Promoting Engagement and Motivation and Reducing Perceived Underachievement of Gifted Male Adolescents: A Mixed-Methods Single-Case Experimental Study

This study investigated the effectiveness of a one-on-one counseling intervention for underachieving gifted adolescents, recognizing that not all excel academically despite their high cognitive abilities. Underachievement in this group can lead to detrimental consequences in both the short and long term. The research explored whether a tailored intervention can enhance engagement and mitigate underachievement. It distinguishes between two pathways leading to underachievement and designs specific modules for each. One module targets students’ self-beliefs, fostering a growth mindset and minimizing self-handicapping, while the other aims to boost students’ valuation of schoolwork by influencing various factors. Employing a mixed-methods single-case approach, the study involved eight gifted male adolescents aged 13 to 16, with four participating in each module. Findings indicated that while both modules affected outcomes, particularly in identity development, there were variations in effectiveness. This research sheds light on the development of interventions to address underachievement in cognitively gifted adolescents.

Plain Language Summary

How One-On-One Counseling can Help Gifted Male Adolescents Who Struggle in School Feel More Motivated and Engaged

Not all gifted students do well in school. Some highly intelligent adolescents struggle with motivation, low grades, or lack of engagement. This is called underachievement, and it can affect their confidence and future opportunities. This study examined whether one-on-one counseling could help underachieving gifted male adolescents feel more motivated and engaged. Eight gifted boys aged 13 to 16 participated in the study. The adolescents each followed one of two tailored counseling modules, depending on their specific pattern of underachievement. Not all underachieving gifted students struggle for the same reasons, and therefore, they do not benefit from the same kind of support. Drawing on the distinction between different underachievement pathways described by Snyder and Linnenbrink-Garcia, the intervention offered two modules. One module focused on students’ self-beliefs—helping them develop a growth mindset (the idea that abilities can improve with effort) and reduce self-sabotaging behaviors like procrastination. The other module targeted students’ attitudes toward school and learning, helping them find more meaning in their schoolwork and understand why it matters. By addressing their individual needs, the intervention provided more personalized support. Both approaches had a positive effect, especially in helping the boys develop a stronger sense of identity and self-awareness. However, some students responded better to one approach than the other. This shows that personalized support, tailored to each student’s needs, can be important in addressing underachievement. This research offers practical insights for teachers, counselors, and parents. It highlights that gifted students who seem to be struggling are not lazy or unmotivated by nature. Instead, they may need support that helps them see their strengths, reshape their thinking, and reconnect with the value of learning. With the right help, these students can thrive both academically and personally.