Journal of Gifted/Talented Education (영재교육연구)

The Korean Society for the Gifted (한국영재학회)
권호 표지

A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Academic Attitudes for Gifted Elementary and Middle School Students

청소년기 영재들의 학업 태도에 대한 국제 비교

  • Received : 2010.11.05
  • Accepted : 2010.12.10
  • Published : 2010.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Recognizing the importance of motivation, goal orientation, and attitudes toward schools is an important component for educators to consider as they establish positive learning communities for gifted learners. The purpose of this study was to describe attitudes toward school and self relationship to schoolwork for students who are enrolled in the 5th, 6th, and 7th grade, identified as gifted, accelerated in at least one subject (mathematics), and living in Korea or the United States. Comparisons were conducted for country of origin and gender for all subscales on the School Attitude Assessment Survey-Revised (McCoach & Siegle, 2004). Of the 507 participants (278 Korean and 229 American), girls scored higher on the motivation/self-regulation scale than boys and American students scored higher than Korean students on attitudes toward school, academic self perceptions, goal orientation, and motivation. There were no differences by country or gender on attitudes toward teachers.

교육자가 동기, 목표지향, 학업태도 등의 중요성을 인식하는 것은 영재들의 긍정적인 학습 공동체를 수립하는데 고려해야할 중요한 요소이다. 본 연구의 목적은 한국과 미국에서 최소한 수학 한 과목에서 영재교육을 받고 있는 5, 6, 7학년 영재 학생들의 학업 태도 및 동기를 알아보기 위한 것이다. 2004년에 개발된 McCoach와 Siegle의 <학업태도 평가조사: 개정판>의 모든 하위요소를 국가 간, 남녀 간 비교 연구했다. 전체 507명 (한국 278명, 미국 229명)중 여학생들이 남학생보다 동기/자기규율에서 더 높은 점수를 보였으며, 미국 학생들이 한국학생들보다 학교, 학업관련 자기인식, 목표지향, 그리고 동기의 하위 영역에서 높은 점수를 보였다. 교사에 대한 태도 요인은 국가 또는 성별에서 차이가 없었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Baslanti, U., & McCoach, D. B. (2006). Factors related to the underachievement of university students in Turkey. Roeper Review, 28, 210-215. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190609554366
  2. Brody, L. E. (2004). Introduction to grouping and acceleration practices in gifted education. In L. E. Brody & S. M. Reis (Eds.), Grouping and acceleration practices in gifted education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  3. Buchanan, N., & Woerner, B. (2002). Meeting the needs of gifted learners through innovative high school programs. Roeper Review, 24, 213-219. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190209554182
  4. Cho, S., Ahn, D., Han, S., & Park, H. (2008). Academic developmental patterns of the Korean gifted during the 18 years after identification. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 784-789. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid. 2008.08.007
  5. Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America's brightest students (Templeton National Report on Acceleration. Vol. I & Vol. II). Iowa City, IA: Connie Belin and Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development, University of Iowa.
  6. Cross, T. (2002). On the social and emotional lives of gifted children. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
  7. Elkind, D. (2001). The hurried child: Growing up to fast too soon (3rd Ed.). Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
  8. Fox, L. H., Engle, J. L., & Paek P. (2001). An exploratory study of social factors and mathematics achievement among high-scoring students: Cross-cultural perspectives from. Gifted and Talented International, 16, 7-15.
  9. Freeman, J. (2004). Cultural influences on gifted gender achievement. High Ability Studies, 15.
  10. Grobman, J. (2006). Underachievement in exceptionally gifted adolescents and young adults: A psychiatrist's view. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 199-210.
  11. Hanna, G. S. (n. d.). Orleans-hanna algebra prognostic test- OH, $3^{rd}$ Ed. San Antonio, TX: Pearson Education. Retrieved March 16, 2009 from http://pearsonassess.com/HAIWEB/ ultures/en-us/Productdetail.htm?Pid=015-8600-932&Mode=summary.
  12. Heller, K. A., & Ziegler, A. (1996). Gender differences in mathematics and natural sciences: Can attributional retraining improve the performance of gifted females? Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 200-210.
  13. Lohman, D. F., & Hagen, E. P. (n. d.). Cognitive abilities test (CogAT) form 6. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside. Retrieved March 16, 2009 from http://www.riverpub.com/ roducts/cogAt/index.html.
  14. Lynch, S. J. (1996). Should gifted students be grade-advanced? ERIC document Reproduction Service. (EC 526). Retrieved April 19, 2007, from http://ericec.org/digests/e526.html.
  15. McCoach, D. B. (2002). A validation study of the School Attitude Assessment Survey. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 35, 66-77.
  16. McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2003a). The School Attitude Assessment Survey-Revised: A new instrument to identify academically able students who underachieve. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 414-429. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164403063003005
  17. McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2003b). Factors that differentiate underachieving gifted students from high-achieving gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 144-154. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620304700205
  18. McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2005). Making a difference: Motivating gifted students who are not achieving. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38, 22-27.
  19. Moore III, J. L., Ford, D. Y., & Milner, H. R. (2005). Underachievement among gifted students of color: Implications for educators. Theory into Practice, 44, 167-177. DOI: 10.1207/s15430421tip4402_11
  20. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
  21. Neihart, M. (2006). The socioaffective impact of acceleration and ability grouping: Recommendations for best practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 330-341.
  22. Reis, S. M., & McCoach, D. B. (2002). Underachievement in gifted and talented students with special needs. Exceptionality, 10, 113-125. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327035EX1002_5
  23. Rogers, K. B. (2004). Academic effects of acceleration. In N. colangelo, S. G. Assouline & M. U. M. gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America's brightest students (pp. 47-58). Iowa City, IA: The Belin Blank Internationa Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
  24. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207306324
  25. Schoen, H. L., & Ansley, T. N. (2005). Iowa Algebra Aptitude Test (IAAT). Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.
  26. Sheffield, L. J. (2003). Extending the challenge in mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  27. Swiatek, M. A. (2002). A decade of longitudinal research on academic acceleration through the study of mathematically precocious youth. Roeper Review, 24, 141- 145.
  28. TIMSS (1999). Mathematics and science achievement of eighth graders in 1999. National Center for Education Statistics.