The Journal of Special Education

This paper presents a reasoned case on why special educators should attend to metacognitive theory and research, a new area of theoretical conceptualization and research in cognitive psychology. Both the contributions and the limitations of metacognition to special education are weighed. On the one hand, relevant research findings are marshalled to highlight the contributions of metacognition to the learning disabilities and mental retardation fields. Specifically, metacognition enables understanding of the difficulties of learning-disabled children in learning to read—difficulties that stem from deficient phonemic awareness. Metacognition also illuminates reading comprehension difficulties in learning-disabled students, and the mechanisms underlying failures in maintenance and generalization of learned strategies in educable mentally retarded and learning-disabled trainees. The constraints in applying metacognition to special education are thoroughly considered. Particularly highlighted are the limitations of an invariant interpretation of strategic deficits of exceptional students' performance failures and the neglect in including affective variables in metacognitive interventions. The end-product is a balanced view of the applicability of metacognition in learning disabilities and mental retardation, a view that promotes its proper use in special educational research and practice.

This study investigated the prevalence in the special education literature of the Type IV error, an error encountered when the finding of a significant interaction in an analysis of variance model is followed by discussion that does not correspond to the correct conceptualization of an interaction. One hundred ninety-three studies were identified that included significant interaction effects based on a two-way ANOVA design. It was found that only 9% of the studies reviewed interpreted the significant interaction consistent with the accurate explanation of a differential or joint effect. These studies did not, however, include a post hoc analysis to determine the cause of the interaction. Seventy-seven percent of the studies with a significant interaction were explained by using the cell means comparison procedure, which does not correspond to the ANOVA model with interaction effects.

This paper discusses some unique problems associated with affective dependent measures in comparative studies. The importance of situational factors is presented, together with methods for maximizing the validity of affective measures in research and evaluation studies (where their validity can ordinarily be much greater than when they are used for clinical and personnel purposes). The use of a brief response integrity (RI) scale (in the context of the variables being assessed) is recommended to assess differential magnitude of the social desirability response style when groups are to be compared. The meaning and validity of group differences on affective criteria can be better understood when viewed in relation to the pattern of group means on the RI scale. Data from a research study are given which illustrate the usefulness of the ancillary RI scale.

To assess the reputations of doctoral training programs in special education, questionnaires were distributed to the heads and junior and senior faculty members from the 81 programs nationally that grant the doctoral degree in special education. Respondents were asked to list the five programs with the most distinguished faculties and, separately, the five programs that graduate the best-prepared students. Altogether, 140 responses were received (59% return), nominating 50 different programs on at least one criterion. Responses to the two questions were highly related, and both were related to the number of graduates by program who returned questionnaires. Ranks given by program heads and senior faculties were more closely related to one another than either was to the ranks given by junior faculty.

This article addresses certain personnel preparation factors in special education emanating from a 1984 national study on the Comprehensive System of Personnel Development (CSPD) provisions of PL 94-142. Some findings of the study were: (1) There continues to be shortages of qualified personnel in most categories of special education, particularly at the secondary level; (2) special education teacher attrition continues to be a problem in most of the states; and (3) the majority of the states continue to issue emergency or provisional special education teacher certificates to unqualified personnel as an approach to meeting demand.

This meta-analysis explored how measuring student progress toward long-term vs. short-term goals affects achievement outcomes. Eighteen controlled studies were coded in terms of measurement method (toward long-term vs. short-term goals) and type of achievement outcome (probelike vs. global achievement test). Analogs to analysis of variance conducted on weighted unbiased effect sizes (UESs) indicated an interaction : When progress was measured toward long-term goals, UESs on global measures were higher than on probelike outcomes; when progress was measured toward series of short-term goals, the reverse was true. Implications for special education practice are discussed.

The effectiveness of supplementary home tutoring of special education students in reading was evaluated, using a program requiring minimal professional involvement. Forty-one parents of full-time special education students were randomly assigned before the study either to receive the home tutoring program or to receive it on a delayed basis following the study's completion. After a two-week instructional period, children whose parents had received the materials scored significantly higher (p < .001) on a word recognition test than those whose parents had not yet received them. A second study suggested that parents could and would make their own materials, hence potentially reducing the need for professional involvement in the process.

Fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade students, representing three classifications—intellectually gifted, learning disabled, and normal-achieving—were compared for their conceptualizations, attributions, and attitudes about school grading practices. Significant differences were found among the three groups, particularly in ability to define grading systems and tendencies to perceive the causes for getting good grades as internal and controllable. Linear trends were found on these variables, with mean scores showing an increase from the learning-disabled, to the normal-achieving, to the gifted group. Results are discussed in terms of psychological theory and issues for educational practice.

High school students who had failed the North Carolina Minimal Competency Test (MCT) were administered a battery of psychological tests prior to and following a 10-week remedial training program. Those students who were given reattribution and success-only training and a control group of students with a teacher's aide were more likely to pass the MCT than the regular feedback and control with no aide groups. Furthermore, in the former three groups of students, self-esteem scores were higher and anxiety and depression scores lower than the scores in the latter two groups of students. The use of specific remediation programs for at-risk students are discussed.

The purpose of this study was to examine the educational characteristics of six subgroups in the high school and beyond data set. These included senior learning-disabled Hispanic students, senior learning-disabled Anglo students, and a randomly selected Anglo senior nonhandicapped subsample. In addition, three parallel sophomore groups were included.

The major analyses of the data reflected an attempt to compare the groups in terms of their course taking behavior, educational aspirations and educational/occupational outcomes. The results indicated that there were significant differences between the handicapped and nonhandicapped groups. However, in general, there were no differences between the Anglo and Hispanic handicapped groups.

The 50 states and the District of Columbia were surveyed concerning their procedures for delivering educational services to limited English-proficient (LEP) handicapped students. Results indicated that few states have established procedures and guidelines for delivering educational services to their LEP handicapped students. Suggestions for developing and delivering educational services to LEP handicapped students are presented.