Abstract
Problem-solving has the potential to elicit creative mathematical thinking, especially when requesting to solve the problem in different ways. The current study focuses on the mathematical creativity elicited by such a problem, where there were infinitely many possible outcomes. Participants were adults with a range of mathematical backgrounds and resources. Their solutions were evaluated to identify both divergent and convergent thinking, taking into consideration fluency and flexibility. Findings show that the task was a suitable vehicle for eliciting mathematical creativity. For some participants, divergent thinking was coupled with convergent thinking, resulting in the identification of sets of infinitely many solutions to the task. Methodological issues relating to the analysis of mathematical creativity are discussed.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
It was clear for participants in this study that “different” polygons referred to noncongruent polygons.
References
Ayres, P. (2000). An analysis of bracket expansion errors. In T. Nakahara & M. Koyama (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 25–32). PME, Hiroshima, Japan.
Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Collier, C., Digby, R., Hay, P., & Howe, A. (2012). Creative learning environments in education: A systematic literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 80–91.
Demby, A. (1997). Algebraic procedures used by 13- to 15-year-olds. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33, 45–70.
Ervynck, G. (1991). Mathematical creativity. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 42–53). Alphen aan den Rijn, Netherlands: Kluwer.
Guilford, J. (1973). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Guberman, R., & Leikin, R. (2013). Interesting and difficult mathematical problems: Changing teachers’ views by employing multiple-solution tasks. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 16(1), 33–56.
Haylock, D. W. (1987). A framwork for assessing mathematical creativity in schoolchildren. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 18, 59–74.
Haylock, D. W. (1997). Recognising mathematical creativity in schoolchildren. ZDM Mathematics Education, 29(3), 68–74.
Hayne, N., & Tabach, M. (2014). When stories and multiple solution tasks meet in a technological environment: The case of equality. Mediterranean Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 12(1–2), 23–37.
Kattou, M., Kontoyianni, K., Pitta-Pantazi, D., & Christou, C. (2013). Connecting mathematical creativity to mathematical ability. ZDM, 45(2), 167–181.
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four c model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1.
Kieran, C. (1981). Concepts associated with the equality symbol. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12, 317–326.
Krutetskii, V. A. (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in schoolchildren. In J. Teller (Trans), J. Kilpatrick & I. Wirszup (Eds.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kwon, O. N., Park, J. S., & Park, J. H. (2006). Cultivating divergent thinking in mathematics through an open-ended approach. Asia Pacific Education Review, 7(1), 51–61.
Leikin, R. (2009). Exploring mathematical creativity using multiple solution tasks. In R. Leikin, A. Berman, & B. Koichu (Eds.), Creativity in mathematics and the education of gifted students (pp. 129–135). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Leikin, R., & Lev, M. (2007). Multiple solution tasks as a magnifying glass for observation of mathematical creativity. In J. H. Woo, H. C. Lew, K. S. Park, & D. Y. Seo (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st international conference for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 3, pp. 161–168). Seoul, Korea: The Korea Society of Educational Studies in Mathematics.
Leikin, R., & Pitta-Pantazi, D. (2013). Creativity and mathematics education. Special issue in ZDM – The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(2), 159–332.
Levav-Waynberg, A., & Leikin, R. (2012). Using multiple solution tasks for the evaluation of students’ problem-solving performance in geometry. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 12(4), 311–333.
Levav-Waynberg, A., & Leikin, R. (2009). Multiple solutions for a problem: A tool for evaluation of mathematical thinking in geometry. In V. Durand-Guerrier, S. Soury-Lavergne, & F. Arzarello (Eds.), Proceedings of sixth conference of European Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 776–785). Lyon, France: Institut National de Recherche Pédagogique.
Levenson, E. (2011). Exploring collective mathematical creativity in elementary school. Journal of Creative Behavior, 45(3), 215–234.
Lev-Zamir, H., & Leikin, R. (2011). Creative mathematics teaching in the eye of the beholder: Focusing on teachers’ conceptions. Research in Mathematics Education, 13(1), 17–32.
Lev-Zamir, H., & Leikin, R. (2013). Saying versus doing: Teachers’ conceptions of creativity in elementary mathematics teaching. ZDM, 45(2), 295–308.
Liljedahl, P., & Sriraman, B. (2006). Musings on mathematical creativity. For The Learning of Mathematics, 26(1), 20–23.
Lin, C. Y., & Cho, S. (2011). Predicting creative problem-solving in math from a dynamic system model of creative problem solving ability. Creativity Research Journal, 23(3), 255–261.
Linchevsky, L., & Vinner, S. (1998). The naïve concept of sets in elementary teachers. In A. Borbás (Ed.), Proceedings of the 12th international conference psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 1, pp. 471–478). PME, Vezprem, Hungary.
Maher, C. A., & Martino, A. M. (1996). The development of the idea of proof: A five year case study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(2), 194–219.
Mann, E. L. (2006). Creativity: The essence of mathematics. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(2), 236–262.
Mumford, M. D., Baughman, W. A., Maher, M. A., Costanza, D. P., & Supinski, E. V. (1997). Process-based measures of creative problem-solving skills: IV. Category combination. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 59–71.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM]. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Polya, G. (1973). How to solve it. A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Runco, M. (1996). Personal creativity: Definition and developmental issues. New Directions for Child Development, 1996(72), 3–30.
Schoenfeld, A. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. New York: Academic Press.
Silver, E. A. (1997). Fostering creativity through instruction rich in mathematical problem solving and problem posing. ZDM International Journal on Mathematics Education, 29(3), 75–80.
Silver, E. A., Ghousseini, H., Gosen, D., Charalambous, C., & Font Strawhun, B. T. (2005). Moving from rhetoric to praxis: Issues faced by teachers in having students consider multiple solutions for problems in the mathematics classroom. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24, 287–301.
Singer, F. M., Ellerton, N., & Cai, J. (2013). Problem-posing research in mathematics education: New questions and directions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-013-9478-2
Storme, M., Lubart, T., Myszkowski, N., Cheung, P. C., Tong, T., & Lau, S. (2015). A cross-cultural study of task specificity in creativity. Journal of Creative Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.123
Swisa, R. (2015). Mathematical Creativity in both, a technological and non-technological Environment: student’s work and Teacher’s actions. Unpublished master thesis. Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University.
Tabach, M., & Friedlander, A. (2013). School mathematics and creativity at the elementary and middle-grade levels: How are they related? ZDM, 45(2), 227–238.
Tan, C.-S., Lau, X.-S., Kung, Y.-T., & Kailsan, R. A. (2016). Openness to experience enhances creativity: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation and the creative process engagement. Journal of Creative Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.170
Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Tsamir, P., Tirosh, D., Tabach, M., & Levenson, E. (2010). Multiple solution methods and multiple outcomes—Is it a task for kindergarten children? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 73(3), 217–231.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
Claim: The cardinality of the set of all polygons in the plane is א. (א denotes the cardinality of the continuum.)
Lemma: For any given natural number n ≥ 3, the cardinality of the set of all n-gons in the plane is א.
The claim follows from the Lemma and the fact that א0× א= א.
Proof of the Lemma:
The set of all n-gons in the plane is at most as large as the set of all n-tuples of points in the plane because different n-gons, when placed in the plane, determine different n-tuples of points. But the set of n-tuples of points in the plane is equivalent to the set of vectors in 2n-dimensional space (every point has two coordinates), which is of cardinality (א)2n=א.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tabach, M., Levenson, E. (2018). Solving a Task with Infinitely Many Solutions: Convergent and Divergent Thinking in Mathematical Creativity. In: Amado, N., Carreira, S., Jones, K. (eds) Broadening the Scope of Research on Mathematical Problem Solving. Research in Mathematics Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99861-9_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99861-9_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-99860-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-99861-9
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)