본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

식물원 야외체험학습에서 활용 가능한 과학 창의성 과제 개발 - 초등과학영재학생에의 적용 -

Development of the Scientific Creativity Task for a Field Trip to Botanical Garden- Application to Science-Gifted Elementary Students -

김현주|임채성|김민주
한국초등과학교육학회 (The Korean Elementary Science Education Society)|2020.11|초등과학교육 (Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education)|제39권 제4호|pp. 506-521|DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.15267/keses.2020.39.4.506

2

조회

0

다운로드

3

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

field tripscience giftedtask-specificscientific creativity taskbotanical garden
주제분류교육학

초록

This study aims to develop a scientific creativity task which science-gifted elementary students can conduct on a field trip to a botanical garden, and to analyze the results from conducting the task. For this, 38 science- gifted fifth-graders from the Science-Gifted Education Center, located at the Office of Education, participated in a field trip to a botanical garden, as a part of their program. Prior to the program, researchers developed a scientific creativity task for outdoor education program, along with science education specialists and teachers. The tasks were to observe plants, and to create something new and useful, or, in other words, scientifically creative, based on the plants’ characteristics. The students could submit at most three ideas. Also, they assessed their own ideas, and selected an idea that they thought was the most creative. The results were analyzed by using the scientific creativity formula. The main findings from this study are as follows. First, it was found that the scientific creativity formula had an upward bias in assessing originality. Second, the students tended to assess the usefulness of their own ideas more generously. Third, the correlation between self-assessment results and scores from the scientific creativity formula for originality was r=.43. Fourth, in formula-based assessments, the correlation between originality scores and usefulness scores was relatively high, at r=.56. Fifth, the correlation between a student’s scientific creativity score and the number of his or her ideas was very low, at r=.23. Sixth, when the ideas chosen as the most creative by students were compared with the ideas that had the highest scores in formula-based assessments, it was shown that 8 out of 19 students (42.1%) did not choose the idea that appeared to be the most creative when graded by the formula. This study is concluded by discussing the lessons from the scientific creativity task analysis for primary science education and gifted education.

Abstract

This study aims to develop a scientific creativity task which science-gifted elementary students can conduct on a field trip to a botanical garden, and to analyze the results from conducting the task. For this, 38 science- gifted fifth-graders from the Science-Gifted Education Center, located at the Office of Education, participated in a field trip to a botanical garden, as a part of their program. Prior to the program, researchers developed a scientific creativity task for outdoor education program, along with science education specialists and teachers. The tasks were to observe plants, and to create something new and useful, or, in other words, scientifically creative, based on the plants’ characteristics. The students could submit at most three ideas. Also, they assessed their own ideas, and selected an idea that they thought was the most creative. The results were analyzed by using the scientific creativity formula. The main findings from this study are as follows. First, it was found that the scientific creativity formula had an upward bias in assessing originality. Second, the students tended to assess the usefulness of their own ideas more generously. Third, the correlation between self-assessment results and scores from the scientific creativity formula for originality was r=.43. Fourth, in formula-based assessments, the correlation between originality scores and usefulness scores was relatively high, at r=.56. Fifth, the correlation between a student’s scientific creativity score and the number of his or her ideas was very low, at r=.23. Sixth, when the ideas chosen as the most creative by students were compared with the ideas that had the highest scores in formula-based assessments, it was shown that 8 out of 19 students (42.1%) did not choose the idea that appeared to be the most creative when graded by the formula. This study is concluded by discussing the lessons from the scientific creativity task analysis for primary science education and gifted education.

참고문헌 (66)

  1. 김명숙, "창의성의 영역 특수성과 영역 일반성의 절충적 대안 탐색: 창의적 잠재력과 창의적 수행을 중심으로", 교육심리연구, 19(4), pp.1139~1158 (2005), 한국교육심리학회
  2. 김민주, "초등과학영재학생의 발표에 대한 인식 및 발표의 자발성과 과학창의성의 관계 분석", 초등과학교육, 38(3), pp.331~344 (2019), 한국초등과학교육학회[DOI]
  3. 김민주, "초등과학영재학생의 과학창의성에 대한 자기 평가, 동료 평가의 비교 분석", 초등과학교육, 38(4), pp.439~452 (2019), 한국초등과학교육학회[DOI]
  4. 김민주, "초등과학영재학생의 과학창의성과 다중지능의 관계 - 생명 영역을 중심으로 -", 초등과학교육, 39(3), pp.369~381 (2020), 한국초등과학교육학회[DOI]
  5. 김영채, "창의력의 영역 보편성과 특수성: 쟁점과 TTCT 창의력 검사의 분석", 사고개발, 8(1), pp.1~29 (2012), 대한사고개발학회[DOI]
  6. 김현주, "초등과학영재학생의 과학지식과 과학창의성의 관계- 생명 영역을 중심으로 -", 초등과학교육, 39(3), pp.382~398 (2020), 한국초등과학교육학회[DOI]
  7. 박종원, "과학적 창의성 모델의 제안-인지적 측면을 중심으로-", 한국과학교육학회지, 24(2), pp.375~386 (2004), 한국과학교육학회
  8. 성진숙, "과학에서의 창의적 문제해결력에 영향을 미치는 제 변수 분석: 확산적 사고, 과학 지식, 내.외적 동기, 성격 특성 및 가정 환경", 열린교육연구, 11(1), pp.219~237 (2003), 한국열린교육학회
  9. 송성수, "과학사의 사례를 활용한 과학자의 창의성에 관한 탐색적 연구: 다윈, 에디슨, 아인슈타인을 중심으로", 교사교육연구, 52(2), pp.227~236 (2013), 과학교육연구소[DOI]
  10. 이재무, "체육영재, 학업영재, 일반 초등학생의 다중지능, 정서지능 특성비교", 한국체육과학회지, 19(4), pp.609~622 (2010), 한국체육과학회
  11. 임성만, "영역 특수적인 입장에서의 과학적 창의성에 대한 정의, 구성요인에 대한 탐색", 과학교육연구지, 33(1), pp.31~43 (2009), 과학교육연구소[DOI]
  12. 임채성, "뇌기반 진화적 접근법에 따른 창의적 과학 문제해결 지도 모형 개발", 생물교육, 40(4), pp.429~452 (2012), 한국생물교육학회[DOI]
  13. 임채성, "과학창의성 평가 공식의 개발과 적용", 초등과학교육, 33(2), pp.242~257 (2014), 한국초등과학교육학회[DOI]
  14. 정덕호, "과학영재와 일반학생들의 창의적 사고 편향에 대한 분석", 영재교육연구, 21(1), pp.175~191 (2011), 한국영재학회
  15. 정현철, "과학 창의성 계발을 위한 프로그램 개발 - 이론과 예시를 중심으로 -", 한국지구과학회지, 23(4), pp.334~348 (2002), 한국지구과학회
  16. 조연순, "창의적 문제 해결력 신장을 위한중학교 과학 교육과정 개발", 한국과학교육학회지, 20(2), pp.329~343 (2000)
  17. 최경희, "구성주의 특성에 따른 과학교육", 과학기술학연구, 2(2), pp.91~122 (2002)
  18. 최인수, "유아용 창의성 측정도구에 관한 고찰", 유아교육연구, 20(2), pp.139~166 (2000)
  19. 최일호, "새로운 생각은 어떻게 가능한가 : 전문분야 창의성에 대한 학습과정 모형 접근", 한국심리학회지 : 일반, 20(2), pp.409~428 (2001)
  20. 한기순, "창의성의 영역 한정성과 영역 보편성에 관한 분석과 탐구", 영재교육연구, 10(2), pp.47~69 (2000)
  21. 한기순, "과학영재와 일반학생들 간의 사고 양식과 지능 및 창의성간의 관계 비교", 교육심리연구, 18(2), pp.49~68 (2004), 한국교육심리학회
  22. Amabile, T. M., "Social psychology of creativity : A consensual assessment technique", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, pp.997~1013 (1982)
  23. Amabile, T. M., "The social psychology of creativity : A componential conceptualization", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), pp.357~ (1983)
  24. Amabile, T. M., "Assessing the work environment for creativity", Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), pp.1154~1184 (1996)
  25. Baer, J., "Creativity and divergent thinking: A taskspecific approach" (1993), Erlbaum
  26. Baer, J., "The case for domain specificity of creativity", Creativity Research Journal, 11(2), pp.173~177 (1998)
  27. Baer, J., "How divergent thinking tests mislead us:Are the Torrance Tests still relevant in the 21st century? The Division 10 debate", Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(4), pp.309~313 (2011)
  28. Baer, J., "Creativity across domains:Faces of the Muse", pp.313~320 (2005), Laurence Erlbaum Associates
  29. Basadur, M., "Optimal ideation-evaluation ratios", Creativity Research Journal, 8, pp.63~75 (1995)
  30. Bouzidi, L., "Can online peer assessment be trusted?", Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), pp.257~268 (2009)
  31. Campbell, D. T., "Blind variation and selective retention in creative thought as in other knowledge processes", Psychological Review, 67, pp.380~400 (1960)
  32. Chang, Y. K., "Assessing students’information literacy skills in two secondary schools in Singapore", Journal of Information Literacy, 6(2), pp.19~34 (2012)
  33. Craft, A., "Creativity in education" (2001), A&C Black
  34. Ernest, P., "Constructivism in education" (1995), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
  35. Feist, G. J., "A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity", Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4), pp.290~309 (1998)
  36. Gray, C. E., "A measurement of creativity in Western civilization", American Anthropologist, 68(6), pp.1384~1417 (1966)
  37. Han, K. S., "Multiple creativities? Investigating domain-specificity of creativity in young children", Gifted Child Quarterly, 46(2), pp.98~109 (2002)
  38. Hu, W., "A scientific creativity test for secondary school students", International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), pp.389~403 (2002)
  39. Kaufmann, G., "Creative management" (2001), STAGE Publication
  40. Kaufman, J. C., "Beyond big and little : The four c model of creativity", Review of General Psychology, 13(1), pp.1~12 (2009)
  41. Kim, K. H., "Can we trust creativity tests? A review of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking(TTCT)", Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), pp.3~14 (2006)
  42. Kim, J., "A study on development of modelling for field trips of biology learning", Biology Education, 28(2), pp.129~135 (2000)
  43. Kogan, N., "Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Cognitive development", pp.628~706 (1983), Wiley
  44. Korfiatis, K. J., "The living world in the curriculum : Ecology, an essential part of biology learning", Journal of Biological Education, 46(3), pp.125~127 (2012)
  45. Lubart, T. I., "Handbook of creativity", pp.339~350 (1999), Cambridge University Press
  46. Mayer, R. E., "Teaching students to solve insight problems : Evidence for domain specificity in creativity training", Creativity Research Journal, 14, pp.389~402 (2004)
  47. Merrotsy, P., "Tolerance of ambiguity : A trait of the creative personality?", Creativity Research Journal, 25(2), pp.232~237 (2013)
  48. Mumford, M. D., "Where have we been, where are we going? Taking stock in creativity research", Creativity Research Journal, 15(2-3), pp.107~120 (2003)
  49. Olsen, R. V., "Learning about students’ knowledge and thinking in science through large-scale quantitative studies", European Journal of Psychology of Education, 16(3), pp.403~ (2001)
  50. Plucker, J. A., "Beware of simple conclusions : The case for content generality of creativity", Creativity Research Journal, 11(2), pp.179~182 (1998)
  51. Plucker, J. A., "Creativity: From potential to realization", pp.153~167 (2004), American Psychological Association
  52. Plucker, J. A., "Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research", Educational Psychologist, 39, pp.83~96 (2004)
  53. Ross, J. A., "The reliability, validity, and utility of self-assessment", Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 11(1), pp.10~ (2006)
  54. Runco, M. A., "Creativity: From potential to realization", pp.21~30 (2004), American Psychological Association
  55. Runco, M. A., "Divergent thinking as an indicator of creative potential", Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), pp.66~75 (2012)
  56. Sadler, P. M., "The impact of self-and peer-grading on student learning", Educational Assessment, 11(1), pp.1~31 (2006)
  57. Simonton, D. K., "Origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives on creativity" (1999), Oxford University Press
  58. Simonton, D. K., "Beyond knowledge: Extracognitive aspects of developing high ability", pp.39~72 (2004), Routledge
  59. Simonton, D. K., "Integrating the mind: Domain general versus domain specific processes in higher cognition", pp.351~367 (2007), Psychology Press
  60. Simonton, D. K., "Assessing scientific creativity: Conceptual analyses of assessment complexities", Commissioned paper, The Science of Science and Innovation Policy Conference, National Academy of Sciences (2012)
  61. Singer, D. G., "Children’s pastimes and play in sixteen nations: Is free-play declining?", American Journal of Play, 1(3), pp.283~312 (2009)
  62. Sternberg, R. J., "Handbook of human creativity" (1998), Cambridge University Press
  63. Sternberg, R. J., "Creativity: From potential to realization" (2004), American Psychological Association
  64. Sung, Y. T., "The design and application of a web-based self-and peerassessment system", Computers & Education, 45(2), pp.187~202 (2005)
  65. Weisberg, R. W., "Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius" (1993), WH Freeman
  66. Wilson, C., "Effective approaches to connect with nature" (2011), Department of Conservation

