: A Qualitative Case Study on the Teachers and the Twice Exceptional Student

Dissertation

Submitted to Northcentral University

Graduate Faculty of the School of Education in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

by

Lisa Lynn Webster

Prescott Valley, Arizona

December 2015

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERSThe 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 manuscriptand there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

All rights reserved.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States CodeMicroform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC.789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

ProQuest 3746024

Published by ProQuest LLC (2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

ProQuest Number: 3746024

iii

Abstract

The study examined the barriers that affect why regular education teachers do not refer

specific learning disabled (SLD) or students identified with Attention Deficit Hyperactive

Disorder (ADHD) to the gifted education program for testing. The problem is that

identified SLD or ADHD to the gifted education program. The purpose of this study was

-

exceptional students and identify what affects their decision on whether or not to refer a

student. The research method will be an explanatory qualitative case study using

interviews and a document review. The participants were randomly selected, regular

education teachers at two local elementary schools in a county in central North Carolina.

The study has given a more in-depth understanding of what educators in a small rural

community know to enable the gifted education department to create professional

development for teachers about identifying possible twice-exceptional students. Data

were nowledge, experience, and training

affected their referral of students with SLD or ADHD. From the coded themes, four

patterns were identified: lack of teaching experience, lack of training, lack of confidence,

and stereotyping and misconceptions. The themes were based on the findings from

teacher interviews at two different schools and a document review of the gifted behavior

scaled used by the county. Recommendations based on the findings included the creation

or adoption of a new behavior scale geared to the twice-exceptional students and the

creation of professional development for all teachers. Recommendations for future

research included using interviewing teachers from kindergarten to 12th grade, and using

iv

more than regular education teachers, to include special education and other resource

teachers.

v

Acknowledgements

There are many people I need to acknowledge for all their support through this long process. First to my mother Barbara Webster for always reminding how important learning and a good education is. Without her encouragement growing up, I would never had gotten this far. Gone but not forgotten. To John Webster, my father, for his endless encouragement and support through this process.

upport and love while I have spent hours and hours locked in the computer reading, writing, and editing. To Janette Johnson and Michele Foster, fellow colleagues and friends, who without their endless support and numerous hours of reading and proofing for me, I would not have made it this far. To the teachers who allowed me to prod and probe into their thoughts in order to do this research study. To my endless nieces and nephews and close family friends for being my support system when I stressed and my constant cheerleading section. To my first chair, Dr. Jerome Fore, for his continuous support and guidance through this long process. To my second chair, Dr. Rademaker, for getting me through the last leg of the process. Lastly, to Meatball Webster (the cat) and Tinkerbell Webster-Caroon (the dog), for keeping me company while I sat for long hours of reading and writing and you missed out on playtime. We can now play again!

vi

Table of Contents

List of Tables ................................................................................................................... viii

List of Figures .................................................................................................................... ix

Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1

Background ................................................................................................................... 2 Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................. 3 Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................... 4 Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 4 Nature of the Study ....................................................................................................... 5 Significance of the Study .............................................................................................. 6 Definition of Key Terms ............................................................................................... 7

Chapter 2: Literature Review ............................................................................................ 10

Documentation ............................................................................................................ 10 Gifted and Talented..................................................................................................... 11 Learning Disabilities ................................................................................................... 18 Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder ...................................................................... 20 Twice-Exceptional Students ....................................................................................... 26 Gifted Students with Learning Disabilities ................................................................. 32 Gifted students with attention deficit hyperactive disorder ........................................ 38 Underachievement ...................................................................................................... 40 Response to Intervention............................................................................................. 41 Implicit Personality Theory ........................................................................................ 44 Educator Perceptions of the Twice-Exceptional Student............................................ 45 Teacher Training ......................................................................................................... 49 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 51

Chapter 3: Research Method ............................................................................................. 52

Research Methods and Design(s)................................................................................ 53 Population ................................................................................................................... 54 Sample......................................................................................................................... 55 Materials/Instruments ................................................................................................. 56 Data Collection, Processing, and Analysis ................................................................. 57 Assumptions ................................................................................................................ 59 Limitations .................................................................................................................. 60 Delimitations ............................................................................................................... 60 Ethical Assurances ...................................................................................................... 61 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 63

vii

Chapter 4: Findings ........................................................................................................... 64

Results ......................................................................................................................... 65 Evaluation of Findings ................................................................................................ 73 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 78

Chapter 5: Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions ........................................ 80

Implications................................................................................................................. 82 Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 85 Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 87

References ......................................................................................................................... 88

Appendices ........................................................................................................................ 98

Appendix A: Advertisement to Recruit Participants ................................................. 99 Appendix B: Informed Consent Form ...................................................................... 100 Appendix C: Interview Questions ............................................................................. 102 Appendix D: Letters of Permission........................................................................... 105 Appendix E: Gifted Behavior Scale .......................................................................... 107

viii

List of Tables

Table 1: Characteristic of the Twice Exceptional Student ................................................ 27 Table 2: Characteristic of the Twice Exceptional Student ................................................ 28 Table 3: Experiences Identified ........................................................................................ 75 Table 4: Trainings Identified ............................................................................................ 76

ix

List of Figures

Figure 1: RTI Multi-Tier Support .............................................................................43

Chapter 1: Introduction

Foley-Nicpon, Allmon, Sieck, and Stinson (2011) estimated that there are more

than 300,000 twice-exceptional students unidentified in the education system of the

United States. For this reason, the twice-exceptional student is at risk of never meeting

their potential. A twice-exceptional student is defined as a person who has superior

intellect in one or more areas but also has a significant discrepancy in one or more areas

(Bianco & Leech, 2010, Leggett, Shea, & Wilson, 2010). Twice-exceptional students

may exhibit high abilities in math but have struggles with basic verbal or written skills or

exhibit high abilities in many areas and lack focus, organization skills and have Attention

Defilicit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) (Leggett et al., 2010).

Identifying gifted learners and learning disabled students are exclusive. Due to

exclusivity for testing, results lead to the student being only recognized for their strength

(gifted testing) or weakness (disability testing) (Elhoweris, 2008). The twice-exceptional

student most often falls into one of four categories, which makes identifying them

difficult for the regular education teacher. First, a student may be identified as gifted, but

their disability may not be diagnosed (Bianco & Leech, 2010; Elhoweris, 2008). Second,

a student may be identified as learning disabled, or other health impairment, but their gift

is not identified (Bianco & Leech, 2010; Elhoweris, 2008). Third, a student who never

gets identified because their gift and disability mask each other (Bianco & Leech, 2010;

Elhoweris, 2008). Lastly, teachers overlook a student whose erratic behaviors (attention,

lack of concentration, hyperactivity, and disruptions) affect their learning (Wood, 2012).

School districts should examine professional development to ensure teachers are aware of

how to refer the twice-exceptional student for appropriate services.

2

Background

The concept that a student can be twice-exceptional, having gifts and disabilities,

is a difficult concept for educators to believe (Foley-Nicpon et al., 2011). National

Association for Gifted Children (1998) released a position paper calling for a need to

accept and identify twice-exceptional students. Students who exhibit gifted behaviors,

such as keen interest, high creativity, and abstract thinking, while frequently having

issues in reading, writing, math, memory, organization, or attention, are identified as

twice-exceptional. The twice-exceptional student needs nurturing for their gifts, while

receiving accommodations for weaknesses (Foley-Nicpon et al., 2011; Jolly & Hughes,

2015; National Association for Gifted Children, 1998). According to the National Joint

Committee on Learning Disabilities (2011), twice-exceptional students may appear to be

on grade level, but their performance is lower than it should be because their intelligence

is higher.

Regular education teachers often overlook students who are gifted and have a

learning disabled or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (Aldridge, 2011; National

and their beliefs about students are important in considering a student for referral in the

gifted education program (Troxclair, 2013). Twice-exceptional students are at significant

risk of being high school dropouts or not furthering their studies after high school and

never developing to their fullest potential because their educational needs are never met

(Trail, 2011). According to Aldridge (2011), teach significant

influence in whether students are identified or even receive services. Identifying what

triggers teachers to refer or not refer is the root of the problem and changing their

3

perceptions is how to help the twice-exceptional student succeed.

Statement of the Problem

The specific problem this study examined was that regular education teachers lack

experience, training, and knowledge in referring students identified as specific learning

disabled (SLD) or Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD) to the gifted

education program (Davis, Rimm, & Siegel, 2010; Bianco & Leech, 2010). A student is

identified as twice-exceptional when they receive services from the special education

program and the gifted education program, but research reveals that educator beliefs and

lack of understanding of the twice-exceptional student hinders the referral process

(Bianco & Leech, 2010; Davis et al., 2010). The specific learning disabled and the

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder students are often overlooked for gifted

education programs (Baldwin, Omdal, & Pereles, 2015) because of the lack of knowledge

and training by regular education teachers. Training and experience influence an

research suggests teachers are not

trained in recognizing characteristics and behaviors of twice-exceptional students,

creating a disservice to the student by not being placed into gifted programs (de Wet &

Gubbins, 2011).

Regular elementary education teachers have the most contact with all students

because students remain with them the majority of the school day. They are the first to

refer a student for testing, but their lack of understanding about the twice-exceptional

students hinders them from referring a student (Bianco, Harris, Garrison-Wade, & Leech,

2011; de Wet & Gubbins, 2011; Jolly & Hughes, 2015

educational needs are not met if they are not receiving services for their gifts and

4

disabilities (Bianca & Leech, 2008; Jolly & Hughes, 2015). There is a disparity in the

number of students who are gifted and talented and are not identified especially in high-

poverty schools (Jolly & Hughes, 2015).

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this explanatory, qualitative case study was to investigate regular

-exceptional students

and identify what affects their decision on whether to refer or not to refer a student. The

study took place in two elementary schools in a high poverty, rural school district in

North Carolina. The participants consisted of 16 regular education teachers. The sample

size was an acceptable size based upon the case study method (Lodico, Spaulding, &

Voegtle, 2011; Yin, 2014). Eight randomly selected teachers from each school were

chosen using a mixture of random sampling based upon two factors: they were employed

at one of the two schools being used and that they were certified to teach in the state. The

educators completed a semi-structured interview based upon questions used from

interviews in Szymanski and Shaff (2012) and Berman, Schultz, and Weber (2012)

(Appendix C). Interviews were conducted via email, and in person. Data collected from

interviews was studied to identify common themes in what prompts regular education

teachers to refer or not to refer a student with, a specific learning disability or attention

deficit hyperactivity disorder, to the gifted education program.

Research Questions

The problem this study investigated was

experience, training, and knowledge of referring students identified as specific learning

disabled or Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder to the gifted education program. The

5

following research questions describe how the purpose of this study was completed.

Q1. What past teaching experiences of the regular education teachers are

perceived as having affected them in referring students identified as specific learning

disabled or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder to the gifted education program?

Q2. How do regular education teachers perceive, how any courses or trainings in

gifted education and twice-exceptional students have affected their referral rates of

students with learning disabilities or ADHD to gifted education programs?

Q3. What working knowledge of the twice-exceptional student does the regular

education teacher have that they feel affects whether they refer students identified as

specific learning disabled or ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder) to the

gifted education program?

Q4. What do regular education teachers perceive as the reasons for the

underrepresentation of twice-exceptional students?

Nature of the Study

This study focused on researching two rural elementary schools using a

qualitative case and the

-life context (Yin, 2014). Through the use of the

case study, the researcher determined why regular education teachers do not refer SLD

and ADHD student for testing in gifted education programs.

Qualitative explanatory research focuses on explaining patterns and identifying

possible relationships related to a phenomenon (Marshall & Rossman, 2011; Hancock &

Algozzine, 2011). The case study design is an empirical inquiry method (Butin, 2010;

Yin, 2014). Case studies investigate phenomena within real-life situations (Yin, 2014).

6

The case study research method uses a mixture of data collection methods, usually in

multiple forms. The case study design will be used for this study because it focuses on a

group of similar participants (regular education teachers) and how their thoughts

influence a phenomenon (referrals of learning disabled students and ADHD students to

the gifted education program).

Qualitative research uses different methods to collect data. The most common are

observations, interviews, and documents (Richard & Morse, 2013). This explanatory,

qualitative case study used a semi-structured interview process to collect data from

participants. In semi-structured interviews, the researcher creates a basic list of questions

to use in the interview process, but allows changes to occur within the interview protocol

(Lodico et al., 2010). Using the semi-structure interview, the researcher can add,

reorganize, delete, or reword questions based upon what is transpiring during the

interview (Lodic et al., 2010).

Through the explanatory, qualitative case study, the researcher will investigate the

ning, and knowledge of twice-exceptional

students. The researcher explored how their experiences, trainings, and knowledge affect

whether or not they refer a student identified as specific learning disabled or Attention

Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder to the gifted education programs, using semi-structured

interviews with 16 regular education teachers from two schools.

Significance of the Study

The twice-exceptional student is considered the invisible gifted student (Merrotsy,

2013). Due to circumstance be control, they are overlooked by regular

et al., 2010; Merrotsy,

7

2013). Many educators lack the experience, training, and knowledge of the twice-

exceptional students (Davis et al., 2010; Ryan, 2012; Foley-Nicpon et al., 2011). This

lack of experience, training, and knowledge can lead to the underrepresentation of SLD

and ADHD students in gifted education programs (Reis, Baum, & Burke, 2014; Tieso, &

Douglass, 2008).

Though there is a lot of research in this area, most are based upon large, urban

school systems (Bailey & Rose, 2011; Bianco & Leech, 2010), or based upon preservice

teachers, (Siegle, Moore, Mann, & Wilson, 2010; Bangel, Moon, & Capobianco, 2010),

there are few focusing on small rural school systems (Aldridge, 2012). More research is

needed in small, rural school systems. This study will help the gifted education program

and the school system to understand why educators are not referring SLD and ADHD

students for gifted program testing and how they can change this to meet the needs of this

diverse group of students.

Definition of Key Terms

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Attention deficit hyperactivity

disorder (ADHD) is a behavioral disorder that challenges everyday practices and

routines. Common characteristics are hyperactivity, impulsiveness, and inattentiveness

(American Psychological Association, 2013; American Academy of Child Adolescent

Psychiatry, 2010).

Disability. g mental retardation, a hearing, a speech or

language impairment, a visual impairment, a serious emotional, an orthopedic

impairment, autism, traumatic brain injury, an other health impairment, a specific

learning disability, deaf-blindness, or multiple disabilities, and who, by reason thereof,

8

Gifted and Talented. Gifted and talented is defined as an above average ability

in any area of intellect or talent such as creativity, artistic ability, leadership, and

academics that requires additional services above what is provided in the regular

education classroom (National Association for Gifted Childern, 2012).

Individual Education Plan. Individual Education Plan (IEP) is an official

contract between a school and student. This contract outlines the educational services the

school will provide for a student who has met the qualifications for special education

department (National Center for Learning Disabilities, 2014).

Least Restrictive Environment. Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) is the

least restraining environment that allows the student instruction with students who are

like and unlike the student. Pull-out, mainstreaming, and special classes are some ways

students may receive instruction (National Center for Learning Disabilities, 2012).

Response to Intervention. Response to Intervention (RTI) is a research-based

instructional program used in working with and identifying students who need additional

remediation or enrichment (RTI Network, 2014).

Specific Learning Disabled. Specific Learning Disability (SLD) is defined as a

disorder that inhibits a person from learning. It can affect the way a person receives,

processes, stores and responds to information (National Center for Learning Disabilities,

2012).

Twice-exceptional. Twice-exceptional is a student who identified with a

potential for high achievement, creativity, or leadership and has one or more disabilities

defined by the federal criteria. This is also known as dual exceptionality, or 2E

9

(Bracamonte, 2010; Reis et al., 2014; Rubin & Reis, 2005).

504 Plan. A 504 plan is a plan used to cover students with an impairment that

may include any disability, long-term illness, or various disorder that substantially

in the educational setting. This could be a

short or long term impairment, a health concern (such as diabetes), or a behavior concern

(such as ADHD) (National Center for Learning Disabilities, 2014).

Summary

There are only about half a percent of students, in a school system of 7000, who

are identified as twice-exceptional. This study was an explanatory, qualitative, case

study. Participants from two area elementary schools were interviewed and data

collected were analyzed. After data were collected and analyzed, results were

determined, so that the gifted education department of the school system has a better

understanding as to why regular education teachers do not refer SLD and ADHD students

for gifted testing.

10

Chapter 2: Literature Review

The purpose of this explanatory, qualitative case study was to investigate regular

-exceptional students.

The twice-exceptional student is the exception to the rule. They do not belong solely to

The twice-exceptional student is a member of both programs and should have their

weaknesses strengthened and their gifts challenged. This literature review focused on the

definitions, learning disabilities, giftedness, twice-exceptional, subcategories, gifted with

learning disabilities, gifted with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and educators.

Documentation

Information for this literature review was gathered from many resources, such as

peer-reviewed articles, educational magazines, scholarly journals, textbooks, public law,

and websites by different organizations. Northcentral University library database

searches were conducted using the terms: learning disabilities, Attention Deficit

Hyperactivity Disorders, gifted and talented, educator perspective of twice-exceptional

student, dual exceptional students, twice-exceptional students, gifted with learning

disabilities, gifted with ADHD, gifted education programs, implicit learning theory,

identification of the twice-exceptional student, teaching gifted students, teaching learning

disabled students, teaching twice-exceptional students, underachievement of gifted

learner, underachievement, underachievers, Response to Intervention (RTI), RTI for

gifted students, RTI for identification of gifted learners, RTI for identification of twice-

exceptional students, learning strategies for twice-exceptional, learning strategies for

gifted students, learning strategies for ADHD students, social and emotional needs of

11

twice-exceptional students, social and emotional needs of gifted students, and

stereotyping students. Searches were also focused on people important in the field such

as, Sally Reis, Megan Foley-Nicpon, Margarita Bianco, Gray Davis, and Maureen

Neihart. Internet searches were also performed using the same terms. These searches

also brought to my attention several journals in which many articles were found: Gifted

Child Quarterly, Gifted Child Today, Journal of the Education of the Gifted, Journal of

Learning Disabilities, Roeper Review, and Teaching Exceptional Children. A search was

icles. The

findings were a mixture of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods. The majority of

the research is within the last five years; nevertheless, some materials were prior to the

five years. Using the later research materials was needed in most cases to give support to

current information and provide a background to current data. Through the collection of

this research, it allowed the researcher to narrow and focus on the topic of this study.

