Advertisement

Interactive Technology to Foster Creativity in Future Mathematics Teachers

  • Alfinio FloresEmail author
  • Jungeun Park
  • Stephen A. Bernhardt
Chapter
Part of the Mathematics Education in the Digital Era book series (MEDE, volume 10)

Abstract

This chapter discusses ways in which the use of interactive technology in a problem-based course that integrates mathematics, science, and technology fosters creativity among future secondary mathematics teachers in their first year in college. The course was built on research-based principles to learn mathematics for understanding. We found that creativity is fostered naturally by teaching mathematics based on those principles. Creativity is fostered, promoted and developed when (a) learners themselves grapple with concepts and make concepts explicit; (b) learners actively build new understanding on previous knowledge; (c) learners engage with mathematics as a social process; (d) learners use multiple representations and connections to enhance their understanding; (e) learners pose and solve problems; and (f) learners exercise multiple modes of learning—when they read, talk, write, draw, analyze, apply, present, and reflect. We discuss the use of technology and issues related to future teachers’ creativity as they solve problems; design experiments and collect, represent, and analyze data; develop mathematical models for phenomena in the physical, biological, and social sciences; and build and program their own robot.

Keywords

Preservice mathematics teachers Integrated mathematics, science, and technology Teamwork Communication GeoGebra Python Mathematical modeling 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The course discussed in this chapter was funded in part by the National Science Foundation (TUES grant, award number 1140702): Bernhardt, S., Flores, A., Park, J., and Shipman, H. (2012–2016). Integrated Science and Mathematics Education : A Model Course for Pre-Service Teachers. The statements in this chapter are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of NSF.

