7RGD\V*LIWHG&KLOG: A Qualitative Case Study on the Teachers and the Twice

Exceptional Student

Dissertation
Submitted to Northcentral University
Graduate Faculty of the School of Education
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

by
Lisa Lynn Webster

Prescott Valley, Arizona

December 2015

ProQuest Number: 3746024

All rights reserved

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

ProQuest 3746024
Published by ProQuest LLC (2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

iii

Abstract
The study examined the barriers that affect why regular education teachers do not refer
specific learning disabled (SLD) or students identified with Attention Deficit Hyperactive
Disorder (ADHD) to the gifted education program for testing. The problem is that
UHJXODUHGXFDWLRQWHDFKHUVODFNH[SHULHQFHWUDLQLQJDQGNQRZOHGJHLQUHIHUULQJVWXGHQWV
identified SLD or ADHD to the gifted education program. The purpose of this study was
WRH[DPLQHWKHUHJXODUHGXFDWLRQWHDFKHUVH[SHULHQFHVWUDLQLQJDQGNQRZOHGJHRIWZLFHexceptional students and identify what affects their decision on whether or not to refer a
student. The research method will be an explanatory qualitative case study using
interviews and a document review. The participants were randomly selected, regular
education teachers at two local elementary schools in a county in central North Carolina.
The study has given a more in-depth understanding of what educators in a small rural
community know to enable the gifted education department to create professional
development for teachers about identifying possible twice-exceptional students. Data
were DQDO\]HGDQGFRGHGWRLGHQWLI\KRZWHDFKHUVNnowledge, experience, and training
affected their referral of students with SLD or ADHD. From the coded themes, four
patterns were identified: lack of teaching experience, lack of training, lack of confidence,
and stereotyping and misconceptions. The themes were based on the findings from
teacher interviews at two different schools and a document review of the gifted behavior
scaled used by the county. Recommendations based on the findings included the creation
or adoption of a new behavior scale geared to the twice-exceptional students and the
creation of professional development for all teachers. Recommendations for future
research included using interviewing teachers from kindergarten to 12th grade, and using

iv

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

Acknowledgements
There are many people I need to acknowledge for all their support through this long
process. First to my mother Barbara Webster for always reminding how important
learning and a good education is. Without her encouragement growing up, I would never
had gotten this far. Gone but not forgotten.
To John Webster, my father, for his endless encouragement and support through this
process.
7RP\ILDQFp3KLOOLS&DURRQIRUKLVHQGOHVVVupport and love while I have spent hours
and hours locked in the computer reading, writing, and editing.
To Janette Johnson and Michele Foster, fellow colleagues and friends, who without their
endless support and numerous hours of reading and proofing for me, I would not have
made it this far. To the teachers who allowed me to prod and probe into their thoughts in
order to do this research study.
To my endless nieces and nephews and close family friends for being my support system
when I stressed and my constant cheerleading section.
To my first chair, Dr. Jerome Fore, for his continuous support and guidance through this
long process.
To my second chair, Dr. Rademaker, for getting me through the last leg of the process.
Lastly, to Meatball Webster (the cat) and Tinkerbell Webster-Caroon (the dog), for
keeping me company while I sat for long hours of reading and writing and you missed
out on playtime. We can now play again!

vi

Table of Contents
List of Tables ................................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures .................................................................................................................... ix
Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
Background ................................................................................................................... 2
Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................. 3
Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................... 4
Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 4
Nature of the Study ....................................................................................................... 5
Significance of the Study .............................................................................................. 6
Definition of Key Terms ............................................................................................... 7
Chapter 2: Literature Review ............................................................................................ 10
Documentation ............................................................................................................ 10
Gifted and Talented..................................................................................................... 11
Learning Disabilities ................................................................................................... 18
Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder ...................................................................... 20
Twice-Exceptional Students ....................................................................................... 26
Gifted Students with Learning Disabilities ................................................................. 32
Gifted students with attention deficit hyperactive disorder ........................................ 38
Underachievement ...................................................................................................... 40
Response to Intervention............................................................................................. 41
Implicit Personality Theory ........................................................................................ 44
Educator Perceptions of the Twice-Exceptional Student............................................ 45
Teacher Training ......................................................................................................... 49
Summary ..................................................................................................................... 51
Chapter 3: Research Method ............................................................................................. 52
Research Methods and Design(s)................................................................................ 53
Population ................................................................................................................... 54
Sample......................................................................................................................... 55
Materials/Instruments ................................................................................................. 56
Data Collection, Processing, and Analysis ................................................................. 57
Assumptions ................................................................................................................ 59
Limitations .................................................................................................................. 60
Delimitations ............................................................................................................... 60
Ethical Assurances ...................................................................................................... 61
Summary ..................................................................................................................... 63

vii

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

Results ......................................................................................................................... 65
Evaluation of Findings ................................................................................................ 73
Summary ..................................................................................................................... 78
Chapter 5: Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions ........................................ 80
Implications................................................................................................................. 82
Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 85
Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 87
References ......................................................................................................................... 88
Appendices ........................................................................................................................ 98
Appendix A: Advertisement to Recruit Participants ................................................. 99
Appendix B: Informed Consent Form ...................................................................... 100
Appendix C: Interview Questions ............................................................................. 102
Appendix D: Letters of Permission........................................................................... 105
Appendix E: Gifted Behavior Scale .......................................................................... 107

viii

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

ix

List of Figures
Figure 1: RTI Multi-Tier Support.............................................................................43

Chapter 1: Introduction
Foley-Nicpon, Allmon, Sieck, and Stinson (2011) estimated that there are more
than 300,000 twice-exceptional students unidentified in the education system of the
United States. For this reason, the twice-exceptional student is at risk of never meeting
their potential. A twice-exceptional student is defined as a person who has superior
intellect in one or more areas but also has a significant discrepancy in one or more areas
(Bianco & Leech, 2010, Leggett, Shea, & Wilson, 2010). Twice-exceptional students
may exhibit high abilities in math but have struggles with basic verbal or written skills or
exhibit high abilities in many areas and lack focus, organization skills and have Attention
Defilicit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) (Leggett et al., 2010).
Identifying gifted learners and learning disabled students are exclusive. Due to
exclusivity for testing, results lead to the student being only recognized for their strength
(gifted testing) or weakness (disability testing) (Elhoweris, 2008). The twice-exceptional
student most often falls into one of four categories, which makes identifying them
difficult for the regular education teacher. First, a student may be identified as gifted, but
their disability may not be diagnosed (Bianco & Leech, 2010; Elhoweris, 2008). Second,
a student may be identified as learning disabled, or other health impairment, but their gift
is not identified (Bianco & Leech, 2010; Elhoweris, 2008). Third, a student who never
gets identified because their gift and disability mask each other (Bianco & Leech, 2010;
Elhoweris, 2008). Lastly, teachers overlook a student whose erratic behaviors (attention,
lack of concentration, hyperactivity, and disruptions) affect their learning (Wood, 2012).
School districts should examine professional development to ensure teachers are aware of
how to refer the twice-exceptional student for appropriate services.

2
Background
The concept that a student can be twice-exceptional, having gifts and disabilities,
is a difficult concept for educators to believe (Foley-Nicpon et al., 2011). National
Association for Gifted Children (1998) released a position paper calling for a need to
accept and identify twice-exceptional students. Students who exhibit gifted behaviors,
such as keen interest, high creativity, and abstract thinking, while frequently having
issues in reading, writing, math, memory, organization, or attention, are identified as
twice-exceptional. The twice-exceptional student needs nurturing for their gifts, while
receiving accommodations for weaknesses (Foley-Nicpon et al., 2011; Jolly & Hughes,
2015; National Association for Gifted Children, 1998). According to the National Joint
Committee on Learning Disabilities (2011), twice-exceptional students may appear to be
on grade level, but their performance is lower than it should be because their intelligence
is higher.
Regular education teachers often overlook students who are gifted and have a
learning disabled or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (Aldridge, 2011; National
-RLQW&RPPLWWHHRQ/HDUQLQJ'LVDELOLWLHV(GXFDWRUVNQRZOHGJHRIJLIWHGQHVV
and their beliefs about students are important in considering a student for referral in the
gifted education program (Troxclair, 2013). Twice-exceptional students are at significant
risk of being high school dropouts or not furthering their studies after high school and
never developing to their fullest potential because their educational needs are never met
(Trail, 2011). According to Aldridge (2011), teachHUVSHUFHSWLRQLVDsignificant
influence in whether students are identified or even receive services. Identifying what
triggers teachers to refer or not refer is the root of the problem and changing their

3
perceptions is how to help the twice-exceptional student succeed.
Statement of the Problem
The specific problem this study examined was that regular education teachers lack
experience, training, and knowledge in referring students identified as specific learning
disabled (SLD) or Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD) to the gifted
education program (Davis, Rimm, & Siegel, 2010; Bianco & Leech, 2010). A student is
identified as twice-exceptional when they receive services from the special education
program and the gifted education program, but research reveals that educator beliefs and
lack of understanding of the twice-exceptional student hinders the referral process
(Bianco & Leech, 2010; Davis et al., 2010). The specific learning disabled and the
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder students are often overlooked for gifted
education programs (Baldwin, Omdal, & Pereles, 2015) because of the lack of knowledge
and training by regular education teachers. Training and experience influence an
HGXFDWRUVSHUFHSWLRQ6]\PDQVNL 6KDIIDQGresearch suggests teachers are not
trained in recognizing characteristics and behaviors of twice-exceptional students,
creating a disservice to the student by not being placed into gifted programs (de Wet &
Gubbins, 2011).
Regular elementary education teachers have the most contact with all students
because students remain with them the majority of the school day. They are the first to
refer a student for testing, but their lack of understanding about the twice-exceptional
students hinders them from referring a student (Bianco, Harris, Garrison-Wade, & Leech,
2011; de Wet & Gubbins, 2011; Jolly & Hughes, 20157KH6/'DQG$'+'VWXGHQWV
educational needs are not met if they are not receiving services for their gifts and

4
disabilities (Bianca & Leech, 2008; Jolly & Hughes, 2015). There is a disparity in the
number of students who are gifted and talented and are not identified especially in highpoverty schools (Jolly & Hughes, 2015).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this explanatory, qualitative case study was to investigate regular
HGXFDWLRQWHDFKHUVH[SHULHQFHVWUDLQLQJDQGNQRZOHGJHRIWZLFH-exceptional students
and identify what affects their decision on whether to refer or not to refer a student. The
study took place in two elementary schools in a high poverty, rural school district in
North Carolina. The participants consisted of 16 regular education teachers. The sample
size was an acceptable size based upon the case study method (Lodico, Spaulding, &
Voegtle, 2011; Yin, 2014). Eight randomly selected teachers from each school were
chosen using a mixture of random sampling based upon two factors: they were employed
at one of the two schools being used and that they were certified to teach in the state. The
educators completed a semi-structured interview based upon questions used from
interviews in Szymanski and Shaff (2012) and Berman, Schultz, and Weber (2012)
(Appendix C). Interviews were conducted via email, and in person. Data collected from
interviews was studied to identify common themes in what prompts regular education
teachers to refer or not to refer a student with, a specific learning disability or attention
deficit hyperactivity disorder, to the gifted education program.
Research Questions
The problem this study investigated was WKHUHJXODUHGXFDWLRQWHDFKHUV
experience, training, and knowledge of referring students identified as specific learning
disabled or Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder to the gifted education program. The

5
following research questions describe how the purpose of this study was completed.
Q1. What past teaching experiences of the regular education teachers are
perceived as having affected them in referring students identified as specific learning
disabled or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder to the gifted education program?
Q2. How do regular education teachers perceive, how any courses or trainings in
gifted education and twice-exceptional students have affected their referral rates of
students with learning disabilities or ADHD to gifted education programs?
Q3. What working knowledge of the twice-exceptional student does the regular
education teacher have that they feel affects whether they refer students identified as
specific learning disabled or ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder) to the
gifted education program?
Q4. What do regular education teachers perceive as the reasons for the
underrepresentation of twice-exceptional students?
Nature of the Study
This study focused on researching two rural elementary schools using a
qualitative case VWXG\DSSURDFK&DVHVWXGLHVDUHDZD\WRH[DPLQHWKHKRZand the
ZK\RIDSKHQRPHQRQLQDFXUUHQWUHDO-life context (Yin, 2014). Through the use of the
case study, the researcher determined why regular education teachers do not refer SLD
and ADHD student for testing in gifted education programs.
Qualitative explanatory research focuses on explaining patterns and identifying
possible relationships related to a phenomenon (Marshall & Rossman, 2011; Hancock &
Algozzine, 2011). The case study design is an empirical inquiry method (Butin, 2010;
Yin, 2014). Case studies investigate phenomena within real-life situations (Yin, 2014).

6
The case study research method uses a mixture of data collection methods, usually in
multiple forms. The case study design will be used for this study because it focuses on a
group of similar participants (regular education teachers) and how their thoughts
influence a phenomenon (referrals of learning disabled students and ADHD students to
the gifted education program).
Qualitative research uses different methods to collect data. The most common are
observations, interviews, and documents (Richard & Morse, 2013). This explanatory,
qualitative case study used a semi-structured interview process to collect data from
participants. In semi-structured interviews, the researcher creates a basic list of questions
to use in the interview process, but allows changes to occur within the interview protocol
(Lodico et al., 2010). Using the semi-structure interview, the researcher can add,
reorganize, delete, or reword questions based upon what is transpiring during the
interview (Lodic et al., 2010).
Through the explanatory, qualitative case study, the researcher will investigate the
UHJXODUHGXFDWLRQWHDFKHUVH[SHULHQFHVWUDLning, and knowledge of twice-exceptional
students. The researcher explored how their experiences, trainings, and knowledge affect
whether or not they refer a student identified as specific learning disabled or Attention
Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder to the gifted education programs, using semi-structured
interviews with 16 regular education teachers from two schools.
Significance of the Study
The twice-exceptional student is considered the invisible gifted student (Merrotsy,
2013). Due to circumstance be\RQGWKHVWXGHQWV control, they are overlooked by regular
HGXFDWLRQWHDFKHUVGXHWRQRWILWWLQJWKHJLIWHGSURILOH'DYLVet al., 2010; Merrotsy,

7
2013). Many educators lack the experience, training, and knowledge of the twiceexceptional students (Davis et al., 2010; Ryan, 2012; Foley-Nicpon et al., 2011). This
lack of experience, training, and knowledge can lead to the underrepresentation of SLD
and ADHD students in gifted education programs (Reis, Baum, & Burke, 2014; Tieso, &
Douglass, 2008).
Though there is a lot of research in this area, most are based upon large, urban
school systems (Bailey & Rose, 2011; Bianco & Leech, 2010), or based upon preservice
teachers, (Siegle, Moore, Mann, & Wilson, 2010; Bangel, Moon, & Capobianco, 2010),
there are few focusing on small rural school systems (Aldridge, 2012). More research is
needed in small, rural school systems. This study will help the gifted education program
and the school system to understand why educators are not referring SLD and ADHD
students for gifted program testing and how they can change this to meet the needs of this
diverse group of students.
Definition of Key Terms
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder (ADHD) is a behavioral disorder that challenges everyday practices and
routines. Common characteristics are hyperactivity, impulsiveness, and inattentiveness
(American Psychological Association, 2013; American Academy of Child Adolescent
Psychiatry, 2010).
Disability. 'LVDELOLW\LVKDYLQg mental retardation, a hearing, a speech or
language impairment, a visual impairment, a serious emotional, an orthopedic
impairment, autism, traumatic brain injury, an other health impairment, a specific
learning disability, deaf-blindness, or multiple disabilities, and who, by reason thereof,

8
QHHGVVSHFLDOHGXFDWLRQDQGUHODWHGVHUYLFHV)HGHUDO'LVDELOLW\'HILQLWLRQV
Gifted and Talented. Gifted and talented is defined as an above average ability
in any area of intellect or talent such as creativity, artistic ability, leadership, and
academics that requires additional services above what is provided in the regular
education classroom (National Association for Gifted Childern, 2012).
Individual Education Plan. Individual Education Plan (IEP) is an official
contract between a school and student. This contract outlines the educational services the
school will provide for a student who has met the qualifications for special education
department (National Center for Learning Disabilities, 2014).
Least Restrictive Environment. Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) is the
least restraining environment that allows the student instruction with students who are
like and unlike the student. Pull-out, mainstreaming, and special classes are some ways
students may receive instruction (National Center for Learning Disabilities, 2012).
Response to Intervention. Response to Intervention (RTI) is a research-based
instructional program used in working with and identifying students who need additional
remediation or enrichment (RTI Network, 2014).
Specific Learning Disabled. Specific Learning Disability (SLD) is defined as a
disorder that inhibits a person from learning. It can affect the way a person receives,
processes, stores and responds to information (National Center for Learning Disabilities,
2012).
Twice-exceptional. Twice-exceptional is a student who identified with a
potential for high achievement, creativity, or leadership and has one or more disabilities
defined by the federal criteria. This is also known as dual exceptionality, or 2E

9
(Bracamonte, 2010; Reis et al., 2014; Rubin & Reis, 2005).
504 Plan. A 504 plan is a plan used to cover students with an impairment that
may include any disability, long-term illness, or various disorder that substantially
UHGXFHVDVWXGHQWVDELOLW\WRDFFHVVOHDUQLQJin the educational setting. This could be a
short or long term impairment, a health concern (such as diabetes), or a behavior concern
(such as ADHD) (National Center for Learning Disabilities, 2014).
Summary
There are only about half a percent of students, in a school system of 7000, who
are identified as twice-exceptional. This study was an explanatory, qualitative, case
study. Participants from two area elementary schools were interviewed and data
collected were analyzed. After data were collected and analyzed, results were
determined, so that the gifted education department of the school system has a better
understanding as to why regular education teachers do not refer SLD and ADHD students
for gifted testing.

10
Chapter 2: Literature Review
The purpose of this explanatory, qualitative case study was to investigate regular
HGXFDWLRQWHDFKHUVH[SHULHQFHVWUDLQLQJDQGNQRZOHGJHRIWZLFH-exceptional students.
The twice-exceptional student is the exception to the rule. They do not belong solely to
WKHH[FHSWLRQDOFKLOGUHQVSURJUDPQRUGRWKH\EHORQJWRWKHJLIWHGHGXFDWLRQSURJUDP
The twice-exceptional student is a member of both programs and should have their
weaknesses strengthened and their gifts challenged. This literature review focused on the
definitions, learning disabilities, giftedness, twice-exceptional, subcategories, gifted with
learning disabilities, gifted with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and educators.
Documentation
Information for this literature review was gathered from many resources, such as
peer-reviewed articles, educational magazines, scholarly journals, textbooks, public law,
and websites by different organizations. Northcentral University library database
searches were conducted using the terms: learning disabilities, Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorders, gifted and talented, educator perspective of twice-exceptional
student, dual exceptional students, twice-exceptional students, gifted with learning
disabilities, gifted with ADHD, gifted education programs, implicit learning theory,
identification of the twice-exceptional student, teaching gifted students, teaching learning
disabled students, teaching twice-exceptional students, underachievement of gifted
learner, underachievement, underachievers, Response to Intervention (RTI), RTI for
gifted students, RTI for identification of gifted learners, RTI for identification of twiceexceptional students, learning strategies for twice-exceptional, learning strategies for
gifted students, learning strategies for ADHD students, social and emotional needs of

11
twice-exceptional students, social and emotional needs of gifted students, and
stereotyping students. Searches were also focused on people important in the field such
as, Sally Reis, Megan Foley-Nicpon, Margarita Bianco, Gray Davis, and Maureen
Neihart. Internet searches were also performed using the same terms. These searches
also brought to my attention several journals in which many articles were found: Gifted
Child Quarterly, Gifted Child Today, Journal of the Education of the Gifted, Journal of
Learning Disabilities, Roeper Review, and Teaching Exceptional Children. A search was
PDGHWKURXJKWKHODVWILYH\HDUVRIWKHMRXUQDOVDUFKLYHVWRILQGDGGLWLRQDODUWicles. The
findings were a mixture of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods. The majority of
the research is within the last five years; nevertheless, some materials were prior to the
five years. Using the later research materials was needed in most cases to give support to
current information and provide a background to current data. Through the collection of
this research, it allowed the researcher to narrow and focus on the topic of this study.
Gifted and Talented
The idea of giftedness started in the United States around 1870 when schools
VWDUWHGWUDFNLQJVWXGHQWV%\WKHVDORWRISURJUHVVKDGEHHQPDGHZLWKPDQ\ELJ
FLWLHVKDYLQJVSHFLDOVFKRROVRUFODVVHV,QWKHVDQGVWKLQJVFKDQJHGGXHWR
the Great Depression, schools were more concerned with equity and getting students to
meet the standards (Davis et al., 2010). Lewis Terman came on the scene in 1916, when
he americanized the Binet-Simon test to become the Stanford-Binet Test. He then
completed a studying in the 19VWKDWEHJDQLGHQWLI\LQJJLIWHGVWXGHQWVWKURXJKDQ,4
WHVW*HQHWLF6WXG\RI*HQLXV'DYLVet al., 2010). Terman (1925) stated his belief that
gifted children score high on intelligence test, and high potential in one area means high

12
potential in all DUHDV,QWKHVDQGV/HWD+ROOLQJZRUWKZDVDOVRFRPSOHWLQJ
several studies with students. She was a proponent for early identification to ensure that
gifted students get what the need to become gifted adults (Davis et al., 2010).
With the launching of Sputnik in 1957, the United States began criticizing the
education process and the lack of differentiation for our gifted students. There was a
surge in academics that benefited gifted students, but within five years the surge began to
fade (Davis et al., 2010). In 1969, the Education Amendents were released from the US
Congress which gave the first definition for gifted and talented (Davis et al., 2010).
Gifted and Talented was defined then as any child who exhibits outstanding intellectual
ability or creative talent and who require services not normally provided by the school
(Elementary and Secondary Education Amendent, 1970). In 1972, the Marland Report
was released from the U. S. Department of Education and included areas where
giftedness could occur: general intellect, specific academic, creativity, leadership, visual
and preforming art and psychomotor ability (Delisle & Galibraith, 2015). The most
currently recognized definition is from Javits Act, that was part of the 1988 Elementary
and Secondary Education Act. This definition states that any youth, when based upon
evidence, exhibits a higher capability of performing in areas such as leadership,
intellectual, creative, visual and performing arts, psychomotor, or in a specific academic
area and requires additional services and activities not originally provided by a school to
develop gifts and talents fully should be identified as gifted and talented (National
Association for Gifted Children, 2012).
Characteristics of gifted and talented students. Gifted and talented students
exhibit a variety of characteristics. Broad characteristics consist of high motivation,

13
unusual interest, highly expressive, effective problem solver, curious, creative, highly
sensitive, and excellent memory (Wellish & Brown, 2012). Focusing on the areas
mentioned in the standard definition, there are six areas where gifted and talented
students resinate. The intellectually gifted and talented student may think abstractly,
processes information in different ways, is observant, learns quickly, gets excited about
ideas, large vocabulary, and self-starter (National Society for the Gifted and Talented,
2013). The creatively gifted and talented student may be an independent thinker, creates
and invents, improvises, and comes up with several solutions to a problem (National
6RFLHW\IRUWKH*LIWHGDQG7DOHQWHG6WXGHQWVJLIWHGDQGWDOHQWHGLQOHDGHUVKLS
assume responsibility, enjoy structure and organization, are decision makers, speakers,
and self-confident (National Society for the Gifted and Talented, 2013). The specific
academically gifted and talented student has good memorization, advanced
comprehension and vocabulary, strong math and reasoning skills, and high academic
performance in areas of strength (National Society for the Gifted and Talented, 2013).
Gifted and talented visual and performing art students have spatial reasoning, ability to
express self-feeling and moods through dance, drama, music and art, creative, and good
motor skills (National Society for the Gifted and Talented, 2013). Lastly, students gifted
and talented in psychomotor, exhibit precision in movement, strong motor skill (gross
and small), strong coordination and are energetic and athletic (National Society for the
Gifted and Talented, 2013).
Identification of gifted and talented students. With the varying of definitions
of what constitutes giftedness, identifying students is a difficult task (Ruban & Reis,
2005). Historically, identification into the gifted and talented program relied heavily on

14
IQ with rigid cutoff scores (deWet & Gubbins, 2011). Current identification processes
take into consideration the need for a variety of assessments for identification and
placement into gifted education programs (deWet & Gubbins, 2011; Lovett, 2013; Rubin
& Reis, 2005; Wellish & Brown, 2012).
The variation in identification procedures allot for the differences in states and
their population of students identified as gifted. Gifted student populations range with
some states declaring as low as one to two percent or as high as ten to fifteen percent of
the student population (Ruban & Reis, 2005). The use of alternative methods are the
reasoning behind the varying percentages. Some states and school systems rely heavily
on aptitude tests for placement, with IQ of 120 and above, which would amount for the
states with the population of one to two percent being identified (Lovett, 2013). Many
states and school systems have begun moving away from just relying on an aptitude or IQ
test (Wellish & Brown, 2012). Assessment pieces for identification can range from
achievement test, IQ and aptitude, state based assessments, authentic assessment pieces,
portfolios, observations, teacher/parent/peer/self-evaluations (deWet & Gubbins, 2011;
Ruban & Reis, 2005; Wellish & Brown, 2012).
Instructional strategies for gifted and talented students. Instruction of gifted
students involves ensuring that their educational, social, and emotional needs are met.
Gifted students need a teacher who specializes in gifted education. They have to
understand how to deal with the personal and social challenges that come with gifted
students (Berman et al., 2012). They also need to be able to identify appropriate
challenging and rigorous goals and work for the gifted student. Gifted students spend the
majority of their educational career in the regular education classroom. For that reason, it

15
is important for the regular education teacher to be trained in meeting the needs of a
gifted learner, but only forty-nine percent of regular education teachers have any training
in gifted education (Bangel et al., 2010).
Gifted students should receive services based upon their unique psychological and
pedagogical needs (Berman et al., 2012). Gifted education programs range from
inclusion, pull-out, special school, enrichment, and regular classroom with modifications.
One particular study done by Bain, Bliss, Choate, and Brown (2007), surveyed
undergraduates who were training to become teachers. In their study, they asked about
the need for special services for gifted students and the types of services needed. The
authors found that only twenty-four percent (69 out of 285) thought gifted students
needed additional services (Bain et al., 2007). When answering questions about services,
thirty-five percent (98 out of 285) thought that pull out programs were the best for gifted
students. The authors also noted that fifty-eight percent (164 of 285), when combined, of
the participants thought that the different activities within the regular classroom (regular
classroom and ability, regular classroom and cooperative learning and regular classroom
and individual projects) were better choices (Bain et al., 2007).
Gifted students need instruction that involves challenging activities with in-depth
inquiry (Bangel et al., 2010). Some commonly used services for gifted students consist
of acceleration, enrichment, and grouping (Bain et al., 2007; Davis et al., 2010).
Acceleration is increasing the speed or rate at which a student moves through a
curriculum (Davis et al., 2010). Some forms of acceleration are early entrance, grade
skipping, subject skipping, curriculum compacting, dual enrollment, and advance
placement courses. Enrichment is a modification of the curriculum or enhancement of

16
the curriculum (Davis et al., 2010). Some forms of enrichment are learning centers,
SXOORXWSURJUDPVXPPHUSURJUDPVRUFDPSVJRYHUQRUVVFKRROPHQWRUDQGDFDGHPLF
competitions. Grouping is another modification for the gifted student. Grouping is how
the students are grouped through the day. Some commonly used grouping methods are
cluster grouping; pull out, ability grouping, cooperative learning, resource room,
enrichment clusters, and clubs.
Social and emotional needs of gifted students. Self-concept plays a large role
in the social and emotional needs of gifted students. Their self-concept is developed
based upon family relationships, peer relationships, and school relationships Matthews
(2014). The difficulty with these relationships for a gifted student is from uneven
development and support. Students who receive social and emotional support from
parents, family, peers, and educators are more apt to have less social and emotional issues
(Matthews, 2014).
According to Cross, Coleman, and Terhaar-Yonkers (2014), gifted students are
more likely to give a placate answer, than to give the truth, cover up, lie or give a copout. In the study, the students read six different scenarios of possible events that could
happen to them; they then had to choose how they would most likely respond. For
example, there was a scenario about a test and they then had to state how they might
handle the situation by either lying, covering up the truth, cop-out, be placate, or be
truthful (Cross et al., 2014). This establishes how gifted students do not want to allow
others to know how smart they are, so they play down their abilities to maintain peer
relationships (Robinson, Reis, Neihart, & Moon, 2002).

17
Achievement gap for gifted students. In 2002 when the No Child Left Behind
Act was passed, the focus became all about getting low performing students to achieve a
higher level (No Child Left Behind Act, 2010). Unfortunately, that hindered gifted
students because the focus was less on moving gifted and more on moving low achievers
(Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2014). Achievement gap, also known as the
excellence gap, hinders gifted students from high achievement levels (Harris & Plucker,
2014). Six themes appear when focusing on the achievement gap of gifted students:
matching identification with programming, building awareness, non-cognitive factors,
curriculum, support networks, and equalized opportunities (Olszewski-Kubilius &
Clarenbach, 2014). Matching identification with programming is focused on exposing
students to a variety of instruction and assessment to allow more exposure, whereas
curriculum that is challenging and enriching is also important (Olszewski-Kubilius &
Clarenbach, 2014). Informing educators and removing the stereotyping of low income,
culturally and linguistically challenged students will build awareness about the different
students, and indicators of giftedness can decrease the gap (Harris & Plucker, 2014;
Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2014). Non-cognitive factors are focused on building
self-esteem and motivation to succeed in students, while ensuring that students have a
network for support such as informed parents and teachers (Olszewski-Kubilius &
Clarenbach, 2014). Creating partnerships between school, parents, and community tends
to increase positive attitudes, increase scores, and attendance records (Harris & Plucker,
2014). Ensuring that all potentially gifted and gifted students have equal access to
outside programs is also vital to improving the achievement gap (Olszewski-Kubilius &
Clarenbach, 2014).

18
Learning Disabilities
A disability is defined as mental retardation, hearing impairment, speech or
language impairment, visual impairment, social/ emotional issue, physical ailment,
autism, traumatic brain injury, other health impairment, a specific learning disability, or
multiple disabilities which are in need of special education and related services (Federal
Disability Definitions, 2012). Learning disabilities are defined as disorders of one or
more psychological processes involved in using and understanding language, spoken or
written. Individuals cannot listen, think, read, speak, write, spell, or do mathematical
calculation (IDEA, 2004). Disabilities tend to causes an adverse effect that hinders a
child from learning. (Raymond, 2011).
Learning disabilities are evident in academic or social situations that involve
some form of communication such as vision, hearing, physical, emotional, or
developmental. Learning disabilities take form in reading, writing, listening, speaking,
reasoning, or mathematical concept and computation (Buttner & Hasselhorn, 2011).
They are usually identified through a discrepancy between academic achievement and
aptitude or intellect. Learning disabilities are normally associated with health, birth, or
environmental issue (Buttner & Hasselhorn, 2011). About four to seven percent of
school age children are identified with a disability and 50% of those students are
considered learning disabled (Buttner & Hasselhorn, 2011).
Students with learning disability may have issues in one or more area. They focus
normally in two areas: developmental or academic (Raymond, 2011). Developmental
learning disabilities focus on attention, perception, thinking skills and oral language.
Attention is the ability to focus on a topic or skill over a period of time, and perception is

19
the ability to interpret and identify a stimulus (Raymond, 2011). Thinking skills affect
the ability of a child to solve problems, store, and retrieve information. Oral language
deals with the ability to listen and express thoughts (Raymond, 2011). Academic
learning disabilities are skills that students should develop on average, but do not develop
them age appropriately (Raymond, 2011). In reading, writing, and language disabilities,
characteristics exhibited may include trouble with learning and identifying the alphabet,
sounds, word patterns, comprehending, spelling, handwriting, limited vocabulary,
difficultly with organizing thoughts, and inferences. In mathematics, common
characteristics exhibited may include misunderstanding of common rules, patterns,
abstract thinking, and rote memorization of basic facts (Raymond, 2011).
Identification process for learning disability students. The identification
process for learning disabilities has changed over the years. Prior to the 2004
reauthorization of Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA) learning disabilities
were identified solely on test scores (Raymond, 2011). Students are identified as learning
disabled when there is an exhibited discrepancy identified between the academic
achievement and aptitude or intellectually quotient (IQ). There is controversy over this
method because students, who are low performing, who do not exhibit a discrepancy
should still be given the opportunity to receive intervention (Lovett, 2013). After the
reauthorization of IDEA in 2004, other ways to identify learning disabled students were
recommended, as long as they were scientifically, and research based (Lovett, 2013;
Raymond, 2011).
Instructional strategies for learning disabled students. Working with learning
disabled students requires an educator who understands their educational and

20
social/emotional needs. Instruction for students with learning disabilities needs to focus
RQH[SOLFLWDQGGLUHFWLQVWUXFWLRQWKDWVFDIIROGVOHDUQLQJWRPHHWWKHVWXGHQWVLQGLYLGXDO
needs. Modifications and accommodations are needed to allow a student to progress.
Modifications and accommodations are allotted to students with learning disabilities to
ensure the same advantages, as a student without learning disabilities has to succeed in
school (Raymond, 2011).
According to Aron and Loprest (2012), students with learning disabilities can
receive speech, physical and occupational therapy, counseling and any other service that
their individual education plan (IEP) deems is needed for the student. Instructional
modifications and accommodations also happen. Students are to be placed in the least
restrictive environment (LRE) (IDEA, 2004). This LRE could be in the regular
classroom, a self-contained classroom, mainstream, or inclusion. Pull-out, small group,
individual instruction, or co-teaching are additional options. Co-teaching allows the
special education teacher to work fluently with the regular education teacher within the
classroom. Co-teaching also allows for the special education and the regular education
teacher to work with all students in a small group setting to understand the characteristics
and needs for all students in the classroom (Friend, 2001). Content can be modified for
the learning disabled student. Modifications of the curriculum, additional time, modified
grading, and modified assignments can be given so the student is still completing the
required skills just on their level or ability (Aron & Loprest, 2012, Raymond, 2011).
Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder is a manifestation of cognitive abilities
and behavior and is found along a continuum (Foley-Nicpon et al., 2011). Prior to the

21
1950s, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder behaviors were thought to be a reaction to
the overcrowding of classrooms due to the baby boomers (Smith, 2012). With the
launching of Sputnik, there was a shift in education of hyperkinetic students, similar to
the shift of educating gifted students. There was a search for the underachiever; these
were the hyperkinetic students, later the name of these students changed to Attention
Deficit Disorder (ADD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) (Smith,
2012).
In the 1960s, there were many changes happening in child development theories.
Children with these hyperkinetic characteristics were beginning to be identified,
diagnosed, and treated. There were concerns that if these students were not found and
treated, behaviors would persist into adulthood and would affect their ability to keep
employment and their work ability. During this time there was a great rise of students
being identified because schools used this as an explanation as to why a student was
failing to achieve. There was no true procedure for testing these students. Identification
was given based upon counselors, teachers, and parent recommendations and referred to
the doctor for medicine (Smith, 2012).
In 1980, identification changed with the publication of the DSM-III, the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). This version was not based on the
psychoanalytical and social psychiatric ideology and terminology (Smith, 2012). At this
same time hyperkinetic was no longer considered a reaction to childhood but an attention
deficit disorder (ADD), with hyperactivity being added in 1987. Currently, it is estimated
that 5.29% of all children in the world are identified as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder (ADHD) (Smith, 2012). Annually, about nine percent of children aged five to

22
seventeen are diagnosed with some form of ADHD, on average about one per classroom
is identified as ADHD (Bussing, Porter, Zima, Mason, Garvan, & Reid, 2012).
Types of Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder. Common characteristics
associated with ADHD are low tolerance to frustration, mood instability, poor selfesteem, laziness, lack of organization, outburst, stubbornness, fidgeting, inattentive, and
hyperactivity (Raymond, 2011). It is believed that there are five focuses or reasons
behind ADHD. They are genetic (family history), prenatal (birth) complications,
psychological issues, environmental toxins, and gender (American Academy of Child
Adolescent Psychiatry, 2013; Raymond, 2011).
In 2010, the American Academy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry made changes in
how people were identified. The identification changed from being ADHD or ADD to
just ADHD (American Academy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry, 2010). There are four
types of ADHD (American Academy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry, 2010; Rinn &
Reynold, 2012).
Type I is predominantly inattentive, and it replaced the previous term of attention
deficit disorder (ADD). It is largely related to inattentiveness, avoidance, forgetfulness,
lack of attention, lack of organization (Rinn & Reynold, 2012). A Type I student has
trouble staying on task and often does not pay attention (Rinn & Nelson, 2009). A Type I
student has little attention to details, and fails to follow through (DuPaul et al., 2011).
Type I used to be considered Attention Deficit Disorder (Rinn & Nelson, 2009).
Type II is predominately hyperactive-impulsive. Students with Type II are
restless, excessively talkative, fidgety, impulsive and interruptive (Rinn & Reynold,
2012). They are very active, thought to be like a running motor (Rinn & Nelson, 2009).

23
Type II students act before thinking, struggle with waiting, and have a tendency to blurt
out (DuPaul et al., 2011).
Type III is combined. Children identified as Type III have a large combination of
both inattentiveness and hyperactivity (Rinn & Reynolds, 2012). They have trouble with
attention, hyperactivity, and controlling their impulses (DuPaul et al., 2011).
Lastly is Type IV, which is not specified. A student with type IV ADHD has
symptoms from both inattentiveness and hyperactive-impulsivity. At the same time not
enough symptoms to be identified as either one or combined (Rinn & Reynolds, 2012).
Identification process for attention deficit hyperactive disorder. The
identification of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is based upon the results of the
DSM. The DSM is a behavior rating scaled used to identify different behavioral,
emotional, and mental disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). It is a rating
scale used to gauge the extent of behavior associated with attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder. The behavior scale is filled out by various people who are associated with the
student (Wood, 2012). Parents, teachers, and others associated with the students may
make recommendations for testing due to behaviors that the student may exhibit at home
or school (Bussing et al., 2012). A qualified clinician uses the results of the DSM to
make decisions about whether a student is identified with ADHD and what is done to
control the ADHD behaviors of the student (Kalbfleisch & Banasiak, 2008).
Similar to the DSM-IV is the Conners 3. The Conners 3 provides scores for the
areas of inattentions, hyperactivity, impulsivity, learning problems, executive
functioning, aggression, and peer/family relations (Wood, 2012). Students are rated on a
zero to three scale (zero, not true at all, three, very much true) and the form is completed

24
by parents and teachers of the student. It is often given to students who are already
identified as gifted in an effort to see if a student is also attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder because common behaviors are shared between gifted and ADHD.
Instructional needs for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Students with
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder often have poor educational outcomes such as low
levels of academic achievement, low grade point averages, and high retention levels
(Bussing et al., 2012). Low achievement, low grade point averages, and high retention
levels are due to academic disabilities that appear early and are undiagnosed. In addition,
the work gets harder, and students are expected to be independently responsible to
prepare (Bussing et al., 2010). Instructing students on how to cope and learn with
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is vital to their achievement (DuPaul, Weyandt, &
Janusis, 2011).
There are three types of instructional needs for students with attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder: behavioral, self-regulatory, and academic (DuPaul et al., 2011).
Behavioral instruction should be twofold: antecedent and consequence (DuPaul et al.,
2011). Antecedent meaning before a behavior happens and consequence, after a behavior
happens. Examples of antecedent are reviewing rules periodically, having rules posted
close to the student, listing directions out for student to see and check off, giving praise,
modifying task length, and giving choices. Examples of consequences are token or
sticker system, where students are gain or lose tokens or stickers for good or bad
behaviors or time out, and removing the student from the situation to refocus.
Self-regulation is creating self-management in the student (DuPaul et al., 2011).
Teach students to create goals, monitor those goals, and reward for making those goals.

25
Lastly, academic instruction should involve direct instruction, modified assignments,
computer or technology, remediation programs, and peer tutoring.
Working memory is also an area that attention deficit hyperactivity disorder can
harm. Working memory is the temporary storage and manipulation of information in the
brain (Martinussen & Major, 2011). Working memory is an issue when looking at gifted
students and learning disabled students because it deals with processing speed and for
each of these groups, speed can be an issue (Song & Porath, 2011). Working memory
affects many aspects of learning, especially basic skills such as problem solving, written
expression, short term memory, planning, organizing, and focus (Martinussen & Major,
2011). In the Kofler, Rapport, Bolden, Sarver, and Raiker (2010) study they found that
working memory is linked to inattentive behavior in students with attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder especially in boys. Inattentiveness ran higher when completing
tasks that required high working memory, whereas in tasks where little working memory
use was needed, inattentiveness was less (Kofler et al., 2010). Strategies teachers can use
to assist students who have working memory issues are breaking large projects into
smaller chunks, give explicit directions, graphic organizers, and checklist (Kofler et al.,
2010).
Social behavior is another area that is affected in ADHD children. In the Kofler
et al. (2011) study, they found that students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
tend to speak and act hastily versus listening and working with others. These behaviors
adversely affect social interactions and peers often become easily irritated with the
student (Kofler et al., ,Q&RZDQVDUWLFOHKHPHQWLRQHGVHYHUDOZD\VWR
help attention deficit hyperactivity disorder students develop peer relationships. Some

26
strategies are creating study buddies, cross age peer tutoring, partner activities, individual
and group counseling (Cowan, 2014).
Twice-Exceptional Students
There is not a true definition for the twice-exceptional student; the characteristics
that define the twice-exceptional learner are so broad (Foley-Nicpon et al., 2011;
Ronksley-Pavia, 2015). For many years, the term twice-exceptional or gifted learning
disabled has been thought to be a contradiction. How could a student be gifted and have
a disability? Mills and Brody (1999) stated a twice-exceptional student is one who is
gifted in one or more areas but has a learning disability that causes him or her difficulty
in other areas.
According to Barnard-Brak, Johnsen, Hannig, and Wei (2015) about nine percent
of special education students have an IQ of ninetieth percentile or higher, proving that
gifted children are being unidentified in special education classrooms. Mills and Brody
(1999) identified three indicators to look for when identifying a twice-exceptional
student: (a) evidence of outstanding achievement, talent, or ability, (b) evidence of a
discrepancy between ability and achievement, (c) evidence of processing, emotional, or
behavioral deficiency. Twice-exceptional students could be any student who has a
disability such as hearing impairment, speech or language impairment, a visual
impairment, social/ emotional issues, physical ailment , autism, other health impairment,
a specific learning disability, or multiple of any of the above, but it is normally not found
in students with a traumatic brain injury or severe mental retardation.
According to Reis et al. (2014) even with the studies, research, and position
papers that have been completed by researchers and organizations such as National

27
Association for Gifted Children and The Council for Exceptional Children, the term
twice-exceptional is still not completely accepted. Reasons for this belief stem from the
reluctance to believe that giftedness and disabilities coexist. Faulty ideas, stereotypical
images, and beliefs are cause for the disbelief of the coexistence of a gift and disability.
Having struggles with learning does not equal giftedness (Reis et al., 2014).
Characteristics of the twice-exceptional student. According to Trail (2011)
there are four areas where characteristic will fall: cognitive, academic, interpersonal, and
intrapersonal. The characteristics are common character traits that are apparent in most
twice-exceptional students. Students will exhibit traits from both sides positives, and
negatives, but not necessarily every category. Table 1 and Table 2 is adapted from Trail
(2011), Wellisch and Brown (2013), Song and Porath (2011), Baldwin et al. (2015), and
Colorado Department of Education (2012) descriptions of the twice-exceptional student
(2E).
Table 1
Characteristic of the Twice-Exceptional Student
Characteristic of Twice-Exceptional
Cognitive Characteristics
Positives
Negatives
High verbal and communication skills
Significant differences of scores on
Strong perceptual reasoning skills
standardized test
Conceptual thinker
Difficultly with linear thinking
High energy
Difficulties processing verbal directions
Creative
Easily distracted
Sensory issues
Note: This table lists the positive and negative characteristics associated with twiceexceptional students (Baldwin et al., 2015; Colorado Department of Education, 2012;
Davis et al., 2010; Song & Porath, 2011; Trail, 2011).

28

Table 2
Characteristic of the Twice-Exceptional Student
Academic Characteristic
Negative
Inconsistency with academic skills
Difficult with drills
Difficulty expressing understanding
Unmotivated
Poor handwriting and organization
Interpersonal Characteristics
Positive
Negative
Humorous
Difficulty relating to others
Hypersensitive to others feeling
Targeted by bullies
Lack of understanding social clues
Disruptive behavior
Intrapersonal Characteristics
Positive
Negative
Highly sensitive
Highly sensitive
Denies issues
Appears to be immature, withdrawn, unable
to deal with emotions
Behaves impulsively
Easily frustrated
Positive
Advanced ideas
Advanced vocabulary
Range of interest
Insightful in areas of interest

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

Social and emotional needs of the twice-exceptional student. Most often gifted
children do not develop at the normal rate. This irregular development is called
asynchronous development and this is where the physical, emotional, social and
intellectual development is uneven (Trail, 2011). The social and emotional needs of
gifted students are different from those of the average student. This is because they bring
different issues to the table than the average student. According to Bracamonte (2010),
twice-exceptional students need an environment that fosters their social and emotional

29
needs. The most common social and emotional issues that plague gifted students are
stress, depression, friendships, perfection, self-efficacy, self-esteem, and self-concept
(Merrotsy, 2013; Ronksley-Pavia, 2015; Strip & Hirsch, 2011).
The twice-exceptional student feels a large sense of isolation because they feel out
of sync with the peers within the regular classroom (Trail, 2011). Helping these students
develop friendship with like students is an important part of fostering their social and
emotional needs. They struggle to relate with classroom peers because of the conflicting
gifts and disability.
Depression is another area of concern for twice-exceptional students. Depression
is a condition where a person begins to withdraw from normal activities; a severe
sadness, or anger may be present (Strip & Hirsch, 2011). Depression can result from
perfectionism, overwelming stress, and isolation (Strip & Hirsch, 2011). If educators
believe a student is becoming depressed, discussions with parents, counselors, social
workers, and specialists need to take place to help the student cope with their depression
(Trail, 2011).
Self-efficacy is the ability to create goals and achieve those goals (Merrotsy,
2013). Self-concept is the beliefs, attitudes and opinions learned in which a person
relates to his or her worth (Trail, 2011). Self- esteem is the concept of being able to meet
OLIHVFKDOOHQJHVDQGEHLQJZRUWK\RIKDSSLQHVV7UDLO7KURXJKOLIHVH[SHULHQFH
students develop their self-efficacy, self-concept, and self-esteem. Each of these helps
the student develop, but the issue with the twice exception is that students may live with
what hurts these verses building up these. Twice-exceptional students often suffer from
low self-HIILFDF\WKH\EHOLHYHWKH\FDQWVRWKH\GRQWHYHQWU\:KHQDVWXGHQWGRHV

30
not feel success, they fail to build thier self-esteem, so their self-concept is often low.
Providing a safe and empathic environment is important for a twice-exceptional student
to feel safe to make mistakes and learn from them. Ensuring work is appriorate, for
allowing success but challenges too (Ronksley-Pavia, 2015; Strip & Hirsch, 2011; Trail,
2011; Wang & Neihart, 2015).
In Barber and MuellerV (2011) study on self perceptions of adolescents, they
found that students idenified just gifted or just learning disabled had a higher self-concept
than students identified as twice-exceptional. Reasoning for this was evident, based upon
the lack of maternal support at home, stating that students with maternal support at home
were more likely to develop a higher self concept of themselves (Barber & Mueller,
2011). Students often have a negative perception of their relationship with their parents.
7KLVLVRIWHQGXHWRWKHSDUHQWVEHOLHIRIWKHLUVWXGHQWQRWOLYLQJXSWRH[SHFWDWLRQV
(Barber & Mueller, 2011). This plays into the students haveing a less than positive selfconcept. It is important for parents and teachers to be knowledgable of this issue and
support the student.
Stress is a part of everyday life, but for twice-exceptional students it can
overpower them. Stress can develop from expectations from parents, teachers, or the
students. Overly intense or disconnected parents and too many extracurricular activities
are also reasons for stress. Making sure goals and expectations are realistic can assist
with this and working with parents to understand the development of gifted students can
assist in relieving stress (Strip & Hirsch, 2011; Trail, 2011). Perfectionism is the
WKRXJKWVDQGEHKDYLRUVHQFRPSDVVHGZLWKWKHEHOLHIVZLWKRQHVRZQSHUIRUPDQFH
(Fletcher & Neumeister, 2012). Students need to understand that wanting high

31
achievement is a positive thing, but learning to set priorities, taking time for reflection on
mistakes, and relaxation help keep perfectionism from being an unhealthy habit.
Curriculum modifications for the twice-exceptional student. Modifying the
curriculum for the twice-exceptional student allows the student to get the enrichment they
need while making the curriculum assessible to them. Alternatives to the traditional
presentation of material is needed (Yssel, Prater, & Smith, 2010). According to Coleman
(2005) there are four areas in which curriculum can be modified for the twice-exceptional
student. They are time, structure, support, and complexity.
Being flexible with time is important. Students do not learn at the same speed, so
creating dynamic assessments is one way to use time wisely. Dynamic assessments are
small one on one assessments to work with a students to see their thinking on a topic
(Coleman, 2005). Structure consists of three areas: content, pedagogy, and classroom.
Catering the curriculum to their ability, interests, and thinking skills allots for the student
to make connects to the content. Pedagogy is how the teacher presents the information or
lesson. Instruction, interventions and strategies should use a multisensory approach
(Bianco & Leech, 2010; Colorado Department of Education 2012).
Structure is how the students work together: individual, groups, and pairs.
Lighting and sound also affect the structure of the classroom. The most important concept
of structure is to have an open, caring and respected environment where students feel at
home to be open and honest (Coleman, 2005). Support consists of three areas: emotional,
external, and advocacy. Emotional support is needed by the twice-exceptional student to
know that they matter. Fostering the social and emotional needs and development of the
twice-exceptional student, allows for their individual growth and success (Bracamonte,

32
2010).
External support is what assistance the twice-exceptional student receives to
succeed. This can be from direct instruction to assistive technologies (Coleman, 2005).
Advocacy or self-advocacy is empowering the student to advocate for themselves.
Complexity is creating a deep foundation of understanding (Coleman, 2005). Complexity
or challenge should be set high for all students to promote higher level thinking
(Coleman, 2005; Bianco & Leech, 2010).
According to Colorado Department of Education (2012) curriculum can be
modified in three areas: content, process, and product. Content is what students need to
know and understand a concept. Educators need to hone in on what a student must know
and what they need to have in order to understand the concept or skill. This includes
providing graphic organizers, guided notes, and a variety of materials. Process is the
activities that students participate in to gain the understanding. Educators need to
understand what methods of instruction work best with the student, give choices, and
support and scaffold learning appropriately.
Product is the demostration of understanding of the concept. Educators need to
use a variety of modes for students to express understanding, work with students to create
timelines, and organizers, and support their creativity (Colorado Department of
Education, 2012). Allowing students choice and flexibilty in completing their process
and product allots for better assignments from students when they can exhibit their
understanding through their choice (Willard-Holt, Weber, Morrision, & Horgan, 2013).
Gifted Students with Learning Disabilities
The gifted student with learning disabilities is a complicated contradiction.

33
Defining this concept is complicated and controversial. For the most part there is a
concrete, nationally accepted definition for learning disabled, but on the other hand, there
is no true and nationally accepted definition of gifted and talented (National Association
for Gifted Childern, 2012). One commonly used definition roots from Mills and Brody
(1999). In their definition, they summarize the gifted learning disabled student as a
student who possesses gifts or talents and is capable of high performance but has areas
where learning is difficult due to a disability (Mills & Brody, 1999).
Before the 1970s, the gifted learning disabled student was not identified or
discussed. Students were placed based upon the area most evident (Leggett et al., 2010).
In 1975, the Council for Exceptional Children and the Association for the Gifted and
Talented began bringing to light the concept of the gifted and learning disabled student
(Leggett et al., 2010). The Education for All Handicapped Child Act of 1975, recognized
the rights of all handicapped students, but it was not until 2004 with the reauthorization
of IDEA, when the twice-exceptional student was actually mentioned (IDEA, 2004;
Leggett et al., 2010). According to Bracamonte (2010), two to five percent of learning
disabled students are gifted, and two to five percent of gifted students are learning
disabled.
The Gifted Learning Disabled (GLD) student has a variety of strengths and
weaknesses based on the area of their gifts and disabilities (Song & Porath, 2011). These
characteristics are a unique combination of both giftedness and learning disabilities (Song
& Porath, 2011). Common strengths of a gifted, learning disabled student are creative
thinking and abstract reasoning. They tend to be imaginative and good problem solvers.
GLD students are strong visual learners, have a large vocabulary, mathematical

34
reasoning, and are spatial learners (Song & Porath, 2011). Weaknesses can range from
emotional, easily frustrated, short-term memory, and poor computation. GLD students
tend to have issues with communication skills, such as listening, written task, decoding,
handwriting, and spelling (Nielsen & Higgins, 2005; Song & Porath, 2011).
Categories for gifted learning disabled students. When categorizing students
as a gifted learning disabled student, they will be found in one of three categories. In
1998, the National Association for Gifted Children released a position paper discussing
the categories that twice-exceptional gifted learning disabled students could be found in.
The three categories are subtle learning disabled with giftedness, gifted with learning
disabled, and unidentified or masked student.
The gifted with subtle learning disability is the first group of students (Al-Hroub,
2010; Beckley, 1998; Foley-Nicpon et al., 2011; Mills & Brody, 1999; National
Association for Gifted Children, 1998; Reis et al., 2014). These students are identified as
gifted but have difficulties in certain areas or on certain tasks. Al-Hroub (2010)
identified this group as hidden learning disabled students. These students are easily
identified for their gifts or talents, but their difficulties may not necessarily be exhibited.
The gifted with learning disability students are thought to be underachievers and not
working at their potential (Figg, Rogers, McCormick, & Low, 2012; Foley-Nicpon et al.,
2011; Mills & Brody, 1999; Reis et al., 2014). Some educators unaware of the learning
disability may say that these students are lazy and lack motivation (Bianco & Leech,
2010). They tend to have poor self-concept because they do not understand how some
things can come so easily, while others are much harder for them. The gifted with
learning disability student will normally not be identified with a learning disability until

35
late in their educational career (Foley-Nicpon et al., 2011) normally because of a
depressed IQ and inadequate assessments (Brody & Mill, 1997).
The second group of students is the learning disabled with giftedness (Al-Hroub,
2010; Beckley, 1998; Foley-Nicpon et al., 2011; Mills & Brody, 1999; National
Association for Gifted Children, 1998). This is the second largest group of unidentified
students (Bianco & Leech, 2010). The student considered learning disabled with
giftedness is also known as the hidden gifted student (Al-Hroub, 2010). Their learning
disability is severe enough to be identified, but their gift or talent may never be identified
(Al-Hroub, 2010). Now the student is receiving services for their learning disability, but
the special education teacher may not recognize that there are gifts or talents this student
may be exhibiting, and they may not have any knowledge or experience with the GLD
student (Bianco & Leech, 2011). Schools often focus on the disability because their
education is focused in an environment where their gifts are camouflaged (Reis et al.,
2014). The learning disabled with giftedness may struggle with focus, underestimate
their abilities, and be noticed on what they cannot do verses what they can do (Beckley,
1998; Song & Porath, 2011). These students may have an Individual Education Plan
(IEP) or be on a 504 plan (Foley-Nicpon et al., 7KHVHVWXGHQWVGLVDELOLW\
depresses their intellectual and academic performance (Foley-Nicpon et al., 2011).
Unidentified or masked students are the last group of gifted learning disabled
students (Al-Hroub, 2010; Beckley, 1998; Foley-Nicpon et al., 2011; Mills & Brody,
1999; National Association for Gifted Children, 1998). Masked or unidentified students
appear to be ordinary average students. Their gifts and learning disabilities mask or
counteract each other (Lovett, 2013). When given assessments, scores will be skewed

36
because their gift and disability allot for compensation (Reis et al., 2014). The masked
student is considered the largest group of unidentified and underserved (Al-Hroub, 2010).
These students will most likely never be identified for gifted and talented program or for
a learning disability (Bianco & Leech 2010; Foley-Nicpon et al., 2011). The masked
student functions at grade level and is considered an average worker (Mills & Brody,
1999) but has the capacity, if they were identified for their gift and disability, to exceed
and excel.
Identification of gifted students with learning disabilities. According to
Gardynick and McDonald (2005), identifying gifted students with learning disabilities
can be difficult. Their gifts can compensate for their academic problems. They also may
comprehend on a superior level but may have difficulty completing simple tasks. A
multidimensional approach to testing and identifying should be taken to identify gifted
students with learning disabilities (Al-Hroub, 2010; Crepeau-Hobson & Bianco, 2013).
Common methods for identifying GLD students are behavior scales, IQ testing,
academic test, creativity test, peer/self-nominations, observations, and portfolios, and
subtest scores (Al-Hroub, 2010; Lovett, 2013; Mills & Brody, 1999). Observations and
examining of evidence needs to show an outstanding talent or ability, a discrepancy
between expected and actual achievement, and should including looking at strengths and
weaknesses (Mills & Brody, 1999). Scores should be focused over a period of time, not
one test on one day (Foley-Nicpon et al., 2011). GLD students tend to score higher on
spatial patterns, verbal comprehension, and abstract conceptualization measures on IQ
test (Bracamonte, 2010). Focusing on the general ability index on IQ tests is helpful
because it is a score based on subtests but does not include the working memory or

37
processing speed, which are areas the gifted students with learning disabilities will
struggle (Song & Porath, 2011).
Instruction of gifted students with learning-disabilities. Instruction of the
gifted student with learning disabilities creates a large complication. This complication
comes from what to teach and how to teach it. The normal focus for a learning disabled
student is to remediate the weakness. The normal focus for a gifted student is to enrich
and challenge the strengths. However, the focus for the GLD should be to enrich the gifts
while remediating the disability.
According to Foley-Nicpon et al. (2011), focusing on the gift first and the
learning disability second, ensure the student is receiving challenging and engaging work.
Instruction for the gifted student with learning disabilities should focus on their strengths
(Beckley, 1998; Coleman, 2005; Ruban & Reis, 2005; Yssel et.al, 2010) while
UHPHGLDWLQJWKHZHDNQHVVHVWKURXJKLQVWUXFWLRQ7KHVWXGHQWVGLVDELOLW\VKRXOGQRWEHD
barrier in their education (Beckley, 1998; Gates, 2010). Programs used for instructing the
gifted student with learning disabilities should be challenging, but at the same time, it
should create structure and strategies to assist any weaknesses or disabilities (Beckley,
1998).
$FFRUGLQJWR%UDFDPRQWHVWXGHQWVVWUHQJWKVDQGLQWHUHVWVVKRXOGEH
nurtured. Students tend to be more focused on challenging work if interested in the topic.
Fostering their social and emotional development is important, using group and
individual counseling, flexible grouping, preassessing, and multiple intelligence and
differentiated instruction is helpful (Bracamonte, 2010) Students should have alternative
methods to express their understanding (Yssel et al., 2010).

38
Gifted students with learning disabilities struggle with basic skills (Colorado
Department of Education, 2012; Yssel et al., 2010). Compensation strategies should be
taught through explicit instruction (Beckley, 1998; Gates, 2010). Compensation
strategies are skills taught to assist a student to succeed. For the gifted student with a
learning disability, these compensation strategies could be graphic organizers, assistive
technology, memorization tricks, and alternate communication devices. Students, who
struggle with memorization, can be taught to create flashcards or students who struggle
with spelling can be taught to use a word processing program to assist in spelling.
Gifted students with attention deficit hyperactive disorder
Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder is not a learning disability, but it is a
behavior disorder that hinders a student from meeting their potential if not identified.
The identification of a student with Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder and
giftedness can be very difficult. This is because there are so many characteristics that
cross each other (Rinn & Nelson, 2009; Wood, 2012). Gifted testing for Attention
Deficit Hyperactive Disorder students needs to be completed by a person familiar with
the gifted and talented and Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (Wood, 2012) to
ensure that a misdiagnosis does not happen. Teachers are the first to refer a student for
Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder testing (Rinn & Nelson, 2009) because they
spend more time with the student.
Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder behaviors tend to mask gifted abilities
because the focus is on the behaviors of the student verses the abilities of the student
(Fungate, Zentall, & Gentry, 2013). According to Fungate et al. (2013) study, they found
that Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder students who are gifted are found to be more

39
creative than a gifted student without Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder. They also
found that students with Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder often have a lower
working memory (Fungate et al., 2013). As well as Attention Deficit Hyperactive
Disorder behavior masking gifted abilities, Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder
behaviors also mimic gifted abilities (Lee & Olenchak, 2014). Common overlapping
behaviors are inattentiveness, hyperactivity, fidgeting, and off-task (Lee & Olenchak,
2014). There is one main difference between a student with Attention Deficit
Hyperactive Disorder, a gifted student, and a gifted student with Attention Deficit
Hyperactive Disorder. For a student with Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder this
behavior will appear in all areas; a gifted student will exhibit these behaviors when bored
or overexcited about a topic. A gifted student with Attention Deficit Hyperactive
Disorder will exhibit those behaviors at all times, especially when bored or excited (Lee
& Olenchak, 2014).
In Rinn and Nelson (2009) study, they focused on the perceptions of preservice
teachers when it came to identifying giftedness and Attention Deficit Hyperactive
Disorder behaviors. Participants read one of two vignettes that identified a seven-year
old boy with characteristics of giftedness and Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder.
One vignette, without the diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder or gifted
and talented, asked participants to explain the underlying reason for the behaviors
exhibited and why. The second vignette gave participants a choice of underlying reasons
for the behaviors being related to Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder or gifted and
talented and asked why they felt that was the reason. In both cases, the majority of
participants choose Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder as a reason for the behaviors.

40
Reasons for this included poor attention span; gifted students are neat and organized, and
lack of control of their behavior (Rinn & Nelson, 2009). On the contrary, these same
characteristics can be found in gifted students. A student with poor attention could be
bored, lack of control can stem from excitement or curiosity, neatness, and organization
may not be needed based on the task and interest at hand (Wood, 2012). Gifted children
with ADHD on average are able to focus and concentrate for longer periods of time when
they are invested in the learning (Lee & Olenchak, 2014).
Underachievement
Underachievement is a term that refers to a discUHSDQF\EHWZHHQDVWXGHQWV
ability and performance (Davis et al., 2010; Ryan & Coneybeare, 2013). Gifted students
are often at risk for underachievement when their needs are not met (Davis et al., 2010).
Common characteristics of underachievement are low academic self- perceptions, low
self- motivation, external attributions, low goals, negative attitude towards school, peers,
teachers, education, and low self-regulatory (McCoach & Siegle, 2013).
According to McCoach and Siegle (2013), many twice-exceptional students tend
to be underachievers. This is due to the lack of motivation, understanding of their
disability, or undiagnosed learning or behavioral disorder. Twice-exceptional students
are more prone to be underachievers according to Trail (2011), because of their
inconsistencies in their development and academic performance.
Underachievement can appear in gifted students and the twice-exceptional student
when curriculum is not challenging enough, educators focus more on weaknesses than
strengths, and work does not meet the students learning style (Trail, 2011). Gifted
children are often blended into the regular classroom and when instruction is given, it is

41
for the class as a whole. A gifted student will process the information quicker and
become easily bored and frustrated with instruction (Ryan & Coneybeare, 2013).
Students will then act out or become withdrawn (Strip & Hirsch 2011).
In Hwang et al. (2014) study, they found four themes that seemed to reoccur with
their participants trying to cope and recover from underachievement. They are attitude,
study strategies, external support, and coping difficulties (Hwang et al., 2014). In the
theme of attitude, Hwang et al. (2014) found that students who were determined to
complete school or knew they need the education to succeed were more apt to overcome
underachievement. In the theme of study skills, students who persevered, used study skill
strategies to overcome underachievement (Hwang et al., 2014). Students who received
external support from family, peers, or teachers found it helpful to have outside support
and were able to overcome underachievement (Hwang et al., 2014). Overcoming and
coping with difficulties is one of the most important themes, and students who are
underachievers must realize this to be successful. Underachievers must realize that
improving academics is not going to come without difficulties, and they must persevere
to overcome those challenges (Hwang et al., 2014).
Response to Intervention
Response to Intervention (RTI) model is one of those approaches being used to
assist in identifying and intervening for low preforming students who may not be
identified as learning disabled (National Foundation for Learning Disabilities, 2013). It
is a universal screening tool used to flag students with low achievement to provide
intervention (Yssel et al., 2014). RTI follows a method of three tiers to identify students.
Tier one is research based instruction and intervention to teach all students. Students are

42
screened periodically to establish academic needs (RTI Network, 2014). Students who
still struggle with a concept move to tier two. Tier two is targeted interventions not
provided in the regular classroom. This intensive instruction may occur in the classroom
with small group, intervention instruction or through a pull out program (RTI Network,
2014). Tier three comes into play for students who still do not get the concepts and need
more in-depth targeted intervention. This is done through specialists; students receive
intensive interventions and additional exams are completed (RTI Network, 2014).
RTI is also being used in gifted education (Hall et al., 2009). In Hughes and
Rollins (2009) article, they noted that though gifted students are a heterogeneous group,
there is great diversity between achievement levels. Tier one is core instruction for all
students using researched based curriculum and methods. Students are again assessed
periodically to see mastery, and those who score 80% or higher are moved up to tier two.
Tier two is targeted enrichment. Instruction is provided through small groups with
enrichment or accelerated options in specific content (Hughes & Rollins, 2009). Tier
three is intensive enrichment. Instruction in tier three focuses on acceleration, curriculum
compacting, grade skipping, grade or subject acceleration. Students who receive tier
three instruction are your extremely gifted students who score 95% or higher on
standardized test (Hughes & Rollins, 2009).
According to Crepeau-Hobson and Bianco (2013), for RTI to be effectively used
with gifted students with learning disabilities, there must be every effort to use strengthbased approaches to all tiers. Johnsen, Parker and Farah (2015) stated since the
reauthorization of IDEA in 2004, ten states have developed policies to use the RTI
framework with their gifted and talented students. They found that there were four areas

43
WKDWPXVWEHLQFRUSRUDWHGLQWRWKH57,PRGHOWRHQVXUHVWXGHQWVQHHGVDUHEHLQJPHW
Curriculum is researched-based and add depth and complexity to the curriculum.
Assessments must be universal for above grade standard, formative assessments for
flexibility grouping of students, and alternate assessments for mastery. Instructional
strategies that stimulate interest, involve higher level questions, real-world situation,
provide choice and allow for independent study. Last concept was resources. Resources
incorporate higher level work, problem-based activities, and real world (Johnsen et al.,
2015).

Tier 3: Intensive
enrichment

Tier 3: Intensive
intervention

Tier 1:
Universal
instruction

Tier 2: Targeted
intervention

Tier 2: Targeted
enrichment

Note: This figure describe the multi-tier support system that school systems are using to
support identification of learning disabilities, gifted and talented, and twice-exceptional
students (Hughes & Rollins, 2009; Iowa Department of Instruction, 2014).
Figure 1. RTI Multi-Tier Support

According to McCallum et al. (2013), traditional testing is not sufficient or

sensitive enough to identify twice-exceptional students. Standardized tests tend not to

44
reveal differences between ability and achievement. Research is now using the RTI
model to identify and instruct twice-exceptional students (Yssel et al., 2014). According
to Yssel et al. (2014), tier one provides instruction for all students and using universal
screening, allots for students to be identified for remediation and enrichment. Screening
should include observations, verbal, and written assessments so that strengths and
weaknesses are found in order to avoid missing the twice-exceptional student (Yssel et
al., 2014). Tier two and tier three instruction is more intensive through use of
UHPHGLDWLRQRUDFFHOHUDWLRQ57,VPXOWL-level instruction allots for more fluid
identification and instruction, especially for the twice-exceptional students. On the same
note, McCallum et al. (2013) state that relying on RTI to screen and identify twiceexceptional students could hinder identifying students because of masking. Masking
being the hiding of strengths and weaknesses (Beckley, 1998; Foley-Nicpon et al., 2011;
Mills & Brody, 1999; National Association for Gifted Children, 1998).
Implicit Personality Theory
Implicit Personality Theory is defined as the general expectation a person
identifies based on what is known about them, often done unconsciously, and based
upon public beliefs (Changing Minds, 2014). This describes the patterens and biases
indivduals use when forming their beliefs about people (Baudson & Preckel, 2013).
According to Schneider (1973), implicit personality theories describe recognized
differences between personality characteristics. These characteristics can be based on
actual relationships between personality and misconceptions (Baudson & Preckel,
2013).
In the Baudson and Preckel (2013) study, they found implicit personality

45
theories play a large role in teacher perceptions of students. The study had elementary,
secondary and perspective teachers fill out a survey identifying different characteristics
after reading one of eight different vignettes. They found that there was a discrepancy
between actual and perceived characteristics of gifted versus average students.
$ELOLW\OHYHOFDQHOLFLWEHOLHIVDPRQJWHDFKHUVLQUHIHUHQFHWRKRZWKH\SHUFHLYH
SHUVRQDOLW\FKDUDFWHULVWLFVRIJLIWHGDQGDYHUDJHVWXGHQWV%DXGVRQ 3UHFNHO
p. 43). Their implicit personality theories about gifted students confirms intellect but
denies the social and emotional characteristic differences between the average students
and the gifted students (Baudson & Preckel, 2013).
Educator Perceptions of the Twice-Exceptional Student
Most students spend the majority of their educational career in the regular
education classroom with a regular education teacher (Rinn & Nelson, 2009; Leggett et
al., 2010; Bianco et al., 2011). The knowledge and beliefs of the regular education
teaFKHUSOD\LQWRWKHLUSHUFHSWLRQVRIDVWXGHQW0DQ\WKLQJVDIIHFWDQHGXFDWRUV
perception of a student. The lack of knowledge about different groups, cultures, genders,
and educational needs can create misconceptions that affect the way an educator may
look at or interact with a student. In the Rinn and Nelson (2009) study, they found the
preservice teachers had a major misconception about gifted students. Most participants
in the study thought that all gifted students were the same, gifted and talented across the
board. Their lack of experience with and knowledge of gifted and talented students could
play into this misconception (Rinn & Nelson, 2009). These students are underserved
because teachers and counsels see either the gift or the struggles, and students are often
only classified for the gift or the weakness instead of their gift and disability (Leggett,

46
Shea, Wilson, 2010)
Stereotypical beliefs and misconceptions affect how a teacher sees and interacts
with a student (Gates, 2010; Bianco & Leech, 2010). The stereotyping of students can
have a positive and negative effect on students and teachers (Gates, 2010). For years,
educators have believed that a gifted student is gifted in all areas, and if they are not
gifted and talented in all areas, then they are not gifted (Gates, 2010; Bianco & Leech,
2010). Students with learning disabilities or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder may
not be referred to gifted education programs because of these stereotypes or
misconceptions that educators have about certain groups of students (Gates, 2010).
Moon and Brighton (2008) noticed that primary teachers had outdated beliefs in
regards to giftedness and these beliefs influenced their decision. In their study, they
found that primary teachers had very traditional thoughts about giftedness, such as strong
reasoning skills, high language, and math abilities. The participants had trouble with
referring any student who had a limited vocabulary, lack of motivation, or could not work
independently. For example, 75% of the participants found it difficult for a student with
limited vocabulary to be considered gifted (Moon & Brighton, 2008). There were also
thoughts that students of poverty could not be considered for gifted programs and
services (Moon & Brighton, 2008) because they lacked parental support.
7HDFKHUVVWHUHRW\SLFDOH[SHFWDWLRQVRIJLIWHGVWXGHQWVDQGWKHLUVWUHQJWKVDQGODFN
of weaknesses can hurt the gifted student. Teachers focus on higher levels of social skills
as an indicator of giftedness (Bianco et al., 2011) but not realizing that not all students are
going to be social and outgoing. According to Bianco and Leech (2010), teachers
nominate students they believe are globally gifted and those who conform to their

47
perception of what a gifted student is. The concept of gifted and disabled or the twiceexceptional student is very contradictive and hard to comprehend for some educators
(Bianco & Leech, 2010).
The relationship between teacher beliefs and student realities are often opposite.
When students fail to be organized, do not turn in assignments, or lack time management,
skills teachers are apt to consider them as lazy or not being responsible (Trail, 2011). In
reality, most gifted students, whether they are twice-exceptional or not, struggle with
organization skills. Student may fail to complete assignments because of their difficulty
level in reference to their disability or because they do not see the purpose of completing
the work because they already know the skill. These students are considered
underachievers or lazy, but in reality, it could an undiagnosed disability (Trail, 2011).
Stereotyping and bias appear not only with students with labels but also in gender
of students. In the Bianco et al. (2011) study, the researchers focused on bias that
appears in teachers when referring students for gifted programs. Teachers were given
one of two identical vignettes that described a Caucasian gifted student; the only
difference was the gender. The participants read the vignette and answered six questions
(five of the statements were distractors). The question the researchers were focusing on
was if they would recommend that student for placement in the gifted education program.
Through this study, the researchers found that teachers were more inclined to refer the
male student. The reasons given for this stemmed from characteristics used to describe
the student. This led teachers to believe that he was bored and needed a challenge. The
same characteristics however, were made out to be a negative for the female with
participants saying the student was not prepared for gifted program.

48
Low expectations are another reason why twice-exceptional students are not
referred to gifted and talented programs. Educators tend to have lower expectations for
students with learning disabilities (Bianco & Leech, 2010; Lovett, 2013). These low
expectations are created by lack of knowledge or misconceptions about learning disabled
students.
In the Hargrove and Seay (2011) study, they found teachers tend to carry
predispositions toward certain groups of students. These predispositions affect how they
VHHDVWXGHQWVDELOLW\,QWKLVVWXG\+DUJURYHDQG6HD\IRFXVHGRQPLQRULW\DQGZKLWH
educators and their perception as to why African American males were underrepresented
in gifted education programs. Minority teachers considered prejudicial attitudes held by
teachers as a major reason (68.3%) for the underrepresentation. However, this study
focuses on the African American male in gifted education. The prejudicial attitudes can
be part of the issue with the underrepresentation of the twice-exceptional student.
Students are labeled throughout their educational career based upon their skills.
The problem with some labels, such as a disability label, a behavior label, and a gifted
label is that they come with beliefs or misconceptions. In the Bianco (2005) study, she
IRXQGWKDWWKHGLVDELOLW\DQGEHKDYLRUODEHODIIHFWHGDWHDFKHUVGHFLVLRQWRUHIHUDVWXGHQW
for the gifted and talented program. The educators in this study completed surveys where
students were either given a label of learning disabled, emotional-behavioral disabled, or
no label. Educators made a decision on whether to refer the student to the gifted
program. Data collected showed that teachers were less likely to refer a student with a
label than without a label.

49
Teacher Training
The Higher Education Opportunity Act (2008) has a section that specifically
discusses teaching skills required to serve all students. This law states that teachers
VKRXOGKDYHDOOVNLOOVDQGVWUDWHJLHVWRWHDFKDVWXGHQWVVSHFLILFOHDUQLQJQHHGV
Unfortunately, teachers receive very little training in either the needs of gifted or twiceexceptional students (Syzmanski & Shaff, 2012) or how to identify students with
different needs (Ryan, 2012). The downside of this is that without formal training or
education in the characteristics and needs of gifted learners, teachers rely on their
personal beliefs that may or may not be valid (Berman et al., 2012), but at the same time,
they are expected to differentiate for all students (Aldridge, 2011). In the Aldridge
(2011) study, they found that teacher perception is a big factor in whether a student who
is learning disabled and gifted are identified and serviced. Teachers are more apt to refer
if they are knowledgeable of characteristics and behaviors of the twice-exceptional
student (Aldridge, 2011).
According to Nielsen and Higgins (2005), there are four focuses for working with
twice-exceptional students. They are competence, choice, connections, and compassion.
With so much attention usually on the disability, there is a great need to celebrate the
competence of the twice-exceptional student (Nielsen & Huggins, 2005). The students
need to celebrate their successes. With most students, choice should always be an option.
*LYLQJWKHVWXGHQWVFKRLFHVRIKRZWKH\ZDQWWRSUHVHQWWKHLUOHDUQLQJVRWKDWWKH\FDQ
use their strength, is important for their success (Bracamonte, 2010; Nielsen & Higgins,
2005). Creating atmosphere of family allows students to make connections to others,
show and feel compassion, and allows students not to feel so isolated (Nielsen & Higgins,

50
2005).
Teachers with appropriate training in gifted and twice-exceptional students are
better prepared to create curriculum for their students then those without any formal
training (Bangel et al., 2010; Siegle et al., 2010). At the same time in McCoach and
Siegle (2007) study, found that there was no relationship to training and perceptions of
gifted students. In their study they found that teachers who perceived themselves as
gifted were not more sympathetic to gifted students (McCoach & Siegle, 2007).
According to Bianco and Leech (2010), teacher preparation plays a large part in
the identification of twice-exceptional students. In the Bianco and Leech (2010) study,
they focused on three groups of teachers: special education teachers, regular education
teachers, and gifted and talented teachers and whether they would identify a student with
or without a label of learning disabled or emotional behavior disorder. In the control
group (no label) for each group of teacher: 97% of regular education teachers, 100% of
gifted teachers, and 83% of special education teachers would refer for testing. In the
group with the student identified as learning disabled, 69% of regular education teachers,
75% of gifted teachers, and 58% of special education teachers would refer for testing. In
the group with the student identified as emotional behavior disorder, 80% of regular
education teachers, 50% of gifted teachers, and 40% of special education teachers would
refer for testing (Bianco & Leech, 2010). Bianco and Leech (2010) found that special
education teachers were less likely to refer a student with or without a label. This is
because their training normally focuses on identifying and remediating basic skills.
Gifted and talented teachers are more apt to refer a student with or without a label
because they are trained to look beyond the weaknesses and identify the gifts and talents

51
(Bianco & Leech, 2010). When interviewing all teachers, they found that those who had
some training in gifted education focused on characteristics versus IQ scores (Bianco &
Leech, 2010).
Teacher efficacy is also important in training. Teacher efficacy is the ability to
accurately put into practice a skill or strategy that they are taught (Dixon, Yssel,
McConnell, & Harden, 2014). Dixon et al. (2014) found when teachers had more
training on a topic ten plus hours, they were more likely to feel self-efficacy and actually
implement the skill or strategy then a teacher with less training. This signifies Davis et
al. (2010) when they discuss the importance of teacher training especially in the areas of
characteristic and strategies to use with students.
Summary
Until the 1970s, giftedness and disabilities were considered to be at different ends
of the education spectrum (Davis et al., 2010). Unfortunately, it was not until 2004 when
the twice-exceptional student was recognized in federal law (IDEA, 2004). Twiceexceptional students are not a one-size fit all group. These students have diverse social
and emotional needs (Barber & Mueller, 2011), strengths, and weaknesses (Bianco &
Leech, 2010). An educator that understands this, has the ability to reach out and identify
these students is needed in the field of twice-exceptional students (Bangel et al., 2010;
Siegle et al., 2010).

52
Chapter 3: Research Method
The twice-exceptional student is often overlooked by regular education teachers
(Davis et al., 2010; Jolly & Hughes, 2015). The specific problem this study examined
was that regular education teachers lack experience, training, and knowledge in referring
students identified as specific learning disabled (SLD) or Attention Deficit Hyperactive
Disorder (ADHD) to the gifted education program (Bianco & Leech, 2010; Davis et al.,
2010). The purpose of this explanatory, qualitative case study was to investigate the
UHJXODUHGXFDWLRQWHDFKHUVH[SHULHQFHVWUDining, and knowledge of twice-exceptional
students and identify what affects their decision on whether to refer or not refer a student.
The case study was used because it focuses on the individual representation of an issue in
its natural context (Hancock & Algozzine, 2011; Yin, 2014). The regular education
teachers were interviewed for the purpose of this study.
The following research questions describe how the purpose of this study will be
completed.
RQ1. What past teaching experiences of the regular education teachers are
perceived as having affected them in referring students identified as specific learning
disabled or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder to the gifted education program?
RQ2. How do regular education teachers perceive how any courses or trainings
in gifted education and twice-exceptional students have affected their referral rates of
students with learning disabilities or ADHD to gifted education programs?
RQ3. What working knowledge of the twice-exceptional student does the regular
education teacher have that they feel affects whether they refer students identified as
specific learning disabled or ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder) to the

53
gifted education program?
RQ4. What do regular education teachers perceive as the reasons for the
underrepresentation of twice-exceptional students?
Research Methods and Design(s)
The study used a qualitative, explanatory, case study approach employing a semistructured interview and a document review. The explanatory research method focuses
on identifying and analyzing patterns (Schram, 2006). In a case study, the researcher
wants to examine a current phenomenon that involves real life topics (Yin, 2014). A case
(or a unit of analysis) is what guides and defined by the research questions (Yin, 2014).
There are two types of case studies according to Yin (2014), multiple case or single case
study. In this study, the researcher used a single case study method because it focuses on
one unit of analysis, regular education teachers. In this single case study the unit of
analysis that was studied was, what regular education teachers know and understand
about the twice-exceptional students and how this plays into their referral of students
with ADHD or SLD to the gifted education program. Prior to this research study, little
was known about what drove regular education teachers to refer or not to refer students to
the gifted program in a high-poverty, rural school system. The explanatory case study
focuses on explaining why and how something is happening (Yin, 2014) this study met
and explanatory case study design because the phenomenon studied occurred in real
world context and based on how and why questions which are explanatory in nature (Yin,
2014). The researcher looked to explain what knowledge, training, and experience
regular education teachers had and how it affected their referral of students with SLD or
ADHD for gifted education programs (Hancock & Algozzine, 2011; Yin, 2014). This

54
explanatory case study design allowed participants to describe and explain their
knowledge training and experience with twice-exceptional students through open-ended
semi-structured interviews (Yin, 2014).

Population
The population included regular education teachers at two elementary schools,
consisting of students in prekindergarten to fifth grade. The school system consists of
about 7000 students with about 22% Caucasian, 61% African American, 13% Hispanic,
and 4% others. The educator make-up of the school system is 57% Caucasian, 39%
African American, 3% Hispanic, and 2% others (NC School Report Cards, 2014).
School A is a school of 435 students and School B is a school of 447. The student makeup at school A was 41% Caucasian, 41% African American, 14% Hispanic, and 4%
other, with 100% receiving free or reduced lunch (Great Schools, 2014). Eleven percent
of the student population at School A are served by the special education department (L.
Chandler, personal communication, October 30, 2014) and 15% are served by the gifted
education program (M. Foster, personal communication, October 30, 2014). The student
make up at school B was 25% Caucasian, 64% African American, 8% Hispanic, and 3%
other, with 100% receiving free or reduced lunch (Great Schools, 2014). Fifteen percent
of the students at School B are served by the special education department (L. Chandler,
personal communication, October 30, 2014) and 15% are being served by the gifted
education program (M. Foster, personal communication, October 30, 2014). All of the
regular education teachers at both schools were invited to participate in the research study
through a letter of invitation from the researcher.

55
Sample
According to Richard and Morse (2013), there are four basic types of sampling:
purposeful, snowball, convenience, and theoretical. For the purpose of this study, the
researcher used a mixture of random purposeful sampling. Random sampling allows
everyone in a population the opportunity to participate (Lodico, Spaulding, Voegtle,
2010), while purposely choosing a particular group of participants (Marshall & Rossman,
2011). After receiving IRB approval, the researcher contacted the principals at both
locations, scheduled a meeting and described the study to the potential participants.
According to Yin (2014), the more participants used in a study creates a more
relevant study. Lodico et al. (2010) stated in qualitative research, a researcher will select
DVPDOOQXPEHURISDUWLFLSDQWVIRUDVWXG\EHFDXVHWKHHPSKDVLVLVRQWKHLQGLYLGXDOV
unique experiences, the concept of quality over quantity. According to Marshall, Cardon,
Poddar, and Fontenot (2013), single case studies should generally consist between 15 and
30 interviews. When justifying the sample size for saturation, it does not come from the
steps taken to collect data but the point when results and codes are repeating (Marshall et
al., 2013). When doing the analysis of the data, there was a repeating of codes, which
allow the researcher to conclude interview. The researcher talked with regular education
teachers at two schools in the county (Appendix A), teachers who wanted to participate
signed an intent form with their contact information. The researcher randomly selected 16
regular education teachers, eight from each school, from those who accept the invitation
from the researcher to participate in the study. The researcher contacted participants and
set up interviews. Prior to the beginning of interviews, the researcher reviewed the
informed consent form and participants signed the informed consent form, notifying them

56
about the study and their rights (Appendix B).
Materials/Instruments
To answer the research questions, the study examined what regular education
WHDFKHUVODFNin experience, training, and knowledge in referring students identified as
specific learning disabled or Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder to the gifted
education program, interviews will be used to collect data. Interviews were held one on
one by email or in person. Face-to-face interviews allow for an interaction between the
researcher and the participant (Yeo et al., 2014). Interview structure plays an important
part in collecting data. Richard and Morse (2013) identified four types of interviews:
interactive, semi-structures, conversational, and group interviews. This study focused on
the semi-structured interview. Having a semi-structured interview allows for a guided
but less structured interview. Semi-structured interview approach is used when the
researcher has knowledge of the topic to create a framework for the interview giving the
researcher more organization but still giving freedom within the interview to allow the
interviewee to give detailed answers (Richard and Morse, 2013). This allows the
researcher to probe for understanding but also allows the interviewee to give additional
information that sparks them as the interview proceeds (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). From
WKHLQWHUYLHZVWKHUHVHDUFKHUZLOOEHDEOHWRQRWHWKHSDUWLFLSDQWVH[SHULHQFHVWUDLQLQJV
and knowledge. Face to face and telephone interviews we recorded, transcribed, and a
member check was connected by interviewees for accuracy (Yin, 2014).
Interview questions began with questions about basic demographics such as grade
level and/or subject area currently teaching, years of experience, degrees, advanced
degrees and certification, and licensure areas. The remaining questions focused on

57
UHJXODUHGXFDWLRQWHDFKHUVNQRZOHGJHH[SHULHQFHVDQGWUDLQLQJVZLWKUHIHUULQJ6/'DQG
ADHD students (Appendix C). The questions for the interviews were adapted from
previous research (Berman et al., 2012; Szymanski & Shaff, 2012). Berman et al. (2012)
conducted research with educators looking at their training and experience with gifted
learners. Some questions were adapted from two of their questions, +DYH\RXKDGDQ\
cRXUVHZRUNRUH[SHULHQFHZRUNLQJZLWKJLIWHGDQGWDOHQWHGFKLOGUHQ"([SODLQDQG
*LYHPHILYHFKDUDFWHULVWLFVRIDJLIWHGDQGWDOHQWHGFKLOG%HUPDQet al., 2012, p. 21)
(Appendix D). The researcher changed wording to include, SLD, ADHD, and twiceexceptional child. The Szymanski and Shaff (2012) study focused on teacher
perspectives of gifted students from diverse groups. Some questions were adapted from
WZRRIWKHLUTXHVWLRQV7HOOPHDERXWDQ\H[SHULHQFHVDQGWUDLQLQJWKDW\RXYHKDGDERXW
gifted students., How did your experiences and trainings help you develop your picture of
what a typical gifted student looks like?, How are gifted students identified in your
school district?, What do you think of the process?, and What changes would you
PDNH" (Szymanski & Shaff, 2012) (Appendix D). Questions were altered to change
gifted students to SLD, ADHD, and twice-exceptional students.
Data Collection, Processing, and Analysis
After receiving Northcentral University IRB, the researcher made contact with the
principals, attended a staff meeting at each school, passed out flyers about the study
(Appendix B) and recruited participants. Participants were emailed to set up interviews
that fit their schedule (Butin, 2010). ,QWHUYLHZVZHUHKHOGDWWHDFKHUVhome school.
At the interview, participants were given informed consent form to complete and
then the interview began. The interview began with basic demographics questions; then

58
participants were asked a series of open-ended questions (Appendix B) through a semistructured interview process (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Interviews took place in the
classroom of each participant, at the school where they taught. Interviews with
participants took about 20 to 40 minutes. Demographic data were collected to ensure the
participants met requirements and for background knowledge. Participants responded to
open-ended questions, which were aligned to the research questions. The interviews were
then transcribed through notes taken and audio, used to record interviews to ensure
accuracy (Butin, 2010).
A document analysis took place for the Gifted Behavior Scale that is used in the
county. This document was mentioned by several participants as a cause to why students
with learning disabilities or ADHD would not be identified for the gifted and talented
program and feed into the stereotypes and misconceptions that untrained and
inexperienced teacher may fall into believing. Using research from several studies
Baldwin et al. (2015), Colorado Department of Education (2012), Davis et al. (2010),
Song and Porath (2011), and Trail (2011), the researcher in this study, compared
strengths and weakness exhibited by twice-exceptional students, according to previous
studies, to those behaviors on the gifted behavior scale. Numerous statements, on the
gifted behavior scale, identified as a trait a gifted student may exhibit was a weakness
often found in twice exceptional students.
The researcher used inductive approach to analyzing the data in this qualitative
study. Inductive analysis approaches the raw data to develop concepts or themes through
detailed reading of the data collected (Thomas, 2015). According to Yin (2014),
inductive approach is critical in explaining data in a case study. The inductive analysis

59
process starts with close reads of the data multiple times. Next is to identify words, or
phrases that related to the questions. From there, the researcher creates categories and
then reduces those categories by grouping overlapping or redundant categories. Lastly,
the research should end with three to eight overarching themes in which all the data were
encompassed (Thomas, 2015). All data collected was gathered, categorized, coded, and
examined with the intent of discovering any common themes. 6DOGDQDJave
seveUDOVWHSVWRGDWDDQDO\VLV7KHILUVWVWHSLVSUHSDULQJWKHGDWDIRUDQDO\VLVRUGDWD
IRUPDWWLQJ6DOGDQD,QWHUYLHZVZHUHWUDQVFULEHGLQWRDQH[FHOGRFXPHQWVEDVHG
upon participants and interview questions. Then replies for each question were then
grouped for analysis. 7KHVHFRQGVWHSLVFRGLQJ6DOGDQDCoding is the order of
organizing the data into sections of meaningful chunks used later to analyze for patterns
(Richard 0RUVH6DOGDQD. For this study, the researcher circled words
and phrases that stood out using the exploratory coding method of holistic coding.
Holistic coding is grasping basic themes and/RULVVXHVE\OXPSLQJWKHPWRJHWKHU
6DOGDQD 7KHWKLUGVWHSLVDQDO\]LQJSDWWHUQV6DOGDQDPatterQVZHUH
LGHQWLILHGZKLFKFUHDWHGFDWHJRULHVDQGOHGWRWKHIRUPDWLRQRIWKHPHV6DOGDQD
Thomas, 2015).
Assumptions
The researcher made assumptions about the population used in this study. It was
assumed that participants are answering truthfully during interviews. To ensure this,
participantsLGHQWLWLHVwere confidential and participants were volunteers. The
researcher assumed that all participants were interested in participating in the study and
find the results enlightening on their teaching. The researcher assumed the participants

60
would be comfortable with completing interviews. The researcher assumed that the
school board, superintendent, and principals were agreeable to allowing the researcher to
interview regular education teachers.
Limitations
Limitations in this study consisted of data sources, sample size and the
UHVHDUFKHUVIDPLOLDULW\RIVFKRRO$8VLQJDVPDOOVDPSOHVL]HIRUWKHUHVHDUFKwas
necessary, due to time for interviews and analysis of the data from the interviews, of the
16 regular education teachers. Small sample size and using only two schools in the
county was a limitation, for it may not allot for the county as a whole.
Another limitation that may affect the study is truthfulness, also known as
UHVSRQVHHIIHFW ELDV%XWLQ7KLVLVZKHUHSDUWLFLSDQWVWHOOWKHLQWHUYLHZHUZKDW
they think they want to hear versus their true beliefs (Butin, 2010). The last limitation is
WKHUHVHDUFKHUVUHODWLRQVKLSWRSDUWLFLSDQWV7KHUHVHDUFKHULVFXUUHQWO\DJLIWHG
education specialist serving students at school A. The researcher made every effort to
remain unbiased when conducting interviews and incorporated member checks to ensure
accuracy of data collected.
Delimitations
Elementary teachers in two schools, in a small, high poverty rural county, were
interviewed for this study, which could create bias because there are ten elementary
schools in the county. The study was limited to only teachers currently teaching in
kindergarten through fifth grade, which does not account for middle school, high school
or retired teachers. The study was limited only to teachers currently working at one of
the two schools used.

61
Participation in the study was voluntary. Interviews were conducted in quiet
locations where the participant was comfortable and would be uninterrupted. Participants
were assured that their answers to the questions were confidential and anonymous.
Through member checks, participants would also be able to see their responses and add
or delete any additional information. These delimitations could have affected the
reliability and validity of the study.
Ethical Assurances
Examining the underrepresentation of SLD and ADHD in gifted education
programs can be understood by using qualitative, explanatory, case study (Yin, 2014).
According to Kitto, Chesters, and Grbich (2008), the goal for qualitative research is to
explore the behavior of a group of people with the intent of finding meaning in their
natural context. As more educators are able to recognize gifted characteristics in all
students, whether they are an average student, culturally diverse, or have a label of
exceptional abilities, students will not be overlooked, undeveloped, and will have a
chance to meet their potential (Bianco & Leech, 2010; Foley-Nicpon, 2013; Szymanski &
Shaff, 2012, deWet & Gubbins, 2011). Through the interviews, the researcher gained an
understanding of what drives educators to refer or not refer a student for gifted education
program.
The researcher used member checks and triangulation to ensure the validity,
ethics, and integrity of the study. Member checks were used to ensure accuracy
(Marshall & Rossman, 2011; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Kitto et al., 2008; Hancock &
Algozzine, 2011). Internal validity is important with qualitative research, which is why
the researcher used member checks to ensure that the preliminary results of the interview

62
transcripts were accurate. Participants had access to transcripts and research findings to
increase validity of the data collected (Marshall & Rossman, 2011). Data triangulation is
using different sources of information to increase validity (Guion, Diehl, & McDonald,
2011). The researcher used participants from two schools, member checks and a
document review of the gifted behavior scale used by the county to create the
triangulation.
According to Yin (2013), there are four specific ethical guidelines that are part of
this case study. They were getting informed consent, avoiding deception and protecting
participants, providing for privacy and confidentiality, and selecting participants in an
equitable manner. Participants were selected based on the criteria that they were a
kindergarten to fifth grade teacher at one of two schools in the county and was a certified
teacher. From this 16 participants were contacted to complete interviews. The researcher
went over the informed consent form with the participants before it was signed.
Participants were assigned a number that only the researcher knew to ensure
confidentiality. The researcher had experience with working with some of the participants
from School A and School B. The researcher maintained transparency while conducting
interviews with all participants. The researcher did not allow previous work experience to
affect the open and honest environment created during the interviews.
The IRB (International Review Board) plays a large part in ensuring the
protection of the researchers and the participants in a study (Marshall & Rossman, 2011).
The goal of the IRB is to ensure that all research conducted is ethical when using human
participants (Northcentral, 2015). No data was collected or interviews held until the
researcher received approval from the IRB. Once approval was received the researcher

63
contacted schools, participants and began collecting data. After all data was collected and
analyzed it has been stored in a password protected file on an external hard drive. It will
be destroy in June of 2022.
Summary
The purpose of this study was WRH[DPLQHUHJXODUHGXFDWLRQWHDFKHUVH[SHULence,
training, and knowledge of referring students identified as specific learning disabled
(SLD) or Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD) to the gifted education
program. This study will use the qualitative research method, using an explanatory case
study model. According to Yin (2013), and Merriam and Tisdell (2016), the purpose of
case studies is to gather information, with the desire to understand and make meaning of
the unknown. This study was conducted using semi-structured interviews and a
document review. Data was validated through member checks and data triangulation
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

64
Chapter 4: Findings
The purpose of this explanatory, qualitative case study was to investigate regular
HGXFDWLRQWHDFKHUVH[SHULHQFHVWUDLQLQJ, and knowledge of twice-exceptional students
and identify what affects their decision on whether to refer or not to refer a student. The
case study took place in two elementary schools in a rural county school district in North
Carolina. There are 435 students in attendance at School A, while 11% are served in the
special education department, and 15% are served in the gifted education department.
Two students are served by both the special education and the gifted education
departments. There are 447 students in attendance at School B while the special
education department serves 15% of the population, and the gifted education department
serves 15% of the population. School B has one student served by both departments.
This study examined teacher beliefs, knowledge, and training in reference to students
identified as Specific Learning disabled, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorders,
Gifted and Talented, or Twice-H[FHSWLRQDO$FDVHVWXG\ZDVFRQGXFWHGZLWKWHDFKHUV
knowledge, experience, and training of the twice-exceptional student as the case that was
studied and the primary unit of analysis (Yin, 2009). This explanatory case study was
planned as a representative case (Yin, 2009) to be able to encapsulate the information
about teacher's knowledge, beliefs, and training as to what deters teachers from referring
specific learning disabled or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorders to gifted
programs. Sixteen teachers were chosen because the opportunity for an intensive study
of 50 teachers was not plausible (Yin, 2009) due to time restraints.
In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with the 16 teachers that
span from first grade to fifth grade. These teachers would be responsible for referring

65
students to the gifted education program for testing. The purpose of the interviews was to
examine teachers' knowledge, beliefs, and training that may deter their ability to refer a
student labeled as specific learning disabled or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
for the gifted education program. The findings from this qualitative case study are
presented in this chapter and are organized by the research questions. Interview
responses from the participants were analyzed to create themes. An evaluation of the
findings will be found at the end of the chapter with a summary of any key points found.
Results
Participants for this study were asked to complete some basic demographics prior
to starting the interview. Of the 16 participants 15 were females and one male; 15 were
Caucasians and one African-American. The participants ranged from 26 years old to 64
years old, with the average of 38 years old. The range of experience was two to 28 years
with the average of 12 years of experience in teaching. Thirteen of the teachers have at
OHDVWWKHLUXQGHUJUDGXDWHGHJUHHWZRKDYHDPDVWHUVGHJUHHDQGRQHKDVVRPHJUDGXDWH
work. Five of the teachers are National Board Certified Teachers; one has a Spanish
certification, one has English certification, and three have Gifted and Talented
certifications.
Table 3
Participant Data
Participants
Race
Average Age
Average
Experience
Education
Certifications

15 females
16 Caucasians
38 years
12 years

1 male
1 African American

13 undergraduates
2 master degrees
5 National
1 Spanish
1 English
Board Teachers

1 some graduate work

3 Gifted and
Talented

66

Research question 1. What past teaching experiences of the regular education

teachers are perceived as having affected them in referring students identified as specific
learning disabled or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder to the gifted education
program?
One theme emerged from the first research question, educator have a lack of
experience working with and identifying twice-exceptional student. Regular education
teachers perceive that lack of experience has affected them in referring students identified
as specific learning disabled or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder to the gifted
education program. Through interviews, the majority of the regular education teachers
had little to no experience working with twice-exceptional students and tend to look at
WKHGLVDELOLW\VLGHRIDVWXGHQWDQGQRWIRFXVRQWKHJLIWHGVLGH$SDUWLFLSDQWVWDWHG,ID
child has trouble reading they may not do well in math because of the word problems,
DQG,PD\QRWUHDOL]HWKDWPDWKFRXOGEHDVWUHQJWK,WZDVDOVRIRXQGWKDWWHDFKHUVWHQG
WRIHHODWDORVVEHFDXVHRIWKHODFNRIH[SHULHQFH3DUWLFLSDQWRQHQRWHG,IRFXVVR
much on the disabilities because there is such a push for them, I do not tend to see the
JLIW
Participants that had experience with twice-exceptional students were more aware
of the possibilities of the students being both gifted and having a disability. One
participant with the help from the gifted specialist at her school was able to refer and then
identify a twice-exceptional student. The student was learning disabled in reading and
gifted in math. Teachers with experience expressed that their experience has allotted
them access to use and understand the QHZ-UHVHDUFKHGEDVHGGHILQLWLRQVRIWKHJLIWHG

67
VWXGHQWV$SDUWLFLSDQWVWDWHG([SHULHQFHKDVHTXLSSHGPHZLWKWKHNQRZOHGJHWRNQRZ
what to look for in a gifted student. The gifted student is not a cookie cutter student;
sometimes, we have to search IRUWKHJLIW
Research question 2. How do regular education teachers perceive how any
courses or training in gifted education and twice-exceptional students have affected their
referral rates of students with learning disabilities or ADHD to gifted education
programs?
Two themes emerged from the second research question, lack of training and the
lack of confidence. Regular education teachers perceive that the lack of training hinders
their ability to effectively refer students with learning disabilities or ADHD to gifted
education programs. The three teachers who had certification in gifted and talented
recalled having training in the twice-exceptional student, but one said, "It was not a big
thing when she received her certification 20 years ago." Thirteen of the 16 participants
had no training to rely on for referring twice-exceptional students. Twelve of 16
participants had some training on learning disabled students, while only nine of the 16
had training in ADHD. When it came to where and how they received the training, most
mentioned a college class in school that talked about learning disabled, ADHD, gifted
students, but no recollection of ever hearing twice-exceptional.
Most of the regular education teachers reported feeling a lack of confidence
because of their lack of training and experience when it comes to twice-exceptional
students. The participants that had training believed that the training enhanced their
ability to effectively refer students with learning disabilities or ADHD to gifted education
programs. The majority of the participants felt the lack of training and experience has

68
hindered them from feeling confident in identifying students who may be gifted. When
asked, "Do you feel you don't have the training and experience to access these or is it the
ODFNRIFRQILGHQFHWRXVHWKHVHQHZGHILQLWLRQV":K\GR\RXWKLQNWKDW"2QH
SDUWLFLSDQWVWDWHG,WKLQNWKDWLWLVDOLWWOHELWRIERWK I think that the training has not
been a large focus with all of the other demands of the school \HDU$QRWKHUSDUWLFLSDQW
QRWHG1RWKDYLQJWKHEHVWWUDLQLQJRUH[SHULHQFH,IHHODODFNRIFRQILGHQFHWREHDEOH
WRLGHQWLI\WKHVHVWXGHQWV
Three participants of the study who have their gifted certification believed that
having this training makes them more aware of the fact that students do not always fit the
old definition of gifted. Each of them has also had experience working and identifying
twice-exceptional students. One participant mentioned that it was also important to her to
advocate IRUVWXGHQWV:KHQ,DPHQWUXVWHGWRSURYLGHHGXcational services to students,
deemed twice-exceptional, I feel that although I may push, there is just as much effort
pushing me back. I feel that educators are more concerned about the struggles that
students have than they are with nurturing and enriching the "giftedness" that the
VWXGHQWV$QRWKHUSDUWLFLSDQWDOVRQRWHG6HHLQJDV,KDYHWDXJKWDFRXSOHWZLFHexceptional students, ,IHHO,PPRUHDZDUHRIWKHSRVVLELOLW\EXWVWLOOODFNWUXHWUDLQLQJ
Research question 3. What working knowledge of the twice-exceptional student
does the regular education teacher have that they feel affects whether they refer students
identified as specific learning disabled or ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactive
Disorder) to the gifted education program?
Data from research question three continued to build upon theme one (lack of
experience) and theme two (lack of training). Regular education teachers feel that

69
working knowledge of the twice-exceptional student affects whether they refer students
identified as specific learning disabled or ADHD to the gifted education program.
Regular education teachers rely on older definitions of gifted and talented students,
definitions that do not include the concept of the twice-exceptional child. Most of the
participants noted the only training they received on giftedness, ADHD, or SLD was one
class they took while receiving their undergraduate degree. For some teachers who have
been teaching for 15 plus years, this knowledge is not relevant today (Reis et al., 2014).
Regular education teachers rely on very narrow definitions that emphasize organizational
skills and time management skills. Due to the reliance on older definitions, regular
education teachers have little understanding of the emotional, social needs and make-up
of the twice-exceptional students.
Research question 4. What do regular education teachers perceive as the reasons
for the underrepresentation of twice-exceptional students?
One new theme emerged from research question four, misconceptions and
stereotyping behaviors that affect teacher referral, but this question also continued
supporting themes one (lack of experience), two (lack of training), and three (lack of
confidence). Regular education teachers perceive the lack of training as one reason for
the underrepresentation of twice-exceptional students. Teachers feel they are not
informed of characteristics of students with the potential to be twice-exceptional.
Teachers stated that there was a need for training in identifying the characteristics of
nontraditional gifted students, such as students with ADHD or learning disabled. One
SDUWLFLSDQWQRWHG,WKLQNODFNRISURIHVVLRQDOGHYHORSPHQWIRUWHDFKHUVSUHYHQWVPH
from referring LD or ADHD students to the gifted program. These students are

70
sometimes viewed as the troublemakers, or the kids who just can't get it. These labels are
negative stereotypes for teachers. We need to do a better job of equipping teachers with
the knowledge of how to serve these students. These students are often the smartest
students we teach; but unless medicated, they don't have the ability to slow down their
PLQGVDQGIRFXV
A couple of participants mentioned that they had heard that students with ADHD
can mimic characteristics of students who are gifted. This makes educators with little
experience and training unsure of whether the child is undiagnosed with ADHD, gifted,
or both. One participant stated, "I recently read an article that stated there was an increase
in children with ADHD but with additional testing it was found that it was not ADHD but
behaviors associated with giftedness and the children would qualify for gifted programs."
The participants who have had experience were concerned that untrained teachers were
using old and traditional definitions of gifted, and that students with labels would not be
identified because they are not the teacher pleaser or seen as troublemakers. A participant
stated, "I have seen where teachers won't refer a student because of their behavior. I
watched our gifted specialist argue with a teacher, that a student had potential to be
gifted. The teacher kept sayingbut he does not exhibit good behavior, he can't be
gifted."
Teachers are not knowledgeable of strategies to use with students, who could
potentially be twice-exceptional. Participants noted that there was a major push from
school system and principals to focus on the deficits, not the strengths. Teachers feel
pushed to use various research-based instruction, such as Daily Five and Keys to
Literacy, that concentrate on different types of strategies to teach; however, teachers also

71
indicated that there is no training on student types (such as gifted or twice-exceptional) or
strategies that work for different types of students.
Regular education teachers perceive stereotypical behaviors as another reason for
the underrepresentation of twice-exceptional students. Stereotypical behaviors are
behaviors believed to be represented in a gifted student that are based upon the definition
of the past (Baldwin et al., 2015). Teachers who had had training and experience noted
that regular education teachers that do not know and understand the concept of twiceexceptional students are unprepared for instructing and meeting their needs (Abed
Pearson, Clarke, and Chambers, 2014). One participate stated, "Definitions of old and
teacher beliefs that gifted students were from middle to high-income families, if they are
gifted, they are gifted in all subjects, they are the all blue-eyed, blonde female, or the
teacher pleaser create those stereotypical behaviors." Those participants with training
and experiences believed it was crucial for teachers to understand the difference between
a bright student and a gifted student. And the old definitions and stereotypes are not true
today. Another stated, "Labels such as learning disabled and ADHD tend to have
negative stereotypes that hinder a student from being identified because they do not fit
what a teacher thinks as the typical gifted student, who is gifted in everything."
Most regular education teachers did not understand the process for referring
students to the gifted program or how the identification process works. Those who
understand the process believe there is room for improvement. A participant stated,
7KHUHLVDOVRDODFNRIIROORZWKURXJKIRUVWXGHQWVE\WKHVFKRROWKHV\VWHPDQGWKH
teachers when students are identified twice-exceptional. They now have both a gifted
HGXFDWLRQSODQDQGDRU,(3WKDWQHHGWREHDGGUHVVHG7KLVFRQFHUQ referenced that

72
once a student was identified as twice-exceptional is there follow through after placement
is decided, were the students being served for both their disability and their gift by the
teachers, school, and the school system.
Regular education teachers disapproved of the gifted behavior scale. They
believed it to be a reason for the underrepresentation of the twice-exceptional student.
6RPHSDUWLFLSDQWVVWDWHG6FRUHVRQWKHVFDOHDUHVNHZHGEHFDXVHLIDVWXGHQWKDV
ADHD, and it is not under control, their behaviors such as leadership, and independence
ZLOOQRWEHH[KLELWHGVRWKH\UHFHLYHORZVFRUHVLQWKHVHFDWHJRULHV7KH*LIWHG
Behavior Scale was adopted by the school system in 2010, from Joseph S. Renzulli
(2009), Systems and Models for Developing Programs for the Gifted and Talented
(Appendix E). It is a checklist that ask teachers to rate students on a scale of one to four,
with one being the behavior is not observed, and four being almost always or always
observed. Scores come from five areas: learning characteristics, motivational
characteristics, creativity, leadership, and adaptability. About eight questions are asked in
a section and focus on characteristics that are thought to be exhibited by a "typical" gifted
and talented student.
In researching this scale, several behaviors were noted in certain sections to be
biased against the twice-exceptional student. In the area of learning characteristics,
statements like has a good memory, can easily recall information, has a more advanced
vocabulary, and has mastered reading are areas that a student who is gifted in math but
learning disabled in reading, would score low scores. For motivational characteristics,
strive for perfection prefers to work alone and likes things organized, are areas of
weakness for an ADHD student and possibly a learning disabled student. For creativity,

73
risk-taking, and not being afraid to be different than others, are two areas a learning
disabled student may not exceed in. When it comes to leadership, areas of responsibility,
having confidence, getting along with others, and adapting to new situations are areas of
weakness for an ADHD student and a learning disabled student. The last section is
adaptability. Adaptability focuses on how students handle responsibilities outside and
inside school, how they deal with problems and frustrations, their social reasoning and
behaviors, and the maturity level. Each of these statements can be difficult for students
with learning disabilities and ADHD. For these reasons, several of the participants did
not approve the use of the gifted behavior scale; they believed it was based on all
definitions of what a typical gifted student looks like, but today we don't have a typical
gifted student. Due to their experience, two participants thought that an alternate scale
should be created that is geared to students who don't fit the typical mold, like students
who are identified ADHD or learning disabled.
Evaluation of Findings
The knowledge, training, and experience of the regular education teacher plays a
large role in the referrals of specific learning disabled and students with ADHD (de Wet
& Gubbins, 2011; Bianco, Harris, Garrison-Wade, & Leech, 2011). The purpose of this
explanatory, qualitative case study was to investigate the knowledge, training, and
experience and how it affects their referral of students identified as learning disabled or
ADHD. In addition, the gifted behavior scale was also analyzed after several teachers
made comments about its lack of truthfulness when used to identify students who are not
the typical gifted learner, such as twice-exceptional students. Through member checks
and triangulation, the researcher was able to find patterns in the knowledge, training, and

74
experience of regular education teachers and investigate how it affects their referral of
students to the gifted program. The researcher triangulated through data triangulation
(Guion et al., 2011). Data was collected from two different schools, participants
participated in member checks by reviewing their interview transcripts and reviewing
final data results, and an analysis of the gifted behavior scale. These patterns appear to
agree and disagree with the literature. While interviewing regular education teachers
about gifted and talented, learning disabled, ADHD, and twice-exceptional students,
several themes became known: lack of experience, lack of training, lack of confidence,
and stereotyping. These are also common areas found in the review of literature.
Lack of experience. Lack of experience working with twice-exceptional student
hinders not only the student but the teacher too. Abed et al. (2014) stated that teachers
with less experience will be less fluent in characteristics of ADHD students. Table three
is a breakdown of the experiences identified by the participants. Looking at the
breakdown of experience noted by participants in this study, the researcher found that all
participants had experience with learning disabled and the same with ADHD students; the
majority had experience with students whom were gifted and talented, but only half had
experience with the twice-exceptional student. Of the eight who noted that they had
experience with twice-exceptional students, two of them had children who are twiceexceptional and their experience came from that of the parent and not that of a teacher.
Does this make a difference when related to experience? Yes, it does, according to
Wormald, Rogers, and Vialle (2015), informed parents who have children who are
considered twice-exceptional are more likely to advocate to ensure their children are
receiving services for both exceptionalities. Seeing as these parents are also teachers, the

75
researcher would assume that they are informed and have experience working with the
twice-exceptional student.
Table 4
Experiences Identified

A lot of
experience
Some
experience
No experience

Gifted and
Talented
10

Learning
Disabilities
16

ADHD
16

TwiceExceptional
2

Lack of training. Formalized teacher training in gifted and talented and twiceexceptional whether through in-service or college training, is very limited (Berman et al.,
2012, Henley, Milligan, McBride, Neal, Nichols, & Singleton, 2010, Syzmanski & Shaff,
2012). According to Troxclair (2013), if teachers are not exposed to instruction about
gifted students, their needs and abilities, their knowledge, understanding, and beliefs of
these students may become skewed because of deficiency of information. According to
Levi, Einav, Raskind, Ziv, and Margalit (2013) and Abed et al. (2014), teachers with
proper training were more likely to meet the needs of students. In this study, the majority
of the participants stated that any training they had come from college classes. For
participants this could be between two and 29 years ago, and when it came to the mention
of twice-exceptional students, only two had any training with this coming from their
gifted and talented certification classes, and the third participant with gifted certification
did not recall twice-exceptional training, but has received training since then through
gifted coordinator webinars. Table 4 is a breakdown of the training mentioned by
participants.

76
Table 5
Trainings Identified

College
In-Service
Certification
Peer/PLC
No Training

Gifted and
Talented
5
2
3
1
5

Learning
Disabilities
8
1
0
3
4

ADHD
1
7
0
1
7

TwiceExceptional
0
1
2
0
13

Eleven out of the 16 participants stated that there was a significant need for
training in all areas of exceptionalities. Twelve out of the 16 participants also stated that
follow through and extra support for regular education teachers and students were
necessary. Barnard-Brak et al. (2015) agreed with this. In their study, they noted that
students and teachers who receive the required support and follow through from the
gifted specialist, the special education teachers, and the regular education teacher, are
more likely to have their weaknesses, and their strengths met. According to Baldwin et
al. (2015), the twice-exceptional student needs to have a complete and individualized
plan that addresses, not only their needs but their strengths, also making sure to address
the whole child. This is why it is so important to ensure that teachers are trained to
identify and work with students.
Lack of confidence. When analyzing answers to interview questions, another
question came to mind and was completed through a follow-up email to participants. In
this follow-up email, participants were asked if they felt a lack of confidence also played
into whether they referred students. From their responses theme 3, lack of confidence,
emerged. Levi et al. (2013) found that teachers who are confident in their ability to teach
different ability levels will be able to show growth and improvement in their students. In

77
the same study, they found that teachers who lack confidence in their ability, due to lack
of training or experience, are less likely to show growth and improvement in their
students. The researcher posed an additional question to participants after initial
evaluation of results, "Do you feel you do not have training and experience to access
these new definitions or do you think it is a lack of confidence to use these new to
definitions?" Of the eight who responded back to the email, half of them believed that
the lack of confidence and understanding of the term twice-exceptional did hinder them
from referring students. This lack of confidence stems from the educators not having
experience or training in the field of twice-exceptional students. Due to this, they do not
feel adequate in knowing indicators that are presented by twice-exceptional students to
enable them to recommend them for referral.
Stereotyping or Misconceptions. Within the realm of this study, it was found
that teachers who have experience and training with twice-exceptional students believe
that other teachers may still believe in traditional stereotypes of students. When
participants were asked about characteristics of gifted students, they stated those
traditional characteristics such as strong readers, participates in class, independent,
helpful, organized and neat. In the Wellisch and Brown (2013) study, it was noted that,
characteristics of twice-exceptional students or students at risk are often found to be
impatient, disruptive, lack organization skills, and have sloppy writing. To add to that
Baldwin et al. (2015) stated twice-exceptional students struggle with organizing thoughts,
ideas, and time management. This contradicts the above characteristic stated by teachers.
According to Troxclair (2013), SUHVHUYLFHWHDFKHUVSHUFHSWLRQVRIJLIWHGVWXGHQWV
are reflected in stereotypical attitudes, such as gifted students are gifted in all areas, or

78
that they do not need additional assistance. Levi et al. (2013) reported that there are links
between prejudicial attitudes and academic expectations that consequently hinders
academic achievement of students. Prejudicial attitudes are linked to personality, personal
beliefs, and environmental issues of individuals (Metin et al., 2013). These prejudicial
attitudes can hinder a student from receiving services that they should be receiving.
The gifted behavior scale used by the county is also an area of stereotype. These
stereotypes are created by the use of older assessment forms that do not take into account
students who are not typical gifted students. The gifted student may or may not have
these characteristics, whereas a twice-exceptional student will not exhibit as many of
those characteristics because of their additional exceptionality. Students identified as
twice-exceptional will tend to have different characteristics and abilities compared to
students who are not twice-exceptional. These characteristics often counteract each
other, making identification difficult (Wormald, Rogers, & Vialle, 2015; Killoran et al.,
2013; Baldwin et al., 2015). Due to the fact that this document is used by the county as a
means to identify students and regular education teachers know and understand this
document; it also contributes to the stereotyping and misconceptions of gifted students by
the teachers. Educators use this tool to identify students and even trained teachers may
revert to those stereotypical traits and characteristics listed on the behavior scale verse
thinking and using what they know about the twice-exceptional they are trying to refer.
Summary
From the triangulation of the data gathered from the different interviewees and a
review of the gifted behavior scale used in the county, three themes appeared. They were
teacher training and experience, student behaviors, and student academics. Research

79
completed by Baldwin et al. (2015), Barber and Mueller (2011), Foley-Nipcon (2013),
and Raymond (2011) identified that student achievement and behaviors can affect
whether they are recognized for possible giftedness. Teacher training and experience are
relevant when looking at the referral of students with disabilities or students with ADHD.
Without training and experience, regular education teachers do not have the background
and knowledge to be able to notice the gifts they possess (Abed et al., 2014; Berman et
al., 2012; Henley et al., 2010; Levi et al., 2013; Syzmanski & Shaff, 2012; and Troxclair,
2013). When teachers have an increase in training their confidence rises, allowing them
to better identify and work with students with multiple exceptionalities. Killoran et al.
(2013) also found that educators continue to hold misconceptions about learning
challenges students face and how to best meet those challenges. Breaking the stereotypes
of long ago and LQWURGXFHWRGD\VFRQFHSW RIZKDWDJLIWHGDQGWDOHQWHGVWXGHQW
(Baldwin et al., 2015) looks and acts like is very important for future students.

80
Chapter 5: Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions
The problem addressed by this study was that students who are labeled ADHD or
learning disabled are underrepresented in gifted programs (Baldwin et al., 2015; Bailey &
Rose, 2011). Regular education teachers are not equipped with the proper training and
understanding to assist in identifying students who are labeled ADHD or learning
disabled for gifted programming (Szymanski & Shaff, 2012; Berman et al., 2012; Reis et
al., 2014). There has been no training in the school system on ADHD, learning disabled,
gifted and talented, or the twice-exceptional student in several years. There is also a
checklist which regular education teachers must complete when referring students in the
school system. Teachers believe that it is not geared towards the twice-exceptional
student. Therefore, if a student is recommended they may not qualify due to this
checklist.
The purpose of this explanatory, qualitative case study was to investigate regular
HGXFDWLRQWHDFKHUVH[SHULHQFHVWUDLQLQJDQGNQRZOHGJHRIWKHWZLFH-exceptional student
and identify what affects their decisions on whether to refer or not to refer a student. This
VWXG\H[SORUHGUHJXODUHGXFDWLRQWHDFKHUVH[SHULHQFHVWUDLQLQJDQGNQRZOHGJHRIWKH
twice-exceptional student through semistructured interviews (Yin, 2009; Richard &
Morse, 2013) and a document review of the gifted behavior scale, a checklist used by
teachers when referring students to the gifted program. The checklist and the interviews
have provided data for this study.
The study limitations focused on data sources, sample size, truthfulness, and the
researcher's employment. Data sources are limited to the responses from selected
teachers' interviews and the document for review of the gifted behavior scale. According

81
to Yin (2009), multiple sources of data are necessary to case studies to increase the
accuracy of the results. The second limitation was the sample size of the teachers who
participated in the study. The sample size of 16 participants was essential to conduct
interviews with the participants and to be able to analyze the data created through these
interviews (Yin, 2009; Merriam, 2009). The study only used two elementary schools out
of the 10 in county, so it may not account for the whole county. According to Butin
(2010), response effect bias is related to the responses by interviewees that may be what
they think the interviewer wants to hear versus telling their true beliefs. To guard for this,
the researcher reinforced to the participants to please be honest in their answers, that the
researcher would not hold fault to answers given and would be the only person who sees
the answers. The final limitation of the study was the researcher's employment. The
researcher is an employee of the school district and a coworker with some of the teachers
who participated in the study. The researcher stressed to all participants that taking part in
this study was completely voluntary; it was explained that they can withdrawal from the
study at any time without penalty. Member checking was used during the anDO\VLVWR
HQVXUHWKHSDUWLFLSDQWVZHUHUHSUHVHQWHGDFFXUDWHO\DQGDOVRDOORZHGWRKHOSYDOLGDWH
ILQGLQJVIURPWKLVVWXG\6DOGDQD
To ensure ethical practices were conducted throughout this study, no research was
carried out until IRB approval for the study had been granted by the University.
Permission was granted by the superintendent to conduct research and by the principals at
the two schools used in this study. Research participants were given a copy of the
informed consent form and gave their permission before the study was conducted.
Member checks were conducted through providing each participant with a copy of the

82
interview transcripts and a copy of the overall findings from the study to enlist any inputs
that they had in reference to their interviews and the results. The data was triangulated
through interviews completed at two different schools, member check (having
participants review interview transcripts and results), and through a document review of
the gifted behavior checklist.
This chapter reviews the four research questions from the study and the
conclusions drawn from this research findings. How the results are connected to the
problem and purpose of the study are explained and how they contribute to existing
literature on twice-exceptional students. Recommendations are based upon research
findings with suggestions for possible future research. This chapter will conclude with a
summary of the key points noted within the chapter.
Implications
Within this section are the implications of the study and their relevance to the
research questions. Member checks reviewed the findings, and triangulation is discussed.
The discussion that follows examines each research question in the four major themes
that were identified from analysis: (1) lack of experience; (2) lack of confidence; (3) lack
of training; (4) stereotypes or misconceptions.
The first research question was, :KDWSDVWWHDFKLQJH[SHULHQFHVRIWKHUHJXODU
education teachers are perceived as having affected them in referring students identified
as specific learning disabled or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder to the gifted
HGXFDWLRQSURJUDP"'DWDDQDO\]HGIURPWKHVWXG\VKRZHGWKDWUHJXODUHGXFDWLRQ
teachers have a lack of experience in working with and identifying students who have the
potential to be gifted and have an exceptionality. With an underrepresentation of twice-

83
exceptional students in the school system, teachers do not get the hands-on experience
needed to understand the twice-exceptional student; part of this is because of lack of
training. Educators need to be challenged to acknowledge their abilities or lack of
abilities and make a commitment to change (Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2014). If
this not done, prospective twice-exceptional students will fail to meet their potential,
because they were never given the opportunity to be challenged (Hargrove & Seay, 2011;
Barnard-Brak et al., 2015).
The second research question was, +RZGRUHJXlar education teachers perceive
how any courses or trainings in gifted education and twice-exceptional students have
affected their referral rates of students with learning disabilities or ADHD to gifted
education programs?" Analysis of the data collected from teacher interviews is the basis
of theme two, lack of training. Based upon the interviews, it was apparent that most
teachers have little to no training when it comes to twice-exceptional students. Those who
did have training, said it was due to having their gifted and talented certification.
According to Berman et al. (2012), gifted education currently is not a high priority in
regular education teacher curriculum. Since there is not a large importance placed on
gifted education training, it then falls to school systems to provide training, which most
school systems do not always supply. Without training, teachers have an inability to
recognize indicators of potential giftedness, especially in students with other
exceptionalities such as learning disabled or ADHD (Ryan, 2012). This is harmful to
students because it is the teacher's ability to recognize the potential in students and to
correctly identify the need for services (Barnard-Brak et al., 2015); without training

84
teachers do not have the knowledge of those different characteristics that a twiceexceptional student may exhibit.
The third research question was :KDWZRUNLQJNQRZOHGJHRIWKHWZLFHexceptional student does the regular education teacher have that they feel affects whether
they refer students identified as specific learning disabled or ADHD (Attention Deficit
+\SHUDFWLYH'LVRUGHUWRWKHJLIWHGHGXFDWLRQSURJUDP":RUNLQJNQRZOHGJHLVFUHDWHG
when a person has training and experience in a field (Markauskaite & Goodyear, 2014).
Theme 1, lack of experience, and theme 2, lack of training, both play into the research
question three, but another theme began to emerge. After analyzing answers to
interviews, a follow-up email was sent to participants asking if lack of confidence plays
into whether they referred students. From their responses, theme 3, lack of confidence,
emerged. According to Sadler (2013), self-confidence is a key indicator and linked to a
teacher's understanding of the content and pedagogy of the students that he or she is
instructing. A teacher who is not confident in his or her abilities can be detrimental to the
students. Teachers who feel a lack of confidence because they are not trained or have
had many experiences (Paradis, Lutovac, & Kaaila, 2015; Sadler, 2013), with twiceexceptional students can be a reason that students who have other exceptionalities are not
referred to gifted programs. Teachers felt that if they had more training, their selfconfidence in their abilities would rise, enabling them to feel more comfortable in
identifying and referring learning disabled or ADHD students for gifted programming
(Paradis et al., 2015).
7KHIRXUWKUHVHDUFKTXHVWLRQZDV:KDWGRUHJXODUHGXFDWLRQWHDFKHUVSHUFHLYHDV
the reasons for the underrepresentation of twice-exceptional students?" While analyzing

85
all the data collected during interviews and at the document review of the gifted behavior
scale used by the school system, theme 2, lack of training, was again important when
answering this question. Regular education teachers noted that the lack of training was
very hurtful when it came to reasons why there was an underrepresentation of the twiceexceptional student. The participants stated that not knowing what to look for, especially
in the case of a twice-exceptional student, makes it very difficult for us to refer students
in that case. Another theme began to emerge from analyzing the data; this is theme 4
stereotypes or misconceptions. Some participants mentioned that teachers may rely on
older information that stereotypes or creates misconceptions of gifted students, learning
disabled students, students with ADHD, and the twice-exceptional student. This can be
from many reasons, such as lack of training (Troxclair, 2013; de Wet & Gubbins, 2011;
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities, 2011), stereotypes, and
misconceptions (Hargrove & Seay, 2011; Szymanski & Shaff, 2012). These stereotypes
and misconceptions were mentioned by participants but also were found in the document
review of the gifted behavior scale. An examination of the document found that many
statements could be biased against twice-exceptional students, causing the student to get
a poor score on the behavior scale.
Recommendations
Based upon previous studies mentioned in Chapter 2 Literature Review and the
results of the current study, there are recommendations for continued research in the area
of teacher perceptions of the twice-exceptional student. The data revealed that teachers
believe the lack of training has contributed to the underrepresentation of twice-

86
exceptional students in the school system. The researcher's recommendations for future
research are below.
Recommendations for practice. The first recommendation is to develop specific
professional development for school personnel, especially the regular education teacher
and the special education teacher, pertaining to the characteristics of twice-exceptional
students. According to the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (2011), a
twice-exceptional student may perform far below their capability, but teachers may not
recognize it, due to the ability masking the disability. This compensation can mask the
students' abilities and disabilities, and an untrained teacher will not realize the need to
distinguish between the two. When a teacher is knowledgeable of the different
characteristics that a twice-exceptional student can exhibit, they are more likely to be able
to identify those characteristics and refer students to gifted programming for testing.
Training can also assist teachers in removing the stereotypes and misconceptions of the
long-ago gifted student, to what WRGD\V gifted child truly can be (Bianco et al., 2011).
The second recommendation is the creation of or the adoption of an additional
behavior scales that take into account the characteristics of today's gifted child. The
document review, of the gifted behavior scale, found that many statements are
counterproductive to the twice-exceptional student, and that they are not in their
behaviors. Statements must be adapted that do not reflect poorly on the twice-exceptional
student such as in the area of verbal or written communication, interaction and work
habits (Reis et al., 2014; Hargrove & Seay, 2011).
Recommendations for the future. Several suggestions can be made for future
research on the topic of referrals of ADHD and learning disabled students to gifted

87
programs. This study was limited to two schools in one school district; it is suggested that
more research be conducted in all school in the district or in multiple school systems.
This study was also limited to only elementary teachers, and it is recommended that a
future study involve educators in kindergarten through twelfth grade. This study focused
on general education teachers, additional study interviewing teachers from all areas of
education and comparing each group to each other (Levi et al., 2013).
Conclusions
The purpose of this explanatory qualitative case study was to examine regular
HGXFDWLRQWHDFKHUVNQRZOHGJHWUDLQLQJDQGH[SHULHQFHZLWKWKHWZLFH-exceptional
student. Through semi-structures interviews in which 16 participants participated, eight
teachers from School A and eight teachers from School B., and a document review was
conducted of the gifted behavior checklist. The data was triangulated and analyzed, and
results emerged four themes: lack of experience, lack of training, lack of confidence, and
stereotype and misconceptions. Recommendations were made for the creation of
professional development geared to the regular education teacher about the characteristics
of the twice-exceptional learner and the creation or the adoption of additional gifted
behavior scales that take into effect the characteristics of the twice-exceptional learner. It
was also recommended that future research go beyond one school system or focus on K12 teachers and looking at other resource teachers.

88
References
Abed, M., Pearson, S., Clarke, P., & &KDPEHUV06DXGL$UDELDQWHDFKHUV
knowledge and beliefs about ADHD. The Journal of the International Association
of Special Education, 15(1), 67-74. Retrieved from
http://iase.coe.nau.edu/journal.html
Aldridge, P. (2011). Teachers perceptions of students who are learning disabled and
gifted. Academic Leadership, 9(3), 1-12. Retrieved from
http://contentcat.fhsu.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/p15732coll4/id/794/rec
/1
Al-Hroub, A. (2010). Developing assessment profiles for mathematically gifted children
with learning difficulties at three schools in Cambridgeshire, England. Journal for
Education of the Gifted 34(1), 7-44. Doi: 10.1177/016235321003400102
American Academy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry. (2014). ADHD- A guide for families.
Retrieved from
http://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Resource_Centers/ADHD_R
esource_Center/Home.aspx
American Psychological Association. (2013). ADHD. Retrieved from
http://www.apa.org/topics/adhd/index.aspx
American Psychiatic Association. (2013). DSM. Retrieved from
http://www.psych.org/practice/dsm
Aron, L. & Loprest, P. (2012). Disability and the education system. The Future of
Children, 22(1), 97-122. Retrieved from
http://www.futureofchildren.org/index.htm
%DLOH\&/ 5RVH9&([DPLQLQJWHDFKHUVSHUFHSWLRQVRIWZLFHexceptional students: Overview of a qualitative exploration. Retrieved from http://
counselingoutfitters.com/ vistas/vistas11/Article_07.pdf
Bain, S. K., Bliss, S. L., Choate, S. M. & Brown, K. S. (2007). Serving children who are
gifted: Perceptions of undergraduates planning to become teachers. Journal for
the Education of the Gifted, 30(4), 450-478. Retrieved from
http://www.prufrock.com
Baldwin, L. Omdal, S. N., & Pereles, D. (2015). Beyond stereotypes: Understanding,
recognizing, and working with twice-exceptional learners. Teaching Exceptional
Children,47(4), 216-225. doi: 10.1177/0040059915569361
Bangel, N. J., Moon, S. M., and Capobianco, B. M. (2010). 3UHVHUYLFHWHDFKHUV
preceptions and experiences in a gifted education training model. The Gifted
Child Quarterly 54(3), 209-221. Doi:10.1177/001698210369257

89
Barber, C. & Mueller, C. T. (2011). Social and self perceptions of adoescents identifed as
gifted, learning disabled, and twice-exceptional. Roeper Review, 33(2), 109-120.
Doi: 10.1080/02783193.2011.554158
Barnard-Brak, L., Johnsen, S. K., Hannig, A., & Wei, T. (2015). The incidence of
potentially gifted students within a special education population. Roeper Review,
37(2), 74-83. doi: 10.1080/02783193.2015.1008661
%DXGVRQ7* 3UHFNHO)7HDFKHUVLPSOLFLWSHUVRQDOLW\WKHRULHVDERXWWKH
gifted: An experimental approach. School Psychology Quarterly, 28(1), 37-46.
Doi: 10.1037/spq0000011
Beckley, D. (1998). Gifted and learning disabled: Twice-exceptional students. NRC/GT
Newsletter. Retrieved from
http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrgt/newsletter/spring98/spmg984.html
Berman, K. M., Schultz, R. A., & Weber, C L. (2012). A lack of awareness and emphais
in preservice teacher training. Gifted Child Today, 35(1), 18-26.
Doi:10.1177/1076217511428307
Bianco, M. (2005). The effects of disability labels on special education and general
education teachers referrals for gifted programs. Learning Disability Quarterly,
28(3), 285-293. Doi:10.2307/4126967
Bianco, M., Harris, B., Garrison-Wade, D., & Leech, N. (2011). Gifted girls: Gender bias
in gifted referrals. Roeper Review, 33, 170-181. Doi:
10.1080/02783193.2011.580500
Bianco, M., & Leech, N. L. (2010). Twice-exceptional learners:Effects of teacher
preparaton and disability labels on gifted refferals. Teacher Education and
Special Education, 33(4), 319-334. Doi:10.1177/0888406409356392
Bracamonte, M. (2010). 2E students; Who are they and what they need. 2E Newsletter.
Retrieved from http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/Articles_print_id_10655.aspx
Butin, D. W. (2010). The education disseration: A guide for practitioner
scholars.Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin
Bussing, R., Porter, P., Zima, B. T., Mason, D., Garvan, C., & Reid, R. (2012). Academic
outcome trajectories of students with ADHD: Does exceptional education status
matter? Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 20(3), 131-143.
Doi:10.1177/1063426610388180
Buttner, G. & Hasselhorn, M. (2011). Learning disabilities: Debates on definitions,
causes, subtypes, and responses. International Journal of Disability,
Development, and Education, 58(1), 75-87. doi: 10.1080/1034912X.2011.548476
Minds. (2014). Implicit Personality Theory. Retrieved from

90
http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/implicit_personality.htm
Colorado Department of Education. (2012). Twice-exceptional students: Gifted students
with disabilities (4th ed.). Retrieved from
http://www.cde.state.co.us/gt/download/pdf/twiceexceptionalresourcehandbook.p
df
Cowan, D. (2014). Improving social skills in ADHD students. Retrieved from
http://addinschool.com/improving-social-skills-adhd/
Crepeau-Hobson, F. & Bianco, M. (2013). Response to intervention: Promises and
pitfalls for gifted students with learning disabilities. Intervention in School and
Clinic, 48(3), 142-151. doi: 10.1177/1053451212454005
Cross, T. L., Coleman, L. J., & Terhaar-Yonkers, M. (2014). The social cognition of
gifted adolescents in schools: Managing the stigma of giftedness. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, 37(1), 30-39. Doi: 10.1177/0162353214521492
Davis, G. A., Rimm, S. B., & Siegle, D. (2010). Education of the gifted and talented (6th
ed.). Boston, Ma: Pearson Education, Inc.
Delisle, J., & Galbraith, J. (2015). When gifted kids dont have all the answers: How to
meet their social and emotional needs (2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit
Publishing, Inc.
de Wet, C. F., & Gubbins, E. J. (2011). 7HDFKHUVEHOLHIVDERXWFXOWXUDOO\OLQJXLVWLFDOO\
and economically diverse gifted students: a quantitative study. Roeper Review, 33,
97-108. Doi: 10.1080/02783193.2011.554157
Dixon, F. A., Yssel, N. McConnell, J. M., & Harvin, T. (2014). Differentiated instruction,
professional development, and teacher efficacy. Journal for the Education of the
Gifted, 37 (2), 111-127. Doi: 10.1177/0162353214529042
DuPaul, G. J., Weyandt, L. L., & Janusis, G. M. (2011). ADHD in the classroom:
Effective intervention strategies. Theory into Practice, 50(1), 35-42. Doi:
10.1080/00405841.2011.534935
Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, PL 94-142, 20 U.S.C. 401 (1975).
Elementary and Secondary Education Amendment. PL 91-230. 79 Stat 55 (1970).
Elhoweris, H. (2008). The effects of the childs disability on United Arab Emirates inservice teachers educational decision regargin gifted and talented children.
Educational Studies, 34(5), doi:10.1080/03055690802288536
Federal Disability Definitions, 20 U.S.C. 1401(3). (2012). Retrieved from
www.ct.ca.gov/credentials/CREDS/federal-disability-definition.pdf

91
Figg, S. D., Rogers, K. B., McCormick, J., & Low, R. (2012). Differentiating low
performace of the gifted learner: Achieving, underachieving, and selective
consuming students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23(1), 53-71. doi:
10.1177/1932202X11430000
Fletcher, K. L. & Neumeister, K. L. S. (2012). Research in perfectionism and
achievement motivation: Implications for gifted students. Psychology in the
Schools, 49(7), 668-677. doi: 10.1002/pits.21623
Foley-Nicpon, M. (2013). Gifted chLOGTXDUWHUO\VVSHFLDOLVVXHRQWZLFH-exceptionality:
Progress on the path of empirical understanding.Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(4),
207-208. Doi: 10.1177/0016986213501195
Foley-Nicpon, M. , Allmon, A., Sieck, B., & Stinson, R. D. (2011). Empirical
investigation of twice-exceptionality: Where have we been and where are we
going? Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(1), 3-17. Doi:10.1177/0016986210382575
Friend, M. (2007). The coteaching partnership. Educational Leadership, 65(5), 48-52.
Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership.aspx
Fugate, C. M., Zentall, S. S., & Gentry, M. (2013). Creativity and working memory in
gifted tudents with and without characteristic of attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder: Lifting the mask. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(4), 234-246
doi: 10.1177/0016986213500069
Gates, J. (2010). Children with gifts and talents: Looking beyond traditional labels.
Roeper Review, 32, 200-206. Doi: 10.1080/02783193.2010.485308
Gifted and Talented Act of 1978. PL 95-56. Title IX sec 902. (1978).
Great Schools. (2014). Vance County Schools. Retrieved from
http://www.greatschools.org
Guion, L. A., Diehl, D. C., & McDonald, D. (2011). Triangulation: Establishing the
validity of qualitative studeis. University of Florida. Gainesville,FL: The Institute
of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Retrieved from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fy394
Hall, M., Poole, D., Rearden, M., Carlstrom, R. , Smith, S., & Speaks, J. (2009).
Response to intervention and gifted and talented education. Retrieved from
http://opi.mt.gov/pub/RTI/Resources/RTI_Gifted_Talented.pdf
Hancock, D. R., & Algozzine, B. (2011). Doing case study research: A practical guide
for beginning researchers (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teacher College Press.
Hargrove, B. H., & Seay, S. E. (2011). School teacher perceptions of barriers that limit
the participation of African American males in public school gifted programs.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34(3), 434-467. Retrieved from Education
Research Complete. (AN59353518)

92
Harris, B. & Plucker, J. (2014). Achieving equity and excellence: The role of school
mental health providers in shrinking excellence gaps. Gifted Child Today, 37(2),
111-118. Doi: 10.1177/1076217514520967
Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, P. L. No 110-315200(2008).
Hughes, C. E., & Rollins, K. (2009). RTI for nurturing giftedness; Implications for the
RTI school-based team. Gifted Child Today, 32(3), 31-39. Retrieved from
http://journals.prufrock.com/IJP/b/gifted-child-today
Hwang, M. H., Lee, D., Lim, H. J., Seon, H. Y., Hutchinson, B., & Pope, M. (2014).
Academic underachievement and recovery: Student perspectives on effective
career interventions. The Career Development Quarterly, 62(1), 81-94. Doi:
10.1002/j.2161-0045.2014.00072.x
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004 , Pub. L. No.
108-446, 118 Stat. 2647. (2004).
Iowa Department of Instruction. (2014). Iowa Multi-Tiered Support for Instruction.
Retrieved from https://www.educateiowa.gov
Jolly, J. L. & Hughes, C. E. (2015). The educational experience for students with gifts
and talents. Teaching Exceptional Children, 47(4), 187- 189. doi:
10.1177/0040059915570257
Johnsen, S. K., Parker, S. L., & Farah, Y. N. (2015). Providing services for students with
gifts and talents with a response-to-intervention framework. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 47(4), 226-233. doi: 10.1177/0040059915569358
Kitto, S. C., Chesters, J., & Grbich, C. (2008). Quality in qualitative research. The
Medical Journal of Australia, 188(4), 243-246. Retrieved from
https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2008/188/4/quality-qualitative-research
Killoran, I., Zaretsky, H., Jordan, A., Smith, D., Allard, C., & Moloney, J. (2013).
Supporting teachers to work with children with exceptionalities. Canadian
Journal of Education, 36(1), 240-270. Retrieved from http://www.csse.ca
Kofler, M. J., Rapport, M. D., Bolden, J., Sarver, D. E., & Raiker, J. S. (2010). ADHD
and working memory: The impact of central executive deficits and exceeding
storage/rehearsal capacity on observed inattentive behavior. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 38(2), 149-161. Doi: 10.1007/s10802-009-9357-6
Kofler, M. J., Rapport, M. D., Bolden, J., Sarver, D.E., Raiker, J. S., & Alderson, R. M.
(2011). Working memory deficits and social problems in children with ADHD.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 39(6), 805-817. Doi: 10.1007/s10802011-9492-8
Lee, K. M., & Olenchak, R. (2014). Individuals with a gifted/attention

93
deficit/hyperactivity disorder diagnosis: Identification, performance, outcomes,
and interventions. Gifted Education International. doi:
10.1177/0261429414530712
Leggett, D. G., Shea, I. & Wilson, J. A. (2010). Advocating for twice-exceptional
students: An ethical obligation. Research in School, 17(2), 1-10. Retrieved from
http://www.msstate.edu/org/msera/rits.htm
Levi, U., Einav, M., Raskind, I., Ziv, O.,& Margalit, M. (2013). Helping students with
LD to succeed: The role of teachers hope, sense of coherence, and specific selfefficacy. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 28(4), 427-439. doi:
10.1080/088856257.2013.820457
Lodico, M. G., Spaulding, D. T., & Voegtle, K. H. (2010). Methods in educational
research: From theory to practice (2nd ed.). San Fransico, Ca: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Lovett, B. J. (2013). The science and politics of gifted students with learning disabilities:
A social inequality perspective. Roeper Review, 35(2), 136-143. doi:
10.1080/02783193.2013.766965
0DUNDXVNDLWH/ *RRG\HDU37DSSLQJLQWRWKHPHQWDOUHVRXUFHVRIWHDFKHUV
working knowledge: Insight into the generative power of intuitive pedagogy.
Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 3(4), 237-251. doi:
10.1016/j.lcsi.2014.01.001
Marshall, B., Cardon, P., Poddar, A., & Fontenot, R. (2013). Does sample size matter in
qualitative research?: A review of qualitative interviews in IS research. Journal of
Computer Information Systems, 54(2), 11-24. Retrieved from
http://iacis.org/jcis/articles/JCIS54-2.pdf
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2011). Designing qualitative research (5th ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Martinussen, R., & Major, A. (2011). Working memory weakness in students with
ADHD: Implications for instruction. Theory into Practice, 50(1), 68-75. Doi:
10.1080/00405841.2011.534943
Matthews, M. (2014). Self-concept and the gifted. In C. Callahan & J. Plunker (Eds)
Critical Issues and Practices in Gifted Education: What the Research Says (2nd
Ed.) (pp. 567-576). Waco, Tx: Prufrock Press, Inc.
McCallum, R. S., Bell, S. M., Coles, J. T., Miller, K. C., Hopkins, M. B.,& HiltonPrillhart, A. (2013).A model for screening twice-exceptional students (gifted with
learning disabilities) within a response to intervention paradigm. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 57(4), 209-222. Doi: 10.1177/0016986213500070
McCoach, D. B. & Siegle, D. (2007). What predicts teachers attitudes toward the gifted.

94
Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(3), 246-255. doi: 10.1177/0016986207302719
McCoach, B. & Siegle, D. (2013) Underachievers. In Plucker, J. A. and Callahan, C. M.
(Eds.) Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says
(2nd ed)(pp.691-706). Waco, Texas: Prufrock Press, Inc.
Merriam, S. B. & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative Research: A guide to design and
implentation (4th ed.). San Fransico, CA: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Merrotsy, P. (2013). Invisible gifted students. Talent Development and Excellence, 5(2),
31-42. Retrieved from http://www.iratde.org
Metin, B., Roeyers, H., Wiersema, J. R., van der Meere, J. J., Gasthuys, R., & SonugaBurke, E. (2013). Enviromental stimulation does not reduce implusive choice in
$'+'$SLQNQRLVHVWXG\Journal of Attention Disorders, 20(10), 1-8. doi:
10.117/1087054713479667
Mills, C. J., & Brody, L. E. (1999). Overlooked and unchallenged: Gifted student with
learning disabilities. Knowledge Quest, 27(1), pp. 36-40. Retrieved from
http://cty.jhu.edu/research/archive/docs/overlooked.pdf
Moon, T. R. & Brighton, C. M. (2008). Primary teachers conceptions of giftedness.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31(4), 447-480. Retrieved from
http://www.sagepub.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/home.nav
National Association for Gifted Children. (1998). Students with concomitant gifts and
learning disabilities [Position Paper]. Retrieved from
http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=397
National Association for Gifted Childern. (2012). What is giftedness. Retrieved from
http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=574
National Center for Learning Disabilities. (2012). LD explained. Retrieved from
http://ncld.org
National Center for Learning Disabilities. (2014).What is IDEA? Retrieved from
http://www.ncld.org/disability-advocacy/learn-ld-laws/idea/what-is-idea
National Foundation for Learning Disabilities. (2013). What is RTI? Retrieved from
http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/what/whatisrti
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2011). Learning disabilities:
Implications for policy regarding research and practice.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 34(4), 237-241. Doi: 10.1177/0731948711421756
National Society for the Gifted and Talented (2013). Giftedness Defined. Retrieved from
http://www.nsgt.org/giftedness-defined/#4

95
NC School Report Cards. (2014). Vance County Schools. Retrieved from
http://www.ncreportcards.org
Nielsen, M. E., & Higgins, L. D. (2005). The eye of the storm:services and programs for
the twice-exceptionals learners. Teaching exceptional children, 38(1), 8-15.
Retrieved from Educational Research Complete. (AN18367486)
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub L No. 107-110 (2002).
Northcentral University. (2015). Northcentral University Dissertation Center. Retrieved
from Northcentral University: http://learners.ncu.edu/ncu_diss/default.aspx
Olszewski-Kubilius, P. & Clarenbach, J. (2014). Closing the opportunity gap: Program
factors contributing to academic success in culturally different youth. Doi:
10.1177/1076217514520630
3DUDGLV$/XWRYDF6 .DDLOD5$&DQDGLDQWHDFKHUVSHUFHLYHGDXWRQRP\
and self-confidence in the midst of an educational reform. Problems of Education
in the 21st Century, 66, 42-53. Retrieved from
http://www.jbse.webinfo.lt/Problems_of_Education_Volumes.htm
Raymond, E. B. (2011). Learners with mild disabilities (4th Ed.). Boston, Ma: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Reis, S. M., Baum, S. M., & Burke, E. (2014). An operational definition of twiceexceptional learners: Implications and applications. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(3),
217-230. Doi: 10.1177/0016986214534976
5LFKDUG/ 0RUVH-05HDGPHILUVWIRUDXVHUVJXLGHWRTXDOLWDWLYH
methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Ca: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Rinn, A. N., & Nelson, J. M. (2009). Preservice teachers perceptions of behaviors
characteristic of ADHD and giftedness. Roeper Review, 31, pp. 18-26.
Doi:10.1080/02783190802527349
Rinn, A. N., & Reynolds, M. J. (2012). Overexcitabilities and ADHD in the gifted: An
examination. Roeper Review, 34(3), 38-45. Doi:10.1080/02783193.2012.627551
Robinson, N. M., Reis, S. M., Neihart, M., & Moon, S. M. (2002). Social and emotional
issues facing gifted and talented students: What have we learned and what should
we do now? In N. M. Robinson, S. M. Reis, M. Neihart, & S. M.Moon (Eds) The
social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 267288). Waco, Tx: Prufrock Press, Inc.
Ronksley-Pavia, M. (2015). A model of twice-exceptionality: Explaining and defining
the apparent paradoxical combination disability and giftedness in childhood.
Journal of the Education of the Gifted, 38(3), 318-340. doi:
10.1177/0162353215592499

96
RTI Network. (2014). RTI: What is it. Retrieved from
http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/what/whatisrti
Ruban, L. M., & Reis, S. M. (2005). Indentifiation and assessment of gifted students with
learning disabilities. Theory into Practice, 44(2), 115-124.
Doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4402_6
Ryan, T. (2012). Ontario educators perceptions of barriers to the identification of gifted
children from economically disadvantaged and lmited English proficient
backgrounds. Journal of International Association of the Special Education,
12(1), 16-27. Retrieved from http://www.iase.org/?journal,7
Ryan, T. G. & Coneybeare, S. (2013). The underachievement of gifted students: A
synopsis. The Journal of the International Association of Special Education,
14(1), 58-66. Retrieved from http://iase.coe.nau.edu/journal.html
Sadler, I. (2013). The role of self-confidence in learning to teach higher education.
Innovations in Education and Teaching, 50(2), 157-166. doi:
10.1080/14703297.2012.760777
SaldDQD-The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks,
California: SAGE Publications Inc.
Schneider, D. J. (1973). Implicit personality theory: A review. Psychological Bulletin,
79(5), 294-309. Doi: 10.1037/h0034496
Siegle, D., Moore, M. , Mann, R. L., & Wilson, H. E. (2010). Factors that influence inservice and preservice teachers nominations of students for gifted and talented
programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33(3), 337-360. Retrieved from
http://www.prufrock.com
Song. K. & Porath, M. (2011). How gitedness coexists with learning disabilities:
Understanding gifted students ith learning disabilities (GLD) in an integrated
model of human abilities. Talent Development and Excellence, 3(2), 215-227.
Retrieved from Business Source Complete. (AN67432805)
Strip, C. A. & Hirsch, G. (2011). Helping gifted children soar. Scottsdale, Arizona: Great
Potential Press, Inc
Szymanski, T., & Shaff, T. (2012). Teacher perspectives regarding gifted diverse
students. Gifted Children, 6(1), 1-26. Retrieved from
http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/giftedchildren
Thomas, D. R. (2015). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation
data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237-246. Doi:
10.1177/1098214005383748
Tieso, C. & Douglass, M. J. (2011). Twice-exceptional: Gifted students with learning.

97
Retrieved from
http://education.wm.edu/centers/ttac/documents/packets/twiceexceptional.pdf
Terman, L. (1925). Genetic study of genius (Vol. 1): Mental and physical traits of 1000
gifted children. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Trail, B. A. (2011). Twice-exceptional gifted children: Understanding, teaching, and
counseling gifted students. Waco, Texas: Prufrock Press, Inc.
Troxclair, D. A. (2013). Preservice teacher attitudes towards giftedness. Roeper Review,
34, 58-64. doi: 10.1080/02783193.2013.740603
Wang, C. W. & Neihart, M. (2015). Academic self-concept and academic self-efficacy:
Self-beliefs enable academic achievement of twice-exceptional students. Roeper
Review, 37(2), 63-73. doi: 10.1080/02783193.2015.1008660
Wellish, M. & Brown, J. (2012). An integrated identification and intervention model for
intellectually gifted children. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23(2), 145-167.
doi: 10.1177/1932202X12438877
Willard-Holt, C., Weber, J., Morrision, K. L., & Horgan, J. (2013). Twice-exceptional
OHDUQHUVSHUVHFWLYLHVRQHIIHFWLYHOHDUQLQJVWUDWHJLHV*LIWHG&KLOG4XDUWHUO\
57(4), 247-262. Doi: 10.1177/0016986213501076
Wood, S. C. (2012). Examining Parent and Teacher Perceptions of Behaviors Exhibited
by Gifted Students Referred for ADHD Diagnosis Using the Conners 3 (An
Exploratory Study). Roeper Review, 34(3), 194-204. doi:
10.1080/02783193.2012.686426
Wormald, C., Rogers, K. B., & Vialle, W. (2015). A case study of giftedness and specific
learning disabilities: Bridging the two exceptionalities. Roeper Review, 37(3),
124-138. doi: 10.1080/02783193.2015.1047547
Yeo, A., Legard, R., Keegan, J., Ward, K., Nicholls, C.M., & Lewis, J. (2014). In-Depth
Interviews. In Ritchie, Lewis, Nicholls, Ormston (Eds), Qualitative Research
Practice: A Guide for Socia Science Students and Researchers (p. 177-210).
Thousand Oak, California: SAGE Publication Inc.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed). Thousand Oaks,
California: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Yssel, N., Adams, C., Clarke, L. S., & Jones, R. (2014). Applying an RTI mode for
students with learning disabiliteis who are gifted. Teaching Exceptional Children,
46(3), 42-52. Retrieved from http://www.cec.sped.org.

98
Appendices

100
Appendix B: Informed Consent Form
Informed Consent Form
What deters educators from referring students identified as specific learning
disabled (SLD) or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) to gifted
education program?
What is the study about? You are invited to participate in a research study being
conducted for a dissertation at Northcentral University in Prescott, Arizona. The study is
interested in your thoughts about referring students identified with SLD and ADHD for
testing in the gifted education program. You were selected because you replied to a flyer
or email about the study.
What will be asked of me? You will be asked to set up a time to meet. I will ask a series
of questions about your thoughts. It will take about 30 to 45 minutes.
Who is involved? The following people are involved in this research project and may be
contacted at any time: Lisa Webster (919) 939-9877, L.Webster1847@email.ncu.edu or
lwebster@vcs.k12.nc.us or Dr. Jerome Fore (888) 327-2877, cfore@ncu.edu.
Are there any risks? There are no known risks in this study. Some of the questions
might be sensitive since they ask about your thoughts, knowledge, and experience in
teaching. This can be upsetting to some people. You may stop the study at any time.
You can also choose not to answer any question that you feel uncomfortable in
answering.
What are some benefits? There are no direct benefits to you for participating in this
research. No incentives are offered. The results may eventually affect future
professional development in working with twice-exceptional students (students who are
identified for special education department and gifted education program).
Is the study anonymity/ confidential? The data collected in this study is confidential.
Your name or personal information is not linked to the data. Only the researchers in this
study will see the data.
Can I stop participating the study? You have the right to withdraw from the study at any
time without penalty. You can skip any questions if you do not want to answer.
Additional Consent for Video-taping and Transcription
This study will involve video-taping during the face-to-face interviews. No names or
identifying information will be associated with the transcription of the videotapes. Only
the researcher will listen to the video and transcribe its content. The transcripts will be
checked for accuracy. The video will then be destroyed. Portions of the transcripts may
be reproduced in presentation or report form for the purpose of this study.

101
What if I have questions about my rights as a research participant or complaints?
If you have questions about your rights, any complaints, or any problems as a research
participant in the research study, please contact the researchers identified on the consent
form. If you prefer to talk to someone outside the study team, you can contact
1RUWKFHQWUDO8QLYHUVLW\V,QVWLWXWLRQDO5HYLHZ%RDUGDWirb@ncu.edu or 1-888-327-2877
ex 8014.
We would be happy to answer any question that may arise about the study. Please direct
your questions or comments to Lisa Webster (919) 939-9877,
L.Webster1847@email.ncu.edu or lwebster@vcs.k12.nc.us or Dr. Jerome Fore (888)
327-2877, cfore@ncu.edu.
Signatures
,KDYHUHDGWKHDERYHGHVFULSWLRQIRUWKH:KDWGHWHUVHGXFDWRUVIURPUHIHUULQJVWXGHQWV
LGHQWLILHGDV6/'RU$'+'WRJLIWHGHGXFDWLRQSURJUDP"VWXG\,XQGHUVWDQGZKDWWKH
study is about and what is being asked of me. My signature indicates that I agree to
participate in the study.
Participant's Name: ___________________________________________
Participant's Signature: ________________________________________
Researcher's Name: ____Lisa Lynn Webster______
Researcher's Signature: ________________________________________
Date: _____________________

102

Appendix C: Interview Questions

1. Educator Information: age, gender, race, years of experience, grades taught,
certifications, licensures, and education level
RQ1. What past teaching experiences of the regular education teachers are perceived as
having affected them in referring students identified as specific learning disabled or
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder to the gifted education program?
RQ2. How do regular education teachers perceive, how any courses or trainings in gifted
education and twice-exceptional students have affected their referral rates of students
with learning disabilities or ADHD to gifted education programs?
RQ3. What working knowledge of the twice-exceptional student does the regular
education teacher have that they feel affects whether they refer students identified as
specific learning disabled or ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder) to the
gifted education program?
RQ4. What do regular education teachers perceive as the reasons for the
underrepresentation of twice-exceptionall students?
2. Have you had any past experiences working with gifted and talented children?
Explain.
3. Have you had any past experiences working with specific learning disabled
students? Explain.
4. Have you had any past experiences working with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder students? Explain.
5. Have you had any past experiences working with Twice-Exceptional students?
Explain.

103
6. Have you had any training on gifted and talented children? Tell me about any
training that you have had about gifted students.
7. Have you had any training on specific learning disabled students? Tell me about
any training that you have had about specific learning disabled students.
8. Have you had any training on Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder students?
Tell me about any training that you have had about Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder students.
9. Have you had any training on Twice-Exceptional students? Tell me about any
training that you have had about Twice-Exceptional students.
10. How are gifted students identified in your school/district? What do you think of
the process? What changes would you make?
11. How are specific learning disabled students identified in your school/district?
What do you think of the process? What changes would you make?
12. Give five characteristics of a
a. gifted and talented child.
b. specific learning disabled student
c. ADHD student.
d. twice-exceptional student.
13. How does your experiences and training help you develop your picture of what a
typical gifted student looks like?
14. How does your experiences and training help you develop your picture of what a
typical specific learning disabled student looks like?
15. How does your experiences and training help you develop your picture of what a

104
typical ADHD student looks like?
16. How does your experiences and training help you develop your picture of what a
typical twice-exceptional looks like?
17. Do you believe that there is an underrepresentation of twice-exceptional students
in the school system? Why do you believe that?
18. Have you ever referred a student who was identified as specific learning disabled
or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder to be tested for gifted education
program? Why have you not? Why have you? What assisted in you deciding to
refer them?
19. What do you think needs to happen to increase the number of twice-exceptional
students in the school system?
20. You mentioned you had experience with students with disabilities, and you
mentioned you had experience with gifted and talented, but little experience with
VWXGHQWVZKRDUHWHUPHGWZLFH-exceptional". How do you feel your experiences
or lack of experiences have affected the way you refer students to the gifted and
WDOHQWHGSURJUDP"
21. What barriers do you perceive in the school system that prevent you from
effectively referring LD or ADHD students to gifted programs?
22. There are many "new and research-driven definitions", that explain the terms
twice-exceptional, and gifted and talented. Do you feel you don't have the training
and experience to access these or is it the lack of confidence to use these new
definitions? Why do you think that?

105

Appendix D: Letters of Permission

106

107
Appendix E: Gifted Behavior Scale

108