Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society (한국산학기술학회논문지)

The Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society (한국산학기술학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Relationship Among Domain-General Creativity, Linguistic Intelligence, Korean Language Grade and Linguistic Creativity of Elementary School Student

초등학생의 일반창의성, 언어지능, 국어성적과 언어창의성 간의 관계연구

  • Received : 2013.07.23
  • Accepted : 2013.08.07
  • Published : 2013.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship among domain-general creativity, linguistic intelligence, Korean language grade and linguistic creativity of elementary school student. And to confirm the relative predictive power of domain-general creativity variables in predicting elementary school students' linguistic creativity. The instruments used in this study were 'TTCT', 'Essay writing' and 'Linguistic intelligence ' and school grade of Korean language. Self-reported response data on these instruments from 338, 4th grade elementary school students in Seoul were analyzed. The data were analyzed with descriptive statistics, Pearson correlations, multiple stepwise regression analysis and ANOVA by using SPSS 18.0. The major results of this study were as follows; First, the correlations among domain-general creativity, Korean language grade and linguistic creativity were significant. Second, Abstractness of title were the best predictor of linguistic creativity in elementary school students.

본 연구는 초등학생들을 대상으로 일반창의성, 언어지능, 국어성적이 언어창의성에 미치는 영향을 살펴보고자 실시되었다. 서울시에 위치한 3개의 초등학교 4학년 338명을 대상으로 검사를 실시하였다. 사용된 검사는 다중지능검사 중 언어검사와 일반창의성 검사인 TTCT이며 국어성적은 학교에서 실시한 중간, 기말시험 성적을 사용하였으며 언어창의성은 에세이쓰기를 실시하였다. 수집된 자료는 SPSS 18.0을 활용하여 상관분석, 회귀분석, 분산분석을 실시하였다. 연구결과를 살펴보면 언어창의성은 일반창의성 전체점수에서 상관이 있는 것으로 나타났으며 하위요인에서는 제목의 추상성과 정교성에서 유의미한 상관이 나타났다. 언어창의성은 국어성적과는 정적상관이 있는 것으로 나타났으며 언어지능과는 상관이 없는 것으로 나타났다. 회귀분석을 실시한 결과 언어창의성은 일반창의성 가운데 제목의 추상성 요인이 가장 잘 설명하는 것으로 나타났으며 제목의 추상성 수준에 따라 언어창의성 평균은 의미있는 차이가 있는 것으로 나타났다.

Keywords

References

  1. Hills, T.W., Children in the fast lane: Implications for early childhood policy and practice. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 2(3), 265-273, 1987. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0885-2006(87)90035-4
  2. Guilford, J. P., Some misconceptions regarding measurement of creative behavior, The Journal of Creative Behavior 5, 77-87, 1971. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1971.tb00877.x
  3. Torrance, E. P. The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking streamlined (revised) manual Figural A and B. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service. 1984.
  4. Cramond, B. Morgan, J., Bandalos, D., & Li, Z ., A Report on the 40-Year Follow-Up of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Alive and Well in the New Millennium. Gifted Child Quarterly 49(4), 283-291, 2005. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001698620504900402
  5. Kaufman, J. C., Creativity 101. [Kim, J. H trans.] Seoul: Sigma Press, 2010.
  6. Kaufman, J. C., Plucker, J. A., & Baer, J.. Essential of creativity assessment. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2008.
  7. Runco, M. A., Creativity theories and themes: Research, Development, and practice. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 2007.
  8. K Muis, L Bendixen, F Haerle, Beliefs About Knowledge and Knowing: Integrating Domain Specificity and Domain Generality, Psychology Review, 18(1), 67-76, 2006. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9000-9
  9. Baer, J., & Kaufman, J.C., Bridging Generality and Specificity: The Amusement Park Theoretical (APT) Model of Creativity. Roeper Review, 27, 158-163, 2005. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02783190509554310
  10. Guilford, J. P. "Creativity", American Psychologist, 5, 444-454. 1950. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0063487
  11. Baer, J. "The case for domain specificity of creativity" Creativity Research Journal, 11(2), 173-177. 1998. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1102_7
  12. Han, K. & Marvin, C., Multiple creativities?: Investigating domain-specificity of creativity In young children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46(2). 98, 2002. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001698620204600203
  13. Kim, Y. C., The Domain-general vs Domain- specific: Related issues and Analysis of the Torrance's TTCT-verbal and TTCT-figural Test, Thinking Development, 8(1), 1-29, 2012.
  14. Sternberg, R. J. & Lubart, T. I.. Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. NY: Free Press. 1995.
  15. Sternberg, R. J., Successful intelligence. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1996.
  16. Amabile, T. M., The social psychology of creativity. A Componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357-376, 1983. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357
  17. Hennessey, B. A. & Amabile, T. M., Product creativity: Consensual assessment technique. In R. T. Brown (Chair), Measurement of creativity: Process and product. Symposium presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Atlanta, 1988.
  18. Gardner, H., Human intelligence isn't what we think. U. S. News and World Report, pp.75-78 Gardner, 1984
  19. Kim, C.H., & Han, S. H., Conceptive research of linguistic originality, Educationaladvanced Study, 4(1), 21-47, 2006.
  20. Alieldin Mohamed T. Torrance Indicators of Creative Thinking: A Development Study. University of Georgia. 1978.
  21. Mourad, E. H., Integral representations and complete monotonicity of various quotients of Bessel function. canadian Journal of mathmetics, 29(6), 1198-1207, 1976. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4153/CJM-1977-119-5
  22. Torrance, E. P., & Wu, T. "A comparative longitudinal study of the adult creative achievements of elementary school children identified as highly intelligent and as highly creative" Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 6, 71-76. 1981.
  23. Amabile, T. M., Motivation and creativity: Effects of motivational orientation on creative writers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 393-399. 1985. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.2.393
  24. Amabile, T. M., Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1996.
  25. Hennessey, B. A. & Amabile, T. M., Reward, intrinsic motivation, and creativity. American Psychologist 53(6), 674-675, 1988. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.6.674
  26. Hennessey, B. A. & Amabile, T. M.,Consensual assessment. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Creativity, Oval Road, London: Academic Press 347-360, 1999.
  27. Zhou, Zing & Oldham, G. R., Enhancing Creative performance: Effects of Expected Develop- mental Assessment Strategies and Creative Personalities. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 35(3), 151-167, 2001. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2001.tb01044.x
  28. Kim H.S., & Choi, I.S., A Structural Model for Creativity, Educational psychology, 16(4), 229-245, 2002.
  29. Mumford, M. D., Fieldman, J. M., Hein, M. B., Nagao, D. J. (2001). Tradeoffs Betwee, Ideas and Structure: Individuals Versus Group performance in Creative Problem solving. The Journal of creative Behavior, 31(4), 260-271. 2001.
  30. Shearer, C. B. (1996). Multiple Intelligences developmental assessment scales(MIDAS). United States of America : Author.
  31. Jung, T. H., Teaching-Learning Activities Development Based on Multiple Intelligences Theory and Its Effects : Focusing on Personal Intelligences, Unpublished Doctor dissertation, University of Hanyang, 1998.
  32. Torrance, E. P., & Safter, H. T., The long range predictive validity of the Just Suppose Test. Journal of Creative Behavior, 23, 219-223. 1989. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1989.tb00696.x
  33. Runco, M. A., McCarthy, K. A. & Svensen, E., Judgement of the creativity of artwork and students and professional artists. Journal of Psychology, 128. 23-31, 1994. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1994.9712708