VAGTC Vision A4 Book 2021 vol 32 no1 EMAG by remagazines

The Victorian Association for Gifted and Talented Children

Volume 32, No.1 2021

Addressing Underachievement and Disengagement • Scaffolding Underachievers to Achieve • Indigenous Wisdoms, Knowledge & Role Models Matter • A Relational Approach to Engagement • Self-regulated Learning

CONNECT WITH US www.FaceBook.com/VAGTC Twitter @VicAGTC

SUBSCRIBE. BECOME A MEMBER www.VAGTC.org.au

EDITORIAL, ART & PRODUCTION TEAM VAGTC Committee Member: Amy Horneman

COVER DESIGN Mariko Francis

DOCUMENT LAYOUT FOR PRINTING Douthat Design & Print | info@douthatdesignprint.com

MANY THANKS TO THIS ISSUE’S CONTRIBUTORS The most amazing people volunteered to make this issue what it is. Much gratitude to: Amy, Emily, Milla, Stephanie, Andee Tham, Tim Halden, Laura, Christopher, Alexandria, Cindy, Mark Smith, Dr Melinda Webber, Dr Susen R. Smith, Dave Camilleri, Dr Michelle Ronksley-Parvia, Dr Michelle Neumann, Dr Joe Santoro, Nathan Higgins, Damian Higgins, and Amy Horneman. For advertising inquiries and submission guidelines please visit www.VAGTC.org.au/Vision. Vision Magazine welcomes contributions from members and students and invite student submissions of artwork, photographs, poetry, or short stories. Best-practices, reflections and educator-submitted reviews and articles are also welcome. Copyright. The Victorian Association for Gifted and Talented Children (VAGTC) 2021 All rights reserved. VISION is published by the Victorian Association for Gifted and Talented Children (VAGTC) in two volumes each year and distributed to all VAGTC membership subscribers. All material in VISION is wholly copyright (unless otherwise stated via CC license) and reproduction without the written permission of VAGTC is strictly forbidden. Neither this publication nor its contents constitute an explicit endorsement by the VAGTC of the products or services mentioned in advertising or editorial content. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, VAGTC shall not have any liability for errors or omissions. We’ve done our best to acknowledge all images used in this publication. In some instances images have been provided to us by those who appear editorially and we have their permission in each case to use the images. This publication contains links to websites at domains other than www.VAGTC.org.au. Such sites are controlled or produced by third parties. Except as indicated, we do not control, endorse, sponsor or approve any such websites or any content on them, nor do we provide any warranty or take any responsibility for any aspect of the content of this publication. We apologize if anything appears incorrectly. Please let us know and we will be sure to acknowledge it in the next issue.

WORLDGIFTED2021.COM WOR W WO ORRL RLD LDG DGGIF GIFTE IFFTTTEEDD2 D202 2002211.CCO 20 COOM COM M

VISION, Volume 32 No. 1 2021

July 31 - August 1 & August 7 - 8, 2021 Developing the Future of Gifted Education Virtual WCGTC ® World Conference

#WCGTC21

VISION, Volume 32 No. 1 2021

Contents

Student Voice 4 Radiation Bright Landscape 8 Spot the Liar Sunburnt Country after Pro Hart

Amy Emily Milla Stephanie

9 How Do I Fix It?

Andee Tham

10 Finding Motivation to Learn and Achieve

Tim Halden

14 Emily Emu Façade

Laura Christopher

21 Simulated Textured Sunﬂowers after Vincent Van Gogh

Alexandria

24 Bottled Up

Cindy

Report 5 From the President of VAGTC

Mark Smith

Resource 6 Indigenous Wisdoms, Knowledge & Role Models Matter for Gifted Indigenous Students

Dr Melinda Webber

11 Scaffolding Underachievers to Achieve: Promising Practices Promoting Potential to Performance

Dr Susen R. Smith

15 Reimagining Dis/engagement and the Development of Ability: A Relational Approach to Engagement 18 Addressing (Dis)engagement and Underachievement for Gifted Learners 22 Gifted Underachievement

Dave Camilleri Dr Michelle Ronksley-Pavia & Dr Michelle Neumann Dr Joe Santoro

Perspective & Reﬂection 26 Self-regulated Learning

Nathan Higgins, Damian Higgins, & Amy Horneman

VISION, Volume 32 No. 1 2021

Radiation - by Amy, Year 10, Siena College, Camberwell.

Bright Landscape - by Emily, Year 3, St Cecilia’s School, Glen Iris. 4

VISION, Volume 32 No. 1 2021

Report

From the President of VAGTC - June 2021 Mark Smith DEAR VAGTC MEMBERS AND FRIENDS, As we progress through yet more COVID-19 lockdown periods, the VAGTC Committee continues its work in the online, face to face, and publication spaces. Our parent seminars delivered in partnership with the Department of Education and Training (DET) continue to support our parents of gifted kids as we focus on a range of topics, from supporting social and emotions needs, to parent networks, to exploring what is possible for school-based provision for high ability learners. In delivering these seminars to parents, of which 12 will be delivered this year, our intention is to also support schools and educators as we complement school-based professionals in supporting this group in our community. On October 12 the VAGTC is presenting two FREE educator seminars at the National Education Summit to be held at the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre. Though largely targeted to educators, parents may also be interested in the second session, ‘Stories of the Gifted,’ where we will hear the stories of some of our students who have been involved in school-based gifted and high ability programs. Please see the link below for details and to register: https://nationaleducationsummit.com.au/world-gifted-symposium Last year we produced the 8th edition of our ‘Resource Book’ and we continue to receive positive feedback on that publication, particularly on the ease of access to many online programs and tools through direct weblinks which are included in the publication. Our plan this year is to take this resource online to enable greater ease of use,

including immediate connection with the weblinks. In addition to this, in partnership with the DET we are also currently writing a ‘Parent Advocacy Book: Most Frequently Asked Questions,’ based on the common areas of high interest and need at our parent seminars over the last two years. Stay tuned for more information on this resource which will be published online and in hard copy form before the end of the year. Our last edition of VISION, ‘Practical Giftedness and Wisdom,’ has seen an overwhelming response. The theme was so popular, it has almost been a sell-out. This current edition focusing on ‘Addressing Underachievement and Disengagement’ promises to be just as sought after, as we hear from experts regarding strategies for engaging our students, as well as ways of overcoming underachievement. Through new learnings may we see our gifted and high ability students happy, engaged and being their best selves in the contexts in which they work and operate. Thanks to Ms Amy Horneman, our VISION Editor, for her tireless work in this space. Thanks also to our many generous contributors to this edition, be they writers or artists. Yours Sincerely

– Mark Smith

VAGTC President

Call for Submissions - VISION Magazine Volume 32, No 2 Submissions are invited for our next edition on the theme of Parenting Gifted Children: Joys and Challenges. Due date 30th October, 2021. VISION welcomes contributions on gifted education matters, including academic papers, reports on research, book reviews, perspectives from best practice and reﬂections. Some issues produced by VAGTC for VISION are thematic in nature. All written material should include a brief biographical note (approximately 30 words). Photographs and images should be original, copyrighted to the author, of suitable quality for print reproduction (no smaller than 300dpi) and emailed in jpeg format. Articles should be between 800-1500 words and be original work. All material submitted will be evaluated by the editors and outside referees where appropriate. The editors reserve the right to edit accepted works in order to ﬁt the publication formatting and language. Email to: vision@vagtc.org.au 5

VISION, Volume 32 No. 1 2021

Resource Keynote

Indigenous Wisdoms, Knowledge and Role Models Matter for Gifted Indigenous Students Dr Melinda Webber TOI TŪ TE KUPU, TOI TŪ TE MANA, TOI TŪ TE WHENUA. This Māori proverb encourages people to hold fast to their culture, arguing that without language, mana (a positive sense of identity and influence), and connection to land the essence of being Māori ceases. It proposes that we cannot stand tall in the world unless we know who we are, how we are connected to others, and what our purpose in the world is. It emphasises the integral nature of cultural pride, identity and aspiration. It is said that Indigenous students cannot ‘be well’ unless they feel connected to others in their past, present and future selves (Barnhart, 2005; Webber & O’Connor, 2019). So, if we want to implement healthful approaches to increase cultural efficacy, pride and aspiration, and consequently accelerate gifted Indigenous student potential and wellbeing – we need initiatives that acknowledge and speak to the lofty aspirations, goals and rich histories of Indigenous peoples. Tailoring educational programmes to emphasise the relevance of Indigenous languages, cultures and identities – as well as the rich history of Indigenous scientific endeavour - to gifted students’ future selves could be an important remedy to the continuing failure of many gifted education programmes to identify and serve gifted Indigenous students. The academic engagement of gifted Indigenous students in school contexts is dependent on a number of factors (Riley, Webber & Sylva, 2018; Webber, 2019): • the skills, background knowledge, and resources available to students, families, and teachers; • the students’ psychosocial attributes, including how they are identified and identify as belonging to, or in, educational settings; and • how the educational setting makes space, and provides support and opportunities for the students to engage, contribute, persist and ultimately thrive. This sense of belonging and invitation to an educational space is particularly important for gifted Indigenous students’ engagement with, and willingness to persist in, educational settings. In this sense, educational engagement can be said to be a function of developing both a school-based social identity and a gifted identity. And yet, other important social identities such as Indigenous identity do not vanish when students enter schools. Therefore, an important question is how academic or school identities, necessary for educational engagement, intersect with Indigenous identities to support or constrain gifted student educational engagement, persistence, and achievement? My research has shown that gifted Indigenous students want to participate in educational contexts that include their ways of knowing in the curriculum and hold Indigenous people up as role models of success and academic excellence (Webber, Riley, Sylva & Scobie-Jennings, 2018). Gifted Indigenous students have told me how important it is that they 1) see themselves on the walls of the classroom, 2) have access to school books that validate who they are, 3) are able to learn about 6

Indigenous knowledge systems and their rich histories, 4) learn about gifted individuals/groups who look and sound like them, and 5) have teachers who themselves express a desire to learn from and alongside the communities they serve. In essence, gifted Indigenous students must come to know that they descend from a long lineage of academic excellence, and believe that giftedness is not the sole domain of the ‘other’. As our world becomes more diverse, a deep understanding of one’s cultural identity is going to become increasingly important – for everyone. Knowing who you are, what your cultural values are, what gifts you have to offer, and how your gifts might help you to achieve your hopes and dreams for the future, can increase feelings of cultural pride, purpose, aspiration, and ambition. All children deserve to know about, and feel pride in their genealogy and family histories. When a family sits together to tell stories about where their ancestors come from, why they travelled or remained in a particular place, and who in their family achieved great deeds – children develop a sense of belonging and connectedness to their culture. When they learn about the courageous deeds (big or small) of their ancestors they come to know that they too can be brave and tenacious. This is particularly important for gifted Indigenous and other minority students who do not see themselves reﬂected in the educational setting. We must ensure gifted Indigenous students believe that being well and achieving academic excellence are a key part of being Indigenous and a way to enact their Indigenous identity and connectedness to others. If gifted Indigenous students view achievement as part of being Indigenous and believe that their teachers expect them to do well, they are more likely to persist in challenging learning tasks with increased effort and tenacity. Gifted Indigenous students must believe that they can and will achieve their potential because they are Indigenous – not despite being Indigenous. It is important for their motivation, progress and success but it is also important for their wellbeing. Dr. Melinda Webber is an Associate Professor and former Research Director of the Starpath Project in the Faculty of Education at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. She is a former Fulbright/ Nga Pae o te Maramatanga Indigenous Scholar who has published widely on the nature of ethnic identity development, examining the ways race, ethnicity, culture, and identity impact the lives of young people—particularly gifted Māori students. In 2016, Melinda was awarded a prestigious Marsden Fast-Start grant to undertake a research project examining the distinctive identity traits of Ngāpuhi, New Zealand’s largest tribal group. In 2017, Melinda was awarded a Rutherford Discovery Fellowship to examine the role of cultural pride to academic motivation and engagement in among New Zealand students.

VISION, Volume 32 No. 1 2021

Girl at Parc Monceau - by Derek, Year 9, Caroline Chisholm Catholic College, Braybrook.

Freedom - by Natalie, Year 5, Mother Teresa School, Mount Ridley. 7

VISION, Volume 32 No. 1 2021

Spot the Liar - by Milla, Year 11, Siena College, Camberwell.

Sunburnt Country after Pro Hart - by Stephanie, Year 5, St Cecilia’s School Glen Iris. 8

VISION, Volume 32 No. 1 2021

Student Voice

How Do I Fix it? Andee Tham Sometimes, I wish I could be a child again. Back then everything is young, Effortless, Immortal. Everything ﬂows; Spontaneous beauty, Unwavering creation, Untiring legs, And sleepless eyes.

I didn’t know what it was at that moment; all I knew was that something had changed in me, and it was wrong. Primary school – I can put one hundred percent into everything, create products I’m proud of. I love learning, love creating. Stress and struggle push me forward with their encouraging hands. But secondary school – An increasing workload divides my ‘one hundred percent’ into a hundred ‘one percents’, and nothing is ever good enough for me. Now, the stress is driving me off a cliff. I’d rather produce nothing at all.

Everything breathes, Everything gasps for life. Why would you ever want to sleep? But Something has happened.

Lockdown exacerbates my school stresses – I’m not unproductive or not learning, but I’m stressed, unhappy, and creating is a chore rather than a pleasure. I have been victimised by this system of our society. It places productivity at the head and states that everything else will follow. In school and in work, the idea is to check boxes and get things done, regardless of the quality and enjoyment of the task. Quantity over quality.

Suddenly, everything has a price; And an end.

The only way to grow is to do. So sure, a productivity-focused system leads to personal and societal growth, but it also leads to crippling stress and illness.

My energy needs a schedule And my time has a price tag. I need to worry about money And reputation.

But imagine, what if it was not productivity we aimed for but a love of learning and creation; pure adoration for what it is that we do; a state of being in which the action becomes its own reward?

My day is a to-do list. My health is a bar. Every step is a step is a step closer to nothing. Suddenly, life means stress And a breath is a sigh. I’m lugging my own legs like cinderblocks and pushing against the Hard corners of my own tired mind. Tired? When was the child ever tired? When was the adult ever not. Something has happened.

Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s Flow Theory tells us that in such a system, people will find themselves more productive, and rather than experiencing unhelpful stress, they will find fulfilment and happiness in loving what they do. I realise now what I was feeling was the result of a deep-rooted societal flaw. It’s a principle that has shaped everything from our school systems to our approach to relationships. Our society believes that productivity is the key to living well; the more you do, the better you’ve lived, and the happier you’ll be. But that is not the case. A system helmed by productivity pumps out as much stress and depression as it does progress and growth. We are slaving away in the belief that our efforts will bring us fulfilment, without realising it is fulfilment that fuels all worthwhile efforts.

Something has gone wrong. How do I ﬁx it?

HOW DO I FIX IT? I asked that question on the 16th of February, 2021. I was in the midst of a snap lockdown and ﬂowing through my veins was an intense mixture of emotion.

In truth, It matters that we love what we do. And it matters that we love the act of growth. So instead of beginning with the product, perhaps we should consider the person. Instead of drowning ourselves in productivity, perhaps we should focus on loving the water ﬁrst.

– Andee Tham, Year 10 9

VISION, Volume 32 No. 1 2021

Student Voice

Finding Motivation to Learn and Achieve Tim Halden FROM YEAR 4 RIGHT UP TO ABOUT YEAR 8 I WAS A VERY LAZY STUDENT UNLESS A TASK HAPPENED TO BE RIGHT UP MY ALLY. Recently I have been able to see the value in the seemingly pointless tasks we all have to do at school, and I think this is a major reason that students who can get by in primary school based purely on intellect, sometimes right up until Year 9 or 10, struggle to find the motivation to be engaged when the work gets outside of their comfort zone. Spotting disengagement early is one of the most important aspects of helping smart kids not fall into this trap. If a student does no work for most of a lesson, then completes the given task in the last 10 minutes, this can be a warning sign that they are disengaged from what’s happening in the classroom. A lot of students might also be behaviour problems not because they can’t keep up but due to the work being too easy. It takes a trained eye to be able to spot this, but it can make and break the whole school experience for one student. Helping young Primary-aged students form new and helpful learning habits can be very beneficial as it can make their later experience easier for them. Since I was lazy and avoidant of anything that required any sort of academic rigour in Primary school and through Year 7 and 8, it was difficult to turn around all those bad habits that had been developed in that time. If you can develop good habits early, then you give yourself the best possible opportunity to succeed in school. By Year 11 and 12 you need to be able to just implement the habits you already possess because the workload can be unrelenting and trying to learn how to study while learning the mountain of content that comes with VCE will be an unhealthy experience. I wasn’t up for pushing myself academically until Year 9 but then I started to enjoy the rewards of my hard work a bit more, as I realised that my achievement on my grades was all me. I saw the rewards of going above and beyond. Being familiar with the content and being able

to really engage with school is a rewarding experience, but at times school can be just plain unrewarding and boring. How can you push through that and love learning despite something else that might be going on in your life? For me I always fall back on my passion for sport. It gives me an escape from the pressures of everyday school life. I find myself getting washed out by the tide of work, but having a relieving recreation is a way to reset and come back with renewed energy for the coming days. Through my Secondary school years I have been lucky enough to have one of my teachers pushing me to do more than what is required, and I have found there is an interesting world of information behind even the most mundane items. I listened to a podcast about cardboard recently, that took me completely by surprise. The intricate world that lies behind the science of cardboard is utterly fascinating. As it turns out, there is a real balance to how thick the supports between the sheets of hardened paper are, since it affects the price greatly to add even a millimetre. I also learned about the different types of trees that affect how strong the cardboard is, or how water resistant it will be. It’s not necessary to get the students who do the normal work easily to do different things, but it is important to help them find the fascination behind each of the topics the class studies. Delving deeper into what we are studying has helped me to grasp and stay engaged with the topics we cover and with my learning across the board. My tips for helping students stay engaged with their learning: • Spot disengagement early and intervene • Help students find the fascination hidden behind the mundane, and to delve deeper • Teach students good learning habits from a young age • Encourage passions and interests

– Tim Halden, Year 10

BECOME A MEMBER www.vagtc.org.au Membership Includes: 2 Editions of VISION School $95 Individual or Family $55 Student $40

Resource Book Select Seminars Advocacy Resources Consultation at Reduced Rates

VISION, Volume 32 No. 1 2021

Resource Keynote

Scaffolding Underachievers to Achieve: Promising Practices Promoting Potential to Performance Dr Susen R. Smith Z ANE IS A VERY INTELLIGENT, ARTICULATE, EMPATHETIC, INNOVATIVE AND CREATIVE CHILD WHO HAS A VIVID IMAGINATION, IS AN ACTIVE LISTENER, HAS STRONG PRACTICAL /MANIPULATIVE SKILLS, HAS AN ADVANCED SENSE OF HUMOUR AND IS GOOD AT MATH. He loves

2009). Likewise, the reality of education for many gifted students is that they can be misunderstood, mischaracterised, misdiagnosed, missed, or miss-out on educational support altogether (Gifted Child Quarterly, 1982, 2009; Trefﬁnger, 2009)!

to build things and is forever building imaginary worlds, such as airports, castles, zoos or space stations and creating new narratives with animals and people populating these worlds. These narratives can last for days or weeks and he eagerly shares his new narratives with anyone interested. His imaginary worlds are expanded to his love of dragons that intersect with real-world knowledge of prehistoric dinosaurs. He also enjoys being in nature and exploring plants, insects, ﬁsh and animals. His favourite artistic pursuits are drawing, playing drums and singing. However, he is often quick tempered and uncooperative and misbehaves. He has executive functioning difﬁculties and dyslexia that has inhibited his reading, detests writing, continually avoids ‘school work’, is a perfectionist, has trouble completing tasks, and is inattentive and disruptive in class! Zane could be considered highly intellectually and creatively gifted, but at risk of underachieving due to his characteristics, behaviours and twiceexceptionality. Fortunately, Zane has many strengths to tap into.

Underachievement is often misunderstood. Definitionally, underachievement is the persistent, unexpected, and often unexplained, difference between a student’s potential and their performance or achievement (Landis & Reschly, 2013; Whitmore, 1989). Characteristics of students with underachievement may include, but are not limited to: non-conformance, lack of motivation or resilience or self-regulation, competitiveness but not risk-taking, lack of understanding of own giftedness, perfectionism, social inhibition, emotional hypersensitivities, lack of self-efficacy or self-concept, poor social efficacy, low self-esteem, or poor self-regulation (Mofield, Peters, & Chakraborti-Ghosh, 2016). The combination of these characteristics may result in disengagement, disinterest, inattention, anxiety, daydreaming, discouragement, social-emotional asynchrony, task avoidance, fear of failure, self-criticism, disorganisation, forgetfulness, frustration, anger, defensiveness, poor losing, avoiding effort, making excuses, not completing assignments, self-isolation, attention-seeking, misbehaviour, depression, dropping out or self-harming, amongst others. The mismatch between these characteristics, behaviours, and teaching that does not address students’ learning needs exacerbates underachievement. Hence, collectively addressing the potential-toperformance gap with relevant differentiated teaching associated with these aforementioned characteristics and behaviours may contribute to engagement and achievement (Siegle & McCoach, 2018).

Conceptions or misconceptions of giftedness? Many factors either promote or inhibit underachievement, such as conceptions or misconceptions of giftedness and underachievement, which are varied, complex, and contradictory. For example, Gagné (2020) presents several domains of giftedness (i.e., intellectual, social/leader, creative, perceptual, muscular, motor control), while Gross (2010) reports different levels of giftedness (i.e., profoundly, exceptionally, highly, moderately, mildly), and Neihart and Betts (2010) describe several proﬁles of giftedness (i.e., successful, autonomous, creative, underground, twice-exceptional, at risk). Interrelatedly, all of these conceptions of giftedness inﬂuence the child’s progression from underachiever to achiever. For example, a child can be profoundly intellectually gifted and have twice-exceptionalities, but be quite successful in their learning, while, like Zane, another can be highly creatively gifted, but at risk of underachievement in school due to a number of factors. I will touch on the present state of underachievement for gifted students and share some promising practices for scaffolding achievement. It is speculated that up to 75% of gifted students may be underachieving (Australian Senate Select Committee, 2001; McCoach & Seigle, 2014) and Rimm (2008a) considers Underachievement Syndrome as an educational epidemic! Educational, societal, familial, behavioural, emotional and psychosocial misses are prevalent. Certainly, misinformation, misconceptions, and misguided perspectives can hinder effective provisions for gifted students, especially for students who challenge authority or behave inappropriately, like Zane (Lassig,

Misinformation inhibits achievement. There are myriad social (e.g., poor communication skills), emotional (e.g., hypersensitivity), physical (e.g., disability), academic (e.g., learning difficulties), educational (e.g., unchallenging pedagogy & curriculum), familial (e.g., low socio-economic status with reduced access), or contextual causes (e.g., unsupportive or disadvantaged learning environment) and consequences of underachievement (Blaas, 2014). For example, poor social-emotional development may result in the child’s difficulty in interacting effectively in small groups and exclusion by peers; this collectively contributes to academic underachievement. There are many misconceptions about gifted students, for example: “Gifted students will fail or ‘burn out’ if identified too early”, yet the research suggests the opposite. Gifted students need to be identified and supported as early as possible in order to reduce underachievement and support talent development. Multiple tools within a process linked to their characteristics and behaviours is recommended for identifying underachievers (Reis & McCoach, 2000). However, giftedness may be missed or misdiagnosed. Gifted students may hide their giftedness or selectively underachieve to fit in. For example, gifted girls tend to hide their giftedness very early in infant school; Gross (2010) has a well11

VISION, Volume 32 No. 1 2021

cited take on the forced-choice dilemma. Third or fourth grades seem to be the first step toward underachievement for many gifted children. After several years of school and minimal effort, Zane realized that he could do well enough without really trying. He also began to slow his pace as he noticed that his slower working peers had less work to complete. Many middle primary aged gifted students are constantly told how “good their work is” even though they know it doesn’t reflect their best effort, so they become less committed to setting high goals for themselves (Rogers, 2002). Consequently, giftedness may become invisible and unrecognized and underachievement is exacerbated. Other consequences may include: • by fifth grade, there’s more peer pressure and schoolwork becomes more difficult, so performance drops further (Rimm, 2008b); • social difficulties increase in middle school and social stressors inhibit academic achievement (Vialle & Rogers, 2012); • influence of peers, asynchrony, and self-denial mean underachievement becomes more evident in middle school and persists through high school (Vialle & Rogers, 2012); • between 10 - 20% of those who do not complete high school are in the tested gifted range (Whitmore, 1989); • from 1% to 20% of dropouts may be gifted (Bridgeland, Dilulio, & Morison, 2006; Rimm, 2008a); • underachievement of gifted students emerges dramatically again in college. 40% of the top 5% of USA’s high school graduates drop out of college (Ritchotte & Graefe, 2017); • links between high school underachievement and low grades Characteristics/needs may be:

may equal the same level of occupation and education over a decade after leaving school (Peterson, 2000; Rimm, 2008b). What can be done to inhibit these issues to take today’s realities of underachievement to tomorrow’s actualities of achievement? Underachieving students’ social-emotional and educational needs, like Zane, can be identiﬁed, understood, unmasked, scaffolded, and nurtured in varying learning contexts so their individual talents can emerge.

Overall promising practices: Scaffolding underachieving gifted students. Misguided perspectives can contribute to underachievement. For example, another misconception is that gifted students don’t need support, when, in fact, gifted students, particularly underachievers like Zane, need scaffolding just as every other student does (GCQ, 1982, 2009; Trefﬁnger, 2009). While interventions, instruction, and programs need to align with the characteristics, behaviours, and causes of the underachievement (Ritchotte, 2010), underachievement is learned behaviour that scaffolding can assist students to unlearn (Davis, Rimm, & Siegle, 2011). Scaffolding gifted underachievers helps them understand the beneﬁts of working to their potential so achievement becomes a possibility (Siegle & McCoach, 2018). For example, Bennett-Rappell and Northcote’s (2016) recent research recommendations to promote achievement in underachievers were to: • encourage the development of one-to-one teaching opportunities for individual attention to promote engagement, accountability,

Strategies for Identifying and Scaffolding may include:

Disengagement/not performing /dropping out (Landis & Reschly, 2013; Reis & McCoach, 2000)

Pre-identify underachievement using a predictive model of characteristics (Phillips, 2017); utilise ﬂexible grouping (Rogers, 2007); identify individual learning needs and link with relevant differentiated curriculum, content and processes; vocalise high expectations/lesson goals; use constructive feedback to encourage participation; encourage dialogic interactions; teach study skills; use visuals, acronyms, metaphors, imagery and conceptmapping to scaffold learning content & processes; practice; interchange modalities of instruction and learning, e.g., multisensory, kinaesthetic, spatial, tactile, technological and creative expression; use frameworks, such as SOLO & MI to plan diverse open-ended questions and tasks (Smith, 2017a).

Social/emotional well-being

Use Social & Emotional Learning (SEL) programmes (Smith, 2017b); build positive teacher-student relationships (Bennett-Rappell & Northcote, 2016; Phillips, 2017; Whitmore, 1989); value/show respect for student strengths; make assessments developmentally-based and progressively easy to challenging so success is achieved for a positive self-concept; provide learning tasks that progress step-by-step from easier to more difﬁcult, so self-efﬁcacy is supported (Smith, 2017b); allow student input & self-discovery to support positive self-concept; accelerate through curriculum compaction or dual enrolment (Gross, 2010); provide counselling as needed (Pfeiffer & Preado, 2018).

Lack of motivation & selfregulation

Addressing these is most effective in promoting achievement (McCoach & Siegle, 2014); teach self-regulation skills to empower students (Smith, 2017b); teach personal goal setting (Martin, 2015); teach organisational skills; link learning to student experiences and interests to stimulate motivation; utilise ability grouping and differentiation to support learning processes (Plunkett & Kronborg, 2011; Rogers, 2007); provide interest-based differentiation and one-to-one teaching (Bennett-Rappell & Northcote, 2016); set up self-directed projects and interest-based homework programs (Stoeger & Ziegler, 2008).

Lack of understanding of own giftedness

Teach students understanding of own giftedness (Delisle & Galbraith, 2016); recognise potential, give personal attention and make individual feel valued by teacher to increase self-conﬁdence (Bennett-Rappell & Northcote, 2016; Haensly, 2003); encourage self-reﬂection journals; provide a risk-free learning environment; teach teachers to understand giftedness and underachievement (Phillips, 2017).

Lack of social selfefﬁcacy (Grobman, 2006; Montgomery, 2009)

Put in place provisions for mentoring, relational pedagogy, teachers developing positive relationships with students; counselling (Vialle & Rogers, 2012); modify/differentiate teaching and learning; provide relevant feedback speciﬁc to immediate outcomes (Bennett-Rappell & Northcote, 2016; Phillips, 2017; Smith, 2017b); focus on the positive behaviours e.g., use descriptive praise and consequences.

Table 1: Overview of gifted underachievers’ characteristics and possible associated strategies for identifying and scaffolding achievement.

VISION, Volume 32 No. 1 2021

Type

Characteristics/Behaviours

Example strategies

Procrastinator

Wastes time, power struggles, blames others, escapes reality

Self & adult limitations, short term goals, don’t accept excuses, model success, teach healthy ways to deal with aggression, change relationships, stay ﬁrm with consequences.

Attention Seeker

Teachers’ favourite, avoids work, argumentative Find ways to compromise, listen, dialogue, steps/plan for dealing with arguments.

Hidden Perfectionist

Worried, compulsive, indecisive, unrealistic, low Model dealing with mistakes, set clear expectations, teach self-esteem, hypersensitive self-regulation of emotions, express reciprocal caring relationship, help child to strive for excellence instead of perfection.

Martyr

Rejects support, sabotages success, helplessness, depression

Teach goals: start with short term goals for success & work up to longer term goals, counselling.

Socialite

Values approval/praise, hides feelings, clowns, inadequacy

Praise effort, teach self-evaluation, chart own progress in both effort and academics.

Shy Type

Dependent on adults, fears humiliation, unassertive

Identify steps to success, discuss fears, help them deal with anxieties e.g., (social & emotional learning – SEL).

Con-Artist

Manipulative, resists work & help, self-centred, exploits, bargains

Consistent external discipline, teach decision-making/selfregulation/goal setting/self-pacing, gradually impose more structure, foster social relationships

Table 2: Possibilities for scaffolding achievement of different types of underachievers.

and student empowerment and reduce disengagement and dropping out, e.g., mentors, tutors, role-models, like-minded peers, counselling, therapy, teacher/student professional relationships; • promote positive teacher-student relationships by addressing misconceptions in teacher professional learning and highlighting the vital contribution of teachers in fostering student success in learning and in encouraging student dialogue and collaboration; • differentiate teaching and learning to facilitate achievement of potential, e.g., student-centred approaches to individualised activities, pace, process and learning environment; • develop multiple strategies with a range of interventions for individual student needs in the different domains, levels and profiles of gifted underachievers. I would add: • diagnostically identify the student’s individual social-emotional and educational needs; • examine underlying reasons for underachievement, e.g., learning disability, lack of self-concept, peer pressure, an unchallenging curriculum or lack of motivation; • focus on the student’s gifts or strengths and use these to help overcome weaknesses; • collaborate with parents, educators, significant others and the child to ensure step-by-step success; and • ensure opportunities for success and empowerment through goal setting, practice and self-regulation of motivational and cognitive processes (Steenbergen-Hu et al., 2020). There are a number of models or programs that have been developed to scaffold achievement, for example, enrichment programs such as Tournament of Minds or Renzulli’s Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM; Reis & Renzulli, 2009; Renzulli, 2014). Specific programs may include strategies such as Kanevsky and Keighley’s (2003) Five ‘Cs’ or organisational/study skills/SEL skills programs, therapy, or counselling (Pfeiffer & Preado, 2018) to overcome psychosocial concerns, such as anxiety and learned helplessness (Gee, 2017; Snyder, et al., 2019).

Models include the Achievement Orientation Model (AOM; McCoach & Siegle, 2014) to set goals and build positive thinking, self-efﬁcacy, and self-regulation for engagement within various environments. Rimm’s (2008a, 2008b) Trifocal Model for Curing Underachievement Syndrome can be used to guide parents, teachers and students working together to identify underachievement patterns and help reverse underachievement. Some of Rimm’s suggested strategies include: building resilience through biography/ bibliotherapy; teaching a growth mindset; teaching healthy competition; multiple methods for giving instructions; building task values; appealing to altruism; and using the ALLIANCE acronym. However, “in the absence of developing formal programs for underachievers, providing underachievers with [individualized] support, attention, and positive feedback could help these students reverse their underachievement” (Reis & McCoach, 2000 in Batdal Karaduman, 2013, p.170). Table 1 provides an overview of gifted underachievers’ characteristics and possible associated strategies for identifying and scaffolding achievement. Underachievement is represented in different ways. For example, Reis and McCoach (2000) present seven types of underachievers: procrastinator, attention seeker, hidden perfectionist, martyr, socialite, shy type, and con artist. Table 2 provides some possibilities for scaffolding achievement of different types of underachievers.

Conclusion With his strengths of communication, creativity, empathy, resilience, reasoning, problem-solving, spatial- and self-awareness, I can imagine Zane becoming a maker, an inventor, a businessman, architect, entrepreneur, adventurer, or entertainer, much like other gifted people with dyslexia before him, e.g., Jessica Watson (adventurer, lone sailor, speaker); Steven Spielberg (ﬁlm maker); Justin Timberlake (singer/ actor/entrepreneur); or Dick Smith (businessman, entrepreneur, activist, adventurer). But I suspect, Zane will utilize his strengths 13

VISION, Volume 32 No. 1 2021

Emily Emu - by Laura, Year 6, St Thomas Aquinas School, Norlane.

Façade - by Christopher, Year 10, John Paul College, Frankston. 14

VISION, Volume 32 No. 1 2021

to become exactly what he wants to in the future! Some of the strategies presented here may scaffold the achievement of students like Zane. Refer to Reis and McCoach (2000) and Steenbergen-Hu, Olszewski-Kubilius, and Calvert (2020) for more in-depth reviews of identiﬁcation, deﬁnitional, and provisional issues associated with gifted underachievement. And, to be clear, you may have learning disabilities or twice-exceptionalities or negative self-perception or ethnic diversity or disadvantage, but not become an underachiever. Concernedly, underachieving gifted students who are missed, misunderstood, misdiagnosed or mis-taught may become discouraged, depressed, drop-outs, unemployed or . . . However, promising practices illustrate that talents can be developed in underachievers. Interventions must begin early with a focus on strengths that includes a combination of sustained and relevant differentiated enrichment and acceleration through one-on-one scaffolding of engagement, success, and high achievement in students like Zane. Dr Susen R. Smith, PhD, is a GERRIC Senior Research Fellow and Honorary Senior Lecturer in Gifted and Special Education at GERRIC, School of Education, UNSW, Australia. Over her long career, she has held many leadership, consultancy, and

educator roles from early childhood through to tertiary and provided professional learning for adults, both in Australia and internationally. Her teaching roles provided the practical foundation of her research journey. Susen’s research interests include: Differentiating Curriculum and Pedagogy and Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) for disengaged and underachieving gifted students, indigenous students, and twice-exceptional students. She developed the Model of Dynamic Differentiation (MoDD), that provides a practical guide for assessing, enriching, scaffolding, and self-regulating diverse student learning in the heterogenous classroom. Susen is published in top international journals in the field, for example, the Roeper Review and GCQ. She has keynoted nationally and internationally and presented consistently at gifted education conferences for decades now. She has been guest editor of the Australasian Journal of Gifted Education (AJGE), is on editorial review boards, for example, the Gifted Child Quarterly, and is the editor of the first ever Springer International

Handbook

Giftedness

and

Talent

Development in the Asia-Pacific.

Resource Keynote

Reimagining Dis/engagement and the Development of Ability: A Relational Approach to Engagement Dave Camilleri UNDERACHIEVEMENT1 IS A KEY IDENTIFIER OF DISENGAGEMENT AND DROPOUT RISK AMONG GIFTED STUDENTS (REIS & MCCOACH, 2000; L ANDIS & RESCHLY, 2013). In a national study, Goss et al. (2017) report that 50 per cent of high-performing students feel challenged in Australian schools. Approaches to re-engaging disengaged gifted students that ignore genuine environmental factors have not served underachievers well (Wellisch, 2016). From a teaching perspective, the debate around the deﬁnition of ‘true’ giftedness (Cropley, 1994) or the origins of giftedness (Gagné, 2013) is of little use when working with disengaged students. Instead, I propose focusing on understanding the (individual and patterned) actions of disengaged students, their perception of the opportunities to participate at/in/with school, and their attachment to their teachers and peers. This is the approach I have taken in my PhD. To understand the issue of disengagement among gifted students, I adopted Glăveanu’s (2013) Five A’s of creativity which proposes ﬁve components of creativity — actor (personal attributes), action (psychological and behavioural), artefact (creative product as cultural artefact), audience (socio-cultural 1

factors) and affordances (the interdependence of creators and a material world). The Five A’s model defines creativity not as a ‘thing’ but rather as action in and on the world. This is based on the belief that a student’s perception of the opportunities to interact and connect to their classroom culture will determine their engagement with tasks. Emerging out of my research, a new dynamic and relational definition of engagement was developed. More specifically: Classroom engagement is a relational concept that represents the transactions and interactions between student/s and their teacher/s, the symbolic and material affordances, and artefacts within a specific classroom or school culture. In other words, engagement requires appropriate perception and exploitation of symbolic and material affordances in the form of culturally acceptable patterns of actions, during socially and materially situated activities, when creating artefacts in their classroom. In the new definition, disengagement is not the consequence of a student’s deficit. Barab and Plucker (2002) argue displays of talented

the underachievement of gifted children is distinct from low achievement of non-gifted students since gifted students can underachieve

(relative to their potential) yet still achieve to a high standard in a classroom (relative to other students).

VISION, Volume 32 No. 1 2021

behaviour involve ‘understanding how to act in a manner that is consistent with those ways that have been socio-culturally endorsed— that is, functional for a particular group’ (p 174). Furthermore, ‘ability and talent arise in the dynamic transaction among the individual, the physical environment, and the sociocultural context’ (p 174). The common conception of engagement as behavioural engagement, emotional/affective engagement, and cognitive engagement (Fredricks, 2011), becomes insufficient to understand the problem of disengagement as it implies ‘engagement’ is only ‘of’ the individual. From a relational perspective, disengagement describes a poor fit between what the student can do at that point in time and the material and symbolic opportunities to participate within their classroom. With this new definition in mind, we will look at how the five dimensions can be used to generate and to deepen our understanding of disengagement.

Teachers as Audience The teacher as audience positions the teacher as a gatekeeper of the culture and a representative of the formal socio-cultural values at that school. Relationships with teachers matter as they provide feedback and encouragement to students (Goss et al., 2017). Feeling unsupported by teachers can have a detrimental effect on students’ wellbeing (Morrison & Allen, 2007; Roorda et al., 2011; Roorda et al., 2017). The students who took part in my PhD study welcomed diversity in their classrooms and recommended that teachers be nonjudgemental especially when working with students who do not ‘ﬁt’ in. Interestingly, Goss et al. (2017) showed that misbehaving students often receive more criticism and punishment and less support and encouragement. This is important because Johnson (2008) argues that regular but relatively minor daily hassles with a teacher can have a profound impact on a student’s wellbeing.

to concentrate, to manage their learning, and to adapt to novel tasks (Archambault, 2017). Galang (2010) argues that highly creative people may be less trainable and less able to be socialised due to having lower latent inhibition, leading to them making alternative/abnormal associations with moral and social norms. Importantly, Tsakanikos and Reed (2003) suggest that impulsivity is unrelated to intelligence and has both functional and dysfunctional facets. Acceptance of differences is crucial in safe and supportive classroom cultures that foster creativity and positive identity formation.

Actions Many underachieving gifted students can verbalise their thinking but struggle to transfer their knowledge into written form (VanTasselBaska, 2018). Results from my PhD highlight the importance of being able to express creative thinking in words on a page in order to be recognised as creative at school. For example, a 13-year-old participant with very low-level literacy was severely disengaged. He was outside mainstream schooling and seeking an alternative pathway. However, at home, he would build custom chainsaws as well as modify and repair machinery on his property. He was from a single parent home and received no assistance with these projects…a self-taught expert in something many of us know little about. In his previous classroom cultures, there was little opportunity to show his talents because he couldn’t interact and transact in culturally acceptable ways, i.e. write words on paper or follow the teacher’s instructions.

The students participating in the study mentioned their wish to connect with teachers (as people) through less demeaning and/or aggressive interactions. Having more approachable teachers was a common theme confirming current research which shows that warm and supportive teachers positively influence engagement, effort, perseverance, and achievement (Amabile et al., 1999; Shah & Ali, 2012). These are important considerations because they align with the findings that supportive teacher behaviour is positively influential in the development of creativity (Barbot et al., 2011, Beghetto et al.). Students will develop their creative ability when they feel their classroom is a safe place to do so. The task of the teacher as audience and gatekeeper is to create a safe place for the development and expression of ideas.

The school readiness of socio-economically disadvantaged children tends to be inadequate given their oral language skills (Snow et al., 2012). These students are at higher risk of language delay and disorder, having greater difﬁculty with language use than with cognition (King et al., 2005; Nelson et al., 2011; Roy et al., 2014). Given that classrooms tend to be heavily dependent on reading, writing and listening, verbal processing is fundamental for academic achievement. Primary-aged students with a language disorder carry these issues into secondary school, resulting in generally lower levels of achievement (Conti-Ramsden et al., 2012). To engage students, identifying which types of thinking actions are privileged in the classroom culture is the ﬁrst step. It is crucial to remember that formal literacy events require an understanding of ‘the particular ways of thinking about and doing reading and writing in cultural contexts’ (Street & Martin-Jones, 2000, p 22). The next step is to consider the affordances, symbolic and material, offered in the classroom and how these can be adapted to offer increased opportunities for participatory action and the development of ability.

Actor

Affordances

Crucial to creating a safe and supportive classroom is acknowledging and valuing the ways in which students are different from ourselves and others. These differences emerge for a plethora of reasons however it is important to point out that some students take on the norms of their classroom more easily than others. A possible explanation for this emerges from current research into Latent Inhibition and differences in how students perceive cultural information in their environment. Low Latent Inhibition has been associated with impulsivity, attentional deﬁcits, novelty seeking, and distracted behaviours such as general inattentiveness, absent-mindedness, or switching subjects without warning in conversation (Galang, 2010; Prabhakaran et al., 2013). Concerningly, impulsive students attract more negative attention from teachers; such negative interactions will further impede their capacity

Affordances as opportunities for action are perceived through the physical and communicative actions of the teacher but also through the artefacts available for learning. Students recognise the teacher as ‘Gatekeeper’, as the audience who evaulates and judges the quality of their work. This is in line with the institutional role of the teacher, i.e. to determine where a student is ‘at’, and how to support their progress toward the next ‘stage’ or ‘level’. Supporting student progress means offering artefacts with predetermined affordances for students to act in response to, according to the curriculum guidelines.

When considering how to engage disengaged high ability students, a focus on the student’s perception of affordances is recommended. It follows from the discussion above that not all students perceive the same affordances even though they are in the same space. In

VISION, Volume 32 No. 1 2021

the present study, disengaged gifted students were more likely to express their creativity informally. This could be due to the open-ended nature of these informal domains. Providing students with appropriate materials and opportunities to discuss their development will help to build a positive connection to their teacher and school.

Artefacts A classroom task is a cultural artefact which aims to actualise the student’s learning through prompting students to perform speciﬁc transactions and interactions: the performed actions will depend on the student’s beliefs about their audience and their perception of affordances in the artefact. With all cultural objects there are hidden cultural elements which need to be ‘seen’ or perceived for engagement to occur. When a teacher creates a task, their intentions and expectations are imbued within the task. The more able the student is to make manifest the teacher’s intentions, the higher they will be marked. They are reproducing the cultural norms as decided by their teacher. Bandura (1989), Vygotsky (1980), and Glăveanu (2015) highlight the importance of the ‘other’ as a source of knowledge, guidance, and perspective in learning situations, as well as in the creative process. Students therefore work with the perspectives available to them, that is, perspectives internalised through previous schooling. Glăveanu’s description of creative action acknowledges that creativity occurs precisely when a person is able to ‘move’ (imaginatively and/ or practically) from this conventional perspective to alternative ones (students start from vastly differing alternative perspectives in the classroom, some closer to the convention than others). It is important to note that a disengaged student may not be able to take on the (conventional) teacher’s perspective when producing artefacts in a formal classroom setting even if they want to. The engaged students in my PhD desired further enculturation into what they saw as ‘creative culture’ by suggesting they would visit galleries and museums to see other creative artefacts. The engaged students seemed to value institutional domains of creativity and were inclined to replicate aspects of this culture.

The takeaway message from my PhD research is that disengagement of gifted students tends to occur when there is a mismatch between what a student can do, and the developmental opportunities offered within their classroom culture. Put simply, disengaged students perceive and act in ways that have been deemed inappropriate by the culture in which they are a student. When a gifted student perceives this mismatch, they are more likely to move away from the cultures they feel exclude them. david.camilleri@unimelb.edu.au Dave Camilleri is a PhD student at The University of Melbourne’s Graduate Schools of Education. He has worked as a secondary school teacher and university educator for 10 years and has 15 years of experience working with adolescents in a variety of contexts. Dave has successfully completed a B.A. (hons) Philosophy, Post Grad Dip of Ed. (Sec), M.Arts (Philosophy), M.Teach, and an M.Ed. Dave was awarded Dr Lawrie Shears Doctoral Scholarship in 2016 for his PhD which investigates the relationship between creative ability, students’ perceptions of classroom culture, and disengagement. More specifically, it identifies the combinations of cognitive, aﬀective and socio-cultural factors that are more likely to lead to displays of creativity in a regular classroom. Dave’s research and teaching at MGSE centres on student engagement, creativity and wellbeing. He was part of a Delphi Panel of experts considering the place of critical and creative thinking in schools. Further to this, Dave works with schools to build student connectedness and positive teacherstudent relationships.

Shaking Dog - by Olivia, Year 2, St Mark’s School, Fawkner. 17

VISION, Volume 32 No. 1 2021

Resource Keynote

Addressing (Dis)engagement and Underachievement for Gifted Learners Dr Michelle Ronksley-Pavia & Dr Michelle Neumann Introduction

and Talents (or Competencies) as achievements.

People often talk about disengagement and underachievement in the same breath, but what we actually need to discuss are two distinct yet, intricately connected concepts – (dis)engagement and (under) achievement. In this article we seek to tease apart disengagement and underachievement and look at the nuances associated with learner engagement and how this contributes to the phenomenon of underachievement. Both concepts have presented as a paradoxical puzzle to gifted students and their teachers, and parents/carers due to long-held stereotypical beliefs around gifted student achievement and talent actualisation, and the potential realities of underachievement.

As such it is worthwhile just briefly providing an overview of Gagné’s DMGT (2020a) here. On the left-hand side of Gagné’s model there is a list of six Aptitudes or Gifts under the first heading of Mental domains (e.g., Intellectual, Creative, Social and Perceptual), and Physical domains (e.g., Muscular and Motor Control). These areas of giftedness occur in the top 10% (minimum threshold) of age-peers. Setting aside for the moment the centre area of Gagné’s model (e.g., Catalysts and the complex talent developmental process), on the righthand side we have Competencies, or Talents, which occur within the top 10% (minimum threshold) of peers (NB: not necessarily age peers). These areas of Talent appear as Competencies in nine fields of human endeavour – Academic; Technical; Science & Technology; Arts; People Services; Management/Sales; Business Systems; Sports & Athletics; and Games.

As a starting point let us establish what we mean by underachievement. Are we all talking about the same entity? Is it academic underachievement as measured by school grades? Does learning outside school count? Sometimes gifted students may not be performing as expected in school, but outside school may have well established areas of ‘achievement’, such as in their hobbies, entrepreneurship, sporting areas or areas of interest. Take for example, Rob (aged 14 years), with an IQ of 145, who performs averagely at school, mostly Cs for subject-area achievement, and a scattering of Bs and Cs for effort. Outside school he is an accomplished hobbyist with the local lapidary club, cutting and polishing semi-precious stones to design, create and market his own jewellery – a budding entrepreneur! In this case, is Rob still underachieving? We shall leave that to the reader to ponder.

What is underachievement? There are multiple definitions about what is meant by the term underachievement, but what they all have in common is a discrepancy between measures of a child’s ability (or potential) and their actual achievement (Rimm, 2019). The differences in definitions of underachievement arise from how ability and achievement are measured and defined. As we discovered in the example of Rob, some definitions use grades or school-based outcomes to measure achievement, rather than some alternative measures. Other definitions draw on measurements relating to an individual’s IQ score in relation to their score on achievement tests; if the IQ score is high (e.g.,145) and the student is achieving averagely at school (e.g., Cs) then there appears to be a discrepancy. As Rimm (2019) points out, these operational definitions can “cause great differences in how and why many gifted students are considered to be underachievers” (p. 3). Interestingly, when we examine the concept of underachievement through the lens of Gagné’s Differentiating Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) (2020a), we are able to apply a broader lens for understanding and possibly intervening in the development of this phenomenon. Gagné (2020a) splits his definition of giftedness and talent into two components – Gifts as potentialities (or Aptitudes), 18

Importantly, Gagné talks about the actual talent development process (the ‘complex bit in the middle’), as potentially taking a lifetime to actualise as a talent. This is a very important aspect of understanding gifted student underachievement. Do we expect that all gifted students should show their achievement through the narrow curriculum taught and assessed in schools? After all, not all the ‘expected’ Fields of Talent can be directly connected with what is taught and assessed in schools. Perhaps for several of our gifted students, underachievement is part of the complex talent development process, and for these students, achievement (Talent), comes well after those 13 years of formal schooling. Nonetheless, to see a gifted child struggling or receiving poor grades at school is discouraging for that child (as well as their teachers and parents). Such catalysts could potentially unknowingly accelerate the progression of underachievement. Before we discuss the complex bit in the middle of Gagné’s model (Catalysts and the Developmental Process), let us turn to brieﬂy explore student engagement and how this might connect to the complexities of underachievement at school.

How might underachievement be tied to engagement for gifted learners? Interestingly, in 2002 Reis and McCoach had already made some connections to potential causes of underachievement when they noted two main possible causal categories: environmental factors and factors within an individual. In Gagné’s complex ‘bit in the middle’ of his DMGT, his talent development process is very much reliant on two main catalysts – Environmental and Intrapersonal. This also strongly connects to Reis and McCoach’s (2002) theorising about causes of underachievement. Is it feasible that there is a distinct connection between engagement in learning for gifted students and underachievement? Signiﬁcantly for our discussion, the importance of student engagement in preventing underachievement and school drop-out of gifted students has been well-recognised (Landis & Reschly, 2013).

VISION, Volume 32 No. 1 2021

Figure 1 Gagné’s DMGT (2020b). Reproduced with permission.

So, what is student engagement? Student engagement is complex and can be understood by unpacking four different but interconnected dimensions we proposed in the Cyclical Model of Engagement (Ronksley-Pavia & Neumann, 2020). The first dimension is Behavioural engagement, relating to a student being present (or not) at school and actively participating (or not), and compliance with school expectations. The second dimension is Affective engagement, which relates to elements such as a student’s attitude to learning, to school, to peers and teachers, and their interest, enjoyment and identification with the institution of ‘school’. The third dimension is Social engagement, which connects to a student’s sense of belonging in school, connections with peers and teachers and involvement in school-related activities. The fourth dimension, Cognitive engagement, relates to a student’s learning, such as learning by choice, investment in learning (e.g., through effort and persistence), resilience when faced with educational challenges, a sense of agency in their own learning, and elements relating to self-regulation and metacognition (e.g., setting personal learning goals). The opposite of engagement, disengagement, is an increasing issue across schools in Australia. The Grattan Institute report (Goss et al., 2017) identified almost 40% of students as being disengaged (Ronksley-Pavia & Neumann, 2020). Estimates of underachievement and disengagement of gifted students range from 10% (Wills & Munro, 2001) to 57% (Peterson & Colangelo, 1996), and the problem is escalating. Gifted students are also becoming increasingly disengaged in the school environment and this is leading to “a loss of potential for both the individual and society as a whole” (Morawska & Sanders, 2009, p. 163).

The complex ‘bit in the middle’ – addressing disengagement and underachievement The complex ‘bit in the middle’ of Gagné’s DMGT (2020a) requires that the progression from giftedness (as potential) to talent (as evidenced in achievement), is facilitated by specific catalysts – Environmental and Intrapersonal, all of which contribute to the complex Developmental Process. This complex interplay of a multitude of factors through the Developmental Process can enable or disable talent actualisation. It is this process where the development (and impact) of both student engagement and underachievement becomes most evident. These factors speak to the complexities faced when endeavouring to understand and counteract disengagement and underachievement – social (e.g., family), interpersonal (e.g., significant others), educational (opportunities), physical (e.g., disabilities), psychological (e.g., temperament) and engagement elements (e.g., motivation, resiliency, volition learning). The Developmental Process and the catalysts which impact on this in Gagné’s DMGT (Environmental and Intrapersonal) connect quite distinctly with Reis and McCoach’s (2002) two categories – environmental factors and individual factors. This adds robustness to the suggestion that any efforts to address underachievement also need to address disengagement at both the environmental and individual level. Learning (and home/community) environments within which teachers (and significant others), make explicit and deliberate efforts to engage gifted learners can begin to address some of the causes of underachievement. In schools, this could be by means of differentiated curriculum and – central to this – personalised learning brought about through understanding the profiles of individual gifted learners. 19

VISION, Volume 32 No. 1 2021

What are Gifted Learner Profiles? It is well understood that gifted children are unique individuals. Neihart and Betts’ (2010) gifted learner profiles can act as a lens to consider options to help (re)engage underachieving gifted students. The six umbrella profiles of gifted learners suggested by Neihart and Betts (2010) are: Profile I Successful Learner; Profile II Creative Learner; Profile III Underground Learner; Profile IV At-Risk Learner; Profile V Twice-Exceptional Learner; and, Profile VI Autonomous Learner (for a more extensive description see Ronksley-Pavia & Neumann, 2020). These broad gifted learner profiles provide a practical option for educators to better understand how to commence exploring the overarching learning needs of gifted students. However, to create opportunities to (re)engage gifted students, a much more individual and personalised approach is needed, which can be facilitated (at least in part) by using Neihart and Betts’ profile overviews, from which individual profiles can be developed to enable personalised learning for individual students; this may be in the form of an individualised education plan. To begin differentiating instruction for gifted students, educators first need to recognise the individual student’s readiness for learning, their interests and understand their individual learner profiles (Tomlinson, 2008). Appropriate opportunities can then be recognised to enable suitable interventions for reengaging individual students, which can then enable more personalised learning. This can begin to address both gifted student engagement and (under) achievement and lead to the development of personalised pedagogical approaches.

What are Personalised Pedagogical approaches? Engagement is facilitated through a curriculum that is differentiated and personalised to meet student interests and diverse learning needs, and pedagogies that are personalised where the focus is on the individual student. When gifted students are actively engaged in their learning through the four interconnected engagement dimensions, they learn more effectively (Goss & Sonnemann, 2017) and are less likely to disengage from learning (Landis & Reschly, 2013). The challenges associated with personalised pedagogies are well documented (Landis & Reschly, 2013; Ronksley-Pavia, 2019). Central to this challenge is the diversity of the gifted student population. Failure to provide differentiated and personalised instruction can lead to underachievement and disengagement for gifted students.

Brief overview of the key components of re-engagement Personalised pedagogies for gifted learners facilitate opportunities for developing individual capacity to foster a sense of agency, real-world connections in education, volition learning (learning by choice), selfregulation and leadership capabilities – all of which connect to both environmental and individual potential causes of disengagement and underachievement. Disengagement and underachievement for gifted students starts early on in school, but does not necessarily become visible early on in school. It is therefore vital that any interventions to address these areas begin in primary school. Our (Re)Engagement Nexus model (Ronksley-Pavia & Neumann, 2020) provides a new conceptual framework and starting point for researching and addressing gifted student disengagement and underachievement across three key areas – four areas of engagement, learner proﬁles and personalised pedagogies (for a more detailed overview see RonksleyPavia & Neumann, 2020). 20

Figure 2 (Re)Engagement Nexus Model (Ronksley-Pavia & Neumann, 2020)

Conclusion Underachievement is a significant issue for gifted students, which can lead to, or begin with disengagement from learning. The complexities of disengagement and underachievement are compounded by factors which contribute to both – environmental factors (e.g., educational) and intrapersonal issues (e.g., motivation and volition). Together this multiplexity of factors impacts negatively on gifted individuals and society, with many gifted students consequently not having commensurate opportunities to contribute the full extent of their potential to their communities and the economy more broadly. Providing opportunities for personalised learning, through the development of individual gifted learner profiles and suitable pedagogical approaches, can help to ameliorate gifted student underachievement. To address gifted student (dis)engagement and (under)achievement, it is important to address both environmental and individual (intrapersonal) factors. However, what we first need to agree on is what underachievement actually is (and is not), for gifted learners (i.e., individuals like Rob). It may be semantics, but if we are using Gagné’s DMGT to conceptualise and address giftedness, maybe we should be calling the phenomenon talented student underachievement – remember giftedness is about potential, talent is about achievement. Dr Michelle Ronksley-Pavia is a lecturer and GIER Adjunct Research Fellow at Griffith University, Australia, in the School of Education and Professional Studies, lecturing in undergraduate and postgraduate Primary and Secondary preservice teacher education courses, where she has been awarded Teaching Excellence Awards for her work with pre-service teachers. Dr Ronksley-Pavia has taught in a variety of educational settings; Adult and Community Education and TAFE colleges, and at a number of schools where she has extensive experience working with gifted and talented students, twice exceptional learners and in special education across P-12 schooling sectors. Dr Ronksley-Pavia is a leading researcher and expert in the field of gifted education and twice exceptionality in Australia and internationally. As past President of the Queensland Association for Gifted & Talented Children (QAGTC-GC Branch), Dr Ronksley-Pavia has a wealth of experience

VISION, Volume 32 No. 1 2021

supporting and advocating for the needs of gifted and twice exceptional learners and their families. Dr Ronksley-Pavia is a member of the World Council for Gifted & Talented Children (WCGTC), a member of the WCGTC Teacher Position Paper Committee, and founding member of the SPELD Victoria Australian Research Committee. Dr Michelle Neumann is a Senior Lecturer in the field of early childhood education, literacy, child development, and digital technologies at Griﬃth University. Prior to joining the School of Education and Professional Studies, Michelle was a post-doctoral research fellow with the Griﬃth Institute for Educational Research. Michelle is a registered schoolteacher and has had

over 10 years’ experience working as a primary and secondary school teacher with Education Queensland, Australia. She has worked closely with children, parents, and educators in schools across southeast QLD where she conducted her early literacy and writing programs. Michelle has research expertise in using a multi-method approach that incorporates qualitative and quantitative statistical analysis combined with observational, interview, survey, case study, and intervention-based experimental studies. Michelle has developed several educational and assessment apps and digital resources for literacy and numeracy education, published a book, several book chapters and research articles in national and international peer reviewed journals. Michelle holds professional memberships with the UK Literacy Association, Australian Literacy Educators’ Association, Society for the Scientific Studies of Reading, as well as with the Queensland College of Teachers.

Simulated Textured Sunflowers after Vincent Van Gogh - by Alexandria, Year 2, Sacre Coeur, Glen Iris, Joingy Campus. 21

VISION, Volume 32 No. 1 2021

Resource Keynote

Gifted Underachievement Dr Joe Santoro Difficulty seeing gifted knowing and thinking in the classroom? There are many reasons for underachievement among gifted students. These can include students not having learned to work, poor self-regulation skills, low self-confidence or self-efficacy, twice exceptionality that is not recognised, psychological or psychiatric disorders, excessive absences, disruptive behaviour, disengagement, family problems, or poverty, inappropriate curriculum and simplistic content (Renzulli & Reis, 2012). As a psychologist, I work with young people to support their wellbeing and to optimise their learning performance. On an individual level, I can support young people to improve their self-regulation skills, their confidence and self-efficacy and can support them to manage psychological disorders and family issues. To some extent, I can support gifted students to improve their performance if they are indeed underperforming. However, despite ongoing psychology support, gifted students require further support to perform optimally. As we know, excellence or talented outcomes largely depend on the opportunities the learner is provided with to develop their talent (Subotnik et al., 2011).

Gifted students are naturally curious knowledge seekers

but that’s what mints are made out of… These examples show how gifted students are curious and some ways in which they nurture their own curiosity. Whilst gifted students tend to be curious and seek out information and new knowledge, we know that gifted students can also underachieve at school.

Boredom and lack of challenge A key issue identiﬁed in the literature and evident in classrooms for many gifted students is that they are likely to become bored. Mia, Anna and Joanne all described examples of how they nurture their own curiosity and all three examples included actions that were self-driven and external to the classroom. So why do gifted students become bored? Various reasons are provided in the literature. For example, gifted students become bored when they view lessons as irrelevant (e.g. Goss, 2017; VanTasselBaska, 2008), when teacher expectations about their learning capacity is too low (e.g. Emerick, 1992; Peterson, 2016) and when differentiation is infrequent (Landis, 2013; Siegle et al, 2014). From a classroom perspective, underachievement can be the result of issues with inappropriate curriculum and simplistic content (Rezulli and Reis, 2012) and subsequent disengagement from learning. Mia, Grade 2, described how she becomes bored during maths class due to the lack of challenge for her:

Examples of gifted students’ curiosity and thirst for knowledge is evident during everyday interactions with them. For example, a Grade 1 student, Mia, describes how she spends her spare time watching YouTube channels to learn about countries and continents:

When we’re doing Maths, we’re counting by 2s or 5s or 10s and like, ah this is going to make me fall asleep! That’s how boring it is.

When I’ve got free time and I want to know about a topic I go on the kids learning tube (You Tube). I normally watch about countries and continents.

Anna, Year 8, described how she becomes bored during history class due to the lack of challenge and dissatisfaction with having to complete tasks she sees as irrelevant:

This is not a typical YouTube session for a Grade 1 student. Curiosity can be sparked during school lessons and can be relevant to the topic(s) being studied in class. For example, Anna, a Year 8 student, became curious about diatoms during a science class: In Science this morning we were looking at pond water under a microscope, and the team next to us found a little diatom, which is a tiny single celled organism that swims around in pond water and stuff, and at recess, I was trying to find some things on it in the library but I couldn’t find anything. I was trying to find some more about it because it was really interesting. Or, this curiosity can be sparked from the environment that is not necessarily relevant to any schoolwork or a topic(s) being investigated. For example, another Year 8 student, Joanne, was intrigued by an ingredient listed on a packet of mints: The other day I looked at the back of a packet of mints and it said ‘sorbitol’, so then I thought, hey, what is this, let’s go find out, and apparently it can be used to make amateur rocket fuel, 22

It’s just really boring, it’s not that I don’t like History, it’s just that I could read all that stuff and remember it, but we have to answer the questions. Joanne, Year 8, described the moment she realised how bored she was and when she thought that skipping a grade might be a good idea: The last week of term I sat down in my classes and then I just realised that I wasn’t doing anything and that I was just really bored, so then I thought maybe this [skipping a grade] would be good for me.

Seeing giftedness in the classroom It is important to consider how schools can support gifted learners to foster achievement and talent and reduce the risk of disengagement and underachievement. This can begin from identification and teaching that stem logically from a conceptualisation of giftedness or high ability. Renzulli calls this internal consistency. Difficulties can arise when our definition of giftedness and our identification tools do not match subsequent teaching strategies

VISION, Volume 32 No. 1 2021

for these students. Within the Australian school context, Gagné’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) is often used as the guiding framework for gifted policies and programs. A challenge with this is that Gagné’s model does not provide information at the learner or classroom level to ‘show’ or ‘describe’ the actions of gifted students. Gagné describes the talent development process. What other information is being used to support teachers in identifying and fostering gifted knowing and thinking in the classroom?

A framework to see gifted knowing and thinking The novice to expert knower framework, described by Professor John Munro, provides an example of how to interpret the thinking and knowing that is typical of a gifted learner. From this perspective, we describe the thinking and cognitive characteristics of gifted students in a classroom friendly way. According to this framework gifted students can analyse ‘big picture’ patterns and rules in information, they can see deeper relationships, simultaneously link several aspects of learning, apply knowledge across content area boundaries, and make unusual far links and generate creative and novel outcomes. When this is the lens through which we consider gifted knowing or thinking, it is possible to see evidence of this and to teach accordingly. Joanne provides an example that highlights some of these characteristics: We did a unit on poetry for English and then earlier in the year we had done advertising. So, our teacher presented a poem and then she was just like read through it and see if you can find any poetic techniques and then I just started picking up all these advertising techniques instead, and then I was like, this poem’s like advertising. Joanne’s statement is creative, novel, and shows her ability to apply knowledge across content boundaries. She would not be able to make this link [between poetry and advertising] without sufficient knowledge about both topics and without the capacity to transfer knowledge across content areas. This is an opportunity for Joanne to be challenged and for her curiosity to be nurtured. However, as Joanne explained, her response was not expected and her ‘intuitive theory’ was not further explored by her teacher: It was a bit of a surprise [for the teacher] because we were covering poetry, so she was more looking at the poetic side of it, instead of what we did earlier.…The teacher wasn’t exactly impressed [with my idea], but she was like oh I didn’t think about that.… She didn’t ask me [to explain any more] about it. When teaching and/or identification procedures for gifted students do not stem from a framework that describes clearly what gifted knowing and thinking ‘looks like’ within the classroom, this leads to difficulties with recognising instances of gifted knowing and thinking and the provision of appropriate learning opportunities. This is described in the figure 1. Difficulty recognising instances of gifted knowing and thinking leads to less opportunities for these students to feel challenged and for these students to receive positive reinforcement for their ways of thinking and seeing the world. This lack of opportunity can lead to disengagement and underachievement. For students who are expressing feelings of boredom and dissatisfaction with the level of challenge provided, these opportunities to think and to nurture their thinking skills are crucial. When opportunities to think and to be challenged are provided, gifted

Figure 1

students can ﬂourish. Anna, Year 8, described how she appreciates when her ideas are being listened to and valued: I think listening to them [my ideas], and instead of just giving them a yes or no, just offering to have a discussion on them, I think. I have a really, really great teacher, Mr Bob, he teaches law and order which is like an introduction law thing, and he’s really great at just listening to the students and talking to them about their ideas and things. Especially in a subject like law, where there are so many opinions, I think that’s so great. Students can quickly become disengaged and disinterested in learning when they believe that their ideas are not valued, and they are not being challenged in their learning. They may develop negative attitudes about school that result in beliefs that their ways of thinking and knowing are not relevant or supported. The more we know about the ways in which gifted students know and think, the more likely we are to notice examples of gifted knowing and thinking. This allows us to create an opportunity to challenge them appropriately and to reduce the risk of disengagement and underachievement. Within the school context, we need to look for examples of intuitive theories, of thoughts and ideas that suggest the student is making unexpected links and generating interpretations that take ideas further than they have been taught. Anna provides a good example of this: I think I’ve got a good memory, if I’m reading something I’ll probably remember it, especially, this is just an example, but song lyrics, I can listen to a song twice and I’ll know most of the lyrics. But I don’t know if that’s connected to the melody or something, but there might be a connection in your brain with your words to the melody, but anyway. Anna is suggesting an idea here that warrants further investigation. She is asked to elaborate. Can we go back to that idea, I’m just interested to know more about that idea, it sounds like you’ve made a bit of a theory about memory? Well I like music and when I did dance, I was always told to do dance to the music, because you’ll link the actions with the music. So, I was thinking, you could link the words with music in songs, and I reckon you’ll remember it better because there’s like a connection. I don’t know, I can’t fully explain it. There is an opportunity to explore something further, to reinforce and 23

VISION, Volume 32 No. 1 2021

validate Anna’s thinking, to show her that her ways of thinking are valued, and importantly, an opportunity for Anna to be challenged.

A Way Forward For a thought or action to be considered gifted, the ‘culture’ must consider it to be ‘gifted’ or not typical of a regular learner. Sometimes thoughts or actions are not considered gifted because they’re not recognised as gifted. Joanne’s description of her teacher’s reaction to her intuitive theory regarding advertising techniques in poetry suggested that her thoughts may not have been considered to be ‘gifted’ or typical of a high ability learner. Knowing more about how gifted students think and learn creates opportunities to recognise examples of gifted thinking and knowing. When students believe that their ideas are valued, they are more likely to offer them again, which provides more opportunities for growth. When these examples go unnoticed, over time, students can start to form beliefs that their ideas and ways of thinking are not valued and don’t ﬁt within the classroom environment. When this happens, underachievement has likely begun.

Bottled Up - by Cindy, Year 12, Nazareth College, Noble Park North. 24

Dr Joe Santoro is a psychologist working in schools and in private practice and a research fellow at Deakin University. He completed his PhD at the University of Melbourne, which focused on the identification of cognitive characteristics of giftedness within a classroom context. He has presented at conferences both locally and internationally on the issue of identifying giftedness within the classroom context. More broadly, his research interests and teaching are in the areas of cognitive and educational psychology. Joe previously worked in several learning support roles with students across all levels of education. He has contributed to large scale research projects examining the social, health, and developmental factors that impact on student achievement and has consulted with state and federal governments both in Australia and overseas on the impact of these factors on student achievement. His research utilising national and international student assessment data has contributed to policy recommendations in Australia, the UAE, and Qatar.

VISION, Volume 32 No. 1 2021

VAGTC + Department of Education & Training (DET) FUNDED (FREE) PARENT SEMINARS SEMESTER TWO SUPPORTING SOCIAL & EMOTIONAL NEEDS MONDAY JULY 19, 7:30 - 8:30PM - ONLINE

IDENTIFY UNDERSTAND ADVOCATE COLLABORATE

WHAT’S POSSIBLE FOR SCHOOL-BASED PROVISION TUESDAY AUGUST 17, 7:30 - 8:30PM - ONLINE

WORKING COLLABORATIVELY WITH YOUR CHILD’S SCHOOL THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 2, 7:30 - 8:30PM - ONLINE

GIFTED & HIGH ABILITY CHILDREN 101 MONDAY SEPTEMBER 13, 7:30 - 9:00PM - ONLINE

SUPPORT

THRIVING THROUGH EDUCATIONAL TRANSITIONS THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 21, 7:30 - 8:30PM - ONLINE

2021

Q&A WITH EXPERT PANEL TUESDAY NOVEMBER 9, 7:30 - 9:00PM - ONLINE

Online Seminar Program Participants in the ‘Gifted High Ability Children 101’ seminar are encouraged to watch the pre-recorded video presentation in advance, and attend the Zoom session for discussion. Participants in all other seminars are also welcome to watch the video, but these seminars are more speciﬁc to the advertised topics. (Video and Zoom links will be sent to participants after registration.)

Face-to-Face Seminar Program All face-to-face sessions have been suspended for the remainder of 2021, due to ongoing challenges with planning and hosting events during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will endeavor to schedule face-to-face seminars throughout 2022 to facilitate networking and support opportunities for parents in cluster areas.

FOR PARENTS OF GIFTED STUDENTS For more information and to register, visit www.VAGTC.org.au/seminars The Parent Seminar Series is an initiative of the Victorian Association for Gifted and Talented Children (VAGTC) and funded by the Department of Education and Training (DET), Victoria.

VISION, Volume 32 No. 1 2021

Reﬂection

Self-regulated Learning – Nathan Higgins, Damian Higgins, & Amy Horneman DAMIAN HIGGINS, PRINCIPAL OF NORTHSIDE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, A P-12 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL IN THE NORTHERN SUBURBS OF MELBOURNE, TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY DURING LOCKDOWN IN 2020 TO START A PODCAST ON ‘ALL THINGS EDUCATION’, ENTITLED SCHOOL OF THOUGHTS. This edited transcript has been derived from an interview Damian conducted with his son, Nathan, in May of 2021, for the latest episode of this podcast, focusing on an area specific to Nathan’s Honours research project on self-regulated learning. Nathan graduated with his QCE in North Queensland, then moved to Melbourne to complete a Bachelor of Science (Hons) at Melbourne University. He is currently working on a PhD in Neuroethics in the Monash Biomedical Imaging Faculty. Damian: You did very well in your QCE (Queensland Certificate of Education). Was it always the case that you did well at school? Nathan: In Primary school I was a fairly average student. My NAPLAN scores were never very impressive. Then things started picking up around Year 7 or 8, and I was able to do relatively well through to graduation. Damian: In Year 4, you got a surprisingly low score on speaking or listening or something in English, and as parents, we were very concerned about this very low score. Do you remember what this felt like, to not really be kicking any goals as a student? Nathan: I remember it started earlier. In Year 3, Mum took me to see an audiologist. It turned out that my listening ability was perfectly fine: “You just have to listen harder in class; pay attention more.” I don’t think it was really distressing to me or a concern that my marks weren’t as good as my parents hoped for; it was just that up until the ‘change’ in Year 6 or 7, school didn’t really matter to me. I was fairly nonplussed by and didn’t thrive on achievement and grades in Primary school. Damian: So something changed along the way in terms of your success and achievements. Can you pinpoint what caused this change? Nathan: In Year 6 or 7, when you’re expected to start doing homework and study in your own time, I discovered that my marks could improve with an investment of time and effort. The work remained challenging, but I found that studying at the kitchen table after school was not something that required a tremendous amount of will-power; so I think more than anything, it was establishing a really consistent routine that probably explained my improved marks. Damian: Did any teachers catalyse that change in your approach? Nathan: Sitting down and working autonomously has to be driven in some part by interest in the material. Generally speaking, I find it much harder to motivate myself to work on stuff that’s uninteresting or irrelevant. In Year 6, around the same time I started working on establishing a study routine, the material being taught by my then teacher, Mrs Susan Tucker, I found to be really interesting. Basically, it was a dovetailing of fascinating classwork and an internal discovery of the pay-off of effortful and consistent study that catalysed this change in my academic performance. 26

Damian: Motivation is surely a factor. I often talk about extrinsic and intrinsic motivation: is it a ‘thing’, or does all motivation come from external factors? Nathan: Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are definitely a ‘thing’. From my understanding, intrinsic motivation comes from interest in the material, or viewing it as relevant to your future career or ambitions, whereas extrinsic motivations might come from a desire to impress my parents with a good grade. Another way of putting it could be that extrinsic motivation are a means to an end: “I’m only doing this to impress my parents or to get that good mark”, whereas intrinsic motivation means you do it because there’s something valuable in the learning process itself. On that, I would say that I was definitely more intrinsically than extrinsically motivated as a student. Damian: That is fascinating. The feedback that a teacher gives can also be important: feedback that can be acted upon by the student, rather than being seen as outside of the student’s control. Nathan: If a student believes that they have no control over their marks, then they are not going to be implementing strategies that will move them towards being a better student. Viewing marks as a product of unchangeable academic characteristics, such as being ‘bright’, ‘brainy’, or having a high IQ, is not going to drive a student to change how they are approaching their learning. Damian: I agree it’s silly to categorise students as ‘smart’ or ‘not smart’ students, but there are some students who can just naturally achieve, and there are others who are ‘not as smart’, for want of a better word, but can still achieve. Tell us about that. Nathan: It’s easy to think about this in dichotomous terms, as there being only ‘ability’ and ‘effort’. In the film Good Will Hunting, Will is a child prodigy, a genius with a dizzyingly high IQ. At one point when he is young man, a friend asks him how he does it, how he can understand and remember complex concepts with apparent ease. He describes it like this: ‘The first time Beethoven looked at a piano, it made sense to him; he could just play.’ When it comes to academic tasks, I could always ‘just play’. There are some students who can just sit down in front of a test, and they can just ‘play’; they can just do it; it comes naturally to them. But for the rest of us, it’s much more effort-driven. Damian: I’m a Maths teacher, and I remember I was always trying to help you with your Maths homework but we both felt like we were banging our heads against a brick wall; you didn’t get it and I didn’t understand why you didn’t get it. But then fast forward a few years, to when you were doing the equivalent of Maths Methods in Year 11 and 12, and it was a very different experience. Maths homework was a completely different experience, because you would ask me for help when you needed it. Something had changed in the way you comprehended things: you’d made a breakthrough in your confidence, was it? Tell us about that. Nathan: I’m going to make another movie reference. In Whiplash, there’s a scene where Fletcher, the terrifying music teacher, is telling

VISION, Volume 32 No. 1 2021

Andrew the drum student about the legendary saxophonist Charlie Parker. When Parker was in music school, a cymbal was thrown at his head when he made a mistake during a cutting session, and he was laughed off stage. Charlie Parker then drove himself to practising all day every day until he could play at the level that he knew would never cause him to be laughed at again. I think it’s sometimes a bit like that with me: there’s this drive to always want to improve, and to work out what I’m misunderstanding. If I don’t understand something, even still to this day, I want to understand what it is. It’s mysterious, because I don’t really know where that drive comes from: it’s just there. Damian: I’m a principal of a school now with lots of students who have this potential, these possibilities for their futures, and throughout history, many people may not have achieved this potential. What advice can you give to students that might help them meet their potential? Nathan: Not to be discouraged by negative assessment results. Part of that comes from recognising that there isn’t a 1:1 relationship between ability and performance outcomes. The score that get you on a test is not an indication of a stable, intrinsic aptitude; there are always things you can be doing to improve your academic performance. The more you believe you’re capable of achieving excellence in education, the better you will do. Damian: I guess the students themselves can do this thinking about their achievement and performance, but so can their teachers and mentors, by expressing belief in the child. Do you have any memories of parents, teachers, mentors or even peers, who have said something that’s given you a belief to drive forwards? Nathan: There’s a speciﬁc example from Year 11. I wasn’t sure why my study efforts weren’t translating into good marks; I was working really hard but didn’t understand why it didn’t have the outcomes I wanted.

Talking to my teachers after class, hanging around after the lesson had finished, just letting them know that I was interested in doing well, seemed to have quite a big effect on my academic outcomes. Just expressing a will to do well to your teachers means they’re more likely to pay attention to you and to guide you through the learning process. Especially in Year 11 and 12, establishing good relationships with your teachers is essential. Damian: In summary, what would you say is the general finding from your Honours research project into self-regulated learning? Nathan: One of the best predictors of performance at university, and I think this applies to school too, is your self-efficacy, or how capable you believe you are at accomplishing whatever task is put in front of you. Self-efficacy is a really important trait that can be developed, best through challenge. The more someone feels challenged, like they’re not understanding, or can’t make sense of why they’re not performing well, and they’re able to push through that, self-efficacy is built. In my research project, we found that university students’ self-regulated learning strategies, and their self-efficacy, improved from first to third year. In other words, the more time you spend in this environment that rewards autonomous and independent learning, the better you’re going to get at self-regulated learning. Another way of looking at it is this: as students are faced with environments that are academically challenging, that expect them to think deeply about how they’re going to approach a task, the more likely they are to employ self-regulated learning strategies that are going to meet those demands. Damian: Thanks so much for your time today, Nathan. When will you be coming round for tea? Nathan: Thanks for having me on! Ha-ha, I’m sure I’ll be round at some point later this week. Wonderful talking with you.

C O N S U L T A N C Y The VAGTC has experienced educators in the fields of gifted education and talent development. Consultancy is available on the well-being and specific educational needs of gifted and highly able students. This service is provided to students and families or schools at an hourly rate in response to individual circumstances.

email: consult@vagtc.org

Please refer to: www.vagtc.org.au/book-an-educator-seminar/ for the fee structure - a membership discount will apply. 27

VISION, Volume 32 No. 1 2021

EDUCATOR SEMINAR: Provisions for gifted & high ability children in the mainstream classroom

ONLINE EDUCATOR SEMINAR Monday 18th October, 2021 9.30am – 3.00pm (including breaks) This online full day seminar will take educators from theory to practice in identifying, understanding and catering appropriately for gifted and high ability students in their classrooms. Topics include identiﬁcation; social and emotional needs and support; classroom and learning differentiation; and a workshop option: creating either a numeracy or literacy-based unit of work that caters for gifted and high ability learners. Cost: $280 (non-members)/$200 (members). Suitable for individual teachers or small groups. Discount of 10% applies to any groups of 2 or more registrations from the same school. The session will be run via Zoom (link to be provided after registration). Please note that this seminar will run subject to minimum registration numbers.

F o r m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n a n d t o r e g i s t e r, v i s i t w w w. v a g t c . o r g . a u / s e m i n a r s

VISION, VISION O , Volu Volume ume 3322 No No. 1 20 2021 021

Attend the World Gifted Symposium Tuesday 12 October 2021 | Melbourne Convention & Exhibition Centre

Hear from the experts

Mark Smith | President Victorian Association for Gifted and Talented Children

Amy Horneman | Committee Victorian Association for Gifted and Talented Children

Other co-located Conferences

Find out more:

nationaleducationsummit.com.au 29 29

VISION, Volume 32 No. 1 2021

References: Pg.6: Indigenous wisdoms, knowledge and role models matter for gifted Indigenous students Barnhardt, R. (2005). Indigenous knowledge systems and Alaska Native ways of knowing. Anthropology & education quarterly, 36(1), 8–23. Webber, M., & O’Connor, K. (2019). A Fire in the Belly of Hineāmaru: Using Whakapapa as a Pedagogical Tool in Education. Genealogy, 3(3), 41-56. Webber M. (2019). The Development of Mana: Five Optimal Conditions for Gifted Māori Student Success. In: Smith S. (eds) Handbook of Giftedness and Talent Development in the Asia-Paciﬁc. Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer, Singapore Webber, M., Riley, T., Sylva, K., & Scobie-Jennings, E. (2018). The Ruamano project: Raising expectations, realising community aspirations and recognising gifted potential in Māori boys. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education. https://doi.org/10.1017/jie.2018.16 Riley, T., Webber, M. & Sylva, K. (2018). Real Engagement in Active Problem Solving for Māori Boys: A Case Study in a New Zealand Secondary School. Gifted and Talented International. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2018.1522240

Pg. 11: Scaffolding Underachievers to Achieve Australian Senate Select Committee for the Education of Gifted & Talented Children, (2001). The Education of Gifted and Talented Children. Retrieved from https:// www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Education_Employment_and_Workplace_Relations/Completed_inquiries/1999-02/gifted/ report/contents Batdal Karaduman, G. (2013). Underachievement of gifted students. International Journal on new Trends in Education and Their Implications, 4(4), 15. Retrieved from http://www.ijonte.org/FileUpload/ks63207/File/15b.karaduman.pdf Bennett-Rappell, H., & Northcote, M. (2016). Underachieving gifted students: Two case studies. Issues in Educational Research, 26(3), 407–430. http://www.iier. org.au/iier26/bennett-rappell.pdf Blaas, S. (2014). The relationship between social-emotional difficulties and underachievement of gifted students. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 24(2), 243–255. Bridgeland, J. M., Dilulio, J. J., & Burke Morison, K. (2006). The silent epidemic: Perspectives of high school dropouts. A report by Civic Enterprises in association with Peter D. Hart Research Associates for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Davis, G. A., Rimm, S. B., & Siegle, D. (2011). Education of the gifted and talented (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson. Delisle, J. A., & Galbraith, J. (2016). When gifted kids don’t have all the answers: How to meet their social and emotional needs. MN, USA: Free Spirit Publishing. Delisle, J. A., & Schultz, R. A. (2020). Underachievement and the quest for dignity: Contemporary perspectives on a timeless issue. In S. R. Smith (Ed). Handbook of Giftedness and Talent in the Asia-Pacific, Singapore: Springer. International handbook of Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3021-6_28-1 Ford, D.Y. (2011). Reversing underachievement among gifted black students. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Gagné (2020). Differentiating giftedness from talent. The DMGT perspective on talent development. UK: Routledge. Gee, L. (2017). Exploring an organization skills intervention for improving executive functioning skills within a gifted population: An action research study. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of South Carolina. Gifted Child Quarterly (1982, 2009). Grobman, J. (2006). Underachievement in exceptionally gifted adolescents and young adults: A psychiatrist’s view. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 199–210. Gross, M. U. M. (2010). In her own write: A lifetime in gifted education. Sydney, Australia: Gifted Education Research, Resource and Information Centre (GERRIC). Haensly, P. A. (2003). Making the most of chance events. Gifted Child Today, 26(2), 56¬–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.4219/gct-2003-99 Kanevsky, L., & Keighley, T. (2003). To produce or not to produce? Understanding boredom and the honor in underachievement. Roeper Review, 26, 20–28. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0162353213480864 Lassig, C. J. (2009). Teachers’ attitudes towards the gifted: The importance of professional development and school culture. The Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 18(2), 32–42. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/32480/ McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2014). Underachievers. In J. A. Plucker & C. M. Callahan (Eds.). Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (2nd ed., pp. 691–706). Prufrock Press. Mofield, E., Peters, M. P., & Chakraborti-Ghosh, S. (2016). Perfectionism, coping, and underachievement in gifted adolescents: Avoidance vs. approach orientations. Education Sciences, 6(3), Article 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci6030021 Montgomery, D. (Ed.) (2009). Why do the gifted and talented underachieve? How can masked and hidden talents be revealed? (2nd ed.). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. Neihart, M., & Betts, G. (2010). Revised profiles of the gifted and talented. Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/r?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=c3Rqb3NlcGhzLmNvLm 56fHN0LWpvc2VwaC1zLWNhdGhvbGljLXNjaG9vbC1wdWtla29oZS1nYXRlfGd4OjVkZWVkNmQ5YjljMzJjYmE Peterson, J. S. (2000). A follow-up study of one group of achievers and underachievers four years after high school graduation. Roeper Review, 22, 217–224. Pfeiffer, S. I., & Preado, R. M. (2018). Counselling the gifted: Current status and future prospects. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), APA Handbook on Giftedness and Talent (pp. 299–313). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77004-8_17 Phillips, R. (2017). Identification of gifted students at risk of underachievement using ROC curve analysis; using an understanding of the relationships and patterns of social coping, attitude toward school, and self-efficacy to identify underachieving gifted students: An Australian sample. Unpublished PhD. University of Wollongong. Plunkett. M., & Kronborg, L. (2011). Learning to be a teacher of the gifted: The importance of examining opinions and challenging misconceptions. Gifted and Talented International 26(1–2), 31–46. doi:10.1080/15332276.2011.1167358 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001698620004400302 Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (2009). The schoolwide enrichment. model: A focus on student strengths and interests. In J. S. Renzulli & E. J. Gubbins (Eds.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (2nd ed., pp. 323–352). Prufrock Press. Renzulli, J. (2014). The schoolwide enrichment model: a comprehensive plan for the development of talents and giftedness. Revista Educação Especial 27(50), 539–562. doi:10.5902/1984686X14285

