本研究旨在探討自民56至民90共計35年間，我國資優教育實徵性研究之研究變項累計情形，包括作者背景、研究相關特徵、樣本特性、評量工具及方法、資料處理方式等五大面向，以瞭解歷年來研究成果之全貌。另抽離出創造思考教學研究進行後設分析，以了解資優教育創造思考教學之成效及可能的影響變項，進而提出教學上之具體建議。
本研究採用內容分析法及後設分析法。在內容分析方面，研究者以自編之登錄表甲式登錄441篇實徵性研究之內容，再以次數分配及百分比進行資料處理；在後設分析方面，以自編之登錄表乙式登錄15篇創造思考教學實驗研究，運用Hedge與Olkin（1985）的技術計算加權平均效果量d+值，並採用「類別模式」尋找可能影響創造思考教學的調節變項。綜合歸納結果如下：
一、 內容分析方面
（一）作者背景
1. 資優教育領域有一群核心研究者經常性發表研究
2. 男女性研究者比例相當，近年來有女性多於男性之趨勢
3. 我國資優教育研究偏向單一著作，除博碩士論文外，單一與聯合著作比例約為2：1
4. 第一線教學人員從事研究的比率低落，僅佔一成左右
（二）研究相關特徵
1. 期刊為實徵性研究的主要來源，其次為博碩士論文，且數量均隨年代而增加
2. 特殊教育學術性期刊刊登資優教育研究的比率偏低
3. 研究主題隨年代趨於多元化，「情意特質與社會適應」、「認知思考特質」、「生涯及追蹤」及「資優教育政策、制度及現況」為最常見之主題
4. 不同資料來源所著重的主題不盡相同，
5. 調查法與相關研究為最常用之研究方法，發展研究最為缺乏
（三）研究樣本
1. 取樣區域集中在都會區，且由北向南遞減
2. 研究對象偏重一般智能優異資優生，且以國小高年級學生為主
3. 不同主題之研究對象分布不均，「身心特質」研究對象多為國小資優生；「生涯及追蹤」、「資優教育政策、制度及現況」則集中在高中階段。
4. 缺乏對學前資優、身心障礙資優、文化殊異資優及低成就資優生等特殊族群的研究
5. 立意取樣為主要的取樣方式
（四）研究方法及工具
1. 研究者傾向以紙筆評量方式蒐集資料，近年來蒐集方式逐漸多元化
2. 問卷回收率大多良好，回收率多達七成以上
3. 現成的評量工具不足，且集中在特定主題
（五）資料處理方式
1. 資料處理方式以量化分析居多，多偏向初等或中等的統計
2. 不同資料來源均常用「描述性統計」、「t/z考驗」、「變異數分析」統計方法，然運用比重不同
3. 研究主題有集中特定統計方法之情形
二、 後設分析方面
1. 創造思考教學對提升資優生創造力具中小程度的效果
2. 創造思考教學對提升不同面向之創造力有不同的影響，依成效大小為變通力、獨創力、流暢力及精進力。
3. 創造思考教學可提升資優生高層次認知思考及學業成就的表現
4. 在調節變項之尋找上，教材來源、測驗工具種類兩因素為影響教學實驗效果之調節變項。
本研究最後依據研究結果對教育當局即學校、學術研究單位、教學研究提出若干點具體建議。
關鍵字：資優教育研究、內容分析、後設分析

The main purposes of this study are: (1) to investigate the outcomes of experimental variables of researches in gifted education from 1967 to 2001. The features of this analysis are included researchers’ background, related features, the traits of subjects, assessment materials, and the analysis methods of data; (2) to investigate the overall weighted mean- effect sizes of creativity, cognitive thinking abilities, the performance of achievement in creative thinking instruction with meta-analysis method, and to find out moderator variables that may influence the effects of creative thinking instruction.
After systematic searching for the literature from bibliography and electronic database, 441 researches were coded for content analysis, and the related data were calculated with frequency and percentage. Besides, 15 researches on creative thinking instruction were coded for meta-analysis, and the effect- sizes were calculated by Hedges and Olkin’s(1985) procedure. Furthermore, this study was tested all coded features by ‘Categorical Model’ to find out moderator variables. The followings are major results of this study:
1. In content analysis
A. Researchers’ background
a. One group of core researchers conducts studies frequently on gifted education.
b. The number of female researchers has been increasing during those years, and almost catches up with that of male researchers.
c. Most researches on the current gifted education are almost finished by only one author, except for the dissertations/ theses. The number of working-alone researcher nearly doubles than that of group-working ones.
d. Only few teachers engaged in research.
