Journal of the Korean earth science society (한국지구과학회지)

The Korean Earth Science Society (한국지구과학회)
권호 표지

Are Boys More Creative than Girls? -Based on the Scientific Creativity of Gifted Students-

남학생은 여학생보다 창의적인가? - 영재들의 과학 창의성을 중심으로 -

  • Shin, Ji-Eun (Department of Earth Science, Seoul National University) ;
  • Jung, Hyun-Chul (Department of Earth Science, Seoul National University) ;
  • Choe, Seung-Urn (Department of Earth Science, Seoul National University) ;
  • Han, Ki-Soon (Department of Education, University of Incheon)
  • 신지은 (서울대학교 지구과학교육과) ;
  • 정현철 (서울대학교 지구과학교육과) ;
  • 최승언 (서울대학교 지구과학교육과) ;
  • 한기순 (인천대학교 교육학과)
  • Published : 2002.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Recent studies have indicated that boys show better scientific achievements compared to those of girls. It is also a general conception that boys would be better than girls in terms of scientific creative performances and potential, although there have been few studies to support the general opinion. As the gifted education in Korea is progressing very rapidly, the importance of understanding the creative characteristics of gifted boys and girls has been increased. In the present study, we have compared and analyzed three different measures of creativity utilizing 135 gifted students (77 boys and 58 girls) to provide an empirical evidence for the different degrees of creative performances between gifted boys and girls. The instruments used to measure diverse aspects of creativity include the Torrance Test of Creativity (TTCT), the Test of Creative Problem-solving and Finding in Science (CPFS), and the Creative Behavioral Checklist in Science(CBCS). The results of the study indicate that girls, rather than boys, showed better creative performances, demonstrating moderately higher average scores on the three creative measures used in the study. The results are in contrast to people's general conception that boys would be more creative than girls. Implications of the study in connection with identification and educational practices for gifted education program have been discussed.

최근의 연구들은 과학영역에서 남학생이 여학생에 비해 훨씬 더 높은 학업 성취도를 보인다고 주장하고, 과학영역에서의 창의성 측면에서도 남학생이 여학생에 비해 더 높은 창의적 성취를 보일 것이라는 것이 일반적인 통념이다. 과학영재교육이 본격화되고 남${\cdot}$여 과학영재들의 창의적 특성에 대한 이해의 중요성이 부각되고 있지만, 이를 뒷받침할 연구들은 거의 부재한 상황이다. 본 연구에서는 135명의 과학영재학생들을 대상으로 창의성의 다양한 영역에서, 특히 확산적 사고라는 영역 보편적 입장과 과학에서의 창의적 행동특성과 문제해결 및 발견이라는 영역 특수적 입장에서, 남학생과 여학생간의 창의성의 차이를 살피고 창의성의 본성에 대한 이해를 돕고자 했다. 본 연구의 결과는 과학 영재여학생들이 남학생들에 비해 모든 영역에서 유의미하게 큰 차이를 보이지는 않았지만, 전반적으로 창의성의 세 영역 모두에서 상대적으로 높은 성취를 보이는 것으로 나타났다. 구체적으로 살펴보면 확산적 사고의 융통성, 제목의 추상성, 정교성 영역에서, 과학에서의 창의적 문제 해결력 및 문제 발견력을 측정하는 CPSF의 가설 설정 능력의 유창성과 독창성 영역에서, 그리고 과학에서의 창의적 행동 특성을 측정하는 CBCS에서 개방성, 심미안에서 과학 영재 여학생이 남학생보다 유의미하게 창의성이 높은 것으로 나타났다. 남학생은 여학생에 비해 CBCS에서의 '과학적 호기심' 문항에서만 유의미하게 더 높은 창의성 점수를 보임으로 본 연구 결과는 '남학생이 여학생보다 더 창의적이다'라는 사회의 일반적인 통념과 상반된 결과를 보였다.

Keywords

References

  1. 박병기, 1998, 창의성 교육의 기반. 교육과학사, 169 p
  2. 송상헌, 1998, 수학 영재성 측정과 판별에 관한 연구. 서울대학교 박사 논문, 193 p
  3. 신지은. 한기순. 정현철. 박병건. 최승언, in press, 과학영재학생과 일반 학생은 창의성에서 어떻게 다른가?. 한국과학교육학회지, 22(1)
  4. 한기순, 2000, 창의성의 영역 한정성과 영역 보편성에 관한 분석과 탐구. 영재교육연구, 10(2), 47-69
  5. Ai, X., 1999, Creativity and academic achievement: An investigation of gender difference, Creativity Research Journal, 12(4), 329-337 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1204_11
  6. Amabile, T.M., 1996, Creativity in context. Westview Press, Boulder,CO, 345 p
  7. Baer, J., 1991, Generality of creativity across performance domains, Creativity Research Journal, 4, 23-39 https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419109534371
  8. Baer, J., 1993, Creativity and divergent thinking: A task-specific approach. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hills-dale, NJ, 129 p
  9. Baer, J., 1994, Divergent thinking is not a general trait: A multi-domain training experiment, Creativity Research Journal, 7, 35-46 https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419409534507
  10. Baer, J., 1999, Gender differences, In Runco, M.A., and Piitzker, S. R. (ed). Encyclopedia of creativity, Academic Press, SD, 753-758
  11. Barron, F. and Harrington, D.M., 1981, Creativity, Intelligence, and Personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 439-476 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.32.020181.002255
  12. Bieri, J., Bradburn, W, and Galinsky, M., 1958, Sex differences in perceptual behavior. Journal of Personality, 26, 1-12 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1958.tb01566.x
  13. Cicirelli, V.G., 1967, Sibling constellation, creativity, IQ, and academic achievement. Child Development, 38, 481-490 https://doi.org/10.2307/1127304
  14. Csikzentmihalyi, M., 1988, Society, culture, and person: A system view of creativity, In Stemberg, R.J., (Ed.), The nature of creativity, Cambridge University Press, NY, 325-339
  15. Csikzentmihalyi, M., 1990, The domains of creativity, In Runco M.A. and Albert R.S., (Eds.), Theories of creativity, Sage, London, 190-214
  16. Davis, G.A., 1975, In the pursuit of the creative person. Journal of creative Behavior, 5, 162-165
  17. Davis, G.A., 1999. Creativity is forever. Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque, IA, 346 p
  18. Davis, G.A. and Rimm, S., 1982, Group inventory for find-ing interests(GlhH) I and II: Instruments for identify-ing creative potential in the junior and senior high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 833-836 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.70.5.833
  19. Domino, G., 1970, Identification of potentially creative persons from the Adjective Check List. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 35, 48-51 https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029624
  20. Dunbar, K., 1999, Science. In Runco, M.A., and Pritzker, S.R. (ed.). Encyclopedia of creativity, Academic Press, CA, 525-531
  21. Feldman, D.H., 1994, Beyond universals in cognitive development. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, 209 p
  22. Fishkin, A., Cramond, B., and Olszewski-Kubilius, P., 1999, Investigating creativity in youth. Hampton Press, Hillsdale, NJ, 449 p
  23. Gardner, H., 1983, Frames of minds. Basic Books, NY, 440 p
  24. Gardner, H., 1993, Creating minds. Basic Books, NY, 464 p
  25. Han, K.S. and Marvin, C., 2002, Multiple creativities?: Investigating domain specific of creativity in young children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46 (2), 98-109 https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620204600203
  26. Helson, R., 1990, Creativity in women: Outer and inner views over time. In Runco, M.A., and Albert, R. S. (ed), Theories of creativity, Sage, Newbury Oak, CA, 46-58
  27. Hennessey, B.A. and Amabile, T.M., 1988, The role of environment in creativity, In Stemberg, R.J. (ed.). The nature of creativity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, 11-38
  28. Hennessey, B.A. and Amabile, T.M., 1999, Consensual assessment, In Runco, M.A., and Pntzker, S.R. (ed.). Encyclopedia of creativity, Academic Press, San Diego, A, 347-360
  29. Hocevar, D., 1981, Measurement of creativity: Review and critique. Journal of Personality Assessment, 45(5), 450-464 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4505_1
  30. Khatena, J., 1982, Myth: Creativity is too difficult to measure. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26(1), 21-23 https://doi.org/10.1177/001698628202600107
  31. Lipps, J.H., 1999, Beyond reason: Science in the massmedia, In Schopf, J.W. (ed) Evolution! Facts and Fallacies. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 71-90
  32. McCrae, R.R., 1987, Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6), 1258-1265 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.6.1258
  33. Ochse, R., 1990, Before the gates of excellence: The determinants of creative genius, Cambridge University Press, NY, 300 p
  34. Perkins, D., 1988, Creativity and the quest for mechanism. In Stemberg, R. J., and Smith, E. (ed) The psychology of human thought, Cambridge University Press, NY, 309-336
  35. Plucker, J.A., 1999, Reanalyses of student responses to creativity checklist: Evidence of content generality. Journal of Creative Behavior, 33, 126-137 https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1999.tb01042.x
  36. Raina, M.K., 1969, A study of sex differences in creativity in India. Journal of Creative Behavior, 3, 111-114 https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1969.tb00052.x
  37. Renzulli, J.S., 1983, Rating the behavioral characteristics of superior students. Gifted Child Today, 19, 30-35
  38. Runco, M.A., 1987, The generality of creative performance in gifted and nongifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 121-125 https://doi.org/10.1177/001698628703100306
  39. Runco, M.A. and Pritzer, S.R., 1999, Encyclopedia of creativity. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 810 p
  40. Schaefer, C.E., 1971, Creativity attitude survey. Psychologists and educators, Jacksonville, IL, 240 p
  41. Stemberg, R.J., 1989, Domain-generality versus domain-specificity: The life and impending death of a false dichotomy. Memll-Palmer Quarterly, 35(1), 115-130
  42. Stemberg, R.J., 1999, Handbook of creativity, Cambridge University Press, NY, 490 p
  43. Stemberg, R.J. and Lubart, T.L, 1996, Investing in creativity. American Psychologist, 51(7), 677-688 https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.51.7.677
  44. Torrance, E.R, 1970, Torrance tests of creative thinking. Scholastic Testing Service, Bensenville, IL, 51 p
  45. Wallach, M.A., 1985, Creativity testing and giftedness. In Horowitz, F.D., and O'Brain, M. (ed), The gifted and talented: Developmental perspectives, APA, Washington, D.C., 99-124
  46. Warren, G.H. and Luiia, Z., 1972, Evaluational set and creativity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 34, 436-438 https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1972.34.2.436