Home | Business News | Browse by Publication | R | Roeper Review

Illuminating realities: a phenomenological view from two underachieving gifted learners. (Rethinking School Programs).

Article Excerpt
School for some (perhaps many) students does not meet learning needs in meaningful ways. These often-frustrated individuals have choices to make. Do they change habits to fit in with the crowd? Or, do they flex their independence and stand up for their needs? Many choose to fit in and not make waves; ignoring their advanced abilities or impassioned interests. Others purposefully refuse to take part in classroom activities and are labeled as "behavior problems," "problem children," or "underachievers."

Some students, however, find other ways to make do with nonengaging or disengaging classroom practices. Shawn shares his insight regarding this situation:

... if you keep good grades like A's and B's and still can slack off and do what you want, then it's OK. But when other people know that you are slacking then they might start to talk about you and then you get the label [underachiever]. I think that's bad `cause then you can't get away with things. People will always say you could do better but you're lazy or don't care. Then it'll be harder to be who you are without all the hassles from everyone.

Is Shawn an underachiever? Is he destined to be a failure based on his wanton need to perform only marginally--holding his abilities back from engagement? Is his story an anomaly? Or, does his statement poignantly provide a glimpse into the lives of many gifted students as they endure compulsory education?

In the pages that follow, I define underachievement, review the literature on underachieving gifted students, and present the results of a phenomenological research study. Through this study, you will meet two gifted students, Kate and Shawn, who share their experiences as underchallenged learners whose needs are not meaningfully met in school. Their stories represent views that sometimes do not match well the perceptions, expectations, or experiences of adults--although it is likely you have had similar experiences.

Kate and Shawn participated in a study seeking to explore, from the perspective of secondary students, the state of affairs regarding underachievement of the gifted. In this article, Kate and Shawn represent an often-overlooked component of education in the research literature--the targets for teaching--the learners. They engage us with vivid reminders that learners too, have a stake in the process of curriculum development, design, and implementation.

Definitions of Underachievement

Underachievement is a label attached to students by researchers and teachers based on perceptions of inadequate school-based performance (Carr, Borkowski, & Maxwell, 1991; Dowdall & Colangelo, 1982; Gallagher & Rogge, 1966; Krouse & Krouse, 1981; Terman & Oden, 1947). There is no comprehensive protocol used to discriminate between categories or labels of achievers, overachievers, and underachievers (Shore, Cornell, Robinson, & Ward, 1991).

For example, Dowdall and Colangelo (1982) cited 15 different definitions of underachievement based on their examination of the literature. Most compare ability (usually via a measured IQ score) with achievement (via grades, or some performance measure), searching for a discrepancy of some sort. Multiple, very similar definitions have hampered the development of core guidelines that might be useful to differentiate underachievement from other tendencies (such as boredom or emotional challenges) and strained the application of IQ test data by using it to compare individuals and definitively show that maladies exist in a learner because achievement does not approach measured ability levels (Shore et al., 1991).

Generally, underachievement is described as "a discrepancy between potential (what a student ought to be able to do) and actual performance (what a student is actually demonstrating). The crux of the problem appears to be defining the magnitude and nature of this discrepancy" (Dowdall & Colangelo, 1982, p. 179).

Teachers, in practice, often rely on their experience and perceptions when defining underachievement. They label students formally or informally according to their intuitions, which vary greatly from one setting (and from one person) to another--making the underachievement label tenuous at best.

For example, a teacher's intuitive and tacit experience is useful in a teaching setting, providing awareness that pedagogy may not be meeting student needs. However, when a student with a short attention span who does not prepare homework, yet scores well on quizzes and tests, is labeled underachiever for not working to potential or ability, something is amiss. It may not be the fault of the student. The educational setting, curriculum, or other psychosocial variables may have an impact on student performance. Dismissing the environmental "issue" by casting blame and putting the burden of proof on the learner is unprofessional, bordering on unethical.

The lack of theoretical grounding and intuitive identification by teachers without awareness of aspects of giftedness and underachievement (Gross, 1999) limits information about potential remedies to the perceived problem of academic underachievement in schools. Broader and deeper understanding about the underachievement phenomenon is needed. Examining the issue through participant life experiences provides a means of beginning this process.

Underachievement theory in general, and applied to gifted students in particular, is grounded in an amorphous mix of what constitutes underachieving behaviors and performance. From one setting to another, large variances in student performance can be equally construed as underachievement. Being labeled as an underachiever is a subjective matter based on confounding empirical, perceptual, and intuitive evidence. This label follows students from grade to grade in school, beyond into life, and potentially impacts his or her self-concept. The research on gifted underachievers began by focusing on underachievement as something that could be cured from the outside in.

Gifted Underachievement

Research and theoretical studies on gifted individuals initially focused on identification and diagnosis. Quantitative research designs were the tradition in the sciences and psychology driving studies on the gifted such as those conducted by Terman beginning in 1921 and Hollingworth in the 1930s--who were trained in these research traditions (Hollingworth, 1942; Tannenbaum, 1983; Terman & Oden, 1947). The descriptions and intrigue generated by Terman and Oden's publication regarding the inability of subjects to reach their expected ability levels offered opportunities for behaviorists to apply their theories and procedures.

Terman's longitudinal study identified gifted underachievers, but other researchers were not able to replicate his study. Instead, behavioral researchers compared groups of gifted achievers, gifted nonachievers, normal achievers, and normal nonachievers to gather some foundational evidence regarding differences between these groups of individuals (Gowan, 1957; Kimball, 1953; Kurtz & Swenson, 1951; Morgan, 1952; Passow & Goldberg, 1958; Rust & Ryan, 1953).

The launch of Sputnik I resulted in increased attention to gifted students and increased federal funding for education. Research on the gifted became important as a solution to a national crisis in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Gifted individuals would help America regain leadership on the world's scientific and technological playing field (Tannenbaum, 1983).

Research foci were wide and varied but remained essentially diagnostic in nature regarding gifted underachievement studies. As Brophy noted in 1982, "for the most part, educational researchers have considered students only as objects of teacher activity" (p. 519). This "object focus" allowed the majority of gifted underachievers to remain hidden from view of the researchers. Without a blatant imbalance between ability and achievement demonstrated on standardized measures, gifted underachievers were able to submerge in classroom routines, without drawing attention to themselves.

Gifted underachievement remained a mysterious concoction of factors such as motivation, frustration, family relations, home backgrounds, mental health, and personality differences (Bachtold, 1969; Baymur & Patterson, 1960; Dunn, 1963; Durr & Collier, 1960; Gallagher & Rogge, 1966; Karnes, McCoy, Zehrbach, Wollersheim, & Clarizio, 1963; McGillivray, 1964; Morrow & Wilson, 1961; Perkins, 1965, 1969; Pierce & Bowman, 1960; Purkey, 1969; Raph, Goldberg, & Passow, 1966; Shaw & Black, 1960; Shaw & McCuen, 1960; Shouksmith & Taylor, 1964; Tetrault, 1965). In many cases, researchers focused on their specific specialty area as they explored underachieving tendencies. Rarely did they look to other areas of expertise to compare and contrast findings.

In the 1970s underachievement of the gifted was thought to be curable through counseling and guidance (Hojnacki, 1979; Jackson, Cleveland, & Merenda, 1975; O'Shea, 1970; Perkins & Wicas, 1971; Zilli, 1971; Ziv, Rimon, & Doni, 1977). Behavior modification and reinforcement, through group and individual counseling, could alleviate underachievement of the gifted (Zilli).

It was not until Whitmore conducted her study in Cupertino, California from 1965-1970 that a longitudinal study of underachievement and the impact of intervention provided recommendations and implications for meeting the special needs of underachieving gifted students (Whitmore, 1980). Interactions of students, teachers, and the learning environment, which had not been addressed by prior researchers, were the focus of analysis. The intent was to provide a holistic description of the young underachieving gifted student and describe intervention strategies showing promise in reducing or eliminating the underachievement phenomenon.

Whitmore's (1980) study provided a benchmark for future research. A teacher engaging in action research worked within the ecology of the classroom with students to alleviate a problem. The teacher in the classroom served a dual role as researcher and instructional designer (Shulman, 1986). However, Whitmore's seminal study on underachievement of young gifted individuals had limited impact on the field. The intent of her study was to prompt replication in other areas to broaden the knowledge base regarding gifted underachievers and test the recommendations that had resulted (J. R. Whitmore, personal communication, April 9, 1997). The intent remains unrealized.

Whitmore's (1980) study prompted publications by several authors specifically addressing underachievement both conceptually and theoretically (Delisle, 1982; Golicz, 1982; Pirozzo, 1982; Shoff, 1984; Shore et al., 1991). Yet few research studies (e.g., Gonzales & Hayes, 1988; Laffoon, Jenkins-Friedman, & Tollefson, 1989; Rimm, 1988) followed her innovative lead with the child as the focal point.

In 1982, a national report on identification practices for gifted and talented individuals (Richert, Alvino, & McDonnel, 1982) noted the drastic lack of identification protocols for underachieving gifted students and hence, their lack of inclusion in programs for the gifted and talented. This prompted a new wave of theoretical discussion about the needs of gifted underachievers and appropriate interventions as they related to existing knowledge from the literature (Compton, 1982; Delisle, 1982; Dowdall & Colangelo,...