Acta Scientiae et Intellectus ISSN 2410-9738 (Print), 2519-1896 (Online)
GIFTED STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES:
A CURRENT REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Shyanne Sansom
Eastern New Mexico University, USA
E-mail: michael.shaughnessy@enmu.edu
ABSTRACT
Students who are both gifted, and learning disabled, face challenges that most
of their peers do not. Their disabilities and their strengths are often overlooked.
Teachers may only focus on a student’s weakness and fail to see high intelligence, or
the giftedness may mask the disability and cause the child to appear average. Even
when they are correctly identified, gifted and learning disabled students’ social,
emotional, and intellectual needs are often overlooked in the effort to remediate their
disability. These students must be correctly identified as being gifted and having a
learning disability in order for their needs to be adequately met. Effective
programming for gifted and learning disabled students also includes social and
emotional support, as well as interventions which focus on strengths, rather than
weaknesses. These students will meet their potential only when their needs are
appropriately met.
Keywords: gifted students, learning disabled
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This paper reviewed literature which addressed the characteristics and
needs of students who are gifted and learning disabled. A discussion of the
academic needs as well as the social and emotional needs of these students was
included. Gifted and learning disabled students’ social, emotional and intellectual
needs are often overlooked in the effort to remediate their disability. Identification
of these students and the challenges associated with it were examined. Often, a
student’s giftedness, or their learning disability, or both, remain undiagnosed, and
these students do not receive appropriate interventions. Even when they are
identified, it is common for the learning disability to be the only need that is
acknowledged. These students must be correctly identified, both for their
giftedness and for their learning disability, in order for their unique needs to be
adequately met. Effective programming for gifted and learning disabled students
includes social and emotional support, and interventions which focus on strengths
rather than weaknesses. Only when their needs are appropriately met will these
students meet their potential.
www.actaint.com Vol.1. No.1 (2015) 5
Acta Scientiae et Intellectus ISSN 2410-9738 (Print), 2519-1896 (Online)
CHARACTERISTICS AND NEEDS
Children who are highly intelligent, but who also have learning disabilities
are different than both their gifted peers and their learning disabled peers. The
asynchronous development typical of gifted students is often exaggerated in the
presence of a learning disability, leading to frustration and stress. It is important
for teachers and parents to be able to understand the unique characteristics and
needs of these students.
In their examination of the dual characteristics of gifted students with
learning disabilities, Baum, Cooper, and Neu (2001) reported that students rarely
reached their academic potential because the learning disability rather than the
strength was addressed. They found that the characteristic behaviors of gifted
children, including high interest, high ability, and creativity were ignored while the
learning disability was remediated. Failing to address all the characteristics of
these students led to low self-confidence, behavior problems, and feelings of
frustration (Baum et al., 2001).
Barber and Mueller (2011) studied the characteristics and needs of gifted
students with learning disabilities. They found that these students face challenges
not only in learning, but with other skills, as well. Gifted and learning disabled
students often lack the ability to understand social cues and effectively participate
in classroom activities. This lack of social ability is a result of the asynchronous
development typical of highly intelligent youth. Their cognitive function has
developed more quickly than their social and emotional capabilities, putting them
at a higher risk for peer rejection, another cause of poor self-concept (Barber &
Mueller, 2011).
Barber and Mueller (2011) also discussed how pressure to achieve, which is
typical of gifted students, may be even worse for gifted students with learning
abilities. For instance, frustration often results from high expectations paired with
the inability to do something because of a disability, causing stress both at home
and at school. These students often display characteristics of underachieving and
learning disabled students such as disruptive classroom behaviors and poor social
skills, rather than the high academic achievement shown by other gifted children.
The authors suggested that this poor classroom behavior might be, in part, a result
of not being able to find peers in any classroom setting. These students are unlike
both learning disabled and gifted students. Not only do they suffer from social
difficulty, but their giftedness results in a heightened awareness of being different.
This study also found that the self-perceptions of these students were more similar
to students with learning disabilities than to other gifted children (Barber and
Mueller, 2011).
King (2005) addressed reasons why gifted and learning disabled students
have social and emotional needs which are different from any of their peer groups.
