This article was downloaded by: [MacEwan University Libraries]On: 20 November 2014, At: 10:21Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Australian Journal of Learning DisabilitiesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rald19
Teaching gifted children with learning difficulties inwritingMarion Milton a & Elaine Lewis ba Edith Cowan Universityb Faculty of Community Services, Education and Social Sciences , Edith CowanUniversity , 2 Bradford Street, Mount Lawley, Western Australia, 6050 Phone: (08) 92736200 E-mail:Published online: 09 Dec 2009.
To cite this article: Marion Milton & Elaine Lewis (2005) Teaching gifted children with learning difficulties in writing,Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 10:2, 79-88, DOI: 10.1080/19404150509546792
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19404150509546792
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Australian Journal of Learning DisabilitiesVolume 10, Number 2, 2005, pp. 79-88
Teaching gifted children with learning difficulties inwritingMarion Milton and Elaine LewisEdith Cowan University
AbstractThis study investigated the teaching of gifted children in a Montessori school, with particular reference to gifted students with learning difficultiesin writing. Within an action research context, the teachers participated in professional development in the education of gifted children andwere provided with ongoing curriculum and resources support. The teachers made modifications to their gifted students' programs after thisprofessional development. Positive outcomes in aspects of writing, such as punctuation, spelling, sentence control and text organisation, aswell as improved social outcomes, were achieved by the gifted students with writing difficulties.
Teaching gifted children with learning difficulties inwriting is a major challenge for classroom teachers.These students are a recognised, hidden, under-served,sub-group of the gifted (Cooper, Ness, & Smith, 2004;Fox, Tobin, & Schiffman, 1983; Kyung-won, 1990;Starnes, Ginevan, Stokes, & Barton, 1988; Whitmore,1988). Research has been conducted using intelligencetests in an attempt to identify the unique characteristicsof gifted children with learning disabilities, but no clearpattern has been found (Fox & Brody, 1983; VanTassel-Baska, 1992).
The field of learning difficulties is littered withdifferent definitions (Elkins, 2002; Louden, Chan,Elkins, Greaves, House, Milton, et al., 2000). However,in the current study the Louden et al. (2000) consensusdefinition of learning difficulties was adopted: childrenexperiencing learning difficulties are "... those students,excluding students with defined disabilities, who havesignificant literacy and [/or] numeracy problems with ahistory of learning difficulty".
A study at a Montessori primary school in Perth,Western Australia, with 150 students, investigatedprograms and strategies used by teachers to supportgifted students with learning difficulties in writing.In this research, writing is recognised as a multi-taskactivity, involving handwriting, spelling and numerouscompositional skills (Huxford, 2004). The presentstudy also investigated the teachers' attitudes toward thegifted. However, only the learning difficulties aspect ofthis research is reported in this paper.
Previous Research
Some overseas studies have investigated gifted students
with learning difficulties in writing (Ingleheart,1998; Kokot, 2003a; Liddle & Porath, 2002). In alongitudinal case study of a gifted Texan boy withwriting difficulties, Ingleheart (1998) followed theprogress of the student from primary to tertiarylevels of education. This student received remedialeducation support throughout his primary schoolyears, but access to computers with spell checkingcapability at high school enabled him to show hisgiftedness, and ultimately undertake engineeringstudies at university (Ingleheart, 1998).
Another case study examined the neurobiologicalissues impacting on a 7 year old South Africangirl, who was dyslexic and gifted with severelearning difficulties in writing (Kokot, 2003a). Aneurodevelopmental approach to learning, knownas HANDLE, an acronym for Holistic Approach toNeuroDevelopment and Learning Efficiency, wasemployed. Part of the initial assessment includedobservation of the girl, considering for example,things that distracted her attention, the child's mostsuccessful learning modalities, and the physical-environmental conditions that affected her learning.HANDLE practitioners developed a plan thatincluded specific, sequenced and prioritised physicalexercises to address the neurobiological weaknessesin the girl's vestibular system, as well as specificexercises to develop the visual functions of trackingand binocularity. This training program resulted inoverall improved literacy outcomes for the student(Kokot, 2003a).
Research has shown that written expressionis a very poor indicator of giftedness in children(Liddle & Porath, 2002). Thus, gifted students with
Correspondence: Elaine Lewis, Faculty of Community Services, Education and Social Sciences, Edith Cowan University, 2 Bradford Street,Mount Lawley, Western Australia 6050, phone: (08) 9273 6200.Email: [email protected].
ISSN 1324-8928 ©2005 Learning Difficulties AustraliaPublished by Learning Difficulties Australia
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mac
Ew
an U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
0:21
20
Nov
embe
r 20
14
80 Marion Milton and Elaine Lewis
writing difficulties may not be identified as giftedby the teacher, if other identification criteria are notemployed. In the Liddle and Porath (2002) study,data was obtained from a sample of seventy Canadianchildren, aged 6-15 years, and scoring greater than120 on at least one IQ or achievement subscale. Theresearch found that this sample of children displayedspelling (transcription) skills that were significantlydepressed compared to their word reading (decoding)skills. Furthermore, the research provided evidencethat there was a:
"... greater prevalence of decoding-transcriptionoutput discrepancies in young gifted children thanin the general population ... reflecting an asynchronybetween accelerating decoding skills and the morelinear development of transcription skills" (Liddle &Porath, 2002, p. 18).
In addition, it was found that these discrepancieswere particularly marked during the primary schoolyears, reaching a maximum around 12 years of age(Liddle & Porath, 2002). Recommended strategiesto support these students included, for example,the use of other modes of presentation such as oralreports, information technology skills and audio-tapes (Liddle & Porath, 2002). The findings of thisresearch also suggested that writing difficulties in thegifted could be an indication of other problems, suchas a phonological awareness difficulty, and that suchproblems required identification and specific targetedintervention (Liddle & Porath, 2002).
Method
The current study employed action research (Cherry,1999; Grundy, 1995; Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988,2000) and case study (Merriam, 1998; Stake, 1995,2000; Yin, 1994) methodology.
Participants
All 12 teachers at the Montessori school participatedin the study. Nine taught at pre-primary, juniorprimary or upper primary levels, and three were part-time specialists.
Six gifted children with learning difficultiesin writing were identified. An EducationalPsychologist or other related professional made theformal identification of giftedness. The writingdifficulty was identified from the results of theWestern Australian Literacy Assessments, that is, thebenchmark testing for Years 3, 5 and 7 (Associationof Independent Schools of Western Australia, 2003b);the South Australian Spelling Test (Westwood, 1999)
and Student Outcome Writing (EasyMark, 1997), aswell as in the psychological assessments.
Although literacy outcomes for these six studentswere examined, the focus of the investigation wason the types of classroom programs in which two ofthese students were engaged. One student was in anupper primary class (Year 6) and the other in a lowerprimary class (Year 4).
Instruments
A range of instruments was employed in the broaderstudy. However, the learning difficulties componentof this research mainly utilised teacher interviews,classroom and participant observation, anecdotalfeedback from parents and teachers, and recordssearches. Stakeholder checks were conductedthroughout the study.
Procedure
Information in the current study was collected froma number of sources, settings, time frames, researchmethods, instruments and theoretical perspectives(Author, 2004). This triangulation of data wasundertaken to increase the validity and reliabilityof the research. Data for the study was collectedthroughout the school year of 2003.
At the beginning of the study the teachers attendedin-house professional development which includedthe identification of gifted students with learningdifficulties and suggestions regarding classroomprovision for these children. The research investigatedwhether teachers changed, over time, their programsfor gifted children with learning difficulties in writing.Throughout the study, curriculum and resourcessupport was available for the staff by the researcher.
Teacher interviews, records searches and a seriesof classroom observations were undertaken at thebeginning of the study and repeated twelve monthslater. The interviews investigated the strategiesteachers used to support their gifted students withlearning difficulties in writing. The records searchincluded an examination of the gifted students'school reports, work samples, standardised and non-standardised educational assessments and reports byother relevant professionals (such as OccupationalTherapists). The classroom observation sessionsprovided additional data on teachers' provision forgifted students with difficulties in writing. Theseobservations involved a total of ten hours in twoclasses, with different half-hour time slots on differentschool days.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mac
Ew
an U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
0:21
20
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Teaching Gifted Children with Learning Difficulties in Writing 81
Results and Discussion
Identifying gifted students with learning difficulties
At the start of the study teachers expresseduncertainty about how to identify children who weregifted yet were also experiencing learning difficulties.However, twelve months later, after professionaldevelopment and curriculum and resources support,the teachers were more confident in naming studentsin this group. Seven of the teachers stated that theyhad identified between one and three gifted childrenwith learning difficulties in their classes. The othertwo teachers said there were no gifted students withlearning difficulties in their classes.
The identification of gifted children with learningdifficulties in writing is not straightforward. Someteachers in the present research were aware of otherstudents who could be gifted, as determined by criteriaother than IQ testing. Furthermore, these studentsgenerally manifested serious attention difficultiesand did not fit within the formal diagnosis of giftedwith learning difficulties, such as WISC Verbal orPerformance scores in the superior range, with adifference of-at least 15 points between these scores(Fox, 1983). Thus the identification of gifted childrenwith learning difficulties in writing remained an issueof concern for the teachers in this study.
Interviews to determine support strategies
At the beginning of the research, teachers outlined
a wide range of classroom strategies employed tocater for the needs of the gifted. These were groupedinto five categories: teacher attitudes toward giftedstudents, type of tasks, grouping, acceleration, andstaffing issues (as shown in Table 1). Representativeexamples of these strategies are given in the followingquotations.
All the teachers felt these strategies worked well,some unequivocally, others with reservations. Most,however, had reservations about the effectiveness oftheir classroom strategies in catering for the needsof gifted children in their classes. Their commentsincluded: "works well but not enough time forindividual attention", "need more time and support"and "multi age groupings place huge demands onteachers".
At the end of the study, teachers again listed awide range of classroom strategies to cater for theneeds of their gifted children. Responses in thesame five categories of strategies given in Table 1were enunciated in the second interview. However,within these categories some new strategies werementioned, such as, increasing the challenge tothe students through their participation in FutureProblem Solving (Future Problem Solving ProgramAustralia Inc, 2002) programs and the involvementof mentors. When teachers were asked how wellthese strategies worked all were reflective and raisedvarious concerns. As indicated early in the study,they still had reservations about the effectivenessof their classroom strategies, stating, for instance,teaching gifted children with difficulties is "very
Table 1 Teachers' Pre-test Classroom Strategies Employed to Cater for the Needs of Gifted Children
Strategy category Teacher stated classroom strategy
Teacher attitudetoward student
Type of tasks
Grouping
Acceleration
Staff
"Expect excellence.""Encourage children to work out of their comfort zone."
Use "thinking skills", "open-ended tasks" and "goal settingtechniques"."Independent investigations", "follow strengths and interests"and "peer tutoring."
"Children grouped according to ability for particular lessons."
"Give work appropriate for older children.""Accelerate in areas of strength."
"More PD in area of student need.""Use of experts and other teachers in their areas of expertise."
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mac
Ew
an U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
0:21
20
Nov
embe
r 20
14
82 Marion Milton and Elaine Lewis
demanding - each child needs different strategies,depending on the child, the day, the subject andtopic". The teachers also mentioned that the studentsin the sample characteristically displayed an inabilityto 'work independently' and had issues related toperfectionism.
Classroom Observations
Classroom observations of two of the six studentswere undertaken twice, once at the beginning of theresearch in Term 1 and again at the end of the year.The objective of these sessions was to ascertain thedegree of engagement in their independent work,their behaviour and the types of programs they wereinvolved in.
In the upper primary classroom observation, thefollowing session was typical. After appropriatescaffolding by the class teacher in a small groupsetting, the group was directed to start writing arecount. The scaffolding for the writing includedstrategies from 'First Steps' (Education Departmentof Western Australia, 1997) and the 'Quality TeacherProgram: Writing' (Association of IndependentSchools of Western Australia, 2003a). The writinggroup included the Year 6 gifted student who alsoexperienced difficulties in writing. During the groupcontext phase of the lesson the student watched theteacher and looked around at group members. He didnot volunteer any responses during the discussions.The key events over the next thirty minutes includedsocial talk with his neighbour, going to the toilet,wandering around the classroom to look at what wason other students' desks, writing single words thenstopping, and copying from his neighbour.
The lower primary classroom observations of a Year4 gifted student with learning difficulties in writingrevealed some overlaps with the pattern of behaviourseen in the upper primary class. A typical example ofthis can be illustrated in a learning context that alsoinvolved writing a recount. The teacher similarlyemployed the writing strategies referred to in theformer observation. The main aim for this giftedstudent was to encourage him to express his ideason paper, since he displayed excellent oral recountskills but was unable to write his ideas in a structureappropriate for a Year 4 student.
During the lower primary observation the giftedstudent appeared to pay attention during the recountmodelling and discussion phase of the lesson. Thatis, he watched the teacher and participated activelyin the group discussions. However, when it came towriting his recount plan and starting his draft copy,
he engaged in considerable diversionary conversationwith a neighbouring student. The following extractfrom the observation notes is typical of this student'swriting behaviour.
The student talked with a neighbour, started firstsentence of draft recount, erased sentence, talkedwith neighbour, wrote beginning of another sentence,erased last word, wrote word, erased word, talked toneighbour, wrote word and finished sentence, lookedaround, wrote several words, talked with teacher,continued writing, erased last word, wrote, erased lastsentence, talked to neighbour, wrote sentence, erasedlast half of sentence, finished re-writing sentence,talked to neighbour.
Over half the independent work time was spentin quiet discussion, predominantly on social topicsrather than those related to the writing task. Whenthis student did attempt any writing, he becamefixated on 'correct' spelling, despite encouragementby the teacher to 'have a go'. It was clearly veryimportant to this student not only to spell correctly,but also to create 'perfect' sentences, even in his draftcopy, as he was continually erasing words and wholesentences. Consequently, at the end of a thirty-minute period this student had written three simple,short sentences, in which the meaning was not alwaysclear.
Both classroom observation sessions revealed asimilar independent work pattern for gifted studentswith difficulties in writing. During a writing lessonthe students were basically attentive when thegenre was modelled and discussed, but engaged indiversionary activities when independent writing wasrequired. This work pattern in writing lessons wasrepeated in other observation sessions and appearedtypical of their behaviour. These students were notobviously disruptive to the running of the class; rather,they quietly avoided work in their area of difficulty.This behaviour was not observed when they workedin their areas of strength.
The upper primary gifted student with difficultiesin writing received considerable support from theclass teacher during the year. Various strategieswere employed, such as moving the student to a deskadjacent to the teacher's desk, an individualisedwriting program with a tutor, as well as personalisedtime management and organisation contracts. Thesestrategies were in addition to the ongoing use ofwriting scaffolds, which were mentioned earlier.Unfortunately for the continuity and effectiveness ofall these strategies, the student was frequently absentfrom school throughout the year. The end of theyear classroom observations of this student revealed
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mac
Ew
an U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
0:21
20
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Teaching Gifted Children with Learning Difficulties in Writing 83
that, despite the numerous interventions employed bythe class teacher, the student continued to be easilydistracted, with a very short concentration span.Nevertheless, the student did eventually complete thewriting tasks independently.
The gifted lower primary student also experiencedconsiderable support throughout the year. Thiswas in the form of additional writing scaffoldingand closer monitoring of his daily work contractby the classroom teacher, as well as one hour perweek tutoring sessions on writing with the supportteacher. Two forms of external intervention alsooccurred after recommendations by the school to theparents to investigate neurobiological issues that maybe impacting on the child's writing difficulty. Thestudent participated in occupational therapy for finemotor skill development and behavioural optometryfor eye exercises.
Classroom observations of the writing behavioursof the Year 4 student at the end of the year revealedminimal changes compared to the initial observations.The student typically wrote half a page in a half-hour session, and still displayed perfectionism,characterised by continual use of the eraser, and wasreadily distracted by other students. However, whenthis student was observed in a test situation, for theend-of-year Student Outcome Writing assessment(EasyMark, 1997), and all students were doing thesame task, he wrote a narrative one-and-a-half pageslong, in a similar period of time to that of the above
observation. So, despite being readily distracted byexternal events, the lower primary gifted studentshowed he could now write longer, more logical textswhich displayed increased complexity of language.
In summary, the key findings from the classroomobservations of the two focus students are presentedin Table 2.
A comparison of the beginning and end of yearclassroom observations revealed that in both theupper and lower primary contexts, the students'observable behaviours had not markedly changed.They were still distracted from their writing byother events. Student distractibility seemed to be animportant component of the lack of task engagement.Both students had difficulty in writing a coherenttext with correct spelling at the beginning of the year.However, by the end of the year, both focus studentsshowed they could write longer, more coherent texts.The numerous interventions undertaken during theyear to support these students' writing difficultiescould have contributed to these outcome gains.
Informal Observations
Informal observations of the six gifted students withlearning difficulties in writing were undertakenthroughout the school year. Behaviour changes wereobserved, with all six students displaying growth inpersonal and writing confidence, as well as appropriaterisk-taking behaviour when engaged in writing tasks.
