İlkokul Düzeyindeki Üstün Yetenekli Öğrencilerde Beklenmedik Düşük Başarıyı Belirlemeye Yönelik Animasyonlu Dijital Vinyet Tabanlı Bir Ölçeğin Geliştirilmesi

Year 2025, Volume: 6 Issue: 3, 154 - 179, 25.12.2025

Sezer Köse Biber , Marilena Zinovia Leana-Taşcılar , Şule Güçyeter , İrfan Şimşek

https://doi.org/10.69918/ejte.1801777

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, ilkokul düzeyindeki üstün yetenekli öğrencilerde karşılaşılan başarısızlık belirtilerini erken dönemde belirlemek amacıyla dijital senaryo (vinyet) temelli bir ölçme aracı olan Dijital Üstün Yeteneklilerde Başarısızlık Ölçeği–Öğrenci Formu’nu (DGUS-SF) geliştirmektir. Geleneksel kâğıt-kalem ölçeklerinden farklı olarak DGUS-SF, öğrencilerin gerçek yaşam durumlarıyla özdeşim kurmasını kolaylaştıran kısa animasyon senaryoları sunarak dikkat, katılım ve öz-bildirim doğruluğunu artırmayı hedeflemektedir. Araştırma, Türkiye genelinde tanılanmış 3. ve 4. sınıf düzeyindeki 291 üstün yetenekli öğrenciyle yürütülmüştür. Literatür taraması, odak grup görüşmeleri, uzman değerlendirmesi ve pilot uygulama sonrasında içerik geçerliği Modified Lawshe Tekniği ile sağlanmıştır. Keşfedici ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizleri, toplam varyansın %56,21’ini açıklayan altı maddelik iki faktörlü bir yapıyı doğrulamıştır. Model uyum indeksleri (χ²/df = 2.60, RMSEA = 0.076, CFI = 0.94, IFI = 0.94, NFI = 0.91) kabul edilebilir düzeyde bulunmuştur. Ölçeğin güvenirliği Cronbach alfa katsayısı (.70) ve test-yarı korelasyonu (.49) ile desteklenmiştir. DGUS-SF, özellikle ilkokul düzeyindeki üstün yetenekli öğrenciler için geliştirilen ilk dijital vinyet tabanlı ölçek olmasıyla özgün bir katkı sunmaktadır. Bulgular, ölçeğin geçerli ve güvenilir bir tanılama aracı olarak erken müdahale ve eğitimsel yönlendirme süreçlerini destekleyebileceğini göstermektedir.

Keywords

Başarısızlık , Dijital ölçme , İlkokul , Ölçek geliştirme , Üstün yetenekli öğrenciler

Ethical Statement

Bu araştırma etik kurallara uygun olarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırma İstanbul Üniversitesi-Cerrahpaşa Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Araştırmaları Etik Kurulu'nun 08/06/2017 tarihli ve 216534 numaralı onayı ile gerçekleştirilmiştir.

Supporting Institution

Bu çalışma, TÜBİTAK (Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu) tarafından 3001-117k963 numaralı hibe ile desteklenmiştir.

Project Number

3001-117k963

Thanks

Bu çalışma, Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu (TÜBİTAK) tarafından 3001-117K963 numaralı proje kapsamında desteklenmiştir. Projeye sağladığı destekten dolayı TÜBİTAK’a teşekkür ederiz.

Developing an Animated Digital Vignette-Based Scale for Detecting Underachievement in Primary-Level Gifted Students

Abstract

This study aimed to develop the Digital Gifted Underachievement Scale–Student Form (DGUS-SF), a digital vignette-based measurement tool designed to identify early indicators of underachievement in gifted primary school students. Unlike traditional paper-and-pencil scales, the DGUS-SF presents short, animated scenarios that reflect real-life situations, supporting students’ engagement and facilitating more accurate self-reports. The study was conducted with 291 identified gifted students in Grades 3 and 4. Following literature review, focus group interviews, expert evaluation, and pilot testing, content validity was established using the Modified Lawshe Technique. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses confirmed a two-factor structure consisting of six items, explaining 56.21% of the total variance. Model fit indices (χ²/df = 2.60, RMSEA = 0.076, CFI = 0.94, IFI = 0.94, NFI = 0.91) indicated an acceptable fit. Internal consistency values (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.70; split-half correlation = 0.49) demonstrated sufficient reliability. The DGUS-SF offers an innovative approach to assessing underachievement by integrating digital scenarios into measurement processes and represents the first scale developed specifically for gifted students at the primary school level. The findings suggest that the DGUS-SF is a valid and reliable tool that can support early identification efforts and guide educational interventions for gifted learners.

Keywords

Digital assessment , Gifted education , Underachievement , Primary school , Scale development

Ethical Statement

This research was conducted in accordance with ethical guidelines. The research was conducted with the approval of the Istanbul University-Cerrahpaşa Social and Human Sciences Research Ethics Committee, dated 08/06/2017 and numbered 216534.

Supporting Institution

This work was supported by the TÜBİTAK (The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey) under Grant number 3001-117k963.

Project Number

3001-117k963

Thanks

This study is conducted as part of a larger research project supported by TÜBİTAK (The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey) under project number 3001-117k963. We would like to express our sincere gratitude for their generous support.

References

• Ayre, C., & Scally, A. J. (2014). Critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio: Revisiting the original methods of calculation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 47(1), 79–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175613513808
• 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
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
• Başlantı, U. (2002). Gifted underachievers and factors affecting underachievement [Master Thesis]. Boğaziçi University.
• Baum, S. M., Renzulli, J. S., & Hebert, T. (1995). The prism metaphor: A new paradigm for reversing underachievement (Collaborative Research Study No. CRS95310). National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED402711
• Brookhart, S. M. (2010). How to assess higher-order thinking skills in your classroom. ASCD.
• Clark, B. (2002). Growing up gifted: Developing the potential of children at school and at home (6th ed.). Pearson.
• Clemons, T. L. (2008). Underachieving gifted students: A social cognitive model [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Virginia]. ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED505382
• Çobanoğlu Ateş, A. (2013). Eğitsel web sitelerini değerlendirmeye yönelik bir ölçek önerisi [A scale proposal for evaluating educational websites]. Eğitim Teknolojileri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(1), 1–16.
• Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2016). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları (2. baskı) [Multivariate statistics for the social sciences: SPSS and LISREL applications]. Pegem Akademi.
• Dai, D. Y., & Renzulli, J. S. (2008). Snowflakes, living systems, and the mystery of giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(2), 114–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986208315732
• Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House Publishing Group. Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
• Emerick, L. J. (1992). Academic underachievement among the gifted: Students’ perceptions of factors that reverse the pattern. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(3), 140–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629203600304
• Ferrari, A., Cachia, R., & Punie, Y. (2009). Innovation and creativity in education and training in the EU Member States: Fostering creative learning and supporting innovative teaching: Literature review on innovation and creativity in E&T in the EU Member States (ICEAC) (JRC Technical Note JRC 52374). European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.
• Ford, D. Y. (1996). Reversing underachievement among gifted Black students: Promising practices and programs. Teachers College Press.
• Gallagher, G. (2005). Underachievement: How do we define, analyse, and address it in schools? ACEpapers, 15, 26–35. https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/2292/25137
• Gallagher, J. J. (1990). Editorial: The public and professional perception of the emotional status of gifted children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13(3), 202–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235329001300302
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage.
• Hoffman, J. L., Wasson, F. R., & Christianson, B. P. (1985). Personal development for the gifted underachiever.
• Gifted Child Today, 8(3), 12–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/107621758500800305
• Jamebozorg, Z., & Salimi, M. (2012). The survey of design, implementation process and evaluation of educational animation. Life Science Journal, 9(4), 4740–4749.
• Karakolidis, A., O’Leary, M., & Scully, D. (2021). Animated videos in assessment: Comparing validity evidence from and test-takers’ reactions to an animated and a text-based situational judgment test. International Journal of Testing, 21(2), 57–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2021.1916505
• Karakolidis, A., Scully, D., & O’Leary, M. (2021). Eight issues to consider when developing animated videos for the assessment of complex constructs. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 26(1). Article 15. https://doi.org/10.7275/f2s7-yz14
• Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
• Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
• Mallon, A. (1995). So what is a storyboard? In Storyboarding multimedia. Adrian Mallon Multimedia. http://adrianmallonmultimedia.com/designguidelines/story.htm
• Mandel, H. P., & Marcus, S. I. (1991). The psychology of underachievement: Differential diagnosis and differential treatment. John Wiley & Sons.
• Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11(3), 320–341. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2
• Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2014). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
• McCoach, D. B. (2000). School Attitude Assessment Survey–Revised (SAAS-R) [Unpublished instrument].
• McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2001). A comparison of high achievers’ and low achievers’ attitudes, perceptions, and motivations. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 5(2), 71–76.
• McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2003a). Factors that differentiate underachieving gifted students from high-achieving gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2), 144–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620304700205 McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2003b). The School Attitude Assessment Survey-Revised: A new instrument to identify academically able students who underachieve. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(3), 414–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164403063003005
• Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 309–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9047-2
• Mou, T.-Y., Jeng, T.-S., & Chen, C.-H. (2013). From storyboard to story: Animation content development. Educational Research and Reviews, 8(13), 1032–1047.
• Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
• Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50043-3
• 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
• Renzulli, J. S., Baum, S. M., Hebert, T. P., & McCluskey, K. W. (1999). Reversing underachievement through enrichment. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 7(4), 217–223.
• Republic of Turkey Ministry of National Education. (2018). Özel Eğitim Hizmetleri Yönetmeliği [Regulation on special education services]. Resmî Gazete, 7 July 2018, No. 30471. https://orgm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2018_07/09101900_ozel_egitim_hizmetleri_yonetmeligi_07072018.pdf
• Rimm, S. B. (1997). Underachievement syndrome: A national epidemic. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 416–435). Allyn and Bacon.
• Rimm, S. B. (2008). Why bright kids get poor grades and what you can do about it: A six-step program for parents and teachers. Great Potential Press.
• Rimm, S. B., & Maas, K. (1987). Creative underachievers: Marching to the beat of a different drummer. Gifted Child Today, 10(1), 2–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/107621758701000101
• Şakar, S., Bilgiç, Ş., & Baloğlu, M. (2022). Algılanan akademik beklenmedik düşük başarı ölçeğinin uyarlanması [Adaptation of perceived academic unexpected low achievement scale]. 1–2.
• Siegle, D. (2018). Understanding underachievement. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices (2nd ed., pp. 285–297). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77004-8_16
• Siegle, D., & Langley, S. D. (2021). Promoting optimal mindsets among gifted children. In M. Neihart, S. I. Pfeiffer, & T. L. Cross (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (2nd ed., pp. 269–281). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003238928-25
• Siegle, D., Reis, S. M., McCoach, D. B., Mann, R. L., Greene, M., & Schreiber, F. (2006). A study to increase academic achievement among gifted underachievers. Paper presented at the Institute of Education Sciences Research Conference, Washington, DC, United States.
• Snyder, K. E., & Adelson, J. L. (2017). The development and validation of the perceived academic underachievement scale. The Journal of Experimental Education, 85(4), 614–628. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2016.1268087
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.
• VanTassel-Baska, J. (2000). Curriculum policy development for secondary gifted programs: A prescription for reform coherence. NASSP Bulletin, 84(615), 14–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263650008461503
• Verhoef, R. E. J., Verhulp, E. E., van Dijk, A., & de Castro, B. O. (2022). Interactive virtual reality versus vignette-based assessment of children’s aggressive social information processing. Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, 50(5), 621–636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-021-00879-w
• Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548–573. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548
• Wetzel, C. D., Radtke, P. H., & Stern, H. W. (1994). Instructional effectiveness of video media . Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127
• Wu, H.-C., Chang, C.-Y., Chen, C.-L. D., Yeh, T.-K., & Liu, C.-C. (2010). Comparison of earth science achievement between animation-based and graphic-based testing designs. Research in Science Education, 40(5), 639–673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9138-9
• Yaman, Y., & Ogurlu, U. (2014). Üstün yetenekli öğrencilerde beklenmedik düşük akademik başarı [Unexpected underachievement in gifted students]. HAYEF Journal of Education, 11(2), 1-21.
• Yeşilyurt, S., & Çapraz, C. (2018). A road map for the content validity used in scale development studies. Erzincan University Journal of Education Faculty, 20(1), 251-264.
• Yılmaz, S., & Tortop, H. S. (2018a). Üstün yetenekli öğrencilerde beklenmedik başarısızlık [Underachievement among gifted students]. Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity, 5(2), 1–9. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/jgedc/issue/40757/491440
• Yılmaz, S., & Tortop, H. S. (2018b). Üstün yetenekli öğrencilerde beklenmedik akademik başarısızlık olgusunun farklı değişkenler açısından incelenmesi [The phenomenon of unexpected academic underachievement among gifted students examined in terms of different variables]. Millî Eğitim, 1(Özel Sayı), 9–26. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/milliegitim/issue/40518/476229
• Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50031-7