B. Related features
a. The quantity of journals that dominates the sources of empirical researches conducted by dissertations/theses has been increasing those years.
b. Few researches on gifted education are issued in the journals of special education.
c. Topics keep changing every year. Some popular topics are: “Emotion Characteristics and Social Adaptation”, “Cognitive Thinking Characteristics”, “Carrier and Tracking”, and “Policies and System of Gifted Education”.
d. Different sources focus on different topics.
e. Survey and correlational researches are the methods used by the researchers most frequently.
C. The traits of subjects
a. Sampling areas focus on cities, and decrease from north to south.
b. The majority of samples are general ability gifted, especially for high- grade students in the elementary schools.
c. The different topics are not in a normal distribution.
d. Lack of studies for pre-school gifted, handicapped gifted, culturally disadvantage gifted, and underachieving gifted students.
e. Purposeful- sampling is the major method of sampling.
D. Assessment materials
a. Many researchers are willing to collect data with paper-writing instead of related instructional methods. But, it’s good to see that the following researchers use one more methods afterwards.
b. The 70% return rate of questionnaire is pretty high satisfactory.
c. Standardized assessment instruments are not enough, and they only focus on some specific topics.
E. The analysis methods for data
a. Most data processing methods rely on quantitative analysis. And statistics methods are usually adopted by basic and intermediate skills.
b. Statistics methods adopted more frequently are: “descriptive statistics”, “t/z test”, “analysis of variance“.
c. Most research topics used “descriptive statistics” statistic methods frequently.
2. In meta-analysis
A. The overall weighted mean- effect size of creative thinking on instructional studies was between middle and small magnitude.
B. The Instruction for creative thinking promotes different creativities. The descending orders of the weighted mean- effect size of creativities were flexibility, originality, fluency, and elaboration.
C. Instruction for creative thinking promotes the performance of high-level cognitive thinking and achievements of gifted students.
D. The moderator variables of creative thinking studies were sources of teaching materials, and many kinds of assessment instrument.
Base on the results of study, the researchers also provided a discussion and made some recommendations to upgrade the reliability and efficiency of gifted education.
Keywords: empirical researches, content analysis, meta-analysis

壹、中文參考書目
王文科（民84）：教育研究法。台北：五南。
王木榮（民74）：威廉斯創造力測驗修訂研究。台灣教育學院輔導研究所碩士論文，未出版。
王石番（民82）：傳播內容分析法—理論與實證。台北：幼獅。
王振德（民83）：我國資優教育的發展於回顧。載於開創資優教育的新世紀（21-32頁）。國立台灣師大特教系所、中華民國特殊教育學會。
王瓊珠（民90）：台灣地區讀寫障礙研究回顧與展望。國家科學委員會研究彙刊：人文及社會科學，11（4），331-344頁。
朱柔若譯（民89）：社會研究方法 : 質化與量化取向。臺北市：揚智文化。
吳明清（民81）：教育研究基本觀念與方法之分析。台北：五南。
吳武典（民83）：資優教育之研究與課題。載於開創資優教育的新世紀（1-20頁）。國立台灣師大特教系所、中華民國特殊教育學會。
吳武典（民85）：我國資優教育政策分析與調查研究。資優教育研究學刊，13，179-206。
吳武典（民87）：世界性的思維，本土化的行動－資優教育的發展與展望。載於資優教育二十五週年研討會論文專輯（19-39頁）。國立台灣師大特教系所、中華民國特殊教育學會。
吳武典（民89）：資優教育全方為發展策略的整合型研究。載於資優教育的全方為發展（1-23頁）。國立台灣師大特教系所、中華資優教育學會。
吳武典、蔡崇建（民70）：三十年來我國特殊教育圖書摘要與論文索引。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育中心。
吳武典、蔡崇建（民72）：民國69-70年特殊教育圖書論文摘要。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育中心。
吳武典、蔡崇建（民73）：民國71-72年特殊教育圖書論文摘要。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育中心。
吳武典、蔡崇建（民75）：民國73-74年特殊教育圖書論文摘要。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育中心。
吳武典、蔡崇建、郭靜姿（民78）：民國74-77年特殊教育圖書論文摘要。
李宏鎰（民90）：教育研究法。臺北市：考用。
李明生（民61）：影響才賦優異兒童教育之家庭因素。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
李懿逢（民88）：綜合性向測驗較度概化之研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文，未出版。
汪榮才（民61）：才賦優異兒童概念學習歷程之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
林邦傑（民76）：整合分析的理論及其在國內的應用。教育與心理研究學報，10，1-38。
林坤燦、陳永福（民83）：台灣近三十年智能不足研究內涵及趨勢分析。特殊教育季刊，50，14-18。
林幸台（民62）：創造性教學對才賦優異者創造力之發展的影響。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
林幸台（民85）：資優教育研究之回顧與檢討。國立教育資料館資料集刊，21，111-124。
林惠芬（民89）：國內三份主要特殊教育學術研究期刊所使用之統計方法的分析與探討。特殊教育研究學刊，18，1-14。
林義男、陳淳文、陳淳文（民78）：內容分析法導論。台北市：巨流。
林靜芬（民89）：我國成人教育研究所碩士論文內容分析之研究。淡江大學資訊科學碩士論文，未出版。
施孟雅（民81）：從專業期刊文獻分析我國台灣地區的圖書館學研究。台灣大學圖書資訊研究所碩士論文，未出版。
洪儷瑜、蘇芳柳（民83）：我國近十年來資優教育重要研究成果剖析。資優教育季刊，50，14-19。
席汝楫（民86）：社會與行為科學研究方法。台北：五南。
高美英譯（民88）：研究文獻之回顧與整合。台北市：弘智文化。
張世彗（民85）：我國一般能力資賦優異教育的回顧與前瞻。國立教育資料館資料集刊，21，144-154。
張蓓莉（民80）：民國78-79年特殊教育圖書論文摘要。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育中心。
張蓓莉（民82）：民國80-81年特殊教育圖書論文摘要。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育中心。
張蓓莉（民88）：民國82-87年特殊教育圖書論文摘要。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育中心。
許俊傑、陳慧霞、藍守仁（民84）：統合分析的概念與方法。公共衛生，22（1），41-49。
連啟舜（民91）：國內閱讀理解教學研究成效之統合分析。國立台灣師範大學心理教育與輔導研究所碩士論文，未出版。
郭靜姿（民88）：資賦優異教育概論。載於中華民國特殊教育概況，教育部。
陳永慶（民90）：國內心理治療與諮商輔導效果的整合分析研究。高雄醫學大學行為科學研究所碩士論文，未出版。
陳龍安（民82）：資賦優異與創造思考教育圖書論文摘要。臺北市立師範學院創造思考教育中心。
陳龍安（民87）：創造思考教學的理論與實際。台北：心理。
賀德潤（民86）：領導行為與工作滿足的整合分析:以國內博碩士論文為例。高雄醫學院行為科學研究所碩士論文，未出版。
黃瑞煥（民61）：才賦優異兒童自我觀念與情緒穩定性之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
黃寶園（民87）：柯氏性格量表效度概化之統合分析。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文，未出版。
楊克平（民88）：統合分析：一種量性的研究整合法。榮總護理，16（2），168-176。
詹志禹、林邦傑、謝高橋（民85）：我國青少年犯罪研究之整合分析。台北：行政院青年輔導委員會研究報告。
詹馨（民61）：國民中學才賦優異學生興趣調查研究。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
賈馥茗（民59）：創造能力發展之實驗研究。師大教欲研究所集刊，12，149-240。
歐用生（民82）：內容分析法。載於黃光雄、簡茂發主編，教育研究法（229-254頁）。台北市：師大書苑。
潘明宏、陳志瑋譯（民87）：社會科學研究方法。臺北市：韋伯文化。
蔡明富、林幸台（民88）：認知行為取向介入方案對攻擊傾向學生的輔導效果之後設分析。特殊教育研究學刊，17，274-295。
蔡崇建（民79）：資優教育研究的點、線、面。資優教育季刊，35，1-13。
蔡崇建（民81）：資優教育研究的取向與需求－從中小學教師的角度探討。資優教育季刊，43，6-9。
盧台華（民83a）：資優教育季刊之回顧剖析。資優教育季刊，50，3-5。
盧台華（民83b）：我國近十年來資優教育重要研究成果剖析。資優教育季刊，50，3-5。
鍾燕宜（民75）：我國工作滿足研究的整合分析。東海大學企業管理研究所碩士論文，未出版。
簡茂發（民84）：教育研究法。台北：師大書苑。
蘇芳柳、張蓓莉（民86）：台灣地區啟聰教育研究之回顧。載於1997年海峽兩岸特殊教育學術研討會論文彙編（160-186頁），教育部。
貳、英文參考書目
Asher, W. (1986). Conducting research with meta-analysis：A new direction for gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30(1), p7- 10.
