A Study of Well-Being and School Satisfaction Among Academically Talented Students

http://gcq.sagepub.com

Gifted Child Quarterly

DOI: 10.1177/001698620605000207 2006; 50; 169 Gifted Child Quarterly

Suk-Un Jin and Sidney M. Moon Science High School in Korea

A Study of Well-Being and School Satisfaction Among Academically Talented Students Attending a

http://gcq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/50/2/169 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

National Association for Gifted Children

can be found at:Gifted Child Quarterly Additional services and information for

http://gcq.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://gcq.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://gcq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/50/2/169 Citations

by kimbao bao on April 14, 2009 http://gcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://www.nagc.orghttp://gcq.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://gcq.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://gcq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/50/2/169http://gcq.sagepub.com

S C I E N C E H I G H S C H O O L S T U D E N T S

G I F T E D C H I L D Q U A R T E R L Y S P R I N G 2 0 0 6 V O L 5 0 N O 2 1 6 9

Gifted students are recognized as having learning and personal characteristics that are different from nongifted students. Much of the focus of the foundational work of pioneers in the fi eld of gifted education, such as Terman (1925) and Hollingworth (1926), was on articulating the

characteristics and needs of gifted students. Recent lead-ers in gifted education have also enhanced our under-standing of gifted students (Benbow & Stanley, 1983;

A B S T R A C T

The purpose of this study was to examine whether academically talented adolescents attending a residen-tial science high school in Korea had different levels of psychological well-being or school life satisfaction than their high-ability peers in regular high schools. The participating high-ability students (n = 299) were in their second year of high school and were attend-ing either a science high school (n = 111) or a regular high school (n = 188) in the same province in Korea. Both groups completed the Psychological Well Be-ing scales (Ryff, 1989a) and a researcher-constructed Satisfaction With School Life scale. In addition, the science high school students responded to open-end-ed questions about their experiences in the science high school. No statistically signifi cant differences were found in psychological well-being, but there were statistically signifi cant differences in school life satisfaction favoring the science high school group. The responses of the science high school sample to the open-ended questions indicated that they appre-ciated the advanced curriculum and the expertise of their teachers. They also reported satisfactory rela-tionships with teachers and peers. Overall, the study suggested that the residential science high school was meeting the educational needs of these talented Korean students, at least better than traditional high schools. However, this study could not confi rm its primary expectation that the specialized school-ing for gifted students would enhance psychological well-being. Implications of the study for research and practice are discussed.

P U T T I N G T H E R E S E A R C HT O U S E

This study provides empirical support for the value of special high schools in creating satisfaction with school life among academically talented youth. The students attending the special high school in Korea in this study had higher satisfaction with all aspects of school life than their counterparts in traditional high schools. This suggests that special high schools create a more positive climate for students with talents in the sciences even in cultures where peers are generally quite supportive of academic achievement. Parents can use the study to advocate for appropriate curricular modifi cations, special classes, and special schools for high school students. School administrators can use the study to support and guide special programming for high school students who are talented in the sciences. Counselors can use the study in two ways. First, they can use the results to provide information to students who are considering accepting invitations to participate in a special high school for students talented in the sciences with some of the specifi c benefi ts they are likely to experience in this type of learning environment. Second, because there were no differences in the groups on the measure of well-being, counselors can use the well-being instrument used in this study to assess well-being traits such as autonomy, personal growth, and environmental mastery among gifted students. Students who are struggling with these issues may benefi t from counseling. The study suggests that this instrument can be used to assess the well-being of gifted students in any educational context because it assesses relatively stable traits that are not context-dependent.

A Study of Well-Being and School SatisfactionAmong Academically Talented Students

Attending a Science High School in Korea

Suk-Un Jin Sidney M. Moon Konkuk University, Seoul Purdue University




1 7 0 G I F T E D C H I L D Q U A R T E R L Y S P R I N G 2 0 0 6 V O L 5 0 N O 2

Feldhusen, VanTassel-Baska, & Seeley, 1989; Neihart, Reis, Robinson, & Moon, 2002; Renzulli, Smith, White, Callahan, & Hartman, 1976; Tannenbaum, 1983). Among the unique characteristics of gifted students are the fol-lowing: advanced development in language and thought (Benbow & Minor, 1990; Jackson, 1988; Smith, 1991); logical thinking (Davidson, 1986; Walberg et al., 1981), advanced mathematical, musical, and artistic abilities (Winner & Martino, 2000); motivation, persistence, and advanced interests (Bryant, 1991; Gottfried & Gottfried, 1996; Renzulli & Reis, 1997); high internal control (Milgram & Milgram, 1976); high excitability and sensi-tivity (Piechowski, 2003); and perfectionism (Whitmore, 1980). These characteristics create unique educational needs. Many programs have been developed to address the academic and social/emotional needs of high-ability ado-lescents. There has been much research on the effective-ness of various program options for gifted and talented students in the United States such as (a) pull-out programs (Carter, 1986; Delcourt, Loyd, Cornell, & Goldberg, 1994; Fetterman, 1988; Kulik & Kulik, 1992; Moon, Feldhusen, & Dillon, 1994; Renzulli & Reis, 1997; Vaughn, Feldhusen, & Asher, 1991); (b) summer and Saturday programs (Barnett & Durden, 1993; Benbow & Lubinski, 1997; Fox, Brody, & Tobin, 1985; Olszewski-Kubilius & Grant, 1996); (c) ability grouping in the class-room (Feldhusen, 1989; Kulik & Kulik, 1992; Rogers, 2002; Slavin, 1990); (d) special classes; and (e) acceleration (Brody & Stanley, 1991; Feldhusen, 1989: Kulik & Kulik, 1992; Rogers, 1991; Swaitek & Benbow, 1991; Terman & Oden, 1947); and (f) residential high schools (Clark & Dixon, 1997; Dorsel & Wages, 1993; Eilber, 1987; Eilber & Warshaw, 1988; Kolloff, 2003; Stanley, 1991). Residential high schools for gifted and talented students are designed to provide accelerated, challenging instruction in core subject areas that match special talents or aptitudes of the students (Feldhusen & Boggess, 2000). Among the various types of special programs that have been developed to meet the needs of high-ability students, res-idential science high schools are the most extreme option with regard to the intensity of the program. These high schools can be effective and effi cient programs because they serve a homogeneous group of high-ability students and address both the academic and social life of the stu-dents. It is generally assumed that these special programs and schools will meet the affective needs, as well as the educational needs of gifted students, and that, as a result, they will be helpful in enhancing their lives. This study tried to investigate whether a residential science high school in Korea was meeting the affective and educational

needs of participating students by comparing their level of psychological well-being and school life satisfaction to a comparable group in traditional high schools. The perspective of this study assumes that better theories, better programs, and better practices will bring about better lives for high-ability students. Being academ-ically successful may provide students with many oppor-tunities for career success. However, more meaningful success is achieved when high-ability students make good choices and function well in all areas of life (Moon, 2003; Nail & Evans, 1997). Fulfi llment of potential involves autonomous self-determination (Ryan & Deci, 2000). One outcome of special programs based on this perspective is the psychological well-being of students. Another is their satisfaction with school life. No previ-ous research has compared the well-being and satisfac-tion with school life of students of high ability attending residential science high schools with the same qualities of high-ability students attending ordinary high schools (Winner, 1997). The purpose of this study was to investigate the well-being and school satisfaction of high-ability students attending a residential science high school for gifted stu-dents in Korea and compare it with that of equally tal-ented students attending typical high schools in the same province. In addition, the study compared student per-ceptions of the extent to which each type of high school was offering educational experiences appropriate for gifted students.

