Most research has focused solely on understanding high school or college students’ mathematical creative thinking abilities while understanding younger students’ creative thinking in mathematics was ignored. These studies of older students have focused mainly on students’ creative products rather than creative processes. The authors of the present study investigated four young elementary school students’ creative processes through eye-tracking (ET) and stimulated recall interview (SRI) techniques while they engaged in multiple representations (MRs) of mathematical problems. Our qualitative case study revealed what phases four elementary school students’ creative processes in MRs involve and how they achieve original ideas. The results revealed that neither Wallas’ (1926) creative process of mathematicians nor Schindler and Lilienthal’s (2020) creative process of a high school student could fully explain the creative processes of four young elementary school students in the present study. The findings from the present study emphasize that four young students’ creative processes are difficult to predict as it is non-linear compared to professional mathematicians’ creative process, but young students’ creative processes can be demystified through ET and SRI techniques. The present study also emphasizes the importance of external factors (e.g., teachers, peers, environment) for the four elementary school students to get different perspectives to achieve creative ideas in mathematics.

大多数研究只关注了解高中生或大学生的数学创造性思维能力，而忽略了了解低年级学生的数学创造性思维。这些对高年级学生的研究主要关注学生的创意产品，而不是创意过程。本研究的作者通过眼动追踪 (ET) 和刺激回忆访谈 (SRI) 技术调查了四名年轻小学生的创作过程，同时他们从事数学问题的多重表示 (MR)。我们的定性案例研究揭示了四名小学生在 MR 中的创作过程涉及哪些阶段，以及他们如何实现原创想法。结果表明，无论是 Wallas（1926）的数学家创作过程，还是 Schindler 和 Lilienthal（2020）的高中生创作过程，都不能完全解释本研究中四名年轻小学生的创作过程。本研究的结果强调，与专业数学家的创作过程相比，四名青年学生的创作过程难以预测，因为它是非线性的，但可以通过 ET 和 SRI 技术揭开青年学生的创作过程的神秘面纱。本研究还强调了外部因素（例如，教师、同伴、环境）对于四名小学生获得不同视角以实现数学创意的重要性。