The Perceptions of Saudi Arabian Teachers of Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) Students Regarding Metacognitive Assessment of Reading Comprehension Strategies

The Perceptions of Saudi Arabian Teachers of Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) Students Regarding Metacognitive Assessment of Reading Comprehension Strategies | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article The Perceptions of Saudi Arabian Teachers of Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) Students Regarding Metacognitive Assessment of Reading Comprehension Strategies Ali Albalhareth, Ganiah Ain This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6209972/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background: This study is the only one of its kind that discusses metacognitive assessments with Arab DHH students and teachers. Metacognition is the awareness of one’s own thought processes; it aids many individuals in various aspects of daily living; it is especially important for cognitive processes such as reading. When reading, students can learn how to use different metacognitive strategies to regulate their reading comprehension. While research has covered metacognitive strategies regarding how typical students and students with certain disabilities use such strategies, there is little research regarding metacognitive assessments that teachers of students who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) use. Aims and Method: Using a survey method, this quantitative research endeavored (a) to understand the awareness that Saudi teachers of DHH students have regarding metacognitive strategies and their use and (b) to identify the types of metacognitive assessments these teachers utilize with their DHH students. Demographic data was obtained from the respondents. The relationships between perceptions and different variables (e.g., gender, years of experience, educational qualification, and types of programs) were analyzed. Results: Not surprisingly, teachers’ knowledge of metacognitive assessment correlated with their use of such tools with their DHH students. In addition, the majority of the respondents ( n = 213; 57.14%) stated they did not feel metacognitive assessments are indicated for use with elementary school children. Educational background and training and years of experience were found to significantly affect perceptions. Conversely, no correlation was found between perceptions and gender. Conclusions: This study demonstrated that ability to communicate with students is vital for assessing metacognitive processes. Further, this study also found teachers’ knowledge of metacognitive assessments is vital to their perception of metacognitive assessments. Humanities/Language and linguistics Social science/Anthropology Social science/Education Social science/Language and linguistics Deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) students metacognitive strategies metacognitive assessment reading comprehension Contributions to the Field This is the first study to examine metacognitive assessments in Arab DHH students and teachers. This study provided teachers and practitioners with metacognitive assessments that could enable them to identify metacognitive strategies (e.g., planning or before reading; monitoring or during reading; and evaluating or after reading strategies). These strategies are necessary for reading comprehension. Further, these strategies assist teachers and practitioners with designing instruction and educational activities that are important and meaningful for reading sessions. Additionally, this study highlighted the need for training programs for Saudi teachers working with DHH students and identified that metacognitive assessment strategies should be incorporated into both teacher preparation programs and professional development training for educators. Introduction The term “metacognition” originated more than 40 years ago and is defined as the ability to think about one’s thinking (Flavell & Wellman, 1977; Flavell, Friedrichs, & Hoyt, 1970; Flavell, 1976; Flavell, 1979; Wellman, 1978). Metacognition is one of the most complex aspects of learning; it is further nuanced when assessing the learning strategies of metacognition, particularly in reading comprehension or one of its areas (Albalhareth et al., 2020; Mulyono & Ubaidillah, 2024). Metacognition can be divided into two areas: the knowledge of metacognition, and the ability to regulate and apply knowledge (McCormick, 2003; Meichenbaum, 1985; Paris, Lipson, & Wixson, 1983; Schmitt, 2005). Even though recent research focused on investigating metacognitive learning and the strategies that learners use, which was especially true for DHH learners or students with especial needs, the assessments of metacognitive learning become more attractive to recent scholars due to the complex nature and its importance for learners (Albalhareth et al., 2022; Albalhareth, 2023) Metacognitive assessment is defined as evaluating an individual’s thinking process levels, their ability to assess knowledge, and their ability to use different approaches and methods (e.g., interview) to explore strategies and cognitive skills related to readability and self-regulation (Harris & Hodges, 1995; Paris & Flukes, 2005; Albalhareth, 2023). Metacognition and Reading Comprehension Metacognition is an essential part of reading comprehension, along with other components, including prior knowledge and vocabulary knowledge (Paul et al., 2013). Assessing metacognition is vital for reading comprehension as readers are aware of their knowledge and have the ability to choose appropriate reading strategies to comprehend the material they read (Albalhareth et al., 2022; Israel, 2007). Reading comprehension is a multifaceted knowledge process that learners need to possess in order to make sense of the reading passage. It is a highly cognitive process for all learners, and it is even more crucial for learners who are DHH. Some scholars argue that one of the most significant challenges that DHH students encounter with reading comprehension is the need to obtain the phonology of the language (Daza Gonzalez et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2018; Mayer & Trezek, 2024). In additional to this, other scholars believe that DHH learners should be considered as second language learners, since their first language is sign language; sign language comprises all language components including phonology. The knowledge of phonology is important for vocabulary acquisition (Berger et al., 2024). DHH learners learn to read and write in different manner than their hearing peers (Paul et al., 2013). This includes the instruction and the reading comprehension strategies that DHH students use. Albalhareth et al. (2022) argued that vocabulary knowledge is the most crucial for reading comprehension; DHH readers may face a great deal of difficulties understanding the texts with low vocabulary knowledge. Further, DHH readers may not be able to utilize reading comprehension strategies that readers use most frequently when they lack of sufficient knowledge of vocabulary and low prior knowledge of the topic they read. These strategies include techniques such as using context clues. Metacognitive Assessments Generally, assessments can be defined different tools, approaches, or methods used for the purpose of evaluation, measurement, or data collection (Watkins et al., 2012). Metacognitive assessment tools can include a variety of approaches or methods to collect information about how individuals think about their own thinking or to obtain details about learners' abilities to regulate their own thinking when using different types of problem solving (Albalhareth, 2023; Israel, 2007). A few types of metacognitive assessments have been identified, such as self-reporting questionnaires or surveys and semi-structured or hypothetical interviews (Miranda, Garcia, Marco, & Rosel, 2006). Different methods of metacognitive assessments are used with elementary school students, including those with disabilities: interviews, think-aloud interviews, and surveys (Albalhareth, 2023). Educators can use each of these to design individualized reading instruction to meet each student’s needs. Such individualized instruction plans are especially important when students have IEPs, which is typically the case for DHH students. The use of the three aforementioned types of metacognitive assessments have been examined by researchers in past studies that focused on whether there are relationships between certain characteristics of teachers and the use and understanding of such assessments to support reading comprehension. Assessments Administration There are several considerations that teachers need to consider in order to administer the assessment (Albalhareth, 2023; Morrison et al., 2019; Kubiszyn et al., 2024; Xu & Kuti, 2024): Before implementing the assessment, the individuals need to understand the expectations. Also, they need to be informed regarding the purpose of the assessment. The aim of the assessment should support the ability to determine the needs of the student in a school or learning setting. When administering assessments, teachers should use the results as a tool to inform and tailor instruction based on students' proficiency levels, rather than as a means of making judgments about their abilities or potential The student should be instructed to do their best to provide the correct answers. They also may ask the educator or evaluator to clarify any unclear questions or statements. They may have breaks if it is needed. During the assessment implementation , the teachers need to observe the individuals' behavior and the whole procedure to ensure the learners are answering the questions and to check if they have any questions. During the interviews, the teachers may ask follow-up questions and observe if the learners have answered the questions appropriately. If the learners are answering the survey or the interview questions, the teachers may read the questions by signing them in sign language and ensure that the learners understand the questions. The teachers need to ensure that learners are paying attention, focused, and are not preoccupied. After the assessment , the teachers may thank the learners for their participation and ask if they have any questions . Interviews Interviews are one of the most valid metacognitive assessments and can be used to assess metacognition in children of all ages, with or without disabilities (Israel, 2007; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995). When practitioners conduct the interviews individually, it helps them to examine the effectiveness of these tools, enabling practitioners and teachers to gather information regarding their students’ metacognitive strategies, which can be helpful for reading comprehension (Albalhareth et al., 2022). Interview tools are one of the most valid assessments of metacognitive strategies for many reasons (Israel, 2007). First, an open-ended question structure can be used to gather data on readers’ metacognitive strategies for reading comprehension. In addition, interviews can be conducted in both formal and informal settings. Informal interviews enable teachers and practitioners to clarify questions for readers, and they can ask them to follow up with questions to elaborate on and clarify their responses as needed. Additionally, open-ended questions are suitable for readers of different ages and learning needs. For instance, readers can describe all types of metacognitive strategies they use before, during, and after reading. Essentially, interview questions are more useful if they are designed to address needs based on their reading needs (Albalhareth et al., 2022; Israel, Block, Kinnucan-Welsch, & Bauserman, 2005; Israel, 2007; Paris & Flukes, 2005). Several studies used interviews with DHH, but some argue that interviews can be more beneficial if the practitioners use it along with other assessment tools such as think-aloud (Albalhareth et al., 2022; Israel, 2007); for instance, Banner and Wang (2011) conducted interviews along using think-aloud to gather information about DHH readers’ metacognitive strategies that were important for reading comprehension. The study explained that interviews were recorded to help researchers analyze student responses, which helped researchers analyze and transcribe students’ responses using American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters. In addition, Albalhareth et al. (2022) noted that when using interview, the practitioner has the opportunity to review metacognitive strategies via a list or survey with the student, which creates an r opportunity for the student to directly identify the metacognitive strategies they use. Survey The design and purpose surveys (or “inventories”) differ from those of interviews, as surveys aim to gather details regarding readers’ behaviors and interactions with texts. During interviews when assessing metacognition, questionnaires or survey questions can be used during the interview. When the survey is implemented, the individuals may answer the questions by themselves with help when it is needed; for instance, individuals or learners may ask for clarifications when they cannot understand items, statements, or questions from the survey (Tracy, 2024). Surveys are used for several reasons. First, surveys and inventories are convenient and efficient because interviews are less time-consuming. Additionally, analogous to interviews, surveys, or inventories are appropriate for assessing different groups and can be used with one person, a small group, or a large group (Harris & Hodges, 1995; Israel, 2007). In addition, surveys or inventories allow practitioners to obtain details about three types of metacognitive strategy categories, including 1) planning or before reading, 2) monitoring or during reading, and 3) evaluating or after reading strategies, as indicated in previous works (Albalhareth et al., 2022; Albalhareth, 2023). Additionally, researchers, teachers, and practitioners should carefully consider how easily language can be used by the target readers. Therefore, designing the survey is not simple, but teachers need to ensure the appropriateness of the language and number of items, which enables readers to complete the survey without facing challenges or feeling bored. Furthermore, surveys and inventories can be prepared in a checklist format to facilitate a more efficient process for readers while also supporting teachers in obtaining information that can be utilized to foster students’ reading comprehension and readers’ behaviors; this technique can assist teachers in developing and designing instruction before, during, and after reading activities based on their students’ individual literacy needs (Israel, 2007; see also McAnally, Rose, & Quigley, 2007). Analogous to interviews, questionnaires or surveys can be administered to all learners with or without disabilities. For example, Schmitt (1990) used a questionnaire known as the Metacomprehension Strategy Index (MSI) to gather information about typical elementary school students’ metacognitive reading strategies. Elementary school students were asked to answer 25 multiple-choice questions about the metacognitive strategies they could use during or after reading narrative texts. The purpose of this instrument was to obtain information about readers’ metacognitive strategies in six different ways: prediction, previewing, purpose-setting, self-questioning, activating prior knowledge, and summarization. Schmitt (1990) even thought that MSI could serve as a valid and reliable assessment for metacognitive strategies; furthermore, this is more beneficial and useful if the practitioners and teachers use it along with the interviews, so that the teachers can clarify questions for students and ensure that they follow the instructions and directions to complete the survey. Implementers or study proctors should consider the points that indicate the previous language and number of statements. In addition, it is better to use a checklist even though readers may struggle to understand the names of some strategies because they could lack awareness of these strategies. Think-aloud Think-aloud is one of the most common metacognitive assessments implemented to obtain information about readers’ cognitive and comprehension processes (Simon, 1984, 1993) Thinking aloud is a tool that is used to assess and gather information regarding readers’ metacognitive strategies; this tool can be used with readers of all ages (Baker & Brown, 1984; Israel, 2007; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995). Cognitive processes cannot be observed, and it is hard to measure because these are mental processes that occur inside the readers’ brains; therefore, think-aloud assists teachers in understanding readers’ thinking by asking readers to monitor their thinking, rethink, and describe their thoughts and reading procedures (Block & Israel, 2004; Israel, 2007). Think-aloud assessments have been found to be valid and reliable in several studies for collecting information regarding readers’ metacognitive strategies. Schirmer (2003) interviewed each participant individually and asked them to think aloud while reading to explain how they monitored their thinking processes. Additionally, this assessment was more beneficial because the researcher used think-aloud along with the interview, analogous to Banner and Wang (2011), which could be more beneficial than using think-aloud in groups. When the researchers met with the readers individually, they were able to provide them with sufficient direction regarding reading and thinking aloud by identifying and describing the metacognitive strategies they used. The students thought aloud using ASL to describe their thoughts, and the readers’ responses were recorded and transcribed into English; it was found that the students used several types of metacognitive strategies (Schirmer, Bailey, & Lockman, 2004). Education of the DHH in Saudi Arabia Education at all levels is segregated by gender in Saudi Arabia. Although the curriculum is identical for male and female students, instruction is delivered separately. Grades 1–12 are compulsory and free to all; kindergarten is optional but also free. Primary or elementary schools comprise Grades 1–6; middle schools comprise grades 7–9; and high school consists of Grades 10–12. There are 3452 public, general education middle school schools in Saudi (Ministry of Education, 2021); of these, 30 %offer programming for DHH students. As with other students with special education needs, DHH students may attend dedicated private institutes that serve only the DHH students, or they may receive academic instruction in separate, dedicated classrooms within public or private general education schools. There are a total of 6350 teachers of DHH students in public general education schools in the country and 40% of these teach in public, general education middle schools. During their university studies, teachers intending to specialize in DHH education choose a sub-specialty in either deaf education or hard of hearing education. The sign language used in the country is Saudi Sign Language (SSL). Mode of Communication To collect valid information when assessing learners' metacognitive strategies, teachers need to have effective communication with their students; this is especially the case for DHH learners because teachers need to ask questions about the strategies that DHH learners use (Albalhareth, 2023). It is reported that DHH learners may use strategies without knowing the names of these strategies; DHH learners could explain the strategies that they utilized; however, teachers need to have effective communication skills (e.g., sign language) with their students to understand the strategies that their students implement (Albalhareth et al., 2022). Additionally, the strategies that are used might be different based upon the types of communication that learners prefer to use; for instance, Albalhareth et al., (2022) found that DHH learners used “read in English and translate into ASL [American Sign Language]” (See also Albalhareth & Alasmari, 2023). This strategy requires students to think about the passage in their first language to make sense of the reading passage. Here teachers need to ask students questions and students need to provide sufficient explanations about the strategies that they used without necessary knowing the name of the strategy (Albalhareth, 2023) Significance of the Present Study There is a lack of research on the use and implementation of metacognitive assessment, particularly in the context of DHH students (Banner & Wang, 2011). In addition, there wasn’t any research that could be located that investigated metacognitive assessments of reading comprehension strategies with Saudi Arabian DHH students or DHH students in the Arab states in general. Examining the use of such assessments in the context of DHH students is important to determine whether metacognitive strategies differ based on the type of communication, including sign language or spoken language (Alanazi, 2021; Alawajee, 2021; Albalhareth & Alasmari, 2023; Ewoldt, Israelite, & Dodds, 1992; Ewoldt, 1986; Israel, 2007). Purpose of the Research Using a survey, the objectives of this study were as follows. First, we wanted to obtain data on the understanding and use of metacognitive assessments and strategies by Saudi middle school teachers of DHH students. Another goal was to determine whether these teachers favor particular metacognitive assessment types for their DHH students. Finally, the teachers were asked to provide certain demographic and other details and the data from their responses to these questions was used to determine whether there was any correlation between certain variables and teachers’ knowledge and use of metacognitive assessments. To achieve these aims, the following research questions were developed: Which assessments of metacognitive strategies are more frequently used by the teachers of DHH students? What are teachers’ perceptions of DHH students’ assessment of metacognitive strategies for DHH students? Are there statistically significant differences in the level of knowledge and frequency of use of metacognitive assessments among the teachers of DHH students related to certain variables (e.g., gender, years of teaching experience, and education)? Methodology A descriptive survey method was used in this study. The most common application of survey in research is for quantitative analysis to obtain data on the attitudes and opinions of a target population (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). Specifically, this survey was developed to obtain data from teachers of DHH students in Saudi middle schools regarding the use and assessment of metacognitive strategies by these students to support their reading comprehension skills. Data Collection Procedures A simple random sampling method was employed. The researchers distributed the survey link through the Ministry of Education, which shared it with schools enrolling of DHH students. Additionally, the survey link was disseminated to teacher support groups via platforms such as Facebook and X. The survey, created using Google Forms, included a cover page that explained the study's purpose. The survey took approximately 15 minutes to complete. The survey was open for three months, from August 2023 to October 2023. Every two weeks, a reminder email regarding the survey was sent out to ensure the greatest possible response rate. Ethical Considerations Prior to beginning the study, the consent form and survey instrument were submitted to the Institutional Review Board of King Saud University and approval was obtained. Confidentiality and privacy were assured to all participants. The risks and benefits of the study were explained in detail to participants. Ethics Statement: This study received ethical approval from the Institutional Review Board at King Saud University on October 10th, 2023 (Ref #: KSU-HE-23-428). Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection, during the period of October 10th, 2023 to August 2024. Participants were informed of the purpose of the study, their right to withdraw at any time, and that their responses would remain confidential and be used for research purposes only. Data Availability Statement: The data supporting the findings of this study are not publicly available due to ethical restrictions. Participants were assured that their responses would remain confidential and would not be shared outside the research team. Sharing the data would therefore violate the conditions of informed consent and the terms approved by the Institutional Review Board. Study Sample and Sampling Method The inclusion criteria for the study sample were: (a) special education teachers of (b) DHH students in (c) Saudi public or private middle schools or dedicated institutes for DHH education. This population was chosen due to their level of knowledge of DHH students and DHH education. According to the Saudi Ministry of Education, the total number of teachers specializing in DHH education is 8650. Of this total, 2,313 teach in middle schools. Instrument Using Google Forms, a 30-item survey was developed for this study, which was prefaced with four questions designed to obtain demographic information from the respondents. The survey was randomly distributed through the Ministry of Education that shared it with middle school teachers of DHH students using the communication system for the Ministry of Education. The survey items were developed using the information obtained from the literature review to obtain data from the respondents regarding their perceptions of the use of metacognitive strategies by DHH students and their understanding and use of metacognitive assessments. As previously noted, the survey was open from August to October 2023. Before entering the survey, respondents were provided information on the purpose of the study, the researcher’s contact information, and the estimated time it would take to complete the survey (15 min). Respondents were then asked to provide consent to participate in the study and to have the data that they provided used in the study before they could begin the survey. Arabic was the language of all study materials. Researchers attempted to use validated measures with Arabic translations, but this was not always possible. Validation of the Survey Expert panel To confirm external validity and evaluate the instrument for this study, four professionals with doctorates in special education and specialization in Deaf education were provided with the survey instrument and asked to assess it. Their responses resulted in certain revisions being made to the introductory material provided to respondents before they began the survey itself. For example, definitions of the terms “metacognitive” and “assessment” were added and the formatting was improved for consistency and clarity. Pilot Study Pilot studies are a useful tool for confirming the validity of a research instrument, as they provide insights into flaws in the design and other factors that might interfere with obtaining useful data from the target population (Sürücü & Maslakçi, 2020). Therefore, the initial survey was emailed to 30 randomly-selected teachers from the target population of middle school teachers of DHH students. The actual instrument was sent to these teachers who were randomly invited to participate via the WhatsApp group for teachers of DHH students. To exclude these 30 teachers from the main population from which the sample for the study is drawn, the researchers created an updated copy of the survey Google Forms based on the feedback from these 30 teachers. These updated Google Forms were distributed to the main population. Minor revisions were made to the instrument following their return; for instance, the formatting was improved. Validity and Reliability of the Instrument To verify the validity of the questions, the scale was applied to a sample consisting of (30) students, and then the correlation coefficient was calculated for the relationship between the score on the item and the total score of the scale. Table (1) shows that there is a statistically significant correlation between the item of the scale and the total score, as the values of the coefficients ranged between (0.685 to 0.943), which are statistically significant values at a significance level of α≤ 0.01. Table 1 Instrument Validity of the use of Metacognitive Assessments S Questions Correlation with total score 1 Do you use reading comprehension assessments (e.g., WH questions, Cloze test, etc.) to assess d/Dhh students’ metacognitive strategies? 0.798** 2 Do you assess your students’ metacognitive strategies? 0.943** 3 Do you use think-aloud procedures to ask students about the metacognitive strategies they use to understand the texts? 0.941** 4 Do you interview your students to collect information regarding their metacognitive strategies? 0.843** 5 Do you use questionnaires or surveys to collect information regarding your students’ metacognitive strategies? 0.890** 6 Do you use different metacognitive assessments based on your students’ reading abilities? 0.837** 7 Do you use different metacognitive assessments based on their ages? Do you use different metacognitive assessments based on your students’ modes of communication (e.g., sign, oral, simultaneous communication, Saudi Sign Language (SSL))? 0.900** 8 Do you use different assessments than the ones that think-aloud, interview, or a questionnaire? 0.685** To test the validity of the teachers’ perceptions of DHH students’ assessment of metacognitive strategies, the correlation coefficient was calculated. As shown in Table (2) there is a statistically significant correlation between the item of the scale and the total score, as the values of the coefficients ranged between (0.381 to 0.753), which are statistically significant values at a significance level of α≤ 0.01. Table 2 Instrument Validity for Teachers’ Perceptions of DHH students’ Assessment of Metacognitive Strategies S Questions Correlation with total score 1 Metacognition is a cognitive process in which one is aware of his or her own thinking. 0.639** 2 I use think aloud as a metacognitive assessment 0.724** 3 Metacognition is developmental process 0.731** 4 Students who are able to relate textual information to knowledge variables such as self and task demonstrate characteristics of metacognitive knowledge 0.733** 5 Comprehension instruction does not make a difference to a students’ ability to develop effective strategies 0.713** 6 Learners who have high levels of metacognitive abilities are able to monitor and regulate their learning processes to accomplish learning goals 0.548** 7 Metacognition and comprehension are directly related to reading ability 0.537** 8 Cultural differences do not have an effect on meaning constructions 0.753** 9 Different students have different self-regulation mechanisms closely related to their cognitive abilities and this should be taken into consideration by teachers 0.572** 10 Metacognition is a natural process 0.615** 11 Monitoring strategies should be taught in the primary grades 0.381** 12 Self-assessing does not contribute to the development of expertise in reading. 0.523** 13 Students who have developed more effective comprehension skills read more than students who are less skilled with comprehension 0.577** 14 It is easy for students to transfer strategies from one text type to another, therefore it is not necessary to teach fix-up strategies 0.603** 15 Effective readers make fewer revisions than ineffective readers 0.579** 16 When teaching metacognitive strategies to primary students, instruction should focus on teaching new strategies 0.450** 17 Metacognition is an automatic process 0.567** 18 Metacognitive skills should not be taught at an early age 0.657** 19 Teachers should do all they can to help students decode well in order to help students improve comprehension of text 0.625** 20 Planning strategies do not develop metacognition 0.531** 21 Self-regulation of one’s comprehension develops with age and ability 0.521** 22 Metacognition can be assessed 0.420** Reliability To verify the stability of the factor, the scale was applied to a sample of (30) individuals, and Cronbach's alpha coefficient was calculated, as shown in Table (3). The overall reliability as measured by Cronbach’s alpha was 0.892, indicating a high level of reliability for the survey questionnaire method. Table 3 Reliability of the Instrument Factor # of items Cronbach's α Use of assessments of metacognitive strategies 8 0.946 Teachers’ understanding and use of metacognitive strategies and assessments 22 0.670 Overall reliability 30 0.892 Data Collection and Analysis Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 28 was utilized to code and analyze the survey items and responses. Descriptive and inferential statistical methods, including frequencies, percentages, and one-way ANOVA were employed to characterize the study sample. Results Demographic Information The demographic data and other characteristics of the final study sample of 401teachers is presented on Table (4). Table 4 Demographic Information Variable Frequency Percent Educational qualification Bachler 217 54.1 Graduate 184 45.9 Total 401 100.0 Specialist Educational 290 72.3 Special Education 52 13.0 General Education 59 14.7 Total 401 100.0 Experience Less 5 years 89 22.2 5-10 years 103 25.7 10-15 years 103 25.7 15-20 years 78 19.5 More than 20 years 28 7.0 Total 401 100.0 Type of program Deaf 230 57.4 Hearing impaired 171 42.6 Total 401 100.0 Findings Related to the use of Metacognitive Assessments The first question was used to explore which assessments of metacognitive strategies are more frequently used by the teachers of DHH students. The main section of the survey, which comprised items 1–8, obtained data from the respondents regarding their use of metacognitive assessments and whether certain types of assessments are used more often than others (see Table 5). The respondents were asked to rate these items using a 5-point Likert scale. Respondents were directed to use the following 5-point Likert-type scale for this section, where: 1 = Never; 2 = Rarely; 3 = Sometimes; 4 = Regularly; 5 = Always. Table 5 The Use of Metacognitive Strategies Item # Statement % M SD 1 2 3 4 5 1 Do you use reading comprehension assessments to assess DHH students’ metacognitive strategies? 17.0 42.0 11.9 22.4 6.7 1.60 1.20 2 Do you assess your students’ metacognitive strategies? 14.8 39.4 13.5 21.3 11.1 1.71 1.26 3 Do you use think-aloud procedures to ask students about the metacognitive strategies they use to understand the texts? 10.8 44.2 16.2 17.8 11.1 1.74 1.20 4 Do you interview your students to collect information regarding their metacognitive? strategies? 12.1 48.0 14.8 13.7 11.3 1.64 1.20 5 Do you use questionnaires or surveys to collect information regarding your students’ metacognitive strategies? 13.2 42.6 18.1 17.8 8.4 1.66 1.16 6 Do you use different metacognitive assessments based on your students’ reading abilities? 8.4 46.9 16.4 16.2 12.1 1.77 1.18 7 Do you use different metacognitive assessments based on their ages? Do you use different metacognitive assessments based on your students’ modes of communication? 7.3 47.7 15.4 17.8 11.9 1.79 1.18 8 Do you use different assessments such as think-aloud, interviews, or questionnaires? 8.9 46.1 15.1 19.4 10.5 1.77 1.17 Overall mean value 1.71 1.00 Table 5 presents the data on teachers’ assessment of their DHH students’ use of metacognitive strategies. The overall mean value of their perceptions is 1.71, with a standard deviation of 1.17. This indicates that the majority (n = 48.0; 47.7%) of the respondents indicated that they rarely use metacognitive strategy assessments when working on reading comprehension with DHH students. Furthermore, as shown on Table 5, most of the teachers (n = 47.7 %) who participated in the study indicated they have not used the metacognitive assessments. Also, few of the teachers (n=12.1%) who participated in the study used the assessments of metacognitive strategies. Thus, most of the teachers who participated on this study do not use metacognitive assessment of reading comprehension strategies with DHH students. Findings Related to Teachers’ Perceptions of DHH Students’ Assessment of Metacognitive Strategies There were 22 items in the main section of the survey that focused on obtaining data from the teachers regarding their perceptions of metacognitive strategies and metacognitive assessments. The respondents were asked to rate these items using a 5-point Likert scale, where: 1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral (neither agree nor disagree); 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly Agree. These findings are presented in Table 7. Table 7 Teachers’ Perceptions of DHH students’ Assessment of Metacognitive strategies # Item text % M SD 1 2 3 4 5 1 Metacognition is a cognitive process in which one is aware of one’s own thinking. 1.3 11.6 40.4 35.0 11.6 3.44 0.89 2 I use think-aloud as a metacognitive assessment 1.3 8.9 39.9 38.3 11.6 3.50 0.86 3 Metacognition is a developmental process 2.7 9.2 37.2 36.7 14.3 3.51 0.94 4 Students who are able to relate textual information to knowledge variables such as self and task demonstrate characteristics of metacognitive knowledge 1.3 7.8 40.2 39.1 11.6 3.52 0.85 5 Comprehension instruction does not make a difference to a student’s ability to develop effective strategies 10.2 27.0 42.0 15.4 5.4 2.79 1.00 6 Learners who have high levels of metacognitive abilities are able to monitor and regulate their learning processes to accomplish learning goals 2.7 1.3 34.2 45.6 16.2 3.71 0.85 7 Metacognition and comprehension are directly related to reading ability 4.0 4.0 41.6 42.3 7.8 3.46 0.85 8 Cultural differences do not affect meaning constructions 19.9 26.4 37.5 8.1 8.1 3.58 1.14 9 Different students have different self-regulation mechanisms closely related to their cognitive abilities, and this should be considered by teachers 2.7 2.7 34.0 44.7 15.9 3.68 0.87 10 Metacognition is a natural process 2.4 4.0 48.8 38.0 6.7 3.43 0.78 11 Monitoring strategies should NOT be taught in the primary grades 7.3 2.7 38.5 43.1 14.3 3.66 0.80 12 Self-assessment does not contribute to the development of expertise in reading. 21.6 29.1 38.5 8.1 2.7 2.41 0.99 13 Students who have developed more effective comprehension skills read more than students who are less skilled in comprehension 4.0 1.3 38.5 41.0 15.1 3.62 0.90 14 It is easy for students to transfer strategies from one text type to another; therefore, it is not necessary to teach fixup strategies 5.1 6.7 46.4 32.9 8.9 3.34 0.92 15 Effective readers make fewer revisions than ineffective readers 6.5 9.4 38.8 32.6 12.7 3.36 1.03 16 When teaching metacognitive strategies to primary students, instruction should focus on teaching new strategies 5.4 6.7 37.5 39.1 11.3 3.44 0.97 17 Metacognition is an automatic process 1.1 11.9 38.5 35.8 12.7 3.47 0.90 18 Metacognitive skills should not be taught at an early age 19.7 27.0 41.5 8.9 3.0 2.49 1.00 19 Fluency plays a significant role in metacognitive awareness 1.3 4.0 38.5 39.6 16.4 3.66 0.85 20 Teachers should do all they can to help students decode well to help students improve their comprehension of Text 8.4 19.7 36.9 24.3 10.8 3.09 1.10 21 Planning strategies do not develop metacognition 2.7 8.1 41.0 33.4 14.8 3.50 0.93 22 Self-regulation of one’s comprehension develops with age and ability 1.3 4.0 36.1 42.0 16.4 3.68 0.84 Overall mean value 3.33 0.40 The results are listed in Table 6, which lists 22 items that participants answered using a 5-point Likert scale. Key insights from the findings include the following: Broad Awareness of Metacognition: The items listed show a relatively modest awareness of metacognitive processes among teachers, with an overall mean score of 3.33. This means that teachers are both partly in unison and have much to discuss about metacognition. Different Viewpoints about Instructional Practices: About 10.2% of the teachers strongly disagreed with the statement that “Comprehension instruction does not make a difference in a student’s ability to develop effective strategies," pointing towards a quite wide variation in instructing beliefs among the teachers. For Cultural Considerations: The perception that cultural differences do not impact meaning-making got a mean score of 3.58, which implies the participants somewhat disbelieved in the role of culture in learning. Also, Monitoring and Regulation: For the most part, teachers concur that learners with high metacognition levels can regulate their learning; as proposed in item 6, it has the highest mean at 3.71. Thus, these results underscore the importance of providing an emphasis on metacognition in relation to culture and instructional practices for professional learning and development. Relationships Between Variables and Responses The third research question involved determining whether there were any statistically significant differences related to respondents in the frequency of use of metacognitive assessments and certain variables. Descriptive analysis was used, and (independent sample t-test and ANOVA test were used). The findings shown in Table (8) were used to determine the differences between the frequency of use of teachers of deaf and hard-of-hearing students of metacognitive strategies scales according to the study variables (educational qualification, teaching experience, type of program "deaf and hard-of-hearing”). First: Educational qualification Table 8 Educational Qualification Group Sample Mean SD T value DF P value Bachler 217 10.06 6.58 13.57 399 0.000* Graduate 184 19.63 7.55 *sig at the level of α≤ 0.05. According to educational qualification, the frequency of use of metacognitive assessments of the teachers was statistically significant. There was a statistically significant finding such that the t-test results (t = 13.57, p ≤ 0.05.) revealed that graduate-level teachers (mean = 19.63) had a higher frequency of use of metacognitive assessments than teachers with only a bachelor’s degree (mean = 10.06). This explains why skills upgrading has been recommended to increase teachers' understanding of metacognition strategies. Second: Teaching Experience The results of the teaching experience questions showed apparent differences between the arithmetic means depending on the variable of teaching experience. ANOVA was used to determine the significance of these differences, and Table (9) shows the results. Table 9 ANOVA Test Results for Teaching Experience Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 10212.89 4 2553.22 54.18 0.001* Within Groups 18660.21 396 47.12 Total 28873.10 400 *sig at the level of α≤ 0.05. The ANOVA findings showed that knowledge differences were significant in relation to years of teaching experience. The mean score was highest among the teachers with over twenty years of experience (25.43), followed by the teachers with less teaching experience who scored the lowest, recording a mean score of (7.47) for those who have taught for less than five years. Accordingly, the F-test (F = 54.18; p ≤ 0.05) ratifies that such variation could be statistically significant. To determine if the differences in these data were found to be statistically significant at many experience levels, post hoc analysis was performed using the Scheffe test (see Table10). For instance, groups of teachers with less than 5 years of experience had a lower performance than any other group of teachers while groups with more than 20 years of experience had a much better performance than all other teachers. This finding highlights the importance of accumulated experience in improving the knowledge and application of metacognitive strategies. Table 10 Scheffe test results for teacher’s experience Experience Mean Difference Sig. Less 5 years 5-10 -5.130* *0.000 11- 15 -7.975* *0.000 15-20 -12.105* *0.000 More than 20 -17.957* *0.000 5-10 11- 15 -2.845 0.067 15-20 -6.975* *0.000 More than 20 -12.827* *0.000 11- 15 15-20 -4.130* *0.003 More than 20 -9.982* *0.000 15-20 More than 20 -5.852* *0.005 *Sig at the level of α≤ 0.05. Third: Type of Program "deaf and hard-of-hearing” ANOVA was used to determine the significance of the differences based on the type of program the participants are enrolled in. Table 11 shows the results. Table 11 ANOVA Test Results Relating to Program Type Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 115.164 1 115.164 1.598 .207 Within Groups 28757.934 399 72.075 Total 28873.097 400 The results of the type of program analyzed (Deaf, Hearing Impaired) showed no statistically significant difference in knowledge level between teachers. The findings from the ANOVA results (F = 1.598, p = 0.05) indicate a lack of statistically significant effects of the type of the program regarding the knowledge of teachers' metacognitive strategies. Other factors, such as educational qualifications and past teaching experience, might play a more significant role than the type of program. Summary To summarize, the findings show that teachers think all metacognitive strategies for DHH students are positive, but there are significant differences between teachers' educational qualifications and teaching experience. Therefore, there is an urgent need to continue supporting teacher development with continuous professional development to improve their understanding and implementation of effective metacognitive strategies in diverse educational settings (Albalhareth et al., 2022). The findings do not indicate that differences in the type of academic program attended make much of a difference in teachers' knowledge in this area, which suggests that systemic factors are more important here. Discussion First, this study was conducted to identify the most commonly-used metacognitive assessments by teachers of DHH students. Previous studies have indicated that interviews provide the most valid assessment for all individuals, either with or without disabilities, and for all ages of participants or readers (Albalhareth et al., 2022; Israel et al., 2005; Israel, 2007). Albalhareth et al. (2022) explained that deaf teachers ask their DHH students to think aloud and explain the strategies using ASL. Additionally, it has been claimed that teachers can collect more information when they use more than one assessment. For instance, young readers may not know the name of the type of assessment they use; thus, the teachers or practitioners use interview assessment along with think-aloud assessment. During interviews, practitioners may ask readers to think aloud, and at the same time, choose the name of the assessment for the checklist. This study explained that teachers rarely used all types of assessments because of their awareness and knowledge of metacognitive assessments. These assessments can differ based on commutation methods and assessments suitable for DHH students. This can also differ depending on the students’ ages and readabilities, as well as knowing the name of the assessments. This aligns with Albalhareth et al.’s (2022) findings, which emphasized the importance of explaining readability to the DHH students. In addition, this study investigated teachers’ perceptions of the assessment of metacognitive strategies for DHH students. It appears that teachers of DHH students believe that the knowledge of metacognitive assessment is essential to identify and examine appropriate metacognitive strategy planning or before-reading strategies; monitoring or during-reading strategies; and evaluating or after-reading strategies (Israel, 2007; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995). They also believed that all metacognitions help assess DHH readers. However, as indicated, the readabilities of DHH and their abilities to use complex metacognitive strategies are important factors that teachers should consider when assessing DHH students’ readabilities. Previous studies have argued that evaluation strategies, known as after-reading strategies, are the most complex strategies that good DHH readers use. These strategies include providing a comprehensive critique of the texts and examining their quality (Albalhareth et al., 2022; Silvestri & Wang, 2018; Wang, Silvestri, & Jahromi, 2018). Although providing instruction about self-assessment is important for developing students’ reading comprehension performance (Alblahereth et al., 2022), the results showed that young readers do not need any explicit instruction regarding metacognition. These results may indicate contradictions between their perspectives on the use of assessments and strategies. Teachers still need to value the strategies used by young students, which can be important for identifying and encouraging students to use them when needed. These results may explain why teachers should encourage young DHH students to use familiar strategies. They also explain that metacognitive strategies are important for learning. Albalhareth et al. (2022) argued that deaf teachers of DHH students embrace strategies based on their students’ needs and reading levels. Wang et al. (2018), and Silvestri and Wang (2018) explained how the DHH participants use different metacognitive strategies depending on their reading capability. Additionally, the results showed that teachers use traditional assessments to assess reading comprehension strategies. Albalhareth et al. (2022) argued that some practitioners use assessments such as Cloze text (Block, 2005). In addition, analogous to other studies on metacognition (e.g., Albalhareth & Alasmari, 2023), there were no statistically significant differences in the level of knowledge among male and female teachers of DHH students. However, the results showed that educational qualifications and teaching experience were important variables for predicting teachers’ knowledge of metacognitive assessments. Other studies on metacognition and metacognitive strategies have shown the opposite (e.g., Albalhareth & Alasmari, 2023); however, this finding aligns with other results that explain the importance of teaching experiences and educational knowledge (Ding, 2021; Mullola et al., 2012). Limitations and Recommendations This study explained the variables that could affect teachers’ preferences when implementing metacognitive assessments. However, this study did not provide enough details on how communication is related to using a particular assessment, and the types of text that can relate to teachers’ choice of metacognitive assessments (e.g., narrative, exploratory texts). Even though this study captured a large number of participants, it failed to provide sufficient details regarding how teachers use these metacognitive assessments, and the multiple comparison analysis found that the significant differences exist between teachers who hold Ph.D. degrees and those who hold lesser degrees; few participants have a Ph.D. degree, and this may sufficiently explain the merits of having Ph.D. and the knowledge of metacognitive assessments. The results indicated that metacognitive assessment may elucidate readers’ abilities, and these assessments can explain the strategies that foster readers’ comprehension. This study recommends that future research should conduct a longitudinal study involving repeated observations of metacognitive assessments and strategies during reading sessions. In addition, this study discussed students’ readabilities, but it did not explain the correlation between the assessments of metacognitive and text difficulties; therefore, future research can examine the types of assessments that teachers may use depending on the text types and difficulties. Also, teachers and practitioners need training and professional development programs that provide them with details about metacognitive assessments and strategies. Conclusion This research is one of the few studies to discuss the metacognitive assessment strategies used with DHH individuals, and it is the only study that used metacognitive assessments with Arabian DHH students. This work explains that teachers of DHH’s knowledge of metacognitive assessments can influence their perceptions; thus, they believe that it is important to use these types of assessments based on students’ abilities, knowledge, and capability to communicate with DHH students. Teachers believed that DHH children did not need to learn about metacognitive assessments, although they showed that enhancing children’s and DHH students’ knowledge about metacognitive knowledge and strategies is vital for fostering their learning development. There were no differences in the use of metacognitive assessments according to gender; however, teachers’ experience and educational qualifications positively affected their perceptions of using metacognitive assessments with their DHH students. Declarations Author Contribution Authors contribution/credit statementAli Albalhareth : Corresponding author; Writing – original draft, Data curation, Data discussion, Writing – review & editing, Project administration , Funding acquisitionGaniah Ain: Methodology, Writing –review, Project administration, Funding acquisition References Alanazi M (2021) Communicating with deaf students in inclusive schools: Insights from Saudi University faculty. Eurasian J Educational Res 95:188–209. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1321894.pdf Alawajee O (2021) Influence of COVID-19 on students’ sign language learning in a teacher-preparation program in Saudi Arabia: Moving to e-learning. Contemp Educational Technol 13(3):ep308. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/10886 Albalhareth AH (2023) Metacognitive Strategies with Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) Individuals and Ways to Assess Them. IntechOpen. 10.5772/intechopen.113379 Albalhareth A, Alasmari A (2023) Metacognitive strategies implemented with d/Dhh students in upper elementary schools in Saudi Arabia. Think Skills Creativity 47:101222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101222 Albalhareth A, Paul PV, Alasmari A (2022) Teachers’ perceptions of metacognitive strategies and assessments used with d/Deaf and hard of hearing students. J Hum Res Rehabilitation 12(1):5–21. https://doi.org/10.21554/hrr.042201 Alrashidi O, Phan H (2015) Education context and English teaching and learning in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: An overview. Engl Lang Teach 8(5):33–44. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n5p33 Berent GP, Kelly RR, Rizzo SP, Chen Z, Schueler-Choukairi T, Persky K, Schmitz L, Van Horn S (2024) Academic verb knowledge of DHH college students and their hearing peers. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 29(2):158–169. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enad053 Berger L, Pyers J, Lieberman A, Caselli N (2024) Parent American Sign Language skills correlate with child–but not toddler–ASL vocabulary size. Lang Acquisition 31(2):85–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2023.2178312 Baker L, Brown AL (1984) Metacognitive skills and reading. In: Pearson PD, Barr R, Kamil ML, Mosenthal P (eds) Handbook of reading research. Longman, pp 353–394 Baker L, Carter Beall L (2009) Metacognitive processes and reading comprehension. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 373–388; 1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315759609 Banner A, Wang Y (2011) An analysis of the reading strategies used by adult and student deaf readers. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 16(1):2–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enq027 Block CC (2005) What are metacognitive assessments? In S. E. Israel, C. C. Block, K. L. Bauserman & K. Kinnucan-Welsch (Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development (pp. 83–100). Lawrence Erlbaum. https://www.researchgate.net/file.PostFileLoader.html?id=54902c71d11b8b79098b4790&assetKey=AS:273653080494081@1442255386905 Block CC, Israel SE (2004) The ABCs of performing highly effective think-alouds. Read Teacher 58(2):154–167. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.58.2.4 Creswell JW, Creswell JD (2017) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Daza Gonzalez MT, Phillips-Silver J, Maurno NG, García LF, Ruiz-Castañeda P (2022) Improving phonological skills and reading comprehension in deaf children: A new multisensory approach. Sci Stud Read 27(2):119–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2022.2095280 Ding H (2021) Gender differences in teaching and research performance of university teachers based on discrete data analysis. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society , 2021 , 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5066668 Uakarn C, Chaokromthong K, Sintao N (2021) Sample size estimation using Yamane and Cochran and Krejcie and Morgan and green formulas and Cohen statistical power analysis by G* Power and comparisons. APHEIT Int J 10(2):76–86. https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/ATI/article/view/254253 Ewoldt C (1986) What does reading mean? Perspect Teachers Hear Impaired 4:10–11 Ewoldt C, Israelite N, Dodds R (1992) The ability of deaf students to understand text: A comparison of the perceptions of teachers and students. Am Ann Deaf 137(4):351–361. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44400952 Flavell JH (1976) Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In: Resnick LB (ed) The nature of intelligence. Lawrence Erlbaum, pp 231–235 Flavell JH (1979) Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34 (10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906 Flavell, J. H., Friedrichs, A. G., & Hoyt, J. D. (1970). Developmental changes in memorization processes. Cognitive Psychology , 1 (4), 324–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(70)90019-8 Flavell JH, Wellman HM (1977) Metamemory. In: Kail RV Jr, Hagen JW (eds) Perspectives on the development of memory and cognition. Lawrence Erlbaum Harris TL, Hodges RE (eds) (1995) The literacy dictionary: The vocabulary of reading and writing. International Reading Association. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED385820 Heidari S, Babor TF, De Castro P, Tort S, Curno M (2016) Sex and gender equity in research: Rationale for the SAGER guidelines and recommended use. Res Integr Peer Rev 1(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-016-0007-6 Israel SE (2007) Using metacognitive assessments to create individualized reading instruction. Int Read Association. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED497918 Israel SE (ed) (2017) Handbook of research on reading comprehension, 2nd edn. Guilford Press Israel SE, Block CC, Bauserman K, Kinnucan-Welsch K (2005) Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410613301 Kubiszyn T, Borich GD (2024) Educational testing and measurement. Wiley Mayer C, Trezek BJ (2024) Reading achievement and deaf students with cochlear implants. Cochlear implant Int 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/14670100.2024.2394313 Mulyono Y, Ubaidillah M (2024) The relationship between metacognitive and critical thinking abilities across three distinct learning approaches. Thabiea: J Nat Sci Teach 7(1):1–22. http://journal.iainkudus.ac.id/index.php/Thabiea Ministry of Education (2021) Special education teachers report. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Morrison GR, Ross SJ, Morrison JR, Kalman HK (2019) Designing effective instruction. Wiley McAnally P, Rose S, Quigley SP (2007) Reading practices with children who are deaf, 2nd edn. PRO-Ed McCormick CB (2003) Metacognition and learning. In: Reynolds WM, Miller GE (eds) Handbook of psychology: Educational psychology. Wiley, pp 79–102. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471264385.wei0705 Meichenbaum D (1985) Teaching thinking: A cognitive-behavioral perspective. In S. F. Chipman, J. W. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills: Volume 2: Research and open questions (1st ed., Ch. 18). Lawrence Erlbaum Mullola S, Ravaja N, Lipsanen J, Alatupa S, Hintsanen M, Jokela M, Keltikangas-Järvinen L (2012) Gender differences in teachers’ perceptions of students’ temperament, educational competence, and teachability. Br J Educ Psychol 82(2):185–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2010.02017.x Paris SG, Flukes J (2005) Assessing children’s metacognition about strategic reading. In: Israel SE, Block CC, Bauserman KL, Kinnucan-Welsh K (eds) Metacognition literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development. Lawrence Erlbaum, pp 121–139 Paris SG, Lipson MY, Wixson KK (1983) Becoming a strategic reader. Contemp Educ Psychol 8(3):293–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(83)90018-8 Pressley M, Afflerbach P (1995) Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Lawrence Erlbaum Schirmer BR (2003) Using verbal protocols to identify the reading strategies of students who are deaf. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 8(2):157–170. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/eng009 Schirmer BR, Bailey J, Lockman AS (2004) What verbal protocols reveal about the reading strategies of deaf students: A replication study. Am Ann Deaf 149(1):5–16. https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2004.0016 Schmitt MC (1990) A questionnaire to measure children’s awareness of strategic reading processes. Read Teacher 43(7):454–461 Schmitt MC (2005) Measuring students’ awareness and control of strategic processes. In: Israel SE, Bauserman KL, Kinnucan-Welsch K, Block CC (eds) Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development, 1st edn. Routledge Silvestri JA, Wang Y (2018) A grounded theory of effective reading by profoundly deaf adults. Am Ann Deaf 162(5):419–444. https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2018.0002 Sürücü L, Maslakçi A (2020) Validity and reliability in quantitative research. Bus Manage Studies: Int J 8(3):2694–2726. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v8i3.1540 Tracy SJ (2024) Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. Wiley Wang Y, Silvestri JA, Jahromi LB (2018) Selected factors in reading comprehension for deaf and hearing adults: Phonological skills and metacognition. Am Ann Deaf 162(5):445–462. https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2018.0003 Watkins R, Meiers MW, Visser Y (2012) A guide to assessing needs: Essential tools for collecting information, making decisions, and achieving development results. World Bank Wellman HM (1978) Knowledge of the interaction of memory variables: A developmental study of metamemory. Dev Psychol 14(1):24–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.14.1.24 Xu Y, Kuti L (2024) Accommodating students with exceptional needs by aligning classroom assessment with IEP goals. Int J Incl Educ 28(8):1474–1487. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.1994662 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6209972","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":442553464,"identity":"33739cde-9c17-49b3-b587-8bac309eb32d","order_by":0,"name":"Ali Albalhareth","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Najran University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ali","middleName":"","lastName":"Albalhareth","suffix":""},{"id":442553465,"identity":"4b23597c-5a2d-478c-bace-dca27907eff4","order_by":1,"name":"Ganiah Ain","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"King Saud University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ganiah","middleName":"","lastName":"Ain","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-03-12 08:08:36","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6209972/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6209972/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":109489896,"identity":"f0c55a8f-3702-47c5-9cc7-c8dd9a52aaab","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-18 17:25:45","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":493668,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6209972/v1/32fa7f38-5484-4d43-bcc8-7326a910f16f.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"The Perceptions of Saudi Arabian Teachers of Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) Students Regarding Metacognitive Assessment of Reading Comprehension Strategies","fulltext":[{"header":"Contributions to the Field","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis is the first study to examine metacognitive assessments in Arab DHH students and teachers. This study provided teachers and practitioners with metacognitive assessments that could enable them to identify metacognitive strategies (e.g., planning or before reading; monitoring or during reading; and evaluating or after reading strategies). These strategies are necessary for reading comprehension. Further, these strategies assist teachers and practitioners with designing instruction and educational activities that are important and meaningful for reading sessions. Additionally, this study highlighted the need for training programs for Saudi teachers working with DHH students and identified that metacognitive assessment strategies should be incorporated into both teacher preparation programs and professional development training for educators.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe term \u0026ldquo;metacognition\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;originated\u0026nbsp;more than 40 years ago\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;is defined as the ability to think about one\u0026rsquo;s thinking (Flavell \u0026amp; Wellman, 1977;\u0026nbsp;Flavell, Friedrichs, \u0026amp; Hoyt, 1970; Flavell, 1976; Flavell, 1979; Wellman, 1978). Metacognition is one\u0026nbsp;of the most complex\u0026nbsp;aspects\u0026nbsp;of learning; it is further nuanced when assessing the learning strategies of metacognition, particularly in reading comprehension or one of its areas (Albalhareth et al., 2020;\u0026nbsp;Mulyono \u0026amp; Ubaidillah, 2024).\u0026nbsp;Metacognition can be divided into two areas:\u0026nbsp;the knowledge of metacognition, and the ability to regulate\u0026nbsp;and apply\u0026nbsp;knowledge (McCormick, 2003; Meichenbaum, 1985;\u0026nbsp;Paris, Lipson, \u0026amp; Wixson, 1983; Schmitt, 2005).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEven though \u0026nbsp;recent research focused on investigating metacognitive learning and the strategies that learners use, which was especially true for DHH learners or students with especial needs, the assessments of metacognitive learning become more attractive to recent scholars due to the complex nature and its importance for learners (Albalhareth et al., 2022; Albalhareth, 2023) Metacognitive\u0026nbsp;assessment\u0026nbsp;is defined as evaluating an individual\u0026rsquo;s thinking process levels, their ability to assess knowledge, and their ability to use different approaches and methods (e.g., interview) to\u0026nbsp;explore\u0026nbsp;strategies and cognitive skills\u0026nbsp;related to\u0026nbsp;readability and self-regulation (Harris \u0026amp; Hodges, 1995; Paris \u0026amp; Flukes, 2005; Albalhareth, 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMetacognition and Reading Comprehension\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMetacognition is an essential part of reading comprehension, along with other components, including prior knowledge and vocabulary knowledge (Paul et al., 2013). Assessing metacognition is vital for reading comprehension\u0026nbsp;as\u0026nbsp;readers are aware of their knowledge and have the ability to choose appropriate reading strategies\u0026nbsp;to\u0026nbsp;comprehend the material they read (Albalhareth et al., 2022; Israel, 2007).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eReading comprehension is a multifaceted knowledge process that learners need to possess in order to make sense of the reading passage. It is a highly cognitive process for all learners, and it is even more crucial for learners who are DHH. Some scholars argue that one of the most significant challenges that DHH students encounter with reading comprehension is the need to obtain the phonology of the language (Daza Gonzalez et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2018; Mayer \u0026amp; Trezek, 2024).\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;In additional to this, other scholars believe that DHH learners should be considered as second language learners, since their first language is sign language; sign language comprises all language components including phonology. The knowledge of phonology is important for vocabulary acquisition (Berger et al., 2024).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDHH learners learn to read and write in different manner than their hearing peers (Paul et al., 2013). This includes the instruction and the reading comprehension strategies that DHH students use. Albalhareth et al. (2022) argued that vocabulary knowledge is the most crucial for reading comprehension; DHH readers may face a great deal of difficulties understanding the texts with low vocabulary knowledge. Further, DHH readers may not be able to utilize reading comprehension strategies that readers use most frequently when they lack of sufficient knowledge of vocabulary and low prior knowledge of the topic they read. These strategies include techniques such as using context clues.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMetacognitive Assessments\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGenerally, assessments can be defined different tools, approaches, or methods used for the purpose of evaluation, measurement, or data collection (Watkins et al., 2012). Metacognitive assessment tools can include a variety of approaches or methods to collect information about how individuals think about their own thinking or to obtain details about learners\u0026apos; abilities to regulate their own thinking when using different types of problem solving (Albalhareth, 2023; Israel, 2007).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;A few types of metacognitive assessments have been identified, such as\u0026nbsp;self-reporting questionnaires or surveys and semi-structured or hypothetical interviews (Miranda, Garcia, Marco, \u0026amp; Rosel, 2006). Different methods of metacognitive assessments are used with elementary school students,\u0026nbsp;including\u0026nbsp;those\u0026nbsp;with disabilities: interviews, think-aloud\u0026nbsp;interviews, and surveys (Albalhareth, 2023).\u0026nbsp;Educators can use each of these to design individualized reading instruction to meet each\u0026nbsp;student\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;needs. Such individualized instruction plans are especially important when students have IEPs, which is typically the case for DHH students. The use of the three aforementioned types of metacognitive assessments have been examined by researchers in past studies that focused on whether there are relationships between certain characteristics of teachers and the use and understanding of such assessments to support reading comprehension.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAssessments Administration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere are several considerations that teachers need to consider in order\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;to administer the assessment (Albalhareth, 2023;\u0026nbsp;Morrison et al., 2019;\u0026nbsp;Kubiszyn et al., 2024; Xu \u0026nbsp;\u0026amp; Kuti, 2024):\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBefore implementing the assessment, the individuals need to understand the expectations. Also, they need to be informed regarding the purpose of the assessment. \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003col start=\"2\" type=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThe aim of the assessment should support the ability to determine the needs of the student in a school or learning setting.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWhen administering assessments, teachers should use the results as a tool to inform and tailor instruction based on students\u0026apos; proficiency levels, rather than as a means of making judgments about their abilities or potential\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThe student should be instructed to do their best to provide the correct answers. They also may ask the educator or evaluator to clarify any unclear questions or statements.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThey may have breaks if it is needed.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDuring the assessment implementation\u003c/strong\u003e, the teachers need to observe the individuals\u0026apos; behavior and the whole procedure to ensure the learners are answering the questions and to check if they have any questions. During the interviews, the teachers may ask follow-up questions and observe if the learners have answered the questions appropriately. If the learners are answering the survey or the interview questions, the teachers may read the questions by signing them in sign language and ensure that the learners understand the questions. \u0026nbsp;The teachers need to ensure that learners are paying attention, focused, and are not preoccupied.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAfter the assessment\u003c/strong\u003e, the teachers may thank the learners for their participation and ask if they have any questions\u003cstrong\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInterviews\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInterviews are\u0026nbsp;one of the most valid metacognitive assessments\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;can be used to assess metacognition\u0026nbsp;in\u0026nbsp;children\u0026nbsp;of all ages,\u0026nbsp;with or without disabilities (Israel, 2007;\u0026nbsp;Pressley \u0026amp; Afflerbach, 1995). When practitioners\u0026nbsp;conduct\u0026nbsp;the interviews individually,\u0026nbsp;it helps them to examine the effectiveness of these\u0026nbsp;tools,\u0026nbsp;enabling\u0026nbsp;practitioners\u0026nbsp;and teachers to gather information regarding their students\u0026rsquo;\u0026nbsp;metacognitive strategies,\u0026nbsp;which can be helpful for reading comprehension (Albalhareth et al., 2022).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInterview\u0026nbsp;tools\u0026nbsp;are\u0026nbsp;one of the most valid\u0026nbsp;assessments of\u0026nbsp;metacognitive strategies for many reasons (Israel, 2007). First, an\u0026nbsp;open-ended\u0026nbsp;question\u0026nbsp;structure can be used to gather data\u0026nbsp;on\u0026nbsp;readers\u0026rsquo; metacognitive strategies\u0026nbsp;for\u0026nbsp;reading comprehension. In addition, interviews can be\u0026nbsp;conducted in\u0026nbsp;both\u0026nbsp;formal and informal settings. Informal interviews enable teachers and practitioners to clarify questions for\u0026nbsp;readers,\u0026nbsp;and they can ask them to\u0026nbsp;follow up\u0026nbsp;with\u0026nbsp;questions to elaborate\u0026nbsp;on\u0026nbsp;and clarify their\u0026nbsp;responses\u0026nbsp;as needed. Additionally,\u0026nbsp;open-ended questions are suitable for readers\u0026nbsp;of\u0026nbsp;different ages and learning needs. For instance, readers can describe all types of metacognitive strategies they use before, during, and after reading. Essentially, interview questions are more useful if they are designed to address needs based on their reading needs (Albalhareth et al., 2022; Israel, Block, Kinnucan-Welsch, \u0026amp; Bauserman, 2005; Israel, 2007; Paris \u0026amp; Flukes, 2005). Several studies used interviews with DHH, but some argue that interviews can be more beneficial if the practitioners use it along with other assessment tools such as think-aloud (Albalhareth et al., 2022; Israel, 2007); for instance, Banner and Wang (2011) conducted interviews along using think-aloud\u0026nbsp;to\u0026nbsp;gather information about DHH readers\u0026rsquo; metacognitive strategies\u0026nbsp;that\u0026nbsp;were important for reading comprehension. The study explained that\u0026nbsp;interviews were\u0026nbsp;recorded\u0026nbsp;to\u0026nbsp;help researchers\u0026nbsp;analyze student\u0026nbsp;responses,\u0026nbsp;which\u0026nbsp;helped\u0026nbsp;researchers\u0026nbsp;analyze\u0026nbsp;and transcribe\u0026nbsp;students\u0026rsquo;\u0026nbsp;responses\u0026nbsp;using\u0026nbsp;American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters. In addition, Albalhareth et al. (2022) noted that when using interview, the practitioner has the opportunity to review metacognitive strategies via a list or survey with the student, which creates an r opportunity for the student to directly identify the metacognitive strategies they use. \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSurvey\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe design and purpose surveys (or \u0026ldquo;inventories\u0026rdquo;) differ from\u0026nbsp;those of interviews, as\u0026nbsp;surveys aim to gather\u0026nbsp;details regarding\u0026nbsp;readers\u0026rsquo;\u0026nbsp;behaviors and\u0026nbsp;interactions\u0026nbsp;with texts. During interviews when assessing metacognition, questionnaires or survey questions can be used during the interview. When the survey is implemented, the individuals may answer the questions by themselves with help when it is needed; for instance, individuals or learners may ask for clarifications when they cannot understand items, statements, or questions from the survey (Tracy, 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSurveys are used\u0026nbsp;for several reasons. First, surveys and inventories are convenient and efficient because interviews\u0026nbsp;are less time-consuming.\u0026nbsp;Additionally, analogous to interviews, surveys, or inventories are appropriate\u0026nbsp;for assessing\u0026nbsp;different groups\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;can be used with one person, a small group, or a large group (Harris \u0026amp; Hodges, 1995; Israel, 2007).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, surveys or inventories allow practitioners to obtain details about three types of metacognitive\u0026nbsp;strategy\u0026nbsp;categories, including 1) planning or before reading, 2)\u0026nbsp;monitoring or during reading, and 3)\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;evaluating or after reading strategies, as indicated in previous works (Albalhareth et al., 2022; Albalhareth, 2023).\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Additionally, researchers, teachers,\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;practitioners should carefully consider how easily language\u0026nbsp;can\u0026nbsp;be used by\u0026nbsp;the target readers. Therefore, designing the survey is not simple, but teachers need to ensure the appropriateness of the language and number of items, which\u0026nbsp;enables\u0026nbsp;readers to complete\u0026nbsp;the survey\u0026nbsp;without facing\u0026nbsp;challenges\u0026nbsp;or feeling bored. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, surveys and inventories can be\u0026nbsp;prepared\u0026nbsp;in\u0026nbsp;a checklist\u0026nbsp;format to facilitate a more efficient process for readers while also supporting teachers in\u0026nbsp;obtaining\u0026nbsp;information that can be utilized to foster students\u0026rsquo; reading comprehension and\u0026nbsp;readers\u0026rsquo;\u0026nbsp;behaviors; this technique can assist teachers\u0026nbsp;in\u0026nbsp;developing\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;designing\u0026nbsp;instruction before, during, and after reading activities based on their students\u0026rsquo;\u0026nbsp;individual literacy needs\u0026nbsp;(Israel, 2007; see also McAnally, Rose, \u0026amp; Quigley,\u0026nbsp;2007).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnalogous to interviews, questionnaires or surveys can be administered to all learners with or without disabilities. For example, Schmitt (1990) used a questionnaire known as the Metacomprehension Strategy Index (MSI) to gather information about typical elementary school students\u0026rsquo; metacognitive reading strategies. Elementary school students were asked to answer 25 multiple-choice questions about the\u0026nbsp;metacognitive strategies they could\u0026nbsp;use during or after reading narrative texts. The purpose of this\u0026nbsp;instrument\u0026nbsp;was to obtain information about readers\u0026rsquo; metacognitive strategies in six different\u0026nbsp;ways:\u0026nbsp;prediction, previewing, purpose-setting, self-questioning, activating prior knowledge, and summarization. Schmitt (1990) even thought\u0026nbsp;that\u0026nbsp;MSI could serve as a valid and reliable\u0026nbsp;assessment\u0026nbsp;for metacognitive strategies; furthermore, this is more beneficial and useful if the practitioners and teachers use it along with the interviews,\u0026nbsp;so that\u0026nbsp;the teachers can clarify questions for students and ensure\u0026nbsp;that\u0026nbsp;they follow the\u0026nbsp;instructions\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;directions\u0026nbsp;to complete the survey.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eImplementers or study proctors should\u0026nbsp;consider the points\u0026nbsp;that indicate\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;previous language and number of statements. In addition, it is better to use\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;checklist even though readers may struggle to understand the names\u0026nbsp;of some strategies because they could lack awareness of these strategies.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThink-aloud\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThink-aloud is one of the most common metacognitive assessments implemented to obtain information about\u0026nbsp;readers\u0026rsquo;\u0026nbsp;cognitive and comprehension\u0026nbsp;processes\u0026nbsp;(Simon, 1984, 1993) Thinking aloud is a\u0026nbsp;tool that is used to assess and gather information regarding\u0026nbsp;readers\u0026rsquo;\u0026nbsp;metacognitive strategies;\u0026nbsp;this tool can be used with readers of all ages (Baker \u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;Brown, 1984; Israel, 2007; Pressley \u0026amp; Afflerbach, 1995).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCognitive processes cannot be observed,\u0026nbsp;and it is hard to measure because these are mental\u0026nbsp;processes that occur inside\u0026nbsp;the readers\u0026rsquo;\u0026nbsp;brains;\u0026nbsp;therefore, think-aloud\u0026nbsp;assists\u0026nbsp;teachers\u0026nbsp;in understanding readers\u0026rsquo;\u0026nbsp;thinking by asking readers to monitor their thinking,\u0026nbsp;rethink, and describe their thoughts and reading procedures (Block \u0026amp; Israel, 2004; Israel, 2007).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThink-aloud assessments\u0026nbsp;have been\u0026nbsp;found\u0026nbsp;to be\u0026nbsp;valid and reliable in several studies\u0026nbsp;for collecting\u0026nbsp;information regarding readers\u0026rsquo; metacognitive strategies.\u0026nbsp;Schirmer (2003) interviewed each participant individually and asked them\u0026nbsp;to think aloud\u0026nbsp;while\u0026nbsp;reading to explain how\u0026nbsp;they\u0026nbsp;monitored\u0026nbsp;their thinking processes. Additionally, this assessment was more beneficial because the researcher used think-aloud along with the interview, analogous\u0026nbsp;to Banner and Wang (2011), which\u0026nbsp;could\u0026nbsp;be more beneficial than using\u0026nbsp;think-aloud in\u0026nbsp;groups. When the researchers met with the readers individually,\u0026nbsp;they\u0026nbsp;were able to provide\u0026nbsp;them\u0026nbsp;with sufficient\u0026nbsp;direction regarding reading\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;thinking\u0026nbsp;aloud by identifying and describing the metacognitive strategies they used. The students\u0026nbsp;thought\u0026nbsp;aloud using ASL to describe their thoughts, and the\u0026nbsp;readers\u0026rsquo;\u0026nbsp;responses were recorded and transcribed into English; it was\u0026nbsp;found\u0026nbsp;that\u0026nbsp;the students used several types of metacognitive strategies (Schirmer, Bailey, \u0026amp; Lockman,\u0026nbsp;2004).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEducation of the DHH in Saudi Arabia\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEducation at all levels is segregated by gender in Saudi Arabia. Although the curriculum is identical for male and female students, instruction is delivered separately. Grades 1\u0026ndash;12 are compulsory and free to all; kindergarten is optional but also free. Primary or elementary schools comprise Grades 1\u0026ndash;6; middle schools comprise grades 7\u0026ndash;9; and high school consists of Grades 10\u0026ndash;12. There are 3452 public, general education middle school schools in Saudi (Ministry of Education, 2021); of these, 30 %offer programming for DHH students. As with other students with special education needs, DHH students may attend dedicated private institutes that serve only the DHH students, or they may receive academic instruction in separate, dedicated classrooms within public or private general education schools. There are a total of 6350 teachers of DHH students in public general education schools in the country and 40% of\u0026nbsp;these teach in public, general education middle schools. During their university studies, teachers intending to specialize in DHH education choose a sub-specialty in either deaf education or hard of hearing education. The sign language used in the country is Saudi Sign Language (SSL).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMode of Communication \u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo collect valid information when assessing learners\u0026apos; metacognitive strategies, teachers need to have effective communication with their students; this is especially the case for DHH learners because teachers need to ask questions about the strategies that DHH learners use (Albalhareth, 2023). It is reported that DHH learners may use strategies without knowing the names of these strategies; DHH learners could explain the strategies that they utilized; however, teachers need to have effective communication skills (e.g., sign language) with their students to understand the strategies that their students implement (Albalhareth et al., 2022). Additionally, the strategies that are used might be different based upon the types of communication that learners prefer to use; for instance, Albalhareth et al., (2022) found that DHH learners\u0026nbsp;used \u0026ldquo;read in English and translate into ASL [American Sign Language]\u0026rdquo; (See also Albalhareth \u0026amp; Alasmari, 2023). This strategy requires students to think about the passage in their first language to make sense of the reading passage. Here teachers need to ask students questions and students need to provide sufficient explanations about the strategies that they used without necessary knowing the name of the strategy (Albalhareth, 2023) \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSignificance of the Present Study\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere is a lack of research on the use and implementation of metacognitive assessment, particularly in the context of DHH students (Banner \u0026amp; Wang, 2011). In addition, there wasn\u0026rsquo;t any research that could be located that investigated metacognitive assessments of reading comprehension strategies with Saudi Arabian DHH students or DHH students in the Arab states in general. Examining the use of such assessments in the context of DHH students is important to determine whether\u0026nbsp;metacognitive strategies\u0026nbsp;differ based\u0026nbsp;on the\u0026nbsp;type\u0026nbsp;of communication, including sign language or spoken language (Alanazi, 2021; Alawajee, 2021; Albalhareth \u0026amp; Alasmari, 2023; Ewoldt, Israelite, \u0026amp; Dodds, 1992; Ewoldt, 1986; Israel, 2007).\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePurpose of the Research\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUsing a survey, the objectives of this study were as follows. First, we wanted to obtain data on the understanding and use of metacognitive assessments and strategies by Saudi middle school teachers of DHH students. Another goal was to determine whether these teachers favor particular metacognitive assessment types for their DHH students. Finally, the teachers were asked to provide certain demographic and other details and the data from their responses to these questions was used to determine whether there was any correlation between certain variables and teachers\u0026rsquo; knowledge and use of metacognitive assessments. \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eTo achieve these aims, the following research questions were developed:\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWhich assessments of metacognitive strategies are more frequently used by the teachers of DHH students?\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWhat are teachers\u0026rsquo;\u0026nbsp;perceptions of\u0026nbsp;DHH students\u0026rsquo;\u0026nbsp;assessment of metacognitive strategies for\u0026nbsp;DHH\u0026nbsp;students?\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAre there statistically significant differences in the level of knowledge and frequency of use of metacognitive assessments among the teachers of DHH students related to certain variables (e.g., gender, years of teaching experience, and education)?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003eA descriptive survey method was used in this study. The most common application of survey in research is for quantitative analysis to obtain data on the attitudes and opinions of a target population (Creswell \u0026amp; Creswell, 2017).\u0026nbsp;Specifically, this survey was developed to obtain data from teachers of DHH students in Saudi middle schools regarding the use and assessment of metacognitive strategies by these students to support their reading comprehension skills.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Collection Procedures\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA simple random sampling method was employed. The researchers distributed the survey link through the Ministry of Education, which shared it with schools enrolling\u0026nbsp;of DHH students.\u0026nbsp;Additionally, the survey link was disseminated to teacher support groups via platforms such as Facebook and X. The survey, created using Google Forms, included a cover page that explained the study\u0026apos;s purpose. The survey took approximately 15 minutes to complete.\u0026nbsp;The survey was open for three months, from August 2023 to October 2023. Every two weeks, a reminder email regarding the survey was sent out to ensure the greatest possible response rate.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical Considerations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to beginning the study, the consent form and survey instrument were submitted to the Institutional Review Board of\u0026nbsp;King Saud University and approval was obtained.\u0026nbsp;Confidentiality and privacy were assured to all participants. The risks and benefits of the study were explained in detail to participants.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics Statement:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study received ethical approval from the Institutional Review Board at King Saud University on October 10th, 2023 (Ref #: KSU-HE-23-428).\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection, during the period of October 10th, 2023 to August 2024. Participants were informed of the purpose of the study, their right to withdraw at any time, and that their responses would remain confidential and be used for research purposes only.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability Statement:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data supporting the findings of this study are not publicly available due to ethical restrictions. Participants were assured that their responses would remain confidential and would not be shared outside the research team. Sharing the data would therefore violate the conditions of informed consent and the terms approved by the Institutional Review Board.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStudy Sample and Sampling Method\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe inclusion criteria for the study sample were: (a) special education teachers of (b) DHH students in (c) Saudi public or private middle schools or dedicated institutes for DHH education. This population was chosen due to their level of knowledge of DHH students and DHH education. According to the Saudi Ministry of Education, the total number of teachers specializing in DHH education is 8650. Of this total, 2,313 teach in middle schools.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInstrument\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUsing Google Forms, a 30-item survey was developed for this study, which was prefaced with four questions designed to obtain demographic information from the respondents. The survey was randomly distributed\u0026nbsp;through the Ministry of Education that shared it with\u0026nbsp;middle school teachers of DHH students using the communication system for the\u0026nbsp;Ministry\u0026nbsp;of Education. The survey items were developed using the information obtained from the literature review to obtain data from the respondents regarding their perceptions of the use of metacognitive strategies by DHH students and their understanding and use of metacognitive assessments. As previously noted, the survey was open from August to October 2023. \u0026nbsp; Before entering the survey, respondents were provided information on the purpose of the study, the researcher\u0026rsquo;s contact information, and the estimated time it would take to complete the survey (15 min). Respondents were then asked to provide consent to participate in the study and to have the data that they provided used in the study before they could begin the survey.\u0026nbsp;Arabic was the language of all study materials. Researchers attempted to use validated measures with Arabic translations, but this was not always possible.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eValidation of the Survey\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eExpert panel\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo confirm external validity and evaluate the instrument for this study, four professionals with doctorates in special education and specialization in Deaf education were provided with the survey instrument and asked to assess it. Their responses resulted in certain revisions being made to the introductory material provided to respondents before they began the survey itself. For example, definitions of the terms \u0026ldquo;metacognitive\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;assessment\u0026rdquo; were added and the formatting was improved for consistency and clarity.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePilot Study\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePilot studies are a useful tool for confirming the validity of a research instrument, as they provide insights into flaws in the design and other factors that might interfere with obtaining useful data from the target population (S\u0026uuml;r\u0026uuml;c\u0026uuml; \u0026amp; Maslak\u0026ccedil;i, 2020). Therefore, the initial survey was emailed to 30 randomly-selected teachers from the target population of middle school teachers of DHH students. The actual instrument was sent to these teachers who were randomly\u0026nbsp;invited to participate via the WhatsApp group for teachers of DHH students. To exclude these 30 teachers from the main population from which the sample for the study is drawn, the researchers created an updated copy of the survey Google Forms based on the feedback from these 30 teachers. These updated Google Forms were distributed to the main population.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMinor revisions were made to the instrument following their return; for instance, the formatting was improved.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eValidity and Reliability of the Instrument\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo verify the validity of the questions, the scale was applied to a sample consisting of (30) students, and then the correlation coefficient was calculated for the relationship between the score on the item and the total score of the scale. Table (1) shows that there is a statistically significant correlation between the item of the scale and the total score, as the values of the coefficients ranged between (0.685 to 0.943), which are statistically significant values at a significance level of \u0026alpha;\u0026le; 0.01.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInstrument Validity of the use of Metacognitive Assessments\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"516\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.58915%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eS\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 65.5039%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQuestions\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 27.907%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u003cspan dir=\"LTR\"\u003eCorrelation with total score\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.58915%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 65.5039%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDo you use reading comprehension assessments (e.g., WH questions, Cloze test, etc.) to assess d/Dhh students\u0026rsquo; metacognitive strategies?\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 27.907%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.798**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.58915%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 65.5039%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDo you assess your students\u0026rsquo; metacognitive strategies?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 27.907%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.943**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.58915%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 65.5039%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDo you use think-aloud procedures to ask students about the metacognitive strategies they use to understand the texts?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 27.907%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.941**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.58915%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 65.5039%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDo you interview your students to collect information regarding their metacognitive strategies?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 27.907%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.843**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.58915%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 65.5039%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDo you use questionnaires or surveys to collect information regarding your students\u0026rsquo; metacognitive strategies?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 27.907%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.890**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.58915%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 65.5039%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDo you use different metacognitive assessments based on your students\u0026rsquo; reading abilities?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 27.907%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.837**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.58915%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 65.5039%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDo you use different metacognitive assessments based on their ages? Do you use different metacognitive assessments based on your students\u0026rsquo; modes of communication (e.g., sign, oral, simultaneous communication, Saudi Sign Language (SSL))?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 27.907%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.900**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.58915%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 65.5039%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDo you use different assessments than the ones that think-aloud, interview, or a questionnaire?\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 27.907%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.685**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo test the validity of the teachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions of DHH students\u0026rsquo; assessment of metacognitive strategies, the correlation coefficient was calculated. As shown in Table (2) there is a statistically significant correlation between the item of the scale and the total score, as the values of the coefficients ranged between (0.381 to 0.753), which are statistically significant values at a significance level of \u0026alpha;\u0026le; 0.01.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInstrument Validity for Teachers\u0026rsquo; Perceptions of DHH students\u0026rsquo; Assessment of Metacognitive Strategies\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"588\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.16327%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eS\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 69.3878%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQuestions\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.449%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u003cspan dir=\"LTR\"\u003eCorrelation with total score\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.16327%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 69.3878%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMetacognition is a cognitive process in which one is aware of his or her own thinking.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.449%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.639**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.16327%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 69.3878%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI use think aloud as a metacognitive assessment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.449%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.724**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.16327%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 69.3878%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMetacognition is developmental process\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.449%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.731**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.16327%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 69.3878%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudents who are able to relate textual information to knowledge variables such as self and task demonstrate characteristics of metacognitive knowledge\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.449%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.733**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.16327%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 69.3878%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eComprehension instruction does not make a difference to a students\u0026rsquo; ability to develop effective strategies\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.449%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.713**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.16327%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 69.3878%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLearners who have high levels of metacognitive abilities are able to monitor and regulate their learning processes to accomplish learning goals\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.449%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.548**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.16327%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 69.3878%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMetacognition and comprehension are directly related to reading ability\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.449%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.537**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.16327%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 69.3878%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCultural differences do not have an effect on meaning\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003econstructions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.449%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.753**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.16327%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 69.3878%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDifferent students have different self-regulation mechanisms closely related to their cognitive abilities and this should be taken into consideration by teachers\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.449%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.572**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.16327%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 69.3878%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMetacognition is a natural process\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.449%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.615**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.16327%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 69.3878%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMonitoring strategies should be taught in the primary grades\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.449%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.381**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.16327%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 69.3878%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSelf-assessing does not contribute to the development of expertise in reading.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.449%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.523**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.16327%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 69.3878%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudents who have developed more effective comprehension skills read more than students who are less skilled with comprehension\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.449%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.577**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.16327%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 69.3878%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIt is easy for students to transfer strategies from one text type to another, therefore it is not necessary to teach fix-up strategies\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.449%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.603**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.16327%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 69.3878%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEffective readers make fewer revisions than ineffective readers\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.449%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.579**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.16327%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 69.3878%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWhen teaching metacognitive strategies to primary students, instruction should focus on teaching new strategies\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.449%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.450**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.16327%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 69.3878%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMetacognition is an automatic process\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.449%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.567**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.16327%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 69.3878%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMetacognitive skills should not be taught at an early age\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.449%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.657**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.16327%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 69.3878%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTeachers should do all they can to help students decode well in order to help students improve comprehension of text\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.449%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.625**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.16327%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 69.3878%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePlanning strategies do not develop metacognition\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.449%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.531**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.16327%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 69.3878%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSelf-regulation of one\u0026rsquo;s comprehension develops with age and ability\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.449%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.521**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.16327%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 69.3878%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMetacognition can be assessed\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.449%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.420**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReliability\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;To verify the stability of the factor, the scale was applied to a sample of (30) individuals, and Cronbach\u0026apos;s alpha coefficient was calculated, as shown in Table (3).\u0026nbsp;The overall reliability as measured by Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha was 0.892, indicating a high level of reliability for the survey questionnaire method.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 3\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Reliability of the Instrument\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"624\" class=\"fr-table-selection-hover\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58.9744%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFactor \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.5513%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e# of items\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.4744%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCronbach\u0026apos;s \u003cem\u003e\u0026alpha;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58.9744%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUse of assessments of metacognitive strategies\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.5513%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.4744%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.946\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58.9744%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTeachers\u0026rsquo; understanding and use of metacognitive strategies and assessments\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.5513%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.4744%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.670\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58.9744%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOverall reliability\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.5513%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.4744%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.892\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Collection and Analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStatistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 28 was utilized to code and analyze the survey items and responses. Descriptive and inferential statistical methods, including frequencies, percentages, and one-way ANOVA were employed to characterize the study sample.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDemographic Information\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eThe demographic data and other characteristics of the final study sample of 401teachers is presented on Table (4). \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 4\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eDemographic Information\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv align=\"left\" dir=\"ltr\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"623\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 186px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 203px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVariable\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 112px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFrequency\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePercent\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 186px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEducational qualification\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 203px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eBachler\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 112px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e217\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e54.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 203px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eGraduate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 112px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e184\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e45.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 186px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 203px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 112px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e401\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e100.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 186px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpecialist\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 203px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eEducational\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 112px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e290\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e72.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 203px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eSpecial Education\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 112px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e13.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 203px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eGeneral Education\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 112px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e14.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 186px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 203px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 112px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e401\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e100.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"5\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 186px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eExperience\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 203px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eLess 5 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 112px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e22.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 203px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e5-10 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 112px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e103\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e25.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 203px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e10-15 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 112px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e103\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e25.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 203px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e15-20 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 112px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e19.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 203px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eMore than 20 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 112px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e7.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 186px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 203px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 112px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e401\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e100.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 186px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eType of program\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 203px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eDeaf\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 112px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e230\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e57.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 203px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eHearing impaired\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 112px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e171\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e42.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 186px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 203px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 112px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e401\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e100.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003ch3 dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFindings Related to\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ethe use of Metacognitive Assessments\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eThe first question was used to explore\u0026nbsp;which assessments of metacognitive strategies are more frequently used by the teachers of DHH students. The main section of the survey, which comprised items 1\u0026ndash;8, obtained data from the respondents regarding their use of metacognitive assessments and whether certain types of assessments are used more often\u0026nbsp;than others (see Table 5). The respondents were asked to rate these items using a 5-point Likert scale. Respondents were directed to use the following 5-point Likert-type scale for this section, where: 1 = Never; 2 = Rarely; 3 = Sometimes; 4 = Regularly; 5 = Always.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 5\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe Use\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;of Metacognitive Strategies\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv align=\"left\" dir=\"ltr\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eItem\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e#\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eStatement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eDo you use reading comprehension assessments to assess DHH students\u0026rsquo; metacognitive strategies?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e17.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e42.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e11.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e22.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e6.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e1.60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e1.20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eDo you assess your students\u0026rsquo; metacognitive strategies?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e14.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e39.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e13.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e21.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e11.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e1.71\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e1.26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eDo you use think-aloud procedures to ask students about the metacognitive strategies they use to understand the texts?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e10.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e44.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e16.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e17.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e11.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e1.74\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e1.20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eDo you interview your students to collect information regarding their metacognitive?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003estrategies?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e12.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e48.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e14.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e13.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e11.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e1.64\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e1.20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eDo you use questionnaires or surveys to collect information regarding your students\u0026rsquo; metacognitive strategies?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e13.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e42.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e18.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e17.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e8.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e1.66\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e1.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eDo you use different metacognitive assessments based on your students\u0026rsquo; reading abilities?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e8.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e46.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e16.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e16.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e12.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e1.77\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e1.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eDo you use different metacognitive assessments based on their ages?\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eDo you use different metacognitive assessments based on your students\u0026rsquo; modes of\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003ecommunication?\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e7.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e47.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e15.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e17.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e11.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e1.79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e1.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eDo you use different assessments such as think-aloud, interviews, or questionnaires?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e8.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e46.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e15.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e19.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e10.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e1.77\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e1.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eOverall mean value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e1.71\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e1.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eTable 5 presents the data on teachers\u0026rsquo; assessment of their DHH students\u0026rsquo; use of metacognitive strategies. The overall mean value of their perceptions is 1.71, with a standard deviation of 1.17. This indicates that the majority (n = 48.0; 47.7%) of the respondents indicated that they rarely use metacognitive strategy assessments when working on reading comprehension with DHH students. Furthermore, as shown on Table 5, most of the teachers (n = 47.7 %) who participated in the study indicated they have not used the metacognitive assessments. Also, few of the teachers (n=12.1%) who participated in the study used the assessments of metacognitive strategies. Thus, most of the teachers who participated on this study do not use metacognitive assessment of reading comprehension strategies with DHH students.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFindings Related to Teachers\u0026rsquo; Perceptions of DHH Students\u0026rsquo; Assessment of Metacognitive Strategies\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eThere were 22 items in the main section of the survey that focused on obtaining data from the teachers regarding their perceptions of metacognitive strategies and metacognitive assessments. The respondents were asked to rate these items using a 5-point Likert scale, where: 1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral (neither agree nor disagree); 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly Agree. These findings are presented in Table 7.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 7\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eTeachers\u0026rsquo; Perceptions of DHH students\u0026rsquo; Assessment of Metacognitive strategies\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv align=\"left\" dir=\"ltr\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e#\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eItem text\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eMetacognition is a cognitive process in which one is aware of one\u0026rsquo;s own thinking.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e1.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e11.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e40.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e35.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e11.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e3.44\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e0.89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eI use think-aloud as a metacognitive assessment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e1.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e8.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e39.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e38.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e11.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e3.50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e0.86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eMetacognition is a developmental process\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e2.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e9.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e37.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e36.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e14.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e3.51\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e0.94\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eStudents who are able to relate textual information to knowledge variables such as self and task demonstrate characteristics of metacognitive knowledge\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e1.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e7.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e40.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e39.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e11.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e3.52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e0.85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eComprehension instruction does not make a difference to a student\u0026rsquo;s ability to develop effective strategies\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e10.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e27.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e42.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e15.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e5.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e2.79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e1.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eLearners who have high levels of metacognitive abilities are able to monitor and regulate their learning processes to accomplish learning goals\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e2.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e1.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e34.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e45.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e16.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e3.71\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e0.85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eMetacognition and comprehension are directly related to reading ability\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e4.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e4.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e41.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e42.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e7.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e3.46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e0.85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eCultural differences do not affect meaning constructions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e19.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e26.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e37.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e8.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e8.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e3.58\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e1.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eDifferent students have different self-regulation mechanisms closely related to their cognitive abilities, and this should be considered by teachers\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e2.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e2.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e34.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e44.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e15.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e3.68\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e0.87\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eMetacognition is a natural process\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e2.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e4.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e48.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e38.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e6.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e3.43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e0.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eMonitoring strategies should NOT be taught in the primary grades\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e7.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e2.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e38.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e43.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e14.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e3.66\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e0.80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eSelf-assessment does not contribute to the development of expertise in reading.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e21.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e29.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e38.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e8.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e2.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e2.41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e0.99\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eStudents who have developed more effective comprehension skills read more than students who are less skilled in comprehension\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e4.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e1.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e38.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e41.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e15.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e3.62\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e0.90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eIt is easy for students to transfer strategies from one text type to another; therefore, it is not necessary to teach fixup strategies\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e5.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e6.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e46.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e32.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e8.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e3.34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e0.92\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eEffective readers make fewer revisions than ineffective readers\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e6.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e9.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e38.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e32.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e12.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e3.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e1.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eWhen teaching metacognitive strategies to primary students, instruction should focus on teaching new strategies\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e5.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e6.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e37.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e39.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e11.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e3.44\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e0.97\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eMetacognition is an automatic process\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e1.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e11.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e38.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e35.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e12.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e3.47\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e0.90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eMetacognitive skills should not be taught at an early age\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e19.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e27.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e41.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e8.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e3.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e2.49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e1.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eFluency plays a significant role in metacognitive awareness\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e1.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e4.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e38.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e39.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e16.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e3.66\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e0.85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eTeachers should do all they can to help students decode well to help students improve their comprehension of\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eText\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e8.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e19.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e36.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e24.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e10.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e3.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e1.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003ePlanning strategies do not develop metacognition\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e2.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e8.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e41.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e33.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e14.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e3.50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e0.93\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eSelf-regulation of one\u0026rsquo;s comprehension develops with age and ability\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e1.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e4.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e36.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e42.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e16.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e3.68\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e0.84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eOverall mean value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e3.33\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e0.40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eThe results are listed in Table 6, which lists 22 items that participants answered using \u0026nbsp;a 5-point Likert scale. Key insights from the findings include the following: \u003cem\u003eBroad Awareness of Metacognition:\u003c/em\u003e The items listed show a relatively modest awareness of metacognitive processes among teachers, with an overall mean score of 3.33. This means that teachers are both partly in unison and have much to discuss about metacognition. \u003cem\u003eDifferent Viewpoints about Instructional Practices:\u003c/em\u003e About 10.2% of the teachers strongly disagreed with the statement that \u0026ldquo;Comprehension instruction does not make a difference in a student\u0026rsquo;s ability to develop effective strategies,\u0026quot; pointing towards a quite wide variation in instructing beliefs among the teachers. For \u003cem\u003eCultural Considerations:\u003c/em\u003e The perception that cultural differences do not impact meaning-making got a mean score of 3.58, which implies the participants somewhat disbelieved in the role of culture in learning. Also, \u003cem\u003eMonitoring and Regulation:\u003c/em\u003e For the most part, teachers concur that learners with high metacognition levels can regulate their learning; as proposed in item 6, it has the highest mean at 3.71. Thus, these results underscore the importance of providing an emphasis on metacognition in relation to culture and instructional practices for professional learning and development.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRelationships Between Variables and Responses\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe third research question involved determining whether there were any statistically significant differences related to respondents in the frequency of use\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eof metacognitive assessments and certain variables. Descriptive analysis was used, and (independent sample t-test and ANOVA test were used). The findings shown in Table (8) were used to determine\u0026nbsp;the differences between the frequency of use\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eof teachers of deaf and hard-of-hearing students of metacognitive strategies scales according to the study variables (educational qualification, teaching experience, type of program \u0026quot;deaf and hard-of-hearing\u0026rdquo;).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFirst: Educational qualification\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 8\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEducational Qualification\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 88px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGroup\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 77px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSample\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMean\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSD\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eT value\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDF\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eP value\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 88px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBachler\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 77px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e217\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.58\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.57\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e399\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 88px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGraduate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 77px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e184\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.63\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;*sig at the level of \u0026alpha;\u0026le; 0.05.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to educational qualification,\u0026nbsp;the frequency of use\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eof metacognitive assessments of the teachers was statistically significant. There was a statistically significant finding such that \u0026nbsp;the t-test results (t = 13.57, p \u0026le; 0.05.) revealed that graduate-level teachers (mean = 19.63) had a higher frequency of use\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eof metacognitive assessments than teachers with only a bachelor\u0026rsquo;s degree (mean = 10.06). This explains why skills upgrading has been recommended to increase teachers\u0026apos; understanding of metacognition strategies.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSecond: Teaching Experience\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;The results of the teaching experience questions showed \u0026nbsp;apparent differences between the arithmetic means depending on the variable of teaching experience. ANOVA was used to determine the significance of these differences, and Table (9) shows the results.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 9\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eANOVA Test Results for Teaching Experience\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"575\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 146px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSum of Squares\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003edf\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 116px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean Square\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 79px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBetween Groups\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 146px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10212.89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 116px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2553.22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e54.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 79px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWithin Groups\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 146px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18660.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e396\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 116px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e47.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 79px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 146px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28873.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e400\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 116px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 79px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;*sig at the level of \u0026alpha;\u0026le; 0.05.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe ANOVA findings showed that knowledge differences were significant in relation to years of teaching experience. The mean score was highest among the teachers with over twenty years of experience (25.43), followed by the teachers with less teaching experience who scored the lowest, recording a mean score of (7.47) for those who have taught for less than five years. Accordingly, the F-test (F = 54.18; p \u0026le; 0.05) ratifies that such variation could be statistically significant. To determine if the differences in these data were found to be statistically significant at many experience levels, post hoc analysis was performed using the Scheffe test (see Table10). For instance, groups of teachers with less than 5 years of experience had a lower performance than any other group of teachers while groups with more than 20 years of experience had a much better performance than all other teachers. This finding highlights the importance of accumulated experience in improving the knowledge and application of metacognitive strategies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 10\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Scheffe test results for teacher\u0026rsquo;s experience\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"504\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 251px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eExperience\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 169px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMean Difference \u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSig.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd height=\"30\" style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd height=\"30\" style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLess 5 years\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 137px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5-10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 169px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-5.130*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e*0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd height=\"36\" style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 137px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11- 15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 169px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-7.975*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e*0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd height=\"36\" style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 137px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15-20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 169px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-12.105*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e*0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd height=\"36\" style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 137px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMore than 20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 169px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-17.957*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e*0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd height=\"36\" style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5-10\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 137px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11- 15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 169px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-2.845\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.067\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd height=\"30\" style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 137px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15-20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 169px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-6.975*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e*0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd height=\"36\" style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 137px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMore than 20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 169px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-12.827*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e*0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd height=\"36\" style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e11- 15\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 137px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15-20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 169px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-4.130*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e*0.003\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd height=\"36\" style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 137px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMore than 20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 169px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-9.982*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e*0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd height=\"36\" style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e15-20\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 137px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMore than 20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 169px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-5.852*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e*0.005\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd height=\"36\" style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; *Sig at the level of \u0026alpha;\u0026le; 0.05.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThird: Type of Program \u0026quot;deaf and hard-of-hearing\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eANOVA was used to determine the significance of the differences based on the type of program the participants are enrolled in.\u0026nbsp;Table 11 shows the results.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 11\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eANOVA Test Results Relating to Program Type\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"575\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 146px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSum of Squares\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003edf\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean Square\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 79px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBetween Groups\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 146px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e115.164\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e115.164\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.598\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 79px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.207\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWithin Groups\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 146px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28757.934\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e399\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e72.075\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 79px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 146px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28873.097\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e400\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 79px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe results of the type of program analyzed (Deaf, Hearing Impaired) showed no statistically significant difference in knowledge level between teachers. The findings from the ANOVA results (F = 1.598, p = 0.05) indicate a lack of statistically significant effects of the type of the program regarding the knowledge of teachers\u0026apos; metacognitive strategies. Other factors, such as educational qualifications and past teaching experience, might play a more significant role than the type of program.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Summary","content":"\u003cp\u003eTo summarize, the findings show that teachers think all metacognitive strategies for DHH students are positive, but there are significant differences between teachers\u0026apos; educational qualifications and teaching experience. Therefore, there is an urgent need to continue supporting teacher development with continuous professional development to improve their understanding and implementation of effective metacognitive strategies in diverse educational settings (Albalhareth et al., 2022). The findings do not indicate that differences in the type of academic program attended make much of a difference in teachers\u0026apos; knowledge in this area, which suggests that systemic factors are more important here. \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eFirst, this study was conducted to identify the most commonly-used metacognitive assessments by teachers of DHH students. Previous studies have indicated that interviews provide the most valid assessment for all individuals, either with or without disabilities, and for all ages of participants or readers (Albalhareth et al., 2022; Israel et al., 2005; Israel, 2007). Albalhareth et al. (2022) explained that deaf teachers ask their DHH students to think aloud and explain the strategies using ASL. Additionally, it has been claimed that teachers can collect more information when they use more than one assessment. For instance, young readers may not know the name of the type of assessment they use; thus, the teachers or practitioners use interview assessment along with think-aloud assessment. During interviews, practitioners may ask readers to think aloud, and at the same time, choose the name of the assessment for the checklist. This study explained that teachers rarely used all types of assessments because of their awareness and knowledge of metacognitive assessments. These assessments can differ based on commutation methods and assessments suitable for DHH students. This can also differ depending on the students\u0026rsquo; ages and readabilities, as well as knowing the name of the assessments. This aligns with Albalhareth et al.\u0026rsquo;s (2022) findings, which emphasized the importance of explaining readability to the DHH students.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, this study investigated teachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions of the assessment of metacognitive strategies for DHH students. It appears that teachers of DHH students believe that the knowledge of metacognitive assessment is essential to identify and examine appropriate metacognitive strategy planning or before-reading strategies; monitoring or during-reading strategies; and evaluating or after-reading strategies (Israel, 2007; Pressley \u0026amp; Afflerbach, 1995). They also believed that all metacognitions help assess DHH readers. However, as indicated, the readabilities of DHH and their abilities to use complex metacognitive strategies are important factors that teachers should consider when assessing DHH students\u0026rsquo; readabilities. Previous studies have argued that evaluation strategies, known as after-reading strategies, are the most complex strategies that good DHH readers use. These strategies include providing a comprehensive critique of the texts and examining their quality (Albalhareth et al., 2022; Silvestri \u0026amp; Wang, 2018; Wang, Silvestri, \u0026amp; Jahromi, 2018).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough providing instruction about self-assessment is important for developing students\u0026rsquo; reading comprehension performance (Alblahereth et al., 2022), the results showed that young readers do not need any explicit instruction regarding metacognition. These results may indicate contradictions between their perspectives on the use of assessments and strategies. Teachers still need to value the strategies used by young students, which can be important for identifying and encouraging students to use them when needed. These results may explain why teachers should encourage young DHH students to use familiar strategies. They also explain that metacognitive strategies are important for learning. Albalhareth et al. (2022) argued that deaf teachers of DHH students embrace strategies based on their students\u0026rsquo; needs and reading levels. Wang et al. (2018), and Silvestri and Wang (2018) explained how the DHH participants use different metacognitive strategies depending on their reading capability.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, the results showed that teachers use traditional assessments to assess reading comprehension strategies. Albalhareth et al. (2022) argued that some practitioners use assessments such as Cloze text (Block, 2005). In addition, analogous to other studies on metacognition (e.g., Albalhareth \u0026amp; Alasmari, 2023), there were no statistically significant differences in the level of knowledge among male and female teachers of DHH students. However, the results showed that educational qualifications and teaching experience were important variables for predicting teachers\u0026rsquo; knowledge of metacognitive assessments. Other studies on metacognition and metacognitive strategies have shown the opposite (e.g., Albalhareth \u0026amp; Alasmari, 2023); however, this finding aligns with other results that explain the importance of teaching experiences and educational knowledge (Ding, 2021; Mullola et al., 2012).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLimitations and Recommendations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study explained the variables that could affect teachers\u0026rsquo; preferences when implementing metacognitive assessments. However, this study did not provide enough details on how communication is related to using a particular assessment, and the types of text that can relate to teachers\u0026rsquo; choice of metacognitive assessments (e.g., narrative, exploratory texts).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEven though this study captured a large number of participants, it failed to provide sufficient details regarding how teachers use these metacognitive assessments, and the multiple comparison analysis found that the significant differences exist between teachers who hold Ph.D. degrees and those who hold lesser degrees; few participants have a Ph.D. degree, and this may sufficiently explain the merits of having Ph.D. and the knowledge of metacognitive assessments.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe results indicated that metacognitive assessment may elucidate readers\u0026rsquo; abilities, and these assessments can explain the strategies that foster readers\u0026rsquo; comprehension. This study recommends that future research should conduct a longitudinal study involving repeated observations of metacognitive assessments and strategies during reading sessions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, this study discussed students\u0026rsquo; readabilities, but it did not explain the correlation between the assessments of metacognitive and text difficulties; therefore, future research can examine the types of assessments that teachers may use depending on the text types and difficulties. Also, teachers and practitioners need training and professional development programs that provide them with details about metacognitive assessments and strategies. \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis research is one of the few studies to discuss the metacognitive assessment strategies used with DHH individuals, and it is the only study that used metacognitive assessments with Arabian DHH students. This work explains that teachers of DHH\u0026rsquo;s knowledge of metacognitive assessments can influence their perceptions; thus, they believe that it is important to use these types of assessments based on students\u0026rsquo; abilities, knowledge, and capability to communicate with DHH students.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeachers believed that DHH children did not need to learn about metacognitive assessments, although they showed that enhancing children\u0026rsquo;s and DHH students\u0026rsquo; knowledge about metacognitive knowledge and strategies is vital for fostering their learning development.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere were no differences in the use of metacognitive assessments according to gender; however, teachers\u0026rsquo; experience and educational qualifications positively affected their perceptions of using metacognitive assessments with their DHH students.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAuthors contribution/credit statementAli Albalhareth : Corresponding author; Writing \u0026ndash; original draft, Data curation, Data discussion, Writing \u0026ndash; review \u0026amp; editing, Project administration , Funding acquisitionGaniah Ain: Methodology, Writing \u0026ndash;review, Project administration, Funding acquisition\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlanazi M (2021) Communicating with deaf students in inclusive schools: Insights from Saudi University faculty. Eurasian J Educational Res 95:188\u0026ndash;209. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1321894.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1321894.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlawajee O (2021) Influence of COVID-19 on students\u0026rsquo; sign language learning in a teacher-preparation program in Saudi Arabia: Moving to e-learning. Contemp Educational Technol 13(3):ep308. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/10886\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.30935/cedtech/10886\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlbalhareth AH (2023) Metacognitive Strategies with Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) Individuals and Ways to Assess Them. IntechOpen. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.5772/intechopen.113379\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5772/intechopen.113379\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlbalhareth A, Alasmari A (2023) Metacognitive strategies implemented with d/Dhh students in upper elementary schools in Saudi Arabia. Think Skills Creativity 47:101222. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101222\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101222\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlbalhareth A, Paul PV, Alasmari A (2022) Teachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions of metacognitive strategies and assessments used with d/Deaf and hard of hearing students. J Hum Res Rehabilitation 12(1):5\u0026ndash;21. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.21554/hrr.042201\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.21554/hrr.042201\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlrashidi O, Phan H (2015) Education context and English teaching and learning in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: An overview. Engl Lang Teach 8(5):33\u0026ndash;44. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n5p33\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5539/elt.v8n5p33\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBerent GP, Kelly RR, Rizzo SP, Chen Z, Schueler-Choukairi T, Persky K, Schmitz L, Van Horn S (2024) Academic verb knowledge of DHH college students and their hearing peers. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 29(2):158\u0026ndash;169. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enad053\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/deafed/enad053\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBerger L, Pyers J, Lieberman A, Caselli N (2024) Parent American Sign Language skills correlate with child\u0026ndash;but not toddler\u0026ndash;ASL vocabulary size. Lang Acquisition 31(2):85\u0026ndash;99. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2023.2178312\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/10489223.2023.2178312\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaker L, Brown AL (1984) Metacognitive skills and reading. In: Pearson PD, Barr R, Kamil ML, Mosenthal P (eds) Handbook of reading research. Longman, pp 353\u0026ndash;394\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaker L, Carter Beall L (2009) Metacognitive processes and reading comprehension. In S. E. Israel \u0026amp; G. G. Duffy (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eHandbook of research on reading comprehension\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 373\u0026ndash;388; 1st ed.). Routledge. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4324/9781315759609\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4324/9781315759609\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBanner A, Wang Y (2011) An analysis of the reading strategies used by adult and student deaf readers. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 16(1):2\u0026ndash;23. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enq027\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/deafed/enq027\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBlock CC (2005) What are metacognitive assessments? In S. E. Israel, C. C. Block, K. L. Bauserman \u0026amp; K. Kinnucan-Welsch (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eMetacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 83\u0026ndash;100). Lawrence Erlbaum. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.researchgate.net/file.PostFileLoader.html?id=54902c71d11b8b79098b4790\u0026amp;assetKey=AS:273653080494081@1442255386905\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.researchgate.net/file.PostFileLoader.html?id=54902c71d11b8b79098b4790\u0026amp;assetKey=AS:273653080494081@1442255386905\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBlock CC, Israel SE (2004) The ABCs of performing highly effective think-alouds. Read Teacher 58(2):154\u0026ndash;167. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1598/RT.58.2.4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1598/RT.58.2.4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCreswell JW, Creswell JD (2017) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDaza Gonzalez MT, Phillips-Silver J, Maurno NG, Garc\u0026iacute;a LF, Ruiz-Casta\u0026ntilde;eda P (2022) Improving phonological skills and reading comprehension in deaf children: A new multisensory approach. Sci Stud Read 27(2):119\u0026ndash;135. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2022.2095280\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/10888438.2022.2095280\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDing H (2021) Gender differences in teaching and research performance of university teachers based on discrete data analysis. \u003cem\u003eDiscrete Dynamics in Nature and Society\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2021\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;9. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5066668\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1155/2021/5066668\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUakarn C, Chaokromthong K, Sintao N (2021) Sample size estimation using Yamane and Cochran and Krejcie and Morgan and green formulas and Cohen statistical power analysis by G* Power and comparisons. APHEIT Int J 10(2):76\u0026ndash;86. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/ATI/article/view/254253\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/ATI/article/view/254253\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEwoldt C (1986) What does reading mean? Perspect Teachers Hear Impaired 4:10\u0026ndash;11\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEwoldt C, Israelite N, Dodds R (1992) The ability of deaf students to understand text: A comparison of the perceptions of teachers and students. Am Ann Deaf 137(4):351\u0026ndash;361. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.jstor.org/stable/44400952\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.jstor.org/stable/44400952\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFlavell JH (1976) Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In: Resnick LB (ed) The nature of intelligence. Lawrence Erlbaum, pp 231\u0026ndash;235\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFlavell JH (1979) Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive\u0026ndash;developmental inquiry. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Psychologist, 34\u003c/em\u003e(10), 906\u0026ndash;911. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e Flavell, J. H., Friedrichs, A. G., \u0026amp; Hoyt, J. D. (1970). Developmental changes in memorization processes. \u003cem\u003eCognitive Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(4), 324\u0026ndash;340. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(70)90019-8\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFlavell JH, Wellman HM (1977) Metamemory. In: Kail RV Jr, Hagen JW (eds) Perspectives on the development of memory and cognition. Lawrence Erlbaum\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHarris TL, Hodges RE (eds) (1995) The literacy dictionary: The vocabulary of reading and writing. International Reading Association. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED385820\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED385820\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHeidari S, Babor TF, De Castro P, Tort S, Curno M (2016) Sex and gender equity in research: Rationale for the SAGER guidelines and recommended use. Res Integr Peer Rev 1(1):1\u0026ndash;9. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-016-0007-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s41073-016-0007-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIsrael SE (2007) Using metacognitive assessments to create individualized reading instruction. Int Read Association. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED497918\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED497918\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIsrael SE (ed) (2017) Handbook of research on reading comprehension, 2nd edn. Guilford Press\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIsrael SE, Block CC, Bauserman K, Kinnucan-Welsch K (2005) \u003cem\u003eMetacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development\u003c/em\u003e (1st ed.). Routledge. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4324/9781410613301\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4324/9781410613301\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKubiszyn T, Borich GD (2024) Educational testing and measurement. Wiley\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMayer C, Trezek BJ (2024) Reading achievement and deaf students with cochlear implants. Cochlear implant Int 1\u0026ndash;9. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/14670100.2024.2394313\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/14670100.2024.2394313\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMulyono Y, Ubaidillah M (2024) The relationship between metacognitive and critical thinking abilities across three distinct learning approaches. Thabiea: J Nat Sci Teach 7(1):1\u0026ndash;22. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://journal.iainkudus.ac.id/index.php/Thabiea\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://journal.iainkudus.ac.id/index.php/Thabiea\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMinistry of Education (2021) Special education teachers report. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMorrison GR, Ross SJ, Morrison JR, Kalman HK (2019) Designing effective instruction. Wiley\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcAnally P, Rose S, Quigley SP (2007) Reading practices with children who are deaf, 2nd edn. PRO-Ed\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcCormick CB (2003) Metacognition and learning. In: Reynolds WM, Miller GE (eds) Handbook of psychology: Educational psychology. Wiley, pp 79\u0026ndash;102. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/0471264385.wei0705\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/0471264385.wei0705\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMeichenbaum D (1985) Teaching thinking: A cognitive-behavioral perspective. In S. F. Chipman, J. W. Segal, \u0026amp; R. Glaser (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eThinking and learning skills: Volume 2: Research and open questions\u003c/em\u003e (1st ed., Ch. 18). Lawrence Erlbaum\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMullola S, Ravaja N, Lipsanen J, Alatupa S, Hintsanen M, Jokela M, Keltikangas-J\u0026auml;rvinen L (2012) Gender differences in teachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions of students\u0026rsquo; temperament, educational competence, and teachability. Br J Educ Psychol 82(2):185\u0026ndash;206. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2010.02017.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.2044-8279.2010.02017.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eParis SG, Flukes J (2005) Assessing children\u0026rsquo;s metacognition about strategic reading. In: Israel SE, Block CC, Bauserman KL, Kinnucan-Welsh K (eds) Metacognition literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development. Lawrence Erlbaum, pp 121\u0026ndash;139\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eParis SG, Lipson MY, Wixson KK (1983) Becoming a strategic reader. Contemp Educ Psychol 8(3):293\u0026ndash;316. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(83)90018-8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/0361-476X(83)90018-8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePressley M, Afflerbach P (1995) \u003cem\u003eVerbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading.\u003c/em\u003e Lawrence Erlbaum\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchirmer BR (2003) Using verbal protocols to identify the reading strategies of students who are deaf. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 8(2):157\u0026ndash;170. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/eng009\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/deafed/eng009\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchirmer BR, Bailey J, Lockman AS (2004) What verbal protocols reveal about the reading strategies of deaf students: A replication study. Am Ann Deaf 149(1):5\u0026ndash;16. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2004.0016\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1353/aad.2004.0016\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchmitt MC (1990) A questionnaire to measure children\u0026rsquo;s awareness of strategic reading processes. Read Teacher 43(7):454\u0026ndash;461\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchmitt MC (2005) Measuring students\u0026rsquo; awareness and control of strategic processes. In: Israel SE, Bauserman KL, Kinnucan-Welsch K, Block CC (eds) Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development, 1st edn. Routledge\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSilvestri JA, Wang Y (2018) A grounded theory of effective reading by profoundly deaf adults. Am Ann Deaf 162(5):419\u0026ndash;444. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2018.0002\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1353/aad.2018.0002\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eS\u0026uuml;r\u0026uuml;c\u0026uuml; L, Maslak\u0026ccedil;i A (2020) Validity and reliability in quantitative research. Bus Manage Studies: Int J 8(3):2694\u0026ndash;2726. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v8i3.1540\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.15295/bmij.v8i3.1540\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTracy SJ (2024) Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. Wiley\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang Y, Silvestri JA, Jahromi LB (2018) Selected factors in reading comprehension for deaf and hearing adults: Phonological skills and metacognition. Am Ann Deaf 162(5):445\u0026ndash;462. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2018.0003\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1353/aad.2018.0003\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWatkins R, Meiers MW, Visser Y (2012) A guide to assessing needs: Essential tools for collecting information, making decisions, and achieving development results. World Bank\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWellman HM (1978) Knowledge of the interaction of memory variables: A developmental study of metamemory. Dev Psychol 14(1):24\u0026ndash;29. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.14.1.24\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/0012-1649.14.1.24\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXu Y, Kuti L (2024) Accommodating students with exceptional needs by aligning classroom assessment with IEP goals. Int J Incl Educ 28(8):1474\u0026ndash;1487. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.1994662\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/13603116.2021.1994662\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) students, metacognitive strategies, metacognitive assessment, reading comprehension","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6209972/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6209972/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBackground:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cdel\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/del\u003eThis study is the only one of its kind that discusses metacognitive assessments with Arab DHH students and teachers. Metacognition is the awareness of one’s own thought processes; it aids many individuals in various aspects of daily living; it is especially important for cognitive processes such as reading. When reading, students can learn how to use different metacognitive strategies to regulate their reading comprehension. While research has covered metacognitive strategies regarding how typical students and students with certain disabilities use such strategies, there is little research regarding metacognitive assessments that teachers of students who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) use.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAims and Method: \u003c/strong\u003eUsing a survey method, this quantitative research endeavored (a) to understand \u0026nbsp;the awareness that Saudi teachers of DHH students have regarding metacognitive strategies and their use and (b) to identify the types of metacognitive assessments these teachers utilize with their DHH students. Demographic data was obtained from the respondents. The relationships between perceptions and different variables (e.g., gender, years of experience, educational qualification, and types of programs) were analyzed.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResults: \u003c/strong\u003eNot surprisingly, teachers’ knowledge of metacognitive assessment correlated with their use of such tools with their DHH students. In addition, the majority of the respondents (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 213; 57.14%) stated they did not feel metacognitive assessments are indicated for use with elementary school children. Educational background and training and years of experience were found to significantly affect perceptions. Conversely, no correlation was found between perceptions and gender.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConclusions: \u003c/strong\u003eThis study demonstrated that ability to communicate with students is vital for assessing metacognitive processes. Further, this study also found teachers’ knowledge of metacognitive assessments is vital to their perception of metacognitive assessments.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The Perceptions of Saudi Arabian Teachers of Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) Students Regarding Metacognitive Assessment of Reading Comprehension Strategies","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-04-26 19:17:08","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6209972/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"332dc7de-76cd-4e38-9c93-bd17e2a65b9a","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 26th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":47111612,"name":"Humanities/Language and linguistics"},{"id":47111613,"name":"Social science/Anthropology"},{"id":47111614,"name":"Social science/Education"},{"id":47111615,"name":"Social science/Language and linguistics"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-18T17:25:36+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-04-26 19:17:08","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6209972","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6209972","identity":"rs-6209972","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}