Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education (한국초등과학교육학회지:초등과학교육)

The Korean Elementary Science Education Society (한국초등과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Development of an Assessment Formula for Scientific Creativity and Its Application

과학창의성 평가 공식의 개발과 적용

  • Received : 2014.02.10
  • Accepted : 2014.05.23
  • Published : 2014.05.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Researchers have employed a diversity of definitions and measurement methods for creativity. As a result, creativity research is underrepresented in the literature and the findings of different studies often prove difficult to draw into a coherent body of understanding. With regard to assessment, there are some important problems both in creativity research and practice, such as originality bias and Big-C creativity bias in teachers' perceptions about creativity and creative thinking, and additive rather than multiplicative scoring systems of creativity assessment. Drawing upon most widely accepted conceptions of the creativity construct, I defined 'student's scientific creativity' as the ability to make a product both original and useful to the student in terms of little-c creativity, and 'scientist's scientific creativity' as the ability to come up with a product both original and useful to the science community in terms of Big-C creativity. In this study, an 'Assessment Formula for Scientific Creativity' was developed, which is consisted of the multiplication of originality and usefulness scores rather than the sum of the two scores, and then, with scores calculated from the assessment formula, the scientific explanations generated by children were categorized into four types: routine, useful, original, and creative types. The assessment formula was revealed to be both valid and reliable. The implications of the assessment formula for scientific creativity are examined. The new assessment formula may contribute to the comprehensive understanding of scientific creativity to guide future research and the appropriate interpretation of previous studies.

Keywords

References

  1. Alexander, P. A. (1992). Domain knowledge: Evolving themes and emerging concerns. Educational Psychology, 27, 33-51. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2701_4
  2. Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assesment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(5), 997-1013. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.43.5.997
  3. Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.
  4. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
  5. Ausubel, D. P. (1978). Educational psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  6. Barbot, B., Besancon, M. & Lubart, T. I. (2011). Assessing creativity in the classroom. The Open Education Journal, 4, 58-66. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874920801104010058
  7. Barron, F. & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 439-476. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.32.020181.002255
  8. Barron, F. (1969). Creative person and creative process. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  9. Barron, F. (1988). Putting creativity to work. In Sternberg R. J, (Ed.). The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 76-98.
  10. Batey, M. & Furnham, A. (2006). Creativity, intelligence and personality: A critical review of the scattered literature. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 132, 355-429. https://doi.org/10.3200/MONO.132.4.355-430
  11. Batey, M. (2012). The measurement of creativity: From definitional consensus to the introduction of a new heuristic framework. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 55-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.649181
  12. Beghetto, R. A. & Kaufman, J. C. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four C model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013688
  13. Beghetto, R. A. (2010). Creativity in the classroom. In J. C. Kaufman, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 447-466.
  14. Biernat, M. (2003). Toward a broader view of social stereotyping. American Psychologist, 58, 1019-1027. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.12.1019
  15. Boden, M. A. (1996). What is creativity? In M. A. Boden (Ed.) Dimensions of creativity. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. pp. 75-117.
  16. Boden, M. A. (2004). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms. London: Routledge.
  17. Bowers, K. S., Regehr, G. & Balthazard, C. (1990). Intuition in the context of discovery. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 72-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(90)90004-N
  18. Cattell, R. B. & Butcher, H. J. (1968). The prediction of achievement and creativity. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.
  19. Cropley, A. (2003). Creativity in education & learning: A guide for teachers and educators. London: Kogan Page Limited.
  20. Cropley, A. (2006). Functional creativity: A socially-useful creativity concept. Baltic Journal of Psychology, 7(1), 26-38.
  21. Cropley, A. (2010). Creativity in the classroom: The dark side. In D. H. Cropley, J. C. Kaufman, A. R. Cropley, and M. A. Runco (Eds.). The dark side of creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 297-315.
  22. Cropley, A. J. (2001). Creativity in education and learning. London: Routledge Falmer.
  23. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harper Collins.
  24. Darwin, C. (1859). The origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life. Champaign: Project Gutenberg.
  25. Davis, G. A. (1997). Identifying creative students and measuring creativity. In N. Colangelo, & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 269-281). Needham Heights, MA: Viacom.
  26. Diehl, M. & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 497-509. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.497
  27. Eysenck, H. J. (1993). Creativity and personality: Suggestions for a theory. Psychological Inquiry, 4, 147-178. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0403_1
  28. Findlay, C. S. & Lumsden, C. J. (1988). The creative mind: Toward an evolutionary theory of discovery and innovation. Journal of Social and Biological Structures, 11, 3-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-1750(88)90025-5
  29. Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B. & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applications. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  30. Fleming, M. (2008). Arts in education and creativity: A review of the literature. Creative Partnerships, Arts Council England: London.
  31. Ford, C. M. & Gioia, D. A. (2000). Factors influencing creativity in the domain of managerial decision making. Journal of Management, 26, 705-732.
  32. Fryer, M. (1996). Creative teaching and learning. London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.
  33. Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds. New York: Basic Books.
  34. Givens, P. R. (1962). Identifying and encouraging creative processes. The Journal of Higher Education, 33(6), 295-301. https://doi.org/10.2307/1979699
  35. Glover, J. A., Ronning, R. R. & Reynolds, C. R. (1989). Handbook of creativity: Perspectives on individual differences. NY: Plenum.
  36. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0063487
  37. Hadamard, J. (1954). The psychology of invention in the mathematical field. New York: Dover Publications.
  38. Hebert, T. P., Cramond, B., Neumeister, K. L. S., Millar, G. & Silvian, A. F. (2002). E. Paul Torrance: His life, accomplishments, and legacy. Storrs: The University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented (NRC/GT).
  39. Heinelt, G. (1974). Creative teachers/creative students. Freiburg, Germany: Herder.
  40. Helie, S. & Ron, S. (2010). Incubation, insight, and creative problem solving: A unified theory and a connectionist model. Psychological Review, 117, 994-1024. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019532
  41. Hocevar, D. & Michael, W. B. (1979). The effects of scoring formulas on the discriminant validity of tests of divergent thinking. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 39, 917-921. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447903900427
  42. Hocevar, D. (1979). Ideational fluency as a confounding factor in the measurement of originality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 191-196. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.71.2.191
  43. Houtz, J. C. & Krug, D. (1995). Assessment of creativity: Resolving a mid-life crisis. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 269-300. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02213374
  44. Hu, W. & Adey, P. (2002). A scientific creativity test for secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 389-403. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110098912
  45. Ivcevic, Z. (2009). Creativity map: Toward the next generation of theories of creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3, 17-21. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014918
  46. Jardine, L. (2000). Ingenious pursuits. London: Little Brown and Company.
  47. 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 Education, 24(4), 334-348.
  48. Kaufman, J. C. & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013688
  49. Kaufman, J. C., Plucker, J. A. & Baer, J. (2008). Essentials of creativity assessment. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  50. Kim, C. J., Chae, D. H. and Lim, C. S. (1999). Introduction to science education. Seoul: BooksHill.
  51. Kim, K. H. (2006). Can we trust creativity tests? A review of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT). Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1801_2
  52. Kind, P. M. & Kind, V. (2007). Creativity in science education: perspectives and challenges for developing school science. Studies in Science Education, 43, 1-37. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260708560225
  53. Klahr, D. & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1-48. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1201_1
  54. Lim, C. S. (2012). Development of an instructional model for brain-based evolutionary approach to creative problem solving in science. Biology Education (Korea), 40(4), 429-452. https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2012.40.4.429
  55. Lissitz, R. W. & Willhoft, J. L. (1985). A methodological study of the Torrance Tests of Creativity. Journal of Educational Measurement, 22, 1-111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1985.tb01044.x
  56. Litchfield, R. C. (2008). Brainstorming reconsidered: A goal-based view. Academy of Management Review, 33, 649-668. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2008.32465708
  57. Mayer, R. E. (1995). The search for insight: Grappling with gestalt psychology's the nature of insight. In R. J. Sternberg and J. E. Unanswered questions. Davidson. Cambridge, The MIT Press. pp. 3-32.
  58. Mayr, E. (1997). This is biology. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
  59. Ministry of Education and Science Technology (2011). Science curriculum. Ministry of Education and Science Technology Announcement 2011-361 (Supplement 9).
  60. Mumford, M. D. (2003). Taking stock in taking stock. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 147-151. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2003.9651408
  61. Mumford, M. D., Mobley, M. I., Uhlman, C. E., Reiter-Palmon, R. & Doares, L. M. (1991). Process analytic of creative capacities. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 91-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419109534380
  62. Nettle, D. (2001). Strong imagination: Madness, creativity and human nature. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  63. Newton, D. P. & Newton, L. D. (2009). Some students' conceptions of creativity in school science. Research in Science and Technology Education, 27(1), 45-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140802658842
  64. Newton, D. P. & Newton, L. D. (2010). What teachers see as creative incidents in elementary science lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 32(15), 1989-2005. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903233249
  65. Newton, D. P. (2000). Teaching for understanding. London: Routledge.
  66. Newton, D. P. (2010). Assessing the creativity of scientific explanations in elementary science: an insider-outsider view of intuitive assessment in the hypothesis space. Research in Science and Technological Education, 28(3), 187-201. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2010.501752
  67. Newton, L. D. & Newton, D. P. (2008). Conceptions of creativity in elementary school science. Excellence in education, 2008: Future minds & creativity. The International Centre for Innovation in Education, Conference Proceedings. Paris, July 1-4, 2008.
  68. Petty, G. (1997). How to be better at creativity. London: Kogan Page.
  69. Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A. & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn't creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39, 83-96. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1
  70. Richards, R. (1993). Everyday creativity, eminent creativity and pschopathology. Psychological Inquiry, 4(3), 212-217. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0403_12
  71. Rigden, J. S. (1983). The art of great science. Phi Delta Kappan, 64(9), 613-617.
  72. Roberts, S. (2004). Self-experimentation as a source of new ideas. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 227-288.
  73. Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  74. Rose, J. (2009). The independent review of the primary curriculum: Final report. Nottingham: DCSF Publications.
  75. Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 657-687. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141502
  76. Runco, M. A., Okuda, S. M. & Thurston, B. J. (1987). The psychometric properties of four systems for scoring divergent thinking tests. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 5(2), 149-156. https://doi.org/10.1177/073428298700500206
  77. Seifert, C. M., Meyer, D. E., Davidson, N., Patalano, A. L. & Yaniv, I. (1995). Demystification of cognitive insight: Opportunistic assimilation and the preparedmind perspective. In R. J. Sternberg and J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp. 65-124.
  78. Silvia, P. J., Wigert, B., Reiter-Palmon, R. & Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Assessing creativity with self-report scales: A review and empirical evaluation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6, 19-34. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024071
  79. Silvia, P. J., Winterstein, B. P., Willse, J. T., Barona, C. M., Cram, J. T., Hess, K. I., Martinez, J. L. & Richard, C. A. (2008). Assessing creativity with divergent thinking tasks: exploring the reliability and validity of new subjective scoring methods. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2, 68-85. https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3896.2.2.68
  80. Simonton, D. K. (1999a). Creativity as blind variation and selective retention: Is the creative process Darwinian? Psychological Inquiry, 10(4), 309-328. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1004_4
  81. Simonton, D. K. (1999b). Origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives on creativity. New York: Oxford University Press.
  82. Simonton, D. K. (2008). Distribution, normal. In W. A. Darity, Jr. (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social sciences (2nd ed., Vol. 2). Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA. pp. 415-417.
  83. Simonton, D. K. (2011). Creativity and discovery as blind variation: Campbell's (1960) BVSR model after the half-century mark. Review of General Psychology, 15, 158-174. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022912
  84. Simonton, D. K. (2012). Assessing scientific creativity: Conceptual analyses of assessment complexities. Commissioned paper, The Science of Science and Innovation Policy Conference, National Academy of Sciences.
  85. Spendlove, D. (2005). Creativity in education: A review. Design and Technology Education; An International Journal, 10(2), 9-18.
  86. Sternberg, R. J. & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Creativity research handbook. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 3-15.
  87. Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Successful intelligence. New York: Basic Books.
  88. Surkova, I. (2012). Towards a creativity framework. Society and Economy, 34(1), 115-138. https://doi.org/10.1556/SocEc.2011.0013
  89. Taylor, C. W., Smith, W. R. & Gheselin, B. (1975). The creative and other contributions of one sample of research scientists. In C. W. Taylor, & F. Barron (Eds.) Scientific creativity: Its recognition and development. Huntington, New York: R. E. Krieger. pp. 53-76.
  90. Torrance, E. P. (1966). The Torrance tests of creative thinking-norms-technical manual research edition-verbal tests, forms A and B-figural tests, forms A and B. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press.
  91. Torrance, E. P. (1974). The Torrance tests of creative thinking-norms-technical manual research edition-verbal tests, forms A and B-figural tests, forms A and B. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press.
  92. Torrance, E. P. (1975). Explorations in creative thinking in the early school years. In C. W. Taylor, & F. Barron (Eds.) Scientific creativity: Its recognition and development. Huntington, New York: R. E. Krieger. pp. 173-183.
  93. Torrance, E. P. (1998). The Torrance tests of creative thinking norms - Technical manual figural (streamlined) forms A & B. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc.
  94. Treffinger, D. J. (1996). Creativity, creative thinking, and critical thinking: In search of definitions. Sarasota, FL: Center for Creative Learning.
  95. Treffinger, D. J. (2009). Myth 5: Creativity is too difficult to measure. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 245-247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209346829
  96. Treffinger, D. J., Sortore, M. R. & Cross, J. A. (1993). Programs and strategies for nurturing creativity. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monk, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 555-567). New York: Pergamon.
  97. Treffinger, D. J., Young, G. C., Selby, E. C. & Shepardson, C. A. (2002). Assessing creativity: A guide for educators. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
  98. Walker, C. & Gleaves, A. (2008). An exploration of students' perceptions and understandings of creativity as an assessment criterion in undergraduate-level studies within higher education. Irish Educational Studies, 27(1), 41-54. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323310701837855
  99. Watson, J. D. (1968). The double helix: A personal account of the discovery of the structure of DNA. New York: Atheneum.
  100. Williams, F. E. (1970). Classroom ideas for encouraging thinking and feeling. Buffalo: DOK Publishers.

Cited by

  1. 초등과학영재학생의 자기주도성과 과학창의성의 관계 vol.36, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2017.36.4.379
  2. 뇌기반 진화적 접근법을 적용한 초등학생 수준별 자유탐구 안내자료 개발 및 효과 vol.37, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2018.37.3.233
  3. A Meta-analysis of the Effect in Brain-based Science Learning vol.46, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2018.46.3.355
  4. 초등과학영재학생의 과학창의성에 대한 자기 평가, 교사 평가, 객관적 평가의 비교 분석 vol.37, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2018.37.4.440
  5. 초등학생의 통합 창의성, 과학 유머 창의성, 과학 유머 만들기의 교육적 효과에 대한 인식의 관계 vol.38, pp.2, 2019, https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2019.38.2.191
  6. 초등과학영재학생의 자기 평가, 동료 평가의 비교 분석 vol.38, pp.4, 2019, https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2019.38.4.439
  7. 초등과학교육에서 인공지능의 적용방안 연구 vol.39, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2020.39.1.117
  8. 초등과학영재학생의 과학창의성과 다중지능의 관계 - 생명 영역을 중심으로 - vol.39, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2020.39.3.369
  9. 초등과학영재학생의 과학지식과 과학창의성의 관계 - 생명 영역을 중심으로 - vol.39, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2020.39.3.382
  10. 초등학생의 유머 감각과 창의성, 과학 유머 창의성, 과학 유머 만들기의 교육적 효과에 대한 인식의 관계 vol.39, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2020.39.4.465
  11. 식물원 야외체험학습에서 활용 가능한 과학 창의성 과제 개발 - 초등과학영재학생에의 적용 - vol.39, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2020.39.4.506