- Volume 15 Issue 2
College of Engineering Students' Perception on Creativity Education
공과대학 학생들의 창의성교육에 관한 인식
- Lim, Cheol-Il (Department of Education, Seoul Nat'l University) ;
- Kim, Young-Jon (Department of Education, Seoul Nat'l University) ;
- Kim, Dong-Ho (Department of Education, Seoul Nat'l University)
- Received : 2011.09.23
- Accepted : 2011.11.18
- Published : 2012.03.31
There have been various educational approaches to foster students' creativity in engineering colleges, but little has been conducted based on empirical study results of students' perception on creativity education. This study aims to explore the students' perception on creativity in engineering such as characteristics of creative engineers, the level of individual or group creativity and creative education in engineering colleges. According to the survey results of 538 respondents, engineering students considered three factors such as 'innovative driven', 'eager for high intellectuality', 'activity expression' as characteristics of creative engineer. They evaluated both of individual or group creativity levels as subnormal. They perceived the importance of creativity education, but were not satisfied with current creativity educational experiences. They pointed out 'limited supports of nation or organization', 'credit system decided by the paper-based exam', 'non-systematized creativity classes' as impending factors for creativity in engineering education. Students suggested 'securing the budget for practice and field participation', 'changing of perception on creativity education itself', 'developing the creativity classes combined with engineering subjects' as fostering factors in creativity education. This studdy suggests several implications of educational approaches to creativity education in engineering colleges.
Supported by : 한국연구재단
- 김은경(2010). 트리즈 기반의 창의적 문제해결 프로세스, 한국실천공학교육학회논문지, 2(1): 28-34.
- 이경화, 유경훈, 김은경(2010). 대학생의 창의성 교육에 관한 인식, 교육심리연구, 24(2): 327-346.
- 이상수, 이유나 (2007). 창의적 문제해결을 위한 블렌디드 수업 모형 개발. 교육공학연구, 23(2): 135-159.
- 이종수, 민병권, 윤웅섭, 한재원, 정효일. (2008). 체험 학습기반의 기초 창의공학설계 교육 및 운영. 공학 교육연구, 11(2): 32-41.
- 임선하(2007). 창의성 교육: 반성적 접근. 창조교육학회, 9: 55-86.
- 임철일, 윤순경, 박경선, 홍미영(2009). 온라인 지원 시스템 기반의 '창의적 문제해결 모형'을 활용하는 통합형 대학 수업 모형의 개발. 교육공학연구, 25(1): 171-203.
- 임철일, 홍미영, 이선희(2011). 공학교육에서의 창의성 증진을 위한 학습환경 설계모형. 공학교육연구, 14(4): 59-66.
- 임효희, 김오연, 신경훈, 유혜원, 백윤수(2009). 창의성 증진 교육방법의 개선방안. 공학교육연구, 12(4): 135-141.
- 정은수, 서종욱, 이재호, 이윤미, 윤순종, 김병주, 정준기, 한병기, 정귀영(2008). 국내외 공과대학들의 교육목표 분석. 공학교육연구, 11(3): 44-53.
- 최인수(1998). 창의적 성취와 관련된 제 요인들. 미래유아교육학회지, 5(2): 133-166.
- Amabile. T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76: 77-87.
- Chen, C., & Hsu, K. (2006). Creativity of Engineering Students as Perceived by Faculty: a Case Study. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(2): 264-272.
- Chung, Y. Y., & David, T. S.(2006). Fostering Creativity and Innovation in Engineering Students. 2006 International Mechanical Engineering Education Conference. Beijing. China.
- Davis, G. A.(1999). Creativity is Forever(rev.). Dubuque. IA: Kendall/Hunt.
- Diakidoy, A. N., & Kanari, E.(1999). Student teachers' beliefs about creativity, British Educational Research Journal, 25: 225-243. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192990250206
- Feist, G. J.(1999). The influence of personality on artistic and scientific creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (ed.) handbook of Creativity. Cambridge University Press. New York. 273-296.
- Montgomery, D., & Bull, K. S., & Baloche, L. (1993). Characteristics of the creative person. American Behavioral Scientist, 37(1): 68-78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764293037001007
- Richards, L. G.(1998). Stimulating creativity: teaching engineers to be innovators. Proceeding of 1998 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Part 3. Tempe. Arizona.
- Standler, R. B.(1998). Creativity in science and engineering. Retrieved December 8. 2001. available at http://www.rbs0.com/create.htm.
- Sternberg, R. J.,(1990). Wisdom and its relation to intelligence and creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (ed.) Wisdom: Its nature, Origins, and Development. Cambridge University Press. New York. 142-159.