Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.15267/keses.2020.39.3.382

The Relationship between Scientific Content Knowledge and Scientific Creativity of Science-Gifted Elementary Students - Focusing on the Subject of Biology -  

Kim, Hyun-Ju (Seoul Gawon Elementary School)
Kim, Min-Ju (Seoul Munhyeon Elementary School)
Lim, Chaeseong (Seoul National University of Education)
Publication Information
Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education / v.39, no.3, 2020 , pp. 382-398 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study aims to analyze the relationship between scientific content knowledge of science-gifted elementary students and their expression of scientific creativity, and the characteristics of divided groups according to the levels of their scientific content knowledge and scientific creativity. A science-gifted program was implemented to 33 forth-graders in the Science-Gifted Education Center of an education office in Seoul, Korea. The method of evaluating scientific knowledge was divided into well-structured paper-pencil test (asking specific and limited range of content knowledge of plants) and ill-structured descriptive test (stating all the knowledge they know about plants) to find out which methods were more related to scientific creativity. In addition, in order to find out the characteristics of each group according to the level of scientific content knowledge and scientific creativity, students were required to answer a questionnaire about their own self-perception of scientific knowledge and scientific creativity and how to obtain scientific knowledge. The main results of this study are as follows. First, Both well-structured paper-pencil test (r=.38) and ill-structured descriptive test (r=.51) results of elementary science gifted students were significantly correlated with scientific creativity. Second, As a result of the regression analysis on scientific creativity of science-gifted elementary students, both the knowledge measured by the two evaluation methods have the ability to explain scientific creativity. Third, the students were categorized into four groups according to the levels of their scientific content knowledge and their expression of scientific creativity, and the result showed that the higher the knowledge of science, the higher the scientific creativity. Fourth, the description about self-perception of scientific knowledge revealed that the highest percentage of Type LL students of all 13 students (53.8%, 7 students) answered 'I have little knowledge of plants because I have little interest in them.' Fifth, the description about self-perception of scientific knowledge revealed that the highest percentage of Type HH students of all 15 students (40%, 6 students) answered 'I think my science creativity is high through my experience of scientific creativity. Sixth, the responses to the Questionnaire revealed that 'reading' was the most popular way to obtain scientific knowledge, with 27 out of total 33 students choosing it. In particular, all 18 students from Type HH (high scientific knowledge and high scientific creativity) and Type HL (high scientific knowledge and low scientific creativity) - those with high scientific knowledge - gave that response. On the basis of this research, we should explore practical teaching methods and environment for gifted students to improve their scientific creativity by revealing the nature of the factors that affect scientific creativity and analyzing relationship between knowledge and scientific creativity.
Keywords
science gifted; scientific content knowledge; scientific creativity; self-perception;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 곽수란(2004). 가족배경이 인문계 고등학교 학생의 학업성취에 미치는 영향. 교육연구, 16/17(1), 51-60.
2 교육부(2017). 영재교육진흥법. 교육부.
3 김경근(2005). 한국 사회 교육격차의 실태 및 결정요인. 교육사회학연구, 15(3), 1-27.
4 김명숙(2002). 창의성의 영역 특수성. 교육심리연구, 16(2), 153-172.
5 김민주, 임채성(2017). 초등과학영재학생의 자기주도성과 과학창의성의 관계. 초등과학교육, 36(4), 379-393.
6 김민주, 임채성(2019). 초등과학영재학생의 과학창의성에 대한 자기 평가, 동료 평가의 비교 분석. 초등과학교육, 38(4), 439-452.
7 김영정(2002). 창의성과 비판적 사고. 인지과학, 13(4), 81-90.
8 김청자(2005). 중등학생의 창의성과 성취동기 및 내재적 외재적동기와의 관계연구. 열린교육연구, 13(3), 75-101.
9 강정하, 최인수(2008). 과학적 창의성과 시각예술적 창의성. 영재교육연구, 18(2), 201-237.
10 김호상, 유미현(2015). 과학영재와 일반학생의 사교육 실태, 주관적 안녕감, 스트레스, 우울의 비교. 과학영재교육, 7, 67-82.
11 류은희, 김중복, 이정숙(2012). 중학교 과학영재와 일반 학생의 Peer Instruction을 통한 인지갈등: 문항의 난이도에 따른 비교를 중심으로. 영재교육연구, 22(1), 117-139.   DOI
12 박민정, 전동렬(2008). 과학 영재교육 대상자 선발방법으로써 교사 추천제 분석: 학생의 과학적 태도, 탐구력, 사고력, 문제 해결력, 창의성을 중심으로. 한국과학교육학회지, 28(2), 111-119.
13 박창남, 이승철, 류형선(2012). 창의성 개발에 대한 지식 교육적 접근. 창의력교육연구, 12(3), 173-185.
14 Simonton, D. K. (1984). Genius, creativity, and leadership. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
15 Stefoff, R. (2002). 진화론과 다윈 [Charles Darwin and the evolution revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.]. (이한음 역). 서울: 바다출판사. (원서출판 1996).
16 Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Handbook of human creativity (Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17 Sternberg, R. J. & Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity. American Psychologist, 51(7), 677-688.   DOI
18 Sue C. W. (2010). 유아교육과 평가: 형식적 평가와 비형식적 평가의 균형 잡힌 활용 [Assessment in Early Childhood Education]. (김경철, 이진희, 최미숙 역). 서울: 정민사. (원서출판 2007).
19 Treffinger, D. J., Young, G. C., Selby, E. C. & Shepardson, C. (2002). Assessing creativity: A guide for educators. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
20 배진수, 이영만(2000). 초등학생의 자기효능감, 창의력 성격과 창의성과의 관계. 초등교육연구, 13(2), 43-61.
21 백자연, 임채성, 김재영(2015). 뇌기반 진화적 접근법에 따른 과학 자유탐구에 대한 초등학교 학생의 인식. 초등과학교육, 34(1), 109-122.
22 서혜애(2004). 과학적 창의성과 과학영재교육의 방향. 영재교육연구, 14(1), 65-89.
23 임동순, 양연숙(2013). 영재학생의 메타인지와 자기주도적 학습능력. 자연과학.
24 임채성(2014). 과학창의성 평가 공식의 개발과 적용. 초등과학교육, 33(2), 242-257.
25 최일호, 최인수(2001). 새로운 생각은 어떻게 가능한가: 전문분야 창의성에 대한 학습과정 모형 접근. 한국심리학회지: 일반, 20(2), 409-428.
26 황재연, 최명숙(2006). 교원 원격연수에서 학습자 배경변인과 온라인 학습전략에 따른 학업성취도 및 교육만족도 분석. 교육정보미디어연구, 12(2), 255-274.
27 Adderholdt, M. R. & Goldberg, J. (1999). Perfectionism: What's bad about being too good? Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit.
28 Alexander, P. A. (1992). Domain knowledge: Evolving themes and emerging concerns. Educational Psychology, 27, 33-51.   DOI
29 Amabile, T. M. (1987). The motivation to be creative. In S. G. Isaken (Ed), Frontiers of creativity research: Beyond the basics (pp. 223-254) Buffalo, NY: Bearly.
30 Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention (1st Ed). New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
31 Flavell, John H., Miller, Patricia H., Miller & Scott A. (2002). Cognitive development (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
32 Fleiss & Cohen (1993). Design and analysis of clinical experiments. New York: Wiley.
33 Izard, C. E. & Ackerman, B. P. (2000). Motivational, organizational, and regulatory functions of discrete emotions. Handbook of Emotions, 2, 253-264.
34 Schibeci, R. A. & Riley, J. P. (1986). Influence of students’ background and perceptions on science attitudes and achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(3), 177-187.   DOI
35 Weisberg, R. W. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius. WH Freeman, New York.
36 Weisberg, R. W. (1999). Creativity and knowledge: A challenge to theories. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed), Handbook of creativity, (pp. 226-250). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37 Hayes, J. R. (1989). Cognitive processes in creativity. In Handbook of creativity (pp. 135-145). Springer, Boston, MA.
