[논문]초등과학영재학생의 자기 평가, 동료 평가의 비교 분석

김민주; 임채성

doi:10.15267/keses.2019.38.4.439

초등과학영재학생의 자기 평가, 동료 평가의 비교 분석
A Comparative Analysis of Student Self-and Peer-Assessments of Elementary Science-Gifted Students' Scientific Creativity 원문보기

초등과학교육 = Journal of Korean elementary science education, v.38 no.4, 2019년, pp.439 - 452

Abstract ▼ AI-Helper

This study aims to compare self- and peer-assessments of science-gifted elementary students' scientific creativity. A science-gifted program on the Pascal's principle was implemented to 40 fifth-graders in the Science-Gifted Education Center for two weeks. After that, students presented their results from a scientific creativity task using the principle in class. The task was to devise a new and useful tool using the principle, and it included the students' self-assessment about their idea. During presentation, students were asked to assess the works of peers and write down the reasons that they gave the scores they gave. Shortly, student self- and peer-assessments about students' scientific creativity outcomes were compared. Based on two essential components of creativity, ideas that satisfy both originality and usefulness can be counted as scientifically creative. The main results of this study are as follows: First, the average scores of student self- and peer-assessments were 71.5 and 61.9. Second, the standard deviations of student self- and peer-assessments were 14.47 and 5.79. Third, among scientific creativity, originality, usefulness scores, only originality had a significant correlation between student self- and peer-assessment (r=.42). Fourth, the students were categorized into four groups according to the levels of their scores by student self- and peer-assessment. And the frequencies of peer-assessment group had a significant difference at p<0.05 level, according to self-assessment group (Chi Square=4.0000, df=1, p=0.0455). Fifth, through a case study by group, the results suggesting that self-assessment could be affected by the students' self-efficacy and perfectionism and such effect could also influence peer-assessment have been found. The result showed that how the student self- and peer-assessment of scientific creativity are different and what the students' thoughts on the evaluation of scientific creativity are. The findings suggested that there are several things to consider for the educators to make efforts to construct consistent assessment methods for scientific creativity.

주제어

표/그림 (9)

표 Table 1. Inter-rater reliability of peer-assessment on originality, and usefulness (N=19)
표 Table 2. The result of paired sample t-test of student self-, and peer-assessment on scientific creativity and its two essential components
표 Table 3. Correlation between student self-, and peer-assessment on scientific creativity and its two essential components (N=36)
표 Table 4. Frequency differences of scientific creativity for peer-assessment on self-assessment
표 Table 5. The average scores of self- and peer-assessment for each group
표 Table 6. The responses of students with the highest scores in self-assessment and the reasons for their assessments
표 Table 7. The responses of students with the lowest scores in self-assessment and the reasons for their assessments
표 Table 8. The responses of students with the highest scores in peer-assessment and the reasons for their assessments
표 Table 9. The responses of students with the lowest scores in peer-assessment and the reasons for their assessments

질의응답

핵심어	질문	논문에서 추출한 답변
	자기 평가가 min-c 창의성을 평가하는데 유용한 이유는 무엇인가?	세 가지 측면에서 유용하다. 첫째로 학생으로 하여금 자신의 창의성에 대해 반성적으로 사고하게 한다. 둘째, 교육자는 이를 통해 창의적 자기효능감혹은 창의적 잠재력과 그 영역에 흥미를 가진 학생을 식별할 수 있다. 셋째, 발달적인 측면에서 학생의 창의성 수준을 파악하고, 적절하게 피드백해 줄 수 있다. 어느 한 아이디어를 떠올릴 때, 그것을 스스로 생각해낸 것인지, 비슷한 다른 아이디어에서 차용한 것인지는 학생 스로가 가장 잘 알 것이다.
	동료 평가가 외부적 입장의 창의성 평가의 대안이 될수 있는 이유는 무엇인가?	동료 평가는 자기 평가보다 객관적인 기준이면서 같은 초등학생 수준에서 평가하므로 교사나 부모와 같은 외부적 입장에서의 창의성 평가의 대안이 될 수 있다(Newton, 201). 임채성(2012)이 강조한 초등학생 수준의 lite-c 창의성을 탐구하기 위해서는 동년배 학생들의 창의성 인식을 조사할 필요가 있다.
	창의성의 평가방식에는 어떤것들이 있는가?	그러면 학생의 과학창의성은 어떻게 평가할 것인가? 창의성의 평가 방식에는 학생의 창의성에 대한 인지․정의․기능적 요소를 종합적으로 평가하는 방식, 독창성, 유창성, 정교성, 유연성 등 지금껏 밝혀진 다면적 요소로 평가하는 방식 등 다양한 방식이 존재한다(박병기와 유경순, 20). 앞서 밝힌 영역 특수적 입장에 따라 정의한 과학창의성을 평가하는 방식은 바로 과학 교과에서 학생이 산출한 산물에 대하여 평가 공식을 적용하여 평가하는 것이다(임채성, 2014).

참고문헌 (37)

김민주, 임채성(2018). 초등과학영재학생의 과학창의성에 대한 자기 평가, 교사 평가, 객관적 평가의 비교 분석. 초등과학교육, 37(4), 440-454.

원문보기 상세보기
박병기, 유경순(2000). 창의성과 지능의 관계구조. 교육심리연구, 14(2), 235-261.
임채성(1997). 협동학습의 대뇌생물학적 기초: 아이디어-공유 창출 모델. 생물교육 (구 생물교육학회지), 25(2), 143-155.
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
최인수(2000). 유아용 창의성 측정도구에 관한 고찰. 유아교육연구, 20(2), 139-166.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.

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, P. (2007). Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 815-824.

상세보기
Beghetto, R. A. & Kaufman, J. C. (2007). Toward a broader conception of creativity: A case for "mini-c" creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1(2), 73.

상세보기
Besancon, M., Fenouillet, F. & Shankland, R. (2015). Influence of school environment on adolescents’ creative potential, motivation and well-being. Learning and Individual Differences, 43, 178-184.

상세보기
Boud, D. & Falchikov, N. (1989). Quantitative studies of student self-assessment in higher education: A critical analysis of findings. Higher Education, 18, 529-549.

상세보기
Callahan, C. M. & Miller, E. M. (2005). A child-responsive model of giftedness. Conceptions of Giftedness, 2, 38-51.
Colman, A. M. (2003). A dictionary of psychology (2 ed.): Oxford University Press.
Cropley, A. J. (2001). Creativity in education & learning: A guide for teachers and educators. NY: Psychology Press.
Cropley, A. J. (2001). Creativity in education and learning: A guide for teachers and educators. London: Kogan Page.
Fox, S. & Dinur, Y. (1988). Validity of self-assessment: A field evaluation. Personnel Psychology, 41, 581-592.

상세보기
Hickey, M. (2001). An application of Amabile’s consensual assessment technique for rating the creativity of children’s musical compositions. Journal of Research in Music Education, 49(3), 234-244.

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

상세보기
Kaufman, J. C. & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four c model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1-12.

상세보기
Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., III. & Swanson, R. A. (2005). The adult learner (6th Ed.). Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
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
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.
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.

상세보기
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Renzulli, J. S. (2003). Conception of giftedness and its relationship to the development of social capital. Handbook of Gifted Education, 3, 75-87.
Rosenthal, R. & Rosnow, R. L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ross, J. A., Rolheiser, C. & Hogaboam-Gray, A. (1999). Effect of self-evaluation on narrative writing. Assessing Writing, 6(1), 107-132.

상세보기
Ross, J. A. (2006). The reliability, validity, and utility of self-assessment. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 11(10), 1-13.
Runco, M. A. (2004). Everyone has creative potential. In Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L. & Singer, J. L. (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization. (pp. 21-30). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Runco, M. A. (2007b). Creativity: Theories and themes: Research, development, and practice. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Runco, M. A. & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92-96.

상세보기
Sitzmann, T., Ely, K., Brown, K. G. & Bauer, K. N. (2010). Self-assessment of knowledge: A cognitive learning or affective measure?. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(2), 169-191.

상세보기
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.
Sung, Y.-T., Chang, K.-E., Chiou, S.-K. & Hou, H.-T. (2005). The design and application of a web-based selfand 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
Weisberg, R. W. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius. WH Freeman New York.

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