The purpose of this study was to examine whether gifted achievers and gifted underachievers differ in their general academic self-perceptions, attitudes toward school, attitudes toward teachers, motivation and self-regulation, and goal valuation. The sample consisted of 56 gifted underachievers and 122 gifted achievers from 28 high schools nationwide. Gifted achievers and gifted underachievers differed in their attitudes toward school, attitudes toward teachers, motivation/self-regulation, and goal valuation, but not their academic self-perceptions. In addition, the logistic regression analysis correctly classified over 81% of the sample as either gifted achievers or gifted underachievers using their motivation/self-regulation and goal valuation self-ratings. This study represents an important step toward quantifying factors related to the underachieviement of gifted adolescents.

The purpose of this study was to design a psychometrically sound instrument to measure adolescents' attitudes toward school, attitudes toward teachers, goal-valuation, motivation, and general academic self-perceptions that could be used to explore the underachievement of academically able secondary school students. The final School Attitude Assessment Survey-Revised (SAAS-R) instrument consisted of 35 questions, each of which being an indicator of one of the five factors. The final model exhibited reasonable fit, χ 2 (550) = 1,581.7, Comparative Fit Index = .91, Tucker Lewis Index = .92, root mean square error of approximation = .059, standardized root mean squared residual = .057. The scores in this study showed internal consistency reliability coefficient of at least .85 on each of the five factors. In addition, four of the five factors of the SAAS-R appear to differentiate gifted achievers from gifted underachievers. It is the authors'hope that the SAAS-R will allow researchers to more fully understand the relationship between these five factors and underachievement in gifted and nongifted populations.

The present study explores teachers' attitudes toward the gifted and gifted education. Specifically, the authors examine whether teachers tailor their responses about attitudes toward the gifted to fit the perceived interests of the researcher. In addition, the authors examine several potential predictors of attitudes toward the gifted: training or experience in gifted education, training or experience in special education, and self-perceptions as gifted. A total of 262 teachers participate in the study. The perceived epistemic interests of the researcher do not affect teachers' selfreported attitudes toward the gifted. Teachers who had received training in gifted education hold higher perceptions of themselves as gifted. However, teachers' self-perceptions as gifted are unrelated to their attitudes toward gifted education. Finally, special education teachers hold slightly lower attitudes toward the gifted. The authors discuss the implications of these results for the field of gifted education. Putting the Research to Use: Those who provide training in gifted education need to reexamine the effectiveness of their training. We found that training in gifted education was not related to teachers' attitudes toward the gifted, although it was positively related to teachers' perceptions of themselves as gifted. It may be that training increases teachers' understanding of giftedness and the needs of gifted students but fails to build support for meeting those needs. Because one of the primary objectives of training is to increase attendees' attitudes toward gifted students, providers of gifted education training should consider assessing attendees before and after receiving training. Based on these assessments, trainers may need to modify their training strategies to improve participants' attitudes toward the gifted. Educators in gifted education should also forge alliances with colleagues in other fields, particularly those in the field of special education. We found that special educators were less supportive of gifted education and acceleration practices than mainstream teachers. Promoting collaboration between gifted education and special education may help to promote positive attitudes toward gifted education among special educators and general educators.

Academic motivation is an important determinant of success for many areas in a student's life, including task persistence, academic performance, and college choices (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Academic motivation is also specifically significant for gifted students, as it is the strongest predictor for academic achievement of gifted students after accounting for socioeconomic differences (Clemons, 2008). McCall, Evahn, and Kratzer (1992) found that high school students' academic achievement was more closely correlated with students' college and career success than ability. Even though academic motivation and achievement are critical for future success, not all gifted students are motivated to achieve in school. Controversy persists in the field over the proportion of underachieving gifted students; estimates range from 10% (Matthews & McBee, 2007) to 50% (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). What is clear is that many gifted students are underachieving. This underachievement has negative effects on both the individual and society (Peterson & Colangelo, 1996;Trostel, 2007); therefore, it is important to understand what motivates gifted students to do well in school.McCoach and Siegle ( 2003) investigated the differences between gifted achievers and nonachievers, and from their study, they developed the Achievement Orientation Model (see Figure 1), which posits that students are engaged and motivated to do well in school when they believe they have the necessary skills to perform the task (self-efficacy), they find the task meaningful (goal/task valuation), and they see their environment as supportive (environmental perception). When these factors are present, they ultimately regulate themselves to complete the task (self-regulation; Siegle, 2013;Siegle & McCoach, 2005). This model served as a theoretical foundation to this study by suggesting variables that lead to academic motivation. Teachers can influence the components of the Achievement Orientation Model by encouraging students and recognizing growth (building selfefficacy), making the content relevant for the students (creating task valuation), and shaping the students' environment (fostering a positive environmental perception). Understanding how teachers can affect academic motivation 513496G CQXXX10.

The seeming lack of motivation of many academically gifted students is an area of frustration and concern for many parents, teachers, and psychologists. This article explores two studies in which researchers designed interventions to improve academic achievement. Both interventions were created using the Achievement-Orientation Model. The first study matched the intervention to the student and found that the students' grades increased over the intervention period, t(45) = 2.56, p = .014, d = .38. Students using treatments linked to goal valuation and environmental perceptions showed the greatest academic grade growth; the self-efficacy and self-regulation groups showed little or no grade improvement. Building on the finding that goal valuation was important, the second study used a mixed-methods design to pilot an intervention focused on goal valuation and student autonomy. The results of this study were mixed, as the intervention appeared to help two of the three students. Although these studies offer further insight into possibilities for promoting academic achievement among gifted students, further research examining how to best support and foster academic achievement in underachieving gifted students is needed. C 2012