Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 45, Issue 2, pp 267–279 | Cite as

Problem modification as a tool for detecting cognitive flexibility in school children

  • Cristian VoicaEmail author
  • Florence Mihaela Singer
Original Article

Abstract

This paper presents the results of an experiment in which fourth to sixth graders with above-average mathematical abilities modified a given problem. The experiment found evidence of links between problem posing and cognitive flexibility. Emerging from organizational theory, cognitive flexibility is conceptualized through three primary constructs: cognitive variety, cognitive novelty, and changes in cognitive framing. Among these components, changes in cognitive framing could be effectively detected in problem-posing situations, giving a relevant indication of students’ creative potential. The students’ capacity to generate coherent and consistent problems in the context of problem modification may indicate the existence of a strategy of functional type for generalizations, which seems to be specific to mathematical creativity.

Keywords

Problem posing Cognitive flexibility Creativity Change in cognitive framing 

Mathematical Subject Classification

97C30 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the three anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on an early version of this paper.

References

  1. Brown, S. I., & Walter, M. I. (1993). Problem posing in mathematics education. In S. I. Brown & M. I. Walter (Eds.), Problem posing: Reflection and applications (pp. 16–27). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  2. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1994). The domain of creativity. In D. H. Feldman, M. Csikszentmihalyi, & H. Gardner (Eds.), Changing the world: A framework for the study of creativity (pp. 135–158). Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  3. Eisenhardt, K. M., Furr, N. R., & Bingham, C. B. (2010). Microfoundations of performance: Balancing efficiency and flexibility in dynamic environments. Organization Science, 21(6), 1263–1273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ervynck, G. (1991). Mathematical creativity. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 42–53). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  5. Freiman, V., & Sriraman, B. (2007). Does mathematics gifted education need a working philosophy of creativity? Mediterranean Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 6(1–2), 23–46.Google Scholar
  6. Furr, N. R. (2009). Cognitive flexibility: The adaptive reality of concrete organization change. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University. http://gradworks.umi.com/33/82/3382938.html. Accessed 28 Jan 2013.
  7. Goncalo, J. A., Vincent, L., & Audia, P. G. (2010). Early creativity as a constraint on future achievement. In D. Cropley, J. Kaufman, A. Cropley, & M. Runco (Eds.), The dark side of creativity (pp. 114–133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Haylock, D. (1997a). Recognizing mathematical creativity in schoolchildren. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 29(3), 68–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Haylock, D. (1997b). A framework for assessing mathematical creativity in school children. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 18(1), 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jay, E. S., & Perkins, D. N. (1997). Problem finding: The search for mechanism. In M. Runco (Ed.), The creativity research handbook (pp. 257–293). New Jersey: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  11. Johnson, P. (1998). Analytic induction. In G. Symon & C. Cassell (Eds.), Qualitative methods and analysis in organizational research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Kenderov, P. (2006). Competitions and mathematics education. In M. Sanz-Solé, J. Soria, J. L. Varona, & J. Verdera (Eds.), Proceedings of the international congress of mathematicians (ICM) (Vol. 3, pp. 1583–1598). Zürich: EMS.Google Scholar
  13. Kontorovich, I., Koichu, B., Leikin, R., & Berman, A. (2011). Indicators of creativity in mathematical problem posing: How indicative are they? In Proceedings of the 6th international conference CMG (pp. 120–125). Latvia: Latvia University.Google Scholar
  14. Krems, J. F. (1995). Cognitive flexibility and complex problem solving. In P. A. Frensch & J. Funke (Eds.), Complex problem solving: the European perspective (Chap. 8). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  15. Leikin, R. (2009). Exploring mathematical creativity using multiple solution tasks. In R. Leikin, A. Berman, & B. Koichu (Eds.), Creativity in mathematics and the education of gifted students (pp. 129–145). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. Maier, N. (1970). Problem solving and creativity in individuals and groups. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  17. Orion, N., & Hofstein, A. (1994). Factors that influence learning during a scientific field trip in a natural environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 1097–1119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Runco, M. A. (1994). Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  19. Silver, E. A. (1994). On mathematical problem posing. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(1), 19–28.Google Scholar
  20. Silver, E. A. (1997). Fostering creativity through instruction rich in mathematical problem solving and problem posing. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 29(3), 75–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Singer, F. M. (2012). Exploring mathematical thinking and mathematical creativity through problem posing. In R. Leikin, B. Koichu, & A. Berman (Eds.), Exploring and advancing mathematical abilities in high achievers (pp. 119–124). Haifa: University of Haifa.Google Scholar
  22. Singer, F. M., Pelczer, I., & Voica, C. (2011). Problem posing and modification as a criterion of mathematical creativity. In M. Pytlak, T. Rowland, & E. Swoboda (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 1133–1142). Rzeszów, Poland: University of Rzeszów.Google Scholar
  23. Singer, F. M., & Voica, C. (2011). Creative contexts as ways to strengthen mathematics learning. In M. Anitei, M. Chraif, & C. Vasile (Eds.), Proceedings PSIWORLD 2011. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences (Vol. 33, pp. 538–542). Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.01.179.
  24. Singer, F. M., & Voica, C. (2012). A problem-solving conceptual framework and its implications in designing problem-posing tasks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 1–18. doi: 10.1007/s10649-012-9422-x.
  25. Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1992). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction (pp. 57–75). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Sriraman, B. (2004). The characteristics of mathematical creativity. The Mathematics Educator, 14(1), 19–34.Google Scholar
  27. Stoyanova, E., & Ellerton, N. F. (1996). A framework for research into students’ problem posing. In P. Clarkson (Ed.), Technology in mathematics education (pp. 518–525). Melbourne: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.Google Scholar
  28. Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.Google Scholar
  29. Voica, C., & Singer, F.M. (2012). Problem modification as an indicator of deep understanding. Paper presented at Topic Study Group 3, Activities and Programs for Gifted Students, ICME-12, Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar
  30. Yuan, X., & Sriraman, B. (2011). An exploratory study of relationships between students’ creativity and mathematical problem posing abilities. In B. Sriraman & K. Lee (Eds.), The elements of creativity and giftedness in mathematics (pp. 5–28). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsUniversity of BucharestBucharestRomania
  2. 2.Department of EducationUniversity of Ploiesti, and Institute for Educational SciencesBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations