Advertisement

Creativity and the Design of Music-Mathematics Activities in a Virtual Simulation Learning Environment

  • Trina J. DavisEmail author
  • Glenn Phillips
  • Gerald Kulm
Chapter
Part of the Mathematics Education in the Digital Era book series (MEDE, volume 10)

Abstract

Defined by digital age learning, the current education landscape offers unparalleled opportunities for creative and transformative experiences for students of all ages. Navigating the complexity of this new landscape means that students must be equipped with skills that foster creativity, and are poised to develop unique and innovative solutions. This requires educators to rethink what instructional design should look like and how students should be engaged. Mathematics classrooms, in particular, are fertile places for activities that integrate creativity. This chapter explores the role of creativity in mathematics learning and examines the intersection of mathematics, music, and virtual spaces. Built on Koestler (The concept of creativity in science and art. Springer, The Netherlands, pp. 1–17, 1981) work on creation and creativity, the chapter suggests how environmental (technology) and conceptual (music) frameworks can be juxtaposed to mathematics teaching to create more engaged and productive learning. It is in these unique collisions that new knowledge and new ways of knowing come to pass. A classroom simulation example involving practice teaching experiences in a virtual setting exhibits how technology and music can be incorporated into preservice teacher education. Implications of this work include an expanded idea of what contributes to feelings of efficacy and student success in the mathematics classroom as well as how music may help with challenging mathematical concepts like fractions and patterns.

Keywords

Creativity Mathematics Technology Music Preservice teachers Second life 

References

  1. An, S. A., Ma, T., & Capraro, M. M. (2011). Preservice teachers’ beliefs and attitude about teaching and learning mathematics through music: An intervention study. School Science and Mathematics, 111(5), 236–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. An, S. (2012). Music-Mathematics instructional activities (unpublished).Google Scholar
  3. Barr, D., Harrison, J., & Conery, L. (2011). Computational thinking: A digital age skill for everyone. Learning & Leading with Technology, 38(6), 20–52.Google Scholar
  4. Baer, J. (2016). Creativity doesn’t develop in a vacuum. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2016(151), 9–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beal, S. (2000). Functional melodies. New York, NY: Curriculum Press.Google Scholar
  6. Berliner, D. C. (1985). Laboratory settings and the study of teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 36(2), 2–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boaler, J. (2015). Mathematical mindsets: Unleashing students’ potential through creative math, inspiring messages and innovative teaching. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Colwell, C. M. (2008). Integration of music and core academic objectives in the K-12 curriculum perceptions of music and classroom teachers. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 26(2), 33–41.Google Scholar
  9. Craft, A. (2010). Creativity and education futures: Learning in a digital age. London, UK: Trentham Books.Google Scholar
  10. Cropley, A. J. (2001). Creativity in education & learning: A guide for teachers and educators. Abingdon, VA: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  11. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 166–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.Google Scholar
  13. Davis, T. J., An, S., Cole, M. & Jett, S. (2012). Glasscock [Second Life Build]. Retrieved from http://kate.tamu.edu/second-life.
  14. Davis, T. (2013). Using three-dimensional virtual environments to prepare STEM teachers. In M. M. Capraro & R. M. Capraro (Eds.), Improving urban schools: Equity and access in k-16 STEM education for all students (pp. 125–141). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
  15. Davis, T., Chien, C., Brown, I., & Kulm, G. (2012b). Knowledge for algebra teaching for equity (KATE) project: An examination of virtual classroom simulation approaches. National Forum of Multicultural Issues Journal, 9(2), 67–87.Google Scholar
  16. De Lucia, A., Francese, R., Passero, I., & Tortora, G. (2009). Development and evaluation of a virtual campus on Second Life: The case of second DMI. Computers & Education, 52, 220–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dickey, M. D. (2005). Three-dimensional virtual worlds and distance learning: Two case studies of active worlds as a medium for distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 439–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Enochs, L. G., & Riggs, I. M. (1990). Further development of an elementary science teaching efficacy instrument: A preservice elementary scale. School Science and Mathematics, 90, 695–706.Google Scholar
  19. Enochs, L. G., Smith, P. L., & Huinker, D. (2000). Establishing factorial validity of the mathematics teaching efficacy beliefs instrument. School Science and Mathematics, 100(4), 194–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fernandez, M. (1999). Making music with mathematics. Mathematics Teacher, 92(2), 90.Google Scholar
  21. Fiske, E. B. (1999). Champions of change: The impact of the arts on learning. Washington D.C.: President’s Committee on the Arts and the Humanities.Google Scholar
  22. Furner, J. M., & Marinas, C. A. (2014). Addressing math anxiety in teaching mathematics using photography and geogebra. Presented at International Conference on Technology in Collegiate Mathematics.Google Scholar
  23. Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 503–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gregerson, M. B., Snyder, H. T., & Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.). (2012). Teaching creatively and teaching creativity. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Science+Business Media.Google Scholar
  25. Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 63–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Henriksen, D., & Mishra, P. (2015). We teach who we are: Creativity in the lives and practices of accomplished teachers. Teachers College Record, 117, 070303.Google Scholar
  27. Ho, C. M. L., Rappa, N. A., & Chee, Y. S. (2009). Designing and implementing virtual enactive role-play and structured argumentation: Promises and pitfalls. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(5), 381–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Holden, H., & Rada, R. (2011). Understanding the influence of perceived usability and technology self-efficacy on teachers’ technology acceptance. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(4), 343–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Holt, L., & Brockett, R. (2012). Self direction and factors influencing technology use: Examining the relationships for the 21st century workplace. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2075–2082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. International Society for Technology in Education. (2007). National educational technology standards for students. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/20-14_ISTE_Standards-S_PDF.pdf.
  31. International Society for Technology in Education. (2008). ISTE standards for teachers. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/standards/for-students-2016.
  32. International Society for Technology in Education. (2016). ISTE standards for students. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/standards/for-students-2016.
  33. Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robinson, A. J., & Weigel, M. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Chicago, IL: The MacArthur Foundation, with permission from Henry Jenkins.Google Scholar
  34. Johnson, G. L., & Edelson, R. J. (2003). Integrating music and mathematics in the elementary classroom. Teaching Children Mathematics, 9(8), 474.Google Scholar
  35. Kereluik, K., Mishra, P., Fahnoe, C., & Terry, L. (2013). What knowledge is of most worth: Teacher knowledge for 21st century learning. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 29(4), 127–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kleiman, P. (2008). Towards transformation: Conceptions of creativity in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(3), 209–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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 Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Leikin, R., & Pitta-Pantazi, D. (2013). Creativity and mathematics education: The state of the art. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45(2), 159–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Leikin, R., Subotnik, R., Pitta-Pantazi, D., Singer, F. M., & Pelczer, I. (2013). Teachers’ views on creativity in mathematics education: An international survey. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45(2), 309–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lev-Zamir, H., & Leikin, R. (2013). Saying versus doing: Teachers’ conceptions of creativity in elementary mathematics teaching. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45(2), 295–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mehta, R., Mishra, P., Henriksen, D., & The Deep-Play Research Group. (2016). Creativity in mathematics and beyond—Learning from fields medal winners. Tech Trends, 60(1), 14–18. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-015-0011-6.
  42. Merchant, Z., Goetz, E. T., Keeney-Kennicutt, W., Kwok, O. M., Cifuentes, L., & Davis, T. J. (2012). The learner characteristics, features of desktop 3D virtual reality environments, and college chemistry instruction: A structural equation modeling analysis. Computers & Education, 59(2), 551–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Metcalf, K. K., Hammer, M. A., & Kahlich, P. A. (1996). Alternatives to field-based experiences: The comparative effects of on-campus laboratories. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(3), 271–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mishra, P., Henriksen, D., & The Deep-Play Research Group. (2014). Revisited and remixed: Creative variations and twisting knobs. Tech Trends, 58(1), 20–23.Google Scholar
  45. Mishra, P., Fahnoe, C., Henriksen, D. & The Deep-Play Research Group. (2013). Creativity, self-directed learning, and the architecture of technology rich environments. Tech Trends, 57(1), 10–13.Google Scholar
  46. Mishra, P., & The Deep-Play Research Group. (2012). Rethinking technology & creativity in the 21st century: Crayons are the future. Tech Trends, 56(5), 13–16.Google Scholar
  47. Mikropoulos, T. A., & Natsis, A. (2011). Educational virtual environments: a ten-year review of empirical research (1999–2009). Computers & Education, 56(3), 769–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mitchell, W., Inouye, A., & Blumenthal, M. (2003). Beyond productivity: Information, technology, innovation, and creativity. Washington, D.C.: National Academic Press.Google Scholar
  49. Munakata, M., & Vaidya, A. (2012). Encouraging creativity in mathematics and science through photography. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications, 31(3), 121–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. National Advisory Council on Creative and Cultural Education. (1999). All our futures: Creativity, culture and education. United Kingdom: Department of Education and Employment.Google Scholar
  51. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards of school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  52. Nicholson, M. W., & Moran, J. D. (1986). Teacher’s judgements of preschoolers’ creativity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 63, 1211–1216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nisbet, S. (1991). Mathematics and music. Australian Mathematics Teacher, 47(4), 4–8.Google Scholar
  54. Runco, M. A. (2008). Creativity and education. New Horizons in Education, 56(1), n1.Google Scholar
  55. Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  56. Springer, S., Alexander, B., & Persiani, K. (2006). The creative teacher: An encyclopedia of ideas to energize your curriculum. New York, NY: McGraw Hill Professional.Google Scholar
  57. STEM to STEAM. (2016). STEM to STEAM. Retrieved from http://www.stemtosteam.org.
  58. Tammadge, A. (1979). Creativity: Presidential address to the mathematical association at the annual conference, April 1979. The Mathematical Gazette, 63(425), 145–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vale, I., & Barbosa, A. (2015). Mathematics creativity in elementary teacher training. Journal of the European Teacher Education Network, 10, 101–109.Google Scholar
  60. Vaughn, K. (2000). Music and mathematics: Modest support for the oft-claimed relationship. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34(3/4), 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. Presence, 7(3), 225–240.  https://doi.org/10.1162/105474698565686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wong, G. K. (2015). Understanding technology acceptance in pre-service teachers of primary mathematics in Hong Kong. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(6).Google Scholar
  63. Woods, P., & Jeffrey, B. (1996). Teachable moments: The art of creative teaching in primary schools. Chicago, IL: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Wright, D. (2009). Mathematics and music (Vol. 28). Providence, RI, USA: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
  65. Wrzesien, M., & Raya, M. A. (2010). Learning in serious virtual worlds: Evaluation of learning effectiveness and appeal to students in the E-Junior project. Computers & Education, 55(1), 178–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Texas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations