Two studies investigated the testing effects on performance and on metacognitive judgment accuracy in authentic learning settings. Across two educational psychology courses, undergraduate students had the opportunity to voluntarily participate in four different practice tests during the term—without feedback in Study 1 (N = 201 students) or with individual corrective feedback in Study 2 (N = 111 students). Across studies in real classroom settings with and without feedback, regression analyses indicated that a higher number of taken practice tests were related to higher performance in the final course exam and to two scores of metacognitive judgment accuracy (absolute accuracy and sensitivity). However, students’ preparation and post-processing practice tests, their perceived usefulness of tests for monitoring one’s performance, and metacognitive specificity differed depending on whether students received feedback or not. Overall, the studies convey considerable evidence on how participation in practice tests is related not only to performance but also to monitoring accuracy in authentic learning settings.

Recent handbooks of giftedness or expertise propose a plethora of conceptions on the development of excellent performance but, to our knowledge, there are no comparative studies that provide empirical evidence of their validity to guide researchers and practitioners in their adoption of a particular conception. This study sought to close that gap by conducting an empirical comparison of the major approaches to giftedness and expertise currently in use: the IQ model, the performance model, the moderator model, and the systemic model. The four models were tested in a longitudinal study with a sample of N = 350 German students attending university preparatory schools; 25% of the sample had been assigned to special classes for the gifted. The construct and predictive validity of the four models were tested by means of structural equation modeling. Theoretical considerations along with our results indicated a differentiation among the models whereby some could only predict while others could also explain the emergence of excellent performance and thereby yield valuable information for the design of interventions. The empirical comparison of the approaches showed that they were unequally suited for the two challenges. For prediction purposes, the performance approach proved best while, for explanations, the moderator and systemic approaches were the most promising candidates. Even so, the latter did demonstrate conceptual and/or methodological problems. The IQ approach was superseded by the other approaches on both prediction and explanation. Implications and limitations of the findings are discussed.

The authors first briefly describe how the concepts of talents and giftedness found in German-speaking Europe have evolved in the school system and in general over the past two centuries, and how the variety of gifted-education efforts found within and beyond schools as well as counseling efforts attest to these changes. They then discuss four hallmarks of gifted education in German-speaking Europe: (a) the ongoing development of gifted promotion methods through the integration of newer insights about learning and social aspects; (b) the development of new methods of gifted education, particularly in the areas of mentoring, self-regulated learning, and hybrid approaches; (c) a decidedly scientific approach, which is increasingly characterized by systemic perspectives; and (d) the results of research on the effectiveness of various approaches to gifted education in German-speaking Europe.

Despite changes, gender differences in math and science continue to exist in some countries. We examined whether the actiotopes of boys and girls at the high school level in math and science differed and the extent to which (a) their actiotope components, (b) the progressive development of their actiotopes (dynamic perspective), and (c) the co-adaptation of their actiotopes (systems perspective) function as predictors for girls’ and boys’ achievements and confidence in one’s own abilities in math and science. To answer these questions, we examined girls and boys (N = 361) in Canada, the Czech Republic, and Germany with a questionnaire. The results suggest that girls are less effective at progressively developing their actiotopes in the fields of math and science and that modifications in their actiotopes were less well balanced by stabilizing forces. Independent of gender, the actiotope aspects considered here are suited to predicting achievements and confidence in one’s own abilities in math and science.