Self-Determination and Student Involvement in Standards-Based Ref

2001, the major types of strategies recom -mended in the literature are student involvement in educational planning and directly teaching skills to promote self-determination.. Specific

Wayne State University

DigitalCommons@WayneState

Center for Self-Determination and Transition College of Education

1-1-2004

Self-Determination and Student Involvement in

Standards-Based Reform

Michael L Wehmeyer

University of Kansas Main Campus

Sharon Field

Wayne State University, sharon.field@wayne.edu

Bonnie Doren

U.S Department of Education

Christine Mason

Cessi, Inc.

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Education at DigitalCommons@WayneState It has been accepted for inclusion

in Center for Self-Determination and Transition by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@WayneState.

Recommended Citation

Wehmeyer, M L., Field, S., Doren, B., Jones, B., & Mason, C (2004) Self-determination and student involvement in standards-based

reform Exceptional Children, 70(4), 413-425.

Available at: http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/csdt/1

V~ 70 N ~ , -t pp 4/ J41j

C2()(# Cmm ril fo r Exu p' ;Q""[ Chi 14"" ,

Sel-Determination and

Student Involvement in

Standards-Based Re orm

"'ICHAIEl l WIEH"'IEYIER

U ni "",i,, of IG", =

SHARON "11El.D

I& ynt Suitt Uni,,",iry

.ONNIIE DORIEN

Uni"",;,, DfOrrgon

.ONNIIE JON S

U S Drpo nm m/Df&iO/ca/;on

CHRISTINIE "'A SO N

Cmi, ftIC

A • • TRACT : Promoting s~lf~te nnimllion has b ~ com~ "b~s t pra c tice " in th ~ ~ ducation of s rudmts with disabiliti ts ~ synth~siu t h~ d~ c ad ~'s work in this aua as a foundation for comitkring issu~s p~rtaining to promoting ulftku nnination in light of th~ cumnt ~d u c ationaL context we particu-larly ~xamin~ th~ ro le of promoting uLftku rmination in Light of [ttkra' uandards-bas~d ufonn initiativ n we concLutk that schooL rifonn 4forts provitk nn oppo rtunity to infos~ instruction in

u lfdu~rmination into th ~ ~d u ca ti o n programs of aLL s tut:Un ts, including s tudents with disabiliti~s

Many s tau and w e aL standards include a focus on co mpon ~ nt ~kmtnts of u lfdeunnin ~ d b ~havio r

and promoting ulfdeu nnination tnabks s tudents to peTfonn mou tffictiv~Ly within othtr co nUnt tUJmaim Th~ importan ce ofp~rsomul pr tp aration to mabk uach trs to promou ulf d ~ tennination

is discussd

rom o rin g the self - d ete rmin -ati o n of s tud e n ts wi th di s abili

-ti es b ec am e a f oc u s o f inter est

in special e du ca tion r ese ar c h

and practice in th e l a te 19805

T hi s i nitiativ e was s timulated with funding from

the U.S D e panment of Ed u c ation 's Office of

m o del p rojects thar ident i fy the s kill s and c har ac ·

terist ics n ecess ary for s el f-de term in atio n, as well

Exuprill l14f Child"n

a s rhe in -sc hool a nd out-of-schoo l e xperien ces

that lead to the development of s elf · determina

-tion ~ ( F e d er al Regi s t er , Volum e 54, No 1 77, Thur s day , Se ptember 14 1 989 p 3 8166) Be-[W ee n 19 9 0 and 1996 , OSE P funded 26 model

demonstration proj ects int ended to develop prac

-ti ces and program s that would s upport sel f-d e t e r

-minati o n f o r yo uth wi th disabilitie s (Ward &

K o hler , 1996) In 1992 , O S EP grant c

ompeti-t ion s funded r ese ar ch pertaining to t h e devel o

p-."

ment and cv:duation of models of self-determina

strategies tied IO those models Additionally, nu

such as field-initiated research and outreach

S I: L - D II!: T II!: R M t NAT tON AND

1998.2001) and autism (Fullerton 1998) In a federally funded project IO synthesize this grow

-ing literature base with regard to promoting and

-der Karvonen Test, and Wood (2001) identific:d four primary focal points in the literanue: (a) def

-init ions and concepr ual models of self

-deterlllination (b) the importance and rationale

of self-determination for smdents with disabili -STU D II!: N T S W t T H D t 5 A BtL t T t II!: S ties, (c) strategies for promoting self·determina

-tion, and (d) effc:c1S of self-determination and

range from curricular materials and guides to

-O12n, 1996a; Field Marrin, Miller, Ward, &

ow-der &: Algonine, 2000: Wehmeyer, Agran &

2000) model programs (Ward & Kohler 1996),

dent-directed planning programs (H alpern, Herr,

Brown 2000; Wehmeyer & Palmer 2000) to 5«

-ondary education (Field & Hoffman I 996b),

Due largely t o the fttkral emphasis on

-tion as a componmt of th e education of

art: now available t o s upport instruction

to achi~ve this outcom~

,

student involvement instructional programs A

summary of findings in each area follows al

-though we combined information abolll strategies

for promoting self-determination and effects of sdf·deu'rmination and student involvement be

-cause they both focus on the impact of self-deter mination on valued Olllcomes

D EFINING ANI) CONO, r TUAI.IZI N G

5 EI F- D I:'TI:' RM INA Tl O N

There is a high level of consistency across the

major definitions and conceptual frameworks for self-determination developed during the 19905

(e.g Abery, Rudrud Arndt, Schauben & Egge

-been 1995: Field & Hoffman 1994; Martin &

Marshall 1995: Mithaug, 1996: Wehmeyer

1996;1.1998.200 1) Field et al (l998a, p 2)

mination by stafing that self-determined people

apply ~ a combination of skills, knowledge and

be-liefs" that enable them "to engage in goal-di -rected, self-regulated autonomous behavior An understanding of one's strengths and l mitations

together with 3 belief in oneself as capable and ef

fective are cssential in self-determination When acting on the b:sis of these skills and attitudes in·

dividuals h: ve greater ability to take control of

their livcs ~nd assume the role of successful adults

in our society." Field et aL further delineated the common componelll! of self-determined behavior identified across multiple models of self-determi -nation These include (a) awarcness of personal

preferences interests strengths, and limitations;

needs (ii ) make choices based on preferences, in -terests wanlS an<1 needs, (iii) consider multiple

-sions (iv) initiate and take action whc:n nttded

(v) evaluate decisions based on the outcomes of

thc previous decision and revise futurc decisions

accordingly, (vi) se t and work loward goals, (vii)

regulalc behavior (viii) usc communication skills

such as negoriation, compromise, and ~rsuasion

to rcach goals, and (ix) assume responsibility for

acrions and decisions; (c) skills for probl

em-solv-ing; (d) a striving for indcpendencc while recog

-nizing inlcrdcpendence with others; (e)

self-advocacy and self-evaluation skills; (f) ind

e-JX:ndent performance and adjustment skills; (g)

persistence; (h) self-confidence: (i) pride: and (j)

CreatlV1ty

Many of the aTlicies focusing on self

-detcrmination have addressed why self

determina-tion should be considered a central organizing

concept in special education practice and policy

(Algozzine et aI., 2001) These reflect twO per

-sJX:ctives: (a) a civil rights, empowerment, and

self-advocacy perspective (e.g., Ward, 1996) that

emphasizes the righlS of people with disabilities to

exert conrrol in their lives; and (b) an educational

effectiveness perspective (Field et aI., 1998a;

Wehmeyer, 1992; Wehmeyer & Schwam, 1997)

that emphasizes the relevance of such efforts for

improving educational outcomes It should be

nOled that these rwo perspectives are not

mutu-ally exclusive, nor do supporters of onc necessarily

eschew the other

Thc rationale to focus efforts to promote

self-determination based on civil righlS,

empower-ment, and self-advocacy is philosophically, rather

than empirically-based There are, however, some

empirically-based studies that support the second

perspective and demonsrrate that enhanced self

-determination improves the educational outcomes

of youth with disabilities For example, research

has indicated that chi dren who help choose

school activities show cnhanced motivation to

perform those tasks and are more likely to achieve

their goals (e.g., Benz, Lindstrom & Yovanoff,

2000; Reaion, Favell, & Lowerre, 1990; Schunk,

1985) Wehmeyer and Schwam (1997) measured

the self-determination status of 80 students with

mild mental retardation or learning disabilities in

their final year of high school and then I year

after high school Students with higher

determination scores were more likely to have

ex-pressed a preference 1 0 livc outside Ihe family home, have a savings or checking account, and be

employed for pay Eighty percent of students in

the high self-determination group worked for pay

I ycar after graduation, whereas only 43% of stu

likewise Among school lcavers who were

em-ployed, youth who were in the high self

-determinadon group carned significandy more per hr ( M " $4.26) than their peers in the low

self-delermination group (M ", $1.93) Wehmeyer

and Palmcr (2003) conducted a second follow-up

study, examining the adult status of 94 young peoplc with cognitive disabilities (mental retarda

-tion or learning disability) I and 3 years postgrad

-uation These dara replicated res ults from

Wehmeycr and Schwartz Finally, Sowers and Powc:rs (1995) showed ,hat instruction on multi

-creased ,he participation and independence of

students with scvere disabilities with respe.ct 10

performing community activities

The special cducation literature contains many recommended slfategies 10 promotc self

-detcqnination According to Algozzine CI al (2001), the major types of strategies recom

-mended in the literature are student involvement

in educational planning and directly teaching

skills to promote self-determination In thcir meta-analysis of studies addressing thc latter, AI

-gozzine and colleagues found that the majority of intervention studies promoting skills related to self-determined behavior focused on adolescentS

and adults Only 19.6 % of the studies included

children between the ages of 5-13 ycars, and 2%

of Ihe stUdics focused on children under thc age

of 5 Several aUlhors writing in the self-dctermi

-nation literature have suggested that more rc

-search and developmem efforl needs 1 0 be placed

on Ihe needs of younger children relatcd 10 the development of self-determination (e.g., Abcry & Zajac 1996; Burchard , 1996; Doll, Sands,

Wehmeyer, & Palmer, 1996; Palmer & Wehmeycr, 2003)

.,

The majority of strategies recommended in

the stlf-determination literawre lack empirical

validation Although more than 450 articles have

been published on the topic of s

tlf-determina-tion, Algozzine and colleagues (2001) identified

only 51 articles published during the period

1972-2000 that met the criteria they cstablished

for data-based, peer-reviewed studies on

interven-tions to promote component elements of self-d

e-termined behavior Of the 51 studies reviewed,

only 22 met the criteria necessary to be included

in a meta-analysis to determine effcct sizes of the

interventions Nine of the interventions examined

reponed group data The average effect size

across these studies was 1 38, with a standard de

-viation of 3 7 4 and a standard error of 0.37 The

effect size measurements indicated that most

smdies reported changes in self-determination

re-I:ned Ollicomes reflcctive of moderate gains as a

result of instructional interventions The sin

gle-subject srudies (n 13) demonSlr.ned monger ef

fcct sizes According to Algozzine et al., the

me-dian percentage of nonoverlapping dara (PND)

berween the treatment and baseline phases was

95% with a n.nge of 64% to 100% for the stud

-ies, indicating that panicipants acquired skills

re-lated to stlf-determination at a relatively high

level

Additionally, Wehmeyer, Palmer, et al

(2000) have designed and empirically val dated a

model of teaching to promote self-determination

and student self-regulated problem-solving {the

Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction}

Validation studies with adolescents (Agran, Blan

-chard, & Wehmeyer, 2000; Palmer Wehmeyer

Gipson, & Agran, 2004; Wehmeyer, Palmer, et

aI., 2000) and elementary-age children (Palmer &

Wehmeyer, 2003) have shown that students with

cognitive disabilities can self regulate the instruc

-tional goal-setting process and self-direct learning

that leam 10 the utainment of educationally val

-ued outcomes and enhanced perceptions of

self-determination

The previous section provided a synopsis of the

state-of-the-field with regard to knowledge and

.,

practice in promoting and enhancing the

self-determination of children and YOUlh with disabil

-ities It is an encouraging start considering the rel

-ative lack of focus on Ihese issues prior to the

1990 OSEP initiative However, the context in which the education of students with disabilities

occurs has changed dramatically over the past

dec.ade Specifically, the 1997 Amendments (

Pub-lic Law 105-17) to the Individuals with Disabili

-ties Education Act (IDEA) included requirements

that the individualized education progn.ms of all

students with disabilities contain statements r

e-garding how the child's disability affects involve

-men t with and progress in the general

curriculum, as well as measurable goals and pr o-gram modifications to ensure stich involvement

and progress

The context in which the education of

changed dramatically ovu the past tkcatk

These "access 10 the genen.1 curriculum" re

-quirements were implemented to ensure that

stu-dents with disabilities were included in emerging

standards-based reform and accountability

sys-tems Standards-based reform efforts esrablish

stale and local content and student achievement

standards in which content standards describe the

knowledge, skills, and understanding that stu-dents should accompl sh in specific content do-mains Student achievement standards define the

levels of achievement that exemplify proficiency, typically sequenced by grade or age The curricu

-lum is then developed to align with these stan

-dards and in turn, teachers are prepared and

supported 10 provide high-quality instructional

methods, materials, and stn.tegies to implement

the curriculum Finally, the establishment of high

standards, the development of curriculum, and

the implementation of high-qualilY instructional

stn.tegies are linked to multiple levels of account

-ability That is, the content and student achiev

e-ment standards arc used as measurement criteria

to evaluate student progre.ss toward those stan

-dards through state and district assessments of

student performance

The IDEA aceess mandates were intended

10 ensure that students with disabilities were not

excluded from the accountability systems linked

with standards-based reform No Child Left B

e-hind is explicit in irs iment thaI all studems will

meet the same high-quality contem standards It

is this alignment with standards-based reform and

accountability mechanisms that constitutes the

most dramatic element of the changing comext in

which the education of students with disabilities

occurs The self-determination initiative was

in-troduced within the context of OSEP efforts 10

promote transition services and influence out

-comes for studenrs with disabilities However, the

access to the general curriculum initiative was in

-troduced within the context of efforts 10 align

special education practices with prevailing reform

efforts and, largely, 10 impact student perfor

-mance in core content areas Emphasis on core

content areas has been amplified by the steady

progression of the implementation of

assessment-based accountabiliry mechanisms aligned 10 state

and local standards This is accompanied by an

increased emphasis on the importance of evi

-dence-based practices 10 improve instruction in

core content areas such as reading and math

The concern articulated by policy leaders

has been that if students with disabilities arc not

included in standards-based reform efforts, they

will be excluded from the accountability system

on which school improvement efforts arc based

and, thus, will be marginalized and excluded from

efforts 10 improve academic performance The

same concern must be voiced for educational

con-tent areas that are perceived as "ou t side~ of the

domain of standards-based reform and account

-ability, including many transition-related instruc

-tions such as promoting self-determinat ion

(Kochhar-Bryant & Bassell, 2003) Efforts 10

promote access 10 the general curriculum arc not

intended to de-emphasi7.c the importance of

func-tional and outcomes-oriented insltuc[ional

expe-riences for youth with disabilities The

standards-based reform and accountabili y

sys-tems are designed, however, 10 place increased

emphasis on content areas that arc included in

standards and tested on assessments linked co

those standards Thus, as educacors and school

&up'iqnaf Childrr"

districts arc increasingly held accountable for

OUl-comes related to district or state assessments, they

will increasingly narrow the curriculum to those

content areas for which accountability

mecha-nisms arc developed and implcmented, including,

potentially the focus on self-determination

We take the position in this articlc, how

-ever, that the currcnt context of promoting access

to the general curriculum provides the chance to

-determination into thc general curriculum and that instruction to promote self-determination and student involvement actually provides a

means to promote the participation of students

with disabilities in the general curriculum There

arc rwo ways that promoting self-detennination provides access to and promotes progress in the

general curriculum

First, state and local standards frequently

include goals and objectives that pertain to

com-ponent elements of self-determined behavior, in

-cluding educatio nal emphasis on teaching

goal-swing, problem-solving, and

decision-mak-ing skills In virtually every set of state-adopted

standards, students arc expected to learn and

apply effective problem-solving, decision-making and goal-setting processes Thus teachers can

promote progress in the general curriculum by

teaching standards-based skills and knowledge

re-lated to the com ponen t elements of

self-determincd behavior

Second, in addition to addressing the com -ponent elements of self-determined behavior

when they occur in the general curriculum tcach -ing young people with and without disabilitics self-regulation, self-management, problem -solving, goal-setting, and decision-making skills

provides an effective means 10 enable students to

engage with and progress through activities in the

general curriculum more effcctively Several mod

-els exist to define efforts to promote access to the

general curriculum for students with disabilities

(Janney & Snell, 2000; Nolet & McLaughlin,

2000) A model proposed by Wehmeyer, Sands,

Knowlton, and KOZolcski (2002) focusing on a c-cess for students with more severe d isabilitics

placed particular emphasis on the role of

self-dctermination in rwo levels of curriculum modifi

-cation to enable students to engage with and re -spond to the curriculum

4 "

The first level of modific:lIion involves

cur-riculum adaptations Curriculunl adaptation

refers to any effort 10 modify the rtprntntntioll or

student's fllgngrmrf/t with tlu cu rri c ulum to

en-hance access and progress (Center for Applied

Adap-tations to the way curricular comen! is rrprtullud

refer to the way in which the information in lhe

how curricular materials arc used to depict

print, usually through texts, workbooks, and

worksheets There are a number of ways to

change that representation, ranging from chang

-ing font size to using graphics Adaptations in

Such prcsclltation has, hislOrically, been through

written formats (chalkboards or overheads) or ver

bally (lectures) These primary means of

presellta-tion have drawbacks for many smdellts who read

ineffectively (or don't read at all) or who have dif

-ficulty anending to or understanding lecture for

mats There are a variety of ways of changing the

presentation mode, from using video sources to

reading (or playing an audiotape of) written ma

-terials 10 Web-based information

Curriculum adaptations that modify the

student's tngngrflltnt with the curriculum impact

Again, the typical means of student engagement

or, perhaps less frequendy, oral responses or r

e-pons However, students can respond or engage

-cluding "artwork, photography, drama, music, an

these adaptations enable students 10 express their

The second level of curricular modification

10 achieve access involves curriculum

Agran, 200 1 ; Wehmeyer et ai., 2002) With cur

-riculum augmentation, the standard curriculum is

enhanced with "meta-cogni ive or exccmive

the standard curriculum" (Knowlton, p 100 )

Such augmentations do not change the curric

u-lum, but add to or augment the curriculum with

4 , "

strategies for students to succeed within the cur

-riculum The most fTC<Juendy identified curricu

-lum augmentations instruct students in cognitive strategies or learning-to-learn strategies that en -able them to perform more: effccti\'cly with

writing, note-taking, memory, and test-taking

str;)(egies Although primarily developed with Stu

-dents for learning disabilities (Deshler, El is, &

Lenz, 1 996), these strategies can be used with other students

Promoting self-determination contributes

design principles of curriculum adaptation to be

the use of "conspicuous s tr : )(egies ~ Kame'enui and Simmons nOled:

10 solve problems students follow" SCt of SttpS

or str:l.legies Many swdenlS develop their own

strategies but " considerable amount of lime

may be required for the student to identify the optimum strategy For slUdtnts with disabilitio:s, such an approach is highly problematic becausc

instructional time is a pr&ious commodity and

these learners may never figure out an efficient

strategy Learning is most efficient when a tcachcr can make it conspicuous or explicit (p

15i Kame'enui and Si mmons (1999), illu

s-trated both the core role that problem-solving plays in learning and the difficulties students with disabilities experience as a function of their non -strategic approach to COllle11l and activities and

their difficulty widl goal-oriel1led actions

objectives to reach thos<: goals and then use pr

ob-lem-solving and self-regulation skills to tackle the

activities to achieve those goals Promoting self

-determination includes efforts to teach problem

self-managemem skills By augmenting the gen

-tion, but arc also providing skills studems can apply to learning situations Teaching students

self-directed learning strategies serves as an

effec-tive curriculum augmenration as well, with skills

SU "''''" 2004

TA8L 1I!: t

CEC K"ow/~dg~ and Skills Standards R~lat~d to &/fDtun1lj1ln t io1l

Instructional Strategies (5 -):

• lhch individuals to use self-assessJ1ler\!, problem-solving, and other cognitive str2tegies to mcet their

needs

• Usc procedures to increue the individual's self-awareness, self-management, self-control sdf reliance,

"nd self-esteem Learning Environments and Sociallmeractions (S)

• Teach self-ad\·QaICY

• Create all environment that encourages sdf-:ulvocacy and incre35Cd independence

Instructional Planning (5)

• hwol\'e the individu:tland F.rmily in sening instructional gO:t1s and monitoring progrt:SS

• Ck:sign and implement instruetion21 progr.tms that address independem living and carcer educalion for

individuals

• Design and implemenl curriculum and inSlruct onal 51r21L-gics for medical sdf-management procedures Collaboration (5)

• ki~1 individuals with exceptional learning needs and their (;\rnilies in bc:coming active participanu in

the l-tluGuional team

• l'l"n and eonducl collaborative conferences with individuals with exceptionallnrning needs and their

f2milies

oS.Skilis

as dfeClive ~s , ra regi es" that students can, in turn,

apply to the learning process

IMPLICATIONS FOR tMPROVING

PRACTtCE

If promoting sdf-determination I S lmporram to

glin lCCesS to ,he general curriculum, it is crili

-cally important to focus anemion on issues per

-taining to personnel preparation in this area

Rts<:arch suggestS that teachers working with stu

-dents with cognitive disabilities va lue self·

determination but do not necessarily incorpor:n e

learning experiences to promOte this outcome

inlo the educatiollal programs of their sntdents

(Thoma, Nathansoll, Baker, & Tamura, 2 00 2;

Wehmeyer, Agran, & Hughes, 2000) T his is at

least partly because, as teachers themseh-es repon ,

they lack the knowledge and skills to do this su

c-cessfully (Weh meyer, Agran, Ct a!., 2000)

Mason, I-i dd, l nd Sawilowsky (2004) report sim

i-lar findings II is useful, therefore, 10 consider

what might serve as a caralyst to improve teacher

knowledge and skills in this area

Using the Council for Exceptional C hil·

dren's (CEC) performance-based standards for the

prepar:lIion of special educators, and the kn

owl-edge and skills based in those standards, which

ha\'e been adopted by the National Council for

Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCAT E;

Council for Exceptional Children, 2 00 3) for pro

-gram accreditation pro\'ides one means to ensure

that teachers gain knowledge and skills in the arel

of self determination The slandards thaI most di

-rectly address these componenl d ements of self

-determined behlvior are nine skill SI:lndards

under the Instructional Smm.'gies, learning Envi

-ronmenlS and Social Interactions, Instruction21 Planning, 2nd Collahoration domains Crable I)

T here is only limited infOrmation available

regarding how preservicc programs arc addressing

self· determ ination in the knowledge and skill

standards Recently, C EC's Division on Career

Development and Transition (De DT) reportcd findings from a nalional survey of personnel

preparation practices in transition Ihat provide

some indication, albeit indirect, wi h regard to

the degree to which such stlndards might be ld

-dressed (Anderson et aI., 2003) This survey was completed by 280 higher education department

chairpersons and 247 higher education instru

c-tors who were identified as delivering content re

-lated 10 transitio n The transit ion-related

competencies section of the survey included all

•••

the transition-rdevant standards from CEC's

Co mm o n Co" of K now/~dg~ Illld Skills Essm tin ! for

Ikginnin g Spai n! Education Jtll~ ;' m (CEC

1997-1 999) and CEC's Srand",ds for I)r ~pll"' t io ll of

'{"'milio" Spui n/i m (CEc' 2000) Thc most

common delivery mel hod was 10 infuse transition

eOlllen! inlO several courscs, with 69.5% of d

c-panmcnt chairs and 67.6% of inSlfuctors rcport

-ing use of this Slralcg}' Slightly less Ihan half of

the respondents (43 3 % of department chairs;

44.8 % of instruclOrs) also devoted an entire

course or courses 10 somc or all of the transilion

competencies covrrrd in their programs Lrss

than 1 2% of respondellls in bOth groups r ported

infusing namition contrll! into one class only

Nine percen! of respondellls indicaled thai little,

if any, transilion curriculum was addressed in

their program Finally 7 1 % of respondents indi

-allied that Ihey include 110 transi ion contrll! in

their special educalion teacher preparation pr

o-gram (Anderson el al.)

Dcpanmem chairs and inSlfuclOrs diffrred

slightly with regard to the relative impon ance

they placed on each knowledge and skills domain,

but unfortunately, domains in which the self

-determination knowledge and skills standards arc

included (e.g., lnsrruCiional Planning, Learning

Environments and Social llllcraelions, and In

-structional Strategies) ranked generalIy low by

both groups Instructional Planning ranked sixth

in importance (out of 10 domains) for chairper

-sons and instructors and Instrllctional Strategies

and eighth for instruClOrs Learning Environ

-mellls ranked highrr fourth for chairpersons and

fifth for insnuctors, but this sCClion also included

issuC$ pertaining 10 behavior and classroom man

-agement perhaps accounting for the higher pr

o-file

In summary, the DCDT survey indicated

thai content rdaled 10 trallSition in general, is

most likely 10 be infused into content in other

courses (often methods courses) and thai domains

that include the self-determination relaled knowl

-edge and skill.s standards were not ranked high in

importance by ei her departmental chairpersons

or instructors Anderson and colleagues (2 003)

noted that ahhough infusing Iransition COlllelH

il1lo other courses is a legitimate way to ddiver

such content, it is more likely that infused con

-420

tent does nOI get adequately addressed T his may

be particularly so for conl(~nt that is not as highly

valued and that is not includt.-d in state or district

standards Addilionally now that several smdics

have shown thai teachers do not feel prepared 10

instruct students in Ihese skills (Mason et al"

2004: Wehmeyer, Agran, et aI., 2000), personnel

preparation programs should review their offer

-ings and determine not only where these stan

-dards :r.re currently being addressed, but also the

adequacy of instruction for these skill standards

-lates to lhe prep:r.ration of general educators and

-mended to prepare Ihem 10 teach all students, in

-cluding students with disabilities This issue is

particularly importarn because, according to the

latest rel>Ort to Congress on the implementation

of IDEA, studellis wi h disabil ties, on average

receive 80% of their instruction in gener:lll educa

-tion classrooms The imponance of this issue was

further illustrated in research conducted by

students with disabilities had to engage in class

-room activities related to sdf-determination Stu

-dents had fewer such oPl>Ortunilics in Ihe general

classroom

Preservice tr:r.ining and focused innovations that

restructure te:r.eher time and effort rather than add new responsibi ities arc ncedrd if teachers are

to hccome proficient in implementing str:lliegies that adapt and augment the general curriculum 10

expl ci ly teach self-determination skills For these

efforts 10 be successf\11, they must be :r.ligned and

coordinated with emerging trends emanating

from national efforts in general education reform

(Halpern, 2000.)

Numerous authors ha\'e reported that the current dual system of teacher education, whereby

general educators and special educators are

trained and rccei 'e practice in teaching very sepa

-rate, distinCI types of contelll and types of SIU

-dents docs not prepare teachers to meet the

diverse needs of learners ill schools (Merc.::r, Lane,

Gee 1996: Villa Thousand & Chapple 1996)

Few special education teachers have !>ten trained

in the area of standards-based education and

as-sessment (Sands Adams, & StOUt 1995), and

-linson, et at 1997) General educators arc con

-ccrned about how students with disabilities will

master increased amounts of new contene meet

disabilities meet the higher standards of edu

ca-tional reform

and instruction to respond to smtes' core content

must be knowledgeable about each of these com

-ponents General and special education teachers

must achieve a shared language and shared

-grams, state departments of education, and local

-calOrs with opportunities 10 learn, experiment,

Black 1995)

Clearly, future special education teachers, as

wdl as gcneral education teachers, mUSt be bener

o-priate and effective instruction to SlUdelllS with

special education trainees is needed (BlanlOn

riculum to explicitly teach self-determinarion

-ties that general and special educators need in

schools; and (c) provision of field-based experi -ences thaI arc well integrated with university

educators Achieving these outcomes could be a

• Courses taken by special education trainees

(a) co-design of instruction to fully integrate

determination knowledge and skills, (b)

co-de-sign of adaptations 10 the general curriculum to

ensure successful parricipation of studellts with

be better trained to collaborate effec tiv ely

to provide appropriate and 4.foctive in

-s tru ctio n t o s tudents wi r h disabilities within the general curriculum

• Seminars that allow special and general educa

-tion trainees to interact with each other and

llabo-ration lesson design, and co-teaching

• Srudent teaching experiences that include co-teaching assignments

Finally, teacher preparation programs

preparation program components (Weimer

2002) A unified leacher education program

would better prepare both special and general

ed-ucation trainees to implement (a) standards·based

-ricular adaptalions that explicitly provide instruc