샘플중...

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "샘플중..."

찬우 손
8 years ago
Views:

1 34 1, pp. 95~108 (2015) ( ) ( ) Exploration of Problem Solving Program including Creative Thinking Skills in the Idea Generation and Verification Stages as Method for Fostering Creativity of Elementary School Student Kang, Gyeong-Ah Yoon, Jihyun Kang, Seong-Joo (Korea National University of Education) (Dankook University) ABSTRACT Studies showed that elementary school students had difficulties in the idea generation for creative problem solving, and they were also not to go through with the verification process for selecting idea. Thus, it may be more effective to provide an actualized idea generation and verification methods. In this study, we developed the creativity problem solving program with the attribute listing and PMI skills in the idea generation and verification stages respectively and applied it to six groups consisting of 5th elementary school students. We analyzed the creativity and the verbal interactions among the students at the level of interaction units. The analyses of the results revealed that the problem solving program with the creative thinking skills had significant effects on the fluency and originality that were sub-elements consisting creativity. In the analyses of interaction unit, the frequencies of the making suggestion at the idea generation stage were high. And at the idea verification stage, the frequencies of the making suggestion and receiving opinion were high. Educational implications of these findings were discussed. Key words : creative thinking skill, idea generation & verification, elementary school student I. 21., (Kang & Choi, 2002; Park et al., 2002; Seo et al., 2004). (Beghetto, 2010), (Choi & Kang, 2010; Jung et al., 2002)., (Choi & Kang, 2010; Kang

2 34 1, pp. 95~108 (2015) et al., 2011; Treffinger et al., 2000). (Yoon, 2005).,., (Choi, 2005; Han, 2002; Kim, 1997; Park, 2005). CPS(creative problem solving, Treffinger et al., 2000) (Yoon et al., 2014). CPS,,,,, 6,, (Isaksen et al., 1994; Treffinger et al., 2000).,,,,,.,.,., (Han & Bae, 2004; Shim & Jang, 2007; Shin et al., 2002).,,,, (Han & Bae, 2004; Shim & Jang, 2007).,, (Han & Bae, 2004; Shim & Jang; 2007; Shin et al., 2002)., (Jang, 2007).,, (Han & Kwak, 2012).,. (Han & Heo, 2008; Kim et al., 2005; Lee et al., 2009),. (Choi, 2013; Kim, 2007; Lee, 2007; Song, 2014),, (Jeon, 2011; Kilgour & Koslow, 2009; Kim, 2007; Lee, 2007).. (Isaksen & Deschryver, 2000).

3 < > :,. (attribute listing),,,,,, (Cho et al., 2000)., (Osborn, 1953).. (Choi & Park, 2004; Kohn & Smith, 2011).,.,. (Isaksen & Deschryver, 2000)..,,, (evaluation matrix),, (highlighting) (Kim, 2004)., (reverse brainstorming) (Kim, 2004).,,.,. PMI(Plus, Minus, Interesting). PMI,,. (Kim, 2004),. PMI..,?,? II.

4 34 1, pp. 95~108 (2015). (Lee, 2009; Greene, 2005). ( ),, ( ).. Y 5 24 ( : 10, : 14 ),.. (Lumpe, 1995).,,. Learning Preferences Questionnaire(Kirby et al., 1988) 10.,.,... 5, (Cronbach s α).65.,,,, 6 4., (TTCT A ), PMI.,,.,,. PMI,, ( ), ( ).,,. 1., ,.,.,. (TTCT B ).,.,,.

5 < > :.,., (Table 1).,,,, (Isaksen et al., 1994; Treffinger et al., 2000),. (Isaksen et al., 1994; Treffinger et al., 2000),.,.,, (Isaksen et al., 1994; Lee et al., 2010; Treffinger et al., 2000)., PMI.,, Table 1. The topics of the problem solving program based on the creative thinking skill Session Topic 1~3 Creating a new structure to protect an egg 4~6 7~10 11~12 Creating a new structure that can withstand a lot of weight by using tooth-picks and marshmallows Creating a new solar heating system that can raise the temperature of the water to the highest through the sun Creating a new car that can move up to the farthest by the wind,. 4, 4.,?,?,?.,. Kim(2002) TTCT A, B (Torrance Test of Creative Thinking Figural Test Booket A & B, 1974, 1990). TTCT (Treffinger, 1985).,, A, B. TTCT,,, 10.,,,, (Cronbach s α),.77,.79,.70,.69,.74,.78,.78,.75,.75,.79,.74,.78. SPSS 12.0 t-..

