Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.15523/JKSESE.2020.13.2.162

Development and Application of Creative Education Learning Program Using Creative Thinking Methods  

Han, Shin (Korea University)
Kim, Hyoungbum (Chungbuk National University)
Lee, Chang-Hwan (Korea University)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korean Society of Earth Science Education / v.13, no.2, 2020 , pp. 162-174 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study aimed to develop a creative education class program using metaphor, one of the creative thinking techniques, and to examine the effectiveness of the program targeting for randomly sampled 338 students in six middle schools. The creative education class program with the metaphor was developed based on content elements concerning 'astronomy' in 2015 science curriculum revision in South Korea. The program was tested for validity after being modified and supplemented three times by forming a group of experts, and the final version of the program was applied to school education fields during four periods, including block time. To find out the effectiveness of the program and the implementation, creative education class satisfaction test and creative thinking process test were conducted. That is to say, the creative education class satisfaction test was conducted before treatment and the creative thinking process test was implemented both before and after treatment. The results of the study are as follows. First, in this study, the program was developed with the emphasis on students voluntarily and actively participating in creative education programs while utilizing creative thinking methods. Second, the statistical results of the pre- and post-class about the creative education program using the metaphor of creative thinking techniques represented significant results(p<.05). In other words, the two-dependent samples by students' pre-and post-score about the creative education class showed significant statistical test results (p<.05). It turned out that the creative education program using metaphor has had a positive impact on research participants. Third, in regards to the results of the creative education class satisfaction test, 101 out of 338 students(30%) answered 'Strongly Agree' and 137(41%) answered 'Agree', indicating the subjects' satisfaction with the class was high in general. On the other hand, concerning difficulties of the creative class, 137(41%) answered "Lack of time" as the main factor, followed by 98(30%) "Difficulties of problems they were required to solve", 73(22%) answered "Conflicts with friends", and 24(7%) said "Difficulties of contents." These responses were taken into account as considerations for further development of creative education programs.
Keywords
creative education; astronomy; curriculum; class satisfaction; creative thinking techniques;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 강규창, 조주필(2020). 기억의 순환 메커니즘을 모델링하기 위한 차원 축소 및 특정값 인코딩 기반 가변형 이미지 표현 방법 연구. 한국통신학회논문지, 45(7), 1293-1305.
2 교육부(2015). 초.중등학교 교육과정 총론[교육부 고시 제2015-74]. 세종: 교육부.
3 교육부(2016). 지능정보사회 지능정보사회에 대응한 중장기 교육정책의 방향과 전략(試案)[교육부 보도자료(2016.12.23.)]. 세종: 교육부.
4 교육부(2017). 고교학점제 추진 방향 및 연구학교 운영계획발표[교육부 보도 자료(2017.11.27.)]. 세종: 교육부.
5 김영민, 이영주, 김영숙(2016). 초·중등학교 관리자들의 창의융합 교육에 대한 인식 분석. 실과교육연구, 22(4), 85-101.
6 미래창조과학부(2016). 제4차 산업혁명에 대응한 지능정보사회 중장기 종합대책. 세종: 미래창조과학부.
7 윤창호(2018). 기초학력향상과 학습동기부여를 위한 창의.인성 융합교육프로그램 개발. 융합교육연구, 4(1), 83-105.
8 한국과학창의재단(2009). 국내외 수학.과학 및 창의교육 정책동향 및 교육사례 조사 분석. 서울: 한국과학창의창재단.
9 한국과학창의재단(2018). 2017년 융합인재교육(STEAM) 사업 성과분석 연구. 서울: 한국과학창의재단.
10 한신, 김형범, 김용기, 송하명(2020). 비유를 활용한 STEAM 프로그램 개발 및 효과: 중학교 '태양계' 단원을 중심으로. 대한지구과학교육학회지, 13(1), 15-28.   DOI
11 황석근, 임석훈, 김익표, 김애숙(2004). 창의적 사고기법 적용을 통한 문제해결력 함양, 중등교육연구, 52(1), 383-396.
12 Awang, H., & Ramly, I. (2008). Creative thinking skill approach through problem-based learning: Pedagogy and practice in the engineering classroom. International Journal of Social Sciences, 3(1), 18-23.
13 Cropley, A. J. (1999). Definitions of creativity. Encylopedia of Creativity, 1, 511-524.
14 Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Wolfe, R. (2000). New conceptions and research approaches to creativity: Implications of a systems perspective for creativity in education. In K. Heller, F. Monks, R. Sternberg, & R. Subotnik (Eds.). International handbook for research on giftedness and talent (pp. 81-93). Oxford: Pergamon.
15 Finnish National Board of Education (2016). A draft of the national core curriculum for basic education. Helsinki: National Board of Education.
16 Gentner, D., & Stevens, A. L. (1983). Mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
17 Haylock, D. W. (1987). A framework for assessing mathematical creativity in schoolchildren. Education Studies in Mathematics, 18, 59-74.   DOI
18 Hosgorur, V., & Bilasa, P. (2009). The problem of creative education in information society. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 713-717.   DOI
19 Jeong, S., & Kim, H. (2014). The effect of a climate change monitoring program on students knowledge and perceptions of STEAM education in Korea. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(6), 1321-1338.
20 Keating, D. P. (1980). Four faces of creativity: The Continuing Plight of the Intellectually Underserved. Gifted Child Quarterly, 24, 56-61.   DOI
21 Lubart, T. I. (2001). Models of the creative process: Past, present and future. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3-4), 295-308.   DOI
22 Root-Bernstein, R. S., & Root-Bernstein, M. (1999). Sparks of genius: The thirteen thinking tools of the world's most creative people. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
23 Maley, A., & Kiss, T. (2018). Creativity and English language teaching: From inspiration to implementation. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
24 Miller, A. L. (2014). A self-report measure of cognitive processes associated with creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 26(2), 203-218.   DOI
25 Ready, D. (2014). Student mathematics performance in the first two years of teach to one: Math. New York. Teachers College, Columbia University.
26 Rubinstein, M. F. (1995). Patterns of problem solving (2nd ed). New York: Prentice-hall.
27 Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.). Handbook of creativity (pp. 3-15). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
28 Tan, L. T., Goh, B., Subramaniam, S., & Ramanathan, O. (2017). Engaging secondary school students in authentic research projects based on environmental science theme. Singapore: National Institute of Education.
29 Torrance, E. P. (1981). Predicting the creativity of elementary school children (1958-1980) and the teacher who "made a difference". Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, 55-62.   DOI
30 Vihma, L., & Aksela, M. (2014). Inspiration, joy, and support of STEM for children, youth and teachers through the Innovative LUMA Collaboration. Finnish Innovations and Technologies in Schools: A Guide towards New Ecosystems of Learning. Rotterdam, Sense Publishers.