LOS DERECHOS INDIVIDUALES Y COLECTIVOS DE TRABAJO

It serves no purpose to recognise gifted learners if we do not plan to do something distinctive about their education (Gallagher & Gallagher 1994: 5). In the absence of biased, culturally insensitive intelligence testing scores, teachers require a variety of available techniques to assist them with the recognition of cognitively gifted learners.

It is commonly, and incorrectly, assumed that these learners will be academic achievers. With the reality of English second language learning, many cognitively gifted learners may never excel at school due to their limited proficiency in the LoLT, which is their daily reality. Freeman (2000: 38) provides the international example of language difficulties experienced by the Gypsies in Hungary or the Turks in Germany. Due to language difficulties, many gifted learners may not achieve academically.

The fact that cognitive giftedness is not stagnant but falls on a continuum means that no two learners will act, learn or respond exactly the same. Montgomery (2000: 134) defines cognitive skills as internal capabilities which will guide a person’s attention, learning, thinking and remembering. Kokot (1999: 9) refers to some people’s stagnant view of giftedness, especially as it is perceived by quantitative measurement of intelligence. The many shortcomings of the isolated numerical results of the quantitative approach are summarised as the unfair method of equating a person with a figure without taking biographical factors into consideration. In contrast to this, the qualitative approach considers the individual in all its facets and not just intelligence as an isolated concept (Kokot 2005: 472). For the sake of the twice exceptional learner, no identification may rely on an intelligence test.

Just as disabilities and impairments are identified as a way of recognising individual learners’ uniqueness, the manifestations of potential giftedness are to be identified. Moon (2009: 275) comments that many twice-exceptional learners are not identified. These learners tend to experience frustration and they often underachieve. It is now accepted that there is more than one standard for exceptional performance. This viewpoint challenges traditional views, still observed at many schools, that intelligence is a single capacity (Winner 2000: 153). This multi-faceted perspective of cognitive giftedness complicates recognition even further. Rogers (2007: 391) mentions that cognitively gifted learners often prefer to try alternative strategies when experiencing a mathematics challenge they cannot resolve. She also mentions that gifted learners are likely to prefer independent tasks and study. These learners also prefer materials with instructions they can interpret by themselves (Rogers 2007: 385).

In relation to the cognitively gifted English second language learner in the South African classroom, their double exceptionality may manifest as one of the following (Montgomery 2003: 8):

• The difficulty masks the abilities.

• A linguistically disadvantaged background but with average functioning, which indicates that a great deal of compensation is frequently occurring.

Teachers should therefore pay specific attention to the learner who, for example, asks unconventional questions, is curious about a variety of subjects, observes details and can think abstractly (Kokot 2005: 472).

Montgomery (2003: 7) states that there are at least five or six potentially gifted learners in every class. To assure that the cognitive giftedness and the learning difficulties of the twice exceptional learner are accommodated, optimum learning conditions should be created (Winebrenner 2003: 137). Kokot (2005: 470, 479) notes that facets of giftedness cannot be measured directly, but that behaviour manifestations can be observed. The threat of learners remaining unidentified, as well as misidentified, is always present. The goal with identification is not just to ascertain that cognitively gifted learners have been indicated, but how they will be supported in the classroom to provide for their particular needs. An in-depth look at the learner, specifically her traits and abilities, is necessary to determine the learner’s capability for excellence. Kokot (2005: 470–472) focusses on the whole child by constituting a realistic picture of the complete learner. In the absence of intelligence tests, this comprehensive image can be achieved by a multidimensional approach. This learner functions in a life world with a variety of relationships and her holistic description includes physical, cognitive, affective and conative facets. Barkan and Bernal (1991: 147) refer specifically to an education system that can not only meet the need of these learners, but that can be enriched by them.

Bereday and Lauwerys (in Passow 1997: 528) observe that civilised societies accept the undertaking of encouraging the talented to “cultivate their gifts and to pursue excellence”. Passow (1997: 532) comments on education’s responsibility to assist each gifted individual for the sake of self-fulfilment, in addition to society’s requirement for brainpower. Johnson, Karnes and Carr (1997: 516) list the contributions of, inter alia, Thomas Edison, Vincent van Gogh, Beethoven, Helen

Keller and Albert Einstein as examples of historical figures who were twice exceptional. These individuals all possessed talents and difficulties and still made an impact on society (Johnson et al. 1997: 516).

In the South African situation such respect towards dual exceptionality will be reflected in a school system where all learners receive support for all their barriers to learning. Furthermore, it will reflect a system where the cognitively gifted ESL learner receives the calibre of enriching education and support to nurture all their remarkable qualities. In a responsible education system, there would be opportunities for all learners to receive quality education. If this does not happen, it might lead to the cognitively gifted learner underachieving due to the dissonance between her specific needs and the education system. Kokot (1999: 21) highlights the importance of an education system that offers “equality of opportunity for all levels of ability”.