Abstract
The aims of this work were to identify and establish differential characteristics in learning strategies, goal orientations, and self-concept between overachieving, normal-achieving and underachieving secondary students. A total of 1400 Spanish first and second year high school students from the South-East geographical area participated in this study. Three groups of students were established: a group with underachieving students, a group with a normal level of achievement, and a third group with overachieving students. The students were assigned to each group depending on the residual punctuations obtained from a multiple regression analysis in which the punctuation of an IQ test was the predictor and a measure composed of the school grades of nine subjects was the criteria. The results of one-way ANOVA and the Games-Howell post-hoc test showed that underachieving students had significantly lower punctuations in all of the measures of learning strategies and learning goals, as well as all of the academic self-concept, personal self-concept, parental relationship, honesty, and personal stability factors. In contrast, overachieving students had higher punctuations than underachieving students in the same variables and higher punctuations than normal-achieving students in most of the variables in which significant differences were detected. These results have clear educational implications.
Highlights
No definition for underachievement has been accepted by the entire scientific community (McCoach and Siegle, 2011)
Overachieving, Normal-Achieving, Underachieving Students: Characteristics focused on underachieving gifted students (Chan, 1999; Ziegler and Stoeger, 2003; Dixon et al, 2006; Obergriesser and Stoeger, 2015), especially in the United States (Reis and McCoach, 2000; McCoach and Siegle, 2003a; Figg et al, 2012; Reis and Greene, 2014); the authors of the present work, in agreement with Dittrich (2014), support the assertion that underachievement is not reserved to gifted students but to all students situated at various intelligence levels, as they are influenced by personal factors, family-related factors, and school-related factors
The regression method employed to identify underachieving students indicated a percentage of 16%, which is similar to rates in other studies (Lau and Chan, 2001; Colangelo et al, 2004; Phillipson, 2008); a nearly identical percentage was found for overachieving students
Summary
No definition for underachievement has been accepted by the entire scientific community (McCoach and Siegle, 2011). Overachieving, Normal-Achieving, Underachieving Students: Characteristics focused on underachieving gifted students (Chan, 1999; Ziegler and Stoeger, 2003; Dixon et al, 2006; Obergriesser and Stoeger, 2015), especially in the United States (Reis and McCoach, 2000; McCoach and Siegle, 2003a; Figg et al, 2012; Reis and Greene, 2014); the authors of the present work, in agreement with Dittrich (2014), support the assertion that underachievement is not reserved to gifted students but to all students situated at various intelligence levels, as they are influenced by personal factors, family-related factors, and school-related factors The treatment of these factors through educational interventions could lead to a better self-concept and academic achievement (Rodríguez et al, 2014; Álvarez et al, 2015; Veas et al, 2015)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
