Observation and analysis of three gifted underachievers in an underserved, urban high school setting

Abstract

Underachievement among gifted students is a paradox that frustrates educators because of the significant disparity between students’ potential and their performance. Complicating the issue is the highly individualized nature of the underperformance, which must take into consideration factors of student culture, socio-economic status, motivation, and the environment. Once these factors are considered, both the intellectual and affective needs of the gifted underachiever must be examined and supported in order to try and bridge the gap between known ability and actual performance. This case study examines the factors behind three gifted underachievers in an urban, high school setting. Through interviews and observation, the researcher sheds light on the potential influences of each individual’s level of underachievement and shares insight into how it was addressed in the classroom through the lenses of motivation, culture and context, and the environment. While the approaches and outcomes for each student are different, one theme emerged: students were more effective at instituting change in their lives once they had fully accepted and embraced that they were both gifted and underachieving.

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

“…Underachievement affects students from low, medium, and high socioeconomic groups and from rural, suburban, and urban areas (Matthews & McBee, 2007; Zabloski & Milacci, 2012). Further, underachievement transcends racial and ethnic barriers (Cavilla, 2017; Diaz, 1998; Reis, Colbert, & Hébert, 2005). Scholars estimate that up to 50% of gifted students underachieve at some point in their school career (Siegle, 2018).…”

Differences in Mechanisms of Social Interaction of Gifted Children Based on Peer Acceptance

“…On this study the interaction is analyzed through three agents: focal student, peers and educators. Briefly, the focal student is the participant who is observed; the peers, the rest of the classmates present in the classroom and the educators, the teacher or instructor present in the class-room (Cadenas & Borges, 2016, 2017Cadenas et al, 2013).…”

“…The fifth version of the Observational Protocol for Interactions within the Classroom (OPINTEC, v.5;Cadenas & Borges, 2016) was used. The description of this instrument has been already published (Cadenas & Borges, 2016, 2017Cadenas et al, 2013). Briefly, the instrument is based on the functional mechanisms that regulate social interaction (effectiveness, correspondence and social reciprocity) proposed by Santoyo (1996Santoyo ( , 2006 and it is designed to observe social interaction in natural educational contexts.…”

“…It is hierarchically structured in five macrocategories, collecting six criteria, deployed in 14 codes that catch interaction behaviors of three agents: focal student, classmates and instructors, differentiating between cognitive and socioaffective tasks. It assesses three types of interaction: positive, negative and absence of interaction (Cadenas et al, 2013;Cadenas & Borges, 2016, 2017. The psychometric properties of the fifth version of this instrument, in terms reliability and homogeneity, have been previously published (Cadenas & Borges, 2016).…”

“…In the field of gifted education, it is possible to find studies which used observation as a procedure to analyze certain aspects of the educational context. However, they are mainly focus in the figure of the teacher and his/her performance in the classroom or in academic aspects (see for example Cavilla, 2017;Coleman, 2014b;Graffram, 2006;McCoach, Rambo, & Welsh, 2013;Mills, 2003;Netz, 2014;Westberg, Archambault, Dobyns, & Salvin, 1993). To the best of our knowledge, only a few studies utilized observation in combination with other procedures to explore the social competence of gifted students (see Bokkina, 2016;Cadenas & Borges, 2017;De Jonge, 2016) finding, in general terms, appropriate and adjusted behaviours within the classroom.…”