Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education (한국초등과학교육학회지:초등과학교육)

The Korean Elementary Science Education Society (한국초등과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Comparative Analysis of Student Self-, Teacher-, and Objective Assessments of Elementary Science-Gifted Students' Scientific Creativity

초등과학영재학생의 과학창의성에 대한 자기 평가, 교사 평가, 객관적 평가의 비교 분석

  • Received : 2018.10.16
  • Accepted : 2018.11.18
  • Published : 2018.11.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study aims to compare student self-, teacher-, and objective assessments of elementary science-gifted students' scientific creativity. A science-gifted program on the topic of Hydraulic Machine was implemented to 40 fifth-graders in the Science-Gifted Education Center of an education office in Seoul, Korea for four weeks. The products of the students' activities were assessed by three types of 'Student Self-Assesment', 'Teacher-Assesment', and 'Objective Assessment using Formula'. Based on two essential components of creativity, the scientific creativity is divided into two parts of originality and usefulness. Ideas that satisfy both components can be counted as scientifically creative. The main results of this study are as follows: First, the scores of each week and the average of the overall four-week scores on scientific creativity were significantly correlated. Student self-assessment (r=.687), teacher-assessment (r=.715), and objective assessment (r=.724) appeared consistently over instructional periods. Second, the average scores of student self-, objective, and teacher-assessments were 73.15, 35.72, and 26.60, respectively. The result of student self-assessment on scientific creativity tended to be higher than those of formula and teacher. Third, among the three types of assessment on scientific creativity, a strong correlation appeared between teacher- and objective assessment (r=.974), but neither between student self- and objective (r=.161) nor between student self- and teacher- (r=.213). Fourth, the scores on originality component had a positive correlation between teacher- and objective assessment (r=.713). The scores of student self- and teacher-assessments had a significant correlation too (r=.315), but not between student self- and objective assessment (r=.279). Fifth, the scores on usefulness component did not have a significant correlation between student self- and teacher-assessment (r=.155). Sixth, there was no significant difference on scientific creativity between student self- and objective assessment [${\chi}^2$(1, n=40)=1.667, p<.197]. Not between student self- and teacher-assessment either [${\chi}^2$(1, n=40)=1.616, p<.204]. On the contrary, there was a significant difference between teacher- and objective assessment [${\chi}^2$(1, n=40)=32.593, p<.000]. Seventh, the students were categorized into four groups according to the levels of their scores by student self- and teacher-assessment. The result showed that factors influencing student self-assessment are inherent in the personality traits of gifted individuals, such as self-esteem and perfectionism. The findings suggested that there are challenges for the educators to make efforts to construct consistent assessment methods for scientific creativity.

Keywords

Table 1. Correlation between weekly and overall average scores of three types of assessment on scientific creativity, originality, and usefulness

CDRHBB_2018_v37n4_440_t0001.png 이미지

Table 2. The average scores and standard deviations of three types of assessment on scientific creativity and its two essential components

CDRHBB_2018_v37n4_440_t0002.png 이미지

Table 3. Correlation among three types of assessment on scientific creativity

CDRHBB_2018_v37n4_440_t0003.png 이미지

Table 4. Correlation among three types of assessment on originality

CDRHBB_2018_v37n4_440_t0004.png 이미지

Table 5. Frequency differences of scientific creativity for objective assessment on student self-assessment

CDRHBB_2018_v37n4_440_t0005.png 이미지

Table 6. Type distribution according to the scores’ levels of student self-assessment and teacher-assessment on scientific creativity

CDRHBB_2018_v37n4_440_t0006.png 이미지

Table 7. The number of students who got the higher scores of originality than those of usefulness in student self-assessment and teacher-assessment

CDRHBB_2018_v37n4_440_t0007.png 이미지

Table 8. The number of students who had more than 1 point of the difference between originality and usefulness scores in student self-assessment and teacher-assessment

CDRHBB_2018_v37n4_440_t0008.png 이미지

Table 9. The responses of students with the greatest difference between originality and usefulness scores in student self-assessment and teacher-assessment

CDRHBB_2018_v37n4_440_t0009.png 이미지

Table 10. Characteristics of individual students’ activities by the scores’ levels of student self-assessment and teacher-assessment on scientific creativity

CDRHBB_2018_v37n4_440_t0010.png 이미지

References

  1. 곽금주, 정윤경, 김민화(2010). 아동발달심리학. 서울: 박학사.
  2. 교육부(2015). 초․중등학교 교육과정 총론. 교육부 고시 제 2015-74호 [별책 1].
  3. 김원경, 우남희(2002). 아동의 창의성에 대한 심리적 관련 변인 연구. 아동학회지, 23(2), 1-16.
  4. 신지은, 한기순, 정현철, 박병건, 최승언(2002). 과학 영재 학생과 일반 학생은 창의성에서 어떻게 다른가? - 서울대학교 과학영재교육센터 학생들을 중심으로. 한국과학교육학회지, 22(1), 158-175.
  5. 임채성(2012). 뇌기반 진화적 접근법에 따른 창의적 과학 문제해결 지도 모형 개발. 생물교육, 40(4), 429-452.
  6. 임채성(2014). 과학창의성 평가 공식의 개발과 적용. 초등과학교육, 33(2), 242-257.
  7. Barbera, E. (2009). Mutual feedback in e-portfolio assessment: an approach to the netfolio system. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(2), 342-357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00803.x
  8. Barrett, H. (2007). Researching electronic portfolios and learner engagement: the reflective initiative. Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 50(6), 436-449. https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.50.6.2
  9. Boud, D. & Falchikov, N. (1989). Quantitative studies of student self-assessment in higher education: A critical analysis of findings. Higher Education, 18, 529-549. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138746
  10. Bouzidi, L. & Jaillet, A. (2009). Can online peer assessment be trusted? Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 257-268.
  11. Butler, R. (1990). The effects of mastery and competitive conditions on self-assessment at different ages. Child Development, 61, 201-210. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131059
  12. Callahan, C. M. & Miller, E. M. (2005). A child-responsive model of giftedness. Conceptions of Giftedness, 2, 38-51.
  13. Carmines, E. G. & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment (Vol. 17). Sage publications.
  14. Chan, D. W. (2005). Self-perceived creativity, family hardiness, and emotional intelligence of Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 16(2-3), 47-56. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2005-471
  15. Chang, C. C., Tseng, K. H. & Lou, S. J. (2012). A comparative analysis of the consistency and difference among teacher-assessment, student self-assessment and peer-assessment in a Web-based portfolio assessment environment for high school students. Computers & Education, 58(1), 303-320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.005
  16. Cho, K., Schunn, C. & Wilson, R. (2006). Validity and reliability of scaffolded peer assessment of writing from instructor and student perspectives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 891-901. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.891
  17. Cropley, A. J. (2001). Creativity in education & learning: A guide for teachers and educators. Psychology Press.
  18. Fox, S. & Dinur, Y. (1988). Validity of self-assessment: A field evaluation. Personnel Psychology, 41, 581-592. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1988.tb00645.x
  19. 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
  20. Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F. III. & Swanson, R. A. (2005). The adult learner (6th Ed.). Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
  21. Lin, S.-J., Liu, Z.-F. & Yuan, S.-M. (2001a). Web-based peer assessment: Attitude and achievement. IEEE Transactions on Education, 44(2), 13.
  22. Lin, S.-J., Liu, Z.-F. & Yuan, S.-M. (2001b). Web-based peer assessment: Feedback for students with various thinking-styles. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(4), 420-432. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0266-4909.2001.00198.x
  23. Liu, Z.-F. (2002). Studies of networked peer assessment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Hsinchu: National Chiao Tung University.
  24. LoCicero, K. A. & Ashby, J. S. (2000). Multidimensional perfectionism in middle school age gifted students: A comparison to peers from the general cohort. Roeper Review, 22(3), 182-185. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190009554030
  25. Mayer, R. E. (1999). Fifty years of creativity research. In R. J. Sternberg (ed.), Handbook of creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  26. Mumford, M. D. (2003). Where have we been, where are we going? Taking stock in creativity research. Creativity Research Journal, 15(2-3), 107-120. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2003.9651403
  27. Musante, K. & DeWalt, B. R. (2010). Participant observation: A guide for fieldworkers. Rowman Altamira.
  28. Newton, L. & Newton, D. (2010). Creative thinking and teaching for creativity in elementary school science. Gifted and Talented International, 25(2), 111-124. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2010.11673575
  29. Patton, M. Q. (2005). Qualitative research. Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science.
  30. Plake, B. S. & Impara, J. C. (1996). Teacher assessment literacy: What do teachers know about assessment?. In Handbook of classroom assessment (pp. 53-68).
  31. Renzulli, J. S. (2003). Conception of giftedness and its relationship to the development of social capital. Handbook of Gifted Education, 3, 75-87.
  32. Ross, J. A. (2006). The reliability, validity, and utility of self-assessment. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 11(10). Retrieved January 31, 2009 from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=11&n=10
  33. Ross, J. A., Rolheiser, C. & Hogaboam-Gray, A. (1999). Effect of self-evaluation on narrative writing. Assessing Writing, 6(1), 107-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1075-2935(99)00003-3
  34. Sadler, P. & Good, E. (2006). The impact of self- and peer-grading on student learning. Educational Assessment, 11(1), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326977ea1101_1
  35. Salvia, J., Ysseldyke, J. & Witmer, S. (2012). Assessment: In special and inclusive education. Cengage Learning.
  36. Sowden, P. T. & Dawson, L. (2011, November). Creative feelings: The effect of mood on creative ideation and evaluation. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Creativity and Cognition (pp. 393-394). ACM.
  37. Sternberg, R. J. (1998, Ed.). Handbook of human creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  38. Sung, Y.-T., Chang, K.-E., Chiou, S.-K. & Hou, H.-T. (2005). The design and application of a web-based self- and peer-assessment system. Computers and Education, 45(2), 187-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.07.002
  39. Treffinger, D. J. (2009). Myth 5: Creativity is too difficult to measure. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 245-247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209346829
  40. Treffinger, D., Young, G., Shelby, E. & Shepardson, C. (2002). Assessing creativity: A guide for educators (RM02170). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
  41. Tsai, C.-C. & Liang, J.-C. (2009). The development of science activities via on-line peer assessment: The role of scientific epistemological views. Instructional Science, 37, 293-310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-007-9047-0
  42. Tseng, S.-C. & Tsai, C.-C. (2007). On-line peer assessment and the role of the peer feedback: A study of high school computer course. Computers & Education, 49(4), 1161-1174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.01.007
  43. Walker, C. & Gleaves, A. (2008). An exploration of students' perceptions and understandings of creativity as an assessment criterion in undergraduate-level studies within higher education. Irish Educational Studies, 27(1), 41-54. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323310701837855
  44. Weisberg, R. W. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius. WH Freeman New York.
  45. Yager, R. E. (2000). A vision for what science education should be like for the first 25 years of a new millennium. School Science and Mathematics, 100(6), 327-341. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2000.tb17327.x

Cited by

  1. 초등과학영재학생의 자기 평가, 동료 평가의 비교 분석 vol.38, pp.4, 2019, https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2019.38.4.439