Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

UNESCO reports enrollment in higher education in the Arab and Gulf Cooperation Council region doubled from 5.1 million in 2000 to 10.7 million in 2015. Despite significant budgets and the world’s lowest teacher-to-student ratio, higher education in this region is plagued by student underachievement. This study identifies academic underachievement factors among undergraduate students at risk at a national university in the GCC. As part of the Intrusive Intervention Program, students were required to complete an Academic Success Plan that delineated academic, personal, social, career, and other academic underachievement reasons. Based on 5,040 students’ responses that indicated their academic underachievement causes, findings reported that students perceived academic factors as the most recurrent reason for academic underachievement. In contrast, social adjustment causes were found to be the least recurrent. Specific causes are reported under each category and discussion is provided against gender, nationality, major, and classification.

Keywords

underachievement at-risk causes intervention GCC

Introduction

Worldwide, access to and growth of post-secondary education is an important education trend (Varghese, 2014). Enrollment in higher education has steadily increased in virtually every country resulting in greater access to traditionally excluded students from higher education (Abdulla & Ridge, 2011). Calderon (2018), using data from UNESCO Institute for Statistics, reports that there were roughly 32.6 million students enrolled in higher education institutions in 1970 compared to 99.9 million in 2000 with an estimated 377.4 million in 2030. In the Arab states, enrollment in higher education doubled from 5.1 million in 2000 to 10.7 million in 2015 (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2018). Nowhere is access to higher education more evident than in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) (Abdulla & Ridge, 2011). This has led to the rapid development of education in the Arab world that has been plagued with shortcomings.

One fault is the underachievement of the educational system and students (Bouhlila, 2011; Chapman & Miric, 2009; Heyneman, 1997). This underachievement exists despite governments in the GCC region allocating sizable portions of their budget ($150bn in 2017) to the education sector (Arabian Business, 2017) and the region having a lower pupil-teacher ratio of 17.1 compared to the world average of 23.7 (GCC Education Industry, 2018). Research has documented that the academic underachievement of university students is a complex issue influenced by numerous factors (Baker et al., 1998; Chere & Hlalele, 2014) and evident at all ability levels (Rayneri et al., 2006). More importantly, the concern is an ongoing concern for educators worldwide (Matthews & McBee, 2007). Therefore, this study aims to delineate the major causes of academic underachievement among undergraduate students at Qatar University, a national university in the GCC.

This study is structured as follows. The ﬁrst section of this article defines underachievement, followed by a literature review of factors influencing students’ academic underachievement. This is followed by addressing the Academic Success Plan (ASP) that delineates underlying reasons for academic underachievement and is used at this university for interventions with students at risk and being treated as a data collection tool. The following section explains the research methodology and the process of data collection and analysis. Finally, results are presented and discussed in subsequent sections, followed by a conclusion and suggestions for future research.

Literature Review

Several issues are highlighted in the literature that can influence students’ academic performance, explored in the following sections.

Defining Underachievement

Academic underachievement is of concern since it is an issue for learners at all ability levels (Chere & Hlalele, 2014). However, there is little agreement upon a definition for the term (Reis & McCoach, 2000). Generally, academic underachievement is defined as an inconsistency between ability and grades or ability and achievement (Donald et al., 2006; Reis & McCoach, 2000). It is usually understood as a lower academic performance than expected based on a particular set of potential measures (Connor, 2002; McCoach & Siegle, 2003) or a failure to achieve the schools’ academic requirements (Connor, 2002). A variety of factors can cause academic underachievement. For this study, underachieving students are defined as students who obtained a Grade Point Average (GPA) below 2.0 at the time of intervention, as defined by university policies. It is worth mentioning that pass or fail is not a reflection of the GPA earned. GPA as 2.0 is the institution’s minimum standard for a student to be under good standing. Any student receiving a GPA below 2.0 for three consecutive semesters qualifies for academic dismissal, excluding summers.

Within the first 24 GPA hours, the end of which roughly aligns with the second year of studies, students are immune from receiving Probation or Dismissal from the institution due to the Academic Warning policy. The Probation policies apply only toward the end of the second or beginning of the third year. Hence, a large population sample belongs to the third and fourth years. In addition, no early detection system/method was available before the interventions. Therefore, the authors relied heavily on GPA to identify at-risk students at the beginning of each semester.

Factors Influencing Student Academic Underachievement

Chere and Hlalele (2014) suggest that the factors that affect academic underachievement can be arranged into two groups, personal or individual-related factors and environmental factors. Accordingly, the personal include individual intellectual or emotional factors while the environmental comprises family and the school. The following further develops these specific influencing factors.

Academic Issues

Academic issues or concerns are problems students face that hinder their overall academic performance (Al-Zoubi & Younes, 2015). Academic issues stem from students’ struggle to perform well, given a deficit in their study skills, preparation, and self-motivation to excel academically. These problems could relate to undeveloped time management skills (Alsalem et al., 2017; Pehlivan, 2013), unpreparedness for exams (Afzal & Jami, 2018; Alammari & Bukhary, 2019; Al-Zoubi & Younes, 2015; Pressley et al., 1997), inadequate high school preparation (Scott-Clayton & Rodriquez, 2012; Snyder et al., 2016; Valentine et al., 2017), and dealing with demanding courses (i.e., not being prepared for the course level).

In addition, students’ inability to understand course content or relevance of the material delivered in class (Chi et al., 2017; Johnston, 2010; Ramirez et al., 2018; Sithole et al., 2017; Tierney et al., 2009), inability to understand professor (Hoeft, 2012; Retnawati et al., 2018; Roman, 2014), concentration difficulties (Goss & Sonnemann, 2017), low attendance (Çavdar et al., 2019; Nordmann et al., 2019; Sanchez et al., 2013; Seibert et al., 2017), a general lack of motivation to do well (Dişlen, 2013; Yilmaz et al., 2017), and/or ineffective study skills, in general, all influence achievement.

Personal Issues

There are personal matters that influence academic achievement. These include mental health issues or psychological distress such as anxiety and depression that were significantly and negatively associated with GPAs (Dyrbye et al., 2006; Hartley, 2011; Holliday et al., 2016). In addition to these, stress is a significant issue that influences students’ achievement and other aspects of their lives, impacting their academic work. Research reported high-stress levels and difficulties handling stress impeded academic performance (American College Health Association, 2012; Larson et al., 2016). Given that stress affects physical health, issues such as diet and sleeping difficulties also hinder academic performance (Jin & Shi, 2008; Larson et al., 2016; Merdad et al., 2014; Yeung et al., 2008).

