Topic: Reversing gifted underachievement in Kazakhstan: Teachers’ perceptions, experiences, and practices.

Research objective: To examine teachers’ understanding and practices with gifted underachievers in a specialized school for gifted students in Kyzylorda, Kazakhstan. More specifically, this study explores Kazakhstani teachers’ conceptualizations about the nature of gifted underachievement and the factors that contribute to gifted underachievement. Moreover, the study identifies the strategies that teachers use in the classroom to reverse the pattern of gifted underachievement.

Research questions:

1. What characteristics define gifted underachievers in the opinion of Kazakhstani teachers?
2. What factors contribute to the underachievement of gifted students in the eyes of these teachers?
3. What strategies do these teachers use in the classroom to reverse the pattern of gifted underachievement?

Theoretical framework:

Recent studies in gifted education conducted on the theory of motivation were based on the AOM (Achievement Orientation Model) theory introduced by Siegel and McCoach (2003a). The AOM theory is based on Bandura's self-efficacy theory, Weiner’s attribution theory, Eccles’ expectancy-value theory, person-environment fit theory, and Rotter’s locus of control theory (Siegle, McCoach & Roberts, 2017). According to AOM theory, students’ motivation in a combination of all three areas: student’s self-efficacy, goal – valuation, and environmental perception will positively result in student’s task engagement and academic achievement. Seigle et al., (2017)  stressed that these three areas can be developed at different levels, but should not be missing at all since it negatively impacts self-regulation as well as achievement (See Figure 1.). 

Self-efficacy addresses a student’s belief to be skillful and capable to complete a task where a student might ask himself “Am I smart enough?” (Siegle, Rubensein & McCoach, 2020).  Researchers agree that students with low self–efficacy tend to avoid task accomplishment, therefore, the higher self-efficacy students possess, the stronger task engagement they show (Rubenstein,  Siegle, Reis, Mccoach, & Burton, 2012; Siegle et al., 2017; Siegle et al., 2020).

Goal-valuation/task meaningfulness is critical for gifted underachievers (Siegle&McCoach 2003a) even when they have self-efficacy, they still might not be engaged in the task until they find it meaningful to contribute to their goals (Rubenstein et al., 2012). Despite the variety of reasons for students to value tasks, Siegle et al., (2017) identified four common categories of students’ goal valuation. According to these researchers some students are interested in the accomplishment of tasks because they simply want to stay the best, others understand the importance of these tasks for their future aspirations, while others have a high interest in them, and finally because they see its practical use and benefit for them.

Environmental perception refers to a student's motivation or demotivation as a result of a student’s interaction with peers, parents, and teachers as well as the expectation from parents and teachers, and the scale of support a student gets from the outside world (Rubenstein et al., 2012). It is assumed that students get false perceptions and find themselves in an unsupportive environment assuming nobody believes in their success, therefore these students often lack or do not develop enough learning skills important to be academically productive (Ritchotte, Matthews & Flowers, 2014).

Sample: The population of the study was teachers from a selective school for gifted and talented students in Southern Kazakhstan. The study implemented maximum variation sampling procedures to recruit a diverse sample of teachers with experience interacting with gifted underachievers in the different subject areas in the selective school (Creswell, 2014). The participant sample included teachers who had experience in preparing 10th-grade and 12th-grade students for the Cambridge International Exam since this was one of the high-stakes tests students in this school encountered. Eight teachers who dealt with gifted underachievers in the past were involved in the study. Data collection tools: Semi-structured one-on-one interviews were used as the main data collection tool, where the interview contained open-ended questions since they are useful in retrieving answers from the participants that were not influenced by any viewpoints of the researcher or prior research findings (Glesne, 2011). Also, a semi-structured interview was used in this study, since the open-ended questions would allow the participants to answer them in various ways, generating new ideas and concepts for me as a researcher to further build an understanding of the central phenomenon (i.e., gifted underachievement) (Creswell, 2014). The questions of the interviews were directed to obtain data on the nature of gifted underachievement and factors to reverse the pattern of underachieving students. Data procedures and analysis: Content analysis was used to analyze the collected qualitative data following the six steps proposed by Creswell (2014). Overall, the qualitative data analysis brought an in-depth understanding of the nature of gifted underachievement and helped to explore the factors hindering the pattern of gifted

The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore teachers’ understanding and practices with gifted underachievers as well as identify the factors that contribute to gifted underachievement and reversing patterns teachers apply in their everyday practice. The findings of this study suggest that teachers can recognize common characteristics to identify gifted underachievers, despite the fact that none of the teachers did provide a precise definition of gifted underachieving students. A conclusion to be drawn from these findings is that gifted underachievers represent a diverse group of students with different characteristics and behavior. In this regard, gifted underachievers are vulnerable socially and physiologically due to natural peculiarities of their behavior and personality, who, therefore, demand additional academic support from teachers than other gifted students. Another major finding of this study was that gifted underachievement might arouse due to factors at the student, curriculum, and environmental level. Overall, this suggests that gifted underachieving students are sensitive to both internal and external factors and therefore, require corresponding support at every level from peers, parents, and teachers. A related conclusion is that in order to avoid gifted underachievement or timely reverse underachievement, teachers need to conduct a complex analysis to be able to timely identify and provide support for their gifted learners. A common practice to reverse underachievement included a complex approach where teachers put emphasis on the emotional and cognitive aspects of their students. The perception of the overwhelming majority was that a positive teacher-student relationship is the most helpful and effective way to reverse underachievement. Teachers believe any interaction to reverse underachievement should start with building healthy relationships with students. A differentiated instruction of gifted underachievers was also commonly addressed to reverse gifted underachievement and the most effective approach to support these gifted students.

Bennett-Rappell, H., & Northcote, M. (2016). Underachieving Gifted Students: Two Case Studies. Issues in Educational Research, 26(3), 407–430. Figg, S. D., Rogers, K. B., McCormick, J., & Low, R. (2012). Differentiating Low Performance of the Gifted Learner: Achieving, Underachieving, and Selective Consuming Students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23(1), 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X11430000 Fong, C. J., & Kremer, K. P. (2020). An Expectancy-Value Approach to Math Underachievement: Examining High School Achievement, College Attendance, and STEM Interest. Gifted Child Quarterly, 64(2), 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862198905 Grigorenko, E. L. (2017). Gifted education in Russia: Developing, threshold, or developed. Cogent Education, 4, 1-12 doi:10.1080/2331186X.2017.1364898.x Kimani, G. N., Kara, A. M., & Njagi, L. W. (2013). TEACHER FACTORS INFLUENCING STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN NYANDARUA COUNTY, KENYA. Landis, R. N., & Reschly, A. L. (2013). Reexamining gifted underachievement and dropout through the lens of student engagement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36(2), 220–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353213480864 Maddox, M. (2014). Exploring teachers' experiences of working with gifted students who underachieve (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University). Mofield, E., Parker Peters, M., & Chakraborti-Ghosh, S. (2016). Perfectionism, coping, and underachievement in gifted adolescents: Avoidance vs. approach orientations. Education Sciences, 6(3), 21. Montgomery, D. (Ed.). (2009). Able, gifted and talented underachievers. John Wiley & Sons. Reis, S. M., & McCoach, D. B. (2000). The Underachievement of Gifted Students: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go? Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(3), 152. https://ezproxy.nu.edu.kz:2364/10.1177/001698620004400302 Ritchotte, J., Rubenstein, L., & Murry, F. (2015). Reversing the Underachievement of Gifted Middle School Students. Gifted Child Today, 38(2), 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217514568559 Ritchotte, J., Rubenstein, L., & Murry, F. (2015). Reversing the Underachievement of Gifted Middle School Students: Lessons from Another Field. Gifted Child Today, 38(2), 103–113.h DOI: 10.1177/1076217514568559 Schultz, B. H. (2005). Defining Underachievement in Gifted Students Group, 28(2), 46–50. Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571-581.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.571