This article focuses on addressing the needs of twice-exceptional students in a regular classroom, confronting three primary questions: why is it so difficult to identify that a student may be twice-exceptional? If being twice-exceptional means that there is a clash between one’s natural ability and one’s natural inabilities, how does that clash affect the student’s development? What can you do to address the educational needs of a twice-exceptional student, bearing in mind that there are limitations to what a teacher can do without having additional support in his or her classroom? This piece is taken from a longer scholarly work on the topic. For a complete text, visit https://www.slimeducatief.nl/artikelen/download/29/.
What can one do to address the educational needs of a twice-exceptional student, bearing in mind the limitations to what a teacher can do without having additional support in his or her classroom? The student’s unique profile of educational needs determines which educational responses are meaningful. But what makes a response meaningful? A meaningful educational response does not merely aim for changes; it aims for good changes (Biesta, 2012). To determine what is good requires a teacher’s ability to judge his or her professional actions contextually (van Gerven & Hoogenberg, 2011). This means that reflecting on educational responses can only lead to a meaningful response if we take the “3” of the 1+1=3 of being twice-exceptional into consideration.
International literature points out the special consequences of a clash between being gifted and having a learning disability. Costis (2016) states that the combination of being gifted and having a learning and/or developmental disability results in “new” behavior. In this context, “new” refers to observed behavior that is neither typical of being gifted nor typical of having a learning and/or developmental disability. The conclusion is that the sum is more than the whole of its parts. One cannot focus on the giftedness or disability individually. A joint perspective is required, where giftedness and disability are addressed at the same time.
That is why we (2017a; 2017c) refer to these consequences as 1+1=3, and Baum et al., (2017) refer to it as “being green.” The novelty in this behavior is not what can be observed, but in what causes the behavior (Bianco, Carothers, & Smiley, 2009; Costis, 2016; van Gerven, 2017c). It can best be compared with the different causes of a feeling of frustration while you are still learning and not yet completely successful, and the feeling of frustration because you know exactly what to do and how to do it, without ever being to execute that knowledge and understanding effectively. Although the behavior is similar, it is only a superficial similarity. Coping with this behavior requires a genuinely different approach.
Reis et al. (2014) concluded that twice-exceptional students have seemingly paradoxical educational needs that can be best addressed from a holistic perspective. Baum, Schader, and Hébert (2014) described an approach they referred to as a strength-based and talent-focused approach. Strength-based means to proceed from the student’s strengths, cognitive style, learning-style preferences, and intelligence profile. Talent-focused implies an ongoing process of the student’s developmental potential combined with his interests, and creating opportunities to include a student’s capabilities that would not normally be part of the curriculum.
In this approach, addressing a student’s talents and interests is specifically encouraged. The authors conclude that twice-exceptional students thrive on the opportunity to explore their multiple talents and capabilities for something other than using them to overcome their weaknesses. They suggest that there is a negative effect when the use of these talents is the reward for a delivered achievement. They also suggest that there is a negative effect if the opportunity to use these talents is only encouraged to motivate the student to become engaged in tasks that compensate for their weaknesses.
Helpful Approaches for Teachers
Daily practice in education requires a reality check. A teacher has only one pair of hands; classroom assistants are scarce; all students in a class have a right to their teacher’s attention; and funds for additional means are limited. Therefore, even though the student and the teacher both might need more in the long run, start by thinking KISS: Keep It Simple and Small. Lose the Need for a Label Do not wait until there is a formal label that classifies your student as being twice-exceptional (Amend et al., 2009). Every student has the right to get an education that stimulates his or her development in the broadest sense as possible. If we postpone responding to the student’s educational needs until the student gets a label, we fail our students (van Gerven, 2017c; 2017d). Teaching is all about seeing, understanding, and responding to the educational needs of the students in one’s classroom, and one does not need a label to start doing so! Think about Opportunities Think of creating learning opportunities instead of “fixing what is broken” (Cauffman & van Dijk, 2009; van Meersbergen & de Vries, 2013). What does the student need to learn and why is that important? Extend learning objectives beyond the academic domain, and also consider interpersonal and intrapersonal objectives. What interventions might be a match with these set objectives? Make It Safe Consider that both teacher and students are in a learning relationship. The teacher learns how to implement new professional behavior in an existing educational context or existing professional behavior in a new educational context. The student learns how new behavior, new knowledge, or new skills contribute to his development. Both might feel incompetent or only partially competent at the start. That feeling has an impact on regulating emotions. This kind of learning requires a safe pedagogical-didactical environment for the both of them. Explore together how they can each contribute to this safe climate. Respect Uniqueness Each gifted student has an individual intelligence profile. Each disability comes with an individual profile as well. These two individual profiles interact uniquely, fueled by interaction with the student’s ecological system. So even when you have two students who are both gifted and dyslexic or two students who are both gifted and have ADHD, each of them has a unique profile and therefore unique needs (Hughes, 2011). There is no quick fix or silver bullet. [perfectpullquote align=”right” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]If we postpone responding to the student’s educational needs until the student gets a label, we fail our students.[/perfectpullquote] Each teacher has a unique profile as well. Each teacher has different strengths and different weaknesses. That teacher profile interacts with the student’s profile. Consequently, changing teachers may lead to a change of educational needs. What works in Situation A may no longer work in Situation B. Therefore, no intervention is likely to be successful forever. Joint Venture If it is your task to support the teacher designing the interventions, help her make it a joint venture between the student and herself. They need each other to become successful in education (van Meersbergen & de Vries, 2013). Small Steps Take small steps, bearing in mind that the teacher and the student together define what “small” means. Your definition of “small” might be different from theirs (van Gerven, 2013). Motivation Require an investment both from the teacher and from the student in the intervention. Consider that four questions ignite a student’s motivation (McCoach & Flake, 2017):- Is my task meaningful?
- Do I think that I can be successful in completing the task?
- How do I value the task objectives?
- Are costs and results well balanced?
StiCoRDi: Stimulate, Compensate, Remediate and Dismiss
Stimulate the use of both strengths and weaknesses (van Gerven & Troxclair, 2017). Remember that doing something in a domain that confronts you with a relative weakness may be something a student likes to avoid. Stimulate the student to take on the challenge to give it a try. Stimulate the development of strengths as well. Do not see them only for their difficulties or disabilities but also for their abilities.
Teach them how to use their ability to compensate effectively. Also, teach them how to cope with the fact that their ability to compensate might not always be equally strong under different circumstances.
Just as with other students, a learning disability does not mean that there cannot be progress in the domain of their relative weaknesses. Use remediation as a strategy to develop skills as well as possible.
Dismiss the student in situations where stimulating, compensating, and remediation did not lead to progress and development.
Respect the Disability as Equally as You Respect the IQ
Last but by no means least, being gifted does not mean that a student has an endless malleability. Too often the idea exists that if the gifted student is willing to put in enough effort, he or she can overcome the disability. That might be true to a certain extent. You can teach a dyslexic student grammar and spelling strategies. You can teach a student with dyscalculia basic mathematical strategies. You can teach a student with autism spectrum disorder what is socially accepted behavior in communication. You can teach a student with ADHD to inhibit dominant reactions. However, you don’t know to what extent the student will be able to use the taught strategies within the proper context in the proper way. That not only depends on being gifted, but also on the profile of the disability and the context wherein one has to function.
Encourage a growth mindset, but accept that there may be a point in time where the student has a right to give in, and at that moment, giving in does not mean giving up or having a fixed mindset, it merely means that the student is ready to accept who he is.
References
Amend, E., Schuler, P., Beaver-Gavin, K., & Beights, R. (2009). A unique challenge: Sorting out the differences between giftedness and Asperger’s disorder. Gifted Child Today, 32(4), 57-63. American Psychiatric Association. (2014). Handboek voor de classificatie van psychische stoornissen (DSM-5) Nederlandse vertaling van Diagnostic and Statistic manual of mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. Amsterdam: Boom. Baum, S., Schader, R., & Hébert, T. (2014). Through a different lens: Reflecting on a strengths-based, talent-focused approach for twice-exceptional learners. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58, 311-327. Baum, S., Schader, R., & Owen, S. (2017). To be gifted and learning disabled. (3 ed.). Waco: Prufrock Press. Bianco, M., Carothers, D., & Smiley, L. (2009). Gifted students with Asperger syndrome: Strategies for strength-based programming. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44, 206-215. Biesta, G. (2012). The future of teacher education: Evidence, competence or wisdom? RoSE, 3(1), 8-21. Brody, L., & Mills, C. (1997). Gifted children with learning disabilities: A review of issues. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 282-296. doi:10.1177/002221949703000304 Cauffman, L., & van Dijk, D. (2009). Handboek oplossingsgericht werken in het onderwijs. Amsterdam: Coutinho. Costis, P. (2016). Seeing the paradigm: Education professionals’ advocacy for gifted students with autism spectrum disorder. Dissertations, Thesis, and master Projects: Paper 1463428512. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.21220/W4201B de Bruin-de Boer, A. (2009). Hoogbegaafdheid en dyslexie. In E. van Gerven (Red.), Handboek hoogbegaafdheid (pp. 212-231). Assen: Koninklijke Van Gorcum. Gagné, F. (2008). Building gifts into talents: Brief overview of the DMGT 2.0. Montreal: Université du Québec à Montréal. Hughes, C. (2011). Twice exceptional children: Twice the challenges, twice the joys. In J. Castellano, & A. Dawn Frazier, Special Populations in Gifted Educations (pp. 153-174). Waco: Prufrock Press. Kirk, S., Gallagher, J., & Coleman, M. (2015). Educating exceptional children (14 ed.). Stamford: Cengage Learning. Kreger-Silverman, L. (2015). The Two-edged sword of compensation: How the gifted cope with learning disabilities. Denver: The Institute for Advanced Developments. Kroesbergen, E. (2016). Begaafde leerlingen met dyslexie. In E. van Gerven (Red.), De Gids. Begaafdheid in het basisonderwijs. Nieuwolda: Leuker.nu. McCallum, R., Bell, S., Coles, J., Caldwell-Miller, K., Hopkins, M., & Hilton-Prillhart, A. (2013). A model for screening twice-exceptional students (gifted with learning disabilities) within a response to intervention paradigm. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(4), 209-221. McCoach, D., & Flake, J. (2017). The role of motivation. In S. Pfeiffer, E. Shaunessy-Dedrick, & M. Foley-Nicpon (Red.), APA Handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 201-214). Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association. Olenchak, R., Jacobs, L., Hussain, M., Lee, K., & Gaa, J. (2016). Giftedness plus talent plus disabilities. Twice-exceptional persons, the 21st century and lifespan development as viewed through an affective lens. In D. Ambrose, & R. Sternberg (Red.), Giftedness and talent in the 21st Century. Adapting to the turbulence of globalization. (pp. 255-282). Rotterdam: Sense. Reis, S., & McCoach, B. (2000). The underachievement of gifted students: What do we know and where do we go? Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(3), 152-170. Reis, S., & McCoach, D. (2002). Underachievement in gifted and talented students with special needs. Exceptionality, 10, 113-125. Reis, S., Baum, S., & Burke, E. (2014). An operational definition of twice-exceptional learners: Implications and applications. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(3), 217-230. Siegle, D., & McCoach, B. (2017). Underachievement and the gifted child. In S. Pfeiffer, E. Shaunessy-Dedrick, & M. Foley-Nicpon (Red.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Subotnik, R., Olszewski-Kubilus, P., & Worrel, F. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest., 12(1), 3-54. Trail, B. (2011). Twice exceptional gifted children. Understanding, teaching and counselling gifted students. Waco: Prufrock Press. van Gerven, E. (2013). Knapzak praktijkgidsen. Begaafde onderpresteerders. Leuker.nu: Nieuwolda. van Gerven, E. (2017). 2E Students: 1+1=3. Almere: Slim! Educatief. Opgehaald van https://www.slimeducatief.nl/edutalks-en-handouts/18/ van Gerven, E. (2017b). Begaafde leerlingen met ADHD. In E. van Gerven (Red.), De Gids. Over begaafdheid in het basisonderwijs (2 ed., pp. 279-296). Nieuwolda: Leuker.nu. van Gerven, E. (2017c). Begaafde leerlingen met een autismespectrum stoornis. In E. van Gerven (Red.), De Gids. Over begaafdheid in het basisonderwijs. (pp. 199-224). Nieuwolda: Leuker.nu. van Gerven, E. (2017a). Beter begeleiden van dubbel bijzondere leerlingen. Almere: Slim! Educatief. Opgehaald van https://www.slimeducatief.nl/artikelen/download/24/ van Gerven, E. (2017). Preventing and overcoming underachievement in gifted primary school students. Almere: Slim! Educatief. Opgehaald van https://www.slimeducatief.nl/artikelen/download/27/ van Gerven, E., & Hoogenberg, I. (2011). Begaafd begeleiden. Competentiematrix voor de specialist begaafdheid. Assen: Koninklijke van Gorcum. van Gerven, E., & Troxclair, D. (April 2017). Theory to practice: Classroom strategies to support gifted students with ADHD. Boston: CEC. van Gerven, E., & Weterings, A. (2014). 1+1=3. Begaafde leerlingen met een leer- en/of ontwikkelingsstoornis. Opleiding Specialist Begaafd & Speciaal. Almere: Slim! Educatief. van Luit, J., Bloemert, J., Ganzinga, E., & Mönch, M. (2014). Protocol dyscalculie: diagnostiek voor gedragsdeskundigen (protocol DGG). Doetinchem: Graviant. van Meersbergen, E., & de Vries, P. (2013). Handelingsgericht werken in passend onderwijs. Utrecht: Perspectief uitgevers. Webb, J., Amend, E., Beljan, P., Webb, N., Kuzujanakis, M., Olenchak, R., & Goerss, J. (2016). Misdiagnosis and dual diagnosis of gifted children and adults. ADHD, bipolar, OCD, Asperger’s disorder, depression and other disorders. Tucson: Grat Potential Press. Weterings, A. (2017). Begaafde leerlingen met ernstige reken- en wiskundeproblemen en dyscalculie. In E. van Gerven (Red.), De Gids. Over begaafdheid in het basisonderwijs. (pp. 255-278). Nieuwolda: Leuker.nu.