38 Hu, W. & Adey, P. (2002). A scientific creativity test for secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 389-403.   DOI
39 Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and Ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65-94.   DOI
40 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.   DOI
41 Martinsen, O. (1995). Cognitive styles and experience in solving insight problems: Replication and extension. Creativie Research Journal, 8, 291-298.   DOI
42 Mayer, R. E. (1999). Fifty years of creativity research. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed), Handbook of creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
43 McMillan, J. H. (1997). Classroom assessment. Principles and Practices for effective instruction. Allyn & Bacon, A Viacom Company, 160 Gould St., Needham Heights, MA 02194; Internet: www.abacon.com
44 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.   DOI
45 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.   DOI
46 Schank, R. C. (1988). The creative attitude. New York: Macmillan.
47 Pajares, F. & Miller, M. (1994). The role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical problemsolving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 193-203.   DOI
48 Runco, M. A. (2006). Creativity: Theories and themes : Research, development, and practice. San Diego: Academic Press.
49 Runco, M. A. & Acar, S. (2012). Divergent thinking as an indicator of creative potential. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 66-75.   DOI
50 성은현, 이정규, 황영석(2013). 창의성 교육 평가 모델 개발의 필요성. 창의력교육연구, 13(3), 37-52.
51 송성수(2013). 과학사의 사례를 활용한 과학자의 창의성에 관한 탐색적 연구: 다윈, 에디슨, 아인슈타인을 중심으로. 교사교육연구, 52(2), 227-236.
52 송정숙, 한승록(2007). 초등학생의 독서활동과 창의성 및 학업적 자아개념의 관계. 교육연구, 21, 72-102.
53 신지은, 한기순, 정현철, 박병건, 최승언(2002). 과학 영재 학생과 일반 학생은 창의성에서 어떻게 다른가?- 서울대학교 과학영재교육센터 학생들을 중심으로. 한국과학교육학회지, 22(1), 158-175.
54 심경석(1987). 학교 학습에서 독서는 왜 필요한가: 유치원 국민학교 중학교 교육과정을 중심으로. 서울: 금성출판사. pp. 5-11.
55 안양희, 김의숙, 함옥경, 김수현, 김순옥, 송명경(2012). 의료수급권자의 사례관리 요구측정도구의 타당도 신뢰도 검증. 대한간호학회지, 42(4), 122-150.
56 안영미(2020). 초중고생의 독서시간과 사교육시간이 학업성취에 미치는 영향. 이화여자대학교 대학원 석사학위논문.
57 오종석, 이형철, 유병길(2014). 초등과학영재아동과 일반 아동 부모의 학습관여와 지적호기심 및 과학창의성의 관계 연구. 수산해양교육연구, 26(5), 1119-1128.   DOI
58 윤종건(1998). 교사․학부모․직장인을 위한 창의력의 이론과 실제. 서울: 원미사.
59 우현경(2013). 사전지식 제공여부와 면접조건에 따른 4, 6세 유아의 사건 정기억과 오기억. 서울대학교 대학원 박사학위논문.
60 유경훈(2013). 학업성취에 영향을 미치는 학교적응, 자존감, 삶의 만족도의 구조적 관계. 한국산학기술학회 논문지, 14(6), 2700-2706.
61 윤초희, 김홍원(2004). 지적으로 우수한 영재아의 형식적사고, 초인지 및 창의력에 관한 연구. 교육심리연구, 18(1), 241-260.
62 이수정, 임현정(2009). 중학생의 학업성취에 대한 사교육비 효과 분석. 교육재정경제연구, 18(1), 141-166.
63 이정원(2004). 창의성은 영역 특수적이다. 교육종합연구소 소식, 11, 7-14.
64 이철원(2004). 초등학교 4학년 학생들의 과학관련독서가 과학지식 습득에 미치는 영향. 수원대학교 교육대학원 석사학위논문.