A research framework for creative and imitative reasoning

By Johan Lithner. 2008

541 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Mathematics, Education, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/95f1934eb9fbf47b2676ce32bd8489bd73e9b9a4

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Applied Mathematics

In Education

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Principles for designing mathematical tasks that enhance imitative and creative reasoning (2017, methodology): “(3) Anchoring: the arguments are anchored in the intrinsic mathematical properties of the components of the reasoning (Lithner 2008).”
Creative mathematics teaching in the eye of the beholder: focusing on teachers' conceptions (2011, background): “Lithner ( 2008 ) suggests analysing mathematical activities in the classroom though the lens of creative, as opposed to imitative, thinking.”
Notions of Creativity in Mathematics Education Research: a Systematic Literature Review (2021, background): “Lithner (2008) describes different ways of reasoning, which he understands as a line of thought that does not necessarily have to be objectively correct.”
Redirecting, progressing, and focusing actions—a framework for describing how teachers use students’ comments to work with mathematics (2014, background): “In guided algorithmic reasoning ‘all strategy choices that are problematic for the reasoner are made by a guide, who provides no predictive argumentation’ (Lithner, 2008, p. 264) and the remaining routine transformations are executed without verificative argumentation.”
Tasks that may occasion mathematical creativity: teachers’ choices (2013, background): “Recall that memorization and algorithmic reasoning were associated with imitative noncreative reasoning (Lithner 2008).”
Learning mathematics through algorithmic and creative reasoning (2014, methodology): “This is in contrast to an AR setting, in which students can rely on the algorithms themselves, thus preventing their development of a conceptual understanding of mathematical principles (Lithner, 2008).”
The education of mathematically gifted students: Some complexities and questions (2011, background): “…creativity: Presmeg (2003) and Ernest (2006) analyze and emphasize the importance of creativity in the development of mathematical meaning, and Lithner (2008) suggests a framework for analysis of mathematical activity and describes creative thinking in mathematics as opposed to imitative…”
Teachers’ views on creativity in mathematics education: an international survey (2013, background): “Lithner (2008) suggests analyzing mathematical activities in the classroom through the lens of creative thinking as opposed to imitative thinking.”