Journal of Gifted/Talented Education (영재교육연구)

The Korean Society for the Gifted (한국영재학회)
권호 표지

Investigation of Domain-specificity of Creativity and the 3-year follow-up

창의성 영역문제의 탐색 및 재접근

  • Published : 2005.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study is composed of 2 parts. Study 1 empirically examined (1) the relationships among children's creative performances measured by three product-based assessments (story-telling, collage-making, and math word problems) in three domains, and (2) the relationships between children's general creative thinking skills, measured by two divergent thinking tests, and children's creative performances. Study 2 is a three-year follow up study of the study 1. Study 2 followed up some (71) children who participated in study 1. In study 2, long-term stability of the performance based assessment involving story-telling, collage making, and math problem making were examined during the three-year time period. In addition, study 2 tried to look at the methods effect of the domain issue of creativity, comparing self-report scale and performance-based assessment. The findings of this study support the position that creative ability in young children is rather (but not absolutely) domain-specific. The long-term stability of the performance-based assessments compares favorably with stability figures for other creativity tests. Results also indicate that there are some method effect in explaining the domain issue of creativity. Implication of the study in connection with educational practices for gifted children is discussed.

본 연구는 크게 두 부분으로 이루어져 있다. 연구 1에서는 창의성의 영역 특수성과 영역 보편성의 문제가 109명의 초등학교 2학년생들을 대상으로 연구되었다. 연구 1의 주목적은 첫째, 세 가지 다른 영역간의 아동들의 창의성의 상관관계를 검토하고, 둘째, 아동들의 일반적인 창의적 사고능력과 세 영역에서의 창의성의 관계를 조사하고자 하는 것이다. 연구 2에서는 연구 1에 참여하였던 학생의 일부 (71명)을 대상으로 후속연구를 실시하였다. 연구2에서는 전문가 평정에 의한 창의적 수행평가가 3년이라는 기간동안 장기적 안정성을 나타내는가의 문제와 최근 이슈로 대두되고 있는 창의성의 영역문제에 있어서의 방법론적 효과에 대하여 살펴보고자 하였다. 즉, 실제의 수행평가를 사용할 경우와 자기보고 형식을 사용할 때에 창의성의 영역 문제에 대한 결과가 다르게 나타날 수 있음을 살펴보고자 하였다. 본 연구의 결과는 아동들의 창의력이 영역 보편적이기보다는 다소 영역 특수적이라는 입장을 지지하고 있다. 본 연구에서 아동들은 세 가지 다른 영역에서 일관성 있는 창의적 능력을 보이기보다는 각 영역 간 폭 넓은 창의력의 차이를 보이므로 창의력이 상당히 영역 특수적임을 제시했다. 또한 아동들의 일반적인 창의적 사고 능력을 측정하기 위해 사용된 창의성 검사들은 세 가지 영역에서 드러난 아동들의 창의성과 매우 낮거나 무의미한 상관관계를 보였다. 이와함께 이 연구는 전문가 평정에 의한 아동의 창의적 수행평가가 적절한 신뢰도 뿐 아니라 장기적으로도 안정적이고 타당한 창의성 평가 방법일 수 있음을 시사하였으며 창의성에서의 영역문제가 어떠한 접근 방법을 취하느냐에 따라 결과가 다르게 나타날 수 있음이 제기되었고 그에 따른 논의가 전개된다.

