Building Bridges for Twice-Exceptional Students: A Case Study in a Secondary School

Abstract

Twice-exceptional (2e) students, those who are both gifted and experience learning difficulties, are often overlooked in mainstream educational settings. This paper reports on a qualitative case study conducted in a secondary school in Western Australia, exploring the collaborative experiences of one 2e student, their educators, and their mother. Guided by the neurodiversity paradigm and a strengths-based approach, this study engaged the student, their mother, and educators in co-designing practices that addressed the student’s challenges while leveraging their interests and capabilities. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, questionnaires, written correspondence, work samples, and analysis of school and specialist reports. While the study found that collaboratively developed, personalised practices can enhance student engagement and wellbeing, it also revealed practical challenges, including time constraints, systemic rigidity, and limited staff understanding of 2e students. This study demonstrated the value and potential of teacher-led inquiry in promoting bespoke, strengths-based educational planning for 2e students, while highlighting the challenges of implementing such approaches within traditional school structures.

1. Introduction

1.1. Understanding Twice Exceptional Learners

“Twice-exceptional learners are students who give evidence of the potential for high achievement capability in areas such as specific academics; general intellectual ability; creativity; leadership; AND/OR visual, spatial, or performing arts AND also give evidence of one or more disabilities as defined by federal or state eligibility criteria such as specific learning disabilities” (Australian Gifted Support Centre, 2014, para. 1). This definition acknowledges that twice-exceptional (2e) students may present a wide range of diagnoses, sometimes with comorbidities, and various forms of giftedness. Critically for this study, more recent definitions add a focus on educational needs. For example 2e learners are described as having “ a blend of gifted and educational characteristics that require a flexible educational approach” (Hulsey et al., 2023, as cited in Holmgren et al., 2023, p. 2), or “have coexisting giftedness and disabilities in one or more domains that need support from both gifted and disability education” (Lien et al., 2023, p. 2).

In Australia, up to 10% of students in the classroom are gifted and talented in one or more domains: physical, intellectual, creative, social, and perceptual (ACARA, 2018). Among these, between 2 and 5% are estimated to have a learning disability, a conservative figure, as more recent research suggests that up to 36% of gifted students may also have a disability (Ronksley-Pavia, 2020). Despite this, many 2e students go unnoticed in Australian schools due to what is commonly referred to in the literature as the ‘masking effect’, a psychological phenomenon in which high abilities can obscure learning challenges, and vice versa (Stankovska & Rusi, 2014; Fugate & Gentry, 2016; Lien et al., 2023). As the complexity of educational demands grows through the elementary grade levels and into high school, it becomes increasingly difficult for 2e learners to compensate for their disability, and their performance begins to fall below the average grade level, further complicating accurate identification (Ronksley-Pavia, 2024). This may result in attention being drawn to their disabilities rather than their abilities. However, often this duality can lead to both exceptionalities being overlooked, resulting in inadequate support.

1.2. Systemic Barriers in Australian Education

Despite growing awareness and research into the needs of 2e students, systemic barriers in Australian education continue to limit meaningful support for this group of students. These barriers include the absence of clear national policy, rigid curriculum and assessment structures, insufficient teacher preparation, and a lack of consistent data collection. Townend et al. (2014) advocated for more research on the academic self-concept of 2e students to inform policy, funding, school programmes, and student experiences. However, despite over a decade of research advocating for the needs of 2e students, there remains a striking absence of national policy. As Ronksley-Pavia (2023) observed, Australia lacks a national policy or directive for identifying and supporting gifted or twice-exceptional learners. This policy vacuum is reflected in the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2017), echoing concerns raised earlier by Henderson and Jarvis (2016), who argued that the Standards would benefit from a gifted dimension. Although such learners may be implicitly included under broad categories like “the full range of abilities” (AITSL, 2017), the lack of explicit recognition of high ability, including 2e learners, limits the effectiveness of this influential professional framework. This oblique reference is particularly problematic for 2e students whose abilities may be masked by co-occurring challenges, rendering them invisible at the macro level, an invisibility that inevitably extends into classrooms, where 2e students are frequently overlooked in everyday teaching practice.

This systemic gap is reflected in approaches to teacher preparation and professional accountability. Ronksley-Pavia (2015) and Ronksley-Pavia et al. (2019) found that teachers lacked the training to recognise and respond to the coexistence of giftedness and disability, leaving many 2e students unsupported. Wormald (2017) echoes this view highlighting that many teachers feel ill-equipped to identify and support 2e learners effectively, underscoring the urgent need for targeted professional development and broader systemic reform. Wormald (2020) further noted that Australia lacks comprehensive data on 2e students to inform national educational planning and reform.

Even when 2e students are identified, the standard Australian school curriculum rarely provides opportunities that enable them to engage in learning tailored to their specific gifts (Ronksley-Pavia, 2020; Lamanna et al., 2020). Research in the Australian context highlights persistent systemic barriers for 2e students. Ronksley-Pavia and Townend (2017) found that students often experienced anxiety, social isolation, and academic underachievement, largely due to teachers focusing on their weaknesses rather than recognising their strengths. Similarly, Lamanna et al. (2020) identified recognition of student strengths, supportive staff, high expectations, and access to appropriate curriculum as key to improved outcomes, yet these elements remain inconsistently applied. Together, these findings point to a persistent and systemic oversight: the educational needs of 2e students continue to be marginalised, both in classroom practice and in the foundational frameworks that guide teacher preparation and professional accountability.

1.3. Student Voice and the Impact of Misalignment

Consequences of failing to respond to the needs of 2e students have been well-documented. Fugate’s (2014) series of case studies explored the lived experiences of gifted girls with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) who felt ‘invisible’ in classrooms. Interestingly, Fugate refers to this as Attention-Divergent/Hyperactivity Disorder reflecting his neurodiversity perspective. His findings highlighted significant negative impacts on student wellbeing, mental health, and self-esteem when their 2e profiles were overlooked. Crucially, Fugate foregrounded the voices of these students, capturing an understanding of the social and academic pressures they experienced during their secondary school years. Similarly, Wormald et al. (2014) presented the case of Thomas, a twice-exceptional young man whose unmet educational needs and lack of recognition led to escalating behavioural challenges. His frustrations, rooted in a system that failed to acknowledge his dual exceptionality, manifested in disruptive conduct, underscoring the psychological toll of invisibility. Like Fugate, Wormald emphasised the importance of amplifying student voices to inform responsive and inclusive educational programming, concluding that “we should listen to the voices of such unique individuals” (Wormald et al., 2014, p. 27).

Abraham (2025) further supports these findings, citing multiple studies that reveal how the absence of voice and choice in educational settings for 2e students leads to diminished motivation and an “extinguished excitement about learning” (Abraham, 2025, p. 12). Particularly relevant to this study, which is situated within a learning support environment that provides targeted interventions for student deficits, Abraham reviewed Ng et al.’s (2016) research involving a participant who expressed resentment toward attending special education classes, feeling that they were missing out on more stimulating and engaging subjects. This tension is echoed in student feedback, with several students at the participating school commenting that Learning Support is a “boring elective” and that they would rather be doing something more exciting. These perspectives highlight a critical disconnect: while support programmes aim to assist, they can inadvertently contribute to feelings of exclusion and disengagement when they fail to align with students’ interests and intellectual capacities. Together, these studies and lived experiences form a compelling narrative: when the complex needs of 2e students are ignored or misinterpreted, the consequences extend beyond academic underachievement to include emotional distress, behavioural issues, and a sense of alienation.

While Western Australia does have a selective programme for gifted students that provides support for students with a disability through accommodations during the application process, research into Western Australia’s Gifted and Talented (G&T) programmes (Ivicevic, 2017) reinforces findings that 2e students are missing out on enrichment (Ronksley-Pavia, 2020; Lamanna et al., 2020; Wormald, 2011). The reasons are multifaceted but include the initial problem that 2e students are under achieving, therefore are not recognised, and the programmes recruit for talent rather than potential. The distinction made between talent and potential is based on the general acceptance of Gagné’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT; Gagné, 2021). According to this model, giftedness refers to innate abilities, while talent requires the demonstration of outstanding mastery over systematically developed skills.

Herein lies the central irony: despite the existence of accommodations, G&T programmes systematically exclude 2e students, not by deliberate omission, but through structural oversight. These programmes rely on demonstrated achievement as the gateway to opportunity, yet 2e students, whose abilities are masked by their disabilities, often fail to meet the visible benchmarks required for identification. Consequently, they are not even considered for inclusion. This paradox, where the criteria designed to identify giftedness inadvertently filter out those who are both gifted and disabled, reveals a fundamental flaw in the system. Without national policy, teacher training, or curriculum mandates to support nuanced identification, 2e students remain invisible, their potential unrealised, and their needs unmet. In essence, the gate to opportunity is closed before they even approach it.

1.4. Strength-Based Approaches and Neurodiversity Paradigm

Despite longstanding international advocacy for strength-based approaches in the education of 2e students, such practices remain underutilised in mainstream Australian settings. Baum’s early work (1988) laid a foundational framework for recognising and nurturing the unique strengths of 2e learners, demonstrating how targeted enrichment activities could enhance engagement, self-esteem, and academic outcomes. This strengths-first philosophy has since been echoed in contemporary literature (Baum et al., 2014; Holmgren et al., 2023; Ronksley-Pavia, 2024), which consistently underscores its value for both cognitive and emotional development. Yet, despite this robust evidence base, Australian schools have been slow to adopt such models. To the best of the researchers’ knowledge, Tombolo Academy in Victoria is the only institution explicitly designed to empower highly capable neurodiverse learners (Tombolo Academy, n.d.). This disconnect between research and practice highlights a critical gap in inclusive education policy and implementation.

More recently, strengths-based education has been situated within the neurodiversity paradigm, which frames cognitive and learning differences as natural forms of human variation rather than pathologies to be corrected (Chapman, 2019; Kapp et al., 2013). In this context, educational support shifts from fixing deficits to designing learning environments that honour each student’s capabilities, interests, and developmental pathways. While the term neurodiversity serves many purposes according to context, in this study, it is understood to mean “difference not deficit” (Livingstone et al., 2023, p. 81). This does not imply that ‘difference’ is being perceived as lacking disadvantage; rather, disadvantage is associated with systemic barriers in traditional school settings that necessitate accommodation and support (Livingstone et al., 2023).

A strength-based educational approach begins by identifying a student’s strengths, interests, and talents, and then collaboratively designing enriched learning experiences with key stakeholders: students, parents or guardians, and teachers. Progress is assessed through growth over time rather than traditional grade-based descriptors. Importantly, student weaknesses are not ignored; instead, they are addressed contextually within a personalised curriculum that encourages the authentic transfer of skills (Holmgren et al., 2023). In this way, a strength-based approach aligns with the learner’s capabilities while simultaneously supporting areas of need. A recent review of literature on the school experiences of 2e students by Abraham (2025) identified a consistent theme: the importance of adopting strength-based approaches to support 2e learners. However, despite this widespread advocacy, there remains a lack of clarity and practical guidance on how such approaches can be effectively implemented in everyday classroom settings. Among the studies included in the review, none documented the practical implementation of such an approach, or the potential benefits and challenges involved. This absence of actionable guidance highlights a critical gap between the theoretical endorsement of strength-based education and its application in classrooms, one that this study seeks to address.

1.5. Research Gap and Study Rationale

2e students face a range of challenges within mainstream schooling, including invisibility, inflexible educational structures, teacher inexperience, persistent exclusion from gifted programmes, and a lack of voice and choice in their learning. The lived reality of these students often involves well-intentioned but misdirected support that prioritises intervention through a deficit-focused lens, while overlooking the development of their gifts. This imbalance has been observed firsthand by the researchers and served as the impetus for a qualitative case study conducted in a secondary school in Western Australia. Guided by the neurodiversity paradigm and a strengths-based approach, this study aimed to explore how educational environments can more effectively recognise and respond to the complex profiles of 2e learners, ensuring that both their challenges and their talents are addressed in a cohesive and inclusive manner. It explores the collaborative experiences of a student, their mother, and educators in co-designing practices that address the student’s learning challenges while leveraging their differences, interests and capabilities. Central to this inquiry is the guiding research question: How can the needs of twice-exceptional students be addressed through a collaborative, strengths-based approach in secondary school?

2. Methods

Generative AI was used in this study to support two aspects of the research process. First, based on key aspects identified by the first author, it was used to assist drafting the semi-structured interview questions conducted in the study. Second, AI was used to generate tables from narrative data to aid in data presentation. All AI-generated content was reviewed and refined by the authors to ensure alignment with the study’s objectives and ethical considerations.

2.1. Design

A case study methodology was selected for this research because it enables an in-depth exploration of a complex, contextually situated phenomenon (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Case study methodology is particularly suited to educational research where multiple perspectives and rich, contextualised data are necessary to understand the processes and interventions in naturalistic settings. In this study, the case is defined not solely as the student, Amy (pseudonym), but as the collaborative process among teachers, Amy’s mother and Amy herself through which strengths-based practices were co-designed and implemented to address Amy’s needs.

2.2. Ethics Considerations

The study was conducted in accordance with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans 2018. It also complied with the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research and the school’s privacy and duty of care policies. The school principal was informed of the study and approved its implementation in alignment with school-based research protocols.

Informed consent was obtained from all participants, including written parental consent and student assent. The voluntary nature of participation was clearly communicated, and participants were made aware of their right to withdraw at any time without consequence to their educational support or school relationships. Special consideration was given to the power dynamics between the teacher-researcher and student participant, including opportunities for independent consultation with the school psychologist before and after the study.

Data were de-identified and securely stored in accordance with institutional guidelines. Sensitive documents (e.g., specialist reports, learning profiles) were referenced only where directly relevant and handled confidentially. Any identifiable details in the dissemination of findings have been removed or altered to protect participant anonymity. Permission for the teachers to adapt their approach in class to accommodate Amy’s strengths was documented in her Learning Adjustment Plan (LAP) with parent approval.

2.3. School Context

The study was conducted in a mainstream secondary school in Western Australia. Although Amy is considered a 2e student, she does not participate in any gifted programmes at her school. This exclusion reflects a broader national trend, where efforts to support diverse learners often fall short of meeting the complex needs of 2e students. For example, while the school in this study offers a G&T programme that differentiates the curriculum for high-achieving students in the core learning areas of Maths, English, Science and Humanities and Social Sciences (MESH), access to these programmes is often limited to students who have demonstrated talent in these disciplines.

The Learning Support programme provides a rich context for conducting the case study. It features a timetabled elective in which Amy is enrolled. The elective is designed for students with learning difficulties, some of whom also exhibit gifted characteristics, offering a meaningful opportunity to explore how strength-based approaches can enhance learning outcomes for 2e students. Informal professional observations within this context suggest that engagement improves when teaching methods are deliberately crafted to harness individual capabilities while addressing areas of challenge. These anecdotal insights align with existing research, which highlights the academic, social, and emotional gains that can result when educators recognise, nurture, and extend students’ strengths and interests.

2.4. Participants

This case study includes three groups of participants, the 2e student Amy, Amy’s mother and Amy’s teachers (

Table 1. Overview of Participants.

Participant	Role	Gender	Age Range	Years of Experience	Ethnicity	School Context	Additional Notes
Amy (pseudonym)	2e Student	Female	13–14 Year 8	N/A	Caucasian	Mainstream Secondary	Attends learning support elective 5x per fortnight.
Teacher Researcher	Learning Support Teacher	Female	50–65	35 years	Caucasian	Mainstream Secondary	Specialises in literacy support and gifted education.
Teacher	Amy’s English teacher	Female	45–50	25 years	Caucasian	Mainstream Secondary	Head of English Department
Teacher	Amy’s teacher of Humanities and Social Sciences	Female	45–50	25 years	Caucasian	Mainstream Secondary	Recently joined the school (at time of study); has since left.
Parent	Mother	Female	40–45	N/A	Caucasian	Mainstream Secondary	Vocal advocate for daughter’s learning needs.

).

The student participant met the inclusion criteria for twice exceptionality based on diagnostic criteria from psychological testing provided to the school when she enrolled, four years before this study took place. She has some advanced cognitive abilities and processing speed challenges. Additionally, she has a diagnosis of a Specific Learning Disorder (SLD) with “unexpected and persistent difficulties” in reading, which is otherwise referred to as dyslexia (Dyslexia SPELD Foundation, 2021, p. 4). This is considered to have a severe functional impact on her literacy; she has significant weaknesses in her reading and spelling. This impacts all areas where any form of reading and retention is required, consequently, she requires accommodations in class. Coupled with Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder, Predominantly Inattentive Presentation (ADHD-PI), these difficulties are likely to prevent her from demonstrating her knowledge, skills and understanding at a level expected for her high intellectual ability.

Extra work time which equates to 10 min per hour is provided to Amy in tests for English, Science and Humanities and Social Sciences (HASS). Amy can use a C-Pen (text scanner pen) for both in-class tasks and tests; however, she prefers not to do so. Tasks for Amy may be modified to such an extent as to allow her to access the content where language might be a barrier. This might include simplifying questions or stimulus materials, scaffolding writing or in very rare and specific cases allowing an alternate format for demonstrating knowledge and understanding. Teachers are encouraged to begin with the minimum possible accommodation, with the end goal being to support Amy in accessing the mainstream assessment tasks. Teachers are generally not permitted to modify the format of communication required by an assessment if the format is part of the actual assessment, i.e., essay writing skills including spelling, punctuation and grammar are being assessed as part of the task.

Amy was attending the school in 2019 when a LAP was created to document her learning profile for teacher reference. The LAP provides teachers with a summary of Amy’s diagnoses and the functional impact. It also documents her assessment provisions, her learning preferences and key adjustments for in-class support. Throughout her schooling, Amy has undertaken Learning Support using targeted intervention programmes to address her literacy weaknesses, and some gain, albeit small, was achieved. Never a high achiever in MESH subjects, Amy’s marks overall began to drop, coinciding with her decision to stop taking her ADHD medication at the beginning of Year 8 (2023).

Amy’s mother also participated in the study as a strong advocate for her daughter’s educational needs throughout her schooling.

Amy’s English and HASS teachers participated in the study, and the teacher-researcher from Learning Support. Although other teachers were invited, only two accepted the invitation, possibly due to the perceived relevance of literacy-based challenges to their subject area.

2.5. Data Collection

Multiple data sources were used to build a holistic understanding of the case. These included semi-structured interviews, a suite of tools including questionnaires, student work samples, and specialist and school documentation. All sources informed the strength-based approach.

2.5.1. Semi-Structured Interviews

One semi-structured interview was conducted with Amy, and one with her English teacher.

An Interview with Amy

A semi-structured interview was conducted with Amy to explore the extent to which she felt her educational experience at the school recognised and valued her 2e profile. The interview took place during the student’s Learning Support elective. Open and honest responses and opinions were sought from the student by using predominantly open-ended questions. The interview questions were informed by the work of Baum (1988) and Fugate (2014), which guided the focus of the conversation with Amy. These influences helped shape the interview around three core areas: the academic and social-emotional impact of being twice-exceptional; the school’s response to her disability and/or giftedness; and her interests, strengths, and preferred ways of demonstrating knowledge.

Cohen describes the interviewer as a “‘traveller’ who is concerned to travel with the interviewee into an unknown country” (Cohen et al., 2018, p. 506). This analogy is helpful because it permits a divergent approach. To extend the metaphor, the itinerary was planned in the questions, but flexible enough to allow for spontaneity and deeper insights on the journey. As Amy responded, the interviewer was able to deviate from the path, to capture Amy’s perspective of her educational experience by digging deeper where necessary. This interview approach helped to set Amy at ease over a ‘cuppa’ and a shared walk around the school grounds using a conversational ‘getting to know you style’, while probing for detail, rephrasing, clarifying, and treading with sensitivity where required.

An Interview with Amy’s Teacher

Amy’s English teacher was interviewed at the conclusion of the study. An interview with Amy’s HASS teacher could not be conducted as they left the school before the interview was scheduled. The interview took place over a lunchtime in the school staffroom. Questions were open-ended to elicit personal reflection and descriptive responses providing opportunities to prompt for explanation and elaboration and encourage reflection. The interview explored key areas including the implementation of strengths-based strategies, observed outcomes, challenges and constraints in practice, and reflections on possible future directions.

2.5.2. Written Correspondence

Written input from Amy’s mother was collected through email correspondence during the study. These communications included reflections on Amy’s character and other strengths, her interests, educational experiences, perspectives on strengths-based practices, and specific concerns related to her emotional wellbeing and support needs.

2.5.3. The 2e Center Suite of Tools (SOT)

Another data collection instrument used to gather information from Amy and her mother was the Suite of Tools (

Table 2. Suite of Tools: Bridges Academy.

Tool	Description	Reference
1. C.L.U.E.S	A structured observational tool used to: Collect information; Look for connections; Uncover patterns; Explore options and Seek joyful learning.	(Schader & Baum, 2016a)
2. My Learning Print	A personalised questionnaire that allows students to create a ‘paper portrait’ of themselves as learners, highlighting preferences, strengths, and needs.	(Schader & Zhou, 2014)
3. Quick Personality Indicator (QPI)	A brief inventory designed to identify dominant personality traits, framed as strengths, to support personalised learning and engagement.	(Baum & Nicols, 2015)

) (Schader & Baum, 2016b). This resource proved invaluable for gathering the data needed to apprise teachers, and plan and develop a Talent Development Plan (TDP): the framework for Amy’s strength-based programme.

Initially, a self-reflection activity was conducted with answers recorded from, The Hand You Were Dealt Game: Exploring Diverse Minds (Hansen & Hansen, 2022). Given the paradoxical nature of 2e learners, who despite their giftedness experience a low self-concept (Townend et al., 2014), the cards in the game provided Amy with the language to express her identity in affirmative terms. Amy identified with cards such as “Reading is exhausting” which then generated discussion around alternatives. For example, Amy observed, “I am a good listener so audiobooks are more suitable for me” or the card “Tests don’t seem to access their knowledge or learning” became a conversation about the value of practical skills and application of knowledge in the real world, and future subject choices, and “Hates being timed” was reinterpreted as “I know the answers but get there in my own time”. This warm-up precursor to the SOT questionnaires enabled insights by reframing ‘different’ attributes that Amy may have considered weaknesses. Students of this age can struggle to be self-reflective, or at least articulate this self-knowledge, and so, as a precursor to using the suite, Amy was better equipped to answer the questions with self-awareness and confidence.

2.5.4. Work Samples, Existing School Documentation and Relevant Specialist Reports

Work Samples

To inform a strengths-based approach that supports the student’s dual exceptionality, selected work samples (

Table 3. Examples of Work Samples Reviewed.

Subject	Task	Task	Task	Task
Dance	Dance demonstration	Composition
Physical Education	Tennis theory task	Moving Our Body—skills in competition
English	Skills test-parts of speech	Oral presentation	Autobiographical writing	Narrative/imaginative writing
History	Civics and Citizenship test—Australian political system	Geography—population distribution test	History—Source analysis	Medieval research
Learning Support	Persuasive writing	Comprehension	Spelling programme	Short story
Maths	Directed number skills test	Fractions and percentages test	Algebra test	Ratios and scale test
Media	Skills Workbook
Science	Chemistry Test	Biology Test
Visual Art	Formative Inquiry-Visual Diary	Written Response	Inquiry	Artwork submission

) were reviewed across a range of subjects in 2023. These samples provided insight into Amy’s advanced conceptual thinking and creativity, as well as her persistent challenges with written expression and task completion.

Existing School Documentation

The following school documents (

Table 4. Existing School Documentation.

Document	Date	Additional Notes
School reports (including continuous assessment on school management system SEQTA)	2019–2023	Highlights consistent strengths in creative subjects and falling grades in core subjects Math, English, Science and Humanities and Social Sciences (MESH) as content becomes more complex over time.
New Group Spelling Test (NGST) (GL Assessment, n.d.-a)	Semester 1: 2022	Five years behind expected spelling age.
NGST	Semester 2: 2022	Spelling age unchanged despite intervention.
Individual Education Plan (IEP)	Semester 1: 2023	Differentiation of all programmes permitted where required.
Learning Adjustment Plan (LAP)	Semester 2: 2023	Switched from IEP to LAP and differentiation permission changed. Summarises diagnoses, intellectual ability, functional impact of learning disabilities, assessment provisions and recommended adjustments and accommodations. Documents student voice/learning preferences for teacher reference.
Learning Support Summary	Semester 2: 2023	A cumulative document of Learning Support report comments and assessments since secondary intake: Neale Analysis of Reading, Allwell Academic Assessment, Progressive Achievement Test: Reading, YARC, NGST.
NGST	Semester 2: 2023	Spelling age unchanged despite intervention.
York Assessment of Reading Comprehension (YARC) (GL Assessment, n.d.-b)	Semester 2: 2023	Assesses: Single word reading; Reading rate; Comprehension; Reading pace and accuracy. Below expected age level on all tests.
Nationally Consistent Collection of Data (NCCD) Form	Semester 2: 2023	Provides an overall summary of functional impact of disability, and key adjustments, consultation, monitoring and modifications teachers are providing in their classes for the student as required for the mandatory collection of data on disability.

) were used to collate data:

Specialist Reports

Three key specialist assessments inform the student’s profile. These assessments (

Table 5. Existing Specialist Reports.

Document	Date	Key Notes
Clinical Psychologist report	2016 and 2020	Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-V (WISC-V) Wechsler (2014) confirms asynchronous cognitive development.
General Paediatrician report	2020	Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder-Predominantly Inattentive confirmed.
Literacy report	2017	Diagnosis of a specific learning difficulty with impairment in reading (dyslexia).

) were used to help identify the selection of the 2e participant for the case-study:

2.6. Data Analysis

The data were analysed using thematic analysis, following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase approach. This method was selected for its flexibility and suitability in identifying patterns across diverse qualitative data sources. All interviews, questionnaires, written correspondence, work samples, and school and specialist documents were transcribed and read multiple times for familiarisation. Initial codes were generated inductively from the data, and organised into categories that reflected recurring ideas and concepts.

Coding was conducted manually by the first author, with ongoing consultation between the co-authors to ensure coherence and consistency. The coding process was informed by the study’s conceptual framework, particularly the neurodiversity paradigm and a strengths-based approach. This lens guided the search for themes that reflected both the student’s experiences of systemic barriers and the potential for personal growth and engagement through interest-driven, collaborative planning.

Triangulation across data sources (student interview, parent input, teacher perspectives, school and specialist documentation, and student work samples) enhanced the trustworthiness of the findings. Member checking was undertaken with the student and mother to ensure the interpretation accurately represented their views. The final themes reflect both individual perspectives and shared understandings across participants, with attention paid to how strengths were identified, supported, or constrained within the school setting.

3. Results

Thematic analysis identified four overarching themes aligned with the research question: How can the needs of twice-exceptional students be addressed through a collaborative, strengths-based approach in secondary school? These themes are presented below with illustrative data drawn from interviews, work samples, written correspondence, school and specialist documents and questionnaires.

Table 6. Overview of Themes.

Theme	Theme Description	Sub-Theme Title
3.1. Making Sense of Twice-Exceptionality: A Whole Learner Perspective	This theme explores how Amy’s unique profile as a 2e student, with coexisting strengths and learning challenges, was constructed through holistic assessment and viewed through a neurodiversity-informed lens.	3.1.1. Understanding Strengths, Challenges and Needs
		3.1.2. Asynchronous Development and Systemic Barriers
3.2. Creating Affirming Conditions for Engagement and Expression	This theme explores how Amy’s emotional wellbeing and creative strengths were critical to her school engagement and participation.	3.2.1. Emotional Safety and Misunderstanding
		3.2.2. Leveraging Creative and Embodied Modalities for Engagement and Expression
3.3. Roles and Contributions of Stakeholders in Enabling Inclusive Education	This theme examines the collaborative efforts and role of key stakeholders, including Amy’s mother, classroom teachers, and the learning support teacher, in co-constructing inclusive, strengths-based practices that respond to Amy’s 2e profile.	3.3.1. The Parent’s Advocacy and Insights
		3.3.2. The Teacher’s Willingness and Constraints
		3.3.3. Collaborative Approaches to Literacy Support for Twice-Exceptional Learners
3.4. Challenges in Sustaining Strengths-Based Programming for Twice-Exceptional Learners	This theme addresses the systemic and practical barriers that emerged during the implementation of Amy’s Talent Development Plan, revealing tensions between personalised, interest-driven learning and the institutional constraints of mainstream schooling.

provides an overview of the themes, followed by key findings.

3.1. Making Sense of Twice-Exceptionality: A Whole Learner Perspective

This theme explores how Amy’s unique profile as a 2e student, with coexisting strengths and learning challenges, was constructed through holistic assessment and viewed through a neurodiversity-informed lens. Section 3.1.1 introduces the development of Amy’s Individual Profile Report drawing on comprehensive data from multiple sources to foreground her cognitive, emotional and social characteristics. This profile serves as a foundation for understanding her learning needs in relation to the school environment. Section 3.1.2 explores the implications of asynchronous development for Amy’s achievement and engagement, highlighting how systemic barriers such as timed assessments and standardised benchmarks can disadvantage students with uneven learning profiles. Together, these sub-themes highlight the importance of viewing 2e learners through a whole-learner lens to inform responsive and affirming educational approaches.

3.1.1. Understanding Strengths, Challenges and Needs

This theme introduces Amy’s complex learner profile, grounded in a neurodiversity-informed perspective that views her cognitive, emotional, and social characteristics as interrelated. This theme emphasises the importance of understanding the whole learner, including her strengths, interests as well as challenges, and needs, in relation to the learning environment, rather than locating the problem solely within the individual.

Table 7. Individual Profile Report.

Goals
To build self-esteem To improve literacy outcomes Strategies to combat subject challenges
Personality Indicators (Baum & Nicols, 2015)
Creative Problem-Solver: Energetically leaps from one idea to the next; may appear impulsive People person: talent for human relations and creating harmony; emotionally intuitive; sociable
At home
Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) coaching
Strong advocate in mother
Not expected to do homework as needs time to ‘chill’
Background Information
Age		13 years 6 months
Year		8
History		Dyslexia Specific Learning Difficulties (SPELD) Foundation report Year 2 SLD dyslexia severe (1st percentile)
ADHD		Inattentive type; currently choosing not to take medication
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-V Wechsler (2014)		Visual spatial 96th percentile Working memory 95th percentile Verbal comprehension 86th percentile Processing speed 2nd percentile
Glasses		Prescribed glasses but chooses not to wear
School accommodations		Extra working time in assessments
Learning Adjustment Plan		Accessible to teachers
Interests		Strengths
Surfing		Spatial thinker
Collecting crystals		Visual thinker
Sustainability		Intuitive
Powerful women		Sensitive
Nature		Social and emotional intelligence
The ocean		Creative
Friends		Sensory
Art and craft		Kinesthetic
Performing arts		Energetic
School Strengths		School Obstacles
Art		ADHD: Restless, struggles to focus, loses items
Speaking		Dyslexia: severe, indecipherable spelling
Drama		Self-esteem: sense of inferiority to peers
Creating posters		Completing homework
Dance		Organisation
Community		Competitive academic environment
Physical Education		Navigating computer keyboard challenges
Textiles/Crafts		Timed assessments
		Teacher misunderstanding, not referring to profile
Core Subject	Grade	Elective Subject	Grade
Mathematics	E	Dance	B
English	C	Digital and Design Tech	C
Science	D	Physical Education	B
Humanities and Social Sciences	C	Visual Art	A
Learning Preferences		Times of Personal Best
Group work		When being active
Practical and hands-on		When creating
Drawing to learn		When moving around
Listening and viewing vs. reading		Being outdoors
Speaking vs. writing

summarises Amy’s learning profile, synthesised using the C.L.U.E.S. (Schader & Baum, 2016a) tool from the SOT. It captures her strengths, challenges, learning preferences, and academic history, a foundational step in the development of her TDP.

This profile reveals profound asynchrony typical of 2e learners, for example, a 96th percentile in visual-spatial reasoning versus a 2nd percentile in processing speed. Her academic performance in arts and physical education contrasts sharply with core subjects such as English and Mathematics. These disparities underscore the importance of a personalised approach grounded in her abilities rather than deficits.

3.1.2. Asynchronous Development and Its Impact on Achievement

Amy’s Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-V (Wechsler, 2014) results show a highly uneven cognitive profile, with exceptional strengths in visual-spatial reasoning and working memory, contrasted by extremely low processing speed. This discrepancy is characteristic of many 2e learners and contributes to her difficulties with timed assessments and keyboard navigation. The discrepancy is also apparent in Amy’s subject grades where she consistently demonstrates excellent achievement of what is expected for this year level in the Visual Arts, a practical hands on subject, compared to English, for example, where her achievement is considered at her best, satisfactory. Amy’s difficulty with the computer keyboard makes a significant contribution to her inability to achieve the literacy benchmarks expected by the time she graduates from high school, as the assessments through which she is required to demonstrate her numeracy, reading and writing skills such as the National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN; ACARA, n.d.) and the Online Literacy and Numeracy Assessment (OLNA; SCSA, n.d.-a) require typed responses. Amy’s challenges with organisation, homework, and literacy-based tasks reflect a broader issue of misalignment between curriculum delivery and learner needs. The competitive academic environment and teacher misunderstanding exacerbate these barriers, often leading to misinterpretation of her behaviour as ‘naughty’. Amy holds the perception that teachers typically misunderstand her behaviour and report to parents that she is distracted and distracting in class, not completing homework, not bringing the correct equipment, arriving late to class, or being deliberately wilful. Like many teenagers, Amy is reluctant to draw (more) attention to herself by asking teachers to re-explain instructions or subject content, becoming bored in class and falling further behind in academic results.

3.2. Creating Affirming Conditions for Engagement and Expression

This theme explores how Amy’s emotional wellbeing and creative strengths were critical to her school engagement and participation. First, her experiences reveal the emotional cost of being misunderstood in a mainstream environment and highlight the importance of feeling safe and valued as a foundation for learning (Section 3.2.1). Second, the data show Amy was most engaged when learning activities aligned with her strengths and interests, particularly through creative, kinaesthetic, and collaborative modalities (Section 3.2.2). These aspects of her experience illustrate the significance of supportive, interest-driven learning conditions in fostering meaningful engagement for 2e learners.

3.2.1. Emotional Safety as a Prerequisite for Learning

Amy’s goals and challenges reveal a central theme of self-esteem and emotional resilience. Her sense of inferiority to peers, compounded by severe dyslexia and ADHD, underscores the emotional toll of navigating a mainstream academic environment that does not allow her to leverage her strengths, talents and interests. Her mother commented:

The fact that Amy’s dyslexia report showed that her reading and writing is in the 1st percentile for children her age in Australia, yet her IQ is in the 90th percentile just goes to show how frustrated she must be. She has huge intelligence and just cannot cognitively express herself through reading and writing. It must be so challenging for her, and it impacts her self-esteem significantly.

In an account of Amy’s distress, her mother describes episodes of self-harming behaviour triggered by the perceived public exposure of her diagnoses. This reflects findings by Abraham (2025) and others, who have documented the emotional toll of deficit-based teaching practices on 2e learners. Amy expressed that some teachers “talk down to her” at times, which contributes to feelings of embarrassment and reinforces her sense of vulnerability.

3.2.2. Leveraging Creative and Embodied Modalities for Engagement and Expression

Amy thrives in creative, kinaesthetic, and social domains. Her strengths in art, drama, dance, and community activities suggest that she is best engaged through expressive and collaborative learning. Amy’s learning preferences, group work, hands-on tasks, drawing, and speaking, align with her strengths and personality indicators. Her success during active and outdoor learning moments suggests that multisensory and movement-based approaches are essential for her academic engagement. Her interests in surfing, nature, and sustainability further reinforce her connection to experiential and values-driven learning. These interests provided the inspiration for Amy’s TDP. While she uses accommodations according to her LAP such as extra-time and sitting assessments in a testing centre environment, these adjustments cater for her learning difficulties and not her strengths. She has not experienced differentiation based on her interests, strengths and preferred way of demonstrating knowledge because it is not yet common practice at the school where the research was conducted. Amy did report the opportunity to ‘talk to text’, using the speech converter facility on her computer, instead of writing an essay response for an English assessment; however, any allowance such as this depends upon the criteria being assessed, the availability of an appropriate testing context, and the goals of the mandated curriculum.

3.3. Roles and Contributions of Stakeholders in Enabling Inclusive Education

This theme examines the collaborative efforts and role of key stakeholders, including Amy’s mother, classroom teachers, and the learning support teacher, in co-constructing inclusive, strengths-based practices that respond to Amy’s 2e profile. It highlights how advocacy, pedagogical flexibility, and strengths-based planning were shaped by both enabling relationships and institutional constraints. Section 3.3.1 examines the parent’s role in advocating for Amy’s emotional wellbeing and academic equity within a system that often struggles to accommodate neurodivergence. Section 3.3.2 focuses on the classroom teachers’ willingness to adapt assessments and build rapport, while also recognising the limitations imposed by standardised practices and workload demands. Section 3.3.3 describes how collaboration between Amy, her mother, and the learning support teacher enabled the development of a personalised TDP grounded in evidence-based models and designed to activate Amy’s interests, agency, and strengths.

3.3.1. The Parent’s Advocacy and Insight

Amy’s mother plays a critical role in navigating the educational system, advocating for accommodations and alternative approaches that align with Amy’s emotional and cognitive needs. This includes engaging an ADHD coach and supporting Amy’s autonomy in learning decisions, such as opting not to take medication, completing homework, or wearing her prescribed glasses. When invited to contribute to the parent section of the questionnaire, Amy’s mother emphasised that her primary goal was to improve Amy’s self-esteem. She described Amy as feeling increasingly disheartened by her school experience, struggling with academic progress, social relationships, and a general sense of exclusion, reporting that Amy described school as feeling like “walking into a lion’s den” each day. Her mother also expressed frustration with systemic barriers, particularly in relation to standardised assessments like NAPLAN (ACARA, n.d.). She questioned the fairness of requiring keyboard-based responses for a literacy test, stating: “Getting her to type is a struggle” and “If this is a literacy test, why should Amy’s motor skills disadvantage her?” While the mode of these mandated tests of literacy and numeracy are not within the school’s control, Amy’s mother has been steadfast in encouraging the school to implement strategies that respond more appropriately to Amy’s neurodiversity.

Amy’s mother acknowledged Amy’s falling grades and asked:

What can be done as a team and a school to support Amy’s learning style and lift Amy’s grades to where they were in the absence of medication? She has the smarts, and surely a drug shouldn’t be the deciding factor of her grades. Is Amy’s concentration an ongoing issue in class, or is it just tests? The tests scores she is receiving are battering her self-esteem, as she keeps telling me she is trying really hard.

Always a vocal advocate for her neurodiverse daughter, recognising her intelligence and creativity, the mother was leaning towards the opinion that the school’s “structure is not suited, and doesn’t cater for children who don’t fit a certain mould, who have learning challenges.” This belief, exacerbated by some social issues Amy was experiencing at school, namely Amy felt out of place in the academically competitive environment, led to their investigating other school options. This reflects the experiences of many parents of gifted children who struggle to see their children “fit” within the school environment, socially, emotionally, or academically, and feel that changing schools is the only remaining option (Ballam, 2019). Therefore, the offer to trial a strength-based approach proved timely, as Amy and her mother were considering leaving the school due to on-going frustrations that, despite four years at the school undergoing intervention for reading, spelling and writing, Amy’s grades in the MESH subjects continued to fall well below her expected age level.

3.3.2. The Teachers’ Willingness and Constraints

Teachers too, can and do make a difference when they are interested in Amy’s unique profile. Those who gathered to discuss Amy’s Individual Profile Report and brainstorm classroom strategies for adapting their teaching and assessment practices according to the data presented insightful and practical ideas. They also noted that existing assessment programmes limited their ability to tailor assessments to individual needs. Consequently, permission was granted from the relevant committee and from Amy’s mother to adapt Amy’s LAP. This allowed teachers, where feasible, to design differentiated assessments that enabled Amy to demonstrate her understanding using her strengths, while still meeting the same assessment criteria as her peers. For example: using a speech-to-text converter, poster production, role-play, drawing, or diagram rather than a written production, or providing verbal rather than written answers to questions. Subsequently, on the school’s continuous reporting system, the teachers reported some success with modified tasks:

Amy has scored a great result for her HASS assessment. She scored 25.5/41. I gave Amy a revision task that focussed on her strengths of art. I provided her with a map of Australia and asked her to use colour to demonstrate population distribution and climate and label the map explaining why people live where they live in Australia and why. On the reverse page I asked her to draw an example of a city which was a poor example of accommodating high population due to urbanisation.

In her assessment, I awarded marks for information provided even if she provided facts outside the allocated marks for the question. I had explained prior to the test she was to tell me as much as she could and if she needed, she could answer in point form. It was pleasing to see her attempt long answer questions, although with little punctuation. She also attempted some tricky words and had some pleasing spellings of these words, i.e., skillset.

This was the same test as the other students. Instead, I modified the revision work to try and encourage study/revision but also to use as a backup if she did not demonstrate enough knowledge in the assessment.

Another task allowed Amy to ‘talk to text’ rather than write an analytical paragraph. The teacher voluntarily gave up her time so that Amy could compose her paragraph during lunchtime, thereby avoiding disruption to the rest of the class. To support Amy’s engagement, quotes were provided for her to incorporate. It is important to note that this type of adjustment relies on the teacher’s professional discretion and commitment to inclusive practice. The teacher remarked that she was open to “trying lots of stuff that might not work,” and acknowledged that while she was aware of Amy’s needs, it was not always feasible to modify assessments in ways that fully accommodated them. The teacher’s response is provided below:

I really liked your discussion of the significance of the colour red, Amy. The next time you need to write an analytical paragraph, aim to include quotes, such as the ones provided underneath the question in this test. Your vocabulary is great, and I encourage you to continue to add to your long word bank.

3.3.3. Collaborative Approaches to Literacy Support for Twice-Exceptional Learners

Meanwhile, in the Learning Support elective, where there was greater flexibility due to the absence of formal curriculum pressures, Amy, her mother and the teacher collaborated in the development of a personalised TDP. This plan was informed by data collected through observation and assessment and shaped by evidence-based models for gifted education, including the Maker Model (Maker & Nielson, 1995) and the framework advocated by Big Picture Learning (Big Picture Learning, n.d.). These models featured in

Table 8. Features of the Maker Model and the Big Picture Learning Model.

Dimension	Maker Model	Big Picture Learning (BPL)
Student-centred Focus	Emphasises modifying curriculum to meet individual needs and interests.	Focuses on “one student at a time,” tailoring learning to each learner’s goals.
Curriculum Differentiation	Differentiates across four areas: content, process, product, and environment. Advocates curriculum modification by adapting content, process, product, and environment to meet gifted learners’ needs.	Uses real-world learning, internships, and personal projects to differentiate. Emphasises curriculum alignment ensuring student-driven projects and real-world learning still meet educational standards.
Real-World Relevance	Encourages abstract, complex, and human-centred content.	Learning is grounded in real-world experiences and community engagement.
Learner Autonomy	Promotes independent learning and inquiry-based approaches.	Students co-design their learning plans and pursue interests through projects.
Flexible Learning Environment	Advocates for varied environments that support creativity and exploration.	Schools are designed to feel different—relational, flexible, and non-traditional.
Strength-Based Approach	Builds on students’ strengths and interests to deepen engagement.	Centres learning around student passions and strengths.

emphasise student agency, interest-based learning, and the development of individual strengths, which were central to Amy’s programme design.

While the programme was grounded in the principles of the Maker and Big Picture Learning models, emphasising student co-design, strengths, autonomy, and real-world relevance, a significant adaptation was required to address Amy’s specific literacy challenges. In this way, Amy’s learning difficulties were not completely circumnavigated. Care was taken to embed reading and writing tasks within personally meaningful and engaging contexts. For example, Amy conducted research on topics of personal interest, including crystals and the marine environment. This required her to read, take notes, and summarise information in short paragraphs and report formats. Wherever possible, broader curriculum links were integrated. At the time, Year 8 students were conducting a science investigation into crystals, which provided a natural connection to Amy’s project. Building on her strengths in visual and creative expression, the culminating task was the development of a graphic novel. In this narrative, the protagonist, endowed with crystal-based superpowers, saves the Great Barrier Reef from commercial exploitation. To support this, Amy engaged in targeted research on coral reefs, crystal formation, and the characteristics of superheroes. She was also provided with model graphic novels to read, supporting both genre understanding and literacy development. This approach illustrates how strength-based models can be adapted to support 2e learners by integrating explicit skill-building within interest-driven, creative frameworks.

3.4. Challenges in Sustaining Strengths-Based Programming for Twice-Exceptional Learners

This theme addresses the systemic and practical barriers that emerged during the implementation of Amy’s TDP, revealing tensions between personalised, interest-driven learning and the institutional constraints of mainstream schooling.

While the learning activities designed for Amy successfully targeted transferable literacy skills, the implementation of her TDP was disrupted by practical realities of school life. The researcher’s Long Service Leave necessitated a replacement Learning Support teacher, resulting in a loss of continuity and momentum. During the six-week summer break, Amy’s interest in superheroes waned, and she no longer felt connected to the graphic novel project, which remained incomplete.

In the teacher-researcher’s absence, Amy was returned to a targeted literacy intervention programme, and no post-test was conducted to assess gains made during the TDP. Although some success was reported by Amy’s MESH teachers, institutional pressures quickly reasserted themselves. Permission to modify Amy’s assessments was withdrawn, and concerns were raised about circumventing core literacy tasks, particularly in light of the mandatory NAPLAN (ACARA, n.d.). Amy’s scores in the Reading and Writing categories did not meet national benchmarks in this test, requiring her to demonstrate minimum literacy proficiency through the state’s OLNA (SCSA, n.d.-b), a graduation requirement under the Western Australian Certificate of Education (WACE; SCSA, n.d.-a).

This outcome illustrates how academic imperatives and standardised assessment requirements can override experimental, strengths-based approaches to learning and assessment, even when such approaches show promise in engaging 2e students.

4. Discussion

This case study aimed to explore how a strengths-based approach could be co-designed and implemented to support a 2e student, Amy, within a mainstream secondary school. Drawing on multi-source data and aligned with the neurodiversity paradigm, the study illustrates both the potential and challenges of transforming traditional learning environments to better serve neurodivergent students with asynchronous learning profiles.

4.1. From Deficit-Focused to Strengths-Oriented Education

Amy’s case highlights the shift needed from deficit-based views of disability to a strengths-oriented educational model. Rather than positioning Amy’s dyslexia and ADHD solely as barriers, the collaboratively developed TDP identified and leveraged her artistic, interpersonal, and spatial strengths. This aligns with the neurodiversity paradigm’s principle that difference is not necessarily a deficit (Livingstone et al., 2023) and may in fact activate strengths in other parts of the brain (Rahman & Woollard, 2019), positioning systemic barriers, not individual impairments, as the primary source of disadvantage. From this perspective, the issue lies not with neurodivergent learners, but with interventionist educational approaches that attempt to ‘fix’ students rather than adapting to support diverse ways of learning (Rahman & Woollard, 2019). Through interest-driven tasks and flexible assessments, Amy experienced greater ownership and affirmation in learning.

This case study shows that the answer to enabling and promoting strength-based approaches within existing frameworks may lie in creative timetabling, structural flexibility and teacher empowerment. Research into 2e students’ needs at the school has begun to “lift the cloak of invisibility” (Fugate, 2014) by engaging teachers in processes to problem-solve and identify inclusive practices that improve 2e students’ chances of experiencing academic success (OECD, 2018). Schools are legally required to comply with the Australian Government’s Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (Disability Discrimination Act, 1992), which mandates differentiated instruction and alternative pathways to support diverse learning needs. Yet, too often, this results in accommodations that focus solely on a student’s disability, overlooking their strengths or gifts.

4.2. The Emotional and Motivational Landscape of Twice-Exceptional Learners

The emotional safety and self-perception of 2e learners emerged as foundational to their engagement. Amy’s experiences echoed broader findings that highlight frustration, anxiety, and withdrawal when giftedness is overshadowed by learning difficulties. Several studies have shown how 2e students are vulnerable to low academic self-concept and in turn low self-esteem (Townend et al., 2014; Fugate & Gentry, 2016; Ballam, 2019).

Supportive relationships with teachers and parents play a vital role in fostering positive attitudes toward schooling for 2e students. Research consistently highlights the importance of relational safety and understanding in promoting engagement and resilience among 2e students (Fugate, 2014; Townend et al., 2014). In this case, Amy’s mother made a conscious decision to prioritise wellbeing over compliance with school expectations, such as homework and medication, reflecting the systemic tensions faced by families when school structures fail to accommodate diverse neurodevelopmental needs.

The teacher’s adoption of a strengths-based approach offered a counter-narrative to these challenges. By providing Amy with multimodal and interest-based tasks, particularly those that allowed for oral and visual expression, the teacher created opportunities for Amy to experience success and leadership within the classroom. This shift mirrors Fugate’s (2014) assertion that 2e students benefit from environments where they can express their competencies in varied and affirming ways. Notably, both Amy and her teacher attributed the development of trust and rapport to these personalised strategies, suggesting that focusing on student strengths not only enhances engagement but also supports identity development and self-efficacy. As such, this case reinforces the broader argument that emotional wellbeing is not ancillary to learning, instead, it is foundational to motivation, cognitive engagement, and inclusive practice that foster both academic and interpersonal success (MacAllister, 2025). It also echoes previous research that highlights the value of empowering students through autonomy-supportive environments (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

4.3. Individualisation Requires Collaboration

2e students often fall between the cracks of existing educational models. At the participating school, the G&T programme differentiates curriculum for high-achieving students in core learning areas (MESH). This can exclude students with gifts who underperform due to learning disorders, disengagement, or perceptions that they may not thrive in competitive environments. While teacher consultation in the selection process is a positive feature, access remains limited and typically based on demonstrated achievement. Even if a 2e student is included, the scope for individualisation remains limited by curriculum constraints and workload demands, with content typically delivered at a whole-class level. It is important to heed Ivicevic’s (2017) caution that inclusion in G&T programmes should not be viewed as a universal remedy for the challenges facing mainstream education in addressing the needs of 2e students.

Conversely, students with diagnosed disabilities are supported through LAPs and/or the Learning Support elective, which often adopt a deficit-based model focused on remediation. For many 2e students, this approach can be disheartening, especially when progress is impeded by the nature of their diagnosis. Moreover, while gifted programmes may encourage interdisciplinary and creative exploration, such integration is rarely present in Learning Support. As a result, students who require both enrichment and support are often underserved by a system that recognises their challenges but fails to nurture their strengths, reflecting the fact that “identification processes for gifted programmes and learning disability services in Australia” (Wormald et al., 2014, p. 17) are mutually exclusive.

The study sought to explore ways to bridge the gap between ability and disability, recognising that the answer lies in collaborative approaches. The adaptations made to Amy’s LAP and the development and partial implementation of her TDP underscore the importance of a willingness to engage in meaningful collaboration among teachers, parents, students, and other stakeholders such as educational psychologists and school leadership. Teachers who engaged with Amy’s learning profile were able to share ideas and co-design assessments that maintained curriculum goals while offering alternative modalities of expression. These differentiated practices exemplify the kind of adaptive teaching advocated in research yet often absent from standardised classrooms.

4.4. Systemic Constraints on Sustained Implementation

Despite initial successes, Amy’s case highlights the fragility of strengths-based programming within rigid institutional structures. High-stakes assessment regimes such as NAPLAN (ACARA, n.d.) and OLNA (SCSA, n.d.-b), alongside standardised curriculum, and limited resourcing undermined continuity in her TDP. When the teacher-researcher took extended leave, Amy was redirected to traditional literacy intervention, and her engagement declined, a finding consistent with prior research demonstrating that 2e learners often disengage when their interests and strengths are not integrated into learning (Baldwin et al., 2015; Minnaert, 2022). These disruptions highlight the vulnerability of personalised, strength-based initiatives in the absence of flexible, responsive and adaptive support structures, particularly when facing the dynamic realities of educational settings (Askell-Williams & Koh, 2020).

Amy’s English teacher, despite a strong commitment to inclusive practice, reported feeling constrained by systemic factors such as assessment moderation, curriculum planning, and mandated content, which limited flexibility in curriculum design and delivery. This reflects broader concerns in the literature regarding teacher autonomy in adapting curriculum to meet diverse learner needs, such as Yorulmaz and Çolak’s (2023) conclusions that centralised curricula and educational policy limited teacher freedom of choice in decision-making. The teacher noted that differentiated tasks, although beneficial, were difficult to evaluate within traditional grading frameworks, describing the experience as “comparing apples to oranges”, and required significant personal investment, including working outside contracted hours and seeking support from colleagues. These barriers align with findings by Chow et al. (2023) on the workload demands and systemic pressures faced by teachers implementing inclusive pedagogies.

Additionally, uncertainty surrounding Amy’s LAP further impeded effective implementation, highlighting the critical role such documents play in sustaining inclusive practice. While LAPs are designed to guide differentiated planning and support communication across staff, their effectiveness depends on clarity, accessibility, and shared understanding. The teacher’s concern over the lack of clear guidelines and practical tools for implementing strengths-based strategies reflects broader calls for targeted professional development and structured frameworks, such as well-developed LAPs, to support the education of 2e students (Lee & Ritchotte, 2019; Dillon et al., 2021). Her sense of professional isolation, of working “in a silo” despite shared responsibility, is amplified when uncertainty arises around individual plans, such as LAPs, which are intended to ensure that decisions are informed and consistent. The inability to interview Amy’s HASS teacher due to their departure from the school illustrates the broader challenge to strength-based continuity, and highlights the importance of building collective teacher capacity across teams to provide feedback that can inform the design and direction of LAPs, safeguard the collective wisdom of collaborative practice, and, by extension, support 2e learners from disruptions caused by staff turnover (Van Hooijdonk et al., 2025).

4.5. Implications

Implementing strengths-based programmes for neurodiverse learners requires a concerted effort and a willingness to challenge traditional structures. While no two schools are the same, Ronksley-Pavia’s (2020) research suggests that between 20% and 36% of students identified as gifted may be 2e, highlighting the importance of developing inclusive models that address both ability and disability.

In response to this need, the participating school is preparing to introduce a strengths-based elective within the Learning Support programme. This elective will allow students to undertake a TDP based on personal data and evidence-informed frameworks (Maker & Nielson, 1995; Big Picture Learning, n.d.) to guide independent, interest-driven learning. Importantly, the initiative also creates opportunities for ongoing research, as students are expected to enrol specifically to engage in personalised, strengths-based learning.

While the proposed elective shows promise, offering academic, social, and emotional benefits for 2e students and a point of difference for the school, its success will depend on several contextual factors. These include staffing capacity and their cooperation, timetabling, and a school culture open to innovation, including challenging deficit-based assumptions about neurodiversity and perceptions of ‘learning support’. Crucial to bridging the gap between theory and practice too, is access to professional learning so that the approach becomes embedded within the whole-school philosophy, rather than remaining dependent on individual champions.

This case study underscores the transformative potential of strengths-based approaches for 2e learners, while also revealing the systemic constraints that can limit their sustainability. Amy’s experience illustrates how emotional wellbeing, differentiated assessment, and collaborative planning can foster engagement and success when educators adapt curriculum and pedagogy. However, such innovations require professional learning, leadership support, and clearer frameworks to guide implementation within rigid school structures.

Additionally, the study illustrates a practical example of how personalised learning can be embedded within an existing structure. The success of running an elective that adopts this approach remains to be investigated. While this model may not suit all schools, it provides a foundation for developing inclusive practices tailored to specific contexts. Future research could explore diverse educational settings, examining the conditions that might support the implementation, effectiveness and sustainability of strengths-based approaches for 2e students, who represent a spectrum of abilities and challenges.

More broadly, addressing educational inequity for 2e students requires flexible, collaborative models that align with school-specific contexts. A one-size-fits-all solution is unlikely to meet the diverse needs of 2e learners across varied educational settings. Instead, the development of strengths-oriented models, co-designed with educators, researchers, and families in situ, offers a more sustainable and equitable path forward. By finding bespoke ways to bridge theory and practice, schools can move toward more inclusive, affirming environments that recognise and nurture neurodiverse learners, harnessing their potential to make meaningful and unique contributions to society (Minnaert, 2022).

Moreover, while the processes employed at a micro (classroom) level offer strategies that can be generalised, for meaningful sustainability of strength-based approaches beyond isolated school-level initiatives, system-level levers are needed to translate promising practices into enduring reform. These may include assessment policies, collaborative practices, teacher training and professional learning initiatives, and explicit acknowledgement of 2e learners in guiding frameworks such as the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers.

4.6. Limitations

While this paper acknowledges the critical need for system-level reform to support 2e learners, it does not aim to explore or propose specific policy mechanisms. This remains a valuable direction for future research. Instead, the case study offers insights into the implementation of strengths-based approaches for a single 2e learner, though its findings are inherently limited by the context-specific nature of the study. The study involved three teachers and a parent focused on one student within a particular school setting, which may not reflect the broader experiences of all 2e learners or be generalisable across diverse educational environments. The researcher’s own position as a learning support teacher with a particular interest in 2e students and a commitment to the success of strength-based approaches may have influenced objectivity. However, steps were taken to reflect critically on practice and ensure transparency throughout the research process. Additionally, the partial implementation of the TDP and the teacher-researcher’s extended leave impacted the continuity of data collection and programme delivery. These limitations underscore the need for further research using longitudinal designs across varied school contexts and with multiple 2e students to better understand the systemic and pedagogical conditions that support sustainable strengths-based education.

5. Conclusions

The evidence suggests that strengths-based education works. In fact, there are schools in the United States dedicated to teaching 2e students using this approach. However, “it is not possible to find an identified 2e program in Australia” (Jackson, 2020, para. 1). Hopefully, inroads have since been made, as awareness of twice-exceptionality continues to grow within Australian education. Research by Ronksley-Pavia (2020) and Lamanna et al. (2020) highlights the need for Australian schools to address this gap.

This research into the needs of 2e students at this secondary school has shown that meaningful progress in supporting this underserved group is possible when educators, parents, and students work together to build bridges between strengths and challenges, between data and practice, and between individual needs and collective action. Through collaborative, teacher-led inquiry, environments can be created where every student has a fair opportunity to succeed, regardless of their individual learning profiles (OECD, 2018). Supporting Amy through a strengths-based approach has been an insightful, rewarding, if at times frustrating, experience, and described by her English teacher as ultimately “humbling.”