Advertisement

Unraveling the Mysteries of GLD: Toward the Application of Cognitive Theory to Assessment

  • Judy L. Lupart
Part of the Neuropsychology and Cognition book series (NPCO, volume 25)

Abstract

Traditional special education systems in our schools have been configured primarily to deal with students who present symptoms or characteristics associated with one category or condition, such as behavior disorder or visual impairment. These traditional systems have been highly instrumental in defining the type and extent of service provided for students who are gifted and students who are learning disabled. In fact these two classifications have been central to the mushrooming numbers of identified special-needs students in the schools over the past 40 years (Andrews & Lupart, 2000; Mercer, 1997).

Keywords

Learn Disability Inclusive Education American Educational Research Association Assessment Session Gifted Student 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andrews, J., & Lupart, J. L. (2000). The inclusive classroom: Educating exceptional children. (2nd edition). Scarborough, ON: Nelson.Google Scholar
  2. Barton, J.M. and Starnes, W.T. (1989). Identifying distinguishing characteristics of gifted and talented/learning disabled students. Roeper Review, 12(1), 23–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bassey, M (1999). Case study research in educational settings. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Baum, S. (1994). Meeting the needs of gifted/learning disabled students. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 5(3), 6–16Google Scholar
  5. Baum, S.M., Cooper, C.R., & Neu, T.W. (2001). Dual differentiation: An approach for meeting the curricular needs of gifted students with learning disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 35(5), 477–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baum, S., Emerick, L.J., Herman, G. N., & Nixon, J. (1989). Identification, programs and enrichment strategies for gifted learning disables youth. Roeper Review, 12(1), 48–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baum, S. & Owen, S. V. (1988). High ability/learning disabled students: How are they different? Gifted Child Quarterly, 32(3), 321–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baum, S., & Kirschenbaum, R. (1984). Recognizing special talents in learning disabled students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 16, 92–98.Google Scholar
  9. Baum, S., Owen, S.V., & Dixon, J. (1991). To be gifted and learning disabled: From identification to practical intervention strategies. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bauman, P.L. (1988). Expectations of educational programming and parent-school relations: A comparison of parents of gifted and talented learning disabled children and parents of other gifted and talented children, Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse ED 296 558Google Scholar
  11. Boodoo, G. M., Bradley, C. L., Frontera, R. L., Pitts, J. R., & Wright, L. B. (1989). A survey of procedures used for identifying gifted learning disabled children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33(3), 110–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Borkowski, J. G., & Day, J. D. (Eds.). (1987). Cognition inspectai children: Comparative approaches to retardation, learning disabilities,, and giftedness. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  13. Borkowski, J. G., Schneider, W., & Pressley, M. (1989). The challenges of teaching good information processing to learning disabled students. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 36(3), 169–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of Educational Research, 24, (pp. 61–100) Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  15. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  16. Bray, M. A., Kehle, T. J., Hintze, J. M. (1998). Profile analysis with the Wechsler Scales: Why does it persist? School Psychology International, 19, 209–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brody, L. E. and Mills, C. J. (1997). Gifted children with learning disabilities: A review of the issues. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(3), 282–296.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Case, R. (1985). Intellectual development: Birth to adulthood. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  19. Chapman, J.W. (1988). Learning disable children’s self-concepts. Review of Educational Research, 58(3), 347–371Google Scholar
  20. Coleman, M.R. & Gallagher, J.J. (1995). State identification policies: Gifted students from special populations. Roeper Review, 17(4), 268–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Crawford, S. and Snart, F. (1994). Process-based remediation of decoding in gifted LD students: Three case studies. Roeper Review, 16(4), 247–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cresswell, J. W. (1997). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  23. Fox, L. H., Brody, L., & Tobin, D. (Eds.) (1983). Learning-disabled/gifted children: Identification and programming. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.Google Scholar
  24. Gipps, C. (1999). Socio-cultural aspects of assessment.. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of Educational Research, 24, 355–392 Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  25. Hannah, C. L., Shore, B. M. (1995). Metacognition and high intellectual ability: Insight from the study of learning-disabled gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39(2), 95–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hansford, S. J., Whitmore, J. R., Kraynak, A. R., & Wingenbach, N. G. (1987). Intellectually gifted learning disabled students: A special Study. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse ED 254 988Google Scholar
