臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究旨在探討國小一般智能資優學生的學習需求，以及接受資優教育學習之滿意情形，並瞭解不同性別、區域、年級資優學生的學習需求及接受資優教育學習滿意度之差異情形。
本研究對象選取北區（臺北市、新北市）、中區（臺中市、彰化縣）、南區（臺南市、高雄市）102學年度安置於國小一般智能資優資源班之四、五、六年級學生共計805人，以問卷調查的方式，使用自編問卷「國小資優學生學習需求調查」及國外量表My Class Activities翻譯成中文並實施預試，編製成「我的班級活動」問卷，進行資料蒐集，所得數據結果再以平均數、標準差、百分比、t考驗及單因子變異數分析（One-way ANOVA）等統計方法進行分析。本研究主要結果如下：
一、國小資優學生對學習內容、歷程、環境及結果之需求持「很需要」的看法。在四個向度中，得分平均由高至低分別為「學習結果」、「學習環境」、「學習歷程」、「學習內容」。
二、國小資優學生的學習需求，前十大需求依序是「能有動手實驗或操作的機會」、「能提供各種校外教學活動」、「課程內容是新奇的」、「資訊設備是良好的」、「上課氣氛是幽默有趣的」、「學習內容多元、不單調」、「上課環境是友善尊重的」、「圖書設備或教具是充足的」、「資優班的學習是有助於我成長的」、「能學習創造力」。
三、女性資優學生在學習需求的「學習歷程」、「學習環境」及「學習結果」上顯著高於男性資優學生；不同區域部分，資優學生在學習需求各向度無顯著差異；不同年級部分，「學習歷程」向度四年級資優學生顯著高於六年級資優學生，「學習結果」向度四年級顯著高於五、六年級，五年級亦顯著高於六年級。
四、國小資優學生對於資優教育學習的滿意情形是良好的，整體平均得分屬於同意階段，平均由高至低為「愉悅感」、「興趣」、「選擇」、「挑戰」。
五、不同性別資優學生對於資優教育學習的滿意程度無顯著差異；區域部分，「挑戰」向度上南區顯著高於北區及中區，其餘向度無顯著差異；不同年級部分，「興趣」和「挑戰」向度上四、五年級顯著高於六年級，「選擇」向度四年級顯著高於五、六年級，「愉悅感」向度四年級顯著高於五、六年級，五年級亦顯著高於六年級，顯示隨著年級越高，得分顯著降低。

研究者根據研究結果，提出若干建議，供教育行政機關、學校單位、資優班教師及未來研究之參考。

The purpose of this study is to explore the learning needs of elementary gifted students, , as well as acceptance of Learning Satisfaction to resource program, and to understand different gender, region, grades gifted students' learning needs and acceptance of Gifted Education Learning Satisfaction circumstances.
The study selected students from northern Taiwan (Taipei, New Taipei City), central Taiwan (Taichung City, Changhua County), and southern Taiwan (Tainan City, Kaohsiung City) whom had been placed in the general intelligence gifted resource room in elementary school from grade 4 to 6, totaling 805 people. Using questionnaire survey "gifted student learning needs survey" and a Chinese translation version of a foreign scale called “My Class Activities” to collect data. Then the data results will be processed according to its mean, standard deviation, percent, t-test and one-way ANOVA statistical methods for analysis. The main results of this study are as follows:

1. Gifted students held a “necessary” view for learning content, learning process, learning environment and learning outcomes. In four dimensions, the average scores high to low were “learning outcomes”, “learning environment”, “learning process” and “learning content”.

2. The elementary school gifted students' top ten learning needs were, “to have a hands-on opportunity to experiment or operation”, “teachers or schools can provide a variety of extracurricular educational activities”, “courses content to be novel”, “technology equipmenxt is well-prepared”, “class atmosphere is humorous”, “learning content is diversified, not monotonous”, “school environment is friendly and respectful”, “books or teaching aids are adequate”, “teaching content in here helps me grow up” and “teaching content inspires my creativity”.

3. Female gifted students scored significantly higher than male students in “learning process”, “learning environment” and “learning outcomes” of learning needs. The learning needs were no significant difference in all dimensions; In the part of different grades, “learning process” dimension of the fourth grade gifted students scored significantly higher than the sixth grade gifted students, in “learning outcomes” dimension of the fourth grade scored significantly higher than fifth and sixth grade, and fifth grade also scored significantly higher than the sixth grade.

4. The suervy showed a high learning satisfaction from gifted students in elementary school, and the overall average score was “agree” level, from high to low were “pleasure”, “interested”, “choice” and “challenge”.

5. There was no significant difference when it comes to survey in different gender gifted students. In different regions, the “challenge” dimension, southern gifted students scored significantly higher than those in the north and central. As for the “interest” and “challenge” dimensions, fourth and fifth graders scored significantly higher than the sixth graders; “choice” dimension of the fourth graders scored significantly higher than fifth and sixth grade, “pleasure” dimension of the fourth grade scored significantly higher than fifth and sixth grade, and fifth-graders also scored significantly higher than the sixth graders. It showed that the scores reduced with their age.
Practical suggestions for the authorities, administrators, teachers and future researchers will be provided based on the findings.

摘要……………………………………………………………………………………...I
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………….…II
目次………………………………………………………………………..……….…...IV
圖目錄……………………………………………………………………..…………....V
表目錄………………………………………………………………………..………...VI
第一章 緒論…………………………………………………………………………..1
第一節 研究背景與動機……………………………………………………...…1
第二節 研究目的……………………………………………………………...…4
第三節 研究問題………………………………………………………………...4
第四節 名詞釋義………………………………………………………….…..…5
第二章 文獻探討……………………………………………………………….…….7
第一節 資優學生學習需求………………………………………………….…..7
第二節 資優學生學習需求評估…………….……………….…………………20
第三節 資優資源班的課程與教學…………………………….……………… 26
第三章 研究方法……………………………………………………………….…....47
第一節 研究架構…………………………………………………………….….47
第二節 研究對象…………………………………………………………….….49
第三節 研究工具………………………………………………………….…….50
第四節 研究程序…………………………………………………………….….63
第五節 資料處理…………………………………………………………….….65
第四章 結果與討論……………………………………….…….….………….……67
第一節 國小資優學生學習需求之現況分析………………………………......67
第二節 國小資優學生學習需求之差異情形……………………………..……77
第三節 國小資優學生接受資優教育學習的滿意情形………………….……105
第四節 國小資優學生接受資優教育學習滿意度之差異情形………….……112
第五章 結論與建議…………………………………………………………….…...143
第一節 結論……………………………………………………………….…....143
第二節 建議………………………………………………………………..…...148
參考文獻 ……………………………………………………………………….…....155
附錄一 國小資優學生學習需求調查問卷（預試問卷）………………..…...168
附錄二 國小資優學生學習需求調查問卷（正式問卷）………………..…...171
附錄三 我的班級活動問卷………………………………….………………....174
附錄四 問卷初稿專家審閱意見結果彙整………………………………….....176

一、中文部分
毛連塭(1996)：資優教育課程與教學。臺北：五南。
王振德(1996)：國民中小學資優教育課程與教學實況調查研究。特殊教育研究學刊，14，207-227。
吳玉明(1996)：建構式教學策略中不同學習型態學生學習的探討。國立新竹師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，新竹市。
吳百薰(1998)：國小學生學習風格相關因素之研究。國立台中師範學院國民教研究所碩士論文，未出版，台中市。
吳武典(1983)：我國國中資優教育之評鑑。資優教育季刊，12，1-9。
吳武典(1994)：資優教育研究與課題。載於臺灣師大特殊教育研究所與中華民國特殊教育學會主編：開創資優教育的新世紀—我國資優教育二十年來的回顧與展望，1-19。臺北市：國立臺灣師大特教系所、中華資優教育學會。
吳耀宗(2011)：國小資優資源班課程設計與教學實施之研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育學碩士論文，未出版，彰化縣。
花敬凱(譯)(2009)：Clark, B.著。啟迪資優─如何開發孩子的潛能。臺北：心理。
林麗琳（1995）：國小資優班與普通班學生學習風格、學習適應與學業成就關係之研究。國立台南師範學院初等教育學系碩士論文，未出版，台南市。
郭重吉(1987）：評介學習風格之有關研究。資優教育季刊，23，7-16。
郭靜姿(1984)：資優學生的壓力與壓力調適。資優教育季刊，12，11-16。
郭靜姿(1985)：資源教室方案在資優教育中的運用。資優教育季刊，17，1-7。
郭靜姿、吳淑敏、侯雅齡、蔡桂芳(2006)：鑑定與安置。載於教育部主編：95年全國資優教育發展研討會手冊，5-20。臺北市：教育部。
郭靜姿、李欣潔、陳彥瑋、范成芳、王曼娜、劉貞宜、游健弘（2009）：資優學生鑑定標準及安置方式之調查研究。資優教育研究，9(2)，1-34。
張有森(1981)：資優學生教育方式問題。資優教育季刊，2，4-8。
張靖卿(1996)：台北市國小資優教育社區資源需求評估及其應用狀況之研究。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
曾晏慧(2004)：國小資優班畢業生之追蹤研究-以台中市太平國小為例。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育在職進修班碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
陳文英(2009)：台北市碧湖國小資優班畢業生之追蹤研究。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育在職進修班碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
陳李綢(1992)：認知發展與輔導。台北：心理。
陳彥瑋(2006)：國小美術班學生興趣、心流經驗與學習成就之研究。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
陳美芳(1996)：資優學生身心特質與評量。教育資料集刊，21，13-26。
陳美芳、陳長益、李乙明、呂金燮、黃家杰(2010)：教師區分性教學行為觀察量表(學生版)之編製。特殊教育研究學刊，35(1)，63-82。
陳蕙君(1997)：資優班「主題式團體活動課程」介紹。資優教育季刊，63，23-25。
張景媛（1998）：教學類型與學習類型適配性研究暨學生學習適應理論模式的驗證。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
黃千容(2005)：台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。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
黃如瑾(1996)：國小資優兒童需求本位課程之研究。國立高雄師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，高雄市。
黃通鎰(1994)：北一女中數理資優教育概況。資優教育季刊，51，14-17。
黃楷茹、陳美芳(2011)：資優充實方案設計。載於教育部主編：分散式資優資源班經營實務手冊，53-68。臺北市：教育部。
教育部(2013修正公布)：特殊教育法。臺北市。
教育部(2013)：高級中等以下學校特殊教育課程發展共同原則及課程大綱總綱國民教育階段。臺北市。
教育部(2008)：資優教育白皮書。2010年11月16日，取自：http://163.21.111.100/book_ul/32/880/資優教育白皮書.pdf
孫沛德(1983)：國小資優兒童實驗班實驗成果報告摘要。資優教育季刊，10，10-11。
楊曉白(1987)：資優學生的學習方式。資優教育季刊，22，9-12。
蔣明珊(1995)：台北市國小資優資源班課程實施狀況之調查分析。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
樊德慧（2006）：國小學生世界觀之研究─以臺南地區六年級學生為例。國立臺南大學社會科教育學系碩士論文，未出版，臺南市。
簡紅珠（1998）：教師教學決定：內涵、思考歷程與影響因素─兼談如何改進教學決定技能。課程與教學季刊，1(4)，43-56。
蕭芳玲(1993)：資優生學校適應與人際關係問題之初探。資優教育季刊，47，4-6。
鍾聖校(1981)：我國資賦優異教育分散式實驗現況之探討。資優教育季刊，3，15-21。

二、外文部分
Aldrich, P. W., & Mills, C. J. (1989). A special program for highly able rural youth in grades 5 and 6. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 11-14. doi:10.1177/001698628903300102
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Anderson, R., Reder, L., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated learning in education. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 5-11.
Archambault, F. X., Westberg, K. L., Brown, S. W., Hallmark, B. W., Zhang, W., & Emmons, C. L. (1993). Classroom practices used with gifted third and fourth grade students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 103-119.
Betts, G. T. (1985). The autonomous learner model: For the gifted and talented. Greeley, CO: ALPS Publishing.
Black, S. (2010). Engaging the disengaged student: Research shows why some are immersed in learning while others are indifferent. In F.W. Parkay, G. Hass, & E.J. Anctil (9th Ed.), Curriculum leadership: Readings for developing quality educational programs (pp. 530-533). New York: Allyn & Bacon.
Boix M. V., & Gardner, H. (1999). What are the qualities of understanding? In S. Wiske (Ed.), Teaching for understanding: A practical framework (pp. 161-196). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Boix M. V., & Gardner, H. (2008). Disciplining the mind. Educational Leadership (February), 65, No.5, 14-19.
Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain,mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
Carolyn R. C., Susan M. B., & Terry W. N.,(2004). Developing scientific talent in students with special needs: An alternative model for identification, curriculum, and assessment. Journal of advanced academics, 15(4), 162-169.
Chae, Y., & Gentry, M. (2011). Gifted and general high school students’ perceptions of learning and motivational constructs in Korea and the United States. High Ability Studies, 22, 103-118. doi:10.1080/13598139.2011.577275
Clark(1997). Growing up gifted: Developing the Potential of Children at Home and at School.（5th ed., pp.474-476）. In Clark. Editor(Ed.), New Jersey : Prentice Hall, Inc.
Cook, D. W., (1989). Systematic need assessment：A primer. Journal of Counseling and Development, 67, 462-464.
Cordova, D. L., & Lepper, M. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 715-730. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.88.4.715
Cox, J., & Daniel, N. (1984). The pull-out model. Gifted Child Today, 34, 55-60.
Cox, J., Daniel, N., & Boston, B. O. (1985). Educating able learners: Programs and promising ractices. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper and Row.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I. (1988). Introduction to part Ⅳ. In M. Csikszentmihalyi, & I. S. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience: Psychological study of flow in conscious (pp.251-265). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Curry, J., & Samara, J. (1991). Curriculum guide for the education of gifted high school students. Austin: Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented.
Davis, G. A. (1991). Teaching creative thinking. In N. Colangelo & G.A. (Ed.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 236-244). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (1998). Education of the gifted and talented (4th ed.).Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024-1037.
DeLandtsheer, J. (2011). Making all kids smarter: Strategies that help all students reach their highest potential (Eds.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin A SAGE Company.
Delcourt, M. A. B. (1994). Characteristics of high-level creative productivity. In R. Subotnik & K. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent, (pp. 401-436). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: D.C.
Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. E. (1989). Learning Style Inventory. Lawrence, KS: Price Systems.
Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1992). Teaching elementary students through their individual learning styles: Practical approaches for grades 3-6. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Ennis, R. (1964). A definition of critical thinking. The Reading Teacher, 18, 599-612.
Eriksson G. I. (2006). Introduction: Applying multicultural and global education principles to the education of diverse gifted and talented children. In B. Wallace &; G. I. Eriksson (Eds.) Diversity in gifted education: International perspectives on global issues.(pp. 1-8). New York, NY: Routledge.
Feldhusen, J. F., & Treffinger, D. J. (1980). Creative thinking and problem solving in gifted education. Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt.
Feldhusen, J. F., & Sokol, L.(1982). Extra-school programming to meet the needs of gifted youth: Super Saturday. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26(2), 51-56.
Fleith, D. (2000). Teacher and student perceptions of creativity in the classroom environment. Roeper Review, 22, 148-153.
Gallagher, J. J. (1991). Issues in the education of gifted students. In N. Colangelo & G.A. (Ed.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 14-24). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
Gallagher, S. A. (2005). Adapting problem-based learning for gifted students. In F.A. Karnes & S.M. Bean (2nd ed.), Methods and materials for teaching the gifted (pp. 285-312). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press, Inc.
Gallagher, J. J. (2006). How to shoot oneself in the foot with program evaluation. Roeper Review, 28, 122-124.
Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of Mind: The theory of multiple intelligences (10th anniversary ed.). New York: BasicBooks.
Gardner, H. (1999). The Disciplined Mind: What all students should understand. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Gentry, M., Gable, R. K., & Rizza, M. G. (2002). Students’ perceptions of classroom activities: Are there grade-level and gender differences? Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 539-544.doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.539
Gentry, M., & Gable, R. K. (2001). My class activities: A survey instrument to assess students’ perceptions of interest, challenge, choice and enjoyment in their classrooms [Instrument]. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Gentry, M., Gable, R. K., & Springer, P. (2000). Gifted and non-gifted middle school students: Are their attitudes toward school different as measured by the new affective instrument, My Class Activities? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 24, 74-96.
Getzels, J. W. (1964). Creative thinking, problem solving, and instruction. In E.R. Hilgard (Ed.), Theories of learning and instruction (NSSE 66th Yearbook, pp.240-267). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gottfried, A. E., Fleming, J. S., & Gottfried, A. W. (2001). Continuity of academic intrinsic motivation from childhood through late adolescence: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 3-13. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.3
Kendra H. D, (2011). Gifted students’ perceptions of the differentiated curriculum. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Faculty of the Usc Rossier School of Education University of Southern California, California.
Kaplan, S. N. (2005). Layering differentiated curricula for the gifted and talented. In F.A. Karnes & S.M. Bean (2nd ed.), Methods and materials for teaching the gifted (pp. 107-132). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press, Inc.
Kaplan, S. N. (2009). The grid: A model to construct differentiated curriculum for the gifted. In J. S. Renzulli, E. J. Gubbins, K. S. McMillen, R. D. Edkert, & C. A. Little (2nd Ed.), Systems & models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 235-251). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press, Inc.
Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 73-77.
Lebow, J. (1982). Consumer satisfaction with mental health treatment. Psychological Bulletin, 91(2), 244-259.
Maker, C. J. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted (Ed.). Austin, TX: PROED,Inc.
Maker, C. J. (1982). Teaching models in education of the gifted. An Aspen Publication
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Marland, S. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented. Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Government Printing Office.
McTighe, J., Seif, E., & Wiggins, G. (2010). You can teach for meaning. In F. W. Parkay, G. Hass & E. J. Anctil (9th Ed.), Curriculum leadership: Readings for developing quality educational programs (pp. 530-533). New York: Allyn &Bacon.
Miller, R., & Gentry, M. (2010). Developing talents among high-potential students from lowincome families in an out-of-school enrichment program. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21, 594-627.
Mills, C. J. (2003). Characteristics of effective teachers of gifted students: Teacher background and personality styles of students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 272-281.
Moneta, G. B., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). The effect of perceived challenges and skills on the quality of subjective experience. Journal of Personality, 64(2), 275-310.
Moon, S. M., Feldhusen, J. F., & Dillon, D. R. (1994). Long-term effects of an enrichment program based on Purdue Three-Stage Model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 38-48. doi:10.1177/001698629403800106
Newmann, F. M. (2010). Can depth replace coverage in the high school curriculum? In F. W. Parkay, G. Hass & E. J. Anctil (9th Ed.), Curriculum leadership: Readings for developing quality educational programs (pp. 551-556). New York: Allyn & Bacon.
Oakland, T., Joyce, D., Horton, C., & Glutting, J. (2000). Temperament-based learning styles of identified gifted and nongifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 183-189.
Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Wynn, S. R. (2010). The effectiveness and relative importance of choice in the classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 896-915. doi:10.1037/a0019545
Pereira, N., Peters, S., & Gentry, M. (2010). The My Class Activities instrument as used in Saturday enrichment program evaluation. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21, 568-593.
Renzulli, J. S., & Gable, R. K. (1976). A factorial study of the attitudes of gifted students toward independent study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 20, 91-99.
Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensive programs for the gifted and talented. Wethersfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1985). The schoolwide enrichment model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT:Creative Learning Press.
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1991). The schoolwide enrichment model: A comprehensive plan for the development of creative productivity. In N. Colagnelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 111-141).Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Renzulli, J. S. (1994). Schools for talent development: A comprehensive plan for total school improvement. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (2008). Enriching curriculum for all students (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Ricca, J. (1984). Learning styles and preferred instructional strategies of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 121-126.
Robinson, N. M. (2006). NAGC symposium: A report card on the state of research in the field of gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 342-345.
Rock, M. R., Gregg, M., Ellis, E., & Gable, R. A. (2008). REACH: A framework for differentiating classroom instruction. Preventing School Failure, 52(2), 31-47.
Rogers, C. R. (1962). Toward a theory of creativity. In S. J. Parnes & H. F. Harding(Eds.). A source book for creative thinking (pp. 63-72). New York: Scribner's.