Asher, W. (1991). Meta-analysis. In N. K. Buchanan, & J. F. Feldhusen(Ed. ), Conducting research and evaluation in gifted education: A handbook of methods and applications. (pp.220-241). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University Press.
Baer, J. (1994). Why you shouldn’t trust creativity tests. Educational Leadership, 51(4), 80-83.
Bébin, J., & Gagné, F. (1994). Predictors of attitudes toward gifted education: A review of the literature and a blueprint for future research. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 17(2) , 161- 179.
Becker, B. J. (1988). Synthesizing standardized mean- change measures. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 41, 257-278.
Buchanan, N. K., & Feldhusen, J. F. (Eds.) (1991). Conducting research and evaluation in gifted education. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University Press.
Carter, K. R., & Kontos, S. (1982). An application of cognitive developmental theory to the identification of gifted children. Roeper Review. 5(2), 17-20.
Carter, K. R., & Swanson, H. L. (1990) .An analysis of the most frequently cited journal articles since the Marland report: Implications for researchers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34, 116-123.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dane, F. C. (1990). Research method. California: Brooks/Cole.
Elmore, P. B.;& Woehlke, P. L. (1998). Twenty years of research methods employed in "American Educational Research Journal," "Educational Researcher," and "Review of Educational Research Research Association. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational, San Diego, CA, 1998. （ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED4207014).
Feldhusen, J. F. (1989). Synthesis of research on gifted youth. Educational Leadership, 46, 6-11.
Gallagher, J. J. (1986). A proposed federal role: Education of gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 43-46.
Gersten, R. & Vaughn, S. (2000). Meta-analysis in learning disabilities: Introduction to the special issue. The Elementary School, 101(3), 247-249.
Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Resaercher, 6, 3-6.
Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hill CA: Sage.
Goldring, E. B. (1990). Assessing the status of information on classroom organizational frameworks for gifted students. The Journal of Educational Resaerch, 83(6), 313-326.
Hays, T. S. (1993). An historical content analysis of publications in gifted education journals. Roeper Review, 16(1), 41-43.
Hedges, L., & Olkin, L. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Heller, K. A. (1991). Perspective of research on gifted and talent: A global review. World Gifted, 12(4), 7-12.
Heller, K. A. (1992). International trends and issues of research into giftedness. In W. T. Wu, C. C. Kuo, & J. Steeves(Eds. ), Proceedings of the second Asian conference on giftedness：Growing up gifted & talented(pp. 93-110). Taipei, Taiwan: National Taiwan University.
Heller, K. A. (1993). Structural tendencies and issues of research on giftedmess and talent. In K. A. Heller (Eds. ), International handbook of research on giftedness and talented. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Heller, K. A., & Menacher, P. (1992). Research on giftedness and talent in the Proceedings at the WCGT Conferences 1974- 1991. In F. J. Mönk, & W. A. M. Peters (Eds.), Talent for the future: Social and personality development of gifted children (pp. 138-148). Assen: Van Gorcum.
Hoge, R. D., & Renzulli, J. S. (1993). Exploring the link between giftedness and self-concept. Review of Educational Research, 63(4), 449-465.
Hunter, J. E. & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Method of meta-analysis: correcting error and bias in research finding. Newbury Park.
Kent, S. D. (1993). The effect of acceleration on the social and emotional development of gifted elementary students: A mate-analysis. Disseration Abstracts International, 54(2), 419A.
Kubilius, P. M. O., Kulieke, M .J. & Krasney. N. (1988). Personality dimensions of gifted adolescents: A review of the empirical literature. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32(4), 347-352.
Kulik, C. C., & Kulik, J. A. (1982). Effects of ability grouping on secondary school student: A meta-analysis of evaluation findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 414-428.
Kulik, C. C., & Kulik, J. A. (1984a). Effects of ability grouping on student achievement. Equality & Excellence, 23(1-2), 22-30. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.EJ361950).
Kulik, C. C., & Kulik, J. A. (1984b). Effects of accelerated instruction on students. Review of Educational Research, 54, 409-425.
Kulik, C. C., & Kulik, J. A. (1984c). Synthesis of research on effects of accelerated instruction. Educational Leadership, 42(2), 84-89.
Kulik, C. C., & Kulik, J. A. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(2), 73-77.
Kulik, C. C., & Kulik, J. A. (1997).Ability grouping. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education, (pp.230-242). Boston: MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Kulik, J. A.(1992). An analysis of the research on the ability grouping: Histirical contemporary perspectives. Monograph of the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED350777).
Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. –L. C. (1987). Effects of ability grouping on student achievement. Equity and Excellence, 23, 22-30.
Lauer, J. M., & Asher, J. W. (1988). Meta-analysis. In J. M. Lauer(Eds.), Composition research: Empirical designs (pp.204- 220). New York: Oxford.
LeMahieu, B. (1980). Synthesis of research on the gifted. Educational Leaderahip, 38(3), 261-265.
Mertens, D. M. (1998). Research methods in educayion and psychology. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.
Mönks, F. J., Heller. K. A. & Passow, A. H.(1993). The study of giftedness: Refections on where we are and where we are going. In F. J. Mönk, & W. A. M. Peters (Eds.), Talent for the future: social and personality development of gifted children (pp. 839-863). Assen: Van Gorcum.
Passow, A. H., Mönks, F. J. & Heller, K. A. (1993). Research and education of the gifted in the year 2000 and beyond. In F. J. Mönk, & W. A. M. Peters (Eds.), Talent for the future: Social and personality development of gifted children (pp. 883-903). Assen: Van Gorcum.
Plucker. J. A. (1997). Debunking the myth of the “highly significant” result: Effect sizes in gifted education research. Roeper Review, 20(2), 122-126.
Pyryt, M. C. (1988) .The gifted child quarterly as database. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of The National Association for Gifted Children, Orlando, FL, Nov.1988.
Rogers, B. & Thomas, C. S. (1986). Do the gifted think and learn differently? A review of recent research and its implications for instruction. Journal for the Education of Gifted, 5(1), 17-39.
Rogers, K. B. (1986) .Do the gifted think and learn differently? A review of recent research and its implications for instruction. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Council for Exceptional Children, New Orleans, LA.（ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED268754).
Rogers, K. B. (1988). Research methodology in the cognitive development of gifted learners: A preliminary analysis. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED303938).
Rogers, K. B. (1989) .A content analysis of the literature on gifted. Journal for The Education of The Gifted, 13(1), 78-88.
Rogers, K. L. B. (1991). A Best evidence synthesis of the research on types of accelerative programs for gifted students. Dissertation Abstract International, A52/3.
Rose, L. H., & Lin, H. (1987). A meta-analysis of long-term creativeity training programs. Journal of Creative Behavior, 18(1), 11-22.
Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem tolerance for null results. Psychology Bulletin, 86, 638-341.
Rosenthal, R. (1984). Meta-analysis procedure for social research. Beverly Hill, CA: Sage.
Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analysis procedure for social research.(Rev.ed). Beverly Hill, CA: Sage.
Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1982). A simple, general purpose display of magnitude of experimental effect. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 166-169.
Shaughnessy, M. F. (1984). Motivating the gifted, talented, creative . A meta-analysis. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED288313).
Shore, B. M. (1986). Cognition and giftedness: New research directions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 24-27.
Slavin, R. E. (1987).Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary school. : A best evidence synthsis. Review of Educational Research, 57, 293-336.
Slavin, R. E. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 471-499.
Sork, T. J. (1982). Meta-research in adult education through 1981:An histerical analysis and critical appraisal. The paper was presented at Adult Education Research Conference. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED307421).
Sork, T. J. (1982). Meta-research in adult education through 1981: An histerical analysis and critical appraisal. The paper was presented at Adult Education Research Conference. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED307421).
Sowell, E. J. (1993). Programs for mathematically gifted students: A review of empirical research. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(3), 132.
Steven, P. (1999). The relationship between gifted and self-concept: A meta-analysis of gifted research. Dissertation Abstract International, 37(2), 412.
Traxler, M. A. (1987). Gifted education program evaluation: A national review. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 5(2), 107-113.
Trenffinger, D. J., Speedie, S. M. & Brunner, W. D. (1974). Improving children’s creative problem solving ability: The Prude Creativity Project. Journal of Creative Behavior, 8, 20-30.
Urban, K. K. (1989). Research: evaluation and needs. Gifted Education International, 6(2), 122- 124.
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(2), 92-98.
Wallace, T. A. (1990). The effectis of inrichment on the gifted students: A quantitative synthesis. Disseration Abstracts International, 50(9), 2871A.
Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis(2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Wolf, F. M. (1986). Meta-analysis quantitative methods for research synthsis. Beverly Hills: Sage Pubns.
Wolf, F. M. (1988). Meta-analysis: Qualitative methods for research synthesis(3rd ed.). Beverly Hill CA: Sage.
Ziegler, M., & Raul, T. (2000). Myth and reality：A review of empirical studies on giftedness. High Ability Studies, 11(2), 113-136.