Leveraging Mathematics Creativity by Using Technology: Questions, Issues, Solutions, and Innovative Paths

  • Viktor FreimanEmail author
  • Janet Lynne Tassell
Part of the Mathematics Education in the Digital Era book series (MEDE, volume 10)


This introductory chapter aims to introduce the volume providing new insights on creativity while focusing on innovative methodological approaches in research and practice of integrating technological tools and environments in mathematics teaching and learning. This work is being built on the discussions at the mini-symposium on Creativity and Technology at the International Conference on Mathematical Creativity and Giftedness (ICMCG) in Denver, USA (2014), and other contributions to the topic. While presenting a diversity of views, a variety of contexts, angles and cultures of thought, as well as mathematical and educational practices, the authors of each chapter explore the potential of technology to foster creative and divergent mathematical thinking, problem solving and problem posing, creative use of dynamic, multimodal and interactive software by teachers and learners, as well as other digital media and tools while widening and enriching transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary connections in mathematics classroom. Along with ground-breaking innovative approaches, the book aims to provide researchers and practitioners with new paths for diversification of opportunities for all students to become more creative and innovative mathematics learners. A framework for dynamic learning conditions of leveraging mathematical creativity with technology is an outcome of this collective work.


Mathematical creativity Technology Transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary connections Innovative approaches to teaching and learning 


