18 VISION, Volume 32 No. 1 2021 Introduction People often talk about disengagement and underachievement in the same breath, but what we actually need to discuss are two distinct yet, intricately connected concepts – (dis)engagement and (under) achievement. In this article we seek to tease apart disengagement and underachievement and look at the nuances associated with learner engagement and how this contributes to the phenomenon of underachievement. Both concepts have presented as a paradoxical puzzle to gifted students and their teachers, and parents/carers due to long-held stereotypical beliefs around gifted student achievement and talent actualisation, and the potential realities of underachievement. As a starting point let us establish what we mean by underachievement. Are we all talking about the same entity? Is it academic underachievement as measured by school grades? Does learning outside school count? Sometimes gifted students may not be performing as expected in school, but outside school may have well established areas of ‘achievement’, such as in their hobbies, entrepreneurship, sporting areas or areas of interest. Take for example, Rob (aged 14 years), with an IQ of 145, who performs averagely at school, mostly Cs for subject-area achievement, and a scattering of Bs and Cs for effort. Outside school he is an accomplished hobbyist with the local lapidary club, cutting and polishing semi-precious stones to design, create and market his own jewellery – a budding entrepreneur! In this case, is Rob still underachieving? We shall leave that to the reader to ponder. What is underachievement? There are multiple definitions about what is meant by the term underachievement, but what they all have in common is a discrepancy between measures of a child’s ability (or potential) and their actual achievement (Rimm, 2019). The differences in definitions of underachievement arise from how ability and achievement are measured and defined. As we discovered in the example of Rob, some definitions use grades or school-based outcomes to measure achievement, rather than some alternative measures. Other definitions draw on measurements relating to an individual’s IQ score in relation to their score on achievement tests; if the IQ score is high (e.g.,145) and the student is achieving averagely at school (e.g., Cs) then there appears to be a discrepancy. As Rimm (2019) points out, these operational definitions can “cause great differences in how and why many gifted students are considered to be underachievers” (p. 3). Interestingly, when we examine the concept of underachievement through the lens of Gagné’s Differentiating Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) (2020a), we are able to apply a broader lens for understanding and possibly intervening in the development of this phenomenon. Gagné (2020a) splits his definition of giftedness and talent into two components – Gifts as potentialities (or Aptitudes), and Talents (or Competencies) as achievements. As such it is worthwhile just briefly providing an overview of Gagné’s DMGT (2020a) here. On the left-hand side of Gagné’s model there is a list of six Aptitudes or Gifts under the first heading of Mental domains (e.g., Intellectual, Creative, Social and Perceptual ), and Physical domains (e.g., Muscular and Motor Control ). These areas of giftedness occur in the top 10% (minimum threshold) of age-peers. Setting aside for the moment the centre area of Gagné’s model (e.g., Catalysts and the complex talent developmental process), on the right- hand side we have Competencies, or Talents, which occur within the top 10% (minimum threshold) of peers (NB: not necessarily age peers). These areas of Talent appear as Competencies in nine fields of human endeavour – Academic; Technical; Science & Technology; Arts; People Services; Management/Sales; Business Systems; Sports & Athletics; and Games. Importantly, Gagné talks about the actual talent development process (the ‘complex bit in the middle’), as potentially taking a lifetime to actualise as a talent. This is a very important aspect of understanding gifted student underachievement. Do we expect that all gifted students should show their achievement through the narrow curriculum taught and assessed in schools? After all, not all the ‘expected’ Fields of Talent can be directly connected with what is taught and assessed in schools. Perhaps for several of our gifted students, underachievement is part of the complex talent development process, and for these students, achievement (Talent ), comes well after those 13 years of formal schooling. Nonetheless, to see a gifted child struggling or receiving poor grades at school is discouraging for that child (as well as their teachers and parents). Such catalysts could potentially unknowingly accelerate the progression of underachievement. Before we discuss the complex bit in the middle of Gagné’s model (Catalysts and the Developmental Process), let us turn to briefly explore student engagement and how this might connect to the complexities of underachievement at school. How might underachievement be tied to engagement for gifted learners? Interestingly, in 2002 Reis and McCoach had already made some connections to potential causes of underachievement when they noted two main possible causal categories: environmental factors and factors within an individual. In Gagné’s complex ‘bit in the middle’ of his DMGT, his talent development process is very much reliant on two main catalysts – Environmental and Intrapersonal. This also strongly connects to Reis and McCoach’s (2002) theorising about causes of underachievement. Is it feasible that there is a distinct connection between engagement in learning for gifted students and underachievement? Significantly for our discussion, the importance of student engagement in preventing underachievement and school drop-out of gifted students has been well-recognised (Landis & Reschly, 2013). Addressing (Dis)engagement and Underachievement for Gifted Learners Dr Michelle Ronksley-Pavia & Dr Michelle Neumann Resource Keynote