Introduction

Over the past four decades, children’s understanding of natural phenomena has become one of the major issues in science education. Research has revealed that children experience difficulties when learning scientific concepts (Abrams 1997; Posner et al., 1982) and they possess scientifically inaccurate or incomplete conceptions about the world (Clement, 1982; Henriques, 2002; Osborne & Wittrock, 1983; Posner et al., 1982). Different terms have been used to refer this type of knowledge- such as preconceptions (Ausbel, 1968), misconceptions (Novak, 1987); alternative framework (Driver & Easley, 1978), children’s science (Gilbert, Osborne & Fensham, 1982), naïve beliefs, (Caramazza, McCloskey & Green, 1981) mental models (Collins & Gentner, 1987; White & Fderiksen, 1986), folk theories (Kempton, 1987), and intuitive theories (McCloskey & Kargon, 1988). Although different kinds of terms have been used to define unscientific theories, there is a general agreement that this intuitive knowledge provides explanations of natural phenomena which are frequently different from the currently accepted scientific definitions. Children’s conceptions are formed by daily life experiences, perceptions, cultural influences and language use long before they begin formal education (Duit & Treagust, 1998; Vosniadou & Brewer, 1994). Children’s misconceptions are pervasive, stable and resistant to change (Haslam & Treagust, 1987; Osborne, 1983). Moreover, they may block understanding of scientific concepts and hinder further learning (Hewson & Hewson, 1983; Shuell, 1987). For meaningful learning to occur, children should relate new knowledge with previously learned ones (Duit & Treagust, 1998).Thus, misconceptions should be taken into consideration in all stages of formal education to eliminate the old ones and to prevent the development of similar ones.

Astronomy is one of the oldest and the most popular science field that involves many concepts that can be incorrectly interpreted and learned by children. Astronomy takes an important place in science education because it has a relation with the Earth, space and nature. Conceptual understanding about the shape of the Earth, including alternative conceptions has been studied with educational researchers for many times. Children’s drawings have been frequently used as a methodological means for their understanding of the concept Earth (Nussbaum & Novak, 1976; Sneider & Pulos, 1983; Vosniadou & Brewer, 1992). Research in this area revealed consistent results across different countries and cultures. However, this knowledge was also inconsistent with the scientific ones. In their study, Vosniadou and Brewer (1992) determined five types of unscientific models of the Earth. Researchers defended that flat Earth, rectangular Earth and the disc Earth are the initial models that children use before they receive information about the planet Earth. When children obtain some information about the shape of the Earth, they usually try to assimilate new information with their preexisting schema and they develop synthetic models such as the dual Earth and the hollow Earth. In the hollow Earth model, children represent the Earth spherical with a flat surface with people inside it whereas in the dual Earth children draw two earths; one being a flat surface on which people live and the other round and located in the sky. These findings are consistent with the findings from different cultures (Brewer et al., 1987; Samarapungavan, Vosniadou & Brewer, 1996; Sneider & Pulos, 1983; Vosniadou & Brewer, 1990; 1992). Although there exist some cultural variaties, research demonstrates a universal tendency for young children to believe that the world is flat or flattened.

A number of recent studies have raised doubts about the mental models obtained from the previous research studies. Schoultz, Saljö, and Wyndhamn (2001) used interviews to explore children’s conceptions about the shape of the Earth. In their study, researchers reported that even young children have scientific conceptions about the Earth’s shape. Additionally in various studies researchers asked children, to select the plastic model representing the Earth’s shape (Nobes et al., 2003; Panagiotaki, Nobes & Banerjee, 2006) and to select pictures that represented their view of the Earth (Straatemeier, van der Maas, & Jansen, 2008). In all these studies, researchers have reported that they have found little or no evidence of naïve mental models. Thus, they concluded that children have more knowledge about the Earth than the mental theorists indicated. Obtaining different results directed researchers to think about the instruments used to determine children’s conceptions about the shape of the Earth. Siegal, Butterworth and Newcombe (2004) argued that using children’s drawings might lead to overrepresentation of a flat Earth concept among children due to the difficulties in drawing a sphere. Moreover they also questioned whether a drawing of a person standing on a flat surface indicated that children believe that the Earth is flat.

