創造思考被視為核心的高層次能力之一，對於全球創新與經濟發展具有關鍵影響力。無論在國際教育政策或臺灣課綱中，皆將K-12學生的創造思考培養列為重要目標。創造思考一般可分為技能與態度兩大面向，但目前研究多集中於技能，對態度的探討相對不足，主因在於相關概念發展較晚，導致學術重心偏向技能研究，忽略了態度在激發學生動機與持續投入創造性活動中的關鍵角色。事實上，創造思考態度在學生持續投入創意思考、解決真實世界中複雜問題的動機面向上具有關鍵影響力。另一方面，學習階段與性別亦可能對創造思考態度的發展產生顯著影響。有鑑於此，本研究旨在探討四個學習階段（國小中年級、高年級、國中與高中）與性別（男、女）對四個創造思考態度向度（冒險性、好奇性、想像性與挑戰性）的交互影響。

本研究於臺灣南部一所學校進行調查，對象為三至十二年級學生，採用威廉斯創造性傾向量表(Test of Divergent Thinking)進行資料蒐集，共取得有效樣本1,046份（男學生589人，女學生457人）。由於缺失資料比例為0.27%，因此先以多重插補法處理缺失值，再進行統計分析。本研究使用趨勢圖、Kruskal-Wallis H 檢定與 Mann-Whitney U 檢定，探討學習階段與性別對創造思考態度的影響。四點主要研究結果指出：
1. 學習階段與性別在四個創造思考態度面向上皆呈現顯著交互作用，故分別進行探討。
2. 在男學生方面，國小中年級男學生在好奇性表現上顯著高於國中與高中男學生；高中男學生的想像性顯著高於國小高年級與國中男學生。此一發展趨勢可能與學習環境的變化有關。低年級階段的教學氛圍較具探索性與遊戲導向，能有效激發學生的好奇心；然而，隨著學習階段提升，課程逐漸趨於結構化與應試導向，可能抑制學生的開放性探究動機。至於高中階段想像力的提升，此一發展趨勢與認知發展理論相符。該理論指出，青少年時期是抽象推理、自我省思以及未來導向思維逐漸成熟的關鍵階段，而這些能力正是促使想像力的核心因素。
3. 在女學生方面，國小中、高年級女學生的冒險性顯著高於高中女學生；國小中年級女學生在好奇性方面顯著優於其他三個學習階段，且國小高年級女學生也顯著高於高中女學生；在挑戰性面向，國小中年級女學生顯著高於國中與高中女學生。這些結果顯示可能因為在國小階段，學校環境相對支持學生主動探索與表達，使女性學生較能展現出高度的好奇心、勇於嘗試新想法，並積極參與較為複雜的思考活動。然而，隨著升學壓力與社會期待的增加，尤其是對於服從與社會認可的文化要求，可能抑制了女生在高中階段展現創造思考態度的冒險性、好奇性、挑戰性。
4. 在學習階段方面：國小高年級、國中與高中階段，女學生的想像性顯著高於男學生，此可能與她們自幼較常參與情感表達與敘事活動有關，進而促進語言與內在思維的發展，對想像力產生正向影響。相對地，在高中階段，男學生於冒險性、好奇性與挑戰性三個面向上顯著優於女學生。這可能反映出性別社會化歷程的差異：男學生在青春期較常受到鼓勵去挑戰規範、勇於冒險與探索未知，這些行為特質與上述三項創造思考態度高度相關。相對而言，女學生在升學壓力與社會期待下，較傾向展現謹慎保守的態度，特別是在重視正確性與標準化評量的學習情境中，可能壓抑其在高中階段的創造態度發展。

整體而言，男學生的好奇性隨學習階段上升而逐漸下降；女學生則在冒險性、好奇性與複雜性上呈現下滑趨勢。儘管男生在高中階段的想像力略有提升，整體仍低於女學生。這些結果顯示，不同性別在創造思考態度的發展上面臨不同挑戰。男學生可能受到結構化、結果導向的教學體制限制，缺乏持續探索的空間；女學生則易因升學壓力與社會期待而壓抑創造性表現。因此，建議自國小高年級起至高中階段，推動以學生為中心、強調開放與包容的教學策略，如STEAM專題導向學習，並根據性別差異進行課程設計：強化男學生的好奇心與想像力，並支持女學生在冒險性、好奇性與複雜性上的發展。同時，應建立整合性的支持系統，鼓勵教師營造創新氛圍，家庭則透過肯定與鼓勵創意行為，共同促進學生創造思考的培養，進而提升臺灣教育的整體競爭力。

Creative thinking is widely recognized as a core higher-order competency and a vital driver of innovation and global economic growth. While education systems worldwide, including Taiwan’s, have increasingly emphasized the cultivation of creative thinking among students from kindergarten through grade 12. Creative thinking is typically divided into two key components: skills and attitudes. While substantial research has focused on creative thinking skills, comparatively little attention has been given to creative thinking attitudes. One key explanation for this imbalance lies in the fact that the conceptualization of creative thinking attitudes emerged relatively late. Consequently, scholarly attention became predominantly focused on skills-based approaches, often overlooking the attitudinal components of creative thinking. However, creative thinking attitudes are fundamental to fostering students’ intrinsic motivation, sustained engagement, and deeper cognitive growth. These attitudes serve as the psychological foundation that enables students to approach learning with flexibility, persistence, and intellectual openness. Moreover, both the learning stage and gender may exert distinct influences on the formation and progression of these attitudes. In response to these gaps, the present study investigates the interaction effects of the learning stages (junior primary, upper primary, middle secondary, and upper secondary) and gender (male and female) on students’ creative thinking attitudes across four key dimensions: curiosity, risk-taking, imagination, and complexity.

The research was conducted at a school in southern Taiwan, involving 1,046 students from Grades 3 to 12 (589 male, 457 female). Data were collected using the Test of Divergent Thinking, with missing responses (0.27%) handled via multiple imputation. Using profile plots together with the Kruskal-Wallis H test and the Mann-Whitney U test, differences across learning stages and gender were examined. Four key findings emerged:
1. Significant interaction effects between learning stage and gender were found across all four dimensions of creative thinking attitudes.
2. Among male students, a clear developmental shift was observed. Curiosity declined significantly from middle elementary to junior and senior high school, while imagination increased, with senior high boys scoring significantly higher in imagination than their peers in earlier stages. The changing nature of the school environment may explain this opposing trend. In early grades, boys benefit from a more exploratory and playful learning atmosphere that encourages curiosity. As they move into higher grades, however, the curriculum becomes more structured and test-driven, potentially discouraging open-ended inquiry and suppressing their natural inquisitiveness. In contrast, the rise in imagination during senior high school likely reflects cognitive development and increased exposure to abstract concepts, enabling more internalized forms of creative engagement.
3. Among female students, a more pronounced decline was observed across multiple dimensions. Middle and upper elementary female student scored significantly higher in risk-taking than their senior high counterparts. In curiosity, middle elementary female student outperformed all other female groups, while upper elementary female student still scored higher than those in senior high. In complexity, middle elementary female student again scored significantly higher than female student in junior and senior high school. These results suggest that the early school years provide a more supportive environment for female students to express curiosity, take intellectual risks, and engage with complex ideas. However, as they transition to higher educational levels, social and academic pressures including a strong emphasis on evaluation, performance, and conformity may inhibit these attitudes. Cultural expectations around compliance and social approval, particularly for female student, may also contribute to the reduced expression of divergent thinking in adolescence.
4. In terms of gender differences, female students scored significantly higher than male students in imagination from upper elementary through senior high school. This finding indicates a sustained advantage among female student in expressive and reflective thinking, possibly due to early encouragement in narrative and artistic domains. Conversely, by senior high school, male students scored significantly higher than females in risk-taking, curiosity, and complexity. This shift may be partially explained by gendered developmental trajectories. Adolescent often receive more societal encouragement to challenge norms, take risks, and explore uncertainty behaviors closely associated with higher scores in these dimensions. In contrast, female students at this stage may face greater pressure to conform academically and socially, leading to more cautious and restrained behavior, especially in environments that emphasize correctness and standardized assessment.

Overall, male students showed a declining trend in curiosity across learning stages, while female students experienced declines in risk-taking, curiosity, and complexity. Although boys’ imagination increased slightly in senior high, it remained consistently lower than that of female student from upper elementary onward. These findings highlight the distinct developmental challenges faced by each gender. For boys, the decline in curiosity may stem from a rigid, outcome-oriented educational system that discourages open inquiry. For female student, the broader decline across several dimensions may reflect their increased sensitivity to academic pressure and societal expectations during adolescence. Notably, the sustained strength in female student imagination suggests that internal creative engagement remains intact, potentially supported by early exposure to expressive thinking activities.

These findings underscore the importance of implementing student-centered, open-ended, and inclusive instructional strategies, such as STEAM project-based learning, starting from upper elementary school and continuing through senior high school. In addition, curriculum design should respond to the specific developmental needs of each gender: fostering curiosity and imagination in male students, while supporting risk-taking, curiosity, and complexity in female students. Beyond curriculum reforms, a broader ecosystem of support is needed to sustain students’ creative thinking attitudes. Teachers play a crucial role in this process by modeling openness, encouraging exploration, and offering constructive feedback that values creativity. Likewise, families influence students’ attitudes at home by affirming curiosity, validating creative expression, and nurturing intellectual risk-taking. A collaborative effort among schools, educators, and families is essential to cultivating an environment where creativity can flourish across both genders and developmental levels. Such efforts are vital not only for preparing students to navigate complex future challenges but also for enhancing Taiwan’s educational competitiveness on the global stage.

Abraham, A. (2015). Gender and creativity: An overview of psychological and neuroscientific literature. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 10(2), 609-618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11682-015-9410-8

Abraham, A., Thybusch, K., Pieritz, K., & Hermann, C. (2013). Gender differences in creative thinking: behavioral and fMRI findings. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 8(1), 39-51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11682-013-9241-4

Adiastuty, N., Sumarni, N., Riyadi, M., Nisa, A., & Waluya, N. (2021). Neuroscience study: analysis of mathematical creative thinking ability levels in terms of gender differences in vocational high school students. Journal of Physics Conference Series, 1933(1), 012072. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1933/1/012072

Adie, L., Addison, B., & Lingard, B. (2021). Assessment and learning: An in-depth analysis of change in one school’s assessment culture. Oxford Review of Education, 47, 404-422. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2020.1850436

Alves‐Oliveira, P., Arriaga, P., Xavier, C., Hoffman, G., & Paiva, A. (2021). Creativity Landscapes: Systematic review spanning 70 years of creativity interventions for children. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 56(1), 16–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.514

Ayyildiz, P., & Yilmaz, A. (2021). “Moving the Kaleidoscope” to see the effect of creative personality traits on creative thinking dispositions of preservice teachers: The mediating effect of creative learning environments and teachers’ creativity fostering behavior. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 41, 100879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100879

Bandura, A., & National Inst of Mental Health. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2008). Gender differences in creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 42(2), 75-105.

Barbot, B., & Heuser, B. (2017). Creativity and identity formation in adolescence: A developmental perspective. In The creative self (87-98). Academic Press.

Bart, W. M., Hokanson, B., Sahin, I., & Abdelsamea, M. A. (2015). An investigation of the gender differences in creative thinking abilities among 8th and 11th grade students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 17, 17-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2015.03.003

Bennett-Rappell, H., & Northcote, M. T. (2016). Underachieving gifted Students: Two case studies. Issues in Educational Research, 26(3), 407–430.

Beale, D., Dazzi, F., & Tryfonas, T. (2023). Unweaving the definitions of complexity. IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Systems, 54(2), 682-692. https://doi.org/10.1109/tsmc.2023.3300753

Beghetto, R. A. (2019). Creativity in classrooms. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (2nd ed., pp. 587–606). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316979839.029

Benedek, M., Bruckdorfer, R., & Jauk, E. (2019). Motives for creativity: Exploring the what and why of everyday creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 54(3), 610-625. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.396

Benedek, M., Schacter, D., Beaty, R., & Kenett, Y. (2023). The role of memory in creative ideation. Nature Reviews Psychology, 2, 246-257. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-023-00158-z.

Berdan, L., Keane, S., & Calkins, S. (2008). Temperament and externalizing behavior: Social preference and perceived acceptance as protective factors. Developmental psychology, 44(4), 957-968. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.44.4.957

Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106(4), 676–713. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.676

Chen, P., Zhang, J., Xu, N., Zhang, K., & Xiao, L. (2023). The relationship between need for cognition and adolescents’ creative self-efficacy: The mediating roles of perceived parenting behaviors and perceived teacher support. Current Psychology, 42, (7812-7825).

Chen, W. W., & Ho, H. Z. (2012). The relation between perceived parental involvement and academic achievement: The roles of Taiwanese students’ academic beliefs and filial piety. International Journal of Psychology, 47(4), 315-324. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2011.630004

Chou, C. (2018). How Taiwan Education Pursues Equity in Excellence. Education Innovation Series. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2975-3_4

Chouteau, S., Lemaire, B., Thevenot, C., Dewi, J., & Mazens, K. (2023). Learning basic arithmetic: A comparison between rote and procedural learning based on an artificial sequence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 50(3), 418. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001241

Cornell, D. G., & Huang, F. (2016). Authoritative school climate and student academic engagement. School Psychology Quarterly, 31(4), 488–499.

Cornell, D., & Huang, F. (2016). Authoritative school climate and high school student risk behavior: a cross-sectional multi-level analysis of student self-reports. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 2246-2259. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10964-016-0424-3

Coyle, T. R., & Greiff, S. (2021). The future of intelligence: The role of specific abilities. Intelligence, 88, 101549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2021.101549

Cropley, D. H. and Cropley, A. J. (2019). Malevolent creativity: Past, present and future. In J. C. Kaufman and R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, Chapter 32 (pp. 677-690). Cambridge University Press.

Dean, M., Harwood, R., & Kasari, C. (2017). The art of camouflage: Gender differences in the social behaviors of girls and boys with autism spectrum disorder. Autism, 21, 678-689. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361316671845

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Self-Determination Theory. In SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks (pp. 416-437). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n21

Deng, L., Wang, L., & Zhao, Y. (2016). How creativity was affected by environmental factors and individual characteristics: A Cross-cultural comparison perspective. Creativity Research Journal, 28(3), 357-366. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2016.1195615

Dilekçi, A., & Karatay, H. (2023). The effects of the 21st century skills curriculum on the development of students’ creative thinking skills. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 47, 101229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101229

Diseth, Å., Mathisen, F. K. S., & Samdal, O. (2020). A comparison of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation among lower and upper secondary school students. Educational Psychology, 40(8), 961-980. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2020.1778640

Du, K., Wang, Y., Ma, X., Luo, Z., Wang, L., & Shi, B. (2020). Achievement goals and creativity: The mediating role of creative self-efficacy. Educational Psychology, 40(10), 1249-1269. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2020.1806210

Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. W. (2011). Schools as developmental contexts during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 225-241. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00725.x

Engel, S. (2015). The hungry mind: The Origins of Curiosity in Childhood. Harvard University Press.

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. W. W. Norton & Company.

Exner‐Cortens, D., Wright, A., Claussen, C., & Truscott, E. (2021). A systematic review of adolescent masculinities and associations with internalizing behavior problems and social support. American Journal of Community Psychology, 68(1-2), 215-231. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12492

Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 429-456. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.429

Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: a meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 116(3), 429.

Finn, E., & Wylie, R. (2021). Collaborative imagination: A methodological approach. Futures, 132, 102788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2021.102788

Fried, E. I., & Robinaugh, D. J. (2020). Systems all the way down: Embracing complexity in mental health research. BMC Medicine, 18, 205. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01668-w

Fuist, T. (2020). Towards a sociology of imagination. Theory and Society, 50, 357-380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-020-09416-y

Gajda, A. (2015). The relationship between school achievement and creativity at different educational stages. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 19, 246-259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2015.12.004

Gao, Q., & Hall, A. (2024). Early Childhood Teachers’ Beliefs About Creativity and Practices for Fostering Creativity: A Review of Recent Literature. Early Childhood Education Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-024-01816-4

Gilligan, C. (1993). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard University Press.

Gordeeva, T., Sychev, O., & Sukhanovskaia, A. (2022). Dynamics of Academic Motivation and Orientation towards the Grades of Russian Teenagers in the Period from 1999 to 2020. Cultural-Historical Psychology, 18(3), 104-112.

Gralewski, J., Lebuda, I., Gajda, A., Jankowska, D. M., & Wiśniewska, E. (2016). Slumps and jumps: Another look at developmental changes in creative abilities. Creativity. Theories- Research- Applications, 3(1), 152-177.

Gralewski, J. (2018). Teachers’ beliefs about creative students’ characteristics: A qualitative study. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 138-155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.11.008

Gu, X., Ritter, S. M., Koksma, J., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2021). The influence of school type and perceived teaching style on students’ creativity. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 71, 101084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101084

Habermas, T., & Bluck, S. (2000). Getting a life: the emergence of the life story in adolescence. Psychological bulletin, 126(5), 748.

Han, T. (2020). Asymmetry of non-traditional gendered decisions: gender beliefs and high school curriculum track decisions in Taiwan. Gender Issues, 38(1), 25-46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-020-09253-4

He, W., & Wong, W. (2011). Gender differences in creative thinking revisited: Findings from analysis of variability. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(7), 807-811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.06.027

He, W., & Wong, W. (2021). Gender differences in the distribution of creativity scores: Domain-Specific patterns in divergent thinking and creative problem solving. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.626911

Hemdan, A. H., & Kazem, A. M. (2019). Creativity Development of High-Achieving Students. Creativity Research Journal, 31(3), 296-308. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2019.1641684

Ho, S., & Kozhevnikov, M. (2023). Cognitive style and creativity: The role of education in shaping cognitive style profiles and creativity of adolescents. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(4), 978-996. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12615

Hoch, C. (2022). Planning imagination and the future. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 44(3), 1464-1475. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x221084997

Hommel, B., Zhang, W., & Sjoerds, Z. (2020). Metacontrol of human creativity: The neurocognitive mechanisms of convergent and divergent thinking. NeuroImage, 116572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116572

Hong, E., Peng, Y., O’Neil, H. F., & Wu, J. (2013). Domain‐General and Domain‐Specific Creative‐Thinking Tests: Effects of gender and item content on test performance. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 47(2), 89-105. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.26

Hora, S., Badura, K. L., Lemoine, G. J., & Grijalva, E. (2021). A meta-analytic examination of the gender difference in creative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(11), 1926-1950. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000999

Horn, D., Kiss, H. J., & Lénárd, T. (2022). Gender differences in preferences of adolescents: Evidence from a large-scale classroom experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 194, 478-522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2021.12.015

Hsia, L. H., Huang, I., & Hwang, G. J. (2016). A web‐based peer‐assessment approach to improving junior high school students' performance, self‐efficacy and motivation in performing arts courses. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(4), 618-632.

Hsiao, H. S., Chen, J. C., Chen, J. H., Zeng, Y. T., & Chung, G. H. (2022). An assessment of junior high school students’ knowledge, creativity, and hands-on performance using PBL via cognitive- affective interaction model to achieve STEAM. Sustainability, 14(9), 5582.

Huang, Y., & Asghar, A. (2016). Science education reform in Confucian learning cultures: teachers’ perspectives on policy and practice in Taiwan. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 13(1), 101-131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-016-9762-4

Ivcevic, Z. (2022). Conceptual and Measurement Specificity are Key: The Case of Creativity and Emotions. Creativity Research Journal, 34(4), 391-400. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2022.2122373

Ivcevic, Z., & Hoffmann, J. D. (2021). The Creativity Dare: Attitudes toward creativity and prediction of creative behavior in school. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 56(2), 239-257. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.527

Ivcevic, Z., Zyga, O., Hoffmann, J. D., & Palomera, R. (2022). Gender and creative ability: Mean differences and performance variability. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 46, 101186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101186

Jastrzębska, D., & Limont, W. (2017). Not only jumps, slumps, but also mini plateau. Creative potential assessed by the test for creative thinking-drawing production. A cross-sectional study of Polish students aged from 7 to 18. Creativity Research Journal, 29(3), 337-342. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2017.1360060

Kalelioğlu, F. (2015). A new way of teaching programming skills to K-12 students: Code.org. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 200-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.047

Kao, T. Y. (2021, November). Outsourcing mothering for schooling: Why Taiwanese middle-class mothers hire tutors. In Women's Studies International Forum, 89, 102535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2021.102535

Kapoor, H., & Kaufman, J. C. (2021). Basic concepts of creativity. The Cambridge handbook of lifespan development of creativity, 5-19.

Karwowski, M., & Beghetto, R. A. (2018). Creative behavior as agentic action. Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts, 13(4), 402-415. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000190

Karwowski, M., Lebuda, I., Wisniewska, E., & Gralewski, J. (2013). Big five personality traits as the predictors of creative Self‐Efficacy and Creative Personal identity: Does gender matter? The Journal of Creative Behavior, 47(3), 215-232. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.32

Kim, K. H. (2009). Cultural influence on creativity: The relationship between Asian culture (Confucianism) and creativity among Korean educators. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 43(2), 73-93. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2009.tb01307.x

Kim, K. H. (2011). The creativity crisis: The decrease in creative thinking scores on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 23(4), 285–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2011.627805

Kim, S., Raza, M., & Seidman, E. (2019). Improving 21st-century teaching skills: The key to effective 21st-century learners. Research in Comparative and International Education, 14(1), 99-117. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745499919829214

Kryshtanovych, S., Bilyk, V., Matvienko, O., Stepanenko, L., & Tsvietkova, H. (2022). Influence of psychological conditions on the level of creative imagination. Creativity Studies, 15(2), 406-419. https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2022.15196

Kung, H. Y. (2016). The relationships among parents’ socioeconomic status, parental Involvement and academic achievement in Taiwanese middle school students. Journal of Education and Human Development, 5(4), 177-186.

