Beklenmedik Başarısızlık Gösteren Özel Yetenekli Öğrencilerin Deneyimlerine İlişkin Bir Durum Çalışması

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı beklenmedik başarısızlık gösteren özel yetenekli öğrencilerin deneyimlerini öğrenci, öğretmen ve ebeveyn bakış açılarıyla durum çalışması yöntemiyle incelemektir. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu amaçlı örnekleme yoluyla seçilen iki beklenmedik başarısızlık gösteren lise düzeyindeki özel yetenekli öğrenci, anneleri ve BILSEM’de alan derslerine giren öğretmenleri oluşturmaktadır. Veriler Başarı Yönelimi Modeli’nin bileşenleri (öz-yeterlik, hedef değeri, çevresel algılar ve öz-düzenleme) temel alınarak geliştirilen yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formları ve öğretmenler için hazırlanan anketler aracılığıyla toplanmıştır. Elde edilen veriler içerik analizi yöntemiyle analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular beklenmedik başarısızlığın her iki öğrencide farklı örüntüler sergilediğini ortaya koymuştur. Bir öğrencide beklenmedik başarısızlık daha çok durumsal ve bağlamsal faktörlerle ilişkiliyken diğer öğrencide bu durumun daha kronik ve süreklilik gösteren bir yapıya dönüştüğü görülmüştür. Başarı Yönelimi Modeli’nin bileşenleri her iki öğrencinin deneyimlerinde ayırt edici biçimde ortaya çıkmıştır. Özellikle hedef değeri, öğretmen-öğrenci ilişkileri ve öz-düzenleme becerilerindeki farklılıkların beklenmedik başarısızlığın gelişiminde belirleyici olduğu belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca uzaktan eğitim sürecinin öğrenciler üzerinde farklılaştırıcı etkiler yarattığı ve standart eğitim uygulamalarının her özel yetenekli öğrenci için aynı sonuçları doğurmadığı görülmüştür. Sonuçlar beklenmedik başarısızlığın çok boyutlu ve bağlama duyarlı bir olgu olduğunu göstermektedir. Bununla birlikte okul temelli müdahalelerin akademik destekle sınırlı kalmayıp motivasyonel ve psikososyal boyutları da kapsaması gerektiğine işaret etmektedir.

Keywords

• Özel yetenekli öğrenciler
• beklenmedik başarısızlık
• Başarı Yönelimi Modeli
• durum çalışması

A Case Study on the Experiences of Underachieving Gifted Students

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the experiences of gifted students who exhibit underachievement through a case study approach from the perspectives of students, teachers, and parents. The study group consists of two gifted high school students identified as underachievers, their mothers, and their subject teachers at Science and Art Centers (BILSEM), selected through purposive sampling. Data were collected using semi-structured interview forms developed in line with the components of the Achievement Orientation Model including self-efficacy, task value, environmental perceptions, and self-regulation, as well as questionnaires administered to teachers. The data were analyzed using content analysis. The findings revealed that the development of underachievement differed markedly between the two students. While underachievement in one student was largely situational and related to contextual factors, it evolved into a more chronic and persistent pattern in the other student. The components of the Achievement Orientation Model emerged as distinctive across both cases, with differences in task value, teacher–student relationships, and self-regulation skills playing a critical role in the development of underachievement. Additionally, the distance education period had differentiated effects on students, indicating that standardized educational practices do not produce uniform outcomes for all gifted learners. Overall, the findings suggest that gifted underachievement is a multidimensional and context-sensitive phenomenon. The study highlights the need for school-based interventions that extend beyond academic support and incorporate motivational and psychosocial dimensions to prevent and address underachievement in gifted students effectively.

Keywords

• Gifted students
• underachievement
• Achievement Orientation Model
• case study

References

1. Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., Ihrig, D., & Forstadt, L. (2006). Attributional choices for academic success and failure by intellectually gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(4), 283-294. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620605000402
2. Baker, J. A., Bridger, R., & Evans, K. (1998). Models of underachievement among gifted preadolescents: The role of personal, family, and school factors. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42(1), 5-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629804200102
3. Barbier, K., Donche, V., & Verschueren, K. (2019). Academic (under)achievement of intellectually gifted students in the transition between primary and secondary education: An individual learner perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2533. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02533
4. Baslanti, U., & McCoach, D. B. (2006). Factors related to the underachievement of university students in Turkey. Roeper Review, 28(4), 210-215. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190609554366
5. Baum, S. M., Renzulli, S. J., & Hébert, T. (1995). The prism metaphor: A new paradigm for reversing underachievement. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
6. Chere N. E., Hlalele D. (2014). Academic underachievement of learners at school: A literature review. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(23), 827-839. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n23p827
7. Collins, K. H., Roberson, J. J., & Piske, F. H. R. (Eds.). (2023). Underachievement in gifted education: Perspectives, practices, and possibilities. Routledge.
8. Creswell, J. W. (2016). Qualitative research methods, qualitative research and research design according to five approaches. Sage.

9. Davis, G.A., Rimm, S.B., & Siegle, D. (2014). Education of the gifted and talented (6. Baskı). Pearson.
10. Desmet, O. A., Pereira, N., & Peterson, J. S. (2020). Telling a tale: how underachievement develops in gifted girls. Gifted Child Quarterly, 64(2), 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986219888633
11. Dowdall, C. B., & Colangelo, N. (1982). Underachieving gifted students: Review and implications. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26(4), 179–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698628202600406
12. Feinstein, L., & Peck, S. C. (2008). Unexpected pathways through education: Why do some students not succeed in school and what helps others beat the odds?. Journal of Social Issues, 64(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.00545.x
13. Gagné, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. High Ability Studies, 15(2), 119–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359813042000314682
14. Hoover-Schultz, B. (2005). Gifted underachievement: Oxymoron or educational enigma? Gifted Child Today, 28(2), 46–49. https://doi.org/10.4219/gct-2005-171
15. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353213480864
16. Matthews, M. S., Ritchotte, J. A., & Jolly, J. L. (2014). What’s wrong with giftedness? Parents’ perceptions of the gifted label. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(3), 232-245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986214534890
17. McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2003). Factors that differentiate underachieving gifted students from high-achieving gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2), 144–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620304700205
18. Merriam, S. B. (2013). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons Inc.
19. Neihart, M., Reis, S. M., Robinson, N. M., & Moon, S. M. (Eds.). (2002). The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? Prufrock Press Inc.
20. Oppong, E., Shore, B. M., & Muis, K. R. (2019). Clarifying the connections among giftedness, metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning: Implications for theory and practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 63(2), 102-119. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986218814008
21. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research methods, qualitative research and research design according to five approaches. Sage.
22. Pfeiffer, S. I. (2013). Serving the gifted: Evidence-based clinical and psychoeducational practice. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
23. Raoof, K., Shokri, O., Fathabadi, J., & Panaghi, L. (2024). Unpacking the underachievement of gifted students: A systematic review of internal and external factors. Heliyon, 10(17), e36908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36908
24. Rayneri, L. J., Gerber, B. L., & Wiley, L. P. (2006). The relationship between classroom environment and the learning style preferences of gifted middle school students and the impact on levels of performance. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(2), 104-118. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620605000203
25. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620004400302
26. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (2014). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A how-to guide for talent development. Prufrock Press Inc.
27. Ridgley, L. M., DaVia Rubenstein, L., & Callan, G. L. (2021). Are gifted students adapting their self-regulated learning processes when experiencing challenging tasks? Gifted Child Quarterly, 66(1), 3-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211025452
28. Rimm, S. B. (2002). Raising the gifted: Developing a program for gifted education. Prufrock Press.
29. Rogers, K. B. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: A synthesis of the research on educational practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 382-396. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207306324
30. Rubenstein, L. D., Siegle, D., Reis, S. M., Mccoach, D. B., & Burton, M. G. (2012). A complex quest: The development and research of underachievement interventions for gifted students. Psychology in the Schools, 49(7), 678-694. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21620
31. Sak, U. (2020). Üstün zekalılar: Özellikleri, tanılanmaları, eğitimleri [Gifted children: Characteristics, identification, education]. Vize Akademik.
32. Sambuis, S., & Bourdin, B. (2024). Teachers’ attitude towards gifted students and their education: A systematic review. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 48(1), 48-81. https://doi.org/10.1177/01623532241301088
33. Siegle, D. (2013). The underachieving gifted child: Recognizing, understanding, and reversing underachievement (A CEC-TAG Educational Resource). Routledge.
34. Siegle, D., & McCoach, D. B. (2005). Making a difference: Motivating gifted students who are not achieving. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(1), 22-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990503800104
35. Siegle, D., McCoach, D. B., & Bloomfield, E. (2017). Achievement orientation model: Understanding how what we believe determines whether we achieve. In J. A. Plucker, A. N. Rinn, & M. C. Makel (Eds.), From giftedness to gifted education: Reflecting theory in practice (pp. 301–318). Prufrock Press Inc.
36. Siegle, D., McCoach, D. B., & Rubenstein, L. D. (2021). Understanding and addressing underachievement in gifted students. In Handbook for counselors serving students with gifts and talents (pp. 605-626). Routledge.
37. Snyder, K. E., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2013). A developmental, person-centered approach to exploring multiple motivational pathways in gifted underachievement. Educational Psychologist, 48(4), 209-228. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.835597
38. Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (Eds.). (2005). Conceptions of giftedness. Cambridge University Press.
39. Stoeger, H., & Zeidner, M. (2019). Self-regulated learning in gifted, talented, and high-achieving learners. High Ability Studies, 30(1-2), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2019.1601326
40. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056
41. Üredi, İ., & Üredi, L. (2005). İlköğretim 8. sınıf öğrencilerinin öz-düzenleme stratejileri ve motivasyonel inançlarının matematik başarısını yordama gücü [The predictive power of self-regulation strategies and motivational beliefs on mathematics achievement of primary school 8th grade students]. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(2), 250-260. https://doi.org/10.17860/efd.16628
42. VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2005). Challenges and possibilities for serving gifted learners in the regular classroom. Theory Into Practice, 44(3), 211-217. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4403_5
43. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in the social sciences]. Seçkin.
44. Yılmaz, D. (2015). Üstün yetenekliler için psikolojik danışma ve rehberlik uygulamaları: Gereksinimler, sorunlar ve müdahaleler [Psychological counseling and guidance practices for gifted individuals: Needs, problems, and interventions]. Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
45. Yin, K. R. (2004). “Case study methods” to appear in the 3rd edition of complementary methods for research in education. American Educational Research Association.
46. Željeznov Seničar, M., & Kukanja Gabrijelčič, M. (2025). The experience of success and failure of gifted students at school. European Journal of Educational Research, 14(1), 185-198. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.14.1.185