Creativity in Question and Answer Digital Spaces for Mathematics Education: A Case Study of the Water Triangle for Proportional Reasoning

  • Benjamin DickmanEmail author
Part of the Mathematics Education in the Digital Era book series (MEDE, volume 10)


As digital spaces evolve, mathematics educators must develop an awareness of the ways in which these environments can facilitate discussion and foster creativity. Question and Answer (Q&A) sites such as Mathematics Educators Stack Exchange (MESE) provide a platform through which those interested in the teaching and learning of mathematics can harness new technologies to address novel queries, and engage collaboratively with others who share their interests. This chapter aims to trace one example of a question-answer combination on MESE as situated in the broader context of technology and creativity in mathematics education, and to utilize the example as a lens through which we can critically examine the current state of digital environments and reflect on their potential use by mathematics educators.


Collaborative emergence Mathematical creativity Online spaces Participatory model of creativity Q&A sites 


  1. Amabile, T. M. (1983). A consensual technique for creativity assessment. In The social psychology of creativity (pp. 37–63). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  3. Baer, J. (1998). The case for domain specificity of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11(2), 173–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baer, J., & McKool, S. (2009). Assessing creativity using the consensual assessment. In Handbook of assessment technologies, methods, and applications in higher education. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  5. Bateson, M. C. (2001). Composing a life. New York, NY: Grove Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bateson, M. C. (2004). Composing a life story. In Willing to learn: Passages of personal discovery (pp. 66–76). Hanover, NH: Steerford Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brizuela, B. (1997). Inventions and conventions: A story about capital numbers. For the Learning of Mathematics, 17(1), 2–6.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, S. I., & Walter, M. I. (2005). The art of problem posing (3rd ed.). London, UK: Psychology Press.
  9. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313–338). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. De Angelis, V., Kang, K., Mahavier, W. T., & Stenger, A. (2008). Nerd is the word. Math Horizons, 16(1), 28–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duncker, K., & Lees, L. S. (1945). On problem-solving. Psychological Monographs, 58(5).Google Scholar
  12. Erlwanger, S. H. (1973). Benny’s conception of rules and answers in IPI mathematics. Journal of Children’s Mathematical Behavior, 1(2), 7–26.Google Scholar
  13. Franklin, U. (1992). The real world of technology. Concord, ON: House of Anansi Press Ltd.Google Scholar
  14. Getzels, J. W. (1975). Problem-finding and the inventiveness of solutions. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 9(1), 12–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Getzels, J. W., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). The creative vision: A longitudinal study of problem finding in art. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Gruber, H. E., & Barrett, P. H. (1974). Darwin on man: A psychological study of scientific creativity. New York, NY: EP Dutton.Google Scholar
  17. Gruber, H. E., & Davis, S. N. (1988). 10 inching our way up Mount Olympus: The evolving-systems approach to creative thinking. The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary Psychological Perspectives, 243.Google Scholar
  18. Gruber, H. E., & Wallace, D. B. (1999). The case study method and evolving systems approach for understanding unique creative people at work. Handbook of Creativity, 93, 115.Google Scholar
  19. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hansen, R., & Froelich, M. (1994). Defining technology and technological education: A crisis, or cause for celebration? International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 4(2), 179–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hanson, M. H. (2015a). Worldmaking: Psychology and the ideology of creativity. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  22. Hanson, M. H. (2015b). The ideology of creativity and challenges of participation. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 11(3), 369–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hennessey, B. A. (1994). The consensual assessment technique: An examination of the relationship between ratings of product and process creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 7(2), 193–208.Google Scholar
  24. Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1999). Consensual assessment. Encyclopedia of Creativity, 1, 347–359.Google Scholar
  25. Karplus, R., & Fuller, R. G. (2002). A love of discovery: Science education—The second career of Robert Karplus. New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media.Google Scholar
  26. Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four c model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1).Google Scholar
  27. Kilpatrick, J. (1987). Formulating the problem: Where do good problems come from? In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 123–147). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  28. Kurtz, B. L. (1976). A study of teaching for proportional reasoning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Berkeley, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
  29. Kurtz, B., & Karplus, R. (1979). Intellectual development beyond elementary school VII: Teaching for proportional reasoning. School Science and Mathematics, 79(5), 387–398.Google Scholar
  30. Lobato, J., Ellis, A., & Zbiek, R. M. (2010). Developing essential understanding of ratios, proportions, and proportional reasoning for teaching mathematics: Grades 6–8. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  31. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mason, J. H. (2003). The value of creativity: The origins and emergence of a modern belief. Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  33. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  34. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  35. Noche, J. R. (2013). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in proportional reasoning of undergraduate students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of the Philippines Open University.Google Scholar
  36. Noche, J. R., & Vistro-Yu, C. P. (2015). Teaching proportional reasoning concepts and procedures using repetition with variation. In Paper Presented at the 7th ICMI—East Asia Regional Conference on Mathematics Education, Cebu City, Philippines.Google Scholar
  37. Plucker, J. A. (1998). Beware of simple conclusions: The case for content generality of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11(2), 179–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pólya, G. (1945). How to solve it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305–310.Google Scholar
  40. Rubin, A. (1999). Technology meets math education: Envisioning a practical future forum on the future of technology in education. Retrieved June 11, 2017 from
  41. Runco, M. A. (Ed.). (1994). Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  42. Runco, M. A. (2010). Divergent thinking, creativity, and ideation. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 413–446). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Sawyer, R. K. (2011). Structure and improvisation in creative teaching. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sawyer, R. K., & DeZutter, S. (2009). Distributed creativity: How collective creations emerge from collaboration. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(2), 81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  46. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2010). How we think: A theory of goal-oriented decision making and its educational applications. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Silver, E. A. (1994). On mathematical problem posing. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(1), 19–28.Google Scholar
  48. Stokes, P. D. (2005). Creativity from constraints: The psychology of breakthrough. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  49. Stokes, P. D. (2010). Using constraints to develop creativity in the classroom. In R. A. Beghetto & J. C. Kaugman (Eds.), Nurturing creativity in the classroom (pp. 88–112). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Tausczik, Y. R., Kittur, A., & Kraut, R. E. (2014, February). Collaborative problem solving: A study of mathoverflow. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 355–367). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
  51. Tourniaire, F., & Pulos, S. (1985). Proportional reasoning: A review of the literature. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 16(2), 181–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Treffinger, D. J. (1996). Creativity, creative thinking, and critical thinking: In search of Definitions. Sarasota, FL: Center for Creative Learning.Google Scholar
  53. Treffinger, D. J., Young, G. C., Selby, E. C., & Shepardson, C. (2002). Assessing creativity: A guide for education. Sarasota, FL: The National Research Center on the gifted and talented.Google Scholar
  54. Weisberg, R. (1986). Creativity: Genius and other myths. New York, NY: WH Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co.Google Scholar
  55. Weisberg, R. W. (2006). Creativity: Understanding innovation in problem solving, science, invention, and the arts. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  56. Wertheimer, M. (1959). Productive thinking: Enlarged edition. New York, NY: Harper.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.New YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations