Journal of Gifted/Talented Education (영재교육연구)

The Korean Society for the Gifted (한국영재학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Consistency in Assessment of Creative Products in Terms of Evaluators' Knowledge of Creativity Assessment Criteria and the Type of Assessment Tools

창의적 산출물 평가에서 평정자의 지식 및 평가 도구 유형에 따른 일치도 분석

  • Received : 2016.11.29
  • Accepted : 2016.12.27
  • Published : 2016.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study analyzed the difference in evaluation results in evaluating identical products by applying two different types of evaluating scales, Creative Product Analysis Matrix (CPAM) and Creative Product Semantic Scale (CPSS) by O'Quin and Bessember (1989). As a result, evaluation based on explicit knowledge scored lower than evaluation based on implicit knowledge, implying that the evaluation becomes stricter. When evaluated with CPSS, which as relatively more segmentalized grading criteria, all sub-dimensions of creativity showed low scores, and it show that when evaluator's first impression or personal evaluation standard on the products is firm, they may not be evaluated by the evaluation tools. Gifted education teachers were giving similar evaluations as experts in creative product evaluation, and understanding the product evaluation tool fully in advance before teaching or evaluating products may lead to the generation of newer, more useful and appropriate, and highly creative product with high solvability.

본 연구에서는 창의적 산출물 평가의 대표적 도구인 O'Quin과 Besemer(1989)의 '창의적 산출물 분석행렬(CPAM)'과 '창의적 산출물 어의 척도(CPSS)'의 두 가지의 산출물 평정 척도를 적용하여 동일한 산출물을 평가하는 데 있어 평가 결과의 차이를 분석하였다. 연구 결과, 창의적 산출물 평가에서 평가자의 암묵적 지식은 존재하며, 암묵적 지식과 명시적 지식에 기반한 평가의 평정결과는 차이가 있는 것으로 나타났다. 평가자에게 명시적 지식이 쌓여 갈수록 산출물에 대한 전반적인 평가 점수는 낮게 나타나 더 엄격해지는 경향을 보였다. 상대적으로 세분화된 채점기준을 가진 CPSS로 평정하였을 때는 창의성의 하위 차원에서 점수가 모두 낮게 나타났으며, 평가자가 산출물에 대한 첫인상이나 개인적 평가 기준이 너무 확고한 경우에는 평정도구에 영향을 받지 않을 수도 있다는 것을 살펴볼 수 있었다. 영재교육 담당교사들은 창의적 산출물 평가에서 전문가들과 유사한 평가를 하고 있었으며 산출물 평가 도구를 사전에 충분히 숙지하고 산출물을 지도하거나 평가한다면 보다 새롭고, 유용하고 적절하며, 해결성이 높은 창의적인 산출물이 생성 될 수 있을 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. 교육부 홈페이지. 제2차영재교육진흥종합계획. http://www.moe.go.kr (검색일: 2016. 11. 4)
  2. 김아영, 김세영 (2003). 명시적 부정문항과 암묵적 부정문항이 심리척도의 요인구조에 미치는 영향. 교육평가연구, 16(1). 39-52.
  3. 김영록, 이순묵 (2004). 한국판 창의적 산물 평가도구의 개발 및 구조확인. 한국심리학회지: 산업 및 조직, 17(3), 305-327.
  4. 김정섭 (2008). 한국 창의성 연구의 동향과 쟁점. 한국교육심리학회, 22(4), 939-960.
  5. 박선희 (2002). 아동의 창의적 산물 평가 척도의 타당화 연구. 석사학위논문. 성균관대학교.
  6. 조연순, 정지은 (2012). 국내 창의성 교육 연구 동향분석: 창의성의 범주 및 수준을 중심으로. 영재교육연구, 22(2), 333-352. https://doi.org/10.9722/JGTE.2012.22.2.333
  7. 최인수 (2000). 유아의 창의성 측정도구에 관한 고찰. 유아교육연구, 20(2), 139-166.
  8. 최인수, 임미정, 표정민 (2011). 한국.중국.일본의 창의성에 대한 암묵적 지식 비교. 창의력교육연구, 11(2), 27-47.
  9. 한기순 (2005). 창의성 영역문제의 탐색 및 재접근. 영재교육연구. 15(2), 1-34.
  10. Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(5), 997-1013. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.43.5.997
  11. Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.
  12. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. New York: Westview Press.
  13. Besemer, S. P. (1998). Creative Product Analysis Matrix: Testing the Model Structure and a Comparison Among Products-Three Novel Chairs. Creativity Research Journal, 11(4), 333-346. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1104_7
  14. Besemer, S. P., & O'Quin, K. (1986). Analyzing Creative Products: Refinement and Test of a Judging Instrument. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 20(2), 115-126. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1986.tb00426.x
  15. Besemer, S. P., & O'Quin, K. (1987). Creative Product Analysis: Testing a model by Developing a Judging Instrument. In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.), Frontiers of creativity research: Beyond the basics (pp. 341-357). Buffalo, nY: Bearly Ltd.
  16. Besemer, S. P., & O'Quin, K. (1999). Confirming the Three-Factor Creative Product Analysis Matrix Model in an American Sample. Creativity Research Journal, 12(4), 287-296. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1204_6
  17. Besemer, S. P., & Treffinger, D. J. (1981). Analysis of Creative Products: Review and Synthesis. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 15(3). 158-178. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1981.tb00287.x
  18. Bruner, J. (1962). The conditions of creativity. In J. Bruner (Ed.), Beyond the information given: Studies in the psychology of knowing (pp. 208-217). New York: Norton.
  19. Henderson, S. J. (2004). Product inventors and creativity: The finer dimensions of enjoyment. Creativity Research Journal, 16(4), 293-312. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2004.9651460
  20. Horn, D. B., & Salvendy, G. (2006). Consumer-based assessment of product creativity: A review and reappraisal. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 16(2), 155-175. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20047
  21. Jackson, P. W., & Messick, S. (1967). The person, the product, and the response: Conceptual problem in the assessment of creativity. In J. kagang (Ed.). Creativity and Learning (pp.1-19). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  22. Mackinnon, D. W. (1987). Some critical issues for future research in creativity. In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.), Frontiers of creativity research (pp.120-130). Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited
  23. O'Quin, K., & Besemer, S. P. (1989). The development, reliability, and validity of the revised creative product semantic scale. Creativity Research Journal, 2(4), 267-278. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400418909534323
  24. Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (1991). The Assessment of Creative Products in Programs for Gifted and Talented Students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35(3). 128-134. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629103500304
  25. Renzulli, J. S, Leppin, J. H & Hays, T. S. (2000). The Multiple Menu Model: A Practical Guide for Developing Differenciated Curriculum. Mansfild Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
  26. Rhodes, M. (1987). An analysis of creativity. In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.), Frontiers of Creativity Research (pp.216-222). Buffalo, NY: Beariy Limited.
  27. Romo, M., & Alfonso, V. (2003). Implicit Theories of Spanish Painters. Creativity Research Journal, 15(4), 409-415. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1504_8
  28. Runco, M. A., Johnson, D., & Baer, P. (1993). Parents’ and teachers’ implicit theories of children's creativity. Child Study Journal, 23, 91-113.
  29. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3), 607-627. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.607
  30. Sternberg, R. J. (2004). 지혜, 지능 그리고 창의성의 종합 [김정희 역]. 서울: 시그마프레스. (원본출간년도: 2003).
  31. Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The Nature of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 87-98. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1801_10
  32. Sternberg, R. J. (2010). 지혜의 탄생 [최호영 역]. 서울 : 21세기북스. (원본전출간년도: 1990).
  33. Sternberg, R. J. (2012). The Assessment of Creativity: An Investment-Based Approach. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 3-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.652925
  34. Sternberg, R. J., Conway, B. E., Kerton, J. L., & Bernstein, M. (1981). People's conceptions of intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(1), 37-55. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.41.1.37
  35. Treffinger, D. J., & Poggio, J. P. (1972). Needed Research on the Measurement of Creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 6(4), 253-267.
  36. Wegner, D. M., & Vallacher, R. R. (1977). Implicit psychology: An introduction to social cognition. Oxford University Press.