Gifted Achievers and Gifted Underachievers: The Impact of Learning Style Preferences in the Classroom

Abstract

This article focuses on the learning style preferences of achieving and underachieving gifted middle school students. Learning style was determined through administration of the Learning Style Inventory (LSI). Both groups of participants revealed several learning style preferences that were quite similar. However, examination of LSI profiles revealed some differences between achievers and underachievers in preferences for quiet or sound, flexibility or structure in assignments, and level of need for mobility. Many low achievers showed a strong need for tactile and kinesthetic modalities; intake of food, drinks, or both; sound in the learning environment; informal seating design; and dim lighting. The low achievers did not perceive themselves to be persistent, and scores revealed that they needed structure in assignments. Persistence seemed to be a key to success for the achieving learners in this study since they were able to maintain high academic performance in all content areas. Over half of the low achievers, on the other hand, did not judge themselves to be successful at task completion.

Deficits in fine motor skills and their influence on persistence among gifted elementary school pupils

“…These findings can be confirmed in conjunction with a wide variety of motivational variables, including, among others, persistence (Ryneri et al, 2003;Sovik et al, 1994). Based on these findings, we presume that underachievers will show poorer persistence levels than achievers.…”

Adult perceptions of the impact of Kentucky Education Reform Act initiatives on achievement : insights of rural gifted students.

“…Failure to address the needs of gifted students may result in a number of adverse effects including disruptive behaviors, underachievement, negative self-perception, and failure to develop necessary executive function skills (Clark, 2008;Rayneri, Gerber, Wiley, 2003;Winner, 1996). This potential loss of talent must be addressed in the classroom in order to help these students fully actualize their gifts (Karnes & Bean, 2005).…”

The Impact of Eliminating Extraneous Sound and Light on Students' Achievement: An Empirical Study

“…However, underachievement seems especially troubling when it is manifested by our brightest students (Gowan, 1955, p. 247) and has been described as one of the greatest social wastes of our culture (Seeley, 1993). However, examination of learning style profiles revealed some differences between achievers and underachievers in preferences for quiet or sound, flexibility or structure in assignments, bright light or dim, and level of need for mobility (Rayneri, Gerber, & Wiley, 2003). Many low achievers showed a strong need for tactile and kinesthetic modalities; sound in the learning environment; informal seating design; and bright lighting (Rayneri, Gerber, & Wiley, 2003).…”

“…However, examination of learning style profiles revealed some differences between achievers and underachievers in preferences for quiet or sound, flexibility or structure in assignments, bright light or dim, and level of need for mobility (Rayneri, Gerber, & Wiley, 2003). Many low achievers showed a strong need for tactile and kinesthetic modalities; sound in the learning environment; informal seating design; and bright lighting (Rayneri, Gerber, & Wiley, 2003). There is no universally accepted definition for underachievement.…”

“…Baker, Bridges, and Evans (1998) found that factors included family, environment, school, and the individual. Other researchers (Rayneri et al, 2003) have noted that underachievement is linked to a mismatch between the learning styles of high-ability students and the instructional approaches used in the classroom (Baum et al, 1995& Whitmore, 1986). …”