Thinking Skills and Creativity 31 (2019) 138–155

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thinking Skills and Creativity

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tsc

Teachers’ beliefs about creative students’ characteristics: A

T
qualitative study
Jacek Gralewski
Creative Education Lab, The Maria Grzegorzewska University, 40 Szczesliwicka St., 02-353 Warsaw, Poland

A R T IC LE I N F O ABS TRA CT

Keywords: The aim of the present study was to examine teachers’ beliefs about creative students’ char-
Creativity acteristics and the possible gender differences in this respect. The study took the form of in-depth
Teachers’ beliefs individual interviews conducted with 15 Polish secondary school teachers. We found that the
Teachers’ implicit theories of creativity interviewed teachers described a creative student mainly in terms of his or her personality traits
Creative students’ characteristics
relevant from the perspective of creativity, cognitive predisposition towards creativity, and
Gender differences in creative students’
characteristics
motivation. Moreover, a creative student was described in terms of characteristics relating to
artistic abilities, intelligence, and functioning at school. The interviewed teachers described a
creative boy differently than they described a creative girl. As opposed to a creative girl, a
creative boy was described as impulsive, independent, rule-breaking, courageous, willing to take
risks, capable of defending his opinion, self-confident, individualistic, spontaneous, go-getting,
and quickly getting down to action, whereas a creative girl was described mainly as diligent,
conscientious, systematic, persistent, calm, acting according to plan, consistent, and well-be-
haved, but also as submissive and conformist, obeying all kinds of rules and regulations, avoiding
risk, and acting according to instructions or a plan. The causes of these differences are discussed
in the context of creativity types and styles, gender stereotypes, and different educational ex-
pectations for students of different genders.

1. Introduction

In the 21st century, fostering students’ creativity in school settings is increasingly often one of the aims of educational activities in
a number of countries (Cachia, Ferrari, Ala-Mutka, & Punie, 2010; Craft, 2003; Heilmann & Korte, 2010; Newton & Beverton, 2012).
Creatrivity is perceived as a fundamental skill that should be developed at school (Cachia & Ferrari, 2010; Craft, 1999), and creativity
development is seen as an integral part of the learning process (Gajda, Karwowski, & Beghetto, 2017; Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009;
Runco, 2003). In educational settings, creativity is defined not so much in terms of achievements or products (Carson, Peterson, &
Higgins, 2005; Simonton, 1994) as in terms of the creative potential (Barbot, Besançon, & Lubart, 2015; Runco, 2003), understood as
the ability to generate new and, in some sense, valuable solutions to specific tasks and problems (Barbot et al., 2015; Gajda et al.,
2017; Runco & Jaeger, 2012). The creative potential is perceived as a conglomerate of cognitive and personality characteristics, such
as divergent thinking capacities, imagination, openness, curiosity, and independence (Karwowski, Gralewski, & Szumski, 2015), and
can be observed in every person (Henriksen & Mishra, 2015; Hong & Kang, 2010; Rubenstein, McCoach, & Siegle, 2013; Runco, 2003;
Turner, 2013).
Unfortunately, there is a “creativity gap” between social expectations concerning the promotion of students’ creativity and the
reality of classroom practice (Cachia & Ferrari, 2010; Cropley, 2010; Gralewski, 2016; Makel, 2009). Despite official declarations that

E-mail address: jacekgralewski@o2.pl.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.11.008
Received 30 May 2018; Received in revised form 22 November 2018; Accepted 24 November 2018
Available online 26 November 2018
1871-1871/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Gralewski Thinking Skills and Creativity 31 (2019) 138–155

they can see the possibilities of stimulating students’ creative potential in school settings (Aish, 2014; Aljughaiman & Mowrer-
Reynolds, 2005; Andiliou & Murphy, 2010; Cachia & Ferrari, 2010; Fleith, 2000; Gralewski, 2016; Kampylis, Berki, & Saariluoma,
2009; Maksić & Pavlović, 2011; Park, Lee, Oliver, & Cramond, 2006), in their educational practice teachers either rarely engage in
activities aimed at supporting students’ creative potential (Andiliou & Murphy, 2010; Beghetto, 2010; Gralewski, 2016) or do this in a
wrong way (Aish, 2014; Beghetto, 2010; Newton & Beverton, 2012). One of the causes of this situation is the fact that many teachers
do not feel they have the expertise necessary to support students’ creativity (Aish, 2014; Burnard & White, 2008; Cachia & Ferrari,
2010; Eckhoff, 2011; Hong & Kang, 2010; Rubenstein et al., 2013).
Inadequate knowledge and training (Cachia & Ferrari, 2010) may result in teachers relying on their implicit theories (Gralewski &
Karwowski, 2018), intuition (Fives & Gill, 2015), and myths (Plucker, Beghetto, & Dow, 2004; Sawyer, 2006) about creativity and
about the ways of supporting it in their everyday practice. Unfortunately, in many cases there is empirical evidence that implicit
knowledge about creativity, particularly the knowledge concerning creative students’ characteristics, is very often incomplete or even
contrary to what is shown by the results of research devoted to the functioning of creative individuals (Chan & Chan, 1999; Cheung,
Tse, & Tsang, 2003; Aljughaiman & Mowrer-Reynolds, 2005; Gralewski & Karwowski, 2018; Westby & Dawson, 1995). Faced with
this situation, in order to identify the conditions in which supporting students’ creativity is the most effective, we need first to
investigate and understand how creativity is conceptualized by their teachers (Aish, 2014). Therefore, the aim of the present paper is
to analyze teachers’ beliefs about creative students’ characteristics.
Moreover, bearing in mind the different social expectations with regard to women and men (Proudfoot, Kay, & Koval, 2015), I
decided to check if beliefs of this kind differ according to students’ gender. For this purpose, I conducted a study that was meant to
reveal how the interviewed teachers defined a creative boy and a creative girl. The analysis of teachers’ beliefs about the char-
acteristics of creative boys and creative girls may be of particular significance because, despite the absence of gender differences in
creative abilities, stable and high gender differences are observed in real-world creative accomplishment (Abra & Valentine-French,
1991; Baer & Kaufman, 2008; Helson, 1990; Reis, 1999; Simonton, 1994): it is men who achieve the highest levels in the majority of
fields. Perhaps, then, the causes of men’s advantage in real-word creative accomplishment at least partly lie in teachers’ different
beliefs about the characteristics of creative female and male students and in the correspondingly different educational practices.

1.1. Teachers’ beliefs about creativity

It is necessary to distinguish teachers’ beliefs from knowledge systems, understanding the former as idiosyncratic and personally
derived from experience as well as strongly dependent on the evaluative and affective components (Ashton, 2015). Teachers’ beliefs
are shaped and influenced by certain episodic events connected with their personal experiences and various kinds of generalized
cultural messages on a given subject (Nespor, 1987). It turns out, however, that despite their highly subjective nature teachers’ beliefs
very often seem to them to be more appropriate for coping with various kinds of teaching problems than research-based knowledge or
academic theory (Nespor, 1987). On this basis, it is assumed that teachers’ beliefs concerning creativity may be of considerable
significance for the process of supporting and developing the creativity of their students (Bereczki & Kárpáti, 2018; Gralewski &
Karwowski, 2013, 2018; Skiba, Tan, Sternberg, & Grigorenko, 2010).
In the study presented in this paper, I analyzed teachers’ beliefs about creative students’ characteristics, also referred to as
teachers’ implicit theories of creativity (Andiliou & Murphy, 2010; Gralewski & Karwowski, 2018; Pavlović, Maksić, & Bodroža,
2013). It is commonly assumed that teachers` implicit theories of creativity determine teachers’ understanding of creative students’
characteristics and serve them as standards for evaluating creative students’ behaviors, products, and traits (Chan & Chan, 1999;
Gralewski, 2016; Runco, 1984; Runco, Johnson, & Bear, 1993).

1.2. Teachers’ beliefs about creative students: teachers’ implicit theories of creativity

Analyses of the structure of teachers` implicit theories of creativity show that these beliefs usually relate to such characteristics of
creative students’ as cognitive functioning in the creative domain, personality traits, and motivation (Andiliou & Murphy, 2010;
Bereczki & Kárpáti, 2018). Moreover, when describing creative students, teachers mention their intelligence and characteristics
relating to their functioning at school, most of which can hardly be regarded as indicators of creativity. What is characteristic in
descriptions of a creative student is that teachers also relatively often mention traits relating to his or her amicable disposition, stating
that such a student is friendly (Runco et al., 1993), cheerful (Chan & Chan, 1999; Runco et al., 1993), easy-going (Runco et al., 1993),
affectionate (Runco et al., 1993), and talkative (Chan & Chan, 1999) – traits which can also hardly be considered components of
creativity.
As regards characteristics describing creative students’ cognitive predisposition for creativity, teachers usually mention general
attributes, saying that a creative student is innovative (Chan & Chan, 1999; Montgomery, Bull, & Baloche, 1993; Runco, 1984),
inventive (Gralewski & Karwowski, 2018; Runco, 1984; Runco et al., 1993), full of ideas (Chan & Chan, 1999; Hoff & Carlsson, 2011),
willing to express ideas or opinions (Chan & Chan, 1999; Montgomery et al., 1993; Runco et al., 1993), imaginative (Aish, 2014;
Aljughaiman & Mowrer-Reynolds, 2005; Chan & Chan, 1999; Montgomery et al., 1993; Runco, 1984; Runco et al., 1993; Stone,
2015), unique or original (Aish, 2014; Chan & Chan, 1999; Runco, 1984; Runco et al., 1993), or that he or she thinks differently
(Aljughaiman & Mowrer-Reynolds, 2005), thinks outside the box (Aish, 2014), and is a deep or critical thinker (Aish, 2014). What is
puzzling is that when describing a creative student teachers seldom refer directly to his or her creative abilities (Guilford, 1967),
stating that such a student is characterized by divergent thinking ability (Aish, 2014), flexibility (Aish, 2014; Chan & Chan, 1999;
Runco, 1984), independence in thinking (Aljughaiman & Mowrer-Reynolds, 2005), skill in problem finding (Montgomery et al.,

