8/11/2019 00021 TaeYeon Kim-ByungSoon Choi
1/8
Proceeding of the 2nd
NICE Symposium July 30-31, 2007, Taipei, TAIWAN
Relationship between verbal interactions and the cognitive and affectivecharacteristics of high school students
in small group creative scientific activities
Tae-Yeon Kim Byung-Soon Choi
Korea National University of Education, Chungju, Rep. of [email protected]
AbstractThe purposes of this study were to analyze the characteristics of verbal interactions
during the creative scientific group activities and to find out the relationships between
the verbal interactions and the cognitive and affective characteristics of the students.
Samples of discourses were collected from 16 11th grade students in four groups
throughout 10 creative activities on drawing science concepts underlying various
phenomena and designing simple experiments using those science concepts. Results
of the study and implications were discussed.
IntroductionBecause small group activities are central in inquiry oriented science classrooms,
it is important to understand what limits and promotes students' learning in group
activities. In relation to science learning, it is now accepted that scientific theories
and explanations cannot be discovered through personal interaction with phenomena,
and talk with both peers and teachers is at the center of children's conceptual
understanding(Driver, 1989; Sutton, 1992; Alexopoulou & Driver, 1996).
One dimension of the dynamics of science learning in the classrooms that social
constructivist focused is student's role in group activities(Alexopoulou & Driver,
1996; Richmond & Striley 1996; Hogan, 1999). Teachers who use traditionalcooperative learning model often assign prosocial and managerial roles to students
such as encourager, praiser, recorder and materials monitor(Kagan, 1992) to promote
positive interactions and efficient task completion. Researchers who have developed
more cognitive-oriented approaches to peer collaboration assign roles that promote
group reasoning such as regulator, reflector, generator, questioner, explainer and
elaborator(King, 1994; Webb et al. 1995; Hogan, 1999).
But the roles that emerge naturally in groups working together are not always so
productive. For instance, the student who emerges as the leader of a science group
can have profound influence on whether other group member are included in or
alienated from participating in tasks(Kurth et al. 1994; Richmond & Striley 1996).
Individual differences among group members might influence the roles they played ingroup activities. Hogan suggested that the resources each person brings to the group
such as prior science knowledge and experiences, cognitive and sociocognitive skills
should be explored further to refine our understanding of both the roles students play
and the quality of the work they produce in academic groups.
In this study we examined groups of 11th grade students engaged in creative
scientific activities and analyzed their verbal interactions during the group activities.
We also sought to understand how individual differences among students in cognitive
and affective aspects might influence the roles they played in their groups.
8/11/2019 00021 TaeYeon Kim-ByungSoon Choi
2/8
Proceeding of the 2nd
NICE Symposium July 30-31, 2007, Taipei, TAIWAN
Method
SubjectsThe subjects engaged in this study were 16 female students participated in
extracurricular science activities voluntarily at Busan Girls' High School, Busan,
Korea. Students were assigned to four groups so that the groups were heterogeneouswith respect to students' cognitive level and personality. Cognitive level of the
students was measured by SRTIII developed by Shayer and Adey based on the
growth of logical thinking from adolescent to adulthood by Piaget. Personality of the
students was measured by Standard NEO Personality Test which measures five
personal traits of extroversion, openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness,
neuroticism. TTCT was also administered to measure the level of creativity of the
students.
ProcedureThe study was carried out as follows.
Review of the literature
Research design
Administration of SRTIII and Personality test
Development of creative scientific activities(CSA)
Intervention of CSA
Classroom observation and recording of group discourse
Analysis of group discourse
Results and conclusions
Figure 1. Procedures of the study
Creative Scientific Activity(CSA)Ten CSAs were developed using SCAMPER strategy to foster divergent thinking
of the students. CSA was implemented to the students as an extracurricular activityfor two class hours a week. Each CSA is consisted of two parts. In part one simple
experiment related to the properties of gas is shown and ask the students to think
about the science concept which explains the phenomena shown. Meaningful verbal
interactions were emphasized in the process of drawing out science concepts
underlying the phenomenon. In part two students are encouraged to design a variety
of experiments based on the concept or principle they drew. In the process of
designing new experiment students are asked to use various strategies to think
creatively such as brainstorming, brainwriting, braindrawing, SCAMPER.
8/11/2019 00021 TaeYeon Kim-ByungSoon Choi
3/8
Proceeding of the 2nd
NICE Symposium July 30-31, 2007, Taipei, TAIWAN
Findings
1. Cognitive and affective characteristics of the students
Cognitive characteristics of the students are shown in table 1. This table indicatesthat creativity of the students in group D is higher than that in any other groups even
though the cognitive level of the students tended to be distributed evenly in each
group.
Table 1. Cognitive level and creativity test scores of the subjects
CreativityStudents in each group
Fluency Flexibility Originality
Cognitive
level
Keumhee 38 52 60 3B
Eujin 24 35 51 3B
Eunsil 28 60 48 2B/3AGroup A
Aeri 43 62 59 2B/3A
Miran 75 92 85 3B
Eunhwa 38 35 43 3B
Sungsil 16 30 29 2B/3AGroup B
Jimin 64 70 78 3B
Jaehee 17 19 43 2B/3A
Soree 39 52 57 3B
Sunjung 19 17 36 2B/3AGroup C
Miyoung 49 62 64 3B
Sunhee 64 75 83 3A
Sojung 55 73 75 3BSoonmi 58 62 71 3B
Group D
Chorong 38 41 62 3A
Table 2 shows personality traits of the students in each group. It is not easy to find
any regularity among cognitive level, creativity, and personality scores of the
students. However, we sought to find that the students who got higher scores in
creativity test got also high scores in openness trait of personality test.
8/11/2019 00021 TaeYeon Kim-ByungSoon Choi
4/8
Proceeding of the 2nd
NICE Symposium July 30-31, 2007, Taipei, TAIWAN
Table 2. T-scores on personality traits of the subjects
NEO personality test scores(T-score)
Group Studentsextro
-versionopen
-ness
agreeable-
ness
conscien
-tiousness
Neuro
-ticism
Keumhee 40# 42# 60* 50 46
Eujin 62* 56* 50 60* 50
A Eunsil 66* 69* 53 65* 27#
Aeri 49 48 57* 52 39#
Miran 54 60* 54 57* 47
Eunhwa 55* 63* 64* 58* 50
B Sungsil 37# 50 39# 44# 52
Jimin 61* 55* 43# 55* 63*
Jaehee 52 61* 56* 58* 64*
Sori 44# 58* 50 72* 49
C Sunjung 43# 49 51 55* 45#
Miyoung 48 77* 50 73* 58*
Sunhee 41# 72* 43# 53 57*
Sojung 57* 58* 63* 54 43#
D Soonmi 41# 49 45# 39# 62*
Chorong 62* 56* 47 58* 32#
*High level of traits #Low level of traits
2. Characteristics of verbal interactions in each group
In general verbal interactions of cognitive aspect predominate over those of
affective aspect. And the frequencies of interactions varied very much from group to
group. The frequencies of interactions in group A were almost doubled those in group
C. Not only total frequency of interactions in group C is lowest, but also the
percentages of interactions unrelated to the tasks of group C were higher than those of
any other groups(Table 3).
8/11/2019 00021 TaeYeon Kim-ByungSoon Choi
5/8
Proceeding of the 2nd
NICE Symposium July 30-31, 2007, Taipei, TAIWAN
Table 3. Average frequency of verbal interactions by group
Interactions related to the tasks(%)Group
Cognitive aspect Affective aspect
Interactions unrelated
to the tasks(%)Total
A 387.3(68.2) 93.3(16.2) 96.0(16.6) 576.7
B 239.0(74.2) 33.0(10.3) 50.0(15.5) 322.0
C 186.7(61.5) 41.0(13.5) 76.0(25.0) 303.7
D 250.3(69.3) 61.0(16.9) 50.0(13.8) 361.3
Verbal interactions of the students in group A were most active among four
groups. Especially suggesting and receiving opinions appeared to be active. It was
observed that the atmosphere of discourse among the members of the group A was
very pleasurable and friendly. We think that is one of the reasons most of the group
members actively participated in talks within the group. It is also supported through
the fact Eunjin and Eunsil got high scores in both extroversion and openness and
Keumhee and Aeri got high scores in agreeableness while they all got low scores in
neuroticism. However we cannot observe any student who plays the role as a
leader.
Miran got highest scores in creativity test and played as a leader in group B.
Eunhwa played as a partner of Miran in the process of leading the group activities.
She got high scores in most sub-traits of personality test except neuroticism even
though she got low scores in creativity test. The other two members of the group are
also so cooperative in solving the task together that the members of group B have
solved the problem effectively.
Characteristics of verbal interactions of group C are both least frequency and low
level of interactions shown in group activities. One of the reasons seemed to be thefact that each member of the group C tried to solve the task individually. They are so
inactive and passive in communicating their opinions in the group. And they are so
sensitive to the recording of their activity. Nobody plays the role as a leader. Both
Miyoung and Sori got high scores in openness and conscientiousness of personality
test and creativity test, but got low scores in extroversion. And they didn't play the
role of leader.
Group D shows the good example that group interactions do highly depend on
the role of the leader. Sojung in group D plays as a leader. She got high scores in
both personality test and creativity test. She was so humorous and sociable that she
made the peers feel free during the group activities. Soonmi was greatly influenced
by Sojung. Soonmi got high scores in both SRT and creativity test, but got very lowscores in personality test. She was so passive and didn't participate actively in the
activity at first. However she became active later. She seemed to overcome demerit
in her personality with the help of Sojung. The good partnership of Sunhee who got
high scores in creativity test played great role in maintaining active verbal
interactions of the group.
3. Relationship between verbal interactions and characteristics of the students
(1) Relationship between verbal interactions and cognitive level and the
level of creativity of the students
It was found that the cognitive level of the students is closely related to high levelverbal interactions such as expanded questions(Q3), elaborative explanation(R3) and
8/11/2019 00021 TaeYeon Kim-ByungSoon Choi
6/8
Proceeding of the 2nd
NICE Symposium July 30-31, 2007, Taipei, TAIWAN
elaborative suggestions(MS4). However, it was correlated negatively with low level
interactions such as simple questions(Q1) and simple response(R1)(table 4).
Table 4. Correlations between the type verbal interactions and cognitive level
of the students
Type ofinteractions
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 R1 R2 R3 MS1 MS2
MS3
MS4
RO1 RO2
RO3 RO4
Correlation
coefficient-.080 .097 .412 .140
-.25
0
.05
5.409 .086
.01
9
.18
6
.40
4.142
.21
0.185
.01
1
Relationship between the sub-traits of creativity of the students and verbal
interactions was very similar to the relationship of cognitive level of the students and
verbal interactions. As table 5 shows the correlation coefficients between the
sub-traits of creativity of the students and verbal interactions are so high in high level
interactions such as Q3, MS3 and MS4. But they are negatively correlated in low
level interactions such as Q1 and R1.
Table 5. Correlations between verbal interactions and sub-traits of creativity
of the students
inter-
actions
creativity
Q1 Q2
Q3 Q4 R1
R2
R3
MS1
MS2
MS3
MS4
RO1 RO2 RO3 RO4
Fluency -.30 -.02 .43 .16 -.49 .20 .10 .08 .19 .31 .41 -.06 -.06 .23 .15
Flexi
-bility -.30 .12 .46 .26 -.41 .33 .07 .13 .30 .48 .47 .02 .08 .29 .25Origi
-nality-.28 .16 .41 .23 -.33 .21 .05 .17 .24 .34 .41 .09 .06 .22 .09
The cognitive level of the students is not so correlated with verbal interactions in
creativity aspects except elaboration. Correlation coefficients between cognitive level
of the students and elaboration of creativity was 0.371. Correlation coefficients
between the sub-traits of creativity of the students and elaboration of creativity was
also appeared high compared with other sub-traits of creativity(table 6). Table 6
also indicates that flexibility shows relatively high correlation with the sub-traits of
creativity students show in the process of solving the creative tasks.
Table 6. Correlations between the sub-traits of creativity of the students
and the verbal interactions of creativity aspect
Inter
-actions
Creativity
Sensitivity Fluency Flexibility Originality Elaboration
Fluency -.019 -.268 .296 .171 .387
Flexibility .217 -.172 .441 .402 .465
Originality .002 -.234 .255 .278 .371
8/11/2019 00021 TaeYeon Kim-ByungSoon Choi
7/8
Proceeding of the 2nd
NICE Symposium July 30-31, 2007, Taipei, TAIWAN
(2) Relationship between verbal interactions and affective aspect of the students
It was found that verbal interactions of the students correlated strongly with
agreeableness and extroversion than any other traits of personality test. However
neuroticism was negatively correlated with the verbal interactions. It was
interesting to find out that the students who got high scores in conscientiousness in
personality test tended to show high frequency in low level of verbalinteractions(table 7).
Table 7. Correlations between the type of verbal interactions and the sub-traits of
personality test
Type of
Interactions
Extr
-versionOpenness
Agreeable
-ness
Conscien
-tiousness
Neuro
-ticism
Q1 -0.063 0.048 0.238 0.514(*) -0.105
Q2 0.384 -0.077 0.53(*) 0.228 -0.585(*)
Q3 0.281 -0.226 0.347 -0.158 -0.171
Q4 -0.168 -0.207 0.213 -0.224 -0.152
R1 0.146 0.049 0.122 0.229 -0.045
R2 0.507(*) 0.14 0.558(*) 0.111 -.504(*)
R3 0.315 -0.216 .630(**) -0.022 -0.193
MS1 0.402 0.305 -0.132 0.204 -0.395
MS2 0.259 -0.153 0.683(**) 0.003 -.596(*)
MS3 0.453 -0.066 0.596(*) -0.132 -.514(*)
MS4 0.455 -0.117 0.554(*) -0.103 -0.225
RO1 0.086 -0.042 0.491 0.379 -0.367
RO2 -0.187 -0.246 0.371 0.172 -0.125
RO3 0.497 0.048 0.054 0.047 -0.254
RO4 0.263 -0.064 0.52(*) 0.003 -0.388Total 0.447 -0.064 0.658(**) 0.088 -0.541(*)
* p
8/11/2019 00021 TaeYeon Kim-ByungSoon Choi
8/8
Proceeding of the 2nd
NICE Symposium July 30-31, 2007, Taipei, TAIWAN
considered in constructing the group. And the group leader should be assigned
carefully and be encouraged to maintain his/her role successfully.
ReferencesAlexopoulou, E. and Driver, R.(1996) Small group discussion in physics: peer
interaction modes in pairs and fours. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 33, 1099-1114.
Hogan, K. (1999) Sociocognitive roles in science group discourse.
International Journal of Science Education, 21(8), 855-882.
Kagan, S. (1992) Cooperative Learning (San Juan Capistrano, CA: Resources for
Teachers).
King, A. (1994) Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: effects of
teaching children how to question and how to explain. American
Educational Research Journal, 31, 338-368.
Richmond, G. and Striley, J.(1996) Making meaning in classroom: social
processes in small-group discourse and scientific knowledge building.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 839-858.
Webb, M., Troper, J. and Fall, R.(1995) Constructive activity and learning in
collaborative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87,
406-423.