Twice-Exceptional University Students: Perceptions of Effective Support

Abstract

Twice-exceptional (2e) students are both gifted and neurodivergent, and are underrepresented in higher education research, particularly outside the United States. This exploratory qualitative study examined Australian 2e university students’ perceptions of effective supports for navigating tertiary education. Guided by Gagné’s Talent Development Mega Model, the study explored how institutional and personal supports shape academic engagement, identity, and achievement. Participants (N = 12) self-identified as 2e and were recruited from a large research-intensive Australian university. Data were gathered through open-ended surveys and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Findings revealed delayed identification of exceptionalities, diverse understandings of achievement, and reliance on internal coping strategies alongside external supports, including disability services, faculty flexibility, and technology. Participants emphasised the value of flexible, strengths-based learning environments and institutional recognition of twice-exceptionality. However, existing supports were perceived as generic and deficit-focused, highlighting the need for tailored practices, staff training in neurodiversity, and collaboration to support 2e students.

1. Talent Development Mega Model

The Talent Development Mega Model (TDMM; Subotnik et al., 2011, 2021) guided this study, while also acknowledging that Gagne’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent [DMGT] is more established in the Australian context (Thraves, 2024; Jolly & Robins, 2021). The field of gifted education has also been moving away from traditional models of giftedness (e.g., Renzulli’s Three-Ring Conception) to a greater focus on talent development models, reflecting a more inclusive and life-span approach informed by psychological science (Subotnik et al., 2011, 2021). The TDMM is a developmental model founded in general ability, domain-specific interest, knowledge and skills, psychosocial skills, the acknowledgment of appropriate opportunities over time and the unique pathways of specific domains (e.g., types of training and specialisation and where talent domains start, peak, and end), and is the only framework to specifically acknowledge the impact of disability (Subotnik et al., 2011, 2021). Therefore, the researchers were interested in using this study to explore the appropriate opportunities that enhance the talent development of 2e university students. The flexibility of the TDMM can incorporate the contextual differences and varying approaches to gifted and special/inclusive education (Foley-Nicpon & Kim, 2018).

2. Neurodivergence and Disabilities That Impact Learning

The concept of neurodivergence refers to individuals whose neurocognitive functioning diverges from dominant neurotypical norms, encompassing conditions such as autism, ADHD, and specific learning disabilities (SLDs) (Shmulsky et al., 2021). Emerging from the neurodiversity paradigm, this perspective challenges ableist and medicalised deficit models that position difference as pathology, instead framing neurological variation as part of natural human diversity (Chapman, 2021). Neurodivergent or neuro-typical individuals may demonstrate strengths including divergent thinking, creativity, hyperfocus, pattern recognition, and innovative problem solving (Stenning & Bertilsdotter-Rosqvist, 2021). However, challenges often arise within environments structured around neurotypical expectations, leading to marginalisation, stigma, and disabling experiences (Van Aswegen & Shevlin, 2019). An ecological view recognises that traits may be enabling or disabling depending on context, advocating pluralistic frameworks that affirm neurodivergent agency while acknowledging the need for meaningful support and accommodation (Cumming et al., 2025).

Within the umbrella of neurodivergence, diagnoses such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, and specific learning disabilities (SLDs) are increasingly understood as forms of neurodivergence or neurological difference. While these conditions may be associated with disability and can affect learning and participation, they are also recognised as part of natural human neurocognitive diversity rather than solely as deficits requiring remediation (Chapman, 2021).

3. Twice-Exceptionality

A universal definition of twice-exceptionality has not been adopted. For this study, we have defined 2e as the concomitant existence of a disability(ies) and high intellectual aptitude or ability. Other definitions include the first operational definition offered by U.S. researchers S. M. Reis et al. (2014):

Twice-exceptional learners are students who demonstrate the potential for high achievement or creative productivity in one or more domains such as math, science, technology, the social arts, the visual, spatial, or performing arts or other areas of human productivity AND who manifest one or more disabilities as defined by federal or state eligibility criteria. These disabilities include specific learning disabilities; speech and language disorders; emotional/behavioral disorders; physical disabilities; autism spectrum disorders (ASDs); or other health impairments, such as Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). These disabilities and high abilities combine to produce a unique population of students who may fail to demonstrate either high academic performance or specific disabilities. Their gifts may mask their disabilities, and their disabilities may mask their gifts (p. 222).

While this definition was the first to guide K-12 educators and other stakeholders, it reflects the language and unique special education context of the United States, particularly the stringent federal legislative rules and guidelines which are also reflected in state education laws, processes, and procedures. The definition also includes the term masking, which remains unsubstantiated by the research literature (Foley-Nicpon et al., 2010). Still, scholars have adopted this definition ignoring the variance reflected in special, inclusive, and gifted education contexts and jurisdictions (Sandoval-Rodríguez & Conejeros-Solar, 2024).

This lack of a universally accepted definition of twice-exceptionality impacts the identification and total number of 2e students. Researchers and educators largely rely on estimates of 2e student numbers, as giftedness and 2e are variably defined. Additionally, the incongruity of academic, affective, and social behaviours can impact the type of support (if any) received. Estimates range widely, from 0 to 0.14 percent of the K-12 student population (Cheek et al., 2024), while other researchers have suggested that a 2 to 7 percent prevalence rate may be appropriate (Ronskley-Pavia, 2020). Additionally, practitioners and educators remain unaware, and/or in many cases, underprepared to address students with high or advanced ability and special education needs (Townend & Brown, 2016). Following on, identification remains challenging due to the suppression of either the talent and/or disability, type of disability, and comorbidity factors. For example, gifted students with dyslexia may show processing deficits but not meet diagnostic criteria for a formal identification of dyslexia, as their strengths compensate for reading difficulties (Kranz et al., 2024; van Viersen et al., 2019). With appropriate intervention, this student’s academic outcomes could be improved, suggesting that dynamic assessment or dual diagnoses are important to develop a more comprehensive understanding of an individual’s learning strengths and needs (Al-Hroub, 2021; Maddocks, 2019).

4. Australian Inclusive Education

While the goal of many educational systems, including Australia’s, is inclusive education (OECD, 2023), special education services still remain to meet the needs of students with higher support needs (Cumming et al., 2024) and contribute to the preparedness of 2e students for post-secondary education. Thus, understanding the Australian context is integral to understanding the impetus, findings, and conclusion of this study.

4.1. Australian Special Education

The Australian Disability Standards for Education (Australian Government Department of Education [ADSE], 2005) is the legal foundation for ensuring that students with disabilities have access to inclusive education settings, including those at the tertiary level. The standards dictate that students with special education needs are primarily taught in mainstream schools. Students with higher levels of need also receive specialised adjustments to the curriculum through differentiated instruction and specialised supports delivered within that setting and in other classrooms in the school by various professionals. Still, specialised schools remain an option for children with increasingly complex needs (Cumming et al., 2024).

Many individuals with disability across the lifespan are dependent upon the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) for support. The NDIS provides financial access to supports for people with disabilities and was established as a trial in 2013 but did not become fully available throughout Australia until 2020 (National Disability Insurance Scheme [NDIS], 2025). The NDIS provides eligible participants with reasonable and necessary supports directly related to their disability that help them engage in tertiary study, beyond the supports that the education provider is responsible to provide (National Disability Insurance Scheme [NDIS], 2025). Examples of support that students may receive for attending university include: (a) support connecting to campus supports and services, (b) personal care support while studying, (c) transport support, and (d) training for university staff. The NDIS also provides funding for assistive technology and equipment, development of skills for independent living, social participation, and communication. The scheme does not fund tuition, tutoring, and living costs unrelated to disability (National Disability Insurance Scheme [NDIS], 2025).

4.2. Approach to Gifted Education in Australia

The absence of a universally acknowledged definition of giftedness impacts the conceptualisation of giftedness, how gifted students are identified, the implementation of programming and services, and the application of research in scholarship and practice (Matthews & Jolly, 2022; McBee & Makel, 2019). By extension, this absence also impacts the identification of 2e students (Townend & Brown, 2016).

In Australia, gifted education is largely decentralised, with individual states and territories responsible for identifying and supporting gifted students (Jolly & Jarvis, 2018). Aligned to inclusive education approaches, gifted students most often receive differentiated instruction to address their learning needs in a mainstream class (Graham et al., 2021). Generally, states and territories in Australia use Gagné’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT), which distinguishes between giftedness and talent, defining giftedness as natural abilities (aptitudes) and talent as systematically developed skills in specific fields (Gagné, 2021; Thraves, 2024). The model emphasises the role of environmental factors, intrapersonal traits, and developmental processes in transforming giftedness into talent (Gagné, 2021).

Initial teacher education (ITE) programs historically have provided very little knowledge or skills in gifted education, which also contributes to the difficulty in addressing gifted students’ learning needs (Jolly & Jarvis, 2018). The lack of gifted education content in initial teacher education programs and inconsistent uptake of professional learning to address the needs of gifted and 2e learners also contributes to their underidentification and unevenness in supports and services (Townend & Brown, 2016, Jolly & Barnard-Brak, 2024).

Furthermore, Australia’s three school sectors (e.g., government, Catholic, and independent) further complicate the gifted education landscape, with each sector applying their own philosophy/approach to the education of gifted students (Jolly & Robins, 2021). Each system reflects its broader cultural and policy priorities, shaping how 2e students are supported and challenged. Collectively, these inconsistencies have led to students not receiving the appropriate level of challenge and/or support, often leaving them ill-prepared for post-secondary and university studies (S. M. Reis et al., 2021).

5. Australian University Students with Disability

The ADSE also applies to the provision of support services for students with disabilities at the tertiary level. While there may be specific offices or centres responsible for student support that aid in determining reasonable adjustments to course curriculum and assessments in relation to a student’s need, there are stressors on the systemic and institutional barriers to optimal support. These include an exponential growth of university students with disabilities. Between 2008 and 2020, this student population grew by 166%, leaving universities underfunded as the student growth outpaced funding provided by the disability support programs (Universities Australia, 2022). In real dollars, the 2008 per-pupil spending was $325 and by 2020 had dropped to $100 per pupil. Additionally, the 2020 Review of the Disability Standards for Education underscored the need for “equity best practice,” including proactive and individualised support for students (Department of Education, Skills and Employment, 2020, p. 35). The report also acknowledged that professionals responsible for disability support services were unclear as to how to meet ASDE standards. For example, some university courses include inherent requirements, expectations mandated by external accreditation bodies (e.g., nursing or allied health professional regulators), such as compulsory clinical placements and demonstrated physical, cognitive, or communication competencies, which may make certain adjustments unachievable without compromising academic or professional standards (Corcoran et al., 2022).

These dynamics create university supports that vary widely for students with special needs, including institutional supports offered, governing laws, policies and guidance, the background knowledge and attitudes of support staff, and professional learning provided for university staff in special education knowledge and skills (Bartolo et al., 2023; Edwards, 2022; Pitman et al., 2023; Spier & Natalier, 2023; Toutain, 2019).

5.1. Equitable Learning Supports

The research is uneven regarding the impact of university supports and reasonable accommodations for students with disabilities, which also reflects the diversity of student need in this population, including the comorbidity of conditions (e.g., students with SLD and ADHD) (Bonti et al., 2024; Grigorenko et al., 2020). Reasonable adjustments could include executive function supports (e.g., time management), lecture recordings, extended time, note takers, assistive technology, selective seating, and/or routines for social interactions (Australian Disability Clearinghouse on Education and Training, 2026). Some results suggest that when supports are accessed, students have evidenced positive gains in academic achievement, retention, post-graduate outcomes (Newman et al., 2021; West et al., 2022), participation in academic and social activities, and graduation rates (Shpigelman et al., 2022). For example, extended time is the most frequent accommodation provided by university support offices. Extended time can include additional time during an in-person exam or additional time to complete an assessment task. Still, the research literature is undecided on the optimal amount of time dependent on the disability or disorder (Lovett & Leja, 2015; McDowall & Kiseleva, 2024).

For those with students with neurodivergent conditions, a review of the literature suggested the robustness of evidence was lacking, with some promising avenues of research (McDowall & Kiseleva, 2024), particularly aimed at comprehensive service programs addressing both affective and academic issues. Edwards et al.’s (2022) survey of tertiary students with a disability at an Australian university found that the most often requested accommodations addressed extra time for assessments, with 77% of students reporting this as an effective support.

Additionally, Universal Design for Learning (UDL) has been suggested as an inclusive and strengths-based teaching approach, reducing the need for disclosure, as it is focused on making courses more accessible to all students from the design stage to the delivery stage. UDL provides greater and varied access to course materials, teaching, and assessment, reducing the need for additional supports and moving some of the focus of learner support out of disability support offices to the realm of course design and delivery (Cumming & Rose, 2022). Collectively, these recent studies underscore the need for greater consideration for inclusive pedagogical practices, staff training, and flexible academic policies tailored to 2e learners.

From a strengths-based perspective, Madaus et al. (2022a) found that effective university support includes family involvement and structured transition planning that addresses differences between secondary and post-secondary environments. Such support also emphasises students’ responsibility for developing their own pathways in higher education. This mirrors Couzens et al.’s (2015) findings of the use of informal networks by Australian tertiary students with hidden disabilities (e.g., autism, ADHD) to support their learning needs. Meanwhile, Kuder et al. (2021) emphasised the importance of self-determination and individualised transition planning in fostering academic and emotional success for 2e students with autism, calling for a shift from deficit-based models to strength-based, neurodiversity-informed frameworks.

5.2. Outcomes

Additional findings suggest that outcome disparities exist, such as university students with disabilities lagging behind their typical peers on measures such as degree completion, retention rates, and time to completion (Newman et al., 2021). Additionally, affective issues have been noted, with neurodivergent students reporting higher levels of academic stress, social isolation, interpersonal challenges, and mental health challenges, particularly when universities lack inclusive practices or fail to adequately implement accommodations, and also when students have to self-disclose, leading to feelings of shame and impacting on their self-concept and identity around their disability (Butcher & Lane, 2025; Gelbar et al., 2015; Grimes et al., 2017; S. Reis et al., 2022; Shpigelman et al., 2022).

The formation of a disability identity can act as a protective factor, leading to greater student well-being (Shmulsky et al., 2021). A more advanced disability identity includes the realisation and acceptance of a disability and membership in an affinity community (Shmulsky et al., 2021). However, disability identity literature in higher education continues to demonstrate limited empirical engagement with intersectionality and remains predominantly grounded in Western institutional contexts (Vaccaro et al., 2015; Moriña, 2017). As such, there is less known about 2e students and the process of identity formation. Most research participants identified or included in studies of university students with disabilities or with neurodivergence have not included 2e students. Given what is known about twice-exceptionality, identification remains the highest hurdle in creating greater understanding about this student population if appropriate supports are to be provided.

6. Twice-Exceptional University Students

The research literature focusing on 2e students remains underdeveloped when compared to the corpus on special education or gifted education needs. As a documented disability that impacts learning has traditionally been the route to accommodations and services at universities, the focus on identification is not surprising. Ferri et al. (1997) examined undergraduates assessed by a university disability support office using the WAIS-R and found that nearly half of the sample met criteria for a profile of gifted with a disability that impacts learning (2E). Compared with students with a disability that impacts learning only, gifted students with a disability that impacted their learning were more likely to seek support for their first assessment at university and, when previously diagnosed, had their disabilities identified later in their schooling. Twenty years later, Grimes et al. (2017) extended the discussion regarding identification and the subsequent accommodations offered to students with a disability that impacts learning, who attended a selective and private college. When comparing clinical recommendations for specific learning disorders and DSM-IV and DSM-V criteria, only 3.3 to 7.4%, respectively, were supportive for, and applied in practice, to the study’s participants. This is unsurprising, given that research has identified that there is great variability in how adjustments are understood and applied to tertiary education, particularly in Australia (Butcher & Lane, 2025).

Like Ferri et al.’s (1997) sample, some participants (40%) in Butcher and Lane’s (2025) study reported needing assistance after starting university. The accommodations recommended by clinicians were often vague and did not necessarily support a student’s academic need. For example, extra time was recommended in 88% of all cases but in half of the cases the amount of was not indicated nor was a rationale provided. A greater match between diagnoses and accommodations was needed, with more evidence regarding the efficacy of accommodations.

These two studies are part of a small corpus of literature addressing the needs of 2e students and are complicated due to the comorbidity and nature of the exceptionalities. Many universities rely on a common set of accommodations (e.g., extended time, assistive technology), which fail to address the complexities of students with a disability that impacts learning (Hillier et al., 2018). However, these common adjustments do not account for 2e students, requiring them to self-advocate for support systems that recognise both their strengths and needs (Madaus et al., 2022b), requiring self-disclosure, which can lead to a sense of shame about their disability (Butcher & Lane, 2025).

A more recent and critical mass of scholarship has largely focused on students with autism, which is consistent with the increase in identification and greater awareness of the condition over the past several decades (Austermann et al., 2024; Hillier et al., 2018; Kim & Crowley, 2021). Findings suggest a mix of strengths and deficit-based approaches to supporting students with autism attending post-secondary institutions, including highly competitive universities. University students with autism have highlighted both persistent barriers and opportunities for more student-focused support. Neumeier et al. (2022) found that while 2e students with autism often possessed exceptional abilities in areas such as mathematics, music, or memory, they continued to face significant challenges related to sensory sensitivities, executive functioning, and social integration, which are often overlooked by university disability support offices.

Current research indicates that universities predominantly emphasise deficit- or remediation-based supports, with limited attention to or recognition of strength-based approaches (Butcher & Lane, 2025; Madaus et al., 2022b). Additionally, the literature overrepresents undergraduate student experiences, gives insufficient consideration to the comorbidity of disabilities or disorders and their interaction with advanced ability, and is largely dominated by U.S.-based studies. In response to these gaps, the present project sought to explore the perceptions of Australian twice-exceptional (2e) university students regarding the supports they perceive as effective in navigating university environments by answering the following research questions:

• What supports do 2e university students find most effective?
• What do 2e university students find to be the biggest barriers to their educational success?
• What are the levels of these supports (course-based, institution-based, or self-based)?

7. Methods

An exploratory qualitative research design was selected for this project. The research design was appropriate for addressing the research aims and questions as surveys provided us with the opportunity to reach a wide number of 2e students at our university and gain broad insights and/or patterns. The researchers sought and received ethical approval from their university’s Human Research Ethics Committee.

8. Study Setting

The study was conducted at leading research-intensive Australian university, located in a major metropolitan area, with a student population of about 37,000 undergraduates and 21,000 postgraduates. There are several ways for students to receive learning adjustments. For some courses’ assessments, a two-day automatic extension is provided for all students. For those students registered through Equitable Learning Services, medical documentation must be provided and additional adjustments can be offered. For example, learning plans are developed with students that include a range of accommodations and adjustments from extensions on assessments, extended time during exams, permitted use of assistive technology, academic and writing support, and modified class participation.

9. Participant Recruitment

Participants were recruited through university social media via announcements posted on official university online platforms, where they were invited to voluntarily participate in the study, and informed consent was obtained prior to data collection. To be included, participants self-identified as an undergraduate or postgraduate student who was twice-exceptional, that is, being both gifted and neurodivergent (e.g., gifted with autism, gifted with ADHD, gifted with SLD). The researchers used an open-ended survey to gather detailed qualitative data. Of the 83 participants who commenced the survey, 37 completed all questions. Nineteen participants had been formally diagnosed as twice-exceptional and the remainder either were self-diagnosed or did not answer the question.

10. Participant Demographics

Eighty-three people attempted the survey, with 75 meeting the selection criteria by identifying as a 2e student at the university where the study was conducted. Of the 75 who met the selection criteria, 34 included their age, with most between 20 and 39 years of age (62%), and only one participant over 52 years of age (see Table 1), and just over half indicated either formal diagnosis of gifted, neurodivergent, or both. Most participants would be classified as post-graduate students studying in a graduate certificate to PhD program (see Table 1). Of the 75 who met the selection criteria, 12 participants completed the seven open-ended questions. These responses were used for the thematic data analysis (see Table 2).

Table 1. Participants.

Participant	Age	UG/PG	Formal Diagnoses
Kim	30	UG	Yes
Alex	22	UG	No
Casey	29	PG	No
Riley	47	PG	No
Ash	18	UG	No
Jerry	44	PG	Yes
Jamie	21	PG	No
Tian	46	PG	Yes
Bo	25	PG	No
Haru	35	PG	Yes
Dev	44	PG	Yes
Joon	32	UG	Yes

Note. UG = undergraduate; PG = postgraduate; Formal Diagnoses indicates whether participants reported having a formal gifted and/or disability diagnosis(es) (Yes or No). Participants were assigned pseudonyms.

Table 2. Trustworthiness of qualitative research.

Trustworthiness Criterion	Strategy	Application in This Study
Credibility	Analyst Triangulation	The reliability of the analysis in this study was achieved through researcher triangulation.
Confirmability	Thematic Analysis	The coding of the interview transcripts was performed by the first author, using an inductive approach. The theme development described above was performed by a group of researchers (A, B, C) and this was undertaken through a Reflexive Thematic Approach as guided by Braun and Clarke’s literature.
	Reflexivity	Reflexive conversations between researchers around positionality and the inclusion of a positionality statement support confirmability.
Dependability	Audit Trail	Records of the coding have been created and shared with the research team, outlining the themes, subthemes, and codes. Additionally, quotes that illustrate each of these themes and subthemes were mapped.
	Transparency around Coding Process	The clear outline of the coding process included in the methodology supports the dependability of this study.
Transferability	Transparency around Methodology	The methodology is clearly outlined in the study to ensure the applicability of findings and replicability for further research.
	Participant and Context Descriptions	The specified scope of the study and the inclusion of information about participant demographics allows readers to assess suitability for their own educational contexts.

11. Research Positionality

The authors bring complementary professional perspectives to this qualitative study of twice-exceptional students. The first author is a senior researcher in special and inclusive education with extensive experience in educational policy, teacher professional learning, and sociocultural approaches to learning, informing a focus on equity and institutional context. The second author is an international scholar with expertise in gifted education, assessment, inclusion, and learner diversity, with cross-cultural research experience that foregrounds student voice and equity-oriented analysis. The third author is a scholar in gifted and twice-exceptional education, with research interests in academic self-concept, wellbeing, and student experience in educational settings through the socio-cultural lens. The fourth author is a postgraduate research student with research interests and practical experience teaching 2e school-aged and university students. Collectively, we acknowledge that our professional roles, institutional affiliations, and commitments to inclusive practice shape our interpretations. Reflexive dialogue was maintained throughout data collection and analysis to surface assumptions and ensure that participant perspectives remained central to the research process.

12. Analysis

Reflexive Thematic Analysis (RTA) was used to analyse the qualitative data following the six-phase framework articulated by Braun and Clarke (2021). RTA was selected because it is well suited to exploratory research and supports inductive, flexible theme development grounded in participants’ accounts (Braun & Clarke, 2021). The trustworthiness of the following data analysis process is reflected in Table 2. All four researchers began with familiarisation of the data, reading the survey responses over several times, using reflexive notes to document initial observations and early hunches. Next, data were coded systematically. Coding was conducted inductively, with the first author assigning labels to data segments that captured ideas relevant to the research questions.

Next, the coding was reviewed and collated into potential themes. The second and third authors reviewed the codes and potential themes based on their reflexive notes. Thematic maps were used to visually organise relationships between codes and early theme structures. Themes were then refined through an iterative process of checking their coherence in relation to the coded extracts and the entire dataset, combining and collapsing some themes, while discarding or renaming others. The first author then defined and clearly named each distinct theme and created subthemes where needed to reflect important nuances. Themes and sub-themes were named to be reflective of the participants’ experience. The last step of the analysis is presented below in the findings section, as it involved constructing the final analytical narrative, illustrated by participant quotations. Emphasis was placed on transparency and methodological rigor in presenting the analytic journey (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Table 2 illustrates the strategies used to develop trustworthiness throughout the analysis process.

Findings

Reflexive thematic analysis yielded eight themes and 43 subthemes (see Table 3). The themes included (a) diagnosis experience; (b) sense of achievement; (c) strengths; (d) influences on confidence around learning; (d) internal supports; (e) outside supports; (f) desired supports; and (g) the most helpful supports (see Table 3).

Table 3. Coding framework.

Themes (8)	Sub-Themes (43)
Diagnosis Experience	Experience of diagnosis
	Age
Sense of Achievement	Achiever
	Definition of an achiever
Strengths	Logic/seeing patterns problem solving learning emotional intelligence creativity writing planning focus listening meeting deadlines acting on feedback
Influences on confidence around learning	Metacognition
	Communication difficulties
	Past experiences
	Obstacles
	Environment
Internal supports	Personal Characteristics
	Hard/study skills
	How skills are acquired
	Coping strategies
Outside supports	Family
	Friends
	Seeking help
	Barriers to support
	Professionals
	Medical supports
	ELS
Desired supports	Flexibility with deadlines and requirements
	University recognition of 2e
	Instructor support
	Study skills instruction
Most helpful supports	Formal
	Informal
	None
	Technology
	Note taking
	Adjusting recordings
	Exemplars
	Task management systems

13. Diagnosis Experience

The respondents reported a variety of experiences regarding identification as gifted or diagnosis of some form of neurodivergence, such as autism, ADHD, dyslexia, etc. Many experienced separate diagnoses, with many years in between the first and second. One respondent was currently waiting on an additional assessment. One participant related their experience.

So, from the ages of 8–13, I knew something was going on, and I would often be placed in the special education classes based on my testing scores, but would often be moved into extension English … I didn’t end up receiving an ADHD and Autism Diagnosis until I was 30.

(Haru, PG)

Another described their experience as circuitous, explaining that teachers in as early as first grade identified that they were advanced in some areas and really struggling in others. Other teachers communicated the same concerns to the participant’s parents, resulting in testing in 1998, 2001, and 2003, with no real diagnosis until age 11, when they were diagnosed with dyslexia. Another was identified as gifted at age 12, then ADHD in their twenties. This experience was echoed by others, who talked about being tested frequently when younger but with no conclusive diagnosis until well into adulthood. It appeared that appropriate opportunities for diagnoses were missed or inconclusive, hence overlooked opportunities for academic and affective supports.

14. Sense of Achievement

When asked whether they viewed themselves as achievers, participants were split in their responses. Some (four) simply answered yes and explained their response by comparing themselves to typical peers or by their achievements. Two others felt that they were achievers due to their high IQ. One explained, “I believe I am an achiever, as during my original diagnostic process they gave me an IQ test that showed I was in the top 3% for ‘Numerical Operations’ and the top 8% of my age group for ‘Maths Problem Solving” (Ash, UG).

A couple of participants felt they were achievers, but with a caveat—one related that they felt they were an achiever but “it takes a lot of work for me to get things done” (Joon, UG). Another said that although they have gotten high results, they were unsure of the quality of their work and efforts and thought that maybe in a few more years they could claim to be an achiever. It was evident that even those who felt they were achievers were not fully confident in their declaration.

The remaining eight respondents either felt they were non-achievers or underachievers, and failing to live up to their potential. Several of these lamented that although they had the ability, they were not “achieving in what I know I could/should,” (Casey, PG) or feeling like “I’m just struggling to keep my head above water” (Tian, PG). One participant summed these feelings up: “It’s also been a personal frustration for me at times, feeling this intangible barrier between myself and my goals, never quite being able to self-actualise in the way I wanted” (Haru, PG).

Two of the participants included their definitions of what being an achiever meant to them, listing “exceeding expectations” (Casey, PG) and basing their assessment on their performance at university. Conversely, one participant declared that their personal feelings of what it means to be an achiever has changed over time from being defined by “the people around me,” as a young person, to now as an adult, where “personal values and priorities usually determine it” (Haru, PG).

15. Strengths

Participants were cognizant of their individual strengths. Combined, they mentioned 11 individual strengths (presented in order of most mentioned to least noted): (a) logic/seeing patterns, (b) problem solving, (c) learning, (e) emotional intelligence, (f) creativity, (e) writing, (f) planning, (g) focus, (h) listening, (i) meeting deadlines, and (j) acting on feedback. It should be noted that the last three strengths were mentioned just once by three different participants, as they are not normally strengths associated with neurodivergence.

Several participants viewed logic as a strength. One participant noted, “I am good with pattern recognition, organisational things, and think of myself as a logical person” (Haru, PG). These responses were similar to those made about problem solving, where participants used terms such as lateral thinking, analytical thinking, systems thinking and problem solving to describe their skills in that area. These are abilities consistent with the skills that some participants labelled learning. One effused, “I am an incredibly good learner. I remember details from the lectures and readings in minute detail. I enjoy learning” (Tian, PG).

Respondents felt that their emotional intelligence was a strength. Attributes included high levels empathy, good communication, and sensitivity as evidence of this. One participant explained how they have strengthened their emotional intelligence by using other skills:

I’ve also recently discovered that I have high levels of empathy but haven’t been taught the skills I needed to hone that skill and often I’d be picking up on emotional shifts but being overwhelmed by them where now I’m starting to be able to relate it to my pattern recognition and logic skills and it’s been helpful.

(Haru, PG)

A few participants felt that creativity was a strength that they possessed, one relating how they used their creativity to how creativity informs their teaching. Another talked about how they, “can think outside the box to apply my knowledge to different situations” (Kim, UG). Furthermore, writing and planning as both coping strategies and strengths were mentioned by several respondents.

16. Influences on Confidence Around Learning

While most (10) respondents indicated that they felt confident about their ability to learn, they spoke of both positive and negative influences on their learning. The most frequently mentioned were internal influences, such as metacognition. Knowing how they learn and what they need to do to reach goals was clearly of importance. As one participant stated, “I know I am capable and I can picture the outcome/content of assessments I intend to produce” (Casey, PG). Others described how their feelings towards learning and achievement influenced how and whether they learned. One respondent described how they tried to improve their response to learning challenges, “I’ve made an intention to try and stop finding workarounds that prevent me from having to learn things that are challenging for me and lean into finding new ways to learn” (Haru, PG).

Past experiences also influenced learning, mostly in a negative manner. Some participants complained that they never learned the foundational skills necessary to excel now, and another found it difficult to come back from a negative learning experience, stating, “It’s taken me a long time to have a desire to pursue traditional education again” (Haru, PG), while still another lamented that “the lack of confidence around my learning comes from decades of failing at school” (Tian, PG). For some participants positive past performance increased their confidence in their learning, with some being validated by grades: “Grades influence myself worth and confidence significantly, as they are an easy-to-use metric” (Ash, UG).

There was a general feeling that accessible environments and supportive teachers improved one’s confidence in learning. One participant said that all they had achieved was only possible due to “environments that are more accepting of different ways of learning or doing things have become more common” (Haru, PG), and another felt that “teachers’ ability to clearly communicate and their approachability also heavily influenced my confidence” (Ash, UG). The inverse was also true; participants mentioned external obstacles, changes in assessment criteria or structure during the course, and people who focused on deficits could negatively affect their confidence, as well as their learning outcomes.

17. Internal Supports

When asked about supports, participants spoke of supports that were either internal to them (personal characteristics or skills) or coping strategies they had developed over time. Personal characteristics included resilience, intuition, emotional regulation, resourcefulness, intelligence, and memory. Two participants even revealed that they had an innate desire to prove others wrong and this kept them going, even when things became difficult. One explained:

There is something about achieving a certain level of legitimacy and belonging within an institution that would have historically not allowed me within its walls, and this is an aspect that helps me push against the system when it doesn’t work for me.

(Haru, 35 years old, PG)

Skills comprised communication, problem solving, time management, attention to detail, research skills, technology skills, and reading skills. When asked how they acquired their learning skills, a variety of sources were included: three participants had no idea, some remembered learning them in school, and one claimed to have learned quick thinking through sports and video games.

Further analysis revealed a variety of coping skills that participants had learned and honed. There were quite a few examples of participants fostering their metacognitive skills, such as developing systems that work for them to study. One participant gave a detailed illustration of how that worked for them:

It’s a lot of trial and error and a lot of the times you develop a system that worked for you in one course or learning environment and then it doesn’t work in the next because there are a lot of inconsistencies in classrooms and with educators. I’d like to say that I’ve somehow cracked the code and found the perfect system, but part of being neurodivergent is that often how it presents is dynamic.

(Haru, PG)

Three respondents described other coping skills such as time management strategies, including setting timers and alarms, coding calendars by color, and shifting sleeping schedules to accommodate times when they work best. A couple mentioned that body doubling worked for them. For example, sending audio messages to friends to describe what they are doing or using a body doubling online platform.

Rest and/or self-care was seen as a valuable coping strategy. Respondents talked about taking naps, taking breaks with their pets, and engaging in physical activity. Other coping strategies included stimming by chewing gum or by doodling/coloring while listening to lectures. One participant said they used self-encouragement: “I try to encourage myself with positive language to start (e.g., ‘I can do this’, ‘I’ll feel better once I’ve done this’)” (Alex, UG).

18. Outside Supports

Participants revealed that they were supported in multiple ways by others, including family, friends, psychiatrists/psychologists, support workers, medical personnel and medications, university disability support services, and course convenors. Family and friends acted as springboards for ideas, editors, help with life tasks and for emotional support. Seven respondents accessed outside supports via counseling by professionals. Participants accessed other medial support such as mobility aids and medication, with one participant talking about using a cane and eight respondents noting that they take medication to help with their neurodivergent and medical conditions. One respondent mentioned that they have a support worker who “comes to my apartment once or twice a week for 2 h and helps me run errands, doing life chores and checks in on any challenges I’m having and helps me problem solve” (Haru, PG), while another was in the process of accessing similar support through the NDIS.

University supports were important to participants’ educational success. Almost ¾ of respondents mentioned the university’s disability support services and their individual learning support plans as crucial. The plan provision that was spoken about the most was extensions to assessment deadlines. Others spoke about their plans in general terms, without explaining why they were helpful or what kind of support they provided. One participant claimed that their most helpful outside support was in the form of “Contact with course convenors, lecturers and tutors for questions, clarification and short extensions” (Alex, UG). Six respondents did not receive any outside support.

When asked which supports were the most helpful, participants again named the university formal disability support services. They also mentioned course provisions—lecture recordings, clear assessment guidelines, and having more than one person teaching a topic, such as lecturers and tutors. Technology was again raised as a significant support, especially reading software, project management software, and AI such as Claude or ChatGPT.

19. Desired Supports

When tasked with describing supports that they did not currently have but would like to have, participants wanted instruction on study skills/organisation, and more support from course instructors. One respondent felt that the formal university disability supports were “…mostly set up for undergraduate students. I don’t think they offer enough for higher degree research (HDR) students” (Jerry, PG). As part of this desire, they also wanted more flexibility with program requirements in terms of acceleration of submission time requirements and allowing students to skip subjects if they prove mastery of the content.

These suggestions are in line with one request that the university recognise twice-exceptional students:

The university needs to truly evaluate how their processes and procedures support or hinder 2E students. For example, as part of my EdD I need to do coursework. The coursework is tedious, and it is a repetition of what I already know and do.

(Jerry, PG)

Other participants echoed this sentiment, calling for the university to provide staff training in twice-exceptionality and neurodiversity so that those students can feel recognised and heard.

20. The Most Helpful Supports

Participants identified both formal and informal supports as helpful, with informal and technology-enabled strategies discussed most extensively. Formal supports included Extended Learning Support (ELS), lecture recordings, clear assessment guidelines, and exposure to multiple lecturers. Lecture recordings were valued for flexibility, with one participant noting, “I listen to lectures sped up and would rather revisit the content multiple times than have it play at regular speed as I tune it out” (Casey, PG). Other formal supports included structured assessment frameworks aligned to the marking criteria which reduced ambiguity and the opportunity to have more than one lecturer, enabling access to alternative explanations when needed.

Informal study supports received greater emphasis in participant responses than formal supports. Technology, particularly Artificial Intelligence (AI) and digital applications, featured prominently. One participant explained:

My curiosity means I’m an early adopter of new tech or emerging pedagogies, using AI has helped me organise myself but also come up with differentiated strategies and student progress analysis that I couldn’t have come up with in the past.

(Riley, PG)

AI was used to search for information, check alignment with assessment prompts, and support verbal processing and logical reasoning.

Applications (apps) were also widely used. As one participant stated, “I really love finding new apps, programs and systems that can help me whether it be text readers, project management software, or new ways of communicating” (Haru, PG). Reading software was described as particularly effective: “Using text readers to read my academic papers to me while I do menial tasks like cleaning my apartment helps me taking in basic information to start processing things” (Haru, PG). Project management and task-management tools supported workload planning and time regulation.

Technology also enabled personalised adjustments, such as modifying lecture speed or volume. Notetaking strategies, including color-coding, mind maps, and Post-it notes, were used to organise and consolidate ideas. Exemplars, worked examples, and word banks further clarified expectations.

While most participants reported multiple effective supports, two indicated they had no strategies that currently worked for them. The range of formal and informal supports emphasised demonstrates the diverse need for learning scaffolds in tertiary education settings. Overall, the theme underscores the value of flexible, self-regulated and technology-supported approaches to learning.

21. Discussion

This study sought to better understand the experiences of 2e university students in the Australian context by addressing what supports they find effective in navigating university settings using the TDMM’s appropriate opportunities to extend domain-specific development. Echoing previous research findings, there was a reliance on deficit-based approaches with little consideration to the complexity of 2e student needs. Additionally, participants found their own pathways to effective accommodations, disregarding the institutional supports. The postgraduate experiences shared by several participants, which represent a relative gap in the literature, further revealed the uniformity of available supports and their narrow focus on undergraduate student needs.

A range of formal and informal supports were noted by participants, including extended time, which is the most common accommodation or support offered to university students for tests or assessments (McDowall & Kiseleva, 2024). The amount of extended time has come under scrutiny, as it is arbitrary (as was in the case of our participants), often not aligned to the disability diagnosis(es), or went unused or was not needed (Gelbar et al., 2022; Lovett, 2010; Römhild & Hollederer, 2024). For students with ADHD and/or those with poor executive function skills, such as time management, extended time may not be used effectively (Lovett & Leja, 2015). While extended time is a welcome accommodation for most students (Gelbar et al., 2022), greater consideration should be given to the type of disability and whether the accommodation is appropriate. Additionally, Bartolo et al.’s (2023) systematic review noted that students believed more tailored supports were needed, dependent on changing student needs (e.g., varying levels of stress and degree programs).

Participants indicated that informal supports were helpful in finding ways to address their own learning needs and ranged from individual instructors, personal device apps, and family and friends. Informal supports can be an effective and integral part of a student’s network in creating positive social and academic outcomes. These types of supports are less systematic and often dependent on students’ psychosocial skills, such as resilience, as students explore various approaches through trial and error. Individual instructors with more inclusive approaches to teaching provide welcoming learning environments and multiple ways to access curriculum and related materials, such as UDL. The understanding, inclusively minded instructors described by participants in this study challenged earlier findings which found instructors who refused to provide accommodations or expressed disbelief about a student’s disability, and instructor discussions with students to counsel them out of a particular program and move to an “easier” major (Toutain, 2019).

Course-based supports were instructor-dependent, with no systematic plan for implementation or expectation that instructors were to go beyond the accommodations provided by the support office. This finding was not surprising, given the lack of professional learning for university-based lecturers regarding special education needs, the misperceptions regarding students with disabilities and their participation in tertiary education, large classes, time poor instructors, and a large number of adjunct lecturers engaged with Australian universities, which can result in quality unevenness (Edwards, 2022).

Similarly, the graduate students in the current study felt that university supports were tailored for undergraduates and did not take into consideration the differences between undergraduate and graduate student needs. Spier and Natalier (2023) addressed the difficulty of post-graduate students with visible physical disabilities in obtaining reasonable adjustments and again underscored the need for individualised adjustments and a move away from standardised adjustments. However, a gap in the literature exists regarding post-graduate special needs support, as well as a failure to recognise developmental needs as students move toward greater domain-specific content, knowledge, and skills.

22. Identification Lag

There was an evident lag between identification for either giftedness or a disability, which impacted access to supports for either or both exceptionalities. The respondents in this sample were more often identified as gifted first, with a disability or neurodivergence coming later, with, in some cases, over a decade or more between the two diagnoses. This lag creates an environment for missed opportunities rather than appropriate opportunities (Subotnik et al., 2021).

Possessing and developing a disability identity can serve as a protector and encourage well-being and aid in untangling the discordance when encountering academic barriers. Still, this identification lag can be disruptive when considering identity (Cumming et al., 2025). Late diagnoses of a disability or disorder also created a missed appropriate opportunity, or at the very least delayed, identity formation (Bartolo et al., 2023). As a more complete and robust disability identity formation can support positive well-being, being diagnosed with a disability or neurodivergent later in life could be disruptive when trying to understand the impact of the diagnoses retrospectively (Cumming et al., 2025). The benefit of being with peers of similar ability is observed as a protective benefit for gifted and talented students with neurodivergence (S. M. Reis et al., 2021; S. Reis et al., 2022). Identity for this group of participants informed achievement in three distinct ways—achievers, underachievers, or hesitant achievers.

23. TDMM

Still, the lack of a systemic implementation of support raises issues regarding equity and access and unavailability of missed opportunities. The TDMM emphasises the development of specific domain-dependent trajectories through appropriate opportunities, with special education needs creating barriers to such opportunities and/or limiting the ability of students to take full advantage of the opportunities (Subotnik et al., 2021) or talent moderators.

Appropriate Opportunities

With older participants in the sample having the greatest lag between diagnoses, missed opportunities or the inability to take full advantage of those opportunities for developing talent could have occurred due to an undiagnosed disability and/or neurodivergent disorder that impacted learning (Subotnik et al., 2021). These opportunities could be considered developmentally inappropriate. While talent is considered domain-specific, learning disabilities or neurodivergences are domain interacting. Thus, using a strengths-based approach, talent opportunities should adapt to a learning need or context, rather than withholding opportunities (or using a deficit-based approach) until for example, basic study skills are mastered.

24. Psychosocial Skills

Psychosocial skills are also underscored in the TDMM and are integral in developing advanced ability or aptitude to exceptional performance. The participants in this study noted they had developed workarounds, for example, to address assignment difficulty, suggesting resilience in the face of challenge. For other participants, prior marks or achievements had developed self-confidence. Early identification of both exceptionalities could provide experiences both in and out of school during primary and secondary school to support their advanced abilities, which could help mitigate some of the difficulties and create greater pathways to success with the support of both strengths-based and remedial support.

25. Implications

Although the respondents represent a small sample of a larger 2e population, their individual needs represent an array of academic and affective needs. The findings from this study reveal the need for greater attention for empirical investigations of 2e university students and revealed gaps in the literature. Some research suggests that the university is often an educational setting where another exceptionality is identified. However, this understanding has been built on anecdotal literature and sample sizes. Already existing university student databases could aid in providing a more accurate count of the 2e population. This understanding could prepare universities to aid students in a more systemic fashion, rather than it being the responsibility of one office with students leveraging other campus supports in an ad hoc manner. Of further interest to researchers is the development of AI tools to help lecturers who do not have the background knowledge to create and implement accommodations. In the tertiary education setting, greater collaborative effort with students is vital.

26. Limitations

The number of respondents completing all seven of the open-ended questions compared to those who noted they were 2e was disappointing and thus limits the generalisability of the results. A second limitation is that students self-identified as twice-exceptional. Lastly, educators and disability support office personnel were not a part of this study and could have been helpful in understanding the constraints faced by personnel.

27. Conclusions

The aim of this research was to explore the perceptions of effective supports for 2e students. Through the findings of this study, we highlighted the special education needs and support experiences of twice-exceptional tertiary students and the challenges they experienced. Both informal and formal pathways provided supports for a variety of learning differences and disabilities. These were identified as key facilitators of positive experiences, as long as they were strengths-based as opposed to deficit-based. Notably, a lag in identification of either or both exceptionalities led to barriers for students in accessing appropriate talent development opportunities. A continued focus on the lived experiences of twice-exceptional students in higher education would contribute to greater awareness of effective supports, and a step towards more inclusive and supportive educational settings for twice-exceptional adults. Therefore, further research is an essential next step in determining a wider-range of effective supports, potentially across disciplines and faculties.