Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education (한국초등과학교육학회지:초등과학교육)

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

DOI QR Code

The Relationship between Scientific Creativity of Science-gifted Elementary Students and Multiple Intelligence - Focusing on the Subject of Biology -

초등과학영재학생의 과학창의성과 다중지능의 관계 - 생명 영역을 중심으로 -

  • Received : 2020.06.24
  • Accepted : 2020.08.27
  • Published : 2020.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study aims to analyse the relationship between multiple intelligence and scientific creativity of science-gifted elementary students focusing on the subject of biology. For this, 37 science-gifted fifth-graders in the Science-Gifted Education Center at an Office of Education conducted a multiple intelligence test. In addition, researchers collected science-gifted students' results of scientific creativity activity at the botanical garden field trip. The main findings from this study are as follows: First, strong intelligence was logical-mathematical intelligence for gifted students, and weak intelligence was found to be naturalistic intelligence for them. Second, there was no significant correlation in the relationship between multiple intelligence and scientific creativity of science-gifted students. Third, as a result of independent two sample t-test for each intelligence and scientific creativity scores divided into the upper and lower groups, only verbal-linguistic intelligence statistically differed significantly at the level of p<.05 (t=2.13, df=35, p=0.04). Fourth, as a result of conducting a two-way analysis to see if there were any interaction effects, verbal-linguistic and visual-spatial, logical-mathematical and visual-spatial, logical-mathematical and bodily-kinesthetic, and visual-spatial and musical-rhythmic intelligence all showed significant values at the level of p<.05 level in interaction effects on originality element comprising scientific creativity. Fifth, an analysis of students with high naturalistic intelligence showed that their scores of scientific creativity tasks conducted at the botanical garden field trip were all lower. Based on the results of this study, this study discussed the implications of scientific creativity learning linking multiple intelligence in primary science education and gifted education.

Keywords

References

  1. 김민주, 임채성(2019). 초등과학영재학생의 발표에 대한 인식 및 발표의 자발성과 과학창의성의 관계 분석. 초등과학교육, 38(3), 331-344.
  2. 노명완, 이차숙(1995). 유아언어교육론. 서울: 동문사.
  3. 류성림(2010). 초등 수학영재와 학부모의 다중지능에 관한 비교 분석. 수학교육 논문집, 24(3), 807-830.
  4. 문용린(2003). 지능과 교육. 서울: 학지사.
  5. 문용린, 김주현(2004). 다중지능이론에 기초한 진로교육가능성 탐색. 진로교육연구, 17(1), 1-19.
  6. 문용린, 류숙희, 김현진, 김성봉(2001). 다중지능 측정도구 개발을 위한 연구. 서울대학교 교육학연구, 1, 1-71.
  7. 박미진, 서혜애, 김동화, 김지나, 남정희, 이상원, 김수진 (2013). 과학․수학 영재의 다중지능, 자기조절학습능력 및 개인성향의 차이. 영재교육연구, 23(5), 697-713. https://doi.org/10.9722/JGTE.2013.23.5.697
  8. 박병기, 유경순(2000). 창의성과 지능의 관계구조. 교육심리연구, 14(2), 235-261.
  9. 박종원(2004). 과학적 창의성 모델의 제안-인지적 측면을 중심으로. 한국과학교육학회지, 24(2), 375-386.
  10. 성진숙(2003). 과학에서의 창의적 문제해결력에 영향을 미치는 제 변수 분석: 확산적 사고, 과학 지식, 내․외적 동기, 성격 특성 및 가정 환경. 열린교육연구, 11(1), 219-237.
  11. 송성수(2013). 과학사의 사례를 활용한 과학자의 창의성에 관한 탐색적 연구: 다윈, 에디슨, 아인슈타인을 중심으로. 교사교육연구, 52(2), 227-236.
  12. 신숙희(1987). 어머니의 언어형태와 유아의 언어, 사고능력 및 창의성과의 관계. 이화여자대학교 대학원 석사학위논문.
  13. 여상인, 허정순, 최선영(2010). 초․중등 수학․과학․정보 영재의 다중지능 비교. 국제과학영재학회지, 4(1), 1-8.
  14. 윤경미, 유순화(2008). 과학영재, 인문사회영재, 일반 중학생의 다중지능 특성 비교. 청소년학연구, 15(5), 287-313.
  15. 이수현(2009). 초등학교 영재아동의 다중지능과 과흥분성의 관계 연구. 고려대학교 대학원 석사학위논문.
  16. 이유림(2015). 한국어 학습자의 어휘 습득과 어휘 표현력에 영향을 미치는 변인 연구. 한국어의미학, 49, 163-187.
  17. 임채성(2014). 과학창의성 평가 공식의 개발과 적용. 초등과학교육, 33(2), 242-257.
  18. 조은부, 원정애, 백성혜(2006). 초등과학 영재학급 학생들과 일반 학생의 인지적 특성 비교 분석. 한국과학교육학회지, 26(3), 307-316.
  19. 진주현(2015). 초등수학영재의 다중지능과 수학적 능력구성 요소와의 관계. 서울교육대학교 대학원 석사학위논문.
  20. 최인수(2000). 유아용 창의성 측정도구에 관한 고찰. 유아교육연구, 20(2), 139-166.
  21. 홍성윤, 김유미(1998). 중다지능이론과 교수-학습 방법. 한국교육문제연구, (13), 167-188.
  22. Baer, J. (2011). How divergent thinking tests mislead us: Are the Torrance Tests still relevant in the 21st century? The division 10 debate. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(4), 309-313. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025210
  23. Gardner, H. E. (2008). Multiple intelligences: New horizons in theory and practice. New York: Basic Books.
  24. 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
  25. Hargreaves, D. J. (1977). Sex roles in divergent thinking. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 47(1), 25-32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1977.tb02997.x
  26. Harrington, R. G. (1984). Effects of verbal self instruction on creative play in preschool aged children. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 18(2), 143-144. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1984.tb00376.x
  27. 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
  28. Jauk, E., Benedek, M., Dunst, B. & Neubauer, A. C. (2013). The relationship between intelligence and creativity: New support for the threshold hypothesis by means of empirical breakpoint detection. Intelligence, 41(4), 212-221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2013.03.003
  29. Kim, J., Lim, N. & Kim, N. (2000). A study on development of modelling for field trips of biology learning. Biology Education, 28(2), 129-135.
  30. Korfiatis, K. J. & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2012). The living world in the curriculum: Ecology, an essential part of biology learning. Journal of Biological Education, 46(3), 125-127. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2012.715425
  31. Mayer, R. E. (1999). Fifty years of creativity research. In R. J. Sternberg (ed), Handbook of creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  32. 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
  33. Olsen, K. D. (2004). How education can lead the way to an integral society: A proven model for doing so already exists. World Futures, 60(4), 287-293. https://doi.org/10.1080/02604020490455397
  34. Preckel, F., Holling, H. & Wiese, M. (2006). Relationship of intelligence and creativity in gifted and non-gifted students: An investigation of threshold theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(1), 159-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.06.022
  35. Runco, M. A. (2004). Everyone has creative potential. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko & J. L. Singer (Eds), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 21-30). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  36. Runco, M. A. & Acar, S. (2012). Divergent thinking as an indicator of creative potential. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 66-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.652929
  37. Singer, D. G., Singer, J. L., D’Agnostino, H., Delong, R., D ’agostino, H. & Delong, R. (2009). Children’s pastimes and play in sixteen nations: Is free-play declining?. American Journal of Play, 1(3), 283-312.
  38. Sternberg, R. J. (Ed) (1998). Handbook of human creativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  39. Sternberg, R. J. & O'Hara, L. (1999). Creativity and intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed), Handbook of creativity (pp. 251-272). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  40. Torrance, E. (1963). Education and the creative potential. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
  41. Treffinger, D. J., Young, G. C., Selby, E. C. & Shepardson, C. (2002). Assessing creativity: A guide for educators. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
  42. Weisberg, R. W. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius. New York: WH Freeman.
  43. Wilson, C. (2011). Effective approaches to connect with nature. Wellington: Department of Conservation.

Cited by

  1. 식물원 야외체험학습에서 활용 가능한 과학 창의성 과제 개발 - 초등과학영재학생에의 적용 - vol.39, pp.4, 2020, https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2020.39.4.506