Motivational components of underachievement.

University of Notre DameThe goal of this study was to compare and predict academic performance in achieving and under-achieving students on the basis of motivational, affective, and metacognitive processes. Ninety-eight underachievers and 102 achievers were tested on multiple measures of ability, attributions,self-esteem, reading awareness, and reading performance. Achievers were discriminated fromunderachievers on the basis of mean differences in beliefs about the utility of effort, in self-esteem,in enhanced reading awareness, and in strategic performance. Achievement status moderated therelationship between attributions and ability: In contrast to underachievers, achievers associatedtheir extant knowledge and skills with positive attributional beliefs about the importance of effortin determining performance. The failure of underachievers to develop an enriched, functionalmetacognitive system was ascribed, al least partially, to their negative attributional beliefs.Underachievement is a widespread problem in the UnitedStates, with prevalence estimates ranging from 15% to 50%(Gallagher, 1985; Gowan, 1955; Raph, Goldberg, Terman Kurtz Shaw Zelniker Dweck, 1975; Jennings, 1979). Hence, under-achievers appear to be inefficient strategy users as opposed tobeing strategy deficient. They neither choose appropriate strate-gies nor are diligent enough to modify strategies in accordancewith changing task demands. We believe that these deficienciesare based, in part, on the failure of underachievers to developappropriate affective states and motivational beliefs.The dysfunctional nature of the metacognitive-motiva-tional-affective system of underachievers causes them to ap-pear as students. The research of Dweck and hercolleagues (Diener Dweck & Reppucci, 1973)indicates that helpless children fail not because they lack strate-gic knowledge, but because of inappropriate strategic beliefs,expectations, and achievement goals. Lack of persistence sug-gests that underachieving students do not believe in the generalusefulness of strategies or in their own learning efficacy. De-spite their ability to be strategic (Covington & Beery, 1976),108