Next Article in Journal
Developing Transversal Competencies in Peruvian Architecture Students Through a COIL Experience
Previous Article in Journal
Correction: Gallardo-Fuentes et al. (2025). Perceptions of Learning Assessment in Practicum Students vs. Initial Teacher Education Faculty in Chilean Physical Education: A Comparative Study of Two Cohorts. Education Sciences, 15(4), 459
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Misleading Definition of Creativity Suggested by AI Must Be Kept out of the Classroom
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
This is an early access version, the complete PDF, HTML, and XML versions will be available soon.
Systematic Review

Mathematical Creativity: A Systematic Review of Definitions, Frameworks, and Assessment Practices

Department of Educational Psychology, University of Georgia, 323 Aderhold Hall, Athens, GA 30602, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15(10), 1348; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15101348 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 7 September 2025 / Revised: 7 October 2025 / Accepted: 9 October 2025 / Published: 11 October 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Creativity and Education)

Abstract

Mathematical creativity (MC) plays an important role in mathematics and education; however, its conceptualization and assessment remain inconsistent across empirical studies. This systematic review examined how MC has been defined, conceptualized, and assessed across 80 empirical studies involving K-12 populations. Through thematic analysis, the study identified three definition types: divergent thinking, problem-solving, and problem-posing, as well as affective–motivational emphasis. We organized theoretical frameworks into three categories: domain-general, domain-specific, and multidimensional frameworks. Results showed that the most common definitions emphasized divergent thinking components while fewer studies highlighted affective and dispositional factors. Domain-specific frameworks were the most frequently used, followed by multidimensional frameworks. Regarding assessment, studies predominantly relied on divergent-thinking scoring. Most assessments used criterion-referenced rubrics with norm-based comparisons. They were delivered mainly in paper-pencil format. Tasks were typically open-ended multiple-solution problems with fewer studies using self-reports or observational methods. Overall, the field prioritizes product-based scoring (e.g., fluency, flexibility, originality) over evidence about students’ solution processes (e.g., reasoning, metacognitive monitoring). To improve cross-context comparability, future work should standardize and transparently report age, grade, and country coding and scoring practices.
Keywords: mathematical creativity; divergent thinking; problem-solving; problem-posing; creativity assessment; domain-general creativity; domain-specific creativity; multidimensional models; K-12 education mathematical creativity; divergent thinking; problem-solving; problem-posing; creativity assessment; domain-general creativity; domain-specific creativity; multidimensional models; K-12 education

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sipahi, Y.; Bahar, A.K. Mathematical Creativity: A Systematic Review of Definitions, Frameworks, and Assessment Practices. Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 1348. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15101348

AMA Style

Sipahi Y, Bahar AK. Mathematical Creativity: A Systematic Review of Definitions, Frameworks, and Assessment Practices. Education Sciences. 2025; 15(10):1348. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15101348

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sipahi, Yasemin, and A. Kadir Bahar. 2025. "Mathematical Creativity: A Systematic Review of Definitions, Frameworks, and Assessment Practices" Education Sciences 15, no. 10: 1348. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15101348

APA Style

Sipahi, Y., & Bahar, A. K. (2025). Mathematical Creativity: A Systematic Review of Definitions, Frameworks, and Assessment Practices. Education Sciences, 15(10), 1348. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15101348

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop