한국초등과학교육학회지:초등과학교육 (Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education)

  • 제35권4호
  • /
  • Pages.469-478
  • /
  • 2016
  • /
  • 1598-3099(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2733-8436(eISSN)
한국초등과학교육학회 (The Korean Elementary Science Education Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

인지적 영역 중심의 뇌기반 진화적 접근법을 적용한 초등 과학 수업에서 학생들의 과학 창의성 분석

Analyses of Elementary School Students' Scientific Creativity in Cognitive Domain by Applying a Brain-Based Evolutionary Approach to Science Instruction

  • 투고 : 2016.11.22
  • 심사 : 2016.11.29
  • 발행 : 2016.11.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

A brain-based evolutionary approach developed by reflecting the brain functions and authentic science is consisted of Affective, Behavioral, and Cognitive domains, and within each domain the processes of Diversifying, Evaluating, and Furthering are proceeded (ABC-DEF). Two core components of creativity of originality and usefulness are inherent in each step. So, this study analyzed scientific creativity with the originality and usefulness components in cognitive domain, which is composed of diversifying the meanings inherent in the results of observations or experiments (C-D), evaluating the meanings (C-E), and furthering (C-F) in learning of 'World of Plants' unit which includes two topics of 'Plants on Land' and 'Plants in Water and Special Environment'. A total of 20 fourth grade students at Y elementary school in Gyeonggi province participated in the study. The main results of this study are as follows. First, the scientific creativity in step C-D (Diversifying stage) was assessed according to the scientific creativity assessment formula. The scores of scientific creativity were quite different with topics and showed different pattern in the originality and usefulness components. Second, when the students compare and evaluate the values of each meaning (C-E stage), they weighed more on usefulness than originality, such as "because it is useful" or "because it solve many everyday problems". Third, the overall scores of scientific creativity in step C-F (Furthering stage), as compared with those of step C-D, were low and showed decrease in the average scores of originality from 9.8 to 7.5 points, whereas increase in the average scores of usefulness from 5.4 to 6.1 points. In conclusion, these results showed that, even though the levels were not so high, the students, as scientists, can exhibit the scientific creativity in the processes of diversifying, comparing and evaluating, and applying the meanings about the results obtained by observations or experiments. The specific and various strategies to help students express their potential scientific creativity more effectively need to be developed.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. 교육과학기술부 (2011). 과학과 교육과정. 교육과학기술부고시 제2011-361호[별책9].
  2. 김지은, 임채성, 김성하, 홍준의 (2015). 정의적 영역 중심의 뇌기반 진화적 접근에 따른 '생물과 환경' 단원에 대한 초등학생들의 활동 분석. 생물교육, 43(4), 464-472.
  3. 옥찬미, 임채성, 김재영, 김성하, 홍준의 (2016). 인지적 영역 중심의 뇌기반 진화적 접근법에 따른 초등학생들의 '식물의 세계' 학습 활동 분석. 생물교육, 44(3), 572-581.
  4. 임채성 (2009). 뇌기반 진화적 과학 교수학습 모형의 개발. 한국과학교육학회지, 29(8), 990-1010.
  5. 임채성 (2012). 뇌기반 진화적 접근법에 따른 창의적 과학 문제해결 지도 모형 개발. 생물교육, 40(4), 429-452.
  6. 임채성 (2014). 과학 창의성 평가 공식의 개발과 적용. 초등과학교육연구, 33(2), 242-258.
  7. 임채성 (2015). 초등과학창의성의 정의․실제․평가. 한국초등과학교육학회 제69차 하계학술대회: 창의적인 초등 교사를 위한 과학교육(기조강연 A).
  8. 최인수 (2011). 창의성의 발견. 서울: 쌤앤파커스.
  9. 최효선, 임채성, 김성하, 홍준의 (2016). 행동적 영역 중심의 뇌기반 진화적 접근에 따른 '식물의 뿌리 기능 알아보기'에 대한 초등학생들의 활동 분석. 생물교육, 44(1), 167-178.
  10. Alexander, P. A. (1992) Domain knowledge: Evolving themes and emerging concerns. Educational Psychology, 27, 33-51. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2701_4
  11. Amabile, T. M. (1987) The motivation to be creative. In S. G. Isaken (ed.) Frontiers of creativity research:beyond the basics (Buffalo, NY: Bearly) pp. 223-254.
  12. Baer, J. (1993). Creativity and divergent thinking: A taskspecific approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  13. Baer, J. (1998). The case for domain specificity in creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 173-177. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1102_7
  14. Batey, M. (2012): The measurement of creativity: From definitional consensus to the introduction of a new heuristic framework. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 55-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.649181
  15. Boden, M. A. (1996). What is creativity? In M. A. Boden (Ed.) Dimensions of creativity. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. pp. 75-117.
  16. Clark, R. L., Clough, M. P. & Berg, C. A. (2000). Modifying cookbook labs to mentally engage students. The Science Teacher, 67(7), 40-43.
  17. DasGupta, S. (1994). Creativity in invention and design - Computational and cognitive explorations of technological originality. Cambridge University Press.
  18. Findlay, C. S. & Lumsden, C. J. (1988) The creative mind: Toward an evolutionary theory of discovery and innovation. Journal of Social and Biological Structures, 11, 3-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-1750(88)90025-5
  19. Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds. New York: Basic Books.
  20. Glück, J., Ernst, R. & Unger, F. (2002) How creatives define creativity: Definitions reflect different types of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 14(1), 55-67. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1401_5
  21. Kaufman, J. C. & Baer, J. (Eds.). (2006). Creativity and reason in cognitive development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  22. Kaufman, J. C. & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four c model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013688
  23. Kaufman, J. C. & Beghetto, R. A. (2013). Do people recognize the four Cs? Examining layperson conceptions of creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7(3), 229-236. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033295
  24. Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2004). Sure, I'm creative - But not in mathematics! Self-reported creativity in diverse domains. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 22, 143-155. https://doi.org/10.2190/26HQ-VHE8-GTLN-BJJM
  25. Mayr, E. (1997). This is biology: The science of the living world. Universities Press.
  26. Mumford, M. D., Mobley, M. I., Uhlman, C. E., Reiter-Palmon, R. & Doares, L. M. (1991) Process analytic of creative capacities. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 91-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419109534380
  27. 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
  28. Peters, E. (2005). Reforming cookbook labs. Science Scope, 29(3), 16-21.
  29. Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A. & Dow, G. (2004). Why isn't creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potential, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39, 83-96. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1
  30. Richards, R. (1993) Everyday creativity, eminent creativity and pschopathology. Psychological Inquiry, 4(3), 212-217. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0403_12
  31. Sternberg, R. J. (1998, Ed.). Handbook of human creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  32. Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L. & Singer, J. L. (Eds.) (2004). Creativity: From potential to realization. Washington, DC: APA.
  33. Weisberg, R. W. (1992). Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius. New York: Freeman.