Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 49, Issue 7, pp 1033–1039 | Cite as

Enhancing equity in the classroom by teaching for mathematical creativity

  • Sarah R. Luria
  • Bharath Sriraman
  • James C. Kaufman
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

Equity is an important element of educational discourses pertaining to mathematics and science education. Creativity is an aspect of the classroom that is often ignored due to curricular constraints and the burden of testing. However mathematics offers avenues to infuse the regular curricula with activities that are thought provoking and require creativity and these are accessible to learners of all levels. This article reviews creativity strategies that can be embedded in mathematics curricula to increase classroom equity. These strategies will include the strength of presenting open-ended problems, modeling and encouraging risk taking, discussions and debate of mathematical concepts, concept based learning, divergent thinking strategies during problem solving activities, and incorporating cultural awareness and creativity into curricula and classroom environment. The article will focus both on teacher implementation of these strategies and student outcomes regarding creativity and equity.

Keywords

Creativity Equity Mathematics education 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to “The social psychology of creativity”. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  2. Avitia, M. J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2014). Beyond g and c: The relationship of rated creativity to long-term storage and retrieval(glr). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 293–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baer, J. (2011a). How divergent thinking tests mislead us: Are the Torrance tests still relevant in the 21st century? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 309–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baer, J. (2011b). Four (more) arguments against the Torrance tests. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 316–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2008). Gender differences in creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42, 75–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Being creative inside and outside the classroom. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beghetto, R., & Sriraman, B. (2017). Creative contradictions in education: Cross disciplinary paradoxes and perspectives. Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beghetto, R. A. (2013). Killing ideas softly? The promise and perils of creativity in the classroom. Charlotte: IAP Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  9. Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2007). Toward a broader conception of creativity: A case for mini-c creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1, 73–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2009). Intellectual estuaries: Connecting learning and creativity in programs of advanced academics. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20, 296–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Beghetto, R. A., Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2014). Teaching for creativity in the common core classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  12. Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.). (2010). Nurturing creativity in the classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.). (2016). Nurturing creativity in the classroom (2nd edn.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Beghetto, R. A. (in press). Creativity in teaching. In J. C. Kaufman, J. Baer & V. P. Glăveanu (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of creativity across different domains. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Bleske-Rechek, A., & Browne, K. (2014). Trends in GRE scores and graduate enrollments by gender and ethnicity. Intelligence, 46, 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Blessinger, P., & Watts, L. S. (2006). History and nature of creative learning. In L. S. Watts & P. Blessinger (Eds.), Creative learning in higher education: International perspectives and approaches (pp. 3–13). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Boaler, J. (1997). Experiencing School Mathematics. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R: Professional manual. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  19. Cropley, A. J. (2001). Creativity in education & learning: A guide for teachers and educators. London: Stylus.Google Scholar
  20. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  21. DeYoung, C. G. (2014). Openness/intellect: A dimension of personality reflecting cognitive exploration. In M. L. Cooper & R. J. Larsen (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology: Personality processes and individual differences (Vol. 4, pp. 369–399). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  22. DeYoung, C. G. (2015). Cybernetic big five theory. Journal of Research in Personality, 56, 33–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 290–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Feist, G. J., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.). (2017). Cambridge handbook of creativity and personality research. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Gallagher, A. M., & Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.). (2005). Gender differences in mathematics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Geissler, G. L., Edison, S. W., & Wayland, J. P. (2012). Improving students’critical thinking, creativity, and communication skills. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 8, 1–8.Google Scholar
  27. Gocłowska, M. A., Baas, M., Crisp, R. J., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2014). Whether social schema violations help or hurt creativity depends on need for structure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 959–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gocłowska, M. A., & Crisp, R. J. (2013). On counter-stereotypes and creative cognition: When interventions for reducing prejudice can boost divergent thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 72–79. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2012.07.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gocłowska, M. A., Crisp, R. J., & Labuschagne, K. (2013). Can counter-stereotypes boost flexible thinking? Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 16, 217–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Goldin, G. (2004). Problem solving heuristics, affect, and discrete mathematics. International Reviews on Mathematical Education, 36(2), 56–60.Google Scholar
  31. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  33. Hennessey, B., & Amabile, T. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 569–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ivcevic, Z., & Kaufman, J. C. (2013). The can and cannot do attitude: How self estimates of ability vary across ethnic and socioeconomic groups. Learning and Individual Differences, 27, 144–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Karwowski, M., & Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.). (2017). The creative self: How our beliefs, self-efficacy, mindset, and identity impact our creativity. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  36. Kaufman, J. C. (2006). Self-reported differences in creativity by gender and ethnicity. Journal of Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 1065–1082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kaufman, J. C. (2010). Using creativity to reduce ethnic bias in college admissions. Review of General Psychology, 14, 189–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kaufman, J. C. (2015). Why creativity isn’t in IQ tests, why it matters, and why it won’t change anytime soon… .Probably. Journal of Intelligence, 3, 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kaufman, J. C. (2016). Creativity 101 (2nd edn.). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  40. Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2002). Could Steven Spielberg manage the Yankees?: Creative thinking in different domains. Korean Journal of Thinking and Problem Solving, 12, 5–15.Google Scholar
  41. Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2013). In praise of Clark Kent: Creative metacognition and the importance of teaching kids when (not) to be creative. Roeper Review, 35, 155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kaufman, J. C., Beghetto, R. A., & Watson, C. (2016). Creative metacognition and self-ratings of creative performance: A 4-C perspective. Learning and Individual Differences, 51, 394–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kaufman, J. C., Gentile, C. A., & Baer, J. (2005). Do gifted student writers and creative writing experts rate creativity the same way? Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 260–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kaufman, J. C., Kaufman, S. B., & Lichtenberger, E. O. (2011). Finding creativity on intelligence tests via divergent production. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 26, 83–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kaufman, J. C., Waterstreet, M. A., Ailabouni, H. S., Whitcomb, H. J., Roe, A. K., & Riggs, M. (2009). Personality and self-perceptions of creativity across domains. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 29, 193–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kharkhurin, A. V. (2014). Creativity. 4in1: Four- criterion construct of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 26(3), 338–352. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2014.929424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kim, K. H. (2011a). The APA 2009 division 10 debate: Are the Torrance tests still relevant in the 21st century? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 302–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kim, K. H. (2011b). Proven reliability and validity of the Torrance tests of creative thinking (TTCT). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 314–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. King, L. A., McKee-Walker, L., & Broyles, S. J. (1996). Creativity and the five factor model. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 189–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Leikin, R., & Pitta-Pantazi, D. (2013). Creativity and mathematics education: The state of the art. ZDM The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(2), 159–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Leikin, R., & Sriraman, B. (2017). Creativity and giftedness: Interdisciplinary perspectives from mathematics and beyond. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Luria, S. R., & Kaufman, J. C. (2017). Examining the relationship between creativity and equitable thinking in schools. Psychology in the Schools.Google Scholar
  53. Luria, S. R., O’Brien, R. L., & Kaufman, J. C. (2016). Creativity in gifted identification: Increasing accuracy and diversity. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1377, pp. 44–52.Google Scholar
  54. Ma, L. (1999). understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States (Studies in mathematical thinking and learning). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  55. Mueller, J. S., Goncalo, J. A., & Kamdar, D. (2011). Recognizing creative leadership: Can creative idea expression negatively relate to perceptions of leadership potential? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 494–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Niu, W., & Kaufman, J. C. (2013). Creativity of Chinese and American cultures: A synthetic analysis. Journal of Creative Behavior, 47, 77–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Olkin, I., & Schoenfeld, A. (1994). A discussion of Bruce Reznick’s chapter. In A. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Mathematical Thinking and Problem Solving (pp. 39–51). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  58. Piggott, J. (2007). Cultivating Creativity. Mathematics Teaching, 202, 3–7.Google Scholar
  59. Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305–311.Google Scholar
  60. Richmond, D. (2014, February 15). Creativity is the key to social justice. [blog post]. Retrieved from https://artsindevelopment.wordpress.com/2014/02/15/creativity-is-the-key-to-social-justice/.
  61. Schmader, T., & Johns, M. (2003). Converging evidence that stereotype threat reduces working memory capacity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 440–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Simonton, D. K. (2012). Citation measures as criterion variables in predicting scientific eminence. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 10, 170–171.Google Scholar
  63. Sowden, P. T., Clements, L., Redlich, C., & Lewis, C. (2015). Improvisation facilitates divergent thinking and creativity: Realizing a benefit of primary school arts education. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9, 128–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sriraman, B. (2004). The characteristics of mathematical creativity. The Mathematics Educator, 14, 19–34.Google Scholar
  65. Sriraman, B. (2005). Are mathematical giftedness and mathematical creativity synonyms? A theoretical analysis of constructs. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(1), 20–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sriraman, B. (2009). Paradoxes as pathways into polymathy. ZDM The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 41(1 and 2), 29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sriraman, B., & Dickman, B. (2017). Mathematical pathologies as pathways into creativity. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 49(1), 137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Successful intelligence. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  69. Sternberg, R. J. (1999). A propulsion model of types of creative contributions. Review of General Psychology, 3, 83–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sternberg, R. J. (2008). Applying psychological theories to educational practice. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 150–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sternberg, R. J. (2010). College admissions for the 21st century. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Sternberg, R. J. (2016). A Triangular theory of creativity. Psychology Of Aesthetics, Creativity, And The Arts. doi: 10.1037/aca0000095.Google Scholar
  73. Sternberg, R. J., Bonney, C. R., Gabora, L., & Merrifield, M. (2012). WICS: A model for college and university admissions. Educational Psychologist, 47, 30–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sternberg, R. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2008). Applied intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sternberg, R. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Pretz, J. E. (2002). The creativity conundrum. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  76. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  77. Tabach, M., & Friedlander, A. (2013). School mathematics and creativity at the elementary and middle-grade levels: How are they related? ZDM The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45, 227–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Tadmor, C. T., Chao, M. M., Hong, Y. Y., & Polzer, J. T. (2013). Not just for stereotyping anymore: Racial essentialism reduces domain-general creativity. Psychological Science, 24, 99–105. doi: 10.1177/0956797612452570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Tan, A. G., & Sriraman, B. (2017). Convergence in creativity development for mathematical capacity. In R. Leikin & B. Sriraman (Eds.), Creativity and giftedness: Interdisciplinary perspectives from mathematics and beyond (pp. 117–134). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Torrance, E. P. (2008). The Torrance tests of creative thinking norms-technical manual figural (streamlined)forms A & B. Bensenville: Scholastic Testing Service.Google Scholar
  81. Tyagi, V., Hanoch, Y., Hall, S. D., Runco, M., & Denham, S. L. (2017). The risky side of creativity: Domain specific risk taking in creative individuals. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 145.  10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ConnecticutStorrsUSA
  2. 2.University of MontanaMissoulaUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options