國中及高中數理資優學生學習投入之縱貫研究

A Longitudinal Study of Learning Engagement of Math and Science Gifted Students in Junior and Senior High School

10.53106/207455832023060057002

侯雅齡(Ya-Ling Hou)

數理資優生 ； 縱貫研究 ； 學習投入 ； 潛在成長模式 ； 多群體潛在成長模式 ； latent growth curve model ； multi-group latent growth curve model ； learning engagement ； gifted students ； longitudinal

特殊教育學報

57期（2023 / 06 / 01）

37 - 69

繁體中文;英文

本研究目的主要在了解國中數理資優生以及高中數理資優生在接受資優服務的歷程中學習投入的變化，並比較兩個學習階段學習投入發展的變化是否相同。研究對象為全國70所國中，共777位數理資優資源班學生，以及26所高中，共756位數理資優班學生。由七至九以及十至十二年級，每年蒐集一次資料，使用學習投入量表進行固定樣本三波次的追蹤調查。在資料分析部分，以潛在成長模式了解學習投入的直線發展的關係，以多群體潛在成長模式比較國中數理資優生與高中數理資優生在學習投入變化的差異，以及條件式潛在成長模式了解性別及補習對學習投入的影響。研究結果發現：（1）國中數理資優生學習投入呈現線性消退；（2）高中數理資優生學習投入未有顯著的趨勢變化；（3）兩群體在學習投入的成長模式未呈現恆等的現象；（4）有補習數理的國中數理資優生，學習投入的消退情形高於沒有補習數理的學生。但補習與否對於高中學生的學習投入並未有顯著的差異；（5）僅在十年級時，女數理資優生的學習投入顯著高於男生，其餘皆無顯著差異。最後本研究亦根據研究結果提出建議。

Purpose. One of the characteristics of special education in Taiwan is that it takes into account the special students who need to provide services, not only protecting the learning rights and interests of students with disabilities, but also caring about the potential development of gifted students. Therefore, in the Special Education Law (2019) and the current implementation of the General Guidelines for the 12-Year National Education Curriculum (2021), both propose that gifted students have special learning needs. To meet the special needs of gifted students and develop their potential, they can be given gifted (resource) classes for placement; special needs courses and curriculum adjustments are provided in the curriculum; and more interaction, discussion, group cooperation, etc. should be adopted in teaching. However, due to the myths of giftedness in Chinese society and the long-term influence of academic-oriented education, academic performance is particularly valued for gifted students, especially at the junior high and high school stages facing national examinations and college entrance examinations. The implementation of gifted education inevitably focuses on subject training, or even regards "over-practice" as the norm of learning. However, students' attitudes will affect their learning behavior and performance. For subjects that are closely related to academic advancement, students often cannot give appropriate views. Therefore, we hope that gifted education can help students develop their potential and make their talents become important human capital for the country, rather than just aiming at entering prestigious schools. We must pay more attention to students' initiative and engagement in learning. Therefore, the educational services we provide to gifted students should not only directly satisfy their enrichment in learning content, but also pay attention to students' affective attitudes and cognition and participation in learning, so as to construct better mental representations. In other words, it is to pay attention to the learning engagement of gifted students. The concept of learning engagement most widely used by the public includes three aspects: behavioral engagement, emotional engagement and cognitive engagement. Reeve and Tseng (2011) also added agency engagement to emphasize students' personal initiative. The researcher believes that after adding agency engagement to the concept, it can more completely explain the learning engagement of gifted students. Based on this, this study focuses on the learning engagement status of junior high and high school gifted students, hoping to understand how the gifted students who receive gifted education services are engaged in learning. Learning engagement has a clear positive impact on academic achievement and even student interest. In recent ten years, studies on learning engagement have found that the environment has an impact on learning engagement. Gifted students are an important human resource for national competitiveness, and the cost of gifted education is higher than that of general education. Whether gifted students can fully develop their abilities after receiving gifted education depends on whether their special needs are met and satisfied, and whether they have better learning engagement. Therefore, this study takes mathematically talented junior high school students as samples and tracks their learning engagement changes during the three years of receiving gifted education. It also compares the differences in learning engagement changes between junior high and high school mathematically talented students. Methods. The participants were surveyed annually from grades seven to nine and grades ten to twelve using a learning engagement scale. This research sampled 70 junior high schools, with a total of 847 math and science gifted resource class students, as well as 26 high schools, with a total of 934 math and science gifted class students. The effective sample size is 777 math and science gifted students in junior high school and 756 math and science gifted students in high school. The data collected was analyzed using latent growth modeling to understand the linear development of learning engagement and compare differences in learning engagement changes between junior high school and high school mathematically gifted students. Additionally, conditional latent growth modeling was used to examine the impact of gender and tutoring on learning engagement. Results. The results showed that learning engagement among junior high school mathematically gifted students decreased linearly over time, while there was no significant trend in learning engagement among senior high school mathematically gifted students. The two groups did not exhibit identical growth patterns in learning engagement. Junior high school mathematically gifted students who received tutoring had higher rates of decline in learning engagement than those who did not receive tutoring, but there was no significant difference for senior high school students. Only at grade ten did female mathematically gifted students show significantly higher levels of learning engagement than male students. Conclusions. According to the research results mentioned above, this study proposes teaching and research suggestions that can be explored in the future: (1) In this study, regardless of whether it is junior high school or high school math and science gifted students, the trend of learning investment did not increase as expected. Although gifted classes were provided and gifted courses were introduced, the learning motivation and interest of gifted students did not correspondingly increase. Instead, it continued to be worn down during junior high school. Supportive assistance, special needs area courses and curriculum adjustments should be provided. The researcher hopes that the teaching environment of gifted classes in the future should pay more attention to the content design of special needs courses such as emotion, creativity and independent research, increase teaching arrangements that can enhance high-level thinking and group cooperation, and change the current excessive practice-oriented approach to college entrance examinations. (2) The trend of learning investment among math and science gifted students in this study is similar to that of general students in previous studies. It decreases with increasing grade. However, after providing gifted education services, is the degree of decline less than that of general students? Or are there no differences between them? In the future, data from both general students and gifted students can be obtained simultaneously to understand whether the slope and variation of learning investment decline are the same for both groups and to understand the effectiveness of gifted services based on this.

1. 于曉平, Hsiao-Ping,張靖卿, Ching-Ching,凌美璦, Mei-Ai(2019)。高中科學班畢業生之追蹤研究：高中學習經驗探討。教育科學研究期刊，64(4)，1-29。
   連結：
2. 王文伶, Wen-Ling(2019)。學術性向資優青少年之情緒智力、班級人際關係與學習投入的關係：一個雙中介因子模型之研究。特殊教育學報，49，1-34。
   連結：
3. 石裕惠, Yu-Hui,蔡文榮, Wenrong(2019)。桌上遊戲融入國中英語教學對學生學習投入之研究。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊，12(1)，127-161。
   連結：
4. 李宜玫, Yi-Mei,孫頌賢, Sung-Hsien(2010)。大學生選課自主性動機與學習投入之關係。教育科學研究期刊，55(1)，155-182。
   連結：
5. 李家兆, Chia-Chao(2019)。美國心理學會 20 個資優學生教與學的原則及其啟示。資優教育季刊，151，35-40。
   連結：
6. 邱華慧, Hua-Huei(2020)。大班教學環境中即時反饋及適性化學習系統的應用對大學生學習成效和投入的影響。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊，13(1)，101-128。
   連結：
7. 侯雅齡, Ya-Ling(2014)。國中學生學業自我概念發展之縱貫性分析。特殊教育研究學刊，39(1)，1-34。
   連結：
8. 侯雅齡, Ya-Ling(2013)。資優生科學自我概念與科學成就之縱貫研究。教育科學研究期刊，58(2)，57-90。
   連結：
9. 張雅淨, Ya-Ching,連興隆, Hsing-Lung(2020)。運用 BookRoll 電子書學習系統探討學習投入與學習成效之關係。國立臺灣科技大學人文社會學報，16(4)，383-409。
   連結：
10. 張鈿富, Dian-Fu(2012)。大學生學習投入理論與評量實務之探討。高教評鑑，特刊 S=S，41-62。
    連結：
11. 陳詠絜, Yung-Chieh,方德隆, Der-Long(2019)。以學習投入觀點探究不同數學程度國中生之分組合作學習經驗。高雄師大學報，47，31-62。
    連結：
12. 陳慧蓉, Karen Hui-Jung,張郁雯, Yuwen,薛承泰, Cherng-Tay(2018)。脈絡因素、學業自我概念、與學習投入對學業表現的影響：臺灣國小三年級經濟弱勢與一般學生之比較。當代教育研究季刊，26(2)，73-107。
    連結：
13. 隋學華, Hsueh-Hua(2011)。國中學生補習行為之探討。數據分析，6(3)，136-172。
    連結：
14. 黃筠婷, Yun-Ting,程炳林, Biing-Lin(2021)。國中生學業情緒、情境興趣及學習涉入的交互關係。教育心理學報，52(3)，571-594。
    連結：
15. 黃囇莉, Li-Li,陳文彥, Wen-Yan(2017)。做了很不一樣：學習共同體對課堂中社會關係及學生學習之影響。課程與教學季刊，20(2)，111-138。
    連結：
16. 劉正, Jeng(2006)。補習在臺灣的變遷、效能與階層化。教育研究集刊，52(4)，1-33。
    連結：
17. 賴英娟, Ying-Chuan,巫博瀚, Po-Han(2017)。國中生學業情緒與學習投入對學業成就之影響。課程與教學季刊，20(3)，139-164。
    連結：
18. 教育部特殊教育通報網(2020a)。108 學年度各教育階段資賦優異類安置班型學生統計－國中。〔Special Education Transmit Net. (2020a). Year 2019 placement statistics of gifted students across educational levels: Table for junior high school students.〕https://www.set.edu.tw/Stastic_Spc/sta2/doc/stuB_city_All_cls_C/stuB_city_All_cls_C_20200528.asp
19. 教育部特殊教育通報網(2020b)。108 學年度各教育階段資賦優異類安置班型學生統計－高中。〔Special Education Transmit Net. (2020b). Year 2019 placement statistics of gifted students across educational levels: Table for high school students.〕 https://www.set.edu.tw/Stastic_Spc/sta2/doc/stuB_city_All_cls_E/stuB_city_All_cls_E_20200528.asp
20. 特殊教育法（2019 年 4 月 24 日）。〔The Special Education Act. (2019, April 24).〕
21. Appleton, J. J.,Christenson, S. L.,Furlong, M. J.(2008).Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodlogical issues of the construct.Psychology in the School,45(5),369-386.
22. Attard, C.(2013)."If I had to pick any subject, it wouldn’t be maths": Foundations for engagement with mathematics during the middle years.Mathematics Education Research Journal,25(4),569-587.
23. Bagozzi, R. P.,Yi, Y.(1988).On the evaluation of structural equation models.Journal of the Acadmey of Marketing Science,16(1),74-94.
