Abstract
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, & Passow,1966; Terman & Oden, 1947). In many schools, underachieve-ment can be pinpointed as early as the third grade (Shaw M Pressley, Borkowski, & Schneider, 1987).According to the most recent version of the metacognitive-motivational model (Borkowski, Carr, Rellinger, & Pressley,1990), positive feelings of self-esteem and attributional beliefsabout the role of effort contribute to the emergence of a maturemetacognitive system. Self-esteem and attributional beliefs,among other motivational states, are believed to develop fromgeneral strategy knowledge, which is the recognition that effec-tive performance is mediated by learning, memory, and prob-This research was supported by National Institutes of Health Re-search Grant HD-21218.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed toMartha Carr, who is now at the Department of Educational Psychol-ogy, Aderhold Hall, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602.lem-solving strategies. Children with fully developed generalstrategy knowledge understand that effort is required for strat-egy selection and monitoring on complex tasks. If their beliefsabout effort inspire strategy-based cognitions, they develop pos-itive academic self-esteem. The causal linkages between attri-butional beliefs about the importance of effort and the deploy-ment of learning strategies have been found with average-ability (Fabricius & Hagen, 1984; Kurtz & Borkowski, 1984)and hyperactive (Reid & Borkowski, 1987) children.Attributional beliefs and self-esteem may be of particularimportance in explaining metacognitively based behaviors ofunderachieving students because underachievers generallyhave low self-esteem and external attributional orientations(Fine, 1967; Shaw & Black, 1960). In terms of their strategic andmetacognitive performance, underachievers are less persistentin the accomplishment of goals (Terman & Oden, 1947), fail touse appropriate strategies, and underestimate task demands(Piontkowski & Calfee, 1979; Zelniker & Jeffrey, 1979), espe-cially with difficult learning assignments (e.g., Anderson & Jen-nings, 1980; 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, 1978; 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