Creativity Research Journal 2006, Vol. 18, No.

2, 199212

Copyright 2006 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Academic Versus Creative Abilities in Mathematics: Two Components of the Same Construct?
Nava L. Livne
University of Utah

Roberta M. Milgram
Tel Aviv University and College of Judea and Samaria

ABSTRACT: Structural equation modeling, hitherto used to examine unidimensional theoretical models only, was used to investigate 2 dimensions, abilities and levels, simultaneously. Good evidence for the validity of conceptualizing 2 types of mathematical ability, 1 academic and 1 creative, each at 4 hierarchical levels, was established in 10th- and 11th-grade students (N = 1,090). IQ scores, representing general academic ability, predicted academic, but not creative, ability in mathematics. Creative thinking predicted creative, but not academic, ability in mathematics. These findings led to an innovative approach to identifying mathematical abilities and provided reliable and valid psychometric tools to make it possible. Based on two new instruments, teachers can differentiate curricula and individualize instructional strategies to match each students needs. A serious gap between the achievement in mathematics of students in the United States and of students in many other countries has developed in the last decade (Stevenson & Stigler, 1992; Stigler & Hiebert, 1999). According to a recent study, U.S. eighth-grade students performed near the international average in mathematics , and U.S. twelfth-graders scored below the international average and among the lowest 38 Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS) nations in either mathematics or advanced mathematics (National Center for Education Statistics, 2004, p. 1). Awareness of this gap is increasing in the United States and its leaders are seeking solutions to this problem. The No Child Left Behind Act (2001) has called on educators, especially in mathe-

matics, to provide every child, from every background in any part of America an opportunity to reach his or her fullest potentials, in mathematics and science (Bush, 2001, pp. 12). Numerous authorities in mathematical education, including the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2004), attributed the mediocre achievement in mathematics that produced the gap cited above to the discrepancy between the different abilities, needs, and interests of both mathematically talented and average students and the curriculum that is offered to them. One major reason for this discrepancy is probably the failure to identify the different types and levels of mathematical ability of some gifted and talented young people, and consequently, the lack of effort to develop and enhance these abilities. A number of eminent mathematicians (Hadamard, 1945; Halmos, 1968; Muir, 1988) noticed that inventions and accomplishments in mathematics have required creative talent rather than traditional academic ability. They distinguished between two kinds of cognitive abilities in mathematics, one academic and one creative. Academic ability in mathematics is the arithThis article was based on the doctoral research of the first author done at Tel Aviv University under the direction of the second author. This study was supported in part by a grant from the Israel Ministry of Education. We thank Richard Mayer, University of California Santa Barbara, Amiram Vinokur, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, and Oren Livne, Department of Mathematics and Scientific Computing and Imaging Institute, University of Utah, for their helpful suggestions and comments. Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Nava L. Livne, College of Education, University of Utah, 227 H Street #106, Salt Lake City, UT 84103. E-mail: nlivne@aoce.utah.edu

Creativity Research Journal

199

N. L. Livne and R. M. Milgram

metic computational ability that is required to get top school grades in mathematics. Creative ability in mathematical thinking is the ability to perceive patterns and relationships using complex and nonalgorithmic thinking and being capable of original thinking in mathematical symbols that results in more than one solution strategy and/or solution (Munro, 2000; Smith & Stein, 1998; Stein, Smith, Henningsen, & Silver, 2000). Other researchers understood that, to assess mathematical ability, the conceptual components of academic and creative abilities in mathematics needed to be defined operationally (Shavinina & Kholodnaja, 1996; Smith, Kher, & Gifford, 1999; Wagner & Zimmermann, 1986). Moreover, in mathematical education some researchers were aware of the importance of defining different levels of mathematical understanding as well (Hart, 1993; Kinard, 2001; Kinard & Falik, 1999; Stein et al., 2000; Van Hiele, 1987; Zorn, 2002). However, attempts to introduce awareness of levels of mathematical thinking into mathematical education were limited to academic abilities. To the best of our knowledge, neither the difference between academic and creative abilities in mathematics nor the postulation of four distinct levels of each ability has been clearly defined theoretically or assessed separately. In this study, we developed theoretical and operational definitions of the two ability types at four levels and investigated the structural aspect of construct validity of those abilities (Messick, 1995, pp. 744746). The structure of giftedness model (Milgram, 1989, 1991) postulates giftedness as the result of the complex interaction of cognitive, personalsocial, and sociocultural, influences. We applied the cognitive component of the model to mathematics. Giftedness in mathematics was defined as a bidimensional construct. The first dimension is type of ability, two academic and two creative. The second dimension is level of ability. Each of the four ability types of giftedness is postulated to occur at four distinct levels of ability: one level of nongifted ability, and three levels of gifted abilities (mild, moderate, and profound). These distinct ability levels are depicted as hierarchically ordered by their degree of difficulty, highlighting the fact that the higher the level, the fewer the people in society who achieve it. The four ability types, each at four ordered levels, are schematically illustrated by a bidimensional triangle as presented in Figure 1.

Of the two general types of ability postulated by the model, general intellectual ability refers to the ability to think abstractly and to solve problems logically and systematically. It is generally measured by standardized individual and/or group IQ tests. General original or creative thinking refers to the ability to generate a large number of ideas or solutions in the problem-solving process that results in a few creative solutions of high quality. Operationally, this ability is defined in terms of ideational fluency. This definition of general creative thinking was suggested by Guilford (1950, 1956), Mednick (1962), Torrance (1962), and Wallach and Kogan (1965) and is frequently used in research on creative thinking. The model also postulates two types of domain-specific ability in mathematics. Domain-specific academic ability in mathematics refers to general intelligence applied to mathematics. It reflects standardlogical thinking in mathematics, and is demonstrated by computational ability, knowledge of mathematical concepts, principles, and reasoning. We measured this ability both by school grade point average and a new academic index, consisting of academic mathematical problems that will be described in the Methods section. Domain-specific creative ability in mathematics is general, nonstandard creative thinking ability applied to mathematics. In this research, we developed two original indexes to assess domain-specific creative ability in mathematics. One consisted of mathematical problems that required creative thinking for solution, and the second of challenging out-of-school activities related to mathematics. Creative mathematical ability may be evident long before adulthood. One way to identify this ability in children is by examining their leisure time, intrinsically motivated, challenging out-of-school activities in mathematics. The activities are often highly intellectual in nature and are done to satisfy their own curiosity and interests, rather than to achieve high grades or to please their teachers and parents. The two new indexes that measured creative ability in mathematics will be described in detail in the Methods section. In the 4 4 model, each type of mathematical ability is postulated as occurring at four ability levels that differ in degree of difficulty and represent distinct cognitive processes. Haberlandt (1997) and Siegler (1991) supported this formulation and suggested that groups of similar mathematical strategies that differ by their

200

Creativity Research Journal

Creative Mathematical Giftedness

Figure 1. Milgram 4 4 Structure of Giftedness Model as applied to mathematics.

degree of task difficulty represented different cognitive levels for mathematical problem solving. Operationally, the degree of difficulty of an ability level that corresponds to a particular class of cognitive interrelationships is defined as a group of mathematical strategies (Beevers & Paterson, 2002; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2004). Based on these definitions we examined the distinction between the levels

of both the academic and creative abilities. General intelligence and general creative thinking were used only to examine their influence on the two domain-specific abilities in mathematics. Hong and Milgram (1996) used confirmatory factor analysis techniques (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1988) to compare six alternative theoretical models of ability types in the domain of literature. They found that the

Creativity Research Journal

201

N. L. Livne and R. M. Milgram

best fit was a four-factor model, supporting the four ability types postulated by Milgram (1989, 1991). Based on their findings in literature, it was reasonable to investigate the efficacy of the model in supporting domain-specific ability types in mathematics. This study differs from that of Hong and Milgram (1996) in two respects. First, the 4 4 model was applied to the domain of mathematics for the first time. Second, the construct validity of the concept of levels of abilities in mathematics was also investigated for the first time. Based on the literature presented earlier, the goal of this study was to examine the research question of whether the 4 by 4 model is the best model to support the postulation of general and domain-specific abilities in mathematics, each at four levels in mathematics. Method Participants A sample of 1,090 students (565 males and 525 females), 10th- and 11th-grade students (Mean age = 16.50, SD = .59) representing a wide range of intellectual abilities, was drawn from 22 public schools in urban and rural areas. The schools were selected from a list of 571 schools provided by the Israel Ministry of Education and constituted a nationally stratified and representative sample of students in urban and rural schools. The sampling process is described in detail elsewhere (Livne, 2002). Materials Six measures were administered to each research participant. The measures divided by types of ability, instruments, their indexes, types of measure, and scale range are presented in Table 1. School grade in mathematics. The final grade in mathematics recorded by the school at the end of the first semester of the academic year in which the data for this study were collected, served as the index of domain-specific academic ability in mathematics. The scores could range from zero to 100. Multiscale Academic and Creative Abilities in MathematicsMACAM (Livne & Livne, 1999a). This instrument measured domain-specific academic and creative abilities in mathematics at four levels, and

consisted of 16 mathematical items, 8 academic and 8 creative. Each academic item required standard-logical thinking and was operationally defined as having one solution path to reach one correct answer. For example, How many distinct three-digit numbers can one build out of three arbitrary digits (from 1 to 9), e.g., 2, 5 and 9? A digit may repeat itself inside the number. By contrast, each creative item required nonstandard creative thinking and was operationally defined as having more than one solution path and/or correct answer. For instance, Try to arrive at the number 4, using precisely four times (not two times) the digit 4, which is an integer multiplication of the digit 2. Try to make the largest possible number of solutions that overall include all of the following arithmetic operations: addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, square root, factorial, and so on. In every solution separately, one need not use all the operations. Each of the 16 items was in the form of an open-ended question, and was scored on a continuous 8-point scale (07), according to the degree of completeness of its solution. Sixteen scores were computed for each research participant. The range of scores for each of the eight-item measures of academic and the eight-item measure of creative abilities in mathematics was 064 for both. The internal consistencies of the eight-item measures of academic and creative abilities in mathematics were .67 and .68, respectively. Following the example of Guttman (Guttman, 1968, 1971, 1991), the test items were developed according to a mapping sentence developed especially for this study (Livne, 2002; Livne, Livne, & Milgram, 1999). Detailed criteria for scoring each of the 16 items were provided in the Scoring Guide for the Multiscale Academic and Creative Abilities in Mathematics developed by the authors of the instrument (Livne & Livne, 1999b). Livne (2002) found a high degree of agreement among 12 judges in ranking the eight degrees of completeness of the solutions (07) to each of the 16 items. The overall Kendall coefficient of concordance (1948) for the judges (N = 12) ranged from .72 to .94, p < .0001. Tel Aviv Activities and Accomplishments Inventory: MathematicTAAI: M (Livne & Milgram, 1999). Building on the work of Hocevar (1980), Holland (1961), Runco (1986, 1987), Wallach and Wing (1969), and Milgram (1973, 1983, 1987, 1990) the Tel-Aviv Activities and Accomplishment Inven-

