaffectsstudents’learningandachievement(Oliver,Venville,andAdey,2011).Thisisanissueinternationally, forexample,Zohar,Degaini,andVaaknin(2001)foundthat 45%oftheirsampleof 40Israeliteachersbelievedhigher orderthinkingisinappropriateforlow-achievingstudents.PriortoIsrael’snationalcurricularreformfocussedonthinking,

Gallagheretal.(2012)foundthatwhile“projectsandlocalprogrammeshavebeenquitesuccessful,theyhavenotsucceeded inchangingthebulkofteachingandlearning...rather,suchprojectsandprogrammesstillexistasisolatedpocketsor ‘islands’ofexemplaryteachingwithina‘sea’ ofmuchmore traditionalschooling”(Gallagheretal.,2012,p.139).Our ownresearchandobservationsindicatethatGallagheretal.’sislandmetaphorcanbeappliedtothecurrentsituationin Australiawherethereareexamplesofexcellentpracticewithregardtotheteachingandlearningofthinking,butthevast majorityofclassroomsrarelyincorporateactivitiesdesignedtostimulatecognitioninwaysthatwilladvancethestudents’ thinking.

1.1. Researchrationale

InorderforthenewAustralianCurriculumtomakeadifferencetostudents’education,evidenceisrequiredtosupport approachestoteachers’professionallearningandcurriculumdevelopmentsothatAustralianchildrencangenuinelybecome criticalandcreativethinkers.TwothinkingprogrammesthathavebeenimplementedinAustralianschoolsincludethe Phi-losophyforChildren(P4C)programme(Lipman,2003)andtheThinkingSciencecognitiveaccelerationprogrammeoriginally developedintheUKbyAdey,Shayer,andYates(1989).Theresearchreportedinthispaperwassituatedwithintheinitial triallingoftheThinkingSciencecognitiveaccelerationprogrammeineightAustralianschools.Duringtheimplementationof theThinkingSciencecognitiveaccelerationprogrammeinAustralia,theauthorsnotedcontrastingviewsandopinionsfrom schooladministratorsandteacherswithregardtostudents’levelsofachievementandtheteachingofthinkingskills.On onehand,someeducatorssuggestedthataprogrammeonthinkingskillsthatimprovescognitionshouldbetargetedatlow abilitystudentsbecauseitislikelytoimprovetheirachievement.Ontheotherhand,othereducatorssuggestedthatsuch aprogrammewouldonlybesuitableforacademicallytalentedstudentswhowouldbemorelikelytocopewithadvanced thinkingskills.Weweresurprisedbysuchresponsesbecauseevidencetodatesuggestthatallstudentsshouldbesupported by,andcanbenefitfrom,excellentteachingandappropriatecognitivestimulationthroughtheexplicitteachingofthinking skills(Adey&Shayer,1993;Adey,Robertson,&Venville,2002).Thesecontrastingopinions,however,stimulatedtheinquiry reportedinthispaper.

1.2. Researchpurpose

ThepurposeofthisresearchwastoexploretheimpactoftheThinkingSciencecognitiveaccelerationprogrammeonthe cognitionofstudentsinanacademicallyselectiveschool.Inparticular,wewereinterestedinanychangeinthe academ-icallyselectivestudents’cognitioncomparedwithstudentswhodidnotparticipateintheThinkingScienceprogramme and alsocompared withstudents innon-academically selectiveschools who alsoparticipated intheThinking Science programme.

1.3. Teachingthinkingskillstohighandlowachievingstudents

Research shows that qualityteaching is fundamental tostudent achievement(Hattie &Timperley, 2007; Louden, Rohl, &Hopkins, 2008; Rogers,2007).According tothe literature,characteristics of expert teachers include, but are not limited to, concernfor students, passion, deep knowledge of the field, flexible instructional repertoires, respect (Matthews, 2009; Rimm, 2009; Van Tassel-Baska, MacFarlane, & Feng, 2006) as well as teaching practices that ensure individual progress (Diezmann & Watters, 2000) and emphasise higher order thinking (Louden et al., 2008). Importantly, good teachers challenge students, they teach skills of thinking and know their subject (Hattie, 2009). Research also hasshown that students whose talentsare exceptionally higherthan theirpeers should have instruc-tion,resourcesandactivitiescorrespondingtotheirtalents(Feldhusen,1998)andthatschoolenvironmentsthatmake a differenceto thelearning of talented studentsprovide opportunitiesfor them tosocialise and learn withstudents of similar achievement levels as well as opportunities to work with a wide range of peers (Gross, 2009; Rogers, 2007).

ThepressinAustraliarecentlyreportedthat“resultsflatlinefortopstudents”(Topsfield,2013,p.1)basedonthefindings ofamajorstudyinthestateofVictoria.Griffin,Care,Francis,Hutchinson,andPavlevic(2012)foundthatinbothliteracyand mathematics,primaryschoolteachersweremuchmoresuccessfullyabletoinitiateteachingstrategiesforlowachieving studentstoimprovetheirlearningoutcomesover6monthsthantheywereforhighachievingstudents.Thehigherorder skillsorcompetenciesinliteracyincludedstudentsbeingabletoinfer,evaluate,interpret,makejudgementsandusemultiple piecesofinformation(Griffinetal.,2012).Griffinetal.speculatedthatthereisa“nationalandsystemicproblemofalack ofteachingstrategiesorresourcestoencouragehigherabilitystudentstoimproveorprogressataratecommensurate withtheirability”(p.13).OneoftheunderpinningreasonsthatGriffinetal.suggestedforthislackofabilityofteachers toappropriatelystimulatehighachievingstudentswasbecausestateandfederalgovernmentsfocusedon‘closingthe gap’betweenlowandhighachievingstudents,ratherthanimprovingthelearningoutcomesforstudentsatalllevelsof theachievementspectrum.Similarly,McGaw(2008)pointedoutthatifAustraliawantstoimproveoninternationaltests, Australianeducatorsmustfocusnotonlyonimprovinglowperformingstudents’achievementbutalsoonimprovinghigh performingstudents’achievement.

WespeculatethatthefindingsdescribedaboveresonatewithadefiningfeatureoftheAustralianculturalcharacteristic referredtoasofthe‘TallPoppySyndrome’.Australiahasanunspokennationalethosandprofoundrespectforhumility andloathingofegoism.Themetaphorofatallpoppyrepresentspeoplewhodemonstrablyexploittheirtalentsandthe widespreadculturalviewthatthetallpoppiesthatmakeashowofthemselves,havetobecutdown,criticisedandaligned withthemajority(Feather,1989).Inthediscussionofthefindingswereturntothissocioculturalideaofatallpoppyand explorewhetherAustralianeducatorsmaybeinfluencedbyaculturalcringeandloathingofhighachievement.

IncontrastwiththeGriffinetal.(2012)findingsfromAustralia,previousresearchconductedinCaliforniaandMichigan intheUSAindicatedthatteachersofhighachievingstudentsaremorelikelytoemphasisehigherorderprocessesthan teachersinclassesoflowachievingstudents(Raudenbush,Rowan,&Cheong,1993).Further,WarburtonandTorff(2005)

showedthatthemajorityoftheteachersintheirstudyintheUSstateofNewYorkbelievedthatcriticalthinkingactivities weremoreeffectiveforhighachievingstudentsthanforlowachievingstudents.Theseresearchersdidnotmentionwhether theyfoundanyteacherswhothoughtthatlowachievingstudentshadmoretogainthroughtheteachingofthinkingskills aswefoundinourdiscussionswithAustralianteachers.Thesestudiesindicatespeculationandconfusionwithregardtothe levelofachievementofstudentsandthesuitabilityofthinkingskillsprogrammesamongstteachersandeducators.There are,however,asmallnumberofstudiesthatprovidedempiricaldatadirectlyrelatedtothisissuethatwediscussinthe followingparagraphs.

ZoharandPeled(2008)assessedtheeffectsofexplicitteachingofmetastrategicknowledge,ongainsof41lowandhigh achieving5thGradestudentsinIsrael.Metastrategicknowledgewasdefinedasgeneralknowledgeaboutcognitive proce-duresofhigher-orderthinkingskillsandstrategies(e.g.classification,causality,argumentation,hypothesising,evaluating). Tasksincludedtwocomputerisedsimulationactivitiesovernineteachingsessionsonseedgermination,forexample,that allowedthestudentstoplanexperimentswithseveralvariableslookingforcausalrelationshipsanddrawingconclusions. Thefindingsshowedthattheexplicitteachingofmetastrategicknowledgepositivelyaffectedbothlowandhighachieving students,butthelowachievingstudentsrequiredalongerperiodoftimethanthehighachievingstudentstoreachtheir topscore.Anotherfindingwasthatthelowachievingstudentsintheexperimentalgroupoutperformedthehighachieving studentsinthecomparisongroupbytheendoftheteachingsessions.Theresearcherswereunabletomakeconclusions aboutwhetherthelowachievingstudentsmadegreatergainsthanhighachievingstudentsbecauseofaceilingeffecton thetasksused.

InanoverviewofthefindingsfromtheoriginalThinkingSciencecognitiveaccelerationproject,AdeyandShayer(1993)

testedwhetherthestudentswhoshowedthehighestpre-/post-cognitivegainswerethosewitheitheraloworhigh pre-score.Theywereinterestedtoseeiftherewasanyindicationthatthestudentswithlowpre-interventionscores“had muchtomakeup”orthosewithahighpre-interventionscorecouldbe“thoughttobeready”forthecognitivestimulation throughthethinkingactivities(p.23).AdeyandShayerconcludedthatthehighgainerscamefromawidedistributionof pre-interventiontestscoresandthatthiswassupportedbyanabsenceofanycorrelationbetweenstartinglevelandgain. Similarly,resultsfromalargestudywithacognitiveaccelerationinterventionwithmorethan470Year1(5and6year old)pupilsininnerLondon(Adeyetal.,2002),showednorelationshipbetweencognitivegainsoverthesingleyearofthe interventionandpre-interventioncognitivescoreorachievementlevelineitherlanguageornumber.

Anexploratorycasestudyweconductedinalowsocioeconomic,regionalhighschoolwhereonly8%ofthegraduating studentstypicallygoontouniversity,showedthatthereareconsiderablebenefitsofteachingthinkingtolowachieving students(Oliver,Venville,&Adey,2012).Thecasestudystudentsstartedthe2-yearinterventionatalowermeancognitive levelcomparedwiththecomparisonstudentswhodidnotparticipateintheprogramme.Findingsshowed,however,that thecasestudystudentsmadegreatercognitivegainsovertheperiodoftheinterventionasindicatedbyaScienceReasoning Taskwithamediumeffectsize(Cohen’sd=0.47).Boysshowedgreatergainsthangirls.Further,independentnationaland statetestingindicatedthattheinterventioninthecasestudyschoolresultedinparticipatingstudentshavingsignificantly greatermeangainsinachievementinsciencecomparedwithallotherstudentsinthestatewithasmalleffectsize(Cohen’s d=0.21),butnotinreading,spellingandnumeracy.ConsistentwithZoharandPeled(2008),however,thefinalmeanscores forcognitionandscienceachievementfromthecasestudystudentsinthelowsocioeconomicschoolwerestillwellbelow thefinalmeanscoresofthecomparisongroup,indicatingthatwhiletheoverallgainsbythesestudentswassignificant,they probablyneededmoretimecomparedwiththecontrolstudentstoreachtheirfullpotential.

1.4. Significanceoftheresearch

Thefindingsfromthestudiesreportedaboveseemtoindicateadvantagesforalltypesofstudentsthroughtheexplicit teachingofthinkingskills.However,wefoundnostudiesthatspecificallyinvestigatedtheteachingandlearningofthinking skillswithinanacademicallyselectiveschoolcontext.Thisresearchaddressesthis gapin theliteraturebyspecifically focusingontheoutcomesforstudentsoftheteachingofthinkinginanacademicallyselectiveschool.Thefindingsareof interesttoeducatorsandresearchersinterestedintheteachingandlearningofthinkingskillsaswellasthoseinterestedin theeducationofacademicallytalentedstudents.Theeducationalsignificanceofthisresearchisthatitprovidesdatathat willalloweducatorstoanswerquestionsaboutwhetheritisworththetime,expenseandeffortofteachingthinkingskills tostudentsspecificallychosenfortheiracademictalentstoattendaselectiveschool.Itprovidesinsightintoeducational questionsaboutwhetheracademicallyselectedstudentsalreadyhaveadvancedlevelsofcognitioncomparedwithother students;whetherathinkingskillsinterventionmakesaworthwhiledifferenceatthathighendoftheeducationalspectrum; and,whetherthecontextofanacademicallyselectiveschoolmakesadifferencewithregardtotheteachingandlearningof thinkingskillscomparedwithhighachievingstudentsinnon-selectiveschools.

Inengaginginthisstudy,wehaveconsideredtheargumentthatbyinvestigatingacademicallyselectedstudents,there maybeanassumptionthatthesestudents’higherlevelsofacademicachievementandhigherlevelsofcognitionindicatesa betterstatecomparedwithstudentsnotinanacademicallyselectiveschool.Bourdieuoffersaprofoundcritiqueofbourgeois educationalsystemsthroughhistheoryofsocialandculturalreproductionineducation(Morrow&Torres,1995).Morrow andTorres(1995)analysethecloselinkbetweeneducationalreproductionandclassreproductionandarguethateducation systemsoftenperpetuatedifferencesineducationalstatusandinsocialclass.Whilewewereinterestedintheimpactof acognitiveaccelerationprogrammeonstudentsinanacademicallyselectiveschool,this wasapracticalapproachtoa contextualproblemidentifiedinAustraliathatwehopedwouldprovideeducationaldirectiontotheeducatorswithwhom wework.AsEngeström(1999)explains:

Theunderlyingrelativisticnotionisthatweshouldnotmakevaluejudgmentsconcerningwhosecognitionisbetter ormoreadvanced–thatallkindsofthinkingandpracticeareequallyvaluable.Althoughthisliberalstancemaybea comfortablebasisforacademicdiscourse,itignorestherealitythatinalldomainsofsocietalpracticevaluejudgments anddecisionshavetobemadeeveryday.Peoplehavetodecidewheretheywanttogo,whichwayisup(Engeström, 1999,p.26).

2. Methods 2.1. Researchcontext

EachAustralianstateandterritoryisresponsiblefortheeducationdeliveredinthestate,andasaconsequence,each statehasadifferentapproachtotheeducationofhighabilitystudents(Seaton,Marsh,Yeung,&Craven,2011).Thereis considerablevariabilitywithsomestatesandterritoriesprovidingin-schoolclassesforhighabilitystudentswhileother statesprovideacademicallyselectiveschoolsandothersacombinationofbothin-schoolclassesandacademicallyselective schools.

TheacademicallyselectiveschoolthatisthefocusofthispaperiscentrallylocatedinthecapitalcityofoneAustralianstate. Theschool’swebsitestatesthattheschool“combinesitsstrongandrelevanttraditionswithawell-definedethosand man-datetoprovideadifferentiatedcurriculumthatdevelopstheskillsandabilitiesofacademicallygiftedstudents”.Selectionof studentsforentryintothisacademicallyselectiveschoolisbasedontheresultsoftheAcademicSelectiveEntranceTest coor-dinatedbythestateDepartmentofEducationforallgiftedandtalentedprogrammeapplicants.Thetestincludesindividual assessmentsintheareasofmathematicsandscience,language,writingandnon-verbalreasoning.(http://det.wa.edu.au/ curriculumsupport/giftedandtalented/detcms/navigation/parents/how-to-apply-for-gifted-and-talented-programs/). At thetimethispaperwaswritten,theAustralianGovernmentMyschoolwebsite(http://www.myschool.edu.au)reported thatin2013theschoolhadtotalenrolmentsof1003studentsinYear8–Year12(girls:458;boys:545)with23%havinga languagebackgroundotherthanEnglish.Therewas74.1fulltimeequivalentteachingstaff.TheschoolIndexofCommunity Socio-EducationalAdvantage(ICSEA)was1257.(TheaverageICSEAforallschoolsinAustraliais1000withastandard deviationof100.)BasedontheirICSEAscore,89%ofstudentsinthisschoolwereclassifiedasbeinginthetopquarter of Australianstudents. From 2008to2013,Year 9 studentsat this schoolperformed substantially abovestudents in otherAustralianschoolsandsubstantiallyaboveorabovestudentsinschoolsfromstatisticallysimilarsocio-educational backgroundsintheNationalAssessmentProgramLiteracyandNumeracy(NAPLAN).

2.2. Researchdesign

Theresearchfollowedasequentialexplanatorydesignwiththecollectionandanalysisofquantitativedatainthefirst phasefollowedbythecollectionandanalysisofqualitativedatainthesecondphase(Creswell,2009).Participantswerethe studentsineightschoolsparticipatinginthe2-yearThinkingSciencecognitiveaccelerationinterventionincludingstudents inoneacademicallyselectiveschoolthatwasthefocusoftheresearch.

Theresearchquestionthatdrovethedataanalysiswas:

Whatisthemagnitudeoftheeffect(ifany)oftheThinkingSciencecognitiveaccelerationinterventionontheacademically selectiveschoolstudents’levelsofcognitioncomparedwith:

(a)age-matchedstudentswhodidnotparticipateintheintervention?

(b)non-academicallyselectiveschoolstudentswhoparticipatedinintervention?

Phase1oftheresearchwasdesignedasaquasi-experimentwiththreegroupsofstudents.TheAcademicallySelective SchoolGroupincluded144studentsfromtheparticipatingschoolwhoundertooktheThinkingScienceprogramme.Two comparisongroupswereused.Forpart(a)anagematchedcohortwhodidnotparticipateintheThinkingScienceprogramme (ComparisonGroupA,n=120),forpart(b)non-academicallyselectiveschoolstudentswhodidparticipateintheThinking Scienceprogramme(ComparisonGroupB,n=438).

2.3. TheorybaseanddescriptionoftheThinkingSciencecognitiveaccelerationintervention

TheThinkingSciencecognitiveaccelerationinterventionisawell-establishedPiagetian-basedhigherorderthinkingskills programmeinitiallydevelopedintheUnitedKingdombyAdeyetal.(1989).Detailsofthetheoreticalbase,practicalapproach oftheprogramme,andtheresearchoutcomesareoutlinedbyAdeyandShayer(1993,1994)andShayerandAdey(2002).In summary,thetheoreticaloriginsofThinkingSciencearebasedonthewritingsofPiagetandVygotsky.Piagetheldtheview thatindividualsmaturebiologicallyandthatthisprocessenableshigherorderthinking.Incontrast,Vygotskyhadtheview thathigherorderthinkingoriginatesfromhumanculture,therefore,developmentfollowslearning(Rosa&Montero,1990). Whilethesepositionsondevelopmentandlearningseemcontradictory,thedevelopersoftheThinkingScienceintervention havelongheldtheviewthatbothperspectivesinformthenatureofpedagogythatimpactnotonlyonlearning,buton cognitionanddevelopment(Shayer,2003).

Theclassroominterventioninvolves30thinkinglessonsthatareimplementedbyscienceteachersoveraperiodof2years whenstudentsareinYears7–9.Studentsarerequiredtoparticipateinathinkinglessoninsteadofaregularsciencelesson aboutevery2weeks.ThelessonsdrawonPiagetianschemataofformaloperations,forexample,variables,proportionality, probability,correlation,formalmodels,andequilibrium(Adey&Shayer,1994).Eachlessonincorporatesfiveimportant pedagogicalstrategiesincludingconcretepreparation,cognitiveconflict,socialconstruction,metacognition,andbridging. Thethreeaspectsofcognitiveconflict,socialconstruction,andmetacognitionareconsideredtoprecipitatethe“mental work”(Adey&Shayer,1993,p.7)requiredbystudentstoacceleratetheircognitionandtheprincipalmeansbywhichthe long-term,far-transfereffectsoftheinterventionareachieved(Adey&Shayer,1993).

Thenotionofcognitiveconflictisconsideredtobeonemechanismofdevelopmentidentifiedduringthe1980sbyscholars workingwithinthePiagetianframework(Tudge,1990).Cognitiveconflictisapedagogicaltoolthatresultsinstudentsbeing surprisedwithaphenomenonbecausetheirobservationsareinconsistentwithexpectationsbasedontheircurrentwaysof knowingandthinking.Itisdesignedtomakestudentsreconsidertheircurrentunderstandingsandtobemorereceptiveto differentexplanationsandwaysofthinkingaboutaproblem.Tudge(1990)claimedthatresearchbasedoncognitiveconflict showedthatsocialinteractionbetweenpeerswhobringdifferentideastotheconflictproblemis“ahighlyeffectivemeansof inducingcognitivedevelopment”(Tudge,1990,p.159).Moreover,Tudgearguedthatsuchpeercollaborationissynonymous withtheVygotskiannotionofmorecompetentpeerssupportingdevelopmentinthezoneofproximaldevelopment.More recentresearchfromasocioculturalperspectiveemphasisestheimportanceoflanguageandinteractionbetweenpeersas aculturalandpsychologicaltoolinclassroomcontextsandindicatesthatsuchinteractioncaninfluencethedevelopment ofchildren’sreasoning(Mercer,2010).Finally,metacognitionisaveryadvancedformofself-regulationwhenstudents becomeawareof,andareableto,reflecton,manage,andmanipulatetheirownlearningthroughconsciousanddeliberate mentalaction.Researchershavedemonstratedconnectionsbetweenmetacognitionandcriticalthinking(Magno,2010), problemsolving(Lai,2011),andpersistence(Martinez,2006)thatindicatetheimportanceofmetacognitiontocognitive development.

TheresearchreportedinthispaperresultedfromtheimplementationinAustraliaofthecognitiveacceleration pro-gramme,inthiscountrycalledThinkingScienceAustralia(http://www.education.uwa.edu.au/tsa)incollaborationwiththe latePhilipAdey,oneoftheoriginaldevelopersoftheThinkingScienceprogramme.Thisprogrammeinvolvedtheadaptation oftheThinkingSciencematerialstotheAustralianschoolcontextandprofessionaldevelopmentforscienceteachersineight schoolsincludingoneacademicallyselectiveschoolthatisthefocusoftheresearchreportedinthispaper.Overthecourse of2years,thescienceteachersfromtheeightschoolsparticipatedin6daysofprofessionaldevelopmentawayfromschool. Intheinitial,2-dayworkshop,teacherswereintroducedtotheteachingmaterials,activitiesandthetheoretical under-pinningsoftheprogramme.Programmeleadersmodelledlessonsduringtheworkshop,andthesewerethen‘unpacked’ toidentifythedifferentprinciples.Teacherswereencouragedtoplantogether,betweenandwithinschools,sharingideas andresources.Opportunitiesalsowereprovidedforteamteaching,in-classcoachingandpeerobservation.Thisparticular modelofprofessionaldevelopmentwasadaptedfromAdey,Hewitt,Hewitt,andLandau(2004).

Table1

AnoverviewoftheschoolsthatparticipatedintheThinkingScienceintervention.

School Sector Location ICSEAa _Students

(n=582)

Teachers (n=62)

School1 Public Rural 946 68 6

School2 Public Rural 946 27 4

School3 Public City 984 62 7

School4 Public City 952 32 5

School5 Public Regional 969 94 9

School6 Catholic City 1187 91 9

School7 Catholic City 1000 64 8

School8(academicallyselectiveschool) Public City 1257 144 14

a_{IndexofCommunitySocio-EducationalAdvantage;average1000,SD100.}

2.4. Participants

Datawerecollectedineighthighschools(sevennon-academicallyselectivehighschoolsandoneacademicallyselective) whoseadministrationandscienceteachersvolunteeredtoparticipateintheThinkingScienceintervention.Thedatacollection involvedatotalof582students(438inthenon-academicallyselectiveschoolsand144intheacademicallyselectiveschool) whentheywereinYear8andYear9(ages12–14)overthe2-yearperiodwhenThinkingSciencewasimplementedintheir sciencelessons(Table1).Onlytwicetestedstudentsfromeachschoolwereincludedinthedataset.Publisheddatawith controlandexperimentalgroupshavepreviouslybeenmadeavailableforresearcherstouseforcomparativepurposes(Adey &Shayer,1990).WedrewonthesedataasanagematchedcohortofYear8/9students(ComparisonGroupA)whodidnot participateintheThinkingScienceinterventiontogaugetheeffectoftheinterventionontheacademicallyselectiveschool students.

2.5. Methodsofdatacollectionandanalysis

Phase1datacollectionutilisedPiagetian-basedScienceReasoningTasks(SRT)todeterminestudents’levelofcognitive developmentbeforeandaftertheThinkingScienceintervention.SRTtestsareawell-documented,validatedmeasureto gaugethecognitivelevelofstudents(Shayer,Adey,&Wylam,1981).TheSRTdatawereanalysedusingRaschscalingso thatafineestimateofaperson’slevelofcognitioncanbeconverteddirectlyintoadecimalscoreonascalerangingfrom earlypreoperational(1)tomatureformaloperational(10)withastandarderrorofabout0.4(Adey&Shayer,1993).The SRT(volumeandheaviness)wasadministeredtoallYear8studentspriortotheimplementationoftheinterventionanda differentSRT(equilibriumandbalance)wasadministeredoncompletionofthefullprogrammeattheendofthe2ndyear. Thetestwasadministeredbyteachersintheirscienceclassesandthetestpaperswerescoredbyindependentresearchers. TestscoresfortheacademicallyselectivegroupandthecomparisonGroupsAandBwerecomparedstatisticallyusing agenerallinearmodelrepeatedmeasureanalysis(ANOVA)todeterminetheinteractionbetweenthetwoindependent variablesoftime(pre-andpost-intervention)andparticipationinthethinkinginterventionforComparisonGroupA,and timeandattendanceatanacademicallyselectiveschoolforComparisonGroupB.Cohen’seffectsize(d)wasusedtoquantify thedifferencesbetweenthegroupsassuggestedbyAllenandBennett(2008),p.120usingcomparisonsofgainscores.Using

Cohen(1988)conventionsasaguide,dof0.20canbeconsideredsmall,adof0.50ismedium,andadof0.80islarge(Cohen, 1988).

Phase2datacollectioninvolvedanindividualinterviewwiththeheadofthedepartmentofscienceaswellasafocus groupinterviewwiththreeparticipatingscienceteachersfromtheacademicallyselectiveschool.Someofthesedatahave alreadybeenreported(Oliveretal.,2012).Thepurposeoftheinterviewswastoascertaintheparticipants’reflectionsonthe implementationoftheintervention,thesuccessesandchallengesandwellastheirinsightsintotheeffectoftheprogramme onparticipatingteachersandstudents.Bothinterviewswereaudiorecordedandfullytranscribed.Theinterviewswere analysedthroughrepeatedlisteningtotheaudiorecordingsaswellasrepeatedreadingofthetranscriptstoisolatethemes andideasthatwererelevanttotheresearchquestionandconfirmedand/orprovidedinsightintothequantitativedataaswell asthemesandideasthatdisconfirmedthequantitativedata(Creswell,2009).Excerptsfromthetranscriptswereselectedto includeinthispapertoillustrateemergentthemes.Threemethodswereusedtoenhancetherigourofthequalitativedata analysis,(1)researchertriangulation,(2)memberchecking,and(3)asearchforconfirminganddisconfirmingevidenceas elaboratedinthefollowingparagraph.

Theinitialanalysisanddevelopmentofthemesfromthequalitativedatacollectionwerecompletedindependentlyby thefirstauthorandthenprovidedtothesecondauthorforreanalysisandreflectionasaformofresearchertriangulation (Patton,2015).Thesecondauthorhadspentconsiderabletimeinallparticipatingschoolsmakingclassroomobservationsand interactingwiththeparticipatingteachersandstudentsduringtheThinkingScienceinterventionandhenceherexperiences werevaluabletoprovideaninformedperspectivetothequalitativedataanalysis(Patton,2015).Theinitialanalysisofthe qualitativedatabythefirstauthorresultedinanumberofsmall-grainedthemes.Thesecondwaveofanalysisthatinvolved thesecondauthorresultedinsomeoftheinitialsmall-grainedthemesbeingcoalescedintothreemajorthemesofhigher

Table2

Pre/post-testmeanscores,meangainsandeffectsizesfortheAcademicallySelectiveSchoolGroup,ComparisonGroupAandComparisonGroupB. n Pre-testmean(SD) Post-testmean(SD) Meangain(SD) Effectsizeofmean

gain(Cohen’sd) AcademicallySelectiveSchool

Group(+intervention)

144 6.23(0.94) 7.89(1.20) 1.65(1.30)

ComparisonGroupA(no intervention) 120 6.17(1.03) 6.64(1.36) 0.46(1.09) 0.995 ComparisonGroupB (non-academicallyselective school students+intervention) 438 4.98(0.35) 5.22(2.04) 0.99(0.21) 0.687

abstractionthatarereportedinthefindings.Oncethethreemajorthemeshadbeenidentified,aposthocsearchoftheraw interviewdatawasconductedforevidencethateitherconfirmedordisconfirmedthethreemajorthemes(Patton,2015). Asexpected,considerableevidencewasfoundtosupportthethemes.Moreover,onesmallexcerptfromthefocusgroup interviewwasfoundthatdidnotsupportthesecondthemeandthisisprovidedintheresultsbelow.

Thefirstfulldraftofthepaperwasprovidedtothescienceheadofdepartment(HOD)andviceprincipaloftheparticipating academicallyselectiveschoolformembercheckingandfeedback(Patton,2015)priortosubmissionforreview.Inparticular, wewereinterestedtoknowwhethertheHODandviceprincipalconsideredthatthethreethemescapturedtheirperceptions oftheuseoftheThinkingSciencecognitiveaccelerationprogrammewithintheirschool.BoththeHODandtheviceprincipal providedfeedbackthatthethemesandgeneralideaspresentedinthedraftpaperwereconsistentwiththeirperceptions andthissignalledtotheresearchersthattheanalysisofthequalitativedatawassufficientlyrefined.Theviceprincipal requestedminorchangestothetitleofthepaperandthatasmallpartofthetextfromthepresentationofthequalitative databeremovedbecauseitdidnotmatchherrecollectionofevents.TheHODagreedthatthesechangeswereappropriate. Asaconsequence,minorchangesweremadetothepaper.Intheviewoftheauthors,theseminorchangesdidnotaffectthe mainfindingsandthemesreportedintheresults.

3. Results

Inthissection,thequantitativeresultsfromPhase1oftheresearcharepresentedfirst.ThequalitativedatafromthePhase 2interviewsarethenpresentedtoprovidepossibleexplanationsandinsightsintothetrendsevidentinthequantitative findings.

3.1. Phase1quantitativeresults

Whilethestudentsintheacademicallyselectiveschoolstartedtheprogrammewithcognitionlevelsslightlyhigherthan studentsinbothcomparisongroups,theirmeangainsof1.65(SD1.30)comparedwiththemeangainfortheComparison GroupA(non-participatingstudents)of0.46(SD1.09)andComparisonGroupB(participatingstudentsnotinthe aca-demicallyselectiveschool)of0.99(SD0.21)demonstratetheeffectofparticipatinginthestructuredthinkinglessonsover the2years(Table2).ItisevidentthatthestudentsintheacademicallyselectiveschoolwhoparticipatedintheThinking ScienceinterventionnotonlyoutperformedthecomparisongroupwhodidnotparticipateinThinkingSciencewithalarge effectsize(d=0.995),butalsostudentswhodidparticipateinThinkingScienceinother,non-academicallyselectiveschools (d=0.687)withamediumeffectsize(Table2).Overall,thequantitativefindingsindicatethattheThinkingScience interven-tionimprovedallparticipatingstudents’cognitionsignificantlybuthadanevenmoresignificanteffectonthestudentsin theacademicallyselectiveschool.

3.2. Phase2qualitativefindings

Analysisoftheinterviewsresultedinthreethemesthatprovidedpossibleexplanationsforthetrendsevidentinthe quantitativefindings.Thesethemeswere:(1)schoolcommitment,(2)ashifttothinkingpedagogy,and(3)recognisingand meetingthespecificneedsofstudents.Eachofthesethemesispresentedbelowandillustratedwithexcerptsfromthe interviewswiththeheadofdepartmentofscience(HOD)andthethreeparticipatingscienceteachersfromtheacademically selectiveschool.Threeassertionsbasedonthedatathatcorrespondwiththethemesareprovided.

3.2.1. Theme1:Schoolcommitment

Thefirstthemethatemergedfromtheinterviewdatawasthattheschoolwasverycommittedtotheintervention programmeandtodevelopingthinkingskillswithintheirstudents.Theheadofthesciencedepartment(HOD)describedthe commitmentoftheschooltotheprogrammewithfulladministrativesupportandallscienceteachersandthetechnician beinginvolvedintheprofessionaldevelopmentprogramme.OneteacherexplainedthatshefoundtheThinkingScience packageoflessonsveryhelpfulintermsofbeingabletoteachthinking.

HOD:Everystaffmemberwentthroughtraining,includingthetechnician,it’sanimportantpartoftheprocess...Any newmembersofstaffwerePD’daswewentalong,andhadtoattendtraining;twounitsinthefirstyear,thenanother twodaystraininglater,andobservations...Thekeyistheprofessionaldevelopmentoftheteachers.

TeacherM:Teachersingeneralfindteachingthinkingandgeneratingresourcesforthinkinglessonsquitehard.It’s outofthebox.Andhavingtheselessonspreparedforthemreally,reallyhelps.Teachingathinkinglessonisahard lessontoplan.

Theheadofscienceandscienceteachersrecognisedanumberofpracticalchallengeswithregardtoimplementation oftheprogrammeincludingthetimeneededtocoordinatetheprogramme,continuingtofititintothecurriculum,and conventionssuchasdeskssetupinrows,thatwereimpedimentstostudentsworkingingroups.

HOD:Weareconvincedby[thedatageneratedby]thisprogram,butthenitgetssqueezedbecauseweneedtodeliver thecurriculumandotherprograms;itputspressureontheThinkingScienceprogram.

TeacherM:There’sthepracticalsideofthings,whichisjustthesheerlogisticsofdoingit,thelayoutsoftheworksheet, andthenthere’sthepedagogy.Icanseethechallengesreallywereaboutthelogistics,andnowwe’regettingonto theactualteachingofit.

ThefindingsunderthisfirstthemeindicatethecommitmenttheschoolhadtotheThinkingScienceinterventionbutalso showedthattheparticipatingscienceteachersrecognisedthelogisticalchallengesofestablishingsuchaprogrammeintheir school.ThesefindingsaresummarisedinAssertion1.

Assertion1:TheacademicallyselectiveschoolwascommittedtoincorporatingtheThinkingScienceinterventioninto thecurriculum.Teachersrecognisedthelogisticalchallengesthatthiscreatedanddevisedwaysofaddressingthese challenges.

3.2.2. Theme2:Shifttothinkingpedagogy

Thesecondthemethatemergedfromtheinterviewdatawasthattheparticipantsidentifiedashiftintheirpedagogical approachtosomethingoneteacherdescribedas‘seeingtheprocessofthestudents’thinking’.Theheadofscienceexplained thathissciencestaffinitiallyfounditchallengingtofocusontheprocessofthinkingasthemainobjectiveofthelessons, ratherthanthestudentslearningsomespecificcontentknowledgeinscience.Hesaidthatteachersfounditdifficultnot totellthestudentstheanswers,togetthemtoworkthroughtheproblemsthemselves,andforteacherstocometoterms withtheideathatnoteverylessonhastocometoascientificconclusion.Theteachersalsorecognisedthisshiftintheir pedagogy.

HOD:ThinkingScienceismoreabouttheprogramthanthe[scienceknowledge]outcome.Someoftheteachersget caughtuponoutcomes.Thescienceteachersfoundthathard.Theywanttoendtheprocessbutit’snotaboutthat. TeacherM:Ithinkit’sagreaterfocusonthinking,inotherwords,I’mdoingtheselessonspurelyforthinking,notto teachthemanyrealcontent.

TeacherA:Whatcanhappeniswecangetlockedinorcaughtupinthedeliveryofthecurriculumtothepointthat wedon’tmakeenoughspacetobringinthestrategiesthatweallfundamentallyagreewith.

Someteacherswereabletodescribehowthisshiftinpedagogymaterialisedintheirclassroomapproach.Forexample, TeacherAdiscussedhisapproachtohomework.

TeacherA:Inphysics...veryoftenifyougettherightanswerattheend,yougetyourtwomarks,fullstop.When Isetthemhomework,Idon’talwaysgivethemthefullmarks[fortherightanswer]...I’malwayssayingIwantto seetheprocessofyourthinkingtohowyouarrivedatthat.Theygetalittlebitcrossaboutthatfromtimetotime. AndI’llsaytherewillbemarksinyourhomeworkforhowyougotthere.Andtheysay,wellit’stherightanswer,so isn’tthatallthatmatters?Whereasifyou’redrawingouttheirthinking,that’sthechallenge.

Anotherteachertalkedabout‘creatingaspacetoallowtimeforthestudents’thinking’.

TeacherN:Ithinkit’screatingspacetoallowtimefortheirthinking,it’skindofacommentImadeearlieristhatoften whenkidsanswer,nowwe’llsaytothem,‘Wellwhydoyouthinkthat?Whatdoeseverybodyelsethink?’,soitleads tobetterdiscussion.Byaskingthequestion,‘Whatdoeseverybodyelsethink?’,Ifindthatwhathappensisthatkids think,‘Oh,thatmaynotbetherightanswer’,soitgivesthemkindofaspacetothink,‘Wellmaybemyanswerisvalid, then’.AndIfindthatisagoodapproach.

Thisteacheralsoreflectedonandrecognisedteachers’bodylanguageduringclassroomactivitiesandhowithadto changetoaccommodatethenewpedagogy.

TeacherN:Ithinkthereisatendencytogiveitawayalittlebitwithourbodylanguagewhensomeonesaysthe answerthatyouagreewith;kindofyourheadisalreadystartingtonodandyou’re,‘AhhIneedtostopthat!’So,or you’reshakingyourhead,andIthinkit’saquestionofholdingbackandnot...saying,‘Ohthat’saninterestingpoint, Iwonderwhatyouguysthink,whatdoyouthink?’andthengettingmorethanoneview,‘IknowIagreewiththat’, ‘Ok,canyouexplainwhyyouagreewiththat?’

Thesameteacherrelayedananecdotethatdemonstratedashiftinpedagogythatallowedthestudentsthetimetothink andhowthathadaremarkableoutcomeonthelesson.

TeacherN:Lastyeartherewasareallygoodexample,Ican’trememberthespecificsoftheexample,butbasically thewholeclassbaronestudentthoughtonething,andthisonestudentthoughtsomethingelse.SoIsaid,‘wellwhat doyouthink?’Bytheendofthelessontheyallagreedwiththatonestudent,sothatwasreallyhelpfulintermsof thecognitiveconflictbecauseitgotthemtochangethewaytheywerethinkingwhichwasgoodbecauseyoucould say,‘Welldon’tjustthinkthatjustbecauseyou’vegotaconsensuswiththemajoritythatthatnecessarilyistheright answer’,whichthensettheplatformforthenexttimeround.

Therewassomeevidencefromtheinterviewsthatwasinconsistentwiththisthemeofashiftinpedagogyinthatone teachersaidthathefeltthathehadalwaysbeenabletoteachstudentstothink.

TeacherM:RightfromthefirstdayItaught,Ialwayswantedthekidsthinking,ratherthandoing,justgetthem thinkingbeforetheystartdoingorcopyingdownnotesandstufflikethat.

Thecollectivefindingsunderthesecondthemeshowthatoverall,theThinkingScienceprogrammeresultedinteachers perceivingachangetotheirpedagogy,forexample,providingtheirstudentswiththespaceandtimetothinkandrequiring studentstoshowtheirthinkingintheirhomework.Theteachersrecognisedthatthroughthesestrategiestheycould‘see theprocessoftheirstudentsthinking’.ThesefindingsaresummarisedinAssertion2.

Assertion2:Theteachersintheacademicallyselectiveschoolrecognisedandprovidedexamplesofchangestotheir pedagogythatenabledthemto‘seetheprocessoftheirstudents’thinking’.

3.2.3. Theme3:Recognisingandmeetingthespecificneedsofstudents

Whenaskedspecificallyaboutthesuitabilityofthisparticularprogrammeofthinkinglessonsforstudentsinan academ-icallyselectiveschool,theheadofsciencesaidthatoneofthechallengeswastosetthelessonsattherightlevelforhigh achievingstudentsandthatthiscanbestbedonebyfocusingonthesocialconstructionandmetacognitiveaspectsthat usuallyhappeninthelatterhalfofeachlesson.

HOD:[Thestudentsgenerallyrespond]verypositively,someofthemIwouldsaydothinkthatthelessonsarebelow theirlevel,butthekeytothefirstfewyearsisabouttrainingthestaff.Oncethestaffhavegotit,theythenstartto realisethethinking,andthentheyfocusmoreonthesecondpartofthelessonandtheygetintothatdeeperthinking. Theheadof scienceexplainedhis viewthatsomehighachievingstudents aregood atmemorising andabsorbing information,andoneofthestrengthsofthisprogrammeisthatitforcesthesestudentstoapplytheirunderstandings:

HOD:Inthepartofthelessonswhereyougetthatcognitiveconflict,theystillthinkthey‘reright,butwesay‘whatis theevidenceshowingyou?’Theirmindshiftingfromtheirconcreteideastobeingopentootherideashasprovedto bequiteaninterestingexperienceforsomeofthosestudents.Whatgiftedkidscanbeverygoodatisabsorbingthe informationbuttheapplicationofthatunderstandingcanbemoredifficultforthem.

HOD:Ithinkthat’s[metacognition]thebitthatIhearthem[theteachers]talkingaboutthemost.Aftertheclasses they’llsaythattheirstudentswerestrugglingwithaconceptbutwhentheyreallygotthemtodigthroughand thinkaboutit,that’swhenitwasinterestingtosee.Partofthatisevaluatingwhatthey’redoing.It’sthestudents’ accountabilityoftheiranswer;makesthemthinkaboutwhytheysaidtheiranswer,andwhytheythoughtthat.So it’sagaingoingtothatdeeperlevel.

Whiletheheadofsciencesaidthatmostoftheparticipatingstudentsworkedwellduringthegroupwork,heconceded thattheteachersinthisschoolneededtobecreativetoinvolvesomehighachievingstudentswhotypicallydidn’tlike workingingroups.

HOD:Formoststudentsit[socialconstructioningroupwork]worksreallywell.Therearealwayssomethatare independentworkersandtheystruggleingroupsbecausetheycan’tgetacrosswhattheyknow.Andsomestudents aresociallyinept.Theyareoutstandingstudents,buttheydon’tworkwellingroupsanddon’tlikeworkingingroups, soyouneedtothinkofcleverwaystoinvolvethembyaskingtheiropinioninagroupscenario.

Twoteachersalsoexplainedtheirviewsonthechallengesoffacilitatinggroupworkwithgiftedandtalentedstudents andprovidedinsightsintotheirthoughtsthatgiftedstudentsoftentendtowanttohideanyapparentlackofknowledge andwanttoshowcasewhattheyknow.Accordingtotheparticipatingteachers,thesetendenciesunderpinthechallenges ofgroupworkwithgiftedstudents.

TeacherM:So,howdotheysolvecognitiveconflictingroups?Byarguingaboutwho’sright,youknow.Butessentially whattheydoistheysolve,straightaway.Ifthey’restuck,theyaskme.Theotherswhereitdoesn’tmakesensetothem, theyavoidit.Becausethey’rewithotherkidswhoareobviouslyflyingthroughthis,theytendtoavoidit,inother words,‘Idon’treallywanttodothisbecauseIdon’tgetit’.

TeacherN:Oneofthethingsaboutthekids,anditmaybetrueforotherkidsaswell,butparticularlygiftedkids,is theyhaveatendencytowanttoshowoffwhattheyknow,andsobecauseofthat,groupworkmeansthatthey’re sharinginthecontributionofthegroup,ratherthanwhatthey,individually,wanttoshow.Sothatcansometimesbe problematic.Anditbecomesparticularlyproblematicwhenakidinthegroupsays,‘no,I’mright’,andanotherone says,‘no,I’mright’,becausethey’reusedtothatindividualwork.

Itwasevidentintheinterviewsthatwhiletheteachersintheacademicallyselectiveschoolrecognisedthechallenges ofgettinggiftedandtalentedstudentstoworkingroups,theyalsohaddevelopedstrategiestoovercometheseissues.For exampleoneteacherexplained:

TeacherN:WhatIfoundwasthatifyoumadethepointthateveryonehastocontribute,andthenwhenIwouldgo roundthegroups,youcansaytothem,‘Alright,that’sreallygoodhearingthatfromyou,butwhatdoesthisperson overherethink?Ohyouhadaninterestingpoint’.AndIthinkthat’swheretheteachermanagementortheclassroom managementcomesinwhenyou’reworkingwiththosegroups.

Theinterviewwiththeheadofscienceindicatedthathefeltthatthemain strengthsoftheprogrammedeveloped withintheacademicallyselectiveschoolwerethedevelopmentoftheteachers’questioningskillssothattheycouldinclude metacognitionintotheirpedagogicalapproach.

HOD:It’saboutthequestioningstyle...Insteadofgivingtheanswerstheyarespreadingthequestionsaroundrather thanspoon-feedingthestudentstheanswers.Sointhatsenseit’sdevelopingmoreautonomouslearners.

Theteachersalsorecognisedtheimportanceofquestioningandusinghigherorder,orwhathereferredtoas‘extension’ questionstochallengetheacademicallygiftedstudentsinthisschool.

TeacherA:Ithinksometimestherearefurtherextensionquestionsthatweprobablyneedtoaskwithinthecontext ofthelessonsthatwe’redoing,certainlytheearlierlessons.SoIthinkagainthatcomesdowntosortofjusthaving that,andIknowTeacherMandIhavetalkedaboutthisandshedoesaskthosefurtherextensionquestions.Ithink that’sthechallengeforus,withthesortofstudentsthatwe’reworkingwith.

Thefindingsunderthisthirdthemeindicatethattheteachersintheacademicallyselectiveschoolrecognisedthespecific characteristicsandneedsoftheiracademicallytalentedstudents.Forexample,theyrecognisedthehighlevelofachievement oftheirstudentsmeanttheyoftencouldsolveproblemsquicklyandtheirneedforextension,theyrecognisedproblemssome studentshadwithgroupwork,andtheyrecognisedtheirtendencytobegoodatmemorisingandabsorbinginformationbut notnecessarilyatapplicationofthatknowledge.Thefindingsalsoindicatethattheteacherswereabletodescribehowthey hadaccommodatedthesespecificcharacteristicswithstrategiesthatenabledthemtoparticipateintheimportantaspectsof theThinkingScienceprogrammesuchasmetacognitionandsocialconstruction.Forexample,teachersdescribedimproved questioningtechniques,specificclassroommanagementstrategies,ensuringthatallstudentshavetheopportunityandare encouragedtocontributeandmakingsuretheyareaccountablefortheiranswers.Thesefindingshavebeensummarisedin Assertion3.

Assertion3:Teachersdescribedstrategiestheyhaddevelopedtoenablehigherorderthinking,metacognitionandsocial constructionspecificallyappropriatetothecharacteristicsoftheiracademicallytalentedstudents.

4. Discussion

Thefindingsfromthisstudywereconsistentwithfindingsinternationallythattheexplicitteachingofthinkingskillswas beneficialforstudentsfromallschoolsparticipatingintheintervention(Adeyetal.,2002;Zohar&Peled,2008).Specifically inresponsetotheresearchquestion,however,themagnitudeoftheeffectoftheThinkingSciencecognitiveacceleration pro-grammeontheacademicallyselectiveschoolstudents’levelsofcognitioncomparedwithstudentswhodidnotparticipate intheThinkingSciencecognitiveaccelerationprogrammewasindicatedbyalargeeffectsize(d=0.995).UsingCohen(1988)

conventionsasaguide,dof0.20canbeconsideredsmall,adof0.50ismedium,andadof0.80islarge.Hattie(2009),p.7 recentlysuggestedthataneffectsizeof1.0isequivalentto“advancingchildren’slearningby2–3years”.Theresultsfrom

thisresearch,therefore,showthatoverthe2yearsoftheintervention,thestudentsintheacademicallyselectiveschool advancedtheircognitionbyconsiderablymorethanthecontrolstudentswhodidnotparticipateintheprogrammeand, accordingtoHattie,thiscanbeconsideredtobesimilartoadvancingthesestudentsschoolingbyabout2yearsbeyondwhat thecontrolstudentswereabletoachieve.Soineffect,overthe2yearsoftheinterventiontheywereabletoachievewhatit wouldhavetakenthecontrolstudentsatleast4years,ifnotmore,toachieve.Whilethesefindingsarequiteoutstandingin thespectrumofeducationalinterventionsexaminedbyHattie,itisimportanttoconsiderthequestionaboutwhetherthis effectwasmoreorlessforstudentsintheacademicallyselectiveschoolcomparedwithstudentsinconventionalschools.

ThemagnitudeoftheeffectoftheThinkingSciencecognitiveaccelerationprogrammeontheacademicallyselectiveschool students’levelsofcognitioncomparedwithnon-academicallyselectiveschoolstudentswhoparticipatedintheThinking Sciencecognitiveaccelerationprogrammewasindicatedbyamediumeffectsize(d=0.687).Thisindicatesthattheeffect forthestudentsintheacademicallyselectivehighschoolwasoverandabovetheeffectforstudentsinotherschoolswho participatedintheprogramme.

ThefindingspresentedinthisstudyareseeminglyinconsistentwiththefindingsofAdeyandShayer(1993)who con-cludedthatthehighgainersintheirstudyintheUKcamefromawidedistributionofpre-interventiontestscoresand thattherewasnocorrelationbetweenstartinglevelandgain.WhileAdeyandShayerdidincludearangeofschoolsfrom differentsocioeconomicstatuswithstudentsfromarangeofachievementlevels,theydidnotspecificallyincludean aca-demicallyselectiveschooland/orexaminetheeffectsoftheThinkingScienceinterventiononstudentsinthisspecifictype ofenvironment.ThecontrastinfindingsbetweenourstudyandAdeyandShayer’sstudy,therefore,indicatethatthere wassomethingabouttheacademicallyselectiveschoolenvironmentthatresultedintheinterventionhavinganenhanced effectonstudentswhoparticipatedintheprogrammeinthiscontext.Thequalitativefindingsfromtheinterviewwiththe staffmembersoftheschoolprovidedsomeinsightintotheimplementationoftheprogrammeintheacademicallyselective environment.

Theinterviewfindingsindicatedthattheimplementationoftheprogrammeinthecasestudyschoolwascomprehensive andwell-supportedwithallscienceteachersandthetechnicianattendingprofessionaldevelopment,andin-class coach-ingsupportingthedevelopmentoftheteachers’thinkingpedagogies.Anumberofchallengeswereacknowledgedbythe teachersincludingfittingtheprogrammeintoacrowdedcurriculum,organisingthecoordinationoftheprogramme,and arrangingtheclassroomstoaccommodatethegroupworkforsocialconstruction.Further,teachersfounditchallengingto adjusttheirpedagogytofocusmoreonthestudents’thinkingprocessesandlessonthesciencecontentoutcomesduring thelessons.Itisimportanttonotetheseissuescouldberelevantinanyschool,notjustanacademicallyselectiveschool.

Morespecificallywithregardtohighachievingstudentsinanacademicallyselectiveschool,theinterviewdatarevealed theteachers’viewoftheimportanceofsettingthelessonsattherightleveltochallengethesestudents(Hattie,2009), inparticularthroughthesocialconstructionandmetacognitiveaspectsofthelesson.Theheadofsciencereflectedthat manyofthestudentsinthisschoolareexcellentatabsorbinginformation,whichinscienceoftensupportsachievementon assessmentssuchastestsandexams.Hefurthernotedthatapplyingtheirknowledgeandreflectingontheirownthinking anddialoguewithothersiswherethelessonstendedtobecomechallenging.TheteachersfoundthattheThinkingScience lessonsmadethestudentsmoreaccountablefortheirideas,becausetheyhadtothinkatdeeperlevelsandexplainwhy theyhadgivenaparticularanswer.Theheadofsciencealsosaidthatbecausesomeoftheacademicallyselectedstudents donotlikeparticipatingingroupwork,theteachersatthisschoolhadtobecreativetofacilitatethesocialconstruction aspectsoftheThinkingScienceinterventionlessons.Thisfindingisconsistentwithresearchthatshowstheimportance ofsocialisationandlearningwithstudentsofsimilarachievementlevelsforacademicallytalentedstudents(Gross,2009; Rogers,2007).

Thequalitativefindingsandreflections fromtheacademicallyselectiveschoolsciencestaffprovidepossibleinsight intotheeffectsoftheinterventionwiththestudentsinthisschool.Wespeculatethatbecausethestudentsstartedwith higherlevelsofcognition,beyondstudentsintheotherschoolsthatparticipatedintheintervention,thescienceteachers developedtheirthinkingpedagogiestochallengethestudentsathigherlevelsofthinking.Itispossible,therefore,thatthe scienceteachersinthisschoolmayhavedevelopedhigherskilllevelsthanteachersinotherschools,inparticular,advanced skillsatquestioningandfacilitatingsocialconstructionandmetacognition.Italsoispossiblethatteachersinotherschools, wherestudentsstartedatlowerlevelsofcognitiononaverage,werenotcompelledtodeveloptheirpedagogiestosucha degreebecausethecognitiveconflictinherentineachlessonandlessprobingquestioningskillsweresufficienttostimulate thecognitionofmanyofthenon-academicallyselectedstudents.

Griffinetal.(2012)foundthatinbothliteracyandmathematics,primaryschoolteachersweremoresuccessfullyableto initiateteachingstrategiesforlowachievingstudentsthantheywereforhighachievingstudents.Griffinetal.speculatedon thereasonswhyteachersintheirstudywerelessabletosuggeststrategiesfordevelopingstudents’higherordercapabilities includingthattheymaylacktheconfidenceorthelanguagetoarticulatetheirstrategiesortheysimplydonotknowhowto intervenewithstudentswhoalreadyworkathigherorderlevels.WefurtherspeculatethattheThinkingScienceintervention inthisstudyprovidedthescienceteachersintheacademicallyselectiveschoolwithspecificstrategies,suchasappropriate questioningskillsforsocialconstructionandmetacognition,thatcouldbeusedwithinthethinkinglessonstostimulate thecognitionofthehighachievingstudentsintheirclasses.ThisexplanationisconsistentwithVygotskiannotionsofthe zoneofproximaldevelopmentthathighqualityinteractionswiththeteacherandpeersisthewaythatdevelopmentoccurs andfindingsintheliteraturethatmetacognitionsupportscriticalthinking(Magno,2010),problemsolving(Lai,2011)and persistence(Martinez,2006),thusinvokingdevelopment.

Theprofessionaldevelopmentprogramme,thatinvolvedallscienceteachersintheschoolandthelaboratorytechnician, providedcommonlanguagethatenabledtheteachersandotherstafftoreflectonanddiscussthechallengestheycame acrossandthestrategiestheyusedtoaddressthechallenges.Wesuggestthatthroughtheprofessionallearningtheprocess ofchallengingstudentswithhigherorderthinkingwasnormalisedandbecameanacceptedandevenexpectedstrategy withintheschool.Thisnormalisationinthecontextoftheacademicallyselectiveschoolpossiblyaddressedthe‘TallPoppy Syndrome’evidentinAustralianculturethatwesuggestedmayhavecontributedtotheproblemsidentifiedbyGriffinetal. (2012)andMcGaw(2008).TheevidencesuggeststhatAustralianteachersoftenarenotabletoextendandchallengehigh achievingstudentsinwaysthatenablethemtodeveloptotheirfullpotential.Thefindingsfromthisstudyshowedthat withinthisacademicallyselectiveschoolenvironment,andthroughtheThinkingScienceintervention,theteacherswereable toimplementstrategiesthatstimulatedthecognitionoftheirhighachievingstudentsandresultedinacceleratedcognition. 4.1. Limitations

Thisstudyislimitedinthatitwasconductedinoneacademicallyselectiveschoolanditisinappropriatetogeneralise thefindings.However,theimportanceofthis studyisthatitgives insightintoa specificcase andthisinsightmaybe transferabletootherschoolsinsimilarcontexts.Furtherresearchthatmoredeeplyexplorestheteachingofthinkingskills inacademicallyselectiveenvironmentsandnon-academicallyselectiveenvironmentsmaygivegreaterinsightintothe pedagogiesandstrategiesthataresuitableforstudentsatdifferentpointsinthecognitionspectrum.

4.2. Implications

TheimplicationsforthisresearcharerelevanttohowAustralianschoolsrespondtodatathatshowthatAustralian teachersarenotadeptatchallengingandsupportingthelearningofhighachievingstudents(Griffinetal.,2012;McGaw, 2008).Theimplicationsareprobablysimilarinothercountrieswhereteachersfindteachingthinkingskillstohighachieving studentschallenging.Animportantimplicationisthatacademicallyselectiveschoolenvironmentsmayhaveanadvantage withregardtoteachingthinkingskillsbecauseteachersinthisenvironmentmaybebetterabletoconcentrateondeveloping theirpedagogyrelevanttotheacademicskillsandneedsoftheirstudents.Moreover,thefindingsindicatethathighquality questioning,aswellasactivitiesandpedagogythatstimulatesocialconstructionandmetacognitionarekeyactivitiesfor stimulatingacademicallytalentedstudents’thinkingskillsandcognition.

Mostimportantly,thefindingsfromthisresearchsupporttheegalitarianidealthatteachinghigherorderthinkingis appropriateforallstudents.Ourresearch,togetherwiththeresearchreportedintheintroductiontothispaper,provides growingevidencethatregardlessofastudents’baselinecognition,withappropriate,well-designedpedagogythatistailored totheirspecificneeds,itislikelythattheywillbenefitfromlessonsonhigherorderthinking.WeendorseEngeström’s (1999)argumentthatallkindsofthinkingareequallyvaluable;however,intherealityofeducationalsystemsandschools, educatorshaveanobligationtomakeappropriatedecisionsabouthowtheycanbesthelptheirstudentstoparticipatein levelsofcognitionbeyondthosewithwhichtheyfirstcameintotheirclassroom.

5. Conclusion

ThefindingsofthisstudyindicatedthattheeffectoftheThinkingScienceinterventionwasgreaterfortheparticipating studentsintheacademicallyselectiveschoolcomparedwithbothstudentswhodidnotparticipateintheinterventionand studentswhodidparticipateintheinterventionbutwerenotinanacademicallyselectiveschool.Thecommitmentofthe academicallyselectiveschooltotheprogrammeandthescienceteachers’changeinpedagogytofacilitateactivitiesthat wereparticularlyhelpfultostimulatethethinkingcapacityofacademicallygiftedandtalentedstudentswerefoundtohave contributedtothesuccessofthisprogramme.

Acknowledgements

ThisresearchwassupportedbyagrantfromtheAustralianResearchCouncil(DP1093877).Theideaspresentedinthe paperarethoseoftheauthorsandnotthefundingbody.WeacknowledgethelateProfessorPhilipAdeywhosewisdom andencouragementovertheyearsofthisresearchwereinvaluable.Thetimeandcommitmentfromtheadministration, teachers,andstudentsoftheparticipatingschools,inparticulartheacademicallyselectiveschoolthatwasthefocusofthis research,isverymuchappreciated.

References

ACARAAustralianCurriculum,AssessmentandReportingAuthority.(2012).GeneralcapabilitiesintheAustralianCurriculum.Canberra,Australia:Author. http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/GeneralCapabilities/General%20capabilities.pdfAccessed25.01.12

Adey,P.,Hewitt,G.,Hewitt,J.,&Landau,N.(2004).Theprofessionaldevelopmentofteachers:Practiceandtheory.Dordrecht:KluwerAcademicPublishers. Adey,P.,&Shayer,M.(1990).Acceleratingthedevelopmentofformalthinkinginmiddleandhighschoolstudents.JournalofResearchinScienceTeaching,

Adey,P.,&Shayer,M.(1993).Anexplorationoflong-termfar-transfereffectsfollowinganextendedinterventionprograminthehighschoolscience curriculum.CognitionandInstruction,11(1),1–29.

Adey,P.,&Shayer,M.(1994).Reallyraisingstandards:Cognitiveinterventionandacademicachievement.London,UK:Routledge. Adey,P.,Shayer,M.,&Yates,C.(1989).ThinkingScience:Studentandteachers’materialsfortheCASEintervention.London:Macmillan. Allen,P.,&Bennett,K.(2008).SPSSforthehealthandbehaviouralsciences.SouthMelbourne:Thompson.

Adey,P.,Robertson,A.,&Venville,G.(2002).EffectsofacognitiveaccelerationprogrammeonYear1pupils.BritishJournalofEducationalPsychology,72, 1–25.

Cohen,J.(1988).Statisticalpoweranalysisforthebehaviouralsciences(2nded.).Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.

Creswell,J.W.(2009).Researchdesign:Qualitative.InQuantitativeandmixedmethodsapproaches(3rded.).LosAngeles:Sage.

Diezmann,C.,&Watters,J.(2000).Anenrichmentphilosophyandstrategyforempoweringyounggiftedchildrentobecomeautonomouslearners.Gifted andTalentedInternational,15(1),6–18.

Engeström,Y.(1999).Activitytheoryandindividualandsocialtransformation.InY.Engeström,R.Miettinen,&R.-L.Punamäki(Eds.),PerspectivesonActivity Theory(pp.19–37).Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.

EuropeanCommission.(2007).Keycompetenciesforlifelonglearning:Europeanreferenceframework.http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education culture/publ/pdf/ll-learning/keycompen.pdfDownloaded25.01.12

Feather,N.T.(1989).Attitudestowardsthehighachiever:Thefallofthetallpoppy.AustralianJournalofPsychology,41(3),239–267. Feldhusen,J.F.(1998).Programsforthegiftedfewortalentdevelopmentforthemany?PhiDeltaKappan,79(10),735–739.

Gallagher,C.,Hipkins,R.,&Zohar,A.(2012).Positioningthinkingwithinnationalcurriculumandassessmentsystems:PerspectivesfromIsrael,NewZealand andNorthernIreland.ThinkingSkillsandCreativity,7(2),134–143.

Griffin,P.,Care,E.,Francis,M.,Hutchinson,D.,&Pavlevic,M.(2012).Theinfluenceofteachingstrategiesonstudentachievementinhigherorderskills, schoolimprovement:Whatdoesresearchtellusabouteffectivestrategies.InC.Glascodine,&K.-A.Hoad(Eds.),ProceedingsoftheAustralianCouncilof EducationalResearch(ACER)ResearchconferenceseriesCamberwell,Victoria,(pp.77–85).August,ACER.

Gross,M.(2009).Friendships.InB.A.Kerr(Ed.),Encyclopediaofgiftedness,creativityandtalent(Vol.1)(pp.361–364).LosAngeles:Sage. Hattie,J.C.(2009).Visiblelearning:Asynthesisofover800meta-analysesrelatingtoachievement.London:Routledge.

Hattie,J.C.,&Timperley,H.(2007).Thepoweroffeedback.ReviewofEducationalResearch,77(1),81–112.

Lai,E.R.(2011).Metacognition:Aliteraturereview.PersonResearchReport,.Retrievedfromwww.pearsonassessments.com/reserach Lipman,M.(2003).Thinkingineducation(2nded.).NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Louden, B., Rohl, M., & Hopkins, S. (2008). Teaching for growth: Effective teaching of literacy and numeracy. Perth, Australia: Wren Press. http://www.uwa.edu.au/ data/assets/pdffile/0005/615686/TFGFinalReport.pdfAccessed25.04.14

Magno,C.(2010).Theroleofmetacognitiveskillsindevelopingcriticalthinking.MetacognitionLearning,5,137–156. Martinez,M.E.(2006).Whatismetacognition?PhiDeltaKappan,696–699.

Matthews,M.S.(2009).Giftedlearnerswhodropout:Prevalenceandprevention.InL.V.Shavinina(Ed.),Internationalhandbookofgiftedness(Vol.1)(pp. 527–536).NewYork:Springer.

MCEETYAMinisterialCouncilonEducation,&TrainingandYouthAffairs.(2008).MelbournedeclarationoneducationalgoalsforyoungAustralians. http://www.mceecdya.edu.au/verve/resources/nationaldeclarationontheeducationalgoalsforyoungaustralians.pdfAccessed25th

McGaw,B.(2008).HowgoodisAustralianschooleducation?InS.Marginson,&R.James(Eds.),Education,scienceandpublicpolicy:Ideasforaneducation revolution(pp.53–77).Carlton,Victoria:MelbourneUniversityPublishing.

Mercer,N.(2010).Theanalysisofclassroomtalk:Methodsandmethodologies.BritishJournalofEducationalPsychology,80,1–14.

Morrow,R.A.,&Torres,C.A.(1995).Socialtheoryandeducation:Acritiqueoftheoriesofsocialandculturalreproduction.Albany,NY:SUNYPress. OECD.(2005).Thedefinitionandselectionofkeycompetencies:Executivesummary.http://www.deseco.admin.ch/bfs/deseco/en/index/02.parsys.43469.

downloadList.2296.DownloadFile.tmp/2005.dskcexecutivesummary.en.pdfAccessed25.01.12

Oliver,M.,Venville,G.,&Adey,P.(2012).Effectsofacognitiveaccelerationprograminalowsocio-economichighschoolinregionalAustralia.International JournalofScienceEducation,34(9),1393–1410.

Patton,M.Q.(2015).Qualitativeresearchandevaluationmethods(4thed.).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Raudenbush,S.W.,Rowan,B.,&Cheong,Y.F.(1993).Higherorderinstructionalgoalsinsecondaryschools:Class,teacherandschoolinfluences.American EducationalResearchJournal,30(3),523–553.

Rimm,S.(2009).Underachievement.InB.Kerr(Ed.),Encyclopediaofgiftedness,creativityandtalent.LosAngeles:Sage(pp.x–x).

Rogers,K.(2007).Lessonslearnedabouteducatingthegiftedandtalented:Asynthesisoftheresearchoneducationalpractice.TheGiftedChildQuarterly,

51(4),382–397.

Seaton,M.,Marsh,H.W.,Yeung,A.S.,&Craven,R.(2011).Thebigfishdownunder:Examiningmoderatorsofthe‘big-fish-little-pond’effectforAustralia’s highachievers.AustralianJournalofEducation,55(2),93–114.

Shayer,M.(2003).NotjustPiaget,notjustVygotsky,andcertainlynotVygotskyasanalternativetoPiaget.LearningandInstruction,13,465–485. Shayer,M.,&Adey,P.(2002).Learningintelligence:Cognitiveaccelerationacrossthecurriculumfrom5to15years.Buckingham,UK:OpenUniversityPress. Shayer,M.,Adey,P.,&Wylam,H.(1981).Grouptestsofcognitivedevelopment-idealsandarealization.JournalofResearchinScienceTeaching,18,157–168. Topsfield,J.(2013,Thursday,January10).Resultsflatlinefortopstudents.TheAge.

Tudge,J.(1990).Vygotsky,thezoneofproximaldevelopmentandpeercollaboration:Implicationsforclassroompractice.InL.C.Moll(Ed.),Vygotskyand Education:InstructionalImplicationsandApplicationsofSociohistoricalPsychology(pp.155–172).Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress. VanTassel-Baska,J.,MacFarlane,B.,&Feng,A.X.(2006).Across-culturalstudyofexemplaryteaching:WhatdoSingaporeandtheUnitedStatessecondary

giftedclassteacherssay?GiftedandTalentedInternational,21(2),38–46.

Warburton,E.,&Torff,B.(2005).Theeffectofperceivedlearneradvantagesonteachers’beliefsaboutcritical-thinkingactivities.JournalofTeacherEducation,

56,24–33.

Zohar,A.,&Peled,B.(2008).Theeffectsofexplicitteachingofmetastrategicknowledgeonlow-andhigh-achievingstudents.LearningandInstruction,

18(4),337–353.

Zohar,A.,Degaini,A.,&Vaaknin,E.(2001).Teachers’beliefsaboutlow-achievingstudentsandhigherorderthinking.TeachingandTeacherEducation,17(4), 469–485.