They experience a continuous struggle between academic difficulties and
intellectual strengths. In fact, they face even more difficulties than their gifted
peers. They have the heightened emotional sensitivity common in gifted children,
as well as the pressure from others and themselves to achieve. These pressures,
combined with a learning disability than can impair that achievement, leads to
6 Vol.1. No.1 (2015) www.actaint.com
Acta Scientiae et Intellectus ISSN 2410-9738 (Print), 2519-1896 (Online)
frustration. The battle between academic success and intellectual ability can make
school a difficult place for gifted students with learning disabilities (King, 2005).
In addition to frustrations from the inability to achieve academic goals, gifted
students with learning disabilities struggle to fit in with peers. King (2005)
suggested that for gifted children, high intelligence can act as a buffer in difficult
social situations, but gifted students with learning disabilities may not be able to
protect themselves from social problems in the same way. The resulting social
isolation from both gifted peers and average peers can cause lowered self-concept
and emotional stress. The disappointment they feel when they see that their
academic goals are not being met can exacerbate this problem. Therefore,
addressing the learning difficulty alone is not sufficient in helping these students
succeed. Focusing on weakness alone simply makes this emotional problem worse.
Instead, focusing on a student's strengths can boost their self-confidence, leading
to more successes. Because of these distinctive problems, addressing the social and
emotional needs of these students is just as important as addressing their
academic needs (King, 2005).
Wellisch and Brown (2012) considered the social, emotional, and
motivational problems which exist in some students who are gifted and learning
disabled. They suggest that attachment difficulties and maternal depression might
be the cause of these problems, leading to academic underachievement. It is critical
for schools to recognize and address the needs of gifted and learning disabled
students. Correct identification and programming for these students leads to
success, which in turn helps with adjustment, emotional problems, and self-
concept (Wellisch & Brown, 2012).
Assouline, Nicpon, and Dockery (2012) discuss gifted children with autism
spectrum disorders. Autism spectrum disorders are one of the most common
learning disabilities in gifted children. The needs of these children are distinctly
different from either gifted students, or students with learning disabilities. For
these students, the assumption that high ability predicts achievement is not true.
The conventional methods of measuring achievement, such as RtI, and IQ and
achievement tests, may not accurately measure the strengths and learning
potential of gifted children with autism spectrum disorders. In addition, Assouline,
et al. explained how the unique social challenges faced by individuals with autism
spectrum disorders combined with the higher cognitive ability of the gifted
challenge these students even more than typical social abilities of this disability.
They found that correctly identifying both the learning disability and the
giftedness were essential in providing successful interventions. Addressing the
learning disability alone was not effective in helping either academic achievement
or social interactions in these students (Assouline et al., 2012).
IDENTIFICATION
Identifying gifted with learning disabilities is difficult. Often, either the
giftedness or the learning disability is more apparent, and these students are not
evaluated beyond their initial diagnosis. Conversely, the giftedness and the
www.actaint.com Vol.1. No.1 (2015) 7
Acta Scientiae et Intellectus ISSN 2410-9738 (Print), 2519-1896 (Online)
learning disability might mask each other and make the child appear to have
average academic ability.
The identification and assessment of gifted students with disabilities was
examined by Ruban and Reis (2005). They found that, although there is more
information about gifted students with learning disabilities than there has ever
been, there is disagreement about the appropriate way to assess, identify, and
provide programming for these individuals. However, agreement does exist in the
belief that it is important to minimize weakness and encourage strengths in these
individuals. There must be a broadened definition of giftedness in order to
appropriately find and help these students. Solely focusing on IQ scores, argued
Ruban and Reis, does not properly identify these individuals. Rather, teachers and
parents should be educated about the characteristics of individuals who are gifted
and learning disabled.
Ruban and Reis (2005) compiled a list of characteristics of gifted students
with learning disabilities which helps teachers correctly identify students who may
otherwise be overlooked. They listed the characteristics which hamper
identification as gifted as well as the characteristic strengths of gifted students.
Frustration with the inability to master a skill was shown to hamper identification,
as was learned helplessness and a general lack of motivation. Disruptive classroom
behavior and a lack of organizational skills was also a common characteristic
which lowered the likelihood that a student was identified as gifted. In contrast,
certain characteristic strengths of gifted students, such as advanced vocabulary
use, high levels of creativity and productivity, and a wide variety of interests,
helped students become recognized and identified as gifted. Ruban and Reis
(2005) suggested that teachers consider both types of common characteristics
when working with students.
Silverman (2003) addressed the idea of masking, or compensation, and
explained how it works in the brains of gifted and learning disabled children. The
asynchronous development typical of gifted children is exaggerated when high
levels of intelligence are combined with a disability. It is difficult, Silverman
argued, to identify these children as either gifted or learning disabled because one
trait compensates for the other. This compensation is the ability of the brain to
solve a problem (the learning disability) in a different way. Gifted individuals excel
at problem-solving and those with disabilities are no exception. The problem-
solving ability of gifted children allows them to create ways to overcome their
learning disabilities, making the students appear to be average in class work and
test scores. It may also be difficult to determine whether a highly intelligent child
actually does have a disability or whether their asynchrony is just extreme
(Silverman, 2003).
In an article which examined the relationship between the learning disability
label and gifted referrals, Bianco and Leech (2010) found that teachers were less
likely to refer a child who had been labeled as learning disabled to be tested for
gifted identification. Teachers who had been trained in gifted education, regular
classroom teachers, and special education teachers were given profiles of students
and asked to identify which should be referred for gifted programming. Most of the
students labeled learning disabled were identified as being gifted far less often
8 Vol.1. No.1 (2015) www.actaint.com
Acta Scientiae et Intellectus ISSN 2410-9738 (Print), 2519-1896 (Online)
than those students with the same characteristics but no label. Teachers trained in
gifted education were the best at identifying gifted children with learning
disabilities, and special education teachers were the worst. Their focus was on
identifying skills deficits and remediation of the disability rather than identifying
strengths. The authors proposed inadequate teacher training as the reason for the
under identification of gifted and learning disabled students. They argued that
teachers need to receive better training and become aware of how their personal
biases effect student identification and access to appropriate programming. Failure
to do so will allow continued focus on accommodations of disabilities and lowered
expectations by both the teachers and the students themselves (Bianco & Leech,
2010).
Lovett (2013) contradicted most of the literature on gifted and learning
disabled students and proposed that the label of “gifted and learning disabled” is
being misused. The author claimed that the idea of high intelligence and learning
disabilities masking each other is flawed. This assumption results in students being
identified as gifted and learning disabled who do not actually meet the criteria of
either. The student’s IQ is not sufficiently high, and their skills deficit sufficiently
low. Because identifying giftedness and learning disabilities is so complex and
vague, it is being exploited by those advantaged individuals who want to make
their average children seem like they are actually gifted. Lovett claims that being
labeled both gifted and learning disabled, allows those children to take advantage
of both labels. This not only leads to misidentification for these children, but leads
to greater social inequality in school programs (Lovett, 2013).
Other disabilities
According to a study by Wood (2012), the Connors behavior rating scale used
in identifying ADHD is an inaccurate tool for identifying ADHD in gifted children.
Although the American Psychological Association lists ADHD as the most common
behavioral disorder in children, there is no exact way to measure it. The Connors
behavior rating scale diagnoses ADHD by comparing teacher and parent responses
about behavior with that of normal children. But some behavioral traits of gifted
children are similar to those associated with ADHD, such as inattention and social
difficulties. Inattention may not be caused by ADHD, but by boredom from
unstimulating classroom content, and social difficulties may be cause by the
asynchronous development typical of gifted children. Rather than being identified
as gifted, those children might be labeled as having ADHD, leading to misdiagnosis
and over diagnosis (Wood, 2012).
Conversely, the ability of highly gifted children to hyper-focus on a task they
are interested in may mask characteristics of both ADHD and high intelligence.
This not only leads to a missed diagnosis of ADHD, but could also lead to a gifted
child remaining unidentified. As a result of these factors, Wood (2012) suggested
an ADHD test for gifted students which compares their behavior to that of their
gifted peers, not with average children. This new test would more accurately
assess behavior of gifted students and prevent the over-diagnosis and
misdiagnosis of ADHD in this population (Wood, 2012).
www.actaint.com Vol.1. No.1 (2015) 9
Acta Scientiae et Intellectus ISSN 2410-9738 (Print), 2519-1896 (Online)
Stein, Hetzel and Beck (2012) proposed that being an English language
learner can mask giftedness in the same way in which having a learning disability
can. They argued that the current identification procedures are inaccurate for
identifying gifted English language learners. They advocate for varied methods of
identifying giftedness for diverse populations of students. Just as is the case for
students with disabilities, teachers focus on the label of ELL when planning
programming for these students. If there were better procedures for identifying
these gifted students, their strengths rather than their weakness would be
addressed (Stein et al., 2012).
Gifted children with dyslexia are often overlooked because their giftedness is
masked, much like children with other disabilities. According to Peer and Tresman
(2005), dyslexic children’s giftedness is hard to identify because there is often a
large difference between IQ tests and achievement due to the nature of the
disability. The individual components of a test should be examined in order to gain
a better understanding of a dyslexic student’s strengths and weaknesses, rather
than use the typical model of gifted identification for dyslexic students. This would
result in a better understanding of a student’s overall functioning (Peer &
Tresman, 2005).
Response to Intervention
Response to Intervention, or RtI, is a process used in schools to provide early
intervention to students experiencing academic and/or behavioral challenges.
While there is no Federal mandate about how to implement RtI, most states utilize
it in some form. Typically there are three tiers of behavioral and academic
interventions, and each tier becomes progressively more intense. In tier one,
schools screen all students for health, language, and academic proficiency. The
curriculum and instruction are adjusted for those students who have not mastered
these skills. If students do not respond to tier one, they are referred to tier two,
which consists of progressively more aggressive interventions, such as behavior
intervention plans, and more frequent monitoring. Students who do not respond to
tier two intervention are referred to tier three, otherwise known as special
education. The goals of RtI are for the simultaneous occurrence of both assessment
and academic interventions tailored to the needs of the student.
Horne and Shaughnessy (2013) suggest that, because defining giftedness is
complex and controversial, RtI can be used as a way to identify and address the
needs of gifted students without the need for a label of “gifted”. RtI is meant to
limit the time a student spends outside the classroom on specialized instruction.
The assessments and educational interventions used in RtI, which are tailored to a
student’s individual needs, are ideal for identifying and implementing appropriate
programming for gifted students in the regular classroom (Horne & Shaughnessy,
2013).
Yssel, Adams, Clark & Jones (2014) supported the use of RtI for gifted
students, suggesting that it is a better method for identifying those gifted students
who have learning disabilities than previous methods. They argued that, because
using RtI replaces the “wait for failure” method, skills deficiencies are uncovered
which otherwise might have gone unnoticed because of the masking ability of high
10 Vol.1. No.1 (2015) www.actaint.com
Acta Scientiae et Intellectus ISSN 2410-9738 (Print), 2519-1896 (Online)
intelligence. Additionally, those schools who use RtI for low achieving students
could use it for high achieving students in the same way. Through RtI, skills
discrepancies can be discovered and proper programming implemented to help
students remediate weaknesses and increase strengths. Yssel et al. (2014) did
admit, however, that with RtI, the social and emotional needs of gifted and learning
disabled students are not met, and therefore, appropriate programming must
follow the initial identification.
Crepeau-Hobson and Bianco (2011) observed that RtI alone is not an
effective way to identify and meet the needs of twice exceptional students. With
the increased use of RtI in identifying learning disabilities, the talents and the
weakness of gifted and learning disabled students are going unidentified because
one masks the other. Instead, the authors recommend an approach which uses
standardized assessments for measuring giftedness inserted into the RtI
framework to more accurately identify and address the needs of these students
(Crepeau-Hobson & Bianco, 2011).
McKenzie (2010) also discussed why RtI is insufficient for identifying gifted
students with learning disabilities. If RtI is being used as the only way to diagnose
a disability, students who have had short-term, intensive one-to-one instruction
will be falsely identified as being responsive. Rather being identified and
accommodated through RtI, students’ learning disabilities and high intelligence
will remain unidentified. McKenzie argues that there should be continued use of IQ
and achievement testing to understand and identify discrepancies between
achievement and potential rather than using RtI as the sole method for identifying
learning disabilities and high intelligence. Instead of using one or the other, RtI and
traditional assessment can complement each other in correctly identifying gifted
students with learning disabilities (McKenzie, 2011).
PROGRAMMING
The programming needs of gifted students varies from student to student,
and so do the needs of those gifted students who also have learning disabilities.
There is no one-size fits-all program for these students, and attempting to solely
address the learning disability, or the giftedness, will result in inadequate
instruction. There are many ideas about how best to help these students, but the
point on which nearly every expert agrees is that both the weaknesses and the
strengths of the student should be addressed simultaneously. Waiting until a
learning disability is remediated,, at the expense of nurturing the strength, can
cause disappointment, frustration, and low self-confidence. Ignoring the disability,
and focusing on the strength alone, will also result in frustration,
underachievement, and stress. It is also important that programming meet the
unique social and emotional needs of these students.
Talent development
In a review of programming for gifted and learning disabled students, Reis
and Ruban (2005) suggested that there has been a move toward providing these
students with programming that is individualized, comprehensive, and focuses on
www.actaint.com Vol.1. No.1 (2015) 11
Acta Scientiae et Intellectus ISSN 2410-9738 (Print), 2519-1896 (Online)
strengths rather than weaknesses. The authors maintain that many gifted and
learning disabled students have strengths and weakness which often remain
unidentified until college. In order to help these students achieve, teachers must
not simply remediate their learning disability, but help them learn compensation
strategies to help them overcome their weaknesses and capitalize on their
strengths. The authors recommended three types of interventions: school-based,
partial pull-out programs, and self-contained programs (Reis & Ruban, 2005).
Schools must focus on strengths, not weaknesses (Reis & Ruban, 2005). In
order to achieve this, IEPs must be written to provide classroom accommodations
which address both. Reis and Ruban also emphasized extracurricular
opportunities as an opportunity for a gifted and learning disabled student to be
successful. Mentors, after school clubs, and independent projects that are hands-on
and in their areas of interest, should be provided to give these students a chance to
be successful in doing what they enjoy. Opportunities for students to be successful
should also be provided within the regular classroom, not just in pull-out
programs. Additionally, counseling and personal support must be provided
depending on the needs of the student (Reis & Ruban, 2005).
Nielsen and Higgins (2005) compared the experience of a gifted and learning
disabled student entering school to a storm in which they are bombarded by
experiences of failure; where they do not fit in with peers, have challenges
academically, and cannot live up to teacher, parent and self-expectations. These
students cannot balance their areas of giftedness with their areas of difficulty. The
teacher can be the eye of the storm for these students by providing a “safe haven in
the eye of the educational storm” (Nielsen & Higgins, 2005, p.15). This “safe haven”
requires teachers to understand the student’s emotional needs, and provide
appropriate programming which addresses strengths and well as weakness, is
consistent from year to year, and is coordinated between gifted and special
education. These teachers also need to teach students how to become their own
“eye of the storm” and weather future challenges independently (Nielsen &
Higgins, 2005).
Baum, Cooper, and Neu (2001) and Crepeau-Hobson and Bianco (2011)
suggested a dual differentiation approach to meeting the needs of gifted students
with learning disabilities. They advocated for programming that simultaneously
addressed strengths and weaknesses through talent development. Baum, et al.
(2001) presented Project High Hopes as a model of successful dually differentiated
curriculum adapted to the needs of individual students. Students in the program
did not work on remediation of their learning difficulties, but instead, learned how
to use their specific talents to compensate. In order to achieve this, Project High
Hopes provided opportunities for authentic problem-solving in real world
situations, an area where gifted students excel Students were exposed to new
topics and receive lessons from mentors and professionals. As students become
more independent, they begin to use their problem-solving skills to use their
strengths and create alternative solutions. The learning environment of Project
High Hopes is one of high expectations and successes. Social and emotional
difficulties commonly found in gifted and learning disabled students were greatly
reduced when they were surrounded by an environment which emphasized their
12 Vol.1. No.1 (2015) www.actaint.com
Acta Scientiae et Intellectus ISSN 2410-9738 (Print), 2519-1896 (Online)
strengths rather than on remediating weaknesses. The Baum, et al. (2001) also
noted that when education is focused on success, the motivation for learning
increases as well
Crepau-Hobson and Bianco (2011) suggested that this approach actually
allows gifted students to overcome their learning disabilities. Alternate methods of
assessment are also important in this model. Rather than relying on test scores,
which often fail to adequately measure the strengths of gifted students with
learning disabilities, Project High Hopes focuses on student projects (Crepeau-
Hobson & Bianco, 2011).
Wellisch and Brown (2012) used a modified version of Gagne’s model of
Giftedness and Talent to describe a path for gifted achievers and gifted
underachievers to participate in an academic talent development program.
Whereas Gagne’s model allowed only highly achieving children to participate in
talent development programs, and any disability was to be remediated before a
student could participate, Wellisch and Brown’s version was much more inclusive.
Their model, the “Inclusive Identification and Progression Model”, outlined a
program which can support children’s giftedness as well as address their learning
disabilities. It recommended that schools use approaches which protect and
develop student's self-esteem. The social and emotional needs of gifted students
with learning disabilities are not separate from their academic needs, and must be
addressed. The authors stress that schools will do a better job of challenging these
students if the needs of the whole child are met, as opposed to Gagne's model of
focusing on strengths only after learning difficulties have been corrected (Wellisch
& Brown, 2012).
Ruban and Reis (2005) suggested that the identification of gifted and
learning disabled students is not the end point of the assessment process, but the
beginning. The identification and assessment of these students obtained through
RtI should be linked to programs, such as the talent pool approach, in the
schoolwide enrichment model (SEM). The authors propose that Renzulli’s model of
talent development fosters creative productivity, and is useful in developing
programming for gifted students with learning disabilities who may struggle to
find their strengths in regular programming. Rather than using the traditional
method of identification for gifted students, Renzulli’s Talent Pool strategy and
SEM identifies the strengths of a large number of students, including those who are
gifted and have learning disabilities, then provides opportunities and special
programs based on those strengths (Ruban & Reis, 2005).
Coleman (2005) presented academic strategies for teaching gifted and
learning disabled students based on three key principles of learning. First, teachers
build on the knowledge that students already have. Second, students must have a
broad foundation of knowledge to build upon. And third, students should be able to
think about their own learning processes in order to take control of their own
learning. In order to use these principles, teachers must insert them into their
everyday instructional design (Coleman, 2005).
The four variables of success for gifted and learning disabled students,
according to Coleman (2005), are time, structure, complexity, and support.
Teachers can use time in order to provide flexibility for students with different
www.actaint.com Vol.1. No.1 (2015) 13
Acta Scientiae et Intellectus ISSN 2410-9738 (Print), 2519-1896 (Online)
needs. Some students may need more time to learn a concept, while others can
progress quickly through. Three areas of structure essential to the success of
students with learning disabilities are structure of curriculum and content,
structure of pedagogy, and structure of learning environments. Lastly, a supportive
environment, such as allowing the use of calculators and spell checkers, allows
these students to work on their strengths without the burden of having to worry
about the limitations of their weaknesses. Teachers maintain the highest level of
complexity they can while adjusting the other variables to ensure the success of
every student. By using these theories of learning, teachers can maximize the
learning potential of gifted students while minimizing the effects of their learning
disabilities (Coleman, 2005).
Newman and Zupco (2006) suggested a learning approach for the education
of gifted and learning disabled students, which involves higher order thinking
skills and the creation of an original product. Their article presents the case study
of a gifted student with ADHD, whose learning problems were improved through
the implementation of a talent development program focused on higher order
thinking skills, within his areas of strengths. The student was able concentrate his
academic work on his strengths, and found ways to compensate for his
weaknesses, which provided an opportunity for him to achieve success, and
increase his self-concept. Newman and Zupco point out that when gifted and
learning disabled students use higher order thinking skills to create original
products, they are using their strengths to overcome their weaknesses. Otherwise,
the authors note, when teachers focus on remediation at the expense of strengths,
students can become unmotivated, underachievers with low self-esteem (Newman
& Zupco, 2006).
In a discussion on the puzzling contradictions of being both gifted and
learning disabled, Baum (n.d.) suggested that parents and teachers place too much
focus on the disability, rather than on the strengths of these children. Students
must learn to understand their own strengths and weaknesses in order to learn
how to compensate, rather than merely remediating their learning disability.
Programs that value their gifts, address their disabilities, and provide emotional
support in dealing with asynchronous abilities, are essential in meeting the needs
of gifted and learning disabled students (Baum, n.d.).
Baum (n.d.) proposed guidelines in developing programming for these
students. First, the focus must be on developing the areas of strength. Programs
which focus on weaknesses rather than strengths can cause low self-esteem,
depression, and underachievement. Second, students must be provided with an
environment that values individual differences. Rather than provide curriculum
that is watered down, teachers should find alternate options for learning which are
not easier, but simply challenge the student in ways in which they can be
successful, such as group work or original projects rather than traditional
assignments. Third, Baum advised teachers to encourage compensation strategies
because learning disabilities tend to be permanent. Learning how to cope with a
learning disability is far more effective for these students than remediation in the
long-term (Baum, n.d.).
14 Vol.1. No.1 (2015) www.actaint.com
Acta Scientiae et Intellectus ISSN 2410-9738 (Print), 2519-1896 (Online)
Emotional Needs
King (2005) explained how programming can meet the academic needs of
gifted and learning disabled students, as well as their social and emotional needs.
Remediation of learning disabilities is not adequate for increasing the self-concept
of these students. Merely addressing a student’s disabilities does not create
opportunities for them to focus on their strengths, causing decreased self-esteem,
underachievement, and stress. Focusing on their talents, however, will increase
their self-concept and motivation. They key to providing good programming for
gifted and learning disabled students is to use instructional strategies that are
balanced between attention to strengths and weaknesses, and which then apply
those instructional strategies to real-world learning experiences (King, 2005).
King (2005) also proposed that teachers help students learn coping
strategies and work on gaining an understanding of their disability. Obtaining the
support of parents, teachers, and counselors is also an essential part of increasing
the emotional well-being of gifted students with learning disabilities. Programming
which considers their social and emotional needs is essential to their long-term
success. This support system, which targets the whole child, the author argues, will
have a much greater chance of helping gifted and learning disabled students reach
their full potential (King, 2005).
Webb and Dietrich (2005) provided a neurologist’s perspective on gifted and
learning disabled children. They also emphasized that a whole child approach is
the best way to provide adequate programming for these students. That approach
should take into account a child’s social context, such as family, school and
friendships, as well as mental health needs and neurological well-being. They
assert that schools commonly use a “one label per customer” model, and when a
school has identified a child as either gifted or learning disabled, they stop looking
for any additional challenges the child may be experiencing. Most gifted students
with learning disabilities do not need extensive interventions, and would likely
respond well to minor accommodations if they had a deeper understanding of their
strengths and weaknesses. The authors suggested that IEPs tend to focus on
weaknesses rather than strengths. When teachers only address a student’s
disability, the student remains unchallenged. Teachers tend to lower expectations
for students when they only focus on their weaknesses. It is most important for
these students and their teachers to discover what they excel at, not what they
cannot do (Webb & Dietrich, 2005).
SUMMARY
Students who are both gifted and learning disabled have unique
characteristics and academic, social and emotional needs. These students face
distinctive challenges because they display common characteristics of gifted
children, such as heightened emotional sensitivity, asynchronous development,
and high self-expectations, while also dealing with a learning disability that may
cause any of those characteristics to become more challenging. Teachers and
parents often do not recognize the characteristics of these children, especially if
the learning disability is the only exception that has been identified. It is common
www.actaint.com Vol.1. No.1 (2015) 15
Acta Scientiae et Intellectus ISSN 2410-9738 (Print), 2519-1896 (Online)
for a disability to be masked by high intelligence, or vice versa. There are
challenges associated with identification of both giftedness and learning
disabilities. Proper identification of both the giftedness and the learning disability
are essential in helping these students succeed. Addressing only one of the
characteristics, whether through gifted programming, or through remediation of
the disability, will result in failure to meet the needs of these students. Programs
which focus on strengths, rather than, or in addition to weaknesses, are an
important part of the whole child approach. When students feel success, they are
more likely to remain engaged in with education and increase their self-esteem
and achievement.
REFERENCES
1) Assouline, S.G., Nicpon, M.F., & Dockery, L. (2012). Predicting the
academic achievement of gifted students with the autism spectrum
disorder. Journal of Autism Developmental Disorders, 42, 1781-1789.
2) Barber, C., & Mueller, C.T. (2011). Social and self-perceptions of
adolescents identified as gifted, learning disabled, and twice-
exceptional. Roeper Review, 33, 109-120.
3) Baum, S. (n.d.). Gifted but learning disabled: A puzzling paradox.
Retrieved from http://www.ldonline.org/article/5939/
4) Baum, S.M., Cooper, C., & 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), 477-490.
5) Bianco, M., & Leech, N.L. (2010). Twice-exceptional learners: Effects of
teacher preparation and disability labels on gifted referrals. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 33(4), 319-334.
6) Coleman, M.R. (2005). Academic strategies that work for gifted
students with learning disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children,
38(1), 28-32.
7) Crepeau-Hobson, F., & Bianco, M. (2011). Identification of gifted
students with learning disabilities in a response-to-intervention era.
Psychology in the Schools, 48(2), 102-108.
8) Horne, J. & Shaughnessy, M. (2013). The response to intervention
program and gifted students: How can it facilitate and expedite
educational excellence for gifted students in the regular education
setting? International Journal of Academic Research, 5(3), 319-324.
9) King, E.W. (2005). Addressing the social and emotional needs of twice-
exceptional students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(1), 16-20.
10) Lovett, B. (2013). The science and politics of gifted students with
learning disabilities: A social inequality perspective. Roeper Review,
35, 136-143.
11) McKenzie, R. (2010). The insufficiency of response to intervention in
identifying gifted students with learning disabilities. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 25(3), 161-168.
16 Vol.1. No.1 (2015) www.actaint.com
Acta Scientiae et Intellectus ISSN 2410-9738 (Print), 2519-1896 (Online)
12) Nielsen, M.E., & Higgins, L.D. (2005). The eye of the storm: Services
and programs for twice-exceptional learners. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 38(1), 8-15.
13) Newman, J.L., & Zupko, S. (2006). TALENT-ed and TYPE III: An
effective learning strategy for gifted students who are learning
disabled. Teaching Exceptional Children Plus, 2(5),
14) Peer, L., & Tresman, S. (2005). Dyslexic and gifted: Are the two really
compatible? And how can these learners be nurtured. Gifted Education
International, 20(1), 29-35.
15) Reis, S.M., & Ruban, L. (2005). Services and programs for academically
talented students with learning disabilities. Theory into Practice,
44(2), 148-159.
16) Ruban, L, & Reis, S. (2005). Identification and assessment of gifted
students with learning disabilities. Theory into Practice, 44(2), 115-124.
17) Silverman, L.K. (2003). The two-edged sword of compensation: How
the gifted cope with learning disabilities. In K. Kay (Ed.), Uniquely
gifted: Identifying and meeting the needs of twice-exceptional children.
Gilsum, NH: Avocus Publishing Inc.
18) Stein, J.C., Hetzel, J., & Beck, R. (2012). Twice exceptional? The plight of
the gifted English learner. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 78(2), 36-41.
19) Webb, N., & Dietrich, A. (2005). Gifted and learning disabled: A
neuropsychologist’s perspective. Gifted Education Communicator,
36(3&4). Retrieved from
http://www.sengifted.org/archives/articles/gifted-and-learning-
disabled-a-neuropsychologist%E2%80%99s-perspective
20) Wellisch, M., & Brown, J. (2012). An integrated identification and
intervention model for intellectually gifted children. Journal of
Advanced Academics, 23(2), 145-167.
21) Wood, S. (2012). Examining parent and teacher perceptions of
behaviors exhibited by gifted students referred for ADHD diagnosis
using the Conners 3 (an exploratory study). Roeper Review, 34, 194-204.
22) Yssel, N., Adams, C., Clarke, L.S., & Jones, R. (2014). Applying an RtI
model for students with learning disabilities who are gifted. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 46(3), 42-52.
www.actaint.com Vol.1. No.1 (2015) 17
