Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Exploring the Types of Elementary Students' Scientific Creativity According to the Structural Relationship between Creative Process and Product

창의 과정과 산물의 구조적 관계에 따른 초등학생의 과학 창의성 유형 탐색

  • Received : 2022.01.12
  • Accepted : 2022.02.16
  • Published : 2022.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study aims to explore, using both quantitative and qualitative data analyzing the structural relationship between creative process and product, the types of elementary students' scientific creativity. For this, 105 fifth-graders responded to a scientific creativity test that assesses creative process and product, and four students who scored the highest were interviewed. In the interview, they were asked about the cognitive process they used in generating the creative product. Then, correlation analysis and structural equation modeling were used, along with the interview data, to type the students. The main findings of the study are as follows. First, the structural equation modeling of creative process and product gave satisfactory results in absolute and incremental fit indexes. Second, among the three components of creative process - knowledge, inquiry skill-observation, and creative thinking skills -, only creative thinking skills had significant effects on creative product. Third, divergent thinking skills had the strongest correlation with the creative product, followed by convergent thinking skills. Associational thinking skills did not have significant correlation. Fourth, elementary students' scientific creativity could be categorized into Creative Type, Useful Type, Original Type, and Non-creative Type, based on their creative product. The Non-creative Type could be further classified into Common Type, Repetitive Type, Non-response Type, Irrelevant Type, and Abstract Type. Fifth, most students used either knowledge or observation in their creative process, making them either Knowledge-oriented Type or Observation-oriented Type. In addition, there were DT Type, DT-CT Type, and DT-CT-AT Type among the students, based on the kinds of creative thinking skills they mainly used in the process. This study provides implications for educators and researchers in scientific creativity education.

본 연구는 창의 과정과 산물의 구조적 관계를 분석한 정량적 자료와 정성적 자료를 활용하여 초등학생의 과학 창의성 유형을 탐색하였다. 이를 위해 초등학교 5학년 105명의 학생이 창의 과정과 산물을 나타내는 과학 창의성 검사 도구에 응답한 내용과 그중 과학 창의성이 가장 높았던 4명을 대상으로 주로 어떤 과정으로 창의 산물을 냈는지 면담하여 자료를 수집하였다. 검사 결과에 대해 상관관계 및 구조방정식 분석을 하였고 면담 자료와 함께 유형화의 참고자료로 사용하였다. 연구 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 창의 과정과 산물의 구조방정식 모형은 절대적합지수와 증분적합지수 측면에서 적합도가 검증되었다. 둘째, 지식, 탐구기능 중 관찰, 창의적 사고기능의 창의 과정 중 창의적 사고기능만이 창의 산물에 유의한 영향을 미쳤다. 셋째, 창의적 사고기능 중 과학 창의성 산물과의 연관성은 확산적 사고, 수렴적 사고, 연관적 사고 순으로 나타났다. 넷째, 초등학생의 과학 창의성은 산물에 따라 창의형, 유용형, 독창형, 비창의형으로 유형이 나뉜다. 그중 비창의형은 세부적으로 진부형, 반복형, 미응답형, 비타당형, 추상형으로 나뉜다. 다섯째, 초등학생은 창의 과정에서 지식 혹은 관찰 중 하나를 주로 사용하는 양상을 보였는데, 이에 따라 지식 지향형, 관찰 지향형으로 유형화할 수 있다. 또한, 창의적 사고기능을 얼마나 다양하게 사용했는지에 따라 DT형, DT-CT형, DT-CT-AT형 등으로 나눌 수 있다. 이 연구는 교육자와 연구자가 과학 창의성 교육에 실질적으로 고려해야 할 점을 시사하고 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. Acar, S., Runco, M. A., & Park, H. (2020). What should people be told when they take a divergent thinking test? A meta-analytic review of explicit instructions for divergent thinking. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 14(1), 39-49. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000256
  2. Adolf, J. (1982). Creative thinking through science. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 232 785). Retrieved September 1, 2008, from http://eric.ed.gov
  3. Aktamis, H., & Ergin, O. (2008). The effect of scientific process skills education on students' scientific creativity, science attitudes and academic achievements. Asia-Pacific forum on science learning and teaching, 9(1), 1-21.
  4. Amabile, T. M., Hennessey, B. A., & Grossman, B. S. (1986). Social influences on creativity: The effects of contracted-for reward. Journal of personality and social psychology, 50(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.50.1.14
  5. Ambrose, D., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (2011). How dogmatic beliefs harm creativity and higher-level thinking. London: Routledge.
  6. Baer, J. (2014). Creativity and divergent thinking: A task-specific approach. UK: Psychology Press.
  7. Basadur, M. (1995). Optimal ideation-evaluation ratios. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 63-75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj0801_5
  8. Bermejo, M. R., Ruiz-Melero, M. J., Esparza, J., Ferrando, M., & Pons, R. (2016). A new measurement of scientific creativity: The study of its psychometric properties. anales de psicologia, 32(3), 652-661. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.32.3.259411
  9. Besancon, M., Fenouillet, F., & Shankland, R. (2015). Influence of school environment on adolescents' creative potential, motivation and well-being. Learning and Individual Differences, 43, 178-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.08.029
  10. Beghetto, R. A. (2010). Creativity in the classroom. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  11. Beghetto, R. A. (2013). Killing ideas softly?: The promise and perils of creativity in the classroom. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
  12. Beghetto, R. A. (2016). Creative learning: A fresh look. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 15(1), 6-23. https://doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.15.1.6
  13. Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2007). Toward a broader conception of creativity: A case for" mini-c" creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1(2), 73. https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3896.1.2.73
  14. Brown, T. A., & Moore, M. T. (2012). Confirmatory factor analysis. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 361-379). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  15. Campbell, D. T. (1960). Blind variation and selective retention in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 67, 380-400. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040373
  16. Cattell, R. B., & Butcher, H. J. (1968). The prediction of achievement and creativity. Dallas: Ardent Media.
  17. Cho, Y., & Choi, K. (2000). Development of the Middle School Science Curriculum to Enhance Creative Problem - Solving Abilities. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 20(2), 329-343.
  18. Cho, Y., Choi, K., & Choi, M. (2009). An Analysis of Perception of Creativity and Creative Education in Korean Elementary Schools. Education research studies, 40(3), 215-237.
  19. Choi, I., & Choi, I.(2001). How Can the New Ideas Be Produced : A Learning - Process Approach to Creativity on Expert Domain. Korean Journal of Psychology: General, 20(2), 409-428.
  20. Conant, J. B. (1967). Scientific principles and moral conduct. American scientist, 55(3), 311-328.
  21. Craft, A. (2005). Creativity in schools : tensions and dilemmas. London: Routledge.
  22. Cropley, A. (2006). In praise of convergent thinking. Creativity research journal, 18(3), 391-404. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1803_13
  23. Cropley, A. J., & Cropley, D. (2009). Fostering creativity: A diagnostic approach for higher education and organizations. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
  24. de Vries, H. B., & Lubart, T. I. (2019). Scientific creativity: divergent and convergent thinking and the impact of culture. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 53(2), 145-155. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.184
  25. Dienes, Z., & Perner, J. (1999). A theory of implicit and explicit knowledge. Behavioral and brain sciences, 22(5), 735-808. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99002186
  26. Dietrich, A. (2015). How creativity happens in the brain. New York: Springer.
  27. Dikici, A., Ozdemir, G., & Clark, D. B. (2020). The relationship between demographic variables and scientific creativity: mediating and moderating roles of scientific process skills. Research in Science Education, 50(5), 2055-2079. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9763-2
  28. Dogan, I., & Ozdamar, K. (2017). The effect of different data structures, sample sizes on model fit measures. Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation, 46(9), 7525-7533. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610918.2016.1241409
  29. Ericsson, K. A. (1996). The acquisition of expert performance: an introduction to some of the issues.
  30. Feldhusen, J. F. (1995). Creativity: A knowledge base, metacognitive skills, and personality factors. The Journal of creative behavior, 29(4), 255-268. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1995.tb01399.x
  31. Guilford, J. P. (1968). Intelligence has three facets: There are numerous intellectual abilities, but they fall neatly into a rational system. Science, 160(3828), 615-620. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.160.3828.615
  32. Haider, H., Eichler, A., & Lange, T. (2011). An old problem: How can we distinguish between conscious and unconscious knowledge acquired in an implicit learning task?. Consciousness and Cognition, 20(3), 658-672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2010.10.021
  33. Haider, H., & Frensch, P. A. (2009). Conflicts between expected and actually performed behavior lead to verbal report of incidentally acquired sequential knowledge. Psychological Research PRPF, 73(6), 817-834. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-008-0199-6
  34. Han, K. (2000). Investigation of Domain-specificity and Domain-generality of Creativity in Young Children. Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, 10(2), 47-69.
  35. Han, K. S., & Marvin, C. (2002). Multiple creativities? Investigating domain-specificity of creativity in young children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46(2), 98-109. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620204600203
  36. Haylock, D. (2007). Key concepts in teaching primary mathematics. London: Sage.
  37. Hong, S. (2000). The Criteria for Selecting Appropriate Fit Indices in Structural Equation Modeling and Their Rationales. Korean Journal of Clinical Psychology, 19(1), 161-177.
  38. 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
  39. Joung, Y., & Song, J. (2006). The Features of the Hypotheses Generated by Pre-service Elementary Teachers Using the Form of Peirce's Abdution. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 25(2), 126-140.
  40. Jung, H., Han, K., Kim, B., & Choe, S. (2002). Development of Programs to Enhance the Scientific Creativity - Based on Theory and Examples. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 23(4), 334-348.
  41. Kaufmann, G. (2001). Creativity and problem solving. In J. Henry (Ed.), Creative Management. London: Sage.
  42. Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four c model of creativity. Review of general psychology, 13(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013688
  43. Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2013). Do people recognize the four Cs? Examining layperson conceptions of creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7(3), 229. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033295
  44. Kim, C., & Cho, S. (2002). The Effects of a Portfolio System on Elementary Students' Science Achievements, Inquiry Ability and Attitudes by Region and Gender. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 23(3), 234-241.
  45. Kim, M., Kim, H., & Lim, C. (2020). Development of the Scientific Creativity Task for a Field Trip to Botanical Garden - Application to Science-Gifted Elementary Students. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 39(4), 506-521. https://doi.org/10.15267/KESES.2020.39.4.506
  46. Kim, M., & Lim, C. (2018). A Comparative Analysis of Student Self-, Teacher-, and Objective Assessments of Elementary Science-Gifted Students' Scientific Creativity. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 37(4), 440-454. https://doi.org/10.15267/KESES.2018.37.4.440
  47. Kim, M., & Lim, C. (2021). Developing a Scientific Creativity Test for Exploring the Relationship between Elementary Students' Creative Process and Product: Focusing on Biology. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 40(4), 520-544. https://doi.org/10.15267/KESES.2021.40.4.520
  48. Kim, H. (2013). Elementary School Teachers' Conception and Management Conditions on Creativity and Character Education. Master's dissertation, Ewha Womans University.
  49. Kim, H., Kim, M., & Lim, C. (2020). The Relationship between Scientific Content Knowledge and Scientific Creativity of Science-Gifted Elementary Students - Focusing on the Subject of Biology. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 39(3), 382-398. https://doi.org/10.15267/KESES.2020.39.3.382
  50. Kim, Y. (2002). Creativity and Critical Thinking. Korean Journal of Cognitive Science, 13(4), 81-90.
  51. Kwon, Y., Jeong, J., Kang, M., & Kim, Y. (2003). A Grounded Theory on the Process of Generating Hypothesis - Knowledge about Scientific Episodes. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 23(5), 458-469.
  52. Liang, J. C. (2002). Exploring scientific creativity of eleventh grade students in Taiwan. Doctoral dissertation, Texas state University.
  53. Libarkin, J. C., & Kurdziel, J. P. (2002). Research methodologies in science education: The qualitative-quantitative debate. Journal of Geoscience Education, 50(1), 78-86. https://doi.org/10.1080/10899995.2002.12028053
  54. Lim, S., Yang, I., & Lim, J. (2009). Exploration About the Component and Definition of the 'Scientific Creativity' in a Domain-specific View of the Creativity. Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 31-43. https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2009.33.1.31
  55. Lim, C. (2012). Development of An Instructional Model for Brain-Based Evolutionary Approach to Creative Problem Solving in Science. Biology Education, 40(4), 429-452. https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2012.40.4.429
  56. Lim, C. (2014). Development of an Assessment Formula for Scientific Creativity and Its Application. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 33(2), 242-257. https://doi.org/10.15267/KESES.2014.33.2.242
  57. Lin, C., Hu, W., Adey, P., & Shen, J. (2003). The influence of CASE on scientific creativity. Research in Science Education, 33(2), 143-162. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025078600616
  58. Lipps, J. H. (1999). This is Science!. The Paleontological Society Special Publications, 9, 3-16. https://doi.org/10.1017/s2475262200013988
  59. Lubart, T. I. (1994). Product-centered self-evaluation and the creative process. Doctoral dissertation, Yale University.
  60. Lubart, T., Zenasni, F., & Barbot, B. (2013). Creative potential and its measurement. International Journal for Talent Development and Creativity, 1(2), 41-50.
  61. Maeng, S., Seong, Y., & Jang, S. (2013). Present States Methodological Features and an Exemplar Study of the Research on Learning Progressions. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 33(1), 161-180. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.1.161
  62. MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Preacher, K. J., & Hong, S. (2001). Sample size in factor analysis: The role of model error. Multivariate behavioral research, 36(4), 611-637. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327906MBR3604_06
  63. Meador, K. S. (2003). Thinking creatively about science: Suggestions for primary teachers. Gifted Child Today, 26(1), 25-29. https://doi.org/10.4219/gct-2003-93
  64. Ministry of Education (2015). Science curriculum. Ministry of Education Notice No. 2015-74 [Attachment 9]
  65. Mohamed, A. (2006). Investigating the scientific creativity of fifth-grade students. Doctoral dissertation, Arizona state University.
  66. 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
  67. Mumford, M. D., Medeiros, K. E., & Partlow, P. J. (2012). Creative thinking: Processes, strategies, and knowledge. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46, 30-47. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.003
  68. Newton, D. P. (2010). Assessing the creativity of scientific explanations in elementary science: an insider-outsider view of intuitive assessment in the hypothesis space. Research in Science & Technological Education, 28(3), 187-201. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2010.501752
  69. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states: National Academies Press Washington, DC.
  70. Ozdemir, G., & Dikici, A. (2017). Relationships between scientific process skills and scientific creativity: Mediating role of nature of science knowledge. Journal of Education in Science Environment and Health, 3(1), 52-68. https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.275696
  71. Park, H. (2014). Effects on Students'Creativity by Scientific Observational Activities. Journal of Science Education, 38(2), 443-453. https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2014.38.2.443
  72. Park, J. (2004). A Suggestion of Cognitive Model of Scientific Creativity (CMSC). Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 24(2), 375-386.
  73. Plucker, J. A., & Beghetto, R. A. (2004). Why Creativity Is Domain General, Why It Looks Domain Specific, and Why the Distinction Does Not Matter. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 153-167). American Psychological Association.
  74. Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn't creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational psychologist, 39(2), 83-96. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1
  75. Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. The Phi delta kappan, 42(7), 305-310.
  76. Rietzschel, E. F., Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2007). Relative accessibility of domain knowledge and creativity: The effects of knowledge activation on the quantity and originality of generated ideas. Journal of experimental social psychology, 43(6), 933-946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.10.014
  77. Runco, M. A. (1986). Flexibility and originality in children's divergent thinking. The Journal of Psychology, 120(4), 345-352. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1986.9712632
  78. Runco, M. A. (2003). Education for creative potential. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(3), 317-324. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830308598
  79. Runco, M. A. (2004). Everyone has creative potential. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 21-30). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
  80. Runco, M. A. (2007). Creativity: Theories and themes: Research, development, and practice. New York: Academic Press.
  81. Runco, M. A., & Acar, S. (2012). Divergent thinking as an indicator of creative potential. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 66-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.652929
  82. Sawyer, K. (2012). Extending sociocultural theory to group creativity. Vocations and Learning, 5(1), 59-75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-011-9066-5
  83. Seo, H. (2004). Directions of Science Education for the Gifted and Scientific Creativity. Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, 14(1), 65-89.
  84. Seong, J. (2002). An analysis of variables effecting creative problem solving abilities in science. Doctoral dissertation, Ewha Womans University.
  85. Shin, J., Han, K., Jung, H., Park, B., & Choe, S. (2002). What are the Differences Between Scientifically Gifted and Normal Students in the Aspects of Creativity?. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 22(1), 158-175.
  86. Simonton, D. K. (1994). Greatness: Who makes history and why. New York: Guilford Press.
  87. Simonton, D. K. (1999). Origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives on creativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  88. Simonton, D. K. (2002). Persistent myths, probabilities, and psychologists as human beings. Dialogue, 17, 24-25.
  89. Simonton, D. K. (2004). Exceptional creativity and chance: Creative thought as a stochastic combinatorial process. Beyond knowledge: Extracognitive aspects of developing high ability (pp. 39-72). London: Routledge.
  90. Simonton, D. K. (2011). Creativity and discovery as blind variation: Campbell's (1960) BVSR model after the half-century mark. Review of General Psychology, 15(2), 158-174. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022912
  91. Simonton, D. K. (2012). Assessing scientific creativity: Conceptual analyses of assessment complexities. Commissioned paper, The Science of Science and Innovation Policy Conference, National Academy of Sciences.
  92. Son, J. (2009). The study of scientifically gifted students' scientific thinking and creative problem solving ability through science writing. Journal of Science Education for the Gifted, 1(3), 21-32.
  93. Song, S. (2013). An Exploratory Study on the Scientists' Creativity Using the Cases in History of Science: Focusing on Darwin, Edison, and Einstein. Teacher Education Research, 52(2), 227-236. https://doi.org/10.15812/ter.52.2.201308.227
  94. Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.) (1998). Handbook of human creativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  95. Stoll, L. (2009). Capacity building for school improvement or creating capacity for learning? A changing landscape. Journal of educational change, 10(2), 115-127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-009-9104-3
  96. Sun, J. (2005). Assessing goodness of fit in confirmatory factor analysis. Measurement and evaluation in counseling and development, 37(4), 240-256. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2005.11909764
  97. Treffinger, D. J., Selby, E. C., & Isaksen, S. G. (2008). Understanding individual problem-solving style: A key to learning and applying creative problem solving. Learning and individual Differences, 18(4), 390-401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.11.007
  98. Vanderlelie, J. (2013). Improving the student experience of learning and teaching in second year biochemistry: Assessment to foster a creative application of biochemical concepts. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 21(4), 46-57.
  99. Walberg, H. J., & Stariha, W. E. (1992). Productive human capital: Learning, creativity, and eminence. Creativity research journal, 5(4), 323-340. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419209534445
  100. Weisberg, R. W. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius. New York: WH Freeman.
  101. Yang, K. K., Lin, S. F., Hong, Z. R., & Lin, H. S. (2016). Exploring the assessment of and relationship between elementary students' scientific creativity and science inquiry. Creativity Research Journal, 28(1), 16-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2016.1125270