Differentiating low performance of the gifted learner: achieving, underachieving and selective consuming students

Abstract

Current literature depicts selective consuming students as having substantially stronger academic self-perception than underachieving students, and having very specific learning preferences which affect their motivation to engage with learning. This depiction of selective consuming students is based on theoretical thinking and qualitative research data. To date no empirical research has been conducted to support these reported characteristics of selective consumers. This study is the first attempt to empirically analyse the characteristics of selectively consuming students. Two research studies were conducted. Study One used a convenient sample. Study Two repeated the study using a randomly selected sample. Participants in both studies were gifted and talented grade 8, 9 and 10 male students from secondary schools in Sydney, Australia. Students were categorised as achieving, underachieving or selectively consuming based on their results on standardised academic achievement and their class rankings within their grade. The School Attitude Assessment Survey-Revised (SAAS-R) instrument was used to measure academic self-perception and the Thinking Styles Inventory (TSI) was used to measure learning preferences. The data was analysed using a multivariate analysis of variance with a Bonferroni adjusted alpha level to control for Type 1 errors. The variance of significant results was further analysed with a post hoc Bonferroni test. In Study One and Study Two there was no statistically significant difference between selective consuming students and achieving or underachieving students with regard to academic self-perception and thinking style preferences. Both studies showed a significant difference between the achieving and underachieving students with regard to their academic self-perception. Achieving students recorded significantly higher academic self-perception, yielding effect sizes of .16 and .13 respectively. The results from Study One and Study Two, while not statistically significant, supported the trend currently reported in the literature that selective consuming students differ qualitatively from underachieving students. This observation has implications for future empirical research on selective consumers. Future research should endeavour to control for many of the limitations reported in this exploratory study to see if the limitations had a statistically significant impact on the results.