This article addresses the use of Model-Eliciting Activities (MEAs) as a (curricular) tool to develop mathematical creativity and identify students who are creatively gifted in mathematics. The thesis of this article is that by using MEAs, gifted educators can: (a) provide students with opportunities to develop creative and applied mathematical thinking; and (b) analyze students’ mathematical thinking when engaged in creative mathematical tasks, aiding in the identification of those students who are especially talented in domain-specific, mathematical creativity. The authors’ conclude that MEAs have potential for both developing and identifying creatively gifted mathematicians in the middle grades.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BejatM. (1972). Creativity and problem solving. Studia Psychologica, 14, 301–308.
2.
BoyceL. N.VanTassel-BaskaJ.BurrussJ. D.SherB. T.JohnsonD. T. (1997). A problem-based curriculum: Parallel learning opportunities for students and teachers. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 363–379.
3.
CarmonaL. (2001). Sue the dinosaur. Unpublished manuscript.
CarpenterT. P.MoserJ. M. (1983). The acquisition of addition and subtraction concepts. In LeshR. A.LandauM. (Eds.), Acquisition of mathematical concepts and processes (pp. 7–44). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
7.
ChamberlinM. T. (2002). Teacher investigations of students' work: The evolution of teachers' social processes and interpretations of students' thinking. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
8.
ChamberlinM. T. (2004). Design principles for teacher investigations of student work. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 6, 61–72.
ChamberlinS. A. (2000). Summer sports camp. Unpublished manuscript.
11.
ChamberlinS. A. (2005). Secondary mathematics for high-ability students. In DixonF.MoonS. (Eds.), The handbook of secondary gifted education (pp. 145–163). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
12.
ChamberlinS. A.ChamberlinM. T. (2001). On-time arrival. Unpublished manuscript.
13.
CooperB.HarriesT. (2003). Children's use of realistic considerations in problem solving: Some English evidence. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22, 451–465.
14.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In SternbergR. (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313–335). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
15.
DarkM. J. (2003). A models and modeling perspective on skills for the high performance work place. In LeshR.DoerrH. M. (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 279–296). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
16.
FaskoD. (2001). Education and creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 317–328.
17.
FeistG. J. (2005). Domain-specific creativity in the physical sciences. In KaufmanJ. C.BaerJ. (Eds.), Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse (pp. 123–137). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
18.
FishkinA. S.CramondB.Olszewski-Kubilius (Eds.). (1999). Investigating creativity in youth: Research and methods. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
19.
GallagherS. A., (1997). Problem-based learning: Where did it come from, what does it do, and where is it going?Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 332–362.
20.
GallagherS. A.StepienW. A. (1995). Implementing problem-based learning in science classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 95, 136–146.
21.
GlasE. F. (2002). Klein's model of mathematical creativity. Science and Education, 11, 95–104.
22.
GruberH. E. (1989). The evolving systems approach to creative work. In WallaceD. B.GruberH. E. (Eds.), Creative people at work. New York: Oxford University Press.
23.
GruberH. E.DavisS. N. (1988). Inching our way up Mount Olympus: The evolving-systems approach to creative thinking. In SternbergR. J. (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 243–270). New York: Cambridge University Press.
24.
GuilfordJ. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 267–293.
25.
HiebertJ.CarpenterT.FennemaE.FusonK.WearneD.MurrayH., et al. (1997). Making sense: Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Publishers.
26.
HjalmarsonM. (2001, October). A modeling perspective on metacognition in everyday problem solving situations. Paper presented at the North American chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Snowbird, UT.
27.
HmeloC. E.FerrariM. (1997). The problem-based learning tutorial: Cultivating higher-order thinking skills. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 401–422.
28.
HoomesE. W. (1986). Future problem solving: Preparing students for a world community. Gifted and Talented International, 6(1), 16–20.
29.
HoutzJ. C.LewisC. D.ShaningD. J.DenmarkR. M. (1983). Predictive validity of teacher ratings of creativity over two years. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 168–173.
30.
KaufmanJ. C. (2004). Sure I'm creative—but not in mathematics!: Self-reported creativity in diverse domains. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 22, 143–155.
31.
LamonS. (2003). Beyond constructivism: An improved fitness metaphor for the acquisition of mathematical knowledge. In LeshR.DoerrH. M. (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 435–448). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
32.
LeshR.LamonS. (1992). Assessing authentic mathematical performance. In LeshR.LamonS. J. (Eds.), Assessment of authentic performance in school mathematics (pp. 17–62). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
33.
LeshR.HooverM.HoleB.KellyA.PostT. (2000). Principles for developing thought-revealing activities for students and teachers. In KellyA.LeshR. (Eds.), Handbook of research in mathematics and science education (pp. 113–149). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
34.
LeshR.DoerrH. M. (2003). Foundations of models and modeling perspective on mathematics teaching and learning. In LeshR.DoerrH. M. (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 3–34). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
35.
LeshR.LesterF.HjalmarsonM. (2003). A models and modeling perspective on metacognitive functioning in everyday situations where problem solvers develop mathematical constructs. In LeshR.DoerrH. M. (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 383–404). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
36.
MilgramR. M.LivneN. L. (2005). Creativity as a general and a domain-specific ability: The domain of mathematics as an exemplar. In KaufmanJ. C.BaerJ. (Eds.), Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse (pp. 187–204). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
37.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
38.
PiirtoJ. (1998). Understanding those who create. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
39.
PrenzelM. (1992). The selective persistence of interest. In RenningerK. A.HidiS.KrappA. (Eds.), The role of interest and development (pp. 71–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
40.
SchackG. D. (1993). Effects of a creative problem solving curriculum on students of varying ability levels. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 32–38.
41.
SchoenfeldA. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In GrouwsD. A. (Ed.). Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334–370). New York: Simon & Schuster Publishing.
42.
StarkoA. J. (1995). Creativity in the classroom: Schools of curious delight. White Plains, NY: Longman.
43.
SteinerG. F.StoecklinM. (1997). Fraction calculation: A didactic approach to constructing mathematical networks. Learning & Instruction, 7, 211–233.
44.
StepienW.GallagherS. (1993). Problem-based learning: As authentic as it gets. Educational Leadership, 50, 25–28.
45.
StepienW.GallagherS.WorkmanD. (1993). Problem-based learning for traditional interdisciplinary classrooms. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 338–357.
46.
SternbergR. J. (1999). Developing mathematical reasoning. In StiffL. V.CurcioF. R. (Eds.), The nature of mathematical reasoning (pp. 37–44). Reston, VA: NCTM.
47.
TuliM. R. (1982). Sex and regional differences in mathematical creativity. Indian Educational Review, 17, 128–134.
48.
WieczerkowskiW.CropleyA. J.PradoT. M. (2000). Nurturing talent/gifts in mathematics. In HellerK.MönksF.SternbergR. J.SubotnikR. F. (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 413–426). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Publishers.
49.
WoodT.MerkelG.UerkwitzJ. (1996). Creating a context for talking about mathematical thinking. Educacao e matematica, 4, 39–43.
ZawojewskiJ.LeshR.EnglishL. (2003). A models and modeling perspective on the role of small group learning activities. In LeshR.DoerrH. M. (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 337–358). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
