Overexcitabilities and peer relationships of gifted students

Document Sample
Overexcitabilities and peer relationships of gifted students Powered By Docstoc
					              Overexcitabilities and peer relationships of gifted students
                                          Abstract
The purposes of this study were to investigate the overexcitabilities (OEs) and peer
relationships of 5th and 6th gifted students, and to explore the relationship between
OEs and peer relationships.
Subjects include 126 gifted students, 1460 regular students, and 4 teachers in Taipei
City. Data were collected by means of “The Me Scale”, sociometric nomination
inventory, “The Friendship Perception Scale”, and the interview outline based on
the reference.
For data analysis, descriptive statistics were used to investigate the OEs and the peer
relationships, chi-square test, t-test, and ANOVA were to test the differences of
independent variables in OEs and peer relationships. Besides Pearson correlation and
the statistical methods mentioned above, qualitative data were recorded as detailed
dialogue to explore the relationship between OEs and peer relationships.
The main findings of this research are as follows:
1.The number of gifted students exhibiting more TOE, MOE and EOE is more than
   regular students.
2.The male gifted students show more significant POE (F¡× 6.119, p¡Õ .05) and TOE
   (F¡× 4.210, p¡Õ .05) than female gifted students.
3.The male gifted students are more popular than regular male students (χ&
  sup2;=10.977¡A p¡Õ .05), and the difference of popularity between female gifted
  students and regular female students is not significant.
4.The percentage of the gifted students nominating the same-sex friends mutually
  is .78, and the proportion of gifted students regarding other gifted as friends is not
  low (.45).
5.There is no gender difference in the friendship reciprocity of the gifted students
  (χ²=2.346, p¡Ö .05).
6.The average amount of the gifted students’ friends is 2.82 (SD¡× 1.7).
7.There is no gender difference in the number of the gifted students’ friends (t¡×
  -1.781, p¡Ö .05).
8.Gifted students have good friendship qualities in terms of ‘association’, ‘admiration’,
  ‘affection’, ‘prosocial’, and ‘intimacy’.
9.The friendship qualities of female gifted students are better than male gifted
  students in ‘association’ (F¡× 5.52, p¡Õ .05), ‘prosocial’ (F¡× 12.882, p¡Õ .001), and
  ‘intimacy’ (F¡× 9.659, p¡Õ .01). Besides, in ‘association’, gifted students with
  mutual nomination score higher than those with unilateral nomination (F¡× 7.851, p
  ¡Õ .01).
10.Those traits of TOE and MOE, such as intelligent, charming wit and humor,
  and a few characteristics of EOE can be factors contributing to the sociometric
  status of gifted students.
11.Those traits of TOE and EOE, such as busybody and irascible, and a few
  characteristics of POE are reasons that classmates don’t like gifted students.
12.Gifted students with medium SOE (χ²=11.942¡A p¡Õ .05), MOE (χ²=6.801¡A p¡Õ .05),
  and EOE (χ²=10.864¡A p¡Õ .05) tend to have regular or good popularity, and those
  with higher SOE, MOE and EOE are likely to be neglected and rejected.
13.There are no differences among levels of OEs in the friendship reciprocity of the
  gifted students (p¡Ö .05).
14.Gifted students with medium TOE have more friends, and those with higher TOE
  have less friends (χ²=5.217¡A p¡Õ .05).
15.In terms of the correlation between OEs and friendship qualities, there is low
  positive correlation between SOE and ‘extracharacteristic’ (r¡× .205), and low
  negative correlation between SOE and ‘admiration’ (r¡× -.266).
16.According to the interview with 4 gifted students, the differences of the
  demonstration of EOE, in aspects of feelings of guilt, concern with death, complex
  emotions, strong affective memory, identification with others’
  feelings, and sensitivity in relationships, between the popular and rejected gifted
  students show the unfavorable impact of EOE on peer relationship.