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

StrategiesDetermine 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 History Bares Witness of Eminent

Individuals Not Recognized Until Older

Teachers Should Consider Latent Potential Students Possess

Tiered Instruction Response to Intervention

Provides Framework for Intervention Evidence for Special Education Referral

Strengths Based 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 RtI 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&site=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 RtI 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), 234-241. doi:10.1080/02783190903177606

McKenzie, 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=tfh&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=tfh&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/s15430421 tip4402_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, 2nd Grade Teacher.