Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 49, Issue 1, pp 81–94 | Cite as

Regular classroom teachers’ recognition and support of the creative potential of mildly gifted mathematics learners

  • Michael Kainose Mhlolo
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

Post independent reforms in South Africa moved from separate education for the gifted learners to inclusive education in regular classrooms. A specific concern that has been totally ignored since then is whether or not the regular classroom would expand or limit the gifted child’s creativity. This study aimed at investigating the extent to which South African mathematics teachers recognised and supported the development of gifted students’ creative potential. Four teachers were each observed teaching over a week and the analysis focused on their representational fluency and how they responded to gifted students’ creative ideas. The results show that in 70% of the episodes teachers’ representations were either mathematically faulty or correct but with no further justification or explanation. In 63% of the micromoments students’ creative ideas were considered disruptive and were therefore not recognized. These results suggest that currently regular classrooms in South Africa might not be conducive to the development of the gifted students’ creative potential.

Keywords

Inclusive Education Regular Classroom Creative Idea Gifted Student Creative Potential 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Adler, J. (2009). A methodology for studying mathematics for teaching. Recherches en Didactique des Mathematiques, 29(1), 33–58.Google Scholar
  2. Andrews, P. (2009). Comparative studies of mathematics teachers’ observable learning objectives: Validating low inference codes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71, 97–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baer, J., & Garrett, T. (2010). Teaching for creativity in an era of content standards and accountability. In R. A. Beghetto & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing creativity in the classroom (pp. 6–23). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2005). Bridging generality and specificity: The Amusement Park Theoretical (APT) model of creativity. Roeper Review, 27, 158–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bakker, A., Smit, J., & Wegerif, R. (2015). Scaffolding and dialogic teaching in mathematics. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47, 1047–1065. doi: 10.1007/s11858-015-0744-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ball, D. L. & Bass, H. (2003). Toward a practice-based theory of mathematical knowledge for teaching. In B. Davis and E. Simmt (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2002 annual meeting of the Canadian Mathematics Education Study Group (pp. 3–14). Edmonton, AB: CMESG/GDEDM.Google Scholar
  7. Beghetto, R. A. (2013). Killing ideas softly? The promise and perils of creativity in the classroom. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2014). Classroom contexts for creativity. High Ability Studies, 25(1), 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bezuszka, S. J., & Kenney, M. J. (2008). The three r’s: Recursive thinking, recursion, and recursive formulas. In C. E. Greenes & R. Rubenstein (Eds.), Algebra and algebraic thinking in school mathematics: Seventieth yearbook (pp. 81–97). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  11. Blanton, M. (2008). Algebra and the elementary classroom: Transforming thinking, transforming practice. Portsmouth: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  12. Bornat, J. (2010). Remembering and reworking emotions. The reanalysis of emotion in an interview‟, Oral. History, 38(2), 43–52.Google Scholar
  13. Brijlall, D., Bansilal, S., & Moore-Russo, D. (2012). Exploring teachers’ conceptions of representations in mathematics through the lens of positive deliberative interaction. Pythagoras, 33(2), 8. doi: 10.4102/Pythagoras.v33i2.165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Businskas, A. (2008). Conversations about connections: How secondary mathematics teachers conceptualise and contend with mathematical connections. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada. http://ir.lib.sfu.ca/handle/1892/10579.
  15. Cohen L. M. (1989). A continuum of adaptive creative behaviours. Creativity Research Journal, 2, 169–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Crutchfield, R. S. (1993). The Creative Process. In Creativity, Theory and Research. New Haven, CT: College and University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Davis, Z., & Johnson, Y. (2007). Failing by example: Initial remarks on the constitution of school mathematics, with special reference to the teaching and learning of mathematics in five secondary schools. In M. Setati, N. Chitera, & A. Essien (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th Annual National Congress of the Association for Mathematics Education of South Africa, Vol. 1 (pp. 121–136).Google Scholar
  18. Donohue, D., & Bornman, J. (2014). The challenges of realising inclusive education in South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 34(2), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Esquivel, G. B. (1995). Teacher behaviours that foster creativity. Educational Psychology Review, 7(2), 185–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Friedman, H. S., & Martin, L. R. (2011). The longevity project: Surprising discoveries for health and long life from the landmark eight-decade study. New York: Hudson Street Press.Google Scholar
  21. Gagatsis, A., & Shiakalli, M. (2004). Ability to translate from one representation of the concept of function to another and mathematical problem solving. Educational Psychology, 24(5), 645–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gagné, F. (2015). From genes to talent: The DMGT/CMTD perspective. Revlsta de Educaclon, 368, 12–37.Google Scholar
