EBSCOhost

Site Menu

Sign=20 In=20

Folder =20

Preferences=20

New=20 Features!=20

Ask-A-Librarian=20

Help=20

= 4=20 of=20 3= 4=20 = =20 Result=20 List |=20 Refine=20 Search=20

Delivery Options:

Print=20 E-mail=20 Save=20 Export=20 Add=20 to folder

View:

Citation= =20
HTML=20 Full Text

Translate Full=20 Text:

&n= bsp;

Title:=20: Implications of Risk and Resilience in the = Life of the=20 Individual Who is Gifted/Learning Disabled.=20 By: Gardynik, Ursula M., McDonald, Linda, Roeper Review, 02783193, = Summer2005,=20 Vol. 27, Issue 4
Database:=20: Academic Search Premier

Implications of Risk and = Resilience=20 in the Life of the Individual Who is = Gifted/Learning=20 Disabled

The constructs of risk and=20 resilience and their implication in the life = of=20 individuals who are gifted, learning disabled, = and=20 gifted/learning disabled will be explored in = this=20 paper. The intent is to understand further how the constructs of risk = and=20 resilience affect individuals who are=20 gifted/learning disabled. The paper includes a = discussion of risk and resilience, followed by = a=20 discussion of learning disabilities, giftedness, and learning = disabilities=20 combined with giftedness. Each of these sections addresses the risk = factors that=20 hinder normal development and make the individual more vulnerable and = the=20 protective factors that serve to buffer the individual's response to = adversity.=20 Interventions that may foster resilience in = the=20 individual who is gifted/learning disabled are = proposed.

There is a long history of research on the = factors that=20 place individuals at risk of school failure, criminal behavior, and = mental=20 health problems. Risk factors are those biological, psychological, = cognitive, or=20 environmental factors that hinder normal development and make the = individual=20 more vulnerable to negative life outcomes (Dole, 2000). However, = researchers=20 have also found that under most adverse circumstances there are = protective=20 factors that serve to buffer the individual's response to adversity. = Significant=20 numbers of children raised in the most adverse = circumstances develop into competent and productive adults (Garmezy, = 1991;=20 Werner & Smith, 2001). There is no universal definition of=20 resilience; however, it is delineated as = "successfully=20 coping with or overcoming risk and adversity, or the development of = competence=20 in the face of severe stress and hardship" (Doll & Lyon, 1998, p. = 348).

Research on = resilience holds=20 great promise, for if the mechanisms and processes by which it occurs = could be=20 understood, the possibility exists of fostering=20 resilience through preventive interventions = and=20 programming (Doll & Lyon, 1998). The challenge to researchers is to = discover=20 what conditions encourage resilience, and the=20 challenge to educators is to foster resilience = through=20 preventive intervention and programming. = Children who=20 are gifted, learning disabled, or=20 gifted/learning disabled pose such a = challenge. These=20 children not only possess an exceptionality = that=20 constitutes a risk but they may also experience common risk factors such = as=20 poverty and parental conflict. The intent of this paper is to further = the=20 understanding of how the constructs of risk and=20 resilience impact the life of the individual = who is=20 gifted/learning disabled.

Risk and resilience = factors=20 need to be studied concurrently because the factors that influence human = development are complex and intertwined. The definition of what = constitutes a=20 risk or a protective factor for an individual is not always clear and = frequently=20 depends on how each individual perceives a particular event or situation = (Spekman, Goldberg, & Herman, 1993). The relationship between an=20 individual's perception of an event or situation and the individual's = resources=20 to cope with the demands placed on her or him defines risk or=20 resilience (Luthar & Zigler, 1991). An=20 individual's vulnerability changes over time and across developmental = levels. It=20 is sometimes difficult to identify competent = children=20 because the competence level of a given child = changes=20 over time. Resilience should not be identified = at one=20 point in time or with respect to a single outcome (Pianta & Walsh, = 1998). It=20 is, rather, an interaction between constitutional risk factors and = stressful=20 life events, and it is dependent on the interaction of protective = factors within=20 the individual, the family environment, and society.

Risk and Resilience = Research

There are many biological, psychological, = cognitive, or=20 environmental factors that hinder normal development and contribute to a = child's vulnerability to adversity. However,=20 children have been studied whose adaptation to = adverse=20 conditions, such as chronic poverty, parental psychopathology, divorce, = or=20 maltreatment has been more successful than would have been expected. A = common=20 core of protective factors within the individual, the family, and the = community=20 has been identified. These protective factors appear to mediate = profoundly the=20 impact of adversity on children (Werner, = 1995).

There is an pattern of overwhelming risk = factors=20 associated with poverty (Garmezy, 1991). Birch and Gussow (1970,as cited = in=20 Garmezy) point to a cycle of debilitating conditions that can often = become=20 transgenerational; however, this is not an inevitable outcome. After = examining=20 the adverse developmental outcomes associated with poverty, Garmezy = suggested=20 three variables that act as protective factors in enabling=20 children to circumvent the adverse effects of = poverty:=20 individual child temperament (e.g., activity = level),=20 family context (e.g., the presence of a caring adult), and the presence = of=20 external support such as a teacher or the presence of an institutional = structure=20 that encourages ties to the community.

In the Kauai Longitudinal Study, Werner and = Smith (2001)=20 investigated the impact of a variety of biological and psychosocial risk = factors, as well as stressful life events on the development of a = multiethnic=20 cohort of children (prenatal through 32 years = of age).=20 They found that poor developmental outcome was not inevitable for=20 children exposed to prenatal trauma, poverty, = parental=20 psychopathology, or chronic family discord. Of the=20 children in the study, 30% were considered = high risk=20 because they had experienced prenatal stress, were born into chronic = poverty,=20 and lived in troubled family environments. Two-thirds of the=20 children who had experienced four or more such = risk=20 factors by age 2 developed serious learning or behavioral problems by = age 10, or=20 had delinquency records, mental health problems, or pregnancies by age = 18.=20 However, one-third of the children who = experienced=20 four or more such risk factors developed into competent, confident, and = caring=20 adults (Werner & Smith).

Werner and Smith (2001) found that in infancy = and early=20 childhood the resilient children had = temperamental=20 characteristics that elicited positive responses from their parents and = other=20 caregivers. By preschool they had acquired a coping style that combined = the=20 ability to ask for help with autonomy. In middle childhood and = adolescence these=20 resilient children demonstrated good = communication and=20 problem-solving skills, and they had an internal locus of control and a = positive=20 self-concept. They frequently had a talent or hobby that was valued by = their=20 peers or elders. The resilient child was able = to=20 establish a close bond with caring adults within the extended family and = was=20 able to seek out positive role models in the community, such as a = favorite=20 teacher (Werner & Smith).

In order to find the individual = characteristics or=20 temperaments of children that contributed to = different=20 styles of coping or resilience, Murphy and = Moriarty=20 (1976) studied the coping behavior of children = in a=20 relatively stable community. The authors proposed that a cultural = tradition, as=20 conveyed by the family and supported by society, facilitated=20 resilience within the = child.=20 Although there were variations and changes in coping patterns of = individual=20 children through the years, their = participants' drive=20 for mastery was directed toward coping with life's challenges. Parents = expected=20 and encouraged their child's independent = coping. They=20 also modeled resourceful coping behavior. The cultural tradition of this = society=20 was the maxim that God helps those who help themselves. Therefore, the=20 child's drive for mastery was sustained by the = child's need, freedom to cope with real = challenges,=20 lack of restrictions, and the support of the family and society.

Responsive, caring adults can have a = significant impact=20 on child resilience. = In a=20 study of 7- to 9-year-old urban children = exposed to=20 multiple risk factors, Wyman et al. (1999) found that emotionally = responsive=20 parenting attitudes and positive parental mental health predicted=20 children's competent development. The=20 child's ability to master early developmental = tasks=20 and build more complex capacities that are needed to master = environmental=20 challenges makes him or her more resilient to adversity. Nurturing=20 relationships, high expectations for children, = and the=20 avoidance of school mobility were also important influences on=20 children's development of=20 resilience in the Chicago Longitudinal Study=20 (Reynolds, 1999).

Nettles, Mucherah, and Jones (2000) found that = grade 10=20 students who spent time in structured activities and religious = activities were=20 more optimistic, participated more often in extracurricular activities, = and were=20 more prepared for class in grade 12. Time spent alone, time spent = interacting=20 with adults, and participation in structured activities in grade 10 = predicted=20 math and science achievement in grade 12. Cauce, Felner, and Primavera = (1982)=20 also found that informal social support from peers was related to better = peer=20 self-concept but to lower academic adjustment in a study of high-risk, = inner=20 city adolescents. Although informal social support from peers related to = better=20 peer self-concept, it was supportive ties with parents and other adults = that=20 facilitated academic achievement (Nettles et al., 2000) and positive = adjustment=20 after divorce (Watt, Moorehead-Slaughter, Japzon, & Keller, 1990).=20 Children's adjustment to parental divorce was = mediated=20 by good rapport with the custodial parent. A good relationship with the=20 custodial parent created a supportive, loving environment that mediated = the=20 negative effects of the divorce on academic achievement, social = interactions,=20 and self-esteem.

However, if children = are=20 unable to access nurturing, caring adults in their families, protective = factors=20 found in their own temperament and the greater social environment may = facilitate=20 resilience. There are individuals within the = juvenile=20 correctional population, a group with the fewest known protective = factors, and=20 the greatest number of risk factors, who manage to go on to live moral,=20 productive lives (Pasternack & Martinez, 1996). A strong internal = locus of=20 control, having a positive school experience, and having a job prior to=20 incarceration are all significant factors in predicting resiliency among = incarcerated juvenile delinquents, protecting them from becoming = recidivists=20 (Pasternack & Martinez).

Resilient children = may also=20 attain a sense of value from reading. Through this medium,=20 children are able to escape into an imaginary = world=20 .that provides assurance, methodical thinking, and optimism (Wolin & = Wolin=20 as cited in Henry, 1999). In this self-created world of literacy and=20 imagination, the child can be "in control and = be loved=20 and valued by those with whom they choose to identify until there is = opportunity=20 to receive a sense of value from an outside source" (Henry, p.537).

Clearly, not all = children who=20 are exposed to significant risk factors are doomed to a negative = outcome.=20 Children have the ability to overcome = adversity if=20 important protective factors are present in their lives. The = identification, the=20 risk factors and the protective factors specific to individuals who are = learning=20 disabled, gifted and=20 gifted/learning disabled will be discussed in = the=20 following sections.

The Individual with a Learning Disability

Identificati= on=20

The most accepted definition of learning = disability (LD)=20 is that proposed by the National Joint Committee on Learning = Disabilities=20 (NJCLD) in the United States, which states:

A general term that refers to a heterogeneous = group of=20 disorders manifested by significant difficulties in the acquisition and = use of=20 listening, speaking, reading, writing, reasoning, or mathematical = abilities.=20 These disorders are intrinsic to the individual, presumed to be due to = central=20 nervous system dysfunction, and may occur across the life span. Problems = in=20 self-regulatory behaviours, social perception, and social interaction = may exist=20 with learning disabilities but do not by themselves constitute a = learning=20 disability. Although learning disabilities may occur concomitantly with = other=20 handicapping conditions (for example, sensory impairment, mental = retardation,=20 serious emotional disturbance) or with extrinsic influences (such as = cultural=20 differences, insufficient or inappropriate instruction), they are not = the result=20 of those conditions or influences (NJCLD, 1997, p. 1).

The current Learning Disabilities Association = of Canada=20 definition of LD, which is widely accepted in Canada, is very similar. = However,=20 it gives greater prominence to impairment in processes:

Learning disabilities result from impairments = in one or=20 more processes related to perceiving, thinking, remembering, or = learning. These=20 include, but are not limited to: language processing; phonological = processing;=20 visual spatial processing; processing speed; memory and attention; and = executive=20 functions (e.g., planning and decision-making) (The Learning = Disabilities=20 Association of Canada, 2002, p. 1).

The Learning Disabilities Association of = Canada (2002)=20 also stresses that early identification, assessments, and appropriate=20 interventions for each individual's learning disability subtype, = involving home,=20 school, community, and work place settings are necessary.

Risk=20 Factors

A learning disability can also be described as = a risk or=20 adverse condition, which increases an individual's vulnerability to = distorted=20 perceptions and interactions with the world, frequently resulting in = academic=20 difficulties and failures (Yewchuk, Delaney, Cunningham, & Pool, = 1992). The=20 child with LD frequently exhibits a = discrepancy=20 between academic achievement and intellectual ability. He/she may have=20 difficulties receiving and processing information. These difficulties = may result=20 in delays in reading, and an inability to write down ideas, sequence = thoughts,=20 or translate instructions into necessary action. The=20 children with LD may also experience social or = emotional difficulties (Yewchuk et al.).

A learning disability is an adverse = circumstance over=20 which the child initially has little control = (Spekman,=20 Goldberg, & Herman, 1993). The child may=20 experience academic difficulties, frustration, feelings of being = different, and=20 peer rejection with resulting low self-esteem and a lack of confidence. = The high=20 level of stress associated with the school environment makes school = itself a=20 risk factor to the child who is learning = disabled=20 (Bender, Rosenkrans, & Crane, 1999; Luthar & Zigler, 1991; = Pianta &=20 Walsh, 1998).

Spekman, Goldberg, et al. (1993) stated that = individuals=20 with LD do not experience life events in a customary chronological = order;=20 rather, they experience them off-time early or off-time late. The=20 child with LD may experience academic failure = early=20 without a peer group to share the experience and without being prepared = for=20 failure. The impact may be overwhelming and increase his or her = vulnerability,=20 laying the foundation for future patterns of coping. Conversely, the = individual=20 with LD experiences off-time late events such as protracted periods in = school,=20 vocational training programs, or low paying jobs, which prolong = dependence on=20 family support, resulting in frustration. Therefore, the learning = disability has=20 an impact across the individual's life span, frequently resulting in = higher=20 school dropout rates, underemployment, job difficulties, and self-esteem = and=20 emotional difficulties (Spekman, Gold berg, et al.)

Individuals with LD experience more stress in = the school=20 environment (Bender, Rosenkrans, & Crane, 1999), which is manifested = in=20 internal disorders such as anxiety (Dollinger, Horn, & Boarini, = 1988) and=20 depression (Bender, Rosenkrans, & Crane, 1999). Dollinger, Horn, and = Boarini=20 found that sleep problems in adolescents with learning disabilities were = related=20 to their worries about their intellectual and academic adequacy. Bender, = Rosenkrans, and Crane (1999) found that adolescents with LD experienced = higher=20 rates of depression than students without LD. Students with LD also = demonstrated=20 certain personality traits that may predispose them to attempt and/or = complete=20 suicide, such as deficits in cognitive coping skills, deficits in=20 problem-solving ability, and impulsivity. Not only are adolescents with = LD more=20 vulnerable to internal disorders, but they also lack the appropriate = social=20 skills to mobilize ample peer support for their emotional distress = (Bender, et=20 al.; Robertson, Harding, & Morrison, 1998).

Lower social-information processing skills = have been=20 found in the kindergarten years before the onset of academic failure. = Tur-Kaspa=20 (2004) found that although girls with LD were as aware of the = effectiveness of=20 competent versus incompetent solutions to resolve social situations as = girls=20 without LD, they preferred significantly more incompetent solutions. = Although=20 children with LD understand what is desirable = action=20 in a given social situation, they opt for a less competent solution=20 (Tur-Kaspa).

Studies of elementary school students have = also found=20 that students with LD in comparison to students without LD appraise = their close=20 relationships as less secure. Students also reported higher levels of = avoidance=20 and anxiety in their friend ships, a higher sense of loneliness, and a = lower=20 sense of coherence (Al-Yagon & Mikulincer, 2004). Wiener and Tardif = (2004)=20 affirm that elementary school students with LD showed fewer=20 corroborated/reciprocated friends, lower quality of friendships, lower = social=20 acceptance, lower academic self-concept, poorer social skills, and = higher levels=20 of loneliness, depression, and problem behaviors than=20 children without LD.

