A Brief Primer on 2E for Educators: The Value and Limitations of the Concept of Twice Exceptionality

“Twice exceptional” (2E) refers to gifted students with learning disabilities. Like the words “gifted” and “exceptional,” 2E is a descriptor that belies the complexity of these learners. However, it’s a place to start. 

Before the concept of 2E was developed in the 1980s and 1990s and formally described by the Columbus Group in 1991 (Morelock, 1992), there was an assumption that giftedness and learning struggles were incompatible. In fact, intelligence and learning disabilities can and do co-exist. People started to see that a child may be brilliant in math but unable to read. Or the opposite could be true. Or they may understand trigonometry but struggle with basic math problems. Or they may have an extraordinary ability to converse and relate to people but struggle academically. In truth, these examples are over-simplifications, but the acceptance of the concept that intelligence and learning disabilities could co-exist has allowed gifted learners more opportunities to access curricula and activate their talents.

One parent said of her son, “2E? He’s more like 15E.” 

It is often assumed that twice exceptionality is about being really “good” at one thing and really “bad” at another, as in the above examples. However, 2E learners exhibit a range of extreme strengths and extreme vulnerabilities. Some abilities develop way ahead of schedule, others way behind, and still others “right on time.” Programs that simply try to cater to certain academic strengths and challenges miss the point.

Consider a child who understands concepts in a wide variety of areas at a very profound level but struggles with language based processing disorders that impair their communication skills. They find themselves in a constant battle between what they believe they should be able to achieve and what they can actually produce, and this can make school unpleasant or worse. It can also make them very unpleasant to be around, or worse. To intervene appropriately for children with these struggles, we need to do more than determine what they are” good” at and what they are “bad” at; we need to move toward understanding the interplay between their strengths and vulnerabilities as well as their areas of more normative ability and achievement. Only then can we begin to develop appropriate, individualized interventions.

 

 

Because gifts can mask vulnerabilities and vice versa, it is easy to miss these complex learning profiles in our students. Often, gifted children are seen as lazy, badly behaved, unmotivated, or not applying themselves. We think, “Well, we’ve seen evidence that she can sit still and do her work but she won’t.” It may be the case that the child has the ability to focus and produce excellent work in some situations, but to assume that this means they can do it in every situation is to misunderstand development and regulation in complex learning profiles.

Take for example an extremely bright six-year-old in first grade named Marcus. He had ADHD, auditory processing disorder, dysgraphia and a reading disability. One day, late in the afternoon, he was picking at a sticker used to number a table. He was trying to regulate himself through self-soothing. The teacher told him to stop picking at the sticker, but he continued to do so. She kept repeating the auditory command, and he wouldn’t stop. She raised her voice, and then he finally responded by shouting back at her. The parents then got a call from the school and were told he was being defiant. But the descriptor “defiant” does not adequately describe Marcus’s reaction.

A child with ADHD and an auditory processing disorder, who is engaged in a self-soothing activity cannot easily process and respond to an auditory command. His prefrontal cortex is already over-taxed. Marcus was reprimanded for something he genuinely could not control. Rather than preventing this behavior in the future, this interaction reinforced his sense of helplessness and actually made it more likely that the behavior would continue. Using a reward system is no better. If a child cannot yet perform a certain behavior, they won’t be able to get the reward, and, again, helplessness is reinforced. 

To address the needs of 2E students, we first need to understand their profile. This step cannot be skipped. We cannot intervene appropriately if we do not understand the problem-set. When we do, interventions start to become obvious. For now, here are some points to keep in mind.

Behavioral interventions are not effective for behaviors that a child cannot yet perform. In fact, they will exacerbate the undesired behaviors.

In twice exceptional children, the simple can be difficult, and the complex can be easy.

You cannot overestimate the struggle that students can have with very basic tasks, such as turning in work, organizing their things, asking questions when they’re confused, finding their locker, answering apparently simple questions, or remembering something that happened earlier in the day. 

We do not harm a child’s independence in any way by taking tasks like remembering to bring materials to class off of their plate. It is more important that they learn the material than prove that they can turn things in. 

Just because a student struggles to complete a task that appeared easy for them in the past doesn’t mean they are not trying. Learning disabilities and regulation are context dependent and can vary week to week, day to day, hour to hour, or minute to minute.

Gifted and 2E are not separate categories. Twice exceptional learners are gifted learners. This may be controversial to some. More to come.

Comprehensive, high quality neuropsychological testing is necessary to create interventions for these complex learners. Gifted learners will have gaps between different scores. You need someone who can test appropriately and effectively explain these gaps.

While the term “twice exceptionality” has its limitations, the development of the concept has paved the way for countless gifted students to access curricula and activate their talents. Understanding how their strengths, vulnerabilities, and more normative abilities interact is key to providing gifted students with opportunities to activate their potential. 

Morelock, M. J. (1992). Understanding Our Gifted Students. Open Space Communications, 4(3). 

Image Credit: Siora Photography_Unsplash 2024