References
- Abakpa, B., Agbo-Egwu, A. O., & Abah, J. (2017). Emphasizing phenomenology as a research paradigm for interpreting growth and development in mathematics education. Abacus, Journal of The Mathematical Association of Nigeria, 42(1), 391–405.
- Adiredja, A. P., & Louie, N. (2020). Untangling the web of deficit discourses in mathematics education. For the Learning of Mathematics, 40(1), 42–46.
- Borwein, P., Liljedahl, P., & Zhai, H. (2014). Mathematicians on creativity. The Mathematical Association of America.
- Chevalier, A., Gibbons, S., Thorpe, A., Snell, M., & Hoskins, S. (2009). Students’ academic self-perception. Economics of Education Review, 28(6), 716–727. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2009.06.007
- Cilli-Turner, E., Satyam, V. R., Savić, M., Tang, G., El Turkey, H., & Karakök, G. (2021). Towards a new paradigm in defining mathematical creativity: Inclusion of the tertiary student perspective. ZDM Mathematics Education.
- Corazza, G. E., & Glăveanu, V. P. (2020). Potential in creativity: Individual, social, material perspectives, and a dynamic integrative framework. Creativity Research Journal, 32(1), 81–91. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2020.1712161
- Correll, S. J. (2001). Gender and the career choice process: The role of biased self-assessments. American Journal of Sociology, 106(6), 1691–1730. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1086/321299
- Debby Ellis Writing Center. (n.d.). Tips for socially responsible writing. https://www.southwestern.edu/live/files/7440-social-justice-language-handout-2pdf.
- Ellis, J., Fosdick, B. K., Rasmussen, C., & Manalo, E. (2016). Women 1.5 times more likely to leave STEM pipeline after calculus compared to men: Lack of mathematical confidence a potential culprit. PLOS ONE, 11(7), e0157447. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157447
- El Turkey, H., Tang, G., Savic, M., Karakok, G., Cilli-Turner, E., & Plaxco, D. (2018). The creativity-in-progress rubric on proving: Two teaching implementations and students' reported usage. Primus, 28(1), 57–79.
- El Turkey, H., Karakök, G., Tang, G., Reiger, P., Savić, M., & Cilli-Turner, E. (2020). Creativity-in-progress rubric on problem solving at the post-secondary level. In Karunakaran, S. S., Reed, Z., & Higgins, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education (pp. 588–597). Boston, MA.
- Harry, B., Sturges, K. M., & Klingner, J. K. (2005). Mapping the process: An exemplar of process and challenge in grounded theory analysis. Educational Researcher, 34(2), 3–13. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034002003
- IBM 2010 Global CEO Study. (2010, May 18). IBM News room. https://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/31670.wss.
- Johnson, E., Ellis, J., & Rasmussen, C. (2015). It's about time: The relationships between coverage and instructional practices in college calculus. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 47(4), 1–14. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2015.1091516
- Karakok, G., El Turkey, H., Savić, M., Tang, G., Cilli-Turner, E. & Reiger, P. (2020). Creativity-in-progress rubric on problem solving at the post-secondary level. In A. I. Sacristán, J. C. Cortés-Zavala, & P. M. Ruiz-Arias,(Eds.). Mathematics Education Across Cultures: Proceedings of the 42nd Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Mexico (pp. 986–990). Cinvestav / AMIUTEM / PME-NA. https://doi.org/10.51272/pmena.42.2020-148
- Leikin, R. (2009). Exploring mathematical creativity using multiple solution tasks. In R. Leikin, A. Berman, & B. Koichu (Eds.), Creativity in mathematics and the education of gifted students (pp. 129–145). Sense Publishers.
- Liljedahl, P. G. (2005). Mathematical discovery and affect: The effect of AHA! experiences on undergraduate mathematics students. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 36(2-3), 219–234. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/00207390412331316997
- Luria, S. R., Sriraman, B., & Kaufman, J. C. (2017). Enhancing equity in the classroom by teaching for mathematical creativity. ZDM Mathematics Education, 49(7), 1033–1039. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0892-2
- Mann, E. L. (2006). Creativity: The essence of mathematics. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(2), 236–260. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2006-264
- Mann, M. (2018). Exploring the relationship between literature and student definitions of mathematical originality [Unpublished honors thesis]. University of Oklahoma.
- Moore-Russo, D., & Demler, E. L. (2018). Mathematical creativity: Views from the field. In N. Amado, S. Carreira, & H. Jones (Eds.), Broadening the scope of research on mathematical problem solving: A focus on technology, creativity and affect (pp. 321–345). Springer.
- Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 305–310.
- Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. G. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092
- Ryals, M., & Keene, K. (2017). A success factor model for calculus: The relative impact of and connections between factors affecting student success in college calculus. In A. Weinberg, C. Rasmussen, J. Rabin, M. Wawro, & S. Brown (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th annual conference on research in undergraduate mathematics education (pp. 871–878). San Diego, California.
- Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
- Savic, M., Karakok, G., Tang, G., El Turkey, H., & Naccarato, E. (2017). Formative assessment of creativity in undergraduate mathematics: Using a creativity-in-progress rubric (CPR) on proving. In R. Leikin & B. Sririman (Eds.), Creativity and giftedness (pp. 23–46). Springer.
- Schöning, M., & Witcomb, C. (2017, September 15). This is the one skill your child needs for the jobs of the future. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/09/skills-children-need-work-future-play-lego/.
- Silver, E. (1997). Fostering creativity through instruction rich in mathematical problem solving and problem posing. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 29(3), 75–80. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-997-0003-x
- Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage.
- Tang, G., Savić, M., El Turkey, H., Cilli-Turner, E., Karakok, G., & Regier, P. (2020). Shifting Pedagogical Beliefs into Action Through Teaching for Mathematical Creativity. In S. Karunakaran, Z. Reed, & A. Higgins (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd annual conference on research in undergraduate mathematics education (pp. 959–965). Boston, MA.
- Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms-technical manual. Ginn.
- van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. The Althouse Press.
- Xie, Y., Fang, M., & Shauman, K. (2015). STEM education. Annual Review of Sociology, 41(1), 331–357. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071312-145659