Polite Girls and Creative Boys? Students' Gender Moderates Accuracy of Teachers' Ratings of Creativity

91 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Is creativity without intelligence possible? A Necessary Condition Analysis (2016, background): “…& Dilalla, 2009), object-based drawing (r = .28) (Lubart, Pacteau, Jacquet, & Caroff, 2010), creative activity in art (r = .19) and in science (r = .18) (Gralewski & Karwowski, 2013) 3 TCIA α = .91 Correlations with vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (rs between .31 and .42), Franck Drawing…”
Teachers’ Perceptions of Creativity in the Classroom (2018, background): “Teachers commonly describe creative students as imaginative (Runco, Johnson, & Raina, 2002; Sak, 2004), artistic (Chan & Chan, 1999), intellectual (Gralewski & Karwowski, 2013), independent or unique (Liu & Lin, 2014), and curious (Scott, 1999).”
How teachers perceive factors that influence creativity development: Applying a Social Cognitive Theory perspective (2018, background): “…perceptions of creative students, finding that teachers often conflate creativity with good behavior and/or intelligence (Chan & Chan, 1999; Gralewski & Karwowski, 2013; Westby & Dawson, 1995), and they may not recognize or appreciate original answers within classroom discussions…”
Creativity and Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analysis (2017, background): “Indeed, there is evidence that teachers sometimes hold negative views about student behaviors associated with creativity (Gralewski & Karwowski, 2013, 2016; Karwowski, 2007, 2010; Scott, 1999; Westby & Dawson, 1995).”