FindArticles > Theory Into Practice > Spring, 2005 > Article > Print friendly
Services and programs for academically talented students with learning disabilities
Sally M. ReisSince the creation of the major legislative efforts related to students with disabilities and gifted students, and the initial work completed on twice-exceptional students (i.e., students who have both giftedness and learning disabilities), researchers and professionals have tried to identify the characteristics, needs, and appropriate services for this special population of students. An accumulated research base supports the need for a continuum of service options and intervention strategies for gifted students who may have mild, moderate, or more severe learning disabilities. This article provides a discussion of the intervention services for these students, emphasizing the importance of developing a wide range of compensation strategies, attending to their social and emotional needs, identifying elements of supportive environments, and providing talent development opportunities for students with learning disabilities who also have diverse gifts.
**********
STUDENTS WHO DEMONSTRATE gifted characteristics and behaviors and who also have learning disabilities are often viewed as being "doubly at risk" (Robinson, 1999, p. 195) and are often overlooked by the regular educational system (Newman & Sternberg, 2004; Winner, 1999). Too often, academically talented students with learning disabilities and learning problems fail to achieve at levels commensurate with their potential. In an overview of the current state of research on interventions and services for twice-exceptional students (i.e., students who are both gifted and learning disabled), Newman (2004) indicated that, although some of these students are provided with services based on either their identified giftedness or their learning disability, few receive both types of services. Therefore, few individuals are recognized as being eligible for specialized services that both help them develop areas of weakness and explore areas of strength. Research suggests that such oversights, if not addressed, may have significant negative spillover effects on the students' opportunities to succeed academically in school and succeed in careers that capitalize on their areas of strength (Newman, 2004; Reis, Neu, & McGuire, 1995).
Students with both gifts and learning disabilities must have a unique set of educational programs and services that address both their academic and affective development if they are to achieve at appropriately high levels (Baum & Owen, 2004; Nielsen, Higgins, Wilkinson, & Webb, 1994; Reis, Neu, & McGuire, 1995). Researchers and practitioners must consider a new area of focus, from being preoccupied with the current pervasive emphasis to meet the minimum required, to mobilizing energies and resources to strive to reach the maximum possible, whether it relates to standards, level of services, or desirable educational outcomes and goals such as talent development in all students. As Nielsen (2002) eloquently emphasized, "twice-exceptional children must be viewed as being 'at promise' rather than being 'at risk'" (p. 93).
In this article, two brief case studies of gifted students with learning disabilities are presented, the importance of interventions for these students is discussed, and some of the services that can help enable these students to realize their potential are reviewed. Research-based recommended curricular interventions and strategies in three service delivery models are summarized in a table, and a discussion is provided about five critical ideas that must be integrated into the educational services provided for this population.
Two Case Studies of Gifted Students With Learning Disabilities
It is necessary for educators and parents to work together to develop individualized programs for these students, as research with successful adults with learning disabilities (Gerber & Ginsberg, 1990) suggests that many of the behaviors that contribute to their success can be learned and developed. Students who learn these strategies can be successful in challenging academic situations (Reis et al., 1995), as illustrated by the two brief case studies:
Joe: A tall, heavy set, intense-looking young man
with dark curly hair, a beard, and glasses, was a college
junior with a major in physics who had experienced
many problems in school due to the interaction
between his learning disability and his
academic talents. His verbal IQ was over 140 but he
struggled with reading throughout school. His father
was an attorney, and his mother, who attained a
bachelor's degree in English, was a researcher. Joe's
older brother was pursuing a doctorate at the same
time that Joe was in danger of flunking out of college.
Joe's academic problems began at a very early
age, as he struggled to learn to read. In fact, he experienced
so many learning problems in the primary
grades that he was placed in a self-contained special
education classroom for students with disabilities.
During his time in a self-contained classroom, Joe
became depressed and his academic progress was
compromised. Reading remained a struggle for him
throughout middle and high school, and although he
eventually learned to read slowly, he continued to
struggle with reading new material. He was involved
in a university learning disabilities program, but
whether he would complete college was questionable
as he was on academic probation due to low
grades he had received in the required liberal arts
classes outside of his major area. He also continued
to struggle to attain compensation strategies and to
self-regulate his learning.
Sara: An intense young woman with dark eyes
and hair was not identified as having a learning disability
until fifth grade, but she experienced academic
difficulties in several areas from the time she
entered first grade, despite her verbal precocity and
broad knowledge base. Each year her teachers tested
Sara and reassured her parents, professors at a large
state university, that she would eventually learn to
read and understand math. After Sara had received
remedial help for years, her parents, frustrated with
her lack of progress, asked for a full psychological
and educational evaluation. Despite her advanced
verbal abilities, Sara was identified as having learning
problems in several areas, including dyslexia, information
processing, auditory processing, mathematical
computation and nonverbal learning
disabilities. The low scores she received in some areas
were matched by extremely high scores in other
areas, including verbal abilities, general knowledge,
problem solving, and reasoning skills. Sara's parents,
working closely with her teachers, provided individualized
reading instruction at home, accompanied
by their commitment to help Sara learn good
work habits and self-motivation strategies. Television
watching was curtailed, time was devoted each
evening to homework and studying and during the
next few years, Sara learned to apply herself, work
hard and earn high grades in middle school. When
she entered high school, Sara experienced difficulty
in her advanced classes due to her reading and processing
problems and was forced to make difficult
choices about the number of challenging classes in
which she could enroll. Over time, she learned to
make choices about the advanced opportunities she
could pursue. She is currently attending a competitive
college, and although she does not earn high
grades in all classes, she has continued to work extremely
hard and excel in the areas she most enjoys.
(p. 39-40)
The Importance of Interventions and Specialized Services for Gifted Students With Learning Disabilities
Gifted students, like Joe and Sara, who have learning disabilities (gifted/LD) with unique and uneven profiles of strengths and weaknesses are rarely identified early and are often not served appropriately. Ferri, Gregg, and Heggoy (1997) found that approximately 41% of gifted students with learning disabilities remain undiagnosed until college. Reis, McGuire, and Neu (2000) corroborated these findings in their qualitative study of college students with learning disabilities who succeeded in college. Many of the students interviewed in their study reported that they had not been diagnosed until college. One can only speculate how many students with learning difficulties who also have potential never make it to college. Newman (2004) summarized existing literature to identify some of the undesirable outcomes for gifted students with learning disabilities (LD) resulting from late appropriate identification. Specifically, some students experience masking effects, that is, their gifts may be masked by their learning disabilities, or, alternatively, their learning difficulties may be masked by their areas of strength, as described in Baldwin and Vialle (1999). As a result, many of these students remain unidentified in public schools and neither their gifts nor their LD are served. Other students are placed in programs that address only their learning difficulties, which may lead gifted students with LD to frustration with school (Baum & Owen, 2004; Reis et al., 1995). Still others are placed in gifted programs based on their gifted profile, but also become frustrated when their learning difficulties are not recognized and addressed (Reis et al., 2000).
Academically talented students with LD like Joe and Sara become more successful when they learn to develop self-control, self-regulation, and the self-knowledge to follow a unique path to academic success and social competence (Reis et al., 2000). To help them succeed, teachers must enable these students to acquire a unique set of compensation strategies, a desire to succeed, specific methods to attain reasonable goals, and an understanding of how to compensate for their disabilities while enhancing their strengths. Educators must understand that LD are not permanent impairments to academic success and that they, in turn, must help students and parents regard their LD as personal attributes for which compensatory strategies can be learned. Reis, Neu, and McGuire (1997) found that academically talented students with LD who succeeded in a challenging academic university setting emphasized the benefits of having learned to successfully increase their persistence, despite encountering difficult and challenging experiences in elementary and secondary school.
Promising School Programs and Educational Interventions
Baum and Owen (2004) found that when teachers implement comprehensive programs designed to identify and develop individual gifts and talents, gifted/LD pupils begin to behave socially, emotionally, and academically more like gifted students without disabilities than like nongifted students with LD. These findings, corroborated by Bender and Wall (1994), and Baum and Olenchak (2002), indicate that, as educators diminish the attention to and importance of the disability and concentrate instead on the gifts, gifted/LD students become creatively productive. Reis and colleagues (1997) found that, when the focus was on students' gifts and talents, this attention to talent development enabled parents to advocate for additional opportunities for their children's education, and also resulted in higher levels of confidence in gifted students with LD.
Other studies suggest the importance of this shift in educational paradigm, from remediation of weaknesses to the development of gifts and talents (Baum & Owen, 2004; Reis et al., 1995). Minner (1990) found that teachers invariably focus on LD, even to the point of declining to refer or otherwise involve LD students in gifted educational programs. Sadly, the orientation toward repairing problems versus nurturing strengths dominates educational services for academically talented students with LD even at the collegiate level (Ferri et al., 1997; Reis et al., 1995).
Current research suggests only a few approaches exist for differentiating education for academically talented students with LD while simultaneously considering their social and emotional growth (Brody & Mills, 1997, 2004). Few programs actually exist for this population in schools. Boodoo and colleagues (1989) found, for example, that the majority of responding school systems surveyed reported having no gifted children with LD in their district and no special programming available. It is highly unlikely that these students are not in these schools systems, although very likely that they are not being identified or provided with services.
Based on the review of outcome information from intervention studies and based on her own work, Nielsen (2002) recommended that districts provide twice-exceptional students with a continuum of service options. The suggestion of a continuum of services has existed in gifted programming for many years in the Schoolwide Enrichment Model (Renzulli & Reis, 1985, 1997). To support the proposition that gifted students with identified LD are entitled to all legal rights available to other students in special education, Neilsen cited legislation mandating a continuum of educational services in special education. This continuum ranges from the full-time general education classroom to special classes or day schools and residential facilities (Individuals with Disabilities Act Amendments, 1997). Nielsen (2002) argued that "the vastly differing types and levels of disability of twice-exceptional learners, especially when combined with their giftedness, require that a variety of services and interventions be available to them" (p. 101). Consistent with this line of reasoning, she explained that the needs of some twice-exceptional students with very mild LDs may be met within the general education classroom with support from special gifted educators. For students with milder LDs, a combination of special and gifted education programming available in a resource room setting may work best to meet their needs. In contrast, for gifted students whose degree of LD is on the moderate to more severe side of the continuum of disability, a more intensive level of services in self-contained specialized settings may be most appropriate.
Types of Intervention Programs
In her review of intervention literature on gifted students with LDs, Newman (2004) summarized interventions that capitalize on student strengths and remediate their weaknesses using three different service delivery models of school-based interventions:
1. Interventions in the regular classroom (i.e., interventions that can be provided by classroom teachers; see e.g., Weinfield, Barnes-Robinson, Jeweler, & Shevitz, 2002).
2. Partial pull-out programs (i.e., most of these programs have been based on the enrichment model of instruction, where students have opportunities to develop their areas of strengths and interests in supportive environments aimed at developing the students' talents; see Baum, Renzulli, & Hebert, 1995; Olenchak, 1995).
3. Self-contained programs (i.e., whole classrooms or even schools that are structured to support the needs of students with dual exceptionalities). Examples include Maryland's Montgomery County Public Schools program (described in Weinfield et al., 2002), Project HIGH HOPES for gifted students with LD (Baum, Cooper, & Neu, 2001), and programs for students who are gifted, LD, or gifted/LD (e.g., ASSETS School; Hishinuma & Nishimura, 2002).
A review of research and our own work suggests that creative alternatives and strategies have been shown to be effective as educational interventions for gifted students with learning disabilities within the three-pronged service delivery models of school-based interventions. These are summarized in Table 1.
An analysis of the recommended curricular interventions and strategies within the three-pronged service delivery model summarized in Table 1 suggest five critical ideas that must be integrated into the educational services provided for this population.
First, programming for students in both elementary and secondary schools must focus on students' strengths as opposed to solely on their deficits (Baum & Owen, 2004). In a recent study of students with Williams' Syndrome who were also musically talented or inclined, a mother of one of the participants described her frustration in finding a program that would enable her son, who loved music more than anything, to be able to do music as well as address his learning limitations (Reis, Schader, Milne, & Stephens, 2003). She explained that no teacher had ever asked about his strengths and that all of his schooling experiences focused on his deficits. Other parents of academically talented students with LD have recounted similar memories, and as one parent explained, "I was never asked at one individual educational planning team meeting what her strengths or talents were. Rather, every interaction focused on what she could not do well" (p. 310).
Second, various classroom and instructional accommodations to address students' talents and their disabilities, as well as their strengths and needs, should be written into an individualized education program (IEP) to insure that students will have these opportunities. The strategies suggested in these IEPs can vary, including opportunities like interest-based independent studies (Renzulli, 1977); acceleration in areas of academic strength (Moon & Reis, 2004); special classes (either part time or full-time) for students who are gifted and LD, and opportunities for advanced level courses, on-line and in person classes in areas of strength in middle and high school (Reis et al., 1995).
Third, opportunities for learning skills and content areas must be provided within the regular classroom and content area classes and not just by the LD specialist as part of a pull-out program. Regular classroom strategies might include various modifications to enable students to be successful in the regular classroom such as the use of books on tape, keyboarding and spell check, and others (Reis et al., 1995). Advanced opportunities in technology in the classroom (e.g., computer dictation, books read by computers) can help to compensate for LD (Reis et al., 1995).
Fourth, out of school extracurricular options should be suggested to enable academically talented students with LD to experience joyful, hands-on learning opportunities in areas of personal interest. Summer or after-school programs can provide instruction in compensatory strategies (Reis et al., 1995; Silverman, 1989) and transitional support for the next level of education (i.e., middle to high school). Summer and afterschool programs can also focus on strengths and interests (Renzulli, 1977; Renzulli & Reis, 1985, 1997) either with or without the chance to work with a mentor or in an internship, perhaps with a successful adult who also has a LD (Silverman, 1989).
Fifth, various counseling and personal support and development must be provided for academically talented students with LD depending on the needs of the students. They might include discussion groups, led by facilitators with expertise in the area such as guidance counselor, LD specialist, or gifted education specialist (Reis et al., 1995). School counselors can also provide proactive counseling in the area of social and emotional issues (Reis et al., 1995), and positive peer support programs can enable successful academically talented students with LD to be a mentor to younger students with a similar profile. Group and individual counseling, and specific affective strategies, can address the unique issues of talented students with LD and help to increase academic achievement in this population (Reis et al., 1995). Forums and opportunities can be provided for students to learn appropriate coping techniques for expressing emotions and dealing with heightened sensitivities (Bredekamp, 1996; Coleman, 1992; Olenchak, 1995). Individual counseling can enable students to discuss their feelings and reduce the chances of negative outcomes when they experience frustration or difficult challenges in school. School counselors can also help teachers understand and address the social and emotional needs of academically talented students with LD. In addition, a school counselor's consultation with teachers can help each to establish a safe environment for students to discuss their social and emotional concerns, such as problems with peers, depression, anxiety, or low self-confidence. Students can learn how to become more successful in approaching their teachers to gain the support they need for both academic and personal success.
Bender and Wall (1994) and that of Osman and Blinder (1995) advocate group social development and counseling programs for gifted/LD students. Counseling with groups of gifted/LD students could also serve as a forum for development of positive peer relationships among pupils who may have low academic achievement and problems related to social and emotional regulation.
Implications for Service Providers
Within these five major ideas is an implicit understanding that LD specialists should have some time to focus on high-potential students with LD and that, in an ideal situation, an enrichment or gifted education specialist would work collaboratively with a LD specialist to develop a program of individually selected enrichment activities such as those advocated in the Enrichment Triad Model (Renzulli, 1977; Renzulli & Reis, 1985, 1997). Research has suggested that these experiences can ultimately lead toward personal creative productivity, enhance self-esteem, and reduce frustration among gifted students with LD (Baum, 2004; Olenchak, 1995). In addition, Olenchak (1995) found that gifted/LD students should perceive the purpose of schooling as a shift from an orientation toward remediation to one targeting their individual growth. In a program for academically talented students with LD, opportunities for counseling and acquisition of compensation strategies coupled with the choice of a major of strong interest provided the best possible combination for a successful academic career (Baum & Owen, 2004; Reis et al., 1997).
Providing instruction in higher order problem solving and information processing enhances the development of academic coping strategies, and can improve students' self-esteem as problem-solvers as well as their academic performance (Hansford, 1987; Reis et al., 2000). Furthermore, because gifted/LD students tend to be more resourceful and strategic in approaching problems than nongifted students who have LD, classroom activities that emphasize these skills may also improve self-esteem (Coleman, 1992).
Best Practices and Promising Future Directions in Intervention Research
In summarizing the major impacts of the interventions and programs that have been developed to date and that have reported successful outcomes, Newman (2004) concluded that many of these programs have focused on addressing the needs of students who demonstrate high intellectual ability. Specifically, she suggested that the students who are served have a profile of giftedness primarily in the area of analytical abilities or high IQ (Sternberg, 1999). We concur with Newman and her colleagues at the PACE Center at Yale University, who make a case for a broader conception of giftedness to include students who may also have gifts in domains such as creative or practical abilities that often serve as a foundation for building professional success (Sternberg, 1999; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2004). Consistent with this philosophy of broadened conceptions of intelligence and giftedness with emphasis on developing students' talents and maximizing their potential is the work of Renzulli and Reis (1987, 1995). Renzulli's three-ring conception of giftedness, his distinction between school-house giftedness and creative-productive giftedness (Renzulli, 1997), and the Schoolwide Enrichment Model (Renzulli & Reis, 1997) provide implications for identification and programming for gifted students, as well as for gifted students with LD (Baum et al., 2001; Baum & Owen, 2004; Robinson, 1999).
Conclusion
Gifted students with LD are a unique population of young people who are at special risk academically and for social and emotional issues due to the potential incompatibility of extraordinary talent with significant learning problems. These issues can result in unresolved social and emotional problems and serve to diminish the full development of talent in gifted students, resulting in the underachievement of many talented young people. The review of research in this article suggests that a movement has occurred in the field of gifted education toward providing gifted students with LD with services that are flexible, comprehensive, focused on the development of students' gifts and talents, and based on authentic approaches to instruction. Some work has had a positive impact for many talented young people with LD, yet many others remain underserved and misunderstood (Baum, 2004). More research is needed on how educators can provide appropriate levels of service and support for this population. A carefully articulated research agenda for this area would include intervention studies focusing on the use of various interventions on the identification of and programming for gifted and talented students with LD at several stages of school, from elementary through postsecondary. Another type of study could collect information on areas such as depression and other social and emotional issues experienced by a large sample of gifted and talented students with LD in secondary school and college. Of course, it would also be fascinating to study the outcomes of educational efforts to involve these students in high quality interventions that would address the continuum of services described in this article, and we believe that depression and social and emotional problems would be less prevalent in a population of students who had participated in these services.
Table 1
Recommended School-Based Interventions and Strategies for Gifted
Students With Learning Disabilities (GLD) Whose Primary Placement
is in Regular Classrooms, Partial Pull-Out Programs, or Self-Contained
Classes
Recommended Curricular
Interventions and Strategies
Goals of the Intervention and Interventions in the
Benefits to GLD Students Regular Classroom
Goals: Strategies to Promote Giftedness
* The interventions are designed and Talent
to both recognize and develop Design curriculum that recognizes
areas of student's strengths and enhances multiple intelligence
and provide appropriate and learning styles; focus on
strategies to minimize or student's interests and strength
compensate for weaknesses. areas; allow self-directed
* To ensure balance between choices; allow students
attending to strengths and opportunities to conduct
compensating for weaknesses investigations in an interest
within an appropriately area; modify assignments;
challenging curriculum. differentiate instruction
Benefits and Positive Outcomes: allow for multiple ways of
* Allow the student to assessment.
participate fully in the Study and Performance Strategies
mainstream classroom with Teach students effective note-
peers. taking strategies; test-taking
* Allow students to participate preparation; library skills;
in decision making. word processing; use of computers;
* Allow the student to become a written expression; reading (e.g.,
self-regulated and self- focus on comprehension, use high-
directed learner. interest reading material, avoid
use of worksheets); mathematical
processing.
Time Management Strategies
Monitoring daily, weekly,
and monthly assignments and
activities; using weekly and
monthly organizers to maximize
use of time; chunking assignments
into workable parts.
Metacognition and Executive
Functions
Planning and sequencing of an
individual plan for success;
self-assessment; adaptation of
an individual plan of study
skills, time management, and
self-advocacy; improve thinking
skills (e.g., help students to
identify thinking skills that
work best for them and transfer
to areas of weakness, and that
can generalize to other tasks);
enhance working memory (e.g.,
encourage use of memory
techniques)
Social and Emotional Strategies
Create an emotionally safe
environment where students feel
supported; develop student's
leadership skills and peer
interaction skills.
Counseling
Provide students with
opportunities for academic
counseling: personal and
career-related counseling
Goals: Enrichment Strategies
The interventions (primarily Encourage participation in an
based on enrichment) are enrichment program based on
designed to allow the students student's strengths and
to weaknesses; encourage development
* Capitalize on areas of of independent projects;
strengths and develop areas participate in summer mentorship
of weakness in supportive programs: participate in
environments with peers extracurricular activities (e.g.,
who share a similar clubs, team sports, theater) to
learning profile. broaden student's horizons:
* Participate in the regular encourage students to explore
classroom, while also career interests through hobbies
allowing time to explore and work experiences; assess
their interests. student's interests and learning
Benefits and Positive Outcomes: styles using interest and
* More positive attitudes and learning style inventories.
commitment toward school. Strategies to Promote Giftedness
* Gains in self-concept and and Talent
self-efficacy. Implement strategies listed under
* Increase in the commitment to Interventions in the Regular
long-term creative-productive Classroom: allow students to solve
work (as evidenced in high real-world problems in which
quality projects). students use authentic methods
* Increase in motivation, self- of the practicing professional
esteem, and commitment to to investigate problems in
pursue and complete long-term specific domains and create
advanced projects in an area original products intended to
of interest. communicate the results to
Enhance creativity. authentic audiences; shift on
the role of teacher (from that
of provider of knowledge to the
facilitator of knowledge).
Dual Curriculum Differentiation
Strategies
The components of the dual
curriculum differentiation
comprise the following
curricular accommodations to
help GLD students achieve a
balance between their apparently
conflicting needs: Use of inquiry
methods; alternate ways to access
information; provide options for
communication of the results and
products; allow creative
production; facilitate integration
of basic skills; and promote
freedom to succeed.
Self Regulation and Compensation
Strategies
Help students develop personalized
repertoires of compensation
strategies (e.g., develop
generalizable study skills
and personalized set of
compensation strategies to
promote academic success);
incorporate multisensory
instruction (e.g., video,
tape recordings, music,
hands-on experience); change
the format of assignments; use
direct instructional techniques
to promote self-regulated learning
(e.g., modeling, verbal rehearsal,
prompting, performance feedback,
mastery learning); help students
develop a general understanding
of the nature of one's own
learning disability; foster
self-determination (e.g., help
student develop self-advocacy
skills; teach student assertive
communication skills).
Social and Emotional Strategies
Stress the importance of education
and raise the child's aspirations;
help the adolescent to avoid
associating the use of
compensation strategies with
a negative stigma; provide
students with opportunities to
learn and use stress management
skills; create a calming
environment (e.g background
music, comfortable areas).
Goals: Strategies to Promote Giftedness
* Provide an environment that is and Talent
specifically designed to meet Implement strategies noted
individual needs of earlier; use a gifted education
twice-exceptional learners. program that includes a
* Allow students to attend a socioemotional component;
special class or school with accelerate the student in his
other students who have a or her areas of strength; provide
similar profile and with real-world, problem-based learning
teachers who recognize their experiences; provide student with
needs opportunities to work on
Benefits and Positive Outcomes: independent study projects; attend
* Students thrive in a flexible mainstream classes; use resources
classroom environment focusing suited to student's needs (e.g.,
on inquiry-based thinking, and books with high content level and
supported by professionals who low reading level, preferably in
have expertise in recognizing the area of student interest).
and addressing the needs of Curriculum Modification and
twice-exceptional students. Differentiation Strategies
* Parents report greater Implement strategies noted
success of the curriculum earlier; allow students to
and counseling components demonstrate their integration
of school. of basic skills in subjects areas
(e.g., in science, compare and
contrast, evaluate, classify;
in communication, planning,
organizing, public speaking,
script writing, video production;
in project management, organizing,
sequencing tasks, delegating
responsibility; collaboration,
working with peers and mentors).
Compensation Strategies for
Academic Problem Areas
Implement compensation and self-
regulation strategies listed
earlier; encourage use of
technology aids and supports
to compensate for areas of
weakness (e.g., present reading
assignments on tapes; use software
programs to help organize reports,
such as Inspiration and
Kidspiration); provide direct
instruction on basic reading
and decoding skills if needed;
directly teach the use of specific
graphic organizers (e.g., mind
mapping, webbing, storyboarding,
foldables).
Social and Emotional Strategies
Implement compensation and self-
regulation strategies listed
earlier; help the student develop
appropriate coping strategies;
provide a consistent and
predictable environment; help the
child avoid associating learning
disabilities with a negative
stigma; foster the child's fragile
self-concept and self-esteem.
Behavior Modification Strategies
Develop, implement, and use a
behavior management plan; use
weekly and daily schedule.
Note. The curricular interventions and strategies for three different
types of service delivery models presented in this table have been
summarized and adapted from Baum, Cooper, & Neu (2001); Newman (2004),
Nielsen (2002), and Reis & Ruban (2004). See the authors for a full
discussion of the types of interventions and strategies.
Acknowledgments
Research for this manuscript was supported under the Javits Act Program (Grant No. R206R00001) as administered by The Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Grantees undertaking such projects are encouraged to express freely their professional judgments. This manuscript does not necessarily represent positions or policies of the Government, and no official endorsement should be inferred.
References
Baldwin, A., & Vialle, W. (1999). The many faces of giftedness: Lifting the masks. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
Baum, S. M. (2004). Introduction. In T. M Newman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Students with both gifts and learning disabilities (pp. 1-15). New York: Kluwer.
Baum, S. M., 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, 477-490.
Baum, S. M, & Olenchak, R. F. (2002). The alphabet children: GT, ADHD, and more. Exceptionality, 10, 77-91.
Baum, S. M., & Owen, S. V. (2004). To be gifted and learning disabled: Strategies for helping bright students with LD, ADHD, and more. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Baum, S. M., Renzulli, J. R., & Hebert, T. P. (1995). Reversing underachievement: Creative productivity as a systematic intervention. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 224-235.
Bender, W. N., & Wall, M. E. (1994). Social-emotional development of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 17, 323-341.
Boodoo, G. M., Bradley, C. L., Frontera, R. L., Pitts, J R., & Wright, L. B. (1989). A survey of procedures used for identifying gifted learning disabled children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 110-114.
Bredekamp, C. M. (1996). The gifted/learning disabled student: A contradiction in the classroom. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Educational Information Center. (ERIC Document No. ED374579)
Brody, L., & Mills, C. (1997). Gifted children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 282-296.
Brody, L., & Mills, C. (2004). Linking assessment and diagnosis to intervention for gifted students with learning disabilities. In T. M. Newman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Students with both gifts and learning disabilities (pp. 73-94). New York: Kluwer.
Coleman, M. R. (1992). A comparison of how gifted/LD and average/LD boys cope with school frustration. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15, 239-265.
Ferri, B. A., Gregg, N., & Heggoy, S. J. (1997). Profiles of college students demonstrating learning disabilities with and without giftedness. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 552-559.
Gerber, P. J., & Ginsberg, R. J. (1990). Identifying alterable patterns of success in highly successful adults with learning disabilities: Executive summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Educational Information Center. (ERIC Document No. ED342168)
Hansford, S. J. (1987). Intellectually gifted learning disabled students: A special study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Educational Information Center. (ERIC Document No. ED287242)
Hishinuma, E. S., & Nishimura, S. T. (2002). Parent attitudes on the importance and success of integrated self-contained services for students who are gifted, learning-disabled, and gifted/learning disabled. Roeper Review, 22, 241-250.
Individuals with Disabilities Act Amendments (IDEA) of 1997. (1997). Public Law 105-17.
Minner, S. (1990). Teacher evaluations of case descriptions of LD/gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34, 37-39.
Moon, S. M., & Reis, S. M. (2004). Acceleration and twice exceptional children. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assoauline, M. U. Gross (Eds.). A Nation deceived: How schools hold back America's brightest students (Vol. II, pp. 109-120). Iowa City, IA: The Belin and Blank Center.
Newman, T. M. (2004). Interventions work, but we need more! In T. M. Newman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Students with both gifts and learning disabilities (pp. 235-246). New York: Kluwer.
Newman, T. M., & Sternberg, R. J. (2004). (Eds.). Students with both gifts and learning disabilities. New York: Kluwer.
Nielsen, M. E. (2002). Gifted students with learning disabilities: Recommendations for identification and programming. Exceptionality, 10, 93-111.
Nielsen, M. E., Higgins, L. D., Wilkinson, S. C., & Webb, K. W. (1994). Helping twice-exceptional students to succeed in high school. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 5, 35-39.
Olenchak, F. R. (1995). Effects of enrichment on gifted/learning disabled students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 385-399.
Osman, B. B., & Blinder, H. L. (1995). No one to play with: The social side of learning disabilities. Novato, CA: Academic Therapy Publications.
Reis, S. M., McGuire, J. M., & Neu, T. W. (2000). Compensation strategies used by high-ability students with learning disabilities who succeed in college. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 123-134.
Reis, S. M, Neu, T. W., & McGuire, J. M. (1995). Talents in two places: Case studies of high ability students with learning disabilities who have achieved. Executive Summary (Research Monograph 95113). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Reis, S. M., Neu, T. W., & McGuire, J. M. (1997). Case studies of high-ability students with learning disabilities who have achieved. Exceptional Children, 63, 463-479.
Reis, S. M., Schader, R., Milne, H., & Stephens, R. (2003) Music & minds: Using a talent development approach for young adults with Williams Syndrome. Exceptional Children, 69, 293-314.
Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1985). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model." A how-to guide for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Robinson, S. M. (1999). Meeting the needs of students who are gifted and have learning disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34(4), 195-295.
Silverman, L. K. (1989). Invisible gifts, invisible handicaps. Roeper Review, 12, 37-42.
Sternberg, R. J. (1999). The theory of successful intelligence. Review of General Psychology, 3, 292-316.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2004). Learning disabilities, giftedness, and gifted/LD. In T. M. Newman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Students with both gifts and learning disabilities (pp. 17-31). New York: Kluwer.
Weinfield, R., Barnes-Robinson, L., Jeweler, S., & Shevitz, B. (2002). Academic programs for gifted and talented/learning disabled students. Roeper Review, 226-233.
Winner, E. (1999). Uncommon talents: Gifted children, gifted prodigies, and savants. Scientific American Presents, 32-37.
Sally M. Reis is a professor in and the Department Head of the Department of Educational Psychology at The University of Connecticut. Lilia Ruban is an assistant professor in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at the Urban Talent Research Institute of the University of Houston.
Requests for reprints can be sent to Sally M. Reis, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Connecticut, 2131 Hillside Road Unit 3007, Storrs, CT 06269. E-mail: sally.reis@uconn.edu
COPYRIGHT 2005 The Ohio State University, on behalf of its College of Education
COPYRIGHT 2005 Gale Group