Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.15267/keses.2022.41.4.593

Relationship between the Observation Ability and Scientific Creativity of Elementary Students: Focus on Observation Learning of Outdoor Plants  

Kim, Hyun-Ju (Seoul Aju Elementary School)
Kim, Min-Ju (Seoul Munhyeon Elementary School)
Lim, Chae-Seong (Seoul National University of Education)
Publication Information
Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education / v.41, no.4, 2022 , pp. 593-615 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study aimed to analyze the relationship between the observation ability and scientific creativity of elementary students through observation learning of outdoor plants and to identify the factors that influence the two constructs. The study recruited 21 fifth-graders in Seoul. After evaluating observation ability and scientific creativity through observation tasks, qualitative data were obtained through interviews with students about their observation of the plants. Additionally, the study collected various materials, such as the observation records and worksheets of the students to verify the validity of research. The main results of this study are as follows. First, the students were first classified into four groups according to levels of observation ability and scientific creativity. The result demonstrated that the higher the level of observation ability, the higher the level of scientific creativity. Second, observation ability and scientific creativity pointed to a positive correlation. Furthermore, originality, which is one of the components of scientific creativity, indicated a weak positive correlation with observation ability. Third, the factors that influenced observation ability were frequency of plant observation and interest and cooperation in observation learning, and those of scientific creativity were observation ability and the level of plant-related knowledge. Lastly, the study discussed educational methods for improving observation ability and scientific creativity.
Keywords
observation ability; scientific creativity; plant observation;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Mayr, E. (1982). Growth of biological thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2 Mayr, E. (1997). This is biology. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
3 Meador, K. S. (2003). Thinking creatively about science: Suggestions for primary teachers. Gifted Child Today, 26(1), 25-29.   DOI
4 Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. Jossey-Bass.
5 Mumford, M. D., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Redmond, M. R. (1994). Problem construction and cognition: Applying problem representations in ill-defined domains.
6 Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving (Vol. 104, No. 9). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-hall.
7 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
8 Norris, S. P. (1984). Defining observational competence. Science Education, 68, 129-142.   DOI
9 Ochse, R. A., & Ochse, R. (1990). Before the gates of excellence: The determinants of creative genius. CUP Archive.
10 Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied imagination. NY: Charles Scribner's Sons.
11 강보미, 배진호(2016). 식물체험활동 수업이 초등학생의 환경소양, 과학적 태도, 식물친숙도에 미치는 영향. 생물교육(구 생물교육학회지), 44(4), 646-657.   DOI
12 Qin, Z., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1995). Cooperative versus competitive efforts and problem solving. Review of Educational Research, 65(2), 129-143.   DOI
13 Rigden, J. S. (1983). The art of great science. Phi Delta Kappan, 64(9), 613-617.
14 Rogers, C. R. (1954). Toward a theory of creativity. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 11(4), 249-260.
15 Rogoff, B., Paradise, R., Mejia Arauz, R., Correa-Chavez, M., & Angelill, C. (2003). Firsthand learning through intent participation. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 175-203.   DOI
16 Silvia, P. J. (2008). Creativity and intelligence revisited: A latent variable analysis of Wallach and Kogan. Creativity Research Journal, 20(1), 34-39.   DOI
17 Simonton, D. K. (1988). Scientific genius: A psychology of science. Cambridge University Press.
18 Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity in science: Chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist. Cambridge University Press.
19 Sim pson, R. D., & Anderson, N. D. (1981). Science, students, and schools: A guide for the middle and secondary school teacher. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
20 Slavin, R. E. (2015). Cooperative learning in elementary schools. Education 3-13, 43(1), 5-14.   DOI
21 Starko, A. J. (2000). Finding the problem finders: Problem finders and the identification and development of talent. In R. C. Friedm and, & B. M. Shore (Eds.), Talents unfolding: Cognition and development. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
22 Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1993). Creative giftedness: A multivariate investment approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(1), 7-15.   DOI
23 Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity. American Psychologist, 51(7). 677-688.   DOI
24 Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Handbook of human creativity (Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25 김성일(2007). 재미는 어디서 오는가?. 한국심리학회 학술대회 자료집, 2007(1), 12-13.
26 곽영순, 명전옥, 최승언(1995). 지구과학 실험 수업에서 V 모형의 적용 효과. 과학교육연구논집, 20(1), 89-105.
27 권용주, 이준기, 신동훈, 정진수(2007). 기공과 새우 과제에서 초.중등 교사들이 생성한 관찰의 분석 및 관찰력 지수의 개발. 중등교육연구, 55(3), 83-112.   DOI
28 권용주, 정진수, 강민정, 박윤복(2005). 생명현상에 대한 초.중등 과학교사의 관찰에서 나타난 과학적 관찰의 유형. 한국과학교육학회지, 25(3), 431-439.
29 김민주, 임채성(2022). 창의 과정과 산물의 구조적 관계에 따른 초등학생의 과학 창의성 유형 탐색. 한국과학교육학회지, 42(1), 33-49.   DOI
30 김선복(2000). 관찰, 분류, 측정 훈련이 초등학생의 과학탐구 능력과 태도에 미치는 영향. 한국교원대학교 대학원 석사학위논문.
31 김순식(2010). 문제발견 중심의 과학 탐구수업이 영재학생들에게 미치는 효과. 영재와 영재교육, 9(2), 37- 63.
32 김영관(2011). 시적 상상력을 통한 시 창작 교육 연구. 우리말교육현장연구. 5(1), 209-236.   DOI
33 김영민, 서혜애, 박종석(2013). 잘 알려진 창의적 과학자들의 과학적 문제 발견 패턴 분석. 한국과학교육학회지, 33(7), 1285-1299.   DOI
34 김영수(2010). 생물교육론. 서울: 서울대학교 사범대학생물교육연구실.
35 김영신, 정지숙, 윤기영(2006). 초등학교 과학 영재아와 일반 학생의 관찰 방법과 행동 비교 연구. 한국생물교육학회지, 34(4), 432-438.
36 김재영(1994). 국민학교 학생의 생물에 대한 흥미도: 생물영역을 중심으로. 한국생물교육학회지, 22(1), 77-82.
37 김현주, 김민주, 임채성(2020). 초등과학영재학생의 과학지식과 과학창의성의 관계: 생명 영역을 중심으로. 초등과학교육, 39(3), 382-398.
38 박명희, 박윤복, 권용주(2005). 초등학생들의 어항 관찰 활동에서 나타난 관찰의 유형과 그 변화. 초등과학교육, 24(4), 345-350.
39 박승재, 조희형(1998). 과학론과 과학교육. 서울: 교육과학사.
40 박윤복(2005). 생물학에서 규칙성 지식 생성 과정의 규명 및 신경생리학적 해석. 한국교원대학교 대학원 박사학위논문.
41 박윤자, 한광래, 고한중(2001). 초등학교 학생들의 동백잎에 관한 관찰 능력. 과학교육연구 논문집, 23(1), 23-38.
42 Uno, G. E. (2009). Botanical literacy: What and how should students learn about plants? American Journal of Botany, 96(1), 1753-1759.   DOI
43 박종원(2004). 과학적 창의성 모델의 제안: 인지적 측면을 중심으로. 한국과학교육학회지, 24(2), 375-386.
44 Subotnik, R. F., & Steiner, C. L. (1994). Problem identification in academic research: A longitudinal case from adolescence to early adulthood. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity (pp. 188-200). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
45 Torrance, E. P. (1974). The Torrance test of creative thinking: Norms and technical manual. Bensenville, IL; Scholastic Testing Service, Inc.
46 Wandersee, J. H. (1986). Plants or animals: Which do junior high school students prefer to study? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(5), 415-426.   DOI
47 Wandersee, J. H., & Schussler, E. E. (1999). Preventing plant blindness. The American Biology Teacher, 61(2), 82-86.   DOI
48 Weisberg, R. W. (1999). Creativirty and Knowledge: A challenge to theories. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
49 Weisberg, R. W. (2006). Creativity: Understanding innovation in problem solving, science, invention, and the arts. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
50 Wolpert, L. (1992). The Unnatural Nature of Science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
51 Yang, K. K., Lin, S. F., Hong, Z. R., & Lin, H. S. (2016). Exploring the assessment of and relationship between elementary students' scientific creativity and science inquiry. Creativity Research Journal, 28(1), 16-23.   DOI
52 Yorek, N., Sahin, M., & Aydin, H. (2009). Are animals 'More Alive' than plants? Animistic-anthropocentric construction of life concept. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 5(4), 369-378.
53 배진호, 이혜진, 소금현(2013). 초등학생의 인지 양식에 따른 식물 관찰 능력 및 관찰 유형. 생물교육, 41(2), 225-238.   DOI
54 박창선, 엄안흠, 하민수, 차희영(2008). 관찰 자료의 종류와 제시 방법에 따른 초등학생들의 생물 관찰 유형 분석. 한국생물교육학회지, 36(4), 566-576.
55 박현주(2014). 과학적 관찰 활동이 중학생들의 창의성 변화에 미친 영향. 과학교육연구지, 38(2), 443-453.   DOI
56 박형민, 김재영, 임채성(2015). 뇌기반 진화적 접근법에 따른 과학 야외학습이 초등학생들의 흥미와 성취도에 미치는 영향. 초등과학교육, 34(2), 252-263.
57 백자연, 임채성, 김재영(2015). 뇌기반 진화적 접근법에 따른 과학 자유탐구에 대한 초등학교 학생의 인식. 초등과학교육, 34(1), 109-122.
58 석대웅, 이정화, 정연옥(2009). 가정내 식물 가꾸기 활동이 초등학생들의 정서지능에 미치는 영향. 농업생명과학연구, 43(6), 45-52.
59 성진숙(2002). 과학 영재의 창의적 문제해결력에 영향을 미치는 세 변수: 확산적사고, 과학지식, 내.외적 동기 성격 특성 및 가정환경. 이화여자대학교 대학원 박사학위논문.
60 송숙희(2008). 성공하는 사람들의 7가지 관찰습관. 서울: 위즈덤하우스.
61 신영준, 동효관, 장윤경(2009). 초등학생의 인지 발달 수준과 식물 관찰 빈도 관계 분석. 생물교육, 37(2), 177-190.   DOI
62 안양희, 김의숙, 함옥경, 김수현, 김순옥, 송명경(2012). 의료수급권자의 사례관리 요구측정도구의 타당도 신뢰도 검증. 대한간호학회지, 42(4), 122-150.
63 유경진, 천재순, 정진수(2010). 중학생의 생명현상 관찰활동에서 과학적 흥미 발생 요인 분석. 한국과학교육학회지, 30(5), 594-608.   DOI
64 이귀옥, 정남용(2008). 식물체험활동이 아동의 정서발달에 미치는 영향. 한국실과교육학회지, 21(1), 113- 128.
65 이시은, 최선영(2013). 초등과학 수업에서 다중지능 요소별 관찰전략을 활용한 관찰학습이 학생의 관찰능력, 성취도 및 과학적 태도에 미치는 효과. 과학교육연구지, 37(1), 1-10.   DOI
66 임옥기, 김효남(2017). 초등학교 교사와 학생의 과학 글쓰기에 대한 인식 분석. 청람과학교육연구논총, 23(1), 37-52.
67 이종연, 구양미, 진석언, 서정희, 고범석(2007). 창의적 문제해결(Creative Problem Solving) 모형 기반 초등학교 사회과 수업의 효과성 분석: 학습자의 창의적 문제해결력 및 학업성취도에 미치는 영향 중심으로. 교육공학연구, 23(2), 105-133.
68 이혜정, 이근경, 권용주(2010). 과학적 관찰 전략을 적용한 과학수업에서 초등학교 6학년 학생들의 관찰지식 생성에 대한 연구. 한국과학교육학회지, 30(1), 13-26.   DOI
69 임성민, 박승재(2000). 중학생의 물리학습에 대한 흥미의 다차원성 분석. 한국과학교육학회지, 20(4), 491- 504.
70 임재근(2010). 탐구과제에 대한 사전지식이 초등과학 영재의 관찰방법과 의문에 미치는 영향. 과학교육연구지, 34(1), 105-112.   DOI
71 임채성(2009). 뇌기반 진화적 과학 교수학습 모형의 개발. 한국과학교육학회지, 29(8), 990-1010.
72 임채성(2014). 과학창의성 평가 공식의 개발과 적용. 초등과학교육, 33(2), 242-257.
73 임채성(2015). 초등과학창의성의 정의.실제.평가. 한국초등과학교육학회 학술대회, 69, 1-36.
74 한안진(1987). 현대탐구과학교육. 교육과학사: 서울. 130-132.
75 Adderholdt, M. R., & Goldberg, J. (1999). Perfectionism: What's bad about being too good? Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit.
76 Alexander, P. A. (1992). Domain knowledge: Evolving themes and emerging concerns. Educational Psychology, 27(1), 33-51.   DOI
77 Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.
78 Amabile, T. M. (1987). The motivation to be creative. Ln S.G. Lsaksen (Ed.), Frontiers of creativity research: Beyond the basics (pp. 223-254). Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.
79 Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Colorado: Westview Press, Inc.
80 Ault, C. R. (1998). Criteria of excellence for geological inquiry: The necessity of ambiguity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 189-212.   DOI
81 Bruner, J. S. (1962). The conditions of creativity. In H. E. Gruber, G. Terrell, & M. Wertheimer (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to creative thinking: A symposium held at the University of Colorado (pp. 1-30). Atherton Press.
82 Chadwick, B., & Barlow, S. (1994). Science in Perspective: Book I. Marrickville, Australia: Science Press). I.
83 Collette, A. T., & Chiappetta, E. L. (1994). Science instruction in the middle and secondary schools. New York: Macmillan.
84 Conant, J. B. (1976). Scientific principles and moral conduct. American Scientist, 55(3), 311-328.
85 Creswell, J. W. (2011). 연구방법, 질적, 양적, 및 혼합적, 연구의, 설계. 김영숙 외 공역. 서울: 시그마프레스.
86 Cropley, D., & Cropley, A. (2005). Engineering creativity: A systems concept of functional creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse (pp. 169-185). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
87 Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention (1st ed.). New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
88 Davis, G. A. (1997). Identifying creative students and measuring creativity. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 269-281). Needham Heights, MA: Viacom.
89 Feldman, D. H. (1993). Creativity: Dreams, insights, and transformations. In R. J.
90 Finley, F. N., & Pocovi, M. C. (2000). Considering the scientific method of inquiry. Inquiring into Inquiry Learning and Teaching in Science, 47-62.
91 Gijlers, T. T., & Jong, T. D. (2005). The relation between prior knowledge and students' collaborative discovery learning processes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 264-282.   DOI
92 Fleiss, J. L. & Cohen, J. (1993). Design and analysis of clinical experiments. New York: Wiley.
93 Gardner, H. (1989). To open minds: Chinese clues to the dilemma of contemporary education. Basic Books.
94 Ghiselin, B. (1963). Ultimate criteria for two levels of creativity. In C. W. Taylor & F. Barren (Eds.), Scientific creativity: Its recognition and development (pp. 30-43). New York: Wiley
95 Gilhooly, K. J. (1988). Thinking: Directed, undirected and creative. Academic Press.
96 Gott, R., & Welford, G. (1987). The Assessment of Observation in Science. School Science Review, 69(247), 217-27.
97 Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454.   DOI
98 Hanson, N. R. (1961). Patterns of discovery: An inquiry into the conceptual foundations of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
99 Harrington, D. M., Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1987). Testing aspects of Carl Rogers's theory of creative environment child-rearing antecedents of creative potential in young adolescents, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(4), 851-856.   DOI
100 Hayes, J. R. (1989). Cognitive processes in creativity. In Handbook of creativity (pp. 135-145). Springer, Boston, MA.
101 Hu, W., & Adey, P. (2002). A scientific creativity test for secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 389-403.   DOI
102 Izard, C. E., & Ackerman, B. P. (2000). Motivational, organizational, and regulatory functions of discrete emotions. Handbook of emotions, 2, 253-264.
103 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.   DOI
104 Jardine, L. (2000). Ingenious pursuits. London: Little Brown and Company.
105 Jose, S. B., Wu, C. H., & Kam oun, S. (2019). Overcoming plant blindness in science, education, and society. Plants, People, Planet, 1(3), 169-172.   DOI
106 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.
107 Kinchin, I. M. (1999). Investigating secondary-school girls' preferences for animals or plants: A simple "head-tohead" comparison using two unfamiliar organisms. Journal of Biological Education, 33(2), 95-99.
108 Klahr, D., Fay, A. L., & Dunbar, K. (1993). Heuristics for scientific experimentation: A developmental study. Cognitive Psychology, 25(1), 111-146.   DOI
109 Kohlhauf, L., Rutke, U., & Neuhaus, B. (2011). Influence of previous knowledge, language skills and domain-specific interest on observation competency. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(5), 667.
110 Lawson, A. E. (1995). Science teaching and the development of thinking. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Academic Press, Inc.
111 Malcolm, C. (1987). The science framework P-10: Science for every child. Melbourne, Australia: Ministry of Education.
112 Mansfield, R. S., & Busse, T. V. (1981). The psychology of creativity and discovery: Scientists and their work. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
113 Mayer, R. E. (1999). Fifty years of creativity research. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.