Problem Posing and Creativity in Elementary-School Mathematics

Goldenberg, E. Paul

Volume 14 · Number 3 · Pages 319–331

< Previous Paper · Next Paper >

Problem Posing and Creativity in Elementary-School Mathematics

E. Paul Goldenberg

Abstract

Context: In 1972, Papert emphasized that “[t]he important difference between the work of a child in an elementary mathematics class and […]a mathematician” is “not in the subject matter […]but in the fact that the mathematician is creatively engaged […]” Along with creative, Papert kept saying children should be engaged in projects rather than problems. A project is not just a large problem, but involves sustained, active engagement, like children’s play. For Papert, in 1972, computer programming suggested a flexible construction medium, ideal for a research-lab/playground tuned to mathematics for children. In 1964, without computers, Sawyer also articulated research-playgrounds for children, rooted in conventional content, in which children would learn to act and think like mathematicians. Problem: This target article addresses the issue of designing a formal curriculum that helps children develop the mathematical habits of mind of creative tinkering, puzzling through, and perseverance. I connect the two mathematicians/educators - Papert and Sawyer - tackling three questions: How do genuine puzzles differ from school problems? What is useful about children creating puzzles? How might puzzles, problem-posing and programming-centric playgrounds enhance mathematical learning? Method: This analysis is based on forty years of curriculum analysis, comparison and construction, and on research with children. Results: In physical playgrounds most children choose challenge. Papert’s ideas tapped that try-something-new and puzzle-it-out-for-yourself spirit, the drive for challenge. Children can learn a lot in such an environment, but what (and how much) they learn is left to chance. Formal educational systems set standards and structures to ensure some common learning and some equity across students. For a curriculum to tap curiosity and the drive for challenge, it needs both the playful looseness that invites exploration and the structure that organizes content. Implications: My aim is to provide support for mathematics teachers and curriculum designers to design or teach in accord with their constructivist thinking. Constructivist content: This article enriches Papert’s constructionism with curricular ideas from Sawyer and from the work that I and my colleagues have done. Key words: Problem posing, puzzles, mathematics, algebra, computer programming.

Citation

Goldenberg E. P. (2019) Problem posing and creativity in elementary-school mathematics. Constructivist Foundations 14(3): 319–331. https://constructivist.info/14/3/319

Export article citation data: Plain Text · BibTex · EndNote · Reference Manager (RIS)

References

Cuoco A. (1990) Investigations in algebra. MIT Press, Cambridge MA. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Danesi M. (2002) The puzzle instinct. Indiana University Press: Bloomington IN. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Goldenberg E. P. & Carter C. J. (2018) Myths of priority and unity in mathematics learning. Education Sciences 8(2): 85. https://www.mdpi.com/2227–7102/8/2/85/htm

Goldenberg E. P. & Shteingold N. (2007) Early algebra: The MW perspective. In: Kaput J. J., Carraher D. W. & Blanton M. L. (eds.) Algebra in the early grades. Erlbaum, Hillsdale NJ: 449–475. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Goldenberg E. P. & Shteingold N. (2007) The case of Think Math! In: Hirsch C. (ed.) Perspectives on the design and development of school mathematics curricula. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston VA: 49–64. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Goldenberg E. P., Mark J., Kang J., Fries M., Carter C. & Cordner T. (2015) Making sense of algebra: Developing students’ mathematical habits of mind. Heinemann, Portsmouth NH. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Lewis P. (1990) Approaching precalculus mathematics discretely. MIT Press, Cambridge MA. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Mark J., Goldenberg E. P., Kang J., Fries M. & Cordner T. (2014) Transition to algebra. Heinemann, Portsmouth NH. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Otten M., Heuvel-Panhuizen, M van den, Veldhuis M., Heinze A. & Goldenberg E. P. (2017) Eliciting algebraic reasoning with hanging mobiles. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom 22(3): 14–19. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Papert S. (1972) Teaching children to be mathematicians versus teaching about mathematics. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 3(3): 249–262. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Sawyer W. W. (2003) Vision in elementary mathematics. Dover, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Schulz L. E. & Bonawitz E. B. (2007) Serious fun: Preschoolers engage in more exploratory play when evidence is confounded. Developmental Psychology 43(4): 1045–1050. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Sendova E. & Sendov B. (1994) Using computers in school to provide linguistic approaches to mathematics: A Bulgarian example. Machine-Mediated Learning 4(1): 27–65. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Sendova E. (2013) Assisting the art of discovery at school age: The Bulgarian experience. In: Sanchez-Escobedo P. (ed.) Talent development around the world. Mérida, Yucatán: 39–98. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Wirtz R., Botel M., Beberman M. & Sawyer W. W. (1964) Math workshop. 17 volumes. Encyclopaedia Britannica Press, Chicago IL. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Comments: 0

To stay informed about comments to this publication and post comments yourself, please log in first.

LATEST ISSUES

FOLLOW US

Abstract

Citation

References

Comments: 0