관련 논문AI추천

초등학생의 관찰 능력과 과학 창의성의 관계 분석 - 야외 식물 관찰 학습 사례를 중심으로 -김민주, 김현주, 임채성한국초등과학교육학회 · 초등과학교육2022 · 제41권 제4호초등과학영재학생의 과학창의성과 다중지능의 관계 - 생명 영역을 중심으로 -김민주, 임채성한국초등과학교육학회 · 초등과학교육2020 · 제39권 제3호초등과학영재학생의 과학지식과 과학창의성의 관계- 생명 영역을 중심으로 -김민주, 김현주, 임채성한국초등과학교육학회 · 초등과학교육2020 · 제39권 제3호초등과학영재학생의 과학창의성에 대한 자기 평가, 교사 평가, 객관적 평가의 비교 분석김민주, 임채성한국초등과학교육학회 · 초등과학교육2018 · 제37권 제4호초등과학영재학생의 발표에 대한 인식 및 발표의 자발성과 과학창의성의 관계 분석김민주, 임채성한국초등과학교육학회 · 초등과학교육2019 · 제38권 제3호초등과학영재학생의 과학창의성에 대한 자기 평가, 동료 평가의 비교 분석김민주, 임채성한국초등과학교육학회 · 초등과학교육2019 · 제38권 제4호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (4건)

초등학생의 유머 감각과 창의성, 과학 유머 창의성, 과학 유머 만들기의 교육적 효과에 대한 인식의 관계강훈식pp. 465-474초등 저학년 학생들에게 과학 경험은 충분할까?- 초등 저학년 학생의 과학에 대한 인식과 과학 경험에 대한 사례 연구 -박일우, 이가람, 주은정pp. 475-493디지털 시대에 요구되는 예비 초등교사의 과학 관련 협력적 문제해결역량 분석윤회정, 나지연pp. 494-505초등 과학 온라인 수업 운영에 대한 교사들의 인식과 운영실태최선영, 김혜란pp. 522-532
원문 보기