國小資優生資優標記接受度與其自我概念、生活適應之相關研究

A Study on the Relationship between the Acceptance of the Gifted Label, the Self-concept of the Gifted Students in Elementary School and the Life Adjustment of the Gifted Students in Elementary School

10.7089/JGE.200512.0001

薛育青(Yu-Ching Hsueh)；蔡典謨(Den-Mo Tsai)

國小資優生 ； 資優標記接受度 ； 自我概念 ； 生活適應 ； gifted elementary school student ； the acceptance of gifted label ； self-concept ； life adjustment

資優教育研究

5卷2期（2005 / 12 / 01）

1 - 24

繁體中文

本研究旨在了解：一、不同性別、年級、安置類型的國小資優生資優標記接受度、自我概念、生活適應三者的差異情形；二、資優生對資優標記的接受度與其自我概念、生活適應兩者之相關；三、資優標記接受度、自我概念兩者對生活適應之預測功能。選取高雄市四、六年級分散式資優班學生257人，以及臺南市四、六年級集中式資優班學生104人，共361人為研究就對象，以自編的國小資優生資優標記接受度量表」、吳裕益、侯雅齡(2000a)編製的「國小兒童自我概念量表」以及吳新華(1996a)編製的「國小學童生活適應量表」為研究工具，獲得以下結論： 一、國小資優生對整體資優標記的接受度約在中等以上；在分量表部分，則在「我對自己標記的接受度」、「我對他人給我期望的接受度」較佳，達中等以上。但所有背景組別的資優生在「我對他人給我標記的接受度」最低，未達中等。 二、性別、年級、安置類型三者的交互作用對資優標記接受度之差異造成顯著性的影響：（一）性別方面，在六年級分散式資優班的條件下，男生顯著高於女生；（二）年級方面，分別在分散式資優班女生與集中式資優班男生的兩個條件之下，四年級皆高於六年級；（三）安置類型方面，分別在四年級男生與六年級女生的條件之下，集中式資優班學生顯著高於分散式資優班學生。 三、不同性別、年級、安置類型三者的交互作用對自我概念之差異造成顯著性的影響：（一）性別方面，在六年級分散式資優班的條件之下，男生顯著高於女生；（二）年級方面，分別在分散式資優班女生與集中式資優班男生的兩個條件之下，四年級顯著高於六年級；（三）安置類型方面，不同安置類型的資優生則未達顯著差異。 四、不同性別、年級、安置類型的國小資優生，其生活適應未達顯著差異。 五、自我概念中的「家庭自我」、「學校自我」、「外貌自我」、「身體自我」、「情緒自我」等五個層面，以及整體自我概念，皆與資優標記接受度有高度的正相關。 六、除了「行為成熟度」之外，生活適應中的「功課與遊戲」、「生活的目標」、「親和力」、「情緒穩定度」、「社會適應」、「社交技巧」、「心理堅忍度」、「自我接受度」與「適應感」等九個層面，以及整體生活適應，皆與資優標記接受度有顯著的正相關。 七、自我概念中的「情緒自我」、「學校自我」、「外貌自我」、「家庭自我」能有效預測生活適應，其累積解釋的變異量達52.3%。有了前四個預測變項之後，再增加資優標記接受度中的三層面與自我概念中的「身體自我」，則無法有效提升預測力。

The purposes of this study were (a) to examine the difference between gifted students' acceptance of gifted label, self-concept and the life adjustment to gifted elementary school students in terms of sex, grade and educational placement, (b) to probe into the relationship between gifted students' acceptance of gifted label and self-concept, and the relationship between gifted students' acceptance of gifted label and life adjustment, (c) to further probe into the predictability of life adjustment by the acceptance of gifted label and self-concept. Samples were collected from 257 elementary school students in gifted resource classes in Kaohsiung City and 104 elementary school students in gifted special classes in Tainan City. They were the 4th-grade students or the 6th-grade students. Three research tools were used for the purposes of this study. They were: ”The Self-concept Scale for Elementary School Students,” ”The Life Adjustment Scale for Elementary School Students” and ”The Acceptance of the Gifted Label Scale for Gifted Elementary School Students.” The main findings of this study were as follows: a. Integratedly, the gifted students' acceptance of gifted label was above average. b. The interaction of sex, grade and educational placement was significant different to the acceptance of gifted label on gifted students: (1) When it was the situation that students in 6th-grade in gifted resource classes, gifted boys ”acceptance of gifted label wore better than girls”. (2) When it was the situation that girls in gifted resource classes or boys in gifted special classes, 4th-grade gifted students' acceptance of gifted label were better than 6th-grade one's. (3) When it was the situation that gifted boys in 4th-grade or gifted girls in 6th-grade, students' acceptance of gifted label in gifted special classes were better than the one's in gifted resource classes. c. The interaction of sex, grade and educational placement was significant different to self-concept on gifted students: (1) When it was the situation that 6th-grade students in gifted resource classes, boys' self-concept were better than girls. (2) When it was the situation that girls in gifted resource classes or boys in gifted special classes, 4th-grade students' self-concept were better than 6th-grade one's. (3) There was no significant difference in educational placement. d. There were no significant difference in life adjustment in terms of sex, grade and educational placement. e. There was a significant relationship between gifted students' acceptance of gifted label and overall self-concept and the six subscales of the ”The Self-concept Scale for Elementary School Students.” They were: ”family-self,” ”school-self,” ”semblance-self,” ”physical appearance-self” and ”emotion-self.” f. There were significant relationship between gifted students' acceptance of gifted label and overall life adjustment and the nine subscales of the ”The Life Adjustment Scale for Elementary School Students.” They were: ”adjustment in study and play games,” ”goals for living,” ”affiliation,” ”emotional stability,” ”social adjustment,” ”social skill,” ”nervousness,” ”physical inferiority,” and ”overall adjustment.” g. The ”emotion-self,” ”school-self,” ”physical appearance-self,” ”family-self,” in ”The Self-concept Scale for Elementary School Students” could predict the life adjustment effectively.

1. Becker, H.(1963).Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance.Now York:The Free Press.
2. Buescher, T. M.,Olseewski, P.,Higham, S. J.(1987).Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting, Society for Research in Child Development, Baltimore MD.ERIC Document Reproduction Service.
3. Clark, B.(1987).Growing up gifted.Columbus, OH:Charles B. Merrill.
4. Colangelo, N.,Brewer, P.(1987).Labeling gifted youngsters; Long-term impact on families.Gifted Child Quarterly,31(2),75-78.
5. Colangelo, N.,Kelly, K. R.(1983).A study of student, parent, and teacher attitudes toward gifted programs and gifted students.Gifted Child Quarterly,27(3),107-110.
6. Colangolo, N.(2002).Counseling gifted and talented students.ERIC Document Reproduction Service.
7. Coleman, J. M.,Fults, B. A.(1983).Self-concept and the gifted child.Roeper Review,6,44-47.
8. Coleman, J. M.,Fults, B. A.(1985).Special-class placement, level of intelligence, and the self-concept of gifted children: A social comparison perspective.Remedial and Special Education,6,7-12.
9. Coleman, L.J.,Cross, T. L.(1988).Is being gifted a social handicap?.Journal for the Education of the Gifted,11(4),41-56.
10. Coleman, M. R.,Gallagher, J.(1992).Middle school survey report: Impact on gifted students.ERIC Document Reproduction Service.
11. Cooly, C. H.(1902).Human nature and social order.Now York:Scribner`s.
12. Cross, T. L.,Coleman, L J.,Stewart, R. A.(1993).The social cognition of gifted adolescents: An exploration of the stigma of giftedness paradigm.Poeper Review,16,37-40.
13. Feldhusen, J. F.,Dai, D. Y.(1997).Gifted students` attitudes and perceptions of the label, special programs, and peer relations.Journal of Secondary Gifted Education,9(1),15-20.
14. Freeman, J.(1979).Gifted children.Baltimore:University Park Press.
15. Gari, A.,Kalantzi-Azizi, A.,Mylonas, K.(2000).Adaption and motivation of Greek gifted pupil: Exploring some influences of primary schooling.High Ability Studies,11(1),55-68.
16. Genshaft, J. L.,Greenbaum, S.,Borovsky, S.,M. Bireley,C. L. Hollingcr (Eds.)(1995).Serving gifted and talented students.Austin, TX:pro-ed.
17. Gross, M. U. M.(1989).The pursuit of excellence or the search for intimacy? The forced-choice dilemma of gifted youth.Roeper Review,11,189-194.
18. Guskin, S. L.,Zimmerman, E.,Okolo, C.,Peng, C. Y. J.(1986).Being labeled gifted or talented: Meanings and effects perceived by students in special programs.Gifted Child Quarterly,30(2),61-65.
19. Hamilton, N. K.(1960).Special education programs for gifted children.Exceptional Children,27,147-150.
20. Hershey, M.,Oliver, E.(1988).The effects of the label gifted on students identified for special programs.Roeper Review,11,33-34.
21. Holahan, C. K.,Sears, R. S.(1995).The gifted group in later maturity.Standford, CA:Standford University Press.
22. Hollingworth, L. S.(1942).Children above 180 IQ, Stan ford-Binet: Origin and development.Yonkers, NY:World Book.
23. Hotter, S. S.(1986).A study of the self-concept and attitude to ward gifted and general students and of teacher attitude toward these students.Ann Arbor, MI:The University of Iowa.
24. Janos, P. M.,Fung, H. C.,Robinson, N. M.(1985).Self-concept, self-esteem, and peer relations among gifted children who feel "different".Gifted Child Quarterly,29(2),78-81.
25. Jenkins-Friedman, R.,Murphy, D. L.(1987).Paper presented at the 7th World Conference on the Gifted and Talented.Salt Lake City, UT.
26. Kerr, B. A.(1985).Smart girls, gifted women.Dayton, OH:Ohio Psychology press.
27. Kerr, B.,Colangelo, N.,Gaeth, J.(1988).Gifted adolescents` attitudes toward their giftedness.Gifted Child Quarterly,32(2),245-247.
28. Kirk, S. A.,Gallagher, J. J.(2000).Educating exceptional children.Bostion:Houghton Mirrlin.
29. Kwan, P. C. F.(1992).On a pedestal: Effects of intellectual-giftedness and some implications for programme planning.Educational Psychology,12,37-62.
30. Lai, T. Y.(1994).Ohio State University, Ohio.
31. Magery, J. F.,Freehill, M. F.(1972).Critical questions and answers relating to school and society in the education of the gifted.Gifted Child Quarterly,16,185-194.
32. Manaster G. J.,Chan, J.C.,Watt C.,Wiehe, J.(1994).Gifted adolescents` attitudes toward their giftedness: A partial replication.Gifted Child Quarterly,38(4),176-178.
33. Manor-Bullock, R.,Look, C.,Dixon, D. N.(1995).Is giftedness socially stigmatizing? The impact of high achievement on social interactions.Journal for the Education of the Gifted,18,319-338.
34. Mead, G. H.(1967).Mind, sell and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
35. Rimm, S. B.,N. Colangclo,G. A. Davis (Eds.)(1997).Handbook of gifted education.Boston:Allyn and Bacon.
36. Robinson, A.(1990).Does that describe me? Adolescents` acceptance of gifted label.Joural for the Education of the Gifted,13(3),245-255.
37. Robinson, A.(1987).Challenging talented youth.Arkansas:State Department of Education.
38. Rodgers, B. S.(1979).University of Cincinnati.
39. Shore, B. M.,Cornell, D. G.,Robinson, A.,Ward, V. S.(1991).Recommended practices in gifted education, a critical analysis.New York:Teacher College Press.
40. Silverman, L. K.(1993).Counseling the gifted and talented.Denver:Love.
41. Swiatek, M. A.(1995).An empirical investigation of the social coping strategies used by gifted adolescents-Giftedness in the social context.Gifted Child Quarteriy,39,154-161.
42. Tannenbaum, F.(1938).Crime and community.New York:Columbia University Press.
43. Terman, L. M.(1925).Mental and physical traits of a thousand grafted children.Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press.
44. Terman, L. M. (Ed.)(1959).Genetic studies of genius, 1-4.Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press.
45. Torrance, E. D.(1968).Mental health and constructive behavior.Belmont, CA:Wadsworth.
46. Webb, J. T.(1984).Psychological counseling with families of gifted children.ERIC Document Reproduction Service.
47. 江南發、國立高雄師範大學特殊教育中心主編(1981)。資優教育專輯－資優教師、教學與能力發展。高雄:國立高雄師範大學特殊教育中心。
48. 吳昆壽(1999)。資賦優異兒童教育。臺南:國立臺南師範學院特殊教育中心。
49. 吳新華(1996)。國小學童生活適應量表。臺北:心理。
50. 吳新華(1996)。國小學童生活適應量表指導手冊。臺北:心理。
51. 吳裕益、侯雅齡(2000)。兒童自我概念量表。臺北:心理。
52. 吳裕益、侯雅齡(2000)。兒童自我概念量表指導手冊。臺北:心理。
53. 張春興(2000)。張氏心理學辭典。臺北:東華。
54. 郭為藩、教育部國民教育司主編(1979)。資賦優異兒童教育研究實驗叢書，第五輯。台北:教育部。
55. 陳冠貝(1999)。高雄市國小提早入學資優生學校生活適應之探討。國教輔導，38(5)，46-51。
56. 路君約(1986)。小學人格測驗指導手冊。臺北:中國行為科學社。
57. 蔡文輝(1989)。社會學理論。臺北:三民。
58. 蔡明富(2003)。博士論文(博士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育學系博士論文。
59. 教育資料與研究
60. 簡茂發、蔡玉瑟(1995)。國小資優生的認知型式、內外控信念與學習行為、生活適應之相關研究。特殊教育研究學刊，13，81-112。

1. 吳玟秀(Wen-Hsiu Wu);曾正宜(Jeng-Yi Tzeng)(2023)。資優班生的系統性壓力：落後者觀點。教育研究集刊。(69:3)。81-121。