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

net/publication/264031609

Piaget's Theory in the Development of Creative Thinking

Article  in  Research in Mathematical Education · December 2013

DOI: 10.7468/jksmed.2013.17.4.291

CITATIONS READS

15 40,133

1 author:

Supratman Ahman Maedi

Siliwangi University
11 PUBLICATIONS   65 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Piaget’s Theory in the Development of Creative Thinking View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Supratman Ahman Maedi on 05 January 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

http://dx.doi.org/10.7468/jksmed.2013.17.4.291
J. Korean Soc. Math. Educ., Ser. D, Res. Math. Educ.
Vol. 17, No. 4, December 2013, 291–307 ⓒ 2013 Korean Society of Mathematical Education

Piaget’s Theory in the Development of Creative Thinking1

SUPRATMAN, Ahman Maedi
Mathematics Education Courses and Pedagogy, Faculty of Education, University of
Siliwangi Tasikmalaya, West Java, Indonesia; Email: supratman_id@yahoo.com

(Received August 30, 2013; Revised November 21, 2013; Accepted December 27, 2013)

Piaget’s revolutionary study on the cognitive development of children has focused

on the development of logic. Logical operations and a variety of classifications
based on the set of accepted rules involve convergent thinking. Children and adults
have logical and creative thinking which deal with a reality of thinking. This study
aims to examine a cognitive structure of students, which is closely related to the
Piaget’s cognitive development theories of students when creative thinking. Students
were given an open mathematical problem and were expected to be able to take ad-
vantage of sensitivity, fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration which can be
seen as clearly of their structure cognitive.

Keywords: Piaget’ theory, creative thinking, convergent thinking, logical thinking

MESC Classification: C30
MSC2010 Classification: 97C30

1. INTRODUCTION

In recent years, various theories have emerged to explain and predict cognitive devel-
opment in mathematics education. Authors identified two types of theories of cognitive
growth are:
1) Global theory of long-term growth of the individual, such as Piaget’s theory of stag-
es (e.g., Piaget & Garcia, 1983).
2) The growth of local theories like the theory of conceptual action-process-object-
schema Dubinsky (Czarnocha, Dubinsky, Prabhu & Vidakovic, 1999) or sequence-
multi structural-uni structural abstract-relational model extended SOLO (Structure of
the observed learning results, Biggs & Collis, 1982; 1991; Pegg, 2003).
1
A draft version of the article was presented at the 2013 Joint International Conference on Math-
ematics Education held at Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742, Korea; November 1–2,
2013 (cf. Supratman, 2012).
291
292 SUPRATMAN, Ahman Maedi

Some theories (such as that of Piaget, the SOLO Model, or more broadly, the enactive-
iconic-symbolic theory of Bruner (1966)) incorporate both aspects. Others such as Lakoff
& Nunez (2000) and situated learning Lave & Wenger (1990) paint a broader brush-
strokes showed biological and social structures involved. It has been developed for differ-
ent purposes. The SOLO Model, for example, is related to the performance assessment
through learning outcomes were observed. Other theories such as Davis (1984), Dubinsky
(Czarnocha et al., 1999), Sfard (1991), and Gray & Tall (1994) concerned with the order
in which concepts are built by an individual. But still there are some researchers who un-
cover cognitive structures associated with the construction of detailed knowledge about
the mastery of new knowledge.
Piaget portrayed the child as a lone scientist, creating his or her own sense of the
world. Then individual will interpret and act accordingly to conceptual categories or
schemas that are developed in interaction with the environment. The knowledge of rela-
tionships among ideas, objects, and events is constructed by the active processes of inter-
nal assimilation, accommodation, and equilibration (Oxford, 1997, p. 39). Until children
can construct a certain level of logic from the inside, they are non-conservers because
they can judge on the basis of what they can see (Kamii & Ewing, 1996, p. 261).
Besides, we take into account that current learning perspectives incorporate three im-
portant assumptions as Anthony (1996) said:
(1) Learning is a process of knowledge construction, not of knowledge recording or ab-
sorption;
(2) Learning is knowledge-dependent; people use current knowledge to construct new
knowledge; and
(3) The learner is aware of the processes of cognition and can control and regulate them.

Each child builds on the previous stage of cognitive development increasing the
child’s ability to solve more complex problems (Oxford, 1997, p. 189). The fundamental
basis of learning was a discovery. Understanding is a discovering or a reconstructing by
rediscovery, and such conditions must be compiled with if in the future individuals are to
be formed who are capable of production, creativity and not simply repetition.
A series of activities were undertaken to identify:

1.1. Assimilation, accommodation and illustrations

Learning is an adaptation which has assimilation and accommodation in Piaget’s

term. To reach an understanding of basic phenomena, children have to go through the
stages which Piaget presented (Bybee & Sund, 1982, p. 36). In problems solving, students
construct the structure of thinking through the processes of assimilation and accommoda-
 Piaget’s Theory in the Development of Creative Thinking 293

tion. Working memory capacity (that is, the capacity to hold various pieces of information
simultaneously and to use them for further processing) is a critical feature of several
models of human cognition, and it is widely recognized that it affects performance on
many tasks (Morra, Gobbo, Marini & Sheese, 2009, p. 20). It has also been claimed that
individual differences in working memory capacity account well for difference in
measures of fluid intelligence (Engle, Tuholski, Laughlin & Conway, 1999; Kyllonen,
2002).
According to Fisher (1995, p. 57), thinking which is visualized and expressed can be
observed and communicated. As stated by Gentner (1983) and Morrison, Doumas &
Richl (2010), balancing inhibitory control in working memory and relational representa-
tion can be illustrated the process of assimilation and accommodation fundamentally. And
then author adopted from assimilation and accommodation of Subanji (2007).
Cognitive structure at the initial
assimilation equilibrium level

Cognitive structure at the initial

equilibrium level

integration
structure accommodation
problem

integration
structure
problem Cognitive structure in the
new equilibrium level

Cognitive structure in the

new equilibrium level

Figure 1. Illustration of the process of assimilation and accommodation adopted from

Subanji (2007, p.6)

Subanji (2007, p. 39) said that the substructure incompleteness in the process of as-
similation is a process of direct interpretation of the problem with more complex structure
using a simple thinking structure. This thinking process was preceded by the imperfect
assimilation process. The assimilation took place in the process of problem solving, but
the complex problem was interpreted to the simple problem. Therefore, it produced an
inappropriate answer.
In the process of problem solving (before the reflection), the students only conduct the
assimilation process, but did not produce the appropriate structure to the structure of the
294 SUPRATMAN, Ahman Maedi

problem. In this case, their thinking structure was still incomplete; nonetheless it had
been used to interpret a complex problem structure. However, it produced an inappropri-
ate answer (wrong). After receiving the answer, the students did not go through the reflec-
tion again.
Furthermore, when the opportunity for reflection was given, the disequilibration took
place again in the students’ thinking process, with the result that they continued to the
assimilation and accommodation process. For the illustrations, see Figure 2.

Student’s Scheme
Structure of problem

will be completed

establishment of new
structures

solutions to structur-
al problems

Assimilation

Accommodation
integration of new sub-structure

conversion of the
complete structure

Figure 2. Structure of complex problem solving adopted from Subanji (2007)

1.2. Encoding Process of Thinking

Categorization is done to facilitate the interpretation of the data, simplifying analysis

of the problems and the process of thinking of the object of research. It is related to the
process of thinking including problems, relationships and strategies. As Gentner &
Goldin-Meadow (2003, p. 6) shows the same view in cognitive linguistics that the cou-
 Piaget’s Theory in the Development of Creative Thinking 295

pling between language and cognition is strong enough to allow semantic structure to
serve as a window on conceptual structure.
Furthermore Forbus, Gentner & Law (1995) habitual use of a given set of relational
terms promotes uniform relational encoding; thereby the probability of transfer between
relational situations is increasing. Then performed: when a given domain is encoded in
terms of a stable set of relational terms, the likelihood of matching new examples with
stored exemplars that share relational structure is increasing. Recoding involves a mental
transformation of information into another code or format (Ashcroft, 1994).

1.3. Error Assimilation and Accommodation

In solving the problem, if the formation of cognitive structures is not perfect in the
sense of the word: a cognitive structure to the structure of the problem is not the same,
and then integrated it will produce the wrong answer (Subanji, 2007, p. 49). There is an
example of model problem from Frederick (Kahneman, 2003, p. 451):
“The price of baseball bat and ball is $12. Bat costs $ 10 more expensive than the ball.
What is the price of the ball?”

Many students answered $2. Possibility of thought processes occurring imperfections as-
similation. The model problem of Frederick structure can be described in Figures 3a and
3b.

Bat prices + ball price

= $12
$ 10 + ball price + Ball price
Ball pricing = 1/2 of $2 = $1
ball price = $ 12
Bat price = $10 + price
of the ball

Figure 3a. Suitability: Structural problems with the structure of thinking

Bat prices + ball price

= $12
$ 12 in sequence
Ball pricing Ball price = $2
$ 10 and $ 2
Bat price $10 more
expensive than the
price of the ball

Figure 3b. Mismatches: structural problems with the structure of thinking

296 SUPRATMAN, Ahman Maedi

From the above illustration, it seems that there is no correspondence between the
structures of a problem with the structure of student thinking. However, the assimilation
process is already under way obtaining the answer $2. Frederick’s real problem is a sim-
ple matter, even been able to use that mindset quickly without any control (reflection)
then the answer to be incorrect.
Examples of accommodations mistake on elementary school students: e.g.
Today is Sunday. What day is it 2011 days later?
Basically, elementary school students are familiar with addition, multiplication, subtrac-
tion and division. However, when they are faced with the problems mentioned above in
the absence of changes in cognitive structure namely linking multiple weekly with multi-
ples 7, it will result in a wrong answer. Note Figure 4a.

Addition Multiple weekly Information

Common occurrence multiplication Process line thinking is
reduction wrong, resulting in incor-
division rect answers
Process line thinking is
correct, so it will produce
Result Solve problem the correct answer

Figure 4a. Right mindset accommodation

On the contrary, when students firstly linked between weekly and multiples of 7, as
well as more associated with the addition or day trip, there will be the right answer. The
solution like that: 1 round = 1 week = 7 days, so the multiples will fall on the same day
Sunday. 2011:7 = 287 remainder 2 or 2011 = 287 × 7 + 2, or 287x7 = Sunday. There is an
excess of 2 days, so the answer is Tuesday. Figure 4b illustrated the problem solving.

Sat Sun
Fri over 2 days
287 rounds Mon

Thu Tue
Wed

Figur 4b. illustration of problem solving

1.4. Creative thinking and divergent thinking

Thinking can be divided into four categories, including recall thinking, basic thinking,
 Piaget’s Theory in the Development of Creative Thinking 297

critical thinking, and creative thinking (Krulik, Rudnick, & Milou, 2003, p. 89). Krulik et
al. (2003) said that critical and creative thinking are higher-order thinking, and basic, crit-
ical, and creative thinking are reasoning. Figure 5 presents the hierarchy of thinking from
Krulik at.al (2003).

creative
Higher –order
thinking
critical Reasoning

basic

recal

Figure 5. Hierarchy of thinking

Creative thinking is characterized as an ability to solve problems in not normal, unique,

and various ways. The story of Gauss is one of the examples of creative thinking and it
can also stimulate students’ interest. When Gauss was a child, he and his class were asked
to find the sum of the whole numbers from 1 through 100. Gauss was able to solve it in a
minute. He placed the numbers in a row as follows: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... + 97 + 98 + 99 +
100. He then noticed that there were series of number pairs that summed to 101: 1 + 100
= 101; 2 + 99 = 101; 3 + 98 = 101; 4 + 97 = 101 and so on. Therefore, the answer is 50
pairs of 101, in other words 50 × 101 = 5,050.
According to Evans (1991: p. 41), divergent thinking component consists of problem
sensitivity, fluency, flexibility, and originality. Evans gave further explanation of the
components of divergent thinking, namely:
Problem sensitivity is the ability to recognize the existence of a problem or ignore the
fact that less appropriate to recognize the real problem.
 Fluency is the ability to build a lot of ideas.
 Flexibility or resilience refers to the ability to build a diverse idea.
 Originality is the ability to generate ideas that are unusual, extraordinary, or unique.
A different set of mental habits characteristic of creativity according to Amabile
(1983), and Parkins (1984) if you have mental habits that exemplify creative thinking,
you tend to:
(1) Persevere;
(2) Push the limits of your knowledge and abilities;
(3) Generate, trust, and maintain your own standards of evaluation; and
(4) Generate new ways of viewing a situation that are outside the boundaries of standard
conventions.
298 SUPRATMAN, Ahman Maedi

Padget (2012) realized that learning should touch on critical and creative thinking.
Furthermore, Hadamard (1945) influenced by Gestalt psychology of his time theorized
that mathematicians creative process followed the four stage Gestalt model (Wallas, 1926)
of preparation-incubation-illumination-verification.

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1. Participants

A qualitative design was chosen for this study in order to investigate the intricate
thinking process (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992). To see it, the data were gathered by the think
aloud method (van Someren, Barnard & Sandberg, 1994) which was conducted by asking
the research subjects to solve problems and to tell how their thinking process is at the
same time. Think aloud was developed by the cognitive psychologists aiming to investi-
gate how someone solves a problem. Using this method, the solver’s cognitive process
related to the problems can be recorded and analysed. The research subjects were 2 stu-
dents who were in Mathematics Education academic year 2012/2013. They had not stud-
ied a conic section equation, but could express their thought process when they solve the
problems.

2.2. Questionnaire

To investigate the creative thinking of students, researchers gave questionnaires can

open students explore the characteristics of creative thinking to solve problems with a
central question:
“Finding the set of points where the ratio of fixed distance to one of the lines, the lines
are perpendicular to each other, and to the point that lies on the other line! “

For the complete information about the thinking process of students, investigator con-
ducted interviews to student during students working for the task and after that. In ac-
cordance with the opinion of Guba & Lincoln (1994) the received view of science pic-
tures the Inquirer as standing behind a one-way mirror, viewing natural phenomena as
they happen and recording them objectively. The researchers called the students one by
one to work construction tasks of conic section equation. We explored several students,
until finding at least two students, who were able to answer perfectly, and explained their
thought processes when solving problems.
 Piaget’s Theory in the Development of Creative Thinking 299

3. RESULTS

After exploring 9 students, we found 2 students, named Subject 4 (S4) and Subject 9
(S9), who were able to answer perfectly. We interviewed them to know their mindset such
as ‘what is his way of thought to solve problems’. As for the answer as follows:
Firstly, S4 made two lines, which are perpendicular to the x-axis and y-axis. Then put
point A between the x-axis and y-axis. The next line drawn perpendicular to the y-axis of
point A he calls B, and line drawn from the x-axis to the point A, he called C. So, that dis-
tance comparisons between the distance of AB is equal to the distance AC.
Subject 4 has been constructed of conic section equations with various positions, namely:
(1) The comparison same distance between the AC and AB (e = 1) will be obtained par-
abolic equation, as shown in Figure 6a.
(2) The comparison: distance AC < distance AB (e < 1, taken e = ) will be obtained
ellips equations, as shown in Figure 6b.
(3) The comparison: distance AC > distance AB (e > 1, taken e = 2) will be obtained
hyperbolic equation, as shown in Figure 6c.
b b
? b
A ? A
B B
B A
V C V C
V C
(
0 ?
6a 6b 6c
,
0
Figure 6. Sketch the graph of a conic section generated S4 and S9
)
6a 6b 6c
V(1, 0) and C(2, 0) V(2, 0) and C(3, 0) V(1, 0) and C(3, 0)
CA = BA 2CA = BA CA =2BA
= =
= =
= =

If A(x, y), and b coincides with the y-axis and C on the x-axis, then b x = 0, conse-
quently S9 used the comparison distance between two points, for solving the problem. So
it does not produce a conic section equation. After the reflection, he did with comparison
a combination of distance calculations point to the line, and the distance between two
points. As S4 and S9 did as in Figure 6. For the structure of creative thinking when build-
300 SUPRATMAN, Ahman Maedi

ing a conic section equation is shown in Figure 7.

construct equations
conic section die

ass acp ass

The distance between asp Reflection The distance between
points with lines comparison two points
asp
asr asr asr
e e e

acs acs acs

elliptic equations parabolic equation hyperbolic equations

Legends acr
acr acr
die = disequilibrium
ass =Assimilation strategy conic section
asr = Assimilation relationship equation
asp =Assimilation problem
acp= Accommodation problem
efs
acs = Accommodation strategy
acr =Accommodation relationship
efs =Equilibrium final stage

Figure 7. Sequence of creative thinking as students construct a conic section

equation
Problem solving means answering a question for which one does not directly have an
answer available. This can be because the answer cannot be directly retrieved from
memory but must be constructed from information that is available in memory or that can
be obtained from the environment. Another possibility is that finding the answer involves
exploring possible answers none of which is immediately recognized as the solution to a
problem. Problem solving then means that new information must be inferred from givens
and knowledge in memory to accept or reject possible answers. Most of the problem solv-
ing involves a combination of these two types of reasoning: constructing solutions and
constructing justifications of these solutions (van Someren et. al, 1994).
In the process of problem solving, S9 only conducted the assimilation process, but did
not produce the appropriate structure to the structure of the problem. In this case, his
thinking structure was still incomplete; nonetheless it had been used to interpret a com-
plex problem structure. Yet, it produced an inappropriate answer (wrong). After receiving
the reflection, S9 could answer to solve problem for construction of conic equation. The
cognitive structure of S4 & S9 creative thinking can be seen in Figure 8.
 Piaget’s Theory in the Development of Creative Thinking 301

structure thinking of S9 be-

b h b
Interpretation of S9

fore reflection
before reflection
o
c
1
a a
h reflection
b
Structure of problem

l
Interpretation of ?

d
S9 after reflection
a
e f

Interpretation structure thinking of S4

g
m
b c
h
j k

and S.9 after reflection

j
o
l
f
e
d
k
j g

n
m
Legends
= Statement = False Statement = Question
Problem, the proposed construction of
a g
conic section equation
a1 Problem, often encountered in daily life h quadratic
b The distance between two points i elliptic equations
c The distance between points on a line j parabolic equation
d compare k hiperbolic equations
e l graph
f b>c m completed
o equation of the line for a corner n conic section equation

Figure 8. The cognitive structure of S4 & S9 creative thinking

4. DISCUSSION

From the results, it can be concluded that the process of assimilation and accommoda-
tion when creative thinking starts from students’ awareness of the existence of complex
302 SUPRATMAN, Ahman Maedi

problems. The study revealed that there are three characteristics of creative thinking pro-
cesses:
(1) The existence of sub-structure perfection of thought that will be used in generalizing
the solution,
(2) Capable of reflecting on their own to the fullest, and
(3) The existence of consciousness to explore the possibility of another solution.
In addition it was found that Imperfections of the process of assimilation or accommoda-
tion that produce sub-structure formation imperfection of thought will produce the wrong
answers. According to the results of research Subanji (2007, p. 155) that:
Assimilation or accommodation imperfections can occur in three forms:
(1) The incompleteness of the sub-structure of thought in the process of assimilation,
(2) Incompleteness think sub-structure in the process of accommodation, and
(3) Mismatch sub-structures thinking in the process of assimilation or accommodation.
But needs more study.

REFERENCES

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The Social Psychology of Creativity. New York: Springer Verlag.
Anthony, G. (1996). Active learning in a constructivist framework. Educ. Stud. Math. 31(4), 349–
369. ME 2002c.01837
Ashcroft, M. H. (1994). Human Memory and Cognition. New York: Harper Collins.
Biggs, J. & Collis, K. (1982). Evaluating the Quality of Learning: the SOLO Taxonomy. New York:
Academic Press.
_____ (1991). Multimodal learning and the quality of intelligent behaviour. In: H. Rowe (Ed.),
Intelligence, Reconceptualization and Measurement (pp. 57–76). Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erl-
baum Assoc.
Bogdan, R. & Biklen, S. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and
methods. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Belkapp Press.
Bybee, R. W. & Sund, R. B. (1982). Piaget for Educators 2nd ed. Colombus, OH: Charles E.
Merri Publising Co.
Czarnocha, B.; Dubinsky, E.; Prabhu, V. & Vidakovic, D. (1999). One theoretical perspective in
undergraduate mathematics education research. In: O. Zaslavsky (Ed.), Proceedings of the
23rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education
(PME-23) (Vol. 1, 95–110). Haifa, Israel. ME 2002a.00240
 Piaget’s Theory in the Development of Creative Thinking 303

Davis, R. B. (1984). Learning Mathematics: The cognitive science approach to mathematics edu-
cation. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. ME 1985c.02123
Engle, R. W., Tuholski, S. W., Laughlin, J. E., & Conway, A. R. A. (1999). Working memory,
short-term memory and general fluid intelligence: A latent variable approach. J. Exp. Psychol.
Gen. 128(3), 309–331. Available from:
http://psychology.gatech.edu/renglelab/1999/working-memory2c-short3dterm-memory2c-and-
general-fluid-intelligence.pdf
Evans, J. R. (1991). Creative Thinking in the Decision and Management Sciences. Cincinnati,
Ohio: South Western Publishing Co.
Fisher, R. (1995). Teaching Children to Learn. London, UK: Blackwell/Simon & Schuster/Stanley
Thornes.
Forbus,K. D.; Gentner, D. & Law, K. (1995). MAC/FAC: A model of similarity-based retrieval.
Cognitive Science 19(2), 141–205.
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy. Cognitive Science
7(2), 155–170. Available from:
http://axon.cs.byu.edu/~dan/673/papers/gentner.pdf
Gentner, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2003). Language in Mind Advances in the Study of Language
and Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gray, E. & Tall, D. (1994). Duality, ambiguity, and flexibility: a ‘proceptual’ view of simple
arithmetic. J. Res. Math. Edu. 25(2), 116–140. ME 1995c.01407
Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: N. K.
Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hadamard, J. W. (1945). Essay on the psychology of invention in the mathematical field. Prince-
ton: Princeton University Press. (Page references are to Dover edition, New York 1954).
Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: A perspective on intuitive judgment and
choice. In: T. Frangsmyr (Ed.), Les Prix Nobel: The Nobel Prizes 2002 (pp. 449–489). Stock-
holm: Nobel Foundation. Retrieved December 27, 2013 at
http://www. nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/2002/kahnemann-lecture.pdf
Kamii, C. & Ewing, J. (1996). Basing teaching on Piaget’s constructivism. Childhood Education,
72(5), 260–264.
Krulik, S.; Rudnick, J. & Milou, E. (2003). Teaching Mathematics in Middle School. Boston, MA:
Allin and Bacon.
Kyllonen, P. C. (2002). Knowledge, speed, strategies, or working memory capacity? A systems
perspective. In: R. J. Sternberg & E. L. Gigorenko (Eds.), The general factor of intelligence:
How general is it? (pp. 415–445). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lakoff, G. & Nunez, R. (2000). Where Mathematics Comes From. How the embodied mind brings
mathematics into being. New York, NY: Basic Books. ME 2002f.04631
304 SUPRATMAN, Ahman Maedi

Lave, J. & Wenger E. (1990). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Morra, S.; Gobbo, C.; Marini, Z. & Sheese, R. (2009). Cognitive Development Neo-Piagetian Per-
spectives. New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
Morrison R. G.; Doumas L. A. A. & Richland, L. E. (2010). A computational account of chil-
dren’s analogical reasoning: balancing inhibitory control in working memory and relational
representation. Developmental Science 14(3), 516–529. Available from:
http://learninglab.uchicago.edu/Publications_files/morrison_etal_DS_2010.pdf
Oxford, R. (1997). Constructivism: shape-shifting, substance, and teacher education applications.
Peabody Journal of Education 72(1), 35–66.
Padget, S. (2012).Creativity and critical thinking. London, UK: Routledge Taylor and Francis
Group.
Parkins, D. N. (1984). Creativity by Design. Educational Leadership 42(1), 18–25.
Pegg, J. (2003). Assessment in Mathematics: a developmental approach. In: J. M. Royer (Ed.),
Advances in Cognition and Instruction (pp. 227–259). New York: Information Age Publishing
Inc.
Piaget, J. & Garcia, R. (1983). Psychogenèse et Histoire des Sciences. Paris: Flammarion.
Sfard, A. (1991). On the Dual Nature of Mathematical Conceptions: Reflections on processes and
objects as different sides of the same coin. Educ. Stud. Math. 22(1), 1–36.
Subanji (2007). Kovariasionalpseudoreasoningprocessof constructingthe graphfunction, incidence
ofcontrastdynamics. Ph. D. Dissertation. Malang, Indonesia: University of Malang.
Supratman, A. (2013). Piaget’s Theory in the Development of Creative Thinking. In: Y. H. Choe,
O. N. Kwon & B. E. Suh (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2013 Joint International Conference on
Mathematics Education held at Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742, Korea; November
1–2, 2013 (pp. 559–573). Seoul, Korea: Korean Society of Mathematical Education.
van Someren M. W.; Barnard Y. F. & Sandberg J. A. C. (1994). The Think Aloud Method: A Prac-
tical Guide to Modelling Cognitive Processes. London, UK: Academic Press. Retrieved Octo-
ber 21, 2013, from
ftp://akmc.biz/ShareSpace/ResMeth-IS
Spring2012/Zhora_el_Gauche/Reading%20Materials/Someren_et_al
The_Think_Aloud_Method.pdf
Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Jovanovich.
 Piaget’s Theory in the Development of Creative Thinking 305

APPENDIX
ATTACHMENT OF STUDENTS’ WORK

b ? b b b
C ? A ?
B A
B V B
A V . V C
V A ( B C ( /
0 (
C ( ? 0
0 , 0
, , 1d
1a, 01b 1c
0 0
0 )
)
) Figure 1. Sketch the graph of parabola with a variety of positions)

Calculation of parabola, S4 and S9 stated as follows for Figure 1:

The parabolic equations in a
B V c
variety of positions
(0, 0) (0,–1) y = –2 x2 = 4y + 4
1a (0, 1) (0,0) y= –1 x2 = 4y
(0, 2) (0,1) y=0 x2 = 4y – 4
(0, 0) (0, 1) y=2 x2 = –4y + 4
1b (0,–1) (0, 0) y= 1 x2 = –4y
(0,–2) (0,–1) y=0 x2 =–4y –4
C V b
(0, 0) (1, 0) x=2 y2 = –4x + 4
1c (–1, 0) (0, 0) x= 1 y2 = –4x
(–2 ,0) (–1, 0) x=0 y = –4x – 4
2

(0, 0) (–1, 0) x = –2 y2 = 4x + 4
1d (1, 0) (0, 0) x= –1 y2 = 4x
(2, 0) (1, 0) x=0 y = 4x – 4
2
306 SUPRATMAN, Ahman Maedi

?
b
A A B C
B B c
C ? V
V C V
A
V
A ?
c C B
? b
2a 2b 2d
2c

Figure 2. Sketch the graph of hyperbole in various positions

Calculation of hyperbole, S4 and S9 stated as follows for Figure 2

The hyperbole equations in a variety of
C V b
positions
(0, 0) (–2, 0)
2a (2, 0) (0, 0)
(1, 0) (3, 0)
(0, 0) (2, 0)
2b (–2, 0) (0, 0)
(–3, 0) (–1, 0)
B V c
(0, 0) (0,–2)
2c (0, 2) (0, 0)
(0, 3) (0, 1)
(0, 0) (0, 2)
2d (0,–2) (0,0),
(0,–3) (0,–1)
 Piaget’s Theory in the Development of Creative Thinking 307

b b ?
? B C
? c
B A A A
B V
V C C V F V
C A
c B
?
3a 3b 3c 3d

Figure 3. Sketch the graph of an ellipse with a variety of positions

Calculation of ellipse, S4 and S9 stated as follows for Figure 3:

An ellipse equations in a variety of
C V b
positions
(0, 0) (–1,0)
3a (1,0) (0, 0)
(3, 0) (2, 0)
(0, 0) (1,0)
3b (–1, 0) (0,0)
(–3,0) (–2,0)
B V c
(0, 0) (0,–1)
3c (0, 0) (0, 1)
(0, 3) (0, 2)
(0, 0) (0, 1)
3d (0, 0) (0,–1)
(0,–3) (0,–2)

View publication stats