Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 49, Issue 1, pp 159–168 | Cite as

Some thoughts on gifted education and creativity

  • Alexander Karp
Commentary Paper
First Online:

Abstract

This article serves as commentary on the papers featured in the issue. Accordingly, these papers and the questions raised in them form the basis of its discussion. The papers, in turn, are addressing numerous aspects of creativity and working with the mathematically gifted, an area of study that has attracted considerable scholarly attention in the recent decades. This article attempts to elaborate on the findings and ideas of the discussed papers, specifically emphasizing the intrinsic connection between education for the mathematically gifted and general education, as well as the importance of the study and improvement of the practice of mathematics education. The piece starts with the discussion of a few relevant theoretical problems, then, following one of the papers in the issue, addresses the myths of gifted education and creativity, and then goes into other themes of the issue, including classroom practices and mathematics teacher education. At the end, some new research questions posed in the issue are discussed.

Keywords

Mathematics Teacher Prospective Teacher Mathematics Classroom Gifted Student Mathematics Teacher 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. Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2009). Intellectual estuaries: Connecting learning and creativity in programs of advanced academics. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20(2), 296–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Begle, E. G. (1969). The role of research in the improvement of mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 2(2/3), 232–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borland, J. (1997). The construct of giftedness. Peabody Journal of Education, 72, 6–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, S. I., & Walter M. I. (1990). The art of problem posing. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  5. Cooney, T. (1985). A beginning teacher’s view of problem solving. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16, 324–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 325–339). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Dewey, J. (1944). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  8. Fursenko, A. (Ed.). (2004). Prezidium TsK KPSS 1954–1964. Chernovye protokol’nye zapisi zasedanii. Stenogrammy [The Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU 1954–1964. Original Transcripts of Meetings. Minutes]. Moscow: Rosspen.Google Scholar
  9. Heine, H. (1914). Atta Troll. New York: B. W. Huebsch.Google Scholar
  10. Heine, H. (1971). Atta Troll. Ein Sommernachtstraum. Leipzig: Verlag Philipp Reclam jun.Google Scholar
  11. Hershkowitz, R., Tabach, M., & Dreyfus, T. (2017). Creative reasoning and shifts of knowledge in the mathematics classroom. ZDM Mathematics Education, 49(1). 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, 49(1). doi: 10.1007/s11858-016-0817-5.Google Scholar
  13. Kaestle, C. F. (1973). Joseph Lancaster and the monitorial school movement; a documentary history. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  14. Karp, A. (2004). Examining the interactions between mathematical content and pedagogical form: Notes on the structure of the lesson. For the Learning of Mathematics, 24(1), 40–47.Google Scholar
  15. Karp, A. (2007). Pamiati A. R. Maizelisa. (A. R. Maizelis: in Memoriam). St. Petersburg: SMIO–PRESS.Google Scholar
  16. Karp, A. (2011). Toward a history of teaching the mathematically gifted: Three possible directions for research. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 11(1), 8–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Karp, A. (2016). Mathematically gifted education: Some political questions. In R. Leikin & B. Sriraman (Eds.), Creativity and giftedness. Interdisciplinary perspectives from mathematics and beyond. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Krutetskii, V. A. (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in schoolchildren (J. Kilpatrick & I. Wirszup, Eds.; J. Teller, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kurosh, A. (1974). Obschaya algebra [General algebra]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
  20. Leikin, R. (2011). Teaching the mathematically gifted: Featuring a teacher. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 11(1), 78–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leikin, R., Berman, A., & Koichu, B. (Eds.). (2009). Creativity in mathematics and the education of gifted students. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  22. 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). doi: 10.1007/s11858-016-0815-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leikin, R., & Sriraman, B. (Eds.). (2016). Creativity and giftedness. Interdisciplinary perspectives from mathematics and beyond. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Mhlolo, M. K. (2017). Regular classroom teachers’ recognition and support of the creative potential of mildly gifted mathematics learners. ZDM Mathematics Education, 49(1). doi: 10.1007/s11858-016-0824-6.Google Scholar
  25. Nolte, M., & Pamperien, K. (2017). Challenging problems in a regular classroom setting and in a special foster programme. ZDM Mathematics Education, 49(1). doi: 10.1007/s11858-016-0825-5.Google Scholar
  26. Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Phi Delta Kappan, 60(180–184), 261.Google Scholar
  27. Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 332–357). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Sapon-Shevin, M. (1994). Playing favorites: Gifted education and the disruption of community. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  29. Schoenfeld, A. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  30. Sfard, A., & Kieran, C. (2001). Cognition as communication: Rethinking learning-by-talking through multi-faceted analysis of students’ mathematical interactions. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 8(1), 42–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sfard, A., Forman, E., & Kieran, C. (Eds.). (2002). Learning discourse: Discursive approaches to research in mathematics education. Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  32. Sheffield, L. J. (Ed.). (1999). Developing mathematically promising students. Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  33. Sheffield, L. J. (2017). Dangerous myths about “gifted” mathematics students. ZDM Mathematics Education, 49(1). doi: 10.1007/s11858-016-0814-8.Google Scholar
  34. Singer, F. M., Voica, C., & Pelczer, I. (2017). Cognitive styles in posing geometry problems: implications for assessment of mathematical creativity. ZDM Mathematics Education, 49(1). doi: 10.1007/s11858-016-0820-x.Google Scholar
  35. Sriraman, B., & Dickman, B. (2017). Mathematical pathologies as pathways into creativity. ZDM Mathematics Education, 49(1). doi: 10.1007/s11858-016-0822-8.Google Scholar
  36. Tabach, M. & Friedlander, A. (2017). Algebraic procedures and creative thinking. ZDM Mathematics Education, 49(1). doi: 10.1007/s11858-016-0803-y.Google Scholar
  37. Tannenbaum, A. J. (2000). A history of giftedness in school and society. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, A. H. Passow (Eds.) International handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 23–53). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  38. Tobin, K., & Tippins, D. (1993). Constructivism as a referent for teaching and learning. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 3–21). Washington, DC: AAAS Press.Google Scholar
  39. Usiskin, Z. (2000). The development into the mathematically talented. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 11(3), 152–162.Google Scholar
  40. Vygotsky, L. (1984). Pedologiya podrostka [Pedology of the adolescent]. In L. Vygotsky, Sobranie sochinenii [Collected works] (vol. 4, pp. 5–242). Moscow: Pedagogika.Google Scholar
  41. Watts, D.M., & Alsop, S. (1996). The QUESTCUP Project: A study of pupils’ questions for conceptual understanding. New York: Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  42. Wertheimer, M. (1959). Productive thinking. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  43. Zazkis, R. (2017). Lesson play tasks as a creative venture for teachers and teacher educators. ZDM Mathematics Education, 49(1). doi: 10.1007/s11858-016-0808-6.Google Scholar
  44. Zazkis, R., Sinclair, N., & Liljedahl, P. (2013). Lesson play in mathematics education: A tool for research and professional development. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Teachers CollegeColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options