The underachievement of gifted students is a serious problem in gifted education. Although analytic research strategies have identified many causes of underachievement, this kind of approach still needs to be complemented by synthetic research strategies. The actiotope model of giftedness, for example, suggests that the effect of educational capital on achievement is mediated by learning capital. In an empirical study with a sample of 143 gifted Spanish secondary school students, educational capital was characterized by various forms of parental involvement aimed at the learning successes of children. Learning capital was represented by two types of learning strategies: metacognitive strategies and elaboration strategies. Following the method developed by Baron and Kenny, the hypothesized mediation of learning capital between educational capital and school achievement was confirmed.
BakerJ.BridgerR.EvansK. (1998). Models of underachievement among gifted preadolescents: The role of personal, family, and school factors. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 5–15. doi:10.1177/001698629804200102
2.
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
3.
BaslantiU.McCoachD. (2006). Factors related to the underachievement of University students in Turkey. Roeper Review, 28, 210–215. doi:10.1080/02783190609554366
4.
BeltránJ.PérezL.OrtegaM. (2006). CEA. Cuestionario de estrategias de aprendizaje [Learning Strategies Questionnaire]. Madrid, Spain: TEA.
5.
BradlyR. H.CorwynR. F. (2002). Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 371–399. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135233
6.
ÇakırL. (2014). The relationship between underachievement of gifted students and their attitudes toward school environment. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 152, 1034–1038.
7.
CastroM.Expósito-CasasE.López-MartínE.LizasoainL.Navarro-AsencioE.GaviriaJ. L. (2015). Parental involvement on student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 14, 33–46. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2015.01.002
8.
ChanD. (1999). Reversing underachievement: Can we tap unfulfilled talents in Hong Kong?Educational Research Journal, 14, 177–190.
9.
ChiuM. M.ChowB. W.McBridge-ChangC. (2007). Universals and specifics in learning strategies: Explaining adolescent mathematics, science, and reading achievement across 34 countries. Learning and Individual Differences, 17, 344–365. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2007.03.007
10.
ColangeloN.KerrB.ChristensenP.MaxeyJ. (2004). A comparison of gifted underachievers and gifted high achievers. In MoonS. (Ed.), Social/emotional issues, underachievement, and counseling of gifted and talented students (pp. 119–132). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
11.
DixonR. M.CravenR.MartinA. (2006). Underachievement in a whole city cohort of academically gifted children: What does it look like?Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 15(2), 9–15.
12.
DunloskyJ.RawsonK. A. (2012). Overconfidence produces underachievement: Inaccurate self-evaluations undermine student’s learning and retention. Learning and Instruction, 22, 271–280. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.08.003
13.
EdmondsB. (2012). Context in social simulation: Why it can’t be wished away. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 18, 5–21.
14.
EricssonK. A.NandagopalK.RoringR. W. (2005). Giftedness viewed from the expert-performance perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 287–311. doi: 10.4219/jeg-2005-335
15.
FanX.ChenM. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 1–22. doi:10.1023/A:1009048817385
16.
FiggS. D.RogersK. B.McCormickJ.LowR. (2012). Differentiating low performance of the gifted learner: Achieving, underachieving, and selective consuming students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23, 53–71. doi:10.1177/1932202X11430000
17.
FoustR. C.BookerK. (2007). The social cognition of gifted adolescents. Roeper Review, 29, 45–47. doi:10.1080/02783193.2007.11869224
18.
GagnéF. (2010). Motivation within the DMGT 2.0 framework. High Ability Studies, 21, 81–99. doi:10.1080/13598139.2010.525341
19.
GuilfordJ. P. (1954). Psychometric methods. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
20.
HayesA. F.PreacherK. J.MyersT. A. (2011). Mediation and the estimation of indirect effects in political communication research. In BucyE. P.Lance HolbertR. (Eds.), Sourcebook for political communication research: Methods, measures, and analytical techniques (pp. 434–465). New York, NY: Routledge.
21.
HellerK. A.PerlethC.LimT. K. (2005). The Munich model of giftedness designed to identify and promote gifted students. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 147–170). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
22.
HellerK. A.SchofieldN. J. (2008). Identification and nurturing the gifted from an international perspective. In PfeifferS. I. (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children. Psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices (pp. 93–114). New York, NY: Springer.
23.
HillN. E.TysonD. F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A meta-analytic assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45, 740–763. doi:10.1037/a0015362
24.
JeynesW. (2010). The salience of the subtle aspects of parental involvement and encouraging that involvement: Implications for school-based programs. The Teachers College Record, 112, 747–774.
25.
KlineP. (1986). A handbook of test construction. New York, NY: Methuen.
26.
KlineP. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
27.
KorobkoO. B.GlasC. A.BoskerR. J.LuytenJ. W. (2008). Comparing the difficulty of examination subjects with item response theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 45, 139–157. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.2007.00057.x
28.
LaneK. L.GreshmanF. M.O’ShaughnessyT. E. (2002). Serving students with or at-risk for emotional and behavior disorders: Future challenges. Education and Treatment of Children, 25, 507–521.
29.
LauK.ChanD. W. (2001). Identification of underachievers in Hong Kong: Do different methods select different underachievers?Educational Studies, 27, 187–200. doi:10.1080/03055690120050419
30.
Ley Orgánica 2/2006, de 3 de mayo, de Educación [Constitutional Law 2/2006 on Education.]. Boletín Oficial del Estado (España), 4 de mayo de 2006 (4may2006), 106, 17.158–17.207.
31.
Ley Orgánica 8/2013, de 9 de diciembre, para la Mejora de la Calidad Educativa [Constitutional Law 8/2013, from 9 December, for the Improvement of Educational Quality.]. Boletín Oficial del Estado (España), 10 de diciembre de 2013 (10December2013), 295, 97.858–97.921.
32.
MaX.ShenJ.KrennH. Y. (2014). The relationship between parental involvement and adequate yearly progress among urban, suburban, and rural schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25, 629–650. doi:10.1080/09243453.2013.862281
33.
MackinnonD. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
34.
McCallR.EvahnC.KratzerL. (1992). High school underachievers: What do they achieve as adults?Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
35.
McCoachD. B.SiegleD. (2003a). Factors that differentiate underachieving gifted students from high-achieving gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 144–154. doi:10.1177/001698620304700205
36.
McCoachD. B.SiegleD. (2003b). The School Attitude Assessment Survey-Revised: A new instrument to identify academically able students who underachieve. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 414–429. doi:10.1177/0013164403063003005
37.
McCoachD. B.SiegleD. (2011). Underachievers. In LevesqueR. J. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of adolescence (pp. 3025–3032). New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media.
38.
MiñanoP.CastejónJ. L.GilarR.VeasA. (2017). The SAAS-R: A new instrument to assess the school attitudes of students with high and low academic achievement in Spain. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 50(1-2), 58-70. doi:10.1177/0748175616639106
39.
MolenaarP. C. M. (2008). Consequences of the ergodic theorems for classic test theory, factor analysis, and the analysis of developmental process. In HoferS. M.AlwinD. F. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive aging (pp. 90–104). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40.
NiepelC.BrunnerM.PreckelF. (2014). Achievement goals, academic self-concept, and school grades in mathematics: Longitudinal reciprocal relations in above average ability secondary school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39, 301–313. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.07.002
ObergriesserS.StoegerH. (2015). The role of emotions, motivation, and learning behavior in underachievement and results of an intervention. High Ability Studies, 26, 167–190. doi: 10.1080/13598139.2015.1043003
43.
OberleR.Schonert-ReichlK. A. (2013). Relations among peer acceptance, inhibitory control, and math achievement in early adolescence. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 34, 45–51. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2012.09.003
44.
PeixotoF.AlmeidaL. S. (2010). Self-concept, self-esteem and academic achievement: Strategies for maintaining self-esteem in students experiencing academic failure. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 25, 157–175. doi:10.1007/s10212-010-0011-z
45.
PeplerD. J.CraigW. M. (1998). Assessing children’s peer relationships. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 3, 176–182.
46.