A meta-analysis of social skills deficits and = learning=20 disabilities conducted by Kavale and Forness (1996) found that on = average 75% of=20 children with LD also have significant social = skills=20 deficits, which are manifested in peer rejection and social isolation. = Margalit,=20 Tur-Kaspa, and Most (1999) reported that = children with=20 LD who had one or more reciprocal rejections in addition to their = academic=20 failure felt more lonely and less coherent than their peers without LD. = Rejected=20 social status classification is relatively stable throughout = development;=20 therefore the role of reciprocal rejections as risk factor for later=20 socio-emotional problems needs to be considered. Negative socialization = in=20 childhood may contribute to adjustment problems, such as dropping out of = high=20 school and juvenile delinquency (Margalit et al.).

Rogers and Saklofske (1985) hypothesized that = the=20 accumulated failure experiences of children = with LD=20 lead to negative affective characteristics. These=20 children may become "entangled in vicious = cycles where=20 academic failure and negative affective characteristics are mutually=20 reinforcing" (p. 276). The authors cautioned that although=20 children with LD generally have lower = self-concepts=20 and more external locus of control beliefs than normal achievers, they = are not=20 homologous on these variables. Some children = may blame=20 external sources for their academic failure to defend themselves against = feelings of inadequacy, whereas others may blame themselves for their = academic=20 failure and thus develop feelings of helplessness. Academic assistance = provided=20 by teachers needs to be supportive of the student taking personal = responsibility=20 for academic success, thus not leading to teacher dependency (Hagborg,=20 1996).

Attitudes about placement in special education = provided=20 by schools vary. In a case study of a successful college student with = LD, Miller=20 and Fritz (1998) noted that he did not want to be in special education = classes=20 when he was younger and believed that he missed out on academic skills = as a=20 result of the low expectations teachers in special education classes had = of him.=20 However, another successful college student with LD was thankful that = she=20 received special education placement (Miller, 1997).

Protective=20 Factors

Werner and Smith (2001) found that=20 children at age 18 who had been diagnosed as = having LD=20 at age 10 continued to have poor academic achievement and scored lower = than=20 controls on measures of self-assurance and interpersonal adequacy, = socialization=20 and responsibility, achievement potential, and intellectual efficiency. = They=20 also exhibited an external locus of control. However, at ages 32 and 40, = three=20 out of four of these individuals had made a successful adaptation; were=20 satisfied with their job, marriage, children, = and=20 social life; and were free of psychiatric problems. Five clusters of = protective=20 factors appeared in the interviews and records of these resilient = individuals.=20 They had temperamental characteristics that helped them elicit positive=20 responses from a variety of caring individuals, such as parents, = teachers,=20 friends, and life-partners. They had special skills and talents, and = they had=20 the motivation to use whatever abilities they had. They had realistic = education=20 and vocational plans and as children and = adolescents=20 they had regular responsibilities. The caregiving style of the parents,=20 especially of the mother, was important. Self-esteem was nurtured and = there was=20 a sense of security in the home because of well-defined rules and = structures.=20 Supportive adults or "surrogate" parents (e.g., teachers, members of the = extended family, youth leaders, and members of church groups) who = fostered trust=20 and provided role models had a significant impact. Opportunities at = major life=20 transitions were also instrumental in successful adult adaptation = (Werner, 1995;=20 Werner & Smith).

Spekman, Goldberg, et al. (1993) described the = successful adult with LD as proactive. These resilient individuals = exhibit a=20 strong sense of being in control of events in their lives. They had an = internal=20 locus of control and believed that they were able to change and = influence=20 events. They made decisions and took responsibility for those decisions. = They=20 set realistic goals, were persevering, and had effective strategies for = coping=20 with stress. These resilient adults understood their strengths and = weaknesses=20 and were able to delay accepting challenges until they felt ready to = respond.=20 They were able to elicit, accept, and appreciate support from their = families and=20 others in their environment. Hagborg (1996) found that the=20 children with LD who were able to acquire an = internal=20 locus of control and a positive self-concept through in-school or, more=20 importantly, out-of-school experiences exhibited a higher degree of = school=20 engagement and satisfaction.

Themes of resilience = emerged=20 from the case study conducted by Miller and Fritz (1998). Their subject, = "Jimmie," was an individual with LD but was also an academically = successful=20 college student. Jimmie had identifiable successful experiences in = academics and=20 in sports. He was able to identify particular areas of strength and stay = focused=20 on them. He exhibited self-determination, perseverance, and a = competitive=20 spirit. Competing with his brother for grades and wanting to prove that = he did=20 not belong in a special education classroom were motivating factors. = This=20 determination to prove others wrong in their estimate of his abilities = persisted=20 at the college level. Jimmie credits his self-esteem for keeping him = directed=20 toward the pursuit of his goals. There were distinctive turning points, = such as=20 being allowed to take college preparation courses and making a career = choice.=20 Special friendships and encouraging teachers were also important agents = in=20 fostering his resilience. Clearly, learning=20 disabilities are an adverse condition that predisposes an individual to = risk;=20 however, a negative outcome is not inevitable.

The Individual Who is = Gifted

Identificati= on=20

The most commonly used definition of=20 gifted is that provided by the U. S. Office of = Education, which states:

Gifted and talented=20 children are those identified by = professionally=20 qualified persons who, by virtue of outstanding abilities, are capable = of high=20 performance. These are children who require=20 differentiated educational programs in order to realize their = contribution to=20 self and society. Children capable of high = performance=20 include those with demonstrated achievement and/or potential ability in = any of=20 the following areas, singly or in combination.

General intellectual ability=20
Specific academic aptitude=20
Creative or productive thinking=20
Leadership ability=20
Visual or performing arts.=20
Psychomotor ability (Marland, 1972, p. 2 as cited = in Andrews=20 & Lupart, 2000).

The individual who is = gifted=20 may also have specific affective characteristics (Alberta Learning, = 2000;=20 Pfeiffer & Stocking, 2000). Perfectionism is frequently one of the = defining=20 characteristics of individuals who are gifted. = Often=20 they are high achievers, are persistent, and exhibit high personal = standards.=20 They can be excitable. Individuals who are = gifted can=20 often be passionate and energetic and often jump from one exciting = project to=20 another. They oftentimes exhibit heightened sensitivity, empathy, and = concern,=20 all of which result in moral sensitivity and integrity. They can be = reflective=20 and introspective and possess a superior sense of humour.

Risk=20 Factors

Pfeiffer and Stocking (2000) identified five = risk=20 factors for academically gifted students. = These=20 factors include:

The gifted=20 child has discordant or asynchronous = development=20 across the cognitive, emotional, social, and physical domains. This = results in=20 a misfit between the child who is=20 gifted and his/her peer group, which is = accentuated=20 in the individual who is extremely intellectually=20 gifted.=20
Parents, teachers, and significant others = frequently have=20 unrealistic expectations and misconceptions about giftedness and = expect levels=20 of distinction that exceed the abilities of the=20 child. This can lead to chronic power = struggles,=20 defiance, passive-aggressiveness, depression, hopelessness, = underachievement,=20 and drug and alcohol abuse.=20
Parents can become over-involved, or enmeshed, in = their=20 children's lives, creating undue pressure on = the=20 child. Excessive parental intrusiveness may = result=20 in rebellion or psychological complaints such as anxiety, depression, = and=20 eating disorders.=20
Frequently, there is a disparity between the = instructional=20 environment and the capabilities of the = gifted=20 child. School personnel might also believe = that the=20 child will be successful without special = attention=20 or opportunities. This results in boredom and even disengagement from = school,=20 provoking the gifted = child=20 to exhibit problem behaviors.=20
The gifted=20 child may be vulnerable to social and = emotional=20 problems because he or she may have trouble finding an appropriate = peer=20 group-or gaining acceptance within the desired group (Pfeiffer &=20 Stocking).

