Content area
In a large, urban US public school district that began a new identification system for gifted education focused on the equity and inclusion of twice-exceptional (2e) students, a need for the further training of educators involved with assessment, services, and planning with this unique group of students was warranted. After attending a professional learning (PL) event, 243 ancillary staff members (school psychologists, social workers, occupational and physical therapists, and speech/language pathologists) completed a survey with both closed- and open-ended responses. This study was guided by the research question: How does professional development on twice-exceptional (2e) students affect ancillary staff’s knowledge and confidence for supporting 2e students? The survey results provided valuable insights (themes) into participants’ perceptions of their understanding and ability to support 2e students after the PL session.
1. Introduction
The Jacob K. Javits Award represents the only United States federal funding for programming and research designed to benefit students with gifts and talents (SWGT). Typically, the Javits award prioritizes services for gifted students with disabilities (SWD) among other students who are under-identified in gifted education programs (Berger, 1992). The 2022 Request for Proposals (RFP) established the training of personnel to identify and teach SWD and the inclusion of twice-exceptional (2e) students in gifted programming as competitive priorities. “Twice-exceptionality” is the term used, particularly in gifted education, to denote those students identified as gifted and who also have a disability (Foley-Nicpon & Kim, 2020). Such students are often under-identified for both special education and gifted education because of the masking effect that their strengths and support needs can exert over one another. 2e students are often more challenging to identify and serve appropriately, due to varied cognitive, psychosocial, and academic complexities (Foley-Nicpon & Kim, 2020).
As recipients of a Javits grant, our team recognized that to meet the objective of identifying and serving 2e students, especially in a state lacking legislation regarding gifted education, our charge would be multifaceted. It would not only include instructing district educational professionals about SWGT but would also include providing the additional knowledge that a SWGT can also be a SWD, and thus 2e. To ensure that the inclusion of 2e students would not be overlooked, our strategic planning for the district change process included professional learning (PL) not only for classroom teachers, but also for a category of district personnel referred to by the district as ancillary staff: psychologists, counselors, social workers, and various therapists. To date, our Javits team has offered three PL opportunities to ancillary staff. This research reports on the results of the most recent session, a three-hour PL event offered in fall 2024. Our understanding of what was needed by ancillary staff to support 2e students was informed by a review of the literature, including the roles of each category of personnel, the scope of their work as typically practiced, and their potential work and advocacy on behalf of 2e students. Ancillary staff play a unique role in identifying students for special programs such as gifted and talented programs. Often, these folks (especially school psychologists) administer assessments and evaluations that are quite extensive, spending hours with the student one-on-one. Both the assessment findings and the in-depth conversations could yield information not previously known or understood regarding the student’s individual strengths. This meant that the fall 2024 PL included learning about the social, emotional, cognitive, and academic presentation of 2e students within the context of their diagnosis with an emphasis on strength-based accommodations and interventions (Assouline & Whiteman, 2011; Foley-Nicpon et al., 2015; Foley-Nicpon & Kim, 2020).
2. Literature Review
According to the 1993 United States federal definition (which our Javits team feels is the most inclusive and appropriate), SWGT are students who perform at, or have the potential to perform at, higher levels when compared to others of the same age, levels of experience, and in the same environment, in one or more domains. Examples of domains where giftedness can be present are mathematics, science, language arts, and visual/performing arts. SWGT require modification(s) to their educational experience(s) to learn and realize their potential (Margot & Melin, 2020). Gagné (2004) further delineates between gifts and talents, explaining that giftedness designates the possession and use of untrained and spontaneously expressed superior natural abilities and that talent designates the superior mastery of systematically developed abilities (or skills) and knowledge in at least one field of human activity. Schools play a vital role in talent development, whereby gifts are nurtured and provided with the opportunity to be translated into talents. The identification of one’s gifts within school settings, therefore, plays an essential role in helping SWGT to self-actualize to their full potential.
Kaufman (2018) defines 2e individuals as those who “demonstrate exceptional levels of capacity, competence, commitment, or creativity in one or more domains coupled with one or more learning difficulties” (p. 7). While scholarship began recognizing students with both gifts and learning difficulties as early as the 1920s, it has only been given due diligence amongst researchers and educators for about the last 50 years (Assouline & Whiteman, 2011). The last two decades have seen a spike in common language and understanding about the unique profile of these 2e students. The field now has widespread agreement that 2e students are those identified as gifted/talented in one or more domains and who simultaneously possess one or more disabilities (Assouline et al., 2006; Assouline & Whiteman, 2011; Foley-Nicpon et al., 2011). Twice-exceptional students can be unidentified and/or misdiagnosed in three ways: (1) students identified as gifted, but their disability and/or diagnosis is unidentified; (2) students identified as having a disability and/or diagnosis, but their talent domains are unrecognized; or (3) both the students’ talent domains and disabilities are not identified (Foley-Nicpon et al., 2011). Given these three scenarios, proper identification of 2e students is even more complex and nuanced than the identification of giftedness alone and requires knowledge from both the fields of special education and gifted and talented education (Baldwin et al., 2015). Understanding how students with both gifts and disabilities present is also essential to help guide appropriate interventions (Foley-Nicpon & Kim, 2020).
Gilman and Peters (2018) explain that 2e students require specialized methods of identification that include possible interactions of the exceptionalities. They also explain the importance of specialized methods of supports that should be provided to ensure that the student’s potential is realized while providing for their social–emotional health. Often, these accommodations and interventions can be supported by ancillary staff within the school system. It is therefore important that these individuals understand the nature and needs of 2e learners.
In service to SWD, psychologists, social workers, and assorted therapists play unique and vital roles in school settings. According to state data reported for the school year 2022–2023, the district in which this research was conducted had a special education count of 6884 students, served by approximately 600 professionals in these roles (Michigan’s Center for Educational Performance and Information, 2022–2023). This literature review broadly highlights the roles played by the varying professionals who attended the professional learning opportunity on which this study was based. It is blended with gifted education research that suggests the potential roles that these professionals might play in the identification of, and service to, SWGT.
2.1. School Psychologists
School psychologists are a class of professionals that apply their expertise in mental health, learning, and behavior to help students succeed and flourish in academic settings (National Association of School Psychologists, n.d.). They partner with teachers, families, and school administrators to create learning environments that positively impact the social, emotional, and academic lives of children. Assouline and Whiteman (2011) describe the importance of increasing the awareness and understanding of school psychologists about the 2e population so that they can provide better assessments and recommendations for interventions. Understanding that gifts and diagnosed disability are not mutually exclusive but instead create complexities best served with nuanced identification measures and explanations helps these individuals to provide better recommendations to educators working daily with students. PL needs to include clinical and educational experiences linked to diagnoses and understanding of how a comprehensive evaluation is used to fully understand the student’s individual strengths and challenges (Assouline & Whiteman, 2011; Foley-Nicpon & Kim, 2020). Research suggests that this type of PL improves student outcomes by helping school psychologists to guide appropriate interventions.
2.2. School Social Workers
The school social worker’s (SSW) goal is to enhance the social and emotional growth and academic outcomes for students (School Social Work Association of America, n.d.). In the district in which the current study was conducted, many schools utilize these professionals to provide social and emotional learning (SEL) training and support for both teachers and students. SSW often enhance the collaboration between students, educators, and families. These connections can be particularly meaningful for 2e students, who are unique and more difficult to understand (Margot & Melin, 2020). Support groups for 2e parents have benefited from learning from SSW about parenting strategies by providing a space where these families can share ideas, frustrations, and successes (Sornik, 2012). The research on the link between district-employed SSW and 2e students is scarce. This may be because SSW are used less frequently in other states. Nevertheless, a link exists between their role and the need for strong collaboration between home and school to understand and support interventions and strategies for student success (Besnoy, 2018).
2.3. Speech–Language–Hearing Specialists, Occupational and Physical Therapists
Speech-language pathologists and hearing audiologists are used within schools to identify, assess, and treat speech, language, and swallowing disorders and provide audiologic treatment (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, n.d.). Knoop (2023) contends that these experts are in a unique position to support 2e students by understanding what they need to thrive. During treatment, they can look for indications of giftedness that they can then bring up during Individualized Education Program (IEP) meetings. The IEP is developed collaboratively with a team consisting of teachers, family, administrators, school support specialists, and the students themselves, and provides information about the student’s current performance, specific learning goals, and the types of support/services the student will receive to be successful in their education. Student strengths might also be identified and foregrounded during a 504 meeting. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, a federal law that provides civil rights protection to individuals with disabilities, outlines specific accommodations that a student with a disability needs to access their education. Additionally, these specialists can provide better training to help educators understand that, for example, although a child may have support needs with speech and/or language, they might still have an above average vocabulary and enjoy advanced literature (Knoop, 2023). Similarly, Guzman-Roman et al. (2025) explain the importance of training educators to fully understand persons identified as Hard of Hearing (HOH) so their strengths (higher visual working memory, strong visual and observational skills) can be leveraged for talent development.
Occupational and physical therapists also have an important role in schools to ensure an appropriate education and access for SWD by promoting health, well-being, and participation, and to prepare them for their futures (American Physical Therapy Association [APTA], n.d.). Like speech-language and hearing experts, occupational and physical therapists often spend time in therapy with students which may result in the revelation of strengths and gifts not identified in their general or special education classroom. With training about gifted traits, behaviors, and characteristics, these therapists can advocate for their patients during data gathering and IEP meetings.
These professionals work in districts to partner with families and educators to foster accessibility and care for students. Many of them work one-on-one with students during the school day providing opportunities to more deeply understand student strengths, thus placing these experts in a position from which to advocate during meetings to determine best educational placement and needed accommodations.
The research points to a critical opportunity: with the right knowledge and tools, ancillary staff can serve as powerful advocates for 2e students. Their direct work with students offers unique insight into strengths that might otherwise go unnoticed. This literature informed the design of the professional learning session at the center of this study, which aimed to expand their capacity to identify and support twice-exceptional learners.
2.4. Self-Efficacy and Gifted Education
As a theory of learning, Bandura’s (1978, 2001) concept of self-efficacy links one’s expectations to one’s behaviors. An individual’s behavior is influenced by their belief in their ability to carry out the behavior with efficacy (efficacy expectancy) and their belief that their behavior will create the desired outcome (outcome expectancy). Expectations arise from four different sources: performance accomplishments, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological states (Bandura, 1978).
The belief in oneself often translates into how a person performs. This correlation has been found in education related to teachers (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). When a teacher believes in their ability to help students learn and grow, students’ academic achievement increases.
Similar results have been found within gifted education. For example, Kim and Seo (2018) found that educator self-efficacy was linked with academic student success outcomes in gifted students. Dinçer (2019) used the Gifted Education Self-efficacy Scale for Teachers (GESST), developed by Tortop (2014), to examine the relationship between educator self-efficacy and their attitudes/beliefs regarding giftedness. The findings indicated that teachers trained in giftedness score higher than educators without this training. They recommended increased in-service training related to the education of gifted students. A team of researchers in Ghana examined preservice teachers to determine the relationship between their attitudes and the self-efficacy of gifted individuals (Opoku et al., 2023). The findings indicated that attitudes towards teaching gifted students is a significant predictor of efficacy. The large body of research on the topic of self-efficacy and positive growth in education makes this an important topic to focus on. Developing educator self-efficacy could yield positive educational outcomes for gifted students.
3. Purpose of the Study
This study was conducted in a large, urban school district located in the Midwest region of the United States. A federally funded project to establish solid infrastructure for gifted education identification and services for underrepresented populations created the means through which this study was undertaken. The project’s stipulation to identify and include 2e students necessitated the training of any educators providing services to SWD. The district employs approximately 600 ancillary staff members (school psychologists, social workers, and assorted therapists). In response to their supervisor’s request for professional learning (PL), an eminent specialist in therapy and support for neurodivergent individuals was hired to provide an in-person PL session. Neurodivergent is a term used to describes individuals whose brains develop or work differently in some way (Margot & Melin, 2020). She identifies as 2e herself and often features the topic on episodes of her podcast. Her PL session included explanations and examples of giftedness, neurotypical versus neurodiversity, and 2e. She provided ways in which ancillary personnel might identify giftedness as they interact with students in their specific roles. Furthermore, she provided supports that personnel might include in IEPs and 504s to ensure that students’ strength areas are addressed by classroom teachers, as well as resources for them to later access and utilize when needed. This study was conducted in an effort to answer the following research question:
How does professional development on twice-exceptional (2e) students affect ancillary staff’s knowledge and confidence for supporting 2e students? Additionally, this study examined potential differences across staff types through analyses by professional role.
4. Materials and Methods
4.1. Participants
A total of 243 participants completed the survey; their demographics are summarized in Table 1. Most participants identified as female; the majority identified as Black or African American or White. The most common professional roles were social workers and speech-language pathologists. Participants had a wide range of experience in education, with a substantial proportion reporting over 20 years in the field.
4.2. Procedures
All ancillary staff members in the district were invited to attend the Friday afternoon session in person at one of the district high school auditoriums. Invitations were issued via email and as a calendar reminder. The neurodiversity expert conducted a three-hour session on 2e learners and how ancillary staff can uniquely support these individuals in the district. After the session, ancillary staff were asked to voluntarily complete an online survey consisting of eight closed-ended items, six open-ended questions, and a section for demographic information (Appendix A). Approval was received from the Campus Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects to conduct this research project. The survey solicited no identifying information to maintain the confidentiality of the participants. Opting not to participate in the study did not impact employees in any way.
Given certain limitations affecting this study (the large number of professionals requiring training, the lack of time in which to provide the presentation, and the limited funding for the number and type of trainings to be offered), the structure of this training was limited to verbal persuasion (Bandura, 1978, 2001) and one instance of performance accomplishment in the form of participant modeling.
Verbal persuasion was provided subtly through exhortation and suggestion during the presentation. Moreover, the open-ended question “How will you apply today’s learning?” reflects a performance accomplishment, in that participants were able to forecast their future behavior as a kind of imaginative “modeling” of the steps they will take when the situation arises to do so. Both the open- and closed-item questions were developed by adapting the self-efficacy instruments developed by Tortop (2014) and Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998).
4.3. Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics (frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations) were used to analyze responses to closed-ended survey questions. These included a yes/no item assessing prior familiarity with the term twice-exceptional (2e), six Likert-scale items measuring perceptions of understanding and confidence related to 2e students, and one item evaluating overall satisfaction with the training. All Likert-scale items were scored on a 5-point scale, with higher values indicating greater agreement or satisfaction, depending on the item. For analyses comparing professional roles, the Administrator (n = 8), Hearing/Vision Impairment Professional (n = 6), and Other (n = 12) categories were combined into a single Other group (n = 26) due to limited sample sizes. Slight variations in sample size across items were due to occasional nonresponse, and analyses were conducted on the available cases for each item. Chi-square tests were used to examine associations between professional role and familiarity; analyses of variance (ANOVAs) tested for differences in Likert-scale ratings across roles.
Open-ended responses were analyzed using inductive content analysis. Responses were read multiple times to identify recurring patterns, which were coded and grouped into overarching themes. A single coder conducted the initial analysis; themes were refined through peer review to ensure clarity and consistency. To enhance the trustworthiness of the findings, two additional experts reviewed the responses and checked the assigned codes, providing feedback to ensure consistency and accuracy. This process of collaborative review increased inter-rater reliability and strengthened the validity of the coding scheme (Creswell & Poth, 2016). Throughout, coding insights were provided for participants’ perceptions of the training’s impact, challenges in supporting 2e students, and suggestions for future improvements.
5. Results
The survey results provided insights into participants’ perceptions of their understanding and ability to support 2e students following the professional learning (PL) session.
5.1. Prior Familiarity with 2e Terminology
Participants were asked if they were familiar with the term “twice exceptional (2e)” prior to the session. Of the 243 participants who completed demographic questions, 235 provided responses to the familiarity item and were included in the analysis. Among these respondents, 51.1% (n = 120) reported being unfamiliar with the term, while 48.9% (n = 115) indicated familiarity, highlighting a baseline knowledge gap addressed by the training.
A chi-square test of independence indicated a significant association between professional role and familiarity, χ2(4, N = 235) = 19.38, p < 0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.20. Among those unfamiliar with the term (n = 120), social workers accounted for more than half of the responses (53.3%), followed by speech-language pathologists (20.8%) and OT/PT providers (12.5%), with smaller proportions of school psychologists (5.8%) and other professionals (7.5%). In contrast, school psychologists made up 12.3% of the overall sample but 19.1% of the “Yes” group, indicating comparatively higher prior familiarity.
5.2. Enhancement of Understanding, Recognition, and Confidence in Working with 2e Students
Responses on a 5-point Likert scale indicated that the training had a positive impact on participants’ knowledge and confidence (Table 2). The highest mean score was for Item 1, “I felt today’s session enhanced my understanding of the unique needs of 2e students” (M = 4.33, Mdn = 5.00), indicating that the session significantly improved understanding. Participants also reported confidence in recognizing and describing the characteristics of 2e students (Item 2; M = 4.16, Mdn = 4.00) and in identifying 2e students in practice (Item 3; M = 4.10, Mdn = 4.00). Confidence in applying evidence-based strategies for 2e students was strong (Item 5; M = 4.04, Mdn = 4.00), followed by confidence in suggesting appropriate accommodations (Item 4; M = 3.96, Mdn = 4.00). The lowest rating was for Item 6, “I am confident that I can effectively serve 2e students in my role at the district” (M = 4.03, Mdn = 4.00), though it still indicated strong confidence overall.
When responses were examined across professional roles, no statistically significant differences were observed in participants’ self-reported enhancement of understanding, recognition, or confidence (all p-values > 0.05), indicating that the training was equally effective across roles.
5.3. Overall Satisfaction with the Training
Overall satisfaction with the training was very high (n = 241, M = 4.49, SD = 0.78, Mdn = 5.00). This strong rating indicated that the session was both engaging and informative, effectively meeting participants’ needs.
When satisfaction ratings were examined across professional roles, no statistically significant differences were observed (all p-values > 0.05), indicating consistently high satisfaction across all participant groups.
In summary, the survey data demonstrated that the training session significantly enhanced ancillary staff’s understanding of the needs of 2e students, improved their confidence in recognizing and supporting these students, and provided practical strategies for their educational roles. The high overall satisfaction with the training further underscored its success, while the low baseline familiarity with 2e terminology highlighted the critical importance of such professional development initiatives.
5.4. Findings of Open-Ended Responses and Key Insights
Participants responded to six open-ended questions alongside closed-ended scale items (Appendix A). These questions explored their reflections on how the training would support their work with 2e students, how they plan to apply the knowledge gained, what surprised them, the barriers they face, the support they need, and suggestions for improving future training. The responses offer valuable insights into both the strengths and challenges that educators experience when supporting 2e students within the educational system.
5.4.1. Key Takeaways from Training
The training significantly deepened participants’ understanding of the complexities surrounding 2e students, particularly in recognizing the dual nature of their abilities and challenges. Many became more aware that giftedness can mask disabilities, complicating identification and support. As one participant noted, “I learned that 2e students can be difficult to identify because their gifted characteristics can mask their disabilities.” This realization underscores the need for a more nuanced approach to identifying and supporting these students. Additionally, participants emphasized the importance of creating supportive environments that nurture students’ strengths while addressing their challenges. Key strategies mentioned included providing sensory accommodations, promoting student autonomy, and maintaining empathy and flexibility in interactions.
5.4.2. Application of Learning in Practice
Many participants expressed their intention to apply the knowledge gained in practical ways. A major focus was improving assessment methods to better identify 2e students and refine interventions accordingly. As one participant reflected, the training provided “a new lens to view student behavior,” indicating a shift toward more individualized evaluations practices as well as a deepening perspective on the drivers of student behavior. Participants also voiced a strong commitment to advocating individualized accommodations and ensuring that students are placed in their least restrictive learning environments according to identified strengths. A common sentiment was the desire to share insights with colleagues to foster collaborative classroom strategies and interventions. This emphasis on advocating for 2e students and adjusting IEP goals to align with neurodivergence illustrates a commitment to holistic student support.
5.4.3. Surprises and Insights from the Training
Several participants expressed surprise at the depth and breadth of the information presented during the session. A key revelation was the high co-occurrence between autism, ADHD, and giftedness, with many participants surprised by the overlap. As one individual noted, “30% of students with ADHD have ASD and 60% of ASD students have ADHD,” highlighting the interconnectedness of these conditions. Another surprising takeaway was the evolving nature of diagnostic criteria, particularly the recognition of previously under-acknowledged dual diagnoses like pathological demand avoidance (PDA). The session introduced new terminology and challenged previous assumptions about 2e students, expanding participants’ understanding of neurodivergence.
5.4.4. Barriers to Supporting 2e Students
Despite the positive impact of the training, several barriers to supporting 2e students were identified. Time constraints, due to heavy caseloads and competing responsibilities, were the most common challenge, with many participants noting that these factors hindered their ability to identify and implement strategies for 2e students effectively. One participant mentioned, “Overwhelming caseload, number of evaluations to be done, and the number of meetings associated prevents thorough observation to discover possible strategies.” Staffing shortages and a lack of resources were also cited as significant obstacles. Additionally, participants highlighted the lack of understanding about 2e characteristics among educators and administrators, which often resulted in the development of inadequate interventions. Resistance to change was another challenge, as some participants mentioned difficulties in gaining buy-in from teachers and administrators who were either unfamiliar with 2e students or reluctant to adopt new approaches.
5.4.5. Support Needs for Effective Service
Participants identified several areas in which additional support is necessary to best serve 2e students. The most frequent request was for more training, particularly for all staff involved in supporting students, including teachers, administrators, and support personnel. One participant noted the need for “More training and training for the teachers and support staff,” underscoring the importance of ongoing professional development. Participants also stressed the need for reduced caseloads and increased staffing to ensure individualized attention for students. Many participants emphasized the need for better collaboration among teachers, administrators, and support staff to create a more coordinated approach to 2e student support. Additionally, there was a call for more accessible resources, particularly for sensory activities and strategies for supporting students engaging in challenging behaviors.
5.4.6. Suggestions for Improving Future Training
Participants suggested several improvements for future training sessions. A common recommendation was extending the duration to allow for a deeper exploration of the material, with more time for participant interaction and Q and A. Many also requested more hands-on activities, such as case studies, to apply strategies practically. Increased collaboration among educational staff, including teachers, was also emphasized to ensure a unified approach to supporting 2e students. Additionally, participants recommended smaller, more interactive sessions and requested follow-up resources, like handouts and PowerPoints, to reinforce learning and support ongoing professional development.
In summary, participant feedback emphasized the training’s impact on deepening understanding of 2e students and highlighted intentions to apply the knowledge through tailored strategies. Barriers, such as time constraints, staffing shortages, and the need for more training, were noted, along with suggestions for longer, more interactive sessions and greater staff collaboration. These insights will help to refine future training and improve support for 2e students. Their feedback validates the importance of the work being accomplished around the district to train teachers and administrators, thereby building district-wide capacity to collaborate for the sake of 2e students. These insights will help researchers continue to refine future training for ancillary staff, teachers, and administrators alike.
6. Discussion
The PL conducted seems to have had an impact on the ancillary staff members’ knowledge and confidence (self-efficacy) to support 2e students. Most participants (51%) were unfamiliar with the term “twice exceptional (2e)” prior to the training; this knowledge gap was addressed. Analyses by professional role indicated that baseline familiarity with the term 2e varied significantly across staff types. Social workers were disproportionately represented among those unfamiliar with the term, while school psychologists were more likely to report prior familiarity. This suggests that knowledge gaps are not evenly distributed across ancillary staff and that social workers may require more targeted professional development. Importantly, once trained, no significant role-based differences were observed in participants’ reported gains, indicating that the PL session was broadly effective across roles, despite initial disparities.
Findings indicate a need for more PL to address 2e terminology and provide additional experiential learning opportunities (hands-on, project-based, case studies). Ancillary staff mentioned needing deeper learning to continue understandings about 2e learners and how to best support these learners in their unique roles.
The findings indicated a clear need for a more nuanced identification approach, as the giftedness of many students is masked by their areas of challenge. This is supported by Foley-Nicpon and Kim (2020) in their chapter about identifying and providing evidence-based services for 2e students. They discuss the importance of a comprehensive assessment of all domains to combat the student’s talent area being masked by their disability or mental health diagnosis. Assouline and Whiteman (2011) also point out the importance of a comprehensive evaluation to fully understand the student’s strengths and support needs so that they can be best served in their educational setting. Additionally, participants mentioned better understanding the importance of nurturing student strengths while supporting areas of challenge. This asset-based approach to 2e education is supported by much of the research in the field (Assouline & Whiteman, 2011; Foley-Nicpon & Assouline, 2020; Foley-Nicpon & Kim, 2020).
Survey data indicated that the PL significantly improved ancillary staff’s understanding of 2e learners, increased their confidence to recognize and support their unique needs, and provided implementable strategies for their roles in supporting 2e students. Foley-Nicpon and Kim (2020) suggest that a closer examination of behavioral, social and emotional strengths might guide more appropriate interventions.
Participants indicated that they plan to apply their learning in many ways, including improving assessment methods and refining interventions based on them; shifting towards a more individualized evaluation process; advocating for individualized accommodations; creating a less restrictive learning environment; and working towards more and better collaboration with other educators in the student’s life. This type of “take-away” learning is similar to that found by Lee and Ritchotte (2019) in a study involving teachers and administrators in Colorado and indicates that PL of this type might be an important catalyst in school districts for a more inclusive gifted program.
Ancillary staff were surprised by the high co-occurrence between autism, ADHD, and giftedness. Research exists regarding this link (Assouline et al., 2012; Assouline & Whiteman, 2011; Foley-Nicpon et al., 2011). Given the role that these educators play within the district to identify students with autism and ADHD, it is particularly important that these professionals understand this and how these students can be best supported to flourish in the district.
With the lowest rated item related to their overall confidence to effectively serve 2e students within the district, it is important to understand participants’ feelings related to this construct. This was illuminated, to a certain extent, by the barriers mentioned by ancillary staff in the open-ended items. Time constraints and heavy caseloads were cited as limiting factors. This is supported by studies in the literature involving other educators regarding the additional time it takes to support these students in an effective manner (Besnoy, 2018; Chen et al., 2023; Lee & Ritchotte, 2019). Lee and Ritchotte (2019) advocate for districts to demonstrate their organizational support by granting release time to educators to allow for additional collaboration and education about 2e students. Chen et al. (2023) found that manpower is a limiting factor for the appropriate identification of, and services for, 2e students and suggested increased training for district personnel related to strength-based education.
The findings of this study underscore the value of targeted professional learning in improving the knowledge and confidence of ancillary staff to support twice-exceptional students. While the training significantly enhanced participants’ understanding and offered practical strategies for implementation, ongoing challenges, such as time limitations, caseload pressures, and a lack of systemic support, remain barriers to effective practice. These results highlight the need for continued, role-specific training and stronger institutional frameworks that support inclusive, strength-based approaches to gifted education. As educational systems strive to better serve neurodiverse learners, equipping all school professionals, not just classroom teachers, with the skills to recognize and respond to twice-exceptionality will be essential for achieving greater equity and access.
6.1. Limitations and Directions for Future Research
This study was conducted in one urban school district, in the Midwest region of the United States, plagued with issues related to understaffing, budget constraints, and over population of students. Although this is often the case in many large US districts, this may not be the case everywhere and does preclude the findings from being generalizable to all districts. Additional research needs to be conducted with ancillary staff in varied types of districts (rural, suburban, international, private) to better determine the effectiveness of PL and 2e students.
A second limitation is the need for more in-depth information from participants about their confidence supporting 2e learners. A suggestion for future research based on this limitation might be to interview ancillary staff with open-ended questions and probe deeper into their insecurities and areas of challenge with these students. Additional PL opportunities could then be created based on these findings and results examined.
Another important limitation is the brevity of the training. A single session may not be sufficient to fully prepare ancillary staff to meet the complex needs of 2e students. With the qualities of adult learners in mind (see Knowles, 1992; Lewis & Bryan, 2021), future PL efforts should consider multi-day formats with follow-up sessions to reinforce learning, support implementation, and provide opportunities for reflection and collaboration. Specifically, trainings might include effective andragogical practices such as active learning, case studies, and simulations (Lewis & Bryan, 2021). Such activities have the capacity to build self-efficacy, as they reflect examples of performance accomplishment (Bandura, 1978). Building on the immediate outcomes reported here, future research is also well positioned to include longitudinal follow-ups (e.g., 6 months to 1 year) to examine whether training leads to sustained improvement in staff knowledge and confidence, thereby supporting more meaningful and lasting benefits for 2e students.
Additionally, the study relied on self-reported data, which may be influenced by social desirability or participants’ perceptions of expected responses. The training was also delivered by a single presenter with a unique personal and professional background, which, while effective, may limit generalizability to other facilitators or formats.
Training this population of school district employees seemed to be important in order to be fully inclusive of SWD in gifted education programming. More information about the types of PL that are deemed most effective with ancillary staff in their efforts to support 2e learners needs to be gathered through future studies.
6.2. Implications for Practice
Educators require specialized, ongoing PL opportunities to best support 2e populations (Baldwin et al., 2015). Ancillary staff are in a role within most school districts that enables them to assess and support students in ways not always experienced by teachers and administrators. They have professional knowledge regarding the students’ areas of strengths and challenges that may allow them to better understand, support, and help others to serve these 2e learners (Assouline & Whiteman, 2011; Foley-Nicpon & Kim, 2020; Knoop, 2023). Therefore, to create fully inclusive gifted programming in schools, it is important that ancillary staff be included in training about the vulnerable populations with whom they work. These educators have a unique opportunity to provide insight into the lives and strengths of these learners (Foley-Nicpon & Assouline, 2020; Guzman-Roman et al., 2025).
The findings from this study emphasize the importance of intentionally involving ancillary staff in gifted education initiatives. Their perspectives can enrich identification processes, ensure more individualized support plans, and promote collaboration among educators working with 2e students. Including ancillary staff in targeted PL can strengthen their role as advocates for equity and access within gifted programming. We feel that it is important to note that funding for these PL opportunities, such as the Javits grant used in this study, is at risk in the United States due to the current political climate.
Moreover, the study highlights a promising direction for systems-level change. When districts prioritize professional learning for all educators who interact with students, not just classroom teachers, they move closer to creating inclusive school environments where neurodiverse students can thrive. Ancillary staff, when equipped with tools to identify and support strengths alongside challenges, can play a key role in shifting school cultures toward more strength-based and inclusive models of gifted education.
Conceptualization, K.C.M. and C.B.F.; Methodology, D.-H.K.; Validation, K.C.M., D.-H.K. and C.B.F.; Formal analysis, D.-H.K.; Investigation, K.C.M. and C.B.F.; Data curation, D.-H.K.; Writing—original draft, K.C.M., D.-H.K. and C.B.F.; Writing—review & editing, K.C.M., D.-H.K. and C.B.F.; Visualization, D.-H.K.; Project administration, K.C.M.; Funding acquisition, K.C.M. and C.B.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Institutional Review Board of Grand Valley State University (approval code: 23-067-H) on 22 October 2024.
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
The data supporting the findings of this study were generated by the authors but are not publicly available due to privacy and ethical restrictions.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
| SWGT | Students with Gifts and Talents |
| SWD | Students with Disabilities |
| PL | Professional Learning |
| 2e | Twice-Exceptional |
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Demographic characteristics of participants.
| Characteristics | n | % |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | 210 | 86.4 |
| Female | 29 | 11.9 |
| Male | 3 | 1.2 |
| Prefer not to say | 1 | 0.4 |
| Missing | 210 | 86.4 |
| Race (choose one or more) | ||
| Black or African American | 122 | 50.2 |
| White or Caucasian | 94 | 38.7 |
| Asian | 8 | 3.3 |
| American Indian/Native American or Alaska Native | 1 | 0.4 |
| Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 1 | 0.4 |
| Other | 13 | 5.3 |
| Prefer not to say | 7 | 2.9 |
| Primary Role in Education | ||
| Social Worker | 102 | 42.0 |
| Speech language Pathologist | 53 | 21.8 |
| School Psychologist | 32 | 13.2 |
| OT or PT | 30 | 12.3 |
| Administrator | 8 | 3.3 |
| Hearing/vision impairment professional | 6 | 2.5 |
| Other | 12 | 4.9 |
| Years in Education | ||
| <5 | 61 | 25.1 |
| Between 5 and 10 | 64 | 26.3 |
| 11–15 | 23 | 9.5 |
| 16–20 | 15 | 6.2 |
| >20 | 80 | 32.9 |
Ancillary staff survey results.
| n | Mean | SD | Median | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I felt today’s session enhanced my understanding of the unique needs of 2e students. | 243 | 4.33 | 1.04 | 5.00 |
| I can recognize and describe the characteristics of 2e students. | 240 | 4.16 | 0.96 | 4.00 |
| As a result of this training, I can now recognize when a student I am working with might be 2e. | 240 | 4.10 | 0.99 | 4.00 |
| I have sufficient knowledge to suggest appropriate accommodations and modifications for 2e students. | 238 | 3.96 | 0.99 | 4.00 |
| I can apply evidence-based strategies to support the unique needs of 2e students, including leveraging their strengths in the educational setting. | 238 | 4.04 | 0.92 | 4.00 |
| I am confident that I can effectively serve 2e students in my role at the district. | 239 | 4.03 | 1.00 | 4.00 |
Note. 1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree.
Appendix A. Twice-Exceptional (2e) Professional Learning Survey
Personal Characteristics
What is your gender?
Male
Female
Non-binary/Third Gender
Prefer not to say
What is your primary role in education?
School Psychologist
Social Worker
Occupational Therapist or Physical Therapist (OT or PT)
Hearing/Vision Impairment Professional
Other
How many years have you been in education?
Less than 5 years
5–10 years
11–15 years
16–20 years
More than 20 years
Choose one or more races that you consider yourself to be:
White or Caucasian
Black or African American
American Indian/Native American or Alaska Native
Asian
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
Other
Prefer not to say
Ancillary Staff Questions
Instructions: Please respond to the following statements using a 5-point scale:
1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree
I felt today’s session enhanced my understanding of the unique needs of 2e students.
I can recognize and describe the characteristics of 2e students.
As a result of this training, I can now recognize when a student I am working with might be 2e.
I have sufficient knowledge to suggest appropriate accommodations and modifications for 2e students.
I can apply evidence-based strategies to support the unique needs of 2e students, including leveraging their strengths in the educational setting.
I am confident that I can effectively serve 2e students in my role at DPSCD.
Training Satisfaction
Please rate your satisfaction with the training provided:
1 = Very Unsatisfied, 2 = Unsatisfied, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Satisfied, 5 = Very Satisfied
Overall, how satisfied are you with this training?
Knowledge Check
Before today, had you ever heard the term “twice exceptional (2e)?”
Yes
No
Open-Ended Questions
What did you learn at today’s training that will help you serve 2e students?
How will you apply what you learned today in your role at DPSCD?
What is something that surprised you from today’s session?
What barriers exist that might prevent you from serving 2e students in the district?
What support do you need to best serve 2e students in the district?
What suggestions do you have for improving future training? How can we enhance the experience?
American Physical Therapy Association [APTA]. School-based physical therapy. Practice models and settings; n.d.; Available online: https://www.apta.org/your-practice/practice-models-and-settings/school-based-physical-therapy (accessed on 24 July 2025).
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Home; n.d.; Available online: https://www.asha.org/ (accessed on 24 July 2025).
Assouline, S. G.; Foley-Nicpon, M.; Dockery, L. Predicting the academic achievement of gifted students with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders; 2012; 42,
Assouline, S. G.; Foley-Nicpon, M.; Huber, D. H. The impact of vulnerabilities and strengths on the academic experiences of twice-exceptional students: A message to school counselors. Professional School Counseling; 2006; 10, (Suppl. S1), pp. 14-24. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5330/prsc.10.1.y0677616t5j15511]
Assouline, S. G.; Whiteman, C. S. Twice-exceptionality: Implications for school psychologists in the Post–IDEA 2004 Era. Journal of Applied School Psychology; 2011; 27,
Baldwin, L.; Baum, S.; Pereles, D.; Hughes, C. Twice-exceptional learners: The journey toward a shared vision. Gifted Child Today; 2015; 38, pp. 206-214. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1076217515597277]
Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy; 1978; 1,
Bandura, A. Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology; 2001; 52, pp. 1-26. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11148297]
Berger, S. L. Programs and practices in gifted education: Projects funded by the Jacob K. Javits gifted and talented students education act of 1988; The Council for Exceptional Children: 1992.
Besnoy, K. Kaufman, S. B. Educating the twice-exceptional child: Creating strong school-to-home collaborative partnerships. Twice exceptional: Supporting and educating bright and creative students with learning difficulties; Oxford University Press: 2018; pp. 303-320.
Chen, Y. W.; Li, C. C.; Gläser-Zikuda, M.; Kuo, C. C. An online survey on challenges and needs for identifying and nurturing twice exceptional learners. Gifted Education International; 2023; 39,
Creswell, J. W.; Poth, C. N. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches; SAGE Publications: 2016.
Dinçer, S. Investigation of the gifted education self-efficacy of teachers work with gifted students. Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity; 2019; 6,
Foley-Nicpon, M.; Allmon, A.; Sieck, B.; Stinson, R. D. Empirical investigation of twice-exceptionality: Where have we been and where are we going?. Gifted Child Quarterly; 2011; 55,
Foley-Nicpon, M.; Assouline, S. G. High ability students with coexisting disabilities: Implications for school psychological practice. Psychology in the Schools; 2020; 57,
Foley-Nicpon, M.; Assouline, S. G.; Fosenburg, S. The relationship between self-concept, ability, and academic programming among twice-exceptional youth. Journal of Advanced Academics; 2015; 26,
Foley-Nicpon, M.; Kim, J. Y. C. Pfeiffer, S. I. Identifying and providing evidence-based services for twice-exceptional students. Handbook of giftedness in children; 3rd ed. Springer: 2020; pp. 349-362.
Gagné, F. Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. High Ability Studies; 2004; 15, pp. 119-147. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359813042000314682]
Gilman, B. J.; Peters, D. Kaufman, S. B. Finding and serving twice-exceptional students using triaged comprehensive assessment and protections of the law. Twice exceptional: Supporting and educating bright and creative students with learning difficulties; Oxford University Press: 2018; pp. 19-44.
Guzman-Roman, S.; Thornton, K. S.; Desmet, O. A. Identifying giftedness and talent in hard of hearing students. Teaching for High Potential; 2025; 1, pp. 16-17.
Kaufman, S. B. Twice exceptional: Supporting and educating bright and creative students with learning difficulties; Oxford University Press: 2018.
Kim, K. R.; Seo, E. H. The relationship between teacher efficacy and students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal; 2018; 46,
Knoop, A. How SLPs can identify and advocate for twice-exceptional students: Support for students who test in top and bottom ranges will naturally target their challenges—But it’s also important to amplify their strengths. ASHA Leader; 2023; 28,
Knowles, M. S. Applying principles of adult learning in conference presentations. Adult Learning; 1992; 4,
Lee, C. W.; Ritchotte, J. A. A case study evaluation of the implementation of twice-exceptional professional development in Colorado. Journal for the Education of the Gifted; 2019; 42,
Lewis, N.; Bryan, V. Andragogy and teaching techniques to enhance adult learners’ experience. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice; 2021; 11,
Margot, K. C.; Melin, J. Gifted education and gifted students: A guide for inservice and preservice teachers; Routledge: 2020; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781003235330]
Michigan’s Center for Educational Performance and Information. Special education data snapshot in DPSCD [Data set]; MI School Data: 2022–2023; Available online: https://www.mischooldata.org/ (accessed on 25 August 2025).
National Association of School Psychologists. Who are school psychologists? NASP; n.d.; Available online: https://www.nasponline.org/about-school-psychology/who-are-school-psychologists (accessed on 24 July 2025).
Opoku, M. P.; Nketsia, W.; Amponteng, M.; Mprah, W. K.; Kumi, E. O. Attitudes and self-efficacy of preservice teachers toward teaching gifted and talented students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted; 2023; 46,
School Social Work Association of America. Home; n.d.; Available online: https://www.sswaa.org/ (accessed on 24 July 2025).
Sornik, M. Support groups for parents of twice-exceptional children. 2e: Twice-Exceptional Newsletter; 2012; 51, pp. 5-6. Available online: https://www.2enews.com/2e-newsletter-past-issues/2e-newsletter-issue-51-march-april-2012/ (accessed on 1 August 2025).
Tortop, H. S. Examining the effectiveness of the in-service training program for the education of the academically gifted students in Turkey: A case study. Journal for the Education of the Young Scientist and Giftedness; 2014; 2,
Tschannen-Moran, M.; Hoy, A. W.; Hoy, W. K. Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research; 1998; 68,
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.