References

  1. Abramovich, S. (2014). Computational experiment approach to advanced secondary mathematics curriculum. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aiken, L. R. (1973). Ability and creativity in mathematics. Review of Educational Research, 43, 405–432.Google Scholar
  3. Allen, D. H., Donham, R. S., & Bernhardt, S. A. (2011). Problem-based learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2011(128), 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aralas, D. (2008). Mathematical creativity and its connection with mathematical imagination. In Proceedings of the Discussion Group 9: Promoting Creativity for all Students in Mathematics Education, Section 1, 23–32. The 11th International Congress on Mathematical Education Monterrey, Mexico, July 6–13, 2008. http://www.dg.icme11.org/document/get/255.
  5. Artzt, A. F., & Newman, C. M. (1990). How to use cooperative learning in the mathematics class. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  6. Banghart, F. W., & Spraker, H. S. (1963). Group influence on creativity in mathematics. The Journal of Experimental Education, 31, 257–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university (3rd ed.). Berkshire, England: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press. Retrieved from http://www.umweltbildung-noe.at/upload/files/OEKOLOG%202014/2_49657968-Teaching-for-Quality-Learning-at-University.pdf.
  8. Boden, M. A. (2004). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Bryan, J. (2014). Back to school means back to STEM. Retrieved from http://www.arborsci.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Pull-Back-Car.pdf.
  10. Bu, L., & Schoen, R. (Eds.). (2011). Model-centered learning: Pathways to mathematical understanding using GeoGebra. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. Buteau, C., & Muller, E. (2006). Evolving technologies integrated into undergraduate mathematics education. In C. Hoyles, J. Lagrange, L. H. Son, & N. Sinclair (Eds.), Proceedings for the Seventeenth ICMI Study Conference: Technology Revisited, Part 2: Contributions (pp. 74–81). Hanoi, Vietnam: Hanoi Institute of Technology. Retrieved from http://www.mathunion.org/fileadmin/ICMI/files/Digital_Library/icmi-study-17/ICMI17proceedingsPart2.pdf.
  12. Buteau, C., & Muller, E. (2014). Teaching roles in a technology intensive core undergraduate mathematics course. In A. Clark-Wilson, O. Robutti, & N. Sinclair (Eds.), The mathematics teacher in the digital era (pp. 163–185). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Butler, A., Phillmann, K.-B., & Smart, L. (2001). Active learning within a lecture: Assessing the impact of short, in-class writing exercises. Teaching of Psychology, 28, 57–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cakir, M. P., & Stahl, G. (2013). The integration of mathematics discourse, graphical reasoning and symbolic expression by a Virtual Math Team. In D. Martinovic, V. Freiman, & Z. Karadag (Eds.), Visual mathematics and cyberlearning (pp. 49–96), Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Springer Science+Business Media.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2321-4.
  15. Clark-Wilson, A., Robutti, O., & Sinclair, N. (2014). The mathematics teacher in the digital era. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning, National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded Edition). ‎Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. E-book. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/read/9853/.
  17. Contreras, J. N. (2013). Fostering mathematical creativity through problem posing and modeling using dynamic geometry: Viviani’s problem in the classroom. Journal of Mathematics Education at Teachers College, 42, 66–72.Google Scholar
  18. Cory, B. L. (2010). Bouncing balls and graphing derivatives. Mathematics Teacher, 104(3), 206–213.Google Scholar
  19. Council of Chief State School Officers Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium. (2011). InTASC model core teaching standards: A resource for state dialogue. Washington, D.C.: Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2011/InTASC_Model_Core_Teaching_Standards_2011.pdf.
  20. Davidson, N. (Ed.). (1990). Cooperative learning in mathematics. Menlo Park, CA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  21. Davidson, D., & Pearce, D. (1990). Perspectives on writing activities in the mathematics classroom. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 2, 15–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Drabick, D. A. G., Weisberg, R., Paul, L., & Bubier, J. L. (2007). Keeping it short and sweet: Brief, ungraded writing assignments facilitate learning. Teaching of Psychology, 34, 172–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Enthought Scientific Computing Solutions. (2016). Enthought canopy: Easy python deployment plus integrated analysis environment for scientific computing, data analysis and engineering. Retrieved from https://store.enthought.com/downloads/#default.
  24. Ernest, P. (2005). Agency and creativity in the semiotics of learning mathematics. In M. H. G. Hoffmann, K. Lenhard, & F. Seeger (Eds.), Activity and sign: Grounding mathematics education (pp. 23–34). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Flores, A. (2014). Integrating computers, science, and mathematics—A course for future mathematics teachers. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (pp. 246–251). Setúbal, Portugal: Scitepress.  https://doi.org/10.5220/0004942402460251.
  26. Flores, A., Bernhardt, S. A., & Shipman, H. L. (2015). Rowing competitions and perspective. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 46, 284–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Flores, A., & Park, J. (2016). Students’ guided re-invention of definition of limit of sequence with interactive technology. In Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/volume-16/issue-2-16/mathematics/students-guided-reinvention-of-definition-of-limit-of-a-sequence-with-interactive-technology/.
  28. Flores, A., Park, J., & Bernhardt, S. A. (2016). Learning mathematics and technology through inquiry, cooperation, and communication: A learning trajectory for future mathematics teachers. In M. L. Niess, S. Driskell, & K. Hollebrands (Eds.), Handbook of research on transforming mathematics teacher education in the digital age (pp. 324–352). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Freudenthal, H. (1971). Geometry between the devil and the deep sea. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 3, 413–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fryer, M. (2006). Facilitating creativity in higher education: A brief account of National Teaching Fellows’ views. In N. Jackson, M. Oliver, M. Shaw, & J. Wisdom (Eds.), Developing creativity in higher education: An imaginative curriculum (pp. 74–88). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Gibb, E. G. (1970). Creative problem solving (Preliminary edition). Austin, TX: University of Texas, Research and Development Center for Teacher Education. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED037367.pdf.
  32. Gordon, S. P., & Gordon, F. S. (2010). Functions, data, and models: An applied approach to college algebra. Washington, D.C.: Mathematical Association of America.Google Scholar
  33. Gravemeijer, K., Cobb, P., Bowers, J., & Whitenack, J. (2000). Symbolizing, modeling, and instructional design. In P. Cobb, E. Yackel, & K. McClain (Eds.), Symbolizing and communicating in mathematics classrooms (pp. 225–273). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  34. Groff, J. (2013). Technology-rich innovative learning environments. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/Technology-Rich%20Innovative%20Learning%20Environments%20by%20Jennifer%20Groff.pdf.
  35. Griffiths, M. (2014). Encouraging imagination and creativity in the teaching profession. European Educational Research Journal, 13, 117–129. Retrieved from http://eer.sagepub.com/content/13/1/117.full.pdf+html.
  36. Güçler, B., Hegedus, S., Robidoux, R., & Jackiw, N. (2013). Investigating the mathematical discourse of young learners involved in multi-modal mathematical investigations: The case of haptic technologies. In D. Martinovic, V. Freiman, & Z. Karadag (Eds.), Visual mathematics and cyberlearning (pp. 97–118). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Science+Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Habre, S. (2012). Improving understanding in ordinary differential equations through writing in a dynamical environment. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 31, 153–166.  https://doi.org/10.1093/teamat/hrs007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hadamard, J. (1945). Essay on the psychology of invention in the mathematical field. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Hake, R. (1998). Interactive engagement versus traditional methods: A six thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Halmos, P. R. (1968). Mathematics as a creative art. American Scientist, 56, 375–389.Google Scholar
  41. Hanna, G. (1991). Mathematical proof. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 54–61). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  42. Hanna, G., & Winchester, I. (Eds.). (1990). Creativity and mathematical proof. Special issue Interchange, 21(1).Google Scholar
  43. Hashimoto, Y., & Becker, J. (1999). The open approach to teaching mathematics—Creating a culture of mathematics in the classroom: Japan. In L. J. Sheffield (Ed.), Developing mathematically promising students (pp. 101–119). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  44. Haylock, D. W. (1987). A framework for assessing mathematical creativity in schoolchildren. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 18(1), 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Henderson, K. B., & Pingry, R. E. (1953). Problem-solving in mathematics. In H. F. Fehr (Ed.), The learning of mathematics: Its theory and practice (pp. 228–270). Washington, D.C.: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  46. Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (Vol. 1, pp. 371–404). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  47. Hoyles, C., & Lagrange, J.-B. (Eds.). (2010). Mathematics education and technology—Rethinking the terrain. The 17th ICMI Study. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  48. International GeoGebra Institute. (2017). GeoGebra. Retrieved from https://www.geogebra.org/cms/download.
  49. Jackson, N. (2006). Imagining a different world. In N. Jackson, M. Oliver, M. Shaw, & J. Wisdom (Eds.), Developing creativity in higher education: An imaginative curriculum (pp. 1–9). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Jackson, N., & Sinclair, C. (2006). Developing students’ creativity: Searching for an appropriate pedagogy. In N. Jackson, M. Oliver, M. Shaw, & J. Wisdom (Eds.), Developing creativity in higher education: An imaginative curriculum (pp. 118–141). London, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kattou, M., Kontoyianni, K., Pitta-Pantazi, D., & Christou, C. (2013). Connecting mathematical creativity to mathematical ability. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(4), 167–181.Google Scholar
  52. Krutetskii, V. A. (1976). The Psychology of mathematical abilities in schoolchildren (J. Teller, Trans.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  53. Leikin, R. (2014). Challenging mathematics with multiple solution tasks and mathematical investigations in geometry. In Y. Li, E. A. Silver, & S. Li (Eds.), Transforming mathematics instruction: Multiple approaches and practices (pp. 59–80). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  54. Leikin, R., & Pitta-Pantazi, D. (2013). Creativity and mathematics education: The state of the art. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(2), 159–166.Google Scholar
  55. Mann, E. L. (2006). Creativity: The essence of mathematics. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(2), 236–260. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ750778.pdf.
  56. Manuel, D. (2009). Does technology help building more creative mathematical environments? In B. Sriraman, V. Freiman, & N. Lirette-Pitre (Eds.), Interdisciplinary, creativity, and learning: Mathematics with literature, paradoxes, history, technology and modeling (pp. 233–247). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  57. Marrongelle, K. A. (2008). Enhancing meaning in mathematics: Drawing on what students know about the physical world. In P. E. Elliott & C. M. Elliott Garnett (Eds.), Getting into the mathematics conversation: Valuing communication in mathematics classrooms (pp. 295–307). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  58. 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 (pp. 209–238). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Science+Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mason, J., & Watson, A. (2008). Mathematics as a constructive activity: Exploiting dimensions of possible variation. In M. P. Carlson & C. Rasmussen (Eds.), Making the connection: Research and teaching in undergraduate mathematics education (pp. 191–204). Washington, D.C.: Mathematical Association of America.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Meissner, H. (2005). Challenges to provoke creativity. In The Third East Asia Regional Conference on Mathematics Education. Retrieved from www.math.uni-muenster.de/didaktik/u/meissne/WWW/mei135.doc.
  61. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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. Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss1/mathematics/article1.cfm.
  63. Oehrtman, M. (2015). Sequences that converge to 5. Sequences that don’t converge to 5. Retrieved from https://clearcalculus.okstate.edu/images/Guided%20Reinvention/Graphs%20-%20with%20Epsilon%20and%20N%20Lines/Sequence%20Graphs.html.
  64. Paulus, P. B. (2000). Groups, teams, and creativity: The creative potential of idea-generating groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49(2), 237–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Poincaré, H. (1920). Science et méthode. Paris, France: Flammarion. Retrieved from https://archive.org/stream/scienceetmthod00poin#page/42/mode/2up.
  66. Polya, G. (1954). Mathematics and plausible reasoning. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Polya, G. (1957). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Polya, G. (1962). Mathematical discovery: On understanding, learning, and teaching problem solving (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  69. Powell, N. N., Anderson, M., & Winterroth, S. (1994). Reflections on miniature golf. Mathematics Teacher, 87(7), 490–495.Google Scholar
  70. Presmeg, N. (2003). Creativity, mathematizing and didactizing: Leen Streefland’s work continues. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 54, 127–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rivera, F. D. (2011). Toward a visually-oriented school mathematics curriculum. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sacristán, A. I., Calder, N., Rojano, T., Santos-Trigo, M., Friedlander, A., Meissner, H., et al. (2010). The influence and shaping of digital technologies on the learning—And learning trajectories—Of mathematical concepts. In C. Hoyles & J.-B. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematics education and technology—Rethinking the terrain (pp. 179–226). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  73. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2014). Smart technology for self-organizing processes. Smart Learning Environments, 1(1). Retrieved from http://www.slejournal.com/content/1/1/1,  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-014-0001-8.
  74. Sealey, V., Deshler, J. M., & Hazen, K. (2014). Strengthening student understanding of mathematical language through verbal and written representations of the intermediate value theorem. PRIMUS: Problems, Resources, and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies, 24(2), 175–190.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2013.858282.
  75. Sheffield, L. J. (1994). The development of gifted and talented mathematics students and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Standards. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.Google Scholar
  76. Sheffield, L. J. (2003). Extending the challenge in mathematics: Developing mathematical promise in K-8 children. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  77. Sheffield, L. J. (2008). Promoting creativity for all students in mathematics education: An overview. In Proceedings of the Discussing Group 9: Promoting Creativity for All Students in Mathematics Education, The 11th International Congress on Mathematical Education Monterrey, Mexico, pp. 369–381. Retrieved from http://dg.icme11.org/tsg/show/10.
  78. Sheffield, L. J. (2009). Developing mathematical creativity—Questions may be the answer. In R. Leikin, A. Berman, & B. Koichu (Eds.), Creativity in mathematics and the education of gifted students (pp. 87–100). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  79. Silver, E. A. (1997). Fostering creativity through instruction rich in mathematical problem solving and problem posing. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 29(3), 75–80.Google Scholar
  80. Sriraman, B. (2004). Characteristics of mathematical creativity. The Mathematics Educator, 14(1), 19–34. Retrieved from http://math.coe.uga.edu/tme/Issues/v14n1/v14n1.Sriraman.pdf.
  81. Sriraman, B. (2005). Are giftedness and creativity synonyms in mathematics? An analysis of constructs within the professional and school realms. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 20–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Sternberg, R. J., & Williams, W. M. (1996). How to develop student creativity. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/196073/chapters/Introduction@-Theory-of-Creativity.aspx.
  83. Stewart, T. L., Myers, A. C., & Culley, M. R. (2010). Enhanced learning and retention through ‘writing to learn’ in the psychology classroom. Teaching of Psychology, 37, 46–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Torrance, E. P. (1979). A three-stage model for teaching for creative thinking. In A. E. Lawson (Ed.), 1980 AETS Yearbook: The psychology of teaching for thinking and creativity (pp. 226–253). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.Google Scholar
  85. Uribe-Zarain, X. (2015). TUES Math 267 Observations and interviews report. Newark, DE: Delaware Education Research and Development Center.Google Scholar
  86. Van Oortmerssen, L. A., Van Woerkum, C. M. J., & Aarts, N. (2015). When interaction flows: An exploration of collective creative processes on a collaborative governance board. Group Organization & Management, 40(4), 500–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. New York, NY: Routledge/Falmer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Voica, C., & Singer, F. M. (2013). Problem posing as a tool for the development of mathematical creativity in school children. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(4), 267–279.Google Scholar
  89. Whiley, T., & Tellup, E. (2015). The math and physics of Joshua. Newark, DE: Final project presentation for Math267, University of Delaware.Google Scholar
  90. Winchester, I. (1990). Introduction—Creativity, thought and mathematical proof. Interchange, 21(10), 1–6.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alfinio Flores
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jungeun Park
    • 1
  • Stephen A. Bernhardt
    • 1
  1. 1.University of DelawareNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations