本研究旨在探究國小辦理資賦優異學生縮短修業年限的現況及其困難，了解未辦理縮短修業制度的原因，分析相關辦理人員就國小縮短修業年限制度對學生學習適應、生活適應造成的影響，探討引入其他縮短修業方式的可行性及對此制度的建議。
本研究以「國民小學資賦優異縮短修業年限實施現況調查問卷」為研究工具，採取分區立意取樣，選定北、中、南三區國小設有資優資源班與未設有資優資源班的學校共68所，針對特教組長（或承辦的行政人員）及資優資源班教師進行問卷調查，共得有效樣本特教組長68人與資優資源班教師67人，共計135人，就所得的樣本資料進行資料統計與分析，藉由分析的結果歸納成研究發現，並對國小縮短修業年限制度及未來研究者提出具體建議。
本研究綜合研究問題、研究結果與討論，將研究結論臚列如下：
一、國小辦理資賦優異學生縮短修業制度以「全部學科跳級」最多，申請人數以1人比例最高，主要辦理三年級跳五年級。其次為「免修課程」，申請人數以1～2人最多，申請科目以數學科免修最多。第三為「逐科（學習領域）跳級」，申請的科目以數學科最多，其次為社會科。
二、國小對於推行縮短修業制度的行政措施十分積極。尤其在鑑定程序、學生成績計算、學生特殊安置及強化普通班老師的資優教育知能上，更是重視。
三、國小辦理縮短修業制度主要的困難為「對於實施辦法認知不清楚」、「缺少鑑定工具」及「個別輔導計畫編寫困難」。
四、國小未曾辦理縮短修業制度的主要原因是「不曾有學生提出申請」及「對於縮短修業制度宣導不夠」。設有資優資源班的學校認為「普通班（或資優資源班）已經提供學生所需的加深加廣課程」，也是未辦理縮短修業制度的原因。未設有資優資源班的學校認為「對實施辦法認知不清楚」、「缺少適當的鑑定工具」及「不易安排符合學生需求的課程」是影響辦理縮短修業制度的因素。
五、國小辦理縮短修業制度相關人員認為縮短修業制度對學生學習適應有正面的影響，不論在學習成效或學習態度上均肯定縮短修業制度的功效。
六、國小辦理縮短修業制度相關人員認為縮短修業制度能提高學生自信心，增加與同等能力同儕交流機會、使學生人格更成熟並能適應各方面挑戰。
七、國小辦理縮短修業制度相關人員認為適合引入的縮短修業方式為課外活動、良師典範制、學分檢定、函授課程與同時註冊；不適合辦理的方式是混合年級。
根據本研究的發現與結論，提出對教育主管行政單位及資優教育工作者的建議，並對未來相關研究提供建言，期能提供實施縮短修業制度及學術研究等參考。

This study aims at the current situation and difficulties faced by elementary schools that conduct acceleration programs for gifted students. It probes into the causes for not adopting the acceleration programs, analyzes how the programs influence the students in the adaption of learning and daily life from the points of view of related staff, explores the feasibility of introducing other acceleration approaches, and also offers proposals for acceleration program.
This study uses a questionnaire on the current situation faced by elementary schools that conduct acceleration programs for gifted students as a main tool. The sampling method adopted is based on stratified purpose, which selected a sample of 68 schools with and without gifted resource classroom throughout areas of north, middle and south in Taiwan. The questionnaire was completed by chief of special talents section or staff in charge of the acceleration program, which covered 68 chiefs of special talents section and 67 teachers of gifted resource class with a total number of 135. Through statistical analysis of the data, an induction was obtained and concrete proposals of acceleration program in primary schools were derived for future researchers.
The conclusion is listed as follows:
1.The most commonly adopted acceleration approach in elementary schools for gifted students is ‘Grade skipping’, in which the highest ratio of applicant is one person and mainly for skipping from grade 3 to grade 5. The secondarily adopted approach is ‘Free from taking courses’, in which the highest ratio of applicant is 1~2 person for exemption on mathematics. The thirdly adopted approach is ‘Subjet-matter grade skipping’, in which the most commonly subjects applied are mathematics and social science.
2.Elementary schools are very active in carrying out the administrative measures of acceleration program and put greater emphasis on the following aspects: procedures of assessment, calculation of students’ grades, special placement for students and enhance the gifted education training for teachers of general class.
3.The main difficulty in conducting acceleration program for elementary schools is ‘ambiguous understanding of the operation details of the program’, ‘a lack of means of assessment’ and ‘difficulty in writing individual lesson plan’.
4.The main reasons for not conducting acceleration program are ‘no students applied’ and ‘insufficiency in the promotion of this program’. Another reason lies in the situation that the schools with gifted resource classroom consider that ‘the existing general classroom or gifted resource classroom has already provided sufficient deepened and widened courses needed for students’, while the schools without gifted resource classroom declare the reasons as ‘ambiguous understanding of the operation details of the program’, ‘a lack of means of assessment’, and ‘difficulty in arranging courses for individual needs’.
5.Staff in charge of the acceleration program in elementary schools held views that acceleration program has a positive influence on the adaption of students’ learning, both in learning effect and attitudes towards learning.
6.Staff in charge of the acceleration program in elementary schools considered that acceleration program reinforces students’ self-confidence, increases the opportunity to exchange ideas with peer of equivalent ability, and matures students’ characters to adapt to various challenges.
7.Staff in charge of the acceleration program in elementary schools regarded that the suitable approaches of acceleration program to be introduced are extracurricular programs, mentorships, credit by examination, correspondence course and concurrent enrollment; the unsuitable approach is combined classes.
According to the facts and results obtained in this research, proposals are made for governments of educational administration and educators of gifted education. Besides, suggestions are offered for future studies as reference to acceleration program and related academic researches.

中文部分
于曉平（2001）。臺北市高中資賦優異學生縮短修業年限之實施。資優教育季刊，78，15-22 。
毛連塭（2001）。如何實施資優教育—培養多元智慧、主動學習的資優兒童。臺北市：心理。
朱怡勳（2005）。高雄市國小縮短修業年限學童生活適應之研究。國立高雄師範大學特教研究所碩士論文，未出版，高雄市。
呂金燮、李乙明譯（2003）。VanTassel-Baska, J.(1994)原著。資優課程（Comprehensive Curriculum for Gifted Learners）。臺北市：五南。
吳武典（1988）。資賦優異學生提早入學及縮短修業年限之探討。國教月刊，35（2-1），18-21。
吳昆壽（1999）。國民教育階段跳級及提早入學資優生學習與生活適應調查研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果(報告編號：NSC88-2614-H-024-005)。 臺北市：中華民國行政院國家科學委員會。
何瑞枝（2004）。高雄市國中英語科縮短修業年限實施成效之研究。國立高雄師範大學特教研究所碩士論文，未出版，高雄市。
何榮桂（1981）。國民小學資賦優異兒童縮短修業年限教育制度之研究。資優教育季刊，1，21-28。
林生傳（2003）：教育研究法-全方位的統整與分析。臺北市：心理。
林秀靜（1998）：淺談資優生的學習需求。資優教育季刊，68，16-21。
花敬凱譯（2007）。Clark, B.(2002)原著。啟迪資優—如何開發孩子的潛能（Growing Up Gifted, 6th ed.）。臺北市：心理。
徐曉芳（2004）。國小提早入學學生學習表現與提早入學相關議題之探究：以高雄市一所國小為例。屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，屏東。
徐雲惠（1987）。高中生的成長環境與其人格特質之關係。臺北市：復興高中。
陳幼君（1992）。臺北市民生國小資賦優異縮短修業年限之畢業學生追蹤調查報告。資優教育季刊，43，26-27。
陳美芳（1996）。資優學生身心特質與評量。教育資料集刊，21，13-25。
陳雅珠（1996）。國小數學科濃縮課程實施成效之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，高雄市。
陳長益（1996）。資優教育方案設計。教育資料集刊，21，55-72。
陳長益、陳美芳、張芝萱、呂金燮（2006）。課程與方案設計。教育部「全國資優教育發展研討會」手冊，頁21-39。臺北市：教育部。
教育部（1999修訂公布）。資賦優異學生降低入學年齡縮短修業年限及升學辦法。臺北市：教育部。
教育部（2001修訂公布）。特殊教育法。臺北市：教育部。
教育部（2002修訂公布）。身心障礙及資賦優異學生鑑定標準。臺北市：教育部。
郭為藩(1996)。全國資優教育會議開幕詞。全國資優教育會議會議實錄，1-8。高雄：國立高雄師範大學特教中心。
郭靜姿(1986)。跳級制度面面觀。資優教育季刊，21，3-6。
郭靜姿（1998）。誰適合加速。資優教育季刊，66，1-12 。
郭靜姿（2000）。談資優生縮短修業年限的鑑定與輔導方式。資優教育季刊，76，1-11。
郭靜姿（2006）。談資優教育的課程設計。資優教育方案的落實與推展研討會研習手冊，頁19-26。嘉義市：國立嘉義大學特教中心。
郭靜姿（2007）。談縮短修業年限學生的鑑定與輔導方式。檢索日期：2007.10.31。取自World Wide Web:http://www0.nttu.edu.tw/
secenter/96secenter/96news/9605402-5-0602.pdf
郭靜姿、蔡尚芳、王曼娜（2000）。跳級生對於生活適應程度的感受為何不同？資優教育的全方位發展，頁203-241。台北：心理。
郭靜姿、吳淑敏、侯雅齡、蔡桂芳（2006）。鑑定與安置。全國資優教育發展研討會手冊，頁5-20。臺北：教育部。
郭靜姿、蔡尚芳、梁嘉慧、王曼娜（1997）。跳級資優生之追蹤研究報告。載於郭靜姿編著，資優學生之鑑定與輔導追蹤研究，頁231-370。臺北市：師大書苑。
黃文煌（2005）。我國大學預修制度之研究。國立政治大學教育學系教育行政組碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
黃秀婷（2005）。國中英語能力優異學生課程調整與學習適應之研究。國立高雄師範大學特教研究所碩士論文，未出版，高雄市。
楊惠芳（2008a.7.21）。金牌軍共通點--從小愛發問。國語日報。第一版。
楊惠芳（2008b.7.22）。數學奧運--我高中生捧回2金４銀。國語日報。第一版。
楊惠芳（2008c.7.29）。學生主動、家長支持--致勝關鍵。國語日報。第二版。
臺北市政府教育局（2007）。九十六學年度資優教育工作手冊。臺北市：臺北市教育局。
蔡典謨（1986）。只有歷史能告訴我們誰是真正的資優。資優教育季刊，21，31-34。
蔡典謨（1996）。充實模式之設計與實驗研究(一)。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果(報告編號：NSC85-2511-S-017-010)。 臺北市：中華民國行政院國家科學委員會。
蔡典謨(1999)。低成就資優學生家庭影響之質的研究(二)。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果(報告編號：NSC88-2511-S-017
-029)。臺北市：中華民國行政院國家科學委員會。
蔡典謨譯（2001）。濃縮課程。臺北市：心理。
蔡典謨（2005）。資賦優異學生縮短修業年限實施成效研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果(報告編號：NSC93 -2413-H-017-012)。 臺北市：中華民國行政院國家科學委員會。
蔡典謨(2006)。縮短修業年限，挑戰資優生潛能。載於中原大學特殊教育中心主編，資優學生的特殊需求與課程規劃，頁10-16。桃園縣：國立中原大學特殊教育中心。
蔡典謨（2007）。從資優生需求展望我國資優教育。國立臺東大學特殊教育中心「九十六年度特殊教育學術研討」專題演講。
蔡典謨、陳長益、李永昌（1998）。「資賦優異學生降低入學年齡、縮短修業年限及保送甄試辦法」之制訂研究。高雄市：國立高雄師範大學特殊教育學系。
鍾聖校（1983）。論資賦優異兒童縮短修業年限之潛在假定與實施原則。資優教育季刊，9 ，17-23。

英文部分
Belin-blank Center (2007). Which form of acceleration is the best? Retrieved December 7, 2007, from the World Wide Web: http://
www.education.uiowa.edu/belinblank/acceleration/qa_index.asp
Benbow, C. P. (1990). Methematically talented children：Can acceleration meet their educational needs？In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davids ( Eds.), Handbook of gifted education ( pp. 154-165). Boston : Allyn and Bacon.
Benbow, C. P., Argo, T. A., & Goass, L. W. (1992). Meeting the needs of the gifted in rural areas through acceleration. Gifted Child Today, 15(2), 15-19.
Brody, L. E., & Stanley, J. C. (1991). Young college students : Assessing factors that contribute to success. In W. T. Southern & E. D. Jones ( Eds.), Academic acceleration of gifted children ( pp.102-132). New York: Teachers College Press.
Elkind, D. (1988). Acceleration. Young Children, 43(4) , 2.
Fehrenbach, C. R. (1993). Underachieving gifted students: Intervention programs that work. Roeper Review, 1, 88-91.
Feldhusen, J. F. (1989). Synthesis of research on gifted youth. Educational Leadership, 4(1), 6-11.
Jean, A. B., Robert, B., ＆ Karen, E. (1998). Models of underachievement mong gifted preadolescents: The role of personal, family, and school factors. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42(1), 5-15.
Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1984). Synthesis of research on effects of instruction. Educational Leadership, 42, 84-89.
Lupkowski, A. E., Whitmore, M., ＆ Ramsay, A. (1992). The impact of early entrance to college on self-esteem: A preliminary study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(2), 87-90.
Maker, C. J. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted. London：An Aspen publication.
Neihart, M., ＆ Olenchak, F. R. (2002). Creatively gifted children. In M. Neihart, S. Reis, N. M. Robinson, ＆ S. M. Moon（Eds.）, The social and emotional development of gifted children：What do we know？ ( pp. 165-176). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Passow, A. H. (1982). Differentiated curricula for the gifted/talented. In S. Kaplan, H. Passow, P. Phenix, S. Reis, J. Renzulli, I. Sato, L. Smith, E. P. Torrance, & V. Ward（Eds.）, Curricula for the gifted（pp.21-25）. Ventura, CA: National/State Leadership Training Institute.
Paulus, P. (1984). Acceleration :More than grade skipping. Roeper Review, 7, 98-100.
Renzulli, J. S. (1976). The enrichment triad model (Part 1). Gifted Child Quarterly, 20(3), 303-326.
Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The Enrichment Triad Model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted. Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S.（1985）. The schoolwide enrichment model: Acomprehensive plan for education excellence. Mansfield, CT: CreativeLearning Press.
Renzulli, J.S., & Reis, S. (1997).The schoolwide enrichment model. Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Reis, S. M., Burns, D. E., ＆ Renzulli, J. S.(1992). Curriculum compacting: The complete guide to modifying the regular curriculum for high ability student . Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Reis, S. M., & Westberg, K. L. (1994). An examination of current school district policies: Acceleration of secondary students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education , 5 (4), 7-18.
Rogers, K. B., & Kimpston, R. D. (1992). Acceleration: What we do vs. What we know. Education Leadership, 20 (2), 58-61.
Rogers, K. B. (2002). Grouping the gifted talented. Roeper Review, 24(3), 103-107.
Southern, W. T., & Jones, E. D. (1991). Academic acceleration: Background and issues. In W. T.Southern, & E. D. Jones (Eds.). The academic acceleration of gifted children ( pp.1-29). New York: Teachers College Press.
Southern, W. T., Jones, E. D., & Stanley, J. C. (1993). Acceleration and enrichment : The context and development of program options. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, & A. C. Passow ( Eds.). International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent ( pp.387-409). Oxford: Pergamon.
Stoddard, E. P., & Renzulli, J. S. (1983). Improving the writing skills of talent pool students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 27(1), 21-27.
Tasmania Department of Education (2002). Guidelines for accelerated progression for students who are gifted. Retrieved December 3, 2007, from the World Wide Web: http://www.education.tas.gov.au/school/
educators/support/extendedlearning/policy
The Minnesota Department of Education strives (2007). Acceleration of gifted students frequently asked questions. Retrieved December 3, 2007, from the World Wide Web: http://www.education.state.mn.us/
mdeprod/groups/GiftedTalented/documents/FAQ/032549.pdf
Toth, N. W. (1999). Gifted education:A critical discussion. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 430331).
VanTassel-Baska, J.(1992).Educational decision making on grade skipping and grouping. Gifted Child Quarterly , Spring 36(2), 68-72.
Whitmore, J. R. (1989). Understanding a lack of motivation-toexcel. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30(2), 66-69.
Ysseldyke, J. E., & Algozzine, B.（1995）. Special edcuation: A practical approach for teachers (3rd ed.). Boston: Hougton.