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

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper Building Bridges for Twice-Exceptional Students: A Case Study in a Secondary School provides a valuable addition to the limited literature on 2e students. It offers an example of a strengths-based model within the neurodiversity paradigm where the focus is shift from deficits to student’s capabilities, interests and talents. It is exploring possibilities and constraints of using that model within the existing educational system in Australia. It is unique in using co-design approach with the child, her mother and teachers. Including the voice of the student/participant that is often omitted in educational research is the strength of this paper. The paper has a solid foundation in previous literature presented in the introduction section. The references are relevant and recent.  Methods and materials are clearly presented and explained in a way that allows replication in future research as well as provides tools for the practical implementation of the model. Multiple data sources were used and analysed using thematic analysis. In the results section, themes are logically connected and in line with the research questions. In the discussion section themes are interpreted in relation to existing literature. The section involves a very valuable section on implications of the study. The paper provides valuable insights and tools for teachers in adapting the curriculum and teaching strategies to support 2e learners while using collaborative approach.  The authors offer critical and detailed reflection on limitations of the study.

There are only several technical suggestions for authors:

It would be valuable to add a visual presentation of thematic analysis that includes major themes and subthemes.

It would be beneficial to first introduce the full term before using the abbreviation (LAP, MESH, HASS) because the different documentation in different educational system can cause confusion. That would make it clearer for readers outside the English speaking context.  

In the following sentence it is not clear how something published in 2017 can be quoted by author in 2016.

This policy vacuum is reflected in the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2017), which, as noted by Henderson and Jarvis (2016), make no specific reference to gifted or talented students.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. This is an important study that demonstrates the promise of strengths-based, collaborative approaches for twice-exceptional students. The paper is well written, logically structured, and easy to follow. Your literature review is also well written, comprehensive, and provides a solid foundation for the study. The study is somewhat limited in scope and constrained by systemic challenges; its insights are highly relevant for educators, researchers, and policymakers. It'll make a significant impact in the field of inclusive and gifted education. My recommendations for revision are listed below.

-If you conduct a similar study in the future, consider expanding future research to include multiple 2e students across diverse contexts for stronger generalizability. The current sample size is limited.

Solutions remain primarily at the micro (classroom) level. The paper could more strongly propose systemic or policy-level reforms, please make changes by strengthening this area.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf