Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Assessment of metacognitive knowledge in students with special educational needs

  • Published:
Metacognition and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigated whether and, if so, how metacognitive knowledge can be assessed validly in students with special educational needs in a large-scale assessment like the German National Educational Panel Study. In total, 804 sixth-grade students including both regular school students attending the lowest track of secondary education (Hauptschule) and students with special educational needs in learning participated in the study. A scenario-based test of metacognitive knowledge focusing primarily on different aspects of strategy knowledge was implemented. In order to investigate optimal testing conditions, two conditions that varied in terms of administration mode were compared: autonomous reading as in regular test settings and a read-aloud condition. Reading speed and reasoning abilities were assessed as control variables. As expected, regular school students outperformed students with special educational needs in the metacognitive knowledge test. In addition, higher correlations between metacognitive knowledge and reading speed emerged in the autonomous reading condition compared to the read-aloud condition. Contrary to our expectations, a differential boost due to the testing accommodation of reading aloud was, however, only observed in regular students but not in students with special educational needs. The results are discussed with regard to educational and assessment-relevant approaches.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. As for the term “SEN-L”, the term “learning disabilities; LD” is not clearly defined. For example, according to Fletcher (2012) “there is no consensus over which attributes are best for defining LD” (p. 20). Although the terms do not depict the same concepts (Schröder 2000) they describe overlapping populations of students. Accordingly, the investigated group of German students with SEN-L might include some but not all students who would be characterized as students with learning disabilities. For example, the concept of learning disabilities (“Lernschwierigkeiten”) is broader and additionally includes students with rather high IQ but comparably low school achievement, so-called underachiever (cf. Schröder 2000). However, both terms refer to heterogeneous groups with multifaceted etiology.

  2. Note that some authors use accommodation and modification interchangeably whereas others differentiate between them: While accommodations are not meant to change the nature of the construct being measured, modifications result in a change in the test and equally affect all students taking it (Hollenbeck 2002).

  3. For an overview of further accommodations, also for students with other disabilities, we refer to Cormier et al. (2010) or Thurlow (2002).

  4. In most German Federal States school tracking is accomplished by way of ability tracking after Grade 4.

  5. During the early funding phase of NEPS, a series of feasibility studies was set up to experimentally test whether and, if so, how, students with SEN-L could be meaningfully included in the NEPS survey. Therefore, in contrast to data from regular school students, not all data from this group of students is available in the scientific use files of the NEPS.

  6. Students were identified as having special educational needs by the type of school they attended. An individual diagnostic process to identify students would have been too costly in time and money.

  7. The definition of fast and slow in this context is a relative one within each reference group. Fast readers who were members of the group of students with SEN-L might still be slower readers than slow readers attending Hauptschule.

References

  • Abedi, J., Kao, J. C., Leon, S., Mastergeorge, A. M., Sullivan, L., Herman, J., et al. (2010). Accessibility of segmented reading comprehension passages for students with disabilities. Applied Measurement in Education, 23, 168–186. doi:10.1080/08957341003673823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Artelt, C., Beinicke, A., Schlagmüller, M., & Schneider, W. (2009). Diagnose von strategiewissen beim textverstehen [diagnosing strategic knowledge in text comprehension]. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 41(2), 96–103. doi:10.1026/0049-8637.41.2.96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auer, M., Gruber, G., Mayringer, H., & Wimmer, H. (2005). Salzburger Lesescreening für die Klassenstufen 5–8 [Salzburg reading screening for Grades 5–8]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

  • Barkow, I., Leopold, T., Raab, M., Schiller, D., Wenzig, K., & Blossfeld, H.-P. (2011). RemoteNEPS: Data dissemination in a collaborative workspace. In H.-P. Blossfeld, H.-G. Roßbach, & J. v. Maurice (Eds.), Education as a lifelong process: The German National Educational Panel Study (NEPS) (pp. 315–325). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belmont, J. M., & Borkowski, J. G. (1988). A group-administered test of children’s metamemory. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 26(3), 206–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blossfeld, H.-P., & von Maurice, J. (2011). Education as a lifelong process. In H.-P. Blossfeld, H.-G. Roßbach, & J. V. Maurice (Eds.), Education as a lifelong process: The German National Educational Panel Study (NEPS) (pp. 19–34). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blossfeld, H.-P., Maurice, J. V., & Schneider, T. (2011). The National Educational Panel Study: need, main features, and research potential. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 14, 5–17. doi:10.1007/s11618-011-0178-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolt, S. E., & Ysseldyke, J. (2007). Accommodating students with disabilities in large-scale testing: a comparison of differential item functioning (DIF) identified across disability types. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 26, 121–138. doi:10.1177/0734282907307703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bos, W., Müller, S., & Stubbe, T. C. (2010). Abgehängte Bildungsinstitutionen: Hauptschulen und Förderschulen [Educational institutions left behind: The lowest track of secondary education (Hauptschulen) and special schools]. In K. Hurrelmann & G. Quenzel (Eds.), Bildungsverlierer: Neue Ungleichheiten (pp. 375–398). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bosson, M. S., Hessels, M. G. P., Hessels-Schlatter, C., Berger, J.-L., Kipfer, N. M., & Büchel, F. P. (2010). Strategy acquisition by children with general learning difficulties through metacognitive training. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 15, 13–34. doi:10.1080/19404150903524523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.) Advances in instructional psychology (Vol.1, pp.77–165). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Bundesamt, S. (2012). Schulen auf einen Blick [schools at a glance]. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cormier, D. C., Altman, J., Shyyan, V., & Thurlow, M. L. (2010). A summary of the research on the effects of test accommodations: 2007–2008. (Vol. 56). Minneapolis,: MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

  • Elbaum, B., Arguelles, M. E., Campbell, Y., & Saleh, M. B. (2004). Effects of a student-reads-aloud accommodation on the performance of students with and without learning disabilities on a test of reading comprehension. Exceptionality, 12(2), 71–87. doi:10.1207/s15327035ex1202_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, J. M. (2012). Classification and identification of learning disabilities. In B. Y. L. Wong & D. L. Butler (Eds.), Learning about learning disabilities (4th ed., pp. 1–25). Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1999). Fair and unfair testing accommodations. The School Administrator, 56, 24–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haberkorn, K., & Pohl, S. (2013). Cognitive basic skills – Data in the scientific use file. Bamberg: Otto-Friedrich-University, National Educational Panel Study.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammill, D. D. (1990). On defining learning disabilities: an emerging consensus. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 74–84. doi:10.1177/002221949002300201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Händel, M., Artelt, C., & Weinert, S. (2013). Assessing metacognitive knowledge: development and evaluation of a test instrument. Journal of Educational Research Online, 5, 162–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannah, C. L., & Shore, B. M. (1995). Metacognition and high intellectual ability: insights from the study of learning-disabled gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 95–109. doi:10.1177/001698629503900206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hasselhorn, M. (1994). Zur Erfassung von Metagedächtnisaspekten bei Grundschulkindern [On the assessment of metacognitive aspects in elementary school children]. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 26, 71–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heydrich, J., Weinert, S., Nusser, L., Artelt, C., & Carstensen, C. H. (2013). Including students with special educational needs into large-scale assessments of competencies: challenges and approaches within the German National Educational Panel Study (NEPS). Journal for Educational Research Online, 2, 217–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollenbeck, K. (2002). Determining when test alterations are valid accommodations or modifications for large-scale assessment. In G. Tindal & T. M. Haladyna (Eds.), Large-scale assessment programs for all students: Validity, technical adequacy, and implementation (pp. 395–425). Mahaw: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hörmann, B. (2007). Die Unsichtbaren in PISA, TIMMS, und Co [The invisibles in PISA, TIMMS, and Co]. Vienna: University of Vienna.

  • Jacobs, J. E., & Paris, S. G. (1987). Children’s metacognition about reading: issues in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22(3/4), 255–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, E. S. (2000). The effects of accommodations on performance assessments. Remedial and Special Education, 21(5), 261–267. doi:10.1177/074193250002100502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., Alonzo, J., Braun-Monegan, J., & Tindal, G. (2007). Recommendations for accommodations: implications of (in)consistency. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 194–206. doi:10.1177/07419325070280040101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koretz, D., & Barton, K. (2003). Assessing students with disabilities: issues and evidence. CSE Technical Report 587. Los Angeles: CSE Technical Report 587.

  • Körkel, J. (1987). Die Entwicklung von Gedächtnis- und Metagedächtnisleistungen in Abhängigkeit von bereichsspezifischen Vorkenntnissen [The development of memory and metamemory performance as dependent on domain-specific prior knowledge]. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreutzer, M. A., Leonard, C., & Flavell, J. H. (1975). An interview study of children’s knowledge about memory. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 40.

  • Kubinger, K. D. (2009). Psychologische Diagnostik: Theorie und Praxis psychologischen Diagnostizierens [psychological diagnostic: theory and praxis of psychologic diagnosis]. Wien: Hogrefe.

  • Kurtz, B. E., Reid, M. K., Borkowski, J. G., & Cavanaugh, J. C. (1982). On the reliability and validity of children’s metamemory. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 19, 137–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laitusis, C. C. (2010). Examining the impact of audio presentation on tests of reading comprehension. Applied Measurement in Education, 23, 153–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang, F. R., Kamin, S., Rohr, M., Stünkel, C. & Williger, B. (2014). Erfassung der fluiden kognitiven Leistungsfähigkeit über die Lebensspanne im Rahmen des Nationalen Bildungspanels: Abschlussbericht zu einer NEPS-Ergänzungsstudie [Assessment of fluid intelligence across the life span within the German National Educational Panel Study: Final report about the supplementary study] (NEPS Working Paper No. 43). Bamberg: Leibniz-Institut für Bildungsverläufe, Nationales Bildungspanel.

  • Lehmann, R., & Hoffmann, E. (2009). BELLA. Berliner Erhebung arbeitsrelevanter Basiskompetenzen von Schülerinnen und Schülern mit Förderbedarf „Lernen“. [BELLA. Berlin survey of work relevant basic competencies of students with SEN-L]. Münster: Waxmann.

  • Lockl, K. (2012). Assessment of declarative metacognition: Starting cohort 4 – ninth grade. Bamberg: Otto-Friedrich-University, Nationales Bildungspanel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockl, K., & Schneider, W. (2003). Metakognitive Überwachungs- und Selbstkontrollprozesse bei der Lernzeiteinteilung von Kindern [Metacognitive processes of monitoring and self-control in allocating children’s study time]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 17, 173–183. doi:10.1024//1010-0652.17.3.173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockl, K., Händel, M., Haberkorn, K., & Weinert, S. (2013). Metacognitive knowledge in young children: Development of a new test procedure for first graders. In H.-P. Blossfeld, J. v. Maurice, & J. Skopek (Eds.), Methodological issues of longitudinal surveys: The example of the National Educational Panel Study. Manucript submitted for publication.

  • Maag Merki, K., Ramseier, E., & Karlen, Y. (2013). Reliability and validity analyses of a newly developed test to assess learning strategy knowledge. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 12, 391–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonnell, L. M., McLaughlin, M., & Morrison, P. (1997). Educating one and all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform. Washington: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meltzer, L., Katzir, T., Miller, L., Reddy, R., & Roditi, B. (2004). Academic self-perceptions, effort, and strategy use in students with learning disabilities: changes over time. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19, 99–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognitive judgments and control of study. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 159–163. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01628.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, M., & Paris, S. G. (1978). Children’s metacognitive knowledge about reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 680–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NCLD – National Center for Learning Disabilities. (2007). State testing accommodations: A look at their value and validity. Retrieved from http://www.cehd.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/NCLD/NCLDStateTestingAccommodationsStudy.pdf

  • Neuenhaus, N., Artelt, C., Lingel, K., & Schneider, W. (2011). Fifth graders metacognitive knowledge: general or domain-specific? European Journal of Psychology of Education, 26, 163–178. doi:10.1007/s10212-010-0040-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nusser, L., Heydrich, J., Carstensen, C. H., Artelt, C., & Weinert, S. (2013). Validity of survey data of students with special educational needs – Results from the National Educational Panel Study. In H.-P. Blossfeld, J. v. Maurice, & J. Skopek (Eds.), Methodological issues of longitudinal surveys. The example of the National Educational Panel Study. Manuscript submitted for publication.

  • Paris, S. G., & Oka, E. R. (1986). Children’s reading strategies, metacognition, and motivation. Developmental Review, 6, 25–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 293–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pieschl, S. (2009). Metacognitive calibration – an extended conceptualization and potential applications. Metacognition and Learning, 4, 3–31. doi:10.1007/s11409-008-9030-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R., Anderman, E. M., & Klobucar, C. (1994). Intraindividual differences in motivation and cognition in students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 360–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitoniak, M. J., & Royer, J. M. (2001). Testing accommodations for examinees with disabilities: a review of psychometric, legal, and social policy issues. Review of Educational Research, 71, 53–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., Borkowski, J. G., & Schneider, W. (1989). Good information processing: what it is and how education can promote it. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 857–867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (2003). Raven’s progressive matrices und vocabulary scales. Frankfurt: Pearson Assessment.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid, R. R., Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Rock, M. (2004). Self-regulation among students with LD and ADHD. In B. Wong & D. L. Butler (Eds.), Learning about learning disabilities. Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sáez, L., Jamgochain, E., & Tindal, G. (2013). Accommodating special needs for large-scale assessments. In M. Simon, K. Ercikan, & M. Rousseau (Eds.), Improving large-scale assessment in education (pp. 125–140). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlagmüller, M., & Schneider, W. (2007). WLST 7–12. Würzburger Lesestrategie-Wissenstest für die Klassen 7 bis 12 [Würzburg reading strategy knowledge test for grades 7 through 12]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, M. C. (1990). A questionnaire to measure children’s awareness of strategic reading processes. The Reading Teacher, 43, 454–461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, W., & Pressley, M. (1997). Memory development between 2 and 20. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schröder, U. (2000). Lernbehindertenpädagogik: Grundlagen und Perspektiven sonderpädagogischer Lernhilfe [Educating people with learning disabilities: Basics and perspectives of learning aids in special education]. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sireci, S. G., Scarpati, S. E., & Li, S. (2005). Test accommodations for students with disabilities: an analysis of the interaction hypothesis. Review of Educational Research, 75, 457–490. doi:10.3102/00346543075004457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder in the Federal Republic of Germany (1999). Empfehlungen zum Förderschwerpunkt Lernen [Recommendations according to special education support in learning].

  • Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder in the Federal Republic of Germany (2008). Sonderpädagogische Förderung in Schulen 1997–2006 [Special education support in schools 1997–2006].

  • Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder in the Federal Republic of Germany (2012). Sonderpädagogische Förderung in Schulen 2001 bis 2010 [Special education support in schools 2001 to 2010].

  • Swanson, H. L. (1990). Influence of metacognitive knowledge and aptitude on problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 306–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, H. L., & Trahan, M. (1996). Learning disabled and average readers’ working memory and comprehension: does metacognition play a role? British Educational Research Journal, 66, 333–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thurlow, M. L. (2002). Accommodations for students with disabilities in high school. National Center on Secondary Education and Transition, 1(1), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thurlow, M. L. (2010). Steps toward creating fully accessible reading assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 23, 121–131. doi:10.1080/08957341003673765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thurlow, M. L., Bremer, C., & Albus, D. (2008). Good news and bad news in disaggregated subgroup reporting to the public on 2005–2006 assessment results (Technical Report 52). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Twomey, E. (2006). Linking learning theories and learning difficulties. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11, 93–98. doi:10.1080/19404150609546812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Kraayenoord, C., & Schneider, W. E. (1999). Reading achievement, metacognition, reading self-concept and interest: a study of German students in grades 3 and 4. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14, 305–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veenman, M. V. J. (2005). The assessment of metcognitive skills: What can be learned from multi-method designs? In C. Artelt & B. Moschner (Eds.), Lernstrategien und Metakognition. Implikationen für Forschung und Praxis [Learning strategies and metacognition. Implications for research and practice] (pp. 77–95). Münster: Waxmann.

  • von Stechow, E. (2006). PISA und die Folgen für schwache Schülerinnen und Schüler [PISA and its impact on weak students]. Vierteljahreschrift für Heilpädagogik und ihre Nachbargebiete, 75, 285–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinert, S., Artelt, C., Prenzel, M., Senkbeil, M., Ehmke, T., & Carstensen, C. (2011). Development of competencies across the life span. In H. P. Blossfeld, H. G. Roßbach, & J. Maurice (Eds.), Education as a lifelong process. The German National Educational Panel Study (NEPS). Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft [Special Issue 14] (pp. 67–86). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS.

  • Wocken, H. (2000). Leistung, Intelligenz und Soziallage von Schülern mit Lernbehinderungen: Vergleichende Untersuchungen an Förderschulen in Hamburg [Performance, intelligence, and the social situation of students with learning disabilities: comparative analyses of special schools in Hamburg]. Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik, 51, 492–503.

  • Wocken, H., & Gröhlich, C. (2009). Kompetenzen von Schülerinnen und Schülern an Hamburger Förderschulen [Competencies of students at special schools in Hamburg]. In W. Bos & M. Bonsen (Eds.), KESS 7: Kompetenzen und Einstellungen von Schülerinnen und Schülern der Jahrgangsstufe 7 (pp. 133–142). Münster: Waxmann.

  • Ysseldyke, J. E., Thurlow, M. L., Langenfeld, K. L., Nelson, R. J., Teelucksingh, E., & Seyfarth, A. (1998). Educational results for students with disabilities: What do the data tell us? (Technical Report 23). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, S., Gehrer, K., Artelt, C., & Weinert, S. (2012). The assessment of reading speed in Grade 5 and Grade 9. Bamberg: Otto-Friedrich-University, Nationales Bildungspanel.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marion Händel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Händel, M., Lockl, K., Heydrich, J. et al. Assessment of metacognitive knowledge in students with special educational needs. Metacognition Learning 9, 333–352 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-014-9119-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-014-9119-x

Keywords

Navigation