Carole C. Tranchant Sciences & technologies

1. The Many Faces of Deliberate UnderachievementLes différents visagesde la sous-performance intentionnelle Carole C. Tranchant Sciences & technologies des aliments / Food Science & Technology, Université de Moncton Gilles Raîche Sciences de l’éducation Université de Moncton Université de Moncton  1er novembre 2002

2. Deliberate Underachievement Sous-performance intentionnelle Part I. Overview of the Problematic What is deliberate underachievement? Who underachieves deliberately? Why? When? How often? How? Consequences? (C.C. Tranchant) Part II. Detection of Deliberate Underachievement: Case Study Deliberate underachievement in tests of English as second language (ESL) (G. Raîche)

3. Part I. Overview: Underachievement and Deliberate (Purposeful) Underachievement 1a. What is underachievement?

4. Part I. Overview: Underachievement and Deliberate (Purposeful) Underachievement Attainable achievement Achievement Underachievement Achievement attained Achievement gap may vary over time Time

5. Deliberate (Purposeful) Underachievement 1b. Deliberate underachievement A behaviour in which one chooses to do or achieve less than he/she is capable of Intentional covering over, suppressing, hiding or minimizing (downplaying) of one’s own abilities: a process known as “submersion”

6. Deliberate (Purposeful) Underachievement 1b. Deliberate underachievement Choice to cover over, suppress or hide one’s own abilities Choice to underachieve is guided by a purpose (goal, motivation) Goal (motivation) Active choice Underachievement Achievement Behaviour may be modified over time

7. Deliberate (Purposeful) Underachievement 2. Who underachieves on purpose? In a world that so praises Excellence, aren’t we all striving to do or be our best ??

8. Deliberate (Purposeful) Underachievement 2. Who underachieves on purpose? In a world that so praises Excellence, aren’t we all striving to do or be our best? No, because Achieving is not always serving our goals. The literature (psychology) – and indeed everyday life – abound with instances in which people purposefully underachieve for self-serving purposes (Ref. 1-4).

9. Deliberate (Purposeful) Underachievement 2. Who underachieves on purpose? Everybody? (to various extents) Not just gifted children or adults A variety of “average” individuals underachieve with specific purposes in mind: Do you? (Am I?)

10. Deliberate (Purposeful) Underachievement 3. Why? When? What motivates one to cover over, suppress, hide or downplay his or her abilities? A variety of motivations: A complex issue with psychological, social, cultural and contextual roots “Never Outshine the Master” “Letting Up for Others” “Just Get By”

11. Deliberate (Purposeful) Underachievement 3. Why? When? To “Never Outshine the Master” (Ref. 5) To “Let Up for Others” (Ref. 1) Goal: Make those with whom you are in relationship feel comfortable in order to maintain positive relationships and help. Deliberate underachievement (“taking a dive”, purposeful ineptitude, modesty and empathy) may serve to alleviate the distress of others who are struggling and allow them to preserve some degree of dignity or “face”.

12. Deliberate (Purposeful) Underachievement 3. Why? When? To “Never Outshine the Master” (Ref. 5) “Always make those above you feel comfortably superior. In your desire to please & impress them, do not go too far in displaying your talents or you might accomplish the opposite – inspire fear and insecurity. Make your masters appear more brilliant than they are and you will attain the heights of power.” “Feigning incompetence to sandbag an opponent” (manipulative behaviour)

13. Deliberate (Purposeful) Underachievement 3. Why? When? To “Just Get By” (Ref. 6) Goal: Avoid more responsibilities. Achievement propels the achiever forward to greater challenges: more work, more demanding work, more tasks and more independence: i.e., more responsibilities. Deliberate underachievement (low grades) solve a problem: the unpleasant prospect of acquiring more responsibilities. Pertinent to the behaviour presented in Part II

14. Deliberate (Purposeful) Underachievement 4. How often does one underachieve on purpose? Prevalence of purposeful underachievement is difficult to assess with precision. Need appropriate detection methods. See Part II: Detecting deliberate underachievement in ESL tests

15. Deliberate (Purposeful) Underachievement 5. How does one underachieve on purpose? A variety of strategies are used to underachieve: See Part II (examples) Learned strategies: “Learning to underachieve” (Ref. 4)

16. Deliberate (Purposeful) Underachievement 6. What are the implications of purposeful underachievement (not showing your true abilities)? Social & psychological implications (relationships): A form of dishonesty Akin to lying or acting in a deceptive manner Education: Classroom (dis)order: Pertinent to the problematic presented in Part II

17. Part II. Detection: Case StudySous-classement intentionnel en anglais langue seconde / Deliberate underachievement in English as Second Language (ESL) (Ref. 7) • Analyse des caractéristiques métrologiques du TCALS II Psychometric properties of the ESL test used • Identification des stratégies utilisées par les étudiants Strategies used by students to underachieve in ESL • Élaboration et choix d’indices de sous-classement Indices of underachievement (underplacement) • Mise à l’épreuve des indices de sous-classement Benchmarking of underachievement indices

18. Stratégies utilisées par les étudiant.e.s / Strategies Frequently Used by Students to Underachieve in ESL Survey results: • Répondre « au hasard » “Random” response • Donner la mauvaise réponse (p. ex. inverser réponses) Incorrect response (e.g., invert responses) • Répéter une même réponse Repeat same response • Ne pas donner de réponse Omit response

19. Niveau estimé par le résultat au TCALS II Niveau réel Mise à niveau Niveau 1 Niveau 2 Niveau 3 Niveau 4 Mise à niveau ( 0 %) (10 %) (20 %) 98,57 % 99,63 % 99,93 % 1,43 % 0,37 % 0,07 % 0,00 % 0,00 % 0,00 % 0,00 % 0,00 % 0,00 % 0,00 % 0,00 % n.d. Niveau 1 ( 0 %) (10 %) (20 %) 17,60 % 33,90 % 50,03 % 81,20 % 66,07 % 49,97 % 1,20 % 0,03 % 0,00 % 0,00 % 0,00 % 0,00 % 0,00 % 0,00 % n.d. Niveau 2 ( 0 %) (10 %) (20 %) 0,00 % 0,00 % 0,02 % 12,40 % 31,98 % 57,60 % 80,24 % 67,98 % 42,38 % 7,14 % 0,04 % 0,00 % 0,22 % 0,00 % n.d. Niveau 3 ( 0 %) (10 %) (20 %) 0,00 % 0,00 % 0,00 % 0,00 % 0,00 % 0,17 % 10,70 % 95,00 % 99,83 % 59,93 % 5,00 % 0,00 % 29,37 % 0,00 % n.d. Niveau 4 ( 0 %) (10 %) (20 %) 0,00 % 0,00 % 0,00 % 0,00 % 0,00 % 0,00 % 0,00 % 74,90 % 99,97 % 12,53 % 25,03 % 0,03 % 87,47 % 0,07 % n.d. Efficacité de la stratégie de réponse « au hasard » / “Random” Response Efficiency

20. Efficacité de la détection de l’indice lz Niveau réel Non détecté Détecté Niveau 1 ( 0 %) (10 %) (20 %) 95,08 % 74,24 % 49,63 % 4,92 % 25,76 % 50,37 % Niveau 2 ( 0 %) (10 %) (20 %) 95,48 % 48,41 % 13,09 % 4,52 % 51,59 % 86,91 % Niveau 3 ( 0 %) (10 %) (20 %) 93,15 % 2,95 % 0,30 % 6,85 % 97,05 % 99,70 % Niveau 4 ( 0 %) (10 %) (20 %) 97,07 % 0,27 % 0,00 % 2,93 % 99,73 % 100,00 % Efficacité du dépistage du sous-classement par la stratégie de réponses « au hasard » / “Random” Response Detection Efficiency

21. Efficacité générale du dépistage du sous-classement / General Detection Efficiency

22. Merci, Thank You! Au Programme de recherche sur l’enseignement et l’apprentissage (PAREA) du Ministère de l’éducation du Québec for financial support. To all research collaborators, in particular: J.-G. Blais (Université de Montréal) and G. Arbach (Collège de l’Outaouais). Thank You for the opportunity to present the project and what remains to be done and learned about purposeful underachievement. To be continued…

23. Questions? N’hésitez pas à nous contacter Feel free to contact us: Gilles Raîche raicheg@umoncton.ca Département d’enseignement au secondaire et des ressources humaines Carole C. Tranchant tranchc@umoncton.ca École des sciences des aliments et de nutrition / School of Food Science & Nutrition Université de Moncton Moncton NB E1A 3E9 Bonne journée Good day!

24. RéférencesSuggested Readings 1. White et al. (2002). Test of socially motivated underachievement: “Letting up” for others. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 162-169. 2. Feldman et al. (2002). Self-presentation and verbal deception: Do self-presenters lie more? Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 24, 163-170. 3. Schultz (2000). Flirting with underachievement: Hidden for a reason. Highly Gifted Children, 13(2). 4. Delisle (1982). The gifted underachiever: Learning to underachieve, Roeper Review, 4(4), 16-18.

25. RéférencesSuggested Readings 5. Greene (2000). The 48 Laws of Power. Chapter 1 (Law 1): Never outshine the master. Penguin Books, New York, pp. 1-7. 6. Mandel & Marcus (1995). Could Do Better: Why Children Underachieve and What to Do About It. Chapter 2: The coasting underachiever. Harper Collins Publishers, Toronto, pp. 24-84. 7. Raîche (2002). Le dépistage du sous-classement aux tests de classement en anglais, langue seconde, au collégial. Gatineau: Collège de l’Outaouais, Hull, Québec (110 pp., en français). On line: www.umoncton.ca/raicheg/publications/