Traditional classroom methods for identifying mathematically creative students have been inadequate. Identifying students who could potentially be mathematically creative is instrumental in the development of students and in meeting their affective and educational needs. One prospective identification tool is the use of model-eliciting activities (MEAs). Such activities require student groups to engage in authentic thought-revealing mathematical tasks. Researchers and teachers can use the Quality Assurance Guide, in coordination with components of Krutetskii’s ways of thinking, to assess students’ written products on MEAs. Through examination of group written products from 39 Grades 3 and 6 students over three MEAs, the tasks were recognized as a first step tool to identify mathematically creative students and to develop creativity. One Grade 6 student was identified as possessing mathematically creative qualities, and an analysis showed a mean change in Grade 6 class scores of 1.41 on a 5-point scale during the series of three MEAs.
AhnC.LeavittD. (2009). Implementation strategies for model eliciting activities: A teachers’ guide. Unpublished manuscript.
2.
BalkaD. S. (1974). The development of an instrument to measure creative ability in mathematics. Dissertation Abstracts International, 36, 98.
3.
BlomhøjM.KjeldsenT. H. (2010). Mathematical modeling as goal in mathematics education: Developing modeling competency through project work. In SriramanB.BergstenC.GoodchildS.PálsdóttirG.DahlB.HaapasaloL. (Eds.), The Montana mathematics enthusiast: Monograph series in mathematics education (Vol. 10, pp. 555-567). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
4.
BrownellW. A. (1947). The place of meaning in the teaching of arithmetic. Elementary School Journal, 47, 256-265.
5.
CarlsonM.LarsenS.LeshR. (2003). Integrating a models and modeling perspective with existing research and practice. In LeshR.DoerrH. (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 465-478). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
ChamberlinM. T. (2005). Teachers’ discussions of students’ thinking: Meeting the challenge of attending to students’ thinking. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8, 141-170.
7.
ChamberlinS. A. (2002). Analysis of interest during and after model-eliciting activities: A comparison of gifted and general population students. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.
8.
ChamberlinS. A. (2010). Mathematical problems that optimize learning for academically advanced students in grades K-6. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22, 52-76.
9.
ChamberlinS. A.MoonS. M. (2005). Model-eliciting activities as a tool to develop and identify creatively gifted mathematicians. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 37-47.
10.
ChingT. P.DarussalamB. (1997). An experiment to discover mathematical talent in primary school in Kampong air. International Reviews of Mathematical Education, 23, 94-96.
11.
CropleyA. J. (1992). More ways than one: Fostering creativity. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
12.
CunninghamJ. D. (1966). Rigidity in children’s problem solving. School Science and Mathematics, 66, 377-389.
13.
DosseyJ. (2010). Mathematical modeling on the catwalk. A review of modeling and applications in mathematics education: The 14th ICMI study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41, 88-95.
14.
DunnJ. A. (1975). Tests of creativity in mathematics. International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and Technology, 6, 327-332.
15.
EnglishL. D.MousoulidesN. G. (2009, January28-February1). Integrating engineering education within the elementary and middle school mathematics curriculum. Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the European Research in Mathematics Education (CERME 6), Lyon, France.
16.
EricC. C. M. (2008). Using model-eliciting activities for primary mathematics classrooms. Mathematics Educator, 11, 47-66.
17.
FeldhusenJ. F.WestbyE. L. (2003). Creative and affective behavior: Cognition, personality and motivation. In HoutzJ. (Ed.), The educational psychology of creativity (pp. 95-105). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
18.
FosterJ. (1969). A factorial study of creativity in junior school children. Manchester, UK: University of Manchester.
19.
GetzelsJ. W.JacksonP. W. (1962). Creativity and intelligence: Explorations with gifted students. New York, NY: John Wiley.
20.
HashimotoY. (1997). The methods of fostering creativity through mathematical problem solving. ZDM: International Journal on Mathematics Education, 29, 86-87.
21.
HaylockD. (1997). Recognizing mathematical creativity in schoolchildren. ZDM: International Journal on Mathematics Education, 29, 68-74.
22.
HaylockD. W. (1985). Conflicts in the assessment and encouragement of mathematical creativity in schoolchildren. International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and Technology, 16, 547-553.
23.
JensenL. R. (1973). The relationships among mathematical creativity, numerical aptitude and mathematical achievement. Dissertation Abstracts International, 34, 2168.
KimS. H.KimS. (2010). The effects of mathematical modeling on creative production ability and self-directed learning attitude. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11, 109-120.
26.
KöhlerS. H. (1997). Acting artist-like in the classroom: Modern rational technological world comes to life through the creativity arising from the artistic paradigm of acting. ZDM: International Journal on Mathematics Education, 29, 88-93.
27.
KrutetskiiV. A. (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in schoolchildren. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
28.
LeeK. S.HwangD.SeoJ. J. (2003). A development of the test for mathematical creative problem solving ability. Journal of the Korea Society of Mathematical Education, Series D: Research in Mathematical Education, 7, 163-189.
29.
LeshR.HarelG. (2003). Problem solving, modeling, and local conceptual development. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5, 157-189.
30.
LeshR.HooverM.HoleB.KellyA.PostT. (2000). Principles for developing thought-revealing activities for students and teachers. In KellyA.LeshR. (Eds.), Research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 591-646). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31.
LeshR.MiddletonJ. A.CaylorE.GuptaS. (2008). A science need: Designing tasks to engage students in modeling complex data. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 68, 113-130.
32.
LeshR.YoonC. (2004). Evolving communities of mind: In which development involves several interacting simultaneously developing strands. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6, 205-226.
33.
LivneN. L.LivneO. E.MilgramR. M. (1999). Assessing academic and creative abilities in mathematics at four levels of understanding. International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and Technology, 30, 227-242.
MannE. L. (2009). The search for mathematical creativity: Identifying creative potential in middle school students. Creativity Research Journal, 2, 338-348.
36.
National Academy of Sciences. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
37.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards of school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
38.
PehkonenE. (1997). The state-of-art in mathematical creativity. ZDM: International Journal on Mathematics Education, 29, 63-67.
39.
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President.
40.
ProuseH. L. (1967). Creativity in school mathematics. Mathematics Teacher, 60, 876-879.
41.
SelbyE. C.ShawE. J.HoutzJ. C. (2005). The creative personality. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 300-314.
42.
SilverE. A. (1997). Fostering creativity through instruction rich in mathematical problem solving and problem posing. ZDM: International Journal on Mathematics Education, 29, 75-80.
43.
SinghB. (1987). The development of tests to measure mathematical creativity. International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and Technology, 18, 181-186.
44.
StokesP. D. (2001). Variations on Guilford’s creative abilities. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 277-283.
45.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Comparative indicators of education in the United States and other G-8 countries: 2002 (NCES Publication No. 2003-26). Washington, DC: Author.
46.
WilliamsG. (2002, July). Identifying tasks that promote creative thinking in mathematics: A tool. Paper accepted as a research report for the Mathematical Education Research Group of Australasia Conference in Auckland, New Zealand.
47.
YuanX.SriramanB. (2011). An exploratory study of relationships between students’ creativity and mathematical problem-posing abilities: Comparing Chinese and U.S. students. In SriramanB.LeeK. H. (Eds.), The elements of creativity and giftedness in mathematics (pp. 5-28). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
