Site Menu

Sign
In

Folder

Preferences

New
Features!

Ask-A-Librarian

Help

University
of North Carolina Wilmington

Main Toolbar

Basic
Search

Advanced
Search (selected)

Visual
Search

Choose
Databases

Sub-toolbar Links
New
Search

Keyword

7
of
30

Result
List |
Refine
Search

Delivery Options:

Print

E-mail

Save

Export

Add
to folder

View:

Citation

HTML
Full Text

Translate Full
Text:

Choose LanguageInglés/EspañolAnglais/FrançaisEnglisch/DeutschInglés/Português

Title:

The Implications of the Risk and Resilience Literature
for Gifted Students with Learning... By:
Dole, Sharon, Roeper Review, 02783193, Dec2000, Vol. 23, Issue 2

Database:

Academic Search Premier

THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE RISK AND
RESILIENCE LITERATURE FOR
GIFTED STUDENTS WITH LEARNING...

Contents

Resilience
Research

Resiliency
in Gifted Individuals

Resiliency
in Individuals with Learning Disabilities

Implications

Early
Identification

Effective
Programming

Counseling

Extracurricular
Activities and Jobs

Parental
and External Support

REFERENCES

Section: Featured Articles

This article examines the risk and
resilience literature, focusing on the protective
factors in the lives of both gifted individuals and
those with learning disabilities. The intent of the research is to further our
understanding of the constructs of risk and resilience
and to discuss their implications for gifted
children with learning disabilities. Recommendations
are suggested for nurturing resilience in these
students so that they may be successful in school and in life.

During the past 50 years there has been a shift in
research on risk and resilience from focusing on risk
factors almost exclusively to taking a closer look at
resilience, or those protective factors which serve to
buffer an individual's response to stressful life events (Cohler, 1987; Howard
& Dryden, 1999; Keogh & Weisner, 1993; Spekman, Herman, & Vogel,
1993). Earlier research focused on the factors that placed
children at risk for negative life outcomes. Risk
factors comprise those biological, psychological, cognitive, or environmental
conditions that impede normal development and make
children more vulnerable. Among the at-risk factors
are poverty, low intelligence, and family dysfunction. The focus on protective
factors may help explain why some children maintain
self-concept and self-efficacy when faced with the same adversities that lead
others to give up (Rutter, 1987).

Gifted students with learning
disabilities are often considered at risk because of their paradoxical
combination of gifts and disabilities (Robinson, 1999). For the purpose of this
article, students who are gifted with learning
disabilities are defined as those students who have exceptional talent or
ability in one or more areas, either realized or potential, but also experience
specific academic problems as a result of underlying processing deficits.
Evidence of a processing deficit, such as a deficit in auditory perception,
visual perception, or memory, is important to distinguish students with learning
disabilities from other gifted underachievers.

The literature on gifted
students with learning disabilities describes social-emotional characteristics
that would increase the vulnerability of this population. The characteristics
described include poor self-concept, poor self-efficacy, hypersensitivity,
emotional lability, and high levels of frustration, anxiety, and self-criticism
(Baldwin, 1999; Baum, Owen, & Dixon, 1991; Bireley, 1995; Daniels, 1983;
Fox, Brody, & Tobin, 1983; Gunderson, Maesch, & Rees, 1987; Higgins
& Nielson, 1999; Hishinuma, 1993; Mendaglio, 1993; Olenchak, 1994; Schiff,
Kaufman, & Kaufman, 1981; Suter & Wolf, 1987; Tannenbaum & Baldwin,
1983; Udall & Maker, 1983; VanTassel-Baska, 1991; Vespi & Yewchuk, 1992;
Waldron, Saphire, & Rosenblum, 1987; Whitmore, 1980, Yewchuk, 1985).

This article discusses the characteristics of resilient
individuals presented in selected literature and details the implications of
those characteristics for gifted students with
learning disabilities. An exploration of the factors that promote resiliency in
children at risk may help to explain why some
gifted children with
learning disabilities reach their potential and others do not.
Resilience
Research

Major studies on resiliency have been epidemiological
and have included large populations of children in
different locales (Garmezy, 1985; Rutter, 1979; Werner & Smith, 1989, 1992).
Garmezy (1985) organized protective factors into three broad categories:
personality factors, e.g. self-esteem and self-efficacy; family cohesion and
lack of disharmony; and external support systems. Rutter (1987) observed that
resistance to stress is relative, not absolute; i.e. a risk factor in one
situation can be a protective factor in another. The determination is complex
and depends on one's interpretation of an individual situation in a particular
cultural context (Ford, 1994; Spekman, Herman, & Vogel, 1993; Werner, 1990).
For example, single parenting is usually identified as a risk factor, but for
some students with strong single mothers, single parenting may not operate as a
risk factor. Risk and protective factors need to be assessed in the larger
ecological and cultural context of the individual or group (Keogh,& Weisner,
1993).

A theme that emerged from the literature is that
resilience is not a fixed attribute but changes with
circumstances (Rutter, 1987; Werner, 1989, 1993; Werner & Smith, 1989,
1992). Individuals who successfully cope with adversity at one point in their
lives may react differently to stressors at another time. For this reason, a
life-span developmental perspective which takes into account the different
demands and pressures faced by individuals during childhood, adolescence, and
adulthood is a useful approach to viewing risk and
resilience (Gerber & Reiff, 1994; Hoy &
Manglitz, 1996; Spekman, Herman, & Vogel, 1993).

One of the largest studies of resiliency in at-risk
children using this approach was the longitudinal
study of a multiracial cohort of 698 infants born on the island of Kauai,
Hawaii, in 1955 (Werner, 1989, 1993; Werner & Smith, 1989, 1992). An
analysis of the life-span developmental course of these high-risk individuals
from childhood to adulthood resulted in the emergence of three types of
protective factors (Werner, 1989; Werner & Smith, 1989, 1992). The first
factor was having at least average intelligence and dispositional attitudes,
such as self-efficacy and self-esteem, that elicited positive responses from
others. The second factor was having affective ties within the extended family
which provided support in times of stress. The third factor was having external
support systems at school, work, or church which rewarded competence. These
qualities closely match those identified by Garmezy (1985). The longitudinal
data indicated that there is a shifting balance with developmental stages and
also with gender. During the first decade of life boys appeared to be more
vulnerable than girls, experiencing more medical, learning, and behavior
problems. During the second decade and especially at late adolescence, the
balance shifted in favor of the boys. At this age, girls were confronted with
sex-role expectations and social pressures that produced serious problems
associated with teen pregnancies and marriages (Werner, 1989). However, the
balance appeared to shift once again at age 30 in favor of the females; women
reported fewer health problems and relied on more sources of support than the
resilient men who seemed to rely more on their own resources.
Resiliency
in Gifted Individuals

Gifted
children have many characteristics in common with
individuals who are considered to be resilient (Bland, Sowa, & Callahan,
1994). These traits include verbal ability, intelligence, an internal locus of
control, risk-taking, high self-concept, good self-efficacy, and
self-understanding (Clark, 1992; Garmezy, 1985; Maker & Nielson, 1996;
Rutter, 1987; Werner & Smith, 1982). In a qualitative study of seven
children (four girls and three boys), Sowa, McIntire,
May, and Bland (1994), found that gifted
children as young as nine years of age spontaneously
used cognitive appraisal to deal with stress. The cognitive appraisal mechanism
is a coping strategy originally applied only to adults (Lazarus, 1993;
Ryan-Wenger, 1992). It includes two ways of dealing with stress: the use of
problem-focused strategies and emotion-focused strategies. The
gifted children in the Sowa
et al. study (1994) employed both strategies. They used cognitive problem
solving (problem-focused) to change their behavior to adjust to the environment.
For example, one child changed his argumentative style
because he realized that it would make people mad. In addition, the
children in the study used behavioral avoidance
(emotion-focused) to change their interpretation of a situation in order to
avoid stress. The use of cognitive appraisal in gifted
children is related to their early development of
abstract thinking and may help them develop
resilience. However, there is disagreement in the
literature as to whether giftedness increases vulnerability or strengthens
resiliency (see Neihart, 1999, for a review).

Although gifted
children in general share characteristics with
resilient individuals, there are variables such as gender, socioeconomic status,
race, ethnicity, and disability which place special populations of
gifted individuals at risk. Kline and Short (1991a,
1991b) examined gender differences in gifted
children and adolescents with results very similar to
the gender differences found in the Kauai longitudinal study. During the junior
high years, gifted boys showed a significantly higher
level of discouragement and hopelessness as compared to
gifted boys of senior high school age. By high school
these feelings declined or were relegated to a lower priority as most
gifted boys focused on career success. In grades 9-12
the boys appeared to rely less on relationships than they did when they were
younger and indicated that they preferred to be left alone by adults.

This was in contrast to gifted
girls in senior high who placed a high value on relationships and expressed a
desire to have adults and peers listen to their feelings. Just as the feelings
of hopelessness and discouragement decreased in the boys at this age, they
increased in the girls. Along with a decrease in self-confidence and perception
of ability, the traits of perfectionism became more accentuated in the girls.
The authors suggested that at this age both genders are more influenced by
societal expectations than they were when they were younger. Males are expected
to be independent and individualistic and females are expected to be nurturing,
passive, and dependent. Thus, ambivalent cultural expectations created conflicts
which made both groups emotionally vulnerable.

Both gifted Latino and
gifted African American youth are at high risk for not
reaching goals commensurate with their potential ability. The high number of
families living in poverty, the high school dropout rate, and high
underachievement rate place Latino students at risk (Hebert, 1996). Several
themes emerged from Hebert's study of resiliency in three
gifted Latino achievers. The young men described
family support, other supportive adults, such as a coach and a counselor, and
involvement in a variety of extra-curricular activities and summer enrichment
programs. These protective buffers boosted their self-esteem and kept them
motivated to succeed. One youth described his religious beliefs as strengthening
his resiliency, a protective factor noted in a wide variety of families by other
researchers (Anthony, 1987; Werner & Smith, 1982). The young men in Hebert's
study had realistic goals and career aspirations which were connected with their
sense of identity. In addition, they showed an appreciation of their
multi-cultural backgrounds. All of these characteristics strongly resemble the
protective factors found in the risk and resiliency literature.

Like gifted Latinos,
gifted African American youth face many obstacles to
achieving their academic potential and becoming successful because of the high
incidence of poverty, unemployment, and underemployment (Ford, 1994). These
students share many of the same risk factors as gifted
students in general, such as perfectionism, poor peer relationships, and an
acute sense of high expectations from others. However, they face additional
pressure from their African American peers who think that school achievement is
a white person's pursuit (Ford, 1994). Fordham (1997) found that African
American adolescent achievers risk being accused of acting white by their peers,
consequently, they may deliberately perform poorly in school as a way to rebel
against mainstream white society. In order to protect their self-esteem,
gifted African American youth may develop ways of
coping that are unacceptable to the educational establishment and are
antithetical to academic achievement.

A review of the resiliency literature on African
American youth shows that resilient students have an internal locus of control,
a strong belief in themselves, participate in extra-curricular activities,
possess good coping skills, have strong family values, and tend to be actively
involved in religious activities (Ford, 1994). These characteristics are found
in resilient youth in general. Resilient African American youth, however, also
have characteristics that are culturally specific. They often assume a
bi-cultural identity or put on a facade of racelessness (Ford, 1993). It has
also been found that emotional and physical support from their African American
peers contributed to their resiliency (Garmezy, 1991; Ford, 1994).
Resiliency
in Individuals with Learning Disabilities

The exploration of both risk and
resilience is highly relevant for the field of
learning disabilities. Problems such as underachievement, high drop-out rates,
low self-esteem, emotional problems, lack of social skills, underemployment, job
difficulties, and prolonged dependence on others have an impact across the life
span. Individuals with learning disabilities are at high risk of failure because
they commonly manifest these problems (Bruck, 1987; Gerber & Reiff, 1991,
1994; Gregg, Hoy, & Gay, 1996; Gregg, Hoy, King, Moreland, & Jagota,
1992; Reiff, Gerber, & Ginsberg, 1997; Rogan & Hartman, 1990; Silver,
1995; Spekman, Goldberg, & Herman, 1993). In the Kauai longitudinal study,
22 children were diagnosed as having learning
disabilities by the age of 10 (Werner, 1993). If this study had concluded when
the subjects reached age 18, the prognosis would have been very negative. A
majority of them scored lower than the controls on self-assurance,
self-efficacy, and interpersonal skills. By age 32, however, the lives of most
of these individuals had improved remarkably.

Five clusters of internal and external protective
buffers were identified in the individuals with learning disabilities who made
successful transitions. The first cluster included personality characteristics,
such as planning ability and self-efficacy, that enabled the individuals to
generate positive responses from caring others. The second cluster included
skills and values that enabled them to make efficient use of their abilities,
such as setting realistic educational and vocational goals and faith that they
could succeed despite the odds. Cluster three included parental management
characteristics that fostered self-esteem in the
children. Cluster four consisted of the presence of
other supportive adults like grandparents, mentors, and members of church
groups. Cluster five was the opening up of opportunities at major life
transitions. The results of this study stress the importance of looking at risk
and resilience from a life-span developmental
perspective which takes into account the different demands and pressures faced
by individuals during key periods of their lives.

Retrospective studies of successful college students
(Miller & Fritz, 1998; Vogel, Hruby, & Adelman, 1993) and successful
adults with learning disabilities (Gerber, Ginsberg, & Reiff, 1992; Reiff,
Gerber, & Ginsberg, 1997; Spekman, Goldberg, & Herman, 1992) yielded
similar themes. Internal protective factors found in the studies included
self-awareness and acceptance of the learning disabilities, realistic goal
setting, and perseverance. External protective factors included support of
family members, support of a mentor, and special friendships.

Additional protective factors were reported in a 10-year
follow-up study of 68 young adults with learning disabilities (Rogan &
Hartman, 1990). The young adults were subdivided into three groups: college
graduates, high school graduates, and students who had attended self-contained
special education classes in high school. Although the most favorable outcomes
were found in the college and high school graduate groups, the protective
factors that contributed to favorable outcomes in all the groups included early
identification of the learning disability, intensive intervention during the
elementary and secondary school years, ongoing tutoring support, and counseling
or therapy when needed. The fifth protective factor, ongoing parental
understanding and support, is perhaps the most important protective factor as it
is most frequently mentioned in studies on resiliency.
Implications

Early Identification

There are several implications for
gifted students with learning disabilities which can
be drawn from the studies of resilient individuals. First, early identification
of the learning disabilities as well as of the giftedness is crucial. A large
percentage of gifted students with learning
disabilities are identified late or go unidentified because their gifts mask
their learning disabilities (Baum et al., 1991; Brody & Mills, 1997; Reis et
al., 1995). These children are considered to have
average abilities and are rarely referred for either
gifted programs or learning disability services.
Although they appear to be functioning normally, they are usually performing
well below their potential. Often they are identified as having learning
disabilities in college when coursework becomes more demanding (Ferri, Gregg,
& Heggoy, 1997). The social-emotional consequences of having dual
exceptionalities and having one or both of them unrecognized can be pervasive
(Dole, 1999; Gregg et al., 1992; Holliday, Koller, & Thomas, 1999; Reis et
al., 1995).

Late identification of learning disabilities has been a
greater risk factor for girls than boys because girls tend to be identified at a
later age. Recent research has shown that there are as many girls as boys who
have learning disabilities (Lyon, Alexander, & Yaffe, 1997; Shaywitz, et
al., 1997), but more boys are referred and receive services because of their
aggressive behavior. Children at risk for reading
problems can be identified as early as kindergarten by simple tests of phonemic
awareness (Torgesen, 2000); however, they are rarely identified until third
grade (Lyon et al., 1997; Torgesen, 2000). This may be too late for many because
approximately 74% of students identified after age nine continue to have reading
difficulties throughout their school years (Lyon et al., 1997).

Case studies, autobiographies, and biographical accounts
of gifted adolescents and adults frequently present
the lack of self-esteem, personal pain, and bewilderment suffered by these
individuals because their learning disabilities went undiagnosed (Guyer, 1997;
Mindell, 1982; Simpson, 1979; West, 1991; Whitmore & Maker, 1985). The case
of Marie is a poignant example of the social-emotional problems that may result
when learning disabilities are not identified early (Dole, 1999). Marie
developed eating disorders in the fifth grade and was subsequently placed in a
program for students with emotional-behavioral problems. When she was in eighth
grade, Marie overdosed on drugs and spent most of that year in rehabilitation.
Although her giftedness was identified at an early age and learning disabilities
were discussed throughout her school years as a possible cause of her
underachievement, her learning disabilities were not identified until the 11th
grade.

