Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.9722/JGTE.2016.26.3.493

Suggesting Some Conceptual and Practical Improvements Coping to Moribund Symptoms of Contemporary Korean Gifted Education  

Choe, Ho Seong (Kyungnam University)
Publication Information
Journal of Gifted/Talented Education / v.26, no.3, 2016 , pp. 493-514 More about this Journal
Abstract
Since the Gifted and Talented Education Promotion Law was enacted 15 years ago, in Korea, gifted education in Korea has continued rapid and quantitative growth. The number of gifted classes or institutes for the gifted have increased, as well as the number of gifted education teachers increasing their participation in professional development training and educational activities. However after 2014, gifted education is somewhat shrinking. Due to the controversy of private education and expansion of social welfare in Korea, administrative and financial support for gifted education is being reduced. This study reviewed the gifted education policies promoted by successive governments and analyzed the relationship between politics and support for gifted education efforts by the government. In addition, the phenomenon of the recently shrinking gifted education in Korean society was analyzed in various aspects. These aspects include: decreasing quantitative growth due to the weakening of administrative and financial support from central and local governments on gifted education, regulations on suppressing private education, social inequality to gifted education access, and lack of solidarity in the gifted education scholastic community. Based on this analysis of gifted phenomenon, ways of developing the ideological and practical aspects of future-oriented gifted education were suggested. In the ideological dimension, it was emphasized that gifted education must move away from insularity and the adhesive perspective of Korean society on the concept of giftedness, the concept of intelligence and the recognition of the legitimacy of gifted education. On the other hand, in the practical dimension, the following points were identified: the collection of empirical data on the economic impact of gifted education, gifted education amendment of the statutes, adaptation of the gifted education program with gifted identification, diversification of gifted education service system, and actively promoting new research topics in relation to the Gifted and Talented Education.
Keywords
Gifted education; Giftedness; Intelligence; Economic impact;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 최호성 (2014). 한국영재교육 10년의 성과와 향후 발전 방안 : 고슴도치와 여우의 협업을 지향하여. 영재와 영재교육, 13(3), 5-30.
2 한국교육개발원 (2016). 영재교육종합데이터베이스. 서울: 한국교육개발원.
3 Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(5), 997-1013.   DOI
4 Ambrose, D., VanTassel-Baska, J., & Coleman, T. L. (2010). Unified, insular, firmly policed or fractured, porous, contested, gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33(4), 453-478.   DOI
5 Besemer, S. P., & O'Quin, K. (1999). Confirming the three-factor creative product analysis matrix model in an American sample. Creativity Research Journal, 12(4), 287-296.   DOI
6 Borland, J. H. (2003). Rethinking gifted education. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.
7 Borland, J. H. (2005). Gifted education without gifted children: The case for no conception of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 1-19). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
8 Dai, D. Y., Swanson, J., & Cheng, H. (2011). State of research on giftedness and gifted education:A survey of empirical studies during 1998-2010(April). Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(2), 126-138.   DOI
9 Gagne, F. (2009). The differentiated model of giftedness and talent. In E. J. Gubbins & C. A. Little (Eds.), Systems & Models for Developing Programs for the Gifted & Talented (2nd ed., pp.165-192). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press, Inc.
10 Gallagher, J. J. (1996). A critique of critiques of gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19(2), 234-249.   DOI
11 Gross, M. U. M. (1989). The pursuit of excellence or the search for intimacy?: The forced-choice dilemma of gifted youth. Roeper Review, 11(4), 189-194.   DOI
12 Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and human interests. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
13 Kottmeyer, C. (2011). Economy of giftedness. Gifted Education Communicator, 42(4), 25-27.
14 National Association for Gifted Education. (2015). State of the states in gifted education: 2014-2015. Washington, DC: The Author.
15 Nussbaum, M. C. (2010). Not for profit: Why democracy needs the humanities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
16 Ross, P. O. C. (1993). National Excellence: A Case for Developing America's Talent. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
17 Reis, S. M. (2005). Feminist perspectives on talent development: A research-based conception of giftedness in women. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 217-245). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
18 Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1991). The reform movement and the quite crisis in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35(1), 26-35.   DOI
19 Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide for educational excellence (2nd ed.). Mansfield Center, Conn: Creative Learning Center.
20 Ruf, D. L. (2009). 5 levels of gifted: School issues and educational options. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
21 Sapon-Shevin, M. (1996). Beyond gifted education: Building a shared agenda for school reform. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19(2), 194-214.   DOI
22 Sternberg, R. J. (1996). The sound of silence: A nation responds to its gifted. Roeper Review, 18(3), 168-172.   DOI
23 Treffinger, D. J., Young, G. C., Nassab, C. A., Selby, E. C., & Wittig, C. V. (2008). The talent development planning handbook: Designing inclusive gifted programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
24 Tyson, N., & Lang, A. (2016). 스페이스 크로니컬: 우주탐험, 그 여정과 미래 [박병철, 역]. 서울: 부키. (원본출간년도: 2012).
25 Zigler, A., Stoeger, H., & Vialle, W. (2012). Giftedness and gifted education: The need for a paradigm change. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(4), 194-197.   DOI
26 교육부 (2014). 시.도교육청 평가 편람. 서울: 교육부.
27 교육인적자원부 (2000). 영재교육진흥법. 서울: 교육인적자원부.
28 교육인적자원부 (2002). 영재교육진흥법시행령. 서울: 교육인적자원부.
29 교육부 (2013). 제3차 영재교육종합진흥계획(2013-2017). 서울: 교육부.
30 노진서 (2014). 영단어, 지식을 삼키다. 파주: 이담북스.
31 민철구, 김왕동, 박기법, 엄미정, 박영도, 우새미 (2010). 영재교육진흥법 등 법령개정연구. 연구보고서 2010-19. 서울: 한국과학창의재단.
32 박인호, 이상희, 최선일 (2013). 영재교육 10년의 정량적 .정성적 성과 분석 연구: 영재교육 관련법 제도.정책 및 학술연구 현황 분석. 연구보고서 2013-28. 서울: 한국과학창의재단.
33 법제처(2014). 공교육 정상화 촉진 및 선행교육 규제에 관한 특별법. 서울: 법제처.
34 사교육걱정없는세상 (2016). 영재교육의 실태와 대책 마련을 위한 4회 연속 토론회 예고보도. 영재교육의 실태와 대책 마련을 위한 4회 연속 토론회 자료. 1월 28일. 서울: 국회의원회관. 미간행.
35 위키피디아 홈페이지. https://ko.wikipedia.org (2015.8.15.일 검색).
36 유기홍 (2013). 고교 유형별 중 . 고교 사교육 실태 분석. 서울: 사교육걱정없는세상.
37 이덕난 (2016). 영재교육진흥법의 개정 방향과 방안: 법 형식과 법리적 측면에서. 한국영재학회 2016년 제1차 영재교육포럼 자료집, 31-78.
38 이재분, 김주아, 서예원, 정영옥, 강병직 (2013). 국가 수준의 영재교육기관 평가 방안 연구. 연구보고 RR 2013-06. 서울: 한국교육개발원.
39 최호성 (2013). 창조경제시대 영재교육의 방향 : 크로스오버형 인재로 창조경제를 개척하라. 월간 과학창의, 186(3), 18-19.