Children’s cognitive development can be studied by many approaches such as open-ended questions, two-tier diagnostic tests, concept maps, word association tests etc. Children usually experience difficulties in expressing their thoughts and their explanations are easily affected by the types of questions asked and researcher’s attitudes. For these reasons, using these data collection methods bring some deficiencies together. Additional to these tools, using children’s drawings to probe their understandings can provide fruitful information about their representational world (White & Gunstone, 2000). Children’s drawings have been a focus of research for many decades. Drawings are usually used for cognitive, personality and diagnostic assessment (Knoff & Prout, 1985; Naglieri, 1988). Previous research studies proved that drawings can be used to provide rich data on children’s understandings of various science concepts; such as water cycle, groundwater, rivers, mountains, and their alternative conceptions (Bar, 1989; Coates, 2002; Cuthbert, 2000; Edens & Potter, 2003; Golomb, 1992; Hayes, Symington & Martin, 1994; Moline, 1995; Rennie & Jarvis, 1995; Sneider & Pulos, 1983; Stromment, 1995; van Meter, 2001; Vosniadou & Brewer, 1992). Reith (1997) explains that “drawings are believed to reflect the subject’s mental representations and conceptual knowledge about the objects they draw. Drawings become more accurate and detailed as children’s mental models of the world become more extensive and differentiated.” (p. 61). Previous research studies also revealed that using drawings to elicit children’s understanding would have some limitations. Chidren’s drawing abilities limit what they produce in their drawings. Understanding a concept, or having a scientific knowledge about it, does not necessarily mean children can and they will draw it accurately (Arnold, Sarge & Worrall, 1995). In his study, which is focusing on biodiversity, Strommen (1995) found that children tended to draw multiples of a single type of animal or plant rather than different species, although they knew names of different kinds of animals and plants. Additionally, especially in the early childhood, children’s drawings may be misinterpreted by the researchers due to the lack of clarity in the images. Because of these limitations researcher prefer to use interviews in conjunction with drawings. This combined methodology have been used successfully to explore children’s ideas about concepts such as technology (Rennie & Jarvis, 1995), water cycle (Dove, Everett & Preece, 1999) and evaporation (Schilling, McGuigan & Qualter, 1993). In the current study, researcher preferred to use this data collection method to overcome the deficiencies that may come up with using either methods alone.

Aim of the Study

Astronomy is an important component of the Turkish science and technology curricula throughout different grade levels. The current curricula include concepts about solar system, movements of the sun, earth and moon, formation of a day and seasons, shape and size of the planet Earth. Understanding the shape of the Earth is a part of the 4th grade Turkish science curriculum. As a part of the science curriculum, students are expected to define the shape of the Earth, give some daily life examples supporting the spherical shape of the Earth and realize that in the history, people have naïve theories about the shape of the world.

Turkish children faced with the formal instruction about the shape of the earth for the first time in the fourth grade. Thus, for an effective instruction to occur, it is important to determine children’s (pre-) conceptions about the shape of the Earth.

With this respect, the purpose of this paper is to investigate Turkish first grade children’s conceptual knowledge about the Earth’s shape. The purpose was to understand the nature of children’s initial knowledge about the shape of the Earth. The study reported in this paper sought to specifically examine the data gathered from the primary school children with the following research question in mind: How do first-graders conceptualize the shape of the Earth?

Method

Sample

The research was carried out in the fall semester of 2011-2012 academic year. A total of 124 first-graders at five primary schools in an urban area of Turkey have attended the study. The children were between 6 to 8 years old with a mean age 7.4. (sd= 5 months).

Procedure

The data of the study were collected by children’s drawings. Drawing is a powerful qualitative tool to determine how children explain and construct ideas and concepts. Not to cause any confusion whether they were required to draw the Earth from the global perspective or the local perspective, the researcher invited children to draw the Earth as if they were watching it from the space and write what is happening. As some of the earlier mentioned literature have revealed, when children are asked to include people and the sky in their drawings, they experience confusion about the perspective in their drawings. For this reason, the researcher only focused on children’s conceptions about the shape of the Earth.

The drawings were completed within a regular lesson which lasted in 40 minutes. Children were asked to work individually and not to perceive the task as a test with right or wrong answers. Children were provided a drawing sheet to work on it and allowed to use any colours of crayons. Since children at these ages may lack adequate writing skills, additional information was gathered by interviewing the children while they were drawing the Earth.

This method was preferred as data collection technique to prevent the probability of losing children’s considerations during the drawing process. Drawing tasks in combination with an interview provided an opportunity to utilize two methods of determining students’ understanding about the shape of the Earth. While they were drawing, children were interviewed in a semi-structured way and the discussions were typed. For the interview, questions are designed according to the child’s own interest, but they also focused on the children’s understanding of the Earth and their choice of pictorial convention. Sometimes, it was difficult to determine the images children drew on their working sheet. Interview questions were also used to clarify these ambiguous images. Additionally, children were also asked the source of their knowledge. Initial questions in the interviews aimed at understanding what images the children have drawn in their drawings. Follow up questions were used to clarify the responses which are difficult to understand. To elicit further information the children were given the opportunity to tell more about their drawings.

Analyses

Visual and verbal data were analyzed by content analysis techniques (Ball & Smith, 1992; Banks, 2001). Before coding, the researcher overviewed all the drawings and read the transcriptions of interviews to get general ideas and to determine meaningful data units.

Then, a list of codes was created by noting all the features included in the drawings and interviews. Throughout the analysis this list was revised as new features were identified. After coding the data, categories were emerged. The codes were compiled into categories; i.e. codes were organized under related categories. The researcher overviewed all the transcripts again to validate the appropriateness of codes and categories emerged. The data obtained from drawings and interviews were read and coded by another researcher; a specialist in primary school education. Inter-rater reliability was calculated as 89%.

Drawings of Spherical Earth: The largest group of participants (n = 51, 41.13%) drew this version of the Earth. In their drawings they usually included a spaceship coming closer to the Earth, some other planets and stars (see Figure 1). They usually included an astronaut inside or sometimes outside the spaceship. Children drew the spherical Earth and coloured the surface of it with brown and blue. When children were asked why they have used these colours for the surface, they replied that from the space, the surface of the Earth seems mostly blue, and this colour represents oceans and seas. However, there are also brown areas representing the land where people live on it. Children drawing spherical Earth did not include people in their drawings. When they were asked why they did not draw any people, they replied “It’s not possible to see people living on the Earth from the space”. In their drawings, although children drew the shape of the Earth as a circle to represent its spherical shape, they drew the stars with a star polygon with five corners. Additionally, some of them drew the Moon in their drawings however in its waxing crescent phase. When the researcher asked the reason of drawing the Moon in that way, children replied that Moon has several phases and it is possible to observe the phases of the moon from the space. Children were also asked about the real shapes of the stars. All of the children including stars in their drawings replied that they don’t know the exact shape of the stars. They also replied that in their story books, stars are drawn with a star polygon. And when they look up the sky at night, they can see the sparkling stars. Based on these information they concluded that probably stars do not have a regular shape like the planets have.

Figure 1. Example Drawings of Spherical Earth

Drawings of Flat Earth: Nearly 21% of children; that is 26 of them, drew a flat Earth. They showed one or more people, usually with buildings, mountains or trees. In all of the drawings people stood on a straight line representing that children believe that the Earth’s shape is a plane or a disk. All of these pictures were similar to the children’s drawings that Vosniadou & Brewer (1990, 1992) have interpreted as indication for flat Earth mental models. All children drawing flat Earth showed evidences of spherical earth during the interviews. First, they were asked about the shape of the earth. All the children replied: “The earth is round”. When they were asked why they did not draw a circular shape, children replied that in this way: “It is not possible to see the people living on the Earth”. They made comments that in order to show the people, mostly themselves or their families, they had to draw the Earth in this way. Some of the children (11 of them, 8. 87%) commented that although the Earth is round in shape the lands in which people live on are flat. The tendency among this subgroup of participants with regard to their conception of Earth is this: The Earth looks straight and flat when we look at our surroundings. They also expressed that we can see the Earth’s roundness in downhill slopes. This finding is consistent with what Nussbaum (1985:179) found in his studies: Children who said that the Earth was round, but who believed that we lived on a flat Earth, explained the Earth’s roundness by saying “The Earth’s roundness is just the roads’ curves’ or ‘The Earth’s roundness is just the mountains’ shapes”. These findings shows that children cannot differentiate the astronomical conceptual framework of the planet Earth from the common sense framework of the Earth as nearby surroundings.

Figure 2. Example Drawings of Flat Earth

Drawings of Dual Earth: These pictures were drawn by 47 (37.90%) of the participants. In their drawings they drew both the scientific and the flat versions of the Earth. The subsequent interviews revealed that none of them believes in the existence of two Earths; one which we live on and the other which is a planet in the sky. Children were asked the reason for drawing two earths, instead of one. They replied that although they knew that the Earth is round, and there is only one Earth we live on, they also wanted to draw their home places with an Earth representation. The dual Earth pictures show separate views of the same earth, from the two different perspectives.

Figure 3. Example Drawings of Dual Earth

Discussion and Conclusion

This paper has presented data and discussed the views of 124 Turkish first-graders about the planet Earth. Based on the results obtained from the children’s drawings, it was able to identify two alternative models of the earth: the flattened Earth and the dual Earth. Nearly 60% of the participants drew the unconventional scientific version of the Earth. The drawings show some variety among them however, they can easily be grouped into the alternative models of the Earth defended by the mental theorists. These findings are consistent with the results of prior research claiming that children have difficulty in understanding that the Earth is spherical and form various misconceptions regarding its shape (Nussbaum, 1979; Nussbaum & Novak, 1976).

By considering the results obtained from the interviews, however, it can be reported that children have some scientific knowledge about the shape of the Earth. The findings from this study seems to indicate that drawings provide a powerful tool to explore the children’s conception of the Earth, but the information one can get from the drawings and the subsequent conversations about the drawings should be interpreted and used very carefully.

Moreover, when the children were given the opportunity to give an account for the source of their knowledge about the Earth, Moon and the stars, almost all of the children said that they have seen how the earth is seen from the space on TV - mostly from cartoons and in their story books. Those of the children who represented the stars with a star polygon also replied that in their daily lives they observe the stars as tiny and shiny dots in the sky. Thus, one may say that cartoons, the story books and the daily life experiences are the reasons for their misconceptions.

Exploring children’s misconceptions about the nature and natural phenomenon and the sources of their knowledge may strengthen the teachers’ efforts to improve their teaching practices with regard to science concepts. For meaningful learning to take place, teachers should consider what knowledge the learner already possesses (Gunstone, 1990). Knowing children’s (pre-) conceptions will provide the teachers information about the children’s mental models that they have constructed before the instruction. By this way it will be possible to create instructional methods, strategies and aids that may help the students to change the wrong mental models and construct meaningful and useful ones. To understand the natural world, children should be provided conditions for developing positive experiences, imagination, increased sense of wonder, creativity and observation skills.

Science educators should create such learning environments in which the children meet challenges that can encourage them to activate and evaluate what they already know in the light of scientific knowledge that they encounter in the school. By this way it will be possible to promote a conceptual development which is consistent with our existing scientific knowledge about the nature.

(SIBEL ÖZSOY Aksaray University, Turkey)

• Read the article.

• Make some general remarks concerning the content of the paper using words and expressions from Useful Vocabulary Section.

• Discuss the structure of the paper.

• Give some positive comments.

• Express your criticism or objections.

• Analyze the data, results and their presentations.

• Make a conclusion.

ARTICLE 3. UNDERACHIEVING LEARNERS: CAN THEY LEARN AT ALL?

Abstract

Some students at the secondary and high school levels in western countries drop out having been labelled underachievers, even though teachers sometimes fail to establish whether such students underachieve in a particular subject or in all subjects. However, opinions are divided among educationists regarding the definition and causes of underachievement. This paper addresses some contemporary issues associated with underachievement. The rationale for the study is to identify the groups of learners referred to as underachievers and to find out if their condition can be improved with the help of teachers, psychologists and parents. Categorizing underachievers into different types has had an impact in proffering solutions, especially in the case of so-called gifted underachievers a phrase which otherwise appears to be an “oxymoron or educational enigma” (Barbara 2005). The question of whether or not underachieving learners can still learn is answered in the affirmative after consulting the literature on counselling and motivation.

Keywords: underachievers, students, learning, motivation, counselling.

1. Introduction There has been a general concern in recent times in the educational arena regarding the academic performance of underachieving students. Barbara (2005) concluded that the processes of defining underachievement, identifying gifted underachieving students, explaining underachievement, and suggesting appropriate interventions remain controversial issues. This paper seeks to find out if underachieving students can learn, and if not what can be done to improve their situation.

Another purpose of this review is to determine possible causes of underachievement among students; this is underpinned by the assumption that a combination of factors both in the home and at school can cause underachievement (Sousa 2002). Aside from school or family influence, Gallagher (1991) contended that personal/psychological factors could also cause underachievement in students. The present work therefore focuses on the students themselves, bearing in mind the fact that a student’s cognitive functioning will to a large extent affect performance at school.

The subsequent discussion is divided into four sections to give an understanding of what really constitutes underachievement. Section 2 explains the rationale for the review, defines underachievement, and also identifies different types of underachievers and their characteristics. Section 3 then addresses the possible causes of underachievement, while section 4 provide suggestions for intervention strategies to help underachieving students.

In light of this, a growing body of research has revealed that the condition of underachieving students could be improved using counselling principles. The argument in favour of this submission is that affective concerns are related to academic performance, habits and coping strategies, which may also be involved in academic resilience (Santiago-Rivera et al. 1995). Since the role of motivation and counselling are considered important in helping underachieving learners, section 4 also emphasises motivation and counselling approaches and lastly conclusions were draw in section 5.

2. Rationale for the Review In spite of much research into underachievement, it appears that not much has been done to provide lasting solutions to the problem of underachievement at school, especially in secondary and high schools. Also many studies have centred on gifted underachievers at the expense of considering other areas such as gender and culture (Muir-Broaddus 1995, Peterson and Colangelo 1996, Barbara 2005).

The present paper identifies the group of learners referred to as underachievers in schools; defines and identifies the causes of underachievement, its types and their characteristics, and suggests possible ways in which academic success can be enhanced.

The review also draws on previous research work on this subject conducted in various cultural contexts in order to achieve a holistic view of underachievement.

2.1 Who are Underachievers at School? One would have thought that, with the growing body of literature and increasing research on student performance and achievement, an agreed definition of underachievement would be easy to find. Surprisingly, however, educationalists have found it difficult to proffer a universal definition of underachievement. This problem of a unified definition has persisted over the years. Klinge et al. (1997) posited that defining the characteristics of the child who is labelled as an underachiever has been a difficult task for psychologists and educators for a considerable time. Barbara (2005) contends that despite all the assessment tools available to today’s educators and mountains of existing research, a straightforward definition of underachievement is not available.

Divergences of opinion among commentators on what constitutes underachievement appear to be one of the major reasons for disagreement, and different researchers may use different measures to determine who is an underachiever. For example, Gallagher (1985) pointed out 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.

Reis and McCoach (2002) suggest that the impact of culture on academic performance should not be ignored when considering underachievement in schools, especially for foreigners. They maintain that these students face unique barriers to achievement, such as language problems. For example, minority students are frequently underrepresented in programmes for gifted and talented students. Furthermore, people within particular sub-cultures may define achievement in different ways from that of the dominant culture. A research carried out with underachieving students in China, it was revealed that underachievement involves a marked discrepancy between expected and actual performance (Kit-Ling Lau and Chan 2001).

Nevertheless, promising definitions have contributed much in addressing the issue of underachievement. For example, Whitmore (1980) and Colangelo (1982) believe that many definitions of underachievement underscore the gap between potential (ability) and performance (achievement). In other words, the inability to maximise potentials have been a common denominator in these definitions. However, while this position may offer a general definition of underachievement, the dynamics of ability and performance must also come to play.

Ability and performance are not static phenomena but are in constant flux, and therefore change over time. Student performance varies at different times, and could be better depending on the degree of preparation before examinations. Yet the same student with the same amount of preparation may not perform as well as at other times. The failure to perform to the optimum could be attributed to factors external to the student’s intellectual and cognitive ability. Such factors could include emotional problems (Sontag et al. 1958) or behavioural/maturational issues (DeHirsch et al. 1996).

Sousa (2002) observes that underachievement is behaviour, and not an attitude or set of work habits. Behaviour change over time and can be more directly modified as opposed to attitude. Research conducted with students in Nigeria which aimed at determining the causes of underachievement found that a major cause was behaviour problems other than deficiencies in ability or intellectual capability. However, underachievement is a pattern as complicated as the children to whom this label is applied, and some researchers believe that a more accurate way to define it is to consider its various components (Delisle and Berger 1990).

The following components are useful, according to Delisle and Berg: Underachievement is content and situation specific; those who may not be successful at school, for example, are often successful in outside activities such as sports, music or after-school jobs. Also, labelling a student as an underachiever ignores the positive outcome of those areas in which the student does succeed; it therefore makes more sense to label the area of underachievement, not the student. For example, a student may be underachieving in mathematics or science. Underachievement is tied to the self–concept which can become a self- fulfilling prophecy. If students see themselves as failures, they may eventually place self-imposed limits on what is possible. For students in this category, good grades are dismissed as accidents or luck but poor grades serve to reinforce a negative self-concept. From the literature, it is evident that a universally acceptable definition of underachievement has not been possible. However, most researchers agree that discrepancies between ability and actual performance, behavioural disruptiveness, and neurological/cognitive factors may have much to say in explaining underachievement (Bluer 1987; Delisle and Berger 1990; Sousa 2002).

In answer to the question of who are underachievers at school, it can be deduced that underachievers include those students:

1. Who do not perform according to expectations in a particular subject area?

2. Who as a result of behaviour do not show interest/do well in their studies?

3. Who do not perform well in a specific subject area?

4. Who do have the necessary intellectual ability but still underachieve?

5. Who are limited by culture, language and gender from doing well academically at school?

2.2 Types of Underachievement and their Characteristics A comprehensive model has not yet been devised that can organise educationalists’ current understanding of underachievement (Lunch Pad 2006). Nevertheless, it is generally observed that the quest for improving the condition of underachievers and students with “special educational needs” SEN has placed considerable demands on teachers. Educationalists and psychologists acknowledge the fact that separating underachieving students and those with special educational needs (SEN) into different categories could enable in-depth knowledge and understanding of their circumstances (Smith 2005).

Mandel and Marcus (1988) identified six major types of underachievers, described as follows:

1. Coasting underachievers are believed to emerge at about 9-10 years. They exhibit general contentment with themselves and life, procrastinate at home and school, give up easily, show little concern about low grades, make sincere-sounding statements about their intentions, are easily distracted from school work and seem unconcerned about the future.

2. Anxious underachievers may have problems at any age and tend to show performance deficit of 10-20%. They tend to be tense and unable to relax, avoid school, excessively worry and are unrealistic about their competence and mistakes, need constant reassurance and approval, and may even become school-phobic. Marcus (2007) noted that worried or anxious underachievers are insecure, have high levels of self doubt and experience high levels of tension.

3. Defiant underachievers are more often boys than girls before adolescence. They lose their temper easily, argue with authority figures and defy them, deliberately annoy others and blame others for their own actions or mistakes.

4. Wheeler-dealer underachievers may be impulsive, charming or intimidating, manipulative and self-seeking and intent on instant gratification (Mandel and Marcus 1988). They tend to live for the moment and for immediate rewards, lie, cheat or steal, manipulate others, get into the same kind of trouble over and over again, and may even talk about becoming rich and famous.

5. Identity search underachievers are so wrapped up in trying to work out who they are that they become distracted from their work (Mandel and Marcus 1988). They possess the characteristics of intense self-absorption, struggling with the question, “Who am I”? They search for the meaning of life, are intense about everything, opinionated, and determined to be independent. They take responsibility for their own actions, behaviour and decisions and experiment with opinions, value systems, and beliefs.

6. Sad or depressed underachievers are depressed, have low self-esteem, find it difficult to make decisions and lack the energy needed to concentrate on school work (Mandel and Marcus 1988). They appear apathetic, have poor appetites or overeat, sleep too much or have trouble sleeping, are low in energy and feel tired, have trouble concentrating and may feel hopeless and pessimistic. Marcus’ (2007) typology of underachievers is slightly different from that of Mandel and Marcus (1988) though they share certain characteristics. Marcus’ types of underachiever include those who are worried and anxious; acting and manipulative; easygoing; lazy and unmotivated; oppositional; and introspective.

An appreciable amount of the literature on underachievement has highlighted a type of underachievement which has posed particular problem for educationalists. The gifted underachiever is something of a mystery; it is difficult to explain how gifted students can underachieve academically. Clark (2002) defined gifted students as those who have developed high levels of intelligence and consistently perform at these high levels. Barbara (2005) observed that gifted underachievement, at first glance, seems like an oxymoron. How can a gifted student also be an underachiever?

Attempts to identify the causes of gifted underachievement have, however, met with limited success (Howley and Pendarvis 1986). Peterson and Colangelo (1996) noted that much has been written during the past decades about underachievement among students with high ability, and underachievement in gifted students has perplexed educationalists and parents. The gifted underachiever truly is an educational enigma, and this situation has elicited professional concern in the educational field, considering the fact that highly able students perform poorly academically when they possess the potential for achieving high scores.

Weiss (1972), Peterson and Colangelo (1996), and Barbara (2005) all posited that gender and culture differences affect underachievement. According to a study by Weiss (1972), approximately 25% of females who are above-average in academic performance maybe considered underachievers as compared to 50% of above-average males. A more recent study by Silverman (1993) discovered that female students are more at risk than male students of avoiding their talents as they strive to maintain a balance between inter-personal relationship and academic performance.

Butler-Por (1987) observed that more attention is given to female than male students in helping them to realize their intellectual potential due to competition between physical appearance and intellectual functioning. The fact that physical appearance and global self-worth components of self-esteem decline more in female than male students after age 12, sometimes affect academic or career choices and aspirations in female students (Bucscher and Higham 1989).

Research conducted by Jacob (1991) found that the interaction between parents’ gender stereotypes and children’s self-perception influenced performance. Bonbon (1992) conducted research in which it was discovered that gender influenced the choices made in mathematics.

In the sphere of culture, Reis and McCoach (2000) stated that little research has focused specially on culturally diverse underachievers. In their research they discovered that students from minority ethnic backgrounds faced unique barriers to achievement. For example, language was discovered to have played an adverse effect on gifted Latino students’ achievement, while being proficient in English generally meant greater success in school for Spanish-speaking students. However, according to Reis (1998), there could be a different value system within the Hispanic American community, which could be of greater impact especially for female students.

Interestingly, no matter what type of underachievement and their characteristics, educationalists and other concerned bodies have made concerted efforts to proffer solutions.

3. Causes of underachievement A review of the literature has revealed considerable divergences of opinion on what causes underachievement in students. Sousa (2003) observed that a combination of factors both in the home and at school can cause underachievement. On the basis of current research in cognitive development and reading comprehension, two important reasons for students’ underachievement in any academic area can be identified: (1) their inadequate understanding of how to select, adapt, and monitor strategies for learning; and (2) their insufficient motivation to apply actively the understanding they have (Ryan 1989).

Ryan stressed that reading plays an important role in achievement. His research indicated that for the attainment of any reading or writing goal, an individual has four types of cognitive capabilities available for use: 1. basic abilities 2. acquired knowledge, 3. strategies and 4. metacognition. Ryan further observed that 75% of underachieving pupils in primary schools had reading problems among other things, whereas only 35% of the other pupils had reading problem. The former group underachieved in all subjects.

Adequate attention should be given to reading and writing when the issue of underachievement arises, especially in countries where English is a second language. If pupils do not learn how to read effectively early on in school, they may have difficulty at later stages and may withdraw from learning rather than risk being exposed to shame. Neurolearning (2005) found that visual memory problems are woefully under recognized as a source of school underachievement. The study explained that teachers take visual memory activities for granted.

Others have cited a lack of motivation amongst students in secondary, primary and higher education as one of the causes of underachievement (Gallagher 1991, Reis and McCoach, 2000, Sousa 2002). These authors further argued that lack of motivation provided by either teachers or parents could have a negative impact on children’s performance.

For example, Whitmore and Rand (2000) observed that many gifted underachieving students need motivation from their teachers because they have learning styles incompatible with prevailing instructional methods. Another review by Rutter (1974) stated that there is never a unitary cause of underachievement. Instead he believed that some causes are attributed to complex circumstances which cannot be scientifically or easily explained, for example, emotional disorder. There is usually interplay of personality and social factors in this regard. Research by Mroczek and Little (2006) on personality studies contend that the self-concept is learned through the child’s environment, both at home and at school. Negative self concepts can cause underachievement when parents do not acknowledge their children’s abilities or fail to support them. A teacher’s responses and feedback given to students also have the capability to shape their perceptions of themselves (MS 2002).

This paper has looked at the causes of underachievement and discovered that culture and gender are important factors to be considered when discussing the causes of underachievement in students. Furthermore, a study of underachievement in urban schools in the United States argued that there may be regional or sub-cultural differences but that factors associated with the home and school are always important in underachievement in students (Smith 2005). It can, therefore, be deduced that the following factors can cause underachievement in school children: 1) lack of motivation; 2) parental/home influence, 3) lack of nurturing of intellectual potential, 4) conflict of values, 5) disabilities/poor health condition., 6) life experiences of specific groups of pupils; for example, resulting from brain damage/cerebral dysfunction or neurological impairment, 7) inability to recruit and also retain highly qualified personnel in schools.

Despite this complexity, it is interesting to note that there have also been some advances in proffering solutions to this social pathology.