  23. Irwin, S. (2013). Qualitative secondary data analysis: Ethics, epistemology and context. Progress in Development Studies, 13(4), 295–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four C model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kennedy, M. (2005). Inside teaching: How classroom life undermines reform. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kokot, S. J. (2011). Addressing giftedness. In E. Lansberg, D. Kruger, & E. Nel (Eds.), Addressing barriers to learning: A South African perspective. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.Google Scholar
  27. Krutetski, V. A. (1976). The Psychology of mathematical abilities in schoolchildren. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  28. LaFauci, H. M. & Richter, P. E. (2000). Team Teaching at the College Level. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Leikin, R. (2011). Teaching the mathematically gifted: Featuring a teacher. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics & Technology Education, 11, 78–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leikin, R., Subotnik, R., Pitta-Pantazi, D., Singer, F., & Pelczer, I. (2013). Teachers’ views on creativity in mathematics education and international survey, ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45, 309–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lesh, R., Post, T., & Behr, M. (1987). Representations and translations among representations in mathematics learning and problem solving. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 33–40). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  33. Lidz, C. S. (1991). Practitioner’s guide to dynamic assessment. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  34. Lubinski, D. (2010). Spatial ability and STEM: A sleeping giant for talent identification and development. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 344–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Kell, H. J. (2014). Life paths and accomplishments of mathematically precocious males and females four decades later. Psychological Science, 25(12), 2217–2232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mann, E. (2006). Creativity: The essence of mathematics. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(2), 236–260.Google Scholar
  37. Martin, L., & Schwartz, D. L. (2014). A pragmatic perspective on visual representation and creative thinking. Visual Studies, 29(1), 80–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mason, J. (2007). Re-using qualitative data: On the merits of an investigative epistemology. Sociological Research, 12(3), 34–48.Google Scholar
  39. Mhlolo, M. K., Venkat, H., & Schäfer, M. (2012). The nature and quality of the mathematical connections teachers make. Pythagoras, 33(1), 28–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Oswald, M. & de Villiers, J. M. (2013). Including the gifted learner: Perceptions of South African teachers and principals. South African Journal of Education, 33. http://www.sajournalofeducation.co.za. Accessed 3 June 2015.
  41. Pape, S. J. & Tchoshanov, M. A. (2001). The role of representation(s) in developing mathematical understanding, Theory into Practice, 40, 118–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pfeiffer, S. I. (2013). Serving the gifted: Evidence based clinical and Psychoeducational practices. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Renzulli, J. S. (2012). Re-examining the Role of Gifted Education and Talent Development for the 21st Century: A Four-Part Theoretical Approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 150–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rowland, T., & Zazkis, R. (2013). Contingency in the mathematics classroom: Opportunities taken and opportunities missed. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and technology Education., 13(2), 137–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Runco, M. A. (2003). Education for creative potential. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47, 317–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sawyer, R. K., John-Steiner, V., Moran, S., Sternberg, R., Feldman, D. H., Csikszentmihalyi, M., et al. (2003). Creativity and development. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sharp, C. (2004). Developing Young Children's Creativity: what can we learn from research? Topic, 32, 5–12.Google Scholar
  48. Shayshon, B., Gal, H., Tesler, B., & Ko, E.-S. (2014). Teaching mathematically talented students: A cross-cultural study about their teachers’ views. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 87, 409–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sierpinska, A. (1996). Understanding in mathematics. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  50. Sigel. I. F., & Cocking, R. F. (1977). Cognition and communication: A dialectic paradigm for development. In M. Lewis & L. A. Rosenblum (Eds.), Interaction, conversation, and the development of language: The origins of behaviour, Vol. Y ( pp. 207–226). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  51. Spaull, N. (2013). South Africa’s Education Crisis: The quality of education in South Africa 1994–2011. Johannesburg: Centre for Development and Enterprise (CDE).Google Scholar
  52. Star, J., & Newton, K. J. (2009). The nature and development of experts’ strategy flexibility for solving equations. Zentralblatt Didaktik für Mathematik (ZDM), 41(5), 557–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1998). A theory of teaching as assisted performance. In D. Faulkner, K. Littleton, M. & Woodhead (Eds.), Learning relationships in the classroom (pp. 93–110). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Treffinger, D., Schoonover, P., & Selby, E. (2013). Educating for creativity and innovation: A comprehensive guide for research-based practices. Waco: Prufrock Press Inc.Google Scholar
  55. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yackel, E., & Hanna, G. (2003). Reasoning and proof. In J. W. Kilpatrick, G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 227–236). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Central University of TechnologyBloemfonteinSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options