Methods and Materials for Teaching the Gifted

Jolly

Introduction

The first edition of Methods and Materials for Teaching the Gifted was published nearly 20 years ago in 2001. Intended to guide practitioners with strategies and resources for working with gifted and talented learners, this volume has remained a mainstay over the past four editions for both preservice and inservice educators. The fifth edition presented the opportunity to revisit trends, strategies, and approaches used to meet the needs of gifted and talented learners. This edition builds on the foundational premise of the first volume, as the editors recruited authors who could bridge the research to practice gap by providing a strong evidence base for the strategies and practices included in each chapter. There are also several new chapters, including those that address the needs of twice-exceptional learners and culturally diverse learners. Chapters were also written to highlight gifted coordinators and gifted specialists and their roles in districts, schools, and classrooms.

Section I: Contemporary Gifted Education: Recognizing and Focusing on a Diverse Range of Needs addresses the identification of gifted learners and subpopulations of gifted learners, as well as strategies to support their academic and psychosocial needs. Section II: Gifted Programming Standards and Gifted Education provides guidance to generally agreed upon criterion and benchmarks of gifted programming in K–12 education. Section III: Gifted Students in the Classroom: Adjusting Curriculum and Pedagogy provides specific classroom interventions for gifted learners. Section IV: Gifted Professionals in the Schools discusses how educators in schools trained in gifted education can support other practitioners, administrators, and parents. Finally, Section V: Focusing on the Talent in Gifted and Talented delves into talent development options both in and out of school.

This revised fifth edition illustrates how gifted education has progressed over the past 2 decades since this book was originally published. Whether used in its entirety or as separate chapters, this text provides users flexibility in how the information might be arranged and implemented.

1

Chapter

Trending Toward Inclusivity

Gifted Children in Schools

DANTE D. DIXSON

Guiding Questions

1. What is the demographic makeup of students in gifted and talented programs?

2. What are the characteristics that identify one as gifted?

3. What are the trends surrounding being identified as gifted?

Who are gifted students? Although this is a simple question, the answer is rather complicated. To fully answer this question, several different pieces of information, such as the current demographics of the gifted student population, state gifted identification polices that resulted in those demographics, and the trends that shaped the political climate that rendered those state policies, should be considered. All three pieces of information provide the context for which students are considered gifted and why. The broader political climate includes debates about immigration and equal rights (Chasmar, 2019), as well as calls for greater inclusion and equity within gifted education throughout the past decade (e.g., Card & Giuliano, 2015; Grissom & Redding, 2016; Worrell & Dixson, 2018).

As a result, there have been several changes within state policies for defining and identifying gifted students, as well as policy recommendations from scholars that are changing the idea of who gifted students are. This chapter provides an overview of the factors that influence which students are identified as gifted. This chapter begins with a discussion of giftedness and explains the unique needs of the academically gifted. Next, this chapter seeks to answer three general questions: (a) What are the demographics of the gifted student population? (b) What are the characteristics that identify one as gifted? and (c) What are the trends surrounding being identified as gifted? Finally, this chapter closes with a discussion of the state of gifted students 2 decades into the 21st century.

Giftedness

Multiple frameworks and perspectives of understanding gifted abilities exist within the literature (e.g., the Talent Search model and the Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness; see Worrell et al., 2019, for a review). Almost all frameworks take a unique perspective to understanding high academic ability. As such, the value and differences between gifted frameworks are illustrated in the two following vignettes that contrast the Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness (Renzulli, 1986, 2005) and the Talent Search model of giftedness (Stanley, 1976).

Consider the following example:

Bradley is a 12-year-old boy from Madison, WI. Although he scored at the 98th percentile on both the math and reading sections of the SAT, he is generally unmotivated, and very few of his family, friends, and teachers would consider him creative.

Grace is a 14-year-old girl from Ann Arbor, MI. Her friends, family, and teachers all consider her to be highly motivated and creative. She has even won several school awards for her commitment to excelling in school and her ability to think outside the box. Grace took the SAT last month and scored at the 75th percentile in both math and reading.

In this example, Bradley would very likely qualify as gifted under the Talent Search model because he excelled on an above-grade-level assessment, whereas Grace would likely qualify as gifted under the Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness due to her above-average ability, academic commitment, and creativity. Neither is likely to qualify for both. Studying Bradley’s profile is likely to provide insight on the profoundly gifted (i.e., those with exceptionally high cognitive ability; Bernstein et al., 2019), and studying Grace’s is likely to show the value of high cognitive ability mixed with motivation and creativity (Renzulli, 2005). Although these students present different profiles, both can aid in the understanding of high academic talent. Although almost all models of giftedness center on different traits and abilities to determine giftedness, high academic and/or cognitive ability is almost universally accepted as a prerequisite for gifted consideration (National Association for Gifted Children [NAGC] & Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted [CSDPG], 2015; Stephens & Karnes, 2000).

General consensus within the field of gifted education has also been reached regarding the need to nurture the talents of gifted students. Scholars and school administrators typically agree that those with higher academic and cognitive ability require a specialized educational plan to meet their academic needs (e.g., acceleration, enrichment; Subotnik et al., 2011). Several studies support this conclusion (Steenbergen-Hu et al., 2016; Wai, 2013). For example, Kulik’s (2004) meta-analysis of 25 studies illustrates how academic acceleration impacts the development of academically gifted students. He found that when academically gifted students were not accelerated, they fell almost a full grade behind their academically gifted counterparts who were accelerated. If this trend were to continue over several years, it would create exponential differences between those who were accelerated and those who were not. This finding has been not only replicated (e.g., Steenbergen-Hu et al., 2016), but also corroborated by studies of the profoundly gifted (i.e., top 1%), which indicate that participation in a gifted program resulted in meaningful long-term outcomes (Park et al., 2013). In sum, participation in a gifted program increases the probability that gifted students live up to their highest academic potential.

Demographics of the Gifted Student Population

A third general consensus is that gifted students comprise all races, genders, and socioeconomic backgrounds (Worrell et al., 2019), which is based on research that indicates that high academic and cognitive ability can come from all demographics and backgrounds (Card & Giuliano, 2015). Historically, however, some groups have had higher representation within gifted education programs than others. These groups include European Americans, Asian Americans, males, and students from higher socioeconomic backgrounds (Grissom & Redding, 2016; Petersen, 2013). Given this historical context, the major focus of this section is to describe the demographics of the gifted student population.

According to the most recent data available from the Office for Civil Rights (OCR, 2015), the ethnic breakdown of gifted students enrolled in public gifted programs in American schools is as follows: 0.8% American Indian or Alaska Native, 9.9% Asian American or Pacific Islander, 18% Hispanic or Latino, 9.9% Black or African American, 58.2% White, and 3.2% two or more races. These numbers are very similar to those reported 10 years earlier with two exceptions: Hispanic/Latino enrollment has meaningfully (i.e., ± 5%) increased (5.67%), and White student enrollment has meaningfully decreased (-11.47%; OCR, 2005). Further, OCR (2015) reported that 2.4% of academically gifted students were classified as having a learning disability and 2.8% were classified as English language learners (ELLs). These percentages were also identical to those reported 10 years earlier (OCR, 2005).

Focusing on socioeconomic representation, Yaluma and Tyner (2018) conducted a national examination of gifted program participation by socioeconomic status (SES). They found that high-SES schools had the largest gifted programs across the nation (12.4% of the school population) followed by middle- (9% of the school population) and low-SES (6.1% of the school population) schools. These statistics are consistent with recent research indicating that high-SES students are more likely to be identified as academically gifted as compared to their middle- and low-SES peers, even after controlling for race and standardized test scores (Grissom & Redding, 2016). In addition, these findings also mirror the earlier finding of high-SES students being 3.72 times more likely to be identified as academically gifted compared to low-SES students (McBee, 2006), although the gap is closing somewhat.

Finally, focusing on gender, OCR (2015) reported that male (49.3%) and female (50.7%) students were almost equally represented within gifted programs across the nation. Although these findings mirror data collected in 2005 by the same agency (48.7% male vs. 51.3% female), they slightly contradict a recent meta-analysis of 130 studies on identification by gender (Petersen, 2013). However, the meta-analysis included studies from 1975 through 2011. Thus, it appears that over the long term, gifted education has both obtained and maintained gender equity in its identification practices.

Characteristics of Gifted Students

Although who is considered gifted is influenced by many factors, one of the most significant factors is current state identification standards/criteria. State gifted standards outline not only characteristics of who is considered gifted within that state, but also which characteristics students must have in order to qualify for a gifted program (e.g., Medina, 2019). Ideally, available resources, current research, state priorities, and state preferences are considered when state officials are deciding what gifted criteria to select for and when state standards for giftedness are being developed. Provided this context, the following section highlights the characteristics of gifted students, which are often framed as selection criteria.

States use multiple criteria when identifying gifted students across the nation. These range from students exhibiting certain behaviors (e.g., via a behavioral checklist), to students scoring at or above certain cutoff scores on standardized academic and/or cognitive assessments (McClain & Pfeiffer, 2012). Moreover, these characteristics (selection criteria) are always changing as new research provides a more nuanced understanding of giftedness and talent (McClain & Pfeiffer, 2012; Stephens & Karnes, 2000). However, according to the most recent State of the States in Gifted Education report (NAGC & CSDPG, 2015), most states identify students who have high cognitive ability (91.9%), academic ability (64.9%), performing or visual arts talent (56.8%), or creativity (56.8%). Characteristics that are less typically identified are leadership ability (35.1%), psychomotor ability (8.1%), and motivation (6%; McClain & Pfeiffer, 2012; NAGC & CSDPG, 2015). As can be seen, high cognitive and academic ability (typically 90th percentile and above; McClain & Pfeiffer, 2012) are the most common characteristics for inclusion into gifted programs across the nation. This indicates that the overwhelming majority of gifted students possess at least high cognitive or academic ability, if not both. In the past 20 years, this makeup represents a very slight shift, with more states emphasizing intellectual ability (+11.9%) than in the past (McClain & Pfeiffer, 2012; Stephens & Karnes, 2000). All other characteristics are similarly emphasized.

Current Trends

Three major trends in gifted education influence who is gifted. These trends, which have the ability to influence gifted education’s future, include (a) changing state policies and criteria, (b) universal screening, and (c) innovative programs.

Changing State Policies and Criteria

Frameworks and models of giftedness should guide state gifted education policies and criteria for identification. Overall, states and local education agencies have made meaningful progress toward a more inclusive understanding of who is considered gifted (McClain & Pfeiffer, 2012; Stephens & Karnes, 2000). The biggest change has been in the use of multiple criteria in identifying academically gifted students. Although the use of multiple criteria is well-known to be a more inclusive method of identifying academically gifted students (McBee et al., 2014), 20 years ago, only four states (8%) specifically referred to using multiple criteria when identifying gifted students (Stephens & Karnes, 2000). By 2015, the number of states had increased to more than half of all states (57.6%), an increase of more than 500% (McClain & Pfeiffer, 2012; NAGC & CSDPG, 2015).

Further, over the last 2 decades, several states have also made changes to state policies and procedures that directly address the inclusion of underrepresented groups. For example, in 1998, only three states directly mentioned underrepresented groups in their definitions or identification standards (i.e., Florida, Massachusetts, and North Carolina; Stephens & Karnes, 2000). In contrast, in 2015, NAGC and CSDPG found that underrepresented groups were frequently mentioned in state definitions and identification standards of gifted students. More specifically, they reported that low-SES students (24.3% of states), culturally diverse students (21.6% of states), ELLs (21.6% of states), and students with disabilities (16.2% of states) were all mentioned within a meaningful percentage of state definitions of gifted students, indicating that some special consideration is being given to students within these groups.

Universal Screening

A second trend that is affecting who is considered gifted is the increasing implementation of universal screening programs (Mathewson, 2016). Several scholars have argued that some groups are underrepresented in gifted and talented programs because of a lack of opportunity to demonstrate their gifted abilities in front of a program gatekeeper (McBee et al., 2016; Olszewski-Kubilius et al., 2016; Worrell & Dixson, 2018; Worrell et al., 2019). Moreover, it has been argued that universal screening programs, especially when targeted at the lower grades (e.g., first or second grade), give all students the opportunity to demonstrate their gifted potential in front of a gifted program gatekeeper before disadvantaged students start lagging behind due to lack of resources, opportunity, and development (Card & Giuliano, 2015; Worrell & Dixson, 2018). These assertions are supported by a recent large-scale longitudinal study. Card and Giuliano (2015) reported on the effects of universally screening that included more than 40,000 second-grade students. They found that universal screening resulted in not only an increase in the total number of gifted students identified within the program (67% increase), but also higher representation among underrepresented groups. More specifically, they found that universal screening resulted in an increase in African American student representation by 145%, Hispanic student representation by 171%, English language learner student representation by 150%, and low-SES student representation by 50%. The continued push by scholars (e.g., Worrell et al., 2019) and policymakers (e.g., Medina, 2019) to increase the implementation of universal screening programs in districts across the nation is likely to increase the representation of underrepresented groups, making the idea of who is considered gifted more inclusive.

Innovative Programs

A third, and slightly less prevalent, trend within gifted education are innovative programs that are providing gifted program services to students whom research indicates would benefit from such services even though they may not qualify for these services outright (Olszewski-Kubilius & Steenbergen-Hu, 2017; Olszewski-Kubilius et al., 2016; Worrell & Dixson, 2018). Although these programs come in many different forms, such as using local norms and making motivational measures an intricate part of the admission process (see Dixson & Worrell, 2018; Olszewski-Kubilius & Steenbergen-Hu, 2017), one of the best examples is Project Excite.

Project Excite provided extensive academic enrichment in STEM topics to high-potential underrepresented students that roughly came out to an additional 89 to 125 days of school (depending on how many optional activities a student participated in). However, the most innovative aspect of Project Excite was its admission criteria. The program admitted African American and Hispanic students that fit two criteria: (a) they scored at or above the 75th percentile on a standardized test, and (b) they exhibited a demonstrated commitment to excelling in STEM fields (as judged by teacher and school recommendations detailing work habits, interest, and motivation; Olszewski-Kubilius & Steenbergen-Hu, 2017). Put a different way, the program admitted underrepresented students thought to most likely benefit from gifted services, as opposed to only admitting those students at the highest end of cognitive and academic talent. The results were encouraging. African American and Hispanic students who completed the 6-year program reported meaningfully higher math (Hedges g vs. African American g = 1.58; vs. Hispanic g = 1.21), reading (vs. African American g = 0.75; vs. Hispanic g = 0.54), and science (vs. African American g = 1.26; vs. Hispanic g = 1.07) standardized scores than their same race counterparts within their school district. In addition, Project Excite students reported similar standardized math (g = -0.02) and only slightly lower English (g = -0.30) scores than their district European American and Asian American counterparts, demonstrating some mitigation of the well-known achievement gap between these groups (Worrell & Dixson, 2018).

These types of programs are very slowly becoming more common (e.g., Kentucky Department of Education, 2017) and can potentially exert influence on who is considered gifted, as they have the potential to get more gifted program gatekeepers to think about who would benefit from gifted services, as opposed to who qualifies for gifted services. This change is likely to result in more equity and inclusion within gifted programs, as it gives students from underrepresented groups, who typically score lower on standardized tests than overrepresented groups (see Aud et al., 2010), a better chance to qualify for services.

Conclusion

The idea of what giftedness is has undergone an incremental transformation over the last decade. Within the context of many national movements lobbying for more equity and inclusion (Anderson et al., 2018), the field of gifted education has also made concerted efforts to be both more inclusive and equitable. These efforts have ranged from more states implementing more inclusive standards/criteria for identifying gifted students (e.g., multiple criteria; McClain & Pfeiffer, 2012) to a greater push among gifted education scholars to have more school districts implement universal screening in order to have more racial and socioeconomic equity within gifted programs throughout the nation (Worrell et al., 2019).

Despite these changes generally being positively received by parents, scholars, and school administrators (e.g., Goldstein, 2018), change within the field of gifted education takes time: time for policies to be tested for effectiveness, time for schools to find needed funding associated with changes in policy and programming, and time for the general public to adapt and accept these changes. Thus, despite these recent practical and meaningful changes within the field of gifted education, what gifted students look like today is very similar to what they looked like a decade ago. However, the contextual changes within gifted education provide a start to trending toward a more equitable and inclusive field.

Big Ideas

1. There has been a big push within gifted education for more equity and inclusion.

2. States have made several changes to their gifted definitions and standards/criteria to be more inclusive of underrepresented groups.

3. Gifted students today look very similar to gifted students a decade ago.

4. Due to several changes and the changing political climate surrounding gifted education, gifted students identified in the future are likely to be more diverse.

Discussion Questions

1. Should special consideration be given to underrepresented groups if universal screening is carried out in the early grades?

2. What is the ideal amount of equity in gifted education? Should all demographics be equally represented throughout the nation?

3. Resources aside, why don’t more scholars and school administrators take the position of which students would most likely benefit from gifted services, as opposed to who qualifies for them?

References

Anderson, M., Toor, S., Rainie, L., & Smith, A. (2018). Activism in the social media age. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewinternet.org/2018/07/11/activism-in-the-social-media-age

Aud, S., Fox, M., & KewalRamani, A. (2010). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic groups (NCES 2010-015). U.S. Government Printing Office.

Bernstein, B. O., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2019). Psychological constellations assessed at age 13 predict distinct forms of eminence 35 years later. Psychological Science, 30(3), 444–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618822524

Card, D., & Giuliano, L. (2015). Can universal screening increase the representation of low income and minority students in gifted education? (No. 21519). http://www.nber.org/papers/w21519

Chasmar, J. (2019). ACLU issues Florida travel advisory for ‘immigrants and people of color’. The Washington Times. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/apr/9/aclu-issues-warning-immigrants-people-color-travel

Goldstein, D. (2018). Rethinking what gifted education means, and whom it should serve. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/13/us/education-gifted-students.html

Grissom, J. A., & Redding, C. (2016). Discretion and disproportionality: Explaining the underrepresentation of high-achieving students of color in gifted programs. AERA Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858415622175

Kentucky Department of Education. (2017). Local norms. https://education.ky.gov/specialed/GT/Pages/Gifted-and-Talented-Resources.aspx

Kulik, J. A. (2004). Meta-analytic studies of acceleration. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 13–22). The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Mathewson, T. G. (2016). Schools turn to universal screening to increase equity in gifted programs. Education Dive. https://www.educationdive.com/news/schools-turn-to-universal-screening-to-increase-equity-in-gifted-programs/430797

McBee, M. T. (2006). A descriptive analysis of referral sources for gifted identification screening by race and socioeconomic status. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(2), 103–111. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2006-686

McBee, M. T., Peters, S. J., & Miller, E. M. (2016). The impact of the nomination stage on gifted program identification: A comprehensive psychometric analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(4), 258–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216656256

McBee, M. T., Peters, S. J., & Waterman, C. (2014). Combining scores in multiple-criteria assessment systems: The impact of combination rule. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(1), 69–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213513794

McClain, M., & Pfeiffer, S. (2012). Identification of gifted students in the United States today: A look at state definitions, policies, and practices. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 28(1), 59–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2012.643757

Medina, J. (2019). Gifted identification: Guidance handbook. https://www.cde.state.co.us/gt/idguidebook

National Association for Gifted Children, & Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. (2015). 2014–2015 state of the states in gifted education: Policy and practice data. http://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/key%20reports/2014-2015%20State%20of%20the%20States%20%28final%29.pdf

Office for Civil Rights. (2005). 2004 civil right data collection: Projected values for the nation. https://ocrdata.ed.gov/downloads/projections/2004/2004-nation-projection.xls

Office for Civil Rights. (2015). Number and percentage of public school students by race/ethnicity, disability status, and English proficiency, and state: School year 2013–14. https://ocrdata.ed.gov/downloads/projections/2013-14/Gifted-Talented-Programs.xlsx

Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Steenbergen-Hu, S. (2017). Blending research-based practices and practice-embedded research: Project Excite closes achievement and excellence gaps for underrepresented gifted minority students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(3), 202–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217701836

Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Steenbergen-Hu, S., Thomson, D., & Rosen, R. (2016). Minority achievement gaps in STEM: Findings of a longitudinal study of Project Excite. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216673449

Park, G., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2013). When less is more: Effects of grade skipping on adult STEM productivity among mathematically precocious adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1), 176–198. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029481

Petersen, J. (2013). Gender differences in identification of gifted youth and in gifted program participation: A meta-analysis. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(4), 342–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.07.002

Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 53–92). Cambridge University Press.

Renzulli, J. S. (2005). The three-ring definition of giftedness: A developmental model for promoting creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 246–280). Cambridge University Press.

Stanley, J. C. (1976). The case for extreme educational acceleration of intellectually brilliant youths. Gifted Child Quarterly, 20(1), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698627602000120

Steenbergen-Hu, S., Makel, M. C., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2016). What one hundred years of research says about the effects of ability grouping and acceleration on K–12 students’ academic achievement: Findings of two second-order meta-analyses. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 849–899. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316675417

Stephens, K. R., & Karnes, F. A. (2000). State definitions for the gifted and talented revisited. Exceptional Children, 66(2), 219–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290006600206

Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056

Wai, J. (2013). Investigating America’s elite: Cognitive ability, education, and sex differences. Intelligence, 41(4), 203–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2013.03.005

Worrell, F. C., & Dixson, D. D. (2018). Recruiting and retaining underrepresented gifted students. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psychoeducational theory research, and best practices (2nd ed., pp. 209–226). Springer.

Worrell, F. C., Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Dixson, D. D. (2019). Gifted students. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 551–576. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102846

Yaluma, C. B., & Tyner, A. (2018). Is there a gifted gap? https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/research/there-gifted-gap-gifted-education-high-poverty-schools

2

Chapter

Twice-Exceptional Learners

Recognition and Response

STUART N. OMDAL, LOIS BALDWIN, AND DAPHNE PERELES

Guiding Questions

1. How does one identify potential giftedness or potential disability?

2. In what ways might students mask their disability or giftedness?

3. How do the social and emotional dimensions impact learning?

4. How does a teacher manage the range of instructional levels and diverse learning needs in a regular education classroom?

Providing appropriate instruction for students who qualify for both gifted education and special education services can be challenging for any educator. Meeting the needs of these twice-exceptional learners while addressing the needs of other students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), students identified for gifted education programming and/or provisions, and typical learners, can seem almost impossible. However, organizational and instructional methods for making this process doable can and have been implemented, thus better ensuring the educational needs of all learners are being met. This chapter includes vignettes of students in a public school teacher’s classroom. These descriptions are composites of real students drawn from the authors’ decades of experience in public education. Discussions drawing upon the professional literature on twice-exceptionality follow the vignettes.

This chapter focuses on the organizational and instructional methods addressing the learning and affective needs of twice-exceptional learners. For information on many other aspects of twice-exceptionality, the authors recommend Baum et al.’s (2017) book, To Be Gifted and Learning Disabled: Strength-Based Strategies for Helping Twice-Exceptional Students With LD, ADHD, ASD, and More (3rd ed.), and Kaufman’s (2018) edited book, Twice Exceptional: Supporting and Educating Bright and Creative Students With Learning Difficulties.

The Teacher

Mary Smith is beginning her eighth year teaching fourth grade at an elementary school in Anytown, USA. It is 3 weeks into the school year, and Ms. Smith is continuing to develop plans for the 27 students she has in her class. Two students have been identified for gifted education services. Four others have IEPs: two for specific learning disabilities, one for autism, and the fourth for an emotional disability. One student is identified as twice-exceptional: gifted and a specific learning disability (dyslexia).

Ms. Smith has quickly realized that a one-size-fits-all approach to instruction is certainly not going to work. She believes that using a Universal Design for Learning (UDL) approach is a good starting place because of its emphasis on providing multiple means of engagement, representation, and action/expression (CAST, 2018). She hopes that, by using different texts and other ways to present and access information, her students will be able to express what they have learned in a way that works best for them. She knows she needs to continue to employ a variety of organizational and instructional strategies to effectively teach her students. She is feeling overwhelmed but has learned that getting to know her students is the first step in teaching them.

She knows that the students with IEPs receive support from the special education staff. The gifted education specialist has also been great at recommending strategies and materials for the advanced learners. As Ms. Smith reflects on all of her students, several cause her to wonder how she is going to effectively meet their needs.

Student Vignettes

Vignette 1: Alisha

Alisha is the student in Ms. Smith’s fourth-grade class who is identified as twice-exceptional. She is a delightful, high-energy, and friendly girl who demonstrates both strengths and challenges in the academic setting. She always listens attentively to her teachers’ lessons and demonstrates a depth of understanding uncommon among other elementary school learners. She has a vivid imagination and loves to make up stories to tell her classmates. She loves listening to her teacher read storybooks and is adept at discerning underlying themes. Socially, she has strong interpersonal skills and can tell when a classmate needs a friend. She is strong in math and enjoys science and social studies topics, as well as art, music, and PE.

However, when she was reading the student records, Ms. Smith noticed that Alisha’s previous teachers had all commented on her verbal precociousness and advanced vocabulary, but they were concerned with her struggles in reading and writing. In kindergarten, it was noted that Alisha had difficulty in learning and remembering letter names. Learning letter sounds and early attempts at sounding words out were hard and did not seem to get easier through first grade. In second grade, her oral reading was slow and laborious; she made many decoding errors, often mixing up the order of the letters. Her handwriting was difficult to read. On the other hand, she loved to dictate elaborate stories and was very detailed in her descriptions.

By second grade, Alisha had scored sufficiently below grade level on the Response to Intervention (RtI) screenings and was receiving Tier 2 reading support three times a week. Alisha was very aware of her reading struggles and told her parents that she was stupid. At least once or twice a month she told them she had a stomachache and did not want to go to school. By the winter of second grade, her parents talked with her teacher and requested that Alisha be tested to see if she could receive more instructional support. Her teacher agreed that her verbal language did not match up with her written language and reading skills. The evaluation was conducted by the school psychologist and the special education teacher. The psychological testing results revealed that Alisha’s verbal comprehension and visual spatial scores were at the 99th percentile. However, her processing speed score was in the average range. Her overall Full Scale IQ was measured at the 94th percentile, indicating extremely high cognitive abilities. The gifted education teacher was encouraged to complete further assessments to determine if Alisha should receive gifted education services.

The special education teacher gave Alisha a battery of educational assessments and found that her reading subtest scores indicated that her letter and word recognition were at the 18th percentile, nonsense word fluency at the 15th percentile, and reading comprehension at the 23rd percentile. These results, as well as the other testing results, were brought to the Committee for Special Education meeting. The committee determined that Alisha had a specific learning disability that qualified her for special education services. This led to the creation of an IEP specifying a multisensory reading approach to be provided by a certified reading teacher five times a week for 30 minutes. The committee also determined that Alisha was a student with exceptional cognitive strengths and should be included in the school’s gifted program twice a week.

As Ms. Smith looks at Alisha’s IEP, which indicates that she is being pulled out of her class five times a week for reading support and twice a week for gifted programming, she wonders how she can best support this twice-exceptional student.

Vignette 2: Jason

Jason is one of several students with an IEP in Ms. Smith’s fourth-grade class. When he was in preschool, he was identified as a student with autism. His first 3 years of school were spent in a full-time special education class. In third grade, his school day was divided with half of the day in special education and the other half in the general classroom. By the end of third grade, he was ready to be fully mainstreamed with assistance from the resource teacher once a day for 30 minutes.

