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

4
of
34

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:

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

Database:

Academic Search Premier

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

Contents

Identification

Risk
Factors

Protective
Factors

Identification

Risk
Factors

Protective
Factors

Identification

Risk
Factor

Protective
factors

REFERENCES

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

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

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

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

Risk and Resilience Research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Individual with a Learning Disability
Identification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Individual Who is Gifted
Identification

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

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

General intellectual ability

Specific academic aptitude

Creative or productive thinking

Leadership ability

Visual or performing arts.

Psychomotor ability (Marland, 1972, p. 2 as cited in Andrews
& Lupart, 2000).

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

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

The gifted
child has discordant or asynchronous development
across the cognitive, emotional, social, and physical domains. This results in
a misfit between the child who is
gifted and his/her peer group, which is accentuated
in the individual who is extremely intellectually
gifted.

Parents, teachers, and significant others frequently have
unrealistic expectations and misconceptions about giftedness and expect levels
of distinction that exceed the abilities of the
child. This can lead to chronic power struggles,
defiance, passive-aggressiveness, depression, hopelessness, underachievement,
and drug and alcohol abuse.

Parents can become over-involved, or enmeshed, in their
children's lives, creating undue pressure on the
child. Excessive parental intrusiveness may result
in rebellion or psychological complaints such as anxiety, depression, and
eating disorders.

Frequently, there is a disparity between the instructional
environment and the capabilities of the gifted
child. School personnel might also believe that the
child will be successful without special attention
or opportunities. This results in boredom and even disengagement from school,
provoking the gifted child
to exhibit problem behaviors.

The gifted
child may be vulnerable to social and emotional
problems because he or she may have trouble finding an appropriate peer
group-or gaining acceptance within the desired group (Pfeiffer &
Stocking).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Individual Who is
Gifted/Learning Disabled
Identification

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

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

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

Waldron et al. (1987) found in their study of students
who were G/LD and students who were normally achieving
gifted that children Who are
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
children who were G/LD were successful in hiding their
learning problems from others, they did this at the cost of internalized anxiety
and lowered self-esteem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Interventions

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

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

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

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

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

In conclusion, schools have considerable opportunity to
take a leading role in attempts to foster resilience
because of the substantial amount of time they impact directly on
children. Schools also "possess both the capacity and
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
that mediate the risks involved in being G/LD, implications can be drawn from
research on resilience and used for programming so
that the inherent potential of children who are
gifted/learning disabled can be realized.
REFERENCES

Alberta
Learning. (2000). Teaching students who are gifted and
talented. Edmonton, Canada: Author.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gardner,
H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: BasicBooks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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(1),
29-36.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Silverman,
L. K. (1989). Invisible gifts, invisible handicaps. Roeper Review, 12(1)
37-42.

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

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

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

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, MD: University Park Press.

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

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.

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

Werner,
E. E. (1995) Resilience in development. American
Psychological Society, 4(3), 81-85.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yewchuk,
C., & Lupart, J. (2000). Inclusive education for
gifted students with disabilities In K. A. Heller, F.
Mönks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.) International handbook of giftedness and
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
interests are children who are
gifted, learning disabled, or
gifted/learning disabled; and risk and
resilience. Ms. Gardynik is also a special education
teacher. E-mail: [email-masked]

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

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

4
of
34

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.