Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 49, Issue 7, pp 1009–1021 | Cite as

Revealing and overcoming the dogmatism of sterile certainty in mathematics education

  • Don Ambrose
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

This article employs an interdisciplinary approach to explore some psychological dimensions of mathematical creativity and the dogmatism that can emerge when mathematical applications are confined within a single worldview. More specifically, it explores some ways in which mathematics has been confined and distorted in service of dogmatic conceptions of important phenomena, and for various purposes, some unwittingly damaging and others wittingly nefarious. Some of the topics dealt with include the dogmatic use of distorted mathematical modeling in economics, the sterile certainty that arises from excessive entrapment within the mechanistic worldview in various disciplines, and the dogmatism of artificial precision in educational reform initiatives. Methods for breaking free of dogmatism and for injecting ethics into mathematical applications also are explored.

Keywords

Interdisciplinary Mathematics Dogmatism Economics Education reform Worldviews 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Supplementary material

11858_2017_888_MOESM1_ESM.tiff (692 kb)
Figure 1: The root-metaphorical worldviews. The gear from the machine represents the precision and reductionism of mechanism. The root system and branches of the plant represent the holistic integration and long-term development of organicism. The canoeists shooting rapids represent the importance of context and the unpredictable emergence of novelty in contextualism. The intricate, repetitive patterns in the fractal image represent the patterns of similarity that become visible through formism (TIFF 691 KB)

References

  1. Abrams, S. E. (2016). Education and the commercial mindset. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akerlof, G. A., & Shiller, R. J. (2015). Phishing for phools: The economics of manipulation and deception. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ambrose, D. (1996). Unifying theories of creativity: Metaphorical thought and the unification process. New Ideas in Psychology, 14, 257–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ambrose, D. (1998). A model for clarification and expansion of conceptual foundations. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 77–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ambrose, D. (2000). World-view entrapment: Moral-ethical implications for gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23, 159–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ambrose, D. (2009a). Expanding visions of creative intelligence: An interdisciplinary exploration. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  7. Ambrose, D. (2009b). Morality and high ability: Navigating a landscape of altruism and malevolence. In D. Ambrose & T. L. Cross (Eds.), Morality, ethics, and gifted minds (pp. 49–71). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ambrose, D. (2012a). An interdisciplinary flight over dogmatic socioeconomic, political, ideological, and cultural terrain. In D. Ambrose & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), How dogmatic beliefs harm creativity and higher-level thinking (pp. 64–76). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Ambrose, D. (2012b). Dogmatic neoclassical economics and neoliberal ideology suppressing talent development in mathematics: Implications for teacher education. In L. J. Jacobsen, J. Mistele & B. Sriraman (Eds.), Mathematics teacher education in the public interest: Equity and social justice (pp. 83–97). Scottsdale, AZ: Information Age.Google Scholar
  10. Ambrose, D. (2012c). The not-so-invisible hand of economics and its impact on conceptions and manifestations of high abiliy. In D. Ambrose, R. J. Sternberg & B. Sriraman (Eds.), Confronting dogmatism in gifted education (pp. 97–114). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Ambrose, D. (2013). Socioeconomic inequality and giftedness: Suppression and distortion of high ability. Roeper Review, 35, 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ambrose, D. (2014a). Creative emergence, order, and chaos: Grappling with the complexity of complexity theory. In D. Ambrose, B. Sriraman, & K. M. Pierce (Eds.), A critique of creativity and complexity: Deconstructing clichés (pp. 3–15). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.Google Scholar
  13. Ambrose, D. (2014b). Invigorating innovation and combating dogmatism through creative, metaphorical business leadership. In F. K. Reisman (Ed.), Application of creativity in business (pp. 52–66). London: KIE Conference Book Series.Google Scholar
  14. Ambrose, D. (2016a). Avoiding dogmatic traps in creativity and education through awareness of worldviews and visual metaphor. In R. A. Beghetto & B. Sriraman (Eds.), Creative contradictions in education: Cross-disciplinary paradoxes and perspectives (pp. 55–73). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Ambrose, D. (2016b). Borrowing insights from other disciplines to strengthen the conceptual foundations for gifted education. International Journal for Talent Development and Creativity, 3(2), 33–57. (invited focus article for a special issue on interdisciplinary scholarship).Google Scholar
  16. Ambrose, D. (2016c). Twenty-first century contextual influences on the life trajectories of creative young people. In D. Ambrose & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Creative intelligence in the 21st century: Grappling with enormous problems and huge opportunities (pp. 21–48). Rotterdam: Sense.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ambrose, D. (2017). Interdisciplinary exploration supports Sternberg’s expansion of giftedness. Roeper Review, 39(3), 178–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ambrose, D., & Ambrose, V. K. (2013). Adult lost prizes missing aspirations, a 21st-century education, and self-fulfillment. International Journal for Talent Development and Creativity, 1(1), 75–86.Google Scholar
  19. Ambrose, D., & Cross, T. L. (Eds.). (2009). Morality, ethics, and gifted minds. New York, NY: Springer Science.Google Scholar
  20. Ambrose, D., Sriraman, B., & Pierce, K. M. (Eds.). (2014). A critique of creativity and complexity: Deconstructing clichés. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.Google Scholar
  21. Ambrose, D., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (2012). How dogmatic beliefs harm creativity and higher-level thinking. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Ambrose, D., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (2016a). Creative intelligence in the 21st century: Grappling with enormous problems and huge opportunities. Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  23. Ambrose, D., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (2016b). Giftedness and talent in the 21st century: Adapting to the turbulence of globalization. Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  24. Ambrose, D., Sternberg, R. J., & Sriraman, B. (Eds.). (2012). Confronting dogmatism in gifted education. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Amin, T. G. (2009). Conceptual metaphor meets conceptual change. Human Development, 52, 1–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Babiak, P., & Hare, R. D. (2006). Snakes in suits: When psychopaths go to work. New York, NY: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  27. Babiak, P., Neumann, C. S., & Hare, R. D. (2010). Corporate psychopathy: Talking the walk. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28, 174–193.Google Scholar
  28. Baer, J. (2012). Domain specificity and the limits of creativity theory. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46, 16–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Baer, J. (2015). The importance of domain-specific expertise in creativity. Roeper Review, 37, 165–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Baer, J. (2016). Domain specificity of creativity. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  31. Beghetto, R. A. (2010). Creativity in the classroom. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Creativity (pp. 459–466). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Bender, T., & Schorske, C. E. (Eds.). (1997). American academic culture in transformation: Fifty years, four disciplines. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Berlin, I. (2013). The hedgehog and the fox: An essay on Tolstoy’s view of history (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1951).Google Scholar
  34. Berliner, D. C. (2009). MCLB (much curriculum left behind): A US calamity in the making. Educational Forum, 74, 284–296. doi: 10.1080/00131720903166788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Berliner, D. C. (2011). Rational responses to high stakes testing: The case of curriculum narrowing and the harm that follows. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41, 287–302. doi: 10.1080/0305764X.2011.607151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Berliner, D. C. (2012). Narrowing curriculum, assessments, and conceptions of what it means to be smart in the US schools: Creaticide by design. In D. Ambrose & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), How dogmatic beliefs harm creativity and higher-level thinking (pp. 79–93). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Berliner, D. C., & Glass, G. V. (2014). 50 myths and lies that threaten America’s public schools: The real crisis in education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  38. Bowers, C. A. (1993). Critical essays on education, modernity, and the recovery of the ecological imperative. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  39. Bowers, C. A., & Flinders, D. J. (1990). Responsive teaching. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  40. Boyd, R. (1993). Metaphor and theory change: What is “metaphor” a metaphor for? In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 481–532). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Byers, W. (2007). How mathematicians think: Using ambiguity, contradiction, and paradox to create mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Byers, W. (2011). The blind spot: Science and the crisis of uncertainty. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Byers, W. (2014). Deep thinking: What mathematics can teach us about the mind. Singapore: World scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Chaitin, G. J. (1995). Randomness in arithmetic and the decline and fall of reductionism in pure mathematics. In J. Cornwell (Ed.), Nature’s imagination: The frontiers of scientific vision (pp. 27–44). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Changeux, J.-P., & Connes, l. (1998). Conversations on mind, matter, and mathematics (M. B. DeBevoise, Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Charteris-Black, J. (2005). Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor. London: Palgrave-MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Cohen, T. (2008). Thinking of others: On the talent for metaphor. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Coyle, D. (2015). GDP: A brief but affectionate history. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Cropley, D. H., Cropley, A. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Runco, M. A. (Eds.). (2010). The dark side of creativity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Desai, M. (2015). Hubris: Why economists failed to predict the crisis and how to avoid the next one. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Dickens, C. (1981). Hard times. New York, NY: Bantam Classics (Original work published 1854).Google Scholar
  52. Eisenberg, A. (1992, May). Metaphor in the language of science. Scientific American, 266(5), 144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Fabricant, M., & Fine, M. (2013). The changing politics of education: Privatization and the dispossessed lives left behind. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.Google Scholar
  54. Ferguson, E. S. (1992). Engineering and the mind’s eye. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  55. Ferguson, T., & Johnson, R. (2014). Too big to bail: The “Paulson put,” presidential politics, and the global financial meltdown. International Journal of Political Economy, 38(1), 3–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Fisher, E., & Beltran-Del-Rio, D. (2017). Mathematics and root interdisciplinarity: Historical perspectives. In R. Carlos, & D. S. Pacheco (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (2nd ed., pp. 114–116). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Fleischacker, S. (2004). On Adam Smith’s wealth of nations: A philosophical companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Fourcade, M., Ollion, E., & Algan, Y. (2015). The superiority of economists. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(1), 89–114. doi: 10.1257/jep.29.1.89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Frodeman, R., Klein, J. T., Mitcham, C., & Holbrook, J. B. (Eds.). (2010). The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Fullbrook, E. (2016). Narrative fixation in economics. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  61. Gibbs, R. W. (Ed.). (2008). The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Gino, F., & Ariely, D. (2012). The dark side of creativity: Original thinkers can be more dishonest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 445–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Grosholz, E. R. (2007). Representation and productive ambiguity in mathematics and the sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Gruber, H. E., & Bödeker, K. (Eds.). (2005). Creativity, psychology and the history of science. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  65. Harmon, J. E. (1994). The uses of metaphor in citation classics from the scientific literature. Technical Communication Quarterly, 3, 179–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Hersh, R. (1991). Mathematics has a front and a back. Synthese, 88(2), 127–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Holton, G. (1996). On the art of scientific imagination. Daedalus, 125, 183–208.Google Scholar
  68. Holton, G. (1998). The scientific imagination (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (Original work published 1978).Google Scholar
  69. Horn, J., & Wilburn, D. (2013). The mismeasure of education. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
  70. Huang, Y., Zhang, Y., Youtie, J., Porter, A. L., & Wang, X. (2016). How does national scientific funding support emerging interdisciplinary research: A comparison study of big data research in the US and China. PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154509.Google Scholar
  71. Ivanova, M. (2016). Poincaré’s aesthetics of science. Synthese. doi: 10.1007/s11229-016-1069-1.Google Scholar
  72. Johnson, M. (2009). What cognitive science brings to ethics. In D. Ambrose & T. L. Cross (Eds.), Morality, ethics, and gifted minds (pp. 147–150). New York, NY: Springer Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Kohn, A. (2015). Schooling beyond measure and other unorthodox essays about education. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  74. Kotz, D. M. (2015). The rise and fall of neoliberal capitalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Kozol, J. (2005). The shame of the nation: The restoration of apartheid schooling in America. New York, NY: Crown.Google Scholar
  76. Kuhn, T. S. (1993). Metaphor in science. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 533–542). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 202–251). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  79. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  80. Larson, B. (2014). Metaphors for environmental sustainability: Redefining our relationship with nature. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Levine, G. (2006). Darwin loves you: Natural selection and the re-enchantment of the world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  82. Lu, G. M. (2016). Science without boundary: Interdisciplinary research. National Science Review, 3(3), 263. doi: 10.1093/nsr/nww021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Lubienski, C. A., & Lubienski, S. T. (2014). The public school advantage: Why public schools outperform private schools. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  84. Madni, A. M. (2007). Transdisciplinarity: Reaching beyond disciplines to find connections. Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science, 11(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
  85. Madrick, J. (2011). Age of greed: The triumph of finance and the decline of America, 1970 to the present. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  86. Madrick, J. (2014). Seven bad ideas: How mainstream economists have damaged America and the world. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  87. Mäki, U., & MacLeod, M. (2016). Interdisciplinarity in action: Philosophy of science perspectives. European Journal for philosophy of science, 6, 323–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Marglin, S. A. (2008). The dismal science: How thinking like an economist undermines community. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  89. McAllister, J. W. (1996). Beauty and revolution in science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  90. Miller, D. (Ed.). (1994). Goethe, volume 12: Scientific studies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  91. Morson, G. S., & Schapiro, M. (2017). Cents and sensibility: What economics can learn from the humanities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Nadeau, R. L. (2003). The wealth of nature: How mainstream economics has failed the environment. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. National Research Council (2014). Convergence: Facilitating transdisciplinary integration of life sciences, physical sciences, engineering, and beyond. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  94. Nicolescu, B. (2010). Methodology of transdisciplinary: Levels of reality, logic of the included middle and complexity. Transdisciplinary Journal of Engineering & Science, 1(1), 19–38.Google Scholar
  95. Nussbaum, M. (2010). Not for profit: Why democracy needs the humanities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  96. Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Subotnik, R. F., & Worrell, F. C. (2016). The role of domains in the conceptualization of talent. In D. Ambrose & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Giftedness and talent in the 21st century: Adapting to the turbulence of globalization (pp. 81–99). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.Google Scholar
  97. Osowski, J. V. (1989). Ensembles of metaphor in the psychology of William James. In D. B. Wallace & H. E. Gruber (Eds.), Creative people at work (pp. 126–145). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  98. Overton, W. F. (1984). World views and their influence on psychological thoughts and research: Khun-Lakatos-Laudan. In H. W. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 18, pp. 91–226). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  99. Parnes, S. J., & Biondi, A. M. (1975). Creative behavior: A delicate balance. Journal of Creative Behavior, 6(3), 149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Paul, R. W., & Elder, L. (2002). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your professional and personal life. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
  101. Penrose, R. (1995). Must mathematical physics be reductionist? In J. Cornwell (Ed.), Nature’s imagination: The frontiers of scientific vision (pp. 12–26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  102. Pepper, S. C. (1942). World hypotheses. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  103. Piirto, J. (2016). The creative intelligence of teachers resisting the Pearsonization of global education. In D. Ambrose & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Creative intelligence in the 21st century: Grappling with enormous problems and huge opportunities (pp. 139–156). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Piketty, T. (2015). The economics of inequality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Quiggin, J. (2010). Zombie economics: How dead ideas still walk among us. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  107. Rajan, R. (2010). Fault lines: How hidden fractures still threaten the world economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  108. Rand, A. (1964). The virtue of selfishness. New York, NY: Signet.Google Scholar
  109. Rand, A., Branden, N., Greenspan, A., & Hessen, R. (1967). Capitalism: The unknown ideal. New York, NY: Signet.Google Scholar
  110. Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  111. Ravitch, D. (2013). Reign of error: The hoax of the privatization movement and the danger to America’s public schools. New York, NY: Knopf.Google Scholar
  112. Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  113. Rice, M. (2013). Spanning disciplinary, sectoral and international boundaries: A sea change towards transdisciplinary global environmental change research? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(3–4), 409–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Ruelle, D. (2007). The mathematician’s brain: A personal tour through the essentials of mathematics and some of the great minds behind them. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  115. Russakoff, D. (2015). The prize: Who’s in charge of American schools? New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
  116. Schlefer, J. (2012). The assumptions economists make. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Schon, D. A. (1993). Generative metaphor: A perspective on problem-setting in social policy. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 137–163). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Shapiro, I. (2005). The flight from reality in the human sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  119. Simonton, D. K. (2004). Psychology’s status as a scientific discipline: It’s empirical placement within an implicit hierarchy of the sciences. Review of General Psychology, 8, 59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Simonton, D. K. (2009). Varieties of (scientific) creativity: A hierarchical model of disposition, development, and achievement. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 441–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Simonton, D. K. (2012). One creator’s meat is another creator’s poison: Field and domain restrictions on individual creativity. In D. Ambrose & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), How dogmatic beliefs harm creativity and higher level thinking (pp. 125–134). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  122. Sondel, B. (2015). Raising citizens or raising test scores? Teach for America, “no excuses” charters, and the development of the neoliberal citizen. Theory & Research in Social Education, 43(3), 289–313. doi: 10.1080/00933104.2015.1064505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Sriraman, B. (2005). Are giftedness and creativity synonyms in mathematics? The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(1), 20–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Sriraman, B. (2009). Interdisciplinarity and mathematics education: Psychology, philosophy, aesthetics, modeling and curriculum. The ZDM-The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 41(1&2), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Sriraman, B. (2017). Dimensions of mathematical thinking and learning in ACCEL. Roeper Review, 39, 206–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Sriraman, B., & Dahl, B. (2009). On bringing interdisciplinary ideas to gifted education. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 1235–1256). New York, NY: Springer Science.Google Scholar
  127. Sriraman, B., & Freiman, V. (Eds.). (2009). Interdisciplinarity for the twenty-first century: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Mathematics and Its Connections to Arts and Sciences; Moncton 2009. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
  128. Sriraman, B., & Leikin, R. (2017). Commentary on interdisciplinary perspectives to creativity and giftedness. In R. Leikin & B. Sriraman (Eds.), Creativity and giftedness (pp. 259–264). Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Sriraman, B., & Roscoe, M. (2016). Interdisciplinary perspectives to the development of high ability in the 21st century. International Journal for Talent Development and Creativity, 3(2), 147–152.Google Scholar
  130. Sternberg, R. J. (1990). Metaphors of mind: Conceptions of the nature of intelligence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  131. Sternberg, R. J. (1993). Procedures for identifying intellectual potential in the gifted: A perspective on alternative “metaphors of mind.”. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 185–207). Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  132. Sternberg, R. J. (2010). College admissions for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  133. Sternberg, R. J. (2011). Who is really adrift? Inside Higher Ed, retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2011/02/08/a_critique_of_academically_adrift_and_the_test_behind_many_of_the_findings.
  134. Sternberg, R. J. (2012). Ethical drift. Liberal Education, 98(3), 60.Google Scholar
  135. Sternberg, R. J. (2016). The gift that keeps on giving—but for how long? Journal of Intelligence, 4(1), 4. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence4010004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Sternberg, R. J. (2017). ACCEL: A new model for identifying the gifted. Roeper Review, 39, 152–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Stiglitz, J. B. (2015). The great divide: Unequal societies and what we can do about them. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  138. Stiglitz, J. E. (2010). Free fall: America, free markets, and the sinking of the world economy. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  139. Stiglitz, J. E. (2016). Rewriting the rules of the American economy: An agenda for growth and shared prosperity. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  140. Sturges, K. M. (Ed.). (2015). Neoliberalizing educational reform. Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  141. Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12, 3–54. doi: 10.1177/1529100611418056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Suresh, S. (2013). To tap the world’s vast and growing potential for new ideas, we need new rules. Scientific American, 309(4), 60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Szostak, R., Gnoli, C., & López-Huertas, M. (2016). Interdisciplinary knowledge organization. Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Taleb, N. N. (2013). The fourth quadrant: A map of the limits of statistics. In J. Brockman (Ed.), Thinking: The new science of decision-making, problem-solving, and prediction (pp. 225–251). New York, NY: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  145. Tirri, K. (2016). Holistic perspectives on gifted education for the 21st century. In D. Ambrose & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Giftedness and talent in the 21st century: Adapting to the turbulence of globalization (pp. 101–110). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.Google Scholar
  146. Weiss, G. (2012). Ayn Rand nation: The hidden struggle for America’s soul. New York, NY: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  147. Zhao, Y. (2009). Catching up or leading the way: American education in the age of globalization. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Google Scholar
  148. Zhao, Y. (2013). Directions of change: Why the United States and China are moving in opposite directions. In H. Janc & Malone (Eds.), Leading educational change: Global issues, challenges, and lessons on whole-system reform (pp. 16–19). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  149. Zhao, Y. (2014). Who’s afraid of the big bad dragon? Why China has the best (and worst) education system in the world. San Franciso, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  150. Zhao, Y., & Gearin, B. (2016). Squeezed out: The threat of global homogenization of education to creativity. In D. Ambrose & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Creative intelligence in the 21st century: Grappling with enormous problems and huge opportunities (pp. 121–138). Rotterdam: Sense.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Education and Human ServicesRider UniversityLawrencevilleUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options