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-and Peer-Assessments of Elementary Science-Gifted Students' Scientific Creativity

초등과학영재학생의 자기 평가, 동료 평가의 비교 분석

  • Received : 2019.08.25
  • Accepted : 2019.09.27
  • Published : 2019.11.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study aims to compare self- and peer-assessments of science-gifted elementary students' scientific creativity. A science-gifted program on the Pascal's principle was implemented to 40 fifth-graders in the Science-Gifted Education Center for two weeks. After that, students presented their results from a scientific creativity task using the principle in class. The task was to devise a new and useful tool using the principle, and it included the students' self-assessment about their idea. During presentation, students were asked to assess the works of peers and write down the reasons that they gave the scores they gave. Shortly, student self- and peer-assessments about students' scientific creativity outcomes were compared. Based on two essential components of creativity, ideas that satisfy both originality and usefulness can be counted as scientifically creative. The main results of this study are as follows: First, the average scores of student self- and peer-assessments were 71.5 and 61.9. Second, the standard deviations of student self- and peer-assessments were 14.47 and 5.79. Third, among scientific creativity, originality, usefulness scores, only originality had a significant correlation between student self- and peer-assessment (r=.42). Fourth, the students were categorized into four groups according to the levels of their scores by student self- and peer-assessment. And the frequencies of peer-assessment group had a significant difference at p<0.05 level, according to self-assessment group (Chi Square=4.0000, df=1, p=0.0455). Fifth, through a case study by group, the results suggesting that self-assessment could be affected by the students' self-efficacy and perfectionism and such effect could also influence peer-assessment have been found. The result showed that how the student self- and peer-assessment of scientific creativity are different and what the students' thoughts on the evaluation of scientific creativity are. The findings suggested that there are several things to consider for the educators to make efforts to construct consistent assessment methods for scientific creativity.

Keywords

References

  1. 김민주, 임채성(2018). 초등과학영재학생의 과학창의성에 대한 자기 평가, 교사 평가, 객관적 평가의 비교 분석. 초등과학교육, 37(4), 440-454.
  2. 박병기, 유경순(2000). 창의성과 지능의 관계구조. 교육심리연구, 14(2), 235-261.
  3. 임채성(1997). 협동학습의 대뇌생물학적 기초: 아이디어-공유 창출 모델. 생물교육 (구 생물교육학회지), 25(2), 143-155.
  4. 임채성(2012). 뇌기반 진화적 접근법에 따른 창의적 과학 문제해결 지도 모형 개발. 생물교육, 40(4), 429-452.
  5. 임채성(2014). 과학창의성 평가 공식의 개발과 적용. 초등과학교육, 33(2), 242-257.
  6. 최인수(2000). 유아용 창의성 측정도구에 관한 고찰. 유아교육연구, 20(2), 139-166.
  7. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3
  8. 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
  9. Barrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 815-824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.018
  10. Beghetto, R. A. & Kaufman, J. C. (2007). Toward a broader conception of creativity: A case for "mini-c" creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1(2), 73. https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3896.1.2.73
  11. Besançon, M., Fenouillet, F. & Shankland, R. (2015). Influence of school environment on adolescents’ creative potential, motivation and well-being. Learning and Individual Differences, 43, 178-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.08.029
  12. 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
  13. Callahan, C. M. & Miller, E. M. (2005). A child-responsive model of giftedness. Conceptions of Giftedness, 2, 38-51. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610455.004
  14. Colman, A. M. (2003). A dictionary of psychology (2 ed.): Oxford University Press.
  15. Cropley, A. J. (2001). Creativity in education & learning: A guide for teachers and educators. NY: Psychology Press.
  16. Cropley, A. J. (2001). Creativity in education and learning: A guide for teachers and educators. London: Kogan Page.
  17. 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
  18. Hickey, M. (2001). An application of Amabile’s consensual assessment technique for rating the creativity of children’s musical compositions. Journal of Research in Music Education, 49(3), 234-244. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345709
  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. 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
  21. Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., III. & Swanson, R. A. (2005). The adult learner (6th Ed.). Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
  22. 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
  23. 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/10.1207/S15326934CRJ152&3_01
  24. 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
  25. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  26. Renzulli, J. S. (2003). Conception of giftedness and its relationship to the development of social capital. Handbook of Gifted Education, 3, 75-87.
  27. Rosenthal, R. & Rosnow, R. L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  28. 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
  29. Ross, J. A. (2006). The reliability, validity, and utility of self-assessment. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 11(10), 1-13.
  30. Runco, M. A. (2004). Everyone has creative potential. In Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L. & Singer, J. L. (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization. (pp. 21-30). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  31. Runco, M. A. (2007b). Creativity: Theories and themes: Research, development, and practice. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  32. 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
  33. Sitzmann, T., Ely, K., Brown, K. G. & Bauer, K. N. (2010). Self-assessment of knowledge: A cognitive learning or affective measure?. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(2), 169-191. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.9.2.zqr169
  34. 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.
  35. Sung, Y.-T., Chang, K.-E., Chiou, S.-K. & Hou, H.-T. (2005). The design and application of a web-based selfand peer-assessment system. Computers and Education, 45(2), 187-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.07.002
  36. 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
  37. Weisberg, R. W. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius. WH Freeman New York.