Gifted and Talented

The idea of giftedness started in the United States around 1870 when schools

the Great Depression, schools were more concerned with equity and getting students to

meet the standards (Davis et al., 2010). Lewis Terman came on the scene in 1916, when

he americanized the Binet-Simon test to become the Stanford-Binet Test. He then

completed a studying in the 19

et al., 2010). Terman (1925) stated his belief that

gifted children score high on intelligence test, and high potential in one area means high

12

potential in all

several studies with students. She was a proponent for early identification to ensure that

gifted students get what the need to become gifted adults (Davis et al., 2010).

With the launching of Sputnik in 1957, the United States began criticizing the

education process and the lack of differentiation for our gifted students. There was a

surge in academics that benefited gifted students, but within five years the surge began to

fade (Davis et al., 2010). In 1969, the Education Amendents were released from the US

Congress which gave the first definition for gifted and talented (Davis et al., 2010).

Gifted and Talented was defined then as any child who exhibits outstanding intellectual

ability or creative talent and who require services not normally provided by the school

(Elementary and Secondary Education Amendent, 1970). In 1972, the Marland Report

was released from the U. S. Department of Education and included areas where

giftedness could occur: general intellect, specific academic, creativity, leadership, visual

and preforming art and psychomotor ability (Delisle & Galibraith, 2015). The most

currently recognized definition is from Javits Act, that was part of the 1988 Elementary

and Secondary Education Act. This definition states that any youth, when based upon

evidence, exhibits a higher capability of performing in areas such as leadership,

intellectual, creative, visual and performing arts, psychomotor, or in a specific academic

area and requires additional services and activities not originally provided by a school to

develop gifts and talents fully should be identified as gifted and talented (National

Association for Gifted Children, 2012).

Characteristics of gifted and talented students. Gifted and talented students

exhibit a variety of characteristics. Broad characteristics consist of high motivation,

13

unusual interest, highly expressive, effective problem solver, curious, creative, highly

sensitive, and excellent memory (Wellish & Brown, 2012). Focusing on the areas

mentioned in the standard definition, there are six areas where gifted and talented

students resinate. The intellectually gifted and talented student may think abstractly,

processes information in different ways, is observant, learns quickly, gets excited about

ideas, large vocabulary, and self-starter (National Society for the Gifted and Talented,

2013). The creatively gifted and talented student may be an independent thinker, creates

and invents, improvises, and comes up with several solutions to a problem (National

assume responsibility, enjoy structure and organization, are decision makers, speakers,

and self-confident (National Society for the Gifted and Talented, 2013). The specific

academically gifted and talented student has good memorization, advanced

comprehension and vocabulary, strong math and reasoning skills, and high academic

performance in areas of strength (National Society for the Gifted and Talented, 2013).

Gifted and talented visual and performing art students have spatial reasoning, ability to

express self-feeling and moods through dance, drama, music and art, creative, and good

motor skills (National Society for the Gifted and Talented, 2013). Lastly, students gifted

and talented in psychomotor, exhibit precision in movement, strong motor skill (gross

and small), strong coordination and are energetic and athletic (National Society for the

Gifted and Talented, 2013).

Identification of gifted and talented students. With the varying of definitions

of what constitutes giftedness, identifying students is a difficult task (Ruban & Reis,

2005). Historically, identification into the gifted and talented program relied heavily on

14

IQ with rigid cutoff scores (deWet & Gubbins, 2011). Current identification processes

take into consideration the need for a variety of assessments for identification and

placement into gifted education programs (deWet & Gubbins, 2011; Lovett, 2013; Rubin

& Reis, 2005; Wellish & Brown, 2012).

The variation in identification procedures allot for the differences in states and

their population of students identified as gifted. Gifted student populations range with

some states declaring as low as one to two percent or as high as ten to fifteen percent of

the student population (Ruban & Reis, 2005). The use of alternative methods are the

reasoning behind the varying percentages. Some states and school systems rely heavily

on aptitude tests for placement, with IQ of 120 and above, which would amount for the

states with the population of one to two percent being identified (Lovett, 2013). Many

states and school systems have begun moving away from just relying on an aptitude or IQ

test (Wellish & Brown, 2012). Assessment pieces for identification can range from

achievement test, IQ and aptitude, state based assessments, authentic assessment pieces,

portfolios, observations, teacher/parent/peer/self-evaluations (deWet & Gubbins, 2011;

Ruban & Reis, 2005; Wellish & Brown, 2012).

Instructional strategies for gifted and talented students. Instruction of gifted

students involves ensuring that their educational, social, and emotional needs are met.

Gifted students need a teacher who specializes in gifted education. They have to

understand how to deal with the personal and social challenges that come with gifted

students (Berman et al., 2012). They also need to be able to identify appropriate

challenging and rigorous goals and work for the gifted student. Gifted students spend the

majority of their educational career in the regular education classroom. For that reason, it

15

is important for the regular education teacher to be trained in meeting the needs of a

gifted learner, but only forty-nine percent of regular education teachers have any training

in gifted education (Bangel et al., 2010).

Gifted students should receive services based upon their unique psychological and

pedagogical needs (Berman et al., 2012). Gifted education programs range from

inclusion, pull-out, special school, enrichment, and regular classroom with modifications.

One particular study done by Bain, Bliss, Choate, and Brown (2007), surveyed

undergraduates who were training to become teachers. In their study, they asked about

the need for special services for gifted students and the types of services needed. The

authors found that only twenty-four percent (69 out of 285) thought gifted students

needed additional services (Bain et al., 2007). When answering questions about services,

thirty-five percent (98 out of 285) thought that pull out programs were the best for gifted

students. The authors also noted that fifty-eight percent (164 of 285), when combined, of

the participants thought that the different activities within the regular classroom (regular

classroom and ability, regular classroom and cooperative learning and regular classroom

and individual projects) were better choices (Bain et al., 2007).

Gifted students need instruction that involves challenging activities with in-depth

inquiry (Bangel et al., 2010). Some commonly used services for gifted students consist

of acceleration, enrichment, and grouping (Bain et al., 2007; Davis et al., 2010).

Acceleration is increasing the speed or rate at which a student moves through a

curriculum (Davis et al., 2010). Some forms of acceleration are early entrance, grade

skipping, subject skipping, curriculum compacting, dual enrollment, and advance

placement courses. Enrichment is a modification of the curriculum or enhancement of

16

the curriculum (Davis et al., 2010). Some forms of enrichment are learning centers,

competitions. Grouping is another modification for the gifted student. Grouping is how

the students are grouped through the day. Some commonly used grouping methods are

cluster grouping; pull out, ability grouping, cooperative learning, resource room,

enrichment clusters, and clubs.

Social and emotional needs of gifted students. Self-concept plays a large role

in the social and emotional needs of gifted students. Their self-concept is developed

based upon family relationships, peer relationships, and school relationships Matthews

(2014). The difficulty with these relationships for a gifted student is from uneven

development and support. Students who receive social and emotional support from

parents, family, peers, and educators are more apt to have less social and emotional issues

(Matthews, 2014).

According to Cross, Coleman, and Terhaar-Yonkers (2014), gifted students are

more likely to give a placate answer, than to give the truth, cover up, lie or give a cop-

out. In the study, the students read six different scenarios of possible events that could

happen to them; they then had to choose how they would most likely respond. For

example, there was a scenario about a test and they then had to state how they might

handle the situation by either lying, covering up the truth, cop-out, be placate, or be

truthful (Cross et al., 2014). This establishes how gifted students do not want to allow

others to know how smart they are, so they play down their abilities to maintain peer

relationships (Robinson, Reis, Neihart, & Moon, 2002).

17

Achievement gap for gifted students. In 2002 when the No Child Left Behind

Act was passed, the focus became all about getting low performing students to achieve a

higher level (No Child Left Behind Act, 2010). Unfortunately, that hindered gifted

students because the focus was less on moving gifted and more on moving low achievers

(Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2014). Achievement gap, also known as the

excellence gap, hinders gifted students from high achievement levels (Harris & Plucker,

2014). Six themes appear when focusing on the achievement gap of gifted students:

matching identification with programming, building awareness, non-cognitive factors,

curriculum, support networks, and equalized opportunities (Olszewski-Kubilius &

Clarenbach, 2014). Matching identification with programming is focused on exposing

students to a variety of instruction and assessment to allow more exposure, whereas

curriculum that is challenging and enriching is also important (Olszewski-Kubilius &

Clarenbach, 2014). Informing educators and removing the stereotyping of low income,

culturally and linguistically challenged students will build awareness about the different

students, and indicators of giftedness can decrease the gap (Harris & Plucker, 2014;

Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2014). Non-cognitive factors are focused on building

self-esteem and motivation to succeed in students, while ensuring that students have a

network for support such as informed parents and teachers (Olszewski-Kubilius &

Clarenbach, 2014). Creating partnerships between school, parents, and community tends

to increase positive attitudes, increase scores, and attendance records (Harris & Plucker,

2014). Ensuring that all potentially gifted and gifted students have equal access to

outside programs is also vital to improving the achievement gap (Olszewski-Kubilius &

Clarenbach, 2014).

18

Learning Disabilities

A disability is defined as mental retardation, hearing impairment, speech or

language impairment, visual impairment, social/ emotional issue, physical ailment,

autism, traumatic brain injury, other health impairment, a specific learning disability, or

multiple disabilities which are in need of special education and related services (Federal

Disability Definitions, 2012). Learning disabilities are defined as disorders of one or

more psychological processes involved in using and understanding language, spoken or

written. Individuals cannot listen, think, read, speak, write, spell, or do mathematical

calculation (IDEA, 2004). Disabilities tend to causes an adverse effect that hinders a

child from learning. (Raymond, 2011).

Learning disabilities are evident in academic or social situations that involve

some form of communication such as vision, hearing, physical, emotional, or

developmental. Learning disabilities take form in reading, writing, listening, speaking,

reasoning, or mathematical concept and computation (Buttner & Hasselhorn, 2011).

They are usually identified through a discrepancy between academic achievement and

aptitude or intellect. Learning disabilities are normally associated with health, birth, or

environmental issue (Buttner & Hasselhorn, 2011). About four to seven percent of

school age children are identified with a disability and 50% of those students are

considered learning disabled (Buttner & Hasselhorn, 2011).

Students with learning disability may have issues in one or more area. They focus

normally in two areas: developmental or academic (Raymond, 2011). Developmental

learning disabilities focus on attention, perception, thinking skills and oral language.

Attention is the ability to focus on a topic or skill over a period of time, and perception is

19

the ability to interpret and identify a stimulus (Raymond, 2011). Thinking skills affect

the ability of a child to solve problems, store, and retrieve information. Oral language

deals with the ability to listen and express thoughts (Raymond, 2011). Academic

learning disabilities are skills that students should develop on average, but do not develop

them age appropriately (Raymond, 2011). In reading, writing, and language disabilities,

characteristics exhibited may include trouble with learning and identifying the alphabet,

sounds, word patterns, comprehending, spelling, handwriting, limited vocabulary,

difficultly with organizing thoughts, and inferences. In mathematics, common

characteristics exhibited may include misunderstanding of common rules, patterns,

abstract thinking, and rote memorization of basic facts (Raymond, 2011).

Identification process for learning disability students. The identification

process for learning disabilities has changed over the years. Prior to the 2004

reauthorization of Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA) learning disabilities

were identified solely on test scores (Raymond, 2011). Students are identified as learning

disabled when there is an exhibited discrepancy identified between the academic

achievement and aptitude or intellectually quotient (IQ). There is controversy over this

method because students, who are low performing, who do not exhibit a discrepancy

should still be given the opportunity to receive intervention (Lovett, 2013). After the

reauthorization of IDEA in 2004, other ways to identify learning disabled students were

recommended, as long as they were scientifically, and research based (Lovett, 2013;

Raymond, 2011).

Instructional strategies for learning disabled students. Working with learning

disabled students requires an educator who understands their educational and

20

social/emotional needs. Instruction for students with learning disabilities needs to focus

needs. Modifications and accommodations are needed to allow a student to progress.

Modifications and accommodations are allotted to students with learning disabilities to

ensure the same advantages, as a student without learning disabilities has to succeed in

school (Raymond, 2011).

According to Aron and Loprest (2012), students with learning disabilities can

receive speech, physical and occupational therapy, counseling and any other service that

their individual education plan (IEP) deems is needed for the student. Instructional

modifications and accommodations also happen. Students are to be placed in the least

restrictive environment (LRE) (IDEA, 2004). This LRE could be in the regular

classroom, a self-contained classroom, mainstream, or inclusion. Pull-out, small group,

individual instruction, or co-teaching are additional options. Co-teaching allows the

special education teacher to work fluently with the regular education teacher within the

classroom. Co-teaching also allows for the special education and the regular education

teacher to work with all students in a small group setting to understand the characteristics

and needs for all students in the classroom (Friend, 2001). Content can be modified for

the learning disabled student. Modifications of the curriculum, additional time, modified

grading, and modified assignments can be given so the student is still completing the

required skills just on their level or ability (Aron & Loprest, 2012, Raymond, 2011).

Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder is a manifestation of cognitive abilities

and behavior and is found along a continuum (Foley-Nicpon et al., 2011). Prior to the

21

1950s, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder behaviors were thought to be a reaction to

the overcrowding of classrooms due to the baby boomers (Smith, 2012). With the

launching of Sputnik, there was a shift in education of hyperkinetic students, similar to

the shift of educating gifted students. There was a search for the underachiever; these

were the hyperkinetic students, later the name of these students changed to Attention

Deficit Disorder (ADD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) (Smith,

2012).

In the 1960s, there were many changes happening in child development theories.

Children with these hyperkinetic characteristics were beginning to be identified,

diagnosed, and treated. There were concerns that if these students were not found and

treated, behaviors would persist into adulthood and would affect their ability to keep

employment and their work ability. During this time there was a great rise of students

being identified because schools used this as an explanation as to why a student was

failing to achieve. There was no true procedure for testing these students. Identification

was given based upon counselors, teachers, and parent recommendations and referred to

the doctor for medicine (Smith, 2012).

In 1980, identification changed with the publication of the DSM-III, the

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). This version was not based on the

psychoanalytical and social psychiatric ideology and terminology (Smith, 2012). At this

same time hyperkinetic was no longer considered a reaction to childhood but an attention

deficit disorder (ADD), with hyperactivity being added in 1987. Currently, it is estimated

that 5.29% of all children in the world are identified as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity

Disorder (ADHD) (Smith, 2012). Annually, about nine percent of children aged five to

22

seventeen are diagnosed with some form of ADHD, on average about one per classroom

is identified as ADHD (Bussing, Porter, Zima, Mason, Garvan, & Reid, 2012).

Types of Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder. Common characteristics

associated with ADHD are low tolerance to frustration, mood instability, poor self-

esteem, laziness, lack of organization, outburst, stubbornness, fidgeting, inattentive, and

hyperactivity (Raymond, 2011). It is believed that there are five focuses or reasons

behind ADHD. They are genetic (family history), prenatal (birth) complications,

psychological issues, environmental toxins, and gender (American Academy of Child

Adolescent Psychiatry, 2013; Raymond, 2011).

In 2010, the American Academy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry made changes in

how people were identified. The identification changed from being ADHD or ADD to

just ADHD (American Academy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry, 2010). There are four

types of ADHD (American Academy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry, 2010; Rinn &

Reynold, 2012).

Type I is predominantly inattentive, and it replaced the previous term of attention

deficit disorder (ADD). It is largely related to inattentiveness, avoidance, forgetfulness,

lack of attention, lack of organization (Rinn & Reynold, 2012). A Type I student has

trouble staying on task and often does not pay attention (Rinn & Nelson, 2009). A Type I

student has little attention to details, and fails to follow through (DuPaul et al., 2011).

Type I used to be considered Attention Deficit Disorder (Rinn & Nelson, 2009).

Type II is predominately hyperactive-impulsive. Students with Type II are

restless, excessively talkative, fidgety, impulsive and interruptive (Rinn & Reynold,

2012). They are very active, thought to be like a running motor (Rinn & Nelson, 2009).

23

Type II students act before thinking, struggle with waiting, and have a tendency to blurt

out (DuPaul et al., 2011).

Type III is combined. Children identified as Type III have a large combination of

both inattentiveness and hyperactivity (Rinn & Reynolds, 2012). They have trouble with

attention, hyperactivity, and controlling their impulses (DuPaul et al., 2011).

Lastly is Type IV, which is not specified. A student with type IV ADHD has

symptoms from both inattentiveness and hyperactive-impulsivity. At the same time not

enough symptoms to be identified as either one or combined (Rinn & Reynolds, 2012).

Identification process for attention deficit hyperactive disorder. The

identification of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is based upon the results of the

DSM. The DSM is a behavior rating scaled used to identify different behavioral,

emotional, and mental disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). It is a rating

scale used to gauge the extent of behavior associated with attention deficit hyperactivity

disorder. The behavior scale is filled out by various people who are associated with the

student (Wood, 2012). Parents, teachers, and others associated with the students may

make recommendations for testing due to behaviors that the student may exhibit at home

or school (Bussing et al., 2012). A qualified clinician uses the results of the DSM to

make decisions about whether a student is identified with ADHD and what is done to

control the ADHD behaviors of the student (Kalbfleisch & Banasiak, 2008).

Similar to the DSM-IV is the Conners 3. The Conners 3 provides scores for the

areas of inattentions, hyperactivity, impulsivity, learning problems, executive

functioning, aggression, and peer/family relations (Wood, 2012). Students are rated on a

zero to three scale (zero, not true at all, three, very much true) and the form is completed

24

by parents and teachers of the student. It is often given to students who are already

identified as gifted in an effort to see if a student is also attention deficit hyperactivity

disorder because common behaviors are shared between gifted and ADHD.

Instructional needs for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Students with

attention deficit hyperactivity disorder often have poor educational outcomes such as low

levels of academic achievement, low grade point averages, and high retention levels

(Bussing et al., 2012). Low achievement, low grade point averages, and high retention

levels are due to academic disabilities that appear early and are undiagnosed. In addition,

the work gets harder, and students are expected to be independently responsible to

prepare (Bussing et al., 2010). Instructing students on how to cope and learn with

attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is vital to their achievement (DuPaul, Weyandt, &

Janusis, 2011).

