A LEARNING PARADOX:

STUDENTS WHO ARE GIFTED AND LEARNING DISABLED

by
Cecilia Rose Welsh

DEBORAH GILBERT, Ed.D., Faculty Mentor and Chair

RONALD DOUGALL, Ed.D., Committee Member
TERENCE FRIEDRICHS, Ph.D., Ed.D. Committee Member

Barbara Butts Williams, Ph.D., Dean, School of Education

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University
October, 2010

UMI Number: 3427475

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3427475
Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

 Cecilia R. Welsh, 2010

Abstract
The purpose of this generic qualitative study was to determine how and to what extent
educational programming affects the success of middle school students experiencing the
contemporary phenomenon identified as gifted learning disabled (GLD). The research
took place within the real-life context of the middle school these GLD students attended.
Current research in this area is critical and may assist school districts, administrators, and
teachers who find these gifted learning disabled students in their classrooms. The
rationale for this qualitative research emerged from the desire to explore the phenomenon
of understanding the educational programming for the gifted learning disabled at an indepth level and to contribute meaningful knowledge to the field. The students in this
research study shared their thoughts and experiences. The reader will discover why such
students deserve an appropriate education so they are able to utilize their creativity and
talents. It is time for change in the way schools design programming and time to provide
individualized services for GLD students. The research analysis concluded the
identification process, unique characteristics of GLD students, programming needs, the
emotional needs of the students, and the needs for professional development of school
personnel are all critical components in answering the research question. The need is
essential to provide appropriate and quality educational programs for our gifted and
talented youth, who are the future of our communities, state, nation, and world.

Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my family. The time spent on this project was
irretrievable time away from you; your love and support enabled me to complete and
achieve my goals. My husband, John, who believed in me, understood how my topic
would contribute to field of education. He coached me through the rough spots and on
towards the finish line, even when the other players were behind.
My children, RJ, Charlie, and Andria, who are gifted learning disabledstruggled
and were underserved in their school systems. Their resiliency and external support
allowed them to become happy, healthy and successful adults. I am so proud of all they
have accomplished. They are all excellent role models for other gifted learning disabled
students.

iii

Acknowledgments
A particular gifted learning disabled student ignited the desire to study and to
examine the phenomenon of gifted learning disabled more closely. My many years in the
classroom as an educator and as a founding teacher in a school for highly and profoundly
gifted children allowed me the privilege to observe and participate in the process of
teaching this unique population. Many memories provided fuel to re-energize when
writing this dissertation seemed unachievable. There are favorable mentions, such as the
daily sliding of my dry erase markers down to the edge of the white board; the gregarious
glitter queen; the fashionable Ms. England; Just do what she tells you; its easier that
way, one students words of wisdom as he mentored the younger students; an entire year
of Beatle mania; the very talented pony-tailed student who aced the grammar test,
showing mastery of gerunds; lessons on baiting and stringing a fishing rod from a young
expert fisherman; a perfect score on Word Masters; the obsession with dungeons and
dragons card games; and awesome inventions for the Young Inventors Fair. I continue to
be inspired by your resiliency and determinationyou know who are!
Among this group were several hidden treasures, students who had extremely
high IQs but who were also learning disabled. I learned as much from the students as they
learned from me. Each students talents and abilities were miles apart and often hidden
by the layers of testing, identification issues, and programs that underserved them in the
school system. The camaraderie that developed among the class is unforgettable and
lifelong friendships formed there. Thank you for an extraordinary adventure!

iv

Table of Contents
Acknowledgments

iv

List of Tables

viii

List of Figures

ix

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Introduction to the Problem

Background of the Study

Statement of the Problem

Purpose of the Study

Rationale

Research Question

Significance of the Study

Definition of Terms

Assumptions and Limitations

10

Nature of the Study

10

Organization of the Remainder of the Study

12

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

13

Introduction

13

Who are the Gifted?

15

History of Gifted Education

21

Twice-Exceptional Students

27

Research Approach

34
v

Generic Qualitative Research

34

Studies in a Special Education Setting

38

Programs

41

Conclusion

43

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY

46

Introduction

46

Research Design

47

Sample

50

Participants and Procedures

53

Instrumentation

53

Data Collection

54

Data Analysis

56

Reliability and Validity

58

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS

62

Introduction

62

Context of the Study

64

Participant Descriptions

65

Origin of the Data

75

Data Collection

79

Data Analysis

80

Conclusion

106

vi

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

109

Introduction

109

Summary of the Study

110

Summary of the Findings and Conclusion

113

Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research and Practice

127

Implications from the Study

131

Conclusion

136

REFERENCES

140

APPENDIX A. TIMELINE OF IMPORTANT DATES

151

APPENDIX B. DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT A

154

APPENDIX C. DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT B

155

APPENDIX D. DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT C

156

APPENDIX E. DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT D

157

vii

List of Tables
Table 1. Characteristics of Gifted Students With and Without Disabilities

17

Table 2. Participants

66

Table 3. Affective Matrix Query for Participants

84

Table 4. Education Programs

88

Table 5. Programming Needs Suggested by Participants

90

Table 6. Gifted Educational Provisions

119

Table 7. Typical Characteristics of Twice-Exceptional Children

123

Table 8. Personal Traits and Issues of the Individual GLD Student

135

viii

List of Figures
Figure 1. Bell curve

18

Figure 2. Example of coding analysis

82

Figure 3. Educational programming thematic map

92

Figure 4. Students cartoon

133

ix

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Introduction to the Problem

Classroom teachers strive for excellence in both instructional methods and
expectations for the students and themselves as instructors. Todays classrooms contain a
wide variety of learners. The bounded system of this research is the gifted learning
disabled students school setting. These gifted learning disabled (GLD) students have
highly individualized learning needs. They possess extremely advanced academic
talents, yet their ability to learn, process, and demonstrate their knowledge or skill is
inconsistent.
This study was an investigation of the how and why questions as they related to
studies in a contemporary phenomenon within the real-life context of school for GLD
students. The design used in this research focused on a specific type of twice-exceptional
learner identified as gifted learning disabled. The goal of this doctoral study was to build
upon the knowledge base to assist stakeholders in understanding gifted learning disabled
students so these stakeholders, such as parents, teachers, administrators, social workers,
counselors and school district personnel, are able to assist in providing suitable
instruction and proper educational programming.
While social workers and counselors may focus on the social emotional needs of
the GLD student as one of their responsibilities, it is important that they understand and
1

have input into the academic programming. The misalignment of the educational
programming and students strengths or weaknesses may be the cause of stress and
frustration.

Background of the Study

The most common means of identification of gifted children during the first few
decades of this century was through the classroom teachers recommendation. The
students nominated were out-performing their peers. Gallagher (1985) defined gifted as
an individual who demonstrates advanced levels of achievement. However, this
definition would leave out famous people such as Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, and
Winston Churchill, because they had substantial learning disabilities and did not do well
in their academic studies. The lack of agreement leaves an unclear definition of
giftedness. The confusion compounds when seeking a definition for gifted learning
disabled.
Twice-exceptional refers to some gifted students that have exceptionality because
of their strengths and because of their limitations. These students typically have one or
more learning difficulties that may include learning disabilities, attention deficit,
emotional or behavior problems. Among the twice-exceptional students is a sub-group or
particular population identified as gifted learning disabled (GLD). Baum (1989)
described the GLD students as those who exhibit remarkable talents or strengths in some
areas and weaknesses in other areas.

Cohen and Vaughn (1994) maintained that although little doubt remains that
students who are both gifted and learning disabled exist, research is unable to provide
reliable and valid ways of identifying such students. The lack of appropriate
identification, in turn, leads to the lack of appropriate programming, and these students
continue to perplex parents, teachers, and administrators.
Research shows that gifted students drop out of school or programs and do not
develop their talents (King, 2005). King stated that GLD students have difficulty coping
with the discrepancy between their abilities and disabilities and suffer even more than
gifted students do. This discrepancy lowers their self-concept. Waldron, Saphire, and
Rosenblum (1987) posited that children who are both gifted and learning disabled suffer
from lower self-esteem than do gifted peers. School districts need to examine the unique
needs of these individuals and begin to reach out to this population and their families
(Silverman, 1989).
With proper detection and intervention, schools can be a place of joy instead of
defeat. Maker (1977) noted that high intellectual ability often compensates for a
students learning disability, obscuring both the gifted potential and the learning
disability. The desire to uncover why these students succeed in one classroom and fail
miserably in another was a cause for concern, consternation, wonder, and inquiry. Few
published descriptions of programs for gifted and learning disabled exist, so this studys
report on effective and ineffective gifted learning disabled programming will assist GLD
advocates.

Statement of the Problem

Gifted learning disabled students lack many educators understanding of their
unique needs and adequate educational programming. Gifted learning disabled students
are underserved and struggle to succeed within educational systems. Their disability
masks their superior intelligence and leads teachers and others to misunderstanding them.
Current research in this area is critical to avoid having students fall through the cracks in
educational institutions and to contribute meaningful data to assist in understanding the
phenomenon of being gifted and learning disabled concurrently.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this generic qualitative research study was to build upon the
knowledge base to assist stakeholders in understanding gifted learning disabled students,
so the students will be able to have suitable educational programming. Knowledge
emerged by gathering primary data through interviews with parents, teachers, and
students. The study results identified the major factors that influenced the decisions
stakeholders made and why the students encapsulated many of the systematic struggles of
the gifted learning disabled individual in the educational system. The factors affected the
stakeholders understanding, as well as the programming for gifted learning disabled
students.
Study results identified successful situations and settings for gifted learning
disabled students. Resources and groups that offer support for the gifted learning
disabled are scarce. Some give support to gifted children and their families, while others
4

only support learning disabled children and their families, but only a few resources
directed support to both groups. The results of the current study of effective and
ineffective gifted learning disabled programming may assist and better inform advocates
for this unique population.

Rationale
Although researchers have identified characteristics and instructional strategies
that may be appropriate for gifted learning disabled students, there is a gap in the
research. The research does not address the relationship between educators
understanding of the GLD students needs and the educators effective educational
programming for that student. Current research in this area is critical and may assist
school districts, administrators, and teachers who find these gifted learning disabled
students in their classrooms. The rational for this qualitative research emerged from the
desire to explore the phenomenon of understanding the educational programming for the
gifted learning disabled at an in-depth level and to contribute meaningful knowledge to
the field.

Research Question
The primary question of the current study was, How and to what extent does
educational programming affect the success of gifted learning disabled students?

Significance of the Study

The institutional context of gifted learning disabled had not been studied. The
goal of this study was to define and determine how the GLD students needs impacted the
service they received; the literature did not address this issue. The study results added
insight regarding how school districts can effectively service gifted learning disabled
students and handle the issues that emerge from this phenomenon. The study is
important because these students merit a free appropriate public education (U.S.
Department of Education, 2007). Sharing the accounts within this study provided support
and encouragement for struggling learners. Families, schools, teachers, and students
need to work together to ensure the gifted learning disabled child matures into an
achieving adult. The process is a balancing act of letting go, providing good information,
searching for appropriate settings, and offering support for the learner to assist in
overcoming problems that exist (Bireley, 1995).
The in-depth look at GLD students while conducting this research study included
insights from the students, their parents, and their teachers. The study focused on the
educational experiences of the students and the factors that aided or abetted their
academic success and struggles. Contributing factors included tools to help with
identification of such students; defining the disability; matching students needs to
programs, social needs, and academic needs; explaining the role of advocacy for parents,
student, and staff; researching how different districts might treat a gifted learning
disabled student; and training and licensure for staff.

Definition of Terms
The definitions for terms listed below are common jargon used by educators or
those involved in the field of gifted education. These terms are adapted from sources that
include the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC), the Minnesota Council for
the Gifted and Talented, and the Iowa Talented and Gifted News.
Accommodation. A written description on the IEP that describes an appropriate
change in instruction to enable the student to access grade level content and stay on the
same track as his or her peers.
Accelerated learning. A strategy used to move the student through the
educational program at rates faster than the norm.
Accountability. A way to hold students, teachers, administrators, and other school
personnel responsible for instruction (NAGC, 2009a).
ADHD/ADD. Attention deficit hyperactive disorder/attention deficit disorder, a
condition that makes it difficult for a person to sit still, control behavior, and pay
attention (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA], 2004).
Aptitude. The capacity for learning.
At-risk. A term used to describe students whose economic, physical, emotional,
or academic needs may become barriers to their academic success. These students may
be in danger of underachieving or dropping out.
Creativity. The capacity to produce something new.
Differentiation. Modifying curriculum and instruction to meet the needs of the
student.
7

Disability. A physical or mental impairment that limits one or more major life
activities. This can include physical impairments; illnesses or injuries; communicable
diseases; chronic conditions like asthma, allergies, and diabetes; and learning problems.
Dyslexia. Dyslexia is a learning disability that can hinder a person's ability to
read, write, spell, and sometimes speak. Dyslexia is the most common learning disability
in children (IDEA, 2004).
Educational programming. A plan to meet students educational needs that may
include services and input from educators, psychologists, counselors, administrators, and
parents.
Enrichment. Curriculum and activities that may go beyond the existing
instruction to meet the student's academic needs. These activities may take place in the
regular classroom or in a separate setting/room.
504 Plan. A written plan that describes the modifications and accommodations
the disabled student needs to have the opportunity to perform at the same level as his or
her peers.
Gifted learning disabled (GLD). A student who is identified as learning disabled
and is also identified as gifted.
Gifted and talented students. The federal Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (2002) defined gifted and talented students as
Students, children, or youth who give evidence of high achievement capability in
areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific
academic fields, and who need services and activities not ordinarily provided by
the school in order to fully develop those capabilities. (Title IX, Part A, Definition
22).
8

Independent study. An experience in which (a) learning is self-directed and (b)

the teacher acts as guide or facilitator. The student sometimes plays an active role in
designing and managing his or her own learning time (NAGC, 2009a).
Individual education plan (IEP). An IEP is a legally binding document that
describes the special education services for special-needs students. The IEP includes any
modifications in the regular classroom and any additional special programs or services
(NAGC, 2009a).
Intelligence. The ability to learn, reason, and solve problems. Debate revolves
around the nature of intelligence regarding whether it is an innate quality developed as a
result of interacting with the environment (NAGC, 2009a).
Intelligence quotient (IQ). A numerical representation of intelligence. Dividing
an individuals mental age by the chronological age times 100 determines IQ score. A
score of 100 is considered an average IQ score (NAGC, 2009a).
Learning styles. A students preferred way to absorb and retain academic
material.
Mainstreaming. The special needs student spends part of the day in a regular
classroom.
Mentor. A person who shares knowledge with a student to assist the student.
Modification. A written description within the IEP that alters the expectation and
lowers the content standard.
Specific learning disability. A disorder in one or more of the basic psychological
processes involved in understanding that may manifest itself in the flawed ability to
9

listen, think, speak, read, write, or to do mathematical calculations, including conditions

such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and
developmental aphasia (U.S. Department of Education, 2007).
Talent development. Schools identify a students talent area.
Twice-exceptional. A term used to describe a student who is both gifted and
learning disabled (NAGC, 2009a).

Assumptions and Limitations

The population of this study was small: three GLD students, their parents, and
their teachers. A generalization beyond these participants is difficult because of the
nature of the study. A second limitation was the lack of diversity in this small study. The
experiences of students in more diverse populations may be quite different. A desirable
objective was that educators find it useful to have documentation of the experiences of a
gifted learning disabled student. The research may guide such educators to consider
thoughtfully alternative ways to teach, understand, and inspire GLD students and to
conduct their own inquiries into this population. The assumptions of the research in this
study included that there was no attempt to skew results.

Nature of the Study

The study examined research, students and teachers outcomes, and studentteacher relationships. This research consisted of interviews, reactions to success/failure,
and relationships between the stakeholders (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The role of the
10

parent was also examined. This qualitative approach was an appropriate method for
investigating the phenomenon of the gifted learning disabled, as Winebrenner (2000)
suggested. Some now realize that struggling students with special needs perform at
levels that entitle them to special services and they need support to cope and develop to
their full potential.
The qualitative methodology was appropriate for this research study about gifted
learning disabled students because the details of the study could be informative to other
similar researchers. With low-incidence populations, such as gifted learning disabled, the
absence of a sufficient population to do meaningful quantitative research necessitated the
use of qualitative research. This generic qualitative design allowed measurement through
in-person interviews to establish themes that addressed the unique programming needs
and that may contribute to the development of a growing population of gifted learning
disabled students.
Triangulation of research strategies has become an accepted practice (Tellis,
1997). Although some may argue triangulation has problems with bias and validity,
combining methods and focusing on the strengths of each strategy helped to minimize
deficiencies. Therefore, a three-pronged approach took place in this study. The
procedure began by interviewing the GLD students. The second step was interviewing
the students parents, and the third step was interviewing their teachers. Previous report
cards and standardized test scores in the data collection and analysis enhanced the
triangulation.

11

Organization of the Remainder of the Study

Organization of this dissertation follows: Chapter 1, Introduction, included an
overview of the study, an introduction to the problem, identification of the specific
research questions addressed, outline of the significance of the study, and definitions of
terms in the study. Chapter 2, Literature Review, includes a review of the literature
pertinent to the study. Research approaches, present educational practices, and legal
rights are all topics explored in the literature review. The literature review summarizes
pertinent literature by theme, including who is a gifted learner, history of gifted
education, definitions of giftedness and gifted learning disabled students, special
education, laws that affect the education of students in the public school setting in the
United States, and discussion of gifted learners who also have a learning disability.
Chapter 3, Methodology, provides justification for the over-arching framework
and research design for this study. Chapter 4, Data Collection and Analysis, discusses
the analytic process and thematic analysis developed from the research. Chapter 5
includes the results, conclusions, and recommendations of the study, the validation and
limitations of the research, and the implications for future research in this area.

12

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction
The idea that an academically gifted individual could have a disability seems
counter-intuitive, yet a large body of research supports this concept. This chapter
summarizes themes. First is a discussion of what a gifted learner is and definitions of
giftedness. The second theme is the role of intelligence testing to identify gifted and
multiple intelligences. The third is a brief history of gifted education and individuals
who made major contributions to the field. The fourth theme is special education and
laws that affect the education of students in the public school setting in the United States.
The last theme identifies learners who have a learning disability. This literature review
primarily researched the academically gifted student. School systems provide
identification, services, and programming for this area of giftedness. The federal and state
definitions for gifted go beyond the area of academic gifts. School systems are
typically limited by the financial and human resources. For example, a student with a fine
arts gift or talent in the area of dance or gymnastics would not find advanced
programming in a regular school setting.
Every school district has the responsibility to select quality and challenging
curriculum for instruction within their buildings. Many factors influence that important
decision, including the alignment of objectives and competencies. In Back to School
13

Stats, which offers data about American elementary, secondary, and post-secondary
schools, students, and the educational process, the reader learns that nearly 50 million
students headed off to approximately 97,000 public elementary and secondary schools for
the fall 2009 term. Before the school year was out, schools would spend an estimated
$489 billion related to student education (Kakadelis, 2007). All these students depend on
their institutions to prepare them with the selected curriculum designed and aligned to
meet their unique educational needs. The gifted childs instructional needs often do not
align with the curriculum selected for the general population because the gifted child
does not experience a challenge. Many gifted students entering a grade level already
know much of the material teachers present there.
When children seek identification through testing for a gifted program, or if they
try to understand what gifted is all about, they need information about their strengths,
challenges, and educational options. At a young age, these children know they are
different from their peers. Their school experiences shape much of their self-concept
(Ruf, 2005). In fact, when it comes to making educational placement decisions, gifted
and gifted learning disabled children know as much as teachers, principals, school
psychologists, or anyone else about what will challenge them most. Yet, many parents
are not knowledgeable about their gifted childs placement and curriculum.
Among the many programs and curricula any district selects to use are the gifted
program materials. Gifted education programs across the United States continue to show
significant learning spikes for the highly talented students; however, funding for gifted
education at the state and local level has not seen an increase in any significant manner
14

over the last 20 years. Statistics show that in 2007, less than 1% of the federal K-12
education budget went to the gifted and talented programs. By comparison, nearly 8% of
the federal K-12 education budget funding goes to unsubstantiated programs such
Reading First, drug prevention, education of migrant children, and English language
acquisition.
The rest of the programs in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act account for
64%, and nearly 32% are dedicated to children with disabilities through the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (NAGC, 2009b). Clearly, the gifted student is not a first
concern. The lack of general funding for gifted education leaves districts to fund any
gifted programming or offerings; thus, programs or services for gifted students tend to
vary considerably, depending on the amount of money available. The literature review
discusses identification of the gifted, identification for learning disabilities, identification
for gifted learning disabled, and the role of qualitative research when servicing GLD
students in an educational setting.

Who are the Gifted?

The most common means of discovery of gifted children during the first few
decades of this century was through classroom teachers recommendations. The students
nominated were out-performing their peers. Thus, the defining of gifted has been by their
achievement (Gallagher, 1985). However, this definition would leave out famous people
who were apparently learning disabled, such as Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein and

15

Winston Churchill. Today, gifted students may seek identification through a score on an
intelligence test or a rating scale.
It seems to us that, in intelligence, there is a fundamental faculty, the alteration or
the lack of which is of the utmost importance for practical life. This faculty is
judgment, otherwise called good sense, practical sense, initiative, the faculty of
adapting one's self to circumstances. A person may be a moron or an imbecile if
he is lacking in judgment; but with good judgment, he can never be either.
Indeed, the rest of the intellectual faculties seem of little importance in
comparison with judgment. (Binet & Simon, 1973, pp. 42-43)
The United States has a federal definition of gifted. The current federal definition
of gifted originated from the 1972 Marland Report to Congress and adapted to new
theories since then helps identify students today. The current definition for gifted is in
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act:
Students, children, or youth who give evidence of high achievement capability in
areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific
academic fields, and who need services and activities not ordinarily provided by
the school in order to fully develop those capabilities. (NAGC, 2009a, Timeline
2002)
The National Association of Gifted Children (NAGC) estimated that there are
approximately three million academically gifted children in grades K-12 in the U.S., or
approximately 6% of the student population (2009b). No federal agency or organization
collects these student statistics: the number, generated from an estimate, dates back to the
1972 Marland Report to Congress. NAGC believes that 5-7% of school children are
capable of high performance and require services or activities not normally provided by
the school.

16

Gifted children demonstrate unique characteristics that distinguish them long

before formal testing takes place, as displayed in Table 1.

Table 1 Characteristics of Gifted Students With and Without Disabilities

Characteristics of Gifted Students without
Disabilities

Characteristics of Gifted Students with Disabilities

Ability to learn basic skills quickly and easily and

retain information with less repetition

Often struggle to learn basic skills due to cognitive

processing difficulties; need to learn compensatory
strategies to acquire basic skills and information

High verbal ability

High verbal ability, but extreme difficulty in written

language area; may use language in inappropriate
ways and at inappropriate times

Early reading ability

Frequently have reading problems due to cognitive

processing deficits

Keen powers of observation

Strong observation skills, but often have deficits in

memory skills

Strong critical thinking, problem-solving and

decision-making skills

Excel in solving real-world problems; outstanding

critical thinking and decision-making skills; often
independently develop compensatory skills
Frequently have attention deficit problems, but may
concentrate for long periods in areas of interest

Long attention spanpersistent, intense concentrate

Questioning attitude

Strong questions attitudes; may appear disrespectful

when questioning information, facts, etc. presented
by teacher

Creative in generation of thoughts, ideas, actions;

innovative

Unusual imagination; frequently generate original,

and at times, rather bizarre ideas; extremely
divergent in thought; may appear to daydream when
generating ideas

Take risks

Often unwilling to take risks with regard to

academics; take risks in non-school area without
consideration of consequences

Unusual, often highly developed sense of humor

Humor may be used to divert attention from school

failure; may use humor to make fun of peers or to
avoid trouble

Note. From Smart Kids with Learning Difficulties (p. 25), by R. Weinfeld, L. Barnes-Robinson, S. Jeweler,
& B. Shevitz, 2006, Waco TX: Prufrock Press. Copyright 2006 by Prufrock Press. Reprinted with
permission.

17

Early identification is key to helping gifted students succeed; however the

identification process varies by state and by district. Traditionally, the Wechsler
Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC III) or the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale:
Fourth Edition identifies students for giftedness. These measurement tools allow the
examiner to evaluate the quality and structure of the childs response, rather than a right
or wrong answer (Rosner & Seymore, 1983). School districts use these scores to place
students and qualify the students for gifted services.
Intelligence quotients (IQ) scores have increased at an average rate of
approximately three IQ points per decade in most parts of the world over the last 100
years. Researchers have named this the Flynn effect (Dickens & Flynn, 2002). Many
researchers have suggested that educational institutions have taught to IQ tests, thus
producing higher scores, but not necessarily higher intelligence.

Figure 1. Bell curve is a traditional method of representing the distribution of scores for
a particular intelligence in a large population. Adapted from Men of mathematics: The
lives and achievements of the great mathematicians from Zeno to Poincar, by E. Bell,
2009. Copyright by Simon & Schuster.

18

The WISC-R (1974), WISC-III (1991) and WISC-IV (2003) tests have been renormalized over the years to continue to obtain mean scores of 100. This adjustment
specifically addressed the variation over time, allowing comparison of scores from
different times (Flynn, 2007).
The normal or bell curve is a traditional method of representing the distribution of
scores for a particular intelligence in a large population. Charles Peirce, Francis Galton,
and Wilhelm Lexis coined the term independently around 1875. Most individuals of a
population typically display "average" intelligence. Their scores appear in the middle
area around the crest of the curve. Those who display exceptionally low or high
intelligence appear at either end of the curve's shape. Dark gray is less than one standard
deviation from the mean. For the normal distribution, this accounts for about 68% of the
set (dark gray), although two standard deviations from the mean (medium and dark gray)
account for about 95%, and three standard deviations (light, medium, and dark gray)
account for about 99.7%.
The scoring of IQ tests, such as the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS), is
on the bell curve, with a center value or average IQ of 100, and a standard deviation of
15, although different tests may have different standard deviations (Hopkins & Stanley,
1981). Teachers need to understand the distribution of their students intelligence.
The grouping of students scores on an intelligence test creates IQ categories.
These categories create an understanding of giftedness and reflect how these scores fit in
the bell curve. Each category represents one standard deviation from the norm. A good

19

way to understand the difference in the needs of these different groups of gifted children
is to consider how far they are from the norm of 100:
Mildly Gifted: 115 to 129
Moderately Gifted: 130 to 144
Highly Gifted: 149 to 159
Exceptionally Gifted: 160 to 179
Profoundly Gifted: 180 and higher (Bainbridge, 2009)
Landmark research in neuroscience highlights the connection between affective
and cognitive dimensions in the brain (VanTassel-Baska, Cros, & Olenchak, 2009).
Beyond the neuroscience research are studies from educational practice, showing
learning and academic performance as highly dependent on affect. Teachers must know
and understand the needs of their students. Teachers must know where the gifted
students fall on the bell curve and understand it is essential to differentiate the curriculum
and instruction. Teachers must also know how GLD students differ from gifted students
(see Table 1).
In addition to the lack of formal data collection for gifted students, not every state
requires gifted certification of their teachers. Just 28 states have certification or
endorsement in gifted education. Of these states, Indiana, Montana, and Texas indicated
that certification/endorsement in gifted education is optional. Twenty-two states reported
they had no special certification requirements for staff working with gifted and talented
students (Karnes, Stephens, & Warton, 2001).
Too often, the well-intended teacher tries to teach this population without any
training at all. Some teachers may use one or more of the different intelligences from
Gardner (2006), who developed the theory of multiple intelligences. Using one of the
20

intelligences as an instructional strategy provides a change from the routine practice, but
it does not guarantee the additional rigor a gifted student requires, nor does it address the
needs of the GLD student. Thus, gifted students may not receive the instruction
appropriately designed to challenge and develop their learning potential.
Hebbler, Barton, and Mallik (2008) reported many states have recognized the
power of outcome data as a tool for program improvement and plan to do more with their
data than address the federal mandate. The potential of using outcome data to justify
funding and improve programs is strong; however, results depend on the quality of the
data produced. Data quality links the decisions made by state and local programs
regarding child assessment. Programming is a key factor in mandating appropriate
instruction is available for GLD students.

History of Gifted Education

A Brief History
The turn of the 20th century brought advancements in education and psychology
to the area of gifted education. The early studies of giftedness in the 1920s and 1930s
developed from the research and the realization that the classical school setting could not
appropriately meet the needs of all students (NAGC, 2009b). The driving force behind
this movement were Lewis Terman and Leta Hollingworth, advocates for gifted students,
who first published research studies on gifted children. Terman believed giftedness was
hereditary. Hollingworth believed inheritance played a role, but educational and
environmental factors played key roles in the development of individual potential. Today
21

the definition of giftedness has expanded, along with options for services provided for
gifted students (NAGC, 2009b).
Historically, the identification of gifted students has borne the burden of the
dilemmas such identification must address. Researchers have surmised that the
identification process must be able to find the students accurately. It must neither
overlook students who need services nor identify students who do not. This is not easy.
The field of gifted education grew out of the identification process.
The Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik in the late 1950s caught the attention of the
United States, and the education system responded. As the countrys needs changed,
gifted education continued to advance, mainly in response to these needs. The definition
of giftedness expanded, along with many different instructional options available for
gifted students (NAGC, 2009b).
In this new century, The Jacob Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education
Act (1988) funded the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented to provide
grant monies for gifted research and programming. Reports such as A Nation at Risk in
1983 and National Excellence: A Case for Developing America's Talent in 1993, issued
by the U.S. government, caught the attention of the public and of educators and identified
the glaring needs to fund programs for gifted students nationally, yet no federal mandate
emerged. Programming and services for gifted students continues to vary by state.
The National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) helped determine national
standards to clarify the intentions in this field and to provide school administrations in the
United States with a set of educational programming. The John Templeton Foundation
22

(2004) published A Nation Deceived: How Schools Hold Back America's Brightest
Students and reported on the advantages of acceleration for gifted children. This book
magnified the issues about how America's educational systems did not properly meet the
needs of its most able students.
This century, currently embroiled in economic turbulence, represents a new
opportunity for the future of gifted and talented children, if the country makes it a
national priority. The need remains to reach those special populations within the gifted
community. In Appendix A is a timeline of important dates in gifted and talented
education.
Special Education
The enactment of the updated version of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA, 2004) made parents of children with disabilities even more vital
members of their child's education team. Parents were able to have a voice in the
planning for their childs educational needs through their participation in the childs
individual educational plan (IEP). Students in special education receive entitlement to an
IEP under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act
(U.S. Department of Education, 2009). The IEP describes the goals a team sets for a
child during the school year, as well as any special support needed to help achieve them.
The Acts specify that schools cannot exclude anyone with a disability from participating
in federally funded programs or activities, including elementary, secondary, or postsecondary schooling (Wright & Wright, 2007).

23

In addition, the Free Appropriate Public Education Act under Section 504
(FAPE) specifies that all children receive an appropriate education (U.S. Department of
Education, 2007). To be appropriate, education programs for students with disabilities
must meet the individual needs to the same extent as the needs of nondisabled students.
That may comprise education in regular classes, education in regular classes with the use
of related aids and services, or special education and related services in separate
classrooms for all or portions of the school day. Special education may include specially
designed instruction in classrooms, at home, or in private or public institutions, and may
accompany the instruction with related services such as speech therapy, occupational and
physical therapy, psychological counseling, and medical diagnostic services necessary to
the childs education (U.S. Department of Education, 2007).
Special education laws can be complex and perplexing for all educational
stakeholders, including parents, teachers, and administrators. Teacher and parents need a
basic understanding of the laws that accompany the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA). The Act was most recently re-authorized in 2004 to avoid legal
problems. Perry Zirkel is a professor of education and law at Lehigh University in
Bethlehem, PA, and he has written over 1,000 publications on aspects of school law.
Zirkel (2005) reported on the five top case concepts from the Supreme Court that
illustrate and interpret these basic building blocks of the IDEA:
1.

The entitlement, for eligible children, of "free appropriate public

education" (FAPE), with particular attention to what "appropriate" means;

2.

The FAPE component, in addition to special education, of "related

services," with particular attention as to where the line is drawn for the
medical services exclusion;
24

3.

The high-stakes remedy of "tuition reimbursement," with particular

attention to the FAPE-based formula, or criteria, for determining whether
the parent is entitled to this remedial relief in the wake of a unilateral
placement;

4.

The issue of discipline in the form of removal from school for more than
10 days, with particular attention to dangerous behavior;

5.

The requirements of section 504 and the ADA for students who are not
eligible under the IDEA, with particular attention to the special meaning
of "disability" and "reasonable accommodation" under these sister statutes.
(Zirkel, 2005, p. 62)

Those who provide services to GLD students must be able to ask the right
questions and recognize the basic rights the special education law ensures.
History of Gifted Handicapped
Case studies on gifted and physically impaired individuals such as Helen Keller
and Albert Einstein have made the public aware of this phenomenon in the population.
Many attempts to find these students began through mainstreaming when advocacy
began. The gifted handicapped who were in special education classes typically were
denied the right to fully develop their talents (Whitmore & Maker, 1985). Textbooks and
professional organizations such as the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC)
responded.
Decades have past since psychologists and learning specialists described gifted
students with learning disabilities (LD). In the past, several sets of identification criteria
applied to this population. Lovett and Lewandowski (2006) stated,
Many of the suggested assessment practices lack support by research in psychoeducational assessment, and some directly contradicted recent research. An
uncritical acceptance of the concept of concomitant giftedness and LD has led to
25

unsound identification procedures and to interventions not properly implemented.

(p. 515)
The definitions of giftedness by Renzulli (1978), Sternberg and Davidson (1985),
and Gardner (1983), as well as the federal definition of giftedness in 1978, allowed the
identification of gifted students from special populations to be plausible. For example,
Gardners theory of multiple intelligences allows assessment of students by performance
or product rather than a test score. This is one way GLD students can display their
talents. Seminal work by Whitmore (1980) and Maker (1977) advanced the idea that
students with special needs could also meet gifted identification criteria. Specific
recommendations for future research and implications for current clinical practice are
necessary (Lovett & Lewandowski, 2006). Schools and educators continue to
misunderstand and underserve these GLD students.
Over the past two decades, many estimates concerning the prevalence of gifted
children with LDs have emerged. These estimates range from 2-5% of the total
population of children with disabilities (Maker, 1977; Whitmore, 1980; Whitmore &
Maker, 1985). In addition, these authors consistently cautioned that their estimates are
very conservative. Empirical data regarding the incidence of gifted children with
learning disabilities, however, was virtually nonexistent.
An early investigation by Mauser (1981) sought to determine the number of gifted
students from among a population of those with learning disabilities. He reported 2.3%
of children with LD also met gifted criteria. In contrast, Silverman (1989) investigated
the number of children with LD within a gifted population. She reviewed test protocols
for 14,000 children who came to the Gifted Child Development Center and found that
26

200 (1.4%) of those identified as gifted also had a learning disability. The Jacob K.
Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act (1988) defined gifted learners with
specific learning disabilities as students who possess outstanding abilities in the areas of
general intellectual capabilities, specific academic aptitudes, or the arts.

Twice-Exceptional Students
The federally funded Twice-Exceptional Child Projects (Higgins & Nielsen,
2000; Nielsen & Higgins, 2000; Nielsen, Higgins, & Hammond, 1993; Nielsen, Higgins,
Hammond, & Williams, 1993) located in the southwestern United States, examined
special education public school district diagnostic data for 22,000 children, who
educators had tested over a 7-year period, to calculate the incidence rate of children who
were gifted learning disabled.
Prior to the implementation of these joint universitydistrict projects, data
identified 1.04% of children with LDs as gifted in this large, urban school district.
Following three years of project outreach and advocacy, new data identified 3.5% of the
children as gifted learning disabled. However, many twice-exceptional children
remained hidden within the general education population and teachers viewed them as
under-achievers or average learners (Ruban & Reis, 2005).
The IDEA (2004) was the first time legislation acknowledged the needs of twiceexceptional students. This opened the door for more services and was a major change in
the way federal law determined if a child had a specific learning disability. Schools were
no longer required to consider if a child had a severe discrepancy between achievement
27

and intellectual ability. This ruling allowed GLD students to receive services. Schools
could determine if the child responded to scientific, research-based interventions
(Weinfeld, Barnes-Robinson, Jeweler, & Shevitz, 2006). It also allowed parents to show
that their child qualified when he or she did not respond to the interventions.
Martin (2006) stated, There is no universally agreed upon testing instrument for
determining if a student is twice-exceptional (p. 1).
This category is reserved for those students who meet the criteria for both gifted
and learning disabled, identifying students as gifted because of their high
intellectual abilities or potential, rather than their actual accomplishments on
standard coursework. These students usually have advanced reasoning, problemsolving, and comprehension skills. An IQ test provides information about a
students strengths and weaknesses, whereas an achievement test provides
information about a students exceptional ability in a certain subject area.
(Martin, 2006, p. 1)
The common definition of learning disabled is an incongruity between promise
and performance on academic tasks. Today many districts use multiple criteria to
substantiate a learning disability.
Students with learning disabilities usually have problems with cognitive (auditory
or visual) processing, rather than problems with an aptitude or intellectual ability.
Many school districts rely upon the Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children
(WISC-R) to determine if a child has a learning disability. Evaluators test to
determine if there is a difference between performance and potential (Martin,
2006, p. 1)
The current research study reviewed the history of the gifted learning disabled
before examining many proposed definitions of children with both giftedness and
learning disabilities. An understanding of these children may rely on case studies and
observations by teachers or researchers. Baum (1989) described the GLD student as
those who exhibit remarkable talents or strengths in some areas and weakness in other
28

areas. Cohen and Vaughn (1994) maintained that although there is little doubt that
students who are both gifted and learning disabled exist (p. 93), research has not
provided reliable and valid ways of identifying such students. These students continue to
perplex parents, teachers, and administrators.
The literature states that students identified as gifted but who struggle with a
learning disability or attention deficit are a strange paradox. They have special
intellectual gifts, but may be unsuccessful with basic tasks. Their potential is at a
significant risk of going untapped and undeveloped because the major focus is on what
these students cannot do, rather than on their talents. These students require special
attention, and it is vital that schools pay attention to their gifts as well as to the learning
difficulties (Baum & Owen, 2004).
The dichotomous characteristics of the GLD student can also easily overwhelm
the regular education teacher. The classroom teacher has often not taken even one
college course in special education, so the teacher struggles to plan and prepare to
instruct these GLD students. Nor has the regular education teacher taken classes that
prepare him or her to instruct the gifted student. The student teaching experience, which
prepares the pre-service teacher, focuses on the mainstream or average learner. In the
authors own experience, no direction was available about how to accommodate for
students with special needs; that had typically been the job of the special education
teacher.
The literature recommended using a checklist or alternative method to identify
GLD students. Teachers must become proficient at the school-based identification of the
29

GLD student (Friedrichs, 2001). The traditional means of identification, an IQ test, may
not identify this population. Parents, teachers, administrators, and legislators must work
together to make changes in the identification process.
The U.S. Department of Education currently recognizes twice-exceptional
children as one of the groups for consideration of educational grants (IDEA, 2004).
Besnoy (2006) posited several subdivisions are within the twice -exceptional category,
such as ADHD, autism, dyslexia, specific learning disability, emotional disturbance,
epilepsy, visual impairment, traumatic brain injury, orthopedic impairment, and mental
retardation. For the purpose of this research, the focus remained limited to gifted
learning disabled students. As more research has taken place, various sub-types have
been identified under the GLD label. The sub-types are too numerous and the students
needs too diverse to allow this research to adequately address subdivisions.
Most state mandates suggest use of the least restrictive environment, so the
special education student often spends the majority of the day in the regular classroom.
These GLD students frequently do not meet the mandated difference between
achievement level and potential level to receive services from special education staff.
The degree of difference needed to qualify for special education services varies from
state to state. In the past, a two and a half year discrepancy had to be present before
students were able to receive help from special education staff. Many GLD students are
in no-mans land, in which they receive no special education services and no gifted
education services.

30

The continual struggle of these GLD students is harmful and inhibits them from
achieving their full potential. These struggles often become areas in which the students
are teased or bullied. Children who are both gifted and have a learning disability face
numerous challenges in the classroom and in life. These children have academic and
social needs that leave them feeling a part of two different worlds: one as a student with
an outstanding talent and the other as a student with a disability (King, 2005).
Many learning differences are visible in these learners. Experts estimate
anywhere from 2-5% of the population, to as high as 20%, of all gifted children have
learning disabilities (Weinfield, Barnes-Robinson, Jeweler, & Shevitz, 2006). In most
states, the determination comes from comparing the level at which the child achieves and
the level at which the peers are achieving. The discrepancy alerts school staff to the
possibility the student is GLD. Educators must pay close attention to the IDEA 2004
update, which for the first time acknowledged the needs of 2e students (Weinfeld et al.,
2006).
Another term encompassing a broader range of learning problems is twiceexceptional or 2e. This term refers to the fact that some gifted children are exceptional
because they have both strengths and limitations. Along with their high intelligence,
these children have learning disabilities such as dyslexia, dyscalculia, attention deficit,
autism, or other types of learning difficulties (A Meeting of the Minds, 2009).
Knapp (2010) suggested the following are the Ten Commandments for teaching
GLD students. While following this list as a strict code may not be practical, it is a solid
guide and reference. Administrators, teachers, and parents would be wise to include
31

these in the programming for the needs of GLD students and the selection of teachers
who will provide services or instruction.
1.

The curriculum should be at a level that is challenging, engaging, and

preserves students feelings of self-efficacy.

2.

To allow full access to the curriculum, information should be presented in

alternative ways (DVDs, demonstrations, hands-on learning, etc.).
Assistive technologies may also be helpful.

3.

Because writing may be difficult for 2e students, assistive technology may

be used to support the writing process, from formal writing assignments to
note taking. It is often helpful to have students dictate stories first and
type them later. Also offer alternative vehicles for communication, such
as drama and poetry.

4.

Utilize teaching and learning activities that enable 2e students to remain

focused on the lesson. Effective strategies include presenting moral
dilemmas, simulations, Socratic questioning, project-based learning, and
creative problem solving.

5.

Create a quiet space where students can organize their thoughts and focus
on tasks. This can be a shared space as long as students have the
opportunity to use it privately. Equip the space with a computer and other
materials to aid the learning process.

6.

Create a space conducive to reading, equipped with soft lighting

(fluorescent lighting may be debilitating) and comfortable seating.

7.

When it is not possible to have smaller class sizes, whole-class teaching

should be kept to a minimum and students should be placed with others
who share their interests and skills, to maximize attention and learning.

8.

To build confidence, empower students to choose how to learn and be

assessed, and respect their choices. For example, a model of a molecule
should be valued as much as an essay about that molecule. Offering
students choices also allows 2e students to accept accommodations
without feeling different or inferior.

9.

Teach the skills of emotional intelligence through group discussion and

direct teaching. When 2e students share social and emotional issues, they
discover that peers also have emotional strengths as well as concerns; this
helps them to better understand and advocate for themselves.
32

10.

Most importantly, identify and nurture talents. These gifts are critical to
the lifelong success of 2e students, yet they are often compromised by
academic, social, or emotional challenges. Opportunities include
advanced classes in talent areas, working on creative projects with other
talented students, mentorships, and competitions. (Knapp, 2010, p. 1)

Classifications
This study focused on the GLD student. In the literature, three different types of
students with gifts and learning disabilities surfaced. Toll (1993) described the types or
classifications as subtle gifted learning disabled, hidden gifted learning disabled, and
recognized gifted learning disabled. The first type is the subtle gifted learning disabled.
Such students are easily identified as gifted, but show poor spelling and handwriting.
They may be disorganized and appear sloppy. As they grow older, the gap widens
between what school standards expect from them and what they can perform.
The second is the hidden GLD. They are not labeled gifted or disabled because
their gifts and abilities mask each other. Their superior intelligence helps them to
compensate for their disability and they appear to be average. These children are at a
disadvantage because they receive no programming for gifted or for learning disability.
The third group is learning disabled, and typically, they receive instruction for their
disability area. This group is most at risk, because measures do not address their talents
and the assumption is that educators must fix the something wrong before anything else
(Baum, 1989).

33

Research Approach
In considering a research approach for a study, thought-provoking development is
acutely necessary and researchers must view it from an assortment of lenses and different
perspectives. Morgan and Smirich (1980), in their seminal research, suggested the
approach is contingent upon the topic of study. Morgan and Smirich advised the
researcher not to worry about the choices of methods as much as the theory under study.

Generic Qualitative Research

The development of a research method is typically dependent on the type of
information requiring compilation. Creswell (2008) stated that todays educators must
understand the range of potential directions their research may take. A choice may come
from the quantitative designs of survey, correlation, or experimental, or from qualitative
designs such as ethnographic, grounded theory, narrative, or mixed methods designs,
including triangulation, explanatory, and exploratory. Determining which design will
best suit the topic under study requires resolution.
Caelli, Ray, and Mill (2003) stated finding an abundance of referent literature for
generic qualitative research is difficult. Thus, the researcher wanting to pursue a generic
qualitative approach must examine and explain any assumptions brought to the study.
Identification of the researchers position is vital important. Research for generic
qualitative study does not guide the individual by an explicit or established set of
philosophic assumptions in the form of one of the known qualitative methodologies
(Caelli et al., 2003). The current study contains a variety of approaches. The researcher
34

synthesized the methods and selected the one that best fit the understanding of study of
the phenomenon under examination.
Various terms define research that does not fit within an established qualitative
approach. In recent efforts to clarify generic approaches, Thorne (1997, as cited in Caelli
et al. 2003) described interpretive description as a noncategorical qualitative research
approach (p. 169). Sandelowski (2000) put forth what she called basic or fundamental
qualitative description (p. 335). The strengths of qualitative methodology emphasize the
value of such studies for the following types of research (Lincoln & Guba, 1985):

Research that seeks cultural description and ethnography

Research that elicits multiple constructed realities, studied holistically

Research that elicits knowledge and subjective understanding and

interpretations

Research that delves in depth into complexities and process

Research on little-known phenomena

Research that seeks to explore why policy and local knowledge and
practice are at odds

Research on informal and unstructured linkage and processes in

organizations

Research for which relevant variables remain identified

Thus, for all qualitative studies, context is an important factor. For this study, the
school environment was the setting. This research investigated the how and why
questions as they related to studies in a contemporary phenomenon within the real-life
context of school for GLD students. The design used in this research illustrated the
effects of differentiated instruction on student achievement in general, and gifted students
35

in particular, and focused on the twice-exceptional learner. Procedures within the study
reviewed the history of generic qualitative methodology, provided a brief description of
the design example used in the research, explained the advantages and disadvantages of
generic qualitative research for studying GLD students in the special education
classroom, discussed the appropriateness, and offered a conclusion.
This qualitative approach allowed interviews of the students under study in a
natural setting. Qualitative research is an in-depth investigation of a bounded system that
is based on the collection of data. Through descriptive writing in the study, the readers
were able to share this knowledge. Selecting a research approach with the potential to
achieve the desired goal took careful consideration. This written description was a
window through which the reader could examine the situation from a fresh point of view:
personal and provocative rather than statistical in nature.
In designing the current research study, the bounded system was the GLD
students school setting. Considerations included how these unique learners might
function in the school system and how these learners were different or similar in their
learning needs to other students in the general education classroom. The school systems
typical response to the needs of GLD students is a matter of importance. Stake (1995)
preferred a qualitative approach when researching this type of dilemma because it guides
the researcher to discover the unique qualities of the student and informs the reader. This
up-close and encompassing look provided data that a quantitative data collection could
not necessarily identify.

36

Qualitative methods grew from the constructivist philosophy. In the field of

education, generic qualitative studies are among the most common forms of qualitative
research. These methods draw from concepts, models, and theories in educational,
developmental, or cognitive psychology, or from sociology, which provide the
frameworks for the studies. Analysis of data uses concepts from the theoretical
framework and results in identification of recurring patterns, categories, or factors.
Embedded in the generic qualitative research is an understanding of the importance of a
theoretical position from which to begin research (Merriam, 1998, as cited in Caelli et al.,
2003, p. 6). Generic qualitative research is valuable in many situations to contribute to
knowledge development. Yet, a knowledge gap remains about the evaluative criteria for
generic qualitative studies. Generic qualitative research is a relatively new approach, and
not all scholars recognize it.
Studying these GLD students needs was a real-life situation which did not clearly
distinguish the boundaries between special education, regular education, and gifted
education. Generic qualitative research had the open-endedness needed to develop an
extremely flexible research method. Whether the study took place in a regular or special
education classroom, the flexibility allowed assessment of the unique combination of
characteristics of the GLD student. This profile assisted with creating the appropriate
educational plan. The plan required instructional strategies that addressed both the
social-emotional needs and learning disabilities of the student (Besnoy, 2006). Educators
may be able to gain an understanding of GLD students and carefully consider the
programming need for these students.
37

Studies in a Special Education Setting

Advantages
The use of the special education classroom while conducting generic qualitative
research was advantageous because students in special education are entitled to an IEP
under Section 504 (504) of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities
Act (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). These acts forbid excluding anyone with a
disability from participating in federally funded programs or activities, including
elementary, secondary, or postsecondary schooling. The special education staff and
families were familiar with the students and structure of a personalized plan for learning.
The low student-to-teacher ratio often created a strong bond or relationship between the
home and school and exhibited the harmonious relationship Stake (1995) suggested
would be advantageous for these types of studies.
Another advantage to using the special education setting was class size. The
student-to-teacher ratio was much smaller in the special education classroom. The
teachers were familiar with and understood their students more intimately because of the
small class size and intense contact with the students. The teaching staff was able to
explain and appraise the students social and emotional needs and academic ability levels.
The prior testing that places students in the special education setting was important. The
appropriate teaching strategies provided a resource for creating the IEP or 504 Plan. This
information was valuable to others who use this approach, as both Stake (1995) and Yin
(2008) posited. In addition, the IEP contained written goals for the student, with
38

assessment taking place on a yearly basis. Using this information to compare with
observations during the field research provided an accurate image of the GLD students.
The special education setting further complemented the situation for the research
study by allowing the collection of data during school hours. The small, bounded setting
of special education classrooms, as expressed in generic qualitative methodology, was a
positive factor and provided ample access and time to formulate a plan to observe,
interview, and record data.
As stated previously, this method has been subject to disparagement and ridicule,
and many believe the study of a small number of cases can offer no grounds for
solidifying reliability or sweeping statements. This would also be true in a special
education classroom. Soy (1997) indicated some would dismiss the current research as
useful only as an exploratory tool, yet Stake (1995) acknowledged this research method
would produce success in carefully planned and crafted studies of real-life situations,
issues, and problems. The one-to-one connection with these unique students in the
special education classroom was perhaps the only way to gather reliable data and build an
explanatory description to assist with educational planning.
Designing the methods or strategies for instruction necessitated unique planning
because the GLD students studied were different from each other. The rich descriptive
information from field research does not reside in a text or book. The GLD phenomenon
occurs in a real-life, contextual setting, whether it is the regular education, special
education, or gifted education classroom.

39

Disadvantages
The need for a tremendous amount of data collection can be a drawback or
negative factor of a generic qualitative approach. Collecting qualitative data can be
imprecise and the situation may be complex, so the recorded data needed to reflect this.
The collection of data must be rich and as complex as necessary to build an
understanding of the situation or individual studied (Richards, 2005). Using a digital
voice recorder to collect accurate data and counter any disadvantage was a process
encouraged in the literature. Additionally, note taking was often slow and arduous,
creating pauses in the conversations or interviews. Time was a critical factor in the
qualitative data collection. Accessing the recordings after the interviews facilitated
writing the analyses and summaries, as the recordings captured the tone of the
conversation perhaps missed in notes or recall. After each interview, a hand-written
reflection describing the interviewees body language allowed the researcher to capture
body language as a note-taking exercise.
Storage and securing privacy in a special education classroom was another
disadvantage, because special education teachers often share classrooms and space. The
researcher needed to plan how best to store the data. An awareness of student data
privacy laws protected the privacy of the individuals in the study. Privacy and
permission guidelines applied while gathering and storing the data. Storage of the data
was another factor that made case study a less desirable approach; however, computer
technology was of great assistance.

40

Programs
Over the past 30 years, the ability to identify and track GLD students has
been less than accurate, while receiving little or no attention from school districts and
educational professionals.
The U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights has tracked the
number of students considered by their school districts to be gifted and who also
have a disability. The number has crept up over the years, from 23,632 in 1992 to
45,142 in 1998, the latest year for which figures are available. But experts
believe those numbers to be an underestimate because the reports count the
students districts have identified, not the ones who have slipped by unnoticed,
(Goldstein, 2001, para. 24)
Tracking the GLD students has been extremely problematic; however, researchers
estimate that about 2-5% of all students are likely to fall into this category. A pilot
enrichment program designed to meet the needs of seven bright learning disabled
youngsters in grades four and five met for two and a half hours a week over a nine-month
period, to develop their strengths and interests through challenging enrichment activities.
Six of the seven students showed gains in self-esteem, learning behavior, and creative
productivity (Baum & Owen, 1988). Some programs for GLD students do exist. Experts
point to districts such as Fort Collins, CO, Montgomery County, MD, Jefferson County,
CO, and Westchester County, NY as models for the nation (Goldstein, 2010).
Special schools such as the Foreman School in Litchfield, CT, are devoted solely
to educating people with learning differences. Learning is as individualized as
fingerprints are. Bright students who may have encountered difficulty in previous
academic settings may simply process information differently (Forman School, 2010).
At Forman, focusing on the needs and strengths of students isnt a supplemental part of
41

what they do. Lexis Preparatory School in Scottsdale, AZ, is another school designed
specifically for students with special needs. The school uses an interactive, multi-sensory
approach, and a full-strength curriculum to engage new ways to stimulate love of
learning. Students cover the same material as traditional schools, but in ways that
students with learning difficulties can more readily absorb. Classes are small. Students
get lots of one-on-one time (Lexis Preparatory School, 2010). Even with all these
examples of academic success, the educational programming for GLD students remains
static, with little action from school administrators or federal funding.
Dr. Karen Rogers (2002), a recognized expert in the field of gifted education, has
done longitudinal studies on highly gifted students, clustering, effective teachers of the
gifted, the effect of accelerating, and appropriate instructional delivery models. Rogers
posited that the greatest educational need is for more challenging curriculum. A
collaborative effort between parents and teachers is necessary to design an educational
plan matching the students needs to the schools ability to meet those needs. Rogers
(2002) posited that educational planning for gifted is complex because of the wide range
of abilities and specific talents. Planning for the GLD student is even more complex.
Parents need to advocate for the plan and prepare for the bumpy road ahead. School is
difficult place for GLD students because age mates may tease about being different, and
the work may be too easy or too hard.

42

Conclusion
A large body of literature based on research studies and clinical experience has
addressed the characteristics of GLD students. News reports or biographies may tell the
story of celebrities such as Albert Einstein, Nelson Rockefeller, Galileo, Thomas Edison,
Sylvester Stallone, Mozart, Gen. George Patton, the Wright Brothers, Leonardo da Vinci,
John F. Kennedy, Cher, Whoopi Goldberg, Tom Cruise, Henry Winkler, F. Scott
Fitzgerald, Walt Disney, John Lennon, and Robin Williams, who all have learning
disabilities (Bireley, 1995). History has shown that people, who are gifted and learning
disabled, given the opportunity to develop their talents, may make an impact on society.
Sharing these accounts with young children may provide support, understanding,
and encouragement for struggling learners. Families, schools, teachers, and students
need to work together to make sure these GLD children mature into achieving adults.
The process becomes a balancing act of letting go, providing good information, searching
for appropriate settings, and garnering support for the learner, which will assist the
learner in overcoming problems (Bireley, 1995). Educators need to do much more to
implement strategies to develop the potential of GLD students. Teachers who have the
knowledge of this population can identify learning gaps and provide explicit instruction
to support compensatory strategies to foster academic and social/emotional growth, thus
helping the GLD student to become successful.
Teachers often discover the GLD population due to problems in reading or
mathematics in elementary school. As the students progress into middle school and high
school, their emotional vulnerability increases because of the uneven development of
43

their writing and study skills, coping skills, perfectionism, lack of risk taking, and desire
to please (Frey, 2005). The peer pressure and the availability of drugs and alcohol are
factors adolescents must resist, and they create potential for isolation and suicide.
Kowalchuk and King (1989) suggested a cognitive behavior program involving adults in
the remediation process could help to prevent suicide.
Administrators or teachers have no requirements to take courses on learning
differences or gifted children (Ruf, 2005). Many educators are unfamiliar with the term
gifted learning disabled. However, as parents turn to the professionals in education,
they soon discover they must advocate for their childs educational needs. The GLD
students need and deserve modification of learning plans so they can thrive in the school
environment. Schools, families, teachers, counselors, students, and societythe
stakeholdersmust fully support the GLD population to ensure they make it to adulthood
and will be able to succeed.
The stakeholders must come together to create a specific program involving the
parents, a gifted specialist, a learning disabilities specialist, a diagnostician, the general
classroom teacher, and the child (Silverman, 1989; VanTassel-Baska, Patton, &
Prillamon, 1991). Developing specific programs focusing on the students strengths
should be a consideration, as well as the resources available in the school. The specific
curriculum should depend on the gravity of the student's disability as well as on the
students degree of giftedness. Consensus exists in the field that it is important to focus
primarily on the student's strengths, rather than his or her weaknesses (Brody & Mills,
1997; Rath, 2007). Brody and Mills (1997) concluded,
44

Many gifted students with learning disabilities would be best served by separate
programs developed especially for them; however, it is likely that the needs of
many could be met through appropriate identification of strengths and
weaknesses, and a flexible, individualized approach to using the existing services
and resources available in and out of school. (p. 288)
School districts are not adequately addressing programming perhaps because
these GLD students do not qualify for gifted services or special education service using
the traditional methods for identification. Often, the burden of what to do for these GLD
students lies on the regular education teacher, who may not have any training in gifted
education or special education. Brody and Mills (1997) stated,
If the general classroom teacher does not recognize and accommodate individual
differences, the gifted child with learning disabilities cannot receive an
appropriate education. On the other hand, if the general classroom teacher does
accommodate individual differences, or if the childs program is supplemented by
time spent in special programs for the gifted and/or for students with learning
disabilities, placement in the general classroom may be appropriate for gifted
students with learning disabilities. (p. 289)

45

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY

Introduction
Methodology reflects the beliefs about knowledge and existence that arises from
values in a framework (van Manen, 1998, as cited in Caelli et al., 2003, p. 11), whereas
methods refers to the tools, techniques, or procedures used to gather data. The research
methodology for this study was a generic qualitative inquiry. Caelli et al. (2003) defined
generic qualitative research as unguided research that has an explicit or established set of
philosophic assumptions in the form of one of the known qualitative methodologies.
Choosing a qualitative format for this study was a deliberate decision because qualitative
researchers seek to make sense of personal stories and the ways in which they intersect
(Glense, 1999). Qualitative researchers understand the social structures, such as
education, because their focus is on how individuals experience educational institutions.
Examining the nature, experiences, and needs of GLD students enrolled in a school
setting may afford educators new perspectives concerning this portion of the school
population. The aim of this study was to understand GLD learners in the classroom, and
qualitative research served this purpose. One question guided the research: How and to
what extent does programming affect the success of GLD students?
Teachers have tremendous difficulty with the idea that a student may be
academically gifted and at the same time have a learning disability. Many school
46

districts do not provide formal educational programming for such students. The
giftedness and the learning disabilities are unique to each student, further complicating
the phenomenon. McEachern and Bornot (2001) stated that between 2% and 10% of
students enrolled in gifted programs have learning disabilities. An interesting fact is that
of GLD students, 41% went undiagnosed until college. This means these students
struggled through much of their schooling without assistance or understanding, perhaps
never reaching their true potential. Others remain unidentified altogether. One goal of
this research was to increase the understanding of GLD students experiences and to
inform districts about the need to structure programming to help this population succeed
in school. Through findings of this study, teachers may help to identify GLD students
and begin to understand the GLD student.
The research in this chapter will clarify the methodology of this study in seven
sections: (a) research design, (b) participants and procedures, (c) instrumentation, (d) data
collection, (e) data analysis, (f) reliability and validity, and (g) ethical considerations. A
qualitative approach was more appropriate than the more traditional quantitative design
typically used in education. Merriam (1998) referred to the qualitative method as a
design chosen precisely because researchers have interests in insight, discovery, and
interpretation rather than hypothesis testing.

Research Design
The research processes within the current study explored the experiences of GLD
students in a middle school setting. The methodology used was a form of generic
47

qualitative research. Generic qualitative research is research not guided by an explicit or

established set of philosophic assumptions in the form of one of the known qualitative
methodologies (Caelli et al., 2003). A generic qualitative study often makes claims based
primarily on constructivist perspectives, such as the various meanings of individual
experiences: meanings socially and historically constructed with an intent to develop a
theory or pattern. The interviews of the stakeholders allowed collection and merging of
open-ended data, with the primary intent of developing themes (Creswell, 2003). The
themes created a source to identify and clarify programming needs for GLD students.
This qualitative inquiry used teachers practices and students experiences to build
a knowledge base and understanding of the GLD learners with the intent of supporting
the need for providing appropriate educational programming. Teachers, parents, and
students answered semi-structured interview questions. Such personal encounters
compiled large amounts of exposure and contextual information. The stories told
provided an important knowledge base. Many researchers view the qualitative interview
as a conversation with a purpose (Marshall & Rossman, 1989). Denzin and Lincoln
(1998) stressed that qualitative research provides a better understanding of an insiders
view.
This design used interviews of student, parents, and teachers as the primary data
source. Primary sources have the advantage of gathering information first hand, however,
they construct a limited knowledge base. This insiders point of view differs from a
quantitative knowledge base that would be constructed primarily by examining student
records and/or test scores.
48

The research procedures preserve the chronological flow of the data and allow the
reader to see which people, strategies, interventions, and other elements led to successful
student outcomes, while deriving a meaningful explanation (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
The descriptive writing and organized structure allow the reader the opportunity to
experience a colorful, concrete, and meaningful account that is more persuasive than
quantitative summaries from test scores or samplings. Miles and Huberman (1994)
concurred, stating:
Within qualitative data, one can preserve chronological flow, assess local
causality, and drive fruitful explanations. Then too, qualitative data are more
likely to lead to serendipitous findings and to new theoretical integrations; they
help researchers go beyond initial preconceptions and frameworks. (p. 15)
The relationship aspects between student, school, and home, underwent
examination. The research conducted was within the bounds of generic qualitative
research. Creswell (2003) posited that qualitative research is bound by time and place
(p. 73). The place was a private middle school. The time span varied, depending on
when the schools identified the students as GLD. The students in the study were
currently in middle school, but the schools had initially identified the students as GLD
during their elementary school years.
Qualitative research focuses on finding meaning through process rather than
outcome (Creswell, 2003). Generic qualitative study questions typically seek themes of
unforeseen and probable relationships. Merriam (1998) stated the product of a
qualitative study is richly descriptive and uses words and pictures rather than numbers
to convey what the researcher has learned about a phenomenon (p. 8). The goal of this
study was to express insight into the GLD students school experiences and to depict
49

meaning from both the positive and negative involvement in their educational setting.
Although replicability and generalizability are acknowledged issues in this type of study,
Stake (1995) posited that as particular activities or responses continue to emerge, some
generalizations were possible. Valid modifications of generalizations occurred through
triangulation. Triangulation is a term widely used for research designs in which different
data points contribute to the research question (Richards, 2005). The researcher
attempted to use triangulation wherever possible, because it increases content validity by
showing that independent events agree with, or at least do not contradict, each other.
A wide range of possibilities exists for data collection and analysis in any study.
To gain the breadth and rich description desired, the researcher conducted semistructured interviewing of the students, parents, and teachers. Developing and
uncovering themes that emerged through the data collection process was an important
part of this study. Use of rich and thick imagery, auditing of the process, and identifying
the bias, addressed the areas of credibility, transferability, dependability, and
conformability of the study (Creswell, 2007).

Sample
The source of data was the human participants themselves, as the chosen design
permitted an exploratory study that investigated the social and academic needs of the
GLD learner. Patton (2002) suggested using a purposeful sample of qualitative research,
interviewing students formally identified as GLD, and recording the students parents
and teachers responses. In this study, thematic saturation emerged during data analysis
50

and provided a unique view of how school settings affected the learners socially and
academically.
The students school administration provided access to the purposeful sample of
three middle-school-age children in this study following a proposal submitted for the
research and obtaining the written permission needed to interview students and teachers.
The administration granted consent in accordance with IRB regulations and guidelines.
Information about the study helped appropriate individuals to make an informed decision
about whether they wished to participate in the research. Creation and use of appropriate
consent forms, both at the administrative and individual level, ensured protection of
participants.
The sample size in this research project was very small, which is not unusual in
qualitative research studies. The plan was to interview three students, their teachers, and
their parents. The students in the sample attended the only established independent day
middle school in the area specifically serving children who have learning disabilities or
attention disorders. Testing identified the students in this sample as having a learning
disability. The testing took place within a public school setting or through a private
agency. Documentation of this identification was in the students cumulative educational
records. Merriam (1998) suggested, Sample selection in qualitative research is
nonrandom, purposeful, and small, as opposed to the larger, more random sampling of
quantitative research (p. 8). The small sample size in this research allowed the study to
focus intensely on the social and academic needs of the individuals interviewed.

51

Identifying gifted learning disabled (GLD) students is not an easy process. Brody
and Mills (1997) suggested educators often do not correctly identify and therefore do not
refer GLD students. GLD students have superior intellectual ability and exhibit a
significant discrepancy between this potential and their level of performance in a
particular academic area, such as reading, mathematics, spelling, or written expression.
Their academic performance is substantially below that teachers would expect, based on
their general intellectual ability.
As seen in other children exhibiting learning disabilities, this discrepancy is not
due to the lack of educational opportunity in that academic area or to other health
impairment (Brody & Mills 1997). A child who is GLD is simply one who exhibits great
talent or strength in certain areas and disabling weaknesses in others (Baum, 1989; Baum,
Emerick, Herman, & Dixon, 1989). Most tasks in school are easy for these students, but
they are often ill-equipped for the challenges their disabilities produce as they progress in
school when presented with higher-level tasks (Baum, 1989). Often the parents initiate
testing because their childs struggle with academics does not match the potential seen at
home or in a nonschool setting.
Martin (2006) stated that there was no universally agreed upon testing instrument
for determining if a student is twice exceptional. This category applies only to those
students who meet the criteria for both gifted and learning disabled. Students in the
sample must meet the criteria for gifted and learning disabled for the state in which the
study took place (para.5).

52

Participants and Procedures

During the interviews, the participants should have a comfortable and convenient
location of their choice, preferably in their home, school building, or library; interviewing
in a quiet setting was desirable. Interviewing participants in their natural surroundings
allowed the researcher to experience the daily context of the participants (Creswell,
2007). For the GLD students, the familiar surroundings were particularly important and
provided a comfort zone to minimize anxiety and give the study verifiable methods of
validity. The data collection process took place in a private area with only the participant
and the researcher present.

Instrumentation
The four instruments used for data collection were teachers interview, parents
interview, students interview, and the students records. Personal interviews were semistructured (Appendices B through E), consisting of approximately 12 semi-structured
questions. Leading questions were not part of the interviews. The participants provided
specific examples through stories that allowed many themes to emerge.
Interviews took place over a two-month period between February and March
2010, and the data flow and emergent themes came forward in a more understandable
fashion as trends became apparent. The interviews took approximately 45 minutes each.
Reviewing documents before the interviews helped in restructuring questions and assisted
in clarifying questions that were unique for each of the participants.

53

Data Collection
Data gathering consisted of participants interviews and document reviews.
Patton (1989) described the different types of qualitative data. The first type is interviews
with open-ended questions and probes that yield in-depth responses about peoples
experiences, opinions, perceptions, feelings, and knowledge. Data consist of verbatim
quotations with sufficient context to be interpretable.
The second type is documents of written materials from organizational, clinical,
or programs records; memoranda, and correspondence; official publications and reports;
personal diaries, letters, artistic works, photographs, and memorabilia; and written
responses to open-ended surveys. Data consists of excerpts from documents captured in
a way that records and preserves context.
The primary data collection method was interviews. The researcher conducted all
interviews personally. The interview questions for the study are in Appendices B-E. The
interviews lasted approximately 45 minutes and took place face-to-face in a comfortable
location agreed upon by the participants. The first interview with the students explored
the participants thoughts and feelings connected to the label gifted. The follow-up
interview discussed how the students felt about their diagnosis as learning disabled and
gifted learning disabled.
The participants parents in the studys purposeful sample knew their children had
a diagnosed learning disability and were GLD. Parents responded to what might improve
the childrens educational experiences and what seemed key in helping their children
succeed. In the interviews, teachers explained their relationship and participation in the
54

students academic experiences. The plan was to draw a different perspective from the
trained professionals who work with these students on a daily basis, the parents, and the
students to create emergent themes and stories.
For transcription purposes, the interviews were digitally audio-recorded. Handwritten notes helped to document visual cues and body language throughout the
interview. The interviews took place using a digital high-quality Olympus LS 10 digital
voice recorder that had noise-canceling circuitry with voice activation. The interviewer
placed the recorder out of sight from the participants to limit distractions.
After each interview, the recordings were transcribed by a professional
transcriptionist, combined with the researchers notes, and stored in a fireproof locked
file cabinet. This took place within 48 hours of conducting the interview. The
participants interviewed received unique identifiers to protect their identities. Copies of
the interviews on a USB flash drive remained in a different, fireproof, locked file cabinet
to prevent unauthorized use.
Tesch (1989) suggested that computer-aided analysis could reduce time and make
analytic processes more efficient and accurate, thus ensuring completeness and allowing
flexibility in the analysis procedures. Use of both digital and paper-based filing systems
ensured that transcriptions, field notes, student records, grades, and testing results were
easily accessible throughout the process.
The following terms are applicable to using a computer-based qualitative data
collection and analysis tool. NVivo 8 was the software tool chosen to assist in data
collection and analysis. NVivo 8 abilities and features included:
55

1.

Import, sort, and analyze all media types.

2.

Work with transcripts or work without them, analyzing material straight

from audio and video files, or create transcripts or text files in the software
as you go.

3.

Customize. Its easy to learn interface. It is designed using Microsoft

guidelines.

4.

Import and code documents, including those that contain tables and
images.

5.

Query data with a state-of-the-art search engine.

6.

Graphically model information and findings in real time.

7.

Merge separate projects and still identify which person completed which
work, and view the notes and analysis completed by each team member.

8.

Explore data using our multi-level 'undo' functionality (QSR, 2009).

The data input into NVivo 8 underwent daily backup; once on to a local hard
drive and then once to a secure, off-site secure server. This data will remain stored for at
least seven years, as required, in both locations.

Data Analysis
Qualitative analysis functioned to create a detailed description of the GLD
students, the classroom setting, and the programming needed for these students to
succeed. Wolcott (1994) suggested building a descriptive account of the context through
analysis involving progressive focusing of the data.
Interpretational analysis was the process of carefully examining all data to explain
and describe the phenomena under study (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996). The researcher
understood the context within the data collection. Indirect interpretation or inductive
56

analysis facilitated examination of instances and drawing meaning from them, with the
intent to create a broad understanding of the GLD student. The questions, themes, and
concepts developed throughout the data collection process and the interviews with
students, parents, and teachers.
The study methods established patterns between gifted education and special
education services by examining laws that govern both fields. Studying the GLD
students needs was a real-life situation and the boundaries between special education,
regular education, and gifted education were not clearly distinguished. This research
study used the open-endedness needed to develop a flexible process. Whether the study
took place in a regular or special education classroom, the flexibility of the method
allowed assessment of the unique combination of characteristics of the GLD student.
This profile assisted with creating a more appropriate educational programming plan.
The GLD students required instructional strategies that addressed both the socialemotional and learning disabilities of the student (Besnoy, 2006).
Understanding students strengths and weaknesses as well as their appropriate
programming received attention. A search to identify common areas of strengths or
common areas of weaknesses determined areas shared among the students interviewed.
Last, the study findings revealed naturalistic information that may assist teachers, parents,
and administrators in learning about their GLD children (Creswell, 2007).
Data collection is a process in which researchers cannot get it all, even though
they might think they can (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Coding is analysis. Descriptive
codes developed as themes become apparent during the data collection process. For this
57

purpose, the meaning or theme matters more than the particular words. Strauss and
Glaser (1987) suggested a deductive researcher may not want to pre-code any datum until
he or she has collected it, seen how it functions or nests in its context, and determined
how many varieties of the data are present.
A comparison of open codes across participants and situations for axial codes
described categories of behavior. Axial codes describe phenomena, which include
events, actions, reactions, and ideas. Thus, discrete pieces of information form a
descriptive web of the students experiences. Strauss and Corbin (1990) indicated the
action-reaction nature inherent in all phenomena exerts influence on the axial coding.
Questions guiding coding process focused on identifying the actions that led to the
described phenomena.
Triangulation provided validation and assisted in the documentation of potential
discrepancies between self-reported data from interviewing students, parents, and
teachers. In any kind of research, triangulation is critical as a way of gaining
comprehensive awareness into the case or phenomenon (Creswell, 2007; Denzin &
Lincoln, 2005; Yin, 2008). The use of NVivo 8 software was extremely helpful during
the qualitative analysis. In this research, interviews and student records constructed the
multiple data sources necessary for triangulation.

Reliability and Validity

Methodological rigor refers to the reliability and validity of the results produced
by the process. Rigor for the current study originated in thematic saturation by ensuring
58

that the necessary amount of data converged and that the researcher fully understood the
themes accounted for. An audit trail was an ongoing process throughout the data analysis
and ensured methodological rigor. The audit trail is the careful documentation of how
the data conceptualized and categorized during collection. The importance of an audit
trail lies in its ability to reconstruct the process that produced the conclusions. The
transcribed interviews and the use of notes produced the audit trail. Sufficient coverage
of the research topic within a data collection instrument ensured that the data collection
instrument had good content validity (Cooper & Schindler, 2006).
The issue of bias in the current qualitative research demanded special
consideration. Maxwell (1992) suggested observers and interpreters are an embedded
part of research. Many qualitative researchers universally understand a researchers bias
and subjectivity as foreseeable and important. Remaining objective and unbiased without
losing individual perspective is a challenge. The continued attempt to control bias and
enhance reliability while remaining professional was essential.
While accumulating knowledge of GLD characteristics, styles, social needs, and
academic needs, the ability to step back and witness how these characteristics affected the
learners success was imperative. Familiarity with educational surroundings and the
backgrounds related to the study did not slant the ability to observe and interpret the data.
The researcher tried to maintain an unbiased view and tried not manipulate the data to
match any preconceived notion.
Triangulation was a tool used among the students, parents, and teachers. Parents
clarified and expanded upon their childs responses. Teachers confirmed or rejected
59

students responses. The use of multiple data collection methods contributed to the
trustworthiness of the data. Triangulation prevented the researcher from accepting the
validity of the initial notion.
According to Merriam (2002), Triangulation remains a principal strategy to
ensure validity and reliability (p. 26). Here, triangulation supported validity or
verification (Creswell, 2003) and reliability of this study. Biased findings were a concern
in this study, but the triangulation method helped reduced bias. The structure of the
interview focused on certain components regarding different social emotional needs and
academic needs, as well as visual cues and body language. Bohm (1996) recommended
listening deeply and speaking only when needed to keep the dialog moving. Emerging
themes appeared, and often, the most persuasive data emerged by allowing a period of
awkward silence by the participants.
Internal validity had several threats. The passing of time might have affected the
participants memories, but explicitly informing the participants of the nature of the study
before the actual interview helped to alleviate this issue. Scholars have recommended not
exposing the interview questions to the participants beforehand; study processes followed
this advice.

Ethical Considerations
It was the researchers intent to design a research project with the highest ethical
standards. Cooper and Schindler (2006) stated three guidelines to follow: (a) explain the
study benefits, (b) explain participant rights and protections, and (c) obtain informed
60

consent (p. 118). In addition, there was no attempt to positively or negatively respond to
the participants answers.
Several processes addressed handling of confidentiality, including providing the
participants with a confidentiality policy and stating the boundaries and expectations of
the research. Trust was a major factor in the success of study, and the researcher set the
stage early on for a high level of trust with the participants.
Obtaining informed consent for participation followed stringent procedures. The
Capella Institutional Review Boards response to requesting permission to access data
states that participating organizations must specifically understand the research
provisions to which they agree. Potential benefits and risks were shared with the
participants. This reinforced the research procedures and the levels of open
communication, so all participants were aware of the benefits.
The confidentiality, the IRB approval, and the writing of the paper recording
specific educational programming and understanding of individuals identified as GLD
functioned together to eliminate risk of retribution. This understanding allowed school
districts to appreciate the importance of training teachers to use specific strategies,
materials, instructional methods, and assessments while working with the GLD learners,
as well as the importance of school districts providing educational programming that
meets the needs of the GLD learners.
Individuals were able to participate with complete assurance of confidentiality,
and all processes ensured confidentiality, justice, and equality at the highest level
possible by the researcher.
61

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS

Introduction
Before the 1990s, the term gifted learning disabled was a relatively new idea.
Children who are both gifted and learning disabled exhibit exceptional strengths in one
area and disabling weaknesses in another area (Baum, 1989). Regular classroom teachers
or special education teachers typically do not understand these students. Many
administrators and teachers were unaware of the existence of this population and that
limited programming designed to meet the special needs of these students was available.
Silverman (1989) suggested the incidence of dual exceptionalities is more
frequent than many realize. In an interview, Bracamonte stated that in the most recent
year for which statistics on the frequency of GLD are available, 2006, the number of K12 students identified as GLD reached nearly 70,000. This number is based on
percentages consistent with estimates that 2-5% of the gifted population have learning
disabilities, and 2-5% of students with learning disabilities are gifted (An Interview with
Micaela Bracamonte, 2009).
This study focused on how, and to what extent, educational programming might
affect the academic success for middle school students experiencing the contemporary
phenomenon identified as giftedness with learning disabilities. The research took place
within the real-life context of the middle school where the GLD students attended.
62

The different types of GLD students were the focus of the research. Much
literature is available about the characteristics and instructional approaches for gifted
students with learning disabilities. In the literature, three different types of students with
gifts and learning disabilities have surfaced. Toll (1993) described the classifications as
subtle, hidden, and identified GLD. The first type is the subtle GLD, who are
easily identifiable as gifted but who show poor spelling and handwriting. They may
appear disorganized and sloppy. As they grow older, the gap widens between what
schools expect from them and what they can perform.
The next type is the hidden GLD. They do not have the label of gifted or
disabled because their gifts and their abilities mask each other. Their superior
intelligence helps them to compensate for their disabilities and they appear to be average.
These children are at a disadvantage, receiving no programming for giftedness or for
learning disabilities. The third type is learning disabled, and they receive instruction
for their disabilities. This group is most at risk because programs often do not address
their talents. Educators assume something is wrong that programs must fix before any
assistance can address students strengths (Baum, 1989). The goal of this doctoral study
was to build upon the knowledge base to assist stakeholders in understanding GLD
students, so the stakeholders (parents, teachers, administrators, and school district
personnel) will be able to provide suitable instruction and proper educational
programming. Nielson (2002) posited, Twice-exceptional children must be viewed as
being at promise rather than being at risk (p. 93).

63

The in-depth look at GLD students, obtained while conducting this study,
included insights from the students, their parents, and their teachers. The study focus was
on the students educational experiences and the factors that influenced both their
academic success and struggles. Contributing factors included identification tools; the
definition of a learning disability; student matches to programs; social and academic
needs; role of advocacy for parents; students, and staff; how different districts treat GLD
students; definition of gifted, and licensure for staff.

Context of the Study

The scope of this study was narrow, limited to the three GLD students, their
parents, and their teachers. The founding of the middle school in this study, in 1972, was
as a school for students with learning disabilities. The location of the middle school in
the study will remain confidential. Revealing the geographic location of the school could
easily uncover its name, compromising the fidelity of the study. Participants were
comfortable with the knowledge that their identity and the identity of the school would
remain protected. The teachers, parents, and students remain unidentified by name. The
instruction took place in structured classrooms using multi-sensory methods to address
individual needs.
The staff at this school includes approximately 36 teachers, two psychologists,
two speech-language pathologists, and two counselors. Over 50% of the staff at the
school had earned a masters degree in special education. The students at this school
were from over 30 different school districts in the area. This cross section offered
64

validity to this study because the student population was a sampling of many ethnic and
socio-economic groups.
Approximately 20% of American children have a learning disability (National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2010). These students often do not
find success in the regular public school setting and many enroll in a private or special
school. Schools can provide the programming for such GLD students. GLD specialists
have found these students have different educational needs from those of their learning
disabled peers with average ability. Bright learning disabled youngsters show gains in
self-esteem, learning behavior, and creative productivity when their programming aligns
with their needs (Baum & Owen, 1988).

Participant Descriptions
The participants (see Table 2) fell into the three classifications described by Toll
(1993). Pupils were all GLD learners. All three students had attended two or more
elementary schools before arriving at the present middle school. All attended several
regular public schools and one had earlier attended a private, religious school. All
students clearly stated that their current school was the best school they had ever
attended. The students appeared very happy, and their parents felt the school had made
appropriate accommodations for their childs disabilities in the classroom. The following
quote describes how it may feel to be GLD. Dr. David Urion, director of Neurology and
Learning Disabilities Program, at Boston Childrens Hospital stated:

65

Imagine going to work and not being able to do your job. Now imagine that you
cannot leave your job. Imagine having to do this every day. This is what life is
like for children with learning disabilities. (Urion, 2002)
Feelings like the one above drive parents to choose a different school.

Table 2 Participants
Participant

Gender

Description

Student A

male

Grade 8

Student B

male

Grade 7

Student C

male

Grade 7

Parent A

female

One child

Parent B

female

Three children

Parent C

female

Two children

Teacher A

female

21 yr. middle school, MA Special Education

Teacher B

female

5 yr. middle school, EBD & LD

Teacher C

male

13 yr. middle school, MA chemistry, Special ed., EBD & LD

Schools such as the Foreman School, in Litchfield, CT, are solely devoted to
educating young men and women with learning differences, and Lexis Preparatory
School, in Scottsdale, AZ, believes that learning is as individualized as fingerprints
(Lexis Prep, 2010). These schools suggest that bright students with difficulty in previous
academic settings simply process information differently. The schools focus on students
needs and strengths, rather than treating such needs as a supplemental part of what the
school does. Both of these schools specialize in educating students with learning
disabilities. Parents typically seek out this type of school and pay tuition for their child to
66

attend. Their curriculum integrates and applies learning strategies within the classroom
to help the student succeed. The teachers have posted their biographies on the website
and many have masters degrees.
The literature suggested these children have academic and social needs that leave
them feeling a part of two different worlds: one as a student with outstanding talent and
the other as a student with a disability (King, 2005). While the student participants in this
study experienced some struggles in their academic work, they each had strengths.
Student C told about his deep concern for the environment and his desire to fight
pollution. He gave up his recess time for all of fourth grade to pick up litter on the school
grounds. He chose not to socialize with his peers, and chose instead to take action to
clean up the environment. Often students interests or strengths were in areas not in the
curriculum. A comment from Student A highlighted the feeling of not belonging:
Well, almost everybody at this school has basically the same learning disabilities
that I do, so I feel probably like everyone else there. We all just have the same
thing going on, so we all can connect on a fairly good level and understand whats
going on with each other.
In the interviews, the parents and teachers did not comment on the students
feelings. They seemed to be a part of two different worlds.
Student Participants
Schools had identified all of the students in this study as academically gifted.
However, parents comments suggested they knew before preschool their child was
advanced. Their childs interests or abilities were beyond those of their peer group. The
diagnostic evaluations occurred in a variety of testing situations such as a private
diagnostician, a school district, and a specific learning center. The participants scored in
67

the 98 percentile or had an IQ full-scale score of 125 or higher on the WISC IV. The
director of education at the middle school provided the IQ scores. Examination of subtests was not possible because a licensed school psychologist must analyze the scores for
accuracy. Two of the three student participants had not participated in gifted programs in
the past. In fact, the participants experienced difficulty at school, and testing identified
that each had a learning disability. The student participants shared the label gifted
learning disabled, but their strengths and weakness were different.
All students who applied to attend this middle school had to take the WoodcockJohnson Test of Achievement III. Students also took the following tests: Word
Identification and Spelling Test (WIST), Gray Oral Reading Test (GORT), Gray Silent
Reading Test (GSRT), and a math assessment test. The scores from these tests
determined their placement or level of academic achievement. Based on the student test
scores, classrooms contained students with a variety of ages.
Student A. Student A was in the eighth grade, an only child in a single-parent
family. He loved cats, which were present during our interview. This participant had
advanced vocabulary, as well as a unique, straight, shoulder-length haircut. His hair
often fell over his face, which was intentional. This student was an avid reader. His
areas of strength were broad knowledge, science, history, and anything visual or spatial.
In science and social studies classes, he was in advanced classes. Determining exactly
the level of his advancement was difficult, because student placement at the school was
by achievement and classrooms were multi-aged. His areas of weakness were
organization, attention, math, and writing skills. He spoke about writing difficulties and
68

told how the use of the laptop computer greatly assisted him. His learning disabilities
and co-conditions included ADHD, dyslexia, and dysgraphia.
Ruf (2005) posited that, at a young age, these children know they are different
from their peers, and their school experiences shape much of their self-concepts. While
confident and seemingly comfortable answering questions, he was unable to hide his shy
side. He rarely made eye contact and seemed to want approval in answering the
questions posed to him. The researcher had difficulty remaining unbiased in her facial
gestures and tone of voice. An approving or disapproving voice or facial expression
would have influenced the participants response.
Student B. Student B was a seventh grader and the middle child in a two-parent
family with three boys. He was very cautious and thought much about his answers before
verbalizing. His voice was very soft, yet his sentences were complex and grammatically
correct. He clearly wanted the researcher to know he was intelligent, despite his
struggles with his past schoolwork.
His areas of strength were general knowledge and science. He was in an
advanced science class. Determining exactly the level of his advancement was difficult,
because student placement at the school was by achievement and classrooms were multiaged. He talked about a favorite human biology project he had done. His areas of
weakness were organization, math, and writing. He spoke about writing difficulties, how
a laptop computer helped him, and that he now had a nanny who helped him organize and
do his homework. Schools diagnosed him as having ADHD, written expression disorder,
dyslexia, and anxiety as his learning disabilities and co-conditions.
69

Student C. Student C was a seventh grader and the older of two boys from a
traditional two-parent family. He was friendly and chatty from the moment the interview
started. He used very advanced vocabulary and always cited an academic reference. He
often referred to past personal experiences, most of which were negative. School had not
been a good place for him because his schoolmates had ridiculed him and he had the
emotional scars to show it. His voice shook as he spoke. In spite of a difficult past, he
was positive and seemed to feel that the worst was behind him. His areas of strength
were general knowledge, social studies, and science and he was in advanced science and
social classes. Determining exactly the level of his advancement was difficult, because
student placement at the school was by achievement and classrooms were multi-aged.
His areas of weakness were organization, math, and writing. His teacher stated he was in
lower level math class, and use of manipulatives was apparent during the field
observations. He had the diagnosed disabilities of ADHD, anxiety, and dysgraphia.
Teacher Participants
The teachers worked in teams and spoke about how they supported each other.
Teachers addressed individual strengths and challenges and they had resources to
accommodate diverse learning styles and skill levels. Teachers used a diagnostic
prescriptive approach that continually assessed a child's learning, and then revised their
instructional approaches. Parents could access the students progress on a report card
with the students goals listed, and students received a check mark by completed or
still working towards goal statements. Published materials and textbooks do not drive

70

lesson planning. The educational program for students arises from the belief that students
learn from direct, sequential, multi-sensory instruction.
Teacher A. Teacher A had taught at this middle school for 21 years. She had
learning disability certification and a masters degree in special education. She also had a
strong background in gifted education and expressed interest in the research topic of
GLD students. She had many questions, and, at times, the researcher herself felt a
reversal of the interview roles.
Teacher B. Teacher B was a young, energetic individual. Her attention was
distracted, not crisp. Sometimes she asked to have a question repeated. During the
interview, she shared that she was diagnosed EBD and ADHD when she was in second
grade, suggesting that her past had allowed her to have empathy for many of her students.
She had taught at this school for five years, and prior to coming here, she had been a
general education teacher. She had a masters degree in special education. She shared
her joys and frustrations as a teacher of social studies, writing, and reading. The
vividness with which she could recall particular students or situations was impressive.
She suggested she had found ways to help students with very different needs to succeed
and expressed the continued belief in her students ability to succeed.
Teacher C. Teacher C was unique. He would not allow the researcher to record
the interview, which was surprising. He agreed to participate in the interview and knew
when the interview would occur, but felt uncomfortable about the audio recording.
Perhaps he did not want to be quoted. He was nervous as the interview started, but
gradually relaxed and spoke freely. He had taught at this school for 13 years. Prior to
71

that, he had been a chemist. He loved to talk about his educational background, including
his B.S. and M.S. in chemistry, M.Ed. in special education, and SLD and EBD licensures.
He started his Ph.D. but stated the writing was too much for him. He shared that he had a
learning disability but the schools had not diagnosed him during his schooling years. As
he talked about the scars from his own school experiences, the situation was fascinating
that he chose teaching as his second career. As he spoke, he discussed the high
expectations he set for his students, while still demonstrating empathy for their struggles.
The teachers at this school worked to bring research-based practices into the
classroom. All of the interviewed teachers stated they had a masters degree in special
education. They stated that the graduate level training and experience in the classroom
helped to adjust instruction and meet individual needs.
All of the interviewed teachers responded to questions about what they knew
about teaching GLD students. No teacher stated that they had gifted licensure or
certification. Each teacher was able to recall students identified as GLD. The teachers
expressed concern that these students are often misunderstood. Teacher A stated:
I know they face a lot of challenges. One of them is that they are misunderstood
byusually their mainstream teachers, many whom think they are lazy or
arrogant or just full of excuses, and some teachers dont understand their real
disabilities or make many accommodations for those disabilities. I also know that
they need some accommodations that would be more typical of a less intelligent
child, and maybe well get into that later.
Based on the schools mission, most students at this school had a learning
disability and/or an attention disorder, and most demonstrate average or above average
intelligence, with a discrepancy between aptitude and achievement in the classroom.
Students placed by achievement level were in groups of six to eight per classroom, so a
72

variety of ages all may be functioning at the same achievement level. Teams in the
middle school had structures related to the students ability levels. Teachers may have a
below-grade level section, at-grade level section, or an advanced section. This was not a
school for students with primary behavioral or emotional issues. Students may have had
secondary behavioral challenges that affected their daily routines or performance levels.
Students at this school were bright and capable, yet they were behind in their academic
skills and self-confidence. The schools addressed their academic talents through
enrichment classes and extracurricular activities such as basketball, drama,
snowboarding, yearbook, and soccer. During the summer, the morning program was
academic and students participated in math, reading, spelling, and reading. The afternoon
program offered enrichment classes in art, science, and athletics.
Parent Participants
All three parents stated that they were members of the state council for gifted and
talented. This parent and teacher group advocated for gifted children. The organization
had a newsletter, state conference, CHAT nights, and seminars. Two of the three parents
also spoke about their membership with 2e or the Twice-Exceptional Newsletter. This
on-line newsletter provides information and resources about raising, educating, and
meeting the academic and social needs of twice-exceptional children. Parents childhood
experiences with school systems were not part of the questioning process.
Parent A. Parent A was a professional and a strong advocate for her son. She
was emotional at times during the interview, but she worked her way through it. It was
clear that she, as a parent, had gone through many struggles and that her knowledge about
73

the field of twice-exceptional students had helped her understand her son. She mentioned
the 2e Newsletter as a resource for her. She shared that her son had previously attended
three schools, and like most parents, she had high hopes and dreams for him. She saw
many barriers in the school system. The fact that her son was now attending his fourth
school reflected that regular school had barriers causing him to be unsuccessful.
Parent B. Parent B was an executive and the mother of three children. It was
evident that she was well informed about state law and her childs needs. She often
expressed great frustration about her battles with school policies, administration, and
classroom teachers. She explained she had paid for testing at her own expense and she
shared it with her sons school, only to receive no accommodations or changes for her
son. She then switched her sons school.
Parent C. Parent C was female. The researcher also had several supplemental
phone conversations with Cs husband. She was a stay-at-home mother who expressed
concern about her sons unhappiness and lack of school success. Her son had already
attended three schools, and school seems better for him now. She focused completely on
her child and expressed concern that educators did not notice her sons talents. She cited
several examples of how, even as a toddler, he knew things far beyond his years. Yet
school was not a place where he could succeed.
The parents participating in this research study tried to be positive, but each could
vividly explain times when school just did not work for their child. Their explanations
noted times when individual teachers were not flexible and did not individualize for their
students needs. The onesize-fits-all model caused frustration because the parent knew
74

the childs IQ and disability, but the teacher would not accommodate. All of the parents
expressed that the environment at their childs current school was much better. The
parents felt their child was happy and learning, and that the small class size was helpful.
The teachers were doing something different that helped their child learn. The cost of
tuition was another concern parents spoke about, but most felt there was no other option.
Their child had been unhappy and failing at the previous school.
The parent interviews did not explore the parents school experiences. Time was
a factor that limited conversations about parents childhood, and the focus of the current
study was on the three middle school age students who agreed to participate. It is
unknown, if any of the parents had hurtful or harmful school experiences. Intelligence
can be hereditary or the environment may influence it (Wheeler, 2009). Part of
intelligence is hereditary, so some of the parents have gifted intelligences. The parent
interviews did not explore this area.

Origin of the Data

The sample was a purposeful one with participants who experienced the
phenomenon of giftedness with learning disabilities. This sample provided validity to the
data collection. Identification of the students took place in collaboration with the
schools director of education, who provided a list of students who met the research
criteria for inclusion in the interviews. The director warned that the school had more
males than females identified as GLD. The statistics show learning disabilities are more

75

common in males than females; Vogel (1990) posited the ratio as three to one. The
purposeful sample included three males from the middle school.
The parents selected for possible interviews received telephone calls. Times were
set up to interview them and the students, the participants. All participants signed a copy
of the informed consent form prior to beginning the interviews.
This study was limited to three GLD students, their parents, and their teachers.
The small size of the group allowed for in-depth interviews and a close connection to the
participants. Only male students volunteered to participate in the interviews, although
female students at the school identified as GLD also had the opportunity to participate in
the study. However, while the appropriate paperwork was sent home, no females
volunteered to participate. The head of the middle and upper school granted the
interviews prior to the researchers visit to the campus, where she conducted classroom
observations and interviews. The director of education mapped out the day for interviews
and classroom observations in math, science, and language arts classes.
The initial contact with teacher interview participants took place in their
classrooms during prep time. The teachers prep time was 55 minutes long and all three
teachers extended an invitation to return after school, if desired. Later that day, four
classrooms observations took place, complete with copious field observation notes. The
entire staff at the school warmly welcomed the researcher; for example, they extended an
invitation to join them for lunch or offered a friendly greeting.
The hallways were noticeably crowded with chattering middle school students.
Students traveled in groups and appeared unaware that they were blocking the hallways,
76

similar to other middle schools. One of the first observable features was the small
student-teacher ratio. Each class had six to eight students and a relaxed climate, yet there
was the usual formality of raising ones hand to answer or ask a question. Students were
engaged in the learning process and were very attentive. Teachers were able to give
dedicated attention to each learner. The teacher was able to work with students for the
interval of time needed to provide clarification or to repeat directions. Often this
interaction was one-on-one or with a pair of students.
Interviews of student and parent participants were at comfortable and convenient
locations of their choice: All chose their home as the location for the interview. Yin
(2008) posited the environment surrounding a participant is important and that it may
affect the researchers observations. The location can also provide the study with
verifiable methods of validity.
The teachers interviews were in classrooms with closed doors to protect the
privacy of all participants. No pagers, cell phones, telephones, or extraneous personnel
were present. The environment was relatively free of distractions, and no participants
refused to answer any question, although the opportunity to decline was available. Many
participants told stories or referenced their responses with personal experiences. The
participants willingness to openly share reflected their comfort level and supports Yins
statements about how the environment may influence interviews. Their openness also
reflected that students, parents, and teachers seem to work cooperatively. The interviews
ranged in time but averaged approximately 45 minutes.

77

Digital recording of the interviews was part of the data collection process, with
the exception of the one teacher who did not consent to recording. A single individual
with over 20 years of transcription experience transcribed all the recordings and signed a
confidentiality and non-disclosure agreement prior to the transcriptions. All participants
in the study followed the same interview procedures. Students, teachers, and parents
answered the open-ended questions, which allowed the individual to elaborate as desired.
These detailed responses often revealed the emotional impacts or effects that school
experiences had left.
Much understanding arose from situations in which the student participants did
not want to elaborate. These quiet times provided the opportunity for gentle probing
questions. However, student participants still did not verbally respond. Repeating the
questions did not produce verbal responses. The students body language, such as brief
periods of stuttering, repetitions of short phrases, a shoulder shrug, or shifting position in
the chair, reflected the student participants unwillingness or discomfort levels.
This seemed to occur when students needed to verbally provide details about why
the situation had occurred. It often required self-reflection or self-analysis; for example,
when the question asked of the student was to describe times when he was not successful
in school or to talk about his best friend. The pain or emotional trauma from an
experience was too painful, and the individual didnt want to relive it.
Interviewing rather than observation served as the primary method of data
collection because the participants thoughts revealed how the individual was feeling. An
observation may show the participants emotion, but the observer must interpret it and
78

human error becomes a factor. Sensitivity to the participants emotional state was always
present during these situations, and the participants were not pressed for more data.

Data Collection
The primary data collection method was interviewing. The purposeful sample for
the generic qualitative study was the three GLD young male students who all attended the
same middle school. Parents and teachers of these three students also provided
interviews. In this study, all three students shared their personal experiences with the
phenomenon of gifted learning disabled.
Each participant signed a consent form explaining the research study. Consenting
parents received a phone call from the researcher and a description of the study. The
schools director of education informed the teacher participants of their interview times.
After participants had the information, the face-to-face interview took place. The same
researcher administered all the interviews.
Using an Olympus DS 40 digital audio-recorder with noise-canceling circuitry
with voice activation allowed recording of participant comments for transcription.
Handwritten notes from the comments of the one participant who did not wish to be
audio-recorded substituted for the electronic recording. The notes also recorded his
visual cues and body language. The equipment was especially helpful because there was
no need to turn on buttons or to adjust volume. Creswell (2007) recommended using
sound-sensitive equipment to allow conversations to flow smoothly, without
interruptions. Storage of the interviewers notes and transcriptions was in a locked,
79

fireproof file cabinet. Each participant received a unique, alphanumeric code to protect
his or her identity. The participants names and identifiers were also in the secure,
locked, fireproof file cabinet.
A qualitative software known as NVivo 8 assisted in data collection and analysis.
NVivo 8 is a tool used to assist in the coding of documents, as well as to query data to
graphically display research information. NVivo 8, with its digital filing system,
accessed the transcriptions. This technology decreased human error because it organized
and recorded all data. Its use reduced the chance of losing or misplacing written data,
such as could happen with note cards. The researcher completed all coding. While the
limitations of NVivo 8 are few, the learning curve is steep. Acquiring and analyzing the
qualitative data required a significant time investment by the researcher. The data input
into NVivo 8 had two back-ups: one to a local hard drive and one to an offsite server via
automated back-up software. The data will be stored for seven years as required by IRB.

Data Analysis
All data sources for this qualitative, generic study underwent thematic analysis.
Thorne (2000) suggested thematic analysis depends on understanding human phenomena
within their contexts. Thematic analysis generates knowledge about common patterns
and themes within the human experience. Persistent re-verification of data continues
after primary coding, until no new themes emerge.
The data from each interview underwent several NVivo 8 processes within the
database, including entry, analysis, and coding. Data coding took place shortly after
80

completion of transcriptions. Immediate coding assisted the researcher in deciding if

more data collection opportunities were necessary to fully answer the research question
(Hewitt-Taylor, 2001). Then collected data from all the interviews underwent analysis to
identify both common and unique themes (Stake, 1995). NVivo 8 has a proven structure
for storing memos and a means to store data; it is one of the well-established software
coding packages used by qualitative researchers (Bazeley, 2007).
Coding and Matrix Query Analysis
Creation of categories and codes happened during the analysis process. These
groupings assisted in linking data to codes. Generating as many codes as necessary
captured the richness of the experiences. Coding individual quotations from the data in
as many assorted ways as practical enriched the process by revealing patterns or
overlapping areas. NVivo 8 helped the researcher to visually find the common themes.
The researcher could enter phrases or words and NVivo 8 would identify who, where,
and when these words appeared in a quote from an interview.
The quotes often appeared in more than one coding scheme, in an attempt to
identify potential themes. The sentences or passages surrounding the quotes remained
together in the coding to preserve the context. NVivo 8 allowed association between
quotations and codes to direct linkage from the codes to the quotations and the source
documents.
Bazeley (2007) and Richards (2005) suggested keeping memos in NVivo 8 during
the coding process, including reasons for the following phenomena: the code creation,
change, or deletion; code definitions; and any thoughts by the researcher emerging during
81

the coding. Due to the large number of codes established, it was not feasible to show the
entire coding scheme in this document.
Sorting codes from the generated list created groups representing potential
themes. Eisenstadt (1989) posited that a theme represents components or fragments of
ideas or experiences (quotes) that may be meaningless when viewed alone, but that may
have significance when brought together (see Figure 2). The coding process was
successful and helped to visually see the patterns that emerged. At this stage, patterns
began to emerge, leading to a grouping of the experiences and codes of the participants.
These groupings, in turn, yielded themes (Kaufman, 1992). NVivo 8 assisted in this
process, allowing the viewing and visual modeling of codes and quotes. Some codes
easily transformed into themes, while some codes did not seem to fit anywhere. All of
this would have been much more difficult without the NVivo 8 tool.

Figure 2. Example of coding analysis.

82

Creation of matrix coding queries in NVivo 8 facilitated analysis of Bazeleys

(2007) and Richards (2005) criteria of frequency and extensiveness. It also offered
examination of Owens (1984) recurrence criteria, using coding frequency reference
charts, with easy comparisons of results across different cases and categories. This
structure allowed for construction of patterns, models, and then themes, based on the
quantity of sources codes and references coded. The numbers in Table 3 represent
comments made by the participants with regard to each of the categories, which
combined into themes.
Conclusions emerged by noting patterns repeated or appearing as an isolated
incident. Models showed relationships between the data gathered from teachers,
parents, and students interviews. Combining data established, disconfirmed, and
finalizing themes. Clustering, sorting and modeling the data helped to uncover the
results. Counting and analyzing the data helped to determine how the data supported the
conclusions. Constant comparative analysis was the technique used for the thematic
analysis. Constant comparative analysis helped retain sensitivity to participants views.
Coding discovery for affective needs. Analyzing the affective matrix query for
Table 3 led to the discovery that all participants mentioned only two codes: frustration
and complexity. Table 3 shows the number of times the codes appeared. For example,
three students mentioned arrogance a total of seven times.

83

Table 3 Affective Matrix Query for Participants

Times Code Was Mentioned
Theme

Number Mentioning Theme

Parents

Students

Teachers

Parents

Students

Teachers

Arrogance

Frustration

Joys

Misunderstood

18

Overwhelmed

15

Self-defeating

Sensitive

12

Complexity

Distinguishing
characteristics

16

29

Identification as gifted

16

Intelligent

11

10

Loner

14

Rapport with teacher

10

10

Sensitive

12

Unorganized

Writing struggles

13

The following codes were not those most frequently mentioned, but were those
addressed by almost all students, parents, and teachers. Frustration was a key element
identified from the research. All teachers spoke about the frustration they experienced
trying to get students to complete work and turn it in on time. Homework is important at
this school, because it serves as a monitor for the students progress. This fact is
84

highlighted on the school web page and students spoke about the frustration they felt
trying to complete assignments. They felt when the teacher provided choices in how to
complete the assignment, it eased their stress. Parents spoke about the frustration they
felt when working with the school system. Parent B commented,
I talked to the attorneys for the public schools about how they were applying the
law, and really, how I felt like they werent understanding the gifted kids when
they were looking at accommodations. I beat my head against the wall until it
was bloody.
Further analysis of Table 3 shows that all participants mentioned the complexity
of the GLD. Baum, Owen, and Dixon (1991) discussed how uniquely different each
GLD student is, because many gifted students with learning disabilities display irregular
patterns of classroom and academic performance across subject areas, and the comment
from a teacher reiterated this. All participants commented on how difficult it was to
provide services due to the complexity of the individual. The emotional unevenness of
GLD is an additional factor. Teacher C provided this comment from her reading and
writing class:
Since all of our students are learning disabled by definition, they all receive some
form of differentiation. So, for example, they are working on a research project
right now, and every kid has a different length assignment, a different number of
subtopics.
The teachers instruction responded to the complexity of the students because the
entire school utilized a multi-sensory approach. Each lesson included an auditory, visual,
and hands-on presentation. Observations in the classroom provided the opportunity to
see actual lessons. The parents talked about their childs strengths and weaknesses, but
an observation as to how each student handled this complexity was not possible. This
85

balancing act was part of their daily lives, rather than the question and response format of
an interview. Observation of parent-child interaction was minimal.
Many characteristics described GLD students. No single characteristic is enough
to consider a student as GLD, but if a student exhibits many, a closer look and evaluation
may be necessary. The third code of distinguishing characteristics is worthy of
discussion. Baum (1984) posited that frustration, fear, and tension are among the
characteristics separating gifted from GLD students. The students mentioned this 29
times, parents 16 times, and teachers only twice. It seems logical that teachers focused
more on the curriculum than on personal characteristics of GLD students, because this
population makes up a small percentage of the classroom. Student A said this about
himself: Im not really sure of a single instance. Its usuallyusually with stuff. Ill
either do pretty good or pretty bad with it, depending on the class, so I cant really choose
one thing. These students know they are complex. They continued to struggle in some
areas and excel in others. It was difficult for them to verbalize the why or how of a
situation, and determine whether it was a time they experienced success or a time they
experienced failure.
A fourth code that appeared was misunderstood. Parents mentioned this eight
times, students mentioned this 18 times, and teachers mentioned it two times. The
asynchronization of these students academic and social skills often leaves others
confused. At times, a particular talent or intelligence shines, while another area, such as
writing, is significantly behind. All three students participating in this research study

86

struggled with written language. This is an example of how asynchronization may appear
in GLD students.
A fifth code noted was giftedness. In the matrix, this code was identification as
gifted. The parents mentioned this 16 times, the students mentioned this seven times,
and the teachers mentioned this three times. Parents knew their child had gifted abilities
and struggled with the fact that, even after formal identification as gifted, teachers did not
assign work that challenged their child in school. All students had switched schools
several times seeking the correct fit and academic challenge.
Coding discovery for educational programming. The regular classroom is
where most students first experience school. Analysis for Table 4 examined several
programs or settings beyond the regular classroom setting. The general education
program was chosen because parents and students spoke strongly about the program not
meeting the participants needs. The education programs matrix query for Table 4
displays that the general education classroom was the code parents addressed most
frequently; it represents the concerns they had with their childs experiences. All of the
parents and students addressed this code, and two of the three teachers addressed this
code. Parents commented about it 16 times, and students mentioned their experiences 11
times. Parent and student participants spoke about not fitting into the regular education
model and described the struggles each experienced.

87

Table 4 Education Programs

Times Code Was Mentioned
Theme

Number Mentioning Theme

Parents

Students

Teachers

Parents

Students

Teachers

General education

16

11

Gifted education

High potential

Policy and practice

14

Special education

A special school

13

Parent A said this about general education:

General education: I would say if you have the average child, general educations
probably a perfect fit for them. I think if you have a child whos only gifted,
gifted education, where its accelerated learning for them, is very good for them;
and if you have a learning disabled child, then special educations probably a
really good place for them. But when you mix the gifted and the learning
disabled is where its a little harder to accommodate a child.
Teacher A and teacher C stated that they had experience only in the special
education setting because that was their licensure. They were not classroom elementary
educators. One students comment remained vivid. Student C said this about his
experience in the general education classroom:
Three years ago at X Elementary, it just didnt work. There was too much
homeworkfive hours or so a night, maybe. It was just, none of it worked at all.
I actually think it was the relationship with the teacher and the rest of the class. It
was really horrendous.
Comments like this suggested the needs of these GLD students were not met in
the general classroom. This student was now in a different setting and was doing well
88

academically and socially. Only three codes were from parents about special education
and no comments from teachers or students about special education. Public education
has as its foundation the belief that all students have the right to instruction appropriate to
their needs. This includes GLD students. All of the parents participating in this research
moved their child from a public school setting to the specialized private school.
This middle school brings specialize programming, a tuition bill, smaller class
sizes of six to eight students per room, and advanced training in teaching learning
disabled students, as well as enrichment classes. Students are in classes by achievement
levels, rather than age, so multi-age classrooms exist. A special school appeared 13
times from parents, nine times from students, and two times from teachers. A special
school code referred to the school these students attended: a co-ed middle school
designed for students with learning disabilities.
Many people have the expectation that gifted kids will learn in spite of whatever
curriculum they have, but the outcome should be to learn because of the curriculum.
Gifted education may occur in a pull-out setting, a self-contained classroom, or a regular
classroom. The unique characteristics of the students serve as the basis for decisions on
how to modify the curriculum (Maker, 1982). Gifted education is another program in
Table 4. Parents mentioned gifted education four times, students mentioned it once, and
teachers mentioned it four times. It does not appear that the students are particularly
concerned about gifted, or perhaps they do not want to draw attention to it.
Coding discovery for the needs of GLD students. The codes in Table 5
highlight the programming needs for GLD students. These codes originated from the
89

needs of the individual student rather than an element of an already existent model. After
analyzing the programming needs matrix query for Table 5, the code that appeared most
frequently and that all participants mentioned was the need to align the student needs
with curriculum. The student participants mentioned it 22 times, and all students,
parents, and teachers mentioned this code. Clearly, this code was important to the
students school success. The students felt that the school they presently attended was
doing a fairly good job; all mentioned that this school was far better than the other
schools they attended. The parents spoke about the present school being a better match
for their childs academic needs. The teachers commented on the need to individualize
for each child and how small class size made it possible to differentiate.

Table 5 Programming Needs Suggested by Participants

Times Code Was Mentioned
Theme

Number Mentioning Theme

Parents

Students

Teachers

Parents

Students

Teachers

IEP

Needs align with curriculum

16

22

Rapport with teacher

10

10

Small class size

12

System doesn't meet needs

11

Technology tools

Untimed

Writing struggles

13

90

The code mentioned most often in Table 5 was the need to align the curriculum
with the students needs. The parents said it 16 times, the students said it 22 times, and
the teachers said it six times. GLD students learn best in a receptive, nonjudgmental
setting that encourages inquiry and independence, includes a wide variety of materials, is
generally complex, and connects the school experience with the outside world (Besnoy,
2006).
A second code that appeared was the system does not meet needs. All of the
parents were active and informed advocates for their children. By middle school age,
they had many years of experience within the various school systems. All parents chose
to have their child leave the public school setting. In making this choice, the families
agreed to make large tuition payments but said they would make the necessary sacrifice.
A third code that emerged was the importance of the rapport with the teacher.
Even at the middle school age, this connection to the teacher appeared to be imperative to
the students success. Student A commented about qualities a teacher needs:
Not too stuck in the steadfast, its their way or the highway type idea, and more
willing towell, just more being open and able to compromise with students. If
theyre just too stuck in their own ways to be able to compromise to fit my needs,
I cant really stand that, and then also if theyre too invasive in trying to help, to
the point of annoyance, that usually makes it much harder for me to work, as well.
It was interesting to observe that, as this student commented, he was very selfconfident. He knew what he needed from the teacher. It was also apparent that he had
experienced teachers who did compromise and he had experienced teachers who would
not. Both of these teachers had left a residual effect on the student.

91

Figure 3. Educational programming thematic map

Emerging codes. Enhancement of the codes continued until they accurately

represented the entire set of codes without being superfluous. Bazeley (2007) posited
that themes should start to emerge, but recommended the researcher should not discard
anything at this point. The preliminary themes of emotion, personal characteristics, and
GLD needs materialized at this time. The literature, as suggested earlier, assisted in
conceptualizing the themes. The diamonds of Figure 3 represent GLD education, special
education, and gifted education, which emerged from the interview data and were
frequently present in the literature. However, emotion, personal characteristics, and GLD
needs are themes from the interview data, but seldom appeared in the literature. Some

92

themes had several codes that were the same, but they remained attached to the
preliminary themes to facilitate further combining into major themes later in the process.
When this combining was complete, design of a graphic model (Figure 3) of the
overarching framework illustrated which themes and patterns had emerged from the data
collection. Re-reading while searching for significance, patterns, commonalities, and
differences led to a variety of ways to analyze the common data. Analysis and
comparison of how educational programming affected the success of GLD students based
on comparison of the literature to the codes took place during this iterative process
(Braun & Clarke, 2006).
Grouping the data and noting the frequency of data reoccurring assisted in
creating themes. Outlying data that did not repeat did not appear in the themes compiled
because themes emerge from data due to their reoccurrence among the participants
responses. Qualitative research examines the factors contributing to the theme
development. This in-depth collection creates a procedure of inquiry (Merriam, 1998).
The thematic map compiled the data collection into themes to construct the visual
model (Figure 3). The oval shape in the background represents the educational
programming. Educational programming consists of the classes and services provided
for the student. The triangles represent accumulated knowledge held by teachers,
parents, and the students themselves. The triangles are intentionally outside the oval
because, while these participants are important and hold valid ideas, school
administration does not recognize them as a component of the educational programming
within the system, based on the research data. The order is to establish programming and
93

placed students in the established program, rather than gathering knowledge from
students and parents, and then establishing a program. The programming has a generic
design, with limited consideration of the appropriate teacher. Likewise, little
consideration goes to the nature of the student and their appropriate parent.
The diamond shape represents specific program models, such as special
education, gifted education, and a special school. These are recognized elements of
educational systems and have programming models in use. Teachers, curriculum, and
classrooms align with these programs. The star shapes represent reoccurring themes that
all parties addressed: emotions, personal characteristics, and the specific needs of the
GLD students. The stars are inside the oval because they influence the programming so
profoundly and represent the socio-emotional aspects of educating the student. Schools
often provide services because the student has a need listed in one of these categories or
themes.
The data indicted that teachers and parents shared themes, and that parents and
students shared themes. The two directional arrows in the thematic map illustrate these
facts and their connections. The data suggested that teachers and students did not share
common themes; thus, no linking arrow appears between these two sources on the map.
The spirit of the themes surfaced from this visual data analysis and suggested teachers
and students do not share a dialogue beyond content of the curriculum.
The data also indicated that parents knowledge linked to the stars representing
students emotions, personal characteristics, and needs of the GLD. The arrows to each
theme illustrate this connection. Critical is how important the parents role appears to be,
94

and the data suggested students knowledge is linked to the stars. The arrow to each
theme illustrates this connection. It appears that the GLD students really do know who
they are, but at times may struggle to write or verbalize. This deficit may be dependent
on the nature of their disability. Note that the teacher knowledge does not link to these
three themes, based upon the data analysis.
Throughout the process, continual sorting, grouping, eliminating, and adding to
the data took place. For example, when Student C responded to the question: What are
your weaknesses as a learner?, he said, Memorizing things, such as math equations.
We had fact tests at my old school. I just hate time tests. They drive me nuts.
Originally, the code for this could be an area of weakness, math, general education, or
frustration area. Re-examining his statement revealed he was speaking about frustration.
The student was speaking about a frustration he experienced in a time test rather than
mathematics. The result of this analysis was a coding map. This map made a highly
useful visual pattern or graphic to process emerging themes and assist with the research
study. The map showed the integration of experiences and codes of the participants and
yielded themes. The researcher began to sense that themes were emerging, but Bazeley
(2007) continued to suggest elimination of no codes at this point.
The construction of the themes used Owens (1984) proposed criteria to
determine whether a theme was appropriate. The criteria are
1.

Recurrence criterion: the same thread of meaning must be found, even

when participants use different words.

2.

Repetition criterion: key words, phrases, or sentences are repeated

throughout the data set.
95

3.

Forcefulness criterion: the frequency of comments may have been small,

but the emotions were extreme when the comments were made.

At this point, theoretical saturation was complete, and Strauss and Corbin (1990)
posited that more is better. Wilson and Hutchinson (1990) warned against stopping early.
Reassessment of the final themes ensured every code matched with each theme. Theme
saturation occurred at that point, as each theme had its own identity. It seemed that the
coding and analysis processes were in alignment at this point and the data achieved
triangulation. The results of the previous analysis, which included all the participants
quotes, demonstrated the richness and relevance of the themes. These outcomes were
pertinent to illustrating the consequences and significance of the research, as guided by
the research question.
Interview analysis
Analyzing data is at the heart of building theory from studies. However, it is the
least codified and most difficult part of the process. Themes emerged from the
participants through their stories and experiences. Thus, chapter 4 is a difficult yet
critical component of this study.
In addition to accommodations, technology tools, and test-taking modifications,
the classroom teachers must provide nurturing environments that respect the individual
students learning needs and promote the students potential (Baum, 1989). In describing
a classroom environment compatible with his learning style, Student B commented:
There are laptops in every classroom. Typing is a lot easier because writing is hard.

96

The director and staff at the middle school spoke of the unique needs of the
students enrolled in their school. These students needed support in three areas:
emotional, external scaffolding, and advocacy (M. Coleman, 2005). External scaffolding,
in this case, meant the support needed to help the student succeed, such as tutoring, small
class size, calculators, and so on. Emotional support was the climate created to nurture
the learner. A common thread that appeared in the comments of GLD students was their
need for emotional support. When asked why they were successful at certain times, they
often replied, The teacher liked me. It seemed as if they felt a connection to that
particular teacher, and it motivated them to achieve.
External scaffolding refers to the amount of support or assistance the student
needs to be successful (Lipscomb, Swanson, & West, 2004). At times, this support may
be technology, such as spell checkers, calculators, or laptops. At other times, it may be
direct instruction from a teacher.
Advocacy is the role the teacher takes to encourage the students to work through
their disabilities while being mindful of their potential (Lindamood, 1995). Teachers
must help even the elementary student find ways to share information about his or her
disability with others. The purpose of all three types of support is to build the students
confidence and ability to operate independently (R. Coleman, 2005).
The researcher avoided leaping to conclusions or making false conclusions.
Eisenstadt (1989) recommended looking at the data collected in divergent ways. Withincase analysis involves detailed case study write-ups and descriptions. The current study

97

incorporated the recommendations of Eisenstadt through the selection of three different

approaches to analyze the interview data:

Similarities of themes that appeared within a single group.

Differences of themes that appeared between two groups.

Common themes that appeared among all three groups.

The themes chosen appeared most often on the affective matrix. Thus, the
analysis compared and contrasted themes among the parent, student, and teacher
participants while examining programming needs that affected the success of the GLD
student.
Similarities of themes within a single group. Identifying and understanding
giftedness was a theme shared among the parent group. They mentioned the code gifted
16 times. The distinguishing characteristics theme was also mentioned 16 times;
however, much has been written about characteristics of gifted and gifted learning
disabled student. The goal of this study was to look closely at the GLD student as
learner. Each parent spoke about how they discovered their child was gifted and about
what the journey to discover what gifted meant. For some parents, it had been a rough
journey, and their responses reflected it. To question 1, When did you discover that your
child was gifted? Parent A commented:
My first inclination was when he was an infant, and the pediatrician said to me,
He is such an alert baby. That usually means theyre really bright, and then
when he took his pre-kindergarten roundup, the ladies there said to meI cant
remember what number they used, but they said, Weve got a whatever number
here. Well, what does that mean? He scored really high. Okaystill didnt
mean much to me, but then in second grade is when the school did testing for
giftedness, and he scored very high in the tests, and thats when I knew.
98

Parent B said,
Third grade. Formalformalwehis third grade teacher called me early on in
the school year and said, Hes acting out, hes rolling his eyes, hes not paying
attention. I said, Well, yeah, hes probably bored. She said, Well, no child is
bored in my classroom, and I said, Okay, and so then I went and had him
tested. And I got his IQ scores, and I brought them back to the teacher, and she
looked at me, and she said, Oh, he is bored.
Parent C commented:
Well, interestingly, you know, I think we havent focused on that as a label or as a
name, but when he was two years old, we went to Childrens Hospital, because he
was born really prematurely, and they did a follow-up study of children who were
born under a certain birth weight. And so when he was two, they just wanted to
kind of see how kids, you know, under a certain birth weight were performing.
So he had kind of an assessment done at two, and at that time, at two, they said,
Youve got a gifted kid. But then we wentI mean, should I keep going?
Because thats the beginning, but then he would say things to his grandpa, like, I
like your lawnmower, and it wasnt because of the color, it was because it was a
two-stroke instead of a four-stroke engine. You know, things that I don't really
even understand. You know, it made sense to him; he understood it. But we
hadnt focused on that. I mean, then we got into school, and we had such a
struggle that the bigger focus was on how do we help him feel good about
himself.
All parents knew from an early age that their child was identified as gifted, yet
their struggle to maximize their childs potential and meet their childs academic needs
brought them to a special school. They were not pleased with services in the public
school settings. The programming was not helping their child achieve success.
The disability often masks the giftedness. All parent participants had details and
vivid memories of experiences pertaining to their childs identification as gifted. The
literature stated that students identified as gifted, but as also struggling with a learning
disability or attention deficit, present a strange paradox. The responses of the participants
revealed this. They had special intellectual gifts, and it was vital that schools pay
attention to their gifts as well as the learning difficulties (Baum & Owen, 2004). Parents
99

expressed concern that often their childs disability masked their intelligence and limited
their childs ability to succeed in school. In question 3, Do you feel that your childs
teacher understood what gifted learning disabled means? Parent A said,
No, because I don't think a lot of them understood. Either, it was always the
double-edged swordI would get, He cant be that smart, because he cant do
this, or I would get, He can do this, because hes so smart. So, no, I don't think
a lot of teachers understood.
Parent B replied:
NO. It was overwhelming, and they couldntthey wouldnt support him, and he
had anxiety over it, which caused him to get migraines, and he missed 30 days of
school. So he was literally failing school, and at that point, at the end of the year,
they finally agreed to do accommodations for him, and I finally got the 504, but it
was only after he failed. And at that point, I said, I cant do this anymore, and
so now this year hes at a school for kids with learning disabilities. Hes at X.
But even at X, they have athey see some kids like him, but more lowercognitive kids, so its still really a challenge for the teachers to understand that he
needs both content and tons of organizational support. So hes really getting more
process at that school: you know, the tools and the techniques that he needs to
organize himself and his life, and not so much content.
Parent C replied: Not at all, neither one of them, you know, of the two schools.
It was, yeah, completely misunderstood. The role of parent advocacy is so important.
Parents must organize, collaborate, and network to create an alliance between parents and
educators.
Differences in themes between two groups. A theme of friendship
distinguished the responses between the parent group and student group. On the affective
matrix, the code loner appeared 14 times from the students and three times from the
parents. The teachers did not mention it. Middle school parents tended to be less
involved in arranging friends. Parents of pre-school and elementary age students often
provide transportation and activities for their childs play dates. By middle school,
100

students want to be independent. Middle school age students may bicycle, walk, or use
public transportation to travel. Middle school teachers focus on the goals and academic
gains of their students. The middle school was another factor that may have contributed
to teachers not mentioning friendship.
The source of the themes traced back to specific questions that yielded the
responses. When parents and students responded to questions about friendship issues, it
became apparent that the two participant groups did not agree. Friendship issues did not
appear on the teacher data, perhaps because the middle school schedule had students
move for each block of approximately 45-55 minutes. Middle school teachers do not
oversee the student for the entire day or for lengthy periods of time. That trend is
different from elementary school teachers. Below are some of the pertinent student
responses:
In question 2, Do you have a best friend? Student A commented, I do not have a
best friend, but I do have a group of close friends. One person in that group who is
closest to me would be X, and hes a lot like me, actually. Student B said, No. I do
have a close friend. Student C said, Not really, but I have a couple of friends.
If the students did have a best friend, the next question was, How did you meet?
Student A said We met when I visited this school before enrolling here. Student B
commented, We met at my old school. He is a little weird, yeah. Student C said
School or X Boys Choir.
The next question was Are you alike or different? Student A said Both. We have
somewhat the same interests. Hes a little more athletic than me, and he has two
101

brothers, so theres difference between us, but we also connect on that personal level.
Student B responded, We are very alike. Student C said, I dont know. I think that
were all relatively similar in that were all kind of outcasts from the main, like, typical
school group of kids.
Question 8 asked, What would help you make friends more easily? Student A
said, I am not really sure, because Ive already said what I look for in my friends, and
really, that is all I need to find a friend. Someone who is like me, but theres enough
differences to set us apart, really, so yeah, thats all I could really describe. Student B
said, I dont know. Student C commented, Uh, I am not sure.
Students were not able to verbalize what or who could help them with their
friendship concerns. It was the most difficult to get the student participants to elaborate
on their responses to social needs. They often retold about a time when they felt hurt or
left out, but they were unable to analyze what or how things could have gone differently.
Parents had different responses to the questions, which in many cases were the
opposite of the students. Question 7 was, Is it difficult for your child to make and
maintain friendships? Why do you think so? Parent A said,
No, uh-uh. Well, hes always been a very verbal child, and hes got a fabulous
sense of humor, and I think those two things have helped him with his friendships,
and hes very compassionate, so hes never really struggled with the friendship
issue.
Parent B commented No. Parent C said:
Yeah, I would say so. I think the making of friends is not of interest, actually.
Its not a priority, so while Id say its difficult, then maybe actually the right
answer is its not really a big priority, yeahbut not super important to have a
best friend.
102

The examination of these responses showed that these GLD middle school age
children struggled with relationships. Adolescence is such a difficult period of time, and
this group experienced academic troubles as well as personal troubles. Who is there to
help them through when all admitted they dont have a best friend to share their feelings?
The parents did not perceive their child struggling with friendships. That left these
children alone. These struggles often become areas about which others teased or bullied
students. Children who were both gifted and had a learning disability faced numerous
challenges in the classroom and in life (King, 2005).
Common themes among all three groups. On the affective matrix, all students,
all parents, and all teachers mentioned the themes frustration and complexity. No
other codes shared this commonality. These common themes developed from the
interviews. The frustration and complexity of GLD students were critical factors in
determining how and to what extent educational programming affected the GLD
students success. Teacher, parents, and students spoke passionately about frustration.
The coding process led to the discovery that this theme appeared in all three groups.
Frustration was one of two themes that all parties shared.
Teacher responses to interview questions talking about frustration are below.
Question 9 requested, Describe any frustrations you felt as a teacher of this student.
Teacher A said,
I think a lot of the frustrations are trying to help prepare them for tasks that will
be expected in the future, so that we have to expect that homework comes in on
time, even from our ADD kids, for whom its very hard to initiate the homework
when they get home. So I feel frustrated preparing them, because I know whats
needed, and yet we have toits very hard for them. Thats their disability, and
we have to put these penalties on them for. . . Yeah, we have a lot of things in
103

place for that, because it happens all the time here. They get a study hall instead
of recess time for them to make up some of their work, but its only 20 minutes
long, so theyre not going to get a homework assignment finished for the most
part, or not all their nights homework. If they have three of those in a week,
three mandatory study halls in a week, then their parents are notified, and they
have a consequence of lunch on the bench one day without talking to their friends.
Teacher B commented,
You know, its just that total ADHD thing. Its just like, Come on, get it
together. I know you have it in there. Thats the hardest part, is you know they
have it in there, but that maturity piece, that kind of stuff is so slow to come and
kind of all fall into line. Waiting for it to emerge, waiting for that light bulb, and
it typically doesnt happen in middle school. Those light bulbs dont come on
until way later in life. You know, even from my personal experience, the light
bulb did not come on until college.
Teacher C said,
I am frustrated by the non-verbal, no study skills, no clues. They need the project
or assignment broken down...they cannot do it. It gets so overwhelming for them,
so they dont start. One kid lost his pen for the laptop and wanted to use mine. I
said No. Learned helplessness is seen. They dont know what page we are on.
Getting them ready for the ACT. It needs to be untimed. The recall process and
connection are not there.
Some frustration occurred due to the asynchronization of gifted students. The
GLD students are also asymmetrical in their development. Teachers see the students
struggle and want to help. The teachers comments expressed concerns that go beyond
curricular needs. This understanding is the type of support that GLD students need and
desire.
Parent responses showing frustration were highlighted in question 2, When did
you discover that your child had a learning disability? How did you feel? Parent A said,
Not surprised, to be honest. I knew there was something that he was struggling
with, didnt know what, so it helped me to understand. It changed for me,
because I now know what it means, and I didn't know what it meant then. Baby
books have all kinds of things about, you know, diseases and look for this, but
104

theres nothing in a baby book anywhere about what a gifted or disabled child
might mean or the challenges that might come with that.
Parent B commented, Somewhat, because Ive realized the depth of his issues
and that his challenges are pretty profound. Theyre hard. Hes going tohe struggles
and will struggle for a while until that frontal lobe closes at 30.
Parent C said,
Definitelyjust overwhelmed or sort ofyoure kind of scared, because you sort
of feel like whats going on a little bit. I was frustrated, because you know that
theres all this intelligence, because you hear it and you see it in so many other
ways, but it just, it doesnt get put down on paper, and so theres . . .
The parents responses seemed to display the love and devotion a parent has for a
child. Parents expressed unconditional love and the strong desire to understand their
child. The parents felt at a loss and turned to the teachers and schools in hopes of finding
an answer on how to help their child learn. At times, the parents felt the teachers knew
their child and were willing to assist, and at other times the parents felt as if they were
fighting a no-win battle. The troubling fact is that all families needed to switch schools
more than once to have their childs academic needs met.
Student expressed their frustration in their responses to question 4, What qualities
in a teacher cause you to feel stressed or prevent you from doing your best? Tell about
times you felt unsuccessful. Student A said,
Not too stuck in the steadfast; its their way or the highway type idea, and more
willing towell, just more being open and able to compromise with students. If
theyre just too stuck in their own ways to be able to compromise to fit my needs,
I cant really stand that, and then also if theyre too invasive in trying to help, to
the point of annoyance, that usually makes it much harder for me to work, as well.
Student B commented, Someone that specifies everything. Like youre writing a
paper, and it has to be exactly like 700 words. Student C said, If theyre trying to give
105

too much help or not enough help, I think thats not helpful, or I dont know, if theyre
just grumpy; maybe somebody whos maybe not real patient.
Another frustration question by the student was What are your weaknesses as a
learner? Student A said,
Probably writing or math, one of the two. Yeah, once again, usually with the
stuffI either do really good on it, or I get a D or an F on it, so, once again, it just
depends on the class and how well I work in that class.
Student B commented, A lot of the math and writing stuff. Student C said,
Memorizing things, math, I think justYeah, like memorizing multiplication, all that
stuff. The students were very articulate about times when they were frustrated. Their
conversations would often stray from the question and became confusing. During this
time, it was interesting to note that their body language often expressed as much as their
verbiage. Students became animated and used facial expressions and hand movements.

Conclusion
In conclusion, this generic qualitative study sought to find how and to what extent
educational programming affects the success of GLD students. What ties these students
together are their extraordinary intellect, their asynchronous abilities, their highly
discrepant challenges, and the apprehension their distinguishing differences cause both
socially and academically in typical classrooms. The concerns parents of GLD children
face in finding suitable, fostering, and inspiring environments are more than
overwhelming. Focused schools, both public and private, usually accommodate children
either with learning disabilities or the gifted, but not usually both (An Interview with
106

Micaela Bracamonte, 2009, para. 21). The school in this study was a private school for
learning disabled students; however, a portion of the schools population was also gifted.
Thus, the purposefully selected participants are gifted learning disabled students.
Triangulation of the research findings increased the internal validity of the study.
The data accumulated indicated teachers, parents, and students all experienced
frustration. Additionally, the data showed that understanding the complexity of the GLD
student was a key factor. The data revealed that the programming differed among the
regular education classroom, the gifted classroom, the special education classroom, and
the classroom in a school for learning disabled students. The changes or differentiation
in programming affected the GLD students ability to succeed, based on the data.
Whitmore and Maker (1985) suggested that finding a major inconsistency
between the measured academic potential of these students and their actual performance
in the classroom was not unusual. Educators must encourage their intellectual strengths
to flourish, and at the same time, appropriately accommodate their disability so these
students reach their full potential. The research data suggested a strong need for the
design and implementation of programming for GLD students to keep the individual
GLD students social and academic needs in mind. The research data also suggested a
need to train teachers to meet the needs of GLD students.
Theory-building researchers typically use many data collection methods. This
generic qualitative research study included field observation, interviews, experience, and
literature review. The triangulation of all of these data points created stronger
substantiation of constructs. The rich data drawn from the interviews and field
107

observations led to coding, identifying themes, connecting nodes into trees, and analyzing
the queries. A goal of this generic qualitative study was to go beyond descriptions and
generate theories about the aforementioned programming for GLD students.
Chapter 5 contains a summary of the overall study and analysis of the findings by
the emerging themes. The chapter includes limitations of the study, discussion of the
results, recommendations for future research, and implications from the study, which may
apply to programming and educating GLD students.
American educators must maximize the potential of all students, and these GLD
students may be major contributors to society. Contributing members of society will
need advanced technology skills and well-developed problem solving skills. Sometimes
behind their unusual and unique learning styles lie a huge untapped resource and a bounty
of insightful future problem solvers (Council for Exceptional Children, 2010).

108

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction
The purpose of this generic qualitative study was to determine how and to what
extent does educational programming affect the success of GLD students. The emerging
trends or themes were in three categories: common themes among all three groups,
differences of themes between two groups, and similarities of themes within a single
group. Common themes shared among all three groups were frustration and
complexity of the GLD student. All parents, students, and teachers mentioned these
two themes. A theme that was different between two groups was friendship. Feeling
alone or without friends appeared 14 times from the students, three times from the
parents, and not at all from the teachers. Themes that were similarly shared within a
group were identified as gifted and understanding giftedness. These themes appeared
among the parent group. The theme gifted appeared 16 times.
The study analysis suggested the key to academic success for gifted students with
learning disabilities was with school personnel appropriately identifying the GLD
students; providing professional development, which includes understanding GLD
student characteristics and curricular needs; and developing individualized programming.
Teachers and other school personnel must move away from the notion that gifted equates
to overall high achievement, as well as the notion that certain disabilities are indicative of
109

overall academic weakness (Baum, 1989; Silverman, 1989). When the school personnel
do not understand the GLD student, frustration is certain to be evident on the part of
everyone involved, as was found in the research data. At times, parents become so
frustrated and students become so overwhelmed that they seek an alternative or private
school setting.
In this chapter are a summary of the findings of this generic qualitative study, the
conclusions, and recommended areas of future research and practice relating to the
implications for programming of GLD students. Throughout the chapter, specific
findings and conclusions reference citations from the literature review and evaluate the
findings derived from the matrix queries formulated from the student, parent, and teacher
interview data. The findings of the study may entice readers to gather more information
on the phenomena of GLD, influence the readers understanding of these unique
individuals, and assist with programming needs.

Summary of the Study

This generic qualitative research study addressed the effect of educational
programming on the success of GLD students in middle school. The research findings
showed that the identification process, the unique characteristics of GLD students,
individual programming needs, emotional needs, and the need for professional
development of school personnel all are critical components in answering the research
question: How and to what extent does the educational programming affect the success of
gifted learning disabled students?
110

This research may offer many contributions to the field regarding the
identification process, unique characteristics of GLD students, programming needs, some
emotional needs of the students, and the needs for professional development of school
personnel. Nine participants agreed to interviews for this study: three middle students
identified by the school as GLD and their parents, as well as three teachers from the
school. The interviews averaged approximately 45 minutes in length, based on semistructured questions. All interviews took place in a location of the participants choice,
mostly in the students and parents homes or the teachers school. The participants
provided stories of their experiences, as well as information that influenced their lives
and their successes.
A review of the literature suggested the areas of gifted and learning disabled are
more widely researched than is the area of GLD. Research by Brody and Mills (1997)
suggested that the GLD student is an under-represented group in terms of focused
educational programming. The lack of an authoritative definition and identification
criteria seem to elude the educational profession. Krochak and Ryan (2007) stated, The
characteristics that lead to problems with identification are the very characteristics that
make it so important to provide individualized programming (p. 51).
When schools respond to the student as an individual, and accept the child with
these special needs into their community, opportunities exist for members of the
community and the school system to learn and grow from the experience. Ruf (2010)
posited that educators can start by changing the ways they set up schools and the ways
they address the very different learning abilities and needs of the students in them. The
111

programming needs to include services for the social, emotional, and educational needs
of the GLD students. Schools should have social workers and/or counselors available on
a regular basis. The data analysis showed such students struggle with friendships, as well
as with fitting in with their peers.
Students with learning disabilities who are also gifted have needs differing
considerably from several groups: gifted students without disabilities, students without
exceptional abilities who have learning disabilities, and average students. The data
discussed in Chapter 4 showed these differences pushed parents to switch schools several
times as they searched to find a school to meet their childs unique learning needs.
Students spoke about how important it was to have a small class size. That was the norm
at the middle school in this research study.
The asynchronized GLD student showed distinct traits. Friedrichs (2001) posited
that increased sensitivity to these students is necessary to improve the identification and
programming for them. Regular and gifted education teachers need to be sensitive for
several reasons:

The GLD student spends most of the day in the regular classroom.

National policy requires the least restrictive environment for disabled

and handicapped students.

Classroom teachers must show academic gains for all students including
disabled or handicapped students.

The programming must focus on individualized instruction for all students, so that
pace, level, and content can be geared to ability, interests, and learning style. Preferably,
a continuum of optional educational choices should be available to these students so the
112

programming builds profoundly on students' strengths, but also provides remediation and
support for social and emotional needs (Brody & Mills, 1997; Rath, 2007).
Schools must train teachers, administrators, and staff with both gifted and special
education strategies. All the teachers who participated in this study spoke about their
training and having earned a masters degree in special education. The director of
education spoke about the testing used to find the students achievement level, and then
placing students in the appropriate classroom. During field observation, students were on
task and the instruction appeared to be at the appropriate level.
An accommodating and welcoming learning environment needs to be promoted
through education for twice-exceptional students wherein educators first recognize their
giftedness and strengths, not their disabilities (Neumann, 2004; Rath, 2007). School
districts should develop and implement strategies for the classroom teacher that work to
develop the students particular strengths in light of their disabilities (Krochak & Ryan,
2007).

Summary of the Findings and Conclusion

The answer to the question, How and to what extent does programming affect
the success of gifted learning disabled students? in this generic qualitative study was
complex, yet straightforward. This research analysis showed that the identification
process, unique characteristics of GLD students, programming needs, emotional needs,
and the needs for professional development of school personnel, all are critical
components in answering the research question. Within the theme of emotional needs
113

was the issue of friendships. One of the findings discussed in Chapter 4 was that the
students stated they did not have a best friend. However, their parents did not feel their
childs ability to make friends was a concern. All the students knew the middle school
they attended had counseling services, but professed they did not go to counseling.
Identification
After more than 30 years, the identification and assessment of GLD students
remains both controversial and incomplete (Krochak & Ryan, 2007, p. 50). The parents
in this study continually stated that their child showed advanced abilities before they
attended school, and IQ testing had identified their child as gifted. However, their childs
disability masked the giftedness. The students were aware of their strength in some areas
and weakness in other areas. The teachers knew the students IQ qualified them as
gifted, yet stated organization and writing as issues. At the Neag Center for Gifted
Education and Talent Development symposium in 2009, over 30 people from around the
country convened to define twice-exceptional students. Symposium participants
brainstormed and the results of their efforts was the development of a definition shown
below with the hope that it will lead to better understanding of these children by
practitioners, parents, and state agencies.
Learners who give evidence of the potential for high achievement capability in
areas such as specific academics; general intellectual ability; creativity;
leadership; and/or visual, spatial, or performing arts AND also give evidence of
one or more disabilities as defined by federal or state eligibility criteria such as
specific learning disabilities; speech and language disorders; emotional/behavioral
disorders; physical disabilities; autism spectrum; or other health impairments,
such as AD/HD. (A Meeting of the Minds, 2009, July, p. 1)

114

This definition would include GLD students and should be helpful in guiding and
designing educational programming for these GLD students. Identification of twiceexceptional students requires assessment in both the areas of giftedness and disability, as
one does not preclude the other (A Meeting of the Minds, 2009, July, p. 1). Brody
and Mills (1997) emphasized the importance of operational definitions and identification
criteria (p. 285). Establishing a common definition would be a first step in addressing
the needs of these GLD students. They need to be identified.
Identification of these GLD students needs to take place as soon as possible, so
schools can address their educational programming needs. Comments from the
participants in this study showed the lack of identification had negatively affected their
schooling. Student A said, Its not that its too hard. Its just that every once in a while
it gets too repetitive. Parent A said,
I don't think a lot of them understood. Either, it was always the double-edged
swordI would get, He cant be that smart, because he cant do this, or I would
get, He can do this, because hes so smart. So, no, I don't think a lot of teachers
understood.
Teacher B said,
This student can come across as superior sounding because of the big discrepancy
between what he can do and what he knows. Hes actually pretty embarrassed
about some of his weaknesses, and so he needs a lot of positive comments about
what he does well, so that he can keep his confidence up, so that he can do his
best work and also just feel happier with himself.
At a young age, these children know they are different from their peers. Their
school experiences shape much of their self-concept (Ruf, 2005). The lack of
programming can negatively affect the student, so early identification is critical. The
reality in many school districts is that schools do not screen students for gifted services
115

before second grade. Gifted programs often do not begin before third grade. If districts
do not screen for gifted abilities, having GLD students noticed or identified would be
unlikely.
Schools identify students by using the national or state definition for gifted,
individual intelligence tests such as Wechsler, Cognitive Abilities, Woodcock-Johnson,
Stanford-Binet or, typically, a locally made checklist of characteristics. Schools might
have to adjust downward the cut-off scores on whatever measures they use to allow for
the depressing effect of the learning disabilities of GLD students (Silverman, 1989), as
well as also recognize students who overachieve and meet cutoff scores in spite of their
disability. Silverman and Felder (2005) suggest that educators should reduce the cut-off
for full-scale IQ to 120 for GLD students to account for masking issues.
Implementation of this adjustment of the cutoff scores would have meant all three
of the students in this study would have benefited from gifted services while in their
public school setting. Classroom teachers might have had a different view of each
student and might have provided greater challenges. Parents might have been more
satisfied with the services their child received and would not have had to seek out private
education. The students might have had a more challenging experience, which might
have boosted their self-esteem. Brody and Mills (1997) posited that a depression of
scores occurs because of the disability, and test scores of the subtests appear scattered.
Brody and Mills suggested debate is present within the learning disabled community as to
whether IQ tests are the best or most appropriate measure of potential.

116

The research shows that many GLD students received no help from special
education or gifted education, and a change in the use of intelligence test scores would
allow GLD students to benefit from both services. Identification procedures typically are
absent in school districts, with very little research and understanding of these students
working its way into the appropriate educational hands of the specialists (Weinfeld,
Barnes-Robinson, Jeweler, & Shevitz, 2002). A portfolio may more accurately show the
potential of the GLD student than an IQ test, because the student chooses the end product
in a medium that compliments his or her gift and talent. Krochak and Ryan (2007)
suggested,
While there is consensus that a multi-faceted approach is needed in the
identification and assessment of GLD students, there is a general lack of
guidelines in this area. Multiple standardized assessments are suggested, with no
guidelines on which to use or how to use them for this specific population.
Parent, teacher, and other significant other checklists are recommended with no
clear guidelines on what those checklists should include. (p. 49)
Hishinuma and Tadaki (1996) observed that teachers make approximately 8085% of all referrals for special education. Additionally, they concluded that tools are
necessary to identify possible GLD students. All the parents stated they knew their child
had advanced intelligence before the child started school, so using a parent checklist
would have provided the school with valuable information before testing took place.
Teachers observe and assess students performance on a regular basis, so portfolio work
or a teacher checklist would provide valuable information. Standardized assessments are
only one measure, and they do not gather the same information as a multi-faceted
approach. The teachers in this study stated their middle school used standardized tests;

117

however, on unit tests, they offered accommodations such as unlimited time or oral
answers instead of written answers.
The recommendations and limitations section that follows contains further
discussion of identification as a part of the educational needs for GLD. The literature
suggested several definitive guidelines to identify and assess the GLD population and an
assortment of methods are necessary for sufficient identification and assessment
(Beckley, 1998; Cloran, 1998; McCoach & Siegle, 2003; Nielson, 2002), including IQ
and achievement tests, behavioral scales, and creativity and risk-taking assessments. A
literature review completed by the Center for Gifted Education at the University of
Calgary contended that the approach to identifying gifted students with disabilities must
be different than the approach used in identifying gifted students without disabilities
(Krochak & Ryan, 2007, p. 50).
Previous school districts had identified all the students in this study as gifted. As
a part of the application process, the middle school in this study administered the
following tests: WICIV, Woodcock-Johnson Test of Achievement III, Word
Identification and Spelling Test (WIST), Gray Oral Reading Test (GORT), Gray Silent
Reading Test (GSRT), and a math assessment test. These tests distinguished the needs of
gifted students and the needs of learning disabled students (Brody & Mills, 1997).
Discovering the academic needs of the GLD is a key feature in the process.
Strategies to direct those responsible for identifying GLD students should include
looking beyond the test score, examining the characteristic enabling the child to
compensate for the disability, being mindful that scores are depressed due to the
118

disability, and using performance from areas unaffected by the disability to see the
students potential. The substantiation of their exceptional talents will then emerge. If
educators had implemented strategies to help identify students who are both gifted and
learning disabled, parents and students who participated in this study would have had
fewer comments noting misunderstanding as an issue. Parent C said, Not at all, neither
one of them, you know, of the two. Being gifted and learning disabled was, yeah,
completely misunderstood.
Programming
The GLD students need special provisions and accommodations for
individual disabilities; therefore, the need to individualize programming is essential.
Rogers (2005) synthesis of her research on gifted educational provisions listed the
following three services as vital for effective gifted programming: instructional
management, instructional delivery, and curricular services.

Table 6 Gifted Educational Provisions

Instructional Management
Services

Instructional Delivery Services

Curricular Services

Individualization

Projects - independent study, small group

Content modifications

Grouping permutations

Self instructional materials

Product modifications

Acceleration permutation

Hands on activities -games, simulations

Lecture, discussions, mentoring
Pacing, instructional modifications of process

Note: Adapted with permission from Re-forming Gifted Education: Matching the Programs to the Child,
by K. Rogers, 2005, Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

119

The GLD student is especially in need of a plan to manage the instruction, delivery of
that instruction, and curricular services, that need modification to ensure success. Table 6
summarizes these provisions and suggests possibilities.
The author of Is It a Cheetah, Stephanie Tolan (1996), suggested a metaphor that
explains the need for educational programming changes. The zoos environment does
not have space for the cheetah to exercise, just as there is no room for individualized
programs in many of the current school models used for programming. The Zoo Chow
used to feed the cheetahs is generic and cheap, similar to the one-size-fits-all menu that
costs less and is in use at many schools. This study examined and explained the
importance of changing the educational programming, because it impacts the success of
the GLD student, as well as every other student. Teachers need to recognize the GLD
students attributes and schools need to make an effort to provide appropriate services for
GLD students. Tolan offered this quote:
It's a tough time to raise, teach or be a highly gifted child...Schools are to
extraordinarily intelligent children what zoos are to cheetahs... Every organism
has an internal drive to fulfill its biological design. The same is true for unusually
bright children. From time to time, the bars need be removed, the enclosures
broadened. Zoo Chow, easy and cheap as it is, must give way, at least some of
the time, to lively, challenging mental prey. (Tolan, 1996, p. 1)
The comment from Parent B highlighted the effect of the zoo chow on GLD
students. Parent B shared,
His third grade teacher called me early on in the school year and said, Hes
acting out, hes rolling his eyes, he is not paying attention! I said, Well, yeah,
hes probably bored. She said, Well, no child is bored in my classroom, and I
said, Okay. And so then I went and had him tested. And I got his IQ scores,
and I brought them back to the teacher, and she looked at me, and she said, Oh,
hes bored.
120

Fortunately, this teacher saw that zoo chow was not going to work.
It is important to have options or placement within a school where GLD students
can be successful. The programming should help the GLD students succeed in the school
system and have a strong foundation of skills and knowledge. Rogers (2002) declared
that to meet the learning needs of gifted children, the school should match the program to
the childs specific traits and abilities. Rogers advocated that the appropriate program
would help learners be self-confident, prepared, and ready to contribute to society and the
world. The data gathered from parents and students showed that when the program met
the childs needs, the child was happy and able to succeed. This student statement
appears on the schools website and reflects how appropriate programming affects the
GLD student.
At my old school, the teachers were nice but they couldn't give me any help with
my work because there were too many kids in my class. I had to do my work by
myself and it was too hard for me. My teachers just gave me easier work instead
of teaching me how to do the harder work. This really embarrassed me because I
didn't want people to think I was dumb or lazy! Now I'm a seventh grader in my
second year at school X. X lets me work at my level rather than giving me work
that is too easy or too hard. The teachers are friendly and always willing to help
me when I need it. The kids are really nice, too. I have improved in math,
writing, and reading, and my favorite classes are science, phy. ed., and reading. I
really love to read! I feel like I belong at this school.
The students and schools identity are not identified to protect their
confidentiality. The programming for these GLD students must address the issue of class
size, as well as the need for school districts to examine the unique requirements of these
individuals, and begin to reach out to this population and their families. Without change,
these GLD students will continue to underachieve, sometimes drastically.
121

The programming needs to implement an advocacy component. Parents know and

understand their child and should be allowed to advocate for their childs needs, thus
collaboration between teachers and parents is critical. A powerful parent can be a friend
or a foe. Students by middle school age are able to advocate for their needs or areas of
interest, so programming and planning needs to include the student in the academic
scheduling.
Schools must service GLD students by using an Individualized Educational Plan
(IEP) similar to the model found in Special Education. Schools need to identify GLD
students strengths and weaknesses and set goals. These students need a wide variety of
services, including differentiated instruction, accommodations and/or modifications,
acceleration options, and opportunities for talent development. These services are
necessary to achieve the required growth at a level proportionate with their abilities.
Development of their gifts begins and grows by learning compensation skills and
strategies to address their disabilities. Schools must monitor these goals and evaluate
them on a yearly basis to determine the students progress.
Table 7 depicts some of the strengths and weakness commonly shared by typical
GLD students. Those who are responsible for writing the IEP for GLD students should
be aware of these shared traits and should include plans to accommodate for both the
strengths and the weakness of the students. The IEP needs to mention, where possible,
utilizing gifts and strengths to accommodate weaknesses and disabilities. The teacher
should keep in mind the need to teach to the strength, rather than to the weakness. If
teachers teach primarily to the weakness, schoolwork might never challenge the student.
122

The literature supported the need to teach to their strengths. GLD students require
gifted instruction while at the same time needing the special instruction, adaptations, and
accommodations provided to students with special needs (Weinfeld et al, 2002). Teacher
A with 22 years of experience shared her insight into working with GLD students:
I know that gifted learning disabled face a lot of challenges. One of them is that
theyre misunderstood byusually by their mainstream teachers, many of whom
think theyre lazy or arrogant or just full of excuses, and some teachers don't
understand their real disabilities or make many accommodations for those
disabilities. I also know that they need some accommodations that would be more
typical of a less intelligent child, and maybe well get more into that later.

Table 7 Typical Characteristics of Twice-Exceptional Children

Strengths

Weaknesses

Superior vocabulary

Poor social skills

Advanced ideas and opinions

High sensitivity to criticism

High levels of creativity and problem-solving ability

Lack of organizational and study skills

Extremely curious, imaginative, and questioning

Discrepant verbal and performance skills

Wide range of interests not related to school

Penetrating insight into complex issues

Poor performance in one or more academic

areas
Difficulty with written expression

Specific talent or consuming interest area

Stubborn, opinionated demeanor

Sophisticated sense of humor

High impulsivity

Note: From Responding to the Needs of Twice-Exceptional Learners: A School District and Universitys
Approach, by L. Higgins and M. Nielsen, 2000, In K. Kay, (Ed.), Uniquely Gifted: Identifying and
Meeting the Needs of the Twice-Exceptional Student (pp. 287-303). Gilsum, NH: Avocus Publishing.
Adapted with permission.

123

Parent B summarized her childs need for challenge and accommodations in her
statement:
But even at school X they have a they see some kids like him, but more lowercognitive kids, so its still really a challenge for the teachers to understand that he
needs both rich content and tons of organizational support. So hes really getting
more process at that school, you know, the tools and the techniques that he needs
to organize himself and his life, and not so much content.
Additionally, the GLD student needs emotional support. Organizations such as
Supporting the Emotional Needs of the Gifted (SENG) and state councils for the gifted,
guide parents in the right direction to seek assistance to deal with their childs issues.
Access to small groups, or a place for these GLD students to directly find input or
solutions to their issues, is one suggestion. A full-time counselor is at the middle school
in this study, but the students who participated in the study said they did not visit the
counselor. Counselors need to be part of the GLD programming in a pro-active way.
The research data showed frustration occurring among the students when the
program did not align the students strengths and remediate the weakness within the
curriculum of the school program. Students, parents, and teachers all cited frustration as
a concern, and it appeared as a major theme in the data. Issues such as disruptive
behaviors, frustration, and depression have a tendency to mask the gifts of the GLD
(Baum, 1989). On the other hand, disabilities that mask gifts may result in lost potential
with these students, who never get, or at least delay, the opportunity to develop their
unique talent (Krochak & Ryan, 2007, p. 51). Some GLD students use masking to hide
their disability. This trait affects their identification, which causes problems in the

124

educational programming for the GLD student. The giftedness masks the disability or the
disability masks the giftedness.
Researchers have discussed and debated the concept of masking over the years
(Ferri, Gregg, & Heggoy, 1997; McCoach, Kehle, Bray, & Siegle, 2001). This
exacerbates the difficulty in identifying GLD students. No known method has been able
to identify in which students masking occurs. The identification process often lies in the
hands of the classroom teacher, who has inadequate preparation for this task. Teacher B
described how one of her students ability can mask the disability and how the disability
can mask the ability.
The student Im thinking about will amaze you with his facts, you know, just like
he can tell you the most incredible things about things hes interested in. For
example, hes related to Abraham Lincoln, and so he knows everything about
Abraham Lincoln. And he can read anything, and, you know, he can do all this,
but the disability of the ADHD is totally what impacts him. His ability to focus,
even if its something hes interested in, the motivation, you know, that whole
executive functioning piece is just out the windowno organization, not a lot of
follow-through, you know. But if you give him the proper tools and sit with him,
then he can achieve it, but on his own, he cant. But you look at him and youre
like, this is such a bright kid. You just look at him and youre just like, wow.
This leads to the last area of concern of professional development, which is the
need for teacher training to recognize the traits or characteristics of gifted and GLD
students.
Professional development
Most states do not require classroom teachers to have any exposure to the unique
learning needs of gifted children. Dr. Ann Robinson, President of the National
Association for Gifted Children and Director of the Center for Gifted Education at the
University of Arkansas at Little Rock, noted the majority of high-potential students do
125

not have appropriately trained teachers (NAGC, 2010). Survey responses from the State
of the States Report on Gifted Education (NAGC, 2009c) indicated that, at every grade
level, local education agencies relied upon the regular classroom as one of the top three
delivery methods for gifted services. However, only five states required regular
classroom teachers to have pre-service training in the nature and needs of gifted students,
despite the fact that states most often rely on these teachers to identify and meet the
diverse educational needs of our most able students.
While some signs indicate the emphasis placed on professional development in
gifted education may be improving, it is still an area of concern. However, a majority of
respondents In the State of the States Report on Gifted Education (NAGC, 2009c), 28 of
44 respondents indicated professional development initiatives as a positive influence on
gifted education. Among areas in need of attention, a majority named funding for
professional training in gifted and talented education (36 of 44 respondents), pre-service
training in gifted and talented education at the undergraduate level (40 of 44
respondents), and training for general education teachers in gifted instruction (40 of 44
respondents).
School districts would be wise to use differentiation when designing professional
development. Teachers need to be pre-assessed about their knowledge and understanding
of GLD students. Based on the assessment, teachers need to learn about the appropriate
characteristics, identification, and teaching methods that are best practices for GLD
students. Support for the teachers, as they make changes, is needed. Then, a follow up or

126

post assessment needs to be done to determine the impact of the professional

development. Change is a slow, but steady process will emerge.
The research data from students and parents in the current study suggested that an
emphasis on this professional development would greatly reduce frustration and increase
the connectedness between teachers and students/parents. Parent C said this about the
gifted:
I don't know if they know about the gifted part. Certainly the disability part is a
huge focus, but theres not much conversation about the gifted part, so that part, I
don'tI wouldnt know, because its neverit hasnt been a big topic. We
havent asked a lot about it, and they have not talked about it.
The middle school in this study was primarily for learning disabled students, so
gifted students were not the instructional focus. The teachers who participated all had
masters degrees in special education, so they had trained to differentiate for weaknesses.
Those same skills helped them differentiate for areas of strengths. None of the teachers
had licensure in gifted education.

Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research and Practice

The research study provided answers to questions and assisted stakeholders in
understanding the GLD students. The study also identified gaps in the literature and lack
of appropriate educational programming. One limitation was the lack of gender, ethnic,
geographic, and income diversity in this small study. The participants in this study were
all white males from a metropolitan area in a Midwestern state. The experiences of gifted
students in more diverse populations may be quite different because of issues of language
and cultural differences that may affect the results. Another limitation was that the study
127

took place at a private school. The private school drew students from 30 districts, but the
ability to pay tuition limited enrollment. A public school must serve any student who
wishes to attend; however, budgets determine the quality and quantity of services a
school is able to reasonably provide. A third limitation of the research study was that it
was based primarily on interviews. The interviews provided rich, detailed descriptions
that are different than the quantitative data provided from test scores or records.
Research topics delved into areas of personal interest or areas of need. After
much reading, the following recommendations highlight areas that did not appear to have
significant inquiries. These areas may add bodies of knowledge to the field of education.
The recommendations for future study look into GLD longitudinal study, looping for
gifted, GLD dropout rate, use of technology tools for GLD students and effects of school
culture.
Gifted Learning disabled Longitudinal Study
A need exists for research to follow the progress of students identified as GLD
over an extended period of time. The middle school age participants in this study
concurred that school became more difficult each year, to the point that they were unable
to be successful in the regular school setting. Each sought out and attended a school
where the programming met their academic needs. It appeared that no empirical data has
supported the use of longitudinal screening in identifying gifted students with hidden
learning disabilities (McCoach et al., 2001). If a portfolio of student work were to follow
the GLD student, areas of success and weakness could easily be visible to follow and
verify across times and settings. An electronic portfolio could be an example of this.
128

Maintenance of the electronic portfolio over a period of years could create interesting
data for a longitudinal study. Reis and McCoach (2002) suggested confirmation that
learning disabilities wield more influence on success as these students advance out of the
primary grades; this area warrants further research. Research data may also convey
different results, if performed in the primary grade levels.
Looping
Future research and practice in the area of looping may assist the GLD and relieve
some of the frustration levels noted by parents and students. In an ideal setting, the
teacher would work with GLD students over a period of two or three years. Some
elementary schools have addressed this issue through "looping," allowing the teacher to
move with the students from one grade level to the next. This helps build strong
relationships among the teacher, the students, and their families. A longitudinal study in
the success or failure of looping may be appropriate.
Learning Disabled Student Dropouts
Future research should document the dropout rate of GLD students, as compared
to LD students. Researchers should devote attention to the age when the dropouts occurs
whether at the high school or college level, and the reasons why. This research data
could influence when and what interventions are necessary to prevent dropouts. Another
future research area would be to examine the scatter patterns of GLD students on the new
WISC-IV, a test used to identify gifted children. Educators could then design
programming to remediate and accommodate for areas of weakness. Classroom

129

placement of students at the school in the study was by achievement level, but identifying
similarities of patterns on WISC-IV could be another way to place students.
While McCoach et al. (2001) suggested the practice would be unrealistic to check
all students who are achieving at grade level for hidden disabilities; McCoach et al.
identified this as an area for future research. Krochak and Ryan (2007) posited that the
lack of consensus on the use of IQ tests, combined with the new WISC-IV, highlighted
the need for further research and discussion on their use for identifying GLD students and
for determining individual learning deficiencies and strengths (p. 50).
Technology Tools
Another goal of future research could be to determine which assistive
technology tools, including calculators, specialized computers, and Web 2.0, or mobile
technologies such as wikis, RSS feeds, micro-blogging, and chat rooms like GT Chat,
should be available for GLD students. A technology college-prep school in Georgia that
serves GLD students has decided to use the Apple iPad to help students learn in a multisensory way. One example could be the iPad application of Dragon Naturally Speaking,
which helps students with dysgraphia. The Georgia school headmaster affirmed so many
web-based educational applications are available that his school will be able to get rid of
most textbooks (Niemi, 2010). Brooks-Young (2010) discussed how educators can
integrate mobile technologies into the classroom and addressed the ethical use of such
technology to improve student performance.

130

School Culture
A study of the school culture would be another area of future research. In this
study, the school was designed for learning disabled students. The student body was very
similar. If the study had been done in a more heterogeneous school setting, the research
data may have been very different. Areas to consider would be how does the school
culture help or hinder the students success? What programs are available? What
evaluation tools are used?

Implications from the Study

The United States has one of the widest intellectual ability ranges in the world
because our diverse economy has attracted people from all over the world (Ruf, 2010).
The research from this study documents that among the diverse ability levels are many
GLD students. The needs identified from this study indicated three areas in need of
change: the identification process, professional development of school district personnel
who instruct GLD students, and appropriate programming needs for the GLD students.
The identification process surfaced because all teachers, parents, and students
talked about the need for identification as a gifted student. In fact, it appeared 26 times.
Identification left all participants with questions and worries. Students in this study came
from a variety of school districts, and each district uses its own method of identification.
Once the students arrived at the middle school in this study, they took the WISC IV,
which again identified these students as academically gifted.

131

The choice of the need for professional development arose because participants
mentioned it least. Parents and students talked about being misunderstood and shared
negative previous experiences. Teachers talked about their struggles with GLD students,
but no one talked about training or support.
Programming was a choice because participants mentioned it most frequently; it
came up 57 times in conversation. All three students had attended two or more schools
and found that the curriculum and instruction at the middle school in the study aligned
with their needs. The schools programming was responding to the learner; thus,
appropriate programming affects the success of GLD students.
The implications for these students are that schools need to commit to identifying
and cultivating the special needs of students with disabilities by making specific changes
in the way educators approach identification, instruction, and classroom practices. States
should design a mandate requiring identification and appropriate education programming
for GLD students. At a time when many states face budget cuts, it may be difficult to
pass mandates for gifted.
Reist (2010) recommended that eliminating the state's (Nebraska) gifted education
program is among the suggestions for trimming 10% of the department's operating
budget and 10% in state aid to schools for the 2011-13 budget. The cartoon in Figure 4
illustrates a strong structural base for learning disabled, reflecting that funds and services
are federally mandated. GLD often do not meet the requirements for learning disabled
services because these students score too high on the tests. The gifted and talented

132

structure has a broken leg to reflect that funds and services are not always present. Often
the GLD student does not receive services because they score too low on the tests.

Figure 4. Students cartoon. States need to have a mandate that requires identification
and appropriate education programming for gifted students. Adapted with permission
from the National Association for Gifted Education website. Cartoon drawn by Megan,
New Jersey, age 11.
The National Association of Gifted Children records policies concerning the
gifted on a state-by-state basis. Data collected for 2008-2009 showed only 36 states
mandate identification for gifted and talented (NAGC, 2010). The lack of a state
requirement to identify these learners reduces services and programming for these gifted
learners. In most cases, parents must advocate for their childs educational needs. The
research gathered from this study explains the struggles of GLD students as they navigate
133

their way through school systems. At times, they are unsuccessful and their failures
support a need for a federal mandate to identify and provide programming for gifted
learners. The identification process should include the GLD learner. The mandate needs
to have funding for the GLD students in order to provide services.
School programming needs to move away from the one-size-fits-all approach to
education. The study findings suggested this model does not work well, and it is
especially ineffective for GLD students. Perhaps the need to have self-contained
classrooms for special education or gifted education will decrease because the instruction
and programming will fit the needs of the individual learner. The fact that special
classrooms are present shows the deficiencies in the regular educational system. Schools
must identify GLD students, and using a diversity of assessments and checklists,
including intelligence tests, to measure possible potential and assess the strengths in
children who might be learning disabled and gifted is prudent (Brody & Mills, 1997;
Rath, 2007).
Most school districts do not adequately address programming, perhaps because
GLD students do not qualify for gifted services or special education services using the
traditional methods for identification. Identification of giftedness in students who are
learning disabled is problematic. In some cases, the deficit in programming comes from
the teachers or administrators lack of knowledge or training about the needs of GLD
students. Rogers (2005) shared that after her consulting with schools for more than 25
years, most public schools are not doing even a minimally adequate job of managing the
education of gifted and talented learners.
134

In the 2008-2009 State of the States in Gifted Education report, only five states
required teachers to receive any preparation on gifted students before entering the
classroom and only five states required annual professional development for the students.
Most gifted students spend the majority of their time in general education classrooms,
receiving little specialized instruction per week. Most states, as reported in the summary,
do not require classroom teachers to have any experience in the distinctive learning needs
of gifted children. This suggests that appropriately qualified teachers do not teach the
majority of these exceptional students. It is clear that the lack of professional
development, both nationally and at the district level, has a dramatic affect on
identification and programming (NAGC, 2010, p. 2).
Preferably, customized educational programming would emerge as a product of a
combined effort involving all the stakeholders, including the parents, a gifted specialist, a
learning disabilities specialist, a diagnostician, the general classroom teacher, and the
child (Brody & Mills, 1997). The stakeholders might use a table to identify needs, such
as Table 8, to connect personal traits of the individual GLD student with their issues.

Table 8 Personal Traits and Issues of the Individual GLD Student

Gifts

Needs

Possible Problem

Detail oriented

Orderly, predictable classroom

Perfectionism issues

Creativity

Structure, clear expectations

Rigidity

Acute senses

Opportunities to elaborate

Sees world in black and white only

Keeps others on task

Leadership opportunities

Rejection by peers

135

While developing an individualized educational program, the students particular

strengths and weaknesses, as well as the resources available in the school, should be
considerations. The specifications should depend, of course, on the nature and severity of
the student's disability and the degree of giftedness (Brody & Mills, 1997). Clifton and
Harter (2003) suggested it is important to focus primarily on the student's strengths,
rather than their weaknesses. Strengths will capture not only the intellect, but also the
motives and passion for learning. Brody and Mills (1997) concluded,
Many gifted students with learning disabilities would be best served by separate
programs developed especially for them; however, it is likely that the needs of
many could be met through appropriate identification of strengths and
weaknesses, and a flexible, individualized approach to using the existing services
and resources available in and out of school. (p. 288)
The changes in identification, professional development, and programming
described above originated in the research data of this study. The changes would
encourage and support GLD students. Students would experience challenging and
stimulating education from the time they start school, and each child would have tools
and programming that fit him or her. GLD students are a diverse group with a variety of
gifts and talents, in combination with multi-various learning challenges. It is often
difficult to categorize their programming needs, and schools need to adapt and refine
their procedures to meet the complex needs of GLD students.

Conclusion
Students who are gifted and learning disabled are indeed a learning paradox.
These students are in danger of exclusion from both the programs for students with
136

learning disabilities and from programs for gifted and talented individuals. Student A
said this about himself:
At this school, I can get the help, if I need it. The teachers are a lot more
understanding where Im coming from, so thats another big thing, and then
because unlike at the previous schools where I was in a group of kids who were
gifted, or with learning disabilities, were not singled out from the rest of the
student population as being better or worse from everyone else.
These GLD students know they are different. They desire to fit in with their peers
and they will accept an academic challenge. They simply learn differently and need
support to be successful. Parent A explained:
I really think the whole public school system needs to be white papered and
started all over again. I wouldnt put kids in a classroom based on their age,
because I think its like putting kids in a classroom just because they all weigh 50
pounds. I think they need to do classes of children who learn the same way and
put them together in a classroom. Good teachers understand what hes dealing
with.
The parents have struggled to find a place where their child could be successful
and learn. Teacher B said,
For example, an essay in literature classhes a high-functioning reader, but his
written work wouldnt always reflect that, so I do give grades for oral discussion.
For example, we did some historical fiction, so he knew a lot about the history
to give him chances to share what he knew and just orally before it was written.
The teachers in this study have dedicated themselves to helping this unique
population. A desirable objective would be that stakeholders involved with educating
GLD students find it useful to have documentation of the experiences of GLD students.
This generic qualitative research study may guide the stakeholders to thoughtfully
consider alternative ways to teach and understand this unique population of the GLD
students because the research postulated that educational programming does have an
137

effect on the success of the GLD students. Current programs are often inadequate and do
not meet the needs of GLD students.
These GLD students are the builders of the future. In their book, Success Built to
Last, Porras, Emery, and Thompson (2006) described the characteristics of enduring
successful leaders as builders. Builders are people whose beginnings may be
discouraging, but who eventually become defined by their success and creativity. This
could be the description of the GLD students.
Dr. Maya Angelou, the first African-American best-selling author, who wrote I
Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, came a long way from growing up in the segregated
South to where she is today. People can extend her comments to struggles of the GLD
students as she suggested, You cant simply sit on the sidelines and bemoan ones
outcast state; its not enough. This experience, this life, is our time to be ourselves (as
cited in Porras et al., 2006, p. 50). These builders, these GLD students, she suggests,
must be held accountable, just like the teachers and administrators must be held
accountable for the success of the educational programming. As Dr. Angelou
encountered resistance to her dreams, she responded the way many enduring successful
people do: she found ways to look at the issue.
If I see something I dont like, I try to change it, and if it cant be changed, I
change my position of looking at it, and then by seeing it from a different angle, I
might find some good in it that I can use, which might make it change itself. If
you find that the world just wont work the way you want it toif you cant make
things happen despite your very best effortsthen change the way you look at it.
(as cited in Porras et al., 2006, p. 50)
Parents, teachers, administrators, counselors, and school personnel who are
stakeholders must change the way they view GLD students and commit to providing an
138

educational program that will allow this population to be successful and reach their full
potential. Let us recommit ourselves to a country built on the noble ideal that individuals
of all races, and income, and geographic and learning backgrounds, can have someplace
in the world to pursue their creative instincts and, in so doing, benefit us all (Foley,
2010). The students in this research study deserve an appropriate education so they are
able to utilize their creativity and talents. It is time for change in the way schools use
programming. It is time for schools to provide individualized services for GLD students.

139

REFERENCES
Bainbridge, C. (2009). What is the meaning of an IQ test score? Retrieved from
http://giftedkids.about.com/od/gifted101/qt/IQ_scores.htm
Baum, S. (1984). Recognizing special talents in learning disabled students. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 16(2), 92-98.
Baum, S. (1989). Gifted but learning disabled: A puzzling paradox, Preventing School
Failure, 34, 11-14.
Baum, S., Emerick, L., Herman, G., & Dixon, J. (1989). Identification, programs and
enrichment strategies for gifted learning disabled youth. Roeper Review, 12, 4853.
Baum, S., & Owen, S. (1988). Learning disabled students: How are they different? Gifted
Child Quarterly, 32, 321-326.
Baum, S., & Owen, S. (2004). To be gifted and learning disabled: Strategies for helping
bright children with LD, ADHD, and more. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative
Learning Press.
Baum, S., Owen, S., & Dixon, J. (1991). To be gifted & learning disabled: From
identification to practical intervention strategies. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative
Learning Press.
Bazeley, P. (2007). Qualitative analysis with NVivo (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Beckley, D. (1998, Spring). Gifted and learning disabled: Twice exceptional students.
National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Retrieved from
http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/newslttr.html#Spring1998
Bell, E. (2009). Men of mathematics: The lives and achievements of the great
mathematicians from Zeno to Poincar. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Besnoy, K. (2006). Successful strategies for twice-exceptional students. Waco, TX:
Prufrock Press.

140

Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1973). The development of intelligence in children. New York,
NY: Arno Press. (Original work published 1916). Retrieved from
http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/binet.shtml
Bireley, M. (1995). Crossover children: A source for helping children who are gifted and
learning disabled (2nd ed.). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
Bohm, D. (1996). On dialogue. London, England: Routledge.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.
Brody, L. & Mills, C. (1997). Gifted children with learning differences: A review of the
issues. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 282-297.
Brooks-Young, S. (2010). Teaching with the tools kids really use: Learning with the web
and mobile technologies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Caelli, K., Ray, L., & Mill, J. (2003, Spring). Clear as mud: Toward greater clarity in
generic qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(2),
Article 1.
Clifton, D., & Harter, J. (2003). Investing in strengths. In A. K. S. Cameron, B. J. E.
Dutton, & C. R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship:
Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 111-121). San Francisco, CA: BerrettKoehler.
Cloran, M. (1998). A review of the literature on gifted learning disabled students, their
identification, and implications for classroom practice. Retrieved from the
Catholic Education Office Sidney website:
http://southern.myinternet.syd.catholic.edu.au/rec/spneeds
Cohen, L., & Vaughn, S. (1994). Gifted students with learning disabilities: What does the
research say? Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 5, 87-94.
Coleman, M. (2005). Academic strategies that work for gifted students with learning
disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(1), 28-32.
Coleman, R. (2005, Fall) With the eyes of a teacher. Retrieved from Davidson Institute
website: http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/Articles_id_10364.aspx
Cooper, D., & Schindler, P. (2006) Business research methods. Boston: McGraw-Hill
Irwin.
141

Council for Exceptional Children. (2010). Twice exceptional. Retrieved from Council for
Exceptional Children website: http://www.cec.sped.org/
Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five
approaches. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1998). The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and
issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2005). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dickens, W., & Flynn, J. (2002). The IQ paradox: Still resolved. Psychological Review,
109, 346-369.
Eisenstadt, K. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of
Management Review, 14, 532-559.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. (2002). Title IX, Part A, Definition 22.
Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education website:
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html
Ferri, B., Gregg, N., & Heggoy, S. (1997). Profiles of college students demonstrating
learning disabilities with and without giftedness. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
30, 552559.
Flynn, J. (2007). What is intelligence? Beyond the Flynn effect. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Foley, D. (2010). Reform is too light a word. Presentation at the symposium How Can
We Better Encourage and Reinforce the Entrepreneurial and Talented Among Us?
(pp. 12-13). Retrieved from Center of the American Experiment website:
http://www.americanexperiment.org/uploaded/files/2010_publications/Most_Tale
nted_Symposium_WEB.pdf12-13
Forman School. (2010). About Forman. Retrieved from the Forman School website:
http://www.formanschool.org/about/forman
142

Frey, F. (2005). Encyclopedia of cognitive behavior therapy. New York, NY: Springer.
Friedrichs, T. (2001). Distinguishing characteristics of gifted students with disabilities.
Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Gall, M., Borg, W., & Gall, J. (1996). Educational research: An introduction. New York,
NY: Longman.
Gallagher, J. (1985). Teaching the gifted child. Newton, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York,
NY: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences: New horizons in theory and practice. New
York, NY: Basic Books.
Glense, M. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers. New York, NY: Longman.
Goldstein, L. (2001). Diamond in the rough. Retrieved June 30, 2010, from
http://www.ldonline.org/article/Diamond_in_the_Rough
Hebbler, K., Barton, L., & Mallik, S. (2008). Assessment and accountability for programs
serving young children with disabilities. Exceptionality: A Special Education
Journal, 16, 48-63.
Hewitt-Taylor, J. (2001). Use of constant comparative analysis in qualitative research.
Nursing Standard, 15(42), 39-42.
Higgins, L., & Nielson, M. (2000). Responding to the needs of twice-exceptional
learners: A school district and universitys collaborative approach. In K. Kay
(Ed.), Uniquely gifted: Identifying and meeting the needs of the twice-exceptional
student (pp. 287-303). Gilsum, NH: Avocus.
Hishinuma, E., & Tadaki S. (1996). Addressing diversity of the gifted/at risk:
Characteristics for identification. Gifted Children Today Magazine, 19, 2050.
Hopkins, K., & Stanley, J. (1981). Educational and psychological measurement and
evaluation (6th ed.). Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (2004). Retrieved from http://www.
wrightslaw.com/idea/law.htm
An interview with Micaela Bracamonte. (2009, May-June). 2e Newsletter, (34), pp. 1819. Retrieved from 2e Newsletter website: http://www.2enewsletter.com
143

Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act of 1988, 20 U.S.C. 30613068 (1988).
John Templeton Foundation. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back
America's brightest students. Retrieved from Institute for Research and Policy on
Acceleration website: http://www.accelerationinstitute.org/Nation_Deceived/
Kakadelis, L. (2007). Back to school stats. Retrieved from North Carolina Education
Alliance website: http://www.nceducationalliance.org/research/display
_story.html?id=4273
Karnes, F., Stephens, K., & Warton, J. (2001). Certification and specialized competencies
for teachers in gifted education programs. Roeper Review, 22(3), 201-202.
Kaufman, B. (1992). In pursuit of aesthetic research provocations. The Qualitative Report
[e-journal], 1(4). Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR14/kaufman.html
King, E. (2005). Addressing the social and emotional needs of twice-exceptional
students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(1), 16-20.
Knapp, S. (2010). Twice-exceptional students: Guidelines for success. Retrieved from
Smart Kids with Disabilities website: http://www.smartkidswithld.org/ldbasics/treatments-and-support/twice-exceptional-students-guidelines-for-success
Kowalchuk, B., & King, J. (1989). Adult suicide versus coping with nonverbal learning
disorder. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22(3), 177-179.
Krochak, L., & Ryan, T. (2007). The challenge of identifying gifted/learning disabled
students. International Journal of Special Education, 22(3), 44-53.
Lexis Preparatory School. (2010). Retrieved from Lexis Preparatory School website:
http://www.lexisprep.com/
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Lindamood, J. (1995). Teachers as child advocates: A continuum of involvement. Early
Childhood Education Journal, 22(4), 23-24.
Lipscomb, L., Swanson, J., & West, A. (2004). Scaffolding. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging
perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from
http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/scaffolding.htm
144

Lovett, B., & Lewandowki, L. (2006). Gifted students with learning disabilities: Who are
they? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 4, 515-52.
Maker, C. (1977). Providing programs for the gifted handicapped. Reston, VA: Council
for Exceptional Children.
Maker, C. J. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted. Rockville, MD: Aspen.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (1989). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Martin, A. (2006, June). The 2e dilemma: Understanding and educating the twiceexceptional child. Retrieved from 2e Newsletter website: http://www.2enewsletter
.com/Understanding%20and%20Educating%20the%202e%20Child.htm
Mauser, A. (1981). Programming strategies for pupils with disabilities who are gifted.
Rehabilitation Literature, 42, 270-275.
Maxwell, J. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard
Educational Review, 62, 279-300.
McCoach, D. B., Kehle, T. J., Bray, M. A., & Siegle, D. (2001). Best practices in the
identification of gifted students with learning disabilities. Psychology in the
Schools, 38, 403411.
McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2003). The SAAS-R: A new instrument to identify
academically able students who underachieve. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 63, 414-429.
McEachern, A., & Bornot, J. (2001). Gifted students with learning disabilities:
Implications and strategies for school counselors. Professional School
Counseling, 5, 24-31.
A meeting of the minds on 2e. (2009). 2e Newsletter. Retrieved from 2e Newsletter
website: http://www.2enewsletter.com
Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples and analysis. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
145

Morgan, G., & Smircich, L. (1980). The case for qualitative research. Academy of
Management Review, 5, 491-500.
National Association of Gifted Children. (2009a). Frequently used terms in gifted
education. Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=565
National Association of Gifted Children. (2009b). History of gifted and talented
Education. Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=607
National Association of Gifted Children. (2009c). State of the states report on gifted
education. Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org/.../State_of_the_States...2009
National Association of Gifted Children. (2010). State of the nation in gifted education:
An executive summary. Washington, DC: Author.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2010). Learning
disabilities. Retrieved from
http://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/learning_disabilities.cfm
Neumann, L. (2004). What can we learn from a tale of two cities? Journal 2004 by the
Illinois Association for Gifted Children. Retrieved from 2e Newsletter website:
http://www.2enewsletter.com/LCN%20journal%20article.htm
Nielsen, M., & Higgins, L. (2000). Responding to the needs of twice-exceptional
learners: A school district and university collaborative approach. In K. Kay (Ed.),
Uniquely gifted: Identifying and meeting the needs of the twice-exceptional
student (pp. 287303). Gilsum, NH: Avocus.
Nielsen, M., Higgins, L., & Hammond, A. (1993). The twice-exceptional child project:
Identifying and serving gifted/handicapped learners. In C. M. Callahan, C. A.
Tomlinson, and P. M. Pizzart (Eds.), Context for promise: Noteworthy practices
and innovations in the identification of gifted students (pp. 145- 168).
Charlottesville, VA: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Nielsen, M., Higgins, L., Hammond, A., & Williams, R. (1993). Gifted children with
disabilities. Gifted Child Today, 16(5), 9-12.
Niemi, C. (2010, August 3). Small school, big dreams: An iPad for all. Retrieved from
The Dunwoody Crier website: http://www.thecrier.net/articles/2010/08/03
/news/brandonhall.txt
Owen, W. (1984). Interpretive themes in relational communication. Quarterly Journal of
Speech, 70, 274-287.
146

Patton, M. (1989). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
rd

Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3 ed.) Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Porras, J., Emery, S., & Thompson, M. (2006). Success built to last: Creating a life that
matters. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Rath, T. (2007). Strengthfinders 2.0. New York, NY: Gallup Press.
Reis, S. M., & McCoach, D. B. (2002). Underachievement in gifted and talented students
with special needs. Exceptionality, 10, 113-125.
Reist, M. (2010, July 25). Gifted education program in danger in Nebraska. Lincoln Star
Journal. Retrieved from http://journalstar.com/news/local/education/article_
9a906688-9763-11df-96c6-001cc4c03286.html
Renzulli, J. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta
Kappan, 60, 180-184, 261.
Richards, L. (2005). Handling qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rogers, K. (2002). Re-forming gifted education: Matching the programs to the child.
Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Rogers, K. (2005). A menu of options for grouping gifted students. Waco, TX: Prufrock
Press.
Rosner, S., & Seymor, J. (1983). The gifted child with a learning disability: Clinical
evidence. In L. Fox Brody and D. Tobin (Eds.), Learning disabled/gifted
children: Identification and programming (pp. 77-97). Baltimore, MD: University
Park Press.
Ruban, L., & Reis, S. (2005, Spring). Identification and assessment of gifted students
with learning disabilities. Theory Into Practice, 44(2), 115-124.
Ruf, D. (2005) Losing our minds. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

147

Ruf, D. (2010, August). The other achievement gap. Presentation at the symposium How
Can We Better Encourage and Reinforce the Entrepreneurial and Talented Among
Us? (pp. 25-26). Retrieved from Center of the American Experiment website:
http://www.americanexperiment.org/uploaded/files/2010_publications/Most_Tale
nted_Symposium_WEB.pdf
Sandelowski, M. (2000). Focus on research methods: Whatever happened to qualitative
description? Research in Nursing and Health, 23, 334-340.
Silverman, L. (1989). Invisible gifts, invisible handicaps. Roeper Review, 12, 37-42.
Silverman, L., & Felder, R. (2005). Understanding student differences. Journal of
Engineering Education, 94(1), 57-72.
Soy, S. (1997): The case study as a research method. Retrieved from
http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~ssoy/usesusers/l391d1b.htm
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sternberg, R., & Davidson, J. (1985). Cognitive development in the gifted and talented.
In F. Horowitz and F. O'Brien (Eds.), The gifted and talented: A developmental
perspective (pp. 37-74). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Strauss, A., & Glaser, B. (1987). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Tellis, W. (1997, July). Introduction to case study. The Qualitative Report, 3(2).
Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR3-2/tellis1.html
Tesch, R. (1989). Computer software and qualitative analysis: A reassessment. In G.
Blank et al. (Eds.), New technology in sociology: Practical applications in
research and work (pp. 141-154). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Thorne, S. (2000). Data analysis in qualitative research. Evidence Based Nursing, 3, 6870.
Thorne, S. (1997). The art (and science) of critiquing qualitative research. In J. M. Morse,
(Ed.), Completing a qualitative project: Details and dialogue (pp. 117-132).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

148

Tolan, S. Is it a cheetah? (1996). Retrieved from http://www.stephanietolan.com/is_

it_a_cheetah.htm
Toll, M. (1993). Gifted learning disabled: A kaleidoscope of needs. Gifted Child Today,
16(1), 34-35.
Urion, D. (2002). Misunderstood minds: Resources [Home page header]. Retrieved from
Public Broadcasting Service website: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh
/misunderstoodminds/resources.html
U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2007). Free appropriate public
education for students with disabilities: Requirements under section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/edlite-FAPE504.html
U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2009). Protecting students with
disabilities: Interrelationship of IDEA and section 504. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/504faq.html#interrelationship
van Manen, M. (1998). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action
sensitive pedagogy. London, Canada: Althouse Press.
VanTassel-Baska, J, Cros, T., & Olenchak, F. (2009). Social-emotional curriculum with
gifted and talented students. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
VanTassel-Baska, J., Patton, J., & Prillamon, D. (1991). Gifted youth at risk: A report of
a national study. Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
Vogel, S. (1990). Gender differences in intelligence, language, visual-motor abilities, and
academic achievement in students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 23(1), 44-52.
Waldron, K., Saphire, D., & Rosenblum, S. (1987). Learning disabilities and giftedness:
Identification based on self-concept, behavior, and academic patterns. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 20, 422-432.
Weinfeld, R., Barnes-Robinson, L., Jeweler, S., & Shevitz, B. (2002). Academic
programs for gifted and talented/learning disabled students. Roeper Review, 24(4),
226-233.
Weinfeld, R., Barnes-Robinson, L., Jeweler, S., & Shevitz, B. (2006). Smart kids with
learning difficulties. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

149

Whitmore, J. (1980). Giftedness, conflict, and underachievement. Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Whitmore, J. R., & Maker, C. J. (1985). Intellectual giftedness in disabled persons.
Rockville, MD: Aspen Systems.
Winebrenner, S. (2000). Teaching gifted kids in the regular classroom (2nd ed.).
Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit.
Wolcott, H. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Descriptive, analysis, and
interpretive. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wright, W., & Wright, P. (2007). Wrightslaw: Special education law (2nd ed.). Hartfield,
VA: Harbor House Law Press.
Yin, R. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Zirkel, P. (2005). A primer of special education law. Teaching Exceptional Children,
38(1), 62-63.

150

APPENDIX A. TIMELINE OF IMPORTANT DATES

Note: From The History of Gifted and Talent Education by the National Association for Gifted Children,
2009. Copyright 2009. Reprinted with permission.
Year
1868

Description
William Torrey Harris, superintendent of public schools for St. Louis, institutes the earliest
systematic efforts in public schools to educate gifted student.

1869

Francis Galtons seminal work, Hereditary Genius, was published indicating that intelligence
passes through successive generations. His biographical study of over 400 British men
throughout history leads him to conclude through statistical methods that intelligence derives
from heredity and natural selection.

1901

Worster, Massachusetts opened the first special school for gifted children.

1905

French researchers, Binet and Simon, develop a series of tests (Binet-Simon, 1905) to identify
children of inferior intelligence for the purpose of separating them from normally functioning
children for placement in special classrooms. Their notion of mental age revolutionizes the
science of psychological testing by capturing intelligence in a single numerical outcome.
Henry Goddard studies in France with Binet and studies the Binet-Simon measurement scales.
Subsequently, he ferries the test back to American to translate it into English and disseminate it
to American educators and psychologist.

1908

1916

Lewis Terman, the father of the gifted education movement, publishes the Stanford-Binet,
forever changing intelligence testing and the face of American education.

1917

The United States entry into World War I necessitates the mobilization of a large-scale army.
The Army Alpha and Beta were created and administered to over one million recruits, further
legitimatizing intelligence testing in both academia and with the public.

1918

Lulu Stedman establishes an opportunity room for gifted students within the university training
school at the Southern Branch of the University of California.

1921

Lewis Terman begins what has remained the longest running longitudinal study of gifted
children with an original sample of 1,500 gifted children.

1922

Leta S. Hollingworth begins the Special Opportunity Class at P. S. 165 in New York City for
gifted students. This class would yield nearly 40 research articles, a textbook, and blueprints for
Hollingworths work at P. S. 500, the Speyer School.

151

1925

Lewis Terman publishes Genetic Studies of Genius, concluding that gifted students were: (a)
qualitatively different in school, (b) slightly better physically and emotionally in comparison to
normal students, (c) superior in academic subjects in comparison to the average students, (d)
emotionally stable, (e) most successful when education and family values were held in high
regard by the family, and (f) infinitely variable in combination with the number of traits
exhibited by those in the study. This is the first volume in a five-volume study spanning nearly
40 years.

1926

Leta Hollingworth publishes Gifted Child: Their Nature and Nurture, the first textbook on gifted
education.

1936

Hollingworth establishes P. S. 500, the Speyer School, for gifted children ages 7-9.

1944

G.I Bill of Rights making a college education available to veterans from World War II who
would otherwise not have had the opportunity to pursue higher education.

1950

National Science Foundation Act provides federal support for research and education in
mathematics, physical sciences, and engineering.

1954

Ann Isaacs founds the National Association of Gifted Children.

Brown v. The Board of Education ends separate but equal education.

1957

1958

The Soviet Union launches Sputnik, sparking the United States to reexamine its human capital
and quality of American schooling particularly in mathematics and science. As a result,
substantial amounts of money pour into identifying the brightest and talented students who
would best profit from advanced math, science, and technology programming.
The National Defense Education Act passes. This is the first large-scale effort by the federal
government in gifted education.

1964

The Civil Rights Act passes, emphasizing equal opportunities including those in education.

1972

The Marland Report issues the formal definition and encourages schools to define giftedness
broadly, along with academic and intellectual talent the definition includes leadership ability,
visual and performing arts, creative or productive thinking, and psychomotor ability. [Note:
psychomotor ability excluded from subsequent revisions of the federal definition.]
The Office of the Gifted and Talented housed within the U. S Office of Education receives
official status.

1974
1975

Public Law 94-142 The Education for all Handicapped Children Act. This Act establishes a
federal mandate to serve children with special education needs, but does not include children
with gifts and talents

1983

A Nation at Risk reports scores of Americas brightest students and their failure to compete with
international counterparts. The report includes policies and practices in gifted education, raising
academic standards, and promoting appropriate curriculum for gifted learners.

1988

Congress passes the Jacob Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act as part of the Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

152

1990

The University of Connecticut, University of Virginia, Yale University, and Northwestern

University establishes National Research Centers for Gifted and Talented.

1993

National Excellence: The Case for Developing America's Talent issued by the United States
Department of Education outlining how America neglects its most talented youth. The report
also makes a number of recommendations influencing the last decade of research in the field of
gifted education.

1998

NAGC publishes Pre-K-Grade 12 Gifted Program Standards to provide guidance in seven key
areas for programs serving gifted and talented student.
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) passes the reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act. The NCLB includes the Javits program and expands to offer
competitive statewide grants. The definition of gifted and talented students changes again.
Students, children, or youth who give evidence of high achievement capability in areas such as
intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields, and who
need services and activities not ordinarily provided by the school to fully develop those
capabilities.
A Nation Deceived: How Schools Hold Back Americas Brightest Students, a national researchbased report on acceleration strategies for advanced learners published by the Belin-Blank
Center at the University of Iowa.

2002

2004

153

APPENDIX B. DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT A

Student Interview 1
1.

Do you like to work in small groups or alone?

2.

What is your favorite subject in school and why (other than recess and
lunch)? What is your least favorite subject in school and why?

3.

What kind of projects would you like to do in the classroom? What kind
of projects would you not like to do in the classroom?

4.

What qualities in the teacher help you succeed as a learner? Tell about a
time that you feel demonstrated academic success for you. What qualities
in a teacher in a teacher seem to make you unsuccessful as a learner? Tell
about a time you felt unsuccessful.

5.

What would you change about school if you could change one thing? The
world?

6.

What qualities in a teacher cause you stress or prevent you from achieving
your best?

7.

Describe the classroom environment that is compatible with your learning

style. Describe the classroom environment that is not compatible with
your learning style. How do you think your school experiences will
influence your future?

8.

Describe your strengths and weakness as a learner. Does your current

school allow you to utilize your strengths?

9.

Do you receive services or instruction from special education teachers?

Gifted teachers? Others?

10.

Do you have an IEP or 504 Plan to inform teachers of your educational

needs?

154

APPENDIX C. DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT B

Student Interview 2
1.

What are your hobbies and do you wish you could do them at school?

2.

What qualities do you look for in a friend? Tell about your best friend.
How did you meet? Where did you meet? How long have you been
friends? Are you alike or different?

3.

What qualities do you see in people you dont get along with?

4.

Do you feel different because you are gifted? Explain. How do you feel
the same as other students? Explain.

5.

Do you ever feel left out because you are gifted? Have you been teased or
bullied because you are gifted?

6.

Do you receive counseling services at your school?

7.

Do your friends or classmates know you have a learning disability? Are

you treated differently because of it?

8.

What would help you make friends more easily?

9.

Do you feel the school has responded appropriately to your unique

learning needs? Explain.

10.

Describe what components you would add to your IEP or 504 to ensure
success for yourself or other students who have a learning disability but
are also gifted.

155

APPENDIX D. DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT C

Parent Interview
1.

When did you discover your child was gifted? How did you feel? Do you
still feel this way?

2.

When did you discover your child had a learning disability? How did you
feel? Have your feelings changed?

3.

Do you feel your childs teachers have understood what gifted learning
disabled means? Did it change the way they taught? Did it change the
teachers expectations?

4.

How satisfied are you with the services your child receives at school?
Please separate out gifted, LD and general education services.

5.

What would you change about school if you could change one thing? The
world? What would you most want to keep the same?

6.

Describe one thing that has helped your child succeed at home? At school?

7.

Is it difficult for your child to make and maintain friendships? Why do you
think so?

8.

What hopes do you have for your childs education? Career? Life? What
worries do you have?

9.

Does your child receive services or instruction from special education

teachers? Gifted teachers? Others?

10.

Does your child have an IEP or 504 Plan to inform teachers of your
educational needs? Does the current IEP or 504 meet your childs needs?
Were you and your child sufficiently involved in writing the IEP or 504?

156

APPENDIX E. DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT D

Teacher Interview
1.

Please give a brief description of your teaching experience. How long

have you been at this school?

2.

Describe your teacher license and your qualifications to teach at his

school. Gifted license? LD license?

3.

Tell what you know about teaching GLD students.

4.

Please state the academic area for which you provided instruction for this
student and rate the students performance: poor, below average, average,
above average, or excellent.

5.

Reflecting on your experiences with the student in this study, do you feel
the disability or the giftedness was more dominant? Explain. What, if any,
modifications or accommodations were provided for this learners
weaknesses? Strengths?

6.

Describe your rapport with this student. Please include elements that went
well and did not go well.

7.

Did you work cooperatively with support staff from either the gifted or the
special education departments to provide instruction for this student?

8.

Does this school district have programming specifically set up to meet the
needs of gifted learning disabled students? Describe it.

9.

Describe any frustrations you felt as the teacher of this student. Describe
the joys you felt as a teacher of this student.

10.

What would you add to the IEP or 504 or Gifted ILP to help this student or
others like him be more successful in school?

157