영재교육연구 (Journal of Gifted/Talented Education)

한국영재학회 (The Korean Society for the Gifted)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

과학고 졸업생들의 과거와 현재: 과학고 학업성취수준에 따른 전문과학분야의 성취 비교

Past and Present of Science High School Graduates: Comparison of Productivity in Science Field Based on High School Academic Achievement

  • 투고 : 2011.06.08
  • 심사 : 2011.09.24
  • 발행 : 2011.09.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구에서는 과학고 졸업생들을 대상으로 이들의 과학고 재학시 학업 성취 수준(고성취, 저성취)에 따라 이들의 향후 성취(최종학력, 창의적 업적물 수) 수준, 직업 및 소득이 다르게 나타나는지, 그리고 이들의 삶 및 직업 선택에 영향을 준 인물은 누구였는지에 대해 탐색하고자 하였다. 이를 위해 전국 18개 과학고를 졸업한 성인들 중 2001년 이전에 졸업한 성인 총 244명(만 28.00세~42.84세)을 최종분석 대상으로 선정하여 설문분석을 실시하였고, 설문 참여자들 중 13명을 선정하여 면대면 심층인터뷰를 실시하였다. 과학고 졸업생들의 과학고 재학시 학업 성취 수준이 상위 30%에 해당하는 이들을 고성취 집단으로, 하위 30%에 해당하는 이들을 저성취 집단으로 분류하였다. 그 결과, 이들 두 집단의 최종학력 수준과 창의적 업적물 수는 유의한 차이를 보였는데, 저성취 집단에 비해 고성취 집단에서 박사과정 이상의 고학력 소지자가 더 많았으며, 창의적 업적물을 많이 낸 과학고 졸업생들의 비중도 더 많은 것으로 나타났다. 또한, 전문과학군에 종사하는 과학고 졸업생들은 고성취집단의 과반수이상을 차지한데 반해, 저성취 집단에서는 비전문과학군(일반군)에 종사하는 과학고 졸업생들의 비중이 과반수이상을 차지한 것으로 나타났다. 아울러, 고성취 집단에서 고소득자가 더욱 많이 분포되었으며, 직장 내에서 창의적 능력이 요구된다고 응답한 비중이 저성취 집단에서와 달리 무려 86%를 상회하는 것으로 나타났다. 이들 두 집단 모두 삶과 직업선택에 영향을 가장 많이 준 인물로 부모가 가장 많이 지목되었으며, 그 다음으로 스승이 지목되었다. 이러한 설문 연구결과는 인터뷰 결과와도 일치하는데, 과학고 졸업생들의 삶과 직업선택은 그 당시 처해진 사회적 상황과 생활 속 밀접하게 상호작용한 주변인물(부모님, 교사, 선후배)로부터 영향을 받은 것으로 나타났으며, 주변인물에 대한 주관적 인식에 있어서는 두 집단 간 다소 차이가 있는 것으로 나타났다.

The impact of the academic achievements of science high school graduates during the science high school period on their creative productivity, higher education, occupation, and income were investigated with 244 science high school graduates who belonged either to top 30% or bottom 30% in terms of their high school GPA. The factors contributed to the choice of current occupations and life were also investigated through retrospective approach. Survey questionnaire was administered to 244 adults who graduated from 18 science high schools before 2001. Thirteen graduates who completed questionnaire were interviewed face-to-face. Their ages ranged from 28.00 to 42.84. The high achievers were belonged to top 30% and the low achievers were belonged to the bottom 30% and the two groups demonstrated significant differences in their higher education and creative productivity. More doctoral degree holders and more number of creative products were found in the high achievers than the low achievers. 58.1% of the high achievers and 42.7% of the low achievers were working as professional scientists. Significantly more high achievers were working on tasks which require creative problem solving abilities and their income was significantly higher than the low achievers. For both groups, parents were the most significant individuals and then teachers were the second most important persons who impacted to their life and the choice of their occupation. Interviews with 13 graduates confirmed the survey results especially in their choice of life style and occupation. They were also influenced the most by parents, then teachers, and their friends who were more interacting with the socioeconomic environment when they selected university, major, and occupation. The results implies that high school achievement has significant influence on their future achievement to some extent and schools need to provide guide on the career choice not only to the students but also to their parents, since students' career choices are much influenced by their parents.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Arnold, K. A. (1994). The Illinois valedictorian project: Early adult careers of academically talented male high school students. In R. F. Subotnik, & K. D. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 77-114). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
  2. Bloom, B. S. (1985). Developing talent in young people. NY: Ballatine Books.
  3. Cho, S., Ahn, D., Han, S., & Park, H. (2008). Academic developmental pattern of the Korean gifted during the 18 years after identification. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(8), 784-789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.08.007
  4. Cho, S., & Campbell, J. (2011). Differential influences of family processes for scientifically talented individuals' academic achievement along development stages. Roeper Review, 33(1), 33-45.
  5. Cho, S., & Lin, C. Y. (2011). Influence of family processes, motivation, and beliefs about intelligence on creative problem solving of scientifically talented individuals. Roeper Review, 33(1), 46-58.
  6. Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers-The roots of success and failure. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Goertzel, V., & Goertzel, M. G. (1962). Cradles of eminence. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
  8. Gagne, F. (2003). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. In N. Colangelo, & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 60-74). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
  9. Hargrove, B. K., Creagh, M. G., & Burgess, B. L. O. (2002). Family interaction patterns as predictors of vocational identity and career decision-making self-efficacy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 185-201. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1848
  10. Hany, E. A. (1994). The development of basic cognitive components of technical creativity: A longitudinal comparison of children and youth with high and average intelligence. In R. F. Subotnik, & K. D. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 77-114). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
  11. Hollingworth, L. S. (1942). Children above 180 IQ. New York: World Book.
  12. Hartung, P. J., Porfeli, F. J., & Vondracek, F. W. (2005). Child vocational development: A review and reconsideration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 385-419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2004.05.006
  13. Miller, J. (2010). Parents still major influence on child's decision to pursue science careers. Science Daily, Retrieved February 26, 2011, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100220204814.htm
  14. Mau, W. (2003). Factors that influence persistence in science and engineering career aspirations. Career Development Quarterly, 51, 234-243. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2003.tb00604.x
  15. Perleth, C., & Heller, K. A. (1994). The Munich longitudinal study of giftedness. In R. F. Subotnik, & K. D. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 77-114). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
  16. Roe, A. (1953). The making of a scientist. NY: Dodd, Mead.
  17. Schoon, I. (2000). A life span approach to talent development. In K. Heller, F. Monks, R. Sternberg, & R. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent. London: Pergamon Press.
  18. Subotnik, R. F., & Jarvin, L. (2005). Beyond expertise: Conceptions of giftedness as great performance. In R. J. Sternberg, & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 343-357). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  19. Subotnik, R. F., Karp, D. E., & Morgan, E. R. (1989). High IQ children at mid-life: An investigation into the generalizability of Terman's "Genetic studies of genius." Roeper Review, 11(3), 139-144. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783198909553190
  20. Subotnik, R. F., Kassan, L., Summers, E., & Wasser, A. (1993). Genius revisited: High IQ children grown up. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  21. Subotnik, R. F., & Steiner, C. L. (1994). Adult manifestations of adolescent talent in science: A longitudinal study of 1983 Westinghouse Science Talent Search winners. In R. F. Subotnik, & K. D. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 52-76). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
  22. Turner, S. L., Steward, J. C., & Lapan, R. T. (2004). Family factors associated with sixth-grade adolescents' math and science career interests. Career Development Quarterly, 53, 41-52. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2004.tb00654.x
  23. Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1959). Genetic studies of genius V. CA: Stanford University Press.
  24. Usinger, J. (2005). Parent/guardian visualization of career and academic future of seventh graders enrolled in low-achieving schools. Career Development Quarterly, 53, 234-245. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2005.tb00993.x
  25. Vaillant, G. E. (1977). Adaptation to life. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
  26. Young, R. A., & Friesen, J. D. (1992). The intention of parents in influencing the career development of their children. Career Development Quarterly, 40, 198-207. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.1992.tb00326.x
  27. Young, R. A. (1993, April). Parent-adolescent conversations about career development and educational plans. In R. Marques (Chair), International research on school and family connections. Symposium conducted at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
  28. Zuckerman, H. (1977). Scientific elite: Nobel laureates in the United States. New York: Free Press.
  29. Ziegler, A., & Heller, K. (2000). Conceptions of giftedness from a Meta-theoretical perspective. In K. Heller, F. Monks, R. Sternberg, & R. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent. London: Pergamon.