Gifted, not guaranteed: Why gifted underachievers must matter more

Kate Wiedemann

Secondary English Teacher

GIFTED, NOT GUARANTEED:

why gifted underachievers must matter more

SUNATA 56

The myth that gifted students will automatically emerge as ‘winners’ is unfounded and highlights a gap in Australian education’s approach to equity.

LET ME OFFER A HYPOTHETICAL: Bella is a Year 9 student considered mildly gifted since early primary school. Witty in word-play, she makes deep inferences, joins concepts in insightful ways, and solves complex mathematical problems with gusto on the spot. Yet simultaneously, and increasingly since entering high school, her class assignments and exams are a pallid reflection of her conceptual abilities. She avoids homework, except for Maths. In other classes, she distracts herself by researching arcane subject matter that may have arisen in the learning. She avoids activities that practise skills. Her notes – when she takes or brings them – are disorganised or incomplete. She resists encouragement, reminders or punitive measures by instructors to engage in the work, yet claims she isn’t ‘very challenged’. Her marks – except for Maths – are slowly but steadily declining. Her other teachers have passed through phases of puzzlement and irritability to now shrug, saying: ‘She’s probably capable of much more but you can only lead a horse to water...’, ‘Maybe she’s not really that gifted anyway...’, ‘If she’s gifted, she’ll be fine in the end…’, ‘Look, I have more at-risk students to worry about…’.

‘They’ve got the winning hand’– the myth that giftedness guarantees ‘success’

The Bella hypothetical is uncannily representative of the engrained myth that giftedness guarantees high achievement for students, a conception that ‘giftedness will out’ (Callahan 2017, p. 157). This assumption is the handmaiden of other categorical beliefs that has crystallised around the concepts of talent and giftedness, including the innateness and fixedness of giftedness; it’s not uncommon to hear the folkloric chestnut ‘you either have it or you don’t’ rolled out in educational settings (Callahan 2017, p. 153). After all, if we follow pioneering gifted educator Leta Hollingworth’s sentiment that every genius must have been a gifted child (Lo et al. 2019, p. 173), it is understandable that parents, students, and educators alike may fall victim to the inverse illogicism: the false reductive reasoning that all gifted learners are thus pre-destined to realise their talents. By that faulty logic, up to 10 per cent of our students (the estimated proportion of students in a given cohort with potential or actual ability substantially beyond their years) would have a ‘winning advantage’ in school and life. None of these assumptions are supported by evidence. The reality, as highlighted by the significant prevalence of gifted underachievers in our classes, the comparative underenrolment of students in a designated gifted program, and the pointed under-representation of key demographics who are recognised as potentially gifted, shows there is no guarantee that giftedness translates to success in school, much less in life. In fact, the rate of gifted underachievers has been alarmingly assessed as high as 60 per cent (Ronskley-Pavia 2020, p. 1). Even without stark statistics and in the absence of a universally accepted definition of gifted underachievement (Reis & McCoach 2000, p. 114), teachers know underachievement of gifted (latently talented) students when they see it: students often test poorly; they achieve at or below grade-level expectations in one or all of the basic skills areas; their daily work is incomplete; there is a vast gap between qualitative levels of oral and written work; they often exhibit low self-esteem or evidence perfectionistic tendencies; and they can manifest complete disengagement or negative attitudes to schooling (Reis & McCoach 2000, p 114). The list is long, and checklists, such as Joanne Whitmore’s (1980) tool to identify gifted underachievers, have been helpful for educators for decades (Whitmore 1980). The harms of underachievement are also well-categorised for both gifted and typical students: students are less likely to be identified as gifted or receive important educational services (Snyder & Linnenbrink-Garcia 2013, p. 209); underachievement has negative implications for tertiary study and the workplace (Siegel & McCoach 2018, p. 558 ); it has been linked to depression and behavioural issues; and researchers have argued that ‘the consequences of underachievement represent a loss to society’ and ‘…underachievement may also hamper the individual’s life pursuit of self-actualization’ (Siegel & McCoach 2018, p. 559). Studies of gifted underachievers over a decade after school show their educational and occupational status ‘paralleled their grades in high school, rather than their abilities’ (Siegel & McCoach 2018, p. 562). The dramatic disparity between a student’s potential and their actual performance – and the misunderstanding that accompanies this – led pioneer psychologist, researcher and advocate of gifted educator Sylvia Rimm to label underachievement and disengagement nothing short of a ‘quiet crisis’ (Rimm 2018, p. 8). The issues that plague typical students who underachieve similarly manifest in students with extraordinary potential.

SUNATA 57

SUNATA 58

Yet, while significant underachievement amongst nongifted learners – and particularly non-gifted students with learning disabilities – is a priority for educators, the same priority has not been given to gifted underachievers. Fatalist beliefs that they’ll succeed in the end, persistent culturally led charges of the elitism of gifted education, narrow or fixed understandings about human development and potential, and a lack of confidence in a teacher’s ability to halt and reverse underachievement have contributed to educator silence in the face of real struggle (Rimm 2018, p. 10). Thus, the most dangerous belief may not be that gifted students can underachieve, but that their failure to thrive is not even worthy of intervention. Indeed, Australian educator Michelle Lucas, in Australia’s Teacher Magazine (2021), argued that [gifted] underachievement… is, in part, propagated [emphasis mine] by the dangerous myth that learners will succeed regardless.

‘A roll of the dice’: the role of context and chance

The strongest proof against deterministic beliefs of gifted learners’ achievement is the role that context and chance plays in a learner’s growth. Growth is more a matter of ‘zigs and zags than some predetermined, connected and linear pattern’ (Lewis 1998, p. 108). Further, the myth that genius will out is implicitly contested by Francoys Gagné (2009) in his Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT), which highlights the process of development from ‘raw material to realized talent’ (Gagné 2009, p. 6). In Gagné’s model, the preferred model for most Australian states, a learner’s context also interacts with the learner’s intrapersonal components to influence talent development into actualised performance. Gifted learners are part of a complex system, an ‘actiotope’ (Ziegler et. al. 2017, p. 311) that is malleable, multi-variable, manifested uniquely, and inter-dependent on and responsive to the dynamic context of the learner, their gifts, and their environment, including their educational network (Callahan 2017; Gagné 2009; Ziegler & Stoeger 2017). The DMGT also emphasises the critical role the educational environment plays in the developmental process through formal and systematic ‘investments’ into the transformation of a learner’s gifts. Of course, for all the best laid plans, chance plays a significant role as a qualifier of development of students with latent gifts. Chance is the unpredictability of one’s birth, including physical, cognitive and emotional gifts (and/or disabilities). It is also the vagary of background; one cannot choose their cultural heritage, class, family, or neighbourhood. These catalysts influence the way that gifts are developed (Gagné 2012, p. 4) in part because they influence access to specific educational opportunities. It is no coincidence that gifted students from lower SES backgrounds are under-represented amongst gifted learners, or that a significant component of gifted underachievers have other exceptionalities such as learning disabilities (Callahan 2017). To coin a phrase by psychologist John William Atkinson (as cited in Gagné 2012, p. 5), the ‘roll of the dice…the accidents of birth and background’ reminds us of the ‘unpredictable nature of learners’ lives’. But rather than foster a fatalistic attitude to this unpredictability, the DMGT promotes the importance of systematic, formal interventions to identify, encourage and stimulate learners’ growth, regardless of their circumstances. For at-risk groups, one could argue that intervention is even more an intervention of equity.

Who is at risk on the slippery path to ‘success’?

So, who are these at-risk gifted students? Many schemas aim to make account of gifted underachievement, from Thinking Types to psychological characteristics, to social, cultural and other groups. However, there is general agreement that understanding both specific and multi-variate causes of underachievement in this diverse group is crucial (Siegle & McCoach 2020, p. 1599). Figure 1 outlines some groups of students at risk of underachieving.

Figure 1: Learner types at risk of being gifted underachievers

• member of a non-dominant cultural group • student with other identified exceptionalities, e.g., a need for learning support, emotional support, and/or speech and language support student with a physical disability • student with significant discrepancies between measured verbal and performance abilities, and/ or with certain patterns of scatter on the WISC III intelligence test • a lower socioeconomic background • a non-traditional learner

• student who demonstrates at-risk behaviours

• non-identification, particularly for disadvantaged students, due to limited professional development* Sources: (National Centre for Gifted Education 2013; *NSW Government 2021)

A quick glance of the list above shows readers that, with the exception of measured high IQ, the risk factors parallel those of typical underachievers (i.e., students not classified as ‘gifted’). Indeed, some research suggests that underachieving gifted students share more in common with underachievers from typical populations than they do with achieving gifted students (Dowdall & Colangelo 1982, as cited in Reis & McCoach 2000, p. 158). If true, then schools’ reluctance to deal with gifted underachievement is even more ethically problematic. Do not all children failing their potential deserve support? Are we giving underachievement of all students the attention it warrants?

Myth 1: ‘Hey, their marks are still pretty good…’. Truth: Mild underachievement matters

Because underachievement is a shortfall of learner’s potential, gifted students who receive As can still be underachieving (Ronksley-Pavia 2020, p. 3). Of course, gifted learners are not always equally outstanding in all areas, but even allowing for student autonomy in their selectivity in learning of interest, lacklustre performance can indicate a deeper risk – a potential mismatch between the child’s interests and an inappropriate or unmotivating curriculum (Rogers 2015, p. 391). The gap between some gifted learners and some typical students in a mixed ability class, which may be as great as five or six years, narrows as underperformance continues. We can extrapolate further: PISA results across 2000 - 2018 show a decline in the proportion of high performing students in reading, and mathematical and scientific literacies (Lucas 2021). Some learners can be selective and exercise autonomy in their choices. Some can reverse underachievement (Ballam 2017, p. 14). But many cannot. For these students, it is an ominous trajectory to more pronounced underperformance and disengagement.

Myth 2: ‘They probably aren’t gifted anyway!’ Truth: Underachievement can be involuntary

A significant portion of underachievers are unlikely to have been considered as ‘gifted’ in the first place. These are the marginalised and even silenced students – groups that face persistent disadvantage of birth and background include the following:

a) Low SES students

Underachievement – like giftedness – transcends racial and ethnic barriers, affecting students from all socioeconomic groups in varied ways and to varied degrees (Siegle & McCoach 2018, p. 562). Yet in a gifted cohort, there is a disproportionate achievement gap among students with particular demographic characteristics related to ethnicity, low socio-economic status [SES], and limited English proficiency (Siegle & McCoach 2018, p. 564). Even more concerning is the underrepresentation of these students in formal gifted programs in the first place (Ballam 2017, p. 11). Gifted students from higher income homes progress twice as fast as their gifted peers from lower-income homes (Siegle & McCoach 2018, p. 564) and are four times more likely to be selected for gifted programs than students from lower income families.

Of course, not all gifted young people from low SES backgrounds fall by the wayside. For some, adversity can actually promote resilience (Williams 2017). Yet it is well-accepted that poverty is linked to other significant risk factors, such as high stress in a household, and has been linked with higher risks of familial instability and violence. The ‘interrelatedness’ of environmental and intrapersonal influences, of risk and protective processes in these students’ lives, has a ‘direct impact on whether or not their gifts and talents are realised’, making them more likely to be ‘involuntary underachievers’ (Ballam 2017, pp. 23-24).

b) Culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) students

Culturally diverse students with gifts face unintentional bias at school and in society (Siegle & McCoach 2018). There can also be a lack of understanding of aspects of their environment that interplay with their intrapersonal attitudes to being both gifted and underachieving. In Australia, for example, the academic goals of gifted Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students have largely been thought to be at odds with this culture’s egalitarian ethos (Carter 2021). Equally, it has been argued that educators too often take a ‘deficit’ perspective and may not fully comprehend differences in learning styles, knowledge systems and cultural practices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander gifted students (Carter 2021). Clearly, educators have much to learn about the specific needs and particular gifts of this group as it intersects with underachievement.

c) Gifted with learning disabilities (twice exceptional students)

One of the most ‘enigmatic’ (Wormald 2017) groups of hidden underachievers is the 2E (twice exceptional) gifted students who also have a diagnosed disability, including learning disabilities, mental illness, and physical or neurological developmental disabilities such as ADHD and Autism Spectrum Disorder. Of particular interest is the role that attention may play in the underachievement of gifted students; a recent study has found between 30 and 50 per cent of gifted children met the screening criteria for ADHD (Siegle & McCoach 2020). The invisibility (particularly of students with learning or neurological disabilities) is doubly problematic: firstly, their gifts are often masked by their disability, preventing their inclusion in gifted programs in the first place; and secondly, the impact of their disability may not be treated with formal appropriate intervention programs (Siegel & McCoach 2020). It is telling and inadequate that this group tends to be dealt with separately in research into gifted underachievers, possibly because the cause of their underachievement is presumed to be ‘already known’ due to their disability (Reis & McCoach 2000, p. 164). Excitingly, the awareness of educators over the past five years in the area of 2E students in Australia has intensified, along with new prevalence studies that suggest, based on NCCD data, the incidence of 2E students in Australian schools range between two to seven per cent of the total student population (i.e., 78,668 to 283,204 students) (Ronksley-Pavia 2022). Such studies highlight the criticality for enhanced policy, advocacy, funding and understanding and intervention for this group of children.

Myth 3: ‘They’re too far gone; they don’t want to help themselves’. Truth: Low-achieving gifted underachievers need intervention

The causes of serious disengagement are vast, ranging from intrapersonal issues, to environmental factors of family and teacher relationships, to a complete disaffection with the schooling system. But achievement (and underachievement) is often an interaction of beliefs (Siegel & McCoach 2005). For example, a fixed mindset about intelligence may prevent a SUNATA 59

SUNATA 60

people-pleasing, extrinsically motivated student from seeking deeper learning opportunities (Siegle & McCoach 2005). Other theories suggest significant gifted underachievers hold a combination of problematic beliefs: (a) they lack confidence in their skills so are afraid to try and fail; (b) they do not see value in their work; or (c) they see themselves as disadvantaged from the get-go (Siegle & McCoach 2005; Siegel 2013). Maladaptive coping behaviours, declining value beliefs, and motivation deficits are dangerous combinations during the developmental trajectories (Snyder & Linnenbrink-Garcia 2013, p. 210). But as educators, we know we cannot downplay the criticality of the interactions of the learning settings and curriculum choices on student motivations. Many gifted students underachieve ‘by default’ because they simply do not receive the content or instruction necessary to reach their potential (Siegel & McCoach 2018, p. 565). Lack of appropriate strategies such as acceleration, ability groupings, highly differentiated curriculum, enrichment opportunities, formal mentoring with external organisations, and a commitment to personalised case management or ‘coaching’ by caring education professionals (teachers, psychologists, support workers) contributes to schools’ struggle to engage disengaged students. Most gifted students spend 80 per cent of their time in regular classroom settings (Siegel & McCoach 2018, p. 656) OR working on the same undifferentiated content instead of using enriched curriculum or working with some form of like-ability groups, the latter of which is overwhelmingly supported for its efficacious differentiation for gifted students (Steenburgen-Hu et al. 2016; Preckel et al. 2019; Vogl & Preckel 2014; Stabler et al. 2016). Further, 61 per cent of teachers are not formally trained in catering for advanced students (Siegel & McCoach 2018, p. 565) or face structural, cultural or personal challenges in providing for gifted students.

‘Snakes or Ladders?’: Implications for learners and schools

Clearly, schools need to see they are a crucial – though not guaranteed – part of student success. Educators with a limited understanding of the varied, holistic and particular needs of gifted learners across the trajectory of their learning process (Snyder & Linnenbruck-Garcia 2013, p. 211) may develop inappropriate remedial measures that are ineffectual at best. Regarding the role of teachers, outcomes of formerunderachieving gifted students suggest the opportunities and relationships that teachers provided (or withheld) were more impactful than the materials and content in remediating their underachievement (Ballam 2017). On the other hand, unsupportive relationships with teachers appeared to be

damaging, eliciting feelings of neglect (Ballam 2017). Reengaging learners in activities and projects that engage their strengths and motivate them can re-awaken dormant potential, as proven by former underachievers (Ronksley-Pavia 2020, p. 9). This is primarily because children need caring adults who can facilitate access to further developmental opportunities. Indeed, offering numerous meaningful opportunities is the key to developing resilience, giving young people ‘a chance to find their way out of circumstances that potentially put them at risk’ (Ballam 2017, p. 23). Tackling the issue of gifted students’ underachievement also raises philosophical implications for schools; the concept of ‘underachievement’ asks: whose standards have not been achieved? What are the consequences if these are not achieved? For the chronically underachieving gifted child, the result is simple and natural: if they do not manifest capabilities and abilities, they usually are no longer classified as gifted. This use it or lose it paradigm is unsettling; what, then, is the ‘essence of the child’? (Delisle 2004, as cited in Siegle & McCoach 2018, p. 560). The label of underachiever is a ‘value-laden judgement about the worthiness of certain accomplishments’ [that] is illustrative of a value conflict between adult and child (Reis & McCoach 2000, p. 156). Teachers may also feel they are unintentionally perpetuating a ‘fixed mindset’ about what constitutes excellence. For example, when I conducted a very small, informal qualitative survey of fifteen teaching practitioners across multiple Brisbane independent secondary schools, one colleague who identified as being new to teaching gifted students commented they ‘would have concerns about ‘labelling’ students as gifted. Is there a possibility of writing them or others off? How does this align with damaging fixed vs growth mindset issues in students (and teachers!)’ (Wiedemann 2021). Further, gifted education – and gifted underachieving – is a long-term process that needs to be ‘recalibrated almost constantly for each variable’ (Ziegler & Stoeger 2017, p. 190), which implies a highly individualised learning program and intense case management of students. Schools without the resources for a range of evidence-based formal and informal assessments across a learner’s schooling will find it hard to track underachievement outside of academic marks and course grades. Even schools with a designated gifted program may not have school officer resources available to case-manage gifted students, or to coordinate interventions for those underachievers. Generally speaking, differentiation and extension opportunities are devolved to individual teachers, whose best intentions, skills and professional dedication often cannot compensate for specific training in teaching gifted underachievers. Of the respondents to the small informal

survey I conducted with 15 fellow teacher practitioners across multiple sites, there was 89 per cent agreement that many teachers would not feel confident developing specific academic supports for gifted students (Wiedemann 2021). The perceptions of teachers in this informal survey, though obviously not statistically reliable, are arguably aptly illustrative of the way educators may feel ineffectual in the face of an underachieving gifted learner [see Figure 2 for a snapshot of responses]. These responses echo the findings of a vast and growing body of studies in the United States by eminent researchers such as Reiss & Renzulli (2009) and Australians experts Jarvis & Henderson (2012), Rogers (2007), and Rowan & Townend (2016). The latter argues that early-career teachers are mostly ‘under-prepared in areas related to gifted education and have no clear or accessible pathway to post-graduation, professional learning opportunities and informal support structures that could help them develop in this area’ (Rowan & Townend 2016, p. 6). Further, even experienced teachers lack access to targeted, evidence-based professional development that meets the varied needs of the profile of learners in their teaching environment (Rowan & Townend 2016, p. 6). 2.IDENTIFICATION & INTERVENTION: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Figure 2: 15 respondents’ views in an informal collegiate survey on perceptions of gifted education (Wiedemann 2021)

