Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 49, Issue 1, pp 137–145 | Cite as

Mathematical pathologies as pathways into creativity

  • Bharath Sriraman
  • Benjamin Dickman
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

In this paper, the role of mathematical pathologies as a means of fostering creativity in the classroom is discussed. In particular, it delves into what constitutes a mathematical pathology, examines historical mathematical pathologies as well as pathologies in contemporary classrooms, and indicates how the Lakatosian heuristic can be used to formulate problems that illustrate mathematical pathologies. We discuss the relationship between mathematical pathologies and their role in fostering creativity. The paper concludes with remarks on mathematical pathologies from the perspective of creativity studies at large.

Keywords

Creativity Convergent thinking Divergent thinking Heuristics Lakatosian heuristics Pathologies Mathematical pathologies Problem-posing 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2010). Nurturing creativity in the classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Borasi, R. (1996). Reconceiving mathematics instruction: A focus on errors. Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  3. Buchbinder, O., & Zaslavsky, O. (2013). Inconsistencies in students’ understanding of proof and refutation of mathematical statements. In Proceedings of the 37th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 129–136).Google Scholar
  4. Burton, L. (2004). Mathematicians as enquirers: Learning about learning mathematics. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. Handbook of creativity (pp. 313–335). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Davis, P. J., & Hersh, R. (1980). The Mathematical Experience. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  7. Dickman, B. (in press). Enriching divisibility: multiple proofs and generalizations. The Mathematics Teacher.Google Scholar
  8. Fisher, S. C. (1973). Social characteristics of mathematicians and their work. American Journal of Sociology, 78(5), 1094–1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guilford, J. P. (1959). Traits of creativity. In H. H. Anderson (Ed.), Creativity and its cultivation (pp. 142–161). New York: Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar
  10. Hadjichristou, C., & Ogbonnaya, U. (2015). The effect of using the Lakatosian heuristic method to teach the surface area of a cone on students’ achievement according to bloom’s taxonomy levels. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(2), 185–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hanson, M. H. (2015). Worldmaking: Psychology and the ideology of creativity. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  12. Haught, C. & Stokes, P.D. (2016). Constraints, competency and creativity in the classroom. In R. Leikin and B. Sriraman (Eds.), Creativity and giftedness: interdisciplinary perspectives from mathematics and beyond (pp. 105–116). Springer Science and Business.Google Scholar
  13. Haylock, D. (1987). A framework for assessing mathematical creativity in school children. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 18(1), 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hersh, R. (2014). Experiencing mathematics. Providence: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
  15. Johnson, E. (1985). Algebraic and numerical explorations inspired by the simplification: 16/64 = 1/4. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 7, 15–28.Google Scholar
  16. Knorr, W. (1983). Euclidean theory of irrational lines. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 9(1), 41–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Knorr, W. (1998). ‘Rational diameters’ and the discovery of incommensurability. The American Mathematical Monthly, 105(5), 421–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Koblitz, N., & Koblitz, A. (1986). Mathematics and the external world: An interview with Prof. A.T. Fomenko. The Mathematical Intelligencer, 8(2), 8–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations: The logic of mathematical discovery. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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). The Netherlands: Sense.Google Scholar
  21. Leikin, R. (2011). Multiple-solution tasks: from a teacher education course to teacher practice. ZDM – The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 43(6–7), 993–1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leikin, R., & Lev, M. (2013). Mathematical creativity in generally gifted and mathematically excelling adolescents: What makes the difference? ZDM – The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(2), 183–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mandelbrot, B. (1989). Fractal geometry: what is it, and what does it do? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 423(1864), 3–16.Google Scholar
  24. Osler, T. (2007). Lucky fractions: Where bad arithmetic gives correct results. Journal of Mathematics and Computer Education, 41(2), 162–167.Google Scholar
  25. Pitta-Pantazi, D., Sophocleous, P., & Christou, C. (2013). Spatial visualizers, object visualizers and verbalizers: their mathematical creative abilities. ZDM – The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(2), 199–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Root-Bernstein, R. S. (1996). The sciences and arts share a common creative aesthetic. In A. I. Tauber (Ed.), The elusive synthesis: Aesthetics and science (pp. 49–82). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Roskam, J. (2009). Book X of the elements: ordering irrationals. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 6(1&2), 277–294.Google Scholar
  28. Runco, M. A. (1999). Divergent thinking. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 577–582). San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
  29. Runco, M. A. (2010). Divergent thinking, creativity, and ideation. The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 413–446).Google Scholar
  30. Silver, E. A. (1994). On mathematical problem posing. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(1), 19–28.Google Scholar
  31. Silver, E. A. (1997). Fostering creativity through instruction rich in mathematical problem solving and problem posing. ZDM, 29(3), 75–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sriraman, B. (2004a). Discovering Steiner Triple Systems through problem solving. The Mathematics Teacher, 97(5), 320–326.Google Scholar
  33. Sriraman, B. (2004b). Reflective abstraction, uniframes and the formulation of generalizations. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 23(2), 205–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sriraman, B. (2005). Are giftedness & creativity synonyms in mathematics? An analysis of constructs within the professional and school realms. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 20–36.Google Scholar
  35. Sriraman, B. (2006). An ode to Imre Lakatos: quasi-thought experiments to bridge the ideal and actual mathematics classrooms. Interchange, 37(1–2), 151–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sriraman, B. (2009). The characteristics of mathematical creativity. ZDM – The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 41(1&2), 19–34.Google Scholar
  37. Sriraman, B., & Lande, D. (2017). “Integrating” creativity and technology through interpolation. In V. Freiman, & J. Tassell (Eds.), Creativity and technology in mathematics education. New York, NY: Springer, (in press).Google Scholar
  38. Sriraman, B., & Mousoulides, N. (2014). Quasi-empirical reasoning (Lakatos). In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education (pp. 511–513). Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  39. Steen, L. A., & Seebach, J. A. (1978). Counterexamples in topology. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Torrance, E. P. (1966). The torrance tests of creative thinking-norms-technical manual research edition-verbal tests, Forms A and B-Figural tests, Forms A and B. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press.Google Scholar
  41. Umland, K., & Sriraman, B. (2014). Argumentation in mathematics. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education (pp. 44–46). Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  42. Weisberg, R. W. (2006). Creativity: Understanding innovation in problem solving, science, invention, and the arts. Wiley.Google Scholar
  43. Yim, J., Song, S., & Kim, J. (2008). The mathematically gifted elementary students’ revisiting of Euler’s polyhedron theorem. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 5(1), 125–142.Google Scholar
  44. Yuan, X., & Sriraman, B. (2011). An exploratory study of relationships between students’creativity and mathematical problem-posing abilities. The elements of creativity and giftedness in mathematics (pp. 5–28). The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematical SciencesUniversity of MontanaMissoulaUSA
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsThe Hewitt SchoolNew York CityUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options