Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 49, Issue 1, pp 5–12 | Cite as

Advancements in research on creativity and giftedness in mathematics education: introduction to the special issue

  • Florence Mihaela Singer
  • Linda Jensen Sheffield
  • Roza Leikin
Survey Paper
First Online:

Abstract

Creativity and giftedness in mathematics education research are topics of an increased interest in the education community during recent years. This introductory paper to the special issue on Mathematical Creativity and Giftedness in Mathematics Education has a twofold purpose: to offer a brief historical perspective on the study of creativity and giftedness, and to place an emphasis on the added value of the present volume to the research in the field. The historical overview addresses the development of research and practice in creativity and giftedness with specific attention to creativity and giftedness in mathematics. We argue that this special issue makes a significant contribution to bridging domain-general theories of creativity and giftedness with theories in mathematics education with special attention given to nurturing these phenomena in the process of mathematics teaching and learning.

Keywords

Mathematics Education Mathematical Ability Gifted Student Mathematical Creativity Gifted Education 
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. Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., Vantassel-Baska, J., & Lupkowski Shoplik, A. (Eds.). (2015). s brightest students. Iowa City: The Acceleration Institute.Google Scholar
  2. Binet, A. (1984). Les idees modernes sur les enfants. Paris: Flammarion. (Published in English as modern ideas about children. Menlo Park: Suzanne Heisler).Google Scholar
  3. Bressoud, D., Camp, D., & Teague, D. (2012). Background to the MAA/NCTM statement on calculus. Resto: NCTM.Google Scholar
  4. Colangelo, N. (2004). A nation deceived: how schools hold back America’s brightest students. Iowa City: The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N.Google Scholar
  5. Dreyfus, T., Hershkowitz, R., & Schwarz, B. (2015). The nested epistemic actions model for abstraction in context—theory as methodological tool and methodological tool as theory. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs, C. Knipping & N. Presmeg (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research in mathematics education: Examples of methodology and methods. Advances Mathematics Education series (pp. 185–217). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Gardner, H. (1983/2003). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  7. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hadamard, J. (1945). The psychology of invention in the mathematical field. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
  9. Haylock, D. W. (1987). A framework for assessing mathematical creativity in school children. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 18(1), 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hershkowitz, R., Schwarz, B. B., & Dreyfus, T. (2001). Abstraction in context: Epistemic actions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32, 195–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hershkowitz, R., Tabach, M., & Dreyfus, T. (2017). Creative reasoning and shifts of knowledge in the mathematics classroom. ZDM Mathematics Education. doi: 10.1007/s11858-016-0816-6.Google Scholar
  12. Hoth, J., Kaiser, G., Busse, A., Döhrmann, M., König, J., & Blömeke, S. (2017). Professional competences of teachers for fostering creativity and supporting high-achieving students. ZDM Mathematics Education. doi: 10.1007/s11858-016-0817-5.Google Scholar
  13. House, P. (1987) (Ed.). Providing opportunities for the mathematically gifted K-12. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  14. Johnsen, S., & Sheffield, L. J. (Eds.). (2012). Using the common core state standards for mathematics with gifted and advanced learners. Washington, DC: NAGC, NCTM & NCSM.Google Scholar
  15. Karp A. & Leikin R. (Eds.) (2011). Mathematical gift and promise: Exploring and developing. Special issue 11(1) in Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education.Google Scholar
  16. Krutetskii, V. A. (1968/1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in schoolchildren (Translated from Russian by Teller, J. Edited by J. Kilpatrick and Wirszup). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Leikin, R. (2009a). Bridging research and theory in mathematics education with research and theory in creativity and giftedness. In R. Leikin, A. Berman & B. Koichu (Eds.), Creativity in mathematics and the education of gifted students. (Part IV—synthesis, Ch. 23, pp. 385–411). Rotterdam: Sense Publisher.Google Scholar
  18. Leikin, R. (2009a). Bridging research and theory in mathematics education with research and theory in creativity and giftedness. In R. Leikin, A. Berman & B. Koichu (Eds.), Creativity in mathematics and the education of gifted students (pp. 383–409). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Leikin, R. (2009b). Exploring mathematical creativity using multiple solution tasks. In R. Leikin, A. Berman & B. Koichu (Eds.), Creativity in mathematics and the education of gifted students. (Ch. 9, pp. 129–145). Rotterdam: Sense Publisher.Google Scholar
  20. Leikin, R. (2013). Evaluating mathematical creativity: The interplay between multiplicity and insight. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 55(4), 385–400.Google Scholar
  21. Leikin, R. (2016). Interplay between creativity and expertise in teaching and learning of mathematics. In C. Csíkos, A. Rausch & J. Szitányi. (Eds.) Proceedings of the 40th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol. 1, pp. 19–34). Szeged, PME.Google Scholar
  22. Leikin, R., Berman, A., & Koichu, B. (Eds.). (2009). Creativity in mathematics and the education of gifted students. Rotterdam: Sense Publisher.Google Scholar
  23. Leikin, R., Koichu, B., Berman, A., & Dinur, S. (2017). How are questions that students ask in high level mathematics classes linked to general giftedness? ZDM Mathematics Education 49(1) (this issue), doi: 10.1007/s11858-016-0815-7.
  24. Leikin, R., & Pitta-Pantazi, D. (Eds.) (2013). Creativity and mathematics education. Special issue 45(2). ZDM Mathematics Education.Google Scholar
  25. Leikin, R. & B. Sriraman (Eds.). (2016). Creativity and Giftedness: Interdisciplinary perspectives from mathematics and beyond. Advances in Mathematics Education Series. Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Lev-Zamir H. & Leikin R. (2011). Creative mathematics teaching in the eye of the beholder: Focusing on teachers’ conceptions. Research in Mathematics Education 13, 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Liljedahl, P. (2009). In the words of the creators. In R. Leikin, A. Berman, & B. Koichu (Eds.) Mathematical creativity and the education of gifted children. (pp. 51–70). Rotterdam, NL: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  28. Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2006). Study of mathematically precocious youth after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of math-science expertise. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 316–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marland, S. P. Jr. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education and background papers submitted to the US Office of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  30. Mhlolo, M. K. (2017). Regular classroom teachers’ recognition and support of the creative potential of mildly gifted mathematics learners. ZDM Mathematics Education. doi: 10.1007/s11858-016-0824-6.Google Scholar
  31. Milgram, R. M. (Ed.). (1989). Teaching gifted and talented children learners in regular classrooms. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
  32. National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics (2011). Improving student achievement by expanding opportunities for mathematically promising students. NCSM position statement. Denver: NCSM.Google Scholar
  33. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1980). An agenda for action: recommendations for school mathematics of the 1980s. Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  34. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1983). A position statement on vertical acceleration. Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  35. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1986). A position statement on provisions for mathematically talented and gifted students. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  36. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1995). Report of the NCTM task force on promising students. Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  37. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2016). Providing opportunities for students with exceptional mathematical promise: A position of the national council of teachers of mathematics. Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  38. Nolte M., Pamperien K. (2017). Challenging problems in a regular classroom setting and in a special foster programme. ZDM Mathematics Education. doi: 10.1007/s11858-016-0825-5.Google Scholar
  39. Paz-Baruch, N., Leikin, M., Aharon-Peretz, J., & Leikin, R. (2014). Speed of information processing in generally gifted and excelling in mathematics adolescents. High Abilities Studies, 25(2), 143–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational psychologist, 39(2), 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Renzulli, J. S. (2006). Swimming up-stream in a small river: Changing conceptions and practices about the development of giftedness. In M. A. Constas & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Translating theory and research into educational practice: developments in content domains, large-scale reform, and intellectual capacity (pp. 223–253). Mahway: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  42. Saul, M., Assouline, S., & Sheffield, L. (2010). The peak in the middle: developing mathematically gifted students in the middle grades. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. 1906 Association Drive, 20191–1502.Google Scholar
  43. Sheffield, L. J. (2017). Dangerous myths about “gifted” mathematics students. ZDM Mathematics Education. doi: 10.1007/s11858-016-0814-8.Google Scholar
  44. Sheffield, L. J., Bennett, J., Berriozabal, M., DeArmond, M., & Wertheimer, R. (1999). Report of the NCTM task force on the mathematically promising. In L. J. Sheffield (Ed.), Developing mathematically promising students (pp. 309–316). Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  45. Silver, E. A. (1997). Fostering creativity though instruction rich mathematical problem solving and problem posing. International Reviews on Mathematical Education, 29, 75–80.Google Scholar
  46. Singer, F. M. (2012). Boosting the young learners’ creativity: Representational change as a tool to promote individual talents. In The 7th MCG Proceedings. Busan: MCG, p. 3–26.Google Scholar
  47. Singer, F. M., Ellerton, N. F., & Cai, J. (Eds.). (2015). Mathematical problem posing: From research to effective practice. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  48. Singer, F. M., Sheffield, L., Freiman, V., & Brandl, M. (2016). Research on and activities for mathematically gifted students. New York: Springer Nature.Google Scholar
  49. Singer, F. M., Voica, C., & Pelczer, I. (2017). Cognitive styles in posing geometry problems: Implications for assessment of mathematical creativity. ZDM Mathematics Education. doi: 10.1007/s11858-016-0820-x.Google Scholar
  50. Spearman, C. (1923). Further note on the “theory of two factors”. British Journal of Psychology, 13, 266–270.Google Scholar
  51. Sriraman, B. (2005). Are giftedness and 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
  52. Sriraman, B., & Dickman, B. (2017). Mathematical pathologies as pathways into creativity. ZDM Mathematics Education. doi: 10.1007/s11858-016-0822-8.Google Scholar
  53. Sriraman, B., & Kyeong Hwa, L. (Eds.). (2010). The elements of creativity and giftedness in mathematics. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  54. Stanley, J. C., George, W. C., & Cohn, S. J. (1979). Educating the gifted: Acceleration and enrichment. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Sternberg, R. J. (2000c). Intelligence and wisdom. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 629–647). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Tabach, M., & Friedlander, A. (2017). Algebraic procedures and creative thinking. ZDM Mathematics Education. doi: 10.1007/s11858-016-0803-y.Google Scholar
  57. Thorndike, R. L., Hagen, E. P., & Sattler, J. M. (1986). Technical manual for the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale. (4th edition). Chicago: Riverside.Google Scholar
  58. Thurstone, L. L., & Thurstone, T. C. (1941). Factorial studies of intelligence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  59. Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Bensenville: Scholastic Testing Service.Google Scholar
  60. Vygotsky, L. S. (1930/1984). Imagination and creativity in adolescent. In D. B. Elkonin (Ed.) Vol. 4: Child psychology. The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky (pp. 199–219). Moscow: Pedagogika. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  61. Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
  62. Wechsler, D. (1991). Manual for the Wechsler intelligence scales for children (3rd ed.), (WISC III). San Antonio: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  63. Zazkis, R. (2017). Lesson play tasks as a creative venture for teachers and teacher educators. ZDM Mathematics Education. doi: 10.1007/s11858-016-0808-6.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of PloiestiPloiestiRomania
  2. 2.Northern Kentucky UniversityHighland HeightsUSA
  3. 3.University of HaifaHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options