Page 19 - Štremfel, Urška, ed., 2016. Student (Under)achievement: Perspectives, Approaches, Challenges. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut. Digital Library, Documenta 11.
P. 19
In the past, underachievers were often defined in terms of the number of 19
points scored on the intelligent quotient (IQ) scale. According to these defini-
tions, underachievers included individuals with an IQ between 75 and 89 and
those who did not achieve satisfactory grades within the regular education
system, while students with fewer than 70 points on the IQ scale were consid-
ered persons with special needs (Gresham, MacMillan and Bocian, 1996; Kav-
ale, Fuchs and Scruggs, 1994; Epps, Yssledyke and McGue, 1984, summarised
from Vanauker-Ergle, 2003).
The concept of underachievers defined in this way was based on the theo-
ries of learning and knowledge in use at the time. Today, reference to, and use
of, the term ‘underachievers’ to define specific students is outdated and is no
longer used for research purposes.
In accordance with the theories of learning dating back thirty and more
years, learning was understood as a linear and sequential process. According-
ly, the entire learning process was described hierarchically. Learning objectives
were arranged in a way that called for simple cognitive functions at the begin-
ning and more demanding ones at a later time. Complex understanding was
supposed to take place only when basic learning and knowledge had been ac-
cumulated (e.g. Bloom, 1956; Gagne, 1974). In this case, higher-order skills were
to be used only when basic skills had already been acquired, so students of-
ten supposedly did not reach the point when higher-order functions would be
included in their teaching. Such a concept implies that when it comes to un-
derachieving students in particular, teachers do not even give them tasks that
call for higher-order skills and, understandably, students are consequently not
able to acquire this types of knowledge.
Contemporary theories of learning call for a wider definition of learning
outcomes and of underachievers; in addition to students’ cognitive skills they
also take into consideration a number of other characteristics of individual
students.
Nye, Hedges and Konstantopoulos (2002) define underachievers as stu-
dents whose learning outcomes are below the median, or as those whose
learning outcomes are below the first achievement quartile. Similarly, Dunne,
Otero and Aunio (2013) define underachievers as students whose achievement
is within the 15-20% of the lowest achievement of a certain group.
However, there are some studies that deal with this concept in a some-
what broader sense. Proctor and Bartle (2002), for instance, define undera-
chievers as persons who have left (upper-secondary) education without ac-
quiring any sort of qualifications, or these qualifications are at a level that is
expected to reduce the students’ employment potential.
Tomori (2002, 17) believes learning underachievement is exhibited when
‘students fail to complete the basic task within education to such a degree that
they are unable to enter further proficiency levels of education, when they
contemporary perspectives on student (under)achievement: introduction
points scored on the intelligent quotient (IQ) scale. According to these defini-
tions, underachievers included individuals with an IQ between 75 and 89 and
those who did not achieve satisfactory grades within the regular education
system, while students with fewer than 70 points on the IQ scale were consid-
ered persons with special needs (Gresham, MacMillan and Bocian, 1996; Kav-
ale, Fuchs and Scruggs, 1994; Epps, Yssledyke and McGue, 1984, summarised
from Vanauker-Ergle, 2003).
The concept of underachievers defined in this way was based on the theo-
ries of learning and knowledge in use at the time. Today, reference to, and use
of, the term ‘underachievers’ to define specific students is outdated and is no
longer used for research purposes.
In accordance with the theories of learning dating back thirty and more
years, learning was understood as a linear and sequential process. According-
ly, the entire learning process was described hierarchically. Learning objectives
were arranged in a way that called for simple cognitive functions at the begin-
ning and more demanding ones at a later time. Complex understanding was
supposed to take place only when basic learning and knowledge had been ac-
cumulated (e.g. Bloom, 1956; Gagne, 1974). In this case, higher-order skills were
to be used only when basic skills had already been acquired, so students of-
ten supposedly did not reach the point when higher-order functions would be
included in their teaching. Such a concept implies that when it comes to un-
derachieving students in particular, teachers do not even give them tasks that
call for higher-order skills and, understandably, students are consequently not
able to acquire this types of knowledge.
Contemporary theories of learning call for a wider definition of learning
outcomes and of underachievers; in addition to students’ cognitive skills they
also take into consideration a number of other characteristics of individual
students.
Nye, Hedges and Konstantopoulos (2002) define underachievers as stu-
dents whose learning outcomes are below the median, or as those whose
learning outcomes are below the first achievement quartile. Similarly, Dunne,
Otero and Aunio (2013) define underachievers as students whose achievement
is within the 15-20% of the lowest achievement of a certain group.
However, there are some studies that deal with this concept in a some-
what broader sense. Proctor and Bartle (2002), for instance, define undera-
chievers as persons who have left (upper-secondary) education without ac-
quiring any sort of qualifications, or these qualifications are at a level that is
expected to reduce the students’ employment potential.
Tomori (2002, 17) believes learning underachievement is exhibited when
‘students fail to complete the basic task within education to such a degree that
they are unable to enter further proficiency levels of education, when they
contemporary perspectives on student (under)achievement: introduction
