Document Type : Original Article
Authors
Department of Children with Special Needs, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Gifted students are superior to their peers in terms of cognitive, educational,
scientific, creativity, and artistic abilities. There are also gifted students who struggle with cognitive,
educational, social, emotional, and behavioral development, especially academic performance. They
are called underachieving students. One of the main problems of these students is the low level
of academic engagement in educational settings. Thus, this study investigated the effectiveness
of Martin’s educational program on academic engagement (behavioral, emotional, cognitive, and
agency) of underachieving gifted students.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty underachieving gifted students were selected by purposeful
sampling from a high school in Isfahan, Iran, and were divided randomly into the experimental (n = 15)
and the control (n = 15) groups. All participants completed the students’ academic engagement
questionnaire (behavioral engagement, emotional engagement, cognitive engagement, and agency
engagement) at pre/post‑test.
RESULTS: The findings showed that Martin’s cognitive‑behavioral program had a significant effect on
academic engagement and its subscales, including behavioral engagement, emotional engagement,
cognitive engagement, and agency engagement.
CONCLUSION: School counselors could benefit Martin’s cognitive‑behavioral program to promote
the academic engagement of underachieving gifted students.
Keywords
professional competence. Gift Child Today 2012;35:49‑57.
2. Davis GA, Rimm SB. Education of the Gifted. England:
McGraw‑Hill Book Company; 1998.
3. Taghinejad M, Abedi A, Yarmohammadiyan A. Comparing the
effectiveness of growth mindset intervention with independent
learning program on academic resilience of underachievement
gifted students. Appl Psychol Res Q 2019;9:1‑20.
4. RitchotteJ, RubensteinL, MurryF. Reversing the underachievement
of gifted middle school students: Lessons from another field. Gift
Child Today 2015;38:103‑13.
5. Abu‑Hamour B, Al‑Hmouz H. A study of gifted high, moderate,
and low achievers in their personal characteristics and attitudes
toward school and teachers. Int J Spec Educ. 2013;28:5‑15.
6. Chere NE, Hlalele D. Academic underachievement of learners at
school: A literature review. Mediterr J Soc Sci 2014;5:827.
7. Taghinejad M. Development of A Cognitive‑Motivating Program
Based on Academic Motivational Theories and the Comparison of
its Effectiveness With Dweck’s Mindset Program and Harvey and
Wolfe’s Independent Learning Program on Underachievement
Gifted Student’s Learning Behaviors, Academic Resilience and
Academic Self‑Handicapping. PhD Thesis, University of Isfahan;
2019.
8. Snyder KE, Malin JL, Dent AL, Linnenbrink‑Garcia L. The message
matters: The role of implicit beliefs about giftedness and failure
experiences in academic self‑handicapping. J Educ Psychol
2014;106:230.
9. Adelodun GA. Strategies for promoting achievement motivation
among underachievement gifted student. Afr J Psychol Soc Sci
Issues 2013;16:106‑13.
10. Martin AJ. Enhancing student motivation and engagement: The
effects of a multidimensional intervention. Contemp Educ Psychol
2008;33:239‑69.
11. Hejazi E, Rastegar A, Jahromy RG. The academic achievement
prediction model in mathematics: The role of achievement goals
and school engagement. J Educ Innov 2008;7:29‑46.
12. Martin AJ. Examining a multidimensional model of student
motivation and engagement using a construct validation
approach. British Journal of Educational Psychology 2007;77:41340.
13. Hejazi E, Abedini Y. Structural model functional relationship
approach‑goals, academic engagement and achievement.
J Psychol 2008;12:342‑8.
14. Azad Abdollahpuor M, Kadivar P, Abdollahy M. The relationship
between cognitive styles and cognitive and metacognitive
strategies and academic achievement. J Psychol 2005;8:30‑44.
15. Akey TM. School Context, Student Attitudes and Behavior, and
Academic Achievement: An Exploratory Analysis. MDRC; 2006.
16. Shernoff ES, Kratochwill TR, Stoiber KC. Training in
evidence‑based interventions (EBIs): What are school psychology
programs teaching? J Sch Psychol 2003;41:467‑83.
17. Shernoff DJ, Csikszentmihalyi M, Schneider B, Shernoff ES.
Student engagement in high school classrooms from the
perspective of flow theory. In: Applications of Flow in Human
Development and Education. Dordrech: Springer; 2014. p. 475‑94.
18. Caraway K, Tucker CM, Reinke WM, Hall C. Self-efficacy, goal
orientation, and fear of failure as predictors of school engagement
in high school students. Psychol Sch 2003;40:417‑27.
19. Martin AJ, Marsh HW. Academic buoyancy: Towards an
understanding of students’ everyday academic resilience. Journal
of School Psychology 2008: 46, 53‑83.
20. Yu K, Martin AJ, Hou Y, Osborn J, Zhan X. Motivation,
engagement, academic buoyancy, and adaptability: The roles
of socio‑demographics among middle school students in China.
Measurement: Interdiscip Res Perspect 2019;17:119‑32.
21. Benight CC, Bandura A. Social cognitive theory of posttraumatic
recovery: The role of perceived self‑efficacy. Behav Res Ther
2004;42:1129‑48.
22. Proudfoot JG, Corr PJ, Guest DE, Dunn G. Cognitive‑behavioural
training to change attributional style improves employee
well‑being, job satisfaction, productivity, and turnover. Pers
Individ Dif 2009;46:147‑53.
23. Reeve J, Tseng M. Agency as a fourth aspect of student
engagement during learning activities. Contemp Educ Psychol
2011;36:257‑67.
24. Alizadeh KH, Rafiepuor A, Samavi SA. The study of psychometric
indicators of academic engagement questionnaire among high
school students in Bandar Abbas. Quarterly of Educational
Measurement 2016;6:83‑102.
25. Pintrich PR, de Groot EV. Motivational and self‑regulated learning
component of classroom academic performance J Educ Psychol
1990;82:33‑40.
)