underachiever_litreview

Back to Home Page By: Lindsey Haralson A review of current research on underachievers

When looking to identify characteristics and interventions for gifted underachievers, it is often difficult because of the ambiguity of defining what an underachiever is. Underachievers are most commonly thought of as students who have a discrepancy between their potential achievement and actual achievement (Hoover-Schultz, 2005). This is generally determined by standardized tests. The difficulty with this definition is the fact that the criteria used to define a child as gifted varies from state to state, as do the assessments used. “Standardized tests may not directly reflect the actual school experience, and classroom grades may be unreliable and subjective” (Hoover-Schultz, 2005, p. 46). A second definition that is sometimes used for gifted underachievers is when there is incongruity between their predicted achievement and actual achievement (Hoover-Schultz, 2005). Hoover-Schultz notes that this definition is also problematic in that no test is perfectly reliable when one is looking to predict achievement. Students may have test anxiety or be sick on the day of testing which could easily cause inaccurate test scores. Rimm’s definition of underachievers is that “underachievement is a discrepancy between a child’s school performance and some index of the child’s ability” (as cited in: Hoover-Schultz, 2005, p. 47). This definition fits the idea that underachievement is a failure to develop or use potential rather than a discrepancy between potential or predicted achievement and actual achievement. Though none currently exists, having a unified working definition of underachievement would be helpful when looking for the students who portray these characteristics. Presently, though most relate underachievement with potential, there are many opinions on what an underachieving student looks like.

 There are many identified causes of underachievement. These are typically broken into environmental factors and personal/family factors (Hoover-Schultz, 2005). These can include risk factors such as disabilities, adolescence, motivation, low income, cultural diversity, gender issues, and peer interactions (Seeley, 2004). Some contributing factors may include inflexible curriculum and instruction, a lack of acceleration or meaningful experiences, and lack of teacher training in gifted education (Rayneri, Gerber, & Wiley, 2003, p. 198).

Students with disabilities are often overlooked when it comes to identifying students for gifted programs. Physical disabilities can be associated with mental retardation and, thus, individuals are not considered for gifted identification (Seeley, 2004). Students with learning disabilities are also often disregarded even though it is possible for students to be twice exceptional. Teachers sometimes see these students as being lazy and their potential goes unnoticed. Other times, their weaknesses may overshadow their strengths because of the amount of time put into strengthening the area in which they have a learning disability.

Adolescence is an area that is not often thought of when looking at underachieving students. Seeley (2004) notes that “normal developmental periods can put young people at risk if the home or school does not adapt to developmental changes in their behavior.” Children who have precocious language development often seem more mature than they are, so when they turn around and say something developmentally appropriate but seemingly unintelligent (in terms of maturity) teachers and parents may wonder. Sometimes, these students model the behavior of their teachers and parents and they struggle with balancing their high abilities and adolescent social development. These students may result in “need for separation and a search for identity” while causing “stress and alienation expressed in underachievement, antisocial behavior, or indifference” (Seeley, 2004, p. 4).

“Gifted achievement crosses all cultural boundaries and…differs across cultures” (Hoover-Schultz, 2005, p. 47). Most cultures identify giftedness in different ways. When students move from other countries, they are often underrepresented in gifted programs because of the discrepancy between cultural definitions of gifted. Language can also be a huge factor when looking at underachieving gifted students. Often schools assume because a student has limited language proficiency, he/she will not have high success in school and these students are overlooked for gifted placement. In addition, using intelligence scores as the primary tool for identification can adversely affect gifted African American students (Hoover-Schultz, 2005).

Low income and cultural diversity are often tied because of the greater number of minority groups at the low-income level (Seeley, 2004). Even so, poverty affects all cultures and is “a major risk factor affecting school success because of its effects on family life” (Seeley, 2004, p. 3). Hoover-Schultz (2005) notes “the overwhelming factor appears to be in the area of personal/psychological underachievement due to dynamics within the family.” She goes on to suggest that it is possible that parents of underachieving students may not have the skills or resources necessary to support their gifted children. These parents often have lower educational levels and reduced expectations for their children (Seeley, 2004).

School environments also play a part in putting students at risk for underachievement. In a study of high school dropouts, about 47% stated “a major factor in their decision was that classes were not interesting” (Birdsall & Correa, 2007, p. 22). This was also prominent among students with high GPAs. This study also found that when gifted students cannot accelerate or enrich the curriculum beyond the pace of other students, their achievement levels drop drastically (Birdsall & Correa, 2007). In addition to curriculum, peers have the most influence on student underachievement (Hoover-Schultz, 2005). Females, regardless of the fact that they are far outnumbered by underachieving males, may underachieve deliberately in response to “perceived sex-role expectations” (Hoover-Schultz, 2005, p. 48). These students who are influenced greatly by school interactions tend to exhibit the following characteristics: (1) “low levels of self-confidence,” (2) “an inability to persevere,” (3) “a lack of goals,” and (4) “feelings of inferiority” (Hoover-Schultz, 2005, p. 47).

In a study performed by Rayneri, Gerber, and Wiley (2003) among the learning styles of gifted achievers and underachievers, they found that there are many differences in the ways that achieving and underachieving students prefer to learn. Underachievers considered themselves less persistent, had a stronger desire for low lighting and visual and tactile learning, preferred sound to a quiet working environment, preferred independent work to group work, and required more structured tasks (Rayneri, Gerber, & Wiley, 2003). Kim (2008) points out the similarities in characteristics of underachieving gifted students and creatively gifted students. He suggests that allowing these students to pursue their own interests with freedom, choices on how to complete their task and opportunities for freedom of expression will lead to reverse underachievement by motivating these students with a greater challenge high interest and a sense of pride in their work (Kim, 2008).

 All students learn in different ways and it is the responsibility of the teacher to learn our students, notice these differences and plan curriculum and instruction accordingly. Students are not born underachievers, so it can be reversed, beginning with pinpointing the cause of underachievement in each child. With students that are highly influenced by peer relationships, schools may “provide more flexibility…to foster peer and social relationships among students” (Seeley, 2004, p. 6). Strategies here may include peer mentoring, peer tutoring, group collaboration, and involving older students in planning processes. Also, providing counseling or teacher mentors would benefit these students as well. Gifted students need an adult they can connect with and it is even more beneficial when this adult shares common interests or talents (Kim, 2008). Teachers also need to be sensitive about gender issues. Often creative students may “diverge from sex norms because both sensitivity…and independence…are essential for creativity” (Kim, 2008, p. 237). Having understanding teachers allows these students to assist students with dealing with any peer influence or emotional issues.

Gentry, Steenbergen-Hu, and Choi (2011) performed a study that looked at the positive characteristics needed for teachers of gifted students. They found that students felt it was important when teachers took a personal interest in students, set high expectations for themselves and students, made content and learning meaningful and relevant to the future and respected students’ choices, and that these teachers had a clear passion for their students, teaching, and content (Gentry et al, 2011). Finding ways to connect to your students, engaging in extracurricular activities such as coaching a team, and having enthusiasm and content knowledge all help build a supportive learning environment and positive student/teacher relationships that are essential for engaging underachievers.

Thompson and McDonald (2007) conducted a study of gifted achievers and underachievers based on examining the influence of teacher and student constructed assignments. The teacher provided student choice and flexibility in her assignments and the study found that though all gifted students tended to choose a topic that was the most meaningful to them, gifted underachievers also desired the easier tasks (Thompson & McDonald, 2007). This could be either due to underachievers desiring success and knowing they had a greater potential for success with the easier task, or due to their desire to complete the task. When provided with the ability to construct their own assignments, most gifted students found the task encouraging and motivating. Underachieving students enjoyed the freedom to do something different and the influence they had on the assignment. Some underachievers, however, enjoyed the freedom, but had difficulty with the task as they were hard on themselves due to their supposed inability and lack of confidence (Thompson & McDonald, 2007).

<span style="color: #72b418; display: block; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 150%; text-align: center;"> media type="file" key="Working With An Underachieving Teen.mp3" align="center" width="240" height="20" <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%; text-align: center;">Click above to play a podcast on underachieving "teens and tweens." This podcast discusses possible causes of underachievement and offers ways to reverse it in students.

<span style="color: #72b418; display: block; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 150%; text-align: center;"> <span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">Gifted underachievers are often looked at as being lazy or unmotivated. Teachers, however, must move away from this mindset and look at the individual to determine the cause of the students’ underachievement. There are numerous causes, several of which are discussed here, and teachers cannot simply determine it is the fault of the child or family and ignore the problem. Underachievement is reversible with time and effort. Students need to know that their teachers do care about them and their ability to succeed. Sparking student interest, creating high expectations yet realistic goals and building on strengths can help underachievers become successful, achieving gifted and talented students (Seeley, 2004).

<span style="color: #72b418; display: block; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 150%; text-align: center;">

<span style="display: block; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%; text-align: left;">Birdsall, P., & Correa, L. (2007). Gifted Underachievers. //Leadership//, 36(4), 21-23. <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%; text-align: left;">Hoover-Schultz, B. (2005). GIFTED UNDERACHIEVEMENT Oxymoron or Educational Enigma?. //Gifted Child Today//, 28(2), 46-49. <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%; text-align: left;">Kim, K. (2008). Underachievement and Creativity: Are Gifted Underachievers Highly Creative?. //Creativity Research Journal//, 20(2), 234-242. doi:10.1080/10400410802060232 <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%; text-align: left;">Rayneri, L. J., Gerber, B. L., & Wiley, L. P. (2003). Gifted Achivers and Gifted Underachievers: The Impact of Learning Style Preferences in the Classroom. //Journal of Secondary Gifted Education//, 14(4), 197. Retrieved from EBSCO//host//. <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%; text-align: left;">Seeley, K. (2004). Gifted and Talented Students at Risk. //Focus on Exceptional Children//, 37(4), 1-8. <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%; text-align: left;">Thompson, D. D., & McDonald, D. M. (2007). Examining the Influence of Teacher-Constructed and Student-Constructed Assignments on the Achievement Patterns of Gifted and Advanced Sixth-Grade Students. //Journal for the Education of the Gifted//, 31(2), 198-226.