20140902

資優兒童十年後


阿樂在幼稚園時已有老師建議他考加州教育局一個名為“GATE Program”的甄別試,“GATE” 是“Gifted and Talented Education”的縮寫,通過考試者,就會被歸類為「資優兒童」,可以受到特別的教育。阿樂在一年級時考了這個試,由二年級開始接受所謂「資優教育」,直到八年級,都是在一個全是資優兒童的特別班,而且是同一班同學,約三十人,到升上高中時才各散東西。

二年級到現在的十二年級,轉眼已十年了。早兩天跟阿樂談起那些「資優班」裏的同學,雖然大部份都跟阿樂不同學校,或同校卻修不同的科目,但不少還有來往;沒來往的,也可以從其他同學得知他們的近況。我好奇問阿樂這些同學現在的學業如何,他說除了兩三位成績不錯,其餘都很普通,有些甚至十分差勁。

何解接受了七年特別教育的資優兒童,升上高中後竟然大都成績並不優異?其實不難解釋。上述那個甄別試,不過是一個智商測驗;所謂「資優」,指的只是智商高過某一水平而已(如無記錯,應該是智商高過135即為「資優」)。然而,即使是智力過人,還要配合其他條件,才會學業成績優異;至於將來是否有成就,看的仍然不會只是智力 --- 智力極其量只是一個必要條件,而不是充分條件。

我有一兩位智力高超、極之聰明的朋友(至少比我聰明),學甚麼也快上手,卻遠非堅忍不拔之輩,也不懂得自律,所以學到難處便容易放棄,或自欺欺人當自己學懂了,可算是「聰明反被聰明」。阿樂也舉了三位「資優」同學做例子,兩女一男,以說明單憑智力是不足夠的:一位女同學升上高中後只顧扮靚和拍拖;另一位女同學的 stress tolerance (阿樂的用語)極低,很容易因為功課和考試而感到壓力過大;至於男的那位,由於有一位成績出眾、考入頂級名校的姊姊,他似乎為了避免跟姊姊比較,有意無意選擇了「走另一條路」,沒有努力讀書。

當然,讀書失敗也可以事業有成,我想說明的,只是智力之不可恃。

12 則留言:

  1. Dear Wong,

    daniel goleman in his book emotional intelligence 1995 also talked on this issue, concluding non-cognitive skills is also very important in contributing to final success and happiness. with my experience seeing many kids, most kids have more or less intelligence and i would say IQ is really not that important as a determining factor.
    that is why i take great care to nurture the non-academic aspect of my sons and try to give them a happy childhood apart from drilling in study.

    dr Who

    回覆刪除
  2. 智商高低相信只是一個先天條件,對學習是會有幫助。但由於在社會環境中被視為是「成功」的人相信人們並不只是看其「智力(或智商)」是多少這一項,甚至很多被認為是「成功」的人,人們根本就不過問他/她們的智商是多少而更多的只是看其它各個方面的表現。
    所以相信只要智商在某一個「正常」的範圍之內,都是可以有「成功」機會的。所以相信是否「成功」與在正常範圍內「智商」的高低應該是沒有必然關係的。

    回覆刪除
  3. I never knew that the "gifted" kids were put in the same classes from first grade through eighth grade in CA. I wonder what they do here in NYC; I came when I was fourteen, so I don't really know.

    I definitely agree that grit counts far more than gift, esp when you try to do something whose results or rewards are not immediately clear. Unfortunately, I'm the kind of person who tries to look for shortcuts or to cut corners (also, I avoid stress like the plague), so that's why I am not as "successful"as some of my peers.

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 你入 high school 攞 advanced placement courses (或者 honors courses) 咪一樣囉, GATE 嘅[申延],你讀完都唔知?

      唯一操控我們命運的是性格,不是天份。

      刪除
  4. Were the students in that class in the same grade?
    --zpdrmn

    回覆刪除
  5. 魚之樂你好,

    SeeWide特搜網是一個全新互動生活分享平台,集齊不同生活資訊,讓大家分享不同的生活體驗。

    你的網誌十分切合我們網站主題,內容也很有質素,請問可否讓我們轉載網誌內的文章?(會注明出處及不作改動)

    我們的目的,是盡力網羅更多優質的內容,建立一個包含豐富生活資訊的休閒分享平台,讓一眾志同道合的網友可更輕易獲得寶貴的參考資料。現階段,SeeWide 已擁有超過十萬篇生活攻略,瀏覽量亦超過數十萬。

    希望你能成為我們平台的一份子,助我們更有效地集結各樣不同的生活分享資訊!

    另外,我們亦設有「稿費」制度,透過發表文章所累積的本地瀏覽量,即可兌換稿費!

    而我們亦可以你的名義,將稿費捐到香港宣明會,或你指定的慈善機構
    詳情可參閱:http://www.seewide.com/space.php?do=help&essay_id=22#001

    如有任何查詢, 歡迎電郵至: info@seewide.com

    回覆刪除
  6. 我住在南加州,似乎加州是以98th percentile 或以上作界定。Stanford-Binet 等測驗只能測驗學生對抽象、數字、推埋等問題的認識及解決問題能力,測驗成績好的學生,一般都是記性好、理解能力强,這樣便是中學成績好,跟著便能進入名牌大學,進入醫學院、法律或商學院,畢業後便是專業人士或進入上市大公司工作,成為中產或更高一層的階級,這便是 gift students 的人生。很多年少的 gift students 有天份,但對學習書本未必有興趣(有很多原因),長大了中學和大學成績都是一般。我覺得人生對學習和工作要有 passion 才是最重要。天才是比較性的,天才放在知識性工作便可以發揮,若叫他創辦和管理一間茶餐廳,結果可能一團糟。人生按自己的能力努力工作便成。我長兒小學時,成績中上或一般,有一家長告訴我他的女兒是讀 GATE Program,現今這女孩與我兒子是同一大學,她中學成績不錯,但不是突出的。

    回覆刪除
  7. //人生對學習和工作要有 passion 才是最重要//

    -非常同意。

    回覆刪除
  8. Wong, 匿名9/05/2014 9:15 上午, or anyone interested,

    Here I just provide some information on some gifted children programs for anyone who is interested. This piece of information to me isn't important. What I say here is nothing personal. If your kid is/was in some program like that, you may know where your kid is/was at from test results. So, it's just that when I see numbers and statistics (elementary level) I sometimes can figure something out.

    I heard about the criterion of top 2% (as 匿名9/05/2014 9:15 上午 said, 98 percentile) or IQ 135 (as Wong said) many years ago. (With IQ 100 as the mean and 15 the s.d., 130 or above is the top 2.5%, 135 is probably about the top 2%, but I don't want to check the number.) But several years ago I knew some kids (some were friends of my kids) in the gifted class in our school system. I asked about the number of students in the class and their grade levels, and I figured out real fast, since I knew the size of the student body, that the school probably didn't use or follow that criterion. According to my calculation, top 4 to 5% counted as gifted was more like it in our school system. Even then, they let some high-potential students (meaning that they were a bit below the cutoff and weren't officially counted as gifted) attend classes for gifted kids. I guessed but weren't sure that it's about allocation of resources: let the teacher teach more kids (same salary, anyway). So, the program served more than 5% of the students. Of course, top 5% (or 6, or so) wasn't bad.

    Now, let's look at the number Wong has provided of their school system: about 30 students in the same grade. Let's say, it was 25. 25/2%= 1250 students. (25 out of 1250 students as the top 2%). Hmmm... huh? The whole school (especially for elementary) probably didn't have that many students. Maybe they got students from several different schools to attend the same class? (That could happen even though I doubt it.)

    I think some school systems didn't/don't use the measure of top 2% for practical purposes. How many school systems in the US are like that? I am not sure. Wild guess (without support)? Many. Oh, well, two is many already, isn't it? (Kidding.)
    -zpdrmn

    回覆刪除