High achieving and underachieving gifted New York City adolescent students were compared in their use of metacognitive reading strategies. A stratified sample was used to identify extreme groups of achievers, 5 consistent high achievers and 5 consistent underachievers. Data were collected from three sources: (a) the Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI; Mokhtari & Reichard, 2002), (b) think-aloud protocols, and (c) interviews. While no significant differences were noted, frequency of strategy use, particularly in monitoring, made clear that the gifted high achievers were more homogeneous and the gifted underachievers were more heterogeneous strategy users. Further research on metacognitive reading strategy use of high and underachieving gifted middle school students may include the following: (a) using a multidimensional perspective to identify gifted urban students, and (b) examining metacognitive reading strategy use in other academic content areas related to students’ interest. Optimistically, this research should be encouraged in working with urban adolescent students.
Abrams, R. A. (2000). Biliteracy: Influences of language proficiency and interlingual transfer on bilingual teachers’ reading. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(06), 2236A. (UMI No. 9975335)
2.
Afflerbach, P., & Johnston, P. (1984). Research methodology: On the use of verbal reports in reading research. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16(4), 307-322.
3.
Bireley, M., & Genshaft, J. (1991). Adolescence and giftedness: A look at the issues. In M. Bireley & J. Genshaft (Eds.), Understanding the gifted adolescent: Educational, developmental, and multicultural issues (pp. 1-17). New York: Teachers College Press.
4.
Board of Education of the City of New York. (2001). 2000-2001 annual school report. New York: Author.
5.
Borkowski, J. G., & Peck, V. A. (1986). Causes and consequences of metamemory in gifted children. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 182-200). New York: Cambridge University Press.
6.
Bradbury, R. (1996). All summer in a day. In M. Evler, R. R. Hoyt, & C. Rodgers (Eds.), Impact: 50 short short stories (2nd ed., pp. 166-169). Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
7.
Chall, J. S., & Dale, E. (1995). Manual for the new Dale-Chall readability formula. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
8.
Characters in conflict (2nd ed.). (1996). Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
9.
Cheng, P. (1993). Metacognition and giftedness: The state of the relationship. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(3), 105-112.
10.
Cohen, L. M., & Ambrose, D. (1993). Theories and practices for differentiated education for the gifted and talented. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, & Passow, H. A. (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 339-363). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
11.
Colangelo, N., & Davis, J. R. (1997). Introduction and overview. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 3-9). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
12.
Colangelo, N., Kerr, B., Christensen, P., & Maxey, P. (1993). A comparison of gifted underachievers and gifted high achievers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(4), 155-161.
13.
Collins, C., Lorié, W., & Ito, K. (2002). Determining the scoring for the grade 4 and grade 8 English language arts and mathematics examinations. Retrieved December 11, 2002, from http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/ciai/testing/assesspubs/eliepubs.html
14.
Connell, R. (1996). The most dangerous game. In M. Elver, R. R. Hoyt, & C. Rodgers (Eds.), Characters in conflict (2nd ed., pp. 1-20). Austin: TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
15.
Davidson, J. E. (1986). The role of insight in giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 201-222). New York: Cambridge University Press.
16.
Gallagher, J. J. (1991). Personal patterns of underachievement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14(3), 221-233.
17.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
18.
Garner, R. (1994). Metacognition and executive control. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. R. Ruddell,& H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 715-732). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
19.
Gaskins, I. W. (1994). Classroom applications of cognitive science: Teaching poor readers how to learn, think, and problem solve. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 129-154). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20.
Jackson, N. E., & Butterfield, E. C. (1986). A conception of giftedness designed to promote research. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 151-181). New York: Cambridge University Press.
21.
Johnson, N. E., Saccuzzo, D. P., & Guertin, T. L. (1994). Understanding gifted underachievers in an ethnically diverse population (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED368101). In D. P. Saccuzzo (Ed.), Identifying underrepresented disadvantaged gifted and talented children: A multifaceted approach (p. 8). San Diego, CA: San Diego State University.
22.
Kasper, G. (1998). Analysing verbal protocols. Tesol Quarterly, 32(2), 358-361.
23.
Knowles, T., & Brown, D. F. (2000). What every middle school teacher should know. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann/National Middle School Association.
24.
Langer, J. A. (1989). The process of understanding literature (Report series 2.1). Albany, NY: National Research Center on Literature Teaching and Learning.
25.
Marland, S. P., Jr. (1971). Education of the gifted and talented Vol. 1: Report to the Congress of the United States by the U. S. Commissioner of Education (Report No. AA-000-734). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED056243)
26.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27.
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249-259.
28.
Moore, B. (1996). Three cases of gifted students who underachieve in high school. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(08), 3394A. (UMI No. 9701324)
29.
New York City Department of Education. (2002a). District performance profile: Background information for District XXX. Retrieved December 24, 2002, from http://www.nycenet.edu/daa/dpip/Bckgrnd/Distxx.pdf?distretto=xx&submit=submit
30.
New York City Department of Education. (2002b). State and city ELA/reading test results. Retrieved December 10, 2002, from http://www.nycenet.edu/daa/2002reading/
31.
New York State Education Department. (1999). New York State grade 4 English language arts statewide assessment: Technical report. Retrieved December 11, 2002, from http://www.nysed.gov/ciai/testing/assesspubs/G4Ela99TchRpt.PDF
32.
Peterson, J. S. (2000). A follow-up study of one group of achievers and underachievers four years after high school graduation. Roeper Review, 22(4), 217-224.
33.
Peterson, J. S., & Colangelo, N. (1996). Gifted achievers and underachievers: A comparison of patterns found in school files. Journal of Counseling and Development, 74(4), 399-407.
34.
Phillips, L. M. (1988). Young readers’ inference strategies in reading comprehension. Cognition and Instruction, 5(3), 193-222.
35.
Prentice Hall literature: Timeless voices, timeless themes—gold level. (2000). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
36.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
37.
Ramos-Ford, V., & Gardner, H. (1997). Giftedness from a multiple intelligences perspective. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 54-66). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
38.
Redding, R. E. (1990). Learning preferences and skill patterns among under achieving gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34(1), 72-75.
39.
Rimm, S. B. (1995). Why bright kids get poor grades and what you can do about it. New York: Three Rivers Press.
40.
Roedell, W. C. (1984). Vulner abilities of highly gifted children. Roeper Review, 6(3), 127-130.
41.
Rylant, C. (2000). Checkouts. In Prentice Hall literature: Timeless voices, timeless themes—gold level (pp. 236-240). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
42.
Sattler, J. M. (1982). Assessment of children’s intelligence and special abilities (2nd ed.). New York: Allyn & Bacon.
43.
Saville-Troike, M. (1989). The ethnography of communication: An introduction (2nd ed.). New York: Blackwell.
44.
Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triarchic theory of intellectual giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 223-246). New York: Cambridge University Press.
45.
Sternberg, R. J. (1993). Procedures for identifying intellectual potential in the gifted: A perspective on alternative “metaphors of the mind.” In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, & H. A. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 185-207). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
46.
Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1947). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 4. The gifted child grows up. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
47.
Tuckman, B. W. (1994). Conducting educational research (4th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
48.
Wade, S. E. (1990). Using think alouds to assess comprehension. Reading Teacher, 43(7), 442-451.
49.
Webb, W. M. F. (1984). Attribution styles of gifted high and low achieving adolescents. Dissertations Abstracts International, 45(07), 2048A. (UMI No. 8421474)
50.
Yu, S. L. (1996). Cognitive strategy use and motivation in underachieving students. Dissertations Abstracts International, 57(11), 4652A. (UMI No. 9712133)
