연구동향 분석
박사

중등 과학영재를 위한 안내된 프로젝트 학습 모형 개발 연구 : 과학기반융합 프로그램 적용 사례를 중심으로 = A study on the development of guided project-based learning model for scientifically gifted secondary students: focused on the application case of a convergence education program based on science

이지애 2015년

논문상세정보
인용/피인용
' 중등 과학영재를 위한 안내된 프로젝트 학습 모형 개발 연구 : 과학기반융합 프로그램 적용 사례를 중심으로 = A study on the development of guided project-based learning model for scientifically gifted secondary students: focused on the application case of a convergence education program based on science' 의 주제별 논문영향력
논문영향력 선정 방법
논문영향력 요약
주제
  • dbr
  • gifted education
  • gpbl
  • guided project-based learning model
  • project-based learning
  • scientifically gifted student
동일주제 총논문수 논문피인용 총횟수 주제별 논문영향력의 평균
193 0

0.0%

' 중등 과학영재를 위한 안내된 프로젝트 학습 모형 개발 연구 : 과학기반융합 프로그램 적용 사례를 중심으로 = A study on the development of guided project-based learning model for scientifically gifted secondary students: focused on the application case of a convergence education program based on science' 의 참고문헌

  • 프로젝트형 탐구학습을 통한 영재들의 과학하기
    박인호 조한국 한기순 영재교육연구, 11(3), 23-44 [2001]
  • 프로젝트 수행 활동을 통한 영재들의 창의성 신장에 대한 연구
    심규철 양희선 홍진구 영재교육연구, 18(1), 111-137 [2008]
  • 프로젝트 수업에서 교사의 역할. 행복한 교육 6월호, 51-53
    강인애 서울: 교육부 [2015]
  • 프로젝트 기반의 과제 수행을 통한 초등학생의 창의력 신장방안 모색
    소금현 심규철 육근철 국제과학영재학회지, 1(1), 61-69 [2007]
  • 초등학교에서 활용 가능한 과학 영재 판별 도구 개발
    이경숙 이화교육논총, 14, 119-134 [2004]
  • 초등학교 초임 교사를 위한 교수 체제 설계 모형의 개발 연구
    임철일 최소영 홍미영 교육공학연구, 26(4), 121-147 [2010]
  • 초등과학영재의 창의적 문제해결력 향상을 위한 융합인재교육(STEAM) 프로그램 개발
    강호감 김태훈 영재교육연구, 24(6), 1025-1038 [2014]
  • 초 중등 영재학급 및 영재교육원의융합인재교육 (STEAM) 적용 방안 연구. 연구보고 RR 2012-06
    강병직 서예원 이미경 이재분 정영옥 서울: 한국교육개발원 [2012]
  • 청장년시기(15세~45세) 과학기술인재 발달 및 육성 종합 전략 연구Ⅲ: 과학고등학교 및 영재학교의 STEAM교육 발전방안 연구. 연구보고 RR 2011-11
    강병직 서예원 오진호 이미경 이재분 서울: 한국교육개발원 [2011]
  • 첨단 과학기술을 고등학교 수업에 도입하기 위한 수업 모형 및 자료의 개발과 적용
    김영민 김재권 이승우 이지애 교사교육연구, 52(1), 158-170 [2013]
  • 창의적 인재 양성을 위한 중등학교 과학교육 시스템. 제 56차 한국과학교육학회 하계 학술대회 주제(Ⅱ) 발표 자료집
    박종원 광주: 조선대학교 [2009]
  • 창의성의 영역 한정성과 영역 보편성에 관한 분석과 탐구
    한기순 영재교육연구, 10(2), 47-69 [2000]
  • 질적 연구 방법론Ⅰ: Bricoleur
    김영천 서울: 아카데미프레스 [2012]
  • 중학교 과학영재 학생들의 자유탐구에 대한 인식과 실태
    홍지혜 홍훈기 영재교육연구, 23(3), 373-386 [2013]
  • 중등과학 영재교육의 방향. 창의적 지식 생산과 양성을 위한 영재교육. 연수교재 TM 2004-1-5 (pp. 125-134)
    정현철 서울: 한국교육개발원 [2002]
  • 중등 과학 영재학생들의 시스템 사고력 향상을 위한 융합인재교육 프로그램의 개발 및 적용
    박병열 이효녕 영재교육연구, 24(3), 421-444 [2014]
  • 정규 과학영재학교, 교육청 영재교육원, 일반 중 고등학교과학교사의 과학영재교육에 대한 인식 비교 연구
    김영민 황정훈 영재교육연구, 19(3),697-727 [2009]
  • 융합영재교육의 발전 과제와 연구 방향에 대한 논의
    맹희주 영재교육연구,23(6), 981-1001 [2013]
  • 우리나라 STEAM 교육의 방향
  • 영재의 자율연구능력 기초탐색연구. 수탁연구 CR 2004-43
    서혜애 신명경 정현철 조석희 서울: 한국교육개발원 [2004]
  • 영재와 평재간의 학업적 자기조절의 차이
    문병상 초등교육연구, 14(1),181-197 [2000]
  • 영재교육의 이론과 실제: 교사용 연수자료. CR96-28(CR)
    김명숙 김홍원 박경숙 윤지숙 조석희 서울: 한국교육개발원 [1996]
  • 영재교육과정이론-과학을 중심으로. 창의적 지식 생산과 양성을 위한 영재교육. 연수교재 TM 2004-1-1 (pp. 194-208)
    김영민 서울: 한국교육개발원 [2004]
  • 영재교육과정 개발연구 (Ⅱ): 고등학교 영재교육과정 시안 개발을 위한 기초 연구. 연구보고CR2000-14
  • 영재교육과정 개발과 과제
    이해명 영재와 영재교육, 1(1), 91-124 [2002]
  • 영국에서의 과학-기술-사회 교육의 태동과 발전과정(Ⅱ)-20세기 후반을 중심으로-
    송진웅 한국과학교육학회지, 20(1), 52-76 [2000]
  • 스마트러닝 기반 협력적 문제해결 수업모형 개발: 설계기반연구
    김현주 임정훈 교육공학연구, 30(4), 651-577 [2014]
  • 수질오염 바이오센서 개발을 통한 과학영재 사사교육의 모형과 적용에 관한 연구. 박사학위논문
    허정윤 경남대학교 대학원 [2004]
  • 수업 개선을 위한 현장연구방법으로서 설계기반연구(DBR)
    강정찬 이상수 교육방법연구, 23(2), 323-354 [2011]
  • 블렌디드 집단지성 수업모형 개발 -설계기반 연구를 활용하여. 교육학박사학위논문
    이유나 부산대학교 대학원 [2011]
  • 델파이 조사 방법을 이용한 물리 영재교육과정 구성
  • 국내 창의성 교육 연구 동향분석: 창의성의 범주 및 수준을 중심으로
    정지은 조연순 영재교육연구, 22(2). 333-352 [2012]
  • 국내 영재교육 프로그램의 현황과 과제
    한기순 영재와 영재교육, 5(1),109-129 [2006]
  • 구조화 정도가 다른 탐구 상황에서 과학영재들이 생성한 과학탐구문제 비교 분석
    류시경 박종석 한국과학교육학회지, 28(8), 860-869 [2008]
  • 교육청 영재 심화 교수-학습자료: 중등3학년 과학(교사용 지도서). 수탁연구 RM 2004-4-24
    김남균 김홍원 정현철 서울: 한국교육개발원 [2004]
  • 교육과정 탐구(증보판)
    이홍우 서울: 박영사 [1992]
  • 교수설계 이론과 모형
    임철일 서울: 교육과학사 [2012]
  • 과학탐구의 “실행” 능력 탐색하기: 과학영재학생사례 중심으로
    박영신 이기영 정현철 한국지구과학회지, 32(2), 225-238 [2011]
  • 과학탐구대회에서 나타난 중학생의 과학탐구능력에 대한분석 연구
    심규철 유진상 국제과학영재학회지, 1(2), 109-116 [2007]
  • 과학창의성 검사도구 개발과 과학 영재아의 뇌 기능 분석. 교육학박사학위논문
    박경희 한국교원대학교 대학원 [2004]
  • 과학적 창의성과 과학영재교육의 방향
    서혜애 영재교육연구, 14(1), 65-89 [2004]
  • 과학적 창의성 모델의 제안-인지적 측면을 중심으로-.
    박종원 한국과학교육학회지, 24(2), 375-386 [2004]
  • 과학적 연구 기반 과학영재 사사교육 프로그램 개발
    길지현 박경애 심규철 국제과학영재학회지, 3(1), 9-19 [2009]
  • 과학예술영재학교 교육과정 총론 개발 연구. 수탁연구 CR 2014-41
    김영민 김주아 이미경 서울: 한국교육개발원 [2014]
  • 과학영재학교 창의 융합교과 ‘물상과학과 융합’ 교수학습자료. 교수학습자료 TL 2014-24
  • 과학영재학교 자율탐구활동(R&E) 프로그램에 대한 학생의 인식 분석
    박경희 최호성 학습자중심교과교육연구, 15(2), 409-431 [2015]
  • 과학영재의 자율연구능력에 영향을 미치는 교수전략 탐색및 교수 학습모형 개발 연구. 수탁연구 CR 2005-37
    윤초희 정현철 서울: 한국교육개발원 [2005]
  • 과학영재와 일반학생의 과학 학습에의 접근 방법의 차이와 관계 구조 분석. 제63차 한국과학교육학회 하계학술대회 발표자료집
  • 과학영재성의 지속적 계발을 위한 교수 학습 프로그램 개발 방향
    Robert E Yager 임길선 한국일본교육학연구, 11(2), 1-20 [2007]
  • 과학영재들의 사고양식과 자기조절학습능력 및 과학탐구능력간의 관계 분석
    김영민 박수경 이지애 영재교육연구, 21(3), 773-796 [2011]
  • 과학영재들의 문제발견 활동 분석 및 문제발견과 문제해결과의 관계. 교육학박사학위논문
    류시경 경북대학교 대학원 [2009]
  • 과학영재교육의 이론적 기저. 영재교육에 관한 학술세미나
    한종하 서울:한국교육개발원 [1983]
  • 과학영재교육원 생물반 중학생들의 특성: 자기조절학습능력에 따른 개인적 성향 및 학습선호도
    서혜애 영재교육연구, 19(3), 457-476 [2009]
  • 과학영재교육원 사사교육을 위한 모형 개발
    김범기 윤기상 과학교육연구지, 35(1), 45-58 [2011]
  • 과학영재교육에 대한 초 중등 교사의 인식 조사
    백성혜 원정애 교원교육,23(2), 195-208 [2007]
  • 과학영재 집단의 영재성 요인 타당화 연구
    김언주 심재영 교육심리연구,17(1), 241-255 [2004]
  • 과학교육내용표준 개발연구. 연구보고 2010
  • 과학교사에 의해 조성되는 심리적 학습환경이 학생들의 정의적 인식 및 인지적 학습에 미치는 영향. 교육학박사학위논문
    이재천 한국교원대학교 대학원 [1998]
  • 과학고 및 영재고 Research and Education (R&E) 수행과정 및 운영환경 분석: 지도자와 학생의 인식 차이를 중심으로
    류춘렬 정현철 채유정 한국과학교육학회지, 32(7). 1139-1156 [2012]
  • 과학 학습 배경의 성차 분석에 근거한 여학생 친화적 과학 수업 전략 개발. 교육학박사학위논문
    신영준 한국교원대학교 대학원 [2000]
  • 과학 창의성 계발을 위한 프로그램 개발 - 이론과 예시를 중심으로 -
    한기순,김병노,최승언,정현철 한국지구과학회지, 23(4), 334-348 [2002]
  • 과학 영재아의 창의적 과제 수행과정에서의 특성 분석
    박종원 지경준 한국과학교육학회지, 30(6), 770-784 [2010]
  • 과학 영재 판별 도구 개발연구(Ⅰ): 기초 연구편. CR 96-27
    김주훈 송상헌 이은미 최고운 서울: 한국교육개발원 [1996]
  • 과학 분야 사사 프로그램에 대한 학생 및 교수들의 인식조사
    임희준 영재교육연구, 14(1), 29-46 [2004]
  • 과제 수행형 과학적 창의성 평가도구(TATSC) 개발과 과학영재교육대상자 선발에 적용 방안. 교육학박사학위논문
    이경학 전남대학교 대학원 [2011]
  • 고등학교 과학영재를 위한 사사 연구(R&E) 프로젝트 학습 모형의개발과 적용. 교육학박사학위논문
    이선길 이화여자대학교 대학원 [2006]
  • Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Yager, R. E., Brunkhorst, H. (Eds.) (2014). Exemplary STEM Programs: Designs for Success. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
  • Yager, R. E. (2012). Issues regarding use of “Inquiry” vs. “Practices” for the Next Gen eration Science Standards (NGSS) [Online]. Retrieved from: http://nstacommun ities.org/blog/2012/06/29/issues-regarding-use-of-inquiry-vs-practices-for-thenext- generation-science-standards-ngss/
  • Wolk, S. (1994). Project-based learning: Pursuits with a purpose. Educational Leadership, 52(3), 42-45.
  • Witty, P. A., & Jenkins, M. D. (1935). The case of ‘B’—a gifted Negro girl. Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 117-124.
  • Witty, P. A. (1958). Who are the gifted? In N.B. Henry (Ed.), Education of the gifted. The 57th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Part II, pp. 41-63). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Witty, P. A. (1930). A study of one hundred gifted children. University of Kansas Bulletin of Education, 2(8), 3-44.
  • Winner, E. & Martino, G. (2000). Giftedness in nonacademic domains: the case of the visual arts and music. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M nks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnic (Eds.), International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent (2nd ed., pp. 95-110). Oxford: Pergamon.
  • Wilson, L. O. (2015). Models of Teaching: Exactly what are teaching models and why are they so important to the quality of instruction? [Online]. Retrieved from: http://thesecondprinciple.com/teaching-essentials/models-teaching/
  • Wilson, B. G., & Myers, K. M. (2000). Situated Cognition in Theoretical and Practical Context. In D. Jonassen, & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments (pp. 57–88). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Weisberg, R. W. (2006). Creativity: Understanding innovation in problem solving, science, invention, and the arts. NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Weisberg, R. W. (1988). Problem solving and creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary Psychological Perspectives (pp. 148-176). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Weinstein, C. E. (1994). Strategic learning/strategic teaching: flip sides of a coin. In P. R. Pintrich, D. R. Brown, & C. E. Weinstein (Eds.), Student Motivation, Cognition, and Learning: Essays in Honor of Wilbert J. McKeachie (pp. 257-273). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational technology research and development, 53(4), 5-23.
  • Voigt, C. & Swatman, P. M. (2006). Learning through Interaction: improving practice with design-based research. International Journal of Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 3(3), 207-224.
  • VanTassel-Baska, J. (2005). Domain-specific giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 358-376). NY: Cambridge University Press.
  • VanTassel-Baska, J. (1986). Effective curriculum and instructional models for talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 164-169.
  • Urban, K. K. (1995). Creativity: A Component Approach Model. Paper presented at the 11th World Conference on the Gifted and Talented. July 29-Aug. 4, Hong Kong.
  • Urban, K. K. (1991). On the development of creativity in children. Creativity Research Journal, 4(2), 177-191.
  • UNESCO (2014). Global citizenship education: preparing learners for the challenges of the 21st century. Paris: UNESCO Publication.
  • Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Treffinger, D. (1986). Fostering effective, independent learning through individualized programming. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 429-460). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
  • Treffinger, D. (1975). Teaching for self directed learning: A priority for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly , 19(1), 46-59.
  • Torrance, E. P. (1995). Why fly: A philosophy of creativity. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
  • Torrance, E. P. (1977). Discovery and Nurturance of Giftedness in the Culturally Different. Council for Exceptional Children, Reston, VA.
  • Torp. L., & Sage, S. (1998). Problem as possibilities: Problem-based learning for K-12 education. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. Paper prepared for The Autodesk Foundation. San Rafael, CA.
  • Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius: Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. CA: Stanford University Press.
  • Terman, L. M. (1916). The measurement of intelligence: An explanation of and a complete guide for the use of the Stanford revision and extension of the Binet-Simon intelligence scale. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  • Taylor, C. W., & Barron, F. (Eds.) (1963). Scientific creativity: Its recognition and development. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Tannenbaum, A. J. (2000). A history of giftedness in school and society. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M nks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 23-53). Oxford: Pergamon.
  • Tannenbaum, A. J. (1993). History of giftedness and “gifted education” in world perspective. In K.A. Heller, F.J. M nks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 3-27). Oxford: Pergamon Pres.
  • Tannenbaum, A. J. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives. NY: Macmillan.
  • Tannenbaum, A. J. (1958). History of interest in the gifted. In N.B. Henry (Ed.), Education for the gifted. The fifty-seventh yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 21-38). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Sternberg, R. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Pretz, J. E. (2002). The creativity conundrum: A propulsion model of kinds of creative contributions. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
  • Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity. American Psychologist, 51(7), 677-688.
  • Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1993). Creative giftedness: A multivariate investment Approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(1), pp. 7-15.
  • Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity, synthesized. NY: Cambridge University Press.
  • Sternberg, R. J. (1988). A three-facet model of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspective (pp. 125-147). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Stepien, W., & Gallagher, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: As authentic as it gets. Educational Leadership, 50(7), 25–28.
  • Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Simonton, D. K. (2004). Psychology’s status as a scientific discipline: Its empirical placement within an implicit hierarchy of the sciences. Review of General Psychology, 8, 59–67
  • Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity in Science: Chance, Logic, Genius, and Zeitgeist. Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Simonton, D. K. (1990). History, chemistry, psychology, and genius: An intellectual autobiographyof historiometry. In M. A. Runco & R. S. Albert (Eds.), Theories of creativity (pp. 92–115). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Simonton, D. K. (1988). Scientific genius: A Psychology of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Silverman, L. K. (1993). Counseling the gifted and talented. Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
  • Shim, K. C., & Kim, Y. S. (2005). Science gifted learning program: Research & education model. Journal of Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 25(6), 635-641.
  • Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Explaining Creativity: The science of human innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shavinina (Eds.), International Handbook on Giftedness (pp. 853-872), Quebec: Springer.
  • STEAM 교육의 구성 요소와 수업 설계를 위한 준거 틀의 개발
  • Runco, M. A. (2003). Education for creative potential. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47, 317–324.
  • Runco, M. A. (1987). The generality of creative performance in gifted andnongifted children. Gifted child Quarterly, 31, 121-125.
  • Rubio, D. M., Berg-Weger, M., Tebb, S. S., Lee, E. S., & Rauch, S. (2003). Objectifying content validity: Conducting a content validity study in social work research. Social Work Research, 27, 94-104.
  • Root-Bernstein, R. (2009). Multiple Giftedness in Adults: The Case of Polymaths. In L.V. Shavinina (Eds.), International Handbook on Giftedness (pp. 853-872), Quebec: Springer.
  • Rogers, M. A. P., Cross, D. I., Gresalfi, M. S., Trauth-Nare, A. E., & Buck, G. A. (2011). First year implementation of a project-based learning approach: The need for addressing teachers’ orientations in the era of reform. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(4), 893-917.
  • Robinson, A., & Clinkenbeard, P. R. (2008). History of giftedness: Perspectives from the past presage modern scholarship. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children (pp. 13-31). Springer.
  • Rivet, A. E., & Krajcik, J. S. (2004). Achieving standards in urban systemic reform: An example of a sixth grade project-based science curriculum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(7), 669–692.
  • Rhodes, M. (1961). Analysis of Creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 305–310. Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2005). Developmental research methods: Creating knowledge from instructional design and development practice. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(2), 23-38.
  • Resnick, D. P., & Goodman, M. (1994). American culture and the gifted. In P. O. Ross (Ed.), National excellence: A case for developing American’s talent. An anthology of readings (pp. 109-121). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
  • Renzulli, J. S., Gentry, M., & Reis, S. M. (2003). Enrichment clusters: A practical plan for real-world, student driven learning. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
  • Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (2003). The schoolwide enrichment model: Developing creative and productive giftedness. In N. Colangelo, & G. A. Davis (Eds.) Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp.184-203). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Renzulli, J. S.(1978). “What Makes Giftedness? Reexamining a Definition”, Phi Delta Kappan 60, 180-184.
