Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education (한국초등과학교육학회지:초등과학교육)

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

DOI QR Code

Development of the Scientific Creativity Task for a Field Trip to Botanical Garden - Application to Science-Gifted Elementary Students -

식물원 야외체험학습에서 활용 가능한 과학 창의성 과제 개발 - 초등과학영재학생에의 적용 -

  • Received : 2020.10.28
  • Accepted : 2020.11.24
  • Published : 2020.11.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study aims to develop a scientific creativity task which science-gifted elementary students can conduct on a field trip to a botanical garden, and to analyze the results from conducting the task. For this, 38 science-gifted fifth-graders from the Science-Gifted Education Center, located at the Office of Education, participated in a field trip to a botanical garden, as a part of their program. Prior to the program, researchers developed a scientific creativity task for outdoor education program, along with science education specialists and teachers. The tasks were to observe plants, and to create something new and useful, or, in other words, scientifically creative, based on the plants' characteristics. The students could submit at most three ideas. Also, they assessed their own ideas, and selected an idea that they thought was the most creative. The results were analyzed by using the scientific creativity formula. The main findings from this study are as follows. First, it was found that the scientific creativity formula had an upward bias in assessing originality. Second, the students tended to assess the usefulness of their own ideas more generously. Third, the correlation between self-assessment results and scores from the scientific creativity formula for originality was r=.43. Fourth, in formula-based assessments, the correlation between originality scores and usefulness scores was relatively high, at r=.56. Fifth, the correlation between a student's scientific creativity score and the number of his or her ideas was very low, at r=.23. Sixth, when the ideas chosen as the most creative by students were compared with the ideas that had the highest scores in formula-based assessments, it was shown that 8 out of 19 students (42.1%) did not choose the idea that appeared to be the most creative when graded by the formula. This study is concluded by discussing the lessons from the scientific creativity task analysis for primary science education and gifted education.

Keywords

References

  1. 김명숙, 최인수(2005). 창의성의 영역 특수성과 영역 일반성의 절충적 대안 탐색. 교육심리연구, 19(4), 1139-1158.
  2. 김민주, 임채성(2019a). 초등과학영재학생의 발표에 대한 인식 및 발표의 자발성과 과학창의성의 관계 분석. 초등과학교육, 38(3), 331-344.
  3. 김민주, 임채성(2019b). 초등과학영재학생의 과학창의성에 대한 자기 평가, 동료 평가의 비교 분석. 초등과학교육, 38(4), 439-452.
  4. 김민주, 임채성(2020). 초등과학영재학생의 과학창의성과 다중지능의 관계-생명 영역을 중심으로. 초등과학교육, 39(3), 369-381.
  5. 김영채(2012). 창의력의 영역 보편성과 특수성: 쟁점과 TTCT 창의력 검사의 분석. 사고개발, 8(1), 1-29.
  6. 김현주, 김민주, 임채성(2020). 초등과학영재학생의 과학지식과 과학창의성의 관계-생명 영역을 중심으로. 초등과학교육, 39(3), 382-398.
  7. 박종원(2004). 과학적 창의성 모델의 제안-인지적 측면을중심으로. 한국과학교육학회지, 24(2), 375-386.
  8. 성진숙(2003) 과학에서의 창의적 문제해결력에영향을 미치는 제 변수 분석: 확산적 사고, 과학 지식, 내.외적 동기, 성격 특성 및 가정 환경. 열린교육연구, 11(1), 219-237.
  9. 송성수(2013). 과학사의 사례를 활용한 과학자의 창의성에 관한 탐색적 연구: 다윈, 에디슨, 아인슈타인을 중심으로. 교사교육연구, 52(2), 227-236.
  10. 이재무, 이경현, 이지항(2010). 체육영재, 학업영재, 일반 초등학생의 다중지능, 정서지능 특성비교. 한국체육과학회지, 19(4), 609-622.
  11. 임성만, 양일호, 임재근(2009). 영역 특수적인 입장에서의 과학적 창의성에 대한 정의, 구성요인에 대한 탐색. 과학교육연구지, 33(1), 31-43.
  12. 임채성(2012). 뇌기반진화적 접근법에 따른 창의적 과학 문제해결 지도 모형 개발. 생물교육, 40(4), 429-452.
  13. 임채성(2014). 과학창의성 평가 공식의 개발과 적용. 초등과학교육, 33(2), 242-257.
  14. 정덕호, 박선옥(2011). 과학영재와 일반학생들의 창의적 사고 편향에 대한 분석. 영재교육연구, 21(1), 175-191. https://doi.org/10.9722/JGTE.2011.21.1.175
  15. 정현철, 한기순, 김병노, 최승언(2002). 과학 창의성 계발을 위한 프로그램 개발-이론과 예시를 중심으로. 한국지구과학회지, 23(4), 334-348.
  16. 조연순, 최경희(2000). 창의적 문제 해결력 신장을 위한 중학교 과학 교육과정 개발. 한국과학교육학회지, 20(2), 329-343.
  17. 최경희, 조희형(2002). 구성주의 특성에 따른 과학교육. 과학기술학연구, 2(2), 91-122.
  18. 최인수(2000). 유아용 창의성 측정도구에 관한 고찰. 유아교육연구, 20(2), 139-166.
  19. 최일호, 최인수(2001). 새로운 생각은 어떻게 가능한가: 전문분야 창의성에 대한 학습과정 모형 접근. 한국심리학회지: 일반, 20(2), 409-428.
  20. 한기순(2000). 창의성의 영역 한정성과 영역 보편성에 관한 분석과 탐구. 영재교육연구, 10(2), 47-69.
  21. 한기순, 배미란(2004). 과학영재와 일반 학생들 간의 사고 양식과 지능 및 창의성간의 관계 비교. 교육심리연구, 18(2), 49-68.
  22. Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 997-1013. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.43.5.997
  23. Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity:A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357
  24. Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J. & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154-1184. https://doi.org/10.2307/256995
  25. Baer, J. (1993). Creativity and divergent thinking: A taskspecific approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  26. Baer, J. (1998). The case for domain specificity of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11(2), 173-177. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1102_7
  27. 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, Creati- vity, and the Arts, 5(4), 309-313. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025210
  28. Baer, J. & Kaufman, J. C. (2005). Whence creativity? Overlapping and dual-aspect skills and traits. In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds), Creativity across domains:Faces of the Muse (pp. 313-320). Mahwah, New Jersey:Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
  29. Basadur, M. (1995). Optimal ideation-evaluation ratios. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 63-75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj0801_5
  30. Bouzidi, L. & Jaillet, A. (2009). Can online peer assessment be trusted?. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 257-268.
  31. Campbell, D. T. (1960). Blind variation and selective retention in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 67, 380-400. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040373
  32. Chang, Y. K., Zhang, X., Mokhtar, I. A., Foo, S., Majid, S., Luyt, B. & Theng, Y. L. (2012). Assessing students' information literacy skills in two secondary schools in Singapore. Journal of Information Literacy, 6(2), 19-34. https://doi.org/10.11645/6.2.1694
  33. Craft, A., Jeffrey, B. & Leibling, M. (Eds.). (2001). Creativity in education. London: A&C Black.
  34. Ernest, P. (1995), The one and the man/% In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds), Constructivism in education. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
  35. 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
  36. Gray, C. E. (1966). A measurement of creativity in Western civilization. American Anthropologist, 68(6), 1384-1417. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1966.68.6.02a00030
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. Kaufmann, G. (2001). Creativity and problem solving. In J. Henry (Ed), Creative management (2nd ed.). London:STAGE Publication.
  40. 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
  41. Kim, K. H. (2006). Can we trust creativity tests? A review of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT). Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1801_2
  42. 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.
  43. Kogan, N. (1983). Stylistic variation in childhood and adolescence: Creativity, metaphor, and cognitive styles. In P. H. Mussen (Ed), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Cognitive development (4th ed.), (pp. 628-706). New York, NY: Wiley.
  44. 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
  45. Lubart, T. I. (1999). 17 Creativity across cultures. Handbook of creativity, 339-350. UK: Cambridge University Press.
  46. Mayer, R. E. & Dow, G. T. (2004). Teaching students to solve insight problems: Evidence for domain specificity in creativity training. Creativity Research Journal, 14, 389-402.
  47. Merrotsy, P. (2013a). Tolerance of ambiguity: A trait of the creative personality?. Creativity Research Journal, 25(2), 232-237. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2013.783762
  48. 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
  49. Olsen, R. V., Turmo, A. & Lie, S. (2001). Learning about students' knowledge and thinking in science through large-scale quantitative studies. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 16(3), 403. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173190
  50. Plucker, J. A. (1998). Beware of simple conclusions: The case for content generality of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11(2), 179-182. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1102_8
  51. Plucker, J. A. & Beghetto, R. A. (2004). Why creativity is domain general, why it looks domain specific, and why the distinction does not matter. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko & J. L. Singer (Eds), Creativity: From potential to realization (p. 153-167). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
  52. Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A. & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn't creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39, 83-96. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1
  53. Ross, J. A. (2006). The reliability, validity, and utility of self-assessment. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 11(1), 10.
  54. 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.
  55. 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
  56. Sadler, P. M. & 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
  57. Simonton, D. K. (1999). Origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives on creativity. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
  58. Simonton, D. K. (2004). Exceptional creativity and chance:Creative thought as a stochastic combinatorial process. Beyond knowledge: Extracognitive aspects of developing high ability, 39-72. UK: Routledge.
  59. Simonton, D. K. (2007). Creativity: Specialized expertise or general cognitive processes? In M. J. Roberts (Ed), Integrating the mind: Domain general versus domain specific processes in higher cognition (pp. 351-367). Hove, England: Psychology Press.
  60. Simonton, D. K. (2012). Assessing scientific creativity: Conceptual analyses of assessment complexities. Commissioned paper, The Science of Science and Innovation Policy Conference, National Academy of Sciences.
  61. 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.
  62. Sternberg, R. J. (Ed) (1998). Handbook of human creativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  63. Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L. & Singer, J. L. (2004). Creativity: From potential to realization. Washington, D.C.:American Psychological Association.
  64. Sung, Y. T., Chang, K. E., Chiou, S. K. & Hou, H. T. (2005). The design and application of a web-based self-and peerassessment system. Computers & Education, 45(2), 187-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.07.002
  65. Weisberg, R. W. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius. New York: WH Freeman.
  66. Wilson, C. (2011). Effective approaches to connect with nature. Wellington: Department of Conservation.