Systematic Review of the Tools Used to Measure Students' Mathematical Creative Thinking Skills

Authors
Marzieh Haghayeghi 1
Ali Moghadamzadeh 1
Hamdollah Ravand 2
Mohamad Javadipour 1
Hossein Kareshki 3
1 University of Tehran
2 Vali-e-Asr University of Rafsanjan
3 Tehran University
Abstract
As the focus on fostering creative thinking in math education grows, there is a growing interest in understanding how to evaluate these skills. This study used a systematic review following PRISMA guidelines to explore how creative mathematical thinking is assessed in academic literature. After carefully analyzing 55 studies, we looked at different aspects like educational levels, math concepts, assessment methods, and the reliability and validity of these assessments. Our findings revealed that most studies focused on assessing creative thinking in junior secondary education, with limited attention given to primary education. Geometry and measurement were the most commonly assessed subjects, likely due to their visual nature, which lends itself well to assessing creativity. Many assessment tools used open-ended questions, while some incorporated ethnomathematics-based questions. However, less than half of the studies provided evidence of reliability, and only about half reported validity evidence, mostly related to content validity. This review highlights a gap in research concerning the measurement and assessment of creative mathematical thinking.
Keywords
Mathematical Creative Thinking
Mathematics
Assessment
Measurement Tools
Ethnomathematics
1. Hadar LL, Tirosh M. Creative thinking in mathematics curriculum: An analytic framework. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2019;33:100585.
2. Hidajat FA. Augmented reality applications for mathematical creativity: a systematic review. Journal of Computers in Education. 2023.
3. Ulfah U, Prabawanto S, Jupri A. Students’ Mathematical Creative Thinking through Problem Posing Learning. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2017;895(1):012097.
4. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2009;62(10):e1-e34.
5. Kryshtafovych A, Schwede T, Topf M, Fidelis K, Moult J. Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction (CASP)—Round XV. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics. 2023;91(12):1539-49.
6. Wirsching J, Graßmann S, Eichelmann F, Harms LM, Schenk M, Barth E, et al. Development and reliability assessment of a new quality appraisal tool for cross-sectional studies using biomarker data (BIOCROSS). BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2018;18(1):122.
7. Colmar S, Liem GAD, Connor J, Martin AJ. Exploring the relationships between academic buoyancy, academic self-concept, and academic performance: a study of mathematics and reading among primary school students. Educational Psychology. 2019;39(8):1068-89.
8. Calavia MB, Blanco T, Casas R. Fostering creativity as a problem-solving competence through design: Think-Create-Learn, a tool for teachers. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2021;39:100761.
9. Suherman S, Vidákovich T. Assessment of mathematical creative thinking: A systematic review. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2022;44:101019.
10. Sadak M, Incikabi L, Ulusoy F, Pektas M. Investigating mathematical creativity through the connection between creative abilities in problem posing and problem solving. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2022;45:101108.
11. Ikram M, Rahayuningsih S, Sirajuddin S. Using Open-ended Problem-solving Tests to Identify Students’ Mathematical Creative Thinking Ability. Participatory Educational Research. 2021;8(3):285-99.
12. Azaryahu L, Broza O, Cohen S, Hershkovitz S, Adi-Japha E. Development of creative thinking patterns via math and music. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2023;47:101196.
Educational Research
Volume 13, Issue 47 - Serial Number 19
February 2024
Pages 128-153