202

Creativity Research Journal

Creative Mathematical Giftedness

Table 1. Measures of Mathematical Giftedness Divided by Types of Ability, Instruments, Their Indexes, Types of Measure, and Scale Range
Ability Type Domain-specific Academic Ability in Mathematics Domain-specific Academic Ability in Mathematics Instruments School Grade in Mathematics Multiscale Academic and Creative Abilities in MathematicsMACAM (Livne & Livne, 1999a). Multiscale Academic and Creative Abilities in MathematicsMACAM (Livne & Livne, 1999a) Tel Aviv Activities and Accomplishments Inventory: MathematicTAAI: M (Livne & Milgram, 1999) Tel Aviv Creativity TestTACT (Milgram & Milgram, 1976a) Abstract Verbal Thinking Test (Glantz, 1996) Advanced Progressive Matrices (Raven, 1962) Index Final Grade in Mathematics Open-ended Academic Mathematical Problems Type of Measure One Final Grade Eight 07 items Scale Range 0100 064

Domain-specific Creative Ability in Mathematics

Open-ended Creative Mathematical Problems

Eight 07 items

064

Domain-specific Creative Ability in Mathematics

Creative Out-of-school Activities in Mathematics

36 01 items

036

General Creative Thinking General Intelligence (Verbal) General Intelligence (Nonverbal) Note. N = 917.

Responses on Tasks of Ideational Fluency General Intellectual Processes Nonverbal Tasks

Two 0no limit 180 01 items 36 01 items

0no limit 0180 036

tory: Mathematics was developed. This instrument was used to measure domain-specific creative ability in mathematics. It is a self-report biographical questionnaire of nonacademic talented activities and accomplishments in mathematics, and was designed to provide a meaningful external criterion of creative ability in mathematics (Milgram & Hong, 1994; Milgram, Hong, Shavit, & Peled, 1997). The measure consisted of 36 items, presented in random order. Of the 36 items 6, 5, 11, and 14 items represented the nongifted, mild, moderate, and profound levels, respectively. For example, Do you compete with your friends in solving simple computerized mathematical problems? or Do you explain physical phenomena with an original mathematical model? represented the nongifted and profound creative levels in mathematics, respectively. Each item required the research participant to indicate by answering yes or no whether he or she had or had not participated in the particular extracurricular, challenging activity or attained the accomplishment in mathematics. One point was given for each yes answer. Four scores indicating four levels of domain-specific creative ability in mathematics were computed for each research participant. The range of scores for the

ordinary, mild, moderate, and profound levels of domain-specific creative ability was 06, 05, 011, and 014, respectively. The Kuder-Richardson internal consistency of the 36-item measure of domain-specific creative ability in mathematics was .95 (Kuder & Richardson, 1937). Livne and Milgram (2000) found a high degree of agreement among 11 academic expert judges that indicated good evidence of the content validity for the instrument. The Kendall coefficient of concordance for the judges was .63, p < .0001 (Livne, 2002). The Tel Aviv Activities and Accomplishments Inventory: Mathematic was also developed on the basis of a mapping sentence that was created specifically for that purpose. Details of this process are presented elsewhere (Livne & Milgram, 2000). Tel Aviv Creativity Test (Milgram & Milgram, 1976a). Two verbal items selected from the Uses subtest of the Tel-Aviv Creativity Test (Milgram & Milgram, 1976a) were used as indicators of general original/creative thinking. The Tel-Aviv Creativity Test is an abbreviated and revised form of the Wallach and Kogan (1965) instrument designed to assess ideational fluency. It yields scores that are highly reli-

Creativity Research Journal

203

N. L. Livne and R. M. Milgram

able and distinct from intelligence (Milgram, 1983; Milgram & Arad, 1981; Milgram & Milgram, 1976b). The quantity of ideational fluency was considered a valid index of general original thinking, based on the findings of Milgram, Milgram, Rosenbloom, and Rabkin (1978) and Milgram and Rabkin (1980) that indicated a strong correlation between the quantity and quality of distinct ideas generated on tasks of ideational fluency. The research participants were asked to write down as many different uses as they could for each of two common objects, a newspaper and a shoe. Two scores for creative thinking, one for each object, with a possible range of from zero to no limit were computed for each research participant; each consisted of the number of distinct ideas generated in response to the item presented. The internal consistency of the two-item measure of general creative thinking was .77. Abstract Verbal Thinking Test (Glanz, 1996). This instrument, a verbal group intelligence test widely used in Israel, was the measure of general verbal intelligence. It consists of 180 items divided into nine subtests representing nine different cognitive processes (opposites, synonyms, essential characteristics, identification of oddities, groups, classification, definitions, proverbs, analogies, and syllogisms) with 20 multiple choice items in each. One point was given for each correct answer. One total score for verbal intellectual ability was computed for each participant. It consisted of the sum of correct answers for each of the 180 items and ranged from zero to 180. The Kuder-Richardson internal consistency of the 180-item measure of general intelligence was .98. Advanced Progressive Matrices (Raven, 1962). This instrument was used as a measure of nonverbal general intelligence. It consisted of 36 advanced and progressively difficult nonverbal matrix tasks, each presented with a section missing and followed by eight alternative replacement sections. Research participants were asked to select one from among the eight alternatives as the best replacement section that would serve to complete the matrix. Each correct response received a score of 1. One total score for nonverbal general intelligence was computed for each participant. It consisted of the sum of correct answers and ranged from 0 to 36.

The instrument was translated from English into Hebrew using a double-blind translation procedure developed by Elder (1973). The Kuder-Richardson internal consistency of the nonverbal 36-item measure of general intelligence was .90. Procedure The instruments were group-administered in three 2-hr sessions, with 1 week between each session, to the students in their classrooms according to the standard instructions provided by the authors of each instrument. The student participants were divided into four equal groups, and the instruments were administered in the first two sessions to each group in one of four counter-balanced orders. In the third session, the verbal and nonverbal measures of intelligence were administered to the students in a counter-balanced order. The Advanced Progressive Matrices had a time limit and all the other instruments were administered with no time limits.

Results Structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis (Byrne, 1994; Pearl, 2000) was used to test the interrelationships postulated by the 4 4 Model (Milgram, 1989, 1991) among the 16 (4 4) conceptual components of general and domain-specific academic and creative abilities in mathematics at four levels. The first analysis focused on the discriminant validity of general and domain-specific ability types, and, therefore, the data were investigated across the four ability levels. The findings of the SEM analysis are presented in detail in Figure 2 in the Appendix. They provided good evidence of the structural aspect of construct validity for the ability dimension of the 4 4 model (Messick, 1995). To determine whether the four ability levels (nongifted, mild, moderate, and, profound) represented hierarchical levels that could be empirically supported, additional SEM analyses were conducted in which the proposed 4 4 was compared with seven alternative models. Because this analysis focused on the discriminant validity of levels, the data were investigated across ability types. The findings of this SEM analysis are also presented in detail in Table 3 in the Appendix. They provided good evidence of the structural

204

Creativity Research Journal

Creative Mathematical Giftedness

aspect of construct validity (Messick, 1995) of four distinct and hierarchical ability levels. The two sets of SEM findings presented indicated better overall fit of the 4 4 model compared with alternative models for the four types and four levels of abilities. Based on these overall SEM findings, we next examined the validation of the postulation that of the four types of abilities in mathematics; two are general and two domain specific. First, we examined the causal relationships between general creative thinking and each of the two indexes of domain-specific abilities in mathematics, one academic and one creative. These detailed SEM results are also presented in Figure 2 in the Appendix. General creative thinking predicted domain-specific creative ability in mathematics as measured by a score that combined both creative mathematical problems and out-of-school activities in mathematics. The relationship between them was = .22, p < .001. However, when domain-specific creative ability in mathematics was measured by each of the measures separately, the corresponding relationships were different from those presented in Figure 2. The relationships between general creative thinking and the creative mathematical problems and the out-of-school activities in mathematics were = .57, p < .0001 and = .22, p < .0001, respectively. The relationship between the two measures of domain-specific creative ability in mathematics, that is, creative mathematical problems and out-of-school activities in mathematics, was also highly significant = .25, p < .0001. Taken together, these results provided good evidence for the convergent validity of the general and the domain-specific creative abilities in mathematics. For general intelligencedomain-specific academic ability in mathematics, the relationship was = .38, p < .001. By contrast, no significant relationship was found between general intelligence and either of the two measures of domain-specific creative ability in mathematics. General creative thinking was not found to be related to domain-specific academic ability in mathematics. These data provided good evidence of discriminant validity for the two postulated ability types, that is, domain-specific academic and creative abilities in mathematics. Based on the good evidence of four distinct and hierarchical ability levels of academic and creative abilities when analyzed simultaneously as presented in Figure 2 in the Appendix, we examined the degree

Table 2. Percentage of Students Divided by Two Domain-Specific Academic and Creative Abilities in Mathematics by Ability Levels
Domain-Specific Creative Ability in Mathematics Mathematical Problems Profound Moderate Mild Nongifted 2 9 31 57 1 5 18 76 Out-of-School Activities 1 6 15 78

of distinctiveness between the four levels for each of the academic and the creative abilities in mathematics separately. We compared the percentage of students who demonstrated each ability level. Table 2 summarizes the percentage of students divided by domain-specific abilities in mathematics at four ability levels, reflecting the ability type and level combinations for those abilities. As predicted, for each of the two domain-specific abilities in mathematics, the higher the ability level, the more infrequently it occurred. To ascertain that these frequencies indeed reflected hierarchical levels, they were further examined by means of the Jonckheere-Terpstra test, a technique designed specifically for a priori descending ordering (SPSS, 2004). For the academic ability as measured by the academic mathematical problems, and the creative ability, as measured by both creative mathematical problems and out-of-school activities in mathematics, the resulting Jonckheere-Terpstra statistic was = 32.09, 19.55, and 29.09, ps <.0001, respectively, indicating that the differences among the frequencies of students demonstrating their academic and creative abilities in mathematics represented hierarchical levels. These findings constituted strong evidence of discriminant validity for the four hierarchical levels in both domain-specific academic and creative abilities in mathematics.

Discussion The most important finding of this study was the empirical support of the two-ability type and four-level formulation of giftedness in mathematics, as postulated by the 4 4 structure of giftedness model

Creativity Research Journal

205

N. L. Livne and R. M. Milgram

(Milgram, 1989, 1991). The conceptualization of giftedness in mathematics as a bidimensional construct, consisting of domain-specific academic ability and domain-specific creative ability in mathematics, each at four hierarchical levels, constitutes a new perspective of mathematical ability. These findings lead to an innovative approach to identifying mathematical abilities and provide reliable and valid psychometric tools to make it possible. One serious problem frequently cited in evaluating theories of creativity is the lack of serious empirical evidence demonstrating the construct validity of proposed theories. For example, Sternberg (1991) criticized Gardners highly regarded theory of multiple intelligences (MI; Gardner, 1983) as lacking empirical evidence showing that the cognitive processes underlying the domains postulated in MI theory are indeed unrelated. More recent research on MI theory-based assessments provided evidence in support of Sternbergs concern about the psychometric quality of Gardners approach (e.g., Plucker, 2003; Plucker, Callahan, & Tomchin, 1996). In this study, highly sophisticated, modern research methods were used to demonstrate the construct validity of the theory of creativity in mathematics on which the study was based. The two new instruments developed for use in this study are characterized by both a high level of reliability and construct validity. The Multiscale Academic and Creative Abilities in Mathematics (MACAM) and the Tel Aviv Activities and Accomplishments Inventory: Mathematics (TAAI: M) provide useful psychometric instruments for identifying different types and levels of mathematical abilities. Screening for academic and creative abilities in mathematics using the new instruments enables teachers to differentiate curricula and to individualize instructional strategies to match each students needs. In a recent pilot study (Milgram, Davidovitz, Livne, Livne, & Lieberman, 2004), the definitions of each of the four levels of academic and creative concepts in mathematics were matched to curriculum units used in high schools, and differentiated computerized units for individual instruction were developed as matched to type and level of ability. Milgram and her associates found that 87% of the students were able to attain a high level of mastery of the academic concepts by means of computerized units, reaching correct solutions of the problems presented to them in the units. The use of individualized computerized units may well contribute to

teaching large classes of students with different types and levels of ability in mathematics. Creative thinking predicted creative, but not academic, ability in mathematics. By contrast, IQ predicted academic, but not creative, ability in mathematics. In fact, the relationship of creative thinking to creative ability in mathematics was significantly stronger than the corresponding relationship of IQ to academic ability in mathematics. These findings indicate that, by using only measures of intelligence and of school grades in mathematics in the process of identifying giftedness in mathematics, we are losing important information. Adding measures that can identify general creative thinking and domain-specific creative ability in mathematics at four levels could lead to the identification of the mathematical abilities of a much wider range of students both gifted and nongifted. A process of identification that includes measures of four abilities rather than just IQ and school grades will provide diverse students with more equal opportunity to realize their special abilities in mathematics to the fullest extent. Creative thinking was found to be more strongly related to domain-specific creative ability in mathematics, when measured by the ability to produce creative solutions to mathematical problems than when measured by creative out-of-school activities in mathematics. The difference in these relationships could be explained in terms of the degree to which each index represented real-world behavior in mathematics. The more the measure of domain-specific creative ability in mathematics resembled real-world problem-solving behavior in mathematics, the better it was predicted by general creative thinking. However, because the relationship between the two measures of domain-specific creative ability in mathematics was highly significant, the activities index might be particularly useful in identifying learners with mathematical ability not yet realized in solving problems in mathematics, Two other applications emerged from this study, one psychometric and one methodological. We developed a two-stage technique for developing the two psychometric instruments used in this research (Livne, Livne, & Milgram, 1999; Livne & Milgram, 2000). In the first stage a mapping sentence in which the conceptual components to be measured were clearly defined and delineated was developed. In the second stage, on the basis of the mapping sentence, the actual items for each test were created and theoretical and operational

206

Creativity Research Journal

Creative Mathematical Giftedness

scoring guidelines were developed. Our findings demonstrated that both creative and academic abilities in mathematics could be identified separately by the new instruments. Such a two-stage technique could constitute a prototype for developing valid measures of other cognitive processes in mathematics, and/or for developing other instruments in educational and/or psychological research. However, whether specific abilities would be equally distinct in other domains, such as science, technology, music, drama, dance, art, or even social leaderships, remains a question worthy of investigation. There is also a methodological application possible from the results of this study. As a comprehensive one-shot solver in Brandts (1999) terms, the SEM analysis, as used in this research, provided a way to estimate two distinct dimensions of a theoretical model, ability types and levels, simultaneously. Traditional confirmatory analysis has been used for unidimensional models only (Hair, Anderson, Tathan, & Black, 1995). SEM analysis has been recommended as the best advanced technique for investigating construct validity, because it takes into account the validity, reliabilities, and error measurement of each of the scales (Byrne, 1994; Hair et al., 1995). By contrast, error measurement is not controlled when the traditional multitrait-multimethod technique is used to investigate convergent and discriminant validity and, therefore, is not often used today (Campbell & Fiske, 1959; Coenders & Saris, 2000). The SEM technique can be applied to investigate the construct validity of other multidimensional theoretical models. The technique can also be applied to a wide variety of educational domains in addition to mathematics, such as science, languages, literacy, arts, and others. However, whether specific abilities would be equally distinct in other specific domains remains to be investigated. Unrecognized talent in mathematics is the failure of an adult to realize the potential mathematical abilities that he or she demonstrated in youth. With the rapid development of the mathematical and scientific challenges of the 21st century, the problem of unrecognized talent in mathematics has become intolerable both for the individual and the society (Milgram, 1993; Rice, 1999). According to Mercers strategic retention analysis (2004), this problem is so serious that it puts all industry in the United States at risk. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2004) defined this problem as a challenge and formed a new vision of preparing students who are

capable of drawing on knowledge from a wide variety of mathematical topics and approaching the same problem from different mathematical perspectives to find methods for its solution. The Council called on the educational system to enable each individual to compute fluently and to solve problems creatively and resourcefully (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2004, p. 1). The goal of this study was to contribute to meeting this challenge. We suggest that improvement in the theoretical formulation and measurement of different kinds of mathematical ability at different levels might contribute to the enhancement of achievement in mathematics. It might help each individual child realize his or her potential more fully and thus provide society with greater utilization of the abilities of its citizens.

References
Beevers, C., & Paterson, J. (2002). Assessment in mathematics. In P. Kahn & J. Kyle, (Eds.), Mathematics and its applications (pp. 5153). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Bentler, P. M. (1997). EQS: Structural equations program manual (version 4.0). Los Angeles: MDP Statistical Software. Brandt, A. (1999). Multiscale scientific computation: Six year research summary. The Gauss Center Research in Multiscale Scientific Computation, GMD Studien, Report WI/GC-12, Germany. Browne, M., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Bush, G. W. (2001). No Child Left Behind: Foreword by President George W. Bush. Retrieved August 28, 2005, from www. whitehouse.gov/news/ reports/no-child-left-behind.html Byrne, B. M. (1994). Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. London: Sage. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validity by the multitrait-multimethod matrices. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81105. Coenders, G., & Saris, W. E. (2000). Testing nested additive, multiplicative, and general MuliTrait-Multimethod model. Structural Equation Modeling, 7, 219250. Elder, J. W. (1973). Problems of cross-cultural methodology: Instrumentation and interviewing in India. In M. Armer & A. D. Grimshaw (Eds.), Comparative social research: Methodological problems and strategies. New York: Wiley. EQS for Windows 5.7 [Computer software] (1997). User interface. Copyright 19921997. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligence. New York: Basic Books. Glantz, I. (1996). CHEMED: A comprehensive testing battery. Tel Aviv, Israel: Barak: Information Processing (in Hebrew).

Creativity Research Journal

207

N. L. Livne and R. M. Milgram

Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444454. Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 267293. Guttman, L. (1968). A general nonmetric technique for finding the smallest coordinate space for a configuration of points. Psychometrika, 33, 469506. Guttman, L. (1971). Measurement as structural theory. Psychometrika, 36, 329347. Guttman, L. (1991). Louis Guttman on facet theory: Excerpts from unfinished writings. Jerusalem, Israel: The Israel Academy of Science and Humanities and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Haberlandt, K. (1997). Cognitive psychology (2nd ed., pp. 363). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Hadamard, J. (1945). The psychology of invention in the mathematical field. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis with reading, (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Halmos, P. R. (1968). Mathematics as a creative art. American Scientist, 56, 375389. Hart, K. M. (1993). Childrens understanding of mathematics: 1116. London: John Murray. Hocevar, D. (1980). Intelligence, divergent thinking, and creativity. Intelligence, 4, 2540. Holland, J. L. (1961). Creative and academic performance among talented adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 52, 136147. Hong, E., & Milgram, R. M. (1996). The structure of giftedness: The domain of literature as an exemplar. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 3140. Hoyle, R. H. (Ed.). (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and application. London: Sage. Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1988). LISREL VII: A guide to the program and application. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software. Kendall, M. G. (1948). Ranking correlation methods. London: Griffin. Kinard, J. T. (2001, January). Creating rigorous mathematical thinking: A dynamics that drives mathematics and science conceptual development. Paper presented at the International Conference and Training Workshops.. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Kinard, J. T., & Falik, L. (1999). The fourth Rrigor: creating rigorous thinking through Mediated Learning Experience and Feuersteins Instrumental Enrichment program. Life Span and Disability, 2(2), 185204. Kuder, G. F., & Richardson, M. W. (1937). The theory of estimation of test reliability. Psychometrica, 2, 151160. Livne, N. L. (2002). Giftedness in mathematics as a bi-dimensional phenomenon: Theoretical definition and psychometric assessment of levels of academic ability and levels of creative ability in mathematics (doctoral dissertation, Tel Aviv University, Israel 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International. Retrieved July 28, 2005, from ww.tau.ac.il/education/toar3/archive/ etakzir20035.htm Livne, N. L., & Livne, O. E. (1999a). Multiscale academic and creative abilities in mathematics (MACAM). Ramat Aviv, Israel: Tel Aviv University, School of Education.

Livne, N. L., & Livne, O. E. (1999b). A Scoring Guide for Multiscale Academic and Creative Abilities in Mathematics (MACAM). Ramat Aviv, Israel: Tel Aviv University, School of Education. Livne, N. L., Livne, O. E., & Milgram, R. M. (1999). Assessing academic and creative abilities in athematics at four levels of understanding. Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 30(2), 227242. Livne, N. L., & Milgram, R. M. (1999). Tel Aviv Activities and Accomplishments Inventory: Mathematics. Ramat Aviv, Israel: Tel Aviv University, School of Education. Livne, N. L., & Milgram, R. M. (2000). Assessing four levels of creative mathematical ability in Israeli adolescents utilizing out-of-school activities: A circular three-stage technique. Roeper Review: A Journal on Gifted Education, 22(2), 111116. Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, 220232. Mercers Strategic Retention Analysis. (2004). Identifying the roots of talent loss. Mercer Human Resource Consulting LLC and Mercer Investment Consulting, Inc. Retrieved June 26, 2005, from http://www.mercerhr.com/successstory.jhtml/dynamic/ idContent/1058000 Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741749. Milgram, R. M. (1973, 1983, 1987, 1990). Tel Aviv Activities and Accomplishments Inventory: Adolescent Form. Ramat Aviv, Israel: Tel Aviv University, School of Education. Milgram, R. M. (1983). A validation of ideational fluency measures of original thinking in children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 619624. Milgram, R. M. (Ed.). (1989). Teaching gifted and talented children learners in regular classrooms. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Milgram, R. M. (1991). Counseling gifted and talented children: A guide for teachers, counselors, and parents. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Milgram, R. M. (1993). Preventing talent loss: New directions in conceptualization, identification and enhancement. Toronto, Canada: American Psychological Association, Invited Address, 101st Annual Convention. Milgram, R. M., & Arad, R. (1981). Ideational fluency as a predictor of original problem-solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 568572. Milgram, R. M., Davidovitz, N. Livne, N. L., Livne, O. E., & Lieberman, N. (2004). Using Individualized Computerized Units to advance the achievement of high school students in mathematics. Final technical research report to Israel Ministry of Education. Milgram, R. M., & Hong, E. (1994). Creative thinking and creative performance in adolescents as predictors of creative attainments in adults: A follow-up study after 18 years. In R. F. Subotnik & K. D. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 212228). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Milgram, R. M., Hong, E., Shavit, Y., & Peled, R. W. (1997). Out-of-school activities in gifted adolescents as a predictor of

208

Creativity Research Journal

Creative Mathematical Giftedness

vocational choice and work accomplishments in young adults. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 8(3), 111120. Milgram, R. M., & Milgram, N. A. (1976a). Tel Aviv Creativity Test (TACT). Ramat-Aviv, Israel: Tel Aviv University, School of Education. Milgram, R. M., & Milgram, N. A. (1976b). Creative thinking and creative performance in Israeli children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 255259. Milgram, R. M., Milgram, N. A., Rosenbloom, G., & Rabkin, L. (1978). Quantity and quality of creative thinking in children and adolescents. Child Development, 49, 385388. Milgram, R. M., & Rabkin, L. (1980). A developmental test of Mednicks associative hierarchies of original thinking. Developmental Psychology, 16, 157158. Muir, A. (1988). The psychology of mathematical creativity. The Mathematical Intelligence, 10(1), 3337. Munro, J. (2000). Mathematical giftedness and talent: Thinking creatively in mathematics. Exceptional Learning and Gifted Education, 4, 1924. National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). Pursuing excellence: Comparisons of International eighth-grade mathematics and science from a U.S. perspective, 1995 and 1999. Highlights from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study-Repeat (TIMSS-R). P. Gonzales, C. Calsyn, L. Jocelyn, K. Mak, D. Kastberg, S. Arafeh, T. Williams, and W. Tsen. NCES 2001-028. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2004). Principles and standards for school mathematic. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge, UK: The Cambridge University Press. Plucker, J. A. (Ed.). (2003). Human intelligence: Historical influences, current controversies, teaching resources. Retrieved August 8, 2005, from http://www.indiana.edu/~intell Plucker, J., Callahan, C. M., & Tomchin, E. M. (1996). Wherefore art thou, multiple intelligences? Alternative assessments for identifying talent in ethnically diverse and economically disadvantaged students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 8192. Raven, J. C. M.Sc. (1962). Advanced Progressive MatricesAPM SET II. London: H. K. Lewis. Rice, L. (1999). Talent loss: Why so many of the countrys top-achieving low-incomestudents never go to college. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University news releases. Retrieved from http://www.jhu.edu/news_info/news/ Runco, M. A. (1986). Divergent thinking and creative performance in gifted and nongifted children. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 46, 375384. Runco, M. A. (1987). The generality of creative performance in gifted and nongifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 121125. Siegler, R. S. (1991). Childrens thinking (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Shavinina, L. V., & Kholodnaja, M. A. (1996). The cognitive experience as a psychological basis of intellectual giftedness. Journal of the Education of the Gifted, 20(1), 335. Smith, M. S., Kher, N., & Gifford, L. J. (1999). Exploring the relationship between creativity and mathematics achievement in

gifted adolescents. Louisiana Middle School Association, 8, 48. Smith, M. S., & Stein, M. K. (1998). Selecting and creating mathematical tasks: From research to practice. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 3, 344349. SPSS for Windows Release 13.0 [Computer software]. (2004). SPSS, Inc. 19962004. Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M. A., & Silver, E. S. (2000). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction. New York: Teachers College Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1991). Death, taxes and bad intelligence tests. Intelligence, 15, 257269. Stevenson, H. W., & Stigler, J. W. (1992). The learning gap: Why our schools are failing and what can we learn from Japanese and Chinese education. New York: Summit Books. Stigler J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the worlds teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: The Free Press. Torrance, E. P. (1962). Guiding creative talent. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Van Hiele, P. M. (1987). Van Hiele levels. A method to facilitate the finding of levels of thinking in geometry by using the levels in arithmetic. Paper presented at the Conference on Learning and Teaching Geometry Issues for Research and Practice. Syracuse University. Wagner, H., & Zimmermann, B. (1986). Identification and fostering of mathematically gifted students. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 17, 243259. Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children: A study of the creativity-intelligence distinction. New York: Holt. Wallach, M. A., & Wing, C. W., Jr. (1969). The talented student: A validation of the creativity-intelligence distinction. New York: Holt. Zorn, P. (2002). Algebra, computer algebra, and mathematical thinking. Proceedings Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on the Teaching of Mathematics. Hersonissos, Crete, Greece.

Appendix Structural Equation Analysis Structural equation modeling analysis (Byrne, 1994; Pearl, 2000) was used to test the interrelationships postulated by the 4 4 Model (Milgram, 1989, 1991) among the 16 (4 4) conceptual components of general and domain-specific academic and creative abilities in mathematics at four levels. The EQS 5.7 program (Bentler, 1997; EQS, 1997) was used to conduct a unified analysis. The results in the terminology of SEM are presented in Figure 2. Four factors (F1 to F4) represent the four ability types. The single-headed arrows leading from the general intelligence and the general original creative

Creativity Research Journal

209

N. L. Livne and R. M. Milgram

thinking to domain-specific academic and domain-specific creative ability in mathematics factors (13, 24, respectively) represent the hypothesized causal relationships between the factors. Four factors (F5 to F8) represent the four hierarchical ability levels in mathematics. The hierarchy is expressed by three single-headed arrows, denoted 56, 67, and 78 that represent causal relationships between pairs of adjacent ability levels. All eight latent factors (F1 to F8) are linked to 17 observed variables or indicators represented in Figure 2 by 17 rectangles labeled V1 to V17. The single-headed arrows leading from each factor to the rectangles V1 to V17 (denoted 1 to 29) represent regression paths linking each of the eight factors to its corresponding set of observed indicator scores, that is, how well the specified indicators load onto the appropriate factors. To examine the feasibility of four abilities in mathematics, two general and two domain-specific, the proposed 4 4 model, hereafter denoted Model P was compared with four alternative models (Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Hair et al., 1995; Hoyle, 1995). The models suggested theoretical combinations that merged general and/or domain-specific ability types, each representing a smaller number than the four postulated by the 4 4 Model. A one-factor model (Model A) combined all four ability types into a single ability type (F1, F2, F3, F4). There were two types of two-factor models. Model B combined general intelligence and domain-specific academic ability in mathematics, and general creative thinking and domain-specific creative ability in mathematics into two ability types (F1+F3, F2+F4). Model C combined general intelligence and creative abilities into one factor, and domain-specific abilities into a second factor (F1+F2, F3+F4). There was a three-factor model (Model D) that represented general intelligence, general creative thinking separately, and combined domain-specific academic and creative abilities into a single ability type (F1, F2, F3+F4). Other combinations that merged ability types were theoretically unacceptable. These analyses focused on the discriminant validity of general and domain-specific ability types, and, therefore, the data were investigated across the four ability levels. Of the four alternative models (A to D), three models (A, B, and D) were statistically unacceptable, because they were based on results that represented linearly dependent parameters that could not generate reliable and valid results (Bentler, 1997; Byrne, 1994).

Only Model C, provided evidence of valid fit indexes that were compared with those of the 4 4 model, that is, Model P. The findings indicated that Model P, representing the four ability types, provided evidence of a better fit to the data when compared with the alternative Model C that combined general intelligence and domain-specific academic ability in mathematics, and general creative thinking and domain-specific creative ability in mathematics. Model P, representing the four distinct ability types, provided good fit indexes, which were significantly higher compared to those of Model C. The overall estimation of the 4 4 Model P resulted in a Satorra-Bentler scaled 2 (100, N = 917) = 390.73, p < .001, and an unadjusted 2 (100, N = 917) = 411.38, p < .001, compared with a Satorra-Bentler scaled 2 (100, N = 917) =1210.73, p < .001, and an unadjusted 2 (100, N = 917) = 4678.09, p < .001 for Model C. However, because these models were nonnested models, that is, they differed in terms of the number of ability type constructs, the comparison between them relied only on the goodness-of-fit indexes and not on the 2 difference test (Hair et al., 1995; Hoyle, 1995). The fit indexes of Model P were Normed Fit Index (NFI) = .91; Nonnormed Fit Index (NNFI) = .91; Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .93; Incremental Fit Index (IFI) = .93; LISREL Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) = .95; Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) = .93; and root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) = .058, compared to the corresponding indices of the alternative model NFI = .73; NNFI = .66; CFI = .74; IFI = .74; LISREL GFI = .85; AGFI = .79; and RMSEA = .111. Because the fit indexes of Model C were far lower than the minimal acceptable fit index value of .90 and minimal range of .05.07 of RMSEA, it was rejected. These findings provided good evidence of the structural aspect of construct validity (Messick, 1995) of four general and domain-specific academic and creative abilities in mathematics that were distinct. To determine whether the four ability levels (nongifted, mild, moderate, and, profound) represented hierarchical levels that could be empirically supported, the proposed 4 4 model, denoted Model P, was compared with seven alternative models. Because this analysis focused on the discriminant validity of the four ability levels the data were investigated across ability types. The seven alternative models represented all the theoretically acceptable combinations of merg-

210

Creativity Research Journal

Figure 2. Structural validation of the 4 4 factor structure of giftedness model as applied to mathematics. 2(100, N = 917) 390.73; Normed Fit Index = .91; Nonnormed Fit Index = .91; Comparative Fit Index = .93; Incremental Fit Index = .93; Goodness-of-Fit Index = .95; Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index = .93; root mean squared error of approximation = .058.

211

N. L. Livne and R. M. Milgram

Table 3. Goodness-of-Fit Indexes for Four Nonnested Models of Ability Levels of the Structure of Giftedness in Mathematics
Model A. One-factor model: (F5, F6, F7, F8) B. Two-factor model: (F5, F6+F7+F8) C. Three-factor model: (F5+F6, F7, F8) P. Four-factor model: the proposed model F5, F6, F7, F8 NFI .87 .85 .86 NNFI .86 .83 .85 CFI .88 .87 .87 IFI .83 .87 .88 GFI .90 .90 .91 AGFI .88 .87 .87 RMSEA .071 .078 .074

.91

.91

.93

.93

.95

.93

.058

Note. NFI = Normed Fit Index; NNFI = Nonnormed Fit Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; IFI = Incremental Fit Index; GFI = Goodness of Fit Index; AGFI = Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation. F5 = nongifted level; F6 = mild level; F7 = moderate level; F8 = profound level.

ing adjacent ability levels, each representing a smaller number than the four postulated by the 4 4 model. Other models that included more than four levels were not tested due to a lack of a theoretical basis. Evidence of valid fit indexes was found for three of the seven alternative models: a one-factor model (Model E) that combined all the four ability levels (F5, F6, F7, F8), a two-factor model (Model F) that represented the nongifted level, and the mild, moderate, and profound levels combined (F5, F6+F7+ F8), and a three-factor model (Model G) that represented the nongifted and the mild levels combined, the moderate and the profound levels (F5+F6, F7, F8). These models were compared with Model P. Because these models were nonnested models, the comparison relied only on the goodness-of-fit indexes (Hair et al., 1995; Hoyle,

1995). The fit indexes of Model P and the three alternative models are presented in Table 3. Model P, representing the four distinct ability levels, provided good fit indexes, denoted in bold, which were higher than those of Model E to Model G. Because the fit indexes of the three alternative models were lower than those of Model P and did not satisfy the minimal acceptable value of .90, and the RMSEAs acceptable range of .05.07, they were rejected. These findings provided good evidence of the structural aspect of construct validity (Messick, 1995) of the four distinct and hierarchical ability levels. Based on the better overall fit of the 4 4 model compared with alternative models, the validation of four general and domain-specific academic and creative abilities in mathematics and four ability levels was further investigated.

212

Creativity Research Journal