38 3, pp. 395 405 (2019) http://dx.doi.org/10.15267/keses.2019.38.3.395 395 Analysis of Creative Science Problem Solving Process of Elementary School Students Lee, Seul-Gi Shin, Won-Sub Lim, Chae-Sung ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to analyze the process of creative science problem solving (CSPS) in elementary school students. To do this, 6 graders (n=9) at a elementary school in Seoul were participated. In this study, fixed eye-tracker with 250 Hz sampling and observation camera were used. The results of this study, the students with higher ability to solve creative science problems had a slower saccade, and had more visual attention on core clues and a greater number of eye changes. Therefore, students with higher ability to solve creative science problems showed more effective eye movement and faster information processing to solve problems. The CSPS types of elementary students were classified as declarative knowledge type, procedural knowledge type, conditional knowledge type, knowledge lack type. Because each type appears to be complementary, CSPS process for elementary students who have integrated the four types was devised. The results of this study can be used as basic data for understanding elementary school students CSPS and will help to develop and guide creative science teaching and learning programs useful to elementary school students and science gifted students. Key words: elementary students, CSPS(creative science problem solving) ability, CSPS type & process, eye-tracking I. 2015 (Ministry of Education, 2015).. (Lim, 2012; Isaksen et al., 1994)., (Ministry of Education, 2015; Mumford et al., 1998), (Anderson, 1983). (Holyoak & Thagard, 1995; Mumford et al., 1998).,.. (Kwon & Cho, 2014; Kim & Jang, 2017; Lee et al., 2007) 2019.7.31 2019.8.16 2019.8.23 2019.8.23 E-mail: cslim@snue.ac.kr
396 38 3, pp. 395 405 (2019)...,. (You & Jeon, 2017).. (Basaraba et al., 2013; Shim & Jang, 2007; Shin & Kwon, 2007), (Shin & Kwon, 2007; Shin, 2016). EEG, fmri,, (Kim et al., 2005; Lee & Shin, 2019). (Shin, 2016). (Shin, 2016). (Corbetta et al., 1993; 1995),, (Choi et al., 2012; Shin & Shin, 2013b; Slykhuis et al., 2005)., (Shin & Shin, 2013a), (Shin & Shin, 2016)....,,. II. 6 9 ( : 3, : 6).,., 6 ( : 3, : 3).. 1. 1 6 3.. 2, 2, 7,...
< > : 397..,,. Creative science problem Picture in question No. Left Right 1 2 3 Analogy level Local vine-vine Regional-1 vine-aquatic plants Regional-2 vine-insect.,.,.,.,.,,., (Holyoak & Thagard, 1995; Mumford et al., 1998)., (Mednick, 1962).,. Dunbar (1995) 1 4., Table 1. 4 Remote vine-abiotic,,,,, ( ),, ( ) 5. (20% ), (20 49%), (50%), (51 75%), (75% ) 5,.. 1 2,.,.. (Kim & Jang, 2017; Shim & Jang, 2007).
398 38 3, pp. 395 405 (2019)..,,, (Torrance, 1998), (Lim, 2014)., Lim(2014) ) (. (N) (n). 0 10,... SMI 250Hz, Begaze 3.1..,,,.,,.,,.,. (Shin, 2016). 8 8., / / /. Table 2. III. Compressed scan path & attention course example (P07) Participants P07 (No.2) Compressed scan path D2-E4-B1-C2-D2-F1-G1-D1-B1-A1-C6-B7-F5-F7-H2-G1-B2-A2-C2-C4-B4-C7-B1-C1- E1-G1-H1-B1-G2-E1-C2-F7-C2-B2-C2-F6-E5-C5-B4-D4-B7-C7-F7-E4-C4-D5-B6-C6-F 3-F5-B6-C4-B7-D1-F2-E1-C1-B2-C1-B1-F2-G2-D2-C1-D2-E2-F1-H1-E1-F1-D1-F5-C3- D2-F2-C5-C6-F6-G3-H4-H5-C6-D6-G3-F7-E1-E3-F1-G5-E4-C1-D1-F1-A1-E5-F6-G5-F 5-G5-G6-G1-E1-D1-E4-E5-E4-C3-E1 Attention process Top-down / bottom-up Problem right clue problem left clue Problem right clue left clue problem right clue problem Active top-down attention course * Information - Problem, left clue, right clue, out of clue area.