  1. Arnone, M. P., Small, R. V., Chauncey, S. A., & McKenna, H. P. (2011). Curiosity, interest and engagement in technology-pervasive learning environments: A new research agenda. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(2), 181–198.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, C. K., & Galanti, T. M. (2017). Integrating STEM in elementary classrooms using model-eliciting activities: Responsive professional development for mathematics coaches and teachers. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(10). Retrieved from
  3. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biton, Y., Fellus, O., & Hershkovitz, S. (2016). Border crossing: Bringing together pre-service teachers’ technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge through the use of digital textbooks in mathematics. In C. Csikos, A. Rausch, & J. Szitanyi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 40th Conference of the International Group of the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 107–114). August 2016. Szeged, Hungary: PME.Google Scholar
  5. Bokosmaty, S., Mavylidi, M-F., & Paas, F. (2017). Making versus observing manipulations of geometric properties of triangles to learn geometry using dynamic geometry software. Computers & Education, 113, 313–326.Google Scholar
  6. Bottino, R. M., Artigue, M., & Noss, R. (2009). Building European collaboration in technology-enhanced learning in mathematics. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. de Jong, A. Lazonder, & S. Barnes (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning—Principles and products (pp. 73–87). Milton Keynes, UK: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Bray, A., & Tangney, B. (2017). Technology usage in mathematics education research—A systematic review of recent trends. Computers & Education, 114, 255–273.Google Scholar
  8. Cockett, A., & Kilgour, P. (2015). Mathematical manipulatives: Creating an environment for understanding, efficiency, engagement, and enjoyment. TEACH Collection of Christian Education, 1(1). Retrieved from
  9. Dijanić, Ž., & Trupčević, G. (2017). The impact of using GeoGebra interactive applets on conceptual and procedural knowledge. In The 6th International Scientific Colloquium Mathematics and Children, Osijek, Croatia. Retrieved from
  10. Freiman, V. (2009). Mathematical enrichment: Problem-of-the-week model. In R. Leikin, A. Berman, & B. Koichu (Eds.), Creativity in mathematics and the education of gifted students (pp. 367–382). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishing.Google Scholar
  11. Freiman, V., & DeBlois, L. (2014). Le site Internet CAMI: Une ressource virtuelle pour soutenir la résolution de problèmes chez les élèves francophones du Nouveau-Brunswick. Cahiers des sciences de l’éducation. Université de Liège, 36, 115–142.Google Scholar
  12. Freiman, V., & Lirette-Pitre, N. (2009). Building a virtual learning community of problem solvers: Example of CASMI community. ZDM, 42(1–2), 245–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Freiman, V., & Tassell, J. L. (2014). Using technology to develop mathematical creativity and giftedness. In Proceedings of the 8th MCG Conference (pp. 175–186).
  14. Hirashima, T., Hoppe, U., & Young, S. (2007). Supporting learning flow through integrative technologies. Oxford, UK: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hegedus, S., & Tall, D. (2016). Foundations for the future: The potential of multimodal technologies for learning mathematics. In L. D. English & D. Kirshner (Eds.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (3rd ed., pp. 543–562). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Henriksen, D., Mishra, P., & Fisser, P. (2016). Infusing creativity and technology in 21st century education: A systemic view for change. Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 27–37.Google Scholar
  17. Herrington, A., & Herrington, J. (2007). What is an authentic learning environment? In L. A. Tomei (Ed.), Online and distance learning: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 68–76). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.Google Scholar
  18. Huleihil, M. (2017). 3D printing technology as innovative tool for math and geometry teaching applications. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 164. Retrieved from
  19. Istance, D., & Kools, M. (2013). OECD Work on Technology and Education: Innovative learning environments as an integrating framework. European Journal of Education, 48, 43–57.Google Scholar
  20. Jones, K., & Simons, H. (1999). Online mathematics enrichment: An independent external evaluation of the NRICH project 1998–99. Southampton, England: University of Southampton.Google Scholar
  21. Kaput, J. J. (1998). Technology as a transformative force in education: What else is needed to make it work? Paper for the NCTM 2000 Technology Working Group.Google Scholar
  22. Kapu,T. J., Hegedus, S., & Lesh, R. (2007). Technology becoming infrastructural in mathematics education. In R. Lesh, E. Hamilton, & J. Kaput (Eds.), Foundations for the future in mathematics education (pp. 173–192). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Kaput, J. J., & Thompson, P. W. (1994). Technology in mathematics education research: The first 25 years in JRME. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 2, 676−684.Google Scholar
  24. Kazakoff, E. R., Orkin, M., Bundschuh, K., & Schechter, R. L. (2017). Fostering engagement in educational technologies through developmental theory and program data. In R. D. Roscoe, S. D. Craig, & I. Douglas (Eds.), End-user considerations in educational technology design (pp. 99–122). Hershey, PA: IGI Publishing.Google Scholar
  25. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2015). TPACK (technological pedagogical content knowledge). In J. Spector (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of educational technology (pp. 783–786). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
  26. Koestler, A. (1981). The three domains of creativity. In D. Dutton & M. Krausz (Eds.), The concept of creativity in science and art (pp. 1–17). Dordrecht, The Netherland: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Kynigos, C., & Daskolia, M. (2014). Supporting creative design processes for the support of creative mathematical thinking—Capitalising on cultivating synergies between math education and environmental education. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2014) held in conjunction with SMARTGREENS 2014, CLOSER 2014 and WEBIST 2014, April 1–3, 2014, Barcelona, Spain. Paper #256.
  28. LeBlanc, M., & Freiman, V. (2011). Mathematical and didactical enrichment for pre-service teachers: Mentoring online problem solving in the CASMI project. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 8(1–2), 291–318.Google Scholar
  29. Lee, N. H., & Ferrucci, B. (2012). Enhancing learning of fraction through the use of virtual manipulatives. The Electronic Journal of Mathematics & Technology, 6(2), 126–140.Google Scholar
  30. Leikin, R. (2007). Habits of mind associated with advanced mathematical thinking and solution spaces of mathematical tasks. In D. Pitta-Pantazi & G. Philippou (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 2330–2339). Larnaca, Cyprus: The authors.Google Scholar
  31. Leikin, R., Levav-Waynberg, A., & Guberman, R. (2011). Employing multiple-solution-tasks for the development of mathematical creativity: Two comparative studies. In M. Pytlak, T. Rowland, & E. Swoboda (Eds.). Proceedings of the Seventh Congress for European Research in Mathematics Education, Rzeszow, Poland.Google Scholar
  32. Leikin, R., & Sriraman, B. (Eds.). (2017a). Creativity and giftedness, interdisciplinary perspectives from mathematics and beyond. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  33. Leikin, R., & Sriraman, B. (2017b). Introduction to intersdisciplinary perspectives to mathematical creativity and giftedness. In R. Leikin & B. Sriraman (Eds.), Creativity and giftedness: Interdisciplinary perspectives from mathematics and beyond (pp. 1–6). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. Lombardi, M. (2007). Authentic learning for the 21st century: An overview. EduCause Learning Initiative. ELI Paper 1.Google Scholar
  35. Lowrie, T. (2015). Digital games, mathematics, and visuospatial reasoning. In T. Lowrie & R. Jorgensen (Eds.), Digital games and mathematics learning: Potential, promises and pitfalls (Vol. 4, pp. 71–92). Mathematics Education in the Digital Era Book Series, MEDE. Dordrecht, The Netherland: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. Mann, E. (2006). Creativity: The essence of mathematics. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(2), 236–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Martinovic, D., Freiman, V., & Karadag, Z. (2013). Visual mathematics and cyberlearning in view of affordance and activity theories. In D. Martinovic, V. Freiman, & Z. Karadag (Eds.), Visual mathematics and cyberlearning (Vol. 1, pp. 209–238). Mathematics Education in the Digital Era (MEDE) Book Series. Dordrecht, The Netherland: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Mishra, P. (2012). Rethinking Technology & Creativity in the 21st Century: Crayons are the Future. TechTrends, 56(5), 13–16.Google Scholar
  39. Mishra, P., Fahnoe, C., & Henriksen, D. (2013). Creativity, self-directed learning and the architecture of technology rich environments. TechTrends, 57(1), 10–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 180(6), 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Niess, M. L., Ronau, R. N., Shafer, K. G., Driskell, S. O., Harper, S. R., Johnston, C., et al. (2009). Mathematics teacher TPACK standards and development model. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 4–24.Google Scholar
  43. Panaoura, A., & Panaoura, G. (2014). Teachers’ awareness of creativity in mathematical teaching and their practice. Issues in the Undergraduate Mathematics Preparation of School Teachers, 4. Retrieved from
  44. Papert, S. (2006). Afterward: After how comes what. In K. R. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 581–586). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Pelczer, I., & Freiman, V. (2015). Assessing difficulty level in mathematical problem solving in informal online environments: Case of the CASMI community. In K. S. Sullenger & S. Turner (Eds.), New ground. Pushing the boundaries of studying informal learning in science, mathematics, and technology (pp. 129–152). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  46. Piaget, J. (1981). Creativity: Moving force of society [Talk presented at 1972 Eisenhower Symposium, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD]. Appendix to J. M. Gallagher and D. K. Reid. The learning theory of Piaget and Inhelder. Monterrey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  47. Savard, A., & Freiman, V. (2016). Investigating complexity to assess student learning from a robotics-based task. Digital experiences in mathematics education, 2(2), 93–114.Google Scholar
  48. Sengupta-Irving, T., & Agarwal, P. (2017). Conceptualizing perseverance in problem solving as collective enterprise. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 19(2).
  49. Sinclair, N. (2006). Mathematics and beauty: Aesthetic approaches to teaching children. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  50. Singer, F. M., Toader, F., & Voica, C. (Eds.). (2015). The Proceedings of the 9th Mathematical Creativity and Giftedness International Conference, Sinaia, Romania.
  51. Singer, F. M., Sheffield, L. J., Freiman, V., & Brandl, M. (2016). Research on and activities for mathematically gifted students. ICME-13 Topical Survey. Dordrecht, The Netherland: Springer.Google Scholar
  52. Sriraman, B. (2004). The characteristics of mathematical creativity. The Mathematics Educator, 14(1), 19–34.Google Scholar
  53. Sriraman, B., & Dahl, B. (2009). On bringing interdisciplinary ideas to gifted education. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The international handbook of giftedness (pp. 1235–1256). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  54. Sriraman, B., & Lee, K. (Eds.). (2011). The elements of creativity and giftedness in mathematics. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  55. Suh, J. M., Johnston, C. J., & Douds, J. (2008). Enhancing mathematical learning in a technology-rich environment. Teaching Children Mathematics, 15(4), 235–241.Google Scholar
  56. Thompson, D. L. (2010). Beyond the classroom walls: Teachers’ and students’ perspectives on the key instructional practices that facilitate a successful online learning experience for gifted students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21(4), 662–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Thompson, P. W. (1991). To experience is to conceptualize: Discussions of epistemology and experience. In L. P. Steffe (Ed.), Epistemological foundations of mathematical experience (pp. 260–281). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  58. Thompson, P. W. (2015). Researching mathematical meanings for teaching. In L. D. English & D. Kirshner (Eds.), Third handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 435–461). London, UK: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  59. Wade, W. Y., Rasmussen, K. L., & Fox-Turnbull, W. (2013). Can technology be a transformative force in education? Preventing School Failure, 57(3), 162–170. Retrieved from
  60. Yerushalmy, M. (2009). Educational technology and curricular design: Promoting mathematical creativity for all students. In R. Leikin, A. Berman, & B. Koichu (Eds.), Creativity in mathematics and the education of gifted students (pp. 101–113). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université de MonctonMonctonCanada
  2. 2.University of Western KentuckyBowling GreenUSA

Personalised recommendations