There are three types of instructional needs for students with attention deficit

hyperactivity disorder: behavioral, self-regulatory, and academic (DuPaul et al., 2011).

Behavioral instruction should be twofold: antecedent and consequence (DuPaul et al.,

2011). Antecedent meaning before a behavior happens and consequence, after a behavior

happens. Examples of antecedent are reviewing rules periodically, having rules posted

close to the student, listing directions out for student to see and check off, giving praise,

modifying task length, and giving choices. Examples of consequences are token or

sticker system, where students are gain or lose tokens or stickers for good or bad

behaviors or time out, and removing the student from the situation to refocus.

Self-regulation is creating self-management in the student (DuPaul et al., 2011).

Teach students to create goals, monitor those goals, and reward for making those goals.

25

Lastly, academic instruction should involve direct instruction, modified assignments,

computer or technology, remediation programs, and peer tutoring.

Working memory is also an area that attention deficit hyperactivity disorder can

harm. Working memory is the temporary storage and manipulation of information in the

brain (Martinussen & Major, 2011). Working memory is an issue when looking at gifted

students and learning disabled students because it deals with processing speed and for

each of these groups, speed can be an issue (Song & Porath, 2011). Working memory

affects many aspects of learning, especially basic skills such as problem solving, written

expression, short term memory, planning, organizing, and focus (Martinussen & Major,

2011). In the Kofler, Rapport, Bolden, Sarver, and Raiker (2010) study they found that

working memory is linked to inattentive behavior in students with attention deficit

hyperactivity disorder especially in boys. Inattentiveness ran higher when completing

tasks that required high working memory, whereas in tasks where little working memory

use was needed, inattentiveness was less (Kofler et al., 2010). Strategies teachers can use

to assist students who have working memory issues are breaking large projects into

smaller chunks, give explicit directions, graphic organizers, and checklist (Kofler et al.,

2010).

Social behavior is another area that is affected in ADHD children. In the Kofler

et al. (2011) study, they found that students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

tend to speak and act hastily versus listening and working with others. These behaviors

adversely affect social interactions and peers often become easily irritated with the

student (Kofler et al.,

help attention deficit hyperactivity disorder students develop peer relationships. Some

26

strategies are creating study buddies, cross age peer tutoring, partner activities, individual

and group counseling (Cowan, 2014).

Twice-Exceptional Students

There is not a true definition for the twice-exceptional student; the characteristics

that define the twice-exceptional learner are so broad (Foley-Nicpon et al., 2011;

Ronksley-Pavia, 2015). For many years, the term twice-exceptional or gifted learning

disabled has been thought to be a contradiction. How could a student be gifted and have

a disability? Mills and Brody (1999) stated a twice-exceptional student is one who is

gifted in one or more areas but has a learning disability that causes him or her difficulty

in other areas.

According to Barnard-Brak, Johnsen, Hannig, and Wei (2015) about nine percent

of special education students have an IQ of ninetieth percentile or higher, proving that

gifted children are being unidentified in special education classrooms. Mills and Brody

(1999) identified three indicators to look for when identifying a twice-exceptional

student: (a) evidence of outstanding achievement, talent, or ability, (b) evidence of a

discrepancy between ability and achievement, (c) evidence of processing, emotional, or

behavioral deficiency. Twice-exceptional students could be any student who has a

disability such as hearing impairment, speech or language impairment, a visual

impairment, social/ emotional issues, physical ailment , autism, other health impairment,

a specific learning disability, or multiple of any of the above, but it is normally not found

in students with a traumatic brain injury or severe mental retardation.

According to Reis et al. (2014) even with the studies, research, and position

papers that have been completed by researchers and organizations such as National

27

Association for Gifted Children and The Council for Exceptional Children, the term

twice-exceptional is still not completely accepted. Reasons for this belief stem from the

reluctance to believe that giftedness and disabilities coexist. Faulty ideas, stereotypical

images, and beliefs are cause for the disbelief of the coexistence of a gift and disability.

Having struggles with learning does not equal giftedness (Reis et al., 2014).

Characteristics of the twice-exceptional student. According to Trail (2011)

there are four areas where characteristic will fall: cognitive, academic, interpersonal, and

intrapersonal. The characteristics are common character traits that are apparent in most

twice-exceptional students. Students will exhibit traits from both sides positives, and

negatives, but not necessarily every category. Table 1 and Table 2 is adapted from Trail

(2011), Wellisch and Brown (2013), Song and Porath (2011), Baldwin et al. (2015), and

Colorado Department of Education (2012) descriptions of the twice-exceptional student

(2E).

Table 1

Characteristic of the Twice-Exceptional Student

Characteristic of Twice-Exceptional Cognitive Characteristics

Positives Negatives High verbal and communication skills Strong perceptual reasoning skills Conceptual thinker High energy Creative

Significant differences of scores on standardized test Difficultly with linear thinking Difficulties processing verbal directions Easily distracted Sensory issues

Note: This table lists the positive and negative characteristics associated with twice-exceptional students (Baldwin et al., 2015; Colorado Department of Education, 2012; Davis et al., 2010; Song & Porath, 2011; Trail, 2011).

28

Table 2

Characteristic of the Twice-Exceptional Student

Academic Characteristic Positive Negative Advanced ideas Advanced vocabulary Range of interest Insightful in areas of interest

Inconsistency with academic skills Difficult with drills Difficulty expressing understanding Unmotivated Poor handwriting and organization

Interpersonal Characteristics Positive Negative Humorous Hypersensitive to others feeling

Difficulty relating to others Targeted by bullies Lack of understanding social clues Disruptive behavior

Intrapersonal Characteristics Positive Negative Highly sensitive Highly sensitive

Denies issues Appears to be immature, withdrawn, unable to deal with emotions Behaves impulsively Easily frustrated

Note: This table lists the positive and negative characteristics associated with twice-exceptional students (Baldwin et al., 2015; Colorado Department of Education, 2012; Davis, Rimm, & Siegle, 2010; Song & Porath, 2011; Trail, 2011).

Social and emotional needs of the twice-exceptional student. Most often gifted

children do not develop at the normal rate. This irregular development is called

asynchronous development and this is where the physical, emotional, social and

intellectual development is uneven (Trail, 2011). The social and emotional needs of

gifted students are different from those of the average student. This is because they bring

different issues to the table than the average student. According to Bracamonte (2010),

twice-exceptional students need an environment that fosters their social and emotional

29

needs. The most common social and emotional issues that plague gifted students are

stress, depression, friendships, perfection, self-efficacy, self-esteem, and self-concept

(Merrotsy, 2013; Ronksley-Pavia, 2015; Strip & Hirsch, 2011).

The twice-exceptional student feels a large sense of isolation because they feel out

of sync with the peers within the regular classroom (Trail, 2011). Helping these students

develop friendship with like students is an important part of fostering their social and

emotional needs. They struggle to relate with classroom peers because of the conflicting

gifts and disability.

Depression is another area of concern for twice-exceptional students. Depression

is a condition where a person begins to withdraw from normal activities; a severe

sadness, or anger may be present (Strip & Hirsch, 2011). Depression can result from

perfectionism, overwelming stress, and isolation (Strip & Hirsch, 2011). If educators

believe a student is becoming depressed, discussions with parents, counselors, social

workers, and specialists need to take place to help the student cope with their depression

(Trail, 2011).

Self-efficacy is the ability to create goals and achieve those goals (Merrotsy,

2013). Self-concept is the beliefs, attitudes and opinions learned in which a person

relates to his or her worth (Trail, 2011). Self- esteem is the concept of being able to meet

students develop their self-efficacy, self-concept, and self-esteem. Each of these helps

the student develop, but the issue with the twice exception is that students may live with

what hurts these verses building up these. Twice-exceptional students often suffer from

low self-

30

not feel success, they fail to build thier self-esteem, so their self-concept is often low.

Providing a safe and empathic environment is important for a twice-exceptional student

to feel safe to make mistakes and learn from them. Ensuring work is appriorate, for

allowing success but challenges too (Ronksley-Pavia, 2015; Strip & Hirsch, 2011; Trail,

2011; Wang & Neihart, 2015).

In Barber and Mueller (2011) study on self perceptions of adolescents, they

found that students idenified just gifted or just learning disabled had a higher self-concept

than students identified as twice-exceptional. Reasoning for this was evident, based upon

the lack of maternal support at home, stating that students with maternal support at home

were more likely to develop a higher self concept of themselves (Barber & Mueller,

2011). Students often have a negative perception of their relationship with their parents.

(Barber & Mueller, 2011). This plays into the students haveing a less than positive self-

concept. It is important for parents and teachers to be knowledgable of this issue and

support the student.

Stress is a part of everyday life, but for twice-exceptional students it can

overpower them. Stress can develop from expectations from parents, teachers, or the

students. Overly intense or disconnected parents and too many extracurricular activities

are also reasons for stress. Making sure goals and expectations are realistic can assist

with this and working with parents to understand the development of gifted students can

assist in relieving stress (Strip & Hirsch, 2011; Trail, 2011). Perfectionism is the

(Fletcher & Neumeister, 2012). Students need to understand that wanting high

31

achievement is a positive thing, but learning to set priorities, taking time for reflection on

mistakes, and relaxation help keep perfectionism from being an unhealthy habit.

Curriculum modifications for the twice-exceptional student. Modifying the

curriculum for the twice-exceptional student allows the student to get the enrichment they

need while making the curriculum assessible to them. Alternatives to the traditional

presentation of material is needed (Yssel, Prater, & Smith, 2010). According to Coleman

(2005) there are four areas in which curriculum can be modified for the twice-exceptional

student. They are time, structure, support, and complexity.

Being flexible with time is important. Students do not learn at the same speed, so

creating dynamic assessments is one way to use time wisely. Dynamic assessments are

small one on one assessments to work with a students to see their thinking on a topic

(Coleman, 2005). Structure consists of three areas: content, pedagogy, and classroom.

Catering the curriculum to their ability, interests, and thinking skills allots for the student

to make connects to the content. Pedagogy is how the teacher presents the information or

lesson. Instruction, interventions and strategies should use a multisensory approach

(Bianco & Leech, 2010; Colorado Department of Education 2012).

Structure is how the students work together: individual, groups, and pairs.

Lighting and sound also affect the structure of the classroom. The most important concept

of structure is to have an open, caring and respected environment where students feel at

home to be open and honest (Coleman, 2005). Support consists of three areas: emotional,

external, and advocacy. Emotional support is needed by the twice-exceptional student to

know that they matter. Fostering the social and emotional needs and development of the

twice-exceptional student, allows for their individual growth and success (Bracamonte,

32

2010).

External support is what assistance the twice-exceptional student receives to

succeed. This can be from direct instruction to assistive technologies (Coleman, 2005).

Advocacy or self-advocacy is empowering the student to advocate for themselves.

Complexity is creating a deep foundation of understanding (Coleman, 2005). Complexity

or challenge should be set high for all students to promote higher level thinking

(Coleman, 2005; Bianco & Leech, 2010).

According to Colorado Department of Education (2012) curriculum can be

modified in three areas: content, process, and product. Content is what students need to

know and understand a concept. Educators need to hone in on what a student must know

and what they need to have in order to understand the concept or skill. This includes

providing graphic organizers, guided notes, and a variety of materials. Process is the

activities that students participate in to gain the understanding. Educators need to

understand what methods of instruction work best with the student, give choices, and

support and scaffold learning appropriately.

Product is the demostration of understanding of the concept. Educators need to

use a variety of modes for students to express understanding, work with students to create

timelines, and organizers, and support their creativity (Colorado Department of

Education, 2012). Allowing students choice and flexibilty in completing their process

and product allots for better assignments from students when they can exhibit their

understanding through their choice (Willard-Holt, Weber, Morrision, & Horgan, 2013).

Gifted Students with Learning Disabilities

The gifted student with learning disabilities is a complicated contradiction.

33

Defining this concept is complicated and controversial. For the most part there is a

concrete, nationally accepted definition for learning disabled, but on the other hand, there

is no true and nationally accepted definition of gifted and talented (National Association

for Gifted Childern, 2012). One commonly used definition roots from Mills and Brody

(1999). In their definition, they summarize the gifted learning disabled student as a

student who possesses gifts or talents and is capable of high performance but has areas

where learning is difficult due to a disability (Mills & Brody, 1999).

Before the 1970s, the gifted learning disabled student was not identified or

discussed. Students were placed based upon the area most evident (Leggett et al., 2010).

In 1975, the Council for Exceptional Children and the Association for the Gifted and

Talented began bringing to light the concept of the gifted and learning disabled student

(Leggett et al., 2010). The Education for All Handicapped Child Act of 1975, recognized

the rights of all handicapped students, but it was not until 2004 with the reauthorization

of IDEA, when the twice-exceptional student was actually mentioned (IDEA, 2004;

Leggett et al., 2010). According to Bracamonte (2010), two to five percent of learning

disabled students are gifted, and two to five percent of gifted students are learning

disabled.

The Gifted Learning Disabled (GLD) student has a variety of strengths and

weaknesses based on the area of their gifts and disabilities (Song & Porath, 2011). These

characteristics are a unique combination of both giftedness and learning disabilities (Song

& Porath, 2011). Common strengths of a gifted, learning disabled student are creative

thinking and abstract reasoning. They tend to be imaginative and good problem solvers.

GLD students are strong visual learners, have a large vocabulary, mathematical

34

reasoning, and are spatial learners (Song & Porath, 2011). Weaknesses can range from

emotional, easily frustrated, short-term memory, and poor computation. GLD students

tend to have issues with communication skills, such as listening, written task, decoding,

handwriting, and spelling (Nielsen & Higgins, 2005; Song & Porath, 2011).

Categories for gifted learning disabled students. When categorizing students

as a gifted learning disabled student, they will be found in one of three categories. In

1998, the National Association for Gifted Children released a position paper discussing

the categories that twice-exceptional gifted learning disabled students could be found in.

The three categories are subtle learning disabled with giftedness, gifted with learning

disabled, and unidentified or masked student.

The gifted with subtle learning disability is the first group of students (Al-Hroub,

2010; Beckley, 1998; Foley-Nicpon et al., 2011; Mills & Brody, 1999; National

Association for Gifted Children, 1998; Reis et al., 2014). These students are identified as

gifted but have difficulties in certain areas or on certain tasks. Al-Hroub (2010)

identified this group as hidden learning disabled students. These students are easily

identified for their gifts or talents, but their difficulties may not necessarily be exhibited.

The gifted with learning disability students are thought to be underachievers and not

working at their potential (Figg, Rogers, McCormick, & Low, 2012; Foley-Nicpon et al.,

2011; Mills & Brody, 1999; Reis et al., 2014). Some educators unaware of the learning

disability may say that these students are lazy and lack motivation (Bianco & Leech,

2010). They tend to have poor self-concept because they do not understand how some

things can come so easily, while others are much harder for them. The gifted with

learning disability student will normally not be identified with a learning disability until

35

late in their educational career (Foley-Nicpon et al., 2011) normally because of a

depressed IQ and inadequate assessments (Brody & Mill, 1997).

The second group of students is the learning disabled with giftedness (Al-Hroub,

2010; Beckley, 1998; Foley-Nicpon et al., 2011; Mills & Brody, 1999; National

Association for Gifted Children, 1998). This is the second largest group of unidentified

students (Bianco & Leech, 2010). The student considered learning disabled with

giftedness is also known as the hidden gifted student (Al-Hroub, 2010). Their learning

disability is severe enough to be identified, but their gift or talent may never be identified

(Al-Hroub, 2010). Now the student is receiving services for their learning disability, but

the special education teacher may not recognize that there are gifts or talents this student

may be exhibiting, and they may not have any knowledge or experience with the GLD

student (Bianco & Leech, 2011). Schools often focus on the disability because their

education is focused in an environment where their gifts are camouflaged (Reis et al.,

2014). The learning disabled with giftedness may struggle with focus, underestimate

their abilities, and be noticed on what they cannot do verses what they can do (Beckley,

1998; Song & Porath, 2011). These students may have an Individual Education Plan

(IEP) or be on a 504 plan (Foley-Nicpon et al.,

depresses their intellectual and academic performance (Foley-Nicpon et al., 2011).

Unidentified or masked students are the last group of gifted learning disabled

students (Al-Hroub, 2010; Beckley, 1998; Foley-Nicpon et al., 2011; Mills & Brody,

1999; National Association for Gifted Children, 1998). Masked or unidentified students

appear to be ordinary average students. Their gifts and learning disabilities mask or

counteract each other (Lovett, 2013). When given assessments, scores will be skewed

36

because their gift and disability allot for compensation (Reis et al., 2014). The masked

student is considered the largest group of unidentified and underserved (Al-Hroub, 2010).

These students will most likely never be identified for gifted and talented program or for

a learning disability (Bianco & Leech 2010; Foley-Nicpon et al., 2011). The masked

student functions at grade level and is considered an average worker (Mills & Brody,

1999) but has the capacity, if they were identified for their gift and disability, to exceed

and excel.

Identification of gifted students with learning disabilities. According to

Gardynick and McDonald (2005), identifying gifted students with learning disabilities

can be difficult. Their gifts can compensate for their academic problems. They also may

comprehend on a superior level but may have difficulty completing simple tasks. A

multidimensional approach to testing and identifying should be taken to identify gifted

students with learning disabilities (Al-Hroub, 2010; Crepeau-Hobson & Bianco, 2013).

Common methods for identifying GLD students are behavior scales, IQ testing,

academic test, creativity test, peer/self-nominations, observations, and portfolios, and

subtest scores (Al-Hroub, 2010; Lovett, 2013; Mills & Brody, 1999). Observations and

examining of evidence needs to show an outstanding talent or ability, a discrepancy

between expected and actual achievement, and should including looking at strengths and

weaknesses (Mills & Brody, 1999). Scores should be focused over a period of time, not

one test on one day (Foley-Nicpon et al., 2011). GLD students tend to score higher on

spatial patterns, verbal comprehension, and abstract conceptualization measures on IQ

test (Bracamonte, 2010). Focusing on the general ability index on IQ tests is helpful

because it is a score based on subtests but does not include the working memory or

37

processing speed, which are areas the gifted students with learning disabilities will

struggle (Song & Porath, 2011).

Instruction of gifted students with learning-disabilities. Instruction of the

gifted student with learning disabilities creates a large complication. This complication

comes from what to teach and how to teach it. The normal focus for a learning disabled

student is to remediate the weakness. The normal focus for a gifted student is to enrich

and challenge the strengths. However, the focus for the GLD should be to enrich the gifts

while remediating the disability.

According to Foley-Nicpon et al. (2011), focusing on the gift first and the

learning disability second, ensure the student is receiving challenging and engaging work.

Instruction for the gifted student with learning disabilities should focus on their strengths

(Beckley, 1998; Coleman, 2005; Ruban & Reis, 2005; Yssel et.al, 2010) while

barrier in their education (Beckley, 1998; Gates, 2010). Programs used for instructing the

gifted student with learning disabilities should be challenging, but at the same time, it

should create structure and strategies to assist any weaknesses or disabilities (Beckley,

1998).

nurtured. Students tend to be more focused on challenging work if interested in the topic.

Fostering their social and emotional development is important, using group and

individual counseling, flexible grouping, preassessing, and multiple intelligence and

differentiated instruction is helpful (Bracamonte, 2010) Students should have alternative

methods to express their understanding (Yssel et al., 2010).

38

Gifted students with learning disabilities struggle with basic skills (Colorado

Department of Education, 2012; Yssel et al., 2010). Compensation strategies should be

taught through explicit instruction (Beckley, 1998; Gates, 2010). Compensation

strategies are skills taught to assist a student to succeed. For the gifted student with a

learning disability, these compensation strategies could be graphic organizers, assistive

technology, memorization tricks, and alternate communication devices. Students, who

struggle with memorization, can be taught to create flashcards or students who struggle

with spelling can be taught to use a word processing program to assist in spelling.

Gifted students with attention deficit hyperactive disorder

Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder is not a learning disability, but it is a

behavior disorder that hinders a student from meeting their potential if not identified.

The identification of a student with Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder and

giftedness can be very difficult. This is because there are so many characteristics that

cross each other (Rinn & Nelson, 2009; Wood, 2012). Gifted testing for Attention

Deficit Hyperactive Disorder students needs to be completed by a person familiar with

the gifted and talented and Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (Wood, 2012) to

ensure that a misdiagnosis does not happen. Teachers are the first to refer a student for

Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder testing (Rinn & Nelson, 2009) because they

spend more time with the student.

Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder behaviors tend to mask gifted abilities

because the focus is on the behaviors of the student verses the abilities of the student

(Fungate, Zentall, & Gentry, 2013). According to Fungate et al. (2013) study, they found

that Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder students who are gifted are found to be more

39

creative than a gifted student without Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder. They also

found that students with Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder often have a lower

working memory (Fungate et al., 2013). As well as Attention Deficit Hyperactive

Disorder behavior masking gifted abilities, Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder

behaviors also mimic gifted abilities (Lee & Olenchak, 2014). Common overlapping

behaviors are inattentiveness, hyperactivity, fidgeting, and off-task (Lee & Olenchak,

2014). There is one main difference between a student with Attention Deficit

Hyperactive Disorder, a gifted student, and a gifted student with Attention Deficit

Hyperactive Disorder. For a student with Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder this

behavior will appear in all areas; a gifted student will exhibit these behaviors when bored

or overexcited about a topic. A gifted student with Attention Deficit Hyperactive

Disorder will exhibit those behaviors at all times, especially when bored or excited (Lee

& Olenchak, 2014).

In Rinn and Nelson (2009) study, they focused on the perceptions of preservice

teachers when it came to identifying giftedness and Attention Deficit Hyperactive

Disorder behaviors. Participants read one of two vignettes that identified a seven-year

old boy with characteristics of giftedness and Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder.

One vignette, without the diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder or gifted

and talented, asked participants to explain the underlying reason for the behaviors

exhibited and why. The second vignette gave participants a choice of underlying reasons

for the behaviors being related to Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder or gifted and

talented and asked why they felt that was the reason. In both cases, the majority of

participants choose Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder as a reason for the behaviors.

40

Reasons for this included poor attention span; gifted students are neat and organized, and

lack of control of their behavior (Rinn & Nelson, 2009). On the contrary, these same

characteristics can be found in gifted students. A student with poor attention could be

bored, lack of control can stem from excitement or curiosity, neatness, and organization

may not be needed based on the task and interest at hand (Wood, 2012). Gifted children

with ADHD on average are able to focus and concentrate for longer periods of time when

they are invested in the learning (Lee & Olenchak, 2014).

Underachievement

Underachievement is a term that refers to a disc

ability and performance (Davis et al., 2010; Ryan & Coneybeare, 2013). Gifted students

are often at risk for underachievement when their needs are not met (Davis et al., 2010).

Common characteristics of underachievement are low academic self- perceptions, low

self- motivation, external attributions, low goals, negative attitude towards school, peers,

teachers, education, and low self-regulatory (McCoach & Siegle, 2013).

According to McCoach and Siegle (2013), many twice-exceptional students tend

to be underachievers. This is due to the lack of motivation, understanding of their

disability, or undiagnosed learning or behavioral disorder. Twice-exceptional students

are more prone to be underachievers according to Trail (2011), because of their

inconsistencies in their development and academic performance.

Underachievement can appear in gifted students and the twice-exceptional student

when curriculum is not challenging enough, educators focus more on weaknesses than

strengths, and work does not meet the students learning style (Trail, 2011). Gifted

children are often blended into the regular classroom and when instruction is given, it is

41

for the class as a whole. A gifted student will process the information quicker and

become easily bored and frustrated with instruction (Ryan & Coneybeare, 2013).

Students will then act out or become withdrawn (Strip & Hirsch 2011).

In Hwang et al. (2014) study, they found four themes that seemed to reoccur with

their participants trying to cope and recover from underachievement. They are attitude,

study strategies, external support, and coping difficulties (Hwang et al., 2014). In the

theme of attitude, Hwang et al. (2014) found that students who were determined to

complete school or knew they need the education to succeed were more apt to overcome

underachievement. In the theme of study skills, students who persevered, used study skill

strategies to overcome underachievement (Hwang et al., 2014). Students who received

external support from family, peers, or teachers found it helpful to have outside support

and were able to overcome underachievement (Hwang et al., 2014). Overcoming and

coping with difficulties is one of the most important themes, and students who are

underachievers must realize this to be successful. Underachievers must realize that

improving academics is not going to come without difficulties, and they must persevere

to overcome those challenges (Hwang et al., 2014).

Response to Intervention

Response to Intervention (RTI) model is one of those approaches being used to

assist in identifying and intervening for low preforming students who may not be

identified as learning disabled (National Foundation for Learning Disabilities, 2013). It

is a universal screening tool used to flag students with low achievement to provide

intervention (Yssel et al., 2014). RTI follows a method of three tiers to identify students.

Tier one is research based instruction and intervention to teach all students. Students are

42

screened periodically to establish academic needs (RTI Network, 2014). Students who

still struggle with a concept move to tier two. Tier two is targeted interventions not

provided in the regular classroom. This intensive instruction may occur in the classroom

with small group, intervention instruction or through a pull out program (RTI Network,

2014). Tier three comes into play for students who still do not get the concepts and need

more in-depth targeted intervention. This is done through specialists; students receive

intensive interventions and additional exams are completed (RTI Network, 2014).

RTI is also being used in gifted education (Hall et al., 2009). In Hughes and

Rollins (2009) article, they noted that though gifted students are a heterogeneous group,

there is great diversity between achievement levels. Tier one is core instruction for all

students using researched based curriculum and methods. Students are again assessed

periodically to see mastery, and those who score 80% or higher are moved up to tier two.

Tier two is targeted enrichment. Instruction is provided through small groups with

enrichment or accelerated options in specific content (Hughes & Rollins, 2009). Tier

three is intensive enrichment. Instruction in tier three focuses on acceleration, curriculum

compacting, grade skipping, grade or subject acceleration. Students who receive tier

three instruction are your extremely gifted students who score 95% or higher on

standardized test (Hughes & Rollins, 2009).

According to Crepeau-Hobson and Bianco (2013), for RTI to be effectively used

with gifted students with learning disabilities, there must be every effort to use strength-

based approaches to all tiers. Johnsen, Parker and Farah (2015) stated since the

reauthorization of IDEA in 2004, ten states have developed policies to use the RTI

framework with their gifted and talented students. They found that there were four areas

43

Curriculum is researched-based and add depth and complexity to the curriculum.

Assessments must be universal for above grade standard, formative assessments for

flexibility grouping of students, and alternate assessments for mastery. Instructional

strategies that stimulate interest, involve higher level questions, real-world situation,

provide choice and allow for independent study. Last concept was resources. Resources

incorporate higher level work, problem-based activities, and real world (Johnsen et al.,

2015).

Note: This figure describe the multi-tier support system that school systems are using to support identification of learning disabilities, gifted and talented, and twice-exceptional students (Hughes & Rollins, 2009; Iowa Department of Instruction, 2014). Figure 1. RTI Multi-Tier Support

According to McCallum et al. (2013), traditional testing is not sufficient or

sensitive enough to identify twice-exceptional students. Standardized tests tend not to

Tier 3: Intensive intervention

Tier 2: Targeted intervention

Tier 3: Intensive enrichment

Tier 2: Targeted enrichment

Tier 1: Universal instruction

44

reveal differences between ability and achievement. Research is now using the RTI

model to identify and instruct twice-exceptional students (Yssel et al., 2014). According

to Yssel et al. (2014), tier one provides instruction for all students and using universal

screening, allots for students to be identified for remediation and enrichment. Screening

should include observations, verbal, and written assessments so that strengths and

weaknesses are found in order to avoid missing the twice-exceptional student (Yssel et

al., 2014). Tier two and tier three instruction is more intensive through use of

-level instruction allots for more fluid

identification and instruction, especially for the twice-exceptional students. On the same

note, McCallum et al. (2013) state that relying on RTI to screen and identify twice-

exceptional students could hinder identifying students because of masking. Masking

being the hiding of strengths and weaknesses (Beckley, 1998; Foley-Nicpon et al., 2011;

Mills & Brody, 1999; National Association for Gifted Children, 1998).

Implicit Personality Theory

Implicit Personality Theory is defined as the general expectation a person

identifies based on what is known about them, often done unconsciously, and based

upon public beliefs (Changing Minds, 2014). This describes the patterens and biases

indivduals use when forming their beliefs about people (Baudson & Preckel, 2013).

According to Schneider (1973), implicit personality theories describe recognized

differences between personality characteristics. These characteristics can be based on

actual relationships between personality and misconceptions (Baudson & Preckel,

2013).

In the Baudson and Preckel (2013) study, they found implicit personality

45

theories play a large role in teacher perceptions of students. The study had elementary,

secondary and perspective teachers fill out a survey identifying different characteristics

after reading one of eight different vignettes. They found that there was a discrepancy

between actual and perceived characteristics of gifted versus average students.

p. 43). Their implicit personality theories about gifted students confirms intellect but

denies the social and emotional characteristic differences between the average students

and the gifted students (Baudson & Preckel, 2013).

Educator Perceptions of the Twice-Exceptional Student

Most students spend the majority of their educational career in the regular

education classroom with a regular education teacher (Rinn & Nelson, 2009; Leggett et

al., 2010; Bianco et al., 2011). The knowledge and beliefs of the regular education

tea

perception of a student. The lack of knowledge about different groups, cultures, genders,

and educational needs can create misconceptions that affect the way an educator may

look at or interact with a student. In the Rinn and Nelson (2009) study, they found the

preservice teachers had a major misconception about gifted students. Most participants

in the study thought that all gifted students were the same, gifted and talented across the

board. Their lack of experience with and knowledge of gifted and talented students could

play into this misconception (Rinn & Nelson, 2009). These students are underserved

because teachers and counsels see either the gift or the struggles, and students are often

only classified for the gift or the weakness instead of their gift and disability (Leggett,

46

Shea, Wilson, 2010)

Stereotypical beliefs and misconceptions affect how a teacher sees and interacts

with a student (Gates, 2010; Bianco & Leech, 2010). The stereotyping of students can

have a positive and negative effect on students and teachers (Gates, 2010). For years,

educators have believed that a gifted student is gifted in all areas, and if they are not

gifted and talented in all areas, then they are not gifted (Gates, 2010; Bianco & Leech,

2010). Students with learning disabilities or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder may

not be referred to gifted education programs because of these stereotypes or

misconceptions that educators have about certain groups of students (Gates, 2010).

Moon and Brighton (2008) noticed that primary teachers had outdated beliefs in

regards to giftedness and these beliefs influenced their decision. In their study, they

found that primary teachers had very traditional thoughts about giftedness, such as strong

reasoning skills, high language, and math abilities. The participants had trouble with

referring any student who had a limited vocabulary, lack of motivation, or could not work

independently. For example, 75% of the participants found it difficult for a student with

limited vocabulary to be considered gifted (Moon & Brighton, 2008). There were also

thoughts that students of poverty could not be considered for gifted programs and

services (Moon & Brighton, 2008) because they lacked parental support.

of weaknesses can hurt the gifted student. Teachers focus on higher levels of social skills

as an indicator of giftedness (Bianco et al., 2011) but not realizing that not all students are

going to be social and outgoing. According to Bianco and Leech (2010), teachers

nominate students they believe are globally gifted and those who conform to their

47

perception of what a gifted student is. The concept of gifted and disabled or the twice-

exceptional student is very contradictive and hard to comprehend for some educators

(Bianco & Leech, 2010).

The relationship between teacher beliefs and student realities are often opposite.

When students fail to be organized, do not turn in assignments, or lack time management,

skills teachers are apt to consider them as lazy or not being responsible (Trail, 2011). In

reality, most gifted students, whether they are twice-exceptional or not, struggle with

organization skills. Student may fail to complete assignments because of their difficulty

level in reference to their disability or because they do not see the purpose of completing

the work because they already know the skill. These students are considered

underachievers or lazy, but in reality, it could an undiagnosed disability (Trail, 2011).

Stereotyping and bias appear not only with students with labels but also in gender

of students. In the Bianco et al. (2011) study, the researchers focused on bias that

appears in teachers when referring students for gifted programs. Teachers were given

one of two identical vignettes that described a Caucasian gifted student; the only

difference was the gender. The participants read the vignette and answered six questions

(five of the statements were distractors). The question the researchers were focusing on

was if they would recommend that student for placement in the gifted education program.

Through this study, the researchers found that teachers were more inclined to refer the

male student. The reasons given for this stemmed from characteristics used to describe

the student. This led teachers to believe that he was bored and needed a challenge. The

same characteristics however, were made out to be a negative for the female with

participants saying the student was not prepared for gifted program.

48

Low expectations are another reason why twice-exceptional students are not

referred to gifted and talented programs. Educators tend to have lower expectations for

students with learning disabilities (Bianco & Leech, 2010; Lovett, 2013). These low

expectations are created by lack of knowledge or misconceptions about learning disabled

students.

In the Hargrove and Seay (2011) study, they found teachers tend to carry

predispositions toward certain groups of students. These predispositions affect how they

educators and their perception as to why African American males were underrepresented

in gifted education programs. Minority teachers considered prejudicial attitudes held by

teachers as a major reason (68.3%) for the underrepresentation. However, this study

focuses on the African American male in gifted education. The prejudicial attitudes can

be part of the issue with the underrepresentation of the twice-exceptional student.

Students are labeled throughout their educational career based upon their skills.

The problem with some labels, such as a disability label, a behavior label, and a gifted

label is that they come with beliefs or misconceptions. In the Bianco (2005) study, she

for the gifted and talented program. The educators in this study completed surveys where

students were either given a label of learning disabled, emotional-behavioral disabled, or

no label. Educators made a decision on whether to refer the student to the gifted

program. Data collected showed that teachers were less likely to refer a student with a

label than without a label.

49

Teacher Training

The Higher Education Opportunity Act (2008) has a section that specifically

discusses teaching skills required to serve all students. This law states that teachers

Unfortunately, teachers receive very little training in either the needs of gifted or twice-

exceptional students (Syzmanski & Shaff, 2012) or how to identify students with

different needs (Ryan, 2012). The downside of this is that without formal training or

education in the characteristics and needs of gifted learners, teachers rely on their

personal beliefs that may or may not be valid (Berman et al., 2012), but at the same time,

they are expected to differentiate for all students (Aldridge, 2011). In the Aldridge

(2011) study, they found that teacher perception is a big factor in whether a student who

is learning disabled and gifted are identified and serviced. Teachers are more apt to refer

if they are knowledgeable of characteristics and behaviors of the twice-exceptional

student (Aldridge, 2011).

According to Nielsen and Higgins (2005), there are four focuses for working with

twice-exceptional students. They are competence, choice, connections, and compassion.

With so much attention usually on the disability, there is a great need to celebrate the

competence of the twice-exceptional student (Nielsen & Huggins, 2005). The students

need to celebrate their successes. With most students, choice should always be an option.

use their strength, is important for their success (Bracamonte, 2010; Nielsen & Higgins,

2005). Creating atmosphere of family allows students to make connections to others,

show and feel compassion, and allows students not to feel so isolated (Nielsen & Higgins,

50

2005).

Teachers with appropriate training in gifted and twice-exceptional students are

better prepared to create curriculum for their students then those without any formal

training (Bangel et al., 2010; Siegle et al., 2010). At the same time in McCoach and

Siegle (2007) study, found that there was no relationship to training and perceptions of

gifted students. In their study they found that teachers who perceived themselves as

gifted were not more sympathetic to gifted students (McCoach & Siegle, 2007).

According to Bianco and Leech (2010), teacher preparation plays a large part in

the identification of twice-exceptional students. In the Bianco and Leech (2010) study,

they focused on three groups of teachers: special education teachers, regular education

teachers, and gifted and talented teachers and whether they would identify a student with

or without a label of learning disabled or emotional behavior disorder. In the control

group (no label) for each group of teacher: 97% of regular education teachers, 100% of

gifted teachers, and 83% of special education teachers would refer for testing. In the

group with the student identified as learning disabled, 69% of regular education teachers,

75% of gifted teachers, and 58% of special education teachers would refer for testing. In

the group with the student identified as emotional behavior disorder, 80% of regular

education teachers, 50% of gifted teachers, and 40% of special education teachers would

refer for testing (Bianco & Leech, 2010). Bianco and Leech (2010) found that special

education teachers were less likely to refer a student with or without a label. This is

because their training normally focuses on identifying and remediating basic skills.

Gifted and talented teachers are more apt to refer a student with or without a label

because they are trained to look beyond the weaknesses and identify the gifts and talents

51

(Bianco & Leech, 2010). When interviewing all teachers, they found that those who had

some training in gifted education focused on characteristics versus IQ scores (Bianco &

Leech, 2010).

Teacher efficacy is also important in training. Teacher efficacy is the ability to

accurately put into practice a skill or strategy that they are taught (Dixon, Yssel,

McConnell, & Harden, 2014). Dixon et al. (2014) found when teachers had more

training on a topic ten plus hours, they were more likely to feel self-efficacy and actually

implement the skill or strategy then a teacher with less training. This signifies Davis et

al. (2010) when they discuss the importance of teacher training especially in the areas of

characteristic and strategies to use with students.

Summary

Until the 1970s, giftedness and disabilities were considered to be at different ends

of the education spectrum (Davis et al., 2010). Unfortunately, it was not until 2004 when

the twice-exceptional student was recognized in federal law (IDEA, 2004). Twice-

exceptional students are not a one-size fit all group. These students have diverse social

and emotional needs (Barber & Mueller, 2011), strengths, and weaknesses (Bianco &

Leech, 2010). An educator that understands this, has the ability to reach out and identify

these students is needed in the field of twice-exceptional students (Bangel et al., 2010;

Siegle et al., 2010).

52

Chapter 3: Research Method

The twice-exceptional student is often overlooked by regular education teachers

(Davis et al., 2010; Jolly & Hughes, 2015). The specific problem this study examined

was that regular education teachers lack experience, training, and knowledge in referring

students identified as specific learning disabled (SLD) or Attention Deficit Hyperactive

Disorder (ADHD) to the gifted education program (Bianco & Leech, 2010; Davis et al.,

2010). The purpose of this explanatory, qualitative case study was to investigate the

ining, and knowledge of twice-exceptional

students and identify what affects their decision on whether to refer or not refer a student.

The case study was used because it focuses on the individual representation of an issue in

its natural context (Hancock & Algozzine, 2011; Yin, 2014). The regular education

teachers were interviewed for the purpose of this study.

The following research questions describe how the purpose of this study will be

completed.

RQ1. What past teaching experiences of the regular education teachers are

perceived as having affected them in referring students identified as specific learning

disabled or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder to the gifted education program?

RQ2. How do regular education teachers perceive how any courses or trainings

in gifted education and twice-exceptional students have affected their referral rates of

students with learning disabilities or ADHD to gifted education programs?

RQ3. What working knowledge of the twice-exceptional student does the regular

education teacher have that they feel affects whether they refer students identified as

specific learning disabled or ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder) to the

53

gifted education program?

RQ4. What do regular education teachers perceive as the reasons for the

underrepresentation of twice-exceptional students?

Research Methods and Design(s)

The study used a qualitative, explanatory, case study approach employing a semi-

structured interview and a document review. The explanatory research method focuses

on identifying and analyzing patterns (Schram, 2006). In a case study, the researcher

wants to examine a current phenomenon that involves real life topics (Yin, 2014). A case

(or a unit of analysis) is what guides and defined by the research questions (Yin, 2014).

There are two types of case studies according to Yin (2014), multiple case or single case

study. In this study, the researcher used a single case study method because it focuses on

one unit of analysis, regular education teachers. In this single case study the unit of

analysis that was studied was, what regular education teachers know and understand

about the twice-exceptional students and how this plays into their referral of students

with ADHD or SLD to the gifted education program. Prior to this research study, little

was known about what drove regular education teachers to refer or not to refer students to

the gifted program in a high-poverty, rural school system. The explanatory case study

focuses on explaining why and how something is happening (Yin, 2014) this study met

and explanatory case study design because the phenomenon studied occurred in real

world context and based on how and why questions which are explanatory in nature (Yin,

2014). The researcher looked to explain what knowledge, training, and experience

regular education teachers had and how it affected their referral of students with SLD or

ADHD for gifted education programs (Hancock & Algozzine, 2011; Yin, 2014). This

54

explanatory case study design allowed participants to describe and explain their

knowledge training and experience with twice-exceptional students through open-ended

semi-structured interviews (Yin, 2014).

Population

The population included regular education teachers at two elementary schools,

consisting of students in prekindergarten to fifth grade. The school system consists of

about 7000 students with about 22% Caucasian, 61% African American, 13% Hispanic,

and 4% others. The educator make-up of the school system is 57% Caucasian, 39%

African American, 3% Hispanic, and 2% others (NC School Report Cards, 2014).

School A is a school of 435 students and School B is a school of 447. The student make-

up at school A was 41% Caucasian, 41% African American, 14% Hispanic, and 4%

other, with 100% receiving free or reduced lunch (Great Schools, 2014). Eleven percent

of the student population at School A are served by the special education department (L.

Chandler, personal communication, October 30, 2014) and 15% are served by the gifted

education program (M. Foster, personal communication, October 30, 2014). The student

make up at school B was 25% Caucasian, 64% African American, 8% Hispanic, and 3%

other, with 100% receiving free or reduced lunch (Great Schools, 2014). Fifteen percent

of the students at School B are served by the special education department (L. Chandler,

personal communication, October 30, 2014) and 15% are being served by the gifted

education program (M. Foster, personal communication, October 30, 2014). All of the

regular education teachers at both schools were invited to participate in the research study

through a letter of invitation from the researcher.

55

Sample

According to Richard and Morse (2013), there are four basic types of sampling:

purposeful, snowball, convenience, and theoretical. For the purpose of this study, the

researcher used a mixture of random purposeful sampling. Random sampling allows

everyone in a population the opportunity to participate (Lodico, Spaulding, Voegtle,

2010), while purposely choosing a particular group of participants (Marshall & Rossman,

2011). After receiving IRB approval, the researcher contacted the principals at both

locations, scheduled a meeting and described the study to the potential participants.

According to Yin (2014), the more participants used in a study creates a more

relevant study. Lodico et al. (2010) stated in qualitative research, a researcher will select

unique experiences, the concept of quality over quantity. According to Marshall, Cardon,

Poddar, and Fontenot (2013), single case studies should generally consist between 15 and

30 interviews. When justifying the sample size for saturation, it does not come from the

steps taken to collect data but the point when results and codes are repeating (Marshall et

al., 2013). When doing the analysis of the data, there was a repeating of codes, which

allow the researcher to conclude interview. The researcher talked with regular education

teachers at two schools in the county (Appendix A), teachers who wanted to participate

signed an intent form with their contact information. The researcher randomly selected 16

regular education teachers, eight from each school, from those who accept the invitation

from the researcher to participate in the study. The researcher contacted participants and

set up interviews. Prior to the beginning of interviews, the researcher reviewed the

informed consent form and participants signed the informed consent form, notifying them

56

about the study and their rights (Appendix B).

Materials/Instruments

To answer the research questions, the study examined what regular education

in experience, training, and knowledge in referring students identified as

specific learning disabled or Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder to the gifted

education program, interviews will be used to collect data. Interviews were held one on

one by email or in person. Face-to-face interviews allow for an interaction between the

researcher and the participant (Yeo et al., 2014). Interview structure plays an important

part in collecting data. Richard and Morse (2013) identified four types of interviews:

interactive, semi-structures, conversational, and group interviews. This study focused on

the semi-structured interview. Having a semi-structured interview allows for a guided

but less structured interview. Semi-structured interview approach is used when the

researcher has knowledge of the topic to create a framework for the interview giving the

researcher more organization but still giving freedom within the interview to allow the

interviewee to give detailed answers (Richard and Morse, 2013). This allows the

researcher to probe for understanding but also allows the interviewee to give additional

information that sparks them as the interview proceeds (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). From

and knowledge. Face to face and telephone interviews we recorded, transcribed, and a

member check was connected by interviewees for accuracy (Yin, 2014).

Interview questions began with questions about basic demographics such as grade

level and/or subject area currently teaching, years of experience, degrees, advanced

degrees and certification, and licensure areas. The remaining questions focused on

57

ADHD students (Appendix C). The questions for the interviews were adapted from

previous research (Berman et al., 2012; Szymanski & Shaff, 2012). Berman et al. (2012)

conducted research with educators looking at their training and experience with gifted

learners. Some questions were adapted from two of their questions,

c

et al., 2012, p. 21)

(Appendix D). The researcher changed wording to include, SLD, ADHD, and twice-

exceptional child. The Szymanski and Shaff (2012) study focused on teacher

perspectives of gifted students from diverse groups. Some questions were adapted from

gifted students., How did your experiences and trainings help you develop your picture of

what a typical gifted student looks like?, How are gifted students identified in your

school district?, What do you think of the process?, and What changes would you

(Szymanski & Shaff, 2012) (Appendix D). Questions were altered to change

gifted students to SLD, ADHD, and twice-exceptional students.

Data Collection, Processing, and Analysis

After receiving Northcentral University IRB, the researcher made contact with the

principals, attended a staff meeting at each school, passed out flyers about the study

(Appendix B) and recruited participants. Participants were emailed to set up interviews

that fit their schedule (Butin, 2010). home school.

At the interview, participants were given informed consent form to complete and

then the interview began. The interview began with basic demographics questions; then

58

participants were asked a series of open-ended questions (Appendix B) through a semi-

structured interview process (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Interviews took place in the

classroom of each participant, at the school where they taught. Interviews with

participants took about 20 to 40 minutes. Demographic data were collected to ensure the

participants met requirements and for background knowledge. Participants responded to

open-ended questions, which were aligned to the research questions. The interviews were

then transcribed through notes taken and audio, used to record interviews to ensure

accuracy (Butin, 2010).

A document analysis took place for the Gifted Behavior Scale that is used in the

county. This document was mentioned by several participants as a cause to why students

with learning disabilities or ADHD would not be identified for the gifted and talented

program and feed into the stereotypes and misconceptions that untrained and

inexperienced teacher may fall into believing. Using research from several studies

Baldwin et al. (2015), Colorado Department of Education (2012), Davis et al. (2010),

Song and Porath (2011), and Trail (2011), the researcher in this study, compared

strengths and weakness exhibited by twice-exceptional students, according to previous

studies, to those behaviors on the gifted behavior scale. Numerous statements, on the

gifted behavior scale, identified as a trait a gifted student may exhibit was a weakness

often found in twice exceptional students.

The researcher used inductive approach to analyzing the data in this qualitative

study. Inductive analysis approaches the raw data to develop concepts or themes through

detailed reading of the data collected (Thomas, 2015). According to Yin (2014),

inductive approach is critical in explaining data in a case study. The inductive analysis

59

process starts with close reads of the data multiple times. Next is to identify words, or

phrases that related to the questions. From there, the researcher creates categories and

then reduces those categories by grouping overlapping or redundant categories. Lastly,

the research should end with three to eight overarching themes in which all the data were

encompassed (Thomas, 2015). All data collected was gathered, categorized, coded, and

examined with the intent of discovering any common themes. ave

seve

upon participants and interview questions. Then replies for each question were then

grouped for analysis. Coding is the order of

organizing the data into sections of meaningful chunks used later to analyze for patterns

(Richard . For this study, the researcher circled words

and phrases that stood out using the exploratory coding method of holistic coding.

Holistic coding is grasping basic themes and/

Patter

Thomas, 2015).

Assumptions

The researcher made assumptions about the population used in this study. It was

assumed that participants are answering truthfully during interviews. To ensure this,

participants were confidential and participants were volunteers. The

researcher assumed that all participants were interested in participating in the study and

find the results enlightening on their teaching. The researcher assumed the participants

60

would be comfortable with completing interviews. The researcher assumed that the

school board, superintendent, and principals were agreeable to allowing the researcher to

interview regular education teachers.

Limitations

Limitations in this study consisted of data sources, sample size and the

was

necessary, due to time for interviews and analysis of the data from the interviews, of the

16 regular education teachers. Small sample size and using only two schools in the

county was a limitation, for it may not allot for the county as a whole.

Another limitation that may affect the study is truthfulness, also known as

they think they want to hear versus their true beliefs (Butin, 2010). The last limitation is

education specialist serving students at school A. The researcher made every effort to

remain unbiased when conducting interviews and incorporated member checks to ensure

accuracy of data collected.

Delimitations

Elementary teachers in two schools, in a small, high poverty rural county, were

interviewed for this study, which could create bias because there are ten elementary

schools in the county. The study was limited to only teachers currently teaching in

kindergarten through fifth grade, which does not account for middle school, high school

or retired teachers. The study was limited only to teachers currently working at one of

the two schools used.

61

Participation in the study was voluntary. Interviews were conducted in quiet

locations where the participant was comfortable and would be uninterrupted. Participants

were assured that their answers to the questions were confidential and anonymous.

Through member checks, participants would also be able to see their responses and add

or delete any additional information. These delimitations could have affected the

reliability and validity of the study.

Ethical Assurances

Examining the underrepresentation of SLD and ADHD in gifted education

programs can be understood by using qualitative, explanatory, case study (Yin, 2014).

According to Kitto, Chesters, and Grbich (2008), the goal for qualitative research is to

explore the behavior of a group of people with the intent of finding meaning in their

natural context. As more educators are able to recognize gifted characteristics in all

students, whether they are an average student, culturally diverse, or have a label of

exceptional abilities, students will not be overlooked, undeveloped, and will have a

chance to meet their potential (Bianco & Leech, 2010; Foley-Nicpon, 2013; Szymanski &

Shaff, 2012, deWet & Gubbins, 2011). Through the interviews, the researcher gained an

understanding of what drives educators to refer or not refer a student for gifted education

program.

The researcher used member checks and triangulation to ensure the validity,

ethics, and integrity of the study. Member checks were used to ensure accuracy

(Marshall & Rossman, 2011; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Kitto et al., 2008; Hancock &

Algozzine, 2011). Internal validity is important with qualitative research, which is why

the researcher used member checks to ensure that the preliminary results of the interview

62

transcripts were accurate. Participants had access to transcripts and research findings to

increase validity of the data collected (Marshall & Rossman, 2011). Data triangulation is

using different sources of information to increase validity (Guion, Diehl, & McDonald,

2011). The researcher used participants from two schools, member checks and a

document review of the gifted behavior scale used by the county to create the

triangulation.

According to Yin (2013), there are four specific ethical guidelines that are part of

this case study. They were getting informed consent, avoiding deception and protecting

participants, providing for privacy and confidentiality, and selecting participants in an

equitable manner. Participants were selected based on the criteria that they were a

kindergarten to fifth grade teacher at one of two schools in the county and was a certified

teacher. From this 16 participants were contacted to complete interviews. The researcher

went over the informed consent form with the participants before it was signed.

Participants were assigned a number that only the researcher knew to ensure

confidentiality. The researcher had experience with working with some of the participants

from School A and School B. The researcher maintained transparency while conducting

interviews with all participants. The researcher did not allow previous work experience to

affect the open and honest environment created during the interviews.

The IRB (International Review Board) plays a large part in ensuring the

protection of the researchers and the participants in a study (Marshall & Rossman, 2011).

The goal of the IRB is to ensure that all research conducted is ethical when using human

participants (Northcentral, 2015). No data was collected or interviews held until the

researcher received approval from the IRB. Once approval was received the researcher

63

contacted schools, participants and began collecting data. After all data was collected and

analyzed it has been stored in a password protected file on an external hard drive. It will

be destroy in June of 2022.

Summary

The purpose of this study was ence,

training, and knowledge of referring students identified as specific learning disabled

(SLD) or Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD) to the gifted education

program. This study will use the qualitative research method, using an explanatory case

study model. According to Yin (2013), and Merriam and Tisdell (2016), the purpose of

case studies is to gather information, with the desire to understand and make meaning of

the unknown. This study was conducted using semi-structured interviews and a

document review. Data was validated through member checks and data triangulation

(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

64

Chapter 4: Findings

The purpose of this explanatory, qualitative case study was to investigate regular

, and knowledge of twice-exceptional students

and identify what affects their decision on whether to refer or not to refer a student. The

case study took place in two elementary schools in a rural county school district in North

Carolina. There are 435 students in attendance at School A, while 11% are served in the

special education department, and 15% are served in the gifted education department.

Two students are served by both the special education and the gifted education

departments. There are 447 students in attendance at School B while the special

education department serves 15% of the population, and the gifted education department

serves 15% of the population. School B has one student served by both departments.

This study examined teacher beliefs, knowledge, and training in reference to students

identified as Specific Learning disabled, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorders,

Gifted and Talented, or Twice-

knowledge, experience, and training of the twice-exceptional student as the case that was

studied and the primary unit of analysis (Yin, 2009). This explanatory case study was

planned as a representative case (Yin, 2009) to be able to encapsulate the information

about teacher's knowledge, beliefs, and training as to what deters teachers from referring

specific learning disabled or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorders to gifted

programs. Sixteen teachers were chosen because the opportunity for an intensive study

of 50 teachers was not plausible (Yin, 2009) due to time restraints.

In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with the 16 teachers that

span from first grade to fifth grade. These teachers would be responsible for referring

65

students to the gifted education program for testing. The purpose of the interviews was to

examine teachers' knowledge, beliefs, and training that may deter their ability to refer a

student labeled as specific learning disabled or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

for the gifted education program. The findings from this qualitative case study are

presented in this chapter and are organized by the research questions. Interview

responses from the participants were analyzed to create themes. An evaluation of the

findings will be found at the end of the chapter with a summary of any key points found.

Results

Participants for this study were asked to complete some basic demographics prior

to starting the interview. Of the 16 participants 15 were females and one male; 15 were

Caucasians and one African-American. The participants ranged from 26 years old to 64

years old, with the average of 38 years old. The range of experience was two to 28 years

with the average of 12 years of experience in teaching. Thirteen of the teachers have at

work. Five of the teachers are National Board Certified Teachers; one has a Spanish

certification, one has English certification, and three have Gifted and Talented

certifications.

