Using Multiple Solution Tasks for the Evaluation of Students’ Problem-Solving Performance in Geometry

Acevedo Nistal, A., Van Dooren, W., Clarebout, G., Elen, J., & Verschaffel, L. (2009). Conceptualising, investigating and stimulating representational flexibility in mathematical problem solving and learning: A critical review. ZDM Mathematics Education, 41, 627–636. Ball, D. (1988). The subject matter preparation of prospective mathematics teachers: Challenging the myths (Research Report 88–3). East Lansing: Michigan State University, National Center for Research on Teacher Education. Retrieved from http://ncrtl.msu.edu/http/rreports/html/pdf/rr883.pdf Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2003). Toward a practice-based theory of mathematical knowledge for teaching. In B. Davis & E. Simmt (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2002 annual meeting of the Canadian Mathematics Education Study Group (pp. 3–14). Edmonton, Alberta: CMESG. Chamberlin, S. A., & Moon, S. M. (2005). Model-eliciting activities as a research instrument to develop and identify creatively gifted mathematicians. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 1, 37–47. Chazan, D. (1993). High school geometry students’ justification for their views of empirical evidence and mathematical proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24, 359–387. Clements, D. H. (2003). Teaching and learning geometry. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 151–173). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Clements, D. H., & Battista, M. T. (1992). Geometry and spatial reasoning. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 420–464). New York, NY: Macmillan. De Villiers, M. (2004). Using dynamic geometry to expend mathematics teachers’ understanding of proof. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 35, 703–724. Dreyfus, T., & Eisenberg, T. (1986). On the aesthetics of mathematical thought. For the Learning of Mathematics, 6(1), 2–10. Elia, I., Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Kolovou, A. (2009). Exploring strategy use and strategy flexibility in nonroutine problem solving by primary school high achievers in mathematics. ZDM Mathematics Education,41, 605–618. Ervynck, G. (1991). Mathematical creativity. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 42–53). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Fennema, E., & Romberg, T. A. (Eds.). (1999). Classrooms that promote mathematical understanding. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Goldin, G. A. (2009). The affective domain and students’ mathematical inventiveness. In R. Leikin, A. Berman, & B. Koichu (Eds.), Creativity in mathematics and the education of gifted students (pp. 149–163). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Hanna, G. (1996, July). The ongoing value of proof. Paper presented at Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME 20), Valencia, Spain. Retrieved from http://fcis.oise.utoronto.ca/~ghanna/pme96prf.html Hansen, V. L. (1998). General considerations on curricula designs in geometry. In C. Mammana & V. Villani (Eds.), Perspectives on the teaching of geometry for the 21st century (pp. 235–242). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Haylock, D. W. (1987). A framework for assessing mathematical creativity in schoolchildren. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 18, 59–74. Heinze A., Star, J., & Verschaffel, L. (2009). Flexible/adaptive use of strategies and representations in mathematics education. [Special issue]. ZDM Mathematics Education, 41, 535–707. Herbst, P. (2002). Engaging students in proving: A double bind on the teacher. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33, 176–203. Herbst, P., & Brach, C. (2006). Proving and doing proofs in high school geometry classes: What is it that is going on for students? Cognition and Instruction, 24, 73–122. Hershkowitz, R. (1990). Psychological aspects of learning geometry. In J. Kilpatric & P. Nesher (Eds.), Mathematics and cognition (70–95). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Hershkowitz, R., Parzysz, B., & Van Dormolen, J. (1996). Space and shape. In A. J. Bishop, M. A. Clements, & C. Keitel (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics education, (pp. 161–204). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. A. Ggrouws (Ed.), Handbook for research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 65–97). New York, NY: Macmillan. House, P. A., & Coxford, A. F. (1995). Connecting mathematics across the curriculum: 1995 Yearbook. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Krutetskii, V. A. (Author), Kilpatrick, J., & Wirszup, I. (Eds.). (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in schoolchildren. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Kwon, O. N., Park, J. S., & Park, J. H. (2006). Cultivating divergent thinking in mathematics through an open-ended approach. Asia Pacific Education Review, 7, 51–61. Laborde, C. (2000). Dynamic geometry environments as a source of rich learning contexts for the complex activity of proving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44, 151–161. Leikin, R. (2003). Problem-solving preferences of mathematics teachers: Focusing on symmetry. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6, 297–329. Leikin, R. (2006). About four types of mathematical connections and solving problems in different ways. Aleh-The (Israeli) Senior School Mathematics Journal, 36, 8–14. Leikin, R. (2007). Habits of mind associated with advanced mathematical thinking and solution spaces of mathematical tasks. In The Fifth Conference of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education–CERME-5. (pp. 2330–2339) (CD-ROM and Online). Retrieved from http://ermeweb.free.fr/Cerme5.pdf Leikin, R. (2009a). Exploring mathematical creativity using multiple solution tasks. In R. Leikin, A. Berman & B. Koichu (Eds.), Creativity in mathematics and the education of gifted students. (pp. 129–145). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense. Leikin, R. (2009b). Multiple proof tasks: Teacher practice and teacher education. In F.-L. Lin, F.-J. Hsieh, G. Hana, & M. De Villiers (Eds.), The proceedings of the 19th ICMI Study conference: Proofs and proving in mathematics education (Vol. 2, pp. 31–36).Taipei, Taiwan: National Taipei University. Leikin, R., & Lev, M. (2007). Multiple solution tasks as a magnifying glass for observation of mathematical creativity. In J.-H. Woo, H.-C. Lew, K.-S. Park, & D.-Y. Seo (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 161–168). Seoul, Korea: The Korea Society of Educational Studies in Mathematics. Leikin, R., & Levav-Waynberg, A. (2007). Exploring mathematics teacher knowledge to explain the gap between theory-based recommendations and school practice in the use of connecting tasks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66, 349–371. Leikin, R., & Levav-Waynberg, A. (2008). Solution spaces of multiple-solution connecting tasks as a mirror of the development of mathematics teachers’ knowledge. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 8(3), 233–251. Leikin, R., Levav-Waynberg, A., Gurevich, I., & Mednikov, L. (2006). Implementation of multiple solution connecting tasks: Do students’ attitudes support teachers’ reluctance? Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 28, 1–22. Levav-Waynberg, A. (2011). Solving geometry problems in different ways to promote the development of geometric knowledge and creativity. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel. Liljedahl, P., & Sriraman, B. (2006). Musings on mathematical creativity. For the Learning of Mathematics, 26, 20–23. Lithner, J. (2008). A research framework for creative and imitative reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67, 255–276. Mann, E. L. (2006). Creativity: The essence of mathematics. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30, 236–260. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. Neubrand, M. (1998). General tendencies in the development of geometry teaching in the past two decades. In C. Mammana & V. Villani (Eds.), Perspectives on the teaching of geometry for the 21st century (pp. 226–228). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Poincaré, H. (1948). Science and method. New York, NY: Dover. Polya, G. (1963). On learning, teaching, and learning teaching. American Mathematical Monthly, 70, 605–619. Polya, G. (1973). How to solve it; a new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Polya, G. (1981). Mathematical discovery: On understanding, learning and teaching problem solving. New York, NY: Wiley. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1983). Problem solving in the mathematics curriculum: A report, recommendations, and an annotated bibliography. Washington, DC: The Mathematical Association of America. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1988). When good teaching leads to bad results: The disasters of “well-taught” mathematics courses. Educational Psychologist, 23, 145–166. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1994). What do we know about mathematics curricula? Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, 13, 55–80. Senk, S. L., & Thompson, D. R. (2003). Standards-based school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Sierpinska, A. (1994). Understanding in mathematics. Washington, DC: Falmer. Silver, E. A. (1997). Fostering creativity through instruction rich in mathematical problem solving and problem posing. ZDM-Zentralblatt fuer Didaktik der Mathematik, 3, 75–80. Simon, M. A. (1989). Intuitive understanding in geometry: The third leg. School Science and Mathematics, 89, 373–379. Skemp, R. R. (1987). The psychology of learning mathematics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Sriraman, B. (2005). Are giftedness and creativity synonyms in mathematics? The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 20–36. Sriraman, B. (2009). The characteristics of mathematical creativity. ZDM Mathematics Education, 41, 13–27. Star, J. R., & Newton, K. J. (2009). The nature and development of experts’ strategy flexibility for solving equations. ZDM Mathematics Education, 41, 557–567. Star, J. R., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2008). Flexibility in problem solving: The case of equation solving. Learning and Instruction, 18, 565–579. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity. American Psychologist, 51, 677–688. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (2000). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 93–115). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Subotnik, R. F., Pillmeier, E., & Jarvin, L. (2009). The psychosocial dimensions of creativity in mathematics: Implications for gifted education policy. In R. Leikin, A. Berman, & B. Koichu (Eds.), Creativity in mathematics and the education of gifted students. (pp. 165–179). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense. Torbeyns, J., De Smedt, B., Ghesquière, P., & Verschaffel, L. (2009). Jump or compensate? Strategy flexibility in the number domain up to 100. ZDM Mathematics Education, 41, 581–590. Torrance, E. P. (1974). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Technical-norms manual. Benseville, IL: Scholastic Testing Services. Van Hiele, P. M. (1986). Structure and insight. A theory of mathematics education. London, England: Academic Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1930) Wagner, D. (2003). Being in a mathematical place: Immersion in mathematical investigation. In B. Davis & E. Simmt (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2002 Annual Meeting of the Canadian Mathematics Education Study Group, (p. 149). Edmonton, AB, Canada: CMESG. Warner, L. B., Schorr, R. Y., & Davis, G. E. (2009). Flexible use of symbolic research instruments for problem solving, generalization, and explanation. ZDM Mathematics Education, 41, 663–679. Weisberg, R. W. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius. New York, NY: Freeman. Zazkis, R., & Leikin, R. (2008). Exemplifying definitions: Example generation for the analysisof mathematics knowledge. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 69, 131–148.