Article

Critical Thinking Skills Among Gifted Child Quarterly

20 14, Vol. 58(2) I 27—136

Elementary School Students: Comparing 20 14 National Association for

Gifted Children
Reprints and permissions:
Identified Gifted and General Education sagepub.com/journaIsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10. I I 77/00 169862 14522508

Student Performance gcq.sagepub.com

Todd Kettles'

Abstract
Education reform efforts, including the current adoption of Common Core State Standards, have increased attention to
teaching critical thinking skills to all students. This study investigated the critical thinking skills of fourth-grade students from
a school district in Texas, including 45 identified gifted students and 163 general education students. Identified giked students
outperformed general education students on both the Cornell Critical Thinking Test and the Test of Critical Thinking (d =
I.52 and d —— I .36, respectively). There was no evidence of main effects or interaction effects for gender in measures of critical
thinking within these samples. Critical thinking scores of students in the three schools did not differ significantly, nor were
differences in scores associated with length of exposure to the giked education program. The association of higher ability
with advanced critical thinking skills, but at the same time, the lack of evidence of an effect of the gifted education programs
(which did not focus specifically on critical thinking skills) suggests that differentiation of curriculum and instruction for gifted
or advanced learners might fruitfully include deliberate differentiation of instruction in this area.

Keywords
differentiation, programming/service delivery models, thinking skills, cognition, learning, critical thinking

Developing skills of critical thinking is widely considered a
worthy educational goal, with recognition of its importance
increasing in recent years. In typical lists of skills needed for
the 21st century, critical thinking appears at or near the top
(Bailin & Siegel, 2003; Trilling & Fadel, 2009; Walser,
2008). Wagner (2008) argued that effective communication,
curiosity, and critical thinking skills are no longer only desir-
able outcomes of elite liberal arts education, but the essential
competencies for life in the 21st century. From a policy per-
spective, the Goals 2000: Educate America Act (1994)
emphasized that critical thinking abilities are necessary in
the 21st century for productive employment and an essential
characteristic of quality education. The Partnership for 21st
Century Skills (2004), a leading advocacy organization with
business and state education department partnerships across
the United States, calls for the integration of critical thinking,
problem solving, and communication skills across all areas
of the curriculum. Perhaps most significantly, the Common
Core State Standards for English Language Arts (National
Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council
of Chief State School Officers, 2010), which have been
adopted by 46 of the 50 states in the United States, reflect a
strong commitment to developing critical thinking skills
among all students from kindergarten to Grade 12 through
increased emphasis on argumentation and analyses of claims
and evidence (VanTassel-Baska, 2013).
Debates over definitions of critical thinking abound
(Ennis, 1989, 1990; Paul, 1990), but one definition is now
widely accepted and is used in the current study. Critical
thinking is defined as “purposeful, self-regulatory judgment
which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and
inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, concep-
tual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual consider-
ations upon which judgment is based” (Facione, 1990, p. 3).
This omnibus definition, despite being unwieldy, also pro-
vided the framework for the most comprehensive meta-anal-
ysis regarding instruction of critical thinking (Abrami et al.,
2008).
These efforts to improve national curriculum and increase
emphasis on teaching critical thinking skills to all students
should have implications for educators working with gifted
'University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA
Corresponding Author:
Todd Kettler, College of Education, Department of Educational
Psychology, University of North Texas, 1 155 Union Circle, #3 1 1335,
Denton, TX 76203-5017, USA.
Email: Todd.KettIer@unt.edu

Downloaded from at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on March 2, 2015

128
and talented students. The concept of differentiated learning
experiences based on educational readiness is a foundational
idea for the field of gifted education. The national program-
ming standards for gifted education advocate that to effec-
tively work with identified gifted and talented students,
educators need to understand the characteristics of the stu-
dents in the population. Furthermore, “These characteristics
provide the rationale for differentiation in programs, group-
ing, and services for this population and are translated into
appropriate differentiation choices made at curricular and
program levels in schools and school districts” (National
Association for Gifted Children, 2010, p. 8). Differentiated
curriculum and instruction based on differences in developed
skills and abilities is a chief aim of gifted education (Adams
& Pierce, 2006; Roberts & Inman, 2009; Robinson, Shore, &
Enersen, 2007; VanTassel-Baska, 2013). Research and rec-
ommended practices advocate for differentiated curriculum
and instruction in response to advanced reading (Reis &
Boeve, 2009; Reis et al., 2007, VanTassel-Baska, 2013) and
mathematics skills (Johnsen & Sheffield, 2013; Swiatek,
2007; Wilkins, Wilkins, & Oliver, 2006). Ultimately, the dif-
ferentiation principle may suggest that for any skill the
development of which is a goal, advanced levels of educa-
tional readiness should be matched with advanced learning
experiences (Tomlinson & Allan, 2000).
This study examined measured levels of critical thinking
skills among identified gifted students and general educa-
tion students to determine whether critical thinking skill
levels should be considered when designing differentiated
learning experiences. Within the literature of critical think-
ing, very few studies examine the critical thinking skills of
preadolescent students in upper elementary grades.
Furthermore, there may have been a time when critical
thinking was an exclusive purview of gifted education, but
21st century education advocates call for all students to be
engaged in the development of critical thinking skills across
the curriculum. Thus, educators of gifted students may ask
whether differences in critical thinking skills support a
need for differentiation of curriculum and instruction spe-
cifically for gifted learners. In other words, as developing
critical thinking skills becomes more prominent in curricu-
lum (e.g., Common Core State Standards), should educa-
tors of identified gifted students approach critical thinking
in the elementary grades from a differentiated instruction
perspective?
Two research questions were developed for this study.
Two follow-up questions were also analyzed to guard against
potential threats to validity of the findings:
1. Is there a difference in developed critical thinking
skills between identified gifted and general education
students? Follow-ups to Research Question 1: Among
the identified gifted student group, is there a relation-
ship between the amount of time spent in the gifted
program and scores on measures of critical thinking?
Kettler
Downloaded from at HOWARD
Gifted Child Quarterly 58(2)
Does critical thinking performance vary among
schools in the study?
2. Is there a difference in developed critical thinking
skills between male and female students or does gen-
der have a moderating effect on critical thinking skill
differences between identified gifted and general
education students?
Literature Review
Cifi:ed Education and Gi/ted Students
The field of gifted education has considered critical thinking
a desirable goal for gifted programs (Linn & Shore, 2008;
Parks, 2009; Struck & Little, 2011), and critical thinking
instruction has been included as an evidence-based practice
in the National Gifted Programming Standards (National
Association for Gifted Children, 2010). Some research stud-
ies in gifted education have documented attempts to improve
critical thinking skills among populations of students identi-
fied as gifted and talented (VanTassel-Baska, Bracken, Feng,
& Brown, 2009; VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2006).
However, in spite of some attention afforded to developing
critical thinking skills among gifted students, the literature of
gifted education has not actively advocated for using docu-
mented levels of critical thinking as a foundation on which to
differentiate instruction.
Relevant literature identifies several characteristics repre-
senting advanced skill development typical of gifted stu-
dents. First, there is a relationship between advanced
cognitive ability and processing speed (Kranzler, Whang, &
Jensen, 1994; Rogers, 1986). Students with higher levels of
intelligence generally process information faster than aver-
age ability peers on both simple and complex tasks (Roberts,
Beh, & Stankov, 1988; Spiegel & Bryant, 1978). Second,
gifted students are generally more thorough problem solvers
than average ability peers (Davidson & Sternberg, 1984;
Shore & Lazar, 1996). Gifted students have also demon-
strated a wider variety of strategies during problem solving
than age peers (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1985; Montague,
1991). Third, there is evidence that gifted students employ
more metacognitive strategies during learning than their
nongifted peers (Shore, 2000; Shore & Kanevsky, 1993), and
gifted students are generally better at assessing their abilities
for a learning task than their nongifted peers (Coleman &
Shore, 1991; Ewers & Wood, 1993). Fourth, gifted students
generally are able to sustain attention to a problem or task in
ways their nongifted peers do not (Bloom & Sosniak, 1981;
Piirto, 1992; Root-Bernstein & Root-Bernstein, 2004;
Sriraman, 2004). Fifth, evidence suggests that students with
higher levels of cognitive ability have superior memory and
more efficient retrieval when compared with nongifted peers
(Borkowski & Peck, 1986; Cohen & Sandberg, 1977; Dark
& Benbow, 1990, 1991; Ford & Keating, 1981; Hunt,
Lunneborg, & Lewis, 1975; Keating & Bobbitt, 1978). Sixth,
gifted students generally demonstrate advanced abilities for
abstraction and generalization during learning when com-
UNIVUNDERGRAD LBRARY0nMarch2,2015
 pared with nongifted peers (Ablard & Tissot, 1998; Hettinger
& Carr, 2003; Hoh, 2008; Shavinina & Kholodnaja, 1996;
Sriraman, 2004, 2008; Winner, 1996). Seventh, gifted stu-
dents differ from their nongifted peers in their ability to learn
with minimal instruction, sometimes referred to as curtailed
learning (Gross, 2004; Krutetskii, 1976; Lee & Olszewski-
Kubilius, 2006; Lynch, 1992; Mills, Ablard, & Lynch, 1992;
VanTassel-Baska, 1983; Winner, 1996).
Evidence supporting these characteristics has provided a
foundation for the differentiation principle in gifted educa-
tion. These characteristics may result in advanced skill
development in a variety of domains across the core curricu-
lum. The most commonly studied and discussed areas where
developed skill differences demand differentiated educa-
tional opportunities are reading and mathematics (Jolly &
Kettler, 2008). However, differentiation of curriculum and
instruction may be implemented in any learning environment
in which the evidence suggests that some students have
already attained advanced levels of the skill being taught.
Critical Thinking in Elementary School Students
In general, the literature on critical thinking focuses on older
students, often college-student populations. There are also a
number of studies on teaching and measuring critical think-
ing in nursing education. However, there are a few studies
which have examined critical thinking skills among elemen-
tary student populations, including some populations of
gifted smdents.
A recent evaluation was conducted of the Destination
Imagination(DI) program using the Cornell Critical Thinking
Test (CCTT; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko, 2005), demonstrat-
ing higher scores for students participating in the DI program
than those for a comparison, nonparticipating group (Missett,
Callahan, Hertberg-Davis, McCarty, & Whitmire, 2010).
There were two studies (VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh,
2006; VanTassel-Baska et al., 2009) using the Test of Critical
Thinking (TCT; Bracken et a1., 2003) to measure elementary
students’ critical thinking skills. The more recent study
(VanTassel-Baska et al., 2009) was conducted in Title I
schools to measure growth in reading comprehension and
critical thinking over a 3-year period. Subjects participated
in an instructional intervention as part of Project Athena, a
set of curriculum units developed for high-ability learners.
One of the explicit goals of the Project Athena curriculum
was to develop students’ critical thinking skills. Students
made statistically significant improvements in critical think-
ing skills as measured by the TCT; however, both groups of
students, experimental and control, made similar gains over
the 3-year period.
There was a finding from the VanTassel-Baska et a1.
(2009) study that was particularly relevant to the present
study. In that study, the authors divided the students in both
130
Downloaded from at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on March 2, 2015
129
experimental and control groups into three categories based
on IQ. Students with higher IQ scores earned higher TCT
scores, suggesting that identified gifted smdents would score
higher on measures of critical thinking than would their gen-
eral education peers.
The present review identified gaps in knowledge that
were not well represented in the critical thinking literature.
Aside from the two studies published (VanTassel-Baska et
al., 2009; VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2006) using the
TCT, no other recently published studies were identified
investigating critical thinking with elementary student popu-
lations. The Administration Manual for the CCTT (Ennis et
al., 2005) listed a few unpublished studies with elementary
students, but since they were unpublished, they could not be
reviewed or verified. According to the Administration
Manual for the CCTT, several of the unpublished studies
examined potential gender effects on critical thinking
performance.
I"4ethod
Participants
Participants were 208 fourth-grade students from a suburban
school district in Texas. Three participating schools were
selected at random from the collaborating school district, and
student participation within those schools was voluntary.
Campus A had 56 students participate; (64% of 4th grade
enrollment); Campus B had 75 students participate (90% of
4th grade enrollment), and Campus C had 77 students partici-
pate (79% of 4th grade enrollment). For analysis, participants
were classified into two groups: general education students
and identified gifted students. The participants were 46%
Asian, 40% White, 11% Hispanic, and 4% Black. This was
representative of the population of the participating schools:
47% Asian, 40% White, 9% Hispanic, and 4% Black.
General £ducotion Group. In the general education group (n =
163), the average age was 10 years and 2 months. There were
68 Asian students (41.7%), 67 White students (41.1%), 20
Hispanic students (12.3%), and 8 Black students (4.9%). The
general education group included 79 males (48.5%) and 84
females (51.5%). There were 20 students in the general edu-
cation classified as economically disadvantaged (12.3%).
ldentijed Ciged Group. In the identified gifted group (n = 45),
the average age was 10 years and 1 month. There were 27
Asian students (60%), 16 White students (35.6%), 2 His-
panic students (4.4%), and 0 Black students (0%). The iden-
tified gifted group included 16 males (35.6%) and 29 females
(64.4%). There was one student in the identified gifted group
classified as economically disadvantaged (2.2%).
The identified gifted participants (21.6%) were identified
as gifted and talented according to state and district guidelines.
Identification of gifted students began in kindergarten and
continued annually through high school. In the participating
district, all GT identification decisions were made by a cam- pus-
based committee comprised of five educators who had
training in the nature and needs of gifted and talented
students and the identification of gifted students. According
to district policy, sources of data that the committee reviewed
were cog- nitive ability scores from the Cognitive Abilities Test
(CogAT; Lohman & Hagen, 2003), reading and mathematics
achieve- ment scores from the Scantron Performance Series
(PS) tests (Scantron Corporation, 2005), teacher feedback on
student abilities, and district developed authentic assessments
in the core subject areas of science, mathematics, language
arts, and social studies. The identified gifted group had a
mean CogAT score of 126.03 {SD — 8.46) and the general
education group had a mean CogAT score of 100.89 (SD ——
10.31). CogAT scores for students in the study were obtained
by the school district for all students during the third-grade
academic year. Performance Series achievement scores for
mathematics and reading were also obtained by the district
for all students dur- ing the third-grade academic year. The
school district provided those data for the study.
In the participating district, when students were identified
for gifted education services, they participated in a weekly (2
hours) pull-out enrichment program and also received dif-
ferentiation of the core curriculum in cluster grouped class-
rooms. Pull-out teachers and cluster grouped classroom
teachers met district and state guidelines for training in pro-
viding gifted education services. Differentiated curriculum
in the participating district was described as a combination of
enrichment and acceleration through curriculum compact-
ing, tiered instruction, and independent learning projects;
however, empirical verification of the differentiated learning
was not included in the present study. Teachers in the district
developed the curriculum that was used in the pull-out pro-
gram, and cluster classroom teachers developed the differen-
tiated elements of the cluster classroom instruction. The
quality and frequency of the differentiation may have varied
across campuses and teachers whose students participated in
the study.
Instruments
Data collection for this study included test scores from the
following: the CCTT (Ennis et al., 2005) and the TCT
(Bracken et a1., 2003). Demographic data were gathered
from the participating school district to include the following
for each student: cognitive ability scores, academic achieve-
ment scores, ethnicity, gender, gifted and talented (yes/no),
and economically disadvantaged (yes/no). Economic disad-
vantage was categorized based on the federal free/reduced
lunch qualifications.
Cornell Critical Thinking test The CCTT Level X (Ennis et a1.,
2005) was used to measure critical thinking skills. The CCTT
has been used in numerous studies of critical thinking skills
Kett/er
Downloaded from at HOWARD
Gifted Child Quarterly 58(2)
since it was originally developed in 1985, and it is currently
in its fifth edition. The administration guide of the CCTT
Level X includes an age range from 4th grade to 12th grade.
Level X of the CCTT includes 76 items to measure skill lev-
els on five aspects of critical thinking: induction, deduction,
observation, credibility, and assumptions. In previous studies
reported in the administration guide, reliability estimates
ranged from .67 to .90 with a median estimate of .80. The
estimated internal consistency (Cronbach’s o) was calculated
at .89 for the present study (n = 205).
test o Critic‹tf Thinking. The TCT is a researcher developed
test (Bracken et al., 2003) from the Center for Gifted Edu-
cation at the College of William and Mary. Two benefits of
the TCT are that it is intended for a specific elementary
audience, and it was designed to have a high ceiling to reli-
ably measure the critical thinking skills of both gifted and
general education student populations (Bracken et al.,
2003). The TCT was theoretically based on the Facione
(1990) Delphi panel’s definition of critical thinking. The
TCT consists of 45 items arranged across 10 scenarios.
Each scenario is followed by three to six items; items are
multiple-choice format with four answer choices per item.
