An analysis of the gifted and non-gifted students’ creativity within the context of problem-posing activity
Duygu Arabacı 1 * , Adnan Baki 2
More Detail
1 Düzce University, Education Faculty, Düzce, Türkiye
2 Trabzon University, Fatih Faculty of Education, Trabzon, Türkiye
* Corresponding Author


The purpose of this study was to examine the mathematical creativity of gifted and non-gifted students through the indicators of creativity (fluency, flexibility, and originality). The study involved 12 secondary school students (six gifted and six non-gifted) from different cities in the Black Sea Region of Türkiye. The data were collected through clinical interviews regarding the solutions developed by the students for a problem-posing activity developed by Balka (1974). Each student was interviewed twice over a two-week period. Prior to the interviews, the students were asked to pose as many different and varied problems as possible. In the clinical interviews, the students' solutions were discussed deeply without evaluating their correctness. Using the theoretical framework developed by Taşkın (2016), data were analyzed using fluency, flexibility, and originality indicators of creativity. The results revealed no clear difference between gifted and non-gifted students in terms of fluency indicators, but gifted students generally pose problems more creatively and flexibly than their non-gifted peers. It has been suggested that problem-posing activities be used to compare the creativity of gifted and non-gifted students. The indicators of originality and flexibility can also be weighted differently for calculating students' final scores of mathematical creativity because they are more effective at distinguishing gifted from non-gifted students. 



  • Akgul, S.,& Kahveci, N. G. (2016). A study on the development of a mathematicscreativityscale. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research (EJER), 62, 57-76.
  • Akgül, S. (2014). A model study to examine gıfted and talented students' mathematical creativty [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. İstanbulUniversity, İstanbul.
  • Alder, H. (2002/2004). CQ Boost your creative intelligence (M. Zaman & C. Avşar, Trans.). Hayat Pub.
  • Amaral, N., & Carreira, S. (2012). An essay on students’ creativity in problem solving beyond school – proposing a framework of analysis. In S. J. Cho (Ed.), Pre-Proceedings of the 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education (ICME 12) – Topic Study 3 (pp. 1584-1593). ICMI.
  • Arabacı, D. (2022).Üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin matematikte yaratıcılıklarının desteklenmesi [Supporting the creativity of gifted students in mathematics].In N. Kutlu Abu (Ed.), İlkokulda üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin çok yönlü desteklenmesi [Versatile support of gifted students in primary school](pp. 152-180). Nobel Akademi.
  • Ayvaz, Ü., & Durmuş, S. (2021). Fostering mathematical creativity with problem posing activities: An action research with gifted students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 40, 100846.
  • Balka, D. S. (1974). The development of an instrument to measure creativeability in mathematics (Publication No. 302753570) [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Missouri] ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
  • Battelle for Kids. (2019). P21 Partnership for 21st-Century Learning: A Network of Batelle for Kids – Frameworks & Resources.
  • Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559.
  • Brunkalla, K. (2009). How to increase mathematica lcreativity- an experiment. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 6(1), 257- 266.
  • Budak, İ. (2007). A model in identifying mathematically gifted students (IMGS) [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon.
  • Chamberlin, S. A., & Moon, S. M. (2005). Model eliciting activities as a tool to develop and identfy creatively gifted mathematicians. The Journal of Secondary GiftedEducation, 17, 37-44.
  • Coyne I. T. (1997) Sampling in qualitative research: purposeful and theoretical sampling; merging or clear boundaries? Journal of Advanced Nursing 26, 623–630.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2013/2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (M. Bütün. & S. B. Demir, Trans.). Siyasal.
  • Doğan, N. (2005).Yaratıcı düşünme ve yaratıcılık [Creative thinkingandcreativity]. I nÖ. Demirel (Ed.), Eğitimde yeni yönelimler [New directions in education] (pp. 167-196). Pegem Akademi.
  • Ersoy, E., & Başer, N. E. (2009). The creative thinking levels of students at sixth class of primary education. The Journal of International Social Research, 2(9), 128-137.
  • Fasko, D. (2001). Education and creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3-4), 317–327.
  • Gagne, F. (1985). Giftedness and talent: Reexamining a reexamination of the definitions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 103-112.
  • Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction (7th Ed.). A & B Publications.
  • Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53(4), 267–293.
  • Gür, H., & Kandemir, M. A. (2006). Creativity and mathematics education. Elementary Education Online, 5(1), 65-72.
  • Güven, B. (2006). Characterizing student mathematics teachers' levels of understanding of spherical geometry [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation].KaradenizTechnical University, Trabzon.
  • Haavold, P. Ø. (2013). What are the characteristics of mathematical creativity? An emprical anda theorical investigation of mathematical creativity? [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. University of Tromso, Norway.
  • Hadamard, J. (1945). The psychology of invention in the mathematical field. Dover Publications.
  • Halmos, P. R. (1968). Mathematics as a creative art. American Scientist, 56(4), 375–389.
  • Haylock, D. (1997). Recognising mathematical creativity in schoolchildren. ZDM, 29(3), 68-74.
  • Haylock, D. W. (1987). A framework for assessing mathematical creativity in school children. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 8(1), 59-74.
  • Hershkovitz, S., Peled, I.,& Littler, G. (2009). Mathematical creativity and giftedness in elementary school: Task and teacher promoting creativity for all. In R. Leikin, A. Berman, & B. Koichu (Eds.), Creativity in mathematics and the education of gifted students(pp. 255-269). Sense Publishers.
  • Kadayıfçı, H. (2008). The effect of an instructional model based on creative thinking on students' conceptual understanding of separation of matter subject and their scientific creativity[Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. Gazi University, Ankara.
  • Kandemir, M. A. (2006). The teacher candidates of Mathematics Education in Secondary Education of Science and Mathematics on creativity training and analysis of their ability to solve creative problems [Unpublished Master’s Thesis]. Balıkesir University, Balıkesir.
  • Kattou, M., Kontoyianni, K., Pitta-Pantazi, D., & Christou, C. (2011). Does mathematical creativity differentiate mathematical ability. In M. Pytlak, T. Rowland, E. Swobod (Eds.), Proceedings CERME, (Vol. 7, pp. 1056-1066). Charles University.
  • Kıymaz, Y. (2009). A qualitative study of pre-service secondary mathematics teachers? Mathematical creativity in problem-solving situations [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. Gazi University, Ankara.
  • Kontorovich, I., Koichu, B., Leikin, R., & Berman, A. (2011). Indicators of creativity in mathematical problem posing: How indicative are they. In M. Avotiņa, D. Bonka, H. Meissner, L. Ramāna, L. Sheffield & E. Velikova(Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference Creativity in Mathematics Education and the Education of Gifted Students (pp. 120-125). Latvia University.
  • Korkmaz, E., & Gür, H. (2006). Determining of prospective teachers’ problem posing skills. Journal of Balıkesir University Institute of Science and Technology, 8(1), 65-74.
  • Krutetskii, V. A. (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in schoolchildren (J. Teller, Trans.). In J. Kilpatrick & I. Wirszup (Eds.). The University of Chicago Press.
  • Lee, K. S., Hwang, D., & Seo, J. J. (2003). A development of the test for mathematical creative problem solving ability. Research in Mathematical Education, 7(3), 163-189.
  • Legard, R., Keegan, J., & Ward, K. (2003). In-depth interviews. In Ritchie, J. & Lewis, J. (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers (pp.138-169). Sage Publications.
  • Leikin, R. (2008). Teaching mathematics with and for creativity: An intercultural perspective. In P. Ernest, B. Greer, & B. Sriraman (Eds.), Critical issues in mathematics education (pp. 39-43). Information Age Publishing.
  • Leikin, R. (2009). 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).Sense Publishers.
  • Leikin, R. (2013). Evaluating mathematical creativity: The interplay between multiplicity and insight. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 55(4), 385-400.
  • Leikin, R., & Kloss, Y. (2011). Mathematical creativity of 8th and 10th grade students. InM. Pytlak, T. Rowland, & E. Swoboda (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 1084-1093). University of Rzeszów.
  • 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). The Korea Society of Educational Studies in Mathematics.
  • Leikin, R., & Lev, M. (2013). On the connections between mathematical creativity and mathematical giftedness in high school students. ZDM, 45(4), 295-308.
  • Leikin, R., & Pitta-Pantazi, D. (2013). Creativity and mathematics education: The state of the art. ZDM, 45(2), 159-166.
  • Leung, S. S. (1997). On the role of creative thinking in problem posing. ZDM, 29(3), 81-85.
  • Lev-Zamir, H., & Leikin, R. (2013). Saying versus doing: teachers’ conceptions of creativity in elementary mathematics teaching. ZDM, 45(2), 295-308.
  • Livne, L. N.,Livne, O. E., & Milgram, R. M. (1999). Assessing academic and creative abilities in mathematics at four levels of understanding. International Journal of Mathematics Education and Science Technology, 30(2), 227-242.
  • Livne, N. L., & Milgram, R. M. (2006). Academic versus creative abilities in mathematics: Two components of the same construct?. Creativity Research Journal, 18(2), 199-212.
  • Mandacı Şahin, S. (2007). Determining the mathematical power of 8th grade students [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. KaradenizTechnical University, Trabzon.
  • Mann, E. L. (2009). The search for mathematical creativity: Identifying creative potential in middle school students. Creativity Research Journal, 21(4), 338–348.
  • Mann, E. L. (2005). Mathematical creativity and school mathematics: Indicators of mathematical creativity in middle school students (Publication No: 305010927) [Doctoral Dissertation,University of Connecticut]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
  • Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook qualitative data analysis.Person Education.
  • Ministry of National Education [MoNE].(2015). Bilim ve Sanat Merkezleri Yönergesi [Science and Art Centers Directive]. Author. Retrived July 10, 2022 from
  • Muir, A. (1988). The psychology of mathematical creativity. The Mathematical Intelligence, 10(1), 33–37.
  • Nicolaou, A. A., & Philippou, G. N. (2007). Efficacy beliefs, problem posing, and mathematics achievement. In D. Pitta-Pantazi, & G. Philippou (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education(pp. 308-317).University of Cyprus.
  • Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030 (E2030 Position Paper). Author.
  • Özmen, Z. M., Taşkın, D., & Güven, B. (2012). Determining the types of problems used by 7th grade math teachers.Education and Science, 37(165), 1-16.
  • Pitta-Pantazi, D., Christou, C., Kontoyianni, K. & Kattou, M. (2011). A model of mathematical giftedness: integrating natural, creative, and mathematical abilities. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 11(1), 39-54.
  • Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60(3), 180-184.
  • Renzulli, J.S. (1999). What is this thing called giftedness, and how do we develop it? A twenty-five year perspective.Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23(1), 3-54.
  • Searle, A. (2002). Introducing research and data in psychology: A guide to methods and analysis. Routledge.
  • Shriki, A. (2010). Working like real mathematicians: Developing prospective teachers’ awareness of mathematical creativity through generating new concepts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 73(2), 159-179.
  • Shriki, A. (2013). A model for assessing the development of students’ creativity in the context of problem posing. Creative Education, 4(7), 430-439.
  • Silver, E. A. (1997). Fostering creativity through instruction rich in mathematical problem solving and problem posing. ZDM, 29(3), 75–80.
  • Siswono, T. Y. E. (2011). Levels of students’ creative thinking in classroom mathematics. Educational Research and Review, 6(7), 548-553.
  • Sriraman, B. (2004). The characteristics of mathematical creativity. The Mathematics Educator, 14(1), 19-34.
  • Sriraman, B. (2005). Are giftedness and creativity synonyms in mathematics? The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, XVII(1), 20–36.
  • Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge University Press.
  • Taşkın, D. (2016). Üstün yetenekli tanısı konulmuş ve konulmamış öğrencilerin matematikte yaratıcılıklarının incelenmesi: Bir özel durum çalışması [An analysis of the creativity of the students who assigned as gifted and the students who are not assigned as gifted in mathematics: A case study] [Doctoral dissertation]. Karadeniz Technical University.
  • Treffinger, D. J., Young, G. C., Selby, E. C., & Shepardson, C. (2002). Assessing creativity: A guide for educators. University of Connecticut.
  • Usiskin, Z. (2000). The development into the mathematically talented. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, XI(3), 152-162.
  • Van Harpen, X. Y., & Sriraman, B. (2013). Creativity and mathematical problem posing: an analysis of high school students' mathematical problem posing in China and the USA. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82(2), 201-221.
  • Williams, G. (2002). Identifying tasks that promote creative thinking in mathematics: A tool. Mathematics Education in the South Pacific, 2, 698-705.
  • Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in social sciences]. Seçkin.
  • Yıldız, A., & Baltacı, S. (2018). An analysis of the creativity fostering behaviors of secondary school mathematics teachers working at two different institutions. Van Yüzüncü Yıl University Journal of Education, 15(1), 1392-1418.
  • Yuan, X., & Sriraman, B. (2011). An exploratory study of relationships between students’ creativity and mathematical problem-posing abilities. In B. Sriraman, & K. H. Lee (Eds.), The elements of creativity and giftedness in mathematics (pp.5-28). Sense Publishers.


This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.