Academic (Under)achievement of Intellectually Gifted Students in the Transition Between Primary and Secondary Education: An Individual Learner Perspective

Abstract

In the last decade, the Achievement Orientation Model (AOM) of Siegle and McCoach has often been used to quantitatively explore different pathways for academic achievement among intellectually gifted students in educational settings, mostly in secondary education. To study the dynamics of the different components in the AOM, we further examined the inhibiting and facilitating factors associated with academic achievement as experienced by well-performing and underperforming gifted students. Because the transition from elementary to secondary education is a crucial phase for intellectually gifted students, we selected students from the 7th and 8th grade, using purposive sampling. Six gifted students, three well-performing and three underperforming, from two different high schools participated in in-depth interviews. By capturing the lived experiences of six intellectually gifted students in this study, we were able to get more insight into the complex processes that relate to students’ (dis)engagement and (under)achievement in school. The findings underline the value of the AOM and stress the importance of taking learner perceptions into account.

Pay Attention to Inattention: Exploring ADHD Symptoms in a Sample of Underachieving Gifted Students

“…Previous work demonstrated the importance of each construct in academic achievement (Baslanti & McCoach, 2006;Emerick, 1992;Ford, 1993;McCoach & Siegle, 2003a;Ritchotte et al, 2014;Snyder & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2013). Many studies have examined these elements, using quantitative scales, such as the School Attitude Assessment Survey-Revised (SAAS-R;McCoach & Siegle, 2003b), or taking a more inductive, qualitative approach (Barbier et al, 2019;Brigandi et al, 2016;Brigandi et al, 2018;McCoach, 2002;McCoach & Siegle, 2003a;Mofield & Peters, 2019;Rubenstein et al, 2012;Siegle, McCoach, et al, 2014;Siegle, Rubenstein, et al, 2014). In general, the model components predict educational aspirations (Kirk et al, 2012) and differentiate high and low achievers at different ages and in a variety of countries (Davies, 2012;Figg et al, 2012;Long & Erwin, 2016;McCoach & Siegle, 2003a;Perez et al, 2017;Ritchotte et al, 2014;Suldo et al, 2008).…”

Do you know what I'm thinking? A comparison of teacher and parent perspectives of underachieving gifted students' attitudes

“…Both qualitative and quantitative researchers (Barbier et al, 2019; Brigandi, Siegle, Weiner, Gubbins, & Little, 2016; Brigandi, Siegle, Weiner, Gubbins, & Little, 2018; McCoach & Siegle, 2001; McCoach & Siegle, 2003a; McCoach, 2002; Mofield & Peters, 2019; Rubenstein et al, 2012; Siegle, McCoach, & Shea, 2014a; Siegle, Rubenstein, & Mitchell, 2014b) have examined the elements in the AOM, using the School Attitude Assessment Survey‐Revised (SAAS‐R; McCoach & Siegle, 2003b). In general, the model components predict educational aspirations (Kirk et al, 2012) and are able to differentiate high and low achievers at different ages and in a variety of countries (Davies, 2012; Figg, Rogers, McCormick, & Low, 2012; Long & Erwin, 2016; Perez, Costa, Corbi, & Iniesta, 2016; Ritchotte et al, 2014; Suldo, Shaffer, & Shaunessy, 2008).…”

“…Underachievement begins as early as elementary school and influences middle and high school, college, and career success, often becoming a persistent and/or growing problem (Barbier, Donche, & Verschueren, 2019; McCall, Evahn, & Kratzer, 1992; Peterson & Colangelo, 1996; Snyder, Carrig, & Linnenbrink‐Garcia, 2019). Gifted students who begin underachieving in middle school struggle to reverse the pattern throughout high school and into college; Peterson (2000) found that only half of the gifted students who underachieve in high school complete 4 years of college.…”

The Effectiveness of Current Interventions to Reverse the Underachievement of Gifted Students: Findings of a Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

“…Key components in the AOM, as measured by five equivalent factors of the School Attitude Assessment Survey–Revised (academic self-perceptions, attitudes toward teachers and classes, attitudes toward school, goal valuation and motivation, and self-regulation; SAAS-R; McCoach & Siegle, 2003a), can be used to differentiate high and low achievers of differing developmental levels and cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds (Dedrick et al, 2015). The AOM has served as a framework for research on underachievement among gifted students and the design of interventions (e.g., Barbier et al, 2019; Brigandi et al, 2018; Rubenstein et al, 2012).…”