  27. Howard, J. B. (1994). Addressing needs through strengths: Five instructional practices for use with gifted/learning disabled students. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 5(3), 23–34.Google Scholar
  28. Hoy, C., & Gregg, N. (1994). Assessment: The special educator’s role. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  29. Jeon, K. W. (1992). Gifted learning disabled and gifted underachievers: Similarities and differences. In A. H. Roldan (Ed.) Gifted children and youth today, gifted adults of the 21 st century: A Southeast Asian perspective, (pp. 154–168). Manila, The Philippines: Reading Dynamics Centre.Google Scholar
  30. Johnson, L., Karnes, M., & Carr, V. (1997). Providing services to children with gifts and disabilities: A critical need. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.) Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed.). (pp. 516–527). Boston: Allyn,& Bacon.Google Scholar
  31. LaFrance, E.B. (1994). An insider’s perspective: Teachers’ observations of creative thinking in exceptional children. Roeper Review, 16(4), 256–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lerner, J.W. (1981). Learning disabilities: Theories, diagnosis and teaching strategies (3rd ed.) Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  33. Lupart, J. L. (1990). An in-depth assessment model for gifted/learning disabled students. Canadian Journal of Special Education, 6(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
  34. Lupart, J. L. (1991). A theory by any educational perspective, is still a theory. In A. McKeough & J. L. Lupart (Eds.). Toward the practice of theory-based instruction (pp. 148–182). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Lupart, J. L. (1992). The hidden gifted: Current state of knowledge and future research directions. In F. J. Monks & W. A. M. Peters (Eds.) Talent for the future: Social and personality development of gifted children: Proceedings of the Ninth World Conference on Gifted and Talented Children (pp. 177–190). The Netherlands: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
  36. Lupart, J. L. (1995). Exceptional learners and teaching for transfer. In A. McKeough, J. Lupart, & A. Marini (Eds.). Teaching for transfer: Fostering generalization in learning (p. 215–228). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  37. Lupart, J. L. (1998). Setting right the delusion of inclusion: Implications for Canadian schools. Canadian Journal of Education, 23(3), 251–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lupart, J. L., McKeough, A., & Yewchuk, C. (Eds.). (1996) Schools in transition: Rethinking regular and special education. Scarborough, ON: Nelson.Google Scholar
  39. Lupart, J. L., & Pyryt, M. (1996). Identifying the hidden gifted. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20(1), 7–16.Google Scholar
  40. Lupart, J. L., & Webber, C. (1996). Schools in transition: Issues and prospects. In J. Lupart, A. McKeough, & C. Yewchuk (Eds.), Scxhools in transition: Rethinking regular and special education (pp. 3–39). Scarborough, ON: Nelson.Google Scholar
  41. Maker, C. J. (1977). Providing programs for the gifted handicapped. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.Google Scholar
  42. McCoach, D. B., Kehle, T. J., Bray, M. A., and Siegle, D. (2001). Best practices in the identification of gifted students with learning disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 35(5), 403–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McGuire, K. L. and Yewchuk, C. R. (1996). Use of metacognitive reading strategies by gifted learning disabled students: An exploratory study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19(3), 293–314.Google Scholar
  44. McMillan, J. H. (2001). Classroom assessment: Principles and practice for effective instruction (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  45. Mercer, CD. (1997). Students with learning disabilities (5th ed.) Columbus: Charles E. Merrill.Google Scholar
  46. Miller, M. (1991). Self assessment as a specific strategy for teaching the gifted learning disabled. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14(2), 178–188.Google Scholar
  47. Olenchak, F. R. (1995). Effects of enrichment on gifted/learning-disabled students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18(4), 385–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods.Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  49. Pressley, M., Harris, K. R., & Guthrie (Eds.). (1992). Promoting academic competence and literacy: Cognitive research and instructional innovation. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  50. Reis, S.M. (1997). Case studies of high-ability students with learning disabilities who have achieved. Exceptional Children, 63(4), 463–479.Google Scholar
  51. Reis, S. M., Neu, T. W., & McGuire, J. M. (1997). Case studies of high-ability students with learning disabilities who have achieved. Exceptional Children, 63(4), 463–479.Google Scholar
