Talk:Twice exceptional

Further reading

the book "The Myth of Laziness" does not refer to this concept by this phrase. i suspect this reading list is a little too broad, and should be pared back.(mercurywoodrose not logged in) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.80.6.163 (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

From first & second hand experience, the inexpert assessments by teachers, counselors, & parents, of 'laziness', 'disinterest', and other vague attitude and affect issues are so typical as to be almost diagnostic of these attention and communication disorders. Citations and further support is needed for this topic. --Wikidity (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merger

I put "merge" templates on this article and Gifted-handicapped. Both titles are educational jargon, but I believe they both deal with the same underlying concept, so they should be merged. Alternative terms for this concept can be redirected to the title of the merged article. --Orlady (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that the terminology gifted-handicapped was more encompassing than twice exceptional, including physical handicaps that are today not thought of as equally disabling when partaking in a standard classroom. I'm not saying that it's easy for kids who are blind, deaf or mobility impaired to participate in standard classrooms. But since the IDEA Act, these types of disabilities have been better dealt with than learning disabilities. When we think about the term twice exceptional today, I think we only have in mind June Maker's third category (gifted/LD). Under ideal circumstance, gifted-handicapped is a separate full-fledged article that outlines the history of how we have changed our perceptions towards giftedness and disabilities.Kallocain (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's take this discussion in two parts:

(1) Should these be combined into one article or should there be two articles?

(2) If combined, what should the combined article be called?

The answer to the first question will determine whether the articles should be merged. The proper name for the merged article can be decided separately, if there is consensus to merge.
I believe the two articles should be merged (duh -- that's why I proposed the merger), but I'm not sure that either title is ideal. The term "twice exceptional" (which seems to me to be a bit of trendy jargon) is defined in the article to refer primarily to the child who is "intellectually above average" (not the same as "gifted", although in some places the article suggests it is intended to mean "gifted") but has one or more disabilities. The definition and discussion lead me to think that the scope is essentially the same as the scope of "gifted-handicapped." On the other hand, "gifted-handicapped" clearly identifies giftedness as one of the exceptionalities, but I believe the word "handicapped" is now in severe disfavor in education circles in most or all English-speaking countries. --Orlady (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I definitely think that a merger is appropriate in this case and it seems that the more popular term is Twice Exceptional. I support a merge to that name with a redirect from this one as a possible alternate search term. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 03:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

A merger is appropriate. TiMike (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

question?

What about twice-exceptional adults? Clearly, something happens to these people when they grow up. Do they turn out just average? 96.255.150.208 (talk) 04:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Related?

Why is min-maxing linked from this article? Min-maxing is a practice in role playing games that involves deliberately raising certain often-used stats deliberately higher than normal, while neglecting others that are not used, such as increasing intelligence at the expense of charisma if your character needs to use her intelligence stat but not her charisma stat. Being twice-exceptional is not a choice, nor is it a form of optimization; there was no deliberate sacrifice made in order to gain giftedness, and often, the disability and the intelligence conflict. There is one role playing system I know whose min-maxing practices have the potential to be specifically relevant to this topic, and that is GURPS. If min-maxing is relevant enough to include here, I'd recommend adding a comment to make its relevance clearer, because it will otherwise give gamers who view this page the wrong impression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.120.22 (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding information to the Support section

Assouline, S. G., & Whiteman, C. S. (2011). Twice-exceptionality: Implications for school psychologists in the post–IDEA 2004 era. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 27(4), 380–402. doi: 10.1080/15377903.2011.616576

Foley-Nicpon, M., & Assouline, S. G. (2015). Counseling considerations for the twice-exceptional client. Journal of Counseling & Development, 93(2), 202-211. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2015.00196

Foley-Nicpon, M., Assouline, S. G., & Stinson, R. D. (2012). Cognitive and academic distinctions between gifted students with autism and Asperger syndrome. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(2), 77–89. doi:10.1177/0016986211433199

Foley Nicpon, M., Doobay, A. F., & Assouline, S. G. (2010). Parent, teacher, and self perceptions of psychosocial functioning in intellectually gifted children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40(8), 1028–1038. doi:10.1007/s10803-010-0952-8

Schultz, S. M. (2012). Twice-exceptional students enrolled in advanced placement classes. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(3), 119-133. Doi:10.1177/0016986212444605

More deficits

The table only lists several deficits - I believe - from own experience - that others must be listed / researched as well : Handicaps of any kind. For example, bad hearing abilities / deafness, and the need to fullow what is said by the teacher. In my case, that's why I prefer the written word over the spoken word. There might be other body handicaps as well influencing the ability to learn. Alrik Fassbauer (talk) 12:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Replace Mentions of Dysphemism "Special Needs"

The term "special needs" is a proven dysphemism, and widely considered offensive today by members of disabled communities. Please consider refraining from the use of this term, and instead use "disabled." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.4.143 (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done: I am not sure what Wikipedia's policy is on the term, but as it is deprecated not only by disability rights advocates, but also by a number of medical style guides (as per your ref), I have boldly changed this. It's worth noting that the Special needs article on Wikipedia has had comments mentioning its derogatory nature on the talk page since 2007(!); I have mentioned this in the lead of that article too. —AFreshStart (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Adults?

This article presents as if only children fall into this category. If there's no information on how this affects and relates to adults, then that needs to be mentioned in the article somewhere. 2600:6C4A:7B3F:7E28:4C15:16E7:3839:F16D (talk) 07:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

"Gifted At-Risk" link?

I'm not sure why the first instance of "gifted" links directly to Gifted At-Risk and not Intellectual giftedness. The former seems like it belongs on this page but maybe not there?

(They honestly seem like very similar topics and could maybe be the same page, but that is a bit tangential.) Andrewski (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Twice Exceptional Page Edit and Update Suggestions

Most of the empirical citations link to articles that are not generally accessible by the public. This defeats the purpose of a democratically informed and accessible information base. Suggest using Google Scholar (or similar) to source citations that are relevant and viable while also free and accessible to the general public.

An effort should be made to clarify that twice-exceptionality's excessive connection to education and learning is the result of where it tends to first be socially noticed and not because it is exclusive to those systems.

"Top" Section:

- Replace "student" with "individual" as twice-exceptional people maintain these attributes and factors throughout their lifespan and social context. Otherwise, provide empirical basis for limiting the definition to "students" which communicates a focus on children and those enrolled in an education program.

- Remove the entire first line as "gifted" is a contested definition and the link to "intellectual giftedness" confuses the messaging of the following paragraph. Linking “gifted students” to the intellectual giftedness Wiki page erroneously assumes a unifying definition of giftedness as intellectual giftedness.

- Quote: “Ronksley-Pavia (2015) presents a conceptual model of the co-occurrence of disability and giftedness.” This article makes it clear that there is a strong lack of consensus about what constitutes a definition of twice-exceptionality and does a fine job clarifying those problems. Making this clear on the Wiki page is an important and relevant contribution.n.

- Quote: “Although twice-exceptional can refer to any general disability, it is often used to refer to students with learning disabilities.” This statement needs to be clarified as it does not refer to clinical or institutional definitions and may, therefore, be a social assumption.

- Quote: "The learning associated disabilities can include dyslexia, visual or auditory processing disorder, obsessive–compulsive disorder, sensory processing disorder, autism, Tourette syndrome, and ADHD. Twice-exceptionality can also be associated with a diagnosis of anxiety or depression or any other disability interfering with the student's ability to learn effectively in a traditional environment. For example, 19% of dyslexic students were found to be superiorly gifted in verbal reasoning. Often twice-exceptional children have multiple co-morbid disabilities that seem like a paradox to many parents and educators." OCD, Autism, Tourette Syndrome are not SLDs and should not be referenced as “learning associated disabilities.” Consider linking to National Institute of Health for specifics OR clarify which country standards are being used. Further, associating 2e with a mental health diagnosis (as opposed to an SLD) is not well documented here and needs a more recent/robust reference.

Note: The final paragraph related to statistical information doesn’t seem useful as none of the statistics are put into context regardless of the country they are referring to, and no commentary is given related to the meaning of the statistics or the importance of knowing them.

"Misunderstood" Section:

The title of this section is problematic. 2e is not a label that is exclusive to children, nor does it belong solely to the domain of education. Further, this entire section may need revision for purpose and content. While it seems to be situated as to clarify the experience of 2e in the education setting, it doesn’t seem to distinguish between perspectives. Further, there are almost no references to its commentary and the reference to Baum’s work does not include specific clarifications.

- Quote: “Brody and Mills [1997] argue that this population of students "could be considered the most misunderstood of all exceptionalities". The reference here is nearly 20 years old and there is no explanation for its relevance. Consider removing.

- Quote: "In each situation, the twice-exceptional student's strengths help to compensate for deficits; the deficits, on the other hand, make the child's strengths less apparent although as yet there is no empirical research to confirm this theory." This sentence is unclear - which two situations is the author referring to? FACT CHECK - Regarding the theory of masked disabilities, it seems unlikely that we currently do not have an empirical basis for this paradigm. The quote may need revision and possible removal along with better empirical support beyond Baum's work.

"Identifying Twice exceptional" Section:

- Quote: “Formal identification of twice exceptionality requires identification and formal clinical diagnosis of each of at least two separate underlying exceptionalities.” Consider the implications for individuals who do not have access to a psychologist but who nevertheless would otherwise qualify. Additionally, school psychologists who do not recognize that a student can have multiple diagnoses which may obscure high potential. In general, schools do not diagnose. They conduct evaluations and provide interventions based on theoretical models that have nothing to do with “formal diagnosis” and are not driven by “clinical” frameworks. School district evaluations do not diagnose. They are strictly an educational evaluation of what the student needs to succeed. Only a physician or an otherwise formally trained and publicly recognized clinician can diagnose (with variances by state or region).

- Quote: “Given the statistical rarity, wide variety of presentations, and practical access issues with obtaining adequate diagnostic assessments, it is not unusual for 2e children or adults in open society to have not been accurately identified or adequately diagnosed.” It is important to clarify that the purpose of “obtaining adequate diagnostic assessments” will depend on why they are originally sought and the goals of the individuals involved. Receiving support may or may not be dependent on a diagnosis depending on the system being accessed as well as legal definitions and any laws that govern institutions and access of services.

- Quote: Children identified as twice exceptional can exhibit a wide range of traits, many of them typical of gifted children. Like those who are gifted, twice-exceptional children often show greater asynchrony than average children (that is, a larger gap between their mental age and physical age). They are often intense and highly sensitive to their emotional and physical environments. The following chart summarizes characteristics commonly seen in this population.” The cited chart is almost a quarter century old and should be updated with citations and current models or paradigms. Referring to challenges as “deficits” is problematic and in conflict with discussion preceding this section that suggests "strengths-based" paradigms. The categorical items are highly offensive and do not provide context, making them way too general and suggesting that these traits are shared by all 2e persons, which is erroneous and misleading.

"Support" Section:

This section is proportionally tilted towards commentary and lacks broad, empirical support, with a heavy focus on information that pertains to school counselors. It is very important to clarify that school counselors' roles vary greatly from district to district and among different states/regions. Some may not even be involved with the identification of twice exceptional students or even their socioemotional or academic planning and supports. Further, the strong connection with mental health and the connection to a school counselor as the main representation of this section communicates a focus on deficits.

School counselors are one possible avenue of support and in many, many districts are either not present or not easily or regularly accessible by students, families or educational staff. As this article suggests, twice exceptional individuals have complex needs - in all areas of their lives, not just the school house.

This section should include well-established community and family supports, organizations that promote self-advocacy, and empirically-supported avenues and modalities of support that are widely accessible, publicly situated.

"Education" Section:

- Quote: The twice-exceptional education movement started in the early 1970s with "gifted-handicapped" education, a term essentially referring to the same population. The 2e education approach has 35 years of research and best practices tailored to the needs of 2e students. It is a marriage between special education and gifted education—a strengths-based, differentiated approach that provides special educational supports. Many argue that talent development is the most critical aspect of their education." This language is problematic and idiosyncratic with an inclusion of metaphor that may not be understood by all. There is no “2e education approach,” and it is unclear what is meant by “35 years of research and best practices tailored to the needs of 2e students.” Strengths-based approach is in response to models that focus on weaknesses of students rather than strengths in these programs. By definition, a strengths-based approach focuses on the needs for enrichment/extension as supports and de-emphasizes a focus on special education. “Many argue” and “their” are ambiguous terms and need clarification. This section needs full revision, updating with current, researched models and citations. Further it needs revision for removal of assumptions and lack of broad application. AEAInquiry (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)