R e v i e w o f t h e L i t e r a t u r e

Educational Needs of Gifted Students

Feldhusen (1989) and Gallagher (1986) synthesized the various needs of gifted students into three comprehen-sive educational needs. First, gifted and talented students need accelerated, challenging instruction in core subject areas that match their special talents or aptitudes. Second, gifted and talented students need opportunities to work with other gifted and talented students. Third, gifted and talented students need highly competent teachers who both understand the nature and needs of these students and are deeply knowledgeable in the content they teach. Challenging Instruction. Gifted and talented students often complain about the boredom that they experience in regular classrooms due to lack of an appropriate level of challenge (Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, & Whalen, 1993; Feldhusen & Kroll, 1991; Gross, 1993; Jin & Feldhusen, 2000). These students may be forced to spend





a lot of time being taught things they already know, doing repetitive drill sheets and activities, and receiving instruc-tion on new material at a pace that is inappropriate, given their level of ability. Residential science high schools can, more easily than regular schools, provide enriched cur-riculum, upgrading the level and pace of instruction to fi t abilities, achievement levels, and interests of gifted and talented students. Opportunities to Work With Peers. In addition, gifted and talented students need opportunities to work with other gifted and talented students. Peer pressure inhibits excitement about academics in many regular schools. Gifted students often must hide or suppress their special interests or their enthusiasm for academic topics in order to avoid ridicule (Delisle, 1984). Many gifted students worry about being viewed as outcasts because of their scholarly or bookish natures. They often are ostracized as being different and weird and are labeled as nerds and geeks (Silverman, 1993). Through interaction with other gifted and talented students in residential science high schools, they can fi nd others who are like themselves and confi rm the legitimacy of their personal identity. They mutually reinforce their enthusiasm for academic interests and activities (Feldhusen, 1989). Competent Teachers. Finally, gifted and talented students need highly competent teachers who both understand the nature and needs of these students and are deeply knowl-edgeable in the content they teach. Teachers in regular high schools often make little accommodation to the needs of gifted and talented students, and many high school teach-ers have little or no special training in how to teach such exceptional students (Westberg, Archambault, Dobyns, & Salvin, 1993). Residential science high schools usually have higher faculty qualifi cations than do normal high schools. Most teachers are assigned to these special schools because they previously displayed excellence in educating students in a certain subject area and/or they were specially trained in educating gifted and talented students (Dorsel & Wages, 1993; Lewis, 1993; Stanley, 1991). This study investigated a residential science high school that was designed by the Korean government to meet these three educational needs in high school students who are gifted in the sciences. The admission standards and curriculum of the school are described in detail in the methods section.

Affective Needs of Gifted Students

Affective Issues in Gifted Education. A recent review of the literature concluded that there is no evidence that gifted youth as a group have any inherent social/emo-

tional vulnerabilities (Neihart et al., 2002). In fact, the opposite may be true as there is some evidence to sup-port the hypothesis that most gifted young people possess assets such as above-average intellectual ability, problem-solving skills, and personal talents that promote resilience and well-being (Bland, Sowa, & Callahan, 1994; Kitano & Lewis, 2005; Neihart, 2002). At the same time, there is evidence that inappropriate environments can create affective stress and adjustment problems for gifted and tal-ented youth (Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004; Gross, 1993; Neihart et al.). For example, like other young peo-ple, gifted youth can have adjustment diffi culties when their families are dysfunctional (Moon & Thomas, 2003; Sowa & May, 1997; Wendorf & Frey, 1985). The most common environmental source of social/emotional problems in gifted youth appears to be place-ment in a school environment that provides insuffi cient academic challenge and inappropriate peers (Robinson, Reis, Neihart, & Moon, 2002). Inappropriate school environments can create considerable social/emotional stress for gifted youth (Colangelo et al., 2004; Gross, 1994). The negative affective impact of inadequate edu-cational environments appears to be particularly strong for highly gifted youth, perhaps because they are so dif-ferent from their chronological peers (Gross, 1993; Gross, 2002). For example, Gross (2002) found that exception-ally gifted youth displayed conceptions of friendship that were 5 to 6 years in advance of their chronological peers. These large differences in friendship conceptions make it very diffi cult for highly gifted students placed in regu-lar classrooms to form meaningful friendships with their classmates, especially before the age of 10. Affective Outcomes of Gifted Programs. If the lack of appropriate programming creates social/emotional dif-fi culties, can appropriate academic interventions reduce social/emotional distress and promote social/emotional adjustment? A few studies have examined this ques-tion with somewhat equivocal fi ndings. For example, a meta-analysis of pull-out programs found that some of these programs were associated with increases in self-concept in gifted children, while others were associated with decreases in self-concept (Vaughn et al., 1991). On average, pull-out programs were found to have no effect on self-concept. Similarly, a review of the literature on the effects of a wide variety of accelerative options found negligible effects on the self-concepts of gifted students (Rogers, 2002). As these examples illustrate, most of the research on the affective outcomes of gifted programs has used self-concept as the outcome variable. This is limit-ing because affective development is much broader than self-concept. In order to get a true picture of the effects





of gifted programs on affective outcomes, more compre-hensive and complex measures of those outcomes, such as multifaceted well-being scales and measures of school satisfaction, must be utilized. Effects of Residential High Schools on Affective Outcomes. There has been very little research conducted on the affec-tive outcomes of residential high schools. However, a recent ethnographic study of a residential high school for gifted students in the United States suggested that such schools may have unique social systems characterized by openness, fl uidity, acceptance, business, pressure, and shock and amazement (Coleman, 2001). Taken together, these char-acteristics suggest mixed affective effects with some effects being positive (being in a more open, fl uid, and accept-ing environment) while others are more negative (hectic schedules, academic pressure, and adjustment to the rules and limitations of residential life). This study fi lls a gap in the literature by examining the effects of participation in a residential high school on several affective outcomes including autonomy, personal growth, positive relationships with others, self-acceptance, and school satisfaction.

Well-Being and Satisfaction With School Life

Most of the research on affective needs of gifted stu-dents has been conducted from a defi cit or negative psy-chology theoretical framework. For example, quite a few studies have examined whether gifted students experi-ence more affective problems than other students (Keiley, 1997). Researchers have also examined within-group dif-ferences in populations of gifted students on issues such as peer relationships (Cornell, 1990; Cross, Coleman, & Terhaar-Yonkers, 1991) or perfectionism (Dixon, Lapsley, & Hanchon, 2004; Speirs Neumeister, 2004). In at least one instance, a study evaluating the effects of dif-ferent types of gifted programs on behavioral adjustment had to be halted because parents and teachers objected to the negative focus in the instrument (The Child Behavior Checklist; Delcourt et al., 1994). This suggests a need for gifted education to take a more positive, talent-focused approach to the evaluation of affective outcomes of gifted programs (Moon, 2003). This study was conducted from a positive psychology perspective, utilizing a measure of positive well-being that had not been used in any prior research on the effects of gifted programs on affective outcomes. Well-Being. The available body of research regarding psychological well-being ranges across many other dis-ciplines, from humanities and social sciences (e.g., phi-losophy, sociology, and psychology) to natural sciences (e.g., neurology and genetics). Recently, social psycholo-

gists have developed a focus on well-being, resulting in a surge of published studies (Argyle, Martin, & Crossland, 1989; Diener, 1984, 2000; Myers, 2000; Veenhoven, 1984). These studies have been variously labeled and classifi ed as balanced affect (Bradburn, 1969), subjective well-being (Diener, 1984, 2000; Myers, 2000), quality of life (Flanagan, 1979), mental health (Jahoda, 1958), healthy personality (Veenhoven, 1984), optimal experi-ence (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990), psychological well-being (Ryff, 1989a, 1995), and so on. There are three areas of literature that provide the-oretical guidance in understanding the meaning of psy-chological well-being. Developmental psychology offers numerous depictions of wellness, conceived as progres-sions of continued growth across the life course. These perspectives include Eriksons (1959) model of the stages of psychosocial development and Buhlers (1935) formu-lation of basic life tendencies promote work fulfi llment. Clinical psychology also offers multiple formulations of well-being, such as Maslows (1968) conception of self-actualization, Rogers (1961) view of the fully function-ing person, Jungs (1933) formulation of individuation, and Allports (1961) conception of maturity. The mental health literature, although guided largely by absence-of-illness defi nitions of well-being, includes signifi cant exceptions, such as Jahodas (1958) formulation of posi-tive criteria of mental health. Ryff (1989a) argued that the preceding perspec-tives can be integrated into a more parsimonious sum-mary. That is, when one reviews the characteristics of well-being described in these various formulations, it becomes apparent that many of the theorists have written about similar features of positive psychological function-ing. The convergence of these theories of positive func-tioning served as the theoretical foundation for Ryffs multidimensional model of well-being. Ryffs model of well-being was selected for this research because of its (a) elegance, (b) operationalization in a published instru-ment, and (c) relevance to the optimization of potential. The Psychological Well-Being scales (Ryff, Lee, & Na, 1993) are based on Ryffs model and measure six aspects of well-being (autonomy, environmental mastery, per-sonal growth, positive relationships with others, purpose of life, and self-acceptance), all of which are predicted by personal talent theory to enhance the ability of talented youth to realize their potential (Moon, 2003). These scales were used in this research to compare the well-being of students enrolled in a residential science high school with students in a general education high school. Satisfaction With School Life. One way to evaluate an educational intervention is to investigate student percep-





tions of its value and effectiveness. For example, univer-sity courses are often evaluated by questionnaires that assess student satisfaction with the curriculum, professor, and assignments. Similarly, studies of gifted and talented programs often use student satisfaction questionnaires as an outcome measure (Moon et al., 1994; Dorsel & Wages, 1993). Satisfaction questionnaires are especially appropri-ate for research designed to investigate student percep-tions of the quality of their experience. In this study, the perceptions of high-ability students about the degree to which their high school was meeting their educational needs were assessed and compared. In summary, this study investigated selected affective outcomes of gifted and talented programming from a positive psychology perspective. The focus of the study was on whether gifted education can enhance the well-being and school satisfaction of gifted students, rather than on whether it can prevent the psychological harm that so often occurs when gifted students are placed in inappropriate educational environments.

M e t h o d s

This study used the causal-comparative method. Responses of students to questionnaires in one type of high school were compared to the responses of students in another type of high school. Causal-comparative methods are frequently used in educational research to examine the possible effects of variables that are diffi cult or impossible to manipulate experimentally (Borg, Gall, & Gall, 1993).

Site and Context: Residential Science High Schools in Korea

History. In the 1970s, some Korean educators realized that there should be special services to meet the needs of high-ability students. However, their efforts to serve high-ability students encountered such obstacles as legis-lative restrictions and an unfriendly public milieu. In the end, their efforts did accomplish the development of sci-ence high schools for high-ability students in the 1980s. Special schools for high-ability students were formed because educating highly talented students in science and technology appealed to politicians who regarded students as national resources and wanted to train them so that they would devote themselves to achieving national competitiveness in the global and industrial world. Since the fi rst science high school was established in 1983, the number of these schools has expanded to 16,

one in each province. For secondary students in Korea, these science high schools are currently the only alter-native to general secondary education, which is char-acterized by an extremely uniform curriculum and the acquisition of a large knowledge base through memori-zation. By establishing one science high school in each province, the government intended to house and educate students talented in mathematics and science from all parts of Korea. These residential science high schools of Korea have now served high-ability students for more than two decades. Curriculum. Students admitted to a science high school enjoy a very small teacher/student ratio of 1:8, sometimes as low as 1:4 (Wu, Cho, & Munandar, 2000). This is quite different from the crowded classrooms in most Korean high schools, which house about 40 students in each class and have a higher teacher/student ratio of 1:15. Students in science high schools also have the advantage of instruc-tion that emphasizes laboratory and inquiry methods. The curriculum is composed of general coursework, independent study, and special activities. General courses include the Korean language, social studies, foreign languages, arts, physical education, and science-related courses (mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, earth science, information science, and recent developments in science). Mandatory courses help students gain general knowledge and elective courses deal with more specialized content. Independent research allows students to choose a topic and conduct in-depth research using their own ini-tiative. It is usually conducted in a small group of three or four students under supervising teachers and university mentors. Special activities include various in-school clubs, self-development activities, and volunteering. A unique aspect of science high schools in Korea is their use of acceleration in the form of early gradua-tion. Highly qualifi ed students can complete their high school curriculum in 2 years and be admitted to the Korea Academic Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), a college for the scientifi cally gifted. This option can alle-viate the pressure of the college entrance examination and can enable gifted students to spend more time devel-oping their potential instead of preparing for the college entrance examination. Admission. The selection criteria for admission to the science high school were as follows: (a) academic achieve-ment in the top 13% of their middle school classes, (b) good performance on entrance examinations assess-ing achievement in mathematics, science, Korean, and English, (c) health examination and interview, and (d) awards or honors in academic competitions such as sci-ence or math Olympiad.





Subjects

Determination of Sample Size. Many studies, using mul-tivariate analyses, have obtained nonsignifi cant results due to small sample sizes (i.e., Herron, 1999; Lipkin, 1999). Through a priori power analysis, the required number of subjects can be estimated in given conditions, that is, a specifi c signifi cance level, effect size, and power level. However, we were not able to estimate the effect size for this study a priori because we did not have any previ-ous studies using the same kind of subjects and variables. When there is little information for estimating effect size, the safest approach is to assume a small effect size because most social science research produces small to medium effect sizes (Grimm & Yarnold, 1995; Keppel, 1991). For this study we assumed (a) alpha = .05, (b) power > .70, and (c) a small effect, making the required sample size per group (in a two-group multivariate analysis of variance) about 100. Recruiting the Participants. Comparability between sci-ence high school and regular high school samples was the most important consideration in selecting students from the regular high schools. Individual students from the regular high schools were selected by the qualifi cation standards for entry into the science high school effective when the current second-year students entered the sci-ence high school. In other words, the two samples were equal in academic achievement as measured by GPAs for the last 2 years of junior high school and award experiences in academic competitions. Additionally, nationally standardized high school entrance exam scores were also compared between these two groups, even though these were not considered when students were selected for the science high school because science high schools administer their own customized entrance exams to applicants. For both groups, only second-year students (juniors) were sampled. Seniors were excluded because approximately one third of the science high school stu-dents choose the early graduation option and leave for college after their second year. In addition, sampling in the general high schools was limited to students in classes of the science and technology group. Unlike sci-ence high schools, which enroll only students who will pursue careers in sciences, engineering, and technology, general high schools enroll students regardless of their future career interests. However, students in general high schools do select either the science and technology group or the liberal arts and social science group by the end of their fi rst year. Thus, a comparison group from general high schools was sampled from second-year students of

the science and technology group so that the compari-son group would be as similar as possible to the students enrolled in the science high school. Through the above sampling procedures, 111 students (93 boys and 18 girls) from one science high school and 188 students (122 boys and 66 girls) from general high schools in the same province were selected for this study. Because females are underrepresented in science high schools in Korea, the small proportion of females in the study was an accurate refl ection of the science high school population. Because of the small size of the female sample from the science high school, gender was not included as an inde-pendent variable in the multivariate analysis of participant well-being. Instead, group differences between students at the two school settings were examined for males only. However, gender was included as an independent vari-able in the two-way ANOVA comparing school satisfac-tion because the number of females in the sample was still small, but allowable for this univariate analysis.

Instruments

Three main instruments were used in this study. First, the Psychological Well-Being scales (Ryff, 1989a) were administered to measure students psychological well-being. Second, a Satisfaction With School Life scale designed by the investigator was administered to assess students satisfaction level with their school life. Third, open-ended questions were used to elicit science high school students perceptions of their school experiences. Psychological Well-Being Scales. Respondents completed a self-report inventory designed to measure six aspects of psychological well-being. The inventory was based on a multidimensional model of psychological well-being (PWB) that was derived from theoretical discussions of positive human functioning and normal human develop-ment (Ryff, 1989a, 1989b, 1995). The PWB scales assess individuals appraisals of themselves and their lives across six conceptually distinct realms of psychological function-ing. Each dimension was operationalized with a 14-item scale divided between positively and negatively phrased items (see Table 1). The validity and reliability of the measures have been documented with extensive psychometric data across multiple studies (Ryff, 1989a, 1989b, 1992, 1995). For example, Ryff (1989b) reported that the scales demonstrate high internal consistency reliability (coeffi cient alphas range from 0.86 to 0.93) and temporal reliability (test-retest coeffi cients range from 0.81 to 0.88). The scales have also been found to correlate modestly and positively with existing measures of positive functioning (e.g., life





satisfaction, affect balance, self-esteem, internal control) and negatively with measures of negative functioning (e.g., depression, powerful others, external control), thereby demonstrating convergent and discriminant validity. Multiple sources of evidence have demonstrated that the six dimensions of PWB are distinct constructs (Ryff, 1989a, 1992; Ryff et al., 1993). Confi rmatory factor analyses with data from a nationally representative sample supported the multidimensional structure having six factors with a single latent construct called psychological well-being (Ryff, 1995). The Korean version of the Psychological Well-Being scales was developed in a prior study (Ryff et al., 1993). Five bilingual speakers of Korean and English prepared the Korean version of the questions. Pilot interviews were also conducted with Korean respondents to evaluate the translated items. When exactly similar expressions could not be found in Korean, new expressions were selected to convey similar meanings. Satisfaction With School Life. The Satisfaction With School Life questionnaire was designed by the investigators to assess the students level of satisfaction with their school life. Aspects of school life that were assessed

included curriculum, teachers, and peer relationships, that is, the very educational needs that were noted in an earlier section of this article: challenging curriculum, intellectual peers, and trained teachers (Feldhusen, 1989; Gallagher, 1986). Six items assessed students satisfaction with curriculum and teachers, three items assessed their satisfaction with peer relations, and three items assessed their satisfaction with other various aspects of the school. Students expressed their level of satisfaction by indicating the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each statement (e.g., My teachers have deep knowledge of their subject) using a 6-point format: strongly disagree (1), moderately disagree (2), slightly disagree (3), slightly agree (4), moderately agree (5), and strongly agree (6). Open-Ended Questions. Additional open-ended questions were used with science high school students to elicit further information about their feelings and opinions about their experiences in a science high school. Open-ended questions were not prepared to compare the student groups from two different school settings, but rather to gather practical information from science high school students for improving their schools. However, the information that was gathered was summarized

T a b l e 1

Sample Items of the Psychological Well-Being Scale

Subscale Item Recode Description

Autonomy 7 + I am not afraid to voice my opinions, even when they are in opposition to the opinions of most people.

19 I tend to worry about what other people think of me.

EnvironmentalMastery

2 + In general, I feel I am in charge of the situation in which I live.

8 The demands of everyday life often get me down.

Personal Growth 27 + I think it is important to have new experiences that challenge how you think about yourself and the world.

75 I gave up trying to make big improvements or changes in my life.

Positive Relations With Others

10 Maintaining close relationships has been diffi cult and frustrating for me.

52 + People would describe me as a giving person, willing to share my time with others.

Purpose in Life 11 I live life one day at a time and dont really think about the future.

61 + Some people wander aimlessly through life, but I am not one of them.

Self-Acceptance 30 + I like most aspects of my personality.

42 In many ways, I feel disappointed about my achievements.

Note. All items were responded to using a 6-point Likert scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = moderately disagree, 3 = slightly disagree, 4 = slightly agree, 5 = moderately agree, and 6 = strongly agree. All items are recoded as follows: + : Recode as answered number; : Recode as reversed number 16, 25, 34, 43, 52, 61.





and introduced in this paper to give readers a better understanding about whats going on inside this school.

Data Analysis

The reliability of the scales was assessed via Cronbachs alpha coeffi cients. Unlike American versions of PWB, the psychometrical properties of the Korean version needed to be carefully assessed because the appropriateness of scales to the Korean cultural setting and to adolescents had not been investigated prior to this study. The primary hypothesisthat there would be a signifi cant difference in levels of psychological well-being between science high school students and high-ability general high school studentswas tested using a two-group MANOVA. Before proceeding with the MANOVA, three assumptions were assessed: (a) mul-tivariate normality, (b) homogeneity of the covariance matrices, and (c) independence of observations. It was found that only the assumption of homogeneity of the covariance matrices was not met. However, this violation is supposed to produce a conservative multivariate test. Therefore, further analyses could be conducted without being concerned about infl ation of the level, although the violation did raise concern about increased likelihood of Type II error. Group responses to the Satisfaction With School Life scale were compared via a 2 2 ANOVA. The indepen-dent variables were school type (science school or general school) and gender (male or female), and the dependent variable was the total score on the Satisfaction With School Life scale. Individual items were analyzed descriptively, that is, means and standard deviations were computed. Students responses to the Satisfaction With School Life scale provided information about students direct apprais-als of their schooling. The responses of students attending the science high school to the open-ended questionnaire were summarized and were used to help interpret the results of the core analyses and to describe student per-ceptions of the science high school experience.

R e s u l t s

Reliability of the Instruments

On the subdimensions of psychological well-being, reliability coeffi cients ranged from .63 to .85 in the sci-ence high school sample, from .77 to .90 in the general high school sample, and from .76 to .88 in the total sample (see Table 2). Excluding the .63 reliability for autonomy

in the science high school sample, all alpha coeffi cients were above .75. At the level of the total scale, the alpha coeffi cient was .95. These reliability coeffi cients, although lower than those reported by Ryff (1989a, 1989b, 1992, 1995) when the instrument was used with adults in the United States, suggest that the Korean version of the Psychological Well-Being scales used in this research was a reliable measure of the well-being of high-ability adolescents. The alpha coeffi cients of the 13-item scale, Satisfaction With School Life, were .85 for the science high school sample, .85 for the general high school sample, and .90 for the total sample. These very high reliability coeffi cients suggest that Satisfaction With School Life scale was a reli-able measure.

Group Comparisons of Psychological Well-Being

The Psychological Well-Being scales were used to assess which group of students was offered better edu-cational experiences, with the assumption that students schooling experiences would affect their psychological well-being. It was assumed that the level of psychological well-being in the science high school sample would be higher than in the general high school sample. However, the MANOVA results indicated no statistically signifi -cant difference between groups (Hotellings T2 = .031, p

T a b l e 2

Internal Consistency (Alpha) Coeffi cients of Psychological Well-Being

Sciencen = 111

Generaln = 186

TotalN = 297

No. of Items

Autonomy 14 .63 .81 .76

Environmental mastery 14 .75 .77 .78

Personal growth 14 .76 .81 .78

Positive relationship with others

14 .85 .90 .88

Purpose of life 14 .81 .86 .85

Self-acceptance 14 .84 .89 .87

Total 84 .94 .95 .95

Note. = Cronbachs alpha coeffi cients.





= .384). As a result, no further univariate analyses on each dimension of psychological well-being were pursued. Mean responses of the high-ability students in this study on the subcomponents of the Psychological Well-Being scales are summarized by group and gender in Table 3.

Group Comparisons on Satisfaction With School Life The Satisfaction With School Life scale was used to assess how students perceived their school life. Whereas the Psychological Well-Being scales provided more indi-rect, contextual, and affective information about the impact of students school experiences, the Satisfaction With School Life scale provided more direct, contextual-ized, and cognitive information. To examine group differences in Satisfaction With School Life, a two-way analysis of variance was con-ducted for the total score of the Satisfaction With School Life scale. The 2 2 ANOVA results indicated that the school effect, F (1, 292) = 119.08, p < .01, was statisti-cally signifi cant; but the gender effect, F (1, 292) = .02, p = .89, and the interaction between school and gender, F (1, 292) = .06, p = .81, were not statistically signifi cant. The size of the main effect for school type was quite large (eta2 = .29) and, as a result, the observed power level was close to 1. Considering the suffi cient sample size for the 2 2 ANOVA design, on the other hand, the low level of power for any gender-related effects seemed to be due to the close-to-zero effect sizes (eta2 < .001 for both the gender effect and the gender-school interaction).

In order to understand how consistent the differences between samples were throughout the 13 items on the Satisfaction With School Life scale, means and standard deviations were computed (see Table 4) and group pro-fi les were compared in a line graph (see Figure 1). Items with especially large differences included Opportunities for Extracurricular Activities (Item 9), Exploration of Individual Interests (Item 10), Facilities for Experiments (Item 11), and Career Guidance (Item 12). The line graph shows that the science high school sample had higher mean scores on all 13 items, including Socioemotional Needs (Item 4). This suggests that the science high school was more effective than the regular high schools in meet-ing both the academic and social/emotional needs of gifted students. Some problems in the curricula of gen-eral high schools in Korea for high-ability students can be summarized based on these differences: teaching meth-ods are not suffi ciently varied, the schools do not provide many opportunities for exploration of individual interests or involvement in extracurricular activities, and the facili-ties and resources of these schools are inadequate to sup-port the learning of gifted students. As predicted by the literature, the result is lower satisfaction with schooling among gifted students and failure to meet the socioemo-tional needs of gifted students. It is also notable that there was not much difference between the groups with respect to Close Relationship With Peers (Item 7). The literature suggests that many high-ability students in high schools in the United States have diffi culty fi nding intellectual peers when placed in regular classrooms, and some of them even experience

T a b l e 3

Subscale Scores in Psychological Well-Being

Science General

Male(n = 92)

Female(n = 18)

Male(n = 120)

Female(n = 18)

M SD M SD M SD M SD

Autonomy 3.60 0.47 3.59 0.45 3.55 0.64 3.70 0.64

Environmental mastery 3.92 0.58 3.96 0.63 3.93 0.73 3.92 0.55

Personal growth 4.23 0.57 4.41 0.46 3.93 0.73 3.92 0.55

Positive relationship with others 3.96 0.74 3.79 0.99 4.05 0.77 4.08 0.84

Purpose of life 4.10 0.64 4.31 0.62 4.14 0.75 4.33 0.65

Self-acceptance 3.62 0.67 3.71 0.89 3.54 0.76 3.73 0.74

Note. All psychological well-being subscales were assessed on a 6-point scale. The higher value indicates the higher level of psychological well-being.





alienation from their classmates because of the highly able students devotion to strong academic interests (Austin & Draper, 1981; Feldhusen & Dai, 1997; Gross, 1998). However, the results of this study imply that most high-ability students in Korea can maintain and enjoy good relationships with their chronological peers, regardless of their educational setting. This might be due to the strong support for academic achievement in Korean peer culture.

Responses to Open-Ended Questions

The main purpose of this study was to investigate how well science high schools are serving high-ability students by assessing their psychological well-being and satisfac-tion with school life. In order to collect more information about how students felt about their experiences in science high schools, an additional open-ended questionnaire was administered to the science high school sample. The responses to the question What are you most satisfi ed with at your science high school? are presented in Table

5. There were not many students who reported com-plaints. About half of the students responded that they were most satisfi ed with their good relationships with others (peers, teachers, and seniors/juniors) (47.1%). It was expected that students would be able to enjoy bet-ter relationships with their peers due to their similar aca-demic interests. Almost a third said they appreciated the freedom in school life that they enjoyed at the residential school. The high number of spontaneous responses in these categories provide further support for positive affec-tive impact of the special school. To the fi nal question, Do you think you made the right decision to enter a science high school?, 93.1% of students reported that they felt they had made the right decision. Only 7 students out of 102 felt they had made the wrong decision. Among those 7 students, 6 students mentioned disadvantages in college entrance as the rea-son for their No response, and the other student men-tioned relational diffi culties with peers. The disadvantage in college entrance refers to the fact that colleges in Korea are legally obligated to use academic rank within each

T a b l e 4

Means and Standard Deviations of Satisfaction With School Life Scale

Science GeneralMale

(n = 93)Female(n = 18)

Male(n = 120)

Female(n = 65)

No Item Description M SD M SD M SD M SD

1 Teachers knowledge 4.36 1.50 4.95 .91 3.92 1.23 3.75 1.39

2 Teaching methods 4.17 1.11 4.52 .71 3.21 1.14 3.22 1.18

3 Level of curriculum 4.44 1.12 4.57 1.02 3.16 1.25 3.42 1.10

4 Socioemotional needs 4.26 1.40 4.10 1.63 2.87 1.26 3.07 1.13

5 Relationship with teachers 4.80 1.09 4.52 1.68 3.61 1.46 3.45 1.40

6 Intellectual peers 4.19 1.47 4.42 1.15 3.74 1.12 3.75 1.25

7 Relationship with peers 4.63 1.19 3.95 1.64 4.29 1.27 4.46 1.04

8 Cooperative learning 4.34 1.18 4.33 1.19 3.57 1.24 3.64 1.17

9 Extracurricular activities 4.66 1.35 4.24 .95 2.04 1.40 2.84 1.58

10 Individual exploration 3.77 1.43 3.67 1.52 1.94 1.21 1.82 1.12

11 Facilities and resources 4.90 1.08 5.29 .67 2.48 1.29 2.03 1.00

12 Career guidance 3.99 1.36 4.14 1.15 2.44 1.26 2.32 1.15

13 Personality development 3.96 1.42 3.62 1.40 2.58 1.39 2.66 1.27

Total 56.48 10.08 56.33 9.86 39.86 10.21 40.43 9.17





school, without considering particular school contexts, in admission decisions. The government and colleges are attempting to address this issue.

D i s c u s s i o n

The main purpose of this study was to examine whether adolescents in science high schools have a higher level of psychological well-being and school-life satisfac-tion than their counterparts in general high schools. The researchers administered the Psychological Well-Being

scales and Satisfaction With School Life scale to adoles-cents from one science high school and several general high schools. When high-ability adolescents from the two different school types were compared, no statisti-cally signifi cant difference in psychological well-being was detected. However, adolescents from the science high school showed higher levels of satisfaction with their school life than ones from the general high schools. The psychological well-being of high-ability stu-dents was investigated, based on three assumptions: (a) Science high schools meet the academic and emotional needs of high-ability students better than general high

Figure 1. Group profi les in satisfaction with school life

T a b l e 5

Responses to the Open-Ended Question What Are You Most Satisfi ed With Among Your Expectations of the Science High School?

Category na %

Good relationships with peers, teachers, and older/younger students 48 47.1

Freedom in school life 31 30.4

Hands-on activities (e.g., experiments) 30 29.4

Advanced curriculum 26 25.5

Facilities (experimental tools, computers) 24 23.5

Residential system 15 14.7

Extracurricular activities (e.g., club activities) 10 9.8

Knowledgeable teachers 9 8.8

True peers (on an academically similar level) 8 7.8

Good food in the school cafeteria 7 6.9

Natural environment (quiet neighborhood, clean air) 7 6.9

Note. The number of valid cases (N) = 102.a n = number of students making a response in this category. Respondents were allowed to make multiple responses to each question. Therefore, the sum of ns may exceed N.





schools; (b) the more the academic and emotional needs of adolescents are met, the higher the level of well-being and satisfaction they will experience; and (c) the well-being of high-ability adolescents can be measured by the Psychological Well-Being scales developed by Ryff (1989a). Considering the results from the Satisfaction With School Life scale and the open-ended questions to the science high school sample, the fi rst assumption seems to be tenable. The results of the Satisfaction With School Life scale indicated that the science high school students have considerably higher levels of satisfaction with their school life. The science high school samples responses to the open-ended questions also showed that the students enjoyed the advanced curriculum, competent teachers, and satisfactory relationships with teachers and peers, all of which they did not experience during their middle school years. However, nonsignifi cant differences in psychological well-being cast suspicion on the other two assumptions. In fact, there have been debates about whether psycho-logical well-being is a stable personal trait or a variable state (Stones, Hadjistavropoulos, Tuukko, & Kozma, 1995; Veenhoven, 1994). For example, a study on several thousand middle-aged twins (Lykken & Tellegen, 1996) showed that from 44% to 52% of the variance in psy-chological well-being is associated with genetic variation, while neither socioeconomic status, educational attain-ment, family income, marital status, nor an indicant of religious commitment account for more than about 3% of the variance. If the effect of the school setting on the variance of students psychological well-being is minimal, studies using psychological well-being measures to inves-tigate the school effects are not likely to produce useful results. The Psychological Well-Being scale (Ryff, 1989a) is a relatively new tool and has not been administered to adolescents in any prior studies. Even if it is based on a solid theoretical structure, the validity of the use of this measurement for short-term program evaluation may not be tenable.

Limitations

One of the purposes of this study was to investigate the effects of educational setting on the psychological well-being and school satisfaction of high-ability stu-dents. A random sampling would have enabled more robust causal interpretations of the effects of the spe-cial school. However, randomization was not feasible ethically or practically in this study. This study could not assign students to a treatment group, a science high school, or a general high school for randomization, nor

could it change the current selection system into a draw-ing system for random sampling. Lack of random sam-pling limits the ability to make causal inferences about the infl uence of school type on student well-being and satisfaction. The study was quasi-experimental because intact groups were used for the comparison. An effort was made to ensure group comparability by selecting students of similar ability levels from the same province in a relatively homogenous country. However, there may have been differences in the groups because the student attend-ing the science high school had (a) chosen to apply and (b) been accepted on a competitive basis. This creates a selection threat to the validity of the study. For example, perhaps the more educationally motivated students or the more self-confi dent students were the ones who chose to take advantage of the science high school opportunity. In addition, although the students were similar with respect to middle school grades and high school entrance exam scores, they may have been different with respect to career goals and interests. The families of the science high school students may have been different in ways that infl uenced their outlook on schooling. In addition, students were not pretested on well-being, so we dont know if the sim-ilar well-being of the students in both groups was related to preexisting traits or to the infl uence, positive or nega-tive, of schooling. For example, it is possible that students who score lower with respect to well-being choose to go to special schools and then their well-being rises. Future research should identify and control for such possible pre-existing differences in high-ability students attending the general and special high schools. This study also has limitations in generalizing the results to similar types of schools in other countries, and even to other schools in Korea. For example, differences in Korean educational environments, college entrance systems, cultural environments, and family dynam-ics may create diffi culties in generalizing the results to residential science high schools of Western countries. In addition, educational environments in Korea and the Korean science high schools themselves are changing a lot, year by year. Hence, the study should be replicated with other special schools both in Korea and in other countries.

Implications for Research: Affective Issues of the Gifted

Research on high-ability students has tended to focus on the cognitive sphere, though a growing body of litera-ture has recognized the importance of social and person-





ality factors in work with high-ability students (Delisle, 1984, 1986; Neihart et al., 2002; Silverman, 1993). There is strong support for educating highly able students in a segregated setting on intellectual and academic grounds (Feldhusen, 1989). However, little is known about the effects of the educational setting on the social/emo-tional development of these students. This study was an attempt to explore the effects of the segregated setting on selected affective variables in high-ability students. The failure to detect a signifi cant effect on psychological well-being may indicate that some socioemotional constructs may be independent of the contextual features of daily life and that a very minimal amount of variance may be accounted for by the effect of a particular educational setting. Alternatively, it may take a longer time in a new setting for changes to occur in variables such as auton-omy, personal growth, and purpose in life. Longitudinal research is needed to determine whether these charac-teristics might change over time due to participation in gifted programming. This short-term socioemotional outcome study was designed to set the stage for the continued elaboration of a longitudinal model of students psychological well-being. Longitudinal research will be necessary if the relation-ship between students psychological well-being and the contextual features of school life is to be explored fully. It would be particularly interesting to use growth curve anal-yses to investigate how psychological well-being interacts with individual positive and negative events during the school years and to fi nd the dynamics and mechanisms of changing and improving levels of individual psycho-logical well-being. In addition, this study suggests that we need to search for more appropriate existing measures of high-ability students well-being or create a whole new measure for this purpose that is designed to measure well-being in high-ability youth. On the other hand, in this study the more direct approach to measuring gifted student well-being via a sat-isfaction scale distinctly revealed that the special school setting was perceived favorably by high-ability students. The satisfaction approach seems to be more suitable for research questions about the appropriateness of specifi c aspects of special educational programs for high-ability students. However, it should be noted that students sat-isfaction is not always a valid measure of the success of a program. For example, students sometimes dont like interventions in the present even though they are very helpful to them over a longer term perspective. Exploring the effectiveness of schooling for high-ability students should include more than measuring students satisfac-tion by asking students how satisfi ed they are with vari-

ous aspects of their school life. It should also include the impact of the intervention on variables like achievement, specifi c social/emotional outcomes, career choices, and talent development.

Implications for Practice: Special Schools for the Gifted

Setting aside all inferential tests in this study, student responses via open-ended questions also provided much useful information. Almost all science high school stu-dents thought they had made the right choice to enter a science high school and were enjoying educational environments that they felt were especially suitable for them. This fi nding supports previous research that has found that residential high schools are a particularly effective talent development context for high-ability students (Feldhusen & Boggess, 2000; Kolloff, 2003). Providing adequate educational services for high-abil-ity students in both homogeneous and heterogeneous contexts should be a major focus for all countries in the 21st century.

R e f e r e n c e s

Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Argyle, M., Martin, M., & Crossland, J. (1989). Happiness as a function of personality and social encounters. In J. P. Forgas & J. M. Innes (Eds.), Recent advances in social psychol-ogy: An international perspective (pp. 189203). Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Co.

Austin, A. B., & Draper, D. C. (1981). Peer relationships of the academically gifted: A review. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, 129133.

Barnett, L. B., & Durden, W. G. (1993). Education patterns of academically talented youth. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 161168.

Benbow, C. P., & Lubinski, D. (1997). Intellectually talented children: How can we best meet their needs? In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp.155169). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Benbow, C. P., & Minor, L. L. (1990). Cognitive pro-fi les of verbally and mathematically precocious students: Implications for identifi cation of the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34, 2126.

Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. (Eds.). (1983). Academic precocity: Aspects of its development. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.





Bland, L. C., Sowa, C. J., & Callahan, C. M. (1994). An overview of resilience in gifted children. Roeper Review, 17, 7780.

Borg, W. R., Gall, J. P., & Gall, M. D. (1993). Applying educational research: A practical guide (3rd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Bradburn, N. M. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Chicago: Aldine Press.

Brody, L. E., & Stanley, J. C. (1991). Young college stu-dents: Assessing factors that contribute to success. In W. T. Southern & E. D. Jones (Eds.), Academic acceleration of gifted children (pp. 102132). New York: Teachers College Press.

Bryant, M. A. (1991). Challenging gifted learners through childrens literature. Gifted Child Today, 12(4), 4548.

Buhler, C. (1935). The curve of life as studied in biographics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 19, 405409.

Carter, K. (1986). A cognitive outcome study to evaluate cur-riculum for the gifted. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10, 4155.

Clark, J. J., & Dixon, D. N. (1997). The impact of social skills training on self-concept of gifted high school students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 8, 179188.

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (Eds.). (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back Americas brightest students (Vol. 2). Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Coleman, L. J. (2001). A rag quilt: Social relationships among students in a special high school. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45, 164173.

Cornell, D. G. (1990). High ability students who are unpopular with their peers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34, 155160.

Cross, T. L., Coleman, L. J., & Terhaar-Yonkers, M. (1991). The social cognition of gifted adolescents in schools: Managing the stigma of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15, 4455.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Low.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers: The roots of success and failure. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Davidson, J. E. (1986). The role of insight in giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 201222). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Delcourt, M. A. B., Loyd, B. H., Cornell, D. G., & Goldberg, M. D. L. (1994). Evaluation of the effects of programming arrangements on student learning outcomes (Monograph of the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented No. 94108). Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut.

Delisle, J. R. (1984). Gifted children speak out. New York: Walker & Co.

Delisle, J. R. (1986). Death with honors: Suicide among gifted adolescents. Journal of Counseling and Development, 64, 558560.

Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542575.

Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of hap-piness, and a proposal for a national index. The American Psychologist, 55, 3443.

Dixon, F. A., Lapsley, D. K., & Hanchon, T. A. (2004). An empirical typology of perfectionism in gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 95106.

Dorsel, T. N., & Wages, C. (1993). Gifted, residential educa-tion: Outcomes are largely favorable, but there are some cautions. Roeper Review, 15, 239242.

Eilber, C. R. (1987). The North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics. Phi Delta Kappan, 68, 773777.

Eilber, C. R., & Warshaw, S. J. (1988). North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics: The special envi-ronment within a statewide science high school. In P. F. Brandwein & A. H. Passow (Eds.), Gifted young in science: Potential through performance (pp. 201207). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.

Erikson, E. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. Psychological Issues, 1, 18164.

Feldhusen, J. F. (1989). Synthesis of research on gifted youth. Educational Leadership, 46(6), 611.

Feldhusen, J. F., & Boggess, J. (2000). Secondary schools for academically talented youth. Gifted Education International, 14, 170176.

Feldhusen, J. F., & Dai, D. Y. (1997). Gifted students atti-tudes and perceptions of the gifted label, special programs, and peer relations. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 9, 1520.

Feldhusen, J. F., & Kroll, M. D. (1991). Boredom or challenge for the academically talented in school. Gifted Education International, 7, 8081.

Feldhusen, J. F., VanTassel-Baska, J. L., & Seeley, K. R. (1989). Excellence in educating the gifted. Denver, CO: Love Publishing Company.

Fetterman, D. M. (1988). Excellence and equality: A qualitatively different perspective on gifted and talented education. New York: State University of New York Press.

Flanagan, J. C. (1979). Identifying opportunities for improving quality of life of older age groups. Palo Alto, CA: American Institute for Research in the Behavioral Sciences.

Fox, L. H., Brody, L., & Tobin, D. (1985). The impact of early intervention programs upon course-taking and attitudes in high school. In S. F. Chipman, L. R. Brush, & D. M. Wilson (Eds.), Women and mathematics: Balancing the equa-tion (pp. 249174). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gallagher, J. J. (1986). The need for programs for young gifted children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 6, 18.

Gottfried, A. E., & Gottfried, A. W. (1996). A longitudinal study of academic intrinsic motivation in intellectually gifted children: Childhood through early adolescence. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 179183.





Grimm, L. G., & Yarnold, P. R. (1995). Reading and understanding multivariate statistics. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Gross, M. U. M. (1993). Exceptionally gifted children. London: Routledge.

Gross, M. U. M. (1994). Radical acceleration: Responding to the academic and social needs of extremely gifted adoles-cents. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 5(4), 2734.

Gross, M. U. M. (1998). Issues in assessing the highly gifted. Understanding Our Gifted, 10(2), 38.

Gross, M. U. M. (2002). Social and emotional issues for excep-tionally intellectually gifted students. 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. 1929). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Herron, J. E. (1999). The relationship between coping strategy and outcome after frontal lobe damage. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60 (05), 2343B. (UMI No. AAT9930161)

Hollingworth, L. S. (1926). Gifted children: Their nature and nur-ture. New York: Macmillan.

Jackson, N. E. (1988). Precocious reading ability: What does it mean? Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 200204.

Jahoda, M. (1958). Current concepts of positive mental health. New York: Basic Books.

Jin, S., & Feldhusen, J. F. (2000, July). Boredom or challenge of gifted students in classrooms. Ideaccion, 16, 4757.

Jung, C. G. (1933). Modern man in search of a soul. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.

Keiley, M. K. (1997). Affect regulation in adolescents: Does the man-agement of feelings differ by gender and/or by method of measure-ment. Unpublished Manuscript.

Keppel, G. (1991). Design and analysis: A researchers handbook (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ; Prentice-Hall.

Kitano, M. K., & Lewis, R. B. (2005). Resilience and coping: Implications for gifted children and youth at risk. Roeper Review, 27, 200205.

Kolloff, P. B. (2003). State-supported residential high schools. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of Gifted Education (3rd ed., pp. 238246). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1992). Meta-analytic fi ndings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 7377.

Lewis, G. (1993). Keeping the options open: Curriculum at the Louisiana School for Math, Science and the Arts. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 387399.

Lipkin, J. P. (1999). Person-organization fi t and creative think-ing: A study of the relationship between person-organiza-tion value fi t and creative thinking. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60 (05), 2398B. (UMI No. AAT9929046)

Lykken, D., & Tellegen, A. (1996). Happiness is a stochastic phenomenon. Psychological Science, 7, 186189.

Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being (2nd ed.). New York: Van Nostrand.

Milgram, R. M., & Milgram, N. A. (1976). Personality characteristics of gifted Israeli children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 129, 185194.

Moon, S. M. (2003). Developing personal talent. In F. J. Mnks & H. Wagner (Eds.), Development of human potential: Investment into our future. Proceedings of the 8th Conference of the European Council for High Ability (ECHA; pp. 1121). Bad Honnef, Germany: K. H. Bock.

Moon, S. M., Feldhusen, J. F., & Dillon, D. R. (1994). Long-term effects of an enrichment program based on the Purdue Three-Stage Model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 3848.

Moon, S. M., & Thomas, V. (2003). Family therapy with gifted and talented adolescents. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 14, 107113.

Myers, D. (2000). The funds, friends, and faith of happy people. The American Psychologist, 55, 5667.

Nail, J. M., & Evans, J. G. (1997). The emotional adjustment of gifted adolescents: A view of global functioning. Roeper Review, 20, 1821.

Neihart, M. (2002). Risk and resilience in gifted children: A conceptual framework. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emo-tional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 113122). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Neihart, M., Reis, S. M., Robinson, N. M., & Moon, S. M. (Eds.). (2002). The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Olszewski-Kubilius, P. M., & Grant, B. (1996). Academically talented women and mathematics: The role of special programs and support from others in acceleration, achieve-ment and aspirations. In K. D. Noble & R. G. Subotnik (Eds.), Remarkable women: Perspectives on female talent develop-ment (pp. 281294). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Piechowski, M. M. (2003). Emotional and spiritual gifted-ness. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 403416). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). The schoolwide enrich-ment model: New directions for developing high-end learning. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 7588). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Renzulli, J. S., Smith, L. H., White, A. J., Callahan, C. M., & Hartman, R. K. (1976). Scales for the Rating of Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Student. Mansfi eld Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Robinson, N. M., Reis, S. M., Neihart, M., & Moon, S. M. (Eds.). (2002). Social and emotional issues: What have we learned and what should we do now? 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. 267289). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapists view of psychotherapy. Boston: Houghton Miffl in.

Rogers, K. B. (1991). The relationship of grouping practices to the education of the gifted and talented learner: An executive summary. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, NRCG/T.





Rogers, K. B. (2002). Grouping the gifted and talented: Questions and answers. Roeper Review, 24, 102107.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social develop-ment and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 6878.

Ryff, C. D. (1989a). Beyond Ponce de Leon and life satisfac-tion: New directions in quest successful aging. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 12, 3555.

Ryff, C. D. (1989b). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 10691081.

Ryff, C. D. (1992). The interpretation of life experience and well-being: The sample case of grown children and self. Psychology and Aging, 7, 507517.

Ryff, C. D. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 719727.

Ryff, C. D., Lee, Y., & Na, K. (1993). Through the lens of culture: Psychological well-being at midlife. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Silverman, L. K. (1993). The gifted individual. In L. K. Silverman (Ed.), Counseling the gifted and talented (pp. 328). Denver, CO: Love Publishing Company.

Slavin, R. E. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60, 471499.

Smith, C. B. (1991). Literature for gifted and talented. The Reading Teacher, 44, 608609.

Sowa, C. J., & May, K. M. (1997). Expanding Lazarus and Folkmans paradigm to the social and emotional adjust-ment of gifted children and adolescents (SEAM). Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 3643.

Speirs Neumeister, K. L. (2004). Factors infl uencing the devel-opment of perfectionism in gifted college students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 259274.

Stanley, J. C. (1991). A better model for residential high schools for talented youths. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(6), 471473.

Stones, M. J., Hadjistavropoulos, T., Tuukko, H., & Kozma, A. (1995). Happiness has traitlike and statelike properties: A reply to Veenhoven. Social Indicators Research, 36, 129144.

Swaitek, M. A., & Benbow, C. P. (1991). Ten-year longitudinal follow-up of ability-matched accelerated and unaccelerated gifted students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 528538.

Tannenbaum, A. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educa-tional perspectives. New York: Macmillan.

Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 1. Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1947). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 4. The gifted child grows up. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Vaughn, V. L., Feldhusen, J. F., & Asher, J. W. (1991). Meta-analyses and review of research on pull-out programs in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 9298.

Veenhoven, R. (1984). Conditions of happiness. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Veenhoven, R. (1994). Is happiness a trait? Tests of the theory that a better society does not make people any happier. Social Indicators Research, 33, 101160.

Walberg, H. J., Tsai, S., Weinstein, T., Gabriel, C. L., Rasher, S. P., Rosecrans, T., et al. (1981). Childhood traits and environmental conditions of highly eminent adults. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, 103107.

Wendorf, D. J., & Frey, J. (1985). Family therapy with the intellectually gifted. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 13, 3138.

Westberg, K. L., Archambault, F. X., Dobyns, S. M., & Salvin, T. J. (1993). The classroom practices observational study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 120146.

Whitmore, J. R. (1980). Giftedness, confl ict, and underachievement. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Winner, E. (1997). Exceptionally high intelligence and school-ing. American Psychologist, 52, 10701081.

Winner, E., & Martino, G. (2000). Giftedness in non-academic domains: The case of the visual arts and music. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mnks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 95110). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.

Wu, W. T., Cho, S., & Munandar, U. (2000). Programs and practices for identifying and nurturing giftedness and talent in Asia (outside the mainland of China). In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mnks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 765777). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.

A u t h o r N o t e

This work was partially supported by the Faculty Research Fund of Konkuk University.



A Study of Well-Being and School Satisfaction Among Academically Talented Students

Documents

Transcript of A Study of Well-Being and School Satisfaction Among Academically Talented Students