Although he would have temper tantrums when he was younger, he no longer demonstrates that behavior. Instead, he now deals with his sensory issues by wearing winter boots and a heavy parka with the hood up, even on the hottest days. Ms. Smith understands his sensory issues, so she makes no comments about what he wears. She also knows how much he needs predictability and consistency, so she puts the daily schedule on the board every morning and reviews it with him and the entire class so that he will know what will be happening during the day. She also lets him know ahead of time when there is going to be a fire drill so that he is prepared for the noise and confusion.

Jason is happiest sitting in the back of the classroom. When Ms. Smith has tried to include him in class activities and group lessons, he has refused to participate. During the activity of turn and talk to your neighbor about the lesson or topic, he will put his head down and look away from the other student. During recess, he goes into a corner of the playground to read books that Ms. Smith feels are too difficult for him, but she has decided not to challenge him about his selections for fear that he might have a tantrum. She has noticed that he likes to read books from an old set of encyclopedias that she still has in her classroom, as well as science textbooks.

Ms. Smith was very surprised to see that his math and reading scores on the fall universal screener were at the 95th percentile because he rarely participates in math lessons and he makes simple, surprising mistakes on his worksheets. He also doodles and makes pictures on his worksheets rather than completing some of the easier, more rote problems. During reading group, he is usually quiet. When called on, his answers are sometimes hard to hear or more complicated and elaborate than what was asked. He seems very bored, but Ms. Smith does not know why. Ms. Smith wonders how she can best help this student with a disability.

Vignette 3: Kayla

Kayla is a very verbal and outgoing girl who is well liked by her teachers and classmates and is one of the two students in Ms. Smith’s room who has been identified as gifted. She participates in lessons, raises her hand often, and volunteers to answer questions in language arts and social studies that involve higher level thinking. She has a great sense of humor and creativity. She loves to play word games and will often combine two or more words to create a new and unusual word that makes humorous sense. In addition, she likes to compose stories, and her writing demonstrates voice and richness. She has already written a play that she and several classmates performed for the rest of the class. She told Ms. Smith that she is writing a book at home in her free time, which her mother confirmed. Although her parents had her evaluated in preschool to determine if she was gifted, she was not formally identified as part of the school’s screening process until third grade. She participates in the gifted resource room for 40 minutes three times a week.

Although Kayla is typically a cooperative and active learner, Ms. Smith has begun to notice a difference in her behavior during math class. Kayla is very slow to complete math worksheets, and she never volunteers answers unless called on. She started out the year strongly, demonstrating that she knew many of her math facts, but as the lessons have become more complex and multistep, she seems to be retreating as a learner. Her homework is full of erasures and holes on the page. Kayla’s mother noted that she is concerned because Kayla has numerous excuses and many tears when working on math homework. On the fall universal screener, Kayla scored at the 50th percentile, which was significantly lower than her 99th percentile on the reading section. Ms. Smith wonders how she can best help this student with gifts and talents.

Vignette 4: Tony

Another student in Ms. Smith’s class is Tony. He appears to be an all-around average student, although Ms. Smith is sure he could do better if he were not so easily distracted. He is always in the center of the activities at recess, especially football and tag. He is also very artistic and can often be found doodling on his worksheets rather completing them. Both the art and physical education teachers use him as a helper and think that he has talent. However, in the classroom, he has poor organizational skills and often forgets to complete or turn in assignments. When he is paying attention to class topics, he is likely to blurt out answers without being called upon or will distract the class by asking questions tangentially related to the topic but not in line with the lesson plan. Tony has a short attention span unless he is thinking or talking about submarines, his latest interest. He is a daydreamer and often appears to be in his own world. One of his previous teachers mentioned that by looking at his shirt in the afternoon, you can tell what he had for lunch, as he is a messy eater.

Tony became intensely interested in submarines when he toured the USS Nautilus while on a family vacation, an event he frequently works into class discussions (much to the chagrin of his classmates). He continually asks the school librarian for more books on submarines and spends time on submarine websites. He can identify and classify every submarine, and will discuss the subject with anyone who will listen. He enjoys drawing them and has one of the pictures taped to the outside of his desk. He says he wants to be the captain of a submarine when he grows up.

Ms. Smith’s Reflections

As Ms. Smith continues to reflect on these students, she feels she should learn more about twice-exceptionality. She wants to know what information might be helpful for her to draw upon as finds ways to support her students. She connects with the gifted and talented teacher who gives her several excellent resources. One of the ideas mentioned in the materials is the idea of masking. Ms. Smith is curious about how a disability could be covered up or masked by giftedness and how giftedness could be masked by the presence of a disability. What does that that look like? Could that idea apply to any of these students?

Masking Effects of Twice-Exceptionality

One of the most challenging aspects of recognizing and formally identifying twice-exceptionality is the confounding phenomenon of masking (Baum & Owen, 2004). Masking refers to the condition of giftedness and disability somewhat cancelling each other out, or like one hiding the other. This particularly describes individuals with giftedness and a learning disability. Figure 2.1 represents the different categories of masking, from dual masking (disability and giftedness masking each other), to singular masking (either disability masking giftedness or vice versa), to absence of masking (both disability and giftedness are recognized, and the individual is receiving services to address both exceptionalities).

Figure 2.1

Twice-Exceptionality Masking Table

Giftedness Recognized/Disability Unnoticed

The upper left quadrant in Figure 2.1 describes Kayla’s situation. Her giftedness is recognized, but her disability, dyscalculia (difficulty developing a basic understanding of numbers and difficulty learning basic arithmetic), is unnoticed. Individuals represented by this designation are masking the disability by virtue of their intellectual and academic strengths in other areas.

Students may be identified as gifted, and they may be receiving gifted education programming or services. However, as they progress through the grades and the academic demands increase, students may become less able to compensate for their disability. For Kayla, the progression from simple arithmetic to multistep math problems has proven to be too difficult to compensate through her intellectual and academic strengths. In addition to falling behind, these individuals may question if they really are gifted. They may see other gifted students achieve high grades with little effort. The distress of struggling to produce work at their previous level of quality can cause increased anxiety and an accompanying decrease in their academic self-concept. In addition, many of these individuals also suffer from perfectionism, which also impacts their self-efficacy (Wang & Neihart, 2015), as it becomes harder and harder to achieve their perfect product.

This decreased academic self-concept may occur gradually but may present itself more dramatically as students move from elementary to middle school, middle school to high school, and even high school to college, given the increase in academic demands. Educators and parents must be aware of the characteristics and behaviors of twice-exceptional individuals and be particularly vigilant to note changes in academic performance, in addition to any signs of anxiety or frustration. Noting discrepancies between students’ expected and actual academic performance is increasingly important.

Disability Recognized/Giftedness Unnoticed

The lower right quadrant of Figure 2.1 represents a description of Jason. His disability (autism) is recognized, but his giftedness is not noticed. It is masked or overshadowed by his disability. When the disability is formally identified and the student is eligible for the development of an IEP and special education services through direct instruction, accommodation, and/or modifications to the curriculum, as warranted, the focus is primarily on what is wrong and how it will be fixed. Individuals in this situation may exhibit deep and broad interest in particular topics and may be able to grasp abstract concepts to a degree that may seem incongruous with their special education or disability label.

Students in this situation may have extensive ideas for stories or writing projects, but spelling, handwriting, or organizing difficulties may curtail their written production. Even though individuals may have abstract and sophisticated thoughts and/or plans for different modes of creative production, their struggles with language or organization may be so pervasive that their academic self-concept may be low, and they think of themselves as dumb. Opportunities for enrichment through hands-on learning experiences in science, video production, art, drama, or music may enable them to see options to express what they are thinking and feeling in ways that do not rely on written language. Through these options, they are truly able to show what they know in a way that works for them.

Disability and Giftedness Both Recognized

The lower left quadrant in Figure 2.1 describes Alisha’s situation. Both her disability and giftedness are recognized and formally identified. Her disability was recognized first, which would have placed her in the lower right quadrant: Disability Recognized/Giftedness Unnoticed. After her giftedness was recognized, she was labeled as twice-exceptional. Students in this category have IEPs or 504 plans to address their academic or behavioral challenges. In addition, they may have advanced learning plans to address academic strengths (these plans, unlike IEPs and 504 plans, are not federally mandated, so both the plans and their names vary from state to state).

It is vital that both the areas of strength and the areas of challenge are addressed. Some educators think that only focusing on the challenge is necessary because students are fine in their strength area. That viewpoint ignores a key premise of gifted education: Student interests and strengths are to be encouraged, and growth in strength areas is expected. Indeed, opportunities for advanced instruction in strength areas and opportunities for creative production, research, and in-depth studies in interest areas may likely increase engagement in school and even have the potential to carry over into original and/or nonschool involvement in that area of interest.

Neither Disability nor Giftedness Recognized

The upper right quadrant in Figure 2.1 presents a great challenge for educators and one that may have lifelong consequences or effects for students. In this quadrant, neither the disability nor giftedness is noticed, recognized, or formally identified. Ms. Smith’s student Tony may very well fall into this category.

When the