Keywords

References

  1. 배미란 (2002). 창의성과 작업양식의 영역특수성 및 상호작용에 대한 연구. 미래유아교육학회지, 9 (2), 189-211
  2. 이순묵, 한기순 (2004). 창의성의 영역인반성과 영역특수성 연구에서의 문제 및 대안으로서의 잠재변수모형. 교육심리연구, 18 (4), 155-176
  3. 최일호, 최인수 (2001). 새로운 생각은 어떻게 가능한가: 전문분야 창의성에 대한 학습과정 모형접근. 한국심리학회지: 일반, 20(2), 409-428
  4. Adams, M. (1993). An empirical investigation of domain-specific theories of preschool children's cognitive abilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Tufts University. giftedness. New York: Cambridge University Press
  5. Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45 (2), 357-376 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357
  6. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press
  7. Baer, J. (1991). Generality of creativity across performance domains. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 23-39 https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419109534371
  8. Baer, J. (1993). Creativity and divergent thinking: A task-specific approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
  9. Baer, J. (1994a). Why you shouldn't trust creativity tests. Educational Leadership, 51 (4), 80-83
  10. Baer, J. (1994b). Performance assessment of creativity: Do they have long term stability? Roeper Review, 17 (1), 7-11 https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199409553609
  11. Baer, J. (1998). The case for domain specificity of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11 (2), 173-177 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1102_7
  12. Bartlett, M. M., & Davis, G. (1974). Do the Wallach-Kogan Creativity Tests predict real creative behavior? Perceptual and Motor Skills, 39, 730 https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1974.39.2.730
  13. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine
  14. Brown, R. T. (1989). Creativity: What are we to measure? In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity. (pp. 3-32). New York: Plenum Press
  15. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). The domains of creativity. In M. A. Runco & R. S. Albert (Eds.), Theories of creativity (pp. 190-214). London: Sage
  16. Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers: The roots of success and failure. New York: Cambridge University Press
  17. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of minds. New York: Basic Books
  18. Gardner, H. (1988). Creative lives and creative works: A synthetic scientific approach. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 298-324). New York: Cambridge University Press
  19. Gardner, H. (1993a). Multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books
  20. Gardner, H. (1993b). Creating minds. New York: Basic Books
  21. Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill
  22. Hocevar, D. (1980). Intelligence, Divergent thinking and creativity. Intelligence, 4, 25-40 https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-2896(80)90004-5
  23. Hong, E., & Milgram, R. M. (1991). Original thinking in preschool children: A validation of ideational fluency measures. Creativity Research Journal, 4 (3), 253-260 https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419109534397
  24. Hong, E., Milgram, R. M., & Gorsky, H. (1995). Original thinking as a predictor of creative performance in young children. Roeper Review, 18 (2), 147-149 https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199509553720
  25. Kay, S. I., & Rogers, K. B. (1998). Preface. Roeper Review, 21 (1), 4 https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199809553918
  26. Keating, D. P., & Crane, L. L. (1990). Domain-general and domain-specific processes in proportional reasoning. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 36 (3), 411-424
  27. Kogan, N. (1994). Diverging from divergent thinking. Contemporary Psychology, 39(3), 291-292
  28. Matthew, D. J. (1988). Gardner's multiple intelligence theory: An evaluation of relevant research literature and a consideration of its application to gifted education. Roeper Review, 11 (2), 100-104 https://doi.org/10.1080/02783198809553176
  29. Mayer, M. (1971). A boy, a dog, a frog, and a friend. New York: Dial Books for Young Readers
  30. Milgram, R. M., & Milgram, N. A. (1976). Creative thinking and creative performance in Israeli children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68 (3), 255-259 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.68.3.255
  31. Miller, A. (1991). Personality types: A modern synthesis. Calgary Alberta, Canada: University of Calgary Press
  32. Okuda, S. M., Runco, M. A., & Berger, D. E. (1991). Creativity and the finding and solving of real-world problems. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 9, 45-53 https://doi.org/10.1177/073428299100900104
  33. Plucker, J. (1998). Beware of simple conclusions: The case for content generality of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11 (2), 179-182 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1102_8
  34. Rotter, D. M., Langland, L., & Berger, D. (1971), The validity of tests of creative thinking in seven-year-old children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 15, 273-279 https://doi.org/10.1177/001698627101500407
  35. Runco, M. A. (1986). Divergent thinking and creative performance in gifted and nongifted children. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 46, 375-384 https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448604600211
  36. Runco, M. A. (1987). The generality of creative performance in gifted and nongifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31 (3), 121-125 https://doi.org/10.1177/001698628703100306
  37. Runco, M. A. (1993). Divergent thinking, creativity, and giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37 (1), 16-22 https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629303700103
  38. Runco, M. A. & Nemiro, J. (1994). Problem finding, creativity, and giftedness. Roeper Review, 16 (4), 235-240 https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199409553588
  39. Runco, M. A., & Okuda, S. M. (1988). Problem discovery, divergent thinking, and the creative process. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 17 (3), 211-220 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01538162
  40. Sternberg, R. J. (1989). Domain-generality versus domain-specificity: The life and impending death of a false dichotomy. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 35 (1), 115-130
  41. Tardif, T. Z., & Sternberg, R. J. (1988). What do we know about creativity? In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 429-440). New York: Cambridge University Press
  42. Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service
  43. Torrance, E. P. (1988). Creativity as manifest in testing. In R. J. Sternberg. (Ed.). The nature of creativity (pp. 43-75). New York: Cambridge University Press
  44. Treffinger, D. J., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1996). Talent recognition and development: Successor to gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19 (2), 181-193 https://doi.org/10.1177/016235329601900205
  45. Wakefield, J. F. (1985). Toward creativity: Problem finding in a divergent-thinking exercise. Child Study Journal, 15, 265-270
  46. Wakefield, J. F. (1992). Creative thinking: Problem solving skills and arts orientation. Norwood, NJ: Ablex
  47. Wallach, M. A. (1985). Creativity testing and giftedness. In F. D. Horowitz & M, O'Brian (Eds.), The gifted and talented: Developmental perspectives. (pp. 99-124). Washington, D.C.: APA
  48. Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston
  49. Wallach, M. A., & Wing, C. W. (1969). The talented students: A validation of the creativity-intelligence distinction. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston
  50. Weisberg, R. W. (1993). Creativity beyond the myth of genius. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company
  51. Winner, E. (1996). Gifted children: Myths and realities. New York: Basic Books