Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2013.14.8.3760

The Relationship Among Domain-General Creativity, Linguistic Intelligence, Korean Language Grade and Linguistic Creativity of Elementary School Student  

Park, Jung-Hwan (Dept. of Education, Jeju National University)
Hong, Mi-Sun (Dept. of Education, Jeju National University)
Lew, Kyoung-Hoon (Graduate School of Education, Soongsil University)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society / v.14, no.8, 2013 , pp. 3760-3767 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship among domain-general creativity, linguistic intelligence, Korean language grade and linguistic creativity of elementary school student. And to confirm the relative predictive power of domain-general creativity variables in predicting elementary school students' linguistic creativity. The instruments used in this study were 'TTCT', 'Essay writing' and 'Linguistic intelligence ' and school grade of Korean language. Self-reported response data on these instruments from 338, 4th grade elementary school students in Seoul were analyzed. The data were analyzed with descriptive statistics, Pearson correlations, multiple stepwise regression analysis and ANOVA by using SPSS 18.0. The major results of this study were as follows; First, the correlations among domain-general creativity, Korean language grade and linguistic creativity were significant. Second, Abstractness of title were the best predictor of linguistic creativity in elementary school students.
Keywords
Domain-general creativity; Linguistic intelligence; Korean language grade; Linguistic creativity;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Hills, T.W., Children in the fast lane: Implications for early childhood policy and practice. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 2(3), 265-273, 1987. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0885-2006(87)90035-4   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Guilford, J. P., Some misconceptions regarding measurement of creative behavior, The Journal of Creative Behavior 5, 77-87, 1971. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1971.tb00877.x   DOI
3 Torrance, E. P. The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking streamlined (revised) manual Figural A and B. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service. 1984.
4 Cramond, B. Morgan, J., Bandalos, D., & Li, Z ., A Report on the 40-Year Follow-Up of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Alive and Well in the New Millennium. Gifted Child Quarterly 49(4), 283-291, 2005. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001698620504900402   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Kaufman, J. C., Creativity 101. [Kim, J. H trans.] Seoul: Sigma Press, 2010.
6 Kaufman, J. C., Plucker, J. A., & Baer, J.. Essential of creativity assessment. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2008.
7 Runco, M. A., Creativity theories and themes: Research, Development, and practice. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 2007.
8 K Muis, L Bendixen, F Haerle, Beliefs About Knowledge and Knowing: Integrating Domain Specificity and Domain Generality, Psychology Review, 18(1), 67-76, 2006. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9000-9   DOI
9 Baer, J., & Kaufman, J.C., Bridging Generality and Specificity: The Amusement Park Theoretical (APT) Model of Creativity. Roeper Review, 27, 158-163, 2005. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02783190509554310   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Guilford, J. P. "Creativity", American Psychologist, 5, 444-454. 1950. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0063487   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Baer, J. "The case for domain specificity of creativity" Creativity Research Journal, 11(2), 173-177. 1998. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1102_7   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Han, K. & Marvin, C., Multiple creativities?: Investigating domain-specificity of creativity In young children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46(2). 98, 2002. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001698620204600203   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Kim, Y. C., The Domain-general vs Domain- specific: Related issues and Analysis of the Torrance's TTCT-verbal and TTCT-figural Test, Thinking Development, 8(1), 1-29, 2012.
14 Sternberg, R. J. & Lubart, T. I.. Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. NY: Free Press. 1995.
15 Sternberg, R. J., Successful intelligence. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1996.
16 Kim, C.H., & Han, S. H., Conceptive research of linguistic originality, Educationaladvanced Study, 4(1), 21-47, 2006.
17 Amabile, T. M., The social psychology of creativity. A Componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357-376, 1983. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357   DOI
18 Hennessey, B. A. & Amabile, T. M., Product creativity: Consensual assessment technique. In R. T. Brown (Chair), Measurement of creativity: Process and product. Symposium presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Atlanta, 1988.
19 Gardner, H., Human intelligence isn't what we think. U. S. News and World Report, pp.75-78 Gardner, 1984
20 Alieldin Mohamed T. Torrance Indicators of Creative Thinking: A Development Study. University of Georgia. 1978.
21 Mourad, E. H., Integral representations and complete monotonicity of various quotients of Bessel function. canadian Journal of mathmetics, 29(6), 1198-1207, 1976. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4153/CJM-1977-119-5   DOI
22 Torrance, E. P., & Wu, T. "A comparative longitudinal study of the adult creative achievements of elementary school children identified as highly intelligent and as highly creative" Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 6, 71-76. 1981.
23 Amabile, T. M., Motivation and creativity: Effects of motivational orientation on creative writers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 393-399. 1985. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.2.393   DOI
24 Amabile, T. M., Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1996.
25 Hennessey, B. A. & Amabile, T. M., Reward, intrinsic motivation, and creativity. American Psychologist 53(6), 674-675, 1988. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.6.674   DOI   ScienceOn
26 Hennessey, B. A. & Amabile, T. M.,Consensual assessment. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Creativity, Oval Road, London: Academic Press 347-360, 1999.
27 Zhou, Zing & Oldham, G. R., Enhancing Creative performance: Effects of Expected Develop- mental Assessment Strategies and Creative Personalities. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 35(3), 151-167, 2001. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2001.tb01044.x   DOI   ScienceOn
28 Kim H.S., & Choi, I.S., A Structural Model for Creativity, Educational psychology, 16(4), 229-245, 2002.
29 Mumford, M. D., Fieldman, J. M., Hein, M. B., Nagao, D. J. (2001). Tradeoffs Betwee, Ideas and Structure: Individuals Versus Group performance in Creative Problem solving. The Journal of creative Behavior, 31(4), 260-271. 2001.
30 Shearer, C. B. (1996). Multiple Intelligences developmental assessment scales(MIDAS). United States of America : Author.
31 Jung, T. H., Teaching-Learning Activities Development Based on Multiple Intelligences Theory and Its Effects : Focusing on Personal Intelligences, Unpublished Doctor dissertation, University of Hanyang, 1998.
32 Torrance, E. P., & Safter, H. T., The long range predictive validity of the Just Suppose Test. Journal of Creative Behavior, 23, 219-223. 1989. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1989.tb00696.x   DOI
33 Runco, M. A., McCarthy, K. A. & Svensen, E., Judgement of the creativity of artwork and students and professional artists. Journal of Psychology, 128. 23-31, 1994. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1994.9712708   DOI