< > : 399 Table 3, (P08), (P01, P05, P06), (P07, P09).,,,,. Fig. 1. (Shin & Shin, 2013b; Snowden et al., 2011),...,,.. Visual occupancy according to level of CSPS.,. (p<.001).,,.,. (Choi et al., 2012; Shin & Shin, 2013b; 2016). Fig. 2. Fig. 3. 20 80ms (Shin, 2016; Snowden et al., 2011), Level of CSPS Science creativity Participant Average Level Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 P01 60 48 0 60 42 Middle P05 37.5 32 30 40 34.9 Middle P06 37.5 0 40 45 30.6 Middle P07 0 0 50 0 12.5 Low P08 90 72 70 52.5 71.1 High P09 0 0 80 0 20 Low Average fixation time according to CSPS.
400 38 3, pp. 395 405 (2019) Average saccade time according to CSPS.. (Snowden et al., 2011). (Shin & Shin, 2013a). Fig. 4. (sec) ( )., (Shin & Shin, 2013b; Snowden et al., 2011)., 2, 3 4. 2 4, 1 3. (Shin & Shin, 2013b; Snowden et al., 2011).., Average saccade velocity. Table 4. P05,., P05 ( ).,.,. P05. P05. 연구자 : 어떻게공통점과차이점을찾았나요? P05: 공통점을찾을때는모양, 색깔, 크기를비교해요. 연구자 : 유용하게활용하는방법은어떻게떠올랐나요? P05: 두사진을보고알수있는것으로생각했어요. 연구자 : 왜그렇게생각했는지지금은말할수있나요? P05: 네, 그때는순간잊어버려서넘어갔던것같습니다. P05,,,,.,. P05.
< > : 401 CSPS ability, declarative knowledge & response Element of analysis Participants P08 P01 P05 P06 P07 P09 CSPS level High Middle Middle Middle Low Low Declarative knowledge High Low Low Low High Middle Understand problem Success A little Success Success Success Failure CSPS step Create idea Evaluation Futhering Success of finding analogy clue Declarative knowledge base Finding analogy clue and answer It is based on analogy but not recognized Success of finding analogy clue Answer by analogy Failure answer by evidence Success of finding analogy clue Answer by analogy Failure answer by evidence Can not use analogy as an idea tool Failure answer by evidence Failure of finding clue Failure answer Knowledge used to solve CSP Failure answer by evidence Procedural knowledge Procedural knowledge Procedural knowledge Declarative knowledge None,. P05,. P01, P06. P07.,. P07, ( )..,. P07. 연구자 : 답을찾기위해어떤생각을했나요? P07: 관찰보다는이미알고있던것이나책에서본것위주로떠올리려고했어요. 연구자 : 어느문제가가장어려웠나요? 왜그렇게생각했나요? P07: 2 번이요. 아는것이너무없어서요. P07,. P07.,,. P08. P08,.,.,. P08. 연구자 : 무엇을위주로보았나요? P08: 송악과잠자리가어떻게붙어있는지위주로요. 연구자 : 그것이공통점이라고생각했나요? P08 : 아니요. 연구자 : 문제를여러번보고있네요. 왜그랬나요? P08: 정확하게답을말했는지확인하려고요.
402 38 3, pp. 395 405 (2019) 연구자 : 문제를풀때어떤방법을사용했나요? P08: 생김새나구조중심으로보려고했고, 생소한것을먼저자세히본다음에생각해요. 연구자 : 유용하게활용할방법을떠올릴때는어떤방법을사용했나요? P08: 생김새가비슷한다른물건이나 TV 에서봤던것을떠올렸어요. P08,., TV.,.,,. P08..,. (Holyoak & Thagard, 1995), P08. P09,,. P09. P09,. P09. P09: 아니요. 연구자 : 문제를여러번보고있네요. 왜그랬나요? P09: 무슨뜻인지이해해보려고요. 포기할수는없잖아요. P09,,. (Shim & Jang, 2007; Lee et al., 2007), P09,.. P09 Shin and Shin (2013b). P09.,,, Fig. 5,,,.,,, 연구자 : 사진을보면서공통점과차이점을찾을수있었나요? CSPS type.
< > : 403. Fig. 6. Anderson (1983) ACT ACT, ACT. ACT., (Jung, 2015).,, (Shin & Shin, 2016)., (Müller & Krummenacher, 2006; Navalpakkam & Itti, 2002), (Shin & Shin, 2016).. (Obsborn, 1953),..,, (Müller & Krummenacher, 2006; Navalpakkam & Itti, 2002; Shin & Shin, 2016).,.., (Anderson, 1983; Shin & Shin, 2016). IV..,.,,,..,. CSPS process of elementary students.
404 38 3, pp. 395 405 (2019),.,.,,,,.....,.,.,,..,,.,,,,.,. Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press. Basaraba, D., Zannou, Y., Woods, D. & Ketterlin-Geller, L. (2013). Exploring the utility of student-think alouds for providing insights into students metacognitive and problem-solving processes during assessment development. Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, 1-11. Choi, H. D., Shin, W. S. & Shin, D. H. (2012). Differences in eye movement patterns in the classification process of elementary science gifted and normal children. Elementary Science Education, 31(4), 501-512. Corbetta, M., Miezin, F. M., Shulman, G. L. & Petersen, S. E. (1993). Attention modulation of neural processing of shape, color, and velocity in humans. Science, 248, 1556-1559. Corbetta, M., Shulman, G. L., Miezin, F. M. & Petersen, S. E. (1995). Superior cortex activation during spatial attention shifts and visual feature conjunction. Science, 270, 802-805. Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 365-395). Cambridge, MA, US: The MIT Press. Holyoak, K. J. & Thagard, P. (1995). Mental leaps: Analogy in creative thought. US: MIT Press. Isaksen, S. G. (1994). Versions of CPS. Buffalo. NY: Cencer for Studies in Creativity, Buffalo State Colleage. Jung, J. J. (2015). Principles and practices of brain-based learning. Seoul: Governor. Kwon, M. J. & Cho, S. H. (2014). An analysis of the relationship between the scientifically gifted brain utilization and scientific creative problem solving ability. Gifted Education Research, 24(6), 961-974. Kim, J. S. & Jang, S. H. (2017). Analysis of visualization activities in the process of creative science problem solving for elementary school students. Elementary Science Education, 36(1), 73-84. Kim, Y. J., Kim, J. Y. & Kwon, C. S. (2005). Differences in EEG activity between elementary science gifted students and normal children. Biology Education, 33(1),
< > : 405 23-32. Lee, G. N. & Shin, J. H. (2019). The effect of barefoot experience program on EEG and brain utilization of elementary school students. Learner Centered Curriculum Education Research, 19, 219-238. Lee, S. J., Bae, J. H. & Kim, E. J. (2007). Types and characteristics of thinking in scientific creative problem solving of elementary science gifted children and ordinary children. Elementary Science Education, 25(5), 567-581. Lim, C. S. (2012). Development of a creative scientific problem solving instruction model based on a brainbased evolutionary approach. Biology Education, 40(4), 429-452. Lim, C. S. (2014). Develop and apply scientific creativity assessment formulas. Elementary Science Education, 33(2), 242-257. Mednick, S. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, 220-232. Ministry of Education (2015). Revised primary school science curriculum. Ministry of Education Notice 2015-74. Müller, H. J. & Krummenacher, J. (2006). Visual search and selective attention. Visual Cognition, 14(4-8), 389-410. Mumford, M. D., Marks, M. A., Connelly, M. S., Zaccaro, S. J. & Johnson, J. F. (1998). Domain-based scoring in divergent-thinking tests: Validation evidence in an occupational sample. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 151-163. Navalpakkam, V. & Itti, L. (2002) A goal oriented attention guidance model. Biologically Motivated Computer Vision Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 25, 453-461. Shim, H. J. & Jang, S. H. (2007). A case study of the creative science problem solving process of science gifted children and ordinary children. Elementary Science Education, 25(5), 532-547. Shin, D. H. & Kwon, Y. J. (2007). A review of brain research methods in elementary science educationfocusing on fmri utilization. Elementary Science Education, 26(1), 49-62. Shin, W. S. (2016). A study of eye tracking method in elementary science education research. Elementary Science Education, 35(3), 288-304. Shin, W. S. & Shin, D. H. (2013a). Analysis of eye movement according to science achievement of elementary school students in observation problems. Elementary Science Education, 32(2), 185-197. Shin, W. S. & Shin, D. H. (2013b). Development of heuristic attention model by analyzing eye movements of elementary school students in discrimination task. Korean Journal of Science Education, 33(7), 1471-1485. Shin, W. S. & Shin, D. H. (2016). Analysis of attention characteristics of elementary school students through eye tracking and attention test in science class. Korean Journal of Science Education, 36(4), 705-715. Slykhuis, D. A., Wiebe, E. N. & Annetta, L. A. (2005). Eye-tracking students attention to powerpoint photographs in science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(6), 509-520. Snowden, R., Thompson, P. & Troscianko, T. (2011). Basic vision: An introduction to visual perception. translated by Oh, S. J. Seoul: Hakjisa. Torrance, E. P. (1998). The torrance tests of creative thinking norms - Technical manual figural (streamlined) forms A & B. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc. You, T. S. & Jeon, Y. S. (2017). A case study on the creative problem solving process of the elementary school students. The Journal of Korea Elementary Education, 28, 53-69., (Lee, Seul-Gi; Teacher, Seoul Sanggyeong Elementary School), (Shin, Won-Sub; Teacher, Seoul Dongil Elementary School), (Lim, Chae-Sung; Professor, Seoul National University of Education)