Roger, K. B. (2002). Reforming gifted education: How parents and teachers can match the program to the child. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Rogers, K. B. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: A synthesis of the research on educational practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 382-396. doi:10.1177/0016986207306324
Ross, P. O. (Ed.). (1993). National excellence: A case for developing American talent. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education.
Schiever, S.W. (1990). A comprehensive approach to teaching thinking. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Schiever, S. W., & Maker, C. J. (1991). Enrichment and acceleration: An overview and new directions. In N. Colangelo & G. A. (Ed.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 99-110). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
Schiro, M. S. (2008). Curriculum theory: Conflicting visions and enduring concerns(Ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
Seeley, K. R. (1993). Gifted children at risk. In L. K. Silverman (Eds.), Counseling the gifted and talented (pp. 263-276). Denver: Love Publishing Company.
Sellin, D. F., & Birch, J. W. (1981). Psychoeducational development of gifted and talented learners (Ed.). Rockville, MD: Aspen Systems Corporation.
Silverman, L. K. (1993). The gifted individual. In L. K. Silverman(Eds.), Counseling the gifted and talented. (pp.3-28). Denver, CO: Love Publishing Company.
Smutny, J. F., & von Fremd, S. E. (2009). Igniting creativity in gifted learners, K-6.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Swiatek, M. A., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2003). Elementary and middle school student participation in gifted programs: Are gifted students underserved? Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 18-130. doi:10.1177/00169862030470020
Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory and practice. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.
Taylor, C. W. (1968). The multiple talent approach. The Instructor, April.
Terman, L. & Oden, M. (1951). The Stanford studies of the gifted. In P. Witty (Ed.), The Gifted Child, (pp. 20-46). Boston: Heath.
Tomlinson, C., Kaplan, S. N., Purcell, J., Leppien, J. & Burns, D. (2002). The parallel curriculum: A design to develop high potential and challenge high ability learners (Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Tomlinson, C. A., & Edison, C. C. (2003). Differentiation in practice: A resource guide for differentiating curriculum, grades 5-9. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Yang, Y., & Gentry, M., (2011). Gifted and general elementary students’ perceptions in China and the United States: A cross-national study. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Yang Y., Marcia G., & Young O. C.(2012). Gifted Students’ Perceptions of the Regular Classes and Pull-Out Programs in South Korea. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23(3), 270-287.
Van der Westhuizen CN, Maree JG: 2010. Student teachers' perceptions of violence in primary schools. Acta Criminologica: South African Journal of Criminology, 23 (2), pp 1-18.
Van Tassel-Baska, J. (1986). Acceleration. In C. J. Maker (Ed.), Critical issues in gifted education: Defensible programs for the gifted (pp. 179-196).Rockville, MD: Aspen.
Van Tassel-Baska, J. (1987a). The ineffectiveness of the pull-out program model in gifted education: A minority perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10, 255-264.
Van Tassel-Baska, J. (1987b). Response to Renzulli: Advocating the pull-out model. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10, 267-269.
Van Tassel-Baska, J. (1988). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners (Ed.).Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
Van Tassel-Baska, J., Feldhusen, J., Seeley, K., Whealley, G., Silvenman, L., & Foster, W. (1988). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners. Boston: Allyn & Bacon
Van Tassel-Baska, J. (1989). A comprehensive model of gifted program development. In J. F. Feldhusen, J. Van Tassel-Baska, & K. Seeley. (Eds.), Excellence in educating the gifted. (pp.123-142). Denver Co.：Love Publishing.
Van Tassel-Baska, J. (1994). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Van Tassel-Baska, J. & Brown, E. F. (2005). An analysis of gifted education
curricular models. In F. A. Karnes & S. M. Bean (2nd ed.), Methods and materials for teaching the gifted (pp. 75-106). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press,Inc.
Van Tassel-Baska, J. (2006). NAGC symposium: A report card on the state of research in the field of gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 339-341.
Van Tassel-Baska, J., & Brown, E. F. (2007). Toward best practice: An analysis of the efficacy of curriculum models in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 342-358.
Ward, V. S. (1961). Educating the gifted: An axiomatic approach. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Wiederholt, J. L., Hammill, D.D. & Brown, V.(1978). The resource teacher: A guide to effective practices. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Woolfolk, A. (2001). Educational psychology (8th Ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.