24. Ben-Eliyahu, A.,Moore, D.,Dorph, R.,Schunn, C. D.(2018).Investigating the multidimensionality of engagement: Affective, behavioral, and cognitive engagement across science activities and contexts.Contemporary Educational Psychology,53,87-105.
25. Boaler, J.(2000).Mathematics from another world: Traditional communities and the alienation of learners.Journal of Mathematical Behavior,18(4),379-397.
26. Boaler、 J.,廖月娟（譯）, Yue-Juan(Trans.)(2021).大腦解鎖：史丹佛頂尖學者裘．波勒以最新腦科學推動學習革命.天下文化=Global Views - Commonwealth Publishing.
27. Burns, E. C.,Martin, A. J.,Collie, R. J.(2018).Adaptability, personal best (PB) goals setting, and gains in students’ academic outcomes: A longitudinal examination from a social cognitive perspective.Contemporary Educational Psychology,53,57-72.
28. Cheung, G. W.,Rensvold, R. B.(2002).Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance.Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,9(2),233-255.
29. Fitzpatrick, J.,O’Grady, E.,O’Reilly, J.(2018).Promoting student agentic engagement through curriculum: Exploring the negotiated integrated curriculum initiative.Irish Educational Studies,37(4),453-473.
30. Fredricks, J. A.(Ed.),Reschly, A. L.(Ed.),Christenson, S. L.(Ed.)(2019).Handbook of student engagement interventions: Working with disengaged students.Academic Press.
31. Fredricks, J. A.,Blumenfeld, P. C.,Paris, A. H.(2004).School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence.Review of Educational Research,74(1),59-109.
32. Greene, B. A.,Miller, R. B.,Crowson, H. M.,Duke, B. L.,Akey, K. L.(2004).Predicting high school students’ cognitive engagement and achievement: Contributions of classroom perceptions and motivation.Contemporary Educational Psychology,29(4),462-482.
33. Kahu, E. R.(2013).Framing student engagement in higher education.Studies in Higher Education,38(5),758-773.
34. Landis, R. N.,Reschly, A. L.(2013).Reexamining gifted underachievement and dropout through the lens of student engagement.Journal for the Education of the Gifted,36(2),220-249.
35. Little, C. A.(2012).Curriculum as motivation for gifted students.Psychology in the Schools,49(7),695-705.
36. Luthans, F.,Youssef, C. M.(2004).Human, social, and now positive psychological capital management: Investing in people for competitive advantage.Organizational Dynamics,33(2),143-160.
37. Marks, H. M.(2000).Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years.American Educational Research Journal,37(1),153-184.
38. Matos, L.,Reeve, J.,Herrera, D.,Claux, M.(2018).Students’ agentic engagement predicts longitudinal increases in perceived autonomy-supportive teaching: The squeaky wheel gets the grease.The Journal of Experimental Education,86(4),579-596.
39. Pekrun, R.,Goetz, T.,Titz, W.,Perry, R. P.(2002).Academic emotions in students’ self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research.Educational Psychologist,37(2),91-105.
40. Pineda-Báez, C.,Hennig Manzuoli, C.,Vargas Sánchez, A.(2019).Supporting student cognitive and agentic engagement: Students’ voices.International Journal of Educational Research,96,81-90.