Kuo, Y., Tuan, H., & Chin, C. (2018). The influence of Inquiry-Based teaching on male and female students’ motivation and engagement. Research in Science Education, 50(2), 549-572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9701-3

Kupers, E., Lehmann-Wermser, A., McPherson, G., & Van Geert, P. (2018). Children’s Creativity: A Theoretical Framework and Systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 89(1), 93-124. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318815707

Lear, M., Perry, K., Stacy, S., Canen, E., Hime, S., & Pepper, C. (2020). Differential suicide risk factors in rural middle and high school students. Psychiatry Research, 284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112773

Liang, C., Ip, C. Y., Wu, S., Law, K. M. Y., Wang, J., Peng, L., & Liu, H. (2017). Personality traits, social capital, and entrepreneurial creativity: Comparing green socio entrepreneurial intentions across Taiwan and Hong Kong. Studies in Higher Education, 44(6), 1086-1102. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1418310

Liu, J., & Wei, C. (2023). An Review of Taiwanese Educational Leadership. Chinese Studies, 12(2), 113-125.

Loh, C. Y. R., & Teo, T. C. (2017). Understanding Asian students learning styles, cultural influence and learning strategies. Journal of Education & Social Policy, 7(1), 194-210.

Mabbe, E., Soenens, B., De Muynck, G., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2018). The impact of feedback valence and communication style on intrinsic motivation in middle childhood: Experimental evidence and generalization across individual differences. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 170, 134-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2018.01.008

Maor, R., Paz-Baruch, N., Grinshpan, N., Milman, A., Mevarech, Z., Levi, R., Shlomo, S., & Zion, M. (2023). Relationships between metacognition, creativity, and critical thinking in self-reported teaching performances in project-based learning settings. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 50, 101425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101425

Marcos, R. I. S., Fernández, V. L., González, M. T. D., & Phillips-Silver, J. (2020). Promoting children’s creative thinking through reading and writing in a cooperative learning classroom. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 36, 100663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100663

McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American psychologist, 52(5), 509.

Merrotsy, P. (2013). Tolerance of ambiguity: A trait of the creative personality? Creativity Research Journal, 25(2), 232-237. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2013.783762

Ministry of Education, Taiwan. (2019). General guidelines of the 12-year basic education curriculum. Ministry of Education. Retrieved from https://www.naer.edu.tw/eng/PageSyllabus?fid=148

Ministry of Education, Taiwan. (2002). The White Paper on Creative Education. Retrieved from https://english.moe.gov.tw/public/Attachment/212241653371.pdf

Muenks, K., & Miele, D. B. (2017). Students’ thinking about effort and ability: The role of developmental, contextual, and individual difference factors. Review of Educational Research, 87(4), 707-735.

Moore, M., & Milkoreit, M. (2020). Imagination and transformations to sustainable and just futures, 8(1), 081. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.2020.081

Nielson, M. G., Jenkins, D. L., & Fraser, A. M. (2022). Too hunky to help: A person-centered approach to masculinity and prosocial behavior beliefs among adolescent boys. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 40(9), 2763-2785. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075221084697

Niu, W. (2007). Individual and environmental influences on Chinese student creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 41(3), 151-175. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2007.tb01286.x

Novia, F., Nurdianti, N. D., & Purwanto, N. M. B. (2024). English Learning and Innovation skills in 21st: Implementation of critical thinking, creativity, communication, and collaboration. Asian Journal of Applied Education (AJAE), 3(2), 113-124. https://doi.org/10.55927/ajae.v3i2.8318

OECD. (2018). Future of Education and Skills 2030: Conceptual Learning Framework Education.

OECD. (2021). PISA 2022 creative thinking framework (third draft).
https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/PISA-2021-creative-thinking-framework.pdf

Özbay, H., & Köksal, M. (2021). Middle school students’ scientific epistemological beliefs, achievements in science and intellectual risk-taking. Science & Education, 30, 1233 - 1252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00217-y

Perinelli, E., Pisanu, F., Checchi, D., Scalas, L., & Fraccaroli, F. (2022). Academic self-concept change in junior high school students and relationships with academic achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 69, 102071.

Piaget, J. (1950). The Psychology of Intelligence. Routledge.

Pinkow, F. (2022). Creative cognition: A multidisciplinary and integrative framework of creative thinking. Creativity and Innovation Management, 32(3), 472-492. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12541

Puente‐Diaz, R., & Cavazos‐Arroyo, J. (2017). Creative mindsets and their affective and social consequences: a latent class approach. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 53(4), 415-426. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.217

Ramírez-Montoya, M. S., Castillo-Martínez, I. M., Sanabria-Z, J., & Miranda, J. (2022). Complex thinking in the framework of education 4.0 and open innovation: A systematic literature review. Journal of Open Innovation Technology Market and Complexity, 8(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8010004

Randell, E., Jerdén, L., Öhman, A., Starrin, B., & Flacking, R. (2015). Tough, sensitive and sincere: how adolescent boys manage masculinities and emotions. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 21(4), 486-498. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2015.1106414

Rifqy, M. I., & Masamah, U. (2024). Difference in mathematical creative thinking ability students of MTs negeri 7 malang reviewed by gender. Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika Universitas Lampung, 12(4), 236-251. https://doi.org/10.23960/mtk/v12i4.pp236-251

Ritter, S. M., & Mostert, N. (2016). Enhancement of creative thinking skills using a Cognitive-Based Creativity training. Journal of Cognitive Enhancement, 1(3), 243-253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41465-016-0002-3

Royston, R., & Reiter‐Palmon, R. (2017). Creative self‐efficacy as mediator between creative mindsets and creative problem‐solving. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 53(4), 472-481. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.226

Rudolph, K., Davis, M., Modi, H., Fowler, C., Kim, Y., & Telzer, E. (2018). Differential susceptibility to parenting in adolescent girls: Moderation by neural sensitivity to social cues. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 30, 177-191.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860

Said-Metwaly, S., Fernández-Castilla, B., Kyndt, E., Van den Noortgate, W., & Barbot, B. (2021). Does the fourth-grade slump in creativity actually exist? A meta-analysis of the development of divergent thinking in school-age children and adolescents. Educational Psychology Review, 33, 275-298.

Sawyer, R. K., & Henriksen, D. (2024). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation. Oxford University Press.

Sayed, E. M., & Mohamed, A. H. H. (2013). Gender differences in divergent thinking: use of the test of creative thinking-drawing production on an Egyptian sample. Creativity Research Journal, 25(2), 222-227. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2013.783760

Scott-Barrett, J., Johnston, S., Denton-Calabrese, T., McGrane, J. A., & Hopfenbeck, T. N. (2023). Nurturing curiosity and creativity in primary school classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 135, 104356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104356

Schweder, S., & Raufelder, D. (2021). Needs satisfaction and motivation among adolescent boys and girls during self‐directed learning intervention. Journal of Adolescence, 88(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2021.01.007

Shulman, C. (2016). Research and practice in infant and early childhood mental health. Children’s well-being. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31181-4

Sitorus, J., & Masrayati, N. (2016). Students’ creative thinking process stages: Implementation of realistic mathematics education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 22, 111-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.09.007

Steinmayr, R., Weidinger, A. F., Schwinger, M., & Spinath, B. (2019). The importance of students’ motivation for their academic achievement-replicating and extending previous findings. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 464340.

Stehle, S. M., & Peters-Burton, E. E. (2019). Developing student 21st Century skills in selected exemplary inclusive STEM high schools. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0192-1

Tam, C. S., Phillipson, S. N., & Phillipson, S. (2023). Culture, executive thinking style, and knowledge fixation in the development of creativity in Hong Kong. Creativity Research Journal, 35(2), 211-226. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2022.2057688

Tang, C., Mao, S., Naumann, S. E., & Xing, Z. (2022). Improving student creativity through digital technology products: A literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 44, 101032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101032

Tang, T., Vezzani, V., & Eriksson, V. (2020). Developing critical thinking, collective creativity skills and problem solving through playful design jams. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 37, 100696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100696

Taylor, C. L., & Barbot, B. (2021). Gender differences in creativity: Examining the greater male variability hypothesis in different domains and tasks. Personality and Individual Differences, 174, 110661.

Taylor, C. L., Said-Metwaly, S., Camarda, A., & Barbot, B. (2023). Gender differences and variability in creative ability: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the greater male variability hypothesis in creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 126(6), 1161-1179. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000484

Taylor, S. E. (1983). Adjustment to threatening events: A theory of cognitive adaptation. American Psychologist, 38(11), 1161–1173.

Ten, A., Kaushik, P., Oudeyer, P., & Gottlieb, J. (2021). Humans monitor learning progress in curiosity-driven exploration. Nature Communications, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26196-w

Thompson, N. (2018). Imagination and creativity in organizations. Organization Studies, 39, 229-250. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840617736939

Thornberg, R., Wänström, L., & Jungert, T. (2018). Authoritative classroom climate and its relations to bullying victimization and bystander behaviors. School Psychology International, 39, 663-680. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034318809762.

Thornhill-Miller, B., Camarda, A., Mercier, M., Burkhardt, J., Morisseau, T., Bourgeois-Bougrine, S., Vinchon, F., Hayek, S. E., Augereau-Landais, M., Mourey, F., Feybesse, C., Sundquist, D., & Lubart, T. (2023). Creativity, critical thinking, communication, and collaboration: Assessment, certification, and promotion of 21st century skills for the future of work and education. Journal of Intelligence, 11(3), 54. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11030054

Torrance, E. P. (1968). A longitudinal examination of the fourth-grade slump in creativity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 12(4), 195-199.

Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance test of creative thinking: Norms-technical manual, Princeton. Personnel Press, Inc.

Turchik, J. A., & Garske, J. P. (2008). Measurement of sexual risk taking among college students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38(6), 936-948. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-008-9388-z

United Nations. (n.d.). SDG indicators. United Nations. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2024/

Vantieghem, W., & Van Houtte, M. (2015). Are girls more resilient to gender-conformity pressure? The association between gender-conformity pressure and academic self-efficacy. Sex Roles, 73(1), 1-15.

Van Houtte, M. (2024). Gender differences in class engagement and disruptive school behaviour: boys’ susceptibility to peers’ motivation culture. Gender and Education, 36(5), 393-412. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2024.2345061

Vickers, E., & Lin, T. B. (2022). Introduction: Education, identity, and development in contemporary Taiwan. International Journal of Taiwan Studies, 5(1), 5-18.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Journal of Russian & East European Psychology, 42(1), 7-97. https://doi.org/10.1080/10610405.2004.11059210

Wenderoth, M., Scott, E., Jackson, M., Cerchiara, J., Moon, S., McFarland, J., & Doherty, J. (2020). Developing a learning progression in physiology to characterize how students reason about ion movement. The FASEB Journal, 34. https://doi.org/10.1096/fasebj.2020.34.s1.09744

Williams, F. E. (1970). Classroom ideas for encouraging thinking and feeling (2nd ed.).D.O.K. Publishers Inc.

Williams, F. E. (1972). Identifying and Measuring Creative Potential: Part of A Total
Creativity Program for Individualizing and Humanizing the Learning Process.
Volume One. Educational Technology Publications.

Workman, J., & Heyder, A. (2020). Gender achievement gaps: the role of social costs to trying hard in high school. Social Psychology of Education, 23, 1407-1427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-020-09588-6

Yang, J., & Zhao, X. (2021). The effect of creative thinking on academic performance: Mechanisms, heterogeneity, and implication. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 40, 100831.

Yeh, Y., Chiang, J., Chang, S., Ting, Y., Wang, C. M., & Peng, Y. (2024). Integrating visible thinking and design thinking strategies to improve creativity and growth mindsets. Educational Technology Research and Development, 73(2), 951-973.

Yu, H.P., & Lin, H.T. (2024). Creativity Assessment Packet (2nd ed.). Psychological Publishing.

Żabik, K. P. V., Tanaś, Ł., Iłowiecka-Tańska, I., & Karwowski, M. (2021). Children’s implicit theories of creativity in science. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 41, 100898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100898

Zhang, Y., Lei, Y., Song, Y., Lu, R., Duan, J., & Prochaska, J. (2019). Gender differences in suicidal ideation and health-risk behaviors among high school students in Beijing, China. Journal of Global Health, 9(1), 010604.. https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.09.010604