  52. Reis, S. M., McGuire, J. M., & Neu, T. W. (2000). Comprehension strategies used by high-ability students with learning disabilities who succeed in college. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(2), 123–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Richert, E. S. (1997). Excellence with equity in identification and programming. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed.) (pp. 75–88). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  54. Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1998). Individual and social aspects of learning. In D. P. Pearson & A Iran-Nejad (Eds). Review of Educational Research, 23, (pp. 1–24). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  55. Schiff, M. M, Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (1981). Scatter analysis of WISC-R profiles for learning disabled children with superior intelligence. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 14, 400–404.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Senf, G. M. (1983). The nature an identification of learning disabilities and their relationship to the gifted child. In L.H. Fox, L. Brody, & D. Tobin (Eds.), Learning disabled/gifted children: Identification and programming (pp. 37–39). Austin, TX: Pro Ed.Google Scholar
  57. Silverman, L. K. (1989). Invisible gifts, invisible handicaps. Roeper Review, 12(1), 37–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Skrtic, T. (1995). The organizational context of special education and school reform. In E. L. Meyen & T. M. Skrtic (Eds.), Special education and student disability (pp. 731–791). Denver, CO: Love.Google Scholar
  59. Skrtic, T. (1996). School organization, inclusive education, and democracy. In J. Lupart, A. McKeough, & C. Yewchuk (Eds.) Schools in transition: Rethinking regular and special education. (pp. 81–118). Scarborough, ON: Nelson.Google Scholar
  60. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  61. Starnes, W., Ginevan, J., Stokes, L., & Barton, J. (1988). A study in the identification, differential diagnosis, and remediation of underachieving highly able students. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse ED 298 730.Google Scholar
  62. Sternberg, R. J. (1986). Intelligence applied: Understanding and increasing your intellectual skills.Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  63. Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Cognitive psychology (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  64. Svec, H. J. (1985). Learning disabled or selectively enriched? An application of student strengths to program planning. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse ED 283 317.Google Scholar
  65. Tallent-Runnels, M. K. and Sigler, E. A. (1995). The status of the selection of gifted students with learning disabilities for gifted programs. Roeper Review, 17(4), 246–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tomlinson, C.A. (1995). Action research and practical inquiry: An overview and an invitation to teachers of gifted learners. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18(4), 467–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Treffinger, D. J. (1986). Individualized program planning model. (PPM Teacher Referral Form). New York: DOK Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  68. Trent, S. C., Artiles, A. J., & Englert, C. S. (1998). From deficit thinking to social constructivism: A review of theory, research, and practice in special education.. In D. P. Pearson & A Iran-Nejad (Eds). Review of Educational Research, 23, (pp. 277–307). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  69. Vespi, L. and Yewchuk, C. (1992). A phenomenological study of the social/emotional characteristics of gifted learning disabled children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16(1), 55–72.Google Scholar
  70. Vygotsky, L. S. (1963). Learning and mental development at school age. In J. Simon & B. Simons (Eds.), Educational psychology in the USSR (pp.21–34). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman, Eds.) Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Waldron, K.A., Saphire, D.G., & Rosenblum, S.A. (1978). Learning disabilities and giftedness: Identification based on self-concept, behavior, and academic patterns. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 422–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Weber, P. & Battaglia, C. (1982). The Identi-form System for gifted programs. New York: D.O.K. Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  74. Whitmore, J. (1980). Giftedness, conflict and underachievement. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  75. Whitmore, J. R. (1986). Conceptualizing the issue of underserved populations of gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10(3), 141–153.Google Scholar
  76. Whitmore, J. R. (1989). Four leading advocates for gifted students with disabilities. Roeper Review, 12(1), 5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. William, F. (1980). Exercise in divergent thinking: Exercise in divergent feeling: New York: D.O.K.Google Scholar
  78. Yates, C. M., Berninger, V. W. and Abbott, R. D. (1995). Specific writing disabilities in intellectually gifted children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18(2), 131–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Yewchuk, C. (1986). Issues in the identification of gifted/learning disabled children. British Columbia Journal of Special Education, 10, 201–209.Google Scholar
  80. Yewchuk, C., & Lupart, J. L. (2000). Inclusive education for gifted students with disabilities. In K. Heller, F. Monks, R. Sternberg, & R. Subotnik (Eds.) International handbook of giftedness and talent. (2nd ed.) (pp. 659–670). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Ltd.Google Scholar
  81. Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  82. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Judy L. Lupart
    • 1
  1. 1.University of AlbertaUSA

Personalised recommendations