과학교육연구지 (Journal of Science Education)

  • 제41권1호
  • /
  • Pages.16-35
  • /
  • 2017
  • /
  • 1225-3944(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2733-4074(eISSN)
경북대학교 과학교육연구소 (Science Education Research Institute Kyungpook National University)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

잠재집단분석방법을 통한 공과대학 학생들의 성별, 학년별, 공학인증제 프로그램 선택에 따른 공학 창의성 유형 탐색

Exploring the Patterns of Engineering College Students' Engineering-Related Creativity by Gender, Academic Year, and Engineering Education Accreditation Program through Latent Class Analysis

  • 투고 : 2017.02.12
  • 심사 : 2017.03.15
  • 발행 : 2017.04.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

이 연구에서는 공과대학생들의 공학 창의성이 성별, 학년, 공학교육인증 참여 여부와의 관련성을 살펴보고자 하였다. 구체적인 연구목적을 살펴보면 첫째, Rasch 분석을 사용하여 연구에 사용된 공학 창의성 검사도구의 타당도와 신뢰도를 확인하였으며, 둘째, 삼원분산분석을 사용하여 성별, 학년별, 공학교육인증 참여 유부별로 공학 창의성의 수준을 비교하였다. 셋째, 공학 창의성 요소간의 상관관계를 확인하였으며, 넷째, 잠재집단분석(poLCA)을 활용하여 공학 창의성에 따라 구분되는 잠재집단들을 규명하고, 규명된 잠재집단과 성별, 학년별, 공학교육인증 참여가 관계가 있는지 살펴보았다. 연구에는 2098명의 공과대학 재학생이 참여하였으며, 4개의 하위 구인으로 이루어진 공학 창의성 검사도구를 활용하여 자료를 수집하였다. 라쉬 분석결과 공학 창의성 검사도구의 타당성과 신뢰성을 확인할 수 있었다. 또한 삼원분산분석 결과 공학창의성은 성별에 따라 유의미한 차이를 나타냈으며, 학년의 경우 창의적 인지 외의 모든 구인에서 유의미한 차이가 나타났으며, 공학교육인증제 프로그램은 공학 창의성의 선택 여부는 유의미한 차이가 타나나지 않았다. 상관관계 분석 결과 공학 창의성 요소들은 상호 통계적으로 유의미한 관계가 있는 것으로 확인되었다. 마지막으로 공학 창의성 요소를 근거로 잠재집단을 확인한 결과, 공과대학 학생들에게는 3가지의 공학 창의성 잠재집단이 발견되었으며, 1학년과 여학생일수록 공학 창의성이 가장 낮은 잠재집단에 소속될 확률이 높았다. 이러한 연구 결과를 바탕으로 공과대학생들의 창의성 교육에 대해 논의해보고자 한다.

This study attempted to investigate the relationship among engineering students' creativity, engineering education accreditation, gender, and academic year. To be specific, fist, we examined the validity and reliability of the instrument for measuring engineering students' creativity by conducting Rasch analysis. Second, we compared level of creativity in terms of gender, academic year, and engineering education accreditation by using three-way ANOVA. Third, correlations among four constructs of creativity were examined. Fourth, latent classes with respect to creativity within the participants were identified using polytomous latent class analysis (poLCA). Data were collected from 2098 engineering students by using instrument for measuring four different constructs (creative cognition, creative tendency, collaboration, environment). By using Rasch analysis, validity and reliability of instrument for measuring creativity were confirmed. And the results of three-way ANOVA showed that there were significant difference in creativity in terms of gender. Female students showed the low level of creativity compared with male students. Also there were significant difference in creativity except creative cognition factor in terms of academic year. But there were no significant difference in creativity between students who participated engineering education accreditation program and the others. All constructs of creativity were significantly correlated with each others. Lastly, poLCA results showed that there were three distinct subgroups within engineering students in terms of the level of creativity. In the subgroup with low creativity, there were more female and first year students. Based on these findings, we discussed education for engineering students' creativity.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Baek, Y. S., Lee, J., Kim, E., Oh, K. J., Park, C., & Chung, J. (2006). Achievements in the creativity education through freshmen engineering design. Journal of Engineering Education Research, 9(2), 5-20.
  2. Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2008). Gender differences in creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42(2), 75-105. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2008.tb01289.x
  3. Bian, L., Leslie, S. J., & Cimpian, C. (2017). Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children’s interests. Science, 355, 389-391. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah6524
  4. Boone, W. J., Staver, J. R., & Yale, M. S. (2014). Rasch analysis in the human sciences. New York, NY: Springer.
  5. Cai, H., Luo, Y. L. L., Shi, Y., Liu, Y, & Yang, Z (2016). Male = Science, Female = Humanities: Both implicit and explicit gender-science stereotypes are heritable. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(5), 1-8.
  6. Charyton, C., & Snelbecker, G. E. (2007). General, artistic and scientific creativity attributes of engineering and music students. Creativity Research Journal, 19, 213-225. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410701397271
  7. Cheung, C., Rudowicz, E., & Kwan, A. S. (2003). Creativity of university students: What is impact of field and year of study?. Journal of Creative Behavior, 37(1), 42-63. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2003.tb00825.x
  8. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin. 112(1), 155-159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
  9. Conti, R., Collins, M. A., & Picariello, M. (2001). The role of gender in mediating the effects of competition on children's creativity. Personality and Individual Difference, 30, 1273-1289.
  10. Csikszentmihayli, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg, (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  11. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
  12. Go, H. S. (2016). Operational practices and future direction of capstone design. Asia-pacific Journal of Multimedia Services Convergent with Art, Humanities, and Sociology, 6(5), 197-210.
  13. Gu, S. Y., & Kim, D. I. (2014). A study on the effects of WIE programs on women engineers' employment and career duration. Journal of Engineering Education Research, 17(6), 3-11.
  14. Ha, J. (2008). A qualitative study on the career decision-making types among academically talented female students. The Korean Journal of Counseling and Psychotherapy, 20(2), 431-454.
  15. Ha, M., Kim, K., & Kim, B. (2014). Identifying latent profiles in work values amongst college students : With a focus on Intrinsic compensation, extrinsic compensation, and environmental compensation. The Journal of Research in Education, 27(2), 1-21.
  16. Haughton, D., Legrand, P., & Woolford, S. (2009). Review of three latent class cluster analysis packages: Latent Gold, poLCA, and MCLUST. The American Statistician, 63(1), 81-91. https://doi.org/10.1198/tast.2009.0016
  17. Ju, I. J., Kwan, J. W., Shin, J. W., & Lim, K. B. (2010). Analysis on views of business competencies different between management and employees who completed accreditation for engineering education in IT industry. The Journal of Vocational Education Research, 29(1), 121-137.
  18. Kang, S. H. (2011). Development and validation of engineering creativity test tool through deriving engineering creativity jobs: Focusing on Delphi method. Daejeon, Korea: National Research Foundation Research report.
  19. Kang, S. H., & Yune, S. J. (2015a). Development and validation of a scale to measure engineering creativity. The Journal of Thinking Development, 11(1), 19-44.
  20. Kang, S. H., & Yune, S. J. (2015b). Exploration of construction components of engineering creativity using delphi technique. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 15(3), 161-187.
  21. Kang, S. H., & Yune, S. J. (2015c). Differences of Creativity in Engineering Students by Gender. Journal of the Korean Society of Manufacturing Process Engineers 14(5), 10, 50-59.
  22. Kerr, B. A. (1994). Smart girls: A new psychology of girls, women and giftedness. Scottsdale, AZ: Gifted Psychology Press.
  23. Korea Institute for Advancement of Technology [KIAT]. (2015). Creative & convergent-oriented engineering education innovation strategy: Focused on innovation center for engineering education. KIAT Industry-University Cooperation Issues Brief 2015-04, Seoul.
  24. Kim, H. S. (2011). Gender difference in creative thinking ability, creative disposition, creative product and creative self-efficacy of Korean college students. The Korean Journal of Woman Psychology, 16(4), 595-611. https://doi.org/10.18205/kpa.2011.16.4.010
  25. Kim, M. S., & Ko, J. W. (2014). The influence of students' learning engagement on the perceived creativity competency. The Journal of the Korean Society for the Gifted and Talented, 13(1), 83-106.
  26. Kim, M. S., Chung, D. R., & Lee, J. H. (2003). Gender differences in science-gifted and general students: creative thinking, personality, environment, and performance in science. Korean Journal of Child Studies, 24(3), 1-13.
  27. Klein, A. G., & Zehms, D. (1996). Self‑concept and gifted girls: A cross sectional study of intellectually gifted females in grades 3,5,8. Roeper Review, 19(1), 30-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199609553780
  28. Kline, P. (2000). The handbook of psychological testing (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge.
  29. Kogan, N. (1974). Creativity and sex differences. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 8(1), 1-14 https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1974.tb01103.x
  30. Lew, K. H. (2015). Group creativity and creative environment by gender of university students. Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society, 16(12), 8416-8423. https://doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2015.16.12.8416
  31. Lim, C., Hong, M., & Lee, S. (2011). A study on learning environment design model for enhancing creativity in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education Research, 14(4), 3-10.
  32. Lim, C., Kim, S., Han, H., & Seo, S. (2014). Review of creativity development research approaches in the Korean engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education Research, 17(5), 33-40.
  33. Linzer, D. A., & Lewis, J. B. (2011). poLCA: An R package for polytomous variable latent class analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 42(10), 1-29.
  34. Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons' responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American psychologist, 50(9), 741-749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.741
  35. Moon, J. Y. (2011). The birth and transformation of modern civil engineers in France - Focused on the Ecole des Ponts et Chaussees -. Journal of Engineering Education Research, 14(5), 67-74.
  36. Neumann, I., Neumann, K., & Nehm, R. (2011). Evaluating instrument quality in science education: Rasch‐based analyses of a nature of science test. International Journal of Science Education, 33(10), 1373-1405. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.511297
  37. National Research Council [NRC]. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.
  38. Park, J. (2004). A suggestion of cognitive model of scientific creativity (CMSC). Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 24(2), 375-386.
  39. Park, M. (2009). The concept of creativity and its enhancement in mathematics education. Journal of the Korean Society of Mathematical Education Series E: Communication of Mathematical Education, 23(3), 803-822.
  40. Park, M., & Hong, S. C. (2015). Engineering students' perceptions of accredited engineering program performance. Journal of Engineering Education Research, 18(4), 57-65.
  41. Policastro, E., & Gardner, H. (1999). From case studies to robust generalizations: An approach to the study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  42. Proudfoot, D., Kay, A. C., & Koval, C. Z. (2015). A gender bias in the attribution of creativity: Archival and experimental evidence for the perceived association between masculinity and creative thinking. Psychological Science, 26(11), 1751-1761. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615598739
  43. Reuben, E., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2014). How stereotypes impair women’s careers in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(12), 4403-4408. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1314788111
  44. Shim, J. Y., Kim, O. J., & & Lee, H. G. (2007). A training program of invention and creativity. The Journal of Child Education, 16(4), 131-142.
  45. Shin, J., moon, C., Kim, K. H., Cho, E., Ju, S., & Hong, A. (2012). Nature of creativity and its development in the area of art: Changes of self-consciousness. The Journal of Educational Psychology, 26(4), 901-926.
  46. Song, H., Shin, D., & Song, C. (2015). Does an accredited engineering program contribute for training the creative talented engineers?: Based on students’ experiences and learning performances. Journal of Governance Studies, 10(2), 95-117. https://doi.org/10.16973/jgs.2015.10.2.005
  47. Wright, B. D., & Linacre, J. M. (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8, 370.
  48. Yu, J. Y. (2014). The development of the german institute of science and technology and the university of Karlsruhe. Korean Journal of European Integration, 5(2), 53-75.
  49. Yun, S. H., & Kim, Y. (2010). Exploration of creativity construction components in computer science. The Journal of Korean Association of Computer Education, 14(1), 45-54.

피인용 문헌

  1. 2015 개정 과학과 교육과정에 기초한 과학과 핵심역량 조사 문항의 개발 및 적용 vol.38, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2018.38.4.495
  2. A longitudinal study of the relation between creative potential and academic achievement at an engineering university in Korea vol.109, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20365