Gifted Weekly

How many times have we second-guessed how to motivate and challenge the gifted child? Too much praise is problematic (Glass & Tabatsky, 2014), but we also want to recognize student effort and achievement. For gifted students, the student’s status and self-identification as a “gifted child” and how that impacts their motivation now or in the future is another factor to consider.

In a feature article in the September 2023 Gifted Child Quarterly, researchers Ramos et al. note that underachievement by gifted children has been an ongoing area of concern with few clear answers. They cite research that between 10-25% of high academic ability students do no meet their potential (White et al., 2018), and so it behooves us to continue to ask these questions.

Underperformance can be understood through mindsets which researchers have called pathways of underachievement (Snyder and Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2013). The first model is the Maladaptive Competence Beliefs pathway, and the second model, is the Declining Value Beliefs pathway.

In the Maladaptive Competence Beliefs pathway, students are frequently identified as gifted early in their lives and link their self-perception and value to their gifted status. Because academic achievement and rewards came to them easily at the outset, they question their own self-worth if the content becomes difficult, which can then cause them to shy away from difficult endeavors because of the challenge that could present to their concept of themselves as gifted. This leads to students stagnating and avoiding challenge, leading to underachievement.

In the Declining Value Beliefs pathway, the student also faces work which is below their ability level early in or even throughout their academic career, and they therefore assign lower value to schoolwork and academic growth (Ramos et al., 2023). By assigning lower value to the work, they lose the motivation to complete or excel in school-related efforts.

Over time, students with the Maladaptive Competencies profile revealed a greater achievement gap, although their own perception of their engagement was seen to increase over time. On the other hand, students on the Declining Value Beliefs pathway had a lesser achievement gap than their ability would indicate, and they felt they became even less engaged over time.

In this quantitative study, the authors investigate in great detail the motivation, context and potential for academic growth in these students, and a deeper dive is worth the time to understand how teachers, parents, and students perceive motivation in this context.

Three takeaways for the classroom in the context of this study:

• Language and guidance for our students and children needs to focus on effort over ability (Dweck et al., 1995).
• Differentiation which allows students to learn within their Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) (Shaughnessy, 1993; Vygotsky, 1978) is essential to growth. This confirms the importance of effort as well as the value of the work.
• Incorporating student-led pedagogies such as Project Based Learning within the curriculum will improve student engagement as well as provide more opportunities for differentiation (Hebert, 2019; Hockett & Doubet, 2020; Wise, 2023).

Resources

Dweck C. S., Chiu C., Hong Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6(4), 267–285. https://doi-org.ezproxy.neu.edu/10.1207/s15327965pli0604_1

Glass, G. S., & Tabatsky, D. (2014). The Overparenting Epidemic: Why Helicopter Parenting Is Bad for Your Kids… and Dangerous for You, Too!. Simon and Schuster.

Hebert, T. P. (2019). A Longitudinal Case Study of Exceptional Leadership Talent. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 63(1), 22-35. 10.1177/0016986218800068

Hockett, J.A. & Doubet, K.J. (2020). Differentiated Instruction. In J.A. Plucker & C.M. Callahan (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: A Survey of current research on giftedness and talent development (3rd ed., pp. 157-168). Prufrock Press.

Ramos, A., Lavrijsen, J., Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Sypré, S., Boncquet, M., & Verschueren, K. (2023). *Motivational Pathways Underlying Gifted Underachievement: Trajectory Classes, Longitudinal Outcomes, and Predicting Factors. Gifted Child Quarterly, 67(3), 179–197. https://doi-org.ezproxy.neu.edu/10.1177/00169862221132279

Shaughnessy, M. F. (1993). Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development: Implications for Gifted Education.

Snyder K. E., Linnenbrink-Garcia L. (2013). A developmental, person-centered approach to exploring multiple motivational pathways in gifted underachievement. Educational Psychologist, 48(4), 209–228. https://doi-org.ezproxy.neu.edu/10.1080/00461520.2013.835597

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman., Eds.) (A. R. Luria, M. Lopez-Morillas & M. Cole [with J. V. Wertsch], Trans.) Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. (Original manuscripts [ca. 1930-1934])

White S., Graham L., Blaas S. (2018). Why do we know so little about the factors associated with gifted underachievement? A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review, 24, 55–66. https://doi-org.ezproxy.neu.edu/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.03.001