‘Because they ARE worth it’: Recommendations to address the problem

Does remediation ‘fix’ the problem? The answer depends on what ‘fixes’ educators value. On the one hand, a recent meta-analysis of interventions by Steenburgen-Hu, OlszewkiKubilius and Calvert (2020) supports arguments such as those by Siegle and McCoach (2018) that there is little evidence of significant improvement by most interventions on academic performance, especially in terms of course grades (Steenburgen-Hu et. al. 2020, p. 15). However, more SUNATA 61

SUNATA 62

significantly for a long-term, student-focused view of growth and potential, research does suggest that interventions focusing on the connection between underachievement and perfectionism, motivation, and cognitive challenge and engagement are making ground (Steenburgen-Hu et al. 2020, p. 15). Programs such as the Achievement Outcomes Model of intervention (AOM) popularised by Siegle & McCoach (2005), or Rimm’s trifocal model (2008) complement Gagne’s DMGT in that they recognise the learner as the central focus of a wider organism. The relative success of these psychological interventions reminds us that change comes when ‘students… have fully accepted and embraced they were both gifted and underachieving’ (Cavilla 2017, p. 63). The following are also recommendations to address both the myths and the real problem:

1) Curriculum and learning re-design for all gifted

learners could consider: part-time or full-time special ability classrooms for gifted underachievers (Whitmore 1980); increasing the ceiling thresholds on assessment instruments; significant differentiation of curriculum to offer challenge on a daily basis (Rogers 2015, p. 383); outreach and partnerships with universities and training organisations (Williams 2017); mentoring with talent experts; and interventions that increase greater meaning and value, such as engagement in real-world tasks that interest students (Siegel & McCoach 2018, p. 570).

Acceleration is a recommended strategy with substantial evidence of effectiveness; teachers’ concerns acceleration leads to negative social effects has not been substantiated by evidence, but its positive effects on motivation have (Assouline 2018 cited in Lucas 2021).

2) Socio-affective psychological programs that

include all learners with specific needs. Because many underachieving students, including those with learning disabilities or other disadvantages, report feeling disconnected (Siegle & McCoach 2018), it is important to foster inclusion and a locus on self-control through peer groups that build belonging through social and peer-tutoring activities; social skills instructions by school counsellors to target self-concept and idea about self-efficacy; preventative counselling; cultural mentors that strengthen cultural identity and reinforce belonging; support for students whose executive functioning capacities need help i.e. organisation and executive functioning; student journaling and reflection; and family outreach and therapies (Gilar-Corbi et al. 2019, p. 8)

3) Teacher training, advocacy and school culture.

Research has shown that some teachers – regardless of years of general professional experience or even contact with gifted students – harbour unproven assumptions about gifted students, caused in part by the lack of formal training on myths about giftedness (Heyder et al. 2018, p. 39). For example, as seen in Figure 2, an informal survey of a small group (n = 15) of teaching practitioners with varying years of service and direct exposure to teaching gifted students, all respondents agreed or strongly agreed that teacher ongoing education does not include gifted education. Encouraging teachers’ evidence-based knowledge about giftedness, particularly about the link between achievement and giftedness, could also ‘foster teachers’ diagnostic abilities in underachievement’ (Heyder et al. 2018, p. 38). Specific training to debunk myths and to involve teachers in opportunities for research and support to create effective interventions builds student perceptions that teachers can be caring mentors who make a difference. Furthermore, creating a culture that values not only strong academic achievement but also values effort, curiosity and the intrinsic value of learning is an important responsibility for leaders and all education professionals.

