Journal of Gifted/Talented Education (영재교육연구)

The Korean Society for the Gifted (한국영재학회)
권호 표지

Comparative Analysis on Learning Strategies, Motivation, Beliefs in Ability, and Problem Solving Patterns of the Gifted Achievers and the Gifted Underachievers in Elementary School

성취영재와 미성취영재는 어떻게 다른가?: 학습전략, 동기, 능력신념, 그리고 문제해결성향의 차이분석

  • Published : 2007.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine whether gifted achievers and gifted underachievers differ in their learning strategies, motivation, beliefs in ability, and problem solving patterns. The sample for the study consisted of 68 gifted achievers and 34 gifted underachievers who were in 5th and 6th grades in elementary schools in the metropolitan area. Gifted achievers and gifted underachievers showed statistically significant differences in all aspects using the independent sample t-test. In addition, the discriminant analysis correctly classified over 77.5% of the sample as either gifted achievers or gifted underachievers using the variables used in the study, indicating factors related to learning strategies can be effective measures to identify gifted achievers and underachievers. Especially, extrinsic motivation and problem solving patterns were the most discriminant factors in these two groups. The implications of the study related to the identification and education of the gifted underachievers were discussed in depth.

이 연구는 현재의 영재교육이 성취영재를 중심으로 이루어지고 있는 상황에서 영재교육 대상자 선발에서 줄곧 제외되어 온 미성취영재에 대한 관심에서 출발하였다. 성취영재들과 유사한 지적 잠재력을 가지고 있으나, 교사추천과 검사결과에 의해 현재의 학업성취가 지적 잠재능력과 비교하여 현저한 편차를 보인다고 판단 된 미성취영재들의 학습전략 및 관련변인들을 살펴보았다. 즉, 미성취영재의 학습전략과 관련변인들이 성취영재와 어떻게 차별화되는가를 살펴보고, 이중 어느 변인이 두 집단을 가장 변별력 있게 구분하는가를 탐색하는 것이 이 연구의 초점이다. 이를 위해 이 연구는 초등학교 $5{\sim}6$학년 68명의 성취영재들과 34명의 미성취 영재들의 학습전략, 동기, 능력신념, 문제해결성향 등을 비교하였다. 연구결과 성취영재와 미성취영재들은 제시된 모든 변인들에서 통계적으로 유의한 차이를 나타냈다. 판별분석 결과 학습전략, 동기, 능력신념, 문제해결성향 등은 판별적중률 77.5%로 성취영재집단과 미성취영재집단을 유의하게 구분하는 것으로 나타났으며, 이중 외재적 동기, 과제해결성향 등이 두 집단을 가장 잘 구분하는 변인임이 밝혀졌다. 이 연구가 미성취영재의 판별, 교육, 연구에 주는 시사점이 논의되었다.

Keywords

References

  1. 변영계, 김석우, 박한숙, 강태용 (2002). 초등학교 학생들의 학습기술 측정도구와 훈련 프로그램 개발연구. 교육과정연구. 20(1). 한국교육과정학회. 97-121
  2. 서우경 (2004). 미성취영재아의 학업성취 관련 변인에 대한 메타분석. 숙명여자대학교 대학원 박사학위논문
  3. 송수지 (2004). 미성취영재의 특성 및 개입전략효과. 연세대학교 대학원 박사학위논문
  4. 윤미선, 김성일 (2003). 학습동기 유형에 따른 중․고생의 학업성취 및 학습전략의 차이. 교육심리연구. 17(4). 5-24
  5. 전명남 (2003). 높은 학업성취 대학생의 학습전략과 수행 분석. 교육심리연구. 17(4). 한국교육심리학회. 1-28
  6. 정은향 (2004). 학습기술 훈련이 미성취영재의 학업성취에 미치는 효과. 대구교육대학교 교육대학원 석사학위논문
  7. 조석희, 안도희, 한석실 (2003). 영재성의 발굴 및 계발에 영향을 미치는 요인분석연구. 연구보고서 CR2003- 28. 서울: 한국교육개발원
  8. 최인수 (2005). 초등학생용 창의성검사의 타당화 연구. 아동학회지. 26(1). 한국아동학회. 61-74
  9. 한기순 (2003). 미성취, 여성, 장애영재. 영재교육학원론 (pp. 431-482). 서울: 교육과학사
  10. Amabile, T. M. (1993). Motivational synergy: Toward new conceptualizations of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the workplace. Human Resource Management, 3(3). 185-201 https://doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(93)90012-S
  11. Ames, C. A.(1990). Motivation: What teachers need to know. Teachers College Record, 91(3). 409-421
  12. Betts, G. (2004). Profiles of the gifted and talented. In S. Reis (Ed.). Definitions and conceptions of giftedness(pp. 97-106). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press
  13. Borkowski, J., & Thorpe, P. (1994). Self-regulation and motivation: A life-span perspective on underachievement. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman(Eds.). Selfregulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications(pp.45-73). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
  14. Bruns, J. H. (1992). They can but they don't. New York: Viking Penguin
  15. Bulter-Por, N. (1987). Underachievevers in school: Issues and Intervention. New York:John Wiley & Sons
  16. Cheung, C., & Kwok, S. (1998). Activities and academic achievement among college students. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 159(2). 147-162 https://doi.org/10.1080/00221329809596142
  17. Diaz, E. I. (1998). Perceived factors influencing the academic underachievement of talented students of Puerto Rican descent. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42(2). 105-122 https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629804200205
  18. Hoge, R. D., & Renzulli, J. S. (1993). Exploring the link between giftedness and self-concept. Review of Educational Research, 63(4). 449-465 https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543063004449
  19. Holland, V. (1998). Underachieving boys: Problems and solutions. Support for Learning, 13(4). 174-178 https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.00084
  20. Katsillis, J., & Robinson, R. (1990). Cultural capital, student achievement, and educational reproduction: The case of Greece. American Sociological Review, 55(2). 270-279 https://doi.org/10.2307/2095632
  21. Lau, K., & Chan, D. (2001). Motivational characteristics of under achievers in Hong Kong. Educational Psychology, 21(4). 417-430 https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410120090803
  22. Lyon, M. A. (1993), Academic self-concept and its relationship to achievement in a sample of junior high school students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(1). 201- 211 https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164493053001022
  23. Marsh, H. W., Chessor, D., Craven, R., & Roche, L. (1995). The effects of gifted and talented programs on academic self-concept: The big fish strikes again. American Educational Research Journal, 32(2). 285-319 https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032002285
  24. McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2001). A comparison of high achievers and lowachievers attitudes, perceptions and motivations. Academic Exchangee Quarterly, 5(1). 71-76
  25. McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2003). Factors that differentiate underachieving gifted students from high-achieving gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2). 144-154 https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620304700205
  26. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Slate, J. R., & Schwartz, R. A .(2001). Role of study skills in graguate- level educational research courses. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(4). 238-246 https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670109598757
  27. Peterson, J. S., & Colangelo, N. (1996). Gifted achievers and Underachievers: A comparison of patterns found in school files. Journal of Counseling and Development, 74 Mar/Apr. 399-418 https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1996.tb01886.x
  28. Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivation 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
  29. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire(MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(3). 801-816 https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164493053003024
  30. Reis, S. M., & McCoach, D. B. (2000). The underachievement of gifted students: What do we know and where do we go? Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(3). 152-170 https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620004400302
  31. Schunk, D. H. (1984). Self-efficacy perspective on achievement behavior. Educational Psychologist, 19(1). 48-58 https://doi.org/10.1080/00461528409529281
  32. Shaw, M. C. (1960). Attitude and child rearing practices of the parents of bright academic underachievers. U. S. Public Health the Services Research Project, M-2843. Washington DC.: U. S. Government Printing Office
  33. Supplee, P. L. (1990). Reaching the gifted underachiever. New York: Teachers College Press
  34. Udvari, S. (2000). Competition and the adjustment of gifted chidlren: A matter of motivation. Roeper Review, 22(4). 212-216 https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190009554040
  35. Vlahovic-Stetic, V., Vidovic, V., & Arambasic, L. (1999). Motivational characteristics in mathematical achievement: A study of gifted high-achieving, gifted underachieving and non- ifted pupils. High Ability Studies, 10(1). 37-49 https://doi.org/10.1080/1359813990100104
  36. Whitmore, J. R. (1980). Giftedness confilct and underachievement. Boston: Allyn and Bacon
  37. Wigfield, A., & Karpathian, M. (1991). Who am I and what can I do? Children's selfconcepts and motivation in achievement situations. Educational Psychologist, 26(3). 233-262 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2603&4_3
  38. Zimmerman, B. J., Greenberg, D., & Weinstein, C. E. (1994). Self-refulationg academic study time: A strategy approach. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman(Eds.). Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 181-199). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Asspicates