ENCOURAGING ACHIEVEMENT - GIFTED EDUCATION RESOURCES

 UNDERACHIEVEMENT IN GIFTED EDUCATION

The Gifted Underachiever - Marching to a Different Drummer? ©1998 Talu Robertson

The purpose of this short talk is to facilitate reframing of the concept of gifted underachievement in an attempt to make some sense of how the phenomenon impacts the identification and education process of gifted students.

The purpose of this conference is to look at the state of the art in education regarding tests, measurements and evaluation. The state of the art as far as the student labeled and defined as gifted and underachieving appears to be caught in a net woven of perceptual strands that regard the underachievement phenomenon as a serious problem.

I believe that we are doing many of our gifted students a disservice when we first label them underachievers and then categorize them as problems. The use of the word under achievement is subjective. It is a value judgment made by one or more individuals regarding student performance. Moreover, it is difficult to separate the term underachievement from the words achievement as over achievement and the values attached to them.

A review of the literature on gifted underachievement by Dowdall and Colangelo in Gifted Child Quarterly (1982) revealed that there are problems with the research process that hinder the development of a clear picture of the phenomenon of gifted underachievement. they state that "the last twenty years of research on gifted underachievement has produced more confusion and circularity than clarity and direction."

One problem occurs when researchers attempt to define the term underachievement: the plethora of definitions almost insures that a unified perspective on the phenomenon will not be developed. Another problem emerges when researchers attempt to identify the populations to be examined. For example, there is wide variation in the range of base IQ used to identify the gifted population from which the underachieving gifted student is then identified. With differences in perception of what constitutes underachievement in a school-aged population and with differences in processes used to identify the gifted underachiever, the ability to design interventions to remediate the underachievement for these students then appears difficult.

Some areas of agreement within the field do appear:

My experience with gifted students who have been defined as gifted underachievers has led me to agree with the first three areas of common perception.

My concern is with the common perception of underachievement when it occurs in a gifted population as a problem, a pathology, a situation to be altered. The literature does not address in any depth just WHY underachievement is perceived of as a problem. Phrases such as "not working to potential", "not fulfilling ones responsibility to society", or "wasting a life" abound, without specifying just what is meant by those phrases or without demonstrating how the import of the statements is applicable to the student or students so labeled.

Who defines the criteria by which potential is reached? Who determines what responsibilities an individual owes to society and how they are met? Who determines the standards by which the quality of life is judged?

The literature does not appear to address these subjective issues. Nor does it appear to address the perceptions of the gifted underachievers around the issue of their underachievement although a large body of research is devoted to the seriousness of the phenomenon.

Given these gaps in the literature and given my observations of gifted students, the following thoughts and questions arise.

It is a given that the IQ of the gifted underachiever is high. It is frequently a given that the report card grades of such a student are low. Achievement test scores tend to be high, but there may be a discrepancy between the achievement score and the ability/potential score. Products may not evolve from the students assignments or other work. Homework tends to be sloppy, late, and with poor handwriting, if indeed, the homework is turned in at all. This data is incompatible with the criteria in general use for acceptance into gifted programs.

The very characteristics that are considered desirable in the producing, achieving gifted may then be viewed in a negative manner when applied to the non-producing gifted student. The ability to concentrate for long periods of time is seen as stubbornness, the need for logic is seen as being argumentative, the ability to tolerate ambiguity is seen as not being clear in goals, the pursuit of an out of school interest in depth is seen as rigidity in interest, the sensitivity to interpersonal relationships may be viewed as placing more emphasis on social life than academic work, and the movement from task to task in the quest for knowledge and/or self actualization without completion of the task is viewed as hyperactivity.

Current practices in the identification and selection of gifted students for program entrance hinge on the perception that achievement is a necessary component of giftedness at all times. I suggest that lack of achievement may also be a necessary component of giftedness for some children and therefore viewed as one of many characteristics common to the gifted child.

These children appear to me to be caught in a bind. Because they are not producing in school, or are using their gifts in a non-traditional manner, they may not be accepted into gifted programs on the basis of current identification and selection criteria. In essence, they are being placed in a position known as Blaming the Victim.

Might it be possible that the gifted underachiever is merely marching to a different drummer, and that during this march, the student needs from the family system, the school system or the community system, something that can be neither objectively measured nor subjectively observed?

Might it be possible that such items as achievement, product and homework are to important to the children labeled as underachievers?

Might it be possible that there is a need on the part of these children to sample a variety of academic and extracurricular wares before settling down to "achievement"? Might it be possible that this need for life experiences extends well beyond the school years, and that such gifted children integrate and synthesize their experiences in adulthood rather than in the high school years as they are expected to do now?

I suggest to you that the label of underachievement placed on some gifted youngsters is a means by which we, the adults, attempt consciously or unconsciously, to mold the gifted young person into our vision of what a gifted person should be, offering them home and educational experiences which perhaps are inappropriate for their developmental and educational needs.

I would also suggest, with some hesitation, that we the experts in the field, might just be a bit apprehensive about the gifted child who may neither need nor accept our teaching or guidance.

The problem might be reframed to be that of the adult who carries around certain perceptions of giftedness and of the gifted child as well as perceptions around the roles and relationships between adult and child. Once the gifted child is relieved of performing to standards imposed by others, underachievement becomes a mute issue. The vocal issue is that of providing appropriate services to the gifted student without mention of achievement.

The phenomenon of gifted underachievement as currently defined is apparent in the early school years. However, the high school years tend to magnify the issue as adolescents are being urged to make choices around further education, careers, and future life-styles. It might be suggested that this would be a good time to listen to adolescents who have been labeled underachievers to find out how they feel about the phenomenon and how it relates to their lives.

It has been my experience that these students are not particularly concerned about their underachievement except for the fact that it may make their parents and other significant people unhappy. They are concerned about their choices in life, their need to explore a variety of options regarding their lives and their ability to reconcile their current life experience with their perceptions of the future. They appear to have a strong need to determine their own futures.

It is my experience that many of these gifted students are not clear as to their future aspirations and goals. They appear to be in need of significant space and time in which to make their decisions around life around life issues.

Different drummers produce different music. Marching to a different drummer may produce a different, more interesting, more exciting, more integrated person when that person is given the opportunity to complete the march.

Gifted Children are as different from one another as they are from the general population. Let us as educators acknowledge that difference and act accordingly. As we work with those children labeled "underachievers", let us look carefully at those characteristics and qualities of the children that lead us to paste on the label of underachiever and determine whether the label is theirs or ours.

Robert Coles might suggest that we begin listening to their stories, hearing what they have to say rather than telling them how we want their stories to be read. I will paraphrase Robert Coles and suggest that we begin listening to the composition, music and beat of those carrying the drum labeled gifted underachiever in order to facilitate their development into healthy, independent, full functioning adulthood.

Talu Robertson, Ed.D.; Department of Education
Antioch New England Graduate School
40 Avon Street
Keene, NH 03431
(603) 357-3122