한국초등과학교육학회지:초등과학교육 (Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education)

  • 제36권4호
  • /
  • Pages.379-393
  • /
  • 2017
  • /
  • 1598-3099(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2733-8436(eISSN)
한국초등과학교육학회 (The Korean Elementary Science Education Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

초등과학영재학생의 자기주도성과 과학창의성의 관계

The Relationship between Self-Directedness and Scientific Creativity of Science-Gifted Elementary Students

  • 투고 : 2017.10.12
  • 심사 : 2017.11.28
  • 발행 : 2017.11.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

This study analyzed the relationship between self-directedness of science-gifted elementary students and their expression of scientific creativity in science-gifted class. A science-gifted program on the topic of Hydraulic Machine was implemented to 34 fifth-graders in the Science-Gifted Education Center of an education office in Seoul, Korea for four weeks. The self-directedness of the gifted students was divided into three types of 'General, Scientific, and Topic-Related Self-Directedness'. The products of the students' activities were assessed by using a scientific creativity assessment formula. Qualitative research, such as analysis of observations and interviews, was also conducted in order to identify characteristics that were not apparently revealed by quantitative data. The main results of this study are as follows: First, science-gifted elementary students' general self-directedness and their scientific creativity were significantly correlated (r=.373). Second, the students' scientific self-directedness and scientific creativity did not have a significant correlation (r=.294). Third, there was a positive correlation between the students' topic-related self-directedness and their expression of scientific creativity. Their self-rated scores (r=.420) for the topic-related self-directedness and the number of activity types associated with the topic had a positive correlation (r=.350). Fourth, the students were categorized into four groups according to the levels of their self-directedness and scientific creativity, and the result showed that Type HH (high self-directedness and high scientific creativity) was the most common type (15 students, 38.5%), followed by Type LL (low self-directedness and low scientific creativity) (11 students, 28.2%). Eight (20.5%) and five students (12.8 %) belonged to Type LH (low self-directedness and high scientific creativity) and Type HL (high self-directedness and low scientific creativity) respectively. Fifth, the classroom observation of the students in groups revealed that groups with more number of Type HH demonstrated better cooperation and performance. Sixth, the analysis results of the observation were almost matched to the results of the self-directedness and scientific creativity tests. The students with higher self-directedness demonstrated active class participation and good cooperative skills. The students with higher scientific creativity had a tendency to generate creative ideas more frequently in given situations. Seventh, dynamic activities were perceived as enjoyable and exciting by 76.9% of the students, but static activities that require creativity were regarded as interesting only by 23.1% of the students. Among the students who were satisfied with both the creative and static activities, Type HH accounted for the largest proportion (55.6%). In conclusion, factors such as students' interests, initiatives, and attitudes displayed through voluntary participations originated from their own daily life can predict the degree of scientific creativity associated with the topic. Also, when students were categorized into four types according to the level of self-directedness and scientific creativity, there was a tendency of active behavior in class, cooperative skill, and activity satisfaction. This suggested that we should consider self-directedness and scientific creativity in selecting the gifted, grouping them in class, and designing and executing programs for science-gifted elementary students.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. 곽금주, 정윤경, 김민화 (2010). 아동발달심리학. 서울: 박학사.
  2. 김아영, 차정은, 이채희, 주지은, 임은영 (2016). 혼자쓰는 연구논문. 서울: 학지사.
  3. 김지자, 김경성, 유귀옥, 유길한 (1996). 초등학교 교사를 위한 자기주도학습 준비도 측정도구의 개발과 활용방안. 평생교육학연구, 2(1), 1-25.
  4. 김혜영, 김금선 (2010). 초등학생용 자기주도학습능력 검사의 탐색 및 개발. 교육종합연구, 8(1), 21-42.
  5. 문병상 (2000). 영재와 평재간의 학업적 자기조절의 차이. 초등교육연구, 14(1), 181-197.
  6. 박민정, 전동렬 (2008). 과학 영재교육 대상자 선발방법으로써 교사 추천제 분석: 학생의 과학적 태도, 탐구력, 사고력, 문제 해결력, 창의성을 중심으로. 한국과학교육학회지, 28(2), 111-119.
  7. 박병기 (2004). 교육평가용어사전. 서울: 학지사.
  8. 박숙희 (2009). 소외계층 영재교육. 영재와 영재교육, 8, 5-21.
  9. 박혜영, 이신동 (2015). 자기조절학습능력과 영재성 구인 비교. 영재와 영재교육, 14, 267-288.
