Contradictory Concepts of Creativity in Mathematics Teacher Education

Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Creativity Theory and Action in Education book series (CTAE, volume 1)

Abstract

The focus of this chapter is a study of teacher educators’ conceptions of the relationship between mathematics and creativity. A particular focus was on the apparent contradictions between the conceptions of mathematics and creativity found in schools, as opposed to conceptions found within the society of professional mathematicians. We interviewed a focus group of teacher educators. A set of questions on mathematics and creativity was prepared, and the interviews consisted of an open discussion among the focus group around these questions. We carried out a thematic analysis of the interviews. This kind of exploratory study of teacher educators’ conceptions of mathematics and creativity in Norway is new and shows that the teacher educators in the focus group have similar concepts of mathematics and creativity to those which we find in much of the current research on mathematics and creativity.

Keywords

Focus Group Teacher Educator Mathematical Knowledge School Mathematic Focus Group Interview 
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. Baer, J. (2010). Is creativity domain specific? In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 321–341). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beghetto, R., & Kaufman, J. (2008). Do we all have multi-creative potential? ZDM Mathematics Education, 41, 13–27.Google Scholar
  3. Bergqvist, E. (2007). Types of reasoning required in university exams in mathematics. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 26, 348–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Birkeland, A. (2015). Pre-service teachers’ mathematical reasoning. To appear in the proceedings of CERME9, Prague, Czech.Google Scholar
  5. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. London, UK/New York, NY: Falmer.Google Scholar
  7. Collier, C. P. (1972). Prospective elementary teachers’ intensity and ambivalence of beliefs about mathematics and mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 3(3), 155–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davis, P. J., Hersh, R., & Marchisotto, E. A. (2003). The mathematical experience (3rd ed.). San Diego, CA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
  9. de Lange, J. (2007). Large-scale assessment. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 1111–1142). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (1996). Navigating the bumpy road to student-centered instruction. College Teaching, 44(2), 43–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Haavold, P. Ø. (2011). What characterises high achieving students’ mathematical reasoning? In B. Sriraman & K. Lee (Eds.), The elements of creativity and giftedness in mathematics (pp. 193–215). Dordrecht, NL: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Hadamard, J. (1954). An essay on the psychology of invention in the mathematical field. Mineola, NY: Courier Corporation.Google Scholar
  13. Halmos, P. (1980). The heart of mathematics. American Mathematical Monthly, 87(7), 519–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haylock, D. W. (1987). A framework for assessing mathematical creativity in schoolchildren. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 18, 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lesh, R., & Zawojewski, J. (2007). Problem solving and modeling. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 763–804). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. Leikin, R., & Pitta-Pantazi, D. (2012). Creativity and mathematics education: The state of the art. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45, 159–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lithner, J. (2000). Mathematical reasoning in task solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41, 165–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lithner, J. (2008). A research framework for creative and imitative reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67, 255–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Morgan, D. L. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Philipp, R. A. (2007). Mathematics teachers. Beliefs and affect. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 257–315). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. Plucker, J. A., & Beghetto, R. A. (2004). Why creativity is domain general, why it looks domain specific, and why the distinction does not matter. In R. Sternberg, E. Grigorienko, & J. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 153–167). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Polya, G. (1954). Mathematics and plausible reasoning. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Runco, M. A. (2008). Creativity and education. New Horizons in Education, 56, 96–104.Google Scholar
  24. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334–370). New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  25. Skemp, R. (1978). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Arithmetic Teacher, 26(3), 9–15.Google Scholar
  26. Sriraman, B. (2005). Are mathematical giftedness and mathematical creativity synonyms? A theoretical analysis of constructs. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(1), 20–36.Google Scholar
  27. Sriraman, B. (2009). The characteristics of mathematical creativity. ZDM Mathematics Education, 41, 13–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 127–146). New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  29. Tuckman, B. W. (1972). Conducting educational research. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  30. Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  31. Weisberg, R. W. (1999). Creativity and knowledge: A challenge to theories. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 226–250). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Wilson, M., & Carstensen, C. (2007). Assessment to improve learning in mathematics: e-BEAR assessment system. In A. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Assessing mathematical proficiency. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TromsøTromsøNorway

Personalised recommendations