In previously reported studies in the administration guide,
Cronbach’s o of the TCT was .89 for the total population,
and each grade level group’s internal consistency ranged
from .83 to .87. Cronbach’s o was calculated at .79 for the
present study (n = 205).
Procedures
The principal investigator administered all the assessments
to the participants in classrooms at the participating cam-
puses. Participants’ teachers assisted with proctoring to
maintain consistent and reliable testing environments. A total
of 203 students took both tests of critical thinking. Five stu-
dents only took one of the two tests due to absence. To
account for a potential practice effect, 108 of the students
(53%) took the CCTT first followed by the TCT. The other
95 students (47%) took the TCT first followed by the CCTT.
For each campus testing session, two teachers’ classrooms
were designated at random by name draw to receive the
CCTT on testing date one, and the other two classrooms
were administered the TCT first on testing date one. Testing-
date intervals ranged from 5 to 15 days. For the CCTT, the
mean difference in scores between first and second testing
dates was small and negative (—2.23 t 2) — —1.42, p — .16,
d —— —.20. The mean difference on the TIT was also small but
positive (.92), t(204) = .98, p — .33, d — . 12. Practice effects did
not affect the study.
Analysis
There were two research questions being considered in this
study. The first research question compared the between
group mean scores on critical thinking for identified gifted
participants and general education participants. To test the
UNIVUNDERGRAD LBRARY0nMarch2,2015
 13 I Table I . Correlation Matrix of Variables.
CCTT TCT CogAT PS Reading PS Math
null hypothesis that no differences existed, a one-tailed t test
was conducted to compare the means scores obtained on CCTT
each measure of critical thinking. TCT .60
There was a follow-up question which examined the CogAT .60 .60
potential relationship between scores on critical thinking PS Reading .48 .70 .67
tests and the amount of time spent in the gifted program. This PS Math .49 .54 .70 .67 —

question addressed a potential threat to the validity of the Note. p .0 I for all of the correlation estimates listed.
findings—participation in the gifted program may have the
effect of developing critical thinking skills. If time spent in
the gifted program contributed to improved critical thinking Table 2. Comparison of Giked and General Education Students’
scores, a relationship between the two variables—time spent Critical Thinking.
in the program and critical thinking scores—would be
expected. A Pearson product moment correlation analysis Standard
was used to test the null hypothesis that no relationship error of
Test Group n Mean SD mean
existed between the two variables.
A second follow-up question addressed another potential CCTT Gifted 44 44.9I 6.3I 0.95
threat to validity of the findings—effects associated with the General education 159 31.62 10.59 0.84
school students attended. School A was a typical elementary TCT Giked 45 28.84 4.88 0.73
school with the standard state-approved curriculum and General education I60 2I.28 6.I6 0.49
resources offered by the district. School B was an elementary
school that for the past year had begun to focus on project-
based learning. Approximately 10% to 20% of the standard, scores have a positive and significant relationship with their
state-approved curriculum was taught using project-based cognitive ability scores. Additionally, students’ critical think-
learning units that were developed by the teachers at the ing scores on both measures have a positive and significant
school. School C was an elementary school that for the past relationship with both their cognitive ability and their
2 years had begun to focus on science, technology, engineer- achievement in reading and math. Since both the CCTT and
ing, and mathematics initiatives (STEM). Teachers at School the TCT measure similar constructs of critical thinking
C designed integrated units of study for math/science and (Facione, 1990), there was an anticipated correlation between
language arts/social studies that had an intentional emphasis the scores on the two tests.
on STEM careers and problem solving. The quality and con-
sistency of these particular focus areas in Schools B and C Comparing Critical thinking Between isiged and
were not empirically verified as part of this study but rather General Education Students
obtained from the general descriptions of the schools them-
selves. There was no evidence from any of the three schools The first research question analyzed the differences between
that critical thinking skills were explicitly taught in the cur- the mean critical thinking scores of two groups of partici-
riculum. A random effects analysis of variance (ANOVA) pants, identified gifted and general education students.
was conducted to test the null hypothesis that no between f ' e V
group (schools) differences in critical thinking scores could if: US ’ ali% of he dls bution coeee rd th the
be attributed to the nested variable of which school the par- h e
ticipants attended. TTo"' ndal eT
T’ nrb hrn su ' 1 f’ eqTa ty f
L
The second research question asked if critical thinking variance between the two groups. Effect sizes were reported
performance varied based on gender and whether gender
served as a moderating variable in the differences between dsfner ceebet e n n 9ans token s effesu ez f he
the identified gifted and general education group. To answer interpretdd in the following ways: small (.20), medium
this question, a two-way ANOVA was conducted using gen- (’5
der as a moderator. Means herb compared for participants’ performance on
both the CCTT and the TCT (see Table 2) Group sizes varied
e i O e
Results
hT due to' 1 bfence. There% s a'n1 b hrved ean hr
Table 1 presents a correlation matrix of the measured vari- d
ables in the study: CCTT, TCT, CogAT Composite, PS h po b n h e a n nd f d
0 ndth m n
Reading, and PS Math. Significant relationships existed t e t
between all pairs of the variables. Students’ achievement scoring higher, r(116 7.) = 10.47, p < .001, d — 1.52.
132 The second analysis used the TCT to measure the critical
thinking skills of the two groups. There was a mean differ- ence of
7.57 (95% confidence interval [5.60, 9.54]). As hypothesized,
Downloaded from at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on March 2, 2015
there was a significant difference in the mean scores between Gifted Child Quarterly 58(2)
the two groups with identified gifted students
scoring hi her, t 203) = 7.59, p < .001, d — 1.36.