Although the risks of social or emotional = problems in=20 children who are creatively or artistically=20 gifted have not been investigated. (Neihart = &=20 Olenchak, 2002), there are psychological risks such as higher rates of = mood=20 disorders and suicide associated with creatively=20 gifted adult writers and visual artists = (Neihart,=20 1999). It is hypothesized that creatively = gifted=20 students may be more psychologically vulnerable than academically=20 gifted students (Neihart & Olenchak). The = pursuit=20 of creative achievement calls for unique thinking and self-expression = that may=20 necessitate time spent alone. This may result in reduced popularity and = possible=20 marginalization or alienation from peers. Additionally, the time spent = in mental=20 pastimes may inhibit sexual awareness and independence (Neihart & = Olenchak),=20 Therefore, although there is little research to indicate whether=20 children who are creatively=20 gifted are at risk, parents and educators need = to be=20 aware that vulnerability may be associated with creativity (Neihart; = Reis &=20 Renzulli, 2004).

Gender can also be a risk factor in = academically=20 gifted individuals. Females face a conflict = between=20 their identities as individuals who are gifted = and=20 their identities as women. They are expected to develop their own = potential and=20 strive toward achievement; however, as females they are expected to be = giving,=20 selfless, and nurturing of their primary relationships. Kline and Short = (1991 b)=20 found that the self-perceived abilities and confidence of girls decline=20 progressively from elementary grades through high school as their = perfectionism=20 is accentuated. Therefore, gifted girls become = progressively more vulnerable to depression and anxiety as they grow = older. It=20 is at this most emotionally vulnerable period when they most want or = need to be=20 listened to that gifted girls feel ignored by=20 adults.

The social and emotional changes that males = experience=20 accrue at different development stages. Gifted = boys=20 appear to be at a disadvantage in elementary school. They are likely to = have=20 lower self-satisfaction than girls who are = gifted and=20 boys who are nongifted (Alvino, 1991, Implications for Self-Concept = section) and=20 have a lower perception of their academic competence compared to=20 gifted girls. (Kline & Short, 1991 a). = Alvino=20 suggested that the feminized classroom and the predominance of female = teachers=20 who value conformity and obedience are in opposition to the traditional = male=20 ideal of aggressiveness, self-reliance, and individuality. Also, boys = tend to=20 mature more slowly than girls, particularly in the verbal and reading = areas,=20 making early identification of giftedness more difficult. Further "the=20 stereotype of the 'nerd' haunts the academically able=20 gifted boy and he isn't respected unless he's = also=20 athletic" (Piirto personal communication as cited in Alvino, = Implications for=20 Self-Concept section). Kline and Short (1991a) stated that = discouragement and=20 hopelessness peak at junior high school age but decline in high school. = In high=20 school, boys decide to emphasize career aspirations at the detriment of=20 emotional and relational themes. As a result, they do not rely on = relationships=20 for feelings of self-worth and confidence. Further, these authors stated = that=20 adults ignore the emotions of high school boys; however,=20 gifted boys, unlike = gifted=20 girls, prefer to be left alone by adults.

Gifted=20 children also face numerous social and = cultural=20 barriers to achievement (Ford, 1994; H=C3=A9bert, 1996). For example, = economically=20 disadvantaged African American (Ford) or Hispanic youth (H=C3=A9bert) = often lack the=20 home and community resources to benefit from conventional schooling.=20 Gifted African American=20 children are frequently pressured by their = peers not=20 to do well academically or risk being accused of acting White (Ford), = while the=20 gifted Hispanic students often must construct = an=20 identity at school that separates them from both the school and the = Latino=20 culture (H=C3=A9bert). Olszewski-Kubilius (2003) proposed that the=20 gifted child is=20 disadvantaged by the difficulty of lower income families to provide = appropriate=20 social support networks and structures, such as schools with supportive = learning=20 environments, optimal social supports and communities with institutions = and=20 organizations that provide supplemental services.

Protective=20 Factors

Academically gifted=20 children may share many characteristics with = resilient=20 individuals (Neihart, 2002). These traits include verbal ability, = intelligence,=20 risk-taking, high self-concept, good self-efficacy, academic = achievement,=20 reflectiveness, maturity, an internal locus of control, and = self-understanding=20 (Dole, 2000). Because of their cognitive abilities, these=20 children are able to deal with stress as = described in=20 Lazarus and Folkman's (Bland & Sowa, 1994; Sowa & McIntire, = 1994)=20 cognitive appraisal paradigm, which maintains that there are two styles = of=20 dealing with stress: problem-focused and emotion-focused coping. In=20 problem-focused coping, individuals appraise their environments and = change their=20 behaviors to affect the environment or other individuals in the = environment.

In emotion-focused coping, individuals change = their=20 interpretations of the environment. Sowa and McIntire found that the=20 children changed their behaviors to affect = their=20 environment. For example, a young boy changed his argumentative style = because he=20 realized people reacted with anger and it lessened his chances of = influencing=20 the outcome.

Gifted students can = come from=20 economically disadvantaged ethnic or racial groups and face cultural and = social=20 barriers to academic achievement. H=C3=A9bert (1996) identified the = protective=20 factors that helped three resilient Latino young men achieve academic = success.=20 These factors included a strong belief in self, religious beliefs, a = specific=20 incident that affected the way they dealt with future adversity, a = conscious=20 choice to be successful in life, a determination to reach their personal = goals,=20 family support, extra-familial support from significant others such as=20 counselors and coaches, and heavy involvement in a variety of = extra-curricular=20 programs.

Neihart (1999) found that the psychological = wellbeing of=20 the gifted child is=20 dependent on the type of giftedness, the educational "fit," and the=20 gifted child's = personal=20 characteristics. Gifted=20 children are no more or less at risk of = psychological=20 problems than their nongifted peers. Neihart rebuked the claims that = extremely=20 gifted children (IQ = of 160=20 and above) are more vulnerable to social and emotional problems. Rather, = it is=20 the goodness of fit between the educational opportunity provided and = level of=20 giftedness that contributed to positive outcomes for=20 children who are extremely=20 gifted. She concluded that intellectually or=20 academically gifted = children=20 who are in special educational programs for = gifted=20 students are as well or better adjusted than their nongifted peers. In = spite of=20 the socio-cultural belief that gifted = individuals are=20 superior intellectually, socially, emotionally, and physically (Yewchuk, = 1983),=20 gifted children are = still=20 vulnerable to risk and require protective factors to facilitate positive = life=20 outcomes.

The Individual Who is=20 Gifted/Learning Disabled

Identificati= on=20

A child who is=20 gifted/learning disabled (G/LD) "has = exceptional=20 talent or ability in one or more areas, either realized or potential, = but also=20 experiences specific academic problems as a result of underlying = processing=20 deficits" (Dole, 2000, p. 91). These children = often=20 have the ability to compensate for any academic problems, thereby = achieving at=20 an average level. Their superior intelligence may be masked by their = learning=20 difficulties while their learning disabilities may be hidden by their = high=20 cognitive ability (LaFrance, 1995). Yewchuk (1983) suspected that these = students=20 "must be severely learning disabled or extremely=20 gifted in order for their performance to be = obviously=20 different from the average" (p. 129). This situation is compounded by = limited=20 educational funding, resulting in available resources being given to = those=20 considered most at risk (Spekman, Herman, et al. 1993). Waldron, = Saphire, and=20 Rosenblum (1987) believed that identification of the individual who is = G/LD=20 should also include personality and behavioral disturbances, in addition = to=20 depressed academic skills. They write, "The disruption of [sic] = personality and=20 social facets does not seem to be a result of the academic learning = problems but=20 an 'integral part of the total symptomatology'" (p. 422).

Risk=20 Factor

Individuals who are G/LD are considered = vulnerable to=20 negative outcomes because they have a paradoxical combination of gifts = and=20 disabilities. The social-emotional characteristics of these individuals = such as=20 poor self-concept, poor self-efficacy, hypersensitivity, emotional = lability, and=20 high levels of frustration, anxiety, and self-criticism also place them = at risk=20 (Dole, 2000). Due to problems with identification, they are frequently = not given=20 supportive programming or interventions. Often the single focus of = remediation=20 is basic skills. However, a focus on the weaknesses of a student without = a=20 similar focus on the development of giftedness can result in poor = self-esteem,=20 lack of motivation, depression, and stress (Baum, Emerick, Herman, & = Dixon,=20 1989; Nielsen & Mortorff-Albert, 1989; Whitmore & Maker, 1985). = It is=20 possible that many children who are G/LD have=20 strengths in non-verbal areas such as visual thinking, spatial design, = and=20 dramatic expression, which the school system, with its emphasis on = linguistic=20 ability, does not facilitate (West, 1991), although there is "persuasive = evidence for the existence of several relatively autonomous human = intellectual=20 competences" (Gardner, 1983, p. 8).

Children who are = both=20 gifted and learning disabled have a = paradoxical=20 combination of abilities (Tannenbaum & Baldwin, 1983) and have been=20 described as "paradoxical learners" (Silverman, 1989) because they are = able to=20 synthesize difficult information or understand complex math concepts = while they=20 are unable to obtain basic skills, such as spelling simple words or = doing basic=20 computations (Silverman): Knowing that they can comprehend at a superior = level=20 but are unable to complete simple tasks threatens seriously the = self-concepts of=20 children who are G/LD (Whitmore & Maker, = 1985),=20 especially when teachers and parents see this confusing pattern as = stupidity,=20 laziness, or willful contrariness (West, 1991).

Waldron et al. (1987) found in their study of = students=20 who were G/LD and students who were normally achieving=20 gifted that children = Who are=20 G/LD were more likely to develop low self-esteem and to have feelings of = rejection. They also found that, although in most instances the=20 children who were G/LD were successful in = hiding their=20 learning problems from others, they did this at the cost of internalized = anxiety=20 and lowered self-esteem.

It is theorized that the ideal learning = environment for=20 the student who is G/LD focuses on the student's strengths and interests = while=20 simultaneously addressing his or her academic deficits (Nielsen &=20 Mortorff-Albert, 1989). To ascertain Whether a relationship exists = between=20 different instructional methods and the self-concept and school attitude = of=20 these children, Nielsen and Mortorff-Albert = studied=20 students who were G/LD in grades three through five in 35 different = elementary=20 schools. They found that when students received learning disability = services=20 primarily or exclusively, they had lower self-concepts. But when their = programs=20 included gifted programming that focused on = their=20 strengths, their self-concept scores closely resembled the scores of=20 gifted students.

A survey of procedures used to identify and = provide=20 services to children who are G/LD found that = the=20 identification of children for=20 gifted or special education service was = mutually=20 exclusive (Boodoo, Bradley, Frontera, Pitts, & Wright, 1989). The = fact that=20 the special education program and gifted = program were=20 separated, that the student had reading problems, that the student may = have=20 behaviour problems, and a belief that a student could not be both=20 gifted and learning disabled, were all reasons = given=20 for not admitting a child with learning = disabilities=20 into the gifted program (Boodoo et al.; = Minner,=20 1990).

Although the view that giftedness and learning = disability are separate syndromes is being challenged by researchers = (Fox, Brody=20 & Tobin, 1983; Olenchak & Reis, 2002; Whitmore & Maker, = 1985;=20 Yewchuk & Lupart, 2000), it continues to be prevalent in many = schools today=20 (Yewchuk & Lupart). Individuals who are = gifted are=20 often seen as being intellectually, socially, emotionally, and = physically=20 superior. In contrast, individuals who are learning disabled are often = perceived=20 as being of average intelligence, socially maladjusted, and problematic. = This=20 belief in the mutual exclusiveness of giftedness and learning = disabilities=20 continues to influence the placement of G/LD = children,=20 frequently excluding them from programs for the = gifted=20 (Boodoo et al., 1989; Minner, 1990; Yewchuk, 1983).

To test the belief in the mutual exclusiveness = of=20 giftedness and learning disabilities, Minner (1990) conducted a study to = determine the influence "of the presence of the educational label LD and = the=20 social class of the student on the initial referral recommendations of = teachers=20 of gifted children" = (p.37).=20 Minner asked 197 teachers to read a descriptive vignette of a = hypothetical=20 student who was either gifted or G/LD and from = a low,=20 middle, or high socio-economic background. Results showed that teachers = were=20 less inclined to refer a child with learning=20 disabilities for possible placement in programs for=20 gifted students than an identically described=20 child without learning disabilities. Teachers = were=20 also less inclined to refer a student from a poor or middle class family = than an=20 identically described student from an upper class family, although=20 children who are = gifted can=20 be found in all social strata.

The individual who is G/LD also faces the risk = that=20 educators may become complacent because there are a number of examples = of=20 gifted famous individuals who managed to = achieve=20 distinction and a high level of success despite the presence of a = learning=20 disability (Waldron, et al., 1987). Hans Christian Andersen, Albert = Einstein,=20 Thomas Edison, Leonardo da Vinci, George Patton, William Butler Yeats = have all=20 been identified as having had a learning disability (West, 1991). = However, the=20 identification of these individuals as gifted = took=20 place ex post facto and "if they had not been so profoundly successful, = the=20 chances are that their learning disabilities would not have been = recognized at=20 all" (Waldron et al., p. 422). West hypothesized that these individuals = who were=20 G/LD achieved success not in spite of, but because of their apparent=20 disabilities.

Protective=20 factors

There is little empirical research on the = protective=20 factors that contribute to resilience in = individuals=20 who are G/LD (Brody & Mills, 1997). However, individuals who are = G/LD appear=20 to possess some characteristics found in resilient individuals. A case = study=20 conducted by Whitmore and Maker (1985) of Marcia, a 37-year-old = anatomical=20 pathologist, illustrates this point. As a = child,=20 Marcia was not identified as needing special services. Her = self-perception as a=20 child was adversely affected by her inner = sense of=20 confusion at being "smart" but unable to complete schoolwork and by her=20 discouragement and frustration in trying to read. However, her = self-perceived=20 strengths included an ability to improvise and adapt to situations, = creative=20 problem solving ability, perceptual and analytical abilities, = exceptional=20 auditory memory, and musical and mechanical ability. Marcia also had = intense=20 motivation to achieve self-set goals, adaptability, a tremendous drive = to=20 persist and succeed, and a motivating curiosity to know and understand. = She had=20 temperamental characteristics that elicited positive responses and = support from=20 her parents, life-partner and college faculty members (Werner, = 1995).

Baum, Emerick, Herman, and Dixon (1989) = suggested that=20 encouraging and nurturing the talents of students who are G/LD would = contribute=20 more to their success in life than equal efforts to remediate basic = skills.=20 Although they cautioned that their prediction is subject to empirical=20 validation, they described four programs in Connecticut that are = specifically=20 directed toward students who are G/LD. These programs emphasize the=20 encouragement and development of the gifts and special abilities of = students=20 with G/LD. School personnel have noted dramatic improvement in = self-esteem,=20 motivation, and task completion among the students in these programs. An = unexpected result has been improvement in students' basic skills (Baum = et al.,=20 1989). It is possible that programs stressing the abilities rather than = the=20 disabilities of students who are G/LD may facilitate traits that are = associated=20 with resilience.

The student with G/LD has a paradoxical = combination of=20 abilities and disabilities, as well as a paradoxical learning style, = which often=20 results in low self-esteem and frustration. The identification of = individuals=20 with G/LD is problematic and they are at risk of not being identified = and=20 therefore not being offered the necessary programming. A further = difficulty is=20 the lack of empirical research on ways to best educate and facilitate=20 resilience in this group of individuals.

Discussion

Although there are risk factors that hinder = normal=20 development and make individuals more vulnerable to negative life = outcomes,=20 under most adverse circumstances there are protective factors that serve = to=20 buffer the individual's response to adversity. If the protective factors = that=20 foster resilience are understood, they can be=20 facilitated through preventive interventions and programming.

Researchers have studied=20 children in difficult circumstances and have=20 identified protective factors that mediate the impact of adversity on=20 children. Resilient = children=20 had positive temperamental characteristics that elicited positive = responses from=20 their parents and caregivers, positive role models, good communication = and=20 problem-solving skills, an internal locus of control, and a positive=20 self-concept. Frequently they had skills or hobbies that were valued by = their=20 community (Garmezy, 1991; Werner & Smith, 2001). Supportive ties = with=20 parents and other adults facilitated academic achievement (Nettles et = al.,=20 2000), positive adjustment after divorce (Watt et al., 1990), and = mediation of=20 multiple risk factors (Wyman, et al., 1999). Resilient=20 children found protective factors in their own = temperament and other social resources such as from reading (Henry, = 1999) if=20 they were unable to access nurturing, caring adults (Pasternack & = Martinez,=20 1996). When parents expected and encouraged their=20 child's independent coping, modeled = resourceful coping=20 (Murphy & Moriarty, 1976), and had high expectations of their=20 children (Reynolds, 1999), they facilitated=20 resiliency.

The individual with LD has increased = vulnerability to=20 academic difficulties and failures, which may result in internalized = disorders=20 such as depression (Bender et al., 1999) and anxiety (Dollinger, Horn, = &=20 Boarini, 1988). The gifted individual has = discordant=20 development and may be faced with unrealistic parental expectations,=20 nonstimulating school environments, and difficulties with their peer = groups.=20 Also, the individual is frequently a perfectionist, excitable, and = sensitive=20 (Pfeiffer & Stocking, 2000). The individual with G/LD has a = paradoxical=20 combination of gifts and disabilities as well as a paradoxical learning = style=20 (Tannenbaum & Baldwin, 1983; Silverman, 1989), which often results = in low=20 self-esteem and frustration (Whitmore & Maker, 1985).

Negative life outcome is not inevitable in = individuals=20 with exceptionalities. Resilient individuals with LD are proactive, = understand=20 their strengths and weaknesses, and take control of events in their = lives=20 (Spekman, Goldberg, et al., 1993). They have realistic education plans = and take=20 advantage of opportunities at major life transitions to make positive = changes in=20 their lives (Werner & Smith, 2001). Gifted = individuals share many characteristics with individuals considered = resilient=20 such as verbal ability, intelligence, risk-taking, high self-concept, = good=20 self-efficacy, academic achievement, reflectiveness, maturity, an = internal locus=20 of control, and self-understanding (Dole, 2000; Neihart, 2002). There is = little=20 research on the protective factors that ameliorate risk in individuals = who are=20 G/LD; however they have some characteristics found in resilient = individuals such=20 as adaptability, intelligence, and a tremendous drive to use whatever = ability=20 they possess. They are able to elicit positive support and reframe = negative=20 events and have the ability to use major life transitions as = opportunities=20 (Whitmore & Maker, 1985). When individuals with G/LD are enrolled in = programs that encourage and develop their gifts and abilities, they show = dramatic improvement in self-esteem, motivation, and task completion = (Baum et=20 al., 1989).

More empirical research on the risk factors = and=20 protective factors that influence the = resilience of=20 individuals who are G/LD is urgently needed (Dole, 2000) in order to = allow=20 educators to intervene effectively. Although there is little research on = risk=20 factors and protective factors that impact the=20 resilience of individuals who are G/LD, = implications=20 for these children can be drawn from research = on=20 resilience and research on risk and protective = factors=20 found in gifted = children and=20 children with learning disabilities to assist = in=20 implementing programming. "Instead of allowing learning-disabled=20 gifted children to = fall=20 through the cracks, it is time to begin looking under the floor boards = and=20 providing the types of intervention sorely needed for this population"=20 (Silverman, 1989, p. 42).

Interventions

Children may spend = 15,000=20 hours in school (Rutter, Maugham, Mortimore, & Ouston, 1979). This = is a=20 substantial amount of time that teachers directly impact a=20 child's development (Garmezy, 1991), making = schools=20 ideal places to promote resilience. However, = if these=20 efforts to foster resilience are to be = effective, they=20 need to be "integral [to] the daily practice of schools rather than = discrete,=20 single-event occurrences" (Doll & Lyon, 1998, Implications for = Delivery=20 Section).

Pianta and Walsh (1998) wrote that = "vulnerability and=20 protective mechanisms operate within a window of opportunity--a period = of=20 relative plasticity-when responses to risk are being formulated. = Unfortunately,=20 schools most often provide services to = children after=20 they start having significant problems" (p. 8). This is especially true = of=20 students who are G/LD because identification of these students is = problematic.=20 To facilitate resilience,=20 children who are G/LD need to be identified as = early=20 as possible. This would require that educators be made aware of this=20 exceptionality and consciously look for it. Disseminating current = knowledge to=20 classroom teachers may also further understanding and empathy for the = special=20 needs of this population. The significant question that teachers need to = ask=20 themselves is, "When we are looking at a student who won't do the work, = how do=20 we know we aren't actually seeing a child who = can't do=20 the work?" (Silverman, 1989, p. 37). The examination of discrepancies of = all=20 kinds, such as between performance on measures of aptitude and = achievement,=20 between behaviour at home and school, and between weak subjects and = strong=20 subjects (Silverman), is at this time the best or preferred method to = identify=20 the student who is G/LD.

It is important not only to identify learning=20 disabilities, but also to recognize exceptional gifts in students who = are G/LD.=20 Teaching to student's abilities rather than disabilities increases = self-concept=20 scores (Nielsen & Mortorff-Albert, 1989), motivation and task = completion,=20 while also improving basic skills (Baum et al., 1989). These students = need to be=20 made aware of their abilities and disabilities. Rather than exclusively = focusing=20 on remediation, students who are G/LD need to be explicitly taught = awareness and=20 regulation of their own cognitive states and processes or metacognition = to=20 influence their own learning. Teaching learning strategies, critical = thinking,=20 formal logic, and problem solving offers students who are G/LD tools = with which=20 to appraise learning situations and themselves. By using these skills, = students=20 may learn to attribute successful outcomes to effort and ability, = resulting in=20 the development of an internal locus of control.

A major element of establishing=20 resilience is self-understanding (Miller, = 1996), which=20 results in acceptance of both strengths and weaknesses, and the ability = to adapt=20 and compensate for weaknesses (Spekman, Goldberg, et al., 1993). Given = that=20 control is a critical protective factor, (Spekman, Goldberg, et al.),=20 self-understanding would also allow students who are G/LD to be = proactive in=20 making choices and managing and adapting to their difficulties. Teaching = coping=20 skills, such as Lazarus and Folkman's (Bland & Sowa, 1994; Sowa = &=20 McIntire, 1994) cognitive appraisal paradigm, to students who are G/LD = and=20 helping them to process failures or disappointments with reframing would = also=20 facilitate control in difficult situations. Reading high quality = literature to=20 and with students who are G/LD may offer them models to identify with = and=20 behaviour that they can emulate, encouraging positive social-emotional=20 development and furthering the ability to overcome adversity.

Teachers, as responsive caring adults, have a = lifelong=20 impact on students and play an important role in the development of=20 resilience (Brooks, 2001; Werner, 1995). = Teachers may=20 need to expand their traditional job definitions as conveyors of = knowledge and=20 skills (Spekman, Herman, et al., 1993) and to think of themselves "as a=20 protective figure whose task is to do everything possible to enhance = students'=20 competence" (Garmezy, 1991, p. 428). Teachers need to be willing to = establish=20 meaningful relationships with their students. Such a change in = definition can=20 have implications for professional training programs and the nature of=20 in-service support that would be necessary (Spekman, Herman, et al., = 1993), as=20 well as implications in school administration. Teacher training needs to = be=20 multifaceted and include education, psychology, = child=20 development, and counseling (Spekman, Herman, et al., 1993), while = in-services=20 must encourage flexibility and problem solving. School administration = may be=20 required to provide a school environment that permits and encourages the = development of "mentoring type" relationships between teachers and = students, by=20 providing time and opportunities, such as allowing teachers in = elementary grades=20 to teach the same group of students for multiple grades, thus creating=20 continuity in the relationship established between the teacher and her = or his=20 students. Formal mentoring programs initiated by the school in = partnership with=20 the greater community especially to facilitate students with special = interests=20 and talents, students with multiple risk factors, and students from = lower income=20 families whose families may have difficulty providing appropriate social = support=20 networks and structures, may also right the trajectories that could = otherwise go=20 wrong.

In conclusion, schools have considerable = opportunity to=20 take a leading role in attempts to foster = resilience=20 because of the substantial amount of time they impact directly on=20 children. Schools also "possess both the = capacity and=20 human resources to mobilize many of the protective processes believed to = ameliorate risk" (Doll & Lyon, 1998, Synthesis of Findings section). = Although further research is needed to identify the specific protective = factors=20 that mediate the risks involved in being G/LD, implications can be drawn = from=20 research on resilience and used for = programming so=20 that the inherent potential of children who = are=20 gifted/learning disabled can be = realized.

REFERENCES=20

Alber= ta=20 Learning. (2000). Teaching students who are = gifted and=20 talented. Edmonton, Canada: Author.

Alvin= o,=20 J. (1991). An investigation into the needs of = gifted=20 boys. [Electronic Version]. Roeper Review, 13(4), 174-180.

Al-Ya= gon,=20 M., & Mikulincer, M. (2004). Patterns of close relationships and=20 socioemotional and academic adjustment among school-age=20 children with learning disabilities. Learning=20 Disabilities Research & Practice, 19(1), 12-19.

Andre= ws,=20 J., & Lupart, J. (2000). The inclusive classroom: Educating = exceptional=20 children. Scarborough, Ontario: Nelson Thomson = Learning.

Baum,= =20 S., Emerick L. J., Herman, G. N., & Dixon, J. (1989). = Identification,=20 programs and enrichment strategies for gifted = learning=20 disabled youth. Roeper Review, 12(l), 48-53.

Bende= r,=20 W. N., Rosenkrans, C. B., & Crane, M. (1999). Stress, depression, = and=20 suicide among students with learning disabilities: Assessing the risk. = Learning=20 Disability Quarterly, 22, 143-156.

Bland= ,=20 L. C., & Sowa, C. J. (1994). An overview of=20 resilience in gifted = children. [Electronic Version]. Roeper Review, = 17(2),=20 77-80.

Boodo= o,=20 G. M., Bradley, C. L., Frontera, R. L., Pitts, J. R., & Wright, L. = B.=20 (1989). The survey of procedures used for identifying=20 gifted learning disabled=20 children. Gifted=20 Child Quarterly, 33(3), 110-114.

Brody= ,=20 L. E., & Mills, C. L., (1997). Gifted=20 children with learning disabilities: A review = of the=20 issues. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(3), 282-297.

Broo= ks,=20 R. B. (2001). Fostering motivation, hope, and=20 resilience in children with learning = disorders. Annals=20 of Dyslexia 51, 9-20.

Cauc= e,=20 A. M., Felner, R. D., & Primavera, J. (1982). Social support in = high-risk=20 adolescents: Structural components and adaptive impact. American Journal = of=20 Community Psychology, 10, 417-428.

Dole= ,=20 S. (2000). The implications of the risk and = resilience=20 literature for gifted students with learning=20 disabilities. Roeper Review, 23(2), 91-96.

Doll= ,=20 B., & Lyon, M. (1998). A. Risk and = resilience:=20 Implications for the delivery of educational and mental health services = in=20 schools. [Electronic Version]. School Psychology Review, 27(3),=20 348-363.

Doll= inger,=20 S. J., Horn, J. L., & Boarini, D. (1988). Disturbed sleep and = worries among=20 learning disabled adolescents. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 58,=20 428-434.

Ford= ,=20 D. Y. (1994). Nurturing resilience in=20 gifted black youth. [Electronic Version]. = Roeper=20 Review, 17(2), 80-85.

Fox,= =20 L. H., Brody, L. & Tobin, D. (Eds.) (1983). Learning-disabled=20 gifted children:=20 Identification and programming. Baltimore, MD: University Park = Press

Gard= ner,=20 H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: BasicBooks.

Garm= ezy,=20 N. (1991). Resiliency and vulnerability to adverse developmental = outcomes=20 associated with poverty. American Behavioral Scientist, 34(4), = 416-430.

Hagb= org,=20 W. L. (1996). Self-concept and middle school students with learning=20 disabilities: A comparison of scholastic competence subgroups. Learning=20 Disability Quarterly, 19, 117-126.

H=C3= =A9bert,=20 T. (1996). Portraits of Resilience: The urban = life=20 experience of gifted Latino young men. = [Electronic=20 Version]. Roeper Review, 19(2), 82-90.

Henr= y,=20 D. L. (1999). Resilience in maltreated=20 children: Implications for special needs = adoption.=20 Child Welfare, LXXVIII, (5), 519-541.

Kava= le,=20 K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1996). Social skill deficits and learning=20 disabilities: A meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29,=20 226-237.

Klin= e,=20 B. E., & Short, E. B. (1991a). Changes in emotional=20 resilience: Gifted=20 adolescent boys. Roeper Review, 13(4), 184-188.

Klin= e,=20 B. E., & Short, E. B. (199 lb). Changes in emotional=20 resilience: Gifted=20 adolescent females. [Electronic Version]. Roeper Review, 13(3),=20 118-121.

LaFr= ance,=20 E. B. (1995). Creative thinking differences in three groups of = exceptional=20 children as expressed through completion of = figural=20 forms. Roeper Review, 17(4), 248-253.

LaFr= ance,=20 E. B. (1997). The gifted/dyslexic=20 child: Characterizing and addressing strengths = and=20 weaknesses. Annals of Dyslexia, 47, 163-182.

Lear= ning=20 Disabilities Association of Canada. (2002). Official definition of = learning=20 disabilities. Retrieved April 9, 2003, from http://www.ldac-taac= .ca/english/defined.htm

Luth= ar,=20 S. S., & Zigler, E. (1991). Vulnerability and competence: A review = of=20 research on resilience in childhood. American=20 Orthopsychiatric, 61(1), 6-22.

Marg= alit,=20 M., Tur-Kaspa, H., & Most, T. (1999). Reciprocal nominations, = reciprocal=20 rejections and loneliness among students with learning disorders. = Educational=20 Psychology, 19(1), 79-90.

Mill= er,=20 M. (1996). Relevance of resilience to = individuals with=20 learning disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development = and=20 Education, 43, (3), 255-269.

Mill= er,=20 M. (1997). Resilience in university students = who have=20 learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary = Journal. 8(2),=20 89-97.

Mill= er,=20 M., & Fritz, M. (1998). A demonstration of=20 resilience. Intervention in School and Clinic, = 33(5),=20 265-271.

Minn= er,=20 S. (1990). Teacher evaluations of case descriptions of LD=20 gifted children.=20 Gifted Child = Quarterly,=20 34(1), 37-39.

Murp= hy,=20 L. B., & Moriarty, A. E. (1976). Vulnerability, coping, and growth = from=20 infancy to adolescence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Nati= onal=20 Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1997). Operationalizing the = NJLD=20 definition of learning disabilities for ongoing assessment in schools. = Retrieved=20 March 24, 2003, from http://www.l= donline.org/njcld/operationalizing.html

Neih= art,=20 M. (1999). The impact of giftedness on psychological well-being: What = does the=20 empirical literature say? [Electronic Version]. Roeper Review, 22(1),=20 10-17.

Neih= art,=20 M. (2002). Risk and resilience in gifted=20 children: A conceptual framework. In M. = Neihart, S.=20 Reis, N. Robinson, & S. Moon (Eds.), Social and emotional = development of=20 gifted children (pp. = 113-124). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Neih= art,=20 M., & Olenchak, R. (2002). Creatively = gifted=20 children. In M. Neihart, S. Reis, N. Robinson, = &=20 S. Moon (Eds.). Social and emotional development if=20 gifted children (pp. = 165-176). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Nett= les,=20 S. M., Mucherah, W., & Jones, D. S. (2000). Understanding=20 resilience: The role of social resources, = Journal of=20 Education for Students Placed At Risk, 5, (1&2), 47-60.

Niel= sen,=20 M. E., & Mortorff-Albert, S. (1989). The effects of special = education=20 service on the self-concept and school attitude of learning=20 disabled/gifted students. Roeper Review, = 12(1),=20 29-36.

Olen= chak,=20 F. R., & Reis, S. M., (2002). Gifted = students with=20 learning disabilities. In M. Neihart, S. Reis, N. Robinson, & S. = Moon=20 (Eds.), Social and emotional development of = gifted=20 children (pp. 177-192). Waco, TX: Prufrock=20 Press.

Olsz= ewski-Kubilius,=20 P. (2003). Do we change gifted=20 children to fit = gifted=20 programs, or do we change gifted programs to = fit=20 gifted children? = Journal for=20 the Education of the Gifted, 26(4), = 304-313.

Past= ernack,=20 R., & Martinez, K. (1996). Resiliency: What is it and how can = correctional=20 educational practices encourage its development? Preventing School = Failure,=20 40(2), 63-67.

Pfei= ffer,=20 S. I., & Stocking, V. B. (2000). Vulnerabilities of academically=20 gifted students. Special Services in the = Schools,=20 16(1/2), 83-93.

Pian= ta,=20 R., & Walsh, D. J. (1998). Applying the construct of=20 resilience in schools: cautions from a = developmental=20 systems perspective. [Electronic Version]. School Psychology Review, = 27(3),=20 407-417.

Reis= ,=20 S. A., & Renzulli, J. S. (2004). Current research on the social and=20 emotional development of gifted and talented = students:=20 Good news and future possibilities. Psychology in the School, 41(1),=20 119-130.

Reyn= olds,=20 A. J. (1999). Themes and issues in the Chicago longitudinal study. = Journal of=20 School Psychology, 37(4), 481-484.

Robe= rtson,=20 L. M., Harding, M. S., & Morrison, G. M. (1998). A comparison of = risk and=20 resilience indicators among Latino/a students: = Differences between students identified as at-risk, learning disabled, = speech=20 impaired and not at-risk. Education & Treatment of=20 Children, 21, (3). 333-353.

Roge= rs,=20 H., & Saklofske., D. H. (1985). Self-concepts, locus of control and=20 performance expectations of learning disabled=20 children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, = 18(5),=20 273-278.

Rutt= er,=20 M., Maugham, B., Mortimore. P, & Ouston, J. (1979). Fifteen thousand = hours.=20 Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Silv= erman,=20 L. K. (1989). Invisible gifts, invisible handicaps. Roeper Review, 12(1) = 37-42.

Sowa= ,=20 C., & McIntire, J. (1994) Social and emotional adjustment themes = across=20 gifted children. = [Electronic=20 Version]. Roeper Review. 17(2), 95-98.

Spek= man,=20 N. J., Herman, K. L., & Vogel, S. A. (1993). Risk and=20 resilience in individuals with learning = disabilities:=20 A challenge to the field. Learning Disabilities Research & Practise, = 8(1),=20 59-67.

Spek= man,=20 N. J., Goldberg, R. L, & Herman, K. L. (1993). An exploration of = risk and=20 resilience in the lives of individuals with = learning=20 disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 8(1),=20 11-18.

Tann= enbaum,=20 A. J., & Baldwin, L. J. (1983). Giftedness and learning disability: = A=20 paradoxical combination. In L. H. Fox, L. Brody & D. Tobin (Eds.),=20 Learning-disabled gifted=20 children: Identification and programming, (pp. = 11-36).=20 Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.

Tur-= Kaspa,=20 H. (2004). Social-Information-Processing skills of kindergarten=20 children with developmental learning = disabilities.=20 Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19(1), 3-11.

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

Watt= ,=20 N. F., Moorehead-Slaughter 0., Japzon, D. M., & Keller, G. G. = (1990).=20 Children's adjustment to parental divorce: = self-image,=20 social relations, and school performance. In J. Rolf, A. S. Masten. D.=20 Cicchetti, K. H. Nuechterlein, & S. Weintraub. (Eds.) Risk and = protective=20 factors in the development of psychopathology. (pp. 281-303). Cambridge: = Cambridge University Press.

Wern= er,=20 E. E. (1995) Resilience in development. = American=20 Psychological Society, 4(3), 81-85.

Wern= er,=20 E. E., & Smith, R. S. (2001). Journeys from childhood to midlife: = Risk,=20 resilience, and recovery. New York: Cornell = University=20 Press.

West= ,=20 T. G. (1991). In the mind's eye: Visual thinkers,=20 gifted people with learning difficulties, = computer=20 images, and the ironies of creativity. Buffalo: Prometheus = Books.

Whit= more,=20 J. R., & Maker, J. C. (1985). Intellectual giftedness in disabled = persons.=20 Rockville, MD: Aspen.

Wien= er,=20 J. & Tardif, C. Y. (2004). Social and emotional functioning of=20 children with learning disabilities: Does = special=20 education placement make a difference? Learning Disabilities Research = &=20 Practice, 19(1), 20-32.

Wyma= n,=20 P. A., Cowen, E. L., Work, W. C., Hoyt-Meyers, L., Magnus, K. B., & = Fagen,=20 D. B.(1999). Caregiving and developmental factors differentiating young = at-risk=20 urban children showing resilient versus=20 stress-affected outcomes: A replication and extension.=20 Child Development, 70(3), 645-659.

Yewc= huk,=20 C. (1983). Learning disabled/gifted=20 children: Characteristic features. The Mental=20 Retardation and Learning Disability Bulletin, 11, 128-133.

Yewc= huk,=20 C., Delaney, D., Cunningham J., & Pool, J. (1992). Teaching=20 gifted/learning disabled students: Case = studies and=20 interventions, Unpublished manuscript, University of Alberta.

Yewc= huk,=20 C., & Lupart, J. (2000). Inclusive education for=20 gifted students with disabilities In K. A. = Heller, F.=20 M=C3=B6nks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.) International handbook of = giftedness and=20 talent, (pp. 659-670) Oxford: Pergamon.

Manuscript submitted June 07, 2004.

Revision accepted July 29, 2004.

~~~~~~~~

By Ursula M. Gardynik and Linda McDonald

Ursula Gardynik is a doctoral candidate in the = Department of Educational Psychology, University of Alberta. Her = research=20 interests are children who are=20 gifted, learning disabled, or=20 gifted/learning disabled; and risk and=20 resilience. Ms. Gardynik is also a special = education=20 teacher. E-mail: gardynik@ualberta.ca

Dr. Linda McDonald is Professor and Chair in = the=20 Department of Educational Psychology, University of Alberta. Dr. = McDonald has a=20 program of research in the area of child and = family=20 resilience. She is actively involved with = early=20 intervention programs in Alberta, Canada. Dr. McDonald has been employed = as a=20 special educator, a child development = specialist, a=20 program coordinator, and a psychologist. E-mail: = linda.mcdonald@ualberta.ca

Copyright of Roeper Review is the property of Roeper Review and its = content may=20 not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv = without the=20 copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, = download, or email articles for individual use.

View:

Citat= ion=20
HTML=20 Full Text

4=20 of=20 34=20 =20 Result=20 List |=20 Refine=20 Search=20

Delivery Options:

Print = E-mail= =20 Save=20 Export=20 Add=20 to folder

Top of Page

EBSCO Support = Site

Privacy=20 Policy=20
Terms=20 of Use=20
Copyright=20

Site Menu

Main Toolbar

Delivery Options:

View:

Implications of Risk and = Resilience=20 in the Life of the Individual Who is = Gifted/Learning=20 Disabled

Contents

View:

Delivery Options:

Site Menu

Main Toolbar

Sub-toolbar = Links

Delivery Options:

View:

Implications of Risk and = Resilience=20 in the Life of the Individual Who is = Gifted/Learning=20 Disabled

Contents

View:

Delivery Options: