Gifted Students With Learning Disabilities TwiceExceptional Students Underrepresented
Gifted Students With Learning Disabilities
Twice-Exceptional Students Underrepresented in Gifted Programs Frequently Struggle Unique Talents Overlooked In Danger of Dropping Out
Primarily Three Categories Students enrolled in a Gifted Program but not identified with a learning disability Students already receiving Special Education services, but not indentified as gifted Students who neither demonstrate gifted qualities nor extreme learning difficulties
Affective Characteristics Poor Social Skills Lack of Confidence Awkward With Peers Low Self-Esteem Over Sensitive to Failure
Varied Behavioral Characteristics Manifest High Frustration Lack of Motivation Intense Perfectionism Extreme Carelessness Appear Lazy, Disorganized Oversensitive
Academic Characteristics Crave But Lack Ability to Access Advanced Information Imaginative Ideas Surpass Abilities Struggle With Self-Regulation and Organization
Academics Persistent Difficulties Reading Writing Math Listening Organization Often Placed in Strategic or Intensive Reading Groups
Affective Needs Understand Strengths and Weaknesses Need to Feel Successful
Talents & Abilities Talents and abilities frequently concealed Difficulties Masked because students compensate Learning styles may differ Need Differentiated and Engaging Curriculum
Teachers Role Help students make connections between Known and Unknown Build Upon Strengths While Accommodating for Weaknesses Consider students’ potential
Strategies Determine Prior Knowledge Pre-Assessments Informal Assessments Interest Inventories Discussion
Strategies. Accommodations Provide Scaffolding Blooms Taxonomy Prior Knowledge Graphic Organizers As Reference Tools Webs Flow Charts Visual Aids
Supportive Strategies Self-regulation for focus and attention Collaboration With Peers Work in Areas of Interest
LD Identification Often use Discrepancy Formula to Determine Disability Discrepancy Formula May Cause students to be Unidentified because Struggles are concealed
Gifted Identification Intelligence Tests Verbal Non-Verbal Qualitative Information Checklists Interviews Observations Work Samples
Early Identification Advantage of Early Identification Learn to Balance Strengths and Weaknesses While Young Cognitive Processing Disabilities May Not Manifest Themselves Until Children are Older
Lessons from History Bares Witness of Eminent Individuals Not Recognized Until Older Teachers Should Consider Latent Potential Students Possess
Tiered Instruction Response to Intervention Strengths Based Provides Framework for Intervention Evidence for Special Education Referral Serves to Address Need for Extra Support Recognition of Gifted Abilities Flexible Tiers According to interest According to strength
Dichotomous Learners Authentic and Purposeful Understand Extraordinary Characteristics High Quality Instruction Cultivate Creative and Academic Potential Need Collaborative Efforts Among Instructors
References Baum, S. W. , Cooper, C. R. , Neu, T. W. (2001). Dual differentiation: An approach for meeting the curricular needs of gifted students with learning disabilities. Psychology In The Schools, 38(5), 477. Bianco, M. (2005). The effects of disability labels on special education and general education teachers’ referrals for gifted programs. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28(4), 285 -293. Bianco, M. (2010). Strength-Based RTI: Conceptualizing a multi-tiered system for developing gifted potential. Theory Into Practice, 49(4), 323 -330. doi: 10. 1080/00405841. 2010. 510763 Castellano, J. A. (2003). Special populations in gifted education: Working with diverse gifted learners. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Coleman, M. R. (2005). Academic strategies that work for gifted students with learning disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(1), 28 -32. Retrieved from: http: //search. ebscohost. com. libproxy. troy. edu/login. aspx? direct=true& db=tfh&AN=183489&site=ehost-live
References Coleman, M. R. Hughes, C. E. (2009). Meeting the needs of gifted students within an Rt. I framework. Gifted Child Today, 32(3), 14 -19. Retrieved from: http: //search. ebscohost. com. libproxy. troy. edu/login. aspx? direct=true&db=tfh&AN=43381493&s ite=ehost-live Hughes, C. E. , Rollins, K. , Johnsen, S. K, Pereles, D. A. , Omdal, S. , Baldwin, L. , Brown, E. F. , Abernethy, S. H. , (2009). Remaining challenges for the use of Rt. I with gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 32(3), 58 -61. Retrieved from: http: //search. ebscohost. com. libproxy. troy. edu/login. aspx? direct=true& db=tfh&AN=4331498&site=ehost-live Jarvis, J. M. (2009). Planning to unmask potential through responsive curriculum: The “Famous Five” exercise. Roeper Review, 31(4), 234241. doi: 10. 1080/02783190903177606 Mc. Kenzie, R. G. (2010). The insufficiency of response to intervention in identifying gifted students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice Blackwell Publishing Limited, 25(3), 161 -168. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1540 -5826. 2010. 00312. x
References Olenchak, F. (1999). Affective development of gifted students with nontraditional talents. Roeper Review, 21(4), 293. Retrieved from: http: //search. ebscohost. com. libproxy. troy. edu/login. aspx? direct=true&db=t fh&AN=2002308&site=ehost-live Pierce, R. L. Adams, C. M. (2004). Tiered lessons. Gifted Child Today, 27(2), 58 -65. Retrieved from: http: //search. ebscohost. com. libproxy. troy. edu/login. aspx? direct=true&db=t fh&AN =12903326&site=ehost-live Ruban, L. M. , Reis, S. M. (2005). Identification and assessment of gifted students with learning disabilities. Theory Into Practice, 44(2), 115 -124. Doi: 10. 1207/s 15430421 tip 4402_6 Shealey, M. (2007). Creating culturally responsive literacy programs in inclusive classrooms. Intervention In School & Clinic, 42(4), 195 -197. Sobel, D. V. (2006). Blueprint for the responsive classroom. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(5), 28 -35. Tyner, M. (2013). Second grade child-find discussions with Emily Ammons, 2 nd Grade Teacher.
- Slides: 22