Content area
Academically gifted individuals who are Deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) represent a unique intersection of identities that can significantly affect various aspects of their lives. This qualitative phenomenological study explored the lived experiences of academically gifted DHH individuals to gain insights into their unique challenges and strengths. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 participants (ages 21–85) who self-identified as both academically gifted and DHH. Interpretative phenomenological analysis of the participants’ experiences revealed themes such as resilience, self-acceptance, family support, educational accommodations, and social challenges. The participants demonstrated remarkable adaptability in navigating both academic and social environments, often developing innovative coping strategies. These findings highlight the need for tailored educational approaches and support systems that recognize and nurture the potential of gifted DHH students.
1. Introduction
Diversity in educational experiences plays a crucial role in shaping the academic landscape and fostering inclusive learning environments. Within the broad spectrum of diverse learners, academically gifted individuals who are Deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) represent a unique intersection of identities that warrants deeper understanding. The complexities arising from this intersection can significantly affect various aspects of these individuals’ lives, including their social interactions, economic opportunities, and academic achievements (Guzman-Roman et al., in press). Examining the personal experiences of academically gifted DHH individuals can yield valuable insights that will assist educators, policymakers, parents, and healthcare professionals in providing appropriate learning accommodations and support. The research presented here was designed to explore the lived experiences of the gifted DHH population and thus shed light on their unique challenges and strengths and ultimately contribute to more inclusive and effective educational practices.
1.1. Definitions
Academic giftedness is often characterized by high task commitment, creativity, and above-average academic performance (Renzulli, 1978). Contemporary models have expanded the concept to include multiple intelligences such as linguistic, logical–mathematical, spatial, musical, bodily–kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal (Gardner & Hatch, 1989). Sternberg’s (1985, 1999) theory of successful intelligence proposes three main components: analytical intelligence (i.e., problem-solving and mathematical reasoning), creative intelligence (i.e., novel and innovative thinking), and practical intelligence (i.e., applying information to real-world situations). Building on this, Sternberg’s (2024) theory of transformational giftedness suggests that intelligent individuals can adapt their knowledge as their environment changes.
The concept of twice-exceptionality (2e) describes individuals who are gifted and also have one or more disabilities. These students often excel in critical thinking and problem-solving while facing challenges in areas affected by their learning differences (Assouline et al., 2011; Baum, 1984a, 1984b; Baum & Owen, 1988).
Deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) refers to a spectrum of hearing loss that encompasses varying degrees of auditory ability among individuals. Deaf individuals are not necessarily “missing” anything; they are complete individuals, with many embracing a distinct culture with its own set of beliefs, practices, and language, such as American Sign Language (ASL). Individuals’ ability to perceive speech and environmental sounds can vary depending on the extent of their hearing loss (Olusanya et al., 2019), and the impact of hearing loss can be substantially mitigated by assistive technologies such as hearing aids and cochlear implants. Nevertheless, DHH individuals may still face challenges in communication, education, and social interactions, and the specific accommodations and support needed can vary greatly based on the degree of hearing loss, individual preferences, and the use of assistive devices (Chisolm et al., 2007). Given that over 5% of the world’s population, or about 430 million people, experience disabling hearing loss (World Health Organization, 2023), understanding and addressing the needs of the DHH community is critically important. Within this community, gifted students have a unique set of needs.
1.2. Identification and Assessment of Gifted Students
Identifying gifted students involves a multi-dimensional approach, using both formal and informal assessments (Reis & Renzulli, 2015). For twice-exceptional students, traditional intelligence measures, such as IQ tests, may not provide adequate assessment. This situation necessitates alternative approaches such as dynamic assessment (Vygotsky, 1978; Sternberg, 1997), which emphasizes learning processes and thought patterns rather than factual knowledge (Haywood & Lidz, 2007).
Determining the prevalence and characteristics of DHH gifted students can be difficult owing to the masking effect, a phenomenon generally observed in 2e students. This effect occurs when one exceptionality overshadows the other, potentially leading to underidentification (Foley Nicpon et al., 2011). Baum and Owen’s (2004) work on gifted students with learning disabilities suggests that masking can occur when challenges associated with a disability obscure a student’s giftedness, or vice versa. In addition, the masking effect may manifest uniquely among DHH students. For instance, in a study on creativity in DHH individuals, Potměšilová et al. (2023) found that while some of the students struggled with communication, they excelled in areas such as creativity. It is important to note, however, that studies specifically examining gifted DHH students are limited. Much of the existing research focuses on 2e involving other disabilities or on gifted students in general. Therefore, while the insights from the existing research are valuable, understanding the unique characteristics and prevalence of giftedness among DHH students requires additional investigation.
Environmental factors can also play a role in the identification and assessment of gifted students. For example, chaotic classrooms with high noise levels can significantly affect a DHH student’s ability to perform to their full potential, especially without an individualized educational plan or tailored adjustments to meet their needs (Luckner & Muir, 2001). In such an environment, DHH students may struggle to understand what is being communicated and taught, potentially leading to a smaller vocabulary and decreased word recognition and comprehension (Marschark et al., 2007).
These challenges underscore the importance of creating appropriate assessment environments and using diverse identification methods. Educators should consider not only academic performance but also the students’ ability to navigate complex social and environmental challenges when identifying giftedness in this population.
1.3. Cognitive and Affective Factors Influencing Academic Giftedness in the Context of Hearing Impairment
In terms of cognitive factors, gifted DHH students often exhibit strong visual and spatial awareness and thinking that compensate for their hearing disability. Some of these adaptations include a keen understanding of body language and facial expressions in communication and lip reading (Altieri et al., 2011). However, DHH students are no stronger at visual tasks than their hearing counterparts (Marschark et al., 2015), and DHH students who prefer sign language are not more visually inclined than DHH students who prefer spoken language and hearing students (Marschark et al., 2017). Furthermore, it is a misconception that DHH students always prefer visual forms of communication because of their commonly held knowledge of sign language (Dowaliby & Lang, 1999; Marschark & Hauser, 2012). It is important to directly ask each student which methods of learning they prefer as everyone is different and the degree of hearing does not determine the learning style of the individual (Marschark et al., 2017).
With regard to affective factors, feelings of social isolation can undermine DHH students’ sense of belonging and academic motivation, ultimately influencing their educational attainment (Patel et al., 2021). When these individuals are properly empowered and supported through ample resources and psychological care, they can achieve a more positive self-image. Peer support groups and affinity organizations provide gifted DHH students with both emotional connections and practical resources. When students connect with peers who share similar experiences as academically gifted DHH learners, they not only gain a greater sense of belonging and comfort but also benefit from guidance toward specialized academic support services and counseling programs tailored to their unique needs (Huyck et al., 2021). These peer networks help students navigate both the social-emotional and academic aspects of being twice-exceptional.
Gifted DHH students may also demonstrate heightened emotional sensitivity and awareness. Cohen’s (2006) study on adolescents with hearing impairment found that they had higher levels of stress symptoms in response to environmental stressors relative to their hearing peers. In addition, DHH children may experience lower self-esteem in social domains than their normal-hearing peers, particularly regarding perceived social acceptance by peers and perceived parental attention (Theunissen et al., 2014). DHH youth have been observed to experience more depressive symptoms and overall worse mental health outcomes relative to their hearing peers (Dreyzehner & Goldberg, 2019). DHH students may face challenges in developing social skills owing to smaller social networks and limited accessible communication with larger hearing communities (Karić & Kordić, 2023). For gifted DHH students, these challenges may be compounded by their dual exceptionality.
Overall, the social and psychological aspects of 2e students have not been deeply explored. The literature has a gap regarding 2e students with auditory impairments, although it has previously considered other disabilities such as autism spectrum disorder (McFadden, 2017). It is unclear whether gifted DHH students’ differences play a large role in shaping their everyday interpersonal interactions and how deeply they affect their self-concept.
1.4. Educational Accommodations and Support
Several protective factors can determine or redirect the outcomes of DHH students in general, such as the accommodation provided, assistive technology used, and communication resources utilized (Marschark et al., 2007). These factors are likely also relevant for gifted DHH students, although their specific impact on this population has not been extensively studied.
Educational considerations for DHH students broadly include communication resources as well as assistive technology, which the educational institution can sometimes provide through a 504 plan or an individualized education program (IEP). A 504 plan gives the student the accommodations they need to succeed in the classroom. An IEP gives the student the appropriate classroom accommodations as well as individualized instruction. For gifted DHH students, such plans should ideally address both their exceptional abilities and hearing-related needs.
With the increase in technology used in the classroom, real-time captioning, as well as advanced microphones, can make information clearer for DHH students (Luckner & Muir, 2001). These technologies may be particularly beneficial for gifted DHH students engaging with advanced academic content.
Specific classroom modifications for DHH students, such as an interpreter to translate gaps in the curriculum, and parental support contribute to the academic success of these students (Antia et al., 2009). For gifted DHH students, these modifications may need to be tailored to accommodate their advanced cognitive abilities as well. Teachers can also use pictures to help DHH students better understand small details that may have been missed in translation. This approach may be especially effective for gifted DHH students, who often have strong visual-spatial skills (Marschark et al., 2015). Digital versions of textbooks and other learning materials have been helpful in creating a tailored approach to learning in which DHH students can evolve the curriculum to meet their needs (Wauters & Dirks, 2017). For gifted DHH students, these digital resources could potentially be adapted to provide both challenge and accessibility.
2. Method
A qualitative phenomenological study using interpretative phenomenological analysis was conducted to explore the lived experiences of academically gifted individuals within the DHH community. The central research question was “What are the lived experiences of academically gifted individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing?” Guiding subquestions included the following:
How do these individuals navigate their dual identities of being academically gifted and Deaf/hard of hearing?
What challenges and supports do these individuals encounter in their academic and personal lives?
How do factors such as family support, educational accommodations, and self-advocacy skills influence the experiences of these individuals?
What strategies do these individuals employ to overcome communication barriers and achieve academic success?
How does the intersection of giftedness and hearing loss affect social interactions and relationships for these individuals?
What commonalities and differences exist in the experiences of academically gifted individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing?
2.1. Participants
This study included 10 participants, ranging in age from 21 to 85 (Mage = 41, SDage = 23.4). The sample included seven women (70%) and three men (30%). The sample included eight White people (80%) and two Hispanic people (20%). Table 1 presents an overview of the participant demographics and characteristics. The participants were formally identified as gifted in their early education or demonstrated high academic achievement.
All participants provided informed consent before participating in the study. To protect participant confidentiality, pseudonyms are used throughout this report. The Institutional Review Board approved the study.
The decision to interview adult participants, rather than current students, was deliberate and offers several advantages for this study. Adults can provide a retrospective view of their educational experiences, allowing for a more comprehensive understanding of how interventions and support systems affected their academic journeys over time. This perspective is valuable because it captures the long-term effects of educational strategies and accommodations, which may not be immediately apparent in current students. Additionally, adult participants can offer insights into how their academic experiences influenced their career paths and overall life outcomes, providing a fuller picture of the efficacy of educational interventions.
2.2. Data Collection Procedure
Purposive sampling was used to identify potential participants for this study. To be included in this study, participants had to meet both of the following conditions: (a) being hard of hearing, Deaf, or Deaf and (b) being gifted.
A semi-structured interview protocol was developed based on the research questions and comprehensive literature reviews. The protocol comprised 20 open-ended questions designed to explore the interviewees’ personal experiences growing up as DHH, with a particular focus on their educational journey. Questions such as the following ones prompted participants to reflect on their experiences and share their stories:
What do you wish that teachers, parents, peers, friends, and/or school administrators knew about you?
What do you wish they knew about hard-of-hearing people in general?
What could have helped you in your classes?
Are there specific strategies, accommodations, or support systems that would have made a difference?
How much do you believe that teachers matter in how well hard-of-hearing students perform in the classroom?
Before the interview, the participants were given a breakdown of the interview process and expected duration. At the start of each interview, the researcher explained the study’s purpose and obtained verbal consent. Interviews were conducted in person in a private room at the local library, via email, and via video conference, according to the participants’ needs and preferences. The participants were given the option to have an interpreter present, and a research team member was available to use ASL as needed. Only one interview was conducted in ASL; others were conducted with the help of assistive technology as needed. Data collection continued until data saturation was achieved, as evidenced by redundancy in data, thematic exhaustion, and the ability to answer our research questions. Each interview lasted approximately 40 min. The interviews were audio- or video-recorded and transcribed verbatim.
2.3. Data Analysis
We conducted an inductive phenomenological analysis of the interview transcripts to capture the essence of participants’ lived experiences. This process involved systematically examining the data through a series of structured phases, adapting phenomenological analysis techniques to the study’s needs.
Initially, each author independently reviewed the transcripts, engaging in bracketing to set aside preconceptions and focusing on the participants’ descriptions of their experiences. We then convened to discuss our findings, examining no more than three participants at a time. These meetings served to explore emerging meanings and themes, with a focus on understanding the essence of each participant’s experience rather than seeking immediate agreement.
Once all cases were examined, each of us submitted individual analyses detailing our interpretations of the phenomenological themes. We then worked collaboratively to identify and refine these themes within and across cases. This process involved comparing and contrasting interpretations, exploring the structural and textural descriptions of the phenomena, and seeking to understand the underlying essences of the experiences described.
Here, we use Julia’s case to illustrate this process. Initial individual analyses identified themes such as resilience, self-acceptance, family support, educational accommodations, and social challenges. We refined and consolidated these themes through discussion. For example, “resilience and self-acceptance” emerged as a central overarching theme, interconnected with supporting themes such as “family support and resources” and “educational support and accommodations”. As the analysis progressed, we engaged in multiple rounds of review and discussion. In subsequent analyses of Julia’s case, additional nuances emerged, such as the emotional impact of her experiences and the role of peer support. These insights led to further refinement of the thematic structure.
To synthesize findings across all cases, the first author compiled a general summary and proposed a unified set of superordinate themes. In Julia’s case, these included “resilient self-acceptance”, “supportive environment”, and “academic giftedness despite hearing challenges”. We then engaged in in-depth discussions to reach a consensus on these themes, ensuring they accurately represented the lived experiences of all participants.
This iterative and collaborative approach to phenomenological analysis enhanced the depth and authenticity of the findings, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of the lived experiences while maintaining phenomenological rigor across researchers. The final thematic structure aimed to capture the essence of the shared phenomena across all cases, highlighting the complex interplay between academic giftedness and hearing impairment in the participants’ lives.
2.4. Positionality and Rigor
In a qualitative phenomenological study, the researchers are the main instruments for data collection and analysis. As such, their attributes, experiences, and perspectives shape their approach to studying participants’ experiences. Examining their positionalities is crucial for conducting ethical and rigorous research, as it allows acknowledging potential biases and considering how their identities and backgrounds may influence the research process.
The first author is a woman from a northwestern European (White) background. She was raised in a lower-middle-class household. Her educational experiences were in mainstream settings with predominantly hearing peers and instructors. She lives with a neurodevelopmental disorder that affects motor skills, and she has consequently experienced some degree of ableism and societal marginalization. While she values inclusivity, accessibility, and respect for all people, she does not have a hearing disability and may hold unconscious biases or make assumptions based on a limited prior understanding of the hard-of-hearing experience.
The second author is an Italian-American woman born and raised in New York. As a person with a learning disability, she understands the challenges of navigating school with a disability; she acknowledges her lack of personal experience with being hard of hearing. Her motivation for this study stemmed from a desire to deeply understand the experiences of those who are hard of hearing and academically gifted so that she may contribute to improving support structures in academic environments. She aims to increase awareness about coping mechanisms and psychosocial support systems and to understand which educational policies have helped or hindered these students. Recognizing her limitations, she commits to ongoing reflexivity, collaboration with the Deaf and hard-of-hearing community, and prioritizing participants’ voices throughout the research process.
The third author is a White woman from Georgia, United States, raised in a middle-class household. Her initial exposure to the hard-of-hearing community came through shadowing in an elementary special needs classroom. This experience sparked her interest in communication disorders, leading her to pursue a bachelor’s degree to become a speech therapist. Her work with children with autism and other disabilities has broadened her perspective on the importance of connection and communication across diverse populations. Her enthusiasm and growing understanding of communication challenges were assets in this study, but she acknowledges her limited experience with the hard-of-hearing community. She recognizes the need to approach this research with cultural humility and openness to learning.
The fourth author is a Mexican-American woman who was born and raised in a low-income immigrant household in the rural American South, and she identifies as hard-of-hearing and gifted. These intersecting identities have exposed her to various biases throughout her academic and social experiences. Currently a graduate student focusing on speech pathology, her personal background as a gifted hard-of-hearing individual significantly influenced her interest and participation in this study.
Our interest in this research area stems from a desire to amplify voices and perspectives that have historically been marginalized. However, we also recognize that the hearing status of some of our team members separates us from the particular challenges faced by the hard-of-hearing community. Our lack of direct lived experience as hard-of-hearing people may influence how we approach the research process, interpret data, or represent participants’ experiences.
To mitigate potential biases, we engaged in continual reflexive practices, such as maintaining a reflexive journal and seeking guidance from co-authors who are hard of hearing and ASL trained. We also prioritized participants’ voices through member-checking and aimed to co-construct knowledge in a collaborative and respectful manner. By critically examining our positionality, we hoped to approach this research with greater humility, ethical grounding, and a commitment to honoring the perspectives of the hard-of-hearing community.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Participant Overview
The study included 10 participants, aged 21–85, who were academically gifted individuals with hearing loss. Table 1 provides a brief introduction to the participants.
This diverse group of participants represents various backgrounds, onset times of hearing loss, and communication preferences, providing rich insights into the experiences of academically gifted DHH individuals.
3.2. Shared Experiences
Although everyone’s educational journey was unique, some common threads existed among participants. Through the analysis, several superordinate themes emerged, illustrating how our participants navigated their identities, academic pursuits, and social environments.
3.2.1. Empathy and Compassion
Participants often demonstrated high levels of empathy and prosocial behavior, using these traits as strategies to connect with both the DHH and hearing communities. Empathy emerges from several distinct sources and manifests in unique ways that shape both the personal development and the professional aspirations of a person. Empathy may be developed in 2e individuals because their personal experiences often foster a deeper understanding of others’ struggles (Sternberg & Desmet, 2024). For academically gifted DHH individuals, empathy may be heightened owing to their own experiences with communication barriers and social isolation. Within our sample, such empathy was frequently linked to participants’ own experiences with hearing challenges.
Jake’s account exemplifies this empathetic approach and desire to foster understanding: “I chose to participate because I want to share my story. As a Deaf person, I decided to participate in this interview to challenge stereotypes and misconceptions about my abilities. By sharing my experiences and perspectives, I hope to promote understanding and inclusion”. Jake’s statement reflects his compassion toward others in the Deaf community and his commitment to improving societal understanding of their experiences. His statement aligns with research that highlights how individuals who face discrimination or marginalization often develop a strong desire for advocacy and social justice (Marschark & Hauser, 2012).
Similarly, Timothy’s experiences as a tutor highlight how his own challenges and need for assistance shaped his ability to empathize with and support other students who require help. He explains,
I especially like being a tutor because it kind of, I don’t know, being the person on the receiving end of kind of needing to be helped. I felt like I really understood what it meant to kind of like, I don’t really know how to explain it, but like I had been on the receiving end of a lot of help. So I knew what it was like to need help and I was able to kind of adapt to my circumstances and use a lot of different teaching methods.
His words echo findings from studies on 2e students that suggest that individuals who receive support for their disabilities often develop a heightened ability to assist others facing similar challenges (Reis et al., 2014).
This empathy particularly manifests through career choices in helping professions. Julia expressed a strong desire to become an audiologist based on her personal experiences:
I want to be an audiologist. I would always tell people like if you’ve seen those videos of kids like hearing something for the first time that they didn’t hear before, like I was that kid. So, I want to be that person that helps someone like that.
Similarly, Gabby, who is pursuing a career as a speech-language pathologist, shared her aspirations: “Hopefully, working in a medical setting or private practice, and I hope to be working within a community where it’s needed for a bilingual [speech-language pathologist] because I feel like it’s hard to find professionals that are bilingual”.
Gabby’s focus on becoming a bilingual speech-language pathologist highlights the importance of language accessibility in healthcare professions (Marschark & Hauser, 2012). Her desire to work in underserved communities reflects her empathy for individuals who face both linguistic and communication barriers—challenges she has personally experienced as an DHH individual navigating multiple languages (Luckner & Muir, 2001).
These accounts highlight how the challenges associated with hearing loss often fostered a deep sense of empathy and a desire to support others, both within and beyond the DHH community. It has been hypothesized that 2e individuals often develop prosocial behaviors as they navigate their own difficulties (Sternberg & Desmet, 2024). For Jake, Timothy, Julia, and Gabby, personal struggles not only shaped their interpersonal interactions but also influenced their career choices, demonstrating the profound impact of their hearing challenges on their prosocial behaviors and life paths.
3.2.2. Academic Resilience
All participants exhibited remarkable academic resilience, achieving high levels of academic success despite their hearing challenges. This resilience was often facilitated by adaptive learning strategies such as visual learning techniques and compensatory strategies such as lip reading or seeking clarification when needed. This finding aligns with existing research on 2e students who often develop sophisticated coping mechanisms (Baum & Owen, 2004; Foley-Nicpon & Assouline, 2015).
For many participants, resilience developed owing to early identification of their academic potential. For example, Christina was identified as gifted by teachers at a very young age, while Timothy’s giftedness was recognized in kindergarten. This early identification created a foundation of academic confidence that helped them persist through later challenges. When Christina faced academic setbacks in high school, her earlier success experiences provided a reference point for her capabilities: “I had years where my grades were high and then they would trail off and you know, I experienced some failure, which was very difficult and then I had to basically re-energize myself to end up how I wanted to”. Christina’s academic struggles in 9th grade, rather than defeating her, became a catalyst for developing stronger coping mechanisms. Parental expectations and support also played a crucial role in developing academic resilience, and Christina’s motivation to make her parents proud helped drive her academic recovery:
It was extremely difficult, and I just felt so terrible that I was letting my parents down. So basically, I wanted to end up where my parents could be proud of me. That was really my sole motivation. And in turn, I was able to be proud of myself once again.
This external motivation eventually transformed into internal motivation, as she notes becoming “proud of myself once again”, showing how family support can scaffold the development of academic resilience.
Participants also developed resilience through learning to adapt their learning strategies. Timothy explained how confronting his hearing challenges led to better academic outcomes. He learned to advocate for his needs, demonstrating how resilience develops through active problem-solving rather than passive acceptance of poor performance:
So, being hard of hearing in school was definitely always difficult. I remember when I was younger [in] elementary school, I would have a lot of difficulty hearing what my teacher was saying, which caused me to fall behind in a few of my classes until I really confronted [it] because at first, I didn’t really know. I thought this was the same level of hearing that everyone else was experiencing until I talked to my teacher about it and was like I really can’t hear much of what you’re saying.
He went on to describe how he overcame these challenges: “And after I really came to terms with that I was able to do a lot better in school because my teachers were accommodating and they helped me by repeating things until I knew what they were saying”. For Timothy, the realization that his hearing experience was not universal represented a turning point. It led to actively seeking accommodations, showing how increased self-awareness can also enhance resilience.
For Mark, resilience continued to develop well into adulthood, as evidenced by his pursuit of graduate education later in life. His experience shows how academic resilience is not static but continues to evolve through new challenges and opportunities:
Originally, I started looking at grad school, I was just interested in taking a few classes in media… I filled out the application and had to take a test to prove that I could do it. I hadn’t done great in English [before] so I was amazed that I didn’t have to take remedial English. I did good. Somewhere [during] meeting with [the advisor] and talking, I thought I’m just going to go further.
Timothy’s proactive approach to seeking accommodations and Mark’s persistence in pursuing graduate education demonstrate how self-advocacy and acceptance of one’s hearing status can serve as crucial protective factors in determining educational outcomes (Sternberg & Desmet, 2024).
While existing research suggests that 2e students may struggle with low self-esteem due to perfectionism, these participants’ narratives reveal how positive self-image, when properly supported through resources and accommodations, can foster remarkable academic resilience. Their experiences underscore the importance of creating educational environments that acknowledge and support both their giftedness and hearing impairment, enabling them to develop effective coping strategies and maintain high academic achievement despite challenges (Sternberg & Desmet, 2024).
The development of academic resilience in these individuals was not innate or automatic—it was cultivated through a combination of early recognition, supportive relationships, strategic adaptation to challenges, and transformative experiences that built their capacity to persist despite obstacles. This resilience became not just about academic survival but about developing sophisticated strategies for academic success despite hearing challenges.
3.2.3. Identity Navigation
Participants frequently grappled with their DHH identity but eventually embraced it as a core aspect of their self-perception. This journey often involved balancing their Deaf/DHH identity with societal expectations and personal aspirations. For instance, Gabby’s identification as a hard-of-hearing person evolved over time, becoming more prominent as she entered a larger university setting. She noted, “I didn’t really consider myself as a hard of hearing person or a Deaf person. I guess until recently now, like I said, like in the university, I’m more aware of it”. Similarly, Maria initially viewed her hearing difficulties as normal, stating, “I didn’t recognize it as a youngster. To me, it was normal. I didn’t think it was any big deal”.
The age of onset and severity of hearing loss appeared to influence the acceptance process, with those who experienced hearing loss at a younger age or had less severe loss often coming to terms more easily. Conversely, individuals with more severe hearing loss tended to experience delayed acceptance. Julia, who lost hearing in one ear after a childhood accident, emphasized self-acceptance and resilience: “Everyone’s going to have their own opinion, and the only person that truly knows you is yourself…because, you know, I am hard of hearing that doesn’t mean that I can’t do things that I set my mind to”. This perspective aligns with Maria’s view of her hearing loss as an ability rather than a disability: “I always say it’s never a disability, it’s an ability”.
As participants navigated their identities, many, like Haley, developed the ability to move between Deaf and hearing communities, utilizing both ASL and English. Haley stated, “Speaking English was my first language, sign language my second. But I don’t really see the difference until maybe third grade in mainstream school”, demonstrating her adaptability in different communication environments. This journey of identity navigation highlights the complex interplay between personal experiences, societal perceptions, and individual adaptations in shaping the self-perception of hard-of-hearing individuals.
3.2.4. Supportive Environments
Family support and educational accommodations played crucial roles in the academic success of many participants. This finding aligns with previous research indicating that family support and appropriate educational resources serve as key protective factors in determining educational outcomes for 2e students (Antia et al., 2009). For example, Julia benefited from an IEP and speech therapy, facilitating her academic achievements. She noted, “I was educationally supported. The IEP definitely helped with that”. Julia also appreciated the resources provided, stating, “I loved my speech therapist that I had. My teacher was always helpful”. In contrast, Christina lacked adequate educational support, which highlights how insufficient resources can hinder the realization of academic potential. She reported, “I really didn’t receive any support regarding my hearing loss or hard of hearing status in any schooling”. She consequently experienced feelings of isolation and frustration: “It can be very frustrating, being hard of hearing, and also it’s very isolating at times because you end up not wanting to bother people with asking questions repeatedly”. Julia’s and Christina’s experiences align with research suggesting that when individuals are properly empowered and supported through sufficient resources and psychological care, their self-image is more positive, which is crucial for academic achievement (Mekonnen et al., 2016). Christina’s experience also underscores the importance of individualized attention and awareness in supporting students with hearing loss, as she noted, “I think there was definitely a lack of support for what I would say individual students in my high school who were struggling”. The contrast between Julia’s and Christina’s experiences highlights the significance of implementing comprehensive support systems, including both family advocacy and formal educational accommodations, in helping 2e students navigate the complex landscape of their academic journey (Antia et al., 2009). These narratives particularly emphasize how proper support can help students overcome the masking effect, where their giftedness and hearing impairment might otherwise obscure each other (Baum & Owen, 2004; Foley-Nicpon & Assouline, 2015), and maintain their academic motivation despite challenges in communication and learning environments.
3.2.5. Self-Advocacy Development
As participants developed their self-advocacy skills, they found these abilities extended beyond the classroom, significantly affecting their social lives and personal relationships. While existing literature emphasizes the importance of self-advocacy for 2e students in educational settings (Reis et al., 2014), participants’ experiences revealed how such skills spilled over into social interactions, enabling them to navigate complex social dynamics with greater ease. Many participants reported feeling more comfortable explaining their hearing needs to friends, family, and even strangers. For instance, Julia’s experience in pageants demonstrates how self-advocacy can be applied in diverse social contexts: “They were very helpful when it came to like the interviews. You know, I could step closer if I needed to and they wouldn’t use it against me if I didn’t hear them and needed them to repeat something”. This ability to communicate needs effectively in social settings not only improved participants’ experiences but also raised awareness among their peers about hearing loss. This ability to effectively communicate needs becomes particularly significant given the literature’s emphasis on how 2e students often struggle with social isolation and the masking effect of their dual exceptionalities (Baum & Owen, 2004; Foley-Nicpon & Assouline, 2015).
Timothy’s transition to becoming a tutor (described in a previous section) exemplifies how self-advocacy not only fosters empathy and compassion but can also evolve into advocacy for others. This can further contribute to the development of a positive self-image. Such transformation aligns with research suggesting that when properly empowered, 2e students can access necessary accommodations (Antia et al., 2009) and become agents of change in creating more inclusive environments.
Furthermore, participants’ experiences demonstrate how effective self-advocacy can help overcome the communication challenges and social barriers frequently cited in research (Luckner & Muir, 2001; Marschark et al., 2007), leading to more authentic relationships and increased social awareness about hearing loss.
3.2.6. Reframing Twice-Exceptionality as a Unique Advantage
The intersection of giftedness and hearing loss created distinct learning advantages for the participants, and their 2e nature directly contributed to their academic success in several ways. The participants reported several cognitive advantages, including enhanced visual-spatial processing, advanced problem-solving skills, and linguistic talent.
For example, Timothy’s excellence in chemistry and physics was not simply compensation for hearing challenges—his strong visual-spatial abilities enhanced his understanding of complex scientific concepts. This cognitive strength allowed him to excel in these fields beyond typical academic performance. The participants also demonstrated exceptional problem-solving abilities that emerged from navigating both their giftedness and hearing loss. For example, Gabby demonstrated strong self-advocacy skills without an IEP, suggesting an ability to analyze classroom dynamics and develop effective strategies for academic success. This observation corresponds with research indicating that 2e students often develop sophisticated problem-solving abilities when navigating educational challenges (Sternberg & Desmet, 2024). Lily’s mastery of three languages and opera singing demonstrates how her giftedness amplified her linguistic capabilities rather than just compensating for hearing loss. Her cognitive strengths may have enabled her to process and manipulate language at an advanced level, contributing to achievements beyond typical academic performance.
Participants showed metacognitive and creative strengths as well. The participants’ gifted cognitive processing allowed them to develop sophisticated metacognitive strategies. Christina’s ability to analyze her learning needs and adjust her strategies accordingly stemmed from her advanced cognitive abilities, not just as a response to hearing challenges. This metacognitive advantage enabled deeper learning and academic excellence. Regarding creativity, rather than simply adapting to challenges, participants’ giftedness led to innovative approaches to learning. Isabella’s integration of her hearing loss into physiology lessons as a teacher demonstrates how her gifted cognitive processing transformed a potential limitation into an enhanced teaching methodology.
These findings suggest that the intersection of giftedness and hearing loss may create a unique cognitive profile that contributes directly to academic success, rather than merely serving as a compensatory mechanism. The participants’ giftedness may not only have helped them overcome challenges—they may have created distinct advantages in their educational journey that differentiated their experience from other students with hearing loss.
3.3. Divergences in Experiences
As previously discussed in the identity navigation section, the onset and severity of hearing loss significantly influenced participants’ experiences. This factor is not treated as a separate theme but rather as a fundamental aspect that permeates multiple dimensions of the lived experience of gifted individuals with hearing loss. The diverse sample in our study revealed notable differences and unique experiences that merit further exploration. The following subsections highlight key areas where divergences in experiences were particularly pronounced.
3.3.1. Cultural Identification
While some participants strongly identified with Deaf culture, others navigated between Deaf and hearing worlds. This cultural navigation significantly influenced their self-perception and academic identity formation. Haley explained,
I grew up in mainstream schools. All the Deaf kids in the county go to the same elementary, middle, and high schools because of the lack of d/hh teachers and interpreters in their area, even if it is two hours away by bus drive. So, I get a lot of support from d/hh teachers and interpreters in this way because there are so few of us Deaf that they have enough time to teach us.
Haley’s account illustrates the navigation between Deaf and hearing worlds within the educational system, highlighting the unique support structures and challenges faced by Deaf students in mainstream settings.
Interestingly, Haley’s experience parallels Gabby’s in terms of navigating between two worlds, albeit in a different context. Gabby’s reflection underscores how her Hispanic identity intersected with her academic experiences, creating a sense of otherness that persisted from early education through university. Gabby said about her experience of navigating between two cultural worlds:
I feel like I lived two different lives, like in school. I mean, well, yeah. In school it was all English. I didn’t really see people that were like me, like that were Hispanic. And then at home there was, like everything’s in Spanish like I live with my family, I would. We all had family and friends that were Hispanic, so in my, like in school thinking back to my younger school age, like, I feel like, I felt like I lived two different lives, you know?
Thus, the intersectionality of hearing status with other aspects of identity, such as ethnicity, added further layers of complexity to participants’ experiences.
The experiences of both Gabby and Haley underscore the complexity of identity formation for gifted individuals with hearing loss. They demonstrate how these individuals must often navigate multiple cultural and linguistic spaces, balancing their DHH identity with other aspects of their cultural background and how that act can vary depending on the onset and severity of hearing loss as well as other aspects of cultural background.
3.3.2. Educational Support
The level of educational support varied widely among the participants, affecting how their giftedness manifested and developed over time. While some participants, such as Julia, benefited from extensive support systems, others, such as Christina, faced significant challenges due to minimal resources. This disparity in educational support not only influenced academic outcomes but also shaped participants’ perceptions of their own abilities and potential. The diverse experiences reported by the participants regarding identification and support services underscore the persistent challenges in recognizing and appropriately serving 2e students with hearing impairments, reflecting broader systemic issues documented in the 2e literature (Foley Nicpon et al., 2011). The stark contrast between the participants’ experiences, exemplified by Julia’s access to comprehensive support and Christina’s lack thereof, illustrates how the masking effect can lead to inconsistent identification and support delivery (Baum & Owen, 2004; Foley-Nicpon & Assouline, 2015). Christina’s reflection poignantly illustrates the impact of inadequate support:
…I think that if I would have received more individualized attention in smaller classes, or in after school, like teacher student help or things like that, where you know if it would have been done at all, but also if it would have been done in a positive fashion. I think I would have benefited greatly from that”.
Christina’s statement underscores the critical need for personalized attention and positive reinforcement in gifted education and aligns with research indicating that gifted students require specialized educational interventions to fully develop their potential (Subotnik et al., 2023). The mention of smaller classes and after-school support highlights specific strategies that could have enhanced her educational experience. This lack of tailored support may have hindered Christina’s ability to fully express her giftedness, potentially leading to underachievement or missed opportunities for growth. Conversely, Julia’s experience with extensive support likely provided her with more opportunities to explore and develop her talents. This contrast exemplifies the “opportunity gap” often observed in gifted education, whereby access to resources and appropriate interventions can significantly influence long-term outcomes.
The disparity in support services not only influenced immediate academic outcomes but also shaped participants’ self-perception and long-term development, supporting research that emphasizes how proper IEPs and tailored adjustments are crucial for students to reach their full potential (Antia et al., 2009; Marschark et al., 2007). This opportunity gap in access to appropriate resources and interventions reflects the broader challenges in gifted education, particularly for 2e students, where inconsistent identification processes and limited resources can significantly affect educational trajectories (Foley-Nicpon & Assouline, 2015). The varied levels of support reported by participants highlight the critical need for more comprehensive and systematic approaches to identification and intervention, especially given that uneven performance patterns are common among 2e students (Sternberg & Desmet, 2024). Furthermore, these disparities underscore the importance of addressing the gap in the literature surrounding 2e students with auditory impairments (Reis et al., 2014), particularly in developing standardized yet flexible approaches that can accommodate the diverse needs of this unique population while ensuring equitable access to appropriate educational support and resources.
3.3.3. Self-Perception
Participants exhibited diverse self-perception, reflecting the complex interplay between their hearing loss, giftedness, and personal experiences. Research indicates that 2e individuals often experience fluctuations in self-esteem and self-concept due to the duality of their abilities and challenges (Baum & Owen, 2004). For academically gifted individuals who are hard of hearing (DHH), this complexity is further amplified by communication barriers and social isolation. Some, like Jake, maintain consistent confidence, while others, such as Isabella, struggle with self-esteem issues. Such varying self-perceptions significantly influenced how participants navigated their academic and social environments.
Jake’s unwavering self-assurance is evident in his statement: “I can do everything except I can’t hear”. Later, he repeated “Academic success is critical because I can show them what Deaf people can do. I can do anything except I can’t hear at all”. Jake’s perspective demonstrates a strong sense of self-efficacy—a critical factor for success among 2e students (Sternberg & Desmet, 2024). His positive self-perception aligns with research suggesting that individuals who view their disabilities as integral parts of their identity tend to have more positive academic and social outcomes (Marschark & Hauser, 2012). This positive self-perception appears to have contributed to his overall academic experience; as he noted, “My school experience is good, and I enjoy it at school”.
In contrast, Isabella’s experiences reveal the challenges she has faced in social and academic settings: “Sometimes they say something, and I don’t answer, and so not knowing, they’re taken aback sometimes. And in combination with my accent, they think I’m not understanding English”. She also stated, “I just don’t engage or don’t contribute to the conversation, so I tell them, you know, by the way, I couldn’t hear anything you said, so they do not take it as disrespectful. Yeah, I feel a bit left out in certain situations”. Isabella’s statements highlight how hearing loss can lead to misunderstandings and feelings of exclusion, which are common experiences among DHH individuals navigating predominantly hearing environments (Luckner & Muir, 2001). Her struggles with self-esteem reflect broader findings that 2e students may experience social isolation due to communication barriers and perceived differences from their peers (Townend & Pendergast, 2015).
This diversity in self-perception underscores the need for individualized support systems that address both the academic and emotional needs of these students. Research suggests that tailored interventions are crucial for 2e students because their needs often vary significantly depending on their unique combination of strengths and challenges (Assouline & Whiteman, 2011). While some, like Jake, may thrive with minimal intervention, others, like Isabella, may benefit from strategies to boost confidence and facilitate better communication in various settings. For students who struggle with social interactions due to hearing loss or misunderstandings related to accents or communication styles, targeted interventions such as social skills training or peer support groups could be beneficial (Antia et al., 2009).
Recognizing and addressing these diverse self-perceptions is crucial in fostering an inclusive environment that allows gifted individuals with hearing loss to fully realize their potential. Providing both emotional support and practical accommodations—such as assistive technology or real-time captioning—can help mitigate the impact of hearing loss on academic performance and social interactions (Luckner & Muir, 2001; Marschark & Hauser, 2012). Moreover, fostering an environment where students feel comfortable advocating for themselves can further enhance their educational experiences and sense of belonging (Reis et al., 2014).
3.4. Unique Perspectives
3.4.1. Faith-Based Resilience
Mark’s strong religious faith distinguished his experience, illustrating how faith can drive both personal resilience and academic perseverance. He shared, “God saved me in my late 20s”. This conversion experience catalyzed positive change in his life, setting him on a new path. Mark’s faith in God’s healing power is evident when he says “God did a lot of healing. I’m not supposed to be able to do anything I do now”. Mark went through a lot of struggles and dropped out of school at a young age. Now, later in life, he returned to college, and his academic success, despite his hearing difficulties, demonstrates remarkable perseverance. He maintains a 3.9 GPA and has received mostly A’s in his courses. This determination is fostered by his faith, according to Mark.
3.4.2. Intersectionality of Identity
While many participants navigated between Deaf and hearing cultures, Gabby’s experience adds another layer of complexity to the discussion of identity formation among gifted individuals with hearing loss. Her story illustrates the intersectionality of multiple minority identities and how they shape academic experiences and self-perception. Intersectionality, a concept first introduced by Crenshaw (1989), refers to how various social identities—such as race, ethnicity, disability, and gender—interact to create unique experiences of privilege or oppression. In Gabby’s case, her experiences as a Hispanic, hard-of-hearing, and academically gifted individual highlight the compounded effects of these intersecting identities on her educational journey (Author). Gabby reflected on her experience:
…I was the only Hispanic person. I feel like maybe that’s why because they were like, oh, well, there’s never really someone that’s not White in these types of classes getting these types of grades. I feel like when I went into college, and now in the university, we’re a lot more diverse than I remember in elementary and middle school. I felt different, you know, and I would always compare myself to my classmates.
Gabby’s reflection underscores how her Hispanic identity intersected with her academic experiences, creating a sense of otherness that persisted from early education through university. This feeling of being “different” aligns with research on 2e students who often struggle with feelings of isolation due to their unique combination of giftedness and disabilities (Townend & Pendergast, 2015). For Gabby, this sense of otherness was further complicated by her racial and ethnic identity in predominantly White academic settings.
Gabby grew up in a rural area, so her observation of increased diversity in higher education settings suggests an evolving cultural representation, potentially offering more opportunities for students with multiple minority identities to find belonging. This shift toward greater diversity in higher education reflects broader societal changes aimed at increasing inclusivity for underrepresented groups. For students like Gabby, this evolving representation can help mitigate feelings of isolation by providing more opportunities for connection with peers who share similar backgrounds.
Gabby’s narrative exemplifies how a person’s cultural identifications extend beyond the Deaf/hearing binary, encompassing racial, ethnic, and linguistic dimensions that collectively shape their academic journeys and self-perceptions. Her experience highlights the importance of considering the full spectrum of identities that gifted individuals with hearing loss may hold (Crenshaw, 1989). It underscores the need for educational environments that not only accommodate hearing differences but also celebrate diverse cultural backgrounds.
Ensuring that students like Gabby can thrive academically without feeling isolated owing to their multiple minority statuses requires a more intersectional approach to support systems in education. This approach includes recognizing how race, ethnicity, and disability intersect to influence students’ experiences and providing tailored interventions that address these complex layers of identity (Antia et al., 2009).
3.4.3. Professional Adaptation
Isabella’s role as a faculty member provided insights into workplace challenges faced by DHH individuals in professional settings. One example from Isabella’s case involves the need for her adjust her teaching approach to accommodate her hearing loss. She explains, “… in the classroom, at first, I did not tell my students, so I had to always look around when they called me, even in a lab section… ‘[Isabella]!’ then I have to look around where it is coming from”. This led her to proactively inform students about her condition at the beginning of each course, demonstrating the importance of open communication in professional settings.
3.4.4. Artistic Pursuits
Lily’s passion for opera singing showcases how artistic pursuits intersect with hearing loss, demonstrating resilience in adapting musical talent to academic success. Lily started singing at age 9, and despite developing Lyme disease and subsequent hearing loss at age 12–13, she persevered with her training. Her mother’s support was crucial, as Lily recalls, “She kept me in the training she’s [said] ‘Just do what you can with the teacher’”. This encouragement helped Lily adapt to her new circumstances and continue her artistic endeavors. Lily’s resilience is evident in how she approached vocal training with hearing loss. She mentioned, “I had a very hard time remembering music that I heard because I had learned not to trust my ears at all”. However, at age 18–19, she switched to a new teacher whose technique helped her voice respond better, allowing her to develop “a better sense for sounds and how to match pitch”. She recently secured her “first job now… as a singer”, demonstrating how her perseverance in adapting her musical talent has led to professional achievement. This success in her artistic field has likely contributed to her academic pursuits as well, as she is now majoring in French and Spanish at university. Lily’s journey showcases how artistic pursuits can provide a unique avenue for adapting to and overcoming challenges associated with hearing loss, ultimately contributing to both personal and academic growth.
4. Conclusions
Overall, this study reveals a complex interplay of personal characteristics, support systems, and individual experiences that shape the lives of academically gifted DHH individuals. The development of resilience, self-advocacy, and adaptive strategies emerges as a common thread across diverse narratives, highlighting both shared challenges and unique paths to success within this community.
4.1. Limitations
This study has limitations that may affect the interpretation of the findings. First, phenomenological studies often prioritize homogeneity in sampling to focus on shared experiences. However, the limited racial and ethnic diversity in this study (80% White, 20% Hispanic) may restrict the exploration of culturally diverse experiences within the phenomenon. While this homogeneity allowed for a deeper understanding of this specific group’s experiences, it may limit the transferability of findings to other cultural contexts. The participant sample in this study encompasses a broad age spectrum, ranging from individuals in their 20s to those in their 80s, which introduces several considerations that may affect the interpretation of our findings. The participants’ experiences were inevitably shaped by the educational policies, societal attitudes, and technological advancements of their respective eras. The availability and sophistication of assistive technologies have significantly improved over time, potentially offering younger participants more advanced support options. Public awareness and acceptance of disabilities, including hearing loss, have evolved over the decades, potentially influencing participants’ experiences differently based on their age. Finally, one participant acquired unilateral hearing loss at age 39, presenting a unique perspective that differs significantly from those who were born with hearing loss or acquired it at a younger age. These differences in experiences were considered during the analysis, yet future research may benefit from studying a more homogeneous sample to better understand these important nuances in experiences.
Second, the use of different interview formats (in-person, email, and video conference) introduces methodological inconsistency. In phenomenological research, the quality and depth of data are crucial. The varying formats may affect the richness of the data collected, potentially affecting the ability to capture the essence of participants’ lived experiences uniformly. We strived for equal depth in all interviews and accommodated participants’ preferences for interview modality, but we recognized that not all interviews resulted in equally rich data.
Third, the fact that three of the four researchers do not have personal experience with being hard of hearing creates an outsider perspective. While this can offer objectivity, it may also limit the depth of understanding and interpretation of participants’ lived experiences. In the methods section, we outlined how we handle this in detail.
While these limitations present challenges, they are not uncommon in phenomenological research. Readers should remember that phenomenological research does not aim for broad generalizability. The focus on academically gifted individuals within the hard-of-hearing community creates a highly specific context. This specificity enhances the depth of understanding for this particular phenomenon. It thus limits the transferability of findings to broader contexts within the hard-of-hearing community or gifted and 2e communities.
4.2. Practical Implications
Based on this qualitative phenomenological study exploring the experiences of academically gifted individuals who are DHH, several practical implications can be identified.
In terms of educational practices, educators should recognize that academically gifted DHH students, like all DHH students, may require individualized accommodations, including visual aids, real-time captioning, or advanced microphones to amplify sounds in the classroom. There is a clear need for enhanced teacher training to better understand and support gifted DHH students, focusing on recognizing both giftedness and hearing challenges. Schools should consider creating more flexible learning environments that can adapt to the needs of gifted DHH students, offering options for both mainstream and specialized educational settings.
Regarding identification and assessment, the study suggests a need for a more comprehensive approach to identifying gifted DHH students through dynamic assessment techniques that focus on learning processes. Educators should be particularly aware of the potential masking effect, whereby giftedness may obscure hearing challenges or vice versa, leading to more accurate identification and support.
Social and psychological support emerge as crucial areas for intervention. Peer support programs or affinity groups for gifted DHH students could help address feelings of social isolation and provide a sense of community. Additionally, offering specialized counseling services geared to the unique challenges faced by gifted DHH individuals could provide crucial psychological support.
Family and community engagement play essential roles in supporting gifted DHH students. This includes providing resources and education for families to help create a more supportive home environment and bridge the gap between home and school. Increasing community awareness about the capabilities and needs of gifted DHH individuals could lead to more inclusive societal attitudes and practices.
Finally, ensuring access to appropriate assistive technology, such as digital versions of textbooks or advanced hearing aids, can significantly enhance the learning experience for gifted DHH students. Schools and educational institutions should consider allocating resources specifically for supporting gifted DHH students, including funding for specialized equipment and support staff.
While these implications are derived from the study’s findings, it is important to note that as a qualitative study, these suggestions may not be universal. They provide insights and potential directions for improving support for gifted DHH individuals, but further research, including quantitative studies, may be needed to validate and generalize these findings across broader populations.
4.3. Future Directions
Future research should expand upon this qualitative study of academically gifted DHH individuals. Priority should be given to broader demographic studies across varying ethnicities, socioeconomic statuses, and geographic locations, complemented by longitudinal research tracking transitions from elementary education into middle and high school through higher education and into the workforce. Additionally, studies evaluating the effectiveness of specific accommodations and teaching strategies for gifted DHH students are needed, particularly examining the impact of assistive technologies and personalized learning plans. Future research should also investigate social dynamics and mental health considerations, including how multiple identities intersect to affect the experiences of gifted DHH individuals. Specifically, studies should explore how cultural and linguistic backgrounds intersect with giftedness and hearing loss, providing insights into developing culturally responsive educational practices for diverse 2e learners. Research examining the impact of gender identity and sexual orientation on the experiences of LGBTQ+ gifted DHH students could shed light on unique challenges and support needs for this population. Additionally, investigations into how socioeconomic factors influence access to resources, identification, and support for gifted DHH students could inform policy decisions and resource allocation.
Furthermore, studies investigating the prevalence and nature of mental health challenges among gifted DHH individuals could guide the development of targeted psychological support services. Research on the effectiveness of emerging technologies in supporting the learning and communication needs of gifted DHH students could drive innovation in assistive technologies and educational tools.
While this qualitative study provides valuable insights, quantitative and mixed-methods approaches across these areas would strengthen the evidence base for supporting this unique population.
Conceptualization, O.A.D. and S.G.-R.; Methodology, O.A.D.; Formal analysis, O.A.D., S.I., J.H. and S.G.-R.; Data curation, S.I., J.H. and S.G.-R.; Writing—original draft preparation, O.A.D., S.I., J.H. and S.G.-R.; Writing—review and editing, O.A.D.; Supervision, O.A.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The research protocol was approved as exempt by the Institutional Review Board of Valdosta State University (Protocol Number 04461-2023) under 45 CFR 46.101(b) of the federal regulations, category 2.
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
The data presented in this study are not available due to privacy and ethical restrictions. Participants did not provide consent for data sharing, and the qualitative nature of the data contains personally identifiable information that cannot be sufficiently anonymized.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Demographic and Personal Information of the Participants.
| Name a | Age | Gender | Ethnicity | Gifted Identification | Hard of Hearing | Communication Method | Personal History |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Julia | 21 | Female | White | High academic achievement | Moderate to severe sensorineural hearing loss | Spoken language | Benefited from strong financial resources, a close relationship with her mother, and educational support including an IEP. Despite facing bullying and social challenges, she remains determined to succeed in her chosen field. |
| Gabby | 22 | Female | Hispanic | Per Georgia State guidelines | Hard of Hearing | Spoken language | Comes from a low-income immigrant family and excels in self-advocacy. |
| Jake | 25 | Male | White | High academic achievement | Deaf | American Sign Language | His strong faith and self-acceptance have helped shape his academic journey and advocacy work. |
| Haley | 24 | Female | White | Per Georgia State guidelines | Deaf | Spoken language/American Sign Language | She is bilingual in English and ASL and shows strong creative abilities. |
| Lily | 28 | Female | Hispanic | Demonstrated high academic achievement and creative ability | Hard of Hearing | Spoken language | She is a trained opera singer and speaks three languages, and she has overcome significant health challenges while pursuing her educational goals. |
| Mark | 67 | Male | White | High IQ | Hard of Hearing | Spoken language | He is academically driven, holding a double major with a 3.9 GPA, and particularly excels in art. Mark’s resilience and determination have helped him navigate challenges, including limited family support. |
| Christina | 56 | Female | White | High IQ | Hard of Hearing | Spoken language | Faced financial barriers to higher education. Despite early academic success, she experienced challenges in high school due to progressive hearing loss. |
| Maria | 85 | Female | White | Participated in AP programming and identified as gifted by teachers. | Hard of Hearing | Spoken language | Experienced financial barriers to education. Comes from an Italian immigrant family and had to translate for her low-income family at a young age. She uses hearing aids and lip reading to communicate. |
| Timothy | 22 | Male | White | Participated in AP programming and Honors College | Hard of Hearing | Spoken language | Excelled in STEM subjects, particularly chemistry, during his academic career. Despite facing challenges in hearing, he was a member of his high school’s honor society, received various academic awards, and went on to major in chemistry in college. |
| Isabella | 57 | Female | White (Italian) | Graduated with Honors | Hard of Hearing | Spoken language | Experienced sudden unilateral hearing loss at age 39 but maintained a successful academic career as a university professor. |
a The names listed in the table are pseudonyms assigned by researchers to protect the privacy of the individuals.
Altieri, N. A.; Pisoni, D. B.; Townsend, J. T. Some normative data on lip-reading skills (L). The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America; 2011; 130,
Antia, S. D.; Jones, P. B.; Reed, S.; Kreimeyer, K. H. Academic status and progress of deaf and hard-of-hearing students in general education classrooms. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education; 2009; 14,
Assouline, S. G.; Foley Nicpon, M.; Whiteman, C. S. Cognitive and psychosocial characteristics of gifted students with written language disability: A reply to Lovett’s response. Gifted Child Quarterly; 2011; 55,
Assouline, S. G.; Whiteman, C. S. Twice-exceptionality: Implications for school psychologists in the post–IDEA 2004 era. Journal of Applied School Psychology; 2011; 27,
Baum, S. Meeting the needs of learning disabled gifted students. Roeper Review; 1984a; 7, pp. 16-20.
Baum, S. Recognizing special talents in learning disabled students. Teaching Exceptional Children; 1984b; 16,
Baum, S.; Owen, S. Learning disabled students: How are they different?. Gifted Child Quarterly; 1988; 32, pp. 321-326. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001698628803200305]
Baum, S.; Owen, S. V. To be gifted and learning disabled: Strategies for helping bright students with LD, ADHD, and more; Creative Learning Press: 2004.
Chisolm, T. H.; Noe, C. M.; McArdle, R.; Abrams, H. Evidence for the use of hearing assistive technology by adults: The role of the FM system. Trends in Amplification; 2007; 11,
Cohen, M. Adolescents with hearing impairment: Coping with environmental stressors. Review of Disability Studies: An International Journal; 2006; 3,
Crenshaw, K. Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum; 1989; 1989, pp. 139-167.
Dowaliby, F.; Lang, H. Adjunct aids in instructional prose: A multimedia study with Deaf college students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education; 1999; 4, pp. 270-282. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/deafed/4.4.270]
Dreyzehner, J.; Goldberg, K. A. Depression in deaf and hard of hearing youth. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America; 2019; 28,
Foley Nicpon, M.; Allmon, A.; Sieck, B.; Stinson, R. D. Empirical investigation of twice-exceptionality: Where have we been and where are we going?. Gifted Child Quarterly; 2011; 55,
Foley-Nicpon, M.; Assouline, S. G. Counseling considerations for the twice-exceptional client. Journal of Counseling & Development; 2015; 93,
Gardner, H.; Hatch, T. Educational implications of the theory of multiple intelligences. Educational Researcher; 1989; 18,
Guzman-Roman, S.; Thornton, S. K.; Desmet, O. A. Identifying giftedness and talent in hard of hearing students. Teaching for high potential; National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC): in press.
Haywood, H.; Lidz, C. Dynamic assessment in practice: Clinical and educational applications; Cambridge University Press: 2007; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511607516]
Huyck, J. J.; Anbuhl, K. L.; Buran, B. N.; Adler, H. J.; Atcherson, S. R.; Cakmak, O.; Dwyer, R. T.; Eddolls, M.; El May, F.; Fraenzer, J. T.; Funkhouser, R.; Gagliardini, M.; Gallun, F. J.; Goldsworthy, R. L.; Gouin, S.; Heng, J.; Hight, A. E.; Jawadi, Z.; Kovacic, D. … Steyger, P. S. Supporting equity and inclusion of deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals in professional organizations. Frontiers in Education; 2021; 6, 755457. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.755457]
Karić, J.; Kordić, M. The problem of peer violence among deaf and hard of hearing students. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE); 2023; 11, pp. 321-329. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.23947/2334-8496-2023-11-2-321-329]
Luckner, J. L.; Muir, S. Successful students who are deaf in general education settings. American Annals of the Deaf; 2001; 146,
Marschark, M.; Convertino, C.; Macias, G.; Monikowski, C. M.; Sapere, P.; Seewagen, R. Understanding communication among deaf students who sign and speak: A trivial pursuit?. American Annals of the Deaf; 2007; 152,
Marschark, M.; Hauser, P. C. How deaf children learn; Oxford University Press: 2012.
Marschark, M.; Paivio, A.; Spencer, L. J.; Durkin, A.; Borgna, G.; Convertino, C.; Machmer, E. Don’t assume deaf students are visual learners. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities; 2017; 29,
Marschark, M.; Spencer, L.; Durkin, A.; Borgna, G.; Convertino, C.; Machmer, E.; Kronenberger, W. G.; Trani, A. Understanding language, hearing status, and visual-spatial skills. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education; 2015; 20, pp. 310-330. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/deafed/env025]
McFadden, J. Identifying and supporting twice-exceptional students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Journal of Educational Leadership in Action; 2017; 4,
Mekonnen, M.; Hannu, S.; Elina, L.; Matti, K. The self-concept of deaf/hard-of-hearing and hearing students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education; 2016; 21,
Olusanya, B. O.; Davis, A. C.; Hoffman, H. J. Hearing loss grades and the international classification of functioning, disability and health. Bulletin of the World Health Organization; 2019; 97,
Patel, S. R.; Bouldin, E.; Tey, C. S.; Govil, N.; Alfonso, K. P. Social isolation and loneliness in the hearing-impaired pediatric population: A scoping review. The Laryngoscope; 2021; 131,
Potměšilová, P.; Potměšil, M.; Klugar, M. The difference in the creativity of people who are deaf or hard of hearing and those with typical hearing: A scoping review. Children; 2023; 10,
Reis, S. M.; Baum, S. M.; Burke, E. An operational definition of twice-exceptional learners: Implications and applications. Gifted Child Quarterly; 2014; 58,
Reis, S. M.; Renzulli, J. Compass white paper on the five dimensions of differentiation. Gifted Education Press Quarterly; 2015; 29, pp. 2-9.
Renzulli, J. S. What makes giftedness?: Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan; 1978; 92,
Sternberg, R. J. Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; 1985; 49,
Sternberg, R. J. The concept of intelligence and its role in lifelong learning and success. American Psychologist; 1997; 52,
Sternberg, R. J. The theory of successful intelligence. Review of General Psychology; 1999; 3,
Sternberg, R. J. Transformational giftedness in action: Paths to positive, meaningful, and potentially enduring societal change. Roeper Review; 2024; 46,
Sternberg, R. J.; Desmet, O. A. Giftedness in childhood; Cambridge University Press: 2024.
Subotnik, R. F.; Olszewski-Kubilius, P.; Corwith, S.; Calvert, E.; Worrell, F. C. Transforming gifted education in schools: Practical applications of a comprehensive framework for developing academic talent. Education Sciences; 2023; 13,
Theunissen, S. C.; Rieffe, C.; Netten, A. P.; Briaire, J. J.; Soede, W.; Kouwenberg, M.; Frijns, J. H. Self-esteem in hearing-impaired children: The influence of communication, education, and audiological characteristics. PLoS ONE; 2014; 9,
Townend, G.; Pendergast, D. Student voice: What can we learn from twice-exceptional students about the teacher’s role in enhancing or inhibiting academic self-concept?. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education; 2015; 24,
Vygotsky, L. S. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes; Harvard University Press: 1978.
Wauters, L.; Dirks, E. Interactive reading with young deaf and hard-of-hearing children in ebooks versus print books. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education; 2017; 22,
World Health Organization. Deafness and hearing loss; 1 April 2023; Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/deafness-and-hearing-loss (accessed on 23 April 2025).
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.