Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T17:20:47.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

16 - Creativity in the Domain of Mathematics

from Part III - Creativity in the Sciences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2017

By
Ugur Sak ,
Ülkü Ayvaz ,
Bilge Bal-Sezerel  and
N. Nazli Özdemir
Edited by
James C. Kaufman ,
Vlad P. Glăveanu  and
John Baer
James C. Kaufman
Affiliation:
University of Connecticut
Vlad P. Glăveanu
Affiliation:
Universitetet i Bergen, Norway
John Baer
Affiliation:
Rider University, New Jersey
Get access

Summary

Abstract

In this chapter, we first review mathematical creativity with an emphasis on the nature of novelty in mathematics. We compare mathematical creativity to creativity in other domains, provide examples of novelty, and contrast these to novelty in other domains and explain types of creativity in mathematics based on perspectives in philosophy. All the theoretical perspectives we reviewed led us to synthesize that mathematical creativity involves knowledge production which is either discovery or invention. The chapter also covers pioneers and their contributions to the study of mathematical creativity, such as Polya and Krutetskii. The last part of the chapter includes a review and critique of the assessment of mathematical creativity, such as paper and pencil assessments, observations and interviews, and self-assessment.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity across Domains , pp. 276 - 298
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aiken, L. R. (1973). Ability and creativity in mathematics. Review of Educational Research, 43(4), 405–432.Google Scholar
Baer, J. (1998). The case for domain specificity of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 173–177.Google Scholar
Bal-Sezerel, B., & Sak, U. (2013). The Selective Problem Solving Model (SPS) and its social validity in solving mathematical problems. International Journal of Problem Solving and Creativity, 23(1), 71–86.Google Scholar
Balka, D. S. (1974). The development of an instrument to measure creative ability in mathematics. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Edith University of Missouri, USA.Google Scholar
Bewersdorff, J. (2006). Galois theory for beginners: A historical perspective. Rhode Island: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
Carlton, L. V. (1959). An analysis of the educational concepts of fourteen outstanding mathematicians, 1790–1940, in the areas of mental growth and development, creative thinking and symbolism and meaning. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). IL: Northwestern University, USA.Google Scholar
Casakin, H., & Kreitler, S. (2006). Self-assessment of creativity: Implications for design education. In DS 38: Proceedings of E&DPE 2006, The 8th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education (pp. 1–6). Salzburg, Austria.Google Scholar
Chamberlin, S. A., & Moon, S. M. (2005). Model-eliciting activities as tool to develop and identify creativity gifted mathematicians. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(1), 37–47.Google Scholar
Charters, E. (2003). The use of think-aloud methods in qualitative research an introduction to think-aloud methods. Brock Education, 12(2), 68–82.Google Scholar
Cohen, P. (2002). The discovery of forcing. Rocky Mountain Journal of Mathematics, 32(4), 1071–1100.Google Scholar
Davis, P. J., Hersh, R., & Marchisotto, E. A. (1995). The mathematical experience: Study edition. Boston: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
De Groot, A. D. (1965). Thought and choice in chess. The Hague: Mouton Publishers.Google Scholar
Devlin, K. (2000). The math gene: How mathematical thinking evolved and why numbers are like gossip. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Dowker, A. (2005). Individual differences in arithmetic: Implications for psychology, neuroscience and education. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 58(5), 1–113.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1983). Verbal protocol analysis. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ernest, P. (2002). The philosophy of mathematics education. Briston, PA: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
Evans, E. W. (1964).Measuring the ability of students to respond in creative mathematical situations at the late elementary and early junior high school level. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Michigan, USA.Google Scholar
Fetterly, J. M. (2010). An exploratory study of the use of a problem-posing approach on pre-service elementary education teachers’ mathematical creativity, beliefs, and anxiety. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Florida State University, USA.Google Scholar
Gauss, C. F. (1966). Disquisitiones arithmeticae (Vol. 157). US: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P. W. (1961). Family environment and cognitive style: A study of the sources of highly intelligent and of highly creative adolescents. American Sociological Review, 26(3), 351–359.Google Scholar
Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P. W. (1962). Creativity and intelligence: Explorations with gifted students. American Journal of Sociology, 68(2), 278–279.Google Scholar
Gindikin, S. (2007). Tales of mathematicians and physicists. NY: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
Hadamard, J. (1945). The psychology of invention in the mathematical field. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Han, K. S., & Marvin, C. (2002). Multiple creativities? Investigating domain specificity of creativity in young children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46(2), 98–109.Google Scholar
Handal, B. (2009). Philosophies and pedagogies of mathematics. Elementary Education Online, 8(1), 1–6.Google Scholar
Haylock, D. W. (1984). Aspects of mathematical creativity in children aged 11–12. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Chelsea Collage, University of London, England.Google Scholar
Haylock, D. W. (1985). Conflicts in the assessment and encouragement of mathematical creativity in schoolchildren. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 16(4), 547–553.Google Scholar
Haylock, D. W. (1987). A framework for assessing mathematical creativity in school children. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 18,1, 59–74.Google Scholar
Herrera, H. (2002). Frida: A biography of Frida Kahlo. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Kantowski, M. G. (1977). Processes involved in mathematical problem solving. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 8(3), 163–180.Google Scholar
Kaufman, J. C., Plucker, J. A., & Baer, J. (2008). Essentials of creativity assessment. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Kaufman, J. C. (2016). Creativity 101 (2nd edn.). New York: Springer Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Kettenmann, A. (1993). Frida Kahlo: Pain and passion. Köln: Taschen GmbH.Google Scholar
Khatena, J., & Torrance, E. P. (1976). Manual for Khatena-Torrance creative perception inventory. Chicago: Stoelting Company.Google Scholar
Kilic, S. (2012). Scientific art/artistic science. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 5(1), 193–203.Google Scholar
Kilpatrick, J., & Wirszup, I. (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in schoolchildren. London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kim, H., Cho, S., & Ahn, C. (2003). Development of mathematical creative problem solving ability test for identification of the gifted in math. Gifted Education International, 18(2), 164–174.Google Scholar
Koichu, B., & Berman, A. (2005). When do gifted high school students use geometry to solve geometry problems? The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 16(4), 168–179.Google Scholar
Krutetskii, V. A. (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in school children. London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Leikin, R. (2009). Exploring mathematical creativity using multiple solution tasks. In Leikin, R., Berman, A., & Koichu, B. (Eds.), Creativity in mathematics and the education of gifted students (pp. 129–145). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
Leikin, R., & Stanger, O. (2011). Teachers’ images of gifted students and the roles assigned to them in heterogeneous mathematics classes. In Sriraman, B. & Lee, K. E. (Eds.), The elements of creativity and giftedness in mathematics (pp. 1–4). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
Leikin, R., & Lev, M. (2013). Mathematical creativity in generally gifted and mathematically excelling adolescents: What makes the difference? ZDM Mathematics Education, 45(2), 183–197.Google Scholar
Leu, Y. C., & Chiu, M. S. (2015). Creative behaviours in mathematics: Relationships with abilities, demographics, affects and gifted behaviours. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 16, 40–50.Google Scholar
Levav-Waynberg, A., & Leikin, R. (2012). The role of multiple solution tasks in developing knowledge and creativity in geometry. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31, 73–90.Google Scholar
Levenson, E. (2011). Exploring collective mathematical creativity in elementary school. Journal of Creative Behavior, 45(3), 215–234.Google Scholar
Liljedahl, P. (2008). Mathematical creativity: In the words of the creators. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Creativity in Mathematics and the Education of Gifted Students, Israel, 24–28 February 2008 (pp. 153–159).Google Scholar
Livne, N. L., & Milgram, R. M. (2000). Assessing four levels of creative mathematical ability in Israeli adolescents utilizing out‐of‐school activities: A circular three‐stage technique. Roeper Review, 22(2), 111–116.Google Scholar
Lopez-Real, F. (2006). A new look at a Polya problem. Mathematics Teaching, 196, 12–16.Google Scholar
Mamona-Downs, J. (1993). On analyzing problem posing. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Tsukuba, Japan, 18–23 July 1993 (Vol. 3, pp. 41–47).Google Scholar
