International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education (2022) 20:619–636

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10155-4

Geometrical Figure Apprehension, Construction

of Auxiliary Lines, and Multiple Solutions in Problem
Solving: Aspects of Mathematical Creativity
in School Geometry

Panagiotis Gridos 1 & Evgenios Avgerinos 1 &

Joanna Mamona-Downs 2 & Roza Vlachou 1

Received: 18 February 2020 / Accepted: 10 January 2021 / Published online: 20 February 2021
# Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2021, corrected publication 2021

Abstract
The present study aims to examine mathematical creativity in students’ work in geometry.
Research conducted was based on two aspects: (a) examining the influence of geometrical
figure apprehension on the production of multiple solutions and (b) how the necessity to
construct auxiliary lines in the given shape promotes the production of multiple solutions
and the variables of creativity. Data was collected from 243 tenth graders (15 and 16 years
old); all participants were asked to complete a 2-part test, a multiple solution problem
solving test, and a geometrical figure apprehension test. The analysis of the results primarily
shows that the way through which students perceive the geometrical figure and their ability
to process it, is an important factor in predicting their mathematical creativity. Furthermore,
it became evident that only perceptual apprehension of geometrical figures is not a reliable
predictor of creativity variables, as opposed to operative apprehension of geometrical figures
that positively predict the characteristics of creativity: fluency, flexibility, and originality.

Keywords Geometrical figure apprehension . Auxiliary lines . Multiple solution problem

solving . Mathematical creativity

* Panagiotis Gridos
p.gridos@aegean.gr

Evgenios Avgerinos
eavger@rhodes.aegean.gr

Joanna Mamona-Downs
mamona@upatras.gr

Roza Vlachou
r.vlachou@rhodes.aegean.gr

1
Mathematics Education and Multimedia Laboratory, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, Greece
2
Department of Mathematics, University of Patras, Patras, Greece
620 P. Gridos et al.

Introduction

In recent years, there is a growing need to develop the capability of people to offer
creative and innovative solutions to problems facing society today. Creativity is an
important characteristic, personal and social, that stimulates human progress and
evolution (Leikin & Pitta-Pantazi, 2013). This value of creative thinking in humans
has also been recognized by international governing and educational organizations,
such as the European Parliament and the Council (2006) and the National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics in USA (2000), which stress the importance of developing the
capacity of students, at all educational levels, to think creatively and flexibly in
mathematics. From this perspective, creativity is an integral part of mathematics
(Brunkalla, 2009) and has been proposed as one of the major components to be fostered
in mathematics education, as “the essence of Mathematics is thinking creatively”
(Mann, 2006, p. 239).
However, because creativity is a complex mental process which requires analysis,
we, therefore, sharply divide the latter into distinct parts. In the field of mathematics
education, creativity research focuses mainly on the following: (a) the stages of the
creative process, (b) the properties of the creative act and product, (c) the personality
of creative individuals, and (d) the cognitive processes involved in creative activi-
ties. This paper focuses on the cognitive processes which are required in creative
geometric activities, examining the mathematical creativity that students display
while solving problems in mathematics. More specifically, the purpose of this paper
is to show that creativity in geometry is related to the spatial reasoning of the
students (Battista, 2007) and especially to the different ways that students apprehend
the geometrical figures (Duval, 1995, 2017). In relation to producing more than one
solution to a problem (e.g. Levav-Waynberg & Leikin, 2012), we examine the
students’ ability to construct auxiliary lines, an act that brings to the fore the
structure of the task environment.

Theoretical Framework

Mathematical Creativity and Multiple Solution Problem Solving

Creativity is a complex phenomenon, for which several definitions are given in the
research bibliography (Haylock, 1987; Leikin, 2009). Some definitions address the
properties of the creative act and product (e.g. Silver, 1997) and others concern the
stages of the creative processes (Ervynck, 1991).
Torrance (1994) defines creativity as being multidimensional: fluency, flexibil-
ity, originality, and elaboration are all aspects of creativity. In the field of
mathematics education, only the three dimensions are often considered: fluency,
flexibility, and originality. In more detail, fluency is related to the flow of ideas,
flexibility has to do with the ability to shift between different ideas, and originality
is associated with the innovation of the individual’s ideas or products (e.g. Leikin,
2009; Silver, 1997).
Creativity in school mathematics naturally differs from that of professional mathe-
maticians; however, students can offer new insights or solutions to mathematical
Geometrical Figure Apprehension, Construction of Auxiliary Lines,... 621

problems based on the mathematics learned, their previous experience in problem

solving, and the performance of other students’ contributions. From this point of view,
in the mathematics classroom in order to develop these dimensions of creativity, many
researchers (Ervynck, 1991; Kwon, Park & Park, 2006; Leikin, 2009; Leikin, 2014;
Silver, 1997; Stupel & Ben-Chaim, 2017) recommend multiple solution problem
solving. “A multiple-solution task (MST) is an assignment in which a student is
explicitly required to solve a mathematical problem in different ways” (Leikin,
2009). Based on Leikin (2009), the difference in solutions can be reflected by the
use of the following: (a) different interpretations of a mathematical concept; (b)
alternative—but equivalent—definitions of a mathematical concept; and (c) different
mathematical perspectives and tools from different branches of mathematics. A pivotal
issue underlying all the above is the structural appraisement of a completed solution or
a solution attempt with an eye to provide alternative solution approaches (Mamona-
Downs, 2008). Previous research regarding student learning skills suggests that the use
of multiple solution methods for problem solving develops student creativity and
mental flexibility, and increases mathematical understanding, reasoning, and critical
thinking (e.g. Elia et al., 2009a, b; Levav-Waynberg & Leikin, 2012).
The new approaches to teaching and learning geometry, such as the develop-
ment of mathematical creativity, are the modern way of reforming the teaching
and learning of geometry based on research findings (e.g. Kell, Lubinski, Benbow
& Steiger, 2013; Levav-Waynberg & Leikin, 2012; Singer, Voica & Pelczer,
2017). Among the various areas of mathematics, geometry can be used as a
vehicle to develop different ways of thinking in mathematics. Geometry provides
opportunities for investigation and proving activities that resemble the work of
mathematicians (Herbst, 2002), allowing the smooth integration of multiple ap-
proaches to one problem. Almost every geometry problem found in a standard
textbook can be turned into a multiple solution problem (Levav-Waynberg &
Leikin, 2012).

Geometrical Figure Apprehension

The present study uses Duval’s (1995, 2017) theory of how geometrical figure is
apprehended by students. When analyzing a geometrical problem, the utility of
the geometrical figure is indisputable as it provides an intuitive/visual presenta-
tion of the components and relationships (Duval, 1995). According to Duval
(2017), the various kinds of representation used to visualize in mathematics
become a source of misunderstanding, all the more important that they have an
increasing place in the teaching of mathematics for two reasons. First, the
emphasis is placed on practical activities that involve using a lot of varied,
visual representations, such as figures, “curves,” and tables. Second, the use of
a computer for everything that concerns mathematical visualization (Presmeg,
2020), both in geometry and in calculus, and geometrical or graphical software
opens considerable possibilities of creation and visual exploration.
Through perceptual approach to geometry, Duval (1995, 2017) distinguishes
four apprehensions for a geometrical figure: perceptual, sequential, discursive, and
operative. In order a drawing to function as a geometrical figure must evoke
perceptual apprehension and at least one of the other three. Each has its specific
622 P. Gridos et al.

laws of organization and processing of the visual stimulus array. The above four
apprehensions for a geometrical figure are tested experimentally in elementary
(Elia et al., 2009a, b; Michael, Gagatsis, Elia, Deliyianni & Monoyiou, 2009) and
high school students (Deliyianni, Elia, Gagatsis, Monoyiou & Panaoura, 2010).
Below we offer a description of these kinds of apprehension:

1. Perceptual apprehension refers to the recognition of a shape in a plane or in

3Dspace. Perceptual apprehension indicates the ability to identify figures and to
recognize several sub-figures in the perceived figure.
2. Sequential apprehension is required whenever one must construct a figure or
describe its construction. The organization of the elementary figural units does
not depend on perceptual laws and cues, but on technical constraints and mathe-
matical properties.
3. Discursive apprehension is related to the fact that mathematical properties
represented in a drawing cannot be determined through perceptual appre-
hension. In any geometrical figure, the perceptual recognition of geometri-
cal properties must be controlled by the statements that define the
properties.
4. However, it is through operative apprehension that we can get an insight into a
problem solution when looking at a figure. Operative apprehension depends
on the various ways of modifying a given figure: the mereologic, the optic,
and the differentiation with respect to its orientation (place way). The
mereologic way refers to the mathematical action of dissection, i.e. the
division of the whole figure given into parts of various shapes and the
combination of them in another figure or sub-figures (reconfiguration); the
optic way is when the figure is made larger or narrower, while the place way
refers to its position or orientation variation. Each of these different modi-
fications can be performed mentally or physically through various operations.
One or more of these operations can highlight a figural modification that
gives an insight into the solution of a problem in geometry.

The 4 types of apprehension can be summarized in two approaches (Duval, 2014). The
perceptual approach is the spontaneous recognition of the figure. The mathematical
approach is related to operative apprehension of the geometrical figure. That is, it
concerns the control of the recognition of the figure through its properties, from which
other properties are extracted.
In solving geometrical problems, one way of modifying a given figure is to
introduce new auxiliary elements. According to Polya (1957), “An element that
we introduce in the hope that it will further the solution is called an auxiliary
element” (p. 46). The construction of new auxiliary elements, which is mainly lines,
is a critical part of producing geometrical proofs (Senk, 1985) and one of four
categories of geometrical problem-solving complexity (Hsu & Silver, 2014). The
construction of auxiliary lines, a function associated with the operative apprehension
of a geometric figure, seems to pave the way for multiple approaches to a geometric
problem (Gridos, Gagatsis, Elia, & Deliyianni, 2019). From this point of view, we
suggest that the auxiliary lines are categorized into two types: (a) the auxiliary lines
that create sub-figures within the given figure and (b) the auxiliary lines that result in
Geometrical Figure Apprehension, Construction of Auxiliary Lines,... 623

the construction of figures of which the given figure is a part. Due to this complexity,
in studying the operative apprehension of geometric shapes, it is necessary to make a
distinction between the ability of reconfiguration of a given figure and the ability to
create new subfigures using new auxiliary lines.

The Study

Purpose of the Study

Based on the literature review, mathematical creativity and geometrical figure appre-
hension are factors that have been studied extensively in both mathematics education
and psychology as separate topics. To our knowledge, there is no research work that
links these two factors, namely, to examine the performance and capabilities of
individuals with different geometrical figure apprehensions in achieving multiple
solutions to problems, a strong indication of being creative in mathematics. The basic
assumption of this research is that the geometrical figure apprehension has a significant
impact on the learning and structure of knowledge in geometry, and therefore on the
creative knowledge. But how does the geometrical figure apprehension affect mathe-
matical creativity in geometry? The purpose of the present work is to investigate
whether the mathematical creativity aspects (fluency, flexibility, originality), traced in
the students’ problem-solving work, contribute to their good understanding of the main
concepts of Euclidean Geometry that do not change under geometric transformations
and the axioms and theorems that abide. Given the need for a multidimensional
approach concerning teaching and learning in geometry, we address here the following
research questions:

1. How does an integrated apprehension of a geometric figure facilitate the produc-

tion of more than one solution to a task?
2. How does the necessity to introduce new auxiliary lines in a geometric shape
promote the ability to produce multiple solutions?
3. How do mathematical creativity components (fluency-flexibility-originality) relate
to the two issues above?

Participants and Procedure

Data were collected from 243 tenth graders (15 and 16 years old) from eleven
mathematics classes at five secondary schools in Greece. The five schools were from
a similar social-economic background and implemented identical mathematical curric-
ula. All participants were asked to complete a two-part test, a geometrical figure
apprehension test and a multiple solution problem solving test. Completion of both
tests was done on the same day by the participants. The first test was used to measure
students’ creativity (fluency, flexibility, originality) through two multiple-solution
problems. (Sequential apprehension and discursive apprehension were tested through
this test too). Second, the geometrical figure apprehension test was used to measure
perceptual apprehension and operative apprehension through the ability of
624 P. Gridos et al.

reconfiguration of a given figure for the first group of problems and the ability to create
new subfigures using auxiliary lines for the second group.

Instrument and Codification

Mathematical Creativity Test

The Mathematical Creativity test contains two geometrical tasks that students were
explicitly required to solve in different ways; the duration of the test was 60 min.
The two geometrical tasks are similar with the only difference that the first (task
1) is solved either based only on the given figure or by introducing auxiliary lines,
while the second is solved only by introducing auxiliary lines (Table 1). Both
tasks were given without the figures. Previous research has shown differences in
creativity components based on whether the initial figure was given in the task
environment (Gridos et al., 2019), with students showing higher levels of fluency
and flexibility in the exercises when the figure was given. Also, when the figure is
not given, we have two levels of spatial ability intervention: (a) the first relates to
the transition from the verbal description to constructing the figure (sequential
apprehension), and (b) with respect to the solving. If the relevant figure is given,
had only the second level. It is worth mentioning that the tasks (without the
relevant figure) were piloted among a small number of students before the final
administration of the test. It came out that the two tasks (without the relevant
figure) had the same level of difficulty.
In this phase, students’ responses were first evaluated for their correctness and then
classified into solution spaces (Leikin, 2009) based on the auxiliary lines that students
used. A solution space is a set of solutions to a mathematical problem. Then, the aspects
of creativity (fluency-flexibility-originality) were evaluated based on the following: (a)
number of correct solutions to each task (for fluency); (b) the ability to shift between
different ideas, i.e. the number of the ideas (for flexibility); and (c) the number of
conventional solutions (for originality) and on the basis of the frequency of the solution
across all students (Leikin, 2009). In Fig. 1, you can find the formula for the compu-
tation of the creativity score.
The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients for students’ responses to all mathe-
matical creativity components were found higher than a = .811 (significant). This
indicates that there is an internal relevance and reliability in students’ responses to
the two multiple-solution problems.

Table 1 The two multiple solution tasks

Multiple solution task 1

AB is a diameter of a circle with center O. D and E are points on circle O so that DO||EB.C is the intersection
point of AD and BE. Prove in as many ways as you can that CB=AB.
(Levav-Waynberg & Leikin, 2012)
Multiple solution task 2
AB is a diameter of a circle with center O. C and D are points on circle O so that AC||OD. E is the intersection
point of AC and DB. Prove in as many ways as you can that DB=DC.
Geometrical Figure Apprehension, Construction of Auxiliary Lines,... 625

Creativity
Flu- Flexibility Originality
ency
Flx1 =10
n: is total the for the first solution
number of Flxi =10
appropriate Ori =10, P < 15%
solutions from a
solutions
different group of
auxiliary lines Ori =1, 15% ≤ P < 40%
P: (mj / n) *100%
where mj is the Flxi =1
number of 1 similar auxiliary
students who used lines but a different Ori = 0.1, P ≥ 40%
strategy j strategy
Flxi = 0.1 the
same auxiliary
line, the same
strategy

Total score n Flx Flxi Or Ori

Fig. 1 The formula for the computation of the creativity score

Geometrical Figure Apprehension Test

The geometrical figure apprehension test was used to evaluate individual differ-
ences in the way that students perceive the geometrical figure. Students were
asked to solve a 30-min test. It includes six tasks which refers to three aspects of
geometrical figure apprehension. The first is perceptual apprehension and in-
cludes two tasks. The second is operative apprehension of geometrical figures
with a focus on reconfiguration and includes two tasks that are solved either
algorithmically or by reconfiguration of the figure. The third is operative appre-
hension of geometrical figures with a focus on the introduction of auxiliary lines
and includes two tasks whose solving requires additional auxiliary lines (the first
task could be solved algorithmically without the use of auxiliary constructs). An
example of a task for each aspect of geometrical figure apprehension is shown in
the Table 2.
In this phase, students’ responses were evaluated for their correctness and then for
the solution strategy was used. For the first group of tasks, the two perceptual tasks
(Per1, Per2) were evaluated only for their correctness; for the second group of tasks, we
distinguish two categories of solutions, algorithmically (Op1al, Op2al) or reconfigura-
tion the geometrical figure (Op1, Op2), while for the third group of tasks, we distin-
guish also two categories of solutions, algorithmically (Aux1al) or using auxiliary lines
(Aux1, Aux2). To illustrate the distinction between what we mean by solution with
reconfiguration of the figure and what an algorithmic solution, we give in Table 3 an
example.
626 P. Gridos et al.

Table 2 Examples of tasks for each aspect of geometrical figure apprehension test

Perceptual Apprehension task (Per1): In the following figure the four circles are in contact with each other
and at the same time are touching the sides of a rectangle. Find a relationship that holds for x and y. Explain
how you worked.

(Pisa, 2015)
Operative apprehension task with reconfiguration of the given shape (Op2): The trapezoid and the
rectangle have the same area. Find the length of the side of the rectangle. Explain how you worked.

Operative apprehension task with auxiliary line (Aux2): Prove that the triangle AEB in the following figure
is equivalent to half of the ABDG rectangle.

Lockhart (2002)

The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for student responses across all three
sub-competencies was found to be high (a = .812, a = .794, a = .767). This indicates that
there is an internal relevance and reliability in students’ responses to the geometrical
figure apprehension test.

Data Analysis

Descriptive analysis was used to present the success rates for geometrical figure
apprehension tasks and the mathematical creativity variable “fluency” of participants
of this study. Next, in order to examine how the necessity to introduce new auxiliary
lines in a geometric shape promotes the ability to produce multiple solutions, test at
95% significance level is conducted using computer software Spss. In order to under-
stand the influence of geometrical figure apprehension in the production of multiple
solutions and this influence in mathematical creativity variables, multiple regression
analysis is conducted using computer software Spss. To further understand the con-
nections between geometrical figure apprehension and mathematical creativity vari-
ables, similarity statistical analysis is conducted using computer software C.H.I.C.
(Classification, Hiérarchique, Implicative et Cohésitive) index. The similarity statistical
analysis is a method of analysis that determines the similarity connections of the
variables (Gras, Suzuki, Guillet & Spagnolo, 2008). On the similarity diagrams, we
denote Pi, i = 1, 2 the problem referred to and Sj, j = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 the number of solutions
for each problem.
Geometrical Figure Apprehension, Construction of Auxiliary Lines,... 627

Table 3 Two types of solution for the operative apprehension task 2 (Op2)

Research Results

The Role of the Auxiliary Lines on the Production of Multiple Solutions

and Correlation with Creativity Components

Concerning the geometrical figure apprehension, the percentage of success (see

Table 4) is different according to the category in which the task belongs and the
solution strategy taken. Specifically, high success rates observed in perceptual tasks
[Per1 (67%), Per2 (82%)], and higher rates in algorithmic way resolving of operative
apprehension tasks [Op1al (42%), Op2al (63%), Aux1al (32%)] compared with the
reconfiguration of the geometrical figure [Op1 (29%), Op2 (18%)] and the constructing
auxiliary lines [Aux1 (22%), Aux2 (29%)].
Obviously, of the 3 different approaches to solutions, the most difficult is the
operative approach, that is, one that requires a transformation of the given figure. It
is also evident that the algorithmic approach in solving is deeply rooted in the minds of
students. This phenomenon is clearly related to the classroom experience (Brousseau,
1997). It is so deeply rooted that even good students who find the solution with
operative reconfiguration often resort to applying a formula to verify the correct
solution they had previously found. Their reasoning usually begins as follows: “Indeed,
if we apply the formula ... we find the same result.”
Table 5 presents the percentages of the number of solutions (fluency) for the two
geometrical problems. The range of solutions for all students for problem 1 is from 0 to
4 solutions while for problem 2 is from 0 to 3. We observed that in problem 1, which is
solved without the use of auxiliary lines, the students were able to achieve up to 4

Table 4 Success rates for geometrical figure apprehension tasks

Per1 Per2 Op1al Op1 Op2al Op2 Aux1al Aux1 Aux2

67% 82% 42% 29% 63% 18% 32% 22% 29%

628 P. Gridos et al.

solutions as opposed to 3 solutions for problem 2. We also observed that almost half of
the students (46%) did not get any auxiliary construction to solve problem 2.
To examine any differences in creativity components resulting from the need to
introduce auxiliary lines, a 99% t test significance level was used (see Table 6). Based
on the results of the t test, the mean of solutions (fluency) for problem 1 is 1.3 solutions
while for problem 2 is 0.8 solutions, the difference being statistically significant (t =
10.834, df = 242, p < 0.05). We observe that students have greater fluency in problem 1
that includes solutions without the use of auxiliary constructions. Statistically signifi-
cant differences were also observed for flexibility (t = 6.77, df = 242, p < 0.05), with
students showing higher flexibility in problem 1 (M = 10.95, Sd = 11.15) than to
problem 2 (M = 7.49, Sd = 8.1). Finally, statistically significant differences were ob-
served for originality (t = 4.697, df = 242, p < 0.05), with students showing higher
originality in problem 1 (M = 3.3, Sd = 7.14) than to problem 2 (M = 1.79, Sd =
3.43), even though according to the findings students’ fluency, flexibility, and origi-
nality are higher in problem 1 in which there are solutions without the necessity to
introduce auxiliary lines.
Tables 7 and 8 present the solution spaces for problems 1 and 2, as well as the
percentage of each solution for all students. For problem 1, solutions are grouped
into three solution spaces based on the auxiliary line that students used. In the first
solution space, the main strategy is that equal angles were formed and the straight
line joining the middle of the two sides of a triangle is parallel and equal to half of the
opposite side; it refers to three solutions (P1isi1, P1is2, and P1mid1). These solu-
tions were provided by the 24%, 37%, and 45% of students as it did not require any
auxiliary construction. Its originality rated 0.1 (> 40%). In the second solution space,
the main strategy is that the straight line joining the middle of the two sides of a
triangle is parallel and equal to half of the opposite side. It includes one solution
(P1mid2), which requires drawing the auxiliary line DB. This was only found by the
14% of students. The originality of this solution space rated 10 (14% < 15%). The
third solution space includes one solution (P1aux) that refers to the construction of
auxiliary line DM and the use of the rhomb properties. This solution, which requires
constructing an auxiliary line, was provided only by 5% of the students and the
originality rated 10 (5% < 15%).
For problem 2, solutions are grouped into three solution spaces based on the
auxiliary line that students used. The first solution space includes one solution
(P2_AD) and requires drawing the auxiliary line AD. This solution was found by
37% of the students and the originality of this solution space rated 1 (15% < 37% <
40%). The second solution space includes two solutions (P2_CB1, P2_CB2) and
requires drawing the auxiliary line CB. The first solution was found by 18% of the
students while the second solution was found by the 14% of students. The originality of
this solution space rated 1 (15% < 32% < 40%). This solution includes two solutions

Table 5 Fluency rates for the two multiple solution tasks

P1s0 P1s1 P1s2 P1s3 P1s4 P2s0 P2s1 P2s2 P2s3

29% 40% 16% 11% 4% 46% 35% 10% 9%

Geometrical Figure Apprehension, Construction of Auxiliary Lines,... 629

Table 6 Comparison of fluency, flexibility, and originality demonstrated by students in the two geometrical
problems

M Sd t df p

Fluency P1_P2 0.411 0.592 10.834 242 < 0.05

Flexibility P1_P2 3.460 7.959 6.770 242 < 0.05
Originality P1_P2 1.512 5.019 4.697 242 < 0.05

with the same auxiliary construction, but the solutions are based on different properties
and theorems. In other words, the students in order to produce both solutions must
reveal the same operative apprehension but different discursive apprehension of a
figure. The third solution space includes one solution (P2_CO) and requires drawing
the auxiliary line CO. This solution was found by 11% of the students and the
originality of this solution space rated 10 (11% < 15%).

The Influence of Geometrical Figure Apprehension on the Production of Multiple

Solutions in Geometry Problems and Correlation with Creativity Components

In order to investigate the relationship between geometrical figure apprehension and

mathematical creativity, multiple regression analysis was performed with independent
variables geometrical figure apprehension abilities (perceptual apprehension; algorith-
mic thinking; operative apprehension) and with dependent variables the components of
mathematical creativity: fluency, flexibility, and originality. Using the Enter method,
statistically significant prediction models were obtained for each dependent variable
(fluency: R2 = .21, F = 13.541, p < .05; flexibility: R2 = .17, F = 19.032, p < .05;
originality: R2 = .14, F = 17.895, p < .05). Table 9 presents the results of the multiple
regression analysis.
Regression analysis gives interesting results for the components of the subject. The
first result we deduce is that perceptual apprehension positively influences the creativity
variables fluency, flexibility, and originality. However, this influence is not statistically
significant (p > .05). The second result is that algorithmic thinking is negatively related
to the components of mathematical creativity, since all weighted regression coefficients
b are negative numbers. Specifically, data analysis showed that algorithmic thinking is
a statistically significant predictor of fluency (b = − .176, p = .048), flexibility (b = −
.218, p = .032), and originality (b = − .254, p = .018). The negative symbol b indicates
that the more deeply rooted the students’ algorithmic thinking is, the more the
performance on the components of mathematical creativity decreases.
Another result of the multiple regression analysis relates to the relationship between
operative apprehension and the components of mathematical creativity. In particular, it
was found that operative apprehension of a geometric figure is a statistically significant
predictor of mathematical creativity components: fluency (b = .317, p = .021), flexibil-
ity (b = .214, p = .033) and originality (b = .317, p = .001). This means that students
who apprehend the geometrical figure operatively through reconfiguration of the figure
or introducing auxiliary lines achieve higher levels of fluency, flexibility, and
originality.
630 P. Gridos et al.

Table 7 Collective solution spaces for problem 1

Similarity Analysis

To further understand the connections between geometrical figure apprehension and

mathematical creativity variables, the following similarity analysis was performed. In
the first similarity diagram (Fig. 2), which concerns students’ ability to produce
multiple solutions (fluency) and geometrical figure apprehension, there are three
significant clusters.
The first cluster includes the variables (Aux1, P1s3, Op2, and P2s3). It refers to
students who (a) solve problems 1 and 2 in 3 ways (P1s3, P2s3) and (b) solve from the
Geometrical Figure Apprehension, Construction of Auxiliary Lines,... 631

Table 8 Collective solution spaces for problem 2

second group of geometrical figure apprehension tasks the second tasks with figure
reconfiguration (Op2) and from the third group of tasks solve the first task (Aux1) by
construct an auxiliary line. The third cluster includes the variables (Op1, Aux2, and
P1s4). It refers to students who (a) solve problem 1 in 4 ways (P1s4) and (b) solve the
first task from the second group of geometrical figure apprehension tasks with figure
reconfiguration (Op1) and by the third group of tasks they solve the second task (Aux2)
by adding an auxiliary line. The main conclusion when studying these two clusters is
that the students who apprehend the figure operatively can undertake mereologic
modifications, are able to construct new auxiliary lines to the figure, and can provide
different proofs in geometrical problems (high levels of fluency).
The second cluster includes the variables (P1s0, P1s1, P1s2, P2s0, P2s1, P2s2, Per2,
Op1al, Op2al, and Aux1al). It refers to students who (a) dο not give any solution to any
of the problems (P1s0, P2s0) or solve them in 1 or 2 ways (P1s1, P2s1, P1s2, and P2s2)
and (b) solve the second perceptual task (Per2), as well as 3 operative tasks of the
second and third groups in algorithmic way (Op1al, Op2al, Aux1al). This cluster has
632 P. Gridos et al.

Table 9 Multiple regression analysis which explores the relationship between geometrical figure apprehen-
sion and mathematical creativity components

Perceptual Algorithmic Operative

apprehension thinking apprehension

Mathematical creativity b p b p b p
Fluency .143 .078 −.176 .048 .317 .021
Flexibility .178 .114 −.218 .032 .214 .033
Originality .116 .065 −.254 .018 .317 .001

b, regression coefficient; p, p value

clear character and leads to the conclusion that students who were confined in the
perceptual apprehension of the figure or resolved operative tasks in algorithmic way
resulted to solve the problems with zero or low fluency.
In the second similarity diagram (Fig. 3), which depicts students’ ability to produce
multiple solutions for the problem 1 (fluency) and the flexibility of solution, there are
three clusters.
The first cluster includes variables (P1s3, P1s4, P1mid2, P1aux). It refers to students
who (a) solve problem 1 by 3 or 4 ways (P1s3, P1s4) and (b) solve problem 1 by
constructing auxiliary lines in the given figure (P1mid2, P1aux). We observe that
students who are capable to construct auxiliary lines in order to solve the problem
can move flexibly across all three solution spaces with high fluency and flexibility of
solutions. In addition, these students exhibit high levels of originality in their solutions
as these solutions appear at 14% and 5% respectively.
The second cluster includes the variables (P1s0, P1s1, P1s2, P1is1, P1is2, P1mid1).
It refers to students who (a) do not solve problem 1 (P1s0) or solve it in 1 or 2 ways

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3

Fig. 2 Similarity diagram 1: geometrical figure apprehension–fluency of solution
Geometrical Figure Apprehension, Construction of Auxiliary Lines,... 633

(P1s1, P1s2) and (b) solve the problem based solely on the verbal description of the
problem. We observe that students who are not able to construct auxiliary lines in the
figure demonstrate low or moderate levels of fluency and flexibility as they cannot
display solutions in all solution spaces. These students are also shown low levels of
originality in their solutions, as these solutions appear at 24%, 37%, and 45%
respectively.

