Creativity is an essential skill for the 21st century knowledge-based economy. Mathematically gifted individuals are often seen as “ the hope of the future ” especially in STEM fields because of the special creative attributes that they possess. The way schools and teachers interact with gifted learners has important implications for whether opportunities for nurturing their creativity will be supported or missed. For two decades now South Africa has been trying to cater for the needs of gifted learners in mathematics through the Dinaledi School project but without much success. Despite the initiative’s “ shortcomings ” , reports are unanimous that consideration should be given to expanding it. This paper aimed at understanding the shortcomings over the two decades of implementation. We used a framework of enablers of creativity to analyse the cognitive demand of the curriculum, the cognitive preparedness of the learners and the way they were assessed in the Dinaledi Schools. Results show that the cognitive demand of the curriculum objectives is very high suggesting that it had potential to support the creative potential of gifted learners. However, the way learners were selected and assessed suggests that the domain readiness of the learners was not considered. Yet this is one of the most important factors to be considered when nurturing the creative potential of gifted learners. In reconceptualizing the Dinaledi Schools project our recommendation is that issues of selecting learners with the potential to deliver as well as how they are assessed should be prioritized.
Aneke, M. N., Nnabuike, E. K., & Otegbulu, R. I. (2016). Responsive Curriculum Development: A Panacea to the Problems of Nigerian Educational System and National Development. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management and Social Sciences, 5, 134-142.
Baer, J. (2016). Creativity Doesn’t Develop in a Vacuum. In B. Barbot (Ed.), Perspectives on Creativity Development: New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development. Wiley Periodicals, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20151
Biggs, J. B. (2003). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. The Open University Press.
Blum, J., Krishnan, N., & Legovini, A. (2010). Doing the Math on a Math & Science Program: South Africa’s Dinaledi. World Bank.
CDE (2004). From Laggard to World Class: Reforming Maths and Science Education in South Africa’s Schools. Centre for Development and Enterprise. https://www.cde.org.za/from-laggard-to-world-class-reforming-maths-and-science-education-in-south-africas-schools/
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. Harper Collins.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I. S. (1988). Optimal Experiences: Psychological Studies of Flow in Consciousness. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621956
Department of Basic Education (DBE) (2011). Action Plan to 2014: Towards the Realization of Schooling 2025. Department of Basic Education.
Department of Basic Education (DBE) (2012). Dinaledi Schools: Presentation to Portfolio Committee. Department of Basic Education. https://static.pmg.org.za/docs/120509dinaledi.pdf
Department of Basic Education (DBE) (2018). National Strategy for Mathematics, Science and Technology MST Education in GET & FET (2019-2030).
Department of Basic Education (DBE) (2019a). Annual Report 2018/2019. Department of Basic Education. https://nationalgovernment.co.za/department_annual/265/2019-department-of-basic-education-(dbe)-annual-report.pdf
Department of Basic Education (DBE). (2019b). Mathematics Teaching and Learning Framework in South Africa: Teaching Mathematics for Understanding. Government Printers.
Department of Education (DoE) (2001). National Strategy for Mathematics, Science and Technology Education in General and Further Education & Training. Department of Education. http://ncdoe.ncpg.gov.za/Images/Media/Policies/Strategy_math_science_fet.pdf
Department of Education (DoE) (2009). The Dinaledi Schools Project Report. National Business Initiative. https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/29763809/the-dinaledi-schools-project-national-business-initiative
Friedman, H. S., & Martin, L. R. (2011). The Longevity Project: Surprising Discoveries for Health and Long Life from the Landmark Eight-Decade Study. Hudson Street Press.
Kahn, M. (2021). Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Education A Think Piece for the HRDC Summit “Skills Required for the 21st Century”. Human Resource Development Council (HRDC). https://www.academia.edu/71564236/STEM_Think_Piece?email_work_card=view-paper
Knight, P. (1995). Assessment for Learning in Higher Education. Routledge.
Kokot, S. J. (2011). Addressing Giftedness. In E. Landsberg, D. Krüger, & E. Swart (Eds.), Addressing Barriers to Learning: A South African Perspective (2nd ed., pp. 467-484). Van Schaik Publishers.
Leikin, R. (2011). Teaching the Mathematically Gifted: Featuring a Teacher. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 11, 78-89. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258333488_ https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2011.548902
Lubinski, D. (2016). From Terman to Today: A Century of Findings on Intellectual Precocity. Review of Educational Research, 86, 900-944. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316675476
Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2021). Intellectual Precocity: What Have We Learned Since Terman? Gifted Child Quarterly, 65, 3-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220925447
Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Kell, H. J. (2014). Life Paths and Accomplishments of Mathematically Precocious Males and Females Four Decades Later. Psychological Science, 25, 2217-2232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614551371
Maree, K. (2007). A Reflective Conversation with Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Gifted Education International, 23, 188-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/026142940702300208
McCabe, K. O., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2020). Who Shines Most among the Brightest?: A 25-Year Longitudinal Study of Elite STEM Graduate Students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Personality Processes and Individual Differences, 119, 390-416. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000239
Mhlolo, M. K. (2011). From Coherence in Theory to Coherence in Practice: A Stock-Take of the Written, Tested and Taught National Curriculum Statement for Mathematics (NCSM) at Further Education and Training (FET) Level in South Africa. Doctoral Thesis. (Under “Research Resources”) http://www.wits.ac.za/library
National Planning Commission (NPC) (2012). National Development Plan 2030: Our Future-Make It Work. Department of the Presidency. https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201409/ndp-2030-our-future-make-it-workr.pdf
National Research Council (2013). The Mathematical Sciences in 2025. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/1526
Newmann, F. M., King, M. B., & Rigdon, M. (1997). Accountability and School Performance: Implications from Restructuring Schools. Harvard Education Review, 67, 41-75. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.67.1.14141916116656q6
OECD (2019). Framework for the Assessment of Creative Thinking in Pisa 2021. Organization of Economic. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/PISA-2021-creative-thinking-framework.pdf
Ottenvanger, W., van de Akker, J., & de Feiter, L. (2007). Developing Science, Mathematics and ICT Education in Sub-Saharan Africa—Patterns and Promising Practices. The World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-7070-4
Papadopoulos, D. (2020). Psychological Framework for Gifted Children’s Cognitive and Socio-Emotional Development: A Review of the Research Literature and Implications. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 8, 305-323. https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.666308
Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why Isn’t Creativity More Important to Educational Psychologists? Potentials, Pitfalls, and Future Directions in Creativity Research. Educational Psychologist, 39, 83-96. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1
Porter, A. C. (2002). Measuring the Content of Instruction: Uses in Research and Practice. Educational Researcher, 31, 3-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031007003
Porter, A. C., Smithson, J. L., Blank, R., & Zeidner, T. (2007). Alignment as a Teacher Variable. Applied Measurement in Education, 20, 27-51. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957340709336729
Schwartz, D., Bransford, J., & Sears, D. (2005). Efficiency and Innovation in Transfer. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of Learning from a Modern Multidisciplinary Perspective (pp. 1-51). Information Age Publishing.
Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analyzing Talk, Text, and Interaction (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Spaull, N. (2013). South Africa’s Education Crisis: The Quality of Education in South Africa 1994-2011. Centre for Development & Enterprise.
Tanenbaum, C. (2016). STEM 2026: A Vision for Innovation in STEM Education. American Institutes for Research, U.S. Department of Education and Office of Innovation and Improvement.
Tannenbaum, A. J. (1983). Gifted Children: Psychological and Educational Perspectives. Macmillan.
UMALUSI (2013). National Senior Certificate (NSC) Pass Requirements: A Discussion Document for Umalusi on the NSC Pass Mark. UMALUSI, Council for Quality Assurance in General and Further Education and Training. https://www.umalusi.org.za/docs/research/2013/nsc_pass.pdf
UNESCO (2012). Addressing Exclusion in Education: A Guide to Assessing Education Systems towards More Inclusive and Just Societies. UNESCO.
van der Westhuizen, C., & Maree, J. G. (2006). Some Thoughts on the Training of Teachers of Gifted Learners. Gifted Education International, 21, 201-217. https://doi.org/10.1177/026142940602100311
Webb, N. L. (2007). Issues Related to Judging the Alignment of Curriculum Standards and Assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 20, 7-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957340709336728