This study sought to determine effective teaching strategies for use with high-ability students who have spatial strengths and sequential weaknesses. Gifted students with spatial strengths and weak verbal skills often struggle in the traditional classroom. Their learning style enables them to grasp complex systems and excel at higher levels of thinking while struggling with material typically considered “easy.” Many high-ability students with spatial strengths and verbal weaknesses underachieve and even drop out of school. Teachers must develop effective strategies to help these at-risk students experience success in educational settings. If students with spatial strengths find success in the educational system, then they are more likely to become creative producers in society and less likely to underachieve and be underemployed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaskervilleR.Pries-HejeJ. (1999). Grounded action research: A method for understanding IT in practice. Accounting Management and Information Technologies, 9(1), 1–23.
2.
BaumS. (1984). Meeting the needs of learning disabled gifted students. Roeper Review, 7, 16–19.
3.
BaumS.OwenS. (1988). Learning disabled students: How are they different?Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 321–326.
4.
BogdanR. C.BiklenS. K. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
5.
ColemanM. R. (2001). Surviving or thriving?Gifted Child Today, 24(3), 56–63
6.
CreswellJ. W. (1994). Research design qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications.
7.
DixonJ. P. (1983). The spatial child. Springfield, IL: C. C. Thomas.
8.
GallagherS. A.JohnsonE. S. (1992). The effect of time limits on performance of mental rotations by gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 19–22.
9.
GlaserB.StraussA. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
10.
GohmC. L.HumphreysL. G.YaoG. (1998). Underachievement among spatially gifted students. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 515–531.
11.
HowardJ. B. (1994). Addressing needs through strengths. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 5(3), 23–34.
12.
HumphreysL. G.LubinskiD.YaoG. (1993). Utility of predicting group membership and the role of spatial visualization in becoming an engineer, physical scientist, or artist. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 250–261.
13.
KvaleS. (1996). Interviews: An introduction of qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
14.
MakerC.UdallA. (1985). Giftedness and learning disabilities. Retrieved February 15, 2004, from ericec.org/digests/e427.htm
15.
MannR. L. (2001). Eye to eye: Connecting with gifted visual-spatial learners. Gifted Child Today, 24(4), 54–57.
16.
MannR. L. (2005). Gifted students with spatial strengths and sequential weaknesses: An overlooked and underidentified population. Roeper Review, 27, 91–97.
17.
National Association for Gifted Children. (1998). Students with concomitant gifts and learning disabilities. Washington, DC: Author.
18.
NielsenM. E.HigginsL. D.HammondA. E.WilliamsR. A. (1993). Helping twice-exceptional students to succeed in high school: A program description. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 5(3), 35–39.
19.
OlenchakF. R.ReisS. M. (2002). Gifted students with learning disabilities. In NeihartM.ReisS. M.RobinsonN. M.MoonS. M. (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 177–191). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
20.
OlsonM. B. (1984). What do you mean by spatial?Roeper Review, 6, 240–244.
21.
PattonM. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
22.
RenzulliJ. S. (2000). Academies of inquiry and talent development, part I. Middle School Journal32(9), 5–14.
23.
RenzulliJ. S.GentryM. L.ReisS. M. (2003). Enrichment clusters. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
24.
RobinsonS. (1999). Meeting the needs of students who are gifted and have learning disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic34, 195–204.
25.
SheaD. L.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2001). Importance of assessing spatial ability in intellectually talented young adolescents: A 20-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 604–614.
26.
SilvermanL. K. (1989). The visual-spatial learner. Preventing School Failure, 34(1), 15–20.
27.
SilvermanL. K. (2002). Upside down brilliance: The visual-spatial learner. Denver, CO: DeLeon Publishing.
28.
SmithL. (1978). An evolving logic of participant observation, educational ethnography, and other case studies. In SchulmanL. (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 7, pp. 316–377). Itasca, IL: F.E. Peacock.
29.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
30.
WeinfeldR.Barnes-RobinsonL.JewelerS.ShevitzB. (2002) Academic programs for gifted and talented/learning disabled students. Roeper Review, 24, 226–233.
31.
WestT. G. (1997). In the mind's eye: Visual thinkers, gifted people with learning difficulties, computer images, and the ironies of creativity. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