Learning disabilities are among other personal issues that influence students’ academic performance. For example, Wasielewski’s (2017) study of students with learning disabilities in a small Catholic College reported that Students without disabilities had considerably greater academic performances (measured by GPAs) than students with disabilities. Adams and Proctor (2010) report that students without disabilities reported great overall adaptation to college, social adjustment, and semester GPA.

Other personal issues may lead to deteriorated academic performance among students, such as parents’ educational background and emotional and instrumental support of students. Researchers reported that parental support could influence students’ college success irrespective of whether parents attended college (Palbusa & Gauvain, 2017; Sánchez et al., 2013). Finally, student motivation is a reliable predictor of students’ academic performance (Meens et al., 2018). Research indicates that academic motivation positively affects academic engagement and achievement (i.e., GPA) (Richardson et al., 2012; Wu, 2019).

Major and Career Issues

Students sometimes might be uncertain of the college or major they want (Arcidiacono, 2004), their interests, skills, and abilities, lack clear career goals or plans (Gao & Eccles, 2020; Lent & Brown, 2019), or might find the institution not to be the right fit for their future goals and vision (Robinson & Bornholt, 2007). Their decision impacts their future career opportunities combined with the likelihood of being employed and their potential earnings (Congdon-Hohman et al., 2014).

Social Adjustment Issues

Students have social and economic issues that are sometimes multifaceted, divided into four components by Ababu et al. (2018). They are social, educational, attachment, and emotional adjustment issues. According to Furrer et al. (2014), the quality of students’ relationships with peers is a fundamental substrate for academic engagement development and, in turn, achievement. Peers with high engagement, who cluster together, have been associated with increasing their academic engagement and those they interact with, which will leverage their academic performance (Brazil & Andersson, 2020; Nguyen et al., 2018).

Other Issues

Unhealthy habits such as excessive use of the Internet, prolonged hours playing video games, and addiction to social media have been linked with poor academic performance (Badri et al., 2017; Malaney, 2005). Moreover, Habes et al. (2018) researched the impact of social media, such as Facebook overuse, on the students’ academic performance and observed a drop in students’ grades and lack of time as consequences of social networking participation. This indicates that it is negatively related to academic performance when students overuse social media forums. The following section discusses the factors that influence underachievement as defined by the university’s Academic Success Plan.

Definitions of Underlying Reasons for Academic Underachievement

The Academic Advising Center at this university, through a series of structured one-on-one intervention sessions with students identified as at-risk, collectively devised definitions of the underlying reasons that contribute toward a student’s underachievement (see Appendix A). During these one-on-one intervention sessions with students identified as at-risk, the academic advisors participated in two important events, such as learning opportunities in the form of workshops or one-on-one meetings with students to explain the policies procedures that could impact their academic standing.

A thorough examination of the Academic Success Plan provided insight into the academic and non-academic elements that cause students’ underachievement. First, the plan provides information about students’ study habits and skills that might contribute to their at-risk academic status. The ASP provides the students’ academic progress in the current semester and forecasts the underperforming students’ projected GPA considering grades earned at the end of the current semester. Also, the ASP developed a registration schedule for the students for the upcoming semesters to earn grades that could improve their academic situation and devised an action plan that the students could work toward achieving their short-and long-term aims. Finally, the ASP allowed the initiation of appropriate referrals to various on-campus support services with an objective to assist students in improving their current academic standing and helped schedule supplementary meetings as follow-up sessions to learn of the students’ progress at designated intervals throughout the semester.

It is worth mentioning that (Johnson et al., 2021) showed that these one-on-one sessions significantly impact increasing GPA after attending them. The results revealed a 64.8% greater chance of a student improving their GPA upon completion of the intervention than a student not undergoing the intervention.

The reasons identified as causes for underperformance are grouped as per their main categories and are defined following worldwide best practices and probing academic advisors’ questions to understand significant issues frequently faced by academically underachieving students. These were then used to develop an ASP that outlines five categories (academic, personal, major/career, social adjustment, and others) that identify the students’ poor performance (see Appendix A). As part of the Intrusive Intervention Program at this university, students meet with their advisor to complete an ASP by ticking what they perceive as the causes of their academic underachievement.

Objectives of the Research

Various intrinsic and extrinsic causes influence the academic performance of students. Therefore, there is a need to identify these causes to address them appropriately to ensure that suitable remedial measures are deployed to rectify the student’s academic situation. Most of the studies that explore the causes of academic underachievement have been conducted in western higher educational institutions, with a focus on factors about the classroom alone, such as attendance (Çavdar et al., 2019; Nordmann et al., 2019; Sanchez et al., 2013; Seibert et al., 2017), in-class participation (Chi et al., 2017; Johnston, 2010; Ramirez et al., 2018; Sithole et al., 2017; Tierney et al., 2009), teaching methodologies (Hoeft, 2012; Retnawati et al., 2018; Roman, 2014), and performance in exams (Pressley et al., 1997). Limited studies have stemmed from higher educational institutions in the Middle Eastern region that explore academic underachievement causes beyond the classroom.

The current research is student-centric, focusing on the causes of academic underachievement from their perspective. The data was collected from the academically underperforming in the Foundation Program over five consecutive semesters—from Fall 2017 to Fall 2019. and Undergraduate students at this university to complete the Intrusive Intervention Program. It is important to note that the Foundation Program is designed to provide students with the knowledge and skills needed to fill any gaps between their minimum academic skills gain in secondary school and the academic level needed to be successful at the university. Academic advisors documented data in students’ respective Academic Success Plans and then analyzed them at the end of each stated semester’s intervention cycle.

This research’s broader objective is to explore the causes contributing to academic underachievement from a strategic scope of the institution and focus on the factors related to specific colleges within the institution. Several research questions addressing the objective of this study were devised.

Research Questions

The major research questions stemming from the above objective are as follows:

What Academic factors could be the causes of student academic underachievement?

What Major/Career factors could be the causes of student academic underachievement?

What Personal factors could be the causes of student academic underachievement?

What Social Adjustment factors could be the causes of student academic underachievement?

Were there any factors within the “other factor” section that contributed to the causes of student academic underachievement?

Is there a difference in the student academic underachievement factors based on gender, nationality, major, and classification?

Methodology and Data Collection

A proportional random sample was obtained from the total population in this study from this university’s foundation level (students who have enrolled or not completed Level 1 courses by their third semester and those who are enrolled in Level 2 courses in their fourth semester) and undergraduate students identified as at-risk (those who received accumulative GPA below 2.00). In this study, the population is heterogeneous because it is differentiated by semester (Fall 2017, Spring 2018, Fall 2018, Spring 2019, and Fall 2019), gender (female and male), college, major (STEM and non-STEM), classification (foundation, first-year students, sophomore, junior, and senior) and nationality (nationals and non-nationals). This study’s total sample size is N = 5,040 and is based on the semester of data collection. For this study, data were obtained from 1,035 students in Fall 2017, 761 students in Spring 2018, 699 students in Fall 2018, 1,037 students in Fall 2019, and 1,508 students in Spring 2019. Mack et al. (2005) stated that research findings could be extended or generalized to students with similar characteristics (e.g., similar in gender, major, classification, and nationality) as the population of interest. Moreover, at-risk students in the sample will most distinctly indicate the factors contributing to their academic underachievement in higher education. They provide a wide range of perspectives relating to the research problem that enables the investigators to gain greater insights complex understanding of the research problem from all angles.

Throughout the five consecutive semesters, assigned academic advisors performed in-depth interventions with at-risk students to discuss their situation and perspectives toward their academic performance. The intervention sessions include face-to-face discussions and completing an Academic Success Plan (ASP). See Appendix B. In section D1, “Reasons for students falling at-risk” of the ASP, several categories (Academic, Major/Career, Personal, Social Adjustment, and other) were identified as common reasons why students tend to perform poorly in their academics. These categories were adopted from benchmarking the ASP with several western institutions (e.g., Academic Success Agreement by University of North Carolina Wilmington and the Academic Success Contract by Wright State University), literature review of common reasons cited and endorsed by the university’s legal office. The data and the academic advisor notes were collected only from students who completed the plan under the Intrusive Intervention Program at this university. The ASP section D1 was then thematically coded according to the student’s responses to each question exploring the reasons to prepare the analysis data.

The percentage of women in the national university population comprises approximately 77.0%, with a higher portion of the total students being nationals (Qatari; over 20,000). As such, in this study, Table 1 demonstrates that this data contains more female students (75.3%) than males, with national students being the majority (82.3%). The mapping of major classification followed the Turner and Brass (2014) division of disciplines as HASS (Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences, i.e., non-STEM) and STEM. Approximately half of the students were in the foundation level or general disciplines, classified as undeclared. It is worth mentioning that 98.7% of the students were undergraduates. Students in non-STEM disciplines (30.7%) were more than students in STEM disciplines (16.7%), which happened because the sample has a higher number of students (31.3%) enrolled in the College of Business and Economics. The remaining were enrolled in the other eight colleges: namely, Arts and Sciences (27.4%), Education (8.9%), Engineering (16.7%), Health Sciences (0.9%), Law (8.6%), Medicine (0.5%), Pharmacy (0.5%), and Sharia and Islamic Studies (5.0%).

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics of At-Risk Students in the Sample N = 5040.

Gender	Nationality	Major classification	Student classification
Male 24.7% (1,247)	National 82.3% (4,150)	Undeclared 52.5% (2,647)	Foundation 1.3% (68)
Female75.3% (3,793)	Non-National 17.7% (890)	STEM 16.7% (844)	First-year 42.7% (2,151)
		Non-STEM 30.7% (1,549)	Sophomore 33.4% (1,684)
			Junior 14.5% (730)
			Senior 8.1% (407)

It is important to note that four out of the 10 colleges under study universities have a mixed medium of instruction system offering Arabic and English tracks. Some only provide an English track. The other six colleges have Arabic as their medium of instruction. The difficulty with language was covered in academic issues under the sub-factors who were unable to understand course content or relevance and were unable to understand professor/conflict with the professor.

Results

During the one-on-one intervention sessions, the students identified as at-risk were asked about the underlying reasons that contributed to their academic underachievement. Each student was allowed to identify all the possible causes under the five different categories. The following subsections have analyzed the collected data by groups to summarize the results, compare the similarities and differences among the reasons under each category, and identify the most important causes for student academic underachievement.

Academic Reasons

Results show that 87.0% out of the total 5,040 students were affected by academic factors throughout the five consecutive semesters, representing the most important and the highest category compared to other categories. The frequency distribution of the 10 reasons under the academic category is shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Causes of Underachievement Among the Sampled Students.

Academic	87.0% (4,385)
Ineffective study skills.	20.5% (897)
Undeveloped time management skills.	27.9% (1,223)
Unprepared for exams.	34.2% (1,499)
Poor high school preparation.	4.7% (207)
Demanding courses/not prepared for course level.	34.6% (1,519)
Unable to understand course content or relevance.	23.5% (1,030)
Unable to understand professor/conflict with professor.	18.4% (809)
Hard to concentrate.	16.3% (713)
Did not attend/ Skip classes.	20.3% (888)
Lack of motivation/discipline.	10.1% (445)
Personal	47.6% (2,399)
Health problems.	24.6% (591)
Sleep difficulty.	12.6% (303)
Possible learning difficulty.	4.5% (107)
Pressure, stress, anxiety, or tension.	40.5% (972)
Personal/Family situation.	50.7% (1,217)
Major/Career	18.2% (918)
Uncertain of college/major.	64.1% (588)
Unsure of interests, skills, abilities.	22.5% (207)
No clear career goals or plans.	24.9% (229)
This university may not be the place for me.	4.8% (44)
Social Adjustment	3.8% (189)
Hard to make friends/loneliness.	44.4% (84)
Roommate or social issues.	32.3% (61)
Separation from family, friends, home.	33.3% (63)
Other	23.9% (1,206)
Working too much (# of hour per week).	32.9% (397)
Overinvolved in extra curricula activity.	7.5% (91)
Excessive time spent online (gaming/Social Media).	49.5% (597)
Financial difficulties.	3.1% (37)
Difficulty adjusting to college life.	16.7% (202)

Among the 10 reasons for poor academic performance, “Poor high school preparation” was the least encountered problem amongst at-risk students, accounting for only 207 out of 4,385. “Demanding courses/not prepared for course level” was the most common academic reason contributing to students’ underachievement. Specifically, 34.6% of the students indicated the above reason as the leading cause of their academic underachievement, while 34.2% indicated “Unprepared for exams.” Other reasons like “Ineffective study skills,” “Unable to understand professor/conflict with the professor,” and “Did not attend/skip classes” had approximately a similar distribution of students with percentages of 20.5%, 18.4%, and 20.3%, respectively.

Major and Career Reasons

Major or career category consists of four different reasons which are ordered based on the students’ perspective and identification as follows: 64.1% out of the total 918 students recorded that they were uncertain of their college or major, followed by 24.9% who had no clear career goals or plans, and 22.5% were unsure about their interests, skills, and abilities. The least frequent response, constituting about 5% of this subsample, was “This university may not be the place for me,” with no foundation-level student reporting this reason. However, students reported that “Uncertain of college or major” was the most influential factor that significantly impacted their academic performance under the foundation program. Table 3 illustrates those female students who reported that “This university may not be the place for me” were nearly double male students. STEM and non-STEM students had the same distribution within this major or career reason.

Table 3.

Causes of Underachievement Classified Among the Demographic Characteristics of the Sample.

	Gender		Nationality		Major classification			Student classification
	Female	Male	National (Qatari)	Non-National (Non-Qatari)	Undeclared	STEM	Non-STEM	Foundations^a	First-year students	Sophomore	Junior	Senior
Academic
Ineffective study skills.	76.7% (688)	23.3% (209)	81.7% (733)	18.3% (164)	57.1% (512)	18.4% (165)	24.5% (220)	1.5% (13)	48.3% (433)	32.9% (295)	10.4% (93)	7.0% (63)
Undeveloped time management skills.	75.3% (921)	24.7% (302)	80.1% (979)	20.0% (244)	53.2% (650)	22.2% (272)	24.6% (301)	0.9% (11)	44.2% (540)	34.0% (416)	14.1% (172)	6.9% (84)
Unprepared for exams.	73.8% (1,106)	26.2% (393)	83.0% (1,244)	17.0% (255)	60.1% (901)	13.9% (209)	26.0% (389)	0.5% (8)	45.1% (676)	33.9% (508)	13.9% (208)	6.6% (99)
Poor high school preparation.	77.8% (161)	22.2% (46)	71.0% (147)	29.0% (60)	60.9% (126)	15.0% (31)	24.2% (50)	3.9% (8)	55.7% (115)	23.2% (48)	10.6% (22)	6.8% (14)
Demanding courses/not prepared for course level.	78.9% (1,198)	21.1% (321)	85.0% (1,291)	15.0% (228)	57.5% (873)	7.2% (109)	35.4% (537)	0.7% (11)	39.4% (599)	35.5% (539)	17.1% (259)	7.3% (111)
Unable to understand course content or relevance.	80.7% (831)	19.3% (199)	81.0% (834)	19.0% (196)	54.9% (565)	17.8% (183)	27.4% (282)	1.1% (11)	42.1% (434)	35.0% (360)	15.2% (157)	6.6% (68)
Unable to understand professor/conflict with the professor.	81.7% (661)	18.3% (148)	81.3% (658)	18.7% (151)	45.0% (364)	24.9% (201)	30.2% (244)	0.7% (6)	41.5% (336)	33.0% (267)	16.8% (136)	7.9% (64)
Hard to concentrate.	78.0% (556)	22.0% (157)	79.5% (567)	20.5% (146)	59.2% (422)	12.1% (86)	28.8% (205)	0.6% (4)	48.1% (343)	32.0% (228)	13.2% (94)	6.2% (44)
Did not attend/ Skip classes.	65.8% (584)	34.2% (304)	80.5% (715)	19.5% (173)	57.1% (507)	14.2% (126)	28.7% (255)	1.8% (16)	48.4% (430)	31.4% (279)	12.3% (109)	6.1% (54)
Lack of motivation/discipline.	73.9% (329)	26.1% (116)	78.4% (349)	21.6% (96)	51.9% (231)	19.1% (85)	29.0% (129)	1.8% (8)	48.8% (217)	30.1% (134)	11.7% (52)	7.6% (34)
Personal
Health problems.	80.7% (477)	19.3% (114)	81.9% (484)	18.1% (107)	49.4% (292)	16.4% (97)	34.2% (202)	1.4% (8)	41.1% (243)	33.5% (198)	14.7% (87)	9.3% (55)
Sleep difficulty.	81.9% (248)	18.2% (55)	82.2% (249)	17.8% (54)	50.8% (154)	15.2% (46)	34.0% (103)	0.7% (2)	43.9% (133)	33.3% (101)	15.5% (47)	6.6% (20)
Possible learning difficulty.	75.7% (81)	24.3% (26)	72.0% (77)	28.0% (30)	52.3% (56)	15.0% (16)	32.7% (35)	—	48.6% (52)	32.7% (35)	13.1% (14)	5.6% (6)
Pressure, stress, anxiety, or tension.	85.8% (834)	14.2% (138)	79.5% (773)	20.5% (199)	50.4% (490)	14.0% (136)	35.6% (346)	0.7% (7)	38.3% (372)	35.6% (346)	17.1% (166)	8.3% (81)
Personal/Family situation.	76.3% (928)	23.8% (289)	79.8% (971)	20.2% (246)	47.5% (578)	14.5% (177)	38.0% (462)	0.8% (10)	39.2% (477)	35.2% (428)	14.1% (171)	10.8% (131)
Major/Career
Uncertain of college/major.	81.3% (478)	18.7% (110)	78.7% (463)	21.3% (125)	60.9% (358)	14.5% (85)	24.7% (145)	2.2% (13)	57.1% (336)	28.6% (168)	7.0% (41)	5.1% (30)
Unsure of interests, skills, abilities.	92.3% (191)	7.7% (16)	80.7% (167)	19.3% (40)	61.8% (128)	8.2% (17)	30.0% (62)	0.5% (1)	50.2% (104)	32.9% (68)	10.6% (22)	5.8% (12)
No clear career goals or plans.	87.8% (201)	12.2% (28)	81.7% (187)	18.3% (42)	61.1% (140)	10.5% (24)	28.4% (65)	0.9% (2)	54.2% (124)	24.9% (57)	15.3% (35)	4.8% (11)
This university may not be the place for me.	68.2% (30)	31.8% (14)	77.3% (34)	22.7% (10)	56.8% (25)	20.5% (9)	22.7% (10)	—	72.7% (32)	13.6% (6)	6.8% (3)	6.8% (3)
Social Adjustment
Hard to make friends/loneliness.	79.8% (67)	20.2% (17)	71.4% (60)	28.6% (24)	63.1% (53)	7.1% (6)	29.8% (25)	—	54.8% (46)	31.0% (26)	9.5% (8)	4.8% (4)
Roommate or social issues.	86.9% (53)	13.1% (8)	83.6% (51)	16.4% (10)	55.7% (34)	1.6% (1)	42.6% (26)	—	45.9% (28)	36.1% (22)	8.2% (5)	9.8% (6)
Separation from family, friends, home.	69.8% (44)	30.2% (19)	55.6% (35)	44.4% (28)	60.3% (38)	19.1% (12)	20.6% (13)	—	55.6% (35)	23.8% (15)	15.9% (10)	4.8% (3)
Other
Working too much (# of hour(s) per week).	54.9 (218)	45.1% (179)	83.4% (331)	16.6% (66)	59.7% (237)	8.3% (33)	32.0% (127)	0.5% (2)	41.8% (166)	36.6% (145)	12.1% (48)	9.1% (36)
Overinvolved in extra curricula activity.	76.9% (70)	23.1% (21)	76.9% (70)	23.1% (21)	57.1% (52)	14.3% (13)	28.6% (26)	1.1% (1)	38.5% (35)	34.1% (31)	15.4% (14)	11.0% (10)
Excessive time spent online (gaming/Social Media).	82.8% (494)	17.3% (103)	82.6% (493)	17.4% (104)	60.6% (362)	15.2% (91)	24.1% (144)	0.3% (2)	46.7% (279)	32.8% (196)	13.9% (83)	6.2% (37)
Financial difficulties.	56.8% (21)	43.2% (16)	40.5% (15)	59.5% (22)	54.1% (20)	21.6% (8)	24.3% (9)	—	37.8% (14)	35.1% (13)	16.2% (6)	10.8% (4)
Difficulty adjusting to college life.	85.6% (173)	14.4% (29)	80.2% (162)	19.8% (40)	68.3% (138)	11.9% (24)	19.8% (40)	—	60.4% (122)	30.2% (61)	7.9% (16)	1.5% (3)

Some students in this group have no records for the underperformance factors, declared with dashes.

Personal Reasons

The personal category is the second-highest reason for academic underachievement among students, constituting 2,399 out of 5,040 students. After analyzing the personal reasons, it was identified that half of the 2,399 students were prone to personal or family situations (50.7%). The second common reason within this category was “Pressure, stress, anxiety, or tension,” making up 40.5%. The least frequent reason (4.5%) identified by the students was “Possible learning difficulty.” Almost one-quarter of the sample encountered health problems (24.6%), contributing to their academic underachievement.

Social Adjustment Reasons

This study pointed out that social adjustment reasons were the least identified by students as the causes of their academic underachievement. In contrast, only 3.8% out of 5,040 students identified reasons within this category. The most frequently identified reason within this category was “Hard to make friends/loneliness,” constituting only 44.4%. The two other reasons were equally distributed among the sampled students, with an average of 32.8%.

Gender, Nationality, Major, and Classification

The general findings shown in Table 3 indicate that females (54.9%) and males (45.1%) are subjected to excessive working hours as both subsamples are approximately equally distributed among the “Working too much (# of hours per week)” reason. Non-nationals (59.5%) are more exposed to financial difficulties than nationals. Students from the foundation program did not choose either “Financial difficulties” or “Difficulty adjusting to college life” as causes for their academic underachievement, while first-year students identified with a high percentage (60.4%) with the latter reason as a cause for their academic underachievement.

Findings in Table 3 yielded that the frequency of female students that specified any of the ten reasons under the academic category ranged between 65.8% and 81.7%, representing higher percentages than their male counterparts. Among the females, the one academic reason that was most commonly selected for poor academic performance was “Unable to understand professor/conflict with the professor,” constituting a percentage of 81.7%. National students had the highest frequencies for these 10 academic reasons, with an average of 80.2% compared to non-nationals. Nationals’ most frequent academic reason was “Demanding courses/not preparing for courses level.” Students with undeclared majors approximately constituted half of the sample among ten academic reasons, and students with non-STEM majors experienced all of these factors more than their STEM counterparts. This exception was “Undeveloped time management skills,” where STEM and non-STEM students had similar frequencies. Results also showed that “Poor high school preparation” was the most frequently identified reason for academic underachievement by freshmen (55.7%) under the academic category.

Concerning students’ distribution based on gender, nationality, major, and student classification, identifying personal reasons, Table 3 showed similar results in the academic category subsection. In this subsection, females and nationals were more responsive to the five personal reasons than their male and non-national counterparts, respectively. In addition, students under undeclared majors made up the majority of those who faced personal reasons for their academic underachievement, followed by non-STEM students. Twenty-seven foundation level students identified “Health problems,” “Sleep difficulty,” “Pressure, stress, anxiety or tension,” and “Personal/Family situation” as the reasons that had a significant impact on their academic underachievement, with “Health problems” being the most frequently identified reason. However, students in the foundation program did not have any “Possible learning difficulty” record due to their academic underachievement.

Table 3 illustrates that no foundation level student identified social adjustment as a reason for underachievement. Seniors were the least prone to identifying causes within this category, except for reporting the reason “Roommate or social issues.” Specifically, 9.8% of seniors identified roommate and social issues as a reason for their academic underachievement compared to only 8.2% of juniors. Students under both STEM (19.1%) and non-STEM (20.6%) majors almost equally identified “separation from family, friends or home” as a reason for their academic underachievement.

Additional Factors

Concerning the last category of reasons for being at-risk and the third most significant set of factors that influence students, half of the 1,206 students indicated that “Excessive time spent online” for gaming or social media was one of the major reasons that resulted in being at-risk. Students also reported that “Financial difficulties” made up the reason least impacting (3.1%), while 32.9% said “Working too much (# of hours per week)” as a significant reason for their academic underachievement.

Statistical Findings

Overall, the most influential factor affecting the student’s underachievement is “Demanding courses/not prepared for course level” compared to all other reasons under the five different categories, as 1,519 students out of the total sampled students reported this. The difference between two population proportions in Table 3 is examined using two-proportion z-tests by stating the null hypothesis $H_{\circ} : P_{1} = P_{2}$ (no difference), and the two-tailed alternative hypothesis $H_{a} : P_{1} = / P_{2}$ . This test investigates the significant difference between the two levels under gender (female and male) and the two levels under nationality (nationals and non-nationals) concerning the reason for students’ academic underachievement. Findings indicate that there is a statistically significant difference between the proportions under the gender, nationality, and major classification for all the academic, personal, major/career, social adjustment, and other reasons, as the null hypothesis cannot be accepted (p < .05), except for the following reasons:

“Undeveloped time management skills” under the Academic category: STEM and non-STEM students do not have a statistically significant difference (p = .168).

“This university may not be the place for me” under the Major/Career category: STEM and non-STEM students are significantly similar (p = .795).

“Roommate or social issues” under the Social Adjustment category: students under the undeclared majors and non-STEM majors are not significantly different as the null hypothesis is rejected (p = .147).

“Separation from family, friends, home” under the Social Adjustment category: nationals and non-nationals are not significantly different, which means that those two groups are facing this same reason equally. Also, students with STEM and non-STEM majors are similar (p = .826).

“Financial difficulties” under the Other category: no significant difference is found within females and males, within nationals and non-nationals, and within students with STEM and non-STEM majors concerning this reason.

Discussion

Several findings are worth further discussion. Concerning academic reasons for underachievement, these students’ least reported cause was “poor high school preparation.” This finding differs from other studies that reported the lack of high school preparation contributed to underachievement (Balduf, 2009; Haycock & Huang, 2001; Snyder et al., 2016; Valentine et al., 2017). In this study, when poor high school preparation was reported, first-year students indicated that they were the most unprepared by their high school, and this decreases each year with seniors indicating this was of little concern. One can infer those students new to higher education will probably consider this a problem. In contrast, more experienced students have more likely to fill any knowledge or skill gaps from high school and do not see this as a problem.

