The term ‘underachievement’ is common in contemporary
educational debates and most often in relation to a failure to reach
‘potential’.
Underachievement therefore, means a failure to attain
potential, mainly in terms of particular educational outcomes.
Now identifying the criteria for achievement and potential
is massively difficult consequently, identifying underachievement or failure to
reach potential is similarly problematic. Moreover, the judgements made about
potential and achievement are socially constructed and therefore, need to be
applied with due attention to cultural norms.
Some students drop out having been labelled as underachievers,
even though teachers at times fail to found that whether such students
underachieve in a particular subject or in all subjects.
Gallagher (1985) indicated the danger of using intelligence
tests for some gifted students who are labelled underachievers because of poor
academic performance. This is because less is known about their intellectual
functioning.
Student performance varies at different times, and could be
better depending on the degree of preparation before examinations. However, the
same student with the same amount of preparation may not perform as well as at
other times.
Literature offers various intervention programs to help
underachievers to learn. Dowdall and Colangleo (1982) and Butler-Por (1987)
suggested two different types of intervention, using counselling and
instructional materials, which they believed to offer rich opportunities in
changing personality and behaviours. For instance, instead of compelling gifted
underachievers to be more successful, counselling interventions can help them
to make decisions on goals and to unlearn habits that have been disruptive to
learning.
