Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 49, Issue 1, pp 37–52 | Cite as

Cognitive styles in posing geometry problems: implications for assessment of mathematical creativity

  • Florence Mihaela Singer
  • Cristian Voica
  • Ildikó Pelczer
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

While a wide range of approaches and tools have been used to study children’s creativity in school contexts, less emphasis has been placed on revealing students’ creativity at university level. The present paper is focused on defining a tool that provides information about mathematical creativity of prospective mathematics teachers in problem-posing situations. To characterize individual differences, a method to determine the geometry-problem-posing cognitive style of a student was developed. This method consists of analyzing the student’s products (i.e. the posed problems) based on three criteria. The first of these is concerned with the validity of the student’s proposals, and two bi-polar criteria detect the student’s personal manner in the heuristics of addressing the task: Geometric Nature (GN) of the posed problems (characterized by two opposite features: qualitative versus metric), and Conceptual Dispersion (CD) of the posed problems (characterized by two opposite features: structured versus entropic). Our data converge on the fact that cognitive flexibility—a basic indicator of creativity—inversely correlates with a style that has dominance in metric GN and structured CD, showing that the detected cognitive style may be a good predictor of students’ mathematical creativity.

Keywords

Problem posing Cognitive style Creativity Cognitive flexibility Geometry problem posing cognitive style Prospective teachers 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank three anonymous reviewers for their careful reading of the text. Their professionalism helped us to consistently improve the quality of the manuscript.

References

  1. Ausburn, L. J., & Ausburn, F. B. (1978). Cognitive styles: some information and implications for instructional design. Educational Communication and Technology, 26, 337–354.Google Scholar
  2. Borromeo Ferri, R., & Kaiser, G. (2003). First results of a study of different mathematical thinking styles of schoolchildren. In L. Burton (Ed.), Which way social justice in mathematics education? (pp. 209–239). London: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  3. Crespo, S. (2003). Learning to pose mathematical problems: exploring changes in preservice teachers’ practices. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52(3), 243–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gregorc, A. F. (1979). Learning/teaching styles: potent forces behind them. Educational Leadership, 36, 234–236.Google Scholar
  5. Gregorc, A. F. (1982). Gregorc style delineator: Development, technical and administration manual. Columbia, CT: Gregorc Assoc. Inc.Google Scholar
  6. Jay, E. S., & Perkins, D. N. (1997). Problem finding: the search for mechanism. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), The creativity research handbook (pp. 257–293). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.Google Scholar
  7. Kozhevnikov, M. (2007). Styles in the context of modern psychology: toward an integrated framework of cognitive style. Psychological Bulletin, 133(3), 464–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Moutsios-Rentzos, A., & Simpson, A. (2010). The thinking styles of university mathematics students. Acta didactica Napocensia, 3(4), 1–10.Google Scholar
  9. Pelczer, I., Singer, F. M., & Voica, C. (2013). Cognitive framing: a case in problem posing. Procedia SBS, 78, 195–199.Google Scholar
  10. Riding, R. (2001). The nature and effects of cognitive style. In R. J. Sternberg & L. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 47–72). Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Assoc. Inc.Google Scholar
  11. Riding, R., & Al-Sanabani, S. (1998). The effect of cognitive style, age, gender and structure on the recall of prose passages. International Journal of Education and Research, 29, 173–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Singer, F. M. (2012). Exploring mathematical thinking and mathematical creativity through problem posing. In R. Leikin, B. Koichu, & A. Berman (Eds.), Proc (pp. 119–124). Int. Workshop of Israel Science Foundation on Exploring and advancing mathematical abilities in high achievers: University of Haifa, Haifa.Google Scholar
  13. Singer, F. M., Ellerton, N., & Cai, J. (2013). Problem-posing research in mathematics education: new questions and directions. ESM, 83(1), 1–7.Google Scholar
  14. Singer, F. M., Ellerton, N. F., & Cai, J. (Eds.). (2015a). Mathematical problem posing: from research to effective practice. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. 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.), Proc. CERME7 (pp. 1133–1142). Poland: University Rzeszów.Google Scholar
  16. Singer, F. M., Pelczer, I., Voica, C. (2015). Problem posing cognitive style—can it be used to assess mathematical creativity? In Proc. 9th MCG (pp. 74–79). Sinaia, Romania.Google Scholar
  17. Singer, F. M., & Voica, C. (2013). A problem-solving conceptual framework and its implications in designing problem-posing tasks. ESM, 83(1), 9–26.Google Scholar
  18. Singer, F. M., & Voica, C. (2015). Is problem posing a tool for identifying and developing mathematical creativity? In F. M. Singer, N. F. Ellerton, & J. Cai (Eds.), Mathematical problem posing: from research to effective practice (pp. 141–174). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1997). Are cognitive styles still in style? American Psychologist, 52(7), 700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.Google Scholar
  21. Voica, C., & Singer, F.M. (2011). Creative contexts as ways to strengthen mathematics learning. In M. Anitei, M. Chraif, C. Vasile (Eds.), Proceeding on PSIWORLD 2011, vol. 33/2012 (pp. 538–542).Google Scholar
  22. Voica, C., & Singer, F. M. (2013). Problem modification as a tool for detecting cognitive flexibility in school children. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(2), 267–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Voica, C., & Singer, F. M. (2014). Problem posing: a pathway to identifying gifted students. In Proceedings of the 8th Conference of the International Group for Mathematical Creativity and Giftedness (MCG) (pp. 119–124). Colorado: University of Denver.Google Scholar
  24. Zhang, L. F., & Sternberg, R. (2001). Thinking styles across cultures: their relationships with student learning. In R. J. Sternberg & L. F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning and cognitive styles (pp. 197–226). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of PloiestiPloiestiRomania
  2. 2.University of BucharestBucharestRomania
  3. 3.Concordia UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options