Abstract
The availability of sophisticated computer programs capable of complex symbolic computations has created challenges for mathematics educators working with mathematically motivated students. Whereas technology may be praised for enabling educators to bridge the gap between the past—when only some students were able to do mathematics, and the present—when an average student is able to enjoy finding an answer to a difficult problem using a computer, it can also put a barrier in the way of developing students’ creative mathematical skills. This dichotomy between positive and negative affordances of technology in the teaching of mathematics calls for the development of new curriculum enabling the outcome of problem solving not to be dependent on students’ ability to simply enter correctly all data into a computer. Towards this end, the chapter proposes a way of modifying traditional problems from advanced mathematics curriculum to be both technology-immune and technology-enabled in the sense that whereas software can facilitate problem solving, its direct application is not sufficient for finding an answer.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The university where the author works is located in the United States in close proximity to Canada, and many of the author’s students are Canadians pursuing their master’s degrees in education.
References
Abramovich, S. (2014a). Computational experiment approach to advanced secondary mathematics curriculum. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Abramovich, S. (2014b). Revisiting mathematical problem solving and posing in the digital era: Toward pedagogically sound uses of modern technology. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 45(7), 1034–1052.
Abramovich, S. (2015). Mathematical problem posing as a link between algorithmic thinking and conceptual knowledge. The Teaching of Mathematics, 18(2), 45–60.
Abramovich, S., & Cho, E. K. (2013). Technology and the creation of challenging problems. Mathematics Competitions, 26(2), 10–20.
Abramovich, S., Easton, J., & Hayes, V. O. (2014). Integrated spreadsheets as learning environments for young children. Spreadsheets in Education, 7(2), 3.
Abramovich, S., & Leonov, G. A. (2011). A journey to a mathematical frontier with multiple computer tools. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 16(1), 87–96.
Advisory Committee on Mathematics Education. (2011). Mathematical needs: The mathematical needs of learners. London, UK: The Royal Society.
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development and assessment of ICT-TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52(1), 154–168.
Arnold, V. I. (2015). Experimental mathematics. Providence, RI: The American Mathematical Society.
Avitzur, R. (2011). Graphing Calculator (Version 4.0). Berkeley, CA: Pacific Tech.
Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., et al. (2010). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133–180.
Beghetto, R. A., Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2015). Teaching for creativity in the common core classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Bers, M. U. (2010). When robots tell a story about culture … and children tell a story about learning. In N. Yelland (Ed.), Contemporary perspective on early childhood education (pp. 227–247). Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
Bers, M. U., Ponte, I., Juelich, K., Viera, A., & Schenker, J. (2002). Teachers as designers: Integrating robotics in early childhood education. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 2002(1), 123–145.
Borwein, J., & Bailey, D. (2004). Mathematics by experiment: Plausible reasoning in the 21st century. Natick, MA: AK Peters.
Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1999). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Collins, A., & Ferguson, W. (1993). Epistemic forms and epistemic games: Structures and strategies to guide inquiry. Educational Psychology, 28(1), 25–42.
Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences. (2012). The mathematical education of teachers II. Washington, DC: The Mathematics Association of America.
Conole, G., & Dyke, M. (2004). What are the affordances of information and communication technologies? ALT-J. Research in Learning Technology, 12(2), 113–124.
Dahlstrom, E., & Bichsel, J. (2014). ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2014. Research report. Louisville, CO: ECAR, October 2014. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ecar.
David, F. N. (1970). Dicing and gaming (a note on the history of probability). In E. S. Pearson & M. G. Kendall (Eds.), Studies in the history of statistics and probability (pp. 1–17). London, UK: Griffin.
Dittert, N., & Krannich, D. (2013). Digital fabrication in educational contexts—Ideas for a constructionist workshop setting. In J. Walter-Herrmann & C. Büching (Eds.), FabLab: Of machines, makers and inventors (pp. 173–180). Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript Verlag.
Ellis, W. D. (Ed.). (1938). A source book of Gestalt psychology. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace.
Epstein, D., Levy, S., & de la Llave, R. (1992). About this journal. Experimental Mathematics, 1(1), 1–3.
Freiman, V., Kadijevich, D., Kuntz, G., Pozdnyakov, S., & Stedøy, I. (2009). Technological environments beyond the classroom. In E. J. Barbeau & P. J. Taylor (Eds.), Challenging mathematics in and beyond the classroom (pp. 97–131). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Freire, P. (2003). Pedagogy of the oppressed (with an introduction by D. Macedo). New York, NY: Continuum.
Feurzeig, W., & Lukas, G. (1972). LOGO–A programming language for teaching mathematics. Educational Technology, 12(3), 39–46.
Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology (pp. 67–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gurung, R. A. R., Chick, N. L., & Haynie, A. (2009). Exploring signature pedagogies: Approaches to teaching disciplinary habits of mind. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Hadamard, J. (1996). The Mathematician’s mind: The psychology of invention in the mathematical field. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hodgson, C. F. (1870). Educational times. London, UK: CF Hodgson & Son.
Hughes, J., Gadanidis, G., & Yiu, C. (2016). Digital making in elementary mathematics education? In Digital experiences in mathematics education (pp. 1–15). New York, NY: Springer, May 27. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40751-016-0020-x.
Isaacs, N. (1930). Children’s why questions. In S. Isaacs (Ed.), Intellectual growth in young children (pp. 291–349). London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Kadijevich, D. (2002). Towards a CAS promoting links between procedural and conceptual mathematical knowledge. The International Journal of Computer Algebra in Mathematics Education, 9(1), 69–74.
Kaput, J. J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 515–556). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Kaput, J. J., Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (2008). Developing new notations for a learnable mathematics in the computational era. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research on mathematics education (pp. 693–715). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kennedy, G. E., Judd, T. S., Churchward, A., Gray, K., & Krause, K. L. (2008). First year students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1), 108–122.
Kieran, C., & Drijvers, P. (2006). The co-emergence of machine techniques, paper-and-pencil techniques, and theoretical reflection: A study of CAS use in secondary school algebra. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 11(2), 205–263.
Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2005). Learners and learning in the twenty-first century: What do we know about students’ attitudes towards and experiences of information and communication technologies that will help is design courses? Studies in Higher Education, 30(3), 257–274.
Krutetskii, V. A. (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in school children. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Kvavik, R.B., & Caruso, J.B. (2005). ECAR study of students and information technology, 2005: Convenience, connection, control, and learning (Vol. 6). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ecar.
Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations: The logic of mathematical discovery. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Leonov, G. A., & Kuznetsov, N. V. (2013). Hidden attractors in dynamical systems. From hidden oscillations in Hilbert-Kolmogorov, Aizerman, and Kalman problems to hidden chaotic attractor in Chua circuits. International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, 23, 1330002 (2013) [69 pages]. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0218127413300024.
Lillard, P. P. (1996). Montessori today: A comprehensive approach to education from birth to adulthood. New York, NY: Shaken Books.
Lingefjärd, T. (2012). Mathematics teaching and learning in a technology rich world. In S. Abramovich (Ed.), Computers in education (Vol. 2, pp. 171–191). New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Lotman, Y. M. (1988). Text within a text. Soviet Psychology, 24(3), 32–51.
Luchins, A. S. (1942). Mechanization in problem solving: The effect of Einstellung. In Psychological Monographs, 54(6, whole No. 248). Evanston, IL: The American Psychological Association.
Luchins, A. S. (1960). On some aspects of the creativity problem in thinking. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 91, 128–140.
Luchins, A. S., & Luchins, E. H. (1970). Wertheimer’s seminars revisited: Problem solving and thinking (Vol. I). Albany, NY: Faculty-Student Association, SUNY at Albany.
Maddux, C. D. (1984). Educational microcomputing: the need for research. Computers in the Schools, 1(1), 35–41.
Maddux, C. D., & Johnson, D. L. (2005). Type II applications of technology in education: New and better ways of teaching and learning. Computers in the Schools, 22(1/2), 1–5.
Mason, J. (2000). Asking mathematical questions mathematically. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science & Technology, 31(1), 97–111.
Mayer, M. (1965). Introduction. In M. Montessori (Ed.), The Montessori method (pp. xxiii–xli). Cambridge, MA, Robert Bentley.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Meyer, H. B. (2016). Eratosthenes’ sieve. Retrieved from http://www.hbmeyer.de/eratosiv.htm.
Ministry of Education Singapore. (2012). N(T)-level mathematics teaching & learning syllabus. Curriculum Planning & Development Division. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/syllabuses/sciences/files/normal-technical-evel-maths-2013.pdf.
Montessori, M. (1965). The Montessori method. Cambridge, MA: Robert Bentley.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010) Common core state standards (Mathematics). Washington, D.C.: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/Math/.
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.
Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (1996). Windows on mathematical meanings: Learning cultures and computers. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Pea, R. D. (1993). Distribted intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions—Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47–87). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Peschek, W., & Schneider, E. (2001). How to identify basic knowledge and basic skills? Features of modern general education in mathematics. The International Journal of Computer Algebra in Mathematics Education, 8(1), 7–22.
Pólya, G. (1954). Induction and analogy in mathematics (Vol. 1). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Pólya, G. (1957). How to solve it. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
Pólya, G. (1965). Mathematical discovery: On understanding, learning, and teaching problem solving. New York, NY: Wiley.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2010). Prepare and inspire: K–12 education in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) for America’s future. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-stemed-report.pdf.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1988). Users of computers in mathematics instruction. In D. A. Smith, G. Porter, L. Leinbach, & R. Wenger (Eds.), Computers and mathematics: The use of computers in undergraduate instruction (Vol. 9, pp. 1–11). Washington, D.C.: The Mathematical Association of America.
Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59.
Sivashinsky, I. H. (1968). Zadachi po matematike dlja vneklasnyh zanjatii (Mathematical problems for after school activities). Moscow, Russia: Prosveschenie. (In Russian).
Stark, H. M. (1987). An Introduction to number theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Stern, C., & Stern, M. B. (1971). Children discover arithmetic: An introduction to structural arithmetic. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Sugden, S., Baker, J. E., & Abramovich, S. (2015). Conditional formatting revisited: A companion for teachers and others. Spreadsheets in Education, 8(3), 2.
Tall, D., Gray, E., Ali, M. B., Crowley, L., DeMarois, P., McGowen, M., et al. (2001). Symbols and the bifurcation between procedural and conceptual thinking. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 1(1), 81–104.
Tchekoff, A. (1970). Russian silhouettes (Translated from Russian by M. Fell). Freeport, NY: Books for Libraries Press.
Wertheimer, M. (1959). Productive thinking. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Wertheimer, M. (1938). Gestalt theory. In W. D. Ellis (Ed.), A source book of Gestalt psychology (pp. 1–11). New York, NY: Harcourt Brace.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Abramovich, S. (2018). Technology and the Development of Mathematical Creativity in Advanced School Mathematics. In: Freiman, V., Tassell, J. (eds) Creativity and Technology in Mathematics Education. Mathematics Education in the Digital Era, vol 10. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72381-5_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72381-5_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-72379-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-72381-5
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)