  • Reigeluth, C. M., & Frick, T. W. (1999). Formative research: A methodology for creating and improving design theories. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Reeves, T. C., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2002). Authentic activities and online learning. In A. Goody, J. Herrington, & M. Northcote (Eds.), Quality conversations: Research and Development in Higher Education, 25, 562-567.
  • Reeves, T. C. (2006). Design-based research from a technology perspective. In J. V. D. Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational Design-based Research (pp. 52-66). New York: Routledge.
  • Ravitz, J., Hixson, N., English, M., & Mergendoller, J. (2012). Using project based learning to teach 21st century skills: Findings from a statewide initiative. In American Educational Research Association Conference, Vancouver, Canada (Vol. 16). [Online]. Retrieved from: http://bie.org/images/uploads/ general/21c5f7ef7e7ee3b98172602b29d8cb6a.pdf
  • Ravitz, J. (2008). New tech high schools: Results of the National Survey of Project Base d Learning and High School Reform. CA: Buck Institute for Education. [Online]. Retrieved from: http://www.newtechnetwork.org/sites/default/files/news/new_t ech_bie_survey_results8-08.pdf
  • R&E 프로그램을 체험한 과학영재들의 사사교육 프로그램효과에 대한 인식
    김경대 심재영 한국과학교육학회지, 28(4), 282-290 [2008]
  • R&E 프로그램에 대한 과학영재고등학생들의 인식 연구
  • Plucker, J. A. (2004). Generalization of creativity across domains: Examination of the method effect hypothesis. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 38(1), 1-12.
  • Pintrich, P. R. (1995). Understanding self-regulated learning. In P.R. Pintrich (Ed.), Understanding self-regulated learning (pp. 3-12). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Perrenet, J. C., Bouhuijs, P. A. J., & Smits, J. G. M. M. (2000). The suitability of problem-based learning for engineering education: theory and practice. Teaching in higher education, 5(3), 345-358.
  • Passow, A. H. (1988). Reflections on three decades of education of the gifted. Gifted Education International, 5(2), 79-83.
  • Oakley, B., Felder, R. M., Brent, R., & Elhajj, I. (2004). Turning student groups into effective teams. Journal of Student Centered Learning, 2(1), 9-34.
  • OECD (2013). PISA 2015 Draft Science Framework. Paris: OECD. Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2009). Framework for 21st century learning. [Online]. Retrieved from: http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/P21_Framew ork_Definitions.pdf
  • OECD (2010c). Literacy in the Information Age: Final Report of the International Adult Literacy Survey. [Online]. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/ 9789264181762-en
  • OECD (2010b). Measuring Innovation: A New Perspective. [Online]. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264059474-en
  • OECD (2010a). The Nature of Learning: Using Research to Inspire Practice. [Online] Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264086487-3-en
  • Newmann, F. M., Marks, H. M., & Gamoran, A. (1996). Authentic pedagogy andstudent performance. American Journal of Education. 104(4), 280-312.
  • Newell, A., Shaw, J. C., & Simon, H. A. (1962). The process of creative thinking. In H. E. Gruber & M. Wertheimer (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to creative thinking (pp. 43-62). New York: Atherton Press.
  • Neo, M., & Neo, T. K. (2009). Engaging students in multimedia-mediated constructivist learning—Students’ perceptions. Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 254–66.
  • NIC (2008). Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World. National Intelligence Council, Washington.
  • NAGC (2010). 2010 Pre-K-Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards. Washington, DC. [Online]. Retrieved from: http://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/resources/ national-standards-gifted-and-talented-education/pre-k-grade-12
  • Moursund, D. G. (1999). Project-based learning using information technology. Eugene, OR: ISTE [Online]. Retrieved from: http://pages.uoregon.edu/moursund/ Books/PBL1999/
  • Moursund, D. G. (1998). Project-based learning in an information-technology environment. Learning and Leading with Technology, 25(8), 4.
  • Morgan, A. (1983). Theoretical aspects of project-based learning in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 14(1), 66-78.
  • Mergendoller, J. R., Markham, T., Ravitz, J., & Larmer, J. (2006). Pervasive management of project based learning: Teachers as guides and facilitators. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of Classroom Management: Research, Practice, and Contemporary Issues (pp. 583-615). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, Inc.
  • Maxwell, N. L., Mergendoller, J. R., & Bellisimo, Y. (2005). Problem-Based Learning and High School Macroeconomics: A Comparative Study of Instructional Methods. The Journal of Economic Education, 36(4), 315–329.
  • Maxwell, N. L., Mergendoller, J. R., & Bellisimo, Y. (2004). Developing a problem-based learning simulation: An economics unit on trade. Simulation & Gaming, 35(4), 488-498.
  • Matthews, K. A., Helmreich, R. L., Beane, W. E., & Lucker, G. W. (1980). Pattern A, achievement striving, and scientific merit: Does pattern a help or hinder? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 962–967.
  • Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P.C., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1997). Enacting project-based science: Challenges for practice and policy. Elementary School Journal, 97, 341-358
  • Markham, T., Larmer, J., Ravitiz, J. (2003). Project-based learning handbook. Novato, CA: Buck Institute for Education.
  • Maker, C. J., & Schiever, S. W. (2010). Curriculum development and teaching strategies for gifted learners (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
  • Maker, C. J., & Schiever, S. W. (2005). The role of teaching-learning models in curriculum development for the gifted. In J. Maker & S. W. Schiever (Eds.), Teaching models in the education of the gifted (3rd ed., pp. 1–26). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
  • Maker, C. J., & Nielson, A. B. (1995). Teaching models in education of the gifted (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
  • M nks, F. J. (1992). Development of gifted children: The issue of identification and programming. In F. J. M nks & W. A. M. Peters (Eds.), Talent for the future (pp. 191-202). Proceedings of the Ninth World Conference on Gifted and Talented Children. Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum.
  • Lubart, T. I. (1994). Creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed..), Thinking and Problem Solving (pp. 290-332). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Lubart, T. I. & Guignard, J-H. (2004). The generality specificity of creativity: a multivariate approach. In R. J. Sternberg, E. Grigorenko & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From Potential to Realization (pp. 43-56). Washington DC : APA.
  • Lee, M. H., Johanson, R. E., & Tsai, C. C. (2008). Exploring Taiwanese high school students’ conceptions of and approaches to learning science through a structural equation modeling analysis. Science Education, 92(2), 191-220.
  • Larkin, J. H., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., and Simon, H. A. (1980). Models of competence in solving physics problems. Cognitive Science, 4, 317-345.
  • Laffey, J., Tupper, T., Musser, D., & Wedman, J. (1998). A computer-mediated support system for project-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(1), 73-86.
  • Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 313-350.
  • Krajcik, J., Berger, C. F., & Czerniak, C. M. (2002). Teaching science in elementary and middle school classrooms: A project-based approach (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
  • Krajcik, J. S., & Czerniak, C. M. (2014). Teaching science in elementary and middle school: A project-based approach. New York: Routledge.
  • Kolodner, J. L. (2002). Integrating project-based initiatives into middle-grade science curriculum: Essentials and Challenges. Panel organizer, AERA, New Orleans, LA.
  • Kim, Y. M., Lee, J. A. (2014). Development and application of a Guided Project-based Learning Program of STEM Related to LED. Paper presented at STEM 2014 Conference, July 12-15. UBC Vancouver, Canada.
  • Kember, D., Biggs, J., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2004). Examining the multidimensionality of approaches to learning through the development of a revised version of the learning process questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 261-280.
  • Kaufman, S. B., & Sternberg, R. J. (2008). Conceptions of giftedness. In S. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psycho-educational theory, research, and best practices (pp. 71-91). Springer US.
  • Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyound big and little: The four C model of creativity. Review of general psychology, 13, 1-12.
  • Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2004). The Amusement Park Theoretical (APT) Model of creativity. Korean Journal of Thinking and Problem Solving, 14, 15-25.
  • Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2003). Do we really want to avoid Denny’s?: The perils of defying the crowd. High Ability Studies, 14, 149-150.
  • Kaufman, J. C. (2009). Creativity 101. New York: Springer.
  • Katz, L. G., & Chard, S. C. (1989). Engaging the minds of young children: The project approach. NJ: Ablex & Norwood.
  • Kasperson, C. J. (1978). Psychology of the scientist : XXXVII. Scientific creativity : A relationship with information channels. Psychological Reports, 42, p.691-694.
  • Karnes, F. A., & Bean, S. M. (Eds.). (2001). Methods and materials for teaching the gifted. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
  • Karnes, F. A. & Stephens, K. R. (2008). Achieving excellence: Educating the gifted and talented. Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
  • Joyce, B., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2008). Models of teaching (8th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Johnsen, S. K., & Johnson, K. (1986). Independent study program. Waco, TX. Purfrock Press.
  • Jenkins, M. D. (1963). A socio-psychological study of Negro children of superior intelligence. Journal of Negro Education, 5(2), 175-190.
  • Hu, W., & Adey, P. (2002). A scientific creativity test for secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 389-403.
  • Hoover, S. M., & Feldhusen, J. F., (1994). Scientific problem solving and problem finding: A theoretical model. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity (pp. 201-219). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
  • Hollingworth, L. S. (1942). Children above 180 IQ. Yonkers, NY: World Book Company.
  • Hollingworth, L. S. (1926). Gifted children: Their nature and nurture. NY: Macmillan.
  • Holbrook, J., & Kolodner, J. L. (2013). Scaffolding the development of an inquiry-based (science) classroom. In International Conference of the Learning Sciences: Facing the Challenges of Complex Real-world Settings (p. 221). Psychology Press.
  • Hoadley, C. M. (2004). Methodological alignment in design-based research. Educational psychologist, 39(4), 203-212.
  • Hmelo, C. E., Guzdial, M. & Tums, J. (1998). Computer support for collaborative learning: Learning to support student engagement. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 9 (2), 107-129.
  • Hertzog, B. (2007). Transporting pedagogy: Implementing the project approach in two first-grade classrooms. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18(4), 530-564.
  • Heppner, P. P., & Petersen, C. H. (1982). The development and implications of a personal problem solving inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29(1), 66-75.
  • Heppner, P. P., & Baker, C. E. (1997). Applications of the problem solving inventory. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling Development, 29(4), 229-241.
  • Helmreich, R. L., Spence, J. T., & Pred, R. S. (1988). Making it without losing it: Type A, achievement motivation, and scientific attainment revisited. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 14(3), 495–504.
  • Helm, J. & Katz, L. (2011). Young investigators: The project approach in the early years (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
  • Heller, K. A., Perleth, C & Lim, T. K (2005). The Munich Model of Giftedness designed to idenify and promote gifted students. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 147-170). NY: Cambridge University Press.
  • Heller, K. A. (2004). Identification of gifted and talented students. Psychology Science, 46(3), 302-323.
  • Heller, K. A. (2002). Identifying and nurturing the gifted in math, science and technology. In Proceedings of International Conference on Education for the Gifted in Science (pp. 51-90). Korean Society for the Gifted: Seoul.
  • Guilford,J.P.(1967).The nature ofhuman intelligence.New York :McGraw Hill.
  • Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444-454.
  • Gross, M. U. M. (2002). Exceptionally Gifted Children (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
  • Grinder, R. E. (1985). The gifted in our midst: By their divine deeds, neuroses, and mental test scores we have known them. In F.D. Horowitz & M. O’Brien (Eds.), The gifted and talented: Developmental perspectives (pp. 5-34). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  • Grant, M. M., & Hill, J. R. (2006). Weighing the risks with the rewards: Implementing student-centered pedagogy within high-stakes testing. In R. Lambert & C. McCarthy (Eds.), Understanding teacher stress in an age of accountability (pp. 19-42). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Press.
  • Grant, M. M., & Branch, R. M. (2005). Project-based learning in a middle school: Tracing abilities through the artifacts of learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(1), 65-98.
  • Grant, M. M. (2011). Learning, beliefs, and products: students’ perspectives with project-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 5(2), 6.
  • Gough, H. G. (1987). California psychological inventory: Administrators guide. Palo Alto, CA: consulting Psychologist Press.
  • Glaser, B. G., & Holton, J. (2004). Remodeling grounded theory. In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 5(2). [Online]. Retrieved f rom: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs040245
  • Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligence: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.
  • Gallagher, J. J. (1994). Current and historical thinking on education for gifted and talented students. In P. Ross (Ed.), National excellence: An anthology of readings (pp. 83-107). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED372584).
  • Gagn , F. (2005). From gifts to talents: The DMGT as a developmental model. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 98-120). NY: Cambridge University Press.
  • Gagn , F. (2003). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education, (3rd ed., pp. 60-74). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Fleming, D. S. (2000). A Teacher’s Guide to Project-Based Learning. Scarecrow Education, Attn: Sales Department, 15200 NBN Way, PO Box 191, Blue Ridge Summit, PA 17214.
  • Feldman, D. H. (2000). The development of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 169-189). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. University of South Florida.
  • Feldhusen, J. F. (1998). A conception of talent and talent development. In R. C. Friedman & K. B. Rogers (Eds.), Talent in context: Historical and social perspectives on giftedness (pp. 193-211). Washington, DC: APA.
  • Feldhusen, J. F. (1992). Talent identification and development in education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 123.
  • Feldhusen, J. F. (1986). A conceptions of giftedness. In K. A. Heller & J. F. Feldhusen (Ed.), Identifying and nurturing the gifted. An international perspective (pp. 33-39). Toronto: Hans Huber Publishers.
  • Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4), 290-309.
  • Fehring R. J. (1987). Methods to validate nursing diagnoses. Heart and Lung, 16, 625-629.
  • Eisenberg, M. B., & Berkowitz, R. E. (1990). Information Problem Solving: The Big Six Skills Approach to Library & Information Skills Instruction. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
  • Eisenberg, M. B. (2011). Develop and Deliver Essential Information Literacy Programs. Journal of the Korean Library and Information Science Society, 45(2), 5-21.
  • Eisenberg, M. B. (2010). Information literacy: Essential skills for the information age. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 28(2), 39-47.
  • Education of the Gifted and Talented (6th ed.). 이미순, 류지영, 이영주, 이현주, 채유정 공역 (2014). 영재교육, 제6 판
    Davis, G. A. Rimm, S. B. Siegle, D. 서울: 박학사 [2010]
  • Duschl, R. (1994). Research on the History and Philosophy of Science. In D. Gable (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Science Teaching (pp. 443-465). New York: Macmillian.
  • Duschl, R. & Hamilton, R. (2011). Learning Science. In R. Mayer & P. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Learning and Instruction (pp. 78-107). New York: Routledge Press.
  • Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organization and management. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 392-431). New York: Macmillan.
  • Diehl, W., Grobe, T., Lopez, H., & Cabral, C. (1999). Project-based learning: A strategy for teaching and learning. Boston, MA: Center for Youth Development and Education, Corporation for Business, Work, and Learning.
  • David, J. (2008). What Research Says About Project Based Learning. Educational Leadership, 65(5), 80-82.
  • Darling-Hammond, L., Baroon, B., , Pearson, P. D., Schoenfeld, A. H., Stage, E. K., Zimmerman, T. D., et al. (2008). Powerful learning: What we know about teaching for understanding. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • DBRC (2003). Design based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8.
  • Csikzentmihalyi, M. & Wolfe, R. (2000). New conceptions and research approaches to creativity: Implications of a systems perspective or creativity in education. In K.A. Heller, F.J. M nks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 81-93). Oxford: Pergamon.
  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313–335). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. HarperPerennial, New York.
  • Cropley, A. J. (1999). Creativity and cognition: Producing effective novelty. Roeper Review, 21, 253-261.
  • Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. 박현선, 이상균, 이채원 공역 (2013). 근거이론의 구성: 질 적 분석의 실천 지침
    Charmaz, K. 서울: 학지사 [2006]
  • Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design-based research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15-42.
  • Collins, A. M. (1992). Towards a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O’Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology (pp. 15-22). Berlin: Springer.
  • Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiment in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9-13.
  • Clark, A. (2006). Changing classroom practice to include the project approach. Early C hildhood Research & Practice, 8(2). [Online]. Retrieved from: http://ecrp.uiuc.e du/v8n2/clark.html
  • Clark, A. (2001). Growing up gifted: Developing the potential of children at home and at school (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Chard, S. (1998). The Project Approach: Book Two, Managing Successful Projects. NY: Scholastic Inc.
  • Chapman, C., & Freeman, L. (1996). Multiple intelligence: Centers and projects. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  • Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth, and action. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  • Burghardt, M. D., & Hacker, M. (2004). Informed design: A contemporary approach to design pedagogy as the core process in technology. Technology Teacher, 64(1), 6-8.
  • Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom setting. The Journal of the Learning Science, 2(2), 141-178.
  • Brewster, C., & Fager, J. (2000). Increasing student engagement and motivation: From time-on-task to homework. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
  • Bransford, J. D. Sherwood, R. S., Hasselbring, T. S., Kinzer, C. K. & Williams, S. M (1990). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 115-141). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Bransford, J. D, Brown, A. L, & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.) (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
  • Brandwein, P. F., & Passow, A. H. (1988). Gifted young in science: Potential through Performance. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
  • Brandwein, P. F. (1981). The gifted student as future scientist: The high school student and his commitment to science. LA: National/State Leadership Training Institute on the Gifted and Talented.
  • Botha, M. (2010). A project-based learning approach as a method of teaching entrepreneurship to a large group of undergraduate students in South Africa. Education as Change, 14 (2). 213-232.
  • Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational psychologist, 26(3-4), 369-398.
  • Biggs, J., Kember, D. & Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133– 149.
  • Biggs, J. (2001). Enhancing learning: A matter of style or approach? In R. J. Sternberg & L. F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspective on thinking, learning, and cognitive style (pp. 73-102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
  • Betts, G. T., & Knapp, J. (1981). The Autonomous Learner Model: A Secondary Model. In A. Arnold (Ed.), Secondary programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 29-36). Los Angles, CA: National/State-Leadership Training Institute for the Gifted and Talented.
  • Betts, G. T., & Kercher, J. K. (1999). Autonomous Learner Model: Optimizing Ability. Greeley, CO: ALPS.
  • Betts, G. (1991). The autonomous learner model for the gifted and talented. In N. Colangeo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 142-153). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1989). Intentional learning as a goal of instruction. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 361-392). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  • Bell, S. (2010). Project-Based Learning for the 21st Century: Skills for the Future. The Clearing House, 83, 39-43.
  • Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2014). Classroom contexts for creativity. High Ability Studies, 25(1), 53-69.
  • Barsalou, L. W. (1983). Ad hoc categories. Memory and Cognition, 11, p.211-227.
  • Barrows H. S. & Tamblyn R. M. (1980). Problem-Based Learning: An Approach to Medical Education. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
  • Barron, F. X. (1969). Creative person and creative process. New York: Hot, Rinehart & Winston.
  • Barron, B. J., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3-4), 271-311.
  • Barab, S. A., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-Based Research: Putting a Stake in the Ground. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1-14.
  • Bannan-Ritland, B. (2003). The role of design in research: The integrative learning design framework. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 21-24.
  • Baer, J. (1991). Generality of creativity across performance domains. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 23-39.
  • Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16-25.
  • Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M. & Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated Learning and Education, Educational Researcher, 25(4), 5-11.
  • Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154–1184.
  • Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
  • Amabile, T. M. (1983). The Social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 997-1013.
  • Adderley, K., Askurin, C., Bradbury, P., Freeman J., Goodlad, S., Greene, J., Jenkins, D., Rae, J., & Uren, O. (1975). Project methods in higher education. Working party on teaching methods: Techniques group. London: Society for Research into Higher Education, Guildford.
  • 2013년 융합인재교육(STEAM) 프로그램 개발 연구개발 계획서(미출판)
    김영민 부산: 부산대학교 [2013]