139
J. Gralewski Thinking Skills and Creativity 31 (2019) 138–155

1993), high tolerance of ambiguity (Montgomery et al., 1993), and highly developed elaboration (Aish, 2014).
When it comes to creative students’ personality traits, teachers usually point to curiosity or inquisitiveness (Aish, 2014;
Aljughaiman & Mowrer-Reynolds, 2005; Chan & Chan, 1999; Montgomery et al., 1993; Runco, 1984; Runco et al., 1993), broad
interests (Aish, 2014; Chan & Chan, 1999; Runco, 1984; Runco et al., 1993), openness to experience (Aish, 2014; Chan & Chan, 1999;
Montgomery et al., 1993; Stone, 2015), independence (Aish, 2014; Chan & Chan, 1999; Gralewski & Karwowski, 2018; Hoff &
Carlsson, 2011; Montgomery et al., 1993; Runco, 1984; Stone, 2015), nonconformism (Chan & Chan, 1999; Hoff & Carlsson, 2011;
Runco, 1984), confidence and assertiveness (Aish, 2014; Chan & Chan, 1999; Runco et al., 1993), willingness to engage in risky
actions (Aish, 2014; Aljughaiman & Mowrer-Reynolds, 2005; Chan & Chan, 1999; Runco et al., 1993; Stone, 2015), and individualism
(Westby & Dawson, 1995). They also mention that a creative student is artistic (Aish, 2014; Aljughaiman & Mowrer-Reynolds, 2005;
Chan & Chan, 1999; Runco, 1984; Runco et al., 1993) and good at designing (Runco, 1984). Descriptions of this kind rarely contain
expressions referring to negatively perceived characteristics of creative students, such as impulsive (Gralewski & Karwowski, 2018;
Hoff & Carlsson, 2011; Runco et al., 1993), arrogant (Chan & Chan, 1999), rebellious (Chan & Chan, 1999), indisciplined (Gralewski
& Karwowski, 2018), uninhibited (Runco, 1984), dominant (Chan & Chan, 1999), opinionated (Chan & Chan, 1999), or self-centered
(Chan & Chan, 1999; Runco, 1984).
What is particularly interesting, an extremely important characteristic of a creative student as seen by teachers is motivation. A
creative student is described as: ambitious (Runco et al., 1993), showing initiative (Chan & Chan, 1999), determined (Stone, 2015;
Westby & Dawson, 1995), persevering (Gralewski & Karwowski, 2018), diligent (Stone, 2015), enthusiastic (Runco et al., 1993),
active (Chan & Chan, 1999; Runco et al., 1993), and energetic (Chan & Chan, 1999; Runco et al., 1993).
Generally, numerous researchers investigating teachers’ beliefs about creativity point out that teachers describe creative students
mainly in terms of positive attributes (Andiliou & Murphy, 2010; Bereczki & Kárpáti, 2018), particularly those connected with their
intellect, broad interests, motivation, commitment, and positive temperament, which seem to be relevant from the point of view of
their functioning at school (Aish, 2014; Aljughaiman & Mowrer-Reynolds, 2005; Gralewski & Karwowski, 2013, 2018; Hoff &
Carlsson, 2011; Westby & Dawson, 1995).

1.3. Gender Bias in teachers’ beliefs about the characteristics of creative boys and girls

Despite researchers’ relatively high interest in teachers’ beliefs about creative students’ characteristics, of which there have
recently been three systematic reviews (Andiliou & Murphy, 2010; Bereczki & Kárpáti, 2018; Mullet, Willerson, Lamb, & Kettler,
2016), it has not been analyzed directly so far whether or not these beliefs differ depending on students’ gender. The only as-
sumptions concerning how teachers describe a creative boy and a creative girl can be formulated based on the results of research
devoted to the role of stereotypical models of masculinity and femininity including characteristics associated with creativity
(Bernard, 1979; Bianco, Harris, Garrison-Wade, & Leech, 2011; Gralewski & Karwowski, 2013, 2018; Proudfoot et al., 2015; Sadker &
Zittleman, 2004), which suggests that these descriptions may radically differ from each other.
Based on their analysis of the contents of textbooks used by American students, Sadker and Zittleman (2004) report that men are
usually presented in these textbooks as inventive, creative, inquisitive, achieving their goals, and courageous, while women are
presented in them as more dependent, obedient, submissive, and anxious. In general, these authors point out that men are presented
in roles of significance to the history of the world, whereas women are presented in roles that have much less influence on historical
reality. It turns out that the stereotypical contents of textbooks translate into teachers’ beliefs and attitudes in the light of which the
characteristics particularly valued and desirable in the case of boys are creative abilities, individualism, and independence, whereas
in the case of girls the desirable characteristics are diligence, perseverance, and commitment (Bernard, 1979; Bianco et al., 2011;
Lindley & Keithley, 1991). Lindley and Keithley (1991) even claim that teachers value individualism in boys as well as encourage
them to engage in experimentation and to be active, while expecting girls to be diligent, obedient, and helpful (Lindley & Keithley,
1991). Tobin and Garnett (1987) report that in the vast majority of cases it is boys that teachers entrust with carrying out various
kinds of scientific experiments, whereas what they expect from girls is submission, adherence to the rules, and diligent performance
of the assigned tasks. According to Bernard (1979), in school settings boys have more opportunities to develop self-reliance and
independence in thinking, whereas girls undergo a kind of training in perseverance, conformism, and submission to the teacher.
Girls are expected to show skill in nurturing interpersonal relationships, while boys are expected to show self-confidence and
individualism. According to Lindley and Keithley (1991), girls are systematically rewarded for their ability to cooperate, for com-
pleting tasks, and for appropriate behavior, as well as for conformism and agreement with others. There is a stereotype of a “well-
behaved girl,” who is reliable, systematic, and diligent, and at the same time disciplined, calm, humble, kind, and cheerful. Boys, by
contrast, are taught from their early years to engage in rivalry and accustomed to playing the role of leaders (Lindley & Keithley,
1991). Teachers expect higher levels of social competence from girls than from boys (Bianco et al., 2011), this competence in girls
being equated with conformism, submissiveness, and the ability to cooperate (Lindley & Keithley, 1991). For example, the study by
Bianco et al. (2011) revealed that boys exhibiting curiosity, independence, imagination, and ingenuity were perceived by teachers as
creative and seeking challenges, and that based on such traits they were readily nominated for gifted and talented programs, while
the same traits in girls were perceived by teachers as signs of social maladjustment, arrogance, overbearing nature, and immaturity,
which, according to teachers, disqualified them from participation in programs of this kind. Thus, the same characteristics were
perceived as positive and desirable in the case of boys, while in the case of girls they were seen as undesirable or even considered to
be deficits or signs of immaturity. Sandler, Silverberg, and Hall, (1996) go as far as claiming that boys’ words full of self-confidence
are accepted as manifestations of their inner strength, whereas in the case of girls they are perceived as arrogant and inappropriate.
Bernard (1979) argues that teachers expect male students to show intelligence, independence, and logic, while expecting female

140
J. Gralewski Thinking Skills and Creativity 31 (2019) 138–155

students to show kindness and care and to nurture relationships. This situation may lead to different models of male and female
creativity, with men being more often allowed to act firmly and aggressively while women are supposed to focus on building good
relations with other people (Reis, 2002) and on systematic work according to a plan established in advance.
Generally, as observed in a series of studies by Proudfoot et al. (2015), creativity is socially perceived as more strongly associated
with stereotypically masculine characteristics (including traits such as: decisive, competitive, self-reliant, willing to take risks, am-
bitious, daring, adventurous, courageous) than with stereotypically feminine characteristics (including traits such as: sensitive, co-
operative, understanding of others, helpful to others, sympathetic, nurturing, or warm in relations with others, and supportive).
According to their findings (Proudfoot et al., 2015), men are regarded as more creative than women even when they generate
identical products; men’s ideas are judged as more ingenious than women’s, and female executives are stereotyped as less innovative
than their male counterparts. It seems that the differences mentioned above may stem from different beliefs about the characteristics
of creative women and creative men, which in turn partly stem from the stereotyped perception of gender roles. It can therefore be
expected, based on the findings reported by Abele and Wojciszke (2007), that a creative boy will be perceived through the lens of a
masculinized orientation, focused on exerting independence and distinctiveness, while a creative girl will be perceived through the
lens of a feminized orientation, focused on maintaining social harmony and interconnectedness.

1.4. The polish context

The different perceptions of gender roles, as well as the related prototypal characteristics of women and men, are culture-
dependent. On this basis, Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov (2010) propose to analyze particular cultures in terms of masculinity and
femininity, among other dimensions. They understand masculinity as a feature of culture in those countries where masculine and
feminine roles are clearly defined and at the same time distinct. In communities of this kind, men are expected to be assertive, tough,
and success-oriented, whereas women are expected to be modest, tender, and caring of family bonds. Femininity, by contrast, is a
feature of culture in countries where the social roles of both genders interpenetrate. In the light of research, Poland is one of those
European countries that have the highest masculinity index (=64; Hofstede et al., 2010). According to these findings, the commonly
adopted model of role division in the family in Poland is one according to which a woman’s main duty is to take care of children and
run the household, while a man’s domain is occupational career (Arcimowicz, 2016). Among other things, this division of duties
favors the dominance of men and the submissiveness of women.
There are signs suggesting that the cultural determinants discussed above result in a certain inequality in the domain of education.
Whereas in Poland the phenomenon of unequal access to education for women and men is not found, it turns out that various kinds of
gender stereotypes are reflected in the contents of textbooks (Arcimowicz, 2016), in educational practices applied by teachers
(Konarzewski, 1991), and in teachers’ beliefs (Gralewski & Karwowski, 2018). Analyses of the contents of Polish school textbooks
reveal stereotyped presentation of genders (Arcimowicz, 2016), with women being more frequently presented as dependent, doing
housework or bringing up children, or doing uncomplicated office work. Men, by contrast, are presented mainly as individuals
performing complex occupational roles involving the management of employee teams, doing specialist work, or representing free-
lance occupations; their social status is presented as high or very high. Moreover, in the contents of textbooks it is possible to find
numerous references to the traditional perception of family relationships, with men as the head of the family, which results in
emphasis being placed on his power and dominance (Arcimowicz, 2016). Konarzewski (1991) argues that Polish teachers differ-
entiate the types of tasks for students, which leads to the transmission of normative gender patterns functioning in Polish culture. In
accordance with these patterns, they more often give boys problem-based tasks, requiring creative transformations of the material,
while girls more often get tasks or exercises requiring persistence in the performance of routine actions, aimed only at consolidating
the material that has been learned. This differentiation of tasks given to students may lead to different identity patterns in students,
depending on their gender. According to Konarzewski (1991), problem-based tasks develop a sense of independence and agency in
boys, whereas exercises develop mainly a sense of subordination and sensitivity to teacher’s expectations in girls.
The results reported by Gralewski and Karwowski (2018) suggest that the stereotypical beliefs about women and men discussed
here function also in teachers’ perception of creative students. These researchers (Gralewski & Karwowski, 2018) performed factor
analysis and established that teachers working in Polish schools perceive a creative student through the lens of groups of char-
acteristics such as: inventiveness and independence, indiscipline, perseverance, problem solving, openness, and impulsiveness. The
way in which teachers characterized a creative student differentiated the accuracy of their recognition of the creative potential in
students of different genders. Gralewski and Karwowski (2018) found that there are four types of teachers, who differ in the way they
define the profile of a creative student. Two of these types, which largely corresponded to the styles of creativity proposed by Kirton
(1976), were particularly interesting from the point of view of different perceptions of creative women and men. It turned out that the
teachers who defined the profile of a creative student as consistent with the innovative style of creativity (Kirton, 1976) – namely,
those who claimed creative students were, above all, ingenious and capable of independent thinking, that they were individualists
who willingly took on difficult tasks and acted according to their own rules of behavior, but who at the same time claimed that such
students were indisciplined, disobedient, arrogant, defiant, hot-tempered, impulsive and not very persistent – recognized boys’
creativity accurately but did not do well as regards the assessment of girls’ creativity. In contrast, teachers who defined the profile of a
creative student in accordance with the adaptive style of creativity (Kirton, 1976) were convinced that such students were char-
acterized, above all, by a high level of perseverance, ingenuity, problem solving ability, and openness, accompanied by obedience,
submissiveness, discipline, and friendly disposition focused on building and maintaining positive social relations – they accurately
recognized the creative potential in girls but did not cope with creativity assessment in the case of boys. This research suggest,
indirectly, that it is possible that Polish teachers’ beliefs about the characteristics of a creative boy differ from their beliefs about the

141
J. Gralewski Thinking Skills and Creativity 31 (2019) 138–155

Table 1
Participants’ Characteristics.
Participant Main subject Other subjects Years of work experience Gender

P1 English No 16 Female
P2 Polish Yes 9 Female
P3 German No 22 Female
P4 Mathematics No 22 Female
P5 Mathematics No 15 Female
P6 Mathematics Yes 9 Female
P7 Polish No 15 Female
P8 Polish Yes 29 Female
P9 English No 3 Female
P10 Mathematics No 15 Female
P11 Polish Yes 11 Female
P12 Polish No 10 Female
P13 Mathematics No 24 Female
P14 English No 21 Female
P15 English No 4 Female

characteristics of a creative girl, and that these beliefs may be related to the stereotypical models of masculinity and femininity
(Proudfoot et al., 2015) as well as to the styles of creativity distinguished in the literature (Kirton, 1976).

2. The aim of the study

The aim of the present study was to answer the following questions:

1 What characteristics do teachers attribute to creative students?

2 How do teachers describe a creative boy and a creative girl?
3 Are there differences in teachers’ beliefs about the characteristics of a creative boy and a creative girl, and if there are, what causes
of these differences do teachers identify?

3. Method

3.1. Participants

The present study was based on interviews with n = 15 teachers working in Polish secondary schools: five mathematics teachers,
five Polish teachers, and five teachers of foreign languages. All the participants in the study were experienced teachers working in 11
schools located in central Poland. Their mean length of service was M = 15.03 years (SD = 7.46). Each of the respondents had higher
education – a master’s degree. All the participants in the study were women. Detailed data concerning their characteristics are
presented in Table 1.
Were used purposive sampling (Berg, 2007), based on the gender criterion and the subject taught. The inclusion only female
participants in the sample resulted from the high predominance of women in the teaching profession, suggested in educational
reports (Eurydice, 2013). Data show that the percentage of women in this profession in Poland is one of the highest in Europe
(Eurydice, 2013). In the light of the latest research, it is 82.3% (CED, 2015, p. 10) and as high as 84.6% for the administrative area in
which the study was conducted (CED, Centre for Education Development, 2015, p. 10). In view of the above facts, i focused ex-
clusively on the analysis of the beliefs of female teachers and decided that their views were predominant. I also decided that the
sample should include only teachers of Polish (the students’ mother tongue), mathematics, and foreign languages (English or
German). This was due to three reasons. Firstly, in the Polish system of education, in secondary schools these are the subjects with the
largest number of teaching hours per week in the curriculum, and they constitute the basis for the school-leaving examination (Polish:
matura, roughly equivalent to A-levels), which means they are highly significant from the point of view of recruitment for the next
stage of education: university or college studies. Secondly, the strength of the relationship between students’ creative abilities and
their academic achievement varies depending on the subject taught (Freund, Holling, & Preckel, 2007; Niaz, de Nùñez, & de Pindera,
2000); this relationship is the strongest in the case of social subjects and weaker in the case of foreign languages as well as
mathematics (Freund et al., 2007; Niaz et al., 2000). On this basis, following Freund et al. (2007), I assumed that students’ creativity
could be less important in learning subjects such as mathematics, in the case of which teachers more often use closed-ended tasks
with precise instructions, requiring students to give one correct answer, while in the case of social subjects, including the mother
tongue, creativity could be more important because these subjects make it possible to give the students open-ended problems to solve
and offer more opportunities to give creative answers. Thirdly, educational research reveals considerable differences between women
and men in the abilities associated with learning the mother tongue and mathematics. According to that research, girls achieve better
results in reading, while boys do significantly better in mathematics (OECD, 2016), which is why I decided that the beliefs of teachers
of these particular subject could differ significantly depending on students’ gender.

142
J. Gralewski Thinking Skills and Creativity 31 (2019) 138–155

The participants in the study were typical teachers. In sample selection, I applied no special criteria connected with their pro-
fessional or creative achievements. The sample size was dictated by the theoretical saturation criterion. The interviews were con-
ducted until further cases no longer provided new, distinct explanatory categories (Charmaz, 2006).

3.2. Procedure and data collection

Individual semi-structured in-depth interviews (IDIs) were conducted. The interviews were focused on teachers’ beliefs about
creative students’ characteristics as well as on the potential differences between their descriptions of creative boys an girls. In this
part of the interviews, the teachers were asked: (i) to freely describe a creative student (regardless of gender); (ii) to draw a schematic
profile of a creative student with his/her typical attributes, which served as the basis for more in-depth description; (iii) to freely
describe a creative boy and a creative girl; (iv) to identify the potential differences between the profiles of creative students according
to gender by specifying which of the 19 characteristics provided by the author of the text (see Table 5) described a creative boy, a
creative girl, or both a boy and a girl; (v) to specify the potential causes of the differences between the profiles of a creative boy and a
creative girl. The participants were informed about the aim of the study as well as about its confidentiality and anonymity. They
received no remuneration; their participation in the study was voluntary. An average interview took about half an hour (M = 28.14,
SD = 6.24).

3.3. Data analysis strategy

The data were subjected to qualitative thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The aim of the thematic analysis was to find
recurring patterns of meaning in teachers’ words using a “bottom-up” coding strategy (Frith & Gleeson, 2004), which ensured their
strong link with the data. In accordance with this strategy, specific codes were linked with particular characteristics of a creative
student, which were then grouped further into higher-order categories. The categories (themes) were identified in accordance with
the inductive approach, based on the collected empirical material. No coding scheme was applied which could be defined a priori,
before the analysis started. Specific codes were created as the analysis was progressing; the aim was twofold: (i) to indicate the
recurrence of certain thematic categories and, at the same time, (ii) to register a maximum diversity of meanings. In the course of
coding were made continual comparisons between categories newly added to the code key and the earlier utterances of the inter-
viewed teachers. In the next step, if this was justified, were grouped the preliminary codes into subcategories according to their
semantic similarity. Both higher- and lower-order categories were identified based on the data rather than on theory or previous
empirical findings.

3.4. Research credibility

In order to ensure the highest possible quality (Morrow, 2005), credibility, and trustworthiness (Cutcliffe & McKenna, 1999) of
the research, were applied analyst/researcher triangulation (Patton, 1999), the constant comparative method, negative case analysis,
and table-based data presentation (Silverman, 2001). At the stage of data collection, this consisted in interviews being conducted by
three independent and experienced researchers (including the author of the present paper), which was meant to decrease the possible
bias that could result from data being collected by one person only (see Patton, 1999). In the first stage of data analysis, after reading
the transcripts of all interviews many times, the author of the present paper and another independent researcher coded three of them
(20%). Next, all the meanings distinguished in this stage by each researcher were compared; on this basis, we verified the accuracy of
each category and refined the guidelines for distinguishing them, thus making the resulting interpretation more complete (Cutcliffe &
McKenna, 1999). Moreover, comparing the results of the work of two researchers who analyzed the same fragment of data enabled a
preliminary check on selective perception and blind interpretive bias (Patton, 1999). Then the author of the article continued the
process of data analysis based on the guidelines of the constant comparative method and negative case analysis (Silverman, 2001). In
the final phase of the analysis, were computed the frequency of occurrence for each category. Quantification was meant to sup-
plement the presentation of data with information about the frequency of occurrence of particular categories and subcategories. The
analyses were performed using ATLAS.ti software package, which enabled the constant comparison of meanings and categories/
themes as well as facilitated confirming them with data.

4. Results

4.1. Teachers’ beliefs about creative students

The obtained structure of the characteristics that teachers used to describe creative students largely confirmed the previous
findings, according to which creative students were described in terms of creative personality traits, motivation, and cognitive
indicators of creativity (Andiliou & Murphy, 2010; Bereczki & Kárpáti, 2018), as well as in terms of characteristics related to
functioning at school, artistic abilities, and intelligence (Table 2).
As regards personality traits, teachers described a creative student above all in terms of independence. In their descriptions, a
creative student emerged as an independent thinker, who always has a personal opinion. Descriptions of this kind were accompanied
by the interviewed teachers’ beliefs that a creative student defends his or her own opinion and is able to have his or her own way,
being immune to criticism from others. He or she is courageous and self-confident and has a sense of self-worth. A creative student’s

143
J. Gralewski Thinking Skills and Creativity 31 (2019) 138–155

Table 2
Teachers’ Beliefs About Creative Students’ Characteristics.
Higher-order categories Traits Lower-order categories (subcategories) Frequency

Personality traits Independent Thinks independently, does not need teacher’s guidelines 6
Has his/her own opinion 5
Not influenced by authorities, challenges teacher’s opinions 4
Always has something to say 1
Smiling and cheerful Smiling 10
Cheerful 3
Satisfied with life 3
Introvert Withdrawn – has his/her own world 8
Rather taciturn 3
Secretive, reserved 2
Charismatic group leader Leads the group, is a natural leader 4
Acts as a guide for other students 3
Capable of cooperating in a group 3
Has a high position in the group 2
Charismatic 1
Curious about the world Curious about the world, inquisitive 6
Has broad interests 3
Always has many questions 2
Courageous Courageous 6
Not afraid to ask or discuss with the teacher 4
Open-minded Open-minded 8
Defends his/her own opinion Defends his/her own opinion 4
Knows how to get his/her own way 2
Resistant to other people’s criticism and comments 1
Self-confident Self-confident 7
Has high self-esteem Criticism from others does not cause a decrease in his/her self-esteem 2
Self-confident 2
Not ashamed of his/her errors 2
Has high self-esteem 1
Individualist Individualist 4
Uncooperative 1
Impulsive Impulsive 3
Assertive Assertive 3
Critical Critical – compares various pieces of information 3
A good person Does something good for others 2
Good-hearted 1
Has a sense of humor Has a sense of humor 1
Relaxes the atmosphere in the classroom 1
Tolerant Tolerant 2
Communicative Communicative 2
Likable Likable 2
Willing to take risks Not afraid of risk 2
Enterprising Enterprising 1
Resourceful 1
Energetic Energetic 1
Expressive Expressive 1
Bold Confident in overcoming difficulties 1
Dominant Dominant 1
Stubborn Stubborn 1
Arrogant Arrogant 1
Optimist Optimist 1
Empathic Empathic 1

Motivation Active Active 7

With initiative 4
Does more than is expected 3
Committed Committed 5
Derives pleasure from what he/she does 4
Engrossed in what he/she is working on 2
Fixated on activity in a particular domain 1
Ambitious Wants to develop 4
Pursues a goal 3
Ambitious / wants to achieve something 2
Cooperative Cooperative 3
Takes part in various school events / engages in school life 3
Persistent Persistent 4
Unaffected by failures 1
Diligent Diligent 3
Lazy Lazy 1
(continued on next page)

144
J. Gralewski Thinking Skills and Creativity 31 (2019) 138–155

Table 2 (continued)

Higher-order categories Traits Lower-order categories (subcategories) Frequency

Creative thinking Ingenious Has a lot of ideas 10

Puts forward his/her own proposals of action 3
Voices his/her ideas 2
Thinks outside the box Thinks outside the box 4
Original Capable of creating something original 2
Has surprisingly original ideas 1
Imaginative Imaginative 3
Innovator or adaptor Innovator or adaptor 3
Analyzes problems Carefully studies the essence of the problem 1
Seeks a new perspective on the problem, looks for a hidden agenda 1
Breaks patterns Capable of going beyond the pattern 1
Acts unconventionally 1
Perceptive Perceptive 1

Functioning at school Is not top of the class Not necessarily a top student 6
Inconspicuous, does not stand out in the class in terms of academic achievement 6
Does not care about grades 1
Attracts attention Stands out in terms of behavior, thinking, or clothing 3
Interesting, attracts teacher’s attention 2
Does not care about appearance 1
Attracts attention 1
Disciplined Disciplined, does not cause educational problems 2
Seeks teacher’s acceptance 1
Obedient 1
Does not break rules, obeys 1
Wise Wise 3
Able to use his/her knowledge in practice 1
Self-reliant Able to cope on his/her own in various situations 3
Self-reliant 1
Undisciplined Undisciplined 3
Chaotic Chaotic 2
Disorganized 1
Liked by people Liked by people 3
Well-mannered Well-mannered, cultured 2
Reliable Can be relied on; dependable 2
Responsible Responsible 1
Eager to learn Eager to learn, likes learning 1
Tired of routine tasks Tired of routine tasks 1

Artistic abilities Has artistic abilities Artistically talented 4

Has artistic interests 5
Has an artistic talent 1
Artistic soul 1
Sensitive to beauty Sensitive to beauty 1

Intelligence Intelligent Intelligent 3

Brilliant 3
Bright 3
Gifted 1

Note. Frequency – the number of teachers in whose utterances a given code occurred.

courage was understood in two ways: on some occasions in the context of willingness to engage in new or even risky actions, and on
other occasions – as being prepared to defend one’s own opinion or view, particularly in confrontation with the teacher. Further
attributes that the interviewed teachers saw as crucial when describing a creative student referred to the fact that this kind of student
is a person open to the world and open-minded – such a student is inquisitive and interested in many things, has broad interests, and
asks many questions. An example statement concerning these characteristics is as follows: “In my opinion, a creative student is an
independent one, but also an open-minded person, someone who thinks independently in a way that breaks patterns, a person not afraid of
risk, courageous, and active, who takes matters in their own hands. Courage is important, because you have to be courageous to start
something new. But apart from courage it is also important to have self-confidence: to believe that you will manage” [P8]. It should be
stressed that a considerable proportion of the characteristics used by teachers to describe a creative student referred to social
functioning. On the one hand, a creative student was described as smiling, cheerful, and also as a charismatic group leader, who has a
high position in the group and acts as a guide for other students; on the other hand, this kind of student was characterized as an
introvert and an individualist, difficult to cooperate with – a reserved, taciturn, and withdrawn person, living in their own world.
Among other characteristics of a creative student, there were expressions suggesting that such students are impulsive, critical,
assertive, bold, stubborn, arrogant, or domineering. It should be noted, however, that these attributes were named by the interviewed
teachers sporadically, even though they refer to the functioning of creative individuals (Feist, 1998). Moreover, the interviewed

145
J. Gralewski Thinking Skills and Creativity 31 (2019) 138–155

teachers named characteristics suggesting a creative student’s positive disposition, saying that he or she was a good, tolerant, likable,
optimistic, and empathic person – these attributes can hardly be considered indicators of creativity.
The next group of characteristics that teachers attributed to a creative student were related to motivation. In teachers’ opinion,
creative students are eager to do difficult tasks and set themselves long-term goals; they are active, committed, and ambitious.
Teachers understand the commitment of a creative student in two ways: as participation in various kinds of activities at school and as
personal engagement in a particular domain of activity. The latter understanding is rooted in the concept of intrinsic motivation
(Amabile, 1996), according to which a creative student engages in various kinds of activities stemming from his or her personal
interests and done exclusively for personal pleasure. This is illustrated by one of the interviewees’ words: “This kind of student is fixated
on activity in a particular domain, on what interests them. You can see it when you look at them that the work they do gives them satisfaction,
that they derive pleasure out of what they engage in, that they like what they do, because it somehow stems from their interests rather than from
the teacher’s expectations” [P7]. Additionally, in the light of teachers’ implicit theories of creativity, a creative student is persevering
and diligent. Above all, such a student pursues a goal and is not discouraged by failures; he or she also actively participates in the
school’s life.
The next group of characteristics were associated with the way of thinking and with creative abilities. In this group, the teachers
most often pointed out that a creative student was ingenious, which they understood as having many ideas or putting forward
proposals of action. The expressions from this category referred to the fact that a creative student was a person thinking outside the
box, that he or she was capable of creating something original and go beyond the pattern. It is characteristic that, when describing a
creative student, the interviewed teachers referred to two styles of creativity: adaptive and innovative (Kirton, 1976, 2004) – though
they did not call them in this way. They described a creative student either as an adaptor or as an innovator, adding that they could
directly observe both types in class. Students referred to as innovators prefer quick actions, usually leading to the creation of
something spectacular and original. Such students are very impulsive, even chaotic, and usually devote little time to the analysis of
the task they are faced with but quickly get down to action instead. Students described as adaptors give much thought to their actions.
In teachers’ opinion, such students are well-organized, spend a long time analyzing the contents of instructions, ask the teacher a
number of additional questions aimed at establishing the limits of the task, and only then do they get down to work. Teachers believe
that such students “do painstaking work” [P4] and act systematically, step by step, but their solutions are not always particularly
spectacular. Here is an example interview fragment describing the creativity styles discussed above: “There are two types. Some are
inquisitive and ask about many details at the beginning, before starting the activity, so as to create a basis, foundation, or plan for work. But
there are also individuals who sort of receive an impulse, and for them instructions must not be very extensive because they somehow
immediately create their own vision and get down to action. This type cannot simply be tamed or seated somewhere until they are given
something to do. Such students do not always find it easy to work according to instructions” [P12].
The next group of characteristics that teachers attributed to creative students were related to functioning at school. In teachers’
opinion, a creative student is not top of the class, does not have the best grades, and does not stand out as particularly active in class.
One of the teachers put it as follows: “They are not always good students. I mean… they are sometimes good, but in other ways. They are
pleasant to work with, but when it comes to grades, these things don’t always go together. But this is not to say they constantly have some kind
of problems, fail to get promoted to the next grade, or anything like that. It simply happens that other students are better” [P3]. In the light of
what the interviewed teachers said, such students thrive whenever the school routine ends – namely, when they have to engage in an
untypical activity, organize something, or show artistic abilities: “Sometimes they are inconspicuous people, with nothing outstanding
about them, but they are literally brimming with ingenuity. It is enough to mention the right idea and say that something needs organizing, such
as a concert or an exhibition, or tell them about something they are interested in” [P14]. Usually, however, they are perceived as wise – as
capable of using their knowledge and skills in some kind of action. A creative student attracts teachers’ attention with his or her
clothing, behavior, or way of thinking, which stand out against the school routine and norms. Teachers’ opinions about whether or
not a creative student is disciplined were divided. On the one hand, the teachers said that creative students had no problems with
school discipline; on the other hand, they expressed the opinion that such students were unruly, undisciplined, and made teachers’
work difficult by not always following instructions. Teachers’ opinions about a creative student’s working style were also divided. A
creative student was described as chaotic and disorganized in some cases and as well-organized, systematic, reliable, and responsible
in others.
Another clearly highlighted attribute of a creative student were artistic abilities. The interviewed teachers said that a creative
student had artistic talents and interests as well as engaged in creative activity in the field of art. Moreover, in teachers’ opinion, a
creative student is intelligent, brilliant, bright, and talented.

4.2. A creative boy and a creative girl

In the next part of the interview, the teachers were asked to describe a creative boy and a creative girl. This part of the interview
consisted of two stages. In the first stage, teachers freely listed characteristics that, in their opinion, were attributes of a creative boy
(Table 3) or a creative girl (Table 4); in the second stage, they were asked to segregate 19 characteristics provided by the researcher
(see Table 5).
The teachers’ free, unguided utterances revealed very clear differences between their beliefs about creative boy and a creative girl.
Characteristically, in this part of the interview the teachers strongly focused on specifying the characteristics distinguishing a boy
from a girl. The descriptions were formulated in accordance with the principle of asymmetry: if they referred to boys they usually did
not refer to girls, and the other way around.
The teachers described a creative boy mainly in terms of personality traits; they less often referred to his creative thinking,

146
J. Gralewski Thinking Skills and Creativity 31 (2019) 138–155

Table 3
Teachers’ Beliefs About Creative Boys’ Characteristics.
Higher-order Traits Frequency Example
categories

Personality traits Impulsive 2 “Boys are impulsive, and a girl will always think before she says anything.” [P6]
Direct 2 “A guy says things right away, without thinking, because his idea is certainly the best. And
a girl doesn’t know if it will be all right if she says something.” [P3]
Courageous 2 “Boys are more courageous and more eager to put forward their ideas. They are also more
eager to volunteer for various things.” [P5]
Self-confident 2 “Boys are so… self-confident.” [P6]
Independent 2 “Boys don’t always make use of what is offered or proposed to them.” [P5]
Spontaneous 2 “And boys are more spontaneous.” [P1]
Defends his opinion / forces his 1 “A creative student will not conform with the crowd but will stand up right away and say he
ideas through disagrees, while girls care about their position in the group and pay attention to what others
say.” [P1]
Inquisitive 1 “Boys are more inquisitive.” [P4]
Individualist 1 “Boys tend to be individualists, sort of. They do something and they do not necessarily care
what you think about it.” [P4]
Open-minded 1 “Boys are open-minded. They are interested in everything.” [P2]
Willing to take risks 1 “Girls like to be safe, while boys like greater risk.” [P14]
Charismatic 1 “My experience tells me that boys are more charismatic than girls. It tells me they are
leaders. It is boys who inspire girls to follow them.” [P2]
Creative thinking Ingenious 2 “Boys have more ideas.”
Breaks the rules 2 “Boys change the rules; they don’t follow instructions. Girls do.” [P1]
Creative 2 “Boys are more creative.”
Functioning at school Likes to get down to action 4 “It seems to me that a guy will get used to an idea and put it into practice. Boys’ job is to act
quickly and to implement.” [P12]
Go-getting 2 “At this age, boys are more go-getting.” [P5]
Rebellious 1 “Boys rebel more often than girls.” [P8]
Motivation Likes challenges 1 “They like more difficult tasks.” [P15]
Committed 1 “A boy is 100% committed.” [P6]
Intelligence Intelligent 1 “Boys have a little intellectual advantage.” [P5]

Note. Frequency – the number of teachers in whose utterances a given code occurred.

motivation, functioning at school, or intelligence. None of the expressions used referred to artistic abilities (see Table 3)
The description of a creative boy comes down to pointing out that he quickly gets down to action. The teachers firmly stressed the
fact that a creative boy was impulsive and direct. He is independent in his thinking, has his own opinion, and is able to defend it if
necessary. His actions are resolute, which stems from his being self-confident, courageous, and willing to take risks. In the context of
team-based activities, he is described as charismatic, which means, basically, that he takes on the function of a group leader.
Moreover, he is inquisitive, open-minded, and spontaneous. As regards expressions referring to creative thinking, he is described as
ingenious and as a rule-breaker. As far as functioning at school is concerned, a creative boy stands out as active and engaging in
activities; he quickly gets down to the realization of various kinds of ideas. What is characteristic is that this kind of student makes a
show of his activity, as it were, informing the teachers about it (Table 3).
The description of a creative girl highlights completely different characteristics than the description of a creative boy (see
Table 4). As far as personality traits are concerned, a creative girl is described as more submissive than a creative boy. She avoids risk,
protects herself, does not directly express dissatisfaction, prefers safe actions and decisions taking other people’s opinions into
account. This is illustrated by the following words from one of the interviews: “Girls like to be secure. This means following instructions,
submission to authorities, and refusal to stick their necks out. Before a girl says anything, she will think about whether you can say that kind of
thing. She will protect herself a little. This is because of the upbringing” [P6]. Moreover, a creative girl is calm, modest, and sensitive. This,
however, does not mean she is not ingenious. On the contrary: teachers say it is girls rather than boys who have more ideas. The
profile of a creative girl includes characteristics connected with interest in art, which were not mentioned with reference to a creative
boy. Creative girls follow all kinds of rules and instructions as well as act in an orderly and systematic way. Teachers very clearly
emphasize the role of motivation in the profile of a creative girl, whom they consider to be diligent, conscientious, systematic,
persevering, and patient. Moreover, in the light of the interviews, a creative girl is well-behaved and acts according to plan; she also is
consistent, well-organized, and wise.
In the next part of the interview the teachers were asked to specify which of the 19 characteristics presented to them more
accurately described a creative boy, which described a creative girl, and which described both a creative boy and a creative girl. The
respondents attributed each trait on a special sheet provided, of which a photograph was then taken, making it possible to reconstruct
layout of the traits and to perform a quantitative analysis supplementing the qualitative analyses. Table 5 presents the attribution
frequency for each trait.
The teachers’ attribution of specific traits to a creative boy or to a creative girl was consistent with certain patterns that had been
found before. They described a creative boy mainly as showing traits such as impulsiveness, rule-breaking, seeking spectacular
solutions, and independence. A creative girl, by contrast, was described through the lens of characteristics such as systematicness,
conscientiousness, diligence, persistence, submission to authorities, adherence to rules, and following instructions. The remaining

147
J. Gralewski Thinking Skills and Creativity 31 (2019) 138–155

Table 4
Teachers’ Beliefs About Creative Girls’ Characteristics.
Higher-order Traits Frequency Example
categories

Personality traits Submissive / conformist 4 “Girls will more easily submit. When you ask them to do something, they will look for
ideas and do it, but that will be due to their submission to the teacher’s authority.” [P5]
Avoids risk / prefers safe activity 2 “This stems from the fact that girls like to be safe, while boys like greater risk.” [P14]
Sensitive 2 “Girls are sort of more sensitive. They can, for example, say more about emotions.” [P12]
Lacks self-confidence 1 “Girls often have complexes, and so a girl will always think before she says something in
order not to be criticized.” [P6]
Is on her guard 1 “Every boy would like to be a leader, while girls would prefer their friends, other girls, to
support them and to agree with them.” [P13]
Does not express her 1 “Girls are a little malicious: when they catch you doing something they will not say it
dissatisfaction directly directly but will go on about it behind your back.” [P3]
Calm 1 “It seems to me that girls are calmer; this stems from their personality. They are sort of
more subdued.” [P5]
Modest 1 “Girls are sort of modest. I did something, but I may not have done it well.” [P3]
Creative thinking Not very spectacular 2 “A girl is ‘–from–to’ and does not go beyond that. As a result, boys are more spectacular.”
[P4]
Ingenious 1 “Ingenuity is important in girls, too.” [P14]
Adheres to rules and instructions 1 “Boys change the rules; they don’t follow instructions. Girls do.” [P2]
Functioning at school Well-behaved 1 “And a girl will be well-behaved.” [P1]
Likes planning 1 “Girls will most gladly do planning and organize time. Girls’ job is to plan.” [P5]
Consistent 1 “And… girls are sort of more consistent; when they have an idea (…) they will keep an eye
on the group and have everyone account for their share of the work.” [P3]
Organized 1 “I have drawn a [picture of a] girl, but spontaneity won’t fit her. Girls are better
organized.” [P11]
Wise 1 “And it would be nice if a girl was wise, also. But there are many wise girls.” [P7]
Motivation Diligent 2 “Girls are more diligent. They do the spade work for boys.” [P5]
Systematic 2 “Girls are systematic, definitely.” [P10]
Conscientious 1 “And girls are conscientious. That’s what they are like: systematic and diligent.” [P6]
Persistent 1 “Girls can sometimes work more productively, they are more patient – they have this kind
of character, this kind of persistence.” [P13]
Patient 1 “Girls are more patient.” [P13]
Artistic abilities Has art-related interest 4 “Girls are more willing to engage in things such as making an exhibition, preparing photos,
some sort of caption. Schematic things of this kind, which, I suppose, don’t require much
ingenuity.” [P6]
Has artistic talents 1 “Girls have artistic abilities, so to speak. They can embroider and sing, and boys are a
different story.” [P6]
Manually gifted 1 “Girls are made for this, by nature… Singing, recitation, manual skills.” [P2]

Note. Frequency – the number of teachers in whose utterances a given code occurred.

Table 5
A Creative Boy and a Creative Girl in Terms of Selected Characteristics.
Trait Creative boy Both - boy and girl Creative girl
[%] [%] [%]

Impulsiveness 80.0 13.3 6.7

Breaking rules 66.7 33.3 0.0
Striving for spectacular solutions 60.0 33.3 6.7
Independence 60.0 33.3 6.7
Disagreement with the group’s opinion 40.0 53.3 6.7
Individualism 33.3 60.0 6.7
Innovativeness 33.3 66.7 0.0
Ingenuity 20.0 73.3 6.7
Originality 20.0 73.3 6.7
Consistency 20.0 46.7 33.3
Cooperativeness 6.7 60.0 33.3
Respect for other people’s work 0.0 53.3 46.7
Perseverance 13.3 33.3 53.3
Submission to authority 0.0 46.7 53.3
Adherence to rules 0.0 40.0 60.0
Diligence 0.0 40.0 60.0
Following instructions 6.7 20.0 73.3
Conscientiousness 0.0 26.7 73.3
Systematicness 0.0 13.3 86.7

148
J. Gralewski Thinking Skills and Creativity 31 (2019) 138–155

eight characteristics (ingenuity, originality, innovativeness, individualism, cooperativeness, consistency, respect for other people’s
work, and disagreement with the opinion of the group) were mostly attributed by the interviewed teachers to both creative boys and
creative girls.
What seems extremely important from the point of view of the analyses performed in the present study is the reasons that the
interviewed teachers gave to support their attribution of particular traits to creative boys, to creative girls, or to both. These reasons
came down to different working styles of creative girls and creative boys. The teachers said that creative girls were conscientious,
diligent, and persistent, that they did their tasks step by step and worked systematically to fulfill their obligations. In consequence,
according to teachers, the quality of creative girls’ work is the outcome of their diligence and commitment rather than the outcome of
breaking the established rules and patterns. This is illustrated by the following statement: “a girl will act painstakingly, in small steps, no
matter how long it takes, persistently” [P5]; a different teacher even adds: “most of these traits [i.e., systematicness, diligence, and
adherence to rules – author’s note] limit rather than help them. It is as though these girls were chained up” [P3]. For this reason,
unfortunately, teachers consider girls’ solutions not as courageous or spectacular as boys’ solutions. This is very well illustrated by the
words of one of the interviewed teachers: “if we follow the rules and instructions, then we know things are going to be fine, we have an easy
mind and we don’t risk making a mistake. Spectacular solutions seem to be at odds with this, because if we move on step by step, then there is
obviously not going to be a spectacular effect. This stems from the fact that girls like to be safe, while boys like greater risk” [P14]. In contrast,
when describing creative boys’ working style, teachers point out that such boys tend to act impulsively, without a plan, courageously,
breaking various kinds of rules or conventions but pursuing spectacular solutions instead. According to the explanation given, boys
try to attract teachers’ and other students’ attention and show off their ingenuity, which is why they try to be more independent in
their thinking and activity; this enables them to generate more daring, original, or innovative solutions. It turns out that boys’ courage
and self-confidence may be of significance to their perceived creativity, which the words of one of the teachers attest to: “a boy is not
afraid to speak out when he has an idea, while a girl will hesitate whether or not she is supposed to speak out. The fact that girls are so subdued
and dominated is due to upbringing” [P6].

4.3. The causes of differences between the profiles of a creative boy and a creative girl

When speaking about the causes of differences between the characteristics of creative boys and creative girls, the teachers usually
mentioned upbringing, gender stereotypes, and genes (see Table 6). What they stressed particularly was the different stereotypical
expectations connected with girls’ and boys’ upbringing. In their opinion, girls are expected to be systematic, diligent, and perse-
vering. These expectations are involved in girls’ functioning at school and in the domestic duties entrusted to them. A girl is expected
to be well-behaved, which means being diligent and conscientious as well as obedient, submissive, and – in some sense – timid. This
view is present in the words of the interviewed teachers who remark that being well-behaved is understood differently in the case of
girls than in the case of boys. One of them observes that “girls are brought up in this way from an early age – behave, don’t mess around,
don’t do this, while a boy is perceived better from an early age. A courageous girl is a naughty girl, while a courageous boy is a courageous boy”
[P7]; another teacher adds: “a creative boy is a disobedient one, and when a girl is disobedient she is perceived worse than a boy. Because a
girl must not be disobedient, and for a boy it is normal to be. These are common opinions” [P9]. The teachers’ words cited above show that
there is some degree of acceptance of boys’ naughty behavior and no such acceptance with regard to girls. It is worth noting that what
may be treated as naughty behavior is the behavior of a girl who is courageous and self-confident and who thinks independently.
Generally, the interviewed teachers stress that girls are expected to show obedience and subordination as well as to follow certain
rules. They even claim that submissiveness is instilled in girls from an early age. Boys, by contrast, enjoy greater freedom and are
allowed to do more. In the case of boys, as opposed to girls, impulsive and naughty behaviors are tolerated, and so is even dis-
obedience. It turns out that behaviors perceived as reprehensible or unacceptable in the case of girls are treated as normal and typical
in the case of boys.
Furthermore, differences between the profiles of a creative boy and a creative girl seem to depend on a number of gender
stereotypes. The interviewed teachers’ beliefs concerning this matter usually came down to the idea that boys were talented while
girls were diligent, conscientious, and persistent. This is illustrated by one of many statement of this kind: “girls are more diligent, they
always have all tasks solved, while boys not always do. But this doesn’t mean they are weaker: they simply have a little intellectual advantage.
They have that special kind of a better developed sense than girls” [P5]. It also turns out that the expectation of conscientiousness and
persistence translates into girls being perceived as modest, less self-confident, and preferring security as well as sensitive, calm, and
well-organized, while boys are expected to show independence and self-confidence. In this study, several slightly different though
interrelated views of girls’ and boys’ creativity have been found to be held by teachers, according to which: (i) boys are perceived as
ingenious, while girls are perceived as conscientious, diligent, and systematic; (ii) boys are perceived as go-getting, while girls are
perceived as modest; (iii) boys are perceived as self-confident, while girls are perceived as underestimating themselves; (iv) boys are
perceived as risk-taking, while girls are perceived as preferring security; (v) boys are perceived as impulsive and spontaneous, while
girls are perceived as calm and organized; (vi) boys are perceived as strong while girls are perceived as sensitive. These stereotypical
ideas appear to favor boys and disfavor girls, whose work outcomes seem less spectacular to teachers.

5. Summary and discussion

The summary of the obtained results should be focused on three issues: (i) the profile of a creative student that emerges from the
interviewed teachers’ beliefs, (ii) differences between the profiles of a creative boy and a creative girl, and (iii) the possible causes
behind these differences identified by the teachers. Each of these issues will be elaborated on below.

149
J. Gralewski Thinking Skills and Creativity 31 (2019) 138–155

Table 6
Causes of Differences in the Perception of Creative Girls and Creative Boys.
Higher-order categories Lower-order categories (subcategories) Frequency Example

Expectations connected Girls are expected to be conscientious and 6 “It probably stems from upbringing that girls are always told to
with upbringing diligent remember to be diligent.” [P14]
A girl should be well-behaved 5 “Quite naturally, it is girls who are more persistent, and diligent.
Quite naturally, since they are not allowed to be naughty as they are
brought up.” [P7]
Submissiveness and obedience are instilled in 5 “This stems from upbringing, unfortunately. Girls are taught from an
girls; a girl mustn’t be disobedient early age to obey.” [P2]
Boys are allowed to do more 4 “Boys have have greater freedom in everything, while girls have it
ingrained that they must be on their guard to follow some rules and
principles, that they are not always supposed to be spontaneous
because they will be criticized by society, and so on. And boys, well –
they simply do whatever they want.” [P6]
Boys’ impulsiveness is tolerated 2 “We are used to guys behaving impulsively and not necessarily to girls
behaving like this. Girls are drilled from their childhood.” [P5]
Boys’ naughty behavior is tolerated 2 “Boys are rascals running around, yes. They have that sort of thing
ingrained. If you are a boy, then you are supposed to run around…
They are told all the time that they are rascals and girls are so well-
behaved.” [P7]
Upbringing for different roles 2 “Boys are often more creative because girls are forced into certain
roles already at home.” [P8]
Artistic interests are developed in girls and 2 “Girls are brought up and encouraged from an early age to pursue
technical ones are developed in boys artistic interests. They can embroider and sing, and boys are a
different story. They are taught about cars, computers, and so on.
This is connected with upbringing.” [P2]
Boys’ disobedience is tolerated 1 “A creative boy is a disobedient one, but this is normal in a boy.”
[P9]
Gender stereotypes Boys are talented, while girls are diligent, 7 “They are more systematic. Everything has to be in order, and boys
conscientious, and persistent (11) are more chaotic. But they are intelligent. And it seems to me that
these traits balance out.” [P5]
Boys are ingenious, while girls are 6 “Boys are more ingenious and more independent, whereas a girl
conscientious, systematic, and diligent shows a systematic and conscientious quality as well as adherence to
rules and instructions. This is how I see it. And boys break the rules.
Boys are sort of more open, more… that’s because they have fewer
complexes and are not afraid to speak their mind.” [P6]
Boys are go-getting and girls are modest 4 “Boys are go-getting, first of all. They are not afraid to speak out.
Girls are more reserved and modest.” [P7]
Boys are impulsive and spontaneous, while girls 4 “Girls are more systematic, everything has to be in order for them,
are calm and well-organized while boys are more chaotic and impulsive.” [P11]
Boys are self-confident, while girls 3 “Boys are self-confident and girls have a greater problem becoming
underestimate themselves aware of their own worth.” [P12]
Boys are strong, while girls are sensitive 2 “Boys are stronger and more resistant, while girls are sensitive.” [P1]
Boys are focused on their personal success, 1 “It seems to me that boys are more individualistic. They are focused
while girls are focused on good interpersonal on some kind of individual success. Girls are more focused on group
relationships work.” [P1]
Differences in reactions to failure 1 “Boys have higher resistance to failure. Girls break down quickly. But
this doesn’t mean that they give up. They are less immune and take it
more personally.” [P5]
Boys like risk, while girls like a sense of security 1 “Girls like to be safe, while boys like greater risk.” [P14]
Genes Genes 2 “I think these differences are genetically determined.” [P3]

Note. Frequency – the number of teachers in whose utterances a given code occurred.

5.1. How do teachers describe a creative student?

The interviewed teachers’ beliefs about creative students’ characteristics are consistent with the existing findings (Andiliou &
Murphy, 2010; Bereczki & Kárpáti, 2018). According to them, a creative student is described mainly in terms of creative personality
traits, cognitive indicators of creativity, and motivation. Moreover, when describing a creative student, teachers referred to his or her
intelligence, artistic abilities, and functioning at school – which has not been stressed particularly often in the context of implicit
theories of creativity.
In the light of teachers’ implicit theories of creativity, a creative student is perceived, above all, as: independent, ingenious, active,
committed, smiling and cheerful, artistically talented, introvert, curious about the world, open-minded, capable of leading a group,
and courageous. Characteristically, in the context of functioning at school, a creative student tends not to be perceived as top of the
class. It should be stressed that, as studies show, these characteristics – except smiling and cheerful – are listed as key attributes of
creative individuals with creative achievements (Barron & Harrington, 1981; Batey & Furnham, 2006; Feist, 1998; Helson, 1999;
MacKinnon, 1962, 1965).
As regards characteristics referring to a creative student’s personality, teachers name mainly those traits that are mentioned as the

150
J. Gralewski Thinking Skills and Creativity 31 (2019) 138–155

key mechanisms of creativity, namely: curiosity and open-mindedness, as well as independence (Feist, 1998; Helson, 1999; McCrae,
1987). They perceive curiosity and open-mindedness as traits responsible for accessing the information that may be useful in the
process of solving a given problem. These traits are responsible for setting the limits of tasks undertaken, for redefining problems, and
for information seeking. What the interviewed teachers particularly emphasize is students’ independence, which they understand as
having their own opinions, as the ability to think independently and to act without other people’s instructions, and as the ability to
defend their own opinion. It turns out that teachers see these characteristics as supported in students by courage, self-confidence, and
self-esteem. These attributes prove to be extremely important at the stage of generating ideas of solutions to tasks and problems;
additionally, they allow creative students to maintain balance between pressure from other people and their internal striving for
autonomy and independence.
The interviewed teachers very clearly emphasize the role of motivation in their descriptions of a creative student. The teachers
believe that creative students are intrinsically motivated – that they set their own goals and commit themselves to the accom-
plishment of these goals regardless of the gratification received or the failures experienced. When speaking about a creative student’s
motivation, teachers refer to intrinsic motivation, understood as undertaking activities for the very pleasure derived from them
(Amabile, 1996). They also stress creative students’ perseverance and commitment in goal pursuit, presenting them as a significant
mechanism of creativity (Amabile, 1996; Barron & Harrington, 1981). They believe that thanks to perseverance a creative student is
able to overcome the difficulties encountered, to convince others to accept his or her solutions, and above all – to carry through the
activities undertaken to their completion. In this respect, teachers’ beliefs are consistent with the results of studies on the functioning
of creative individuals, which show their capacity for long and intense work as well as their ability to delay external gratification
(Amabile, 1996; Barron & Harrington, 1981; Feist, 1998).
As regards characteristics connected with a creative student’s cognitive functioning, the teachers mainly used very general ex-
pressions, such as ingenious and thinking. They much less often mentioned specific and precise characteristics describing a creative
student’s way of thinking or specific types of divergent thinking abilities. It seems the observed state of affairs may be caused by the
gaps in teachers’ knowledge about creativity and the possibility of supporting it, suggested in numerous studies (Aish, 2014; Burnard
& White, 2008; Cachia & Ferrari, 2010; Eckhoff, 2011; Gralewski & Karwowski, 2013; Hong & Kang, 2010; Rubenstein et al., 2013).
When describing a creative student, the interviewed teachers use not only cognitive aspects of creativity but also expressions
referring to his or her intelligence and artistic talents. It should be stressed at this point that references to intelligence are justified
only to a certain extent, since both in the light of theoretical perspectives (Sternberg & O’Hara, 1999) and in the light of research
results (Karwowski & Gralewski, 2013; Karwowski et al., 2016; Kim, 2005) intelligence and the creative potential should be treated as
relatively independent. Teachers’ very numerous references to characteristics connected with artistic abilities and the omission of
other fields of creative activity may attest to their tendency to equate creativity with art, which has been pointed out many times in
the literature (Aljughaiman & Mowrer-Reynolds, 2005; Gralewski, 2016; Kampylis et al., 2009; Newton & Beverton, 2012). Un-
fortunately, the stereotypical equation of creativity with artistry may lead to teachers being unable to properly design activities aimed
at stimulating students’ creativity in fields other than art (Aljughaiman & Mowrer-Reynolds, 2005; Newton & Beverton, 2012).
The last group of characteristics that teachers attributed to creative students concerned their functioning at school. It should be
stressed that in the light of research on creative individuals these attributes can hardly be regarded as indicators or components of
creativity (Barron & Harrington, 1981; Feist, 1998). These attributes show how creative students are perceived by teachers in the
context of their functioning at school in terms of academic achievement, adherence to school discipline, and working style. Teachers
very clearly indicated that a creative student was not top of the class or even had learning problems. The obtained data are at odds
with the findings reported by Aljughaiman and Mowrer-Reynolds (2005), in the light of which teachers confuse the characteristics of
creative students with those of gifted high achievers. Teachers’ opinions about creative students’ adherence to school discipline and
their style of work are of two kinds. On the one hand, a creative student is described as disciplined, reliable, and responsible, and on
the other – as indisciplined and chaotic in his or her activities. Generally, however, creative students attract attention with their
clothing and way of thinking, which diverge from everyday school reality.
In their descriptions of a creative student, teachers rarely mention traits that are considered pejorative; they mostly focus on
characteristics perceived as positive (Andiliou & Murphy, 2010). Expressions such as impulsive, dominant, critical, stubborn, or
arrogant appear in the descriptions only sporadically, even though these are traits very often attributed to real creators (Feist, 1998).
Instead of them, as it were, there are fairly numerous expressions referring to desirable characteristics associated with functioning at
school. In this sense, teachers believe a creative student to be a good, smiling, cheerful, tolerant, communicative, likable, and
empathic person. Unfortunately, these characteristics are not typical of creative individuals and can hardly be considered predictors
of creative achievement, as shown, for instance, in MacKinnon’s (1965) study of creative architects.
Teachers perceive creative students not only in terms of particular attributes but also in terms of profiles, or two distinct types of
creativity (Karwowski, 2016). They observe that two different types of creative students function in school settings, corresponding in
terms of attributes and behavior to adaptors and innovators from Kirton’s (1976, 2004) theory of styles or to the subordinated and
rebellious types of creativity (Karwowski, 2016). Teachers clearly stress the different ways of behaving and functioning in the group,
particularly the different patterns or modes of creative activity, characteristic of each of these types. This approach is close to the
actor-centered perspective on creativity (Glăveanu, 2013). In terms of Kirton’s (1976, 2004) theory of creativity styles the first of
these types can be called adaptive, and in terms of Karwowski’s (2016) theory it can be called subordinated creativity. In teachers’
opinion, students representing this type are well-organized, spend a long time analyzing the contents of the task, ask the teacher a
number of additional questions aimed at establishing the limits of the task, and only then do they proceed to work. In the re-
spondents’ opinion, this kind of students work in an orderly, systematic, and persistent way. Teachers have no complaints connected
with the behavior of these students, who follow the rules during work in class and the rules of cooperation in the group. The other

