User Name:

Password:
Welcome Guest
Journals Home > The Journal Of Secondary Gifted Education > Volume 14 |  Issue 3 > Article Abstract
 

Abstract

Back to TOC
Reference
X

  • Birkhoff, G. (1969). Mathematics and psychology. SIAM Review, 11, 429–469.
  • Brownell, W. A. (1942). The place and meaning in the teaching of arithmetic. The Elementary School Journal, 4, 256–265.
  • Burton, L. (1984). Mathematical thinking: The struggle for meaning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 15, 35–49.
  • Davis, P. J., & Hersh, R. (1981). The mathematical experience. New York: Houghton-Mifflin.
  • Davydov, V. V. (1990). Type of generalization in instruction: Soviet studies in mathematics education. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  • Dienes, Z. P. (1961). On abstraction and generalization. Harvard Educational Review, 31, 281–301.
  • Dreyfus, T. (1991). Advanced mathematical thinking processes. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 25–40). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Dubinsky, E. (1991). Constructive aspects of reflective abstraction in advanced mathematics. In L. P. Steffe (Ed.), Epistemological foundations of mathematical experience (pp. 160–187). New York: Springer-Verlag.
  • English, L. D. (1992). Problem solving with combinations. Arithmetic Teacher, 40(2), 72–77.
  • Ervynck, G. (1991). Mathematical creativity. In D. Tall (Ed.). Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 42–53). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Frensch, P., & Sternberg, R. (1992). Complex problem solving: Principles and mechanisms. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Gardner, M. (1997). The last recreations. New York: Springer-Verlag.
  • Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1977). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. San Francisco: University of California Press.
  • Greenes, C. (1981). Identifying the gifted student in mathematics. Arithmetic Teacher, 28, 14–18.
  • Kanevsky, L. S. (1990). Pursuing qualitative differences in the flexible use of a problem solving strategy by young children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13, 115–140.
  • Kilpatrick, J. (1985). A retrospective account of the past twenty-five years of research on teaching mathematical problem solving. In E. A. Silver (Ed.), Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving: Multiple research perspectives (pp. 1–16). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Krutetskii, V. A. (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in school children.(J. Teller, Trans.; J. Kilpatrick & I. Wirszup, Eds.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Lester, F. K. (1985). Methodological considerations in research on mathematical problem solving. In E. A. Silver (Ed.), Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving: Multiple research perspectives (pp. 41–70). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Mandler, G. (1984). Mind and body: Psychology of emotion and stress. New York: Norton.
  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
  • Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and knowledge. Edinburgh University Press.
  • Piaget, J. (1975). The child’s conception of the world. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams.
  • Polya, G. (1945). How to solve it. NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. New York: Academic Press.
  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334–368). New York: Simon and Schuster.
  • Shapiro, S. I. (1965). A study of pupil’s individual characteristics in processing mathematical information. Voprosy Psikhologii, 2, 1–113.
  • Skemp, R. (1986). The psychology of learning mathematics. Penguin Books.
  • Sternberg, R. J. (1979). Human intelligence: Perspectives on its theory and measurement. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  • von Glasersfeld, E. (1987). Learning as a constructive activity. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 3–18), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fields marked with an asterisk * are mandatory.
 

Your Name:*
 

Your Email:*
 

Friend's Name:*
 

Friend's Email:*
 

Message:
 

 
Send CC to self
 

 
 

Bookmark
X
  • Volume 14
  •  Issue 3
  • Publication Date: Spring 2003



Mathematical Giftedness, Problem Solving, and the Ability to Formulate Generalizations: The Problem-Solving Experiences of Four Gifted Students

Bharath Sriraman

Complex mathematical tasks such as problem solving are an ideal way to provide students opportunities to develop higher order mathematical processes such as representation, abstraction, and generalization. In this study, 9 freshmen in a ninth-grade accelerated algebra class were asked to solve five nonroutine combinatorial problems in their journals. The problems were assigned over the course of 3 months at increasing levels of complexity. The generality that characterized the solutions of the 5 problems was the pigeonhole (Dirichlet) principle. The 4 mathematically gifted students were successful in discovering and verbalizing the generality that characterized the solutions of the 5 problems, whereas the 5 nongifted students were unable to discover the hidden generality. This validates the hypothesis that there exists a relationship between mathematical giftedness, problem-solving ability, and the ability to generalize. This paper describes the problem-solving experiences of the mathematically gifted students and how they formulated abstractions and generalizations, with implications for acceleration and the need for differentiation in the secondary mathematics classroom.


ShoppingCart Summary

Shopping
Your cart is empty.