Introduction and Problem Statement Recently, the role of education in the Republic of Kazakhstan has been strengthened due to growing global competition. Consequently, the government has focused on supporting gifted and talented youth through the establishment of Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools and the "Daryn" center (MES RK, 2010). However, despite this focus on giftedness, the specific phenomenon of underachievement among gifted students remains perplexing and has not been widely investigated within the Kazakhstani context (Vostrokolenkova, 2007).

Often, students labeled as gifted demonstrate low academic performance and may drop out (Reis & McCoach, 2000). The main problem is grounded in the variety of definitions of underachievement, which complicates identification (Baum, Renzulli & Hebert, 1995). In Kazakhstan, teachers may misunderstand the notion of underachievement due to a lack of specific knowledge, leading to inappropriate educational support. While one school in the East Kazakhstan Region has extensive experience working with gifted students, the issue of underachievement specifically has not been studied there. International research highlights the necessity of considering cultural features and school values when defining underachievement (Gallagher, 2005).

Purpose and Research Questions The purpose of this study is to explore teachers’ understanding and perceptions of the phenomenon of underachievement among academically gifted students, and their beliefs regarding how these issues can be improved in one school in the East Kazakhstan Region.

The research questions are:

1. What is teachers’ understanding of the term underachievement among academically gifted students?

2. What are the factors affecting gifted students’ underachievement from the teachers’ perspective?

3. What are teachers’ attitudes toward gifted underachievers?

4. What strategies do teachers believe are useful to improve underachievement?

Theoretical Framework This study applies Social Constructivism as the epistemological lens. This paradigm allows for examining participants’ daily experiences, personal viewpoints, and attitudes in the local context (Creswell, 2012). As knowledge is constructed through interaction, the meaning of gifted underachievement in this study is explored based on teachers’ responses and the specific school culture.

Literature Review Summary Literature indicates that while there is no universal definition, underachievement is often viewed as a discrepancy between potential and performance (Siegle & McCoach, 2010). Factors influencing this include individual aspects like self-efficacy and motivation (McCoach & Siegle, 2003a), family dynamics, and school-related factors such as curriculum suitability and teacher attitudes (Reis & McCoach, 2000). Strategies for reversal often involve collaboration among stakeholders and curriculum modification (Rimm, 1997; Renzulli & Renzulli, 2010).

Significance There is a dearth of studies in Kazakhstan focused on this phenomenon. This research contributes to evaluating teachers’ awareness, which may lead to better identification and support for gifted underachievers (Moltzen, 2004). The findings may assist school administrators and policymakers in developing professional development programs and intervention plans to prevent the loss of student potential.

Research Design A qualitative case study design was selected to investigate teachers' perceptions of underachievement. This methodology allows for a deep exploration of the phenomenon within a real-life context, enabling the researcher to develop a holistic picture of the issue at a specific educational site (Creswell, 2012; Yin, 2009). This approach provides the opportunity to analyze the participants' experiences and beliefs regarding gifted underachievers in depth. Site and Sample The research site is a specialized school for gifted students in the East Kazakhstan Region, selected for its decade-long experience with the target population. Purposeful sampling was utilized to recruit "information-rich" participants (Patton, 1990). The sample consisted of 11 teachers from various subject areas (including Math, English, Science, and Humanities). Eligibility criteria required at least five years of experience teaching gifted students. The participants ranged in age from 30 to 59, with an average of 10 years of experience working with gifted students. Instruments and Data Collection Data was collected using semi-structured one-to-one interviews. The instrument included 11 open-ended questions designed to address the research questions and prompt critical reflection on teaching practices. A pilot interview was conducted to ensure the clarity and accuracy of the questions. Upon receiving ethical approval and permission from the school principal, interviews were arranged in a private setting at the school. All participants signed consent forms and chose to conduct the interviews in Russian. The sessions lasted approximately 25-30 minutes and were audio-recorded to ensure accuracy. Data Analysis Audio recordings were transcribed and checked for accuracy. Thematic analysis was chosen to interpret the perceptions and experiences of the teachers (Saldaña, 2015). The data was coded manually using a three-column organization method (Creswell, 2012), resulting in the identification of categories and themes related to teachers’ understanding, attitudes, and strategies. Transcripts were analyzed in the original language to avoid misinterpretation before findings were translated into English. Ethical Considerations Ethical standards were strictly followed to protect participants' rights (Creswell, 2014). Participation was voluntary, and confidentiality was ensured through the anonymization of names and secure data storage. Participants were assured that the research would not affect their employment and that data would be used solely for the study.

Findings The study reveals that while the school lacks a formal, unified definition of underachievement, teachers share a common understanding of the phenomenon as a discrepancy between high intellectual potential and low academic performance. Identification of these students relies predominantly on subjective teacher observation rather than standardized, multidimensional tools. Participants identified three categories of factors contributing to underachievement: Individual: Lack of intrinsic motivation, poor self-regulation, and ineffective goal orientation. School-related: An overloaded curriculum with limited subject choice, inconsistent differentiation in instruction, and challenging peer relationships. Family-related: Inconsistent parental involvement (ranging from pressure to neglect) and family instability. Significantly, the majority of teachers demonstrate positive, sympathetic attitudes toward gifted underachievers, acknowledging the systemic barriers they face. However, a critical gap exists in practical application; while teachers utilize differentiation and individual mentoring, they lack knowledge of comprehensive intervention models or international strategies to reverse underachievement. Expected Outcomes and Implications This research highlights the urgent need for professional development to equip teachers with specific pedagogical strategies for gifted underachievers. The findings suggest that the school must establish a clear policy including a unified definition and objective identification protocols. Furthermore, curriculum modifications allowing for greater student autonomy and subject choice are recommended to enhance motivation. As the first study of its kind in the Kazakhstani context, these results provide a baseline for local policy-makers to improve the educational environment for the gifted population, ensuring their potential is recognized and nurtured rather than lost.

Baum, S. M., Renzulli, J. S., & Hébert, T. P. (1995). Reversing underachievement: Creative productivity as a systematic intervention. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39(4), 224-235. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson. Gallagher, J. J. (2005). Teaching the gifted child (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon. McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2003a). Factors that differentiate underachieving gifted students from high-achieving gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2), 144-154. MES RK. (2010). State Program for Education Development in the Republic of Kazakhstan for 2011-2020. Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Moltzen, R. (2004). Underachievement. In D. McAlpine & R. Moltzen (Eds.), Gifted and talented: New Zealand perspectives. ERDC Press. 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), 152-170. Renzulli, J. S., & Renzulli, S. J. (2010). The schoolwide enrichment model: A focus on student strengths and interests. Gifted Education International, 26(2-3), 140-157. Rimm, S. B. (1997). An underachievement epidemic. Educational Leadership, 54(7), 18-22. Siegle, D., & McCoach, D. B. (2010). Underachievement. In The handbook of gifted education. Vostrokolenkova, O. (2007). Psychological features of underachievement among gifted teenagers. (Unpublished dissertation).