Journal of Gifted/Talented Education (영재교육연구)

The Korean Society for the Gifted (한국영재학회)
권호 표지

A Study about the Logical Thinking Ability and the Metacognition of Economically Disadvantaged Gifted Students

소외 영재의 논리적 사고력과 상위인지에 대한 연구

  • Published : 2006.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to explore logical thinking abilities and metacognitive characteristics by student's giftedness and grade level. Furthermore, this study sought to present the practical basis for the promotion of students' abilities in self-driven learning as well as cognition. Average-ability students(n=199), economically disadvantage gifted students(n=133), and gifted students(n=111), who were sampled by two-step sampling procedures, responded the logical thinking ability test(Cho et al, 2006) and the questionnaire asking self-perception for 'metacognitive knowledge' and 'metacognitive control' abilities(Cho & Han, 2004). As the results, average-ability students showed less logical thinking abilities(in language, mathematics, and space) than gifted students. The logical thinking abilities had affected by giftedness, grade level and these interaction. And gifted students showed higher metacognitive control abilities in planning, monitoring, priority, and strategies of learning than average-ability students. However, there were no significant differences in metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive control abilities between economically disadvantaged gifted students and gifted students.

본 연구의 목적은 영재성과 학년수준에 따른 논리적 사고력과 상위인지적 특성을 규명함으로써, 학생의 인지능력 신장뿐 아니라 자기-주도적인 학습능력 증진의 중요성을 피력하는 실증적인 기초를 제공하는데 있다. 이에 1, 2차에 걸쳐 표집한 일반 학생(n=199), 소외 영재(n=133) 및 일반 영재(n=111)를 대상으로 논리적 사고력 검사(조석희 외, 2006)를 실시하여 '언어,' '수' 및 '공간' 영역에서 인지능력을 측정하였고, 상위인지 능력에 대해서는 기존의 지적 능력에 대한 신념 검사(조석희, 한석실, 2004)와 학습 전략 검사(조석희, 한석실, 2004)를 수정, 보완하여 사용하였다. 수집된 자료는 학생의 영재성과 학년수준에 따라 논리적 사고력 및 상위인지의 하위 변인에 대해 다변량분산분석을 실시하였다(MANOVA). 연구결과, 영재는 일반 학생에 비해, 그리고 일반 영재는 소외 영재에 비해 논리적 사고력 하위 영역에서 모두 높게 나타났으며, 이상의 논리 사고력에서의 차이는 학생의 영재성과 학년수준에 따라 다른 경향성을 나타내었다. 또한 논리적 사고력에서의 차이 외에 영재는 일반 학생에 비해, '상위인지 통제' 능력이 높아 자신의 학습을 계획하고 관리하는 것으로 나타났다. 그러나 소외 영재와 일반 영재의 상위인지 능력에서는 유의한 차이가 나타나지 않았다.

Keywords

References

  1. 교육인적자원부(2004). 참여복지 5개년 게획(교육복지부문): 참여정부 교육복지 종합계획. 서울: 교육인적자원부
  2. 김미숙, 조석희, 윤초희, 진석언(2004). 중학생 영재의 지적. 정의적 특성에 따른 효과적인 교수학습 전략 탐색. 서울: 한국교육개발원
  3. 김홍원, 윤초희, 윤여홍, 김현철(2003). 초등 영재학생의 지적. 정의적 행동 특성 및 지도 방안 연구. 서울: 한국교육개발원
  4. 조석희, 김홍원, 서혜애(2002). 간편 창의적 문제해결력 검사 개발 연구(II), 서울: 한국교육개발원
  5. 조석희, 이미순, 정현철, 황동주, 이현주(2006). 소외된 과학 영재의 발굴 및 교육방안: 교육 프로그램 효과 검증을 중심으로, 서울: 한국교육개발원
  6. 조석희, 한석실(2004). 영재교육대상자 판별도구 개발-1단계 선발용. 서울: 한국교육개발원
  7. Adderholdt-Elliot, M., Alozzine, K., Algozzine, B., & Haney, K. (1991), Current state practices in educating students who are gifted and talented, Roeper Review, 14, 20-23 https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199109553375
  8. Allen, B. A. & Armour-Thomas, E. (1993), Construct validation of metacognition, Journal of Psychology, 127, 203-211 https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1993.9915555
  9. Bloom, B. S. (1956), Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals: Handbook I, cognitive domain. New York; Toronto: Longmans, Green
  10. Borland, J. H., Schnur, R. & Wright, L. (2000), Economically disadvantaged students in a school for the academically gifted: A post positivist inquiry into individual and family adjustment Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 13-32 https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620004400103
  11. Borland, J. H., & Wright, L. (1994), Identifying young, potentially gifted, economically disadvantaged students, Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 164-171 https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629403800402
  12. Borland, J. H., & Wright, L. (2000), Identifying and educating poor and under-represented gifted students, In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed, pp, 587-594), Amsterdam: Elsevier
  13. Brown, A L. (1978), Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition, In R. Glaser (Ed), Advances in instructional psychology (pp, 77-165), Hills dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
  14. Brown, A. L. (1987), Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp, 65-116), Hillsdale , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
  15. Brown, A. L., Bransford, L. Ferrara, R. & Campione, J. C. (1983), Learning, remembering, and understanding, In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (pp, 77-165), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
  16. Callahan, C. M., Tomlinson. C. A., Moon, T. R. Tomchin. E. M., & Plucker, J. A. (1995), Project START Using a Multiple Intelligences Model in identifying and promoting talent in higher-risk students. (Rsearch Monograph No, RM 85136), Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented
  17. Carr, M, (1996), Where gifted children do and do not excel on metacognitive tasks, Roeper Review, 18, 212-217 https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199609553740
  18. Cheng, P. (1993), Metacognition and giftedness: The state of the relationship, Gifted Child Quarterly, 37 105-112 https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629303700302
  19. Davidson, J. E., & Sternberg, R. J. (1984), The role of insight in intellectual giftedness, Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 58-64 https://doi.org/10.1177/001698628402800203
  20. Davis, G. A. & Rimm, S. B. (2004), Education of the gifted and talented (5th ed), Boston: Allyn and Bacon
  21. Ehrlich, V. Z. (1986), Recognizing superior cognitive abilities in disadvantaged, minority, and other diverse populations, Journal of Children in Contemporary Society, 18, 55-70 https://doi.org/10.1300/J274v18n03_06
  22. Feuerstein, R. (1980), Instrumental enrichment: An intervention program for cognitive modifiability. Baltimore: University Park Press
  23. Flavell. J. H., (1987), Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition, In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 21-29), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
  24. Frasier, M. M., Hunsaker, S, L. Lee, L. Mitchell, S., Cramond, B., Krisel. S., Garcia, J. H., Martin, D., Frank, E., & Finley, V. S, (1995), Core attributes of giftedness: A foundation for recognizing the gifted potential of minority and economically dimdoantaged students, (Research Monograph No, RM 85210), Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented,
  25. Hadaway, N., & Marek-Schroer, M. F. (1992), Multidimensional assessment of the gifted minority student Roeper Review, 15, 73-77 https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199209553467
  26. Kanevsky, L. S., (1995), Learning potential of gifted students, Roeper Review, 17, 157-163 https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199509553650
  27. Kitano, M. K., & DiJiosia, M. (2000), Are Asian and Pacific Americans overrepresented in programs for the gifted? Roeper Review, 24, 76-80
  28. Maker, C. J. (1983), Quality education for gifted minority students, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 6, 140-153 https://doi.org/10.1177/016235328300600302
  29. Maker, C. J. (2005), The DISCOVER Project: Improving Assess:rnent and Curricuhm. for Diverse Gifted Learners, (Research Monograph No, RM 05206), Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented
  30. Maker, C. J., & Nielson. A. B. (1995), Teaching models in education of the gifted (2nd ed), Austin. TX: Pro-Ed
  31. Maker, C. J., & Schiever, S. (1989), Critical issues in gifted education: Defensible programs for cultural and ethnic minorities (Vol. 2), Austin, TX: Pro-Ed
  32. Manning, B. H. (1996), The self-regulated learning aspect of metacognition: A component of gifted education, Roeper Review, 18, 217-223 https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199609553741
  33. Miller, M, (1991), Self-assessment as a specific strategy for teaching the gifted learning disabled, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 178-188 https://doi.org/10.1177/016235329101400206
  34. Mills, C., & Tissot S. (1995), Identifying academic potential in students from underrepresented populations: Is using the Ravens Progressive Matrices a good idea? Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 208-217
  35. Naglieri, J. A. (1991), The essentials of CAS assessament. NY: Wiley & Sons
  36. Pintrich, P, R, & De Groot, E, V. (1990), Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance, Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33
  37. Pogrow, S, (1996), HOTS: Helping low achievers in grades 4-7, Principal, 76, 34-35
  38. Renzulli J. S., Hartman, J. S., & Callahan, C. M., (1971), Teacher identification of superior students, Exceptional Children, 38, 211-214, 243-248 https://doi.org/10.1177/001440297103800303
  39. Renzulli J. S., Reis, S. M., & Smith, L. H. (1981), The revolving door identification model. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press
  40. Rogers, K. (1986), Do the gifted think and learn differently? A review of recent research and its implications for instruction, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10, 17-39 https://doi.org/10.1177/016235328601000103
  41. Sarouphim, K. M., (1999), DISCOVER: A promising alternative assessment for the identification of gifted minorities, Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 244-251 https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629904300403
  42. Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994), Assessing metacognitive awareness, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460-475 https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1033
  43. Schraw, G., & Graham, T. (1997), Helping gifted students develop metacognitive awareness, Roeper Review, 20, 4-8 https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199709553842
  44. Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995), Metacognition theories, Educational Psychological Review, 7, 351- 371 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02212307
  45. Shore, B. M., & Kanevsky, L. S., (1993), Thinking processes: Being and becoming gifted, In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook for research and development on giftedness and talent (pp, 133-148), London: Pergamon
  46. Siegle, D. L. & Powell. T. (2004), Exploring teacher biases when nominating students for gifted programs, Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 21- 29 https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620404800103
  47. Spicker, H. H., Southern, W. T., & Davis, B. I. (1987), The rural gifted child, Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 155-157 https://doi.org/10.1177/001698628703100404
  48. Tomlinson. C. A., Callahan. C. M,, & Lelli K. M, (1997), Challenging ing expectations: Case studies of high-potential, culturally diverse young children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 5-17
  49. VanTassel-Baska, J. (2003) Content-based curriculum for low income and minority gifted learners. (Research Monograph No, RM 03180), Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented
  50. VanTassel-Baska, J., Johnson. D., & Avery, L. D. (2002), Using performance tasks in the identification of economically disadvantaged and minority gifted learners: Findings from Project STAR Gifted Child Quarterly, 46 110-123 https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620204600204