Ok, I'll play. Please keep in mind that these thoughts are still rough
and are put forward in that form.
If we in fact define over/under achievers as those who are outside of say
2se of our predicted achievment level we are "correct" in about 95% of the
cases for which make a prediction. That doesn't seem too bad as a start.
But, it is true that the statistical model Dennis puts forward is really
too simple to capture all of the variance in achievment. It ignores any
number of S level variables that might be convinently labeled
"motivation". By including such variables in a predictive equation we
should be able to do a much better job of predicting achievment.
But, that still doesn't do away with the idea of over/under achievers.
These labels capture the most extreme levels of motivation that are not
captured in the simpler model. The reason being an underachiever is
stigmatizing is that it implies (not demonstrates, but implies) a level of
laziness that is considered unacceptable.
The terminology captures information that is not being included in the
original model leading to adjustments of only those predictions
particularly in need of adjustment and ignoring the 95% of predictions
that are ok. That is it is useful to know about under achievers as a
teacher so that you know who might benefit from a little extra push.
Additional motivational information about the vast majority of kids
provides little useful information.
I'm not sure that all overachievers are as Dennis defined them, folks
going above and beyond their predicted ability. I think that this term is
much more broadly applied to kids that work hard regardless of their
ability level. Actually I suspect that those with a low ability level are
simply labeled as "hard workers", hardly a stigmatizing label.
I think that the overachievers are generally high ability kids who max out
their capability. They not only learn everything they need to learn for
school, but go beyond that. That is they work to their full potential
despite needing to go outside the classroom to do so.
I think that these kids are stigmatized in a couple of ways. As Dennis
mentions there can be outside expectations of them that hold them to
unreasonably high standards. But, I think that some of these kids also
have a limited experience with challenge and failure. They find the
normal classroom activities easy and accomplish them with little in the
way of stress or false starts..."everything comes easy" for them. I think
that these kids fail to develop effective coping strategies for failure
early on, because they haven't needed to. When they do finally enter a
situation where they are sufficiently challenged that they cannot reach
the correct solution without some effort and false starts they experience
much more frustration than a lower ability student who has "been there and
done that" for a while.
A few random thoughts,
Michael
On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, dennis roberts wrote:
> ah ha ... a topic dear to my heart ... school psychologists love to talk about
> over and underachievement ... here is my take on this
>
> 1. psychologically ... underachievement makes sense ... one can deliberately do
> less than one is capable of ... for example, what about the possibility of
> going into an accelerated math program ... but, the student who is smart enough
> might decide that he/she does not want all that extra work so, deliberately
> does poorly on some achievement test ... and appears to be an underachiever
> compared to measured ability ... one CAN fake poor performance when one can
> actually do the task
>
> overachievement as a construct makes NO sense ... logically, how can one do
> better than one can do?
>
> 2. the basic problem with these concepts is the notion that ability is true ...
> fixed ... and is correct in its measurement (IQ for example) ... and that
> achievement is the variable that can vary ... in this context, your achievement
> is compared to your TRUE ability ... well, i have news for folks ... there are
> more measurement problems associated with ability than achievement ... thus,
> the notion that ability (measuring potential) is THE standard is an erroneous
> one ... !!
>
> 3. statistically ... it is true that usually, over and underachievement are
> assessed by big gaps between PREDICTED ACHIEVEMENT (using ability as the
> predictor) AND ACTUAL ACHIEVEMENT
> and if that gap is large enough (say 2 stan errors of estimate) ... then one is
> labelled as an over or underachiever ...
>
> but, the problem with this is that this means that the concept of over and
> underachievement is definitionally ... one where it is our ERRORS of prediction
> (that is, an imperfect model for the data) that are driving the definitions ...
> not what the actual S is doing ...
> so, really, overachievement is where WE are INcorrect by estimating that
> someone is achieving at a higher level than measured ability would suggest ...
> and underachievement is where WE are INcorrect in our estimates in that we are
> estimating that achievement is lower than ability would predict ...
>
> so, it is OUR fault ... a fault of the statistical model ... not some
> characteristic of the S
>
> 4. an overarching problem with these concepts (besides the above) is that ...
> these categorizations lead to stigmatization of the S ... if you get labelled
> as an underachiever ... that is a BAD designation to have given to you and, it
> is almost impossible to rid oneself of it ... and, at the other then ... if you
> get stuck with the designation of OVER achiever ... than that is bad too in
> that ... everyone and his/her uncle/aunt ... is expecting you to do much better
> than (perhaps) you can ... both of these categorizations lead to stress
>
> we would be a lot better off to get rid of these concepts ... they do much more
> harm than good ...
>
> ps ... i have often wanted to turn the sides on this issue and, use achievment
> as the standard and let ability be the criterion so, we would have over and
> under ability ... how 'bout that one?
>
> At 01:11 AM 10/3/00 -0500, Joe Ward wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Graham --
> >
> > It's been a long time since I've heard any discussion about
> > UNDERACHIEVERS and OVERACHIEVERS. I've never been able to understand
> > the discussions.
>
>
> ==============================================================
> dennis roberts, penn state university
> educational psychology, 8148632401
> http://roberts.ed.psu.edu/users/droberts/drober~1.htm
>
>
> =================================================================
> Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
> the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
> http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
> =================================================================
>
*******************************************************************
Michael M. Granaas
Associate Professor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Department of Psychology
University of South Dakota Phone: (605) 677-5295
Vermillion, SD 57069 FAX: (605) 677-6604
*******************************************************************
All views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of the University of South Dakota, or the South
Dakota Board of Regents.
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
