Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

An Application Effect of Family Activity for Improving Scientific Creativity (FAISC)

과학 창의성 향상을 위한 가족활동(FAISC) 프로그램의 적용 효과

  • Received : 2014.01.17
  • Accepted : 2014.04.03
  • Published : 2014.05.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In the previous study (Jee & Park, 2013), family activities, which can be utilized to improve scientific creativity at home have been developed and used. In that study, 12 families fell into two groups, received 6 programs for scientific creativity respectively, and conducted the program for six weeks. As consequences, various positive responses from participants have been received. This survey has been conducted to test whether scientific creativity could be improved quantitatively through family activity at home, and to examine parents' recognition of the feasibility of teaching creativity as well. To answer this, a scientific creativity test consisting of three items in the pre- and post-test respectively have been developed and carried out. The test includes various elements of scientific creativity defined by Park (2011). For obtaining parents' responses, a questionnaire has been developed and applied. The results reveal that parents have changed their thought to 'everyone can conduct scientific creativity activity at home if effective programs are provided and they learn the basic skills to do it.' And, through the scientific creativity test, the experimental group has indicated an improvement in scientific creativity with statistical significance and a large effect size. Therefore, we suggest that family activity for scientific creativity can be applied to family activity in various situations such as camp, leasure or science museum.

이전 연구(Jee & Park, 2013)에서, 일반 가정에서 가족활동을 통해 과학 창의성을 향상시키기 위한 활동자료를 개발하고 적용하였다. 이를 위해 12 가족을 두 구룹으로 나누어 각각 6개의 과학 창의성 프로그램으로 제공하여 주당 한 개 프로그램씩 6주간 실시하도록 하였다. 그 결과 참가자들로부터 다양한 긍정적인 반응을 얻을 수 있었다. 본 연구에서는 이전 연구에 이어서, 가정에서의 가족활동을 통해서 과학창의성이 향상되는지를 정량적으로 검증해 보고자 하였고, 가정에서의 창의성 지도 가능성에 대한 학부모의 의견을 알아보고자 하였다. 이를 위해, 사전 및 사후조사에서 사용할 각각 3개 문항으로 구성된 과학 창의성 조사 도구를 개발하여 적용하였다. 이 도구에는 Park(2011)이 정의한 다양한 과학 창의성 요소들이 포함되도록 하였다. 학부모 의견을 알아보기 위해서는 설문지를 개발하여 적용하였다. 실시 결과, 학부모들은 기본적인 방법만 습득하면 누구나 과학 창의성 활동을 수행할 수 있으며, 효과적인 프로그램만 있다면 가정에서도 수행할 수 있다는 인식으로 변화된 것으로 나타났다. 또 창의성 평가를 통해서도 실험집단이 통제집단에 비해 통계적으로 유의미하고 효과의 크기도 매우 크게 창의성이 향상된 것으로 나타났다. 이를 통해 앞으로 과학 창의성 활동을 가정 내에서 뿐 아니라, 캠프나 여가활동 중 또는 과학관 등에서 가족형 프로그램으로 확대 적용될 수 있을 것으로 기대되었다.

Keywords

References

  1. AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) (1990). Science for All Americans: Project 2061. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  2. 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), article 4, 1-21.
  3. Aljughaiman, A., & Mowerer-Reynolds, E. (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
  4. Crowley, K., Callanan, M. A., Lipson, J. L., Galco, J., Topping, K., & Shrager, J. (2001). Shared scientific thinking in everyday parent - child activity. Science Education, 85(6), 712-732. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1035
  5. Diakidoy, I-A. N., & Constantinou, C. P. (2000-2001). Creativity in physics: Response fluency and task specificity. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3&4), 401-410.
  6. Ellenbogen, K. M., Luke, J. J., & Dierking, L. D. (2004). Family learning research in museums: An emerging disciplinary matrix? Science Education, 88(Supplemental issue 1), S48-S58. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20015
  7. Fivush, R., Haden, C. A., & Reese, E. (2006). Elaborating on elaborations: Role of maternal reminiscing style in cognitive and socioemotional development. Child Development, 77, 1568-1588. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00960.x
  8. Frederiksen, N., Evans, F. R., & Ward, W. C. (1973). Development of provisional criteria for the study of scientific creativity. paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, U.S. (Feb. 26).
  9. Fryer, M., & Collings, J. (1991). British teachers' views of creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 25(1), 75-81. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1991.tb01356.x
  10. 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
  11. Hu, W., Adey, P., Shen, J., & Lin, C. (2004). The comparisons of the development of creativity between English and Chinese adolescents. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 36(6), 718-731.
  12. Hu, W., Shi, Q.Z., Han, Q., Wnag, X., & Adey, P. (2010). Creative scientific problem finding and its developmental trend. Creativity Research Journal, 22(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410903579494
  13. Hu, W., Wu, B., Jia, X., Yi, X., Duan, C., Meyer, W., & Kaufman, J. C. (2013). Increasing students' scientific creativity: The "Learn to Think" intervention program. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 47(1), 3-21. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.20
  14. 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
  15. Jee, K., Lee, K., & Park, J. (2010). Development of scientific creativity test items and analysis of teachers' responses on it. paper presented at the 59th conference of the Korean Society of Elementary Science Education. Jinju: Chinju National University of Education.
  16. Jee, K., & Park, J. (2013). Development and application of the family activity for improving scientific creativity (FAISC) program. Journal of Korea Association for Science Education, 33(1), 114-131.
  17. Kampylis, P. G., & Valtanen, J. (2010). Redefining creativity - Analyzing definitions, collocations, and consequences. Journal of Creative Behavior, 44(3), 191-214. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2010.tb01333.x
  18. Kang, D., & Park, J. (2013). The change of fluency according to activity time when conducting scientific creativity activity. paper presented at the 64th conference of the Korean Association for Science Education. Gwangju: Chonnam National Unviersity.
  19. Lee, K., & Park, J. (2012). Exploration for the application of TATSC to schools through the in-service program. Teacher Education Research, 51(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.15812/ter.51.1.201204.1
  20. Lin, C. (2009). Researches Into Creative Talents and Creative Education. Beijing: Economic Science Press.
  21. Lin, C., Hu, W., Adey, P., & Shen, J. (2003). The influence of CASE on scientific creativity. Research in Science Education, 33, 143-162. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025078600616
  22. 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.
  23. 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
  24. Park, J. (2011). Understanding and teaching scientific creativity in schools. New Physics: Sae Mulli, 61(10), 947-961. https://doi.org/10.3938/NPSM.61.947
  25. Park, J. (2012). Developing the format and samples of teaching materials for scientific creativity in the ordinary science curriculum -Including teachers' practice and reflection-. Journal of Korea Association of Science Education, 32(3), 446-466.
  26. 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
  27. Runco, M. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Assessing the accuracy of judgments of originality on three divergent thinking tests. The International Journal of Creativity & Problem Solving, 14(2), 5-14.
  28. 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
  29. Ward, W. C., Frederiksen, N., & Carlson, S. B. (1980). Construct validity of free-response and machine scorable versions of a test of scientific thinking. Journal of Educational Measurement, 17(1), 11-29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1980.tb00811.x

Cited by

  1. 예술적 상황과 기술적 상황이 고등학생들의 물리 문제해결에 미치는 효과 vol.35, pp.6, 2014, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.6.0985
  2. 중학교 과학영재들의 과학 창의성 평가 사례 연구 vol.45, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2017.45.4.536