Journal of Gifted/Talented Education (영재교육연구)

The Korean Society for the Gifted (한국영재학회)
권호 표지

Profiles of Overexcitabilities for Korean High School Gifted Students According to Gender and Domain of Study

한국 고등학교 영재 학생들의 성별과 전공에 따른 과민흥분성에 대한 프로파일

  • Published : 2005.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Overexcitaility (OE) as a concept that is related to developmental potential, has been shown to differ by intelligence, gender, involvement in school programs and artistic interest in American populations of students. Overexitability, used to describe the five ways that people might experience developmental potential for emotional growth, are emotional, intellectual, imaginational, sensual, and psychomotor. Little is known about the profiles of groups of gifted learners outside of studies conducted in the United States. In order to better understand the emotional needs of Korean students, the purpose of this study was to determine the overexcitability profiles of students enrolled in four high schools, each with a different domain focus: math and sciences, visual and performing arts, and foreign languages. 341 subjects of this study completed the Overexcitability Questionnaire II. Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was conducted to determine statistical differences. The results showed that Mean scores of psychomotor, sensual and imaginational are highest in the Art High School, intellectual is highest in the Science High School and emotional is highest in the Foreign Language High School. There were significant differences among the schools. Each major also showed significant difference. The results showed that mean score of psychomotor is highest in the Dance major, sensual, imaginational and emotional are highest in the Drama majore and intellectual is highest in the Science major. The results showed that the mean scores of psychomotor, imaginational and intellectual are higher in the male students than female students. On the other hand the mean scores of sensual and emotional are higher in the female students than in the male students.

발달 잠재력과 관련된 개념으로서 과민흥분성(OE)은 미국 학생들의 경우 지능, 성별, 학교 프로그램에의 연류, 그리고 예술적 관심에서 차이를 보였다. 사람들이 정서적 성장을 위한 발달 잠재력을 경험하는 과민흥분성은 다섯 가지 방법으로 설명할 수 있는데, 이는 정서적,지적, 상상적, 감각적, 그리고 정신운동성이다. 미국에서 수행된 연구 외에 영재아 그룹의 프로파일에 대해서는 알려진 것이 거의 없다. 한국 학생들의 정서적 필요를 보다 잘 이해하기 위해서, 본 연구는 수학과 과학, 예술, 그리고 외국어라는 상이한 학습 영역의 네 고등학교에 다니는 학생들의 과민흥분성 프로파일을 알아보는 것을 목적으로 한다. 341명의 학생들에게 과민흥분성 설문지로 검사를 실시한 후 통계적 차이를 알아보기 위해 MANOVA가 사용되었다. 정신운동, 감각적, 상상적 영역에서는 예술학교 학생들이 가장 높았으며, 지적 영역은 과학고등학교 학생들이, 정서적 영역은 외국어 고등학교 학생들이 가장 높았다. 학교들 간에 통계적으로 의미 있는 차이를 보였다. 각각의 전공 사이에도 역시 통계적으로 의미 있는 차이를 보였다. 정신 운동에서는 무용 전공의 학생들이, 감각적, 상상적, 정서적 에서는 드라마 전공의 학생들이, 그리고 지적에서는 과학 전공 학생들이 각각 가장 높은 점수를 보였다. 또한, 정신운동, 상상적, 지적 영역은 남학생들이 높았고, 반대로 감각적, 정서적 영역에서는 여학생들이 남학생보다 높았다.

Keywords

References

  1. Ackerman, C. M. (1997). Identifying gifted adolescents using personality characteristics: Dabrowski's overexcitabilities. Roeper Review, 19, 229-236 https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199709553835
  2. Bouchet, N., & Falk, R. F. (2001). The relationship among giftedness, gender, and overexcitability. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45, 260-267 https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620104500404
  3. Breard, N. S. (1994). Exploring a different way to identify African American students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Georgia, Athens
  4. Cross, T. (2001). Social and emotional needs of the gifted. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press
  5. Dabrowski, K. (1964). Positive disintegration. Boston? Little, Brown
  6. Delisle, J. R. (1992). Guiding the social and emotional development of gifted youth: A practical guide for educators and counselors. New York: Longman
  7. Gallagher, S. (1985). A comparison of the concept of overexcitabilities with measures of creativity and school achievement in sixth-grade students. Roeper Review, 8, 115-119 https://doi.org/10.1080/02783198509552950
  8. Genshaft, J. (1991). The gifted adolescent in perspective. In M. Bireley & J. Genshaft (Eds.), Understanding the Gifted Adolescent: Educational, Developmental, and Multicultural Issues (pp. 259-262). New York: Teachers College Press
  9. Miller, N. B., Silverman, L, K., & Falk, R. F. (1994). Emotional development, intellectual ability, and gender. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 20-38
  10. Monks, F. J., & van Boxtel, H. W. (1985). Gifted adolescents: A developmental perspective. In J. Freeman (Ed.), The Psychology of Gifted Children: Perspectives on Development and Education (pp. 275-295). New York: Wiley & Sons
  11. Neihart, M., Reis, S. M., Robinson, N. M., & Moon, S. M. (2002). The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? Waco, TX: Prufrock
  12. OConnor, K. J. (2002). The application of Dabrowskis theory to the gifted. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon, (Eds.), The Social and Emotional Development of Gifted Children: What Do We Know? (pp. 51-60). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press
  13. Piechowski, M. M. (1979). Developmental potential. In N. Colangelo & N. R. Zaffrann (Eds.), New Voices in Counseling the Gifted (pp. 25-57). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt
  14. Piechowski, M. M. (1986). The concept of developmental potential. Roeper Review, 8, 190-197 https://doi.org/10.1080/02783198609552971
  15. Piechowski, M. M., & Colangelo, N. (1984). Developmental potential of the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 80-88 https://doi.org/10.1177/001698628402800207
  16. Piechowski, M. M., & Cunningham, K. (1985). Patterns of overexcitability in a group of artists. Journal of Creative Behavior, 19, 153-174 https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1985.tb00655.x
  17. Piechowski, M. M., & Miller, N. B. (1995). Assessing developmental potential in gifted children: A coparison of methods. Roeper Review, 17, 176-180 https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199509553654
  18. Piirto, J. (1999). Talented children and adults: Their developmet and education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill
  19. Piirto, J., Cassone, G., Ackerman, C. M., & Fraas, J. (1996). An international study of intensity in talented teenagers using the Overexcitablity Questionnaire (OEQ). Unpublished manuscript, Ashland University, Ashland, OH
  20. Schmitz, C. C., & Galbraith, J. (1985). Managing the social and emotional needs of the gifted: A teacher's survival guide. Minneapolis: Free Spirit
  21. Silverman, L. (1993). Social development, leadership, and gender issues. In L. Silverman (Ed.), Counseling the Gifted and Talented (pp. 291-328). Denver: Love
  22. Strop, J. (2002). Meeting the social emotional needs of gifted adolescents: A personal and contextual journey. Understanding Our Gifted, 14(2), 7-11