Teacher Perception of Creativity, Intelligence and Achievement

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to explicate the relationships between student test performance on standardized intelligence, achievement and creativity tests and teacher perceptions of these abilities. Third grade students were administered a battery of tests, and their teachers rated their intelligence, academic achievement, and creativity in comparison with all other same-aged children and in comparison with the other children in the class [Q-sort parallel]. Pearson product-moment correlations revealed that all teacher responses were significantly related to each other; they were also significantly correlated with the achievement test scores and the Cognitive Abilities Test scores. Global creativity ratings did not correspond well with the standardized test scores, but the creativity Q-sort responses were significantly related to the creativity test scores.

Teachers' Conceptions of Creativity and Creative Students

“…Teachers have many misconceptions regarding what constitutes creativity. Mayfield (1979) assessed students on standardized creativity tests and then asked their teachers to describe the creative abilities of those students. The findings revealed that teachers were not able to judge creativity dimensions.…”

Accuracy of teacher judgments of student responses to standardized test items.

“…Within the present context, unfortunately, this research carries at least two limitations. First, many of these studies are of only tangential relevance here because the correspondence between teacher judgments and student abilities was examined in a predictive rather than a concurrent context (e.g., Dusek & O'Connell, 1973;Morine-Dershimer, 1978-1979. Morine-Dershimer, for example, asked teachers at the beginning of the school year to group students into five categories reflecting their expectations for the student's end-of-year academic achievement.…”

“…A second limitation of existing research is that teacher judgments have been expressed as rankings or general ratings of student performance (e.g., Farr & Roelke, 1971;Hoge & Butcher, 1984;Hopkins, George, & Williams, 1985;Kellaghan, Madaus, & Airasian, 1982;Luce & Hoge, 1978;Mayfield, 1979;Oliver 141 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.…”

“…& Arnold, 1978;Stevenson, Parker, Wilkinson, Hegion, & Fish, 1976;Tokar & Holthouse, 1977). For example, Kellaghan et al (1982) asked teachers to rate their students' abilities as "well above average," "above average," "average," "below average," or "well below average"; Mayfield (1979) asked teachers to rank order their students on academic achievement. Other approaches include asking teachers to estimate the instructional reading level (Oliver & Arnold, 1978) or grade-equivalent score (Hoge & Butcher, 1984) corresponding to a student's performance.…”

Factorial structure and internal consistency of the Russian version of Teachers Creativity Nurturing Behavior Scale (TCNB)

“…For instance, in contrast to many explicit conceptualizations of creativity (e.g., Lubart, 2017;Plucker et al, 2004;Rhodes, 1961), teachers often fail to acknowledge that creativity is a multifaceted construct (Lee& Seo, 2006;Mullet et al, 2016). Moreover, teachers' ratings of students' creativity frequently tend to be gender-biased, poorly related to measures of creative potential, and highly related to students' level of intelligence and academic achievements (Gralewski, 2019;Gralewski & Karwowski, 2013Holland, 1959;May eld, 1979;Scott, 1999). Although teachers' conceptions of creativity are also art-biased(e.g., Andiliou & Murphy, 2010), the recent online study conducted in seven countries over the world (Patson, Cropley, Marrone, & Kaufman, 2018)showsthat the tendency to "art bias"in teachers was not so notable as expected, and there were signi cant differences in art bias by discipline, gender, and teachers' self-assessed creativity.…”