Journal of Gifted/Talented Education (영재교육연구)

The Korean Society for the Gifted (한국영재학회)
권호 표지

The Analysis of Teacher's Recommendation Usefulness in Selecting Scientific Gifted Students

영재교육 대상자 선발에서 교사 추천의 효용성 분석

  • Published : 2009.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to find out the usefulness of teachers' recommendation in selecting gifted students. For the study 87 teachers teaching 4th grade students from 20 elementary schools in the area of Incheon, 103 gifted students who were recommended by teacher, and 65 gifted students who were not recommended by teacher participated. To measure their cognitive ability, Raven intelligence test, creative problem solving test in science, and TTCT were used. In addition, learning methods, motives for achievement, faith in academic ability, problem solving tendency, and assignment preferences were assessed to find out their affective qualities. The results were as follows. First, the students who were recommended by teachers were highly advanced in both cognitive and affective aspects related to giftedness compared to non recommended students. Second, there were no significant differences both in the cognitive and affective aspects among the students recommended by teachers whether they passed the second step(test for giftedness) and the third step(test for academic aptitude) or not. Third, the discriminant analysis showed $70{\sim}80$ percent accuracy on teacher recommendation in identifying gifted students. The implication of the study related to teacher recommendation and future direction on identification of gifted students were discussed in depth.

이 연구는 영재교육 대상자 선발에서 교사 추천의 효용성을 알아보기 위해 추천 학생과 미추천 학생이 영재로 선발된 정도와 인지적 정의적 영재 관련 특성은 어떠한 차이가 있는 지를 분석하였다. 인천광역시 관내 20개 초등학교의 6학년 지도 교사 87명과 위 학교의 6학년 중 추천 학생 103명과 미추천 학생 65명을 연구대상으로 하였다. 연구대상 학생의 지능, 과학 창의적 문제해결력, 창의성, 학습방법, 성취동기, 학업능력에 대한 신념, 문제해결 성향 및 과제선호도를 조사하여 분석한 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 교사의 추천 유무에 따라 학생의 영재 관련 특성은 유의미한 차이가 있었으며, 둘째, 영재 선발 2단계(영재성 검사)와 3단계(학문적성 검사)를 통과한 학생과 탈락한 학생의 영재 관련 특성은 유의미한 차이가 없었다. 셋째, 교사 추천은 영재 선발에서 $70{\sim}80%$의 판별 적중률이 있는 것으로 나타났다.

Keywords

References

  1. 박춘성, 김동일 (2007). 학교기반 영재판별파 연구기반 영재판별에 대한 실증적 분석, 열린교육연구, 5(1), 47-67.
  2. 안성연 (1997). 영재의 단일판별 대 복합판별 과정의 비교 연구. 숙명여자대학교 석사학위 논문
  3. 이재신 (1999). 학교 수준별 및 영재 유형별 영재 판별체제의 적절성 평가 연구. 충북교육학연구, 제2권 1호
  4. 천명남 (2004). 높은 학업성취 대학생의 학습전략과 수행 분석. 요육심리연구, 17(4)
  5. 조석회, 안도회, 한석설 (2003). 영재성의 발굴 및 계발에 영향융 미치는 요인 분석연구. 한국교육개발원, 수탁연구 CR 2003-28
  6. 최인수, 이현주, 이화선 (2005). 아동의 창의성과 성격 및 지능간의 관계: 창의성검 사, Holland검사, Raven 검사를 중성으로. 교육심리연구, 19(1)
  7. Ames, C. A. (1990). Motìvatìon: What teachers need to know. Teachers College Record,91(3), 409-421
  8. Barbe, W. B, & Renzulli, J. S. (1975). Psychology and education of the gifted. N. Y.Irvington Publishers
  9. Baum, S. (1994).The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 3(5), 6-16
  10. Bor1and, J. H. (2003). The death of Giftedness: Gifted education without gifted chi1d. InBoland(ED). Rethinking Gifted education. N. Y. Teachers College Press
  11. Clark, B. (2002). Growing Up Gifted. NJ. Pearson Education Inc
  12. Martinson, R. A. (1974). The identification of the gifted and talented. Ventura. CA: Office of the Ventura County Superintendent of School
  13. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Slate, J., & Schwartz, R. A. (2001). The role of study skills ingraduatelevel educational research courses. Journal of Educational Research, 94, 238-246 https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670109598757
  14. Pintrich, P. R, Smith, D. A. F, Garcia, T & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliabilityandpredictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire(MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(3)
  15. Renzulli, J. S. & Reis, S. M. (1986). The enrichment triad/revolving door model Aschool wide plan for the developmnet of creative productivity. In Renzulli, JS.(Ed). System And Models For Developing Programs For The G띠d AndTalented. Creative Learning Press
  16. Sanborn, M. P. (1977). A statewide program in the discovery and Guidance of giftedstudents. In J. C. Stanley (ED.), Educational program and intellectual prodigies.Batimore, Maryland The Johns Hopkins University Press
  17. Schunk, D. H. (1984). Self-efficacy perspective on achievement behavior. EducationalPsychologist, 19(1), 48-58
  18. Si1verman, L, K. (1993). The gifted individual. In L, K. Silverman(Ed), Counseling theG띠d and Talented. Cilirado: :ove Publishing Company. 3-28
  19. Tannenbaum, A. J. (1983). Gifted children Psychological and educational perspectives. N.Y. Macmillan