The purpose of the present study was to assess self-regulation of students with visual impairments across two academic subjects, language and math. The participants were 46 Greek students with visual impairments who completed self-regulation measures across the subject matters of language and math. Initially, the factorial validity of the scale was established. In turn, results pointed to the existence of a single universal self-regulation functioning pattern in individuals with visual impairments across subject matters (at the mean level). Measurement invariance was also observed at the item level through imposing equality constraints between items from different subjects. Based on the findings, it is suggested that self-regulation is not context specific for individuals with visual impairments.
ArgyropoulosV. S.SideridisG. D.KatsoulisP. (2008). The impact of teacher and parent perspectives on students who are blind regarding their choices of literacy media for independent study. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 104, 221–231.
2.
BakerL.CerroL. C. (2000). Assessing metacognition in children and adults. In SchrawG.ImparaJ. (Eds.), Issues in measurement of metacognition (pp. 99–145). Lincoln: University of Nebraska–Buros Institute.
3.
BentlerP. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.
4.
BentlerP. M. (1998). EQS structural equations program manual. Los Angeles, CA: BMDP Statistical Software.
5.
BentlerP. M.ChouC. P. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods and Research, 16, 78–117.
6.
BestA. B. (1992). Teaching children with visual impairments. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
7.
BrownA. L. (1980). Metacognitive development and reading. In SpiroR. J.BruceB. C.BrewerW. F. (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 453–481). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8.
ButlerD. L.WinneP. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245–281.
9.
CohenJ. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 155–159.
10.
CooperG.SwellerJ. (1987). Effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 347–362.
11.
CostaA. L. (1991). Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
12.
DweckC. S.LeggettE. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.
13.
DunnG.EverittB.PicklesA. (1993). Modeling covariances and latent variables using EQS. New York, NY: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
14.
EfronB. (1979). Bootstrap methods: Another look at the Jackknife. Annals of Statistics, 7, 1–26.
15.
EfronB. (1982). The jackknife, bootstrap, and other resampling plans. Philadelphia, PA: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.
16.
EfronB. (1985). Bootsrap confidence intervals for a class of parametric problems. Biometrica, 72, 45–48.
17.
ErinJ. N.PaulB. (1996). Functional vision assessment and instruction of children and youths in academic programs. In CornA. L.KoenigA. J. (Eds.), Foundations of low vision: Clinical and functional perspectives (pp. 185-220). New York: AFB Press.
18.
FlavellJ. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In ResnickL. B. (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231–236). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19.
FlavellJ. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–917.
20.
GarbE. (2000). Maximizing the potential of young adults with visual impairments: The metacognitive element. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 94, 574–583.
21.
GorsuchT. (1983). Factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22.
HatlenP. (2000). The core curriculum for the blind and visually impaired students, including those with additional disabilities. In KoeningA. J.HolbrookM. C. (Eds.), Foundations of education (Vol. II, pp. 779–784). New York, NY: AFB Press.
23.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In HoyleR. H. (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications (pp. 76–99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1998a). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424–453.
25.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1998b). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 55–72.
26.
HusseyD. (1997). Curriculum issues. In MasonH.McCallS. (Eds.), Visual impairment: Access to education for children and young people (pp. 366–376). London, UK: David Fulton.
27.
InhelderB.PiagetJ. (1959). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. New York, NY: Basic Books.
28.
KappermanG.HeinzeT.StickenJ. (2000). Mathematics. In KoenigA. J.HolbrookM. C. (Eds.), Foundations of education: Vol. II. Instructional strategies for teaching children and youths with visual impairments (pp. 370–393). New York, NY: AFB Press.
29.
Karmiloff-SmithA. (1992). Beyond modularity. A developmental perspective on cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30.
LoehlinJ. C. (1998). Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and structural analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31.
McCallS. (1999). Accessing the curriculum. In ArterC. A.MasonH. L.McCallS.McLindnenM.StoneJ. (Eds.), Children with visual impairment in mainstream settings (pp. 29–40). London, UK: David Fulton.
32.
McDonoughH.StickenE.HaackS. (2006). The expanded core curriculum for students who are visually impaired. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 100, 596–598.
33.
OsborneJ. W. (2000). Assessing metacognition in the classroom. The assessment of cognition monitoring effectiveness (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Oklahoma.
34.
OsmanM. E.HannafinM. J. (1992). Metacognition research and theory: Analysis and implications for instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40, 83–99.
35.
OwsleyC.McGwinG.Jr.PhillipsJ. M.McNealS. F.StalveyB. T. (2004). Impact of an educational program on the safety of high-risk, visually impaired, older drivers. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 26, 222–229.
36.
OwsleyC.StalveyB. T.PhillipsJ. M. (2003). The efficacy of an educational intervention in promoting self-regulation among high risk older drivers. Accident Analysis and Preventing, 35, 393–400.
37.
ParisS. G. (1991). Assessment and remediation of metacognitive aspects of children’s reading comprehension. Topics in Language Disorders, 12, 32–50.
38.
ParisS. G.De Bruin–PareckiA. (1997). Metacognitive aspects of literacy. In WagnerD. A.VenezkyR. L.StreetB. V. (Eds.), Literacy: An international handbook (pp. 74–80). Boulder, CO: Westview.
39.
PerryN. E.PhillipsL.HutchinsonL. R. (2006). Preparing student teachers to support for self-regulated learning. Elementary School Journal, 106, 237–254.
40.
PintrichP. R. (1989). The dynamic interplay of student motivation and cognition in the college classroom. In MacheM.AmesC. (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Motivation enhancing environments (Vol. 6, pp. 117–160). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
41.
PintrichP. R.De GrootE. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.
42.
PintrichP. R.SmithD. A.GarciaT.McKeachieW. J. (1991). Motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan, NCRIPTAL.
43.
SacksS. Z.SilbermanR. K. (2000). Social skills. In KoenigA. J.HolbrookM. C. (Eds.), Foundations of education: Vol. II. Instructional strategies for teaching children and youths with visual impairments (pp. 616–648). New York, NY: AFB Press.
44.
SchrawG. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 113–125.
45.
SchrawG.DunkleM. E.BendixenL. D.RoedelT. D. (1995). Does a general monitoring skill exist?Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 433–444.
46.
SchunkD. H.ZimmermanB. J. (1994). Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications. Hillside NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
47.
SchunkD. H.ZimmermanB. J. (1997). Social origins of self-regulated competence. Educational Psychologist, 32, 195–208.
48.
SchunkD. H.ZimmermanB. J. (1998). Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice. New York, NY: Guilford.
49.
SieglerR. S.JenkinsE. (1989). How children discover new strategies. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
50.
StalveyB. T.OwsleyC. (2003). The development and efficacy of a theory-based educational curriculum to promote self-regulation among high-risk older drivers. Health Promotion Practice, 4, 109–119.
51.
SternbergR. J. (1998a). Metacognition, abilities and developing expertise: What makes an expert student?Instructional Science, 26, 127–140.
52.
SwellerJ. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.
53.
VygotskyL. S.ColeM.John-SteinerV.ScribnerS.SoubermanE. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
54.
WeaverC. A.KelemenW. L. (2002). Comparing processing-based stimulus-based and subject-based factors in metacognition. In ChambersP.IzauteM.MarescauxP. J. (Eds.), Metacognitive process, function and use (pp. 49–60). Norwell, MA: Kluwer.
55.
WinneP. H.PerryN. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In PintrichP.BoekaertsM.SeidnerM. (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 531–566). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
56.
WoltersC. A.PintrichP. R. (1998). Contextual differences in student motivation and self-regulated learning in mathematics, English and social studies classrooms. Instructional Science, 26, 27–47.
57.
WyverS. R.MarkhamR. (1998). Do children with visual impairments demonstrate superior short-term memory, memory strategies, and metamemory?Journal of Visual Impairments and Blindness, 92, 799–811.
58.
ZimmermanB. J. (1989). Self-regulating academic learning and achievement: The emergence of a social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 2, 173–201.
59.
ZimmermanB. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25, 3–17.
60.
ZimmermanB. J. (1995). Self-regulation involves more than metacognition: A social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychologist, 29, 217–221.
61.
ZimmermanB. J. (2000a). Attaining self-regulation. A social cognitive perspective . In BoekaertsM.PintrichP. R.ZeidnerM. (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–41). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
62.
ZimmermanB. J. (2000b). Self-regulatory cycles of learning. In StrakaG. A. (Ed.), Conceptions of self-directed learning, theoretical and conceptual considerations (pp. 221–234). New York, NY: Waxman.
63.
ZimmermanB. J. (2005). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In BoekeartsM.PintrichP.ZeidnerM. (Eds.), Handbook of self- regulation (pp. 13–35). London, UK: Elsevier Academic Press.
64.
ZimmermanB. J.SchunkD. H. (2004). Self-regulating intellectual processes and outcomes: A social cognitive perspective. In DaiD. Y.SternbergR. J. (Eds.), Motivation, emotion and cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development (pp. 323–349). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
