本文旨在探究環境可賦予性與學生能力培養之間的交互作用，以及其互動下學生之成果展現。研究者採用生態觀點，亦即研究人與環境之間的關係，探討心理社會因素與物理環境因素如何影響學生的才能培育，以及這些環境因素如何促進學生之才能展現。研究發現學校環境對學生的才能發展扮演重要角色，物理環境和社會環境都可以促進學生的才能發展，另外，環境可賦予性應與可展現行動的學生能力相互搭配，以促進其發揮最大潛能。研究者另指出，學校應該消除教育中的系統性障礙，並提供的學習機會來培育學生的才能發展，資優教育的價值並非是針對特定學生進行特別的教育，而是要以資優的眼光看待每位孩子，以發揮最大優勢的方式予以啟發。

This research was examining the dynamic flow through exploring the relationship between the affordance and the effectiveness, and the outcome of this transaction. In the study, autoethnography is adopted as the research method. The researcher adopted the ecological (person-in-situation) view and investigate on how various social and physical factors influence individuals’ potential to engage talented transactions, and how individuals develop this potential through transactions with the social and physical features of the environment.The research found the school context played an important role on students’ talent development. Not only physical environment but also social environment could promote successful talent transactions. In addition, affordance which the context offers should combine with the effectivity which are behaviors that a student can produce so as to actualize possibilities of action in order to help students realize their maximum potential.The researcher also addressed school should remove the systemic barrier in our education and provide various learning opportunities to afford student’s talent transaction. The value of gifted education does not mean to give exclusive education to certain students, but to treat each child with a gifted vision and inspire each child in a way that maximizes their strengths.

Angrosino, M. (2007). Doing ethnographic and observational research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781849208932
Barab, S., & Plucker, J. (2002). Smart people or smart contexts? Cognition, ability, and talent development in an age of situated approaches to knowing and learning. Educational Psychologist, 37(3), 165-182. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep3703_3
Barab, S., & Roth, W. (2006). Curriculum-based ecosystems: Supporting knowing from an ecological perspective. Educational Researcher, 35(5), 3-13. doi: 10.3102/0013189x035005003
Barab, S., Cherkes-Julkowski, M., Swenson, R., Garrett, S., Shaw, R., & Young, M. (1999). Principles of self-organization: Learning as participation in autocatakinetic systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3-4), 349-390. doi: 10.1080/10508406.1999.9672074
Borland, J. H. (1997). The construct of giftedness. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(3-
4), 6-20. doi: 10.1080/0161956x.1997.9681863
Borland, J. H. (2005). Gifted education without gifted children:The case for no conception of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 1-19). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/cbo9780511610455.002
Borland, J. H. (2013). Problematizing gifted education. In C. M. Callahan & H. L. Hertberg-Davis (Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education (pp. 69-80). New York, NY: Routledge.
Coleman, M. R. (2013). Response to intervention (RTI) approaches to identification practices within gifted education. In C. M Callahan & H. L. Hertberg-Davis (Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education (pp. 153-158). New York, NY: Routledge.
Coleman, L. J., Sanders, M. D., & Cross, T. C. (1997). Perennial debates and tacit assumptions in the education of gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 105-111. doi:10.1177/001698629704100306
Dai, D. Y. (2010). The nature and nurture of giftedness: A new framework for understanding gifted education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Dai, D. Y. (2018). A history of giftedness: Paradigms and paradoxes. In S. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices (2nd ed.). New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-77004-8_1
Dai, D., & Chen, F. (2014). Paradigms of gifted education: a guide to theory-based, practice-focused research. Wac, TX: Prufrock Press.
Dai, D., & Renzulli, J. (2008). Snowflakes, living systems, and the mystery of giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(2), 114-130. doi: 10.1177/0016986208315732
Gibson, J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Greeno, J. (1994). Response: On Claims That Answer the Wrong Questions. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 5-17. doi: 10.2307/1176867
Lemke, J. (1997). The culture of acquisition and the practice of understanding. In D. Kirshner & A. Whitson (ed.), Situated cognition: Social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives (pp. 17–36). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Lo, C., & Porath, M. (2017). Paradigm shifts in gifted education: An examination vis-à-vis its historical situatedness and pedagogical sensibilities. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(4), 343-360. doi: 10.1177/0016986217722840
Lo, C., Porath, M., Yu, H., Chen, C., Tsai, K., & Wu, I. (2018). Giftedness in the making: A transactional perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 63(3), 172-184. doi: 10.1177/0016986218812474
Matthews, D., & Dai, D. (2014). Gifted education: changing conceptions, emphases and practice. International Studies In Sociology of Education, 24(4), 335-353. doi: 10.1080/09620214.2014.979578
Neuman, W. L. (2003). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (5th ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Peters, S. J., Kaufman, S. B., Matthews, M. S., McBee, M. T., & McCoach, D. B. (2014, April 15). Gifted ed. is crucial, but the label isn’t. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www. edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/04/16/28peters_ep.h33.html
Plucker, J., & Barab, S. (2005). The importance of contexts in theories of giftedness: Learning to embrace the messy joys of subjectivity. Conceptions of giftedness, 201-216. doi: 10.1017/cbo9780511610455.013
Pufall, P., & Dunbar, C. (1992). Perceiving whether or not the world affords stepping onto and over: A developmental study. Ecological Psychology, 4(1), 17-38. doi: 10.1080/10407413.1992.10530791
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1985). The schoolwide enrichment model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Ritzer, G. (1980). Sociology: A multiple paradigm science. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Sawyer, R. K. (2012). Explaining creativity: The science of human innnovation (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Shaw, R. E., & Turvey, M. T. (1981). Coalitions as models for ecosystems: A realistic perspective on perceptual organization. In M. Kubovy & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), Perceptual organization (pp. 343–408). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Singleton, R. A., & Straits, B. C. (2005). Approaches to social research (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Simonton, D. (1999). Talent and its development: An emergenic and epigenetic model. Psychological Review, 106(3), 435-457. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.106.3.435
Simonton, D. (2005). Giftedness and Genetics: The emergenic-epigenetic model and its implications. Journal For the Education of the Gifted, 28(3-4), 270-286. doi: 10.4219/jeg-2005-338
Turvey, M. T., & Shaw, R. E. (1995). Toward an ecological physics and a physical psychology. In R. L. Solso & D. W. Massaro (Eds.), The science of the mind: 2001 and beyond (pp. 144–169). New York: Oxford University Press.
Van Tassel-Baska, J., & Wood, S. (2010). The integrated curriculum model (ICM). Learning and Individual Differences, 20(4), 345-357. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2009.12.006
Witty, P. A. (1958). Who are the gifted? In Henry, N. (Ed.), Education of the gifted 57th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 2. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Warren, W. (1984). Perceiving affordances: Visual guidance of stair climbing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10(5), 683-703. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.10.5.683
Wolcott, H. F.(1999). Ethnography: A way of seeing. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.