Finally, as one Queensland school principal outlines, schools need to advocate for underachieving students by intervening early and in a supportive way to ‘identify what is going on in that child’s world and what they need from us to support them to make a positive move forward in their education’ (QCAA 2020). Yet it would be remiss not to highlight the problematic wider context of Australia’s approach to matters concerning gifted education. Despite growing recognition of gifted education as an area of educational, political and economic concern, progress in policy to support gifted students has been slow to develop here, as in many countries (Rowan & Townend 2016, p. 6), resulting in ‘few tangible changes in legislative measures or school level alterations (Walsh & Lolly 2018, p. 82). Some researchers have claimed this, coupled with Australia’s distinctive cultural ‘tall poppy’ attitude to gifted students and an ‘ever-present belief’ that gifted students will do well (Walsh & Jolly 2018, p. 84), has produced a general climate that is not conducive to the development of talent. It is yet another echo of the ‘quiet crisis’ stifling this group of students with particular needs.

Conclusion

One of the most damaging stereotypes about giftedness in our schools and broader society is that the luck of potential means a person is ‘set for life’. At its best intentioned, it is a cavalier quasi-justification for the lack of resources provided to students identified as gifted, or the denial of them completely to those not so identified. Thus, the reality of gifted underachievement points to a problem much larger than a ‘few slipping grades’ of ‘a couple of smart kids’. If those with outstanding potential struggle to navigate a path to realising their fullest potential, then we must be concerned for the wellbeing – academic and psycho-social – of all learners, especially those without the resources or resilience to self-correct. Helping all young learners – including those with gifts – to negotiate often slippery paths of development to emerge as their best self is an equity mandate worthy of action.

References

Ballam, N 2017, ‘Risk and resilience in gifted young people from low socio-economic backgrounds’, in N Ballam & R Moltzen (eds), Giftedness and Talent: Australasian Perspectives, Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd, pp. 7-31. Callahan, C 2017, ‘The Characteristics of Gifted and Talented Students’, in C Callahan & H Hertberg-Davis (eds), Fundamentals of Gifted Education; Considering Multiple Perspectives, Taylor & Francis Group, New York, pp. 153-166. Carter, E 2021, ‘Orbiting two worlds: shifting conceptions of giftedness amongst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians’, Roeper Review, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 79-98. Cavilla, D 2019, ‘Maximizing the potential of gifted learners through a developmental framework of affective curriculum’, Gifted Education International, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 136-151. Gagné, F & Schader, R 2006, ‘Chance and talent development’, Roeper Review, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 88-90. Gagné, F 2009, ‘Building gifts into talents: detailed overview of the DMGT 2.0’, in B MacFarlane & T Stambaugh (eds), Leading change in gifted education: The festschrift of Dr. Joyce VanTassel-Baska, Prufrock Press, Waco, TX, pp. 61-80. Gilar-Corbi R, Veas, A, Minaro, P & Catejon, J 2019, ‘Differences in personal, familial, social and school factors between underachieving and non-underachieving gifted secondary students’, Frontier in Psychology, viewed 11 November 2021, https://www.frontiersin.org/ articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02367/full Heyder, A, Bergold, S & Steinmeyer, R 2017, ‘Teachers’ knowledge about intellectual giftedness: a first look at levels and correlates’, Psychology Learning & Teaching, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 27-44. Lo, C, Porath, M, Yu, H, Chen, C, Tsai, K & Wu, I 2019, ‘Giftedness in the making: a transactional perspective’, The Gifted Child Quarterly, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 172-184. Lucas, M 2021, ‘Identifying gifted students- teacher misconceptions’, Australian Council for Education Research, viewed 11 November 2021, https://www.teachermagazine.com/au_en/articles/identifying-giftedstudents-teacher-misconceptions Lucas, M 2021, ‘Underachievement of gifted students – effective interventions’, Australian Council for Education Research, viewed 11 November 2021, https://www.teachermagazine.com/au_en/articles/ underachievement-of-gifted-students-effective-interventions QCAA 2020, Responding to gifted and talented students, viewed 11 November 2021, http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/p-10/student-diversity/ gifted-talented-education/responding-gifted-talented-students Rimm, S, Siegle, D & Davis, G 2018, Education of the Gifted and Talented (Seventh Edition), Pearson, New York. Reis, S, Hebert, T, Diaz, E, Maxfield, L & Ratley, M 1995, Case Studies of Talented Students Who Achieve and Underachieve in an Urban High School, Research Monograph 95120, The University of Connecticut, CT. Reis, S & McCoach, DB 2000, ‘The underachievement of gifted students: What do we know and where do we go?’, Gifted Child Quarterly, vol. 44, pp. 152-170. Rogers, K 2007, ‘Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: a synthesis of the research on educational practice’, Gifted Child Quarterly, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 382-396. Ronksley-Pavia, M & Neumann, M 2020, ‘Conceptualising gifted student (dis)engagement through the lens of learner (re) engagement’, Education Sciences, vol. 10, pp. 1-13. Ronksley-Pavia, M 2022, ‘Ability in Dis/Ability: an overview of twiceexceptionality (and multiple exceptionality) in Australia’, proceedings of the Gifted and Talented Education Symposium 2022, Griffith University, viewed, 27 May 2022. Rowan, L & Townend, G 2016, ‘Early career teachers’ beliefs about their preparedness to teach: implications for the professional development of teachers working with gifted and twice-exceptional students’, Cogent Education, vol. 3, no. 1. Siegle, D & McCoach, D 2018, ‘Underachievement and the gifted child’, in S Pfeiffer, I Shaunessy-Dedrick & M Foley-Nicpon (eds), APA Handbook of Giftedness and Talent, American Psychological Association, pp. 559-573. Siegle D, DaVia Rubenstein L, McCoach DB 2020, ‘Do you know what I’m thinking? A comparison of teacher and parent perspectives of underachieving gifted students’ attitudes’, Psychol Schs 2020, pp. 1-19. Steenburgen-Hu, S, Olszewski-Kubilius, 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, vol. 64, pp. 132-165. Snyder, K & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L 2013, ‘A developmental, personcentered approach to exploring multiple motivational pathways in gifted underachievement’, Educational Psychologist, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 209-228. Walsh, R & Jolly, J 2018, ‘Gifted Education in the Australian Context’, Gifted Child Today Magazine, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 81-88. Wiedemann, K 2021, Perceptions of secondary teachers about key issues related to gifted and talented education, Unpublished Sample Survey. Whitmore, J 1980, Giftedness, Conflict and Underachievement, Allyn & Bacon, Boston. Williams, L 2017, ‘Supporting the development of academic talent: the perspectives of students, parents and teachers’, in N Ballam & R Moltzen (eds), Giftedness and Talent: Australasian Perspectives, Springer, Singapore, pp. 277-304. Wormald, C 2017, ‘An enigma: barriers to the identification of students who are gifted with a learning disability’, in N Ballam & R Moltzen (eds.), Giftedness and Talent: Australasian Perspectives, Springer, Singapore, pp. 331-351. Ziegler, A, Chandler, K, Vialle, W & Stöger, H 2017, ‘Exogenous and endogenous learning resources in the actiotope model of giftedness and its significance for gifted education’, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, vol. 40, no. 4. pp. 310-333.

SUNATA 63

Proudly printed on ecoStar+ An environmentally responsible paper made carbon neutral and is FSC Recycled certified. ecoStar+ is manufactured from 100% post consumer recycled fibre in a process chlorine free environment under the ISO 14001 environmental management system.

St Margaret’s Anglican Girls School

11 Petrie Street Ascot QLD 4007 Australia Telephone: +61 7 3862 0777 Facsimile: +61 7 3862 0701 mail@stmargarets.qld.edu.au www.stmargarets.qld.edu.au