Underachievement of gifted students has been a great concern for the field of gifted education. The current study reviewed 14 recent empirical studies concerning the effectiveness of underachievement interventions on gifted students’ achievement outcomes and psychosocial outcomes. Overall, there was no evidence that underachievement interventions significantly improved academic performance of gifted underachievers ( g = .09, p = .387), especially in terms of course grades. Gifted underachievers receiving interventions significantly outscored their comparison peers on psychosocial outcomes ( g = 0.22, p = .001), which consisted of a variety of measures on self-efficacy, goal valuation, environmental perceptions, self-regulation/motivation, and psychosocial functioning. Qualitative studies generally reported that gifted underachievers benefited from the interventions in terms of increased motivation for learning, improved self-regulation, and finding school more meaningful. Findings need to be viewed in light of the relatively low quality of the evidence from recent research on underachievement interventions.

No abstract

High-ability students have unique academic, cognitive, and social needs. Many bright students need more academic challenge than they are receiving in their education, and they need more opportunities to develop their talent. Yet many states and school districts have no formal policies that address the desirability of acceleration or specify the procedures to be followed in making decisions about acceleration for particular students. Absence of a formal policy might invite inconsistent practices that could As an educational intervention, academic acceleration is decidedly effective for high-ability students. The research support for acceleration that has accumulated over many decades is robust and consistent and allows us to confidently state that carefully planned acceleration decisions are successful. Both grade-based and content-based acceleration are effective interventions in academic and social-emotional domains for high-ability students. Grade-accelerated students generally outperform their chronologically older classmates academically, and both groups show approximately equal levels of social and emotional adjustment.Accelerated students should be expected to achieve, relative to their new grade peers, at a high level that is generally comparable to their performance in the previous grade. Such students are typically among the top 10% in a class, and they should be expected to remain in the top 10% throughout their academic careers. To be clear, there is no evidence that acceleration has a negative effect on a student's social-emotional development. Each school district should have a written acceleration policy stating that acceleration is an appropriate and effective intervention for select highly able students who have demonstrated high performance in one or more academic areas. The policy should be characterized by accessibility, equity, and openness. It should provide guidelines for the implementation of acceleration, including administrative matters, to ensure fair and systematic use of accelerative opportunities and recognition for participation in those accelerative opportunities. Finally, the policy should provide guidelines for preventing nonacademic barriers to the use of acceleration as an educational intervention and include features that prevent unintended consequences of acceleration.

No abstract

The foundation for talent development as a framework for gifted education can be found in a synthesis of the psychological literature on creativity, eminence, giftedness, and high performance. The talent development framework acknowledges the contributions of both general cognitive ability and domain-specific abilities to achievement, as well as the malleability of these ability constructs. Talent development is also consistent with research on the contributions of non-cognitive or psychosocial factors to school achievement, as well as studies on factors that influence the attainment of scholarly productivity and artistry within specific domains of non-academic talent. Although there are several theoretical frameworks and models of giftedness, talent development, ability, and intelligence, each with varied areas of emphasis and desired outcomes, the research base and practical applications for the talent development megamodel (TDMM) can serve as a guide to leaders and school administrators in making fiscal and programmatic decisions that maximize short- and long-term impacts for individuals and society. In this article, we discuss some of the practical implications of the model for assessment, curriculum and instruction, and psychosocial development within a school context.