TAG Teachers: Only the Creative Need Apply.

Creativity has been recognized as an important characteristic of TAG teachers. Gallagher and Gallagher (1994) stated that teachers of the gifted need to be creative, original, and versatile. VanTassel-Baska (1992) recommended that teachers of the gifted be evaluated on their ability to utilize creative thinking and problem solving, among other things. Similarly, many of the programs described in Coyne (1995) include creativity or related attributes among the characteristics required of teachers who work in them.

Creativity in adults is generally identified from products which are novel and receive social recognition. These standards are difficult to apply to teachers because their products are not very visible. A successful lesson is fleeting; usually the teacher is the only person who is aware of its creativity. Similarly, students' successes or enthusiasms are not readily attributable to a single person; probably not even the teacher is certain of the influence of her creative input. Consequently, creative teachers frequently go unrecognized beyond the local school or district. Therefore, rather than search for elusive creative products in order to examine teacher creativity, it would be more useful to focus on the variety of creative acts that teachers may engage in.

Taylor's five levels of creativity (1975) provide a useful framework in which to examine the potential for creativity in everyday teaching. The first level, expressive creativity, involves spontaneity and freedom in expression as exemplified by impromptu talks. Teachers demonstrate expressive creativity when they teach a successful lesson that involves active student participation. The second level, technical creativity, is characterized by proficiency in creating products. Teachers whose pupils regularly achieve unexpectedly high scores on tests demonstrate productive creativity. Inventive creativity is ingenuity in applying readily available materials or ideas to problems. Teachers who are exceptionally good at finding ways to interest students demonstrate inventive creativity. Innovative creativity, in which basic principles of established schools of thought are modified, and emergent creativity, which brings a new paradigm to a field, are relatively rare and beyond the scope of this article. Yet even a cursory examination of the ordinary tasks of teaching reveals that teacher often engage in the first three levels of creativity. An examination of the models, programs, and recommended practices in gifted education leads to the conclusion that teachers of the gifted need to be creative to develop students' creativity, to plan for teaching, and to enact their teaching plans.

Developing Students' Creativity

Enhancing student creativity is an integral component of most models, programs and practices recommended for gifted and talented students. Creative thinking and problem solving is a significant component of 14 of the 15 models described by Renzulli (1986), and consideration for stimulating student creativity is one aspect in the development of curriculum for gifted learners (VanTassel-Baska,1992). Many curriculum units for gifted students, such as Bulls and Riley (1997), Elgersma (1990), O'Day (1996), and VanTassel-Baska (1992), have a creative component, and the majority of programs describe by Coyne (1995) include some aspect of creativity or divergent thinking. For example, the list of desired student outcomes in Connecticut included "critical and creative thinking skills" (p. 19), and Puerto Rico included "construct their own knowledge" (p.71). Delaware listed "fosters creativity" (p. 22) among the recommended measures for differentiating the curriculum. In addition, nurturing creative abilities is a widely recommended practice in the education of the gifted (Shore, Cornell, Robinson & Ward, 1991). An examination of the activities that teachers are expected to undertake to enhance students' creativity illustrates why teachers themselves need to be creative.

Ask questions that stimulate creativity

This is probably the most common advice for teachers who wish to develop their students' creativity. Teachers have been advised to ask divergent questions (Feldhusen & Treffinger, 1980; Gallagher & Gallagher, 1994; Starko, 1995; Torrance, 1971), provocative questions (Williams, 1986), open-ended questions (McGrail, 1998; VanTassel-Baska, 1992), and questions that genuinely puzzle the asker as well as the asked (Marshall, 1994). McGrail also suggested teachers assign open-ended tasks, and Runco and Nemiro (1994) recommended that teachers practice problem definition to better deal with gifted and talented children.

Posing questions that invite creative solutions is itself a creative act and problem-finding skills are recognized as a distinct aspect of creativity (Runco & Nemiro, 1994). Asking questions and identifying important problems is the first step in the creative process (Feldhusen & Treffinger, 1980; Ghiselin, 1955; Wallas, 1926). Some believe it is the most important step (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Starko, 1995). Einstein stated that "The mere formulation of a problem is far more often essential than its solution, which may be merely a matter of mathematical or experimental skill" (quoted in Parnes, 1967, p. 129). Smilansky and Halberstadt (1986) provided evidence that creativity is partly the ability to pose high-level problems and questions. Further evidence that this ability is an important aspect of creativity is reflected in its use as a measure of creativity (Brown, 1989; Torrance, 1990). Thus, when asking questions that stimulate students' creativity teachers are applying their own creativity.

Reward students' creativity

Teachers are frequently advised to reward creativity in their students (Goetz, 1989; Litterst & Eyo, 1993; Runco & Nemiro, 1994). To do this requires recognizing creativity based on each child's history (Goetz, 1989; Torrance, 1971). Given the complexity of the average classroom, this is a difficult task for teachers (Starko, 1995). Furthermore, recognizing and evaluating creative ideas is itself a creative act (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988; Guilford, 1967; Runco & Chand, 1994). Runco and Chand (1994) provided evidence that the ability to accurately evaluate the originality of ideas is significantly correlated with the ability to produce original ideas. Thus, teachers who are creative themselves will be better able to implement this recommendation.

Model creativity

Teachers are frequently advised to model creativity to their students (Amabile, 1996; Stuart, 1993; VanTassel-Baska, 1992). Some programs listed modeling creative behavior among the essential attributes of teachers of the gifted (Coyne, 1995, p. 23). Other sources suggest that teachers model behaviors related to creativity, such as innovative practices (Coyne, 1995), question asking (Marshall, 1994), and problem finding (Runco & Nemiro, 1994). There is, furthermore, evidence that modeling is an effective method of improving children's creativity (Amabile, 1996). Again, teachers' need to be creative to adopt these recommendations because it is not possible to model a skill that one does not possess.

Teach creative problem solving 

Teachers of the gifted are expected to teach creative problem solving skills to their students and to guide them in applying the skills once they have been acquired. Some models of gifted education, such as Schlichter (1986), Williams (1986), and Treffinger (1986) recommend teaching creativity skills directly. Similarly, many TAG programs include general directives to teach creative problem solving skills, or list their development as desirable student outcomes, without specifying how this is to be done (Coyne, 1995). Fortunately, many published materials are available which translate these general directives into detailed plans that can be implemented regardless of a teacher's creative ability. Examples include the CoRT program (de Bono, 1986), Williams' cognitive-affective interaction model (1970; 1982) and many others reviewed in Feldhusen and Treffinger (1980) and Treffinger, Feldhusen, Isaksen, and Tallman (1992; cited in Isaksen, Murdock, Firestien, & Treffinger, 1993).

CPS (Creative Problem Solving) is probably the mostly widely known model for teaching creative problem solving skills. It is complex, involving both convergent and divergent strategies for understanding a problem, generating ideas, and planning to implement solutions (Feldhusen & Kolloff, 1986; Feldhusen & Robinson, 1986). Some suggested strategies for use in conjunction with CPS, such as brainstorming and attribute listing, are fairly straightforward. Others, such as synectics and morphological analysis, would be difficult to teach without some skill in using them. Feldhusen and Kolloff (1986) implied that teachers need creative problem solving skills themselves in order to successfully teach them when they stated that proper implementation of the program requires extensive teacher training,

Once students have learned creative problem solving skills, teachers are expected to guide students in applying them "throughout other areas of study" (Coyne, 1995, p. 111), across the curriculum (Parke, 1989; Starko, 1995; Torrance, 1995), to investigating real problems (Feldhusen & Kolloff, 1986; Feldhusen & Robinson, 1986; Renzulli & Reis, 1993), or to engaging in inquiry (Shore, Cornell, Robinson, & Ward, 1991). In some models, including independent problem solving and the widely used Enrichment Triad Model, students identify the problems themselves with guidance from their teachers. Another approach has been to establish organized outlets which engage students in solving broadly defined problems that have no single solution. These may be local, such as Science Fairs, Project Fairs, and Creativity Contests (Coyne, 1995), or national, such as Future Problem-Solving (Torrance & Torrance, 1978). When students apply their creative problem solving skills, the teachers' role is that of guiding students rather than developing and solving the problems for them.

It may be possible for teachers who lack creativity to use their general knowledge and experience to teach creative problem solving skills to students and to support them in applying the skills. However, the extensive training available to teachers who wish to implement problem solving models such as the Enrichment Triad and CPS implies a perceived need for teachers to develop the component skills before teaching them. Furthermore, teachers report that they are more effective at teaching through inquiry when they have been through the process themselves (Rejskind, in preparation) and it seems reasonable to suppose that teachers who themselves are good at identifying problems, finding ideas, and evaluating potential solutions will be better at helping their students to do so.

Affective measures

Although more attention is given to developing the cognitive skills for creative problem solving, many writers stress the importance of supporting students in affective aspects of creativity (Litterst & Eyo, 1993; Williams, 1986). Some materials, such as Scamper (Eberle, 1977), encourage the use of fantasy and imagination, as does the use of drama (O'Day, 1996) and play (Russ, 1993). Russ also advocated the facilitation of the expression of feelings. Williams classroom activities (1970; 1982) included lessons designed to develop both cognitive and affective aspects of creativity. Research into the motivation that drives creativity and the influences of environmental conditions on that motivation has led to several suggestions for teachers: reduce evaluation, or allow some unevaluated practice; provide positive, constructive evaluation; recognize that sometimes children's difficult behaviors are a manifestation of creativity; be supportive and encouraging, yet maintain a professional distance; help students resist peer pressure to conform; and encourage intrinsic motivation (Amabile, 1996).

Because these recommendations involve attitudes and values, it is unlikely that a teacher who does not share them will teach them to students. Furthermore, courses or workshops that teach only problem solving skills are unlikely to produce significant changes in attitudes. As with the recommendations for developing cognitive components of creativity, teachers who themselves have these affective characteristics related to creativity are more likely to develop them in their students.

Planning for Teaching

Increasingly, teachers are faced with making difficult educational decisions before they begin to teach. Gone are the days when the text-book was the sole basis for deciding what content and skills to teach and the teachers' guide provided the framework for how to teach it. Changes in education, particularly in the area of curriculum, require teachers to make these decisions for themselves (Monson & Monson, 1993). As postmodern models of teaching such as inquiry, constructivism, and interdisciplinary teaching replace teacher-proof teaching materials and rigid curricula, the teachers' roles in adapting methods and materials to the particular circumstances of their students and classrooms require teaching expertise, imagination, and flexibility (Brooks & Brooks, 1993). However, the demands placed on teachers of the gifted are greater than those faced by teachers of students not identified.

Expert teachers engage in year long, unit level, and daily planning as they prepare to teach the assigned curriculum to their classes (Borko & Livingston, 1989). Their planning focuses on students collectively rather than individually (Moore, 1993). Teachers of the gifted, however, engage in more varied and extensive planning because their work is with individuals or small groups of students whose needs differ significantly from the average student and often from each other. Consequently, in addition to ensuring that students master the official curriculum, TAG teachers need to make extensive modifications to existing curricula or to develop (Davis & Rimm, 1994) and disseminate new curricula (VanTassel-Baska, 1994). This can be a daunting task: An effective curriculum is multifaceted, with social, aesthetic, affective, and cognitive components. It may be an independent curriculum unit or it may be constructed from elements that are woven throughout many areas of study (VanTassel-Baska, 1994).

Modifying or developing curricula, planning enrichment projects or independent study, compacting the curriculum or arranging Type I, II and III projects all require that individual students' interests are taken into account, and plans must remain flexible to adapt to individual needs. Additionally, teachers of the gifted must balance the needs for academic study and creative development when they modify or construct curricula (Freeman, 1994). Although expert teachers generally focus almost exclusively on developing students' understanding (Borko & Livingston, 1989), teachers of the gifted are expected to facilitate and integrate cognitive, social, and emotional development (Coyne, 1995, p. 111). Clearly, planning for TAG students is more complex than planning for regular students, and developing curricula that meet these standards is a challenging undertaking.

Other aspects of planning for TAG students are equally challenging. Appropriate teaching materials are less likely to be readily at hand. Often, experts in a field must be identified as resource persons or mentors. Teachers must consider what resources are available and the limitations imposed by local conditions. Other teachers or administrators may need to be persuaded to change in order to accommodate the needs of gifted students.

In gifted education, planning includes program development, something that few other teachers engage in. This ranges from planning a program for an individual or small group of students, to developing a school-wide program, or even to developing district-wide programs. As with curriculum planning, this is a task that requires independent thinking and decision-making. Davis and Rimm (1994) asserted that teachers of the gifted should be able to "develop and carry out programs for the gifted that are flexible, meaningful, and adaptable to individual needs ... [r]espect creativity and imagination.... be innovative and experimental.... [and] seek new solutions through continued learning." (p. 41). Although models and guidelines may provide direction and shape to such planning, programs or curricula that meet these standards are certainly creative.

These rigorous expectations are not limited to TAG specialists. Regular classroom teachers of gifted students also are expected to modify and compact curricula, to provide enrichment and independent study, and to ask open-ended high-level questions (McGrail, 1998; Parke, 1989). Of the programs describe by Coyne (1995), 40 took place partly or wholly in the regular classroom compared to 36 that were located in full-time classes in regular or special schools (p. 342-350). This demands flexibility from classroom teachers even when a specialist is available to assist.

Undoubtedly some planning is carried out in an uncreative manner. However, when done well, program and curriculum planning and modification demonstrate Taylor's (1975) category of inventive creativity in which readily available materials or ideas are applied to solving problems or producing products. Productive creativity is also at play to the extent that planning is efficient and effective. Teachers who can bring creativity to bear will develop products that also are creative in that they are both novel and appropriate. This ability is an asset for any teacher; it is a necessity for teachers of the gifted.

Teaching

Once planning is completed the actual teaching remains to be carried out and, as VanTassel-Baska (1994) noted, the curriculum that is actually delivered to students is not the same as the planned curriculum. Considerable creativity may be employed by teachers in the enactment of their plans. For expert teachers, plans only provide an outline, with the details to be filled in as lessons progress (Ornstein, 1995). Borko and Livingston (1989) characterized the actual teaching of a lesson as an improvisational act during which teachers closely monitor students for evidence of understanding, and make final decisions about timing, pacing, and which examples to use in response to students participation. Moore (1993) expanded this idea to include the improvisation of problem finding and solution finding during the enactment of lesson plans. Improvisation is particularly in evidence in constructivist approaches to teaching in which the curriculum is co-constructed by teachers, and students in the course of instruction (Brooks & Brooks, 1993). Based on six case studies of secondary-school art teachers, Stuart (1993) concluded that "[g]ood art teachers see their jobs as filled with uncertain, diverse, particular, and unpredictable elements. This complexity ... should be seen as a welcome sign of the individual, creative nature of art teaching" (p. 379).

Teaching gifted students is even more improvisational. Expert teachers spend much of their planning time focusing on content and how best to present it to students (Borko & Livingston, 1989). That kind of planning often is not possible for teachers of gifted students because the content is centered on the interests and needs of individual or small groups of students. Even if these interests are known in advance, the teacher may not be an expert in the relevant topic. Indeed, it is not unknown for teachers of gilled students to know less about a specific topic than the students they are teaching. Additionally, regular classroom teachers can use their previous experience with a given course to anticipate students' problems with the material (Borko & Livingston, 1989). However, gifted students vary so greatly in their knowledge and interests that teachers have fewer opportunities to draw on previous experience with course content. Consequently, teachers of the gifted must focus their planning less on the content and more on the processes which they will use. Ideally, this will be done flexibly so that the students' interests and input can play a significant part in the enactment of the curriculum. Thus, TAG teachers must be prepared to improvise extensively to combine their process goals with students' interests.

Teachers of gifted students encounter a variety of problems specific to teaching gifted students. They are more likely to face the management problems that result from the high energy and intense independence of creatively gilled children (Dawson, 1997) as well as the challenges presented by underachieving gifted students (Baum, 1995; Rimm & Olenchak, 1991). Appropriate materials are more difficult to locate. Although good planning will help teachers succeed in meeting these challenges their improvisational skills also are an asset.

It is possible to improvise without doing so creatively. However, the improvisational aspects of teaching clearly fit Taylor's (1975) description of the spontaneity and freedom of expressive creativity. Taylor noted that the originality and quality of a product are not important in expressive creativity. However, some of the examples he provided, such as Louis Armstrong being an expressively creative musician, do reflect both high quality and originality. When teachers combine pedagogical expertise with responsiveness to the uniqueness of the situation and the individuals whom they are teaching, then they too are demonstrating high quality and originality in their improvisation.

Conclusion

Teachers of gifted students are called upon to be creative in many aspects of their work. They are expected to teach creative problem solving skills and their application to real problems, and to create environments which support the affective aspects of creativity. This requires that teachers themselves to be skilled in creative problem solving and to hold attitudes and values compatible with creativity. Similarly, effective program and curriculum modification or development depends on teachers' inventive creativity, and the improvisation involved in successful teaching requires expressive creativity. Creativity is an asset for any teacher; for teachers of the gifted it is a necessity.

The need for creative teachers is widely recognized in the field (Coyne, 1995; Davis & Rimm, 1994; Gallagher and Gallagher, 1994; VanTassel-Baska, 1992), and it can be said with confidence that successful teachers of the gifted are creative. Yet relatively little attention has been paid to helping teachers to develop and apply their creativity. A variety of measures could be undertaken to this end.

Workshops in creative problem solving skills or courses in creativity are widely available to assist teachers in developing cognitive creativity skills. These could be extended to make creative problem solving a central aspect of training teachers to work with gifted and talented students. Considering the benefits to teaching that result when teacher engage in their own inquiry (Rejskind, in preparation), training as teacher-researchers should be an integral part of teacher training. However, creativity involves affective as well as cognitive processes, and principals and other administrators should develop school climates in which creative teachers can flourish. When school and district programs require teachers to be creative, the program plan should also describe the steps that will be taken to enhance and support that creativity. In particular, the time necessary for engaging in problem definition and for disseminating creative products should be considered part of TAG teachers' workloads.

There is very little research into teachers' creativity; the creativity involved in teacher improvisation in particular is poorly understood. Research into all aspects of teachers' creativity has the potential to help teachers in the creative execution of their teaching.

Ultimately, it is students who have the most to gain from these and similar measures as creative teachers lead the way in preparing students to be effective citizens of the 21st century.

REFERENCES

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to "The social psychology of creativity". Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Baum, S. M. (1995). Reversing underachievement: Creative productivity as a systematic intervention. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 224-235.

Borko, H., & Livingston, C. (1989). Cognition and improvisation: Differences in mathematics instruction by expert and novice teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 473-498.

Brooks, J. G. , & Brooks, M. G. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Brown, R. T. (1989), Creativity: What are we to measure? In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handhook of creativity (pp. 3-32). New York: Plenum.

Bulls, M. R.. & Riley, T. L, (1997). Weaving qualitatively differentiated units using the word wide web. Gifted Child Today, 20(1), 20-27, 50.

Coyne, E. P, (Ed.). (1995). Gifted programming today: A national sample. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 325-339). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). The domain of creativity. In M.A. Runco & R. S. Albert (Eds.), Theories of creativity (pp, 190-212). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Davis, G. A., & Rimm. S. B. (1994). Education of the gifted and talented (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Dawson, V. L. (1997). In search of the wild bohemian: Challenges in the identification of the creatively gifted. Roeper Review, 19, 148-152.

de Bono, E. (1986). CoRT thinking: Teachers notes (Vols 1-6) (2nd ed.). New York: Pergammon Press.

Eberle, R. F. (1977). Scamper: Games for imagination education. Buffalo, NY: D.O.K.

Elgersma, R. (1990). Discovery ideas for the gifted. Gifted Child Today, 13(5), 26-28.

Feldhusen, J. F., & Treffinger, D. J. (1980). Creative thinking and problem solving. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Feldhusen, J., & Kolloff, P. B. (1986). The Purdue three-stage enrichment model for gifted education at the elementary level. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 126-152). Mansfield. CT: Creative Learning Press.

Feldhusen, J., & Robinson, A. (1986). The Purdue secondary model for gifted and talented youth, In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 153-179). Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Freeman, J. (1994). Gifted school performance and creativity, Roeper Review, 17, 15-19,

Gallagher, H., & Gallagher, S. (1994). Teaching the gifted child. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Ghiselin, B. (1955). The creative process. New York: Mentor Books.

Goetz, E. M. (1989). The teaching of creativity to preschool children: The behavior analysis approach. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 411-428). New York: Plenum.

Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw Hill.

Isaksen. S. G., Murdock, M. C., Firestien, R. L. & Treffinger, D. J. (Eds.). (1993). Nurturing and developing creativity: The emergence of a discipline. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Litterst, J. H., & Eyo, B. A. (1993). Developing classroom imagination: Shaping and energizing a suitable climate for growth, discovery, and vision. Journal of Creative Behavior, 27, 270-282.

Marshall, S. P. (1994). Our gifted children: Are they asking too much? Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 187-192.

McGrail, L. (1998) Modifying regular classroom curricula for high ability students. Gifted Child Today, 21(2), 36-39.

Monson, H. P., & Monson. R. I. (1993). Who creates curriculum? New roles for teachers. Educational Leadership, 51(2), 19-21,

Moore, M. T. (1993). Implications of problem finding on teaching and learning. In S. G. Isaksen, M. C. Murdock, R. L. Firestien, & D, J. Treffinger, (Eds.), Nurturing and developing creativity: The emergence of a discipline (pp. 51-69). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

O'Day, (1996). Creative drama engages children's imagination. Gifted Child Today, 19(5), 16-19.

Ornstein, A. C. (1995). Beyond effective teaching. Peabody Journal of Education, 70, 2-23.

Parke, B. (1989). Gifted students in regular classrooms. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Parnes, S. J. (1967). Creative behavior guidebook. New York: Scribner.

Rejskind, F. G. (1998). Teacher motivation to use inquiry: Control, change, and student learning. Manuscript in preparation, McGill University.

Renzulli. J. S. (Ed.). (1986). Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1993). Developing creative productivity through the Enrichment Triad Model. In S, G. Isaksen, M. C. Murdock, R. L. Firestien, & D. J. Treffinger (Eds.), Nurturing and developing creativity: The emergence of a discipline (pp. 70-99). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Rimm, S., & Olenchak, F. R. (1991). How FPS helps underachieving gifted students. Gifted Child Today, 14, 19-22.

Runco, M, A, & Chand, I. (1994), Problem finding, evaluative thinking and creativity. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Problem finding problem solving and creativity (pp. 40-76). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Runco, M. A., & Nemiro, J. (1994). Problem finding, creativity, and giftedness. Roeper Review, 16, 235-241.

Russ, S. W. (1993). Affect and creativity: The role of affect and play in the creative process. Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Schlichter, C. (1986). Talents unlimited: Applying the multiple talent approach in mainstream and gifted programs. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 352-390). Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Shore. B. M., Cornel, G. C., Robinson, A., & Ward. V. S. (Eds.). (1991). Recommended practices in gifted education: A critical analysis. New York: Teachers College Press.

Smilansky, J., & Halberstadt, N. (1986). Inventors versus problem solvers: An empirical investigation. Journal or" Creative Behavior, 20, 183-201.

Starko, A. J. (1995). Creativity in the classroom: Schools of curious delight. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Stuart, R. (1993). Art imagination, and teaching: Restructuring the high school classroom. Canadian Journal of Education, 18, 366-380.

Taylor, I. A. (1975). An emerging view of creative actions. In I. A. Taylor & J. W. Getzels (Eds.), Perspectives in creativity. Chicago: Aldine.

Torrance, E, P. (1971). Nurture of creative talent. In G. A. Davis & J. A. Scott (Eds.), Training creative thinking (pp. 208-219). New York: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston.

Torrance, E. P. (1990). Torrance tests of creative thinking, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.

Torrance, E. P. (1995). Why fly? A philosophy of creativity. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Torrance, E. P., & Torrance, J. P. (1978), The 1977-78 Furore Problem-solving Program: Interscholastic competition and curriculum project. Journal of Creative Behavior, 12, 87-89.

Treffinger, D. J. (1986). Fostering effective independent learning through individualized programming. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems' aim models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 429-460). Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Treffinger, D. J., Feldhusen, J. F., Isaksen, S. G., & Tallman, M. C. (1992). Thinking skills programs handbook (Vol. 1). Sarasota, FL: Center for Creative Learning.

VanTassel-Baska, J. (1992). Planning effective curriculum for gifted learners. Denver, CO: Love Publishing.

VanTassel-Baska, J. (1994). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon

Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York: Harcourt Brace.

Williams, F. E. (1970). Classroom ideas book, Vol, 1. East Aurora NY: D.O.K. Publishers.

Williams, F. E. (1982). Classroom ideas book, Vol. 2. East Aurora NY: D.O.K. Publishers.

Williams, F. E. (1986). The cognitive-affective interaction model for enriching gifted programs. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp, 461-484). Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Gillian Rejskind is an Associate Professor in the Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology of the Faculty of Education, McGill University, where she is coordinator of the Giftedness component of the M.Ed. program. Her research interests are creativity and gender in education.