The Student Self-Accommodation Strategy for Students With Visual Impairments

Abstract

Introduction

Accommodations are essential for the successful participation of individuals with visual impairments in post-secondary education and employment. Passive experiences with accommodations in school, plus a complex advocacy process warrant the need to support students to engage in the accommodations process.

Methods

Four high school students with visual impairments were taught the Student Self-Accommodation Strategy. A parallel multiple-case design was used to determine how and how well the participants learned and used the strategy and to investigate their development of metacognitive knowledge and self-regulated learning (SRL) skills.

Results

The participants all learned the strategy to varying extents. The cross-case analysis revealed that recall and understanding the purpose of the strategy supported strategy performance but were not associated with in-class use of the strategy. Additionally, participants did not experience changes with metacognition or SRL; however, they did demonstrate metacognitive knowledge on multiple data sources, with few demonstrations of SRL.

Discussion

Findings indicate that the Student Self-Accommodation Strategy is accessible to students with visual impairments. Three factors seemed to be associated with the learning and use of the strategy: verbal and reasoning skills, achievement, and emotional-behavioral regulation. Metacognition and SRL can positively affect students with visual impairments.

Implications

Future work with the Student Self-Accommodation Strategy should incorporate in-class strategy coaching and an explicit investigation of the factors that seemed to influence strategy learning and performance. Research and practice should give greater attention to metacognition and SRL for students with visual impairments.

Keywords

visual impairment accommodations strategy instruction metacognition self-regulated learning transition

Accommodations for individuals with visual impairments are valuable in post-secondary education (Bishop & Rhind, 2011) and employment (Golub, 2006; Wolffe & Candela, 2002). However, typical accommodations practices during high school do not adequately prepare students once they have transitioned to these new settings. Accommodations for students with high-incidence disabilities tend to be led by teachers (Scanlon & Baker, 2012), and the same is reasoned to be true for students with visual impairments, given that many accommodations are provided by teachers (e.g., increased verbal information during instruction, tactile graphics, extended time on tests) or require direct instruction from a teacher (e.g., braille, assistive technology). Additionally, students with visual impairments frequently refuse their accommodations because they do not recognize a need for them or the accommodations draw unwanted attention to their disability (Rule, Stefanich, Boody, & Peiffer, 2011). Even when students are willing to use accommodations, they may not be aware of the most appropriate accommodations based on their strengths, needs, or context (Erin, Hong, Schoch, & Kuo, 2006; Lusk, 2012).

As students transition out of high school, they no longer have the protections and provisions for accommodations provided by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and they must, of necessity, assume almost exclusive responsibility for advocating for their own accommodations, whether in education or employment settings. Because visual impairment is a low-incidence disability, the general population has limited experience with individuals with visual impairments, which results in little understanding of their abilities and needs (Garber & Huebner, 2017). This concern is not simply generalized; it has context-specific implications. In post-secondary educational settings, professors’ limited knowledge of visual impairments and the needs of students with visual impairments hinder the provision of accommodations in their classes (Bishop & Rhind, 2011). Similarly, McDonnall et al. (2014) reported that most employers are unaware of how employees with visual impairments would accomplish job responsibilities, and they have no knowledge of sources of information on workplace accommodations for this population, both of which make prospective employers hesitant to hire individuals with visual impairments. Professors’ and employers’ lack of knowledge about accommodations makes it complicated to self-advocate for accommodations in these settings. Individuals with visual impairments must know what supports they need and be able to explain their functions, the reasons they are necessary, and how they relate to the expectations of a particular setting. Furthermore, individuals need to demonstrate independence as they advocate for and utilize their accommodations (Golub, 2003).

Given the passive accommodation experiences of students with visual impairments in high school and the high expectations for self-advocacy in post-secondary settings, transition supports need to include buy-in from students about the value of their accommodations, explicit instruction about which accommodations they are afforded, practice with selecting the most appropriate accommodation for a given task, and developing skills in self-advocacy.

The Student Self-Accommodation Strategy

The Student Self-Accommodation Strategy (SSA) was designed to accomplish the transition goals of increasing the perception of accommodations as valuable, providing explicit instruction in permissible accommodations, practicing the act of selecting accommodations, and developing self-advocacy skills. The five step strategy guides students to select, access, and utilize their accommodations:

Ask myself, “Do I need an accommodation?”

Based on the subject or the task, do I know up front that I need an accommodation?

Am I experiencing a challenge that an accommodation could help overcome?

It is okay if the answer to this question is “no”

Tell myself what I need and why

Think of two accommodation options

Explain to myself why one option is better than the other

State how to get the help I need

Can I get the accommodation myself?

Do I need to ask someone for help?

Get what I need

Get the accommodation and use it

Ask myself, “Am I doing this right? Is this working?”

I need to think about my role in the activity or product for the task

If “no,” then I need to try to fix the problem or ask for help

In developing the SSA, attention was given to accessibility of language (i.e., using words and syntax that are natural and easy to understand) and creating an efficient, strategic process to support strategy learning and use.

Furthermore, strategy instruction was designed to facilitate students’ metacognition and self-regulated learning (SRL). As students learn strategies, they need to develop the metacognitive knowledge that will allow them to use the strategies effectively (Lienemann & Reid, 2006). This includes declarative (knowing that), procedural (knowing how), and conditional (knowing when and why) knowledge (Paris, Lipson, & Wixson, 1983). Incorporating SRL into strategy instruction further improves strategy effectiveness through awareness of individual strengths and weaknesses, opportunities to modify strategies, and ongoing evaluation of performance (Pui, 2017).

The present study presents preliminary research on the SSA and the instructional practices designed to teach the strategy to students with visual impairments. Ensuring that the strategy is viable and instructional methods are effective are valuable precursors to assessing the effectiveness of the strategy in terms of whether it changes students’ accommodation and self-advocacy practices. Information presented in this article is based on the dissertation completed by Nannemann (2019). The following research questions were investigated:

Following instruction and practice, how well do students recall, comprehend, perform, and use the SSA?

How do students’ metacognition and SRL change following SSA instruction and practice?

Methods

Research design

This research was conducted as a case study, specifically using a parallel multiple-case research design (Chmiliar, 2009). Parallel indicates that all of the participants were recruited for the study before it started, and they participated in the study concurrently. The multiple-case design permitted a thorough investigation of the research questions for each participant followed by a cross-case analysis. The cross-case analysis was completed using a typology approach, which involved identifying differences among and similarities across the participants in order to group them by similar patterns of learning and performance (Khan & VanWynsberghe, 2008). The Institutional Review Board of Boston College approved all components of this study.

Participants

Four high school students with visual impairments enrolled at a special school for students with visual impairments in the northeastern United States participated in the study. These students were nominated by the director of secondary education at their school based on the following criteria: status in grades 9–12, enrollment in STEM and humanities classes, technology access and skills necessary for completing data sources, and English language skills sufficient for learning and understanding the SSA. Each nominated student—all of legal age—consented to join the study. The characteristics of the four participants—Emily, Evan, Graham, and James (all pseudonyms)—are presented in Table 1 including gender, age, race, diagnoses, visual acuities, eye conditions, verbal and reasoning abilities, their grades from the term preceding the study in the STEM and humanities classes whose teachers completed surveys for this study, and the accommodations listed on their respective individualized education programs (IEPs). The participants were offered a $20 Visa gift card as compensation for their participation in the study. They had the opportunity to add $1 to that amount for each SSA use write-up they submitted, and an additional $10 was available if they completed all eight possible write-ups.

Table 1.

Participant characteristics.

Variable		Emily	Evan	Graham	Evan
Gender		Female	Male	Male	Male
Age		18	20	19	18
Race		White	White	White	White
Diagnoses		Bardet–Biedl syndrome	Norrie syndrome	ASD ADHD Anxiety OCD Depression	Sensory processing issues Hypotonia
Acuities		20/200 OD 20/150 OS 20/100 OU	No light perception	No light perception	No light perception
Eye conditions		Retinal degeneration Reduced night vision Hyperopic astigmatism	Retinal detachment Aphakia	PHPV Septo-optic dysplasia Retinal detachment Microphthalmia	ROP Retinal detachment Fibrosis Nystagmus
Verbal ability		Borderline	High average	Low average-average	High average
Reasoning ability		Extremely low	High average	Low average	High average
STEM grade		B−	A	B	C+
Humanities grade		C+	A−	A	B−
IEP accommodations	Materials	Large print Magnifier Boldline paper Boldline graph paper Braille or large print ruler or protractor Calculator Macbook Modified computer settings iPhone Electronic books Braille materials Braille name labels Avoid green text Slantboard	Braille note-taker Laptop with JAWS and Windows iPadi Phone Electronic and auditory materials Talking calculator/ calculator on note-taker Brailler Braille materials Manipulatives Cane	Braille note-taker Computer with screen reader Auditory materials Braille materials Manipulatives Number lines Adapted lab equipment Graphic organizers	Braille note-taker iPhone Mac computer Voice output software Victor Stream Auditory materials BARD Bookshelf Newsline Brailler Braille materials Calculator on phone and note-taker Manipulatives Graphic organizers
IEP accommodations	Processes	Individual and small group instruction Previewing Pairing visual and verbal information Models and demonstrations Experience-based learning Repetition and practice Simplified language Outlines for written language Materials read aloud Personal copies of visual information Clarifying directions Directions provided one or two steps at a time Cueing back to task Extra time Frequent breaks Predictable seating Preferential seating Distraction-free setting Specific lighting conditions Reduced glare Early release from class	Individual and small group instruction Clear/concise directions Clear routines and expectations Ample processing time Notes on computer, note-taker, or laptop	One-to-one and small group instruction Demonstrations Practice/ repetition Problem solving steps Clarified directions Cueing back to task Extra time to complete work and process information Minimal distractions Organized work area Predictable setting	Auditory lessons Math lessons/ concepts put to music Sensory activities Verbal and physical modeling and cueing Repetition and practice Clarifying directions Word processing on note-taker and computer Extended time

Although they were not subjects of the research, teachers participated in the study by completing surveys. One STEM and one humanities teacher for each participating student were recommended by the school’s director of secondary education. Four teachers were recommended; some teachers provided information on multiple students. The same STEM teacher completed surveys for Emily, Graham, and James, and another completed surveys for Evan. Both of the STEM teachers taught mathematics. One humanities teacher, who taught history, completed surveys for Evan, Graham, and James; and the other, an English language arts teacher, completed surveys for Emily.

Instruments

Interviews

Each interview consisted of 29 questions designed to ascertain each participant’s understanding of accommodations, SSA learning, and attitudes about both. The interviews were developed to be conducted individually with participants. Interview items are available as appendices in Nannemann (2019). The questions pertaining to SSA learning addressed the participants’ recall, comprehension, and performance of the strategy. To assess performance, the participants were given a hypothetical scenario to which they would apply the SSA. Targeted questions asked them to decide if an accommodation was needed (step 1), conceive other accommodation options (step 2), evaluate the effectiveness of the accommodation (step 5), and troubleshoot if the accommodation did not work as expected (step 5). Steps 3 and 4 were not addressed with questions because the participants were not expected to know how to access the hypothetical accommodations and use of the accommodation was incorporated in the scenario. For example, one scenario stated that the participants could use a tablet to audio record lectures or discussions in lieu of taking written notes in real time. The participants were not expected to know if the tablet was kept in their possession or if it was a classroom device that synced the recordings with a shared drive and, although there are several possible accommodative functions of a tablet, the participants were told that it would be used to record lectures and discussions. Scenarios were developed by the researcher to reflect relatable situations for students with visual impairments without utilizing the participants’ IEP accommodations; clarification on the scenarios was provided as needed. Professors of special education reviewed the scenarios and determined them to be appropriate and equivalent in complexity. Each interview cycle utilized a different scenario, but within a single cycle, all participants received the same scenario.

Of the 29 interview items, some items were scored—3 by tally (e.g., name the SSA steps) and 18 by rating (i.e., accurate, adequate, inaccurate/no response). Criteria for accurate, adequate, and inaccurate responses were pre-determined, varying by question, based on strategy instruction (the scoring guide is available from the author upon request). As an example, an item from the hypothetical scenario related to step 5 asked participants, “What will you think about at the end of class regarding whether or not to use [this accommodation] in the future in this class?” An accurate response was one that acknowledged the student’s role in the activity or the product expected for the task, which is the thought process specified for step 5 in the SSA, and the evaluation is conducted by the participant. An answer was adequate if the thought process was generally evaluative (e.g., “how well the accommodation worked”) and conducted by the participant. For a response to be scored as inaccurate, the participant did not evaluate the effectiveness of the given accommodation themselves. Opinion and experience items (eight items) were not scored.

Junior metacognitive awareness inventory

The Junior Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (JrMAI) is a student self-assessment of metacognition and SRL developed by Sperling and colleagues (2002). Version B of the inventory (intended for older students) contains 18 items addressing declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge, and self-regulation components of planning, information management, monitoring, and evaluation using a 5-point Likert scale. Sperling et al. determined an internal consistency-based reliability estimate of .82 for Version B. They demonstrated validity using cross-validation; students’ scores on the JrMAI correlated with other assessments of metacognition and regulation. In their study, Sperling et al. administered Version B of the JrMAI to all students in grades 6–9 in two public schools, but they did not provide information on participants’ special education/disability status. The JrMAI, Version B has been used with students through grade 12 (Kim, Zyromski, Mariani, Lee, & Carey, 2017), including those who are at-risk (Vandevelde, Van Keer, & De Wever, 2011), have learning disabilities (Mastrothanais, Kalianou, Katsifi, & Zouganali, 2018), and qualify for special education (Kim et al., 2017). While it is possible that students with visual impairments participated in research conducted by Sperling et al. (2002) or Kim et al. (2017), given that they both implemented the JrMAI school-wide at their respective research sites, the inclusion of students with visual impairments was not explicitly stated.

Teacher surveys

Teacher surveys addressed how well the participants learned, achieved, participated, and handled challenges in individual classes. Examples of items included “compared to other students in the same grade and class, the student knows what is expected of her/him in most class activities (e.g., how to participate, how to learn, what to produce)” and “compared to other students in the same grade and class, the student is proficient in the range of skills required to participate in most class activities.” Item response options used a 7-point Likert scale including almost always, often, a little bit more than peers, about the same as peers, a little bit less than peers, seldom, and almost never. The same items were used for pre- and post-test.

Procedures

Setting

The participants and I met in a “sensory room” at their school during elective periods for strategy instruction. Strategy instruction sessions occurred four or five times per week per participant over two weeks and lasted approximately 50 minutes each; some were one-to-one sessions and some were small group sessions (none of the sessions included all four participants) depending on when the participants’ elective periods did and did not coincide. Emily and Graham completed strategy instruction in nine sessions each, while Evan and James completed it in 10 sessions each. Interviews and the JrMAI were completed during individual meetings in the same sensory room as strategy instruction; these meetings lasted 25–40 minutes each.

The study took place in three phases over 13 weeks: baseline (3 weeks), strategy instruction (2 weeks), and classroom application (8 weeks). An overview of the study procedures is available in Table 2.

Table 2.

Overview of study procedures.

Study phase	Component	Description	Data
Baseline		Collect demographic information, establish existing metacognitive knowledge and SRL skills	Cumulative folder reviewJrMAITeacher surveys
Strategy instruction	Stage 1	Learn about accommodations, including the impact of context, strengths, and weakness; support metacognition and SRL	Preferred accommodations list
	Stage 2	Describe SSA purpose, steps, and benefits
	Stage 3	Model the SSA and self-instructions
	Stage 4	Memorize the SSA
	Stage 5	Practice the SSA and self-instructions; continue developing metacognition and SRL	Interview
Classroom application	Week 1	Monitor SSA recall, performance, and use; determine changes in metacognition and SRL	SSA use write-up
	Week 2		InterviewSSA use write-up
	Week 3		SSA use write-up
	Week 4		InterviewSSA use write-up
	Week 5		SSA use write-up
	Week 6		InterviewSSA use write-up
	Week 7		SSA use write-up
	Week 8		InterviewJrMAISSA use write-upTeacher surveys

Baseline

For the baseline, I reviewed each participant’s cumulative file and administered the JrMAI to establish existing metacognitive knowledge and SRL skills. Additionally, STEM and humanities teachers completed surveys addressing the participants’ learning and accommodations. Baseline also included three pairs of observations for each participant in the STEM and humanities classes whose teachers completed the surveys. Observations focused on the participants’ accommodations usage (which accommodations they used, how frequently, and who—teacher or student—initiated the accommodation). Data and findings from the observations are presented in Nannemann (in press).

Strategy instruction

Strategy instruction in the SSA occurred over two weeks. Instructional sessions utilized the Self-Regulated Strategy Development model (SRSD; Graham & Harris, 1993), a thoroughly validated model for strategy instruction (Lienemann & Reid, 2006). In addition to structuring strategy instruction, this model also incorporates development of self-regulation skills (Harris, Graham, Mason, & Friedlander, 2008), which students need to effectively use the SSA. The strategy instruction phase aligned with the first five stages of SRSD. The content and tasks addressed in each stage—described below—were formatted as a checklist to maintain a consistent progression of instruction for each participant given that their session schedules and groupings were inconsistent.

Stage 1—develop prerequisite skills and knowledge. This stage began by participants learning the definition of accommodations and who is eligible to receive them. We reviewed the accommodations that were listed on their respective IEPs (see Table 1). Because each participant’s accommodations list was extensive and sometimes outdated, part of the review process included culling the list down to pertinent accommodations. Each participant and I discussed the purpose of each of these accommodations and how (or if) it could be used in each of their classes. Then, the participants identified their preferred accommodations for each class and explained how they access them. Next, the participants learned to anticipate accommodation needs using prompting questions at the beginning of class, “How can I know what we’re doing today, and how will I access that information?” Finally, they completed a task pertaining to class activities. The task began with each participant making a list of activities commonly used in each class (e.g., chapter quiz, math problem set, group discussion). For each of the activities, they considered their role (e.g., read, complete notes outline, answer questions); thought process (e.g., remember information, relate to previous knowledge, make a judgement); and product (e.g., outline, lab report, summary). Then, the participants discussed their strengths and weaknesses for the activities that occurred most often.

This stage addressed metacognition and SRL by having participants learn which accommodations they are afforded on their IEPs (declarative knowledge) and how implementation of each accommodation could vary by class (procedural and conditional knowledge). They also practiced metacognition by asking, “How can I know what we’re doing today, and how will I access that information?” and “How should I think during this activity?” Furthermore, thinking about how they engaged in class activities, including strengths and weaknesses, was SRL.

Stage 2—discuss the strategy. I described the SSA to the participants, including the purpose of the strategy, when it can be used, and its benefits. Benefits included agency in accommodation choice, increased independence, and preparation for self-advocacy in future employment and education settings. The participants committed to learn the SSA.

Stage 3—model the strategy. At the beginning of stage three, the SSA was emailed to the participants for reference and review. During this stage, I modeled the SSA for each participant using think-aloud tasks reflecting various uses of the SSA related to the participant’s unique experiences based on IEP accommodations and conversations in stage 1. I also vocalized “self-instructions,” which Graham and Harris explained are regulatory thoughts surrounding strategy implementation including recognizing a problem, choosing to use the SSA, monitoring strategy use, and self-assurance.

Through think-aloud tasks and self-instructions, I explained and modeled how metacognition and SRL were used during performance of the SSA. I demonstrated how decisions to implement the SSA were based on planning and information management. Then, the first step of the SSA required declarative knowledge to know that a situation did or did not warrant an accommodation. I used conditional knowledge for step 2 as I explained why one accommodation option was better than another. The third and fourth steps utilized procedural knowledge in addressing how to access and use the chosen accommodation. Finally, I demonstrated evaluation and troubleshooting for the last step of the SSA when determining if my accommodation was effective in supporting task performance and course-correcting if it was not effective.

Stage 4—memorize the strategy. The participants memorized the SSA using an echoing memorization technique. With this approach, I would say step 1 and the participant would echo it. We repeated this exchange 4 or 5 times, and then the participant would say the step independently 4 or 5 times. This process was repeated for each subsequent step. After the participant said a step independently several times, they would say all of the steps up to that point. The memorization process was supported by frequent review of the SSA between sessions using their email copy.

Stage 5—support the strategy. Stage 5 mirrored stage 3 but with the participants using the SSA and corresponding elements of metacognition and SRL. They engaged in various uses of the SSA based on their individual experiences. Each participant performed think-aloud activities of the strategy and self-instructions. Initially, I prompted each participant to state the step before using it. Then, I prompted them to use one step at a time. Finally, they were given a general prompt to use the SSA for a given situation.

Classroom application

The third phase of the study (after baseline and strategy instruction), classroom application, aligned with the final stage of SRSD: independent performance. During this stage, I monitored the participants’ strategy retention and performance in isolation (i.e., on interviews) and their self-reports of in-class use. The participants set a goal of using the SSA twice per class every day. They documented in-class use via electronic write-ups each week, which they were told should follow the same format as their think-aloud strategy use at the end of stage 5.

Interviews were conducted individually every other week. After each interview, I briefly reviewed portions of the SSA that the participant could not recall or perform accurately. This practice was instituted in line with Graham and Harris’s (1993) assertion that maintenance of a strategy will need to be supported after strategy instruction. During each week in which an interview was conducted, the participants were observed once in STEM and once in humanities (see Nannemann, in press). The participants responded to the JrMAI again with the final interview. Additionally, the teachers completed another survey about learning and accommodations for the individual participants.

Data collection and analysis

Cumulative folder review

I reviewed each participant’s cumulative folder for demographic information, grades, diagnosed disabilities, and IEP-listed accommodations. This information was used to describe participants and explain trends in strategy learning and performance. IEP accommodations were also used to support strategy instruction.

Interviews

I interviewed each participant individually at the end of strategy instruction (referred to as Instruction) and four times during classroom application (referred to by week; see Table 2). The interviews were conducted verbally and audio-recorded; I took brief notes of the participants’ responses and behaviors. The participants’ scores (tallies and ratings) were reviewed to note trends in performance. All interview items (scored and not scored) were reviewed for evidence of metacognitive knowledge and SRL skills. The scoring and review processes were conducted solely by the researcher.

JrMAI

At the beginning and end of the study, the JrMAI was completed verbally by each participant during individual meetings. Their responses were analyzed to identify strengths, weaknesses, and changes that occurred after strategy instruction. To analyze changes, the direction of change for each item from pre- to post-testing per participant was identified (i.e., increase, decrease, no change). Then, for each participant, the frequency of each direction of change within a domain (e.g., declarative knowledge) was noted to determine a pattern of change (i.e., increase, decrease, no change, variable change).

Preferred accommodations list

During stage 1 of strategy instruction, the participants reported their preferred accommodations for each class and how they accessed them. The information shared by each participant was recorded in writing by the researcher and later analyzed for evidence of metacognition and SRL. For further analysis of the preferred accommodations lists, including the relationship between preferred accommodations and accommodations used in practice, please refer to Nannemann (in press).

Self-accommodation strategy use write-ups

Each week during classroom application, participants electronically documented one instance of using the SSA in class that week. Participants were reminded via email to complete the write-up each week, and they completed them after school hours. Completion of the write-ups was not mandatory, but they were incentivized by adding to a participant’s base compensation for each write-up submitted. Of eight opportunities, Emily submitted two, Evan and Graham did not submit any, and James submitted eight. Write-ups were reviewed for evidence of strategy use and metacognition and SRL.

Teacher surveys

For each participant, one STEM and one humanities teacher responded to a survey during baseline and at the end of classroom application. Key items relating to metacognition and SRL are reported.

Researcher description

At the time of the study, I was a doctoral candidate with previous research experience and a certified teacher of students with visual impairments with 10 years’ experience working with adolescents with visual impairments. Some of my previous research experience involved work with the SSA with students with high-incidence disabilities (see Scanlon et al., 2021), including using the SRSD model (Graham & Harris, 1993) for strategy instruction and conducting and analyzing the interviews, JrMAI (Sperling et al., 2002), and teacher surveys used in the present study. I was aware that my previous experience with this line of research created the potential for bias during analysis of data for this study. Consequently, after an initial round of review and analysis, I revisited findings similar to previous studies to confirm that the current data legitimately supported those findings.

Findings

Findings are organized by the topics of the research questions: strategy learning and use, and metacognition and self-regulated learning. Data are provided in tables for each participant, while the narrative focuses on the cross-case analysis supported by individual examples.

Strategy learning and use

This study considered three dimensions of strategy learning: recall, comprehension, and performance as well as participants’ reports of SSA use in their classes. The cross-case analysis indicated that consistent and complete recall of the SSA and a comprehensive understanding of its purpose were associated with stronger strategy performance, but the level of strategy proficiency was not associated with in-class use.

Recall

The number of strategy steps recalled by each participant during each interview is presented in Table 3. Evan and James were more consistent and complete in strategy recall than Emily and Graham. During the interviews for weeks 2, 4, and 6, Emily was not willing to attempt naming the SSA steps. In week 6, Emily informed me that she had not had access to her electronic copy of the SSA because the email address she shared with me during strategy instruction was no longer in use, and she asked me to send the strategy to her new email address so that she could rehearse it. She stated four of the five steps on the week 8 interview. Emily’s ability to recall the strategy was better on the Instruction interview, which immediately followed regular practice during strategy instruction and on the week 8 interview, which occurred after she was able to review the electronic version of the SSA. Compared to her inability to recall the steps during weeks 2–6, this indicates that Emily needed frequent review to maintain recall. When Evan and Graham missed steps, they typically repeated steps in lieu of the ones they omitted, but there was no pattern to the steps they missed or the ones they substituted.

Table 3.

Recall of strategy steps.

	Emily	Evan	Graham	James
Instruction	5	5	4	5
Week 2	0	4	5	5
Week 4	0	5	4	5
Week 6	0	5	3	5
Week 8	4	5	4	5

Comprehension

Data on the participants’ understanding of the purpose of the SSA are provided in Table 4. This includes their scores on an interview item that directly asked about the purpose plus a summary of their understanding drawn from these responses and their application of the strategy to hypothetical scenarios. All of the participants adequately comprehended the strategy, at a minimum. Evan and James had a more comprehensive understanding of the purpose of the SSA; although, Evan occasionally applied the strategy to a task rather than an accommodation. In contrast, Emily and Graham maintained a narrower understanding by focusing on part of the strategy, limiting the circumstances when it could be used, and relying on others even when the strategy guided them to be independent.

Table 4.

Comprehension of strategy purpose.

	Emily	Evan	Graham	James
Scoring	Accurate (2): relates SSA with thinking explicitly about accommodations; Adequate (1): expresses general benefit or limited use of the SSA; Inaccurate (0): does not relate the SSA with accommodations
Instruction	1	1	1	2
Week 2	1	1	1	2
Week 4	1	2	1	2
Week 6	1	1	1	2
Week 8	1	2	1	2
Summary	Generally understood that the SSA would help her advance in her education. Specifically focused on the strategy to support troubleshooting rather than initial selection or use of accommodations	Understood the procedures and purpose of the SSA to think explicitly about his accommodation needs, but would occasionally apply the SSA to a task instead of an accommodation	Did not recognize that the SSA promoted independence. Sometimes he specified that he should only use the SSA when stressed or frustrated, which restricted its potential usefulness	Consistently articulated that the strategy guided students to intentionally think about whether an accommodation is needed and which one is most appropriate for that situation

SSA = self-accommodation strategy.

Performance

The participants demonstrated their level of proficiency with applying the SSA by answering questions related to hypothetical scenarios on the interviews. The scores of their responses are available in Table 5. With one exception, the participants demonstrated at least adequate performance in all areas on most interviews. The exception is that Emily was consistently inaccurate in explaining how she would evaluate the effectiveness of a chosen accommodation; she insisted on asking her teacher instead of making that determination herself. Across the interviews, all of the participants excelled at identifying multiple accommodation options and troubleshooting ineffective accommodations. Except for James, they struggled the most with the evaluation component of step 5.

Table 5.

Self-Accommodation Strategy performance on interviews.

		Emily	Evan	Graham	James
Determining if an accommodation is needed (step 1)	Scoring	Accurate (2): decision based on specific task expectations or challenge encountered; Adequate (1): decision related generally to task or challenge (not specific); Inaccurate (0): decision not related to task or challenge
	Instruction	1	0	0	2
	Week 2	1	2	0	2
	Week 4	1	2	2	2
	Week 6	1	2	2	2
	Week 8	0	0	0	2
Identifying multiple accommodation options (step 2)	Scoring	Accurate (2): at least 2 accommodations identified to accomplish task or mitigate challenge; Adequate (1): 1 accommodation identified to accomplish task or mitigate challenge; Inaccurate (0): 0 accommodations identified to accomplish task or mitigate challenge
	Instruction	2	0	2	2
	Week 2	2	2	2	2
	Week 4	2	2	2	2
	Week 6	2	2	2	2
	Week 8	2	2	2	2
Evaluating effectiveness of chosen accommodation (step 5)	Scoring	Accurate (2): evaluation criterion specifies student’s role in activity or product for task, evaluation conducted by student; Adequate (1): evaluation criterion is general, evaluation conducted by student; Inaccurate (0): evaluation not conducted by student
	Instruction	0	0	2	2
	Week 2	0	1	1	2
	Week 4	0	1	1	2
	Week 6	0	2	1	2
	Week 8	0	2	2	2
Troubleshooting ineffective accommodation (step 5)	Scoring	Accurate (2): specific solution to support task completion or mitigate challenge; Adequate (1): general solution to support task completion or mitigate challenge; Inaccurate (0): solution does not support task completion or mitigate challenge
	Instruction	2	2	2	2
	Week 2	2	2	2	2
	Week 4	0	2	2	2
	Week 6	2	2	2	2
	Week 8	2	0	2	2

The pattern of each participant’s strategy recall, comprehension, and performance revealed a strong relationship among the three dimensions of learning. The participant with the strongest recall and comprehension (James) also demonstrated the strongest performance. Evan and Graham were less consistent, but nonetheless capable, with recall and comprehension; this mirrored their strategy performance. Emily was the relative weakest on recall, comprehension, and performance.

In-class use

Although a relationship was apparent among the three dimensions of strategy learning, the pattern did not hold for strategy use in the participants’ classes. Self-reports from interviews and SSA use write-ups revealed that James and Emily implemented the SSA in their classes, albeit inconsistently, while Evan and Graham did not. This seemed to indicate that in-class use was not related to level of strategy learning.

Metacognition and self-regulated learning

Metacognitive knowledge and SRL skills were assessed in terms of changes, strengths, and weaknesses. Data from the JrMAI (Table 6) and teacher surveys (Table 7) did not indicate a discernible pattern of change for the participants. Responses from pre- to post-testing tended to remain consistent or demonstrate variable changes (e.g., within a domain, one item decreased while another increased).

Table 6.

JrMAI responses

		Emily		Evan		Graham		James
Domain	Item	Pre	Post	Pre	Post	Pre	Post	Pre	Post
Declarative knowledge	1	5	3	4	4	4	5	4	5
	4	5	5	4	3	5	4	4	4
	12	4	2	5	5	5	5	5	5
Procedural knowledge	3	1	3	5	5	3	4	5	5
Procedural knowledge	16	4	3	4	5	4	3	4	4
Conditional knowledge	2	3	4	3	4	4	4	4	5
	5	5	5	4	3	5	5	5	5
	13	4	4	5	5	4	4	4	3
	14	4	5	4	3	5	4	5	4
Planning	9	3	4	3	3	3	3	3	3
Planning	18	5	3	5	5	3	5	5	4
Information management	6	1	1	2	3	1	2	1	3
Information management	11	5	4	5	5	5	4	5	4
Monitoring	8	5	4	4	1	4	4	4	4
	10	3	5	4	4	4	1	4	3
	15	3	4	4	5	5	4	4	4
Evaluation	7	3	3	3	2	2	2	3	3
Evaluation	17	5	5	2	4	4	4	4	4

Note. 1 = Never; 2 = Seldom; 3 = Sometimes; 4 = Often; 5 = Always

Table 7.

Teacher survey responses

			Emily		Evan		Graham		James
Domain	Item	Teacher	Pre	Post	Pre	Post	Pre	Post	Pre	Post
Declarative knowledge	Awareness of expectations	Humanities	3	3	6	7	6	7	5	7
Declarative knowledge	Awareness of expectations	STEM	5	4	7	6	2	3	4	3
Procedural knowledge	Proficiency with a range of skills	Humanities	3	3	6	7	5	7	4	7
Procedural knowledge	Proficiency with a range of skills	STEM	3	3	7	7	3	3	4	3

Note. 1 = almost never; 2 = seldom; 3 = a little less than peers; 4 = about the same as peers; 5 = a little more than peers; 6 = often; 7 = almost always

Although changes were not evident, the participants demonstrated abilities in domains of metacognitive knowledge on multiple data sources, with limited demonstrations of SRL. Table 8 identifies each participant’s strengths and weaknesses with metacognition and SRL and provides a summary of the evidence for each. Conditional knowledge was a strength for all of the participants. They knew that accommodations use depended on context, and they could articulate the when and why for specific accommodations. However, Emily, Evan, and Graham struggled with evaluation. They had trouble determining whether an accommodation helped them accomplish a given task. James’s only indication of weakness came from his STEM teacher’s survey responses. Those survey scores contradicted other evidence of metacognition, but lower performance could have been specific to the STEM context considering that James’s cumulative folder indicated that he struggled with mathematics.

Table 8.

Strengths and weaknesses with metacognition and self-regulated learning

	Emily	Evan	Graham	James
Strengths	Conditional knowledgeevidence: high ratings on JrMAI, interview responses explaining that context should inform accommodations use, SSA write-up describing appropriate circumstances for requesting a break	Conditional knowledgeevidence: explaining on preferred accommodations list and interviews that accommodations should be context-dependent, articulating during hypothetical scenarios that he chose accommodations based on activity presented	Conditional knowledgeevidence: high ratings on JrMAI, articulating during preferred accommodations list and interviews that each accommodation is useful for a specific situation but not all situations	Conditional knowledgeevidence: explaining on SSA write-ups and interviews the circumstances under which specific accommodations should be used
		Procedural knowledgeevidence: high ratings on JrMAI and teacher surveys	Procedural knowledgeevidence: high ratings from humanities teacher survey, explaining how he used all accommodations on preferred accommodations list	Procedural knowledgeevidence: high ratings on JrMAI and humanities teacher survey, SSA write-up describing how he requested and used a specific accommodation
			Declarative knowledgeevidence: high ratings on JrMAI and humanities teacher survey	Declarative knowledgeevidence: high ratings on JrMAI and humanities teacher survey
Weaknesses	Evaluationevidence: low ratings on JrMAI, interview data showing challenge with determining whether an accommodation supported task performance	Evaluationevidence: relatively low ratings on JrMAI, interview responses that deferred to a teacher or presented vague criteria for evaluating effectiveness of an accommodation	Evaluationevidence: low ratings on JrMAI, comments during strategy instruction that evaluating effectiveness of accommodations was hard, providing vague criteria during interviews for evaluating accommodations	Procedural knowledgeevidence: low ratings on STEM teacher survey
Weaknesses				Declarative knowledgeevidence: low ratings on STEM teacher survey

SSA = self-accommodation strategy.

Broadly speaking, the participants tended to consider accommodations from a metacognitive perspective rather than an SRL perspective. This meant they knew how and when to use their accommodations based on familiarity, but if faced with a novel situation, they were challenged to strategically select and then determine the effectiveness of an accommodation.

Discussion

This section further discusses important trends in the findings. Topics include the SSA, factors that potentially influenced strategy learning and performance, and metacognition and SRL. Implications for research and practice are incorporated in the discussion.

Self-accommodation strategy

Even though participants’ accuracy and in-class use varied, through the process of learning the SSA, they demonstrated an ability to think explicitly about their accommodation needs, to communicate those needs to others, and to take greater responsibility for their accommodations. The participants’ progress with the SSA indicates accessibility of the strategy. Also, their performance demonstrates that the SSA could be a valuable transition tool for improving student knowledge, self-advocacy, and use of accommodations in preparation for college or the workplace.

One recommendation for future work with the SSA is to supplement strategy instruction with in-class strategy coaching to help bridge the gap between strategy learning and use. This recommendation was made by Evan, one of the participants who did not use the SSA in his classes. The practice is also supported by Lienemann and Reid (2006), who acknowledged that students may need prompting or support in each setting where a strategy can be used. Additionally, future research should investigate the effectiveness of the SSA related to changes in accommodation practices and self-advocacy for students with visual impairments. As research on the SSA continues, teachers can prepare students for post-secondary employment and education settings by giving them more responsibility over their accommodations, by expecting students to self-advocate for accommodations, and by discussing the rationale for using specific accommodations.

Influencing factors

As mentioned previously, the extent to which the four participants learned and used the SSA varied. Recognizing that strategy instruction was the same for all of the participants prompted a consideration of factors that might have led to those differences. Three factors were identified: verbal and reasoning skills, achievement, and emotions/behaviors. For some of the participants, these factors seemed to support SSA learning and performance; for others, they appeared to hindered it. Table 1 presented information related to these factors for each participant.

The first factor was verbal and reasoning skills. Evan and James demonstrated stronger verbal and reasoning skills, supported by information from their cumulative folder reviews, which was associated with better strategy learning and performance. In contrast, Emily and Graham had lower verbal and reasoning abilities. Their recall of the SSA steps was less consistent, their understanding of the purpose of the strategy was narrower, and they had less proficient performance than Evan and James.

In addition, each participant’s achievement seemed to impact whether they used the strategy in class. When participants did well in a class (based on their term grades), they were less likely to use the strategy, presumably because they did not recognize a need to improve engagement and learning. Evan and Graham had relatively high achievement, and neither demonstrated in-class strategy use. Emily and James, however, had lower achievement, and they did use the strategy in their classes, possibly because they recognized it as a tool for improving achievement. This trend elaborates on the finding that in-class SSA use was not associated with strategy learning; rather, it appears to be associated with achievement.

Finally, emotional-behavioral regulation seemed related to each participant’s strategy learning and use. James was the most capable of regulating his emotions and behaviors; he also demonstrated the strongest strategy performance and most frequent in-class use. The other participants had teacher reports, demonstrations, and/or diagnoses of emotional variability, anxiety, depression, or challenging behaviors. Although the activities and content of strategy instruction were the same for all participants, some sessions were impacted by emotional-behavioral dysregulation. For example, some of Emily’s strategy instruction sessions were interrupted by school faculty or staff trying to address problems that occurred before the session started. One of Evan’s afternoon instructional sessions was unproductive because he was upset about losing a file on his note-taker, even though the file had been recovered. Graham’s anxiety occasionally made it difficult for him to focus during strategy instruction. He also commented during multiple interviews that being “too upset” kept him from using the SSA in his classes.

Future research should explicitly investigate the relationships between verbal and reasoning skills, achievement, and emotional-behavioral regulation and SSA learning and use. Once the relationships are more clearly established, strategy instruction could be adjusted accordingly.

Metacognition and self-regulated learning

This article is the only one to detail a study involving SRL for students with visual impairments, and it joins only one other (i.e., Garb, 2000) in presenting an intervention using metacognition. These articles demonstrate, albeit on a small scale, that metacognition supports motivation, understanding of learning styles and needs, selection and use of accommodations, independent learning practices, and improved achievement for learners with visual impairments.

These benefits align with those widely recognized by other disability-related fields, and they have the potential to counter several challenges commonly faced in educating students with visual impairments. Teachers report that students with visual impairments show less effort, motivation, initiative, and engagement than their classmates (Bardin & Lewis, 2008). Classroom teachers typically have limited training and experience with teaching student with visual impairments, which can result in low expectations for achievement (Ajuwon, Sarraj, Griffin-Shirley, Lechtenberger, & Zhou, 2015) or providing too much support (Robinson & Lieberman, 2004). Overly supporting students hinders their abilities with independent learning and self-evaluation. Other challenges in inclusive settings include ineffective instructional practices (Paris & Winograd, 1990), inconsistent use of instructional accommodations (Abramo & Pierce, 2013; Rule, Stefanich, Boody, & Peiffer, 2011; Wild, Hilson, & Farrand, 2013), and expectations to meet the needs of individual students and the class as a whole (Pui, 2017).

In order to fully recognize the benefits of metacognition and SRL for students with visual impairments, they need to receive greater attention in our work, both research and practice. This study indicated that students can develop metacognitive knowledge without an intentional focus (i.e., participants demonstrated this knowledge before strategy instruction), but the intervention used here did not result in an improvement in metacognition. Future research should investigate other practices for developing metacognition in students with visual impairments. Furthermore, the participants did not demonstrate SRL skills when they started the study, and those skills developed slowly or did not develop throughout the study, depending on the participant. Based on this trend, students would benefit from more intentional instruction in SRL domains: developing a plan to accomplish a task, self-monitoring task progress, troubleshooting if a challenge arises, and evaluating the effectiveness of tools and strategies.

Limitations

One limitation for this study was timing. The study took place across 13 weeks, which was dictated by the school semester and inclement weather. More time may have given the participants an opportunity to increase their proficiency and in-class use and to practice metacognitive and SRL skills.

Another limitation is that the study was not designed to assess the appropriateness of the accommodations used by the participants, which would have likely impacted how they used the SSA. Targeted observational data would have been helpful in determining whether students considered appropriate accommodation options in step 2 and how the appropriateness of accommodations related to the use of more explicit forms of advocacy.

Furthermore, SSA use write-ups were not completed by two participants. Analyzing write-ups for only two participants may have introduced bias. The decision to not require completion of the write-ups was based on previous experience with adolescent participants. Making the write-ups mandatory was anticipated to result in participant attrition rather than completion of the write-ups. Instead, more positive practices were implemented in an attempt to increase write-up completion including weekly email reminders and incentives. Another potential source of bias was having a single rater to review and analyze data; however, previous training and experience with many of the same data sources as part of a research team were expect to mitigate this form of bias.

Conclusion

The present study investigated strategy learning, performance, and in-class use of the SSA as a transition support for students with visual impairments in additional to their development of metacognition and SRL. Interview data revealed that the participants were able to explicitly consider their accommodation needs, to convey those needs to others, and to exercise more responsibility for their accommodations. Findings indicate that the SSA is an accessible strategy for students with visual impairments that could be a valuable tool for supporting their transition to post-secondary settings. Furthermore, after learning and using the strategy, the participants did not demonstrate discernable patterns of change in metacognitive or SRL skills, but they evidenced metacognitive knowledge on their preferred accommodations lists, during interviews, and in the SSA use write-ups for Emily and James. Limited abilities with SRL indicated the need for intentional focus in this area.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This article is adapted from a previously-published doctoral disseration, which was funded by a Dissertation Development Grant from the Lynch School of Education and Human Development, Boston College.

ORCID iD

Allison Nannemann

References

Abramo

J. M.

Pierce

A. E.

(2013). An ethnographic case study of music learning at a school for the blind. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 195, 9–24.

Ajuwon

P. M.

Sarraj

Griffin-Shirley

Lechtenberger

Zhou

(2015). Including students who are visually impaired in the classroom: Attitudes of preservice teachers. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 109(2), 131–137.

Bardin

J. A.

Lewis

(2008). A survey of the academic engagement of students with visual impairments in general education classes. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 102(8), 472–483.

Bishop

Rhind

D. J. A.

(2011). Barriers and enablers for visually impaired students at a UK higher education institution. The British Journal of Visual Impairment, 29(3), 177–195. http://doi.org/10.1177/0264619611415329

Chmiliar

(2009). Multiple-case designs. In Mills

A. J.

Durepos

Wiebe

(eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research (Vol. 1, pp. 582–583). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Erin

J. N.

Hong

Schoch

Kuo

(2006). Relationships among testing medium, test performance, and testing time of high school students who are visually impaired. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 100(9), 523–532.

Garb

(2000). Maximizing the potential of young adults with visual impairments: The metacognitive element. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 94(9), 574–583.

Garber

Huebner

K. M.

(2017). Visual impairment: Terminology, demographics, society. In Holbrook

M. C.

McCarthy

Kamei-Hannon

(Eds.), Foundations of education: Vol. 1. History and theory of teaching children and youths with VI (3rd ed., pp. 50–72). New York, NY: AFB Press.

Golub

D. B.

(2003). Exploration of factors that contribute to a successful work experience for adults who are visually impaired. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 97(12), 774–778.

10.

Golub

D. B.

(2006). A model of successful work experience for employees who are visually impaired: The results of a study. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 100(12), 715–725.

11.

Graham

Harris

K. R.

(1993). Self-regulated strategy development: Helping students with learning problems develop as writers. The Elementary School Journal, 94(2), 169–181.

12.

Harris

K. R.

Graham

Mason

L. H.

Friedlander

(2008). Powerful writing strategies for all students. Paul H. Baltimore, MD: Brooks Publishing Company.

13.

Khan

VanWynsberghe

(2008). Cultivating the under-mined: Cross-case analysis as knowledge mobilization. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 9(1).

14.

Kim

Zyromski

Mariani

Lee

S. M.

Carey

J. C.

(2017). Establishing the factor structure of the 18-item version of the junior metacognitive awareness inventory. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 50(1), 48–57.

15.

Lienemann

T. O.

Reid

(2006). Self-regulated strategy development for students with learning disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 29(1), 3–11.

16.

Lusk

K. E.

(2012). The effects of various mounting systems of near magnification on reading performance and preference in school-age students with low vision. The British Journal of Visual Impairment, 30(3), 168–181.

17.

Mastrothanais

Kalianou

Katsifi

Zouganali

(2018). The use of metacognitive knowledge and regulation strategies of students with and without special learning difficulties. International Journal of Special Education, 33(1), 184–200.

18.

McDonnall

M. C.

O’Mally

Crudden

(2014). Employer knowledge of and attitudes toward employees who are blind or visually impaired. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 108(3), 213–225.

19.

Nannemann

A. C.

(2019). A self-accommodation strategy for students with visual impairments. (Doctoral dissertation, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, Boston College). Publication No. 13813872

20.

Nannemann

A. C.

(in press). Accommodations knowledge and practice for students with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness.

21.

Paris

S. G.

Lipson

M. Y.

Wixson

K. K.

(1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 293–316.

22.

Paris

S. G.

Winograd

(1990). Promoting metacognition and motivation of exceptional children. Remedial and Special Education, 11(8), 7–15.

23.

Pui

W. S. W.

(2017). Differentiated curriculum design: Responding to the individual and group needs of students with learning difficulties with self-regulated learning strategies. Support for Learning, 31(4), 329–346.

24.

Robinson

B. L.

Lieberman

L. J.

(2004). Effects of visual impairment, gender, and age on self-determination. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 98(6), 351–366.

25.

Rule

A. C.

Stefanich

G. P.

Boody

R. M.

Peiffer

(2011). Impact of adaptive materials on teachers and their students with VI in secondary science and mathematics classes. International Journal of Science Education, 33(6), 865–887.

26.

Scanlon

Baker

(2012). An accommodations model for the secondary inclusive classroom. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35(4), 212–224.

27.

Scanlon

Nannemann

A. C.

Baker

(2021). Lessons from research for implementing an instructional model in secondary inclusion. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 26(1), 1–15. http://doi.org/10.18666/LDMJ-2021-V26-I1-10407

28.

Sperling

R. A.

Howard

B. C.

Miller

L. A.

Murphy

(2002). Measures of children’s knowledge and regulation of cognition. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(1), 51–79.

29.

Vandevelde

Van Keer

De Wever

(2011). Exploring the impact of student tutoring on at-risk fifth and sixth graders’ self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(4), 419–425.

30.

Wild

T. A.

Hilson

M. P.

Farrand

K. M.

(2013). Conceptual understanding of geological concepts by students with visual impairments. Journal of Geoscience Education, 61(2), 222–230.

31.

Wolffe

K. E.

Candela

A. R.

(2002). A qualitative analysis of employers’ experiences with visually impaired workers. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 96(9), 622–634.