151
J. Gralewski Thinking Skills and Creativity 31 (2019) 138–155

type of students, referred to as innovators by Kirton (1976, 2004) and exhibiting what Karwowski (2016) called rebellious creativity,
prefer quick action, focused on creating something spectacular, original, and surprising. These students are impulsive and chaotic;
they usually devote little time to the analysis of the task they are faced with, but focus on action, which seldom takes place according
to a prepared plan. They are strongly focused on independent action; they are ready to defend their ideas and views, not easily
yielding to group pressure. Their functioning at school is marked by violation of the established rules and regulations. The typological
approach to describing creative students identified in teachers’ words (Durmysheva & Kozbelt, 2014; Karwowski, 2016; Kozbelt,
2008; Kozbelt, Beghetto, & Runco, 2010) suggests not so much differences in creative abilities between individuals representing
different types of creativity as a different style of creative work in each type. In the interviews, teachers point out that the creative
activity of students representing these two types proceeds in different ways, which is consistent with the assumptions of the adap-
tation-innovation theory (Kirton, 1976, 2004).

5.2. Teachers’ beliefs about creative boys and creative girls

The profile of a creative boy as it emerges from the interviewed teachers’ beliefs differs from the profile of a creative girl. As
opposed to a creative girl, a creative boy is described as impulsive, independent, rule-breaking, courageous, willing to take risks,
capable of defending his opinion, self-confident, spontaneous, go-getting, and quickly proceeding to action. A creative girl, by
contrast, is described mainly as diligent, conscientious, systematic, persistent, calm, acting according to plan, consistent, or simply
well-behaved. A creative girl is perceived as submissive and conformist, adhering to various kinds of rules and regulations. In some
sense, the profiles of a creative boy and a creative girl presented by teachers mirror the social relations between the sexes (Cuddy,
Fiske, & Glick, 2008; Persell, James, Kang, & Snyder, 1999), with a man described as active, independent, and dominant and a
woman seen as submissive, sensitive, as well as conscientious, diligent, and persistent. The profiles of a creative boy and a creative
girl presented here are very strongly permeated with stereotypical ideas about women and men (Abele & Wojciszke). Unfortunately,
these beliefs can be particularly harmful to girls. The effects of creative girls’ work are perceived as less surprising and more pre-
dictable. Stereotypical beliefs about the characteristics of creative boys, by contrast, appear to translate into their being perceived as
more creative.
Beliefs about creative boys’ and creative girls’ characteristics are clearly associated with the already discussed types (Karwowski,
2016) or styles of creativity (Kirton, 1976, 2004). While teachers’ beliefs about the characteristics of a creative boy seem to fit the
profile of Kirton’s innovator (1976, 2004) or the rebellious creativity type as defined by Karwowski (2016), beliefs about a creative
girl fit the profile of adaptor (Kirton, 1976, 2004) and the subordinated creativity type (Karwowski, 2016). The findings of the
research presented in this paper are consistent with earlier findings (Karwowski, 2016). Karwowski (2016) observed an effect of
gender in the classification of students into rebellious vs. subordinated creativity groups. The majority of students representing the
subordinated creativity type were women (65%), whereas the majority of students representing the rebellious creativity type were
men (62%).

5.3. Causes of differences

As far as the causes of differences between the characteristics of creative boys and creative girls are concerned, the respondents
usually pointed to educational expectations and gender stereotypes. It should be stressed that educational expectations from creative
boys and creative girls are asymmetrical. Girls are expected to show diligence, conscientiousness, systematicness, adherence to rules,
and obedience to authorities. In accordance with educational expectations, a creative girl should be well-behaved, too. The edu-
cational expectations formulated with regard to a creative boy are different and – what is important – much more liberal. First of all,
boys are allowed to do more: their impulsiveness, aggression, insubordination, and disobedience are tolerated. Thus, from an early
age, girls are trained to adopt an attitude of submission and obedience, as well as focus on the conscientious and persistent realization
of the tasks they are entrusted with, whereas boys are trained to develop an attitude of independence and individualism. It even
happens that a naughty girl is perceived as worse than a naughty boy. It also turns out that insubordination manifests itself in
completely different behaviors in creative boys than in creative girls. Teachers point out, for example, that self-confidence in creative
girls is perceived as a manifestation of wrong and socially unacceptable behavior, whereas in the case of boys it is treated as a
particularly desirable trait, enabling self-reliant and independent thinking and activity. As a result, teachers’ stereotypical gender-
related beliefs very clearly determine their way of describing a creative boy and a creative girl, to such a degree that it is sometimes
difficult to find characteristics in the creative girl profile which are significant indicators of creativity (Feist, 1998).
Generally, differences in teachers’ beliefs concerning the characteristic of creative girls and creative boys are strongly associated
with the gender stereotypes functioning in European culture. In the case of boys, these stereotypes draw on the romantic image of a
self-assured individualist who struggles with a problem on his own, breaks the existing rules and patterns of behavior, and is therefore
perceived as talented, ingenious, go-getting, and risk-taking. In the case of girls, by contrast, they draw on a more positivist view of
creativity based on diligence, systematicness, conscientiousness, and perseverance; unfortunately, this leads to a creative girl being
perceived as modest, less self-confident, and risk-avoiding. As a result, these stereotypical ideas appear to favor boys and disfavor
girls, whose work outcomes seem less spectacular to teachers.

5.4. Limitations

The present study is not free from limitations, connected mainly with the size and representativeness of the sample of teachers. It

152
J. Gralewski Thinking Skills and Creativity 31 (2019) 138–155

should be remembered, too, that the analyzed sample was purposefully selected. For this reason, the results reported in this paper
should be approached with a great deal of caution – especially as all the participants in the study were women. The above arguments
make it impossible to generalize the findings of the present study to the entire population of teachers. This kind of generalization,
however, was not not the aim of the present study, conducted in the qualitative research paradigm. Therefore, the findings presented
here should be treated only as tendencies found in this particular sample, which may nevertheless also apply to other, wider groups of
teachers. In the future, the present study should be juxtaposed with beliefs held by teachers working at different levels of education,
and the scope of research should be expanded to include the perspective of male teachers.

5.5. Conclusions

In conclusion, it should be stated that the interviewed teachers described a creative student mainly in terms of his or her per-
sonality traits relevant from the perspective of creativity, cognitive predisposition towards creativity, and motivation, which is
consistent both with previous studies devoted to teachers’ implicit theories of creativity (Andiliou & Murphy, 2010; Bereczki &
Kárpáti, 2018) and with studies on the functioning of individuals with creative achievements (Barron & Harrington, 1981; Feist,
1998). It should be added that teachers’ beliefs about creative students’ characteristics include expressions referring to artistic
abilities, intelligence, and functioning at school, which should not always be treated as significant indicators of creativity. What is
particularly important, it turns out that teachers’ beliefs about creative students’ characteristics relate not only to individual char-
acteristics but also to distinct creativity styles (Kirton, 1976, 2004) or creativity types (Karwowski, 2016). Referring to distinct types
of creativity allows teachers to account for the contradictory descriptions concerning the attributes of creative students.
The interviewed teachers described a creative boy differently than they described a creative girl. Their beliefs about creative boys’
are creative girls’ attributes are clearly associated with the types (Karwowski, 2016) or styles of creativity (Kirton, 1976, 2004).
Teachers’ beliefs about creative boys’ characteristics seem to fit the image of innovator (Kirton, 1976, 2004) or the rebellious
creativity type (Karwowski, 2016), while beliefs about creative girls fit the image of adaptor (Kirton, 1976, 2004) and the sub-
ordinated creativity type (Karwowski, 2016). Generally, however, the way teachers describe a creative boy and a creative girl seems
to be based on gender stereotypes and on the different upbringing expectations formulated with regard to students of different
genders.

Acknowledgment

The research was financed as part of the “Iuventus Plus” program of the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education for
2015–2016, project no. IP2014 013373, implemented by Jacek Gralewski. Autor thank Iza Lebuda for her comment to earlier version
of this paper.

References

Abele, A. E., & Wojciszke, B. (2007). Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 751–763.
Abra, J., & Valentine-French, S. (1991). Gender differences in creative achievement: A survey of explanations. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 117,
235–284.
Aish, D. (2014). Teachers’ beliefs about creativity in the elementary classroom. (Doctoral Dissertation). Ann Arbor: Pepperdine University ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
Global database.
Aljughaiman, A., & Mowrer-Reynolds, E. (2005). Teachers’ conceptions of creativity and creative students. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 39, 17–34.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, Co: Westview Pres, Inc.
Andiliou, A., & Murphy, P. K. (2010). Examining variations among researchers’ and teachers’ conceptualizations of creativity: A review and synthesis of contemporary
research. Educational Research Review, 5, 201–219.
Arcimowicz, K. (2016). Męskocentryczny charakter wspołczesnej kultury polskiej w perspektywie koncepcji Geerta Hofstede’a. Wybrane aspekty problematyki. [The
male-oriented character of modern polish culture in the perspective of Geert Hofstede’s conception: Selected aspects of the issue]. Rocznik Lubuski, 42(1), 71–88.
Ashton, P. T. (2015). Historical overview and theoretical perspectives of research on teachers’ beliefs. In H. Fives, & G. Gill (Eds.). International handbook of research on
teacher beliefs (pp. 31–47). New York: Routledge.
Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2008). Gender differences in creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 42(2), 75–105.
Barbot, B., Besançon, M., & Lubart, T. (2015). Creative potential in educational settings: Its nature, measure, and nurture. Education, 3–13(43), 371–381.
Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 439–476.
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.
Beghetto, R. A. (2010). Creativity in the classroom. In J. C. Kaufman, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.). The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 447–466). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Bereczki, E. O., & Kárpáti, A. (2018). Teachers’ beliefs about creativity and its nurture: A systematic review of the recent research literature. Educational Research
Review, 23, 25–56.
Berg, B. L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social science. Boston: Pearson Education.
Bernard, M. E. (1979). Does sex role behavior influence the way teachers evaluate students? Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(4), 553–562.
Bianco, M., Harris, B., Garrison-Wade, D., & Leech, N. (2011). Gifted girls: Gender bias in gifted referrals. Roeper Review, 33, 170–181.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Burnard, P., & White, J. (2008). Creativity and performativity: Counterpoints in british and australian education. British Educational Research Journal, 34(5), 667–682.
Cachia, R., & Ferrari, A. (2010). Creativity in schools: A survey of teachers in Europe. Seville: European Commission - Joint Research Centre Institute for Prospective
Technological Studies.
Cachia, R., Ferrari, A., Ala-Mutka, K., & Punie, Y. (2010). Creative learning and innovative teaching: Final report on the study on creativity and innovation in education in the
EU member statesSeville: European Commission - Joint Research Centre Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.
Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Reliability, validity, and factor structure of the creative achievement questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal,
17, 37–50.

153
J. Gralewski Thinking Skills and Creativity 31 (2019) 138–155

CED, Centre for Education Development (2015). Nauczyciele w roku szkolnym 2015/2015. [Teachers in school year 2014/2015]. Warszawa: Ośrodek Rozwoju Edukacji.
Chan, D. W., & Chan, L. (1999). Implicit theories of creativity: Teachers` perception of students characteristics in Hog-Kong. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 185–195.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Washington DC: SAGE Publications.
Cheung, W. M., Tse, S. K., & Tsang, H. W. (2003). Teaching creative writing skills to primary school children in Hong Kong: Discordance between the views and
practices of language teachers. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 37(2), 77–97.
Craft, A. (1999). Creative development in the early years: Some implications of policy for practice. The Curriculum Journal, 10(1), 135–150.
Craft, A. (2003). The limits to creativity in education: Dilemmas for the educator. British Journal of Educational Studies, 51, 113–127.
Cropley, A. J. (2010). Creativity in the classroom: The dark side. In D. H. Cropley, A. J. Cropley, J. C. Kaufman, & M. A. Runco (Eds.). The dark side of creativity (pp.
297–315). Cambridge: University Press.
Cuddy, A. J., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the bias map. In
M. P. Zanna (Vol. Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology: Vol. 40, (pp. 61–149). London, England: Academic Press.
Cutcliffe, J. R., & McKenna, H. P. (1999). Establishing the credibility of qualitative research findings: The plot thickens. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 30(2), 374–380.
Durmysheva, Y., & Kozbelt, A. (2014). Psychologizing the “finder-seeker” creator typology: Relations between the Creative Approach Questionnaire (CAPPQ) and
other measures. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 33(4), 341–358.
Eckhoff, A. (2011). Creativity in the early childhood classroom: Perspectives of preservice teachers. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 32, 240–255.
Eurydice (2013). Key data on teachers and school leaders in Europe. Eurydice raport. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychological Review, 2(4), 290–309.
Fives, H., & Gill, M. G. (2015). International handbook of research on teachers’ beliefs. New York: Routledge.
Fleith, D. S. (2000). Teacher and student perceptions of creativity in the classroom environment. Roeper Review, 22(3), 148–153.
Freund, P. A., Holling, H., & Preckel, F. (2007). A multivariate, multilevel analysis of the relationship between cognitive abilities and scholastic achievement. Journal of
Individual Differences, 28(4), 188–197.
Frith, H., & Gleeson, K. (2004). Clothing and embodiment: Men managing body image and appearance. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 5(1), 40–48.
Gajda, A., Karwowski, M., & Beghetto, R. (2017). Creativity and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109, 269–299.
Glăveanu, V. P. (2013). Rewriting the language of creativity: The five A’s framework. Review of General Psychology, 17(1), 69–81.
Gralewski, J. (2016). Teachers’ beliefs about creativity and possibilities for its development in Polish high schools: A qualitative study. Creativity Theories – Research –
Applications, 3(2), 292–329.
Gralewski, J., & Karwowski, M. (2013). Polite girls and creative boys? Students’ gender moderates accuracy of teachers’ ratings of creativity. The Journal of Creative
Behavior, 47(4), 290–304.
Gralewski, J., & Karwowski, M. (2018). Are teachers’ implicit theories of creativity related to the recognition of their students’ creativity? The Journal of Creative
Behavior, 52(2), 156–167.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Heilmann, G., & Korte, W. B. (2010). The role of creativity and innovation in school curricula in the EU27. Seville: European Commission - Joint Research Centre Institute
for Prospective Technological Studies.
Helson, R. (1990). Creativity in women: Outer and inner views over time. In M. Runco, & R. Albert (Eds.). Theories of creativity (pp. 46–48). Newbury Park: Sage.
Helson, R. (1999). Institute of personality assessment and research. In M. A. Runco, & S. R. Pritzker (Vol. Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity: Vol. 2, (pp. 71–79). San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Henriksen, D., & Mishra, P. (2015). We teach who we are: Creativity in the lives and practices of accomplished teachers. Teachers College Record, 117(7), 1–46.
Hoff, E. V., & Carlsson, I. (2011). Teachers are not always right: Links between teacher ratings and students’ creativity scores, self-images and self-ratings in school
subjects. The Open Educational Journal, 4, 120–129.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hong, M., & Kang, N. H. (2010). South Korean and the US secondary school science teachers’ conceptions of creativity and teaching for creativity. International Journal
of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(5), 821–843.
Kampylis, P., Berki, E., & Saariluoma, P. (2009). In-service and prospective teachers’ conceptions of creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4, 15–29.
Karwowski, M. (2016). Subordinated and rebellious creativity at school. In R. A. Beghetto, & B. Sriraman (Eds.). Creative contradictions in education: Cross disciplinary
paradoxes and perspectives (pp. 89–112). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Karwowski, M., Dul, J., Gralewski, J., Jauk, E., Jankowska, D. M., Gajda, A., et al. (2016). Is creativity without intelligence possible? A necessary condition analysis.
Intelligence, 57, 105–117.
Karwowski, M., & Gralewski, J. (2013). Threshold hypothesis: Fact or artifact? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 25–33.
Karwowski, M., Gralewski, J., & Szumski, G. (2015). Teachers’ effect on students’ creative self-beliefs is moderated by students’ gender. Learning and Individual
Differences, 44, 1–8.
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four c model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1–12.
Kim, K. H. (2005). Can only intelligent people be creative? A meta-analysis. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 16, 57–66.
Kirton, M. J. (1976). Adaptors and innovators. A description and measure. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(5), 622–629.
Kirton, M. J. (2004). Adaption-innovation: In the context of diversity and change. London, UK: Routledge.
Konarzewski, K. (1991). Problemy i schematy [Problems and schematas]. Warsaw: Zak.
Kozbelt, A. (2008). Gombrich, Galenson, and beyond: Integrating case study and typological frameworks in the study of creative individuals. Empirical Studies of the
Arts, 26(1), 51–68.
Kozbelt, A., Beghetto, R. A., & Runco, M. A. (2010). Theories of creativity. In J. C. Kaufman, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.). The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 20–47).
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Lindley, H. A., & Keithley, M. E. (1991). Gender expectations and student achievement. Roeper Review, 13(4), 213–215.
MacKinnon, D. W. (1962). The nature and nurture of creative talent. The American Psychologist, 17, 484–495.
MacKinnon, D. W. (1965). Personality and the realization of creative potential. The American Psychologist, 20(4), 273–281.
Makel, M. C. (2009). Help us creativity researchers, you’re our only hope. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(1), 38–42.
Maksić, S., & Pavlović, J. (2011). Educational researchers’ personal explicit theories on creativity and its development: A qualitative study. High Ability Studies, 22(2),
219–231.
McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6), 1258–1265.
Montgomery, D., Bull, K. S., & Baloche, L. (1993). Characteristics of the creative person. The American Behavioral Scientist, 37, 68–78.
Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 250–260.
Mullet, D. R., Willerson, A., Lamb, K. N., & Kettler, T. (2016). Examining teacher perceptions of creativity: A systematic review of the literature. Thinking Skills and
Creativity, 21, 9–30.
Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(4), 317–328.
Newton, L., & Beverton, S. (2012). Pre-service teachers’ conceptions of creativity in elementary school English. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7(3), 165–176.
Niaz, M., de Nunez, G. S., & de Pineda, I. R. (2000). Academic performance of high school students as a function of mental capacity, cognitive style, mobility-fixity
dimension, and creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 34, 18–29.
OECD (2016). PISA 2015 results (Volume 1): Excellence and equity in education. Paris: PISA, OECD Publishing.
Park, S., Lee, S., Oliver, J. S., & Cramond, B. (2006). Changes in Korean science teachers’ perceptions of creativity and science teaching after participating in an
overseas professional development program. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(1), 37–64.
Patton, M. Q. (1999). Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Services Research, 34(5), 1189–1208.
Pavlović, J., Maksić, S., & Bodroža, B. (2013). Implicit individualism in teachers’ theories of creativity: Through the “four P’s” looking glass. The International Journal of

154
J. Gralewski Thinking Skills and Creativity 31 (2019) 138–155

Creativity & Problem Solving, 23(1), 39–57.

Persell, C. H., James, C., Kang, T., & Snyder, K. (1999). Gender and education in global perspective. In J. Saltzman Chafetz (Ed.). Handbook of the sociology of gender
(pp. 407–440). New York: Springer.
Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologist? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in
creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 83–96.
Proudfoot, D., Kay, A. C., & Koval, C. Z. (2015). A gender bias in the attribution of creativity: Archival and experimental evidence for the perceived association between
masculinity and creative thinking. Psychological Science, 26(11), 1751–1761.
Reis, S. M. (1999). Women and creativity. In M. Runco, & S. Pritzker (Vol. Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity: Vol. 2, (pp. 699–708). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Reis, S. M. (2002). Toward a theory of creativity in diverse creative women. Creativity Research Journal, 14(3-4), 305–316.
Rubenstein, L. D., McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2013). Teaching for creativity scales: An instrument to examine teachers’ perceptions of factors that allow for the
teaching of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 25(3), 324–334.
Runco, M. A. (1984). Teachers` judgments of creativity and social validation of divergent thiking tests. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 59(3), 711–717.
Runco, M. A. (2003). Education for creative potential. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(3), 317–324.
Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96.
Runco, M. A., Johnson, D. J., & Bear, P. K. (1993). Parents’ and teachers’ implicit theories of children’s creativity. Child Study Journal, 23(2), 91–113.
Sadker, D., & Zittleman, K. (2004). Gender bias: From colonial America to today’s classroom. In J. A. Banks, & C. A. McGee Banks (Eds.). Multicultural education. Issues
and perspectives (pp. 81–97). New York: John Wiley.
Sandler, B. R., Silverberg, L. A., & Hall, R. M. (1996). The chilly clasroom climate. A guide to improve the education of women. Washington: National Association for
Women in Education.
Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Educating for innovation. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1(1), 41–48.
Skiba, T., Tan, M., Sternberg, R., & Grigorenko, E. (2010). Roads not taken, new roads to take: Looking for creativity in the classroom. In R. A. Beghetto, & J. C.
Kaufman (Eds.). Nurturing creativity in the classroom (pp. 108–130). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text and interaction. London: Sage Publications.
Simonton, D. (1994). Greatness: Who makes history and why. New York: Guilford.
Sternberg, J. R., & O’Hara, L. (1999). Creativity and intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.). Handbook of creativity (pp. 251–272). Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Stone, D. L. (2015). Art teachers’ beliefs about creativity. Visual Arts Research, 41(2), 82–100.
Tobin, K., & Garnett, P. (1987). Gender related differences in science activities. Science Education, 71(1), 91–103.
Turner, S. (2013). Teachers’ and pupils’ perceptions of creativity across different key stages. Research in Education, 89(1), 23–40.
Westby, E. L., & Dawson, V. L. (1995). Creativity: Asset or burden in the classroom? Creativity Research Journal, 8(1), 1–10.

155