underachievement
Question 10 asked teachers to provide a personal definition of an academic underachiever. Seventeen state schoolteachers responded to this question. Findings were categorised into four primary themes. Respondents commonly commented that underachieving students demonstrated literacy and numeracy barriers, were not meeting standard benchmarks based on age or Australian Curriculum guidelines, showed a lack of effort and engagement, and did not achieve their potential. The themes invoked intrinsic factors, student- centred definitions outlined by Krause and Krause (1981) such as literacy and numeracy barriers, or a lack of effort, such as the one as noted by teacher I:
Not achieving a standard as defined by Australian Curriculum standard; not advancing as they progress, learning, making connections, questioning and choosing to search for more knowledge (Teacher I).
Themes also referencedextrinsic factors including those which featured in the definition of McCall’s definition (1994), such as widespread
disengagement from learning resulting in student failure. From the classroom teacher’s perspective, this was illustrated by:
Students not achieving their potential, students not achieving successful learning outcomes resulting from their lack of effort and lack of potential (Teacher F).
Three respondents gave definitions that acknowledged the impact of barriers, external factors, or literacy and numeracy deficits on underachieving students, for example:
Failure to achieve at even a basic skill level due to a range of factors, all I believe relating to poor literacy skills and missed ‘steps’ in education generally…chronic absenteeism, poor family perceptions or value of education, socio-economic circumstances (Teacher J).
The operational definitions provided by state schoolteachers lacked an acknowledgement of a relationship or connection between student
underachievement and educational failure, as outlined in definitions by Kovacs and Hanson (OECD, 1998) or Gonski (2011) in Chapter 2. Kovacs and Hanson’s report for the OECD outlined three aspects to student failure to achieve;
psychological, social and institutional. State schoolteacher definitions implicitly acknowledged the potential presence of psychological and social barriers in comments like those made by teachers below:
Having the ability to achieve at a task but because there is a barrier (real or perceived) they cannot/will not reach objectives (Teacher H).
Students who have “the ability to reach the desired standard but (are) not doing so for a variety of reasons (Teacher J).
There were no explicit references to institutional or school failure in their comments. Of the 17 definitions listed by state schoolteachers, 10 of the comments explicitly referred to student responsibility or choice being an underlying factor in underachievement. Key words and phrases from these comments included references to failure to achieve potential, lack of engagement and, as one respondent put it:
I would define underachievement in this context as a student who fails to exhibit work and skills that they should be capable of-E.G. have no physical or intellectual barrier (Teacher C).
This omission may indicate that when formulating their working
definitions, the state schoolteachers did not connect student underachievement with a failure on the school or teachers to provide a relevant curriculum for students who were not engaging with learning or meeting benchmarks. A possible exception to this was one teacher’s comment which indicated that underachieving students don’t have a go, and don’t see the value of the learning context (Teacher E).
Data from the questionnaire indicated that teachers made correlations between underachievement and lack of engagement. However, respondents did not appear to use this question to reflect on or make a critical appraisal of the learning content or pedagogy presented in their schools and classrooms, although references to student difficulties when meeting benchmarks or standards were present in their responses to other questions. Teacher
consideration of background factors or barriers were included in the examples used to help define underachievement.
4.5.2 Questionnaire section 3: Q 11-Factors used in identification
Table 4.10 includes data on factors teachers considered significant when they were identifying underachieving students. Teacher responses to the six categories listed were evenly distributed. Teachers acknowledged that non- completion of tasks, organisation, literacy and numeracy barriers, lack of
engagement in learning and behavioural challenges were all noticeable factors in the identification of underachieving students. Not all teachers considered all factors equally significant. However, the differences between less significant factors were also quite evenly balanced among respondents.
Table 4.10
Factors Teachers Consider Significant when Identifying Students
DESCRIPTOR CS FREQUENCY SS FREQUENCY AS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE Student rarely completes tasks in classroom 8 14 22 18.48% The student struggles with organisation and learning 9 12 21 17.64% The student presents with behavioural challenges 8 12 20 16.80%
Student does not complete tasks for assessment
7 12 19 15.96%
The student is often disengaged 5 14 19 15.96% The student presents with literacy/ numeracy barriers 7 11 18 15.12%
The student does not engage at stage level but attempts activities designed for lower year level
Not asked in
pilot survey 9 N/A -
TOTAL 119 99.96%
Note. Base number of teachers: n =34. CS = Catholic Schools. SS = State Schools. AS = All
Schools. Percentage calculated to the second decimal place.
Section 3, Question 11 in the questionnaire asked teachers whether students engaged in activities that were adjusted or catered to a younger year level and ability.This category was only included in the amended questionnaire presented to state schoolteachers and the lower figure can be attributed to the fact that it was distributed to fewer respondents.