V o lu m e XL, I s s u e 1, 2019

Journal of the Texas Association for the Gifted & Talented • Member, National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) TISSN 2168-4731 (Print) E• ISSN 2168-4774 (Online) • AvailableMPO on EBSCOhost databases Twice- Exceptional Children

STEM Early College Residential Program BE UNIQUE BE CHALLENGED BE TAMS

tams.unt.edu V o lu m e XL, I s s u e 1, 2019

TEMPO IN EVERY ISSUE

FROM THE EDITOR 4 Krystal Goree, Ph.D. FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 5 Paulina van Eeden Hill, CAE

FEATURES

TEACHING GREEN FOR 2E: A TIERED REFLECTION 6 Claire E. Hughes, Ph.D. INCREASING THE VISIBILITY OF THE NEEDS OF GIRLS WHO ARE 13 GIFTED WITH ADHD: A COLLECTIVE CASE STUDY C. Matthew Fugate, Ph.D.

IF I’M SO SMART, WHY DO I . . . ?: THE INTERNAL STRUGGLES OF 21 GIFTED STUDENTS WITH ADHD STEM Early College Residential Program Debra A. Troxclair, Ed.D.

WHAT THE RESEARCH SAYS REGARDING TWICE- 26 EXCEPTIONAL STUDENTS Corina R. Kaul and Susan K. Johnsen, Ph.D. BE UNIQUE TEMPO EDITOR TAGT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Krystal Goree, Ph.D. Paulina van Eeden Hill, CAE MANAGING EDITOR TAGT PRESIDENT Lacy Compton, M.A. D’Lana Barbay, M.Ed. BE CHALLENGED DESIGN EDITOR COPY EDITOR Marjorie Parker Katy McDowall

The Texas Association for the Gifted & Talented (TAGT) is a non-profit organization BE TAMS dedicated to connecting and empowering educators and parents to meet the unique social, emotional, and intellectual needs of gifted and talented students. TEMPO is the official journal of TAGT and subscriptions are a member benefit. Material appearing in TEMPO may be reprinted unless otherwise noted. When copying an article, please cite TEMPO and TAGT as the source. We appreciate copies of publications containing TEMPO reprints. TEMPO can be found on EBSCOhost databases. ADDRESS CORRECTION: Please notify TAGT if you are moving or if your mailing address has changed. TAGT publications are sent via third-class mail and are not forwarded by the post office. Be sure to renew your membership; you will not receive this publication after your membership expires.

Opinions expressed by individual authors do not necessarily tams.unt.edu represent official positions of TAGT. from the editor by Krystal Goree, Ph.D.

he term twice-exceptional emerged as an be successful in school. And, with 28 kids in their classrooms educational lexicon in the mid 1990s and has and high-stakes testing on the line, what are teachers to do? garnered a great deal of attention in the field After all, if the students do not spend their school days having of gifted education. The term was coined to disabilities addressed and, instead, time is taken to develop describe students who possess outstanding their areas of talent, how might they perform on the bench- skills, abilities, and/or academic talents and mark, STAAR, or End-of-Course (EOC) assessments? also struggle with academic, attention, or behavioral disabil- These kids have potential and the ability to be success- Tities. Due to the fact that the nature and abilities of twice- ful and excel in so many ways; however, the disabilities and exceptional students are so varied, there is no concise pro- challenges they face often discourage them from realizing file of twice-exceptionality. And yet, if you are the parent of a twice-­exceptional child, teach a twice-exceptional stu- success and their dreams as they navigate the educational dent(s), or happen to be a twice-exceptional individual, you environments that are a part of living, of growing up, of fitting are most likely able to quickly provide a personal example in socially . . . sometimes, of living productive, fulfilling, and or two of twice-exceptionality that is quite descriptive. For happy lives. But, does it have to be this way? twice-exceptional children, their parents, and their teachers, Some might say that the answer to this question is school and learning can be frustrating and daunting aspects “No!”—if those of us who love and work with these children of day-to-day existence. take a different approach, possess the knowledge and skills For example, many parents of twice-exceptional children to focus on the abilities and scaffold learning to address the share that their days often include despair at the thought of: disabilities, and turn learning into a productive and positive •• waking their child up for school in the morning and see- experience. Is that even possible? Do we need to reevaluate ing that look of desperation; approaches that we—with the best of intentions—have taken •• delving into the homework that must be completed for historically to help this population of talented learners? And, the next day knowing that there will be more tears and where do we find the support to do just that? struggles over spelling words or math problems to tackle This TEMPO features the work of Claire E. Hughes, before reading bedtime stories; C. Matthew Fugate, and Debra A. Troxclair, researchers • seeing the phone number from the school on their cell • and scholars who have spent a great deal of time studying phone as they are trying to work and dreading what they twice-exceptional students. Both of them provide excellent will hear from the caller; or information, examples, strategies, and guidance for anyone •• watching their child withdraw, appear to no longer care, and/or not want to go to school the following day. working to support twice-exceptional students. In addition, Corina R. Kaul and Susan K. Johnsen share myriad informa- Teachers share similar sentiments in light of doing their tion on the topic of twice-exceptional children in the What best to meet the needs of these talented children with dis- the Research Says article that is included. Shall we each abilities who may feel frustrated in school and, oftentimes, share a copy of this issue of TEMPO with decision makers enter teachers’ classrooms with an educational background to help them build their understanding of twice-exceptional that has not supported them in their quest to fit in and/or students?

4 Tempo • Vol. XL, Issue 1, 2019 from the executive director by Paulina van Eeden Hill, CAE

s you transition into summer mode, it’s It is more important than ever that we remain united time to celebrate, relax, and recover from and well-informed, as these changes allow us all the oppor- the hustle of 75,600+ minutes of teach- tunity to continue to educate our communities about G/T ing students, interacting with our unique students’ needs and of the responsibilities to which Texas youth, and supporting one another to make school districts are accountable. We will continue advocating it through another day. for you and your students, and we hope you will continue to This summer also brings change and opportunity for G/T look to TAGT as a resource to help you solve challenges and Aprograms and services in Texas. strengthen your programs. Not only did we all make it through another school year This issue of TEMPO sheds light on some of the chal- but we endured the 86th legislative session, 140 days (or lenges you may face—particularly those of your twice-excep- 3,300+ hours) of law making. Although we are disappointed tional students. May the strategies in this issue help to guide at the repeal of designated G/T funding, through collective you as you work with these unique learners. If you need more voices, strong advocate members, and legislative work, we were able to strengthen G/T program certifications, policy guidance, we encourage you to consider attending giftED19 requirements, and reporting obligations. To build on the December 4–6, where TAGT will offer many opportunities legislative changes, at the time of this publication, the State to learn from experts on gifted education, including experts Board of Education plans to vote to adopt the revised State on twice-exceptional students. Plan for the Education of Gifted/Talented Students in early Above all, as the summer progresses and we all adapt to June. changes in gifted education, I encourage you to keep showing TAGT remains your guide to navigate these changes, the resilience and grit we ask our students to display when continue to advocate for G/T students in your districts and faced with challenges. We encourage them not to give up on campuses, and provide professional learning to update you themselves, let’s make sure we don’t give up on what gifted and your teams on law and policy related to gifted students. education is in Texas. Noteworthy  Congratulations to the graduating members of the Class of 2018–2019 TAGT Emerging Leaders Program: Linda Autrey, Shana Dillon, Michael Flusche, Kristin Graham, Gypsy Mishoe, Jada Mullins, Robyn Olsen, Stacey Parker, Lori Ruiz-Wamble, Cynthia Sauceda, Rachel Stogner, and H. Trey Wright III. TAGT would also like to thank ELP Facilitator Marcy Voss and the ELP mentors: Shirley Bachus, Mary Ann Clark, Karen Green, Janet Helmcamp, Pam Johnson, Harleigh Jones, Omega Loera, Lori Mabry, Sherry Myers, Gina Peddy, Monica Simonds, and Ellen Williams. Members and mentors were honored at the April 2019 TAGT Leadership Conference in Georgetown (pictured here).

Texas Association for the Gifted & Talented 5 Teaching Green for 2e A Tiered Reflection Claire E. Hughes, Ph.D.

In the immortal words of Kermit the Frog, “It ain’t easy being green.”

Susan Baum, a longtime advocate for twice-exceptional or reviewed in a different manner before they can under- children, uses the analogy that disabilities and challenges stand it (Kirk, Gallagher, & Coleman, 2015). When chil- are blue, strengths and talents are yellow, and twice- dren are twice-exceptional, teachers and parents are often exceptional children are green—which is both a combi- challenged with trying to determine what can be done nation and yet its own unique color (Baum, Schader, & with these difficult-to-understand and difficult-to-teach Owen, 2017; see Figure 1). children. One strategy that is often cited in both special Although there are isolated programs for twice- education and gifted education differentiation literature exceptional children around the country—including pri- (Tomlinson, 2017) is “tiering,” in which students who have vate schools, such as Bridges Academy in California or different academic needs work with the same or similar Franklin Academy in Connecticut, and scattered public content using varied strategies depending on their abilities school programs, such as those in Albuquerque, NM, and and level of proficiency in the content being addressed. Montgomery County, MD—most families are left search- Tiered lessons should be constructed using a format of ALL ing for “Shangri-La” (Postma, 2015), where teachers not students WILL do the most essential concepts/MOST students only understand and work with twice-exceptional children, SHOULD do what is considered grade-level appropriate/ but also have professional development and administrative SOME students COULD do more than what is required by support regarding this unique population. state standards (see Figure 2). Too often, gifted children sit through classes where This article will follow a similar format. Part I covers they already understand most of the information. They “basic” information about WHAT a 2e learner is that all need novelty and new information (Clark, 2001). In con- readers should know. Topics will include a definition and trast, children with disabilities often need material repeated characteristics. Readers who already know this information

6 Tempo • Vol. XL, Issue 1, 2019 can skip on to Part II, which addresses and disability, which results in a the question: SO WHAT? Why is it unique set of circumstances. Their important to understand different exceptional ability may dominate, Some Could viewpoints of special education and hiding their disability; their dis- gifted education in order to under- ability may dominate, hiding stand twice-exceptional students’ their exceptional ability; each may Most Should educational experiences? Those with mask the other so that neither is training and backgrounds in gifted recognized or addressed. All Will education and special education or Twice-exceptional students, who have a deeper understanding of who may perform below, at or twice-exceptional students can skip above grade level, require the on to Part III that addresses the ques- following: tion: NOW WHAT can we do with • Specialized methods of iden- this information? This section focuses tification that consider the Figure 2. Tiered lesson planning. on application and the construction possible interaction of the of an environment that provides sup- exceptionalities often the “mountain-top” students ports while developing abilities. This • Enriched/advanced educational with low scores in specific skill areas article also models the tiers with the opportunities that develop the and strong higher level thinking scores What/So What/Now What model of child’s interests, gifts and tal- (Ottone-Cross et al., 2017). They can reflection (Borton, 1970), and provides ents while also meeting the frustrate teachers because they are an example of how a teacher can pro- child’s learning needs often “hidden in plain sight” (Ng, vide instructional modifications for 2e • Simultaneous supports that Hill, & Rawlinson, 2016), due to students. ensure the child’s academic the fact that their talents often abate success and social-emotional the full impact of their disabilities, PART I: WHAT IS well-being, such as accom- and their disabilities obscure the full “TWICE-EXCEPTIONAL”? modations, therapeutic expression of their talents. Baum et interventions, and specialized al. (2017) described them as children The Twice-Exceptional National instruction. who exemplify the characteristics of Community of Practice (2eNCoP), both gifted children and children with a collaboration of individuals rep- Working successfully with this learning disabilities, but often qualify resenting numerous organizations, unique population requires spe- for neither. Like many children with including the National Association for cialized academic training and disabilities, 2e children often have Gifted Children and the Council for ongoing professional develop- social challenges and difficulties with Exceptional Children, provided a defi- ment. (Baldwin, Baum, Pereles, executive functioning (Neumann, nition of twice-exceptional students: & Hughes, 2015, p. 218) 2012); however, a profile of a “typi- Twice-exceptional (2e) individ- But what do these students cal” 2e child is nonexistent because so uals evidence exceptional ability LOOK like in a classroom? They are much depends on the ways in which these children demonstrate their tal- ents and challenges. They are often called “paradox” children because their strengths and challenges are so dependent upon the context, as can be seen in Table 1. It is very important to understand Giftedness 2e Disability that there is no single “profile” of 2e children, just as there are no single profile of students with disabilities or gifted students. Twice-exceptional children are rare among rarities. Determining how many twice- exceptional children there are is a Figure 1. Green = blue + yellow. challenge. They often go underdiag-

Texas Association for the Gifted & Talented 7 TABLE 1. Paradoxical Characteristics In Area of Strength/Interest But In Area of Challenge/Not Interested Strong verbal skills—able to speak fluently; Ability to compre- But Limited vocabulary and decoding/comprehension of reading hend conceptual ideas material Hyperattention/perseverate/persevere But May appear ADHD, unable to focus Memory for small details But Memory processing speed is slower Clever use of puns and “adult” humor But “Jokes” at inappropriate times and places Can often understand the “big” picture But Struggles with facts and details Preference for novelty and conceptual development But Need for repetition and “drill” Leadership abilities But Can be rejected socially; difficulty following others’ leads Confident But Depressed and frustrated when topics shift Highly independent But Needs scaffolding and structure Note. Adapted from Colorado Department of Education, 2006; Hughes, 2017; Montgomery County Public Schools, 2004; National Education Association, 2006. nosed or misdiagnosed (Webb et al., ature on twice-exceptional students 1960s, special education advocacy 2016), and the “counting” is compli- is found within gifted literature, and efforts culminated with the passage cated by the differing definitions of much of the research is within the edu- of P.L. 94-142, which was amended disability and giftedness from state to cational psychology realm (Hughes & in 1997 and again in 2004 to become state. However, a rough estimate can Troxclair, 2018). A teacher or a par- the Individuals with Disabilities be made that 10% of any population ent who is concerned about a twice- Education Act (IDEA). The series of could be considered “gifted” or “high exceptional child must collaborate ongoing laws and court cases that have achieving” and approximately 10%– with gifted professionals and special ensued have provided progressive steps 15% of a population can be consid- educators. Although gifted education toward the inclusion of students with ered as having special needs. Thus, the is based on what a child CAN do, special needs into general education number of twice-exceptional children special education is defined by what classrooms. Human rights undergird is estimated to be: a child CAN’T do. These fundamen- special education’s frameworks and tal differences lead to both similari- belief structures. As an example, one .1 × .1 = .01 or 1% ties and differences in viewpoints and principle of IDEA is “Zero Reject,” values. To work with gifted education which states that schools must edu- Conservatively, in theory, 1 in 100 and special education collaboratively, cate every child, no matter the sever- students in any given school should it is useful to understand each group ity of a disability. Special educators be twice-exceptional. This popula- in terms of its history, its assumptions, notice slights, they advocate for fair tion of students is definitely small and and the “battles” it fights on a regular treatment, and they particularly fight unique, but much larger in number basis with the larger culture, commu- for access—to traditional curriculum, than is served (Baldwin et al., 2015). nity, and schools (Spielhagen, Brown, classrooms, and activities. The problem is identifying these stu- & Hughes, 2015). It is important to note that special dents, understanding the viewpoints Special education has a long his- education is based on a deficit model. of other educational entities in order tory of being excluded. As a result, Students are identified by what they to serve these students, and finding its primary battle has been for inclu- cannot do. The educational focus appropriate ways to teach them. sion. In the not-so-distant past, spe- is on including them in the typical cial education was another way of education model and programs such saying “commitment” or “institu- as Universal Design for Learning PART II: SO WHAT DOES tionalization” and children were reg- (UDL), which describes ways that typ- THIS MEAN? WHY IS ularly locked away from their peers. ical curriculum can be “normalized” THIS IMPORTANT? Beginning with the landmark case of so that disabilities are not as impact- Because there are so few people Brown v. Board of Education, a child’s ful (Novak, 2019). The social model trained to work with students who right to be educated with their peers of disability suggests that disability are twice-exceptional, the research on was considered a fundamental right is really a definition of functioning this population is scattered. A recent (Kirk et al., 2015). Coupled with within a context (Barnes & Mercer, review found that most of the liter- the Civil Rights movements of the 2004). If one adapts the context, the

8 Tempo • Vol. XL, Issue 1, 2019 impairment remains, but the disabil- plus” model of identification, the demic proficiency, a teacher can pro- ity goes away. For example, someone educational focus is on extension and vide for a twice-exceptional student by in a wheelchair may be able to access expansion. first examining the content and deter- a building on a ramp, but is disabled Despite some very significant dif- mining the “tiers” or levels of content if there are only stairs. Special edu- ferences, gifted education and special that will be taught—what is critical to cation’s entire focus is on reducing education share a number of charac- know, what is suggested, and what is the impact of physical, emotional, or teristics. Both suffer from a lack of extended. Both gifted education and cognitive differences through adapta- respect and value of the services that special education educators are experts tion and design of the environment, each brings. Both have a long history in expanding and focusing on curric- materials, activities, or goals in order of conflict and being overlooked by ular standards. Determining the level to provide access to key concepts. general education. Both also focus on at which a child engages with content Thus, although it is a deficit model of the growth of the individual, rather must be determined from assessment identification, it is an adaptive model than the whole group. Perhaps most information, not labels. of education. importantly, both fields understand Teachers can consider strategies Gifted education has a long his- that curriculum and instruction must from Universal Design for Learning tory of very different issues. It is often be adjusted to meet the needs of the that are useful for providing access considered a bonus and expendable. individual, rather than adjusting the and removing roadblocks to learn- In today’s Texas 2019 budget, funding individual to meet the demands of ing (Novak, 2019). Special educators support for gifted education is con- the curriculum. Advocates under- often have significant training in these sidered by some legislators as worthy stand that the development of the processes of access and adaptation; of cutting (Austin, 2019), as it is in child is highly dependent upon a gifted child educators can use the President Trump’s suggested federal reflective and understanding teacher same concepts for advancement pur- budget (NAGC, 2019). When budgets who is willing to change the environ- poses as well (Hughes, 2019). Through are tight, “extras” or things that are ment and the task demands to meet UDL, teachers examine how they considered superfluous are cut. Gifted the child’s needs. Finding common are involving their students through education has struggled for relevancy ground and common understanding multiple means of engagement, rep- and sympathy. Gifted education has is critical. Table 2 provides examples of resentation, and expression, and by had to fight the stereotype that it is a statements that gifted education and providing options from which stu- means of ensuring that those students special education teachers do and do dents may choose to demonstrate their who are already ahead stay ahead. not want to hear from each other or knowledge. Acquiring the attention Gifted education has been often others. of students, demonstrating how new tainted as a “rich White kid” educa- information is connected to previously tion. As a result, gifted educators have learned information, and allowing stu- fought long and hard for educational PART III: NOW WHAT dents to share their new knowledge is opportunities beyond the typical class- DO WE DO? a matter of using multiple and novel room that provide services to under- Teaching a 2e child requires an strategies, as well as including graphic served populations. Gifted education’s understanding of both special educa- organizers, visuals, multimedia, and focus is often defined by curriculum tion and gifted education strategies. multisensory formats. advancements and extensions. Luckily, these two areas of focus do The last step, and one that gifted Whereas special education focuses not conflict in their goals and can be education can inform, attends to the on adaptation of general education integrated with each other. Because of components of critical and creative materials and activities, gifted edu- their differing histories, gifted educa- thinking and conceptual design. cation focuses on extending learning tion often focuses on the content, the Gifted educators understand ways experiences beyond the limitations process, and the product (VanTassel- to infuse task demands and products that the typical curriculum presents Baska & Little, 2017), while special that require students to think critically for bright students. The term differen- education provides access and adapta- and creatively, connecting knowledge tiation actually began in gifted edu- tion (Novak, 2019). This blending of to large overarching concepts. For cation with the work of Tomlinson two different mindsets about curricu- example, guiding students in compar- (1999), who wrote about the need for lum and instruction can be called dou- ing and contrasting the phonics sys- teachers to not only focus on strug- ble differentiation, as seen in Figure 3. tem to a governmental system or the gling learners, but also address the Following the guidelines of an respiratory system can help students needs of advanced learners. Although effective practice often used in diverse understand the process of decoding gifted education is considered a “sur- classrooms with multiple levels of aca- reading through phonics. Connecting

Texas Association for the Gifted & Talented 9 TABLE 2. Talking to Gifted Education and Special Education Teachers: Do and Don’ts Teacher DO NOT Say DO Say Gifted Education All children are gifted. All children have unique strengths; some students need extended Why aren’t they smart at everything? material and ideas to develop theirs. Being gifted doesn’t mean that they are smart at everything; it means that they need additional instruction in some things. Special Education Isn’t everyone special? Some children have learning or physical abilities that need more It’s not fair that some children get these scaffolding or supports than other children. They are “disabled” when modifications and others don’t. they don’t have them and function better when they do, just as some- Aren’t they the “dumb” kids? one with glasses reads much better with them than without them. Not everyone needs glasses or artificial legs, but if you have them, you can function much better in life. These modifications for learning are like those supports. These children absolutely can learn—they just need supports that aren’t regularly provided. Gifted Education Gifted education is just fun with content; All Activities need to be developed for students who learn quickly and children should have access to this/gifted in more complex ways than other children. The standard curriculum education is really just good teaching. may not be enough or they may already know it. If they aren’t taught new content, they don’t learn new content and their learning poten- tial can be impacted. Special Education Special education is just dumbing down the The focus is on communicating key concepts efficiently by providing curriculum. multiple means of representing information, engagement with the content, and expression of knowledge. It isn’t “dumbing down;” it’s effective instruction and needed supports. Gifted Education They’ll make it on their own. Why give more Without public school involvement and support, only children with to those who are already ahead? wealth and advantages will have their talents developed. Gifted edu- Gifted education is unfair/for “rich White cation is equitable because it provides all children opportunities to kids” to get away from “those” kids. grow. Special Education They don’t belong in my class. I don’t know All children deserve a right to education, and a teacher’s job is to how to handle those kids. teach all of the children, not just the ones who easily learn and fit into the system. Teacher training provides lots of ideas of how to handle a variety of behaviors and learning levels. Your special education teacher can provide lots of ideas about things that can be done. The presence of children with special needs is just one of the various ways you can find diversity in classrooms. Gifted Education Let me tell you about gifted education. This What form of gifted education do you follow? How do you implement is the way to do gifted education. best practices for gifted students? Special Education This is what inclusion is. This is how you How do you promote inclusive practices? What strategies do you use teach special education. to help scaffold and support students?

these extensive and expanded thinking demands to multiple ways of adapting a lesson can allow 2e children access to Tiered Content UDL Gifted Processes understanding and enrich their think- • Task analyzed • Representation and Products ing in areas that may be challenging • Data-driven • Engagement • Extended, to them. • Advanced/ • Expression creative If a teacher is provided the option Remedial • Critical thinking of teaching a class of gifted students in • Conceptual which there is a child with learning difficulties, a strategy of nested differ- entiation can be implemented, as seen in Figure 4. In the case of 2e children, their need for repetition can be combined Figure 3. Double differentiation. with their need for novelty so that they

10 Tempo • Vol. XL, Issue 1, 2019 Enriched information (e.g., history of zero)

Remedial need (e.g., place value)

PARTNERS IN

Figure 4. Nested differentiation for 2e learners. Gifted Education can be presented with information that is “nested” within enriched or accelerated material, making the content more understandable. For example, one teacher of self-contained third- and fourth-grade twice-exceptional students pro- vided in-depth phonics instruction that was combined with a history of the alphabet. Students learned the history of “A” from its logographic history of “aleph” for a bull. The new knowledge was then related to the alphagraphic Phoenician roots, to Greek, to Latin, to the Great Vowel Shift of English during the Middle Ages, and to why “A” says four sounds that can be found in father, man, mare, and take. This unit included a fascinating study of history while requiring the teacher to use resources and materials that are not normally used in third grade. Not only did the stu- dents learn intricate and fascinating history; but also they truly understood why letters make certain sounds and their knowledge of phonics increased. One is an example of a low-level skill, while the other is an example of enrichment. Woven throughout the need to identify and teach Prufrock twice-exceptional children is the need to reflect. Twice- TM exceptional children challenge our assumptions, under- Press Inc. standings, and patience. Working with them requires an understanding of the “other side” in order to find this ele- ment of “green” that is a blending of two different aspects, but is wholly unique. Although this article follows the “What/So What/ Now What” model (Borton, 1970), there are many other models available to explore. Teachers, parents, and stu- dents can examine a variety of both special education and gifted education strategies to reflect on the degree to which current practice is or is not meeting the needs of the child. Understanding multiple vantage points can provide a blended “whole” learning experience that is as “green” as the students.

Texas Association for the Gifted & Talented 11 REFERENCES Austin, M. (2019). Gifted education Hughes, C. E., & Troxclair, D. (2018). patterns on the KTEA-3 for stu- receives the death penalty in Preaching to the choir: Viewpoints dents with giftedness and learning Texas. Medium. Retrieved from from a content analysis of twice- disabilities. Journal of Psychoed- https://medium.com/something- exceptional literature. Presenta- ucational Assessment, 35, 74–93. new-education/gifted-education- tion at the National Association Postma, M. (2015). The search for Shangri- receives-the-death-penalty-in- for Gifted Children annual confer- La: Finding the appropriate edu- texas-f23a530de105 ence, Minneapolis, MN. cational environment for gifted Baldwin, L., Baum, S., Pereles, D., & Kirk, S., Gallagher, J., & Coleman, M. and 2e children. Social Emotional Hughes, C. (2015, Fall). Twice- R. (2015). Educating exceptional Needs of the Gifted. Retrieved exceptional learners: The journey children (14th ed.). Stamford, CT: toward a shared vision. Gifted Cengage Learning. from https://www.sengifted.org/ Child Today, 4–7. Montgomery County Public Schools post/postma-shangri-la Barnes, C., & Mercer, G. (2004) Imple- (2004). A guidebook for twice- Rolfe, G., Freshwater, D., & Jasper, M. menting the social model of disabil- exceptional students. Rockville, (2001). Critical reflection in nurs- ity: Theory and research. Leeds, MD: Author. ing and the helping professions: A UK: Disability Press. National Association for Gifted Chil- user’s guide. Basingstoke, UK: Pal- Baum, S. M., Schader, R. M., & Owen, S. dren. (2019). NAGC statement on grave Macmillan. V. (2017). To be gifted and learning administration’s FY2020 budget: Spielhagen, F., Brown, E. F., & Hughes, disabled: Strength-based strate- Supporting all gifted and tal- C. E. (2015). Policy implications and gies for helping twice-exceptional ented children is an equity issue. directions in special populations. students with LD, ADHD, ASD, and Retrieved from https://www. In B. S. Cooper, J. G. Cibulka, & L. more (3rd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock nagc.org/about-nagc/media/ Fusarelli (Eds.), Handbook of edu- Press. press-releases/nagc-statement- cational politics and policy (2nd Borton, T. (1970). Reach, touch and administrations-fy2020-budget- ed., pp. 716–750). New York: NY teach: Student concerns and pro- supporting-all-gifted Routledge. cess education. New York, NY: National Educational Association. McGraw-Hill. (2006). The twice-exceptional Tomlinson, C. A. (2017). How to dif- Clark, B. (2001). Some principles of dilemma. Washington, DC: Author. ferentiate instruction in academ- brain research for challenging Neumann, L. (2012). The Goldilocks ically diverse classrooms (3rd gifted learners. Gifted Education question: How to support your ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association International, 16(1), 4–10. 2e child and get it “just right.” for Supervision and Curriculum Colorado Department of Education. Gifted Education Communi- Development. (2006). Twice-exceptional stu- cator, 43(4). Retrieved from Tomlinson, C. (1999). The differenti- dents, gifted students with dis- https://www.davidsongifted.org/ ated classroom: Responding to the abilities: An introductory resource Search-Database/entry/A10771 needs of all learners. Alexandria, book. Denver, CO: Author. Ng, S., Hill, M. F., & Rawlinson, C. (2016). VA: Association for Supervision Hughes, C. E. (2017). Dual differenti- Hidden in plain sight. Gifted Child and Curriculum Development. ation for twice-exceptional stu- Quarterly, 60, 296–311. VanTassel-Baska, J., & Little, C. A. dents. In J. VanTassel-Baska & Novak, K. (2019). Introduction: From (Eds.). (2017). Content-based curric- C. A. Little (Eds.), Content-based pizza parlor to the world. In W. W. ulum for high-ability learners (3rd curriculum for high-ability learners Murawski, K. L. Scott, & K. Novak ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. (3rd ed., pp. 79–82). Waco, TX: Pru- (Eds.), What really works with Uni- frock Press. versal Design for Learning (pp. i– Webb, J. T., Amend, E. R., Beljan, P., Hughes, C. E. (2019). UDL for advance- xii). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Webb, N. E., Kuzujanakis, M., ment. In W. W. Murawski & K. L Press. Olenchak, F. R., & Goerss, J. (2016). Scott (Eds.), What really works in Ottone-Cross, K. L., Dulong-Langley, Misdiagnosis and dual diagnoses Universal Design for Learning (pp. S., Root, M. M., Gelbar, N., Bray, of gifted children and adults (2nd 135–143). Thousand Oaks, CA: Cor- M. A., Luria, S. R., . . . Pan, X. (2017). ed.). Tucson, AZ: Great Potential win Press. Beyond the mask: Analysis of error Press.

Claire E. Hughes, Ph.D., is an associate professor and Chair of Education and Teacher Preparation at the College of Coastal Georgia. Previously, she was Faculty Director of the Special Needs and Inclusion program at Canterbury Christ Church University in England, and a Fulbright Scholar to Greece. She is active in the National Association for Gifted Children and The Association for the Gifted (CEC-TAG) and Teacher Education Divisions (CEC-TED) of the Council for Exceptional Children. She is author of numerous books and chapters, and her research areas include twice-exceptional children—particularly gifted children with autism spectrum disorders—positivistic views of exceptionality, and international education.

12 Tempo • Vol. XL, Issue 1, 2019 Increasing RVisibility oS Needs of Girls Who Are Gifted K ADHD A Collective Case Study C. Matthew Fugate, Ph.D.

the Harry Potter series, Harry used the invisibility cloak to walk the halls of Hogwarts unseen as he battledIn the evil forces that served Lord Voldemort (Rowling, 1997). This same phenomenon of invisibility occurs daily in schools all across the country, although it is not a result of magic, nor is it for the greater good. Researchers have estimated that there are as many as 385,000 twice-exceptional students in our schools across the country—students who are gifted but also have learn- ing and/or behavioral differences (Assouline, Colangelo, VanTassel- Baska, Lupkowski-Shoplik, 2015). Unfortunately, a masking effect causes many of these gifted students to go unrecognized by teachers, special education professionals, and administrators—who are more often focused on students’ weaknesses (Assouline, Nicpon, & Huber, 2006; Baum, Cooper, & Neu, 2001; Schultz, 2012), resulting in school days spent with few, if any, educators recognizing these students’ talents and, in many cases, even their challenges (Baum & Olenchak, 2002; McCoach, Kehle, Bray, & Siegle, 2001). Under the Response to Intervention model, many twice- exceptional students are overlooked as a result of the masking effect because, although they may be working below their potential, their performance may not be below that of their grade-level peers (Hughes, 2011). This can have serious consequences on the academic and social-emotional well-being of these students. Additionally, the char- acteristics of students with specific learning differences can be very distinct. Students with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) share characteristics similar to those associated with gift- edness. For instance, Fugate, Zentall, and Gentry (2013) found that students who were gifted and displayed characteristics of ADHD had higher levels of creativity—a trait often connected with giftedness— than their non-ADHD gifted peers. Although scholars identify these

Texas Association for the Gifted & Talented 13 similarities as a problem that they girl is conditioned to be silent and Lahey, 2009), leading to underachieve- believe may often lead to misdiagnosis defer. As teachers use their expertise ment (Reid & McGuire, 1995; Reis (Baum & Olenchak, 2002; Cramond, to question, praise, probe, clarify, & McCoach, 2000). Grskovic and 1995; Leroux & Levitt-Perlman, 2000; and correct boys, they help these Zentall (2010) studied 262 girls with Moon, 2002; Webb et al., 2005), no male students sharpen ideas, refine and without ADHD. These research- empirical research exists regarding the their thinking, gain their voice, ers found that girls with ADHD were frequency it may occur. and achieve more. When female verbally impulsive, hyperactive, faster If the student with these charac- students are offered the leftovers of in conversation and schoolwork, easily teristics also happens to be a gifted girl teacher time and attention, mor- bored, often at the center of trouble with ADHD, then this masking effect sels of amorphous feedback, they among peers, impatient, and more becomes particularly relevant. achieve less. (p. 13) easily prone to moodiness, anger, and In gifted education, there exists an stubbornness than their peers without Further, the transition from ele- inequity of gifted/ADHD research ADHD. However, participants with mentary to middle school can be par- between the sexes with more attention ADHD in this study were also able ticularly difficult for gifted girls as focused on boys. Although limited in to relate prosocial behaviors with high they begin to face pressure to better number, studies of gifted students with self-esteem. Specifically, these girls were fit in with their peers (Bain & Bell, ADHD inclusive of both sexes exist; able to discriminate between their own 2002; Dai, 2002; Kerr, Vuyk, & Rea, however, no work specifically addresses appropriate and inappropriate behav- 2012; Rimm, 2002). It is around this the unique needs of girls with these iors, understanding “that they were time that many gifted girls begin to be exceptionalities. Because of this gap more likely to react with strong feelings faced with the choice of being smart or in the extant literature, I wanted to than other groups of girls” (Grskovic & being popular, seeing the two choices examine how gifted girls with ADHD Zentall, 2010, p. 181). as mutually exclusive (Kerr et al., cope with academic and social pressures Additionally, Mikami and 2012). However, in a qualitative study associated with their middle and high Hinshaw (2006) and Owens et al. of seven gifted girls transitioning into school years. (2009) conducted studies of girls sixth and seventh grades, Pepperell identified as ADHD who were 6–12 and Rubel (2009) found that the tran- years of age. These researchers found GIFTED GIRLS sition may not be as difficult as the that across time, long-term outcomes literature suggests. These researchers Frey (1998) found that “gifted ado- included increases in internalizing and found that the girls in the study had lescents experience psychosocial needs externalizing symptoms, increased a strong sense of themselves and their differently depending on their gender” underachievement, higher rates of abilities. The girls were able to find a (p. 41), specifically in the areas of owner- substance abuse and eating disorders, balance between their giftedness and ship of giftedness, dissonance, risk-tak- lower social skills, and difficulty main- their social interactions through par- ing, others’ expectations, impatience, taining peer relationships. ticipation in extracurricular activities, identity, and sexuality. More specifically, The socialization process becomes such as sports, theater, and student gifted girls face a variety of external particularly challenging for girls with government. It was this balance that and internal barriers in their social- ADHD who have higher rates of peer helped them find their place in the emotional development, including gen- rejection than their male counter- middle school social schema. der roles; relationships with family, teach- parts (Blachman & Hinshaw, 2002; ers, and peers; lack of self-confidence; Carlson, Tamm, & Gaub, 1997) and feelings of isolation; perfectionism; and GIRLS WITH ADHD “often serve as negative social catalysts, achievement/underachievement issues fueling conflictual social interactions The manifestation of ADHD (Comallie-Caplan, 2008; Hébert, Long, among their peers” (Blachman & characteristics in girls can result in & Speirs-Neumeister, 2001; Maurer, Hinshaw, 2002, p. 625). The exhibition lowered self-esteem, heightened emo- of ADHD behaviors in girls has been 2011; Phelps, 2009). Sadker and Sadker tional reactions, a lack of focus, and found to be setting specific, with girls (1994) had this to say about the effects difficulty with peer and family rela- more likely to repress ADHD behav- these barriers have on girls: tionships (Greene et al., 2001; Vail, iors in academic settings where teacher Each time a girl opens a book and 2002). These effects may become par- disapproval is more likely. However, reads a womanless history, she ticularly amplified as these girls enter these behaviors become more prom- learns she is worthless. Each time adolescence and can place additional inent in social settings that “involve the teacher passes over a girl to elicit stress on academic and personal per- more complex rules and requirements, the ideas and opinions of boys, that formance (Owens, Hinshaw, Lee, & which may involve delayed and indi-

14 Tempo • Vol. XL, Issue 1, 2019 rect consequences,” the result of which TABLE 1 is increased peer rejection (Grskovic Summary of Participant Demographics & Zentall, 2010, p. 170). Mikami, Pseudonym Age Grade Race Type of School Medication State Chi, and Hinshaw (2004) found that, because of their social difficulties, girls Grace 12 7 Caucasian Public Y IN with ADHD run the risk of being Jenny 13 8 Caucasian Private N CT “doubly disliked” by both peers and Lea 13 7 Hispanic Public Y IN adults. These girls have a heightened Lily 12 7 Caucasian Charter Y CO awareness of the social consequences Teresa 13 8 Caucasian Public N OR of their behaviors, which can result in a poor perception of relationships with TABLE 2 their teachers, lowered self-esteem, and Sample Items From the Electronic Sampling Form increased rates of depression and anxi- Construct Questions: When You Received the Text . . . ety (Rucklidge & Tannock, 2001). Because girls with ADHD are Self-esteem How self-conscious were you? Did you feel good about yourself? at greater risk of social impairment, Were you in control of the situation? when rejected by their peers they Were you living up to your own expectations? have increased possibilities of poor Mood What were you thinking about? adolescent and adult adjustment that How well were you concentrating? often lead to depressed and/or anx- Describe your mood. ious behaviors (Gaub & Carlson, Feeling regarding Was this activity important to you? 1997; Greene et al., 2001; Mikami activity Do you wish you had been doing something else? & Hinshaw, 2006). Researchers have Were you satisfied with how you were doing? identified links between peer rejec- How important was this activity in relation to your overall goals? tion and academic underachievement, and increased incidents of substance for inclusion in the study and replicates Experience Sampling Method (ESM) abuse within this population (Barkley, the study procedures for every case. developed by Csikszentmihalyi and Fischer, Smallish, & Fletcher, 2006). For this study, five girls who are Larson (1987). Over the course of 3 Further, if issues related to ADHD gifted and diagnosed with ADHD months, participants were prompted are left unaddressed, these girls find were recruited from various second- via text message twice weekly at vary- themselves at higher risk for low self- ary school settings around the United ing times, once during the school esteem (Becker, McBurnett, Hinshaw, States, including public, charter, and day and once during nonschool & Pfiffner, 2013) and teen pregnancy private schools, to consider the influ- time, signaling them to complete the (Quinn, 2005). These problems are ence of the educational environment Experience Sampling Form (ESF; likely to continue into adulthood, concerning how the girls respond and Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, & where these girls have been found to react to academic and social pressures. Whalen, 1993). Narrative responses experience higher divorce rates, finan- The average age of all participants at to ESF questions established the set- cial problems, and difficulties with the time of the study was 12.6 years, ting, time of day, location, the activ- time management (Nadeau & Quinn, with four of the girls identifying as ities with which and the people with 2002; Rucklidge, Brown, Crawford, & Caucasian and one identifying as whom the participants were engaged, Kaplan, 2007). However, Mikami and Hispanic. Three of the girls were tak- and their feelings at that particu- Hinshaw (2006) also found that girls ing medications for ADHD symptoms lar time. Participants responded to with ADHD who were more confident during their participation in the study. items on the ESF about their self- in their academic abilities demonstrated Table 1 provides a summary of the esteem, mood, and feelings regard- lowered incidences of these negative participant demographics, including ing the activities they recorded using results and actually demonstrated their chosen pseudonyms, ages, grade a Likert-type response scale. Sample increases in achievement over time. levels, ethnicity, the type of school items from the ESF are included in they were attending (i.e., public, char- Table 2. Additional qualitative data ter, private), and whether or not they were collected through individual METHOD were taking ADHD medications at interviews. At the conclusion of each In collective case study, the the time of the study. interview session, I recorded my reflec- researcher selects one area of concern, A portion of the qualitative data tions, which included field notes made but selects multiple, representative cases collection method was modeled on the during the interview regarding specific

Texas Association for the Gifted & Talented 15 answers and observations, and which thing wrong or chewing gum loudly, of the traits associated with their co- served as a personal journal to address that bothers me. So like it’s the slightest occurring ADHD, these twice- potential researcher bias. things, so I have a hard time paying exceptional girls worried about their attention” (personal communication). grades and became hypercritical of Further, these girls become easily their own performance. For Teresa, a DISCUSSION bored when faced with completing 94 in an English class and an 83 in an The girls in this study reported homework that they see as repeti- advanced math class were considered several positive and negative effects tive. Suddenly, time doing homework only okay and left her with the feel- of being gifted and having ADHD becomes time not doing homework, a ing that she could have done better. on their academic achievement and fact that they are cognizant of—how- Fortunately, these girls are also often motivation. Characteristics of gifted- ever, they cannot bring themselves self-aware and able to reflect upon past ness such as good memory, advanced to do something else, so they end up failures and use them as positive moti- problem-solving ability, and attention spending time doing nothing at all. vation, traits that Speirs-Neumeister to detail were reported in the girls’ (2004) identified in self-oriented I spend a lot of time doing home- interview responses, but these gifted perfectionists. work or attempting to do home- traits were mitigated by characteris- work. There’s a lot of time spent Sometimes I’m liable to give up, tics related to their ADHD. As they not doing homework but not but I can’t. I have to push myself to reported on the ESF, these girls associ- doing anything else either because go forward. I have to care. You have ated school with feelings of confusion, I still have homework to do, if to care to succeed, if you don’t, you that makes sense (Teresa, personal may succeed but you won’t get far. if issues related communication). I’ve learned that there are times when I didn’t care, and I got bad to ADHD are left Interestingly, these girls are keenly grades. That’s going to show on unaddressed, these aware of consequences related to their my records for college. I have to lack of focus on their achievement and girls find themselves get good grades to go to college. motivation. at higher risk for I have to keep pushing forward. low self-esteem [My teacher] gave out a lot of (Lea, personal communication) homework that I couldn’t really Although this drive and determina- finish, and if I did, I forgot to turn tension, and shame, more so than they tion positively motivates some of these it in so I got marked off a lot for did at home. They attempted to com- twice-exceptional girls, unreasonably that. Since I was G/T, most of the pensate for their challenges through high expectations result in low self- kids got stuff faster than me, so I competition with others around them, esteem for others, supporting the find- wouldn’t really get the material. which can become a source of social ings of past researchers (Maurer, 2011; I wanted to cry. (Lily, personal distress. However, distractibility and Phelps, 2009; Reis, 2002; Schuler, communication) failure to complete tasks such as 2002). Suddenly, their sense of self- homework were the two main aca- In addition to these external pres- image is tied to the challenges of demic challenges these girls reported sures, these gifted girls with ADHD ADHD: “I mean I wish I could be facing. These findings are consistent faced many internalized symptoms as a better person, able to get through with literature on twice-exceptional a result of their co-occurring condi- things like tests quicker. I would students (Baum & Olenchak, 2002; tions. Even at the middle school level, like to have more time for other McCoach et al., 2001; Moon, 2002). many of these girls were already look- things and even read more and have Consistent with past twice- ing beyond high school and consid- a better memory” (Teresa, personal exceptional research (e.g., Baum & ering their options for college. “We communication). Olenchak, 2002; Grskovic & Zentall, have this college book; the cover 2010; Moon, 2002), even the slightest says 283 Good Colleges and I found of distractions, such as the presence of William and Mary that I want go to ACADEMIC SUPPORT a fish tank close by in the classroom, so I’m starting to get my grades up Twice-exceptional students face can divert the attention of a girl who for that” (Grace, personal communi- many obstacles in the classroom as a is gifted and has ADHD (Lea). Grace cation). Consistent with Baker’s (1987) result of the learning and/or behav- echoed this, stating, “I have a hard time findings that perfectionist tendencies ioral differences (Baum et al., 2001; paying attention if there is something are more prevalent in gifted girls than Baum & Owen, 1988; Coleman, distracting . . . if someone’s doing some- their non-gifted peers, and because 1992; Hughes, 2011) that require

16 Tempo • Vol. XL, Issue 1, 2019 academic supports that address both self-efficacy. These girls require more She encourages us to do our best, their giftedness and their ADHD. hands-on and visual learning expe- to work hard. Especially since some All too often, these gifted girls with riences that put discrete skills into a of the problems don’t take a short ADHD find themselves in classrooms larger context that they can relate to time to do; they take some time settings where they feel alienated or and understand: “I learn by seeing and to think about them. It makes me misunderstood because teachers fail I’m a hands-on learner. I don’t learn by think about how I’m doing and if to fully realize the challenges that hearing and writing it down. I have to I understand what I’m learning . . . they face on a daily basis. Grskovic have something to relate it to” (Grace, She encourages me to check over and Zentall (2010) discussed the personal communication). In addi- my stuff and make sure that I have academic difficulties that girls with tion to contextual, hands-on learning it as good as I can make it. (Grace, ADHD particularly have in areas of experiences, providing these girls with personal communication) math and science. Unfortunately for more opportunities to have choices in Finally, these girls need an environ- these gifted girls with ADHD, these their learning honors their interests ment, in their classrooms and in their can be some of their most unforgiving and increases their motivation. schools, that meets their unique needs classes: “I kind of am slower at taking and encourages them to achieve. notes and I think that the teacher— We’re doing this book thing where because she’s really good at science— we have to read a book that [our It’s kind of a creative school. It’s not she doesn’t really know what it’s like to teacher] approves. They have to be all about math or science or read- not be good at science” (Lea, personal award-winning or notable. I asked ing or writing, it’s about art too. communication). Additionally, these [her] if Stephen King counts and [Since moving to this school] my girls are often asked to perform tasks she said yes. I was like, “YES!” I grades have gone up so now I feel that highlight their challenges, such just adore him, his books, his writ- like I am smart, and I can do more as reading aloud in class: “I’ll look ing; he’s a great author. (Lea, per- . . . I think more of the kids at this over the words and I’ll get really red sonal communication) school have ADHD too, and the in the face and I want to crawl into teachers understand that. [My a hole. I want to sound like I know These findings support the literature English teacher] is so supportive. what I’m talking about but it’s new on twice-exceptional learning differ- We have creative stories sometimes, material. I don’t know, it just makes ences, suggesting that these students and she says that I write really well. me nervous” (Jenny, personal com- achieve when learning is presented (Lily, personal communication) munication). Consequently, when from a strengths-based perspective teachers lose patience with these girls (Baum & Olenchak, 2002; McCoach IMPLICATIONS or fail to recognize their giftedness et al., 2001; Neihart, 2000). and their learning needs, motivation Just as important as differentia- There are several implications for and achievement decline: “She makes tion are the relationships that educa- educators of gifted girls with ADHD me feel really bad about that when I tors develop with their students and to help them build a positive self- don’t get it. It makes me feel discour- the environment that educators cre- concept. Practitioners should find aged with myself. It just makes me not ate in their classrooms and schools. ways to support the achievement like the class as much” (Lea, personal and motivational needs of this group First, when these girls feel that their communication). of girls. Professional development learning differences are honored and Although I would like to believe should be provided that helps educa- supported, their motivation increases. that incidents like these are uninten- When talking about one of her teach- tional, they highlight the need that ers, Teresa noted, “She gets that I need when these girls feel exists for research-based professional that their learning development focused on differentia- more time on things or notes for things tion and the needs of twice-exceptional if she’s going through something. On differences are honored learners in general, and gifted girls the board, she’ll give them to me, but and supported, their with ADHD in particular. The idea not in a really obnoxious, obvious motivation increases. of differentiation to meet the needs manner, which I appreciate” (personal of gifted learners in the classroom is communication). Second, when these tors understand the unique challenges certainly not new; however, for these girls feel that their teacher genuinely and needs of this population. These gifted girls with ADHD, differenti- cares, they want to work harder for girls have perfectionist tendencies that ation is important for their achieve- that teacher, and the byproduct is that drive them to achieve, in spite of the ment and increases self-esteem and they reflect upon their own learning. challenges that they face as a result

Texas Association for the Gifted & Talented 17 of their ADHD. Educators need to 2005), educators are able build those face challenges of inattentiveness and recognize this desire to succeed but creative thinking skills. The addition experience difficulties completing also understand that this motivation of research-based approaches such as tasks. Unfortunately, all too often, is not always positive. It is important curriculum compacting to classroom these girls expect perfection in them- that they work with these girls and practice will capitalize on these girls’ selves and from those around them. help them set reasonable and attain- interests by allowing them to pursue Although this perfectionism can able goals while maintaining challenge self-directed avenues of learning while motivate them to succeed academi- and rigor in the classroom. reducing the amount of redundant cally, it can be also be a source of dis- These girls tend to have a growth homework that occurs in subjects in tress, particularly when they perceive mindset regarding their abilities, yet which the girls demonstrate gifted- others around them as not following research suggests that overall, girls ness, thereby decreasing chances for low established rules. However, this sense tend to receive more person praise such self-esteem as a result of missed home- of social justice can be a positive tool as, “you are a talented writer,” focused work assignments. This coupled with as these girls seek opportunities to on specific behaviors that can lead to opportunities for choice in classroom help others around them. Finally, it decreased motivation (Gunderson et assignments and projects will help to is important that these girls under- al., 2013). Therefore, it is important positively motivate these girls to achieve stand that although it is normal to that educators offer these girls more academic success. Finally, teachers feel a certain amount of fatigue from process praise focused on their efforts should create classroom environments the frustrations that come from being and strategies that honors their hard that are focused on developing relation- gifted and having ADHD, facing work and perseverance. This also ships with and among their students. these challenges and succeeding leads provides an opportunity for collabo- This trust can be an important factor in to the ability to achieve socially and ration between schools and families the academic and emotional success of academically. in helping these girls set self-oriented gifted girls with ADHD. When these goals and expectations, not only for girls feel that their teachers not only their academic achievement, but also understand their needs, but also honor CONCLUSION in their personal relationships, helping them, their motivation, self-esteem, and I propose that educators stop them maintain positive self-concept self-efficacy increase. seeing these girls as gifted and hav- and self-efficacy. Finally, the results of this study ing ADHD but rather as girls who Academic support can be provided have implications for the girls them- are ADHG (Attention Divergent simply by teachers recognizing the selves. First and foremost, these girls Hyperactive Gifted). Such a paradigm strengths of these girls and then using should understand that they are shift would then alter the focus from those strengths to address any academic not alone. Gifted girls with ADHD their challenges as girls who are gifted challenges. The development of creative have an acute awareness of their own and as girls with ADHD and instead, thinking in gifted girls with ADHD strengths and weaknesses, information highlight their strengths, persever- is important and consistent with find- that they can use to develop self-ad- ance, and resilience—those qualities ings that students who are gifted and vocacy skills. Advocating for their that make them so very special. It is display characteristics of ADHD have needs with teachers and parents can my hope that more researchers in the higher levels of creativity than their help these girls better navigate their field of giftedness will take up this non-ADHD peers (Fugate et al., 2013). social and academic worlds. Through mantle and help remove the cloak By implementing opportunities such self-awareness and self-advocacy, that has kept these girls with ADHG as problem-based learning (Dunlap, they can learn to persevere as they invisible for far too long.

SAVE THE DATE! ecember 46, 21 SAN Antonio

18 Tempo • Vol. XL, Issue 1, 2019 REFERENCES Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., VanTassel- Child & Adolescent Psychology, concern. Journal for the Education Baska, J., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, 42, 784–795. of the Gifted, 21, 437–451. A. (Eds.). (2015). A nation empow- Blachman, D. R., & Hinshaw, S. P. (2002). Fugate, C. M., Zentall, S., & Gentry, M. ered: Evidence trumps the excuses Patterns of friendship among girls (2013). Working memory and cre- holding back America’s brightest with and without attention-deficit/ ativity in gifted students with and students. Iowa City: University of hyperactivity disorder. Journal without characteristics of ADHD: Iowa, The Connie Belin and Jac- of Abnormal Psychology, 30, Lifting the mask. Gifted Child queline N. Blank International Cen- 625–640. Quarterly, 57, 234–246. ter for Gifted Education and Talent Carlson, C. L., Tamm, L., & Gaub, M. Gaub, M., & Carlson, C. (1997). Gender Development. (1997). Gender differences in chil- differences in ADHD: A meta- Assouline, S. G., Nicpon, M. F., & Huber, dren with ADHD, ODD, and co- analysis and critical review. Jour- D. H. (2006). The impact of vul- occurring ADHD/ODD identified in nal of the American Academy of nerabilities and strengths on the a school population. Journal of the Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 12, academic experiences of twice- American Academy of Child & Ado- 1036–1045. exceptional students: A message lescent Psychiatry, 36, 1706–1714. Greene, R. W., Biederman, J., Far- to school counselors. Professional Coleman, M. R. (1992). A comparison aone, S. V., Monuteaux, M. C., School Counseling, 10, 14–24. of how gifted/LD boys cope with Mick, E., DuPre, E. P., . . . Goring, Bain, S. K., & Bell, S. M. (2004). Social school frustration. Journal for J. C. (2001). Social impairment in self-concept, social attributions, the Education of the Gifted, 15, girls with ADHD: Patterns, gen- and peer relationships in fourth, 239–265. der comparisons, and correlates. fifth, and sixth graders who are Comalie-Caplan, L. (2008). Gifted Journal of the American Academy gifted compared to high achievers. girls to gifted women. Session pre- of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 704–710. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 167–178. sented at the 2008 New Mexico Grskovic, J. A., & Zentall, S. S. (2010). Baker, D. (1987). Gender differences in Summer Institute for the Gifted Understanding ADHD in girls: Iden- classroom interactions in second- Education. Albuquerque, NM. tification and social characteristics. ary science. Journal of Classroom Cramond, B. (1995). The coincidence of International Journal of Special Interaction, 22, 212–218. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Dis- Education, 25, 170–183. Barkley, R. A., Fischer, M., Smallish, L., order and creativity. Storrs: Univer- Gunderson, E. A., Gripshover, S. J., & Fletcher, K. (2006). Young adult sity of Connecticut, The National Romero, C., Dweck, C. S., Goldin- outcome of hyperactive children: Research Center on the Gifted and Meadow, S., & Levine, S. C. (2013). Adaptive functioning in major life Talented (Order No. 9508). Parent praise to 1–3 year-olds pre- activities. Journal of the American Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. dicts children’s motivational frame- Academy of Child & Adolescent (1987). Validity and reliability of works 5 years later. Child Develop- Psychiatry, 45, 192–202. the experience-sampling method. ment, 84, 1526–1544. Baum, S. M., Cooper, C. R., & Neu, T. Journal of Nervous Mental Disor- Hébert, T. P., Long, L. A., & Speirs- W. (2001). Dual differentiation: An ders, 175, 526–536. Neumeister, K. L. (2001). Using approach for meeting the curricu- Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & biography to counsel gifted young lar needs of gifted students with Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teen- women. Journal of Secondary Edu- learning disabilities. Psychology in agers: The roots of success and cation, 12, 62–89. the Schools, 38, 477–490. failure. New York, NY: Cambridge Hughes, C. E. (2011). Twice-exceptional Baum, S. M., & Olenchak, F. R. (2002). University Press. children: Twice the challenges, The alphabet children: GT, ADHD, Dai, D. Y. (2002). Are gifted girls moti- twice the joys. In J. A. Castellano and more. Exceptionality, 10, 77–91. vationally disadvantaged? Review & A. D. Frazier (Eds.), Special pop- Baum, S., & Owen, S. (1988). High ability/ reflection and redirection. Journal ulations in gifted education: Under- learning disabled students: How for the Education of the Gifted, 25, standing our most able students are they different? Gifted Child 315–358. from diverse backgrounds (pp. Quarterly, 32, 321–326. Dunlap, J. C. (2005). Changes in stu- 153–174). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Becker, S. P., McBurnett, K., Hinshaw, dents’ use of lifelong learning skills Kerr, B., Vuyk, M. A., & Rea, C. (2012). S. P., & Pfiffner, L. J. (2013). Neg- during a problem-based learning Gendered practices in the educa- ative social preference in relation project. Performance Improvement tion of gifted girls and gifted boys. to internalizing symptoms among Quarterly, 18, 5–33. Psychology in the Schools, 49, children with ADHD predominately Frey, D. (1998). Struggling with identity: 647–655. inattentive type: Girls fare worse Working with seventh- and eighth- Leroux, J. A., & Levitt-Perlman, M. than boys. Journal of Clinical grade gifted girls to air issues of (2000). The gifted child with

Texas Association for the Gifted & Talented 19 attention deficit disorder: An hyperactivity disorder show pos- the sorcerer’s stone. New York, NY: identification and intervention itive adjustment during adoles- Scholastic. challenge. Roeper Review, 22, cence. Journal of Clinical Child Rucklidge, J. J., Brown, D. L., Crawford, 171–176. & Adolescent Psychology, 38, S., & Kaplan, B. J. (2007). Attribu- Maurer, G. (2011). “I used to be gifted”: 132–143. tional styles and psychosocial func- Exploring potential among gifted Pepperell, J. L., & Rubel, D. J. (2009). tioning of adults with ADHD: Prac- adolescent females. In J. A. Castel- The experience of gifted girls tran- tice issues and gender differences. lano & A. D. Frazier (Eds.), Special sitioning from elementary school Journal of Attention Disorders, 10, populations in gifted education: to sixth and seventh grade: A 288–298. Understanding our most able stu- grounded theory. The Qualitative Rucklidge, J. J., & Tannock, R. (2001). dents from diverse backgrounds Report, 14, 341–360. Psychiatric, psychosocial, and (pp. 195–226). Waco, TX: Prufrock Phelps, C. L. (2009). Girls, gifted. In B. cognitive functioning of female Press. A. Kerr (Ed.), Encyclopedia of gift- adolescents with ADHD. Jour- McCoach, D. B., Kehle, T. J., Bray, M. edness, creativity, and talent (Vol. nal of the American Academy of A., & Siegle, D. (2001). Best prac- 1, pp. 393–397). Washington, DC: Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, tices in the identification of gifted SAGE. 40, 530–540. students with learning disabilities. Quinn, P. O. (2005). Treating adoles- Psychology in the Schools, 38, Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing cent girls and women with ADHD: at fairness: How America’s schools 403–411. Gender specific issues. Journal of Mikami, A., Chi, T., & Hinshaw, S. (2004). cheat girls. New York, NY: Charles Clinical Psychology, 61, 579–587. Scribner’s. Behavior ratings and observations Reid, B. D., & McGuire, M. D. (1995). of externalizing symptoms in girls: Schuler, P. (2002). Perfectionism in Square pegs in round holes— The role of child popularity with gifted children and adolescents. These kids don’t fit: High ability adults. Journal of Psychopathol- In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. students with behavioral prob- ogy and Behavioral Assessment, Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), lems (RBDM9512). Storrs: Univer- 26, 151–163. The social and emotional develop- sity of Connecticut, The National Mikami, A., & Hinshaw, S. (2006). Resil- ment of gifted children: What do Research Center on the Gifted and ient adolescent adjustment among we know? (pp. 71–80). Waco, TX: Talented. girls: Buffers of childhood peer Prufrock Press. Reis, S. M. (2002). Gifted females in ele- rejection and attention deficit/ Schultz, S. M. (2012). Twice-exceptional mentary and secondary school. In hyperactivity disorder. Journal M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robin- students enrolled in advanced of Abnormal Psychology, 34, placement classes. Gifted Child 825–839. son, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development of Quarterly, 56, 119–133. Moon, S. (2002). Gifted children with Speirs-Neumeister, K. L. (2004). Under- attention deficit/hyperactivity dis- gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 125–135). Waco, TX: Prufrock standing the relationship between order. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. perfectionism and achievement M. Robinson, S. M. Moon (Eds.), Press. motivation in gifted college stu- The social and emotional develop- Reis, S. M., & McCoach, D. B. (2000). dents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, ment of gifted children: What do The underachievement of gifted 219–231. we know? (pp. 193–204). Waco, TX: students: What do we know and Vail, K. (2002). ADHD in girls is Prufrock Press. where do we go? Gifted Child Nadeau, K. G., & Quinn, P. O. (Eds.). Quarterly, 44, 152–170. under-diagnosed. The American (2002). Understanding women with Rimm, S. (2002). Peer pressures and School Board Journal, 189, 12. ADHD. Silver Spring, MD: Advan- social acceptance of gifted stu- Webb, J. T., Amend, E. R., Webb, N. tage Books. dents. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. E., Goerss, J., , P., & Olenchak, Neihart, M. (2000). Gifted children M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), F. R. (2005). Misdiagnosis and with Asperger’s Syndrome. Gifted The social and emotional develop- dual diagnoses of gifted children Child Quarterly, 44, 222–230. ment of gifted children: What do and adults: ADHD, bipolar, OCD, Owens, E. B, Hinshaw, S. P., Lee, S. S., we know? (pp. 13–18). Waco, TX: Asperger’s, depression, and other & Lahey, B. B. (2009). Few girls Prufrock Press. disorders. Scottsdale, AZ: Great with childhood attention deficit/ Rowling, J. K. (1997). Harry Potter and Potential Press.

C. Matthew Fugate, Ph.D., is assistant professor, Educational Psychology, at the University of Houston-Downtown. He received his doctorate in Gifted, Creative, and Talented Studies from Purdue University. Previously, Matthew worked as an elementary teacher, gifted coordinator, and magnet coordinator in HISD. His research interests include twice-exceptional students and students from underserved populations. Matthew has presented to audiences nationally and internationally on topics including twice-exceptionality, Total School Cluster Grouping, affective development, and creativity.

20 Tempo • Vol. XL, Issue 1, 2019 If I’m So , Why Do I . . . ? The Internal Struggles of Gifted Students With ADHD

Debra A. Troxclair, Ed.D.

Twice-exceptional gifted learners are a unique subpopulation within the microcosm of those learners with gifts, talents, and high abili- ties. One special population within the group of highly able children consists of gifted children who also have Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (GT/ADHD). These learners are smart and recog- nize their innate cognitive abilities, talents, and cre- ativity, but they also experience much dissonance and can doubt themselves on a daily basis. Many experience self-talk that goes something like this: •• If I’m so smart, why do I always forget/lose things? •• If I’m so smart, why do I always blurt out the wrong things at the wrong time? •• If I’m so smart, why does it take me so long to write a paper, finish a book, or complete a project? •• If I’m so smart, why do the ideas inside my head skip from one topic to another? •• If I’m so smart, why do I start (but not com- plete) three separate sentences at the same time? •• If I’m so smart, why do I worry about every- thing all of the time? •• If I’m so smart, why can’t I do the things

Texas Association for the Gifted & Talented 21 the adults in my life want me to According to Gioia, Isquith, and in the ways that information is pro- do (e.g., turn in assignments on Guy (2001; as cited in Kaufman, 2010), cessed. When attention is not focused time, keep my room organized, the skills within the metacognitive strand adequately, the information that pay attention to things that are of executive functioning consist of com- enters short-term memory is incom- boring, etc.)? prehension of information and planning, plete or distorted. As this incomplete starting, and completing tasks, which information progresses into working These conversations originate because can steer an individual in a variety of memory, both auditory/verbal and of the duality of the advanced cog- ways. The metacognitive abilities allow visual/nonverbal information may nitive and intense/sensitive affective for purposeful attention, selection and be distorted because of the distorted nature germane to giftedness, which management of the strategies needed for input. Therefore, the working mem- occurs alongside executive function- understanding and recall, identification ory or “cognitive workshop” is unable ing skills that have gone astray. These of goals for learning and completion of to transmit and store accurate data internal conversations may cause those assignments, planning and organization needed for learning in the long-term who are GT/ADHD to wrestle with of tasks before starting them, the ability memory of the brain. ADHD impacts developing a positive self-concept, and to gauge the quality of progress along individuals through the accumulation their self-esteem may waver as if it the way, and the ability to revise when of incomplete data (resulting from were on a roller coaster ride at a theme necessary. Additionally, the purpose of data not fully processed in the “work- park. These students can recognize the the social-emotional strand of executive space”) affecting long-term memory, dissonance within themselves, and functioning is to act as a modulator the output or products generated in this recognition causes them angst, that limits, guides, or directs affective the process, and the ability to retrieve which can activate a whole new set of aspects needed for conducting busi- that information (Kaufman, 2010). symptoms, such as depression or anx- ness or balancing social activities in the iety (Masi & Gignac, 2015). Many of day-to-day world. Response inhibition/ these children do not perform at levels impulse control, emotional control, and GIFTEDNESS high enough to be identified for gifted adaptability are the elements within the Clark (2013) provided a com- programs because of this internal par- social-emotional arena that can lead to prehensive collection of gifted traits adox resulting from gaps in executive gaps in metacognitive functioning for organized according to the following functioning from ADHD. They often those with ADHD (Kaufman, 2010). domains: cognitive function, affective underachieve if identified for gifted Response inhibition/impulse control function, and physical/sensing func- programs and experience life in a per- is considered to be at the top of the tion. Although all three domains of petual state of “Where do I belong?” list of executive functioning skills, and gifted functioning can be impacted all humans experience varying degrees by the metacognitive and social/ of ability in this skill. Humans, espe- emotional impacts of deficits in exec- EXECUTIVE cially when under pressure, often say utive functioning, the focus here will FUNCTIONING/ADHD or do things they wish to retract. be on the first two: cognitive and According to Kaufman (2010), Someone with ADHD experiences affective functioning. Table 1 shows a “executive skills are those elements this phenomenon more frequently crosswalk of characteristics of ADHD of cognition that allow for the self- and/or with greater consequences. and of giftedness, showing how con­ regulation and self-direction of our Emotional control, response inhibition/ comitant issues can result for individ- day-to-day and long-term function- impulse control’s cousin, allows us to uals with giftedness and ADHD. ing” (p. 2). Both of the core strands of restrain many emotions that occur The combination of the cognitive executive functioning—metacognitive both externally and internally. Those and affective traits of giftedness alone and social-emotional—engage with who have ADHD often don’t under- can be the source of concomitant prob- and can impact both the students’ stand why people do not respond in lems for gifted learners. For example, ability to demonstrate advanced cog- the way they anticipate to what they when a gifted child’s high level of ver- nitive abilities of giftedness and cope say or do. These episodes of misunder- bal ability results in his or her “domi- with the intense and sensitive nature standing accumulate and erupt inap- nation of discussions with information that goes hand-in-hand with the social propriately, at a more frequent rate, and questions deemed negative by and emotional characteristics of gift- or with more intensity than for those teachers and fellow students” (Clark, edness. The interaction of the strands without ADHD. 2013, p. 47) and is coupled with the of executive functioning plays a role in The relationship between all of affective trait of having an “unusual information processing for those with these strands or elements of executive sensitivity to the expectations and feel- this dual exceptionality. skills come together and intervene ings of others” (Clark, 2013, p. 49),

22 Tempo • Vol. XL, Issue 1, 2019 TABLE 1 there is internal dissonance. A gifted Crosswalk of Characteristics of ADHD and Giftedness learner does not understand the result- ing “vibes” generated by those who do ADHD Metacognitive Strand Affective Functions of Giftedness (Kaufman, 2010, pp. 4–7) (Clark, 2013, pp. 49–50) not understand the connections made by the gifted learner nor the gifted stu- PROBLEMS WITH ADVANCED ABILITY IN dent’s intensity and need to be heard. • Goal-setting • Extraordinary quantity of information, unusual When this occurs too many times, the • Planning/strategizing retentiveness • Sequencing/ordering • Advanced comprehension gifted learner may select isolation as a • Organization of materials • Unusually varied interest and curiosity form of coping with the dissonance. • Time management • High level of verbal ability • Task initiation • Unusual capacity for processing information • Task persistence • Accelerated pace of thought processes TWICE-EXCEPTIONAL • Executive (goal-directed) attention • Flexible thought processes GIFTED/ADHD • Self-monitoring • Comprehension synthesis • Working memory • Early ability to delay closure In addition to gifted learners’ • Set shifting • Heightened capacity for seeing unusual and vulnerability based upon their gifts diverse relationships, integration of ideas and and talents in the cognitive and affec- disciplines tive domains, imagine the additional • Ability to generate original ideas and solutions internal dissonance those learners deal • Early differential thought processing (e.g., thinking in alternatives, abstract terms; sensing with while struggling significantly consequences; generalizing; thinking visually; and often without adequate adult using metaphors and analogies) support. The roller coaster ride they • Early ability to use and form conceptual attempt to deal with creates an addi- frameworks tional layer of complications, resulting • An evaluative approach toward self and others from the lack of understanding of the • Unusual intensity; persistent goal-directed behavior impact of malfunctioning executive ADHD Social/Emotional Strand Characteristics of Giftedness skills in metacognitive areas and the (Kaufman, 2010, pp. 4–7) (Clark, 2013, pp. 47–48) social-emotional impacts of executive functioning skills, such as response PROBLEMS WITH ADVANCED ABILITY IN inhibition/impulse control, emotional • Response inhibition/impulse • Large accumulation of information about emo- control, and adaptability (Kaufman, control tions that has not been brought to awareness • Emotional control • Unusual sensitivity to the expectations and 2010). • Adaptability feelings of others Of particular interest in this • Keen sense of humor—may be gentle or hostile tango of twice-exceptionality is a • Heightened self-awareness accompanied by characteristic trait common to both feelings of being different cognitive and affective functions of • Idealism and sense of justice, which appear at an early age giftedness—intensity. In the cogni- • Earlier development of an inner locus of con- tive domain, intensity is revealed as trol and satisfaction “Unusual intensity; persistent goal- • Unusual emotional depth and intensity directed behavior” (Clark, 2013, p. • High expectations of self and others, often 48). Likewise, in the affective domain, leading to high levels of frustration with self, intensity appears once again in the list others, and situations; perfectionism • Strong need for consistency between abstract as, “Unusual emotional depth and values and personal actions intensity” (Clark, 2013, p. 49). In a • Advanced levels of moral judgment twice-exceptional child, it is often dif- • Strongly motivated by self-actualization needs ficult to determine if this intensity is • Advanced cognitive and affective capacity for the “H” in the acronym of ADHD, conceptualizing and solving societal problems • Leadership ability or the dance that results from the • Solutions to social and environmental problems impact of interaction of the develop- • Involvement with the metaneeds of society mental domains of giftedness. Dealing (e.g., justice, beauty, truth) with intensity is something twice- exceptional gifted learners need help with in order to modulate the twists and turns of life’s roller coaster ride,

Texas Association for the Gifted & Talented 23 regardless of whether the intensity is Once this self-realization occurs, the and others” (para. 1). It is very accept- due to cognitive and affective func- damaging internal conversations can able and even politically correct to tions of giftedness or gaps in executive be replaced with comments that will recognize diversity related to ethnicity, skills. allow them to blossom into who they national origin, socioeconomic status, can become. race, etc. As such, the concept of neu- Van Gerven (2018) described rodiversity fits into this spectrum of SUPPORTING THE TWICE- some helpful tips for teachers that diversity that I have always personally EXCEPTIONAL LEARNER can improve the classroom learning labeled as cognitive diversity. Regrettably, many adults, includ- environment for GT/ADHD learners. The first step in accommodating ing teachers, are unaware that a child She suggested the following: those with neurodiverse traits is to or adolescent can be bright and capable •• apply the KISS acronym: Keep create the right “fit” for them in class- and also struggle with ADHD. Those it Simple and Small approach to rooms. A proper learning environment who are GT/ADHD often hear the remediation strategies; is essential in order for all learners to be adults in their lives mirror or model the •• lose the need for a label; successful, but being in a learning envi- statements similar to their own internal •• stimulate, compensate, remediate, ronment that meets the needs of GT/ dialogue. Many parents of these bright and dismiss (StiCoRDi); and, ADHD and other neurodiverse popula- and able-minded youth are GT/ADHD •• respect the disability as equally as tions reaches far beyond the basic essen- themselves and have spent their lives you respect the IQ (pp. 8–9). tials provided in most general education without adequate understanding of classrooms, or even in classrooms in themselves and without any idea of StiCoRDI, according to van which gifted learners are provided spe- how to support their children. Teachers Gerven (2018) and van Gerven and cial services. Twice-exceptional gifted without any training in gifted educa- Troxclair (2017), is an acronym to children can learn more about them- tion or teachers who have never heard remind educators to “stimulate” the use selves as they investigate the content of twice-exceptional gifted children are of both strengths and weaknesses with surrounding neurodiversity. often perplexed by these learners, don’t GT/ADHD learners. Often, a task that A common error in addressing identify them for gifted services, and displays a student’s weakness results in the needs of twice-exceptional gifted focus on the learners’ struggles while avoidance behavior. When this occurs, learners is to only address the “strug- ignoring their strengths. teachers need to challenge the student gles” these students encounter using These learners present a unique (stimulate) to try the task using one of remediation tactics. Strategies known challenge in classrooms. In turn, their areas of strengths. Teachers can to stimulate the development of gifts schools provide a unique challenge to help the learner compensate or cope and talents need to be used with these GT/ADHD learners. Helping these with their areas of struggle by provid- learners to address their understanding learners develop good self-concepts ing the student with the scaffolding of the struggles they encounter with and self-esteem is not an easy task, needed. In addition to modifying the ADHD issues. and as with all populations of twice- learning environment, gifted learners’ Honeybourne (2018) provided exceptional learners, solutions for advanced cognitive abilities can be information about neurodiversity righting the trajectory of these learn- used to reinforce their understanding appropriate for elementary/middle ers are as unique as the learners them- of many aspects of their gaps in execu- school children to begin an investiga- selves. There are no recipes, instant tive skills via appropriate instructional tion of the concept. After an introduc- cures, or formulas that can be applied strategies. tion to neurodiversity, Honeybourne across the board for helping GT/ One way to help these learners made a case for understanding neu- ADHD learners. However, the follow- with this transformation is to teach rodiversity, and discussed the impor- ing suggestions can make a significant them about neurodiversity. According tance of communication, teaching difference. to The National Symposium on and learning, and student well-being. The best and first thing parents Neurodiversity at Syracuse University Creating the right learning environ- and teachers can do for GT/ADHD (n.d.), “neurodiversity is a concept ment and a whole-school approach learners is to help them realize that where neurological differences are to appropriate to all neurodiverse pop- they are not broken and are not in need be recognized and respected as any ulations is part of the solution to of being fixed. Helping them accept other human variation. These differ- supporting neurodiverse learners. themselves—both their strengths and ences can include those labeled with Teachers can digest and integrate the struggles—is key to students being Dyspraxia, Dyslexia, Attention Deficit ideas found in this book to introduce able to silence the destructive inner Hyperactivity Disorder, Dyscalculia, the concept of neurodiversity with conversations that are so detrimental. Autistic Spectrum, Tourette Syndrome, GT/ADHD learners.

24 Tempo • Vol. XL, Issue 1, 2019 “Students define a passion area, develop a series of steps to be followed to access their goals and participation in the Reading study. In-depth studies conclude with the learners presenting their findings to the other members of their learning communities” (Betts et al., 2017, p. 267).

CONCLUSIONS Social Neurodiversity Language Sciences Arts Serving both the students’ strengths and weaknesses is vital to supporting the duality of the twice- exceptional learner (Reis, Baum, & Burke, 2014). Remediation of either executive skills alone or strength- Math ening of advanced cognitive and affective development does not ade- quately address the needs of this spe- Figure 1. Thematic-interdisciplinary-conceptual unit: Neurodiversity. cial subpopulation of gifted learners. Consistently attending to both strug- An instructional model that pro- •• a pre-/postassessment of the gles and strengths can also reduce the vides support for the development of understanding of giftedness, tal- internal dissonance and the internal coping skills within gifted learners is ent, intelligence, and creativity; paradoxical chatter GT/ADHD learn- Betts’s (Betts, Carey, & Kapushion, •• group-building activities, ers experience. 2017) Autonomous Learner Model. •• self/personal development activities; Given the right environment and The components of this model include •• activities that provide oppor- instructional strategies, paradoxical student-driven activities arranged tunity for inter-/intrapersonal questions of “If I’m so smart, why do within the following components: development; I . . .?” can be answered, and affirma- orientation, individual development, •• activities that focus on creative tions can be constructed. Questions enrichment, seminars, and in-depth learning skill development which such as “If I’m so smart, why do I study. Embedded within two com- span the range of thinking; and, always forget/lose things?” shift to a ponents of this model—orientation •• the use of technology to improve self-accepting affirmation or acknowl- and individual development—are organization skills. edgment, such as “Losing things does two overlapping strategies that are not mean I am dumb or stupid. I for- appropriate for gifted learners. Those Additionally, students can learn about get or lose things because I am not strategies are thematic, interdisciplin- their neurodiversity via seminars and/or paying enough attention to adhering ary, conceptual units and independent in-depth studies. Betts et al. described to my organizational strategies/plans. study (Karnes & Bean, 2015). Figure a seminar as a “short-term project for I need to pay more attention to where 1 represents an initial schematic for learners to pursue in small groups of I place important items.” creation of a thematic interdisciplinary three to five members, who research a Providing GT/ADHD learners conceptual unit on neurodiversity. topic, prepare the seminar, and present with information about the duality Betts et al.’s (2017) model has the interactive seminar to classmates or of their neurodiversity via the use of as its objective learner empower- even community members” (p. 243). appropriate remediation strategies, cou- ment, which is exactly what twice- They shared five categories of semi- pled with providing the opportunity to exceptional gifted learners require nars: futuristic, problematic, contro- gain knowledge and understanding of to escape from the wrestling match versial, general interest, and advanced their neurodiversity via the use of appli- occurring inside their minds. Several knowledge. In this case, a seminar on cable gifted education strategies, will of the strategies described by Betts et neurodiversity could be considered a be a lifelong gift that will assist these al. provide great vehicles for delivery controversial seminar or an advanced learners in self-actualization. of information for GT/ADHD gifted knowledge seminar. learners to become more comfortable An in-depth study provides for with their gifts, including: learning at its most advanced level. Continued on page 37

Texas Association for the Gifted & Talented 25 Wh at t h e R e s e a rc h S ay s R e g a r di ng Twice-Exceptional Students Corina R. Kaul and Susan K. Johnsen, Ph.D.

he idea that one individual could have Exceptional Community of Practice (2eCoP) pro- outstanding gifts with a coexisting dis- posed this definition (Baldwin et al., 2015): ability is less than one century old. In T Twice exceptional individuals evidence excep- 1923, Hollingworth argued for recognizing stu- tional ability and disability, which results in a dents’ individual differences and described stu- unique set of circumstances. Their exceptional dents who were gifted and demonstrated learning ability may dominate, hiding their disability; deficiencies. Maker’s (1977) book about gifted their disability may dominate, hiding their handicapped students was the first to highlight exceptional ability; each may mask the other so the dual diagnosis of gifted individuals with dis- that neither is recognized or addressed. (p. 212) abilities. However, legislation and the fields of gifted education and learning disabilities remained The definition also included the importance mutually exclusive for decades (Baldwin, Baum, of using specialized methods of identification, Pereles, & Hughes, 2015). Neither the No Child enriched/advanced educational opportunities, and Left Behind Act (2002) nor the Individuals with simultaneous supports to ensure success. Disabilities Education Act (2004) contain a defi- As mentioned in the 2eCoP definition, nition for a twice-exceptional (2e) child—one who twice-exceptional youth are difficult to identify. is gifted and has a disability. Recently, the Twice- Underidentification may be due to the lack of

26 Tempo • Vol. XL, Issue 1, 2019 universally accepted assessment(s) to 2% to 5% of children with disabilities performance. They compared students identify 2e individuals (Foley-Nicpon, (Nielsen, 2002) or up to 7% of stu- whose achievement was at the 84th Allmon, Sieck, & Stinson, 2011), and dents with disabilities (Trail, 2010). percentile or above on end-of-year stan- an individual’s giftedness can mask his Barnard-Brak, Johnsen, Pond Hannig, dardized state assessments. Students or her disabilities, which often results and Wei (2015) examined the inci- who had a discrepancy demonstrating in average performance—too low for dence of giftedness using a nationally deficits in reading were more likely to traditional gifted education programs representative dataset and estimated score lower on both the end-of-year and too high for special education that 9.1% of children with identified reading and math assessments than services (Berninger & Abbott, 2013). disabilities scored above the 90th per- students who had math strengths Even if 2e students are identified, edu- centile on standardized achievement without a reading weakness. On the cators tend to focus on remediating students’ weaknesses and practically ignore their talents and strengths Even if 2e students are identified, (Dole, 2000). To identify potential articles related educators tend to focus on to 2e students, five gifted education journals were searched: Gifted Child remediating students’ weaknesses Quarterly, Gifted Child Today, Journal of Advanced Academics, Journal for the and practically ignore their Education of the Gifted, and Roeper Review. To be considered for inclu- talents and strengths . . . sion, articles must have been empiri- cal studies (i.e., have methods, results, assessments. The researchers indicated other hand, Berninger and Abbott and discussion sections), be published this percentage underestimates the (2013) compared the performance of within the past 10 years (2008–2018), population because disabilities often verbally-gifted students with dyslexia and examine a topic related to 2e stu- lower achievement scores and, there- to students with dyslexia with average dents. Empirical studies were excluded fore, conclude that 2e students are verbal reasoning and found that the 2e if they were conducted outside of the “definitely underidentified” (p. 78). students performed significantly better United States or if the research did not on spelling individual words, reading primarily focus on 2e students. Using skills, and two measures of working these criteria, 22 articles were identified TWICE-EXCEPTIONAL memory, suggesting that high verbal and summarized. Twelve articles used CHARACTERISTICS reasoning abilities may mask dyslexia. quantitative research methods, nine Five studies examined charac- Gilger and Olulade (2013) suggested articles reported on qualitative research, teristics of 2e students or differences that comparing assessment outcomes and the remaining article summarized between gifted students compared is only partially illuminating because a 20-year empirical review of the litera- to 2e individuals. For example, the underlying neurological processes may ture relating to 2e students with Autism use of metacognitive skills in reading result in similar outcomes. Although Spectrum Disorder (ASD), Attention comprehension was assessed using a gifted students with reading disabil- Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder think-aloud task with 2e students ities performed similarly to gifted (ADHD), and Specific Learning with a learning disability (Hannah students on an intelligence test, their Disabilities (SLD; Foley-Nicpon et al., & Shore, 2008). Results indicated fMRI functional profiles suggested 2011). Research participants included that high school students used more they process spatial and written stim- 2e students, their parents, teachers, metacognitive strategies than late- uli differently. administrators, school counselors, and elementary students, yet the older other G/T educators. students were less confident in their abilities. In a comparison study, G/T CHARACTERISTICS OF students with ADHD symptoms had 2E STUDENTS FROM TWICE-EXCEPTIONAL poorer working memory but demon- DIVERSE BACKGROUNDS INCIDENCE strated higher creativity than G/T Given that Black students are To date, it is not clear how students without ADHD symptoms underrepresented in gifted education many students are twice-exceptional. (Fugate, Zentall, & Gentry, 2013). (Ford, 2013), it is not surprising that Researchers provide conservative esti- Bell, Taylor, McCallum, Coles, and little research had previously consid- mates of 2e students ranging from Hays (2015) also found differences in ered the experiences of 2e minority

Texas Association for the Gifted & Talented 27 children. Mayes and Moore (2016) correctly identified. Similarly, Wood EDUCATIONAL provided an opportunity for artisti- (2012) suggested that gifted students SERVICES FOR TWICE- cally gifted 2e Black high school stu- might be at risk for overidentification of EXCEPTIONAL LEARNERS dents and their parents to tell their ADHD with tests that are not sensitive Two qualitative studies consid- stories of how they perceive their to 2e students. Given the similarities ered 2e students’ educational expe- gifted and disability identities and between a highly gifted girl with ASD riences through the lens of parents, experiences. Mayes and Moore’s find- and a highly gifted girl without ASD, educators, and parents. Schultz’s ings suggested that students perceived Assouline, Nicpon, and Doobay (2009) (2012) study identified obstacles and their disability identity more strongly also highlighted the potential for mis- factors that facilitated 2e high school than their gifted identity, with stu- identification. Moreover, services are students’ enrollment in Advanced dents reporting internalized feelings of limited when students are not identi- isolation, disengagement, and concern Placement (AP) and dual-credit fied. The Belin-Blank Center identified classes. He reported that open enroll- about their ability to be successful. In 14 gifted students with SLD; however, his autoethnography, Robinson (2017) ment and a supportive school culture one was receiving special education are more likely to support 2e students described his experience as a gifted services only, and eight were receiving Black male with dyslexia. He reported in advanced classes than schools that gifted services only (Assouline, Nicpon, view advanced classes as being for on his school experience as an outsider & Whiteman, 2010). due to his learning disability (LD) and gifted or honors students only. Baum, race, but became motivated by gifted- Schader, and Hébert’s (2014) case study ness and his ability to learn to read. He TWICE-EXCEPTIONAL reported on the experiences of 17 stu- concludes that studying 2e students STUDENTS’ dents who had entered a private school from underrepresented minorities is SELF-PERCEPTIONS for 2e students in middle school and subsequently completed graduation important for helping these students Three studies examined the reach their potential. requirements. A thematic evaluation self-concept or self-perceptions of 2e of data resulted in benefits of school youth. Barber and Mueller (2011) talent development participation and TWICE-EXCEPTIONAL compared self-perceptions of 2e stu- five factors that facilitated students’ IDENTIFICATION dents to nonidentified students, gifted development—a psychologically safe students, and students with learning One study provided a method school environment, individual pacing, disabilities. Compared to nonidenti- to potentially identify 2e students. patience with asynchronous behaviors, fied and gifted students, 2e students McCallum et al. (2013) used Response positive relationships, and using stu- had less favorable self-concepts and to Intervention (RtI) initial math and dent strengths to develop talents. reading screeners. A student who viewed their relationships with their mothers less positively, suggesting scored above the 84th percentile on PARENTS’ EXPERIENCES a reading screener, but had a signifi- that twice-exceptionality poten- tially impacts family relationships. WITH TWICE EXCEPTIONAL cant discrepancy in his or her math STUDENTS score (or vice versa), was potentially Similarly, another study found that twice-exceptional. Using these criteria, gifted students with ADHD were 2 Three studies used qualitative approximately 10% of the third-grade times more likely to report a lower research to describe the experiences of sample would have been referred for self-esteem than their gifted peers parents/caregivers. Parents of gifted further 2e evaluation. (Foley-Nicpon, Assouline, Rickels, & children with ASD reported difficul- Many more articles examined Richards, 2012). On the other hand, ties in obtaining appropriate educa- barriers to identifying and serving 2e in the Foley-Nicpon, Assouline, and tional services for their 2e children students. Foley-Nicpon, Assouline, Fosenburg (2015) study, self-concept (Rubenstein, Schelling, Wilczynski, & and Colangelo’s (2013) survey results ratings for gifted students with ASD Hooks, 2015). Expressing disappoint- indicated that psychologists, special and gifted students with SLD fell ment and frustration with perceived educators, and classroom teachers were within normal ranges. Given that school system barriers, parents become less familiar with twice-exceptional- nonidentified students with ASD or advocates for their 2e children (Besnoy ity than gifted specialists, implying SLD have reported lower self-esteem et al., 2015). Mothers of academically that more professional development in prior research, the researchers sug- successful 2e children assisted their is needed. Educator misconceptions gested that the presence of giftedness children to maximize their potential by or overlapping characteristics might might have positively moderated how seeking educational support, teaching also prevent 2e students from being these 2e students felt about themselves. the child to self-advocate, and main-

28 Tempo • Vol. XL, Issue 1, 2019 taining expectations for achievement (Neumeister, Yssel, & intellectually similar peers in reality or their profiles are Burney, 2013). Researchers pointed out the need for trust- clinically consistent with ASD. Both preadolescent girls worthy resources that all stakeholders can access in learning in this study demonstrated superior cognitive abilities and more about 2e students. achievement, scoring above the 98th percentile on apti- tude and achievement measures. The female diagnosed with ASD scored markedly lower on measures of processing CONCLUSION speed, selective attention, inhibition, facial recognition, and Clearly, there is much room for a broader and deeper the ability to correctly identify the emotions portrayed by understanding of twice-exceptionality. These researchers have facial expressions. Although the girl with ASD perceived contributed toward advancing knowledge related to identify- her adaptive and psychosocial functioning within normal ing, understanding, and serving 2e students, their families, levels, her mother perceived her daughter’s coping, inter- and educators. Keeping abreast of research and best practices personal communication, hyperactivity, atypicality, atten- related to 2e youth will help us understand and serve these tion, social proficiency, daily living skills, and functional often underidentified and misunderstood students. communication abilities as below age-level expectations. With respect to teacher evaluations, both girls exhibited depression and withdrawal, but the scales for the female REFERENCES with ASD were also elevated for problems with attention, Baldwin, L., Baum, S., Pereles, D., & Hughes, C. (2015). aggression, adaptability, social skills, and leadership. The Twice-exceptional learners. Gifted Child Today, 38, results highlight the importance of obtaining a comprehen- 206–214. doi:10.1177/1076217515597277 sive evaluation in obtaining an accurate diagnosis because Dole, S. (2000). The implications of the risk and resilience the diagnosis is crucial for addressing a student’s strengths literature for gifted students with learning disabilities. Roeper Review, 23, 91–97. and vulnerabilities. Ford, D. Y. (2013). Recruiting and retaining culturally different Assouline, S. G., Nicpon, M. F., & Whiteman, C. (2010). students in gifted education. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Cognitive and psychosocial characteristics of gifted Hollingworth, L. (1923). Special talents and defects: Their students with written language disability. Gifted Child significance for education. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Quarterly, 54, 102–115. doi:10.1177/0016986209355974 Library. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, Pub. L. With the purpose of describing academic, cognitive, and 108-446, § 118 Stat. 2647 (2004). affective characteristics of 2e students, students with learn- Maker, C. J. (1977). Providing programs for the gifted handi- ing problems or severe social impairments were recruited. capped individuals. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Of the 77 students assessed, 14 students met the crite- Children. ria for giftedness and for an SLD of written expression. Nielsen, M. E. (2002). Gifted students with learning disabilities: Participants, on average, demonstrated superior verbal Recommendations for identification and programming. comprehension compared to significantly lower achieve- Exceptionality, 10, 92–111. ment in written language and visual-motor integration. No Child Left Behind Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115 Interestingly, slightly more than half (57%, n = 8) received Stat. 1425 (2002). Trail, B. (2010). Twice-exceptional gifted children: Under- G/T services, only one (7%) received special education standing, teaching, and counseling gifted students. services, and 36% (n = 5) did not receive either service. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. This evidence supports the authors’ assertion that many 2e students are overlooked and/or underserved because their disability is often masked by their intellectual giftedness, ANNOTATED REFERENCES resulting in performance in the average range—too high to be noticed for disability screening, but too low to be Assouline, S. G., Nicpon, M. F., & Doobay, A. (2009). Pro- referred for G/T assessment. With respect to psychosocial foundly gifted girls and autism spectrum disorder. functioning, most of the students scored within the normal Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 89–105. range, but some children had co-occurring problems with In order to examine nuances in social difficulties between externalization (e.g., atypical behaviors). Whereas teachers’ a highly gifted girl with ASD and a highly gifted peer rating scale scores indicated at-risk for attention problems, without ASD, researchers used a case study to examine the atypicality, and behavioral symptoms, parents indicated students’ performance differences on various assessments. hyperactivity, withdrawal, adaptability, and behavioral The researchers concluded that many socially impaired stu- symptoms. The authors suggested that a discrepancy model dents often are misdiagnosed, either as having ASD or as (where ability is compared to achievement) is crucial for gifted, when, in fact, they are highly intelligent but lack examining if a student’s academic struggles are a result of

Texas Association for the Gifted & Talented 29 a disability. An individual comprehen- results implied that 2e students who giftedness resulting from the disabil- sive evaluation that includes psycho- may need the most support from their ity or masked disability because of the social measures completed by various mothers are the least likely to obtain it. student’s intellectual giftedness. Given individuals (e.g., parent, teacher, and Given possible grim consequences of a the use of an achievement assessment in self-report) is also helpful in develop- 2e student’s perceived lack of familial this study for G/T classification (rather ing appropriate educational and poten- support, parents need to be educated than an aptitude test), the percentage of tial psychosocial recommendations. about the unique needs of 2e children. 2e students who had specific learning Teachers and counselors are also urged disabilities were likely underestimated. Barber, C., & Mueller, C. T. (2011). to consider ways to provide additional Social and self-perceptions of Baum, S. M., Schader, R. M., & adolescents identified as gifted, encouragement to 2e students who Hébert, T. P. (2014). Through learning disabled, and twice- may not perceive emotional support a different lens: Reflecting exceptional. Roeper Review, 33, at home. The authors indicated the on a strengths-based, talent- 109–120. doi:10.1080/02783193. need for continued research examin- focused approach for twice- 2011.554158 ing 2e students’ out-of-school social exceptional learners. Gifted relationships. Child Quarterly, 58, 311–327. This research examined differences doi:10.1177/0016986214547632 between gifted, LD, 2e, and non- Barnard-Brak, L., Johnsen, S. K., Pond identified students on self-concept Hannig, A., & Wei, T. (2015). The The goal of this qualitative case study and social measures. The authors incidence of potentially gifted was to understand the experiences of used 90 2e students identified from students within a special educa- individuals who attended a strengths- the National Longitudinal Study tion population. Roeper Review, based private school for 2e students. of Adolescent Health dataset and 37, 74–83. doi:10.1080/02783193 During the students’ (n = 10) senior .2015.1008661 matched this sample with other same- year, researchers analyzed student files sex students who were similar in eth- The study examined the incidence of as well as conducted focus groups and nicity, age, and maternal education. twice-exceptionality in the popula- semi-structured interviews with par- The authors created three other groups tion. With a criterion score at the 90th ents, teachers, and students. Students of 90 adolescents who were identified percentile or higher on a measure of had superior intelligence, were from as gifted only, LD only, or were not achievement (e.g., Woodcock-Johnson middle to high-socioeconomic sta- identified (a control group). Adolescent III), 330 students were identified as 2e tus families, were predominantly perceptions of belonging at school using a nationally representative dataset Caucasian (n = 9) and male (n = 8), did not differ based on the presence of special education students, indicat- and most students had multiple disabil- or absence of an exceptionality. On ing approximately 9.1% of American ities. None had thrived in their previous self-concept measures, 2e students students with an identified disability educational environments, typically and students with LD reported lower could be considered 2e using these arriving at the school experiencing high self-concepts compared to gifted or criteria. Of the students who could be stress levels. Educators stayed focused nonidentified peers. Twice-exceptional considered 2e, only 11% of the children on a collaborative, student-centered students, however, perceived less pos- received G/T services. Students with framework, the Multiperspectives itive relationships with their moth- hearing, visual, orthopedic, and speech Process Model (MPPM), to guide ers than gifted students, those with impairments were more likely to receive individualized planning for each stu- learning disabilities only, or noniden- G/T services than students with other dent. The MPPM highlighted the tified adolescents. Increasing levels of impairments. Hispanic, Black, and student’s interests and talents while maternal support was more beneficial female 2e students were significantly considering the interactions of the stu- to gifted students than to 2e students’ less likely to receive gifted and tal- dent’s disabilities, learning differences, self-concept. This research demon- ented services than male, Asian, and/or social/emotional readiness, and family strated how the presence of exception- Caucasian students. Furthermore, stu- context. All of the students experi- alities may potentially impact family dents who had more than one disability, enced cognitive, emotional, and social relationships, leading the researchers a learning disability, or an intellectual growth, but the growth was sporadic to suggest that the failure of a 2e stu- disability were significantly less likely and not necessarily a linear trajectory. dent to rise to parental expectations to be involved in G/T programming. For example, student gains were most may change the way mothers interact This research supports the assertion significant when students’ disabilities with their children and negatively that 2e students are underidentified did not interfere with their interests impact 2e students’ perceived quality and underserved in gifted programs. and talents (e.g., if a budding thespian’s of the maternal relationship. Study Possible reasons for this include masked low working memory did not prohibit

30 Tempo • Vol. XL, Issue 1, 2019 learning the script) and when school of-year performance on the state multigenerational students with dys- and family philosophy/goals were con- assessment in the same subject area. lexia who scored in the average range gruent. Allowing students to develop However, the potentially 2e students just below the mean (i.e., 90 to 99, n = at their own pace and not rushing to (with math strengths) scored signifi- 33). The groups were fairly similar with meet grade-level expectations, open- cantly lower than the gifted math respect to hallmark-dyslexia indicators mindedness, and patience with asyn- students on both the state reading and and demographic composition; slightly chronous behaviors, a psychologically the math assessments. By implication, more than 60% of participants were safe school atmosphere and an encour- reading deficits may mask the poten- male and, on average, were 11 years aging environment using student tial math giftedness for 2e students, old. Students with dyslexia and with strengths promoted growth. Many possibly due to language requirements superior verbal reasoning performed positive student outcomes were asso- much better on two measures of ciated with the program including Strength-based working memory (oral morphological feelings of social belonging; providing coding and syntactic coding), reading a way to develop coping skills for cog- interventions that individual words, and spelling. Because nitive, emotional, and/or social diffi- students with dyslexia and with supe- culties; developing relationships with capitalize the gifts rior verbal reasoning may be able to adults in talent areas; and a growing of a 2e learner while perform within the average range on expertise in areas of student interest measures of oral and written skills, and talent. Findings support the use of remediating deficits these findings suggest the diagnosis a collaborative strengths- and interest- or impact of dyslexia could easily be based framework for developing the are most effective. missed if only the students who have talents of 2e students. the lowest spelling and word reading necessary to accurately understand and achievement are screened. This masked Bell, S. M., Taylor, E. P., McCallum, respond to math questions on state disability will typically result in under- R. S., Coles, J. T., & Hays, E. assessments. Educators and decision (2015). Comparing prospec- achievement relative to the students’ tive twice-exceptional students makers must be aware that math assess- skills. Yet all students with dyslexia with high-performing peers on ments that require reading will likely have core impairment deficits in ver- high-stakes tests of achieve- yield lower math scores for those with bal processing components and work- ment. Journal for the Educa- potential reading disabilities. Teachers ing memory, invisible to others, which tion of the Gifted, 38, 294–317. should keep in mind that 2e students require the exertion of more cognitive doi:10.1177/0162353215592500 might be identified by evidence of tal- effort to complete reading and writing ent accompanied by demonstrations The performance of prospective 2e tasks. Suggested tailored instructional of learned helplessness, frustration in students was compared to potentially strategies for 2e students in grades 4 the lack of ability to master a certain gifted learners in this study. Of 1,242 to 9 were provided, such as clapping academic skill, depression, hypersensi- students, participants were considered to identify the number of syllables in tivity, and/or low self-esteem. Strength- as potentially 2e if they performed words, writing the alphabet letters that based interventions that capitalize the above the 84th percentile on an RtI come before and after a given letter, gifts of a 2e learner while remediating screener in either math or reading focusing attention on specific parts of deficits are most effective. and scored significantly lower than words, using all of the allotted time to expected on the other subject. The Berninger, V. W., & Abbott, R. D. (2013). respond to teacher writing prompts, potentially gifted students scored above Differences between children using self-checking strategies, and the 84th percentile in one subject and with dyslexia who are and are not using feedback to set goals. did not demonstrate a significant weak- gifted in verbal reasoning. Gifted Besnoy, K. D., Swoszowski, N. C., ness in the other subject. Of the high- Child Quarterly, 57, 223–233. Newman, J. L., Floyd, A., Jones, doi:10.1177/0016986213500342 performing math students, 16% P., & Byrne, C. (2015). The demonstrated math strengths accom- In order to examine differences in pre- advocacy experiences of par- panied by a reading weakness (poten- sentation of dyslexia associated with ents of elementary age, twice- tial 2e). Approximately 25% of the differences in verbal reasoning abilities, exceptional children. Gifted high-performing reading students also a group of multigenerational students Child Quarterly, 59, 108–123. doi:10.1177/0016986215569275 had math weakness. Not surprisingly, with dyslexia and with superior verbal subject-specific scores on the screener reasoning scores (i.e., 120 or higher, Researchers used grounded theory were positively correlated with end- n = 33) were compared to a group of methodology in order to understand

