Journal of Gifted/Talented Education (영재교육연구)

The Korean Society for the Gifted (한국영재학회)
권호 표지

Intelligence and Creativity of Students in the Mentorship Program at the Science-gifted Education Center

과학영재교육원 사사교육 대상자들의 지능과 창의력 수준 분석

  • Cho, Sun-Hee (Department of Biology Education, Seoul National University) ;
  • Lee, Kun-Ho (School of Biological Sciences, Seoul National University) ;
  • Kim, Heui-Baik (Department of Biology Education, Seoul National University)
  • Published : 2007.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this study, intelligence and creativity of students selected for the mentorship program at the Science-gifted Education Center were tested and those levels were related to the examination for the mentorship program. Diverse psychometric tests(WAIS, RAPM, TTCT-verbal, TTCT-figural) were administered to the students in both courses(biology course: n=19, physics course: n=21) at the Science-gifted Education Center. Students selected for the mentorship program had high intelligence scores(WAIS IQ>98%). On the other hand, their creativity scores were not as high as their intelligence scores. In the correlation analysis between those scores and examinations for the mentorship program, examination for the biology program was correlated with WAIS and TTCT-verbal, whereas that for the physics program was correlated with RAPM. These results show that students for the mentorship program have higher score in intelligence than in creativity and the examination for the mentorship program tests mainly intelligence. Thus, educational effort should include an emphasis on the assessment of creativity.

본 연구에서는 과학영재교육원 사사교육 대상자들의 지능과 창의력의 수준을 분석하고, 이러한 결과가 사사교육 선발고사와 연관이 있는지를 알아보고자 하였다. 이를 위해 과학영재교육원 두 분과(생물분과: n=19, 물리분과: n=21)의 학생들을 대상으로 지능검사(WAIS, RAPM)와 창의력검사(TTCT-언어, TTCT-도형)를 실시하였으며, 검사점수와 사사교육 선발점수 사이의 상관도를 분석하였다. 검사결과 사사교육 대상자들의 지능수준이 매우 높은 것으로 나타났다(WAIS IQ>98%). 반면, 이들의 창의력수준은 지능수준에 비해 낮은 것으로 나타났다. 사사교육 선발점수와 지능점수 및 창의력점수 사이의 상관도 분석결과 생물분과의 선발고사는 WAIS 및 TTCT-언어와 양의 상관도를 보였으며, 물리분과의 선발고사는 RAPM과 양의 상관도를 나타내었다. 이러한 결과는 과학영재교육원 사사교육 대상자들이 지능수준은 매우 높은데 비해 일반적 창의력수준은 그에 미치지 못하며, 사사교육 선발고사는 높은 지적 능력을 기반으로 하여 해결할 수 있는 문제들로 주로 이루어져 있음을 보여준다. 과학 분야의 우수한 성과물 산출을 위해서는 높은 지능에 못지않게 창의력이 요구된다는 점에서, 과학영재의 창의력 평가에 관해 좀 더 심도 있는 연구가 이루어질 필요가 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. 윤희숙 (2005). 고분자 용액의 거동과 영재 교육에의 응용. 박사학위논문. 서울대학교
  2. 조선희, 김희백, 최유용, 채정호, 이건호 (2005). 뇌기능영상 측정법을 이용한 영재성 평가의 타당성 연구. 영재교육연구. 15(2). 101-125
  3. 허정윤, 이상천, 최규성 (2003). 영재 학생들의 mentorship교육에 관한 연구. 영재교육연구. 13(3). 45-68
  4. 홍숙희, 김성원 (2000). ERIC 검색을 통한 미국의 과학영재교육 프로그램 분석. 한국과학교육학회지. 20(1). 112-136
  5. Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32. 439-476 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.32.020181.002255
  6. Beck, N. C., Horwitz, E., Seidenberg, M., Parker, J., & Frank, R. (1985). WAIS factor structure in psychiatric and general medical patients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53. 402-405 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.53.3.402
  7. Belsky, J. K. (1990). The psychology of aging: Theory, research, and interventions. Pacific Grove: Brooks Cole Publishing Company
  8. Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth, and action. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
  9. Esquivel, G. B., & Lopez, E. (1988). Correlations among measures of cognitive ability, creativity, and academic achievement for gifted minority children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 67. 395-398 https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1988.67.2.395
  10. Feldhusen, J. F. (1986). A conception of giftedness. In K. A. Heller & J. F. Feldhusen(Eds.), Identifying and nurturing the gifted: An international perspective(pp.33-38). Toronto: Huber
  11. Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius. London: Macmillan
  12. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5. 444-454 https://doi.org/10.1037/h0063487
  13. Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill
  14. Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystallized general intelligences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57(5). 253-270 https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023816
  15. Kaufman, A. S., & Lichtenberger, E. O. (1999). The essentials of WAIS-III assessment. New York: J. Wiley & Sons
  16. Kaufman, A. S. (2001). WAIS-III IQs, Horn's theory, and generational changes from young adulthood to old age. Intelligence, 29. 131-167 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(00)00046-5
  17. Leckliter, I. N., Matarazzo, J. D., & Silverstein, A. B. (1986). A literature review of factor analytic studies of the WAIS-R. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 42(2). 332-342 https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(198603)42:2<332::AID-JCLP2270420220>3.0.CO;2-2
  18. Linn, M. C., & Peterson, A. C. (1985). Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 56. 1479-1498 https://doi.org/10.2307/1130467
  19. Marshalek, B., Lohman, D. F., & Snow, R. E. (1983). The complexity continuum in the radex and hierarchical models of intelligence. Intelligence, 7. 107-127 https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-2896(83)90023-5
  20. Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. J., Jr., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., Halpern, D. F., Loehlin, J. C., Perloff, R., Sternberg, R. J., & Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51(2). 77-101 https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.77
  21. Parker, K. (1983). Factor analysis of the WAIS at nine age levels between 16 and 74 years. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51. 302-308 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.51.2.302
  22. Raven, J. C. (1980). Advanced Progressive Matrices SetII. J. C. Raven Ltd
  23. Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Re-examinating a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60. 180-184
  24. Spearman, C. E. (1904). General intelligence, objectively determined and measured. American Journal of Psychology, 15. 201-293 https://doi.org/10.2307/1412107
  25. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg(Ed.), Handbook of creativity(pp. 3-15). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press
  26. Sternberg, R. J., & O'Hara, L. A. (1999). Creativity and intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity(pp. 251-273). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press
  27. Torrance, E. P. (1999a). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Thinking Creatively with Pictures. Form A. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service
  28. Torrance, E. P. (1999b). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Thinking Creatively with Words. Form A. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service
  29. Voyer, D., Voyer, S., & Bryden, M. P. (1995). Magnitude of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin, 117. 250-270 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.250
  30. Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children. New York:Holt, Rinehart and Winston
  31. Wechsler, D. (1944). The measurement of adult intelligence. Baltimore: The Williams & Wilkins Company
  32. Wechsler, D. (1981). WAIS-R manual: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised. New York: The Psychological Corporation
  33. Wodtke, K. H. (1964). Some data on the reliability and validity of creativity tests at the elementary school level. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 24(2). 399-408 https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446402400229
  34. Woodcock, R. W. (1990). Theoretical foundations of the WJ-R measures of cognitive ability. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 8. 231-258 https://doi.org/10.1177/073428299000800303
  35. Yamamoto, K. (1964). Threshold of intelligence in academic achievement of highly creative students. The Journal of Experimental Education, 32(4). 401-405 https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1964.11010849