  10. 손향숙 (1997). 자기규제적 방략 훈련과 확산적 사고 훈련이 창의성 향상에 미치는 효과. 성균관대학교 박사학위논문.
  11. 송연자, 이윤옥 (2004). 뇌기능 분화에 따른 창의성 증진 프로그램이 유아의 창의성에 미치는 효과. 교육발전연구, 20(1), 69-87.
  12. 오헌석, 최지영, 최윤미, 권귀헌 (2007). 과학인재의 성장 및 전문성 발달과정에서의 영향 요인에 관한 연구. 한국과학교육학회지, 27(9), 907-918.
  13. 윤초희, 정현철 (2006). 과학영재의 과학탐구능력 관련 변인에 대한 경로분석. 교육심리연구, 20(2), 321-339.
  14. 임채성 (1997). 협동학습의 대뇌생물학적 기초: 아이디어-공유 창출 모델. 생물교육 (구 생물교육학회지), 25(2), 143-155.
  15. 임채성 (2009). 뇌기반 진화적 과학 교수학습 모형의 개발. 한국과학교육학회지, 29(8), 990-1010.
  16. 임채성 (2012). 뇌기반 진화적 접근법에 따른 창의적 과학 문제해결 지도 모형 개발. 생물교육, 40(4), 429-452.
  17. 임채성 (2014). 과학창의성 평가 공식의 개발과 적용. 초등과학교육, 33(2), 242-257.
  18. 정미경 (2007). 자기조절학습과 창의적, 비판적 사고력간의 관계. 영재와 영재교육, 6, 163-182.
  19. 정은숙, 안도희 (2009). 웹기반 과학 수업 방법과 자기조절학습 수준이 초등학생의 과학적 자기효능감과 과학학업성취에 미치는 효과. 초등교육연구, 22(2), 281-305.
  20. 정현철, 조석희, 서혜애, 신명경, 허남영 (2004). 영재의 자율연구능력 기초탐색연구. 수탁연구 CR, 43.
  21. 최선영 (1999). 전뇌학습 프로그램이 초등학생의 창의력, 자연과 학업성취도, 과학적 태도 및 학습 양식에 미치는 효과. 서울대학교 대학원 박사학위논문, 서울.
  22. 하주영 (2011). 간호대학생의 학습유형과 학습태도 및 자기주도적 학습능력. 한국간호교육학회지, 17(3), 355-364. https://doi.org/10.5977/JKASNE.2011.17.3.355
  23. Ablard, K. E. & Lipschultz, R. E. (1998). Self-regulated learning in high-achieving students: Relations to advanced reasoning, achievement goals, and gender. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 94-101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.1.94
  24. Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C. & Norman, M. K. (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. John Wiley & Sons.
  25. Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261-271. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261
  26. Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  27. Bordens, K. S. & Abbott, B. B. (2002). Research design and methods: A process approach. McGraw-Hill.
  28. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. & Cocking, R. (1999). How people learn: Mind, brain, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
  29. Caleon, I. S. & Subramaniam, R. (2008). Attitudes towards science of intellectually gifted and mainstream upper primary students in Singapore. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(8), 940-954. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20250
  30. Chavez-Eakle, R. A., Lara, M. D. C. & Cruz-Fuentes, C. (2006). Personality: A possible bridge between creativity and psychopathology? Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 27-38. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1801_4
  31. Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M. & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A psychobiological model of temperament and character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50(12), 975-990. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1993.01820240059008
  32. Cox, B. F. (2002). The relationship between creativity and self-directed learning among adult community college students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee.
  33. Fox, L. H. (1976). Changing behaviors and attitudes of gifted girls. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association, September, 1976, Washington, DC (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 183 088).
  34. Gagne, M. & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self‐determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331-362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322
  35. Guglielmino, P. J. & Murdick, R. G. (1997). Self-directed learning: The quiet revolution in corporate training and development. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 62(3), 10-18.
  36. Harty, H. & Beall, D. (1984). Attitudes toward science of gifted and nongifted fifth graders. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(5), 483-488. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660210505
  37. Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60(4), 549-571. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543060004549
  38. Hill, P. (1986). Human growth and development throughout life. New York: Longman.
  39. Hu, W. & Adey, P. (2002). A scientific creativity test for secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 389-403. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110098912
  40. Jensen, E. (2000). Brain-based learning: The new science of teaching and training. The Brain Store.
  41. Kenny, D. A., Archambault, F. X. & Hallmark, B. W. (1995). The effect of group composition on gifted and non-gifted elementary students in cooperative learning groups. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
  42. Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
