臺北市區域性資賦優異教育方案實施概況與學習成效之調查研究
No Thumbnail Available
Files
Date
2005
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
本研究旨在探討臺北市區域性資賦優異教育方案實施概況及學生學習成效，採文件分析及問卷調查，以次數分配及百分比方式了解92年度及93年度區域資優教育方案之實施概況；此外以自編「臺北市區域性資賦優異教育方案實施之調查問卷」調查93年度472位及1122位參與課程類及活動類方案的學生，以二因子變異數分析檢定不同背景學生（不同教育階段、性別及現是否就讀資優班）參加不同方案內容類別在自評六大學習成效方面得分之差異情形，獲得結果經討論後做成結論如下：
一、實施概況方面，活動類與課程類件數比例於92及93年度分別為3：1及2：1。申辦內容最多件均為學術類案件，其次為藝術類案件，以創造、領導才能及其他特殊才能較少，方案課程活動主題種類多元；92及93年度申辦方案學校中，未設有資優班學校與設有資優班學校總數分別為33間（66﹪）與17間（34﹪）、20間（54﹪）與17間（46﹪）；設有資優班學校承辦方案為原類型的間數均為11間（65﹪），非原類型均為6間（35﹪）。以國小（43﹪）及國中（39.0﹪）參加學生人次為多，高中職學生（18.2﹪）人次最少，男女比例相當，未就讀資優班學生數（72.3﹪）多於現就讀資優班學生人次（27.7﹪）。
二、學生自評方案在幫助認識知識、提供人際機會及課程與教學方面均屬於高的程度；而在增進高層思考能力、促進情意方面發展及生涯影響方面的同意程度則屬中至高的程度。
三、參加課程類方案學生自評學習成效得分差異上，不同背景學生自評結果多無顯著不同，除了國小及國中學生在課程與教學方面自評結果得分高於高中職學生。
四、參加活動類方案學生在自評學習成效得分差異上，在提供人際互動方面，參加語文類方案的國中學生自評結果高於數理類及藝術類方案國中學生，參加數理類及自然科學類方案的高中職學生自評結果高於語文類高中職生；參加語文類方案的國小及國中學生自評結果高於高中職學生。在情意發展方面，參加語文類及自然科學類方案學生自評結果高於數理類方案學生。在增進高層思考能力方面，參加自然科學類方案學生自評結果高於藝術類學生；在課程與教學方面，參加自然科學類方案學生自評結果高於數理類方案學生。在增進高層思考能力及課程與教學方面，現就讀資優班學生自評結果高於未就讀資優班學生；其餘不同背景學生自評結果多無顯著差異。
根據研究結論，作為教育主管機關、辦理學校及後續研究之建議，以供參考。
The main purposes of this research are to investigate the current situation and learning effectiveness of Taipei Residential Education Program for gifted and talented students. In order to achieve the proposed purposes, this research not only analyzes the documents, but also adopts questionnaire to obtain the empirical data from 472 students in curriculum-type programs and 1122 students in activity-type programs. The research objects are gifted students from various schools in Taipei. To explore the learning effectiveness, data were analyzed through the method of Two-way ANOVA with SPSS 10.0. The major findings are as followed： 1. Current situation：Schools which don’t establish gifted resource classroom are more than schools that do(66﹪and 34﹪in 2003; 54﹪and 46﹪in 2004). The percentage of schools undertaking Taipei Residential gifted education program similar to their original gifted education program stereotype was 65﹪, while that of schools undertaking the gifted education program different from their original gifted education program stereotype was 35﹪. The percentage of primary school students was 43﹪, of junior high schools students 39﹪, and of senior high school students 18.2﹪. The percentage of male students is 48.2﹪, and of female students 51.8﹪. Students who receive original school’s gifted education program service stand for 27.7﹪, while students who don’t receive original school’s gifted education program service 72.3﹪. Activity-type programs and curriculum-type programs are in the ratio of 3：2 in 2003 and 2：1 in 2004. There are more academe and art programs than creativity, leadership and special talent programs. The topics of all the programs are full of diversity, including humanities, scientific knowledge and so on. 2.Learning effectiveness：Students agree that the programs help them to explore knowledge, obtain interpersonal opportunities; they also consider the curriculum and instruction of the program to be positive; they rate the above three aspects of learning effectiveness as “high” level (Liker –type five scale); the other aspects such as enhancing thinking skill ability, promoting affection development, and career influence, they rate them as “middle to high” level. 3.Curriculum-type programs survey analysis：Students of all education stages and of different programs rate the learning effectiveness aspects such as exploring knowledge, enhancing thinking skill ability, promoting affection development, obtaining interpersonal opportunities, and career influence, and the score doesn’t show any significant difference. However, primary school and junior high school students rate the aspect of curriculum and instruction higher than the senior high school students. Students of different gender and different programs rate the six learning effectiveness aspects, and the come out doesn’t show any significant difference, neither is the result from both of the students of gifted program as well as those of regular programs. 4.Activity-type programs survey analysis：In interpersonal opportunities aspect, junior high school students of “language and literature” programs rate higher than students of “mathematics, physics and chemistry “programs. Senior high school students of “mathematics, physics and chemistry “and” nature science” programs rate higher than students of “language and literature” programs. Primary and junior high school students of “language and literature” programs rate higher than senior high school students. In affection development aspect, students of “language and literature”and”nature science” programs rate higher than students of “mathematics, physics and chemistry “programs. In thinking skill ability aspect, students of the gifted education program rate higher than those of the regular education program, so do the curriculum and instruction aspect. Students of “nature science” programs rate higher than the students of “art” program. In curriculum and instruction aspect, students of “nature science” programs rate higher than the students of “mathematics, physics and chemistry “programs. The above are the findings for the references of education administration , schools as well as the follow-up researches.
The main purposes of this research are to investigate the current situation and learning effectiveness of Taipei Residential Education Program for gifted and talented students. In order to achieve the proposed purposes, this research not only analyzes the documents, but also adopts questionnaire to obtain the empirical data from 472 students in curriculum-type programs and 1122 students in activity-type programs. The research objects are gifted students from various schools in Taipei. To explore the learning effectiveness, data were analyzed through the method of Two-way ANOVA with SPSS 10.0. The major findings are as followed： 1. Current situation：Schools which don’t establish gifted resource classroom are more than schools that do(66﹪and 34﹪in 2003; 54﹪and 46﹪in 2004). The percentage of schools undertaking Taipei Residential gifted education program similar to their original gifted education program stereotype was 65﹪, while that of schools undertaking the gifted education program different from their original gifted education program stereotype was 35﹪. The percentage of primary school students was 43﹪, of junior high schools students 39﹪, and of senior high school students 18.2﹪. The percentage of male students is 48.2﹪, and of female students 51.8﹪. Students who receive original school’s gifted education program service stand for 27.7﹪, while students who don’t receive original school’s gifted education program service 72.3﹪. Activity-type programs and curriculum-type programs are in the ratio of 3：2 in 2003 and 2：1 in 2004. There are more academe and art programs than creativity, leadership and special talent programs. The topics of all the programs are full of diversity, including humanities, scientific knowledge and so on. 2.Learning effectiveness：Students agree that the programs help them to explore knowledge, obtain interpersonal opportunities; they also consider the curriculum and instruction of the program to be positive; they rate the above three aspects of learning effectiveness as “high” level (Liker –type five scale); the other aspects such as enhancing thinking skill ability, promoting affection development, and career influence, they rate them as “middle to high” level. 3.Curriculum-type programs survey analysis：Students of all education stages and of different programs rate the learning effectiveness aspects such as exploring knowledge, enhancing thinking skill ability, promoting affection development, obtaining interpersonal opportunities, and career influence, and the score doesn’t show any significant difference. However, primary school and junior high school students rate the aspect of curriculum and instruction higher than the senior high school students. Students of different gender and different programs rate the six learning effectiveness aspects, and the come out doesn’t show any significant difference, neither is the result from both of the students of gifted program as well as those of regular programs. 4.Activity-type programs survey analysis：In interpersonal opportunities aspect, junior high school students of “language and literature” programs rate higher than students of “mathematics, physics and chemistry “programs. Senior high school students of “mathematics, physics and chemistry “and” nature science” programs rate higher than students of “language and literature” programs. Primary and junior high school students of “language and literature” programs rate higher than senior high school students. In affection development aspect, students of “language and literature”and”nature science” programs rate higher than students of “mathematics, physics and chemistry “programs. In thinking skill ability aspect, students of the gifted education program rate higher than those of the regular education program, so do the curriculum and instruction aspect. Students of “nature science” programs rate higher than the students of “art” program. In curriculum and instruction aspect, students of “nature science” programs rate higher than the students of “mathematics, physics and chemistry “programs. The above are the findings for the references of education administration , schools as well as the follow-up researches.
Description
Keywords
資賦優異教育