The identifie) gifted group demonstrated more advanced Table 3. Critical Thinking Scores for Male and Female
levels of critical thinking compared with the general educa- Participants.
tion group. A follow-up question to this initial analysis asked CCTT TCT
whether participation in the gifted education program was
associated with differences in observed critical thinking Gender n Mean SD n Mean SD
skills, an association that might reflect an effect of the gifted Female III 34.39 II.13 II0 23.66 6.83
program on the development of the skills. Male 92 34.64 11.42 95 22.09 6.45
Among the identified gifted participants in the study, the Totals 203 34.50 II.24 205 22.94 6.68

Table 4. Analysis of Gender Differences Within the Identified

Giked Group.
Standard
amount of time spent in the gifted program ranged from 4 to Test Gender n Mean SD error of mean
50 months with a mean of 23.27 {SD — 14.38) months. Some CCTT Male 15 47.07 3.54 0.9I
students were identified as early as kindergarten, other were Female 29 43.79 7.I5 I.33
identified as recently as the previous semester of fourth TCT Male 16 27.00 4.73 I.18
grade. Pearson product moment correlations were analyzed Female 29 29.86 4.73 .89
between the number of months identified gifted students had
been in the gifted education program and their scores on both
the CCTT and the TCT. For both the CCTT and the TCT the effects attributed to the schools at which the participants
correlation was positive but nonsignificant, r — .21, p — .18 attended.
and r — .24, p — .12, respectively. Thus, the evidence did not
suggest that the amount of time spent participating in the
gifted program in this school district yielded improvements
Gender Di erences in Critical Thinking Skills
in critical thinking abilities. The second research question examined potential gender dif-
An additional follow-up question examined the potential ferences in developed critical thinking skills among elemen-
critical thinking skills differences among schools. All the tary students. This question also considered the potential
vol- unteer participants in the study came from the same moderating effect gender might have on observed differ-
school district but from three elementary campuses. The ences between the identified gifted group and the general
three cam- puses used the same curriculum standards as education group. As in the first research question, each anal-
prescribed by the state and many of the same instructional ysis was conducted separately with the CCTT and the TCT.
resources; how- ever, two of the campuses had unique focus The literature review suggested that gender effects were
areas as previ- ously mentioned. A random effects model unlikely as they were typically not present in previous stud-
analysis of variance was conducted to examine the differences ies using the CCTT and the TCT; however, several of the
in the mean scores among the three campuses. In this model previous studies were unpublished beyond being mentioned
the school is treated as a random effect and the analysis in the administration manual, and previous studies had not
tested the null hypothesis that there was no effect for the considered potential gender effects as a moderating variable
school that the students attended. The model is as follows: Y — interacting with giftedness. Data on scores by gender are pre-
q + U + Y . Y is the critical thinking score of theyth pupil at the sented in Tables 3 and 4.
ith 'school; q is the mean test score of the entire population; U To consider potential effects of gender, a two-way
is the random school effect measuring the average score at ANOVA was conducted using gender as a moderator vari-
school i with the average score of the population; Y able (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Using the CCTT as the depen-
represents the individual- error attributed to the pupil y dent variable, no main effects (F 1,199 = 1.61, p — .21) or
compared with the average at school i. Effect sizes were interaction effects (Ft 199 = 0.37, p — .55) for gender were
reported with the partial eta squared (p2) estimate of the detected. Using the TCT as the dependent variable, no main
magnitude of the effect. effects (Ft 201 = 2.42, p — .12) or interaction effects (F 20
In the random effects ANOVA for the CCTT measure of 1.49, p — .22) for gender were detected.
critical thinking skills, no effects attributed to school were
found for the three group means, (2 200) = .38, p — .69, iJ2 <
.01. In the random effects ANOVA the TCT measure of Discussion
critical thinking skills, no effects attributed to school were
found for the three group means, .08, p — .93, rj2 < This study analyzed developed differences in critical think-
.01. In both analyses the data suggested the null hypotheses ing skills among upper elementary students. The results pro-
should be not rejected; thus, there were no detected random vided evidence that differences in students’ critical thinking
Kettler skill development are present as early as fourth grade. The
results have potential implications for researchers who con-
Downloaded from at HOWARD UNIVUNDERGRAD LBRARY0nMarch2,2015
 tinue to investigate critical thinking skills and instructional
interventions with identified gifted and general education
populations. Additionally, the results have potential implica-
tions for educators in elementary school settings who teach
critical thinking skills and implement differentiated learning
experiences based on evidence of developed differences in
those skills.
Identified gifted smdents demonstrated advanced critical
thinking skills compared with general education students.
While this descriptive study supports this finding, further
research using explanatory designs is necessary to under-
stand why gifted students demonstrate more developed criti-
cal thinking skills in fourth grade than their general education
peers. Analyses suggested that the amount of time the identi-
fied gifted students spent in the gifted program was not
related to critical thinking skill development. Students iden-
tified for the gifted program later in elementary school dem-
onstrated advanced levels of critical thinking similar to those
who were identified earlier in elementary school. Thus, the
gifted students developed advanced critical thinking skills by
the spring semester of fourth grade regardless of the amount
of time they spent participating in the weekly program for
gifted education.
Developing skills of critical thinking is a pervasive 21st
century goal for all students. The principle of differentiation
suggests that when an educational goal calls on the teacher
to teach a particular set of skills, understanding and respond-
ing to developed differences in those skills is important. The
literature of gifted education identifies a few skills on which
gifted students perform at higher levels than comparable
students in the same grade in school. These developed skill
differences manifest themselves in advanced levels of per-
formance in various aspects of the school curriculum, most
notably math and reading. The principle of differentiation
should extend to teaching critical thinking skills as part of
the elementary curriculum. Ideally, teachers respond to stu-
dents’ demonstrating advanced reading or math skills by
presenting differentiated learning experiences in reading
and math. An implication of this study is that teachers might
also want to respond to students’ advanced levels of critical
thinking skills with differentiated learning experiences
based on a scope and sequence of critical thinking skills and
applications.
The evidence that gifted students demonstrate more
developed critical thinking skills than their general education
peers suggests that strength in critical thinking could be a
strong and desirable characteristic of gifted students. This
supports the inclusion of developing critical thinking as a
gifted education program goal (Parks, 2009). The present
study found a slightly positive but nonsignificant relation-
ship between critical thinking skills and time spent in the
gifted education program. This implies that identified gifted
students in the sample are developing advanced critical
134
Downloaded from at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on March 2, 2015
133
thinking skills somewhat independent of the gifted education
program. This finding is consistent with recent research
reviews on critical thinking instruction (Abrami et al., 2008).
Vaguely stated or implicit goals without direct instruction in
critical thinking have had small to no effect on critical think-
ing skill development (Abrami et al., 2008). Developing
critical thinking skills was not an explicit goal of the gifted
program in the participating district, and no evidence of
direct instruction in critical thinking skill development was
present. Schools wishing to make critical thinking skill
development a goal of the gifted education program should
explicitly identify critical thinking goals and provide differ-
entiated instruction toward those goals. Future studies might
continue to examine the effects of various instruction pro-
grams to develop critical thinking skills among identified
gifted students including specific examination of differenti-
ated approaches to critical thinking instruction.
This study also reveals some information about the rela-
tionship between critical thinking and cognitive ability. The
data indicated that approximately 36% (/ - .36) of the vari-
ance in critical thinking skills is related to cognitive ability
(see Table 1). Both the CCTT and the TCT have a strong and
positive correlation with cognitive ability and academic
achievement. This relationship is consistent with the
VanTassel-Baska et al. (2009) study that provided evidence
that students with higher cognitive abilities scored higher on
the TCT. Thus, the evidence of a relationship between cogni-
tive ability and critical thinking exists in this study as well as
in previous work. More information on the nature of how
cognitive ability supports the development of critical think-
ing skills would be interesting but beyond the scope of this
study.
Limitations and Funher Research
The present study is limited in both sample size and demo-
graphics. While the total sample included 208 students, the
identified gifted group only included 45 smdents who were
largely Asian and White students and not economically dis-
advantaged. While that demographic was not the intent of the
study, it was the demographic of the schools that were
selected to participate. To further validate the findings, the
study could be replicated in more diverse populations of ele-
mentary students. Replication with middle school students
could provide more data on the extent of difference in skill
development as well. Are the differences between identified
gifted and general education students similar in later grades
or have they increased or reduced? The present study used
two measures of critical thinking with a curiosity of how the
students would perform on two different measures. The esti-
mated effects were very similar for both instruments, and it
would be anticipated that subsequent studies would be just as
valid only using one of the two.
Further research ought to look for ways to further iden-
tify an articulated scope and sequence of critical thinking
skills in general as well as in specific learning domains. As general
education embraces critical thinking instruction, gifted education
should embrace differentiated critical thinking instruction.
The field has made significant prog- ress in articulating
what advanced reading instruction includes and what
advanced math instruction includes, but there is little to
define or guide a program goal dedicated to developing
advanced levels of critical thinking. Along similar lines,
more development and research are needed to create and
validate instruments that could be used to measure critical
thinking. First, such assessments would be important for
measuring critical thinking skill devel- opment as a program
goal, and second, they would be important to help teachers
know when and for whom to differentiate.
Data from this study could have implications for subse-
quent research involving critical thinking interventions.
Since there is a relatively strong relationship between cogni-
tive ability, achievement, and critical thinking, cognitive
ability and achievement data might serve as covariates or
moderating variables in research designs measuring the
impact of critical thinking instruction on developing critical
thinking skills. In random assignment designs or quasi-
experimental designs with pre-established groups, the vari-
ance in cognitive ability or achievement is likely to impact
pre-intervention levels ofcritical thinking skills. Furthermore,
these differences may interact to reduce or amplify the effects
of the treatment.
Additionally, a potential area for further study might
include the apparent similarity between tests of critical think-
ing and tests of reading. In the present study, reading
achieve- ment accounted for more of the variance in critical
thinking on the TCT (/ = .49) than it accounted for on the
CCTT (/ =
.23). The TCT shared more variance with reading achieve-
ment (r2 = .49) than it shared variance with the CCTT, the
other TCT (r2 = .36). These data suggest potential difficulty
interpreting measures of critical thinking skills within the
context of an authentic curriculum domain such as reading.
One might ask, does being a good reader make one a good
critical thinker or does being a good critical thinker make
one a good reader?
Working, learning, and democratic citizenship in the
information rich 21st century appears to be placing increased
emphasis on critical thinking skills. The new Common Core
State Standards reflect that emphasis on teaching critical
thinking to all students, especially in language arts standards.
The variance in developed critical thinking skills in this
study provides a rationale for differentiation of learning
experiences when teaching critical thinking skills to gifted
and advanced learners as early as the elementary school
years. Additionally the relationship between critical thinking
and other variables found in this study could inform subse-
quent research designs when considering the effects of inter-
ventions on developing critical thinking skills.
Kett/er
Ennis, R. H. (1990). The extent to which critical thinking is subject-
Downloaded from
Gifted Child Quarterly 58(2)
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Ablard, K. E., & Tissot, S. L. (1998). Young students’ readiness for
advanced math: Precocious abstract reasoning. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, 21, 206-223.
Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes,
M. A., Tamim, R., & Zhang, D. (2008). Instructional interven-
tions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage
1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78, 1102-
1134.
Adams, C. M., & Pierce, R. L. (2006). Differentiating instruction.
A practical guide to tiered lessons for the elementary grades.
Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Bailin, S., & Siegel, H. (2003). Critical thinking. In N. Blake, P.
Smeyers, R. Smith, & P. Standish (Eds.), The Blackwell guide
to the philosophy of education (pp. 181-193). Oxford, England:
Blackwell.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator
variable distinction in social psychology research: Conceptual,
strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 51, I 173-1182.
Bloom, B. S., & Sosniak, L. A. (1981). Talent development vs.
schooling. Educational Leadership, 38‹3), 86-94.
Borkowski, J. G., & Peck, V. A. (1986). Causes and consequences
of metamemory in gifted children. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E.
Davidson (Eds ), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 182-200).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Bracken, B. A., Bai, W., Fithian, E., Lamprecht, M. S., Little, C.,
& Quek, C. (2003). The test of critical thinking. Williamsburg,
VA: Center for Gifted Education, College of William & Mary.
Cohen, 1. (1988). Statistical power anal sis for the behavioral sci-
ences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112,
155-159.
Cohen, R. L., & Sandberg, T. (1977). Relation between intelligence
and short-term memory. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 534-554.
Coleman, E. B., & Shore, B. (1991). Problem solving processes
of high and average performers in physics. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, 14, 366-379.
Dark, V. J., & Benbow, C. P. (1990). Enhanced problem translation
and short-term memory: Components of mathematical talent.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 420-429.
Dark, V. J., & Benbow, C. P. (1991). Differential enhancement
of working memory with mathematical and verbal precocity.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 48-60.
Davidson, J. E., & Sternberg, R. J. (1984). The role of insight in
intellectual giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 257-273.
Ennis, R. H. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity:
Clarification and needed research. Educational Researcher,
?8(3), 4-10.
specific: Further clarification. Educational Researcher, 19(4),
13-16.
Ennis, R. H., Millman, I., & Tomko, T. N. (2005). Cornell Critical
at HOWARD UNIVUNDERGRAD LBRARY0nMarch2,2015
 Thinking Tests (5th ed., Revised). Seaside, CA: Critical
Thinking Company.
Ewers, C. A., & Wood, N. L. (1993). Sex and ability differences
in children’s math self-efficacy and prediction accuracy.
Learning and Individual Differences, 5, 259-267.
Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking.‘ A statement of expert con-
sensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruc-
tion. Research findings and recommendations. Newark,
DE: American Philosophical Association. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Services No. ED315423)
Ford, M. E., & Keating, D. P. (1981). Development and individual
differences in long-term memory retrieval: Process and organi-
zation. Child Development, 52, 234-241.
Goals 2000: Educate America Act, 20 U.S.C. § 5801 (1994).
Gross, U. M. (2004). Exceptionally gifted children (2nd ed.). New
York, NY: Routledge/Falmer.
Hettinger, H., & Carr, M. (2003). Cognitive development in gifted
children: Toward a more precise understanding of emerging
differences in intelligence. Educational Psychology Review,
US, 215-246.
Hoh, P. S. (2008). Cognitive characteristics of the gifted. In J. A.
Plucker & C. M. Callahan (Eds.), Critical issues and practices
in gifted education: What the research says (pp. 57-84). Waco,
TX: Prufrock Press.
Hunt, E., Lunneborg, C., & Lewis, J. (1975). What does it mean to
be high verbal? Cognitive Psychology, 7, 194-227.
Johnsen, S. K., & Sheffield, L. J. (Eds.). (2013). Using the common
core state standards for mathematics with gifted and advanced
learners. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Jolly, J., & Kettler, T. (2008). Gifted education research 1994-
2003: A disconnect between priorities and practice. Journal
for the Education of the Gifted, 31, 427-446.
Keating, D. P., & Bobbitt, B. L. (1978). Individual and develop-
mental differences in cognitive processing components of
mental ability. Child Development, 49, 155-167.
Kranzler, J. H., Whang, P. A., & Jensen, A. R. (1994). Task
com- plexity and the speed and efficiency of elemental
information processing: A look at the nature of intellectual
giftedness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 447-
459.
Krutetskii, V. A. (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities
in school children (J. Teller, Trans.). Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
Lee, S. L., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2006). A study of
instructional methods used in fast-paced classes. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 50, 216-237.
Linn, B., & Shore, B. M. (2008). Critical thinking. In J. A. Plucker
& C. M. Callahan (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted
education. What the research says (pp. 155-165). Waco, TX:
Prufrock Press.
Lohman, D. F., & Hagen, E. P. (2003). CogAT form 6. Interpretive
guide for teachers and counselors. Rolling Meadows, IL:
Riverside.
Lynch, S. J. (1992). Fast-paced high school science for the academ-
ically talented: A six-year perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly,
36, 147-154.
Downloaded from at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on March 2, 2015
135
Mills, C. J., Ablard, K. E., & Lynch, S. J. (1992). Academically
talented students’ preparation for advanced-level coursework
after individually paced precalculus class. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, 16, 3-17.
Missett, T., Callahan, C., Hertberg-Davis, H., McCarty, R., &
Whitmire, A. (2010, November). Destination Imagination
evaluation. Program impacts on creativity, problem solv-
ing, critical thinking, and teamwork. Poster presented at the
annual meeting of the National Association of Gifted Children,
Atlanta, GA.
Montague, M. (1991). Gifted and learning-disabled gifted students’
knowledge and use of mathematical problem solving. Journal
for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 393-411.
National Association for Gifted Children. (2010). NAGC pre-k-
grade 12 gifted programming standards. A blueprint for qual-
ity gifted education programs. Washington, DC: Author.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices &
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core
state standards for English language arts. Washington, DC:
Author.
Parks, S. (2009). Teaching analytical and critical thinking skills in
gifted education. In F. A. Kames & S. M. Bean (Eds.), Methods
and materials for teaching the gifted (3rd ed., pp. 261-300).
Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2004). Moving education for-
ward. Retrieved from http://www.21stCenturyskills.org
Paul, R. W. (1990). Critical thinking. Mat every person needs to
survive in a rapidly changing world. Rohnert Park, CA: Center
for Critical Thinking & Moral Critique.
Piirto, J. (1992). Understanding those who create. Dayton, OH:
Ohio Psychology Press.
Reis, S. M., & Boeve, H. (2009). How academically gifted elemen-
tary, urban students respond to challenge in an enriched, dif-
ferentiated reading program. Journal for the Education of
the Gifted, 33, 203-240.
Reis, S. M., McCoach, D. B., Coyne, M., Schreiber, F. J., Eckert, R.
D., & Gubbins, E. J. (2007). Using planned enrichment strate-
gies with direct instruction to improve reading fluency, com-
prehension, and attitude toward reading: An evidence-based
study. Elementary School Journal, 108, 3-23.
Roberts, R. D., Beh, H. C., & Stankov, L. (1988). Hick’s 1aw, com-
peting-task performance, and intelligence. Intelligence, 12,
111-130.
Roberts, J. L., & Inman, T. F. (2009). Strategies for differentiating
instruction. Best practices for the classroom (2nd ed.). Waco,
TX: Prufrock Press.
Robinson, A., Shore, B. M., & Enersen, D. L. (2007). Best prac-
tices in gifted education: An evidence-based guide. Waco, TX:
Prufrock Press.
Rogers, K. B. (1986). Do the gifted think and learn differently?
A review of recent research and its implications for
instruction. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10, 17-39.
Root-Bernstein, R., & Root-Bernstein, M. (2004). Artistic scien-
tists and scientific artists: The link between polymathy and
creativity. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer
(Eds.), Creativity.’ From potential to realization (pp. 127-151).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Scantron Corporation. (2005). Applying adaptive technology to
diagnose student performance and progress. Retrieved from
136
http://www.scantron.com/downloads/Performance Series
White Paper.pdf
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1985). Spontaneous and ver-
bal elaboration in gifted and nongifted youths. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, 9, 1-10.
Shavinina, L. V., & Kholodnaja, M. A. (1996). The cognitive
experience as a psychological basis for intellectual giftedness.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 3-35.
Shore, B. M. (2000). Metacognition and flexibility: Qualitative dif-
ferences in how gifted children think. In R. C. Friedman &
B.
M. Shore (Eds.), Talents unfolding: Cognition and develop-
ment (pp. 167-187). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Shore, B. M., & Kanevsky, L. S. (1993). Thinking processes: Being
and becoming gifted. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, & A. H.
Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and devel-
opment of giftedness and talent (pp. 133-147). New York, NY:
Pergamon Press.
Shore, B. M., & Lazar, L. (1996). IQ related differences in time
allocation during problem solving. Psychological Reports, 78,
848-850.
Spiegel, M. R., & Bryant, H. D. (1978). Is speed of processing
information related to intelligence and achievement? Journal
ofEducational Psychology, 70, 904-910.
Sriraman, B. (2004). Gifted ninth graders’ notion of proof:
Investigating parallels in approaches of mathematically gifted
students and professional mathematicians. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, 27, 267-292.
Sriraman, B. (2008). Mathematical giftedness, problem solving and
the ability to formulate generalizations: The problem-solving
experiences of four gifted students. In B. Sriraman (Ed.),
Creativity, giftedness, and talent development in mathematics
(pp. 33-60). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Struck, J. M., & Little, C. A. (2011). Integrating higher order
pro- cess skills and content. In J. VanTassel-Baska & C. A.
Little (Eds.), Content-based curriculum for high ability
learners (2nd ed., pp. 71-100). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Swiatek, M. (2007). The talent search model: Past, present, and
future. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 320-329.
Tomlinson, C. A., & Allan, S. D. (2000). Leadership for differenti-
ating schools & classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Downloaded from at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on March 2, 2015
Gifted Child Çuarterly 58(2)
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 2Ist century skills. Learning for
life in our times. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (1983). Profiles in precocity: The Midwest
Talent Search finalists. Gifted Child Quarterly, 27, 139-145.
VanTassel-Baska, 1. (Ed.). (2013). Using the common core state
standards for English language arts with gifted and advanced
learners. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
VanTassel-Baska, J., Bracken, B., Feng, A., & Brown, E. (2009).
A longitudinal study of enhancing critical thinking and reading
comprehension in Title I classrooms. Journal for the Education
of the Gifted, 33, 7-37.
VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2006). Project Athena: A
pathway to advanced literacy development for children of pov-
erty. Gifted Child Today, 29(2), 58-63.
Wagner, T. (2008). The global achievement gap. My even our best
schools don’t teach the new survival skills our children need—
And what we can do about it. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Walser, N. (2008). Teaching 21st century skills. Harvard Education
Letter, 24{s), 1-3.
Wilkins, M. M., Wilkins, J. L. M., & Oliver, T. (2006).
Differentiating the curriculum for elementary gifted mathemat-
ics students. Teaching Children Mathematics, 13, 6-13.
Winner, E. (1996). Gifted children. Myths and realities. New York,
NY: Basic Books.
Author Biography
Todd Kettler is an assistant professor in the Department of
Educational Psychology in the College of Education at the
University of North Texas where he teaches courses in gifted
edu- cation, creativity, and child development. He was a
contributing author of Using the Common Core State Standards
for English Language Arts with Gifted and Advanced Learners
(Prufrock Press, 2013) and a coauthor of A Teacher’s Guide to
Using the Common Core State Standards with Gifted and
Advanced Learners in English/Language Arts (Prufrock Press,
2014). He earned his PhD in educational psychology from Baylor
University, and he was recently honored with the Advocate of the
Year award by the Texas Association for the Gifted/Talented. In
addition to his work as a teacher and researcher at the University
of North Texas, he spent 17 years as an English teacher and gifted
and talented program administrator.