Discussion and Conclusion

The present study aimed to examine mathematical creativity through a perceptual

approach in geometry. For that propose, the present study aimed to investigate whether
the mathematical creativity aspects (fluency, flexibility, originality), traced in the
students’ problem-solving work, were influenced by their good understanding of a
geometrical figure. We believe that mathematical creativity should be developed in all
students (Sheffield, 2009). Findings from other studies have shown that the variables of
creativity, fluency, and flexibility are dynamic and they are naturally influenced by the
ways that the individual was taught (Gridos et al., 2019; Leikin, 2009; Silver, 1997).
Based on the results, we believe that we can enhance a student’s fluency and flexibility
with exercises that aim to overcome the perceptual apprehension of the geometrical
figure and lead to operative apprehension (Duval, 1995). Further on, the originality
aspect of solutions can be boosted with problems that require the construction of
auxiliary lines by students.
The ability to prove something in many ways requires more complex skills such as
the perception of the figure not only as an entity but also as several elementary figural
units, a skill that is associated with mereologic modification of the geometrical figure
(Duval, 1999). In this way, students focus on different features of the shape at the same

Cluster 1 Cluster 2
Fig. 3 Similarity diagram 2: fluency–flexibility of solution for the problem 1
634 P. Gridos et al.

time, recognizing new properties, constructing new elements in the shape, and leading
to different solution strategies (Michael-Chrysanthou & Gagatsis, 2015).
Emphasis should be placed on enhancing the ability to construct auxiliary lines, as
this ability has been shown to strongly enhance all three components of mathematical
creativity. Recently, Palatnik and Dreyfus (2019) pointed out that the students intro-
duced auxiliary lines in order to recall some known results or definitions and modified
the given diagrams accordingly, as a part of a learned procedure anticipating to receive
more information from a modified situation. However, the use of auxiliary lines is a
source of difficulty due to the students’ need to perceive the diagrams dynamically and
apply transformational observation to visualize a solution that can be generated with the
help of auxiliary lines (Hsu, 2007). This is probably the reason why many students
(46%) did not solve the problem 2. Teachers encouraging students to construct
auxiliary in order to create alternative approaches in solving will cultivate the mathe-
matical creativity to them.
In addition, the teaching of geometry must transform students’ working in geometry
from rather blindly algebraic to operative one. This transition is not easy to achieve: the
biggest obstacle is the breaking of the habit students have to seek for a formula or a
statement to apply in order to solve a geometry problem. Even good students apply an
algorithmic formula that results in many operations while the solution in an operative
way requires a transformation of the given figure (Deliyianni et al., 2010). By using
dynamic environments, these activities can be introduced to students at a stage when a
concept has not yet been learned and they can be asked to provide a new definition for
the concept (De Villiers, 1998). We believe that research in teaching and learning
geometry should explore further didactical approaches that cultivate this
transformation.
There is still need for further investigation of the subject presented in this paper and
to its teaching implications. In the future, it would be interesting and useful to examine
the effects of intervention programs aiming at developing geometrical figure apprehen-
sion in view of multiple solution problem solving. Furthermore, the validation of a
theoretical model that examines the structure and relation of various components of
geometrical figure apprehension, ability to solve and prove in multiple ways, and
mathematical creativity would contribute to this domain of research too.

Acknowledgements This research is carried out / funded in the context of the project “Multidimensional
approach to mathematical creativity as a tool for learning and using geometry with applications in the
teachingof fractions, in problem solving and problem posing in the transition from primary to secondary
education” (MIS 5050336) under the call for proposals “Supporting researchers with an emphasison new
researchers” (EDULLL 103). The project is co-financed by Greece and the European Union (European Social
Fund- ESF) by the Operational Programme Human Resources Development, Education and Lifelong Learn-
ing 2014-2020.

References

Battista, M. T. (2007). The development of geometric and spatial thinking. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second
Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 843–908). Reston, VA: National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Geometrical Figure Apprehension, Construction of Auxiliary Lines,... 635

Brunkalla, K. (2009). How to increase mathematical creativity – An experiment. The Montana Mathematics
Enthusiast, 6(1), 257–266.
de Villiers, M. (1998). An alternative approach to proof in dynamic geometry. In R. Lehrer & D. Chazan
(Eds.), Designing learning environments for developing understanding of geometry and space (pp. 369–
393). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Deliyianni, E., Elia, I., Gagatsis, A., Monoyiou, A., & Panaoura, A. (2010). A theoretical model of students’
geometrical figure understanding. Proceedings of the 6th Conference of the European Society for
Research in Mathematics Education (CERME 6), Lyon, France.
Duval, R. (1995). Geometrical pictures: Kinds of representation and specific processings. In R. Sutherland &
J. Mason (Eds.), Exploiting mental imagery with computers in mathematics education (pp. 142–157).
Germany: Springer.
Duval, R. (1999). Representations, vision and visualization: Cognitive functions in mathematical thinking.
Basic issues for learning. In F. Hitt & M. Santos (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Conference of the North
American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp.
3–26). Mexico: Morelos.
Duval, R. (2014). The first crucial point in geometry learning: Visualization. Mediterranean Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 13(1–2), 1–28.
Duval, R. (2017). Understanding the mathematical way of thinking – The registers of semiotic representa-
tions. London: Springer.
Elia, I., Gagatsis, Α., Deliyianni, Ε., Monoyiou, Α., & Michael, S. (2009a). A structural model of primary
school students’ operative apprehension of geometrical figures. Proceedings of the 33rd Conference of
the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME), Thessaloniki, Greece.
Elia, I., Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Kolovou, A. (2009b). Exploring strategy use and strategy
flexibility in non-routine problem solving by primary school high achievers in mathematics. ZDM
Mathematics Education, 41, 605–618.
Ervynck, G. (1991). Mathematical creativity. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 42–53).
Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
European Parliament and the Council. (2006). Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.
europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:394:0010:0018:en:PDF.
Gras, R., Suzuki, E., Guillet, F., & Spagnolo, F. (2008). Statistical implicativeanalysis. Germany: Springer.
Gridos, P., Gagatsis, A., Elia, I. & Deliyianni, E. (2019). Mathematical creativity and geometry: The influence
of geometrical figure apprehension on the production of multiple solutions. In U. T. Jankvist, M. van den
Heuvel-Panhuizen, & M. Veldhuis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the European Society
for Research in Mathematics Education: Working Group 4 (pp. 789–796). Utrecht, Netherlands:
Freudenthal Group & Freudenthal Institute, Utrecht University, Netherlands and ERME.
Haylock, D. W. (1987). A framework for assessing mathematical creativity in school children. Education
Studies in Mathematics, 18(1), 59–74.
Herbst, P. (2002). Establishing a custom of proving in American school geometry: Evolution of the two-
column proof in the early twentieth century. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49(3), 283–312.
Hsu, H. (2007). Geometric calculations are more than calculations. In J. H. Woo, H. C. Lew, K. S. Park, & D.
Y. Seo (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of
Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 57–64). Seoul, Korea.
Hsu, H. Y., & Silver, E. A. (2014). Cognitive complexity of mathematics instructional tasks in a Taiwanese
classroom: An examination of task sources. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45, 460–
496.
Kell, H. J., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Steiger, J. H. (2013). Creativity and technical innovation: Spatial
ability’s unique role. Psychological Science, 24, 1831–1836.
Kwon, O. N., Park, J. S., & Park, J. H. (2006). Cultivating divergent thinking in mathematics through an open-
ended approach. Asia Pasific Education Review, 7(1), 51–61.
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).
Netherlands: Sense Publisher.
Leikin, R. (2014). Challenging mathematics with multiple solution tasks and mathematical investigations in
geometry. In Y. Li, E. Silver, & S. Li (Eds.), Transforming mathematics instruction. Advances in
mathematics education (pp. 59–80). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Leikin, R., & Pitta-Pantazi, D. (2013). Creativity and mathematics education: The state of the art. ZDM - The
International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45, 159–166.
636 P. Gridos et al.

Levav-Waynberg, A., & Leikin, R. (2012). The role of multiple solution tasks in developing knowledge and
creativity in geometry. Journal of Mathematics Behavior, 31, 73–90.
Lockhart, P. (2002). A mathematician’s lament. Retrieved from https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/
LockhartsLament.pdf.
Mamona-Downs, J. (2008). On development of critical thinking and multiple solution tasks. In R. Leikin, A.
Levav-Waynberg, & M. Applebaum (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Research Workshop of the
Israel Science Foundation (pp.77–79). Haifa, Israel.
Mann, E. (2006). Creativity: The essence of mathematics. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(2), 236–
260.
Michael, S., Gagatsis, A., Elia, I., Deliyianni, E., & Monoyiou, A. (2009). Operative apprehension of
geometrical figures of primary and secondary school students. In A. Gagatsis & S. Grozdev (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 6th Mediterranean Conference on Mathematics Education (pp. 67–78). Plovdiv,
Bulgaria: University of Plovdiv, CMS.
Michael-Chrysanthou, P., & Gagatsis, A. (2015). Ambiguity in the way of looking at a geometrical figure.
Revista Latinoamericana de Investigación en Matemática Educativa – Relime, 17(4-I), 165–180.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and NCTM standards for school mathe-
matics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
Palatnik, A. & Dreyfus, T. (2019). Students’ reasons for introducing auxiliary lines in proving situations.
Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 55, (#100679).
Polya, G. (1957). How to solve it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Presmeg, N. (2020). Visualization and learning in mathematics education. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
mathematics education. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15789-0_161
Senk, S. L. (1985). How well do students write geometry proofs? Mathematics Teacher, 78, 448–456.
Sheffield, L. (2009). Developing mathematical creativity—Questions may be the answer. In R. Leikin, A.
Berman, & B. Koichu (Eds.), Creativity in mathematics and the education of gifted students (pp. 87–100).
Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Silver, E. A. (1997). Fostering creativity through instruction rich in mathematical problem solving and
problem posing. ZDM, 3, 75–80.
Singer, F. M., Voica, C., & Pelczer, I. (2017). Cognitive styles in posing geometry problems: Implications for
assessment of mathematical creativity. ZDM Mathematics Education, 49, 37–52.
Stupel, M., & Ben-Chaim, D. (2017). Using multiple solutions to mathematical problems to develop
pedagogical and mathematical thinking: A case study in a teacher education program. Investigations in
Mathematics Learning, 9(2), 86–108.
Torrance, E. P. (1994). Creativity: Just wanting to know. Pretoria, South Africa: Benedic books.