[논문]초등과학영재학생의 과학창의성에 대한 자기 평가, 교사 평가, 객관적 평가의 비교 분석

김민주; 임채성

doi:10.15267/keses.2018.37.4.440

초등과학영재학생의 과학창의성에 대한 자기 평가, 교사 평가, 객관적 평가의 비교 분석
A Comparative Analysis of Student Self-, Teacher-, and Objective Assessments of Elementary Science-Gifted Students' Scientific Creativity 원문보기

초등과학교육 = Journal of Korean elementary science education, v.37 no.4, 2018년, pp.440 - 454

Abstract ▼ AI-Helper

This study aims to compare student self-, teacher-, and objective assessments of elementary science-gifted students' scientific creativity. A science-gifted program on the topic of Hydraulic Machine was implemented to 40 fifth-graders in the Science-Gifted Education Center of an education office in Seoul, Korea for four weeks. The products of the students' activities were assessed by three types of 'Student Self-Assesment', 'Teacher-Assesment', and 'Objective Assessment using Formula'. Based on two essential components of creativity, the scientific creativity is divided into two parts of originality and usefulness. Ideas that satisfy both components can be counted as scientifically creative. The main results of this study are as follows: First, the scores of each week and the average of the overall four-week scores on scientific creativity were significantly correlated. Student self-assessment (r=.687), teacher-assessment (r=.715), and objective assessment (r=.724) appeared consistently over instructional periods. Second, the average scores of student self-, objective, and teacher-assessments were 73.15, 35.72, and 26.60, respectively. The result of student self-assessment on scientific creativity tended to be higher than those of formula and teacher. Third, among the three types of assessment on scientific creativity, a strong correlation appeared between teacher- and objective assessment (r=.974), but neither between student self- and objective (r=.161) nor between student self- and teacher- (r=.213). Fourth, the scores on originality component had a positive correlation between teacher- and objective assessment (r=.713). The scores of student self- and teacher-assessments had a significant correlation too (r=.315), but not between student self- and objective assessment (r=.279). Fifth, the scores on usefulness component did not have a significant correlation between student self- and teacher-assessment (r=.155). Sixth, there was no significant difference on scientific creativity between student self- and objective assessment [${\chi}^2$(1, n=40)=1.667, p<.197]. Not between student self- and teacher-assessment either [${\chi}^2$(1, n=40)=1.616, p<.204]. On the contrary, there was a significant difference between teacher- and objective assessment [${\chi}^2$(1, n=40)=32.593, p<.000]. Seventh, the students were categorized into four groups according to the levels of their scores by student self- and teacher-assessment. The result showed that factors influencing student self-assessment are inherent in the personality traits of gifted individuals, such as self-esteem and perfectionism. The findings suggested that there are challenges for the educators to make efforts to construct consistent assessment methods for scientific creativity.

주제어

표/그림 (10)

표 Table 1. Correlation between weekly and overall average scores of three types of assessment on scientific creativity, originality, and usefulness
표 Table 2. The average scores and standard deviations of three types of assessment on scientific creativity and its two essential components
표 Table 3. Correlation among three types of assessment on scientific creativity
표 Table 4. Correlation among three types of assessment on originality
표 Table 5. Frequency differences of scientific creativity for objective assessment on student self-assessment
표 Table 6. Type distribution according to the scores’ levels of student self-assessment and teacher-assessment on scientific creativity
표 Table 7. The number of students who got the higher scores of originality than those of usefulness in student self-assessment and teacher-assessment
표 Table 8. The number of students who had more than 1 point of the difference between originality and usefulness scores in student self-assessment and teacher-assessment
표 Table 9. The responses of students with the greatest difference between originality and usefulness scores in student self-assessment and teacher-assessment
표 Table 10. Characteristics of individual students’ activities by the scores’ levels of student self-assessment and teacher-assessment on scientific creativity

질의응답

핵심어	질문	논문에서 추출한 답변
	대부분의 연구에서 포함하고 있는 공통적인 창의성 구성 요소는?	창의성은 매우 복잡한 개념으로 이를 정의하는데 많은 요소들이 관여하고 있으며(Weisberg, 1993), 창의성으로 간주되는 특징 또한 300가지 이상으로 다양하다(Treffinger, 2009). 그러나 대부분의 연구는 공통적으로 독창성(참신성)과 유용성(적절성)을 창의성의 요소로 포함하고 있다(Sternberg, 1998). 그래서 최근 창의성에 대한 정의는 새로우면서도 유용한 산물을 만들어내는 성향이나 능력(Mayer, 1999; Mumford, 2003; Sternberg, 1998)으로 합의가 이루어지고 있다.
	현대 교육의 구심점이라고 할 수 있는 것은?	21세기는 지식정보사회로서 급격하게 변화하고 있으며, 앞으로도 지속될 이러한 변화에 능동적으로 대처하기 위해 창의성 개발은 세계적 관심사이자 국가적 시책이 되었다. 이렇듯 현대 교육의 구심점이라고 할 수 있는 창의성은 오늘날 학교 교육과정에서 주요 목표로 제시되고 있으며(Newton, 2010; Walker & Gleaves, 2008), 우리나라 과학 교과 또한 교육과정(교육부, 2015)에서 과학적이고 창의적으로 문제를 해결하기 위한 과학적 소양 함양에 핵심 목표를 두고 있다. 이러한 시책의 일환으로 2004년에 교육인적자원부는 창의적 인재 양성을 위한 ｢수월성 교육 종합대책｣을 발표하였고, 2005년부터 본격적으로 창의적 인재를 양성하고자 영재교육을 위한 예산을 편성하였다.
	과학적이고 창의적으로 문제를 해결하기 위한 과학적 소양 함양을 목표로 우리나라는 어떤 정책을 펼치고 있는가?	이렇듯 현대 교육의 구심점이라고 할 수 있는 창의성은 오늘날 학교 교육과정에서 주요 목표로 제시되고 있으며(Newton, 2010; Walker & Gleaves, 2008), 우리나라 과학 교과 또한 교육과정(교육부, 2015)에서 과학적이고 창의적으로 문제를 해결하기 위한 과학적 소양 함양에 핵심 목표를 두고 있다. 이러한 시책의 일환으로 2004년에 교육인적자원부는 창의적 인재 양성을 위한 ｢수월성 교육 종합대책｣을 발표하였고, 2005년부터 본격적으로 창의적 인재를 양성하고자 영재교육을 위한 예산을 편성하였다.

참고문헌 (45)

곽금주, 정윤경, 김민화(2010). 아동발달심리학. 서울: 박학사.
교육부(2015). 초？중등학교 교육과정 총론. 교육부 고시 제 2015-74호 [별책 1].
김원경, 우남희(2002). 아동의 창의성에 대한 심리적 관련 변인 연구. 아동학회지, 23(2), 1-16.

원문보기 상세보기
신지은, 한기순, 정현철, 박병건, 최승언(2002). 과학 영재 학생과 일반 학생은 창의성에서 어떻게 다른가? - 서울대학교 과학영재교육센터 학생들을 중심으로. 한국과학교육학회지, 22(1), 158-175.

원문보기 상세보기
임채성(2012). 뇌기반 진화적 접근법에 따른 창의적 과학 문제해결 지도 모형 개발. 생물교육, 40(4), 429-452.
임채성(2014). 과학창의성 평가 공식의 개발과 적용. 초등과학교육, 33(2), 242-257.

원문보기 상세보기
Barbera, E. (2009). Mutual feedback in e-portfolio assessment: an approach to the netfolio system. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(2), 342-357.

상세보기
Barrett, H. (2007). Researching electronic portfolios and learner engagement: the reflective initiative. Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 50(6), 436-449.
Boud, D. & Falchikov, N. (1989). Quantitative studies of student self-assessment in higher education: A critical analysis of findings. Higher Education, 18, 529-549.
Bouzidi, L. & Jaillet, A. (2009). Can online peer assessment be trusted? Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 257-268.
Butler, R. (1990). The effects of mastery and competitive conditions on self-assessment at different ages. Child Development, 61, 201-210.

상세보기
Callahan, C. M. & Miller, E. M. (2005). A child-responsive model of giftedness. Conceptions of Giftedness, 2, 38-51.
Carmines, E. G. & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment (Vol. 17). Sage publications.
Chan, D. W. (2005). Self-perceived creativity, family hardiness, and emotional intelligence of Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 16(2-3), 47-56.
Chang, C. C., Tseng, K. H. & Lou, S. J. (2012). A comparative analysis of the consistency and difference among teacher-assessment, student self-assessment and peer-assessment in a Web-based portfolio assessment environment for high school students. Computers & Education, 58(1), 303-320.

상세보기
Cho, K., Schunn, C. & Wilson, R. (2006). Validity and reliability of scaffolded peer assessment of writing from instructor and student perspectives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 891-901.

상세보기
Cropley, A. J. (2001). Creativity in education & learning: A guide for teachers and educators. Psychology Press.
Fox, S. & Dinur, Y. (1988). Validity of self-assessment: A field evaluation. Personnel Psychology, 41, 581-592.

상세보기
Hu, W. & Adey, P. (2002). A scientific creativity test for secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 389-403.

상세보기
Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F. III. & Swanson, R. A. (2005). The adult learner (6th Ed.). Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
Lin, S.-J., Liu, Z.-F. & Yuan, S.-M. (2001a). Web-based peer assessment: Attitude and achievement. IEEE Transactions on Education, 44(2), 13.
Lin, S.-J., Liu, Z.-F. & Yuan, S.-M. (2001b). Web-based peer assessment: Feedback for students with various thinking-styles. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(4), 420-432.

상세보기
Liu, Z.-F. (2002). Studies of networked peer assessment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Hsinchu: National Chiao Tung University.
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.

상세보기
Mayer, R. E. (1999). Fifty years of creativity research. In R. J. Sternberg (ed.), Handbook of creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Musante, K. & DeWalt, B. R. (2010). Participant observation: A guide for fieldworkers. Rowman Altamira.
Newton, L. & Newton, D. (2010). Creative thinking and teaching for creativity in elementary school science. Gifted and Talented International, 25(2), 111-124.
Patton, M. Q. (2005). Qualitative research. Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science.
Plake, B. S. & Impara, J. C. (1996). Teacher assessment literacy: What do teachers know about assessment?. In Handbook of classroom assessment (pp. 53-68).
Renzulli, J. S. (2003). Conception of giftedness and its relationship to the development of social capital. Handbook of Gifted Education, 3, 75-87.
Ross, J. A. (2006). The reliability, validity, and utility of self-assessment. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 11(10). Retrieved January 31, 2009 from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v11&n10
Ross, J. A., Rolheiser, C. & Hogaboam-Gray, A. (1999). Effect of self-evaluation on narrative writing. Assessing Writing, 6(1), 107-132.
Sadler, P. & Good, E. (2006). The impact of self- and peer-grading on student learning. Educational Assessment, 11(1), 1-31.

상세보기
Salvia, J., Ysseldyke, J. & Witmer, S. (2012). Assessment: In special and inclusive education. Cengage Learning.
Sowden, P. T. & Dawson, L. (2011, November). Creative feelings: The effect of mood on creative ideation and evaluation. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Creativity and Cognition (pp. 393-394). ACM.
Sternberg, R. J. (1998, Ed.). Handbook of human creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sung, Y.-T., Chang, K.-E., Chiou, S.-K. & Hou, H.-T. (2005). The design and application of a web-based self- and peer-assessment system. Computers and Education, 45(2), 187-202.

상세보기
Treffinger, D. J. (2009). Myth 5: Creativity is too difficult to measure. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 245-247.

상세보기
Treffinger, D., Young, G., Shelby, E. & Shepardson, C. (2002). Assessing creativity: A guide for educators (RM02170). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Tsai, C.-C. & Liang, J.-C. (2009). The development of science activities via on-line peer assessment: The role of scientific epistemological views. Instructional Science, 37, 293-310.

상세보기
Tseng, S.-C. & Tsai, C.-C. (2007). On-line peer assessment and the role of the peer feedback: A study of high school computer course. Computers & Education, 49(4), 1161-1174.

상세보기
Walker, C. & Gleaves, A. (2008). An exploration of students' perceptions and understandings of creativity as an assessment criterion in undergraduate-level studies within higher education. Irish Educational Studies, 27(1), 41-54.

상세보기
Weisberg, R. W. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius. WH Freeman New York.
Yager, R. E. (2000). A vision for what science education should be like for the first 25 years of a new millennium. School Science and Mathematics, 100(6), 327-341.

상세보기

저자의 다른 논문 :

표제어: PCR

동의어: Packet Collision Rate

용어 설명 출처 목록 (6)

용어 설명: PCR은 세균 특이성이 있는 primer를 이용하여 적은 수의 세균이 있을지라도 쉽게 검출할 수 있는 유용한 방법이며, 이를 이용하여 구강 내 치면세균막이나 타액에서 직접 세균을 검출할 수 있게 되었다[8].

내보내기 구분	파일저장 인쇄 메일전송
구성항목	기본정보 상세정보 관리번호, 논문명, 저널/프로시딩명, 저자 , 발행년, 권, 호, 시작페이지, 끝페이지, 발행기관 관리번호, 논문명, 대등논문명, 저자 , 저널/프로시딩명, 발행기관, 발행년, 발행언어, 권, 호, 시작페이지, 끝페이지, ISBN, ISSN, 주제분야, 키워드, 초록(한글), 초록(영문), 저자(소속기관)
저장형식	Text(ASCII format) Excel format RefWorks Direct Export RIS format (for Reference Manager, ProCite, EndNote), Scholar's Aids, Mendeley
메일정보	받는사람 (필수) @ 보내는사람 (선택) @ 제목 내용 KISTI 검색결과 이메일 서비스
안내	총 건의 자료가 검색되었습니다. 다운받으실 자료의 인덱스를 입력하세요. (1-10,000) 검색결과의 순서대로 최대 10,000건 까지 다운로드가 가능합니다. 데이타가 많을 경우 속도가 느려질 수 있습니다.(최대 2~3분 소요) 다운로드 파일은 UTF-8 형태로 저장됩니다. 파일의 내용이 제대로 보이지 않을실 때는 웹브라우저 상단의 보기 -> 인코딩 -> 자동선택 여부를 확인하십시오. ~ Text(ASCII format) Excel format

연합인증