SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eurasian Journal of Teacher Education / 2025 / Volume: 6 Issue: 3

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

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

Sezer Köse Biber(İSTANBUL ÜNİVERSİTESİ-CERRAHPAŞA, HASAN ALİ YÜCEL EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0001-5807-5185
Marilena Zinovia Leana-Taşcılar(İSTANBUL MEDENİYET ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-1271-0371
Şule Güçyeter(UŞAK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-5483-3222
İrfan Şimşek(İSTANBUL ÜNİVERSİTESİ-CERRAHPAŞA)0000-0002-7481-5830
Pages
—
Publication Date
2025-12-25
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

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.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis: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.
📊
Key Findings & Data: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.
💡
Conclusion & Impact: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.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Digital assessment · Gifted education · Underachievement

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.

Özet

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.

🔖

Cite This Article

Biber, S. K., Leana-Taşcılar, M. Z., Güçyeter, Ş., Şimşek, İ. (2025). Developing an Animated Digital Vignette-Based Scale for Detecting Underachievement in Primary-Level Gifted Students. Eurasian Journal of Teacher Education, Volume: 6 Issue: 3. https://doi.org/10.69918/ejte.1801777

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (60)

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
  4. Başlantı, U. (2002). Gifted underachievers and factors affecting underachievement [Master Thesis]. Boğaziçi University.
  5. 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
  6. Brookhart, S. M. (2010). How to assess higher-order thinking skills in your classroom. ASCD.
  7. Clark, B. (2002). Growing up gifted: Developing the potential of children at school and at home (6th ed.). Pearson.
  8. Clemons, T. L. (2008). Underachieving gifted students: A social cognitive model [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Virginia]. ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED505382
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. Ford, D. Y. (1996). Reversing underachievement among gifted Black students: Promising practices and programs. Teachers College Press.
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage.
  19. Hoffman, J. L., Wasson, F. R., & Christianson, B. P. (1985). Personal development for the gifted underachiever.
  20. Gifted Child Today, 8(3), 12–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/107621758500800305
  21. Jamebozorg, Z., & Salimi, M. (2012). The survey of design, implementation process and evaluation of educational animation. Life Science Journal, 9(4), 4740–4749.
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
  25. 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
  26. Mallon, A. (1995). So what is a storyboard? In Storyboarding multimedia. Adrian Mallon Multimedia. http://adrianmallonmultimedia.com/designguidelines/story.htm
  27. Mandel, H. P., & Marcus, S. I. (1991). The psychology of underachievement: Differential diagnosis and differential treatment. John Wiley & Sons.
  28. 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
  29. Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2014). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
  30. McCoach, D. B. (2000). School Attitude Assessment Survey–Revised (SAAS-R) [Unpublished instrument].
  31. 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.
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. 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.
  35. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. 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.
  39. 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
  40. 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.
  41. 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.
  42. 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
  43. Şakar, S., Bilgiç, Ş., & Baloğlu, M. (2022). Algılanan akademik beklenmedik düşük başarı ölçeğinin uyarlanması [Adaptation of perceived academic unexpected low achievement scale]. 1–2.
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46. 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.
  47. 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
  48. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.
  49. 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
  50. 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
  51. 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
  52. Wetzel, C. D., Radtke, P. H., & Stern, H. W. (1994). Instructional effectiveness of video media. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  53. 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
  54. 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
  55. 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.
  56. 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.
  57. 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
  58. 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
  59. 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
  60. Wetzel, C. D., Radtke, P. H., & Stern, H. W. (1994). Instructional effectiveness of video media. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.