Despite increased recognition of gifted students’ diverse cognitive and motivational characteristics, research has overlooked the assessment of intragroup differences. This study aimed to identify profiles of self-regulatory learning skills among gifted students, to identify individual and contextual variables associated with profiles, and to examine the association between profiles and indicators of achievement and learning engagement in these learners. Data were collected from 287 adolescents enrolled in an educational enrichment program targeting gifted students in Grades 6–12. Profiles were identified using three indicators: effort regulation, critical thinking, and metacognitive self-regulation. Four distinct profiles of self-regulated learning were identified using latent profile analysis: high, medium-high, effortful, and low self-regulated learners. School socioeconomic vulnerability was associated with a significantly higher probability of belonging to the low rather than the high self-regulated profile. The high self-regulated profile was associated with more engagement and better results in the enrichment program.
AlexanderN. A.JangS. T. (2020). Policy, poverty, and student achievement: An exploration of the impact of state policies. Educational Policy, 34(4), 674–704. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904818802114
2.
AmaliaR.LatifahM. (2019). Parental support, academic emotion, learning strategy, and academic achievement on first year student. Journal of Family Sciences, 4(1), 41–53. https://doi.org/10.29244/jfs.4.1.41-53
AsparouhovT.MuthénB. (2014). Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: Three-step approaches using Mplus. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(3), 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.915181
5.
BakerJ. A.GrantS.MorlockL. (2008). The teacher-student relationship as a developmental context for children with internalizing or externalizing behavior problems. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/1045-3830.23.1.3
6.
BelleiC. (2013). El estudio de la segregación socioeconómica y académica de la educación chilena [The study of socioeconomic and academic segregation in Chilean education]. Estudios Pedagógicos, 39(1), 325–345. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-07052013000100019
7.
Ben-EliyahuA. (2017). Individual differences and learning contexts: A self-regulated learning perspective. Teachers College Record, 119(13), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811711901307
8.
Ben-EliyahuA. (2019). A situated perspective on self-regulated learning from a person-by-context perspective. High Ability Studies, 30(1–2), 199–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2019.1568828
9.
BlairC.RaverC. C. (2012). Individual development and evolution: Experiential canalization of self-regulation. Developmental Psychology, 48(3), 647–657. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026472
BroadbentJ.Fuller-TyszkiewiczM. (2018). Profiles in self-regulated learning and their correlates for online and blended learning students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(6), 1435–1455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9595-9
12.
BroadbentJ.PoonW. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning strategies & academic achievement in online higher education learning environments: A systematic review. The Internet and Higher Education, 27(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.04.007
13.
CallanG. L.MarchantG. J.FinchW. H.FleggeL. (2017). Student and school SES, gender, strategy use, and achievement. Psychology in the Schools, 54(9), 1106–1122. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22049
14.
CastejónJ. L.GilarR.MiñanoP.GonzálezM. (2016). Latent class cluster analysis in exploring different profiles of gifted and talented students. Learning and Individual Differences, 50(1), 166–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.08.003
15.
DentA. L.KoenkaA. C. (2016). The relation between self-regulated learning and academic achievement across childhood and adolescence: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 28(3), 425–474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9320-8
16.
DuckworthA. L.SeligmanM. E. (2005). Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic performance of adolescents. Psychological Science, 16(12), 939–944. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01641.x
17.
EfklidesA.SchwartzB. L.BrownV. (2018). Motivation and affect in self-regulated learning: Does metacognition play a role? In SchunkD. H.GreeneJ. A. (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (2nd ed., pp. 64–82). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315697048-5
HousandA.ReisS. M. (2008). Self-regulated learning in reading: Gifted pedagogy and instructional settings. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20(1), 108–136. https://doi.org/10.4219/jaa-2008-865
21.
HowardM. C.HoffmanM. E. (2018). Variable-centered, person-centered, and person-specific approaches: Where theory meets the method. Organizational Research Methods, 21(4), 846–876. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428117744021
22.
LaddH. F. (2012). Education and poverty: Confronting the evidence. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 31(2), 203–227. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21615
MammadovS. (2022). Personality profiles of gifted adolescents and relations with life satisfaction, perceived social support, and academic achievement. High Ability Studies, 34(1), 87–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2022.2068509
26.
MammadovS.WardT.CrossJ. R.CrossT. L. (2016). Use of latent profile analysis in studies of gifted students. Roeper Review, 38(3), 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2016.1183739
ObergriesserS.StoegerH. (2015). The role of emotions, motivation, and learning behavior in underachievement and results of an intervention. High Ability Studies, 26(1), 167–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2015.1043003
30.
Olszewski-KubiliusP.SubotnikR. F.WorrellF. C. (2023). Sociocultural factors that affect the identification and development of talent in children and adolescents. European Journal of Training and Development, 47(3/4), 404–420. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-01-2022-0003
31.
OppongE.ShoreB. M.MuisK. 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
32.
OsborneJ. W.SibleyC. G. (2017). Identifying “types” of ideologies and intergroup biases: Advancing a person-centred approach to social psychology.European Review of Social Psychology, 28(1), 288–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2017.1379265
33.
PanaderoE. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(1), 422. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422
34.
PastorD. A.BarronK. E.MillerB. J.DavisS. L. (2007). A latent profile analysis of college students’ achievement goal orientation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(1), 8–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.10.003
35.
Pereira Da CostaM.LubartT. I. (2016). Gifted and talented children: Heterogeneity and individual differences. Anales de Psicología, 32(3), 662–671. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.32.3.259421
36.
PintrichP.SmithD.GarcíaT.McKeachieW. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). University of Michigan.
37.
PintrichP. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 385–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-004-0006-x
38.
RamosA.LavrijsenJ.SoenensB.VansteenkisteM.SypréS.VerschuerenK. (2021). Profiles of maladaptive school motivation among high-ability adolescents: A person-centered exploration of the motivational pathways to underachievement model. Journal of Adolescence, 88(1), 146–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2021.03.001
39.
ReardonS. F. (2011). The widening academic achievement gap between the rich and the poor: New evidence and possible explanations. In DuncanG. J.MurnaneR. J. (Eds.), Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances (pp. 91–116). Russell Sage Foundation.
40.
ReisS. M.BoeveH. (2009). How academically gifted elementary, urban students respond to challenge in an enriched, differentiated reading program. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33(2), 203–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320903300204
41.
ReisS. M.McCoachD. 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
42.
ReisS. M.RenzulliJ. S. (2009). Myth 1: The gifted and talented constitute one single homogeneous group and giftedness is a way of being that stays in the person over time and experiences. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 233–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209346825
43.
RichardsonM.BondR.AbrahamC. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 353–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026838
44.
RidgleyL. M.DaVia RubensteinL.CallanG. L. (2020). Gifted underachievement within a self‐regulated learning framework: Proposing a task‐dependent model to guide early identification and intervention. Psychology in the Schools, 57(9), 1365–1384. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22408
45.
RidgleyL. M.DaVia RubensteinL.CallanG. L. (2022). 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
46.
RinnA. N.SolesK. L.FergusonS.SmithK. N. (2020). Psychological profiles among high ability undergraduate students. High Ability Studies, 31(2), 157–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2019.1607721
47.
Ronksley-PaviaM.NeumannM. M. (2020). Conceptualising gifted student (dis)engagement through the lens of learner (re)engagement. Education Sciences, 10(10), 274–285. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10100274
48.
Salmela-AroK.UpadayaK. (2012). The schoolwork engagement inventory: Energy, dedication, and absorption (EDA). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 28(1), 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000091
49.
SchneiderM.PreckelF. (2017). Variables associated with achievement in higher education: A systematic review of meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 143(6), 565–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000098
50.
SeidelT.ShavelsonR. J. (2007). Teaching effectiveness research in the last decade: Role of theory and research design in disentangling meta-analysis results. Revieë of Educational Research, 77(4), 454–499. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307310317
51.
SiegleD.McCoachD. B.BloomfieldM. (2017). Achievement orientation model: Understanding how what we believe determines whether we achieve. In PluckerJ. A.RinnA. N.MakelM. (Eds.), From giftedness to gifted education. Reflecting theory in practice (pp. 293–310). Prufrock Press.
52.
SiegleD.RubensteinL. D.MitchellM. S. (2014). Honors students’ perceptions of their high school experiences: The influence of teachers on student motivation. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213513496
53.
SnyderK. E.Linnenbrink-GarciaL. (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
54.
SnyderK. E.WormingtonS. V. (2020). Gifted underachievement and achievement motivation: The promise of breaking silos. Gifted Child Quarterly, 64(2), 63–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220909179
55.
SontagC.StoegerH. (2015). Can highly intelligent and high-achieving students benefit from training in self-regulated learning in a regular classroom context?Learning and Individual Differences, 41(1), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.07.008
56.
StattinH.SvenssonY.KorolL. (2019). Schools can be supporting environments in disadvantaged neighborhoods. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 43(5), 383–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025419833824
57.
SternbergR. J. (2003). A broad view of intelligence: The theory of successful intelligence. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 55(3), 139–154. https://doi.org/10.1037/1061-4087.55.3.139
58.
StoegerH.FleischmannS.ObergriesserS. (2015). Self-regulated learning (SRL) and the gifted learner in primary school: The theoretical basis and empirical findings on a research program dedicated to ensuring that all students learn to regulate their own learning. Asia Pacific Education Review, 16(2), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-015-9376-7
TangM.NeberH. (2008). Motivation and self-regulated science learning in high-achieving students: Differences related to nation, gender, and grade-level. High Ability Studies, 19(2), 103–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598130802503959
61.
TarantoD.BuchananM. T. (2020). Sustaining lifelong learning: A self-regulated learning (SRL) approach. Discourse and Communication for Sustainable Education, 11(1), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.2478/dcse-2020-0002
62.
ZeidnerM. (2019). Self-regulated learning: Current fissures, challenges, and directions for future research. High Ability Studies, 30(1–2), 255–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2019.1584034
ZimmermanB. J. (2013). From cognitive modeling to self-regulation: A social cognitive career path. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.794676
65.
ZimmermanB. J.Martinez-PonsM. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 51–59. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.51
66.
ZimmermanB. J.SchunkD. H. (Eds.), (1989). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice. Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3618-4
