Journal of Gifted/Talented Education (영재교육연구)

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

DOI QR Code

Cognitive Characteristics and Learning Needs of Economically Disadvantaged Gifted Students

소외계층 영재학생의 인지특성과 학습요구

  • Received : 2015.10.04
  • Accepted : 2016.03.29
  • Published : 2016.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study explored the cognitive characteristics and learning needs of economically disadvantaged gifted students. Gifted students(n=99), economically disadvantaged gifted students(n=43), and non-gifted students(n=50) participated in intelligence and creativity tests, and took self assessments of meta-cognition, epistemological beliefs, learning style preferences, and personal time usage. Superior abstract reasoning ability of economically disadvantaged gifted students was found because their scores on Raven's Test had risen rapidly compared to the other groups. Economically disadvantaged gifted students showed similar high scores as the gifted student on the Torrance Tests of Creativity Thinking-Figural, but not on Verbal. They were found to have a perception of the positive relationships among effort, learning abilities, and values of learning integrated knowledge with a general plan. However, they showed lower meta-cognitive control abilities than the gifted students in learning management and strategies, epistemological beliefs in value of rational operations, and time usage for learning. It is necessary to assign economically disadvantaged gifted students a task with various step by step methods of approach because these students prefer a new and creative task to difficult ones. Instruction plans such as developing language and meta-cognitive abilities and practical application of learning content was proposed.

본 연구는 소외계층 영재의 인지적 특성과 학습요구 탐색을 목적으로 한다. 일반영재 99명, 소외영재 43명, 일반학생 50명에게 지능, 창의성, 상위인지, 인식론적 신념, 과제 선호도, 개인시간 활용에 대한 검사를 실시하였다. 소외영재는 지능 검사에서 다른 집단보다 점수 향상이 빠르게 나타나 추상화 능력이 뛰어남을 알 수 있었다. 소외영재는 토랜스 창의성 도형 검사에서 일반영재만큼 높은 점수를 보였으나, 언어 검사에서는 일반영재보다 낮은 점수를 보였다. 소외영재는 노력, 학습 능력, 전체 학습계획, 통합적 지식이 학습에서 중요한 것으로 인식하였지만, 일반영재에 비해 학습관리와 책략 같은 상위인지 기술과 합리적인 작업의 가치에 대한 인식론적 신념이 낮고 학습시간도 적었다. 독창적인 과제는 선호하나 어려운 것을 기피하는 소외영재의 성향을 고려하여 다양하게 접근하는 과제를 활용하거나 과제를 단계적으로 제시할 필요가 있으며, 언어능력 신장, 학습내용의 실제 생활에의 적용, 상위인지 기술 개발 등이 소외계층 영재를 위한 지도 방안으로 제안된다.

