Underachievement in Gifted and Talented
Students with Special Needs
Sally M. Reis, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Educational Psychology
reis@uconnvm.uconn.edu
D.
Betsy McCoach
Researcher,
Department of Educational Psychology
U-7,
(ph) 860.486.0618
(fax) 860.486.2900
Abstract
Talented
students underachieve for many reasons and in many different circumstances and
there is no panacea for how to reverse underachievement in students whose
talents may manifest themselves in diverse ways. High potential students with special needs are likely to
experience underachievement as efforts to address these needs may focus more on
remediation of difficulties and less on development of areas of strength and
talent. It is crucial for educators to
differentiate between issues related to academic motivation and special needs
related to students' disabilities that may be unrecognized by many classroom
teachers. In this article, research
about twice exceptional talented students who underachieve is summarized and suggestions
about interventions are made.
Why do so many talented students fail to
realize their potential? For years, the
underachievement of gifted and talented students has troubled both parents and
educators. Too often, students who show
great academic potential fail to perform at a level commensurate with their
abilities. Some underachieving students
may lack self-efficacy, goal-directedness, or self-regulation skills (Siegle
& McCoach, 2001); other low achievers may suffer from either obvious or
hidden disabilities. Still others may
underachieve in response to inappropriate educational conditions or
environments.
Attempting to define any overarching
psychological constructs that describe high potential underachieving students
is virtually impossible, as they constitute a very diverse population. Instead of summarizing the negative
characteristics commonly ascribed to underachievers, we shift the focus to the
positive attributes of students with talents.
In their research about gifted students from diverse backgrounds,
Frasier and Passow (1994) refer to “general/common attributes of
giftedness”—traits, aptitudes, and behaviors consistently identified by
researchers as common to all gifted students. They note that these basic elements
of giftedness are similar across cultures and exceptionalities (though each is
not displayed by every student). A listing of these attributes may be found in
Table 1.
______________________________________________________________________________
Table
1
Common
Attributes of Giftedness
• motivation •
advanced interests
• communication skills •
problem-solving ability
• well-developed memory •
inquiry
• insight •
reasoning
• imagination/creativity • sense of
humor
• advanced ability to deal with
symbol systems
______________________________________________________________________________
(Frasier
& Passow, 1994)
Each
of these common characteristics may be manifested in different ways in
different students, and educators should be especially careful in attempting to
identify these characteristics in students with special needs or
exceptionalities or from diverse backgrounds (i.e., disadvantaged, different
ethnic or racial backgrounds, etc.) as specific behavioral manifestations of
the characteristics may vary with context (Frasier & Passow, 1994).
Defining gifted underachievement
Defining
gifted underachievement should be a fairly straightforward task. Unfortunately, just as there is no
universally agreed upon definition of gifted and talented learners, no
universal definition of gifted underachievement currently exists. Students identified as gifted and talented
learners are not a homogeneous group.
Several researchers who have studied gifted and talented learners agree
that "...there is no one portrait of a gifted student. Talents and
strengths among the gifted vary as widely as they do with any sample of
students drawn from a so-called average population" (Schmitz &
Galbraith, 1985, p. 13). The most
common component of the various definitions of gifted underachievement involves
identifying a discrepancy between ability and achievement (Baum, Renzulli, & Hebert, 1995;
Butler-Por, 1987; Dowdall and Colangelo, 1982; Emerick, 1992; Redding, 1990;
Rimm, 1997; Supplee, 1990; Whitmore, 1980; Wolfle, 1991). For a thorough review
of issues surrounding the definition and identification of underachievement in
gifted students, see Reis and McCoach (2000).
Causes of underachievement in gifted students
Determining
why some high ability students demonstrate low levels of achievement is
difficult because underachievement occurs for many different reasons. However, practitioners must explore the
causes of students’ underachievement if they wish to help these children. We believe that in the vast majority of
cases, the underachievement of bright students occurs for one of three basic
reasons.
(1)
An apparent underachievement problem masks more serious physical, cognitive, or
emotional issues.
(2)
The underachievement is symptomatic of a mismatch between the student and his
or her school environment (Siegle &
McCoach, 2001).
(3)
Underachievement results from a personal characteristic such as low
self-motivation, low self-regulation, or low self-efficacy (McCoach & Siegle,
in press; Reis & McCoach, 2000; ).
Each
of these causes for underachievement may require a different intervention. Therefore, educators should attempt to
isolate the reason for students behaviors before attempting to reverse the
underachievement. The ramifications of
mismatching the causes and treatments of underachievement can be quite serious,
as we illustrate in this article.
Case
Studies of Underachievement in Students with Gifts and Talents
Sara
is a fifth grade student who has recently experienced learning problems in
school for the first time. Her teacher
and the reading specialist referred her for assessment because of an obvious
discrepancy between her verbal skills and her reading and writing skills. A battery of tests indicated an IQ score of
129; however, large discrepancy existed between verbal and performance
areas. Sara has poor decoding skills,
below the second grade level, but manages to read at or slightly below grade
level. As her textbooks have become
more challenging, her reading has become more labored. Her parents are surprised at her sudden
decline in school. She always seemed so
smart, and they never noticed a discrepancy between her verbal skills and her
reading and writing skills until this year.
They indicate that Sara was born prematurely by seven weeks. Further assessment indicates that she is a
very bright student who has significant learning disabilities in reading,
information processing, and auditory processing areas. Without this information, Sara’s grades most
likely would have continued to slip and her reading, failed to progress. If she had not been identified as learning
disabled, she may have been labeled as an underachiever. Perhaps her teachers would have said that
she was “bright but unmotivated.”
Sean
is a third grader who seems bored and disinterested in all academics most of
the time in school. He fidgets
constantly, is in trouble often for being “off-task” and has been referred for
assessment as having attention deficit/hyperactivity order (ADHD) for the last
three years. His teacher reports that
he rarely finishes his seatwork, daydreams often, and is in danger of not
learning basic information required by the district and state curriculum
standards. Sean’s mother, a
pediatrician, does not believe that he has ADHD, but rather, that he is not
challenged and is not provided enough opportunities for movement in his
traditional school environment. Sean
and his father, who also has an extremely high energy level, frequently build
intricate rockets together. Sean can
sit quietly for hours when he is engaged in challenging work of his own
selection. Sean tested at the 99th
percentile in general aptitude but his work in school is often below
average. Is Sean failing school, or is
the school failing Sean?
Recent research indicates that many “twice exceptional” students
underachieve in elementary and secondary school settings (Reis, Neu &
McGuire, 1996). Unfortunately, “the
current conceptualization and the literature on the underachieving gifted and
on special populations (such as gifted/LD, gifted/ADD or ADHD, gifted students
with physical disabilities or behavioral or emotional problems) appear to treat
the two groupings as separate and unrelated” (Lupart & Pyryt, 1996, p.
39-40). A study of high ability
students with learning disabilities who were successful in higher education
found that many experienced periods of underachievement in elementary and high
school (Reis, Neu & McGuire, 1996).
Some high ability students have learning or emotional problems that
affect underachievement. In this article, we review various disabilities and
disorders that may cause gifted children to underachieve in school. In other articles in this journal, some of
these areas of exceptionality are covered in greater detail. Interventions that do not address the
special needs of these students could do more harm than good. Therefore, practitioners must consider these
possible areas of exceptionality when trying to reverse students’
underachievement behaviors.
Gifted students with hearing
disabilities. Children with hearing impairments were
judged by teachers to exhibit similar characteristics of giftedness to hearing
peers, except for academic achievement, which may be delayed for four or five
years. Yewchuk and Bibby (1989) concluded that “giftedness in both hearing and
hearing impaired populations is manifested in similar ways” (p. 48), i.e., in
eagerness to learn, visual skills, superior recall, quick understanding,
superior reasoning ability, or expressive language. Little research has
addressed this area.
High potential students with
cerebral palsy. Willard-Holt (1994) explored the experiences of two talented students with cerebral palsy
who were not able to communicate with speech. Using qualitative cross-case
methodology, she found that these students demonstrated the following
characteristics of giftedness: advanced academic abilities (especially math and
verbal skills), broad knowledge base, quickness of learning and recall, sense
of humor, curiosity, insight, desire for independence, use of intellectual
skills to cope with disability, and maturity (shown in high motivation, goal
orientation, determination, patience, and recognition of their own limitations).
Several educational factors contributed to the development of these
characteristics in these students such as willingness of the teachers to
accommodate for the disabilities, mainstreaming with non-disabled students,
individualization and opportunities for student choice, and hands-on
experiences. Generally, when faced with
an extreme disability such as cerebral palsy, educators are much more likely to
focus on the students’ areas of weakness rather than their areas of
strength. It is important that we
enable seriously disabled students to have the opportunity to show us their
strengths and intellectual abilities.
Gifted and talented students with
learning disabilities.
During the last two decades, increasing attention has been given to the perplexing
problem of high ability/talented students who also have learning disabilities.
The specific research concerning high ability students with learning
disabilities began following the passage of PL 94-142, when the expanded
emphasis on the education of students with disabilities created an interest in
students who were both gifted and also demonstrated learning disabilities.
Although the fields of gifted education and special education have collaborated
to address the needs of students with gifts and learning disabilities, problems
still exist regarding the identification and provision of support services and
programs for this population. Research on high ability students with learning
disabilities continues to be difficult because of problems in defining each
population, but one thing is certain: high ability students who experience
specific learning difficulties often underachieve.
Baum and Owen (1988), conducted a study
of 112 high ability, average ability, and high ability / LD students in grades
four through six. Using discriminant
function analysis, they found that the major characteristic distinguishing high
ability/LD students from both LD/average and high ability (non-LD) groups was a
heightened sense of inefficacy in school. The high ability/LD students in their
study displayed high levels of creative potential, along with a tendency to
behave disruptively and to achieve low levels of academic success, resulting in
underachievement. Also, 36% of the
students in their study who had been identified as having a learning disability
simultaneously demonstrated behaviors associated with giftedness. Baum (1990)
later identified four recommendations for gifted students with learning
disabilities: (1) encourage compensation strategies, (2) promote awareness of
strengths and weaknesses, (3) focus on developing the child’s gift, and (4)
provide an environment that values individual differences.
After a thorough review of the
literature on gifted/LD students and the completion of a study of university
students with both high abilities and learning disabilities, Reis, Neu, and
McGuire (1995) compiled positive and negative characteristics of gifted/LD
students in Table 2. The negative
characteristics, which are often the result of the interaction of the student's
high abilities and his or her learning disabilities, may hamper students’
identification as gifted.
Some high ability students with
reading disabilities may display characteristics such as high verbal and/or
visual-motor aptitude, creativity, boredom with grade level or below grade
level reading, variable scores on achievement tests in reading sections,
improved performance with compensation strategies (heard information, word
processor, spell-checkers, additional time for assignments), low tolerance for
frustration with rote/drill reading tasks, possible inattention, and
unrealistically high or low self-concept (Hishinuma & Tadaki, 1996). High
ability students with math disabilities may display characteristics such as
high verbal aptitude, creativity, boredom with grade level or below grade level
math, variable scores on achievement tests in math sections, improved
performance with compensation (emphasis on word problems, calculator use,
additional time for assignments), low tolerance for frustration with rote/drill
math tasks, possible inattention, and unrealistically high or low self-concept
(Hishinuma & Tadaki, 1996).
Students who exhibit characteristics
of both gifted and learning disabled populations pose quandaries for educators.
The misconceptions, definitions, and expected outcomes for these types of
students further complicate the issues facing appropriate programming for this
population (Baum, Owen, & Dixon, 1991; Olenchak & Renzulli, 1989;
Whitmore, 1986). Both teachers of the gifted and teachers of students with
learning disabilities are more aware of these students' special needs, yet most
school districts have no provision for intervention programs for this group
(Boodoo et al., 1989). Because gifted and
talented students who are underachieving may suffer from undiagnosed learning
disabilities (Baum, Owen, & Dixon, 1991), it is important to consider the
possibility that a specific learning disability may be responsible for a
student’s underachievement.
Table 2
Characteristics of
Gifted Students with Learning Disabilities
Characteristics Which
Hamper Identification as Gifted
• Frustration with inability to
master certain academic skill
• Learned helplessness
• General lack of motivation
• Disruptive classroom behavior
• Perfectionism
• Supersensitivity
• Failure to complete assignments
• Lack of organizational skills
• Demonstration of poor listening
and concentration skills
• Deficiency in tasks emphasizing
memory and perceptual abilities
• Low self-esteem
• Unrealistic self-expectations
• Absence of social skills with some
peers
Characteristic
Strengths
•
Advanced vocabulary use
• Exceptional analytic abilities
• High levels of creativity
• Advanced problem solving skills
• Ability to think of divergent ideas
and solutions
• Specific aptitude (artistic,
musical, or mechanical)
• Wide variety of interests
• Good memory
• Task commitment
• Spatial abilities
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
(adapted from Reis,
Neu, & McGuire, 1995)
Gifted
children and ADHD. Children with ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder) and gifted children may exhibit similar behaviors (e.g., inattention,
high energy level, impulsivity).
Mounting evidence seems to suggest that many children identified as
having ADHD are also very bright, creative children (Cramond, 1995; Webb &
Latimer, 1993) and that many gifted children exhibit symptoms similar to those
seen in ADHD children when they are bored or unchallenged. Talented students
may experience inattention when they are not appropriately challenged, but they
may demonstrate a high energy level in areas of intense interest.
Although similarities exist between the
behaviors of gifted students and ADHD students, some of the defining features
of ADHD are not usually associated with giftedness. ADHD children usually show variability in the quality of their
performance on specific tasks, whereas gifted students are more consistent with
their level of effort and performance especially when they are interested and
challenged. For example, a defining feature of ADHD is that a child has
difficulty sustaining attention in most effortful tasks, and they struggle to
persist in tasks to completion
(American Psychiatric Association, 2000). In contrast, gifted students may tire easily of boring,
repetitive, unchallenging activities; however, they can usually sustain focused
attention when they are working on challenging tasks of their own choosing. Continuously reinforcing and automatic
activities such as video games or television do not differentiate children who
are ADHD from their non-ADHD peers (Kaufman, Kalbfleisch, & Castellanos,
2000). In addition, to be diagnosed as
ADHD, the impulsive, hyperactive, or inattentive behaviors must occur in at
least two or more settings (such as home and school) (American Psychiatric
Association, 2000). Usually, parents of
gifted students without ADHD report that their children can concentrate, sustain
attention, and behave appropriately for long periods of time at home or during
extracurricular activities. To
distinguish whether a gifted student may also have ADHD, the school and home
situation and settings must be closely monitored because gifted children
typically will not display similar behaviors in all settings (i.e., home,
school, music lessons, etc.), whereas ADHD children will exhibit disordered
behavior in most or all environments.
Giftedness and ADHD may co-occur in the same child. A careful professional evaluation is needed
to make this diagnosis, followed by appropriate medical, psychological, and
curricular and instructional modifications (Webb & Latimer, 1993). Of course, the doctor should consider the
behavioral characteristics associated with giftedness when determining whether
behavior patterns stem from ADHD.
Gifted
Students with Behavioral Problems
Gifted students with emotional and
behavior problems are not often referred for gifted programs, or they are
terminated from gifted programs because of their behavior (Reid & McGuire,
1995). These children often experience
periods of underachievement (Reid & McGuire, 1995). Neu (1993) conducted a study of talented
students with these types of problems and found a variety of issues that
characterize their experiences. Most of
the participants in Neu’s studies of talented students with social and
emotional problems were underchallenged in school, thus escalating their
emotional and behavioral problems. Many
of these students had the most difficulty during classroom “dead time,” when
these talented students waited for instruction that would challenge them while
their chronological peers finished their work.
In a review of the sparse research on this population, Reid and McGuire
(1995) found that many talented students with behavioral problems drop out of
high school, and are not recommended for gifted programs. As a result of their emotional and
behavioral disorders, “students often unpredictably engage and disengage in
learning opportunities, resulting in inconsistencies in academic skills and
knowledge foundations” (Reid &
McGuire, 1995). More research is needed
on this population.
Gifted
Students with psychological issues
Contary to myth and popular opinion, the
prevalence of psychological disorders is similar within gifted and non-gifted
populations (Niehart, 1999; Neihart, Reis, Robinson & Moon, 2001). Students who are experiencing acute
psychological distress may experience sudden, severe underachievement. Students who have a psychological condition
may become chronic underachievers. Many
serious psychological illnesses such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder have
their onset in early to late adolescence (American Psychiatric Association,
2000). In one such case, a highly
gifted girl who was chronic underachiever received help to try to improve her
scholastic success for three years. It
was not until the girl attempted to commit suicide in the middle of ninth grade
that anyone considered taking her to a psychologist or a psychiatrist. A psychological assessment revealed that she
suffered from bipolar disorder, and as her treatment progressed, her academic
performance improved (McCoach, in preparation). It is important for educators to be aware of signs of psychological
distress, and to refer students who may be experiencing psychological problems
to the school counselor or the school psychologist.
The
overexcitability of gifted children
Some gifted students have been described
as having emotional intensity and emotional sensitivity. Dabrowski (1938) suggested that gifted
children release emotional tension through five overexcitabilities
(intellectual, imaginational, emotional, psychomotor, and sensual). A recent
qualitative case study by Tucker and Hafenstein (1997) with five young gifted
children provided evidence of the existence of the five overexcitabilities in
these children via manifestations of behaviors associated with the
overexcitabilities. These young children displayed the behaviors listed in
Table 3.
______________________________________________________________________________
Table
3
Overexcitability
Behaviors
• Intellectual overexcitability
behaviors—curiosity, asking probing questions, concentration, problem solving,
theoretical thinking
• Imaginational overexcitability
behaviors—fantasy play, imaginative thinking, daydreaming, dramatic perception
• Emotional overexcitability
behaviors—concern for others, timidity and shyness, fear and anxiety, intensity
of feeling
• Psychomotor overexcitability
behaviors—marked enthusiasm, rapid speech, impulsive actions
• Sensual overexcitability
behaviors—sensory pleasures, appreciation of sensory aspects of experiences
______________________________________________________________________________
(From
Tucker and Hafenstein,1997)
These results support the work of
Dabrowski (1938), and may serve as a guideline for possible behaviors of other
gifted students with special needs. It
seems possible that some underachievers may exhibit one or more of these
overexcitabilities. Teachers who
understand Dabrowski’s theory, and who construct a learning environment that is
respectful of these overexcitabilities may be able to prevent the
underachievement of at least some gifted and talented students.
Identifying
and serving gifted underachievers
Some professionals may try to gauge an age/performance
discrepancy when identifying underachievers (Mandel & Marcus, 1995). In other words, they may not identify a
student as an underachiever unless performance in at least one major content
area is at least one year below grade level.
Although this may be a suitable method for identifying underachievers
from the general school population, such an age performance discrepancy will
only identify the most severely underachieving gifted students. One would expect a gifted student’s
performance to be above grade level in some subject areas, especially those
areas in which he or she has been identified as gifted. When a gifted student is performing at grade
level in those subject areas, there may be cause for concern.
The criteria for identifying students as learning disabled
usually involves identifying a significant discrepancy between ability and
individual standardized achievement test scores. In some states, the achievement test scores must be at least two
years below grade level in at least one subject area in order to identify the
student as learning disabled. The
probability of identifying a young gifted student as learning disabled using
such a method is minuscule. Using a
similar identification method to identify gifted underachievers presents the
similar problem of under-identification.
For example, Sara, the young girl described in the earlier case study
was identified as gifted in the primary grades because of verbal precocity,
high IQ scores, and advanced performance in all content areas. She began to have difficulty in reading as
she grew older, and reading became more challenging. In first grade, she had been reading at a third grade level and
in third grade, she was still reading at a third grade level. Unfortunately, she was not identified as
learning disabled, or even as an underachiever at that time. By fifth grade, she was slightly below grade
level in reading and beginning to have difficulty in mathematics as well. She was later identified as having a
learning disability despite working at or only slightly below grade level.
The causes and correlates of gifted underachievement
have received considerable attention in recent research literature (Dowdall
& Colangelo, 1982; Van Boxtel & Monks, 1992; Whitmore, 1986); however,
research on effective intervention models for this population remains scarce.
Although conducting case studies and qualitative research on underachieving
gifted students has become quite popular, very few researchers have attempted
to utilize true quasi-experimental designs to study the efficacy of various
interventions. Most of the interventions reported in the literature (Supplee,
1991,Whitmore, 1980) were designed to effect immediate results with a group of
acutely underachieving gifted students.
Ethically, it may be difficult to have a true comparison group in such
studies because the researcher must withhold treatment that he or she believes
is valuable for underachieving gifted students.
The documented effectiveness of most interventions
designed to reverse underachievement in gifted students has been inconsistent
and inconclusive (Emerick, 1992).
Furthermore, the majority of interventions have attained limited
long-term success (Dowdall & Colangelo, 1982; Emerick, 1992). Interventions aimed at reversing gifted
underachievement fall into two general categories: counseling and instructional
interventions (Butler-Por, 1993; Dowdall & Colangelo, 1982).
Counseling interventions concentrate on changing the
personal and / or family dynamics that contribute to a student's
underachievement. Counseling
interventions may include individual, group, and / or family counseling (Jeon,
1990). In most counseling situations,
the counselor's goal is not to force the underachiever to become more
successful student, but rather to help the student decide whether success is a
desirable goal, and if so, to help reverse counterproductive habits and
cognitions.
The most well known educational interventions for
gifted are either part-time or full-time special classrooms for gifted
underachievers (e.g. Butler-Por,
1987; Supplee, 1990; Whitmore, 1980). In these classrooms, educators strive to
create a favorable environment for student achievement by altering the traditional
classroom organization. Usually, a smaller student/teacher ratio usually
exists, teachers create less conventional types of teaching and learning
activities, teachers give students some choice and freedom in exercising
control over their atmosphere, and students are encouraged to utilize different
learning strategies.
Whitmore (1980) designed and implemented a full-time
elementary program for gifted underachievers.
Supplee (1990) instituted a part-time program for gifted elementary
underachievers. Both programs stressed
the importance of addressing affective education as well as the necessity of
creating student-centered classroom environments. However, neither study used a
control or comparison group; therefore, the results of their studies may not be
generalizable to the entire population of underachievers.
Emerick (1992) investigated the reasons that some
students are able to reverse their academic underachievement without the
assistance of formal interventions. Her
qualitative research study examined the patterns of underachievement and
subsequent achievement of 10 young adults.
Several common factors appeared to play a part in the students' reversal
of underachievement. Participants in
Emerick's study perceived that out of school interests and activities, parents,
development of goals associated with grades, teachers, and changes in
"selves" had a positive impact on achievement.
Other
research also suggests that students who are more involved in extracurricular
activities (Colangelo et al, 1993, Reis et al, 1995) are less likely to be
underachievers. All participants in
Emerick's study believed that a specific teacher had the greatest impact in
reversing their underachievement behavior.
In addition, participants were most likely to develop
achievement-oriented behaviors when they were stimulated in class and given the
opportunity to pursue topics of interest to them. These findings suggest that "reversing the underachievement
pattern may mean taking a long, hard look at the underachiever's curriculum and
classroom situation. The responses and
actions of the students in this study suggest that when appropriate educational
opportunities are present, gifted underachievers can respond positively" (p.
145).
Emerick's study indicates that one type of effective intervention may be
based on students' strengths and interests (Renzulli, 1977; Renzulli &
Reis, 1985, 1997). In a recent study,
researchers used self-selected Type III enrichment projects as a systematic
intervention for underachieving gifted students. This approach (Renzulli, 1977)
specifically targets student strengths and interests in order to help reverse
academic underachievement (Baum, Renzulli, & Hebert, 1995). In a qualitative study of this intervention
technique, five major features of the Type III enrichment process contributed
to the success of the intervention.
These factors were the relationship with the teacher, the use of
self-regulation strategies, the opportunity to investigate topics related to
their underachievement, the opportunity to work on an area of interest in a
preferred learning style, and the time to interact with an appropriate peer
group appeared to improve achievement.
Almost all of the students who completed type III investigations showed
some positive gains in either behavior or achievement during the course of the
school year. Eleven of the 17
participants showed improved achievement, 13 of the 17 students appeared to
exert more effort within their classes, and 4 of the 17 students showed marked
improvement in their classroom behavior.
The results of this research suggest that flexible student-centered
enrichment approaches may help reverse underachievement in gifted students.
These interventions should be considered in view of the populations that
were involved in the studies. None of
these interventions, for example, focused solely on high potential students
with other exceptionalities (such as learning disabilities or physical
disabilities who were underachieving in schools. Interventions uniquely designed for students with dual
exceptionalities might need to involve a wider variety of strategies such as
teaching self-regulatory and/or compensatory skills and opportunities to
develop a stronger sense of self as well as increasing self-concept.
Conclusion
We do not know how many students with special needs
underachieve nor do we really know how many students with special needs have
hidden talents and abilities. It is
time for further research and inquiry in this area so that students with
special needs who are underachieving in our nation receive more attention and
programmatic interventions. Educators must explore the various reasons for high
ability students’ underachievement if they hope to help combat
underachievement. Practitioners should
try to determine whether a student’s underachievement stems from (1) more
serious physical, cognitive, or emotional issues, (2) a mismatch between the
student and his or her school environment or (3) a personal characteristic such
as low self-motivation, low self-regulation, or low self-efficacy. Then, educators should develop appropriate
intervention strategies that address the specific area of need exhibited by the
student in question. When we
differentiate treatments to meet the needs of underachievers, we will more
effectively combat the problem of underachievement within our schools.
Bibliography
American Psychiatric Association. (2000).
Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, Fourth
Edition, Text Revision. Washington, D.
C.: American Psychiatric Association.
Baum, S. (1990). Gifted but learning
disabled: A puzzling paradox. ERIC Digest #E479. Reston, VA: Council for
Exceptional Children.
Baum, S. & Owen, S. V. (1988). High
ability/learning disabled students: How are they different? Gifted Child
Quarterly, 32(3), 321-325.
Baum, S., Owen, S. V., & Dixon, J.
(1991). To be gifted and learning disabled: From definitions to practical
intervention strategies. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Baum, S., Renzulli, J. S., & Hebert,
T. P. (1995). The prism metaphor: A
new paradigm for reversing underachievement. (Collaborative Research Study 95310) Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and
Talented.
Boodoo, G. M., Bradley, C. L., Frontera,
R. L., Pitts, J. R., & Wright, L. P. (1989). A survey of procedures used
for identifying gifted learning disabled children. Gifted Child Quarterly,
33(3), 110-114.
Butler-Por, N. (1987). Underachievers
in school: Issues and intervention.
Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons.
Colangelo, N.,
Kerr, B., Christensen, P., & Maxey, J.
(1993). A comparison of gifted
underachievers and gifted high achievers.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 155-160.
Cramond, B. (1995). The coincidence of
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and creativity. Storrs, CT:
University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and
Talented.
Dabrowski, K. (1938). Typy wzmozonej
pobudliwosci psychicznej (Types of increased psychic excitability). Biul.
Inst. Hig. Psychicznej, 1(3-4), 3-26.
Diaz, E. I. (1998). Perceived factors
influencing the academic underachievement of talented students of Puerto Rican
descent. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42
(2), 105-122.
Dowdall, C. B., & Collangelo, N.
(1982). Underachieving gifted
students: Review and implications. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 26 (4), 179-184.
Emerick,
L. J. (1992). Academic underachievement among the gifted: Students' perceptions of factors that
reverse the pattern. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 36, 140-146.
Frasier,
M. M., & Passow, A. H. (1994). Towards a new paradigm for identifying
talent potential. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, The National
Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Frasier,
M. M., García, J. H., & Passow, A. H. (1995). A review of assessment
issues in gifted education and their implications for identifying gifted
minority students. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, The National
Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Hishinuma, E., & Tadaki, S. (1996).
Addressing diversity of the gifted/at risk: Characteristics for identification.
Gifted Child Today, 19(5), 20-25, 28-29, 45, 50.
Jeon, K. (1990).
Counseling and guidance for gifted underachievers. Paper presented at the First Southeast Asian
Regional Conference on Giftedness, August 14-19, 1990. Manila,
Philippines. (ERIC Document Delivery
Service ED328051).
Kaufman, F., Kalbfleisch, M. L., &
Castellanos, F. X. (2000). Attention deficit disorders and gifted students:
What do we really know? Storrs, CT:
The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Lupart, J. L., & Pyryt (1996).
“Hidden gifted” students: Underachiever prevalence and profile. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,
20 (1), 36-53.
Mandel, H. P. & Marcus, S. I.
(1995). Could do better. New York: Wiley & Sons, Inc.
McCoach, D. B. & Siegle, D. (in
press). Factors that differentiate
underachieving gifted students from high achieving gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly.
Neu, T. W. (1993). Case studies of gifted students with
emotional or behavioral disorders.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Olenchak, F. R., & Renzulli, J. S.
(1989). The effectiveness of the schoolwide enrichment model on selected
aspects of elementary school change. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33(1),
36-46.
Reid, B. D. & McGuire, M. D.
(1995). Square pegs in round holes –
These kids don’t fit: High ability students with behavioral problems. (RBDM 9512) Storrs, CT: National Research
Center for the Gifted and Talented.
Reis, S. M., Hebert, T. P., Diaz, E. P.,
Maxfield, L. R., & Ratley, M. E. (1995).
Case studies of talented students who achieve and underachieve in an
urban high school. (Research
Monograph 95120) Storrs, CT: National
Research Center for the Gifted and Talented.
Reis, S. M. & McCoach, D. B.
(2000). The underachievement of gifted
students: What do we know and where do we go?
Gifted Child Quarterly, 44,
152-170.
Reis, S. M., Neu, T. W., & McGuire,
J. M. (1995). Talent in two places: Case studies of high ability students
with learning disabilities who have achieved. Storrs, CT: University of
Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The Enrichment Triad Model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1985). The schoolwide enrichment model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press, Inc.
Renzulli, J. S.
& Reis, S. M. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model: A comprehensive
plan for educational excellence (2nd ed.). Mansfield Center: Creative
Learning Press, Inc.
Rimm, S. (1997). Underachievement Syndome: A national
epidemic. In N. Colangelo and G. A.
Davis (Eds.) Handbook of Gifted
Education. (2nd ed.,
pp. 416-435). Boston, MA: Allyn
and Bacon.
Schmitz,
C. C., & Galbraith, J. (1985). Managing the social and emotional needs
of the gifted: A teacher's survival guide. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit
Publishing.
Siegle, D. & McCoach, D. B.
(2001). Promoting a positive
achievement attitude with gifted and talented students. The social and emotional development of
gifted children: What do we know?
Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Supplee, P. L. (1990). Reaching the gifted underachiever.
New York: Teacher’s College Press.
Tucker, B., & Hafenstein, N. L.
(1997). Psychological intensities in young gifted children. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 41(3), 66-75.
Van Boxtel, H. W.,
& Monks, F. J. (1992). General, social, and academic self-concepts
of gifted adolescents. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 21, 169-186.
Whitmore, J. (1986). Conceptualizing the
issue of underserved populations of gifted students. Journal for the Education
of the Gifted, 10(3), 141-153.
Whitmore, J. R. (1980). Giftedness, conflict, and
underachievement. Boston: Allen
& Bacon.
Whitmore, J. R. (1986). Understanding a lack of motivation to
excel. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30
(2), 66-69.
Willard-Holt,
C. (1994). Recognizing talent: Cross-case study of two high potential
students with cerebral palsy. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, The
National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Wolfle, J. A. (1991). Underachieving gifted males: Are we missing
the boat? Roeper Review, 13 (4),
181-184.
Yewchuk, C. R., & Bibby, M. A. (1989). Identification of giftedness in
severely and profoundly hearing impaired students. Roeper Review, 12(1),
42-48.