See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/253241832

Creativity in three-dimensional geometry: How an interactive 3D-geometry

software environment enhance it?

Conference Paper · January 2011

CITATIONS READS

6 3,683

2 authors:

Paraskevi Sophocleous Demetra Pitta-Pantazi

University of Cyprus University of Cyprus
21 PUBLICATIONS 73 CITATIONS 211 PUBLICATIONS 2,546 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Paraskevi Sophocleous on 02 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CREATIVITY IN THREE-DIMENSIONAL GEOMETRY: HOW
AN INTERACTIVE 3D-GEOMETRY SOFTWARE
ENVIRONMENT ENHANCE IT?1
Paraskevi Sophocleous & Demetra Pitta-Pantazi
Department of Education, University of Cyprus
This paper reports the outcomes of two empirical studies undertaken to investigate
the creative abilities of sixth grade students in three-dimensional (3D) geometry and
to analyse the way in which an interactive 3D geometry software environment
enhanced that abilities of two students. The analysis indicated that students’ creative
abilities in terms of fluency, flexibility and originality were very low in both studies.
But the interactive 3D geometry software improved the creative abilities of students
who worked in this environment. The interactive geometry environment offered
opportunities to students to imagine, synthesize and elaborate. It appears that
enhancing students’ ability to imagine, synthesize and elaborate may be a way to
enhance students’ creative abilities.
Key-words: 3D geometry, interactive environment, creativity, imagining,
synthesizing, elaborating
INTRODUCTION
Creative performance is an essential part of doing mathematics (Pehkonen, 1997).
This recognisable value of creativity in mathematical thinking led a number of
researchers to define, assess and promote creativity in various mathematical concepts
such as problem solving, problem posing and two dimensional geometry (e.g.,
Pehkonen, 1997; Leikin & Lev, 2007; Levav-Waynberg & Leikin, 2009; Pitta-
Pantazi & Christou, 2009). A tool that a number of researchers argued that it can
promote students’ mathematical creative abilities is technology (Mevarech &
Kramarski, 1992; Dunham & Dick, 1994; Clements, 1995; Subhi, 1999). However,
although much work has been done in this area, little attention has been given to the
ways in which technology can enhance mathematical creative abilities and processes.
In this paper, we tried to examine the impact of an interactive 3D geometry software
environment on students’ creative abilities and processes in 3D geometry.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Creativity and mathematics
Creative thinking is an essential aspect of the Integrated Thinking Model and
involves “using and going beyond the accepted and reorganised knowledge to
generate new knowledge” (Iowa Department of Education, 1989, p. 7). In the same
line, Ervynck (1991) argued that creativity is an important factor of advanced

1
Cite as: Sophocleous, P., & Pitta-Pantazi, D. (2011). Creativity in three-dimensional geometry: How an interactive 3D-geometry software
environment enhance it? In M. Pytlak, T. Rowland, & E. Swoboda (Eds.), Proceedings of Seventh Conference of the European Research in
Mathematics Education (pp. 1143 - 1153). Rzeshów, Poland: University of Rzeszów.
mathematical thinking and refers as process to creation the new knowledge,
“making a step forward in new direction” (p. 42), based on previous knowledge.
The creation of new knowledge is not simply process, but a multicomponent process.
More specifically, the new knowledge created by imagining, synthesizing and
elaborating processes with accepted or reorganised knowledge (Iowa Department of
Education, 1989). In other words, creativity thinking involves imagining processes
which require original ideas through intuition, visualisation, prediction and fluency.
Creative thinking also involves synthesizing skills which depend on the abilities to
combine parts to form a new whole using analogies, summarizing main ideas in one
word, hypothesizing and planning a process. Elaborating skills refer to the abilities to
develop an idea fully by expansion, extension and modification (Iowa Department of
Education, 1989). In the same line, Levav-Waynberg and Leikin (2009) describe the
mathematical creativity as the act of “integration of existing knowledge with
mathematical intuition, imagination, and inspiration, resulting in a mathematically
accepted solution” (p. 778).
A number of researchers characterised and evaluated creative responses in
mathematics mainly by fluency (the number of acceptable responses), flexibility (the
number of different ideas or categories of responses used) and originality/novelty (the
relative infrequency of the responses) (Torrance, 1974; Leikin & Lev, 2007).
Creativity, mathematics and technology integrated environment
In the literature we come across two conflicting views regarding the relationship
between creativity and technology (Clements, 1995). One view is that technology
enhances only uncreative, mechanistic thinking. The second view is that technology
is a valuable tool of creative production (Clements, 1995). This is in line with the
argument of the National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education
(1999) on the role of technology who suggests that technology enables students to
find new modes of creativity. The results of empirical studies showed that
technological environments enhance students’ creative abilities too. More
specifically, Mevarech and Kramarski (1992) found that students who participated in
problem solving activities using the Logo environment had higher creative scores in
specific parts of the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT) than students who
participated in Guided Logo environment. Subhi’s (1999) research extended these
results and indicated that problem solving via the Logo environment can enhance
creativity in all figural and verbal domains of TTCT. Furthermore, in a study by
Dunham and Dick (1994) students who used graphing calculators appeared to be
more flexible problem solvers.
We could argue that most of the studies conducted until now on the impact of
technology in creative abilities of students are “results oriented”. They concentrate
only if specific software environment enhance or not students creative abilities. In
this study, we try to examine the ways in which 3D geometry environment enhances
students’ creative abilities and processes while being engrossed in the task.
THE PRESENT STUDY
Purpose
The purpose of this paper was to investigate students’ creative abilities in 3D
geometry and to examine the impact of an interactive 3D geometry environment on
these abilities. More specifically, we address the following questions:
(a) What were students’ creative abilities in 3D geometry in terms of fluency,
flexibility and originality?
(b) Can an interactive 3D geometry environment enhance students’ creative abilities?
(c) How did an interactive 3D geometry environment enhance students’creative
abilities and processes in 3D geometry?
Participants and procedure
To answer the first research question, we conducted two empirical studies on two
kinds of 3D geometrical abilities that young students are expected to perform
according to the Cypriot mathematics curriculum: 3D rectangular arrays of cubes
(Study 1) and nets (Study 2).
In Study 1, a hundred and twenty one 6th grade primary school students (54 males and
67 females), ranging from 11 to 11.5 years of age completed two 3D rectangular
arrays of cubes tasks. The first task required to students to create as many
constructions with nine cubes as possible (9-cubes constructions). The second task
called students to create as many constructions as possible with four cubes and
surface area equal with 18 square units (4-cubes constructions). In Study 2, a hundred
and twenty eight 6th grade primary school students (59 males and 69 females)
completed two nets tasks. These tasks required from students to create as many cube
nets and cuboid nets as possible. It needs to be stressed that all tasks used in both
studies asked students to find multiple solutions, a characteristic of creative
mathematical activity (Leikin & Lev, 2007). To evaluate students’ mathematical
creativity abilities we measured: fluency (number of correct constructions), flexibility
(number of different types of constructions or categories of constructions) and
originality (extraordinary, new and unique constructions) (Torrance, 1974). Every
response in the two 3D arrays of cubes tasks and in the two nets tasks were given a
score from 0 to 4 for each one of these three dimensions (fluency, flexibility and
originality). These scores are relative and based on the categories raised from all of
the students’ answers.
To answer the second and third research questions, we used a case study approach
because it was the most appropriate to respond to the “how” research questions
according to Yin (2003). In addition to this, this approach offer in details the
description of specific situation and provide an example of “real people in real
situations” (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2000, p. 181). We selected two sixth grade
students who participated in the two studies with creative tasks. These two students
worked for two one hour sessions on four 3D geometry activities, which are same
with those that they worked in paper. They used two applications of an interactive 3D
software environment, DALEST; a powerful tool in the teaching of 3D geometry
which provides conditions of observation and exploration (Christou et al., 2007). The
first application, Cubix Editor, can be used by students to “create 3D structures built
of unit-sized cubes” (Christou et al., 2007, p. 4). The second application, Origami
Nets, can be used by students to create different nets of various 3D geometric figures.
The two students were asked to read again the task instructions that they solved
earlier on paper and this time solve them with the use of the software. The students’
work on DALEST applications were videotaped and at the same time the researcher
was taking notes. The researcher was recording the students’ comments during the
time that they were working on the software, their strategies and constructions on
each task.
This second part of the paper was conducted in the frame of the European project
InnoMathEd (this project is funded with the support of the Lifelong Learning
Programme of the European Union).
Data analysis
To investigate students’ creative abilities in 3D geometry, we conducted descriptive
analysis on both studies. To examine the ways in which DALEST applications
environment enhance students’creative abilities and processes in 3D geometry, we
analysed students’ strategies in the creativity tasks which they solved with the
software and tried to undeline the different creative thinking skills which arose from
students’ solutions. The presentation and discussion of students’ solutions to the four
creativity tasks are organised around three phases: (a) the phase before students
express creative abilities (before students give numerous, different and unusual
responses), (b) the creative phase and (c) the expansion phase.
RESULTS
Creative abilities in 3D geometry in paper
Table 1 presents the mean and the standard deviation of students’ performance in the
creativity tasks in both studies in terms of fluency, flexibility and originality. The
means of students’ performance shown in Table 1 are all smaller or equal to one,
since scores of students in fluency, flexibility and originality were divided by four
(the maximum score).
CREATIVITY TASKS FLUENCY FLEXIBILITY ORIGINALITY TOTAL
 (SD)  (SD)  (SD)  (SD)
STUDY 1 (N=121)
9-cubes constructions 0.49 (0.30) 0.48 (0.30) 0.45 (0.30) 0.47 (0.29)
4-cubes constructions 0.25 (0.22) 0.23 (0.20) 0.23 (0.20) 0.24 (0.20)
STUDY 2 (N=128)
Cube nets 0.48 (0.29) 0.44 (0.29) 0.44 (0.27) 0.45 (0.27)
Cuboid nets 0.22 (0.19) 0.19 (0.15) 0.19 (0.14) 0.20 (0.15)
Table 1: The means and standards deviations of students’ performance in creativity
tasks on study 1 and 2 in terms of fluency, flexibility and originality
According to Table 1, the total mean performance of students in creativity tasks in
both studies were below 0.5. These tasks appear to be very difficult and complicate to
solve on paper and students probably did not have the opportunity to solve similar
tasks in their mathematical textbooks in the past. However, it seems that students’
creative abilities are better in some tasks than other. More specifically, the total mean
creative performance of sixth grade students in Study 1 in the task with 9-cubes
constructions (  =0.47) was double the mean of performance in the task with 4-cubes
constructions (  =0.24). The same pattern appears in Study 2 where students’ mean
performance in cube nets task (  =0.45) was double the mean performance in cuboid
nets task (  =0.20). We hypothesise that students provided a larger variety and more
unique solutions in tasks which are given to them without any “limitations” than in
tasks with certain “limitations”. Specifically, in the 9-cubes constructions task
students were free to create constructions without any limitations in regard to the size
of the surface area. On the other hand, in the 4-cubes constructions task, students
were asked to create constructions with a specific size of surface area (18 square
units). Similarly, in Study 2, students were more creative while working with the
cube nets, since all the faces were equal, instead of working with the cuboid nets
where not all the faces were equal.
Moreover, students in both studies had a higher mean score in fluency rather than in
flexibility and originality. Therefore, it appears that students tended to be more fluent
than innovative. They provided a number of answers but not always were these of a
great variety or unique. More specifically, almost all students of Study 1 made at
least one 9-cubes construction. This was usually a nine cubes tower or a cuboid
3X3X1. Many of them provided one to four 9-cubes constructions and only twenty
students made more than five constructions with nine cubes. Therefore, the mean
score in fluency was 0.49. In addition to this, many of the students of Study 1 created
one to four different types of 9-cubes constructions and only fourteen students
produced more than five different types of 9-cubes constructions. Thus, their total
mean score in flexibility was 0.48. Students’ originality score was also under 0.50
(  =0.20), since only a small number of students created ‘irregular’constructions
(with small base or to have a specific shape). In the task where students were required
to create 4-cubes constructions with surface area 18 square units, sixty students could
not create such as construction. Almost all the students who created a correct 4-cubes
construction had as one of their constructions a tower (an alignment of four cubes).
Only eight students created more than five 4-cubes constructions and the rest of
students up to four constructions (fluency). In addition to this, only three students
could build four different types of 4-cubes constructions and the rest of the students
who responded correctly gave up to three different types of constructions (flexibility)
which are not very unique (originality). Thus, students’ fluency (  =0.25), flexibility
(  =0.23) and originality scores (  =0.23) were very low.
From table 1, it can be deduced that students of Study 2 were more able to construct
many, different and unique cube nets than cuboid nets. All students that completed
these creativity tasks in Study 2, produced at least one cube net and this was the
cross-net, but only twenty four students produced more than five cube nets. This is
why, students fluency score was under 0.50 (  =0.48). Many of the students created
up to four different types of cube nets, but only thirteen students constructed more
than five different types of cube nets (flexibility), which however were not unique
(originality). Thus, students’ flexibility (  =0.44) and originality scores (  =0.44)
were under 0.50. In the cuboid nets tasks, more than half of the students did not
create any net and only five students produced more than five cuboid nets. The rest of
the students created at least one cross cuboid net and this is why their fluency score
was very low (  =0.22). Students who produced cuboid nets were able to construct at
the most three different types of cuboid nets. Only five students created more than
four different types of cuboid nets (flexibility). In addition to this, students’ cuboid
nets were not innovative, since many of them were either the cross-net or T-net
(originality). This is why the flexibility (  =0.19) and originality scores (  =0.19)
were very low.
Creative abilities in 3D arrays of cubes in an interactive 3D geometry environment
The phase before creativity. In this phase, students explored the functionalities of the
software by creating the constructions that they already drew on paper. More
specifically, for the task with the 9-cubes constructions both students created a tower
of nine cubes and a cuboid 3X3X1. These were the most “popular” constructions in
students’ paper solutions. For the task with 4-cubes constructions, both students
constructed only a tower of four cubes. These explorations allowed students to
visualise the constructions that they had already created on paper. They could see
their constructions from different perspectives by rotating them and check their
solutions with the use of the “statistics window”. The “statistics window” shows the
number of cubes used and the surface area of the constructions.
The creative phase. Through the visualisation processes and checking potential that
the software environment offered to students, both students provided six different
types of 9-cubes constructions. It was notable that students built these constructions
by expressing their ideas fluently and without any assistance from the researcher.
Sample of students constructions are given in figure 1. These 9-cubes constructions
appear to be difficult to be drawn on paper. In addition to this, students selected to
build construction with “big base” (the number of cubes at the base is more than the
number of cubes of other layers of the constructions).

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 1: Students’ 9-cubes constructions
In the task where students were asked to create 4-cubes constructions with 18 square
units surface area, both students started making hypothesis about which cube to move
from the original tower (their first construction) to transform it to a different 4-cubes
construction and checked simultaneously their solutions using the “statistics
window”. They repeated this procedure (see Figure 2) until they provided a number
of constructions. Student A provided nine 4-cubes constructions and Student B made
five 4-cubes constructions. They stopped this step-by-step procedure when they
realised that they could not find any other solution.

Figure 2: A step-by-step procedure for providing 4-cubes constructions

The expansion phase. In this phase, students appeared to use their intuition and
imagination to extend their constructions. They tried to provide unique constructions
employing a modified version of their previous constructions. More specifically,
Student A constructed an additional 9-cubes construction by removing some cubes
from the base of his previous construction and adding them on other layers above
(see Figure 3(a)). Student B constructed another 9-cubes construction by removing
cubes from the top of his previous construction and extending it horizontally (see
Figure 3(b)). Similarly, in the 4-cubes constructions task both students created two
further constructions without depending on the step-by-step procedure (see Figure
3(c) and Figure 3(d)). The step-by-step procedure which characterised their way of
processing during the creative phase was replaced in the extension phase by their
intuition and imagination.
9-cubes constructions 4-cubes constructions

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 3: Students’ constructions in the expansion phase
Creative abilities in nets in an interactive 3D geometry environment
The phase before creativity. The two students when solved the nets tasks on paper
produced only the cross-net for cube and cuboid. This cross-net, according to
Stylianou, Leikin and Silver (1999) is considered as the easiest since it can be
straightforwardly “opened up” whereas other nets need more transformations.
Students claimed that they remembered it from their mathematical textbooks. In this
phase, students created a cross cube net and a cross cuboid net in the software
application, Origami Nets and checked whether these nets could be folded.
The creative phase. In this phase, both students observed and explored unfolded
cross-net of cube and cuboid and tried to plan a process. In both tasks, students kept
four squares or rectangles attached together in a row and moved the other two squares
around that row (see Figure 4). Similar process was used by students in the study by
Stylianou et al. (1999) and was characterised as systematic. With the above
procedure, both students managed to construct 6 cube nets and 4 cuboid nets.
Cube nets

Cuboid nets

Figure 4: A step-by-step procedure for creating cube nets and cuboid nets

The expansion phase. In this phase, both students using their intuition extended their
constructions of cube nets and cuboid nets which were created previously during the
creative phase. Students tried different combination of squares by adding or
substracting squares or rectangles and tried to them fold them up. Students employed
this strategy and succeeded in “extending” their answers by providing three extra
solutions for the cube nets and one extra solution for the cuboid nets. Students’
“extended” constructions of cube nets and cuboid nets are given in the figure 5.
Cube nets Cuboid net

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 5: Students’ cube nets and cuboid net in the expansion phase
It is important to note that during the creative phase as well as in the expansion phase,
the two students justified their solutions and at the same time they worked in the
interactive environment. Their approach was not at all mechanistic (i.e.: give an
answer by chance, check and correct it).
Overall, the two students were able in the interactive 3D geometry environment to
construct many, different and unique solutions in the four creativity tasks. They
expressed a more creative performance in this interactive 3D geometry environment,
by visualising their ideas and using their intuition and imagination (imagining skills),
by planning a step-by-step procedure and hypothesizing (synthesizing skills) and
finally by extending and modifying their previous solutions (elaborating skills).
DISCUSSION
The current paper examined sixth grade students’ creative abilities in 3D geometry
and the ways in which an interactive software environment enhanced their creative
abilities and processes.
Overall, the results of the two studies indicated that students’creative abilities in
terms of fluency, flexibility and originality were very low. But the interactive 3D
geometry software environment enhanced the creative abilities of students who
worked in that environment, by facilitating them to provide more, different and
unique solutions. This finding confirms previous studies results about the value of
technology as a tool for creative production (Clements, 1995; Subhi, 1999).
Moreover, we found through the two case studies that the interactive 3D geometry
environment forced and also enhanced students’ imagining, synthesizing and
elaborating thinking skills. More specifically, it seems that during the phase before
creativity students used mainly imagining processes, while during the creative phase
they used a combination of imagining and synthesizing skills. During the expansion
phase they used a combination of imagining, synthesizing and elaborating skills.
These processes appear to have empowered students’ creative performance.
REFERENCES
Christou, C., Pittalis, M., Mousoulides, N., Pitta, D., Jones, K., Sendova, E., &
Boytchev, P. (2007). Developing an active learning environment for the learning of
stereometry. In E. Milková (Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference
on Technology in Mathematics Teaching (ICTMT8). Czech Republic: University
of Hradec Králové. Retrieved from http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/47577/
Clements, D. H. (1995). Teaching creativity with computers. Educational Psychology
Review, 7(2), 141–161. doi:10.1007/BF02212491
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education.
London: Routledge Palmer.
Dunham, P., & Dick, T. (1994). Research on graphing calculators. Mathematics
Teacher, 87, 440–445. Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org/eresources/journal_
home.asp?journal_id=2
Ervynck, G. (1991). Mathematical creativity. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced
mathematical thinking (pp. 42–53). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Iowa Department of Education (1989). A guide to developing higher order thinking
across the curriculum. Des Moines, IA: Department of Education. Retrieved from
ERIC database (ED 306 550).
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). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense
Publishers.
 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 Conference of the International Group for
the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 161–168). Seoul: PME.
Levav-Waynberg, A., & Leikin, R. (2009). Multiple solutions for a problem: A tool
for evaluation of mathematical thinking in geometry. In V. Durand-Guerrier, S.
Soury-Lavergne, & F. Arzarello (Eds.), Proceedings of Sixth Conference of
European Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 776–785). Lyon, France:
Institut National de Recherche Pédagogique. Retrieved from
http://www.inrp.fr/editions/editions-electroniques/cerme6/
Mevarech, Z. R., & Kramarski, B. (1992). How and how much can cooperative logo
environments enhance creativity and social relationships? Learning and
Instruction, 2(3), 259–274. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(92)90012-B
National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education (NACCCE).
(1999). All our futures: Creativity, culture and education. London, UK: DfES.
Pehkonen, E. (1997). The state-of-art in mathematical creativity. ZDM, 29(3), 63–67.
doi:10.1007/s11858-997-0001-z
Pitta-Pantazi, D., & Christou, C. (2009). Mathematical creativity and cognitive styles.
In M. Tzekaki, M. Kaldrimidou, & H. Sakonidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd
Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics
Education (Vol. 4, pp. 377–384). Thessaloniki, Greece: PME.
Stylianou, D., Leikin, R., & Silver, E. A. (1999). Exploring students’ solutions
strategies in solving a spatial visualization problem involving nets. In O. Zaslavsky
(Ed.), Proceedings of the 23rd Conference of the International Group for the
Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 241–248). Haifa, Israel:
Technion - Israel Institute of Technology.
Subhi, T. (1999). The impact of logo on gifted children’s achievement and creativity.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 15(2), 98–108. doi:10.1046/j.1365-
2729.1999.152082.x
Torrance, E. P. (1974). The Torrance tests of creative thinking. Bensenville, IL:
Scholastic Testing Service, INC.
Yin, R. (2003). Case study research design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

View publication stats