Page 146 - Štremfel, Urška, ed., 2016. Student (Under)achievement: Perspectives, Approaches, Challenges. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut. Digital Library, Documenta 11.
P. 146
dents is, undoubtedly, the grading process, i.e. assessment of students’ learn-
ing outcomes. The fundamental process here is integrating the assessment of
student achievement or learning outcomes in a wider context of the process
of learning and teaching. It can also be pointed out within the context of this
paper, that the concept of student underachievement is especially important.
This paper attempts to analyse it, together with the discrepancies in the con-
ceptions of teachers and students. Integrating the assessment of achievement
and learning outcomes throughout the entire teaching and learning process is
one of the elements that reduces the part of those students whose low learn-
ing outcomes are mainly caused by being unsuccessful at expressing their
knowledge. An additional issue also appears due to the differences between
the views of teachers and students regarding the learning and teaching pro-
cess as well as assessment of knowledge and outcomes.
Divergence between Views of Teachers and Students
146 Results of various studies have shown the following forms of teacher behav-
iour towards students from whom higher learning achievement is expected:
the teacher asks them a greater number of questions and more difficult ones,
gives them more time to answer, interrupts less often when they are answer-
ing (Allington, 1980; Good and Brophy, 1995, summarised in Pečjak and Košir,
2002) and in general encourages and smiles at them more often, showing
them more warmth through various forms of non-verbal behaviour (Rosen-
thal, 1987, summarised in Pečjak and Košir, 2002). In contrast, the teacher asks
easier questions, gives them less time to answer, waits less time for an answer
and provides less encouragement to those students towards whom he/she
has lower expectations. Good and Brophy (1995, summarised in Pečjak and
Košir, 2002) found that teachers either accepted unsuitable/incorrect answers
from such students or criticised them for giving the answers, praised them less
often for the same answers than the students from whom they expect more .
Various studies also discovered a connection between teachers’ attitude
towards specific students and these students’ learning achievement, their
self-image, acceptance by their peers etc.
Teachers’ expectations and the behaviour linked to it can influence stu-
dent learning outcomes directly or indirectly – during the development phase
of children’s expectations and motivation. The strength of the indirect impact
depends on students’ ability to correctly detect and interpret teachers’ behav-
iour (Cugmas, 1995). Past studies have tried and succeeded in proving the im-
pact of a self-fulfilling prophecy or the so called ‘Pygmalion effect’ (e.g. Rosen-
thal and Jacobson, 1968). More contemporary research has confirmed that
teacher expectations greatly influence students’ learning outcomes, however,
student (under)achievement: perspectives, approaches, challenges
ing outcomes. The fundamental process here is integrating the assessment of
student achievement or learning outcomes in a wider context of the process
of learning and teaching. It can also be pointed out within the context of this
paper, that the concept of student underachievement is especially important.
This paper attempts to analyse it, together with the discrepancies in the con-
ceptions of teachers and students. Integrating the assessment of achievement
and learning outcomes throughout the entire teaching and learning process is
one of the elements that reduces the part of those students whose low learn-
ing outcomes are mainly caused by being unsuccessful at expressing their
knowledge. An additional issue also appears due to the differences between
the views of teachers and students regarding the learning and teaching pro-
cess as well as assessment of knowledge and outcomes.
Divergence between Views of Teachers and Students
146 Results of various studies have shown the following forms of teacher behav-
iour towards students from whom higher learning achievement is expected:
the teacher asks them a greater number of questions and more difficult ones,
gives them more time to answer, interrupts less often when they are answer-
ing (Allington, 1980; Good and Brophy, 1995, summarised in Pečjak and Košir,
2002) and in general encourages and smiles at them more often, showing
them more warmth through various forms of non-verbal behaviour (Rosen-
thal, 1987, summarised in Pečjak and Košir, 2002). In contrast, the teacher asks
easier questions, gives them less time to answer, waits less time for an answer
and provides less encouragement to those students towards whom he/she
has lower expectations. Good and Brophy (1995, summarised in Pečjak and
Košir, 2002) found that teachers either accepted unsuitable/incorrect answers
from such students or criticised them for giving the answers, praised them less
often for the same answers than the students from whom they expect more .
Various studies also discovered a connection between teachers’ attitude
towards specific students and these students’ learning achievement, their
self-image, acceptance by their peers etc.
Teachers’ expectations and the behaviour linked to it can influence stu-
dent learning outcomes directly or indirectly – during the development phase
of children’s expectations and motivation. The strength of the indirect impact
depends on students’ ability to correctly detect and interpret teachers’ behav-
iour (Cugmas, 1995). Past studies have tried and succeeded in proving the im-
pact of a self-fulfilling prophecy or the so called ‘Pygmalion effect’ (e.g. Rosen-
thal and Jacobson, 1968). More contemporary research has confirmed that
teacher expectations greatly influence students’ learning outcomes, however,
student (under)achievement: perspectives, approaches, challenges