  43. Mayer, R. E. (1999). Fifty years of creativity research. In R. J. Sternberg (ed.), Handbook of creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  44. Mumford, M. D. (2003). Where have we been, where are we going? Taking stock in creativity research. Creativity Research Journal, 15(2-3), 107-120. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ152&3_01
  45. Neber, H., Finsterwald, M. & Urban, N. (2001). Cooperative learning with gifted and high-achieving students: A review and meta-analyses of 12 studies. High Ability Studies, 12(2), 199-214. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598130120084339
  46. Newton, L. & Newton, D. (2010). Creative thinking and teaching for creativity in elementary school science. Gifted and Talented International, 25(2), 111-124. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2010.11673575
  47. Newton, D. P. & Newton, L. D. (2010). What teachers see as creative incidents in elementary science lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 32(15), 1989-2005. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903233249
  48. Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W. & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students' self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37(2), 91-105. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3702_4
  49. Pesut, D. J. (1990). Creative thinking as a self-regulatory metacognitive process: A model for education, training and further research. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 24(2), 105-110. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1990.tb00532.x
  50. Pintrich, P. R. & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33-40. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33
  51. Pintrich, P. R. (1995). Understanding self regulated learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1995(63), 3-12. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219956304
  52. Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
  53. Rifkin, B. (2005). A ceiling effect in traditional classroom foreign language instruction: Data from Russian. The Modern Language Journal, 89(1), 3-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0026-7902.2005.00262.x
  54. Risemberg, R. & Zimmerman, B. J. (1992). Self regulated learning in gifted students. Roeper Review, 15(2), 98-101. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199209553476
  55. Schunk, D. H., Meece, J. R. & Pintrich, P. R. (2012). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Pearson Higher Ed.
  56. Shepherd, G. & Regan, W. (1981). Modern elementary curriculum (6th ed.). Oklahoma City, OH: University of Oklahoma Press.
  57. Shook, R. (1981). The two brains and the education process. Paper presented at the Conference of the National Association for Asian and Pacific American Education, Honolulu, Hawai.
  58. Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(1), 43-69. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1996.0004
  59. Slavin, R. E. (2008). Cooperative learning, success for all, and evidence-based reform in education. Education et didactique, 2(2), 149-157. https://doi.org/10.4000/educationdidactique.334
  60. Sternberg, R. J. (1998, Ed.). Handbook of human creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  61. Treffinger, D. J., Young, G. C., Selby, E. C., & Shepardson, C. (2002). Assessing creativity: A guide for educators. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
  62. Treffinger, D. J. (2009). Myth 5: Creativity is too difficult to measure. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 245-247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209346829
  63. Walker, C. & Gleaves, A. (2008). An exploration of students' perceptions and understandings of creativity as an assessment criterion in undergraduate-level studies within higher education. Irish Educational Studies, 27(1), 41-54. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323310701837855
  64. Weisberg, R. W. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius. WH Freeman New York.
  65. Yarborough, B. H. & Johnson, R. A. (1983). Identifying the gifted: A theory-practice gap. Gifted Child Quarterly, 27(3), 135-138. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698628302700307
  66. Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). Models of self-regulated learning and academic achievement. In Self-regulated learning and academic achievement. Springer New York. pp. 1-25.
  67. Zimmerman, B. J. & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 51-59. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.51

피인용 문헌

  1. 초등과학영재학생의 과학지식과 과학창의성의 관계 - 생명 영역을 중심으로 - vol.39, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2020.39.3.382