6 34 1, pp. 95~108 (2015),.,. (Chin & Brown, 2000; Lee & Kang, 2008), 5. 2,. 80%,, (Table 2). (Chin & Brown, 2000; Lee & Kang, 2008),,.,.,,,,.,,,,,,., Table 2. The framework for verbal interactions analysis Category Division Section Definition Level Code Task - related interaction Question Response Suggestion Receive Simple question Questioning by using questions presented in the work sheet Surface Q1 Related question Questioning related to performing in problem solving activity Surface Q2 In-depth question Meta-cognitive question Simple response Explain Related explain In-depth explain Questioning related to specific situations such as the plan, idea generation, idea verification In-depth Questioning related to cause a cognitive conflict or a reflective thinking In-depth Q4 Simple answer on the simple question or reading statements in the work sheet without considering causing Reading the obtained data or describing the problem-solving process and the experimental apparatus Explaining what I thought or explaining answer in question by scientific concept and/or interaction with others Detailed description on plan, idea generation, idea verification through the scientific concepts, analogies, examples Surface Surface In-depth In-depth Repeat Restating the mentioned information once again Surface MS1 Suggestion related to task progress Suggestion related to task resolution Suggesting opinion on the procedure or solution simply Surface MS2 Suggesting opinion on the procedure or solution logically In-depth MS3 In-depth suggestion Clarifying or developing their own opinions In-depth MS4 Reception Accepting other's opinion without considering causing Surface RO1 Simple objection Rejecting other's opinion without considering causing Surface RO2 Receptive spread Adding their opinion agreeing with the other comments In-depth RO3 Logical objection Refuting other's opinion by grounds logically In-depth RO4 Q3 R1 R2 R3 R4

7 < > :,,,,,,,.,,,,,.,,,,,. 1,.,,,.,.,,,,,.,. III. TTCT Table 3., (100.75) (95.33), (t= 1.909, p=0.069). (120.17) (109.00) Table 3. The result of the creativity test Elements constituting creativity Division Average Standard deviation t p Fluency Pre-test Post-test * Originality Pre-test Post-test * Sophistication Pre-test Post-test Abstractness of titles Pre-test Post-test Resistance to impetuous closure Pre-test Post-test Total creativity index Pre-test Post-test *p<.05

8 34 1, pp. 95~108 (2015), (t= 2.382, p=0.026). (100.58) (92.50), (t= 2.106, p=0.046).,,,,.,. (Kim, 2002).,.,..,. Table 4. Table 4. The frequencies of verbal interactions by small groups in the statements related to task(%) Division Question Response Suggestion Receive Section Groups A B C D E F Simple question 18( 4.7) 11( 4.1) 24( 4.4) 20( 6.5) 6( 3.3) 28( 6.8) 107( 5.1) Related question 40(10.5) 16( 5.9) 69(12.6) 48(15.6) 23(12.6) 51(12.4) 247(11.8) In-depth question 16( 4.2) 14( 5.2) 38( 6.9) 7( 2.3) 10( 5.4) 26( 6.3) 111( 5.3) Meta-cognitive question 2( 0.5) 3( 1.1) 2( 0.4) 1( 0.4) 0( 0.0) 0( 0.0) 8( 0.4) Sub-total 76(19.9) 44(16.3) 133(24.3) 76(24.8) 39(21.3) 105(25.5) 473(22.5) Simple response 19( 5.0) 9( 3.3) 24( 4.4) 14( 4.6) 7( 3.8) 9( 2.2) 82( 3.9) Explain 30( 7.8) 37(13.7) 41( 7.5) 25( 8.1) 8( 4.5) 34( 8.3) 175( 8.3) Related explain 17( 4.5) 16( 5.9) 29( 5.3) 12( 3.9) 7( 3.8) 16( 3.9) 97( 4.6) In-depth explain 16( 4.2) 6( 2.2) 12( 2.2) 9( 2.9) 3( 1.6) 12( 2.9) 58( 2.8) Sub-total 82(21.5) 68(25.1) 106(19.4) 60(19.5) 25(13.7) 71(17.3) 412(19.6) Repeat 17( 4.5) 9( 3.3) 30( 5.5) 2( 0.7) 11( 6.0) 11( 2.7) 80( 3.8) Suggestion related to task progress Suggestion related to task resolution Total 61(15.9) 58(21.5) 92(16.8) 66(21.5) 33(18.0) 52(12.6) 362(17.2) 58(15.2) 38(14.1) 71(12.9) 36(11.7) 28(15.3) 73(17.7) 304(14.5) In-depth suggestion 16( 4.2) 10( 3.7) 16( 3.0) 8( 2.6) 15( 8.2) 22( 5.4) 87( 4.1) Sub-total 152(39.8) 115(42.6) 209(38.2) 112(36.5) 87(47.5) 158(38.4) 833(39.7) Reception 30( 7.9) 12( 4.4) 42( 7.7) 16( 5.2) 7( 3.8) 28( 6.8) 135( 6.4) Simple objection 12( 3.1) 14( 5.2) 15( 2.7) 21( 6.8) 8( 4.4) 14( 3.4) 84( 4.0) Receptive spread 20( 5.2) 14( 5.2) 32( 5.9) 18( 5.9) 13( 7.1) 21( 5.1) 118( 5.6) Logical objection 10( 2.6) 3( 1.1) 10( 1.8) 4( 1.3) 4( 2.2) 14( 3.4) 45( 2.1) Sub-total 72(18.8) 43(15.9) 99(18.1) 59(19.2) 32(17.5) 77(18.7) 382(18.2)

9 < > :, 833 (39.7%), 473 (22.5%), 412 (19.6%), 382 (18.2%).,..,,.,, (Jung & Shin, 2013; Park & Shin, 2012)., 60.6%, 39.4%,, 75.3%, 24.7%(Park & Shin, 2012), 75.5%, 24.5%(Jung & Shin, 2013)... 작용 1) 생성단계에서나타난언어적상호 Fig %, 6.4%, 68.0%, 10.4%, Fig. 1. The frequencies of verbal interactions in the idea generation stage (%) Fig. 2. The frequencies of verbal interactions in the subcategory of the suggestion division (%). 44.8%, (4.8%), (10.4%), (8.0%).,,.,.,,., 4?? (S3),

10 34 1, pp. 95~108 (2015). (S1),? (S4) ( 1). ( 1) S2: 빛을잘모으기위한도구로돋보기나거울을새롭게사용했으면좋겠어. S3: 길게만드는건어때? 좀더길게만들어서열을더모으면되지않을까? S2: 또다른건뭐가있지? 너도얘기좀해봐. S1: 나는지금모양대신에사각형을기본모양으로하고싶어. 이렇게사각형을조금펼쳐놓은날개가있는모양으로하면열이반사돼가지고잘가열될것같아. S4: ( 중략 ) 지금있는반사판을좀둥그렇게만들어놓고, 그위에냄비를설치하는건어떨까?,,. (Isaksen & Deschryver, 2000),.,,.. 작용 2) 검토단계에서나타난언어적상호 PMI, Fig %, 33.4%, 8.5%, 9.8%.,, 2.4%, 22.6%, 20.3%, Fig. 3. The frequencies of verbal interactions in the idea verification stage (%) Fig. 4. The frequencies of verbal interactions in the subcategory of the suggestion (left) and receive (right) division (%)

11 < > : 3.0%., 12.4%, 6.5%, 10.7%, 3.8%.,..,.,,,,,.,,. PMI,.,,.,,.? (S3),?. (S1),,. (S3) PMI, ( 2). ( 2) S2: 돋보기나거울이있으면좋겠지? S3:, 돋보기나거울은이게역할이빛을모으는거니까있으면좋을것같아. 그럼단점은뭐지? S1: 단점은돋보기자체가새롭지않은가? 새롭지않은것같아. S4: 응, 나두. 거울도그런것같고 다른생각없어? S2: ( 중략 ) 흥미로운점은뭐야? S3: 올림픽불피울때거울쓴다고했는데, 그거랑똑같은거니까그게좀흥미로운것같아. S2: ( 중략 ) 그럼우리여기플러스에있는아이디어만모아가지고얘기해보자..,., (Shim & Jang, 2007). PMI,., PMI, PMI. PMI. IV..,.

12 34 1, pp. 95~108 (2015). PMI,.,.,,.,.. PMI., PMI,.,,. PMI.. PMI. PMI. PMI,. PMI,,. Beghetto, R. A. (2010). Creativity in the classroom. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press. Chin, C. & Brown, D. E. (2000). Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), Cho, Y. S., Seong, J. S., Chae, J. S. & Koo, S. H. (2000). Development and application of elementary science curriculum to enhance creative problem solving abilities. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 20(2), Choi, B. Y. & Kang, B. N. (2010). Problem-based learning to enhance creativity. Korean Society for Creativity Education, 10(2), Choi, B. Y. & Park, M. (2004). Effects of creativity education program through the creative problem solving model. The Korea Journal of Education Methodology Studies, 16(2), Choi, E. H. (2005). The effect of creative problem solving teaching on elementary school children's creative cognitive ability and achievement motivation. The Journal of Elementary Education Studies, 12(2), Choi, H. K. (2013). The effects of utilization of creative technique on creativity and science attitudes in elementary science class. Master thesis, Busan National University of Education. Greene, J. C. (2005). The generative potential of mixed methods inquiry. International Journal of Research &

13 < > : Method in Education, 28(2), Han, A. R. & Kwak, D. Y. (2012). A study on the design idea generation utilizing TRIZ concept. Journal of the Korean Society of Design Culture, 18(2), Han, H. G. (2002). The effects of Osborn & Parnes's creative problem solving teaching model on elementary school children's creative cognitive and disposition. Master thesis, Korea National University of Education. Han, K. S. & Bae, M. R. (2004). Thinking styles and their relationship with intelligence and creativity of the scientifically gifted and non-gifted students. The Korean Journal of Educational Psychology, 18(2), Han, K. S. & Heo, J. W. (2008). The personality and learning methods of scientifically gifted and non-gifted students. The Journal of Korean Educational Forum, 7(1), Isaksen, S. G. & Deschryver, L. (2000). Making a difference with CPS: A summary of the evidence. In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.). Facilitative leadership: Making a difference with CPS. Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt. Isaksen, S. G., Dorval, K. B. & Treffinger, D. J. (1994). Creative approaches to problem solving. Dubuque, IO: Kendall Hunt. Jang, S. A. (2007). A study on education of design idea to develop creativity and achievement motivation: On design and class in vocational high schools. Master thesis, Kyung Hee University. Jeon, K. (2011). A literature review on the classifications of creative thinking techniques. The Journal of the Korean Society for the Gifted and Talented, 10(3), Jung, H. C., Han, K. S., Kim, B. N. & Choe, S. U. (2002). Development of programs to enhance the scientific creativity: Based on theory and examples. Journal of Korean Earth Science Society, 23(4), Jung, S. J. & Shin, Y. J. (2013). The analysis of verbal interaction in elementary science programs using multilevel instruction. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 33(7), Kang, H. K. & Choi, S. Y. (2002). Elementary school science instructional methods for nurturing creativity. The Bulletin of Science Education, 14, Kang, S. J., Kim, H. J. & Lee, K. J. (2011). The creative inquiry activity program for science-gifted students (I). Seoul: Bookshill Publishers. Kilgour, M. & Koslow, S. (2009). Why and how do creative thinking techniques work? Trading off originality and appropriateness to make more creative advertising. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37, Kim, C. S. (2007). The effects of application of the program for science classes with creativity in the elementary school. Master thesis, Daegu National University of Education. Kim, R. K. (1997). The effect of Parnes's creative problem solving model on elementary school children's creativity. Master thesis, Korea National University of Education. Kim, S. H., Kim, K. Y. & Lee, C. H. (2005). Comparison of features of mathematically gifted, scientifically gifted and common students in cognitive, affective and emotional aspects. The Mathematical Education, 44(1), Kim, Y. C. (2002). Creative problem solving: Theory of creativity, development and teaching. Paju: Kyoyookbook Publishers. Kim, Y. C. (2004). Thinking skills: Theory, development and teaching. Paju: Kyoyookbook Publishers. Kirby, J. R., Moore, P. J. & Schofield, N. J. (1988). Verbal and visual learning styles. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13(2), Kohn, N. W. & Smith, S. M. (2011). Collaborative fixation: Effects of others' ideas on brainstorming. Cognitive Psychology, 25(3), Lee, E. K. & Kang, S. J. (2008). The effect of SWH application on problem-solving type inquiry modules through student-student verbal interactions. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 28(2), Lee, J. C., Kang, S. M. & Huh, H. W. (2009). Establishment of teaching strategy through investigating scientific attitude, learning style, student s preferences of teaching style and learning environments of Korea science academy students. Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, 19(1), Lee, W. S. (2007). The effects of science classes by application of creative thought techniques on elementary school children's creativity. Master thesis, Daegu National University of Education. Lee, W. S. (2009). Mixing paradigms in mixed methods. The Journal of Research in Education, 39, Lee, Y. J., Lim, W. & Lee, E. K. (2010). An informatics education program for enhancing creative problem solving ability. The Journal of Computer Education, 13(1), 1-8. Lumpe, A. T. (1995). Peer interaction in science concept development and problem solving. School Science and Mathematics, 95(6), Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied imagination: Principles and

14 34 1, pp. 95~108 (2015) procedures of creative thinking. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. Park, C. Y., Seo, H, A. & Kim, S. N. (2002). Need analysis on administrative and financial support system for cyber inservice teachers training programs of creativity-centered science education. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 19(3), Park, M. H. & Shin, Y. J. (2012). Analysis of linguistic interaction within a group according to leader`s leadership in scientific inquiry activity in elementary school. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 32(4), Park, Y. (2005). The effect of creative problem solving model on elementary school children's creativity and academic achievement. Master thesis, Korea National University of Education. Seo, H. A., Song, B. H., Park, C. Y., Kwon, D. K., Yoon, K. S. & Kim, S. N. (2004). Development and implement of cyber inservice program of science teachers for creativity in science education. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 21(3), Shim, H. J. & Jang, S. H. (2007). A case study on the scientifically-gifted students` and average student s creative science problem solving processes and skills. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 25(5), Shin, J. E., Han, K. S., Jung, H. C., Park, B. G. & Choe, S. U. (2002). What are the differences between scientifically gifted and normal students in the aspects of creativity? The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 22(1), Song, H. H. (2014). The effects of lesson using the creative thinking techniques on science process skills and creativity. Master thesis, Busan National University of Education. Treffinger, D. J. (1985). Review of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. In J. V. Mitchell Jr.(Ed.), The ninth mental measurements yearbook (pp ). Lincoln: University of Nebraska, Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. Treffinger, D. J., Isaksen, S. G. & Dorval, K. B. (2000). Creative problem solving: An introduction. (3rd Ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Yoon, C. H. (2005). Cognitive and creative characteristics related to creative problem solving: A comparison between intellectually gifted and average children. Korean Journal of Child Studies, 26(5), Yoon, J., Park, J. Y. & Kang, S. J. (2014). Exploration on characteristics of idea discovery process based on assumption reversal thinking skill: Focusing on undergraduate students in Korea. American Journal of Educational Research, 2(10),

(5차 편집).hwp

(5차 편집).hwp (215), 54(1), 17-3 211 STEAM,.. STEAM, STEAM, 5~6 11.,., 5~6...,. (, 21)., 29. (,, 212). 211 STEAM * :, E-mail: njkwon@hanmail.net http://dx.doi.org/1.15812/ter.54.1.2153.17 (215), 54(1), 17-3,. (Arts)