Table 3 Participant Data Participants 15 females 1 male Race 16 Caucasians 1 African American Average Age 38 years Average Experience

12 years

Education 13 undergraduates 2 master degrees 1 some graduate work Certifications 5 National

Board Teachers 1 Spanish 1 English 3 Gifted and

Talented

66

Research question 1. What past teaching experiences of the regular education

teachers are perceived as having affected them in referring students identified as specific

learning disabled or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder to the gifted education

program?

One theme emerged from the first research question, educator have a lack of

experience working with and identifying twice-exceptional student. Regular education

teachers perceive that lack of experience has affected them in referring students identified

as specific learning disabled or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder to the gifted

education program. Through interviews, the majority of the regular education teachers

had little to no experience working with twice-exceptional students and tend to look at

child has trouble reading they may not do well in math because of the word problems,

much on the disabilities because there is such a push for them, I do not tend to see the

Participants that had experience with twice-exceptional students were more aware

of the possibilities of the students being both gifted and having a disability. One

participant with the help from the gifted specialist at her school was able to refer and then

identify a twice-exceptional student. The student was learning disabled in reading and

gifted in math. Teachers with experience expressed that their experience has allotted

them access to use and understand the -

67

what to look for in a gifted student. The gifted student is not a cookie cutter student;

sometimes, we have to search

Research question 2. How do regular education teachers perceive how any

courses or training in gifted education and twice-exceptional students have affected their

referral rates of students with learning disabilities or ADHD to gifted education

programs?

Two themes emerged from the second research question, lack of training and the

lack of confidence. Regular education teachers perceive that the lack of training hinders

their ability to effectively refer students with learning disabilities or ADHD to gifted

education programs. The three teachers who had certification in gifted and talented

recalled having training in the twice-exceptional student, but one said, "It was not a big

thing when she received her certification 20 years ago." Thirteen of the 16 participants

had no training to rely on for referring twice-exceptional students. Twelve of 16

participants had some training on learning disabled students, while only nine of the 16

had training in ADHD. When it came to where and how they received the training, most

mentioned a college class in school that talked about learning disabled, ADHD, gifted

students, but no recollection of ever hearing twice-exceptional.

Most of the regular education teachers reported feeling a lack of confidence

because of their lack of training and experience when it comes to twice-exceptional

students. The participants that had training believed that the training enhanced their

ability to effectively refer students with learning disabilities or ADHD to gifted education

programs. The majority of the participants felt the lack of training and experience has

68

hindered them from feeling confident in identifying students who may be gifted. When

asked, "Do you feel you don't have the training and experience to access these or is it the

I think that the training has not

been a large focus with all of the other demands of the school

Three participants of the study who have their gifted certification believed that

having this training makes them more aware of the fact that students do not always fit the

old definition of gifted. Each of them has also had experience working and identifying

twice-exceptional students. One participant mentioned that it was also important to her to

advocate cational services to students,

deemed twice-exceptional, I feel that although I may push, there is just as much effort

pushing me back. I feel that educators are more concerned about the struggles that

students have than they are with nurturing and enriching the "giftedness" that the

-

exceptional students,

Research question 3. What working knowledge of the twice-exceptional student

does the regular education teacher have that they feel affects whether they refer students

identified as specific learning disabled or ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactive

Disorder) to the gifted education program?

Data from research question three continued to build upon theme one (lack of

experience) and theme two (lack of training). Regular education teachers feel that

69

working knowledge of the twice-exceptional student affects whether they refer students

identified as specific learning disabled or ADHD to the gifted education program.

Regular education teachers rely on older definitions of gifted and talented students,

definitions that do not include the concept of the twice-exceptional child. Most of the

participants noted the only training they received on giftedness, ADHD, or SLD was one

class they took while receiving their undergraduate degree. For some teachers who have

been teaching for 15 plus years, this knowledge is not relevant today (Reis et al., 2014).

Regular education teachers rely on very narrow definitions that emphasize organizational

skills and time management skills. Due to the reliance on older definitions, regular

education teachers have little understanding of the emotional, social needs and make-up

of the twice-exceptional students.

Research question 4. What do regular education teachers perceive as the reasons

for the underrepresentation of twice-exceptional students?

One new theme emerged from research question four, misconceptions and

stereotyping behaviors that affect teacher referral, but this question also continued

supporting themes one (lack of experience), two (lack of training), and three (lack of

confidence). Regular education teachers perceive the lack of training as one reason for

the underrepresentation of twice-exceptional students. Teachers feel they are not

informed of characteristics of students with the potential to be twice-exceptional.

Teachers stated that there was a need for training in identifying the characteristics of

nontraditional gifted students, such as students with ADHD or learning disabled. One

from referring LD or ADHD students to the gifted program. These students are

70

sometimes viewed as the troublemakers, or the kids who just can't get it. These labels are

negative stereotypes for teachers. We need to do a better job of equipping teachers with

the knowledge of how to serve these students. These students are often the smartest

students we teach; but unless medicated, they don't have the ability to slow down their

A couple of participants mentioned that they had heard that students with ADHD

can mimic characteristics of students who are gifted. This makes educators with little

experience and training unsure of whether the child is undiagnosed with ADHD, gifted,

or both. One participant stated, "I recently read an article that stated there was an increase

in children with ADHD but with additional testing it was found that it was not ADHD but

behaviors associated with giftedness and the children would qualify for gifted programs."

The participants who have had experience were concerned that untrained teachers were

using old and traditional definitions of gifted, and that students with labels would not be

identified because they are not the teacher pleaser or seen as troublemakers. A participant

stated, "I have seen where teachers won't refer a student because of their behavior. I

watched our gifted specialist argue with a teacher, that a student had potential to be

gifted. The teacher kept saying but he does not exhibit good behavior, he can't be

gifted."

Teachers are not knowledgeable of strategies to use with students, who could

potentially be twice-exceptional. Participants noted that there was a major push from

school system and principals to focus on the deficits, not the strengths. Teachers feel

pushed to use various research-based instruction, such as Daily Five and Keys to

Literacy, that concentrate on different types of strategies to teach; however, teachers also

71

indicated that there is no training on student types (such as gifted or twice-exceptional) or

strategies that work for different types of students.

Regular education teachers perceive stereotypical behaviors as another reason for

the underrepresentation of twice-exceptional students. Stereotypical behaviors are

behaviors believed to be represented in a gifted student that are based upon the definition

of the past (Baldwin et al., 2015). Teachers who had had training and experience noted

that regular education teachers that do not know and understand the concept of twice-

exceptional students are unprepared for instructing and meeting their needs (Abed

Pearson, Clarke, and Chambers, 2014). One participate stated, "Definitions of old and

teacher beliefs that gifted students were from middle to high-income families, if they are

gifted, they are gifted in all subjects, they are the all blue-eyed, blonde female, or the

teacher pleaser create those stereotypical behaviors." Those participants with training

and experiences believed it was crucial for teachers to understand the difference between

a bright student and a gifted student. And the old definitions and stereotypes are not true

today. Another stated, "Labels such as learning disabled and ADHD tend to have

negative stereotypes that hinder a student from being identified because they do not fit

what a teacher thinks as the typical gifted student, who is gifted in everything."

Most regular education teachers did not understand the process for referring

students to the gifted program or how the identification process works. Those who

understand the process believe there is room for improvement. A participant stated,

teachers when students are identified twice-exceptional. They now have both a gifted

referenced that

72

once a student was identified as twice-exceptional is there follow through after placement

is decided, were the students being served for both their disability and their gift by the

teachers, school, and the school system.

Regular education teachers disapproved of the gifted behavior scale. They

believed it to be a reason for the underrepresentation of the twice-exceptional student.

ADHD, and it is not under control, their behaviors such as leadership, and independence

Behavior Scale was adopted by the school system in 2010, from Joseph S. Renzulli

(2009), Systems and Models for Developing Programs for the Gifted and Talented

(Appendix E). It is a checklist that ask teachers to rate students on a scale of one to four,

with one being the behavior is not observed, and four being almost always or always

observed. Scores come from five areas: learning characteristics, motivational

characteristics, creativity, leadership, and adaptability. About eight questions are asked in

a section and focus on characteristics that are thought to be exhibited by a "typical" gifted

and talented student.

In researching this scale, several behaviors were noted in certain sections to be

biased against the twice-exceptional student. In the area of learning characteristics,

statements like has a good memory, can easily recall information, has a more advanced

vocabulary, and has mastered reading are areas that a student who is gifted in math but

learning disabled in reading, would score low scores. For motivational characteristics,

strive for perfection prefers to work alone and likes things organized, are areas of

weakness for an ADHD student and possibly a learning disabled student. For creativity,

73

risk-taking, and not being afraid to be different than others, are two areas a learning

disabled student may not exceed in. When it comes to leadership, areas of responsibility,

having confidence, getting along with others, and adapting to new situations are areas of

weakness for an ADHD student and a learning disabled student. The last section is

adaptability. Adaptability focuses on how students handle responsibilities outside and

inside school, how they deal with problems and frustrations, their social reasoning and

behaviors, and the maturity level. Each of these statements can be difficult for students

with learning disabilities and ADHD. For these reasons, several of the participants did

not approve the use of the gifted behavior scale; they believed it was based on all

definitions of what a typical gifted student looks like, but today we don't have a typical

gifted student. Due to their experience, two participants thought that an alternate scale

should be created that is geared to students who don't fit the typical mold, like students

who are identified ADHD or learning disabled.

Evaluation of Findings

The knowledge, training, and experience of the regular education teacher plays a

large role in the referrals of specific learning disabled and students with ADHD (de Wet

& Gubbins, 2011; Bianco, Harris, Garrison-Wade, & Leech, 2011). The purpose of this

explanatory, qualitative case study was to investigate the knowledge, training, and

experience and how it affects their referral of students identified as learning disabled or

ADHD. In addition, the gifted behavior scale was also analyzed after several teachers

made comments about its lack of truthfulness when used to identify students who are not

the typical gifted learner, such as twice-exceptional students. Through member checks

and triangulation, the researcher was able to find patterns in the knowledge, training, and

74

experience of regular education teachers and investigate how it affects their referral of

students to the gifted program. The researcher triangulated through data triangulation

(Guion et al., 2011). Data was collected from two different schools, participants

participated in member checks by reviewing their interview transcripts and reviewing

final data results, and an analysis of the gifted behavior scale. These patterns appear to

agree and disagree with the literature. While interviewing regular education teachers

about gifted and talented, learning disabled, ADHD, and twice-exceptional students,

several themes became known: lack of experience, lack of training, lack of confidence,

and stereotyping. These are also common areas found in the review of literature.

Lack of experience. Lack of experience working with twice-exceptional student

hinders not only the student but the teacher too. Abed et al. (2014) stated that teachers

with less experience will be less fluent in characteristics of ADHD students. Table three

is a breakdown of the experiences identified by the participants. Looking at the

breakdown of experience noted by participants in this study, the researcher found that all

participants had experience with learning disabled and the same with ADHD students; the

majority had experience with students whom were gifted and talented, but only half had

experience with the twice-exceptional student. Of the eight who noted that they had

experience with twice-exceptional students, two of them had children who are twice-

exceptional and their experience came from that of the parent and not that of a teacher.

Does this make a difference when related to experience? Yes, it does, according to

Wormald, Rogers, and Vialle (2015), informed parents who have children who are

considered twice-exceptional are more likely to advocate to ensure their children are

receiving services for both exceptionalities. Seeing as these parents are also teachers, the

75

researcher would assume that they are informed and have experience working with the

twice-exceptional student.

Table 4 Experiences Identified

Gifted and Talented

Learning Disabilities

ADHD Twice-Exceptional

A lot of experience

10 16 16 2

Some experience

4 0 0 6

No experience 2 0 0 8 Lack of training. Formalized teacher training in gifted and talented and twice-

exceptional whether through in-service or college training, is very limited (Berman et al.,

2012, Henley, Milligan, McBride, Neal, Nichols, & Singleton, 2010, Syzmanski & Shaff,

2012). According to Troxclair (2013), if teachers are not exposed to instruction about

gifted students, their needs and abilities, their knowledge, understanding, and beliefs of

these students may become skewed because of deficiency of information. According to

Levi, Einav, Raskind, Ziv, and Margalit (2013) and Abed et al. (2014), teachers with

proper training were more likely to meet the needs of students. In this study, the majority

of the participants stated that any training they had come from college classes. For

participants this could be between two and 29 years ago, and when it came to the mention

of twice-exceptional students, only two had any training with this coming from their

gifted and talented certification classes, and the third participant with gifted certification

did not recall twice-exceptional training, but has received training since then through

gifted coordinator webinars. Table 4 is a breakdown of the training mentioned by

participants.

76

Table 5 Trainings Identified

Gifted and Talented

Learning Disabilities

ADHD Twice-Exceptional

College 5 8 1 0 In-Service 2 1 7 1 Certification 3 0 0 2 Peer/PLC 1 3 1 0 No Training 5 4 7 13

Eleven out of the 16 participants stated that there was a significant need for

training in all areas of exceptionalities. Twelve out of the 16 participants also stated that

follow through and extra support for regular education teachers and students were

necessary. Barnard-Brak et al. (2015) agreed with this. In their study, they noted that

students and teachers who receive the required support and follow through from the

gifted specialist, the special education teachers, and the regular education teacher, are

more likely to have their weaknesses, and their strengths met. According to Baldwin et

al. (2015), the twice-exceptional student needs to have a complete and individualized

plan that addresses, not only their needs but their strengths, also making sure to address

the whole child. This is why it is so important to ensure that teachers are trained to

identify and work with students.

Lack of confidence. When analyzing answers to interview questions, another

question came to mind and was completed through a follow-up email to participants. In

this follow-up email, participants were asked if they felt a lack of confidence also played

into whether they referred students. From their responses theme 3, lack of confidence,

emerged. Levi et al. (2013) found that teachers who are confident in their ability to teach

different ability levels will be able to show growth and improvement in their students. In

77

the same study, they found that teachers who lack confidence in their ability, due to lack

of training or experience, are less likely to show growth and improvement in their

students. The researcher posed an additional question to participants after initial

evaluation of results, "Do you feel you do not have training and experience to access

these new definitions or do you think it is a lack of confidence to use these new to

definitions?" Of the eight who responded back to the email, half of them believed that

the lack of confidence and understanding of the term twice-exceptional did hinder them

from referring students. This lack of confidence stems from the educators not having

experience or training in the field of twice-exceptional students. Due to this, they do not

feel adequate in knowing indicators that are presented by twice-exceptional students to

enable them to recommend them for referral.

Stereotyping or Misconceptions. Within the realm of this study, it was found

that teachers who have experience and training with twice-exceptional students believe

that other teachers may still believe in traditional stereotypes of students. When

participants were asked about characteristics of gifted students, they stated those

traditional characteristics such as strong readers, participates in class, independent,

helpful, organized and neat. In the Wellisch and Brown (2013) study, it was noted that,

characteristics of twice-exceptional students or students at risk are often found to be

impatient, disruptive, lack organization skills, and have sloppy writing. To add to that

Baldwin et al. (2015) stated twice-exceptional students struggle with organizing thoughts,

ideas, and time management. This contradicts the above characteristic stated by teachers.

According to Troxclair (2013),

are reflected in stereotypical attitudes, such as gifted students are gifted in all areas, or

78

that they do not need additional assistance. Levi et al. (2013) reported that there are links

between prejudicial attitudes and academic expectations that consequently hinders

academic achievement of students. Prejudicial attitudes are linked to personality, personal

beliefs, and environmental issues of individuals (Metin et al., 2013). These prejudicial

attitudes can hinder a student from receiving services that they should be receiving.

The gifted behavior scale used by the county is also an area of stereotype. These

stereotypes are created by the use of older assessment forms that do not take into account

students who are not typical gifted students. The gifted student may or may not have

these characteristics, whereas a twice-exceptional student will not exhibit as many of

those characteristics because of their additional exceptionality. Students identified as

twice-exceptional will tend to have different characteristics and abilities compared to

students who are not twice-exceptional. These characteristics often counteract each

other, making identification difficult (Wormald, Rogers, & Vialle, 2015; Killoran et al.,

2013; Baldwin et al., 2015). Due to the fact that this document is used by the county as a

means to identify students and regular education teachers know and understand this

document; it also contributes to the stereotyping and misconceptions of gifted students by

the teachers. Educators use this tool to identify students and even trained teachers may

revert to those stereotypical traits and characteristics listed on the behavior scale verse

thinking and using what they know about the twice-exceptional they are trying to refer.

Summary

From the triangulation of the data gathered from the different interviewees and a

review of the gifted behavior scale used in the county, three themes appeared. They were

teacher training and experience, student behaviors, and student academics. Research

79

completed by Baldwin et al. (2015), Barber and Mueller (2011), Foley-Nipcon (2013),

and Raymond (2011) identified that student achievement and behaviors can affect

whether they are recognized for possible giftedness. Teacher training and experience are

relevant when looking at the referral of students with disabilities or students with ADHD.

Without training and experience, regular education teachers do not have the background

and knowledge to be able to notice the gifts they possess (Abed et al., 2014; Berman et

al., 2012; Henley et al., 2010; Levi et al., 2013; Syzmanski & Shaff, 2012; and Troxclair,

2013). When teachers have an increase in training their confidence rises, allowing them

to better identify and work with students with multiple exceptionalities. Killoran et al.

(2013) also found that educators continue to hold misconceptions about learning

challenges students face and how to best meet those challenges. Breaking the stereotypes

of long ago and

(Baldwin et al., 2015) looks and acts like is very important for future students.

80

Chapter 5: Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions

The problem addressed by this study was that students who are labeled ADHD or

learning disabled are underrepresented in gifted programs (Baldwin et al., 2015; Bailey &

Rose, 2011). Regular education teachers are not equipped with the proper training and

understanding to assist in identifying students who are labeled ADHD or learning

disabled for gifted programming (Szymanski & Shaff, 2012; Berman et al., 2012; Reis et

al., 2014). There has been no training in the school system on ADHD, learning disabled,

gifted and talented, or the twice-exceptional student in several years. There is also a

checklist which regular education teachers must complete when referring students in the

school system. Teachers believe that it is not geared towards the twice-exceptional

student. Therefore, if a student is recommended they may not qualify due to this

checklist.

The purpose of this explanatory, qualitative case study was to investigate regular

-exceptional student

and identify what affects their decisions on whether to refer or not to refer a student. This

twice-exceptional student through semistructured interviews (Yin, 2009; Richard &

Morse, 2013) and a document review of the gifted behavior scale, a checklist used by

teachers when referring students to the gifted program. The checklist and the interviews

have provided data for this study.

The study limitations focused on data sources, sample size, truthfulness, and the

researcher's employment. Data sources are limited to the responses from selected

teachers' interviews and the document for review of the gifted behavior scale. According

81

to Yin (2009), multiple sources of data are necessary to case studies to increase the

accuracy of the results. The second limitation was the sample size of the teachers who

participated in the study. The sample size of 16 participants was essential to conduct

interviews with the participants and to be able to analyze the data created through these

interviews (Yin, 2009; Merriam, 2009). The study only used two elementary schools out

of the 10 in county, so it may not account for the whole county. According to Butin

(2010), response effect bias is related to the responses by interviewees that may be what

they think the interviewer wants to hear versus telling their true beliefs. To guard for this,

the researcher reinforced to the participants to please be honest in their answers, that the

researcher would not hold fault to answers given and would be the only person who sees

the answers. The final limitation of the study was the researcher's employment. The

researcher is an employee of the school district and a coworker with some of the teachers

who participated in the study. The researcher stressed to all participants that taking part in

this study was completely voluntary; it was explained that they can withdrawal from the

study at any time without penalty. Member checking was used during the an

To ensure ethical practices were conducted throughout this study, no research was

carried out until IRB approval for the study had been granted by the University.

Permission was granted by the superintendent to conduct research and by the principals at

the two schools used in this study. Research participants were given a copy of the

informed consent form and gave their permission before the study was conducted.

Member checks were conducted through providing each participant with a copy of the

82

interview transcripts and a copy of the overall findings from the study to enlist any inputs

that they had in reference to their interviews and the results. The data was triangulated

through interviews completed at two different schools, member check (having

participants review interview transcripts and results), and through a document review of

the gifted behavior checklist.

This chapter reviews the four research questions from the study and the

conclusions drawn from this research findings. How the results are connected to the

problem and purpose of the study are explained and how they contribute to existing

literature on twice-exceptional students. Recommendations are based upon research

findings with suggestions for possible future research. This chapter will conclude with a

summary of the key points noted within the chapter.

Implications

Within this section are the implications of the study and their relevance to the

research questions. Member checks reviewed the findings, and triangulation is discussed.

The discussion that follows examines each research question in the four major themes

that were identified from analysis: (1) lack of experience; (2) lack of confidence; (3) lack

of training; (4) stereotypes or misconceptions.

The first research question was,

education teachers are perceived as having affected them in referring students identified

as specific learning disabled or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder to the gifted

teachers have a lack of experience in working with and identifying students who have the

potential to be gifted and have an exceptionality. With an underrepresentation of twice-

83

exceptional students in the school system, teachers do not get the hands-on experience

needed to understand the twice-exceptional student; part of this is because of lack of

training. Educators need to be challenged to acknowledge their abilities or lack of

abilities and make a commitment to change (Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2014). If

this not done, prospective twice-exceptional students will fail to meet their potential,

because they were never given the opportunity to be challenged (Hargrove & Seay, 2011;

Barnard-Brak et al., 2015).

The second research question was, lar education teachers perceive

how any courses or trainings in gifted education and twice-exceptional students have

affected their referral rates of students with learning disabilities or ADHD to gifted

education programs?" Analysis of the data collected from teacher interviews is the basis

of theme two, lack of training. Based upon the interviews, it was apparent that most

teachers have little to no training when it comes to twice-exceptional students. Those who

did have training, said it was due to having their gifted and talented certification.

According to Berman et al. (2012), gifted education currently is not a high priority in

regular education teacher curriculum. Since there is not a large importance placed on

gifted education training, it then falls to school systems to provide training, which most

school systems do not always supply. Without training, teachers have an inability to

recognize indicators of potential giftedness, especially in students with other

exceptionalities such as learning disabled or ADHD (Ryan, 2012). This is harmful to

students because it is the teacher's ability to recognize the potential in students and to

correctly identify the need for services (Barnard-Brak et al., 2015); without training

84

teachers do not have the knowledge of those different characteristics that a twice-

exceptional student may exhibit.

The third research question was -

exceptional student does the regular education teacher have that they feel affects whether

they refer students identified as specific learning disabled or ADHD (Attention Deficit

when a person has training and experience in a field (Markauskaite & Goodyear, 2014).

Theme 1, lack of experience, and theme 2, lack of training, both play into the research

question three, but another theme began to emerge. After analyzing answers to

interviews, a follow-up email was sent to participants asking if lack of confidence plays

into whether they referred students. From their responses, theme 3, lack of confidence,

emerged. According to Sadler (2013), self-confidence is a key indicator and linked to a

teacher's understanding of the content and pedagogy of the students that he or she is

instructing. A teacher who is not confident in his or her abilities can be detrimental to the

students. Teachers who feel a lack of confidence because they are not trained or have

had many experiences (Paradis, Lutovac, & Kaaila, 2015; Sadler, 2013), with twice-

exceptional students can be a reason that students who have other exceptionalities are not

referred to gifted programs. Teachers felt that if they had more training, their self-

confidence in their abilities would rise, enabling them to feel more comfortable in

identifying and referring learning disabled or ADHD students for gifted programming

(Paradis et al., 2015).

the reasons for the underrepresentation of twice-exceptional students?" While analyzing

85

all the data collected during interviews and at the document review of the gifted behavior

scale used by the school system, theme 2, lack of training, was again important when

answering this question. Regular education teachers noted that the lack of training was

very hurtful when it came to reasons why there was an underrepresentation of the twice-

exceptional student. The participants stated that not knowing what to look for, especially

in the case of a twice-exceptional student, makes it very difficult for us to refer students

in that case. Another theme began to emerge from analyzing the data; this is theme 4

stereotypes or misconceptions. Some participants mentioned that teachers may rely on

older information that stereotypes or creates misconceptions of gifted students, learning

disabled students, students with ADHD, and the twice-exceptional student. This can be

from many reasons, such as lack of training (Troxclair, 2013; de Wet & Gubbins, 2011;

National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities, 2011), stereotypes, and

misconceptions (Hargrove & Seay, 2011; Szymanski & Shaff, 2012). These stereotypes

and misconceptions were mentioned by participants but also were found in the document

review of the gifted behavior scale. An examination of the document found that many

statements could be biased against twice-exceptional students, causing the student to get

a poor score on the behavior scale.

Recommendations

Based upon previous studies mentioned in Chapter 2 Literature Review and the

results of the current study, there are recommendations for continued research in the area

of teacher perceptions of the twice-exceptional student. The data revealed that teachers

believe the lack of training has contributed to the underrepresentation of twice-

86

exceptional students in the school system. The researcher's recommendations for future

research are below.

Recommendations for practice. The first recommendation is to develop specific

professional development for school personnel, especially the regular education teacher

and the special education teacher, pertaining to the characteristics of twice-exceptional

students. According to the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (2011), a

twice-exceptional student may perform far below their capability, but teachers may not

recognize it, due to the ability masking the disability. This compensation can mask the

students' abilities and disabilities, and an untrained teacher will not realize the need to

distinguish between the two. When a teacher is knowledgeable of the different

characteristics that a twice-exceptional student can exhibit, they are more likely to be able

to identify those characteristics and refer students to gifted programming for testing.

Training can also assist teachers in removing the stereotypes and misconceptions of the

long-ago gifted student, to what gifted child truly can be (Bianco et al., 2011).

The second recommendation is the creation of or the adoption of an additional

behavior scales that take into account the characteristics of today's gifted child. The

document review, of the gifted behavior scale, found that many statements are

counterproductive to the twice-exceptional student, and that they are not in their

behaviors. Statements must be adapted that do not reflect poorly on the twice-exceptional

student such as in the area of verbal or written communication, interaction and work

habits (Reis et al., 2014; Hargrove & Seay, 2011).

Recommendations for the future. Several suggestions can be made for future

research on the topic of referrals of ADHD and learning disabled students to gifted

87

programs. This study was limited to two schools in one school district; it is suggested that

more research be conducted in all school in the district or in multiple school systems.

This study was also limited to only elementary teachers, and it is recommended that a

future study involve educators in kindergarten through twelfth grade. This study focused

on general education teachers, additional study interviewing teachers from all areas of

education and comparing each group to each other (Levi et al., 2013).

Conclusions

The purpose of this explanatory qualitative case study was to examine regular

-exceptional

student. Through semi-structures interviews in which 16 participants participated, eight

teachers from School A and eight teachers from School B., and a document review was

conducted of the gifted behavior checklist. The data was triangulated and analyzed, and

results emerged four themes: lack of experience, lack of training, lack of confidence, and

stereotype and misconceptions. Recommendations were made for the creation of

professional development geared to the regular education teacher about the characteristics

of the twice-exceptional learner and the creation or the adoption of additional gifted

behavior scales that take into effect the characteristics of the twice-exceptional learner. It

was also recommended that future research go beyond one school system or focus on K-

12 teachers and looking at other resource teachers.

88

References

Abed, M., Pearson, S., Clarke, P., & knowledge and beliefs about ADHD. The Journal of the International Association of Special Education, 15(1), 67-74. Retrieved from http://iase.coe.nau.edu/journal.html

Aldridge, P. (2011). Teachers perceptions of students who are learning disabled and gifted. Academic Leadership, 9(3), 1-12. Retrieved from http://contentcat.fhsu.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/p15732coll4/id/794/rec/1

Al-Hroub, A. (2010). Developing assessment profiles for mathematically gifted children with learning difficulties at three schools in Cambridgeshire, England. Journal for Education of the Gifted 34(1), 7-44. Doi: 10.1177/016235321003400102

American Academy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry. (2014). ADHD- A guide for families. Retrieved from http://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Resource_Centers/ADHD_Resource_Center/Home.aspx

American Psychological Association. (2013). ADHD. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/topics/adhd/index.aspx

American Psychiatic Association. (2013). DSM. Retrieved from http://www.psych.org/practice/dsm

Aron, L. & Loprest, P. (2012). Disability and the education system. The Future of Children, 22(1), 97-122. Retrieved from http://www.futureofchildren.org/index.htm

-exceptional students: Overview of a qualitative exploration. Retrieved from http:// counselingoutfitters.com/ vistas/vistas11/Article_07.pdf

Bain, S. K., Bliss, S. L., Choate, S. M. & Brown, K. S. (2007). Serving children who are gifted: Perceptions of undergraduates planning to become teachers. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(4), 450-478. Retrieved from http://www.prufrock.com

Baldwin, L. Omdal, S. N., & Pereles, D. (2015). Beyond stereotypes: Understanding, recognizing, and working with twice-exceptional learners. Teaching Exceptional Children,47(4), 216-225. doi: 10.1177/0040059915569361

Bangel, N. J., Moon, S. M., and Capobianco, B. M. (2010). preceptions and experiences in a gifted education training model. The Gifted Child Quarterly 54(3), 209-221. Doi:10.1177/001698210369257

89

Barber, C. & Mueller, C. T. (2011). Social and self perceptions of adoescents identifed as gifted, learning disabled, and twice-exceptional. Roeper Review, 33(2), 109-120. Doi: 10.1080/02783193.2011.554158

Barnard-Brak, L., Johnsen, S. K., Hannig, A., & Wei, T. (2015). The incidence of potentially gifted students within a special education population. Roeper Review, 37(2), 74-83. doi: 10.1080/02783193.2015.1008661

gifted: An experimental approach. School Psychology Quarterly, 28(1), 37-46. Doi: 10.1037/spq0000011

Beckley, D. (1998). Gifted and learning disabled: Twice-exceptional students. NRC/GT Newsletter. Retrieved from http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrgt/newsletter/spring98/spmg984.html

Berman, K. M., Schultz, R. A., & Weber, C L. (2012). A lack of awareness and emphais in preservice teacher training. Gifted Child Today, 35(1), 18-26. Doi:10.1177/1076217511428307

Bianco, M. (2005). The effects of disability labels on special education and general education teachers referrals for gifted programs. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28(3), 285-293. Doi:10.2307/4126967

Bianco, M., Harris, B., Garrison-Wade, D., & Leech, N. (2011). Gifted girls: Gender bias in gifted referrals. Roeper Review, 33, 170-181. Doi: 10.1080/02783193.2011.580500

Bianco, M., & Leech, N. L. (2010). Twice-exceptional learners:Effects of teacher preparaton and disability labels on gifted refferals. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33(4), 319-334. Doi:10.1177/0888406409356392

Bracamonte, M. (2010). 2E students; Who are they and what they need. 2E Newsletter. Retrieved from http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/Articles_print_id_10655.aspx

Butin, D. W. (2010). The education disseration: A guide for practitioner scholars.Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin

Bussing, R., Porter, P., Zima, B. T., Mason, D., Garvan, C., & Reid, R. (2012). Academic outcome trajectories of students with ADHD: Does exceptional education status matter? Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 20(3), 131-143. Doi:10.1177/1063426610388180

Buttner, G. & Hasselhorn, M. (2011). Learning disabilities: Debates on definitions, causes, subtypes, and responses. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 58(1), 75-87. doi: 10.1080/1034912X.2011.548476

Minds. (2014). Implicit Personality Theory. Retrieved from

90

http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/implicit_personality.htm

Colorado Department of Education. (2012). Twice-exceptional students: Gifted students with disabilities (4th ed.). Retrieved from http://www.cde.state.co.us/gt/download/pdf/twiceexceptionalresourcehandbook.pdf

Cowan, D. (2014). Improving social skills in ADHD students. Retrieved from http://addinschool.com/improving-social-skills-adhd/

Crepeau-Hobson, F. & Bianco, M. (2013). Response to intervention: Promises and pitfalls for gifted students with learning disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 48(3), 142-151. doi: 10.1177/1053451212454005

Cross, T. L., Coleman, L. J., & Terhaar-Yonkers, M. (2014). The social cognition of gifted adolescents in schools: Managing the stigma of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37(1), 30-39. Doi: 10.1177/0162353214521492

Davis, G. A., Rimm, S. B., & Siegle, D. (2010). Education of the gifted and talented (6th ed.). Boston, Ma: Pearson Education, Inc.

Delisle, J., & Galbraith, J. (2015). When gifted kids don t have all the answers: How to meet their social and emotional needs (2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing, Inc.

de Wet, C. F., & Gubbins, E. J. (2011). and economically diverse gifted students: a quantitative study. Roeper Review, 33, 97-108. Doi: 10.1080/02783193.2011.554157

Dixon, F. A., Yssel, N. McConnell, J. M., & Harvin, T. (2014). Differentiated instruction, professional development, and teacher efficacy. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37 (2), 111-127. Doi: 10.1177/0162353214529042

DuPaul, G. J., Weyandt, L. L., & Janusis, G. M. (2011). ADHD in the classroom: Effective intervention strategies. Theory into Practice, 50(1), 35-42. Doi: 10.1080/00405841.2011.534935

Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, PL 94-142, 20 U.S.C. 401 (1975).

Elementary and Secondary Education Amendment. PL 91-230. 79 Stat 55 (1970).

Elhoweris, H. (2008). The effects of the child s disability on United Arab Emirates in-service teachers educational decision regargin gifted and talented children. Educational Studies, 34(5), doi:10.1080/03055690802288536

Federal Disability Definitions, 20 U.S.C. 1401(3). (2012). Retrieved from www.ct.ca.gov/credentials/CREDS/federal-disability-definition.pdf

91

Figg, S. D., Rogers, K. B., McCormick, J., & Low, R. (2012). Differentiating low performace of the gifted learner: Achieving, underachieving, and selective consuming students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23(1), 53-71. doi: 10.1177/1932202X11430000

Fletcher, K. L. & Neumeister, K. L. S. (2012). Research in perfectionism and achievement motivation: Implications for gifted students. Psychology in the Schools, 49(7), 668-677. doi: 10.1002/pits.21623

Foley-Nicpon, M. (2013). Gifted ch -exceptionality: Progress on the path of empirical understanding.Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(4), 207-208. Doi: 10.1177/0016986213501195

Foley-Nicpon, M. , Allmon, A., Sieck, B., & Stinson, R. D. (2011). Empirical investigation of twice-exceptionality: Where have we been and where are we going? Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(1), 3-17. Doi:10.1177/0016986210382575

Friend, M. (2007). The coteaching partnership. Educational Leadership, 65(5), 48-52. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership.aspx

Fugate, C. M., Zentall, S. S., & Gentry, M. (2013). Creativity and working memory in gifted tudents with and without characteristic of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Lifting the mask. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(4), 234-246 doi: 10.1177/0016986213500069

Gates, J. (2010). Children with gifts and talents: Looking beyond traditional labels. Roeper Review, 32, 200-206. Doi: 10.1080/02783193.2010.485308

Gifted and Talented Act of 1978. PL 95-56. Title IX sec 902. (1978).

Great Schools. (2014). Vance County Schools. Retrieved from http://www.greatschools.org

Guion, L. A., Diehl, D. C., & McDonald, D. (2011). Triangulation: Establishing the validity of qualitative studeis. University of Florida. Gainesville,FL: The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Retrieved from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fy394

Hall, M., Poole, D., Rearden, M., Carlstrom, R. , Smith, S., & Speaks, J. (2009). Response to intervention and gifted and talented education. Retrieved from http://opi.mt.gov/pub/RTI/Resources/RTI_Gifted_Talented.pdf

Hancock, D. R., & Algozzine, B. (2011). Doing case study research: A practical guide for beginning researchers (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teacher College Press.

Hargrove, B. H., & Seay, S. E. (2011). School teacher perceptions of barriers that limit the participation of African American males in public school gifted programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34(3), 434-467. Retrieved from Education Research Complete. (AN59353518)

92

Harris, B. & Plucker, J. (2014). Achieving equity and excellence: The role of school mental health providers in shrinking excellence gaps. Gifted Child Today, 37(2), 111-118. Doi: 10.1177/1076217514520967

Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, P. L. No 110-315§200(2008).

Hughes, C. E., & Rollins, K. (2009). RTI for nurturing giftedness; Implications for the RTI school-based team. Gifted Child Today, 32(3), 31-39. Retrieved from http://journals.prufrock.com/IJP/b/gifted-child-today

Hwang, M. H., Lee, D., Lim, H. J., Seon, H. Y., Hutchinson, B., & Pope, M. (2014). Academic underachievement and recovery: Student perspectives on effective career interventions. The Career Development Quarterly, 62(1), 81-94. Doi: 10.1002/j.2161-0045.2014.00072.x

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004 , Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647. (2004).

Iowa Department of Instruction. (2014). Iowa Multi-Tiered Support for Instruction. Retrieved from https://www.educateiowa.gov

Jolly, J. L. & Hughes, C. E. (2015). The educational experience for students with gifts and talents. Teaching Exceptional Children, 47(4), 187- 189. doi: 10.1177/0040059915570257

Johnsen, S. K., Parker, S. L., & Farah, Y. N. (2015). Providing services for students with gifts and talents with a response-to-intervention framework. Teaching Exceptional Children, 47(4), 226-233. doi: 10.1177/0040059915569358

Kitto, S. C., Chesters, J., & Grbich, C. (2008). Quality in qualitative research. The Medical Journal of Australia, 188(4), 243-246. Retrieved from https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2008/188/4/quality-qualitative-research

Killoran, I., Zaretsky, H., Jordan, A., Smith, D., Allard, C., & Moloney, J. (2013). Supporting teachers to work with children with exceptionalities. Canadian Journal of Education, 36(1), 240-270. Retrieved from http://www.csse.ca

Kofler, M. J., Rapport, M. D., Bolden, J., Sarver, D. E., & Raiker, J. S. (2010). ADHD and working memory: The impact of central executive deficits and exceeding storage/rehearsal capacity on observed inattentive behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38(2), 149-161. Doi: 10.1007/s10802-009-9357-6

Kofler, M. J., Rapport, M. D., Bolden, J., Sarver, D.E., Raiker, J. S., & Alderson, R. M. (2011). Working memory deficits and social problems in children with ADHD. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 39(6), 805-817. Doi: 10.1007/s10802-011-9492-8

Lee, K. M., & Olenchak, R. (2014). Individuals with a gifted/attention

93

deficit/hyperactivity disorder diagnosis: Identification, performance, outcomes, and interventions. Gifted Education International. doi: 10.1177/0261429414530712

Leggett, D. G., Shea, I. & Wilson, J. A. (2010). Advocating for twice-exceptional students: An ethical obligation. Research in School, 17(2), 1-10. Retrieved from http://www.msstate.edu/org/msera/rits.htm

Levi, U., Einav, M., Raskind, I., Ziv, O.,& Margalit, M. (2013). Helping students with LD to succeed: The role of teachers hope, sense of coherence, and specific self-efficacy. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 28(4), 427-439. doi: 10.1080/088856257.2013.820457

Lodico, M. G., Spaulding, D. T., & Voegtle, K. H. (2010). Methods in educational research: From theory to practice (2nd ed.). San Fransico, Ca: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Lovett, B. J. (2013). The science and politics of gifted students with learning disabilities: A social inequality perspective. Roeper Review, 35(2), 136-143. doi: 10.1080/02783193.2013.766965

working knowledge: Insight into the generative power of intuitive pedagogy. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 3(4), 237-251. doi: 10.1016/j.lcsi.2014.01.001

Marshall, B., Cardon, P., Poddar, A., & Fontenot, R. (2013). Does sample size matter in qualitative research?: A review of qualitative interviews in IS research. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 54(2), 11-24. Retrieved from http://iacis.org/jcis/articles/JCIS54-2.pdf

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2011). Designing qualitative research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Martinussen, R., & Major, A. (2011). Working memory weakness in students with ADHD: Implications for instruction. Theory into Practice, 50(1), 68-75. Doi: 10.1080/00405841.2011.534943

Matthews, M. (2014). Self-concept and the gifted. In C. Callahan & J. Plunker (Eds) Critical Issues and Practices in Gifted Education: What the Research Says (2nd Ed.) (pp. 567-576). Waco, Tx: Prufrock Press, Inc.

McCallum, R. S., Bell, S. M., Coles, J. T., Miller, K. C., Hopkins, M. B.,& Hilton-

Prillhart, A. (2013).A model for screening twice-exceptional students (gifted with learning disabilities) within a response to intervention paradigm. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(4), 209-222. Doi: 10.1177/0016986213500070

McCoach, D. B. & Siegle, D. (2007). What predicts teachers attitudes toward the gifted.

94

Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(3), 246-255. doi: 10.1177/0016986207302719

McCoach, B. & Siegle, D. (2013) Underachievers. In Plucker, J. A. and Callahan, C. M. (Eds.) Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (2nd ed)(pp.691-706). Waco, Texas: Prufrock Press, Inc.

Merriam, S. B. & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative Research: A guide to design and implentation (4th ed.). San Fransico, CA: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Merrotsy, P. (2013). Invisible gifted students. Talent Development and Excellence, 5(2), 31-42. Retrieved from http://www.iratde.org

Metin, B., Roeyers, H., Wiersema, J. R., van der Meere, J. J., Gasthuys, R., & Sonuga-Burke, E. (2013). Enviromental stimulation does not reduce implusive choice in

Journal of Attention Disorders, 20(10), 1-8. doi: 10.117/1087054713479667

Mills, C. J., & Brody, L. E. (1999). Overlooked and unchallenged: Gifted student with learning disabilities. Knowledge Quest, 27(1), pp. 36-40. Retrieved from http://cty.jhu.edu/research/archive/docs/overlooked.pdf

Moon, T. R. & Brighton, C. M. (2008). Primary teachers conceptions of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31(4), 447-480. Retrieved from http://www.sagepub.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/home.nav

National Association for Gifted Children. (1998). Students with concomitant gifts and learning disabilities [Position Paper]. Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=397

National Association for Gifted Childern. (2012). What is giftedness. Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=574

National Center for Learning Disabilities. (2012). LD explained. Retrieved from http://ncld.org

National Center for Learning Disabilities. (2014).What is IDEA? Retrieved from http://www.ncld.org/disability-advocacy/learn-ld-laws/idea/what-is-idea

National Foundation for Learning Disabilities. (2013). What is RTI? Retrieved from http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/what/whatisrti

National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2011). Learning disabilities: Implications for policy regarding research and practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34(4), 237-241. Doi: 10.1177/0731948711421756

National Society for the Gifted and Talented (2013). Giftedness Defined. Retrieved from http://www.nsgt.org/giftedness-defined/#4

95

NC School Report Cards. (2014). Vance County Schools. Retrieved from http://www.ncreportcards.org

Nielsen, M. E., & Higgins, L. D. (2005). The eye of the storm:services and programs for the twice-exceptionals learners. Teaching exceptional children, 38(1), 8-15. Retrieved from Educational Research Complete. (AN18367486)

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub L No. 107-110 (2002).

Northcentral University. (2015). Northcentral University Dissertation Center. Retrieved from Northcentral University: http://learners.ncu.edu/ncu_diss/default.aspx

Olszewski-Kubilius, P. & Clarenbach, J. (2014). Closing the opportunity gap: Program factors contributing to academic success in culturally different youth. Doi: 10.1177/1076217514520630

and self-confidence in the midst of an educational reform. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 66, 42-53. Retrieved from http://www.jbse.webinfo.lt/Problems_of_Education_Volumes.htm

Raymond, E. B. (2011). Learners with mild disabilities (4th Ed.). Boston, Ma: Pearson Education, Inc.

Reis, S. M., Baum, S. M., & Burke, E. (2014). An operational definition of twice-exceptional learners: Implications and applications. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(3), 217-230. Doi: 10.1177/0016986214534976

methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Ca: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Rinn, A. N., & Nelson, J. M. (2009). Preservice teachers perceptions of behaviors characteristic of ADHD and giftedness. Roeper Review, 31, pp. 18-26. Doi:10.1080/02783190802527349

Rinn, A. N., & Reynolds, M. J. (2012). Overexcitabilities and ADHD in the gifted: An examination. Roeper Review, 34(3), 38-45. Doi:10.1080/02783193.2012.627551

Robinson, N. M., Reis, S. M., Neihart, M., & Moon, S. M. (2002). Social and emotional issues facing gifted and talented students: What have we learned and what should we do now? In N. M. Robinson, S. M. Reis, M. Neihart, & S. M.Moon (Eds) The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 267-288). Waco, Tx: Prufrock Press, Inc.

Ronksley-Pavia, M. (2015). A model of twice-exceptionality: Explaining and defining the apparent paradoxical combination disability and giftedness in childhood. Journal of the Education of the Gifted, 38(3), 318-340. doi: 10.1177/0162353215592499

96

RTI Network. (2014). RTI: What is it. Retrieved from http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/what/whatisrti

Ruban, L. M., & Reis, S. M. (2005). Indentifiation and assessment of gifted students with learning disabilities. Theory into Practice, 44(2), 115-124. Doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4402_6

Ryan, T. (2012). Ontario educators perceptions of barriers to the identification of gifted children from economically disadvantaged and lmited English proficient backgrounds. Journal of International Association of the Special Education, 12(1), 16-27. Retrieved from http://www.iase.org/?journal,7

Ryan, T. G. & Coneybeare, S. (2013). The underachievement of gifted students: A synopsis. The Journal of the International Association of Special Education, 14(1), 58-66. Retrieved from http://iase.coe.nau.edu/journal.html

Sadler, I. (2013). The role of self-confidence in learning to teach higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching, 50(2), 157-166. doi: 10.1080/14703297.2012.760777

Sald The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications Inc.

Schneider, D. J. (1973). Implicit personality theory: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 79(5), 294-309. Doi: 10.1037/h0034496

Siegle, D., Moore, M. , Mann, R. L., & Wilson, H. E. (2010). Factors that influence in-service and preservice teachers nominations of students for gifted and talented programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33(3), 337-360. Retrieved from http://www.prufrock.com

Song. K. & Porath, M. (2011). How gitedness coexists with learning disabilities: Understanding gifted students ith learning disabilities (GLD) in an integrated model of human abilities. Talent Development and Excellence, 3(2), 215-227. Retrieved from Business Source Complete. (AN67432805)

Strip, C. A. & Hirsch, G. (2011). Helping gifted children soar. Scottsdale, Arizona: Great Potential Press, Inc

Szymanski, T., & Shaff, T. (2012). Teacher perspectives regarding gifted diverse students. Gifted Children, 6(1), 1-26. Retrieved from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/giftedchildren

Thomas, D. R. (2015). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237-246. Doi: 10.1177/1098214005383748

Tieso, C. & Douglass, M. J. (2011). Twice-exceptional: Gifted students with learning.

97

Retrieved from http://education.wm.edu/centers/ttac/documents/packets/twiceexceptional.pdf

Terman, L. (1925). Genetic study of genius (Vol. 1): Mental and physical traits of 1000 gifted children. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Trail, B. A. (2011). Twice-exceptional gifted children: Understanding, teaching, and counseling gifted students. Waco, Texas: Prufrock Press, Inc.

Troxclair, D. A. (2013). Preservice teacher attitudes towards giftedness. Roeper Review, 34, 58-64. doi: 10.1080/02783193.2013.740603

Wang, C. W. & Neihart, M. (2015). Academic self-concept and academic self-efficacy: Self-beliefs enable academic achievement of twice-exceptional students. Roeper Review, 37(2), 63-73. doi: 10.1080/02783193.2015.1008660

Wellish, M. & Brown, J. (2012). An integrated identification and intervention model for intellectually gifted children. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23(2), 145-167. doi: 10.1177/1932202X12438877

Willard-Holt, C., Weber, J., Morrision, K. L., & Horgan, J. (2013). Twice-exceptional

57(4), 247-262. Doi: 10.1177/0016986213501076

Wood, S. C. (2012). Examining Parent and Teacher Perceptions of Behaviors Exhibited by Gifted Students Referred for ADHD Diagnosis Using the Conners 3 (An Exploratory Study). Roeper Review, 34(3), 194-204. doi: 10.1080/02783193.2012.686426

Wormald, C., Rogers, K. B., & Vialle, W. (2015). A case study of giftedness and specific learning disabilities: Bridging the two exceptionalities. Roeper Review, 37(3), 124-138. doi: 10.1080/02783193.2015.1047547

Yeo, A., Legard, R., Keegan, J., Ward, K., Nicholls, C.M., & Lewis, J. (2014). In-Depth Interviews. In Ritchie, Lewis, Nicholls, Ormston (Eds), Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Socia Science Students and Researchers (p. 177-210). Thousand Oak, California: SAGE Publication Inc.

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Yssel, N., Adams, C., Clarke, L. S., & Jones, R. (2014). Applying an RTI mode for students with learning disabiliteis who are gifted. Teaching Exceptional Children, 46(3), 42-52. Retrieved from http://www.cec.sped.org.

98

Appendices

100

Appendix B: Informed Consent Form

Informed Consent Form What deters educators from referring students identified as specific learning disabled (SLD) or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) to gifted education program? What is the study about? You are invited to participate in a research study being conducted for a dissertation at Northcentral University in Prescott, Arizona. The study is interested in your thoughts about referring students identified with SLD and ADHD for testing in the gifted education program. You were selected because you replied to a flyer or email about the study. What will be asked of me? You will be asked to set up a time to meet. I will ask a series of questions about your thoughts. It will take about 30 to 45 minutes. Who is involved? The following people are involved in this research project and may be contacted at any time: Lisa Webster (919) 939-9877, L.Webster1847@email.ncu.edu or lwebster@vcs.k12.nc.us or Dr. Jerome Fore (888) 327-2877, cfore@ncu.edu. Are there any risks? There are no known risks in this study. Some of the questions might be sensitive since they ask about your thoughts, knowledge, and experience in teaching. This can be upsetting to some people. You may stop the study at any time. You can also choose not to answer any question that you feel uncomfortable in answering. What are some benefits? There are no direct benefits to you for participating in this research. No incentives are offered. The results may eventually affect future professional development in working with twice-exceptional students (students who are identified for special education department and gifted education program). Is the study anonymity/ confidential? The data collected in this study is confidential. Your name or personal information is not linked to the data. Only the researchers in this study will see the data. Can I stop participating the study? You have the right to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. You can skip any questions if you do not want to answer. Additional Consent for Video-taping and Transcription This study will involve video-taping during the face-to-face interviews. No names or identifying information will be associated with the transcription of the videotapes. Only the researcher will listen to the video and transcribe its content. The transcripts will be checked for accuracy. The video will then be destroyed. Portions of the transcripts may be reproduced in presentation or report form for the purpose of this study.

101

What if I have questions about my rights as a research participant or complaints? If you have questions about your rights, any complaints, or any problems as a research participant in the research study, please contact the researchers identified on the consent form. If you prefer to talk to someone outside the study team, you can contact

irb@ncu.edu or 1-888-327-2877 ex 8014. We would be happy to answer any question that may arise about the study. Please direct your questions or comments to Lisa Webster (919) 939-9877, L.Webster1847@email.ncu.edu or lwebster@vcs.k12.nc.us or Dr. Jerome Fore (888) 327-2877, cfore@ncu.edu. Signatures

study is about and what is being asked of me. My signature indicates that I agree to participate in the study. Participant's Name: ___________________________________________ Participant's Signature: ________________________________________ Researcher's Name: ____Lisa Lynn Webster______ Researcher's Signature: ________________________________________ Date: _____________________

102

Appendix C: Interview Questions

1. Educator Information: age, gender, race, years of experience, grades taught,

certifications, licensures, and education level

RQ1. What past teaching experiences of the regular education teachers are perceived as

having affected them in referring students identified as specific learning disabled or

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder to the gifted education program?

RQ2. How do regular education teachers perceive, how any courses or trainings in gifted

education and twice-exceptional students have affected their referral rates of students

with learning disabilities or ADHD to gifted education programs?

RQ3. What working knowledge of the twice-exceptional student does the regular

education teacher have that they feel affects whether they refer students identified as

specific learning disabled or ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder) to the

gifted education program?

RQ4. What do regular education teachers perceive as the reasons for the

underrepresentation of twice-exceptionall students?

2. Have you had any past experiences working with gifted and talented children?

Explain.

3. Have you had any past experiences working with specific learning disabled

students? Explain.

4. Have you had any past experiences working with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity

Disorder students? Explain.

5. Have you had any past experiences working with Twice-Exceptional students?

Explain.

103

6. Have you had any training on gifted and talented children? Tell me about any

training that you have had about gifted students.

7. Have you had any training on specific learning disabled students? Tell me about

any training that you have had about specific learning disabled students.

8. Have you had any training on Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder students?

Tell me about any training that you have had about Attention Deficit

Hyperactivity Disorder students.

9. Have you had any training on Twice-Exceptional students? Tell me about any

training that you have had about Twice-Exceptional students.

10. How are gifted students identified in your school/district? What do you think of

the process? What changes would you make?

11. How are specific learning disabled students identified in your school/district?

What do you think of the process? What changes would you make?

12. Give five characteristics of a

a. gifted and talented child.

b. specific learning disabled student

c. ADHD student.

d. twice-exceptional student.

13. How does your experiences and training help you develop your picture of what a

typical gifted student looks like?

14. How does your experiences and training help you develop your picture of what a

typical specific learning disabled student looks like?

15. How does your experiences and training help you develop your picture of what a

104

typical ADHD student looks like?

16. How does your experiences and training help you develop your picture of what a

typical twice-exceptional looks like?

17. Do you believe that there is an underrepresentation of twice-exceptional students

in the school system? Why do you believe that?

18. Have you ever referred a student who was identified as specific learning disabled

or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder to be tested for gifted education

program? Why have you not? Why have you? What assisted in you deciding to

refer them?

19. What do you think needs to happen to increase the number of twice-exceptional

students in the school system?

20. You mentioned you had experience with students with disabilities, and you

mentioned you had experience with gifted and talented, but little experience with

-exceptional". How do you feel your experiences

or lack of experiences have affected the way you refer students to the gifted and

21. What barriers do you perceive in the school system that prevent you from

effectively referring LD or ADHD students to gifted programs?

22. There are many "new and research-driven definitions", that explain the terms

twice-exceptional, and gifted and talented. Do you feel you don't have the training

and experience to access these or is it the lack of confidence to use these new

definitions? Why do you think that?

105

Appendix D: Letters of Permission

106

107

Appendix E: Gifted Behavior Scale

108