Also at risk are those who have been identified as
having learning disabilities but whose exceptional gifts have gone unrecognized.
These children may be most at risk for not fulfilling
potential because the learning disabilities label implies something is wrong
with the children and needs to be fixed and, until
they are made normal again, little attention is paid to their gifts or talents
(Baum et al., 1991). An emphasis on what a child can
do rather than what he or she can't do increases teachers' recognition of a
child's gifts and talents and, subsequently, referrals
for gifted services. A recent study (Holliday et al.,
1999) examined post-high school outcomes of adult rehabilitation clients with
high intellectual ability and learning disabilities. Researchers found that 95%
of the 80 participants had not been told of their exceptional abilities either
while in school or while receiving vocational services. It is significant that
30% of the survey participants received secondary diagnoses for serious
emotional problems. It is not surprising that the postsecondary educational
accomplishments of these adults five years after high school were limited.
Unfortunately, students with learning disabilities are rarely referred for
gifted services (Minner, 1990; Minner, Prater,
Bloodworth, & Walker, 1987; Tallent-Runnels & Sigler, 1994).

Effective Programming

Identification is only a first step towards fostering
resiliency; it has to be followed by intervention. Research has shown that early
identification and programming for gifted students
with disabilities have had positive results (Baum, Emerick, Herman, & Dixon,
1989; Coleman et al., 1999; Higgins, & Nielson, 1999; Karnes, Shwedel, &
Lewis, 1983; Johnson, Karnes, & Carr, 1997; Udall, 1984; Udall & Maker,
1983). Intervention programs for young children need
to focus not only on diminishing the risk factors in the lives of the
children and their families, but also on promoting
development of the protective factors. These include activating the sources of
support, such as family support, that already exist to improve the
child's cognitive skills and enhance self-esteem and
self-efficacy.

Similar to gifted African
American students, gifted students with learning
disabilities may have diffused identities. They, too, are at risk of developing
ineffective coping strategies like clowning (Smith, 1991) or faking it (Druck,
1994; Lee & Jackson, 1992) to protect their self-esteem. It can be
destructive to a person's self-esteem to be singled out only for having learning
disabilities when the co-existing gifted traits also
need recognition. These students often share the characteristic of perfectionism
associated with gifted students in general and they,
in particular, are very hard on themselves. When Ken Druck's
gifted daughter was identified with learning
disabilities, memories of his own childhood years came back to haunt him:
"Healing the emotional wounds has required forgiving those who didn't know any
better and making peace with my worst, unrelenting critic all those years ...
myself" (1997,p. 95).

Increased self-esteem leads to an increase in
motivation, persistence, and an internal locus of control, all protective
factors noted in the literature. An important part of building self-esteem and
self-efficacy is creating a curriculum for success that involves programming in
the areas of strength, remedial or adaptive instruction in areas of weakness,
and attention to social and emotional needs (Higgins & Nielson, 1999;
Korinek, 1992). Nielsen & Mortorff-Albert (1989) found that those students
receiving a combination of services for both giftedness and learning
disabilities or those receiving gifted services alone
reported higher self-concepts than those receiving services only for the
learning disabilities. Regardless of type of services provided, there is wide
agreement on the importance of gearing the curriculum to the students' strengths
and interests rather than their weaknesses (Baum et al., 1991; Daniels, 1983;
Johnson, Karnes, & Carr, 1997; Silverman, 1989). Experiences that are
connected to the students' abilities and interests are the most efficacious for
learning skills and developing processes. In a study of successful adult
dyslexics, Fink (1995/1996) found that as children,
they had passionate interests that spurred them on to read voraciously in their
areas of interest, thus increasing and improving their reading fluency and
skills.

Like other gifted
underachievers, gifted students with learning
disabilities need long-term support from both educators and family members in a
nonthreatening, intellectually challenging environment in which they can develop
positive self-concepts. The growing research on gifted
underachievers has shown that focusing on strengths and interests is a critical
component in reversing underachievement (Baum, Renzulli, Hebert, 1995; Emerick,
1992; Fehrenback, 1993; Hebert, 1997; Whitmore, 1980). The curriculum should be
both challenging and meaningful for these students.

Gifted students with learning
disabilities need to be taught compensatory strategies and provided with
accommodations at an early age to help them succeed. Because of their high
abstract reasoning ability these students need visual and kinesthetic
experiences to ground their abstract ideas in reality. They can be provided with
alternate means to access information, for example books on tape, films, videos,
and computer programs if they have difficulty with reading. If they have
problems with writing, they can express their ideas and create products through
alternate and/or supplementary methods like hands-on projects, simulations, and
role-playing. Often these children are kept from
progressing because they have difficulty memorizing factual information.
Gifted students with learning disabilities require a
problem-based curriculum with hands-on experiences that minimizes rote
memorization and maximizes problem solving.

Counseling

The importance of counseling should not be overlooked in
planning intervention for these students. Research has indicated that for
students who are gifted with learning disabilities,
affective needs may need to be addressed even before academic ones (Higgins
& Nielson, 1999; Hishinuma, 1993; Mendaglio, 1993; Olenchak, 1994; Whitmore
& Maker, 1985). The risk and resilience research
has indicated that there are certain times in the lives of individuals when they
are more vulnerable than at others (Kline & Short, 1991a, 1991b; Werner
& Smith, 1989, 1992). In addition to dealing with the social and emotional
issues of being gifted with learning disabilities,
counseling can assist the students in the development of self-knowledge of their
strengths and weaknesses, which leads to realistic goal-setting, one of the
characteristics of resilient individuals (Dole, 1999; Hebert, 1996; Gerber et
al., 1990; Vogel et al., 1993; Werner, 1993; Werner & Smith, 1992). Studies
have shown that college students and adults with learning disabilities who are
resilient are knowledgeable about their strengths as well as their weaknesses.
Self-knowledge is a necessary precursor to self-acceptance, frequently appearing
in the resilience studies on individuals with learning
disabilities. Self-knowledge and self-acceptance, in turn, not only help these
students develop realistic goals but also persevere towards fulfilling them, all
prominent characteristics of resilient individuals (Dole, 1999; Gerber,
Ginsberg, & Reiff, 1992; Reiff, Gerber, & Ginsberg, 1997; Hebert, 1996;
Miller & Fritz, 1998; Spekman, Goldberg, & Herman, 1992; Vogel, Hruby,
& Adelman, 1993; Werner, 1993). Counseling assistance is especially critical
during the secondary school years because of increased vulnerability during
adolescence. At this time of their lives students need advice on course
selection, selection of extra-curricular activities, and postsecondary options.

Extracurricular Activities and Jobs

Learning in school represents only a portion of the
total learning time for children and adolescents
(Heath & McLaughlin, 1993). Interest and hobbies outside of school play a
key role in effective intervention designed to nurture abilities and develop
self-esteem and self-efficacy in gifted students with
learning disabilities, especially during the high school years (Baum, 1984;
Dole, 1999: Reis et al., 1995, 1997; Werner, 1993). Youth-based organizations
and activities like sports, drama, and band, give them opportunities to be part
of a cooperative endeavor with their peers. Brian, a
gifted college student with learning disabilities,
described the important role that his drama activities played in high school:
"It gives you something to connect with ... it makes it easier to feel
confident, and the one thing that is wonderful is that there's NO COMPETITION"
(Dole, 1999, p. 98). Interests like photography, computers, and art bolster
these students when their academic lives seem to be falling apart. In addition,
involvement in religious activities services strengthens resiliency in a number
of young people (Ford, 1994; Hebert, 1996; Werner & Smith, 1982). Religious
beliefs provide stability and meaningfulness for some individuals, especially
during times of adversity.

Self-efficacy also grows when the students engage in
part-time work, whether it is paid work, volunteer work, or caring for an
incapacitated adult or younger siblings (Dole, 1999). It is clear from the
resilience research that the whole person in his or
her whole environment, not just the school environment, must be addressed.

Parental and External Support

Among the most potent factors promoting resiliency
mentioned in the literature are parents, teachers, and mentors who provide
emotional support and foster self-esteem. The resilient individuals had at least
one person in their lives who accepted them unconditionally. Most of them
established familial bonds in their early years, either with a parent or another
family member. Adolescence is a critical time for these students during which
relationships with peers and adults other than family members, such as mentors,
coaches, club advisors, and work supervisors, take on added importance. One
young man credited his girl friend whom he had met in band with contributing
more than any of his teachers to developing and maintaining his self-esteem
(Dole, 1999). The role of teachers as protective buffers, especially in the
early years, can have a lasting effect in the lives of
children. In order for teachers to be supportive they
need to be familiar with the characteristics and teaching strategies appropriate
for each exceptionality and know what impact the presence of both
exceptionalities has on the student. Because it is unlikely that one teacher
will have enough knowledge and expertise in all needed areas, teachers can
collaborate, share their knowledge and act as mentors, coaching students with
interest and talent in particular areas (Robinson, 1999). However, good teaching
may be virtually ineffective if it is shadowed by a lack of emotional support.
For girls, especially, the establishment of caring relationships is essential
(Dole, 1999; Kline & Short, 1991a; Werner, 1993).

There are both positive and negative consequences of
being gifted with learning disabilities. Their gifts
can help these individuals cope with their disabilities and achieve a level of
success not attainable by nongifted persons with learning disabilities. But at
the same time, the attributes of giftedness make them vulnerable to
social-emotional problems as a result of the paradoxical combination of gifts
and disabilities. It's a puzzling experience to learn some things seemingly
without effort, but to have to struggle intensively to learn other things.

Much further research is needed in this area as there is
currently so little research on gifted individuals
with learning disabilities. Studies are needed to explore the specific impact of
the variables of gender, culture, ethnicity, age of identification of giftedness
and/or learning disabilities, and types of abilities and disabilities. For
example, how do individuals with strengths in the visual and performing arts
compare to those who have strengths in language and academic areas? Likewise,
what effect does the type of disability, e.g. nonverbal versus language-based
disability, have on risk and resilience? It would be
productive to compare students who were identified as being
gifted with learning disabilities and received
programming with those who were not identified and did not receive programming.
Is there a difference in the self-concept of these students? Are the life
outcomes the same or different? We also need to know more about assessment
measures and programming. What kinds of assessment measures are most effective
in finding these students? What types of interventions and programming options
work best with them? It is important that we know what factors contribute to the
emotional well-being of gifted students with learning
disabilities. In order to discover them, we need to study resilient individuals
with these dual exceptionalities who have been successful.

It is evident from the literature that some
gifted individuals with learning disabilities have
achieved success in spite of seemingly insurmountable odds because of positive
personal characteristics coupled with the support of family and friends.
Unquestionably, there are other individuals with learning disabilities who have
exceptional abilities or talents who have not overcome the frustration and
discouragement resulting from attitudinal and psychological barriers. Those
individuals need our support and assistance in discovering their giftedness,
restoring their self-confidence, and coping with their challenges.

I am more than just a sole survivor
Taking charge of promise
I'm stretched beyond today.

"Taking Charge of Promise"
Music & Lyrics by D. Higgins

Manuscript submitted June, 1999.

Revision accepted September, 2000.

REFERENCES

Anthony, E. J. (1987). Risk, vulnerability, and
resiliency: An overview. In E. J. Anthony & B. J. Cohler (Eds.), The
invulnerable child (pp. 3-48). New York: The Guilford Press.

Baldwin, L. (1999). USA perspective. In A. Y. Baldwin
& W. Vialle (Eds.), The many faces of giftedness: Lifting the masks (pp.
103-134). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Baum, S. M., Emerick, L. J., Herman, G. N., & Dixon,
J. (1989). Identification, programs and enrichment strategies for
gifted learning disabled youth. Roeper Review, 12 (1),
48-53.

Baum, S. M. & Kirschenbaum, R. (1984). Recognizing
special talents in learning disabled students. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 54 (4), 92-98.

Baum, S. M., Owen, S. V., & Dixon, J. (1991). To be
gifted & learning disable: From identification to
practical intervention strategies. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning
Press, Inc.

Baum, S. M., Renzulli, J. S., & Hebert, T. P.
(1995). The prism metaphor. A new paradigm for reversing underachievement.
Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted
and Talented. (Collaborative Research Study No. CRS95310)

Bireley, M. (1995). Crossover
children: A sourcebook for helping
children who are gifted and
learning disabled. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional
Children.

Bland, L. C., Sowa, C. J., & Callahan, C. M. (1994).
An overview of resilience in
gifted children. Roeper
Review, 17 (2), 77-80.

Brody, L. E., & Mills, C. J. (1997).
Gifted children with
learning disabilities: A review of the issues. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
30 (3), 282-286.

Bruck, M. (1987). The adult outcomes of
children with learning disabilities. Annals of
Dyslexia, 37, 252-263.

Clark, B. (1992). Growing up
gifted (4th ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Cohler, B. J. (1987). Adversity, resilence, and the
study of lives. In E. J. Anthony & B. J. Cohler (Eds.), The invulnerable
child (pp. 363-424). New York: The Guilford Press.

Coleman, M. R., Nielson, E., Higgins, D., & Betts.
G. (1999,November). (Speakers). Exceptional students: The promise and the
challenge. Presentation at National Association for
Gifted Children Annual
Conference, Albuquerque, NM.

Daniels, P. R. (1983). Teaching the
gifted/learning disabled
child. Rockville MD: Aspen Systems.

Dole, S. F. (1999). Identity formation in college
students with giftedness and learning disabilities. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens.

Druck, K. (1994). Personal perspectives on learning
differences: Coming out of the shadow. In P. J. Gerber & H. B. Reiff (Eds.),
Learning disabilities in adulthood: Persisting problems and evolving issues (pp.
93-98). Boston: Andover Medical Publishers.

Emerick, L. J (1992). Academic underachievement among
the gifted: Students' perceptions of factors that
reverse the pattern. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 36 (3), 140-146.

Fehrenbach, C. R. (1993). Underachieving
gifted students: Intervention programs that work.
Roeper Review, 16 (2), 88-90.

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 (5), 552-559.

Fink, R. P. (1995/1996). Successful dyslexics. A
constructivist study of passionate interest reading. Journal of Adolescent &
Adult Literacy, 39 (4), 268-280.

Ford, D. Y. (1993). An investigation into the paradox of
underachievement among gifted Black students. Roeper
Review, 16 (2), 78-84.

Ford, D. Y. (1994). Nurturing
resilience in gifted Black
youth. Roeper Review, 17 (2), 80-85.

Fordham, S. (1997). Blacked out: Dilemmas of race,
identity, and success at Capital High. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Fox, L. H., Brody, & Tobin, D. (Eds.) (1983).
Learning-disabled/gifted
children: Identification and programming. Baltimore:
University Park Press.

Garmezy, N. (1991). Resiliency and vulnerability to
adverse developmental outcomes associated with poverty. American Behavioral
Scientist, 34 (5), 416-430.

Garmezy, N. (1985). Stress resistant
children: The search for protective factors. In J E.
Stevenson (Ed.), Recent research in developmental psychopathology (pp. 213-233).
Oxford: Pergamon.

Gerber, P. J., Ginsberg, R. J., & Reiff, H. B.
(1992). Identifying alterable patterns in employment success in highly
successful adults with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
25, 475-487.

Gerber, P. J. & Reiff. H. B. (1994). Perspectives on
adults with learning disabilities. In P. J. Gerber & H B Reiff (Eds.),
Learning disabilities in adulthood Persisting problems and evolving issues (pp
3-9) Boston. Andover Medical Publishers.

Gerber, P. J & Reiff, H B (1991). Speaking for
themselves. Ethnographic interviews with adults with learning disabilities. Ann
Arbor University of Michigan Press.

Gregg, N, Hoy, C., & Gay, A. F. (Eds.) (1996) Adults
with learning disabilities Theoretic al and practical perspectives New York The
Guilford Press.

Gregg, N. Hoy. C, King. M, Moreland, C, & Jagota, M
(1992) The MMPI-2 profile of adults with learning disalities in university and
rehabilitation settings Journal of Learning Disabilities. 25. 386-395.

Gunderson, C, Maesch. C. & Rees. J (1987). The
gifted/leafing disabled student.
Gifted Child Quarterly. 31.
158-160.

Guyer, B P. (1997) The pretenders.
Gifted people who have difficulty learning Homewood,
IL. High Tide Press.

Heath, S. B. & McLaughlin. M. (1993) (Eds.) Identity
and inner-city youth Beyond ethnicity and gender New York: Teachers College
Press.

Hebert, T. H. (1996) Portraits of
resilience. The urban life experience of
gifted Latino young men Roeper Review. 19 (2), 82-90.

Higgins. D (1988) Taking charge of promise Exceptions to
the Rules [Cassette]. Albuquerque, NM Futures End Services.

Higgins. D & Nielson, M. E (1999,April) (Speakers)
Meeting the needs of twice exceptional students Programs that work. Presentation
at the Council for Exceptional Children Annual
Convention, Charlotte, NC.

Hishinuma, E S (1993) Counseling
gifted/at risk and
gifted/dyslexic youngsters
Gifted Child Today, 16 (1),
30-33.

Holliday, G A, Koller, J R. & Thomas, C. D. (1999).
Post high school outcomes of high IQ adults with learning disabilities Journal
for the Education of the Gifted. 23 (3), 266-281.

Howard, S & Dryden, J (1999). Childhood
resilience. Review and critique of literature Oxford
Review of Education. 25 (3). 307-324.

Hoy. C. & Manglitz, E (1996). Social and affective
adjustment of adults with learning disabilities: A life-span perspective. In N
Gregg, C. Hoy, & A. F. Gay (Eds.), Adults with learning disabilities:
Theoretical and practical perspectives (pp. 208-231). New York: The Guilford
Press.

Johnson, L. J., Karnes, M. B., & Cart, V. W (1997).
Providing services to children with gifts and
disabilities A critical need In N. Colangelo & G. A Davis (Eds.), Handbook
of gifted education (2nd ed.) Boston Allyn and Bacon.

Karnes, M. B., Shwedel, A. M., & Lewis, G. F.
(1983). Long-term effects of early programming for the
gifted/talented handicapped Journal for the Education
of the Gifted, 6 (4). 26.

Keogh, B. K. & Weisner, T. (1993) An ecocultural
perspective on risk and protective factors in
children's development. Implications for learning
disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice. 8 (I), 3-10.

Kline, B. E. & Short, E. B. (1991a) Changes in
emotional resilience. Gifted
adolescent females Roeper Review, 13 (3). 118-121.

Kline, B. E, & Short, E. B. (1991b) Changes tn
emotional resilience Gifted
adolescent boys Roeper Review, 13 (4). 184-187.

Korinek, L (1992) Gifted
children with specific learning disabilities In J
VanTassel-Baska, Planning effective curriculum for
gifted learners (pp. 261-284) Denver, CO Love
Publishing Company.

Lazarus, R. S. (1993). From psychological stress to the
emotions A history of changing outlooks Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 1-21.

Lee, C. M., & Jackson, R. F. (1992). Faking it A
look into the mind of a creative learner Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook
Publishers.

Lyon, G R, Alexander, D., & Yaffe, S. (1997).
Progress and promise in research m learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities
A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8 (1), 1-6.

Meininger, L. K. & Rivers, L. S. (1999,November)
(Speakers). Gifted at risk: Learning disabled.
Presentation at the National Association for Gifted
Children Annual Convention, Albuquerque, NM.

Maker, C. J. & Nielson, A. B. (1996). Curriculum
development and teaching strategies for gifted learners 2nd ed Austin, TX
Pro-ed.

Mendaglio, S. (1993) Counseling
gifted learning disabled: Individual and group
counseling techniques. In L. K. Silverman (Eds.), Counseling the
gifted and talented (pp. 131-149) Denver Love.

Miller, M. & Fritz, M. F. (1998). A demonstration of
resilience Intervention tn School & Clinic, 33
(5), 265-272.

Mindell, P. (1982). The gifted
dyslexic. A case study with theoretical and educational implications. Roeper
Review, 4 (3), 22-23.

Minner. S. (1990). Teacher evaluations of case
descriptions of LD gifted
children. Gifted
Child Quarterly. 36 (1), 11-16.

Minner, S., Prater, G., Bloodworth, H., & Walker, S.
(1987) Referral and placement recommendations of teachers toward
gifted handicapped children.
Roeper Review, 9, 246-259.

Neihart, M. (1999). The impact of giftedness on
psychological well-being What does the empirical literature say Roeper Review,
22 (1), 10-17.

Nielsen, M. E., & Mortorff-Albert, S. (1989). The
effects of special education service on the self-concept and school attitude of
learning disabled/gifted students Roeper Review. 12
(I), 12-35.

Olenchak, F. R. (1994). Talent development:
Accommodating the social and emotional needs of secondary
gifted/learning disabled students. The Journal of
Secondary Gifted Education. 5 (3), 40-52.

Reiff, H. B., Gerber, P. J., & Ginsberg, R. (1997)
Succeeding expectations: Successful adults with learning disabilities. Austin,
TX Pro-ed.

Reis, S. M. Neu, T. W., & McGuire, J. M. (1995).
Talents tn two places: Case studies of high ability students with learning
disabilities, who have achieved. Storm, CT: The University of Connecticut.

Robinson, S. M. (1999). Meeting the needs of students
who are gifted and have learning disabilities. Intervention tn School &
Clinic, 99 (34), 195-205.

Rogan, L. L. & Hartman, L. D. (1990). Adult outcome
of learning disabled students ten years after initial follow-up Learning
Disabilities Focus. 5 (2), 91-102.

Rosner, S. L., & Seymour, G (1983) The
gifted child with a learning
disability Clinical evidence In L H. Fox, L. Brody, & D Tobin (Eds),
Learning-disabled gifted
children. Identification and programming (pp. 77-100).
Baltimore. University Park Press.

Rutter, M. (1979). Protective factors in
children's responses to stress and disadvantage In M
W. Kent & J E. Roll (Eds.). Primary prevent, on of psychopathology Vol. 3
(pp 49-74) Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.

Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial
resilience and protective mechanisms American Journal
of Orthopsychiatry 57 (3), 316-331.

Ryan-Wenger, N. M. (1992). A taxonomy of
children's coping strategies: A step toward theory
development American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 62, 256-263.

Schiff, M. M., Kaufman, A. S, & Kaufman, N. L.
(1981) Scatter analysis of WISC-R profiles for learning disabled
children with superior intelligence. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 14 (7), 400-404.

Shaywitz, B. A., Shaywitz, S. E, Fletcher, J M., Pugh, K
R., Gore, J. C., Constable, R. T., Fulbright, R. K., Skudlarski, P., Liberman, A
M, Shankweiler, D. P, Katz, L, Bronen, R. A., Marchione, K. E. Holahan, J M.,
Francis, D J, Klorman, R., Abram D M., Blachman, B A., Stuebing, K. K., &
Lacadic, C. (1997). The Yale Center for the study of learning and attention:
Longitudinal and neurobiological studies. Learning Disabilities: A
Multidisciplinary Journal. 8 (1), 21-29.

Silver, L. (1995,February). (Speaker). How do you help
adolescents develop self-esteem and self-advocacy? (Cassette Recording)
Presentation at the Learning Disabilities Association International Conference,
Orlando, FL.

Silverman, L. K. (1989). Invisible gifts, invisible
handicaps Roeper Review, 12 (1), 37-41.

Simpson, E (1979). Reversals. A personal account of
victory over dyslexia. Boston Houghton Mifflin.

Smith, S. L. (1991). Succeeding against the odds. How
the learning disabled can realize their promise. Los Angeles: Jeremy P. Tarcher.

Sowa, C. J, McIntire, J., May, K M., & Bland, L.
(1994). Social and emotional adjustment themes across
gifted children Roeper
Review. 17 (2), 95-98.

Spekman, N. J, Goldberg, R. J, & Herman, K. L.
(1993). An exploration of risk and resilience tn the
lives if individuals with learning disabilities Learning Disabilities Research
and Practice. 8, 11-18.

Spekman, N. J., Herman, K L., & Vogel, S. A. (1993).
Risk and resilience in individuals with learning
disablities. A challenge to the held. Learning Disadilities Research &
Practice. 8 (1), 59-65.

Suter, & Wolf, (1987) Issues in the identification
and programming of the gifted/learning-disabled
child. Journal for the Education of the
Gifted, 10 (3), 227-237.

Tallent-Runnels, M. K., & Sigler, E. A. (1994). The
status of the selection of gifted students with
learning disabilities for gifted programs Roeper
Review. 17 (4), 246-248.

Tannenbaum, A. J., & Baldwin, L. J (1983) Giftedness
and learning disability A paradoxical combination In L. H. Fox, L. Brody, &
D. Tobin (Eds.), Learning-disabled/gifted
children: Identification and programming (pp. 11-36)
Baltimore: University Park Press.

Torgesen, J.(2000,April) (Speaker) Lessons learned from
intervention research tn reading A way to go before we rest. Presentation at the
Council for Exceptional Children Annual Convention and
Expo, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Udall, A. (1984,February). (Speaker)
Gifted and talented learning disabled students
(Cassette Recording). Presentation at the Association for
Children and Adults with Learning Disablities Annual
Conference, New Orleans, LA.

Udall, A. & Maker, C. J. (1983). A pilot program for
elementary-age learning disabled/gifted students. In
L. H., Fox, L. Brody, & D Tobin (Eds.),
Learning-disabled/gifted
children: Identification and programming (pp 223-242)
Baltimore University Park Press.

VanTassel-Baska, J. (1992). Planning effective
curriculum for gifted learners Denver, CO Love
Publishing Company.

Vespi, L. & Yewchuk, C. (1992). A phenomenological
study of the social/emotional characteristics of
gifted learning disabled
children Journal for the Education of the
Gifted, 16 (1), 55-72.

Vogel, S. A., Hruby, P. J., & Adelman, P. B. (1993)
Educational and psychological factors in successful and unsuccessful college
students with learning disabilities Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 8 (1), 35-43.

Waldron, K. A., Saphire, D. G., & Rosenblum, S. A.
(1987). Learning disabilities and giftedness: Identification based on
self-concept, behavior, and academic patterns. Journal of Learning Disabilities.
20 (7), 422-427.

Werner, E. E. (1989) High-risk
children in young adulthood: A longitudinal study from
birth to 32 years American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 59 (1), 72-81.

Wener, E. E. (1990) Protective factors and individual
resilience. In S. J. Meisels & J. P. Shonkoff
(Eds). Handbook of early childhood intervention (pp. 97-116). Cambridge, UK.
Cambridge University Press.

Werner, E. E. (1993). Risk and
resilience in individuals with leafing disabilities
Lessons learned from the Kauai longitudinal study Learning Disadilities Research
& Practice. 8 (1), 28-34.

Werner, E. E. & Smith, R. S. (1992). Overcoming the
odds: High risk children from birth to adulthood
Ithaca, NY. Cornell University Press.

Werner, E. E. & Smith, R. S. (1989). Vulnerable but
invincible: A longitudinal study, of resilient
children and youth New York: Adams-Bannister-Cox.
(Original work published 1982).

West, T G (1991) In the mind's eye Visual thinkers,
gifted people with learning difficulties, computer
images, and the ironies of creativity Buffalo, NY. Prometheus Books.

Whitmore, J. R. (1980) Giftedness. conflict and
underachievement Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Whitmore, J. R., & Maker, J (1985) Intellectual
giftedness in disabled persons MD: Aspen Publications.

Yewchuk, C. (1985).
Gifted/learning disabled
children. An overview.
Gifted Education International, 3 (2), 122-126.

~~~~~~~~

By Sharon Dole

Sharon Dole is Assistant Professor of Special Education
in the Department of Human Services, at Western Carolina University. Her areas
of specialization are gifted education, learning
disabilities, and assessment.

Copyright of Roeper Review is the property of Roeper Review and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.

View:

Citation

HTML
Full Text

7
of
30

Result
List |
Refine
Search

Delivery Options:

Print

E-mail

Save

Export

Add
to folder

Top of Page

EBSCO Support Site

Privacy
Policy

Terms
of Use

Copyright

© 2007
EBSCO
Industries, Inc. All rights reserved.