VISION, Volume 32 No. 1 2021

Ritchotte, J. A., & Graefe, A. K. (2017). An alternate path: The experience of high-potential individuals who left school. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(4), 275–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217722615 Rimm, S. (2008a). Underachievement syndrome: A psychological defensive pattern. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children:Psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices (pp. 139–160). Springer. Rimm, S. (2008b). Why bright kids get poor grades: And what you can do about it. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. Ritchotte, J. A. (2010). Reversing gifted underachievement: The intervention that set one student on the path to success. Parenting for High Potential, 21–26. Rogers, K. B. (2002). Re-forming gifted education: Matching the program to the child. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. Rogers, K. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: A synthesis of the research on educational practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 382–396. Siegle, D., & McCoach, D. B. (2018). Underachievement and the gifted child. In S. I. Pfeiffer, E. Shaunessy-Dedrick, & M. Foley-Nicpon (Eds.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (p. 559–573). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000038-036 Smith, S. R. (2017a). Model of Dynamic Differentiation (MoDD): Innovation education for talent development. In T. S., Yamin, T. S., K. W., McCluskey, T. Lubart, D. Ambrose, K. C., McCluskey, S. Linke, (Eds.) Innovation Education (pp. 41–66). Ulm, Germany: The International Centre for Innovation in Education (ICIE). Smith, S. R. (2017b). Responding to the unique social and emotional learning needs of gifted Australian students. In E. Frydenberg, A. Martin, & R. Collie (Eds), Social and emotional learning in Australia and the Asia-Pacific: Perspectives, programmes, and approaches (pp. 147–166). Springer Singapore. Snyder, K. E., Carrig, M., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2019). Developmental pathways in underachievement. Applied Developmental Science. https://doi.org/10.1080/1 0888691.2018.1543028 Steenbergen-Hu, S., Olszewski-Kubillius, P., & Calvert, E. (2020). The effectiveness of current interventions to reverse the underachievement of gifted students: Findings of a meta-analysis and systematic review. Gifted Child Quarterly, 64(2), 132–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220908601 Stoeger, H., & Ziegler, A. (2008). Evaluation of a classroom based. training to improve self-regulated learning in time management tasks during homework activities with fourth graders. Metacognition and Learning, 3, 207–230. doi:10.1007/s11409-008-9027-z Treffinger, D. J. (2009). Myth 5: Creativity is too difficult to measure. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 245–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209346829 Vialle, W. & Rogers, K. (2012). Gifted, talented, or educationally disadvantaged? The case for including ‘giftedness’ in teacher education programs. In C. Forlin (Eds.), Future directions for inclusive teacher education: An international perspective (pp. 114–122). London: Routledge. Whitmore, J. R. (1989). Re-examining the concept of underachievement. Understanding our gifted, 2, 1, 7–9.

Pg. 15: Reimagining Dis/engagement and the Development of Ability: A Relational Approach to Engagement Archambault, I. & Dupéré, V. (2017). Joint trajectories of behavioral, affective, and cognitive engagement in elementary school. The Journal of Educational Research 110(2): 188-198. Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American psychologist, 44(9), 1175. Barab, S. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2002). Smart people or smart contexts? Cognition, ability, and development in an age of situated approaches to knowing and learning. 37(3), 165-182. Barbot, B., Besançon, M., & Lubart, T. I. (2011). Assessing creativity in the classroom. The Open Education Journal, 4(58-66). Beghetto, R. A. (2016). Big wins, small steps: How to lead for and with creativity: Corwin Press. Conti-Ramsden, G., & Durkin, K. J. (2012). Language development and assessment in the preschool period. 22(4), 384-401. Cropley, A. J. (1994). Creative intelligence: A concept of true’giftedness. European Journal for High Ability, 5(1), 6-23. Fredricks, J., McColskey, W., Meli, J., Mordica, J., Montrosse, B., & Mooney, K. (2011). Measuring Student Engagement in Upper Elementary through High School: A Description of 21 Instruments. Issues & Answers. REL 2011-No. 098. Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. Galang, A. J. R. (2010). The prosocial psychopath: Explaining the paradoxes of the creative personality. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 34(8), 1241-1248. Gagné, F. J. (2013). The DMGT: Changes within, beneath, and beyond. 5(1), 5-19. Glăveanu, V.P. (2013). Rewriting the language of creativity: The Five A’s framework. Review of General Psychology, 17(1), 69-81. Glăveanu, V. P. (2015). Creativity as a sociocultural act. 49(3), 165-180. Goss, P., Sonnemann, J., and Griffiths, K. (2017). Engaging students: creating classrooms that improve learning. Grattan Institute. Johnson, B. (2008). Teacher–student relationships which promote resilience at school: A micro-level analysis of students’ views. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 36(4), 385-398. King, T. M., Rosenberg, L. A., Fuddy, L., McFarlane, E., Sia, C., Duggan, A. & Pediatrics, B. (2005). Prevalence and early identification of language delays among at-risk three-year olds. 26(4), 293-303. 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. Morrison, G. M., & Allen, M. R. (2007). Promoting student resilience in school contexts. Theory Into Practice, 46(2), 162-169. Nelson, K. E., Welsh, J. A., Trup, E. M & Greenberg, M. T. (2011). Language delays of impoverished preschool children in relation to early academic and emotion recognition skills. 31(2), 164-194. Prabhakaran, R., Green, A. E., & Gray, J. R. (2013). Thin slices of creativity: Using single-word utterances to assess creative cognition. Behavior research methods, 1-19. 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. Roorda, D. L., Jak, S., Zee, M., Oort, F. J., & Koomen, H. M. (2017). Affective Teacher–Student Relationships and Students’ Engagement and Achievement: A MetaAnalytic Update and Test of the Mediating Role of Engagement. School Psychology Review, 46(3), 239-261. doi:10.17105/SPR-2017-0035.V46-3 Roorda, D. L., Koomen, H. M. Y., Spilt, J. L., & Oort, F. J. (2011). The Influence of Affective Teacher–Student Relationships on Students’ School Engagement and Achievement:A Meta-Analytic Approach. Review of educational research, 81(4), 493-529. doi:10.3102/0034654311421793 Roy, P., Chiat, S. and Dodd, B. (2014). Language and Socioeconomic Disadvantage: From Research to Practice. London, UK: City University London. Shah, J., & Ali, B. (2012). Super-leadership: An approach to maximize idea generation and creative potential for creative culture. African Journal of Business Management, 6(1), 388.

VISION, Volume 32 No. 1 2021

Snow, P., & Powell, M. J. (2012). Youth (in) justice: Oral language competence in early life and risk for engagement in antisocial behaviour in adolescence. 435, 1-6. Street, B. V., & Martin-Jones, M. (2000). Literacy events and literacy practices: Theory and practice in the New Literacy Studies. Tsakanikos, E., Reed, P. J. P., & Differences, I. (2003). Visuo-spatial processing and dimensions of schizotypy: ﬁgure-ground segregation as a function of psychoticlike features. 35(3), 703-712. VanTassel-Baska, J. (2018). Achievement Unlocked: Effective Curriculum Interventions With Low-Income Students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(1), 68-82. doi:10.1177/0016986217738565 Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes: Harvard university press. Wellisch, M. (2016). Gagne’s DMGT and underachievers: The need for an alternative inclusive gifted model. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education(1), 18. doi:10.21505/ajge.2016.0003

Pg.16: Addressing (Dis)engagement and Underachievement for Gifted Learners Gagné, F. (2020a). Differentiating giftedness from talent: The DMGT perspective on talent development. Routledge. Gagné, F. (2020b). Dr. Françoys Gagné website. https://gagnefrancoys.wixsite.com/dmgt-mddt Goss, P., & Sonnemann, J. (2017). Engaging Students: Creating Classrooms that Improve Learning. Available online: https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/ uploads/2017/02/Engaging-students-creating-classrooms-thatimprove-learning.pdf (accessed on 5 August 2020) Goss, P., Sonnemann, J., & Griffiths, K. (2017). Engaging students: Creating classrooms that improve learning. Grattan Institute Report. Retrieved 5 August, 2019 from https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Engaging-students-creating-classrooms-that-improve-learning.pdf 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, 220–249. Morawska, A., & Sanders, M. R. (2009). Parenting gifted and talented children: Conceptual and empirical foundations. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 163–173. Neihart, M., & Betts, G. (2010). Revised Profiles of the Gifted and Talented. Available online:https://sciencetalenter.dk/sites/default/files/revised_profiles_of_the_ gifted_and_talented_-_neihart_and_betts.pdf (accessed on 8 July 2020) Peterson, J. S., & N. Colangelo (1996). Gifted achievers and underachievers: A comparison of patterns found in school files. Journal of Counselling and Development, 74, 399-407. Reiss, S. & McCoach, D. B. (2002). Underachievement in gifted students. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.) The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 81-91). Prufrock Press. Rimm, S. (2019). When gifted students underachieve: What you can do about it. Hawker Brownlow. Ronksley-Pavia, M. (2019). Personalised learning: Disability and gifted learners. In Teaching Primary Years: Rethinking Curriculum, Pedagogy, and Assessment; Pendergast, D., Main, K., Eds.; Allen & Unwin: Crows Nest, Australia, 2019; pp. 422–442. Ronksley-Pavia, M. & Neumann, M. M. (2020). Conceptualising gifted student (dis)engagement through the lens of learner (re)engagement. Education Sciences, 10(10), 274-286, https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10100274 Tomlinson, C. A. (2008). Differentiated instruction. In J. A. Plucker & C. M. Callahan (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education (pp. 167-177). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Wills, L., & Munro, J. (2001). Changing the teaching for underachieving able children: The Ruyton School Experiences. In D. Montgomery (Ed.), Able Underachievers (pp. 111-126). London, UK: Whurr Publishers.

Pg. 26: Gifted Underachievement Emerick, L. J. (1992). Academic underachievement among the gifted: Students’ perceptions of factors that reverse the pattern. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(3), 140146. Gagné, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: the DMGT as a developmental theory. High ability studies, 15(2), 119-147. doi:10.1080/1359813042000314682 Gagné, F. (2005). From gifts to talents: The DMGT as a developmental model. In R. J. Sternberg and J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness (2nd ed.), pp. 98-119. New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511610455.008 Gagné, F. (2010). Motivation within the DMGT 2.0 framework. High Ability Studies, 21(2), 81-99. doi: 10.1080/13598139.2010.525341 Goss, P., Sonnemann, J., Chisholm, C., & Nelson, L. (2016). Widening Gaps: What NAPLAN Tells us About Student Progress. Grattan Institute, Melbourne, Vic. Goss et al. (2017) 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. Munro, J. K. (2012). Effective Strategies for Implementing Differentiated Instruction. Retrieved from http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent. cgi?article=1144&context=research_conference Munro, J. K. (2013). Teaching gifted students: A knowing and thinking-based framework for differentiation. Centre for Strategic Education, Summer Series Paper 227. Retrieved from http://gifted.dbbcso.org/uploads/1/2/3/4/12344194/john_munro_cse_seminar_paper_227_teach_gift.pdf Peterson, J. S. (2016). Affective curriculum: Proactively addressing the challenges of growing up. In K. A. Stephens & F. A. Karnes (Eds). Introduction to curriculum design in gifted education (pp. 307-330). Waco, Texas: Prufrock Press Inc. Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (2011). 22 Challenging Gifted and Talented Learners with Interventions Strategies. The Oxford handbook of school psychology, 456. Siegle, D., Rubenstein, L. D., & Mitchell, M. S. (2014). Honors students’ perceptions of their high school experiences: The inﬂuence of teachers on student motivation. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(1), 35-50. Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological science in the public interest, 12(1), 3-54. VanTassel-Baska, J. (2008). What Works in Curriculum for the Gifted. Keynote presented at the Asia Paciﬁc Conference on the Gifted, Singapore.

VISION, Volume 32 No. 1 2021

To advocate for gifted learners as they explore and develop their talents

vagtc.org.au