Table 2. Pre- and Post-test Classroom Observations of Two Gifted Students
Selected Student Term 1 2003 Term 4 2003
Year 4Junior Primary
Year 6Senior Primary
Wrote three short, simplesentences in 30 minutes
Continually erased wordsand whole sentences.
Wrote three longer sentences (half apage) in 30 minutes.
Continual use of the eraser.
Social talk with neighbour. Distracted by external events.
Wrote one to several wordseach writing attempt.
Wrote one to several words each minuteof writing, then lost focus on task.
Copied neighbour's writing. Wrote independently.
Social talk with neighbour.Very frequently distracted by externaland internal stimuli.
Frequent use of eraser.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mac
Ew
an U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
0:21
20
Nov
embe
r 20
14
84 Marion Milton and Elaine Lewis
Furthermore, those at the beginning of the year whowere disruptive in class by arguing or distractingothers from doing their work, appeared focussed ontheir work or quietly engaged in non-work activitiesby the end of the year. The playtime behaviours of thesix students also revealed changes: formerly reclusivechildren were observed participating in more socialinteractions, walking around and talking and playingwith other students.
Parent Feedback
All the parents of children who had been identifiedas gifted and having difficulties in writing, attendednumerous meetings, formal and informal, at theschool throughout the year, to discuss the needsof their children. Depending on their individual
circumstances, they were able to support theirchildren from home through different interventions.For instance, when recommended by the school,parents arranged appointments to obtain specialistassessments for their children. By the end of theschool year, feedback from these parents was basicallypositive, expressing satisfaction with the progresstheir children had achieved.
Records Searches
At the start and end of the school year the students'files were examined. It was clear that many actionshad been implemented during the year, both by schoolstaff and parents, to support observable outcomegains. These actions ranged from, for example, theimplementation of specific in-class time-management
Table 3. Analysis of Students' Texts
SelectedStudent
Year 4JuniorPrimary
Year 6SeniorPrimary
Writing Aspect
GlobalPunctuationSpellingVocabularySent. ControlForm WritingSubj. MatterText Organis.Purpose Aud.
GlobalPunctuationSpellingVocabularySent. ControlForm WritingSubj. MatterText Organis.Purpose Aud.
Term
Recount
"The levéson the... "22
2
2
11
211
"EurekaStockade"232
21
2
2
2
2
1 2003
Report
"The tiger'sskin ..."212
211
2
1
2
"GoldMining"23
2
21
2
2
22
Term
Recount
"MyMemorys"22
2
212
2
2
2
"Craft Fair"
33
32
2
3
2
33
4 2003
Report
"Wild Pars"
3
3
332
32
3
3
"TigerSnakes"33
3
32
3
2
3
3
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mac
Ew
an U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
0:21
20
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Teaching Gifted Children with Learning Difficulties in Writing 85
contracts, to recommendations for external specialistassessments, external therapy sessions, and individualtuition with the support teacher.
Assessment records in student files were examined.Data relating to the six selected students in the schoolwere collected and analysed. Despite the lack ofchange in the students' observed writing behaviours,an analysis of the two children's texts indicated thatwriting gains were achieved. To be consistent withwriting assessments used at the school, the followingEasyMark (1997) writing aspects were employed toanalyse the students' texts: global, punctuation,spelling, vocabulary, sentence control, form ofwriting, subject matter, text organisation, purposeand audience. The analysis of writing 'levels'(Easymark, 1997), presented in Table 3, providesevidence that the students achieved improvements inwriting outcomes. For example, in writing a report,the Year 4 student improved in all areas except choiceof subject matter, and the Year 6 student improvedin all areas except punctuation and choice of subjectmatter.
Another indicator of student outcomes was theresults of the WALNA (Association of IndependentSchools of Western Australia, 2003b) standardisedassessments. In 2003, three of the six studentsparticipated in the mid-year WALNA testing (becausethey were 8, 10 or 12 years old that year) and all threewere assessed to be above the writing benchmark fortheir age. However, the externally marked writingtest (EasyMark, 1997) used at the end of the year toassess all primary students in the school, resultedin variable outcomes for the six identified students.For example, one student improved dramaticallyduring the year, with an assessment of writing Level2 Stanine 4 for Term 1 and Level 3 Stanine 7 in Term4, while three of the six students were assessed tobe at the same writing level and same stanine at theend of the year as at the start. (See Appendix I.)Teachers' efforts to assist some of these studentsfocus on organisational and time-management skillsappeared to contribute to the gains achieved, as didteachers' liaison with other relevant specialists.
Further Training
One area in which the present study aligns with otherAustralian research relates to the need for furthertraining in the area of gifted education. Studies ofprimary and secondary teachers in New South Walesfound there were aspects of giftedness and relatedprovision issues that were not well understood (S.R. Smith & Chan, 1989; W. Smith & Chan, 1996).
Similarly, Plunkett's (2000, p. 41) conclusion relatingto teachers in Victoria, that they "were prone tomisconceptions and uncertainties in relation to theeducational requirements of this group", appears tobe equally applicable in the present context. At theend of the current research the Montessori teachershad unresolved issues about catering for the specialneeds of their gifted students, so further teachertraining in the field of gifted education appeared tobe warranted.
Limitations of the Study
The size of the teacher/student sample is theprincipal limitation of this study. Although the smallnumber of participants means that the results are notgeneralisable beyond the target population studied,the resultant information provides a template againstwhich other Montessori schools and teachers of MAGclasses can reflect on provision issues for giftedchildren with learning difficulties in writing.
Conclusions and Implications
The current research found that Montessori teachersmade modifications to their programs for giftedchildren with learning difficulties in writing toaddress individual requirements. The programs wereframed around each child's gifts and interests, whilecatering for specific learning difficulties. Both theteachers and students experienced positive outcomesfrom these actions.
The individualised programs for the studentsinvolved in the present study incorporatedcurriculum differentiation, allowing the studentsto be challenged in their areas of giftedness whilesupporting their writing difficulty. Evidence wasobtained for improved outcomes for the giftedstudents participating in the current study. Althoughthe observable writing behaviour of the students didnot change markedly during the year, the studentsachieved quantitative and/or qualitative writingoutcome gains after individualised modifications totheir literacy programs. They wrote longer texts, ata higher standard and/or displayed improved writingconfidence.
In brief, the research indicated that there was acomplex interweaving of issues that may be relevantto gifted children with learning difficulties in writing.It is therefore vital that each child is treated as anindividual, as the weaknesses contributing to onechild's writing difficulty may be different from thoseimpacting on another. The following key issues need
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mac
Ew
an U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
0:21
20
Nov
embe
r 20
14
86 Marion Milton and Elaine Lewis
to be considered to improve writing outcomes forthese twice-exceptional students:
Develop an Individual Education Plan whichaddresses both exceptionalities and monitorprogress (Department of Education andTraining, 2003).Accelerate the area of giftedness (Gross,1993, 1999), so that the focus is not only onthe learning difficulty.Employ proven strategies for the teaching ofwriting (Association of Independent Schoolsof Western Australia, 2003a; EducationDepartment of Western Australia, 1997).Investigate the possibility of neurobiologicalproblems, for example, visual tracking,crossing the midline and the vestibular system(Kokot, 2003a, 2003b; Webb, 2004) and referto specialist/s if weaknesses indicated.
• Involve the child's parents throughcollaborative problem solving team meetingsand liaise with relevant specialist/s (Author,2004).Check for phonological/phonemic awarenessweaknesses (McBride-Chang, Manis, &Wagner, 1996; Munro, 2002) and address asrequired.Provide priority access to assistive technology,such as word processors (Fox et al., 1983;Stewart, 2002).Address perfectionism if this is an issue (Kerr,2002; Martin, 2003).
• Use other modes of presentation, such as oralreports (Liddle & Porath, 2002).Adopt behaviour and/or time managementcontracts if this is relevant to the child's needs(Author, 2004).
By undertaking thorough assessment andidentification of areas of exceptionality, then planningand teaching to the needs of the whole child, thecreation of an improved learning environment forthese children can be achieved. The present studyemphasises the need for pre-service teachers andteachers in the field to have more training in theidentification of these gifted children with learningdifficulties in writing and appropriate educationalprovision for them.
AcknowledgementsSpecial thanks to the teachers and Principal who
participated in this study. Permission to publish thispaper was obtained from the Principal.
References
Association of Independent Schools of WesternAustralia. (2003a). Quality teacher program:Writing. Perth: Association of Independent Schoolsof Western Australia (AISWA).
Association of Independent Schools of WesternAustralia. (2003b). Western Australian literacy andnumeracy assessment 2003. Osborne Park, WA:Association of Independent Schools of WesternAustralia (AISWA).
Australian Council for Educational Research.(1986). Progressive achievement tests in reading:Comprehension and vocabulary: Teacher's handbook.Melbourne: ACER.
Author. (2004). Teaching twice exceptional children:Gifted with learning difficulties. Unpublished M.Ed., Edith Cowan University, Perth, WA.
Cherry, N. (1999). Action research: A pathway toaction, knowledge and learning. Melbourne: RMIT
University Press.Cooper, E. E., Ness, M., & Smith, M. (2004). A case
study of a child with dyslexia and spatial-temporalgifts. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(2), 83-94.
Department of Education and Training. (2003).Linking assessment, teaching and learning: First stepssecond edition addressing current literacy challenges.Perth: Department of Education and Training(Western Australia).
EasyMark. (1997). Student outcome writing test.North Perth, WA: EasyMark Pty Ltd - NationalEducational Testing Service.
Education Department of Western Australia.(1997). Writing Resource Book. Melbourne: RigbyHeinemann.
Elkins, J. (2002). Learning difficulties/disabilitiesin literacy. Australian Journal of Language andLiteracy, 25(3), 11-19.
Fox, L. H. (1983). Gifted students with readingproblems: An empirical study. In L. H. Fox, L.Brody & D. Tobin (Eds.), Learning-disabled/giftedchildren: Identification and programming (pp. 117-140). Austin, Texas: Pro-Ed.
Fox, L. H., & Brody, L. (1983). Models for identifyinggiftedness: Issues related to the learning-disabledchild. In L. H. Fox, L. Brody & D. Tobin (Eds.),Learning-disabled/gifted children: Identification andprogramming (pp. 101-116). Austin, Texas: Pro-Ed.
Fox, L. H., Tobin, D., & Schiffman, G. B. (1983).Adaptive methods and techniques for learning-disabled/gifted children. In L. H. Fox, L. Brody &D. Tobin (Eds.), Learning-disabled/gifted children:Identification and programming (pp. 183-194).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mac
Ew
an U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
0:21
20
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Teaching Gifted Children with Learning Difficulties in Writing 87
Austin, Texas: Pro-Ed.Future Problem Solving Program Australia Inc.
(2002). Macquarie Bank future problem solvingprogram: Community problem solving: Practicalguidelines for Australian schools. Melbourne: DeakinUniversity.
Gross, M. U. M. (1993). Exceptionally gifted children.London: Routledge.
Gross, M. U. M. (1999). Gifts, strengths and politics:A glance in the driving mirror. Understanding OurGifted(Fall), 6-10.
Grundy, S. (1995). Action research as professionaldevelopment. Perth: Arts Accord Affiliation of ArtsEducators (WA).
Ingleheart, J. (1998). How should districts serve twiceexceptional students? Gifted Child Today Magazine,21(4), 38-40.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The actionresearch planner. Geelong: Deakin UniversityPress.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatoryaction research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 567-605). London: Sage Publications.
Kerr, B. (2002, July 26). The psychology of the giftedchild. Paper presented at the ProAPT Network andDepartment of Education WA Conference: Bridgingthe Barriers: An Insight to Intellectual, Creative andSpiritual Potential, West Perth, Australia.
Kokot, S. (2003a). Diagnosing and treating learningdisabilities in gifted children. Gifted EducationInternational, 17(1), 42-54.
Kokot, S. (2003b, August 1-5). Getting a handleon the root causes of learning problems in giftedchildren. Paper presented at the 15th BiennialWorld Conference for Gifted and Talented children,Adelaide, Australia.
Kyung-won, J. (1990, August 14-19). Gifted learningdisabled and gifted underachievers: Similaritiesand differences. Paper presented at the SoutheastAsian Conference on Giftedness, Manila, Philippines[on-line]. Available WWW: http://ericer.syr.edu/plweb/-cgi/fastweb?getdoc+ericdb-adv+ericdb + 908171+4+wAAA+%281earning%26difficulties%29%26AND%26%28gifted%29
Liddle, E., & Porath, M. (2002). Gifted children withwritten output difficulties: Paradox or paradigm.Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 7(2), 13-19.
Louden, W., Chan, L. K., Elkins, J., Greaves, D.,House, H., Milton, M., et al. (2000). Mapping theterritory: Primary students with learning difficulties:Literacy and numeracy: Volume 2: Analysis.Canberra: Department of Education, Training
and Youth Affairs.Martin, A. (2003). Motivating the gifted and talented:
Lessons from research and practice. AustralasianJournal of Gifted Education, 11(2), 26-34.
McBride-Chang, C., Manis, F. R., & Wagner, R.K.(1996). Correlates of phonological awareness:Implications for gifted education. Roeper Review,18(F/Mr), 27-30.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and casestudy applications in education. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Mossenson, L., Hill, P., & Masters, G. (1995).Torch Tests of Reading Comprehension. Melbourne:Australian Council for Educational Research.
Munro, J. (2002). The reading characteristics ofgifted literacy disabled students. Australian Journalof Learning Disabilities, 7(2), 4-12.
Neale, M. D. (1999). Neale analysis of reading ability.Melbourne: ACER Press.
Smith, S. R., & Chan, L. K. S. (1989). The attitudesof Catholic primary school teachers towardseducational provisions for gifted and talentedstudents. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education,7(1), 29-41.
Smith, W., & Chan, L. (1996). Attitudes of secondaryschool teachers towards education of the gifted.Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 5(2), 26-33.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research.London: Sage Publications.
Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin &Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research(pp. 435-454). London: Sage Publications.
Starnes, W. T., Ginevan, J., Stokes, L., & Barton,J. (1988, March 28-April 1). A study in theidentification, differential diagnosis, andremediation ofunderachievinghighly able students.Paper presented at the 66th Annual Convention ofthe Council for Exceptional Children, Washington,DC [on-line]. Available WWW: http:////ericir.syr.edu/plweb-cgi/fastweb?getdoc+ericdb-adv+ericdb+868850+2+wAAA+%281earning%26difficulties%29%26AND%26%gifted%29
Stewart, W. (2002). Electronic assistive technology forthe gifted and learning disabled student. AustralianJournal of Learning disabilities, 7(4), 4-12.
VanTassel-Baska,. J. (1992). Planning effectivecurriculum for gifted learners. Denver: Love.
Webb, L. (2004). Gifted students with learningdisabilities. Paper presented at the The Gifted andTalented Children's Association of Western Australia:Making a Difference Conference, Fremantle, W A.
Westwood, P. (1999). Spelling: Approaches to teachingand assessment. Melbourne: ACER Press.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mac
Ew
an U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
0:21
20
Nov
embe
r 20
14
88 Dr Marion Milton and Elaine Lewis
Whitmore, J. (1988). Gifted children at risk forlearning difficulties. Teaching Exceptional Children,20(4), 10-14.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design andmethods. London: Sage Publications.
APPENDIX IStudent Outcomes Data 2002 and 2003
Student Year Writing Writing Reading Reading Spelling
AgeWALNABenchmark Test(Association ofIndependentSchools ofWesternAustralia,2003b)
EasyMarkStudentOutcomeWriting(1997)Term 1 4
Torch(Mossenson,Hill, &Masters,1995)Term 1 4
PAT(AustralianCouncil forEducationalResearch,1986)Term 1 4
S. AustnSpelling TestAge(Westwood,1999)Term 1 4
1~8yrs
2~9yrs
3-lOyrs
4~12yrs
5~12yrs
6~13vrs
20022003
20022003
20022003
20022003
20022003
20022003
Above B/mark
Below B/mark
Above B/mark
Marginally Ab.
Below B/mark
Above B/mark
L2S6L2S5
L1S1L2S4
L2S4L3S6
L2S4L3S7
L2S3L3S5
L4S4L3S4
L2S5L2S5
L2S3L3S7
L3S5L3S6
L3S4L3S6
L2S2L3S4
L3S4L3S4
S8
S6
S8
S8
S8
S6
S9*S6
S9
S9
S9
S9
S7
S6
S7
S9
S8
S5
S5
S9
S8
S9
S8
S6
7.59.2
7.28.2
10.211.2
11.212.4
10.210.7
9 910
9yrs9.7yrs
7.6yrs9.7yrs
11.4yrs10.7yrs
15.5yrs13.8yrs
10.5yrs10.9yrs
.5yrslOyrs
Key: Age: approximate age of student in Term 4, 2003 - given to enable meaningful interpretation of levels,stanines and spelling ages. Actual chronological age not stated to maintain student confidentiality.S: refers to stanine.L: refers to level in writing (EasyMark, 1997).* = Neale (1999) assessment.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mac
Ew
an U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 1
0:21
20
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Recommended