Texas Association for the Gifted & Talented 31 the advocacy experiences of parents resource for all stakeholders that pro- Child Quarterly, 57, 169–180. (n = 8) of 2e children (n = 6). All par- vides 2e resources, and encouraging doi:10.1177/0016986213490021 ticipating parents had earned, at a professional development and teacher In this study, survey research was minimum, a bachelor’s degree. Their education programs to raise awareness conducted to examine the educators’ 2e Caucasian children were in grades of twice-exceptionality. familiarity with policies and practices 4 to 6, not eligible for free/reduced for 2e students and their experience lunch, and were identified with ASD, Foley-Nicpon, M., Allmon, A., Sieck, B., & Stinson, R. D. (2011). Empir- with this population. Participants (n = OCD, or a visual perceptive LD. 317), from 40 different states, includ- Parents typically indicated noticing ical investigation of twice- ing G/T specialists (n = 93), classroom their child’s advanced academic abil- exceptionality: Where have we been and where are we going? teachers (n = 56), psychologists (n = ities at least 2 years before realizing Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, 3–17. 33), special education teachers (n = the child’s disabilities. Realizing the doi:10.1177/0016986210382575 25), and other (n = 110), completed the potential lifelong implications for 14-item anonymous online question- their child’s well-being, parents were Although many articles have been naire. Not surprisingly, respondents naturally concerned about limitations written about gifted students with dis- were most familiar with guidelines resulting from their child’s disability abilities, a review of the literature from that were closely related to their pro- and desirous of protecting their child’s 1990–2009 only resulted in finding fession. Overall, more than one-third giftedness. Although these parents 43 empirical studies regarding 2e stu- of respondents had no knowledge eagerly chose public schools because dents with SLD (n = 21), ADHD (n = about their state’s position related to they believed that school educators 17), and ASD (n = 5). Researchers used the RtI model for gifted services. More would act in their child’s best inter- qualitative (n = 12), quantitative (n = ests, over time they lost confidence than 92% of respondents had at least 27), or both qualitative and quantita- some experience with gifted students that the school professionals were, tive research methods (n = 4). Given in fact, acting in that manner. Many with ADHD or emotional difficulties. that the methods for diagnosing gift- parents sought an official diagnosis Respondents were the least familiar edness and for disability vary, making outside the school system and were with 2e students diagnosed with learn- comparisons across studies is difficult. troubled when the school refused to ing disabilities or autism spectrum accept these reports and frustrated by Accordingly, the researchers called disorder (15% and 22% reported no the bureaucratic steps to obtain appro- for methodologically rigorous studies experience, respectively). Participants priate interventions. Parents perceived using quantitative methodology, with were generally confident in their abil- that their perspectives were not ini- clearly specified criteria for inclusion ity to make an appropriate referral for tially appreciated and contended that that examine 2e identification, inter- services. Specific factors considered the schools were not always providing ventions, and treatments. Although when referring for a 2e diagnosis were the services that were agreed upon. patterns of twice-exceptionality occur, ranked from most important to least As a result, parents sought to edu- this review suggested that one unified important: performance on class work, cate themselves on terminology (e.g., profile of twice-exceptionality does classroom behavioral difficulties, par- IEP, 504, referral, etc.), and special not appear to exist. The authors sug- ents’ concerns, cognitive ability assess- education policies and practices by gested cross-discipline research that ment score, performances on class scouring the Internet for knowledge draws upon existing ASD, SLD, and assessments, peer relationships, perfor- and reaching out to peers and com- ADHD literature and includes neuro- mance on Iowa Test of Basic Skills, and munity resources in order to engage imaging, randomized control studies, outside activities. With respect to the in active and vocal advocacy for their and larger samples. In the meantime, prevalence of twice-exceptionalities, 2e child. As parents’ lack of knowl- educational environments should use 67% of respondents believed that less than 10% of gifted students were 2e. edge hindered advocacy efforts, it is a strengths-based approach and build Respondents believed the primary dif- important for parents of a 2e child to supportive networks for 2e students at ficulties for 2e students included social become informed about special edu- school, at home, and in extracurricular cation services so that they develop problems with peers (31%), coordi- activities, allowing these individuals to confidence, expertise, and the ability nating services among profession- build upon positive experiences. to effectively advocate for their child. als (23%), and academic difficulties The researchers concluded by empha- Foley-Nicpon, M., Assouline, S. (21%). The researchers concluded by sizing the necessity of school-parent G., & Colangelo, N. (2013). encouraging professional development collaboration, the value of establish- Twice-exceptional learners: opportunities for professionals outside ing an online trustworthy centralized Who needs to know what? Gifted of gifted education.

32 Tempo • Vol. XL, Issue 1, 2019 Foley-Nicpon, M., Assouline, S. G., Foley-Nicpon, M., Assouline, S. Fugate, C. M., Zentall, S. S., & Gentry, & Fosenburg, S. (2015). The rela- G., Rickels, H., & Richards, M. (2013). Creativity and working tionship between self-concept, A. (2012). Self-esteem and memory in gifted students with ability, and academic program- self-concept examination among and without characteristics of ming among twice-exceptional gifted students with ADHD. attention deficit hyperactive dis- youth. Journal of Advanced Aca- Journal for the Education of order: Lifting the mask.Gifted demics, 26, 256–273. the Gifted, 35, 220–240. doi: Child Quarterly, 57, 234–246. 10.1177/0162353212451735 doi:10.1177/0016986213500069 Researchers compared the self-concept profiles of 2e students who scored at This study was the first to examine Prior research has indicated that stu- the 90th percentile on an intelligence directly the self-concept and self-esteem dents with ADHD have lower working test and were diagnosed with either an of gifted individuals who have ADHD memory but demonstrate greater cre- SLD (n = 11) or ASD (n = 53). Students compared to gifted students who do not ativity. As a greater working memory with SLD or ASD scored similarly and have ADHD. All participants (n = 112), should assist in holding and manip- fell within the average range on all six ages 6 to 18, were intellectually gifted, ulating information in the mind to domains of self-concept as measured scoring above the 91st percentile on the create novel ideas, these findings by the Piers-Harris-2. Given previous WISC-IV or the WAIS-III; 48% (n = seem paradoxical. To investigate this research demonstrating that students 54) were diagnosed with ADHD. Two- enigma further, this study compared with disabilities have a lower self-concept, thirds of both the gifted/ADHD group the working memory and creativity the researchers hypothesized that either and the gifted group were males and the of intellectually gifted students with (a) the presence of giftedness served to majority identified as Caucasian. More ADHD characteristics (n = 17) with than half (n = 25) of the gifted/ADHD mitigate students’ self-concept or (b) 2e those without ADHD characteristics students had a comorbid psychological participants with ASD or SLD may have (n = 20). Both groups were similar on diagnosis such as anxiety, depression, a positive illusory bias. Next, the relation- measures of average fluid intelligence adjustment disorder, or a learning disor- ship between ability, self-concept, and and average age (ranging from 10–17). der; none of the gifted-only students had educational services and interventions Congruent with prior research, the a psychological disorder. Both groups were examined. The only self-concept results indicated the gifted students scored similarly on measures of interper- measure that significantly correlated to an with ADHD characteristics had lower sonal relationships, social stress, ability to intelligence index measure was process- working memory but scored signifi- deal with anxiety, as well as perceptions ing speed and popularity. Although also cantly higher on overall creativity of physical appearance, intelligence, as measured by the Torrance Test incongruent with previous research with and popularity, but gifted/ADHD stu- gifted students, participants’ self-concept of Creative Thinking compared to dents were 2 times more likely to report the gifted students without ADHD. had no relationship to participation in having a low self-esteem. The gifted/ In the gifted-ADHD sample, 41% gifted programming; therefore, it appears ADHD group scored significantly lower scored 90th percentile or higher on educational interventions targeted toward on measures of overall happiness possi- the Creativity Index score. These participants’ strengths do not impact the bly because of the relationship between findings suggest enhanced creativity self-concept of these 2e students possibly self-esteem and happiness. Consistent in above-average intelligence students due to limited personal insight. Four of with prior research, the gifted-only stu- with ADHD characteristics, however, the six self-concept measures were pos- dents had a high self-concept related to the researchers acknowledge the small itively correlated with the exception of their intelligence and behaviors. These sample size was a research limitation. behavioral difficulties that did not impact findings suggest that being identified as The research implies that the use of participants’ peer relationships or their gifted may serve a protective measure creativity assessments may be helpful perceived physical attractiveness. Students on some aspects of self-confidence. The in identifying more 2e gifted students with higher verbal comprehension scores researchers contended that knowing a were more likely to participate in G/T 2e student’s self-concept profile aids in with ADHD. Educational environ- programming and whole-grade acceler- formulating appropriate educational ments for these students should use ation, and students with higher working interventions. Providing a supportive these creativity strengths as a learning memory scores were more likely to par- environment and teaching strategies to pathway while continuing to cultivate ticipate in G/T programming and sin- compensate for ADHD symptoms is their creativity. gle subject acceleration. The researchers important because low self-esteem could Gilger, J. W., & Olulade, O. A. (2013). emphasized the need for ongoing research negatively influence future postsecond- What happened to the “superior to investigate if other 2e students’ percep- ary decisions of 2e students in spite of abilities” in adults with dyslexia tions are similar. their high cognitive abilities. and high IQs? A behavioral and

Texas Association for the Gifted & Talented 33 neurological illustration. Roeper gifted peers. The authors concluded students. Perhaps as a result of years of Review, 35, 241–253. doi:10.1080 that homogeneously grouping children struggling and repeated failures with /02783193.2013.825365 by standardized test scores might not their disability, older 2e students lack Although individuals’ test scores are be ideal because of the heterogeneous confidence in their abilities. In addition often the criteria used by educators neurological and developmental differ- to individualized programs that build for making decisions regarding grade ences within and between groups with upon their strengths, the authors sug- promotion, their results do not nec- and without disabilities. gested concurrently teaching 2e stu- dents specific metacognitive and critical essarily identify any underlying cog- Hannah, C. L., & Shore, B. M. (2008). nitive or neurological processes. The Twice-exceptional students’ reading strategies to improve their read- researchers, therefore, sought to inves- use of metacognitive skills on a ing performance. tigate if the underlying neurology of comprehension monitoring task. Mayes, R. D., & Moore, J. L. (2016). high-IQ reading-disabled students is Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 3–18. Adversity and pitfalls of twice- similar to that of high-IQ students This exploratory qualitative research exceptional urban learners. Jour- without a reading disability. Fourteen investigated how 2e students used meta- nal of Advanced Academics, 27, 167–189. college students with normal verbal cognitive skills to understand a section IQs and high-performance IQs (at or of reading material that was deliber- Given the paucity of research related above 120) participated in the study, ately altered to hinder comprehension to African American 2e students, including five nonverbally gifted (unfamiliar vocabulary, two internal the researchers used a grounded the- normal readers (G) and nine nonver- inconsistencies, and two expected prior ory analysis of interviews to examine bally gifted reading disabled (GRD). knowledge violations [e.g., automobiles how the experiences and perceptions Although the GRD mean scores were in 1647]). Gifted participants (earning of artistically gifted Black high school within the average range, the G group >128 on an intelligence assessment) also students with a disability (n = 8) and performed significantly better than had a diagnosed LD (but not neces- their mothers (n = 3). Gifted students the GRD group on spelling, word sarily a reading disability). Six males at a large Midwestern urban district recognition, reading comprehen- in grades 5 or 6 who read at a third- were identified and provided services sion, and reading fluency measures. grade level or higher and six males in specific to their identified area of gift- Practically speaking, the GRD par- grades 11 or 12 who read at a fourth- edness: dance (n = 3), instrumental (n = ticipants appeared to be satisfactory grade level or higher were selected for 2), vocal (n = 2), or visual arts. Students readers, when in reality, they had an inclusion. After practicing the think- reported negative self-perceptions (e.g., ongoing struggle, attempting to use aloud strategy, students were asked to stupid, slow, dumb) and feelings of their strengths to compensate for their read a sentence for understanding and isolation after being identified with a reading skills weakness. Not surpris- describe their thoughts before proceed- disability, causing them to use coping ingly given their disability, GRD stu- ing. Most students actively monitored strategies, such as social withdrawal dents were significantly slower and less their comprehension, evaluated their or skipping class. Most mothers were accurate on their fMRI word tasks. G performance, and employed the use of originally in denial after special edu- students unexpectedly performed sig- background knowledge. The look-back cation identification and thought that nificantly better on the fMRI spatial strategy helped students to self-monitor trying harder would fix their child’s relationship tasks. The fMRI results comprehension of new vocabulary, to problems. Parents responded by get- also showed different brain activation assess inferences, or to clarify surprising ting outside support or seeking more profiles between groups for both the information. Students also used gram- information about their child’s special reading and spatial tasks. Given these matical structural information, context needs. Only one student was aware of findings, the researchers hypothesize clues, visual imagery, and skimmed or his gifted identification. Upon learning that the GRD adult brain processes reread the text. Older students were of the identification, five of the seven spatial and written stimuli differently typically more active in metacogni- indicated feeling increased confidence (overrelying on atypical regions) as a tive attempts when confronted with and appreciation of being recognized. result of reading compensatory strat- comprehension difficulties. Yet when Because of the disability, however, par- egies accumulated over a lifetime. faced with an obvious inconsistency in ents and most students expressed anxi- Although scoring similarly on specific the factual matter, the older students ety about the ability to be successful in IQ measures, the 2e adults had differ- were more likely to attribute the com- school and in their future life. With the ent behavior and functional profiles, prehension problem to their lack of exception of one student, all perceived implying they also had unique edu- ability rather than a textual problem their disability as socially detrimental. cational needs compared to similarly compared to the upper elementary Given the negative experiences partici-

34 Tempo • Vol. XL, Issue 1, 2019 pants’ associate with their disability, the a math discrepancy, meaning almost about the challenges resulting from authors indicated concern that students 10% of students would have been the disability, mothers kept high aca- have internalized feelings of stupidity identified for further testing for twice- demic expectations. In summary, pri- because negative self-perceptions com- exceptionality. Although the authors mary caregivers play a major role in bined with an anti-intellectual Black indicated RtI screening was designed recognizing their child’s gifts and dis- stereotype can lead to lower self-esteem, to identify students at-risk of poor aca- abilities. They provide additional sup- academic disengagement, and under- demic performance, the discrepancy port, high expectations, and advocacy, achievement. As most were unaware model might also be used to screen while modeling for their 2e children of their gifted designation, students for potential 2e students who have how to advocate for themselves. Given may not have received gifted services low-average academic performance that the level of involvement described or the potential protective benefits from in one subject area compared to very requires educated and motivated care- the designation by developing a gifted high performance in another subject. givers who have financial resources, identity. The obvious advantage of this model is the authors urge policymakers and that schools typically collect these data educators to create systems for early McCallum, R. S., Bell, S. M., Coles, J. using curriculum-based measurements identification and to provide opportu- T., Miller, K. C., Hopkins, M. B., & Hilton-Prillhart, A. (2013). A model within the RtI framework. nities to participate in gifted program- ming with necessary accommodations, for screening twice-exceptional Neumeister, K. S., Yssel, N., & Bur- students (gifted with learning ney, V. H. (2013). The influ- especially for 2e children who may not disabilities) within a Response ence of primary caregivers have access to similar supports. to Intervention paradigm. Gifted in fostering success in twice- Robinson, S. A. (2017). Phoenix rising: Child Quarterly, 57, 209–222. exceptional children. Gifted An autoethnographic account doi:10.1177/0016986213500070 Child Quarterly, 57, 263–274. of a gifted Black male with dys- Given the difficulty in identifying doi:10.1177/0016986213500068 lexia. Journal for the Educa- 2e students, this research aimed to To understand primary caregivers tion of the Gifted, 40, 135–151. create a model that used Response influence, mothers of 10 academically doi:10.1177/0162353217701021 to Intervention (RtI) to screen for 2e successful 2e children were recruited This qualitative study described the students and to determine the inci- for participation in this qualitative academic journey of a high-ability dence of twice-exceptionality using study. These mothers parented 2e male with dyslexia and provided a the proposed model. The researchers children ranging in age from 11 to theoretical model for explaining the suggested that a performance discrep- 35 years old. Their child’s evidence of intersections of multiple identities. The ancy between two core subjects (e.g., success included good grades, gradu- author/researcher was placed in special math and reading) might tentatively ation from college, and/or graduate education for his anger “which related indicate twice-exceptionality. Three degrees. Participants’ gifted children to not knowing how to read” (p. 144), cohorts of third-grade students (n = had one or more disabilities (SLD = but his dyslexia diagnosis was missed. 1,242) from a Southeastern school 4, ADHD = 4, ASD = 2, anxiety/ Although he entered college reading district (with 59% economically dis- depression = 1). Caregivers’ comments at a third-grade level, he surpassed advantaged) participated. Using stu- from semi-structured interviews were all expectations, earning a bachelor’s dents’ observed scores, 1.1% of the analyzed using a grounded theory degree in 6 years, a master’s degree in students demonstrated a reading aca- approach. All mothers realized their 4 years, and a Ph.D. in 7 years. He demic discrepancy (i.e., performing child’s intellectual giftedness by pre- examined research literature, chroni- above the 84th percentile in math but school and were the first to recognize a cled significant stories in his academic below the 25th percentile in reading) problem indicating a disability, even in journey, and articulated his lived and 1.1% exhibited an academic math spite of initial reassurance from profes- experience using autoethnography. discrepancy (i.e., performing above the sionals that their children were doing He used multiple lenses to analyze 84th percentile in reading but below fine. When their child was not flour- his personal experiences and his iden- the 25th percentile in math). However, ishing, mothers were willing to go “the tity construction: critical race theory, if the examiners considered a discrep- extra mile” in advocating and seeking dyslexic, gifted, twice-exceptional, ancy of 1.5 standard deviations × additional supports, including tutor- and Black male. Four themes emerged standard error of measurement, then ing, educational programs designed from data analysis: (a) experiencing 4.8% of the students scoring above the for 2e students, psychologists, and school as an outsider because of his 84th percentile demonstrated a read- specific therapies. Although simulta- LD and his race, (b) limited learn- ing discrepancy and 5.5% exhibited neously sympathizing with the child ing potential because of incorrect

Texas Association for the Gifted & Talented 35 diagnosis, (c) achieving critical con- and (d) meltdowns, which were trig- to interpret the College Board’s Equity sciousness through learning to read, gered when rules were not followed or Policy differently. Some districts elim- and (d) motivation from giftedness. when schedules were irregular. Second, inated barriers to participation, and The author presented a Triple Identity parents perceived that educators’ other schools had strict guidelines that Theory that provided structure for limited professional knowledge and were perceived to limit selection bias his research. At the micro level, three schools’ structural inflexibility made (but resulted in few disabled students overlapping circles represented the it difficult to adequately address their meeting the criteria). Third, educators intersections of various facets of iden- child’s unique needs. Third, parents did not explain the benefits of taking tity: race, giftedness, and disability. At sought information outside of school advanced classes in transitioning to the macro level, societal expectations, to be better advocates. Finally, parent- college, even to those students with educational policies, and his reaction ing was difficult even with typically postsecondary plans. Fourth, parents to that treatment had a bidirectional developing children. Adding the addi- and former students reported problems influence on the micro level. Because tional roles of researcher, advocate, and in accessing their accommodations Black males are 2–3 times more likely supplementing instruction at home was in AP and dual-credit classes. Some to be in special education and under- even more fatiguing. The authors con- teachers erroneously believed that represented in gifted education, this cluded that awareness of the four com- accommodations were not permitted research provided insight into serv- mon characteristics was a good starting or were opposed to enrolling a student ing underrepresented minority 2e place for equipping educators to meet who required accommodations. Fifth, students. needs of gifted children with ASD. parents believed that their advocacy as early as elementary school was instru- Rubenstein, L. D., Schelling, N., Wil- Schultz, S. M. (2012). Twice-exceptional czynski, S. M., & Hooks, E. N. students enrolled in Advanced mental in providing an academic (2015). Lived experiences of Placement classes. Gifted Child challenge in areas of strength that was parents of gifted students with Quarterly, 56, 119–133. doi: necessary to access and prepare stu- Autism Spectrum Disorder. Gifted 10.1177/0016986212444605 dents for advanced high school classes. Child Quarterly, 59, 283–298. Sixth, mentors played an important Because educators often focus on doi:10.1177/0016986215592193 role for students in providing encour- remediation for 2e students’ dis- agement and advising them to enroll The lived experiences of 13 parents abilities and ignore their strengths, in advanced high school classes. By who had a gifted child diagnosed with 2e students may not have access to implication, administrators might ASD were investigated in this phenom- advanced coursework to adequately want to revisit policies and examine enological study. Given the volume of prepare them for postsecondary edu- their institutional culture to assess if data collected, this study specifically cation. In this exploratory qualitative barriers are unduly thwarting enroll- highlighted the shared educational study, semi-structured interviews ment in advanced high school classes experiences of these parents of their examined educators’ and parents’ or hampering the success of enrolled gifted children with ASD (12 with a perceptions regarding student enroll- students. Teachers of advanced stu- son between 8–15, one with a 15-year- ment in advanced placement (AP) and dents might also benefit from further old daughter). Three education-related dual-enrollment courses. Participants professional development regarding themes emerged from data analysis. included parents of a child with a dis- IEP and 504 plans. First, participants’ children shared ability who took an AP or dual-credit gifted/ASD characteristics that schools course (n = 12), teachers (n = 12), guid- Wood, S. C. (2012). Examining par- and families found challenging: (a) ance counselors (n = 6), and college ent and teacher perceptions of asynchronous development (especially students who had previously enrolled behaviors exhibited by gifted evident between academic and social in AP and/or dual-credit courses (n = students referred for ADHD abilities, but also between subjects as 6). Six themes emerged from analy- diagnosis using the Conners 3 well), which made adults have higher sis of the interview transcripts. First, (An exploratory study). Roeper expectations that students could not school culture impacted enrollment Review, 34, 194–204. doi:10.1080 /02783193.2012.686426 meet in areas of their weakness; (b) in advanced high school classes. For high intelligence coupled with intensely example, if educators perceived the AP In order to examine parent and focused interest, which led the child to classes were for the gifted/honors stu- teacher perceptions of gifted chil- monologue-type communication with- dents or if teachers served as gatekeep- dren who displayed ADHD char- out regard for listener needs; (c) social ers to access, students with disabilities acteristics, this exploratory research deficits, which included an inability to would be less likely to take advanced compared parent and teacher ratings express appreciation and excitement; classes. Similarly, educators appeared on the Conners 3rd Edition behavior

36 Tempo • Vol. XL, Issue 1, 2019 rating scales. Scales were completed were suspected of having LD that pre- disability by compensating with by 26 parents and seven teachers, pro- vented them from thriving in gifted their intellectual giftedness (indicat- viding comparisons for 21 second and programming, average group scores ing that the assessment may not be third grade identified gifted students on learning problems did not indi- valid for gifted students) or that the (76% male) who were “not thriving” cate atypical levels for inattention, screening criteria used in this study (p. 197). Although none of the stu- hyperactive-impulsive behaviors, and to select participants overidentified dents had met school criteria for LD, executive function. The researchers learning problems. The researchers five (24%) had been diagnosed with suggested two explanations for these noted, however, that the generaliz- ADHD. Although the sample was surprisingly average scores—either ability of findings is limited because purposefully selected because they gifted students can mask their true of the small sample size.

Corina R. Kaul, M.A., received her B.S. degree from the University of Oregon, her master’s degree from Baylor University, and is currently a doctoral candidate in the Department of Educational Psychology at Baylor University where she is specializing in gifted education and quan- titative research. She is Assistant Director of the Center for Community and Learning and Enrichment and administers Baylor’s University for Young People, an enrichment program for gifted students, and the annual conference for K–12 educators of gifted children. She also assists in conducting program evaluations of district gifted programs. Her current research interests focus on 2e students, G/T program evaluation, gifted English language learners, low-income gifted students, first-generation gifted students, teachers of gifted students, and the affective needs of gifted learners. She may be reached at [email protected]. Susan K. Johnsen, Ph.D., is a professor emeritus in the Department of Educational Psychology at Baylor University. She has written three tests used in identifying gifted students: Test of Mathematical Abilities for Gifted Students (TOMAGS), Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (TONI-4), and Screening Assessment for Gifted Students (SAGES-3). She is editor-in-chief of Gifted Child Today and author of more than 250 publica- tions related to gifted education. She is past president of The Association for the Gifted (TAG) and past president of the Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented (TAGT). She has received awards for her work in the field of education, including NAGC’s President’s Award, CEC’s Leadership Award, TAG’s Leadership Award, TAGT’s President’s Award, and TAGT’s Advocacy Award.

IF I’M SO SMART, WHY DO I? THE INTERNAL STRUGGLES OF GIFTED STUDENTS WITH ADHD

Continued from page 25 REFERENCES Betts, G. T., Carey, R. J., & Kapushion, to individual learning needs and sity. (n.d.) What is neurodiver- B. M. (2017). Autonomous Learner how to meet them. London, UK: sity? Retrieved from https:// Model resource book. Waco, TX: Kingsley. neurodiversitysymposium.wordpress. Prufrock Press. Karnes, F. A., & Bean, S. M. (Eds.). com/what-is-neurodiversity Clark, B. (2013). Growing up gifted: (2015). Methods and materials for Reis, S. M., Baum, S. M., & Burke, E. Developing the potential of chil- teaching the gifted (4th ed.). Waco, (2014). An operational definition of dren at home and at school (8th TX: Prufrock Press. twice-exceptional learners: Impli- ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Kaufman, C. (2010). Executive function cations and applications. Gifted Gioia, G. A., Isquith, P. K., & Guy, S. C. in the classroom: Practical strat- Child Quarterly, 44, 152–170. (2001). Assessment of executive egies for improving performance Van Gerven, E. (2018). Addressing the function in children with neuro- and enhancing skills for all stu- needs of twice-exceptional stu- logical impairment. In R. J. Sim- dents. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. dents in the regular classroom. eonsson & S. L. Rosenthal (Eds.), Masi, L., & Gignac, M. (2015). ADHD and Almere, The Netherlands: Slim Psychological and developmental comorbid disorders in childhood Educatief. assessment: Children with disabil- psychiatric problems, medical Van Gerven, E., & Troxclair, D. (2017). ities and chronic conditions (pp. problems, learning disorders, and Theory to practice: Classroom 317–356). New York, NY: Guilford developmental coordination disor- strategies to support gifted stu- Press. ders. Clinical Psychology, 1(1), 1–4 dents with ADHD. Presentation at Honeybourne, V. (2018) The neurodi- The National Symposium on Neu- the 2017 Council for Exceptional verse classroom: A teacher’s guide rodiversity at Syracuse Univer- Children Conference, Boston, MA.

Debra A. Troxclair, Ph.D., associate professor at Lamar University, teaches undergraduate and graduate special education courses and gifted education courses in the Teacher Education Department at Lamar. She has more than 20 years of experience teaching at the K–12 level, as well as training graduate students in gifted and special education at the university level. She has supervised summer programs for gifted children and has publications on a variety of gifted education topics. She currently serves on the Board of Directors for the Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented and the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) TAG Division.

Texas Association for the Gifted & Talented 37 CALL FOR MANUSCRIPTS Here is your chance to have your voice heard! If you would like to be considered for publication in an upcoming issue of TEMPO, please follow the guidelines for article submissions below. The TAGT Editorial Board identifies themes for upcoming issues ofTEMPO and appreciates articles submitted for possible publica- tion tied to the noted themes. The Editorial Board also encourages researchers/authors to submit articles that are not tied to a particular theme. Some issues may include more than one theme based on articles submitted. For more details, please contact TEMPO Managing Editor, Lacy Compton, at tempo@txgifted. org. We are currently soliciting manuscripts for the following issues.

GIFTED STUDENTS AND UNDERACHIEVEMENT PARENTING THE GIFTED STEAM due August 1, 2019 due September 1, 2019 due July 1, 2019

GUIDELINES FOR 2019 TAGT BOARD ARTICLE SUBMISSIONS BOARD OFFICERS President: D’Lana Barbay, M.Ed., Beaumont ISD TEMPO welcomes manuscripts from President-Elect: San Marcos CISD educators, parents, and other advocates of Debbie Smith, gifted education. Manuscripts may focus on all Treasurer: Christina T. Dearman, Ph.D., Denton ISD areas of gifted/talented education including Secretary: Joyce E. Kyle Miller, Ph.D., Texas A&M University-Commerce policies, applications of research, programs, Executive Director: Paulina van Eeden Hill, CAE and practices. TEMPO is a juried publication and manuscripts are evaluated by members of BOARD MEMBERS the editorial board and/or other reviewers. Administrator: Audra Rowell, M.Ed., Northwest ISD At-Large: Jennifer Gann, M.Ed., Santiago Christian Please keep in mind the following when K-12 Teacher: Katie Drake, Copperas Cove ISD School, Dominican Republic submitting manuscripts: Parent: Folly Jee Ligh, M.S., Sugar Land At-Large: C. Matthew Fugate, Ph.D., 1. Manuscripts should be 2,000 to 10,000 University: Debbie Troxclair, Ph.D., University of Houston-Downtown words on a topic related to gifted education. Lamar University, Beaumont At-Large: Javetta Jones-Roberson, M.Ed., Birdville ISD 2. References should follow the APA At-Large: Luke T. Hurst, M.Ed., McKinney ISD style outlined in the sixth edition of the Publication Manual of the American EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS Psychological Association. Krystal Goree, Ph.D., Chair, Amanda Rudolph, Ph.D., 3. Submit an electronic copy, typed, 12 pt. Baylor University Stephen F. Austin State University font, double-spaced manuscript. Use a 1 Judy Bridges, Midland ISD Glen Teal, Ed.D., Abernathy ISD 1/2" margin on all sides and number pages. Susan Johnsen, Ph.D., Baylor University Suzy Thompson, Ph.D., Leander, TX 4. In addition to the title page, a cover page must be attached that includes the author’s EDITORIAL PEER REVIEW BOARD name, title, school or program affiliation, home and work address, e-mail address, James Bishop, Westlake, TX Lemoyne Dunn, Ph.D., Patricia Milleric, University of North Texas Houston Community College phone numbers, and fax number. Caitlin Brandenberger, 5. Place tables, figures, illustrations, and Baylor University Connee Duran, Waco ISD Cecily Moore, San Marcos CISD photographs on separate pages. Each Lynette Breedlove, Ph.D., Gwen Frank, Ph.D., Qunita Ogletree, should have a title and be referenced The Gatton Academy, SUNY College at Oneonta First Metropolitan IDC Western Kentucky University in the text. Submit electronically with Arthur Granada, Ed.D., Connie Phelps, Ph.D., manuscript. Judy Bridges, Midland ISD Wichita State University Emporia State University 6. Author(s) is fully responsible for accuracy Dina Brulles, Ph.D., Meredith Hairell, Victoria ISD Melissa Saphos, Pearland ISD of quotations, citations, figures, and facts. Arizona State University Karen Hassell, Ed.D., Waco, TX Rebecca Schlosser, J.D., Ed.D., 7. Author(s) of accepted manuscripts must Paige Carpenter, Regina Hein, The School of Liberal Arts Sul Ross State University transfer copyright to TEMPO, which holds Northwest ISD & Science, Dallas, TX Sandra Stocks, copyright to all articles and reviews. Mary Christopher, Ph.D., Ellen Lukasic, University of Texas, Cypress-Fairbanks ISD 8. Upon acceptance of a manuscript, Hardin Simmons University University Charter Schools Debra Troxclair, Ph.D., Flexible online courses Online, self-paced the author(s) submits a 50–100-word Alicia Cotabish, Ed.D., Bronwyn MacFarlane, Ph.D., University Lamar University biography and a 100–150-word abstract of University of Central Arkansas of Arkansas, Little Rock Kimberly Tyler, Ph.D., for students, G/T teacher professional the manuscript. Jeff Cranmore, Ph.D., Jordan Martella, Gatesville ISD Texas Wesleyan University McKinney, TX Judith Martin, Ed.D., Marcy Voss, Boerne, TX Please send manuscripts and inquiries to: Ryan Davis, Bulverde, Texas Melanie Williams, including AP® offerings development Lacy Compton Temple ISD/Temple College Joyce Miller, Ph.D., University of Texas Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD TAGT Communications Manager Lynn Dodge, ESC Region II A&M–Commerce [email protected]

Learn more about school partnerships at highschool.utexas.edu Flexible online courses Online, self-paced for students, G/T teacher professional including AP® offerings development

Learn more about school partnerships at highschool.utexas.edu Non Profit Org. U.S. Postage PAID 3305 Steck Avenue Austin, Texas Suite 200 Permit No. 4400 Austin, Texas 78757

Meet our masterminds!

Colin Seale Ashanti Branch Jonathan Fred Bonner II thinkLaw Ever Forward Club Plucker Prairie View A&M University Johns Hopkins University

D euit

SEING TE NESEE GJune 182 • San Antonio

Reserve your space and preview the schedule of sessions at www.txgifted.org/giftedplus