41. Reeve, J.,Cheon, S. H.,Jang, H.(2020).How and why students make academic progress: Reconceptualizing the student engagement construct to increase its explanatory power.Contemporary Educational Psychology,62,1-12.
42. Reeve, J.,Cheon, S. H.,Yu, T. H.(2020).An autonomy-supportive intervention to develop students’ resilience by boosting agentic engagement.International Journal of Behavioral Development,44(4),325-338.
43. Reeve, J.,Tseng, C. M.(2011).Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities.Contemporary Educational Psychology,36(4),257-267.
44. Roorda, D. L.,Jak, S.,Zee, M.,Oort, F. J.,Koomen, H. M. Y.(2017).Affective teacher-student relationships and students’ engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic update and test of the mediating role of engagement.School Psychology Review,46(3),239-261.
45. Skinner, E. A.,Kindermann, T. A.,Furrer, C. J.(2009).A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection: Conceptualization and assessment of children’s behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom.Educational and Psychological Measurement,69(3),493-525.
46. Skinner, E.,Furrer, C.,Marchand, G.,Kindermann, T.(2008).Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic?.Journal of Educational Psychology,100(4),765-781.
47. Wang, J.,Wang, X.(2019).Structural equation modeling: Applications using mplus.John Wiley & Sons.
48. Wang, M. T.,Eccles, J. S.(2012).Social support matters: Longitudinal effects of social support on three dimensions of school engagement from middle to high school.Child Development,83(3),877-895.
49. Wang, M. T.,Eccles, J. S.(2013).School context, achievement motivation, and academic engagement: A longitudinal study of school engagement using a multidimensional perspective.Learning and Instruction,28,12-23.
50. 王豐緒, Feng-Hsu(2019)。翻轉教室中預習教材形式對學生預習投入與學習成效的影響。教學實踐與創新，2(2)，115-138。
51. 邱皓政, Hawjeng(2003).結構方程模式：LISREL 的理論、技術與應用.雙葉=Yeh Yeh Book Gollery.
52. 張家禎, Chai-Jan(2015)。以年級、性別探討國中生的學習投入情形。臺灣教育評論月刊，4(1)，143-146。
53. 張鈿富, Dian-Fu,林松柏, Sung-Po,周文菁, Wen-Ching(2012)。臺灣高中學生學習投入影響因素之研究。教育資料集刊，54，23-58。
54. 教育部(2019b)。十二年國民基本教育資賦優異相關之特殊需求領域課程綱要。〔Ministry of Education. (2019). Curriculum guidelines of 12-year basic education for special education classes - Gifted and talented students.〕
55. 教育部(2019a)。十二年國民基本教育特殊教育課程實施規範。〔Ministry of Education. (2019). Curriculum implementtation norms of 12-year basic educa-tion for special education.〕https://www.k12ea.gov.tw/files/class_schema/課綱/36-特教/36-1/十二年國民基本教育特殊教育課程實施規範.pdf
56. 教育部(2021)。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。〔Ministry of Education. (2021). General Guidelines of the 12-Year Basic Education Curriculum.〕
57. 劉國兆, Kuo-Chao(2013)。升學主義、學校生活與課後補習：一群七年級國中生的課程觀。教育研究學報，47(2)，73-98。
58. 關秉寅, Ping-Yin,李敦義, Duen-Yi(2008)。補習數學有用嗎？一個「反事實」的分析。臺灣社會學刊，41，97-148。