However, there is a dilemma in these findings. Specifically, these students report that poor high school preparation was not a major cause yet. The demanding courses, which are the most influential factors affecting the student’s underachievement reported and not being prepared for the course level, were the common academic reasons for students’ underachievement. This is followed by being unprepared for exams and ineffective study skills. This raises how these students define and understand high school preparation and their secondary school education expectations. One could argue that high school preparation should include the knowledge and skills needed to be prepared and navigate demanding courses, possess skills at the university level, and prepare themselves for university-level exams.

Furthermore, substantially more females than males reported poor high school preparation. However, a higher percentage of females than males report academic factors as causes for academic underachievement. In the context of this study, gender-segregated classes are the norm in public education. This raises significant concerns. Do these segregated schools equally prepare students for the university, and are they separate but equal? Concerning this possible inequality, Wiseman (2008) reported that in Saudi Arabia and some other Arab nations, boys’ schools employed more experienced teachers than girls’ schools, which points out the imbalance of segregated schools’ resources.

Females recorded more often on all five causes of underachievement regarding personal reasons. The underlying theme in this subsection is anxiety and stress. Abdel-Khalek and Alansari (2004), in their study of 10 Arab nations, reported that females recorded higher anxiety scores in all countries. They argue that child-rearing practices and orthodox Arab traditions had an impact. For example, many Qatari women enrolled in higher education in Qatar are conflicted between societal norms about education, workforce, and family (James-Hawkins et al., 2017). Furthermore, many of these young women resolve this conflict by preferencing family over work and education (James-Hawkins et al., 2017). This could explain females’ higher recording of personal characteristics that cause underachievement.

Finally, an additional cause reported by students for underachievement was excessive time spent online. Research has demonstrated that disproportionate time on the Internet and social media has been linked with poor academic performance (Badri et al., 2017; Habes et al., 2018; Malaney, 2005). For example, Kirschner and Karpinski (2010) found a significant negative relationship between academic performance and Facebook users’ use, spending fewer hours studying than nonusers. Regarding gender, Ul Haq and Chand (2012) reported that female Facebook users spend more time on the platform than male users, but males spend more time internet browsing. Concerning gaming, males are more likely to engage in video game usage than females (Dong et al., 2018). Anand (2007) examined US students’ relationship between video game usage and grade point average (GPA). He reported that the more time a student is engaged in video game usage, the lower the GPA. However, in this study, females report that excessive Internet usage is a problem more than males. Unpacking this finding, several questions should be considered. First, how do the genders perceive excessive use? Winker (2005) found that women are moderate users of the Internet. It could be inferred that females have more family commitments and less time and consider Internet usage time-consuming. Horvat et al. (2011) found that male and female students differ in spending their time on the Internet. Female students spend more time working, researching, and gathering information for their studies, and male students spend more time online playing games. Concerning nationality, research findings demonstrated the significant distinction between both nationals and non-nationals. National students showed greater use as they tend to spend more time online than their counterparts.

Conclusion and Suggestions for Further Research

This study demonstrates that the interventions have been effective, given that the students have recovered with their GPA above 2.0. Furthermore, students identified as at-risk are aware of the underlying causes of academic achievement and how the causes vary based on gender, nationality, major, and classification. However, these findings raise questions and concerns that need to be further examined. As mentioned, females reported academic factors more than males. Because of this context and gender-segregated schools, the research could determine if male and female schools are separate but equal and possibly identify any existing discrepancies in education and tertiary education preparation. This is important since it is unlikely that universities in the GCC region will suspend gender-segregated classes for undergraduates. Therefore, additional studies should be conducted on the causes of undergraduate students’ underachievement in the region.

Studies could be conducted at secondary level schools to identify the extent of post-secondary preparation provided to students and the skills that students are provided with to navigate the university’s academic demands. Also, to examine if schools develop other skills such as time management essential for university success. The findings would be valuable for universities involved in admitting and directly working with students at risk.

Furthermore, it would be valuable to examine the differences between nationals and non-nationals regarding underachievement more closely. Also, often learners’ academic underachievement can be influenced by peers. This study did not examine any effect of peers on academic underachievement, which is an area that would be valuable in the context. Finally, qualitative research can explain why students report the various causes of underachievement, what they do to cope with these causes, and possibly provide insight into ways to reduce underachievement.

Also, other modeling techniques can be utilized to investigate reasons for underperformance, such as logistic regression and the fully Bayesian modeling approach. One also could collect data for each reason/factor using the same sample of students repeatedly across time in a longitudinal panel study. This makes it possible to detect the different reasons for underachievement and the long-term academic changes.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Causes of Academic Underachievement with Definitions as Listed in Academic Success Plan.

Appendix B

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Open Access funding provided by the Qatar National Library.

ORCID iD

Michael H. Romanowski

References

Ababu

B. G.

Yigzaw

B. A.

Besene

D. Y.

Alemu

G. W.

(2018). Prevalence of adjustment problem and its predictors among first-year undergraduate students in Ethiopian university: A cross-sectional institution based study. Psychiatry Journal, 2018, 5919743. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5919743

Abdel-Khalek

A. M.

Alansari

B. M.

(2004). Gender differences in anxiety among undergraduates from ten Arab countries. Social Behavior and Personality, 32, 649–655.

Abdulla

Ridge

(2011). Where are all the men? Gender, participation and higher education in the United Arab Emirates (Working Paper No. 11-03). Dubai School of Government Working Paper Series (pp.1–15).

Adams

K. S.

Proctor

B. E.

(2010). Adaptation to college for students with disabilities and without disabilities: Group differences and predictors. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 22(3), 166–184.

Afzal

Jami

(2018). Prevalence of academic procrastination and reasons for academic procrastination in university students. Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 28(1), 51–69.

Alammari

M. R.

Bukhary

D. M.

(2019). Factors contributing to prosthodontic exam anxiety in undergraduate dental students. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 10, 31–38.

Alsalem

W. S. Y.

Alamodi

L. A.

Hazazi

A. T. M.

Shibah

A. M.

Jabri

S. A.

Albosruor

Z. A.

(2017). The effect of time management on academic performance among students of Jazan University. The Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine, 69(8), 3042–3049.

Al-Zoubi

S. M.

Younes

M. A. B.

(2015). Low academic achievement: Causes and results. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(11), 2262–2268.

American College Health Association. (2012). Healthy campus 2020: Objectives. https://www.acha.org/HealthyCampus/HealthyCampus/Student_Objectives.aspx

10.

Anand

(2007). A study of time management: The correlation between video game usage and academic performance markers. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(4), 552–559.

11.

Arabian Business. (2017). GCC spends $150bn a year on education but challenges persist. https://www.arabianbusiness.com/gcc-spends-150bn-year-on-education-but-challenges-persist-658572.html

12.

Arcidiacono

(2004). Ability sorting and the returns to college major. Journal of Econometrics, 121(1–2), 343–375.

13.

Badri

Nuaimi

A. A.

Guang

Rashedi

A. A.

(2017). School performance, social networking effects, and learning of school children: Evidence of reciprocal relationships in Abu Dhabi. Telematics and Informatics, 34(8), 1433–1444.

14.

Baker

J. A.

Bridger

Evans

(1998). Models of underachievement among gifted preadolescents: The role of personal, family, and school factors. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42(1), 5–15.

15.

Balduf

(2009). Underachievement among college students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20(2), 274–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202x0902000204

16.

Bouhlila

D. S.

(2011). The quality of secondary education in the Middle East and North Africa: What can we learn from TIMSS’ results? Compare, 41(3), 327–352.

17.

Brazil

Andersson

(2020). Mental well-being and changes in peer ability from high school to college. Youth & Society, 52(5), 687–709. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118x18764526

18.

Calderon

(2018). Massification of higher education revisited, Analytics & Insights. RMIT University.

19.

Çavdar

Yasar

Fisk

(2019). Student biases about the middle east: Lessons from an experiment. Journal of Political Science Education, 15(3), 299–317.

20.

Chapman

D. W.

Miric

S. L.

(2009). Education quality in the Middle East. International Review of Education, 55(4), 311–344.

21.

Chere

N. E.

Hlalele

(2014). Academic underachievement of learners at school: A literature review. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(23), 827–839. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n23p827

22.

Chi

Wang

Liu

Zhu

(2017). Associations among attitudes, perceived difficulty of learning science, gender, parents’ occupation and students’ scientific competencies. International Journal of Science Education, 39(16), 2171–2188.

23.

Congdon-Hohman

Nathan

Svec

(2014). Student uncertainty and major choice: A robust control approach (Working paper). College of the Holy Cross.

24.

Connor

D. F.

(2002). Aggression and antisocial behavior in children and adolescents: Research and treatment. Guilford Press.

25.

Dişlen

D. G.

(2013). The reasons of lack of motivation from the students’ and teachers’ voices. The Journal of Academic Social Sciences, 1, 35–45.

26.

Donald

Lazarus

Lolwana

(2006). Educational psychology in social context. Oxford University Press.

27.

Dong

Wang

Potenza

M. N.

(2018). Gender-related differences in neural responses to gaming cues before and after gaming: Implications for gender-specific vulnerabilities to Internet gaming disorder. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 13(11), 1203–1214. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsy084

28.

Dyrbye

L. N.

Thomas

M. R.

Shanafelt

T. D.

(2006). Systematic review of depression, anxiety, and other indicators of psychological distress among U.S. and Canadian medical students. Academic Medicine, 81, 354–373. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-2006040

29.

Furrer

C. J.

Skinner

E. A.

Pitzer

J. R.

(2014). The influence of teacher and peer relationships on students’ classroom engagement and everyday resilience. In Shernoff

D. J.

Bempechat

(Eds.), Engaging youth in schools: Empirically-based models to guide future innovations (pp. 101–123). Teachers College Press.

30.

Gao

Eccles

(2020). Who lower their aspirations? The development and protective factors of college-associated career aspirations in adolescence. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 116, 1–13.

31.

GCC Education Industry. (2018). Alpen capital. https://argaamplus.s3.amazonaws.com/9e55ad53-477f-48f0-b202-2c2f03d6a03d.pdf

32.

Goss

Sonnemann

(2017). Engaging students: Creating classrooms that improve learning. Grattan Institute. https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Engaging-students-creating-classrooms-that-improve-learning.pdf

33.

Habes

Alghizzawi

Salloum

S. A.

Ahmad

(2018). The use of mobile technology in the marketing of therapeutic tourist sites: A critical analysis. International Journal of Information Technology and Language Studies, 2(2), 48–54.

34.

Hartley

M. T.

(2011). Examining the relationships between resilience, mental health, and academic persistence in undergraduate college students. Journal of American College Health, 59, 596–604. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2010.515632

35.

Haycock

Huang

(2001). Are today’s high school graduates ready? Thinking K–16, 5, 3–17.

36.

Heyneman

S. P.

(1997). The quality of education in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). International Journal of Educational Development, 17(4), 449–466.

37.

Hoeft

M. E.

(2012). Why university students don’t read: What professors can do to increase compliance. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(2), 1–19.

38.

Holliday

Anderson

Williams

Bird

Matlock

Ali

Edmondson

Morris

E. E.

Mullen

Surís

(2016). A pilot examination of differences in college adjustment stressors and depression and anxiety symptoms between white, Hispanic and white, Non-Hispanic female college students. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 15(3), 277–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192715607331

39.

Horvat

Oreski

Markic

(2011, June 27–30). Gender differences in the Internet usage among postgraduate students [Conference session]. Information Technology Interfaces (ITI), Proceedings of the ITI 2011 33rd International Conference, Cavtat, Croatia (pp. 281–286). http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5974036&isnumber=5

40.

James-Hawkins

Qutteina

Yount

K. M.

(2017). The patriarchal bargain in a context of rapid changes to normative gender roles: Young Arab women’s role conflict in Qatar. Sex Roles, 77(3–4), 155–168.

41.

Jin

Shi

(2008). A comparison of the number of hours of sleep in high school students who took advanced placement and/or college courses and those who did not. The Journal of School Nursing, 24(6), 417–424.

42.

Johnson

Alhazaa

Abdel-Salam

Gitay

Ismail

Al-Tameemi

Bensaid

Romanowski

(2021). Assessing the impact of intrusive intervention on student success, perseverance and persistence. Manuscript submitted for publication.

43.

Johnston

(2010). Pathways to college: What high schools can do to prepare students for college admission and academic success in higher education. Education Partnerships, Inc. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED538410.pdf

44.

Kirschner

P. A.

Karpinski

A. C.

(2010). Facebook^® and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1237–1245.

45.

Larson

Orr

Warne

(2016). Using student health data to understand and promote academic success in higher education settings. College Student Journal, 50(4), 590–602.

46.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

(2019). Social cognitive career theory at 25: Empirical status of the interest, choice, and performance models. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 115, 103316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.06.004

47.

Mack

Woodsong

MacQueen

K. M.

Guest

Namey

(2005). Qualitative research methods: A data collector’s field guide. Family Health International.

48.

Malaney

G. D.

(2005). Student use of the internet. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 33(1), 53–66.

49.

Matthews

M. S.

McBee

M. T.

(2007). School factors and the underachievement of gifted students in a talent search summer program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 167–181.

50.

McCoach

D. B.

Siegle

(2003). Factors that differentiate underachieving gifted students from high-achieving gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 144–154.

51.

Meens

E. E. M.

Bakx

A. W. E.

Klimstra

T. A.

Denissen

J. J. A.

(2018). The association of identity and motivation with students’ academic achievement in higher education. Learning and Individual Differences, 64, 54–70.

52.

Merdad

R. A.

Merdad

L. A.

Nassif

R. A.

El-Derwi

Wali

S. O.

(2014). Sleep habits in adolescents of Saudi Arabia; distinct patterns and extreme sleep schedules. Sleep Medicine, 15(11), 1370–1378.

53.

Nguyen

T. D.

Cannata

Miller

(2018). Understanding student behavioral engagement: Importance of student interaction with peers and teachers. Educational Research eJournal, 111(2), 163–174.

54.

Nordmann

Calder

Bishop

Irwin

Comber

(2019). Turn up, tune in, don’t drop out: The relationship between lecture attendance, use of lecture recordings, and achievement at different levels of study. Higher Education, 77(6), 1065–1084.

55.

Palbusa

J. A.

Gauvain

(2017). Parent–student communication about college and freshman grades in first-generation and non–first-generation students. Journal of College Student Development, 58(1), 107–112.

56.

Pehlivan

(2013). The effect of the time management skills of students taking a financial accounting course on their course grades and grade point averages. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 4(5), 196–203.

57.

Pressley

Yokoi

van Meter

Van Etten

Freebern

(1997). Some of the reasons why preparing for exams is so hard: What can be done to make it easier? Educational Psychology Review, 9(1), 1–38.

58.

Ramirez

Shaw

S. T.

Maloney

E. A.

(2018). Math anxiety: Past research, promising interventions, and a new interpretation framework. Educational Psychologist, 53(3), 145–164.

59.

Rayneri

L. J.

Gerber

B. L.

Wiley

L. P.

(2006). The relationship between classroom environment and the learning style preferences of gifted middle school students and the impact on levels of performance. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(2), 104–118.

60.

Reis

S. M.

McCoach

D. B.

(2000). The underachievement of gifted students: What do we know and where do we go? Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(3), 152–170.

61.

Retnawati

Djidu

Kartianom

Apino

Anazifa

R. D.

(2018). Teachers’ knowledge about higher-order thinking skills and its learning strategy. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 76(2), 215–230.

62.

Richardson

Abraham

Bond

(2012). Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 353–387.

63.

Robinson

Bornholt

(2007). Pathways theory of progression through higher education. Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 7, 49–62.

64.

Roman

M. D.

(2014). Students’ failure in academic environment. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 114, 170–177.

65.

Sánchez

C. N. P.

Montesinos

B. M.

Rodríguez

C. L.

(2013). Family influences in academic achievement. A study of the Canary Islands. Revista Internacional de Sociología, 71(1), 169–187. https://doi.org/10.3989/ris.2011.04.11

66.

Scott-Clayton

Rodriquez

(2012). Development, discouragement, or diversion? New evidence on the effects of college remediation (Working Paper 18328). National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w18328

67.

Seibert

G. S.

Bauer

K. N.

May

R. W.

Fincham

F. D.

(2017). Emotion regulation and academic underperformance: The role of school burnout. Learning and Individual Differences, 60, 1–9.

68.

Sithole

Chiyaka

E. T.

McCarthy

Mupinga

D. M.

Bucklein

B. K.

Kibirige

(2017). Student attraction, persistence and retention in STEM programs: Successes and continuing challenges. Higher Education Studies, 7(1), 46–59.

69.

Snyder

T. D.

de Brey

Dillow

S. A.

(2016). Digest of education statistics 2014 (NCES 2016-006). National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2016/2016006.pdf

70.

Tierney

W. G.

Bailey

Constantine

Finkelstein

Hurd

N. F.

(2009). Helping students navigate the path to college: What high schools can do: A practice guide (NCEE #2009-4066). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED506465.pdf

71.

Turner

Brass

(2014). Mapping the humanities, arts and social sciences in Australia. Australian Academy of the Humanities.

72.

Ul Haq

Chand

. (2012). Pattern of Facebook usage and its impact on academic performance of university students: A gender based comparison. Bulletin of Education and Research, 34(2), 19–28.

73.

UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2018). Education stats database. http://uis.unesco.org/

74.

Valentine

J. C.

Konstantopoulos

Goldrick-Rab

(2017). What happens to students placed into developmental education? A meta-analysis of regression discontinuity studies. Review of Educational Research, 87(4), 806–833.

75.

Varghese

N. V.

(2014). Diversification of post-secondary education. IIEP/UNESCO.

76.

Wasielewski

(2017). Academic performance of students with disabilities in higher education: Insights from a study of one Catholic college. Journal of Catholic Education, 20(1), 136–151. https://doi.org/10.15365/joce.2001062016

77.

Winker

(2005). Internet research from a gender perspective searching for differentiated use patterns. Journal of Information Communication and Ethics in Society, 3(4), 199–207.

78.

Wiseman

A. W.

(2008). A culture of (in)equality?: A cross-national study of gender parity and gender segregation in national school systems. Research in Comparative and International Education, 3(2), 179–201.

79.

(2019). Academic motivation, engagement, and achievement among college students. College Student Journal, 53(1), 99–112.

80.

Yeung

W.-F.

Chung

K.-F.

Cy Chan

(2008). Sleep–wake habits, excessive daytime sleepiness and academic performance among medical students in Hong Kong. Biological Rhythm Research, 39(4), 369–377.

81.

Yilmaz

Şahin

Turgut

(2017). Variables affecting student motivation based on academic publications. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(12), 112–120.

Causes of Undergraduate Students’ Underachievement in a Gulf Cooperation Council Country (GCC) University

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review

Defining Underachievement

Factors Influencing Student Academic Underachievement

Academic Issues

Personal Issues

Major and Career Issues

Social Adjustment Issues

Other Issues

Definitions of Underlying Reasons for Academic Underachievement

Objectives of the Research

Research Questions

Methodology and Data Collection

Results

Academic Reasons

Major and Career Reasons

Personal Reasons

Social Adjustment Reasons

Gender, Nationality, Major, and Classification

Additional Factors

Statistical Findings

Discussion

Conclusion and Suggestions for Further Research

Footnotes

Appendix A

Appendix B

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References