1986至2024年臺灣雙重特殊需求研究趨勢之系統性文獻綜述

Updated Systematic Review of Twice-Exceptional Research in Taiwan(1986-2024)

本研究採更新系統性文獻回顧，整理1986至2024年間臺灣雙重特殊需求之研究趨勢與發展，目的在掌握其歷史演變、研究焦點與未來發展方向。雙特學生是指同時具資優與身心障礙特質者，因「遮蔽效應」（masking effect）使其優勢或困難未被及時辨識，錯失適切教育支持。雖國內近年逐漸重視，但過去研究多為零散探討，缺乏全面的系統分析，有必要進行更新回顧以釐清研究全貌。本研究更新並擴展黃文慧（2007）之回顧，補足2006至2024年間近二十年研究的缺口。經篩選後共90篇期刊論文，分為草創期（1986至2000年）、發展期（2001至2010年）、深化期（2011年至今），從研究主題、方法、對象教育階段與障礙類別等面向進行分析。研究結果顯示，草創期研究聚焦於理念倡議、特質描述與需求調查，呈現以文獻探究與概念論述為主的特徵；發展期出現不同的研究方法，以質性研究為主，並輔以量化研究方法，並出現跨階段與家庭支持等議題；深化期則明顯朝向以個體敘事、腦神經特質、學習適應與教學介入等議題，逐步建構臺灣在地的雙特學生樣貌。值得注意的是，早期障礙類別多以感官或肢體障礙為主要研究族群，而2010年後則聚焦於心智功能類（如泛自閉症與ADHD），反映日益重視內隱障礙學生的優勢才能與需求。總言之，臺灣雙特研究已歷經由理念倡議到實證深化的發展歷程，並呈現研究主題的多樣性，深化教育介入與鑑定模式。然而，本研究亦指出仍缺乏實證性教學介入與長期追蹤等研究。未來應強化多元研究方法與跨領域整合，並推動雙特學生的發掘與應用型研究。

Rationale & Purpose: Twice-exceptional (2e) students, who exhibit both high potential and disabilities, constitute a highly diverse population whose strengths and challenges interact in complex and dynamic manners. This interaction often produces a masking effect, where gifted traits obscure disabilities or, conversely, disabilities obscure talents; consequently, these students often experience delayed identification, inappropriate educational placement, and missed opportunities for early, tailored interventions that could alter their developmental trajectories. In Taiwan, the long-standing bifurcation of the special education system into two parallel categories—“students with disabilities”and“gifted students”—has intensified this underidentification. For example, in the 108 academic year, 2e students constituted only 1.34% of the gifted population and only 0.015% of the national student body, revealing major blind spots in screening procedures, assessment tools, and follow-up support for this population. The global shift toward a talent development paradigm emphasizes that excellence can be fostered in any learner through sustained, strengths-based support and contextual adaptation. Therefore, recognizing and cultivating the gifts of students with disabilities is imperative because it can ensure that they flourish individually and ensure broader educational equity, social justice, and long-term talent development at the national level. Against this international and local backdrop, although Taiwanese research on 2e students has gradually increased, it remains fragmented. The seminal review by Huang (2007) covered only the period from 1986 to 2005, meaning that nearly two decades of subsequent scholarship have not been synthesized; this gap hinders policymakers, practitioners, and researchers from fully understanding the evolution of local knowledge, cumulative findings, and persistent blind spots. To address this gap, this study conducted an updated systematic literature review to map four decades (1986-2024) of 2e research in Taiwan, clarify its historical evolution and core themes, evaluate methodological trends, and identify directions for future development that are responsive to Taiwanese policy contexts and classroom realities. Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we searched Google Scholar and Airiti Library for peer-reviewed Chinese journal articles. Search terms such as“twice-exceptional,”“dual exceptionality,”“gifted disabilities,”“gifted autism,”“gifted learning disabled,”and“gifted ADHD”were employed. The initial pool comprised 407 documents, but only 90 articles met the inclusion criteria after duplicates, nonjournal publications, non-Taiwanese studies, and articles only tangentially related to 2e were excluded. These articles were then categorized into three stages of research development: an initiation stage (1986-2000), a development stage (2001-2010), and a deepening stage (2011-2024). Each article was coded by its research method (literature review, quantitative, qualitative, mixed-method, or action research), research theme (e.g., identification, instructional intervention, case study, trait description, parental experience, assessment tools, or support systems), participant educational level (from preschool to higher education and adults), and disability category [e.g., autism spectrum disorder (ASD), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), learning disability, sensory, physical, or health impairment]. Results: The results revealed that 2e research has exhibited a clear progression from conceptual advocacy to empirically grounded, localized practice. In the initiation stage, research was dominated by conceptual discourse and theoretical advocacy, with more than half of the articles being general discussions of 2e concepts, policy appeals, or narratives of successful adults with disabilities. These topics reflected an early reliance on inspirational frameworks rather than classroom-based evidence, and the articles offered limited guidance on concrete teaching strategies and assessment procedures. In the development stage, the methods employed became more diverse; the number of qualitative and case-study designs increased substantially, quantitative and mixed-method studies began to appear, and action research conducted in school settings emerged. A growing focus was placed on specific educational levels (from preschool to high school), and the number of cross-stage or longitudinal designs addressing developmental transitions, identity formation, and service continuity increased. In the deepening stage, qualitative narrative studies became predominant, highlighting the unique developmental trajectories, family experiences, and school adaptation of individual 2e learners. Additionally, the scope of study participants expanded to include university students and adults, indicating a lifespan perspective and revealing how early school experiences shape later academic, socioemotional, and career pathways. Over time, the disability focus has shifted from visible sensory and physical impairments to neurodevelopmental conditions. Specifically, early studies emphasized sensory and physical disabilities or did not specify disability type, whereas more recent research has concentrated on ASD and ADHD, which together accounted for more than half of the articles published after 2011, with the intersection between autistic traits and mathematical giftedness or between attentional characteristics and creative problem-solving being of particular interest to scholars. Thematic analysis revealed that general discourse and advocacy dominated the early work, whereas the later periods featured more case studies and research on identification, learning adaptation, parental stress, and multitiered support frameworks (such as the Multitiered System of Support and Response to Intervention), along with initial explorations of assessment tools and school-based support systems. However, robust empirical studies on instructional intervention and validated assessment tools were few in all stages. The terminology evolved in parallel with theoretical shifts—from deficit-oriented labels such as“gifted disabled”to more strengths-based terms such as“twice-exceptional”and, more recently, precise descriptors such as“autism-math-gifted”—reflecting growing recognition of cognitive diversity, intersectionality, and individualized educational needs. Conclusions: Overall, the findings indicate that Taiwan’s 2e research trajectory broadly aligns with international trends emphasizing neurocognitive perspectives, strengths-based development, inclusive schooling, and multitiered systems of support. Nevertheless, several gaps persist. First, empirical intervention studies remain scarce, particularly those that rigorously evaluate differentiated instruction, curriculum adaptation, and inclusive classroom practices. Second, certain 2e subgroups (such as students with sensory, physical, or health impairments and those from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds or rural areas) are underrepresented. Third, longitudinal research on life-course development, including transitions to higher education, employment, and community participation, is limited. Finally, the translation of research into scalable teacher training, interdisciplinary collaboration, and school-wide practice remains insufficient. Accordingly, future research should prioritize practice-based and action research on differentiated instruction, curriculum adaptation, and technology-assisted learning; adopt multimethod and interdisciplinary approaches that integrate quantitative, qualitative, and neurocognitive tools to develop more fine-grained cognitive and psychosocial profiles; refine identification systems beyond single IQ cutoffs by incorporating portfolios, creativity assessment, dynamic assessment, and ecological observations to counteract masking and capture latent strengths; and develop policy-linked mechanisms such as localized teacher training modules, structured consultation models, and cross-disciplinary support teams to ensure that 2e research findings are transformed into concrete, equitable educational support within real-world school systems. By addressing the aforementioned gaps, Taiwan can create a coherent, evidence-based framework for identifying and nurturing 2e students, balancing disability accommodation with the full realization of exceptional potential, improving educational fairness and social mobility, and cultivating diverse high-level talents who can contribute meaningfully to society.