Creativity-Related Instructional Strategies in Secondary Mathematics Classrooms: A Case Study
Main Article Content
Abstract
The Philippine mathematics curriculum encouraged teachers to promote students’ creativity in the classrooms to equip students with “21st century skills”. However, mathematics instruction often emphasized traditional teaching methods which limit students’ creative thinking. Additionally, fewer studies documented how creativity-related instructional strategies were enacted in a mathematics classroom, especially in the Philippine context. Therefore, this case study investigated the creativity-related instructional strategies employed by a teacher in teaching mathematics. The study was conducted in a laboratory school of a state university in Region X, Philippines. The class involved a teacher and 34 7th grade students. Data collection was done through observations, and interviews. Seven classes about division on polynomials were continuously observed. These were video recorded, transcribed verbatim, and segmented into classroom talk episodes. Qualitative content analysis, guided by a coding framework, was used to analyze the episodes. On the other hand, interviews with the teacher were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed thematically to support findings. The findings revealed that the teacher employed a range of creativity-related instructional strategies. These were categorized into four general themes: (1) allow collaborative making sense of mathematics, (2) elicit conjectures with respect, (3) stimulate divergent thinking, and (4) guide convergent thinking. Specific instructional strategies in each theme were discussed. However, opportunities for students to connect ideas to real-world contexts were limited. The findings suggested that the teacher was able to create opportunities for the students to express creative thinking in the mathematics classroom.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
AAli, D., Zubaidah Amir, M. Z., & Vebrianto, R. (2021). Literature Review: Mathematical Creative Thinking Ability, and Students' Self Regulated Learning to Use an Open Ended Approach. Malikussaleh Journal of Mathematics Learning, 4(1), 52-61.
Amabile, T. M., & Pratt, M. G. (2016). The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research in organizational behavior, 36, 157-183.
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special. Journal of teacher education, 59(5), 389-407.
Basic, A., Arsic, B., Gajic, A., Parezanovic, R. Z., Macesic, D., & Petrovic, T. L. (2022). Creativity in teaching mathematics. Human Research in Rehabilitation, 12(2), 127-137.
Biccard, P. (2018). Mathematical sense-making through learner choice. Pythagoras, 39(1), 1-9.
Bicer, A. (2021). A systematic literature review: Discipline-specific and general instructional practices fostering the mathematical creativity of students. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology (IJEMST), 9(2), 252-281. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.1254
Brandt, W. C. (2023). Measuring student success skills: A review of the literature on creative thinking. National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment. https://www. nciea.org/library/measuringstudent-success-skills-a-review-of-the-literature-on-creative-thinking.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Buan, A. T., Medina, J. B., & Liwanag, G. P. (2021, March). Capacity building in teaching mathematics through problem solving. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1835, No. 1, p. 012090). IOP Publishing.
Catarino, P., Vasco, P., Lopes, J., Silva, H., & Morais, E. (2019). Cooperative learning on promoting creative thinking and mathematical creativity in higher education. REICE. Revista Iberoamericana Sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio En Educacion, 17(3), 5-22.
Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1996). Constructivist, emergent, and sociocultural perspectives in the context of developmental research. Educational Psychologist, 31(3–4), 175–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1996.9653265
Craft, A. (2008). Studying collaborative creativity: Implications for education. Thinking skills and creativity, 3(3), 241-245.
Creswell, J. W., & Guetterman, T. C. (2019). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (6th ed.). Pearson.
Cropley, A. (2006). Creativity: A social approach. Roeper review, 28(3), 125-130.
Davis, N., Hsiao, C. P., Singh, K. Y., Lin, B., & Magerko, B. (2017, June). Creative sense-making: Quantifying interaction dynamics in co-creation. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition (pp. 356-366).
DeCuir-Gunby, J. T., Marshall, P. L., & McCulloch, A. W. (2011). Developing and using a codebook for the analysis of interview data: An example from a professional development research project. Field methods, 23(2), 136-155.
Department of Education. (2023). MATATAG curriculum: Mathematics curriculum guide (Grades 1, 4, and 7). Department of Education.
Duff, P. (2018). Case study research in applied linguistics. Routledge.
Fitzgerald, M. S., & Palincsar, A. S. (2019). Teaching practices that support student sensemaking across grades and disciplines: A conceptual review. Review of Research in Education, 43(1), 227-248.
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2011). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Francome, T., & Hewitt, D. (2020). “My math lessons are all about learning from your mistakes”: how mixed-attainment mathematics grouping affects the way students experience mathematics. Educational Review, 72(4), 475-494.
Guilford, J. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist. 5 (9), 444–454. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0063487.
Hadar, L. L., & Tirosh, M. (2019). Creative thinking in mathematics curriculum: An analytic framework. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 33, 100585.
Hong, E. (2013). Creative thinking abilities: Measures for various domains. In Teaching and measuring cognitive readiness (pp. 201–222). Springer US.
Jasmin, D. R., & Buan, A. (2025). A Systematic Review on Instructional Strategies Promoting K-12 Students’ Creative Thinking in Mathematics. Journal of Innovation, Advancement, and Methodology in STEM education, 2(3), 176-190.
Johansen, A., Mogstad, E., Gajic, B., & Bungum, B. (2022). Incorporating creativity in science and mathematics teaching: Teachers’ views on opportunities and challenges. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 18(1), 98-111.
Lee, K. H., Moon, S. J., & Noh, J. W. (2022). Integration of mathematical creativity into everyday classes through dynamics between divergent and convergent thinking. ZDM Mathematics Education, 54(1), 179-192.
Leinwand, S., Brahier, D. J., Huinker, D., Berry, R. Q., Dillon, F. L., Larson, M. R., ... & Smith, M. S. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. NCTM, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Nadjafikhah, M., Yaftian, N., & Bakhshalizadeh, S. (2012). Mathematical creativity: some definitions and characteristics. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 285-291.
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International journal of qualitative methods, 16(1), 1609406917733847.
OECD (2023). PISA 2022 Assessment and Analytical Framework. PISA. OECD Publishing. Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/dfe0bf9c-en.
OECD (2024). PISA 2022 Results (Volume III): Creative Minds, Creative Schools. PISA. OECD Publishing. Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/765ee8c2-en.
Pascua, F., & Romero, D. (2020). Teaching styles and student engagement in the Philippines: An analysis of secondary education. Philippine Journal of Education Research, 30(1), 88-104.
Schleppenbach, M., Flevares, L. M., Sims, L. M., & Perry, M. (2007). Teachers’ responses to student mistakes in Chinese and US mathematics classrooms. The elementary school journal, 108(2), 131-147.
Schoevers, E. M., Leseman, P. P., Slot, E. M., Bakker, A., Keijzer, R., & Kroesbergen, E. H. (2019). Promoting pupils’ creative thinking in primary school mathematics: A case study. Thinking skills and creativity, 31, 323-334.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard educational review, 57(1), 1-23.
Silver, E. A. (1994). On mathematical problem posing. For the learning of mathematics, 14(1), 19-28.
Silver, E. A. (1997). Fostering creativity through instruction rich in mathematical problem solving and problem posing. ZDM Mathematics Education, 29(3), 75-80.
Simsek, Z. Z. (2020). Constructing-evaluating-refining mathematical conjectures and proofs. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 21(2), 197-215.
Siswono, T. Y. E. (2010). Leveling students' creative thinking in solving and posing mathematical problem. Journal on Mathematics Education, 1(1), 17-40.
Sriraman, B. (2005). Are giftedness and creativity synonyms in mathematics?. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(1), 20-36.
Tabach, M., & Levenson, E. (2018). Solving a task with infinitely many solutions: Convergent and divergent thinking in mathematical creativity. In Broadening the scope of research on mathematical problem solving: A focus on technology, creativity and affect (pp. 219-242). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Tan, A. G., & Sriraman, B. (2017). Convergence in creativity development for mathematical capacity. In R. Leikin & B. Sriraman (Eds.), Creativity and giftedness: interdisciplinary perspectives from mathematics and beyond (pp. 117–134). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Torrance, E. P. (1974). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking—Norms Technical Manual Research Edition—Verbal Tests, Forms A and B—Figural Tests, Forms A and B. Personnel Press.
Unal, H., & Demir, İ. (2009). Divergent thinking and mathematics achievement in Turkey: Findings from the programme for international student achievement (PISA-2003). Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 1767-1770.
Vaismoradi, M., & Snelgrove, S. (2019). Theme in qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis. In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research (Vol. 20, No. 3). DEU.
van Velzen, J. H. (2016). Evaluating the suitability of mathematical thinking problems for senior high-school students by including mathematical sense making and global planning. The curriculum journal, 27(3), 313-329.
Veith, J. M., & Bitzenbauer, P. (2022). What group theory can do for you: From magmas to abstract thinking in school mathematics. Mathematics, 10(5), 703. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10050703
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (Vol. 86). Harvard university press.
