The Father of Creativity: The Life, Legacy, and Lessons of Dr. E. Paul Torrance (1915 - 2003)

When you hear the word “creativity,” what comes to mind? For some, it may be an artistic project, a plot twist in our favorite movie, or the launch of an innovative technological advancement. For others, it may be an outrageous dunk you saw during a basketball game or the formatting of a poem or short story. For us in gifted education, we may think of the countless researchers and theorists who defined, redefined, and conceptualized models and theories of creativity. We may also think of Dr. Ellis Paul Torrance, also known as “the father of creativity.” Many of us may be familiar with the name Torrance, especially if we administer the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking in our schools, but who was Dr. Torrance? Which moments in his life later inspired monumental moments in ours? In honor of Future Problem Solving International Program’s 50th year anniversary, a creativity-based talent development program initiated by Dr. Torrance, and the Creativity Network’s Torrance Award, we want to take a moment to shed light on the life and legacy of Dr. Torrance.

A noteworthy scholar in creative thinking and problem-solving, Torrance’s publications exceed over 2,000 works, including research articles, books, and manuals. He also developed the Incubation Model of Teaching (Torrance & Safter, 1990), which still thrives in classrooms today. Torrance’s life was not “traditional” by any means. His life experiences were as diverse as his thoughts on creativity.

The Life of a Scholar

Torrance grew up in a rural, impoverished small town in Georgia, where he and his family raised livestock on their farm. He was a twice-exceptional student, though not diagnosed (Hebert et al., 2002). Although exceptionally talented, Torrance’s small stature overclouded his early academic readiness causing his parents to make him wait until the age of seven to start school. They feared he could not endure the 3-mile round trip, along with the possibility of being bullied and physically hurt by other kids. Torrance’s father noticed his advanced creative and academic ability and encouraged him to find his own way in the world, rather than follow the status-quo of taking over their family farm. Paul followed his father’s advice and began attending school, forming the foundation of his creative and divergent thinking.

Torrance won multiple academic awards and scholarships through his foundational schooling experience and went on to earn an associate degree from Georgia Military College (GMC) and Bachelor's in English, with a minor in history and education, from Mercer University.

One of the most pivotal experiences of Torrance’s life was substituting for an ill principal, where Torrance assumed his administrative duties, including teaching several 8th and 9th grade courses (Hebert et al., 2002). Later in his life, he noted that many of the most “challenging” students went on to live successful and productive lives, likely due to his creative teaching methods (Torrance, 1963).

Following this temporary teaching assignment, Torrance returned to GMC as an instructor, where he taught foreign language, mathematics, and history courses while attending night classes to refine his pedagogical practices. During his studies, he discovered his passion for psychology and pursued his master’s degree in Counseling Psychology at the University of Minnesota (UM). Although Torrance desired to pursue a doctoral degree at the time, he lacked the financial means to do so and moved back to Georgia to continue teaching at GMC. It did not take long for UM to realize the impact Torrance’s absence had on their community, so a year later they offered him a full-time position in their Counseling Bureau. However, this assignment was short-lived, as Torrance was drafted to serve in the United States Air Force during World War II months after accepting the UM position.

The Legacy of a Scholar

During basic training, it was evident that Torrance’s physical exceptionalities would prevent him from serving in active duty. He was unable to keep in step with his fellow cadets and couldn’t hit a target with weaponry. Therefore, he was assigned as a psychiatric social worker and research psychologist for the Air Force Survival Training Program (Hebert et al., 2002). There, Torrance saw clear creativity connections between those he served in the army and those he taught and counseled back at home. His description of a “jet ace,” or a fighter pilot credited with shooting down multiple enemy planes, was identical to his description of a creative person: a courageous risk-taker who is independent and committed (Torrance, 1963). Torrance’s diverse experiences formed his purpose in life: learning how to identify and develop creative potential.

Once the war ended, Torrance returned to higher education to build upon his work, serving as a counselor and Dean of Men at Kansas State College, allowing him to save enough money to later become a full-time doctoral student at the University of Michigan. At the same time, Sputnik was launched, gifted education emerged, and the concept of “creativity” was further developed as a construct of problem-solving and divergence rather than intellect and academic ability (Guilford, 1950). On a personal level, Torrance also met the love of his life, Pansy, who was a beacon of encouragement in his life.

The impact of Torrance’s research was felt across the globe. Following the flourishing success of his career, he was met with numerous job offers, including an offer to serve as the Head of the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Georgia. Knowing that he wanted to retire in his home state, the native decided to finally return to Georgia.

Torrance served UGA for 18 years, until Pansy had a stroke in the early 1980s, and he decided to step away to care for her. Following his retirement, he was inducted into the Hall of Fame by the National Association for Creative Children and Adults and continued to support his many students and colleagues in their professional and personal pursuits. Torrance passed away in 2003, but his life, legacy, and lessons live on through all that he touched and inspired.

The Lessons of a Scholar

If Dr. Torrance’s life can teach us anything, it is to first and foremost let our life be a service and tribute to others. His scholarly efforts, including his research and ideas served generations of children and educators alike. Secondly, inspire the children we teach by believing in their potential. Torrance often pointed to the creative behaviors presented in children as contrary to the academic abilities honored by educators (Torrance, 1963), leading more educators to be influenced by his work. Lastly, a legacy is found in both those you leave behind and the words you speak and write while you are here. The reason we regard Torrance is because of the stories his past students and colleagues have shared.

Torrance was more than just an educator, counselor, and professor. He was a pioneer, a mentor, a creator, an innovator, a husband, and a friend. His life, legacy, and lessons demonstrate that he is more than deserving of the distinction of “the Father of Creativity.

If you have someone in mind who inspires the creative minds of young children in schools and classrooms, please click the following link to nominate them for this prestigious award: https://form.jotform.com/240845150871153

References

Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444–454.

Hebert, T. P., Cramond, B., Spiers Neumeister, K. L., Millar, G., & Silvian, A. F. (2002). E. Paul Torrance: His Life, Accomplishments, and Legacy. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Torrance, E. P. (1963). The creative personality and the ideal pupil. Teachers College Record, 65(3), 1-9.

Torrance, E. P., & Safter, H. T. (1990). The incubation model of teaching: Getting beyond the aha!. Bearly Limited.

Arts Network Research Award recognizes excellence in research about high-ability arts education and arts talent development and aims to increase understanding and availability of research about the needs of artistically gifted and talented and to bridge boundaries between professional organizations and scholarly fields.

The NAGC Arts Network hosts the annual Arts Network Research Award competition. Winners of the award receive a certificate, a Super Sunday Session to present their findings at the NAGC 2024 National Convention, and an early-bird registration discount for the convention.

Reviewers critically examine recently published articles that have been nominated in the following categories:

• Senior Researcher (Published)

• Junior Researcher (Published)

• Action Researcher (Unpublished)

Arts Network Research Award nominations are open. The deadline for nominations is July 1, 2024.

• Award Nomination Form
• Award Guidelines

We are also actively recruiting reviewers. Email Research Award Committee Chair, Juliana Tay for information about becoming a reviewer.

• Reviewers are appointed by the chair of the committee.
• Reviewers are members of NAGC Arts Network (may join Arts Network in order to be a reviewer) and represent diverse backgrounds in an effort to ensure multiple points of view, as per strategic plan DEI principles/guidelines].
• Reviews of assigned cases are completed using online evaluation form independently in single-blind review.
• Chair convenes the Arts Network Research Awards Committee by video conference to discuss and select.Reviews conducted between July 1 and August 31, 2024.

You’ve been to the gifted conferences, read the latest books, and discovered the best new ideas from distinguished researchers in the field. Now what? The examples they talked you through in the conference presentation were great, but they don’t look anything like what you have in your district or campus. How do you take what you have learned and put it to good use in your district, campus, or classroom? How do you translate that interesting bit of research into a practical strategy that you can use?

One thing you need to understand is that researchers and educational administrators speak different languages. While we speak the language of empirical research, with strict protocols and reporting standards, educational administrators must engage in more pragmatic and iterative strategies such as design-based, continuous improvement, and action research that leverage the local knowledge and on-the-ground proof-of-concept evidence (Yurkofsky et al., 2020). What you need to do is serve as translator, taking the empirically researched ideas and transforming them into local projects that you can test before you push for full implementation. Here’s what that might look like.

First, try to categorize the big idea of the research you are interested in implementing. It probably falls into one or more of these very broad categories: identification and assessment, service models and service delivery, curriculum, counseling, or family & community interaction. Once you decide this, your next step is to determine who needs to be involved in the decision-making process. For example, if you wanted to try out a small shift in service delivery, that is likely something that could be done by a single teacher in a single classroom, but a change to identification protocols would require buy-in from district leadership.

Second, you need to try your ideas out in a small way. Let’s look at a couple of examples.

Imagine you were a coordinator at a presentation about differentiating using 21^st Century skills, and you came away with a set of skills standards and rubrics to work with. This is going to fall under both “curriculum” and “service delivery” (probably as differentiation), so you need to involve teachers, and you may wish to collaborate with content specialists in your district as well. You might decide to test this with a GT teacher and a general education teacher to see how difficult it is to implement in both types of classrooms. Instead of giving them the full list of skills to wade through, you would choose a targeted skill that aligns with the planned curriculum anticipated in the next six weeks, or the next semester, and then determine where it could be worked into the unit plans and lessons. This is where a content specialist would come in handy before taking it to the teachers, especially if you are not familiar with the grade level or content with which you plan to trial the differentiation.

Once you have several examples, you would then work with the teachers to integrate that targeted skill into upcoming lesson plans and develop rubrics for evaluating the skill development and the teachers’ description of the new process. You will want to have a way to measure the skill before and after the intervention, and measure the degree to which the teachers involved actively taught the skill. After the implementation period has passed, you would meet with all involved to review the results, gather feedback, and ask for their thoughts on the implementation. This is a small implementation, or a type of pilot study. After reviewing with your teachers, you might consider making relevant adjustments and then moving toward a second phase with slightly wider implementation. It is always best to make implementation happen gradually and over several cycles of reflection and refinement. 

If you are a teacher introducing the skills standards in this same scenario, you could propose the same pilot to your coordinator or principal as an action research project (Efron & Ravid, 2020). That would be something to keep track of in your future leadership portfolio, and is usually a requirement for certain incentive programs, mid-management certification, or teacher-leader programs that you might be working through. As a GT teacher, it can be difficult to find opportunities that count toward standard leadership rubrics, especially when you are the only GT teacher in the school or district. A well-documented action research project would be a great opportunity to showcase your leadership skills. The key at this point would be to clearly document your processes, and to clearly indicate how this pilot would lead to full integration and a continuous improvement cycle (Yurkovsky et al., 2020) in your school. You can find a freely accessible document on the topic of continuous improvement in schools here.

What if it is a district level implementation? You will need to get your GT coordinator or the director who oversees the gifted programming in your district on board before you can begin, and they may have to go up the chain as well. It is best to go in with an open mind. If you have never worked at the district level, you may be unaware of the processes and systems that must be navigated before something like this can happen. The best way to start is with questions. “I learned about this at the NAGC conference. What would it take to do this here? What systems would have to be addressed? Who would need to weigh in on decisions to accomplish that level of change?” Once you have that information, take some time to draw up two or three options for a pilot study and bring those back to your supervisor. Keeping it small, low-cost, and with defined and measurable outcomes that align with your district improvement plan are the keys to getting the go-ahead.

Still not sure? I often hear GT teachers and coordinators say, “This won’t work with my population,” or “I’m the only one, and I’m only there a few hours a week.” There are often special considerations that make it difficult to translate the research you are hearing about into practice, so why not reach out to the researchers themselves and ask for help? Believe it or not, they are usually happy to hear from you! There are always researchers looking for collaborations with schools and districts, graduate students who need to gain skills in research while helping out in real-world situations, and teachers-turned-researchers who just like to lend a helping hand. It never hurts to ask. They may have resources to share, or be looking for someone just like you to work with on a fully funded research project. Another place to look is in your ENGAGE communities. The informal networks formed in and around NAGC abound with sound advice and experience. You never know what opportunities may arise until you take the first step, reach out, and put your new learning into practice.

References

Efron, S. E., & Ravid, R. (2020). Action Research in Education, 2^nd Ed. The Guilford Press.

Yurkofshy, M. M., Peterson, A. J., Mehta, J. D., Horwitz-Willis, R., & Frumin, K. M. (2020). Research on continuous improvement: Exploring the complexities of managing educational change. Review of Research in Education, 44(1), 403-433.

Best, J., & Dunlap, A. (2014). Continuous Improvement in Schools and Districts: Policy Considerations. McREL International.

Celeste D.C. Sodergren, PhD Candidate at Baylor University, is a member of of NAGC's Research & Evaluation Network. Learn more about all NAGC networks and special interest groups.

The Research & Evaluation Network needs you! There are two opportunities for NAGC members to get involved with the network as reviewers for the Dissertation Award Competition and Graduate Student Research Gala. Follow the links below to learn more about these opportunities!

• Volunteer as a Dissertation Award Competition Reviewer
• Volunteer as a Graduate Student Research Gala Reviewer

NAGC asked its 2024 Teachers Summit (held online February 13-14, 2024) speakers to share additional information about their presentations via the NAGC Blog. Karen Cristalli presented during that event on Gifted Education 101. Recordings of the Teachers Summit are now available for anyone wishing to register to view the recordings of Karen’s session or any other Teachers Summit session.

I was thrilled to share my journey into the world of gifted and talented education as part of my workshop at the recent NAGC Teachers Summit (you can still access the recordings by registering here). As a lifelong learner, a neurodiversity advocate, and a dedicated teacher and coordinator, scouting and nurturing potential in every student has motivated my pursuit of higher learning, with my dissertation focus being gifted education.

As I began my dissertation on gifted education, I dove deep into researching various aspects of it. The more I researched, the more I couldn't help but reflect on my journey, which started over a decade ago. Being tasked with building a districtwide gifted and talented program from the ground up with no background in the area and no prior training proved to be quite the challenge.  However, being a lifelong learner taught me that you can always start by asking questions and looking to those with greater expertise and experience, and so that is exactly how I started. I got involved with my county consortium and learned from the wonderful people in that group. That journey has come full circle as I am the copresident of that consortium and a mentor to a first-year gifted teacher in my district's program. 

As I reflected on where I started, I looked back at the five glaring things I wish I had focused on when I began in gifted education. 

1. The definition of giftedness and all the nuances and variations of that definition. 
2. The characteristics of gifted students, and how stereotypical characteristics can sometimes be misleading. 
3. Why schoolwide enrichment is so important to your gifted program.
4. How universal screening can be a game changer for identifying gifted learners. 
5. Differentiation for gifted learners is so important to all of the content in which they receive services. 

Using these five items as a guideline, this is where I started the conversation with my first-year gifted teacher this August. Unsurprisingly, she also wondered what made up a gifted student and how to spot them in the classrooms. While there is no universal definition of giftedness, we looked to the NAGC Position Statement on giftedness. NAGC defines giftedness as “Students with gifts and talents perform - or have the capability to perform - at higher levels compared to others of the same age, experience, and environment in one or more domains. They require modification(s) to their educational experience(s) to learn and realize their potential.” 

In its position statement, NAGC specifically details that students with gifts and talents: 

• Come from all racial, ethnic, and cultural populations, as well as all economic strata. 
• Require sufficient access to appropriate learning opportunities to realize their potential. 
• Can have learning and processing disorders that require specialized intervention and accommodation. 
• Need support and guidance to develop socially and emotionally as well as in their areas of talent. 
• Require varied services based on their changing needs. (para. 2)

Understanding the definition of giftedness helps all educators create a more supportive space for gifted learners by allowing them to better identify and support gifted students because gifted students who have unique learning needs may only sometimes be immediately recognizable. It also prevents misconceptions and stereotypes from occurring. Gifted students are often portrayed in unrealistic terms in our media, and educators knowledgeable about diverse characteristics and the definition of giftedness can tailor their teaching strategies and content to engage students at the appropriate level of their ability. 

It also allows educators to advocate for students in their classrooms or schools who may not immediately be on the radar of the gifted coordinator or administrator in your building. Familiarizing your entire school community with what to look for can help develop more effective and equitable programming and policies. Finally, it may inspire educators in your school community to take an interest in professional development for their gifted learners.

Using this definition and your state guidelines can be an excellent starting point for developing your program or understanding what giftedness can look like in the classroom. To learn about this more in-depth, consider registering for the On Demand Teachers Summit and viewing my session, Gifted Education 101, where I introduce gifted education, focusing on the needs of gifted and high-potential students. 

The workshop highlights the following topics: 

Unlocking Insights:

1. Reflect upon and discuss definitions and characteristics of gifted and talented learners. 
2. Gain a deeper understanding of the unique cognitive, social, and emotional needs of gifted students.
3. Uncover strategies to create a supportive and challenging learning environment.

Identification and Assessment:

1. Explore various methods and strategies for identifying gifted students.
2. Understand the importance of employing multiple measures in the assessment process.

Differentiating Instruction:

1. Discover practical strategies for differentiating instruction within the general education classroom.
2. Explore ways to provide appropriate levels of challenge and enrichment for gifted students.

If you’re unable to participate in the On Demand Summit, here are some resources to get you started on where to better learn about the definition of giftedness and the characteristics to look for in your classroom. 

• What Is Giftedness?
• A Definition of Giftedness That Guides Best Practice
• Gifted Traits and Characteristics
• Key Considerations in Identifying and Supporting Gifted and Talented Learners
• Neurodiversity and Gifted Education   
• What Is Neurodiversity?
  

Additional Resources:

• Baumer, N., & Frueh, J. (2021, November 23). What is neurodiversity? Harvard Health. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/what-is-neurodiversity-202111232645 
• Heacox, D., Cash, R. M., & Gentry, M. L. (2020). Differentiation for gifted learners: Going beyond the basics. Free Spirit Publishing. 
• Tomlinson, C. A. (1995). How to differentiate instruction in mixed ability classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Karen Cristalli, M.Ed., coordinates the K-12 Gifted and Talented program in Harrison, NJ. She is also pursuing her doctorate with a focus on gifted education. In addition to her role as co- president of the Hudson County Gifted and Talented Consortium, Karen is a member of the Intersectionality of Cognitive and Affective Needs Subcommittee for the Strengthening Gifted and Talented Education Act Committee.