Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Development and Application of the Family Activity for Improving Scientific Creativity (FAISC) Program

과학적 창의성 향상을 위한 가족활동(FAISC) 프로그램의 개발과 적용

  • Received : 2012.10.22
  • Accepted : 2013.02.12
  • Published : 2013.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this study, FAISC (Family Activity for Improving Scientific Creativity) program was developed and applied to 12 families. FAISC consists of 12 tasks and 12 evaluation papers. Family participants conducted the task individually and evaluated their performance results through discussion and agreement. From the participants' responses, it was found that FAISC tasks were fun but weakly difficult. Participants responded that Guide 1 (Creative thinking methods) and Guide 2 (Related knowledge) were helpful in their performance, and their scientific creativity was enhanced. From the analysis of interview and video recording of participants' behaviors, various positive aspects were observed. Especially on cognitive aspects, harmonious and pleasant family activities were observed. Negative aspects observed in interview and video gave us a practical guide for more effective performance in further application. Finally, according to comparison of evaluation results by family and professionals, the correlation between them was .901. Therefore, we conclude that evaluation of creative activity by family is highly confidential.

본 연구에서는 과학적 창의성 향상을 위한 가족활동(FAISC) 프로그램을 개발하여 실질적인 목적에서 프로그램 내용을 구체적으로 제시하였다. 그리고 연구에 참여한 가족구성원들의 프로그램에 대한 반응과 적용 중에 나타난 특성을 분석하였다. 설문 결과, 가정에서 수행하기에 과제가 흥미로웠고, 난이도는 약간 어려웠으나, 과제에 제시된 안내가 과제 해결에 도움을 주었다고 응답하였다. 또한 과제 해결 후 과학적 창의성이 향상되었다고 응답하였다. 비디오 촬영 및 면담 분석 결과, 가족 구성원들이 과제를 수행하고 평가하는 과정에서 여러 가지 긍정적인 측면들이 관찰되었다. 특히 인지적 측면 이외에 가족구성원 사이의 대화와 합의의 과정 그리고 즐겁게 참여하는 모습도 관찰되었다. 일부 관찰된 부정적인 반응을 통해서는 추후 보다 효과적인 적용을 위해 고려할 점이 무엇인지 알 수 있었다. 마지막으로 과제 수행 결과에 대한 가족구성원들의 채점 점수가 전문가 채점 점수와 상관이 높은 것으로 나타나, 가족들이 스스로 FAISC를 평가하는 데에도 무리가 없을 것으로 판단되었다.

Keywords

References

  1. 박종원 (2004). 과학적 창의성 모델의 제안 - 인지적 측면을 중심으로 - 한국과학교육학회지, 24(2), 376-382.
  2. 박종원, 박종석, 이강길 (2008). 과학적 창의성 활동 자료 개발. KRF-2007-721-B00034. 학술진흥재단 연구 보고서.
  3. 박종원, 지경준 (2010). 과학 영재아의 창의적 과제 수행과정에서의 특성 분석, 한국과학교육학회지, 30(6), 770-784.
  4. 박종원, 김본경, 최재혁, 지경준 (2010). 과학적 창의성 지도를 위한 워크숍 방식의 심화 연수 프로그램 개발과 적용, 한국과학교육학회지, 30(8), 1017-1030.
  5. 손애향 (2004). 과학교사 창의성 국외연수 효과분석 및 연수프로그램 개선 방안, 석사학위논문.
  6. 지경준, 이경학, 박종원 (2010). 과학 창의성 평가 문항 유형 개발 및 현장 교사들의 반응 분석. 제59차 한국초등과학교육학회 하계 국제학술대회 발표. 진주: 진주교육대학교.
  7. Amabile, T.M. (1982). Social Psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 997-1013. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.43.5.997
  8. Amabile, T.M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to " The Social Psychology of Creativity."Boulder, Co.: Westview Press.
  9. Baer, J. (1991). Generality creativity across performance domains. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 23-59. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419109534371
  10. Baer, J. (1996). The effects of task-specific divergent-thinking training. Journal of Creative Behavior, 30, 183-187. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1996.tb00767.x
  11. Conti, R., Coon, H., & Amabile, T. M. (1996). Evidence to support the componential model of creativity: Secondary analysis of three studies. Creativity Research Journal, 9, 358-389.
  12. Cropley, A.J. (1967). Creativity. London: Longmans, Green.
  13. Gendrop, S.C. (1996). Effect of an intervention in synectics on the creative thinking of nurses. Creativity Research Journal, 9, 11-19. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj0901_2
  14. Getzels, J.W., & Jackson, P.W. (1962). Creativity and Intelligence: Exploration with Gifted Students. New York: Wiley.
  15. Fleenor, J. W., & Taylor, S. (1994). Construct validity of three self-report measures of creativity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 464-470. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164494054002021
  16. Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligence for the 21st Century. New York: Basic Books.
  17. Goldsmith, R.E., & Matherly, T.A. (1988). Creativity and self-esteem: A multiple operationalization validity study. Journal of Psychology, 122, 47-56. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1988.10542942
  18. Guilford, J.P. (1950, September 5). Creativity. Address of the President of the American Psychological Association, Pennsylvania State College, PA.
  19. Kaufman, J.C., & Baer, J. (2004). The amusement park theoretical (APT) model of creativity. Journal of Thinking and Problem Solving, 14, 15-25.
  20. Kaufman, J.C., Gentile, C. A., & Baer, J. (2005). Do gifted student writers and creative writing experts rate creativity the same way? Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 260-265. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620504900307
  21. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (2009). 2009 Revised Curriculum. Seoul: MEST.
  22. Renzulli, J.S. (2000). New Directions in Creativity. Creative Learning Press, Inc.
  23. Richards, R. (2007). Everyday creativity: Our hidden potential. In R. Richards (Ed.), Everyday Creativity and New Views of Human Nature. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  24. Runco, M.A., & Albert, R.S. (1985). The reliability and validity of ideational originality in the divergent thinking of academically gifted and nongifted children. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45, 483-501.
  25. Simonton, D.K. (2004). Creativity in Science: Change, Logic, Genius, and Zeitgeist. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  26. Torrance, E.P. (1972). Can we teach children to think creatively? Journal of Creative Behavior, 6(2), 114-143. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1972.tb00923.x
  27. Torrance, E.P. (1974). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Directions Manual and Scoring Guide (Verbal test booklet A, B). Scholastic Testing Service, Inc.
  28. Torrance, E.P. (1987). Teaching for creativity, In S.G. Isaksen (Ed.), Frontiers of Creativity Research (pp. 190-215). Buffalo, NY:Bearly Press.
  29. Weisberg, R. (1986). Creativity: Genius and other myths. N.Y.: W.H. Freeman and Co.
  30. Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of Thinking in Young Children. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winstom.
  31. Ma, H.H. (2006). A synthetic analysis of the effectiveness of single components and packages in creativity training programs. Creativity Research Journal, 28(4), 435-446.
  32. Adullah Aljughaiman & Elizabeth M.R. (2005). Teachers'conceptions of creativity and creative students. Journal of Creative Behavior, 39(1), 17-34. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2005.tb01247.x
  33. Park, S., Lee, S., J. Oliver, S., & Cramond, B. (2006). Change in Korean science teachers' perceptions of creativity and science teaching after participating in an overseas professional development program. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 37-64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-006-9009-4
  34. Hansen, J. B., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). Comparison of trained and untrained teachers of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(3), 115-121. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629403800304

Cited by

  1. An Application Effect of Family Activity for Improving Scientific Creativity (FAISC) vol.34, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.3.0213
  2. The Effect of Science Teaching and Learning Methods from the Perspectives of the Science-Related Attitude vol.34, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2015.34.3.297
  3. 중학교 과학영재들의 과학 창의성 평가 사례 연구 vol.45, pp.4, 2013, https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2017.45.4.536