From Potential to Performance: How Wijs op Weg Helps Underachieving Young People Thrive Again

Some gifted young people seem to have it all: a strong memory, sharp reasoning skills, and often a quick learning curve. Yet a number of them end up with psychologists, therapists, or coaches, struggling with procrastination, loss of motivation, or even dropping out of school. Underachievement is fairly common, though less so than is sometimes assumed. Because parents and schools mostly notice those who are struggling, it can appear as if almost all gifted students face this problem. Research paints a more nuanced picture: White and colleagues (2018) found in their review that between 9% and 23% of gifted students in secondary education were identified as underachieving, compared with 16% to 28% in primary education. Either way, it concerns a substantial group who, without targeted support, risk failing to realise their talents and becoming stuck in their educational journey.

Why does this happen? And more importantly: how can we as care professionals help them?

Underachievement Is More Than Just “Laziness”

Underachievement in gifted young people rarely stems from a lack of intelligence—and certainly not from laziness. It arises from a complex interplay of beliefs, motivation, and environmental factors. Two theoretical models help us understand this better: the Achievement Orientation Model (AOM) and the Pathways to Underachievement Model (PUM).

Achievement Orientation Model (AOM)

The Achievement Orientation Model (Siegle et al., 2017) argues that academic performance only emerges when three conditions are met. First, a student must have sufficient potential: the cognitive capacity to handle the tasks at hand. Second, motivation plays a central role. This is shaped by three perceptions: belief in one’s own ability (self-efficacy), the value attached to the learning goal (goal valuation), and the extent to which the environment is perceived as supportive (environmental perceptions). When these perceptions are positive, young people feel motivated to put in effort. Only as a third step does self-regulation come into play: the skills to plan, monitor, and adjust one’s own learning process in a goal-oriented way. The model makes clear that underachievement often arises when motivation or self-regulation is insufficiently developed, even if cognitive potential is more than adequate.

Pathways to Underachievement Model (PUM)

The Pathways to Underachievement Model (Snyder & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2013) takes things a step further, describing how underachievement can unfold in different ways over time. The model identifies two typical developmental routes, or “pathways.”

The first is the maladaptive competence beliefs pathway. Young people in this profile believe their intelligence is fixed—a so-called fixed mindset (Dweck, 1999). Because school often posed little challenge in their early years, they experienced success without much effort. As a result, their self-worth became strongly tied to the image of “always being smart.” Once they reach secondary school—or for some, later in higher education—and face more demanding tasks, they begin to avoid challenges that might threaten this self-image. To shield themselves from potential failure, they turn to strategies such as procrastination or self-handicapping. This way, any failure can be blamed on a lack of effort rather than ability. In their eyes, effort becomes a sign of weakness, which further erodes their resilience and leaves them increasingly unprepared to cope with mistakes or setbacks.

The second route is the declining value beliefs pathway. These young people draw a different conclusion from the lack of challenge they have experienced over the years. Rather than seeing school tasks as threatening, they begin to see them as pointless. As school demands more effort, they attach less and less value to schoolwork and focus mainly on the downsides: loss of free time, boredom, and the sense that the effort is hardly worth it (Eccles & Wigfield, 1995; Flake et al., 2015). The result is a steady drop in motivation and a growing sense of disconnection from school. At times, this even leads to existential doubts about their identity and future (Assor, 2018).

Research from Project TALENT shows that both profiles occur among gifted young people. These are familiar mechanisms for care professionals: on the one hand, those who constantly put themselves under pressure out of fear of not being smart enough; on the other, those who disengage because they no longer see any meaning in their schoolwork (Ramos et al., 2021).

It becomes clear that underachievement cannot be solved by simply urging young people to work harder. The core lies deeper: in how they see themselves, the beliefs they hold about their abilities, and the meaning that school and learning have for them. Only when these underlying layers are addressed does space open up again for motivation, resilience, and lasting growth.

The program Wijs op Weg

The Wijs op Weg program from Hoogbloeier® translates these scientific insights into concrete guidance for young people in secondary education (Sypré, 2015). It consists of four modules that logically build on one another and align with the different profiles and mechanisms described in the models.

The first module, Zelfbeeld (Self-Image), is often the starting point. Young people who underachieve frequently struggle with a negative or fragile sense of self. They may doubt their talents, feel “different,” or experience social difficulties. In this module, they gain insight into their own strengths and learn to build greater confidence in their abilities. Social themes such as friendships and dealing with peer pressure are also addressed. By strengthening self-image first, a solid foundation is created for working on beliefs and motivation in the following modules.

The second module, Zelfovertuigingen (Self-Beliefs), directly corresponds to the maladaptive competence beliefs pathway from the PUM. Young people in this profile believe their intelligence is fixed and view effort as a sign of weakness. In this module, they work with techniques from the growth mindset approach (Dweck, 1999) and with rational-emotive exercises. They learn to recognize their negative self-talk and reframe it into constructive thoughts. By linking success experiences to effort rather than to “being naturally smart,” they develop a more resilient and healthier sense of their own abilities.

The third module, Doelwaardering (Goal Valuation), addresses the declining value beliefs pathway. Young people in this profile are not necessarily unsure about their abilities but disengage because school feels meaningless to them. They mainly perceive the costs of schoolwork and see little connection to their interests or future. In this module, they explore their values and talents, using methods such as the Talententoolbox (Dewulf, 2012) and the Waardenspel (Siebers, 2003). They discover how school subjects can align with their personal goals and gain insight into possible study choices or career paths. In this way, learning becomes relevant again, and they regain a sense of direction and motivation.

The fourth and final module, Zelfregulatie (Self-Regulation), is closely linked to the Achievement Orientation Model. Only once motivation and self-image have been restored is there room to effectively strengthen self-regulation skills. In this module, young people learn to plan, organize, set priorities, and persevere with challenging tasks. They practice study strategies while also learning to manage procrastination and distractions. In this way, self-regulation serves as the capstone of the program, ensuring that young people can sustainably translate their renewed motivation and resilience into actual performance.

In this way, Wijs op Weg is not a one-size-fits-all program but a flexible approach that responds to the specific needs of each young person. Depending on the profile, the focus may lie on strengthening self-image, breaking limiting beliefs, rediscovering the value of school, or developing self-regulation skills. Together, the four modules form an integrated pathway that helps young people move forward again toward motivation, engagement, and achievement.

Does It Really Work?

The first evaluations showed that during the program, young people became emotionally stronger and started going to school with more enjoyment (Sypré, 2015). Later research, carried out in collaboration with KU Leuven and Ghent University, confirmed that the modules Zelfovertuigingen and Doelwaardering not only increase motivation and self-confidence but also lead to greater engagement and improved performance, even months after completion (Sypré, 2025, in preparation).

International research supports this: counseling programs for underachieving gifted students have been shown to be especially effective in improving motivation and well-being—precisely the key to achieving lasting improvements in performance (Steenbergen-Hu et al., 2020).

What Does This Mean for You as a Care Professional, Study Coach, or Mentor?

In practice, we often see schools referring underachieving young people straight to a “study skills” course. While well-intentioned, this carries a risk: self-regulation—learning to plan, organize, and study—only works if there is already sufficient motivation and self-confidence. When a young person mainly struggles with negative self-beliefs or with the feeling that school has no real meaning, a traditional “study coaching” approach will have little effect.

That is why Wijs op Weg always begins with the underlying layers. For some young people, this means working on their self-image: learning to believe in their own talents again and feeling more confident in social situations. For others, it is more about breaking through a fixed mindset and fear of failure, or rediscovering the personal value of school and learning. Only once these foundations are in place can you successfully move on to self-regulation and study skills.

For you as a psychologist, therapist, or coach, this means not focusing first on the symptoms (poor grades, procrastination) but on the underlying profile. If you mainly see signs of a fragile self-image, you begin with module A. If fear of failure and a fixed mindset dominate, then module B on self-beliefs is the best fit. If school seems to hold little meaning for the young person, module C on goal valuation provides the most logical entry point. Once motivation and self-image are in place, module D on self-regulation—“learning to learn”—becomes truly effective. By respecting this order, you are not merely treating symptoms but working structurally: you give young people the chance to translate their renewed confidence and motivation into real performance, and this is precisely what reverses underachievement. In concrete terms, this means first identifying the young person’s profile (is it primarily negative self-beliefs or a loss of goal valuation?), then tailoring your approach by connecting with their existing motivation and encouraging them to generate their own solutions, and finally building step by step—first working on self-image and beliefs, and only later on study skills.

Conclusion

Underachievement in gifted young people is not a luxury problem but a serious risk of losing both talent and well-being. The Wijs op Weg program offers a scientifically grounded and practically applicable method to give young people renewed perspective and help them grow toward their full potential.

Would you like to put this approach into practice as a care professional yourself? The complete program, including workbooks and manual, is available through our webshop under the category Begeleiding. In addition, we offer an intensive one-day training in which we guide you step by step in using the tools and materials of the program (December 9 in Ghent and May 19 in Mechelen). At present, both the workbooks/manual and the training are only available in Dutch, but we are seriously considering translating them for English-speaking coaches. This way, you will be fully equipped to tackle underachievement structurally in your own practice.

References

• Assor, A. (2018). The striving to develop an authentic inner-compass as a key component of adolescents’ need for autonomy: Parental antecedents and effects on identity, well-being, and resilience. In B. Soenens, M. Vansteenkiste, & S. Van Petegem (Eds.), Autonomy in adolescent development: Toward conceptual clarity (pp. 135–160). Routledge.

• Dewulf, L., Beschuyt, P., & Pronk, E. (2012). Ik kies voor mijn talent. Toolbox voor jong talent. LannooCampus.

• Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Psychology Press.

• Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescents achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(3), 215–225.

• Flake, J. K., Barron, K. E., Hulleman, C., McCoach, D. B., & Welsh, M. E. (2015). Measuring cost: The forgotten component of expectancy-value theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, 232–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.03.002

• Ramos, A., Lavrijsen, J., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Sypré, S., & Verschueren, K. (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, 146–161.

• Siebers, H. (2003). Het Waardenspel. Hein Siebers Training & Coaching, Kaatsheuvel.

• Siegle, D., McCoach, D. B., & Roberts, A. (2017). Why I believe I achieve determines whether I achieve. High Ability Studies, 28(1), 59-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2017.1302873

• Snyder, K. E., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (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

• Steenbergen-Hu, S., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Calvert, E. (2020). The effectiveness of current Interventions to reverse the underachievement of gifted students: Findings of a meta-analysis and systematic review. Gifted Child Quarterly, 64(2), 132–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220908601

• Sypré, S. (2015). Wijs op weg. 'De kracht in jezelf' van Jan Kuipers (2010) vertaald naar hoogbegaafde onderpresterende jongeren in het voortgezet onderwijs [ECHA thesis, Radboud University]. Nijmegen.

• Sypré, S., Onghena, P., Verschueren, K, Vansteenkiste, M., & Soenens, B. (2025). Promoting Engagement and Motivation and Reducing Perceived Underachievement of Gifted Male Adolescents: A Mixed Methods Single Case Experimental Study. Gifted Child Quarterly, Advance online publication.

• White, S. L. J., Graham, L. J., & Blaas, S. (2018). Why do we know so little about the factors associated with gifted underachievement? A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review, 24, 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.03.001

Copyright © 2025 Joke Verwerft – All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission from the author. Sharing online is permitted provided the author is credited and a link to this article is included.