User Name:

Password:
Welcome Guest
Journals Home > The Journal Of Secondary Gifted Education > Volume 17 |  Issue 1 > Article Abstract
 

Abstract

Back to TOC
Reference
X

  • Bejat, M. (1972). Creativity and problem solving. Studia Psychologica, 14, 301–308.
  • Boyce, L. N., VanTassel-Baska, J., Burruss, J. D., Sher, B. T., & Johnson, D. T. (1997). A problem-based curriculum: Parallel learning opportunities for students and teachers. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 363–379.
  • Carmona, L. (2001). Sue the dinosaur. Unpublished manuscript.
  • Carmona, L. (2002). Historic hotels. Unpublished manuscript.
  • Carmona, L., & Hjalmarson, M. (2001). Quilt problem. Unpublished manuscript.
  • Carpenter, T. P., & Moser, J. M. (1983). The acquisition of addition and subtraction concepts. In R. A. Lesh & M. Landau (Eds.), Acquisition of mathematical concepts and processes (pp. 7–44). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
  • Chamberlin, M. T. (2002). Teacher investigations of students’ work: The evolution of teachers’ social processes and interpretations of students’ thinking. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
  • Chamberlin, M. T. (2004). Design principles for teacher investigations of student work. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 6, 61–72.
  • Chamberlin, M. T., & Hjalmarson, M. (2002). Aluminum bats. Unpublished manuscript.
  • Chamberlin, S. A. (2000). Summer sports camp. Unpublished manuscript.
  • Chamberlin, S. A. (2005). Secondary mathematics for high-ability students. In F. Dixon & S. Moon (Eds.), The handbook of secondary gifted education (pp. 145–163). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
  • Chamberlin, S. A., & Chamberlin, M. T. (2001). On-time arrival. Unpublished manuscript.
  • Cooper, B., & Harries, T. (2003). Children’s use of realistic considerations in problem solving: Some English evidence. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22, 451–465.
  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313–335). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • Dark, M. J. (2003). A models and modeling perspective on skills for the high performance work place. In R. Lesh & H. M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 279–296). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
  • Fasko, D. (2001). Education and creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 317–328.
  • Feist, G. J. (2005). Domain-specific creativity in the physical sciences. In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse (pp. 123–137). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
  • Fishkin, A. S., Cramond, B., & Olszewski-Kubilius (Eds.). (1999). Investigating creativity in youth: Research and methods. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
  • Gallagher, S. A., (1997). Problem-based learning: Where did it come from, what does it do, and where is it going? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 332–362.
  • Gallagher, S. A., & Stepien, W. A. (1995). Implementing problem-based learning in science classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 95, 136–146.
  • Glas, E. F. (2002). Klein’s model of mathematical creativity. Science and Education, 11, 95–104.
  • Gruber, H. E. (1989). The evolving systems approach to creative work. In D. B. Wallace & H. E. Gruber (Eds.), Creative people at work. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Gruber, H. E., & Davis, S. N. (1988). Inching our way up Mount Olympus: The evolving-systems approach to creative thinking. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 243–270). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 267–293.
  • Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Wearne, D., Murray, H., et al. (1997). Making sense: Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Publishers.
  • Hjalmarson, M. (2001, October). A modeling perspective on metacognition in everyday problem solving situations. Paper presented at the North American chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Snowbird, UT.
  • Hmelo, C. E., & Ferrari, M. (1997). The problem-based learning tutorial: Cultivating higher-order thinking skills. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 401–422.
  • Hoomes, E. W. (1986). Future problem solving: Preparing students for a world community. Gifted and Talented International, 6(1), 16–20.
  • Houtz, J. C., Lewis, C. D., Shaning, D. J., & Denmark, R. M. (1983). Predictive validity of teacher ratings of creativity over two years. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 168–173.
  • Kaufman, J. C. (2004). Sure I’m creative—but not in mathematics!: Self-reported creativity in diverse domains. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 22, 143–155.
  • Lamon, S. (2003). Beyond constructivism: An improved fitness metaphor for the acquisition of mathematical knowledge. In R. Lesh & H. M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 435–448). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
  • Lesh, R., & Lamon, S. (1992). Assessing authentic mathematical performance. In R. Lesh & S. J. Lamon (Eds.), Assessment of authentic performance in school mathematics (pp. 17–62). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
  • Lesh, R., Hoover, M., Hole, B., Kelly, A., & Post, T. (2000). Principles for developing thought-revealing activities for students and teachers. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research in mathematics and science education (pp. 113–149). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
  • Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. M. (2003). Foundations of models and modeling perspective on mathematics teaching and learning. In R. Lesh & H. M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 3–34). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
  • Lesh, R., Lester, F., & Hjalmarson, M. (2003). A models and modeling perspective on metacognitive functioning in everyday situations where problem solvers develop mathematical constructs. In R. Lesh & H. M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 383–404). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
  • Milgram, R. M., & Livne, N. L. (2005). Creativity as a general and a domain-specific ability: The domain of mathematics as an exemplar. In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse (pp. 187–204). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  • Piirto, J. (1998). Understanding those who create. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
  • Prenzel, M. (1992). The selective persistence of interest. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest and development (pp. 71–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
  • Schack, G. D. (1993). Effects of a creative problem solving curriculum on students of varying ability levels. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 32–38.
  • 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. 334–370). New York: Simon & Schuster Publishing.
  • Starko, A. J. (1995). Creativity in the classroom: Schools of curious delight. White Plains, NY: Longman.
  • Steiner, G. F., & Stoecklin, M. (1997). Fraction calculation: A didactic approach to constructing mathematical networks. Learning & Instruction, 7, 211–233.
  • Stepien, W., & Gallagher, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: As authentic as it gets. Educational Leadership, 50, 25–28.
  • Stepien, W., Gallagher, S., & Workman, D. (1993). Problem-based learning for traditional interdisciplinary classrooms. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 338–357.
  • Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Developing mathematical reasoning. In L. V. Stiff & F. R. Curcio (Eds.), The nature of mathematical reasoning (pp. 37–44). Reston, VA: NCTM.
  • Tuli, M. R. (1982). Sex and regional differences in mathematical creativity. Indian Educational Review, 17, 128–134.
  • Wieczerkowski, W., Cropley, A. J., & Prado, T. M. (2000). Nurturing talent/gifts in mathematics. In K. Heller, F. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 413–426). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Publishers.
  • Wood, T., Merkel, G., & Uerkwitz, J. (1996). Creating a context for talking about mathematical thinking. Educacao e matematica, 4, 39–43.
  • Zawojewski, J., & Lesh, R. (1999). O’Hare airport problem. Unpublished manuscript.
  • Zawojewski, J., Lesh, R., & English, L. (2003). A models and modeling perspective on the role of small group learning activities. In R. Lesh & H. M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 337–358). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
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 17
  •  Issue 1
  • Publication Date: Fall 2005



Model-Eliciting Activities as a Tool to Develop and Identify Creatively Gifted Mathematicians

Scott A. Chamberlin & Sidney M. Moon

This article addresses the use of Model-Eliciting Activities (MEAs) as a (curricular) tool to develop mathematical creativity and identify students who are creatively gifted in mathematics. The thesis of this article is that by using MEAs, gifted educators can: (a) provide students with opportunities to develop creative and applied mathematical thinking; and (b) analyze students’ mathematical thinking when engaged in creative mathematical tasks, aiding in the identification of those students who are especially talented in domain-specific, mathematical creativity. The authors’ conclude that MEAs have potential for both developing and identifying creatively gifted mathematicians in the middle grades.


ShoppingCart Summary

Shopping
Your cart is empty.