Promoting Transition Goals and Self-Determination

1
Promoting Transition Goals and Self-Determination
through Student Directed Learning Patricia
Devlin, Ed.D. Department of Early Childhood,
Physical, and Special Education, University of
Toledo, Toledo, OH 43606
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND CONDITIONS
ARC SELF DETERMINATION SCALE
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
A delayed multiple baseline across three groups
was utilized. The experimental conditions
included baseline, training, and maintenance. For
each group Phase I of the SDLMI was administered
(establishment of self-selected goals) prior to
collecting baseline data. Dependent measures were
then identified for each goal and baseline data
collection began. Phase II (Training) of the
SDLMI was subsequently administered to secure an
approved action plan from each participant.
Instruction and self-monitoring strategies were
then taught and used by participants. The mastery
performance criterion for all participants was
80 of targeted behavior on the dependent measure
over two consecutive days. Phase III
(Maintenance) students engaged in a series of
self-evaluation activities to determine if they
had made progress in achieving their goals, and
to revise goals/ action plans if necessary.
The Arcs Self-determination Scale (Adolescent
Version) is a student self-report measure of
self-determination designed for use by
adolescents with cognitive disabilities. The
scale has two primary purposes a) to provide
students with cognitive disabilities and
educators a tool that assists them in identifying
student strengths and limitations in the area of
self-determination and b) to provide a research
tool to examine the relationship between
self-determination and factors that
promote/inhibit this important outcome. The scale
has 72 items (this version has been modified and
the number of items reduced) and is divided into
four sections. Each section examines a different
essential characteristic of self-determination
Autonomy, Self-Regulation, Psychological
Empowerment and Self-Realization. The Arcs
Self-Determination Scale was administered to all
participants at the beginning of each academic
year and then again after maintenance data was
collected for each group. Table 3 highlights the
change in percentage of positive responses
(Positive scores) of the overall
self-determination score for participating
students.
Findings indicated that all but two of the
participants improved their performance of target
behaviors after receiving instruction in
following the three phases of the Self-Determined
Learning Model of Instruction. For most of the
participants, dramatic changes in performance
were evident between baseline and intervention
conditions and continued in the maintenance
condition. Although the delayed multiple baseline
design across groups employed in this study did
not identify functional relationships between
independent and dependent variables for
individual participants, it does provide some
evidence that the level of mean performance
across groups improved only when the intervention
was introduced. In addition, findings from pre
and post testing of self-determination scores
through administration of the Arcs
Self-Determination Scale indicate that overall
self-determination scores significantly improved
for 12 of the 19 participant students (Table 3).
Agran, M., King-Sears, M., Wehmeyer, M. L.,
Copeland, S. R. (2003). Teachers guides to
inclusive practices Student-directed learning.
Baltimore Paul H. Brookes. Mithaug, D. E.,
Wehmeyer, M. L., Agran, M., Martin, J. E.,
Palmer, S. (1998). The self-determined learning
model of instruction Engaging students to solve
their learning problems. In M. L. Wehmeyer D.
J. Sands (Eds.), Making it happen Student
involvement in education planning, decision
making, and instruction (pp. 299-328). Baltimore
Paul H. Brookes. Weymeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B.,
Agran, M., Mitaug, D. E., Martin, J. E. (2000).
Promoting causal agency The self-determined
learning model of instruction. Exceptional
Children, 66, 439-453.
RESULTS
Baseline Figure 1 displays the mean group
performance data. Group 1 had a performance
baseline mean of 56 (percent frequency during
which student performed target behavior to
criteria set in goal) with a range of 33 to 83
accuracy. The baseline mean of Group 2 was 17
with a range of 0 to 50. Group 3s mean
baseline was 54 with a range of 17 to 100.
Three students established baseline data above
80 before any intervention. Training During
the training condition, there was a marked
increase in student performance of target
behavior as they learned and mastered the
strategies and applied those strategies to
achieve their goals. The mean number of sessions
needed by students to achieve 80 mastery on
their respective student-directed learning
strategy was 3.68. Some students achieved
mastery in 2 session, others mastered in 8
sessions. Four of the 19 students did not
achieve the goal of 80 or better for correct
strategy use. Maintenance Group 1 remained in
the maintenance stage for nine sessions and
maintained a mean of 90 with a mean range of 83
- 100. All but two students in this group
functioned at 95 or higher. Group 2 remained in
maintenance for eight sessions, during which time
they maintained a group mean of 100. One student
in this group did not achieve the mastery level.
Group 3s data ended with a maintenance condition
mean of 79 with a mean range of 76 to 81
across sessions. One student in Group 3 did not
achieve the mastery level.
Table 3 Self-Determination Scores
Student Self-Determination Score (Pretest) Self-Determination Score (Posttest) Percentage Increase
Michael 42 96 54
Erica 17 35 18
Amelia 1 2 1
Roger 17 35 18
Scott 6 29 23
Kevin 2 2 0
Chris1 17 35 18
Bryan 29 94 65
Corey 2 2 0
Caroline 17 35 18
Chris2 49 62 13
Katie 66 69 3
Sam 42 49 7
Zach 28 32 4
Dustin 37 68 31
Josh 50 64 14
Trinity 57 69 12
Jake 38 57 22
Liz 39 40 1

Baseline
Training
Maintenance
Sessions
Figure 1. Mean Group performance