DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analysis on Creative Thinking Leaning Between Scientifically Gifted Students and Normal Students

과학영재와 일반학생들의 창의적 사고 편향에 대한 분석

  • Received : 2011.02.04
  • Accepted : 2011.03.25
  • Published : 2011.03.31

Abstract

This study is to investigate the creative thinking style and it's leaning that normal students and scientifically gifted students use mainly at processing information. Right Brain vs Left Brain Creativity Test(R/LCT) and Brain Preference Indicator(BPI) is taken to investigate the creative thinking style of normal students(N=144) and scientifically gifted students(N=97). In the R/LCT, the normal students responded that they prefer to use right-brain thinking rather than left-brain thinking. But the scientifically gifted students prefer to left-brain thinking. The normal students showed most preference for Holistic Processing of right side brain and they did most avoiding for Verbal Processing of left side brain. The scientifically gifted students showed most preference for Logical Processing of left side brain. And they did most avoiding for Random Processing of right side brain. There was a meaningful difference between left side brain preference group and right side brain preference group on Sequential, Symbolic, Logical, Verbal, Random, Intuitive, Fantasy-oriented Processing of normal Students. But the scientifically gifted students showed a meaningful difference in right side brain processing mainly. In other word, all the scientifically gifted students took an lean processing in Logical, Symbolic, Linear Processing, etc. In sum, the scientifically gifted students are unequal in at processing information against the normal students. So it is required more appropriate teaching-learning method based on the creative thinking style and it's leaning for effective gifted education.

References

  1. 강호감 (1991). 두뇌의 기능분화에 따른 교수전략이 창의력 및 자연과 학업성취도에 미치는 영향. 박사학위논문. 서울대학교.
  2. 고영희 (1986). 인간의 뇌와 교육. 서울: 중앙적성출판사
  3. 고영희 (1991). 당신의 양쪽 뇌를 사용하라. 서울: 양서원
  4. 곽형식 (1999). 좌뇌 우뇌 우세성 및 남녀차에 의한 조직자 유형 제시의 차별적 학습효과. 교육심리연구, 13(1), 21-47.
  5. 김병철 (2002). 교사와 아동의 뇌기능 분화와 초등과학 교수학습의 관계. 석사학위논문. 부산대학교.
  6. 남승권, 최완식, 임병웅 (2008). 정보영재 학생의 좌우뇌 활용 성향 연구. 한국공업교육학회지, 33(1), 23-43.
  7. 박숙희 (1999). 뇌 기능분화에 있어서 통합뇌와 비통합뇌의 차이에 관한 연구. 교육심리연구, 13(1), 203-228.
  8. 박숙희 (2000). 뇌의 기능분화와 창의성의 관계 연구. 교육심리연구, 14(3), 31-56.
  9. 심혜숙, 강선모 (2004). 성격유형과 창의적 성향 및 좌우뇌 선호도의 관계. 한국심리유형학회, 11(1),67-98.
  10. 이성구 (1983). 뇌반구의 선호와 학업성취 및 지능과의 상관연구. 석사학위논문. 단국대학교.
  11. 이미자, 안정혜 (2002). 창의력 증진을 위한 웹기반 우뇌 훈련 프로그램 설계 및 개발-초등학교 저학년 대상-. 교육공학연구, 18(2), 197-221.
  12. 이홍, 전윤숙, 박은아 (2005). 고착(Fixation)과 뇌활용성향과의 관계. 지식경영연구, 6(1), 85-102.
  13. 임채성 (2005). 뇌 기능에 기초한 과학 교수학습: 뇌기능과 학교 과학의 정의적․심체적․ 인지적 영역의 연계적 통합 모형. 초등과학교육, 24(1), 86-101.
  14. 정덕호, 박선옥 (2010). 좌우뇌 활용 선호도에 따른 지구과학 영재들의 문제해결방식에 관한 연구. 한국지구과학회지, 31(2), 172-184.
  15. Aliotti, N. C. (1981). Intelligence, handedness, and cerebral hemispheric preference in gifted adolessents. The Gifted Child Quaterly, 25, 36-41. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698628102500107
  16. Anderson, J. R. (1990). Cognitive psychology and its application (3rd ed.). NY: W.H. Freeman and Company.
  17. Bub, D. N., & Lewine, J. (1988). Different modes of word recognition in the left and right visual fields. Brain and Language, 33(1), 161-188. https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-934X(88)90060-0
  18. Davidson, J. E. (1995). The suddenness of insight, In R. J. Sternberg, & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The Nature of Insight, MA: The MIT Press.
  19. Diamond, S. J. (1972). The double brain. Edinburgh, Churchill: Livingstone.
  20. Diamond, M., & Hopson, J. (1998). Magic trees of the mind: How to nurture your child's intelligence, creativity, and healthy emotions from birth through adolescence. NY: Plume.
  21. Finke, R. A. (1995). Creative insight and preinventive, In R. J. Sternberg, & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The Nature of Insight, MA: The MIT Press.
  22. Garady, M. P., & Luecke, E. A. (1978). Education and brain. Blooming Phi Delta Educational Foundation (Eric document No. Ed.- 153-258).
  23. Gowan, J. C. (1979). The production of creativity through right hemisphere imagery. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 13(1), 39-49. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1979.tb00188.x
  24. Hannaford, C. (1995). Smart moves why learning is not all in your head. Arlington, VA: Great Ocean Publishers.
  25. Hudspeth, W. J., & Pribram, K. H. (1990). Stages of brain and cognitive maturation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 881-884. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.4.881
  26. Kaufmann, G. (2001). Creativity and problem solving. In J. Henry (Ed.), Creative management (2nd ed.). London: STAGE Publication.
  27. Koh, Y. H. (1982). An analysis of cognitive functioning of korean middle school students. CL: University of Pittsburge.
  28. McManus, C. (2002). Right hand, left hand: the origins of asymmetry in brain, bodies, atoms, and cultures. MA: Harvard University Press.
  29. Melamed, F., & Zaidel, E. (1993). Language and task effects on lateralized word recognition. Brain and Language, 45(1), 70-85. https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.1993.1034
  30. O'Boylea, M. W., Cunningtonb, R., Silkb, T. J., Vaughanb, D., Jacksonc, G., Ari S., & Gary, F. (2005). Mathematically gifted male adolescents activate a unique brain network during mental rotation. Cognitive Brain Research, 25(2), 583-587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.08.004
  31. Williams, L. V. (1983). Teaching for the two-sided mind. NY: Simon and Schuster, Inc.