Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by this author are their own and do not represent the official position of the Barbados Today.
by Julia Hanschell
Whether face to face, online, or blended teaching, the most complex issue teachers face is student involvement in their own learning, regardless of available online access or the use of systems like Google Classroom.
Whatever the environment provides, and some provide an extraordinary amount, the able underachiever is the most common type of student we see. The data suggests that far more boys than girls fall into this category.
When a student is receptive to learning, they pull out all the stops, even when they hit the wall of a difficult concept. Their frustration and plea for help is a teacher’s joy because the student has taken the time to attempt understanding independently and only when that fails, do they seek assistance. Every teacher loves a learning-warrior!
Teachers also have the desire to go the extra mile for the learner who desperately wants to succeed, but low cognitive ability or an aspect of a learning difficulty makes learning increasingly challenging.
Underachievement is defined as occurring “when a child’s academic performance is below what is expected based on the child’s ability, aptitude or intelligence”.
“Underachievement in gifted students can result from a variety of causes, including social issues, emotional sensitivities and unsupportive environments.”
I would like to add substantial under-teaching and lack of opportunity for independent discovery and creative problem-solving as other causes.
It’s the same issue for average students. All students have strengths and weaknesses within a spectrum. I have come across only a few students in 30 years of teaching who do not have to expend effort in working for success, regardless of natural ability or high intellect.
This means we must make changes in how we engage students in learning at Primary level; Secondary level is too late. Habits have been already formed and self-esteem already has a natural ‘defeatist default’.
Just apply this model to the workplace, where we interview and hire for a specific job. In spite of training, qualifications or experience, there is always a learning curve which has to be embraced and subsequent effort applied by the new employee.
The common denominator is to actively embrace the desire to learn. We can provide counselling to address feelings
of inferiority.
We can manipulate the classroom environment so that effective differentiation takes place, providing support classes to scaffold what has not been understood. We can assign teachers with specific skill sets that target weaknesses to impact mastery of content.
Emotionally and academically, a school can provide a wide range of support, using methods to motivate and inspire. We can plug in information beyond the curriculum, which broadens thinking. We can actually teach students HOW to think and how to STUDY.
What we cannot do is force able-underachievers to practice taught skills, apply these to curriculum material, or supervise home study when students need to do this independently. Until a student persists through the tunnel of personal struggle to understand, they cannot claim success from the investment in thinking that is born of effort, sacrificing time and perseverance.
The reality is that a child requires a great deal of home supervision, even the gifted ones. The able underachievers, especially so. Those with even mild learning challenges simply cannot succeed without this.
As an analogy, we can provide the equipment and personal trainers, as a gym does, but we cannot force the able-underachiever to choose to set aside time to use the equipment or take advantage of access to the personal trainer.
Intervention through supervision is the only way. Attitude is the real deal-breaker here. School and home must work in tandem; there’s simply no other way.
“Parents, educators, and the student can all work together to counter underachievement. The student must understand the factors that contribute to low academic achievement. Factors may include poor time management, self-defeating thought patterns, weak writing skills, poor (or no) study environment (i.e. homework done while watching television), friends or role models who do not value academic performance, or self-destructive habits.”
Let me add another factor – in the technology age our children inhabit, laidback control to free use, and subsequent abuse of technology.
“The student needs to acknowledge that she could be more successful in school.” “Parents and teachers can also help direct the student to peer groups in extracurricular activities that support academic success.”
Birds of a feather in the form of “role models can be presented to the student to help focus on the possibilities in academic life, rather than the limitations.”
I could not have said the above more succinctly myself, so I have quoted from online sources laden with references like Lehr, Judy Brown, At-Risk, Low-Achieving Students in the Classroom. Washington, D.C., National Education Association, 1988 and Holt, John, How Children Fail, Revised ededition. Reading, MA Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1995.
This is our most ‘at risk’ group – those with untapped potential. Those ‘coasting’ with false expectations of success and little effort expended in working for it. Does parental disappointment or teacher disillusionment really impact them? No. We are losing able, multipotentialite generations. Together, we must become a whole lot stricter, more forthright, and raise the expectation bar.
“It takes a village to raise a child.”
Julia Hanschell can be contacted on smart studying @gmail.com.