Mann, E. L. (2006). Creativity: The essence of mathematics. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(2), 236–260.Google Scholar
Mann, E. L. (2009). The search for mathematical creativity: Identifying creative potential in middle school students. Creativity Research Journal, 21(4), 338–348.Google Scholar
Mason, J., & Johnston-Wilder, S. (2007). Designing and using mathematical tasks. London: Tarquin Pubns.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (2013). Implications of cognitive psychology for instruction in mathematical problem solving. In Silver, E. A. (Ed.), Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving: Multiple research perspectives (pp. 123–138). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
McCallum, R. S., & Bracken, B. (2005). The universal nonverbal intelligence test: A multidimensional measure of intelligence. In Flanagan, D. P. & Harrison, P. L. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, test, and assessment (pp. 425–440). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, R. W. (1969). The identification and encouragement of mathematical creativity in first grade students. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Wisconsin, Madison.Google Scholar
Münz, M. (2013). The elements of mathematical creativity and the function of the attachment style in early childhood. In Online proceedings of the POEM conference, (pp. 1–11).Google Scholar
Nadjafikhah, M., Yaftian, N., & Bakhshalizadeh, S. (2012). Mathematical creativity: Some definitions and characteristics. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 285–291.Google Scholar
Pelczer, I., & Rodriguez, F. G. (2011). Creativity assessment in school settings through problem posing tasks. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 8, 383–398.Google Scholar
Peng, S. L., Cherng, B. L., & Chen, H. C. (2013). The effects of classroom goal structures on the creativity of junior high school students. Educational Psychology, 33(5), 540–560.Google Scholar
Piirto, J. (2004). Understanding creativity. Scottsdale: Great Potential Press.Google Scholar
Pittalis, M., Christou, C., Mousoulides, N., & Pitta-Pantazi, D. (2004). A structural model for problem posing. In Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 49–56). Bergen, Norway.Google Scholar
Polya, D. (1954a). Induction and analogy in mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Polya, D. (1954b). Patterns of plausible inference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Polya, D. (1957). How to solve it (2nd ed.). NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Polya, D. (1962). Mathematical discovery. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
Poincare, H. (1951). Bilim ve metot [Science and method]. (Atademir, H. R. & Ölçen, S., Trans.). İstanbul: Milli Eğitim Basımevi.Google Scholar
Poincare, H. (1952). Science and hypothesis. New York: The Modern Library.Google Scholar
Poincare, H. (1958). The value of science. New York: The Modern Library.Google Scholar
Prabhu, V., & Czarnocha, B. (2013). Democratizing mathematical creativity through Koestler’s Bisociation Theory. Mathematıcs Teachıng-Research Journal Online, 6(2), 33–46.Google Scholar
Preckel, F., Goez, T., Pekrun, R., & Kleine, M. (2008). Self-concept, interest, and motivation in mathematics gender differences in gifted and average-ability students: Comparing girls’ and boys’ achievement. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(2), 146–159.Google Scholar
Prouse, H. L. (1967). Creativity in school mathematics. The Mathematics Teacher, 60, 876–879.Google Scholar
Rothman, T. (1982). Genius and biographers: The fictionalization of Evariste Galois. American Mathematical Monthly, 89(2), 84–106.Google Scholar
Runco, M. A. (1996). Personal creativity: Definition and developmental issues. New Directions for Child Development, 72, 3–30Google Scholar
Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 657–687.Google Scholar
Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96.Google Scholar
Sak, U. (2005). M³: The three-mathematical minds model for the identification of mathematically gifted students. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Arizona, USA.Google Scholar
Sak, U. (2009). Test of the three-mathematical minds (M3) for the identification of mathematically gifted students. Roeper Review, 31, 53–67.Google Scholar
Sak, U. (2011). Selective Problem Solving (SPS): A model for teaching creative problem solving. Gifted Education International, 27(3), 349–357.Google Scholar
Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Explaining creativity. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schaefer, C. E., & Bridges, C. I. (1970). Development of a creativity attitude survey for children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 31(3), 861–862.Google Scholar
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1994). What do we know about mathematics curricula? Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 13, 55–80.Google Scholar
Sheffield, L. J. (2000). Creating and developing promising young mathematicians. Teaching Children Mathematics, 6(6), 416–419.Google Scholar
Sheffield, L. J. (2009). Developing mathematical creativity – questions may be the answer. In Leikin, R., Berman, A., & Koichu, B. (Eds.), Creativity in mathematics and the education of gifted students (pp. 87–100). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
Sheffield, L. J. (2013). Creativity and school mathematics: Some modest observations. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45(2), 325–332.Google Scholar
Shriki, A. (2010). Working like real mathematicians: Developing prospective teachers’ awareness of mathematical creativity through generating new concepts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 73(2), 159–179.Google Scholar
Siegle, D., & Powell, T. (2004). Exploring teacher biases when nominating students for gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(1), 21–29.Google Scholar
Silver, E. A. (1994). On mathematical problem solving. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(1), 19–28.Google Scholar
Silver, E. A. (1997). Fostering creativity through instruction rich in mathematical problem solving and problem posing. ZDM Mathematics Education, 29(3), 75–80.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (1988). Age and outstanding achievement: What do we know after a century of research? Psychological Bulletin, 104(2), 251–267.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (1991). Career landmarks in science: Individual differences and interdisciplinary contrasts. Developmental Psychology, 27(1), 119–130.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity in science: Chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Singer, F. M., Pelczer, I., & Voica, C. (2011). Problem posing and modification as a criterion of mathematical creativity. In Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME 7) (pp. 1133–1142). Rzeszow, Poland.Google Scholar
Sriraman, B. (2004). The characteristics of mathematical creativity. The Mathematics Educator, 14, 19–24.Google Scholar
Sriraman, B., & Lee, K. E. (2011). What are the elements of giftedness and creativity in mathematics? In Sriraman, B. & Lee, K. E. (Eds.), The elements of creativity and giftedness in mathematics (pp. 1–4). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
Stanley, J. (2005). Fallibilism and concessive knowledge attributions. Analysis, 65(2), 126–131.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2008). Applied intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2010). Constrains on creativity: Obvious and not so obvious. In Kaufman, J. C. & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 467–482). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stoyanova, E. N. (1997). Extending and exploring students’ problem solving via problem posing: A study of years 8 and 9 students involved in Mathematics Challenge and Enrichment Stages of Euler Enrichment Program for Young Australians. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Edith Cowan University, Australia.Google Scholar
Suydam, M. N., & Weaver, J. F. (1971). Research on mathematics education (K-12) reported in 1970. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 2(4), pp. 257–298.Google Scholar
Tjoe, H. H. (2011). Which approaches do students prefer? Analyzing the mathematical problem solving behavior of mathematically gifted students. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Columbia University, USA.Google Scholar
Urban, K. K. (1991). Recent trends in creativity research and theory in Western Europe. European Journal of High Ability, 1(1), 99–113.Google Scholar
Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., Middleton, J. A., & Streefland, L. (1995). Student-generated problems: Easy and difficult problems on percentage. For the Learning of Mathematics, 15(3), 21–27.Google Scholar
Van Someren, M. W., Barnard, Y. F., & Sandberg, J. A. (1994). The think aloud method: A practical guide to modelling cognitive processes. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Vivona, R. F. (1998). Toward a theory of mathematical creativity. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Union Institute, USA.Google Scholar
Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.Google Scholar
Weisberg, R. W. (1993). Creativity: Understanding innovation in problem solving, science, invention, and the arts. New Jersey: Wiley.Google Scholar
Weisberg, R. W. (1999). Creativity and knowledge: A challenge to theories. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 226–250). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wiles, A. (1995). Modular eliptic curves and Fermat’s last theorem. Annals of Mathematics, 142, 443–551.Google Scholar
Wertheimer, M. (1945). Productive thinking. New York: Harper.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×