한국초등과학교육학회지:초등과학교육 (Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education)

  • 제38권3호
  • /
  • Pages.331-344
  • /
  • 2019
  • /
  • 1598-3099(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2733-8436(eISSN)
한국초등과학교육학회 (The Korean Elementary Science Education Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

초등과학영재학생의 발표에 대한 인식 및 발표의 자발성과 과학창의성의 관계 분석

An Analysis of Science-gifted Elementary Students' Perception of Speech and the Relationship between Their Voluntary Speech and Scientific Creativity

  • 투고 : 2019.06.28
  • 심사 : 2019.07.21
  • 발행 : 2019.08.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

This study aims to analyse science-gifted elementary students' perception of speech in general school class, school science class, and science-gifted class and the relationship between their voluntary speech and scientific creativity. For this, 39 fifth-graders in the Science-Gifted Education Center at Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education in Korea were asked about their frequency of voluntary speech on each class situation, the reasons for such behavior, and their general opinions about speech. Also, researchers collected the teachers' observation on students' speech in class. To get the scores for students' scientific creativity, four different subjects of tasks were presented. The students' scientific creativity scores were used for correlation analysis with their frequency of speech. The main findings from this study are as follows: First, science-gifted elementary students tended to be passive in science-gifted class compared to general school and school science class. Second, the main reason for the low frequency of students' speech in school classes is that they do not have many opportunities to make presentations. Third, a survey of students' general thoughts on speech showed that more students wanted to make a speech voluntarily in class than the opposite. Fourth, the four different scientific creativity tasks had little correlation. Fifth, the correlations between the frequency of voluntary speech and the scores of scientific creativity were mostly low, with significant results only for plant task. Sixth, the correlations between the frequency of voluntary speech and the two components that make up scientific creativity, originality and usefulness, were also mostly low, but significant results for both were found in plant task, with originality having a higher correlation than usefulness. Based on this results, this study discussed the meanings and implications of students' voluntary speech on elementary science education and creativity education.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. 강충열, 김동영(2001). 인성 및 창의성 신장 방안. 한국교원대학교부설 교과교육공동연구소. 교육정책 및교육 개혁 추진 과제. 연구보고 RR, 99-1.
  2. 김영채(2012). 창의력의 영역 보편성과 특수성. 사고개발, 8(1), 1-29.
  3. 김혁곤(1992). 대학생의 사회적 불안 감소를 위한 집단 상담 프로그램의 효과. 전남대학교 박사학위논문.
  4. 박은숙(2016). PBL 수업에서의 모바일 프레젠테이션 저작도구의 활용이 학습자의 발표력에 미치는 영향. 인문사회 21, 7(5), 605-624.
  5. 신문승(2010). 초등학생용 창의적 성향 검사의 개발 및 타당화. 초등교육연구, 23(3), 267-291.
  6. 임채성(2012). 뇌기반 진화적 접근법에 따른 창의적 과학 문제해결 지도 모형 개발. 생물교육, 40(4), 429-452.
  7. 임채성(2014). 과학창의성 평가 공식의 개발과 적용. 초등과학교육, 33(2), 242-257.
  8. 임채성, 하경태, 오진태(2008). 생명 현상에 대한 정보 제공 유형에 따른 초등학교 학생의 협동적 의미 구성. 생물교육, 36(4), 512-522.
  9. 최인수(2000). 유아용 창의성 측정도구에 관한 고찰. 유아교육연구, 20(2), 139-166.
  10. 하주현(2000). 창의적 인성 검사 개발. 교육심리연구, 14(2), 187-210.
  11. 함경애(2014). 초등학생의 완벽주의와 발표불안과의 관계에서 부정적인 자동 사고의 매개효과. 인문학논총, 36, 407-429.
  12. Baer, J. (2012). Domain specificity and the limits of creativity theory. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(1), 16-29. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.002
  13. Basadur, M. I. N., Taggar, S. & Pringle, P. A. M. (1999). Improving the measurement of divergent thinking attitudes in organizations. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 33(2), 75-111. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1999.tb01040.x
  14. Beghetto, R. A. (2006). Creative self-efficacy: Correlates in middle and secondary students. Creativity Research Journal, 18(4), 447-457. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1804_4
  15. Daly, J. A., Vangelisti, A. L., Neel, H. L. & Cavanaugh, P. D. (1989). Pre performance concerns associated with public speaking anxiety. Communication Quarterly, 37(1), 39-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463378909385524
  16. Davis, G. A. & Rimm, S. (1982). Group inventory for finding interests:(GIFFI) I and II: Instruments for identifying creative potential in the junior and senior high school. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 16(1), 50-57. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1982.tb00321.x
  17. Davis, M. A. (2009). Understanding the relationship between mood and creativity: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 25-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.04.001
  18. Dietrich, A. (2004). The cognitive neuroscience of creativity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(6), 1011-1026. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196731
  19. Dietrich, A. (2007). Who’s afraid of a cognitive neuroscience of creativity?. Methods, 42(1), 22-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2006.12.009
  20. Dietrich, A. & Haider, H. (2017). A neurocognitive framework for human creative thought. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 2078.
  21. Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4), 290-309. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0204_5
  22. Fischer, G., Giaccardi, E., Eden, H., Sugimoto, M. & Ye, Y. (2005). Beyond binary choices: Integrating individual and social creativity. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63(4-5), 482-512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.04.014
  23. Han, K. S. & Marvin, C. (2002). Multiple creativities? Investigating domain-specificity of creativity in young children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46(2), 98-109. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620204600203
  24. 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
  25. Kind, P. & Kind, V. (2007). Creativity in science education: Perspectives and challenges for developing school science. Studies in Science Education, 43, 1-37. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260708560225
  26. Nishimura, S., Nevgi, A. & Tella, S. (2008). Communication style and cultural features in high/low context communication cultures: A case study of Finland, Japan and India. Teoksessa A. Kallioniemi (toim.), Uudistuva ja kehittyva ainedidaktiikka. Ainedidaktinen Symposiumi, 8(2008), 783-796.
  27. Rimm, S. (1983). Part II - Self-report inventories and the characteristics approach: Identifying creativity. G/C/T, 6(4), 19-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/107621758300600409
  28. Rosenfeld, L. B., Grant III, C. H. & McCroskey, J. C. (1995). Communication apprehension and self-perceived communication competence of academically gifted students. Communication Education, 44(1), 79-89. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529509378999
  29. Runco, M. A. (2006). Creativity: Theories and themes: Research, development, and practice. San Diego: Academic Press.
  30. Runco, M. A. & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092
  31. Torrance, E. P. (1962). Non-test ways of identifying the creatively gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 6(3), 71-75. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698626200600301
  32. Torrance, E. P., Ball, O. E. & Safter, H. T. (1992). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Streamlined scoring guide (Figural A & B). Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc.
  33. Treffinger, D. J., Young, G. C., Selby, E. C. & Shepardson, C. A. (2002). Assessing creativity. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
  34. Wang, C. W. & Horng, R. Y. (2002). The effects of creative problem solving training on creativity, cognitive type and R&D performance. R&D Management, 32(1), 35-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9310.00237
  35. Young, D. J. (1990). An investigation of students’ perspectives on anxiety and speaking. Foreign Language Annals, 23(6), 539-553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1990.tb00424.x

피인용 문헌

  1. 초등과학영재학생의 과학창의성과 다중지능의 관계 - 생명 영역을 중심으로 - vol.39, pp.3, 2019, https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2020.39.3.369
  2. 식물원 야외체험학습에서 활용 가능한 과학 창의성 과제 개발 - 초등과학영재학생에의 적용 - vol.39, pp.4, 2019, https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2020.39.4.506