daniellecoughlinwm.wmwikis.netdaniellecoughlinwm.wmwikis.net/file/view/coughlin+final… · web...
TRANSCRIPT
Danielle Coughlin G80 Final Exam
Danielle Coughlin Final Exam
G 80 12-13-12
Danielle Coughlin G80 Final Exam
Question #4
Underachievement is a not an unfamiliar word in the classroom or within families and
communities. In fact, I heard it repeatedly under various aliases throughout my entire public
education. An individual exhibiting underachievement might be called an underachiever and
interestingly enough the thesaurus provided many of the less clinical pseudonyms of
underachievement that I found myself familiar with. These include: failure, bum, might-have-
been, nonperformer, loser, deadbeat and my personal addition “not living up to your potential”.
It is clear that those both within and beyond the field of academia understand the situation of
underachievement but a specific academic definition of this major research dilemma remains
illusive. In order to begin addressing the problem of student underachievement in gifted students
both constructs of giftedness and underachievement require an explicit definition. Unfortunately,
both giftedness and underachievement lack a universally agreed upon definition (Reis&
McCoach, 2000).
Before the authors provide a definition of their own, they reflect upon those already in
existence. Underachievement is typically defined as a discrepancy between ability and
achievement (Davis, Rimm & Seigle, 2011; Reis & McCoach, 2000). However, beneath this
conceptual umbrella three main themes exist (Reis & McCoach, 2000). The first theme portrays
the discrepancy between potential and performance. The second views the underachievement
relation between ability and achievement as a discrepancy between predicted achievement and
actual achievement (Reis & McCoach, 2000). A failure to self-actualize, that is, a failure to use
and develop one’s given potential without reference to other external criteria summarizes the
third concept (Reis & McCoach, 2000).
Danielle Coughlin G80 Final Exam
Reis and McCoach (2000) provide an operational definition consistent with a discrepancy
between expected achievement and actual achievement. Standardized achievement test scores,
cognitive, or intellectual ability assessments measure expected achievement, while class grades
and teacher evaluations constitute for attained achievement. Furthermore, underachievement
must persist over an extended period of time and may not be a result of diagnosed learning
disability. The only difference between underachievement in the general and gifted populations
is that the gifted population must demonstrate a “superior” score on measures of expected
achievement. The difference between gifted underachievement and general is not particularly
quantified.
As with all appropriate identification procedures, the procedure to identify an individual as
underachieving should coincide with the definition of underachievement. Uniformed
identification of underachievement proves challenging with varied and imprecise definitions
(Davis et al., 2011; Reis & McCoach, 2000). Despite the instability of the definition,
identification should address the mutually agreed upon theme of significant discrepancies
between a student’s classroom achievement and his or her measured ability on standardized tests
(Reis & McCoach, 2000). Unusually high test scores on standardized tests that do not correlate
with a student’s classwork serves as an indicator for underachievement (Davis et al., 2011). The
degree of discrepancy is often left to interpretation, but those attempting to identify
underachievers in the gifted population should be wary of age/performance discrepancies (Reis
& McCoach, 2000). Gifted students are generally expected to perform at grade level. By
restricting the discrepancy to students that perform at a grade level below ability would distort
the discrepancy and result in under identification of gifted underachievers (Reis & McCoach,
2000).
Danielle Coughlin G80 Final Exam
Test scores, flawed by unavoidable error in nature, may also prove problematic when
identifying gifted underachiever. Underachieving may actually affect a child’s performance on
an ability test. The attenuated test score may minimize the discrepancy resulting in further under
identification of underachieving gifted students (Davis et al., 2011). In addition to discrepancies
in test scores, observations of the student should be included as criteria for indices of
underachieving gifted students (Davis et al., 2011). A student might be suffering from test
anxiety or fear of failure and observations may be the only means to account for such.
Observations allow for teachers to note specific classroom behaviors and comments that indicate
the child has greater gifts than he or she is demonstrating (Davis et al., 2011; Reis & McCoach,
2000).
Gifted underachievers are a heterogeneous population. Though researchers have attempted
to develop lists of traits to identify an underachiever, students will vary by trait with little
consistency (Reis & McCoach, 2000). However, several tests have been developed to identify
characteristics commonly associated with underachievement and these can serve as an indication
for the need of further evaluation (Davis et al., 2011). These characteristics include: low intrinsic
or extrinsic value toward school, low self-esteem, poor self-efficacy, aversion toward authority,
competition domination and avoidance, and unattainable perfectionism (Davis et al., 2011; Reis
& McCoach, 2000). Though the characteristics vary, teachers aware of the common traits of
underachievement may provide more meaningful observations (Davis et al., 2011).
Proper identification is essential if practitioners are to provide the support and services
that underachieving students need (Davis et al., 2011). Support, services, and interventions are
means to address underachievement in gifted students and potentially reverse its effect. The
Trifocal model designed by Sylvia Rimm is one approach to reversing underachievement in
Danielle Coughlin G80 Final Exam
gifted children. The Trifocal model has six steps and requires the collaboration of the family and
school for implication.
The first step of the Trifocal model involves the gathering of information on the
underachieving child. The child is assessed for ability, skills and observed behaviors during
testing. Interviews are also conducted with the family members and student to gather further
information on a child’s underachieving behaviors and enforcers at home (Davis et al., 2011).
During the second step, parents and teachers meet to discuss the analysis of the child. It is
important to speak positively when sharing the child’s results and tendencies, both parties will
need to work together to ensure that problem patterns of behavior are not supported. Further
conferences of accountability will need to be maintained throughout the intervention (Davis et
al., 2011).
The goal of the third step of the Trifocal model is to change the expectations surrounding
the student. This can be difficult to achieve but IQ score and specific anecdotal information can
help those around the child to set realistic, challenging and attainable expectations for the child
(Davis et al., 2011). To help the child reshape his or her self-expectations it is good to review the
child’s previous accomplishes and to help the child compete with his or her own improvements.
To change the self-expectations of an underachieving gifted child they need to be told that those
around them believe in their abilities and want them to succeed (Davis et al., 2011).
A critical turn in achievement for an underachieving child occurs during the most
important stage of the Trifocal model. The discovery of a role model is essential during
development. A child should be matched with an achieving role model. This role model does not
need to be a family member nor be an exclusive role model to that child, but the achieving role
model should encompass several descriptions. The role model should be: nurturing to the
Danielle Coughlin G80 Final Exam
student, be of the same gender, they should share similarities with the child, communicate with
openness and honesty, be able to provide sufficient time to work with the child, and demonstrate
the rewards of being fulfilled with achievement (Davis et al., 2011). Many reversed
underachievers accredit their turn around to a positive role model.
Step five includes correcting the skill deficits that have resulted from previous
underachievement (Davis et al., 2011). Goal oriented tutoring will not take long for the student to
overcome their skill deficits and it will help the student build confidence in his or her new
abilities (Davis et al., 2011). The final step of the intervention model includes modification of
reinforcements. Through the first step behaviors are identified then modified for achievement.
Short term and long term goals can be met with rewards, but consideration should be given to
such rewards (Davis et al., 2011). Rewards should be given promptly and consistently for good
work, never rewarding undesired underachieving behaviors. Rewards should be meaningful to
the child but not so large that other rewards become ineffective (Davis et al., 2011). Some
rewards, such as acceleration and enrichment, can even serve as further achievement motivators
for previously underachieving students.
Underachievement is a readily accessed vocabulary word when describing children. It can
set a child down a path that would undermine his or her given potential. Though the definition is
unclear the goal is not, practitioners are seeking means to address this concern for the youth. The
Trifocal Model provides an excellent method of intervention for the reversal of
underachievement in students and can be readily implemented whenever the buzzword of
underachievement is flying.
Question #1 Born as the twelfth child of fourteen on an Indiana farm, Lewis Terman, The father of the
gifted movement, is arguably the most influential individual in the history of gifted education.
Danielle Coughlin G80 Final Exam
Lewis Terman began his career as a teacher. He returned to school to study psychology, and
finished his career with a twenty-year term as the head of the psychology department at Stanford
University (Minton & Kazdin, 2000). Terman believed that measures of intelligence could be
used to sort individuals and he also believed in a democracy structured by meritocracy off of
such native ability. Terman spent his professional career developing and implementing
psychometric measures as well as studying those that demonstrated advanced cognitive abilities
(Davis et al., 2011; Minton & Kazdin, 2000).
Lewis Terman and his graduate students revised the Binet’s Scale of Intelligence and
published it as the infamous Stanford-Binet. The Stanford-Binet was the first mental
measurement test to include the innovative, intellectual quotient, or IQ (Minton & Kazdin,
2000). The Stanford-Binet gained popularity immediately and through revisions remains a
widely use mental measure today.
Gaining professional acclaim, Terman contributed to the development of the first group
administered intelligence test for the United States Army (Minton & Kazdin, 2000). The tests,
known as the Army Alpha and Beta were used to assign newly enlisted men to appropriate
positions based on cognitive ability. Terman along with other psychologist that contributed to the
Army Alpha and Beta developed an assessment for school age children. This assessment was
used organize children homogeneously by cognitive ability, which became utilized in schools by
the name of tracking. Furthermore, Lewis Terman lead a collaborative effort to develop the
Stanford Achievement Test, the first of its kind (Minton & Kazdin, 2000). In addition to his
study of cognitive ability and achievement, Terman developed the first questionnaire of
masculinity and femininity (Minton & Kazdin, 2000).
Danielle Coughlin G80 Final Exam
Lewis Terman believed that the greatest purpose of testing was the identification of
intellectually gifted children (Minton & Kazdin, 2000). His research contribution was the first
longitudinal study in psychology with the significant sample size of 1,528 subjects (Davis et al.,
2011). The 1,528 subjects were selected by the criteria of a 135 minimum I.Q; they became
known as Termites (Davis et al., 2011). Studying the individuals into retirement years, Terman
and his students dispelled common notion that gifted children were weak, unattractive, and
emotionally unstable. Compared to the control group the Termites were more emotionally and
intellectually mature. At midlife there were few signs of serious mental health problems, and the
Termites demonstrated to be well adjusted and have well-rounded personalities. Terman also
noted acceleration as an effective method of educating the gifted student (Davis et al., 2011).
Lewis Terman stands securely as one of the most significant individuals in gifted
education because of his innovation in the field and his longevity of relevance. He designed
many assessment tools that were the first of their kind, which laid the foundation for all others to
come. Though some of his research conclusions are flawed, he was the first to conduct a study of
that nature. Without Lewis Terman’s influence on assessment, identification, and the personal
attributes of the gifted child, we would posses an altered conceptualization of gifted education.
While Terman was the father of education, Leta Hollingworth is known as the nurturant
mother (Davis et al., 2011). The psychologist, educator, and feminist Leta Hollingworth authored
nine books and more than eighty articles (Klein, 2000). She was widely recognized a vocal
advocate for children and adolescents. Originally teaching studies in the field of special
education, a single incident with an eight-year-old boy altered Hollingworth’s path.
The child took the Stanford-Binet to the limits of the test reporting an I.Q of at least 187;
Hollingworth described the event as an “unforgettable observation” (Davis et al., 2011; Klein,
Danielle Coughlin G80 Final Exam
2000). This led Leta Hollingworth to study and teach fifty gifted New York students (Davis et
al., 2011; Klein, 2000). The questions Leta Hollingworth asked in her studies are the same
questions that perpetuate in gifted education today. The questions include issues regarding the
public schools ability to identify and make provisions for gifted students, the appropriate role of
acceleration and enrichment, and the segregation of gifted students (Klein, 2000).
Hollingworth supported early identification and used an I.Q score of two standard
deviations above the mean to identify giftedness. She also advocated for a multiple criteria
method for identification including interviews, nominations and review of the child’s social and
emotional maturity (Davis et al., 2011). Hollingworth’s research led her to support that students
need a combination of enrichment and acceleration because much of school is a waste of time for
gifted students (Davis et al., 2011; Klein, 2000). As for segregation, Hollingworth advocated for
homogeneous grouping by ability level. However, if that could not be provided, she suggested
differentiation (Klein, 2000).
In addition to the academic needs of gifted students, Leta Hollingworth made early
contributions to gifted children’s emotional needs. She noted that highly intelligent children are
highly vulnerable; their intellectual development is asyncratic with their emotional and physical
development resulting in difficulty making friendships (Klein, 2000). At the Teachers College of
Columbia University, Leta Hollingworth applied her understanding of gifted students needs and
taught the first class in gifted education (Klein, 2000). It is through Leta Hollingworth’s passion
in the field and innovative work with the affective needs of gifted students that she earns her
place as one of the most influential individuals in gifted education.
No contemporary mention of influence would be complete without Joseph Renzulli. New
to the field of gifted education, one could become desensitized to the sight of Renzulli’s name.
Danielle Coughlin G80 Final Exam
Much like the other two influential individuals, Renzulli also started his career as a teacher
(Reoper Review, 2003). Currently he is a professor at the University of Connecticut and the
director of The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented (Knobel & Shaughnessey,
2002). His influence is vast, encompassing identification, program planning and instructional
models. Renzulli stresses the importance of identification methods beyond the psychometric test,
as he believes giftedness to be comprised by three overlapping rings called the Three Ring
Conception of Giftedness. The three rings include: above average cognitive ability, creativity and
task management (Class notes). This concept of giftedness is echoed in his Talent Pool strategy.
He reiterates that the most creative people are not always in the top three to five percent of
cognitive ability and a flexible criterion will include more children that need services (Davis et
al., 2011).
The Talent Pool is a component of his Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM), which is
currently the most popular programming model in the world (Davis et al., 2011). The SEM is an
adaptation of Renzulli’s Revolving Door Identification Model (RDIM) and like the RDIM the
curriculum basis is the Enrichment Triad Model. The Enrichment Triad Model provides
practitioners with a means of what they can do for gifted learner (Davis et al., 2011). The three
types of enrichment activities advance in independence and skills to challenge the entire range of
gifted learners.
Renzulli also contributed to the Parallel Curriculum Model (PCM) and the Multiple Menu
Model (MMM) (Davis et al., 2011). The PCM is a curriculum design in which the curriculum is
approached in four different means: the essential nature of the discipline, connections within and
across disciplines, the skills of a practitioner, and a reflection of the discipline within themselves
Danielle Coughlin G80 Final Exam
(Davis et al., 2011). The MMM is also a guide for curriculum design in which the menus assist in
designing the curriculum in various interesting ways (Davis et al., 2011).
Renzulli’s influence can be found in every gifted classroom. He has broadened the
understanding of giftedness and provided educators with means to meet the student’s need in a
way that is both inclusive and challenging. He is a leader of the field and will continue to be so
as he remains ever as active in the field of gifted education. Lewis Terman and Leta
Hollingworth laid the foundation for gifted education and it is modern researchers, like Joseph
Renzulli and future researchers, like those graduating from William and Mary, that will carry on
the study to better understand and meet the needs of gifted students.
Question #2
Internal Consistency is a concept in which a gifted education program aligns the
definition of giftedness, the procedure for identification, and the services provided to identified
students (Class notes). Internal consistency is an essential component of a program if it is going
to be effective and is necessary for any evaluation of the program. Improving the division’s
ability to clearly evaluate the effectiveness of the program remains a national goal for gifted
policy planning (Brown, Avery, Van Tassel-Baska, Worley & Stambaugh, 2006). Due to the
fact that there is no overarching national or state plan for gifted education each school division in
Virginia outlines their procedures for definition, identification and services in a Local Plan for
the Education of the Gifted. Two school divisions in Virginia demonstrate the presence or not of
internal consistency.
Henrico County Public Schools recently adopted a new LEA. In their LEA they state to
provide services for gifted general intelligence, specific academic aptitude and starting in middle
school, for visual and performing arts. The primary components of Henrico County’s philosophy
Danielle Coughlin G80 Final Exam
include: a commitment to multiple criteria for identification across diverse groups of students k-
12, a focus on the social and emotional need of gifted students and their families, and a powerful
curriculum with innovative instruction (Williams, 2011).
The operational definition of giftedness for Henrico County is consistent with the
county’s philosophy of gifted education. The operational definition first recognizes an evidence
of a need as well as evidence of gifted characteristics. While high ability scores on achievement
tests remain a component of the definition of giftedness, evidence of other academic
performance and aptitude are also considered (Williams, 2011). Through an extensive list of
criteria for giftedness, the school demonstrates a commitment to inclusiveness in gifted
education. A second set of criteria exists to appropriately define students as gifted in the Visual
and Performing arts. This criterion also contained exhibiting a need for gifted services and the
student’s expression of gifted characteristics.
Henrico County demonstrated internal consistency during the identification process for
gifted education services. The procedure for identification follows the typical format of
screening, referrals and identification. Screening for both general and specific academic aptitude
begins in Kindergarten, consistent with the philosophy of the school district. The screening
process is consistent with the definition of multiple criteria. In ordinance with the definitions of
giftedness the screening process includes a checklist of characteristics, standardized test data,
students work, and inquiries which can be made by parents, teachers, community members and
even from the student him or herself.
Students that score in the 96th percentile on standardized tests receive an automatic
referral for gifted services. All the individuals that were eligible to submit inquiries may refer
those students that do not meet the automatic referral requirement. For the purpose of
Danielle Coughlin G80 Final Exam
identification the division must utilize three or more of the following criteria: assessment of
appropriate classroom student products, performances or portfolios, rating scale of behavior,
parent/teacher questionnaires, student interview, ability tests, achievement tests, grades, and/or
additional valid and reliable measures. Additional information is needed for identification of
VPA including auditions and performances or products.
In the context of the multiple criteria assessed, the school level (GIA, SAA) or division
level (VPA) will determine the services provided appropriate for the needs of eligible students.
GIA and SAA students in K-3 will receive services within their school from their general
educator and their gifted resource teacher (Williams, 2011). Students in 4-5 services begin to
differentiate themselves by services provided (Williams, 2011). Some GIA and SAA- English
and SAA-math student’s services will continue to be provided within their school by a gifted
resource teacher and their general educator. Other GIA students in grades 4-5 may continue their
services at an elementary zone center (Williams, 2011). Fifth grade students with SAA- Math
may attend a middle school class for mathematics. From middle school forward GIA and SAA
both English and Math may receive services at their neighborhood school or attend a specialty
center with consideration of student needs (Williams, 2011). VPA services will be contained
within the school and summer enrichment programs through grades 6-8. Starting in 9th grade
students with giftedness in VPA will be eligible to attend the center for the arts (Williams, 2011).
The services provided to the students that are identified demonstrate good consistency with
Henrico County’s philosophy and definition.
Additionally, Henrico County Public schools has taken further protocols to ensure that
the internal consistency of the program can be maintained. As the amount of indicated services
increase it would be necessary to either increase training or increase in number of gifted resource
Danielle Coughlin G80 Final Exam
teachers. Henrico County has done both since the previous plan for the education of the gifted.
Full time and part time educators of the gifted Henrico county offers tuition reimbursement for
graduate courses in gifted education, reimbursement reimburse conference and seminar costs,
and plan on providing hourly stipends for summer training. Henrico has done an excellent job in
maintaining internal consistency.
Chesapeake Public Schools provides an example of a school division with poor internal
consistency. The definition of giftedness reads more like a philosophy. Chesapeake states that
they will provide a continuum of services to gifted students grades K-12. The Kingore
Observation Inventory is utilized for the screening process and identification is completed
through the use of multiple criteria (Rhodes, 2012). The LEA states that the Kingore is used in
grades K-2 to provide differentiation for student’s based on their needs. From observations in the
classroom it is clear that this does not happen. No clear description of how they would
differentiate is included, which is not consistent when they describe provided services for general
intelligence in grades K-12. It is not until second grade that students are identified by an
achievement or an ability tests, then organized into the Talent Pool Model on the basis of the test
scores. Though the division states that the identification process is holistic, using multiple
criteria, reviews for identification stem from the talent pool, which results from a child’s
performance on one or both tests. This is not consistent with the stated identification process.
The LEA states that all populations are disaggregated and reviewed separately as
subpopulations (Rhodes, 2012). However there is no elaboration on the implications of the
separate viewing. Additionally, Chesapeake uses an ability and/or an achievement test for
purposes of identification (Rhodes, 2012). There could be huge discrepancies between the
students that score highly on ability and those that score highly on achievement. This is not
Danielle Coughlin G80 Final Exam
consistent with the division’s goal to increase identification of traditionally underserved
populations (Rhodes, 2012). The services listed as provided to gifted students are vague and have
no accountability. There is no consistency with the definition if the services provided for
elementary students are unspecified differentiation in the class, “sometimes” pull out enrichment
activities, and recommendations for summer programs. Middle and High school differentiation
provides more services in the form of specific class assignment options and application to the
International Baccalaureate Program. This initiative is by the students however, and might
underrepresent the typically underrepresented populations.
Internal Consistency is a means to ensure the quality of the program. It would be great to
promise gifted students the moon, but promises must be kept, especially when written on a
formal public document. The most important element in a gifted program is a concise
understanding of giftedness and procedure in which a division provides the means to
successfully identify and provide services. Internal consistency is that organization of well-kept
promises and theoretical understandings.
Question #7
Some theorists have argued that the idea of dual exceptionality is simply children
exhibiting the characteristics of giftedness, including those of intensities and overexcitabilities.
Even these theorists however, stop short of believing that idea to be definitive. Webb, a
researcher with numerous writings regarding the misdiagnosis of ADHD for the gifted
population concluded that some gifted children surely do suffer from ADHD (Webb, 2000). If
there is a population of children that “surely do” have a co condition of ADHD and giftedness,
research should focus not on the numbers but on how to properly identify students an
implications to meet such students needs.
Danielle Coughlin G80 Final Exam
One of the studies conducted to support the idea of misdiagnoses seriously lacks
acceptable validity for its implications. The study involved forty-four first year graduate students
in an introductory course for counseling. The participants were given a brief description of a
student and then were asked one of two questions regarding the underlying explanation of the
student’s behavior (Hartnett, Nelson & Rinn, 2003). One of the questions was open ended while
the other was guided with two choices of ADHD or Giftedness. Results of course skewed to
there being more responses of gifted for the guided question group. The researchers draw a
conclusion that counselors in training do not receive enough study on the similarities between
gifted and ADHD (Harnett et al., 2003). Implication of this research cannot be taken seriously as
anything more than a biased research team with weak internal and external validity. Twenty-two
students per group from one introductory course could never generalize the entire counseling
population. Furthermore, the students were in their first year and they were given only a piece of
hypothetical information about the child. No authentic identification would follow this procedure
making any conclusions or implications irrelevant.
Chae, Kim and Noh (2003) discovered distinct characteristics between the ADHD, gifted,
and twice exceptional populations of students using various standardized test and reports. The
study included results from the T.O.V.A, a continuous performance test that is used for the
diagnosis of ADHD. The Study included two response scales, the Children Behavior Checklist
and the Teacher’s Report Form. Both scales measure the same concept only one for guardians
while the other is for school. Additionally the study included the Korean translation of the
WISC, an intelligence scale with subtests (Chae et al., 2003).
T.O.V.A results between Gifted and Non-gifted students indicated significant differences
in terms of omission errors, commission errors, variability of responses, sensitivity, and ADHD
Danielle Coughlin G80 Final Exam
scores (Chae et al., 2003). Results of the comparison between students that are gifted with
ADHD and non-gifted students with ADHD conclude that gifted children with ADHD made
fewer omission and commission errors. The gifted ADHD students also showed higher
sensitivity. However compared to the gifted non ADHD group the two groups of gifted ADHD,
and non-gifted ADHD, performed equally poorly on response time and response time variability
(Chae et al., 2003). This comparison indicates that response time and response time variability
required for continuous performance tests are distinguishing factors between the gifted and twice
exceptional.
Chae et al. (2003) concluded that when using the WISC, gifted children with ADHD do
not score as well as gifted children without ADHD on the Coding Subtest. This is because the
Coding Subtest requires fine-motor speed coordination and sustained attention. Previous research
indicates that students with ADHD score lower on the Coding, Digit Span and Arithmetic
Subtests (Chae et al., 2003). Again, distinctive differences among the three groups support the
twice-exceptional student as a unique entity. A t-test applied to a social competency scale
demonstrated that while gifted individuals perform lower than non-gifted individuals on social
competency, gifted individuals with ADHD perform even more so lower than their non-ADHD
gifted counterparts (Chae et al., 2003).
Implications from current research indicate that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Yes, gifted children may be misdiagnosed with ADHD, but the twice-exceptional gifted child
with ADHD is also a population within the school system. Proper and improved diagnosis
procedures provide the means to solve the theoretical arguments in the field of gifted education.
Chae et al. (2003) suggest psychologists administer a continuous performance test to measure a
student’s ability to sustain attention when working on a possible ADHD diagnosis of a gifted
Danielle Coughlin G80 Final Exam
child. Unlike the first study completed by Hartnett, Nelson and Rinn in 2003, multiple criteria
and observations are required for any diagnosis. These should be attained with the help of
educators and families. Beyond the identification, it is clear that twice-exceptional children have
a deficit in social skills. This is an implication that needs to be appropriately addressed in school,
by clinical means, or at home (Chae et al, 2003).
Danielle Coughlin G80 Final Exam
References:
Brown, E., Avery, L., Van Tassel-Baska, J., Worley, B. B. & Stambaugh, T. (2006). A five state analysis of gifted education policies. Roeper Review, 29 (1), 11-23.
Chae,K. P.,Kim, J. H., & Noh, K. S. (2003). Diagnosis of ADHD among gifted children in relation to KEDI- WISC and T.O.V.A performance. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47
Davis, G. A., Rimm, S. B. & Siegle, D. (2011). Education of the Gifted and Talented (6th ed.) Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
Expanding the Umbrella: An Interview with Joseph Renzulli. (2003). Roeper Review, 26(2), 65-67
Hartnett, D., Nelson, J. M., & Rinn, A. N. (2003). Gifted or ADHD? The Possibilities of Misdiagnosis. Roeper Review, 26(2), 73-76.
Klein, A. G. (2000). Fitting the School to the Child: The Mission of Leta Stetter Hollingworth, Founder of Gifted. Roeper Review, 23(2), 97.
Knobel, R., & Shaughnessey, M. (2002). Reflecting on a conversation with Joe Renzulli: About giftedness and gifted education. Gifted Education International, 16, 118-126.
Mintron, L. H., Kazdin, E. A. (Ed), (2000). Encyclopedia of psychology, Vol. 8., (pp. 37-39). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association; New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press, 531 pp. doi: 10.1037/10523-016
Reis, M. S.(2000). The underachievement of gifted students: What do we know and where do we go? The Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(3), 152.
Rhodes, S. G., (2012). Chesapeake public schools local plan for the education of the gifted. Retrieved from http://www.cpschools.com/proposed_localplan_gifted.php
Williams, J. (2005). Henrico county public schools local plan for the education of the gifted. Retrieved from https://blackboard.wm.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp