Girls' creativity less visible: Mathematics and language teachers' ratings of male and female students' creativity

IF 3.8 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Learning and Individual Differences Pub Date : 2024-09-16 DOI:10.1016/j.lindif.2024.102560
Jacek Gralewski, Aleksandra Gajda
{"title":"Girls' creativity less visible: Mathematics and language teachers' ratings of male and female students' creativity","authors":"Jacek Gralewski,&nbsp;Aleksandra Gajda","doi":"10.1016/j.lindif.2024.102560","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The aim of this study was to investigate how mathematics and language teachers recognize the creativity of male and female students. The study used a random selection of 2028 students (1242 females and 786 males) as well as 219 teachers (110 math and 109 language) from 110 different high schools. The study found that girls' creative potential had a stronger association (<em>z</em> = 2.84; <em>p</em> &lt; .01) with their creativity ratings given by language teachers (<em>β</em> = 0.24; <em>p</em> &lt; .001) than with math teachers' ratings (<em>β</em> = 0.13; <em>p</em> &lt; .001). Boys' creative potential was similarly correlated with their creativity ratings from both language (<em>β</em> = 0.25; <em>p</em> &lt; .001) and math teachers (<em>β</em> = 0.23; p &lt; .001), showing no significant difference (<em>z</em> = 0.42; <em>p</em> &gt; .05). Further analysis indicated a stronger correlation between math teachers' creativity ratings and boys' creative potential compared to girls' (<em>z</em> = 2.27; <em>p</em> &lt; .05), while language teachers' creativity ratings were similarly correlated with the creative potential of both genders (<em>z</em> = −0.23; <em>p</em> &gt; .05). The results obtained in the study are discussed in the light of stereotypes about gender differences in math and language abilities.</p></div><div><h3>Educational relevance statement</h3><p>Despite the slight advantage of women over men in their creative potential (Abdulla Alabbasi et al., 2022), there is a clear advantage of men over women in terms of creative achievements (<span><span>Baer &amp; Kaufman, 2008</span></span>; Hora et al., 2022). Men dominate women in real world creative achievement in areas such as mathematics, science, and engineering (Abra &amp; Valentine-French, 1991; Piirto, 1991). Women's creative achievements, in turn, occur in such fields as performing arts, choreography, and literature (Abra &amp; Valentine-French, 1991). Piirto (1991, p. 143) even suggests that ‘the creative world is largely a man's world.’</p><p>Explaining the reasons for the differences in the creative achievements of women and men is an important issue. It can contribute to the reduction of the phenomenon referred to as ‘losing talents’. Previous attempts to explain gender differences in creative achievements come down to the biological (<span><span>Abraham, 2016</span></span>; <span><span>Eysenck, 1995</span></span>) and the socio-cultural (Abra &amp; Valentine-French, 1991) factors. The latter seem particularly important because they are associated with discrimination against women and the privileging of men. In the past, this was affected by fundamentally different social expectations of women and men, which were associated, among other things, with the assignment to women of roles related to running a home and caring for children, thus limiting their access to education and professional creative activity (Baer &amp; Kaufman, 2008). These seemingly historical beliefs still function, predisposing men to undertake creative activity while imposing upon women the role of mother and domestic caretaker (<span><span>Simonton, 1994</span></span>). Women are still expected to take care of the home and children, which creates a conflict between their familial and professional roles (<span><span>Cole &amp; Zuckerman, 1987</span></span>; Piirto, 1991). As a result, the trajectories of women's creative careers are completely different than those of creative men because, at a time when men accelerate their professional development, women are very strongly involved in the processes related to starting a family and bring up children (Piirto, 1991).</p><p>For the analyzed problem, formal education, far from creating gender equity, is also significant (Sadker, 2000). This includes the content of textbooks (Gajda &amp; Wołowicz, 2022), teachers' beliefs about the creativity of girls and boys (Gralewski, 2019), and teachers' educational practices (Gajda et al., 2022) that reinforce gender stereotypes. It is surprising that – despite formal education with specialized teachers even lasting several years – women are inferior to men in terms of creative achievements (Baer &amp; Kaufman, 2008; Hora et al., 2022). On this basis, the question arises: what role do teachers play in the differences of creative productivity between women and men? Why, during formal education, are teachers unable to prevent the phenomenon where females less frequently achieve the peaks of creative productivity compared to males? (Hora et al., 2022)? Therefore, the purpose of this study is to find answers to questions about whether maths and language teachers can recognize the creative potential and creative activity of male and female students, and whether there are differences in this respect that could deepen the gender gap in creative performance.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48336,"journal":{"name":"Learning and Individual Differences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learning and Individual Differences","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1041608024001535","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate how mathematics and language teachers recognize the creativity of male and female students. The study used a random selection of 2028 students (1242 females and 786 males) as well as 219 teachers (110 math and 109 language) from 110 different high schools. The study found that girls' creative potential had a stronger association (z = 2.84; p < .01) with their creativity ratings given by language teachers (β = 0.24; p < .001) than with math teachers' ratings (β = 0.13; p < .001). Boys' creative potential was similarly correlated with their creativity ratings from both language (β = 0.25; p < .001) and math teachers (β = 0.23; p < .001), showing no significant difference (z = 0.42; p > .05). Further analysis indicated a stronger correlation between math teachers' creativity ratings and boys' creative potential compared to girls' (z = 2.27; p < .05), while language teachers' creativity ratings were similarly correlated with the creative potential of both genders (z = −0.23; p > .05). The results obtained in the study are discussed in the light of stereotypes about gender differences in math and language abilities.

Educational relevance statement

Despite the slight advantage of women over men in their creative potential (Abdulla Alabbasi et al., 2022), there is a clear advantage of men over women in terms of creative achievements (Baer & Kaufman, 2008; Hora et al., 2022). Men dominate women in real world creative achievement in areas such as mathematics, science, and engineering (Abra & Valentine-French, 1991; Piirto, 1991). Women's creative achievements, in turn, occur in such fields as performing arts, choreography, and literature (Abra & Valentine-French, 1991). Piirto (1991, p. 143) even suggests that ‘the creative world is largely a man's world.’

Explaining the reasons for the differences in the creative achievements of women and men is an important issue. It can contribute to the reduction of the phenomenon referred to as ‘losing talents’. Previous attempts to explain gender differences in creative achievements come down to the biological (Abraham, 2016; Eysenck, 1995) and the socio-cultural (Abra & Valentine-French, 1991) factors. The latter seem particularly important because they are associated with discrimination against women and the privileging of men. In the past, this was affected by fundamentally different social expectations of women and men, which were associated, among other things, with the assignment to women of roles related to running a home and caring for children, thus limiting their access to education and professional creative activity (Baer & Kaufman, 2008). These seemingly historical beliefs still function, predisposing men to undertake creative activity while imposing upon women the role of mother and domestic caretaker (Simonton, 1994). Women are still expected to take care of the home and children, which creates a conflict between their familial and professional roles (Cole & Zuckerman, 1987; Piirto, 1991). As a result, the trajectories of women's creative careers are completely different than those of creative men because, at a time when men accelerate their professional development, women are very strongly involved in the processes related to starting a family and bring up children (Piirto, 1991).

For the analyzed problem, formal education, far from creating gender equity, is also significant (Sadker, 2000). This includes the content of textbooks (Gajda & Wołowicz, 2022), teachers' beliefs about the creativity of girls and boys (Gralewski, 2019), and teachers' educational practices (Gajda et al., 2022) that reinforce gender stereotypes. It is surprising that – despite formal education with specialized teachers even lasting several years – women are inferior to men in terms of creative achievements (Baer & Kaufman, 2008; Hora et al., 2022). On this basis, the question arises: what role do teachers play in the differences of creative productivity between women and men? Why, during formal education, are teachers unable to prevent the phenomenon where females less frequently achieve the peaks of creative productivity compared to males? (Hora et al., 2022)? Therefore, the purpose of this study is to find answers to questions about whether maths and language teachers can recognize the creative potential and creative activity of male and female students, and whether there are differences in this respect that could deepen the gender gap in creative performance.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
女孩的创造力不太明显:数学和语文教师对男女学生创造力的评价
本研究的目的是调查数学和语文教师如何认识男女学生的创造力。研究随机选取了来自 110 所不同高中的 2028 名学生(1242 名女生和 786 名男生)以及 219 名教师(110 名数学教师和 109 名语文教师)。研究发现,女生的创造潜能与语文教师对其创造力的评分(β = 0.24; p <.001)之间的关联(z = 2.84; p <.01)比与数学教师的评分(β = 0.13; p <.001)之间的关联(z = 2.84; p <.001)更强。男生的创造潜能与语文教师(β = 0.25; p <.001)和数学教师(β = 0.23; p <.001)对其创造力的评价也有类似的相关性,两者之间没有显著差异(z = 0.42; p >.05)。进一步的分析表明,与女生相比,数学教师的创造力评分与男生的创造潜能之间的相关性更强(z = 2.27; p <.05),而语文教师的创造力评分与男女生的创造潜能之间的相关性相似(z = -0.23; p >.05)。教育相关性声明尽管女性在创造潜力方面比男性略胜一筹(Abdulla Alabbasi 等人,2022 年),但在创造性成就方面,男性比女性有明显优势(Baer & Kaufman, 2008; Hora 等人,2022 年)。在数学、科学和工程学等领域,男性在现实世界的创造性成就方面比女性占优势(Abra & Valentine-French, 1991; Piirto, 1991)。而女性的创造性成就则出现在表演艺术、舞蹈编排和文学等领域(Abra & Valentine-French, 1991)。Piirto(1991 年,第 143 页)甚至认为 "创造性的世界在很大程度上是男人的世界"。它有助于减少被称为 "人才流失 "的现象。以往试图解释创造性成就中性别差异的方法归结为生物因素(Abraham, 2016; Eysenck, 1995)和社会文化因素(Abra & Valentine-French, 1991)。后者似乎尤为重要,因为它们与对女性的歧视和男性的特权有关。在过去,社会对女性和男性有着截然不同的期望,这种期望主要与女性被赋予操持家务和照顾子女的角色有关,从而限制了她们接受教育和从事专业创造性活动的机会(Baer & Kaufman, 2008)。这些看似历史悠久的观念仍在发挥作用,使男性倾向于从事创造性活动,而将母亲和家庭照料者的角色强加给女性(Simonton,1994 年)。人们仍然期望妇女照顾家庭和孩子,这就造成了她们在家庭角色和职业角色之间的冲突(Cole & Zuckerman, 1987; Piirto, 1991)。因此,女性创造性职业生涯的轨迹与男性创造性职业生涯的轨迹完全不同,因为在男性加快职业发展的同时,女性却要大力参与与成家立业和养育子女有关的过程(Piirto, 1991)。这包括教科书的内容(Gajda & Wołowicz,2022 年)、教师对女孩和男孩创造力的看法(Gralewski,2019 年)以及教师的教育实践(Gajda et al.令人惊讶的是,尽管有专业教师提供甚至长达数年的正规教育,女性在创造性方面的成就却不如男性(Baer & Kaufman, 2008; Hora et al.)在此基础上,问题出现了:教师在男女创造性生产力差异中扮演什么角色?为什么在正规教育中,教师无法阻止女性比男性更少达到创造性生产力高峰的现象?(霍拉等人,2022 年)?因此,本研究的目的是要找到答案,即数学和语文教师是否能够认识到男女学生的创造潜力和创造活动,以及在这方面是否存在可能加深创造性表现的性别差距的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Learning and Individual Differences
Learning and Individual Differences PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
2.80%
发文量
86
期刊介绍: Learning and Individual Differences is a research journal devoted to publishing articles of individual differences as they relate to learning within an educational context. The Journal focuses on original empirical studies of high theoretical and methodological rigor that that make a substantial scientific contribution. Learning and Individual Differences publishes original research. Manuscripts should be no longer than 7500 words of primary text (not including tables, figures, references).
期刊最新文献
Latent profiles of Chinese students' social-emotional learning competencies and their associations with academic motivation and achievement Testing the generalizability of the multiplicative effects of expectancy and value across different ages, genders, and races Science motivation, academic achievement, career aspirations in early adolescents Parents' implicit intelligence beliefs about children's intelligence: Implications for children's academic self-concept and achievement in Maths, English, and French Is intelligence necessary and sufficient for creativity? An analysis of convergent and divergent thinking
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1