Keywords

References

  1. 김미숙 (2008). 한국의 영재교육정책과 새 방향: 프로젝트 S&S(Stand & Shine). 소외계층 영재교육 활성화를 위한 공공정책 국제심포지엄 자료집, 119-155.
  2. 김애경 (2001). 아동과 초기 청소년의 사회 행동: 학부모와의 의사소통, 자아존중감 및 우울과의 관계. 아동학회지, 22(3), 271-285.
  3. 김정섭, 윤경미 (2009). 여중학생의 인식론적 신념과 비판적 사고 성향과의 관계. 교육심리연구, 23(1), 91-107.
  4. 문병상 (2009). 인식론적 신념, 성취목표지향성, 자기조절학습 및 학업성취간의 관계. 초등교육연구, 22(4), 49-68.
  5. 박민정, 전동렬. (2008). 과학 영재교육 대상자 선발방법으로써 교사 추천제 분석: 학생의 과학적 태도, 탐구력, 사고력, 문제 해결력, 창의성을 중심으로. 한국과학교육학회지, 28(2), 111-119.
  6. 박병기, 정영주 (2012). 인식론적 신념의 척도 재타당화 및 영역성 탐색. 교육심리연구, 26(3), 739-767.
  7. 박병기, 채선영 (2006). 사적 인식론의 재개념화 및 그 타당성 검토. 교육심리연구, 20(4), 829-854.
  8. 박종원, 이종백, 오원근, 박종석 (2000). 과학영재 교육프로그램에 대한 분석 연구. 영재교육연구, 10(1), 75-102.
  9. 박지연 (2014). 사회경제적으로 소외된 중학생의 과학 학습 특징: 인식, 개념, 동기, 전략의 상관관계. 박사학위논문. 서울대학교.
  10. 서미옥 (2009). 토렌스 창의성 검사 (도형 A 형) 의 독창성 채점에 대한 문화적 영향. 아시아교육연구, 10(3), 171-189.
  11. 송경애 (2014). 소외계층 영재의 지능과 자아존중감, 수학적 태도 및 과학적 태도의 관계. 영재교육연구, 24(6), 1039-1051. https://doi.org/10.9722/JGTE.2014.24.6.1039
  12. 신지은, 한기순, 정현철, 박병건, 최승언 (2002). 과학 영재 학생과 일반학생은 창의성에서 어떻게 다른가?: 서울대학교 과학영재교육센터 학생들을 중심으로. 한국과학교육학회지, 22(1), 158-175.
  13. 이미순, 조석희, 이현주 (2006). 소외계층 영재의 논리적 사고력과 상위인지에 대한 연구. 영재교육연구, 16(2), 167-191.
  14. 이재분, 유경재, 여승수, 김아름 (2011). 소외계층 영재학생 사례 발굴 및 지원방안 연구. 수탁연구 (CR2011-70), 서울: 한국교육개발원.
  15. 이효녕, 하재영, 오희진 (2009). 대구.경북지역 소외계층 과학영재의 특성 및 요구분석. 과학교육연구지, 33(2), 220-236.
  16. 전덕임, 강연욱 (1994). 지능 검사로서의 Raven Progressive Matrices 검사의 타당도연구:Standard Progressive Matrices 검사를 중심으로. 한국심리학회지, 13(1), 65-81.
  17. 조석희, 이미순, 황동주, 이현주. (2005). 소외계층 영재의 발굴 및 교육방안: 소외계층 영재의 가정 및 개인특성 분석. 수탁연구 (CR 2005-64). 서울: 한국교육개발원.
  18. 조석희, 한석실 (2004). 영재교육대상자 판별도구 개발-1 단계 선발용-. 기술보고서(TR2004-18), 서울: 한국교육개발원.
  19. Baker, L. (1989). Metacognition, comprehension monitoring, and the adult reader. Educational Psychology Review, 1(1), 3-38. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01326548
  20. Borkowski, J. G., & Peck, V. A. (1986). Causes and consequences of metamemory in gifted children. In R. Sternberg (2005). Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 182-200). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  21. Borland, J. H. (Ed.). (2003). Rethinking gifted education (Vol. 10). NY: Teachers College Press.
  22. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1981). Inducing flexible thinking: The problem of access. New York: Springer.
  23. Cheng, P. W. (1993). Metacognition and giftedness: The state of the relationship. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(3), 105-112. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629303700302
  24. Colangelo, N., & Davis, G. A. (2002). Handbook on gifted education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  25. Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (2004). Characteristics of gifted students. Education of the Gifted and Talented, 5, 32-53.
  26. Elliott, E. S. & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: an approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.1.5
  27. Fishkin, A. S., & Johnson, A. S. (1998). Who is creative? Roeper Review, 21(1), 40-46. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199809553925
  28. Ford, D. Y. (2010). Reversing underachievement among gifted Black students. IL: Sourcebooks, Inc.
  29. Fox, L. H. (1976). Sex differences: Implications for program planning for the academically gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 20(3), 290-290.
  30. Frasier, M. M. (1997). Handbook of gifted education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  31. Frasier, M. M., Garcia, J. H., & Passow, A. H. (1995). A review of assessment issues in gifted education and their implications for identifying gifted minority students. PA: DIANE Publishing.
  32. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.
  33. Gay, J. E. (1978). A proposed plan for identifying black gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 22, 353-360. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698627802200321
  34. Hofer, B. K. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(4), 378-405. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1026
  35. Ismail, A. M., & Abdel-Majeed, U. M. (2006). Predicting gifted EFL Students' goal orientation, cognitive engagement, perceived linguistic competence, and achievement with epistemological beliefs. Jeddah: the Regional Scientific Conference on Giftedness.
  36. Jausovec, N. (1994). Metacognition in creative problem solving. Aarhus: Ablex Publishing.
  37. Jensen, A. R. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York: Free Press. In A. S. Kaffman (1990). Assessing adolescent and adult intelligence. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
  38. Johnsen, S. K., & Kendrick, J. (2005). Teaching strategies in gifted education. TX: PRUFROCK PRESS INC.
  39. Kurtz, B. E. (1990). Interactions among aptitudes, strategies, and knowledge in cognitive performance. New York: Springer.
  40. Lohman, D. F. (2005). An aptitude perspective on talent: Implications for identification of academically gifted minority students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28(3-4), 333-360. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2005-341
  41. Lorge, I. (1966). Testing problems is perspective. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
  42. MacFarlane, B. (2015). Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says. Roeper Review, 37(1), 54-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2015.975776
  43. Moss, E. (1990). Social interaction and metacognitive development in gifted preschoolers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34(1), 16-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629003400104
  44. Muis, K. R. (2007). The role of epistemic beliefs in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 42(3), 173-190. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701416306
  45. Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Future challenges and directions for theory and research on personal epistemology. In P. R. Pintrich (Ed.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 389-414). Mahwah, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  46. Raven, J. C. (2010). 한국 레이븐 지능발달검사: K-SPM I. 서울: 가이던스.
  47. Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.3.498
  48. Spearman, C. (1927). The abilities of man. New York: MacMillan.
  49. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3), 607-627. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.607
  50. Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  51. Taber, K. S. (2007). Science education for gifted learners. New York: Routledge.
  52. Tileston, D. W. (2010). What every teacher should know about diverse learners. CA: Corwin Press.
  53. Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  54. Tomlinson, C. A. (2002). The parallel curriculum: A design to develop high potential and challenge high-ability learners. CA: Corwin Press.
  55. Torrance, E. P. (1979). The search for satori & creativity. Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation.
  56. Torrance, E. P. (1982). Hemisphericity and creative functioning. Journal of Research & Development in Education, 15(3), 29-37.
  57. Torrance, E. P. (1984). The role of creativity in identification of the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28(4), 153-156. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698628402800403
  58. VanTassel-Baska, J. (2003). Content-based curriculum for low income and minority gifted leraners. (Research Monography No. RM 03180). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
  59. VanTassel-Baska, J., & Reis, S. M. (2003). Curriculum for gifted and talented students. CA: Corwin Press.
  60. Wallach, M. A. (1976). Tests tell us little about talent: Although measures of academic skills are widely used to determine access to contested educational opportunities, especially in their upper ranges they lack utility for predicting professional achievement. American Scientist, 57-63.
  61. Winebrenner, S. (2001). Teaching gifted kids in the regular classroom: Strategies and techniques every teacher can use to meet the academic needs of the gifted and talented. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing, Inc.
  62. Winner, E. (1996). Gifted children: Myths and realities. New York: Basic Books.