PetersonJ. S.ColangeloN. (1996). Gifted achievers and underachievers: A comparison of patterns found in school files. Journal of Counseling & Development, 74, 399–407.
47.
PhillipsonS. N. (2008). The optimal achievement model and underachievement in Hong Kong: An application of the Rasch model. Psychology Science Quarterly, 50, 147–172.
48.
PhillipsonS.YickY. J. (2013). Parental involvement within the actiotope model of giftedness: What it means for East-Asian students. In PhillipsonS. N.StoegerH.ZieglerA. (Eds.), Exceptionality in East Asia: Explorations in the actiotope model of giftedness (pp. 167–187). London, UK: Routledge.
ReisS. M.McCoachD. B. (2000). The underachievement of gifted students: What do we know and where do we go?Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 152–170. doi:10.1177/001698620004400302
51.
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. M. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence (2nd ed.). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
52.
RimmS. B. (1987). Why bright children underachieve: The pressures they feel. Gifted Child. Today, 10, 30–36.
53.
RogersM. A.TheuleJ.RyanB. A.AdamsG. R.KeatingL. (2009). Parental involvement and children’s school achievement: Evidence for mediating processes. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 24, 34–57. doi:10.1177/0829573508328445
54.
SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.). (2005). Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
55.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson.
56.
VeasA.CastejónJ. L.GilarR.MiñanoP. (2015). Academic achievement in early adolescence: The influence of cognitive and non-cognitive variables. The Journal of General Psychology, 142, 273–294. doi:10.1080/00221309.2015.1092940
57.
VeasA.GilarR.MiñanoP.CastejónJ. L. (2016). Estimation of the proportion of underachievers in compulsory secondary education in Spain: An application of the Rasch model. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 303. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00303
58.
VistaA. D.GranthamT. C. (2010). Effects of parental education level on fluid intelligence of Philippine public school students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 28, 236–248. doi:10.1177/0734282909344416
59.
Vlahovic-SteticV.VidovicV. V.ArambasicL. (1999). Motivational characteristics in mathematical achievement: A study of gifted high-achieving, gifted underachieving and non-gifted pupils. High Ability Studies, 10, 37–49. doi:10.1080/1359813990100104
60.
YipM. C. (2007). Differences in learning and study strategies between high and low achieving university students: A Hong Kong study. Educational Psychology, 27, 597–606. doi: 10.1080/01443410701309126
61.
YusteC.MartínezR.GalveJ. (2005). Batería de aptitudes generales y diferenciales-renovado [Battery of Differential and General Abilities-Revised] (BADYG-R). Madrid, Spain: CEPE.
62.
ZieglerA. (2005). The actiotope model of giftedness. In SternbergR.DavidsonJ. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 411–434). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
63.
ZieglerA.BakerJ. (2013). Talent development as adaption: The role of educational and learning capital. In PhillipsonS.StoegerH.ZieglerA. (Eds.), Exceptionality in East-Asia: Explorations in the actiotope model of giftedness (pp. 18–39). London, UK: Routledge.
64.
ZieglerA.ChandlerK.VialleW.StoegerH. (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, 40, 310–333. doi:10.1177/0162353217734376
65.
ZieglerA.PhillipsonS. (2012). Towards a systemic theory of giftedness. High Ability Studies, 23, 3–30. doi:10.1080/13598139.2012.679085
ZieglerA.StoegerH.BalestriniD. (2017). Systemic gifted education. In Riedl CrossJ.O’ReillyC.CrossT. (Eds.), Providing for the special needs of students with gifts and talents (pp. 15–55). Dublin, Ireland: Kazoo Independent Publishing.
68.
ZieglerA.VialleW.WimmerB. (2013). The actiotope model of giftedness: A short introduction to some central theoretical assumptions. In PhillipsonS.StoegerH.ZieglerA. (Eds.), Exceptionality in East-Asia: Explorations in the actiotope model of giftedness (pp. 1–17). London, UK: Routledge.
69.
ZieglerA.ZieglerA.StoegerH. (2012). Shortcoming of the IQ construct of underachievement. Roeper Review, 34, 123–132. doi:10.1080/02783193.2012.660726
